THE MYTH OF AL-ANDALUS Food for thought on religious tolerance A well-known French orientalist scholar of the twentieth century,

Jacques Berque, delivered his last academic lecture, at the Collge de France, in a famous s eech, u!lished afterwards under the title Andalusias, with that strange ro hetical way$ % I call for constantly renewed Andalusias which have bequeathed us both accumulated rubble and enduring hopes& ' (f we tried to change the sentence with any other )uro ean region *+ent, Cala!ria, Bavaria,-, it would not mean anything$ in such a sentence, Andalusia doesn.t refer to the autonomous community in the south of / ain& 0e clearly uses the word Andalusia not as a geogra hical entity, !ut as a myth& And he did not need to e1 lain further what he meant$ Andalusia commonly means, in connection with the Ara! domination in this region in the middle ages, religious tolerance, acific coe1istence and o en dialogue !etween different cultures and eo les" and the setting of this dialogue is necessarily so histicated and delightful, like the Alham!ra alace gardens in 2renada& (t sounds like 3aradise 4 and a 53aradise lost6, which is followed !y the most intolerant institution ever$ the / anish (nquisition, and its leyenda negra7 8f course, we know that such a 3aradise is nothing !ut a dream& But it.s a dream shared !y the )ast and the 9est& 9estern literature used it as a topos *for e1am le that theme is im ortant for French writers in a colonial war conte1t, like Camus or Amrouche, as if they were looking at the ast in search for a ossi!le eace !etween #uslims and Christians-, !ut the dream can also !e found in the academic field$ in :;;<, the American researcher #aria =osa #enocal, rofessor at >ale ?niversity, u!lished a !ook whose title would not !e a model of scientific o!@ectivity$ The Ornament of the World. How Muslims !ews and "hristians created a culture of tolerance in medieval #pain. /uch enthusiasm, not so frequent in the field of historical studies, may !e artially e1 lained !y the ro1imity of AB11& (n the )ast, the )gy tian movie $estiny *1AAC-, directed !y >oussef Chahine *that was a success even in the 9est- shows how Averroes manages to !roadcast his message of tolerance, even when (slamic e1tremists try to revent him& But you can also see it in #ahmoud Darwish.s oems$ the famous 3alestinian oet wrote his %leven &lanets as a nostalgic evocation of the Ara! Andalusia& 8!viously, in all these e1am les, Andalusia is not a mere dream, an insignificant myth$ in each e1am le, you can connect it to a very recise olitical situation" and Andalusia was used as a olitical myth, with its own agenda, its own olitical rogram& 9hat is the rogram !ehind the 1 lural" after a life devoted to communication !etween the cultures around the #editerranean sea, he concluded in a

mythE Fhe

ossi!ility of religious tolerance, es ecially !etween (slam on one hand, and

Christianity and Judaism on another& 8f course, we.re not talking a!out the ast, !ut a!out our resent, a!out the famous 5clash of civiliGations6, a!out terrorism, a!out war in (raq or in #ali, a!out the de rived areas in )uro e , Andalusia shows us that eaceful coe1istence, where res ect and tolerance have their lace, is ossi!le" furthermore, it.s here to show that (slam, even when it.s hegemonic, can !e tolerant and o en-minded& Averroes is used as an antidote to Bin Haden& Andalusia is a myth, and a myth always refers to the resent time& Het.s acce t it, without com laining a!out all the historical mistakes that are heard on the to ic& #y ur ose today is not to show how mythical *and false, from a historian.s oint of view- is this icture of medieval Andalusia& First of all, !ecause it.s o!vious$ no one can !elieve such a 3aradise actually e1isted" even when you use it as an argument, you know that it.s more a wish than anything else& /econd, com etent historians have already done the @o!$ a lot of e1cellent studies give a realistic and finely-shaded icture of medieval / ain& 9hoever wants to study Ara! Andalusia already knows that it can.t !e naively descri!ed as a tolerant land, !ut it has had a few tolerant eriods$ the ?mayyad cali hate in Cordova, the eriod of the Faifas /tates, the city of Foledo after the Christian =econquista" for the rest, most of medieval / ain.s history, like every !order-region.s history, is full of wars, wars of religion, ersecutions and intolerance& And of course, even for these tolerant eriods, we hardly know anything a!out the daily relationshi s !etween #uslim and Christian eo le" we can only talk a!out the resence of Christian civil servants or of Jewish doctors at the Cali h.s court, a!out translations of scientific works from Ara!ic into Hatin, a!out links !etween #uslim, Jewish and Christian scholars, But we have no idea a!out the atmos here in the market lace in Cordova or Foledo 7 Fhere is another reason why ( won.t try to demythologiGe Andalusia with you today& (t.s the historians. duty to give a realistic icture of Andalusia, and they do it well" !ut demythologiGation can also !e a olitical rogram& /ome eo le do their utmost to denounce the ure dece tion of Andalusia& (f you.re looking for this kind of literature, it a!ounds on the (nternet" and almost every year !ooks oint out the trickery& #any of them have a clear ur ose$ they intend to demonstrate that a eaceful coe1istence !etween (slam and the 9est is im ossi!le, !ecause (slam cannot !e tolerant, whatever the country, whatever the eriod& 8n !oth sides, the question is not a historical de!ate$ we have two olitical agendas facing each other, and ( confess that ( refer the first one& )ven so ( would like to discuss the myth of al'Andalus, not as a historian, and certainly not as an activist& #y oint is that the myth is !ased on a ro@ection in medieval / ain of the modern )uro ean status of religious truth, / inoGa or +ant with a tur!an, while al'Andalus could :

teach us something e1tremely different if we.re looking for a model of religious tolerance$ a model that would not !e !ased on religious indifference or the rivatiGation of religious faith, !ut on the contrary !ased on religious discussion and de!ate& Fo !e efficient, a myth needs mythical characters& 8ur 3aradise of tolerance has its heroes, and rimarily its 5good guy6$ Averroes, the famous Aristotelian hiloso her of Cordova& After centuries of com lete indifference in the )ast *he was never quoted !y an (slamic author until the twentieth century- and of sulfurous re utation in the 9est, he has !ecome today a very o ular figure, the friendly main character in >oussef Chahine.s film or in many novels *even in one of Borges.s short stories-& 0is commitment to the !uilding of a rational (slam seems the e1act model of the 5(slamic )nlightenment6 that so many non-#uslim )uro eans wish to find& 0e is now the sym!ol of tolerance in al-Andalus& Iovelists have even descri!ed his imaginary friendshi with the Jewish scholar #aimonides, who was !orn ten years after him in Cordova& /uch infatuation for Averroes, the hero of religious tolerance, could !e sur rising& 8f course, he.s a ma@or hiloso her, !ut if you.re looking for tolerance in his work, you.ll !e disa ointed$ not a single word on that to ic" concerning other religions, a few trite words on the su eriority of (slam& 0e was a high magistrate of the Almohad Cali hate, an e1tremely intolerant eriod under the domination of a Ber!er-#uslim dynasty that e1 elled or killed all the Christians and the Jews *like #aimonides himself- still living in al'Andalus& As such, each year he made an official s eech to call the eo le to the (ih)d& 8f course, it would !e anachronistic to !lame him for that$ it was his duty in his situation& But in that field, he was in kee ing with his time& 9hy is he so o ular then, es ecially in the 9estE ( would have two e1 lanations& First of all, we in the 9est have a great intellectual de!t to (slam and to al-Andalus, and Averroes is ro!a!ly the main creditor of this de!t !ecause of his im ortance in our understanding of Aristotle& 0is commentaries of 5the 3hiloso her6 were translated into Hatin almost immediately and fuelled assionate de!ates at the ?niversity of 3aris& 9hen Aquinas writes 5the Commentator6, the word refers to him& For many centuries, the word 5averroism6 was an accusation or a rallying sign for many hiloso hers or thinkers& As an Aristotelian transmitter, Averroes layed an im ortant role in the intellectual history of the 9est& 8ur enthusiasm for his erson may !e a way to ay our de!t& Fhere is another, a dee er, e1 lanation, linked to his hiloso hy !ut !ased on a com lete misunderstanding& Fhis misunderstanding goes !ack to the middle ages, when Averroes was translated and read in the 9est at the end of the twelfth century$ only his Aristotelian commentaries were translated and known" !ut his ma@or !ooks were not translated, in articular <

those where he studies the relationshi s !etween faith and reason **asl al'Maq)l, +it)b al'+ashf and The Incoherence of the Incoherence, where he defends the falsafa, the Ara! Aristotelian hiloso hy, against 2haGKli.s Incoherence of the &hilosophers" more s ecifically, this last !ook was translated, !ut at the very end of the middle ages-& Fhe understanding of Averroism was e1tremely artial and ro!lematic& 9hat would we understand of +ant.s hiloso hy if the "ritique of &ure ,eason had !een lostE (t can e1 lain why averroism was associated with 4 and even almost equivalent with 4 a doctrine that the Cordovan @udge would have o!viously re@ected, known as the 5dou!le truth doctrine6& According to that doctrine, religion and hiloso hy, faith and reason, are se arate sources of knowledge and might lead to contradictory results, contradictory truths& (t means that you have two kinds of truth *religious truth and rational truth-, and they can disagree even while !eing true at the same time& An adversary of Hatin averroism, the Catalan thinker =amon Hlull, summariGed it in a formula$ it was no longer the legendary 5Credo quia a!surdum6 *which, as you may know, never e1isted- !ut 5Credo fidem esse veram et intellego quod non est vera6, I believe that faith is true and I understand that it is not& Fhis distinction of two kinds of truth seems to o en the door to religious tolerance, !ecause religious truth is no longer su!mitted to recise logical rules$ coherence is no longer necessary, so two contradictory !eliefs can !e true at the same time& (f we fear the hegemonic claims and the totalitarian otential of a mono oly on truth, we feel it is a sound track, !ecause such a mono oly is no longer ossi!le" and at the same time the truth of religious !eliefs is reserved and res ected& Ievertheless, the rece tion of this doctrine was mainly negative in the Catholic Church, for at least two reasons& For Fhomas Aquinas, the affirmation of the unity of truth is the keystone of theology, as he e1 lains for e1am le at the !eginning of his #umma contra -entiles& A revealed dogma can never !e contradictory with reason, with the conclusions of a rational argument& (t doesn.t mean that each dogma can !e rationally demonstrated$ the Frinity, for e1am le, is only known !y revelation, not !y necessary reasons& But the Frinity dogma has to !e coherent and acce ta!le for human reason& 9hen a contradiction seems to arise !etween a dogma and a hiloso hical truth, it.s a challenge for Aquinas$ here !egins the work of the theologian& (f you sim ly acce t the contradiction, without trying to resolve it !y rational tools, there is no theology$ faith !ecomes mere fideism& And fideism would !e another word for stu idity& At the same time, Catholic authorities, like the !isho of 3aris Ltienne Fem ier, saw that such a doctrine, a arently neutral towards the two kinds of truth, was otentially dangerous for the religious one, weaker than the rational one, and he clearly re@ected it& /uch a osition, e1 ressed in solemn condemnations, was ro!a!ly far stronger than the diffusion of the doctrine J

itself$ if traditional historiogra hy associates it with the name of master /iger of Bra!ant, we are today more rudent a!out the e1istence of a 5Hatin averroist arty6 in the ?niversity of 3aris, and we.re not sure that someone su Averroes *the 53aduan averroism6-& Averroes e1 licitly refuted such a doctrine& (n one of his works, the *asl al'Maq)l *the $ecisive speech-, he even aims at demonstrating that a hiloso hical e1egesis of the Nuran is not only ossi!le, !ut also required !y the Nuran itself& Fhe only limit to this dee unity of faith and reason is education$ ignorant eo le can only understand the clear verses of the Nuran, and should not try to understand hiloso hical e1 lanations& Fhat.s why Averroes is often resented, in very su erficial way, as a forerunner of / inoGa& 0e isn.t, of course$ o hiloso hical inter retation, that is necessary to e1 lain the difficult verses of the /acred Fe1t, can never ose the literal meaning of the clear verses& 0e doesn.t ro ose an esoterical- hiloso hical Ievertheless, in the western middle Ages, his name was synonymous with 5dou!le truth6 and this gave !irth to his !lack legend& Averroes, in fact, has not always !een so o ular in the 9est" he was indeed, for a long time, the sym!ol of error and !las hemy, and ( think these two o osed o inions are !ased on the same misunderstanding a!out his osition on truth& (n the osition to the dou!le truth doctrine !ecame #iddle Ages, the hiloso hical and theological o reading of the Nuran& 8n the contrary, reason and revelation lead to the same results& orted that doctrine in the 1<th century& But we find revivals of this doctrine, for e1am le in Iorthern (taly in the 1Mth century, always under the name of

mere slander$ Averroes would have considered #oses, Jesus and #uhammad as 5three im ostors6, in a very famous !ut never written Treatise of the Three Impostors *in the 1Oth century, anonymous authors finally wrote it, in several different versions-, also attri!uted to the em eror Frederick ((, #achiavelli, / inoGa&&& But during the 1Ath century, scholars like the French )rnest =enan saw him as an ancestor of the freethought movement, a forerunner of secular humanism& 0is re utation as a !las hemer !ecame an asset, the trum religious intolerance& 9e could sim lify the history of the western model of tolerance after the wars of religion in )uro e& Hocke e1 lained that religious !eliefs were not worth fighting for, while until then they were the only ideas you could fight for& Fhen / inoGa distinguished the hiloso hical truth from its theological *which means mythological- e1 ression$ truth !ecame not only dou!le, !ut the two truths are also hierarchiGed& +ant gave a clear !asis for this se aration, when he re@ected religious truth from the ossi!ilities of human knowledge, from the domain of ure reason, and M card to his reha!ilitation& But ( think it was more than the glorification of an atheist$ the 9est recogniGed in him, and still does, the way it chose to deal with

set it in the field of ractical reason& 9e know how he defended his work$ 5( had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith6" he meant indeed that religious !eliefs were only a question of faith, and not of reasona!le reflection& After that, it !ecomes a!surd to discuss religious dogmas, !ecause their truth is only su!@ective, not rational& 9e have here the foundation of secularism 4 not /tate 5laQcitR6, !ut secularism of the civil society& Faith !ecomes a rivate matter& Fhe only way to talk a!out it in u!lic is testimony *5that.s what ( feel, that.s what ( !elieve6-, !ut a u!lic de!ate on these to ics is im ossi!le, !ecause it is no longer under the control of reason& =eligious !eliefs are like the family of your friends$ you have to res ect them and you can.t argue a!out them& (t doesn.t mean that your !elief is false, !ut that it can.t !e true or false$ it.s true !ecause you !elieve it& (t.s true, !ut you can.t claim that your !elief is truer than mine& ( !elieve that 2od is 8ne in three 3ersons" you !elieve 0e is only 8ne and certainly not in three 3ersons& 9e could argue for a while !ut in the end, as no one has a direct and availa!le e1 erience of what we.re talking a!out, we will only lose ourselves in reasoning and cannot come to a conclusion& /o it.s !etter not to talk a!out it and to res ect each other.s !elief, at least as a ossi!le truth, or a su!@ective truth *@ust like mine is-& Fhen, o!viously, when ( consider my !elief in that way, ( can.t fight for it anymore& Fhis rivatiGation of religious !eliefs, !ased on a distinction !etween a rational truth *that comes from e1 erience and is in the field of rational s eech- and a su!@ective truth *it.s what you feel, and ( have to res ect it-, created in the 9est a real and efficient model of religious tolerance, with very few religious ersecutions or fights, with equal rights for everyone whatever they think and !elieve, and ( would certainly not deny its historical virtues& But ( also think it has reached some of its limits& (n a novel he wrote in :;;J, the French olygra h Jacques Attali drew Averroes.s ortrait as a wise hiloso her whose doctrine is strangely very similar to / inoGa.s& Attali clearly aims to show his readers a way to religious tolerance$ if the !elievers could sto !elieving that their own dogmas are o!@ective truths, and acce ted to consider them @ust as su!@ective truths, outside the field of rational discussion, everything would !e fine& But Attali doesn.t seem to notice that he ro oses, through the myth of al-Andalus, recisely the modern model of religious tolerance in the 9est, !ased on the eviction of religious !eliefs outside the field of common discussion& Fhe ro!lem is not the anachronism *of course, his novel has nothing to do with history of medieval / ain-, !ut ( think a myth is useful when it hel s you to say something new, not to re eat what everyone has said for more than two hundred years& And if you have to defend again and again your model, it means that your model may have a ro!lem&

Attali.s oint is a!out )uro e today, and the ossi!ility of religious tolerance on the art of (slam and towards (slam& (slam has to acce t that its !eliefs are su!@ective truths, @ust like most Christians or Jews have already done in the 9est, and all our ro!lems will !e over& 0e doesn.t say what we have to do if #uslims do not acce t to ado t that strange way of !elieving& And he doesn.t see that his solution is actually art of the ro!lem& )viction of religious !eliefs outside the field of reason has indeed three unfortunate side effects& 1& Fhrough lack of confrontation with reason, !elievers are more likely to acce t fideism, anti-rational religious attitudes and may!e com lete nonsense& 2iving a rational account, and not only a testimony, of your religious !eliefs is an e1cellent e1ercise against nonsense" without it, you are more vulnera!le to sectarian movements or to violent activism& =eason gives you a framework& ( fear that the world wide o ularity of movements like 3entecostalism in Christianity or the /alafi movements in (slam is linked to this disconnection with reason& 9hen religion !ecomes only a question of faith, it can !e dangerous, and for religion in articular& And (.m not really sure that this acce tance of nonsense in the field of religion is the !est way to reach tolerance or res ect& :& (f religious !eliefs are only a question of su!@ective truth, that has nothing to do with logics, they deserve unconditional res ect 4 a res ect that does not de end on their meaning or merit& But do ( really res ect someone when ( think his action or !elief is com lete nonsense, and ( don.t tell himE (n such a case, wouldn.t a rational discussion !e a more res ectful attitudeE <& 8utside the field of reason, religion !ecomes merely a question of identity& 8f course it is7 ( know that, if (.m a =oman Catholic, it has much to do with the fact that ( was !orn in France, and not in Afghanistan& Fhe ro!lem !egins when religion leads to an introverted assertion of one.s identity& (t no longer has any connection with my relationshi to 2od, !ut only with myself or with my grou & 0ere, religious mem!ershi is not a choice anymore *a choice that can !e the acce tation of the tradition you have received from your arents-, !ut a fact you have to res ect as such, e1actly as you have to res ect the fact that (.m gay or !ald& 9hen it.s a choice, we can argue a!out it *9hy are you an atheistE 9hy are you #uslimE But also, why are you a vegetarianE-" !ut you won.t argue a!out a fact& 8utside the field of reason, religion !ecomes identity, and once again (.m not sure that.s the !est way to reach tolerance& Does all this mean that the myth of al'Andalus has to !e a!andonedE (t would !e a mistake$ in my o inion, medieval / ain can show us ways to co e with these ro!lematics&

Another great Andalusian thinker, the olymath (!n 0aGm who was !orn in Cordova at the very end of the 1;th century, was confronted with forerunners of our modern model of tolerance& 0e gives us the names of two Jewish doctors, who seemed to have reached radical sce ticism$ in religious s eeches, the ieces of evidence cancel each other out and in the end, you can.t decide which ositive religion is the right one& (!n 0aGm says that, in a de!ate with one of them, he concluded$ 5/o, you can convert to (slam, if you don.t think your religion is !etter&6 But the Jewish doctor, (smael, refused, !ecause$ 5Fo change your religion is a !ad @oke&6 Fhe argument seems very weak, !ut (smael e1 lains his oint of view$ Judaism and (slam are only singular e1 ressions of universal religion& >ou have to stay in the religion you were !orn in$ 2od decided that you will worshi him in that way, so changing your religion would mean refusing 2od.s will& ?nfortunately, (smael did not e1 lain what you had to do if you were !orn in an atheist family" is atheism art of this universal religionE 9e don.t know& But for him, as (!n 0aGm demonstrates, religion was not a question of faith or o inion, !ut of identity, so it.s useless to talk a!out it& 8n the contrary, says (!n 0aGm7 9e have to talk a!out it7 And so he did& 0e was a olitician, a @urist, a commentator of the Nuran, !ut his main works are devoted to interreligious olemics& (n that way, ( think he !elongs to the real Andalusian model of tolerance, which is e1tremely different from ours$ it is not !ased on religious indifference or consideration of religious truth as a second-rank truth, !ut on the e1treme im ortance of religious truth& >ou can see it in three closely connected fields$ conversions, translations and olemics& Fhe anecdote told !y (!n 0aGm touches an im ortant oint of the history of medieval / ain$ religious conversion is an e1tremely frequent to ic& Fhrough historical sources, we meet many eo le who changed their religion, and not only in one direction, and not only according to the olitical circumstances, when a city !ecame #uslim or Christian !ecause of a military lace where eo le could consider changing conquest& (t seems that medieval / ain was a

religion, even if that would have se arated them from their own family, from their own grou & ( am aware of the social and olitical meaning of many conversions, !ut it is also a sign that the search for truth was a great concern in medieval / ain, and that religion was not merely considered as a art of one.s identity& Another sign of this great interest a!out religious truth was the im ortance of translation& 9e all know that medieval / ain layed an im ortant role, even greater than /icily, in the wave of translations that !rought Ara! science *medicine, astronomy, mathematics,- and Ara! hiloso hy to )uro e, and through it, it also !rought a !etter knowledge of 2reek hiloso hy& )ven if some scholars, for ideological reasons, over-evaluated the im ortance of this (slamic transmission in )uro ean hiloso hy, whoever is used to reading medieval theology knows that, O

when Fhomas Aquinas s eaks a!out 5the hiloso hers6, he doesn.t refers to the 2reeks, !ut to the Ara!s& But the aim of these translations was not merely to transmit useful knowledge like medicine or hiloso hy$ religious (slamic te1ts, and namely the Nuran itself, were also translated from Ara!ic into Hatin& Fhe city of Foledo, after it was taken from the #oors !y the king of Castile *1;OM-, remained a great cultural centre$ the Ara! li!raries were not illaged, and on the contrary many of these !ooks were translated into Hatin during the 1:th century !y a real school of translators, whose first a ointed director was Domingo 2undisalvo, a converted Jew who !ecame archdeacon of /egovia& (t involved several teams of translators, with #uslims, Jews and Christians, in order to understand and translate the ma@or li!rary in the 9est& Folerant olitics from the king of Castile made such a thing ossi!le& During this eriod, in 1:th-century Foledo, the Nuran was translated into Hatin at least twice& 8ne of these translations was commissioned !y 3etrus Senera!ilis *3eter the Senera!le-, a!!ot of most owerful French a!!ey of Cluny$ he organiGed a team to com lete the first western translation of the sacred !ook of the #uslims, !ut also of other religious (slamic te1ts& 0e e1 lained, in a letter, the ur ose of his ro@ect$ the Crusades were meaningless if the Christians could not refute (slam" and no one could do it, !ecause no one even knew what (slam was& Fhe first ste was to invest in knowledge" olemics would come later& 8f course, this ro@ect is not a model of scientific neutrality and ( don.t say we should imitate it& But it was very new, !ecause, until then, the refutation of (slam was merely the re etition of old arguments, mainly from te1ts !y /aint John of Damascus& Iow the idea was to listen to the #uslims themselves, not to a ly to them definitions !uilt without them& (t.s an anthro ological revolution in the field of relationshi s with 5the others6$ to acce t that you don.t know who they are and to ask them how they talk a!out themselves, instead of telling them who they are *!ecause, of course, you know !etter-& Fhis is a far cry from indifference towards the question of truth7 )ven if he was certain that his religion was true, 3eter the Senera!le wanted to understand how other eo le could not agree with it" his own faith, his own certainty did not quench his curiosity for other ways of thinking& And for many centuries, this translation *which was rinted after the =eformation in /witGerland, !y Buchmann, also known as Bi!liander- was the only way to read the Nuran in )uro e, even if it.s not a erfect translation, even if it was made with a olemical ur ose& But Andalusia may show us that olemics can !e ositive& (n these Border /tates, the local authorities 4 #uslim or Christian 4 often organiGed u!lic disputationes, !etween re resentatives of the three A!rahamic religions, in order to find the !est one& ( am not naQve enough to idealiGe such de!ates$ of course, most of the time, they were @ust like !o1 matches A

where eo le come to su

ort their cham ion" the communities were not there to listen to

rational arguments& And even if it was the case for some eo le, we all know that a u!lic and olemical de!ate is not the !est way to search for the truth$ it will favour so histic or theatrical skills much more than honesty and de th& Ievertheless, as we have to find another hero, another 5good guy6 after our disa ointment with Averroes, ( would choose him 4 or rather them, !ecause there are two of them$ one is #uslim, the other one is Christian 4 in that olemical field& ( don.t know if ( can call them 5good guys6" even if !oth of them were great oets, in Ara!ic or in Catalan, they were also fierce olemists and ro!a!ly no one in their time would have said they might !e models of tolerance& (.ve @ust mentioned (!n 0aGm of Cordova, one of the most !rilliant minds of (slamic / ain, who wrote many !ooks on many to ics *he is thought to !e the second most rolific author in #uslim history, with more than J;; works- at the !eginning of the 11th century& 0is style is well-known as a!rasive, often aggressive toward all those *and they are many- he disagrees with, !e they fellow academics or government officials& 0e never fears to insult them, and we can understand why, after his death, his *#uslim- enemies managed to have his works !urned in /eville& 8f course ( understand how strange it is to talk a!out this master of invective, es ecially against Jews and Christians, when we are s eaking a!out tolerance& But tolerance is not necessarily gentle and kind& 9hat was (!n 0aGm.s tolerance, thenE (n order to demonstrate that (slam was the only true religion, he did not @ust insult the other faiths$ he studied them very accurately, and that is, in a way, a mark of res ect& =es ect is for the ersons, not for the doctrines" and you res ect someone when you acce t to argue with him a!out what he thinks, when you think he.s wrong& 3olemics can !e far more res ectful than olite indifference, when it.s well informed olemics& And (!n 0aGm.s olemics well e1tremely well informed& 0e wrote a kind of olemical )ncyclo aedia *called *isal, $etailed critical %.amination- against Judaism, Christianity and what he considered as #uslim heresies& For the first time, (!n 0aGm was a!le to defend the thesis of the falsification of the Bi!le with arguments !ased on the Bi!le itself$ in order to demonstrate that Jews and Christians had deli!erately modified their /acred /cri tures to make them more convenient, he ointed out the contradictory assages or those which he deemed com letely nonsensical& According to him, if you !elieve the Bi!le, it means that you have no morality, or no common sense& Fhat.s not very kind of him, and you feel all the time, when you read him, the selfconfidence of a civiliGed erson talking a!out !ar!arians& (t may not !e very kind of him, !ut (!n 0aGm was doing his @o!$ he tried to understand and then to answer& 0e did not @ust re eat old 1;

arguments$ he

ersonally read the Bi!le, even some theological works, which forced his

adversaries to work hard if they wanted to !e a!le to answer& 0e ointed out real ro!lems, real difficulties& 9e are far from a so histic de!ate& (f all interreligious discussions were of this quality, they could even !e more aggressive$ they would still !e e1tremely interesting& Fhere is a difference !etween the sort of de!ates you can read on (nternet forums, where ignorant eo le e1change insults in order to reassure themselves a!out their own identity !eliefs, and a real and constructive controversy& ( think !oth of them were resent in medieval / ain& #ay!e we should have in mind that the second o tion is ossi!le& #y oint is that you can !e tolerant *or !etter$ res ectful towards eo le- and !elieve that there is only one truth, and only one religious truth, and that your religious faith gives you access to this unique truth" you can !e res ectful and think, consequently, that the !elievers of other religions are wrong" you can !e res ectful and even try to convince them that you are right and they are wrong& (t may seem im ossi!le according to our modern conce tion of tolerance, !ut ( think this real and dee res ect can !e e1 ressed in two ways$ 1& #aking efforts to understand& (t takes time, !ut these efforts are marks of a greater res ect than considering the faiths of the 5others6 as ta!oos you can.t discuss a!out and do not even try to understand& :& =easoning with 5the others6, even if you quarrel& =eason is our only common ground$ when we acce t to meet, even to fight on that ground, we recogniGe our common humanity& (n a real controversy, ( acknowledge that my adversary is my equal& 9hen we deny reason the right to question the religious !eliefs of others, we create se arate humankinds& An alternative Andalusian model, !ased on translations and olemics, could !e more tolerant than a model !ased on inaccessi!ility of truth& 9e have a ositive e1am le of it in a strange !ook written !y =amon Hlull, The /oo0 of the -entile and the Three Wise Men& =amon, !orn in #a@orca in 1:<:, was a knight and a oet who wrote love oems, who was a familiar of the king of Aragon James ((& 0e had a mystical e1 erience and decided to leave his wife, his children and his successful life to devote himself to the conversion of #uslims& Fhen !egan a strange life" first of all, he studied e1tensively$ hiloso hy, Christian theology, !ut also (slamic theology and Ara!ic& 0e wrote a lot of !ooks, in articular his Abbreviated Art of *inding Truth, where he says he has a method to distinguish truth from mistake 4 a very com le1 mechanism !ased on a ersonal use of Aristotelian logics& Fhe ur ose of his system was, of course, to demonstrate the truth of Christian faith and the error of #uslim faith& 0e tried to organiGe schools of missionaries on this !asis, !ut most of the time, in )uro e, his e1altation made eo le take him for a mad man& ,aymundus phantasticus, 5=aymond the fool6, was one of his nicknames, @ust like Arabicus christianus 11

*!ecause of his erfect command of Ara!ic- or 5the !earded 3hiloso her6, philosophus barbatus& 0e !ecame a missionary himself, and tried to argue against the errors of the Nuran in the very heart of the Funis s1q& 5Fhe Christian Haw is !lessed and erfect6, he shouted there, 5while the #uslim Haw doesn.t make sense& And ( can demonstrate it76 )ven in such a situation, his main concern was to use his reason and 5hel 6 everyone to use it& But he was not successful$ no one wanted to discuss with him, and he was only arrested, locked u in the latrines of the rison of Funis and then e1 elled to Aragon& 0e went !ack several times to (slamic countries !ut never found anyone to discuss with& 9e don.t even know if he converted a single #uslim in his whole life& A few years after his visions and his own conversion, he wrote his first !ook, The /oo0 of the -entile and the Three Wise Men, which is different from his other works$ most of them are olemics, while this one is a fictional dialogue& But he didn.t seem to think these two forms were contradictory& Fhree wise men are good friends, even if one of them is a Jew, the second one a Christian and the third one a #uslim *a /aracen-" they are together when they receive a visit from Hady 9isdom, who gives them advice a!out the way to look for truth& Fhey are still discussing a!out these gifts on the sudden arrival of a 2entile, a agan, who.s des erate !ecause he fears death& Fhey talk together, and they decide to demonstrate to this 2entile the e1istence of 2od and the resurrection& Fhey give him a lot of evidence, and we don.t even know, when reading the !ook, which wise man is talking$ they all agree a!out these truths& Fhe 2entile is very im ressed and is convinced of the e1istence of 2od and eternal life& 0e.s so ha y he.s discovered faith that he wants to convert all his friends, who are agans of course& 50ow can ( do thatE6, he asks& But the wise men answer that, first of all, he has to follow a religion& Fhe 2entile is very sur rised$ he discovers that these wise men who agreed a!out such im ortant things do not !elong to the same religion& 9hich one should he convert toE Fhat is the question, Fhe three wise men ro ose to resent their creeds successively, to ena!le him to choose which religion seems the !est& Fhey also decide not to interru t each other$ only the 2entile can ask questions during the three resentations" it.s not a olemical de!ate, !ut an honest e1 osition of the three religions& 9ith necessary reasons, the Jew demonstrates 2od.s unity, the revelation of the divine Haw to #oses and the coming of the #essiah , Fhen the Christian demonstrates the Frinity and the (ncarnation& And in the end, the /aracen demonstrates that #uhammad is a ro het and the Nuran is a divine !ook& Fhe 2entile listens to all of them very carefully and asks many questions" and then, he says that he can see the truth clearly$ he has no dou!t" he knows which of 1:

these religions is the true one& 0e.s a!out to tell them which one it is, when he sees two of his friends who are agans& 0e wants to convert them and says to the wise men$ 5(.ll go to them and ( shall !ring them !ack, so ( can tell you which religion (.ve chosen&6 But during his a!sence, the three wise men decide not to wait for him and not to know which one of them has won the de!ate& As a matter of fact, they have en@oyed this moment and want it to go on$ they decide to meet every day, until they find together whose religion is the true one& (n the end, the reader is like the wise men$ he doesn.t know which religion has !een chosen& Fhis !ook is an initiatory tale and a dialogue at the same time& )ven if it.s written !y a Christian, it.s very well informed a!out the other religions& At least for (slam, the main elements of the (slamic creed are e1 osed and demonstrated !y classical (slamic evidence& But the tale is more than a hand!ook of com arative religion" it teaches you many im ortant things a!out interreligious dialogue& ( would oint only two of them$ - the importance of silence& Fhe wise men decide to let each one talk without interru ting him& Fhe !eginning of the discussion has to !e this attentive silence& But for that, first of all, ( have to acce t that ( don.t understand& ( don.t understand who you are, what you think, and my only chance to understand is to listen to you& As the !ook of !en /irach says, 5an attentive ear is the wise man.s desire6 */ir <, :A-& (n order to write this well-informed !ook, =amon had to sit down and listen to Jewish and #uslim masters for a while& - the acceptance of diversity& At first, religious diversity seems to !e a catastro he$ the 2entile is des erate and the wise men are quite em!arrassed& (t was so erfect when they agreed7 But now, the harmony is !roken$ we are in the field of reality, where several ositive religions e1ist& 8ur wise men never try to kee u their initial agreement artificially$ they listen to each other, without looking for a common osition on the !asis of the greatest common divisor& Fhey do not decide that what they !elieve in common would !e truer, or the e1 ression of a universal religion& 8n the contrary, they organiGe a fair !ut real com etition !etween them, a com etition which is not the a!olition of their ersonal o inions or their fusion in a neutral 5us6, !ut the affirmation of their ersonal creed& )ven if they are e1quisitely olite towards each other, this affirmation creates a confrontation, which contains a form of violence& But at the same time, !y choosing to listen to each other, they refuse another form of violence$ a violence that would neutraliGe the dialogue and cancel all kind of diversity in the name of a re-esta!lished common truth& Dialogue will !e !ased on reci rocal listening, which is very different from agreement& /yncretism might seem to !e a far more tolerant solution& Hooking for a dee er unity !etween the three religions could !e a way to conciliate the three wisdoms and to cancel the failure of religious diversity& Ievertheless, the three wise men refuse to ado t this solution, and ( 1<

think that is why they are really wise and tolerant& Fhey refuse to follow a syncretic direction$ this tale is thus a kind of anti-2athan the Wise, its e1act contrary& (t underlines that looking for a dee er and syncretic integration of the different religions could still !e a way to refuse diversity and turn it into unity& Fhis kind of ro@ect doesn.t acknowledge the weight of the differences$ they are considered as su erficial and worthless& But on the contrary the real challenge of tolerance is to acce t diversity, to acce t that religious dissents are real dissents, to acce t that someone else can really think in a different way, can really disagree with me& /yncretic thoughts !ring us !ack to unity$ at end of the day, you think like me, we are similar& From an intellectual oint of view, this reduction to unity is violent !ecause dissent is no longer ossi!le& (t echoes with my ersonal e1 erience in the field of interreligious dialogue& ( live in Cairo and my riory is also a =esearch (nstitute, a team of scholars and researchers wishing to romote a !etter understanding !etween Christians and #uslims, studying (slam through its rimary sources& ( often realiGe that a ma@or o!stacle to dialogue comes when ( think ( already understand& For e1am le, #uslims and Christians share a lot of elements and it is often easier to consider that we are similar& A mosque is a kind of church, an imKm is a kind of riest, the Nuran is like the Bi!le and so on& Fhis way of thinking makes understanding im ossi!le$ (.ll never know what a mosque is, what an imKm is and how a #uslim considers the Nuran& (n order to understand, distinction is always more constructive than analogy& Analogy can even lead to a form of intolerance7 (f ( think ( understand what #uslim rayer is, !ecause ( know what Christian rayer is, ( will claim to know what is im ortant in it and what is irrelevant& (n articular, ( will say that it.s too legalistic and not s iritual enough& ( will !e tem ted to decide what a good #uslim rayer is, according to my own !eliefs& ( will consider the legal a!lutions irrelevant, !ecause there is nothing in Christianity like ritual urity, or ( will inter ret them in a hygienist way$ in !oth cases, ( have not understood anything& Furthermore, we also share great figures in !oth traditions& A!raham, Jaco!, #oses, David and /alomon are resent in the Nuran and in the Bi!le& Jesus is a very im ortant character in !oth !ooks& 3eo le often think it can !e an asset in interreligious dialogue, !ut it is not$ on the contrary, they are 5false friends6, as when you learn a language and find a word is similar to a word in your own language, !ut with a com letely different meaning& 8n reading the Nuran, you will see that A!raham was mostly an anti-idolatry activist, while in the Bi!le he.s never involved in olemics against idolatry& From a literary oint of view, they are two different characters& (f we write a common te1t saying 59e are all sons of A!raham6, it sounds a ealing, !ut it doesn.t

1J

mean the same thing for me and for a #uslim" not to mention Jesus, where the misunderstandings can !e much greater& Fhere is ro!a!ly a more dangerous 5false friend6 in interreligious dialogue$ the word 52od6& Do we worshi the same 2od, as it is often saidE ( think this question doesn.t make sense& 8f course, ( !elieve that there is only one 2od, and my Christian faith doesn.t have any kind of mono oly on 0im& ( also !elieve that my rayers and the rayers of the #uslims are delivered at the same address& From 2od.s oint of view, 0e is the same& But we cannot s eak from 0is oint of view, !ecause we have no direct access to 0im& 9hen ( say 52od6, my aim is to designate 0im, !ut what (.m actually referring to is an image of 2od through the mediation of 0is revelation& Can ( say a priori that the !i!lical and the quranic revelations give the same image of 2odE (t would !e reckless, and that would ro!a!ly !e a way for me to refuse to hear the differences to !e found in the Nuran& Fhat.s why ( could not say that 5we worshi the same 2od6& By chance, acce ting diversity is not an end in itself& Diversity is not a chiasm you can.t cross& (t doesn.t mean that we.ll never understand each other& (t merely means that it will take a long time !ut there is no other way& =ational tools can hel us to understand each other& Fhe Andalusian model shows us how to conciliate the acce tance of diversity and the awareness of a common rational ground& Iow we can understand why =amon Hlull doesn.t disclose the end of the de!ate& 0e doesn.t mean that all religions are equal *on the contrary, he was a strong su cannot merely end in a single discussion& As ( tried to show earlier, Andalusia is often used nowadays as a model of religious eaceful coe1istence, !ut on the !asis of a misunderstanding& Fhe rice for tolerance would have !een the loss, or at least the weakening, of the conce t of religious truth& Fhis weakening has no link with Andalusia" it comes from the original trauma of )uro ean modernity, the wars of religion in the 1Pth century& 9e have !ecome aware of the totalitarian otential of religious truth and have understood that, if we want to live together in eace, we have to give u any claim to know the truth 4 at least if we kee a strong realistic aristotelian-thomistic definition of truth *adequatio rei et intellectus, first used !y an )gy tian Jewish hiloso her of the 1;th century, (saac (sraeli !en /olomon-& (t has !ecome weaker and weaker when a trigger new wars of religion& 1M lied to religious truth$ it cannot !e o!@ective, !ecause someone might think he.s right and someone else is wrong, and thus could orter of Christian roselytism- !ut that the search for truth, which is the most res ectful of human activities,

Fhe link !etween a weak conce tion of religious truth and religious tolerance is now so o!vious that we can.t see that medieval / ain oints out a different model& (t is clear that in alAndalus, truth was not a secondary question, !ut ro!a!ly the main concern& And it was not an o!stacle to a real convivencia, not !ased on unity or harmony !ut on discussion and de!ate, with a strong awareness of sharing a unique humanity on the common ground of reason& (t shows that a strong and realistic definition of religious truth does not necessarily lead to violence$ on the contrary, it is the condition for a real acce tance of religious diversity as such, and for res ectful discussion where ( take not only my religious !eliefs seriously, !ut also the creeds of others&

1P