File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2002/postcolonial.0203, message 190


From: suhak-AT-canada.com
Date: 17 Mar 2002 20:11:28 -0800
Subject: Re: holy cities (again)


Hi Charles (and everyone on the list),

Re. Restricting entry to Mecca:

One interpretation for preserving the city as "holy" was to restrict the entry of non-Muslims to it. By non-Muslims it was meant, as per the initial interpretation, the polytheist tribes. In pre-Islam, the Kaba was full of idols, and when Muhammad and the Muslims entered Mecca, triumphantly, the first thing they did was to destroy all the idols in it, and clean it completely. Thus, they consecrated the place. 

Since the Kaba was holy to pre-Muslims, there was a fear that if non-Muslims entered it, they might be tempted to bring back, or sneak, their idols to it. So, one way of making sure that Mecca will always remain sacred is to restrict the entry of on-Muslims to it.

It is known that Christians and Jews lived near Mecca. Also, there were Jews in Medina when Muhammad and his followers took refuge there. But, there is, as far as I know, no historical indication that Jews/Christians lived in Mecca before Islam. It is possible that the there was already a restriction on both to enter the city prior to the onset of Islam. This habit/custom might have continued after the onset of Islam.

Another possibility is that Jews and Christians themselves restricted themselves away from the city (i.e. the restriction was self-imposed). It might be even more true in the case of Jews who are offended by the warship of idols. Early medieval Jews refused/forbade the making of images/statues, just like Muslims. I think, Charles, you can recognize why Jews refused to display the images/any form of representations for a living creature. Anyway, it is possible that they stayed out of Mecca because it was seen as a 'bad' place in pre-Islam. 

Another possibility of having the restriction apply to Jews and Christians is that Muslims, like the followers of any religion, with time, tend to 'raise fences' around any commandment. So, the fear of breaking the restriction makes them apply this to any one who is not a Muslim. 'Raising fences' is applied to many religious practices by strict adherents in any religion. However, if this is the case, that Muslims raised the fence, then this practice took place after several decades, maybe centuries, after the spread of Islam, when commentators and others became too strict. In any case, it has become now a 'sunna' that cannot be altered. There are several degrees to Sunna, according to Sunnis. The highest authority is given to the Quran, then to the Hadiths, then to the Sunna of the Prophet, then to the Sunna of the four guided Caliphs, and so on. So, even the restriction is not a Sunna of the Prophet, it is still a Sunna!

Another possibility for the restriction is that Muslims, at that time, were fearful that non-Muslims might desecrate the Kaba either by bringing statues to it, or by destroying it id they enter it-this would only apply to military legions/military campaigns. In this case, the fear is not of 'one' non-Muslim or even a small group, but of foreign armies. This fear  cannot be estimated as a case of 'phobia'; it was, and probably is still, the practice that when an army enters a city, the old places of warship, if they are not destroyed, are converted to places of worship that correspond to the religious practices of the 'foreign' army.

These are all the possibilities. Historically speaking, there is no given time, or a certain time when this 'restriction' started to be in place, at least it is not known when it began to be applied to Jews/Christians. What is known is that Muhammad received Jews and Christians who carried messages to him in Medina, and in Mecca. But these were short visits, and since it is possible that no Jews and Christians lived there. So, Muslims, later on, decided that the restriction can apply to everyone who is non-Muslim, not just polytheists.

As for Medina, again it is a matter of 'raising the fence' coupled with reverence for the place where Muhammad died. With time, Medina also became holy and the restriction automatically extended to include it.

Re. Mizrakhi Jews: They are in the Likud because many of them tend to be conservative when in terms of to social, and religious practices. Their political affiliation is not necessarily an indication that they are apathetic towards Palestinians. Likud represent what they believe in more than the Labour party, not to mention that the Labour party was conceived by some Mizrakhis as the party of the 'Ashkenazi'. So they chose the other party where they felt they are more welcome.

I would like to note that many Mizrakhis were highly educated in Arabic, and were masters in many crafts. Many of them came from good, educated families (bourgeois/elite). The Iraqis who immigrated to Israel were, in general, of an elite class. This also applies to the majority of Moroccan Jews. However not knowing Hebrew (their Hebrew was Biblical), and being observant of their religion made them the 'proletaria' of the new Israeli state. The Ashkenazi at the time were mainly 'socialist' who had secular ideals. Also, do not forget that when Russians immigrated to Israel they received loans and certain monetary aids to help them start their lives in Israel; the Mizrakhis did not receive similar facilitations. 

If Mizrakhis/Palestinians work in menial professions, it is not because they do this out of their own choice, but because this is the only available avenue for them to make ends meet. Poverty, unfortunately, is inherited. It is more likely that I will end up doing a menial job if my parents hold such jobs. On the other hand, if my parents were educated, they are more likely to encourage/push me to study, and they would be outraged if I choose to be a constructor or a brick layer, or whatever the meaning of 'menial' might be understood.  

As for Hebrew being 'Mizrakhi', this is not exactly accurate. There were certain forms, and spelling of words that Y. ben Gurion took from Eastern Jews, but modern Hebrew is not considered, as a whole, 'Eastern'. The French pronunciation of the letter "R" is definitely Ashkenazi; also the pronunciation of the "H" as in "Makhar" (tomorrow) is definitely Ashkenazi. Mizrakhis would say "Mahar" as Arabs would say "Bahr (sea). There are many differences between both; too many to enumerate here. Also, many of the idioms that Y. b. Gurion chose were direct translations from Ashkenazi heritage, not from Eastern Jews. If you read Bialik, you'll see that the images he used were similar to the poetry written in Yiddish/Polish/Russian at that time. 

The discrimination that Mizrakhis suffered was enormous. They were ridiculed for practicing their religion, for their social habits and for their language. They were, in many ways, treated as a 'wild card' in Ashkenazi hands. On the one hand, they mattered because they increased, demographically speaking, the number of Jews living in Israel vs. the number of Arabs; on the other hand, when it came to treating them as equal citizens, they were treated with disrespect. 

Hope this is helpful,

Suha

On Sun, 17 March 2002, Charrl-AT-aol.com wrote:

> 
> <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Let me begin by addressing the good question of why ask about access to Saudi holy cities when there are obviously more pressing matters at hand of (literally) life and death.  I wish I knew how to approach a cessation of hostilities to prevent more bloodshed today, or tomorrow, but I really do not know where to start.  I do, however, have another idea which may not produce results right away, but rather put the parties concerned on a faster track toward productive discussions.  The idea started with thoughts about who in Israel tend to be hard liners toward the Palestinians.<BR>
> <BR>
> Those Jews of Middle Eastern or North African origin (one post spoke of "Mizrahi" Jews) have over the years tended to vigorously support the Likud party in Israel (though many leaders are Ashkenazim - of central/eastern European background).  Intuitively, you might think that because these Middle Eastern Sephardic Jews have less status they would feel a greater affinity for Palestinians.  You might even think, intuitively, that these Jews, having absorbed a cultural context similar to that of Arabs, would be more understanding of, and sympathetic to, the plight of Palestinians.  In fact, it is these Middle Eastern Jews who have tended to form the rank and file backbone of Israeli political support for a hard line against Palestinians.<BR>
> <BR>
> Do these Middle Eastern Jews know something the more westernized Jews do not?<BR>
> <BR>
> I first asked myself that question when it was pointed out that in Israel there were no physical depictions of Moses.  When we asked some Israelis about it, their response was to talk about not encouraging idolatry, or that Moses never actually set foot in ancient Israel (in the Bible he was denied the privilege on what seemed to be a small pretext).  There was something specious about these responses, and I remember mentioning that Abe Lincoln never visited Israel, but there is at least one prominent statue of him there!<BR>
> <BR>
> Years later, through a dream followed the next evening by the chance discovery of a book written by Freud, <I>Moses and Monotheism</I>, I discovered there was and is significant evidence that Moses was an Egyptian.  I cannot help but think the precedent of not showing depictions of Moses was begun by Jews whose families have always lived in the Middle East, and who somehow knew (even if some of their descendants may have by now lost the informally-taught knowledge) that Moses was not a Jew.<BR>
> <BR>
> When the Saudi peace proposal came to light I was encouraged, like many of you, and wanted to believe it was a serious proposal.  Yet I couldn't help but feel there was something that did not quite add up about this either.<BR>
> <BR>
> I began to wonder what other things Middle Eastern Jews knew, or had been informally taught, which the Ashkenazim or westerners in general didn't know, and what things about the Middle East exist for which I had never really heard a plausible explanation.  And first and foremost I thought of Jerusalem, which really was not accessible to Jews -of Israeli of other citizenship- for many years pre-1967.  And then I thought of Mecca and Medina, and how those cities have been completely closed off to anyone not a Moslem.  And Jerusalem, though it does have sites considered important by Moslems and Christians, is THE holy city for the Jews, the Jewish equivalent of Mecca, if ever there was one.<BR>
> <BR>
> All this made me wonder about why Mecca and Medina had been closed (and whether, should Moslems ever regain control of East Jerusalem, there would be voices raised advocating the same for that place).  I did some research on the web to try to understand why the Islamic holy cities were closed and, when that effort didn't shed much light on the issue, I asked members of this listserv about it; I also consulted one of my old professors who is an Arabic scholar and expert on Islamic  religious writings and philosophy.  <BR>
> <BR>
> Some responses I had spoke of assertions of power, and others spoke of not really knowing why these cities were closed.  Only Suha Kudsieh, who posted a message to this listserv March 4, said that the Khutbat al-Wada, or Mohammed's last sermon or speech, "declared these areas sacred and allowed to Muslims only".<BR>
> <BR>
> After reading this sermon, I responded to the list, in part:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
>  "In the translations I found of the Khutbat al-Wada'ah, the final sermon of Mohammed, I found no explicit declaration that Mecca and Medina were to be allowed to Moslems only.  The only possible reference to exclusivity is this passage, which refers only to Mecca:<BR>
> <BR>
> 'O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust'<BR>
> <BR>
>  Is this the passage, which seems to single out the legitimacy of Muslim life and property to the exclusion of those of other peoples, the one to which you referred?  Is this passage used, to this day, as justification for prohibiting non-Moslems from entering either of the holiest cities?" <BR>
> <BR>
>  <BR>
> No one has responded to this.  So I'm coming to the realization that while many Moslems do not know why the cities are closed, other more traditional Moslems, and especially adherents to Wahabism (which seem to control religious and other aspects of Saudi society, and from whose ranks came some of the terrorists who killed thousands of civilians in the United States on September 11), are taught an ingrained intolerance and a profound lack of respect for anyone not of their faith.  I wonder if this type of realization, which may just be dawning on some of us in the west, has been common, assumed knowledge of the sort passed from generation to generation by those Middle Eastern Jewish families who have lived in proximity to Arab Moslems for centuries, and who have backed the Likud party and its hard line on Palestinian issues. <BR>
> <BR>
> (On the issue of property rights of non-Moslems, a recent issue of <I>World Press Review</I> reprinted a piece from the October 23, 2001 issue of <I>Outlook</I> - described by the <I>Review</I> as an independent weekly published in New Delhi.  Discussing fears of a US presence in oil and gas extraction in an area covering Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, the piece says moves by US interests there "would be ruthlessly resisted by Islamic fundamentalists who claim that all oil and gas reserves across the Asian crescent are 'a gift from Allah to the faithful'.")<BR>
> <BR>
> If your prospective negotiating partners really think you are impure and undeserving of basic guarantees relating to life and property, why would Jews think you could have serious discussions in an atmosphere of mutual respect, or some semblance therof?  Perhaps if Jews felt there was a greater respect for them, it would make the start of talks more attainable and the discussions themselves more productive, especially since one of the knottiest issues would be the status of a holy city, Jerusalem.<BR>
> <BR>
> The suggestion I have is an unconventional one, but these times call for unconventional, "out of the box" thinking if we are to try realistically to attack a problem which is costing many lives daily.  The suggestion is that Saudi Arabia open the cities of Medina and Mecca to non-Moslem visitors, as a gesture of respect for the non-Islamic world.  I cannot guarantee this would lead to a settlement, but I think it will make the setting and context for negotiations more favorable, and I hope it will resonate especially with the Sephardic Israeli Jews who have up until now comprised much of the vanguard of the Israeli hard line.  <BR>
> <BR>
> Such a move would need to be applauded even as the Saudis would maintain their policy of not admitting Jews to their country on the theory that Jews support Israel, a country with which Saudi Arabia is still at war. <BR>
> <BR>
> Charles Orlowek<BR>
> </FONT></HTML>


__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005