نقد العقل العربي - من عيوب تفكيرنا المعاصر - طارق حجي

One may download the complete text (in Arabic) of my book here.

Teaching superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing...

"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing." - Hypatia of Alexandria (370 - 415 AD) 

هذه مقولة وإن كان عمرها 24 قرنا ، إلا أنها تبقي رائعة وصائبة وحكيمة وعلمية ، ونحن أكثر الشعوب حاجة لتدبر معانيها بعد أن أصبح معظم المصريين عاجزين عن إدراك الفارق بين "الحقيقة العلمية" و "الحقيقة الدينية" .... وهو ما أوصلنا لحالتنا الراهنة ولكون مساهمتنا فى مسيرة التقدم العلمي "صفرا" كبيرا .... طارق حجي

بماذا أؤمن

أؤمن بأن الحضارة الغربية فى قسم كبير منها انسانية اكثر من كونها غربية ... أؤمن ان هذه الحضارة هى الوحيدة "الحضارة الحية" ، بينما يصح وصف سائر الحضارات بعكس ذلك... أؤمن بكل ما تعنيه الكلمة بالتعددية فى كل مناحي الحياة والعلم والمعرفة والثقافة والفنون ... أؤمن بالغيرية كقيمة عظمي منبثقة من ايماني العتيد بالتعددية ... أؤمن بعالمية او كونية العلم والمعرفة ... أؤمن ان "النقد" و "النقد الذاتي" و "العقل النقدي" هم من اعظم الانساق القيمية التى طورتها الحضارة الغربية غداة انتصارها على الثيوقراطية ... أؤمن ان الاديان كانت وستبقي مصدرا للقيم ، ولكن ذلك لا ينبغي ان يمتد خارج نطاق "الشأن الخاص" ، اما الشأن العام كله فلا ينبغي ان يحكم بغير العلم ، ولا شيء غير العلم ، وان رجال الدين يجب ان يمنعوا من محاولات تحكمهم فى الشأن العام لكونهم يفتقرون لألف باء التكوين المعرفي اللازم ... وأؤمن بأن خلط الدين (أيا كان اسمه) بالسياسة هو مدخل مؤكد للحروب ، فملاك الحقيقة المطلقة لا يمكن الا ان يحاربوا ... وأؤمن بالتعايش المشترك حتى بين من كانوا فى حالة عداوة مطلقة ... وأؤمن ان السبل السياسية والحوارية والتفاوضية هى فقط السبل المشروعة لحل الخلافات والصراعات السياسية وان ما يسمي بمعسكر المقاومة (بين الدول العربية اليوم) ما هو الا غطاء للعنف وثقافة الدم والبغض المتفشية فى عدة مجتمعات وان بقت المجتمعات العربية ملعب هذه الثقافة الاكبر فى عالمنا المعاصر ... وأؤمن ان الانخراط فى التعاملات العلمية والثقافية والمعرفية "مع الآخر" امر حتمي للتقدم وان الخوف (والهلع) من هذا الانخراط هو تكتيك سياسي ممن يرغبون فى بقاء شعوبهم داخل الاقفاص التى صنوعها هم بدعواتهم الثقافية (والدينية) التى تحتاج للانغلاق كي لا تتفتت وكي لا تكنسها مقشة العلم والحداثة ... وأؤمن ان المرأة اكثر اهمية بكثير من كونها عدديا نصف المجتمع وان كفالة كل الحقوق وكل الفرص لها هو شرط اساسي من شروط التقدم ، فوضع المرأة التى يبقيها فى الاطار القرون-أوسطي الذين ينشده البعض كفيل بوجود مجتمع مترع فى التخلف اذ يكون نصفه (عدديا) متخلفا ويكون قسمه الذى ينشيء النصف الآخر ايضا متخلفا وهو ما يضمن التخلف الكلي للمجتمع ... وأؤمن بنفس الكيفية بحقوق الاقليات بشتي صورها واشكالها الدينية والاثنية والثقافية ... وأؤمن ان اهم العلوم الاجتماعية المعاصرة هى علوم الادارة الحديثة التى بوسعها (هى فقط) احداث الطفرات الاقتصادية والمجتمعية ، وهذه العلوم لا دين ولا عرق ولا جنسية ولا هوية لها ، وهى علوم لا تستقيم مع تحكم اية ايدولوجيا فى المجتمع ... وأؤمن ان ما يظنه كثيرون فى واقعنا من تآمر الغرب علينا هو وهم وهو ثمرة سيولوجيا الاقنان المنتشرة فى المجتمعات العربية بوجه عام وفى المجتمعات التى حكمها (وعربد فيها ) المماليك وتركوها وجل ابنائها مسلسلين بسيكولوجيا وسيوسيولوجيا "تراث العبيد" والذى يقابل فى علم الاجتماع الامريكي سوسيولوجيا الزنوج ، بوجه خاص ... وأؤمن ان هناك رابطة ثقافية بين الناطقين باللغة العربية ، ولكن محاولة اجبار هذه الرابطة (بفعل البعثيين والقومجية العرب) على ان تصير رابطة سياسية تأخذ الناطقين بالعربية للوحدة السياسية (البعث ... الناصرية ... القذافية ) قد الحقت ضررا جسيما بالفكرة التى ولدت على يد السوريين المسيحيين وانتهت كتابع للفكرة الاسلامية ... وأؤمن ان نظم التعليم فى المجتمعات الناطقة بالعربية هى نظم ماضوية ومترعة فى التخلف ، بل وتنبثق من فلسفة تعليمية هجرها العالم المتقدم الذى تخلي عن فلسفة التعليم القائمة على التذكر وحشد المعلومات فى الاذهان وانتقل لفلسفة قوامها تطوير القدرات على الابتداع والخلق ... هذه هى اهم القيم التى أؤمن بها ، وكنت ولا ازال (منذ صدر اول كتبي فى المغرب سنة 1978) منشغلا بتقدمها والترويج لها والدفاع عنها ، فهى وحدها (فى ظني) القادرة على قيادة مجتمعاتنا المثخنة بجراح تسببنا نحن (وحكامنا فى مقدمتنا) فيها وليس اعداؤنا بوجه عام واوروبا وامريكا واسرائيل (كما يظن كثيرون) بوجه خاص .

The Perception of Islam Today

As early as the first century of the Muslim calendar, Islam has known radical sects who demanded blind adherence to their rigid reading of the articles of faith, side by side with mainstream Islam, whose adherents eschew violence and extremism and do not profess to hold a monopoly on Truth. The phenomenon began with the emergence of the Khawarij (Seceders) in 660 AD, (the middle of the first Hejira century), a sect which preached a dogmatic interpretation of Scripture and practiced a version of excommunication by branding those who did not adopt its teachings as heretics. This was the first such sect but by no means the last, and throughout the history of Islam the quiet of religious life was broken many times by marginal groups who tried to impose their extremist views on the majority by violent means.

Alongside the groups and sects whose members insisted on a literal interpretation of holy texts and laid down strict rules governing all aspects of life, there was the general trend represented in the main Sunni schools (the most important being the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafite and Hanbalite, and their offshoots, Al-Laith and Al-Tebarry), as well as the Shiites, who are split into a number of sects. The most important Shiite sect is the Imammeya, or Ithna’ashariyya, (i.e. Twelvers), so called because they accept as imams twelve of the descendants of Ali ibn-Abu Talib (according to their belief, the twelfth imam, who disappeared about 874 AD, is still living and will return). Within this general trend there emerged prominent proponents of deductive reasoning, like the great jurist Abu Hanifa, who accepted just over one hundred of the Prophet’s Hadiths as apostolic precept, as well as uncompromising champions of tradition, like Ahmed ibn-Hanbal, whose book, Al-Musnad, is a compilation of over ten thousand Hadiths. The conservative ibn-Hanbal served as the bulwark of orthodoxy and tradition against any intellectual endeavour, and for a time exerted a considerable hold on public imagination. Although his influence eventually waned, in its heyday tradition reigned supreme and very little room was left for reason. 

The two main disciples of ibn-Hanbal were ibn-Taymiyah and ibn-Qaiym Al-Juzeya, who, like their mentor, allowed no scope for reason or independent thinking, but insisted on a dogmatic adherence to the Hadiths as authoritative sources of all matters spiritual and temporal, laying down strict guidelines to govern every aspect of everyday life. In addition, the world of Islam was the scene of a battle of ideas between Abu Hamid Al-Ghazzali (Algazel), a strict traditionalist who did not believe the human mind capable of grasping the Truth as ordained by God, and Ibn Rushd (Averoess), who championed the primacy of reason. The exponents of these two schools waged a bitter battle in which the first salvo was fired by Al-Ghazzali with his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Ibn Rushd answered with his brilliant treatise in defense of rationality, The Incoherence of the Incoherence. But despite his spirited defense, the outcome of the battle was clearly in Al-Ghazzali’s favour, and the great majority of Islamic jurists adopted his ideas, interpreting the precepts of Islamic law by appeal to the authority of tradition and spurning deductive reasoning altogether. Islamic jurisprudence was dominated by the Mutakallimun, or dialectical theologians, who asserted the primacy of tradition (naql), as advocated by Al-Ghazzali, over that of reason (‘aql), as advocated by Ibn Rushd. But though Ibn Rushd’s ideas were rejected by the Muslim world, they took root strongly in Europe, particularly France, which embraced his vision of the primacy of reason wholeheartedly.

Thus Muslims can be said to have known two different understandings to Islam, as it were, one based on a rigid, doctrinaire interpretation of holy texts and the violent repression of free thought; the other on a moderate and tolerant understanding of Scripture which allowed for the acceptance of the Other. The first was espoused by the secret sects (limited in number and influence) which emerged in remote areas of the Arabian Peninsula and can best be described as the Bedouin model. The second took hold in the more intellectually vibrant climate that prevailed among the peoples descended from ancient civilizations in places like Egypt, Iraq, Turkey and the Levant, which I call the Egyptian/Turkish/Syrian model of Islam.

Until the mid-eighteenth century, this was the model adopted by most Muslim communities outside the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. But that was before the rise of Wahhabism, a puritan revival movement launched by Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab from Najd, where he was born in 1703. In 1744, he forged an alliance with the ruler of Al-Dir’iyah, a tribal chieftain by the name of Mohamed ibn-Saud, who became his son-in-law. The alliance led to the first incarnation of the Saudi state, which, by 1804, had expanded to control nearly one million square metres of the Arabian Peninsula. It was a short-lived incarnation, lasting only until 1819, when Mohamed Ali’s son, Ibrahim Pasha, led a military expedition which destroyed Wahhabi power and razed the capital of the first Saudi state, Al-Dir’iyah, to the ground.

Mohamed Ali’s decision to send first his son Tousson then his son Ibrahim Pasha, known for his military skills, to destroy the first Saudi state had implications going far beyond the political or military ambitions of one man. It was in fact an expression of a cultural/civilizational confrontation between the two models of Islam, a confrontation the enlightened Egyptian/Turkish/Syrian model decided to take to the heartland of the obscurantist, extremist and fanatical Wahhabi model. Mohamed Ali, who was extremely impressed by the European model of development and saw no contradiction between the mechanisms by which it had come about and his Islamic beliefs, believed the Wahhabi understanding of Islam stood as a major obstacle in the way of the dream he had nurtured since coming to power in 1805 (and until he abdicated in favour of his son Ibrahim in 1848), to place Egypt on a similar road to development.

Years after the defeat inflicted on them by Ibrahim Pasha (who captured their leader and sent him to Egypt, then to Istanbul where he remained until his death), the Saudis reemerged as a political force in the eastern region of the Arabian Peninsula. Basing themselves in Riyadh, they began to meddle covertly in political affairs. This placed them on a collision course with the al-Rashid family in Ha’il, and the two sides were soon locked in battle. The Saudis, under the leadership of Abdul Rahman, father of the founder of the current Saudi dynasty, King Abdul Aziz, were defeated in 1891. Abdul Rahman fled to Kuwait with leading members of the House of Saud, where they remained in exile until 1902. During this period, they were the guests of Sheikh Mubarak al-Sabbah, who played an important role in the formation of the young Abdul Aziz. Born in 1876, Abdul Aziz, who came to be known as Ibn Saud, was encouraged in his dream to recapture Riyadh by the ruler of Kuwait. In 1902, Ibn Saud (Abdul Aziz) seized Riyadh and waged a 30-year campaign to assert his dominion over the Arabian Peninsula. In 1925 he entered first Mecca then Medina, and, in September 1932, the 56-year old proclaimed himself king over the Kingdom of Najd and Hejaz, later to become the first kingdom named after its ruling dynasty, Saudi Arabia.

Concomitantly with the birth of the new kingdom, which officially adopted the doctrine of Wahhabism, came the discovery of vast reservoirs of oil under its deserts. This provided the Wahhabis with a virtually endless source of funds which they used to propogate their model of Islam.

Three decades after the creation of Saudi Arabia and the discovery of oil, many things had changed in the world:

• One, Saudi Arabia had built up a huge fortune that enabled it to further the cause of Wahhabism not only within its own borders but throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Its efforts proved successful, as many once moderate Muslims were gradually won over to the harsh version of Islam preached by the Wahhabis.
• Two, beginning in the ‘sixties, Egypt suffered a reversal of fortune at all levels, including a decline in its general cultural climate, allowing Wahhabi influence to infiltrate the venerable institution of Al-Azhar. The defeat of June 1967 opened the door wide to groups which espoused the Saudi understanding of Islam and who translated their radical views into political action, often at the point of a gun.
• Three, in the context of the Cold War, the West in general and the United States in particular adopted a number of misguided policies towards the region, including turning a blind eye to the spread of Wahhabi influence in the Arab and Islamic world, and even occasionally supporting radical groups inspired by the Wahhabi doctrine to achieve their own political ends, such as ending the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

The assassination of President Anwar Sadat by an extremist group was a wake-up call which alerted the world to the growth and spread of the Saudi-backed Wahhabi model of Islam and the retreat of the Egyptian/Turkish/Syrian model. A succession of similar events attested to the dangerous spread of this model in most societies with a Muslim majority; in Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia. On the morning of September 11, 2001, a group of fanatics belonging to the Wahhabi brand of Islam launched attacks on New York and Washington that illustrated how the members of this sect view the Other in general and Western civilization in particular.

For the average European or American unfamiliar with some of the facts presented in this article, it is easy to believe that Islam, violence and terrorism go hand in hand. But those who have a more thorough grasp of the issue know that this perception of Islam has taken hold only because a puritanical, fundamentalist model of Islam, which was marginal and ineffectual before oil wealth put it on the map, has managed, thanks to petrodollars, to make the world believe that its interpretation of Islam is Islam. 


The doctrinaire version of Islam propounded by the Wahabbis had no followers among the Muslims of the world before the expansion of Saudi influence following the oil boom. Millions of Muslims in Egypt, Turkey, the Levant, Iraq, Indonesia and throughout the world remained immune to the appeal of the fanatical, violent and bloody message of what was a small and obscure sect bred in the intellectually barren landscape of the eastern Arabian Peninsula. All that changed with the massive influx of petrodollars into the coffers of Saudi Arabia, which used its new-found wealth to propagate the message of its home-grown Wahhabi sect with missionary zeal. Hence the emergence of militant Islam as a force to be reckoned with on the world stage, a force that now represents a dangerous threat to world peace, to humanity and to Islam and Muslims. Half a century ago, the Muslims of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey were models of tolerance who believed in a gentle and enlightened Islam that could, and did, coexist peacefully with other religions and cultures. Following the decline in living standards they have suffered since at the hands of despotic and corrupt rulers, they have become easy prey for the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.

The perception of Islam today by many non-Muslims is that it is a fanatical and violent religion. That is a superficial view which ignores the fact that there are two models of Islam, one that is uncompromising and extremist in its views and another that is tolerant, moderate and humanistic. It is also a naïve view that can lead to dangerous decisions like the ones which informed the West’s policies when it turned a blind eye to the spread of Wahhabism and established close links with radical Islamic movements like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Finally, there is no need to point out to the neutral reader that the existence of Qur’anic texts which can be used to evidence the violence of Islam is unimportant, because there are enlightened interpretations of the same texts which link them to specific circumstances and events. At the end of the day, any text, even if it is divine, requires a human agency to interpret it, and the real test is how the mind elects to interpret it. Moreover, there are also many Qur’anic texts which proscribe the use of violence and aggression against those belonging to other faiths and creeds, and calls on Muslims to treat them fairly and humanely. But texts should not be the focus of debate here, not least because this would allow extremists on the other side to justify their use of violence by invoking Old Testament texts exhorting believers to violence, notably in the Book of Joshua, son of Nun.

What needs to be done at this stage is to champion the cause of enlightenment by supporting moderates and promoting the humanistic understanding of Islam that once prevailed among the vast majority of Muslims. Efforts in this direction must go hand in hand with a counter offensive against the rigid, doctrinaire, even bloodthirsty, version of Islam that first appeared among isolated communities separated from the march of civilization by the impenetrable sand dunes of the Arabian desert. Geographical isolation coupled with a narrow tribal outlook is a lethal mix that cannot possibly shape a humane and tolerant perception of the Other. The time has come for the Saudi government to part ways with Wahhabism and to realize that the alliance between the House of Saud and the Wahhabi dynasty is responsible for the spread of obscurantism, dogmatism and fanaticism, poisoning minds with radical ideas opposed to humanity, progress, civilization, cultural continuity and pluralism, the diversity of opinions and creeds that is one of the most important and enriching features of human life. 

Prisons of the Arab Mind

I have been studying the Arab mindset for the last four decades from several perspectives. For a start, I myself am a product of this Arabic-speaking region and was able to study the phenomenon from the perspective of an 'insider' as it were, as well as from my vantage point as a researcher who has had twenty books published in Arabic and English (including five devoted exclusively to the Arab mindset and Arab culture). I also had the opportunity to interact with the Arab mindset and culture from a different angle during my years as chairman & CEO of a multinational oil company in the Arab region, when I worked in close proximity with the end product of Arab culture, so to speak – the Arabic-speaking worker in the work environment. The fourth and final perspective from which I interacted with Arab culture and the Arab mindset was when I was called upon to lecture to post-graduate students at a number of universities in various Arab countries on subjects related to modern management sciences and techniques. 

The insight into the contemporary Arab mindset that I was able to develop from all these perspectives, in addition to my consuming interest in and close follow-up of the phenomenon over the last four decades, led me to reach the conclusions laid out in my latest book  The Arab Mind Bound. In the book, I describe the Arab mindset as a prisoner held captive within three prisons or shackled with three chains. The first chain is a regressive, dogmatic interpretation of religion that is totally at odds with the realities of the age, with science and civilization. The second is a culture that is not only totally divorced from science and progress as a result of Arab history and the geopolitics of the Arabian peninsula, but, more importantly, has produced educational institutions and programmes that, rather than foster the values of progress and humanity, actively promote a xenophobic rejection of these values. The third chain holding the Arab mindset back from embracing the spirit of the age is a philosophical dilemma which renders it unable to develop a proper understanding of progress and modernity, and drives it to reject such notions as an invasion of its cultural specificity and civilizational legacy. 

The first chain weighing the Arab mindset down and preventing it from joining the march of human progress which, according to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, is moving towards the attainment of transcendental idealism, is the regressive, medieval, Bedouin understanding of religion. A large number of modern-day Muslims have never been presented with an interpretation of religion other than the one propagated by the enemies of reason and free thinking, from Ibn Hanbal in the tenth century to the founder of the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance in the Arabian Peninsula in 1744 (Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab, the spiritual father of Wahhabism, whose message was merged after his death with the ideas of Abul 'Alaa Al-Mawdoody), to the ideas of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. 

More recently, an Islamic state established three quarters of a century ago (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ) took it upon itself not only to stand as the embodiment of this brand of Islam but to export its understanding and spread its message to every corner of the world. In that version of Islam there is no room for the Other (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or otherwise); there can be no equality between men and women nor peaceful coexistence with others, no possibility of allowing the human mind to explore new horizons, no scope for creativity or imaginative thinking. So firmly entrenched in the past is this harsh and uncompromising brand of Islam that it does not allow for the proper interpretation of the word jihad as meaning the use of force only in self-defense against outside aggression but continues to use the interpretation adopted by Bedouin tribes in the Middle Ages, which is the imposition of their religious beliefs on the whole of humanity by force of arms. 

Nine centuries ago, the world of Islam was the scene of a battle of ideas between two trends. One trend, which upheld the primacy of reason, began with the Mu'tazalites and was taken to new Aristotelian heights by Ibn Rushd, who lived in Andalusia just over eight centuries ago. The other opposed the use of reason in the interpretation of holy texts, upholding orthodoxy and tradition and spurning deductive reasoning altogether. This latter trend had many prominent adherents, including Ahmed ibn-Hanbal, one of the four Sunni imams, and Abu Hamed Al-Ghazzali, the noted Islamic jurist. Unfortunately for Muslims, the school which favoured unquestioning adherence to tradition over the use of critical faculties prevailed. The defeat of the school of reason was symbolically represented in the burning of Ibn Rushd's works by the authorities, who elevated the stature of Al-Ghazzali to towering heights by bestowing on him the name " Hujat al Islam " (the authority on Islam). Exalting a man who did not believe the human mind capable of grasping the Truth as ordained by God set into motion a process that continues to this day with devastating effects on the Arab mindset, which has become insular, regressive and unreceptive to new ideas. 

The second chain shackling the Arab mindset is a cultural climate which has encouraged the spread of tribal values, including such negative values as individualism (instead of tolerance) and insularity (instead of open-mindedness). As a result, Arab societies were unable to receive and assimilate the values of pluralism, acceptance of the Other, a belief in the universality of knowledge and science, acceptance of the human rights movement and the movement for women's rights – not to mention an institutional rejection of the most important achievement of human civilization, democracy. Educational systems in Arab societies reflect the prevailing cultural climate, which stands as a barrier between the Arab mindset and the march of human progress. One need only look at the educational systems in force in a country like Saudi Arabia to realize that they are creating generations totally ill equipped to deal with the realities of the age. Indeed, it is enough to see the opinion leaders of that society to realize how strong the organic link between the cultural/educational climate and the insular, backward-looking ethos in some Arab societies. 

Finally, the religious, educational, cultural and media institutions in Arabic-speaking societies have created a mindset that considers the call for progress and modernity a call to accept a cultural invasion and the loss of cultural specificity. 

The problem of Arabic-speaking societies as well as of some non-Arab Muslim societies will not be solved by military confrontations, security measures or economic rewards and/or punishments. None of these measures address the core issue, which is essentially one of culture and knowledge. Accordingly, the most effective way of dealing with the problem is by adopting a level-headed approach based on a thorough understanding of the reasons behind the distinctive characteristics displayed by the contemporary Arab mindset.

 

Ten Random Observations

First Observation: My visits to colleges of Middle Eastern Studies in a number of prestigious European universities were and continue to be a source of great personal joy and enormous intellectual vitality. Some of the most stimulating and enjoyable hours I spent were in the departments of Middle Eastern studies in the universities of Leiden in Holland, Durham in Britain, Heidelberg in Germany and Naples in Italy, among others. On a visit to Calabria University at the southern tip of Italy last March, I had the opportunity to meet with Professor Alberto Ventura, who can rightfully be described as one of Europe’s foremost experts on Sufism in Islam. Our discussion turned to Ibn Rushd, a major influence in my intellectual formation, and to Mohiedine Ibn Araby, whose life and works are the specialized subject of Professor Ventura.

From our discussion I learned something new about the relationship between the two men. I already knew that Ibn Araby was a great admirer of the ideas of Ibn Rushd; what I learned that day was that the two men enjoyed a warm personal friendship. According to Professor Ventura, when Ibn Rushd died in exile, Ibn Araby was the one who handled the burial arrangements, he who wrapped the body in a shroud and carried it on his shoulders to the grave site. There he placed it in a wooden coffin while placing all the deceased’s works in another wooden box. These were then loaded onto the back of a pack animal, the coffin on the right and the book-laden box on the left, the two lashed to a stout pole strapped to the animal’s back. The cortege moved forward followed by Ibn Araby and others in a dramatic scene pregnant with symbolism in which Ibn Rushd’s works balanced the body of the man I believe was the greatest thinker in Islamic history.

As is my wont, I did not take Professor Ventura’s story for granted but on my return delved into the many books written on Ibn Rushd to verify for myself the accuracy of his account. My research confirmed that the Italian professor who had devoted his life to the study of Mohiedine Ibn Araby deserved his reputation as the ultimate authority on the history of Sufism and Sufis. The most interesting aspect of the story is the affinity that existed between a great Sufi and a great thinker, an affinity that is totally lacking in the attitude of Sunni theologians towards the great thinker Ibn Rushd. This is an issue that needs to be looked into in greater depth.

Second Observation: Much has been written about the corruption of ousted president Hosni Mubarak and all the members of his family. But no one has written about the crass ignorance and complete absence of any cultural depth of this thieving despot. In the period between 1986 and 1996, I met him several times when he visited petroleum and natural gas sites belonging to companies I was heading at the time. In the course of those visits, I had the chance to see for myself that Egypt was being ruled by an uncultivated boor. I could well believe that what he took pride in declaring on several occasions was true: the man had never read a serious book in his life. A pastime I indulge in for my own amusement is to paint a picture of the cultural formation of any person I deal with on the basis of the level of their discourse. I was stunned by the way Mubarak spoke, by his crude style and coarse language, and can honestly say he is one of the most ignorant people I have ever spoken to.

The same can be said of his wife, who is even more arrogant and high-handed than her husband, like most children born, like herself, of European mothers. She is also equally shallow and ignorant. Once when I was still chairman of the Heliopolis Library [before I tendered my resignation because of her meddling in the way I managed the library] I organized a Mozart evening on the occasion of the anniversary of the composer’s death on December 5^th. The plan was for the Cairo Symphony Orchestra, under conductor Ahmed el-Saidi, a good friend of mine, to play a number of Mozart’s later works, including the Requiem which he died while composing. When I knew Suzanne Mubarak would be attending the musical evening, I suggested to maestro el-Saidi that he begin with a piece she could understand [if only partially] and perhaps appreciate. Maestro el-Saidi accepted my proposal that the recital begin with Mozart’s 40^th Symphony because it is not as alien to the eastern ear as the Requiem or the works of some composers like Wagner, Liszt or Mendelssohn.  As the second of the four movements of the 40^th Symphony began, Suzanne Mubarak whispered in my ear, “tell him to cut it short”!! I turned my head away pretending not to hear, horrified at the cruel trick fate had played in allowing a bunch of ignorant crooks to rule Egypt, whose name is a shining beacon in the history of nations.

After the “tell him to cut it short” incident, Suzanne Mubarak objected to my inviting Dr. Murad Wahba to give a talk at the Library on “Education in Egypt: from the school of rote memorization to the school of creativity”. I had no choice but to present my resignation (in December 1997) bringing to an end the one hundred sorry days I had spent dealing with a woman whose blind ambition precipitated her husband’s tragic downfall and blackened his name in Egypt’s history as its most ignorant and corrupt ruler in centuries.

Third Observation: I  was asked why I hated Saudi Arabia so much. I replied that I neither hated nor loved it, but that I rejected, condemned, and resisted its pervading cultural climate that it exports to my country, Egypt, as it does to most societies in the world. I reject, condemn and resist the role of the Saudi religious establishment, which I consider to be the root of all evil since the alliance forged between Mohamed Ibn Saud and Mohamed Ibn Abdul Wahab in Al-Dir’iyah in 1955. I reject, condemn and resist the constraints imposed by Saudi men of religion, a caste characterized by extreme ignorance, backwardness and obscurantism, on Saudi women. I reject, condemn and resist the zealotry of the Saudi religious establishment in propagating the Wahabi/Saudi model of Islam, a model that has done more to harm the reputation of Islam and Muslims in the last half of the previous century than anything perpetrated by the so-called enemies of Islam. All of this has nothing to do with the Saudi people or with love or hate. I believe that when the men of deshdasha-land rebel against their anachronistic costumes, particularly the headdress known as the shamagh, which covers not only the head but the mind as well, when the women of that region rebel against the dictum that it is the men who decide what they can and cannot wear, then and only then will their region have taken its first steps towards civilization.

Fourth Observation: One of the things that exasperates me most is the way many in Arabic-speaking societies designate men of religion as ulamas (learned). How can a narrow-minded, ignorant sheikh be described as learned? A man who cannot read-let alone understand- one page of a book by Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Auguste Compte, Kierkegaard, Whitehead, Bertrand Russel, Martin Heidegger, Sartre or John Dewey? How can we use the word ulama to describe someone who doesn’t know whether John Stewart Mill, Ricardo, Malthus, Freud and Durkheim are leading thinkers or automobile brands?

Fifth Observation: In 1914, Taha Hussein, one of the leading lights of enlightenment and reason in all the Arabic-speaking societies, boarded a ship in Alexandria bound for Marseille. In his own words, once the ship set sail, “I removed the turban from my head … and from my heart.” This succinct sentence conveys a powerful message that is self-explanatory.

Sixth Observation: I believe that prosecuting all of Hosni, Suzanne and Gamal Mubarak’s men who dominated Egypt’s political, economic, media and cultural landscape under the ancient regime is the ‘purgatory’ [to use Dante’s term] that will guarantee for the Egyptian people that the black cloud of corruption and despotism under which they have been living for three long decades has finally lifted.

Seventh Observation: In the course of my professional life I met with deposed president Hosni Mubarak quite a few times. Each time I felt a deep sense of shame: how could this ignoramus be the president of a country like Egypt, its name a thing of glory throughout the ages? To this day I cannot understand why Anwar Sadat picked such a shallow, ignorant and uncultured man to be his vice-president. What could have prompted such an ill-founded decision?

Eighth Observation: More than 10 years ago, a senior Egyptian official told me that the interior ministry had finally found an antidote against the poison of the Muslim Brotherhood. I listened with growing amazement as he proceeded to explain that it had been decided to encourage and strengthen the Salafis to hit at the Brotherhood. This is yet another example of the consequences of a ruling caste devoid of any sort of cultural vision for there is no doubt that the Salafis represent a far greater threat to any contemporary society than the Brotherhood. This is just one of countless incidents that attest to the dangerously ignorant leadership that ruled Egypt, the most important country in Africa and the Middle East, for long decades.

Ninth Observation: A few days ago I was walking in Turin when I found myself before the palace of King Victor Emmanuel which stands a few steps away from the Egyptian Museum, home to the largest collection of ancient Egyptian antiquities outside Egypt. As I stood there, I was reminded of the truism that truth is often stranger than fiction. Mohamed Ali, the founder of modern Egypt, sent his grandson Ismail [the son of Ibrahim] who was to rule Egypt from 1863 to 1879, to study in Italy. The young man fell in love with Italy and all things Italian. When he decided to build the Cairo Opera, the first opera in the Middle East, he stipulated that it be an exact replica of the opera house in Turin. When he organized festivities to celebrate the opening of the Suez Canal he commissioned a new opera for the occasion (Giuseppe Verdi’s ‘Aida’). When Britain and France forced him to abdicate in 1879, he went to Turin and placed his youngest son, Ahmed Fouad, (born in 1868, he was to become ruler of Egypt from 1917 until his death in 1936) in the care of King Victor Emmanuel II. Ahmed Fouad was effectively raised in Turin; he attended school in the city and, after graduating from the Military Academy, became an officer in Victor Emmanuel’s royal guards. When he became Sultan of Egypt on October 9^th, 1917, he appointed so many Italians to his household that Italian became the first language of the palace! It was in this atmosphere that Farouk was born and raised so that, not surprisingly, Italian was the language closest to his heart. In a referendum held in May 1946, the Italian people voted to abolish the monarchy forcing the last king of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III, to abdicate. He chose to spend his last years in Alexandria, where he died and is now buried. When Farouk abdicated and left Egypt on July 26^th, 1952, he chose to spend his exile in Italy where he died (probably by poison) on April 18^th, 1965. All this flashed through my mind as I strolled towards the Egyptian museum in Turin, hometown of the House of Savoy.

Tenth Observation: I did not really begin mixing in Egyptian society until 1996. Before then most of my relationships and contacts were with non-Egyptians of all nationalities: European, American, African, Asian, Australian. During those years, I found myself before two options, neither of which was particularly appealing. It was a case of being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, to be precise, between two circles of people: I shared with the members of one circle cultural, artistic and intellectual interests, while with the other I shared social links. A circle of intellectuals and a circle of class! The members of the first circle were intelligent and highly knowledgeable – but filled with bitterness. The members of the other circle were silly and frivolous – as insipid as a meal of watermelons, to quote Nizar Qabbani.

And so life continues to prove over and over that it is a comedy of errors or, as Tewfik El Hakim put it in the title of the last book he wrote, “The world is a farce.”

 

Three Interlinked Problematics: Identity, Education, Democracy

“An educated citizenry is vital to the survival of democracy”—Thomas Jefferson

1]   Identity:  On August 13, 1947, the Muslim Indian who went to bed resolved to remain in India woke up on August 14, 1947 still an Indian. But Muslim Indians who chose to leave India and join the new entity, Pakistan, slept as Indians and woke up the next morning having dropped the word Indian from their name and replaced it with a new appellation derived from the word ‘Pakistan’.

However, given that a new identity cannot be acquired overnight, the truth is that Muslim Indians who decided not to remain Indian chose to discard the Indian component of their identity and retain only the Muslim – thereby falling victim to an acute identity crisis. For they had decided to define their identity in terms of only one of its constituent elements: the religious.

How did these Indian Muslims who had cast off the Indian component of their identity fare? Pakistan broke up into two separate states when its eastern province seceded and formed the new nation of Bangladesh. It was wracked by half a dozen military coups d’état and was ruled by military juntas for long stretches at a time. As for India, not only did it not witness a single military coup, but is universally acknowledged to be the largest democracy in the world. Moreover, it developed one of the best judicial systems of the age, unlike Pakistan, whose judiciary has all too often been dominated by the military. And, where India enjoys one of the best educational systems in the world, Pakistan’s educational system is in severe decline, not least because of the proliferation of religious madrasas, one of the main breeding grounds of violence and terrorism in the world. While Pakistan, together with Arab and non-Arab partners, has provided violent Islamic organizations with some of their leading cadres, the sizable Muslim community in India, which boasts more members than the entire population of Pakistan, has remained largely aloof from these organizations.

That is because the Muslims of India who chose to retain their Indian citizenship did not fall victim to the identity crisis that has plagued Indian Muslims who renounced their Indian identity on August 14, 1947. This identity crisis is what has determined the course and destiny of Pakistan and its people, who have witnessed the break-up of Pakistan’s territorial integrity with the secession of Bangladesh, the chain of military coups, the rule by military juntas and the abortion of democracy; the declining standards of education and the lack of an independent judiciary, not to mention the burgeoning seeds of violence and the fragility of social peace. Anyone concerned about the deficiencies and breakdowns afflicting many sectors in societies like Egypt cannot afford to ignore Pakistan’s identity crisis. For Egypt and other Arab societies are going through a crisis that is in its essence similar to the one besetting Pakistan in that both base identity on religion not citizenship.

****************

In 1938, Dr. Taha Hussein published his seminal work entitled The Future of Culture in Egypt. Among the many topics he addressed in the book was the issue of identity. He began by questioning who we are culturally: Are we part of the Arab world, the Islamic world or the Mediterranean basin? We could add yet another dimension to the question: or are we, given our geographical location, part of Africa?

I believe the last six decades have brought about a great deal of confusion in the minds of Egyptians as to just what their identity is. If we were to ask a cross-section of Egyptians today to define their identity, some would say Muslim, others Arab and yet others would reply Egyptian.

The ambiguity surrounding the all-important question of identity in the country derives from political choices at the leadership level. During the Nasser era, emphasis was placed on Egypt’s Arab identity; in the post-Nasser years the emphasis gradually shifted to its Islamic identity. Today, Egypt is in dire need of concerted efforts in the cultural, information and educational fields aimed at dissipating the confusion and ambiguity in the contemporary Egyptian mindset over the critical question of identity.  In my personal opinion, Egypt needs to come to terms with itself, so to speak, on the question of identity. But this cannot be achieved by promoting one aspect of the Egyptian identity over the others.

I believe the most suitable formula for the Egyptian case is a cultural defense of the compound nature of the Egyptian identity, which, like an onion, is made up of several layers. Only such a defense can dissipate the confusion and prevent partisanship and divisiveness. Moreover, it is the only defense that reflects the reality of the situation. There is no doubt that Islamic culture has played a major role in forming the Egyptian identity. But it is by no means the only factor. Arab culture too has played a major role in developing the contemporary Egyptian identity but it would also be wrong to claim that it is the only factor. It does, however, constitute a vital part of our identity. In this connection, it is interesting to recall the late nationalist Coptic leader Makram Ebeid and a current Patriarch of the Coptic Church, Pope Shenouda III, great orators both, whose mastery of the Arabic language enabled them to play leading roles in Egyptian public life and for whom Arabic culture is a component element of their identity.

In the final analysis, the compound nature of Egypt’s identity derives from its geographical location. Instilling a sense in the national psyche of the multi-layered composition of Egypt’s identity, with its Arab, Muslim, Coptic and Mediterranean dimensions is the only way to avoid falling into a trap similar to the one in which the Pakistani identity now finds itself.

************

I can see no better way of stabilising the erratic needle on the compass of our Egyptian identity than through the medium of education. However, we are faced here with a massive and extremely complicated challenge. It would be all too easy to stuff educational programmes with material aimed at giving precedence to the Arab layer of our identity at the expense of all the others. It would be just as easy to churn out graduates with a sense of identity based on religion. But these are options that carry within them the seeds of social fragmentation as well as of society’s isolation from the modern age. The ideal option, on the other hand, is not easy. It would require the development and introduction of educational material designed to teach young people that they are Egyptians first and foremost and that their Egyptianness is the end product of a shared past and common heritage made up of millennia of ancient Egyptian history, of a Coptic era, of Islamic centuries, of Arab culture and of countless influences linked to Egypt’s status as one of the main countries abutting the Mediterranean sea. Difficult though it may be to put into effect, this option is the only one capable of achieving two primordial objectives at one and the same time: the first is social peace and harmony between the various components of society; the second is the ability to join the march of human progress.

2]   Education: The question of education has been at the forefront of a vigorous national debate over the recent period. The consensus that seems to have been reached is that setting in place a modern and creative educational system is the only solution to the problems we are facing in the political, economic, cultural and social spheres, as well as the only antidote to the spread of an understanding and interpretation of religion running counter to science and the realities of the age. But though all agree that educational reform is the key to Egypt’s salvation, they differ when it comes to how best to go about it. Some are unable to see that discipline, though essential in all educational establishments, indeed, in any institution, cannot in and of itself create a modern and creative educational system capable of rising to the challenges of our age. Others see the solution as lying in the construction of more educational buildings. Actually, the essence of the challenge is related to three issues: the first is educational philosophy, the second is educational material or curricula and the third is the teacher.

By educational philosophy I mean the formulation – at the official level – of an answer to the following question: What are our aims when it comes to education? To answer this question we need to come up with what is known in modern management science as a vision. Our vision in regard to education could be based on the following: putting in place an educational system aimed at forming citizens [and a sense of citizenship] in step with the realities of our time, who believe in science, humanity and progress, who possess the tools of research, dialogue and criticism, who believe that science and technology are capable of creating better living standards, who believe in the universality of knowledge and science and who have struck a successful balance between pride in the past of their society and a determination to link their future to the march of human progress, to science and to civilization. The educational system should also aim at instilling in the minds and consciences of Egypt’s youth the values of progress. The most important of these values is the acceptance of criticism, the practice of self-criticism, pluralism, tolerance in all its forms, acceptance of the Other, a belief in the supremacy of education and progress, in humanity and peaceful co-existence between different cultures, in the sanctity of human rights and in the rights of women as partners in the creation of a better future.

It is vitally important for educational philosophy to recognize the imperative need to move from the current educational system based on learning by rote and memory tests to a modern system based on encouraging free thinking, initiative, dialogue and debate and on fostering the creativity and imaginative thinking of students, even if they end up forming opinions different from those of the teacher.

Educational curricula should on the one hand serve the agreed upon educational philosophy and, on the other, respond to the latest innovations in applied and social sciences.

As to the teacher, who is the cornerstone of any educational system, he or she must be capable of translating the educational philosophy into a workable formula for the students and of making the transition from the current educational system into one based on free thinking, initiative, dialogue, debate, research and critical thinking.

3]   Democracy: Despite the theory propounded by some that each culture has its own form of democracy, the inescapable reality is that the essence of democracy does not change from one geographical location or culture to another. The essence of democracy is based on three essential factors. The first is that the ruler should come to power in response to free popular will. The second is that the ruler should govern in accordance with constitutional rules and be answerable to the people during and beyond his term in office. The third is that the ruler should leave office in a constitutional manner and that his term or terms should not extend in perpetuity.


Undemocratic forces in many societies pay lip service to the formal aspects of democracy by holding elections. But real democracy is not a question of elections as such but the step-by-step process of selection from beginning to end. It is a modern constitution in mature civil societies with solid institutions, parties enjoying equal rights, duties and opportunities, an independent judiciary, systems that guarantee transparency and mass media that rise above finger-pointing scandal mongering and finally, the voting process.


There is an obvious dialectical relationship between the issues of identity and education on the one hand and the issue of democracy on the other. Confusion in the area of identity can have a severe adverse effect on the process of selection that is at the heart of democracy. The same applies in regard to education. A modern educational system based on developing creativity, free thinking and critical faculties is what can transform the democratic process from a formalistic framework into a genuine tool for translating selection into decision.

BBC Doha Debate on the Separation of Mosque and State

Tarek Heggy's newest article (in Arabic) that will be published by "al WAFD" daily on 4th January, 2012

يقولون أنهم يطلبون احترام العالم لهم (وهو حق مؤكد لهم) ، ولكنهم لا يحترمون الآخر بالشكل الذى يطلبونه لأنفسهم ... فبمناسبة وبدون مناسبة يقولون للآخر أن كتابه المقدس محرف ! وأن عقيدته فاسدة ومزيفة !!! .... ويقولون أنهم يؤمنون بحرية الإعتقاد ، ولكنهم يتمسكون بأن المعتقدات المسموح (!!) بها هى الأديان الثلاثة الإبراهيمية (أو التى يسميها البعض بالسماوية) ! ويقولون أنهم ليسوا ضد أي دين آخر ، ولكن ما أن يشرع أبناء أي دين آخر فى بناء دورعبادة لهم ، حتى يثور بركان غضبهم ويقوم بعضهم بتدمير دورالعبادة التى كان "الآخر" يهم ببناءها ! ... ويتحدثون بحماس عن حقهم فى إنشاء دور عبادة لأبناء وبنات دينهم فى أي وكل مكان على سطح الكرة الأرضية ، ولكن الدولة التى تضم أقدس مقدساتهم لا يوجد بها (وغير مسموح) دور عبادة لأي دين أو معتقد أو طائفة أخري !!! وعندما يقرر الشعب السويسري (من خلال إقتراع عام) أنه رغم السماح لهم بإنشاء دور عبادة جديدة ولكن بدون مآذن ، يغلي الدم فى عروقهم ويفور بركان غضبهم وتنطلق كالجحيم صراخاتهم ! وكأنهم نسوا أن كبري بلدانهم لا تسمح بكنيسة واحدة للمسيحيين أو معبد لليهود أو للبوذيين أو للبهائيين !!!! يتمسكون (عن طريق منظمات المجتمع المدني) بتحسين صورتهم وصورة معنقداتهم فى برامج التعليم فى البلدان المتقدمة التى آوتهم وفتحت صدرها وقبلتهم كمهاجرين اليها ... فإن طالب المسيحيون او اليهود او البهائيون بالمقابل ، تعالي عويلهم وشجبهم للتدخلات الأجنبية المشبوهة فى برامجهم التعليمية . يوجد من أبناء دينهم أعضاءا بكل برلمانات أوروبا وأمريكا الشمالية وأستراليا ... أما هم فلا يوجد ببرلماناتهم أي وافد من الخارج ، بل ويقومون بإلغاء عضوية أي إبن أو إبنة من الوطن إن ثبت تمتعه بأية جنسية أخري !!! يهاجرون لبلدان أوروبا وامريكا الشمالية وأستراليا هاربين من إنعدام الحريات (بشتى صورها) وإنعدام فرص الحياة الطيبة ... وما أن يستقروا فى الجنة التى طالما حلموا بها حتى يبدأ بعضهم فى العمل على تدمير البنية الأساسية للمنظومة الدستورية والقانونية والثقافية للجنة التى فروا اليها من جحيم مجتمعاتهم الغارقة تحت مياه بحيرة التخلف الآسنة ... وعندما يكتشف أبناء المجتمعات المتقدمة التى فر لها "هؤلاء" أن كل ما يريده من الديموقراطية "بعض" هؤلاء المهاجرين انما هو إستعمال الديموقراطية لنسف وتدمير الديموقراطيات الغربية ، يعلو صراخهم : إنقذونوا من موجة العداء لنا ولديننا !! .... إنها مأساة منطقتنا التى اختطفها حكام هم آية من أكبر آيات الجهل المضفر بالفساد وإنعدام الرؤية وغياب الحس التاريخي واختفاء الثقافة ... وبعد نصف قرن من حكم هؤلاء اللصوص - الجهلة تكون شعوب مجتمعاتنا غير قادرة على الإطلاق على إختيار الكفاءة المضفرة بالمعرفة والمتوخية للتقدم والمتسمة بالنزاهة .... وعندما تصل بنا عواقب نصف قرن من الجهل والفساد الى ما نحن فيه اليوم ، فلا يبقي لنا من خيار الا خوض المباراة بأدوات الديموقراطية وفى مقدمتها التمسك بإيماننا بالعلم (لا بالخرافة) وبتقنيات علوم الإدارة الحديثة وبالإنسانية وبالتقدم وبالحداثة وبالنسبية وبالتعددية (بمعناها الحقيقي ، لا بمعناها الزائف الذى يكرره اليوم بعض الثيوقراطيين) وبقبول الآخر وبحقوق الانسان وبحقوق المرأة العصرية المساوية تماما للرجل وبالسماحة الثقافية والدينية .... والأهم : بالدولة المدنية القائمة على المواطنة وعلى فصل الدين عن الدولة .... وأن يتمرسوا على العمل السياسي وعلى التواصل من الشعب بشتي طبقاته وعلى خدمة المجتمع .... ورغم أن هذا يبدو كمهمة عسيرة فى مواجهة سحب التراجع (للخلف) السوداء التى تغطي سماء واقعنا اليوم ، فإن الإيمان الحقيقي بقيم التقدم لا يكون حقيقيا وجديرا بالإحترام ما لم يعلنه المؤمنون به فى ظل ظرف تاريخي محبط كالظرف التاريخي الذى خلفه حكام مجرمون مثل بن علي وحسني مبارك والقذافي وعبدالله صالح (وقد سقطوا) وبشار الأسد (وهو سيسقط لا محالة خلال هذا العام الجديد) .... وأن يعملوا من الآن على إسترداد عقل وقلب الوطن من دعاة الماضي وخصوم العلم والتقدم والحريات والمعاصرة

Tarek Heggy discusses Arab society and education on France 24