“Speaking Truth to Power in Challenging Times: Lessons from the Arab Spring Politics of Muslim Jurists” by Muhammad Amasha

Image by Bassel Zaki from Pixabay.

I spent the last six years studying the politics of intellectuals, broadly understood as people of knowledge. While I mainly focused on some leading Egyptian religious Muslim jurists’ stances on the 2011 Arab Revolutions, I have also observed intellectuals adhering to other traditions at different politically charged moments. As a sociologist seeking to understand why intellectuals take certain political positions, I had to collect detailed data about the intellectuals I studied and their political environments so that I could be in their shoes while they deliberated on what position to take. I can say for sure that they were often in difficult situations that no one would really wish to be in. But unfortunately, we often are! In this piece, I share my findings on some of the pressing challenges intellectuals face during political crises.

The Ideal Intellectual

There are various and, at times, competing discourses on who the ideal intellectual or scholar is. A professional discourse might depict the ideal intellectual as one working in a top institution with widely cited publications. Another discourse emphasizes the intellectual the teacher whose mission is to mentor students and nourish their love of knowledge. Some discourses celebrate the technocratic intellectuals whose aim is to help the state bureaucracy accomplish its goals. Others refuse to grant legitimacy to intellectuals unless they embody what they teach and write about.

Among these discourses is one that many people in different traditions are familiar with: the scholar who speaks truth to power, regardless of the consequence. The relationship between cultural and political elites is subject to heated normative discussions in many traditions throughout history. Through different vocabularies and narratives, some scholars view their role as a check and balance over political authorities and consider other scholars who serve the state to betray truth and knowledge. On the other hand, some intellectuals consider cooperative, non-confrontational relations with the political elite, even if corrupt, as an effective way to influence decision-makers in the right direction. The reality, of course, is more complicated than these ideal types, but these discourses still get invoked during politically charged moments.  

During the Arab uprising, tense debates between Muslim scholars erupted. A group of scholars who joined the uprisings against some of the region’s authoritarian regimes waged a war of criticism against scholars who were complicit with the regime’s violence against protestors. They spoke of two opposed types of scholars: Quranic vs. sultanic scholars. The former are true scholars who follow the Truth unapologetically, fear no political authority, and courageously speak up against its violations. For them, the duty of the scholar is to make clear truth and falsehood so that the banner of the Truth continues to be upheld in the community, whatever the price is. In their debate, scholars invoke Quranic verses that support this discourse, “Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences, and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers. Except those who repent and do righteous deeds, and openly declare (the truth which they concealed). These, I will accept their repentance. And I am the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful” (Quran: 21:159-160). In that regard, speaking against oppression is a duty, which sultanic scholars are depicted to betray.

The other camp of scholars pushed against this discourse, asserting that any confrontational relations with the political elite are more harmful than beneficial for the society. While they recognized that the ideal scholar in Islamic history has been the one who keeps a distance from the political elite, they believe that this should not be the case in modern times, where the state has become the strongest actor in society. For them, speaking truth to power in an inciteful way is destabilizing, and they prefer to deliver advice through private channels and in a gentle manner, accusing their opponents of seeking the approval of the people rather than the Truth. Cooperating with the state is the only way to empower scholars to deliver their message, they assert. But just like the first camp, this camp considers it unethical to have ties with the political elite for one’s self-interests rather than the public good or to justify the state’s oppression or injustice.

People familiar with other traditions can see parallels of this debate across time and space (think of Sartre’s ideal of the engaged philosopher and his critique of intellectuals who don’t take a side against oppression, or C. Wright Mills’s writings against state-serving and self-censoring intellectuals, etc.). My research, however, shows that putting these ideals into practice is extremely difficult. 

Heroism and Political Personal Threats

“Those who deliver the messages of Allah, and fear Him, and fear no one except Allah” (Quran 33:39), the motto of the International Union of Muslim Scholars

The depiction of intellectuals, at least “true” ones, as disinterested, principled beings is common. Indeed, some intellectuals feel deeply offended if anyone suggests that their actions are motivated by interests rather than principles. Seeking one’s interest seems to be the antithesis of what many intellectuals think of themselves. But what I found is that in real life, speaking truth to power inevitably involves interest calculations, or to be more specific, cost calculations. 

Intellectuals are offered jobs, positions, grants, and awards, among others. Speaking the truth can put these in jeopardy. People can be rejected in applications, denied coverage, doxed, or halted from receiving awards. Sacrificing a materially comfortable life or achieving wide academic or popular recognition is not always easy for many intellectuals. The cost can even increase by losing employment and putting one’s livelihood at risk. Indeed, some of the scholars I studied discussed how the modern state turned religious scholars into salaried employees, curtailing their independence that depended on education endowments nationalized by the modern state. 

But I also studied cases where the sacrifice is way higher. Speaking truth to power can end up with intellectuals’ detention, exile, deportation, torture, or even murder. Economic researcher Ayman Hadhoud and Cambridge PhD student Giulio Regeni were just two examples of people killed under the regime’s torture in Egypt. The world has developed tools of surveillance and violence that deem intellectuals’ autonomy seriously difficult. Besides these state security threats, intellectuals face state legitimacy threats where the state uses its surveillance technology and propaganda machine for character assassinations, which, if successful, can practically end intellectuals’ careers. Under these conditions, being a hero is hard as people think of themselves, their families, children, and loved ones, and how a word can turn their lives into hell. As a result, some of the intellectuals I studied opted to become state mercenaries. Still, I have observed others who stood fast and took heroic stances. 

But being heroic in one moment does not mean that an intellectual can sustain this heroism all along. Heroism sustained uncompromised means a war waged nonstop on all political authorities as no political authority is perfect. It also means a life full of fear and anxiety with no protection from many powerful enemies, often ending with martyrdom. That is why most intellectuals either rethink speaking truth to power or prioritize certain struggles over others to find allies and protectors to be able to live. 

Rethinking speaking truth to power can be justified with consequentialist ethics: if speaking truth to power won’t change anything except by turning one’s life into hell, then maybe it is not the right thing to do. It could also be justified through religious texts like prophet Muhammad’s saying, “Whoever amongst you sees an evil, he must change it with his hand; if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart; and that is the weakest form of faith” (Sahih Muslim), which provide three levels of civic engagement based on one’s ability. The other path I observed was to prioritize certain struggles and be silent about others. I observed scholars who moved away from their homeland to have the liberty to criticize their regimes while making peace with the imperfect states they live in. 

All in all, cost calculation is often integral to the process of speaking truth to power. Intellectuals’ degrees of heroism vary. Some end up being mercenaries, while others try different tactics that can allow them to have a relatively secure life while partially speaking the truth to power. Total heroes, probably by definition, are very rare. 

Universalism and Political Communal Threats

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the whim, lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.” (Quran, 4:135)

Intellectuals’ inconsistency in speaking truth to power does not come only from navigating personal threats. It also happens as a result of navigating threats to their communities. While the former jeopardizes intellectuals’ heroism, the latter jeopardizes their universalism (i.e., following the principle regardless of the identity of those involved). While universalism is hardly attainable due to inherent human limitations, it is further compromised when intellectuals abstain from following their principles when that threatens their communities.

The reason why universalism is practically unattainable is because humans cannot transcend their social embeddedness. That is, we cannot know all information from all perspectives about everything in the world (maybe even about one thing in the world). This limited capacity makes us inevitably biased, and especially so at times when we don’t have enough access to various points of view due to lacking personal connections, linguistic barriers, or limited time. Thus, scholars, judges, and truth-seeking people do their best to collect as much evidence as possible from various perspectives, aided by practices of reflexivity.

In politically volatile situations, the dilemma between doing the right thing regardless of the consequences and protecting one’s community against potential threats is one that I found many intellectuals respond to by sidelining universalism. That is because we are often socialized into ethical principles that celebrate the moral heroism of standing up for the truth consistently and universally (which is called conviction ethics), along with moral teachings of standing up to protect our communities (which is called responsibility ethics). Protecting one’s homeland, people, party, community, co-religionists, or family is taught by parents and teachers and permeates many of the teachings children are exposed to. 

Conviction and responsibility ethics clash in politically volatile situations where taking a principled position would pose a threat to one’s community: e.g., criticizing the mistakes of one’s party might lead to its failure in elections; respecting international law might be perceived to put one’s country in a weaker position; approving a popular uprising against an authoritarian government that belongs to one’s own sect might lead to a perceived threat of an reverse sectarianism. In many situations where the threat seems existential, intellectuals opt for responsibility ethics, jeopardizing universalism.

Giving up on speaking the truth by opting for responsibility ethics is sometimes justified with legal maxims in Islamic jurisprudence like “the lesser of two evils is to be chosen” or “avoiding harm takes precedence over bringing about benefit,” where evil, harm, or benefit are practically evaluated subjectively by scholars. This is similar to arguments by intellectuals who advocate violating human rights because, otherwise, liberal democracy or communism itself would be endangered.

Simply put, intellectuals’ universalism is often put to the test by the clash between speaking truth to power and protecting one’s community from potential threats. While some intellectuals might stick to their convictions, others consider protecting their communities a moral priority, jeopardizing universalism. 

Conclusion

We should not view intellectuals, religious scholars, or jurists as exceptional. When it comes to political, personal or communal threats, they are just like all human beings: few are heroic and universalist, the majority opt for self and communal preservation. Just like most traditions and cultures have ethical imperatives exalting heroism and universalism, they often also have others instructing protecting one’s self and community at the expense of heroism and universalism, respectively. Resolving the dilemmas between these teachings is onerous. ♦

---

---

Recommended Citation

Amasha, Muhammad. “Speaking Truth to Power in Challenging Times: Lessons from the Arab Spring Politics of Muslim Jurists.” Canopy Forum, April 10, 2025. https://canopyforum.org/2025/04/10/speaking-truth-to-power-in-challenging-times-lessons-from-the-arab-spring-politics-of-muslim-jurists/.

Recent Posts