Government By Moron

Jeff Stein sets out to ask some counterintelligence officials and the congresspersons charged with overseeing them if they know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni. The results are sobering.

The lack of any interest in actually understanding what's going on in the Islamic world -- the preference for crude historical analogies, chest-pounding, and feel-good rhetoric -- in this country is both absurd and more than a little frightening. Via Jonah Goldberg.

UPDATE: For a genuine challenge, does anyone understand the Zensunni/Zensufi split in the Dude books?

Comments

Dune, not Dude, dude.

Posted by Antid Oto | October 17, 2006 2:06 PM

What's the best single book to read to really learn about the history of the Middle East?

Posted by Ted | October 17, 2006 2:07 PM

Dune, not Dude

Damn. I was wondering what the "Dude" books are.

Agreed that the results are depressing, although Goldberg's admonishions are also relevent ("He says "some" easily handled the question. Well is some "most" or is some "almost none."").

Posted by Al | October 17, 2006 2:09 PM

What's the best single book to read to really learn about the history of the Middle East?

The Middle East, by Bernard Lewis

Posted by Al | October 17, 2006 2:14 PM

The official parody of Dune (Doon) has already been written. There will be legal problems if you try out this "Dude" idea of yours. I must say, though, that it would have been great. The entire thing could have taken place in Southern California ... surfing, mind altering substances...and if Baron Harkonnen isn't a movie producer at heart, I'll be damned.

Posted by Njorl | October 17, 2006 2:20 PM

I can't promise that it's the best book to read but was impressed with Albert Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples. It didn't seem ideologically loaded in any particualr direction, and did about as good a job as I can imagine a short 1-volume book doing at covering such a wide sweep of history.

Posted by Doug T | October 17, 2006 2:22 PM

Agreed that the results are depressing

I take it that Al also finds it depressing when he throws a glass at a stone wall and the glass breaks.

If you want and agitate for a moronic foreign policy, as Al does, you really shouldn't find it "depressing" when it turns out to be run by morons.

Posted by grh | October 17, 2006 2:24 PM

The Middle East, by Bernard Lewis

Don't be funny, Al. It appears to be a sincere question.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 17, 2006 2:27 PM

Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

“Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” I asked him a few weeks ago.

... To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. ...

“Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

Posted by Jacob | October 17, 2006 2:30 PM

Here's start.
http://reviews.aqoul.com/mena_history/

Look further via their left sidebar.

Posted by David Weman | October 17, 2006 2:45 PM

Don't be funny, Al. It appears to be a sincere question.

Hehe. What say you SCMT? "Orientalism"?

Posted by Al | October 17, 2006 2:48 PM

What is truly horrifying about things like Jacob's observation is that this ISN'T happening against a backdrop of Soviet-style information control, but instead in a time and place when information of all kinds has never been easier to come by.

Posted by sglover | October 17, 2006 2:49 PM

My favorite in the Dune series was Dune, Where's My Car?

Posted by Tom Hilton | October 17, 2006 2:56 PM

I second the Hourani recommendation. It's the most comprehensive.

Posted by dune looks like a lady | October 17, 2006 3:08 PM

Damn. I was wondering what the "Dude" books are.

I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree with Al.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 17, 2006 3:12 PM

Just want to second the A'qoul recommendation of the Marshall Hodgson books. They're not exactly fun to read, but they are pretty incredible in all other respects.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | October 17, 2006 3:14 PM

I'm currently enjoying "A Peace to End All Peace" by Fromkin(?) It focus specifically on the partitioning of the middle east following the First World War. Admittedly though it does not delve so much into the broader history of Arab/Muslim culture, which is I guess what the original question was about.

Posted by DanF | October 17, 2006 3:17 PM

The Harkonnen peed on my rug. It really tied the room together.

Posted by Cain | October 17, 2006 3:18 PM

Honestly, I always forget which is which, but I know that the majority of Iraq is of the same sect as Iran, and that Saddam Hussein is of the sect common to the Arab nations to the west of Iraq.

Posted by Misplaced Patriot | October 17, 2006 3:25 PM

"What's the best single book to read to really learn about the history of the Middle East?"-Posted by: Ted on October 17, 2006 02:07 PM

I read a book called "The Arabs" (certainly not the one by Lamb, probably the one by Peter Mansfield) about 15 years ago that was pretty good. It doesn't go into the whole middle east, but it covers more than just the Arabs. It starts from just before Mohammed, covers interactions with Persians, Turks and Berbers significantly, and dicusses schisms in Islam.

I remember it covering at least through the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, and it might have gone further.

Posted by Njorl | October 17, 2006 3:42 PM

Bernard Lewis is very good for the centuries-old stuff, as far as I know, just so long as one avoids his op-eds about how Iran will destroy the world on Aug. 22 and other similar wackiness on contemporary politics. In a similar vein, Michael Oren obviously should not be listened to when he says that Israel can only make peace with Lebanon by attacking Syria, but Six Days of War is still an outstanding book.

Posted by Haggai | October 17, 2006 3:54 PM

Lewis and Hourani are outstanding, but Lewis and Hodgson are Turkocentric. Maxim Rodinson gives a great French perspective on Islam, as does Kepel. William Cleveland's History of the Modern Middle East is very good. Rafael Patai's The Arab Mind is excellent.

Posted by daveinboca | October 17, 2006 3:59 PM

Based on my experiences living for years in two separate countries in the Middle East with sizeable numbers of both Shiites and Sunnis, the difference is:

The Shiites drive like they're trying to kill themselves. The Sunnis drive like they're trying to kill you.

Posted by daveinboca | October 17, 2006 4:03 PM

hourani is great.

the zenshia seem a bit more violent than the zensunni in the dune prequals, so perhaps the zenshia are more radical?

Posted by razib | October 17, 2006 4:07 PM

This is not a bad intro for US-Middle East relations:

Douglas Little. American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. $19.95 (paper)

Posted by otto | October 17, 2006 4:12 PM

The Iran hostage crisis gave many Americans the impression that the Shiites are more 'radical' or 'fundamentalist' than the Sunni. I've even seen 'Shiite' used metaphorical for the more radical or extreme branch of various political or religious groups.

In fact, I don't think Iran ever quite matched Saudi Arabia for strictness in interpreting and enforcing Sharia. Women can drive in Iran, for example.

Posted by David Tomlin | October 17, 2006 5:03 PM

My two pence on the whole Book-to-Read business:

--Bernard Lewis is indeed very good; read pretty much anything of his, in particular "The Middle East" and "What Went Wrong." His books are scholarly, lively, and actually quite free of ideology. He is weak when he falls into a certain "colonial" stance (forever criticized by Edward Said, who is actually not that great as an interpreter/historian of the Middle East)Lewis disappoints, but generally he's a marvelous historian.

--For a take that's just as scholarly but some different politically, read a chap from the LSE named Fred Halliday. His "100 Myths About the Middle East" is excellent. Unlike just about everyone else who pontificates on the Middle East these days, he's well-versed in Arabic and Persian and--shock--he's actually spent a substantial amount of time in different countries in the Middle East.

Posted by MortimerPeacock | October 17, 2006 5:17 PM

There is a four part Iraq War video slide show up on Youtube right now that everyone should go see. The photos show the dark side of the American Military's behavior and attitude in Iraq. The whole thing is eye opening, disturbing, and certainly challenges the portrayal of the troops the MSM has been feeding us for the past three years.

LINK -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=986DikQDPEk

Posted by steveNY | October 17, 2006 5:49 PM

Interestingly, in the article Matt refers to, there's no full discussion of the origins and differences in beliefs between Shi'a and Sunni. Here's the wikipedia entry for Shi'a:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a
Here's the entry for Sunni:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni
Just in case anyone wants to check out what the doctrinal differences actually are. Those doctrinal differences may or may not be reflected in their contemporary political beliefs or actions.

Posted by Donald A. Coffin | October 17, 2006 7:32 PM

Are we talking about Dude canon or whack posthumous pseud Dude? Honestly, all the Zensunni/Zensufi stuff in the second and third books of the Dude canon never made a lick of sense to me.

Posted by Chris Conway | October 17, 2006 8:35 PM

One thought on why Sunni would be contrasted with Sufi (as opposed to Shiite) may be found here:

A SUFI RESPONSE TO POLITICAL ISLAMISM: AL-AHBASH OF LEBANON

..[t]he resurgence of Islamism after the 1967 war and its subsequent use by President Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt as an antidote to Nasserism brought the Muslim Brotherhood into prominence as a prelude to its emergence as a part of mainstream Islam.8 With the rise of the Brotherhood's militant offshoots, and its growing criticism of Sadat's policies of rapprochement with the West and Israel, the government sought to strengthen the Sufi movement, which by this time was presenting itself as an Islamically legitimate but politically quietist, tolerant, and spiritually vibrant alternative to political Islamism.9 This pattern of mutual accord between the state and Sufism has persisted under President Husni Mubarak.10 Similar policies of governmental support for Sufism have been discerned in Syria and Saudi Arabia.11

A dominant theme in the ideology and activities of contemporary Sunni Islamist movements is a deep-seated opposition to Sufism. Despite past instances of convergence and overlapping between Sufi and revivalist movements, their mutual antagonism has become pronounced particularly in the contemporary milieu of heightened political Islamism. The doctrinal roots of opposition to Sufism among today's Sunni Islamists are found in the writings of the eminent 13th-century Hanbali 'alim Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyya.12 In his quest to purify the Muslim faith, Ibn Taymiyya vigorously opposed Sufi pantheism and such practices as the worship of saints and pilgrimages to their shrines, although he accepted a Sufism based on Islamic legalism and tradition.13 In the hands of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyya's strictures on Sufism were transformed into a comprehensive condemnation and prohibition of the Sufi orders.14

This critical stance toward Sufism and its practices can be found among the major exponents of modern Islamist thought, such as Abu al-A'la Mawdudi,15 Sayyid Qutb, 16 'Abd al-Salam Faraj, 17 and Fathi Yakan. 18 By anchoring themselves on the legalist tradition of Ibn Taymiyya, these modern-day Islamists rejected Sufi esoteric (batini) beliefs and ceremonial practices as being heretical innovations (bid'a) and superstitions (khurafa). 19 Instead of the Sufi's inner-directed mysticism, quietism, and withdrawal from the mundane, the Islamists advocate religious -political activism, where a person's piety can be outwardly demonstrated and socially validated in terms of the shari'a. Indeed, the ultimate quest of the Islamists is to capture the Islamic popular mainstream by imposing a single homogenizing ideology as a means to mobilize the masses as a prelude to achieving political control. Thus, the phenomenal growth of the Islamist movement in recent decades has threatened the populist social base of the Sufi orders. Despite their political quietism in the recent past, some Sufi groups have begun to assert themselves to defend their interests in the political arena.

Food for thought.

Posted by Jimm | October 17, 2006 10:17 PM

After looking into it further, it's not obvious what Dune is attempting to get at, especially since it seems like the zensunnis and the zensufis both are mystically-inclined.

The Zensunni were followers of a schismatic sect that broke away from the teachings of Maometh (the so-called "Third Muhammed") about 1381 B.G. The Zensunni religion was noted chiefly for its emphasis on ilm (the mystical; theology; science of religious tradition) and fiqh (knowledge; religious law; a reversion to "the ways of the fathers").

Here is another possible explanation:

The Budislamic religion was ancient, According to the Terminology section the Zensunni tradition began 1381 BG, thats roughly 11,000 years before the events in the novel Dune. Naturally over time different beliefs and intrepretations occour and that is what probably happened and was accelerated by the Tleilaxu cutting themselves off from mainstream contact with others which over time produced greater and greater differences over time.

The Zensufi can be better described and closer to the oringinal early form of Budislamic religion, while the Zensunni tradition was probably affected and modified by their years of slavery and latter by the conditions of Arrakis. The Tleilaxu on the otherhand as far as we can tell had a more stable history and were able to preserve their relious view point in a more original "untainted" form.

As for the accual differences were . . . I don't think anyone can say were never really got any real insight, I think if Frank Herbert had lived longer he would have included something on this subject in Dune 7.

I'd guess perhaps a differing emphasis on tradition, with sufis being more inwardly-oriented and not particularly concerned with social and political realities (or at least actively seeking to transform them). One should probably just fall back on the standard differences between Sunni traditionalism and Sufism (and then throw in your own zen influence).

Another approach would be differing emphasis on fiqh:

The term "sufi" has been used in contrast with "faqih" (jurist) by the great Imams of Fiqh and Usul. It is enough that Imam al-Shafi`i [1] said:

faqihan wa sufiyyan fa kun laysa wahidan fa inni wa haqqillahi iyyaka ansahu

Be both a faqih and a sufi: do not be only one of them!
Verily, by Allah's truth, I am advising you sincerely.

while Imam Malik [2] said:

man tasawwafa wa lam yatafaqqa fa qad tazandaqa
wa man tafaqqaha wa lam yatasawwaf fa qad tafassaqa
wa man jama`a bayn al-ithnayn fa qad tahaqqaqa

He who practices tasawwuf without learning Sacred Law
corrupts his faith, while he who learns Sacred Law without
practicing tasawwuf corrupts himself.
Only he who combines the two proves true.

See also Sufyan al-Thawri's saying on the best of people being the Sufi who is versed in fiqh, cited below.

Well, 15 minutes is about all I have to research this. Peace out.

Posted by Jimm | October 17, 2006 10:36 PM

jimm, 'sufi' is a mystical bent with a wide range and expanse. some sufi oriented clerics were and are very orthodox in their application of sharia and adherence to sunni theology. some are not. and some sufis are shia (e.g., the bekatishi order).

Posted by razib | October 17, 2006 10:41 PM

Thanks razib. I'm actually aware of that (philosophical and mystical studies including sufism for a number of years in my youth), but trying to get a sense of what Herbert's understanding would have been as a Westerner. A zen-sufi fusion doesn't seem to suggest old-school orthodox Islam.

For those who are more interested in all of this, especially Sufism, here is a lecture that delves into the influence of Ibn 'Arabi on the West:

http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/hi_farwest.pdf

Posted by Jimm | October 17, 2006 10:50 PM

Really, Bernard Lewis? Is that the best we were able to come up with for generations? If you want to read about harem ritual in 1803 Instanbul, Lewis might be the man for you. If you want something decent and relevant, he's sadly lacking. He understands the Arab world just as much as Hungtington thought he understood black South Africans, meaning he understood squat. Also, if "The Arab Mind" is the same old book written by an ex-Columbia professor that helped to inspire some of the neocons' racist ideas, it's also crap. Apparently he had a much weaker understanding of Arabic than he let on. He would also generalize a single anecdote, for instance about an Arab mother fondling her baby son's penis, and generalize this into an entire trend that became imprinted on the Arab psyche. His footnotes sadly poorly match up with the text and his analysis.

Posted by Reality Man | October 18, 2006 12:01 AM

A book that won't give you any grand historical perspective, but is a wonderfully intimate portrait of a Shia villiage in the 1950s, is Guests Of The Sheik: An Ethnography Of An Iraqi Village by Elizabeth Warnock Fernea.

Posted by Jeff | October 18, 2006 12:21 AM

Karen Armstrong's A Short History of Islam is just what it says. The unabridged audiobook version from audible.com is less than 7 hours; the book is about 300 pages. She doesn't try to be exhaustive, but she packs a lot into those pages, with an emphasis on what the adherents of different causes and leaders would describe as most important about their group as well as what an outside observer like her would say.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | October 18, 2006 2:54 AM

Isn't "The Arab Mind" the bible of the neocons? The one that said "Arabs only understand force?" The one that led to panties on the head and menstrual blood on the face at Abu Ghraib? No, I don't think I'll be reading that one.

Posted by Hoyt Pollard | October 18, 2006 10:08 AM

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/very-basic-suggested-reading-list-on.html

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Very Basic Suggested Reading List on Middle East*

Berkey, Jonathan P. The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East. 3rd edn. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2004.

Dodge, Toby. Inventing Iraq : the failure of nation-building and a history denied New York : Columbia University Press, 2003.

Gelvin, James. The modern Middle East: a history. New York : Oxford University Press, 2005.

Gerges, Fawaz. The far enemy: why Jihad went global. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Hourani, Albert. A history of the Arab peoples. Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991.

- General history of the Arab world from the time of the Prophet Muhammad to the present.

Keddie, Nikki. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of revolution. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003.

- History of modern Iran, with some early modern and nineteenth-century background, but good treatment of the twentieth century and the Islamic Republic.

Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. London: Longman, 1989.

Khalidi, Rashid. Palestinian identity : the construction of modern national consciousness. New York : Columbia University Press, 1997.

Khalidi, Rashid. Resurrecting Empire : western footprints and America’s perilous path in the Middle East. Boston : Beacon Press, 2004.

Kennedy, Hugh. When Baghdad Ruled the World. New York: Perseus Books, 2006.

- Explores the medieval history of Muslim-ruled Iraq and its civilizational glories. People who doubt its importance should try doing math in Roman numerals with no zero and no algrebra.

Kepel, Gilles. Jihad : the trail of political Islam. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Marr, Phebe. The modern history of Iraq. 2nd ed. Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 2004.

McAlister, Melani. Epic encounters : culture, media, and U.S. interests in the Middle East, 1945-2000 Berkeley : University of California Press, 2001.

Montgomery Watt. Muhammad Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, rev. 1961. A Galaxy Book.

Mottahedeh, Roy. The mantle of the Prophet : religion and politics in Iran. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1985.

Packer, George. The assassins’ gate: America in Iraq 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

Quataert, Donald. The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambrige University Press, 2005.

Best recent social history of the greatest Middle Eastern empire and its early twentieth-century demise

Rosen, Nir. In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Shadid, Anthony. Night draws near : Iraq’s people in the shadow of America’s war. New York : Henry Holt, 2005.

Shlaim, Avi. The iron wall : Israel and the Arab world New York : W.W. Norton, 2000.

Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004.

---------

*All my friends whose books are not listed here should please forgive me. This list is meant to be very basic and comes in response to requests for suggestions from the public.

qqqq

posted by Juan @ 5/14/2006 06:02:00 AM

Posted by marc | October 18, 2006 2:41 PM

Fascinating tidbit I just stumbled upon:

Going back to the Dune books, I was utterly amazed at how Herbert used "alam al mithal" to describe the transcendent realm where Paul goes to get his prophetic visions. "Alam al mithal" is a fundamental concept central to what is called the Ishraqi (illuminationist) tradition of philosophy in Islamic culture, including such pre-eminent names as Suhrawardi, Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sudra. Herbert's use of it is absolutely correct... but how did he know about it, and understand it so well to use it so accurately??? This is a fascinating question, because the illuminationist tradition is not very well known at all in the West, even in scholarly circles. In the West we know about Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) because they reawakened philosophy for Europe in the Middle Ages, but very few people are familiar with the names I listed above and their thought. Yet Herbert "got it right." So how did a San Francisco journalist know about the alam al mithal in 1965?

Indeed. I've heard that Herbert spent time in Pakistan on social and ecological assignment, so it's possible he really got some exposure then, or followed up on some initial exposure, into a mystical tradition that fascinated him.

Posted by Jimm | October 18, 2006 2:53 PM