Stiffen the Brits

Last month I attended a conference in London, convened by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) under the title “Is Islam a Threat to the West?” On my return, I wrote this: “The good news, in case you’re worried about losing the clash of civilizations, is that the assembled experts answered the question with a resounding ‘no!’ The bad news is that there still exists a dire threat to the West. It’s posed by America.”

If what I heard at that conference is any guide, the perpetrators of yesterday’s attacks may well score a victory. The blame-America mood runs deeper at Chatham House than it does in the general public. But it infects many elite British analysts, who already sound like the Middle Eastern studies guild in America after 9/11. And while this kind of analysis never got traction in America, it might in Britain. In my forays to London over the years, I haven’t encountered too many stiff upper lips, at least in the circles I move in. The British once looked upon themselves as modern Romans. The ones I meet remind me of Venetians, ever-ready to cut some sort of deal with the dark forces.

Fortunately, I don’t move in all circles, so there’s a chance that 7/7 won’t have the effect intended by its masterminds. But a mighty intellectual battle is at hand, and America mustn’t take Britain for granted. Recently I read Michael Ignatieff’s biography of Isaiah Berlin, with its vivid account of how the Riga-born Jewish philosopher and Oxford don went off to New York and Washington, charmed the elites, and helped to bring the United States into Britain’s war. (Well, it still took Pearl Harbor.) Where is America’s Isaiah Berlin, sent off to London to stiffen British resolve? America has taken away Bernard Lewis, Christopher Hitchens, and Niall Ferguson. It should put something back.

Juan Cole replies

While I was traveling, Juan Cole responded to my post on his past Iraq positions (and especially his early characterization of the war as a “noble enterprise”). Cole doesn’t link to me, or even mention my name, lest he send readers scurrying over here to read chapter and verse. But it’s a direct response, and it’s Colesque in its elisions. Read my post, read his reply, and decide for yourself.

Sadik al-Azm feted

Apologies to faithful readers, but this is heavy-duty travel season. My itinerary is routing me to Washington, Boston, Hamburg, Izmir, and Istanbul. I’m already on the road, and I get back on July 4.

During this trip, I’ll be participating in one public event. The Asia-Africa-Institute of the University of Hamburg is confering an honorary doctorate on Sadik al-Azm, emeritus professor of modern European philosophy at Damascus University. To mark the occasion, the Institute has organized a workshop on “Orientalism and Conspiracy,” and I’ve been added to the program.

In my student days at Princeton, the late Charles Issawi used to teach Sadik al-Azm’s works in a course on contemporary Arabic texts. That’s where I first encountered al-Azm’s famous self-critique of the Arabs, written after the 1967 war. In later years, al-Azm and I met and talked at conferences here and there, and I came to appreciate him not only as a rigorous thinker but as good company. So I’m glad to have been included at this event in his honor. Al-Azm, it might be recalled, wrote a very influential critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism, entitled “Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse,” and this probably explains the choice of the subject for the workshop.

This isn’t the place to summarize al-Azm’s thought, and particularly his criticism of the ways the purveyors of Islam have come to obfuscate the Arab condition. Unfortunately there is no one book in English that brings together his writings, and some of his best work has appeared in obscure journals. This interview conveys very much the flavor of his unorthodox thought, as well as details of his intellectual autobiography. But I especially recommend an essay he did for the Boston Review, which has this precise summation of the Arab-Muslim predicament:

We continue to imagine ourselves as conquerors, history-makers, pace-setters, pioneers, and leaders of world-historic proportions. In the marrow of our bones, we still perceive ourselves as the subjects of history, not its objects, as its agents and not its victims. We have never acknowledged, let alone reconciled ourselves to, the marginality and passivity of our position in modern times. In fact, deep in our collective soul, we find it intolerable that our supposedly great nation must stand helplessly on the margins not only of modern history in general but even of our local and particular histories….

When this unexamined, unexorcised, highly potent, and deep-seated self-image collides with the all-too-evident everyday actualities of Arab-Muslim impotence, frustration, and insignificance, especially in international relations, a host of problems emerge: massive inferiority complexes, huge compensatory delusions, wild adventurism, political recklessness, desperate violence, and, lately, large-scale terrorism….

The contrast between image and reality “has truly made the modern Arabs into the Hamlet of our times, doomed to unrelieved tragedy, forever hesitating, procrastinating, and wavering between the old and the new…while the conquering Fortinbrases of the world inherit the new century.” The vast discrepency also explains why al-Azm finds the notion of a clash of civilizations “fanciful.”

Islam is simply too weak to sustain in earnest any challenge to an obviously triumphant West. In fact, contemporary Islam does not even form a “civilization” in the active, enactive, and effective senses of the term. It may be said to form a civilization only in the historical, traditional, passive, reactive, and folkloric senses.

Recently al-Azm has put forth a bold, secular blueprint for Iraq. Muslims, he said, must explicitly retract Shari’a law regarding non-Muslims, and “abolish once and for all the archaic Islamic penal code.” They must renounce the concept of awra, by which women are deemed “something to be ashamed of, to be hidden and covered like a scandal.” Shiites must retract everything connected with the notion of rule by the jurisprudent. Sunnis must apologize to Shiites for “the unspeakable crime of the murder of the Prophet’s grandson Husayn in the Karbala massacre,” and Shiites should absolve and forgive Sunnis. It’s a bold plan, and perhaps the only way out which doesn’t mean that anyone will take it.

Al-Azm received the Erasmus Prize last year, which is the European Union’s highest cultural award. (He shared it with Fatema Mernissi and Abdolkarim Soroush.) On the occasion of Hamburg’s act of recognition, I am privileged to be counted among his assembled admirers.