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.

Juan Cole’s noble enterprise

Professor Juan Cole, the blogging sensation, is at it again, claiming that he objected to the “terrible idea” of the Iraq war back in 2002 and 2003. Proof? “I can produce witnesses to my having said that if the UN Security Council did not authorize the war, I would protest it.” This new posting echoes one that Cole made last November, when he claimed to have “said repeatedly in 2002 and early 2003” that “it was a bad idea to invade Iraq.” Apparently it’s important to Cole, who’s an anti-war icon, to demonstrate that he opposed war from the get-go.

Tony Badran responded last autumn with a devastating posting, comprised of various quotes from Cole’s own weblog. Here are some of them. Cole, before the war (February 11, 2003): “I am an Arabist and happen to know something serious about Baathist Iraq, which paralyzes me from opposing a war for regime change in that country.” Cole, start of the war (March 19, 2003): “I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.” Cole, after the war (July 30, 2003): “I refused to come out against the war. I was against the way the war was pursued the innuendo, the exaggerations, the arrogant unilateralism. But I could not bring myself to be against the removal of that genocidal regime from power.” Some “terrible idea.”

But since Professor Cole still needs help with his memory, let me add this quote to the litany (April 1, 2003):

I hold on to the belief that the Baath regime in Iraq has been virtually genocidal (no one talks about the fate of the Marsh Arabs) and that having it removed cannot in the end be a bad thing. That’s what I tell anxious parents of our troops over there; it is a noble enterprise to remove the Baath, even if so many other justifications for the war are crumbling.

You’ve got the mise-en-scene? The much-titled expert reassures anxious parents of service personnel that their sons and daughters are risking their lives in a “noble enterprise.” Now read this passage, which Cole wrote over a year later (April 23, 2004):

I would not have been willing to risk my own life to dislodge Saddam Hussein from power. And, I would certainly not have been willing to see my son risk his.

So apparently the “noble enterprise” wasn’t that noble, at least in retrospect. For it’s only in retrospect that Cole came to see the “noble enterprise” as a “terrible idea.” Only in retrospect did a war to depose Saddam look to him like a “bad idea,” since at the time he thought it “cannot in the end be a bad thing.” When war began, he thought it would be “worth the sacrifices.” Only in retrospect did he decide it wasn’t even worth the risks.

Cole shows neither courage nor integrity in fudging his past position. While he flays others for selective memory and shifting their rationales, he commits precisely the same offenses. Would it damage his ego or his reputation for punditry to admit that the “noble enterprise” didn’t turn out quite like he expected? What’s he afraid of? After all, he wasn’t regarded as any great expert on Iraq going into the war. Even a true expert, Peter Sluglett, has admitted he overestimated U.S. chances of getting Iraq right: “Perhaps I was naive.” Why does Cole, an Iraq novice in comparison, insist on his own prescience?

Finally, there’s Cole’s claim that he was going to “protest” the war if it didn’t get a U.N. Security Council resolution. He says he’s got witnesses. Well, they’d better be good, because here is Cole on the record (February 4, 2003):

My own knowledge of the horrors Saddam has perpetrated makes it impossible for me to stand against the coming war, however worried I am about its aftermath. World order is not served by unilateral military action, to which I do object. But world order, human rights and international law are likewise not served by allowing a genocidal monster to remain in power.

That sounds like an overwhelming moral case for unilateral action, with apologies to the UN.

So that’s Juan Cole—the historian who can’t even get his own history straight. His “noble enterprise” belongs to the same category as President Bush’s “mission accomplished,” with this difference: President Bush may have been sincere. With Cole, you never know.

Ali Salem grounded

The other week, the Egyptian playwright Ali Salem was scheduled to come to Israel, to collect an honorary doctorate from Ben-Gurion University. He’s one of Egypt’s most famous humorists, who’s made bold to visit Israel time and again, and who wrote a best-selling book in Arabic about his first visit. After the Oslo agreement, he packed up his old car, drove from Cairo through Sinai to the border, and crossed into Israel. His account is an engaging tale of discovery, humor, and hope.

I was delighted at news of the honor, having played a small part in making Ali Salem better known in the world. I arranged for the publication of his book in English translation, and ran an excerpt in the Middle East Quarterly. The translation inspired the reworking of the book into a play, scheduled for production in Washington in the season after next. Ali himself spent a stretch of time at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where we saw one another daily, and I paid tribute to him in one of my first postings on this site. His willingness to accept the honor conferred by Ben-Gurion University was just another example of his personal courage in the service of peace.

But in Egypt, only one man is allowed to show (or feign) courage, and only the top ranks of officialdom people innoculated long ago with the Nasserist antidote to Israel are licensed to interact with real Israelis. Egyptian authorities thus decided that this comic, awkward, and gentle man would pose a threat to the security of the great “republic” of Egypt, were he to collect his honorary degree in Israel. When he tried to cross the border into Israel by land, the authorities turned him away. So he went to the Cairo airport, but they wouldn’t let him board a flight either. This Kafka-esque predicament sounds like fine fodder for a satirical play. (In fact, the Washington theatrical production of his book will include the episode, according to its artistic director.)

Fouad Ajami once called this “the orphaned peace,” and so it remains. I first visited Egypt exactly thirty years ago, for a summer of Arabic study, and every time I’ve gone back, including last month, I’ve asked myself what Egypt would look like if it hadn’t laid down the burden of war. I’ve shuddered at the thought. But no one in Egypt is allowed to celebrate the peace. It remains a shameful accommodation to Egypt’s limitations. And this is Ali Salem’s offense: he has made a virtue of necessity. Those who’ve thrown him out of the writers’ union are armchair warriors, a lot like computer gamers, who do battle without paying any price in blood and treasure. Anti-normalization is a poor man’s war, and these are poor men. (Some are on display here, in a recent televised debate over normalization that included Ali Salem.) Ali has said that he is not angry over being grounded, just sad sad for Egypt, in which he has such pride. Of course, he is right.

To Ali Salem, doctor honoris causis, my congratulations.

Addendum. For more flavor of Ali Salem’s politics, see this essay for Time Magazine, and this NewsHour interview. And for his style of political humor, read this.