 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 30 Sep. - 6 Oct. 1999 Issue No. 449 
|
||
Published in Cairo by Al-Ahram established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 30 Sep. - 6 Oct. 1999 Issue No. 449
|
||
| Published in Cairo by Al-Ahram established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Al-Ahram:
A Diwan of contemporary life (305)
Disputes between Syrian factions living in Egypt early this century were often intense. One particular debate raged between Sheikh Mohamed Rashid Rida, an intellectual from the Ottoman province of Greater Syria, and Said Talie, a member of the Syrian Congress. Rida's writings on the pan-Arab cause and his support of pan-Islamism consistently caused quite a stir. Rarely skipping a beat was Talie, always armed with a rebuttal for everything Rida had to say. Dr Yunan Labib Rizq * chronicles the rivalry of these two men and their writings which Al-Ahram, its Syrian origin allowing for a natural outlet for their views, obligingly published
Looking towards the Levant
No one contests the Arab origins of Al-Ahram. Its owners originally hailed from Syria. From the outset their interests extended from the Levant to the Maghreb, and they had agents and correspondents scattered across the Arab world. Nevertheless, to read Al-Ahram during World War I leaves one with the impression that Arab influence had waned considerably. Apart from its coverage of the 1913 conference in Paris concerning the administration of Syria and the detailed coverage of developments in Palestine following the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Al-Ahram appears to have forgotten that there was an Arab world outside Egypt.
Of course, there were some mitigating circumstances. Naturally, the developments of the war would have pushed all other events to the sidelines. Moreover, the paper shortage caused by the war, which forced Al-Ahram to reduce some editions to two pages, placed stringent restraints on the editors' priorities. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the progress of battle and Egyptian events would nudge other issues out of the newspaper altogether. Among the issues diminished in priority was the Arab cause. Then, following the war, the banishment of Saad Zaghlul, along with three other nationalist leaders, sparked the mass uprising known as the 1919 Revolution. That year, the tumultuous events and repercussions of this revolution would naturally dominate the newspaper's pages.
A composite illustration which appeared in Al-Ahram. Entitled "The British occupation... start of the tragedy, " the picture published a part of the Balfour Declaration and the British lord's photo
It was not until the summer of 1921 that the Arab cause resurfaced to occupy the forefront of Al-Ahram's attention. By that time, the fervour over the Egyptian revolution had subsided, particularly following the discord that beset the Wafd leadership. Now Al-Ahram could turn its sights to events outside Egypt and, in the Arab east, there was a rush of developments to keep abreast with. The previous year, there had been a large-scale tribal revolt in Iraq, the French had marched on Damascus to quell an anti-colonialist insurrection and Palestine was a powder keg sitting atop the complex triangle of tension between the Palestinians, the Zionists and the British. In addition, part of the tension in the east played themselves out in Egypt. We refer specifically to the disputes that erupted between the Syrian factions living in Egypt at the time and for whom Al-Ahram, with its Syrian origin, was their natural outlet for their views.
The initial row began with a writer who had acquired a reputation as a major exponent of the Islamic trend in the pan-Arab movement. Sheikh Mohamed Rashid Rida was one of the many intellectuals from the Ottoman province of Greater Syria to move to Egypt in the latter half of the 19th century. Towards the end of that century, in 1898 to be precise, he founded the highly reputed Al-Manar, an Islamic reformist magazine that acquired a broad circulation not only throughout the Arab and Islamic world, but also among the Arab communities in the West. Al-Manar appeared originally as a weekly but quickly developed into a monthly periodical, primarily because its feature articles were generally too long for a weekly. When Rashid Rida arrived in Egypt he received the help of Sheikh Mohamed Abdu, the Mufti of Egypt. Perhaps one reason for the wide readership of Rida's nascent magazine was the fact that this dynamic Islamic reformer was a frequent contributor.
By the 1920's Rashid Rida had reached such a position that he could not have written an article on the pan-Arab cause without provoking some kind of reaction in the rest of the Egyptian press. This is what precisely occurred as a result of the June 1921 issue of Al-Manar, which featured a 30-page article: "The plain facts on the Arab question: an article for contemplation and history".
It was not its mere length that made this article significant (30 pages was routine for Sheikh Rida). Rather, it exposed certain secrets about the Arab question that circumstances of war prevented from being made public. So extraordinary were some of the author's claims that the article sparked controversy that would play itself out in Al-Ahram for more than two months.
One portion of "The plain facts" concentrates on the Syrian presence in Egypt during World War I. Under the provocative headline, "What the Syrians hatched in Egypt", Rida wrote: "A group of the most prominent Syrian intellectuals residing in Egypt met at the outset of the war to deliberate over the future of Syria and invited the author of this article to attend the meeting. It was the general opinion of those assembled that the allied powers would emerge from the war victorious and occupy our country and it was suggested that we speak to these powers to convey our wishes with regard to the nature of government under them. I strenuously objected that the affairs of our country are our own concern and that we have no need to discuss them with anyone."
Rida goes on to say that there were several such meetings. Their proceedings as a whole gave rise to three bodies of opinion. The first was that Syria should be annexed to one of the European victors and take on its nationality. The second was that Syria should come under the mandate of one of those countries. According to Rida, it was the Syrian Christians who were prone to advocate one of these two alternatives, although perhaps his intent was to distinguish between Syrian pan-Arabists as opposed to Syrian pan-Islamists. Rida represented the latter school. The third opinion was that Syria should become an independent nation, if possible, under the sponsorship and guidance of the great powers. This was the position Rida advocated, although he added that it was a modification of his former proposal that "Syria should seek full independence and establish itself as an Arab government in the event that the Turks and their allies are defeated."
As these diverse opinions suggest, the Syrian community in Egypt during the war was fraught with deep divisions. Rashid addressed the problem in terms of what he considered to be the excessive tendency to form separate societies. He writes, "It has been rumoured that a Syrian society established itself in Egypt in order to promote the French occupation of the Syrian coast while another society was formed with the purpose of advocating the establishment of a Christian government in Syria under French protection and supervision." Rida attributed the development of these societies to rumours for there is no documentary evidence to support their establishment. In any event, on the same subject he adds that "in Egypt in 1917, numerous societies and committees were founded at the behest of the British and French. The task of some of these assemblies was to lay the foundation for an agreement between the Syrian denominations over the nature of the system of government in Syria following the implementation of the agreement the British and French government reached. Some of these societies, such as the National Hotel Society, did not have a single Muslim member." He then remarks, "Whenever someone comes to me with a report of this nature, I attempt to persuade him that there are better alternatives unless the individual is Muslim in which case I caution him against the risks of lending himself to an attempt to cater to British and French designs, an effort for which he would become the recipient of the curses of millions until the day of judgment."
As though to prove his point, he relates that on 20 February 1918 a meeting was held in the home of a Syrian notable. The meeting confirmed his suspicions, "for present were some of the most important French and British figures along with representatives from the Hijaz, Lebanon, some independent advocates of independence and some Iraqi officers." He concludes with a severe condemnation of the Syrians in Egypt. In times of war, he wrote, "Foreigners appealed to most of those Syrians involved in politics. The Syrians gave them everything they wanted. Indeed, we were betrayed by those who had pronounced the most solemn pledges to strive towards the full independence of Arab countries and to refuse any form of foreign occupation. Some of the most famous advocates of independence put their faith in the colonialists while others whom we had judged to be steadfast began to vacillate."
In a second portion of his article, Sheikh Rida discusses his advocacy of pan-Islamism during the war. He contended that it was important to draw a sharp distinction between the members of the ruling Committee for Union and Progress (CUP) Party in Turkey -- better known as the Young Turks -- and the Ottoman Caliphate, the seat of which was in Istanbul and which by no means merited the hostility of pan-Islamists. Expounding on this theme, he relates that he went on the pilgrimage following the Arab revolt in the Hijaz, where he met with Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca. Rida expressed his admiration for Hussein who, he said, had restricted his animosity to the Young Turks "who discriminated against and undermined the Arabs and Syrians at a time when they are in dire need of cohesion and unity." He was pleased that Hussein agreed that "it is important not to vent our hostilities on the Turks in general so as not to weaken the Caliphate. Rather, we should focus our efforts on uniting the Arabs so as to create a new and powerful force that is equipped to defend themselves, to press for their independence if the Ottoman state is defeated and to safeguard their rights if the Ottoman state emerges victorious, as is the wish of every Muslim."
Rida's admiration for Hussein quickly dissipated when the latter proclaimed himself "King of the Arabs" and changed sides, joining the allied war effort against Turkey. "It came as a great disappointment that he brought his revolution to a stop much quicker than we had hoped," Rida remarked. He was also concerned by reports of a movement to declare the Sherif Hussein Caliph, and it was with some relief that he learned that the idea had not originated with Hussein or his immediate entourage.
Rashid Rida
Mohamed Abdu
Yusef Al-Azma
Prince Faisal in Damascus did not fare as well as his father, the Sherif of Mecca. Rida spent some time in the Syrian capital during the short period in which Faisal headed the government there. He was not impressed with Faisal or with the Arab nationalists around him. He relates, "I spent roughly half a year there, during which time I met Faisal almost every day. I was unable to discover any fixed political belief he had apart from his conviction that it was impossible at that point to dislodge the French and British from the Arab world. The Arabs, he thought, had no choice but to work with one of those two nations, to use their assistance to promote the betterment of the Arab countries and to win their friendship in order to loosen the grip of their custodianship. However, Faisal never voiced these beliefs openly." As though these comments were not damning enough, Rida continues that Faisal, having reconciled himself to the inevitability of some form of foreign protectorate, "mollified everyone that had any status or influence, thereby ensuring that the allied powers had the final say. Therefore, he never attempted to ready the tribes and the army for the defence of Syria because he never expected that the French would invade."
If Syrian Arab nationalists could tolerate Rida's attack on Faisal, who, after all, was not originally from Syria, they would not be so understanding of criticism of Faisal's minister of war, Yusef Al-Azama, who lost his life defending Damascus against the French assault. Rida found much to praise in Al-Azama. The Syrian general was intelligent, disciplined and energetic. Nor could his probity and patriotism be called into question. However, in his capacity as minister of war, not only was Al-Azama overbearing, but "he refused to disclose his activities even to the prime minister, and I believe also to the king". Al-Azama also had his ministry approve Faisal's capitulation to the French ultimatum delivered by General Gouraud. Nevertheless, in a final act of heroic defiance, Al-Azama assembled the remnants of his forces "after having donned his full military uniform and reconciled himself with death". Rida concludes, "His greatest tribute was that he refused to live under degradation and, moreover, wanted to atone with his blood for the shortcomings that were the outcome of arrogance."
Rida's highly contentious article would not pass without comment. Dr Said Talie had been a member of the Syrian Congress that was elected in 1919 and which shared power with Faisal during his short-lived rule in Syria. Talie was the first to respond to Rida. In "The Arab cause: if the narrator is impartial, history will corroborate", the Syrian politician took issue with Rida's contention that wartime circumstances would have been propitious for Arab liberation "if the Arab countries had had competent leaders". Talie countered, "People make leaders and circumstances bring leaders forth. The Arab nation could not plead ignorance that it had no competent leaders, as the venerable Sheikh Rida imagines. Natural leadership was there in the person of His Royal Highness King Hussein, whom the Arab nation delegated as its spokesman during the war and whose leadership was recognised by the allied powers."
Talie also disputed Rida's allegation that King Hussein had betrayed the caliphate by siding with the allied forces. He asks, "Could the king have fought the leaders of the Young Turks alone when power was in their hands, the soldiers of the empire at their command and the entire Muslim nation lost and at their mercy?"
In his rebuttal, Talie called into question the facts Rida cited in "The plain facts on the Arab question". He also suggested that Rida had exaggerated his own importance with regard to the events that played themselves out in Syria prior to the French invasion. He writes, "Rida claims to have given the soundest advice to the British, the allied powers and the King of the Hijaz [Hussein] during the period of the Great War, yet none of these appear to have been inclined to heed his counsel." He also cast doubt on Rida's claims to have been highly influential in the formation of the government of eastern Syria and in the appointment of senior officials and ministers. He comments caustically: "As that omnipotent man had been in Syria at the time when the country lacked competent leaders, one is given to conclude that the responsibility for the shortage lay upon his shoulders, given his penetrating insight into the metal of peoples' character and his mighty hand in making and unmaking ministerial appointments." Rida also claimed to have been instrumental in the appointment of Yusef Al-Azama as minister of war. Talie doubts this and also takes exception to Rida's questioning of Al-Azama's leadership. "I wish we all had an element of Al-Azama in us, my dear Rida. For if we had, we may well not have met the fate we did."
Talie contends that "the founder of Al-Manar"-- an epithet Rida approved of but which Talie used derisively -- claimed that the Syrian Congress "heeded every word he said, as though only he understood the spirit of the congress and as though the congress was a puppet whose strings were in his hands." Nothing, Talie says, could be farther from the truth: "Pardon me for reminding Rida that I myself was a member of that congress. The suggestions that he claims to have been discussed in its sessions and in the sessions of the central council were, in fact, never openly discussed because of their sensitivity. Therefore, the venerable sheikh was never in a position to try to persuade us to abandon the suggestion. Moreover, the members of the Syrian Conference were all highly intelligent native Syrians who were perfectly aware of our circumstances. At no point did the Syrian Conference bend to the will of a single individual as Rida asserted."
Rida was not about to let Talie's rebuttal pass lightly and his response appeared in Al-Ahram four days later. As was often the case with the Arab intelligentsia embroiled in verbal disputes, Rida believed that Talie's attack against him was the product of a personal grudge. That such a hostility existed, he argued, was evidenced in a speech Talie delivered in Alexandria a week earlier in which he made certain remarks that Rida took as "a personal offence and an affront to my dignity".
Turning to Talie's article, Rida charged that the former member of the Syrian Congress had unjustly belittled his influence on Syrian politics during his stay in Damascus. Satie Bek Al-Hasari, the Syrian minister of education at the time, could personally testify to the fact that Rida had been instrumental in securing the appointment of Yusef Al-Azama as minister of war. Nor could Talie deny that Rida had headed the committee which had met in the home of Ihsan Al-Jabri in order to deliberate the cabinet reshuffle.
Talie, in his response to Rida's original article, had intimated that Rida had been hypocritical in his condemnation of Faisal. Rida had recited a eulogy in honour of Faisal on the occasion of a Ramadan banquet attended by the members of the Syrian Congress. Rida took issue with the defamation of his integrity, countering that his poem was no more than a polite response to the compliments Faisal had paid him during the banquet. Moreover, it was excessive to call his recitation a eulogy since, in fact, it was actually an expression of gratitude for Faisal's generosity in hosting the dinner. Rida also resented Talie's insinuation that he had harboured ill will against the Hashemite rulers, Hussein and Faisal. "Were it not that public interest be higher in priority than the personal demands of friendship, I would never have written a word against either of them," he pleads, adding that "they know that my hopes for them were higher than what they cherished for themselves and the conditions they ultimately accepted for themselves."
Four days later, Talie responded. Although his tone was somewhat conciliatory and while he refuted the charge that his arguments were based upon a personal grudge against Rida, he nevertheless held his ground in his defence of King Hussein, Prince Rida and the integrity of the Syrian Congress. Following this, Al-Ahram published two more answers and rebuttals by Rida and Talie, with neither yielding ground in their respective positions. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Rida and Talie could ever have reached a meeting of minds. The former was a staunch advocate of pan-Islamism and the latter an ardent proponent of pan-Arabism.
Interestingly, it was a third contributor who was to have the final say. In Al-Ahram of 17 August 1921, George Tannous, a proponent of Syrian nationalism, remarked that it amused him that both authors appeared to condense everything that was Arab into Syria. He continued, "I am not saying that you should hate the Arabs or declare war on the Arab cause. On the contrary, I am suggesting that you love the Arabs because they are our friends and neighbours and because we share a single language. I am suggesting that you cherish the aspirations of the Arab cause because its success in one part of the Arab world represents a success for the whole of the Arab world." The Syrian nationalist orientation that had only begun to voice itself in this debate would gain increasing significance in the political rhetoric of the Arab east.
* The author is a professor of history
and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.
