Al-Ahram Weekly   Al-Ahram Weekly
25 - 31 May 2000
Issue No. 483
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 Issues navigation Current Issue Previous Issue Back Issues
 
Front Page
 Menue
  
  SEARCH
 

Lexical liberties

Sir- The piece by your columnist Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, "Languages we need to learn" (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18 -24 May), is well intentioned and I agree with the general thrust of its major premise. However, on the basis of my personal experience, I must say that most educated Arabs I encountered and with whom I debated, fundamentalists as well as secularists, displayed equal proof of learning and professionalism in debating in a degree not inferior to mine, a Western trained Syrian-Arab. Thus, to say or imply that "we" need to learn such a language is self-deprecating to say the least: Sid-Ahmed should have named those who, in his opinion, need to learn the languages he has in mind. "We" in English is a universal and Mohamed Sid-Ahmed is a particular, an Arab.

In his interesting column, Sid-Ahmed could have referred to the author of the novel "suspected" of being blasphemous as an "Arab author" and not "Syrian," and thus avoided falling into that detestable regionalism that is one of the major causes of the Arab people's plight. After all, the Cairo demonstrations are not against the nationality of the author but against the work itself, and venerable Cairo is used to this sort of thing -- Sid-Ahmed knows that, I am sure, just as we all know that Ahmed Shawqi was not the Egyptian Prince of Poets...

Finally, a number of our brethren at home seem to be fascinated with Western ideas and terminology and especially obsessed with the adjective "fundamentalist," as if to believe in the fundamental truth of one's faith is a crime. Pray tell, what's the antonym of fundamentalist?

In conclusion, my aim in writing this Letter to the Editor is, 1) to proclaim on my own authority that demagogism lives not only in Egypt but everywhere, not only among the "mullahs" but also among the "intellectuals;" 2) Arab writers should beware of copying and using the politico-social terminology of both Western and Eastern colonialism, e.g. backward, communist, democratic, liberal, Muslim fundamentalist, nationalist, Oriental despot, rogue state, socialist, undemocratic, etc. This terminology used within an Arab context is misleading if not outright dishonest for it is viable only within the polity of exploitative powers; 3) it is the duty of the educated to clarify and help find solutions to socio-political problems, not to take sides, no matter how sexy-looking those sides are. After all, it ain't only those who read and write that have rights: illiterates, too, do.

Khalil I Semaan
Vestal, New York

The power of thought

Sir- Re Mohamed Sid-Ahmed's excellent article "Languages we need to learn" (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 May): As Voltaire observed, man is intrinsically unable to grasp an idea that interferes with his income. Thus, often the very urge for violence is proof that one's old ideas are weaker than the new. Strong ideas can defend themselves -- and, over time, they do. That's why, in the long run, societies open to new ideas win over societies closed to them.

This is why England declined and America prospered, why Israel prospered and the Arab nations declined -- or, in the commercial arena, why the old IBM declined and Microsoft rose to prominence. Openness is strength, closed-mindedness a weakness.

Strong ideas -- religious or otherwise -- need no violent defenders. Their mere expression wins. That's why those who resort to violence to defend their ideas -- whether right, left, secular or religious -- inadvertently betray their deep doubts in their ideas' ability to defend themselves.

A Mandelman
Ontario

All readers' contributions and comments should be addressed to The Editor. Fax: +202 578 6089
E-mail: weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg
E-mail correspondents are asked to give postal address. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

   Top of page
Front Page