Saadi's 'The Rose Garden' on the Jews

Saadi's 'Gulistan' - or 'The Rose Garden' - is one of the masterpieces of Persian Islamic literature and as such it has influenced such great minds as Goethe, but one aspect of the work is seldom brought out. It's anti-jewish message that although not central to Saadi's theme is one of those that the work never-the-less allows the reader to see if they like the taste of. As such 'The Rose Garden' is not an anti-jewish work per se, but it carries a very distinct anti-jewish theme that jews and Zionist supporters have been quick to seize on - often quoting Maimonides’ 'Epistle to the Jews of Yemen' - to suggest 'mass persecution' of the jews in the lands of Islam. (1) This however - as Ginsberg (2) and Lewis (3) have noted - is incorrect and examples of jews in positions of power are evident even in ardently Zionist works of jewish history. (4)

As such we should see Saadi's 'The Rose Garden' as an expression of the perceived and quite plausible jewish behaviour of the time: we can and should note that the ideas that Saadi expresses were independently also expressed by Christians and Pagans in Europe before and after him as well as during the time that he lived. (5)

This similar sentiment in cultures far removed from each other - although with a small amount of interaction - in both time and place is difficult to explain for proponents of the theory that anti-jewish sentiment - not limited to anti-Semitism but covering anti-Judaism as well - is not linked to jewish behaviour: precisely because if their theory - summarised best as 'anti-Semitic stereotypes without jews' - (6) were true then anti-jewish sentiment should not hold similar themes and make similar accusations across geopolitical, social, religious, cultural and racial boundaries.

The fact that this is indeed the case makes the theory of jewish non-involvement in the creation of anti-jewish stereotypes, actions and/or arguments not only implausible but irrational. This is particularly so as those who argue this theory frequently juxtapose positive jewish stereotypes, actions and/or arguments as being ipso facto reliable and/or based on real experience with jews.

This means therefore that what we are dealing with is not an evidence-based theory, but rather an ideologically-based theory that accepts few to no criticisms and accepts most to all compliments. As such proponents of the theory that anti-jewish sentiment has nothing evidentially to rest itself on are in fact deliberately selectively basing their argument on an ipso facto conclusion, which they then seek to make plausible by selecting evidence that fits it and suppressing evidence that does not.

Saadi fits this paradigm as a suppressed and/or ignored piece of evidence precisely because he is not  frequently cited by strident proponents of the 'anti-Semitism without jews' argument, but yet is an obvious historical personage whose views they should attempt to account for which they do not. As such it is of value to understand Saadi's views on the jews as expressed by his 'The Rose Garden'.

Saadi begins by coming to a recurring theme in both Christian and Islamic religious literature: the idea of the 'choice' to do good or evil in a world ruled by a single omnipotent and omnipresent deity who is both ineffable and undefinable. Thus Saadi accords to the jew the 'inclination for Islam' but asserts that their 'parents make them a jew'. (7)

What Saadi is saying he is that a jew is not born with a urge for Judaism as such, but rather it is a tradition foisted upon them by their parents and if they were left to their own devices they would become good Muslims as that - to Saadi - is the true religion. Christian scholars as different as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther have also said more or less the same thing, which I might add is the basis for the counterargument (8) against the common enunciated jewish view that Christians are the worst persecutors of jews that history has ever known. (9)

The idea that underlies this notion is false however as it is a 'chicken and egg' argument as to what came first: the jew or Judaism. I would argue that it was in fact the jew and although Judaism has undoubtedly modified and sharpened the jewishness of the jew. I would assert that in order for Judaism - as we can read in the Tanakh - to be created in the first place it required people who acted and thought just like the prophets and leaders of the jews in the Tanakh in the first place.

As such we must understand that although Judaism has shaped individual jews and collective jewish culture: it is not the primary cause of the jews behaving like jews. Rather it is a simple product of that behaviour as religion of any description does not come into being without its principle human actors innovating it and as such it acts as a historical mirror through which we can gaze at the minds and values of the creators.

Therefore when we look through the blood-soaked books of the Written Torah and stories of the fall and rebirth of the Israelites in the Tanakh: we begin to comprehend that the jews are much the same now as they were in the time of Moses. It is not so much they who have changed, but rather it is manner in which they operate - dictated by their circumstances - that has changed. Even then however I will note that if you know your Tanakh then you can find numerous precedents in it for all the ways that jews behave and operate today.

Saadi however was not a materialist, but rather a devout Muslim who believed that jews - as primarily human as opposed to being primarily jewish - were the creation of Allah and as such had been merely mislead into believing in a prior revelation of Allah rather than the current one. In a sense then what Saadi thought was that a jew was the proverbial stuck-in-the-mud who liked to write and post letters rather than use the latest knowledge encapsulated in email (who were the Muslims).

This assumption of fundamental human goodness is both a beautiful and also a fundamentally stupid thing: it assumes something that is both the ideal of many but also the downfall of them. It forgets that whatever your spirituality: what happens on this earth is not in the hands of a God or Gods, but rather the actions of men and women who often rationalise their actions by appealing to religion. It forgets that what you would like to see is not necessarily what is there and such is the case with Saadi's Islamic view of the jews: as a kind of religious heresy as opposed to a caste-based religion.

To Saadi then when a Muslim ceases to practice Islam he is no longer a Muslim, but when a jew ceases to practice Judaism then Saadi believes he is no longer a jew: Saadi, of course, did not comprehend that this is not how Judaism or even jews themselves view the issue. As Judaism assigns jewishness (i.e., members of Israel) by descent not by confession and as such a jew who converts to Islam is as much a jew as he was when he practised Judaism, but has merely changed his form of religious worship and remains first, last and always a jew in both Judaism and jewish culture.

Saadi does not understand this, but it does not stop him from expressing as Luther did: a crypto-racial view of the jewish question as he clearly indicates that jews as a people engage in practices which are difficult to ascribe to mere religious confession.

We can see this when Saadi pokes fun at jewish burial practises and their almost obsessive compulsive obsession over ritual cleanliness when he states:

''If the water of a Christian's well is impure

What matters it if thou washest a dead Jew therein?

They said: 'The lime-mortar is not clean.'

We replied: 'We shall plug therewith the privy holes.'' (10)

The burial ritual that Saadi is talking about here is the ritual washing of the dead in Judaism and he is rhetorically asking why a dead jew cannot be washed in any old well - i.e., that of a Christian - as the jew is a believer in an imperfect revelation in Saadi's view and therefore has no need to be that particular about which well his dead are washed in.

Saadi is also knowingly alluding - as above stated - to the obsession with ritual cleanliness in Judaism and the fact that jews are called on to exclude all gentiles from their rituals as it makes them impure to have them involved in any way with the significant exception of the Shabbos goyim. As well as poking fun at the fact that these are the pointless quibbles of the impious ones in his eyes.

To simplify: Saadi is saying that because to a jew anything that a non-jew has touched or has owned is been soiled by that touch/ownership. It needs to properly cleansed for it to be allowed to be used in jewish religious rituals and as such Saadi states that the jews even want the lime-mortar of a well to be purified (which would require the rebuilding of the well just for the jews) and thus what should be done to satisfy the nit-picking rituals of the jews is to plug all the toilets and thereby make sure everyone goes to the toilet in all the wells: making every well unclean and thus forcing the jews to either abandon their absurd practices or wash their dead with urine and faeces.

This - as I have said - is a play on the concept of ritual cleanliness in Judaism whereby jews are acutely afraid (and at the same time seemingly fascinated) of all things to do with human faeces and urine, (11) which Saadi is using to poke fun at them with.

Indeed Saadi goes on to allude to the fact that a jew's word or oath is always false when he portrays a jew and Muslim debating thus:

'A Jew was debating with a Muslim

Till I shook with laughter at their dispute.

The Moslem said in anger: 'If this deed of mine

Is not correct, may God cause me to die a Jew.'

The Jew said: 'I swear by the Torah

That if my oath is false, I shall die a Moslem like thee.'

Should from the surface of the earth wisdom disappear

Still no one will acknowledge his own ignorance.' (12)

Saadi's allusion here is probably not readily apparent to a lot of readers so thus we need to simplify what he is saying to illustrate his meaning. Saadi is asserting that in a religious debate when a jew and a Muslim cannot agree: a Muslim will demand to be demonstrated as factually incorrect and will thus - if shown to be wrong - convert to Judaism as the true religion. However Saadi says a jew will swear an oath on the Torah that if the oath he made about the truthfulness of his arguments and assertions is false he will become a Muslim.

This is a clever piece of wordplay on Saadi's part as he is using the necessary conclusion to be drawn from this statement to point out that a jews oath is meaningless as jews will renege on it regardless of what it is made on, because - in Saadi's view - it is being made on a prior revelation and thus is meaningless. All of which compiled together gives us the meaning behind Saadi's assertion about jews and vows/oaths: the historically-common argument that jews do not feel bound - and are not bound in Judaism - by vows and oaths made to gentiles.

This theme of jewish dishonesty is further alluded to by Saadi in his 'Rose Garden' when he states thus:

'I have seen a fat fool, dressed in a costly robe,

With a turban of Egyptian linen on his head, riding on an Arab horse.

Someone said: 'Saadi, what thinkest thou of this famous brocade upon this ignorant animal?'

I replied: 'It is like ugly characters scrawled with gold-water.'

Verily he is like an ass among men,

A calf, a body which is bleating.

This animal cannot be said to resemble a man

Except in his cloak, turban and outward adornment.

Examine all his property and belongings of his estate

Thou wilt find nothing lawful to take except his blood.

If a noble man becomes impoverished imagine not

That his high worth will also decrease.

But if into a silver threshold golden nails are driven

By a Jew, think not that he will thereby become noble.' (13)

Saadi - in-between poking fun at pretentious nouveau riche merchants who imagine themselves Ali Baba - is making a quite a distinct point here about the jews that is related to the one in regards to oaths and vows. In so far as he asserting that like extracting a vow or oath from a jew is meaningless, because it means nothing to the jews as well as that purchasing things from jews is also a risky business.

Saadi is once again also using wordplay to convey his point to the reader - a reading that would be more intelligible to the average reader at the time of writing than it is now - so once again it is necessary to simplify what Saadi is saying so as to drawn out his underlying meaning.

Saadi's allusion here is that ignorant worldly merchants are still such when it comes down to lineage and as such even the poorest of noble houses is still noble while a jumped up merchant is still a merchant. However a jumped up merchant pretending to be an aristocrat - according to Saadi - is inclined to look to the jews for assistance in becoming an actual noble (as jews were often in prominent position at court and could grant such favours) and thus should not imagine that just because a jew says he is a noble he is.

There is also a double meaning to Saadi's wordplay directly related to his comments on jewish oaths and vows: in so far as Saadi alludes that what a jew sells you as golden nails worth thousands of dirhems are nothing of the kind and are probably only gold painted iron work. Thus indicating that to Saadi the jews are both schemers at court corrupting the world of Islam and also commercial fraudsters in the bazaars and markets of the Islamic world selling worthless junk to ignorant status conscious fools as pure gold.

We see this role of the jew as a commercial fraudster finally played in the last of Saadi's mentions of the jews in his 'Rose Garden' when he says:

'I was hesitating in the conclusion of a bargain for the purchase of a house

When a Jew said: 'Buy it for I am one of the landholders of this ward.

Ask me for a description of the house as it is and it has no defect.'

I replied: 'Except that thou art the neighbour of it.'

A house which has a neighbour like thee is worth ten dirhems of a deficient standard

But the hope must be entertained that after thy death it will be worth a thousand.' (14)

Here Saadi is at his most blunt when he implies that as the jew is concerned is trying to get him to purchase a property that supposedly has no defect, but in reality does have them. However the jew in trying to con Saadi comes to a bad end when he tries to get Saadi to play into his confidence trick by telling Saadi that he lives next to the house. To which Saadi guffaws and retorts in typical wordplay that then the jew is obviously lying as the reason why the jew knows the house has no defects (i.e., because he lives next to it) is a defect in itself. Thus indicating that to Saadi the jews are a dishonest people who will try to sell you anything if they possibly can and in doing so - as Saadi implies - reveal their true nature.

We also see Saadi here state his belief that the residence of jews nearby actually decreases the value of property as one has to put up with them for neighbours: meaning of course that the jews are in Saadi's view not only unscrupulous as well as undesirable but also actively malicious to those around them. Meaning that in Saadi's understanding if you want to live in peace you do not live next to or near jews

The message of Saadi's 'Rose Garden' is very simply that of: never trust jews.

References

(1) Ibn Warraq, 2008, 'Foreword', p. 22 in Andrew Bostom (Ed.), 2008, 'The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism', 1^st Edition, Prometheus: New York

(2) Benjamin Ginsberg, 1993, 'The Fateful Embrace: Jews and the State', 1^st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, pp. 14-17

(3) Bernard Lewis, 1984, 'The Jews of Islam', 1^st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 90-92

(4) For one simple example: Eliyahu Ashtor, 1973, 'The Jews of Moslem Spain', 1^st Edition, Vol. I, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, pp. 66-67

(5) Cf. Isaac Yuval, 2008, 'Two Nations in your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages', 1^st Edition, University of California Press: Los Angeles

(6) Per the title of one of the founding studies of this view: Bernard Glassman, 1975, 'Anti-Semitic Stereotypes without Jews: Images of the Jews in England 1290-1700', 1^st Edition, Wayne State University Press: Detroit.

(7) Saadi, Gulistan 1:4

(8) For a demolition of the myth of 'rampant Christian anti-Semitism' see Jacob Neusner, 1990, 'Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition', 1^st Edition, SCM Press: London.

(9) For an easy-to-read presentation of this theory see Dan Cohn-Sherbok, 1992, 'The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism', 1^st Edition, Harper Collins: New York.

(10) Saadi, Gulistan 3:21

(11) For example, see Solomon Ganzfried, Kitzur Schulchan Aruch, 31

(12) Saadi, Gulistan 8:17

(13) Saadi, Gulistan 3:26

(14) Saadi, Gulistan 4:9