AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Some time ago, Al-Azhar in Egypt issued a controversial statement against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which Iran's defensive actions were labeled as "aggression" and "rebellion" (baghy).
Hojat al-Islam Ali Asghar Mojtahedzadeh, a professor at the seminary and a member of the Faculty, Administrators, and Elites Mobilization of the Qom Seminary, discussed various dimensions of this statement, Al-Azhar's clear contradictions in selective condemnations, and Egypt's political and economic dependencies on the United States and Arab countries of the Persian Gulf in an interview with ABNA.
ABNA: Some time ago, Al-Azhar issued a statement condemning the Islamic Republic of Iran using the phrase "Iran's aggression against the UAE." In your opinion, what does this political approach by Al-Azhar indicate? It is said that these political statements are issued under political and governmental pressure from the Egyptian government.
Mojtahedzadeh: Your question about Al-Azhar's positions in the recent statement has provoked serious criticism in the Islamic world. This silence and selective condemnation, more than reflecting "Al-Azhar's policy," stem from the difficult situation and multi-layered dependencies of the Egyptian government.
According to legal documents and existing reports, the attack on the Shajareh Tayabeh school in Minab took place on February 28, 2026. In this attack, carried out with Tomahawk cruise missiles and American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, out of a total of 168 martyrs, at least 120 were students and the rest were teachers. This "war crime" became the deadliest event of the war for civilians. But why did Al-Azhar remain silent in the face of such a catastrophe yet condemned Iran's defensive attack? This contradiction has raised fundamental questions about the independence and ethical standards of this religious institution. Furthermore, while Al-Azhar condemned Iran, the Iranian armed forces have repeatedly announced that they have carried out no missile or drone operations against the UAE, and that these attacks were solely in defense of Iran's sovereignty and in response to American attacks on nuclear facilities. Al-Azhar's selective positions in recent regional events show a clear picture of a dual approach that has drawn widespread criticism.
To understand this contradiction, one must look beyond the statements and consider Al-Azhar not as a completely independent religious institution but as part of Egypt's political structure, which itself is caught in deep political constraints.
1. Limited Independence vis-à-vis the Government: The Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar is appointed by the Egyptian government, and the institution's positions rarely go beyond the framework of Cairo's foreign policy. During the recent war, the Egyptian government refrained from explicitly condemning Washington or Tel Aviv. Analysts view this approach not as neutrality but as a "political calculation" based on "strategic risk management," which Al-Azhar also follows.
2. Economic Dependency on Persian Gulf Arab Countries: Cairo is heavily dependent on financial aid from Persian Gulf countries (especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia). These countries have invested tens of billions of dollars to help Egypt overcome its economic crises. Therefore, condemning attacks that these countries considered strikes on their own soil is an economic necessity for Egypt.
3. Strategic Relationship with the United States: Egypt is the second-largest recipient of U.S. military and financial aid after Israel. Cairo receives approximately $1.3 billion annually in direct military aid from Washington. Confronting the United States could have had irreparable financial and diplomatic costs for Egypt's fragile economy.
4. Geopolitical Rivalry with Iran: The resistance axis led by Iran has long been a geopolitical rival of the Arab-Western axis led by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. From this perspective, Iran's narrative of "defending sovereignty" against "aggression" finds no buyer in Cairo. Ultimately, Al-Azhar's dual stance shows that the institution's behavior, rather than being governed by Islamic ethical principles, fairness, or international law, stems from the deep dependencies of the Egyptian government on the West and Persian Gulf Arab countries. Al-Azhar's silence in the face of the Minab disaster and its condemnation of Iran's defensive action depict a preference for political interests over truth-seeking and support for the oppressed—an approach that has seriously challenged the long-standing credibility of this religious institution in the Islamic world.
ABNA: One of the issues raised in Al-Azhar's one-sided statements is its one-sided view of political and regional matters. For example, in this recent statement, there is no mention whatsoever of the UAE's record of providing bases to the United States, its financial and logistical collaboration with the U.S. in the attack on Iran, or its coordination and complicity with the Zionist regime. Only Iran's defensive actions are called aggression. In your opinion, how can this one-sided view undermine Al-Azhar's position as a scholarly institution?
Mojtahedzadeh: This one-sided approach by Al-Azhar, in an analytical view, can undermine the scholarly and jurisprudential credibility of this institution. Credible scholars must be able to critique political and regional approaches and benefit from balance and justice in their statements. Ignoring the records of other countries and focusing solely on the false propaganda of the enemies of Islam leads to distrust in its pronouncements and pushes the international community and regional scholars toward doubting its impartiality and scholarly rigor. Consequently, the continuation of this trend will challenge Al-Azhar's scholarly position and religious authority in the global arena and have a negative impact on its academic and religious credibility.
ABNA: Al-Azhar has used the term "baghy" (rebellion) regarding Iran's actions against the UAE. In your opinion, how can this argument be critiqued and examined from a jurisprudential perspective?
Mojtahedzadeh: In Islamic jurisprudence, "baghy" means deviating from the bounds of religion and Sharia or transgressing the rights of others. Al-Azhar's argument that Iran's actions constitute "baghy" is fundamentally contradictory to all Islamic schools of thought if Iran's actions are considered legitimate defense against actual aggression by American, Emirati, and other forces. Defending oneself, one's property, and one's national security is permissible and even obligatory in Islamic jurisprudence, and cannot be considered "baghy." Furthermore, from the perspective of international law, any legitimate defensive action is justifiable within the framework of international law. Therefore, the use of the term "baghy" does not align with precise jurisprudential and legal standards and is considered aiding the enemies of religions
ABNA: Al-Azhar's statement accuses Iran of attacking citizens and economic centers, while Iran's defensive actions were aimed at repelling UAE aggression and protecting its legitimate interests in the Strait of Hormuz. How can prominent scholars, through discussions, communications, and diplomacy, correct Al-Azhar's mistaken path and position?
Mojtahedzadeh: Prominent scholars and religious centers, especially the seminaries of Najaf and Qom, must engage in dialogue and exchange views with Al-Azhar authorities and scholars through scholarly correspondence, jurisprudential and philosophical meetings, and regional cooperation. Clarifying positions of truth and justice, emphasizing the continuation of dialogue and the maintenance of good neighborliness, and presenting scholarly and humanitarian perspectives against common enemies can be effective in correcting mistaken stances. Additionally, active participation in international forums and explaining Iran's legal and natural position in the region, along with referrals to reputable jurisprudential and legal authorities, can help find ways to correct and moderate erroneous statements.
ABNA: While Al-Azhar calls on the Islamic Republic of Iran to respect good neighborliness and observe international law, it unfortunately turns a blind eye to the widespread aggression of the Zionist regime in the region. It also makes no mention of the responsible role of Arab countries, especially the UAE, toward their neighbor Iran. The American and Zionist enemy repeatedly used the UAE's land and airspace to act against Islamic Iran and target various Iranian cities. This one-sided assessment suggests that ethnic considerations may have overshadowed Al-Azhar's jurisprudential principles. What is your analysis?
Mojtahedzadeh: Your point is very well taken. Many statements and positions of regional institutions are influenced by political, ethnic, and even expedient factors. The one-sided and under-analyzed view may be due to the influence of national interests, political considerations, or external pressures. Consequently, it is essential to strengthen a scholarly and jurisprudential perspective free from political and ethnic dependencies to preserve the scientific and religious authority of these centers and to solidify their role in correctly explaining the foundations of Islam and regional justice.
ABNA: How should religious figures, seminary centers, and international institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran improve their proper relations with scholarly centers such as Al-Azhar and correct their perspectives?
Mojtahedzadeh: Developing religious, scholarly, and cultural relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and prominent centers of the Islamic world, especially Al-Azhar, requires positive interaction, mutual respect, and a shared will to preserve justice and righteousness. This can be achieved through deep dialogue, scholarly and political discussions based on shared interests, and Islamic and humanitarian concepts.
**************
End/ 345E
