Defining Neighbors

by Gribetz, Jonathan Marc

  RACE AND THE HISTORY OF JEWISH-ARAB COEXISTENCE

  Though the contemporary implications of Jewish-Arab racial kinship (i.e., providing evidence for hope in Arabs’ own potential for “progress”) were clearly important for these editors, the journals employed this theory to explain earlier historical moments as well. For some, the racial link between Jews and Arabs helped to account for the relatively good relations between Jews and Arabs in previous periods. (These supposed good relations were themselves a common theme in these journals). For example, in February 1908 al-Muqtaṭaf published a six-page article on “Philosophy among the Jews.” In the middle of the article, after discussing various ancient Jewish “philosophical movements” such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and rabbinic Judaism, the author reaches the subject of Jews’ first interactions with Arabs, and then, with Islam. Some Jews, the author explains, “refused to remain under the Roman yoke, suffering from chauvinistic oppression.” These Jews “came to the land of the Arabs, before Islam, and settled there.” In contrast to the Roman-controlled lands from which they fled, in “the land of the Arabs” there was “harmony between them [the Jews] and the natives because they were similar in language and close in race [al-jins], and because of the absence of a state that distinguished between native and foreigner.”63 With the advent of Islam, “its oppression of the Jews was not severe.” In fact, Jews “welcomed the conquerors,” and their spirit—which had been distressed by “the tyranny of the Romans and Persians”— “was revived.” This article on Jewish philosophy highlights that under Arab-Islamic rule a group of Jews “devoted themselves to knowledge and literature.” Such Jewish scholars included the famed thinkers Saadiah bin Yusuf (Saadiah Gaon) and Samuel bin Hofni.64 In other words, one of the reasons for the “harmony” between Jews and Arabs (and thus Muslims) was the fact that they were “close in race,” that their racial connections facilitated a natural coexistence and permitted Jews to reach great philosophical heights.

  As it was expounded in al-Muqtaṭaf, this theory was meant to offer further proof that Jewish philosophy is best developed within Arab-Islamic culture and civilization. Not only were the Jews who first fled to Arab lands from the “chauvinistic oppression” of Roman rule the ones who attained the pinnacles of Jewish philosophic inquiry, but the demise of Jewish philosophy can be traced to the moment at which European Christendom destroyed the great Jewish community that had flourished under Islam. “At the end of the fifteenth century,”65 the author explains, “the Jews were expelled from Spain and, in their expulsion, Jewish philosophy disappeared.” For this author, Jews have a special bond with Arab and Islamic civilization, tied, at least in part, to their shared racial origins. Moreover, the two societies are conceived in opposition to the imagined Other of Europe. Jews are second only to Arabs in “the history of philosophy” and share the glory with Arabs for together having “preserved science and philosophy during a period in which Europe was lost in the darkness of ignorance.” Explicitly linking Jewish philosophy (and, more generally, the achievements of Jewish culture) to Arab or Islamic rule, the article expresses pride in the shared Arab-Jewish philosophical past in contrast to the ignorant past of Europe.66

  CRESCENT, CROSS, AND THE CAUSES OF ANTISEMITISM

  The notion that historically Jews thrived and prospered under Arab and Islamic rule—especially as compared to the oppression and persecution they suffered in Christian Europe—was a leitmotif of nearly all comments on the course of Jewish history articulated in these journals.67 In a 1908 volume of al-Manār, the condition of the Jews is discussed in the course of Rida’s Qurʾanic commentary on a verse (Q. 3:112) that describes the “shame” (adh-dhilla) and “destitution” (al-maskana)68 with which the Jews have been punished for having “persistently disbelieved in God’s revelation and killed prophets without any right.” The first condition, “shame,” writes Rida, “has been removed from them [the Jews] in the Muslim countries and, more recently, in European countries as well (except, that is, for Russia), with laws that granted equality to all residents.” To be sure, “they have enemies in Europe.” Among these enemies, there are those in Germany who “might withhold the title ‘German’ from them [the Jews] and designate them [simply] as ‘Jew.’ ”69 In Rida’s view, the Jews in Islamic lands have lived without the veil of “shame” under which they were forced to endure in Europe. The recent improvements in the condition of European Jewry do not constitute a model for the way in which Jews ought to be treated under Islamic rule, but comprise merely a long-delayed “catching up” on the part of Europe to the more decent, tolerant policies and attitudes under Islam.

  The questions of religious tolerance and the place of Jews (as well as Christians) in the Islamic ordering of the modern world came to the fore in the early twentieth century. This was due in large measure to the increased interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims, Especially Europeans, whom many Muslims viewed as possessing certain knowledge and skills that could not, or should not, be denigrated and dismissed.70 In 1910 a Tunisian scholar wrote to al-Manār to inquire about Rida’s views on the status of Jews and Christians after the advent of Islam. The questioner expresses surprise at Rida’s earlier suggestion that in order for a person to be redeemed, Islam demands “faith in God and in the Last Day, and good deeds,” regardless of the practitioner’s nation, historical era, or geographical location. This Tunisian respondent contends that, from his perspective, Islam requires “belief in God and in the Last Day, as well as faith in [His] messengers [ar-rusul].” As such, one who believed in Moses and Jesus before the advent of “our prophet” Muhammad was, “beyond a doubt,” a Muslim. But does Rida truly think, asks this reader, that a contemporary twentieth-century Jew or Christian will be redeemed if he “believes in God and in the Last Day, and performs good deeds” but “rejects that which was revealed to Muhammad”?71 The reader wishes to understand how Rida could consider a Jew or a Christian to be deserving of redemption in the afterlife when he denies the legitimacy of “the seal of the prophets,” Islam’s Muhammad.

  In his reply, Rida appeals to the writings of an early Islamic exegete, Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (838–923). Rida cites the story of a meeting among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, each professing the superiority of their own religion. The Jews say that “our religion is better than yours, for our religion preceded yours, and our scripture preceded yours, and our prophet preceded yours. Ours is the religion of Abraham.” They conclude from this that “only those who are Jewish will enter paradise.” The Christians, the tale follows, say the same thing concerning their own religion. Finally, the Muslims assert that “our book came after yours and our prophet followed yours. You were instructed to follow us and leave your religion.” Therefore, reckon the Muslims, “only those who follow our religion will enter paradise.” At the climax of the story, God joins the conversation and reveals the Qurʾanic passage (Q. 4:123–25):

  It will not be according to your hopes or those of the People of the Book: anyone who does wrong will be requited for it and will find no one to protect or help him against God; anyone, male or female, who does good deeds and is a believer, will enter Paradise and will not be wronged by as much as the dip in a date stone. Who could be better in religion than those who direct themselves wholly to God, do good, and follow the religion of Abraham, who was true in faith? God took Abraham as a friend.72

  Rida takes this story as evidence that the Qurʾan “has conditioned entry into paradise and happiness in the afterlife upon faith and good deeds while denying boasting between the People of the Book and the Muslims.”73 Rida articulates an Islamic argument for religious toleration that mirrors certain eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European Enlightenment writings.74 Late Ottoman Palestine’s intellectuals, especially those Muslim elites such as Ruhi al-Khalidi, must be understood in the context of an Islamic world in which one of the most renowned and respected Islamic scholars of his day would not only argue for religious toleration but also insist that there is
room for Jews and Christians in heaven.

  Rida at once disparages European anti-Jewish persecution—viewing it as decidedly un-Islamic—and yet, similar to al-Khalidi, explains it in such a way that suggests it is understandable and perhaps even the fault of the Jews themselves. In 1903 Rida wrote at length about the Jews in a passage that links a number of themes already discussed in this chapter:

  The people of Israel are unique among the peoples of the world in the tenacity of their religious bond and their racial solidarity [tamassukihi bi-r-rābaṭa al-milliyya wa-l-ʿaṣabiyya al-jinsiyya]. They like to and try to divert toward themselves all of the advantages of the peoples among whom they live. Were it not for the fact that they believe that their religion is exclusively for them and thus they do not have to proselytize, they would try to turn all of the religions back to it [Judaism] with the [same] determination with which they try to transform the strengths of all of the people to the benefit of the Children of Israel. All of this—were it not for its excessiveness—are excellent qualities. However, excessive self-love, just like insufficient self-love, is harmful. For this reason, we find that this people is oppressed by all peoples and nations that do not extend to it the tolerance of the Muslims. Have you not seen that those who have been expelled by countries and evicted from their lands overwhelmingly have found refuge only in the countries of the Ottoman Empire, even in Palestine, where they seek to become independent and establish a new state?75

  Here, Rida first alludes to the dual definition of the Jews, considering them to be linked by both a “religious bond” and “racial solidarity.” This twofold tie that binds the Jews together, Rida claims, is exceptionally strong, and he appears to admire this. However, his is far from a philosemitic proclamation. After all, the Jews are characterized not only by a deep sense of unity but also by greed, an “excessive self-love” that leads them to try to channel everything of value they find among other peoples toward themselves. Writing in strikingly psychological terms, Rida asserts that “just like insufficient self-love,” an overabundance of self-love is also harmful. And it is this excessive, harmful self-love among Jews that, in Rida’s rendering, accounts for the way Jews are treated by non-Muslims rather than any condemnable Christian inclination toward intolerance. Though Rida is not advocating anti-Jewish persecution, this explanation of the phenomenon treads closely to a justification. Muslims, by contrast, owing to their deep-seated quality of “tolerance,” have dealt more favorably with the Jews, despite the latter’s loathsome behavior. It is for this reason, concludes Rida, that Jews have so frequently fled from non-Muslim countries and sought refuge in the lands of Islam. For the moment, let us leave aside Rida’s passing reference to Palestine and the Zionist movement; we might simply note that, in these revealing lines, he portrays Zionism as fitting into a broader pattern within Jewish history, a movement of overly self-interested Jews from non-Muslim countries migrating toward the lands of Islam because of the relative tolerance found there.

  Rida’s premise of Jewish self-interest as the cause of antisemitism was followed by a more developed theory of the Jewish psyche by a different author in al-Hilāl in 1906. The context this time was not a Qurʾanic commentary, as was typically the case in Rida’s al-Manār, but a lead story on what these journals found to be the ever-intriguing Rothschild banking family.76 This article, “The House of Rothschild: The Most Renowned Financial House in Europe,” was part of a series on “The Most Famous Events and Most Important People.” After a general introduction on the subject of wealth, the author turns to the topic of “The Jews and Wealth,” implying from the start not only that the Rothschilds were a Jewish family, but that their Jewishness was relevant to their financial position. At the opening of this section, the author identifies Jews in positive terms: “The Jews are among the oldest and most intelligent peoples [shu‘ūb].” The author next offers a barebones narrative of Jewish history, revealing those aspects he deems to be most important. The Jews, he explains, “had a state in antiquity, and some of them were distinguished as judges, kings, and prophets.” Eventually the Jews’ “sovereignty was wrested from them” and “their city (Jerusalem) was destroyed.” The result was that “they were exiled throughout God’s lands, leaving them without a country or a government.” Until this point, the narrative reads very much like a Jewish nationalist appraisal of Jewish history: a glorious period of Jewish sovereignty that came to a cataclysmic end and was followed by a period defined by the absence of a country and of sovereignty.

  For this al-Hilāl author, though, Jewish history in the Diaspora was principally characterized by the pursuit of wealth. In his assessment of the Jewish people’s perseverance to cohere even in exile, the author considers the Jews’ “intelligence, ambition, and courage” to be traits that kept them from reaching the same fate as “many ancient nations that grew old and then assimilated among living, youthful nations and thereby perished and disappeared.” To survive as a people in exile, the Jews transformed themselves into “a religious community [jamāʿat ad-dīn],” the unity of which was only enhanced by “oppression [at the hands] of other nations.” Having “despaired of achieving sovereignty,” Jews in the Diaspora “directed their intelligence and interests toward the accumulation of wealth.” The Jews’ single-minded focus on money is thus linked directly to their loss of sovereignty. Deeming unrealistic any hope of the restoration of Jewish sovereignty, Jews sought power through a means that did not require a state. Over many generations, they developed the “skills” of wealth acquisition that ultimately made them, in this author’s estimation, “the nation most capable of gaining wealth.”77 This phenomenon was discernible, the author contends, “even during the pre-Islamic era.”78 Indeed, soon after the Jews’ arrival in the Arabian Peninsula, to which they fled from “Roman oppression,” “commerce and money-changing were virtually their monopolies.” And the situation was much the same, the author explains, in Iraq, Syria (ash-Shām), and Egypt.

  While for Rida, as we saw above, a primary cause of antisemitism was the Jews’ excessive self-interest, this al-Hilāl author explains the widespread hatred of Jews in a related but somewhat more sympathetic way. “It is possible,” the article suggests, that the Jews’ “wealth was one of the most significant reasons for their persecution, due to envy and jealousy.” As opposed to attributing anti-Jewish sentiment to a negative quality of Jews, the author instead blames non-Jews’ “envy and jealousy.” The Jews’ “enemies poured wrath upon their [the Jews’] religion and seized, expelled, and killed them.” Though the Jews’ wealth was a target of gentile jealousy, those responsible for the hatred and violence were the coveters, not the coveted.

  Though the al-Hilāl author and Rida differed in their apparent degree of sympathy toward the Jews and in their explanations of the Jews’ persecution, they agreed in one important regard. In the minds of both the Muslim Rida and the writer for the Christian-edited al-Hilāl,79 the Jewish experience under Islamic rule was fundamentally distinct from (and superior to) that under non-Muslim domination. The Jewish condition was so grave in the pre-Islamic Middle East, writes al-Hilāl’s author, “that when Islam arrived, they [the Jews] saw in it relief for themselves, and they assisted the Muslims in their goals and helped them with the means of conquest.” In turn, the Muslims “were kind” to the Jews; “they became close with them and many [Jews under Islamic rule] were distinguished in science and politics even though their endeavors were mostly devoted to trade, money-changing, and usury.” Indeed, the author explains, they constituted a number of the famous financial houses in the Abbasid state in Iraq, the Fatimid state in Egypt, and the Umayyad state in Andalusia. In contrast to this remarkably comfortable coexistence within the Islamic realm, the Jews of Europe

  continued to suffer persecution under the rule of Christian kings to the point that oftentimes official orders were issued to take their money, burn their books, and expel them, based on charges that were mostly fabrications. Some of these accusations are still level
ed [against them] until the present day, such as the charge of kidnapping Christian children, poisoning drinking wells and the like. The Jews did not bear this disgrace patiently but rather conspired against their enemies with various tricks for which there is no space here.80

  According to the al-Hilāl author, anti-Jewish persecution was (and remained) a distinctly Christian and European phenomenon, one wholly foreign to Islam. Overall the author is highly critical of Christian Europe’s persecution of Jews, though his claim that it was “based on charges that were mostly fabrications” suggests that, in his mind, perhaps not all the accusations were unwarranted. While the author contends that Jews were not altogether faultless in their relations with European Christians, he interprets Jews’ “tricks” as a reaction to antisemitism, not its cause—a stark contrast to Rida’s perspective. For this al-Hilāl author, the cure for antisemitism is not Islam—the journal was, after all, edited by a Christian81—but “modern civilization” and the “spirit of individual freedom.” Once these ideals reached parts of Europe in the modern period and Jews “were granted their civil and personal rights and freedom of occupation,” they were able to achieve success in many areas of public life, most prominently in finance. (With this the author returns to the subject of his article, the Rothschilds.82)

  These two articles—the first in Rida’s al-Manār and the second in Zaydan’s al-Hilāl—are suggestive of a consensus spanning the spectrum of Muslim and Christian fin de siècle Arabic writers on the fundamentally superior treatment of Jews by Muslims than by Christians. (To be sure, many Jewish writers of the period shared this view.83) For an article published in a journal edited by a Muslim, it is perhaps unsurprising that this view is expressed unabashedly. However, in a journal edited by a Christian, this forthright statement of Islam as inherently more tolerant than Christianity is remarkable.