This is the second part of the words of the absent intellectual Dr. Hamed Abu Zayd. In the first part, published last Sunday, Dr. Abu Zayd said that the political West is controlled by its imperialistic greed in the new context of globalization. Rejecting this approach is the least thing we should do. Political apprehensions control the American view of Islam. Decision-making circles in the United States use fundamentalist groups to terrify Arab regimes in order to keep the American policy in the region.
The nationalist intellectuals should not only condemn the political West, but also the Arab regimes who are responsible for the current situation.
Concerning the renewal of Islamic thought, Dr. Abu Zayd mentioned that this renewal is now coming from non-Arabic circles. He added that his scholarly, academic interests increased because of his work at the University of Leiden .
In this part, Dr. Abu Zayd completes his words and highlights that the most important issue occupying his mind is the crisis of modern religious thought and the problems of the different interpretations of the Qur`an. The first collection of the Qur`an in the time of the first caliph was not based on rules. The first version of the Qur`an was collected from the scattered Qur’anic texts which were written in a primitive way.
The second collection at the age of the third caliph is the first collection based on rules. The Qur`an of Caliph Othman was considered the official version. The other versions of the Qur`an were burned. The nature of the Arabic writing at this time led to a text which cannot be read without pre-memorization. Dots were not yet used to distinguish similarly written letters. Many other features of the Arabic language today did not exist. It is true that the Qur`an passed around through oral recitation, but this led to different readings because of the numerous Arabic dialects.
These different readings threatened the unity of the Qur’anic text. Ibn Mugahed, who lived in the fourth century after the Higra [emigration from Mecca to Medina], selected seven versions of the many writings of the Qur`an. These seven versions were accepted as the right ones. Other writings were considered incorrect. Three other versions of the Qur’an’s readings were added latter. Consequently ten versions of the Qur’an’s readings became accepted. The various readings of the Qur`an led to different interpretations.
There is no doubt that all these problems need a lot of study. These studies will increase our knowledge of the history of the Qur`an. Moreover they will increase our knowledge of our cultural and ideological history concerning the different theories of the Qur’an’s interpretation. The weakness of faith and the mental, ideological immunity created unjustified fears which hinder any scientific study to the Qur`an and religious heritage. Examining the history of the Qur`an is one of the banned areas in religious thinking. We have to prove that scientific study of the Qur`an and its history don’t threat our faith. On the contrary, it will give a solid base to our faith. The real threat is believing that Islam and Muslims’ faith are too weak to stand before scientific research.
Q: How do you see the current Egyptian cultural atmosphere on a distance?
Lets speak about three republics in Egypt’s contemporary history instead of attributing political regimes to persons [meant is Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak]. When the third republic began on the ruins of the second republic, it tried to build the legitimacy of its political existence on an ideological amalgamation of the first and the second republics.
We can find representatives of the socialistic thought who were members of the Institute for Socialistic studies and Youth Organizations at the time of the first republic. At the same time economic reform is managed by the men of second republic who are supporting privatization. The judicial authority, which suffered from the attempts to control it, were left to enjoy a kind of relative independence. The fourth authority, the press, enjoyed the same amount of relative freedom and independence, while TV and Radio were kept under the government’s control. Unfortunately this relative freedom is controlled by strict rules of dictatorship which belong to old ages. These rules should not exist in Mubarak’s fourth term in power.
Although, the third republic is concentrating on economic reform, neglecting other issues like constitutional reform and political, social and ideological freedom, economic reform did not bring the expected results. The third republic succeeded in what the first and the second republics failed in. I mean, using intellectuals to defend the regime for free. This started when terrorism began threatening the stability of the regime by hindering the regimes’ vital project of tourism development. The explosions took place in Tahrir square in Cairo and the assassination of the former head of the People’s Assembly and the assassination of Farag Foda indicated the regime’s inability to face the threats of terrorism.
In an attempt by the regime to save what can be saved, the regime’s representatives move in two directions. These two directions seem to be in contradiction but they aim at the same target. The first direction is negotiating with terrorist movements and organizations. The first attempt of negotiations was between senior officers in the state security and the shura council [consultancy council with leading people] of the Jihad movement in prison headed by Abbud Al-Zommer. Islamic scholars and intellectuals took part in the second attempts as mediators like sheik Mohammed Mutwali Al-Sharawy, Fahmy Hewady, Mohammed Emara and Abu Al-Sabour Shahin. Former Minister of Interior Abu Al-Halim Musa took part in this attempt which was in 1993.
The third attempt was through an initiative declared by the leader of the Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiyya in Aswan while he was being tried with others in 1996. The government refused to enter into negotiations at this time as it has been controlling the security situation since the late 1995s especially after the attempt to assassinate President Mubarak.
The second direction adopted by the regime was to use intellectuals in the fight against terrorism and fundamentalism. This direction is not separated from the first direction of negotiating with terrorists through the meditation of Islamic scholars. The second direction began with an invitation by some officials for meetings with a group of writers and thinkers famous for their spirit of criticism.
The summary of the message conveyed in these meetings is that the political leadership calls for the participation of men of culture in formulating the public, national project. The state of disappointment and despair caused by terrorism made the intellectuals believe that the regime, which fights terrorism, is protecting them by this call. They believed that the regime will defend their rights and interests. I am not calling for hostile acts towards the regime but I want the men of culture to keep their independence in order to play the role of critics.
Q: Do you believe that the conflict between the secular trend and the religious trend in Egypt can lead to a third alternative?
The question here is what the secret is behind this conflict between the two trends? Why does each trend try to put the other one aside?
The Islamic trend puts the secular trend aside, it believes that it [the secularists] draws away from the principles of the Islamic nation and adopts a cultural, political and social project that will increase our dependence and subordination to the West.
The secular trend puts the Islamic trend aside, believing that it depends on obscure, pompous slogans which do not compensate for the absence of a political, social project with clear objectives and procedures for its applications. The secular trend believes that the project of the Islamic trend is based on illusions of going back to the past.
I believe that the most important reason for this conflict is the absence of the appropriate atmosphere for dialogue for more than half a century. No one learned the lesson conveyed by a German thinker who lived in the period of the Nazis who said " When they began arresting the Jews, I did not care because I am not Jewish. When they began arresting communists, I did not care because I am not a communist. When they began arresting the opposers of fascism and Nazism, I did not care because I am not one of them. When they came to arrest me, there was no one to defend me."
Today, there is not a ready ideological alternative. There are opinions and suggestions. Defending an unconditional democracy by all of us is the only condition for crystallizing these opinions and suggestions. We have to defend a democracy that doesn’t put aside any of those who we think to be our enemies. An agreement and consensus on a political, cultural and ideological formula never existed in history.
Reaching an agreement is an illusion. The developed world got rid of this illusion by agreeing to organize disagreement through the mechanisms of modern democracy. Let’s organize our disagreements. We have to learn the lessons of the past and the present. I may disagree with you, but I am ready to give my life to defend your right of expressing your opinion.
For those who are afraid of disagreement, they should go back to the history of Muslims and tell us when did Muslims agree on one opinion? Muslims differed in opinion and fought one another in well-known battles.
In modern history, agreement has always been demanded for the sake of the nation’s unity in its struggle against imperialism and Zionism. This plea was taken as an excuse for not establishing a civil, democratic society based on multiplicity and peaceful circulation of power.
Q: What is your point of view concerning globalization? Do you think that the Arabic culture today can make use of its own advantages and face threats?
The Arabic culture today is not able of creating life in Arab countries. It is a steady culture which seeks stability. It is a culture which believes that evils of change are more than its benefits and advantages. How can then we ask about the Arabic culture’s ability to face the threats of globalization?
Any discussion about globalization in the Arab world doesn’t see anything else but the threat of globalization. It is not understood that globalization is based on the power of knowledge. The power of knowledge is one of the most important weapons in the conflicts of the new world.
Instead of asking how can we develop our knowledge to get out of the tunnel of the dark ages, we insist to stay where we are, clinging to bright slogans like keeping our identity and heritage. I am not undervaluing these problems, but I call for discussing it from a scientific, realistic prospective. If Muslims had stayed away from interaction with all civilizations, they would not have created their marvelous civilization.
Why do we believe that globalization means submission to the West in general and the United States in particular? Why do we forget about China, Japan, India, Iran and Turkey?
What do we know about this part of the world? What do we know about these countries’ culture, literature and arts? Is our media concerned with what is going on in these countries? What do we know about the culture and arts of Malaysia and Indonesia?
We really need globalization to enrich our culture and knowledge.
