Who is the 'Other' today?

By: Enes Karić

"Very deep is the well of the past. Should we not call it bottomless?"¹

Thomas Mann.

Very deep is the well of past when it comes to the dynamics of the relationship between "us" and "the others". Practically, in the past the roots of both "us" and the "others" have existed. History can be read in a way that detects the dynamics between us and the others. It is equally possible to detect many factors that were crucial in the making of the binary viewpoint that created and constituted "us" and "the others". Since the vastness of the past is immeasurable, it is possible that the dynamics of the relations between "us" and "the other" can be interpreted in many ways.

"The Other" is by "us" seen as the geographic "other"; as somebody who is the "other" linguistically,² religiously, racially, politically, culturally, in gender, in age, etc. It was not long ago in the West that a great number of media, books, and educational concepts promoted the awareness that the "other" can be perceived as a member of any group that does not belong to: white race, male, Anglo-Saxon, Caucasian, and Christian.

This concept of "the other" speaks about a Eurocentric belief that pervades modern media and culture, as contextualized by Derrida's notion of difference. It is a characteristic which supposes that "the other" can be known only by something he/ she is NOT (a sort of negative affirmation). However, the idea of "the other" can be viewed in another light. We are facing a strong trend of "Othering", that is, placing everything which is not "Us" into the category of "the Other" - and "the Other" in this way is seen as something incomplete, negative, and

 somewhat strange. For example, when it comes to the ancient past, the Greeks perceived "the other" as "barbarians", just as the "al-ajam" for "al-arab".³

In the past it was not uncommon for the geographical distance to define the bipolar approach to the other, that is the other was not well known, and his/her language was not understood. However, there are also other "distances", or "proximities" that have determined the constituting of the relationship of "I" with "the other". This "I" has often transformed itself into the "First One" or "The Primary One". Of course, in the age of globalisation, when we - discuss "the other" today, we should note that a very rich imaginary system as well as nomenclature about the "other" was created for many centuries.

Muhammad Khalid Masud, in his book Naming the "Other": Names for Muslims and Europeans,⁴ lists names in which Muslims were marked by as "others": Agarines, Arabs, Hagarines, Mohammedans, Moors, Moselms, Mussulmans, Saracens, Turks... On the other hand, Muslims called people hailing from the other side of the world, that is, the West today, by the following names: Afrang, Angrez, Farang, Farangi, Gora, Westerner, Vilayati, Vilandizi, Yorupi, Yunani... Practically all these names were created during the "great debate" between Muslims and Christians in the Mediterranean, as well as in Europe. As a faith, a civilisation and culture, and a worldview (Weltanschaaung), Islam has brought a very dynamic nomenclature in marking the various segments of humankind. Dar al-Harb was the space of "the others", and Dar al-Islam was populated by "us" and those who lived with us, most often as "others".

Today, there are a large number of Muslim professors at eminent universities who study the place of Christians and Jews under the Islamic empires. For example, Osman Tastan lists many examples of positive and negative discrimination towards the Jews and Christians under the Ottoman Empire. Bernard Lewis thinks that the history of Islam and Christianity developed in extremes, through "contacts" and "impacts".⁶ Unlike Lewis, historians Thomas Arnold and Philip Hitti consider the emergence of Islam as a special integration of the Mediterranean, and the Near East.

WHO IS "THE OTHER" TODAY?

Who is "the other" today? How do Muslim intellectuals answer this question? In his book Islam and the Encounter of Religions, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University (Washington D.C.), states:

"As for the encounter of Islam with the Judeo-Christian tradition, this had persisted throughout nearly fourteen centuries of history of Islam. Judaism and Christianity themselves are in a sense 'contained' in Islam inasmuch as the latter is the final affirmation of the Abrahamic tradition of which Judaism and Christianity are the two earlier manifestations".⁷

It is obvious that we can discern from this statement of the departure from the position that "Judaism and Christianity" are the simple "other", since Nasr claims that, in some sense, they are "encompassed by" Islam. They are therefore an integral part of us, and cannot be "the other".

In The People of the Book and the Diversity of "Religions", author Fazlur Rahman holds a more hermeneutic attitude that Christians and Jews have their legitimate way to God and Salvation, and that they do not need to become Muslims in order to reach salvation. Rahman's approach heavily relativizes the stereotype that in the history of monotheism, the Jews and Christians were looked upon by Muslims as "the others".⁸

Mohammed Arkoun, in a great number of his studies, encouraged the view that Jews, Christians and Muslims are complex "Communities of the Book".⁹ Moreover, Fahmi Huwaydi often claims that "the Copts in Egypt are not dhimiyyun (protected people), but muwatinun (fellow-countrymen)."¹⁰

There are thus a great number of very strong voices of Muslim intellectuals today who in their public appearances encourage the overcoming of the classically structured status of Christians and Jews as the "other" in the way of dhimmiyyun.

Today, when we use the words "Christians", "Jews", "Muslims", we do not imply only those three types of believers, but their secular counterparts as well. However, those secular counterparts did not reject their own traditions. They still emanate - in a way - cultural, traditional and civilisational meanings and enlightenments which are derived from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hence, we should ask openly: Who is "the other" today? The answers can be very diverse, of course.

In Israel the "others" are Muslims and Christians. In the countries of the Middle East with a Muslim majority population, Christians and Jews are the others", although when it comes to Christians, Lebanon and Egypt can often be taken as an example of a positive exception, because Christians in these countries enjoy their legal and religious rights as much as possible, and their influence on the society is largely felt. When it comes to contemporary Europe, the Jews and Muslims are "the others". Even the experience from the region of the Balkans as a whole, for the last three decades, speaks about the reduction of Muslims to the status of "other". At times that reduction has been very brutal, as evidenced by the verdict of the International Court of Justice from 2007, which states that the genocide was committed against Bosnian Muslims

It would be useful at this stage to list some considerations as to why Muslims felt the effects of being construed as "the others" since the 18th century. For a long time there has been an enormous volume of literature that has portrayed Muslims as "the others". Norman Daniel, for example, in Islam and the West, writes about the construction of an image of Muslims.¹¹ Bernard Lewis, in Islam and the West (but with different aims to Daniel) attempts to characterise Muslims as a force unwilling to build connections with the surrounding world,¹² and by implication this meant Muslims were "the others". There are many works written in that talk about the confrontation of one contemporary geopolitical side of the world, which is the West, and Islam on the other side, the implication of the Islamic side being "the other".

The overview of the main examples of such literature about Islam offers the descriptions of Islam as "the other", and, in a way, offers an outline of history of Islam's becoming "the other". When we say the title "Islam and the West", this implies then that Islam can mean anything. For Lewis, the Egyptian fellahs (peasants) are Islam, the modern republic of Turkey is Islam, Iranian revolution is Islam, Arabic socialistic and Ba'athist regimes are Islam, the smell of c´evapi is Islam, etc. In that aspect the so-called anti-Western agenda of all these perceptions of Islam is being projected, to finally reach the conclusion that Islam as a bloc, is a dangerous "other". There are many aspects offered in such kinds of literature, where Islam is being seen as the "other". When it comes to the Balkan region, Maria Todorova wrote a very instructive book, Imagining the Balkans ¹³ where she analyses the different modes of identity constructions in the region.

From their side, many Muslim authors have dealt with research on the Muslim world during 17th and 18th centuries, when the first signs of its reduction to "the other" emerged. For example, Fazlur Rahman and Akbar S. Ahmed, have claimed that Muslims considered the first signs of modernity as the infants of colonialism.¹⁴ The fact is, of course, that most Muslims rejected modernity, and considered it a foreign concept. The Muslims' own conceptions of modernity during the 17th and 18th centuries mostly did not result as was expected.

In the 18th and 19th centuries through the process of colonialisation, the European protagonists of modernism and modernisation ensured themselves the primary position in the world. Muslims therefore became the "other" in many plans for the distribution of power. In the 19th and 20th centuries, when they were placed in front of the dilemma of "machine" or "prayer", mainstream Muslims most often chose "prayer" or solely prayer. Many Muslim efforts to combine "machine" and "prayer" were not successful, or it is better to say they were not a true competitive force to the West which was on the rise.

In a different context, Hegel pointed that out by the seclusion/ retreat of Islam/Muslims "to the oriental peace" and by showing their cultural resistance¹⁵ to the projects of westernisation, modernisation, and participation in "progressive" shaping of history, Muslims in Western theological and philosophical literature all the way from Voltaire have become "the other" in a specific way.¹⁶ The projects of Muslim "awakening" during the 20th century have ended in diverse socialist and communist systems. These systems have awoken the concept of the "Arab/Muslim" revolution in different regions which has become all too evident in the start of 2011 vis-a-vis the "Arab Spring".

In this respect, many Muslims actually have followed the West, by adopting the methodology of revolutions which have their origins in the West, and not strictly in the Muslim tradition. If we pose the question who the revolutionary is today, the answer is most certainly "the other" - who seeks to liberate himself/herself from the "otherness".

Perhaps the most significant factor of the construction of the Muslim as "the other" is down to the proliferation of the concept of the West as a homeland of the "Judeo-Christian civilisation". As a faith, a history, a culture, and civilisation, Islam has been excluded from this concept of the "Judeo- Christian civilisation".¹⁷ From Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all arrived in Europe -- not one of them have roots in Europe. Given this fact, shouldn't Islam be also recognised at-least as the "third" in the phrase "Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilisation"?

CONCLUSION

We have to get used to seeing more than one West and one East on all sides of our globe. We have to promote such awareness in our dialogues for the sake of our collective better future. Because the Islamic East neither means the negation of the Christian East nor of the Judaic East, nor should the phrase Christian West imply a negation of an Islamic West or Judaic West. These religions are universal and have a universal message and hence should oppose a project which seeks to reserve any regions of the world, let alone a whole continent - as the exclusive homeland of just one religion.

It is high time that the idea of "the other" is seen as a creative force, to enrich the world. The question becomes how can this be done? It is done by rightfully acknowledging the differences which exist between us, thereby diminishing the prejudices and assumptions which are not truth-based. From a religious point of view, we can show the variety of God's creation. Religion can be seen as a key to this affirmation of differences - the change of our standard view on "the other" as something negative and terrifying.

In the speech about "the other", the key term is representation.

Who is the one who can, or who is allowed to speak in the name of "the other" today? Is such a speech possible at all from the so-called outer perspective and is any speech on a subject necessarily followed by a set of assumptions, allegations and projections? Do we actually limit the necessary exchange of knowledge and experiences, which is the imperative posed in the Qur'an: "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware"? (49;13, translation by Marmaduke Muhammad Pickthall).

In such a context, it is necessary to understand that every speech about "the other" is in close connection to the way it is expressed and its intention. In contemporary speech about "the other", the wish to hear from "the other" is most often neglected, and the speech is lost in its own loud echo. In that way the binary oppositions are made more distant: everything which is Us is on the positive, bright side of the Manichean opposition; everything which is Them belongs to the dark side of projecting our own frustrations and weaknesses. If we try to speak from the position of "the other" in this way, to occupy his/her voice, it is a safe path to the dehumanisation of the Other, which we know very well from the tragic experience of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The concept and the idea of "the other" has always been present in literature, religions, cultures, traditions, customs, myths - in different ways. That Other was often the irreplaceable element for the structuring of one's own identity. In literature, for example, Arabs from the Camus' L'Etranger are simply a part of the colonial context which helps the author to present Mersault's complete alienation from the world. They, the Arabs, do not exist as individuals with their own personalities - they exist only as long as it takes to show Mersault's deranged consciousness and his relation to humanity.

Unfortunately, we often do not come across the idea of "the other" as a friend, as brother or sister, as different but equal - although the valuable efforts were made in artistic and cultural creation of humankind. We can speak about "the other" as a member of a non-white race, non-Christian or about Other as female. However, we can speak about "the other" as a truly religious one. In the all-present invasion of aggressive secularism and suspension of religion into the farthest corners of public and private life as well, the true religion (unburdened by ideological and political interpretations) emerges as the neglected Other.

Too little space is given to the true dialogue between atheists and theists, and although religion is a key element of spiritual life of many people, it is rarely being asked for advice in the media, and, if it is being done, it is followed by harsh criticism and remarks about the "separation of religion and state". By excluding religious thought and religiosity from the dialogue, public life can become poorer, and certainly not richer.

Therefore, the danger lies in representation of the Other as the unknown, negative, totally different and thereby dangerous, but also in the universalization that places certain (for example, Eurocentric) values as the only relevant ones, deaf to all cultural peculiarities of other non-European regions. Let us observe that in the example of feminism: the criticism which comes from the non-Western critics is that the representatives of European and American feminism do not understand the otherness of their African or Asian sisters. The things that concern American women do not have to be part of the reality of a woman from South African Republic, and vice versa.

The common place dialogue with the Other (that diverse and disunited group; unreachable but all-present) should not be a cacophony in which everyone hears only himself/herself, but it should also not be a place of the total immersion into the voice of the other and an irretrievable assimilation and loss of identity. It is extremely important to find the balance, since the equal danger lies in a hermetic helmet towards everything which is different, and in the monolitisation of identities which looks more as the overall shadowing of the reality.

1. Mann, Thomas (2008). Tales of Jacob, cited according to Robert Irwin, The Arabian Nights, a Companion, Tauris Parke Paperbacks, London and New York.

2. Wehr, Hans (1980). A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Beirut/London, p.593.

3. The word barbarian means the one who speaks our language incomprehensibly, and in the Old Greek those are the ones who barely, if at all, could speak Greek. The Arabic word ajam denotes primarily the one who does not speak Arabic well, or one who does not speak it at all. In Arabic ajam can also refer to barbarians, who are Persians.

4. See: Masud, Muhammad Khalid (2001). Naming the 'Other': Names for Muslims and Europeans, published in: Zafar Ishaq Ansari and John Esposito (eds), Muslims and the West, Encounter and Dialogue, published by Islamic Research Institute and Centre for Muslim- Christian Relationships, Islamabad, Washington, pp. 123 - 145.

5. See: Tastan, Osman (2001). Religion and (Religious) Minorities, objav. u knjizi Turkey since 1970 (edited by Debie Lovatt), Palgrave Publishers, New York, pp. 137 - 159.

6. Compare with the discussion Lewisa, Bernarda (2000). Contact and Impact in Lewis' book: The Muslim Discovery of Europe, Phoenix Press, London, pp. 17 - 57.

7. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2005). Islam and the Encounter of Religions, objavljeno u: Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Living Sufism, Suhail Academy, Lahore, p. 117.

8. Compare with Rahman, Fazlur (1994). The People of the Book and Diversity of "Religions", published in: Major Themes of the Qur'an, Bibliotheca Islamica, Minneapolis, pp.162-170.

9. Gunzher, Ursula (2004). Mohammed Arkoun: Towards a Radical Rethinking of Islamic Thought, published in Suha Taji-Farouki (ed.), Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur'an, Oxford University Press and The Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, pp. 125-167.

10. Cited in: Goddard, Hugh (2004). Perceptions of Christians and Christianity, published in: Suha Taji-Farouki and Basheer M. Nafi (eds.), Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century, I. B. Tauris, London and New York, p.307.

11. Daniel,Norman (1997). Daniel, Islam and the West, The Making of an Image, One World, Oxford,

12. Lewis, Bernard (1993). Islam and the West, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

13. Todorova, Maria (1997). Imagining the Balkans, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

14. The instructive book in this aspect is: Rahman, Fazlur (1984). Islam and Modernity, Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

15. Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, in many of his works, claims that there is nothing negative in the reserves many Muslims have to the modernity, secularism, and so on. Their resistance to those ''isms'' shows that they are still in many ways connected to the experiences of sacred and holy aspects of their faith, Islam. Compare with works of Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (1988). Knowledge and the Sacred, Suheil Academy, Lahore. Also, see by the same author (1997). Man and Nature, the Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man, KAZI Publications, Chicago. ,

16. Compare with a very valuable book by Almond, Ian (2010). Representations of Islam in Western Thought, Center for Advanced Studies, Sarajevo.

17. That made some Muslim authors to conclude that today Islam is rejected, but also under a sort of siege. See: Ahmed, Akbar S. (2004). Islam Under Siege, Polity Press and Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge and Oxford.