'Andalusion'- Review
Recently, Qatar-based academic Marc Owen Jones wrote on a group of what he terms ‘disinfluencers’ based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the most prominent of whom is a certain Amjad Taha. These ‘disinfluencers’ primarily focus on portraying themselves as ‘anti-Islamist’ in a bid to appeal to Western and Israeli audiences (especially those concerned about ‘Islamisation’), while also promoting UAE domestic and foreign policy as a model for the West to learn from. Notably, many of the ‘disinfluencers’ have published books this year under the imprint of AuthorHouse, a notorious pay-to-publish publishing house.
Among these books is one entitled “Andalusion,” by Rauda Altenaiji. I should say that given the publishing house and what Jones had already written about the lack of references and style of composition, I was already skeptical. The book was also denounced by a patriotic Emirati critic as an example of “using Emirati identity to advance systematic attacks on Islamic civilization itself.”
Given my own historical research on medieval Iberia, I was at least curious to see what exactly this book was trying to argue. Perhaps it had some insights or original content regarding what narratives Islamists and jihadists promote about ‘al-Andalus’ (i.e. medieval Iberia during the period when much or part of the peninsula was under some form of Muslim rule) and how these narratives relate to ideology and practical action. But even in this regard I was probably expecting too much.
I would not go so far as to call the book an attack on ‘Islamic civilization’, but it is very poorly crafted. Per the promotional blurb, the author “takes a sledgehammer to the polished myth of Andalusia, the so-called golden age of co-existence, and exposes how it became the ultimate PR campaign for modern-day Islamist opportunism.” In fact, it hardly accomplishes anything along these lines. It commences with three chapters that talk about the original Muslim conquest in the eighth century CE and Andalusian history in a superficial way. The remaining chapters purportedly expose how the “Andalusionists” (to use the author’s term) are seeking to impose an Islamist agenda on the West from within.
The most glaring problem is that the argument does not cohere. Why should these individuals or entities purportedly seeking to destroy Western civilisation be termed ‘Andalusionists’ at all? The author names a whole array of policies and actions that supposedly relate to the agenda of ‘Andalusionists’, usually framed in generalisations with no sourcing: “He [the Andalusionist] walks in climate marches by day and funds religious lobbying by night”; “His sermons are livestreamed in seven languages”; “The Andalusionist drapes his ambitions in bullet points and corporate jargon”; “The Andalusionist ensures that to oppose illegal migration is not a matter of law- but of moral betrayal.” But no substantive explanation is given for how all these assertions relate to misconceptions about Andalusian history. At one point, the author claims that “in every region where the Andalusionist has gained ideological ground, femicide follows”- including, among the examples, Iran and Afghanistan, as well as Muslim women in Europe who face “honour-related violence” from Muslim men. No-one should support or excuse ‘honour killings’ or ‘honour-related violence’ of any sort, but what exactly is the link here with medieval Iberia? Are those who commit such acts somehow invoking al-Andalus as a justification or a reason why Western governments should tolerate their behaviour?
The author may be trying to invoke a very loose parallel between then and now in the sense of ‘conquering the West,’ but the original conquest of al-Andalus was a military conquest, and a rather rapid one at that. All the relevant sources point in this direction, and the military conquest is accepted as consensus among historians, even though it may be debated whether some locales were largely spared of fighting and destruction by striking ‘conciliation’ deals with the invading Muslims. The notion that a military conquest did not happen is a revisionist view that can largely be traced to Ignacio Olagüe. The revisionist theory, dubbed ‘negationism’, has been thoroughly debunked by scholars such as Alejandro García Sanjuán. It certainly does not enjoy widespread support among Muslim audiences.
The author also claims that “the story of al-Andalus was curated long before it was chronicled. Long before the ink touched parchment, the narrative was already in motion...before the historians arrived with their scrolls and quills, the opportunists had already built the stage...Those who benefited from its legend made sure it remained polished.” But what is meant by the “legend” of al-Andalus here and what exactly was “polished” and “curated” about it before it was committed to writing? The author apparently means the (later) Arabic sources’ ascription of religious motivations to the conquest, which she describes as an “act of military and political opportunism.” Why should religious motivation and opportunism be mutually exclusive? It is surely plausible, for example, that the Muslim generals who led the conquest sincerely believed they were fulfilling a religious duty to expand the realm of Islam through jihad, and thought that the invasion had a very good prospect of success given internal divisions among their opponents, and thought that the conquest provided an opportunity to acquire new riches and lands for the empire (the Umayyad caliphate). So similarly in an apparent parallel she asserts that the modern “Islamist opportunist” is “someone who doesn’t believe in God as much as he believes God is useful.” Why also should the ‘Islamist’ of today be thought of as somehow not being driven by any sincere religious convictions?
It is in the subsequent discussion of Eulogius of Cordoba and the ‘martyrs of Cordoba’ affair where the author exposes the inherent contradiction in her positioning. To explain briefly, Eulogius and the ‘martyrs’ were executed under the Umayyad emirate of Cordoba during the mid-ninth century CE on charges of blasphemy and/or apostasy from Islam. Eulogius’ writings, and those of his friend Álvaro of Cordoba, are in fact the main sources on those events. The author frames Eulogius and the martyrs in these terms: “What they [the martyrs] opposed was not Islam, not Muslim governance, but the commodification of belief itself.”
It is an interesting question to discuss why the various individuals sought ‘martyrdom’ (e.g. did some of the martyrs feel “spiritual anxiety,” as discussed by Kenneth Baxter Wolf in his standard study on the topic?), but there can be no doubt that Eulogius and the martyrs opposed Islam and Muslim rule. Otherwise, how does one explain, for example, Eulogius’ firm denunciation of Islam for reasons such as rejecting the notion of Jesus’ divinity? From Eulogius’ writings, it becomes clear that there were critics of the martyrs among the Christian community, who did not consider the martyrs worthy of the title on the basis that they were killed by people who worship the same God and “have a law” (received from God?)- a notion rejected by Eulogius given Islam’s denial of Christ’s divinity.
Certainly, the story of Eulogius and the ‘martyrs’ is a reminder that al-Andalus was hardly a place of religious freedom, but the same point can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the UAE today. The author denounces attempts to criminalise blasphemy in the West and calls on the West to “learn not just from its own failures- but from the Arab world’s moral clarity,” but leaves unaddressed the issue that the UAE itself, while making much of ‘interfaith harmony’ and ‘tolerance’ through advertising the presence of non-Muslims on its soil, has stringent laws against ‘blasphemy’ and non-Muslim efforts to convert Muslims. A Eulogius in the UAE would not be celebrated as an example of religious diversity and freedom of thought. He would be imprisoned or deported.
Similarly, it hardly makes sense for the writer to lecture Western audiences about the problem of “elevation of sensitivity over truth” or press censorship when the UAE itself shows little tolerance for domestic political dissent or press freedom. These issues of course are hardly unique to the UAE in the region. They also apply to other Gulf countries, which are all classified as “Not Free” by Freedom House for very valid reasons.
In a more charitable reading, the author is contradicting herself without realising it. But it may be more appropriate to view her positioning as an exercise in grifting. Certainly, issues such as ‘anti-blasphemy activism’ in places like the UK are worthy of being discussed and addressed, but the notion that there is something to learn from countries like the UAE in some existential fight for Western civilisation is laughable.
I won’t delve too much into the numerous more minor issues with the book. Besides some points of language and phrasing (noted by other observers) that suggest the author’s sloppy reliance on AI, I observed some instances where sentences are repeated outright: “It is not that one day a CEO wakes up and signs a loyalty pledge to Andalusionism”; “The Andalusionist doesn't need mass conversion. He needs two things: plausible empathy and unvetted legitimacy”; “The genius of the Andalusionist is that he does not present history. He presents memory dressed as morality”; “And the Andalusionist smiles.” A human editor’s pen could surely have done something to make this book a little more readable.
In short, do not waste your money on this book, which can be properly classed as an exercise in fraud.