It is an essential query to ask: which Lebanon do we want? However this does not necessarily lead to subdual of wills in order that this renewed political entity might emerge, since the new or the desired Lebanon is a structure. This is to say that the question is asked on the level of structure, and not on the deep spiritual level, in which we hope that people would be grounded, so that the state might emerge from the new or the renewed creation. You say that we want the country free and independent; however, this remains on the level of speech, since the people do not act as seeking freedom and independence. If you express whatever you desire for the country that does not necessarily change your desire into work. To demand orally and through organized struggle does not bring about from the quiver of a magician a genuine homeland.
People, who in their inner essences have become deep and deified, who always transcend in order to set up a house for God on the earth, can make Lebanon. The homeland, then, is formed structurally, molded and envisaged politically in accordance to this spirit. The homeland is to be founded from outside the political framework, from outside the political talk. It foundations are to be raised on spiritual life, which descends upon it from above.
Only politically you can insist that the homeland surpasses denominations. However, the term ‘denomination’ has double meaning. It means for us the dwelling of God in the denomination, while it also means the residence of politicians in it or its being dominated by politics, and then its alteration into a rigid, fatal entity as it recoils within itself and its allies. Denomination in the sense of an rotten corpse, which depraves the national entity, strikes God in Godself. We cannot overreach ourselves and move from a denomination to a homeland, unless with the help of God, who reveals God’s entirety rather than the entirety of the denomination.
Whenever grace dwells in the heart of every Lebanese, regardless to which of the eighteen denomination he/[she] belongs, no offence would fall on him/[her] if he/[she] becomes proud of the history of that group without racial discrimination or factionalism. Nevertheless, it is hoped from us that we believe in the religion of love. This is not another or a different religion, but it is the concentration on the assurance that we live spiritually through the Other, through his/[her] freedom and recognition of our freedom. Yet, we have to opt for that which brings us together rather than for what separates us, and we have to line up together in whatever unites us, so that we do not burden our minds by history’s contraventions and we do not keep its abominations in our hearts. [Only then] the hearts might be in serenity, the vision free and the souls purified.
This means that we should forgive those who did wrong to us in the past, and we should not burden our memory by the misdeeds of the oppressors. We should not consider our partners in existence today as responsible of the consequences of works that have elapsed. The faces that encounter us today might be of great light and the kindhearted ones, whom we have considered our adversaries, might be our nourishment. Yes, we have to read the history in order to learn from it, and I do not call for forgetting it, but for not becoming its captives. And if the history-writers display immense adversaries, let us take off adversary from us so that we might feel that we are conversing in truth, seeking it and walking on its path.
I do not deny the honesty of those researchers and their strive to know everything the Other has, and I do not deny their critique or their reservations. Truth should not be twisted in order to appease the Other. And I do not ask the scholars to unite religions, since this contradicts any serious precise knowledge. Humanity is of diverse inclinations and convictions, and the things are as they seem to them. However, dialogue requires detecting the truth, pushing fantasies away, and seeking kinship. There is no rivalry in this; rather clarity and elucidation, in order that the position of our thought and of the other’s might be known.
Nevertheless, I think that there is contiguity between us and many cognate spots in the mind, yet, there is disagreement between the interpreters because of the imprecise scrutiny of the texts, or because my hermeneutical method disagrees with yours. Here lies the difficulty of dialogue, yet it is not an impossibility.
However, my worry here, in this limited space, is not dialogue but the possible meeting of love in this or that text. I take, as an application for love, the manner of the bee, which goes to this flower or that, and the sources of honey are known to the beekeepers. Thus, you may, without denying your sources, choose from them whatever inspires love rather than controversy. Though I do not deny for anyone the right to uphold whatever lies in his/[her] books. Nevertheless, I earnestly request him/[her], in my poverty, to search in his/[her] sources for whatever brings him/[her] nearer to me and brings me nearer to him[her].
I do not present to you a new religion, but I ask request from you a new reading, since you have decided to love me and I have decided to love you. Draw out of your tradition whatever supports this love.
Unity originates from your and my faith. It is the unity of the human being and the human being is whatever compassion has descended upon the two faiths. God, who utters through conduct, addresses Godself in me. It is possible that we together reside in God’s address. I do not limit this to the homeland; however, the people of my homeland are nearer to the ‘reasonable manners’ [al-ma῾rūf]. Thus, I shall build my homeland by the language of the deified ones and their pursuit. And deification means to be molded by the dispositions of God and to approach the energies that God supplies me with; these are given in Christianity and Islam.
Then, a community is formed which in its true texture is one.
By this, I do not deny the political pursuit, however political pursuit without the presence of the righteous, truthful and pure ones is nothing. This is so since the governors lead a good society and they do not lead a wicked one, since that which is not subject to God is not also subject to law, to governance or to institutions. This is the minimum level of societal goodness upon which a state might be founded. A state cannot be founded upon elements which have lost its human understanding and sensation. And a society would not be organized only by sociology and the military power. This might drive away the evil that falls under the law of penalties but it does not induce to the good which is based on the obedience of God by love.
I understand well those who aspire to a state of law, which rejects in its nature the state of tribes. And I am aware of the importance of the institutions, in which the good citizen might be enrolled. However, the good citizen is not merely the one who fears retribution; rather it is the one who would live in freedom and decency. Without the evil there would be no law and there would be no state. I know that there is need for suppression, but it should be without antagonizing the offenders themselves.
But if the Lebanese think that whenever they issue a law, and look out for its implementation, this would be enough for a pleasant and good life they are mistaken. We do not rise high through citizens whose goodness is that they do not go to prison. We rise high through people who have had the heaven in their hearts and they seek to convert the deserts of the hearts into gardens [or paradises].
Here is the role of the religion of love, however its parade moves. Thus we have two pursuits: a political, modern pursuit with all [the requirements of] civilization, and a divine pursuit, with noble dispositions and the solicitation of the face of God and the face of the Other. To be trained to see God in the Other and to love his/[her] face, this makes us understand that God is the light of the heavens and the earth, and that God’s Kingdom begins in us and on the earth.
Translated by Sylvie Avakian-Maamarbashi
Original Text: “الانسان الجديد” –An Nahar- 10.01.2009
