A roundtable discussion on the subject of "Religion and
Politics" took place under the auspices of the Palestine-Israel
Journal in Jerusalem on April 11, 1994. It was chaired by two
members of our Editorial Board, with the participation (in order of
appearance) of experts from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian
communities, all Jerusalemites.
Sa'id Jamjum studied at the American University of Beirut, Bir-Zeit
University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is currently
dean of AI-Umma Teachers' College in Beit Hanina; Dr. Menachem
Lorberbaum teaches Jewish philosophy at the Hebrew University and
the Shalom Hartman Institute and is a member of the Board of
Directors of the religious peace movement Netivot Shalom;
Dr. Bernard Sabella, whose family claims to go back some ten
centuries in Jerusalem, chairs the Department of Social Studies at
Bethlehem University. He studied in the USA and is a member of the
Latin Roman Catholic Church.
The discussion was chaired by Prof Galit Hasan-Rokem who teaches
Hebrew literature and Jewish folklore at the Hebrew University and
chairs the Folklore program. A poetess, she is also a founding
member of Reshet, the women's peace network in Israel, and of
Jerusalem Link, a joint venture of Palestinian and Israeli women;
and by Daoud Kuttab, a Jerusalem-based Palestinian journalist and
documentary film producer who is President of the Jerusalem Film
Institute and a member of the Board of Directors of the Hakawati
Theater in Jerusalem.
Galit Hasan-Rokem: The first topic is that of religion and
politics in the context of the original concept of fundamentalism
as a way of interpreting text. Can you elaborate, in the context of
your own creed or the neighboring ones, on the development of
fundamentalism from the interpretation of texts to political
extremism. If we take, for instance, the Koran, is it necessarily a
text of conflict with other religions? Sa'id Jamjum: First of all, I would like to say something
about the term fundamentalism, which nowadays casts a negative
shadow and is associated with extremism. To my understanding, the
word in Arabic, Usulia, means fundamentals: starting from Wahabism
in Saudi Arabia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there
has been a call for going back to the sources. So to modem Muslim
thought, "fundamentalism" is not considered negative, since it is a
kind of a must to go back to the sources after long ages of
ignorance. The present call of all those Muslim movements which are
appearing in different parts of the world is primarily to go back
to the sources of Islamic religion.
As for interpreting the text, in Islam we feel that there is no
text to be interpreted as such. The four sources of the Islamic
religion are the Koran; the Shariya, pertaining to every aspect of
life and to politics in particular; the Sunna, the tradition, the
consensus; and the opinion of the learned Muslims. During the time
of the Prophet we had only two sources, the rest coming in later
generations. For centuries those eligible to promulgate learned
Islamic law according to Muslim standards did not exist. We cannot
say that reading the text literally is a problem in Islam. The
recent revival of Muslim thought came in response to the Europeans
occupying the lands of the Muslim world culturally as well as
politically, as a kind of reaction to Western domination. This
representation of Islamic thought and law is connected with the
establishment of an Islamic state, seeing Islam today in the light
of early interpretations as a comprehensive global view of life.
What we now call extremism or fundamentalism embodies this overall
vision of building a state based on Islamic law. In Iran it already
exists. In Egypt, in Algeria, in the West Bank and in Jordan, we
have the same trend. Galit Hasan-Rokem: Where is the room for other religions in
this ideological structure of the Islamic state? Sa'id Jamjum: According to the Muslims, the Muslim religion
superceded, took the place of, all the heavenly religions - that
is, Judaism and Christianity. The people of these two religions are
called the People of the Book. They are treated with full respect
by Muslims, and the prophets of the Jews and the Christians are
also holy to Muslims. Galit Hasan-Rokem: But they do not have a role in the
political structure. Sa'id Jamjum: Yes, these two religions have
rights like any Muslim, and they are El Dhimmi, those [of] the
Book. Galit Hasan-Rokem: Something like "acceptables,"
"tolerated." Sa'id Jamjum: It is a sort of covenant. They
have all the rights, civil and religious, except that they are
considered out of place in official positions. So as to ensure
equality, they pay Jissya, a kind of tribute to the state because
they do not take part in the army during Jihad. I believe, although
I am not a very religious person, that there is no racism in Islam.
Why? Because one of the main principles is that it came to all
peoples of the world, and it proved its success in that I think it
comprises the largest number of people in the world from China to
North Africa. Galit Hasan-Rokem: When you read the experiences of people
who have lived as dhimmi in Muslim states in the past, they did not
exactly feel equal. Sa'id Jamjum: Of course, equality as such does not exist
because there is a difference of faith. But what we talk about is
equal rights in general. Even in contemporary America, the biggest
democracy in the world, Protestants and Catholics are not
equal. Galit Hasan-Rokem: They are equal according to the
law. Sa'id Jamjum: In Muslim rule, as far as I know, they are
equal in everything before the law. Menachem Lorberbaum: You asked about fundamentalism, and
first I must wonder whether it is really a good category for
religious or social interpretation of the Jewish religion.
Fundamentalism is a Christian term. It is not a Jewish term and
Judaism has no real equivalent for it. The real issue in the Jewish
tradition is, first of all, that fundamentalism as literalist
interpretation is not operative vis-a-vis the Bible. The mainstream
Jewish religion from the tenth or eleventh century on has no
literalism in interpretation of the Bible.
It is important to note that there is no self-evident transition
from strict adherence to the law or conservative interpretation of
the law on the one hand, and a political agenda on the other. The
ultra-Orthodox (Haredim) are the typical example of that. They are
officially an anti-political movement. Of course, since the
creation of the state of Israel they have been politicized, but
officially they adopt an anti-political doctrine. The nationalist
religious groups - let's take Gush Emunim, for example - are not
operating within a fundamentalist frame of mind. What is motivating
them is a vision of history and an idea that they are living in
Messianic times. They will therefore primarily argue that they can
operate as if there is no realism in politics, and secondly, as if
they do not have to adhere to the moral claims of others.
Fundamentalism is not really the main point although you might find
a similarity in the frame of mind between them and certain
Christian fundamentalist groups. Galit Hasan-Rokem: Doesn't the way the nationalist religious
politicians relate to the holy sites seem to you
fundamentalist? Menachem Lorberbaum: No. I do not think so. The case at
point would be the ultra-Orthodox. They have no fewer claims about
holiness of places or land or certain places of worship but they do
not interpret it into a political agenda. What seems to be at work
here is a certain perhaps unholy matrimony or psychological
connection between religion and nationalism.
I was wondering, Said, whether the kind of picture which you gave
of Islam - which is also the one that foreigners to Islam like
myself, outsiders who learned about Islam from books and from
people, have usually been taught - is not necessarily a return or a
call to return to the status quo of the Middle Ages between, for
example, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. For me, the experience of
the Enlightenment in the West has transformed the way I see
religion. A return to the model of the Middle Ages is no longer
possible, nor even desirable, from my point of view. Is there in
Islam today this kind of voice, a parallel to the liberal project
of interpreting religion, of a critical commitment to religion,
that one finds among liberal Protestants and liberal Catholics, and
liberal Jews for that matter? Sa'id Jamjum: Yes. I do not feel that what we see in Iran
and elsewhere is what is advocated in the law of Islam. I would
like to stress that people make Islam what it is. Islam, when it
was applied during the time of the Prophet and the Caliphs, was
less interested in beards and dress and men not shaking hands with
women, while neglecting the important things dealing with life,
which are progressive. I am not afraid of Muslims who speak of
working with the text and coming up with innovations to fit our
present society. So the problem here is the people who are going to
apply the principles of Islam. In history we can find proof of
this. If the whole interpretation of Islam is progressive, then
there is no danger of falling back into the Middle Ages. The
problem now is in us, not in the religion. Daoud Kuttab: But one of the problems is not so much in
interpretation as in the basics, certainly of Islam, and to a
certain degree in Judaism - the mingling or marriage or merger
between religion and politics. Sa'id Jamjum: In Islam they are one entity. Daoud Kuttab: In Islam it is a comprehensive rule for
society... Sa'id Jamjum: Yes. Daoud Kuttab: ... and not faith, but it claims to be a
program for society in politics as well as in social life.
Therefore, it is much different than in Christianity, for example,
where, for the most part, there is a separation. Bernard
Sabella: First, I would like to say• something briefly on
fundamentalism. I think the term itself is a very loaded one. It is
not simply a politicization of Islam or Judaism by a certain
political religious group, but also how the rest of the world views
this phenomenon. We should change the term fundamentalism. We
should allow different religious groups to be as "fundamentalist"
as they want and we should try, in a sense, to judge the
application of religious movements and their sincerity by how they
deal with other groups in society. This applies to Muslim as well
as Christian and Jewish groups.
Islamic "fundamentalism" has recently been under attack in the
West, since the Iranian revolution, but if we apply the same set of
standards of the Western media to our situation in Palestine and
Israel, then we may be committing an error. The judgment of whether
"fundamentalism" is good or bad should really be based on how it
deals with the problems of its own community on the one hand, and
how open and fair it is to the other groups with which it comes
into contact. Menachem Lorberbaum: As to Daoud's question, we have to
remember that Israel is a secular country. It is a mistake to think
of Israel as a "Jewish state," as if Israel were a Jewish religious
state. It is true that the religious parties have a unique weight
in Israel due to coalition issues. Daoud Kuttab: What about the Law of Return? Menachem Lorberbaum: It is exclusive, not religious. The
real way to understand the Law of Return, in my opinion, is
nationalist. Israel is a nation-state and it perceives of its
nation as a wide entity. Of course, there is an important internal
argument in Israel as to who exactly comes under the name
Jew. Daoud Kuttab: If it is a state of its people, then everyone
who is Israeli should be eligible for the Law of Return. Menachem Lorberbaum: I disagree. The way to understand the
dynamics of Israel is that of a nation-state. Germany has a Law of
Return too, and the issue is not religious. Daoud Kuttab: Does the Law of Return apply also to
non-Jewish Israelis or only to Jews? Menachem Lorberbaum: I am not saying that this law does not
treat non-Jewish citizens unequally. I think it does. Daoud Kuttab: A person born in Israel, does he have a
birthright? Menachem Lorberbaum: The main point in the Law of Return was
nationalist and not religious, although there is a certain overlap
between them. But Israel is fundamentally a secular state. Secular
does not mean that it is not a nation-state. And as a nation-state,
yes, it gives preferential treatment first of all to the members of
its nation. Daoud Kttab: Who are the members of the nation? Menachem Lorberbaum: The members of the nation are Jewish
people, and Jewish self-understanding has a big argument over this
subject. Secular Jews see it as a secular category of nation.
Others see it as a religious category. The State of Israel does not
see traditional Jewish law as its law because it is not a religious
state. The religious and non-religious have not found a way to
conduct a real dialogue in Israeli society. Daoud Kuttab: Sa'id, in an Islamic context it is wonderful
to talk about the justice of the Prophet and the Caliphates, but we
are talking about the twentieth century. And when you talk to
Islamists who speak about this comprehensive Islamic state, the
first question is what is the model. The only model we know of is
Iran which is a big mess. Sa'id Jamjum: You are right. I myself am frightened of that
model. Galit Hasan-Rokem: So are we. Sa'id Jamjum: I remain hopeful that the people who try to
outline the new laws in an Islamic state will try to combine the
very good things in Islam with modern conditions of life. Galit Hasan-Rokem: My question about the utopia or the model
is - is it not true to say that Christianity on the one hand and
Islam on the other, see a vision that the whole world will be
respectively Islamic or Christian? In their ideas, they are
universal religions. If I understand the Jewish vision correctly,
it does not claim universality. Bernard Sabella: I grant you that in Christianity there is
this view of saving souls. That is one of the purposes. That is the
whole message of Christ. So it is a religion of salvation. But this
is more descriptive of earlier times. I think there have been vast
and rapid transformations even within the Catholic Church, where
the perception now is that we have to be open to other religions,
and to look at Islam and Judaism on their own terms and not on
ours. I think this is an excellent thing. It also applies to
Protestants, though there are some "fundamentalist" movements among
Christians who would not speak to Muslims in dialogue and certainly
not with Jews.
Therefore, I think we need to go back to some sort of re-education.
My solution is that we can go back to our religious roots, but with
the stress being on openness to other religious roots.
This is especially important to us here in this part of the world
because, in this context, I cannot understand for example how a
religious Jew or a religious Muslim or a religious Christian can
kill others in the name of religion. There is a major failure of
education when we get to this kind of situation.
Daoud Kuttab: How much of "Thou shalt not kill" applies to all
people or does it apply only to certain people? And a just or
unjust war, how does this relate to Islam, the Jihad, the
martyrdom, the refusal to denounce innocent killing? Where is Islam
in all this? Menachem Lorberbaum: I agree totally with Bernard. A true
inter-cultural dialogue can reconstitute our religious identity.
One of the great possibilities we have in Israel and Palestine
together is actually the unique situation where we live together.
We are thrown by destiny together and we are destined to speak to
each other. We have had models beforehand. How do we use them? How
do we use them to make speech rather than guns the way we
communicate with each other? Daoud Kuttab: So you do not see that what is happening here
regarding religion versus human rights of others is any different
from what has been happening over the centuries? Menachem Lorberbaum: No. I think that at a certain point -
and I can speak for Judaism, I cannot speak for Islam or for
Christianity - Jewish religious self-interpretation stopped because
enlightenment and secular nationalism became the carriers of Jewish
identity. Therefore, religion got pushed aside, remaining in the
hands of people always interpreting it from a defensive point of
view, out of a feeling that they are being threatened and may
vanish one day. Religion has to gain a certain self-confidence in
order to undergo the processes of self-interpretation. Sa'id Jamjum: The problem here is not religious. I think
most of us agree it is not a conflict between Islam and Judaism, or
Islam and Christianity on the one hand, and Judaism on the
other. Bernard Sabella: It is nationalist. Sa'id Jamjum: It is a purely political issue now between
Israel and the surrounding Arab Islamic communities. Daoud Kuttab: Yes. But religion is expected to provide the
medicine. It promises its followers that it will be the savior, the
healer, the reconciler. But the religions are not the healers. They
add more oil to the fire. They are making a bad situation even
worse. So Hamas and the Islamic Movement say all of Palestine is
Islamic. Jews say this is all God's promised land. This is not a
religious war, but people are using religion not to bring peace,
but to make more wars. Bernard Sabella: And Christians are too cowardly to take a
stand that is ethically in keeping with the rights of people and
with their own teachings. We are too cowardly. Accordingly, we tend
to be apologetic and fence-sitters. Therefore, I think this
heritage of Abraham is really a mythical heritage. It does not
exist. There are three different religious groupings in this area.
Each one of these religions has its own agenda and though this may
be very pessimistic - I do not see that there is an agenda for a
real dialogue. Sa'id Jamjum: To my belief, the perspective is somewhat
different. Islam and Muslims do not fight Israel because Israel is
a Jewish state. Before the Zionist idea I do not remember that
there were any negative attitudes or feelings towards the Jews.
Now, too, the attitude of Hamas or other groups, like Iran, or
Hizbullah, is not religious. It is not against Judaism. Daoud Kuttab: The attitude of Hamas is not against
Judaism? Sa'id Jamjum: Not as such. Daoud Kuttab: That is not true. In their leaflets they do
not attack Israel. They attack the Jews. Sa'id Jamjum: The Jews were attacked because they were
associated with Zionism and because of the occupation of the
Palestinian lands. Galit Hasan-Rokem: In history there are cases where Jews
were persecuted as Jews. Sa'id Jamjum: In Islamic history? Galit Hasan-Rokem:>/b? As a minority in Yemen, for
example. Sa'id Jamjum: I never heard of this. You have
more persecution of Muslim Shi'ites or other groups than of
Christians, for example. Muslims and Arabs in general, are today
not against Israel because of religion. The conflict is not against
Jews. It is not against Judaism. Patriotic Arab leaders and Muslim
sheiks were considered the vanguard of the fight against Western
imperialism since the eighteenth century. If you go deep enough,
you will see that the conflict here is an aspect of the Arab cause
of religious fighting against a Western intruder. Daoud Kuttab: Do you agree with the Hamas claim that
Palestine is Islamic Wakf? Sa'id Jamjum: Of course.
Daoud Kuttab: So this is a religious issue. Sa'id Jamjum: As I told you, Muslims are the vanguard of the
fight against the Westerners. For instance, there is no Jewish
religious justification for Israel to be here. Galit Hasan-Rokem: You are now discussing the right of
existence of the state of Israel on a religious basis, so how can
you say it is not a question of religion? You are putting the
question of the existence of Israel in religious terms. According
to what you said in the beginning, there is no place for Jews in
the Islamic Wakf, in the Islamic state, except as subjects - and
unequal subjects - because they are not to participate in the state
system, etc.
Sa'id Jamjum: When Jews first came here, they did not come here as
religious people. They came, according to modern international law,
to the properties of others. This is the main problem. Daoud Kuttab: On the issue of Judaism and the land, this
land, where does Judaism stand? Is this Jewish land? How do you
explain the interpretations of the "promised land," that this is
the land of the forefathers and so on? Menachem Lorberbaum: First
of all, from all Jewish perspectives the land of Israel is seen as
the promised land. The question is how does this view interpret
itself politically, but it seems to me that there is no doubt, from
a Jewish point of view, that Jews have a claim for sovereignty over
this land. Daoud Kuttab: To define it, "this land" meaning the land
between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean? The land east of
the Jordan? Menachem Lorberbaum: The exact borders are the subject of a
lot of argument. If you take the Jewish Halacha (religious law) as
the framework, you will find everything from saying that the limits
are from Acre to Beersheva to the grandest promises in the Hebrew
Bible claiming an area from the Euphrates to the Great Sea. From my
point of view, the moral tragedy of the conflict between Jews and
Arab Palestinians is the fact that they have two equal claims for
sovereignty on the land, and I do no see this as a tragedy that
cannot be recognized within religious terms.
We are all here together because we feel the pain of the situation.
The question is the one that Bernard faced us with: how do we
re-educate, how do we interpret, how do we force the good aspects
of the tradition to be dominant. Bernard Sabella: I am a Palestinian, but I want to bring in
the Christian perspective on the land so as to complete the circle,
or the triangle. In Christianity, the holy places are really not
that important. Galit Hasan-Rokem: Many wars were fought by Christians for
them. Bernard Sabella: Yes. But theologically, it is not the place,
it is the person. Daoud Kuttab: It is the soul. Bernard Sabella: Therefore, the attention you pay to the
Holy Sepulchre is very great, but you can have the Sepulchre
without really coming to Jerusalem. In other words, the act of
salvation is not limited to one place. Jerusalem could be the start
of Christianity, but you can be in New York, or in New Delhi or
Sydney and you can celebrate the resurrection of Christ with the
same enthusiasm as you would celebrate it in Jerusalem. I do not
see a real transformation in relations between the three religions
but the hope in the long run is not religious. It is political and
economic. If we can get this country, these two societies, to a
point where people can live with a decent feeling in terms of a
good standard of living, basic rights of education, health, welfare
and security in their personal lives and in their homes - then we
can learn to live side by side without these phenomena of violence
and counter-violence. At that stage we can perhaps learn how to
start to appreciate the religions of other peoples, and maybe to
look at our own religions in a different perspective. Daoud Kuttab: To close, I will put a question to both Sa'id
and Menachem. Does the hope for the betterment of the people of the
area lie in dereligionizing the area, or is the hope in making
people more committed to their religion and more faithful to the
goodness of their religion? Menachem Lorberbaum: I would answer that it lies in both. I
think de-emphasizing the role of religion in politics is a
necessary condition for freedom of conscience and for dignity of
people. At the same time, religion is not a passing episode in
human culture. Therefore, marginalizing religion is not an option.
Religion has to be reinterpreted so as to be a positive force in
infusing morality and spirituality into people's lives. Sa'id Jamjum: The scene from a religious and historical
perspective would make me very pessimistic because the crux of the
problem, again, is occupation, starting from 1948. Before Hamas and
such extremists, ordinary Arabs, though Muslims, were not
religiously oriented between 1948 and 1967. The whole issue was
dormant.
After 1967, there were Fatah and the PLO which do not have a
religious contour. They dominated the Palestinian street and the
religious stream was very weak. In the present circumstances, on
the other hand, I expect a very strong religious Hamas trend to
continue and even to overcome the Fatah stream because the Islamic
stream holds out a promise to the people which the secular Fatah
did not fulfill. That is why the religious trend will not weaken. I
suspect it will become much stronger. Daoud Kuttab: What do you think? What would you like to
see? Sa'id Jamjum: I am looking at it from a historical
perspective. I do not think that there is a solution without
solving the main issue of occupation. Forget about what happened in
1948. There are Jews and Palestinians living in Palestine. The only
solution, whether it is one democratic state or two separate
states, is that we should have equality. Unless we grant equal
rights to both sides, along with sovereignty and a feeling of
identity, I think the Islamic trend will strengthen and there will
be continuous bloodshed. Sometimes in other parts of the world
bloodshed, as terrible as it is, has brought both sides to respect
each other at the negotiating table and this has been beneficial.
So I wish there will be peace but I am pessimistic.