Warning, this is another one of my periodic "why people should pay more attention to history posts."
Today, after reading about recent revelations of Saudi-Israeli contacts I was reminded of Hugh Kennedy's When Baghdad Ruled The Muslim World
Here's the passage that piqued my interest:
But Riyadh really does not have a choice when attempting to counter the Iranian geopolitical invasion of what it considers its turf. Saudi Arabia is trying to contain the Iranian/Shiite threat by underscoring its leadership role in the region. The Saudis know the Iranians and Syrians are trying to emerge as a player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are thus sending a message -- particularly to the Palestinians -- that Riyadh, rather than Tehran, can secure their interests because it has the leverage on both sides. The Saudi regime, despite its many problems, is confident that no domestic force is capable of destabilizing it, and hopes to use the international embargo on the Palestinians to wean them away from the Iranian/Syrian camp.
Couple of things jump out at me first. One, who does Saudi Arabia fear more here? Israel or the Shi'ites in its midst, along it's border with Iraq and all of Iran? I'll betcha the Saudi's kinda miss old Saddam's Baathist bulwark against the raging Shi'ite hordes about now. If they're willing to cozy up to the Israelis, the Crusader State itself, well, you have to infer something else: they aren't too afraid of al Qaeda inside the Kingdom. Why would they be if excess steam can be removed via Afghanistan, again.
Then there is the diplomatic angle: the Saudis are trying to prove to the Palestinians that they can get things done because a.) they have the Americans in their back pocket and b.) they've got an under the table relationship with the Israelis too. Theoretically they should be able to play both sides of the table, pressuring the Israelis for concessions and pressuring the Americans to pressure the Israelis to make some concessions. They've got the best lubricant of all to do so: oil. Israel might play along to a certain extent, but until an outside power comes along, the geopolitical equivalent of deus ex machina, that will compel the Israelis to leave most of the West Bank there will not be any deal. I don't see the Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah entente as capable of doing that either, yet. Which means the US is still the one power in the world that could forge a settlement but for internal political reasons that will not happen any time soon.
But there is a more long-term, big picture development happening around us that's hard to comprehend through all the noise out there. We all know that the Islamist/Jihadi/Salafist strain of Islam is attacking the modern secular Sunni regimes. It's kind of like when the Jesuits launched the Counter-Reformation. (They did manage to bring Poland back into the fold.) But Sunni fundamentalism is also a reaction to something else, something more visceral. It's not just modernity, it's more along the lines of the Bernard Lewis thesis. A kind of rage that the world has left them behind, something much, much more complicated than Bush's "they hate us for our freedom's." It's more like they hate us because we represent modernity and in a sense modernity has taken away so much of their ability to imagine their own future. Remember, 300 years ago a man could travel from Morocco to Meerut and all was Islam, with a distinct Persian flavor most of the way. And now?
Modernity, so overwhelming and disruptive of traditional society is still transforming all societies. I think the changes it's bringing are as massive as those of the agricultural revoltion 12,000 year ago. And, while my next comment is far from being PC, it's got to be said: some societies might not survive modernity. History has no hard and fast rules. And I've yet to see a rule that says all societies have to survive. Only the distant future can answer that question and I won't be around to see it.
The Arabs and the Persians have long competed against one another. For the Arabs and Muslims in general, no achievement will ever rival the Q'uran. This is as it should be, for the Q'uran is the Word of God, which, after all, was revealed to an Arab. After His Word had been revealed the Arabs burst forth out of the desert wastes conquering a goodly portion of the planet, wrecking the Sassanid Empire in the process. But after just a few generations, power in the Muslim world shifted back to Persia, Khorasan to be exact, as the Ummayads were replaced by the Abbasids whose base of power were the merchant cities of Khorasan in Northeast Persia. It is at this point that Persian culture began a long eclipse of Arab culture. The enmity lives today and the proof is Saudi Arabia's moves towards the "Zionist Entity."
My point here is this: there is an old, visceral battle going on between Arabia and Persia. It's something that transcends Sunni and Shi'a as well. It's about the direction Islam will take in the future. The Arabs have one view, and it's not particularly appealing: economic autarky, strong man rule and violent suppression of dissent. The Persians (and the Turks, Kurds and Azeris) on the other hand have another view and that's pluralistic and democratic in an Islamic context, with natural law derived from the tenets of Islam, not Christianity. (This will no doubt cause problems--sometimes violent--as Islamic values don't always align directly with those of the West.) Yes, Iran has a lot of problems, especially when it comes to freedom of speech and human rights. But Iran and Turkey have much more vibrant civil societies than do Saudi Arabia, or Yemen. Iran has a long way to go, but comparatively speaking, they are a lot further along than the Arabs.
Suggestions for further reading:The Persians,
Histories,
Anabasis
Persian Fire,
The Persian Puzzle
The Shahnameh,
The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane,
In Search of Zarathustra,
Shah of Shahs
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
The empire long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.
This is an idea that has only relatively recently lodged itself into the Western consciousness, within the last 300 years as the wisdom of the East became available to scholars in the west via exploration and colonization. Before that, Westerners had a narrower view of history that has a long and old pedigree. Via a 5th-6th centruy BC Zoroastrian infusion into what would become Judaism and then later Christianity the West (including the Islamic world too) a decidely eschatological view of history, meaning, rectilinear, emerged. This view sees history with a starting point and and ending point. Just take a look at all the Tim LaHaye books on the shelf at your local Borders.
I tend to see history less as cyclical, although it does rhyme from time to time, and more like a river meandering along. One that sometimes floods and carries all before it. At others it passes by with naught but a trickle.
Sean-Paul, this line struck me particularly. I tend to think that it is less modernity itself that is the problem and more the ways in which modernity is pressed upon certain societies; essentially with little/no respect for their traditions, with terms dictated from the outside rather than reached by some sort of concensus. Much of the West seems to advocate for modernity at any cost (to hell with those left behind), while the Islamists push toward the opposite extreme of tradition at any cost. The extremism on both sides is equally disturbing.
Great essay. I've read Bernard Lewis and it does appear to me that Islam has not recovered from the fact that they did not conquer the world.
Islam is theology based upon the 2 vauled Aristotelian logic [A logic ]of all or nothing. The theology has very little room for compemize and thus their - and the rest of the world's, dilemma.
They assume that they have the word of God and thus are the ultimate expression of divine will. They assume that they will convert the world - it is inevitable.
They have no clear conceptual options. Having only the 2 valued Aristotelian logic [A Logic ] to work with there is only 100% truth or 100% falsehood.
The Modernity is based on a different logic system, more on this later.
But first off Christianity is its most orthodox form is also an A Logic system, which creates the clash of 2 ideologies beleiving they have 100% of the Truth. "Clearly", from Islam and Christianity's perspective, the other is 100% wrong. [Judaism in its orthodox form is also an A Logic system, but they have learned a bit of humility from being a long time minority. They consider themselves True an right, therefore a sense of superiority, but they agree that they aren't the only way- any righteous/good person can get to heaven. ]
The world faces a crisis - and I beleive part of the solution is a back door one.
To put out there the idea that the 2 valued A Logic is actually a 'formal' and restrictive utility system and much of the scientific analysis, 'modernity' and practical everyday thinking is in reality a multi-variable logical system.
Finally, much of Islamic art has deep, deep roots in the neo-platonic idea that man and God can find communion themselves without a priestly or hieratic intercessor. See Islamic Art and Spirituality by S H Nasr for more.
I think you make an excellent point. This is something I witnessed recurrently when I lived and taught in South Korea in the early 90s. Very good point.
Both societies must adapt to a changing world or ultimately perish, as a major country in the least. Nobody really forces any modern ways on anybody, it just happens. As much as one would want to isolate themselves from a changing world, it cannot be done forever. History has numerous examples. The world keeps turning.....
Thanks.
:-)
-Hooman
"Finally, an objective article. I wrote a couple, but then people wrote stupid overtly political, naive, biased comments and messed it up. THANK YOU!!! "
When you post an article and use the politics tag that will happen.
Sean very interesting but a bit on the High brow side. I was hoping that at the end you would boil it down. Because after all is said and done. Is there any chance that the religious leaders of the Islamic world will reflect long and hard on their role in the modern world? After they have, is their any chance that they will temper the seemingly endless procession of radical Islamic extremists. I don't think the average American is going to read the list of books you suggest and although it's a little sad I don't know that it would help any way. I am happy for those of you who have taken the time to read all the books but many people don't have the desire or the time to wade through them. I think the big question on the minds of a lot of people can be constructed something like this.
Will the Islamic extremists continue to use terror tactics to kill innocent civilians?
Will Iraq settle down and develop a peaceful form of government that is not susceptible to coup every now and then.
Will Iran stop funding Hezbollah?
Will Iran develop a nuclear weapon?
If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, what are the odds that they will actually use them?
The answers to these questions can't be found in books. The only practical way to speculate on the answers is to share meaningful information and look at recent historical events then attempt to predict.
My interpretation through study of the Qur'an and the Sunnah leads me to believe that In the early days of Islam they believed and practiced tolerance to the other People of the Book. Somewhere along the way something changed.
Here is the problem. Many people don't understand the fundamental Islamic concepts that would allow the majority if the Muslims to stand by and watch as a small group of their kind declare war on much of the rest of the world. I truly believe that the USA would not be at war if there had been any indication that the Muslim world would have rooted out the extremists and dealt with them.
For a real world comparison. The KKK became very antagonistic and was implicated in murders and terror. Like it or not the KKK was a belief system and in that system laid the roots of the violence. The KKK still exists but has been repressed to the point of being insignificant. How ever, at their height of membership and activity they were actively pursued by law enforcement. The end result, there were a few arrests and convictions. It is inconceivable that the rest of the USA would allow them to declare holly wars on foreign nations.
Comment for Sean-Paul: You said "...there is an old, visceral battle going on between Arabia and Persia."
This seems strangely reminiscent of the "Prince of Persia" and "Prince of Greece" (Arabia?) concept described by the Hebrew apocalypticist Daniel. Could it be deeper than visceral?
The Saudis have said twice now rthat if the US pulls out of Iraq, they will intervene to support the Sunnis. Which supports your point.
But: Now we've got Iran, likely Syria, Saudi, abd likely Turkey invading from the north so THEIR Kurds don't try to split Turkey in half, adding the eastern half of Turkey to Kurdistan.
Regional war!
MOW WHAT?????