Deniz Togar, “Theories on the Rise of Arab Nationalism: George Antonius
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Deniz Togar, “Theories on the Rise of Arab Nationalism: George Antonius in Comparative Perspective” Presented at University of Chicago 16th annual Middle East Theory and History Conference, May 10-11, 2001. Each individual nationalism, its growth, and the manner of its consolidation plays an important role in the study of other nationalisms as this type of examination allows scholars to point out parallels, similarities and differences around the world. Upon reviewing the facts it becomes apparent that the rise of Arab nationalism and the “Arab Revolt” are not simple acts of treachery against the Ottomans, instead it seems that these events occurred as a result of the consolidation of many different factors and the efforts of many intellectuals over a long period of time. George Antonius, the author of the book “The Arab Awakening”, is seen as the leading scholar on this subject. When his book was published in 1938, it was considered groundbreaking work, as he was the first scholar to use both original and secondary sources in his investigation. He was fluent in Arabic and he himself believed that this placed him at an advantage over his peers. It is not my intention to study the facts and the issues that played a role in the rise of Arab nationalism in terms of a study of primary sources. I did not intend for this paper to be such a deep and far-reaching academic study at this point. I am simply attempting a historiographical survey of the literature concerning this issue. It is my endeavor to examine secondary sources concerning the issue and draw conclusions from these sources. Through the comparison of George Antonius’ works with those of other scholars on the subject, such as Bassam Tibi, Zeine Zeine, Hasan Kayali, and C.E. Dawn I hope to pinpoint the aspects of Antonius’ work that have come under attack and discuss whether or not these attacks were warranted. The manner in which Antonius conducts his inquiry into the rise of Arab nationalism makes it possible to split his book into three basic parts. The early period or what can be called background for the movement, the middle stage at which point actions of the Arabs were at a standstill yet their environment was changing rapidly, and finally the rise and consolidation of Arab nationalism. In terms of the first two parts of this chronology, there is almost complete consensus among scholars of Arab nationalism. In addition, they all believed that there was a period of development and growth followed by a standstill. During these stages most of the efforts of the Arabs failed because no one was able to unite the Arabs under one single national idea. In the historical literature one scholar may chose to focus more heavily on a certain event or the actions of a certain intellectual, however, the important consensus that is reached by all of the scholars, regardless of their personal slant, is that none of these factors constituted “the factor” that created and consolidated Arab nationalism. It is in the third period-the consolidation period-that the scholarly consensus dissolves and George Antonius’ ideas come under attack. He claims that Sharif Husayn of Mecca was the father of Arab nationalism and that Husayn’s quest was to unite the Arab world and therefore he can be seen as the consolidating factor of Arab nationalism. Numerous scholars have criticized Antonius for these beliefs. There have been claims that in his study he overlooked some crucial information concerning Husayn’s motives and actions and instead chose to interpret the events in a way that would better support his own thesis. These are harsh criticisms for a scholar whose work has often been cited as the leading English source on Arab nationalism. In order to determine who is actually in the right on this issue it is necessary to start from the beginning, or the early stage, and trace the growth of the nationalist movement and then pinpoint what factor (if any one specifically) did actually result in its consolidation. The Early Stage An integral aspect of the Early stage is the environment in which Arab nationalism was to develop and grow. The area with which George Antonius primarily concerns himself, and the area that is most notorious as the birthplace of Arab nationalism is the eastern Arab world. The northern and southern portions of this area played different roles in the rise of Arab nationalism, the north, or the Fertile Crescent, was closer to the central Ottoman administration and therefore more important both politically and economically. The Hijaz, which was further away, was less important economically, and less controllable due to a lack of communication and transportation, it was extremely significant for Muslims worldwide. The differences in the ethnic and religious backgrounds of the two areas also deserve a brief examination. The population of the Hijaz was almost one hundred percent Muslim and lived under traditional tribal arrangements, while in the Fertile Crescent not only did a large number of Muslim sects exist, but Christians and Jews also made up a significant portion of the population. By the 19th century these minorities had come under the protection of foreign powers, this served to enhance the amount of international interference in the area. This, along with changes in Ottoman policies, was to have profound consequences in the future in that it provided an impetus for the rise of Arab nationalist ideas within the Fertile Crescent. The final environmental factor that must be discussed is the Arab character itself. According to Sharabi, all Arabs are fiercely independent and pride themselves on this protection of their personal freedom. Sharabi sees this especially in the Peninsular Arabs. This may have been one of the crucial factors underlying the slow development of an overarching Arab national consciousness. In fact, it seems that only the emergence of a common enemy was able to cause the Arabs to let go of their individualistic tendencies and come together as a nation. This paper is more concerned with the consolidation of Arab nationalism and I am only going to touch briefly on the earlier movements that served to build the foundation of this consolidation. The two earliest Arab movements identified by most scholars were localized and individualistic in nature. The leaders of these movements were al-Wahabb and al-Tahtawi. Both movements focused more on Islamic revivalism than they did on true Arab nationalism. The men, living at different periods under the Ottoman Empire, saw problems within the structure of the Empire and feared the degeneration of Islamic traditions and values. While they called for reforms dealing with these issues, the crucial point here is that neither man called for a complete break with the Ottomans. This can be attributed to the fact that no Arab national consciousness existed during this period. Second, there is never any mention of autonomy or independence. Both movements are happy to remain under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire and Sultan. These men simply want to improve the position of Islam within the empire. The next significant contribution, agreed upon by most scholars, came from Egypt. George Antonius especially focuses heavily on the importance of the Egyptian contribution. Mehmet Ali, the governor of Egypt under Ottoman sovereignty, was the first leader to create a type of national consciousness within the Arab world. Although his motives were purely personal, he claimed to want to revive the Arab Empire when what he really wanted was his own empire; he introduced the idea of a recreation of the Arab empire into the Arab world. Following his installment as the governor of Syria, his son, Ibrahim, adopted a different approach and helped to bring the Arab movement to a new level. Antonius explains that Ibrahim claimed to see himself as an Arab, learned Arabic, and said he was only comfortable among Arabs. He enacted many liberalizing reforms in Syria and began to call his subjects “citizens”. Ultimately, the rulers from Egypt failed because no overarching Arab national idea existed. Antonius claims that while Mehmet Ali’s major problem was that he was not “Arab” enough to spur the formation of an Arab national consciousness, ibrahim’s reign allowed for the laying of a foundation for the movement. The next crucial building block in the rise of Arab nationalism was the entrance of missionaries into the Fertile Crescent. Both Antonius and Bassam Tibi devote long sections in their books to the actions and roles of various missions. The missions brought with them western ideas of the nation-state and citizenship and offered educational opportunities that went beyond the state options of military or religious studies. Antonius praises the actions of the Americans in particular and Tibi echoes this sentiment when he says, “ In its early stages, Arab nationalism was apolitical and it emerged largely out of a concern with Arabic culture and the modernization of the Arabic language which had been encouraged particularly by the American missions”. Two primary intellectual figures in Arab nationalism emerged at this point in time, Nasif al-Yaziji and Butrus Bustani. Again Antonius devotes long discussions to the importance of these men in the development of nationalism. Both men were against fanaticism and believed that national unity and religious toleration were prerequisites for the reinvention of Arab culture. Albert Hourani explains that Bustani also believed that in order to survive, the Arab world needed to borrow some of the ideas from the West that were either compatible with Arab traditions or could be adapted to fit the situation. Antonius explains that the two men came together to form the first literary society of the Arab world in 1847, known as the society of arts and sciences, it was located in Beirut and that this was especially important because it marked a departure from the Arabic tradition of individualism in favor of collective activity.