The Lore and the Reality of an Islamic Spain

Since finishing my book I’ve been thinking about how to pursue my goal of doing public writing as well as academic writing and research. Following the attack in Barcelona last week I finally stopped overthinking it and actually wrote something and submitted it to a few op-ed sections. I didn’t move fast enough and the news cycle had moved on by the time I got it in and they got back to me, so for now I’ll post it here; I fear the issues will continue to be relevant, so I’ll give it a go the next time around…

***

The vehicular attack on pedestrians along Barcelona’s Las Ramblas promenade this past week brought up all of the usual, expected, old discussions about terrorism, life and death, and the role that Islam can play in European societies. The oldest of all of those discussions does not go back to the train bombings in Madrid in 2004 but rather to the year 711, when a Syrian military governor landed at Gibraltar, the rocky outcrop that still bears his name, and set up outposts in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula in the name of the Umayyad caliph at whose pleasure he served. Every time that Spain suffers an attack attributed to terrorists acting in the name of Islam, the discussion inevitably turns to the flourishing Islamic society that grew up in the wake of that commander’s arrival and the improbable series of global events that, by the end of the 8th century, made much of the lands that we now call Spain and Portugal into al- Andalus, a Muslim-governed polity that was the vibrant home to cultural flourishing, cutting edge science and medicine, and rock-star poets writing in three languages. Even when Spain is not involved, the splendor of Islamic al-Andalus often merits a mention to signal nostalgia for a different world — from one perspective or another.

One of the most striking invocations of al-Andalus this time around came in an interview this weekend on National Public Radio in which Spanish terrorism expert Juan Zarate contextualized the threat of Islamic terror in Spain by explaining that “the reality is Spain sits right at the heart and crosshairs of jihadi lore. Remember that Moorish Islamic rule controlled parts of southern Spain, known as al-Andalus in the lore.” In two sentences, Zarate ceded the historic Umayyad polity of al-Andalus to the ideology of terror. The majority of the Iberian Peninsula was known as al-Andalus in far more than modern, aspirational “lore,” but at the same time, the lore is powerful.

Instead of treating al-Andalus as a jihadist’s fantasy, we would do better to explore the medieval origins of medieval-inspired lore and the reach that it has in the modern day. One of the best examples of Andalusi history becoming lore comes from the battle in the year 778 at Roncesvalles, the Pyrenees mountain pass sometimes better known by its French name, Roncevaux. A rift between the Andalusi emir of Cordoba and some of his generals, who resented his centralization of power, ultimately led those officers to reach out to Charlemagne for assistance in regaining their former positions. The emir and Muslim troops loyal to him skirmished with Charlemagne and the Muslim generals he was assisting. One of those battles was for control of Barcelona. The Battle of Roncesvalles came at the end of the campaign. It took place as Charlemagne’s forces retreated from the city of Zaragoza; they were routed at the mountain pass by Basque forces defending territory they sought as their own.

Yet by the time the medieval troubadours, the singers of songs whose vision becomes our memory, told the story of Roncesvalles, Charlemagne’s forces were made holy warriors vanquished not by Basques but by zealous Muslim enemies. This story becomes the legend of French and Italian literary classics, the Song of Roland and Orlando Furioso. History tells us that this was a battle in which Muslim forces were fighting for a Muslim prince against Muslim

forces fighting alongside the Holy Roman Emperor that were ultimately routed not by their Muslim-led enemies but territorial Basques. Lore tells us that it was a failed attempt at holy war in which Muslims vanquished Christians for their infidel beliefs. It was called al-Andalus in both history and in lore; the mythological, lyrical version allows people to tell their own story with the greater gravitas of an appropriated history. It’s not just terrorists who do that; it’s been happening since the beginning. Everyone tells stories about that grow out of the place known in history and in lore as al-Andalus.

One of the best-known scholars of Islamic Spain once wrote that al-Andalus was a first-rate place, evoking F. Scott Fitzgerald’s definition of a first-rate mind: one that is capable of holding two contradictory opinions at once. How we tell the story of that first-rate place is, in its own way, just as resolutely and sensibly self-contradictory: Lore matters because it has a past and a future of its own. And as a result, it’s never just lore.

Translation Notes: Salchichas

Before I put my translation project aside to #FinishYourDamnBookAlready, I had started blogging a set of (mostly) lexical quandaries that I was facing. Now that I’m back to the project, I think I’ll resume the notes, too. So first up in Translation Notes 2.0, salchichas.

I know the word. I’ve heard it a million times. But I still had to look it up to see what its English counterpart is. And I realized that one of the consequences of translating Spanish literature while keeping kosher is that I have a whole battery of Spanish food vocabulary for which my internal definition is simply: can’t eat that.

Translating in a Time of Trump

(Or, How To Think Like a Literary Terrorist)

It is with absolute glee that I have returned to the literary translation project that I had to shelve 18 months ago in the interest of finishing my work and doing the kind of work that would count towards making me tenurable. Yes, I still have a bee in my bonnet about peer review and about what “counts,” but let’s shelve that for the moment in the interest of talking about a strange new nexus between literature and terrorism.

In the course of yesterday’s work, I arrived at a passage that discusses the Umayyad practice of crucifying convicts and the fear and displeasure it could inspire in the citizens of the capital city of Córdoba:

The promenade stretched out at the foot of the wall on the right bank of the river, unspooling a thread of fortresses and, sometimes, of crosses; for that is where the bodies of executed convicts were placed on public display. Amongst the smells of Córdoba that texts have preserved for us, one we have to overcome is the stench of rotting human flesh. Not for nothing does Ibn Khaldun (who knew everything) affirm that in the cities the air is cut with the putrid breath of filth and only thanks to the constant movement of people do waves of fresh air disperse those immovable humors.”

And because this is work for a general audience of readers, and because Islamophobic crimes and terrorist attacks have risen by order’s of magnitude since last year‘s presidential election, I found myself pausing to wonder how some general readers might misapprehend or misappropriate this graphic, smelly passage.

The white nationalists, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, sons of the Confederacy, and general racists, Islamophobes, and anti-Semites who have been dominating the news more and more (no, really, in spite of Trump having ruined that phrase for us, too) have shown themselves beyond willing to use the Middle Ages and classical antiquity to further their claims of religious hegemony and racial superiority. (For examples, see recent public interventions by my colleagues here, here, here, here, here, and here.) Their rhetoric is confused. On the one hand they use the term “medieval” to mean backwards and to criticize Islam. But on the other hand, they idealize the medieval as a time of racial purity. Crusading rhetoric has become commonplace in current political discourse. The Middle Ages is fair game for the racists who have proven themselves, over and over again, a hundred years ago and today, willing to kill for their cause.

The city walls of Córdoba during the Cruces de Mayo festival this year.

One of the terrible things about terrorism is that you have to start to think like a terrorist just to go about daily life: When I pack to go to the airport, I have to think about whether anything I’m packing might be or look like something I could hijack or crash or blow up a plane with just to be able to get through security. I have to think about the most logical path for a gunman through a building to be able to have an escape-or-barricade plan in mind just in case, to be able protect myself day to day. I wouldn’t think about how to crash planes or shoot people in buildings otherwise but for the rise of terrorism and my need to go on with my life around it and around the security (theater) measures it has necessitated. Terrorism breeds terroristic thinking.

And now — do I have to think like an Islamophobe or a white supremacist just to be able to do my work and do no harm? I must take into account how my translation project about medieval Islam might be used against modern, flesh-and-blood Muslims by white nationalist terrorists. I have to wonder whether the above passage might be seized out of the historical and narrative context of late antique and early Islamic crucifixion and out of the context of the love letter to Córdoba that I am translating and used instead to demonize any and all Muslims, medieval and modern, as… I don’t know. I don’t want to have to get seven feet ahead of deadly hatred by imagining hatred. I don’t want to be the one who demonizes my academic subjects and my friends, even if it is to protect them. These are lines I will not cross.

I find myself in a quandary: If I go ahead with this project, if I put this paragraph out in the world, I might be putting ammunition into the hands of terrorists. But if I quash it, I let those same terrorists dictate nothing less than the very course of history, medieval and modern; they would limit what people could know about the Middle Ages and limit what people in the present could say about it.

I will confess an unpopular opinion here: I am a free-speech absolutist. Incitement to violence? No way. But short of that? Sure. Even after this weekend I’m still the Jew who believes that Nazis should be allowed to march down Main St. and that I should then denounce them long and loud. I believe that we fight speech with speech. It’s a position that has been sullied lately by white dudebros who don’t really understand or believe in free speech, but rather who feel entitled, but it is one that is still carefully thought and actively defended by organizations such as the ACLU. (This Twitter thread by my colleague David Perry is a useful and clear articulation of the difference and the consequences.)

This is not a decision I take lightly or unaware of the potential real-world consequences. But I will translate, I will publish, and if it all goes badly wrong I will fight speech with speech and hope that it will be enough.