Finally, Islam need not be apologetic about how it has treated its Jews. I thought you knew.
Abdelaleem El-Abyad
Press and Information Bureau
Embassy of the Arab Republic
of Egypt, Washington
Bernard Lewis replies:
Mr. El-Abyad’s reply to my discussion of the new anti-Semitic campaign in some Muslim countries makes essentially three points: (1) it didn’t happen; (2) it was justified; (3) the Jews themselves are as bad or worse.
Mr. El-Abyad concedes the existence of manifestations of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, but dismisses them as “very limited” and “verbal.” My article drew on an extensive range of newspapers and magazines in several countries, and relied exclusively, not on verbal, but on written and printed sources, none of which he has questioned.
Mr. El-Abyad complains that I did not discuss the various Israeli policies and actions which provoked Arab hostility. Indeed I did not discuss them, for precisely the same reason that I did not discuss the innumerable Arabic books, articles, and other statements condemning these policies and actions. Israel is a state, Zionism an ideology, and it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions of the one and the doctrines of the other, without incurring any charge of prejudice or bigotry. My article is not concerned with such criticisms, but with something else—the appearance of racist anti-Semitism of the European type, attacking not just Israel and Zionism, but Jews in general, and using anti-Semitic themes such as Holocaust denial, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and the plot to rule the world, and the innate, genetic, and eternal evil of the Jews. If Mr. El-Abyad really believes in the carcinogenic cucumbers, the fake Holocaust, the genuine “Protocols,” and the rest, then his attempt to justify the anti-Semitic campaign that I described becomes, if not acceptable, then at least intelligible. If he does not, it is neither.
Mr. El-Abyad invites comparison with other occupations and conflicts. There have indeed been many, in Eastern Europe, in South Asia, in Africa, resulting in massacre and displacement on a vastly greater scale than in the Middle East. None of them, as far as I am aware, has produced this kind of vicious racist campaign.
Mr. El-Abyad’s third argument, that the Jews are as bad or worse, relies on undocumented statements attributed to unnamed “extremists.” There are certainly Jews in both Israel and the United States who harbor and give vent to such racist prejudices. But to compare the slogans of an extremist fringe with a campaign in which mainstream editors, authors, officials, and academic and religious dignitaries participate is, surely, somewhat misleading. The same may be said of Mr. El-Abyad’s comparison of boycotts by one or another private group with the formal banning of a film by governments.
Mr. El-Abyad must surely be aware that there is now, in Israel, a school of writers, known as the “new historians,” who have made a great effort to present, to Israelis, the Palestinian point of view of the events of 1948–49 and later. An episode in a nationally-produced television series, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, did the same. These are criticized by many, in Israel and elsewhere, as excessively sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view— but they are published and broadcast. One of the sadder aspects of this whole problem is that so far one has looked in vain for any objective—let alone sympathetic—presentation in Arabic of a Jewish point of view on any of these matters. As the case of Schindler’s List demonstrates, even compassion for Jews is banned.
In concluding my article I quoted some new voices from the Arab side, pleading for mutual tolerance and understanding. I can only regret that Mr. El-Abyad did not choose to add his voice to theirs.
It would be pointless to discuss a number of other basically irrelevant matters that Mr. El-Abyad raises, such as the movements of refugees into—and one might add out of—Egypt, the treatment of dhimmis, etc. I would however like to correct two errors of fact. According to Mr. El-Abyad, I was “very proud” of the Israeli inquiry into Sabra and Shatilla, and I claimed that this “could not happen in any Arab country.” I said nothing of the kind, merely that “no such inquiry was held in any Arab country”—by no means the same thing. I was of course referring specifically to the two Arab countries immediately affected, Syria and Lebanon. I found, and still find, it remarkable that neither of them held any public inquiry into a matter of such direct concern to them. And there is nothing in this wretched affair to cause pride to me or indeed to anyone else.
The other inaccuracy which I would like to correct is minor and personal. I am not and have never been a “Professor of Islamic Studies,” nor would I regard the use of such a title by a non-Muslim as appropriate.
Mr. El-Abyad is, of course, entitled to his opinion of my scholarship, as I am entitled to my opinion of his diplomacy,
but no useful purpose would be served by our exchanging views in this context. I should, however, like to thank him for the courtesy and moderation of his language, compared with most of the texts which I studied for my article.
December 1998
To the Editor:
In response to Bernard Lewis’s fine article, “Muslim AntiSemitism” [MEQ, June 1998], Abdelaleem El-Abyad’s letter [MEQ, September 1998] contains three enduring misconceptions regarding Lebanon that require a response because it comes from seemingly so authoritative a source.
Mr. El-Abyad alludes first to what he calls Israel’s “unprovoked invasion of Lebanon” in 1982. The head of his embassy’s press and information bureau seems oblivious to the armed and belligerent Palestinian presence in Lebanon since 1968 that provoked the Israeli action. Successive Lebanese governments had urged Palestinian organizations in Lebanon to restrain and modify their reckless and irresponsible strategies in confronting Israel; their refusal to comply led to Lebanon’s breakdown in 1975, two Israeli invasions in 1978 and 1982, the establishment of Israel’s “security zone” in South Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, and displaced Lebanese citizens, countless billions of dollars in destruction and losses to the Lebanese economy, and the eventual takeover of the country by Syria.
Second, Israel is hardly alone in having fomented violence in Lebanon; Egypt too was among the many neighboring countries that had a role in this. For example, the Egyptian-sponsored ‘Ayn Jalut brigade of the Palestinian Liberation Army (PLA) participated in several sectarian massacres in Lebanon, including the destruction of the coastal city of Damur in 1976, resulting in the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of innocent civilians.
Third, on the question of the 1982 massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla, Mr. Lewis accurately notes that the Israeli authorities had undertaken several investigations; neither the Syrians nor Palestinians did anything comparable, either on this occasion or in the scores of other massacres and atrocities in Lebanon in which they had roles. Worse, the two individuals—Elie Hobeika and Pierre Rizk— who shared command of the Lebanese Forces (Phalangists) at the time of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre have flourished in Syrian-controlled Lebanon. Hobeika has been one of the most trusted people in Lebanon by Damascus since at least 1985 and an influential minister in the Syrian-controlled Lebanese government since 1990. Rizk, who long collaborated with the PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization] leadership, is currently reaping millions of dollars as a business front for Yasir Arafat and his wife Suha. Where are the Syrian or Palestinian inquiries into their leaderships’ close connections to these two?
These errors are symptomatic of a larger problem. In an exchange of correspondence I had in late 1996 with Ahmed Maher El-Sayed, Egypt’s ambassador to Washington, His Excellency would not acknowledge that Syria is an occupying force in Lebanon nor that there is a need for all foreign forces to withdraw from the country.
Time and again, in other words, the Egyptian Embassy in Washington engages in distortions when it deals with the Lebanese situation.
Daniel Nassif
Executive Director
American Leb
anese Institute
Abdelaleem El-Abyad replies:
Daniel Nassif’s comments are extraneous to the determination of guilt in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre or to the central arguments in my letter to the Middle East Quarterly. The world’s court of public opinion, including that in the United States, long ago had passed its verdict on this matter, as anyone can verify by revisiting coverage by leading American newspapers of this great tragedy.
Mr. Nassif is fully entitled to his views about Egypt, although they are shared neither by successive Lebanese governments nor [by] the overwhelming majority of Lebanese people who rightly believe Egypt to be their steadfast friend and ally. The many bonds that tie our peoples are too numerous to count. Nothing ever will sour this relationship.
Abdelaleem El-Abyad
Press and Information Bureau
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Washington
TARIQ RAMADAN
Interreligious Dialogue
Excerpt from Western Muslims and the Future of Islam
[This excerpt, a chapter called “Interreligious Dialogue,” is distinctive for arguing, contrary to some interpretations of the Qur’an, that the Qur’an does not mandate conflict between Jews and Christians. Ramadan, a controversialand influential Muslim scholar, made careful footnoted referencesto the Qur’an.]
THERE IS A very long tradition of interreligious dialogue. At various times in history, in very diverse contexts, people of various religions have engaged in interreligious exchanges to try to understand one another better; they have succeeded in gaining one another’s respect and have managed not only to live but also to work together on shared endeavors. Today, we feel the need to engage even more in this process: Western societies’ religious pluralism makes mutual knowledge essential. At the same time, technical developments have changed our view of the world, and daily images of societies and customs different from our own arouse our curiosity. More dramatically, acts of violence perpetrated in the name of religion challenge our awareness: how can such horror be justified in the name of religion? How can we understand it? How can we prevent it?
Many groups of specialists have been formed in recent years. At colloquia, conferences, and seminars, they meet to try to build bridges, discuss sensitive subjects, and prevent conflicts. With time, these specialists in dialogue have come to know one another and to enjoy excellent relationships founded on courtesy and respect. This is an important gain. Nevertheless, the problem remains that these are fairly closed circles whose members are not always in real contact with their own religious groups, and this makes it difficult to convey to the heart of each religious community the advances made in these numerous meetings. Moreover, whole sections of these communities are neither concerned with nor touched by the various dialogues that are taking place. Those who meet do not represent the various denominations, schools of thought, or tendencies of the adherents of their religion. Those who hold the most closed opinions, which in daily life are the cause of the real problem, never meet. Thus, we have, on both the national and international levels, a very uneven picture: dialogue is well under way between specialists from each religion who are more or less open-minded, while ordinary believers meet only rarely1 and the most entrenched and radical views are never voiced. Common sense and logic would encourage us to hope for the opposite: the specialists do not, or no longer, really need dialogue, and it is within religious communities and between those with the most radical views that the debate should take place. It is a vicious circle: it is precisely because people do not know one another, or reject one another, that dialogue is impossible.
The responsibility of people involved in dialogue between religions is in fact doubly important: whether they have become specialists or are simply members of an interreligious group, it is vital that they play the role of mediators between their partners in dialogue and their coreligionists. It is a question of listening to the other side, challenging it and questioning it in order to increase understanding and then of getting involved in working within one’s own community, informing, explaining, even teaching. At the same time, participants in dialogue should express their own convictions, clarify the place of their own sense of religion among other views held within their religious family, and respond as well as they can to the questions of their partners in dialogue. By acting in this way they create, between the various traditions, areas of trust, sustained by shared convictions and values that, even though they certainly do not bring the extremes together, do open real horizons for living together and at least allow ruptures to be avoided and conflicts better managed.
The need for interreligious dialogue is not in any doubt, but some people still do not understand its real usefulness and purpose. What exactly is it about? Does one want to convert the other? Can one get involved with a clear conscience? What is the real impact of these fine words about respect and living together when we look at how believers from each religion behave? Is there not a place for being doubtful or suspicious about the intentions of one or other side if we take the time to read the scriptural sources? These questions cannot simply be swept under the carpet. They are of primary importance, because, unless they are clearly and succinctly answered, we run the risk of having an outwardly agreeable dialogue that does not eliminate the mistrust and suspicion and that in the end leads nowhere. Let us try, from within the Muslim tradition, to suggest possible answers to these questions, beginning with the last.
THE ISLAMIC TRADITION AND INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
We recall . . . that, according to Muslims, the last Revelation taught them to recognize all the books of the prophets who had gone before. They all had the same purpose: to remind human beings of the presence of the Creator and the finiteness of life on earth. The Islamic tradition’s concept of humankind emerged through this teaching: after forgiving Adam his sin, God told men: “A guidance will certainly come to you from me. Those who follow my guidance will have nothing to fear and will not grieve.” 2 This guidance is the series of Revelations that came throughout human history, each to confirm, complete, and correct the preceding.
NECESSARY DIVERSITY
So individuals, innocent and free, have to make their choices (either to accept or to reject the Revelation); there will necessarily be diversity among people, and so these three seemingly similar verses contain teachings that augment and complete each other: “Had God so willed, He would have united them [human beings] in guidance, so do not be among the ignorant” 3; “If your Lord had so willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Is it for you to compel people to be believers?”4; “If God had willed, He would have made you one community but things are as they are to test you in what He has given you. So compete with each other in doing good.”5 The first verse instructs us that diversity is willed by the Transcendent, the second makes clear that, in the name of that will, compulsion in matters of religion is forbidden,6 and the Revelation teaches that the purpose of these differences is to test us in order to discover what we are going to do with what has been revealed to us: the last commandment is to use these differences to “compete in doing good.” Diversity of religions, nations, and peoples is a test because it requires that we learn to manage difference, which is in itself essential: “If God did not enable some men to keep back others, the world would be corrupt. But God is the One who gives grace to the worlds”; 7 “If God did not enable some men to keep back others, hermitages, synagogues, chapels and mosques where the name of God is often called upon, would have been demolished.” 8 These two verses give complementary information that is of prime importance: if there were no differences between people, if power were in the hands of one group alone (one nation, one race, or one religion), the earth would be corrupt because human beings need others to limit their impulsive desire for expansion and domination. The last verse is more precise with regard to our present discussion; it refers to places of worship to indicate that if there is to be a diversity of religions, the purpose is to safeguard
them all: the fact that the list of places begins with hermitages, synagogues, and chapels before referring to mosques shows recognition of all these places of worship and their inviolability and, of course, respect for those who pray there. So, just as diversity is the source of our test, the balance of power is a requirement for our destiny.
Difference might naturally lead to conflict; therefore, the responsibility of humankind is to make use of difference by establishing a relationship based on excelling one another in doing good. It is vital that the balance of power be based not on a tension born of rejection or mutual ignorance but fundamentally on knowledge: “O people, we have created you from a male and a female, we have divided you into nations and tribes so that you might know one another.” 9 Knowing the other is a process that is unavoidable if fear of difference is to be overcome and mutual respect is to be attained. So human beings live a test that is necessary for their nature but that they can—and must—master by making the effort to know and recognize those who are not of their tribe, their country, their race, or their religion.10 Dialogue, particularly interreligious dialogue, is indispensable.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF DIALOGUE
All believers who participate in interreligious dialogue do so having been nourished by a faith or a conviction on the basis of which they understand themselves, perceive the world, and build relations with those around them. Their connection with Truth, with the beliefs of others, and with diversity in general is directly influenced by the content and nature of that faith or conviction. The centrality of tawhid in the message of Islam has been strongly emphasized. It is the principle on which the whole of Islamic teaching rests and is the axis and point of reference on which Muslims rely in dialogue. The intimate awareness of tawhid forms the perception of the believer, who understands that plurality has been chosen by the One, that He is the God of all beings and that He requires that each be respected: “. . . and say: ‘We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you; our God and your God is the One.’ ” 11 It is out of this conviction that Muslims engage in dialogue, and this is assumed in forming relations with the other. What establishes difference from the other, and consequently the direction and terms of the dialogue that is to be built, is whether or not there is commitment to the expression of an absolute monotheism.12 This is why the Qur’anic call to the Jews and Christians begins with: “O people of the book, come to agreed terms between us and you: that we worship none but God, that we do not attribute any associate to Him and that none of us takes other divinities apart from Him. If they turn away, say: ‘Be witnesses that we are submitting ourselves [muslimun].’ ”13 Firmly asserting this principle indicates that tawhid is the point of reference on the basis of which a Muslim engages in discussion: if there are differences on this central point, it is then necessary that dialogue be entered into and developed on the basis of shared values and teachings, since the last Revelation recognizes those that came before:14 “God, there is no god but God. It is He who sent down the Book [the Qur’an] upon you [Muhammad] in all truth confirming what came before. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before as a guidance for people, and He sent down the Discernment [al-furqan] the Qur’an.”15 This recognition is fundamental and opens up the way for dialogue, which, although it forces us to see our differences, is bound to establish bridges between convictions and traditions.
Those Who Forget the Past Page 58
