Does BHL believe we think too much about Islam?
Bernard-Henri Lévy, author of Who Killed Daniel Pearl?, participated in a seminar last fall (pictured above, with link) about how the West is thinking about Islam too much -- indeed, that it is "obsessed" with it, and that this obsession is "costing us." I don't know what stand BHL took on that issue at the seminar, but in any case, now he has been targeted for death by jihadists. Perhaps those who think we are thinking about Islam too much are not thinking about it enough.
BHL's view of Islamic jihad is almost accurate. In "Europe is possible," an interview of him by Thierry Chervel at Sign and Sight, April 20, 2007, he says this:
...But, you have to understand that this phenomenon of Islamism takes place in a double context. There is, if I dare say, the "little" context, the religious one. But there's also another context, what I call the "big" political context, which is tied up with the history of fascism. Some people would have us believe Islamism is a purely religious affair, that the whole problem lies in the Koran and all you have to do to correct matters is amend it. That's not my opinion. Of course I believe the Koran must be amended. I believe we need a generation - of Muslims of course - who will undertake with the Koran the work of religious Aggiornamento that the Jews and Christians did with their own sacred book. And I believe, to put it brutally, that a part of the problem will be resolved when Muslims accept that the divine word must be subjected to commentary - when, to put it another way, a sort of "talmudic" tradition emerges in Islam.
To say that the Qur'an should be "amended" is a huge step -- one that goes far beyond the claim of most Western authorities and learned analysts, that Islam Is A Religion of Peace™ that has been Hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists™. But his view is otherwise naive. The Qur'an has already been "subjected to commentary" by Muslims for centuries, and that commentary has only reinforced the supremacist and violent aspects of the book -- as we have shown many times here. A wholesale reexamination of the Qur'an and this authoritative interpretative tradition is indeed needed, but Westerners must also realize that it is unlikely to happen, and that we cannot depend upon it, even as we call for it (which call can also expose false moderates) and welcome any genuine signs of it.
BHL goes on in the same interview to claim that political Islam has its roots in 1930s European totalitarianism, which is a piece of common bunkum that ignores the political character of Islam that goes all the way back to the Hegira, and the political aspects of Sharia that have been consistently taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Note also that this hit list was found "during a raid on homes of local Muslim community members." Did other "local Muslim community members" report these would-be murderers and abettors of murder to police? Or did they silently approve of what they were doing? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
"Bernard Henri Levy among 6 Jews said targeted by Islamist group," from Haaretz, January 1 (thanks to Pamela):
Jewish-French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy was listed by a Belgium-based Islamist group as a target for assassination alongside other leading Jewish personalities in Europe, the Belgian daily La Derniere Heure reported earlier this week.The planned assassination was apparently thwarted after group leader Abdelkader Belliraj, a Belgian of Moroccan ascent, was arrested last February in Morocco, the newspaper reported.
Belgian authorities found the list during a raid on homes of local Muslim community members last November, according to the report.
The hit list mentioned the names of five other well-know Jewish figures in Belgium and France: Josy Eisenberg, producer of the A Bible ouverte (Open Bible) television program on FR2; Simone Susskind, a leader of Belgium's secular Jewish community; attorney Markus Pardes, president of the International Association of Jewish lawyers and jurists; Belgian writer Jean-Claude Bologne and La Derniere Heure reporter Edmond Blattche....
Some more background:
BHL says a great deal that is good about the Islamic jihad threat, but he (like so many others) is also myopic about jihad in the Balkans and Chechnya. From "Bernard-Henri Lévy: A very political pin-up," from The Independent, March 8, 2004:
"The fight of my life, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, has been in favour of moderate Islam against the Islamists [BHL's term for Islamic fundamentalism]," he says, leaning forward. "I fought and campaigned for intervention in Bosnia, because the Muslims of Bosnia are the embodiment of the Islam of Enlightenment, and they were being slaughtered. I campaigned for France to support the great Ahmed Shah Massoud." (Massoud was a heroic, anti-Taliban Afghan democrat, known as the "Lion of Panjshir". On 9 September 2001, al-Qa'ida suicide bombers murdered him.)"I went to see him many times. He was my friend. Massoud, to me, was the embodiment of moderate Islam. And I have supported the Chechen resistance, which contains many people who are the embodiment of moderate Islam. For me, to stand by the side of moderate Muslims today is as important as to stand beside the dissidents of the Soviet Union. This is the fight of our day. I supported these people not just with my mind, but with my feet. I went and saw their struggles. I try to tell the world about them."
I am all for standing with genuine moderates, but Massoud aside, neither in Bosnia or Chechnya have any actual moderates been able to hold the line against the encroachments of jihadists. Here again we encounter the problem of definition. Would BHL consider Izetbegovic, who wrote about the need to restore the Islamic state and Sharia, a moderate?
This is an example of an elite who will be totally surprised at the islamic knife around his neck before his lights go off.
ZenaWarriorPrincess:
Oh, he won't be totally surprised. He'll just be partially surprised.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
The Qur'an should be amended all right, amended right into the dustbin of ancient history. If that vile thing is ever properly amended, as if the direct immutable uncorrupted word of their god could ever be, it will remain as nothing more than a leaflet.
The biggest problem with so-called "moderate" Muslims is that, to non-Muslims they may appear as such, but to nearly all Muslims they are viewed as apostates and have little to no traction within the Muslim community.
"to stand by the side of moderate Muslims today..."
...is to stand alone.
The subtitle of the debate between two Deep Thinkers and Quasi-Poseurs (do mind the Q as well as the P) is "what our obsession with Islam is costing us."
The Errata Sheet man wasn't there in time to have his corrections made, but here they are:
For "what our obsession with Islam is costing us"
Read "what our ignorance of Islam is costing us"
It's starting to seem like all one has to do to get labeled moderate by the MSM and their friends is simply to maintain a calm and polite manner when communicating with the infidel world.
It seems like it used to be that they really had to watch what they said in English.
It's a shame that Bernard Henry-Levy only gets it a bit right.
While the whole truth seems to be beyond his grasp, there's no room for "partial truths", or mere fragments of the truth, in the fight against those that see the world as divide between them and the rest of us; between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam; between halal and haram. That can only give our enemies more room to outmaneuver and outsmart us.
I just read this on a Jewish News site:
"Israel is fighting the same enemy that attacked New York, Washington, Spain, France, Bali, Egypt, Jordan, England and Turkey. An enemy which embraces the satanic verses of the Muslim Koran calling for a global Jihad or Holy War against all who are not Islamic. Against every Jewish and Christian family."
That pretty much sums it up. Now, why is that simple, genocidal, and Qur'anic ideology so difficult for the Libtards to understand?
I have no idea how long the current conflict will go on (besides forever, of course).
However, I have ordered a few items from a Jewish website to display: A small Israel flag I'll put on my mailbox, 2 square-shaped bumper stickers that read: "Christians for Israel" with a Star of David in-between (one for my vehicle, other for husband's), an Israeli flag button that I will wear out-and-about EVERY DAY, and an Israel flag 'fridge magnet 'cause why the hell not.
Here's where I ordered some of the items:
http://www.judaicawebstore.com/Category.aspx?categoryID=426
This is one of these posts where I can barely get three paragraphs into it before commenting.
Amended, hell... Banned!
The logical consequence of the early, peaceful suras is the exclusive, war-mongering, hateful section which 'follows' (chronologically of course).
BHL "God is dead but my hair is perfect"
has some 'splanin to do before he gives us any more advice--
BHL's adoring obituary of his admired friend Izerbegovic "Power brought him sorrow...(he) was no extremist (and was) to the end a man of letters and culture."
From John R. Schindler's "Unholy Terror"
"Levy jumped onto the Bosnia bandwagon early, and wherever BHL went the Parisian smart set followed. Like most intellectuals, he had no immunity to SDA propaganda and saw in Izetbegovic's regime a fantasy-land of interethnic equality..his advocacy for Sarajevo knew no bounds, and included a pro-SDA film. His demands for Western military intervention against the Serbs grew stronger. Levy invited Izetbegovic to Paris (where he came, direct from Mecca after just making the hajj)
"Bernard-Henri Levy compared Afghanistan to Bosnia, though in a fashion consistent with his contorted logic. Izetbegovic's ardent admirer paid no attention to the verifiable links between bin Laden's network in Bosnia and its base in Afghanistan, instead hailing the rapid American victory. Why Bosnian Islamists were good while Afghan Islamists were bad was less than clear. He compared the Taliban not to the Bosnian Muslims, but rather to the Serbs, finding them both to be "paper tigers." Needless to add, BHL never cited any ties between Izetbegovic, the SDA, and radical Islam and terrorism.
"In an irony that BHL seems not to have appreciated, the ringleader behind the Pearl murder was a product of the Bosnian jihad, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh...serving with a mujahidin unit filled with Pakistanis (he) developed a solid reputation in al-Qa'ida circles; he would eventually be termed Osama bin Laden's "special son" (after Pakistani intelligence dispatched him to Afghanistan).
*Khalid Sheikh Muhammad fought in Bosnia in 1992
Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, Saudis who hijacked Flight 77 on 9/11, became mujahidin in Bosnia in 1995, after which they became full-time al-Qa'ida operatives. Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni terrorist who missed 9/11 because his visa applications were denied, participated in the Bosnian jihad. Bin Laden himself possessed a Bosnian passport.
"Bosnia at communism's end was probably the most Western-oriented component of the umma (instead) became a major venue in the global jihad, as it has remained thanks to Sarajevo's deceit and the West's willingness to look the other way...if Bosnia, the most pro-Western society in the umma, can be converted into a Jihadistan through domestic deceit, violent conflict, and misguided international intervention, nowhere in the Muslim world can be judged safe from dangerous radicalization."
BHL is a worthless pos, the perfect example of the leftist/islamic alliance ; they can have him, it won"t be a loss.
There are no moderate Mohammadans, and the Quran will never be modified, especially not to suit kufrs...This man is delusional...
I appreciate the work of 'Muslims Against Sharia', but they are also delusional.
Once Allah has got you firmly by the back of the neck, he won't release his grip, only apostasy can break it...
"Man who thinks Qur'an should be amended targeted for death by jihadists"
Welcome to our world
This is an example of an elite who will be totally surprised at the islamic knife around his neck before his lights go off.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 2, 2009 8:29 AM
ZenaWarriorPrincess:
Oh, he won't be totally surprised. He'll just be partially surprised.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Zena, he would be surprised if it's an "Islamic" knife. But Robert, he won't be surprised at all if it's an "Islamist" knife. See the difference?
Yes, how very moderate the Chechen Jihadists are, raping and killing 300 schoolchildren, how very enlightened of them.
Seeing this headline, I thought it was our friend Masoud Khalili (a.k.a. Muslims against Shariah) who was being targeted. Point is - such a project, even when undertaken (like in his case), is not going to be accepted by even a minority of Mohammedans.
I disagree with the notion that Infidels like Lévy and us have any business amending the Qur'an. It's not the job of Hindus to end Shibboleth slaughter by Jews. It's not the job of Jews to determine whether the Catholic church should allow married priests. It's not the job of Catholics to determine whether Zoroastrians should be allowed to retain their faith after marrying outside their religion. It's not the job of Zoroastrians to reform Sikhism so that daggers are no longer mandatory. It's not the job of Sikhs to end the caste system in Hinduism.
Similarly, amending the Qur'an is the job of Muslims, and if they can't do it in a manner that is accepted by at least 99.999999999999% of them (since they are 1 billion+, as they so love to keep reminding us) emphatically enough to root out the Jihadi elements, it's up to us to ban it from distribution in Infidel societies, and treat it exactly as we'd treat either Mein Kamph or porn material.
Oh, one more thing. Ahmad Shah Massoud was certainly no moderate. His party was a part of the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, and all the Afghan warlords, whether Mullah Omar, Gulbuddin Heqmatyar, Massoud, Abdul Karim Khalili, Dostum, Ismail Khan were Jihadis. There's no way Massoud, if alive, would even dream of amending the Qur'an. We see what Afghanistan is under Karzai, and to pretend that it would be less of an Islamic state under Massoud is yet another (of the billion) exercises in self deception
With any ideology which is inimical to Western concepts of freedom, there arises the debate among free peoples whether to oppose all who embrace the menacing ideology or to align with some in the foreign camp against others. The latter was done during the Cold War when America and the West had semi-cordial relations with Tito and also when Nixon inititated a rapprochement with China as a wedge against the USSR. Such a debate now exists among folks who really grasp what Islam is about, like the vast majority of people who post here at Jihad Watch. Should we pursue a divide and conquer strategy or should a virtual monolithic opposition to the Islamic world be the policy to pursue?
Certainly the debate has been very lively at times here at JW over this very issue. But what is most disturbing is not the difference of opinion respecting strategy that exists by people in the know about Islam, who understand that Islam is like no other religion and is intent upon world conquest one way or another, but rather the continued refusal by most in the West, especially among the powers that be, to see Islam for what it really is, rather than pretending it is innocuous or that a good Islam lurks out there somewhere. At least during the Cold War the vast majority in the West understood that Marxism was rotten and was the enemy. No such consensus has yet developed in the West about Islam, though it is long overdue. This is indeed disturbing because until Islam is seen as wicked, as were Communism and fascism, then such elementary and practical measures like banning Muslim immigration and limiting arm sales significanty to Islamic nations, will be far less likely to occur. After all, the principal reason why a neo-Nazi or devoted Marxist might be denied immigration to some Western country is because Nazism and Marxism are considered deeply aberrant systems of thought (the former totally so, the latter still not quite because many on the Left in the West remain ready to exculpate Marxism in theory, stupid though this be). And so must the same occur with Islam. Once Islam is seen as the enemy in the collective conscience of a non-Muslim nation, that nation will have taken the single biggest step that can be taken for self-preservation.
The suggestion that Jewish and Christian scholars examine and rexamine their scriptures for the purpose of changing them is completely false. Their purpose has always been to get a more perfect, and scholarly, understanding of God's will as transmitted through sacred text.
Muslims cannot possibly follow the same formula without running the risk of getting a more perfect understanding of the more murderous and hateful aspects of their sacred text -- a danger that does not exist for Jews and Christians.
It is because Muslim terrorists have a better understanding of what the Koran and Ahadith say, that they are able to justify the swath of murder and mayhem they have cut through this world.
Any hope that examining the roots of Islamic scripture will produce a more peaceful and civilized Islam is pure fiction.
God help us if every Muslim acquires a better understanding Allah's will as transmitted through Islamic scripture.
The Quran is a combination of Judaism, Roman Catholicsm, Hinduism, and Sabeanism. The rest he made up. Allah is Muhammad and Muhammad is Allah. He knewAllah was not real, but was imagined and he fit the profile. He became the prophet of the Arabs, yet when the Jews refused to follow him and acccept Muhammad as their prophet he got mad at them. they laughed at him, but he got even with them and beheaded all Jews over 12. All of their wives aND CHILDREN BECAME WIVES AND SLAVES OF THE aRABS.
You cannot rewrite the words of Allah, because that would mean he was a liar. Sura 3:54 SAYS aLLAH IS THE GREATEST LIAR. Quran says dont ask questions about Islam, you will lose faith in Islam. sura 5:101,2. tHIS MAN DOES NOT READ OR HE IS SCARED!
"The fight of my life, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, has been in favour of moderate Islam against the Islamists."
How noble. The fight of my life, since 9/11, has been in favor of the unicorns against the Islamists. My fight is equally fanciful and stands a better chance of winning. The unicorn soldiers are certainly more real than the "Islam of Enlightenment." Bosnia killed off 90% of its Jews before Hitler so much as asked them to because that IS "moderate Islam." Had he been killed he would have been a martyr for idiocy, but then again, any Jew who chooses to live in France has got to be a little bit off his rocker. Seriously. De facto defending Beslan? People like this undermine my belief in Darwinism. If I sound harsh, sorry, but I hate dhimmi Jews and pronounce Jewish takfir upon this loser.