Nadia H Sabry
winner of the 1997
Society of Plastics Engineers’
International Wonders of Plastics
Essay Contest

Judy E. Grimson, P.Eng.,
President SPE Ontario Section (96-98)

The Ontario Section of the Society of Plastics Engineers is pleased to announce that Nadia Hesham Sabry has won 1997’s Society of Plastics Engineers International Wonders of Plastics Essay Contest. Nadia, an OAC student at Preston High School in Cambridge, Ontario has won $1000 US, plus an additional $1,000 US for her school. Her winning essay, entitled: Plastic-It’s All Around Us will be published in Plastics Engineering, SPE’s official publication which is read by approximately 40,000 plastics professionals around the world.

This is the first year that the contest has been run in Ontario. The contest began five years ago in memory of Jonathan Bindman, a past president of SPE’s New York Section. Open to all high school students, the 500-1,000 word essay must be sponsored by a teacher and must focus on the benefits of plastics. There is no way of knowing how many essays were actually written.

Only the best essay from each school was submitted to SPE for judging. Of the eight essays received by the Ontario Section, Nadia’s essay was chosen as the local winner.

Her essay was sent to compete with winning essays from 30 other sections. Again it was chosen as the best essay submitted at the SPE International level.

The Society of Plastics Engineers is a non-profit international organization dedicated to promoting the scientific and engineering knowledge relating to plastics.

All members are associated with the plastics industry in some way, whether in manufacturing of raw materials, processing, packaging, design of plastic products, mold making, research, or sales and marketing. The 1,000 members of the Ontario Section reside and work in Ontario, and are involved with either injection molding or extrusion processes. Worldwide, there are 92 Sections and 21 Divisions, which focus on the development of knowledge in one particular segment of the plastics industry. SPE members choose to belong to the Division most closely related to their occupation.

In the past, it was thought that plastics are harmful to the environment, and are depleting our oil reserves .. in fact, plastics require less energy to manufacture, are made from by-products of the petroleum industry and are almost completely recyclable. Plastic is truly the material of the future!

M Darrol Bryant is a professor of Religion and Culture at Renison College, University of Waterloo. His wife, Susan Hodges Bryant, is a part-time English lecturer a the same College. Darrol, Susan and two of their children, Lucas 15, and Emma 12, were on sabbatical in 1993-94, travelling to different religious communities in India, Sri-Lanka and Kenya. Dr Bryant’s research was centered on seeking to understand the religious practices, convictions, life and attitudes towards other faiths within those communities. The following appeared as a sequel in Cross Cultures magazine

Isa Jesus ? A Muslin-Christian Dialogue
Vol 7 1998

I. Introduction

In the Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s leading newspapers, on April 29, 1995 there was a special report on Islam written by its Middle East Bureau Correspondent, Patrick Martin, entitled “Islam: The Children of Allah”. It opened by quoting the Secretary-General of NATO, Willy Claes, saying that “the radical Islamic movement” is “the greatest treat to the West since communism” and wondered if NATO should “intervene to prevent it spreading any further”. It then went on to discuss “Islam, The Children of Allah” wholly in terms of some newer “radical” movements within the Muslim world. I found this alarming. This caricature of Islam-as-terrorism is not only inaccurate, it engenders hostility towards Islam. It does not reflect the truth of the Muslim world and its peoples who know that Islam is rooted in peace, that peace that comes from submission to Allah. But the appalling statement by the NATO Secretary-General is unfortunately all too characteristic of Western attitudes towards the great faith and tradition of Islam. It is rooted in a long history of perverse caricature of Islam within Christianity and the West and rests in a pervasive ignorance concerning Islam itself. Such statements only underline the need and necessity for new understandings of Islam in the West and the importance of inagurating a new history in the relations of Muslims and Christians.

Something of a possibility of a new history of relations between Muslims and Christians is beginning to emerge in the post-World War II efforts of Muslims and Christians to enter into dialogue with one another. While misunderstanding and religious antagonism still persists and is at the root of many encounters between Muslims and Christians, we have also seen efforts at dialogue between these two communities. In 1989, for example, Stuart Brown edited a volume entitled Meeting in Faith that documented twenty years of Muslim-Christian dialogue sponsored by the World Council of Churches [1]. But this movement is still small.

There are a host of important topics that need to be addressed so that Muslims and Christians might better understand one another. These two traditions make up more that fifty percent of the world’s religious population, but the relations betweem the traditions have seldom been positive. And it is imperative, as I’ve argued elsewhere, that the long history of mutual antagonism between Muslims and Christians, relieved by some wonderful moments of more positive relations, be overcome [1a].

In this essay I seek to focus on an issue that has surprisingly not been much addressed in the meetings of Muslims and Christians. This is the issue of Jesus in Islam and Christianity. Indeed, this is a topic which will challenge the very limits of dialogue.

Our topic is fraught with unusual difficulties. Neal Robinson in his study of Christ in Islam and Christianity [2] indicates that this topic has been burdened by polemical – – “you are wrong” – – and apologetic – – “I am right” – – attitudes over the 13 centuries of Christian-Muslim relations. Christians have impugned the Quran and its Prophet and disputed its portrait of Jesus, while Muslims have repeatedly charged and sought to establish that Christians betray the Oneness of God. And so there have been dramatic fireworks of antagonism between Muslims and Christians on this issue, but little of the warm glow of understandings between these “People of the Book”

Before turning to our topic, it is necessary to make clear something of the nature of interfaith encounter and dialogue [3]

The possibility of a new meeting of Muslims and Christian will depend on our ability to meet in dialogue rather than debate. It will require a spirit of mutual openness and respect rather than defensiveness. It will require a willingness to hear each other as they bear witness to their experience of God in their own terms. Interfaith dialogue is a new, post World War II possibility/development in the history of relations between people of different faiths. The purpose of dialogue in the meeting of men and women of different faiths is mutual respect and understanding [4]. This must be clearly understood. The point is that in our dialogue we should not make our first concern to prove that the Christian view of Jesus is the right one and that the Muslim view of Isa is wrong, or that the Muslim view is right and the Christian wrong. Our first task is to hear one another aright, to listen long and deeply. It is this listening that will allou us to move towards mutual understanding of one another’s faith. In the encounter and dialogue between Islam and Christianity, there are many different things that will emerge. Sometimes that dialogue may lead to mutual agreement but at others it may result in a deepened awareness of profound differences. In focusing on Jesus, we are entering an area of dialogue that will probably not lead to mutual agreement since this in a matter on which there is profound and probably unbridgeable difference. But hopefully it will issue in some increase in mutual understanding, and erase some of the misunderstandings on this issue that too much cloud Muslim-Christian relations.

With these preliminary remarks, then, let me turn to our topic. And in doing so I want to place over my discussion these words from the Holy Quran:

“Say: “O People of the Book! Come now to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no others with Him, and that some of us do not take others as lords, apart from God” (Surah 3:64) [5]

II. Jesus in Christianity

II. A. The Scriptures
Let me begin with Jesus in Christianity. This will necessarily be brief and schematic given the limitations of space. But we want to look at Jesus in the Christian Scriptures, in early Christian literature, and in the Ecumenical Creeds.

The Christian Scriptures are not contemporaneous with the life and ministry of Jesus. They were written after Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection. The earliest books of the New Testament were the writings of Paul, followed by the Gospels. But these writings contained the conviction that was central to the early Christian community, namely, that Jesus was the Messiah, the “annointed of God”. The term “messiah” and means, in Hebrew, “annointed” and is the equivalent of the Greek “Christos”. In the Jewish tradition, there were a variety of beliefs that surrounded the term “Messiah”. But the most common was to link the “Messiah” to a restoration of the Davidic kingship. (See A. Richardson, A Theological Wordbook, p. 44) Contemporary biblical scholarship points out that Jesus does not, in the synoptic gospels, use this word to describe himself. It is clear that Messiah comes to be used in a special way in the developing Christian tradition. But here we want to begin with its more traditional meaning as, simply, “annointed”

In the Gospels, then, Jesus emerges as the one who stands in the synagogue in his home town of Nazareth and reads from the Prophet Isaiah: “‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’ And he closed the book and gave it back to the attendant . . . and he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4: 18-21) [6]. Thus, according to Luke, began Jesus’ ministry. For the early Christians, then, Jesus was the long awaited Messiah and they heard and saw his ministry within the context of their Jewish world. He was “the anointed One”

Seen in this context, then, Jesus had a short ministry of one to three years. He gathered around himself a small group of disciples and followers including Peter, James, John and Mary Magdalene. He spoke in words that often astounded; he spoke with authority. In Matthew’s Gospel we find the “Sermon on the Mount” where Jesus said”, “‘You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven . . .” (Matt. 5:43-45) He often spoke in parables. In Mark we read Him saying, “‘With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs . . . with many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it . . .” (Mark 4:

30-33) He prayed to God – – often using the distinctive term “Abba” or “Father” to address God, as in the Lord’s Prayer that begins “Our Father, who art in heaven . . .” and he sought continually to do God’s Will.

This Jesus was also a healer. Many came to him and he healed many. Once in a crowd a woman touched Jesus’ garment and he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease” (Mark 5:34) But he is a healer not only of physical illness, but also of spiritual affliction. To the Samaritan woman at the well he offered “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14). He was a voice of wisdom.

According to the Christian scriptures, Jesus’ life and ministry began to attract opposition. There were those who felt Jesus had blasphemed against the Way of tradition and the prophets, others that he was fomenting rebellion against Roman authorities. And it was in this setting that Jesus comes to Jerusalem for the last time. After, according to the Christian scriptures, a triumphant entry into the city, he is betrayed by Judas, one of his disciples. Jesus is then put to death by the Roman authorities. According to the Christian Scriptures, Jesus is raised from the dead by God, meets Mary Magdalene at the Tomb (John 20) and the disciples on the road to Emmaus who know Him ‘in the breaking of bread,’ (Luke 24). And after some time with his followers in his “Resurrected Body” (which is not a resuscitated corpse), Jesus then ascends into Heaven, is taken up into life with God [7].

For the early Christians, the resurrection is a surprise and a confirmation of Jesus’ messiahship. It is evidence that in Jesus Christ a mighty work of God was being unfolded. Likewise, Jesus’ miracles are not evidence of Jesus’ divinity, but that God was present to Jesus in a profound way. The Synoptic Gospels present Jesus as a wholly human Messiah, but the picture shifts in the Gospel of John. In John we find the crucial passages that begin to link Jesus in a very special way to the Heavenly Father. Within the Christian scriptures themselves we can see the emergence of the distinctive Christian convictions concerning Jesus. The Apostle Paul, for example, articulates this special work of God as “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself . . .” (II Cor. 5:19). And according to the Resurrected Christ, the disciples are given the Great Commission in the Gospel of Matthew, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . .” (Mt. 28:19). Thus, for Christians, Jesus is not only a Teacher and a Messiah but he is also, as Peter writes, “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (II Peter 1:11)

My point here is that Jesus in the Christian scriptures is presented as the Messiah who is related to God in some remarkably special way. What is the appropriate way to answer the question of who Jesus was? Should he be seen as a Jewish Rabbi or Teacher? a charismatic Healer? a first century Prophet? the incarnate Word of God? The answer to this question is not a straight forward historical one. It is rather always answered in relation to the religious and theological convictions that one holds.

II. B. Jesus in the Early Christian Writers:
As I indicated before, the Scriptures of the first generation of Christians was the Jewish Bible. Though the letters of Paul and the Gospels circulated among the small communities of Christians, it was only in the late second century that the Christian Bible was in the form that we now know it. Thus in the early Christian writings (as well as Scripture) we can see how the Christian ways of speaking of Jesus were developing and growing. In, for example, the writings of Clement c. 100, “Jesus” is spoken of as “our Lord Jesus Christ” (p.43) and Clement affirms that we have “one God, one Christ, one Spirit of Grace” (p. 65) Ignatius of Antioch c. 110 speaks of the “New Man Jesus Christ” and the “one physician – – of flesh yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God incarnate, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God . . . – – Jesus Christ our Lord” (p. 90). Jesus Christ is, Ignatius writes, the one in whom “we shall get to God” (p.94). Polycarp (c.70-155) speaks of our destiny to “believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in ‘his Father who raised him from the dead”. And Justin Martyr (c. 150) speaks of “that Christ” who “is the First-begotten of God” and “the Reason/Logos of which every race of man partakes” (p. 272) [8]

In these ways of speaking about Jesus, we see the development and growth of early gentile Christian understanding of Jesus as the Christ. Jesus as the Christ is emerging in Christian self-understanding and experience as more than, we might say, the historical Jesus. Increasingly, Christians are coming to see that Jesus is related to God in some special manner such that in Jesus Christ we meet, see, are led to, encounter God. This is already signaled in John’s Gospel when we read in John 1:1-4, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. It was then a process involving Christian experience of the Risen Christ and continued discernment of his life and message that led the majority of the early Christian community to the formulation, in the Ecumenical Creeds of Christianity, of the doctrines of the incarnation and the trinity, two doctrines that have been especially troubling in the relations between the Muslim and Christian worlds.

Thus the orthodox Christian Creeds that were to emerge are not a simple reflection of the historical life of Jesus of Nazareth, they are rather a symbol of the developing Christian belief that in Jesus a divine work unfolded that related Jesus to God in a special way.

II.C. Jesus in the Early Ecumenical Creeds
The Ecumenical Creeds of Christianity emerged after the social status of Christianity was dramatically transformed. Prior to 316, Christianity had been an outlaw religion and was subject to seasons of persecution. After 312, Christianity was tolerated and in 325, Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. And it was the Emperor who called the lst Ecumenical Council at his summer palace at Nicea in 325. From this Council emerged the symbol that was to mark the orthodox Christian confession: “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light . . .” (30, Creeds) And later in 381 at the Council Constantinople, we got this formula: “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all time, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father, through Whom all things came into Being” (33, Creeds). Then in 451, we have the Council of Chalcedon which affirmed that “the one and Only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ . . . is perfect both in deity (theoteti) and also in human-ness (anthropoteti) . . . (Creeds, 35)” [9]. These are the formulas that stand at the heart of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine that Muslims find compromises the absolute Singleness of God and that, it must be acknowledged, many Christians find incomprehensible. These doctrines were originally formulated in the language and assumptions of ancient Greek thought. And while they may be difficult to understand, they wish to affirm that Jesus as the Logos/Word is connected to God, is of God, in some very special way.

When these credal formulations are then used to re-read Scripture they lead to much confusion. How can the Jesus who seeks to do God’s will and prays to the Father that the cup of the crucifixion be removed, be “very God of very God?” Christians often gloss over this logical impossibility. They/we should acknowledge that the Christian witness to Jesus as the Incarnate Word is a religious/theological affirmation we have come to rather than a reflection of the historical ministry of Jesus.

This brief review of Jesus in Scripture, early Christian writings and the early Creeds should make us aware that the orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus as the Christ is quite complex. The anointed One or Messiah of the Synoptic Gospels becomes the “begotten from the Father before all time” of the Council of Nicea. Yet Christians want to affirm the full humanity of Jesus and thus we get these paradoxical formulations of the Creeds. Early Christian thinkers believed that the doctrine of the Trinity was necessary precisely in order to preserve the Unity of God not to compromise that conviction. But can that claim, difficult enough for Christians to grasp, even be heard within the Muslim world?

III. Isa in the Qur’an and Islam

It is important to be aware that our topic is not simply Jesus in Christianity but also Isa in the Quran and in Islam. This larger heading means that we should not restrict this dialogue to the Scriptural sources, but look more broadly within the Way of Islam as it has unfolded over the centuries. When the Prophet Muhammad burst unto the scene, Christianity was already more than 500 years old. It had moved through its formative stages and had come to its orthodox articulations in the early ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church. But the attempts of historians to determine if Muhammad had any links to the Christian community and how well he knew it have not been very successful, though there are some intriguing suggestions that Jewish Christians in the Arabian peninsula may have always resisted the “ecumenical formulations” and maintained beliefs more consonant with what we find in the Quran. But such historical investigations do not get us to the heart of the question; they are not necessary. Since the heart of the Prophet’s Message is that “There is no God, but God” and that that is exemplified in the Quran, it is here that we must first look to see the Islamic Way.

And that means we must turn to the Quran. For Muslims, the Quran is a sacred scripture unlike any other. It is the “standing miracle;” it is, Muslims believe, the direct communication of Allah to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. It is not, as in the Christian Scripture, a witness to God or to God’s Word, but it is the very WORD OF GOD. The nature and status of the Quran is a question for the dialogue of Muslims and Christians, but it is not one we can pursue here. But we have to at least note the difference between Muslims and Christians in regard to the status of their sacred scriptures. (And the differences among Muslims and among Christians too, but that is another story). Christians, by and large, do not understand their Scriptures as the Muslims, by and large, regard the Quran. While Christian affirm that Jesus is the Word of God, to which the Scriptures bear witness, Muslims use this same formula – – the Word of God – – to describe the Quran [10].

It comes as a surprise to most Christians to discover the honour given to Isa in Islam and the Quran. Most Christians are simply unaware that Muslims regard Isa as a Messanger and Prophet. The Quran accords Isa, within its perspective, the highest honour. Isa is a “Prophet” within the great tradition that now culminates in Muhammad. Isa’s dignity lies in the fact that he was chosen by Allah to proclaim God’s Message in his own time and to his people. Surah 2: 136 reads, “We believe in God and that which is revealed to us; in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes; to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them and to God we have surrendered ourselves” [11]. (Dawood) Sometimes this respect for Isa is combined with a criticism of certain teachings concerning Isa. For example, “People of the Book, do not transgress the bounds of your religion. Speak nothing but the truth about Allah. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was no more than Allah’s apostle and his Word . . . so believe in Allah and his apostles and do not say “three”. Allah is but one God. Allah forbid that He should have a son !” (Surah 4:171 in Kung article) [12] (or in Chittick’s trans”. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So have faith in God and His messengers, and do not say, “Three” Refrain; better it is for you. God is only One God”) [13]

William Chittick in his Vision of Islam makes a crucial point when he writes that “Muslims see other religions in terms of Islam, which in their eyes is the perfect religion. Of course, followers of other religions also look from their own perspective; this is not a quality unique to Muslims” [13a] Indeed, it is not unique to Muslims, but this fact also helps us to pose the problem that Muslims and Christians face at this point, namely, can we see the understanding of Jesus/Isa that emerges in the sacred scriptures of the two traditions in the other’s terms?

Isa is, in the Quran, miraculously born of the Virgin Mary, and he proclaims with the Prophets the eternal Message that there is “No God but God”. The Quran denies the Crucifixion, but affirms that Isa is taken directly into Heaven by God. Kenneth Cragg summarizes the Qur’anic picture of Jesus in the following words, “”I have come unto you with a sign from your Lord. I create for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, I breathe into it and by God’s permission it is a bird. I heal the blind and the leper and I raise the dead by God’s permission and I proclaim unto you what you may eat and what you may store up in your houses” (3:37 esp) . . . Christ is, then, a prophet, a teacher, a healer of the sick, a spirit from or of God. To him is given the Gospel–not the good news about God in Christ, but a book of words or preaching, which the Qur’an does not anywhere reproduce . . .” [13b] such a portrayal of Isa is in line with the Qur’anic view of the Prophet as a Messenger of God but is very different from the salvic role of Jesus in the Christian Scriptures.

Dr. Badu Kateregga well summarizes the traditional Muslim view when he says, “Muslims have great respect and love for Jesus (Isa) the Messiah. He is one of the greatest prophets of Allah. To deny the prophethood of Jesus is to deny Islam . . . on the other hand, Muslims are genuinely opposed to the belief by Christians that Isa (PBUH) was Divine or ‘Son of God’ . . . this is the point where Muslims and Christians painfully part company. The issue is deeply theological and anthropological. The Christian view of incarnation seems to compromise God’s transcendence and sovereignty while at the same time exalting a mere man to God-like status . . . The gulf between Christians and Muslims is further widened by the Christian silence on and non-recognition of Muhammad (PBUH) as the Seal of Prophets, and the final guidance (the Quran) that was revealed to him by God” [14] we will have to let these few words on Isa in the Quran and the brief summary by Kateregga stand.

Does the Quranic view of Isa mean that Muslims must automatically reject Christian views of Jesus that relate Jesus as the Word of God to the “Trinity”? While it would seem so, there are some Muslims who see the issue in a more nuanced way. Seyyed H. Nasr, for example, allows that “Islam would accept an interpretation of the Trintiy which would not in any way compromise Divine Unity, one which would consider the persons of the Trinity to be “Aspects” or “Names” of God standing below His Essence . . .” [14a]. But this would lead us into a much longer discussion than is possible here. Here our brief look at Isa in the Qur’an and Islam should lead us to see that Isa is perceived in profoundly different terms – – those of prophet and messenger – – than the Jesus of the Christian scriptures. And now we will turn briefly to some almost concluding points, beginning with the conflicts.

IV. Points of Conflict

Even from this brief review, it is obvious that the issue of Jesus/Isa in Islam and Christianity is a controversial, complex and troubling one, touching issues that are at the very heart of the respective faiths. From this brief presentation of Jesus in Christianity and Isa in Islam there emerges three areas of clear difference. Each is too big to handle here. So my comments will be brief.

First, the very accounts of Jesus/Isa that we find in the Christian Scriptures and in the Quran clearly differ with one another in terms of the very events of Jesus’ life and ministry. At the heart of those differences is the issue, from the Christian side, of the death and resurrection of Jesus and, from the Muslim side, the issue of Isa’s status as a Prophet and as fully human.

Second, we find clear and perhaps irreconcilable differences in the interpretations of Jesus in Christianity and Islam. Most Christians have affirmed that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity. But not all Christians either historically or especially today hold this faith. If there is going to be any mutual understanding, it will be imperative for Christians to clarify the meaning of the doctrines of the incarnation and trinity since Christians that hold these doctrines do not believe that they deny the Unity and Oneness of God. Muslims seem often to hear Christian talk of the “Son of God” in literal terms that Christians should also reject. Likewise, I often find myself agreeing with the Quran in its criticisms of certain Christian formulations. Christians do not teach, for example, that God is “Three”. God is always and only One God. Nor, properly speaking, is it right to speak of “Jesus (the historical figure) as God” as many Christians do. And Muslims rightly see that the Christian way of speaking of Jesus as “Son of God” and of the Trinity are often more opaque than enlightening.

Muslims, on the other hand, interpret Isa as a “Prophet/Messenger”. This is an important witness to Jesus that Christians should, in my view, take much more seriously than they have up until now. Christians should be quick to agree that Jesus’ intention was to bear witness to God, the Creator of all. As the lawyer asked Jesus, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:36-37). It is God that we are called to Remember, to Heed, to Worship and none other. On this point Muslims and Christians should find themselves in agreement.

Thirdly, in the midst of the conflict and difference over Jesus/Isa stands the issue of the Quran as “the Word of God” and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). While Muslims accept the Christian Scriptures, though with some theological qualifications, and accept Isa as a Messenger of God, there is no reciprosity from Christians concerning the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. Christians have, by and large, rejected the Quran as spurious and caricatured the status of the Prophet. We Christians have misnamed the faith of Islam as Mohammadenism until recently and even now only some Christians have gotten it right. So, it is imperative, if we are to proceed in dialogue, that Christians reexamine and reassess their views of the Quran and the Prophet. I can just speak for myself when I say that I have read the Quran and I have great respect for its clear witness to God. I also respect the Prophet as a Messenger though perhaps not in the same way as Muslims do. But then it would be wrong to expect that out of dialogue I would become a Muslim, anymore than that I would expect Muslims to become Christians [15]. That is not the point. But it is to the point that we should advance through dialogue towards deepened respect for one another and our respective Ways to Allah/God.

The story of Muslim Christian encounter in relation to Jesus/Isa has largely been one of missing one another. While Christians have sought to witness to their belief that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God, Muslims have witnessed to their conviction that Isa is a Prophet. When these two beliefs concerning Jesus meet they seldon produce mutual understanding. We could, however, move in that direction if we were to realize that while we may not agree we can at least attempt to hear the other in their witness to Jesus/Isa in their own terms.

We will perhaps begin to move in that direction when Christians and Muslims meet in a spirit that reflects the text from the Quran I quoted at the outset: “Say: “O People of the Book! Come now to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God . . .” This we can only do as we move beyond the polemical and apologetic attitudes that have characterized Muslim-Christian meeting in the past and begin to meet each other anew in a spirit of dialogue. In that new attitude of dialogue we must seek to understand that faith that leads the Muslim to find their way to God through the Prophet and the Quran and the Christian to find their way to God in Jesus as the Christ.

Jesus is spoken of in many different ways in the New Testament: “Son of Man”, “Lord Jesus Christ”, “Rabbi”, the “Messiah”. And while the earliest Christian community spoke of him as Lord, it was only in the 3rd and 4th centuries that there emerged the classical Credal statements about Jesus.

It is in this context that their emerged the doctrines that affirm that Jesus is the “Incarnate Word of God” and “the 2nd Person of the Trinity”

In this dialogue then it will be necessary to
1. be clear about dialogue,
2. unmask the misunderstandings that have often hindered the meeting of Muslims and Christians,
3. show respect for each other in the meeting of different faiths,

Some relevant Quranic verses:

“Every nation has its messenger” (10:47)

“We have sent no messenger save with the tongue of his people” (14:4)

“To every one of you [messengers] We have appointed a right way and an open road” (5:48)

“Say: We have faith in God, and in that which has been sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them, and to Him we have submitted” (2:136)

“And when Jesus son of Mary said, “Children of Israel, I am indeed God’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah that has gone before me . . .” (61:6)

“He has sent down upon thee the Book with the truth, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, as guidance to the people” (3:3)

“And those messengers – – some We have preferred above others. Among them was he to whom God spoke, and He raised some in degrees. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear explications and We confirmed him with the Holy Spirit” (2:253)

“Those who say, ‘God is the third of three’ have become truth-concealers” (5:73)

*** “Say: “O People of the Book! Come now to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no others with Him, and that some of us do not take others as lords, apart from God” (3:64)

Sources:

Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam & Christianity, The Representation of Jesus in the Quran and the Classical Muslim Commentaries, London: Macmillan, 1991

Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, 2nd edition, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985

“To hold back from the fullest meeting with Muslims would be to refrain from the fullest discipleship to Christ” p. 164

“”I have come unto you with a sign from your Lord. I create for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, I breathe into it and by God’s permission it is a bird. I heal the blind and the leper and I raise the dead by God’s permission and I proclaim unto you what you may eat and what you may store up in your houses” (3:37 esp) This bare and somewhat enigmatic statement is almost all the Quran knows of the ministry of Jesus in the Gospels and of his parables . . . Christ is, then, a prophet, a teacher, a healer of the sick, a spirit from or of God. To him is given the Gospel–not the good news about God in Christ, but a book of words or preaching, which the Qur’an does not anywhere reproduce . . .” (pp. 233-234)

Badru Kateregga & David Shenk, Islam & Christianity, A Muslim and a Christian in Dialogue, Nairobi: Uzima Press, 1980

pp. 131-132 “Muslims have great respect and love for Jesus (Isa) the Messiah. He is one of the greatest prophets of Allah. To deny the prophethood of Jesus is to deny Islam . . . on the other hand, Muslims are genuinely opposed to the belief by Christians that Isa (PBUH) was Divine or ‘Son of God’ . . . this is the point where Muslims and Christians painfully part company. The issue is deeply theological and anthropological. The Christian view of incarnations seems to compromise God’s transcendence and sovereignty while at the same time exalting a mere man to God-like status . . . the gulf between Christians and Muslims is further widened by the Christian silence on and non-recognition of Muhammad (PBUH) as the Seal of Prophets, and the final guidance (the Quran) that was revealed to him by God”

The Vision of Islam, Sachiko Murata & William Chittick, New York: Paragon House, 1995

p. 173-174 “The Koranic depiction of the role of prophets in human history is highly nuanced. On the basis of the Koranic text, we can neither claim that Islam has exclusive rights to the truth nor that other religions are valid without qualification. Rather, all prophets have come with the truth from God, but their followers do not always observe the teachings that the prophets brought. Hence, the Koran frequently criticizes the followers of the two religions with which the early Muslim community had contact, Judaism and Christianity. It maintains that many Jews and Christians have not lived up to God’s message to them, a point that has been made by Jewish and Christian reformers throughout history . . . There is, in short, no consensus among contemporary or past Muslims on the issue of Islam and other religions”

p. 174 “The key issue here, as should be obvious by now, is faith in God. In the Islamic view, faith in God demands tawhid, and tawhid is the message of all the prophets”

p. 174 “Even an elementary knowledge of any Christian catechism tells us that God is not “the third of three”. Rather, God is one and three at the same time. Inasmuch as he is three, he present himself to his creatures as three persons – – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”

p. 179 “Muslims see other religions in terms of Islam, which in their eyes is the perfect religion. Of course, followers of other religions also look from their own perspective; this is not a quality unique to Muslims. Hence, Muslims expect other religions to have a book like the Koran and the Koran provides every reason for them to do so by referring to the Torah and the Gospel. But note that the Koran mentions Gospel in the singular, not in the plural. It states repeatedly that Jesus, God’s messenger, was given the Gospel as his message, just as Muhammad was given the Koran”

Story of two Iranian scholars discussing question of “who goes to paradise?” “Well, it is very simple”. “First, all religions other than Islam are obviously false, so we can exclude them”. That leaves Islam. But some are Sunnis and some are Shi’ites and we know that Sunnis have strayed from the straight path, so that excludes them. But among the Shi’ites there are the common folk and ulama. Everyone knows that the common folk don’t care about God so they will burn in the fire. That leaves the ulama. But we know that they became ulama to lord it over the common folk, so we have to exclude them. That leaves you and I and I’m not to sure about you”. (adapted p. 180)

For a good introduction to Islam see Frederick Mathewson Denny, An Introduction to Islam, New York: Macmillan Publ.Co. 1985

1. Stuart E. Brown, Meeting in Faith, Geneva: WCC Publications, 1989. According to this volume, the most troubling and divisive religious and theological differences between the two traditions have not, unfortunately, been addressed. See also Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations, Ecumenical Considerations, Geneva: Office on Inter-Religious Relations, 1992
1a. See M. Darrol Bryant, “Overcoming History: On the Possibilities of Muslim-Christian Dialogue,” Hamdard Islamicus, Vol. XVII, No. 2., Summer, 1994, pp. 5-15

2. Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity, London: Macmillan, 1991. Robinson notes that like Muhammad, “the Qur’anic Jesus is called a ‘prohet’ (nabi), a ‘messenger’ (rasul) and a ‘servant’ (abd) of God. Like him too he is to said to have been sent as a ‘mercy’ (rahma). He received a revelation called ‘the Gospel’ just as Muhammad subsequently received the Quran . . . its central thrust was identical with the central thrust of the Qur’an – – the summons to serve and worship God” (p. 37). See also Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985, who characterizes current Muslim attitudes in this way: “Through all we have reviewed there runs a great tenderness for Jesus, yet a sharp dissociation from his Christian dimensions. Islam registers a profound attraction but condemns its Christian interpretation. Jesus is the theme at once of acknowledgement and disavowal” (p. 278)

3. Two points need to be made at the outset. First, I participate in this dialogue as a Christian, and a student/scholar of religion and culture, who is deeply committed to dialogue with people of other faiths. I am not an expert on Islam. My knowledge of Islam is limited, indeed meagre, given the glorious history of this remarkable faith. But I have been able to meet many Muslims over the last twenty years. I have been a Visiting Scholar in the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies in New Delhi on two sabbaticals. And I have prayed in mosques in India and Turkey. [I have met Muslims from Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Morocco, Iran, and the former Soviet Union as well as Canada and the USA. These experiences and conversations have supplimented and enriched my reading about, and understanding of, the faith and tradition of Islam. They have made me aware that not all Muslims speak in the same tone, nor do they all hold exactly the same things. This is also true of Christianity. Indeed, I suspect that some of my strongest critics this evening will be fellow Christians who will feel that I have not got this or that right]. But I do think it is important that you understand that I am not an expert on Islam but I am trying to hear it and to understand this great tradition of faith aright. I ask to be corrected when I fail to do so.

Second, I do not speak Arabic, nor Hebrew, nor Greek. Thus I am not an expert on the sacred text of Islam, the Holy Quran, nor am I an expert on the Christian Scriptures either the Old or New Testaments. Thus I have been able to read and to study these scriptures only in translation. This is an especial problem in relation to Islam where, traditionally, there has been a pervasive conviction that the Quran is not to be translated, but only read in its original Arabic. And after pouring over different translations of the Quran I know what a real problem translation is since different translators translate the same texts in widely different ways. I have mainly used the “new revised edition” of The Holy Qur’an translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. But I have also consulted the translations of N. J. Dawood, The Koran, (Penguin), Pickthall’s The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, and the excerpts translated in R. Zakaria, Muhammad & the Quran, and William Chittick & Sachiko Murata, The Vision of Islam. The differences in translation are certainly striking and sometimes convey very different meanings.

4. See M. Darrol Bryant, Religion in a New Key, New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd., 1992

5. Ali translation

6. The texts quoted from the New Testament are from the Revised Standard Version

7. The new quest for the historical Jesus has resulted in some important perspectives on Jesus. See Marcus Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987

8. These quotes are all from the writings gathered in the Early Christian Fathers, Library of Christian Classics, Vol. I. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953

9. See John Leith, ed., Creeds of the Christian Churches, Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday, 1963

10. This difference between Christians and Muslims in relation to the “Word of God” is explored in “The Christological Morphology of the Doctrine of the Qur’an”, in M. Darrol Bryant, ed., Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue: Six Studies, Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press, 1989, pp. 77-98. I am also aware that some fundamentalist Christians do speak of the Bible as the “Word of God” in ways very similar to how Muslims speak of the Qur’an as the “Word of God”. But even here the agency of revelation is, in the Christian case, the inspired writers rather than the direct transmission to the Prophet. For good introductions to Islam see W. Chittick & Sachiko Murata, The Vision of Islam, New York: Paragon, 1995. Also useful is Frederick Denny, An Introduction to Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1985. See also S. H. Nasr, Ideals and Realities of Islam, London: Allen & Unwin, 1966

11. Dawood, Surah 2:136

12. See article by Hans Kung “Christianity & World Religions: Dialogue with Islam”, pp. 192-209 in Leonard Swidler, Toward a Universal Theology of Religion, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987

13. See Chittick

13a. William Chittick, op.cit., p. 179

13b. Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, 2nd edition, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985, pp. 233-234

14. See B.D. Kataregga & D.W. Shenk, Islam & Christianity, A Muslim & a Christian in Dialogue, Nairobi: Uzima, 1980, pp. 131-132

14a. See Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “The Islamic View of Christianity” pp. 126-134 in Paul J. Griffiths, Christianity Through Non-Christian Eyes, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990, p. 128

15. I discovered that my conclusions parallel those found in Kenneth Cragg in Jesus and the Muslim, op. cit. Cragg remarks that “it is fair to say that what divides Muslim and Christian – – how to recognize revelation, what constitutes ‘Scripture’, the measure of what humanity entails for God and God requires of man – – can all be seen as implicit in the question of Jesus” p. 289

Dr Mahmoud Sadek is a retired professor of Archeology and Art History, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. He received his B A from the University of Alexandria, Egypt, his M A from the University of Toronto, and his PhD from Columbia University, New York, USA. He founded and chaired the Classical Archeology Program at Guelph from 1973-79. He has directed Archeological excavations in Egypt, France and Spain, and specializes in Egyptian, Greek and Roman Archeology on which he has published many books and articles

The French in Egypt
Vol 7 1998

There are two outstanding contemporary accounts of Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798. One is by an Egyptian, al Gabarti, who kept a daily record of events during these turbulent times. The second is written by a member of the team of scholars that accompanied Napoleon’s campaign. Naturally, both wrote from very different perspectives, but this makes it all the more fascinating to view through their eyes how the drama of those times unfolded.

At the close of the eighteenth century, Egypt, under the last of the Mamluk rulers, had undoubtedly sunk to the abyss of its long history. That slow decline started when Egypt lost its independence at the battle of Marj Dabiq, north of Aleppo, in Syria. The last of the Mamluk sultans, Qansuh al Ghuri, died on the battlefield fighting the Ottoman army headed by Sultan Selim, the son of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, in the year 1516. Thus the Mamluk empire ended and Egypt became a province under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire for the next three centuries.

The Ottomans left the administration of Egypt to the Mamluk ‘Beys’ who reported to a Turkish governor appointed by the Sultan in Istanbul. Not only were crushing taxes imposed upon the Egyptians, but the Ottomans also collected one thousand of the best Egyptian artisans including goldsmiths, carpet weavers, calligraphers, wood-workers and other craftsmen, to work in Istanbul.

This did much to enhance to enhance the economy and cultural life of the Ottoman capital but it had disastrous effects upon the Egyptians. Moreover, the breakdown of the magnificent system of law and order established by the Mamluk sultans left Egypt greatly weakened and a prime target for foreign invaders.

There was a short period before the Napoleonic invasion when Egypt had a hope of independence when Ali Bey, the leading Mamluk, revolted against the Turkish governor and sent him back to Istanbul. Ali Bey marched with his army to Syria freeing it as well from the Ottomans, and he reached Mecca where he was hailed by the Arabs as the Caliph of Islam. Unfortunately he was murdered on his way back to Cairo, as a result of rivalry and intrigues. The rule of Egypt fell to his successor: Murad Bey and his co-ruler Ibrahim Bey.

Napoleon was watching this strife between Mamluk factions and the Turks with a keen eye as he had already set his sights on establishing his eastern empire. It was necessary for him to take Egypt as a first step towards India. When the French fleet was seen off the coast of Alexandria, Murad Bey summoned the esteemed Italian consul Rosetti and asked him nonchantly to pay off the “donkey boys”, as he called the French troops, by giving them a “handful of silver each”

He had never heard of Napoleon and confidently sent his army of 10,000 Mamluks and 30,000 irregulars (mainly Egyptians, Arna’outs, Africans and Bedouins) to face Napoleon’s 40,000 French veterans.

Meanwhile al Gabarti was busy recording all these happenings in his daily journal. abd al Rahman ibn Hasan al Gabarti, the Azhar University scholar, had written extensively about Egypt’s history but he is most interesting when describing what was happening in his own day.

He relates that Murad Bey believed that “if all the foreigners attack Egypt, he, Murad Bey, would destroy them all and let his cavalry trample them under the hooves of their horses“. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the forces were almost equal in number “the French had superior artillery and military discipline which was sadly lacking among the Mamluk Bey’s”. The famous battle of the Pyramids took place at Imbaba across the river from Cairo. Mamluk swords and cavalry were inevitably mowed down by French cannons and rifles . . .

Napoleon promptly issued a letter which he sent to the learned men of al Azhar and the judges and chief merchants, ostensibly to identify himself as a supporter of Islam but in fact to turn the populace against the Mamluks.

“Those Mamluks are not Egyptian. They were brought to Egypt from the steppes of Asia and the Caucasus, spoiling this beautiful country and its good hearted people .. God Almighty has decided that the time of the Mamluks is ended ..

If the land of Egypt truly belongs to the Mamluks let them show us the title deed that God has inscribed to them“. The letter as recorded by al Gabarti goes on to affirm that Napoleon was a Muslim and “the French people are Muslims and loyal to Islam. My proof is when we entered Rome we destroyed the papacy and removed the Pope who was always urging the Christians to fight Islam. We also entered Malta and destroyed the order of St John which claimed to instigate the killing of Muslims .. We are also friends of the Ottoman Sultan of Turkey and we are the enemy of his enemies. The Mamluks revolted against the rule of the Sultan and we are here to punish them”

Gabarti also mentions some accomplishments by the French during their brief stay. Egyptians were amazed to witness the sending up of a hot air balloon even though it came crashing down, to the chagrin of the French. The French also made improvements to the Nilometer to more accurately register the rise of the river in the time of the flood.

Fortifications, towers, lighthouses and administrative buildings were also erected by the French in Alexandria, Damietta and Rosseta.

All these achievements and vows of loyalty were undone with the departure of the French from Egypt three years later. Napoleon had already left for greener pastures and his deputy general Kleber’s assassination, together with the outbreak of a terrible bubonic plague that, according to Gabarti, wiped out two thirds of the populace, prompted the French to decamp for France. Although the army was guaranteed safe conduct to leave Cairo for Alexandria, where they would board ships for Europe, the troops left a trail of devastation in their wake.

Gabarti sums up the French occupation of Egypt – “the beginning of great misfortunes”

Despite such adversity, Egypt was awakened, however rudely, to shake off the doldrums of past centuries and to begin to play her part in the modern era. The French did much to make the world know about the glories of Egyptian civilization. In a following article I will present the opinions of a contemporary Frenchman who accompanied Napoleon on his Egyptian campaign, Baron Dominique Vivant Denon

Judaism and a Multicultural Society
Vol 7 1988

As a Jewish American who has come “north of the border” to serve the Jewish community of Kitchener/Waterloo and Cambridge I must comment on both the ‘melting pot’ theory and the ‘multicultural society’ theory. In the melting pot it is normal to observe the vast majority of people assimilate, forming a single entity. In the multicultural society the assumption is that people will maintain their own culture within a larger framework.

My name is Nathan W Langer and I am the Rabbi at the Beth Jacob Congregation in Kitchener. I was born in Oyster Bay, Long Island, New York. I am the son of a Holocaust survivor of the Nazi tyranny that engulfed Europe. My ancestry lends itself to be attuning to the issues of hatred and bigotry. I have personally suffered at the hands of prejudice. A melting pot assumes that everyone becoming part of one large unit will erase prejudice. Each person will maintain a small part of their culture, and will be ‘melted’ into the larger society.

If their culture does not ‘fit in’ there could be repercussions.

While there are many assorted problems with the melting pot, such as, loss of connection to the past culture, religious practice persecution, or difficulty integrating because one is ‘different’, there are still some positives. The major advantage being that one has to work at maintaining their cultural identity, and work make something worthwhile. The melting pot also causes people of different cultures, faiths and backgrounds to come together for a common goal.

The multicultural society often isolates us from one another serving as an insulation from learning to understand and live together, however, it also provides a way for a culture to self perpetuate. It is now time, as so many times before, to look toward different cultures as a way of bringing people together and bridging the gaps of humanity.

Judaism is by no means evangelical, with the exception of to other Jews. The best way to be multiculturally responsible is to respect one another and defend the rights of one another. This requires understanding but most of all, desire. There was once a person who was driven by the idea that people of the world who were most successful had a secret; this person spent an entire lifetime studying successful people. He learned about philosophy, salesmanship, and religious beliefs. The conclusion this person reached was that there were only two words that caused success, and those were: “I WILL”. If we are to be a multicultural society in Kitchener, we must listen to one another and say, “I will.” “I will” be there to battle bigotry and hatred.

“I will” be there to fight for truth in history, and “I will” be there to maintain a peaceful and cooperative coexistence

Christine Curtis – 1997 Trustee, Waterloo County Public School Board

A Citizenship Court
Vol 7 1998

at the reception that followed the ceremony Mrs Weston Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
(herself an immigrant) greeting one of the 20 new Canadians
who just took the oath of Canadian Citizenship
– Photograph Courtesy of Mr Mike Farrell (WCBE Communications Department)

In my opinion, one of the finest examples of the coming together of many nations and cultures was an event that occurred on Monday February 17, 1997 at the Kitchener City Hall Rotunda, celebrating 50 years of Canadian Citizenship with the passing of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947. During the week of February 10-17, citizenship courts were held in both public and separate schools, as we welcomed new Canadians with citizenship. In each court twenty new citizens were welcomed as Canadians and joined in the bond of commitment and loyalty which unites all Canadians.

His Honour, Judge Robert Sommerville directed some of his remarks to the audience, both old and new citizens. When he asked for those persons who were not born in Canada to raise their hands, very few people, other than the brand new Canadians, were able to do so. About one-half of the audience raised their hands when asked if any of their parents were not born in Canada. When he then asked if any of the audiences’ grandparents were not born in Canada, the majority of hands were raised across the audience. This was a very touching and visible reminder of how very close we all are to being immigrants here and also reminded all of us how very thankful we are that our parents or grandparents chose Canada to be their homeland.

The Judge emphasized the four important characteristics that new citizens expressed to him were their first impressions of Canada:

1) love for the newly found peace and freedom
2) the beauty of Canada with its clean air and water
3) the friendliness and generosity of Canadians they have met
4) the multiculturalism of Canada – often quite different from their homelands

Judge Sommerville charged the new citizens with the responsibility to be protectors and promoters of these four characteristics of Canada, which were so important to them and to ensure that their children and grandchildren, as well as new immigrants, continue to find these things to still be true in the years to come.

Those of us who perhaps have taken these four things for granted were moved to reaffirm our committment to uphold them alongside our fellow ‘new’ Canadians.

As all of us repeated the oath of Citizenship and sang our national anthem together, I could not help but believe that there is no finer expression of us crossing the barriers of many different cultures as we joined together at that moment as Canadians

Editor’s note:
I wonder how many Canadian-born truly feel the significance of being handed a ‘document’ that, in reality, marks the beginning of your second chance at life !

Nadia H Sabry is currently studying Science at McGill University in Montreal. She is the proud recipient of the 1997 International Essay Contest presented by The Society of Plastics Engineers. In her High School years she was active in the debating, Federal Provincial simulation, and many other extra curricular activities. She spent a year in France with the Rotary Exchange Youth Program. She speaks three languages

Egypt of my Youth
Vol 7 1998

Just like the tangerines that grew in the front yard of the house I once called my home, my memories of Egypt have an attractive bitter sweet taste to them. Ah . . . the summer beauty of the thirsty grass as it sways gently in the hot breeze, the shadows of the overhanging leaves of a hibiscus tree tracing intricate patterns upon it. From everywhere in the lazy dry air come the sounds of insects buzzing in unison, and as dusk nears, the haunting call of the Stone Curlew rings out over the tall pine trees.

What natural beauty is to be found in a country often characterized by the unnatural and the phenomenal. But as the well-experienced traveller knows, it is often the country unknown to the tourist that is the most interesting, the most intimate. And just as the Egypt that tourists come to know with its ancient ruins and rich history is contrasted to the Masr (Egypt in Egyptian) that is the ordinary home of some fifty-eight million people, the Egypt I knew is itself a land full of contrasting images I can describe only through my senses ….

For above all, Egypt is a land not just to be visited, but rather experienced for all its timeless charm.

I see images of bright sunlight and comforting shade. I see a group of boys at the local sporting club playing football (soccer) in their team outfits, sweat drenching their dark little heads as the coach yells “yalla, yalla” (lets go). I see the young boys who regularly wash windows at traffic jams enthusiastically running barefoot around an impoverished soccer field on a little used street, dabsh (broken pieces of rock or cement from the never completed renovation) serving as the goal posts – reluctantly moving aside as a passing car interrupts what could have been the greatest play ever. I see the cars laden as Cairenes take off to the coasts for the summer vacation, away from the heat of ‘Masr’ (for as every Egyptian admits, the common name for Cairo is not Qahira, but rather the name of Egypt itself: Masr).

I see the azure waters of the Mediterranean sea at the traditional summering city of Alexandria, and I dive underwater and see the world renowned breathtaking coral reefs at the less traditional summer spots of Hurgada & Sharm El Sheikh on the Red Sea Coast. As I pass the farmland in the Delta, I spy the conical mud huts housing colonies of white pigeons, towering into the sky as high as the date trees which encompass them with the rich greenery of foliage that can only exist for plants that are truly well nourished.

I taste the sweetness of the sugar laden lamonata (lime juice) then I taste the bitter torchy (a spicy-hot medley of pickles). I smell the perfumes and colognes of the pedestrians as I make my way through a crowded street, alertly holding my mother’s hand, then I smell the stench of the remains of the fruits and vegetables that had been offered for sale in the earlier morning market, now left for the stray dogs and cats to sniff through.

On the Corniche (the avenue running alongside the Nile in Cairo or along the sea in Alexandria, depending on which city you originate from), my nose is offered the smell of the corn roasting as street vendors endeavour to keep the coal burning, fanning it with an impromptu piece of wood or cardboard while calling out to passers-by in a sing-song monotone.

I hear the loud hearty laughs of two friends in a store as they bargain and make some trademark Egyptian joke, characterized by its simplistic ending, yet elaborate and involved recounting – the elaboration arising from the rich linguistic traditions of the culture, a taste for the simplistic arising out of the complicated reality of everyday politics … then I hear the beautiful melodic, almost chant-like readings of a Soura of the Koran performed by a Sheikh (pronounced sh-eh-kh) broadcast over a radio in some café, where older men play ‘Tawla’ (backgammon) and wile the time away as they sip their water pipes. I hear the horns of cars as the drivers deftly manoeuvre down a five lane avenue which in reality has but three lanes – until I was seven, I thought the object of driving was to center one’s car over the dashed lines (!). Then, at home I hear the silence of the afternoon hours as the heat becomes quite unbearable, and all succumb to the promising comfort of a nap.

I feel the chill of the oncoming winter as the temperatures dip to the annual late December lows of 10̊C, for in a country whose homes are built to retard heat and keep them as cool as possible, a low of 10̊C outside is a low of 10̊ C inside. I bundle up and I think of distant countries that have snow and wonder what such a creamy-looking substance tasted like.

I do not have much time to wonder for school beckons and as I stand silently at attention in the courtyard of my school as the national anthem is sung, awaiting my class’s turn to be dismissed and start the day, I nervously wonder whether I am ready for the upcoming test in fourth grade history. I had spent the last week memorizing the names, dates and deeds of the dynasties of Mamluke rulers in one of the countless eras in Egyptian history when Egypt was being ruled by outsiders .. who eventually assumed Egyptian ways while adding of their own to the rich cultural heritage of this country.

I only realized after coming to Canada that my friends’ backgrounds had ranged from Armenian to Italian to Greek to Sudanese .. while in Egypt I was never made aware of, or cared less, what anyone’s ancestry had been. My family was relatively new to Egypt – only about two hundred years compared to Egypt’s six thousand or so years. I myself am a mixture of Circassian, Albanian, Greek and Turkish, with a touch of Egyptian … but back to my test. I was worried, for in Egypt, school performance was a direct gauge of future potential. The competition, though stressful, served to educate us to the ways of real life, and we strived to do our best. Woe be the shame on the pupil who disgraced him or herself to their family by obtaining low grades.

The short six months of school represented a period of challenge, intensive learning, and naturally, the courteous discipline which is taken for granted there. In reference to the latter, when I initially came to Canada, I was astounded by the lack of this respectful discipline and the informal attitude in class, which of course I later came to love.

My attempt to describe the Egypt I knew as a child may serve to clarify, through the dense fog of western myth and illusions, a multi-dimensional topic .. Tangerine trees, mangoes, beautiful sand beaches and a constant interplay of bright sunlight and shadows. Growing up in Egypt until the age of ten has left me with many sun filled memories and bitter-sweet dreams of what once was home. Now, at the age of twenty-one, I can but wonder how much those conceptions would have changed had I grown up there; but I wonder not too much, for I am just thankful to my parents as I forge ahead into my future

José Rivera came to Canada seven years ago from El Salvador where he had been an architect. He has studied and visited the majority of the countries referred to in the article. Over a number of years he also did studies in history, theology, archeology, architecture and urban sociology

Latin America . . . Cultural Profile
Vol 7 1998

Latin America is a general term applied to the 20 Independent Republics of the new world with a Latin background. Those Republics are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Half of these countries are on the mainland of South America. Geographers, especially, include in the general expression Latin America, the possession of the European States in the hemisphere (the three Guianas, Jamaica, Trinidad and British Honduras – Belize), since all of these areas were once claimed by Spain.

Puerto Rico, a Spanish colony for four centuries but now a part of the United States, may also be included, under the term Latin America. In 18 of the 20 countries Spanish is now spoken; Portuguese is the language of Brazil, and French has been used in Haiti since it first became a French colony. Paraguay, because of the great number of Indians, also uses Guarani as an official language.

The term Latin America does not satisfy everyone. Those who think in terms of Iberian background prefer Ibero-America to Hispanic America. In referring to some countries of high Indian population, such as Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, the Central American States and Mexico, the expression Indo-American is often used. But for the sake of convenience in referring to this area of the world, the term Latin America is also accurate. Although each country has its own separate and distinct national characteristics, taken together they have . . . a common European origin, a common colonial background, a common history of related movements for independence from their colonizing countries, a parallel (development of national institutions, a similar history of republican forms of government (with a few instances of monarchical governments), a language with a common root, a common psychology and a way of life, a predominant common religion- the Roman Catholic, a mutual respect of one another, an inclination to co-operate in inter-national affairs, and a certain solidarity and uniformity in foreign policy, induced at times by a common suspicion with a mix of fear of the great neighbour to the north, the United States

Ethnology

The ethnology of Latin America differs from a region to another, according to the peculiar history of each and its predominant social and economic character: industrial-urban, industrial-rural, pre-industrial Iberian or pre-industrial nature. Cultural traits of the Indians, Europeans and of the North American whites, Asiatics, Blacks and Mestizos.

Mestizo culture is heritable literacy, printed matter, Roman Catholicism, the monogamic family of the conventional European type, a money economy the Republican form of government, European costume, clock-measured time, European tools and other technology, foods, domestic animals and some crops the plaza play for towns, official male dominance, a double standard of sexual morality, domestic architecture and concepts of personal honour.

Mestizo culture is distinct from North American culture in its emphasis on traditional forms, the Indian words and traits it adopted, feudalistic European survivals from Spain, mysticism and medieval scholastic intellectual patterns regarding the sexes, the family, the political forms and economic activities. Ideologically, it is humanistic rather than puritanical; Intellectually, it is characterized by logic and dialectics rather than empiricism and pragmatics; it assigns great value to the manipulation of words and other symbols; it emphasizes ‘form’ and ‘symbol’ rather than the ‘thing’; it has a ceremonial kinship system of “ god-parenthood ”, the extended family functions as a unit in political, social and business affairs.

Blacks : while there are scattered concentrations of blacks and mulatto populations in most of the Latin American countries, (particularly in the port towns) Haiti, which is almost 100% blacks, Cuba, Trinidad, the Dominican Republic, British Honduras – Belize – and Brazil are where the Black population is heavily concentrated.

They have strongly influenced Brazilian culture, in their food, music, dance, language and social behaviour, religious concepts (fetish cults are African in content), female work in the fields, female ownership of property and control of markets, co-operative work and lack of strong economic competition, common-law marriage, sanctioned pre-marital sexual experience, sequential or regular polygamy, diviners, and black magic

Social Class

In Latin America there has been a widespread correlation of landownership with social class, the large hacienda or owners of plantations being socially on top, small landowners and share croppers next, day labourers and squatters at the bottom.

With the exception of western European-oriented areas centered around cities like Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Montevideo and many others, the Latin American economy is non-industrial. Industrialized cities are the exception; rural agricultural and non-industrial towns and cities are the norm. Industrialization, however, is inevitable, and it is bringing more and more beneficial changes to social structure, economy, family life, religious concepts and politics

Social Movements and Social Services

Organized movements designed to improve the welfare of the people and the social services available to them, are of the utmost variety. In this respect, the various countries have little in common except that the developments are recent, significant groups are feverishly at work, and the difficulties confronted are tremendous. Nations which have experienced little social change prior to World War I, and comparatively little before the end of World War II, are the scenes of intense activity designed to improve a lot and increase the security of the population.

Status of Women

The rapidly changing status of women throughout the Latin American countries is another striking development taking place during the second half of the twentieth century. Until the close of World War I, and in many parts of the area, even later, the rights and privileges of women in Latin America resembled those of the middle ages of western countries. The women of the lower classes shared their mate’s service or semi-servile status, and those in the small middle and upper classes were under strict surveillance. As children and adolescents married young and were limited largely to careers of childbearing and homemaking. Formal education was almost entirely confined to women of the upper classes, and it was most frequently by private tutoring or in a convent school, with limited subject matter to that considered befitting a wife and mother.

During the second quarter of the twentieth century, noticeable changes in the status of women began to occur, and in the third quarter these were progressing rapidly. The development of industry and the expansion of trade and commerce is creating thousands of new kinds of jobs in offices and shops.

The women watch television of North America and Europe, which gives them vivid pictures of the ways of life of women in other countries, so many are quick to adopt practices portrayed on the screen- along with all this goes the expanding enrollment in high schools, colleges and universities, and the entrance of women into some of the established professions, such as medicine and dentistry; Social work activities are also providing new jobs for hundreds of women. Politically, there has been agitation for equal rights, freedom and feminist movements

Politically

In Spanish America, federalism was usually supported by liberal parties and associated with proposals for reform which appeared to be radical – especially those aimed at the church and at economic policy, rather than by conservative parties as in North America.

The Democratic movement was handicapped by political traditions and ethnic heterogeneity. The spread of democracy seemed to imply ‘social revolution’, the old ruling groups often formed political alliances with military adventurers who seemed able to restrain the popular tide, yet inadvertently contributed to its growth. The amount of social and labour legislation placed on the books already is enormous, and it is steadily increasing.

Efforts to improve health and sanitary conditions are being extended from the cities to remote rural districts; there are widespread efforts, both public and private, to provide housing for the masses and women are gaining a status closer to that of their sisters in western nations. In all these developments, the efforts of the Latin Americans themselves are being encouraged and, to a degree, supported, by the Organization of American States, the Agency for International Developments, European Economic Community, the Bank of International Development, the United Nations and other supporters.

The history of human evolution is essentially the history of culture – the process by which humans developed and adapted to the demands of their environment. While accepting culture as an important factor in shaping human life, sociologists stress in their view the genetic programming over which humans have little direct control over – which is the dominant factor in human adaptations, selection, and behavior. While genetic factors may account for some kinds of cultural adaptations, we must always remember that cultural differences that exist among groups of people have emerged out of the social life of those people, regardless of the source of cultural differences, culture is the shared meanings that are attached to behaviors and symbols for a particular people

References consulted (in combination with the author’s personal experience) :
1- Encyclopedia Americana
2- Latino American Anthropology
3- Urban Sociology (Perrucci and Knudsen)
4- Psychology Today (sixth edition)

Mike Bassillious
Vol 7 1998

Quite the Lady *

She is really, quite the lady. I am very proud of her ..very proud. I don’t know anyone who could have gone through the same struggles, tribulations, and wars, yet still return with their head held high and their flame intact, as She has.

She is really, quite the lady. My goodness, She’s simply beautiful. What features (original and glowing) !  It’s true, when I saw Her from the plane’s window I turned to my mother and said “look how bright She is . .” And that line! That long, essential line, curving down the center of her back, unifying every limb and muscle.

She is really, quite the lady. How, despite her many bruises, she seems to eke out enough energy and resources from her beautiful bosom to nurture her children. She finds enough courage to support her man. She is strong and the hearts of her people are a force to be reckoned with. What is especially wonderful is how she maintains a ‘down to earth’ and simple sensibility, in the spotlight of her fame. She has riches hidden away and a mysticism that intrigues all those around her.

She is really, quite the lady. She is a First Lady of sorts: of art and architecture, of theological study, of monasticism and martyrdom, of experience, and beauty.

She has taught her daughters wonderful things. Some friends and I walked along one of her village roads, lost, tired, and thirsty. The young village girl walked out of the roadside where we were bent over, leaning on our knees. She had in her hand a clay flask of ice cold water, which she gave us to drink. We rested there. The daughter was beautiful .. simple and beautiful, just like her Mother.

It has been three and a half years since I saw her last, but sometimes, when I think I smell sycamore figs in the breeze, I remember Her. She has been a refuge .. my oasis, quite the lady, and I miss her

• Mike is describing Egypt ..

Father Athanasius Iskandar of St Mary’s Coptic Orthodox Church in Kitchener

Origins of Christian Monasticism
Vol 7 1998

Christian monasticism had its roots in the Egyptian deserts. The first champion of monasticism was the great Egyptian Desert Father Anthony the Great, who died in AD 356 at the age of 105. He set an example that was followed by many.

Hermitages were soon being set up all over the Nitrian and Sketic deserts. Toward the end of the fourth century there must have been well over 20,000 hermits in Egypt, scattered all over the country and living either alone or in colonies. Before long, monasticism had reached the Near East and Asia Minor, where it took on a wide variety of forms in the fourth and fifth centuries. It also spread into the Western world, where in the sixth century it found its legislator in the person of St. Benedict of Nursia.

The Christian hermits appear in ecclesiastical history under many names. They were called “ascetics” because of their austere spiritual exercises, “hermits” because they lived in the desert, “anchorites” because of their retirement from the world, and “recluses” because they shut themselves off.

The hermitages and the colonies of monks in the Nitrian and Thebaid deserts attracted many visitors, some of whom were seeking a religious uplift, while others were disgusted by the pampered life of the towns and were on a sort of “back-to-nature” quest. The monks and hermits were regarded as the receptacles of the Spirit.

Their words were therefore cherished as a guide in difficult times. And even if the anchorites were often reluctant to speak, the mere sight of them gave comfort and fortitude to many.

The pilgrims came from all quarters of the compass. There were sea routes to Alexandria from the whole of the Mediterranean, and it was fairly easy to reach the monasteries and hermitages from there.

Anthony the Great was the first nucleus around which a colony of monks crystallized. While he was still alive, Amoun (died C.356) established an anchoritic community in the Nitrian desert in Lower Egypt which is supposed to have comprised 500 members and had its own church.

The hermits worked to earn their living. Hours of work and of prayer were exactly regulated. The monastic principle of “Work and Pray” was accordingly being applied even at this early date.

Even stricter rules were adopted in the colony that came into existence under Macarius the Great (died C.390) in the desert of Scete or Sketis about 15 kilometers south of the Nitrian Mountains, near the village of Kellea. The hermits here lived in very humble conditions in wooden cells or in caves. Silence was observed at all times. Only on Saturdays and Sundays did the monks meet for a joint divine service in the church.

In Upper Egypt it was Palemon who gathered a community of hermits around him.

The first known organizer and legislator of a monastic community was Abbot Pachomius (died 346), a pupil of the anchorite Palemon. It was around 320 that Pachomius founded a large monastery in Tabennisi in Upper Egypt which was marked by almost military severity in its practical framework of liturgical prayer, work and economic management, though there was as yet no exact regulation of the individual quest for salvation.

Pachomius expected of his monks, as basic requirements, “simple clothing, moderate eating and reasonable refreshment and sleep”. He also considered it important that his monks should remain laymen. If a Eucharistic liturgy was to be celebrated, he had a priest come from the neighbourhood. None of the brothers was to have priestly powers or to strive for spiritual rank, lest this should cause quarrels and jealousy in community life.

The monks were allocated to houses according to their profession or task, and each house was under a head and his deputy. These two were themselves subordinate to a central authority. The monk had to live in complete chastity and to renounce all personal possessions. He received his frugal rations from the monastery and had to practice absolute obedience to his superior – this was an essential feature of monastic ascesis. And, above all, he had to keep to the prescribed hours of common prayer in the morning, at noon and in the evening, at sleep and in the middle of the night. The strict daily rhythm was part of the ascesis. The foundations were thus laid for a communal institutionalized monasticism