Hi!! Remember me?
I’ve missed this; more commentary and news may follow, time permitting. But I’ve run into something too interesting not to share, partly in the hopes that someone else may be able to look more closely at the small connection I’m seeing and explore how much substance is contained there. And at its core, I think there is a gem of such good news that I stopped reading and started typing this right away.
Last year, in writing about terrorism and philosophy, I made the claim that modern Islamism was deeply influenced by Western political philosophers (and, I claimed, by the Romantic movement that could claim a descendent in Nazism). This came from some peripheral references in the chunks of Qutb I read that made me think of Fanon, and by the close fit of Fanon’s Romantic beliefs into the worldview of radical Islamists.
Well, to quote one of my favorite books – “Christ, what an imagination I’ve got!” It turns out that the connection may be more direct than my casual fantasies.I picked up Bernard Lewis’ collection of essays ‘From Babel to Dragomans‘ and have been working through it in my odd moments. One of his essays, on Pan-Arabism, makes the following connections:
…the first theoretical statement of pan-Arabism is the work of a certain ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi (?1849 – 1902), nowadays generally regarded as the ideological pioneer of pan-Arabism…He is principally remembered for two books, both of which were attacks on the Ottoman Sultanate in general and on the reigning Sultan, Abdulhamid II, in particular…The second [book], entitled Umm al-Qura (The Mother of Cities, i.e. Mecca)…is hardly more original than the other [Lewis suggests that Kawakibi’s first book was a hash of Della Tirannide, by Alfieri], being to a large extent a reflection of the views expressed by the English Romantic poet Wilfred Scawen Blunt in his book The Future of Islam, published in 1881 and setting forth the idea of an Arab Caliphate.
Bin-Laden’s core philosophy is thus the restoration of something that never was – an Arab (as opposed to Turkish) Caliphate. Something suggested originally by a British Romantic poet. The philosophical lineage is there; now it just needs to be explored. Blunt’s book is at the UCLA library, and sometime in the next few weeks, I’ll go pick it up and report.
But we’re not done yet.
Lewis continues:
The second intellectual precursor of pan-Arabism was another Syrian, this time a Christian, Negib (Najib) Azoury (birthdate unknown – died 1916). Azoury was a Maronite or Uniate Catholic Christian who studied in Istanbul and Paris and later became a provincial official in Jerusalem. He left his post in unknown circumstances and seems to have been condemned to death in absentia in 1904, when he fled to Paris. In the following year, he published a book, Le reveil de la nation arabe. He spent most of the remaining years of his life in Paris, where he formed an organization – probably a one-man show – called the ‘Ligue de la patrie arabe’ … The name, it has been remarked is reminiscent of the anti-Drefusard ‘Ligue de la patrie francaise’, which flourished in the late eighteen nineties. His writings reflect the anti-Semetic obsessions with worldwide Jewish power which were current in anti-Dreyfusard circles…
So the roots of Islamist thought can be seen as going back to the salons of London and cafes of Paris. That matters, both because it shows that the philosophy we’re fighting against is a relatively recent one – this isn’t thousands of years old – and that it had other paths to follow:
The new and significant elements in Kawakibi’s writings are 1) his clear and explicit rejection of the Ottoman Caliphate; 2) his insistence on the Arabic-speaking peoples as a corporate entity with political rights of its own and 3) most radical of all, his idea of a spiritual Caliphate which would presumably leave politics and government to a secular authority separate from religious authority and law, entirely within the scope of human decision and action.
(emphasis added)
That last is why I’m posting this on a Good News Friday.
Because I believe this demonstrates that there are roots in Islam – in recent Islam – that we need to water and cultivate as a part of creating our own ‘Good Philosophy’ antibodies to Bad Philosophy. That won’t be easy, but I’ll suggest that we have to try.
AL!:
Welcome home. Very interesting stuff. I look forward to progress reports. Meanwhile how’re things going at SoA?
I’m reading that book right now as well! It’s a good one, eh? Interesting insights. Thanks for bringing that up.
“The second intellectual precursor of pan-Arabism was another Syrian, this time a Christian, Negib (Najib) Azoury (birthdate unknown – died 1916). Azoury was a Maronite or Uniate Catholic Christian . . . he fled to Paris. In the following year . . . He spent most of the remaining years of his life in Paris . . . So the roots of Islamist thought can be seen as going back to the salons of London and cafes of Paris.”
Sorry, I don’t follow this one, AL. A Catholic Christian who happens to be of Arabian descent represents, in your mind, a locus of Islamist thought? I read your entire post and I’m just not connecting these dots, man. Sounds like you have the words “arab” and “Islam” confused.
“Bin-Laden’s core philosophy is thus the restoration of something that never was – an Arab (as opposed to Turkish) Caliphate”
I’m puzzled by this. The first four caliphs, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman, and Ali, were Arabs, were they not? And the Ummayyads? And Fatamids? I suppose the Mamelukes are debatable. (W\As well, whether the tribes of the Maghreb are “Arab,” is an old argument I won’t go into, though they seem to be more accepted than not, it seems to me; Mamelukes, probably not.)
But I’m quite baffled by your saying there was no Arab Caliphate, which seems to ignore about six centuries of Islamic history, give or take, from the Prophet through to the rise of the Persians.
On your main point, I gather you’ve not been reading the writings of Jonathan Edelstein of The Head Heeb, or Bill Allison of Ideofact, over the past year, on this sort of thing? Both worthy writers who have accumulated a lot of posts on this topic.
Gary – you’re right on one; I tend to look on the post-Prophet caliphs as ‘mythical,’ in the sense of Biblical kings, as opposed to historical, and that’s probably wrong in this case. Wrong on the other, I do peruse Jonathan and Bill as time allows; I’ve been following Bills’ take on Qutb for a while. Neither of them, AFAIK, is specifically digging into the historical links between Islamist thought and Western philosophy – I’d love some pointers if they are.
A.L.
A.L.:
I think there are lots of strains and connections between various Muslim writers that connect with, and bring in, western counter-enlightenment ideas. My understanding of pan-Arabism is that it was a kind of secular nationalism, so I guess I’d be concerned about what the “character” of this “caliphate” was supposed to be, rather than the simple fact that it was incorporated into pan-Arabism. How could it have been Shari’a based? How does this religious/secular split match up with Qutb’s concept of an “horrendous schezophrenia of modern life” that he links directly to the secular/religious split?
The way I tend to look at it is that recent totalitarian movements (Totalitarianism 2.x and Totalitarianism 3.x) all tend to have the same mother, but different fathers.
1. The “father” of Nazism was the blood, or race cult.
2. The “father” of Marxism was the ideal collective.
Both were organizing principles that defined “them” and “us.” And the same is true of the lastest:
3. The “father” of Totalitarianism 3.x is the idea of the “spiritual empire.”
In the latter case the organizing principle is pan-Islamic, rather than pan-Arabic. Well, in most cases. Things are always messy at the boundaries.
But the mother of all the movements was the European Counter-enlightenment… which continues to befuddle the continent.
By the way, have you read Robert Kaplan’s The Arabists? I think it would be very appealing to you, since it’s about the movement that swept through the Arab Middle East, especially Iraq, and it combines historical perspective with the sort of worm’s-eye-view of a travelogue that Kaplan does as well as anyone.
The problem with seeing optimism in the intellectual godfather of the Pan-Arabist movement is that the pan-Arabist/Nasserite/Ba’ath movement has a growing stigma of failure attached to it and is a dying force.
Islamism is, in fact, one of the main alternatives to al-Kawakibi et. al. – and one of its first precepts is that things began to go wrong when the Pan-Arabists tried to divroce law and government from religion.
“See the inevitable corruption, abuses, and failure that result?” they say, playing here on the key Arab/Islamic dichotomy between just and unjust rulers (which has more resonance than free/unfree in a Western sense)… and Islam is of course the guarantor of justice, just as divine favour will be a guarantor of success. Or so the new story goes.
Of course, this doesn’t stop them from borrowing some of the Pan-aRabist rhetoric or conceptions of the Caliphate – but if you’re looking for optimisim in the “separation of mosque and state” portion of al-Kawakibi’s writings, you’ve picked the part that is currently most discredited and in retreat.
Hi A.L.! It is Good News indeed to see you again!
All: I agree with A.L.– He is not making the case that western philosopies form the basis for islamist thought, but looking for insertion points for change vectors! The other day we were discussing with Uberanalyst Dan Darling about the possiblity of encouraging and supporting the more moderate sects within Islam. This is the same tactic– an excellent opportunity for memetic engineering in practice!
You might also wish to look at the link between Arafat and Hitler. And the Moslem Brotherhood and the Nazis. And the Soviets.
We are in effect fighting the German Soviet Pact. Sixty years after its dissolution.
The Soviets are gone but the anti-Americanism they set in motion is in full bloom.
My opinion of the vector that will destroy Islamicism? Sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll. The great thing is that it requires no great intellectual effort. To do effectively it requires union of the flesh with the spirit. Something Islam does not do well. However, Americans are really good at it (relatively speaking).
Bucky was on to something when he said that what will destroy religion as we know it is getting in this life rewards that used to have to wait for the next one.
This more than anything else is the crisis of Islam. i.e. Why do the Jews and Americans get in this life what we have to die for?
“Christ, what an imagination I’ve got!”
That would be “Stand on Zanzibar” by John Brunner, eh? When I read it I remember wishing that I could be eptified…
Several months ago I read a column (by whom I don’t remember) which mentioned a French Arab writer who called Islamism a form of Nietzcheanism. I googled the French Arab fellow, but unfortunately, not much he’s written has been translated into English, and I don’t read French. I don’t remember his name, but that thesis is fascinating to me since Nietzche is fascinating to me in the sort of way you can’t help rubbernecking at a traffic accident. I would be extremely interested in any thoughts on the subject.
John certainly had a damn good imagination, as witness SoZ, Shockwave Rider, Squares of the City, and so many other stories. A shame the cranky old bastard isn’t still with us.
Joe wrote:
BQ …but if you’re looking for optimisim in the “separation of mosque and state” portion of al-Kawakibi’s writings, you’ve picked the part that is currently most discredited and in retreat.
Well, if it was winning, we wouldn’t have a problem, would we?? <g> The question becomes how we change that dynamic…and you’re the marketing & communications guy, no??
Marc
et A.L.:
Tackling the latest version of totalitarianism requires a two-pronged strategy:
1. Shore up Islam by pressing for, and providing sanctuary to, reform. Essentially what you’re doing is removing the fangs from Islam, or inserting some control rods into the reaction chamber. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor.)
2. We simply have to take on the Counter-enlightenment. I’m not sure how one does that, but I think Pragmatism is probably the most fruitful philosophical approarch. And it’s instructive to note that Qutb identifies Pragmatism as his chief philosophical nemesis. (I’m not thinking so much of Dewey as of C.S. Peirce, or more recently Frederick Turner.)
And frankly I don’t think we’ve made so much as a dent in either one of these tasks. Not, as my Dad used to say: “So’s you’d notice.”
M. Simon: The problem with waiting for that to happen may make problems for us. The jihaadiis are already adept at making recruiting videos, and Charles has blogged more than once on jihaadi hate/rockers. Rock-n-roll can be their tool also.
I coming around to the belief that it’s really much simpler than all of this.
I think it’s all about sex and money. Really.