From Jesus to Christ - by Paula Fredriksen - Book Review

This is very dense book, but it is absolutely brilliant. Fredriksen's writing style requires a high level of reader focus, indeed full attention and concentration;  I often found myself having to read some paragraphs several times, but it’s certainly worth in terms of insight. 

Fredriksen argues that the Apostle Paul viewed faith in Jesus as an alternate path for Gentiles to salvation, unlike many historians who argue that Paul viewed, what would become, Christianity, as a successor to Judaism, Fredriksen argues that Paul's faith in the Jewish Covenant was unshaken. Paul didn't believe that Gentiles were required to adhere to the Covenant to attain salvation, but Jews had to. The lashing punishments Paul received in various synagogues were an evidence of his desire to remain Jewish and not to be expelled from synagogues. 

Fredriksen also argues that Jesus was likely a Pharisee, she marshalled several points to evidence this, including Jesus's sayings on "house of prayers" suggesting that Sadducees who controlled the Jewish priestly classes and the Temple advocated animal sacrifice which the Pharisees later opposed. She suggested that the earlier gospels showed the scribes and priests opposing Jesus whereas the later gospels singles out Pharisees for blame. As only Pharisaic Judaism survived the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE, they were the one remaining Jewish voice, worshipping the same God, but not accepting Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. On this one point, I found Fredriksen less persuasive than  other historians who suggested closer alignment between Jesus's movement and the  Essenes or the Jews of the Dead Sea Scrolls who advocated communal ownership, celibacy and were vehemently opposed to the Pharisees and their non literal interpretations of the Bible. 

Fredriksen examined three questions closely and how the Apostle Paul and the four gospels dealt with them. First the issue of the end the ages and the arrival of God's Kingdom, second was why most Jews rejected Jesus and how his message received traction with the “God fearer” Gentiles and lastly is the issue of differences amongst the followers of Jesus. Fredriksen showed the changing narratives on all three areas from the earliest teachings of Paul on to Mark immediately after the Jewish War on to Matthew and Luke, almost two generations after Paul and then on to John at the end of the First Century. Fredriksen's analysis of the four gospels, taking the reader to their time and the surrounding challenges was fascinating and demonstrated how and why stories changed over time. 

There is a lot more there and I will certainly read again! 

الثالوث المقدس

تتجنب الدراسة التاريخية للمسيحية في الغرب التعرض للنواحى الدينية والأمور التي هي محض إيمان أو قناعة دينية. تعتمد الدراسة التاريخية على المخطوطات المسيحية القديمة ووثائق الدولة الرومانية و تتعامل مع كل هذه الأمور بطريقة علمية بحتة بعيدة عن أفكار قدسية الأديان والإيمان بها. 

من أهم الأمور في تاريخ المسيحية موضوع ألوهية يسوع. متى تحول يسوع إلى إله. أستاذ تاريخ الأديان بجامعة نورث كارولينا بارت ايرمان ( Bart Ehrman ) نشر كتاب منذ عامين للخوض بالتحديد في هذا الموضوع. ويرى ايرمان ان ألوهية يسوع موضوع غاية في الأهمية في تاريخ الإنسانية. لولا ألوهية يسوع كانت المسيحية استمرت كحركة يهودية محدودة و ما تحولت الدولة الرومانية ككل إلى المسيحية. 

بحث ايرمان بالتحديد في أوضح نص عن فكرة الثالوث المقدس رسالة يوحنا الرسول الأولي ٥-٧ : "فَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَشْهَدُونَ فِي السَّمَاءِ هُمْ ثَلاَثَةٌ: الآبُ، وَالْكَلِمَةُ، وَالرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ. وَهؤُلاَءِ الثَّلاَثَةُ هُمْ وَاحِدٌ." والمقصود بلفظ "الكلمة" في الايه هو يسوع. لم يجد ايرمان في المخطوطات اليونانية القديمة هذه الآية و في بحثه عن مصدر الآية وجد أنها ظهرت في المخطوطات اللاتينية في العصور الوسطى. الإنجيل المنتشر حاليا في العالم هو ما يسمى إنجيل الملك جيمس بناء على أول إنجيل نشر بالإنجليزية عام 1611. اعتمد مترجمي إنجيل الملك جيمس على  نسخة تمت طباعتها باللاتينية مع الأصل  اليوناني أصدرها آراسموس الهولاندي. 

اول طبعة أصدرها آراسموس كانت خالية من هذه الآية. تعرض آراسموس لهجوم شديد من رجال الكنيسة الموالين للبابا و لكنه رفض تماما ان يدخل هذه الآية لأنه لم يجدها في أي مخطوطة يونانية. وعد آراسموس منتقديه أن يشمل هذه الآية في طبعات لاحقة إذا قدموا له مخطوطة باليونانية تشملها. يخمن ايرمان ان رجال الكنيسة قاموا بنسخ مخطوطة كاملة باليونانية لإرضاء آراسموس الذي وفى بوعده و في طبعة لاحقة ظهرت الآية بالأصل اليوناني و الترجمة اللاتينية. هذه هي الطبعة التي استخدمت في ترجمة الملك جيمس الشائعة إلى يومنا هذا. 

هنالك عدة آيات أخرى في الإنجيل تتحدث عن ألوهية المسيح  و يقدم ايرمان مناقشة شيقة عن التغيير في فكرة ألوهية المسيح من رسائل بولس الرسول ( تاريخيا اقدم اجزاء الإنجيل) إلى أناجيل مرقس، متى ولوقا إلى أحدث أجزاء الإنجيل و هو انجيل يوحنا و سفر الرؤية. نجد ألوهية المسيح تبدأ بعد الصلب و العودة الى الارض مع بولس و مع مرقس نراها تبدأ عند التعميد و مع متى و لوقا نراها تبدأ مع الولادة و عذرية مريم و لكن مع يوحنا نراها موجودة قبل من بداية الخلق (من قبل ابراهام كنت انا).

في كل أجزاء الانجيل هنالك دائماً فكرة ان الرب واحد و رفض تام لفكرة تعدد الاله. كلمة أخيرة، أحب أوضحها وهي انني لا أهاجم المسيحية على الإطلاق و لكن في الحقيقة انا احسد المسيحية على وجود نشاط علمي تاريخي نقدي للدراسة التاريخية بدون خوف و بحرية علمية كاملة خالية تماما من اي قيود. 

أيمن سعيد عاشور

Islam: The Truth, Not the Facts!

In the years that followed 9/11, Arab and Muslim Americans have experienced a sharp rise in cases of psychological diseases and mental disorders. Researchers attributed much of this to the anti-Muslim backlash that ensued post-9/11 and was reinforced by the Iraq war. In the current decade the new wave of global spectacular terrorists attacks is making things worse. My own direct observation from own dealings, as well as through observations on social media, is that the problem is spreading into Europe’s  Muslims and indeed to the Middle East itself.

Those who attributed the problem primarily to the anti-Muslim backlash in the West would benefit from looking at Egypt where youth sentiments of depression and dissatisfactions with life are rampant. Young Muslims in the West and elsewhere are looking at the horrors committed in the name of their religion and are unable to reconcile the Islam they thought they belonged to and believed in with the various texts and citations offered by multitudes of sources from ISIS to various TV sheikhs, Imams and Mullahs.

I'm often challenged by both Muslims and Islamophobes to explain how I reconcile my belief in Islam with numerous stories in Islam’s sacred texts that condone violence and discrimination. Much of the inter-Muslim discourse focuses on citations: the prowess in finding citations that would help a point of view prevail over others. Ping pong of citations is what most discussions on Islam rapidly descent into.

Islam, like other major world religions, has relied on an oral tradition. Even after the printing press, the vast majority of the world Muslims learnt their faith from oral traditions. Cultural norms and traditions have naturally coopted the oral teachings of Islam in various countries. Female genital mutilation or FGM has been accepted as an Islamic tradition in Egypt, Sudan and other East African countries, even though it's also practiced by Christians and others too.

Going back to the early days of Islam and those who accepted Mohammad as a Prophet and Islam as a faith, I ask myself why!  Why did those early Muslims accept Mohammad? Islam may indeed have spread through the sword in some parts of the world, but it also spread, in vast areas around the world, through word of mouth. Why did the people of Mecca accept Islam? Why did Islam spread in India, Malaysia and Indonesia? Why do I accept Islam?

I have no doubts that the early Meccans were attracted to certain ideas of Islam: equality, justice, compassion, honesty, and fairness in dealing with others. I'm almost sure that Islam wouldn't have spread as it did if people were told that they would be killed if they were to alter their decision and leave Islam at some point.

For me, the truth of Islam is in its simplicity, its humanity, in its compassion and in its mercy. Derivatives of compassion and mercy happen to be the two most repeated words in the Quran. The truth of Islam is in the equality of all human beings before God, in the freedom of human beings to pursue their path to God.

Discourse that regresses from the truths of Islam to debate the facts of Islam is of little interest to me and historically has actually played little role in Islamic history. The battles of texts and citations that dominate much of the discussion in today's Islam in Islamdom would have been alien for most of the fourteen centuries of the history of Islam. Often times those who engaged in them were marginalized or worse.

The obsession over the texts and citations is a primary factor for the dissonance that we see; the loss of identity and center that stems from a loss of faith. Modern day Islamdom has created an Islam that prescribes the rituals that a man must follow to get, along with his loved ones, to heaven. The early Islam that was embraced by Muhammad's early followers did not emphasize a bargain with God to get to heaven.

The Christians and Jews in the West have had several centuries to look beyond disputes over facts to get to the truth of their beliefs. Many of the stories of the Old Testament have largely been discounted by most believing Christians and Jews in the West, the very same stories dominate a large amount of Islamic discourse.

Many Christian scholars in the West, and indeed most Bible Colleges, accept as given than many parts of the Gospels have not been written by the people whose names they carry. Divinity schools across the US doubt the authenticity of the stories of the Virgin Birth, the Trip to Egypt to escape the decree killing children of Jesus’ age, the Bethlehem birth, and many other stories in the New Testament. Yet, believing Christians in the west have reached a comfortable place with the their sacred texts. Some believe in the literal words of the bible, most don't. There is little ping pong going on between the disagreeing parties. Christians are not asked to justify their belief in the truth of their faith through arguments over texts and disputes of facts.

It's hard to be optimistic about a reform movement coming to Islam from the majority Muslim countries where religion remains a tool of authoritarian governments and closed societies. Some of the best writings on Islam are coming out of US Muslim scholars. These scholars remain engaged in the battle of citations and using traditional Islamic jurisprudence methods to push back against authoritarian interpretations of Islam. Future generations of scholars may look beyond texts and citations and may one day offer a way for the truth unencumbered by debates over facts.

Ayman S. Ashour

This article first appeared on Egyptian Streets. 

Je suis Charlie

I have not seen any of the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, I will not see them, I don’t want to see them. What Charlie Hebdo has to say about my religion doesn’t interest me in the least. They can mock my faith all they want, it does not matter to me, they can have their heartfill lampooning my religion; I’m not angered and my faith, Islam, isn’t impacted by their words or cartoons. The terrorists who carried out the butchery in Paris and those who hailed or even merely  justified their cowardly act damage Islam more than any of the cartoons at Charlie Hebdo ever can.

By contrast, the so called American Freedom Defense Initiative anti Islam posters spark a completely different feeling in me, they offend me, I feel insulted. The courageous Egyptian American journalist Mona Eltahawy, in an act of civil disobedience, sprayed the ugly hateful posters with pink paint, she was arrested. The New York Metro is used by tens of thousands of Muslims daily, people use it to get to their places of work, kids use it to get to their schools and colleges: here the freedom of expression of hate for my faith interferes with my right not to be subjected to such hate, I can chose not to buy Charlie Hebdo, but I have to use the Subway, it is my subway, my public space, my infrastructure! Eltahawy’s used pink spray paint to signify her rejection of the laws that permitted the hate speech in a public infrastructure, she stood there, elegantly dressed peacefully spraying pink, while a woman associated with the bigoted ad attempted to use her umbrella as weapon against her. Eltahawy was taken into custody and faced a long legal battle for breaking the law, she received wide support from Muslims and non Muslims alike, thousands of people joined her cause, civil disobedience campaigns confronted the hateful ads wherever they appeared. Eltahway refused to pay even one dollar and was prepared to go to prison for her defiance of the unjust application of the laws that permitted hate speech in a public space.

My native country Egypt has blasphemy laws banning the belittling and disrespect of religions. Yet, Egypt has only three sanctioned, officially recognized religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Islam, in Egypt means only Sunni Islam, so Shia’a Islam, which is the faith of well over 100 million people is publicly discredited and belittled. Shia’a mosques are not allowed in Egypt. While Judaism is an officially sanctioned religion in Egypt, anti semitism is rampant and Jews are talked of often with words like impure, filthy and pigs. Former President Morsi lectured his adherents publicly to teach their children to hate Jews, while Morsi is currently facing several charges ranging from spying to jailbreak, there are no charges against him for belittling or disrespecting Judaism. Such charges will never get filed because they would surely bring Morsi only sympathy. In Egypt, the State itself launches campaigns against what it deems to be false religions such as the Baha'i faith. In short, we only ever hear of the anti blasphemy laws being applied when it comes to Sunni Islam and Christianity. Blasphemy, disrespect and belittling of other faiths is tolerated and often encouraged as matter of state policy.

For Egyptian Christians, like most Christians, a fundamental belief is that Jesus Christ was crucified to offer salvation to those who believe in him. Yet Muslims strongly reject every word in this notion, Jesus was never crucified and there is no such a thing as Salvation through belief in his crucifiction. Muslims claim to respect Christianity but, in fact, what is respected in Islam, is an Islamic Christianity, entirely different from that the Christians themselves actually believe. Muslims believe the bible was corrupted and Christians have essentially been misguided..... well if that is not belittling and disrespectful, I am not sure, what is. Similarly Christians do not believe Islam is a religion of the same God and those Christians who politely concede that Mohammad was a Prophet, use the word prophet to mean a sage, a wise man, a man with blessing but not a messenger of God. Manifestly, the belief in Islam is a disbelief in Christianity and the belief in Christianity is a disbelief in Islam. To belief in one faith we reject the other. To Christian ears the Friday Muslim sermon blaring out on loud speakers addressing Christianity is disrespectful of the Christianity actually practiced by the Christians, it is blasphemous to them.  

Back to the West and France in particular, where secularist values dominate; the laws and cultures grant people the total right to chose, and to change, their faith, to state it publicly or keep it private, to practice their faith or not, to gather for worship etc. We, Muslims in the West have gained from this freedom, we enjoyed it and lived it and were able to build our mosques and schools.  In our mosques, we teach that Christians believe in a corrupted bible and Jesus was not divine, thoughts and ideas contrary to Christianity. We teach that Jews have deviated from God and exasperated Moses, what we teach is, in reality, offensive to most non Muslims.

Words such as ‘I am not afraid of retaliation….It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.’ These were the words of Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Stephane Charbonnier, they carry a religious zeal to them. Just like a Muslim magazine in France has the right to ridicule and belittle and disrespect the beliefs, morality and values of a large percentage of the population around them, others have similar right. Muslims wish to offer sermons and write articles on the evil of homosexuality, a practice that is permitted in the west, why would gays not be allowed to respond. Do I wish for the Law in the USA or France to ban me from reciting Quran Surah 112 in mosques because it is blasphemous to Christianity, for it categorically states that God has no sons.  In order for Islam to exist as a minority religion in the West, it requires the very freedom that Stephane Charbonnier was willing to die for. Like him, I too, I am prepared to give my life for my right to recite my Holy Quran and will not allow any authority to censor me from it. The religious notion that morality is only a product of faith is challenged, not only by the atheists’ acts of charity but also by their willingness to die for the values they believe in.  

Honest condemnations of the terrorist attacks in Paris came fast and furious, the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag dominated social media.  Many Muslims saw the offensive cartoons for the first time and were offended by the work of the dead cartoonist. The #JeNeSuisPasCharlie (I’m not Charlie) hashtag emerged, aided by some non Muslim writers as well. We, as Muslims, need to confront a simple fact; not an insignificant number of us believe that the killing of those who insult the Prophet, be they Muslim or not, is their just comeuppance.  Recall the Salaman Rushdi Fetwa, indeed the death penalty or life in prison would be the likely outcome in most Muslim countries for publishing less offensive material than what appeared in Charlie Hebdo.

Condemnations with "but" or allocation of any level of blame on the victims come across to my ears as indecent and frankly are more disturbing than silence ….  for I’m Charlie because Charlie stood for my freedom to practice my religion as I want to, to recite my Quran without fear of the majority culture around me.

I’m Charlie because I want to practice my beliefs in my mosques, the way I choose, with no censorship by others and I want for others to practice what they believe in away from me, even if it is offensive to my eyes and ears.

I’m Charlie for Charlie’s courageous stance for freedom is actually far closer to my faith than the cowardly act of those terrorists who butchered Charlie

I’m Charlie and Je suis Charlie with no reservation!

Ayman S. Ashour

On Blasphemy And Freedom!

Years ago, I watched “Life of Brian”, a Monty Python movie mocking Jesus Christ. I remember laughing in the movie theater along with a majority Christian audience in England. Over the years, as my Islamic faith deepened, I would no longer watch this movie let alone laugh at or own it, I find it objectionable for its portrayal of the Jesus like character.  As a Muslim I consider Jesus, like Mohammad, sacred, both are human beings chosen by God to be His prophets and messengers to all of humanity.

Commencing on September 11, 2012 we have seen days of angry protests and violence following the, peculiarly timed, airing of a video clip titled “Innocence of Muslims” by a Salafi TV station in Egypt. The violence was combined with demands by religious and political leaders in Egypt for action against the makers of the movie in the USA. The angry convulsions turned into loud demands for legal action and changes to international law to ban insults to religions and religious figures.

In an attempt to understand the so-called “Muslim rage”, I watched the “Innocence of Muslims” video on YouTube. Needless to say, I found it as offensive as any cheap insult or remark one receives from hateful or ignorant types. It did not mean a great deal to me that someone who hates Islam produces a movie that insults my Prophet in a vulgar manner. Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam, is sacred and beloved to me, I hold him in unparalleled esteem; but I also accept that some 80% of humanity do not believe in him, his message or believe in Islam.

To many Muslims, the word “prophet” carries huge religious meaning, a sacred or revered messenger from the almighty God. Many Muslims are unaware that, for most Christians, saying “we respect Jesus as prophet…” is sacrilege.  While the core beliefs in Christianity of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and his divine status are not accepted by Islam, most Christians take “prophets” to mean wise men, inspired by God, but not divine!  So it can be clearly seen how religious beliefs, especially historical ones, are incompatible and how easily acceptance of one belief can be blasphemous of the other. In other words to deny the divinity of Jesus and simply label him a wise man maybe as offensive to a Christian as telling a Muslim Mohammad was a wise and good man but not a messenger of God. Belief in Islam by definition is blasphemy of Christianity and vice versa, the same applies to Judaism and other religious beliefs.

“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah (God)  is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah (God) is Knowing and Acquainted.”  The Holly Quran 49:13

“There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah (God) has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah (God) is Hearing and Knowing.” The Holly Quran 2:256

The beauty of Islam, with its fundamental advocacy for equality, justice and freedom is virtually absent from the language of those who speak in its name calling for punishment of atheists and whose language focuses almost exclusively on the limitation of equality, limitation of freedoms and selective justice.

So, as I look at my personal belief in Islam and the recent Muslim rage events, I find myself reflecting on two very different but related questions: first is there a distinction between representation of religious figures, offensive or not, and incitement against the killing of fellow human beings of whatever faith? And a   second question: would a new international law banning blasphemy towards Jesus outlaw the teaching of Islam to our kids in the west? Answers to both questions are blatantly obvious: incitement to kill someone for their beliefs, no matter how distasteful to others, is wrong! And so would be banning the teaching or preaching of a religion because it disagrees with the basic tenants of another majority faith.

So while many call for change in international laws to punish those who publish material deemed offensive to religion, I find myself wondering how Islamic is it, to ban such material and punish its makers. Thus, I actually call for changing Egypt’s laws to allow such cheap rubbish as the Innocence of Muslims to be made in Egypt itself.  And for its makers to go about their sorry hateful lives in peace as long as they are are not inciting violence. Would such freedom hurt Egypt or Islam? Would Muslims anywhere rush away from Islam believing the trashy material shown on the video? Would Egyptians then not have the right to boycott people, businesses and TV channels that promote such insulting material?

Would a disgruntled unhappy Islam hater take advantage of this law then produce more hateful anti Islam material? Maybe, but let them! We each have our own narratives and our Islam becomes stronger not weaker with freedom!

Legalize offending religious beliefs for the sake of Islam, please!

AA

September 23, 2012

Azazel by Yousef Ziedan (Arabic) - Book Review عَزَازِيلَ

A product of Government schools in Egypt, I grew up reading Tawfik el Hakim, Taha Hussein and Arabic translations of Treasure Island and Robinson Crusoe. While my Arabic language remains reasonably good, I mostly read in English now. I found the quality of Arabic literature from the 1970's on tedious and banal with over emphasis on flowery language, series of nonstop metaphors and excessive symbolism lacking in coherence, creativity and feelings.

In the last few years I started again to read more in Arabic after being encouraged to do so from reading several books by Alifa Refa'at, Hannan Al Sheikh, Saher Khalifa and others that were translated to English. Books like Alaa el Aswani's Yakobian Building and Chicago actually returned to me the joy of reading in Arabic. El Aswani had something to say, his creativity and sensitivity only needed to be communicated and people who read the English translation got as much out of it as I did reading it in Arabic. The language did not add to the work, nor did it detract from it, in other words el Aswani's creativity was language neutral, could be enjoyed fully or almost fully as long as the translation is reasonably good.

Literature that I need to work on, that consumes me to appreciate fully is far more fulfilling for me than straight forward creative story telling of El Aswani for example. The power of language and the imagery that a certain use of the language can create helps me reach levels of intellectual and emotional joy that is hard to reduce to words. Ahdaf Souief writing in English about migration, alienation and cross cultural experiences from an Egyptian soul is particularly appealing to me. It has been decades since I read in the Arabic Language a novel that combined beautiful impactful prose with true creativity.

Gilead, the novel by Marilynn Robinson about a pastor in Kansas writing, in his dying days a letter to his young son, a book-long meandering letter about the pastor childhood, family and life and the struggle over slave emancipation within the church.

Yousef Ziedan's book Azazil is the most remarkable Arabic book I have read since the age of the greats Hakim, Mahfouz, Hussin and A’akad and arguably far more evolved than much of the work of these masters of Arabic literature. The Pulitzer Prize winner Gilead is the book I always thought of as I read Azazel. Ziedan use of the Arabic language was masterful; this will be a book that will need highly skilled translation in order for the readers in English or other languages to appreciate the beauty of its prose.

The portrayal of the Monk Hipa as a multi dimensional human with strong beliefs and doubts, with desires coupled with immense discipline was, in short, terrific. Most of the surrounding characters were less fully developed and to a certain extent played the roles of “goodies and badies”. The depth of the development of Hipa multi faceted personality did not make me focus too much on the cardboard nature of the supporting actors as I read this beautiful novel; only on reflection afterwards did I feel this shortcoming.

The choice of the mystical Azazel as the satanic companion turned into a semi-confidant of Monk Hipa was very interesting. Azazel is a confusing biblical mystical character that the monk recognized as his evil shadow. More symbolism maybe behind this choice of this not so well known “junior” devil …was he prevalent in the writings and beliefs of those distant Christians? Was it something to do with Azazel reputation for sexual temptation which seemed to have always conquered our monk? I was not sure.

With the level of sensitivity to protection of religion and fear of accusations of irreverence or worse in Egypt I was puzzled by Ziedan choice to put an Islamic hadieth at the beginning of the book ..was it a declaration of his faith to avoid scrutiny by would be Muslim critics? While the hadieth at the beginning of this wonderful novel is a beautiful spiritual one, it detracted from quality of the book and opened it to very fair criticism of the being an attack on the Coptic Church. On the one hand, this book does a great deal to explain so much more about Christianity to Egyptian Muslim readers as Egyptian Schools only teach Christianity to non Christians from a purely Islamic view point, in other words they don’t teach that Boutres or Gerges believes this and that, they teach that we as Muslims believe that the message of Christianity is so and so and Boutres and Gerges have it wrong. So it is nice to see a book exploring how a Christian monk viewed his own faith in a mostly sympathetic fashion. Yet, I wondered if a book written about a Sufi Imam written by a Christian with a quote from the New Testament would ever be published in Egypt let alone be nominated to and receive a regional prize … I highly doubt it!

Yousif Ziedan is a gifted and wonderful creative story teller. The needless presence of the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion on his web site makes me very uncertain of his scholarship despite his tremendous credentials, his relative insensitivity to the improbability of a mirror image book from a Coptic Christian in Egypt hold me back from whole hearted enthusiasm for this work that I enjoyed immensely while actually reading it.

AA
May 2009

Anti Essentialism & Controversial - Book Review of Edward Said's Orientalism

This book and Edward Said in general seem capable of generating such intense controversy. Many reviewers of this book seem to forget actually to review the work and focus on attacking Edward Said as a person, many others still forget to review the book and proceed to speak for Palestinian rights and the negative western attitudes of Islam. I will attempt to present an actual review of this book based on MY own reading of it.

In Orientalism, Said sets about dismantling the study of the "orient" in general with primary focus on the Islamic Near East. Said argues that concepts such as the Orient, Islam, the Arabs, etc. are too vast to be grouped together and presented as one coherent whole, encompassing all there is to know about the subject. Said bases his view on the shear width and breadth of the subject, the inherent bias of conflicting cultures and more recently the role of the Orientalism in colonialism. It is indeed difficult to attempt to represent a book that is so focused on anti essentialism.

Said's research of western / occidental discourse was very thorough indeed and he does illustrate through repeated examples how misinformation sufficiently repeated can become accepted academic work. Said also presents an analysis of the causes and motives and theorizes about his findings. A lengthy and a times tedious discussion of the origins of Orientalism is rather repetitive and hard to follow for a non specialist like me.

Edward Said however seem to have fallen in the same trap he attributes to Orientalism, he has not attempted to explore Arab writings of the periods he discussed nor has he attempted to present (possibly even read) work by Egyptian and Arab historians of the periods he was addressing save for work carried out in the west and within western universities. In doing so, Said fails to see how the modern and contemporary "orient" sees itself through primarily "oriental" eyes such as Ibn Khaldoun, Al Maqrizi and also through the writings of orientalists like Lane. Said also fails to address the work carried out by orientalists based on many manuscripts of Orientals.

I particularly enjoyed Said's analysis of the strong ties that Orientalism has with power and colonialism. Said analysis of the diverging development of the British and French practice based on the latter's limited success as a colonial power was very enjoyable and very well thought out. The Orientalism Today and indeed the Afterwards section are also very informative and as these were more familiar areas for Said his presentation of ideas and thoughts came across more clearly and the writing was far less tedious than the earlier parts of the book.

Orientalism is not an easy read, it will challenge many established views, indeed it has already with a fair degree of success led to changes in the way the Near East is studied. To me, most of all I see this as a book that offers in part a largely coherent explanation for the on-going misunderstanding between the West and the Near East and in Islam. And while Occidentalism does not exist as a field of study in a place like Egypt per se, Said fails to see that the west is viewed largely in terms of its wealth, promiscuous habits, hypocrisy and anti Islam and thus fails to see it as 2 way street, albeit with unequal power.

This is by no means a the definitive correction of the history of the Middle East or Near Orient, it is however a very legitimate and serious study of a field of study that no doubt has a lot to answer for!

AA Oct 26, 2001