Dr Osama Al-Azhari
Minister of Awqaf
(Charitable Endowments)
If we wanted to summarise Hasan al-Banna’s legacy in a single word, it would be “regret.” This is due to the fact that the organisation which he imagined has collapsed, turning the idea of renaissance into intellectual and organisational chaos. Also, this caused appearance of fractured leaderships embroiled in internal strife without sound knowledge and coherent vision.
Al-Banna left behind an extremely complex legacy including takfir (labeling someone as an apostate), violence and gloating over murder. This made the image of religion tarnished and his group became a battlefield for internal divisions and rivalries. This legacy wasn’t born of chance; it was the result of an inherent intellectual error conflating the principles with subsidiary issues and religion with politics. As a result, the matter of government was treated as one of the principles of ‘aqidah not as one of subsidiary issues of shari’ah. It was a grave scholarly deviation leading to catastrophic results over time.
Long ago, scholars warned against this conflation because religion is built upon well-established knowledge, not mere impressions or fervour. Due to this fact, Imam al-Bukhari started his book with this chapter “knowledge before speech and action” because it is the foundation for each solid structure. In contrast, al-Banna established his group without a clear scholarly structure. He did not rest on a deep comprehension or shari’ah-based perspective like al-Azhar scholars who spent their ages seeking knowledge before being involved in community affairs.
Thus, Al-Banna set forth with great religious sincerity and fervour. However, he lost the tools of deep understanding for the objectives of shari’ah and the political and social reality in which he lived. Consequently, he could not formulate shari’ah responses to novel questions and his group suffered from long-term confusion he acknowledged at the end of his life. He expressed regret over his involvement in politics and desire to return to pure educational da’wah (preaching) work as reported by Abu al-Hasan al-Nadawi and Mahmud ‘Abd al-Halim.
However, it was too late, owing to the absence of knowledge and scholarly foundation, dozens of rival leaders emerged within the group challenging al-Banna’s leadership like: Salah Shadi, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sindi, Ahmad Rif’at…etc. Each of them claimed to possess the truth. Some even claimed that they saw the Prophet (PBUH) while awake. Then, the group turned into a bitter internal conflict, to the extent that al-Sindi – according to what al-Sha’rawi reported – shoved Hasan al-Banna in a humiliating scene that reflected the moral and organisational decline of the group.
Temptations ensued leading to mutual takfir and accusations of treason and corruption and the group rapidly spiraled into a quagmire of violence and assassinations. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir described killing al-Nuqrashi Basha by one of the MB’s members as “malicious kharji act,” Khalid Muhammad Khalid recorded that he met the murderer and saw in him boastful pride in the crime, whereas Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali warned against (MB) reproducing the ideology of kharijites who monopolised religion and labeled their opponents as apostates.
Since then, the crisis of (MB) was exposed not only in politics, but also in ideology: enthusiasm and fervour without knowledge, emotion without insight, ignorance of the objectives of Shari’ah (Islamic legal theory) and complexity of the reality. Instead of remaining a school of education and thinking, the group turned into a confrontational political entity that replaced jurisprudence with slogans and scholarly research with organisational loyalty.
Many scholars of Al-Azhar have become aware of the danger of this ideology. Shaykh al-Maraghi – in his early days – hoped for good in al-Banna. But he later called for the dissolution of all religious groups, foremost among them was (MB) because they presumed to issue fatwas and engage in da’wah without knowledge. He was followed by prominent scholars like ‘Abdullah Diraz and al-Subki who affirmed that (MB) deviated from the path of established scholars. Even his Sufi teacher, ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Hasafi under whom al-Banna studied before later diverging–warned him from the outset saying, “This path will burden people beyond their capcity and will not lead to any go.” He even predicted that he would be killed because of his stubbornness – as narrated by his student al-Qalyubi. However, al-Banna misunderstood the advice and continued his path clinging to his own view until he met the end that history has recorded.
Therefore, it could be said that Hasan al-Banna’s legacy was not a knowledge-based ideology, but rather a movement driven by emotion that ultimately ended in violence. He left behind an organisation that mixed religion with politics, monopolised faith for themselves and considered others to be outside the fold of Islam. Over time, this approach produced generations of extremist groups who took up arms and raised the banner of takfir.
Al-Banna could have been a true reformer if he had adhered to the scholarly method and shown humility before knowledge. Instead, he chose the path of fervour over wisdom, thereby opening the door to a new form of Kharijiti in a modern guise. Consequently, his real legacy – according to some researchers – is the intellectual and organisational chaos whose effects continue to shake the Islamic world to this day.
The most significant lesson to be drawn from Hasan al-Banna’s experience is that (‘ilm) knowledge must precede da’wah (preaching), reason must take precedence over emotion, and clear vision must come before mobilisation. Any project founded on fervour without knowledge is destined to collapse, and any movement that neglects the supreme objectives of Shari’ah (Islamic legal theory) is liable to become a burden upon the Ummah (Muslim community). Accordingly, the term that most aptly encapsulates al-Banna’s legacy is regret: his own regret over what he failed to uphold and the Muslim community’s regret over the divisions and bloodshed that his ideas are seen to have engendered.
