The Jewish Grand Sanhedrin as an example for reforming
Last week, French Jews celebrated the Grand Sanhedrin convoked by
Napoleon Bonaparte in 1807. The Emperor submitted to a gathering of 72 rabbis
and Jewish notables, both “liberal” and “traditionalist” (“salafi”, in modern
terms), 12 questions whose positive answers amounted to a reformation of
Judaism in Napoleon’s empire and to a social and cultural revolution for the
Jews of France in particular.
In an article titled “paving the way for a Muslim parallel society”,
Last week’s Der Spiegel predicted that “a recent ruling by a German judge
citing the Koran underscores the dilemma the country faces in reconciling
Western values with a growing immigrant population. A disturbing number of
rulings are helping to create a parallel Muslim world in Germany..”. In other words, a specter of a Cold Civil War
is haunting not only in Germany but all of Europe.
Der spiegel’s alarmist statement followed on a decision by a German
(female) judge that “the exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill
the hardship criteria as defined by paragraph 1565 (of the German Federal Law).
The judge had decided that a woman was not justified in asking for speedy
divorce from a violent husband as both she and her husband wore “Moroccans”,
citing a passage in the Koran that some have interpreted to mean that a husband
can beat his wife!
The awareness that there is a “problem with Islam” is increasing in
Europe and elsewhere. And, not only in the public opinion and among politicians
and intellectuals. The Catholic Church is witnessing a rise in the
traditionalist current at both grass root level (in seminaries, for instance)
and at the top.
*
A problem with Islam there is. It is similar in many aspects to
Napoleon’s problem with French Jews. Napoleon had discovered that the
liberation of Europe’s Jews from their ancient Ghettos and declaring that all
citizens were equal was not enough. Judaism, itself, had to undergo the
cultural and religious reformation required to meet modernity. Noting the
amazing number of brilliant Jewish professionals in modern France, whether in
medicine, law, finance, the media, one should remember that until 1807 and for
some time later: “it remained to convince the almost illiterate (Jewish) masses
of the importance of scientific knowledge because centuries of marginalization
had created in their midst the deeply rooted idea that all profane sciences
were dangerous for their faith, or the integrity of their religion. Any
sciences that did not belong to their religious texts were considered as
harmful: grammar, mathematics and history were still considered “suspect”
disciplines”!
And,
“The schools, to which they sent their children, before 1789, were under
the influence of such prejudices... They were organized in accordance with a
carelessness that belonged to another age and managed by ignorant people who
taught children Yiddish, some rudiments of Hebrew and the Talmud.
“A real and profound pedagogical effort was required to convince
families to send their children t public schools and to explain that profane
was not a sin...”.(1)
Islam, undoubtedly, is in urgent need of a reformation similar to the
reforms enacted by the 1807 Grand Sanhedrin. Though some differences are
important. While some Saudi Ulemas would consider the “profane” as “sin”, it is
a fact that Muslim immigrants to Europe do send their children to public
schools and are immersed in Europe’s modernity. Moreover, and paradoxically,
most immigrants come from countries with a prevalent Sufi (thus, more tolerant)
organization of Islam, including North African countries.
The fact that most immigrants do not come from countries known for their
Islamic rigor sheds a light on a particular aspect of the “problem with Islam”
in Europe. For, it could be argued that we are witnessing a “transformation” of
the traditional Islam carried over by generations of Muslim immigrants into a
“Brotherhood-Salafi, that is a “new” type of Islam, under the assault of
organized predicators (belonging mostly to the Brotherhood) and of satellite
TVs. The “dish revolution” has reached both
Modern
Yet, Napoleon’s genius could still be valid in today’s
The decisions of the Grand Sanhedrin, formulated in nine articles and
drawn up in French and Hebrew were as follows: “polygamy had been authorized
but.. should cease to be .. in the West; that Jews, under Moses Law, considered
that only Jews were their brothers… the Sanhedrin has decided that all men are
bothers, irrespective of their religion, as long as they were not idolatrous
and if Israelites, living among them, enjoyed the same rights which they
themselves enjoyed; having established the fraternity between all men,
Israelites had the obligation to defend the land in which they lived (even if
the Law of Moses had only mentioned the duty to defend the Temple of
Jerusalem); marriages between Jews and Christians are not anathema but
represent a necessity to be encouraged..; a duty to hold property, etc.; and
that Judaism does not forbid any kind of handicraft or occupation;...
Later decrees by the French state required Jews to have proper names-
instead of a biblical name followed by “bar or ben” and the father’s name tradition- and to give proper names to
“women” who, until then, had had no names at all. But it should be underlined
that the answers of the “Israelites” were not brought about by mere coercion. The
Imperial power was met by Jewish “liberal” reformers who, sometimes, were
tainted as non-Jewish by 19th century Jewish “salafis”!
The decisions of the Grand Sanhedrin, if adopted by today’s Muslim
bodies (replacing « Israelites » by « Muslims », would usher the end of Islamic
fundamentalism.
The task looks arduous in today’s Europe. Europe (and the United
States), often, shy away form evoking an Islamic Reformation and they are more
used to talking to official representatives of Islam or to the Powers in place.
Yet, Napoleon’s recipe looks inevitable if Europe (and the the United States)
are to avoid a “religious Cold War” with its sporadic outbursts of terrorist or
terrorist-suicide operations- a phenomenon most observers agree is on the rise.
Muslim reformers are there. The West should listen to their cry and give
them a hand.
(1) Lilly Marcou: Napoléon Face Aux Juifs, Pygmalion
(2006)
Fri, 11 May 2007 10:46:27 +0300
From: "Yossi Amitay"
<yamitay@gvulot.org.il>
Dear Pierre,
I have read with profound interest your
review of the relationship between the Emperor Napoleon Bonapart and the French
Jewish community, and its implications on current state/religion issues. I must
confess I have learned from this outstanding review a lot of things I was not
aware of about my own people. I salute this intellectual endeavor of yours.
Kind regards,
Yossi
Amitay
"Solomon2
Solomon2" <solomon2_2@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:45:21 -0400
There seems to be a big misunderstanding here. The Great Sanhedrin was
not an event of importance in the religious development of Jews. It didn't
change any rules or codes about how Jews are supposed to related to
non-Jews or the State; that's how its business managed to be concluded so
quickly.
Rather, Napoleon's genius in calling for a Great Sanhedrin was because
of what it meant for French non-Jews: a REPUBLICAN institution of resident
aliens who accepted the Revolution and the Code Napoleon and thus could now
be accepted as near-equal citizens - Jews still faced legal restrictions on
their activities in Alsace, where French anti-Semitism was strongest.
In other words, it wasn't French Jews who evolved, but the rest of
France. The Grand Sanhedrin simply made it clear that the Jews could conform to
these changes easily, after they had already occurred.
Islam, of course, has not reached such a stage of development; indeed in
gatherings such as last month's Riyadh Conference the only united
statements that seem to emerge are non-negotiable demands stating how the rest of
the world must change if it is to sufficiently accomodate an aggressively
colonizing Islamist culture. Only if Muslims abandon such "punitive"
Islam do I see a day when an "Islamic Sanhedrin" can accomplish anything
constructive.
Respectfully,
- Solomon2
http://solomon2.blogspot.com
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:06:54 +0200 (Egypt Standard
Time)
From: "Samir Ragheb"
<samirragheb@hotmail.com
Dear
Pierre:
Your article sheds light on the core of the
problem, and explores the dark corners that politicians and decision makers
fail to see. However, Islam, as we know it today, is on a collision course with
the entire world thanks to the Wahabi concepts being exported to every country
on the face of our planet through satellite TV channels.
It is quite true that there are many reformers
and intellectuals who can completely reverse the tide, and change that ugly
picture that the world has of us, but those people are not given the
opportunity to do so. Our regimes prefer to play it safe. They satisfy the
majority of simple minded masses in order to remain in power. Our leaders do
not have a real and genuine motivation to reform anything, they are so happy
with the status quo. Appeasement is the name of the game!
Now, one last question: Do you think the problem
lies with the people ( ruled and rulers ) or with the book, which - I think -
is quite beyond repair?
Samir Ragheb
Mon, 09
Apr 2007 13:30:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From:
"Naim S. Mahlab" <nsm@videotron.ca>
I wish we could legislate an end to
religious and racial prejudices. Unfortunately, early indoctrination of the
children by parents or schools
has a
tendency to be deep rooted in the person's psyche.
When I
think of the unfavorable changes that have taken place in my own life time, I
shudder at what the future can hold.
When I
was a child, I remember that, at the end of passover, our Moslem friends sent
us a tray full of the foods that we were not allowed
to eat during
the feast.
We always
exchanged good wishes to each other during Moslem and Jewish festivals. But
relations soured in the thirties, and collapsed after the creation of Israel. I
recall visiting a friend of mine who had a senior position in the government.
When I walked into his office he greeted me warmly and introduced to those
present as 'the ustath Naim, not mentioning my family name which could have
identified me as being Jewish.
My father
lived in Kuweit for some time. I recall his telling me that they had a neighbor
who finished his evening prayers with the phrase,
'May God
bring his wrath on the Christians, then on the Jews, and then again on the
Christians.'
My father
who was a friend of Sheikh Mubarak Al Sabah, inquired whether this phrase was
part of Moslem ritual. Sheikh Mubarak suggested that he talk with the local
Mullah, which he did. The neighbor dropped his version of prayers.
I,
personally, always enjoyed my friends of different background. I spent some
time in a Catholic boarding school in India. I got along extremely well with
all, including the Irish Brothers who ran the school.
In 1945 ,
I was running after a beautiful girl I met, and ended up in Jerusalem. While
there, I wanted to visit the Temple Mount. Relations between Moslems and Jews
were not the best. I phoned a Moslem friend who was with me at the AUB and
asked him if he would accompany me. He accepted warmly. All my Jewish friends
told me that I cannot trust him. I replied that I do and that I consider him a
friend. We visited
The Dome
of the Rock and the rest of the compound. Everyone was greeting us warmly as my
friend was a member of a prominent Jerusalem Moslem family. It was a very
pleasant visit.
I think
it is extremely sad that this warm relationship has turned into hatred.
If people
can only learn to enjoy diversity in people, then life can be much more
enjoyable.
Naim
S. Mahlab.