And God may help us with the two camps. This phrase, and sentiment, echoes strongly across the series of articles written by Arabic Booker prize winner Youssef Ziedan that were published over the past few weeks in Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. The two camps Ziedan is referring to are Egyptian Muslims and Coptic Christians who harness religious differences to affirm misleading ideas which often manifest themsleves in violence.
The origins of this “holy violence are what Ziedan sets out to expose and discredit.
Ziedan – director of manuscripts and acquisitions at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina – is an esteemed historian; his name has penetrated popular consciousness last year with his best-selling second novel “Azazeel, a highly controversial work that explores a dark chapter in the Coptic Church’s history. The book won Ziedan the 2009 International Prize for Arabic Fiction and is planned to be translated into six languages the coming year.
The historical novel tells the fictional story of Hypa, a Coptic monk in the fifth century A.D. witnessing troubled times in the Church’s history as it attempts to curb the wave of heresy spearheaded by Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople. Ziedan’s portrayal of the Church of Alexandria as a scheming villain has prompted a number of Coptic figures such as Secretary of the Holy Synod, Bishop Bishoy, and Father Abdelmaseeh Baseet to voice their disapproval and call for the book to be banned.
In an earlier series of articles, also published in Al-Masry Al-Youm, Ziedan defended his novel against a book published by Bishop Bishoy that points out the historical and theological errors in the novel. Although the book doesn’t exhibit any scholarly merit, Ziedan’s response showed even less worth. Ziedan focused mainly on points of personal conflict and ridiculing the book than responding to its claims.
In his new series of articles, titled “Asrar Al-Khelaf wa Ahwal Al-Akhtelaf (The Essences of Disputes and the Horrors of Disagreements), Ziedan has set out to “draw some attention to initial sparks [of religious dispute] which might result in final catastrophes, yet he does so in an unpersuasive, unscientific way. Following the negative response the articles have elicited in a short span of time, one may venture to say that these articles have resulted in the exact opposite of what Ziedan had intended.
Some may regard them as tasters for his new book “Al-Lahoot Al-Arabi wa Osol Al-O’nf Al-Deni (Arabic Theology and the Origins of Religious Violence) which is expected to be released within the next few weeks. Yet again, the clear failure of the articles to stand up to their objective may repel Ziedan’s loyal readers from his new publication rather than attract them to it.
Although, as always, Ziedan’s impeccable writing style never ceases to impress, methodological problems and ghosts of historical selectivity hinder the reader from reaching Ziedan’s conclusion (that Egyptian Muslims and Copts have existed peacefully for a long time; the change of tides propelled by extremists on both sides is fairly recent).
The biggest trap Ziedan falls into takes place in the first entry of the series when he asserts that “the following articles weren’t written for beginners, the semi-educated, and those who deal and trade in religion and the people’s misfortunes. Shortly afterwards, he confirms that “whether we like it or not, we [Muslims and Copts in Egypt] have become one being sharing the poverty of intellect and the intellect of poverty. One wonders if these articles are in fact meant to be read by average Egyptian newspaper readers or is he simply too hopeful in trying to get his multifaceted message across through a popular medium and not in the form of a scholarly book or another engaging novel?
Another example of where the author’s well-intentioned effort goes astray is when he speaks of Amr ibn Al-‘As, the Arabic military commander who led the Muslim conquest of Egypt. At one point, Ziedan quotes him before entering Alexandria, saying that if entered; he will turn it into a whore house (meaning without doors and simply defenseless). A few paragraphs later, Ziedan tells his readers how Amr ibn Al-‘As “loved Egypt and how he got angry when Abdallah ben Abi-Sarh collected too much tax money from Egyptians to which Amr ibn Al-‘As said that he wanted to make Egypt Islam’s depository.
These two examples, and several others not mentioned here, as well as Ziedan referring to them as “viewpoints of mine for which I don’t presume certainty and then going on to cite historical facts to arrive at firm conclusions (without stopping to cast a shadow of doubt on these conclusions or their firmness) certainly detract from the creditability and believability of a great historian and writer like him.
