|
“During the heated discussions that
took place in the main hall of the hotel as the participants sought to arrive at
a clear definition of the “Other,” Dr. Saleh al Hasseen, head of King Abdul
Aziz Center for the National Dialogue Initiative said: “The goal for defining
and describing the ‘Other’ is to enable us to learn how we should deal with
such a person.”
The reporter for Al-Sharq al-Awsat
emphasized the generational gap that separated the adult participants from the
young students who felt no need whatsoever for a nuanced definition of the
“Other.” They reached a consensus: there was no reason at all to depart from
the age-long outlook that had defined all non-Muslims, as “Others.” In other
words, they saw life in terms of black and white.
For example, “an eighteen year old
student from a school in Mecca who participated in the training sessions said:
“the ‘Other’ is anyone who differs from us in religion; so the purpose of
our dialogue must simply be to ask him to embrace Islam. We should accomplish
that through kind words coupled with an exposition of the principles of the
Islamic Shari’ah.”
The author of the report went on to
explain: “This third preparatory meeting in Jeddah was related to the coming
Fifth National Dialogue Initiative which is to take place at Abha, in the
Province of ‘Asir. As mentioned above, the students did not have the same
outlook as the adults who participated in the discussions. Their differences may
be the result of two contrasting milieus that surrounded their upbringings: the
older generation having grown up within a conservative community. Now, some of
them [who may have studied or lived overseas] would prefer to liberate
themselves from the grip of the traditional restrictions that had governed
relations with the “Other.” At the same time, the young generation who grew
up in the space-age [and as a reaction to the allurements of modernity] believes
that the proper way [to deal with the subject at hand] is to return to the
[traditions of the past.] It is this conviction which leads them to [regard] the
“Others” as objects of Da’wa, i.e., the duty to invite them to embrace
Islam. [Unlike the adult intellectuals and business people who have to rub
shoulders with many “Others,” both at home and abroad], these young adults
are not the least interested in being ‘accepted’ by those classified in the
Shari’a as Kafirs or Infidels.”
“The adult group at the Jeddah
meetings recommended that a special Information Center be organized to examine
new concepts and expressions [that appear in our contemporary Arabic vocabulary]
in the light of the unchangeable principles of the Shari’ah. One businesswoman
suggested, that the information media should be strengthened and enabled to ward
off all ideas that are incompatible with Islamic moral standards. “Finally it
must be noted that the young group disagreed with their seniors by insisting on
the necessity of an information policy whose unique task is the Islamic Da’wa.”
The reporter ended his article by asking
some crucial questions:
“Is the next generation in Saudia to
entertain the same thought pattern that surfaced among the young adults, namely
that dialogue with the “Other” should take place within the restrictions of
the Shari’ah? [In other words, dialogue for the young students always equals
Da’wa.] Are there no grounds to consider the thoughts and deliberations of the
adult conferees? [For example, we may ‘invent’ a classification that would
place the “Akhar” in a neutral category, thus eliminating the stigma of
Kafir.]” Or, is the Shari’ah door to remain the only one open for all and
any discussions and relations with “Others”? In other words, may we expect
some changes in the status quo?”
Thus far, I allowed the reporter to
share with us his musings. It is quite evident that two divergent points of view
appeared in this report. One view is rather encouraging; as it indicates that
some intellectuals and business people in Saudi Arabia are actually attempting
to do something rather dangerous: re-opening the door of Ijtihad. They are
suggesting the need for a new hermeneutic in the interpretation of the Qur’an,
Hadith, and the Shari’ah. But this
door has been closed for 500 years, and every attempt to
re-open it since then has eventually
failed.
With respect to the projected meeting at
Abha, in Saudi Arabia, for the discussion of the “Other,” may we entertain
any hope for the eventual resumption of Ijtihad in a milieu that has been
dominated for decades by the Wahhabi school of interpreting the Sacred Law? If
we take seriously the conclusions of the young students who participated in
their own sessions, the outlook for any basic change vis-à-vis the “Other”,
the “Akhar” remains dim. I am afraid they represent the vast majority of
Saudi opinion. I may be wrong in this conclusion, but I have very little
evidence from my study of past attempts at reforming Islam, that real change is
coming soon. I am sorry to forecast a tempestuous future for our world brought
on mostly by Islam, exactly as Samuel Huntington predicted around ten years ago
in his “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.”*
---
* Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1996
< Back
|
