The Philosopher of Islamic
Terror
By PAUL BERMAN
As published in New York Times Magazine,
March 23, 2003
I. In the days after
Sept. 11, 2001, many people anticipated
a quick and satisfying American victory
over Al Qaeda. The terrorist army was thought
to be no bigger than a pirate ship, and
the newly vigilant police forces of the
entire world were going to sink the ship
with swift arrests and dark maneuvers. Al
Qaeda was driven from its bases in Afghanistan.
Arrests and maneuvers duly occurred and
are still occurring. Just this month, one
of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants was
nabbed in Pakistan. Police agents, as I
write, seem to be hot on the trail of bin
Laden himself, or so reports suggest.
Yet Al Qaeda has seemed unfazed.
Its popularity, which was hard to imagine
at first, has turned out to be large and
genuine in more than a few countries. Al
Qaeda upholds a paranoid and apocalyptic
worldview, according to which ''Crusaders
and Zionists'' have been conspiring for
centuries to destroy Islam. And this worldview
turns out to be widely accepted in many
places -- a worldview that allowed many
millions of people to regard the Sept. 11
attacks as an Israeli conspiracy, or perhaps
a C.I.A. conspiracy, to undo Islam. Bin
Laden's soulful, bearded face peers out
from T-shirts and posters in a number of
countries, quite as if he were the new Che
Guevara, the mythic righter of cosmic wrongs.
The vigilant police in many
countries, applying themselves at last,
have raided a number of Muslim charities
and Islamic banks, which stand accused of
subsidizing the terrorists. These raids
have advanced the war on still another front,
which has been good to see. But the raids
have also shown that Al Qaeda is not only
popular; it is also institutionally solid,
with a worldwide network of clandestine
resources. This is not the Symbionese Liberation
Army. This is an organization with ties
to the ruling elites in a number of countries;
an organization that, were it given the
chance to strike up an alliance with Saddam
Hussein's Baath movement, would be doubly
terrifying; an organization that, in any
case, will surely survive the outcome in
Iraq.
To anyone who has looked closely
enough, Al Qaeda and its sister organizations
plainly enjoy yet another strength, arguably
the greatest strength of all, something
truly imposing -- though in the Western
press this final strength has received very
little attention. Bin Laden is a Saudi plutocrat
with Yemeni ancestors, and most of the suicide
warriors of Sept. 11 were likewise Saudis,
and the provenance of those people has focused
everyone's attention on the Arabian peninsula.
But Al Qaeda has broader roots. The organization
was created in the late 1980's by an affiliation
of three armed factions -- bin Laden's circle
of ''Afghan'' Arabs, together with two factions
from Egypt, the Islamic Group and Egyptian
Islamic Jihad, the latter led by Dr. Ayman
al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's top theoretician.
The Egyptian factions emerged from an older
current, a school of thought from within
Egypt's fundamentalist movement, the Muslim
Brotherhood, in the 1950's and 60's. And
at the heart of that single school of thought
stood, until his execution in 1966, a philosopher
named Sayyid Qutb -- the intellectual hero
of every one of the groups that eventually
went into Al Qaeda, their Karl Marx (to
put it that way), their guide.
Qutb (pronounced KUH-tahb)
wrote a book called ''Milestones,'' and
that book was cited at his trial, which
gave it immense publicity, especially after
its author was hanged. ''Milestones'' became
a classic manifesto of the terrorist wing
of Islamic fundamentalism. A number of journalists
have dutifully turned the pages of ''Milestones,''
trying to decipher the otherwise inscrutable
terrorist point of view.
I have been reading some of
Qutb's other books, and I think that ''Milestones''
may have misled the journalists. ''Milestones''
is a fairly shallow book, judged in isolation.
But ''Milestones'' was drawn from his vast
commentary on the Koran called ''In the
Shade of the Qur'an.'' One of the many volumes
of this giant work was translated into English
in the 1970's and published by the World
Assembly of Muslim Youth, an organization
later widely suspected of participation
in terrorist attacks -- and an organization
whose Washington office was run by a brother
of bin Laden's. In the last four years a
big effort has been mounted by another organization,
the Islamic Foundation in England, to bring
out the rest, in what will eventually be
an edition of 15 fat English-language volumes,
handsomely ornamented with Arabic script
from the Koran. Just in these past few weeks
a number of new volumes in this edition
have made their way into the Arab bookshops
of Brooklyn, and I have gobbled them up.
By now I have made my way through a little
less than half of ''In the Shade of the
Qur'an,'' which I think is all that exists
so far in English, together with three other
books by Qutb. And I have something to report.
Qutb is not shallow. Qutb
is deep. ''In the Shade of the Qur'an''
is, in its fashion, a masterwork. Al Qaeda
and its sister organizations are not merely
popular, wealthy, global, well connected
and institutionally sophisticated. These
groups stand on a set of ideas too, and
some of those ideas may be pathological,
which is an old story in modern politics;
yet even so, the ideas are powerful. We
should have known that, of course. But we
should have known many things.
II. Qutb's special
ability as a writer came from the fact that,
as a young boy, he received a traditional
Muslim education -- he committed the Koran
to memory by the age of 10 -- yet he went
on, at a college in Cairo, to receive a
modern, secular education. He was born in
1906, and in the 1920's and 30's he took
up socialism and literature. He wrote novels,
poems and a book that is still said to be
well regarded called ''Literary Criticism:
Its Principles and Methodology.'' His writings
reflected -- here I quote one of his admirers
and translators, Hamid Algar of the University
of California at Berkeley -- a ''Western-tinged
outlook on cultural and literary questions.''
Qutb displayed ''traces of individualism
and existentialism.'' He even traveled to
the United States in the late 1940's, enrolled
at the Colorado State College of Education
and earned a master's degree. In some of
the accounts of Qutb's life, this trip to
America is pictured as a ghastly trauma,
mostly because of America's sexual freedoms,
which sent him reeling back to Egypt in
a mood of hatred and fear.
I am skeptical of that interpretation,
though. His book from the 1940's, ''Social
Justice and Islam,'' shows that, even before
his voyage to America, he was pretty well
set in his Islamic fundamentalism. It is
true that, after his return to Egypt, he
veered into ever more radical directions.
But in the early 1950's, everyone in Egypt
was veering in radical directions. Gamal
Abdel Nasser and a group of nationalist
army officers overthrew the old king in
1952 and launched a nationalist revolution
on Pan-Arabist grounds. And, as the Pan-Arabists
went about promoting their revolution, Sayyid
Qutb went about promoting his own, somewhat
different revolution. His idea was ''Islamist.''
He wanted to turn Islam into a political
movement to create a new society, to be
based on ancient Koranic principles. Qutb
joined the Muslim Brotherhood, became the
editor of its journal and established himself
right away as Islamism's principal theoretician
in the Arab world.
The Islamists and the Pan-Arabists
tried to cooperate with one another in Egypt
in those days, and there was some basis
for doing so. Both movements dreamed of
rescuing the Arab world from the legacies
of European imperialism. Both groups dreamed
of crushing Zionism and the brand-new Jewish
state. Both groups dreamed of fashioning
a new kind of modernity, which was not going
to be liberal and freethinking in the Western
style but, even so, was going to be up-to-date
on economic and scientific issues. And both
movements dreamed of doing all this by returning
in some fashion to the glories of the Arab
past. Both movements wanted to resurrect,
in a modern version, the ancient Islamic
caliphate of the seventh century, when the
Arabs were conquering the world.
The Islamists and the Pan-Arabists
could be compared, in these ambitions, with
the Italian Fascists of Mussolini's time,
who wanted to resurrect the Roman Empire,
and to the Nazis, who likewise wanted to
resurrect ancient Rome, except in a German
version. The most radical of the Pan-Arabists
openly admired the Nazis and pictured their
proposed new caliphate as a racial victory
of the Arabs over all other ethnic groups.
Qutb and the Islamists, by way of contrast,
pictured the resurrected caliphate as a
theocracy, strictly enforcing shariah, the
legal code of the Koran. The Islamists and
the Pan-Arabists had their similarities
then, and their differences. (And today
those two movements still have their similarities
and differences -- as shown by bin Laden's
Qaeda, which represents the most violent
wing of Islamism, and Saddam Hussein's Baath
Party, which represents the most violent
wing of Pan-Arabism.)
In 1952, in the days before
staging his coup d'etat, Colonel Nasser
is said to have paid a visit to Qutb at
his home, presumably to get his backing.
Some people expected that, after taking
power, Nasser would appoint Qutb to be the
new revolutionary minister of education.
But once the Pan-Arabists had thrown out
the old king, the differences between the
two movements began to overwhelm the similarities,
and Qutb was not appointed. Instead, Nasser
cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood,
and after someone tried to assassinate him,
he blamed the Brotherhood and cracked down
even harder. Some of the Muslim Brotherhood's
most distinguished intellectuals and theologians
escaped into exile. Sayyid Qutb's brother,
Muhammad Qutb, was one of those people.
He fled to Saudi Arabia and ended up as
a distinguished Saudi professor of Islamic
Studies. Many years later, Osama bin Laden
would be one of Muhammad Qutb's students.
But Sayyid Qutb stayed put
and paid dearly for his stubbornness. Nasser
jailed him in 1954, briefly released him,
jailed him again for 10 years, released
him for a few months and finally hanged
him in 1966. Conditions during the first
years of prison were especially bad. Qutb
was tortured. Even in better times, according
to his followers, he was locked in a ward
with 40 people, most of them criminals,
with a tape recorder broadcasting the speeches
of Nasser 20 hours a day. Still, by smuggling
papers in and out of jail, he managed to
continue with his writings, no longer in
the ''Western tinged'' vein of his early,
literary days but now as a full-fledged
Islamist revolutionary. And somehow, he
produced his ''In the Shade of the Qur'an,''
this gigantic study, which must surely count
as one of the most remarkable works of prison
literature ever produced.
Readers without a Muslim
education who try to make their way unaided
through the Koran tend to find it, as I
have, a little dry and forbidding. But Qutb's
commentaries are not at all like that. He
quotes passages from the chapters, or suras,
of the Koran, and he pores over the quoted
passages, observing the prosodic qualities
of the text, the rhythm, tone and musicality
of the words, sometimes the images. The
suras lead him to discuss dietary regulations,
the proper direction to pray, the rules
of divorce, the question of when a man may
propose marriage to a widow (four months
and 10 days after the death of her husband,
unless she is pregnant, in which case after
delivery), the rules concerning a Muslim
man who wishes to marry a Christian or a
Jew (very complicated), the obligations
of charity, the punishment for crimes and
for breaking your word, the prohibition
on liquor and intoxicants, the proper clothing
to wear, the rules on usury, moneylending
and a thousand other themes.
The Koran tells stories, and
Qutb recounts some of these and remarks
on their wisdom and significance. His tone
is always lucid and plain. Yet the total
effect of his writing is almost sensual
in its measured pace. The very title ''In
the Shade of the Qur'an'' conveys a vivid
desert image, as if the Koran were a leafy
palm tree, and we have only to open Qutb's
pages to escape the hot sun and refresh
ourselves in the shade. As he makes his
way through the suras and proposes his other
commentaries, he slowly constructs an enormous
theological criticism of modern life, and
not just in Egypt.
III. Qutb wrote that,
all over the world, humans had reached a
moment of unbearable crisis. The human race
had lost touch with human nature. Man's
inspiration, intelligence and morality were
degenerating. Sexual relations were deteriorating
''to a level lower than the beasts.'' Man
was miserable, anxious and skeptical, sinking
into idiocy, insanity and crime. People
were turning, in their unhappiness, to drugs,
alcohol and existentialism. Qutb admired
economic productivity and scientific knowledge.
But he did not think that wealth and science
were rescuing the human race. He figured
that, on the contrary, the richest countries
were the unhappiest of all. And what was
the cause of this unhappiness -- this wretched
split between man's truest nature and modern
life?
A great many cultural critics
in Europe and America asked this question
in the middle years of the 20th century,
and a great many of them, following Nietzsche
and other philosophers, pointed to the origins
of Western civilization in ancient Greece,
where man was said to have made his fatal
error. This error was philosophical. It
consisted of placing an arrogant and deluded
faith in the power of human reason -- an
arrogant faith that, after many centuries,
had created in modern times a tyranny of
technology over life.
Qutb shared that analysis,
somewhat. Only instead of locating the error
in ancient Greece, he located it in ancient
Jerusalem. In the Muslim fashion, Qutb looked
on the teachings of Judaism as being divinely
revealed by God to Moses and the other prophets.
Judaism instructed man to worship one God
and to forswear all others. Judaism instructed
man on how to behave in every sphere of
life -- how to live a worldly existence
that was also a life at one with God. This
could be done by obeying a system of divinely
mandated laws, the code of Moses. In Qutb's
view, however, Judaism withered into what
he called ''a system of rigid and lifeless
ritual.''
God sent another prophet,
though. That prophet, in Qutb's Muslim way
of thinking, was Jesus, who proposed a few
useful reforms -- lifting some no-longer
necessary restrictions in the Jewish dietary
code, for example -- and also an admirable
new spirituality. But something terrible
occurred. The relation between Jesus' followers
and the Jews took, in Qutb's view, ''a deplorable
course.'' Jesus' followers squabbled with
the old-line Jews, and amid the mutual recriminations,
Jesus' message ended up being diluted and
even perverted. Jesus' disciples and followers
were persecuted, which meant that, in their
sufferings, the disciples were never able
to provide an adequate or systematic exposition
of Jesus' message.
Who but Sayyid Qutb, from
his miserable prison in Nasser's Egypt,
could have zeroed in so plausibly on the
difficulties encountered by Jesus' disciples
in getting out the word? Qutb figured that,
as a result, the Christian Gospels were
badly garbled, and should not be regarded
as accurate or reliable. The Gospels declared
Jesus to be divine, but in Qutb's Muslim
account, Jesus was a mere human -- a prophet
of God, not a messiah. The larger catastrophe,
however, was this: Jesus' disciples, owing
to what Qutb called ''this unpleasant separation
of the two parties,'' went too far in rejecting
the Jewish teachings.
Jesus' disciples and followers,
the Christians, emphasized Jesus' divine
message of spirituality and love. But they
rejected Judaism's legal system, the code
of Moses, which regulated every jot and
tittle of daily life. Instead, the early
Christians imported into Christianity the
philosophy of the Greeks -- the belief in
a spiritual existence completely separate
from physical life, a zone of pure spirit.
In the fourth century of the
Christian era, Emperor Constantine converted
the Roman Empire to Christianity. But Constantine,
in Qutb's interpretation, did this in a
spirit of pagan hypocrisy, dominated by
scenes of wantonness, half-naked girls,
gems and precious metals. Christianity,
having abandoned the Mosaic code, could
put up no defense. And so, in their horror
at Roman morals, the Christians did as best
they could and countered the imperial debaucheries
with a cult of monastic asceticism.
But this was no good at all.
Monastic asceticism stands at odds with
the physical quality of human nature. In
this manner, in Qutb's view, Christianity
lost touch with the physical world. The
old code of Moses, with its laws for diet,
dress, marriage, sex and everything else,
had enfolded the divine and the worldly
into a single concept, which was the worship
of God. But Christianity divided these things
into two, the sacred and the secular. Christianity
said, ''Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
and unto God what is God's.'' Christianity
put the physical world in one corner and
the spiritual world in another corner: Constantine's
debauches over here, monastic renunciation
over there. In Qutb's view there was a ''hideous
schizophrenia'' in this approach to life.
And things got worse.
A series of Christian religious
councils adopted what Qutb thought to be
irrational principles on Christianity's
behalf -- principles regarding the nature
of Jesus, the Eucharist, transubstantiation
and other questions, all of which were,
in Qutb's view, ''absolutely incomprehensible,
inconceivable and incredible.'' Church teachings
froze the irrational principles into dogma.
And then the ultimate crisis struck.
IV. Qutb's story now
shifts to Arabia. In the seventh century,
God delivered a new revelation to his prophet
Muhammad, who established the correct, nondistorted
relation to human nature that had always
eluded the Christians. Muhammad dictated
a strict new legal code, which put religion
once more at ease in the physical world,
except in a better way than ever before.
Muhammad's prophecies, in the Koran, instructed
man to be God's ''vice regent'' on earth
-- to take charge of the physical world,
and not simply to see it as something alien
to spirituality or as a way station on the
road to a Christian afterlife. Muslim scientists
in the Middle Ages took this instruction
seriously and went about inquiring into
the nature of physical reality. And, in
the Islamic universities of Andalusia and
the East, the Muslim scientists, deepening
their inquiry, hit upon the inductive or
scientific method -- which opened the door
to all further scientific and technological
progress. In this and many other ways, Islam
seized the leadership of mankind. Unfortunately,
the Muslims came under attack from Crusaders,
Mongols and other enemies. And, because
the Muslims proved not faithful enough to
Muhammad's revelations, they were unable
to fend off these attacks. They were unable
to capitalize on their brilliant discovery
of the scientific method.
The Muslim discoveries were
exported instead into Christian Europe.
And there, in Europe in the 16th century,
Islam's scientific method began to generate
results, and modern science emerged. But
Christianity, with its insistence on putting
the physical world and the spiritual world
in different corners, could not cope with
scientific progress. And so Christianity's
inability to acknowledge or respect the
physical quality of daily life spread into
the realm of culture and shaped society's
attitude toward science.
As Qutb saw it, Europeans,
under Christianity's influence, began to
picture God on one side and science on the
other. Religion over here; intellectual
inquiry over there. On one side, the natural
human yearning for God and for a divinely
ordered life; on the other side, the natural
human desire for knowledge of the physical
universe. The church against science; the
scientists against the church. Everything
that Islam knew to be one, the Christian
Church divided into two. And, under these
terrible pressures, the European mind split
finally asunder. The break became total.
Christianity, over here; atheism, over there.
It was the fateful divorce between the sacred
and the secular.
Europe's scientific and technical
achievements allowed the Europeans to dominate
the world. And the Europeans inflicted their
''hideous schizophrenia'' on peoples and
cultures in every corner of the globe. That
was the origin of modern misery -- the anxiety
in contemporary society, the sense of drift,
the purposelessness, the craving for false
pleasures. The crisis of modern life was
felt by every thinking person in the Christian
West. But then again, Europe's leadership
of mankind inflicted that crisis on every
thinking person in the Muslim world as well.
Here Qutb was on to something original.
The Christians of the West underwent the
crisis of modern life as a consequence,
he thought, of their own theological tradition
-- a result of nearly 2,000 years of ecclesiastical
error. But in Qutb's account, the Muslims
had to undergo that same experience because
it had been imposed on them by Christians
from abroad, which could only make the experience
doubly painful -- an alienation that was
also a humiliation.
That was Qutb's analysis.
In writing about modern life, he put his
finger on something that every thinking
person can recognize, if only vaguely --
the feeling that human nature and modern
life are somehow at odds. But Qutb evoked
this feeling in a specifically Muslim fashion.
It is easy to imagine that, in expounding
on these themes back in the 1950's and 60's,
Qutb had already identified the kind of
personal agony that Mohamed Atta and the
suicide warriors of Sept. 11 must have experienced
in our own time. It was the agony of inhabiting
a modern world of liberal ideas and achievements
while feeling that true life exists somewhere
else. It was the agony of walking down a
modern sidewalk while dreaming of a different
universe altogether, located in the Koranic
past -- the agony of being pulled this way
and that. The present, the past. The secular,
the sacred. The freely chosen, the religiously
mandated -- a life of confusion unto madness
brought on, Qutb ventured, by Christian
error.
Sitting in a wretched Egyptian
prison, surrounded by criminals and composing
his Koranic commentaries with Nasser's speeches
blaring in the background on the infuriating
tape recorder, Qutb knew whom to blame.
He blamed the early Christians. He blamed
Christianity's modern legacy, which was
the liberal idea that religion should stay
in one corner and secular life in another
corner. He blamed the Jews. In his interpretation,
the Jews had shown themselves to be eternally
ungrateful to God. Early in their history,
during their Egyptian captivity (Qutb thought
he knew a thing or two about Egyptian captivity),
the Jews acquired a slavish character, he
believed. As a result they became craven
and unprincipled when powerless, and vicious
and arrogant when powerful. And these traits
were eternal. The Jews occupy huge portions
of Qutb's Koranic commentary -- their perfidy,
greed, hatefulness, diabolical impulses,
never-ending conspiracies and plots against
Muhammad and Islam. Qutb was relentless
on these themes. He looked on Zionism as
part of the eternal campaign by the Jews
to destroy Islam.
And Qutb blamed one other
party. He blamed the Muslims who had gone
along with Christianity's errors -- the
treacherous Muslims who had inflicted Christianity's
''schizophrenia'' on the world of Islam.
And, because he was willing to blame, Qutb
was able to recommend a course of action
too -- a revolutionary program that was
going to relieve the psychological pressure
of modern life and was going to put man
at ease with the natural world and with
God.
V. Qutb's analysis
was soulful and heartfelt. It was a theological
analysis, but in its cultural emphases,
it reflected the style of 20th-century philosophy.
The analysis asked some genuinely perplexing
questions -- about the division between
mind and body in Western thought; about
the difficulties in striking a balance between
sensual experience and spiritual elevation;
about the steely impersonality of modern
power and technological innovation; about
social injustice. But, though Qutb plainly
followed some main trends of 20th-century
Western social criticism and philosophy,
he poured his ideas through a filter of
Koranic commentary, and the filter gave
his commentary a grainy new texture, authentically
Muslim, which allowed him to make a series
of points that no Western thinker was likely
to propose.
One of those points had to
do with women's role in society -- and these
passages in his writings have been misinterpreted,
I think, in some of the Western commentaries
on Qutb. His attitude was prudish in the
extreme, judged from a Western perspective
of today. But prudishness was not his motivation.
He understood quite clearly that, in a liberal
society, women were free to consult their
own hearts and to pursue careers in quest
of material wealth. But from his point of
view, this could only mean that women had
shucked their responsibility to shape the
human character, through child-rearing.
The Western notion of women's freedom could
only mean that God and the natural order
of life had been set aside in favor of a
belief in other sources of authority, like
one's own heart.
But what did it mean to recognize
the existence of more than one source of
authority? It meant paganism -- a backward
step, into the heathen primitivism of the
past. It meant life without reference to
God -- a life with no prospect of being
satisfactory or fulfilling. And why had
the liberal societies of the West lost sight
of the natural harmony of gender roles and
of women's place in the family and the home?
This was because of the ''hideous schizophrenia''
of modern life -- the Western outlook that
led people to picture God's domain in one
place and the ordinary business of daily
life in some other place.
Qutb wrote bitterly about
European imperialism, which he regarded
as nothing more than a continuation of the
medieval Crusades against Islam. He denounced
American foreign policy. He complained about
America's decision in the time of Harry
Truman to support the Zionists, a strange
decision that he attributed, in part, to
America's loss of moral values. But I must
point out that, in Qutb's writings, at least
in the many volumes that I have read, the
complaints about American policy are relatively
few and fleeting. International politics
was simply not his main concern. Sometimes
he complained about the hypocrisy in America's
endless boasts about freedom and democracy.
He mentioned America's extermination of
its Indian population. He noted the racial
prejudice against blacks. But those were
not Qutb's themes, finally. American hypocrisy
exercised him, but only slightly. His deepest
quarrel was not with America's failure to
uphold its principles. His quarrel was with
the principles. He opposed the United States
because it was a liberal society, not because
the United States failed to be a liberal
society.
The truly dangerous element
in American life, in his estimation, was
not capitalism or foreign policy or racism
or the unfortunate cult of women's independence.
The truly dangerous element lay in America's
separation of church and state -- the modern
political legacy of Christianity's ancient
division between the sacred and the secular.
This was not a political criticism. This
was theological -- though Qutb, or perhaps
his translators, preferred the word ''ideological.''
The conflict between the Western
liberal countries and the world of Islam,
he explained, ''remains in essence one of
ideology, although over the years it has
appeared in various guises and has grown
more sophisticated and, at times, more insidious.''
The sophisticated and insidious disguises
tended to be worldly -- a camouflage that
was intended to make the conflict appear
to be economic, political or military, and
that was intended to make Muslims like himself
who insisted on speaking about religion
appear to be, in his words, ''fanatics''
and ''backward people.''
''But in reality,'' he explained,
''the confrontation is not over control
of territory or economic resources, or for
military domination. If we believed that,
we would play into our enemies' hands and
would have no one but ourselves to blame
for the consequences.''
The true confrontation, the
deepest confrontation of all, was over Islam
and nothing but Islam. Religion was the
issue. Qutb could hardly be clearer on this
topic. The confrontation arose from the
effort by Crusaders and world Zionism to
annihilate Islam. The Crusaders and Zionists
knew that Christianity and Judaism were
inferior to Islam and had led to lives of
misery. They needed to annihilate Islam
in order to rescue their own doctrines from
extinction. And so the Crusaders and Zionists
went on the attack.
But this attack was not,
at bottom, military. At least Qutb did not
devote his energies to warning against such
a danger. Nor did he spend much time worrying
about the ins and outs of Israel's struggle
with the Palestinians. Border disputes did
not concern him. He was focused on something
cosmically larger. He worried, instead,
that people with liberal ideas were mounting
a gigantic campaign against Islam -- ''an
effort to confine Islam to the emotional
and ritual circles, and to bar it from participating
in the activity of life, and to check its
complete predominance over every human secular
activity, a pre-eminence it earns by virtue
of its nature and function.''
He trembled with rage at that
effort. And he cited good historical evidence
for his trembling rage. Turkey, an authentic
Muslim country, had embraced secular ideas
back in 1924. Turkey's revolutionary leader
at that time, Kemal Ataturk, abolished the
institutional remnants of the ancient caliphate
-- the caliphate that Qutb so fervently
wanted to resurrect. The Turks in this fashion
had tried to abolish the very idea and memory
of an Islamic state. Qutb worried that,
if secular reformers in other Muslim countries
had any success, Islam was going to be pushed
into a corner, separate from the state.
True Islam was going to end up as partial
Islam. But partial Islam, in his view, did
not exist.
The secular reformers were
already at work, throughout the Muslim world.
They were mounting their offensive -- ''a
final offensive which is actually taking
place now in all the Muslim countries. .
. . It is an effort to exterminate this
religion as even a basic creed and to replace
it with secular conceptions having their
own implications, values, institutions and
organizations.''
''To exterminate'' -- that
was Qutb's phrase. Hysteria cried out from
every syllable. But he did not want to be
hysterical. He wanted to respond. How?
VI. That one question
dominated Qutb's life. It was a theological
question, and he answered it with his volumes
on the Koran. But he intended his theology
to be practical too -- to offer a revolutionary
program to save mankind. The first step
was to open people's eyes. He wanted Muslims
to recognize the nature of the danger --
to recognize that Islam had come under assault
from outside the Muslim world and also from
inside the Muslim world. The assault from
outside was led by Crusaders and world Zionism
(though sometimes he also mentioned Communism).
But the assault from inside
was conducted by Muslims themselves -- that
is, by people who called themselves Muslims
but who polluted the Muslim world with incompatible
ideas derived from elsewhere. These several
enemies, internal and external, the false
Muslims together with the Crusaders and
Zionists, ruled the earth. But Qutb considered
that Islam's strength was, even so, huger
yet. ''We are certain,'' he wrote, ''that
this religion of Islam is so intrinsically
genuine, so colossal and deeply rooted that
all such efforts and brutal concussions
will avail nothing.''
Islam's apparent weakness
was mere appearance. Islam's true champions
seemed to be few, but numbers meant nothing.
The few had to gather themselves together
into what Qutb in ''Milestones'' called
a vanguard -- a term that he must have borrowed
from Lenin, though Qutb had in mind a tiny
group animated by the spirit of Muhammad
and his Companions from the dawn of Islam.
This vanguard of true Muslims was going
to undertake the renovation of Islam and
of civilization all over the world. The
vanguard was going to turn against the false
Muslims and ''hypocrites'' and do as Muhammad
had done, which was to found a new state,
based on the Koran. And from there, the
vanguard was going to resurrect the caliphate
and take Islam to all the world, just as
Muhammad had done.
Qutb's vanguard was going
to reinstate shariah, the Muslim code, as
the legal code for all of society. Shariah
implied some fairly severe rules. Qutb cited
the Koran on the punishments for killing
or wounding: ''a life for a life, an eye
for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for
an ear.'' Fornication, too, was a serious
crime because, in his words, ''it involves
an attack on honor and a contempt for sanctity
and an encouragement of profligacy in society.''
Shariah specified the punishments here as
well. ''The penalty for this must be severe;
for married men and women it is stoning
to death; for unmarried men and women it
is flogging, a hundred lashes, which in
cases is fatal.'' False accusations were
likewise serious. ''A punishment of 80 lashes
is fixed for those who falsely accuse chaste
women.'' As for those who threaten the general
security of society, their punishment is
to be put to death, to be crucified, to
have their hands and feet cut off, or to
be banished from the country.''
But Qutb refused to regard
these punishments as barbarous or primitive.
Shariah, in his view, meant liberation.
Other societies, drawing on non-Koranic
principles, forced people to obey haughty
masters and man-made law. Those other societies
forced people to worship their own rulers
and to do as the rulers said -- even if
the rulers were democratically chosen. Under
shariah, no one was going to be forced to
obey mere humans. Shariah, in Qutb's view,
meant ''the abolition of man-made laws.''
In the resurrected caliphate, every person
was going to be ''free from servitude to
others.'' The true Islamic system meant
''the complete and true freedom of every
person and the full dignity of every individual
of the society. On the other hand, in a
society in which some people are lords who
legislate and some others are slaves who
obey, then there is no freedom in the real
sense, nor dignity for each and every individual.''
He insisted that shariah meant
freedom of conscience -- though freedom
of conscience, in his interpretation, meant
freedom from false doctrines that failed
to recognize God, freedom from the modern
schizophrenia. Shariah, in a word, was utopia
for Sayyid Qutb. It was perfection. It was
the natural order in the universal. It was
freedom, justice, humanity and divinity
in a single system. It was a vision as grand
or grander than Communism or any of the
other totalitarian doctrines of the 20th
century. It was, in his words, ''the total
liberation of man from enslavement by others.''
It was an impossible vision -- a vision
that was plainly going to require a total
dictatorship in order to enforce: a vision
that, by claiming not to rely on man-made
laws, was going to have to rely, instead,
on theocrats, who would interpret God's
laws to the masses. The most extreme despotism
was all too visible in Qutb's revolutionary
program. That much should have been obvious
to anyone who knew the history of the other
grand totalitarian revolutionary projects
of the 20th century, the projects of the
Nazis, the Fascists and the Communists.
Still, for Qutb, utopia was
not the main thing. Utopia was for the future,
and Qutb was not a dreamer. Islam, in his
interpretation, was a way of life. He wanted
his Muslim vanguard to live according to
pious Islamic principles in the here and
now. He wanted the vanguard to observe the
rules of Muslim charity and all the other
rules of daily life. He wanted the true
Muslims to engage in a lifelong study of
the Koran -- the lifelong study that his
own gigantic commentary was designed to
enhance. But most of all, he wanted his
vanguard to accept the obligations of ''jihad,''
which is to say, the struggle for Islam.
And what would that mean, to engage in jihad
in the present and not just in the sci-fi
utopian future?
Qutb began Volume 1 of ''In
the Shade of the Qur'an'' by saying: ''To
live 'in the shade of the Qur'an' is a great
blessing which can only be fully appreciated
by those who experience it. It is a rich
experience that gives meaning to life and
makes it worth living. I am deeply thankful
to God Almighty for blessing me with this
uplifting experience for a considerable
time, which was the happiest and most fruitful
period of my life -- a privilege for which
I am eternally grateful.''
He does not identify that
happy and fruitful period of his life --
a period that lasted, as he says, a considerable
time. Perhaps his brother and other intimates
would have known exactly what he had in
mind -- some very pleasant period, conceivably
the childhood years when he was memorizing
the Koran. But an ordinary reader who picks
up Qutb's books can only imagine that he
was writing about his years of torture and
prison.
One of his Indian publishers
has highlighted this point in a remarkably
gruesome manner by attaching an unsigned
preface to a 1998 edition of ''Milestones.''
The preface declares: ''The ultimate price
for working to please God Almighty and to
propagate his ways in this world is often
one's own life. The author'' -- Qutb, that
is -- ''tried to do it; he paid for it with
his life. If you and I try to do it, there
is every likelihood we will be called upon
to do the same. But for those who truly
believe in God, what other choice is there?''
You are meant to suppose that
a true reader of Sayyid Qutb is someone
who, in the degree that he properly digests
Qutb's message, will act on what has been
digested. And action may well bring on a
martyr's death. To read is to glide forward
toward death; and gliding toward death means
you have understood what you are reading.
Qutb's writings do vibrate to that morbid
tone -- not always, but sometimes. The work
that he left behind, his Koranic commentary,
is vast, vividly written, wise, broad, indignant,
sometimes demented, bristly with hatred,
medieval, modern, tolerant, intolerant,
paranoid, cruel, urgent, cranky, tranquil,
grave, poetic, learned and analytic. Sometimes
it is moving. It is a work large and solid
enough to create its own shade, where Qutb's
vanguard and other readers could repose
and turn his pages, as he advised the students
of the Koran to do, in the earnest spirit
of loyal soldiers reading their daily bulletin.
But there is, in this commentary, something
otherworldly too -- an atmosphere of death.
At the very least, it is impossible to read
the work without remembering that, in 1966,
Qutb, in the phrase of one of his biographers,
''kissed the gallows.''
Martyrdom was among his themes.
He discusses passages in the Koran's sura
''The Cow,'' and he explains that death
as a martyr is nothing to fear. Yes, some
people will have to be sacrificed. ''Those
who risk their lives and go out to fight,
and who are prepared to lay down their lives
for the cause of God are honorable people,
pure of heart and blessed of soul. But the
great surprise is that those among them
who are killed in the struggle must not
be considered or described as dead. They
continue to live, as God Himself clearly
states.''
Qutb wrote: ''To all intents
and purposes, those people may very well
appear lifeless, but life and death are
not judged by superficial physical means
alone. Life is chiefly characterized by
activity, growth and persistence, while
death is a state of total loss of function,
of complete inertia and lifelessness. But
the death of those who are killed for the
cause of God gives more impetus to the cause,
which continues to thrive on their blood.
Their influence on those they leave behind
also grows and spreads. Thus after their
death they remain an active force in shaping
the life of their community and giving it
direction. It is in this sense that such
people, having sacrificed their lives for
the sake of God, retain their active existence
in everyday life. . . .
''There is no real sense
of loss in their death, since they continue
to live.''
And so it was with Sayyid
Qutb. In the period before his final arrest
and execution, diplomats from Iraq and Libya
offered him the chance to flee to safety
in their countries. But he declined to go,
on the ground that 3,000 young men and women
in Egypt were his followers, and he did
not want to undo a lifetime of teaching
by refusing to give those 3,000 people an
example of true martyrdom. And, in fact,
some of those followers went on to form
the Egyptian terrorist movement in the next
decade, the 1970's -- the groups that massacred
tourists and Coptic Christians and that
assassinated Egypt's president, Anwar Sadat,
after he made peace with Israel; the groups
that, in still later years, ended up merging
with bin Laden's group and supplying Al
Qaeda with its fundamental doctrines. The
people in those groups were not stupid or
lacking in education.
On the contrary, we keep learning
how well educated these people are, how
many of them come from the upper class,
how wealthy they are. And there is no reason
for us to be surprised. These people are
in possession of a powerful philosophy,
which is Sayyid Qutb's. They are in possession
of a gigantic work of literature, which
is his ''In the Shade of the Qur'an.'' These
people feel that, by consulting their own
doctrines, they can explain the unhappiness
of the world. They feel that, with an intense
study of the Koran, as directed by Qutb
and his fellow thinkers, they can make sense
of thousands of years of theological error.
They feel that, in Qutb's notion of shariah,
they command the principles of a perfect
society.
These people believe that,
in the entire world, they alone are preserving
Islam from extinction. They feel they are
benefiting the world, even if they are committing
random massacres. They are certainly not
worried about death. Qutb gave these people
a reason to yearn for death. Wisdom, piety,
death and immortality are, in his vision
of the world, the same. For a pious life
is a life of struggle or jihad for Islam,
and struggle means martyrdom. We may think:
those are creepy ideas. And yes, the ideas
are creepy. But there is, in Qutb's presentation,
a weird allure in those ideas.
VII. It would be nice to think that,
in the war against terror, our side, too,
speaks of deep philosophical ideas -- it
would be nice to think that someone is arguing
with the terrorists and with the readers
of Sayyid Qutb. But here I have my worries.
The followers of Qutb speak, in their wild
fashion, of enormous human problems, and
they urge one another to death and to murder.
But the enemies of these people speak of
what? The political leaders speak of United
Nations resolutions, of unilateralism, of
multilateralism, of weapons inspectors,
of coercion and noncoercion. This is no
answer to the terrorists. The terrorists
speak insanely of deep things. The antiterrorists
had better speak sanely of equally deep
things. Presidents will not do this. Presidents
will dispatch armies, or decline to dispatch
armies, for better and for worse.
But who will speak of the sacred and the
secular, of the physical world and the spiritual
world? Who will defend liberal ideas against
the enemies of liberal ideas? Who will defend
liberal principles in spite of liberal society's
every failure? President George W. Bush,
in his speech to Congress a few days after
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, announced that
he was going to wage a war of ideas. He
has done no such thing. He is not the man
for that.
Philosophers and religious leaders will
have to do this on their own. Are they doing
so? Armies are in motion, but are the philosophers
and religious leaders, the liberal thinkers,
likewise in motion? There is something to
worry about here, an aspect of the war that
liberal society seems to have trouble understanding
-- one more worry, on top of all the others,
and possibly the greatest worry of all.
Paul Berman is the author of the coming
''Terror and Liberalism'' (W.W. Norton),
from which this essay is adapted.
With God on His Side
By GARY WILLS
As published in The New York Times Magazine,
March 30, 2003
Religion in America is much like Nature
in the famous saying of Horace: ''Nature,
pitchfork it out how you may, keeps tumbling
back in on you, slyly overbears your shying
from it.'' In the same way, no matter how
much Jefferson and Madison tried to pitchfork
religion out of official governmental actions,
it has kept sneaking back in, beating down
attempts to contain it. Madison said that
religion is ''not within the cognizance
of civil government.'' He did not even want
ministers of religion to list their profession
in the government's census, since ''the
general government is proscribed from interfering,
in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion, and it may be thought to do this
in ascertaining who and who are not the
ministers of the gospel.''
Madison would be surprised at how much
religion gets ''cognized'' in, say, Karl
Rove's Rolodex. The nation's executive mansion
is currently honeycombed with prayer groups
and Bible study cells, like a whited monastery.
A sly dig there is ''Missed you at Bible
study,'' as David Frum reported in ''The
Right Man'' with a ''twitch,'' since ''Bible
study was, if not compulsory, not quite
uncompulsory, either'' when he was in Bush's
White House. Friends going to intimate dinners
with the Bushes should be prepared to lead
the prayer said before the meal.
The answer to Madison has implicitly been
this: a nation with no cognizance of religion
has no cognizance of God, and without national
recognition of his authority, it will not
come within his protection. That is not
an advantage a country can do without, especially
in times of peril. It is unpatriotic to
expose the nation to its enemies without
taking every measure possible to insure
the divine blessing. In the minds of the
devout, it is therefore a politically dangerous
act to teach ''godless'' evolution in our
schools rather than biblical ''creationism.''
It is tempting the divine wrath to let a
''massacre of the innocents'' go forward
in abortion clinics. Pornography offends
God and therefore forfeits his benevolence.
Nor can we be safe from terrorists unless
we see that a ''blessed country'' (to use
the president's words) must extend God's
will of liberty for other countries, by
force if necessary.
These impulses are strongest in times of
danger or uncertainty. It was during the
gulf war that the current president's father
rallied the nation to prayer, saying on
Jan. 31, 1991:
''Across this nation the churches, the
synagogues, the mosques are packed -- record
attendance at services. In fact, the night
the war began, Dr. [Billy] Graham was at
the White House. And he spoke to us then
of the importance of turning to God as a
people of faith, turning to him in hope.
And then the next morning, Dr. Graham went
over to Fort Myer, where we had a lovely
service leading our nation in a beautiful
prayer service there, with special emphasis
on the troops overseas. . . . One cannot
be president of our country without faith
in God -- and without knowing with certainty
that we are one nation under God. . . .
God is our rock and salvation, and we must
trust him and keep faith in him. . . . Today,
I'm asking and designating that Sunday,
Feb. 3, be a national day of prayer.''
There is ample precedent for such official
religiosity in time of war. It was in the
period of the cold war with what President
Truman always called ''godless Communism''
that ''under God'' was added to the Pledge
of Allegiance. It was in World War II that
''God Bless America'' became the country's
unofficial anthem. Of World War I, President
Wilson said that it showed America marching
to heights ''upon which there rests nothing
but the pure light of the justice of God,''
reflecting the ''glimmer of light which
came at Calvary, that first dawn which came
with the Christian era.'' It was in the
Civil War that ''The Battle Hymn of the
Republic'' was composed, with its echoes
of Isaiah 63:3 and Revelation 14:20: ''He
is trampling out the vintage where the grapes
of wrath are stored.'' It was in the War
of 1812 that Francis Scott Key wrote the
words of our official anthem: ''Praise the
Pow'r that has made and preserv'd us a nation.
Then conquer we must when our cause is just.''
It was during New England's conflict with
Native Americans, culminating in King Philip's
war, that the jeremiad became a popular
sermon form. The sufferings of the colonists
were seen as a punishment for sin, so preachers
had to rise like Jeremiah to rebuke the
people for their falling off from God.
The jeremiad was a sturdy plant, with a
long life ahead of it. It is the form of
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. The
nation as a whole was complicit in the sin
of slavery, so God is just exacting the
penalty of that sin, proportioning blood
spilt by soldiers' bayonets to that shed
by slavemasters' whips. A solidarity in
sin made the punishment communal, uniting
the nation in the sufferings it had brought
upon itself.
Lincoln sealed the argument by quoting
Psalm 19: ''The judgments of the Lord are
true and righteous altogether.'' Lincoln
did not take the next logical step, saying
that solidarity in offending God could only
be countered by solidarity in worshiping
him, but others have been quick and resolute
in taking that step. The dynamics of the
jeremiad move from rebuke to reform, from
communal taint to communal repristinization.
The first masters of the jeremiad form said
that the purity of worship had been lost.
Membership in the churches had fallen off,
and those who were members had become lukewarm.
The only remedy was better recruitment of
new members (by way of preaching and example)
and greater zeal in those who were already
members.
The jeremiad's call for purity posed a
special difficulty for 17th-century Congregationalists.
On the one hand, to be pure, a congregation
had to admit only the visible saints, those
who had been saved by a private conversion
experience. On the other hand, if the community
as a whole was responsible for sin and had
to be called back to God, one had to deal
with society at large as the relevant community.
The only way to purify that society from
sin would be to expel from the city those
who were not saved, repentant or converted.
The tug between these two positions is at
the root of both our religious traditions,
the communitarian and the individualist.
Puritans took from Hebrew scripture the
concept of ''God's people,'' an entity saved
as a whole, so long as it could be called
back from sinning as a whole. Yet the radical
protestantism of the Puritans said that
salvation was a private matter worked out
by each soul with the Spirit. One had to
go off to the wilderness of one's inner
self to encounter God in a radically transformative
and undelegatable conversion. Only then
could one go to the church and present evidence
of one's saved status, revealing the appropriate
signs of this to connoisseurs of the act,
people who could judge it only because they
had undergone it themselves.
Since no one could undergo the saving experience
for another, the children of church members
were not included in the church just because
their parents were saved. Until their separate
conversions, they could not become part
of the full ''covenant'' that bound together
the saved members. Since this introduced
an uncomfortable division between parents
and children, liberal theologians invented
a ''halfway covenant,'' which allowed members
to partake of church life in varying degrees.
But harsher pastors still insisted on the
old ''full covenant,'' excluding the unsaved
from communion. The partisans of these two
positions fought fierce battles for the
soul of the church.
No one felt these contradictions and counterstrains
more than the most important religious leader
in American history, Jonathan Edwards. He
embodied all the main religious impulses
in America, intellectual and emotional,
and the most spectacular attempts to reconcile
them with each other. He was the grandson
of Pastor Solomon Stoddard, known as ''the
Congregational pope,'' who freely admitted
people to communion under the halfway covenant.
But he was also the son of Pastor Timothy
Edwards, who kept the strict rule of admitting
only the visible saints. Jonathan succeeded
to the pulpit of his grandfather and could
not quickly change the revered man's regimen,
though he felt a guilty loyalty to his father's
stricter standards. He had struggled long
and in great anxiety to reach his own conversion
and could not diminish the experience for
others. He solved the conflict between the
communitarian and the individualist ideals
ambulando -- or, rather, praedicando. He
preached the mother of all jeremiads, the
most famous sermon in our history, ''Sinners
in the Hands of an Angry God'' (1741), using
the same verse of Isaiah that Julia Ward
Howe would in ''The Battle Hymn of the Republic'':
''I will tread them in mine anger, and will
trample them in my fury, and their blood
shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and
I will stain all my raiment.''
Edwards called not only on a people who
were astray but on each individual facing
the prospect of damnation. The result was
a lightning jump of electrical energy from
one pole to the other of the religious divide.
Individuals underwent conversion in a joint
experience, as psychologically intimate
and reorienting as private conversion but
melding a whole body of believers into a
shared moment of Enlightenment. People were
saved in reciprocally kindling fires. This
awakening renewed the fervor of Edwards's
first revival, of 1735, which he saw not
simply as the solution to a church problem
but as a harbinger of the world's salvation.
Revivals are the characteristically American
moments when the gap is closed between the
communal and the individual in our religion.
The deep roots of these quintessentially
American impulses are in our religious history.
We believe, on the one hand, that the individual
must save himself or herself. One of the
people in Karl Rove's Rolodex, for instance,
undoubtedly told him that help for people
to get housing ''ran counter to compassionate
conservatism'' because it undermines ''personal
responsibility.'' So do affirmative action
programs, which include people as part of
a social group rather than in terms of individual
merit. No Congregationalist church sent
people out to struggle for their souls more
stringently than do religious conservatives
when it is a matter of state action to help
people cope with their problems. They are
their problems, their souls to save.
On the other hand, when it is a matter
of recognizing God's authority, the state
can impose uniform standards of prayer.
It can quash pornography, forbid the choice
of an abortion, dictate the way evolution
is taught (if at all). At this point, the
communitarian becomes the authoritarian.
The people as a whole must be saved from
the consequences of their own sin. They
have souls we all have to save for them,
to pay homage to the authority of God.
What makes religion so salient in time
of war is that it acts the way revivals
did for Edwards -- a spark leaps from pole
to pole. Individuals merge in the joint
peril and joint effort of facing an imminent
menace. We all lie on the thin spider web
that Edwards said alone keeps us sinners
from dropping into the hell beneath us.
Danger is the great equalizer, and all are
expected to pull together. We must save
one another, since the enemy would like
to pick us off one by one. The odd euphoria
of war resembles the jubilant confession
of sinfulness at the Great Awakening. We
are afraid and exhilarated. The multiple
items of population are drawn together into
a People, God's People.
This communal sense arose, most recently,
in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, when
the president declared war on terrorism.
His initial reaction was to call this a
crusade, the war whose motto was ''God Wills
It.'' The sense of peril was heightened
by the loss of the Columbia, suggesting
the fragility of our national efforts. Like
the Sept. 11 event, that one led to prayer
vigils and stronger expressions of national
unity. At the memorial service held at the
National Cathedral after the attack on the
towers, ''The Battle Hymn of the Republic''
was sung as a closing anthem. It has been
a perennial favorite in wartime, despite
its odd lyrics: ''Let the Hero born of woman
crush the serpent with his heel.'' Religion
can get bloody-minded when we go to war,
with many serpents who need crushing.
The afflatus of becoming visible saints
is intoxicating. It allows one to have great
disdain for the manifest sinners who oppose
our saintly will. This applies not only
to outright enemies but to those (like the
French) who do not join our crusade and
even to those who dare criticize it. Rod
Dreher, a senior writer at National Review,
says that clergymen who oppose the war are
spiritually disarming us and that military
chaplains supporting the war should be heeded,
not ''bishops in well-appointed chanceries
and pastors sitting in suburban middle-class
comfort.'' Dreher, a Catholic convert, must
think the pope is one of those cushy bishops,
as opposed to the hard-bitten military chaplains
who know what God and the devil are up to.
We should learn from the ''moral realism''
of soldier-priests, who are ''warriors for
justice,'' and not heed ''the effete sentimentality
you find among so many clergymen today.''
The priests who do not bow to the War God
are, in a chaplain's words that Dreher quotes
with approval, reinforcers of the notion
that ''religion is for wimps, for prissy-pants,
for frilly-suited morons.'' This is what
used to be called ''muscular Christianity,''
and Dreher thinks it is the only authentic
form of his faith:
''As men and women of faith deliberate
the morality of war with Iraq, it is a travesty
that more of them haven't had the perspective
of military chaplains, that virtually the
only religious voices heard in the public
square are coming from the antiwar corner.
The divide between military and civilian
clergy over the Iraq war is philosophically
very deep. It cuts to the core of one's
belief in evil. . . . Some of the chaplains
say the failure of contemporary American
society to grasp the true nature of the
evil we face means the country is spiritually
unprepared for war and its sacrifices.''
Dreher has a view of military chaplains
as moral mentors that is quite different
from that of Madison, who wrote: ''Look
thro' the armies and navies of the world,
and say whether, in the appointment of their
ministers of religion, the spiritual interests
of the flocks or the temporal interests
of the shepherds be most in view.'' Madison
was aware that most nations have made an
instrumental use of God (as the endorser
of secular policy) and that this dishonors
God rather than honors him. It recruits
him to secular purpose and literally ''takes
the Lord's name in vain.'' Madison would
allow men in danger of death to have chaplains
of their own denominations near them if
financed by their own denominations. But
that is different from putting ministers
in government uniform, under government
discipline. Dreher tells us, with approval,
that the military controls the chaplains
and must remove any who show doubt about
the war as a danger to ''morale.'' Religion
is harnessed to political purpose and is
not freely exercised if it does not serve
that purpose. That is just the ''cognizance''
of religion Madison called a usurpation
by the state.
One gets the uneasy feeling, listening
to the president, that the role military
chaplains play in Dreher's life is provided
for Bush by his evangelical counselors and
consolers. Many have wondered how the president
can so readily tear down whole structures
of international cooperation at a time when,
in the fight against terrorism, we need
them most. His calm assurance that most
of the world and much of his nation is wrong
comes from an apparent certainty that is
hard to justify in terms of geopolitical
calculus. It helps, in making that leap,
to be assured that God is on your side.
One of the psychological benefits of this
is that it makes one oppose with an easy
conscience those who are not with us, therefore
not on God's side. They are not mistaken,
miscalculating, misguided or even just malevolent.
They are evil. And all our opponents can
be conflated under the heading of this same
evil, since the devil is an equal opportunity
employer of his agents.
Bush has been very good at fooling the
American people into thinking that Saddam
Hussein was behind the attack on the World
Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon
in Washington and that he is an ally and
supplier of Al Qaeda, that eliminating him
is the best way to keep terrorism from our
shores. Whatever good reason there may be
for ousting Saddam, those are not among
them. The conviction that we might benefit
by removing Saddam is not the same as believing
that God wills it -- except in George Bush's
mind. Those who oppose him are not, in his
frame of thought, just making a political
mistake. They are, as Ron Dreher's military
chaplains believe, cutting ''to the core
of one's belief in evil.'' Question the
policy, and you no longer believe in evil
-- which is the same, in this context, as
not believing in God. That is the religious
test on which our president is grading us.
In Madison's major statement on the relation
of church to state, the ''Memorial and Remonstrance''
of 1785, Madison condemned the use of ''religion
as an engine of civil policy.'' The results
of this use are ''pride and indolence in
the clergy, ignorance and servility in the
laity, in both superstition, bigotry, and
persecution.'' Disestablishing religion,
he argued, does not demote religion but
protects it from exploitation by political
authority, from ''an unhallowed perversion
of the means of salvation.'' The separation
of church and state, even though it is constantly
being nibbled at, especially in time of
war, has been important in keeping America
the most religious country in the developed
part of the w orld. As he put it, ''religion
flourishes in greater purity without than
with the aid of government.''
Madison wielded a pretty good pitchfork,
even though religion keeps tumbling back
in on us, especially in wartime. The result
was measured by Mark Twain when Andrew Carnegie
quoted the assertion that America is a Christian
country: ''Why, Carnegie, so is hell . .
. but we don't brag of this.'' Twain's tone
deepened in bitterness as he watched America
waging another of its pre-emptive wars,
this one in the Philippines. He reminded
us exactly what we are praying for when
we ask God to take sides in war and accomplish
the destruction of our foe. His ''War Prayer''
runs, in part:
''O Lord our God, help us to tear their
soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells;
help us to cover their smiling fields with
the pale forms of their patriot dead; help
us to drown the thunder of the guns with
the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in
pain; help us to lay waste their humble
homes with a hurricane of fire; . . . help
us to turn them out roofless with their
little children to wander unfriended the
wastes of their desolated land. . . . We
ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who
is the Source of Love.''
Garry Wills is adjunct professor of
history at Northwestern. His most recent
book is ''Saint Augustine's Memory.''
I Am Iraq
By MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
As published in The New York Times Magazine,
March 23, 2003
Back in the 60's, when I marched against
the war in Vietnam, I learned that it is
a mistake to judge a cause by the company
it makes you keep. I slogged through the
streets with Trotskyites who thought America
was an evil empire, and I chanted slogans
under banners that called for socialist
revolution in Brooklyn. I stood arm in arm
with pacifists, who made me wonder whether
they would have fought Hitler. Since I was
anti-Communist, I actually had more in common
with the liberal hawks who thought they
were defending South Vietnam against advancing
Communist tyranny. But I believed nothing
could save the weak and corrupt South Vietnamese
government. This time, over Iraq, I don't
like the company I am keeping, but I think
they're right on the issue. I much prefer
the company on the other side, but I believe
they're mistaken.
I don't like the president's domestic policies.
He should be helping state and local governments
maintain jobs and services, especially for
the poor. His attack on affirmative action
turns back decades of racial progress. The
tax breaks for the rich are unjust. His
deficits are mortgaging the future. It's
wrong to lock up so-called unlawful combatants
on Guantanamo and in military brigs, denying
them due process. The president's attorney
general is dangerously cavalier about the
civil liberties he is supposed to protect.
The bullying tone the president adopted
in his diplomacy at the United Nations diminished
his chances of U.N. support. But I still
think the president is right when he says
that Iraq and the world will be better off
with Saddam disarmed, even, if necessary,
through force.
A lot of my friends think that supporting
the president on this issue is naive. The
company you keep, they argue, matters in
politics. If you can't trust him on other
issues, you have no reason to trust him
on this one. If he treats freedom at home
so lightly, what makes you believe that
he will say what he means about staying
the course to create freedom in Iraq?
My friends also imply that the company
I am keeping on this war is a definition
of what kind of person I am. So where we
all stand has become a litmus test of our
moral identities. But this shouldn't be
the case. Opposing the war doesn't make
you an antiglobalist, an anti-Semite or
an anti-American, any more than supporting
the war makes you a Cheney conservative
or an apologist for American imperialism.
In fact, the debate over war is not so
much a clash of competing moral identities
as a battle within each of us to balance
competing moral arguments. Sometimes it
is easier to see this in the positions of
the other side than in your own.
Recently, 14,000 ''writers, academics and
other intellectuals'' -- many of them my
friends -- published a petition against
the war, at the same time condemning the
Iraqi regime for its human rights violations
and supporting ''efforts by the Iraqi opposition
to create a democratic, multiethnic and
multireligious Iraq.'' But since they say
that ''the decision to wage war at this
time is morally unacceptable,'' I wonder
what their support for the Iraqi opposition
amounts to. One colleague refused to sign
the petition because he said it was guilty
of confusion. The problem is not that overthrowing
Saddam by force is ''morally unjustified.''
Who seriously believes 25 million Iraqis
would not be better off if Saddam were overthrown?
The issue is whether it is prudent to do
so, whether the risks are worth running.
Evaluating risks is not the same thing
as making moral choices. It is impossible
to be certain that improving the human rights
of 25 million people is worth the cost because
no one knows what the cost will be. Besides,
even if the cost could be known, what the
philosophers call ''consequential'' justifications
-- that 25 million people will live better
-- run smack against ''deontological'' objections,
namely that good consequences cannot justify
killing people. I think the consequential
justifications can override the deontological
ones, but only if the gains in human freedom
are large and the human costs are low. But
let's admit it, the risks are large: the
war may be bloody, the peace may be chaotic
and what might be good in the long run for
Iraqis might not be so good for Americans.
Success in Iraq might win America friends
or it might increase the anger much of the
Muslim world feels toward this country.
It would be great if moral certainty made
risk assessment easier, but it doesn't actually
do so. What may be desirable from a moral
point of view may be so risky that we would
be foolish to try. So what do we do? Isaiah
Berlin used to say that we just have to
''plump'' for one option or the other in
the absence of moral certainty or perfect
knowledge of the future. We should also
try to decide for ourselves, regardless
of the company we keep, and that may include
our friends, our family and our loved ones.
During Vietnam, I marched with people who
thought America was the incarnation of imperial
wickedness, and I marched against people
who thought America was the last best hope
of mankind. Just as in Vietnam, the debate
over Iraq has become a referendum on American
power, and what you think about Saddam seems
to matter much less than what you think
about America. Such positions, now as then,
seem hopelessly ideological and, at the
same time, narcissistic. The fact is that
America is neither the redeemer nation nor
the evil empire. Ideology cannot help us
here.
In the weeks and years ahead, the choices
are not going to be about who we are or
whose company we keep, or even about what
we think America is or should be. The choices
are about what risks are worth running when
our safety depends on the answer. The real
choices are going to be tougher than most
of us could have ever imagined.
Regarding the Pain of Others': Sontag
Changes Lenses
By JOHN LEONARD
As published in The New York Times,
March 23, 2003
Toward the end of ''Regarding the Pain
of Others,'' her coruscating sermon on how
we picture suffering, Susan Sontag loses
her temper. As usual she's been playing
a solitary hand, shuffling contradictions,
dealing provocations, turning over anguished
faces, numbing numerals, even a jumping
jack (''we have lids on our eyes, we do
not have doors on our ears''). But she seems
personally offended by those ''citizens
of modernity, consumers of violence as spectacle,
adepts of proximity without risk'' who ''will
do anything to keep themselves from being
moved.'' And she is all of a sudden ferocious:
''To speak of reality becoming a spectacle
is a breathtaking provincialism. It universalizes
the viewing habits of a small, educated
population living in the rich part of the
world, where news has been converted into
entertainment. . . . It assumes that everyone
is a spectator. It suggests, perversely,
unseriously, that there is no real suffering
in the world. But it is absurd to identify
the world with those zones in the well-off
countries where people have the dubious
privilege of being spectators, or of declining
to be spectators, of other people's pain
. . . consumers of news, who know nothing
at first hand about war and massive injustice
and terror. There are hundreds of millions
of television watchers who are far from
inured to what they see on television. They
do not have the luxury of patronizing reality.''
So much, then, for Guy Debord, Jean Baudrillard
and their French-fried American fellows
in the media studies programs, looking down
on staged events as if from zeppelins, or
like the kings of Burma on the backs of
elephants, remote and twitchy among the
pixels, with multiple views in slo-mo, intimate
focus or broad scan, and an IV-feed of chitchat.
When we think about the pictures we have
seen from Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechnya, about
the videotapes available to us of Rodney
King being beaten and Daniel Pearl being
murdered, media theory seems merely impudent.
Yet Sontag has no more use for the pure
of heart and perpetually incredulous who
are always shocked by the wounds of the
world, by evidence of ''hands-on'' cruelty
and proof ''that depravity exists.'' Where
have they been? After a century and a half
of photojournalistic witness, ''a vast repository''
of ''atrocious images'' already exists to
remind us of what people can do to each
other. At this late date, to be surprised
is to be morally defective: ''No one after
a certain age has the right to this kind
of innocence, of superficiality, to this
degree of ignorance, or amnesia.''
So there is suffering, and there are cameras,
and it is possible to worry about the motives
of the men and women behind the cameras,
whether one may be too arty, another a bit
mercenary, a third a violence junkie, as
it is possible to worry about whether our
looking at the pictures they bring back
from the wound is voyeuristic or pornographic;
whether such witness, competing for notice
among so many other clamors, seems more
authentic the more it's amateurish (accidental,
like satellite surveillance); whether excess
exposure to atrocity glossies dulls Jack
and jades Jill; or whether. . . . But then
again, maybe these worries are self-indulgent
and beside the point, which should be to
think our way past what happened to why.
''It is not a defect,'' Sontag says, ''that
we do not suffer enough'' when we see these
images:
''Neither is the photograph supposed to
repair our ignorance about the history and
causes of the suffering it picks out and
frames. Such images cannot be more than
an invitation to pay attention, to reflect,
to learn, to examine the rationalizations
for mass suffering offered by established
powers. Who caused what the picture shows?
Who is responsible? Is it excusable? Was
it inevitable? Is there some state of affairs
which we have accepted up to now that ought
to be challenged?''
Photographs ''haunt'' us; ''narratives
can make us understand.'' As thinking people
used to do, before what Sontag calls ''the
era of shopping,'' we are invited to make
distinctions and connections, and then maybe
fix something. Or have all of us already
sold, leased or leveraged our skepticism,
our intellectual property rights and our
firstborn child for a seat at the table
and a shot at the trough?
Sontag of course has done our homework
for us, her usual archaeology. She follows
the trail of photojournalism from Roger
Fenton in the Valley of Death after the
charge of the Light Brigade, to Mathew Brady's
illustrating of America's Civil War, to
Robert Capa among Spanish Republicans, to
the horrors of Buchenwald and Hiroshima,
to famine in India and carnage in Biafra
and napalm in Vietnam and ethnic cleansing
in the Balkans. After consulting Goya on
what a victorious army does to a civilian
population, she takes us to Tuol Sleng,
near Phnom Penh, to look at the photographs
the Khmer Rouge took of thousands of suspected
''intellectuals'' and ''counterrevolutionaries''
(meaning Cambodians who had gone to school,
spoke a foreign language or wore glasses)
after they were tortured but before they
were murdered.
She reminds us of how hard it is for the
image makers to keep up with improvements
in the technology of torture and execution,
from the stake, the wheel, the gallows tree
and the strappado to smart bombs dreamed
up on bitmaps in virtual realities. (Long-distance
mayhem gets longer by the minute. The British
who bombed Iraq in the 1920's and the Germans
who bombed Spain in the 1930's could actually
see their civilian targets, whereas the
recent American bombings of Afghanistan
were orchestrated at computer screens in
Tampa, Fla.) She has shrewd things to say
about colonial wars, memory museums, Christian
iconography, lynching postcards, Virginia
Woolf, Andy Warhol, Georges Bataille and
St. Sebastian; about ''sentimentality,''
''indecency'' and the ''overstimulation''
Wordsworth warned us would lead to to (lovely
phrase!) ''savage torpor.'' And, as usual,
she provokes. It probably isn't true that
''not even pacifists'' any longer believe
war can be abolished, that photos have a
''deeper bite'' in the memory bank than
movies or television, that ''the appetite
for pictures showing bodies in pain is as
keen, almost, as the desire for ones that
show bodies naked,'' and that ''most depictions
of tormented, mutilated bodies do arouse
a prurient interest.'' I don't know, and
neither does she. On the other hand, when
she revises her own conclusions from ''On
Photography'' to say she's no longer so
sure that shock has ''term limits,'' or
that ''repeated exposure'' in ''our culture
of spectatorship neutralizes the moral force
of photographs of atrocities,'' I agree
with her for no other reason than I want
to. Her job is not to win a verdict from
a jury, but to make us think.
And so she has for 40 years. Never mind
that Cyndi Lauper reputation from those
essays in ''Against Interpretation'' on
happenings, camp and science fiction. Maybe
in the early 60's girls just wanted to have
fun. By the time of ''Styles of Radical
Will,'' she was already Emma Goldman, if
not Rosa Luxemburg, reviewing Vietnam as
if it were a Godard film. But there was
nothing playful about ''On Photography,''
which deserved all those prizes, or ''Illness
as Metaphor,'' which actually saved lives,
or ''Under the Sign of Saturn,'' where essays
so admiring of Walter Benjamin and Elias
Canetti reminded us that she had always
been the best student Kenneth Burke ever
had, and could be relied upon to value Simone
Weil over Jack Smith. ''If I had to choose
between the Doors and Dostoyevsky,'' she
would write years later, ''then -- of course
-- I'd choose Dostoyevsky. But do I have
to choose?''
Yes, she had to, with the culture she cared
about going down the tubes. Against that
gurgle and flush, she sent up kites and
caught the lightning bottled in ''Where
the Stress Falls,'' asking us to think the
prose of poets and the ''excruciations''
of everybody else, from Machado de Assis
to Jorge Luis Borges to Adam Zagajewski
to Robert Walser to Danilo Kis to Roland
Barthes, before he was struck down by a
laundry truck on his way to his mother's,
not to mention side excursions to the dance
of Lucinda Childs, the photography of Annie
Leibovitz and the 15-hour version of Alfred
Doblin's ''Berlin Alexanderplatz'' that
Rainer Werner Fassbinder managed to make
for German television. All this, plus what
she found out about herself under the influence
of morphine and chemotherapy, and an essay,
hilarious in its very conception, on ''Wagner's
Fluids.''
Then there were the novels. If the early
ones, ''The Benefactor'' and ''Death Kit,''
smelled of the lab, the recent ones, ''The
Volcano Lover'' and ''In America,'' are
full of ocean and desert airs. It is an
amazing, buoyant transformation, by a writer
with as much staying power as intellectual
wherewithal -- a writer, moreover, who went
a dozen times to Sarajevo while the rest
of us were watching the Weather Channel
-- and still she's niggled at even by people
she hasn't sued.
Late in the first act of ''Radiant Baby,''
the new musical about Keith Haring, they
bring on a highfalutin critic. She is trousered
and turtlenecked in black, with a white
streak in her dark mane. She is, of course,
a Susan Sontag doll, maybe even a bunraku
puppet. You almost expect her to quote Kleist.
How remarkable, when even the best-known
critics in the history of Western culture
pass among us as anonymously as serial killers,
that this one should end up emblematic,
a kind of avant-garde biker chick, and also
be so envied and resented for it. From the
political right, you'd expect vituperation,
a punishment for her want of piety or bloodthirstiness
about 9/11, as if all over hate radio, Fox
News and the blogosphere, according to some
mystical upgrade of the Domino Theory, every
pip was caused to squeak. But in our aggrieved
bohemias?
Who cares that her picture has been taken
by Harry Hess, Peter Hujar, Irving Penn,
Thomas Victor, Diane Arbus, Robert Mapplethorpe
and Annie Leibovitz, not even counting Woody
Allen for purposes of ''Zelig''? That she's
shown up as a character in unkind novels
by Judith Grossman, Alfred Chester, Edmund
White, Philippe Sollers, Francis King and
Sarah Schulman? The only Sontag who matters
is the one who keeps on publishing her own
books. ''One result of lavishing a good
part of your one and only life on your books,''
she wrote in 1995, ''is that you come to
feel that, as a person, you are faking it.''
I hope not, but I don't have time to find
out because I have to look up, at her recommendation,
another writer I've never read, Multatuli,
who's written another novel I never heard
of, ''Max Havelaar.'' Anyway, in the course
of admiring so many serious thinkers, she
became one.
If, however, we must plight some troth
to the cult of Gaia, this is how I imagine
her, as the poet Paul Claudel saw the ornamental
sandstone dancing maiden in the jungles
of Cambodia, one of those apsaras that Andre
Malraux tried to steal -- smiling, writes
Claudel, her ''Ethiopian smile, dancing
a kind of sinister cancan over the ruins.''
She knows lots of things the rest of us
only wish we did. Think of Susan Sontag
as the Rose of Angkor Wat.
|