Read from my referrer here. This man is an Ottomanist who has become the most vocal interpreter of modern, Arab Islam in the US right now. It boggles the mind that he is considered an expert on the topics for which he is consulted – topics that affect whether or not we go to war. Even his medieval Arab history has been attacked as being slip shod and polemical.
Related Posts
The Beginning of the End
The October 2006 issue of Vanity Fair contains two important articles, which are worth reading: Empire Falls, by Niall Ferguson, and Under Egypt’s Volcano, by Scott Anderson. In Empire Falls, Fergusson uses historian Edward Gibbon’s theories on the decline and fall of Rome to make an interesting, if not convincing, case for the same state of conditions currently in play in the West. Gibbon’s blamed Rome’s decline on external military overreach, internal corruption, social decadence, religious transformation, and barbarian invasion. Fergusson counters with the War on Terror, the cult of personality, superficiality, reality TV, cultural decline, immigration, and the rise…
Interesting Petition to help end #torture
Lifted from comments about teaching Geneva Conventions in US schools.
It will end with a whimper
Islamoyankee recently got on my case because of my lack of posting, so I am pretending to work, listening to Dylan, and feeding this up instead. Sadik J. Al-Azm,Emeritus Professor of Modern European Philosophy, University of Damascus, and a recipient of the 2004 Erasmus Prize, has written a thoughtful article straight from the heart of the Arab world. The article entitled, “Time Out of Joint” can be viewed in this months Boston Review. In it, Al-Azm questions his own reactions to 9-11 and Huntington’s theory. It is indeed refreshing to read an article that addresses the issues rationally and approaches…
2 thoughts on “Yet more reasons not to like Bernard Lewis”
Comments are closed.
Many of Hirsh’s criticisms of Lewis are probably accurate. His area of expertese does not equip him to make political decisions; he is disconcertingly fond of Attaturk; he seems out-of-touch with modern day Arab and Muslim populations.
However, I think that this article misrepresents Lewis’ views in a number of respects. First, Lewis consistently depicts Wahhabiism as a radical fringe movement that has attained undue power with the help of Western governments acting in their own immediate economic and political self-interest. Like his critics, Lewis believes (or claims to believe) that Islam is fundamentally a moderate religion and that it need not be adverse to modernization.
Second, this article makes the common error of equating democracy with secularism. It is undeniable that secular dictatorships can be as brutal as religious dictatorships — Communist totalitarianism has proven that. On the other hand, democracy need not entail separation of church and state (as we have in the U.S.) or enforced secularism (as exists in France). Depending on their constitution, members of a democracy may be free to elect leaders who support religious institutions. On paper, at least, Lewis generally argues in favor of democracy and against totalitarianism, not in favor of secularism and against religious rule.
Finally, I think it unfair to assume that Lewis hates Arabs on the basis of his support of Israel. It is possible to be sympathetic to both sides of an unfortunate conflict. For his part, Lewis supports the creation of a democratic (not necessarily secular) Palestinian state, which he argues would be able to coexist peacefully with the democratic (not quite secular) state of Israel. His particular vision may or may not be misguided. Either way, Israel is not about to disappear, and any realistic vision for the future of the Middle East must incorporate the Jewish state in some form. To deny that reality is self-defeating.
elf, I grant you the first point. Lewis does relegate Wahhabism to the margins. However, like Daniel Pipes, he also seems to suggest that only good Muslim is a non-believing Muslim. So, I’m not sure what he would say about progressive Muslims (lowe-case “p,” so as not be confused with the movement).
Point two: true.
I agree the logic is faulty, but again, looking at the corpus of Lewis’ work, he clearly does not believe that Arab civilization has produced anything of value, and only by being totally “Western,” can the “Arab” become fully-realized humans. See for example “What Went Wrong?”