The Madrasa Curriculum in Context by hamza karamali The Madrasa Curriculum in Context by hamza karamali krm monograph series no. 12 Kalam Research & Media P.O. Box 78000, Abu Dhabi, UAE Tel: +971 (2)4475195 Fax: +971 (2)4475194 www.kalamresearch.com Text © 2017. Hamza Karamali. All rights reserved. Design © Kalam Research & Media. All rights reserved. The Publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of the author. The views expressed by the author in the KRM Monograph Series do not necessarily reflect those of Kalam Research & Media or its Advisory Board. Cover Image © Sohail Nakhooda Design by Sohail Nakhooda at Kalam Research & Media. Typesetting by Integra, India. Copy-editing by Zakaria El Houbba Contents Preface v the madrasa curriculum in context 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Ancillary Sciences 3 2.1 Language Sciences 3 2.2 Sciences of Critical Thinking 5 3.0 Philosophical Sciences 6 3.1 Theoretical Sciences 8 3.1.1 Natural Science 8 3.1.2 Metaphysics 10 3.1.3 Mathematics 11 3.2 Practical Sciences 12 4.0 Revelatory Sciences 13 4.1 Transmission 15 4.1.1 Canonical Qur’anic Recitations 15 4.1.2 Hadith Narration 16 4.2 Exegesis 17 4.2.1 Qur’anic Exegesis 17 4.2.2 Hadith Understanding 18 4.3 Reasoning 19 4.3.1 Kalam 19 4.3.2 Legal Theory 21 4.4 Application 24 5.0 The Career of the Madrasa Graduate 26 5.1 Education 26 5.2 Law 27 5.3 Government 27 6.0 Madrasa Pedagogy 27 7.0 Religious Education Outside the Madrasa 30 8.0 Spiritual Sciences 31 9.0 Conclusion 32 About the Author 33 Preface T his monograph describes the subjects, textbooks, pedagogy, and goals of the curriculum of the traditional madrasa, the social functions for which it prepared its graduates, and other kinds of religious education that used to com- plement it, all in the social and intellectual context of the traditional world in which it lived. The goal of the monograph is not to make argument; its goal is to merely describe and inform, and to be an intellectual resource for contemporary scholars to use in their research. Its primary audience is a contemporary Muslim educator who wants to develop a curriculum of religious education that is both relevant to the religious problems of the present and grounded in the scholarly heritage of the past. But it also addresses a variety of other contemporary scholars: Muslim philosophers, scientists, sociologists, political scientists, and lawyers will be able to use it to locate the intellectual resources in the madrasa tradition that will help them navigate the problems of modernity; scholars of Islamic studies in contemporary universities will be able to enhance their research by find- ing their way through the academic community of the madrasa; journalists will be able to use it to explain the depth and sophistication of a genuine traditional Islamic education and distinguish it from the aberrations that we see in our times; politicians will be able to use it to effectively engage and integrate Muslim communities; and aspiring students of the madrasa tradition from all backgrounds will be able to use it as a map to traverse their studies in a way that benefits themselves and their future students. The Madrasa Curriculum in Context by Hamza Karamali 1.0 Introduction To a student of the traditional islamic sciences, the word “ma- drasa” evokes two kinds of images. The first is the sacred space of an ancient building; the second is abstract, archetypical groups of students studying sacred texts with religious scholars. The focus of this article is this second kind. The second kind of madrasa was a global academic community that collaboratively moved its state of knowledge forward for over a thousand years. The locus of this ma- drasa’s academic exchange was the first kind of madrasa, a charitably endowed building with walls, rooms, and a roof, where professors would lecture on the Islamic sciences to small groups of students, the best of whom would carry the madrasa academic tradition to the next generation by becoming professors themselves and then lecturing to students of their own. In the early period of the madrasa academic community, professors used lecture notes (ta‘liqa) that extracted the most important questions of their science from larger reference works. The lecture notes of prominent professors would be copied and circulated among the global academic community and, over time, they were summarized into terse teaching texts (mutun) that briefly and precisely summarized the most important questions of their science, often staged over three levels: an introductory teaching text that introduced the fundamental questions of the science; an intermediate one that introduced more complex questions, their evidence, and scholarly disagreement; and an advanced one that thor- oughly examined the evidentiary bases of the science’s questions from every scholarly perspective (see 6.0). As professors taught these teaching texts, they wrote commentaries (shuruh), which circulated among the global academic community in the same way that the lecture notes had in the past, and certain commentaries were accepted by the community as being bet- ter than others. These commentaries then became the subject of glosses (hawashi) that also circulated in the same way, and sometimes these glosses became the subjects of even further glosses. Through successive editions of teaching texts and their commentaries and glosses, students and professors engaged with the greatest minds of the past, comprehen- sively examined all historical scholarly disagreement, and improved the knowledge tradi- tion that they were participating in by correcting mistakes, improving precision, and in- troducing new questions, all under the critical gaze of a thriving intellectual community. This thriving intellectual community was, at its heart, a religious community that set its gaze on the next world, organized around religious sciences such as Sacred Law (fiqh), legal theory, Qur’anic exegesis, Arabic grammar, and hadith criticism, which it studied in order to learn, preserve, practice, and teach the divine command to gain eter- nal felicity in Paradise.1 But, it was also a community of this world, well-versed in the most advanced philosophical, scientific, social, and political sciences of its time, because felicity in the next world could only be acquired by living the divine command in this world or, to put it in the words of Ghazali, “the life of this world is a farmland that we cultivate now for harvest in the next world and religion is only completed through the life of this world”.2 This connection between the sciences of the next world and those of this world was broken with the onset of modernity and, for approximately the last three centuries, the religious sciences that were written in the context of the pre-modern world have contin- ued to be taught with the same teaching texts and pedagogical techniques, whereas most of the pre-modern worldly sciences have been abandoned, all while the intellectual and social currents of the modern world have moved with constantly increasing speed further and further away from their pre-modern predecessors. Why and how that happened is an important historical question that has been investigated by many traditional and mod- ern scholars. For contemporary students of the traditional Islamic sciences, however, the more pressing question is how that connection between the sciences of the next world and those of this world—the one in which we live today—can be restored. This monograph focuses on the Ottoman madrasa in its golden age during the reign of Süleyman the Magnificent (926/1520–973/1566) and relies on four main sources: (1) the description of the Ottoman madrasa curriculum during his reign by Tashkupri Zada (d. 968/1560) in his Miftah al-sa‘ada wa misbah al-siyada and his al-Shaqa’iq al- nu‘maniyya fi ‘ulama al-dawla al-‘uthmaniyya; (2) the description of the Ottoman ma- drasa pedagogy two centuries later by Sajiqli Zada (d. 1145/1732) in his Tartib al-‘ulum; (3) the works of Ghazali, particularly the first book of his Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din; and (4) the author’s own observations and reflections as a student of the traditional Islamic sciences in the contemporary world. This essay is thus written from the perspective of a contemporary student of the pre- modern madrasa tradition who is looking back at how things used to be in the past to understand why they were that way, particularly in areas that seem strange or different, in the hope that this offering can be a stepping stone towards a critical examination of the madrasa tradition in order to bring that tradition into full conversation with our world, just as the luminaries of the past had brought it into conversation with theirs. The article begins with a description of the sciences of the madrasa academic com- munity in their social and intellectual contexts. This description forms the bulk of the text and it divides the sciences, as Tashkupri Zada does in his description of the Otto- man madrasa curriculum, into three categories: (1) the ancillary sciences (‘ulum al-ala); (2) the philosophical sciences (‘ulum hikmiyya); and (3) the revelatory sciences (‘ulum shar‘iyya).3 1 The sincerity of many professors often fell short of this high standard due to their neglect of Islamic spirituality, noted most famously by Ghazali throughout his Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din (see 8.0) and by dozens of Sufi masters since. Many have argued (correctly, in my opinion) that the steadily worsening neglect of Islamic spirituality among its professors was the most significant cause of the madrasa’s decline. 2 Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1421/2000), 1:35. 3 Tashkupri Zada, Miftah al-sa‘ada wa misbah al-siyada (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 1431/2010), 58. 2 | the madrasa curriculum in context 2.0 Ancillary Sciences4 Every madrasa student began his education with a rigorous study of the ‘ulum al-ala, or ancillary sciences, which were the students’ tools (alat) for all of their future learn- ing. These tools were: (1) language and (2) the mind. The ancillary sciences were hence broadly divided into the language sciences and the sciences of critical thinking. Table 1: Ancillary Sciences Language Critical thinking Arabic vocabulary (lugha) Logic (mantiq) Arabic morphology (sarf) Dialectics (al-bahth wa al-munazara) Arabic grammar (nahw) Arabic rhetoric (balagha) Arabic prosody (‘arud) Arabic literature (adab) Linguistic theory (wad‘) Persian language (farisi) 2.1 Language Sciences The bridge language of the madrasa academic community was Arabic. It was because a madrasa professor in India wrote in Arabic that he could participate in an intellec- tual conversation with another professor, perhaps hundreds of years later, all the way in Morocco. Intermediate and advanced teaching texts for all the sciences were written in Arabic, although first-level teaching texts were often written in the native language of the area, particularly Persian (in East Asia) and Ottoman Turkish (in the central Ottoman provinces of Anatolia and Rumelia). This was especially true of primers of basic religious knowledge and basic Arabic grammar (nahw) and morphology (sarf). Sajiqli Zada men- tions a popular primer of basic religious knowledge in Ottoman Turkish by Birgivi5 and the Persian primers Sarf mir and Nahw mir are still studied in Persia, Afghanistan, and the Indian subcontinent. Apart from such introductory primers, however, all the teaching texts were studied in their original Arabic, although it seems that the language of instruction was often the na- tive language of the area. Most madrasa students, in other words, could read the Arabic language with understanding, but they could only speak it with difficulty. The goal of learning the Arabic language was not to use it in their daily lives, but to unlock the techni- cal expressions of the madrasa teaching texts. Unlocking these terse expressions required at least an intermediate-level education in Arabic grammar. The teaching texts were all written with extreme care and precision so that no word was superfluous. This brevity led to a loss of clarity and teachers would explain the intent of the author using the language of grammar, saying, for example, that 4 Ibid., 58–214. 5 Sajiqli Zada, Tartib al-‘ulum (Beirut: Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyya, 1408/1988), 209. ancillary sciences | 3