Chapter 9
MAJOR REFORMS AT ZAYTUNA
In this
chapter the reforms of 1932 and 1933 and the various factors which brought
about these reforms are examined. The period of 1932-33 was of great importance
in the history of reform at Zaytuna. In 1932 the nizara was changed and in that
same year, Shaykh at-Tahir Ibn Ashur was made the first Director-Shaykh
(Rector) of Zaytuna. This action placed Zaytuna more directly under the control
of the Prime Minister because after that time, there was one chief
representative at Zaytuna and he was highly responsible to the government. In
the year 1933 great reform took place at Zaytuna. In that year the reform commission's
efforts were demonstrated by the issuing of decrees on March 30, 1933 and July
3, 1933. In 1933 nationalism was gaining support. A political reformist named
Habib Bourguiba was becoming known
and gaining a following. Thus the year 1933 played a very important part in the
history of Zaytuna.
Reform Efforts Affecting Zaytuna
As a
result of the articles in La Voix Du Tunisien, which was under the direction of
Chadli Khairallah, other newspaper articles, and the persuasion of the Bey's
friends, the Bey replaced the Prime Minister and the Shaykh al-Islam in
February 1932 because of their conservatism. The new Shaykh al-Islam was
Mohammed ben Youssef. At this time at-Tahir Ibn Ashur, Bash-Mufti Malikite, was
named Shaykh al-Islim Malikite L’Afrique Francaise, “Tunisie”, 1932, pp.
613-14). This action was something new for the world of Islam in Tunisia
for this was the first time that a Shaykh al-Islam had been replaced because of
his opposition to reform and this opposition being attacked by the newspapers. This
action is evidence of the great pressure which was being placed on the
government by the newspapers and the students to bring about reform at Zaytuna.
At this time the students felt power and they hoped to further use this power
to obtain their objectives. They seemed to be tired of waiting for the
commission to bring about reform which had been promised for two years. They
felt that the only way that they could have results from the reform commission,
rather than only promises similar to those of the commission of 1924, was to
increase the pressure on the government to bring about this reform. The
replacement of the Prime Minister and the Shaykh al-Islam was evidence to the students
that they were making progress in their bid for reform. Furthermore the placing
of at-Tahir Ibn Ashur, a known supporter of reform, as Shaykh al-Islam Malikite
must have given the students confidence that they were going to be successful
in their efforts for reform and modernization of Zaytuna.
The second congress of North African Muslim students
The
second congress of North African Muslim students was held in August 1932. The
goal of these young Muslim scholars was to have a more modern
education while retaining important aspects of Islam. In maintaining that of
importance from Islam, the perpetuation of the Arabic language was emphasized
(L’Afrique Francaise, “Le 2e Congres” 1932, pp. 572-75). At this
time Arabic was being ignored or placed second to French in the French-styled
ecoles. These students wanted to change this situation and return Arabic to its
prime position in the educational institutions of North Africa.
This
organization also desired that Zaytuna and the other centers of Islamic
learning in North Africa change their programs so that they were more in
conformity with the "intellectual activity and practical spirit" that
was required in the modern world (L’Afrique Francaise, “Le 2e
Congres” 1932, pp. 572-75).
Thus at
this time, the students were doing more than just proclaiming that they wanted
reform. They were uniting, not only in the various Islamic countries, but also
as a body of North African students. In this way they hoped to be more
successful in obtaining a modernization of the education in the Islamic
countries of North Africa. Although this group seems to have done little in the
1930's to directly bring reform to Zaytuna, its organization was an effort to
further unite students behind reform objectives.
Decrees issued affecting Zaytuna
There
were four decrees issued in 1932 and 1933 which affected Zaytuna. The first
decree, the Decree of September 12, 1932, increased the number of mudarris
(teachers) at Zaytuna. The second decree, the Decree of September 20, 1932,
established a Rector or Shaykh-Director for Zaytuna. The third decree, the
Decree of March 30, 1933, was a major reorganizational decree directed toward
Zaytuna. The fourth decree, the Decree of July 3, 1933 changed various points
of the Decree of March 30, 1933.
Decree
of September 12, 1932: The Decree of September 12, 1932 stated that the number
of teachers of the first, second, and third (auxiliary) classes at Zaytuna was
insufficient for the needs of Zaytuna. This insufficiency was a result of the
student population increasing from 900 in 1907 to nearly 3,000 in 1933. This
decree stated that in order to rectify this inadequacy, there would be eight
teachers of the second class added to the Zaytuna faculty. The decree also stipulated
that there would be no distinction made as to the legal rite to which these
teachers belonged. This last portion of the first article
was really revolutionary, for the equal division of the two legal rites,
Hanafite and Malikite, had been the usual practice at Zaytuna since the charter
for Zaytuna University was created by Ahmed Bey in 1842. Furthermore although
the Decree of September 16, 1912 stipulated that there could be 31 professors
of the first class and 13 professors of the second class, it appears from the
various reports which have already been discussed in this dissertation, that
the teachers of the first class usually remained at 12 rather than 13. This allowed
the faculty to be equally divided between the two rites.
Article
2 of the Decree of 1932 restated what had been stated in other decrees
regarding the recruitment of new professors. This article stated that new
professors would be recruited by competitive examination and that the test on
jurisprudence would be based on the legal rite of the candidate (Journal
Officiel Tunisien, November 2, 1932).
Decree
of September 20, 1932: In the Decree of September 20,1932 the Shaykh at-Tahir
Ibn Ashur was "charged with the functions of Shaykh-Director [Rector] of
the Grand Mosque of Tunis and of its annexes."
Article
2 of this decree stated that the Rector would be responsible to the government
in the administration of Zaytuna. He was to make sure that the various
regulations affecting the education at the mosque were followed, that order and
discipline were maintained, and that the Prime Minister was kept aware of its
various activities. This article further stated that all the personnel
including the teachers, administrators, and librarians were to be placed under
the Rector's direction.
Article
4 stipulated that the Rector would be assisted by two other Shaykhs. These
assistants were to have the title of Cheikhs Adjoints au Directeur (Journal
Officiel Tunisien, September 24, 1932, pp. 2134-35).
This
decree answered some but not all of the requests of Zaytuna students and the
newspapers concerning the reform of the nizara. The demands were met by having
one head of Zaytuna (the Rector) who was directly responsible to the government
for the affairs of Zaytuna. Yet this action didn't fully meet the
reorganizational demands, for the new Rector maintained his position as Shaykh
al-Islam Malikite. Thus instead of dividing the responsibility of the
administration of the shariaa and the university, the responsibility of both important
and demanding positions was given to one man, Shaykh at-Tahir Ibn Ashur.
Although
Ibn Ashur held a dual responsibility, he was well accepted. Even the students
were enthusiastic because they felt that Ibn Ashur would introduce necessary
reforms. The Bey emphasized this need for reform in his congratulations to Ibn Ashur
when he asked the new Rector to strive to bring new programs to Zaytuna (L’Afrique
Francaise, October, 1932, pp. 613-14).
In an
interview with Ibn Ashur, the new Rector stated his desire to bring reform to
Zaytuna. He stated that it was his desire to add courses in "modern
sciences' such as hygiene, natural history, and general history. He also
mentioned a desire to improve the methods of teaching at Zaytuna, to increase
specialization in the courses, and generally to improve the state of affairs at
Zaytuna (La Depeche Tunisienne, October 7, 1932). Ibn Ashur was successful in
seeing many of these desires fulfilled (as will be discussed later in this
chapter) when the Decree of March 30, 1933 was issued.
Decree of March 30, 1933: The Decree
of March 30, 1933, like the Decrees of December 26, 1875 and September 16,
1912, was a major decree affecting the organization of the education at Zaytuna
Mosque. This decree was composed of 252 articles and was divided into the following
five titles: "The Administration of the Great Mosque;" "The Organization
of the Education at the Zaytuna Mosque and in its Annexes;" "The
Status of the Professors;" "The Students;" and "The
Transitory Dispositions." These titles were further divided into chapters
and articles.
According
to the new decree, the administration of Zaytuna was to be assumed by the
following officials: (1) a Shaykh-Director assisted by two adjuncts; (2) a
council of improvement composed of the Ministre de la Plume, the Shaykhs
al-Islam (Hanafite and Malikite), the two qadis of Tunis (Hanafite and
Malikite), the director of habus, and two professors (one of each of the two
legal rites); (3) clerk secretaries; (4) inspectors; (5) the librarians and
assistant librarians; and (6) des gens de service. In this decree the responsibility
that the Shaykh-Director had in informing the Prime Minister of the affairs of Zaytuna
was reinforced. The fact that the Rector was directly responsible to the Prime
Minister and that the Ministre de la Plume was to have an active role in the
affairs of Zaytuna illustrates the active role that the government was taking
in the conduct of Zaytuna.
The
council of improvement, which was newly created by this decree, was to meet two
times a year. This council was charged with researching the proper means of
developing and improving the education at Zaytuna.
In
article 20 the object of the education at Zaytuna was stated as follows;
The object of the education at the Zaytuna Mosque
and in its annexes is the conservation of the sciences of the religious law, of
the knowledge that constitutes the introduction of these sciences, of the Arab
linguistic sciences; it is also to cultivate the mind of the students for the
education in the indispensable practical knowledge, which are not harmful to
the principle subjects taught in this establishment.
According
to this article Zaytuna was an Islamic institution of education and was to
avoid teaching subjects that would draw students away from the Islamic faith
(any modern science courses could be placed under this restriction that the
Zaytuna officials didn't want taught). In the French version of article 20 it stated:
"c'est aussi de cultivar l'esprit des eleves par l'enseignement des
connaissances pratiques indispensables, qui ne nuisent point a l'etude des
matieres principales enselgnees dans cet etablissement." The use of "ne. . .point," which is an emphatic negative
expression, places stress on the fact that Zaytuna was not to teach subjects
which appeared to draw students away from Islam.
Article
21 maintained the three instructional levels: primary, secondary, and superior.
It further stated that the instruction given in the secondary and superior
levels would be of general knowledge and psalmody. The secondary and superior
courses, according to article 22, were to be taught in the mosque while the
primary courses were to be taught in the annexes.
Articles
23-28 listed the subjects that were to be taught at Zaytuna. These subjects are
listed in Table 11. It can be noted from this list that there was an increase
in the number of history and science subjects taught at Zaytuna, but it can
also be noted that these subjects were only taught in the lower levels and
didn't extend themselves beyond the second year of the secondary cycle. Thus
the exposure to these subjects which had been the demands of students,
professors, newspapers, and even Ibn Ashur (the Shaykh-Director) was very
limited and elementary (Journal Officiel Tunisien, April 29, 1933, pp. 901-14).
Table 11 (L’Afrique Francaise, June 1933, p. 330)
By Cycle Distribution of Subjects Taught
and According to the Decree of 1933
_____________________________________________________________
Subjects First Cycle Second Cycle Third
Cycle*
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 P first second
third
L
J L J L
J P
Theology X X X X X
Biography of
Prophet X X
Hadith X X X X X
Tafsir X X X X X X X X X
Law X X X X X X X X X X
Successions X X X X X
Judicial
Methodology X X X X X
Reduction of
Acts X X X
Shariaah
Procedure X X
Ethics X X X X X X
Psalmody X X X X
Literature X X X X X X X X X X X
Syntax X X X X X X X X X X X
Morphology X X X X X
Lexicography X
Prosody X
Logic X X X
Rhetoric X X X X X X X
Dialectics X
Orthography X X X
Writing X X
Pedagogy X X X X X X X X
General
History X
Arab History
(pre-Islam) X
Islamic
History X X
History of
Tunisia X
Geography X X X
Arithmetic X X X X
Geometry X
Cosmography X
Al-miqat X
Lessons in
Selection X X X X
Hygiene X X X
_____________________________________________________________
*Key: L--Literature Section J—Judicial Section P—Psalmody
_____________________________________________________________
According
to article 31 the duration of time spent studying in the primary cycle was to
be 4 to 6 years. In the secondary and superior cycle the general education
students were to spend 3 to 5 years in study while the psalmody students were
to spend 1 to 2 years. Before the issuing of the new decree, the students spent
approximately 2 years in the primary cycle, approximately 3 years in the
secondary cycle, 2 more years in the third cycle, and the eighth year in
preparation for the examination of the tatwia. According to the new decree, a
student might spend nearly as much time in the primary cycle alone as he had during
his entire educational experience at Zaytuna before 1933. Thus instead of
shortening the duration of studies as Ibn Ashur had proposed in his book a
laisa as-subt) bi qarlb? and as had been requested by the Prime Minister in the
opening session of the reform commission in 1930, the time spend at Zaytuna was
increased.
One
reason for the increased duration of total study time spent at Zaytuna was the
establishment of specialized areas of study. This specialization met one of the
demands of students in the 1930's. The three areas of specialization were as
follows; Juridical-Religious, Literature, and Psalmody.
In
general the subjects relating to religious principles and the juridical- religious
sciences were taught at Zaytuna or its mosque annexes. However the following
subjects were taught at unspecified places outside mosques; the partition
(application) of the successions; writing; orthography; history; geography;
literature; drawing of the authenticated deeds; arithmetic; algebra; geometry;
cosmography; chronometry; “les lecons de choses;” and hygiene. There were at
least two reasons for teaching these courses outside the mosque. The first
reason was that since Zaytuna was a sacred edifice, it was to be respected and only
to be used for Islamic studies. Secondly the numerous students who were taking
classes at Zaytuna required that some classes be taught outside of Zaytuna, and
those subjects that didn't
pertain directly to or only had minor relation to Islam were the best
candidates for this.
In
articles 54 and 57 the methods of instruction were presented. In this
presentation it was forbidden for those in the first cycle to study the criticisms
and works of controversial questions. In the secondary cycle, the teacher was
only to use those criticisms which were necessary. In the superior cycle, the
questions were to be studied in a manner which resulted in a better
understanding of the material by the students.
In
title 3 it was stipulated that there would be 8 professors of a new unique
class, 23 professors of the first class, 21 professors of the second class, and
an unspecified number of auxiliary professors. 60 of these auxiliary professors
were to deliver lectures at Zaytuna's annexes.
According
to article 60 the exact sciences studied at Zaytuna would be taught at the
annexes set aside for this purpose. These exact sciences were to be taught by
professors who had received teacher's diplomas in a state school; yet those who
held both the state and Zaytuna diplomas were to be given preference. Article
60 further opened a connection between state and religious institutions. Before
this time only graduates of Zaytuna or another Grand Mosque could teach Zaytuna
students. Even Khalduniyyah was not fully accepted by all the Zaytuna faculty
as a means of teaching Zaytuna students modern science. After the Decree of
1933 was issued, Zaytuna students would not only be able to take some modern
science courses, but they could also take courses taught by specified
non-Zaytuna graduates.
According
to article 77 the professors at Zaytuna were forbidden to discuss politics.
This article stated:
It is forbidden for the professors to entertain
themselves with the students' political questions and to criticize the acts of
the government or the administration of the mosque.
The
increase in governmental control is mentioned in this article. Furthermore the
right to speak freely, an action which had resulted in student demonstrations
in the past, was to be taken away, for the professors were "forbidden; to
talk about the activities of political and Zaytuna officials.
The new
decree took another positive and dictatorial action in striving to bring an end
to student demonstrations. In this decree it was forbidden for professors and
functionaries to take part in any demonstrations or to give adverse information
to journalists. The professors were advised that they were only to treat the
"purely" religious questions. The inclusion of this article in the
Decree of 1933 indicates that the government felt that one of the real causes
of the student demonstrations was the unfavorable publicity of the newspapers. Through
these restrictions the government officials hoped to bring an end to these
demonstrations.
In this
decree the punishment for an infraction by the professors was increased. Before
this time a deduction in salary was the major course of discipline for the
professors, especially absent professors; but in the Decree of 1933, it
stipulated that the following may be used as punishments; (1) warning, (2)
reprimand, (3) the deprivation of a third or more of the professor's monthly
salary, (4) delay in advancement, (5) suspension from a teaching position for
three months or more, and (6) disbanding and revocation of the professor's right
to teach. These punishments were stronger than the previous "slap on the
hand" which subtracted pay for the period of absence.
To
carry out disciplinary actions beyond the warning and reprimand stage, a
special council was to be formed according to the decree. This council was to
be a disciplinary one composed of the Shaykh-Director, two professors chosen by
the director, one professor chosen by the accused, and one functionary chosen
by the Prime Minister.
Articles
95 to 154 discussed the details of the competitive examinations for faculty
positions. One change from previous decrees is noted in the requirements for
taking the competitive examination for the new post of superior professor. In
order to qualify for this position, a teacher had to be a first class professor
and have at least 10 years of teaching experience. Furthermore he had to have
completed the various courses on the works which were studied in the superior cycle.
In
order to apply for the competitive examination for the position of first class
professor, a person had to be a professor of the second class, have two years
of teaching experience, obtain the diploma al-alimya (a diploma given for
success on the final test after the superior level of studies), and have the
qualifications for the vacant position.
The
professors of the second class were also to be chosen by competitive
examinations. These examinations were to be on such subjects as theology,
syntax, morphology, etc.
Title 4
dealt with the students. In this section regulations were made for entrance
into Zaytuna. According to this decree a student wishing to enter Zaytuna
couldn't be less than 12 years old. He was to know the printed works, be able
to write dictation, “know by heart” at least the last fourth of the Qur'an, and
be acquainted with the texts which were used in the first years of the primary
cycle. The future students in psalmody would have to know by heart all the
ahzab of the Qur'an. To this rule some exceptions could be made.
The
students were still required to obtain a notebook. This notebook contained the
student's picture and as in the past, a report on his progress at Zaytuna.
The
students were forbidden to read the journals and reviews and to occupy
themselves with other matters than the questions taught at Zaytuna. Disobedience
of this rule would be punished in varying manners. Thus the students, like the
professors, were limited in their ability to become familiar with the journals
and magazines. Students were banned from reading journals and the professors
were not allowed to contribute to articles in these journals because the
government as well as the Zaytuna officials seemed to blame the demonstrations
of 1930 on the influence of these journals.
Articles
180 and 197 discussed the yearly examinations and stipulated that there would
be three progress examinations at the end of each quarter of the scholastic
year. These first and second quarter examinations were to cover the material
discussed during the quarter. The third quarter examination (or year-end
examination) was to cover all the material taught during the scholastic year.
Those who were successful on the final examination were to be permitted to pass
to the next level of study.
The
student's performance on the sections of these tests was to be given a score of
1 to 20. A student had to obtain a medium score and have no zeroes in order to
advance to the next level of study. This section of the Decree of 1933 took
some of the power from the inspectors by creating this scoring system. Before
the creation of this scoring system, a professor had to present no
justification for his rating of a student's performance on a test; but with the
new decree, a professor would have to at least support his decision with the
various scores of the student on the sections of the examination.
According
to the Decree of 1933, there were to be three diplomas given, one for each
cycle. The diploma for the superior cycle was the al-alimyya. This diploma
mentioned the specific areas of interest which were either judicial science,
literature, or psalmody. The diploma for the end of the secondary cycle was the
tahsil, which mentioned either general knowledge or psalmody. The diploma for
the end of the primary cycle was the ahliya; this cycle had no special mentions
because all the students followed the same course of study.
The
tests which were to be given to the students seeking a diploma were composed of
three parts. One part was to consist of a written composition. The second part
was to consist of an oral explanation and the third part was to consist of the
answering of questions. The students would receive points for their performance
and knowledge on the materials given on the test. This decree also stipulated
what the students would have to know in the various cycles.
No
specific works were stipulated by this decree for use at Zaytuna. However it
was stated that the works used were to be submitted to the examination of a
jury presided over by a member of the Council of Improvements. These officials
were to be assisted by superior or first class professors who were specialists
in the subjects studied and their relative works.
Title 5
contained transitory dispositions needed to pass from the ancient organization
to the organization according to the new decree. According to this section
those holding the tatwia were to be assimilated into the group holding the
tahsil (secondary cycle diploma). These people would also be able to present
themselves for the new test for the diploma, al-calimyya, if they had
accomplished three years of studies at Zaytuna without interruption. Those who
had only accomplished two years of studies would have the right to the diploma following
a third year of superior courses and the examinations. In both these cases the
examination for the superior diploma would be based on the specialization of
the person taking the examination. This transitional section also stated that
the students who were in their third and fourth years of the secondary cycle
would continue in the old
program, but would be required to take the new subject (Journal Officiel
Tunisien, April 29, 1933, pp. 901-14).
This
decree mainly affected the organization and implementation of programs at
Zaytuna. The books used and the teaching methods employed were not incorporated
as part of this decree.
In
examining the success of the Decree of 1933, it is important to list both the
changes desired and not met, and the actual accomplishments of the decree. In
examining the success, some of the requests made by the Prime Minister and the
Shaykh al-Islam at the opening of the reform commission in 1930 will be
compared with the results. The Prime Minister desired to have the study time
spent at Zaytuna shortened to the least possible time. The Decree of 1933 not only
didn't fulfill this request, but it also added a new diploma which increased
rather than decreased this study time. The Shaykh al-Islam asked for three
changes: (1) military exemption for Zaytuna students (which was also requested
by the striking students in 1910, but not met by the Decree of 1912); (2)
administration of the madrasas by the nizara; and (3) reattachment of the
kuttabs to the nizara. None of these requests
were met by the Decree of 1933. Thus in many ways the decree failed
to meet not only the demands of the students for modernization, but also the
requests of the officials for improvements.
Though
this decree didn't meet all the demands of Zaytuna students and officials, it
did meet some of those demands and was successful in bringing some needed
reforms to Zaytuna. One official who was successful in obtaining some of his
requests was at-Tahir Ibn Ashur. It can be recalled that he requested that
there be more modern courses at Zaytuna dealing with modern sciences, hygiene,
natural history and general history. It can be noted from the Decree of 1933 that
many of these requests were met; if the extent to which these subjects were
included in Zaytuna’s curriculum was agreeable with Ibn Ashur is hard to state,
but it does appear that he was one of the strong forces in bringing about the
incorporation of these subjects. Another important improvement that was
accomplished by the Decree of 1933 was the establishment of the Council of
Improvement and Discipline. Through the creation of this council, it became
easier to handle the problems created by poor or absent professors. The Decree
of 1933 also improved
the diploma system. Some of the other improvements made by the Decree of 1933
included the establishment of regulations for scoring a student's examinations,
the creation of entrance regulations, and the increase in governmental control
over the educational affairs of Zaytuna. Though this decree was successful in
making some needed improvements, its weaknesses in addition to those problems
already mentioned included: (1) failure to improve the antiquated educational methods,
(2) no extensive increase in the number of modern science subjects taught, and
(3) no improvements made on the texts used.
Decree of July 3, 1933: Shortly
after the issuing of the Decree of March 30, 1933, opposition was manifested by
the students and the newspapers to various points mentioned in the decree.
These oppositions resulted in a decree being issued on July 3, 1933 which
brought change to articles 6 and 62 of the March 30, 1933 Decree.
The
Decree of July 3, 1933 changed the composition of the Council of Improvement as
mentioned in article 6 of that decree. According to the Decree of July 1933,
the Council of Improvement was to consist of the following: the Ministre de la
Plume, president; the Shaykh-Director, vice-president; the two Shaykhs
al-Islam, Hanafite and Malikite; two magistrates of the Sharlca, the one
Hanafite and the other Malikite; the director of the habus; two professors of
the first class, the one Hanafite and the other Malikite, named by the Prime Minister
for the duration of three years; and a Muslim functionary of the Director
General of the Interior.
This
organization differed from the one stipulated by the Decree of March 30, 1933
in two important ways. First the two qadis of Tunis were replaced by two
magistrates of the Sharica, one Hanafite and one Malikite; and secondly the two
professors of each rite, who were to be chosen by the Prime Minister, were now
specified as "first class" professors, while in the previous decree
they had only been identified as professors.
Article
62 of the Decree of July 3, 1933 returned the number of first and second class
professors to the number stipulated in the 1912 decree rather than maintaining
the number stipulated in the September 12, 1932 and March 30, 1933 decrees.
Thus the number of first class professors was to be 31 and the number of second
class professors was to be 13. However it can be remembered that the actual
number of first and second class professors was usually one less than that
which was specified by the Decree of 1912. The Decree of July 3, 1933 further stipulated
that the professors who occupied the new position of Superior Professors were
not to be chosen with regard to the legal rite to which they belonged Journal
Officiel Tunisien, September 27, 1933, pp. 1861-34).
This
decree strived to maintain less emphasis on the two judicial rites. This was a
revolutionary action which hadn't been demonstrated before the 1930's.
Some Political Developments in Tunisia and Their Effect
on Zaytuna
Following
the war and notably in the 1930's, there were great conflicts between the
nationalists, who wanted to prohibit Muslims who had become French citizens
from enjoying the right of Islam, and the naturalized French citizens, who felt
that they should be able to receive the benefits of both French citizenship and
Islamic membership. The intense feelings between these two groups were
manifested in 1933. One conflict which resulted in a protest strike by Zaytuna students
revolved around the issue of burying naturalized French citizens in Muslim cemeteries.
One of these conflict-producing incidents concerned the burying of a man in
Bizerte. This man had married a French woman, but had adhered to his religion
and was a member of a Muslim society. He died on December 31, 1932 and his
burial in a Muslim
cemetary was opposed on the grounds that he was no longer a Muslim. The
incident resulted in a controversy among those who thought he
should be buried in a Muslim cemetary and those who didn't. This affair was
brought to the qadi (judge) of Bizerte who refused to settle the dispute
because he considered it a religious question. This case was then taken to the
Mufti of Bizerte who stated:
the deceased was no longer Muslim as [a]
naturalized Frenchman, and that, by result, his inhumation in the Muslim cemetary
(where were buried his parents and one of his children) was not possible (L’
Afrique Francais, June 1933, pp. 329-34).
This ruling caused more controversial feelings by those for and against the naturalization of Muslims; but before the two groups had time to react on the first ruling, a second incident concerning another burial was decided. In the second case the deceased was a young daughter of a naturalized French Muslim. In this case it was decided that the girl could be buried in the Muslim cemetary because it was felt that she shouldn't be held accountable for her parents' sins (L’ Afrique Francais, June 1933, pp. 329-34).As
similar instances arose, the feelings of conflict between the nationalists and
naturalized citizens increased.
During
this controversy Shaykh at-Tahir Ibn Ashur issued a fatwa on the subject. This
fatwa, or religious ruling on an issue, pointed out that a Muslim who had
become a naturalized French citizen could repent of his French citizenship and
be reinstated as a Muslim (L’Action, Tunisienne, “L’Opinion des Vrais Ulemas
sur la Naturalisation, May 4, 1933.
This
type of response resulted in further demonstrations. On April 14, 1933 the
students of Zaytuna, some of whom had cheered when at-Tahir Ibn Ashur had
become Shaykh-Director, went on strike (L’Afrique Francais, June 1933, pp.
329-34). Concerning this strike, M'Hamed Bourguiba stated in an article
in L'Action Tunisienne that many of the students were specifically striking or
boycotting the courses of at-Tahir Ibn Ashur (L’Afrique Francais, June 1933,
pp. 329-34).
This
fatwa by at-Tahir Ibn Ashur might have caused some boycotting of his classes
and probably influenced the strike, but it seems that it was only one of the
contributors. These demonstrations followed a period in which the students
hadn't been able to obtain their demands for reform of Zaytuna. These demands
included not only the reform of the curriculum, teaching methods, and
administration of Zaytuna, but also the demand for a new location and more
teaching equipment like blackboards and maps.
Another
reason for these demonstrations was the conflict between the reformist and
non-reformist groups at Zaytuna. At this time the various faculty members and
students were being labeled according to their traditional or non-traditional
attitudes (Al-‘Asram,Interview, March 22, 1974). This internal conflict within
Zaytuna came into the open more during the demonstrations when the reformist
sections at Zaytuna made their demands public and hence came in open conflict
with many attitudes of the non-reformist section.
The
striking students were supported by the newspapers. One young writer, Habib
Bourguiba (who in the 1950's led Tunisia to independence and to this date in
1975 has been Tunisia's only president) wrote articles against the Ulamas'
fatwa on the repentant naturalist. He stated in L'Action Tunisienne (April 20,
1933) that Islam had to be accepted as a whole. One couldn't just accept one
part (L’Action Tunisienne, Habib Bourguiba, “L’Opinion”, April 20, 1933). Thus
if one became a citizen of France, he rejected Islam.
As a
consequence of his action and the connection of the Destour Party with this
demonstration, the Destour Party was dissolved in June 1933. This action
included governmental suspension not only of the party, but also of the party's
publications (L’Afrique Francaise No. 6, “La Dissolution,” June 1933, pp.
349-50).
at-Tahir Ibn Ashur
After
the fatwa of the Ulama, for which at-Tahir Ibn Ashur was responsible, the
attacks continued to increase in favor of replacing Ibn Ashur. The Tunis
Socialiste began to use the argument it had previously used in asking for
reform of the nizara. In relation to the replacement of Ibn Ashur, it stated:
The Rector of the Grand Mosque is at the same
time, Shaykh al-Islam of the Malikite rite. His last charge. . . is very absorbent
and does not permit those who occupy it of another occupation (M.Z., “A La
Grande Mosque,” July 28, 1933).
This
article further reemphasized that, "it is not possible to be at the same
time President of the Divan [the court of justice] and Rector of the Grand Mosque” (L’Afrique Francais, June 1933, pp. 329-34).
On
September 30, 1933 Shaykh at-Tlhir Ibn Ashur resigned as Shaykh-Director of
Zaytuna University. He did this by a letter addressed to the Bey. In this
letter Ibn Ashur stated that he had a "double obligation"; yet he had
tried to serve the Bey, Islam, and l'elite de la jounesse universitaire. He
stated that he couldn't fill the two positions effectively. He further stated
that he couldn't continue "against the attitude of the students who appear
to abstain themselves and not comprehend their genuine interests." With
these comments
he presented his resignation to the Bey.
It was
hoped that this action of at-Tahir Ibn Ashur would put an end to the student
demonstrations and class boycotts and bring order back to the education at
Zaytuna (L’Afrique Francaise No. 10, “A La Grande Mosquee,” October 1933, pp.
599-600). But such an action still didn't solve the century-old problems of
methods and curriculum at Zaytuna. As a result of at-Tahir Ibn Ashur's
dismissal, a new Shaykh-Director was selected. According to a decree issued on
October 3, 1933, Salah al-Maleki was to be appointed Shaykh-Director of the
Grand Mosque and of its annexes (Journal Officiel Tunisien, October 6, 1933, p.
1929).
Growth of Tunisia after 1881 and its affect on Zaytuna
Tunisia
had been developing during the Protectorate period into a modern nation, yet
Zaytuna had made little improvements. Tunisia had entered into the modern
world; but the Zaytuna conservatist either felt that the century-old education
at Zaytuna needed little improvement, or they were concerned about the results
of these improvements.
Table
12 illustrates, on a small scale, some of the developments which took place in
Tunisia during the Protectorate period (this table covers the period from
1881-1940, but It can be used to give a general idea of Tunisia's development
during the period covered by this dissertation).
Table 12
The Work of the French in Tunisia 1881-1940
(L’Oeuver De La France en
Tunisie, Tunis, 1941)
_____________________________________________________________
Object of Improvement 1881
1940
_____________________________________________________________
Number of Doctors 30
400
Number of Hospital Beds 50
2,300
Length of Telephone Lines 0 56,600
km
Length of Telegraph Lines ?
17,330 km
____________________________________________________________
The
developments mentioned in Table 12 coupled with the "modern inventions
created a feeling of modernization among the people of Tunisia. Yet Zaytuna was
in many ways maintaining the old and not striving to prepare its students for
the developments that were taking place in Tunisia and the world. This
condition resulted in the discontent and further demonstrations of the students
for reform.
Zaytuna after October 1933 until the end of 1933
Although
at-Tahir Ibn Ashur had resigned and two new decrees were issued affecting
ZaytGna, still the problems hadn't been solved. Zaytuna
was still following old teaching methods, using old texts, and having
few courses which prepared the students for the available jobs in
"modern" Tunisia. This lack of reform in these areas was to cause further
demonstrations, decrees, reforms, and additions to the state of Zaytuna in the
years that followed 1933.
Some
have argued that this lack of more extensive reforms by 1933 resulted from both
the opposition from the conservative sections which felt that such actions
would result in a destruction of the Zaytuna students' faith and opposition
from the French. The French had stated often that they wanted to help bring
about reform at Zaytuna. However the French actually opposed such improvements
as a change in action and modernization of teaching methods because this would
result in an increased enrollment at Zaytuna. The French also feared that this increased
enrollment would cause more political problems because the Zaytuna students
were the most anti-French and the greatest supporters of that which was
traditional (Muhammad Ali al-‘Asram, Zaytuna Professor, personal interview,
March 22, 1974).
Although
there were organizational reforms issued which affected Zaytuna, little was
done to improve the methods and modernize the education at Zaytuna. Thus the
following statement could be used to describe the type of education at Zaytuna
in 1933:
The people. . .combine the instruction of
children in the Qur'an, usually, with the teaching of traditions. They also teach
basic scientific norms and certain scientific problems. However, they stress
giving their children a good knowledge of the Qur'an and acquainting them with
its various recensions and readings more than anything else, (Ibn Khaldun, 1958,
New York, p. 302).
Summary
The
period from 1932 to 1933 was one of opposition to and reform of the educational
approach at Zaytuna. First the nizara came under attack. The reformers felt
that the nizara could not effectively perform the functions of the sharlca and
the administrative duties of Zaytuna at the same time. This attack led to
reform at Zaytuna and the creation of the new administrative office of
Shaykh-Director. This official was responsible for the total functions at
Zaytuna and was under the direction of the Prime Minister. Shaykh at-Tahir Ibn Ashur
was the first Shaykh-Director.
Secondly
this was also a period in which the students were uniting together to obtain
their reform goals. For instance the second conference of the North African
Muslim students was held in 1932. In that conference educational reform was one
of the chief issues.
Thirdly
the Decree of March 1933 played an important role in the reform and
secularization of Zaytuna. In this decree the administrative body of Zaytuna
was placed under more direct control of the government. This was accomplished
by having the Shaykh-Director, as mentioned in the Decree of 1932 and
reinforced in the Decree of March 1933, directly responsible to the Prime
Minister and by having the Ministre de la Plume as president of the Council of
Improvement. In this way the government was able to maintain and increase its
control over the affairs of Zaytuna. In the March 1933 decree the government
strived to better control the actions of both the students and the teachers.
Specific reprimands were stipulated for actions performed by either students or
teachers which could be detrimental to Zaytuna or the government. Thus this
decree hoped to exercise control over the actions of students or teachers which
might incite further demonstrations. The Decree of March 30, 1933 further made
some progress in introducing modern courses at Zaytuna. Though it was a small
step, history, science, and hygiene courses were added to Zaytuna's curriculum.
Thus the Decrees of 1933 increased governmental control over Zaytuna,
modernized—on a small scale—the courses at Zaytuna, and paved the way for
future reforms and increased secularization of Zaytuna in the years which
followed.
This
period from 1932 to 1933 was also a period of political agitation in Tunisia.
The battle was on between the naturalist and the nationalist. The nationalist
group was being strongly supported by the Zaytuna students and by the articles
of Hablb Bourguiba. Consequently this was a time in which Zaytuna was not only
having reforms introduced which paved the way for its secularization, but
Tunisia was also beginning its march toward independence under the leadership
of Habib Bourguiba.
By 1933
Zaytuna was existing in a modernizing Tunisia, but it was striving to meet the
modern with the traditional. Though this approach was being attacked as faulty,
Zaytuna, with minor reforms, still continued along its traditional
instructional path.
Bibliography
Ibn
Khaldun, The Muqaddimah : An Introduction to History, Trans. Franz
Rosenthal, 3 Vols. New York: Pantheon Books, 1958)
Journal
Officiel Tunisien (September 24, 1932).
Journal Officiel Tunisien (September 27, 1933).
Journal Officiel Tunisien (October 6, 1933).
Journal Qfficiel Tunisien (November 2, 1932).
Journal Officiel Tunisien (April 29, 1933), pp. 901-14;
see also Reorganisation de L'Enseignement de la Grande Mosquee de Tunis,"
L'Afrique Francaise, No. 6 (June 1933).
L’Afrique Francaise, "Tunisie; Reformes a la Grande
Mosquee de Tunis,"
(October,
1932).
L'Afrique Francaise No. 10 "A La Grande
Mosquee," (October 1933).
L'Afrique Francaise, "Le 2e Congres des Etudiants
Musulmans Nord-Africains," (October, 1932).
L,'0euver De La France en Tunisie (Tunis:
Imprimerie La Porte, 1941).
L'Opinion des Vrais Ulemas sur la Naturalisation,"
L'Action Tunisienne (May 4, 1933).
La Depeche Tunisienne (October 7, 1932) quoted in L.Y.,"Nominations,
Reformes et Projets dans le Divan de Tunis," Revue Des Etudes Islamiques,
VI (1932).
"La Dissolution du 'Destours'; Suspension de
Journaux Destouriens de Langue Francaise," L'Afrique Francaise No. 6 (June
1933).
Muhammad Ali
al-'Asram, Zaytuna professor, personal interview, Tunis, Tunisia, March 22,
1974.
Habib Bourguiba, "L'Opinion des Professeurs de la
Grande Mosquee," L'Action Tunisienne (April 20, 1933).
M.Z., "A La Grande Mosque," Tunis
Socialiste (July 28, 1933).
Tunis Socialiste (July 28, 1933).
Muhammad
Ali al-'Asram, Zaytuna professor, personal interview, Tunis, Tunisia, March 22,
1974.
No comments:
Post a Comment