Alaoudh, Abdullah
(2017)
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS OF THE POST-REVOLUTION ARAB COUNTRIES: EGYPT AS A CASE STUDY.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
(Unpublished)
Abstract
In Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, there has been a consensual premise that the state should acquire Islamic legitimacy. In order to establish faith in the system, Islamic political spirit from Islam must serve as a motivating force to legitimize the state and its institutions. The scholars as a metaconstitutional institution have a key role in helping to define and facilitate that Islamic legitimacy.
In the colonial and post-colonial era, traditional interpreters of Islam, scholars and Islamic jurists, has been typically reduced into specific institutions recognized or even established by the state. This dynamic of state control of Islamic institutions, which are supposed to contribute in the state’s legitimacy, instead created an essential dilemma and a crisis of legitimacy. Therefore, to build trust and faith in the system, several Muslim-majority countries adopted a repugnancy clause, or an article (normally Article 2) in its constitution where Islam was recognized as a source or the source of legislation.
In this setting, the right to Islamic interpretation became even more crucial because of its impact and legitimizing tools. Hence, the Islamic constitutional articles brought their own issues respecting the question: who has the interpretive authority, and which institutions should have the final say on Islamic matters? In my dissertation, I focus on the Islamic scholars or jurists and their role as interpreters of Islamic jurisprudence and how their role relates to the constitutional arrangement.
My dissertation will explore the role that juristic institutions play in Islamic states with a primary focus on the role of Egyptian Islamic scholars generally, and those of Al-Azhar in particular. I will show that the scholars themselves, whether or not affiliated with a formal body such as Al-Azhar, in fact constitute important “imagined” institutions. They are not a state institution with a formal role in actual governance, nor can they be regarded merely as a private actor. Instead, juristic institutions play a central role in legitimizing the state, and the state’s approach to questions that involve Islam. They do so in a primary, constitutive fashion that, I contend, renders their arena the “meta-constitutional sphere.”
Share
| Citation/Export: |
|
| Social Networking: |
|
Details
| Item Type: |
University of Pittsburgh ETD
|
| Status: |
Unpublished |
| Creators/Authors: |
|
| ETD Committee: |
|
| Date: |
11 May 2017 |
| Date Type: |
Publication |
| Defense Date: |
15 March 2017 |
| Approval Date: |
11 May 2017 |
| Submission Date: |
20 April 2017 |
| Access Restriction: |
2 year -- Restrict access to University of Pittsburgh for a period of 2 years. |
| Number of Pages: |
261 |
| Institution: |
University of Pittsburgh |
| Schools and Programs: |
School of Law > Law |
| Degree: |
SJD - Doctor of Juridical Science |
| Thesis Type: |
Doctoral Dissertation |
| Refereed: |
Yes |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: |
Sharia; Islamic law; Islamic scholars; meta-constitutional sphere; imagined institutions; ulama; Egypt |
| Date Deposited: |
11 May 2017 23:10 |
| Last Modified: |
11 May 2019 05:15 |
| URI: |
http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/31532 |
Metrics
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}