Spengler on Islam

I have sometimes described the Asia Times columnist Spengler as the thinking man’s Mark Steyn. But that’s not fair to Steyn or to thinking men, since Spengler is certainly not funny, as Steyn often is, nor does he think worth a damn. He is one of the biggest pseudo-intellectuals ever to put pen to paper, as you can see if you read his May 15, 2007 column (recommended to me today by a reader), in which, in his usual floating-untouched-above-humanity manner (which was the original reason I compared him to Steyn), he places himself as equidistant from both Karen Armstrong and Robert Spencer on the question of the meaning of the Koran. The Koran, Spengler airily informs us, is just a meaningless collection of sayings, in which a reader can find whatever quotations he likes—loving and peaceful quotations in the case of Armstrong, hateful and violent quotations in the case of Spencer.

However, by the end of this boring article, after a long digression where he argues that the Koran may even not have been written by Muhammad (the kind of Big Thesis Spengler loves to toss around, never dealing with it seriously), Spengler comes back to where he started and contradicts himself without admitting that he has done so. He points out that, even though the Koran itself has no determinate meaning, Islam consists of a definite set of beliefs and experiences, central among which is the experience of communion with Allah through death in battle against non-Muslims. Now this is a true statement about Islam—I have said the same myself several times. But where does Spengler think it comes from? It comes—though he doesn’t acknowledge it—from the Koran, which along with the Hadiths was interpreted and put into authoritative form by the Muslim schools of jurisprudence in the 8th and 9th centuries, since which time the Islamic doctrine has not changed in any fundamental way.

In short, Islam has an intelligible and stable essence. Islam is not just a matter of, “Well, there are lots of opinions about it, Spencer’s is no more correct than Armstrong’s, and I, Spengler, can sit here above the stratosphere enjoying my superiority to both of them.” In reality, Robert Spencer’s view of Islam is true, and Karen Armstrong’s view of Islam is false. Spengler could have said that right off and avoided subjecting readers to this irritating article. But then he would have missed pursuing his main interest, which is not to get at the truth of things, but to demonstrate his superiority to the rest of us, a quest in which he always fails, though (such is his ego) he never seems to realize it.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

There is a hidden premise when people say that an authoritative book, such as the Koran or the Bible, is a loose collection of writings that can be interpreted selectively (or subjectively) in any way. It is that an individual or a society has a higher standing than the book itself because the book comes under their judgment.

This leads to a certain type of universalism and multiculturalism. If Muslims fall “under the book” (literal obedience) then those that tell Muslims to reinterpret and reorient the book must be of a higher order—i.e., “above the book.” Who are these people of the higher order? Obviously those that don’t fall under the scope of the book.

My guess is that these people have the same attitude towards any authoritative book—Muslim, Jewish or Christian. In essence for them all authoritative books can be subjectively interpreted and reoriented.

This places them as individuals and as a society over and above any authoritative writing. As such all and any books fall under the purview of the individual and his judgment.

What kind of community have these types of individuals if not a liberal society in which any authoritative document is relative and reconstructable. It also is a universal society because it accommodates any and all interpretations (and none can equate to an authoritative stance). The book then becomes merely a social instrument, defined by its context and interpretations.

These people would de-Islamify Islam as surely as they have de-Christianized Christianity. Having assumed that Christianity “universalized” leads to a secular, liberal society, they assume that this same phenomenon will occur for Muslims. Defanging the Islamic menace means undercutting the authority of their book through subjective reinterpretation. However this will not yield a freer Islam but result in a secular, liberal order. The insurgent sects in Iraq realize this.

These people of the higher order are really prophets for a secular, universalistic liberalism that subsumes all religious expression.

LA replies:

But Spengler goes both ways on this, as I discussed. First he says the Koran can be anything you like. But then, without acknowledging that he’s contradicting himself, he refers to the supposedly extra-Koranic “life” of Islam, which has a definite structure and character.

James W. writes:

I first discovered Spengler perhaps two years ago, and was impressed with many of his observations. But even then he seemed to change with the wind, and to me that warned of a lack of steady principle as bedrock of thought. We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are.

Then, I looked at his archives, which he to his credit keeps at Asia Times, and it is plain to see his writing was based on hopes and expectations, usually for the United States, and his mood and approach changed considerably in five years. Despair, anger, and uncertainty replaced the former emotions, and his mood swings became more frequent and his analysis more scatterbrained and resentful. .

Patience will see events fit themselves into principle and experience time and again. Expectations are for lovers.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 17, 2007 08:56 PM | Send