Postclassical Kalām

Qursawi’s stance on the attributes was shaped by trends in the theological tradition, as ideas from ibn ‘Arabi’s metaphysics became very influential in later kalam in Central Asia, incorporated into mainstream Sunni scholarship by figures such as ‘Abd al-Rahman Jami and Jalal al-Din Dawani. These ideas revolved around ontological issues, particularly of the relationship between God’s existence and the (non)existence of everything else. But this dichotomy left the status of the divine attributes in question, which Qursawi’s stance seeks to address. This chapter discusses how ibn ‘Arabi’s “school” influenced postclassical kalam in Central Asia, Qursawi’s criticism of that tradition, and how his thought responded to this influence. It focuses particularly on the work of Ahmad Sirhindi, who was a major figure in this setting, as Qursawi and most of his contemporary opponents were members of Sirhindi’s Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi Sufi order.

Ijtihād and the Function of Legal Theory

Ijtihad is a major aspect of Qursawi’s reformism. He understands it as the exercise of Islamic legal interpretation, forming a necessary link between scripture and the daily life of the community. But he argues that the structures of taqlid, especially rigid ranks for fuqaha within the madhhab, have severed that link. He states that ijtihad must be carried out, and he takes the radical position that it is an obligation upon all Muslims. Everyone should learn methods of interpretation to verify scholars’ pronouncements and determine correct action. In this, he relies on conventional Hanafi jurisprudence, if broadened in its scope. Although at odds with his contemporaries, who insisted upon taqlid (in some cases to an extreme degree) this chapter argues that this radical stance is warranted by the changes to the ulama under Russian rule, and obliging legal interpretation upon everyone promotes adherence to sharia in an environment where it had been undermined.

An ʿĀ lim in the Russian Empire

Following the Russian conquests of the 16th century, ulama became the foremost social authorities for Volga-Ural Muslims. Tsarist efforts at governing the Muslim population increasingly focused on them in the 18th century, with greater tolerance and state support for Islamic institutions alongside a co-optation of scholars’ authority. In 1788, the Orenburg Spiritual Assembly was founded, placing all ulama under a hierarchy controlled by the state. The Spiritual Assembly offered stability and permanence to Islamic institutions, allowing for a flourishing in Islamic scholarship, but it also transformed the ulama and application of Islamic law. This chapter addresses Muslims’ shifting relationship to the Russian state and the structural changes to Islamic institutions, and how this impacted scholarship. Focusing specifically on ulama in the 18th and early 19th centuries, it places Qursawi’s life and career within this context, particularly his education, the formation of his thought, and his condemnation in Bukhara for heresy.

An Epistemological Critique

The main premise of Qursawi’s reformism is that any action or belief must be based on the most certain sources of religious knowledge—Qur’an and sound hadith—to the exclusion of anything not conforming to them. He took aim at taqlid, the widespread reliance upon which obscured any position’s basis and obliged adherence to ulama’s interpretations rather than scripture. The “scaffolding” of postclassical scholarship limited scholars’ autonomy to engage directly with scripture in order to preclude divergent and incorrect positions, but Qursawi saw it as allowing error to spread unchecked, and he criticized ulama for failing as religious interpreters and guides for the community. Since they could not be relied upon necessarily, he argued therefore that any position must be verified through tahqiq to ensure scriptural and logical correctness.

Modernity

This chapter addresses the question of modernity, arguing that the changes to Volga-Ural Muslims’ relationship with the Russian state remade their society, dismantling the Islamic social order, based on sharia, that had historically predominated in the region. The result was the disembedding of Muslim society, the removal of overarching social structures with a religious basis; this broke the link between the individual and communal institutions, with the latter weakened by tsarist control. In effect, any adherence to Islamic legal norms was functionally rendered a personal choice. Addressing the social and religious impact of disembedding, this chapter connects it with secularity, itself a massive shift in the religious construction of society, and argues that such a transformation represents the beginning of modernity. Therefore, the elements of Qūrṣāwī’s thought that respond to these changes can be considered examples of Islamic modernism.

The Question of the Divine Attributes

As part of his reformism, Qursawi criticized the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the divine attributes (sifat), which was one of the central issues in Sunni theology. Qursawi rejects the position, articulated by Sa‘d al-Din Taftazani, that there are seven or eight separate attributes, dependent on God and possible of existence (mumkin). Although he accepts the basic premises of the issue in post-Avicennian kalam, Qursawi argues that Taftazani’s stance makes the attributes too distinct from God, violating God’s fundamental oneness (tawhid). He focuses on the attributes’ multiplicity (ta‘addud), differentiation (mughayara), and superaddition (ziyada) as erroneous, arguing they render the attributes contingent entities, in contrast to God’s inherent necessity (as wajib al-wujud), infringing upon His transcendence (tanzih). This stance brought accusations of Mu‘tazilism against Qursawi and led to his condemnation for heresy in Bukhara. Qursawi further criticizes kalam as too based in rational speculation, leading to error and spreading incorrect beliefs.

The Transformation of the Religious Environment

The religious and intellectual landscape of the Volga-Ural region changed significantly over the course of the 19th century. This chapter addresses those changes, focusing on three main historical phenomena: the adoption of European approaches and subjects in Islamic education and pedagogy, the introduction of Arabic-script printing and periodical publishing, and the fragmentation of Islamic religious authority. These phenomena all contributed to a new religious and intellectual landscape that arises following the 1905 Revolution, which is marked by debates over the ulama’s stature as foremost religious interpreters and non-ulama elites speaking for Islam and for Muslims alongside scholars. Characterized by conflicts over the continued validity of the Islamic scholarly tradition and the role of ulama, the discourse of this period included new debates and movements, including Jadidism, which emerges out of the broad changes taking place.

Reform Within the Scholarly Tradition

Qursawi’s reformist project focuses on tahqiq as a means of ensuring religious correctness, against the predominance of taqlid, which he saw as perpetuating misguidance, and of questioning conventional positions on the divine attributes and the timing of the isha (night) prayer. It is not fundamentalist or scripturalist, but rather relies on established Hanafi-Maturidi forms of reasoning and methods of interpretation, tied to sound sources of religious knowledge—scripture and authoritative consensus. This chapter presents the underlying logic and approach of his reformism as a coherent whole within the postclassical scholarly tradition. It also compares Qursawi’s thought with that of the 18th-century reformers in Voll’s Hijaz network, arguing that while Qursawi has no connection with this network, the similarities show how reform can be (independently) articulated in different settings. Qursawi’s reformism is ultimately shaped by the Central Asian scholarly tradition and the circumstances under Russian imperial rule.

Introduction

Qursawi’s reformism is conventionally described as rejecting Islamic tradition and ulama authority in favor of secular “enlightenment,” a view that is irretrievably flawed. Addressing this historiography, which connects Qursawi to Jadidism, this chapter argues that it is based on unfounded and anachronistic premises that skew his historical memory and obscure his contributions. Instead, Qursawi must be viewed from within Islamic tradition, and accordingly his thought is approached from the perspective of Islamic intellectual history. This chapter connects research into Qursawi with the literature on contemporary reformism in the 18th-century Islamic world, and it establishes the present study’s theoretical perspective on the Islamic scholarly tradition, viewing it as a discursive tradition operating through institutions, which are shaped by historical circumstances and therefore shape Islamic discourse in turn.

Conclusion

The significant differences between the premises and goals of Jadidism and Qursawi’s reformism call into question the movement’s connection with him. This chapter explores the points of divergence between the two and, addressing the historiography that presents him as a Jadidist pioneer, shows that Qursawi has no place within the genealogy of Jadidism, and also that Shihab al-Din Marjani cannot serve as the necessary link between them. Instead, Qursawi’s thought must be understood within the contexts of postclassical Islamic thought and the religious environment in the Russian Empire in the early 19th century, separate from posthumous developments transforming that environment and leading to Jadidism as a distinct movement.