Heritage (Turath)

Having discussed all of the mostly West-inspired questions of the Nahda, Arabs were next led to decide precisely what their own heritage and history meant to them and what they meant for the future also. Was Arab history a burden or a support? What really was the history? Was modernity possible? These were the kinds of questions with which many Arab thinkers sought to grapple.

The first great historical thinker of the three modern thinkers whose ideas I will briefly discuss is Constantine Zurayq (1909 - 2000) from Syria-Lebanon. In his We and History he explores Arab attitudes to the past and another major contribution to debate was his In the Battle of Civilization: Dynamics of Present and Future.

‘Abd al-‘Aziz ad-Duri of Iraq propounded a modern methodology for studying Arab history in, for example, Historical Formations of the Arab Nation. He stressed the importance of economic and social histories, identity and awareness.

Abdullah Laroui of Morocco wrote The Arabs and Historical Thought; the Problem of History and Crisis of the Arab Intellectual on the problem of tradition versus historicism.

Four modern Arab philosophers have specifically critiqued traditional Arab approaches to learning and the resultant intellectual heritage. Muhammad ‘Abid al-Jabiri of Morocco critiques both classical and modern Arabic thought, Hasan Hanafi of Egypt discusses heritage, Sadiq al-Azm of Syria critiques religious thought specifically and Fehmi Jadaane of Palestine/Jordan has also provided constructive criticism.

The artist Adonis (‘Ali Ahmad Said of Syria, Lebanon and Paris) has also made a significant contribution. He examined concepts of tradition and originality in exploring the changeless and yet changing natures of Arabic literature and thought.

The transportation of that heritage into a platform for the future was another special concern of Zurayq in his works We and the Future and Demands of the Arab Future. He optimistically speculates on the role of Arab agency and possible futures for the Arab world.

Edward Said (1935 - 2003) of Palestine and the US spoke on the Voice of Palestine radio station of “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will” in his assessment of the Arab future. His contributions to especially Al-Ahram and Al-Hayat from 1990 to his death were especially significant contributions to the debate. He especially stressed the role of the intellectuals of “speaking truth to power” in relation to both culture and politics.

Other such speculators and visionaries among Arab social scientists include Saad Eddine Ibrahim, Ghassan Salamé, Abdelbaki Elhermassi and Khaldoun al-Naqeeb. Contributions continue to be made by individuals and the Arabic intellectual and cultural press. I’ve discussed Palestinian American Hisham Sharabi’s critique of the current neo-patriarchy, Syrian Lebanese American Halim Barakat’s efforts to analyse the changing face of 20^th Century Arab society and Fehmi Jadaane’s current critique of modern blockages inhibiting progress. The journals include Arab Future (Al-Mustaqbal al-‘Arabi), a pan-Arab monthly published in Beirut, Al-‘Arabi, an illustrated monthly from Kuwait and The Critic (Al-Naqid) and Horizons (Afaq), both published in Beirut and London.

Freedoms and Government (and Democracy?)

So clearly the valid nation discussed by the thinkers mentioned in the last post deserved freedom from oppression - both external and internal - or did it?

The Arab thinkers of the Nahda took up ancient ideas of freedom from despotism and tyranny in producing a new discourse of an independent Arab nation as well as Western ideals. The ideas of justice ('adl) versus oppression (zulm) being the outcomes of rule and constitutional rights were two ideas that were central to the overall debate concerning freedom/liberty (hurriyya) versus servitude (isti’bad) to despotism/tyranny (istibdad).

The first notable linkage between the ideal of Arab nationalism and the requirement of freedom made in the Nahda was made by Tahtawi. He spoke of the authority of the ruler to rule being subject to that rule being within the limits of moral norms and conforming to an ideal of moderation and justice (‘adl). He further explained that freedom (hurriyya) was necessary for the continuing strength of any patriotic national community and even its creation.

Following Tahtawi, Khayr ad-Din at-Tunisi (c. 1825 – 1889) and Butrus al-Bustani made further early contributions to the discussion of freedom. Tunisi discussed the institution of political institutions based on the concepts of justice and freedom in the context of Tunisian Islamic modernism and Bustani was especially concerned to discuss religious freedoms and equality. I mentioned Tunisi in my post on modernising wazirs as the founder of the constitution of Tunisia. In the context of the Arab world, it is significant that Bustani, a member of a minority religious and ethnic group in the Middle East at birth, raised especially issues of equality and religious freedom that naturally concern such groups in the context of the wider Arab world.

Late in the 19th Century, ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Kawakibi (1854 - 1902) wrote Taba’i’ al-Istibdad (Characteristics (or Nature) of Tyranny/Despotism) to define and explore despotism and its relationship with freedom. Despotism consisted of autocratic rule, he wrote, and the arbitrariness of the powers of heads of religion, family and classes. It could also be imposed on the basis of disparities of religion, knowledge, education and wealth. Kawakibi opposed despotism in all its forms and argued for its removal.

Following Ottoman reforms in the early 20th Century and the 1908 Constitutional restoration, the freedom and justice debate continued especially among Arab intellectuals in modernising Egypt. One great participant and Egyptian Arab secular nationalist involved in that debate was Ahmad Lutfi as-Sayyid (1872 - 1963). He stressed the importance of individual freedom and the problematic of its relationship with the control of its freely constitutionally contracting citizens by the state. He opposed both despotism (istibdad) and servitude (isti’bad). He concluded that true government must spring from free agreement of citizens and their innate sense of justice.

In more recent times, intellectuals and creative writers have continued this discourse of freedom and oppression reflecting the realities of post-World War Two Arab political and cultural developments. The simultaneous existence of evident freedom/liberation of Arab nations (tahrir) from external oppression and continuing failure of internal freedom (hurriyya) from the ‘liberated’ state has needed explanation. While the real existence of national tahrir may still be questioned, the clearest examples of oppression do appear now to be internal. Critics have effectively requested the same sauce for the internal goose as for the external gander and the sexual element of that analogy is not entirely irrelevant when one considers the demands from Arab ‘feminists’ for freedom for women within this debate. The traditional Arab ‘obedience paradigm’ has been questioned and accused of being an obstacle to rightful freedoms. Taher Labib, a Tunisian sociologist, has spoken of an accumulation of tyrannical political practice occurring. Halim Barakat and Issa Boullata have also been prominent in the recent freedom/despotism debate.

A sense of disappointment has also pervaded some of the debate that parties seeking national liberation and ‘progressive’ parties have not also brought about the personal liberation of their peoples when in government. Several ostensibly progressive parties and ideologies are given particular attention such as the Ba’th party, the Communist parties of the Arab world, the parties of Nasser and others nationalists and the ideologies of those parties. Thinkers within the parties themselves have often considered these issues in some detail. So-called “Islamists” or at least traditional Islamic thinkers and ideologues also discussed what freedom means today and what freedoms should be promoted and foremost among these was the progressive Islamist thinker, Rashid Ghannoushi.

Some of the issues that have been considered have been proper restrictions on certain kinds of expression and communication versus complete freedom of expression and individual versus group freedom in an Arab world currently dominated by political elites with their various agendas. Various forms of economic dependency within the Arab world have also been discussed as significant inhibitors of political and cultural freedoms.

Democracy has not had a high priority in this Arab discourse until quite recently. Civil rights struggles likewise have a long way to go before freedoms and civil rights protections are regarded as absolutely necessary in Arab societies. A lot of this probably has to do with their association with the imperialism of the 'democratic' West. The Egyptian scholar Saad Eddin Ibrahim has been a major proponent of democratic and other 'freedom-related' reforms in the Arab world.

The history of the Arab world has produced a problem for freedom discussed in the works of Adonis (‘Ali Ahmad Said Asbar) (b. 1930), the Syrian poet and thinker, and especially in his study of Arab culture, The Permanent and the Changing: a Study of Arab Conformity and Creativity. Other poets, too, have discussed this issue. For example, Nizar Qabbani (or Kabbani) (1923 - 1998) also discusses the historical burden limiting the freedom of women and Muhammad al-Maghout (d. April 2006) discusses the burden restricting the freedom of the Arab “masses”. Durayd Lahham, also an artist, also made a contribution to this discussion. The innate links between freedom, knowledge and the status of women have been thus examined in detail in the Arab world.