Customer Reviews

The Political Language of Islam (Exxon Lecture Series)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is very unlike Bernard Lewis' other writing on Islam. "What Went Wrong" is much more accessible to the general reader and I recommend it highly. If, however, you have read most of Professor Lewis' work, and want to continue through his opus, then this will be your cup of tea. The book's title cannot be taken too literally; the subject is the derivation and meaning of words in the major Middle Eastern languages. The bulk of the book consists of his contrasting the usage of Islamic vocabularies with the counterpart words in English, and occassionally, Romance languages. It is fascinating, but even for a reader interested in linguistics, it becomes a blur. The Arabic ( both classic and modern), Turkish, Iranian (and often Hebrew) words flash by. With Islam in the news so much these days, the general reader will recognize some of them, such as "sadr," as in Sadr City, the slum in Baghdad. It turns out that the Arabic word means "chest" literally, but has come to mean centrality, leadership, command. In Turkish it is part of the Grand Vizier's title. It is true, too, that the reader will learn much about the Qur'an, the Traditions of the Prophet, and of sharia, the Muslim law. For instance, since the principal function of government is to enable the individual Muslim to lead a good Muslim life, there is no thought of the separation of church and state. Also, since there is no clerical bureaucracy, there is no formal theocracy, although most Muslims believe that the Prophet Mohammed was the giver of all law. It is a brief 116 page book, and the notes and index comprise a third of its volume. Notwithstanding my admiration of Professor Lewis, I cannot recommend this book to any but Islamic-language speaking people. With their strange, and meaningless, diacritical marks, the foreign words cannot be held in memory once the page is turned, and the import of the exposition is lost.

If you wondered why a celebrated Princeton Professor's book was published by the University of Chicago, it is because it is based on a series of lectures sponsored by the University of Chicago back in 1986. The book was published two years later, and is still in print. You may also be surprised to see that half of the back cover encomiums are from reviewers with Arabic names. This is because there is not one critical, cynical, or condecending word against Islam. It is a throroughly neutral treatment of a topic which was twenty years ahead of its time.

Keep in mind, too, that these chapters were written separately, although with a unifying theme. The result is that some chapters are less "linguistically intensive" than others. For instance, the chapter titled "War and Peace" is a good read on the fundamentals of jihad, and is less of an Arabic vocabulary study than the other chapters are. If you have time for only one chapter, this is it.

Lewis's works are known for their depth of analysis while simultaneously being presented with a simple elegance that makes them approachable to those of us who are not Arabists or Islamicists. In this work he expounds on the language of political discourse in Arabia, Persia, Turkey and Islamic lands in general. Political vocabulary more or less confines and defines the range of this discourse so understanding the language is not mere semantics but indeed critical to the understanding of the development of Islamic political thought.

This short book (116 pages plus 52 pages of detailed notes and references, including an index) traces the etymology behind key political concepts in Islam. If you are an informed reader of current Mideast events encountering words like jihad, ayatollah, imam, shaykh, and fatwa and have a curiosity as to what these words are all about, under what context did they originally appear, and why they have contemporary relevance, you will find this unique volume hard to put down. The book is about the concept behind the word and its historical development more so than philological aspects, although the latter is also well covered. Originally published in 1988, an update reflecting the current state of affairs would be welcome. For example Islamic fundamentalists describe modern society as "jahili," a term originally used as a descriptor of Arabia before the time of the Prophet and related to the Arabic word for ignorance, "jahiliyya." Lewis' thoughts on how Muslims have dealt with attempting to end godless jahiliyya in the past and how it might apply to militant Islam today would have particular relevance as we try to understand the motivations behind the events of September 11th.

In The Political Language of Islam, Bernard Lewis attempts to trace the development of the political language of Islam from the Mohammedan Era, through the transformation of the religio-political discourse in modern times, to the present day. An eminent scholar of the Middle East and a professor at Princeton University, Lewis, presents an analysis of the discrepancies between Islamic and Western political thought. The book is based on his Exxon Foundation Lectures delivered at the University of Chicago in 1986.
In the first chapter of the book Lewis explains the differences between Islamic and Western political terms. He discusses the meanings and origins of words and compares them to corresponding terms in Western languages. He dwells on various metaphors and images, which reflect the traditional, social and political distinctions between Islamic and Western cultures. Despite these differences, Lewis says, there exist also resemblances between the two culturally different terminologies, due to the fact that the individuals of the two domains live in the same environment. He further adds that some of the similarities may be the result of cultural influences and borrowings.
In the following chapters Lewis introduces an account of the issues relating to the state and political authority in the Muslim world. He elaborates on relations, particularly of the ruler and the ruled, people and the state, obedience and rebellion, rights and duties, justice and oppression and legitimacy and illegitimacy. He examines how certain political elements were perceived and practiced differently in various parts of the "Islamic bloc". Lewis also provides an informative synopsis of the political vocabulary of the Arabic language compared to Turkish and Persian expressions, followed by an analysis of their meanings, origins and changes in time.
The last chapters of the book are devoted to a discussion on war and peace, in which one can find a strong connection to the political climate of the present. Proving against the common belief, Lewis argues that "classic Arabic usage has no term corresponding to the concept of holy war." Therefore, the word "jihad" does not exist in Arabic language as it is perceived today. Its literal meaning connotes "strive" and "effort." But Lewis also makes it clear that "unceasingly to convert or at least subjugate those who have not" is an obligation imposed by God on all Muslims. "It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state." Lewis asserts that with an apostate being the worst enemy, rebels, bandits and apostates are enemies against whom it was legitimate to wage war. Yet according to some Muslim teachings the war did not have to be in the military sense, the jihad could be understood in moral and spiritual terms.
An ambiguity as such in Islamic thought among the Muslims reflects contested interpretations of the tenets of political Islam. Particularly following September 11 attacks, the word jihad has been in frequent use in both the Western and Muslim media. Although moderate Muslims and extremists divide amongst themselves in what they would call jihad, the western press instigates the meaning of the term as the holy war of the Muslims. In fact, according to Lewis, a term for holy war does not exist in Islam. As far as the current Islamic militant activism is concerned, contradictions between the political understanding of the moderate Muslims and the extremists as such constitute restlessness among the Muslim population. With the case of how meaning of jihad is perceived being one case, in "The Political Language of Islam" Bernard Lewis elaborates on various aspects of Muslim political language and illuminates the origins and the changes in the meanings of the political vocabulary of Islam. Although the book does not go very deep into details, it gives a lot of basic information on major aspects of political Islam. For those readers interested in studying the subject further, Lewis provides an informative section of links and footnotes. Lewis writes the book from an objective point of view, without taking a pro-Western or pro-Islamic side. Therefore the book is lacks a strong argument. It is more a compilation study, than an argumentative work. "The Political Language of Islam" is highly recommended for academic circles, particularly for the faculty and graduate students of Middle Eastern Studies who would be willing to trace the political character of Islam in linguistic terms.

Bernard Lewis says in the preface of his book The Political Language of Islam that it is mostly based on lectures held by him at the University of Chicago in 1986. Hence its structure appears unusual to someone expecting a standard historical or political book. The first chapter of five in the book is called Metaphor and Allusion. After giving a short overview of some principles of Islam and mentioning the role of Islamic states nowadays, it talks almost only about semantic issues. Meanings and origins of words are discussed and compared to appropriate words in Western languages. For someone who doesn't know the Arabic language this gives an interesting insight.
The other chapters refer each to a certain political field of the Islamic community. In particular these are: The government and associated organizations, the ruler, the people, the state, war, peace and obedience. In discussing each of these topics, the author jumps back and forward in history to show how Islamic society and the language have developed. He usually starts by giving information about how certain political things are and were in different parts of the Islamic world and in which way they were influenced by other cultures. This is followed by a brief discussion about accompanying words in the Arabic language compared to Turkish and Iranian expressions and an analysis of their meanings, origins and changes over the time. Then the author switches again to political issues, just to go back to the explanation of words shortly after. This rhythm is kept over the whole book.
Referring to that, one can say that The Political Language of Islam consists of a political and a semantic part. The latter seems to be the main purpose of the book. The reader gets to know facts he didn't even think of. The shown connections between different Semitic languages as well as their changes from outside make the reader understand some Islamic expressions better. The author gives many examples on why, when, where, how and by whom the Arabic, Turkish and Persian languages were influenced and how new words or the change of meanings or interpretations of words became necessary. Origins of loanwords in the English language are also shown, sometimes by citing the Oxford English Dictionary.
As a result of this, the reader gets a first impression of the Arabic language. Even when listening to translations of Arabian statements on TV or radio, he can understand some expressions better, because he knows from which Arabic word they come. He is better informed about the meanings of words like kafir (unbeliever) or jihad (Holy War).
The political part gives a quick overview on the topics mentioned further above. The book doesn't go very deep into details, but therefore gives a lot of basic information on various points and historical events. The views and behaviour of people in different parts of the Islamic world, mainly Arabia, Turkey and Persia, are compared. This is not reduced to Muslims. The role of non-Muslims, slaves and women under Islamic authority is discussed as well as the opportunities for Muslims in non-Islamic states. Examples of historical events help the reader understand, how sayings from the Koran could be interpreted.
Bernard Lewis gives the right amount of historical and religious background information needed to understand the context. This way the reader learns a lot about several issues in Islamic history. The focus is on the change of the borders of Islamic states, because the clash of different cultures caused the language to change.
Due to the fact that everything is seen from the language aspect, some of the political information is even repeated. This is not too bad, because the book seems to be designed for a reader who doesn't know much about Islam. Terms like "Hadith" are explained when introduced. The good notes at the end of the book help the reader who is new to Islam, to understand certain things better. They also give many links to further study.
On the other hand, the reader may get confused by the permanent change of semantic and political topics. The frequently appearing jumps in history prevent him from getting a general overview of the developments in the Muslim community.
Lewis, who calls himself a historian and Islamicist, avoids taking position on controversial topics. He writes the book from a neutral view, neither criticizing Islamic nor Western attitudes.
For anyone who is interested in learning something about history of Islamic politics, this book is interesting, though there are probably better ones that concentrate more on politics instead of exploring language terms. These parts of the book sometimes appear to be too long for someone who reads it for its political content.

Bernard Lewis is the world's most respected scholar of Islam. Here he focuses on the political vocabulary of Islam and provides a guide to the overall Islamic way of thinking about politics. Perhaps the central point is that Islam as opposed to Christianity does not divide between the religious and secular realms. Islamic culture is a religious culture in essence. Lewis provides sources for key concepts and shows the nuances given in the three political languages of Islam, Arabic, Persian, Turkish. He explains in effect why it is so difficult for those in the Islamic world to be understood by those in the West. And he explains why Islam has not developed in certain ways and areas.

This book focuses on the political aspects of Islamic thought from the time of the Prophet to present time. It addresses Islamic law (Fiqh), the history of Islamic rulers (and the ruled), and revolution. The book is presented primarily (although not entirely) from a Sunni perspective.

The book is extremely well documented. There are 116 pages of text in the main body of the book and 41 pages of notes supporting those 116 pages! The book is a great starting point for research in the politics of Islam.

This is an entirely enjoyable approach to understanding Islam's culture through the etymology of language. Some telltales tell important tales, such comparing the English word for "government" as derived from the Greek for rudder or steersman, whereas the equivalent "siyasa" derives from the word training a horse and is used throughout the Muslim world. (pp11) The notion is that the horse needs to be told exactly what to do whereas the ship only needs to be guided. An esp. graphic reflect was that the Ottomans used the symbol of a horsetail as an emblem of authority, which also relates to the ruling that dhimmis were not permitted to ride horses.

Methaphor emerges from vocabulary. Wazir (vizier, adviser) derives from ink pot , millet - a confessional group form "word". Medinah ( city state) comes from Hebrew or Aramaic and has its roots in the word "dayan" or judge - the English equivalent being "juris diction", rule by speech. Umma is used for "people/nation", but not restricted to geographic bounds - at one point there is reference to a Christian Umma. Internal to the state one uses millet from "word" and in Ottoman use refers to a group that accepts a religious dictum, ie: word of God. The word for "State" is "dawla", from the 8th century on, and is also used to indicate one's turn as a wife with a husband in a polygamous union, giving an interesting twist to the notion of revolving heads of state.

The evolution of terms for rulers is quite interesting. Caliph actually means "one who comes after" or successor to the Prophet. Each set of rulers takes on a lesser title. Addressing the Ottoman Wazir one uses the phrase "Sublime Porte" (court of the Sultan) replete with door/gate/lintel related metaphors. Interesting too is the choice of Muslim rulers in addressing European Kings and Queens lesser titles such as Ottoman "Kiral", "Bey".

The world is divided into dar al Islam (house of Islam) and dar al-Harb (house of war) which wil exist until Islam is universal. In recent history an intermediate concept "dar al-Abd", "Abd" from "slave" or bound individual refers to territory governed by non-Muslims but with Muslim permission (pp80). The original concept of the Muslim Ummah was that of a unitary body - only the concept was broken soon after the death of the Prophet. "Hudna" is a temporary truce, a "sulb" or agreement, usually related to property disputes is final. Dhimmis are non-muslim subjects who believe in one god; "musta'min" have a similar status, but are not permanent residents - they may be granted safe passage ("aman" a safe conduct approval, ie: "amen") , property and economic concessions the Ottoman "abdname" or covenant-bearer. The original English term being capitulations, sans negative connotation, the Ottoman "abdname" or covenant-bearer however was condescending towards the receiver), The 4 categories of enemy are the bandit, the rebel, kufir (one who has never accepted Islam) and the apostate with specific rules on warring with each. Rival Muslim states are viewed as rebels, who on surrender would be readmitted to the Ummah. Apostates deserve death, unless they repent - unlike the dhimmi they cannot coose submission or slavery. Actual instances of individual apostasy are rare because of the penalty, though it is a common way to denounce opponents. On pages 87-91 Lewis examines the even rarer dilemma of an apostate State. Makes for interesting reading.

Oddly missing is an etymology of "Islam" itself, which Muslims will translate as "submission to Allah"; salaam, at the root of the word, is used to refer to a state of peace is mostly used in a non-political sense which would be a state of submission to God. Lewis opines that the Arabic word use of "salaam" is converging to international norms.

To quote the "other" Lewis, (Lewis Caroll):

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'


It's so tempting to put our own interpretation on meaning based on translations provided. Here Prof. Lewis teaches us to relax and listen to the flow of use and time and thereby enable insight with the other's culture, not based on our preconceptions, but in terms of theirs.

Inshallah, we may reach an understanding. Sulha.

Anything Lewis writes is worth reading (and I have at least 5 of his works). I've already read this one & plan to re-read it immediately. It is well worth it for anyone who wants to understand a different mind set. The second time around, I plan to take notes.