Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 02/04/2004 View Tue 02/03/2004 View Mon 02/02/2004 View Sun 02/01/2004 View Sat 01/31/2004 View Fri 01/30/2004 View Thu 01/29/2004
1
2004-02-04 Home Front
A Historian’s Take on Islam
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2004-02-04 10:24:51 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Tipper, thanks for bringing Bernard Lewis to our attention. I wanted to know more, and through Google, found an interesting two part article, The Roots of Muslim Rage written by Lewis in September 1990. It's long, I'm still working my way through it. If anyone is at all interested in "the conflict between radical Islam and the West", this article will be well worth your time. Bring your coffee thermos, take off your shoes, leave your prejudices behind, and enlighten yourself.
Posted by Gasse Katze 2004-2-4 12:15:19 PM||   2004-2-4 12:15:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Barnard Lewis: Scholarship or Sophistry?. The mainstream reviewers describe Bernard Lewis as "the doyen of Middle Eastern studies," the "father" of Islamic studies, "[a]rguably the West's most distinguished scholar on the Middle East," and "[a] Sage for the Age."
The core of Lewis's ideology about Islam is that it never changes, and his whole mission is to inform conservative segments of the Jewish reading public, and anyone else who cares to listen, that any political, historical, and scholarly account of Muslims must begin and end with the fact that Muslims are Muslims.
Barnard Lewis the Fraud. Read more about this dodgy fella at
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html
Posted by Faisal 2004-2-4 2:51:46 PM||   2004-2-4 2:51:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 ive read Lewis's "what went wrong" and "history of the middle east". My read was that he leaned more to the "democratize 'em" then to the "make them fear us", though i see how he could see the latter (esp post 9/11) as the necessary pre-condition for the former. Depends on the policy choice. In deciding to go into Iraq, these two goals coincided. In terms of HOW we handle Iraq now that we're there, im not sure they coincide. Also not clear how they play out for the rest of the islamic world. I realize BL is a historian, not a policy maker, and cant be asked for "what to do about country X next month" but at least some more would be helpful. Some seem to be reading him as much like Samuel Huntington, and from what ive read hes profoundly different.
Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-4 2:55:51 PM||   2004-2-4 2:55:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 actually Lewis does NOT say that Islam never changes. For example he documents the evolving meaning of "jihad". He also says that the muslim "problem" is NOT something essential to the Koran or the Islamic texts, as the know nothings claim, but that it is quite spefically tied to the events of the 17thc (NOT THE 7TH CENTURY) and their aftermath. I can see how the folks at counterpunch who think Islams problems all stem from the US and Israel might not like him. And that his optimism that the US CAN push democratic reform in the regime (which is counter both to the Huntington view AND to the US can do nothing good view) are not shared by them.
Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-4 3:00:10 PM||   2004-2-4 3:00:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 any political, historical, and scholarly account of Muslims must begin and end with the fact that Muslims are Muslims.
The reign in Spain fell mainly on the Janes!
I think old man he's got it! He's got it!
Posted by Shipman 2004-2-4 3:33:14 PM||   2004-2-4 3:33:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 If Bernard Lewis has any faults it is his tendency to sanitize some aspects of Islamic history (he downplays the ugliest aspects of Islamic slavery and downplays the occasional vicious anti Armenian and anti Jewish riots and massacres). He also does not believe the early history of Islam (the assasinations and the tribal massacres ordered by Mohammad) is to blame for the waves of Islamic suicide bombers (and their worshipers and apologists). He blames the wahabis and tends to be pro Shite (because until Khomeini the Shite clerics were against being part of the govt.). He does say that ultimately, the only lasting solution to the problems of Islamic corruption, violence, government incompetance, sectarian intolerence, etc. is an Islamic solution (hence the Muslims are Muslims slogan).
Posted by mhw 2004-2-4 4:48:23 PM||   2004-2-4 4:48:23 PM|| Front Page Top

08:08 Raptor
01:42 Tony (UK)
00:18 Lucky
23:47 Anonymous2U
23:41 CobraCommander
23:37 Anonymous2U
23:33 Anonymous2U
23:23 Anonymous
23:20 badanov
23:19 Jack A Son
23:08 Jarhead
23:00 Jarhead
22:58 Nero
22:56 Dcreeper
22:51 Nero
22:46 4thInfVet
22:43 Jarhead
22:41 Super Hose
22:35 Dcreeper
22:34 CrazyFool
22:31 CrazyFool
22:28 CrazyFool
22:23 Lu Baihu
22:21 Rivrdog









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com