What Went Wrong with Islam
Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong, Interview with Brian Lamb 11/18/01.
Notes:
Starts with historical Islam, from center of culture and innovation to being roundly defeated. This absolute defeat in 1699 started a debate, which has gone on ever since. "Hitherto we have defeated the infidels, now they are defeating us." Defeat on the battlefield preceeded defeat in market place, and defeat politically and scientifically.
Tried to emulate economy, political systems, militaries of West. Nothing has worked. Situation has gotten worse and worse. Have come to be dominated by the West.
A debate which has been going on for three centuries, getting more ramified lately.
Lewis was in His Majesty's Service during WWII, saw much of the Middle East.
Two articles were his biggest initial contributions: "Root of Muslim Rage", 1990, he had come to realize more and more that there was a hostility towards the West and the US in particular.
Second article appeared in 1998, on Osama's Declaration of War on the US.
"Old enough to believe that history consists of facts supported by evidence."
Analyzes the phrase, "That's history", implying that something in the past is unimportant. Says Americans are generally ignorant of history. A major difference between the US and the cultures in the Middle East, where they have a very keen awareness of history and the narrative they fit into.
For example, in the Iraq Iran war, the war propaganda made frequent allusions to events of the seventh century, in the secure knowledge that the listeners and readers on both sides would pick up these allusions and understand them. When Osama, in one of his recent pronouncements, says "we have suffered this shame and humiliation for 80 years...", his audience understood him. He was, of course, referring to the fall of the Ottoman empire, the occupation and partition of that empire, ultimate point of degradation and humiliation of the Muslim world. At its height, extended from the suburbs of Vienna to the east of Iran. Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk" led an uprising and reeoccupied Anatolia, led a secular revolution and set up secular military state. From a Muslim point of view, this was the worst that could happen, eliminated the Caliphate.
The Caliphate is the head of Islam. Theirs is a religion subdivided into nations, not nation subdivided into religion. They do not define themselves in national terms, but in religious identities and political allegiance.
Koran was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, Koran is "divine and uncreated." Exile and return is a theme in Muslim history. Mecca to Medina and back again.
Non-Muslims are not allowed to go to Mecca. "Only one religion in Arabia" is the maxim, which caused Osama so much grief when America based troops there. Important difference between Mohammed and his "predecessors" was that Mohammed was successful during his lifetime. Was not he that was put to death but his enemies. Put together a state, conquered with the Sword, made peace and war, all things a head of state does. Forms part of the core of memories that all Muslims share. Therefore, Islam is political in a sense that Christianity and Judaism are not.
Mohammed was not divine, but he was a prophet, chosen to deliver God's message. They also revere Jesus as a prophet, but consider it blasphemy to consider him son of God.
Modern history of Middle East begins in 1798. The French Republic sent expeditionary force to Egypt under Bonaparte. Taught the first "appalling lesson" that even a small European army could enter, occupy, and govern the Middle East at their leisure. The departure of the French was second lesson: only another European power can get them out (driven out by Sir Horatio Nelson of Great Britain). Departure was not achieved by Egypt.
Middle East was more or less passive object of greater power games from outside the region. In the final phase it was the US v. USSR. But this was the end of it. Bush I and Gorbachev ended this Imperial rivalry over the Middle East. America because they wouldn't, Soviets because they couldn't.
When it comes to defining American interests in the Middle East, two big topics: 1) Oil, and 2) Israel.
Oil. Oil was found in the first part of the 20th century. The development of oil made a tremendous difference in every respect: the radical Islam originated in Arabia as far back in 18th century, but it would have remained there if not for oil. The unlimited wealth allowed them to set up schools and colleges all over the world to spread their ideology, their brand of fanatical, extremist Islam. Without oil money, this type of Islam would have remained on the fringe. By buying oil, we are indirectly contributing to the continuation of this problem.
Oil has been a curse to the Arab world. Provided vast wealth to an otherwise pastoral system. "No representation without taxation." Didn't need the people and their taxes to govern. Traditional Muslim government is authoritarian, but it wasn't dictatorial or tyrannical. Only recently has the power of the ruler been augmented by oil. Either they will run out of oil, or it will be superceded by some other tech. Oil has strengthened autocratic government, made it more effective in its oppression. Inhibited the development of other forms of gainful economic effort.
Came to Princeton because they "made me an offer I couldn't refuse, a New Jersey expression." There was a difference between the students at Princeton and in London. Undergraduate education is better in England, but graduate education is more rigorous here.
Israel. Israel/Palestine question is not really of primary importance. That and anti-Americanism are the only grievances that are allowed to be freely expressed in the Middle East. So it is of secondary importance, the primary factor being political oppression and the general feeling of Muslim discontent.
"Either get tough, or get out"
Kind of wishy-washy policies are not going to work. Why do they hate us is the wrong question, they've been hating us for centuries. You can't be rich, strong, successful...and loved, especially not by those who have nothing. The question should be why do they not fear and respect us. There has always been a struggle between these religions, and now the wrong one seems to be winning. The hatred is axiomatic.
Something that comes out in writings of bin Laden. There were always rival powers before, if they were unhappy with US they could turn to the Soviets. Can't do that anymore. It has concentrated their minds towards us, and they think they destroyed the Soviet Union. Saw this as stage one on the road to victory, were scared of the Soviets, thought they were the worst.
They thought dealing with the US would be comparatively easy. Litany is always repeated: Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, etc. They say that we were there to install Imperial Somalia, and were driven away by a few casualties. How do we get tough?
Continue good work we've started in Afghanistan, then deal with other countries and terrorist groups that are supported by them. The only other alternative is to get out completely. He prefers getting tough to getting out. Getting bullied then retreating is not a good idea.
People's goodwill is inverse to who the governments support. Divide Middle East into three regions. 1)Governments support America -- these countries have rabidly anti-American population. Notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia. "It's no accident" that a great majority of the hijackers come from these countries. Regard governments as American puppets. 2)Governments are anti-American -- people are very pro-American. Remarkable demonstrations in Iran after 9/11. If you have an unpopular government, and the government tells you America is bad, you will assume America is good.
He hopes that what has happened in Afghanistan continues into Iraq and Iran. He's been told that after seeing the scenes of rejoicing in Afghanistan, it would look like a funeral compared to what the celebrations would be in Iraq and Iran were they liberated from their present rulers.
The desire for freedom is very natural. Contitutional democracy is a Western idea, freedom as a political ideal is a Western idea. However, in Muslim world, the ideal government is one of justice, mean what we largely mean by justice, enough room to squeeze in the idea of freedom under this rubric.
Third group: where both government and people are friendly to US. Only two states, both democracies (oddly enough!), Israel and Turkey, where the government can be thrown out by the people if it becomes unpopular. This eliminates the inverse relationship between the opinions and assumptions of the people, and that of the government.
On media: much information that we get here is trivial. Is devoid of context, presented bare and naked, and therefore meaningless. Media is supposed to be intellectually useful. The paradigm has shifted to being one of stimulation. We are prodded with electricity and diverted by red meat. We are no longer educated. Sheep are treated such.
He speaks briefly of the role of women, and how Ataturk focused on the issue of women's rights. Quotes Muslim philosopher, "Society that eliminates the contribution of one half of its citizens is like a human body that is paralyzed on one side."
Notes:
Starts with historical Islam, from center of culture and innovation to being roundly defeated. This absolute defeat in 1699 started a debate, which has gone on ever since. "Hitherto we have defeated the infidels, now they are defeating us." Defeat on the battlefield preceeded defeat in market place, and defeat politically and scientifically.
Tried to emulate economy, political systems, militaries of West. Nothing has worked. Situation has gotten worse and worse. Have come to be dominated by the West.
A debate which has been going on for three centuries, getting more ramified lately.
Lewis was in His Majesty's Service during WWII, saw much of the Middle East.
Two articles were his biggest initial contributions: "Root of Muslim Rage", 1990, he had come to realize more and more that there was a hostility towards the West and the US in particular.
Second article appeared in 1998, on Osama's Declaration of War on the US.
"Old enough to believe that history consists of facts supported by evidence."
Analyzes the phrase, "That's history", implying that something in the past is unimportant. Says Americans are generally ignorant of history. A major difference between the US and the cultures in the Middle East, where they have a very keen awareness of history and the narrative they fit into.
For example, in the Iraq Iran war, the war propaganda made frequent allusions to events of the seventh century, in the secure knowledge that the listeners and readers on both sides would pick up these allusions and understand them. When Osama, in one of his recent pronouncements, says "we have suffered this shame and humiliation for 80 years...", his audience understood him. He was, of course, referring to the fall of the Ottoman empire, the occupation and partition of that empire, ultimate point of degradation and humiliation of the Muslim world. At its height, extended from the suburbs of Vienna to the east of Iran. Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk" led an uprising and reeoccupied Anatolia, led a secular revolution and set up secular military state. From a Muslim point of view, this was the worst that could happen, eliminated the Caliphate.
The Caliphate is the head of Islam. Theirs is a religion subdivided into nations, not nation subdivided into religion. They do not define themselves in national terms, but in religious identities and political allegiance.
Koran was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, Koran is "divine and uncreated." Exile and return is a theme in Muslim history. Mecca to Medina and back again.
Non-Muslims are not allowed to go to Mecca. "Only one religion in Arabia" is the maxim, which caused Osama so much grief when America based troops there. Important difference between Mohammed and his "predecessors" was that Mohammed was successful during his lifetime. Was not he that was put to death but his enemies. Put together a state, conquered with the Sword, made peace and war, all things a head of state does. Forms part of the core of memories that all Muslims share. Therefore, Islam is political in a sense that Christianity and Judaism are not.
Mohammed was not divine, but he was a prophet, chosen to deliver God's message. They also revere Jesus as a prophet, but consider it blasphemy to consider him son of God.
Modern history of Middle East begins in 1798. The French Republic sent expeditionary force to Egypt under Bonaparte. Taught the first "appalling lesson" that even a small European army could enter, occupy, and govern the Middle East at their leisure. The departure of the French was second lesson: only another European power can get them out (driven out by Sir Horatio Nelson of Great Britain). Departure was not achieved by Egypt.
Middle East was more or less passive object of greater power games from outside the region. In the final phase it was the US v. USSR. But this was the end of it. Bush I and Gorbachev ended this Imperial rivalry over the Middle East. America because they wouldn't, Soviets because they couldn't.
When it comes to defining American interests in the Middle East, two big topics: 1) Oil, and 2) Israel.
Oil. Oil was found in the first part of the 20th century. The development of oil made a tremendous difference in every respect: the radical Islam originated in Arabia as far back in 18th century, but it would have remained there if not for oil. The unlimited wealth allowed them to set up schools and colleges all over the world to spread their ideology, their brand of fanatical, extremist Islam. Without oil money, this type of Islam would have remained on the fringe. By buying oil, we are indirectly contributing to the continuation of this problem.
Oil has been a curse to the Arab world. Provided vast wealth to an otherwise pastoral system. "No representation without taxation." Didn't need the people and their taxes to govern. Traditional Muslim government is authoritarian, but it wasn't dictatorial or tyrannical. Only recently has the power of the ruler been augmented by oil. Either they will run out of oil, or it will be superceded by some other tech. Oil has strengthened autocratic government, made it more effective in its oppression. Inhibited the development of other forms of gainful economic effort.
Came to Princeton because they "made me an offer I couldn't refuse, a New Jersey expression." There was a difference between the students at Princeton and in London. Undergraduate education is better in England, but graduate education is more rigorous here.
Israel. Israel/Palestine question is not really of primary importance. That and anti-Americanism are the only grievances that are allowed to be freely expressed in the Middle East. So it is of secondary importance, the primary factor being political oppression and the general feeling of Muslim discontent.
"Either get tough, or get out"
Kind of wishy-washy policies are not going to work. Why do they hate us is the wrong question, they've been hating us for centuries. You can't be rich, strong, successful...and loved, especially not by those who have nothing. The question should be why do they not fear and respect us. There has always been a struggle between these religions, and now the wrong one seems to be winning. The hatred is axiomatic.
Something that comes out in writings of bin Laden. There were always rival powers before, if they were unhappy with US they could turn to the Soviets. Can't do that anymore. It has concentrated their minds towards us, and they think they destroyed the Soviet Union. Saw this as stage one on the road to victory, were scared of the Soviets, thought they were the worst.
They thought dealing with the US would be comparatively easy. Litany is always repeated: Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, etc. They say that we were there to install Imperial Somalia, and were driven away by a few casualties. How do we get tough?
Continue good work we've started in Afghanistan, then deal with other countries and terrorist groups that are supported by them. The only other alternative is to get out completely. He prefers getting tough to getting out. Getting bullied then retreating is not a good idea.
People's goodwill is inverse to who the governments support. Divide Middle East into three regions. 1)Governments support America -- these countries have rabidly anti-American population. Notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia. "It's no accident" that a great majority of the hijackers come from these countries. Regard governments as American puppets. 2)Governments are anti-American -- people are very pro-American. Remarkable demonstrations in Iran after 9/11. If you have an unpopular government, and the government tells you America is bad, you will assume America is good.
He hopes that what has happened in Afghanistan continues into Iraq and Iran. He's been told that after seeing the scenes of rejoicing in Afghanistan, it would look like a funeral compared to what the celebrations would be in Iraq and Iran were they liberated from their present rulers.
The desire for freedom is very natural. Contitutional democracy is a Western idea, freedom as a political ideal is a Western idea. However, in Muslim world, the ideal government is one of justice, mean what we largely mean by justice, enough room to squeeze in the idea of freedom under this rubric.
Third group: where both government and people are friendly to US. Only two states, both democracies (oddly enough!), Israel and Turkey, where the government can be thrown out by the people if it becomes unpopular. This eliminates the inverse relationship between the opinions and assumptions of the people, and that of the government.
On media: much information that we get here is trivial. Is devoid of context, presented bare and naked, and therefore meaningless. Media is supposed to be intellectually useful. The paradigm has shifted to being one of stimulation. We are prodded with electricity and diverted by red meat. We are no longer educated. Sheep are treated such.
He speaks briefly of the role of women, and how Ataturk focused on the issue of women's rights. Quotes Muslim philosopher, "Society that eliminates the contribution of one half of its citizens is like a human body that is paralyzed on one side."
posted by John Aristides at 2/08/2006 11:29:00 PM
1 Comments:
Another interesting piece that is relevant can be read here:
Three intellectual giants rose to the challenge. Two of them — the philosopher and jurist Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd, known to the West as Averroes, and the great rabbi and physician Moses Maimonides — actually were contemporaries, both born in the Spanish city of Cordova. Tradition has it they even met and befriended each other while on the run from the Almohads, Islamic fundamentalists from the Maghreb, who had captured Andalusia and destroyed its storied culture of tolerance. The third was Thomas Aquinas — of whom his admiring coreligionists one day would say, "He led reason captive into the house of faith." Recall that this was an age in which the literate West, not unlike today's Islamists, still regarded theology as "the queen of the sciences."
Averroes' exposition of Aristotle was so widely admired and influential that when Aquinas took it up a century or so later at the University of Paris he referred to Aristotle simply as "the philosopher" and to Averroes as "the commentator." But while Maimonides and, later, Aquinas — who also read and admired the philosopher rabbi — held that there exists a single truth and that faith, properly understood, never can conflict with reason, Averroes took the other fork. He held that there were two truths — that of revelation and that of the natural world. There was no need to reconcile them because they were separate and distinct.
It was a form of intellectual suicide and cut off much of the Islamic world from the centuries of scientific and political progress that followed.
This segues into Lewis's point about Justice. While he is correct that Justice in the Islamic world is very similar to Justice in the Western world, the dissimilarities between them may be intractable. If Islam continues to hold onto the primacy of revelation, at the expense of empirical knowledge, I'm not sure our two spheres will ever be reconcilable.
Nihil potest esse diuturnum cui non subest ratio.
[Nothing can be lasting when reason does not rule.]
Post a Comment
<< Home