|
A.C.N - Aid to the Church in Need Italian Office |
Religious Freedom in
the Majority Islamic Countries |
|
Appendices Interview with Father Samir Khalil Samir, by Vittorio Emanuele Vernole Interview with Muhammad Sa’id al-Ashmawi, by Andrea Morigi
Interview with Father Samir Khalil Samir
Father Samir Khalil Samir, a Jesuit, was born in Cairo and is today a professor of Oriental Theology at the theology faculty of the St Joseph’s University in Beirut, Lebanon. He also teaches at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome and runs the CEDRAC centre he founded (Centre for Arab-Christian Documentation and Research).
I would like to discuss the problem of the religious freedom of Christians in Islamic countries, and to start from your own personal experience. You are Egyptian in origin and you live and teach in Lebanon - Beirut, in a country which has been for many years a unique example of harmonious coexistence and respect between Christians and Muslims. However, with the long civil war which shook the country, many things have changed. What is the situation for Christians in Lebanon today? I can say that the situation is good, if only for the reason that Lebanon is not an Islamic country. It is a country where the Muslims are numerous, perhaps the majority, but fortunately it is a country that does not define itself as Islamic, unlike all the other Arab countries. Lebanon is the only country which is both Arab and non-Muslim; this is expressed at the legal level in the fact that by law the President of the Republic must be a Christian, while the Prime Minister must be a Muslim. The reality of Lebanon, which goes back to 1923 when its constitution was established, is the fruit of an attitude among the Christians of Lebanon, an attitude that has always struck me. I am an Egyptian, I have lived in various Arab countries, but I have been struck by the difference I see in the Christians of Lebanon, and in part also of those in Syria. In Egypt we have an attitude of slaves, due to centuries of submission which have induced in us an attitude of passivity. This has also produced a particular kind of spirituality, a beautiful one, in which one sees the aspect of Christian acceptance of suffering. In Lebanon and in Syria this is not so. They do not keep quiet when something is not right; even though in Syria the percentage of Christians is less than that in Egypt. In Syria they are not afraid; they have a pride one does not find in Egypt. This results from centuries of history and this kind of attitude has become second nature to them. If the Christians in Lebanon were to become a minority much smaller than the Muslims, they would continue to demand their rights as citizens. They have created another mentality.
What is the sociological, ideological and religious basis of the discrimination and persecution which have affected the Christians? The problem of Islam cannot be understood without reference to the politics. The injustices are everywhere; we are accustomed to regarding as normal the fact that the minorities must fight for their own rights. What strikes one is that in the Muslim countries there is an immediate identification of religion with politics, which legitimizes the legal status of inferiority of those who are not of the Muslim religion. In the Islamic countries those who govern have two aims - first to protect the Muslim religion, to assure in other words that it is observed, by every means at their disposal, and secondly to extend Islam into all the world. This is the classic theory of the Muslim jurists; it is nothing new. Islam is "religion and society". Seen in this way one can understand how every effort is made - economic, cultural, and political, to extend Islam. The other characteristic of the Islamic world is the prevalence of the community over the individual, which means in effect that the notion of liberty of conscience or the rights of the individual - two concepts which, for good or ill, have for two centuries distinguished the Western world - have only minimally been acknowledged by Islamic culture. The legal basis of the actual discrimination was laid between the 1st and the 4th centuries of the Islamic era (this corresponds to the period from the 7th to the 10th century of the Christian era). During this period all the legal system and the doctrines relating to it were developed, right up to our own age. It should also be mentioned that at the beginning of the 20th century the Islamic culture was pervaded by a vast liberal movement, inspired in part by Western influence, which to its supporters seemed like a desirable model of society. There have been great jurists in Egypt in the 1930s who have produced a positive integration of the Napoleonic Code and the traditional Islamic legislation. All this however was called into question at the beginning of the 1970s, with the war of 1973, the oil crisis, etc. The "integralist" (fundamentalist) reaction to these modernist and liberal tendencies began to emerge already after the abolition of the caliphate in 1924 on the part of Attaturk, and the birth of the movements of the "Muslim brothers" also goes back to the 1920s. However, this reaction aroused the hostility of the governments of all the Arab states (one need think only of Nasser). We have to acknowledge that the concept according to which Islam is both "religion and state" seems to be the most true to the original plan of Mohammad. When the Islamists of today demand this sociopolitical project they are being faithful to the most common and authentic Islamic tradition. In the culture of the Arab Muslim countries, the traditional vision of society finally prevailed according to which, in place of the category of citizen, there are the believers (those who follow Islam), the protected (Christians and Jews) and the infidels/unbelievers (whose fate can be either death or conversion to Islam). The fulfilment and the spread of this idea of society remains the dream of the traditionalist tendency.
Is it possible today to think a different kind of Islam? Is there any sort of dialogue or interchange between different interpretations? I believe that this is possible, but then it would be a new tradition which today is not the prevailing one. Islam was born, at its very origins, as a social and political project, and even a military one; I believe that this is evident both in the Koran and in the Sunna, the tradition which includes the life and deeds of Mohammed. For a Muslim, religion and politics are inseparable. Those who by contrast propose a separation of these two levels are the so-called liberal Muslims, but they are regarded by the majority as Muslims in name only and their Islam is questioned, the more so since many of them are not practising. The Liberals maintain that in the Koran and the life of Mohammed there have been two phases; the first was that of the period of Mecca (the years 610-622), the second that of the Medina period (the years leading up to 632, the date of the death of Mohammed). If one analyses the sources, according to such an interpretation, during the Mecca period one notes that the discourse is spiritual rather than political. The language of Mohammed seems to be based on the proclamation of the oneness of God, on the final judgement which will come to all after death (a judgement on the basis of which each one will either be rewarded with Heaven or punished with hell) and finally on the call for social justice, for solidarity towards the poor. This is supposed to be the original Islam, the most authentic, according to the liberals, the primary idea as it was revealed to Mohammed. At Medina by contrast, a political Islam developed because the historical circumstances led Mohammad to create a social system, to organise the army, make war, etc. The doctrine relating to this theory, according to the liberals, is thus secondary, not necessary; valid for those particular historical circumstances but not universally. Such an interpretation is disputed by the fundamentalist Islamists, who say that it is precisely this second phase that is the true Islam, whereas the first, that of Mecca, was conditioned by the fact that Mohammad was not at all free to express his own project, that he was obliged to make concessions. When he had full power at Medina, when he was no longer under attack by the Meccans, then one saw his real project, which was a social and political project, a military and religious one. Of these two tendencies it is the second, as we have seen, which has prevailed. Besides, this is the one which in practice seems the most faithful to the original plan of Mohammed.
In what way is this project realised in the Islamic countries? We have to start from the assumption that in the vision of Islam every means is good if it contributes to the final end of the installation of the Islamic state or the protection of Islam. One sees this in the islamisation of education. Every morning in Egypt they start with the reading of the Koran; the texts of the teaching matter are full of references to Islam, whether in mathematics, in history or in literature; the learning of the Koran is obligatory for all. Another instrument of this is the humiliation of the Christians at every level. If one walks along the street wearing - even discreetly - a cross, one risks being beaten or sworn at. It is common to be insulted by children. Thus, even at the sociological level, there is a very powerful pressure which discourages the weaker ones. At a more serious level, the economic one, the discrimination against Christians means that for them the possibility of finding work is more difficult, and frequently such a possibility is limited to working privately. In this respect one should not forget that most countries have an indication of the religion of the individual on the identity card, and even where this is not the case the name itself mostly reveals the religious faith of the individual and thus determines whether he will find work or how he will be treated. Even the media play a major role in this respect. Every day in the newspapers they speak of Islam. Sometimes Christianity is violently attacked. On television too the presence of Islam is all-pervasive; the documentary programmes speak of the successes of Islam, the news broadcasts are interrupted by the prayers. In the television debates accusations are often hurled at Christians, but there is no provision for presenting the other side and no right of reply. This happens likewise in the newspapers. In the streets everywhere one hears the radio broadcasts with the five daily prayers, preceded by the call to prayer, which can last up to an hour. In Egypt it is the state radio which broadcasts the Koran 24 hours a day. It happens too that the pious Muslim, without ill intent or hostility, will turn up the volume on his radio to the maximum, so that all his neighbours can hear (this is a common feature of the Arab world). The effect nonetheless is that anyone who is a Christian has to listen the whole day to the Koran... And many Christians say we should just put up with all this... The social pressure of islamisation is extremely powerful, and its effects are much more powerful upon Christians than the provisions of the law. It is impossible to understand this if one does not live in a Muslim country and does not understand Arabic. This combination of coercive forces is similar in many respects to what happened in the Communist countries, where the laws and the institutions guaranteed freedom in theory but in reality it was not so. When we recall that in 70 years communism almost succeeded in its attempts to extinguish the religious sense of the Russian people, then we must acknowledge that, if after so many centuries in the Middle East there are still Christian communities at all, then this is truly a miracle.
In such a situation it is astonishing that the West should remain indifferent in the face of flagrant violations of human rights, and yet for public opinion, the major means of communication and our political institutions, this problem does not seem to exist... It seems to me that the West in itself is conditioned by its own history. The West is sociologically of Christian origin but for two centuries it has fought to liberate itself from religion and this religious identity. The idea has become widespread that Christianity should not enter into politics, that it is a private, a personal matter and that it should have no links with the civil life. Religion has been privatised. Many Westerners, moreover, are secularised and have just two possible attitudes towards religion: 1) religion does not concern me, it is a matter for the private individual, and 2) religion is something that must be combated. Part of the reason for this way of thinking is the polemic against the Church, seen as an institution with a hierarchical structure and with organisational bodies etc. But when they speak of Islam it is common for people to say that this is a different culture which has the right to organise itself as it sees fit, with polygamy, the state system and so forth. This typical Western reasoning places respect for other cultures first, except when it concerns the Christians of the East. Besides, given the fact that for many people religion has no meaning, even this problem of the persecution of Christians is not important. Many have interpreted through Western eyes, often imbued with Marxism, realities that are in fact completely different. This has led to gross falsifications, such as the notion that the civil war in Lebanon was to be seen as a class war, a war between poor and oppressed Muslims and rich and powerful Christians. The reality was entirely different. Another aspect of this problem is that the West, which claims to respect all cultures, only mobilises in the face of violations of values which it sees as basic. Hence, with regard to Islam and the practice of infibulation and the situation of women generally. Even the notion of tolerance which has been progressively asserted in the West is only seen in this context. It has developed into a dangerous attitude, according to which those who are different from us have by virtue of this very fact more rights and enjoy almost more protection. This way of thinking has effects also on this question because people mistakenly emphasise the minority situation of Islam in the West and the disadvantaged condition of the Islamic immigrants, while seemingly overlooking what happens where Islam is in the majority, or even the state religion.
The West seems to have almost a sense of guilt towards the countries of the Third World... This is one of the tendencies which concern me. There is an attitude of self criticism even to the point of masochism that is eroding Western society. I call it "mea culpism". In the newspapers one can read every kind of attack on Christianity, every possible nonsense talked about religion and about the most sacred things of our Faith and no one can say a word against it; it is called freedom of speech. But it is not the same thing if you write anything unwelcome about the other great religions, especially about Islam or Judaism; then they all suddenly come running to attack you and condemn you.
And again the West is very careful when it is dealing with countries that are important from an economic point of view... You only have to look at the case of Saudi Arabia, a county where the most elementary human rights are systematically ignored, in the face of absolute silence even from the great powers. All the countries, Italy just as the United States, know that in Saudi Arabia the law for immigrant workers is contrary to all the rules of humanity. When you arrive they take away your passport and you become a slave, you cannot leave their country without their permission. Every now and then there is a diplomatic incident, because a Western worker has been maltreated, but then everything goes back to normal. The fact is that those who suffer the injustices are above all workers from the Third World (from the Philippines and Sri Lanka principally) and so no one says a word. I can understand the Philippines, because the money coming from these immigrant workers in Saudi Arabia is a principal source of wealth for the country, but this silence is disgusting in the case the Western nations. It is an amoral attitude that profoundly shocks the Arab peoples; today they look towards the West with the admiration one always retains for the powerful, but also with contempt, because they understand that it is the West that is without principles.
Interview with Muhammad Sa’id al-Ashmawi
Zamalek, the island on the Nile which is home to numerous of the embassies of the Arab and Muslim countries, has among its inhabitants one person under special escort, a man who has had to live ever since 1980 with an escort of three armed police to protect his home and person. Muhammad Sa’id al-Ashmawi is a judge, one of the "enlightened", but inside his apartment, crammed with an unlikely assortment of local and Western antiquarian objects, the light of day never penetrates. Heavy velvet curtains cover the windows to prevent the bullets of the fundamentalists slipping through along with the rays of the sun - fundamentalists who would gladly be rid of his uncomfortable presence. But his isolation has not been able to stop his activities because, as he says, it is better to sacrifice one’s own life than to make oneself an accomplice of the prevalent "Islamic ideology", which is how he defines fundamentalism. Many of his works in the Arab language have been translated into English, such as the book Islam and Political Order, and he has given numerous lectures in Western universities, from Spain to the United States. An essay that has appeared in Italian is the Riflessione giuridica sul problema della "codificazione" della Shari’a, published by the Giovanni Agnelli Foundation in 1995. His story, less well known than that of Salman Rushdie, is being played out within the four walls of his own home, but in the silence of a prison. I was a counsellor at the Court of Justice in Cairo. But I preferred to resign, because the minister of justice, who was also responsible for religious affairs (Awqaf), forced me to abandon my activities. The government was not happy with the sentences I gave. But it was a sort of political persecution. They wanted to prevent me from reaching the people, though they did not go so far as to make me the subject of a fatwa (a formal condemnation by the Islamic doctors, according to Islamic custom. ed.) but limited themselves to threats. Despite this, it is a risk I run constantly, even abroad, thanks to the international attention that has been paid to my attempts at offering new definitions of our religion
Are there other intellectuals living in the same kind of circumstances in Egypt? No. Anyone who attempts to question any dogma ends up fleeing abroad. For this reason my activities have not had any apparent following, even though many intellectuals make reference to them, either implicitly or explicitly. Certainly, if it were possible to express oneself freely, without external pressures, my own output too would be able to increase and show the way towards a renewal, a rediscovery of religion and of Islam in particular. Besides, I do not wish to set myself in opposition to the government, even though I may continue to represent a problem, in that it is not easy to assimilate me.
Do you think it is possible for a greater awareness of human rights and of religious liberty to develop in the Muslim countries? Such an evolution is possible, insofar as it is possible to move from what I have defined as the "Islamic ideology" to a "liberal Islam". However, for the ideologues, the rights of Muslims come before those of others. In my view it is necessary to protect everyone on the basis of human rights, but anyone who writes anything unwelcome to the ideologues is immediately charged with having violated "Islamic rights". As to religious liberty, this should be respected and not suppressed, for even in the Koran full respect is affirmed for the freedom of faith. Others have sought to establish a tradition that is not based on the Koran. The result is that instead of identifying religion with the community they have identified religion with the state and this has provoked a conflict between the Islamic community and the state. But the government, instead of presenting the people with the reality, has continued to support those who have been captivated, through ignorance, by these false claims. The idea of a "liberal Islam" has been accused of leading to atheism and secularism, but this is untrue. I myself am a Muslim; I feel close to sufism and I believe that religion has a future - not in the sense of a mechanical understanding of its message but via the path of unification among men. Similarly, the concept of the "dhimmi" - the peoples of the Christian and Jewish religions - which implied the right on the part of the Muslim majority to protect them, has now been superseded by that of citizenship. But since the word citizenship is not used in the Koran, because in those days there was not the concept of the State, the Umma (the Muslim community. ed.) is attempting to destroy the State without having anything to replace it with. This is what happens in the West too, where the Muslims will never feel themselves to be citizens of the State until they change their mentality.
And this is likewise, in your view, one of the reasons for the solidarity and the financial and armed support of Muslim countries in the Balkans conflict, most recently that now being played out in Kosovo? Certainly. The Muslims feel threatened because they think in a tribal way. If they thought in a global way they would regard themselves as citizens of a state without sensing a diminution of authority. The fact is that today fanaticism has become a fashion and the doctrine of Islam is dominated by the Muslim extremists. The Muslims do not want to learn, but it is a contradictory attitude; the solution continues to be that of rediscovering a critical and enquiring spirit. Faith, to be a living thing, must be tied to the human heart. |
|