David Frum's piece is here; my response is here. And now the great historian Bat Ye’or has kindly sent me this response:
In his latest article, “Ancient Holy Books, Modern Dilemmas” (posted January 8, 2008), David Frum poses as a referee in a disputation, pretending there are two alleged extremes, whereas he ignores the rules and the meaning of the subject itself. This hoax has often been used by Sages who pontificate: “As usual, the truth is in the middle.” But often this scenario of two opposed extremisms allows the Sages to pride themselves on what is only the appearance of wisdom. Moreover, this catch-phrase is meaningless, because truth is not found at a linear distance between two extremes. Between the Nazi genocidal policy toward the Jews and the victims’ affirmation of their right to live there is no middle-way solution. Would we discuss how many Jews it would be right for the Nazis to exterminate? Between slavery and human equality, there is no middle position. Between the dehumanization of dhimmitude and the inalienable right to freedom, dignity and equality, there is no meeting in the middle. Would one haggle over the amount due for protecting one’s life and rights?David Frum describes my work as a study of Islam, whereas it is research into a neglected and specific domain involving Islamic theology, jurisprudence and history in relation to non-Muslims. Within this particular field, I only examined the Jewish and Christian aspect, not that of the Zoroastrians and other religious denominations. It is therefore not an assessment of Islam in general. Even more, in none of my writing is there the implication that Islam must disappear for the sake of peace. Maybe Frum has hidden his own thought, which he unconsciously projects on Robert Spencer and myself, while contrasting our alleged somber designs with his own generous wisdom -- which is not, in the least, very original. It hangs on the usual love paradigm of interfaith dialogue, dhimmi biased vision, and subvention of billions of dollars, while waiting with humble timidity for a powerful Muslim majority to reinterpret the Koran as a book of universal love and peace. I do not object to that, except that meanwhile, Muslim reformers even in Europe must hide to save their lives, while terrorism claims countless innocent victims throughout the globe, and tomorrow we might be facing a global nuclear jihad.
I am going to save this beautiful two paragraphs, in which more is said that many whole books, for the rest of my life.
Between the Nazi genocidal policy toward the Jews and the victims’ affirmation of their right to live there is no middle-way solution. Would we discuss how many Jews it would be right for the Nazis to exterminate? Between slavery and human equality, there is no middle position. Between the dehumanization of dhimmitude and the inalienable right to freedom, dignity and equality, there is no meeting in the middle.
With grateful thanks to Bat Ye'or.
Didn't Frum originate the phrase "Axis of Evil," which reminds the listener of the "Axis powers" from World War II?
It would be helpful of the folks who try to structure our understanding of the current threats ... truly understood the threat. Not political States, but a widely held state of mind: mainstream Islam.
Wow, I am so with you on that one, Morgaan.
"Is peace so sweet or life so dear to be purchased with chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or death!"
-Patrick Henry
You can agree or disagree with that statement, but there is no middle ground. The Qur'an speaks in absolutes, there is no middle ground or compromise in it. I would much rather read Patrick Henry, however.
"Muslim reformers even in Europe must hide to save their lives, while terrorism claims countless innocent victims throughout the globe, and tomorrow we might be facing a global nuclear jihad."
Yeh, that pretty much sums up the current situation.
Help Expose Islam by sharing the short recording at (360) 326-6730.
I will always take Ms. Ye'or's views on Islam's over Mr. Frum's for the simple reason that Ms. Ye'or was born and raised in a primary Islamic country (Egypt) and has firsthand insight into Islam, the Islamic nations, and Islam's social and political modus operandi that Mr.Frum will never have.
Ms. Ye'or's experiences in Islamic society thus count for more than anything Mr.Frum can come up with and Mr.Frum needs to acknowledge this (his own credibility will improve).
What western "scholars" like mr. Frum and a host of others including Bernard Lewis who deal with Islam typically fail to realize about Islam is that Islamic ideology eliminates and and ALL possibilities of any "middle ground." With Islam, inter-faith dialogues are strictly DOA. Look at what the Annapolis strategy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian standoff did for Washington vis-a-vis Islam (zero).
Either a non-Muslim is converted, enslaved to an Islamic society, or executed--that's Islam's concept of middle ground. "Moderate" Muslims are forced back in line with Kuranic doctrine through sharia'a't-sanctioned punishments and/or killed (assuming they survive the punishments which is not always the case).
If there was a "middle ground" vis-a-vis Islam, the world would have found it by now. A "middle ground" regarding Islam is as much a myth as "moderate Islam" is. The world needs to acknowledge this reality and move on.
tanstaafi:
"Is peace so sweet or life so dear to be purchased with chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or death!"
-Patrick Henry
"You can agree or disagree with that statement, but there is no middle ground. The Qur'an speaks in absolutes, there is no middle ground or compromise in it. I would much rather read Patrick Henry, however."
I whole heartedly agree that there is no ‘middle ground’ in islam yet, unfortunately, quite the opposite seems to be the case with a vacillating West all to mired in a hopeless, multicultural morass which effectively prevents it from making clear, principled, moral decisions. If WWII were fought today, FREEDOM and LIBERTY of Patrick Henry would have long since vanished under the iron heal of Hitler and Tojo.
I have to agree with those who find Robert's view of Islam a bit hard to take (I'm not sure whether it is the same as Hugh's). My understanding of that view is:
1) Islam as it is interpreted today by authoritative, recognized Muslim scholars is a danger to the liberal Western way of life, and to the most basic human rights as they have been interpreted by Western societies.
2) The existing anti-Western interpretation of Islam is based on a straight, unbiased reading of the Koran, the recognized authoritative interpretations thereof, and the primary-source records of the life of Muhammad.
3) Islam may be reformed by some sort of new interpretation of the Koran and/or the other writings mentioned above. That it may be reformed does not mean that it is not now dangerous, because it is not in fact now being interpreted in such a reformed manner by recognized Muslim authorities (see #1).
4) Individual Muslims may act perfectly in concert with liberal Western ideals. They may either convince themselves that this is in accordance with Islam, or they may simply not care that much about these aspects of their religion. This however does not mean that Islam is defanged. A minority of Muslims who pay attention to Islam as it is interpreted by today's authoritative Muslim scholars, i.e., who believe that killing unbelievers who manifest disrespect for Islam is a virtue, can do a lot of damage while the silent majority looks on. Aside from that, in dominantly Muslim countries, riotous crowds often show solidarity with the most objectionable aspects of Islam, e.g. calling for the execution of the teacher who allowed the children in her care to name a teddy bear Muhammad. That is to say, sizeable majorities do indeed visibly manifest sympathy for the orthodox, non-reformed interpretation of Islam.*
All of this seems good to me except that #3 seems to be improbable beyond hope. I don't see any hope for an acceptable version of Islam being formulated and supported by large numbers of Muslims, now or ever. Those Muslims who study their religion and take it seriously don't have much choice beyond accepting it with all its many objectionable aspects, or rejecting it completely and (mostly) either converting to Christianity or becoming atheists. (I may be wrong in supposing that almost all Muslims would prefer Christianity to any other available religion.) This is in large part the result of the fact that Muhammad was not only the prophet of Islam but also the first leader of his militant faith. Jesus did not lead the Crusades. Muhammad did lead the Jihad. (And I'm not talking "inner spiritual struggle" here.)
* Of course the American-born blondes and boy scouts CAIR puts forth as model Muslims would not be caught dead in such a crowd. They may perfectly sincerely believe such blood thirst to be un-Islamic.
Frum is loaded, so his brand of thrusting careerism is not based, as it so often is, on a desire for a fast and steady buck (whatever unjust enrichment or possibly just enrichment in the Frum family, it took place before he was born - always the best method, highly recommended).
In the past, he has sought out Bat Y'eor, gone looking for Ibn Warraq, whom he even invited to lunch and expressed his enthusiasm. So something has happened to him. Perhaps he just wants to have a say on Islam, and wants to distinguish himself from others, especially in a de-haut-en-bas dispensing-wisdom manner. Or, possibly he wants to fit in to whatever passes for a Washington salon (without Alice Longworth Roosevelet, or Evangeline Bruce, what conceivable salon nowadays is there?) and finds that the fashion these days is something other than what Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq have to offer, which is merely the homely, always unfashionable, painful-to-accept, often assailed but essentially unassailable, truth. If he thinks he can do this without having his statements held up for inspection and criticism, from which inspection and criticism he emerges much diminished, he's wrong.
In the history of the people of Israel there have been two kinds of prophets: the false and the true. (Such have also been found from time to time in Christendom).
The false prophets say 'Peace, peace' when there is no peace.; they make people feel good, they tell people what people want to hear and what they wish were true.
The real prophets are very, very uncomfortable people: because they see 'that which is'. It is not so much that they predict the future as they discern 'the signs of the times' - they *see* what is happening, and see it whole, so they see what will happen, UNLESS.. They tell us what we desperately need to hear, which is often what we don't want to know.
Unfortunately, Mr Frum is in the former tradition.
It is Bat Yeor who is the real thing (as was her Christian friend and encourager, Jacques Ellul; as was the great campaigner against antisemitism, Rev James Parkes, who saw the Shoah while it was yet on the horizon; and, with regard to Nazism, Winston Churchill). Bat Yeor tells the truth that no-one wants to hear - and like all the prophets, not in order to induce a fatalistic despair and paralysis, but in the hope of shaking and waking.
"It is Bat Yeor who is the real thing (as was her Christian friend and encourager, Jacques Ellul; as was the great campaigner against antisemitism, Rev James Parkes, who saw the Shoah while it was yet on the horizon; and, with regard to Nazism, Winston Churchill."
Good to see the Rev. James Parkes, author of "Whose Palestine?,"mentioned above in such company as Jacques Ellul (whose other writings, on the technological society, are looking better all the time) and Winston Churchill. One more name to add to that list would be that of the Scotsman Malcolm Hay, author of "The Foot of Pride" (or, to give it its more straightforward title in the American version, "Europe and the Jews"), and other works on the same subject. A book full of high intelligence, yoked to passionate indignation.
Dear Mrs. Ye’or,
I recently spent quite a bit of effort convincing a friend of mine, a professor “inside the beltway,” to include your book ”Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” on his reading list. He was teaching a graduate level course on comparative religion and world politics in D.C. I had worked on him for a number of years and had seen him change his positions, (ever-so-slightly.)
In fact, he and I attended the Simon lecture by Dr. George Weigel on behalf of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (E.P.P.C.) a year ago. The topic was Islam. Dr. Weigel stated many of the same things that you have written. I was very impressed by how much Dr. Weigel understands. (Perhaps he read your book also.) This lecture impressed my friend enough to take a chance on my recommendations, which also included a book by Mr. Spencer. If even ¼ of my friend’s students paid attention to your book, a difference was made.
I do not wish to sound effusive, but I believe that you are a herald to the World!
David Frum is a relativist - and I dont mean of the Physics variety. To him there is no right or wrong, just somewhere inbetween.
It is so easy to occupy the middle comfort zone. No matter how much Frum is diproved, there he sits comfortably with a look of moral superiority of being in the right, and right is always somewhere in the middle.
As for us, up North here, we get some right (Steyn) and some wrong (Frum).
Apologies to Robert Heinlien - "Where are the heirs of Patrick Henry?"
Time to stand up and be counted.
"up North here, we get some right (Steyn) and some wrong (Frum)."
-- from a posting above, by a poster in the Colossus of the North
O God! O Montreal!
The Koran is their book, too. They don't have to rewrite it. Just reread it.
Rearead it ten times, a hundred times. The same words are still there. Brutalize women, wage war on the infidel until they are wiped out and then magically the whole world somehow becomes this perfect glorious islamic utopia.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
To me anyone who hopes islam can be reformed has the mindset of someeone who stays with a horribly abusive spouse and keeps enduring the abuse, just because they have a faint memory or two of long ago when they first met
They were taken for a nice dinner once and perhaps presented with a few daisies another time. The hope springs eternal, insanely against any reason that "they can change and be the nice person they were before"
Remember those "Visualize World Peace" bumper stickers? Have you ever tried to visualize world peace? I have.
Perhaps Bat Ye’or can't say this, perhaps Robert can't say this, but I can. I do not see any path to world peace that includes Islam in any form.
Hatred and paranoia of non-believers is endemic to the Qur'an. It is fundamental to the belief. It is the core that keeps believers united. It is the path to salvation. I see no way to re-rationalize Islam as a religion of peace.
I wish I could.
One hopes that Frum is not as thick-skulled as D'Souza and will actually take to heart Bat Ye'or's words of wisdom on the topic of dhimmitude.
Muslims will never give up on their religion, as is. What possible benefit would that give them? Nasrallah, of Hezbollah, has already been quoted as saying that they don't fight so that we will give them "something", they fight to destroy us. I know that in the mind of the David Frums of the world, the ability to ability to commute to work in an SUV wearing khaki pants and a button-down shirt seems the highest possible human aspiration, but Muslims don't seem to agree. For them, rooting out "immorality" and enforcing what they believe is God's law on earth seems to be more important. Their expected payoff in the next world will always be larger than anything we can offer them, even if it be the keys to the entirety of Western civilization. They would ruin the work of millenia within a few centuries, perhaps even one century.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Hegel that Islam is the product of "enthusiasm". They are literally coocoo for Allah. Any reasonable man can see that and should understand the implications of it. Muslims, as a whole, will never want what is reasonable by our standards and we should stop assuming they will.
I'll add that in any compromise between good and evil, evil wins.
Moderation?
Does anyone want a moderate amount of health?
A moderate degree of survival?
Does one want to eat a moderate mix of food and poison?
Dear Ms. Y'eor,
What an honor it is to have you on jihadwatch. I read your very detialed and eyeopening book, Islam and Dhimmitude. It was compelling and gave a perspective to islam that helped complete the puzzle for me. Although I am no more than a novice in learning about islam I want to encourage everyone to read your works. As my fellow commenters have said, You are a great herald and prophet of our times. I pray that many more will hear and heed your words.