Hugh was it only by historical accident that BHL is where he is? Obviously he has actively marketed himself. I believe you will (if you haven't already) displaced him, since your points are all true- and therefore necessarily more powerful. George Bush and Co are on their way out, somehow we need to put you in front of Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. I believe they would be more receptive no? As for Bernard, Karen and the rest of the apologists....they are on their way out..

Posted by: lonewolf at March 24, 2007 8:53 AM

In another recent appearance, Lewis made the astonishingly grotesque assertion that Wahhabism is to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity.

Senelity, myopia or both?

Posted by: Cornelius at March 24, 2007 10:19 AM

There's nothing "lucky" about it. It's all a result of deliberate actions or inactions on both sides of the Western-Muslim divide, including the inactions of people "in the know" who refuse to divulge what they know when they have an audience willing to listen.

Do people like Lewis have any inner intellectual life at all? How can a man of such broad education not become revulsed at the thought of having to "think like a Muslim", putting a non-existent Allah and his allegedly divine laws at the center of everyday life? Even the idea that my successors (or anyone Western's successor, really) could end up praying toward Mecca every day is enough to make me want to vomit. This gag reflex should be normal among all men and women who grew up outside of the Islamic world. Islam has nothing to offer us, except for calligraphy, and I can work on my penmanship without all the associated BS that comes with Islam, should I really get the urge to do so.

Posted by: venividivici at March 24, 2007 10:23 AM

Bernard Lewis is not to be compared to Karen Hughes. He's very intelligent, and she's not intelligent at all. But he's not the last word on the subject of Islam, as lazy people seem to think or want to think,, and his inability to make sense of what he knows, and his behind-the-coulisses feline attacks on Bat Ye'or, his attempt, during the Oslo Accords nonsense, to prevent others from mentioning all of the violations by the "Palestinian" side (what did he hope to achieve, Bernard Lewis, by keeping suchinformation quiet?), his love of having access to power, and working behind-the-scenes (he takes credit for urging the American government, for example, to threaten to cut a mere $30 million from Egypt's aid in order to secure a better judicial outcome for Said Eddin Ibrahim -- but why doesn't Lewis discuss with his powerful friends the entire matter of cutting all Jizyah-aid to Egypt? Why doesn't he discuss Egypt as a world center of anti-Americanism and antisemitism?). Lewis is feted in Istanbul by Ottomanists, and one wonders if the astonishing change in his own description of the mass murder of Armenians, which a few decades ago he had no difficulty calling by its right name and then silently changed his own texts, removed those words -- how much does that have to do with an Osmanli girlfriend, or Turkish friends who finally wore him down? And his recounting of anecdotes about his own bons mots (so well received, by the way) in Amman, where he is feted by Prince Hassan in his version of big-tentism, and likes to allude , to those connections, proof that -- unlike the espositos, who are merely despised hirelings -- he, Bernard Lewis, is truly accepted in the East as in the West, and he is particularly pleased to note the translations of his books into the languages -- Farsi, Arabic, Turkish -- of the Muslim East.

Yet he has never explained about his nearly-invisible treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule (a total of three paragraphs, two of them exculpatory, in his 400-page "The Middle East: The Last 2000 Years." No one has asked him why, after 80 years of Kemalism, Islam is back with a vengeance in Turkey, about which he once had such high hopes, and whether the example of Turkey might not hold lessons for non-Muslims about the persistence of Islam. No one has asked him if his friendship with Ahmed Chalabi, or Prince Hassan, or others might not have confused him, led him as others have, because of the personal charms and even munificence of certain semi-potentates, to take unrepresentative men for representative men, and what is dangerous, to base not sober policy but hopes and dreams on those cheats and charmers. And one wonders what Lewis, the celebrated student of modern Turkey (who left so much out -- see Speros Vryonis, see Vahakn Dadrian, see even a few younger and braver Turkish historians in the West) now thinks are the lessons, if any (or would he say that "historians are not in the habit of drawing lessons. Historians are engaged in someting quite different." Coming from Lewis, who always resented not being listened to by the Foreign Office, and for the last quarter-century has loved being listened to by the powerful, such a remark must be taken as pure blague) that non-Muslims might have to draw from the example of Turkey. No one, above all, has asked him for some practical advice for the Western world, in attempting to halt the islamization of Western Europe, advice that goes beyond the vague, and disturbing, "either we bring them freedom or they will destroy us.”

What a remark. An astounding admission, that second part – “they will destroy us” coupled to a completely unhinged remark – [unless] “we bring them freedom.” That simply will not do.

Here is what Lewis must tell us, rather than simply assume that he, Bernard Lewis, can get away with offering up such a statement, and it is for the rest of us, having heard the oracle, to make sense of it, to fill in the mere details. No, that will not do, and the fact that Lewis is rich in years (90) and the recipient of honors should cut no ice, not in this case. Automatic respect for age is one of those “respects’ – like that which some accord any belief-system called a “religion” or that kind of automatic loyalty too many are too eager to offer this or that object of loyalty, even when it is not, or no longer, deserved.

He has to tell us what he means by “either we bring them freedom or they will destroy us.” How does that phrase adequately meet the case of the islamization of Western Europe? What guide to policy is that? And what does it mean to “bring them freedom”? Bring them freedom with “boots on the ground” that will ensure head-counting elections, or is there some other kind of “freedom” that Lewis has in mind? Is he willing to concede, at all, that the “freedom” or, in this case, the “democracy” which is brought by the West is inimical to the spirit and letter of Islam, or will he -- like Bush muttering darkly that those who would :”deny” that “Arabs” are not capable of democracy are “racists” (a misleading way to characterize those who point out the unremarkable and obvious truth that the belief-system of Islam emphasizes the collective and not the individual, has no place for individual rights and has no place for the rights to free speech, freedom of conscience, and free exercise, and equality for non-Muslims and women. But Lewis wants to have us all play a game of Let’s-Pretend so that somehow, in some way, we will manage to get through – and meanwhile the Muslim population of the Netherlands climbs from 15,000 to one million in little more than thirty years, and the Muslim colonies deep within the Lands of the Infidels expand relentlessly, as do the demands from those colonies for changes in the legal and political and social institutions of the Infidels.

And how do we “bring them freedom”? Apparently Lewis thinks that the way to “bring them freedom” is the same way it was brought in Iraq – by invasion, by boots on the ground. Does he still? Does he still think that Ahmed Chalabi, his friend, is “representative” of much more than…Ahmad Chalabi? How “representative” is Kanan Makiya? Or Rend al-Rahim? What about that good man, Mithal al-Alusi? Could Lewis possibly have confused his admiration and friendship for certain people, westernized, secularized, the members of a very special elite (whether Shi’a or Sunni) with the real Iraq, of the tens of millions? Could he? And could he have confused Prince Hassan (who isn’t all that great) with the real views of the people in Jordan, and the malevolent mischief that Abdullah as before him his father the “plucky little king” Hussein, are able to cause by confusing Western governments into thinking that these seemingly rational or at least semi-sensible people in any way “represent” Jordan, or “represent” the Arabs?

Lewis tells us “either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us.”

And then he falls silent, briefly, and goes briskly on, to the next big topic given a few bright paragraphs, in his fatally flippant tour d’horizon.

That speech – read it, please, yourself – demands another one from Lewis -- one in which he will sum things up, tell us where and why he went wrong on the Oslo Accords, and where and why he was no naively enthusiastic ("the liberaton of Baghdad will make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession") about Iraq, and all those other things that he thought might actually be accepted (the most ludicrous being his promotion of Prince Hassan of Jordan, unnamed but obviously meant, as a Sunni "monarch" for Iraq that, Lewis appeared to believe, the Shi'a might accept -- that tells you someting about how, when it comes to dour policy, Lewis has nothing in common with Kedourie or Kelly).

A while back I wrote here that Lewis was "chipping away at his own monument." With the redisovery of the texts by specialists on Jews under Islamic rule, even his treatment of that subject, one which it was assumed Lewis certainly must know all about, must have read and taken intelligently into account everything, will be shown to have been completely insufficient and misguided.

He has been, for some, taken as the final authority, the "greatest living scholar" blah blah blah. Well, if "final authority" at all -- then in brief final authority. His writ no longer runs quite as it once did -- as the only aparent alternative to the espositos and mesanostrans. There are others, to be found in the library, and elsewhere -- such as the largley unheralded but acute Bat Ye'or -- who are there, not to take his place as "world's greatest authority" but to do something even better -- to offer studies, and advice, that is neither flippant, nor unduly influenced by considerations of personal vanity.

And not a moment too soon.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2007 11:16 AM

I am reminded of this (today on islam-watch.org)

"...more disturbing than the rising power of Islamism in the U.S. is administration’s inability to see the threat."

As Mr. Spencer would say, "read it all"

http://www.islam-watch.org/TashbihSayyed/Islamist-Leaders-Winning-American-Muslims.htm

Posted by: Godefroi at March 24, 2007 11:20 AM

"Godefroi"
-- nom de poste of a poster just above

A little seeming digression or otstuplenie:

Frederic Godefroy is the author of the "Lexique de l'Ancien Français." And "Godefroy" or "Godefroi" rhymes with "palefroi" as in that rhymed fabliau about the not-quite-star-crossed young lovers, No. 8 in the somber grey series of Les Classiques Français du Moyen Age, founded by Mario Roques in 1910, published by Droz, of medieval French and Provencal texts, the one that is know as "Le Vair Palefroi" by "Huon le Roi" (that is, Huon de Cambrai). The title "vair palefoi" might be englished as "pied palfrey" so let's call the text, for English eyes, "The Pied Palfrey," which, that title will very soon go to show at www.newenglishreview.org, proves that the supposedly "archaic" word "pied" is in perfectly good current usage.

For it has been used, correctly, this very minute.

Now, to quote an old poet, "otstupnika prosti."

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2007 11:50 AM

The guy who introduced Bernard said that being a Jew, Bernard was denied entry into Muslim countries excpet Turkey and Egypt. Interesting, for a religion of peace , which claim to have lived with Jews for centuries in harmony.

Posted by: pagan at March 24, 2007 12:18 PM

Europe will be fine. The cure for our 'sentimental weaknesses' will be the failure of the social safety net. When families who have paid into the system for decades are told that the programs are broke and grandma will have to go hungry, things will turn violent. The anger will be channeled at a particular group who, if they are lucky, will be put on airplanes. The failure of the social safety net, combined with very real threats associated with WMD, will likely bring an end to the one man, one vote experiment.

"The probable outcome of too much freedom is only too much slavery in the individual and the state. Probably, then, tyranny develops out of no other constitution than democracy--from the height of liberty, I take it, the fiercest extreme of servitude ... Is it not always the way of a demos (i.e., the masses) to put forward one man as its special champion and protector and cherish and magnify him? This, then, is plain, when a tyrant arises he sprouts from a protectorate root and from nothing else."
-Plato

Posted by: pez at March 24, 2007 12:19 PM

Is there a transcript or video of Lewis' remarks at the AEI? Someone must have had a video camera running.

YouTube anyone?

Posted by: JTF at March 24, 2007 12:30 PM

The Irving Kristol Lecture by Lewis can be found here:

http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25815/pub_detail.asp

It can also, I believe, be seen in a tape on the web but I'm not sure where.

The statement "Either we bring them freedom or they will destroy us" is not in the lecture, but has been made, more than once, by Lewis recently. The posting in the thread does not limit itself to Lewis' A.E.I. remarks.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2007 12:39 PM

What a disgrace Lewis is. He could be using his position of prominence to sound the alarum bell. Instead, he assumes the role of an impartial play-by-play announcer making a casual observation.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 24, 2007 1:40 PM

Thanks for posting the link Hugh. Lewis does seem to make rather clear his opinion that the immigration of Muslims in Europe is leading inexorably to some sort of conquest that will radically change Western civilization as we know it. But, as Hugh explains, avoids crucial facts and issues, like the 'war on terror' and Muslim refusal to accept social arrangments and rule by non-Muslims. The comment on 'freedom', which he says is our best and perhaps only hope for avoiding Islamic conquest in Europe, is also vague and troubling.

"Less obvious but also powerful is the appeal of freedom. In the past, in the Islamic world the word freedom was not used in a political sense. Freedom was a legal concept. You were free if you were not a slave. The institution of slavery existed. Free meant not slave. Unlike the West, they did not use freedom and slavery as a metaphor for good and bad government, as we have done for a long time in the Western world. The terms they used to denote good and bad government are justice and injustice. A good government is a just government, one in which the Holy Law, including its limitations on sovereign authority, is strictly enforced. The Islamic tradition, in theory and, until the onset of modernization, to a large degree in practice, emphatically rejects despotic and arbitrary government. Living under justice is the nearest approach to what we would call freedom.

But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle. Thank you."

What does it mean for 'freedom' to make headway as an idea? Does that mean that Muslims are consciously rejecting the establishment of Sharia law as a legitimate political aim? Does that mean that death as a penalty for apostasy is being rejected as an obviously immoral punishment and that hadith prescribing this punishment are being proclaimed illegitimate? Does that mean Muslims are accepting Western ideas about the political and social equality of women and are rejecting Sura 4 outright and all authoritative supporting hadith as moral authorities? Does that mean that Muslims are rejecting the idea that Islam as a belief system should be promoted to the exclusion of other political and religious belief systems? Does that mean that Sura 9 and supporting hadith, like those on jihad and martrydom, that proclaim death in battle for the sake of Allah as the highest achievement of human life (the only sort of life worth returing to live again after admission into Paradise) are now being viewed with disdain and that a growing, grassroots movement exists to delete these texts as scriptural authorities?

Freedom as an idea could simply mean enjoying pubs, discos, vacations on the Riviera, and doing what you want. But what kind of political strength does that idea have? The desire to do what you want does not entail the desire to support political and social arrangements that enable everyone to do what they want, within acceptable limits, of course. And one should also accept that freedom is the primary criterion for defining those limmits.

Are there any examples anywhere in Muslim countries or among major Muslim groups in Europe or eslewhere, where the Qur'an and/or Hadith have been denounced as sources of political or moral authority because these texts conflict with the idea of 'freedom'? And, if not, then on what grounds does one claim that 'freedom' in a meaningful political sense is making headway?

And this is our 'best and only hope'? Does Lewis think the game is over and that it is not worth his time to offer something more proactive and promising or is he just afraid to say something that will bring him enemies and trouble?

Posted by: JTF at March 24, 2007 1:44 PM

Here is the crucial final paragraph from Lewis' talk that did not make it into the above post:

"But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle. Thank you."

Posted by: JTF at March 24, 2007 1:47 PM

"Freedom." "Our best hope." "Perhaps even our only hope."

That's it? That's how Lewis reinforces Cheney's deep belief in the rightness of Tarbaby Iraq, because he, Lewis, cannot think of any other way?

What about truth-telling by those whose task it is to protect and instruct us?

What about mass education of Infidels, so that they will no longer be fooled, in the hundred ways that they can be fooled?

What about, once a sufficient number of Infidels have been instructed, swelling the calls for, and selling the cause of, a complete halt to Muslim migration to the Lands of the Infidels, on the theory that we cannot tell who is, or who will remain, or unto what generation they will remain, so-called "moderate" Muslims, and that in any case a "moderate" Muslim is merely a Muslim who chooses to ignore a good deal of what is inculcated by the texts and teachings of Islam -- that is, is a "bad" Muslim. And we cannot tell who is a "good" Muslim and who a "bad" one, and it is better for them, on the same theory by which anything is kept our or quarantined when it poses a certain risk -- and the risk that out of 100 Muslims ten or twenty or thirty or forty will be a vrey great risk indeed, and that the remainder, or some of them, might also turn out be such risks, and in any case whatever their disagreements over means, their ends -- to spread Islam until it "everywhere dominates" is inimical to the survival of the Western, superior civilization that is our legacy and that deserves to be preserved, protected, defended.

And what about using the pre-existing divisions within Islam -- ethnic and sectarian -- to weaken the Camp of Islam? Instead of thinking mainly of nation-states ("Iraq" or "Iran") think of the overall Camp of Islam, and how to divide and emoralize within.

And what about having lightning intrusions, as in the southern Sudan, where the American and other Western military can be sure of a good response, either because the people it is rescuing fromo the depradations of Arab Muslims are non-Muslim, as in southern Sudan, or non-Arab, and thus subject to the Arab supremacism for which Islam is a vehicle?

And what about taxes on gasoline, and on oil, to deprive Muslims of the "money weapon"?

What about a thousand things that might be done?

Oh, it's just too much for Bernard Lewis.

He prefers to warn us that Europe will be islamized before the end of the century (with that date getting closer and closer, the more he predicts), and that "our best hope" and "perhaps even our only hope" is to bring them "freedom."

Disgraceful.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2007 2:22 PM

Pre-lectures tribute to Lewis included one by Reuel Gerecht, who was briefly his student, and the tribute is telling, but not in the way that Gerecht imagines it to be. For he, Gerecht, has been one of the promoters and stout loyalists of this whole Iraq fiasco, and one wonders if, at this point, Lewis if asked again whether he thinks the Bush policy of staying put makes sense, no matter what it has cost or is now costing in men, money (about one trillion dollars), materiel, morale (look at the military morale, look at how the officers and men who have served in Iraq think of that "mission" -- if they return, some of them, willingly, it is out of a sense of duty to fellow soldiers, not out of a devout faith in the Iraqis or in the "mission"), and in distracting this country, and what should be its allies in Western Europe, from the larger problem of Islam. That problem will not go away. And it will not be ameliorated, much less solved (the words "solved" and "solution" have no place here), by what happens in Iraq -- unless what happens in Iraq proves in the end to use up the men, money, materiel, morale of Muslims of various kinds.

What an idea. Could it be an idea whose time has finally, three years and three months late, come? Not according to Reuel Gerecht or other cheerleaders at My Weekly Standard. And not, one assumes, even privately, according to Bernard Lewis, chipping away at that rapidly-disappearing monument.

Chip. Chip. Chip.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2007 2:34 PM

(Cheney) apparently reveres Lewis' acuity, and all that "greatest-living-scholar-of-Islam" stuff...

That's gotta be Spencer, cuz having the balls to speak the truth, the unvarnished truth, especially an unwelcome truth, is always the hardest thing for a scholar to do.

610 * 623 * 632 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

It's funny how, once the gloves came off, Lewis' mistakes became apparent, and he became invisible.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2007 2:58 PM

Re JTF's posting of the missing final paragraph of Lewis' speech

It seems to me that he has knowledged what ascendant islam will really mean in Europe.

"But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired." What I think is unspoken in this statement is "...one hopes, because if they don't come around to freedom in its 'Western interpretation' we're screwed." (BTW what other idea of freedom is there other than the "Western interpretation"?)

And the statement "It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle. Thank you." Developing struggle? We're way past developing by now don't you think? The unspoken part of this statement, IMHO, is "otherwise, we're going to have to go medieval on them and I'm just not sure whether on not we as a civilization are up to it."

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at March 24, 2007 7:14 PM

What Went Wrong with old Bernie?

Turtlenecks too tight?

Cardigans overly itchy?

People should have started boo-ing and throwing things when he said "Third time lucky?"

A world-historical insult to the intelligence and future survival of all threatened infidels.

Schmuck.

I learned all I needed to know about Islam from the first sentence of the Koran:

"This book is not to be doubted."

I laughed outloud.

The rest is just crazy footnotes for this Absolute Arrogance.

Nothing good is going to come of such an anti-intellectual doctrine, no matter how many times it goes dormant and "peaceful". (AKA regrouping during strategic ceasefires.)

The diseased seed always waits.

And it grows nothing but thorns.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 24, 2007 8:00 PM

Bernard Lewis is 90 years old so be easy on him. He's a tremendous scholar even though Hugh and others have valid criticism of him. The man is a giant and despite his drawbacks has contributed greatly to Western understanding of Islam. He's leagues above the Middle East Studies faculty in today's universities

Posted by: dennisw at March 24, 2007 8:19 PM

Hugh said

meanwhile the Muslim population of the Netherlands climbs from 15,000 to one million in little more than thirty years

While we are busy "bringing them freedom", they are busy bringing us sharia. Compare our "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan to their success in the Netherlands, France, and the UK. See how much "influence" we have on their governments compared to how much influence they have on our governments.

This goal of "bringing them freedom" is not going well. We are asking the Muslims to put trust in mankind (kaffirs) over trust in Allah. We are asking the Muslims to put their faith in the government of man (kaffirocracy) over the government of Allah (sharia). We are asking the Muslims to place loyalty to nation over loyalty to Allah. As long as we define our success as "bringing them freedom", our success can only be achieved with the cooperation of the Muslims. We are putting our success in their hands.

We shouldn't.

We cannot bring them freedom. We cannot allow them to destroy us. The former does not entail the latter, regardless of what Bernard Lewis claims.

Posted by: special_guest at March 24, 2007 8:23 PM

"The man [Bernard Lewis] is a giant and despite his drawbacks has contributed greatly to Western understanding of Islam. He's leagues above the Middle East Studies faculty in today's universities."
-- from a posting above

Why is he a "giant"? Because people who have not read all of the other "giants" have nothing to compare him to, except to the likes of the Mesanostrans and assorted Espositos? Is he a "giant" or would he be called a "giant" were Schacht and Goldziher and Snouck Hurgronje and Arthur Jeffery and Henri Lammens and St. Clair Tisdall and Georges Vajda and a hundred others were alive? They aren't. They're all dead. And Lewis lived on, and what's more, he left England, where he was seen not as a lone "giant" but more as part of a group or "gang of four" by their enemies -- Kelly, Kedourie, Lewis, and Vatikiotis -- but one might also add A. K. S. Lambton and others. It's an optical illusion.

Some of his books are excellent: "The Political Language of Islam" for example. Some are much less good, and some may until now have seemed to be good, such as his book on Jews in Islam and "Semites and Anti-Semites" but once the compendium being prepared of material on Jews as seen in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and reflected in the writings of Islamic jurisconsults and historians and in the treatment of Jews in Dar al-Islam, Lewis' attempt to deny antisemitism in Islam, and to put the blame on the "importing" of "European antisemitism" in the last century or two, will be seen as simply baseless and untenable.

It has been a long time coming. But it will come.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2007 9:03 PM

I watched C-SPAN a few short years ago and it was mentioned that Bernard Lewis has not written about the treatment of Christian women in the Ottoman Empire and that the world will have to wait for his death to engage in an objective analysis of the Ottomans .

Judging from Lewis' behavior one has to ask the question : Is he objective enough on Muslims and Ottomans to write about the true state of affairs in those entities ?

Orientalism suffers from a lack of talent overall and it is to be hoped that after Lewis' passing others take up the mantle and portray Islam for what it really is and was and NOT what Lewis wants us to believe .

It is a mistake to take what Lewis writes as "definitive" and not realize that he "spins" history or omits when it suits him .

Let's hope.

Posted by: purplemarbles at March 24, 2007 9:50 PM

Has Lewis ever commented on the evident fact that the current revival of Jihad has occurred during his lifetime -- in fact, during his professional lifetime?

Fifty years ago, Jihad was seemingly a "dead letter". Now, it is clearly not.

Has he acknowledged that this change has occurred, and tried to explain this change?

Posted by: del at March 24, 2007 10:34 PM

Hugh,

Please. Political realities, you have to pay attention to them. Put Bernard Lewis into context. He was run out of the academy, thanks to Said who labeled him a "racist" (Said, an Arab Christian, with absolutely zero regard for "truth," zero regard for integrity, simply the founder of Arab "angst" and "let us all feel sorry for my victim, Arab status" -- this all has its root in Edward Said's "academics" -- and, as far as I'm concerned all the anger, antipathy, and vitriolic commentary should be directed at Said, not Lewis -- the bastard Said who spawned much of the evil that currently exists, particularly in the academic world.) I utterly despise Said and everything he stands for -- which, summed up, equals lies, smothered by more lies. so, you've got a choice -- it's Said, Armstrong, Esposito, (or all the other multitude of pro-Islam enthusiasts at the academy) or Lewis. What's your choice?

Given the current state of the world -- all those lovers and vast admirers and accolades of Said -- you have to take what's currently available by way of criticism of the Saids-- and, it's not much. (just listen to the media -- CNN, BBC, CBC, ABC, etc., etc.).

Anyway, I believe it's far more profitable to find areas of agreement with Lewis, as opposed to trying to find fault. Lewis is hinting at the fact that Europe may very well be doomed...that's his message. if you wish to see (understand) what he's saying (and, yes, he is subtle), then acknowledge it and run with it. (Frankly, I think it's pointless trying to run in total opposition -- what's the point? So, you can batter your head against a stone wall? Take what's common and extract it...that would include the allusion to the "third time lucky" reference.)

Posted by: J.S. at March 24, 2007 11:53 PM

"Please. Political realities, you have to pay attention to them. Put Bernard Lewis into context. He was run out of the academy..."
-- from a posting above

Bernard Lewis was the Cleveland Dodge Professor at Princeton when he arrived in 1974, and before that a professor at the University of London. That hardly constitutes being "run out of the academy." No serious scholars of Islam took Said's side, and certainly those scholars who were the colleagues of Lewis in such enterprises as the Encyclopedia of Islam simply found Said ridiculous. If you mean he was "run out of the academy" in the sense that American schools dominated by MESA Nostra (which google) took up Said's "Orientalism" because, after all, it provided a handy jobs program for the promotion of the untalented, as long as those untalented were "authentic" (i.e., Muslims themselves or if not Muslims, sufficiently ingratiating with Muslim and Arab colleagues to be hired in the first place, and then steadily promoted) and "free of the taint of 'Orientalism'." Said is dead; his run is coming to an end, and the new book "Edward Said and the Defense of the West")by Ibn Warraq, due out this year, will put a stake through the heart of Saidism. And students already show signs of being fed up with the usual pab -- including not just Saidism but related forms of fashionable nonsense -- and eventually, some of those students may have the stamina to somehow stick with it, and work "within the system" to overturn the monopoliziaton of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies by so many Saidians. It will help if the government carefully directs its largesse to the sensible programs, or establishes outside the usual suspected universities its own centers for the study of Islam and the West. And that may be coming.

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 2:29 AM

If you mean he was "run out of the academy" in the sense that American schools dominated by MESA" -- yes, this is what I'm referring to.

Unfortunately, i don't think Said is dead...His "works" have been taken up in innumerable ways, and the scholarship taints (with the political biases) continue. Thank heavens Said is dead -- but the damage has been done.

Also, I think when we see everyone around caving into the dictates of islam/Islamism (bending over backwards to placate and appease) -- it's salutary to consider those who have stood firm (the ones who do not cave under -- even in the face of enormous pressures -- imo, this has been true of Lewis) -- and I think Lewis provides an object lesson in how not to buckle. (but Lewis is now out of it -- he's gone -- I sometimes wonder what would have been were Lewis younger -- been born a bit later; but, such speculations are, of course, useless...) hmmm..also, I think there's been a great deal of attention paid to Europe (all of its appeasements, etc) but I also fear for the United States. (Sometimes I think it's pretty much a toss-up as to which will become Islamified first).

Posted by: J.S. at March 25, 2007 11:32 AM

Clint Eastwood to punk: "Third time lucky?"

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 25, 2007 12:52 PM

Allahfanculo-

Bernie Lewis is NO Clint Eastwood.

(And, judging from his latest morally-imbecilic films, neither is Clint.)

A "giant" without balls is just an over-sized castrato.

The song may be enchanting, but there's no 'issue'.

And that's what I take issue with.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 25, 2007 1:53 PM

Institutions and establishments have a way of promoting those that are adept at manipulating intstitutions and establishments.

Kind of depressing.

That's what humanity needs the RS types for.

Good grounds for gratitude and optimism actually.

Some of the time the good guys win you know.

Posted by: joeblough at March 26, 2007 3:43 AM

"so, you've got a choice -- it's Said, Armstrong, Esposito, (or all the other multitude of pro-Islam enthusiasts at the academy) or Lewis. What's your choice?"

Why should the choice be between those options? Haven't we got someone better then those, perhaps even on this website?

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at March 26, 2007 6:13 AM

People on this website (of course they may be better informed than your average academic), but they don't count. Unless you have a PhD (preferably from an elite university) your opinion will not register. So, name an academic who is not an apologist for Islam.

In the academic world the sides are aligned. And on one side you have a vast array of "professors" -- these are the people who make excuses and apologies and shuffle with the facts so as to present a nefarious, benign version of "Islam" (the "Islam means Peace!" crowd) vs the people who warn that Islam is not entirely, nor necessarily, benign (that would include Bernard Lewis -- yes, his criticisms of Islam aren't full-throated, and yes, it comes late in the game -- but, at least, Lewis stands up and says that there is a PROBLEM. About the only other person I can think of who has acted in a similar way has been S. Huntington -- that's in the faculty of Political Science -- and, what has been his fate?? For Hungtington merely stating the obvious, ie, that "Islam has bloody borders" you get everyone in the universities (and mindlessly parroted in the media) -- and I mean everyone -- branding Huntington as a "racist." That's what's going on.

So you have an entire chorus of Islam apologists (the list is so long, I wouldn't even bother listing the names). then, in the background, you get a voice (a chirp) of dissent. So, what should you do? Stifle the chirp? Suffocate it? Yeah, that makes sense...

Let me put it this way -- generally speaking, you can have Historians offering competing interpretations of an event. You can have them differing, for example, on what caused a Nation X to go to War, etc. BUT, what should not be in dispute (I'm speaking in generalities) should be basic facts. Thus, certain facts should not be under dispute (the factual evidence should be incontravertable) -- yet, thanks to so-called "apologists" even facts now are being distorted so as to benefit the religion of Islam. Thus, you cannot even state the stats/facts with respect to countries which are Islamic and their "bloody borders" and not raise the hackles of the "Islam Means Peace!!" crowd. Hence, even facts become malleable for the Espositos, Armstrong's, etc., who have a stated agenda, and that is to present Islam in the best possible light. To these so-called scholars, Islam is angelic (Islam has never done anything "wrong" -- and anyone who claims otherwise is an Islamophobe and a "racist". Thus, "Bernard Lewis is a racist" has been the charge.)

So the dissenters from the orthodoxy that
"Islam can do no wrong!" such as Lewis (regardless of how meek) should be encouraged, not roughly tossed aside (or written off as yet another intellectual lackey of
a Karen Armstrong).

Let's just take the case of antisemitism and Islam. Bernard Lewis recognizes the antisemitism, but differs on the quality/nature of that antisemitism in pre-modern Islam (when compared to pre-modern Christain states). Lewis does not state that antisemitism did not exist -- he says the quality/degree of the antisemitism differed. Contrast these statements with the Islamic apologists who allege that antisemitism did not exist in pre-modern Islam...

Posted by: J.S. at March 28, 2007 1:24 PM