Ideals and Interests in Intellectuals’ Political Deliberations

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Muhammad Amasha
{"title":"Ideals and Interests in Intellectuals’ Political Deliberations","authors":"Muhammad Amasha","doi":"10.35632/ajis.v40i3-4.3280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The academic literature equates the Arab Spring politics of Egypt’s two highest official religious figures – the Shaykh al-Azhar Ahmad al-Tayyib and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa—as “anti-revolutionary.” This article argues that al-Tayyib and Gomaa’s politics are fundamentally different. While Gomaa’s politics are submissive to the state, al-Tayyib’s politics are a negotation without confrontation. I explain the former by Gomaa’s struggle for religious authority either by seeking official positions or obstructing the revealing of information harmful to his religious legitimacy. The statist legitimacy threat against Gomaa is central to understanding his politics. Defending al-Azhar, on the other hand, is what explains al-Tayyib’s fluctuating politics. Theoretically, I advocate that explaining intellectuals’ politics requires focusing on their political deliberation. Only with a methodologically rigorous reconstruction of the intellectuals’ political deliberation and its context, can we decide the relative relevance of factors like ideals, interests, and structures (e.g., the state). I establish this with more than a thousand chronologically ordered primary sources and twenty interviews with people in Gomaa and al-Tayyib’s circles.","PeriodicalId":34866,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Islam and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Islam and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v40i3-4.3280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The academic literature equates the Arab Spring politics of Egypt’s two highest official religious figures – the Shaykh al-Azhar Ahmad al-Tayyib and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa—as “anti-revolutionary.” This article argues that al-Tayyib and Gomaa’s politics are fundamentally different. While Gomaa’s politics are submissive to the state, al-Tayyib’s politics are a negotation without confrontation. I explain the former by Gomaa’s struggle for religious authority either by seeking official positions or obstructing the revealing of information harmful to his religious legitimacy. The statist legitimacy threat against Gomaa is central to understanding his politics. Defending al-Azhar, on the other hand, is what explains al-Tayyib’s fluctuating politics. Theoretically, I advocate that explaining intellectuals’ politics requires focusing on their political deliberation. Only with a methodologically rigorous reconstruction of the intellectuals’ political deliberation and its context, can we decide the relative relevance of factors like ideals, interests, and structures (e.g., the state). I establish this with more than a thousand chronologically ordered primary sources and twenty interviews with people in Gomaa and al-Tayyib’s circles.
知识分子政治思想中的理想与利益
学术文献将埃及两位最高官方宗教人物——谢赫·爱资哈尔·艾哈迈德·塔伊布和大穆夫提·阿里·戈马——的阿拉伯之春政治等同于“反革命”。本文认为,al-Tayyib和Gomaa的政治有着根本的不同。戈马的政治是对国家的服从,而al-Tayyib的政治是没有对抗的谈判。我对前者的解释是,戈马为争取宗教权威而斗争,要么寻求官方职位,要么阻止披露对他的宗教合法性有害的信息。国家主义对戈马的合法性威胁是理解他的政治的核心。另一方面,捍卫爱资哈尔是al-Tayyib政局波动的原因。从理论上讲,我主张解释知识分子的政治需要关注他们的政治思考。只有在方法论上对知识分子的政治审议及其背景进行严格的重建,我们才能确定理想、利益和结构(如国家)等因素的相对相关性。我根据一千多份按时间顺序排列的原始资料,以及对戈马和al- tayyb圈子里的人的二十次采访,建立了这一观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信