My article last Monday about the caliphate in Islam caused a firestorm of criticism that has yet to abate. I will not be stubborn and say that I am right and people are wrong. Instead, I say that I am wrong and retract the article, and hope that the reader will consider that it has never been published, as I will remove it from the collection of my articles and discard it. This is the first time in my life that I pull an article. In fact, before Monday's article, I had never retracted a single line from an article or apologized for one. I am usually very cautious, but sometimes even the overcautious might be caught off guard. The article was written on Sunday, a holiday in London, and thus I did not have access to the researchers I usually rely on in checking the material and validating the accuracy of the quotes. Furthermore, the topic was far reaching, involving a history of 1432 years. I should not have reduced the idea behind it in a journalistic haste, into becoming lines in an article that involves more outlines than explanation, if any of that at all. Perhaps my other mistake was that I forgot that every article is a distinct entity that exists for and by itself. I had linked Monday's article to thousands of previous articles I wrote. However, the reader is not in my head and thus could not possibly manage to check Monday's article and the articles I wrote a week, month, year or decade ago, all together. Perhaps my talk of Umar ibn al-Khattab explains this point in particular. I had said that Umar was very just and strict, relying on two arguments: Firstly, I had recorded the fairness of a man whom the Prophet described as a genius, and that Al-Faruq [the just] Umar himself knew that he was infamous for his strictness. After he succeeded Abu Bakr, he said of himself: I became aware that the people have come to fear my strictness and my firmness. Secondly, I had written twice in the past about the Umari Covenant to the people of Jerusalem, and said in this column that this covenant is better than the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of prisoners of war. Nonetheless, given the ensuing furor, I find that I have erred, and I should have explained that I was quoting Umar ibn al-Khattab himself when he described his strictness and firmness. I should have also realized that the readers on Monday would not remember what I wrote about the Umari covenant a year or two ago or so, and have that as the backdrop of my recent article. I had studied Islamic religion at the American University of Beirut, and pursued relevant courses in Georgetown University. I studied it again with my son when he learned about Islamic history in Oxford University. I was fortunate also to have taken comparative studies of monotheistic faiths. When the campaign against Islam and Muslims intensified, I managed to invoke the course on the Torah, and wrote in this column that those who profess Judaism cannot criticize any other religion. I showed evidence for this from the Torah which involves genocide, war crimes and harlots and condemned Israel from its' mouth. Today, I take pride in 400 articles I wrote in defense of Islam and in criticism of its enemies which I will publish in a book after the summer. My efforts did not only focus on studying, as I also participated in practice in the dialogue of Islam and the West, with Prince Charles and Prince Hassan when he was the Crown prince of Jordan, then with Prince Turki al-Faisal and after him with Princess Lulua al-Faisal and Lord Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am a founding member of the dialogue of Islam and the West through the World Economic Forum in Davos. Two months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we went to New York to defend both Islam and the Muslims, and to help make the Americans understand that Islam is innocent of that deviant minority. I am putting this on the record so that the reader may know that I am no outsider to the subject. My knowledge is academic and my efforts are practical, and I have been the target of many a Likudnik attempt to take me to court on counts of anti-Semitism, but which all failed because I know the boundaries of the law in the United Kingdom. Among my teachers at the university in Beirut was Professor Yusuf Ibish. I wrote two studies about Umar ibn al-Khattab for him, and my favorite story about the latter's justice is that when he saw a blind old man begging at a door. When he learned he was Jewish, he said to him: What forced you into this? The Jew said: Ask the Jizya [tribute for non-Muslims], neediness and old age. Umar then took him by the hand, led him to his house, and gave him enough for some time, and then wrote to the treasurer of Bayt-ul-Mal [Muslim treasury]: Look at this man and his misfortune. We would not be doing him justice if we took away his youth and let him down in his old age. Charity is for the poor and the needy; the poor are the Muslims, and this man is among the needy people of the book. Umar then lifted the Jizya duty from that man. I return to what I started my article with and accept the verdict of the readers on Monday's article. I hope for everyone not to promote it by sharing it and disseminating it. I have deleted it from my own archive, and I hope that another forty years will pass before I ever retract an article or even a line in an article again. [email protected]
