A few days ago, I finished reading a very interesting book about the Middle East and more specifically about the Shiite Muslims. The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr is a must-read for all those who have no idea what the terms 'Shiite' and 'Sunni' mean. I actually recommend it more for those who are interested in knowing why there is a difference in the two terms and why was all this fuss called 'sectarian war in Iraq.'Although I knew many things mentioned in the book, I still found that there were things I did not really know. Nasr narrates, analyzes and discusses them in details.
I have a friend in Philly who is a Shiite Muslim from Saudi Arabia's infamous Qatif city. We have always sat and discussed issues that concern our region, religion, and our lives as they are related to these things. One day, I was completely upset and mad at what I had discovered in our religion. The discussion we both had led to realizing that it's not the problem was not in the religion itself more than the practitioners of Islam themselves who used certain things and interpreted them the way they wanted them to mean. The goal is to make others believe them, and nothing other using certain things from the religion to make them believe in was better than that. During that discussion, I told my friend about my memories of Islam in Iraq. I remember leaning back on the plastic chair, saying "Our religion was simple. The war made it gross."
Indeed, it was as simple as knowing the basic things in the Quran, knowing your prophet is Mohammed and your God is Allah and that there were other prophets whom God chose to deliver his messages. Yes, there were Sunni and Shiite differences, but among the people (at least those in Baghdad whom I was one of) it was not something we really cared about. During those years, books about religion were rarely found. The secular Baathist regime made sure people in my generation do not understand or know what the real history behind the two sects was. My family did tell me that the Shiites were victimized throughout history, especially during the Abbasid Empire era, but they never really went into details about it nor they stressed on making me or my sister insist on knowing it because it was not a big deal then.
The internet revolution and the flow of the books and the articles about the real history between the two sects appeared on surface in the aftermath of the US.-led invasion of Iraq, letting me and many others in my generation be able to read and learn about that grim and gruesome history of wars and struggle to get power.
One of these books is the Shia Revival. The book opened my eyes to many things that I did not before the war. I knew it all started when Prophet Mohammed died but did not know other details, including the fight between Iran and Saddam was a Shiite-Sunni fight. I know understand why the Arab countries supported Saddam against the "Evil Persians" and why Iran went on for eight years to fight Saddam. The goal was who would dominate? The Sunnis who wanted the Arab World always be Sunni or the Shiites, represented by Iran then, who wanted to spread their faith to a larger crowd in the Arab World?
Addressing the West in his book, Nasr relates the Shiite rituals to those of the other religions. This was something that I did not really know. Nasr also talks about Saudi Arabia's Wahabism a lot. It is widely connected to the struggle between Sunnis and Shiites these days. It goes way back to the days when the Wahabis invaded the holy city of Karbala where Imam Hussein is buried and slaughtered the Shiites there, believing that they were infidels and tomb worshipers. He also writes about the Lebanon Shiites and how they emerged as a fighting and strong force in the region, making even Sunnis follow them in their fight against Israel which was occupying their land for decades. Then, came the Iran-Iraq war and the whole struggle of keeping the Shiites away from domination. There is also a long, detailed and very interesting chapter about Khomeini and his role in Shiism, followed by an interestingly-analyzed chapter about the new Iraq which he called it 'The first Shiite Arab state,' a term that I've never heard before and a one that is so true.
Overall, the book shows that the struggle is not religious more than political. Peoples from both sects were caught in the middle of this conflict. They were used and brain-washed over the decades to create differences.
Anyways, it is a wonderful book and a good source that I strongly recommend to readers interested in learning about political Islam.
The other book I'm sunk in its waters now is Robin Wright's Dreams and Shadows: the future of the Middle East.
19 Comments:
Treasure, (I'm still in the habit of calling you that)
The book does sound interesting.
As you know the Bahai Faith came out of Shia culture. When I first signed the card to say, "I am a follower of Baha'u'llah" I knew almost nothing about Islam, and nothing about the history of Shia and Sunni divisions. Of course living in the US this didn't (and still doesn't) matter. One's eye was always on the Prophet, not His followers.
But having said that, I quickly became aware of what His followers were continuing to do to the Bahais in Iran, the Soviet Union, and Egypt. This was because the US Bahai community was always looked to for raising its voice seeking mercy and justice of the world's opinion from the manipulative Shah, but the even more intense fanaticism of the Iranian Shia clergy!
As you might know, the Bahais have no clergy. The leadership of the community is elected by the community membership. The mental/psychological stranglehold that some priests have over their congregations (particularly if some of the members are illiterate) doesn't exist in the Bahai community. It all depends on education. And as you point out, access to information. Someone can be literate and ignorant because their access to information is controlled. Of course Shia (and Sunni) is not the only religious community that does that. It happens anywhere.
And what is the tendency for those
places where it happens to be as a result of the leadership's fears of loss of control over their followers? How great is the tendency for a religious leader to want to stay in his job, and therefore do whatever he believes justifies that desire?
How many teachers have you known, not just religious teachers, but any kind of teacher, taught you so that you could, eventually without their assistance, teach yourself?
Several?
A few?
One?
And how many of those were religious teachers?99maya
Isn't it ironic, You had to travel to the west, to learn something about the east, where you are a native.
But your not alone, nor is this experience unique, it's happened to millions of us.
Bassam, first its nice to see a new post from you. :) I think that it is a good thing for people to look at the history of their religions and how they have interacted with other beliefs through time. As you said, Nasr's book points to the wars between Sunnis and Shiites being more about politics than religion. I think this is always the case with religious wars. I don't know much about the history of Islam, but I know a fair amount about the history of Christianity.
When the Protestant Reformation was first taking hold, the Catholic Church was terrified that it was loosing power. So began a few centuries of very bloody wars in Europe to see which faction of Christianity would dominate. The result was millions of deaths and no clear winner. The religious wars were a great tragedy for humanity that only served a few powerful individuals who could not curtail their appetite for even more power.
Today in Europe, people tend to be very moderate in their approach to religion, and many are secular or non-religious. I have to wonder if a sort of evolution occurred during the centuries of the Protestant and Catholic religious wars. The people who were very religious joined the fights and were slaughtered. The people with less devotion to their faiths quietly hid from the worst of the fighting and survived. Their descendants became the Europeans of today. This idea is perhaps too simplistic. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, the people were well educated and largely secular (in some ways similar to Europe), or at least very tolerant of other people's beliefs. After the invasion, law, order, and civility were destroyed and people started to divide themselves along religious lines. The same could happen in Europe if those countries were somehow invaded and occupied, or if some great natural disaster occurs that places people in serious competition with each other for their survival.
David has some interesting points that motivate me to add something.
Who is going to get a Ph.D on exploring the sexual-like relationship between religion and politics?
I think both religion and politics connect to the essence of our humanity. I use this word "sexual-like" because I think there is some kind of exchange of emotional, psychological fluids of the mind/spirit.
I have done some reading of Islam's history, and my impression is that the political relationship is part of the unique message of Islam. The Prophet's message is about the organization of a society under the laws of GOd. Taking Jesus' one-to-one relationship and raising it up to a government/community level. The message of Islam compliments the message of Christianity to a surprising degree!
However,
However,
However mankind has free will. Always has, always will. I am guessing that the problem arose....well, Shia and Sunni will say "a problem arose" as soon as the death of the Prophet. But I can't believe that is completely true. Succession was not, at first, a right to be demanded, but a burden of responsibility. I am trying to look at this from spiritual point of view. The people, particularly the illiterate, the undereducated, the poor-in-power were true believers, but at the same time they were like children on several levels. They needed to be guided, and trained. The rich, powerful, educated who came into the Faith of Islam at later ages in their lives came in with the same baggage you and I come into a religious belief with, if we are not part of the faith of our fathers'. I mean one can be a member but not necessarily a believer, just kind of going through the motions without thinking about what you are doing. Why? Because this is just the way you have been taught since infancy. This Point of View exists in all the old established religions. Now I don't see this state, the mixture of the truly devout and the hesitant, freedom loving, independent-minded-but still attracted, of the Islamic community of those days as being a problem. The bond of solidarity was still much stronger than any threat which could come from without. I think the problem of having these doubters arose when they became the mullas and spiritual leaders of the community. The priesthood, the training of these community leaders within Islam, I think, lost its heart, or sold its heart without really knowing that was what it was doing. BUT this process didn't happen quickly or soon. The tree continued to grow, to sprout branches and provide shade and protection, it was connected to the Source of all life. However gradually this process which was happening within at the cellular level, not the photosynthesis level, the cellular level was gradually having an effect. Notice I haven't mentioned Shia or Sunni yet. I think the problem exists equally in both communities, it has to do with "Ambition" that has become detached from "Service" if I could put the problem into a sentence.
I say this because the older traditional religions all have a priesthood, a formal leadership selection and training process. It has its traditions, its schools of thought, its debates, its politics.
IF politics is part of the problem, then how can someone who has been trained at least partially WITHIN a POLITICAL proces be part of the solution? VERY DIFFICULT. It means that you had to have your own ideas before you joined the priesthood academy. And that is the opposite of the intentions of the priesthood program.
david people started to divide themselves along religious lines.
i think this may be over simplified. the goal of divide and conquer is not new, can we assume it was a given their was an intention for the people to divide along religious lines and certain practices were put into place to implement this, especially in terms of employment , targeted killings etc. so to leap to a conclusion that people naturally divided themselves along religious lines i'm not sure is accurate.
Bassam, i have not read the book and have let your review seep in for a few days as i was not really sure what to make of it. i supposed what stood out for me was the number of times you said the information was something you were not previously aware of.
why?
how important is it for people in a secular society to understand the origins of conflict between to (opposing?) sides of religion and how those religious distinctions were at the heart of past conflict? you say the book shows that the struggle is not religious more than political yet from your report most of what you mentioned relates to the sect distinctions. unless i misunderstood you.
The secular Baathist regime made sure people in my generation do not understand or know what the real history behind the two sects was. My family did tell me that the Shiites were victimized throughout history, especially during the Abbasid Empire era, but they never really went into details about it nor they stressed on making me or my sister insist on knowing it because it was not a big deal then.
why do you think that was? was it a trend among other iraqis families? was saddam doing iraqis a service by not providing education regarding the separations in religious history, or harming you.
i come from a melting pot. the idea of a melting pot means that people assimilate and while celebrating customs, holidays and food that make each other unique for the most part we do not dwell on or emphasize things from the past that separate us. for example, i have just learned in the last year the demonizing of muslims is not that much different than the way the irish were treated when they came here at one time or the germans in many areas of the country.
so while this past history may be intriguing i would not be so ready to assume it is a justification for the reasons why people 'divided themselves' in the current climate.
this opinion is merely as an observer from a distance, as i said i did not read the book. but i do wonder if a shia revival is really good for society, not as opposexd to a sunni one, but as opposed to a secular one.
if there is to be a religious war between islam and christianity there must be a blueprint, their must be an escalation of fundie christians, and more devout muslims. the separations of people must be emphasized and nurtured.
were your parents doing you a disservice by shielding you from this information? were they shielding you or did they think it was not important? how does it serve you to comprehend these conflicts in more recent memory can be explained thru your "grim and gruesome history'?
Yes, there were Sunni and Shiite differences, but among the people (at least those in Baghdad whom I was one of) it was not something we really cared about.
is it better or worse if people care about it more?
the real history between the two sects appeared on surface in the aftermath of the US.-led invasion of Iraq, letting me and many others in my generation be able to read and learn about that grim and gruesome history of wars and struggle to get power.
the more you absorb this information the more it explains why this conflict really happened, or does it?
our country could be divided up along religious lines. would it weaken us, or strengthen us? to prepare us for this would it not be useful to educate us about the things that have always separated us and made us unique.
ANNIE:was saddam doing iraqis a service by not providing education regarding the separations in religious history, or harming you.'''
Annie, you never disappoint. Saddam is removed, executed and suddenly, Iraqis realize that there is a centuries old conflict between the major sects of the dominant religion? What a humanitarian and statesman was he! The fact is, the Baathists were a third fascist tyranny though secular in nature, and the other wannabe tyrannies, Shia and Sunni theocracies, had no reason or ability to truly compete or battle for power until the secular ruling system was removed.
I have been amazed at the ignorance of educated Iraqis on the matter or their religion. I have, in an effort to make a point, often quoted long passages of the Koran to some Muslims, including everything that could possibly effect its context, and been called a liar. Many of them have no idea of much that is within the Koran and don't want to know. Ask Salman Rushdie if you doubt that. Read 'The Satanic Verses' first.
Islam is a dysfunctional fascist system when adhered to fundamentally, and always has been. It goes far beyond religion, it's a framework to order every facet of the lives and society of everyone living under its yoke and its goal is to include us all in that number. Islam (SUBMIT) to the will of Allah, and I am his representative on Earth above rebuke or question. And when absolute power to enforce that is placed in the hands of unaccountable 'leaders', there will be rivalries, political intrigue, and wars to settle the issue of who is the true representative of Allah. After all, who wouldn't want that job? That is the history of Islam from its very beginnings. Call it bashing, but a fair reading of the history of Islam reveals it to be factual. Common sense reveals it to be inevitable: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Muslims aren't immune to that truism, it applies to all of us. It has been true for Christianity as well when the power and authority was concentrated in the hands of a few before its Reformation. It still is true among sects and congregations at times, but their power is very limited and subject to secular laws and the tradition of individual thought and rights.
There are signs that the extremists are losing favor as the residents of the ME are gaining access to more information, just as the extremists have feared and are seeking to prevent. We are seeing a revolution, often bloody, in that region. That has been the point all along. Islam in its fundamentalist incarnation can not exist in a modern world where ideas are freely traded and individuals are free to think and act contrary to the archaic tenets of the faith. Islam will survive, but it won't be the same. How many will die in that process is up to the 'believers'.
David,
I think you are making a good point here. I think the wars and the struggle in the ME might result in filtering the good from the bad. I guess the ME will witness a moderate approach to many things, including religion itself. Let’s wait and see. The struggle between Catholics and Protestants did not end in one night. God knows how much it’ll take the Sunnis and the Shiites to be moderate like the Europeans.
Good point, my friend. And thanks for your kind words ;)
Annie,
“how important is it for people in a secular society to understand the origins of conflict between to (opposing?) sides of religion and how those religious distinctions were at the heart of past conflict?
I believe that people need to know the differences in order to overcome them. Saddam was secular, but deep deep inside, he was a sectarian monster. He wanted to keep Sunnis on top and Shiites deep deep down. He managed to not make Iraqis make this issue as a big deal because he hammered on the pan-Arab nationalism against Iran.
“you say the book shows that the struggle is not religious more than political yet from your report most of what you mentioned relates to the sect distinctions. unless i misunderstood you.””
Yes, it all started political, but you need people in order to achieve your political goals. What the Shiite and Sunnis fought against was power. In order to get this power, they used the people like experiment rats. They injected them with speeches and brainwashed them for centuries. Now what you see in Iraq is more like a continuation to this struggle. People did not fight each other under Saddam for two reasons: first because they didn’t care less and second because they were afraid if they dared to fight, they would be crushed by the tyrannical regime.
What the Shiites and militias did was very similar to what the Abbasids and Wahhabis did in the centuries before. It was all about whom to rule Iraq. The Shiites always lost because they are the minority in Islam, but now that American invaded Iraq, it opened the Iraq gates that was closed since the Abbasid Caliphs centuries ago.
“why do you think that was? was it a trend among other iraqis families?”
Well, Saddam was backed up by Arab leaders who all are Sunni. They wanted to make sure the “Shia Revival” never happens. It was just a continuation to what happened earlier.
“was saddam doing iraqis a service by not providing education regarding the separations in religious history, or harming you.”
Yes and No. His method was helping Iraqis because they concentrated on prosperity, especially in the late 60s and 70s and early 80s. But this was not something good either because people needed to know the differences in order to learn from their history and get over the fact that they once fought against each other.
“but i do wonder if a shia revival is really good for society, not as opposexd to a sunni one, but as opposed to a secular one.”
The problem is the Shia revival is already happening whether we like or not. I don’t see any wrong in it as long as it does not favor some people over the other. Otherwise, it is no different than the Sunni dominance that ruled Iraq for centuries. If people are free, get basic life requirements, there is nothing wrong with it then.
Secularism in Iraq was mostly concentrated in Baghdad. The war has destroyed this secularism because of the earlier failure of the Americans in restoring order and because of the turbaned men they brought on their tanks from exile. Due to this war millions of seculars left the country, being unable to defeat the religious extremists (the one in the government and parliament) that were and still are supported by the Americans and their allies. So secularism is over in Iraq. And by nature, people tend to follow the strong. And since the religious people are in power now, they are followed.
“were your parents doing you a disservice by shielding you from this information? were they shielding you or did they think it was not important? how does it serve you to comprehend these conflicts in more recent memory can be explained thru your "grim and gruesome history'?”
Well, my parents were mostly busy with bringing us up against hatred. They were also busy bringing food and clothes to us when the UN, pressured by the US, sanctioned us. There was no space for religion in that time other than being a Muslim who prays and respects God.
“is it better or worse if people care about it more?”
Both! It’s worse because it caused us bloodshed and better because it showed us how much we hurt ourselves and that now we need to put our differences which we recently became aware of aside in order to rebuild the country.
“the more you absorb this information the more it explains why this conflict really happened, or does it?”
It does explain why it happened.
--
B Will Derd
“I have been amazed at the ignorance of educated Iraqis on the matter or their religion.”
Iraqis are not ignorant about their religion. They might have been ignorant about politics that used their religion as a disguise for certain purposes.
“Many of them have no idea of much that is within the Koran and don't want to know.”
Based on what? Now, I don’t really see this statement has anything to do with what we are discussing here. But since you brought it up, here is what I think:
Islam is a perfect religion, but not for this age. It was sent to the people ages ago when many things in this life is similar to what it was then.
“Ask Salman Rushdie if you doubt that. Read 'The Satanic Verses' first.
Islam is a dysfunctional fascist system when adhered to fundamentally, and always has been.”
Well, you can’t reason with an atheist. Atheists are like Jihadis. They are stubborn people who refuse to reason and prefer to impose their doctrine on others. What Salman Rushdie failed to explain in his “book” is that the verses of the Quran whom he described as satanic were sent in a time different than this one. Many things in the Quran do not apply these days in our lives. What the Jihadis did was interpreting whatever they wanted in the Quran in order to carry out their terrorist operations.
Politics and struggle for power.
“After all, who wouldn't want that job? That is the history of Islam from its very beginnings. Call it bashing, but a fair reading of the history of Islam reveals it to be factual.”
Yes, Islam was spread by the word and the sword and that’s how it was meant to be. Like Christianity and Judaism. Weren’t the Jews horrified when they discovered that Jesus was bringing a new religion? Didn’t they use horror against “the son of God”? Who crucified Jesus? That’s the nature of the peoples on earth. They don’t want others to take their place. It’s struggle for power.
Creating Israel was based on this struggle: spreading religion and state by word and sword. Now, you are going to call me anti-semtic but whatever, that’s the truth. Why did the only the Jews took over Jerusalem? Weren’t the Christians there? Weren’t the Muslims there? It’s struggle for power. It’s politics. They wanted to revive their dying religion, and that’s normal. That’s how history was shaped: battles and bloodshed in order to gain power.
“We are seeing a revolution, often bloody, in that region.”
Yes, we are and that’s what Robin Wright is talking about in her book. I’m revolting against any kind of submission other than submitting myself to law and order, to freedom, and to normal life. But that does not mean I am becoming against my religion. I still am a Muslim. My religion which I studied and read its holy book taught me love, respect, strength, patience, and solidarity. Yes, the religion included fighting, but that was not sent to me; it was sent to people who were spreading the religion against those who refused it, which was God’s will. God is God. He’s the same God as yours and as the Jews’. But have you seen God sending a messenger and a holy book that is exactly the same. No, he meant to change it every time he wanted it. Maybe, you are not a believer, but that’s what I think.
“Islam in its fundamentalist incarnation can not exist in a modern world where ideas are freely traded and individuals are free to think and act contrary to the archaic tenets of the faith.”
Well, it does. It exists in Indonesia, Malisia, Dubai, Oman… etc. people are still adherent to it.
My whole point was Islam is not the problem. It is its practitioners who used it as a means to carry out certain goals.
Treasure,
You know we periodically cycle through the same arguements, but with not exactly the same organization and presentation.
This is the one weakiness of the way blogs exist on the Internet. What happened last week is buried, accessible but for most of us, we can't search easily, and we want it now or not at all.
There comes a point when people who are opposed, or think they are opposed to Islam have to read more of it than a few verses. It is really unfair for people like WillB Derd to quote a verse here and there, because they or he knows the same thing can be done to distort the Old Testament, the New Testament or his favorite philosopher.
There are alot of Surahs that are short, But they are difficult to squeeze a preconceived meaning from them. Americans don't have the context, I have had to really work to understand and appreciate the small amount of satisfaction that I have gained from reading my translation of the Qur'an. So, one could wonder if it is really worth the trouble?
What would a modern American really gain from reading a translation of the Qur'an that he/she couldn't gain from a basic humanistic outlook or presentation? ONe that avoided all mention of religious names, and said with modern context and examples, "Do unto others are you would have them do unto you"
I suppose toleration would be one timeless product. But you know, all that effort would not lead to Muslims and Westerner Christians sitting down and discussing the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an. This is not Starbucks conversation, except once in a blue moon under the right conditons with the right personalities. And then who would wake up the next morning and want to do that kind of discussion again with another stranger?
As you say the Qur'an was perfect for its time and place. I, (and all Bahais) must completely agree with this statement. And there is a core that will never change, and this core gives you comfort right now in the middle of Philly. And I suppose it is a private feeling, because none of us will probably ever make the effort necessary to experience that serenity from the Qur'an (even in translation). People are not even reading books as much as they used to.
So humanists will see this as no big deal, because they deal with life on basically a non-spiritual level anyway. And fundamentalists will disagree because they are afraid to learn something else. Fear kills both ways.
Treasure,
The humanists have no religion, there is a quote in the Bahai Writings that says that people with no religion are worse, for various reasons, than people who hold on to a particular religion.
I suppose this is why Bahais are torn two ways about what is happening in Iran. The ignorant religious fanatics who believe they are gaining favor with God to destroy the Bahai community, are only "slightly" off base.
The humanist could easily snuff out a whole generation if it served his/her enduring purpose.
So, how does one tell the difference between a humanist politician and a power-seeking priest? They are one and the same, no difference.
I have that book, but haven't read it yet. Ahhh, so many books, so little time. :)
I am currently reading The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs. I'm not very far yet, but am finding it interesting.
One of the reviewes (and this book) apparently makes the same point you just did:
My whole point was Islam is not the problem. It is its practitioners who used it as a means to carry out certain goals.
Here is the review:
By Big Dave (Boise, Idaho) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (Paperback)
Pryce-Jones explores the question why there are no modern Arab liberal democracies.
He finds the answer in Arab social and political culture, specifically:
1. TRIBALISM. Pryce-Jones argues that Arab culture doesn't encourage Arabs to identify themselves as members of a state, but as members of a family or tribe. Arab political life therefore consists of a multitude of warring factions, none of whom seeks the good of the nation as a whole. As Karl Popper might describe it, they ask only the personal question "Who should rule?" (and answer: "I should!") and never ask the more fundamental institutional question "How should power be organized?"
2. THE SHAME / HONOR SYSTEM. Arabs place great weight on perceptions of their honor. This consideration therefore often trumps all others and results in behavior that looks, to western eyes, like insanity.
An example is the Aswan dam. Nasser announces that he will build the dam and that it will be a great thing, thereby committing his honor to its construction and success. Therefore, when his own experts tell him that the dam is a bad idea (it will disrupt agriculture, increase the spread of some diseases, etc.), he suppresses the information and does not back down. When the Eisenhower administration revokes the promised funding for the dam (because it's a bad idea), Nasser's honor has committed him so fully to the dam that he reverses his foreign policy 180 degrees and cuddles up to the Soviet Union to get it done. And when the dam, as predicted, turns out to be a curse rather than a blessing, Nasser goes on shouting its virtues.
3. THE POWER-CHALLENGE DIALECTIC. You're either in power in the Arab world, in which case you're paranoid and watching your subordinates and allies as closely as your enemies, or you're no, in which case you lurk in the shadows, plot and scheme until your hand is ready and you make your move to challenge the power holder. There is no notion of shared power, no notion of purely institutional power.
THEREFORE...
The result is that calls for democracy, like calls for socialism, Palestinian independence and even repentance and return to the true tenets of Islam, are bogus. They mask what would otherwise be naked grabs for power by an individual or a tribal group. The Arabs are constantly and consistently betrayed by their leaders.
Note that this is NOT a book about Islam. Pryce-Jones explicitly argues that this Arab culture pre-dates Islam and that Islam itself is often used as a tool or a pretext in power challenges (as in Wahhabism, for instance).
So far it is not a very positive book. Nor very flattering.
I haven't finished reading it yet(only on page 90), so will not give my opinion on his views.
Bassam, i really appreciate you answering my questions for me to have a fuller understanding of the value placed on these distinctions.
Saddam was secular, but deep deep inside, he was a sectarian monster.
i hope my questions regarding the period in which you grew up aren't be construed as an affirmation of him, but instead an understanding of how secularism was being reinforced in a society and to affirm i think this objective is a good one (tho of course not at horrible costs) and to understand how historical knowledge doesn't have to run counter to the objectives. i must admit it is a little confusing for me to comprehend how someone is sectarian and secular at the same time which i suppose is like being a racist who is not religious (but dividing people based on religion). which should be very familiar to me given the current climate of muslim bashing, because this doesn't necessarily come from religious people. obviously an atheist can still impose racism on a person based on their religion. so thank you for making this distinction.
I believe that people need to know the differences in order to overcome them. good answer! ...people needed to know the differences in order to learn from their history and get over the fact that they once fought against each other.....
i really hope this is the outcome of becoming more educated about the past and that what we don't see is further divisions based on understanding or continuation of past 'grudges' (mild word i know)
What the Shiite and Sunnis fought against was power. In order to get this power, they used the people like experiment rats.
ain't it the truth. i see this in the politicians here in the US too.
The problem is the Shia revival is already happening whether we like or not. I don’t see any wrong in it as long as it does not favor some people over the other.
ok, i am beginning to understand by your response you are referring to the ethnicity issue here (as a whole) and not solely the fundemental/religious aspect? in this regard it would not preclude a shia secular state, or would that be out of the question?
So secularism is over in Iraq.
really? forever? i think this would be very sad. it seems it may be on the way out in america to especially if we have fundies on the rise dominating our legislation regarding social issues.(woman's right to choose etc)
thanks again for your explanations i will try to get my hands on this book.
derd There are signs that the extremists are losing favor as the residents of the ME are gaining access to more information, just as the extremists have feared and are seeking to prevent. We are seeing a revolution, often bloody, in that region. That has been the point all along.
i'm seeing a contradiction here because religious extremeism has florished in iraq since the invasion, not the other way around as Bassam describes here..The war has destroyed this secularism because of the earlier failure of the Americans in restoring order and because of the turbaned men they brought on their tanks from exile. Due to this war millions of seculars left the country, being unable to defeat the religious extremists (the one in the government and parliament) that were and still are supported by the Americans and their allies. So secularism is over in Iraq.
so if you think bringing a revolution was 'the point all along' i think it is unfortunate so many have paid a horrible price and personally i would have preferred if revolution was going to happen it have happened in a home grown way so i wouldn't have the burden of guilt, but you already know that.
ANNIE:was saddam doing iraqis a service by not providing education regarding the separations in religious history, or harming you.'''
Annie, you never disappoint.
you don't either derd, if anyone can jump to harsh conclusions and create strawmen it is you. i will stick to the thoughtful answers and explanations of Bassam any day. you might learn something from how he addresses the question AS IF i were truely interested in learning from his response:
Yes and No. His method was helping Iraqis because they concentrated on prosperity, especially in the late 60s and 70s and early 80s. But this was not something good either because people needed to know the differences in order to learn from their history and get over the fact that they once fought against each other.
other than that derd, i think we spent an entire thread w/you bashing islam so i am not going to address your latest insulting rant which frankly, i skimmed thru.
edo What would a modern American really gain from reading a translation of the Qur'an that he/she couldn't gain from a basic humanistic outlook or presentation?
i think it would be very helpful, as an alternative of studying how different religions have interacted thruout history, to study the texts in conjunctions to understand the way religions cross over and say the same thing thru different tho similar passages. this is the only way i think it would be appropriate to have to learn the bible in school, along w/other religious texts.
lynn, from your review
My whole point was Islam is not the problem. It is its practitioners who used it as a means to carry out certain goals.
reminds me of certain christian leaders
freaky!
while checking out lynn's link i sauntered over to some reviews of The Shia Revival and read quite a few (interestingly, all of them complimentary). one carried some passages from the book:
"It is clear today that America cannot take comfort in an imagined future for the Middle East, and cannot force the realization of that future. Such an approach guided the path to war in Iraq and has proven to be unworkable. The lesson of Iraq is that trying to force a future of its liking will hasten the advent of those outcomes that the United States most wishes to avoid. Through occupation of Iraq, America has actually made the case for radical Islam---that ours is a war on Islam---encouraging anti-Americanism and fueling extremism and terrorism. The reality that will shape the future of the Middle East is not the debates over democracy or globalization that the Iraq war was supposed to have jump-started, but the conflicts between Shias and Sunnis that it precipitated. In time we will come to see this as a central legacy of the Iraq war....
The war in Iraq may take many directions. The country may split up or hold together; it may sink into civil war, or its competing communities may hammer out a power-sharing formula to make it work. Stability will require compromise among Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds, but it will still place Sunnis at the bottom of a power structure that they once ruled. This will not douse the flames of Sunni extremism that Iraq has stoked across the Middle East. The United States cannot decide what direction sectarian conflict will take. It will instead have to prepare for the unintended consequences of the Iraq war. A second explosion of Islamic extremism will come out of the Iraqi insurgency, whose force and tenacity will be entwined with the Shia-Sunni power balance across the Middle East, and which will seek to use sectarian conflicts to expand the scope of its jihad across the region."
in contrast to the book you are reading lynn, some reviews of 'the closed circle' are downright hostile.
Mr.Pryce-Jones' supposed expertise and background in the Middle East did not help disguise his apparent lack of deep knowledge and visible racism. Biased, eurocentric and a waste of money. I recommend watching FOX news instead. Same bashing, same point of views.
here is another
David Pryce-Jones is a British neocon. What Pryce-Jones offers up is recycled british political views on the "oriental mind" from the Victorian era. He offers nothing particuarly new in terms of analysis. There are shelves full of books from the past where exactly the same views can be found....
As with all people with his political views, the answer to dealing with the arabs is force. They should never be listened to because all their complaints and political views are false. No pity should be shown because its all their own fault. Where he ends up is where the victorians did. What the Arabs need is a good set of dictators imposed by western countries and supported by force. Since they are incapable of democracy and incapable of managing their oil, there is no moral problem in doing this.
What is seen in the book rather than a closed circle is the closed mind of a man who has constructed an anti-arab philosophy to justify his other political views. The arab world has a tremendous number of internal problems and the only thing he is right about is that those problems can only be solved by those people themselves. But having the west adopt antique notions of about Arabs from the victorian era, as Pryce-Jones does, can only make things worse.
ouch! but this reviewer i found to be HIGHLY entertaining...
Great book. I lived with arabs for several years and I got to know them a little bit more than I inteded to.....Arabs don't have moral or philosophical concept of either honor or shame. To lose is to be shamed, to win is to be honored. Simple as that.That's why they are so impervious to guilt.
I haven't finished the book yet.But in my opinion, this is the only book that is very accurate on the subject.It's like studying quantum physics:disturbingly counter-intuitive and alien.
You should absolutely read this book! Don't delay!
lol, how informative! it is not every day a book comes along w/such a raving review! (snark)
something tells me i won't be reading it. nothing like reading all about arabs from a neocon. i would have as much fun reading a book about americans written by a member of al queda! but i can see how it might be right up your alley.
Annie,
I have not finished the book yet, as I have said, so will not comment on his views. I am aware of the negative reviews it got as well as the positive.
I will say that in regard to the shame/honor element, I don't think that is necessarily exclusive to Arab society. You see bits and pieces of that type of behavior in other societies as well.
Arabs don't have moral or philosophical concept of either honor or shame.
I am not quite sure where this came from. Indeed, I am getting the impression, so far anyway, that there is perhaps a little too much emphasis on honor and shame. When taken to an extreme it may result in actions such as honor killings.
Here is an excerpt from the book where he is talking about the power-challenge dialectic, Annie. Let me know if it sounds at all familiar.
The most succesful challenger is obviously he who works his way through the elimination of every rival and seized the supreme prize of the state. In form, his career starts like that of any civilian. Rising upon the energy of his ambition, he must seek to bind together a retinue of men on whose services he can rely, in all likelihood kinsmen or friends and associates since childhood. Then comes another circle of those connected by village or tribe. Beyond that extends a wider circle still, of those who share an ethnic or religious tie, as Sunnis or Shias, as Druze or Alawis in Syria, as Kurds in either Iran or Iraq, as Berbers in North Africa, as Christians or Jews. If a man is to aim for absolute power, he has no choice but to appeal to his own kind, to promote them in the expectation that they will promote him. Only the ulema (and hardly even them in Sunni Islam) and the senior commanders of the army can be said to have any other organized or institutionalized loyalties. These two groupings are in a position significantly to authenticate and support a challenge or to oppose it: and they must be approached with due prudence. A challenger backed by representatives of Islam and of the armed forces may expect to broaden his retinue into a winning coalition. The prime incentive to lure potential allies is the promise of rewards in the event of success, with the complimentary fear of deprivation and exclusion if they do not join.
The test of experience alone can determine where a challenge will end. Depending on the extent of the power holder's ambition, the boundary of the state itself expands into hopeful imprecision, in the profusion of territorial demands that every Arab state makes upon its neighbors, varying the approach in a rhythm of military attacks and protestations of brotherhood and unity. Those of his tribe or religion who happen to live upon the other side of some frontier as defined according to the accidents of history and geography will expect to participate in the triumph of one of their own kind. Declaring allegiance to him, or even merely invited from afar to do so, they risk reprisal and massacre from the power holder to whose rule they actually submit.
Actually this might describe more than one person or group of people. And not all of them are Arab.
I haven't finished the book yet.But in my opinion, this is the only book that is very accurate on the subject.
Do please quote where I said this would be the only book I read or that it is even entirely accurate?
nothing like reading all about arabs from a neocon.
*shrug* He lived in Morocco as a child and has traveled to the Middle East extensively.
As with all people with his political views, the answer to dealing with the arabs is force.
Dang it Annie, you made me skip to the end. Okay, here is another excerpt:
The Arab world has no institutions evolved by common consent for common purpoase, under guarantee of law, and consequently there is nothing that can be agreed as the general good. No mechanism exists so that people may participate in whatever is being decided and performed in their name, and ostensibly for their sake. Without some such mechanism, presumably electoral but certainly representative, rights and duties cannot be defined, wealth cannot be shared with any degree of fairness, and vital issues of peace and war and life and death are at the sole disposition of whoever has power.
At present, an Arab democrat is not even an idealization, but a contradiction in terms. In the absence of institutions in which otherwise exclusive tribal and religious identities may all partake, however, and pending the introduction of pluralism in whatever form may be suitable, the Arab masses must remain uninvolved in influencing their own fate, unable to exercise the element of choice without which there is neither creativity nor true independence, nor even a genuine nation. In the first instance, the Arabs are the losers, a danger to themselves, dropping out of the making of history, but beyond that the rest of the world is deprived of what ought to be the valuable contribution of these people.
This sounds rather like he would like to see people in the Middle East involved in their own destiny through some sort of democratic process. How awful. (sarcasm)
This book was first published in 1989. It was published again in 2002.
Excerpt from the preface to the 2002 edition:
Twelve years ago, when this book was first published, the Arab world already appeared to be at an impasse. Far from liberating the energies of their people to keep up with others, Arab rulers were suppressing individuality and creativity. My book attempts to grasp the why and the how of it. The book was banned in the Arab world. It is a small but telling detail that it nonetheless received reviews in the Arab press, most of them consisting of lengthy quotations. In spite of censorship, readers could judge these passages themselves.
something tells me i won't be reading it. Annie
I never asked you to, Annie. Nor did I ask anyone else. I merely mentioned that I was reading it. And that last excerpt tells you why.
well, I just finished reading everyone's comments. I have learned alot about Arabic political culture. I'm not sure how much cuts to the core of the issues of our common humanity. This is why I took up the issue of priestly leadership, the priesthood exists in all religions, in all cultures. The training of these priests, (based only on what I know at the Univ. of the South, Theological Studies program) has roughly similar in all of the world religion training programs. Secondly these graduates are people with human ambitions.
I am all for having courses at university for 3rd year students with texts such as the ones we are discussing here. I am more concerned with the basic foundation that students have to understand their common links to all humanity before they even start on questions of community organization, citizenship identity.
My thoughts are that there are a wide variety of political forms which would get the job done if the individuals were trained in the cultivation of universal virtues of the human character, which all the world religions have espoused.
As I was reading your posts, including rereading my own I thought that Arabic culture, might, in some ways predict future trends in the US rather than only be viewed as something that is or was happening in a country and culture far far away, or long long ago. I don't mean exact replication, but the general trends in older cultures that the US might be predictive, because, people are people. You and me and Arabs (and Japanese) are not that remote from each other. What happened "there" 100 years ago could happen "here" in the future. and even vice versa. There could have been some advanced political concepts that had a brief showcase during the reign of some Emperor that disappeared.
I guess my contribution to this comparative political cultural discussion is that
Progress isn't an entitlement for the spiritually ignorant
As long as poeple keep performing Descartes tricks in their minds about spiritual and material values, these people's political output is bound to be defective.
Which seems a paradox since I mentioned that the Holy Qur'an was intended to bring ethical, God-fearing behavior up to the community leadership level. And that paradox is what I was trying to discuss in my postings. So there can be some shared sympathy between the Christian neocons and the fundamentalist Muslim leadership in Iran. There are similar problems with irresponsible individualism, and extreme materialism. These spiritual disease infect the capacity of the community leadership to make wise decisions for the benefit of all.
edo I am more concerned with the basic foundation that students have to understand their common links to all humanity before they even start on questions of community organization, citizenship identity.
very thoughtful. yes, the world would be a better place. focusing/learning what we share in common, prior to distinguishing how we are different might go a long way towards respecting our fellow man/woman.
Progress isn't an entitlement for the spiritually ignorant
As long as poeple keep performing Descartes tricks in their minds about spiritual and material values, these people's political output is bound to be defective.
could you elaborate on this thought. what you mean by descartes tricks?
lyn
"Arabs don't have moral or philosophical concept of either honor or shame........
I haven't finished the book yet.But in my opinion, this is the only book that is very accurate"
Do please quote where I said this would be the only book I read or that it is even entirely accurate?
if you review the sentence you referenced you will see it is part of a paragraph from a review(of the book you are reading) at amazon and not attributed to you. sorry for the confusion. i found it odd the reviewer admitted he hadn't finished the book but would suggest it was the 'only book that is accurate', plus his sweeping comments about arabs and honor/shame i found repulsive.
I am getting the impression, so far anyway, that there is perhaps a little too much emphasis on honor and shame. When taken to an extreme it may result in actions such as honor killings.
mcCain when recently asked by time magazine his definition of honor , told them he couldn't define it.
i think every person knows what honor is, even if they are not honorable. honor and shame are intricately linked because an honorable person, when not acting honorably feels shame. i don't think anyone can choose to place too much or too little emphasis on honor and shame because it is wired into us, thru our conscious/egos.
a person who really has no compass of honor or shame would be lost in the wind w/out a moral compass not being able to decipher between what is right and wrong.
and of course people differ over how they are programmed to judge what is right and wrong. it isn't just honor killings. many many more people have died over wars fought to protect the honor of a people (like the US after 9/11) inspired by lies and such, than acts of honor killings.
people thruout the ages have been programmed by concepts of honor and shame to carry out the mad designs of evil people to control masses whether they be women of certain cultures or the youth of cultures.
so while i believe we can educate people to transform how we percieve what is honorable and what isn't (and likewise shame) i do not think you can take the sense of 'honor' out of people. or shame ie guilt.
an example of this is if you accidently ran over a loved one in the driveway, in a situation than wasn't your fault. one would just feel terrible shame. it is as real as sticking your hand in the fire and as necessary for survival.
The most succesful challenger is obviously he who works his way through the elimination of every rival and seized the supreme prize of the state. In form, his career starts like that of any civilian. Rising upon the energy of his ambition, he must seek to bind together a retinue of men on whose services he can rely, in all likelihood kinsmen or friends and associates since childhood.
of course this sounds familar lynn! it speaks of raw ambition, but i don't see this as a market cornered by arabs. why, just recently we have heard of a woman who apon winning an election as the town major set about firing every person from office who didn't support her. in fact she fired the chief law enforcement officer of the state for not carrying out a personal vendetta against a man already punished by the department. bush crony's tried to purge the justice department of all democrats!
just because the arab world has members who act like this certainly doesn't make it representative of all arabs anymore than those who lust for power in unhonorable ways in our communities imply this is an american trait, or a caucasian trait.
however, it speaks of traits in the culture, like ours, tho different.
othing like reading all about arabs from a neocon.
*shrug* He lived in Morocco as a child and has traveled to the Middle East extensively.
fyi, David Pryce-Jones is published by the zion/neonut benador associates
He is the present senior editor of National Review. (radical right wing)
"When historians look back on the United States war in Iraq, they will almost certainly be struck by how a small group of mainly neo-conservative analysts and activists outside the administration were able to shape the US media debate in ways that made the drive to war so much easier than it might have been… But historians would be negligent if they ignored the day-to-day work of one person who, as much as anyone outside the administration, made their media ubiquity possible. Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for Perle, Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neo-conservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months."
they plant psyops news, you can read about it at the link.*shrug*
Annie,
i think every person knows what honor is, even if they are not honorable.
One would hope so, anyway. What I was really trying to get across with my statement was that I think there are perhaps too many situations that happen in the Middle East that seem to require action because someone's honor has supposedly been impugned. It can lead to extreme behavior that is really unwarranted. Such as so called honor killings. But what about the not so extreme situations? Such as the building of the Aswan dam that was mentioned in that review of the book? How can a society function properly if people are so worried about their honor, or place, that they can't reverse bad decisions?
his sweeping comments about arabs and honor/shame i found repulsive.
Well they certainly weren't fair or just, Annie. And since he didn't finish the book I can't see how he could even come up with any worthwhile opinion of it.
many many more people have died over wars fought to protect the honor of a people (like the US after 9/11)
I hardly think that the US went to war after 9/11 to restore some myth of lost honor. It was purely a defense mechanism to try to prevent the same people from doing it again.
just because the arab world has members who act like this certainly doesn't make it representative of all arabs...
No, if I thought that then there would be no hope for Iraq, would there? Some of the reviews and comments that I read on this book also pointed out that he tends to lump in other groups in the Middle East that are not Arab. Perhaps a poor title choice on his part.
Having said that, the things that are discussed, tribalism, shame/honor, power/challenge are certainly present in various countries in the Middle East. You have only to read the posts from the Iraqi bloggers to see that. There are examples of those things everywhere. Bassam said it himself:
My whole point was Islam is not the problem. It is its practitioners who used it as a means to carry out certain goals.
Which is why I brought up the book in the first place. Pryce-Jones is basically saying the same thing.
As to where he is published, or who he writes for, that is really irrelevent to what this book has to say. He has 36 pages of source notes. He may have compiled the book, but many of the words and thoughts belong to others as well.
But, there, you are making me defend the book when I haven't even finished it yet. *sigh*
Btw, have you read Abbas' latest post on Syria? Very depressing.
I hardly think that the US went to war after 9/11 to restore some myth of lost honor.
i agree, perhaps i worded that wrong. i think many people joined the armed forces after 9/11 because of a sense of honor. it was this sense of honor that was preyed aponn and targeted by propaganda to get the nation to war in a country that had no relation to 9/11.
It was purely a defense mechanism to try to prevent the same people from doing it again.
oh please. only to a delusional person susceptible to a bombardment of propaganda. everyone in their right mind knows we are not in iraq to prevent the people who attacked us on 9/11 to do it again. in that case we would be in saudi arabia.
Having said that, the things that are discussed, tribalism, shame/honor, power/challenge are certainly present in various countries in the Middle East.
the things that are discussed, tribalism, shame/honor, power/challenge are certainly present in various western countries also. even tribalism, tho we call it by another name. if you don't believe me check out the family values gop agenda and the racist 'obama waffles'. those people are a tribe. a dangerous one. would you consider promoting a book that isolated their sickness or would this be off your radar since it doesn't jive w/your political agenda?
You have only to read the posts from the Iraqi bloggers to see that. There are examples of those things everywhere. Bassam said it himself:
My whole point was Islam is not the problem. It is its practitioners who used it as a means to carry out certain goals.
My whole point was conservatism is not the problem. It is its practitioners who used it as a means to carry out certain goals.
it just so happens that demonizing islam happens to be the means in which some of these dangerous practitioners carry out their goals. and you assist them.
lyn, i would like to direct you to a post @ abu aarvark
re: I went to hear Under Secretary of State Jim Glassman and Ambassador Dell Dailey speak at GWU's Homeland Security Policy Institute on the topic of "Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Countering Terrorism."......
instead of focusing on the long-term project of building understanding of America among foreign publics ...or of improving America's image in the world ...Glassman prefers to narrow the focus to 'creating a hostile environment for violent extremism.' The mission, as he put it, is "highly focused" on the 'war of ideas' as part of counter-terrorism
it isn't lost on me that this 'focus' is not limited to the middle east . this 'honor' here in the US, wrapped in the flag for all to see, imperative for compliance of the american public in a war they don't want is the meme that 'islam is bad', 'dangerous' 'extreme'.
furthermore Finally, there is a real tension in their presentations in the portrait of al-Qaeda. On the one hand, they presented al-Qaeda as a "death cult", "imploding" under its own contradictions, with an ideology that "doesn't resonate with most Muslims" and carrying within it "the seeds of its own destruction". They gave much attention to Peter Bergen's account of AQ's fatal flaws, of the declining support for suicide bombing, the recantations by Dr Fadl, and the rest of this new narrative. But at the same time, they presented AQ as continuing to be an adaptive and dangerous organization, a propaganda juggernaut posing a continuing massive threat and with frightening abilities to recruit and radicalize. But which is it? Do they really see al-Qaeda as a marginal, self-defeating movement collapsing on its own irrelevancy, or as a major threat requiring the concentrated resources of the U.S. national security establishment? Does it really make sense to focus the American 'war of ideas' on such a self-defeating, collapsing death cult? This reminds me of nothing more than Jack Snyder's famous depiction of the 'paper tiger' myth, in which adversaries are simultaneously seen as so formidable that they pose an existential threat and as so weak that they can be easily crumpled by a forceful blow.
in this age if obama (osama) waffles, muslim massacre video games, neocon's endlessly convincing us how warped muslims are etc etc on and on, does it ever occur to you a segment of the american people just might be waking up to the fact that without this constant harping on 'extremists' the american public might think arabs and muslims are simply like us? and why on earth would the most well funded military on earth w/all these gang ho christian soldiers need years and years to battle this illusive enemy?
what do you think the public would think if we just told them straight up that we really need to control the geopolitical gains in the middle east including the bahulistan region of pakistan/afghanistan because of the access to the sea and the route to china and russia and all that?
might they just say, it aint worth it, lets find another way to run our cars and heat our house? besides, what are the chances these guys in a cave are going to come blow up our buildings on a day all of our defenses are down because we sort of were doing tests in the sky with all of our planes, or something. wouldn't it just make more sense to protect our borders?
but what we need is not inside our borders. it is over there, and without those extreme terrorists we would have no reason to be there, at least not one the american public would be interested in defending.
so while i may think it is interesting to read about islam, and the shia revival if it is a far cry from the part of it if being used to demonize islam, this has no value to me other than to be used as a tool of propaganda which i am going to be able to get all the time thanks to our own fanatics constantly shoving it in our face. so the last thing i would do would be to read a book about it, from a neocon who i know has an agenda divorced from mine.
the topic of 'narratives' is also covered recently (often actually) over @ missing links
What's their secret? How can you spend hundreds of billions to accomplish nothing, and never have to face a Lehman moment? Obviously, finance isn't wrapped in the flag the same way the military is. Equally obviously, it's a lot easier to hide mistakes when you're the only news source. Plus there's no draft. But there's something else that keeps the ball rolling too, and that is the fact that there's always a new story. Back in 2003 it was preemption. Now it's COIN. Pretty soon it will be preemption again, or something else, maybe "liberal interventionism". The story-telling just goes on and on and on*. And that's the part of this ominous show where we can all have good seats.
Post a Comment