Ignorance is Bliss

Fred Kaplan discusses Rudy Giuliani's decision to go for the big bucks rather than help his country out with the Iraq War, and then segues into the larger point that Giuliani has no idea what he's talking about with regard to national security and terrorism, his alleged area of expertise. Why, I recall back in August '04 writing:

What business, exactly, does Giuliani have being the featured speaker on the convention night that's supposed to be especially dedicated to security concerns? We're threatened, after all, not by squeegie men (people who try to clean your windshield when you're stopped at a traffic light in New York, demanding money for their services) but by Islamist terrorists, a subject Giuliani would seem to know no more about than anyone else who watched events unfold that fateful morning almost three years ago.

Note that this is essentially true across the board. Consider, if you will, this slide from Mitt Romney's PowerPoint of Terror:

Considering that "fundamentalist Islam" as understood by a Sunni and as understood by a Shia are going to be incompatible, it's hard to see this as a common goal. Nor does asserting that Islamism writ large represents an attempt to "defeat the Modernity" seem like an especially cool, calm effort to face reality. Indeed, if we were faced with a genuinely anti-modern movement -- an Islamic version of the Amish, say -- we presumably wouldn't need to have any quarrel with people like that or anything in particular to fear from them.

His next slide is a picture of a bumper sticker bearing the slogan "The Global War on Terror is NOT a Bumper Sticker" as if to perfectly illustrate the point that "war on terror" has become a vapid exercise in sloganeering.

Photo by Bill Fish used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Uhhh...the scope of his focus in the second bullet point wasn't 'Islam writ large,' it was terror groups in particular. While Romney's message may not be breaking new ground, its still intellectually dishonest to attribute such a damning degree of ignorance to the man based on improper interpretation of his message.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 9:52 AM

Sorry, everything else stopped percolating through once I noticed the phrase "defeat the Modernity"...

Posted by Anthony C | June 22, 2007 9:53 AM

Defeat the Modernity! Now there's a slogan you can rally the faithful around.

Actually it sounds like an attack on a trendy British band from Leeds. Oh, the Modernity - they suck, the sellouts.

I thought our big fear of Al Queada was that they used the web and were kind of like the Amazon.com of terror.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | June 22, 2007 9:55 AM

a bumper sticker bearing the slogan "The Global War on Terror is NOT a Bumper Sticker"

Yes. And "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"! I'm looking forward to the first republican candidate to present a urinal mounted on the wall as his health care policy proposal and Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit" as his campaign song.

Posted by DMonteith | June 22, 2007 9:59 AM

The squeegie men line is a classic, you shouldn't explain who they are though, if one has to ask...

The "Calihpate" seems to have replaced the Global Communist Conspiracy and as the favorite conservative wet nightmare, luckily this one is allot less real. Unless "Defeat the Modernity" an indie album I'm not aware of.

Posted by AJ | June 22, 2007 10:02 AM

Sorry, EQ, but the notion that Al Quaeda would make common cause with a Shiite group is pretty unthinkable. These guys are true believers in the worst sense.

The (domestic) right wing like to blur these distinctions because they live to spread fear of an undifferentiated other so that the War on Terra can help them win elections.

Romney combines ignorance with being completely unprincipled, a truely winning combination.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | June 22, 2007 10:07 AM

Perhaps Romney is trying to sound Semitic?

"Defeat the modernity" sounds like a literal translation of something in Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic. Semitic languages do tend to use a definite article in these circumstances where English, for example, would not. Maybe this was done on purpose to make the "fundie Muslim goal" sound more "Arabic"?

if we were faced with a genuinely anti-modern movement -- an Islamic version of the Amish, say

Certainly. Generally, I find myself quaralling with certain denizens of left blogostan who don't get that Christian Fundamentalism as we know it today is as much a product of the (so-called) Enlightenment as our secular mindset. But, of course, conservatives are even more clueless here. Wahabi Islam is no more traditional, pre-modern Islam than Leave it to Beaver presented a traditional family. Fundamentalist Islam is a modern movement ... it is certainly not anti-modern.

As to the Caliphate -- when will the righty-tighties get the fact that Shi'ites would support a Caliphate around the same time that Protestants will defer to the Pope? I guess somebody learned what the Caliphate was and now they are out to prove they know the Muslim history?

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 10:21 AM

Wow, that slide is 'A little learning is a dang'rous thing' writ large.

Or perhaps Romney is such a fucking snake-oil salesman: he works on the assumption that knowing fractionally more than the people to whom he's pitching will make them assume he knows enough.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 22, 2007 10:27 AM

DAS just brought up the point I wanted to make -Shi'ite Caliphate indeed, what a joke. So yes, Epicurean Quaker we can attribute a damning degree of ignorance to Romney.

Posted by vanya | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM

P" in NC,

Bingo. We have a winner. Snake oil salesman in strange underwear. How unmodern.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM

You've got Rudy all wrong. He's not about knowing foreign policy- he's about being a leader. When times are tough, he's out front, being brave - like the first lemming running off the cliff.

Posted by Njorl | June 22, 2007 10:42 AM

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 10:21 AM :"Perhaps Romney is trying to sound Semitic?"

You mean Jewish, right?

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 10:21 AM:"Fundamentalist Islam is a modern movement ... it is certainly not anti-modern."

That depends on the form of fundamentalism surely? The Wahabis opposed bicycles for Saudi Arabia on the grounds they were an innovation. As they opposed those little rosary beads. And the telephone. And pretty much the entire modern world. There are undeniably anti-modern forms of Islamic fundamentalism. Iran does not share those and the Saudis have come around. Somewhat.

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 10:21 AM:"As to the Caliphate -- when will the righty-tighties get the fact that Shi'ites would support a Caliphate around the same time that Protestants will defer to the Pope? I guess somebody learned what the Caliphate was and now they are out to prove they know the Muslim history?"

And yet we have seen Shia and Sunni Islamists co-operate. Hezbollah members have been captured teaching Hamas to make bombs. Iranians have been caught providing military advice to Gazans. Khomeini wanted Sunnis to support him and he moved Shia Islam much closer to Sunni Islam. So it is not impossible. It is really a question of who they hate more - us or each other. It has not always been each other and there is no reason to think it always will be. Remember back when the Vatican, the Born Agains and the Muslims united against the UN's calls for universal abortion. Stranger things have happened.

Posted by HeiGou | June 22, 2007 10:44 AM

EpicureanQuaker: Matt did not say as you misquote: 'Islam writ large,'. He said, Islamism writ large. There is a big difference between the two terms.

Posted by dc | June 22, 2007 10:50 AM

Rudy Giuliani is an expert on terrorism in the same sense that Ray Nagin is an expert climatologist, i.e., not at all. If Ray Nagin tried to convert his Katrina fame into a spot as the head of the National Weather service, would anyone take him seriously?

Posted by A.L. | June 22, 2007 10:55 AM

And yet we have seen Shia and Sunni Islamists co-operate. Hezbollah members have been captured teaching Hamas to make bombs. Iranians have been caught providing military advice to Gazans. Khomeini wanted Sunnis to support him and he moved Shia Islam much closer to Sunni Islam. So it is not impossible. It is really a question of who they hate more - us or each other. It has not always been each other and there is no reason to think it always will be. Remember back when the Vatican, the Born Agains and the Muslims united against the UN's calls for universal abortion. Stranger things have happened.

Of course. In fact, when you simply consider ideology, the most improbable alliance in history was probably the alliance between the US and USSR during WW-II. The US gets in bed with all sorts of unsaviory groups and nations in the advancement of perceived US interests. We funded the Afgan Mujahadeen in the 1980s, for example. Whey does it surprise anyone that other countries would follow the same course? It seems perfectly natural that Hezbollah would assist Hammas. They have no real conflicting interests and most certainly have a common cause in resistance to Israel. As for Iran, all of its activities in the past 20 years are more easily explained in real politic terms than ideology.

Of course that doesn't in any way detract from the silliness of Romney.

Posted by Kent | June 22, 2007 11:14 AM

Facts:
1) Terrorists are mammals!
2) Terrorists fight all the time!
3) The purpose of a terrorist is to flip out and kill people!

It is important to clearly confront terrorists with this fact based analysis and understanding of them!

Posted by IMU | June 22, 2007 11:15 AM

You mean Jewish, right? - HeiGou

No, I do not. I thought my example languages would make it perfectly clear that I was referring to Semitic languages such as Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew. Perhaps it's my imagination, but Semitic languages do tend to put "the" in front of concepts like "modernity" or "freedom".

I wonder then if maybe the Romney people did this on purpose because "oppose the modernity" sounds, as it were, like something an "Ay-rab" would say.

So it is not impossible. [...] Stranger things have happened.

Nu? So it is not impossible. Indeed stranger things have happened. However, if we are so hated, maybe we need to tread a bit carefully?

I know the neo-con argument is "if everyone hates us anyway, we might as well have some fun tweaking people by doing that which makes us hated" ... but, is that really a good strategy? If you live in a bad neighborhood, do you leave your doors unlocked because if you're gonna be robbed anyway, it's the robbers' fault so you should just tweak them a bit by making your house an easy target?

Anyway, my point was that it is rather ignorant to talk about Shia wanting to reestablish the Caliphate. Even if Khomenei, et al., would clearly love to be called Caliph by a bunch of Sunni Muslims ... well, if Pat Robertson decided he wanted to be the next Pope (and a few pseudo-Catholics like Donohue decided that they were "too Catholic" for the Pope and that Robertson would be a better choice) ... that wouldn't mean that Catholics wouldn't find Robertson to be a heretic nor would it mean that Protestants would accept Pope Marion any more than Pope Benedict.

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 11:18 AM

Posted by Kent | June 22, 2007 11:14 AM:"In fact, when you simply consider ideology, the most improbable alliance in history was probably the alliance between the US and USSR during WW-II."

Except that was not an alliance brought about by either of those powers. Rather a small ugly man declared war on both of them.

Posted by Kent | June 22, 2007 11:14 AM:"They have no real conflicting interests and most certainly have a common cause in resistance to Israel."

Resistance? Whatever Iran is trying to do is not resistance. In what possible sense do they have a common cause in fighting Israel? What is in it for Iran (except of course support from Sunnis and hence help in establishing a Shia-Sunni alliance)?

Posted by Kent | June 22, 2007 11:14 AM:"As for Iran, all of its activities in the past 20 years are more easily explained in real politic terms than ideology."

I would love to see the real politic explanation for Iran's support of Hamas and even Hezbollah.

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 11:18 AM:"However, if we are so hated, maybe we need to tread a bit carefully?"

Only if we did something to deserve it or if treading softly is productive. Suppose this is more like life in prison than middle class suburbia. If the Aryan Brothers take a dislike to you, well, volunteering to be their bitch isn't much of a solution is it? On the other hand, it would not be a bad thing to be a hard man no one else would like to mess with.

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 11:18 AM:"If you live in a bad neighborhood, do you leave your doors unlocked because if you're gonna be robbed anyway, it's the robbers' fault so you should just tweak them a bit by making your house an easy target?"

Interesting. Australia's Grand Mufti said that women who went out of doors were like meat left for a cat - who could blame the cat if it was just left there? He wanted to jail rape victims for life. I think this is a little harsh. But clearly women who walk around in miniskirts are not exactly asking for it, and oh please God tell me you don't think they are, but if they stayed at home and wore a back sack they might be safer. The only person who is to blame for robbing my house is the thief. I should not have to lock my door. They ought to be in jail.

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 11:18 AM:"Anyway, my point was that it is rather ignorant to talk about Shia wanting to reestablish the Caliphate."

Well I think it isn't. The concept of a Caliph is hardly alien to Shia Islam. They may argue over who gets to be Caliph, but they all are probably agreed on the need for a more Islamically oriented social order. And killing Jews.

Posted by HeiGou | June 22, 2007 11:34 AM

Sorry, EQ, but the notion that Al Quaeda would make common cause with a Shiite group is pretty unthinkable. These guys are true believers in the worst sense. The (domestic) right wing like to blur these distinctions because they live to spread fear of an undifferentiated other so that the War on Terra can help them win elections. Romney combines ignorance with being completely unprincipled, a truely winning combination.

You and MY seem to suffer from the same malady that requires you to completely miss nuance. Romney never said that Shia and Sunni were holding hands while planting bombs, but that there are terrorists of both ilks. He's doing a good enough job demonizing himself, without your ham-handed contribution. Please tell me where I agreed with Romney, and why I should need your unwarranted lecture on all things obvious. It's your kind of histrionics that allow liberal voices to be so easily discounted.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 11:42 AM

I'm confused.

1) Some terror groups are Sunni, others are Shia.

But:

2) uniting them is the four-pronged goals, one of which is to establish a Caliphate.

Inconvenient fact: the Caliphate is one of the primary things that divide Sunni and Shia. This reminds me of Friedman's moronic call for Islamic unity.

Posted by nolaboyd | June 22, 2007 11:52 AM

"Inconvenient fact: the Caliphate is one of the primary things that divide Sunni and Shia. This reminds me of Friedman's moronic call for Islamic unity." - posted by nolaboyd | June 22, 2007 11:52 AM

Inconvenient only in the sense it is not true. The dispute is over who should have been the first, second, and third Caliphs with the Shia thinking it ought to have gone to Muhammed's cousin and son-in-law Ali. That was some time ago, the issue was never over the institution of the Caliphate (although a difference is style of leader developed over time), and no one is planning on resurrecting the bones of Omar and fighting that battle all over again. The Sunni and Shia seem agreed that the scholars ought to rule. There is a push to have the Shia accepted as the Fifth legitimate school of jurisprudence. The differences are getting smaller.

Posted by HeiGou | June 22, 2007 12:01 PM

During the last invasion of Lebanon the hardcore salafists were cheerleading for the Israeli's vs. Hezbollah. So the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" works two ways.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 22, 2007 12:04 PM

EQ,

The notion that I am missing the nuance in the deep thinking of Mitt Romney induces a chuckle or two.

I hardly view my statement as histrionics. I am merely commenting, unassailably I think, that the right in this country is trying to create a level of hysteria with respect to the Islamist threat that is devoid of all nuance, one that equates Iraq with Al Quaeda, minimizes the differences between Sunni and Shiite, fails to distinguish between Arab and non-Arab, particularly Persians, and grossly overstates the military power of these groups.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | June 22, 2007 12:22 PM

"Defeat the Modernity" is a rough translation of "Fight the Future". Apparently Mitt Romney thinks he's Fox Mulder?

Posted by Larry Rubinow | June 22, 2007 12:32 PM

I'm pretty sure "Modernity" is refering to Western Enlightenment culture/civilization. That includes technology but technology isn't really the point. He's alluding to that "last best hope for Western civilization" line which I'm pretty sure was just from the film 300 but has become something of a Rightwing mantra. This also ties into the Right's insane fear of non-existent leftist postmodern moral relativists.

Of course there is an anti-enlightenment ideology that accurately describes the views of some militant Islamists but that opposition to freedom and democracy aren't the reasons Joe Jihadist joins al Qaeda. And the degree to which an anti-enlightenment view has been popularized among Muslims probably stems from the West's long history of utter hypocrisy regarding Enlightenment values.

At least Romney is sort of making an arguement and not just showing pictures of scary brown people.

Posted by Jack | June 22, 2007 12:36 PM

DAS just brought up the point I wanted to make -Shi'ite Caliphate indeed, what a joke. So yes, Epicurean Quaker we can attribute a damning degree of ignorance to Romney.

I never said Romney isn't ignorant...the sticking point is that MY never made any bones about Romney's ignorance of the sectarian divisions regarding a caliphate. My contention is that the example MY chose to illustrate Romney's ignorance was based upon improper interpretation.

EpicureanQuaker: Matt did not say as you misquote: 'Islam writ large,'. He said, Islamism writ large. There is a big difference between the two terms.

If you choose to split hairs in that manner, the very definition of Islamism is that of movement dedicated to rolling back society's evolution since the time of the Prophet. Hell, 'Islamism' is a deragatory term employed by MY, yet he feels comfortable pointing out Romney's Kipling-esque dumbing down of Islam's schism.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 12:37 PM

@ klein: Noone said the Right isn't employing scare tactics almost exclusively - the point is that your statement of the obvious had nothing to do with defending MY's faux pas. Stop grandstanding.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 12:42 PM

I believe that the modernity, when it flashes its ID at liquor stores, uses the name "secular humanism". I thought we was all against that secular humanism. Don't it lead directly to that horrible disrespect for the culture of life and the killing babies? And also having Adam marrying Steve instead of Eve? To say nothing of the false teaching that man descended from a monkey.

Seems to me Romney is flip flopping again.

Posted by roger | June 22, 2007 12:53 PM

I would love to see the real politic explanation for Iran's support of Hamas and even Hezbollah.

Harassing their most powerful rival in the region.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 22, 2007 12:59 PM

an Islamic version of the Amish, say

One big difference is the Amish aren't exactly violent, nor are they interested in traveling to, say, Denmark to "behead those who insult Christ."

Good point on the fundamental incompatibility between Sunni and Shia ideas of Caliphate.

Posted by Steve | June 22, 2007 1:30 PM

Re Shia-Sunni cooperation, note that Matthew Yglesias and Ron Paul both cooperate in agreeing that Rudi Giulani is a dangerous dumbshit.

See "Educating Rudy" at http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070530/cm_thenation/45200499

A quote:
""I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term congressman said as he presented a stack of books at a Washington press conference.

Until Giuliani reads the books and recognizes their lessons, Paul said, "I don't think he's qualified to be president."
--------
I , on the other hand, think Rudi wouldn't be qualified to be President if he read the entire Library of COngress.

Posted by Don Williams | June 22, 2007 2:01 PM

If the Aryan Brothers take a dislike to you, well, volunteering to be their bitch isn't much of a solution is it? On the other hand, it would not be a bad thing to be a hard man no one else would like to mess with. - HeiGou

But neither would it make sense for me to run around in a neighborhood full of Aryan Brothers wearing a kippah and a big tallis.

Being a hard man might work ... but are we being that way? Is that the message the US got accross? No ... we got accross the message that we are so soft, we flipped out on 9/11 and went berserk ... that may look "hard" to you, but trust me, 'round the world it looks mighty soft!

That was some time ago, the issue was never over the institution of the Caliphate

Well, the Shia did decide to call it something different -- they followed the Imam rather than the Caliph. And people alas regularly kill each other for less cause than what they want to call their spiritual leader ...

Posted by DAS | June 22, 2007 2:01 PM

EQ,

Again neither grandstanding nor histrionics. I was disagreeing with your quibble over MY's, in my opinion, accurate takedown of he with the manly broad shoulders and chin that makes Chris Matthews quiver. I think I'm allowed to respond to an attack I don't believe to be well founded.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | June 22, 2007 2:17 PM

EQ

Islam is the religion. Islamism is the movement to make the religion of Islam the law of the land. Same deal works for Christianity vs. Christianism. I don't think that's splitting hairs, since, if you believe there's no difference between Islam and Islamism you are seriously misrepresenting Islamic beliefs.

Posted by dk | June 22, 2007 2:39 PM

@Klein: You never responded to my inital comment, but rather went off on a tear of talking points. Watched too much Crossfire back in the day, perhaps?

@dk: Y'know, you folks need to give it a rest. I'm sure the cretins you're used to dealing with are placated when you spew definitions at them, but it really works against you in this case. Islamism has, as one of its central tenets, an antagonistic stance toward progress. MY, in contrast, says that to credit such a stance to 'Islamism writ large' is unrealistic. Bit of logical discontinuity there, eh? Also, and this is for our testicular pal above as well, comparing Christianism to Islamism makes MY's argument even more foolish - we've managed to see that an anachronistic viewpoint doesn't necessarily give birth to a benevolent, Amish movement. If anything, a need to fulfill prophecy, which is foremost in the mind of most fundamentalists, leads to nothing but strife.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 3:22 PM

@Klein: You never responded to my inital comment, but rather went off on a tear of talking points. Watched too much Crossfire back in the day, perhaps?

@dk: Y'know, you folks need to give it a rest. I'm sure the cretins you're used to dealing with are placated when you spew definitions at them, but it really works against you in this case. Islamism has, as one of its central tenets, an antagonistic stance toward progress. MY, in contrast, says that to credit such a stance to 'Islamism writ large' is unrealistic. Bit of logical discontinuity there, eh? Also, and this is for our testicular pal above as well, comparing Christianism to Islamism makes MY's argument even more foolish - we've managed to see that an anachronistic viewpoint doesn't necessarily give birth to a benevolent, Amish movement. If anything, a need to fulfill prophecy, which is foremost in the mind of most fundamentalists, leads to nothing but strife. Last time I checked, the reason the Amish don't rock the boat is 'cause they've made piece with their own steadily dwindling presence...not really the case for Christianists or Islamists, methinks.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 3:27 PM

Oops, double post...blame the router gremlin.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 3:28 PM

"The Sunni and Shia seem agreed that the scholars ought to rule."

Trotsky and Stalin both believed that the Bolshevik leader should head the USSR. How did that work out for Trotsky?

There is also a big difference between Iranian support for Hezbollah, which is Shi'ites helping Shi'ites, and Hezbollah helping Hamas, which is Arabs helping Arabs, against Israel and the idea that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaida, Saudi Arabia, AQ in Iraq, the domestic Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Badr Brigades, al-Sadr, the Taliban and whoever else will all join together to create a Caliphate and reign terror down on the US. The first issues are joined together by 1) a hatred of Israel's actions in Lebanon, 2) the issue of land and occupation, which is a common source of anger and 3) Iran not liking Israel's actions during events like the Iran-Iraq War and finding a way to show Israel that road goes both ways. This is not to say that these are good things, but some regional context is important.Compared to the Caliphate, these are short-term goals against a common regional enemy. Conspiring together against the American homeland would be much more logistically complicated and self-defeating.

Posted by Reality Man | June 22, 2007 5:23 PM

Re: The concept of a Caliph is hardly alien to Shia Islam.

You don't know much about Shi'a Islam then. The restoration of the Caliphate is rather like the New Jerusalem for Christians: something that happens only after everything has been put to rights and the Kingdom of God is firmly established. That's why Shi'ites have evolved a real, formal clergy, and why Shi'ite Iran had a secular ruler, the Shah, for 500 years, with no relogious pretensions: precisely because no caliph is possible, Shi'a became something more like Orthodox Christiniaty: a fraternal hierarchy (the Ayatollahs) running the religion (but without a central "pope") while various secular (but supposedly pious) rulers governed the state. The last Shah upset the applecart by refusing to be properly pious, and the Ayatollah overturned the applecart altogether by seizing secular power (for which a number of other ayatollahs condemned him just as many Orthodox bishops would condemn the Patriarch of Moscow if he overthrew Putin and appointed himself Head Honcho). But even Khomeini at his self-aggrandizing worst never pretended for one moment that he was any kind of Caliph.

Re: The differences are getting smaller.

If that's true then why are Sunnis and Shi'ites murdering each with such gusto in Iraq?

Re: I'm pretty sure "Modernity" is refering to Western Enlightenment culture/civilization.

Except it isn't just Western modernity they object too. They object to the whole historical outlook of European civilization, all the way back to the Greeks and Romans. Indeed, they view Christianity's great error (for which it lost God's favor, necesitating Mohammed's prophetic mission) as the adoption of Greek philosophical thought and practice in antiquity. It's worth noting that way back in the Middle Ages Muslim moralists were pointing to the Europeans, including the license allowed European women even then, as examples of depraved and immoral living.

Posted by JonF | June 22, 2007 10:36 PM

Giuliani's performance with the ISG is reminiscent of Bernie Kerik's training of the Iraqi police forces.

Posted by bob h | June 23, 2007 7:23 AM

Jon F,

I think there is a complexity to the latter issue that defies commentary at this level. I believe that the thinking of Aristotle was popularized by Muslim scholars living in Spain in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries and that the first commentaries on his work of note were by Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi who dealt with issues of faith and reason in what we would describe as an enlightenment fashion. Islam, like Christianity, was a big faith and contained many tendencies, including some of the most sophisticated thinking then part of the world.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | June 23, 2007 11:14 AM

Jon F: "It's worth noting that way back in the Middle Ages Muslim moralists were pointing to the Europeans, including the license allowed European women even then, as examples of depraved and immoral living."

It is also worth noting that property laws dealing with inheritance and divorce in Western countries like England simply discriminated against women in different ways than they were discriminated against in Islamic countries. A good comparison is the property of married women, which, in places like England was legally "absorbed" by their husbands, whereas in the Ottoman empire, women had the right to control their dowry and had separate rights over their property in marriage. It wasn't until the 1870s that England caught up with the Ottomans in this regard.

By the way, what Muslim moralists are you talking about?

Posted by roger | June 23, 2007 12:50 PM

Re: the thinking of Aristotle was popularized by Muslim scholars living in Spain in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

Yep: Spain, the far periphery of the Muslim world, with a population that was majority Christian. Not Baghdad or Cairo let alone Mecca. The outskirts of Islam, where it has had to interact and tolerate other faiths whose intellectual traditions were at least equal to its own (mainly Christianity and Hinduism) were always very progressive. But nota bene: all that Aristotelianism was declared the equivalent of heresy back in the core regions of Islam. This is why Islamic philosophy and Islamic science withered on the vine, why the first man to walk on the moon did not speak Arabic. Islam ultimately rejected science and philosophy (though Shi'a Islam maintained an underground tradition of both)-- rather as if the Catholic Church in the 16th and 17th centuries had succeeded in suppressing the New Thinking that led to modern science. Except even that does not quite work as an analogy, because Galileo's judges were affirming an alternate science, that of Ptolemy, Aristotle and Galen (non-Christians all), not rejecting scientific thought in totality.

Re: A good comparison is the property of married women, which, in places like England was legally "absorbed" by their husbands

The property of European heiresses could be separated from their husband's control by some legal maneuvering: a formal entailment was needed in the will, a stipulation that only the heiress herself had control of the property. Some very wealthy families did that for their daughters, to discourage fortune hunters. I can cite examples going back to the 800s if you like. (For that matter, see current laws regulating British royalty, which are centuries old with only minor adjustments: Prince Philip has the honorary title of "prince" and whatever estates and titles his wife and Parliament has bestowed on him, it's Elizabeth II, by Grace of God etc., who is Queen Regnant. The same was true of Victoria and Albert, Anne and George, even "Bloody" Mary and Philip II of Spain in the 1500s)

Posted by JonF | June 24, 2007 12:47 AM