[BLANK_AUDIO] But most notable in an exception to this rule, was Egypt. And Egypt was a country, which had been in existence as a separate entity for a long time. So what was the situation in Egypt at the end of the war? When the war began, the British transformed Egypt into a protectorate governed by a British High Commissioner, and thereby finally detaching Egypt from the Ottoman Empire with whom the British were now at war. But at the end of the war, in November 1918 a delegation of Egyptians led by Sa'ad Zaghlul who was to become one of Egypt's most prominent politicians until his death in 1927. A delegation of Egyptians was formed to negotiate with the British about independence. This delegation, in Arabic, delegation is wafd, this delegation became known as the Wafd, which means delegation, and was to become one of the most prominent and important political parties in Egypt in the first half of the 20th century. Sa'ad Zaghlul, the leader of the Wafd, was a typical product of the era of reform. One of the disciples of [UNKNOWN] Abdu, about whom we have spoken a lot. And he became a lawyer and a judge and was active in the modernization of Egypt's legal system. Zaghlul and the Wafd sought permission, from the British High Commissioner, to visit London to present Egypt's nationalist demands, for independence. But he was turned down. And in March 1919 he was arrested and deported. The result of this British action, were riots and protests that broke out throughout Egypt. This was the great uprising or revolution, Thawra as it was called in Arabic, the Thawra, the revolution of 1919. The uprising encompassed virtually the entire population, in the cities and in the rural districts of Egypt. In the cities, students were often the leading force of the demonstrations, joined by civil servants, and artisans. Subsequently, organized workers, like the railway workers for example, joined in the struggle. The peasants often had a different agenda. They rebelled against the government as such, and also against their landlords or complaints against their poverty. The British eventually agreed to negotiate with Zaghloul, and the nationalists and talks went on from June 1920 until February 1922. But agreement was not reached. A compromise formula on Egyptian self-government while protecting British strategic interests was not found. So on the 28th of February, 1922, for lack of any better choice, the British unilaterally declared British independence With four reserved points that remained in British control. One was defense in foreign affairs. Two was the security of the Suez Canal. Three was capitulations, the capitulations were rights that were given to foreigners in the Ottoman Empire which allowed them Not to be judged in criminal cases by local law but by the laws of their own countries through their diplomatic representation. So the capitulations remained in place under British supervision. And the fourth point was the Sudan, that is that the Sudan would remain separate of Egypt, as opposed to what the Egyptian nationals would have liked, and that was to include Sudan as part of Egypt. So in Egypt, after the unilateral declaration of independence, a constitutional monarchy was established under King Fuad I, and King Fuad was a continuation of the Muhammad Ali dynasty, which as we have seen, ruled Egypt since the beginning of the 19th century. But the British, the king, and the political parties, who were led predominantly by the landowning elite, in their never ending past struggles between them, led to the complete corruption of the parliamentary system. And as a result, parliamentary government and its institutions were soon to be discredited in Egypt. And they never really took hold in the country. This new phase of Egyptian statehood, gave rise to a fascinating domestic debate on religion and identity. In another round in this ongoing contest between the forces of modernity and tradition. The 1920's were the golden age of Egyptian-ness and secular liberal politics. And when we say Egyptian-ness and secular liberal politics, one should ask, what is the connection between Egyptian-ness, and secular liberal politics? Why do the two go together? Egyptian-ness, means that people are defined by their attachment to the Egyptian territory. By the fact that they were born and bred in the country of Egypt. Not by their religion. Egyptian-ness therefore, is a secular concept of identity. An Egyptian secular nationalism naturally went hand in hand, with secular politics. So in the early 1920's in this age of political liberalism in Egypt, Egyptian intellectuals spoke of the Egyptian character, the Egyptian mentality, the Egyptian spirit. Islam in this kind identity, was only one phase in Egypt's long history which went back to pharaonic times. The Egyptians therefore were not defined by Islam. Islam was just one phase in Egypt's long history of thousands of years. So identifying a peculiarly Egyptian culture, was an integral part of the attack on Islam and its values. And thus in the 1920s we have what the British historian. P. J. [INAUDIBLE] called the attack upon tradition. The legal system in Egypt, under the British occupation, had been westernized to a large degree, and secularized even more than in the Ottoman Empire. The role of the Sharia was steadily reduced to issues of personal status, inheritance, And the management of awqaf, the religious endowments. The establishment of a constitutional monarchy in the early 1920s, with a parliament and the holding of general elections, formalized and institutionalized the practice of man-made legislation. Once you formalize the practice of man-made legislation, this automatically gives rise to the question, so what is the real role of religion? Should there be any role to religion? Should the secularization of politics be complete? There were some in Egypt in the 1920s, who argued just that. Ali Abd-al Raziq, even though a Sharia judge, published a book on Islam and the Principles of Government, in 1925. And Abd-al Raziq argued that there was no need for a Caliphate in Islam, and that the Sharia was a spiritual and moral law that was unrelated to the earthly governing of men. So, Ali Abd-al Raziq was expelled from the ranks of the Ulama, of the men of religion. But, he wasn't the only person, who engaged in this attack on tradition. Taha Hussein, one of the most famous of Egypt's intellectuals and writers of the 20th Century, Published a book in 1926 on pre-Islamic poetry. And in this book on pre-Islamic poetry, Taha Hussein argued, that the Ulamas traditional, religious interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah, ought to be corrected. He argued that there should be a much more, rational method of literary criticism introduced into this interpretation of the Qur'an and the Sana. Rashid Rida, who we've already encountered in the group of Islamic reformers, and was one of the mentors of the Muslim brethren that was to be formed shortly. Rashid Rida called him at Apple State, demanded his removal from the university, which did eventually happen, a few years later. And there were others in Egypt who wrote, for example, in favor of Darwinism. And the ideas of evolution, and in support of western civilization as the highest stage of man's spiritual and material development. And they attacked Islamic culture and civilization as dead and useless, and advocated the adoption of western civilization as the only way towards progress. The secularizing reforms in Turkey in the 1920s that we will discuss a little later, strengthened the hand of those who sought the further weakening of the religious establishment. But to this assault on tradition, there was bound to be a response, and the reaction came in the late 1920s and during the 1930s. The Muslim Brethren were established in 1928, by Hasan al-Banna from the town of Ismailia, which is along the Suez Canal. And perhaps it is not accidental that the Muslim Brethren were formed initially in a town along the Suez Canal that, monument to external western intervention in Egypt's affairs. And the Muslim brethren argued, for the development of a modern society that was to be governed by the Sharia. That is, modernity but within the framework of the Sharia, and not without it. Leading modern, modernists in the 1930s, like Taha Hussein and others, retreated hastily, from their previous positions that attacked tradition. And they now, in the 1930s, produced works, on the ethic quality of early Islam, and the genius of the prophet. Effectively abandoning their previous positions, in unqualified favor of western civilization. And these new works on theirs in favor of a more traditional view, were very popular. And they reinforced the conservative forces of the time, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and during the 1930s, there is a steady shift towards Islam, and Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism became very attractive, to the masses of people in Egypt and elsewhere. The initial success of Arab nationalism, should be ascribed to what one could call its neo-traditionalist formula. Arab nationalism, had a strong Islamist undertone. The Arabs, after all, their greatest contribution to humanity, was the religion of Islam. And when the Islamic reformers spoke of the need to reform Islam, they spoke of Arab centrality, to this reformation of Islam. So Arab nationalism, by having this religious link, was much easier. For the masters in Egypt and elsewhere, to accept rather than the more secular extreme form of Egyptian nationalism, or other forms of territorial nationalism, that had no religious content. But, the liberalizing phase of the 1920s, that attack on tradition, that effort to push Islam to the sidelines of Egyptian politics in society, that liberalizing phase, ended in failure.
