Tuesday, April 8, 2008

I'm talkin' 'bout jahiliyya, ya khayy

Abu Muqawama and his flatmate, Londonstani, have a running joke about the jahiliyya, which is best defined as the age of ignorance that preceded the Prophet Muhammad on the Arabian peninsula. Whenever we see some girl walking down the street wearing little by way of clothes, we'll stare, shake our heads, (stare a little more) and then remark ironically, "Man, what jahiliyya!"

Drug use, drunkenness, rock 'n' roll, and other forms of debauchery (or fun) get similarly thrown under the category of jahiliyya in our vernacular. Londonstani likes to say that if he tried to explain to his father that there was pornography on the internet, his father would have no idea what he was talking about. But if he said, "Dad, there's jahiliyya on the internet," Londonstani's father would know exactly what he was talking about.

Abu Muqawama thinks about jahiliyya a lot, mainly because he often notes how much crap goes on in the Middle East that has less to do with Islam and more to do with tribal traditions that pre-date the Age of Islam. (Honor killings are but one example.) That's the point of Philip Carl Salzman's new book which is reviewed here in what David Brooks called, today, a "brilliant" review. Abu Muqawama gets as nervous when he reads the phrases "brilliant" and "in the Weekly Standard" together as he does when he reads "military analysis" and "in the New York Times" together. But he must admit that while he doesn't care too much for Stanley Kurtz's predictable jeremiads against the academy in the National Review, he does a nice job with this book review.

With their technologically advanced armies, modern Middle Eastern states may look like they've put an end to the independence of tribes. Yet with tribal rebellions centered in Iraq's Anbar province and Pakistan's Waziristan region, one way to think of the war on terror is as an unexpected recrudescence of classic tribe/state antagonism. ...

Since 9/11, we've understood Islam as the fundamental source of the cultural challenge coming from the Middle East. That has given rise to a strategy of direct assault--an almost Voltairean attempt to deflate religious pretensions in hopes of forcing a change. Islam itself may be a complex extension of tribal culture, yet technically, Islam is defined as something different from, and sometimes antagonistic to, pure tribalism. When Muslim immigrants in Europe debate amongst themselves female seclusion, cousin marriage, and honor killings, reformers argue that these are "cultural" rather than strictly "Islamic" practices. There is truth here and also an opening.

While tribalism is in one sense culturally pervasive in the Middle East, tribal practices are less swathed in sacredness than explicitly Koranic symbols and commandments--and are therefore more susceptible to criticism and debate. Even jihad and suicide bombing can be interpreted through a tribal lens. We've taught ourselves a good deal about Islam over the past seven years. Yet tribalism is at least half the cultural battle in the Middle East, and the West knows little about it. Learning how to understand and critique the Islamic Near East through a tribal lens will open up a new and smarter strategy for change. The way to begin is by picking up Salzman's Culture and Conflict in the Middle East.

Kurtz's review is a little maddening because at one point he suggests that tribalism endures because of Islam -- because it reminds people of society during the time of prophet -- and at another point suggests, correctly, that tribalism is something that exists outside of or contrary to Islamic traditions.

Abu Muqawama isn't sure if Kurtz gets this tension. On balance, he seems to think of Islam and tribalism as one and the same. Islam, however, suggests a community that transcends the old tribal divisions. And that's a powerful idea that Kurtz (almost) gets.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I haven't read Phil Salzman's book--and it is always dangerous to engage a book's content on the basis of someone else's review of it--but I think a couple of words of caution are in order.

First, it would be dangerous to project nomadic/bedouin forms of segmentary lineage onto all Middle Eastern populations. There are significant differences between the way this sort of social politics works out in the dynamics of family/clan/hamula/tribe in many long-standing sedentary agriculturalist and urban populations. Projecting a generalized theory of ME societies and conflict based on fieldwork among Iranian Baluch seems rather like projecting a theory of LA gang violence based on a study of Alaskan fishing villages.

Second, and as your post suggests, it would be a mistake to set this as an Islam vs tribalism debate, or even to set it in terms of Islam vs tribalism vs "modern/other" social formations being drivers of the nature of conflict in the broader ME. All of these things have an influence that is also determined by time, space, and political setting.

Finally (and again, without having read the book, so this is more a general comment) I think "ahh, the Middle East is a conflictual mess because of tribes" gets us about as far as "the ME is a mess because of Islam." The biggest messes in the ME would likely be messes regardless--most populations get a little peeved when they perceive that their country is being given away to foreign settlers (the Palestinian perception in 1948), or chafe a bit under foreign occupation (Palestine, Iraq).

The subsequent forms and dynamics of these conflict may be tribalized (much more so Iraq than Palestine, I would suggest, and very much so in hypertribalized Afghanistan)... but equally the transnationalization of these conflicts is often sustained by social dynamics that have nothing to do with tribalism. As AM likely knows from his research on the rise of Fateh al-Islam in Nahr al-Barid refugee camp, this wasn't spread through dynamics of segmentary lineage (leaving aside some micro-kinship relations common to much covert organization worldwide), but through very "modern" forms of shared experience and recruitment, internet communications, the power of money and patronage, and so forth.

Indeed, ironically, if the hamulas in NBC had been stronger, Fateh al-Islam would have been less likely to have made inroads...

Arabic Media Shack said...

well said, nice review of a review

Abu Muqawama said...

Uh, yeah.

That's a pretty great comment, the kind I read and am thankful for this blog's intelligent readership.

Abu Muqawama said...

I meant the first comment. But Nate, I promise we'll link to your stuff soon. I enjoy the blog!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - very nice.

Often overlooked is that this dichotomy/struggle between tribalism and an urbanized center has been ongoing for millenia. Islam began in the cities, and it has always been a cliche that Islam is at heart an urban religion. Its first war upon Muhammad's death was against breakaway bedouin tribes who sought to return the 'jahiliyya', or perhaps just to freedom from central control.

Tribal persistence in the Arab world should also be partially understood as a remnant of colonialism - first Turkish and Persian, then Western - both of which sponsored tribes as a means to division and control. The lack of importance of tribe to more rooted, urbanized ME societies such as Egypt and Iran, which also suffered proportionately less from occupation and colonization, shows this.

mo said...

anonymous,

In all the blog comments i have read in all the years, this is the first time I have ever had cause to be disappointed in a posts' author being anonymous.

Like AM says, yours is the kind of comment we all come to blogs like this for.

SoldiernolongerinIraq said...

Actually, Anon, I could make a pretty good argument for an interesting cross-cultural analysis of how kinship groups in an Alaskan fishing village produce some of the same social dynamics fostering their labors and living as those kinship factors influencing gang activity in Los Angeles.

I think it's actually doable. I've seen stranger.

Having said that, I also took a step back when I read in reviews that Salzman was comparing Baluchi tribesmen to the whole "Middle East."

That's quite a jump, but I don't want to judge it until I read it.

Upon saying that, obviously, a great deal of scholarship has traced the badu and their lasting cultural influence over sedentary settlements throughout the Arab-speaking Middle East.

Although I know Baluchi pals, none of them ever seemed to me all that much a product of the bayt, but what do I know? These Baluchi buddies wear Burberry and drink Johnny Walker Black when not cursing the scourge of Iran, so they might not be representative of a bedrock culture.

If we would entertain seriously scholarship that tied cultural tropes borrowed from the bedu's nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism to the larger Arabic culture, however, why not extrapolate from a similar way of life in Baluchistan?

Are the kinship and descent groupings similar? How are tribal relations sorted out? What roles do elders play in the governance of the group? How are crimes investigated and punishment meted out? How does the tribe relate to the state? What role does "honor" play in arbitrating social standing and guiding relations with others? What form do battles take and how much esteem is allotted to the actors?

If I substituted "bedu" for "baluchi nomads" here, would you not find these questions relevant to understanding, say, Iraq? Or Yemen? Or KSA?

Would not field work on the Aniza not shed light on cutlural formation in Iraq, KSA and Syria?

Once I sojourned from Sierra Leone along the paths of the Tuareg. That's quite a distance, and yet I was amazed because there were Tuareg traders who came all the way to Freetown, by which time many had been reduced to begging.

My time with the Tuareg helped to explain to me cultural diffusion throughout the Sahara, how the desert "thought," how it conceptualized "nature," how it stored and marketed goods, how it fought, how it allocated water, how it stole, how it worshipped.

While I perhaps would think twice about using my days with the Tuareg to understand the "Middle East," I wouldn't doubt for a second it helped me immensely to fathom the tribal cultures and overlapping states in the Sahara and Sahel.

fnord said...

anon: Great comment. However, one point is that while academical work must be wary of generalization, practical work must sometimes use them in order to be effective. If so, a shift from "fighting the Axis of Evil" to fighting the "Problems of tribal culture and extremistic islam" seems to be a step in the right direction. As to the point of tribal culture being outside Dar-al-Islam, Id rather say that it seems to be interwoven, so that there are numerous local variations based on some common geographical basic relationships.

If the aim is to communicate into the fighting stratas of "muslim" society, and if we see that the underlying social stratas that are *closed* to westerners can only be reached intelectually through the formal muslim channels, does not this imply a need to achieve contact with these intermediaries? (Example: Sistani). And does not this again demand a whole different form of rhetoric by our chosen leaders? "Bring em on" did not work out too well.

Anonymous said...

"While I perhaps would think twice about using my days with the Tuareg to understand the "Middle East," I wouldn't doubt for a second it helped me immensely to fathom the tribal cultures and overlapping states in the Sahara and Sahel."

Absolutely agreed--the key issue here is what cultural traits travel, and what don't (and why/how/when). Hence my concern--based on the book review--of attempts to overgeneralize.

Experience in urban Cairo will tell you a great deal about other large urban areas, and much less about highland Yemen. Rue Monot or Hamra in Beirut will tell you much that would be useful in the Shmeisani district of Amman, but it would travel rather less well to Khan Yunis refugee camp in Gaza.

And some things might apply relatively well across all of these areas.

Perhaps I had best read Phil Salzman's book, and we can get back to this. However, I think I would enjoy even more the proposed Alaskan fishing village/LA gang violence study ;)

elf2006real said...

AM,

"Kurtz's review is a little maddening because at one point he suggests that tribalism endures because of Islam -- because it reminds people of society during the time of prophet -- and at another point suggests, correctly, that tribalism is something that exists outside of or contrary to Islamic traditions"

********************************
Are you suggesting that 7th century Bedu life had no influence on the course Mohammad and the religion took? Or that those tribal customs didn't permeate to a degree most of the Muslim world?

Does that include female circumcisions being performed in Asia (they are) just as one example? And the similar oppression of women one finds everywhere in Muslim culture, to include now London?

Islam may have been in competition with pure tribalism, but it assimilated it as well.

Beyond that it's an excellent article, and I am heading over to Amazon now for the book.

Just the fact that learning there is "postmodern anthropology" is worth the price. I certainly hope the fad doesn't spread to my doctor, dentist, or accountant. For that matter my mechanic as well. I do hope we are vetting those HTT teams for this mental virus.

fnord said...

elf: What dominant paradigm inside Asian islam do you find that practices circumcition? Seriously?

( And on your previous questions in a different post, btw: Donald Rumsfeld set a max cost on OIF at 500 billion. The ones feeding mr. Powell the lines before the UN lied about the Uranium cake etc. (And Ill add again, just to nag: Paul Bremer & Phase IV.)

fnord said...

P.S. We got to give islam 20 years reaction time to satelite television. Jahiliya indeed, the world around. The Chinese refer to us as Foreign Devils, and the Koreans think we stink. International racism is a thing that exists in all levels off society, and is a real hindrance to coexistence and joy through harmonious Tai Chi dancing in the golden squares at sundown...(Sneaking Tiger reference hidden here).

The West is a brutal beast these days, War on Evil. Jahiliya indeed. I just had a chat with a moroccon friend of a guy being tried for terrorism in Norway, Bhatti. They basically tore up at night on cocain and fired some shots, possibly, at a closed building at night. It was the jewish place, without people in it. Its an interesting case, because its a case of mercy to an idiot as well as a question of "war justice". Hes done 22 months iso already, totaly illegal.

elf2006real said...

Fnord,

Trust me it happens. To someone quite close to me in fact.

Dominant Asian Paradigm??

It's the Muslim paradigm for women, dear Sir. Coming from Arabic culture. And it happens in the US as well (and probably Norway).

Rumsfeld cost estimates: as I said before, that's when they learned not to make them anymore, a publicly sore point with Congress. Only in public because that's how they score points (and the checks therein unto flow).

Powell et al didn't lie- Joeseph Wilson did (results of a Senate investigation). The Brits stand by the report to this day. Even if it was a lie-a matter still debated-it was not a lie by the CIA or State. Really if you are going to make shady intelligence a matter of personal integrity and national honor...well we might as well hang it up.

I will not defend Bremer, or the lack of PH IV. Because it can't be excused or defended. I would explain it under wishful thinking.
That and they were fighting the last war (they wanted to be Reagan the Liberator).

Anthony said...

May I just raise a point that is far less central to the debate than some of the (excellent) points already raised - namely that I find the notion, whirling around every mention of this book in the conservative press, that Salzman's output has been actively suppressed and his area of study driven underground curious.

I'm currently at Oxford and have been studying, among other things, the Anthropology of Muslim Societies at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. There is plenty of output on tribes and still a fair amount on segmentary lineage. Several of the key texts deal with it. I believe that it forms part of the Oxford option course on the anthropology of the Middle East. I just don't see the Vast Postmodern Conspiracy that the book's conservative boosters allude to.

I haven't read the book but I'm certainly going to get hold of it. It sounds potentially both interesting and useful, although I'd echo some of the methodological concerns that have been raised. But we shall see.

Anonymous said...

My impression (based on no evidence, and so I would ask the assembled experts here if it is correct) is that the "bedu" and that entire culture is a sort of cultural icon in the ME similar to that of "cowboy" in the US. It still has lasting impact far beyond any numbers it ever had in the past and or today.

Soldiernolongeriniraq said...

Elf,

We should be careful about assumptions about the Koranic (yes, I use the old spellings) portrayal of women.

First, the Prophet loved women. This is clear in his writings about his wife, a very strong woman, quite independent. "Paradise," as the Prophet would say, "lies under the feet of mothers."

It helped that women had equal votes in electing him as their representative during the earliest days of the movement. Fatima, herself, was given the choice of marrying, or not, Ali.

Second, as I try to tell my peeps in uniform, there is no "Islam." There are "IslamS," and each sort of Islam is refracted through the prism of various cultures.

A Sufi will look at the notion of "woman" quite differently than a Wahhabi Sunni.

The Sufi in Mauritania might take from his shelf the works of Abu 'Abd ar-Rahman as-Sulami, whereas a fellow Moslem in Riyadh might choose very different takes on PBUH to make a point about a woman's proper place in society.

When I was last in Iraq, I found that in many cases the younger generations of Sunni men who quite open to the advancement of women beyond the Baathist party. After I set up a program that brought VFW Hall donations to our MTT, I kept telling them to send as many toys and school supplies for girls as for boys because families respected the fact that we cared about the female side of the house.

We wanted them to know that we not only wanted to protect the entire population, we didn't want to see women increasingly isolated inside the homes by outside Salafist forces, something that was alien to Iraqi urban (and urbane) Sunni culture.

In other words, our values ultimately on that point were the same as their values.

Upon uttering that, I also had the misfortunate assignment of telling an nearby commander that it was imprudent to send women officers over to work with IA. They didn't take them seriously; it disrupted their work and, unfortunately, put lives at risk.

Some cultural hurdles were more difficult to jump than we should like to admit.

Abu Muqawama said...

Holy %$#@, there are some good comments in this thread. Thanks, gang.

elf2006real said...

soldiernolongerinraq,

I am deeper in than that.

Sorry,

Elf,

mo said...

It's the Muslim paradigm for women? Elf, My mother, sisters, aunts, nieces and 90% of the women I know are Muslims. They are also all Arabs.

None of them have been circumcised. As, like you say, it is the Muslim paradigm for women, dear Sir, perhaps I should let them know as they are obviously letting the side down.

I love generalisations like yours but im not sure if its more for their ignorance, arrogance or unabashed bigotry.

Rex Brynen said...

Actually, the issue of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting rather nicely highlights the point that several posters have made.

Rates vary dramatically from area to area. In some areas it is largely practiced by Muslims, in some Muslim areas it is unknown. In some areas it is practiced by Christians, or animists, or everyone (or no one). Even a quick glance at incidence maps will show that its prevalence doesn't correspond with either Arab ethnicity or any particular sectarian affiliation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fgm_map.gif
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.html

However, in some areas this (generally ancient and tribal) practice has come to be understood as a religious obligation for the maintenance of sexual chastity--in other words, religion has been reinterpreted to attribute to FGM/C a religious basis, even if its foundations date back to pre-Islamic times.

The debate that accompanied the Egyptian government's decision to ban the practice was a particularly interesting demonstration how notions of "authentic" "Islamic," "traditional" (or "tribal" outside Egypt) morph over time (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/19/africa/egypt.php)--or, to get back to AM's original theme, how jahiliyya becomes islamiyya, and back again.

And congrats on having the only blog in the blogosphere than manages to have a discussion integrating counterinsurgency, tribalism, religion, and genital cutting. Its quite the niche!

Ghosts of Alexander said...

RE Anthony's comment:

"I just don't see the Vast Postmodern Conspiracy that the book's conservative boosters allude to."

I second this. Every academic department has at least one prof and a couple students who wish they could participate in a vast postmodern conspiracy. But generally there is a free exchange of ideas. Of course, one idiot anthropologist says one stupid thing and critics of academia try to frame this as symptomatic of all of academia.

But that being said, some critics from within academia will likely take a shot at Salzman for the fact his book was praised in The Weekly Standard. Probably some sort of superficial comparison to Bernard Lewis I would guess.

elf2006real said...

Gee Mo, I wouldn't care at all except it's happening in Brooklyn. Still might not care if there wasn't a war on. And you are being disingenuous. It's damn well common, and you know it. I would not say universal.

SoldiernoinIraq (can we maybe acronymize that to SNLII or something :) - I wasn't saying any form of Islam is universal. I was taking exception to the idea that Islam is opposed to tribalism. Of course he and the caliphs attempted to supplant it with a very democratic form of Islam, but he also gave divine sanction to raiding and pillage, both by words and deeds.

I am more of a hadith type of guy, if you know what I mean.