Log-In Email:    Password:    
  Remember me
Register  |  Forgot Password?  |  Change Password  |  Update Email
The Closing of the Islamic Mind
A decade ago, Nobel Prize winner V.S. Naipaul knew the dangers of a backward-looking Islam.
by David Brooks
10/11/2001 12:00:00 AM

Increase Font Size

 | 

Printer-Friendly

 | 

Email a Friend

 | 

Respond to this article



David Brooks, senior editor

TWO OF THE MOST BRILLIANT EXPLANATIONS of Osama bin Laden were written 11 years ago. The first is an essay that appeared in the September 1990 issue of the Atlantic Monthly by Bernard Lewis called "The Roots of Muslim Rage." The second is a lecture delivered by V.S. Naipaul as part of the Manhattan Institute's annual Wriston Lecture series on October 30, 1990. Lewis is one of the great intellectuals of our age, but Naipaul won the Nobel Prize for literature today, so let's review his thinking.

The lecture was called "Our Universal Civilization," but it is really about time and perceptions of time. Those who believe that almost all fundamental political disputes are really arguments between theories of history will find much to their liking.

Naipaul starts by describing a young man he met in Java who wanted to become a poet. Not a lot of money in that, but Naipaul asked him, "Isn't your mother secretly proud you are a poet?" The young man replied, "She wouldn't have even a sense of what being a poet is." In her worldview, all poetry had been written. It was passed down through the ages. Having her son come up and tell her that he wanted to be a poet was akin to having him tell her he wanted to grow up and rewrite the Bible. This woman's conception of history was static, whereas her son had moved into a different culture.

When Naipaul used the phrase Universal Civilization, he was talking about

that civilization that believes in the future, in progress, in the unfolding of human accomplishment. That civilization started in Europe, and once had racialist overtones, but it has spread.

It has enemies, however. Naipaul goes on to describe his journeys through non-Arab Muslim lands. What was striking about these places was that they were not originally Islamic. They had been something else. But that pre-Islamic past was everywhere denounced and erased. In the virulent form of Islam that Naipaul found in, say, Iran, the glories of Persia were being denied and abolished. In the beginning was error, apostasy, disgrace. Then came Islam and truth. End of story. "Faith abolished the past," Naipaul reported.

The style of religion he found was a complete way of life. "To possess the faith was to possess the only truth; and possession of this truth set many things on its head. To believe that the time before the coming of the faith was a time of error distorted more than an idea of history. What lay within the faith was to be judged one way; what lay outside of it was to be in another."

Naipaul was born in Trinidad to a Hindu family. At 18 he won a scholarship to Oxford, and he has lived in England since. In other words, he has many different cultures in his heritage, many histories flowing through his veins: Trinidad, India, England, the culture of the global intellectual class.

But the Islamicists he met in his travels repressed all their histories but one. The Taliban recently destroyed a 1,500 year old Buddhist shrine, but the Islamic radicals commit the same sort of vandalism within themselves. They destroy all their inheritances but Islamic fundamentalism.


CONTINUED
1 2  Next >
Print This Article

  House Passes Democratic Health Care Bill 220 to 215
Today, 1:30 AM
 
  Update: Stupak Passes 240 to 193; Gingrey Will Vote Yes, But Some Pro-Life Republicans May Oppose Stupak Amendment
Yesterday, 8:51 PM
 
  Democrats to Allow Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment
Yesterday, 12:12 PM
 
  Does the House Bill Fulfill Obama's Pledge to Bar Abortion Funding? Gibbs Won't Say
Nov 6, 09 07:01 PM
 
   


Search   Subscribe   Subscribers Only   FAQ   Advertise   Store   Newsletter
Contact   About Us   Site Map   Privacy Policy