I came across an essay by the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset. The essay is about N. Africa and about Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Arabic historian.
In the essay (which Ortega y Gasset wrote in 1927) there appears this line:
“El beduíno solo se entusiasmará con una idea que le invite a devastar ciudades” -- which I translate as: the Bedouin will only get excited about an idea that invites him to devastate cities.
Here are some paragraphs from the essay, thrown into English by me. (I skip over a bit, mainly because I am not good enough to translate Ortega, who skips around a lot, but somehow makes it hang together).
“In the eyes of Ibn Khaldun, the two great realities of history are state and civilization. … Two types of completely different men create the one and the other. The state, according to Ibn Khaldun, is a creation of nomads, of warriors who impose power over large territories and different peoples. Civilization, on the other hand, is a work of sedentary people, living in cities. But here is the secret of every historical movement. Those of the city -- home of knowledge, work, wealth, pleasure -- lack nerve to dominate. Nomads, by way of contrast, toughened by hard and impoverished lives, possess in high degree discipline and courage. Necessity, joined with capacity, leads them to fall upon sedentary peoples, and take over their city, creating states, which are invariably transient, because cities harbor the fatal virus of luxury and pleasure. The triumphant nomad is weakened, becomes civilized, urbanized, commercial, and is left at the mercy of new invaders, other nomads, yet still free of luxury and lust. Thanks to this process, perpetually repeated, history is a cycle, with periods of civilization followed by periods of new invasions.
“Take the city of Melilla [a city in N. Africa occupied by the Spanish since the 15th century]: it has remained for almost 500 years without peaceful contact with its surrounding countryside. Ibn Khaldun gives an explanation for this fact, … which from the European perspective is abnormal, but in North Africa constitutes the rule. With greater or lesser degree of intensity, in North Africa, immemorially, city and country hate each other, while at the same time desiring each other. No other civilization has lived such a permanent, irreducible and radical dualism.
“For this reason Ibn Khaldun … considers human history a perennial conflict of citizen and bedouin.
“The last great movement in the Arabian peninsula has been the formation twenty years ago of the kingdom of Nedjd, by Aben-Saud.” [ Ortega is talking about the creation of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.] “The region of Nedjd, a corner of Arabia” [i.e. now Saudi Arabia] “is pure bedouin. Aben-Saud organized it, and with his rude and harsh camel drivers next fell upon Mecca. Had it not been for the interests of European powers, Arabia today would be closer than ever to achieving its political and religious unity under the command of this magnificent bedouin.
“All of this” [i.e. Aben-Saud’s creation of Saudi Arabia] “has happened according to the letter of Ibn Khaldun ‘s historical law: first, Aben-Saud based his effort on family and tribe. With their help he took the little city of Nedjd. Next he made use of a religious idea -- Wehabism.
“Don’t ask what Wehabism is all about. No matter what religious idea might pour over a bedouin’d soul, its essential result is known a priori -- puritanism. …
“ Mohammedism is … a form of puritanism. Out of the depth of Judeo-Christian doctrine it skimmed off only what was exaggerated and aggressive. For that reason, it is the only religion with a creed formulated negatively: ‘there is no God but God…’ The tautology of this expression makes sense if it is understood as a fragment of a dialog, of a dispute: in short, if one notices its polemical content.
“Mohammedism is the only religion whose creed starts with a ‘no.’ Its success at war was not an accident … . The Mohammedan faith is basically polemic, basically war. It believes, above all, that we others do not have the right to believe what we believe. Rather than monotheism, Mohammedism’s psychologically exact name would be “non-polytheism.”
"From time to time in Mohammedism, new forms of arch-puritanism emerge. One of these is Wehabism, which goes so far as to spank children if they laugh, and deny them toys.
“It is in this sense that one has to understand the famous phrase of Renan: ‘The desert is monotheistic…’ The desert -- what it really is -- is aggressive and proud. A bedouin will only get excited about an idea that invites him to devastate cities.
“Four or five years ago, Aben-Saud succeeded in throwing his men against Mecca, having made them believe that [the citizens of Mecca] were committing quite consciously five sins: Jaznun, Yakhunun, Yaschritun, Yatalawtun, Yaschrikun, that is, sensuality, lying, smoking and drinking, sodomy and polytheism.”
These musings by Ortega produce some thoughts in me:
1) Bin Laden and the Taliban represent nothing new. Rather they are a contemporary expression of an old Islamic tendency towards hyper-aggressive, hyper-puritanical ideas, in the name of which masses of poor people are molded into an assault force.
2) My suspicion is that the blow directed against us on Sept.11 had very little to do with us, and a great deal to do with desire on the part of Bin Laden to radicalize and mold the Arab masses for an assault. But on whom? On Saudi Arabia and the other kingdoms and sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf.
3) Bin Laden has wide appeal among the lower strata of the Islamic/Arabic masses. The success of his attack on us should increase his appeal even more. Thanks to him there are now two sources of heat under the seething cauldron of the Middle East -- Palestine AND Afghanistan. Soon there will be more.
4) The direct danger to us of Bin Laden is low. Sure, he (or those who follow) might get in another blow. But direct violence against us is going to be harder to achieve. The real danger is the effect that Bin Ladenism will have upon the Middle East. In my opinion, underneath and behind all of this is oil. Bin Laden smells vacillation on our part, and weakness on the part of the sheiks. He senses that he has a shot at gaining control of the Persian Gulf.
6) The challenge presented to us by Bin Ladenism is just the one that old Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century Arabic historian, understood. Do we have the nerve? Not to fight directly and honorably, which we can do. Rather, the place where we will have to have nerve is in the realm of international politics. Do we understand ourselves well enough, do we believe in our own values strongly enough, do we have enough confidence, to engage in a complex, nasty political fight. If I look into my own heart, I discover all sorts of doubt. My lack of confidence takes this form: I fear our capacity for toughness has been weakened by feminism, by applied utopianism (otherwise known as liberalism), and by our open borders, which has let people from everywhere into our country, so that now we cannot make firm decisions about foreign matters without antagonizing some powerful group.
7) As I say, oil is the driving force. We are entering the End Game of the Age of Oil. |
