The last week the Arab world seemed to interest the world little. Even the Arab press seemed to be little out of great stories as regional, or local issues took the headlines. Yet, there were some meetings, which took the devoted attention of a special kind or media personal. The comedian. As as we shall see, it is hardly a coincidence. However, we can only hope that these were meant to be some sort of amusement, because for real, these a little harsh.
On Sunday, 3 February Pope Francis I. arrived to Abu Dhabi. After a historic public mass, he signed the “Human Fraternity Document” with Grand Imam of the Azhar Mosque, Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭayyib promoting peace and tolerance between Christians and Muslim. This long awaited Middle East visit was genuinely aimed to promote dialogue between the two faiths with the biggest following around the world. And was a pride of Emirati state marketing as local English language press proudly covered it. Which, considering the level of tension rising all over the world, and right exactly between the West and the Middle East is a good sign. We should be happy for this. And many rightly are. Considering the animosity rising in the West by the migrant crisis and the media activity built on it in one hand, while the spread of radical elements within societies in the Middle East on the other, such gesture, a voice of moderation is surely a good sign. Like a cold shower many of us needed for so long. Yet for some reason, the meeting left both the Western and the Middle Eastern media greatly apathetic, while some, even clearly sad. And there is a reason for that.
While it is a principle of the Catholic Church, that in questions of the faith the pope – whoever he may be – is infallible, it seems his advisors on the Middle East or the Islamic matter guided him poorly this time. In other words, this gesture was bound to fail in its aspiration, even before Pope Francis ever boarded the plane. It was even foreseeable, that in some scale, it will backfire.
His Holiness is a known advocate of fraternity and he even dared many times to challenge public opinion on the migrant crisis, by clearly showing good faith towards Muslims coming to Europe. Even on the level of causing serious controversy, not just among the Catholic flock, but among the clergy as well. But even if he could pull the Church’s followers behind him on his track unconditionally, he is simply not representing Christianity as a whole. Catholicism in fact has a quite modest representation in the region, where Eastern Christian churches are far more influential and imbedded in the society. But who has he met?
One knows the Middle East even lightly would wonder, just why the Emirates. For such historic gesture some other, more influential Islamic center could have suited more. Like Cairo, Baghdad, or Jerusalem for that matter. Or, even if not in Mecca as it is forbidden for non-Muslims to visit, but in Saudi Arabia. Well the latter is understandable. Such gesture of peace and humanity would have looked utterly weird in the presence of Saudi Crown Prince Muḥammad ibn Salmān, just after the Hāšuqğī murder case. Especially with all its gruesome details. But is the Emirates any better? Ever since the great struggle started between the GCC members, at least as early as 2013, presumably even in 1996, as Qatari leaders many times revealed it, it was Abu Dhabi all along behind it. Normally Saudi Arabia kept the balance among the smaller states, which were always viewed from Riyadh as satellite states. And when that equation was jeopardized Riyadh was never shy to use force. As in Bahrain in 2011, when the local monarchy was in crisis by popular uprising Saudi forces moved in and practically occupied the country. As with Qatar, it is highly likely, that the Saudi state was behind the still mysterious abdication of the former monarch Ḥamad ibn Halīfa in 2013, and both in 2015 and 2017 openly threatened Doha with military intervention. The Emirates supported these moves. Just like the military cue in Egypt in 2014, after which it became Cairo’s biggest financial supporter. Or the bloody war in Yemen since 2015, which by now devastated that country and resulted in an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. But ever since Muḥammad ibn Salmān took practical control, Saudi Arabia seems to loose this role of balance.
Just like as in Riyadh Muḥammad ibn Salmān stepped over the traditional rules of governing, sidelined viciously the rival princes and took virtual control residing over defense ministry, the similar thing happened in the Emirates. Muḥammad ibn Zāyid, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Minister of Defense, managed to tactically sideline both Dubai – the usual secondary power base of the state –
and all the other smaller monarchs in the union, and practically took over the state from his still formally ruling father. He can be viewed as the more cunning, slightly wiser, but much more tactical mirror of his Saudi counterpart. Though with a much bigger experience. A person to whom patriotic songs were written, yet was widely scorned even by Gulf intellectuals. That same Muḥammad ibn Zāyid was the main host of Pope Francis this time. Which is just slightly better having hosted the event by Muḥammad ibn Salmān himself. Though it may help to raise the international standing of the Emirates, it is still a very strange choice for such a step meant to be historic.
That was probably sensed by the Emirati leadership, and that is why the Grand Imam of the Azhar was invited to be the Pope’s partner, not the local religious authorities, nor the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. And a sense of dishonesty can be felt here. Not because there would be any problem with Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭayyib, from whom such move is not unprecedented. He many times called Muslims and even his own Egyptian countrymen for moderation and showed good will towards Christians. But because it was never him, much rather the Muslim scholars of the Gulf who contributed to radical environment. People, who were all missing from here. Three other things put this event between brackets even more. First of all, any such action is always on shaky grounds since Sunni Islam has never had structural clergy, at least in the Western-Christian sense. Therefore whatever vows one šayh takes, can be easily disregarded by others. Secondly, because the Gulf is full of dialogue initiatives, like the Doha Center for Interfaith Dialogue with its yearly summits, but radical elements have little regard for that. They can legally, from a religious point of view, disregard it as a personal opinion. And the real problem is with state attitudes, which many times provide natural habitat. Thirdly, because the Azhar is undoubtedly one of
the most prestigious Sunni religious centers, but its standing, just like that of Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭayyib was tarnished, when they stood behind the Mursī government. They showed no serious signs of moderation than, yet they rapidly backed the cue against Mursī, and even now they are viewed as tools of as-Sīsī in general, and in this matter in particular. Especially in the lower classes, where the Muslim Brotherhood and other, even more radical elements have their hinterland. So it is really doubtful what affect this newly signed document will really have on the societies.
The choice of country was also strange by one other key missing factor. It may seem, that this is a historic accord between the most senior members of both religious communities, regardless of their real power to influence their following, but we should not forget that interfaith clashes unusually not target Catholics. As they are rather few in the Middle East. Those who really suffer from fanatics and fanaticism, whether on the grand scale by Dā‘iš and others, or on a daily level in their life being picked at are the Christians of the East. Copts, Greek and Assyrian Orthodox, Melkites, Maronites who were not present here. The Emirates, just like the Gulf in general lacks embedded Christian communities. There the theory never has to be tested locally. Those who are present, are almost exclusively foreigners. Laborers from the Philippines, India or even Egypt, who live on the fringes of Gulf societies under conditions many times regarded as modern age slavery. And the Emirates along with Qatar are mentioned as the most shocking examples for that, even by the Arab press. So when Pope Francis held a mass in Abu Dhabi in front of a cheerful crowd, we have to aware, that most of these people are not locals, but import laborers many times living in dire circumstances. They are outcasts in most Gulf societies not simply for religious reasons, but for being much needed, but outsider laborers. To whom religious freedom is one of the smallest of problems. Having put all these troubling details together, one can understand that in the Middle East in general, as in its regions with considerable Christian communities this gesture is troubling, if not directly disappointing.
To other side of the coin
Of course it could be said, that with all these added up, it is still a great initiative and it harms no one. Which is right. And somewhere the building of bridges has to be started. Which is also correct. And just as the Christ himself once said, when he was questioned why is he fraternizing with tax farmers, the sick need the doctor, not the healthy ones. Therefore starting the work with the religiously most rigid part of the Middle East has some logic in it. But that would be incorrect, both by the writer of these lines, both by the general public to put all the blame on the Muslim side in this story. After all, they hosted the event. Staged as it was, at least there is a gesture with all its vanity and sensible dishonesty.
But the choice of destination is curious on the Vatican’s side. Let’s say there is nothing against this journey. Still many other destinations for the same document signing would have been much more pressing. Pope Francis showed great affection many times for the migrants arriving to the shores of Europe. Then why not Lebanon, Syria Iraq? Where local Christian communities are uprooted by extremists would have needed the Pope much more. Moral support for them would have been invaluable. Not like the that is unprecedented, since Pope John Paul II did visit Syria in 1999. Countries like Jordan, Egypt or Lebanon – if we consider security concerns preventing his Holiness from visiting more dangerous countries – would be well-founded choices, since there is a not just a dialogue, but a living coexistence between members of these two major faiths. However troublesome that may be. There is a clergy already engaged in the matter, and states supporting this process as fundamentally important. Christianity in this part of the world is not foreign, but as a natural part of
the social fabric. The best possible examples are here, upon which lessons could be learned. One witnessed Beirut, Damascus or Aleppo in Christmas 2018, could see cheering crowds by Christians and Muslims alike, even in the more conservative neighborhoods. As it is natural for tv stations to host prominent members of both religious at that time, celebrating together. Like the interview with Syrian Grand Mufti Badr ad-Dīn Ḥassūn and Greek Metropolitan of Jerusalem ‘Aṭā-Allah Ḥannā on 26 December 2018. Who on most matters just couldn’t have agreed more. These are the prime example of fraternity, without any formal document. So it is very hard to understand, why these examples are not picked up and supported.
What is many times missed in the West, that Christianity lives and is deep-rooted in this part of the world. Which needs moral support, but not in the form political intrusion. They refuse to see themselves as minorities, as they are in every aspect integral part of their societies. And while they are being uprooted and harassed in their own native lands by extremists, they are being left alone, felt abandoned. Yet the countries, which in the case of Syria and Iraq supported these catastrophic phenomenons are being praised for the smallest gestures. From this point of view, one can understand the bitterness of his Holiness Ḥannā, who in the mentioned interview expressed bitterly, that the West does not see them and don’t listen to them.
Looking with blind eyes
This very strange, puzzling behavior by the West in fact manifests so many times. The other prime example, where one just wonders what could have been the idea, happened last week. As French President Macron visited Egypt on 28 January 2019 and met his Egyptian colleague, they agreed on some 30 accords between the two countries and a trade deal with a value several hundred million euros. Which, as great investment for companies in one hand, and fresh influx of capital on the other, couldn’t have been more fruitful for both. A scene impossible to ruined, so it would seem. Yet Macron in the final press conferences felt the need react to journalists’ questions by stressing the importance human rights, and reassuring the press, that the matter is high on the French agenda. That only the people can determine their faith and nothing is more sacred than that. Questions focusing on the matter, in a way understandably unnerved as-Sīsī, who lost his temper, and went on with curios remarks, that the West should not look them through their own eyes. Rather, they should see Egyptian people as they are, with their own peculiarities. While comedians easily made fun of these puzzling lines, the Egyptian President’s fury, even if unprofessional, is in a way understandable. Because the constant lecturing of the Middle East on Western standards might sound beautiful, but in the last two decades bought some horrific results. The war on terror and the democratization frenzy, the so called Arab Spring had devastating effects. Especially, and here once again dishonesty is tangible in its best, when the West was building this on the Muslim Brotherhood. Like former Egyptian MP Muṣṭafā Bakrī in his 2013 book, Suqūṭ al-Ihwān (The Fall of the Brotherhood) accounted with great details, that since 2003 Western governments were in constant connection with Brotherhood members in prison at the time, grooming them for power. Even academic literature was full of this trend.[1] And indeed in the case of Egypt, the county is in such pressing social and economical deadlock, that first solid living conditions should be solved. All these, especially in the wider Middle Eastern context with all its political, historical and cultural complexity has a lengthy literature by now.
But let us just look at the scene here! The same Macron against whom there is an unprecedented protest movement for months by now, stresses the importance of human rights in Egypt. While in France violence by the police reaches frightening levels, the scene many times resembling those of the Arab Spring, not like the conditions of a developed Western country. One with any sense of shame, would have skipped the question. But in this set, there is an unavoidable spirit of colonial pride. Which, having seen so many hardship especially in the last two decades, naturally not only irritates Egyptians, but peoples of the Middle East in general.
The lines crossing
These two events, meetings and big accords, seem to have little in common. Except the attitude, and the expectable result. The rather comic press conference as-Sīsī and Macron is something all too familiar. Western leaders manifesting hypocrisy in its best, as the they lecture the Middle East, while their own records are not right either. This sort of behavior of not understanding the region and its people, which originates from very political orientalists, and is taken on by politicians and by now the media created growing trend as these people are simply destined to suffer. As if they were some helpless barbarians who love to live an undisciplined, chaotic life. Other then doing lucrative business, not much can be done with them. And if so, that shall be done with the most pleasant, better looking ones, who look nice even in a press conference. But when we finally decide to help, to act, that shall be done in our way. With little regard to the people on the ground. Behind the nice sounding, and truly important tabloid themes, there is a painful emptiness.
The Middle East overall, undoubtedly, has its own prettier and uglier face. Like any other part of the world. Yet, what peoples of that region can not comprehend, is why the West keeps kissing the ugly side, and wiping the brighter one. While on the other hand, it would be in time by now to see, that the West should stop force itself upon the Middle East with its own ideas and attitudes and start to listen.
[1] Roberts, Hugh: Islamism and Political Reform in British-Egyptian Relations, in: British-Egyptian Relations from Suez to the Present Day [ed. Noel Brehony, Ayman El-Desouky], London Middle East Institute, 2007, London.
The study, like so many others at the time before 2011 widely considers the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate and democratic movement with popular basis, and argues the Western governments have no alternatives, but to support them so the sake of democracy. The result was, however, less convincing.