Arab-West Report was deeply influenced by Dr. Abdel Mo’ti Bayoumi [ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Bayyūmī] (1940-2012) who, in turn, was in close contact with the late Dr. Hassan Hanafi [Ḥassan Ḥanafī], a leading authority on modern Islam. Ḥanafī’s interest in the study of Islam was motivated by revolutionary political activism of the Muslim Brotherhood. His studies took him to the Sorbonne in Paris where he discovered that religious beliefs cannot be described in simple black-and-white strokes. This is a path not very different from many other scholars, Muslim and Christian, who dug deeper in the study of their own religion.

Hasan Hanafi (source of photo: https://www.resetdoc.org/contributor/hassan-hanafi/)

Ḥanafī’s PhD project at the Sorbonne focused on “The Science of Fundamentals.” Following Ḥanafī’s PhD in 1966 he focused on “Heritage and Renewal,” which in his view consists of Muslims having to take a position on their ancient heritage, a position on Western heritage and a position on reality (interpretation theory).

In the 1970s Ḥanafī further developed his thoughts in many articles and his book Religious Dialogue and Revolution (Religious Dialogue & Revolution: Essays on Christianity, Judaism & Islam, Anglo Egyptian Bookshop, 1977, 244 p). Ḥanafī called for an inter-faith dialogue aimed at rediscovering the progressive and humanistic dimensions in all religions that in his view are focused on justice and freedom. Ḥanafī was obviously seeking at a common denominator among different religions and called for a dialogue based on mutual respect and equality. Christian scholars I have met found his approach sympathetic but also commented that he looked at Christianity through a Muslim lens. In other words, Ḥanafī has insufficiently discovered Christianity from a Christian perspective. One, of course, can make similar comments about many Christian scholars writing about Islam.

Towards the end of the 1970s and the beginnings of 1980s Ḥanafī focused on the culture of dialogue between various philosophical and intellectual trends within the Arab and Muslim worlds; Arab nationalist, Islamist, leftist, and liberal.

Ḥanafī looked for commonalities and differences and believed each intellectual trend had their own points of strength. “For him, Islamists had a claim to authenticity and speaking a language comprehensible to ordinary citizens, while Arab nationalists enjoyed the experience of post-WWII popular support; leftists were, directly or indirectly, behind the major socio-economic transformations in the Arab and Muslim worlds for their quest for equity and justice, and finally liberals were the champions of the post-WWI liberal era, with all its achievements in the way of tolerance, pluralism and diversity, the golden age for human rights and individual liberties,” Walid M. Abdelnasser [Walīd M.ʿAbd al-Nāṣir] writes in Ahram Online.

Ḥanafī believed dialogue could only be fruitful, positive and constructive if it would be conducted “without any prior conditions, restrictions or exclusions.” Walīd M.ʿAbd al-Nāṣir notes that his efforts correspond with Sadat’s [Anwar al-Sādāt] Open-Door Policy in the 1970s. Calls for greater individual freedoms also occurred in several other Arab countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait and Lebanon. 

Nor surprising Ḥanafī opposed Samuel Huntington’s notion of a “clash of civilisations” and conflict of cultures, first posed in an article titled 'The clash of Civilizations?' in Foreign Affairs )1993). He further developed those thoughts in his book The clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996). In response to Huntington’s claims Ḥanafī published a number of books, studies and articles denying the “threat” and “danger” Huntington claimed. Ḥanafī also criticized the arguments for “superiority of one culture over others, arguing for one human civilisation throughout history, where at each stage of its development, a different culture had greater contributions, whether at the material or moral level, than others.” Huntington appealed to widespread sentiments in the USA and his arguments were widely used and advocated by those who distrusted the Arab World and Islam. Ḥanafī was definitely right by placing Huntington’s arguments in a wider historical perspective.

Ḥanafī promoted an interpretation of Islam supporting the development of a global ethics. Ḥanafī also argued that Islam needs to be understood in way that facilitates human freedom and progress. The views Ḥanafī developed made some believe he was interpreting Islam in a socialist manner. This, however, he never intended.

One would expect a scholar like Ḥanafī would enjoy widespread respect in Egypt, yet a number of Islamist scholars associated to the Azhar Front of Scholars, in particular following his book "An Invitation for Dialogue" of heresy and apostasy.” This led to fierce debates in Egyptian media and the Egyptian Philosophical Society that he had re-established in 1989. Dr. Bayyūmī publicly rushed to his defence and suggested a public discussion on his thoughts. That discussion took place at the Society although the members of the Front refused to participate.

One of Ḥassan Ḥanafī’s most famous students is the late Dr. Nasr Hamed Abu Zayd [Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd] (1943-2010), who, just as Dr. Bayyūmī, was a long-time supporter of our work.

Walīd M.ʿAbd al-Nāṣir ended his in memoriam of Ḥassan Ḥanafī that his “legacy will continue to enrich Muslim, Arab, Egyptian and human thought for a long time to come.” I cannot agree more.

December 14, 2021

Cornelis Hulsman,

Editor-in-Chief Arab-West Report