A Sage for the Age

A Sage for the Age
Professor Bernard Lewis, the great historian of the Muslim world, talks about bin Laden, the Intifada, and the new threat from Iran.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Jewsweek.com | Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton University, is considered by most of his colleagues as the greatest historian of the Muslim world in our generation. He is Jewish, a native of London, in his 80s. Among his many students are teachers and analysts who work in universities in Israel and the Arab countries. His age hardly shows: he moves easily, exhibits an ironic sense of humor, clearly conscious of his importance. He travels a great deal. He frequently visits Israel as a guest of Tel Aviv University, and he sometimes visits the neighboring countries too, but he understandably refuses to talk about that. Government leaders frequently consult with him and he has been in great demand during the past year. The breadth of his knowledge and his decisive views are aimed to assist the ones in power in the West to shape their policy towards the Muslim world.

"The Patriarch of the Islamicists", as he is called in the American press, stands out as a partisan of classic liberal values. He is often attacked because he refuses to comply with the spirit of the times, in which the voice of relativism is strong, which is cautious about judging cultures from the point of view of western culture. In his best known debate, he faced Edward Said, the well-known Palestinian professor of literature, in whose book "Orientalism" he condemns Lewis and scholars like him. He charges that their studies are another means which the West uses to strengthen its imperialistic rule.

One may assume that the following interview will harden his opponents and hearten perplexed Israelis. Ariel Sharon can find in his words encouragement for his position on the need for complete victory before any gesture.

Historically, the Palestinian leaders have consistently made the wrong choice. It started with their refusing the terms of the Peel Commission and their rejection of the UN Partition Plan. They made mistakes in their choice of friends: during the Second World War they chose the Nazis, during the Cold War they chose the Soviet Bloc and in the Gulf War they joined with Saddam Hussein. Do they have an astonishing instinct that pushes them to the verge of destruction? Indeed not. They turned to the enemies of their enemies and this is natural. After the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, they once again had no super power patron, and after the Gulf War, even most of the Arab governments were disgusted with them, particularly those that could offer them financial aid. Under these circumstances, I thought the Rabin government was correct in moving as it did, but it erred in its choice of its partner for the process."

ISRAEL TRIED TO TALK WITH THE PALESTINIAN LEADERS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, BUT AT THE MADRID CONFERENCE IT WAS PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE NO LEADER BESIDES HIM.

It's true that according to the resolution of the Arab League, the PLO is the Palestinians' only representative organization. From this distance in time it is hard for me to judge if it would have been better to insist on finding an alternative to it, or perhaps there was no other choice.

IN AN INTERVIEW YOU SAID THAT THE ONES WHO CONDUCTED THE NEGOTIATIONS ON BOTH SIDES WERE COMPLETE AMATEURS. WHAT DID YOU MEAN?

It's clear they were not professional diplomats and they did not have much experience in conducting negotiations.

They forgot that is not just a matter of negotiations between leaders, but between two differing civilizations. It is easy to slip and interpret your adversary according to your world view. I will give you an example. I think that Israel was right to enter Lebanon, and I well remember how its army was received as an army of liberation, with flowers and music, but from the moment the job was completed, it was necessary to withdraw from there. The late withdrawal, as it was undertaken without agreement, with abandonment of friends and weaponry, was interpreted by the Palestinians and the other Arabs as a sign of weakness. From the experience of Hizbullah they derived that the Israelis are soft, pampered, and if they are hit - they will surrender. These things have been said explicitly by the Palestinians.

DO THE TWO CULTURES INTERPRET DIFFERENTLY THE CONCEPTS OF "FAIR COMPROMISE" AND "VIEWING REALITY OUT OF A CONSIDERATION FOR THE ENEMY'S POINT OF VIEW?

Let me be precise: Muslim culture stands out in the generosity of its victors. The victor does not push the face of the vanquished in the dust, but the result of the struggle has to be clear to both sides. A struggle that ends indecisively is an invitation for trouble. The Ottomans provided us with many examples of this conduct: they crushed rebels with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, but did not humiliate the defeated, they showed generosity toward them and even helped them rehabilitate themselves. If the one with the power does not exhaust his ability to bring about such a victory, his conduct is interpreted as cowardice.

Another example of differing interpretations of conduct is the is significance of manners and customs: I visited Jordan some time after the signing of the peace agreement on which the Jordanians bed much hope, and I found the Jordanians agitated over the conduct of the Israeli tourists which they saw as provocative and humiliating. It was difficult for me to explain to them that Israelis behave that way even to each other. The Israelis, who seem to be the least polite people in the world, are not understood by the Arabs, who have the most well mannered culture in the world. It is not a matter of insignificant etiquette, but of conduct that has a bearing on relations between the peoples. The lack of courtesy of the Israeli solders at the check points has terrible repercussions and something needs to be done about this matter.

DON'T YOU HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERSTATE THE CLASH OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CULTURES?

There is tremendous importance in these differences. Look, the Christian world and the Muslim world had friction with each other and fought against each other on many fronts during the course of a millennium. At the end of the 18th century the universities in the west had dozens of departments for eastern studies and hundreds of translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish works were printed. The western world longed to know its historic adversary, but a share in this curiosity was not given to the Muslim world. There they did not learn the languages of the west, didn't take an interest in western history and thought and did not translate much literature into Arabic. Things changed somewhat when the power of the threat of the west became clear to them, but even now, if you go into a book store in Israel, you will easily find translations from Arabic literature and books about Arab and Muslim history. In contrast, if you go into a book store in an Arab capital and look for books on Israel, on Judaism and even on Christianity, practically all you will find is propaganda. Curiosity about one's fellow is a striking western phenomenon. In all the great cultures, except western culture, the matter of one's fellow arises only in the presence of a threat."

I MUST ASK IF THE THIS SITUATION REGARDING CULTURES IS PERMANENT, OR A RESULT OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE LIKELY TO CHANGE.

It is definitely not permanent, but it is deeply rooted, more than many people like to think. For example, many point to the fact that only 2 of the 57 Muslim countries have semi democratic governments, but this does not say that Muslims lack the ability to develop their own version of democracy, that will not resemble any western democracy.

Turkey and Bangladesh. Turkey is a wonderful example, which proves that it is very difficult to establish a liberal democracy in a culture with an ancient autocratic tradition, but it also proves that it is not impossible.

THE OUTBREAK OF THE SECOND INTIFADA HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY MANY ISRAELIS, PERHAPS A MAJORITY, AS DECISIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE PALESTINIANS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN A COMPROMISE, BUT ARE DRIVING TOWARDS A COMPLETE VICTORY. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE INTIFADA?

I already told you that the withdrawal from Lebanon had a great influence on the decision of the Palestinians to renew the armed struggle. Israel is depicted as a country that resembles America and the Americans, who fled from Vietnam and extracted themselves suddenly from Lebanon and Somalia, proved by this conduct that they are pampered and not adapted to absorb losses. Likewise the Israelis, who became rich and got soft and pampered themselves. America and Israel are close friends and the Palestinians took a page from the conduct of America in analyzing the expected conduct of Israel.

A FEW YEARS AGO YOU PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE WHICH HAD GREAT RESONANCE: "THE ROOTS OF MUSLIM RAGE". WOULD YOU AGREE TO ENCAPSULATE THE BASIC IDEAS IN THE ARTICLE AND UPDATE THEM IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE IT WAS PUBLISHED.

In the whole Muslim world in our day a feeling of frustration and crisis prevails. Everything is mixed up. For more than a thousand years the Muslims became accustomed to the belief, justified in its time, that they represented the most advanced part of the world, and that they are the ones who set the standards in politics, economics and science. In the new age the Muslims came to realize that their power had weakened and that even adopting western technology wasn't any help. The western ideas of socialism and capitalism did not halt the economic deterioration, and then the belief arose that redemption was to be found in adopting the western democratic brand of government. Most unfortunately it was proven that the only western brand that succeeded in taking root in the Muslim world was dictatorship, based on a single party. Political independence did not give rise to freedom. The reaction to these disappointments is resistance to any ideas imported from the west and blaming the west for all the unhealthy evils that stemmed from the failed attempt to imitate its culture.

Now there are two options: some feel that the failure stems from abandonment of the earlier traditions, leaving behind the authentic Islamic culture. The two main versions that have stemmed from this feeling are Wahabi Fundamentalism which is disseminated by the Saudis, and the Iranian-Shiite Fundamentalism. The other option, which adherents to the modern hold, says that the failure stems from the Muslims having adopted the shell of western culture and not its deep content, and therefore it is necessary to introduce western values in their full depth. In all of the Muslim world there are people who think that way, but the dictatorships make it difficult for them to express their opinions openly.

Of course. But here one must stress the importance of Arab oil. The tremendous profits that the Saudis accumulated have enabled them to develop a network of schools with many branches that cultivates Wahabi Fundamentalism. It is possible that if not for the oil, this movement would have remained an otherworldly phenomenon in a marginal country. In general, the oil is the Arabs' disaster, because it enabled governments to accumulate enormous wealth which strengthens their political and military power and destroys democracy and freedom in the bud. It is no accident that the only countries in which the beginnings of a civilian society are growing are Morocco and Jordan which have no oil.

IS AMERICA HATED IN THE MUSLIM WORLD BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS ISRAEL, OR IS ISRAEL HATED BECAUSE IT IS PERCEIVED AS A FORWARD STRONGHOLD OF THE WEST IN THE MUSLIM WORLD?

Both. Of course, the bond with Israel does not help America's popularity, but the mideast is not the only place in the world in which they loathe this large wealthy empire. It is hated because it is so successful and local figures exploit the resentment for their special needs. For example, for Bin Laden the main problem is his country, Saudi Arabia, which he wants to rid of the presence of infidels. He mentions Israel, if at all, in the third place on his list of targets. In one of his speeches he called it "a lowly little country", in other words not something substantial or very important and in an interview he gave some years ago he said that if the Americans leave Saudi Arabia he would be prepared to sign a peace agreement. Israel is an easy target for propagandists in the Arab world because attacking it does not endanger them, while in some Arab countries they are looking for trouble if they disseminate attacks against America. The propagandists know that in America and Europe there is a willing ear for anti-Israel propaganda and the reason is that directing an assault against Israel eases the burden of the accusations that are spread on them in the west. This is where the aggression towards Israel in the Sabra and Shatila affair comes from, as compared with the leniency towards the deeds of Hafez Assad in the city of Hama, or towards the chemical weapons attack on the Kurds in Halbaja.

People in the West are accustomed to ask "why don't they like us" and the simple answer is that you can't be wealthy, strong and successful and be liked, especially considering that for a few hundred years you have won every battle. The correct question is: "why have they stopped respecting you, or at least fearing you?" I mentioned earlier that men like Bin Laden believed that the west was pampered and soft. I hope that the war in Afghanistan changed this perception, because it proves that the idea that America and the other western countries are soft is an invention, and that they are afraid to fight when their civilization is attacked. Now there are two possibilities: either the people in the Muslim world, and particularly the Arabs, decide that in order to establish a better society it is necessary to turn to the path of peace and cooperation with the west, or they will believe that the defeat in Afghanistan was a painful episode but they need to continue in the same path. I hope that the first way will win, but I can't exclude the possibility that the second idea will take hold.

ISRAEL SEES IRAN AS A GREAT MILITARY DANGER. ARE CHANGES HAPPENING IN IT THAT COULD EASE OUR MINDS?

The Iranian politicians who are depicted as moderates, are nothing but makeup whose purpose is to enable the regime to continue acting as it wants, but many signs indicate that the regime has become very unpopular, and will be thrown out if an opportunity presents itself. Here I want to mention a paradox: the masses in countries that declare their opposition to America love America, while the masses in countries whose governments support America, exhibit resentment towards America. It is no accident that the terrorists who attacked the twin towers and the Pentagon indeed came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia while in Tehran there were large spontaneous, authentic demonstrations, in which people expressed sorrow. It is clear that the hatred for America in Egypt and and Saudi Arabia Egypt and Saudi Arabia stems, first and foremost, from the hatred for the corrupt regimes there. The demonstrations for joy in Kabul will seem like funeral processions compared to the demonstrations for joy that will break out in Baghdad, Tehran and perhaps even Damascus, if the west brought about the expulsion of the despotic inefficient regimes that rule in these countries.

{ Jonathan Silverman is an investigative reporter for Jewsweek.com. This article originally appeared in Hebrew in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot. }

Interesting interview, especially his observation that we are hated by the masses in those countries whose despotic governments are aligned with us, and loved by the masses in those countries whose despotic governments are opposed to us.

Perhaps the common thread is that the masses recognize that their own governments are a disgrace. We are loved/hated in direct proportion to our perceived relationship with the local oppressors.

Solution? Abandon the "realpolitik" based on the European elite's idea of governmental "interests". Replace it with support for what we know is right, and opposition to what we know is wrong. In other words, make sure the masses in the rest of the world know American stands for something good.

BTW: I realize how far from this we are right now. If we support only those countries trying to do the right thing, we will have lots of people supporting us, but very few governments supporting us (especially in the Arab world). However, the way things are today, I suspect we would still be better off.

Good post.

Bernard Lewis, in his excellent book, The Arabs in History, states the problem succinctly(p. 139):

     The acceptance of the Greek heritage by Islam gave rise to a struggle between the scientific rationalist tendency of
     the new learning on the one hand, and the atomistic and intuituve quality of Islamic thought on the other. During the
     period of struggle Muslims of both schools created a rich and varied culture, much of which is of permanent
     importance in the history of mankind. The struggle ended in the victory of the more purely Islamic point of view.
     Islam, a religiously conditioned society, rejected values that challenged its fundamental postulates, while accepting
     their results, and even developing them by experiment and observation. Ismailism - the revolution marquee of
     Islam - might have ushered in a full acceptance of Hellenistic values, heralding a humanist renaissance of the
     Western type, overcoming the resistance of the Quaran by the device of esoteric interpretation, of the Shari'a by
     the unbounded discretion of the infallible Imam. But the forces supporting the Ismaili revolution were not strong
     enough, and it failed in the very moment of its greatest success.

The Shakers completely abstained from sex. There are a few -- less than a handful -- around, as I understand. As a extremely tiny religion they did survive. Without sex, none of us would be here.

Sometimes complete avoidance of certain normally engaged things is necessary, by a person, sometimes by a lot of persons together. Nevertheless, such extremism, it ain't without it's cost -- physical, social, spiritual. In an attempt to shore up one failing by abstaining from it, our bodies, minds and lives are set such that other weaknesses, other brittleness, other fragilenesses are excaberated.

Without a bit of drink now and again, people can lose that zest for life and be overwhlemed by it's bitterness. Without the elixer of forgetting they can be swept up in great grudges, pinned down by a chip on their shoulder never washed off by that wonderful elixer.

Gambling has broken many a man or woman, but a card game or a social bet now and then has helped keep people together and appreciative of one another. It can't be scorned completely.

"...They forgot that is not just a matter of negotiations between leaders, but between two differing civilizations. It is easy to slip and interpret your adversary according to your world view...."

Rosetta stone territory in those two sentences. Thank you for taking the trouble to post this interesting interview.

I noticed that Lewis commits the very error he warns against by projecting his own world-view onto his subject.There is this tendency among "Islamic experts" to ascribe everything that is occuring to the religion of Islam. This is, of course, a projection of the obsessions of post-christian, secular scholars. As with historians of medieval Christendom, these scholars have an unintentionally ironic tendency to inflate the religious content of every worldy political, social, military and economic confrontation.

A perfect of example of this is in the linked article "The Roots of Muslim Rage" in which he casually speaks of the "terrible religious wars" in Europe as though their roots were entirely and specifically theological. This is a fantastic, and easily disproved assertion. These wars were far more complex than triumphant enlightenment analysis would have it.

It seems to me that to pay excessive obeisance to moslem religious scruples as a "root cause" of the ongoing "clash of civilizations" would be to miss the mark as widely as those who pay no heed to them at all.

Also, just as an aside, I noticed in the subtext of this interview how vulnurable "Christendom" is to having its history caricatured and de-natured by post-christian scholarship. Without a political base from which to exert "earthly" power a religious culture really has no chance of defining itself in the face of its enemies--active or passive.

We see this at work every day in the American media and the continual defensive posture of "fundamentalist" christians in the face of definitions of their behavior and beliefs by those who neither know nor care about their beliefs and are often actively hostile to them on the basis of their own prejudice against "fundamentalism".

Perhaps, in some strange way, "backwards" moslems are ahead of Western Christians in their understanding and analysis of who's zoomin' who.

I just finished flipping through a Mid-East travel guide published by Harvard Press. It acknowledged that Israel is important to the "Three Great Monotheistic" religions. It goes to great length to srupulously detail the religious "beliefs" and practices of moslems--with great approval and a sort of condescending contempt for the reader's assumed philistinism in the face of such delightful, spiritually uplifting and healthy practices.

The Jewish religion is presented more as a great, ongoing historical saga.

The Christian religion, on the other hand, is dismissed with a terse reference to the split between the Eastern and Western Church!!

Whenever we hear the theory of "the clash of civilizations" being bandied about--whether from the mouths of government officials, media commetators or as in this Lewis interview--we see a complete unwillingness to countenance a contemporary christian element to the struggle. Christianity is dismissed with terse references to the lingering resentments of the "horrors" of the crusades.

I can't help returning to the image of the two World Trade Towers collapsing onto the tiny Greek Orthodox Church. It seemed an apt metaphor to explain my unease with Bush's famous "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists," dictum. My unease has grown as large as Bush's poll numbers.

Dear ladamefutéesavecl'idiocy:

>Perhaps, in some strange way, "backwards" moslems are ahead of Western Christians in their understanding and analysis of who's zoomin' who.

Yes. And perhaps in some strange way the terrorists who piloted the planes into the WTC were innocent victims, and the two thousand plus people working in the Towers who are now memories were terrorists.

>Without a political base from which to exert "earthly" power a religious culture really has no chance of defining itself in the face of its enemies--active or passive. We see this at work every day in the American media and the continual defensive posture of "fundamentalist" christians ...

[sigh] A religion that's not driven by the spirit world -- in the case of Christianity, not driven by the Holy Spirit -- isn't a religion at all. It is politics. Or an advertising campaign.

>I just finished flipping through a Mid-East travel guide published by Harvard Press. ...

The American media, even Harvard Press, neither define religion in America, nor "reflect" pop culture. They are more Establishment cattle prods than they are mirrors, even of the fun house variety.

Mark W.

Without a political base from which to exert "earthly" power a religious culture really has no chance of defining itself in the face of its enemies--active or passive.

Interesting that you mention this in the same post in which you lament the destruction of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. The Christian Roman empire, and certainly its Byzantine remnant, are a nice example of a political base for an authentically religious culture. Speaking of interpreting history through one's preoccupations, I wonder if you're aware of the late Stephen Runciman's view of the crusades as the last of the barbarian invasions.

In the West, of course, we have the unique polity that is the Holy See, which bids fair to remain influential for the forseeable future. Only today I started reading a diplomatic history of the Vatican in the age of the 20th century dictators. Small as it was, without this political base from which a religious culture works, history would have proceeded very differently.

Charles M. Doughty's view of Arab Fanaticism, from Travels in Arabia Deserta, , 1888:

"I wondered with a secret horror at the fiend-like malice of these fanatical Bedouins, with whom no keeping touch nor truth of honorable life, no performance of good offices, might win the least favour from the dreary, inhuman, and, for our sins, inveterate dotage of their blood-guilty religion. But I had eaten of their cheer, and might sleep among wolves. The fortune of the morrow was as dark as death, all ways were shut before me. There came in a W. Aly sheykh and principal of that tribe’s exiles, he was an hereditary lawyer or arbiter among them, the the custome of the desert: the arbiter sitting by and fixing upon me his implacable eyes, asked the sheykhs of the Moahîb in an under-voice, ‘Why brought they the Nasrâny?’ [Christian (Nazarene)] They said, “Khalîl [the Stranger] was come of himself.’ Then turning to Hamed he whispered a word which I well overheard, ‘Why have you not left him -- thus?’ and he made the sign of the dead lying gasping upright. Hamed asnwered the shrew in a sort of sighing, Istugfir Ullah, ‘Lord I cry thee mercy!’ Târiba (the man’s name) was of a saturnine turning humour; and upon a time afterward, with the same voice, he defended me at Teyma, against the splenetic fanaticism of some considerable villager, threatening me that ‘except I would convert to the religion of Ullah and his Apostle, as I carelessly passed by day and by night in the lanes and paths of the oasis, a God-fearer’s gunshot might end my life.’ Târiba answered him with displeasure, ‘Wellah, [Indeed (by God)] the Beduw be better than ye!’ Târiba’s cavilling was now also for my greeting (as they use) salaam aleyk, ‘peace be with you’. It is ‘the salutation of Islam and not for the mouths of the heathen, with whom is no peace nor fellowship, neither in this world not the next:’ also he would let the people know I was a khawâja. This is the titles of Jews and Christians in the mixed Semitic cities of the Arabian conquest."

One hundred years later, in VS Naipaul's Among the Believers, very little seems to have changed. Yet Doughty's impoverished Bedouin, too backward to grasp the complete otherness of an Englishman, despise kaffirs already, for their unbelief only, not even sensing the existence of a culture to clash with theirs.

"... "I wondered with a secret horror at the fiend-like malice of these fanatical Bedouins, with whom no keeping touch nor truth of honorable life, no performance of good offices, might win the least favour from the dreary, inhuman, and, for our sins, inveterate dotage of their ..."

Hmmmm. This is very interesting. It eerily reminds me of the year I lived on a Maine Island--I won't mention the name here. It is populated largely by families who have lived there and intermarried for 300 years.

Mainland yuppies from Massachusetts and New York--filled with entrepenurial zeal--came, saw, tried to set up espresso bistros, crafts boutiques; tried to enlighten the peasantry--and were swiftly and thoroughly conquered. As they folded their tents and left in a huff on the ferry we often heard them snarling among themselves:

" I wondered with a secret horror at the fiend-like malice of these fanatical Islanders, with whom no keeping touch nor truth of honorable life, no performance of good offices, might win the least favour from the dreary, inhuman, and, for our sins, inveterate dotage of their pathetic, parochial way of life...."

So I'll assert it again--it's not solely the religion. It's the religion grafted onto something far older, tougher and lasting than mere shariahlaw or any other religious conceit. It's the ancient confrontation between the tribe and the revolutionary conscript army--the cosmopolite and the peasant. The latter takes a lickin'--but keeps on tickin'. The former's strengths always turn out to be bakelight and brittle.

It just so happens that in most of the world Islam is the religion practiced by these tribal peoples. Lewis argues that it is Islam which gives them their dignity and strength. I say it's the ancient ways of life that are, in fact, invigorating Islam.

"Experts" are mesmerized by the idea of a "Clash" between Islam and modernism. If that is how the battle will be enjoined then, based upon history, "modernism" will be defeated. Christianity, insofar as it has been reduced to a hobby among some more "backwards" moderns will go down with the bakelight canoe. The "barbarians" who once invigorated christianity--much to the horror of fastidious, "humanitarian" moderns--now battle over state funding for hemorroid removal and anti-smoking crusades......

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.