Defining Neighbors

by Gribetz, Jonathan Marc

  TOLERANCE AS A QUALITY OF ISLAM OR OF ARABS?

  Not every Christian-edited journal, however, was apparently satisfied with the wholesale criticism of Christendom that was implied by this comparison between the treatment of the Jews under Islam and those under Christendom. Al-Muqtaṭaf proposed a more nuanced stance on the question. In “The Jews of France,” its 1913 article cited above, the discussion extends beyond France and into Europe more broadly. The history of Europe’s Jews, the author explains, was comparable to, or even worse than, that of French Jewry. The only exception, notably, is the history of the Jews “in Spain during the period of Arab rule,” where Jews were treated “like all other residents, and famous scholars and doctors arose from among them.” At first glance, this highlighting of Spain in the medieval period, i.e., when Muslims ruled, appears entirely consistent with the distinctions drawn in al-Manār and al-Hilāl. However, it is critical to note the terminology the author uses here. The benevolent treatment that Jews received in medieval Spain occurred “during the period of Arab rule,” not Muslim rule. In other words, tolerance, for this author, was an Arab quality rather than a Muslim one (that is, a quality belonging to Christian Arabs no less than to Muslim Arabs).

  The author then compares the status of Jews in different Christian countries. Lest readers associate anti-Jewish persecution exclusively with Catholics (such as those of France), he insists that “the Protestants were no more tolerant than were the Catholics.” In fact, “the opposite was the case.” For instance, “the situation [of the Jews] in Italy was always superior to their situation in the Protestant countries.” Supporting this contention, the author notes: “In 1588, Pope Sixtus V abrogated all the orders of his predecessors to oppress them [the Jews]. He permitted them to live and trade in all the lands that submit to his rule and to observe their religious rituals without harassment. He made them equal to the rest of his subjects in their rights and obligations.”84 The author presents a fascinating and revealing interpretation of Jews’ distinct experiences in the various regions of their Diaspora. On the one hand, he acknowledges that they fared better in the Muslim world (most notably Spain) than in Christendom, but when making this comparison, he does not employ religious categories (i.e., Muslims vs. Christians); it was Arabs who were more tolerant than Europeans. On the other hand, the author obviously recognizes that these ethnic (or perhaps, in the language of the day, “racial”) groups have various religious affiliations, and he is keen to dissociate Catholicism (as in France) from anti-Jewish persecution. In this sense, he appears eager to portray Catholicism more sympathetically than Protestantism. While one may suspect that this inclination is tied more to the author’s own religious affiliations (perhaps he was a Catholic) than to his understanding of the historical record, it is necessary to recall that at least the editors of al-Muqtaṭaf were converts to Protestantism.85 In any case, what we have found in this article is, specifically, a Christian Arab (and perhaps more precisely a non-Protestant Christian Arab) version of the theory accounting for the distinctions in how Jews have been treated in their Diasporas. The author maneuvers through his knowledge of Jewish history to portray Jews as better off under both Arab and Catholic rule, while subtly leaving Islam out of the equation altogether.86

  DEFENDING JUDAISM AGAINST LIBLEL

  Though the consensus among these Arabic journals held that Jews were treated more favorably under Islam (or under Arab rule) than in Christian Europe, Judaism was generally treated more respectfully by the two Christian-edited journals analyzed here than by Rida’s al-Manār. Indeed, the editors of al-Muqtaṭaf and al-Hilāl frequently went out of their way to defend the Jewish religion against defamation. Such defenses often came in response to ritual murder accusations that arose periodically in Europe and the Middle East. In 1903, for instance, a reader from the American city of Worcester87 wrote to the editors of al-Muqtaṭaf, noting that “newspapers write constantly of Jews murdering children and draining their blood to fulfill certain religious duties.” The reader inquires, “Is this true?” The editors’ answer is brief (only seven short lines) but forceful. “The Jewish religion,” they assert, “is built upon the Torah and there is nothing in the Torah that requires or permits the murder of children for a religious purpose.” The editors then address the root of such allegations. “For those who envy and despise the Jews,” they write, “these accusations are easily leveled and are, with little difficulty, believed.” However, “the evidence that is mustered to prove” these allegations, insists al-Muqtaṭaf, “will not convince the fair-minded.” Rather, the charges are “baseless” and those who make them should be punished.88

  Similarly, in 1910–1911, al-Hilāl was asked a question about the Jews by a reader in Natchez, Mississippi.89 This reader had heard that Jews took “the blood of a Christian to add it to their matzah” for passover,90 and that “this is one of the laws of their religion.” The reader considered these claims unlikely and wished to consult with al-Hilāl. The editor begins his answer by noting that he had been asked a similar question fifteen years earlier and published a discussion on the topic then. The journal concluded then that the “alleged horrors to which you alluded” are simply

  the remnants of superstitions of the Dark Ages, when mutual hatred spread between Christians and Jews and each sect ascribed aspects of indignity upon the other. We do not believe that an entire people [umma] would be able to agree to commit such horrors, and especially not the Jewish people [al-umma al-yahūdiyya] that was coeval with both ancient and modern civilization, and was the source of law and the foundation of the true religions, particularly after the light of civilization dawned and the rays of freedom and knowledge rose. Incidents such as these are not impossible among some individual Jews just as they are not impossible among non-Jews. However, on the question of whether these horrors are required or permitted by the official religious law, the answer is “no.”91

  Al-Hilāl permits the theoretical possibility that there may be some Jews who engage in horrifying acts such as ritual murder but insists that Jews were no more likely than non-Jews to commit such misdeeds. Importantly, the editors of both al-Muqtaṭaf and al-Hilāl agree, and state as much with forceful conviction, that the Jewish religion is unequivocally innocent in this regard. But the defense of Judaism, at least as articulated by al-Hilāl’s editor, is actually much more significant. Not only is Judaism not a murderous religion; it is, in fact, “the source of law and the foundation of the true religions.” This, to be sure, is a sweeping statement of approval for Judaism, extending far beyond the narrow scope of denying ritual murder charges.

  CHALLENGING JUDASIM IN AL-MANĀR

  Wholesale favorable evaluations of the Jewish religion of the sort found in al-Hilāl are generally absent from al-Manār, a periodical that was an amalgamation of a religious Qurʾanic commentary and an intellectual journal.92 The first pages of each edition of al-Manār were always composed of a Qurʾanic exegesis, which Rida attributed to al-ustādh al-imām, Rida’s teacher and mentor Muhammad ʿAbduh. In one such commentary, published in April 1907, Rida accuses the Jews of having “preserved only part of the book that God revealed to them.” The rest of the original Torah was lost. Worse yet, Rida asserts, the Jews do not properly fulfill even the portion of the Torah they have preserved. Deepening his critique of the Jews and their Torah, Rida adds that “there is no evidence that the five books attributed to Moses, peace be upon him, which they call the Torah, were actually written by Moses or memorized by him.” Explicitly invoking the research of European biblical scholars, Rida contends rather that the evidence suggests that these books “were written hundreds of years after him [Moses].” In fact, “there is no evidence that Moses, peace be upon him, knew the Hebrew language; his language, rather, was Egyptian.” Where, Rida asks rhetorically, “is the Torah Moses wrote in that language and who translated it?”93

  This insistence that Moses was not the author of the Torah, or, more precisely, that he was not the author of the
book the Jews now refer to as the Torah, is familiar to us from al-Khalidi’s manuscript.94 Moreover, the integration of contemporary European biblical scholarship’s claims into traditional Islamic anti-Jewish polemics is a phenomenon we also encountered in al-Khalidi’s “as-Sayūnīzm.” Like al-Khalidi’s (generally more subtle) critique of Judaism and the Torah, Rida’s assault progresses from what he considers to be the dubious provenance of the Torah to the book’s contents and lacunae. “In the books that the Jews possess,” alleges Rida, “there is neither promise nor threat of the afterlife [al-ākhira].” Rather, the implications of actions in the Jews’ scripture are confined to “wealth, fertility, and rule over the land”; punishment, in turn, is limited to the loss of these blessings and “the rule of the nations over them.” Al-Khalidi, we recall, notes precisely this same alleged absence in the Torah of a discussion of the afterlife. For al-Khalidi, in his work on Zionism, the implication of this absence was clear: the Zionist movement was all the more to be feared, and actively opposed, given the fact that the this-worldly possession of Palestine was the ultimate religious aim of Jews. Rida, who was engaged in a different sort of project in his Qurʾanic commentary, does not immediately link this claim with Zionism (though, as we shall see, Zionism was indeed on his mind). At this point, however, Rida’s interest is in a more basic Jewish-Islamic polemic. Islam, he explains, teaches that “every prophet commanded belief in the Last Day.”95 Given this Islamic maxim, Rida supposes that the original Torah also actually included such a belief, but that it was “neglected and forgotten” and thus did not find its way into the contemporary, flawed Torah of the Jews.

  PONDERING THE PROSPECTS OF ZIONISM

  Though Rida generally focuses his exegesis on elucidating Qurʾanic passages, contemporary events and problems of his day are often perceptible just beneath the surface. Zionism was one such phenomenon that caught Rida’s attention and occupied his interest even as he commented on the Qurʾan. In January 1908, after claiming that Jews no longer experience shame (adh-dhilla) in the lands of Islam, Rida asks about the other term of castigation that the Qurʾan (Q. 3:112) attaches to the Jews: al-maskana, “destitution.” “Might the maskana ever disappear from them [the Jews]?” he asks. “Might they, one day, have power and sovereignty?” Rida contends that this question of the potential for Jews to return to power is a complex one.

  In setting out to answer the question, Rida begins “from a religious perspective” and explains how Jews, Christians, and Muslims think “religiously” about the matter. The Jews, according to Rida, say that the restoration of their glory “has been foretold with the appearance of their ‘messiah,’ ”96 a term Rida defines as “the one [who brings] dominion and law.” For Christians, this messiah is “Jesus Christ the son of Mary, peace be upon him, and the ‘dominion’ that he brings is ‘spiritual dominion’ ”; that is, the Jews’ expectation that a messiah will restore them to political sovereignty is misguided. Finally, citing the Gospel of Barnabas,97 Rida explains that the Muslim position is that “the promised one is Muhammad… the one who came with the prophecy that resulted in dominion.” The problem with the Jews’ interpretation, then, is not its assumption of the political nature of the dominion but rather the presumption that it will be Jewish political dominion.

  Setting aside the “religious perspective,” Rida then addresses the issue from a “social point of view.” Here he suggests that one must consider the Jews’ “dispersion throughout the world as a minority” and the challenges this dispersion would necessarily pose to their prospects of renewed sovereignty in any one place. Moreover, given Jews’ “abandonment of the arts and practice of war, and their weakness in agricultural work due to their interest in amassing money from the nearest, most profitable, least difficult source, such as usury,” Rida wonders how they might succeed in regaining political power.98 How might a people that has devoted itself to “usury” suddenly begin a life of agriculture, as would necessarily be demanded, were it to gain a country of its own? Though Zionism is not mentioned here by name, it is clear that Rida’s concern about the movement motivated his exploration of the subject in this exegesis.

  Two years later, in 1910, Rida developed these views more extensively, still within the framework of his Qurʾanic commentary. He begins again with the contention that the Torah, in the form in which it now exists, is not the true word of God. This time, he offers further details about the process by which the Torah was transformed from the version that God revealed, and he explicitly contrasts Jewish infidelity to their scripture with Muslim faithfulness to theirs. The Jews, he explains, “did not memorize it by heart at the time of its revelation, as we [i.e., Muslims] memorized the Qurʾan, and they did not write many copies of it at first, as we did so that if some copies were lost others would remain.” Rather, “the Jews had only one copy of the Torah—the one that Moses…. Wrote—and it was lost.” Then, citing his teacher Muhammad ʿAbduh, Rida explains that Jews abandoned many of the original Torah’s laws while adding others that were never commanded. For instance, the Torah “prohibited them from lying, harming people, and taking usury,” but, insists Rida (citing ʿAbduh), Jews commit all these offenses. Similarly, “their scholars and leaders added many religious laws, ceremonies, and customs, to which they [Jews] adhere, even though they are not in the Torah nor are they known from Moses, peace be upon him.”99 The Jews’ Torah is a corrupted text, argues Rida, and the religious practice that developed among Jews in the subsequent generations veered significantly from that which was originally mandated by God.

  As before, but now in a more systematic way, Rida’s assault on the authenticity and divinity of the Torah blends traditional Islamic polemics with contemporary European biblical criticism. He refers, for example, to the relationship between the Bible and Hammurabi’s Code (which European Egyptologists had unearthed less than a decade earlier in Persia). In the very same paragraph, Rida rehearses the accusation that the Jews removed references to Muhammad that had been found in the original Torah.100 Later in the article, Rida cites the writings of Rahmat Allah al-Hindi (1818–1891), an Indian Muslim biblical critic101 who in turn relied on the work of, among others, the British Methodist biblical scholar Adam Clarke (1762–1832). Rida explains Clarke’s theory that marginal notes written by subsequent readers of the Torah came to be incorporated into the text itself by even later readers who were unaware of the marginalia’s original purpose; these additions came to be regarded as original elements of the Torah.102 Rida further highlights the theories that attribute to Ezra the Scribe many explanatory phrases found in the Torah and insists that the taḥrīf (corruption) of the biblical text is abundantly clear from the many cases of Babylonian terms found in the text. The presence of these terms is taken as evidence that the biblical text could not have been completed before the Babylonian exile.103 Rida’s critique of Judaism and the Jews’ Torah is an eclectic assortment of conventional polemical tropes known from the earliest Jewish-Islamic religious encounter along with modern European academic perspectives that together, in Rida’s mind, undermined contemporary Jews’ claim to an authentic book of God.

  Even in the course of his own polemic against Judaism, Rida holds fast to the contention that Jews were treated more favorably under Islam than in Christendom. He notes that the Islamic conquest of “Syria, Palestine, and then Andalusia” benefited the Jews, freeing them from “Christian oppression.” They continued to be oppressed in Russia and Spain “because the governments there were religious.” The Jews thus “conspired, and still conspire, in the name of freedom and civilization, to remove the influence of the Christian religion from these two states.”104 As evidence, Rida cites Jewish involvement in the recent revolutions in Russia and Spain.105 As we shall see, when Rida writes that Jews “conspire” to bring down various Western governments, ostensibly “in the name of freedom and civilization,” his real concern is a parallel “conspiracy” in which he believes Jews have been engaged, a conspiracy much closer to home and of muc
h greater consequence to his readers: the 1908 Young Turk Revolution against the Ottoman sultan.

  Rida does not argue that the Jews are opposed, in principle, to religious rule. They are opposed, rather, to non-Jewish religious rule. Indeed, their aim is to establish Jewish religious domination. Jews “revolt against anyone who resists [their efforts] to establish a religious government [sulṭa dīniyya] of their own,” asserts Rida. It is for this reason that they “had a hand in the Ottoman [Young Turk] Revolution, not because they were oppressed or persecuted in the Ottoman Empire.” After all, they were so secure in the Ottoman Empire that “they fled to it from persecution in Russia and elsewhere.”106 Thus, Rida reasons, their opposition to the Ottoman sultan’s government was due to its opposition to the Jews’ efforts to create their own religious state.

  It is at this point that Rida openly directs his comments to the subject of Zionism. Jews participated in the Young Turk Revolution, he insists, “because they want[ed] to rule Jerusalem [bayt al-muqaddas] and its environs, and to establish Israelite sovereignty there.” The Ottoman sultan’s government had sought to prohibit Jews from acquiring land in Palestine, and, Rida hastens to add, any land purchases that Jews did manage to carry out were accomplished “through subterfuge, bribery, and other monetary schemes.” As a result, Rida charges, Jews helped carry out the Young Turk Revolution that overthrew the sultan, and they are assisting the new government in an effort to realize their own aims. Rida then implores “the Ottoman nation [al-umma al-ʿuthmāniyya]” to recognize that “the danger of their influence is great and immediate.” The Jews are, after all, “a nation [qawm] that engages in excessive usury.” Through their deception and money, the Jews have been able to control France “like a ball in their hands and end the rule of the Church”—despite the fact that France stands at “the pinnacle of science, civilization, politics, wealth, and power.” How much more facilely, Rida warns, will Jews be able to dominate the Ottoman government, given its state of “ignorance and weakness and its need for money.”