Islamic Law and Jews and Christians in Iraq
Some miscellaneous matters, before getting to today's post.
First, don't blame me for whatever happened in Pennsylvania, I voted for Obama, and from the signs and buttons everywhere everyone on my route to the university did too. But then that's rather posh Shadyside to a large university with a whole bunch of twenty somethings on it, somewhat of an anomaly in Western Pennsylvania.
Secondly, those interested in Islamic finance, check out my article in Forbes online. Basically, they hype the practice, I'm brought in, as always, to be the contrarian that everyone more or less ignores. Playing to my strengths, I guess.
Finally (on miscellaneous matters), sources close to Grand Ayatollah Kadhim Al-Haeri in Qum say that the Grand Ayatollah just told Moqtada he isn't going to meet with him, as Moqtada al-Sadr had requested a day or so back. I think this helps fortify the point of an earlier post, that Moqtada al-Sadr has no hope of gaining any sort of clerical cache through spending some time in Qum even if this is Iran's hope. When you can't even get a senior cleric in Qum to meet with you, it doesn't bode well for your clerical status in Najaf, where education in Qum isn't quite viewed as highly. And yes Haeri broke off from Moqtada some time ago, but still, rebuffing a request for a meeting shows no small level of contempt for the guy. On to today's post.
Two items of news interesting in Iraq in the past week, that I think highlight the postions of modern Muslims towards those known as People of the Book (basically Christians and Jews, though others get added in different times and places). I focus on Iraq, but I do think the lesson is broader. In the first bit, the clergyman in charge of one of Baghdad's largest churches, Hari Tonyan I believe is the name, issued a press release thanking the various organizations and institutions and governments in the US and Europe rallying on Christians' behalf, but indicated that Iraqi Christians do consider themselves Iraqi and don't actually want to flee the country. The second is the entirely embarassing spectacle of seeing spokesmen from the Ministry of Health having to solemnly deny to everyone that, press rumors to the contrary, they aren't taking Iraqi kids to Israel to get healed, and perhaps indoctrinated in the process. Wow.
Here's what I think we can take from the first bit--generally, Muslim countries can get awful press on the treatment of Christians, and that leads to the silly and quite frankly erroneous conclusion that Christian communities in the Muslim world are everywhere under threat of annihilation, a persecuted and deeply hated minority that hangs on as best as it can. This just isn't true, in Iraq. Christians have served in high leadership positions, they are well integrated into Iraq's population absolutely (one of our staff was Christian, my wife's best childhood school friend was Christian), and generally well liked. The Shi'a marja'iyya has been outspoken in its severe criticism of attacks on Christians and Christian communities, the kidnapping and killing of a senior authority in Mosul a few weeks ago prompted demonstrations throughout Muslim areas of the country. I used to pass a church on my way to my uncle's house in Kerrada every day. At the time (things have gotten worse for everyone since them), it was unguarded entirely. We stopped in a couple of times to say hello to a friend we saw hanging out in the yard, it didn't strike anyone as mildly unusual. We really aren't just a bunch of extremist maniacs, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis judging by all of this are entirely comfortable with the Christian minority.
To be clear, this isn't to suggest Iraqi Christians have no problems. Clearly in this lawless land, with Islamic fanatics running about (who weren't there until 2003, but anyway. . . ) they are special targets, and clearly that is not an enviable position to be in. And yes, even at other times, Christians do have to deal with crap that we Muslims in the United States don't deal with (leaving class when religion starts getting taught, etc.), I'm not suggesting it's a pure liberal state. But it's also not the hell on earth it's made out to be, and it is a little offensive to constantly hear about how Islam cannot tolerate Christianity and that's why Christians have so many problems in Iraq now. Uh, then why did a Christian become foreign minister a few years ago? And why was that Christian, Tariq Aziz, the one least hated among the senior leadership, travelling around Baghdad with just one bodyguard at times? Guarantee you Uday, Saddam's son, wouldn't be doing that. And why are many Iraqi Christians saying they want to stay in Iraq? And why is it the religious leadership that blames the political, not vice versa, for the killings that take place? Is it possible that maybe the Christian plight can be traced not to Islam but rather to the horrible incompetence of US policies that have failed to establish security for ANYONE,leaving small minorities particularly vulnerable?
At the same time, it's pretty fair to say from the evidence that while Islam in its modern form can coexist with Christianity passably decently in some places, Iraq in particular, it clearly doesn't tolerate Judaism. Jews didn't want to hang around in Iraq after 1967 for pretty good reason, had I hired a staff member who was Jewish, as opposed to Christian, I would have taken serious heat for that (wasn't an option, of course, as noted the Jews fled for good reason). I don't hesitate to speak out against virulent anti-Semitism in Iraq, and there is some support, particularly among the younger generation, for whom the great Arab cause to destroy Israel has meant nothing but misery to them, but honestly, it's still quite shocking to see the levels of paranoia over Jewish control over Iraq among Iraqis and the level of surprise that I would even dare to suggest that, I don't know, a Jew hath eyes. Most think that rents are still being paid to Iraqi Jews for lands they had to abandon when heading to Israel, as if anyone would actually pay rent to some dude who had no hope of enforcing a collection right. And apparently, the ridiculous idea that kids are being flown to Israel for treatment and political indoctrination (into what I want to know) is taken seriously enough to merit a sober denial.
And while some might dispute my account above (I think they'd be wrong, but anyway), it seems pretty obvious to anyone with eyes I think that there is a stark and obvious difference between how Jews on the one hand and Christians on the other are viewed in Iraq, and throughout most of the Middle East. This is interesting for two reasons.
First, there is NO classical basis for this. I won't go into the classical treatment of the People of the Book, other than to say they were tolerated, but it wasn't a pluralist panacea for the most part. Different era, different standards, we can try to hold them to our own ideas, though if we did that we might then have to dismiss our own founding fathers as racist, rapist pedophiles. The real point for this post is that classical law pretty much treats Jews and Christians as one big group, people given a Holy Book by God (hence the phrase People of the Book) who are therefore entitled to some level of rights, but at the same time people who have corrupted their Holy Books and therefore given rather limited rights. There isn't really any basis to think differently of Jews, all of this is really a radical departure from the classical tradition, entirely a part and parcel of so much of modern Islam, yet ahistorical.
The second interesting point, a corollary of the first, is that this virulent anti-Semitism draws far more on its European predecessors than it does on Islamic history. The idea of the Jew in particular as a threat, the source of conspiratorial danger, that's much less common in a religious tradition that more or less grouped all of the People of the Book into one category. What does Hamas cite in its charter--the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, a European fabrication. What does Hezbollah show on its station? Jews drinking the blood of Muslim children for Passover, again a European calumny.
How ironic is it then, that the same forces that accuse us Muslim liberals of Westoxification, of cravenly and in a defeatist fashion accepting Western notions of governance rather than true Islamic ones have, rather than calling upon Islamic tradition, imported their own, far less salutary European notions into their own doctrines. But of course they adopt ideas from Europe that have been thoroughly discredited now, and they adopt them in a manner that therefore looks as if designed as "resistance" to a Western paradigm (when in fact it is slavish compliance to an earlier Western paradigm), and in so doing, in a polity racked with paranoia and anger towards Israel, manage it all with a degree of legitimacy that truly makes us jealous.
It's just another example, of how what is legitimate and authentic in Islamic law, or any type of law really, has less to do with classical doctrine, than political and social realities. Perhaps then in trying to find out how to reconcile Islamic law with liberalism, and with less anti-Semitism, it would do us well to look more to those realities (Arab Israeli conflict would be one good place to start), and less to doctrine. Just a lawyer's perspective.
HAH
First, don't blame me for whatever happened in Pennsylvania, I voted for Obama, and from the signs and buttons everywhere everyone on my route to the university did too. But then that's rather posh Shadyside to a large university with a whole bunch of twenty somethings on it, somewhat of an anomaly in Western Pennsylvania.
Secondly, those interested in Islamic finance, check out my article in Forbes online. Basically, they hype the practice, I'm brought in, as always, to be the contrarian that everyone more or less ignores. Playing to my strengths, I guess.
Finally (on miscellaneous matters), sources close to Grand Ayatollah Kadhim Al-Haeri in Qum say that the Grand Ayatollah just told Moqtada he isn't going to meet with him, as Moqtada al-Sadr had requested a day or so back. I think this helps fortify the point of an earlier post, that Moqtada al-Sadr has no hope of gaining any sort of clerical cache through spending some time in Qum even if this is Iran's hope. When you can't even get a senior cleric in Qum to meet with you, it doesn't bode well for your clerical status in Najaf, where education in Qum isn't quite viewed as highly. And yes Haeri broke off from Moqtada some time ago, but still, rebuffing a request for a meeting shows no small level of contempt for the guy. On to today's post.
Two items of news interesting in Iraq in the past week, that I think highlight the postions of modern Muslims towards those known as People of the Book (basically Christians and Jews, though others get added in different times and places). I focus on Iraq, but I do think the lesson is broader. In the first bit, the clergyman in charge of one of Baghdad's largest churches, Hari Tonyan I believe is the name, issued a press release thanking the various organizations and institutions and governments in the US and Europe rallying on Christians' behalf, but indicated that Iraqi Christians do consider themselves Iraqi and don't actually want to flee the country. The second is the entirely embarassing spectacle of seeing spokesmen from the Ministry of Health having to solemnly deny to everyone that, press rumors to the contrary, they aren't taking Iraqi kids to Israel to get healed, and perhaps indoctrinated in the process. Wow.
Here's what I think we can take from the first bit--generally, Muslim countries can get awful press on the treatment of Christians, and that leads to the silly and quite frankly erroneous conclusion that Christian communities in the Muslim world are everywhere under threat of annihilation, a persecuted and deeply hated minority that hangs on as best as it can. This just isn't true, in Iraq. Christians have served in high leadership positions, they are well integrated into Iraq's population absolutely (one of our staff was Christian, my wife's best childhood school friend was Christian), and generally well liked. The Shi'a marja'iyya has been outspoken in its severe criticism of attacks on Christians and Christian communities, the kidnapping and killing of a senior authority in Mosul a few weeks ago prompted demonstrations throughout Muslim areas of the country. I used to pass a church on my way to my uncle's house in Kerrada every day. At the time (things have gotten worse for everyone since them), it was unguarded entirely. We stopped in a couple of times to say hello to a friend we saw hanging out in the yard, it didn't strike anyone as mildly unusual. We really aren't just a bunch of extremist maniacs, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis judging by all of this are entirely comfortable with the Christian minority.
To be clear, this isn't to suggest Iraqi Christians have no problems. Clearly in this lawless land, with Islamic fanatics running about (who weren't there until 2003, but anyway. . . ) they are special targets, and clearly that is not an enviable position to be in. And yes, even at other times, Christians do have to deal with crap that we Muslims in the United States don't deal with (leaving class when religion starts getting taught, etc.), I'm not suggesting it's a pure liberal state. But it's also not the hell on earth it's made out to be, and it is a little offensive to constantly hear about how Islam cannot tolerate Christianity and that's why Christians have so many problems in Iraq now. Uh, then why did a Christian become foreign minister a few years ago? And why was that Christian, Tariq Aziz, the one least hated among the senior leadership, travelling around Baghdad with just one bodyguard at times? Guarantee you Uday, Saddam's son, wouldn't be doing that. And why are many Iraqi Christians saying they want to stay in Iraq? And why is it the religious leadership that blames the political, not vice versa, for the killings that take place? Is it possible that maybe the Christian plight can be traced not to Islam but rather to the horrible incompetence of US policies that have failed to establish security for ANYONE,leaving small minorities particularly vulnerable?
At the same time, it's pretty fair to say from the evidence that while Islam in its modern form can coexist with Christianity passably decently in some places, Iraq in particular, it clearly doesn't tolerate Judaism. Jews didn't want to hang around in Iraq after 1967 for pretty good reason, had I hired a staff member who was Jewish, as opposed to Christian, I would have taken serious heat for that (wasn't an option, of course, as noted the Jews fled for good reason). I don't hesitate to speak out against virulent anti-Semitism in Iraq, and there is some support, particularly among the younger generation, for whom the great Arab cause to destroy Israel has meant nothing but misery to them, but honestly, it's still quite shocking to see the levels of paranoia over Jewish control over Iraq among Iraqis and the level of surprise that I would even dare to suggest that, I don't know, a Jew hath eyes. Most think that rents are still being paid to Iraqi Jews for lands they had to abandon when heading to Israel, as if anyone would actually pay rent to some dude who had no hope of enforcing a collection right. And apparently, the ridiculous idea that kids are being flown to Israel for treatment and political indoctrination (into what I want to know) is taken seriously enough to merit a sober denial.
And while some might dispute my account above (I think they'd be wrong, but anyway), it seems pretty obvious to anyone with eyes I think that there is a stark and obvious difference between how Jews on the one hand and Christians on the other are viewed in Iraq, and throughout most of the Middle East. This is interesting for two reasons.
First, there is NO classical basis for this. I won't go into the classical treatment of the People of the Book, other than to say they were tolerated, but it wasn't a pluralist panacea for the most part. Different era, different standards, we can try to hold them to our own ideas, though if we did that we might then have to dismiss our own founding fathers as racist, rapist pedophiles. The real point for this post is that classical law pretty much treats Jews and Christians as one big group, people given a Holy Book by God (hence the phrase People of the Book) who are therefore entitled to some level of rights, but at the same time people who have corrupted their Holy Books and therefore given rather limited rights. There isn't really any basis to think differently of Jews, all of this is really a radical departure from the classical tradition, entirely a part and parcel of so much of modern Islam, yet ahistorical.
The second interesting point, a corollary of the first, is that this virulent anti-Semitism draws far more on its European predecessors than it does on Islamic history. The idea of the Jew in particular as a threat, the source of conspiratorial danger, that's much less common in a religious tradition that more or less grouped all of the People of the Book into one category. What does Hamas cite in its charter--the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, a European fabrication. What does Hezbollah show on its station? Jews drinking the blood of Muslim children for Passover, again a European calumny.
How ironic is it then, that the same forces that accuse us Muslim liberals of Westoxification, of cravenly and in a defeatist fashion accepting Western notions of governance rather than true Islamic ones have, rather than calling upon Islamic tradition, imported their own, far less salutary European notions into their own doctrines. But of course they adopt ideas from Europe that have been thoroughly discredited now, and they adopt them in a manner that therefore looks as if designed as "resistance" to a Western paradigm (when in fact it is slavish compliance to an earlier Western paradigm), and in so doing, in a polity racked with paranoia and anger towards Israel, manage it all with a degree of legitimacy that truly makes us jealous.
It's just another example, of how what is legitimate and authentic in Islamic law, or any type of law really, has less to do with classical doctrine, than political and social realities. Perhaps then in trying to find out how to reconcile Islamic law with liberalism, and with less anti-Semitism, it would do us well to look more to those realities (Arab Israeli conflict would be one good place to start), and less to doctrine. Just a lawyer's perspective.
HAH
Modern Islamic societies are deeply influenced by the prejudices of the West. The anti-Jewish, note not anti-Semitic diatribes that have percolated through the Islamic World in the 20th and now 21st century are very much tied into European anti-Jewish themes. The problem for the Arab Islamic and non-Islamic world related to the Jewish Homeland-Palestinian question post Balfour and pre-Holocaust, the post Holocaust mass migration of European Jewish survivors to Palestine, the post-colonial worldwide response to the Holocaust leading to the endorsement of the State of Israel, all have been responded to with a strong element of European anti-Jewish rhetoric. Throughout Islamic history, at least from my reading, there has been an ebb and flow in terms of tolerance for the people of the book. The 20th and 21st century response to Jews and the establishment of a post-colonial Jewish state in the backyard of the Arab World has been seeded with a much different intolerance that is almost wholly imported from its European roots.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comment. While this is old hat for some political scientists, as a lawyer I like to stress how fundamentally this affects religious doctrine in our times. Hezbollah would never dare contravene Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah, for example, who has on his own website blessed Islamist political alliances with non-Muslim groups (hence Nasrallah's alliance with the Christian Michel Aoun). And yet stuff appears on the Hezbollah television stations respecting Judaism that is entirely counter to that sentiment. Alliances with Jews, as a result, seem rather unthinkable--how could you ally with people who you just said drink the blood of your children as part of their rituals? This is one example of modern Islamic doctrine, influenced deeply by prewar Europe.
Reply to this