Madrasa and Learning in Nineteenth-Century Najaf and Karbala'

MADRASA AND LEARNING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY NAJAF AND KARBALA' MEIR LITVAK The commumt1es of learning (bawzat 'ilmiyya) in the shrine c1t1es ('Atabat-i 'aliyat) of Najaf and Karbala' emerged as the most impor tant centers of Shii learning during the nineteenth century. The sys tem of learning in the 'Atabat was the culmination of the Muslim madrasa (pl. madaris) system which originated in the eleventh century as far as the mode of teaching, the process of professionalization and the centrality of patronage as a social bond were concerned. Concurrently, the 'Atabat retained their own unique features as cen ters of learning for two major reasons: The continuous development of the methodology of ijtihad in Shiism helped shape a structure of learning and system of certification which was different from con temporary Sunni centers of learning. Secondly, as Shii centers within a Sunni state the 'Atabat did not enjoy government patronage from the Ottomans and Qajars, a fact which had an important impact on their internal organization and financial foundations. Unlike many other centers of Islamic learning during the nineteenth century, the bawzat in the 'Atabat were not subject to governmental pressures to reform and remained largely immune to the growing western chal lenge in the region effecting their internal life. The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of these fea tures on the evolution of learning and scholarly production in the 'Atabat duri~g the nineteenth century while placing them within the larger historical context. The bawza denotes a communal whole, which encompasses schol arship, inter-personal and social bonds, as well as organizational and financial aspects.' Unlike other centers of learning in the Muslim 1 Shahrudf, Ta'rfkh, pp. 73-76. Jjaw::.a is also used to describe circles of learn ing or a wider complex of study headed by one mujtahid, but this meaning will not be used here. Present day Shii sources use the terms Najaf School (madrasat al-Najoj) or even the Najaf University (jiimi'iit al-Najoj), which existed briefly in the early MADRASA IN 19TH-C. NAJAF AND KARBALA' 59 Middle East, the bawzat in the 'Atabat were not set up or sustained on a regular basis by political elites in order to provide them with legitimacy and juridical manpower. Therefore, they did not enjoy financial backing from the Qajars, let alone from the Sunni Ottomans. Nor did they serve primarily as an arena for stipendiary posts (mar1Jab pl. manafib), in which notables exploited knowledge primarily as a form of capital in order to acquire social and political distinction. Instead, they grew from below by the efforts of the <ulama, themselves, serv ing first and foremost as centers for teachings and scholarship. Thus, they were sustained primarily by donations from believers rather than by landed endowments (awqaf), with significant ramifications on many other aspects of life ranging from the structure of leadership to rela tions between teachers and students. 2 Consequently, they lacked a formal and centralized organization or religious hierarchy regarding the curriculum of studies, finance, or administration, as was the case with the Ottoman learned establishment. In contrast with the situ ation of the <ulama, in Iran, teaching and scholarly production, rather than the administration of justice or political/ communal leadership, were the hallmarks of the communities of <ulama, in the 'Atabat. In the absence of formal bureaucratic positions, social hierarchy and status in the 'Atabat were based on scholarship and acumen in building networks of patronage as well as a certain charisma. In other words, meritocracy and openness to newcomers played a greater role in the 'Atabat compared with other Muslim centers of learning in the Middle East. In many of these features, the bawzat in the 'Atabat were closer to Jewish rabbinical seminaries (Yeshivoth), as both systems of learning and religious leadership grew from below and were therefore more oriented toward the communities of believers than toward the state. Consequently, religious leadership in both cases was different from the Sunni one as it was more amorphous and decentralized but at the same time more attuned to their con stituents than to state influence. Even without a formal organization and hierarchy, we can speak of a process of institutionalization in the 'Atabat in the sense of pat terns of behavior which crystallize and persist in the course of time. 1960s, in order to demonstrate its academic equality or superiority to the secular state-sponsored institutions. 2 For a discussion on the financial system in the 'Atabat, see Litvak, "The Finances of the 'Ulama' Communities of Najaf and Karbala' in the nineteenth century" and Nakash, 7he Shi'is, pp. 205ff. .

Load more