A
Year After His Death, Fouad Ajami's Detractors Look Worse than Ever
by Winfield Myers
FrontPage Magazine
June 22, 2015
|
|
Share:
|
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
He came with conceptions, but he made a voyage of discovery. And so he
caught truths, deeper and more durable truths about himself and about us
all. (The Traveler's Luck)
So wrote Fouad Ajami, who died one year ago today, about Joseph
Conrad, whose talents for capturing the clash between East and West he
judged superior to V.S. Naipaul's. He might have been writing about his
own gift for interpreting the Middle East from his adopted American home.
The truths he caught were gained (like Conrad's) through an immigrant's
eyes—eyes trained not just on his adopted country, but on the land of his
birth.
Ajami wrote that Naipaul, for all his "extraordinary talent,"
lacked access to the "inner precincts of that universe" of
Islamic civilization found in the "tiled courtyards and the private
chambers that are meant to keep others out and to keep secrets in."
It is Ajami's willingness to disclose those secrets and to subject them
to ruthlessly honest critiques that gives his work a timelessness and
importance attained by few writers of any genre. For expressing these
truths, he earned the respect and even love of readers and colleagues who
form a counterculture within a Middle East studies establishment
dominated by intellectual homogeneity enforced by ethnic, religious, and
political litmus tests.
On the surface, Ajami qualified as a member of the fraternal order of
the professionally aggrieved: a Shiite Arab of Persian ancestry who
hailed from Lebanon, he could have ridden a successful career on the same
anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Western platitudes that so many
lesser lights have used to ascend to positions of influence and renown.
But he came to accept
Israel's existence as an historical fact and to better understand
Arab history because of it, even as he wrote unflinchingly about those
secrets hidden from the foreigner, and for his intellectual honesty
became a pariah to scholars Michael
Doran calls "faceless drones taking refuge in smug
solidarity." Never was their smugness more viscerally displayed than
in the weeks and months following his death.
Perhaps the most intellectually and morally vulgar of
these by a professor of Middle East studies was by As'ad
AbuKhalil of Cal State Stanislaus. Claiming that Ajami was an
"Arab Zionist" who was "never really known among
Arabs" as was Bernard Lewis, and that his Middle East studies
colleagues "never held him in high esteem," Ajami "gave a
respectable cast to the racist discourse about Arabs and shared 'inside
views' about their culture." He had "deep contempt and hatred for
his people and the culture in which he was born," and "left a
harmful legacy for Arabs." Revealing the bitterness of one for whom
the falsehoods that bind the strains of ethnic solidarity trump truth and
a sense of shame, he wrote:
Ajami is like the one Jewish person who gets invited to anti-Semitic
conferences to attest the views about Jews held by anti-Semites.
Richard Falk, far more prominent than AbuKhalil, after recalling their
once-warm friendship and his role in bringing Ajami to Princeton in 1973,
wondered
in the weeks after Ajami's death whether he failed to detect
"character flaws" that emerged later in life, and concluded his
remembrance-as-hit-piece on this damning note:
For me Fouad Ajami's legacy is that of "sleeping with the
enemy." And it is an enemy that is politically, morally, and legally
responsible for millions of deaths, displacements, and devastating
losses. In a just world such a responsibility would lead to criminal
accountability, but such a prospect is for now situated in what Derrida
called the "democracy to come," a polity in which there would
be no impunity for crimes against humanity.
Non-academics joined the attack, with the infamous New York Times
obituary reflecting acceptable
elite opinion when it quoted Ajami's nemesis Edward Said's quip that
he had "unmistakably racist prescriptions." Worse, it relied
heavily upon Adam Shatz's vitriolic 2003 profile of Ajami in The
Nation, "The Native
Informant." For Shatz in 2003, as for Ajami's academic
detractors, he was "entirely a creature of the American
establishment," a man "almost entirely deserted by his
people."
These calumnies continued in post-mortem attacks by non-academics:
Ajami's "view of the Arab
world was narrow, lacking an understanding of its societies and
myriad cultures; the flourishing of arts and culture, science and
literature in the region had no interest for him"; he "changed
his political colors as per convenience"; and he "succeeded
because he pandered
to the pro-Israel, anti-Arab causes with his conservative criticism that
always seemed to blame the Arabs for everything that went wrong in the
Middle East, ignoring the fundamental corruption of Middle East politics
which was set in place by self-serving Western government policies."
Such vitriol reveals the moral bankruptcy and intellectual
parochialism of contemporary Middle East studies both on campus and
beyond, where it infects journalists, policy experts, and opinion makers
around the world. If such a milieu is hostile to detractors in general,
it is utterly unforgiving to the "native informant" whose
ethnicity and religion should, by the iron rules of academic opinion,
determine every aspect of his thought and action. For his unblinking
depiction of Arab culture and society, his embrace of America, and his
acceptance of Israel, Ajami was declared a traitor to his people. In
their condemnation of his writings and his virtues, however, his
detractors condemn only themselves.
Winfield Myers is Director of Academic Affairs and Director, Campus Watch, at the
Middle East Forum.
This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
Related Items
|
No comments:
Post a Comment