A Jihad Watch poster recently remarked that Bernard Lewis "is considered a foremost expert of islam by almost everybody."
No, he isn't. It is just that those who do Middle Eastern studies come in two varieties. First are the apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who hate Lewis for knowing a bit too much about Islam, and for so intelligently attacking Edward Said. In other words, the espositos and the armstrongs and dabashis and khalidis and ernst-sells brigade all hate him.
And these apologists for Islam have cleverly wormed their way into academic department after academic department. They have more or less taken over MESA Nostra. Also, they now dominate the editorial boards of professional journals, where they permit publication of either Islamic propaganda about the Lesser Jihad (hypertrophied attention to "the Palestinians"), or anodyne articles on subjects sufficiently abstruse. The effect of this is that Islam is seen not steadily and whole, but only in this or that untroubling aspect. There is, of course, nothing about Jihad-conquest, nothing about the treatment of dhimmis. These apologists are so obviously awful, and so obviously against Lewis, that one wishes, and many have assumed, that Lewis is a tremendously learned (he is) and therefore reliable (he isn't) truth-teller about Islam.
Meanwhile, there is a second group. Lewis, who takes a generous interest in his students, has produced a cadre of acolytes who are not capable of recognizing when the gold-leaf on their idol comes off in their hands. And they defend him, and will not hear of attacks, especially attacks by those who are much cruder and ruder than he.
And then there are still others who are impressed by the fact of age. They are unwilling to see someone who is over 90, with all his faculties intact, criticized for his enthusiastic support of the Oslo Accords, or for the Iraq venture, or for his belated recognition of the menace of Europe's islamization -- which is then followed not by any intelligent setting out of Things To Do, but rather of seeming to support, yet again, the hopeless squandering in Iraq. For how else can one interpret that recent remark by Lewis that itself needs to be remarked upon, which was "Either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us"? What a statement. What an astounding thing to say.
Try to imagine, in the middle of World War II, FDR or Churchill saying that "either we bring them [the people of Nazi Germany] freedom, or they will destroy us." The goal of Churchill and FDR was not to "bring freedom" but to destroy our enemies, so that they would lack the capacity to harm us, and so that they would be so damaged that they would lose whatever hold they had on the minds and allegiances of men.
Lewis has been wrong, obviously wrong, in his practical prescriptions, and shallow, finally, in his comprehension of the full malevolence and menace toward Infidels that Islam poses. And this is partly, one feels, the result of personal vanity, which is always embarrassing to bring up.
But there it is.
Take his recent assertions about Islamic antisemitism. When Bernard Lewis attempts to suggest that "antisemitism" (a word that should be written in the plural: there are "antisemitisms") in the Muslim world is merely an import from Europe, he reveals that for some reason he has chosen to overlook a great deal in Islam. He has chosen to ignore a tremendous amount of material in the canonical texts and in the writings of Muslim jurisconsults, and indeed, in the work of Western scholars of Islam -- whom he appears, judging by certain footnotes, to have read, but has overlooked what they actually wrote (egregious particularly with Georges Vajda).
Anti-Jewish sentiments are found everywhere in the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira. A collection of both Muslim texts, and the studies of Western scholars, should change the minds of those mentally prepared, even former acolytes, not to keep treating Lewis as the last word on "Muslim antisemitism," and will do much to disabuse a wider public of the idea that Muslim antisemitism reflects only fury at Israel's existence, or was inspired mainly by the European version of antisemitism that has been such a grim feature of the last century.
Such a collection, I have heard, is now well along in its preparation.
"Either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us"? What a statement. What an astounding thing to say.
Agreed. Freedom is what you make with it. The Iraqis were freed from Saddam's tyranny and look what those people are making with that freedom. In war destroying the enemy's capacity to resist should always be the prime directive-anything else
as a substitute is foolishness.
Freedom has brought the Iraqis the Jihadist TV Channel. They will be forever grateful to us for freeing them.
"Try to imagine, in the middle of World War II, FDR or Churchill saying that "either we bring them [the people of Nazi Germany] freedom, or they will destroy us." The goal of Churchill and FDR was not to "bring freedom" but to destroy our enemies, so that they would lack the capacity to harm us, and so that they would be so damaged that they would lose whatever hold they had on the minds and allegiances of men. "
...............At least they had their priorities in the correct order... It is time we place our priorities in the same order
Unrelated post by Mario Loyola on the National Review Blog that shows more people are "getting it"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Re: D'Souza [Mario Loyola]
Andrew, I agree that Kathryn's interview with D'Souza merits a great deal of debate. D'Souza discounts the fact that "The radical Muslims are against modernity and science and democracy" and goes on to say:
The traditional Muslims are our best bet. Besides, they're not asking us to live like them. They're asking us not to attack their religion, which conservatives do with depressing regularity. They're asking us not to force secularism and separation of church and state on their society, another foolish cause to which some conservatives subscribe.
Here D'Souza misses an absolutely crucial point.
The "War on Terror" is in a sense the struggle of a post-Enlightenment West against a medievalist Islam. But in the Islamic world, the "traditionalists" and even "moderates" are just as medievalist as the extremists in some ways. Pushing for the victory of secularism and separation of church and state in Islamic society, which D'Souza waves away as a foolish habit of ours, is indeed one of the keys to the entire struggle.
The idea that "justice" should have nothing to do with religion, but must come instead from REASON, is a cardinal principle of the Enlightenment, and part of the necessary bedrock upon which the democratic state is founded. And the idea that "justice" should be enshrined in a secular text of law and a constitution which together trump all other texts (including the Bible and Koran) and all other theories of justice, is equally a cardinal principle of the Enlightenment and of post-Enlightenment societies. It is a principle which the most conservative and religious Americans share. And yet in these beliefs we are almost as far apart from many traditional and even moderate strains of Islamic society as we are from the most radical. Finding self-styled moderate Muslims in Lebanon is easy. Finding moderate Muslims who proclaim that the Constitution of Lebanon trumps the Koran in cases of conflict is quite a different matter.
Worse, even though it is true as D'Souza says that radical Islamic scholars are not terribly concerned with "modernity and science" the trouble is that traditionalist Islamic society isn't terribly concerned with those things either. Thus, Islamic civilization is not merely pre-Enlightenment but even in many ways pre-Renaissance.
Because so few radicals, traditionalists, or moderates in the Islamic world share Renaissance values — humanism, naturalism, and moral skepticism — we do not in fact have many real allies among them. And people who do not embrace Enlightenment values — secularism, separation of church and state, rule of law, minority rights, and deism instead of theism — cannot be real democrats. Friends we may find among them, but not allies—not really.
Once again, thank you Hugh. I watched the PBS program on anti-semitism in which Bernard Lewis was used as an expert. It felt like someone had poured bleach into a bottle of ammonia and the air was sucked from the room trying to comprehend 'why' he skillfully skirts the truths of his scholarship.
"When Bernard Lewis attempts to suggest that "antisemitism" (a word that should be written in the plural: there are "antisemitisms") in the Muslim world is merely an import from Europe, he reveals that for some reason he has chosen to overlook a great deal in Islam. "
He also reveals his biased thinking concerning Christianity. I've heard him speak - and while I certainly do have basic respect for his scholarship, he's implacable in his resentment towards Christianity, which I gathered he blames everything wrong in the world upon. I didn't, by the way, especially get this virulence from his books. Perhaps I was hearing a tired old man (he was confused and disgruntled about the terms of his speaking engagement .. and chose to keep his misunderstanding intact ... despite the hugh crowd (and payment) to hear him .. he spoke for about 5-10 minutes instead of .. whatever .. 1/2 hr. 45 mins. ?)
with apologies to Hugh .. it wasn't a "hugh crowd" - it was a huge crowd!
I'm in with the In crowd
I know what the In crowd knows.
I have a good friend who forms his opinion on the matters of Islam based in large part on Lewis' work. I try to tell him that Lewis minimizes some serious problems within Islam and glosses over others, for instance the historical record of sharia, with its institutional discrimination based on gender, religious belief and sexual identity.
I've sent him links to this article and the other mentioning Lewis (PBS doc. on antisemitism) but reputable academics in the Lewis school cast a long shadow in the United States.
The only battle for hearts and minds that matters is the one within our free societies.
Hugh, Hugh, Hugh...
First Bernard Lewis is a HISTORIAN, and as you note, he's 90 years old. His pronouncements of today (with on-going politics, etc.) have nothing to do with his scholarly work in the field of HISTORY (and, I don't think other scholars can hold a candle to him -- his scholarly work will be used by others for decades, and decades to come -- the same will NEVER be said of a Edward Said -- that liar).
Second, on the point you brought up "When Bernard Lewis attempts to suggest that 'antisemitism'...in the Muslim world is merely an import from Europe, he reveals that for some reason he has chosen to overlook a great deal in Islam." No, no, no. Bernard Lewis acknowledges the anti-Jewish, discriminatory aspects of Islam. It's just that he refuses to label the PRE-Modern Muslim world as "antisemitic." And this is because he defines antisemitism in a way that would identify only Christians as capable of being "antisemites" (ie, deity killers).
I recived a video entitled "Iraq Conflict and Hope." It was put out by some conservative group. I think all soldiers recived them in care packages and what not. Anyway, one of the scholors on there is Benard Lewis. He is the "exerprt on Islam." I doubt he really knows much about Islam. He says on the disk "Whabbism is to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity." What a totally inacurate statement. Whabbism is very orthodox and mainstream Islam. Even if it was true that Whahhbism wasn't orthodox islam (which it most ceatianly is), it doesn't follow to compare it to the KKK. Whahhab's one book on Tawhid is a classic in most American mosques and everything in it is from the Quran and the Sunnah. Not to mention the most popular version of it was translated by such a praised mainstream Islamic thinker like Ishmael Raji Al Farooqi. He aslo makes the impression that "tradional" Islam is peaceful. What is this traditional Islam if it isn't informed by the Quran and Sunnah. A "schalor" as able as him should know this.
The correct title of the video is: " Confronting Iraq:Conflict and Hope." It makes some good attacks on the left, but i think the producers are just as clueless about Islam as the left.
I saw the the PBS program on anti-semitism on tv and was surprised that the anti-semitism in the Koran and Hadith were totally ignored.
I fear that Arab money is controlling more than we know..
"It's just that he [Bernard Lewis] refuses to label the PRE-Modern Muslim world as "antisemitic." And this is because he defines antisemitism in a way that would identify only Christians as capable of being "antisemites" (ie, deity killers)."
-- from a posting above
There is not a single antisemitism that covers the variety exhibited in Western Christendom, and that in Islam. They differ in origin, and in other things. But to deny the existence of one kind because one finds the other so much more malevolent in the past, is silly.
There is a simple yet elegant solution. It is called the Plural. The addition of an "s." Not "antisemitism." But "antisemitisms."
And that would do the trick.
Lewis has also been very quiet about Muslim pogroms. He is critical of Islam to a point, but that point stops well short of recognizing things like the core antisemitism/hatred of Christianity in Islam and how it leads to slaughters like the Armenian genocide of 1915. Incidentally, Lewis' take on the latter is that it was an act of war. He just loves them Turks.
Lewis is knowledgeable, and a great writer who has produced many eminently readable books. I have to admit to agreeing with him more often than not. But some of his views are morally repugnant, and he has a sad tendency to whitewash the Really Bad Things About Islam, especially where the Turks are concerned.
American_soldier,
The Wahhabi/KKK equivalence fails on another count: The KKK does not have the global reach, nor the millions of dollars that Wahhabi Islam enjoys.
"The Wahhabi/KKK equivalence fails on another count: The KKK does not have the global reach, nor the millions of dollars that Wahhabi Islam enjoys."
-- from a posting above
For "millions of dollars" read "hundreds of billions of dollars."
"A collection of both Muslim texts, and the studies of Western scholars [to put the lie to Lewis's authority on anti-semitism etc]... I have heard, is now well along in its preparation."
Hugh - MORE please on this COLLECTION ...
Hugh,
I think one of the better books on antisemitism(s), was written by Prager and Telushkin ("Why the Jews", 1983) -- although somewhat depressing, they catalogued the problem along with possible explanations (from scapegoat theory, to modern explanations). They had one chapter devoted to islam (and why Islam has always had a "problem" with Jews/Judaism -- Prager and Telushkin listed a number of the reasons -- from Mo turning Abraham into a Muslim, then claiming that Jews had "falsified" the Torah, to claiming (so fictitiously) that Jews were not *really* monotheists (which in a bizarre way, simply illustrates -- highlights -- the ignorance of the so-called "prophet" with regard to scripture). As the authors themselves noted, there will probably never be a definitive explanation for the illness of antisemitism. (I think Bernard Lewis does recognize the vileness of current strands of antisemitism in the Arab world -- I read somewhere that he regrets (?) that he downplayed it or at least did not see it as becoming quite so virulent/potent. I guess, in the past, he thought of Muslim antisemitism more as a passing phenonmenon, something faddish, or a footnote that could be pretty much ignored. Now most everyone, I suppose, realizes that that was an error.)
Lewis lists Georges Vajda in both his notes and in his bibliography. Did he read Vajda? Did he read Vajda's translation of Al-Magili? What did he get out of Vajda? Or out of many others who wrote on the Jews under Islam?
It is true that the Mufti of Jerusalem was anti-Jewish and found much to his liking the views of Adolf Hitler. But his views preceded those of Hitler, and came from another source: the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira. One of the reasons the Nazis were favored by all the Arabs is that the Nazi antisemitism echoed, or provided a variant on, familiar and welcome hatreds. Lewis comes perilously close to maintaining, and he certainly gives the impression to many, that Islam "borrowed" European antisemitism because it had no homegrown variety. But it did, and the borrowings were not essential.
Does anyone think that the Saudi textbook remarks on the Jews are due to the Nazis or the antisemitism displayed, at different levels in different places and times,of Western Christendom? Or that what Ahmadinejad thinks of Jews, and the need to wipe Israel out, comes from Hitler and not entirely from another source closer to home? Lewis out to be asked such questions directly. But the sickening reverence in which he is held prevents any intelligent cross-questioning that might prove difficult.