The Sept. 11 Canon: Week 2
Dear Ted, Judith, Geraldine, and Chris,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponMy New Yorker hasn't come yet (it's probably out in Ohio getting electromagnetized for anthrax), and the magazine has reserved Bernard Lewis' piece for subscribers, withholding it from the Web-plebs, so I'll have nothing to say about it. Maybe I can deal with it later in the week.
I have to agree that The Multiple Identities of the Middle East is the best general introduction to the region—even if it was not intended as such. I don't know whether it's the best introduction to Lewis since he's a scholar of such vast range that no one who's not a scholar of the region can possibly hope to follow him. He has written on Turkish economics, Iranian love poetry, Arab travel literature, and Hebrew scripture, and this in a field in which it takes half a life's worth of learning even to get to the starting line—learning the unrelated languages of Arabic, Turkish, and Persian, for one thing. Not just his erudition but his judgment and (less often noticed) elegant prose are a wonder.
So I must profess myself shocked, Ted, that you, a historian, take no side in the disagreements between a scholar like Lewis and Edward Said, whose project is a political rather than a scholarly one. At any rate, I don't think such neutrality could survive a reading of Lewis' gentle (and good-humored) discrediting of Said in "The Question of Orientalism," which appears in the collection Islam and the West.
Lewis is not one to flinch from the drawbacks of Islamic society, but he has a way of cutting against cliché, as when he warns us against generalizations on the supposed intolerance of Islam toward other religions. It's true that Islam claims an absolute truth and that the dhimma rules under which religious minorities lived were discriminatory in a modern sense. But, Lewis notes, "unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam squarely confronts the problem of religious tolerance," and until the 17th century, minorities were on balance probably better off in Muslim lands than in Europe. The problem came later. In the wake of the 30 Years' War, Europeans solved the problem of religious tolerance with reference to Matthew 22:21 ("Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's"), which in retrospect turns out to have been as momentous an utterance as any in history. "From the seventeenth century onwards, the situation of non-Christians under Western Christian rule was no worse than that of the dhimmis under Muslim rule," Lewis writes, "and gradually became considerably better."
This leads to the sort of historian's insight that has more to tell us about our current predicament than any nattering about "current events." For it is through a discussion of tolerance that Lewis gets to the specific kind of Muslim rage that has recently led to mass murder.
Such tolerance becomes much more difficult when not truth but error (in Muslim eyes) enjoys the advantages of wealth and power and when one's unbelieving compatriots and neighbors, no longer appropriately submissive, enjoy the support and encouragement of mighty, outside powers committed to various forms of unbelief. These powers and their local acolytes now challenged the supremacy of the believer, first in the world, then in his own country, finally even in his own home, where his previously assured authority was questioned by emancipated women and rebellious children, both misled by infidel ideas from abroad.
To a person who thinks this way—an Osama Bin Laden or a Mohamed Atta, let's say—there can be no greater villain than the attractiveness of pop culture, which erodes the claims of Islam to have a total solution. It seems the more villainous because they can feel the attraction within themselves. "It was to this attraction," Lewis notes, "that Khomeini alluded when he called
This morning's New York Times report of the liberation of Taliqan from the Taliban included one account of a shopkeeper, Muhammad Asif, who dug up his VCR out of the backyard, where he'd buried it when the Taliban arrived.
Khomeini, whatever else he was, wasn't stupid.
Best,
Chris
Nine Is So Weird, You Should Probably Go See It
How Will Michael Jackson's Death Change Music?
What Jenny Sanford Wrote in Obama's Facebook News Feed
The 12 Best Cheeses To Serve at Christmas
Oops—I Forgot I Was Piloting This Plane
Can You Believe What Joe Biden Said This Week?
Notes From The Fray Editor:
Bernard Lewis is the man of the moment: see also this "Assessment" and the Fray Notes at the end.
Comments:
Judith Shulevitz and several posters have argued that being educated about Islam and the Middle East is secondary to the conflict underlined by the September 11 attacks, that one can take a stand against evil without being informed as to its contours…
I don't see how one can fight a war against "terrorism," unless one knows enough to define the objective. Sure, we want to stop suicide bombers, but whom are we going to go after? This requires that we know something about the setting in which the acts are planned, the particular motivations of the actors, and the ideologies through which new terrorists are recruited. What is the history of these organizations? What alliances have been formed between violent anti-American groups? What apparent alliances are implausible? Should we carry the war on terrorism to Iraq? To Palestinians? Moreover, since these terrorists are foreigners, we are to some extent acting on the sufferance of their home countries; we have to have enough knowledge about these places to explain in effective terms why we want to kill or arrest their native sons…
We need to be able to provide at least minimally informed oversight of foreign policy, to be able to survey the broad contours of our war on terrorism and say, "This is a reasonable definition," or "this will be an effective intervention." We can't know that unless we have done some investigation on our own. And this investigation includes not only things like the history of the Deobandi madrasas set up by Zia ul-Haq in the 1970s, in which many of the Taliban studied, but also things like the Deobandi movement itself, the ideology that motivates it , the Islamic reform movement of Salafism that spawned both it and the Arabian Wahhabis, and so on…
--ADAS
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Bernard Lewis is a highly erudite, and readable--hence his popularity--scholar of classical and medieval Islam. He is not, however, a social or cultural historian. His is extremely textual history. Lewis begins, continues, and ends with the text. As a literary critic and cultural historian, I find this somewhat limiting. It exposes him to a very serious difficulty: he all too often takes classical texts as definitive of history, and classical history as definitive of the present. They even define, he seems to believe, the very essence of Islam, an essence he feels he can capture.
We need first to understand that the "essence" of Islam will be just as diverse, and just as un-essential, as the "essence" of Christianity, whatever that might be. (Notice that when we ask questions about Islam, we rarely ask the exactly parallel question about Christianity; doing so would demonstrate the dubious intellectual footing of many of our questions.)
Second, Lewis's brand of history tends to start with a famous or important classical text, read it in a very erudite--and at times rather uncritical--way, and then state that what we find in that text demonstrates what was actually going on in the society that produced it. A cultural historian knows that while this may be a starting point for investigation, it's hardly workable as a general assumption. Lewis unfortunately tends to assume just this, forgetting that isolated texts or works of art by elite groups may tell us rather little about the overall picture, or even the day-to-day operations, of their culture.
For all that, he's a fine read. Indeed, probably a must-read, if we are looking for popular primers.
--Seth Graebner
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(11/16)