Banning terror websites in France: Can you still read French history?

President Nicolas Sarkozy: "Jail those who browse terror websites". (Announced today in response to the Toulouse murders.)

Will it be illegal to read this online?

The day of glory has arrived!

Against us stands tyranny

The bloody banner is raised,

Do you hear, in the countryside,

The roar of those ferocious soldiers?

They're coming right into your arms

To cut the throats of your sons and women!             

(The first verse of the French national anthem, La Marseillaise).

What about the fact that the foundational revolutionary moment in French history culminated in the Reign of Terror? 

Perhaps self-awareness isn't Sarkozy's strongest point.

On sectarianism as destiny: How to misread Syria

There’s a palpable sense that the situation in Syria is increasingly being debated in anthropological terms. The telling clue is the word ‘mosaic’. As in ‘a mosaic of different sects and ethnic groups.’ When all other analytical tools fail, a convenient tactic among Middle East experts is to revive the sectarian prototype, apparently the key to understanding political dynamics in this part of the world. But while sectarian dynamics do play a role in the politics of the Middle East, the real picture is far more complex. The conclusions regarding Syria that we are being presented with today arise from the myopic and reductionist sectarian lens. There’s nothing inevitable about the sectarian logic prevailing.

Take this comment by Gary C. Gambill for example, in which he is arguing for a ‘strategic non-intervention’ in Syria. Here’s his characterisation of the situation:

‘The secular Baathist dictatorship Assad inherited from his father is dominated by Alawites, a heterodox Islamic sect comprising just 12 percent of the population, with substantial contingent support from the country’s Christian, Druze and Shiite minorities. Syria’s Sunni Arab majority was marginalized for four decades, much as Iraq’s Shiite majority was subjugated by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-led minoritarian regime (though not quite in equal measure). Not surprisingly, those who are rebelling today are overwhelmingly Sunni, and those who are shooting them are mostly Alawite. With a five-to-one demographic advantage and nearly universal support from the surrounding Arab world, the rebels are clearly going to prevail when the dust settles.’

Sectarian determinism, to coin a phrase. The logic is so seductively complete, it’s hard to resist. What starts as a characterisation of the current situation is developed into a self-fulfilling logic. Nothing is allowed to interject into this neat sectarian schema, such as  competing Sunni groups, the emergence of alternate Alawite leaders, or even reformation of the divides along different lines. Think that’s not likely? As Gambill himself says in relation to Western intervention, it’s worth studying Lebanon’s Civil War for lessons, valuable advice that himself should have heeded. The sectarian divides in Lebanon throughout the war were fluid, and some of the most violent and lengthiest episodes took place within rather than across communitarian lines. (Such as the Aoun-Geagea wars, and the Hezbollah–Amal confrontations.)

In fact, the wholesale political realignment that accompanied the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon is illustrative of the radical political shifts that don’t adhere to the logic of sectarian division. Naturally it is not detached from sectarian or communitarian considerations, but there is nothing deterministic or inevitable about it. At this moment in time, the future of the uprising in Syria has not been sealed, and there are numerous factors that can disrupt Gambill’s neat but flawed sectarian conflict schema.

As it happens, I agree with Gambill’s point in warning against US intervention, but I hold that as a matter of principle not convenience. But the debate about Syria has become entirely mired in narrow practical or tactical considerations rather than a principled approach. This intellectual laziness is exacerbated by a reductionist attitude towards the Syrian people that assumes they are sectarian automata heading towards an inevitable future. As history teaches us well, it is foolish to dismiss human agency and the ability of people to turn around circumstances.   

On debating atheism in Islam

It is said that the Muslims were gathered in the presence of the Caliph when an atheist approached them and said ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debater and I will debate this issue with him.’ The best debater at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah, a messenger was sent to summon him to the royal palace. Several hours passed by without a sign of Abu Hanifah, but he finally showed up.

The Caliph inquired why Abu Hanifah was late. Abu Hanifah explained that he came to the bank of the River Tigris but there were no boats to take him to the other side. While he was waiting, he saw some planks of wood floating nearby. The planks suddenly came together and formed a boat. The boat then drifted towards him and he got in. The boat then crossed the river on its own, without any visible sail or oars, and landed him on the other bank. He then got off the boat and came to the Royal Palace.

At this moment, the atheist burst out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debater from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgeable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, you’re talking ridiculous, I swear I do not believe a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?

The atheist astonished at his reply got up and fled.

This story is a popular one and is often repeated as the ultimate argument against atheists. It might be a true account or a fictional story, sometimes it’s attributed to Abu Hanifah but in many versions it only refers to an unnamed notable Muslim scholar. It doesn’t really matter if the story is true or not, what matters is that it is considered a plausible scenario.

What really strikes me about it is what it signifies from today’s perspective regardless of our opinion of the scholar’s debating skills. If we believe the premise, then it was possible for an atheist in the early years of Islam to debate a prominent Muslim scholar in front of the caliph and therefore publicly deny the existence of God. Compare that with the current situation when any hint of deviation from orthodox views can land people in serious trouble, as happened recently with the Saudi poet Hamza Kashgari. The real lesson to take from such stories is that the spirit of open debate is more in keeping with Islamic tradition than today’s censoriousness.    

Note: There are various versions of the story online here and here for example.

The Junior Dictators League: What happens when a dictator is toppled?

Episode 7:  What happens when a dictator is toppled?

The Junior Dictators Club

Episode 10:  Kill Bilal - Volume 1 - Trailer