SOME CLAIM AL-AZHAR is a bastion of conservatism, out of step with the times and unable to nurture the tolerant face of Islam that is the antidote to both Islamist extremism and Islamophobia. Others see it as a guardian of the faith’s deep-rooted tradition of respect for dissent.

Ahmed El-Tayeb has been president of the venerable seat of Sunni knowledge since October 2003. French educated and a former mufti, he will host Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams later this month when the world’s top Anglican leader marks the third anniversary of 9/11 with a speech from the pulpit at Al-Azhar.

You ask me about the daawa. I agree that we have a problem there, but it began almost two decades ago. I’m not trying to evade your next question about how September 11 was the reason behind our concern with renewing the Islamic discourse, because my answer is “No.” In May 2001, I attended an international conference about innovation in Islam. We were aware that the Islamic discourse was in dire need of a review in light of recent developments in Arab life and in the world in general.

The origins of the conflict began a long time ago. Let me explain. In the last century, we contended with colonialism. There was a confrontation between the West and the East the Islamic civilization. Most historians trace the conflict back to the French Expedition and later the British occupation. For more than a century, we were forced to engage with another civilization that was culturally alien to ours. They were more aware of the issues that beleaguered us than even we were. The interaction and conflict was first sparked in the days of Imam Mohammed Abdu and El-Tahtawi [late 19th-early 20th century]. They posed the question: What do we do? There were three schools of thought: The salafis believed we must adhere staunchly to our own heritage, the old fiqh [jurisprudence], and ignore Europe altogether. The modernists countered that we must open ourselves to this new world and their tools to achieve progress. We could keep our aqida [faith], but ignore the superficial manifestations of it like the veil. They advocated setting aside shariah in favor of new and “improved” Western legal and civil codes. Some even called for a switch to the Latin alphabet. They wanted to dissociate Egypt from the Arabs to ease our assimilation with Europe. The wasat [middle-ground] current believed in opening up to the outside world in a way that agrees with our civilization, culture and belief system. Conflict between the three currents distracted us and set the scene for external intervention.

Where was Al-Azhar at the time? It was a leading source of thought and culture. Most of the pioneers of our modern renaissance were Azharite sheikhs, including Mohammed Abdu and Taha Hussein. Our thinkers knew the West wanted to uproot us. They enjoyed a degree of foresight, intelligence and sincerity in dealing with their cause that is, unfortunately, absent in most of the people who grapple with similar issues today. Many of the ulama [scholars] went to Europe to study Islam there. I was schooled in usul el-din [the fundamentals of religion] at the hands of great scholars who had learned at the hands of Catholic Christian Orientalists who were awed by the Islamic civilization. Europe was the Mecca of the Arab cultural and scientific elite, and we were grateful to it for the new knowledge it offered.

But was the gratitude mutual? No. Regretfully, the West has always been waiting for a chance to catch us unaware. They placed us at the heart of a fatal equation where we must choose between giving up our religion, culture and heritage, and living in poverty, ignorance and sickness.

The Islamic belief system by definition recognizes the “other” and encourages interaction with the other. Differences between people, whether in religious beliefs, thought, language or emotion, are a basic Quranic tenet. God created diverse peoples. Had He wanted to create a single ummah, He would have, but He chose to make them different until the day of resurrection. Every Muslim must fully understand this principle. A relationship based on conflict is futile.

We need to understand the Western mentality if we are going to dispel myths about Islam. The failure to do that has infected our religious institutions in general. My generation was educated at the hands of Azharites who studied in France, Edinburgh and Germany. Those who taught at the Faculty of Usul El-Din had perfected European languages. That is not the case today.

To face these challenges one of my top priorities is to open channels of communication with European countries. We have already started with England, France and Germany. I’m trying to secure scholarships for students of usul el-din at various schools of comparative religion and philosophy, Arabic literature and law. Also, we must prohibit students from using simplified notes on the original texts we study resorting to them disconnects students from heritage and modernism in the same breath. Nowadays, they can neither speak foreign languages nor impart proper knowledge in their mother tongue. Meanwhile, the Emirates’ Sheikh Zayed has provided funding for a new institute to teach Arabic to 14,000 foreign students from all over the world. The Ministry of Awqaf is supporting us in this. Another modernization project is funded by Sheikh Hamdan Al-Maktum of Qatar to introduce computer labs and internet access. Eventually, perhaps, we will start our own satellite channel.

Building branches of Al-Azhar University in other parts of the world is a mammoth challenge. I have had repeated requests from the prime minister of Thailand to start an Islamic studies school there even though Thailand is a Buddhist country. But we need to carefully scrutinize these requests. How can I guarantee that educational facilities offering Al-Azhar degrees will not be exploited by other, more powerful bodies with enough money to manipulate them and control their direction? These organizations may use the banner of Al-Azhar as a cover to serve their own ends.

Muslims are divided among themselves. If I weren’t a Muslim, I wouldn’t embrace Islam through any [organized] institution.

By definition, Al-Azhar can never be a breeding ground for radicals and extremists. I didn’t make this statement our communist brothers in the Shura Council did. When they compiled a list of the most notorious extremists, only one blind man was an Azharite, and he doesn’t even live in Egypt. President Mubarak himself pointed to this fact.

How so? Al-Azhar is the only university that teaches the diversity of the Islamic heritage. I was 10 when I joined Al-Azhar grade school in 1956, almost 50 years ago. On the application form, they asked about your mazhab [school of thought]. I wrote Al-Maliky, a friend wrote Al-Shafei and a third Al-Hanafi. From the very first day, we were aware that there is no single official spokesman for Islam. There are four mazhabs and the four of them are correct. This belief in diversity is ingrained in our system from childhood. These differences are manifestations of God’s mercy. The companions of the Prophet disagreed on some issues, but each of them accepted the other. This is not the case in Gulf universities, where they show fanatical biases to one mazhab over all others.

If you want to fight radicalism, you have no option but to turn to Al-Azhar and diversity. Only now is Saudi Arabia starting to realize where it went wrong.  et