COMMENTS ON THE ISLAMIC COLLOQUIUM PRINCETON, 8-17 SEP 53.

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0002675134
• Release Decision: IPPUB U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: June 24, 2015
• Document Release Date: August 31, 2011
• Case Number: F-2011-00225
• Publication Date: September 17, 1953

APPROVED FOR RELEASE^ DATE:
08-24-2011
Country:
Subject: Corny>>ents on the Islamic Colloquium,
Princeton, 5-17 SOP 53.
date of
Info: 17 Sep 53 anr' earlier.
General Observations
5mvR C__ 11
1. The discussions throughout the eleven days of the Islamic Colloquium
meetings were fairly free up to the point where the delegates thought
that ,,hat they said might make trouble. The Turks felt free to
criticize their own country's deficiencies, but the delegates from
the Arab countries were the least open and frank. Somewhere between
the two extremes came the delegates from India, Pakistan and Indonesia
rho were more open than the Arab delegates in their remarks. I don't
know if this was in any way a reflection of their types of governments
or whether it related to the proximity of the various countries to the
USSR. The conference discussion was not of a completely frank nature.
2. The conference would have been better if there had been fewer topics
.
As it was, no topic was ever completed. In the eleven days they should,
perhaps, have confined themselves to MVsltm Law and Modern Law. The
conference did accomplish the bringing together_ofMuslims-from a wide
area to talk and to discover the similarity of their problems. The
delegates wanted further talk. A limited number of specific proposals
came out, but there was a definite feeling that it was helpful to
discuss problems in this way. The conference was a complete innovation.
(hat they were really discussing throughout it was Religion Versus
Modernism.) A resolution was passed favoring working for the repetition
o:fi the colloquium idea in the future. It was good to have the meetings
in the US.
Two UK delegates were sent by the Sheikh of Kuwait. They didn't talk,
nor did they inhibit the discussions. There was no general attack on
imperialism, but there were adverse references to the British and the
French. A suggested resolution of protest re the lack of Muslim
delegates from French Africa at the colloquium was dropped by general
consent of the group, on the basis that such a resolution would have
opened the way to a flood of politics. This was a conference planned
by Americans, and avoided anything of a political nature. A number of
Muslim delegates wanted to discuss Islam Versus Communism, but there
was no time to give the topic adequate-treatment.-~~On ohe penultimate
day of the conference, two Muslims spoke on the "problem of materialism
among our young people."
RETURN TO CIA F r
I M P A R Y
This unevaluated I'forniatin fnr GIs Officials
c+.
[ y i c 'Oro
s
~ra~i t of
 .he intellectual calibre of the delegates was extremely high, and
as such was not representative. The delegates were hand-picked on
the basis of US invitation and the Muslim governments' agreement
to send the people named by the US. A majority of those selected
were Western -educated .
5. The three sheikhs at the conference (one from al-Azhar University,
Cairo; one from Damascus; and one from Jerusalem) all agreed that
change was present in the Muslim world, but they wished religious
control to be decisive. Others emphasized the decisive nature of
change, and hoped that it w could be responsive to religion. The
Modernists (except the Turks) considered themselves to be religious.
With the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood's Said Ramadhan, whom
I will discuss below r`see paragraph I was deeply impressed with
the sincerity of everyone at the colloquium.
6. With regard to the question of a shortage of scientific and technical
manpower in the Muslim nations, delegates from all countries said that
such a shortage did exist in each of their countries. This was expressed
by the three Turkish delegates and, at the other extreme, by the judge
(khalif) from the Yemen. All would like more scientifically and
technically trained personnel, and they all look to the West for help
in general science, medicine and engineering; in Pakistan and India
they look to the teaching of these subjects in English. Most of the
discussion on this topic centered around the question: Is there a
conflict between science and religion? No one thought that there
should be a slowdown on scientific development, even if it did conflict
with the established religion. The delegates were most receptive to
the ,.Test in terms of science and technical assistance, and these areas
are the best entrees of the US into the Muslim countries.
7. On the subject of changes contemplated in higher education which might
increase or decrease each nation's scientific and technological capabil-
ities, it must be said that the main problem is the nationlist problem,
in terms of teachers, language of instruction and textbooks. Where a
government imposes a national language for instruction this means the
decline in the ability of the students to handle English when they get
to the stage of highest education which must be taught in English now,
e.g. in Egypt, Pakistan and India. (In October 1953 a conference was
held in Alexandria, Egypt between the Minister of Education and the
various universities on the subject of science and the teaching of
science in the schools.) Nothing was said in specific terms at the
colloquium on the subject of higher education and science and technology.
It is my personal belief that it would be far better at this stage in
the development of Islamic countries to stress such things as improved
training for midwives and barbers as they are the group who are most
concerned with public health and medicine. This aaednateJ iaforrnviea for S Officials
4 4
enly is s s~ :E
A' t'?e 'pons "!'e interest of
Lr pt red '-ar;~.-, 1} '
1 t t rrset dhssemi-
 As for the matter of the influence of political and religious issues
on scientific and educational activities in each of the nations
represented, there was disagreement as to whether Islam formed a
brake on scientific investigation and the scientific attitude. Some
delegates said that Islam permits freedom of research and thought,
whereupon one man rose and read a list of persons who had been
persecuted for advocating Western scientific methods. This was
denied by some others. It must be recognized that Islam does resist
change. The delegates would deny that their governments brake
scientific progress. The printed papers of the conference may present
an overoptimistic picture.
points of view, not on the basis of sectarian lines.
Said Ramadhan, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader and editor of
its publication al _Mus_li_mu_n did attend the colloquium. (He gave an
interesting interview which was published verbatim in the Middle East
Report, 2 Oct 53, vol VI, No. 3, Middle East Institute, 2002 P Street
NW, Washington 6, D.C.) Ramadhan was invited at the urging of the
Egyptian Embassy. He was the most difficult element at the colloquium,
as he was concerned with political pressure rather than with cultural
problems. For example, he was asked at an evening gathering if it
wouldn't be good for Muslim youth to engage enthusiastically in social
work. His reply was: "The only thing Egyptian youth is interested in
is in getting the British out." I felt that Ramadhan was a political
reactionary, a Phalangist or Fascist type, rather than a religious
reactionary as in the case of the three sheikhs who attended. The
Egyptian speakers present, including Ambassador Ahmed Hussein, kept
their eye on Ramadhan more than on any other person during their
speeches. This made me wonder whether he was not a rather formal type
of observer for the Muslim Brotherhood, interested only in observing
the behavior and remarks of other Egyptians (a secret service type).
then he spoke in public his remarks applied specifically and exclusively
to Egypt; he did not discuss any external contacts. Ramadhan seems to
be a Fascist, interested in the grouping of individuals for power. He
did not display many ideas except those of the Brotherhood. He was
present at a session where there was a lively discussion on intellectual
change, modern literature, science, etc. He took no part and did not
seem interested in academic matters.
Iraq
10. The only Iraqi delegate present was Jawad Ali. There were to have been
two other delegates. Majid Khadduri doesn't count as an Iraqi, since
he is a US resident. The presence of Jewish people at the conference
made the Baghdad government reluctant to send delegates. No issues
were discussed on the basis of Muslim sectarian differences; the Shias
of Iraq and Iran never interposed any difference in attitude from the
Sunnis. Differences in attitude toward such things as the status of
women were presented on the basis of modernist versus traditionalist
:c