The Cat's Book Review:
Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes, by Tamim Ansary.
A Book Review.
Part One. Mr. Ansary's book is a purely secular history---it has nothing to do with religion, and neither does this review. This post is the transcript of a lecture in three parts delivered as a sermon at The Cedar Valley Unitarian Universalists, in Cedar Falls Iowa, in November of 2016.
Note: Just read the first page of Part One. Then, if it looks interesting to you, read the rest.
The
book, Destiny Disrupted, is by Tamim Ansary,
an Afghan who has lived in the West for 38 years. Mr. Ansary has spent his professional life
editing text books, mostly history
texts. Once, when Mr. Ansary had just completed a new
high school level world history text, his publishers objected to the fact that
out of 33 chapters, he proposed 3 chapters on Islamic history. They thought that one chapter should
suffice. After all, why should a world
history book spend one tenth of its ink
on that "Moslem stuff"?
Wait
a minute. In a world with 1.5 billion Muslims, who for 1,200 years dominated half of Asia and half of Africa, why would one
tenth be too much? Ansary complains that
the West has made a deliberate effort to remain as ignorant of the Islamic
world as possible--- and this ignorance is mutual. People growing up in Islamic countries know
just as little about us as we know about
them, and their leaders intend to keep it that way. In the US, high school
graduates might have a vague idea who Mohamed was, but have probably never
heard of Umar Ibn Al Kathab, Akbar the
Great, or Mustafa Kemal. Any high school graduate in the Islamic world would
know exactly who these figures were. But
although they would be aware of Jesus of Nazareth, most have never heard of Julius Caesar,
Charlemagne, or George Washington. For centuries, this mutual ignorance made no difference
because the world of East and West would rarely intersect.
But the world is getting smaller
every day---- so perhaps we should take a better look at each other.
The
most amazing thing about the development of East and West, is that until fairly
recently, our worlds were nearly parallel.
We both have a recorded history that begins in the Fertile Crescent. After that, we both had a bunch of Bronze Age
empires that rose and fell, and then we both had a classic period. In the West, it was Rome. In the East, in was the Khaliphate. Both were empires that spanned half the
civilized world, and lasted for hundreds of years. Both, at one point, spread a common language
and a common faith over the extent of its realm. And both were destroyed by barbarian invasions
from the north. In the West, it was
Germans. In the East, it was Turks and
Mongols. And after the destruction,
both had a landscape sub-divided into small kingdoms, but still unified by
faith and language. And both had a period of scientific awakening, where they
led the world in science and technology.
Originally,
Both worlds were built around trade
routes. In the West, these were the sea
routes of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
To the East, the trade routes
were the overland routes-- the caravan routes from Egypt to Mesopotamia or
Anatolia, to Persia and India, or across the silk road to Central Asia and
China. The one place where these two
worlds overlap is Palestine. The Levant had
the main trade route in and out of Egypt, and also the easternmost Mediterranean seaport. Since this is where the two worlds collide,
it has been a political hot spot for millennia.
(end of page one)
Ansary gives us a few chapters on the early life of
Mohamed, and on the early years of Islam. Mohamed was born in Mecca about the year
570 AD, in an area that was on the fringes of two decaying empires----The
Byzantines and the Sassanid Persians.
The Byzantines would continue in some form till 1453, but even by 600 AD they were well into a long decline. Though there were Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians
in this area, most worshiped tribal
gods, and Mecca was a city of shrines to dozens of them. Mohamed's father died before he was born,
and his widowed mother died six years later, so he was raised by an uncle. His uncle was kind to him, but he always
felt he was treated badly by the rest of the community. According to Ansary, the first take-away thing to remember about
Mohamed is that he grew up feeling that people just don't treat widows and orphans
properly.
When Mohamed was 25, a wealthy widowed
business woman named Khadija hired him to look after her caravans, and later
they married. This marriage lasted 25
years until Khadija died, and during that time Mohamed took no other wives.
Mohamed became successful and respected,
but at the age of 40, he grew troubled and began to ponder the meaning of
life. He wondered, "In a world bursting with wealth, why
were there widows and orphans with barely enough to eat." He began spending his evenings thinking about
this, usually in a cave near town. And one night he had a vision----he believed
that the Angel Gabriel had appeared to him.
He ran home frightened and told his wife about it. Khadija believed that the vision was real,
and advised him to obey it.
He had many more visions in the same cave,
and eventually began preaching the message that he believed he had
received: That there was only one God---and
you must submit to His will or be
condemned to Hell. Now, you may
think that this would be a fairly non-controversial idea, and among the Jews
and Christians it was, as they were already mono-theists. But Mecca was then a center of shrines to
dozens of gods, and the pilgrimage trade
was one of the town's two main industries.
Then Mohamed began preaching that submitting to the will of God meant
giving up alcohol and debauchery. Unfortunately,
alcohol, gambling, and prostitution was the town's other main industry, so the
city fathers became quite annoyed with Mohamed and tried to shut him up. Mohamed had the protection of his uncle, who
was a clan leader. But in 622, his wife
died, and so did his uncle. And when another uncle became clan leader, he
announced that Mohamed did not have his protection. Still in 622,
Mohamed learned of an assassination plot against him-- and left town. This flight from Mecca is called the Hejira,
and is the starting point of the Islamic calendar.
When
Mohamed left Mecca in the middle of the night
with two loyal friends, Abu Bakr, and Othman, he went to a town two hundred miles north
called Yathribe, later named Medina. He
did not choose this destination at random.
In his years at Mecca, Mohamed had acquired a reputation as a skilled
negotiator and a fair and impartial arbitrator.
Yathribe then had a tribal dispute involving several tribes, and they
needed someone to diffuse this dispute
before it erupted into open war.
Only an outsider could do this, so a committee
of town elders had come to Mecca and begged Mohamed to take the case. They offered him full authority to settle the
matter. So when Mohamed and his companions
arrived in Yathribe, they were not just weary travelers---they were honored
guests. Mohamed immediately sat down
with the various tribes and hammered out an agreement that brought a lasting
peace. The tribes signed a compact in which they agreed not to attack each
other. They also agreed on methods for
settling purely internal tribal disputes and for arbitrating inter-tribal matters. And they agreed on religious freedom for all citizens.
And everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, agreed to come to the defense
of Medina if it should be attacked. This
compact was called the Compact of Medina, and is thought by some to be the
world's first constitution.
Soon
all of Mohamed's followers from Mecca had arrived in Medina, including his huge
bodyguard , Omar, and his son-in-law Ali. But they all arrived penniless and
homeless. In leaving Mecca, they left
behind their land and their businesses, and cut themselves off from their
families. (Hejira means the severing of ties.)
Mohamed appointed a local Muslim convert
to act as a liaison to these displaced Meccans, and help them start a new
life. Soon they had founded a community
which cared for its members---a collective of sorts. And they called it the Umma. This Umma was the fruit of Mohamed's conscious
attempt to form a just community; a
community where all members were equal, respected, and protected; and where no member would ever be
abandoned. Which brings us to the second take away about
Islam: It is not just an individual path
to salvation. Its members believe that
it is indeed a path to individual salvation. But it
is more than that: it's a social
contract. From the very beginning, it
was intended to be a very specific blueprint for a just community, a just
society, and a just world.
So
how well did this "Umma" work?
For the first 35 years or so, it succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Because of Mohamed's personal charisma, he
had been able to bring peace, and had
become a local hero in Medina. All of
Medina except the three Jewish tribes joined the Umma, and were willing to
follow Mohamed wherever he led. But soon the leaders of Mecca decided that
something had to be done about Mohamed, so they launched a series of little
wars against Medina, and lost every time.
In the first battle, the Muslims were outnumbered three to one, but won
easily. In the final battle, the Meccans
brought 10,000 men and laid siege to Medina, but still lost. So the local folk lore was that Mohamed could
not lose because God was on his side.
Soon, people from the whole region were converting to Islam.
In
a few more years, Mecca surrendered to the Muslim leadership and destroyed
their idols. And as the area administered by Muslims
expanded exponentially, so did the area
that lived in peace, often for the first time in memory. As the energies formerly devoted to war were available for
other uses, the prosperity of the Umma increased.
At some point
Muslims began thinking of the world as divided into two sectors: The Dar al Islam- --the realm of submission to God--
and the Dar al Harb--the realm of mindless war.
And many Muslims still think of the world in those terms today.
After
arriving in medina, Mohamed received additional revelations and solidified the Muslim code of conduct---the
Five Pillars. To be a Muslim, one must:
Acknowledge
that there is only one god, and Mohamed is his prophet.
Say
specific prayers five times a day.
Fast
from dawn to dusk during the month of Ramadan.
Make
a pilgrimage to Mecca once in a lifetime, if able.
Give
to charity according to one's ability.
That last one merits our
attention. This is not just
encouraged----it is required. If you
fail to do this, you are, by definition,
not a Muslim.
Mohamed
also re-married, to ten women, mostly for political reasons. He married the daughters of his close
associates, unless they had already married his. Of his first four successors, all four were
either his fathers-in-law or his sons-in-law.
In Arab society, one solidifies political alliances by intermarriage. And when polygamy is allowed, this allows
room for a lot of politics. By the time
he died, Mohamed controlled Mecca, Medina, and a strip along the Arabian coast which
connects them. This area is called the
Hejaz.
Mohamed
died in 632, and was succeeded by Abu Bakr,
an old friend, early supporter, and father-in-law. The little empire started to fly apart when
Mohamed died, But Abu did a clever job of holding it together. Mohamed's
son-in-law Ali had always assumed he
would be the successor, and he had a constituency within the Umma who backed
him, and there was some resentment about Ali not being chosen. But Ali was still young, and Abu was middle
aged. Young Arabs do not order their
elders around, so Ali cheerfully accepted the situation. Besides, Abu was doing a good job as Khalif.
And
when Abu died in 634, Ali was again passed over and the job went to Omar Ibn al
Kathab, another of Mohamed's fathers-in-law. Members of the community had assumed that
Omar was just a tough old soldier. But
upon becoming Khalif, he proved to be a wise, humble, and compassionate ruler, besides being a
military genius. In his ten year reign,
he made the Dar al Islam larger than the
Roman Empire at its peak. It included
Egypt, all of the Arabian peninsula, and all of Persia.
Ali's supporters were again irritated, but who could object to old Omar? He accepted almost no salary, wore old
clothes which he patched himself.
(Sometimes doing this task during meetings with heads of state.) And when he needed more money, rather than
accept a higher stipend, he would hire
himself out milking the neighbor's cows.
Omar treated all members of the community as his equals; and he referred all local decisions to a
committee of elders and had the decisions ratified by the assembly.
And Omar was equally wise in dealing with the
newly conquered territories. He forbad his soldiers from seizing property of common citizens, or even buying
land from them.
And he ordered absolute religious
tolerance. While he did impose a
special tax on all non-Muslims (the
Jezia ), it was usually less tax than
they were accustomed to paying, and they
were excused from paying the charity tax imposed on all Muslims. And most of the money squeezed out of the
provinces was invested in infrastructure there. Omar built roads, bridges, canals, and over
5,000 mosques.
When
Omar died in 644, Ali was again passed over, this time for Othman, another old
friend of Mohamed's, and one of his sons-in-law. Many of Mohamed's followers in Mecca had
been wealthy, but by coming to Medina had abandoned it all. But when Othman
left Mecca for Medina, he did not lose everything. Being of the powerful Umayyad family, he had such widespread
holdings that his Mecca interests were only a small part of his estate. In the early years of the Umma, Othman had
been very generous and provided the Umma with funds at a time when they were
needed. And perhaps the Umma felt they owed him for that.
By the time Othman died in 656, the Dar al Islam extended from
Morocco to India, and north into Afghanistan, the Caucasus, and much of Central
Asia. And Othman was good at increasing
revenue---perhaps too good. He did not want the money for his personal use; he
lived on bread and water and wore rags.
But his high taxation provoked unrest
and a riot in which he lost his life.
With angry mobs rioting in the streets of Medina, they finally asked Ali
if he would like to be Khalif. He told
them to go to hell. But they begged, and
he finally relented. Ali did all the
right things, but it was too late.
Before it was all over, there would be a full scale rebellion, more
assassinations, a war of succession with
Muslim fighting Muslim and tens of thousands dying, and a bitter split that would persist to this
day between what would become the Sunni and Shiite factions.
When
the fighting ended, the victor who
claimed the title of Khalif was one of Othman's
Umyyad relatives, a clever, charming, and utterly ruthless fellow named
Mu'ma'wiya, the governor of Damascus.
He claimed the title simply because he had the largest army. And he proclaimed that there would be no more
wars of succession as his successor would be his son. So what started as a faith-inspired social
compact ended as just another imperial bureaucracy headed by hereditary despots. Not that the Umayyads were especially bad
despots. Actually, they knew how to run
things because, as wealthy businessmen, they had always run things. Mu'ma'wiya
moved the capital to Damascus and made Arabic the official language of the
whole empire. By giving the empire a
common language, trade improved and administration became more efficient.
But Camelot was over. Mohamed had founded a compassionate,
democratic society where all Muslims were equal, and where there was a place in
public life for everyone, including women.
And it was a place where succession was based on merit, and where those
seeking high office were not petty thugs jockeying for power or wealth, but honest, humble,
and pious men who believed that God
had asked them to build a just society, and that Mohamed had given them the
blueprint. And it had actually
worked---for about a generation.
As
the Umayyad empire grew wealthy, scholarship, art, and literature
flourished. Even under Omar,
scholars had been hired to begin making an orderly record of the preachings
of the Prophet (the Q'uran), and also of
statements Mohamed had made in casual conversation, (the Hadith). And from this work, the third Khalif created
the single authorized edition of the Q'uran used today. But in
750, there was a revolution against the Umayyads, and the Abbasids seized power and slaughtered the whole Umayyad clan,
except for one man who escaped to what is now Spain, and established a separate
khaliphate there. A year later the
Abbasids pushed into Kazakhstan and fought the Chinese. Two of
the Chinese soldiers taken prisoner revealed
the secret of paper-making. Within a
few years every city in Dar al Islam had a paper mill. With a supply of cheap paper, Islamic scholars were soon cranking out
multiple copies of every ancient text they could get their hands on, and
sending them to Islamic libraries across the realm. In 859, Fatima al Fihri, a wealthy Muslim
widow founded Al Qarawiyyin University (al-Car-a-wee-yen)
in Fez, Morocco. This is the world's
oldest university, and the first of many excellent Islamic seats of higher
learning. As a young man, Pope Sylvester
II studied there, and after becoming pope he reformed European education by
introducing the decimal system and Arabic numerals, and re-introducing the
abacus. Collectively, these institutions
also gave Europe Algebra, the astrolabe, and improvements in chemistry,
medicine, and astronomy.
In
the early Abbasid period, there were three main Muslim intellectual movements competing for influence: the clerical scholars, the natural philosophers, and the Sufi poets. The clerics hoped to find revealed
truth, the philosophers hoped to
discover scientific truth, and the Sufis hoped to find spiritual truth, through
mental exercises aimed toward immediate religious experience, the feeling of God's presence within. And each group had a natural constituency. The
common people usually gravitated toward either the clerics or the Sufis. But the Abbasid rulers preferred the council of
scientists. Shortly after seizing
power, the Abbasids built a new capital city at Bagdad, and within 50 years it
became the largest and richest city outside of China. By
1,065, Bagdad was a university town and a center of intellectual ferment. Among
the philosophers, the Mu'tazilites claimed that reason could reveal truths that
could never be found in scripture, because revelation could not possibly cover
the details of every situation. Yet any
revealed truth, if really true, could
eventually be revealed by reason. So the
study of scripture was irrelevant. The
Mu'tazilites frequently argued with the clerical Asharites on this point, and
they always won because they had studied Greek logic and rhetoric and knew how
to argue. Even the Khalifs accepted the Mu'tazilite argument and strongly
supported its wide adoption. Then along
came al Ghazali, born 1,065. Al Ghazali
was probably the most brilliant mind of his age, and we owe a lot to him. He didn't like the Mu'tazilites and decided
to beat them at their own game.
He immersed himself in Greek philosophy and wrote a text on Greek philosophy called The
Aims of the Philosophers. This book
later found its way into Europe and was so lucid an explanation of Aristotle
that it became a standard text for centuries.
But in his original edition, he added a cover which explained that he
did not actually believe any of it; it was all rubbish, and he could prove it
and intended to do so in his next book.
But the cover letter never made it to Europe, nor did the second
book. Europe received it as a strongly
pro-Aristotle treatise.
But
in his second book, he attacked reason by saying that the presumed relationship
between cause and effect cannot actually be proven. We assume that fire burns cotton because whenever
we see cotton burning, fire is present.
But this only proves contiguity, not causality. What if it burns because God makes it burn, and
fire is present because God wills it to be present? (As silly as this sounds,
David Hume uses a similar argument.) But many proclaimed that al Ghazali had
won the day. If there is no provable
relationship between cause and effect, then science is absurd, and we might as
well just rely on scripture. Al Ghazali
was appointed to head a prestigious institute and showered with wealth. Now, this did not, by any means, put the philosophers out of business, at
least, not immediately. But it did make
the rejection of science respectable.
Ansary
says (and I'll quote the whole
paragraph, because I think it speaks a great deal to us today),
"The
assumption that many shades of gray exist in ethical and moral matters allows
people to adopt thousands of idiosyncratic positions, no two people having
exactly the same beliefs. But in times
of turmoil, people lose their taste for subtleties and their tolerance for
ambiguity. Doctrines that assert
unambiguous rules promote social solidarity because they allow people to cohere
around shared beliefs, and when no one knows what tomorrow may bring, people prefer to clump together."
And
Islam was about to enter an age where no
one knew what tomorrow would bring. The empire was at its peak, but was falling apart.
Iberia had its own Khalifate since the last Umayyad fled to there. And
then the Egyptians founded their own
Fatimad Khalifate. And the northern borders were under sporadic attack
by Turks---so much so that the Bagdad Khalifate was hiring Turkish mercenaries
to repel them. The Umayyads had fallen
because, in the end, there were very few left who were willing to fight for
them, and a growing number who were willing to fight against them. The Abbasids held power for 500 years, but
toward the end, they had the same problem.
They were seen as just another
corrupt, decadent empire, whose Khalifs lived in luxury, drank wine, and kept
concubines. How was this Islam? Finally, a tide of Mongols destroyed the
city of Herrat, killing all 1.7 million men, women, and children. And in 1,258, they leveled Bagdad, and killed another 2.5
million. It was a holocaust---a genocide.
In
a faith-based society, people naturally assume that their early victories prove that
there is a god, and God is on their side.
And as long as they continue to win, they can continue believing this
narrative. But if victory means that God
is on our side, what does defeat mean?
Historically, there have been three possible answers
to this conundrum:
(1.) Our God does not exist. Would anyone ever accept such an
answer? The Norse apparently did. You don't see a lot of people worshiping Odin
these days.
( 2.)
We lost, not because God has abandoned us, but because of our own
stupidity. We should get better weapons
and a better strategy. This would be a
typical modern Christian reaction.
( 3.) God is angry, because we no longer serve Him
in the correct manner. We must reverse
all changes in our society that have occurred since that last time we were winning. This was the story used by the Hebrew
prophets, and is the reaction of most faith-based societies.
And this last was
the reaction of Islam. In the face of
this horrible, genocidal disaster, they turned away from the world and turned
inward, back to a simpler faith of an earlier time.
But
that was eight hundred years ago. Islam
didn't end---there are 1.5 billion Muslims today. So, what happened in that eight hundred
years, and how does it affect Islam's modern view of itself and its view of the
West? That will be the subject of part
two.
Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through
Islamic Eyes, by Tamim Ansary.
A Book Review.
Part Two.
We
ended Part One with the destruction of Bagdad in 1258, and the genocidal
slaughter of millions of Muslims at the hands of Mongol invaders. And we considered how the Muslims of the
13th century, in the face of this disaster, turned away from the world and
retreated into the simple faith of an earlier time. But Muslims had already suffered a humiliating invasion and
slaughter 160 years earlier at the hands
the Christian Crusaders. Yet even the
Crusader invasion was preceded by, and probably caused by a slightly earlier
invasion by Seljuk Turks.
So in this part, we'll talk about all
three of these invasions, the Seljuk, the Crusaders, and the Mongols, and how
they affected the world of Islam and their view of the outside world.
In
1071, a family of Turks called the Seljuk
invaded Anatolia and smashed the Byzantine
emperor's 100,000 man army and took the emperor prisoner. They later released him, sent him home, and
advised him not to be so silly as to attack them again. These Turks had already converted to Islam,
but that would in no way dissuade them from conquering Muslim empires, and they
immediately moved against what was left of the Abbasid empire. The Seljuks had just emerged from their
Central Asian steppe homeland, and were too illiterate to actually manage an
empire, so they hired Persian Viziers as
administrators, and Arab clerics as
religious advisors. They swept through
the Abbasid heartland of the Arabian peninsula,
taking all except Palestine, which was already in the hands of the
Egyptian Fatimid Khalifate. For the
Jews and Christians who lived in Jerusalem,
being ruled by Fatimids was not unpleasant, as these were the most tolerant Muslim rulers
one could hope for. They had learned to
be tolerant because in their own realm of Egypt were Jews, two kinds of
Muslims, and three kinds of Christians.
But the Holy Land soon fell to the Seljuks, who were among the least tolerant Muslim
rulers. The Seljuks were recent
converts to Islam, and recent converts
often tend to be zealots.
Though
the Seljuks had smashed the old order, they had not yet replaced it with
anything. Like most barbarian
invaders, Seljuk kings divided
everything they conquered among all their sons,
and all of their nephews and all of their cousins. So in the post-Abbasid period, each city might
be an independent kingdom.
With
a Seljuk administration of the Holy Land,
returning pilgrims had complained bitterly at how badly Christians were
treated there. And when the Seljuks had invaded
Byzantium, both the Emperor and the
Patriarch had appealed to the Pope for help.
So the Pope was under pressure from both at home and abroad to do
something about the Turks.
At this time, Europe had a surplus of
unemployed, landless knights terrorizing the countryside, so finding an errand
to send them on was an appealing idea. Finally,
in 1095, Pope Urban II made an appeal for Christian knights to
re-take the Holy land. He offered
partial remission of sins for those who would participate.
The
first group to arrive in the Middle East were not actually soldiers, but
peasants who wanted to get in on the action.
In 1096, a Seljuk prince was informed that some ill-equipped group pretending to be soldiers
had entered his territory, and announced that they were Franks, and they had come to kill Muslims and conquer
Jerusalem. The prince sent out his best
troops, who quickly dispatched them, killing or capturing them all. The next year, when the prince heard that more Franks were coming, he was not too
worried. But this second wave of
crusaders were the real thing----combat-hardened knights, from a land where
combat never stopped. The crusaders smashed
the Turkish troops defending Nicaea, seized the town and then split up, with some heading toward
Edessa, and the rest heading down the
Mediterranean coast to Antioch.
The king of Antioch appealed to the king of
Damascus for help. The king of Damascus
said he would like to help, but he was afraid that his brother, the king of
Aleppo would swoop in and grab Damascus if he were to leave it. For Muslims,
the early crusades were a tragicomedy
of internecine rivalry that
prevented any coordinated defense against the Franks. After Antioch fell, the Franks killed
townspeople indiscriminately, and then headed for Ma'ara. They laid siege to Ma'ara, and tried to starve the town into submission.
But they starved themselves in the
process, since they had no supply line and had eaten every scrap of food in the
vicinity. Finally, the Franks assured
the townspeople that if they would just open the gates, no one would be
harmed. But as soon as the Franks gained
entry, they not only killed all the Ma'arans,
but boiled them and ate them.
Ansary says that although this sounds like the kind of
propaganda that defeated Muslims might concoct to slander the Crusaders, Frankish sources also confirm the
cannibalism, including eyewitnesses
Radulph of Caen, and Albert of Aix.
Albert wrote, "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead
Turks and Saracens--- they also ate dogs."
But
even at this point, the Muslims could not unite. As the Franks moved down the coast toward
Jerusalem, taking city after city, not only did the Muslims fail to mount any
unified challenge, but each group or faction tried to enlist the Franks into
their own little conflicts against other Muslims. By the time they neared Jerusalem, the city
had been taken by the Vizier of Egypt, who thanked the Franks for eliminating
some of their rivals, and invited them to come to Jerusalem as honored
guests. The Vizier promised that the
Franks would be under his protection.
They replied that they did not want his protection----they wanted
Jerusalem---and would come with lances raised.
After
a 40 day siege, the crusaders promised that if the gates were opened, no one
would be harmed. But once inside, the blood bath began. They killed every Muslim, about 70,000. Jews had fled to the central synagogue. The Franks surrounded it and burned it to
the ground. There were Christians living in Jerusalem, but they were the
wrong kind of Christians , being either Byzantine, Coptic, or Nestorian. So as "Heretics," their property was confiscated and they were
expelled. Jerusalem was then proclaimed
to be a kingdom. In all, four "crusader
kingdoms" were proclaimed: Edessa,
Antioch, Tripoli, and Jerusalem.
At
the time of the crusades, the whole Arabian peninsula was brimming with Turkish
and Arab warriors, and they were all
competent warriors. Any unified group of
them could have swatted the Franks like a bunch of flies. Arabia would have been a fortress. But there was no unity to be had, so instead
of a fortress, Arabia was a plum ripe for whoever cared to pick it. And someone in Europe probably knew
this, which may explain why Frankish
princes were so eager to come. The Pope
had given this adventure a cloak of respectability, but it was partly a land grab.
Today,
the crusades are represented as a
"clash of civilizations," but
no Muslims at the time saw it as such.
Because of the breakdown of communication caused by the Seljuk invasion,
only local Muslims even knew about it. And they saw it as just one more local
disaster. As for a "clash of
civilizations," it would not have occurred to any Muslim that Franks
actually had a civilization.
Jerusalem
would remain in Western hands for 88 years, till a Kurdish general known in the
West as Saladin would re-take it. Saladin was able to do this because in the
previous generation, his clan had consolidated control over all of Syria, and
he himself had taken control of Egypt and most of Palestine. Starting with Edessa, all of the Crusader
states fell, and in 1187, so did Jerusalem.
Upon taking Jerusalem, Saladin offered the same terms that Omar had
offered: foreign soldiers would be held
for ransom, but no one would be killed.
Christians would be free to leave or stay, as they chose. No place of worship would be molested, and
pilgrims could come and go as they pleased, and Jews were welcome to
return.
But
in spite of these amicable terms, Western leaders were shocked that Jerusalem was
again in "heathen" hands, and organized another crusade. Three western kings led a crusade. The German king died on the way, the
Frenchman helped with one battle, and then went home, leaving Richard of
England to fight alone. Richard did not
take to the climate well, and was sick most
of the time. Saladin was quite
chivalrous throughout the whole affair.
When Richard was unhorsed in one battle,
Saladin sent him two fine replacement horses. And when Saladin heard that Richard had a
fever, he sent his personal physician and fresh fruit and ice water. Richard was less chivalrous, always breaking
truces and butchering civilians. They
fought a few battles, and Richard won
one battle, but was unable to change the situation on the ground, and went home.
Richard announced that he had won a sort of a
victory, because although he did not take Jerusalem, he forced Saladin to agree
to let Christians worship unmolested.
But, of course, Saladin had offered this from the beginning. Even though Christians controlled Palestine for
a century, it's amazing how little long term effect this had on the Muslim
world; the Christians left, and the
Muslims just got on with their lives.
But the reverse was not true. During the Crusader states era, Western traders had access to Palestinian
ports, and began hauling back to Europe all sorts of silks, satins, and exotic
spices. And this fact would have world-altering consequences later on. But as the plague of Christian knights
subsided, a far worse threat to Muslims erupted.
Born
in 1165, a Mongolian warrior named Temugin began uniting the various factions
and clans under a single leadership.
Known as Chengis Kahn, he built
the largest contiguous empire in history---- one stretching from Poland to Korea.
In 1211, He attacked and took over the
old Sung empire in China. He then began
attacking parts of Afganistan and Persia, killing over a million in Naishapur,
and another million in Herat, and destroying crops and livestock along the
way. His aim was to select a few cities
for total destruction to make an example of them. This allowed him to exact tribute from all
other cities without having to bother fighting them. Chengis Kahn died in 1227, and his grandson, Hulagu
Kahn, took the conquest south into the Muslim heartland. In 1258, he stormed Bagdad and gave an
ultimatum: total surrender-- or every
man, woman, and child would be killed.
The Khalif refused---and Hulagu kept his promise. But the Mongols were stopped in 1260, and it
was Muslim Mamluks that stopped them.
At Ayn Jalut in Palestine, an army of Mongols on their way to Egypt was
totally routed by Egyptian Mamluk defenders.
This was the first major battle the Mongols had ever lost. The Mamluks used a new secret
weapon----guns. The Chinese may have invented gunpowder, but Arabs
and Turks gave us guns. Once in use,
the gun technology spread to all parts of the Muslim world, including Muslim
Iberia, and from there, on into Europe. As the Mongols advanced into Persia and
Arabia, they installed their own regime,
a Khanate, over Persia, Afghanistan, and part of Iraq. By the 1290s, these Mongol overlords began
converting to Islam, and their rule conformed more to Muslim law than
Mongol. The Mongols never went into Seljuk
Anatolia because the Sultan there had become a Mongol vassal.
About
the time the last crusaders were leaving, a small group of Turks left Central Asia to
escape the advance of Mongols, and entered Anatolia. They offered to take their 400 horsemen to
the western frontier and help the Sultan fight the Byzantines, if he gave them land there. The Sultan was weak and needed all the help he
could get, so he agreed. These new Turks
had already converted to Islam, and they were not Seljuks. They were led by a chieftain who, in 1258,
had a son named Othman, later called
Ottoman.
Ottoman and his descendants chipped away at
what was left of the Byzantine Empire, completely surrounding Constantinople,
and then expanding into the Balkans. And
in 1453, they attacked Constantinople's 16 ft thick granite walls with the
largest cannons ever built.
After taking all of the Byzantine Empire, they
took all of Anatolia, then Arabia, Egypt, and North Africa. Ironically, while it was a Turkish invasion
that originally disintegrated the Muslim
empire, it was another group of Turks, the Ottomans, who re-united most of it few
hundred years later.
But
while Arabia, Egypt, and Anatolia suffered two hundred years of chaos and
invasions, other parts of the Muslim world flourished, especially India and
Iberia. Christian Iberia was first
invaded by North African Muslims in 711.
By 720 they controlled most of what is now Spain, and by 732 they were
within 20 miles of Paris. But there, at
Tours, they were badly beaten and pushed back into Spain by Charles
Martel. Christian knights eventually re-took
all Spain except the southern third, but this part remained in Muslin hands for
hundreds of years, and was called Al Andaluse.
The Capital city of Andaluse was
Cordoba, easily the largest and most
cosmopolitan city in Europe. It was also
the most tolerant city, with Muslim, Christian, and Jewish traders and scholars
working side by side. The Muslim Khalif was clearly in charge, but his
khalifate hired both Christian and
Jewish administrators and artisans.
No
one knows when Muslims first began migrating into India, or started making
converts to Islam there. But about 1495, a Moghul prince north of Afghanistan, Prince
Babur, put together a small empire, and in 1505 moved into India. By that
time, there were already a fair number of Muslim dominated states there, and through
conquest, he united them all under his command. His grandson, Akbar the Great, understood
from the beginning that as a Muslim minority trying to dominate a non-Muslim
majority, Moghuls would have to be extremely tolerant to succeed. He invited religious scholars of all kinds
to discuss and debate matters of common interest, and he decided that all
religions contains some truths, but no religion contains every truth. He proclaimed that the best religion was
just "God religion," and suggested that people of all faiths could
emulate the lives of those "exemplary individuals" who can be found
in every religious tradition.
He
married a Hindu princess, repealed the Jezya tax on non-Muslims, and ordered
his soldiers to protect shrines and pilgrims all faiths. He was wildly popular with Muslims and
non-Muslims alike, and his reign marked the beginning of a golden age for
India. Akbar's descendents continued this tolerance and India continued
to flourish, especially in art, literature, and architecture. It was Akbar's grandson, Shah Jahan, who
designed and built the Taj Mahal. But Jahan's
son, Aurangzeb, was not happy with all this inter-faith cooperation,
and led a rebellion to overthrow his father.
Jahan spent the rest of his life in prison,
while his son quickly dismantled the culture of trust and cooperation that five
generations of his family had carefully constructed. He taxed Hindus and destroyed their
shrines, and plunged the sub-continent
into a hell of suspicion, hatred, and economic stagnation from which it never
quite recovered. And this left a once
proud and united India ripe for exploitation by any foreign power that wanted
to come there; and just about then, there was a power that wanted to come
there.
About 1500 AD, ships from European countries began trading in Islamic ports. And over the next few centuries, it became
increasingly difficult for local Muslim industry to compete, because the West had
begun a scientific and technological revolution. Most of the knowledge that provided the starting
point for this revolution had come from the Islamic world. So why did this knowledge spark a revolution
in the West but not in the East? Ansary says that the outcome in the West was not due
to a single reason, but a combination of factors--a "perfect storm"
of factors.
Most
of the important breakthroughs that fueled these revolutions in the West
happened first in the East, over several centuries, and were then dumped onto
the West all at one time. This may have
amplified their effect. Also, in the
East, many discoveries happened just as
these societies were about to be overrun by invaders and plunged into a dark
age. But in the West, this information
came to light just as Europe was emerging from a dark age. Yet there were other factors. Because every European country was competing
to find a sea route to "The Indies,"
they were willing to finance voyages of exploration. Europe has a long coastline, and long history
of seafaring. By the year 1,000, the
Vikings had crossed the Atlantic, and by the 1,400s, Europeans had ships that could withstand an
Atlantic storm and sail into the wind. With
this technology, they discovered America.
The Muslims could easily have
developed this technology---but had no reason to. They already had access to the Indies.
As
soon as the Spanish gained a foothold in the new world, they enslaved the
natives and forced them to mine gold and silver. Hundreds of tons gold and silver would be shipped to Spain, and
be spent all over Europe, and every country in Europe would be overflowing with
excess gold---enough gold to finance any adventure the country cared to embark
on.
Another
development that altered Europe's history was the Protestant Reformation. Originally,
the Reformation was about whether each person had the right to read his own
Bible and draw his own conclusions. After
the Protestants won the Thirty Years War,
it was pretty well established that they did. But an unintended consequence of this outcome
was that if every man had the right to draw his own conclusions about matters of
faith, then why would he not have the same right to draw his own conclusions about
all other matters? This new kind of thinking
had two results: a new academic freedom,
and a new spirit of economic individualism.
And this new freedom hit Europe at a time when the accumulated knowledge
from the Islamic world, the knowledge that triggered the Renaissance, had
already become widely available due to
the invention of the printing press.
Another
factor that would set Europe apart from the rest of the world is that as a
consequence of the 100 Years War, England
and France became the world's first modern nation-states. And with the nation-state comes nationalism,
and with nationalism comes mercantilism. So when the first European traders arrived in
the ports of India, Persia, or the Ottoman Empire, they came with ships that could take them
anywhere in the world, and with enough gold to buy anything they found when
they got there. They also had superior
technology, including arms
technology. Guns and cannons were a
Muslim invention, but by the late 16th
century European arms were better and cheaper.
And every European nation arrived with a fierce nationalistic pride and a
mercantilist spirit, each trying to out-compete the others.
Whenever
any society with more gold or more technology, or more anything, penetrates the
economy of another, it can be
disruptive. Ansary says, "Forget the Battle of Lepanto; forget the Second Siege of Vienna. It was foreign traders, not soldiers who took
down the Ottoman Empire." All Ottoman
manufacturing was controlled by the guilds, who established minimum prices to
protect their workers. But maximum
prices were imposed by the state, to protect the public. In fact, in every aspect of Ottoman
life, there was a system of checks and balances. Every strand of the social fabric was
protected by some powerful sector of society, yet held in check by another. It worked like clockwork, and it was foreign trade
that threw a wrench into that clockwork.
When the Westerners came in, they did not attempt to sell products in
competition with local producers---the state would not let them. But they were happy to buy raw
materials---things like leather, wool, wood, oil, metal etc, and they paid in
gold. And the state smiled on this. How could bringing gold into the country not
be a good thing? But as the foreigners
bought up all the available leather, the
shoemakers became unemployed---and no one had any shoes, nor any wool coats,
nor metal tools, nor anything. Yet the local
craftsmen could not raise their bids on raw materials to bid against the
Westerners, as the prices of their end products were fixed by law. The state soon realized it had made a
horrible error, so it imposed an embargo on the export of strategic raw
materials. But once accustomed to the
higher prices offered by foreigners, producers continued to sell---illegally. So smuggling boomed. But for smuggling to work, local officials
had to be bribed, which pumped even more gold into the economy. With more money in circulation but less of
everything being produced, inflation resulted, which affected mainly people on fixed incomes, including government bureaucrats. They responded by demanding bribes for their
services. And since the empire was
always a complex bureaucracy, just
navigating the simplest transaction now took a dozen bribes and several
months. Gradually, the whole state machinery
slowed to a crawl. People rioted, so more police had to be hired, but raising taxes to pay them was not an
option, so they just printed more money, which caused more inflation. It was a death spiral, but in slow
motion. It took a couple hundred years
for the empire to completely crash, but
once started, there was really no way to stop it.
Ansary goes on to explain how in each of the three
main Islamic societies--Ottoman, Persian, and Indian---it was European
businessmen, not armies, who dispossessed the local people, destroyed their
economy, and corrupted their government---even though in the beginning, no
Europeans attempted to take direct political control of any of these societies.
And yet, by 1850, Europeans in some way
controlled nearly every place that had
ever been part of the Dar al Islam.
Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through
Islamic Eyes, by Tamim Ansary.
A Book Review.
Part Three.
We ended our last session by
noting that by the middle of the nineteenth century, Europe's traders had
penetrated the Islamic economy for a few hundred years. But eventually, the relationship shifted from
trade to total military control, even though no one had originally planned it
that way. When the British East India
Company was chartered by Elizabeth I in
1600, its only hope was to make a
profit. And soon its trading posts on
the coast of India were making a profit. But it was obvious that when
you fill warehouses with shiploads of valuable merchandise, you need to hire
security guards to protect this goods.
Technically, this police function may have been the responsibility
of the local sovereign government, but
why should the Sultan spend his subjects' money protecting Englishmen? So the British East India Company hired
local guards, called Sepoys, supervised by British officers. As the company's zone of influence expanded, so did the
number of native troops employed to protect it. Within this zone, the company became the
default government, keeping the peace,
settling civil disputes, and even trying criminals and executing them. No one gave them the sovereignty to do this, but England was a long way away.
Eventually, the company's private army became the largest
standing army in the world, at 250,000 men.
And the area administered by the company was nearly half of India. After 1757, British government troops were
sent in to help preserve order, so there were then two British armies in India. But a century later, in 1857, there was a mutiny against the
British, and British civilians were massacred.
British soldiers retaliated by
indiscriminately slaughtering natives. To
put an end to the chaos, the British government simply annexed India, making it
a crown colony. The government was reluctant to do this, yet by 1876, the British had learned to like
being an empire, and began calling India, "The Jewel of the
Crown," and Victoria, "The
Empress of India".
In 1798, Napoleon had invaded Egypt to deny the
British control of the isthmus of Suez.
And then the British arrived and sunk the French navy and pushed the
French back out. About 1805, a military strongman named Mohamed Ali led a
coup and installed himself as king of Egypt.
By the 1830s, Ali had modernized
Egypt's army and built it into a formidable force, so that Egypt would never again
have the humiliation of being invaded by Europeans. But in 1858, Ali's descendant, Said Pasha, happened
to sign an agreement allowing the French build the Suez canal. Most of the canal would be financed by French
investors, but Egypt would have a 22% stake, and put up 22% of the cost. The canal was a success, and opened in
1869. But there were delays and cost
overruns, which left the Egyptian government bankrupt and deeply in debt. The British helped pay off these debts in
exchange for Egypt's share of the canal.
Later, Britain and France made additional loans, but with the proviso
that they would oversee all Egyptian government spending until the debts were re-paid.
Every Egyptian official had to answer to
his British or French counterpart, and the king had been reduced to a powerless
old pensioner. Upon discovering that their government had
become nothing more than a puppet regime, the Egyptian Army staged a protest in
1879, which gave Britain an excuse to
send in troops. By WWI--- several
uprisings and several regimes later---the British Army was still there, and so were the British financial regulators. Then, at the start of WWI, Britain proclaimed
Egypt to be a British protectorate, and a part of the British Empire. Once again, what started as economic interaction ended as
total military domination.
The 19th century was when European
powers began to shift from using economic influence over the Dar al Islam to
outright political and military control. In 1884, the European powers met in Berlin and
carved up Africa among themselves. Their justification was that this would
bring civilization to Africa. Never mind
that a lot of Africa already had a civilization. Never mind that in the 14th century, European
royalty had sent their kids to the University of Timbuktu. Yes, the
Africans had a civilization, but it was all Islamic civilization, which wasn't quite
the right kind.
In 1830, the French invaded
Algeria, killed off as many Algerians as
they could, and then opened Algeria to French colonization. But as soon as the French had installed
themselves in Algeria, an Arab liberation movement led by El Kader began. Was this the same El Kader that the little
town in Clayton County, Iowa is named after?
Yup. Same fellow. At the same moment that Chief Black Hawk was
leading his people in a war against Europeans over his tribal lands in western
Illinois, El Kader was doing the same thing in Algeria. They both lost. But in the Muslim world, Europeans would
lose in the 20th century all of the influence they gained in the 19th.
In WWI, an Arab revolt aided
by the British pushed the Turks out of Arabia----only to be replaced by the
British and French. But this would
prove to be a very temporary arrangement. The British invasion of Turkey at the
end of WWI spawned a revolution that left Mustafa Kemal in charge in Turkey,
and in 1924 he ended the Ottoman Empire and founded the modern Turkish
Republic. By ending that empire, he ended
all claims by Turkey's creditors. In
1946, the French left Syria and Lebanon, in 1947, the British left Palestine, in 1948, they left India, and in 1952, they left Egypt. The Dutch left Indonesia in 1950, and in 1962,
the French finally left Algeria. And in
the 1960s, Europe withdrew from Africa as newly independent nations emerged there.
Today, no large Muslim country is controlled by a European
power. But Ansary asks us to consider why the Europeans were
ever able to assert their control in the first place. The obvious answer is that the industrial
revolution occurred first in the West. But why did it? Ansary points out that the steam engine was
discovered at least two hundred years earlier in the East than in the
west. It was used for rotating a lamb
roasting on a spit. And that's all they
ever did with it. It is described in a
1551 book by Turkish engineer Taqi al-Din.
The Chinese had also developed the pre-requisite technology for an
industrial revolution but never acted on it.
Instead of inventing labor saving machines, one of the geniuses of the
Chinese, according to Ansary, was
inventing massive make-work projects to soak up excess labor, such as the Great
Wall and the Great Canal.
In trying to discover why
certain inventions led to a revolution
in the West but not in the East, I started by looking for some flaw in Islamic
culture that would explain why the West had this revolution and Islam did
not. And then it dawned on me that the
explanation is not a flaw in their culture, but a flaw in ours.
Ansary explains that Muslim inventors didn't
think of using steam power to make devices that would mass-produce goods, and
neither did the Chinese, because they
lived in a society already overflowing with an abundance of consumer goods, often
unsold consumer goods, hand-crafted by
millions of artisans. The inventors themselves worked for an elite class whose
lot in life did not require them to produce anything at all. But this class was required to worry
about the welfare of those who did produce things, and serious unemployment was
not an option.
In short, in most societies, authority is exactly
paired with responsibility. Anyone in a position
to command the massive resources required for mechanizing an industry is also usually
positioned to bear total responsibility for the consequences of that
mechanization. Now, when an operation
is mechanized, money is borrowed for
that investment. The income stream that
pays back that loan is the cost savings,
that is, the money that won't have to be
paid to certain workers because this machinery
has replaced them. Suppose you are the
Amir of some village whose main source of income is producing hand-made
shoes. And suppose that someone offers
to build machinery that would allow 100
workers to produce as many shoes as all 300 shoemakers now produce, and offers
a bank loan to finance it. Those 300 shoemakers are all members of your
tribe, and if you cause 200 of them to be laid off, you could be expected to support them for the rest of
their lives, which would cost you precisely as much as they are now paid. So where is the cost savings to pay off the
loan? Ansary says, "It wasn't some dysfunction
in these societies that generated their indifference to potentially
world-changing technologies." Quite
the opposite, it was something working
too well that led them into what Ansary calls a "high level equilibrium trap."
Many of you are probably thinking, "For
the rest of their lives? Why would they
have to be supported for the rest of their lives? Wouldn't they eventually assimilate into some
other sector of the economy?" Well,
perhaps eventually. But eventually can
be a long time. When the South Side Iron
Works closed in Chicago, someone did a
study 20 years later, and found that of those laid off, almost none of them ever found a job that
paid over half of what they had earned at South Side, and almost no one over fifty ever found a job at all.
So, if the Islamic leadership
originally held back from aggressively
pursuing industrialization for fear of social disruption, then how did the West avoid this
problem? Quite obviously, they
didn't. Ansary only briefly mentions
Marx and Engels in England, but I think it merits a closer look, so I'm going
to digress a bit:
When Marx and Engels
wrote The Condition of the Working
Class in England in 1844, they wrote of a sickly, desperate
population whose short and brutal lives
came as close to a hell on Earth as any society has yet constructed. A government commission was formed there to study the problem of child labor. What they found was that children as young as
ten years old were being sold to factories and, for 16 hours a day, were locked inside a
factory and whipped if they could not work fast enough. But none of this was supposed to happen. When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of
Nations in 1776, he assured us that
if free enterprise and free trade were released from government regulation, the
magic of the market would create a utopia for all of us. Workers wages would naturally rise as the boom created by free
enterprise forced factory owners to bid
against one another for labor, and consumer prices would fall as specialization
and mechanization lowered the cost of production and the free market forced
competition in prices.
But, for a variety of reasons, that's not what happened. Sometimes mill owners formed gentlemen's
agreements and set the prices of both goods and labor, so that the workers were squeezed to near
starvation form both sides. Couldn't
Smith have foreseen this? He not only
foresaw this, he complained about it.
At one point he complains that although competition is the key to free
enterprise, whenever three or more
businessmen get together, they
talk about how to fix prices.
Wealth of Nations was not so much a description of how
capitalism actually worked, as it was a theory about how it was supposed to work.
But the British bought the whole package and enacted it without
restriction, and the result 70 years later was the England that Marx and Engels
saw.
Yet there was another thing
that Adam Smith objected to----the joint stock company (what we call corporations). Smith thought they should be severely
restricted if not outlawed entirely.
Why?
Because, he
claims, "They concentrate vast amounts of wealth into the hands of a few
individuals who did not earn it and are
not responsible for it." Think
about it. What Smith is objecting to is
the divorce between power and responsibility.
Remember Ansary's observation
that in Islam, and in most societies, there
is no separation between authority and responsibility? If you wish to pinpoint the one reason that
the industrial revolution happened in England first, it is that. By the ingenious invention of the joint stock
company, the English created an organ that neatly separates power from
responsibility. And they turned it loose
in a country with such an extreme cult of individualism that the new owners of this organ could use it
to work their fellow Englishmen to death and feel no guilt about it.
Don't industrialization and
free enterprise eventually produce a world that is better for both workers and
owners? Yes, if properly regulated, they
certainly do. There is no doubt that the British working
class was far better off in 1976 than they had been in 1776. But they surely weren't in 1846, and
that was 70 years into the project. Does every society that industrializes have
to endure a century of hardship for
their workers? No, England is the egregious case. The Germans did not start industrializing
till about 1840, and they had the benefit is seeing all that went wrong in
England. They accepted
industrialization, but rejected free trade.
They negotiated a tariff zone
which allowed free movement of goods and capital within the zone but had a high
tariff wall to everything outside the zone, including movements of capital. In 1840, they produced only insignificant amounts
of most industrial commodities, but by
the eve of WWI, they produced more steel than England and also more coal,
chemicals, food, transport, and just
about everything else. And this,
incidentally, was one of the main causes
of the First World War. And of course, the Soviets had yet another plan for
industrializing.
Now, to get back to
Ansary: Ansary explains that the Islamic leadership has spent 200 years watching the
West and its experiments with this problem,
and for 200 years, there has been an ongoing debate as to just which
parts of the West's experiment they might wish to replicate, and which parts
they don't.
Ansary says, "No one
looking at machine-made consumer goods said,
"Gee, we too should have a Reformation and develop a cult of individualism
and then undergo a long period of letting reason erode the authority of faith
while developing political institutions
that encourage free inquiry so that we can happen onto the ideas of
science while at the same time evolving an economic system built on competition among private businesses
so that when our science spawns new technologies we can jump on them and thus,
in a few hundred years, quite independently of Europe, we can make the same
sorts of goods ourselves." No,
people just said, "Nice goods.
Where can we get some?"
Do Muslims from
non-industrialized countries even grasp
that if their country were to adopt all the western technology required to
mass-produce these goods, such a change might carry a high price in social
disruption, cultural conflict, and economic chaos? Some probably do and some do not. And if those who do not grasp this were to
suddenly appreciate the price tag attached to such modernization, would they still want the
goods? Some probably would, and some
would not.
When confronted with these
choices, most of the answers offered come from three sources: First: The Secular
modernists, inspired by people like Sayyid Ahmed Aligarh: They accept both Western technology and
Western culture.
Second:
The Islamic Modernists, inspired
by Sayyid Jamaluddin-i-Afghan: They accept modern Western science and technology
yet wish to keep most of Islamic culture.
Third:
The Religious Conservatives, inspired
by Mohamed Ibn abd al Wahhab: They reject both Western technology and Western
culture.
All three of these
philosophies were fully developed in the
18th or 19th centuries, and drew on ideas
hundreds of years older. And
each has millions of adherents in every major Muslim country. In the last few
hundred years there have been three revolutions in the West that have spilled
over into the world of Islam: The Industrial Revolution, as muscle power
has been replaced by steam power, the Democratic Revolution, as kings have been replaced by parliaments,
and the Nationalist revolution, as empires have been replaced by independent nation-states. And every major Muslim society has three main power blocks: The
Nationalists, who want a strong,
independent nation-state, the Constitutionalists, who want a democratic state,
and the Modernists, who want an industrially developed state. Standing against this onslaught of Western
ideas are the religious scholars (the Ulama), who are adamant that whichever
way their society heads, it remains Islamic.
They don't really care which way
the bus is headed as long as they get to
drive. But past experience has shown
that when they get to drive, the bus often doesn't go anywhere at all. None of these political blocks is a
majority, but a coalition of any two of them can usually unseat whoever
is in power. And governments change
hands as these alliances shift, so each
of these blocks has had its day in the sun.
So let's take a closer look at
each of these three main movements:
First, The
Religious Conservatives, (especially the Wahhabis):
In
1744, in a remote part of the central
desert of Arabia, at the oasis town of Diriyah,
a radical Muslim preacher named Mohamed Ibn abd al Wahhab begged the protection of the local Amir,
Mohamed bin Saud.
Wahhab urgently needed
protection, because his highly intolerant preaching had made him pretty
unpopular. He and Saud were both Sunni
Muslims, and both were Salafis, that is, they believed that the correct form of Islam was the kind
practiced just after the death of the Prophet, and all innovations since then
were in error. But Wahhab also belonged to the ultra conservative Hanbali
school of Sharia law, and Wahhab's own interpretation of that law had become
more radical and intolerant than any form of Islam ever practiced. He believed that all Muslims had fallen into
heresy and idolatry and it was his calling to set them right.
Muslim idolaters? Sounds pretty unlikely. But Wahhab claimed that any respect or veneration shown to anything but
God was idolatry. Visiting a sacred
shrine? Idolatry. Putting flowers on a grave? Idolatry. And the Heretics? All Shiites, Sufis, and basically, anyone who
disagreed with him. And Wahhab taught
that all Muslims had a duty to wage Jihad against all the enemies of Islam, and
that included foreign enemies, idolaters, and heretics---and the penalty for
heresy was death. Wahhab was
immediately seen as a dangerous man, and that's why he needed protection. But bin Saud liked Wahhab, and converted to
his philosophy. They signed a pact: Saud agreed to protect the Wahhab family and
accept them as the sole spokesmen of
Islam, and Wahhab pledged all of his followers to serve the Saud family as the
sole political authority. The pact was
sealed by the marriage of bin Saud's son and al Wahhab's daughter.
After 1744, bin Saud embarked
on a military campaign to subdue all of the central desert. It was a long, bloody war, and thousands of
Shiites were killed, but the area was so remote that no one in the outside
world even knew about it, nor would they have cared. But in 1803, the Saudis seized Mecca and
Medina, and the Ottoman Sultan cared a great deal. Aided by his vassal, the king of Egypt, he re-took Mecca and also Diriyah, and all the
Wahhabi religious leaders were sent to Constantinople and executed. And that was the end of the First Saudi
State. The rest of the Saudi/ Wahhabi
clan just melted back into the desert and were forgotten.
But by the beginning of WWI,
they had again become a power to be reckoned with, and in 1924, they seized Mecca
and Medina, and in 1932, they gained recognition as the state of Saudi
Arabia. In 1945, when Roosevelt was on
his way back from Yalta, he met with Aziz Ibn Saud. The two leaders made a handshake deal that
the Saudis would keep the oil flowing and the U.S. would defend the Saud
family. There was no formal treaty, but
neither side has ever broken this deal.
Not all who live in Saudi Arabia are Wahhabis---only 23%. And there are 45% in the United Arab
Emirates. But prior to 1980, there were
no Wahhabis outside the Arabian peninsula.
But now, backed by Saudi oil dollars, Wahhabi groups have gained
influence in every Islamic country, especially Afghanistan, Egypt, and Syria. Through American military and financial backing, we
have helped the Saudis to unleash upon the Muslim world the most intolerant and
violent form of Islam that has ever existed. .
Next: The Secular modernists: The
most radical and successful of the modernist reformers was Mustafa Kemal. At the end of WWI, Turkey was invaded by Britain, France, Italy
and Greece. As a young Army officer,
Kemal organized a resistance that pushed the invaders out and forced them to
accept a peace that left Turkey intact. And he convened an assembly that proclaimed
Turkey a republic---a republic which endures to this day---and Kemal was
elected president. He became known as
Ataturk---the father of Turkey.
His extreme popularity allowed him to put into
law his own vision of a modern Turkey, which was a totally secular country with
no public role for the clerics or even for Islam. To break the power of the Ulama, the clerics,
he closed the religious schools, and required a dress code that banned head
scarves for women and the fez, turbines,
and beards for men. He gave women the
right to vote and hold office, he outlawed polygamy, and he reformed the
divorce laws. And he made Turkish the
official language and required it to be written in the Latin alphabet, and even required that public reading of the
Qur'an be in Turkish only. As a final
coup, he introduced ballroom dancing as the official entertainment at state
functions.
In spite of the clerics, he
was able to do all this because he had the strong support of all factions except the clerics. Besides the support of the modernists, he had
the support of the nationalists because he had thrown the foreigners out of
Turkey and the constitutionalists because they wanted his parliamentary
democracy to succeed. And Ataturk was not the only modernizer.
Between 1919 and 1929, King
Amanulla in Afghanistan was trying to do the same thing as Ataturk, and would
have succeeded, but he was overthrown by religious fanatics, with the help of
the British. The British did this because Afghanistan shared a border with British India, and they
wanted someone they could control.
British India is gone, but the
fanatics, now called Taliban, are still there.
Finally,
the Islamic Modernists. Present day Iran would be a good example of
Islamic Modernism. The Ayatollahs want a combination of Islamic society and
Western technology. This would seem like
a compromise between Modernism and Wahhabism,
but it is probably the worst of
all possible worlds. Followed to its
logical conclusion, it leads to a nuclear
armed medieval theocracy run by a dictatorial Ayatollah and the "Party
of God."
In 1953, Iran had a
democratically elected government headed by Mohammad Mossadegh. But a military
coup orchestrated by the CIA and Britain's MI6 removed all power from this
government and gave it back to the Shah, Reza Pahlavi. Britain's reasons for doing this was that
Mossadegh had threatened to nationalize Iran's oil, and the Americans had cold
war motivations because Iran shared a border with the Soviet Union. The present Iran regime dates to a cleric-backed
revolution in 1979, which got rid of the Shah.
The Shah was a modernizer but was very brutal, so the movement to get
rid of the him had broad popular support.
But if the U.S. and Britain had not toppled the Mossadegh government in
1953, there would have been no Shah to
get rid of. What did the U.S. and
Britain gain from this? Nothing. The
Shah nationalized the oil anyway, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
The entire modern history of
Western interference in the Dar al Islam is one of Western governments
interfering in pursuit of some short term goal, but creating problems that persist
long after these goals have become irrelevant.
The Muslim Brotherhood came into existence in Egypt in 1928, in reaction
to British influence there. British
Egypt has not existed since 1952, yet this organization is still with us and has
been an influential player in every
Middle Eastern war, including the war in
Syria. We cut the deal with the
Saudi/Wahhabi regime because we wanted the oil.
But one of these days, the world will have to quit using oil
anyway, but the Wahhabis will still be
there.
This is not to say that if no
Western power had ever intervened in the Dar al Islam, everyone would be at peace. The three major power blocks plus the Ulama
would still be there in continual contention.
But to the degree that we actually had any influence---we have used it
pretty irresponsibly.