Bernard Lewis backs Bush: Suicide terror a perversion of Islam

On a scale between 0 = vulgar truth and 10 = perfect inspiration to do the right thing, I would place Bernard Lewis above 9, and Robert Spencer close to 8 (and most of my interventions here hardly making it to 1).

As I see it, Bernard Lewis wants to show where Islam ought to look at in order to make its turnaround – discard (so called) modern suicidal interpretations and despotic habits, and go back to some broad tradition of discussion, anterior to the West’s influence. I think it’s really close to a perfect way to define a real reformists’ attitude – turned towards future but taking enough from the past in order to be proud of its origins, which is a must.

And to the West: be tough, Lewis says. Right on. If the West gets tough, at last, reformists will look better in Islam. If reformists look better, the West will know who (and, gradually, how) to help.

A great man he is.

John Paul Jones was the bass player in Led Zepellin.

Gee, he's had a long and varied career !

( Sorry- I couldn't resist. You may all ritually stone me to death now- I deserve it. )

Alain,

I would be stupid to claim the stature or achievements of Bernard Lewis, and I never have and never will.

But he is wrong on this.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

“Even the famous Assassins of the Middle Ages never died by their own hands and never killed anyone but the marked target.”

Why make such an issue out of what was - or, as we now find, probably wasn't - the case in the past, if it's not what the case is now? If Lewis were an anthropologist one would be tempted to say that he had (partially) "gone native", since he seems so ready to argue whatever shows his subjects of study in a better light than they appear, on the face of it, to warrant.

Attacks with a dagger don't make a good parallel, by their very nature. The assasins didn't have access to high explosives, so disintegrating themselves along with their victims was not an option. Burning your ship so that you're incinerated along with the enemy, as in Andrew Bostom's example, is a pretty close parallel.

Robert,

It is alright to walk to a certain death for achieving victory, but it is not to commit suicide and just take people with you. It is something people can understand and accept, even Muslims. And it is a point of (Islamic) interpretation on which you definitely can argue. It thus is a good way to launch a debate towards some sort of reform. And that is why I think that Lewis is wise to be wrong on that. If he is wrong, which I cannot really assess.

All best, Alain

Could someone please send the esteemed professor the collected works of Robert Spencer along with Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad? He seems to need a refresher in Islam 101.

Alain,

With respect, I am not sure this is a distinction with a difference, since only modern explosives make committing suicide and taking people with you even possible.

The problem I have with Lewis' objection is the many fatawa that declare that jihad-martyrdom suicide attacks are not suicide, and the restrictions on suicide don't apply to them. Simply to say in the face of those fatawa (and statements by various imams) that Islam forbids suicide is not nearly enough.

Best regards
Robert

This is another example of the presentation of half the truth as if it was the whole truth. Yes, it is true that suicide is prohibited in Islam, but only that kind of suicide in which the aim of the suicidee is to simply die. So that would include cases like leaping off a tall building, swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills, one bullet to the temple, hanging from the ceiling fan, etc.

The kind of suicide that is not forbidden, and in fact that is presented as a de facto duty to every true Muslim, is the "suicide" charge in battle or the kamikaze type of suicide. Professor Lewis knows this and it is a sad day indeed when scholars like him fail to muster the courage to speak this truth and instead fall prey to the paralysis of fear.

History has condemned the Nazi apologists of the 1930s and history will condemn the Islamic apologists of our time, for they commit the most tragic of suicides, the suicide of the spirit. How sad it is to realize in the end, that human beings of such glorious potential will have lived in vain.

Robert,

It sure is not enough for a real debate on the question, but that is not Lewis’ or our debate, that’s Muslims’. Lewis is just trying to show a point of contention where reformers could have a solid leverage on people’s opinion. Well, so I feel. Because I really don’t see why he, of all men, would otherwise take a wrong stand in this domain.

We have to see that he also is a great figure for many Muslims. He sure is choosing his words in that light too.

Cordialement, Alain

When Bernard Lewis came to Toronto to deliver the Barbara Frum Memorial Lecture a couple of years ago, he commented at some length on suicide bombing and why he believed it was inconsistent with Quoranic principles. My recollection was that it was about intent, that it was one thing to risk one's life when circumstances indicate that one is likely to die in service of the faith, but to set out to die for the purpose of killing others, and, particularly to kill unarmed non-combatants was wrong and that the "heavenly reward" for those who intentionally blow themselves up was to spend eternity repeatedly exploding.

So Bernard Lewis says suicide terrorism is a perversion of Islam. Big deal. When I see millions of Muslims marching in the streets condemning this behaviour, then I'll get excited.

And you know what, that'll never happen because from the Muslim point of view (for those who have actually studied the Qur'an, Sharia and Sira) killing oneself to advance the cause of Islam in whatever manner is perfectably acceptable. What is unacceptable is killing yourself out of despair, etc..

I am not a Christian but it has always intrigued me that the Christian definition of a martyr is someone who is killed by other people for his or her beliefs whereas the Muslim martyr is killed while killing other people to advance the cause of Allah. The moral differences between Christianity and Islam could not be pointed out any more starkly than by their respective definitions of martyrdom.

Interesting that Mr. Lewis tells us that "the war on terror" is unhelpful in defining the enemy, and that terror is merely a tactic the enemy uses. So we are missing the point here somehow, right? Refusing to name the enemy.
So what does Lewis do to explain how Islam is perverted and hijacked? Goes on and on about suicide bombing, which again, is a merely a tactic. Why are they strapping the bomb belts on sir??? What is REALLY motivating them. Or maybe he doesn't really want to get to the nub of the problem.
Ok Mr Lewis, suicide is condemed in Islam so Islam is ok. I'm not worried anymore.

The fact of turk fighters killing and being killed in this way... itself does not make the point, though it illustrates the point. For all i know (which isn't much) additional interpretations that already are in the islamic texts might make their actions impermissible.

It would be cool to read about a conversation or correspondence between Lewis and Spencer. Seems like one or the other might give way, given the evidence offered.

Lewis is respected by western elites. Wouldn't it be useful to open a dialogue with him?

Bernard Lewis
and others of his ilk
seem to be semi-dhimmis.

"Bernard lewis:It's useful to know who the enemy is."

So Lewis considers Islam/Muslims the enemy ? lol - yet he is promoted as a scholar of Islam and the Muslim world !!!

The rest of the post is laughably weak - what proof and undeniable sources does Spencer give that suicide bombings were OK according to Muslims in the past - a US navy captain (now theirs a trusthworthy source) report on what Turks did in 1788 (when according to the captain- they swore by the sultans beard to do it !!!!- thats an authentic islamic oath!!) and a jewish orientalist Rosenthal !!!!

Bombing Without Moonlight
The Origins of Suicidal Terrorism
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/moonlight.htm

truth speaker

1. Anyone labelled "orientalist" these days is a real scholar in my book; I see the word as a badge of honor

2. Thanks for reminding me, with the essay you linked, why I left graduate school and chose to spend some of my time with the folks writing here.

truth speaker, the site you suggested is not pleasant to read. Is it worth the effort? Reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon in which a guy at a cocktail party says, "As Nietzche, Marx, Darwin, Saint Augustine, Camu, Montesquieu, Einstein, Dante, Plato, Sophocles, and.... um, I forgot my point."

Here is one quote: "The currently almost ubiquitous myth of a desperate sibling rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael is nonsensical to historians." Well, um, is that so? Wasn't one of Muhammed's first predations the thieving and slaughter of the Quurazia, who had done nothing to harm him, though M was looking for a pretext? If I recall the story correctly, Ali asked why the attack, and M's answer was something like, "They don't believe in Allah or the Prophet." Also, aren't there many sources for the suffering of Jews under Islamic rule, when European influence was slight?

If you think that guy's thought is worth bothering with -- has magnificent insights in all those convoluted sentences -- could you give a Readers Digest version for the illiterati?

I suspect the guy is a blowhard.

A truly brilliant fatwa on suicide bombings by a Malaysian scholar whose knowledge of Islamic law and scriptures shows spencer and lewis to be the ignorant little boys they are

http://www.livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/defending_civilians.htm

What the professor fails to grasp is the miraculous mindset, like that of the Japanese kamikazis, of the homicide bomber and his deeper relationship with all-powerful "Allah".

They believe that their deity Allah could save them, at the very moment of detonation, and supernaturally transport them from the reality of the certain death to safety, if, Inshallah, Allah so willed it.

Thus, this is not "suicide", but fatalism in the face of the omnipotent.

That Allah doesn't save any of them is incidental to their absolute faith in his will.

The more earthbound argument, about "dying in war in a 'suicide mission'", is the common reply from imams, ayatollahs, etc. about the defensible nature of this act. They come down on the side of the "justifiable sacrifice against the enemy" logic. Knowing, behind this Sharia legalistic/militarily-acceptible explanation, that Allah, should he feel that it was a "suicide", would save the jihadi from such shame and whisk him (or her) off to paradise just as the semtex ignited.

It isn't suicide, but an act of ultimate faith.

Perfect submission.

Which makes it that much harder to fight.

But, then, how many Japanese kamikazis are flying, lately?

Flawed arguments, when the survival of our Civilization is on the line, are worse than no arguments.

The lead sentence to this post was WAY out of line.

Just review the record of intellectual destruction left in the wake of Edward Said's career, and the damage he did not just to the study of islam, but the study of ANY non-caucasian society. He branded even the attempt to review such a society RACIST.

If anything has stymied efforts to understand islam of late, it has been the fear of being branded a racist. And Said played a HUGE, perhaps INDISPENSABLE role in the creation of that vicious stigma, AND IT'S APPLICATION to any assessment of islam.

To compare Lewis, who you may have disagreements on certain aspects of policy with, to an intellectual fraud like Said, is beyond the pale.

Sure, you can be angered at Lewis' take on the role of suicide bombings and suicide attacks in the history of islam, and you can disagree with him. But if you cavalierly use terms of disparagement, it undermines your overall credibility.

And that's a fact.

I've read Lewis, and Lewis has presented a persuasive brief that the phenemenon of "suicide" attakcs is ahistoric to islam, and arguably inconsistent with traditional islam.

HE MAY BE WRONG, but don't just call him a born-again Edward Said. SHOW US how he's wrong.

[Robert quoting Bostom quoting Prof. Rosenthal:] "death as the result of "suicidal" missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term."

It's semantics.

In the Islamic lexicon, many words are redefined in Orwellian fashion (such as "peace" defined as the absence of people who resist Islamic supremacy).

Thus, when a despondent Muslim who has been smoking too much hashish gets depressed and kills himself, that of course is haram; but when a Muslim rushes in kamikaze fashion into "battle" (whether formally or informally) against Infidels who threaten Islam ("threaten" by refusing to submit to Islamic supremacy -- another Orwellian term) and deliberately courts his own death in the midst of killing Infidels -- then he is accorded the highest religious nimbus in Islam.

Also, Spencer's citation of John Paul Jones can be supplemented by the Moros of the Philippines who for centuries against the Spanish and then for decades against the Americans ran suicidal homicide charges (often individuals wielding knives and screaming and trying to murder as many as they could before being killed themselves) that were sanctified in Islamic terms and had nothing to do with Wahhabi. Similarly, I believe there is evidence of frequent suicidal battle charges during the Islamic Blitzkrieg across North Africa in the 7th-8th centuries. Ditto for campaigns of "running amok" in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Dan:

You say: "HE MAY BE WRONG, but don't just call him a born-again Edward Said. SHOW US how he's wrong."

I did.

Didn't you read the rest of the post?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Truth Speaker:

This fatwa you have posted is interesting.

I would note that writer only refers to the Qur'an very seldomly (I think 5 times). The writer ignores the many verses that suggest to believers that dying for the cause of Allah is most noble and that it will gain the believer instant access to paradise.

Remember you believers love death; we evil-doers love life!

Say: 'If God's Abode of the Hereafter is for yourselves alone, to the exclusion of all others, then wish for death if our claim be true!'

But they will never wish for death, because of what they did; for God knows the evil-doers. Indeed, you will find they love this life more than other men: more than the pagans do. Each one of them would like to live a thousand years.

But even if their lives were indeed prolonged, that will surely not save them from our scourge. God is watching all their actions.

Say: 'Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel' (who has by God's grace revealed to you the Koran as a guide and joyful tidings for the faithful, confirming previous scriptures) 'whoever is an enemy of God, His angels, or his apostles, or of Gabriel or Michael, will surely find that God is the enemy of the unbelievers. 2:95-98

And, although he correctly points out (at least from my reading) that non-combatants are not to be attacked, he conveniently ignores the copious literature that anyone may be killed who is “fighting” the Muslims. That leaves a hole big enough to drive a truck through because “fighting” can be considered almost anything and remember “persecution is worse than killing”.

The Umdat Al Salik

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475

Says (although the exact passage below is not excerpted at the web address above):

The Rules of Warfare

It is not permissible to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men and monks. P.603

Ibn Rushd says:

“Similarly there is no dispute among them that it is not permitted to slay minors or women, as long as they are not waging war. If a woman fights the shedding of her blood becomes permissible. This was established as the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the killing of women and children, and said when he saw a slain woman, ‘She was not one who would have engaged in fighting.’

They disagreed about the case of hermits cut off from the world, the blind, the chronically ill, the old who cannot fight, the idiot, and the peasants and the serfs. Malik said neither the blind nor idiots nor hermits are to be slain, and enough of their wealth is to be left to them by which they may survive. Similarly, the old and decrepit are not to be slain, in his view, and this was also the view of Abu Hanifa and his disciples. Al-Thawri and al-Awazi said that only the old are to be spared. Al-Awazi added that peasants are not to be slain either. According to al-Shafii’s most authentic opinion, all of these categories (of people0 are to be put to death. The basis for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the specificity in some traditions with the general implication of (some verses of ) the Qur’an, and also the generality of the authentic saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I have been commanded to fight mankind until they say, ‘There is no God but Allah.’” The words of the Exalted, “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them”, imply the slaying of every non-believer whether or not he is a monk, and so does the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I have been commanded to fight mankind until they say, “There is no God but Allah.” pp. 458-59 Ibn Rushd, The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer (Vol. 1) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1859641385/ref=pd_rhf_p_2/002-5275596-7664867?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

The above contradicts what your fatwa writer says below; I think I’ll go with the original sources I quote above rather than the simple assertion that your fatwa writer makes.

[it is not permissible to kill their [i.e., the opponents'] women and children if they are not in direct combat.]
This is based on the Prophetic prohibition on soldiers from killing women and children, from the well known Hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allâh be pleased with them both!) related by Imams Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bayhaqi and al-Baghawi (may Allâh be well pleased with them all!) and other Hadiths.
Imam al-Subki ( may Allâh be pleased with him!) made it unequivocally clear what scholars have understood from this prohibition in which the standard rule of engagement taken from it is that: "[a Muslim soldier] may not kill any women or any child-soldiers unless they are in combat directly, and they can only be killed in self-defence" [al-Nawawi, Majmû', 21:57].
It goes without saying that men and innocent bystanders who are not direct combatants are also included in this prohibition. The nature of this prohibition is so specific and well-defined that there can be no legal justification, nor can there be a legitimate shar'î excuse, for circumventing this convention of war by targeting non-combatants or civilians whatsoever, and that the hukm shar'î of killing them is not only harâm but also a Major Sin [Kabira] and contravenes one of the principal commandments of our way of life.

Also, I would point out that writer indicates that as far as Kamikaze attacks, the legalities are unclear:

Tafsîl II: If the attack involves ramming a vehicle into a military target and the attacker is certain to die, precisely like the historical Japanese kamikaze missions, then our jurists have disagreed over whether it does or does not constitute suicide.

The bottom line is that there is a lot of theological weight that can be applied to support suicide bombing.

Be that as it may, I think you should take your Fatwa and race over to Iraq or Afghanistan and start preaching this theological line. I would appreciate it greatly.

Mr. Spencer, sure I read the entire post.

But you need a longer brief to make your case.

Occasional instances of bizerker behavior on the battlefield doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the mentality of the modern suicide bomber has historical antecedants in islam. Western counter examples of last stands, of death or glory rides abound. The charge of the Light Brigade for example, the ALAMO, the attack by our Torpedo bombers against the Japanese Carrier force at Midway. All of these are instances where Westerners KNEW THEY were likely to die, almost sure of it, but nonetheless they stood to their duty. The Light Brigade was almost rabid to make their attack.

But it isn't muslim behavior so much we're interested in here, as it is the mainstream RELIGIOUS SUPPORT that such behavior presently enjoys. THAT'S the salient difference.

Did suicide strikes enjoy RELIGOUS approval before?

Maybe it did. I don't know. I haven't done a fraction the research and reading you've done.

But that's the type of evidence that I would like to see, before concluding that Lewis is out of it, at least on this point.

Sometimes it's hard being a boss... I should know -- it nearly killed me!

The owners of this site should know first and foremost that I respect their endeavors immensely. But I agree with the particulars of Dan's thrust. There have been plenty of times when a certain smugness enters the dialogue here -- I'm guilty of it too, everybody is -- but sometimes this eclipses the impact of the points being made. And, of course, nobody expects you to be perfect -- well -- no reasonable person does.

Today I responded in another thread authored by Mr. Fitzgerald. I enjoy many of his many conceits -- but most would agree he's very conceited... Sometimes, sadly, this interferes with his message. For example: after enjoying the majority of his Captain Queeg conceit, I was nearly jarred out of my seat when he wrote:

"We need cunning, high and low, and clever policies that will husband, not squander, the lives of those West Point graduates who received him with such unthinking hurrahs, the money, the materiel, the morale of military and civilians alike."

Well... Let's see -- Is our officer corps full of mindless bubble heads at West Point or are they WEST POINT GRADUATES -- do they owe the Commander in Chief (the Office, not the man) Cheers or Jeers at commencement? Can we not agree that they're American patriots willing to put everything on the line to defend America in these post modern times of peril? Which is it? Yet there it is. A little thing that's possibly a big thing.

Or perhaps it's just me... Perhaps it's because it's Memorial Day, and I'm shocked to see what looks like contempt mixed with a fawning psuedo-regard for the fate of those officers -- or perhaps it's because I have reached my quota for glibness already (and so soon! after a months-long respite from posting here) -- Whatever the reason -- nerves seem to be a little frayed...

I don't really have a nice neat little conclusion for this post.

Neither cheers nor jeers should automatically be accorded. Did what Bush say make sense? Or was it a crazed vision of some putative American Duty to Remake the World? If everyone is so much in love with liberty, why don't they obtain that liberty without costing us $400 billion, 2,500 dead, and 20,000 wounded? Would that be too much to ask?

Your comment about my "contempt" misunderstands. I am perfectly aware that at commencements all kinds of stupidities are uttered, that those who are graduating are really celebrating the end of the whole damn thing and themselves, and care very little about the bromides (Compassion, Commitment, Follow Your Bliss, Give Something Back -- name your poison) that are fed them by the bromidic Great and Good. But here was Bush setting out a view of the United States that would have horrified the Founding Fathers, should horrify the graduates and their parents, and those "hurrahs," though not really meant for Bush, might well be interpreted by him, by the audience itself, by those watching the event if televised, to have been a response to his speech.

I don't think that the officer corps is "full of mindless bubble heads." Nor do I think it is full of absolute geniuses who comprehend everything. Those who are the "mindless bubble heads" should not be followed, but mocked and scorned. Those who have things right should be heeded. Those who are capable of learning the truth about Islam, Jihad, and the need to husband rather than squander resources, should be given the chance to learn that -- and reports suggest that many, from the top down, are preventing that learning from taking place. The party-line is that Islam is fine, and that we must "split" the "extremists" from the "moderates." No. We must see that the "moderates" need to be carefully defined, are few in number, can metamorphose at any point into that more "extreme" version of Believer, and should not be counted on. The divisions to count on are not those between "moderate" (i.e. unobservant or not-quite-fervent Muslim) and the real thing, but rather between those who are, because of ethnic or sectarian resentment, likely to promote division within the camp of Islam.

"an eternity of bellyache"

-from the Lewis piece featured above

quite accurately describes the torment to which one is subjected under the constant bombardment the lies and distortions of muslims and their sad apologists

Lewis' critical error in his stance over suicide bombing is that he is trying to make an argument that no true scholar of Islam should ever engage in. Lewis is trying to prove based on the islamic holy scriptures and the opinions of earlier jurists that suicide bombings are illegitimate in Islam. An academic scholar of Islam, however, should leave the resolution of this question to contemporary Islamic jurists, instead of trying to teach them what they should think about it. This is the kind of cheap argument that the self-proclaimed experts on Islam from mainstream media frequently make, but it must be below Lewis to argue along such lines.

I remember watching the C-Span broadcast of the American Historical Association during the leadup to the Iraq war. Nearly every speaker rose and spoke disparagingly about America, "American Imperialism" and the pending war. Speakers expressed apprehension that University Campuses were'nt aflame with protest -- some even seemed to be disparaging students...

Speaker after speaker criticised or spoke about what they could do as "teachers" to "educate" their students about how wrong all this was.

One speaker bravely stood up and came to the front of the room and said something to the effect of:

"Hey -- aren't we historians? Shouldn't we be focusing on analyzing history rather than trying to shape current events?"

Silence.

I watched it all and was dumbfounded. Bonfire of the vanities... Many in academia seem to be completely unclear about their duties. Same thing with the Press. Same thing with the Politicians.

Many of the scions of privilege seem to have utterly lost their way -- Our Muslim enemy seems to sense this too -- They smell blood. They are partially correct when they describe us as "decadent", though I utterly repudiate their lens. We are falling apart. We are weak. We have lost our way.

Perhaps Islam's assault will turn out to be one of the best things that ever happened to us - that is, if we can find our way back from the abyss.

truth speaker,

Mr. Spencer is IMHO one of the best writers around on the subject of jihad.

Lewis has made some basic errors (or are they errors?--it's difficult to say, because one would think that he should know better). One thing I've learned is that credentials--which Lewis certainly has--are no guarantee of accuracy. Statements do not make themselves accurate, as if by magic, when one attains a certain academic stature. Even the best professors make mistakes, and the best of them will admit to that. As for Lewis, I am not at all sure.

Errors.

1. Talks from his "own private Islam" perspective instead of what the texts, history, and Islamic scholars have said and ruled. This is (at best) a very basic error.

2. Confuses general suicide (outside of jihad context) with hurling oneself to death in jihad. The latter is not only approved but is glorified in Koran and ahadith. It is, among other things, a test of faith. Again, this is (at best) a very basic error.

3:140. "If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), We give to men by turns, that Allah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allah likes not the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers).
3:141. And that Allah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers.
3:142. Do you think that you will enter Paradise before Allah tests those of you who fought (in His Cause) and (also) tests those who are As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)?
3:143. You did indeed wish for death (AshShahadah - martyrdom) before you met it. Now you have seen it openly with your own eyes."

I've posted some information on this issue of suicide attacks here.
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/about106-islamwatch.html

Note that 4:66 says "slay yourselves," which has been taken to mean that it is exemplary to 'lay down your lives in Allah's Cause' (most tafsirs give this view; and this is consistent with other verses), or else 'slay the evil/mischievous/disbelievers from among you' (Ibn Kathir adds that interpretation).

Also, the trusty old 9:5, which permits "every strategem of war" could probably be used by jihadists to justify any technique, including suicide bombing. (Is there something that is not included in the category of every strategem of war? Some ahadith that state that women and children should not be killed if that can be avoided. But note that jihad itself is unavoidable, the prophet himself supervised the killing of women and children, stated that polytheists women and children could be killed in the night raids, and the ultimate goal of Islam overrides other concerns).

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4655:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Of the men he lives the best life who holds the reins of his horse (ever ready to march) in the way of Allah, flies on its back whenever he hears a fearful shriek, or a call for help, flies to it seeking death at places where it can be expected. (Next to him) is a man who lives with his sheep at a hill-top or in a valley, says his prayers regularly, gives Zakat and worships his Lord until death comes to him. There is no better person among men except these two.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 63:
Narrated Al-Bara:
A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? "The Prophet said, "Embrace Islam first and then fight." So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. "(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance)."

Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4678: It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of God, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i.e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).

As others above have noted, there were no explosives in 7th-century Arabia. This does not rule out the use of such explosives today. The statements in the Koran are generalized (e.g., make ready to the utmost of your power, 8:60; strive with your wealth and your lives 9:41; fight them and Allah will punish them at your hands, 9:14).

Mohammad did not initially make use of catapults, but eventually he used them when he acquired them. If jihadists took literally and specifically statements about swords, horses, etc., and applied these today, they'd be wiped out by superior technology (of course, in some cases they do use horses and swords, but that is generally only because better technology is not available to them). To limit technology and tactics would obviously go against the larger goal of Islam, which is to defeat the non-Muslims. Zarwahiri et al have argued that suicide attacks are perhaps the most cost-effective way of killing non-Muslims.

Archimedes:

Impressive posts. How many years did you study at the Madrassa again? Perhaps it is time to change your nick to Sheikh Archimedes.

As the Prophet said, "Some eloquence is like magic."

I have a way that Bush could break through this political logjam once and for all: OK, so Bernard Lewis, and many "moderate" Muslim spokespersons, claim that Wahhabism is a "perversion" of Islam, not representative of the "true, peaceful" Islam. Fine. Then why doesn't the U.S. officially declare war on Wahhabism? It wouldn't satisfy Mr. Spencer or Hugh, but at least that would be a vast improvement over the current vagueness. And if we declared war on Wahhabism, Muslims couldn't simultaneously claim that the U.S. is "waging war on Islam" or is "anti-Islamic," and at the same time claim that Wahhabism isn't representative of Islam.

If Bush told the world that "Islam is a great and honorable religion of peace, but Wahhabism and the teachings of Sayyid Qutb are totally unacceptable and must be eradicated," how would the Muslim world react to THAT?

interesting, steven L.

Steven L.

The cow population of Saudi Arabia would increase manyfold overnight.

So saith the Prophet Simpson of B'art.

I still think that Lewis has the edge: if the logic of suicide attackers is carried on, nuclear weapons will soon be used quite indiscriminately on that basis and cause devastation beyond repair, which is against not only a widespread vision of (traditional) Islam but just common sense. It should be enough for giving so called moderates a strong argument in this debate.

And the closer their arguments will be of common sense the better. Because Islamic texts are not the literal reference Islam needs (they’re probably phony anyway) – the successful reform of Islam will have to be based on some down-to-earth approach, on plain humanity. Eventually, humanity, or a firmly human interpretation, will have to be declared superior to the text itself.

Aïsha’s marriage is a good example. Nine years old is too young, obviously, and only the worst extremists (oh, how much it costs to use such euphemisms!) argue that all girls should be declared “consumable” at that age. Here, without any positive backing in the texts (I’d know of), Muslims (well, women I guess) imposed the view that girls have to be pubescent, that Aïsha sure was, then (although this is not stated in any way). And the age was raised, quite generally. Not high enough, okay, but here common sense took the edge on the example of the prophet. This kind of debate still goes on; for example with Muslim women fighting on solid common sense ground against “laws” permitting that adults have sex with infants.

In arguing that traditional Islam, that is, Islam as commonly understood and practiced by people, already is able to do that, already possess the necessary tools and wisdom, in it own self-grown tradition, Lewis is de facto encouraging this evolution. He is working together with history.

ajm,

Lewis has the edge on what? Telling people what they want to hear? As I read the various statements of Lewis, I see him making a variety of contradictions; he says one thing to one audience, another thing to another audience. This is how some people win adulation and awards. Pleasant to say, pleasant to hear, goodness gracious somebody give that man an award!

I agree with jsla's post above--those guys (Lewis included) are supposed to be scholars, not political activists. We expect politicians and advertisers to play fast-and-loose with words, but we demand that scholars stick to the facts. Lewis needs to be more forthright that he is giving his own highly unorthodox interpretation of Islam. Unfortunately, people are interpreting his statements as being representative of real Islam, and he is doing nothing to disabuse them of that interpretation.

To state that "Islam disapproves of suicidal attacks" is highly misleading. It's like saying the army disapproves of suicide, and then using that statement to argue that the army disapproves of soldiers laying down their lives in battle. It is flat out ridiculous. (Of course the army does not want to see its own soldiers killed; but it values the lives of those who give their lives in the line of duty). As Robert and several posters have pointed out, the suicide that Lewis is talking about is completely irrelevant; it has nothing to do with suicidal kamikaze-style attacks in jihad. The Koran, Hadith, Sira, 1400 years of Islamic history, and the present situation and the position of mainstream Islamic scholars and jurists today, is that such verses in the Koran as I have cited are valid and must be followed. It is irrelevant to them whether you or I think those verses and reports are fraudulent. They believe it, they and their followers act on it, and a large minority to a small majority of Muslim society applauds it (i.e., suicidal attacks that kill non-Muslims) from the sidelines.

The danger with Lewis is that, although he can't support a word of what he says about the alleged illegitimacy of suicide attacks with any Islamic evidence (texts, history, jurisprudence, present-day practices and attitudes), people actually take him seriously and believe what he says. In other words, at least with respect to this suicide issue, what he's saying is pure flim-flam. And his largely non-Muslim audiences in the west are eating it up thinking that they are getting the straight facts. I can just hear the conversations now, with people fatuously citing Lewis when they claim to have learned that Islam does not permit jihadists to die in their attempts to kill non-Muslims.

For cripe's sake, when are the peopl of the world going to wake up and realize that there is no such thing as moderate islam?

I've always heard that you are known by your deeds, not your words. If this is true then islam is nothing more than a murdering cult that is orders of magnitude worse than Charles Manson's "Family"

Duty, Honor, Country
in THAT order)
Rowane

Methinks you forget two things, Archimedes.

1. The people factor.
Lewis thinks of them and we have good reasons to believe that he knows what they can do. This is not something you can tell by just studying Islamic texts and historians’ works. You have to go through mountains of documents and real contacts to get a feel of how a society like that functions, and functioned in the past. Of course, he may be wrong, but you cannot prove that point without dancing on the same floor than he is.

2. The being-listened-to-factor.
You and I are not listened to by Muslims, what we are saying has no impact whatsoever for Muslims within Islam. (But what we do possibly does. If I, as a Westerner, would say that moderates will save the day; I’d sure be a fool. All I can say is Islam(ism) is a no-no. And I do. And I am struggling to have it banned for good. Because that would be a strong incentive for Muslims to reform.) So we should keep criticizing it hard. That’s okay.

But if we were listened to by them, as Lewis is, we would have a responsibility towards Muslims. Because Islam’s madness is a danger for people, not just for Westerners. So we then should have to show some ideas towards a solution. One good way to do it is to point to an argument which can create a schism in interpretation, within Islam, that can launch a profound debate, especially in relation with the odds of nuclear weaponry.

And I think that Lewis definitely may be right to believe that some traditional Islam has the means to make that debate. Or at least I think we would definitely be wrong to exclude that possibility when such a man deems it realistic.

And for the set-back he gives us by admitting that some Islam may be serviceable, well, come on, it’s not that bad. We also are saying that there can be good people in Islam, aren’t we? So there always were good people in Islam, right (and victims! think of all the slaves who became Muslims)? So we can admit that they had some influence, some impact on that volatile thing called, say, traditional Islam. eh?

ajm,

To be clear, I talked about both of these things:

"1. The people factor."

See PEW poll results and others, which I mentioned. A large minority to a small majority of Muslims approve of suicide attacks. Lewis' contacts are a tiny and biased sample of well-educated, western-minded moderates. Muslims care more about what Qaradawi says than they care about what Lewis says. Indeed, it's a safe bet that Muslims are more in agreement with bin Laden than they are of Lewis. 60% of Pakistanis approve of bin Laden. They've probably never heard of Lewis.

"2. The being-listened-to-factor."

Actually, I did say that people listened to Lewis. His primary audience is non-Muslims. That's why I said that there is a danger with him. It is mostly an elite group of non-Muslims in the west, particularly in the media, that listen to him, then disseminate his views more broadly. What Lewis should be doing is waking people up, but he's not doing that, at least, not clearly and not consistently.

But there's no evidence that what Lewis says has any impact on what the Muslim world, overall, thinks. Muslims are influenced by Al-Jezeera, al-Qaradawi, bin Laden, etc. They don't care about Lewis because he's a non-Muslim and has no authority. That's why his words are wasted on them.

Sure we should leave room for moderate Muslims. But even a moderate Muslim would agree that there is nothing wrong with someone laying down their own life in battle for a good cause. (And this is partly why Lewis' comments on "suicide attacks" are so absurd and misleading. Approximately 30-60% of Muslims see those attacks as legitimate retaliation against a militarily more powerful foe. To them, it's war, and the enemy is viewed as a collective entity). The truly moderate Muslims, those who reject, for example, suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, are, I suspect, quite rare.

The problem is with the definition of "good cause," what constitutes just (or lawful, acceptable) form of killing, and who is lawful to kill. This goes to the heart of the Islamic belief system which states that belief in Islam is more important than human life. Before moderate Muslims can make progress, they have to acknowledge the problems, and deal with them head-on. This has not been done yet. They will not be motivated to address the problems if people like Lewis are telling them everything is wonderful. Moreover, moderate Muslims have practically no influence on the Islamic establishment. What moderate Muslims need to do is try, with the help of governments, to get into positions of power within Islam and replace the Islamist leadership. I'm talking about political and social influence, not endless wrangling over what the verses mean, etc. Simply put in power the moderates who have the most benign view in regards to non-Muslims, women, separation of religion and state, and so on. This is feasible in the west. This also requires the backing of grass-roots support. That is a problem. Moderate Muslims do not have much grass-roots support. Bin Laden et al have the grass-roots support. So the moderates have a lot of work to do to get into those positions of power, and to alter the attitudes of the majority of Muslims.

You're right, BTW, that I have no influence on moderate Muslims. I don't claim to have any such influence. But we can all do our small parts to educate the non-Muslim population, and an educated non-Muslim population will put social pressure on the Muslims as well as on politicians and media.

"Aïsha’s marriage is a good example. Nine years old is too young, obviously, and only the worst extremists (oh, how much it costs to use such euphemisms!) argue that all girls should be declared “consumable” at that age."
-- from a posting above

One of the first acts of the Khomeini regime was to reduce the marriageable age of girls to nine. Was Khomeini "only the worst extremist"? What about the tens of millions of Iranians who supported Khomeini, and support his regime still (Ahmadinejad won in a walk)? If tens of millions of people, if the majority of those in Ira, are "only the worst extremists," and if "only the worst extremists" could also win sufficient power in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood), or among the local Arabs renamed as the soi-disant "Palestinian people" or set up a regime still more pur et dur because untempered by the corruption of the Al-Saud, in Saudi Arabia, then this phrase "only the worst extremists" begins to sound hollow.

In making claims belied by Muslims themselves, enough of whom engage in the logic-chopping necessary so that attacks that kill Infidels, even if suicidal in nature, are no longer considered "suicide," Lewis may be trying to somehow create, not his own private Islam, but an Islam that Muslms themselves will, en masse, not agree to, for the hysteria of suicide-bombing is clearly permitted. And in doing what he does, at this stage of the game, Lewis does not change a single Muslim mind, but does continue to contribute to keeping Infidels less alarmed, more unwary, more touchingly convinced that if only enough good things are done to and for Muslims (make them prosperous, bring them good government, satisfy their every local grievance which can always be presented not as prompted by the unassuagable demands that Islam makes, but by assuageable desires for "self-determination" or "nationalism" by local Muslims).

Lewis, enthusiast for the Oslo Accords, enthusiast (now backing away, blaming all the "mistakes" in execution by the Bush Administration, and refusing to admit that his own enthusiasm was wrong) for the Light Unto the Muslim Nations Project in Iraq, liked to pretend that he was simply a scholar in the stacks, unaccustomed to influencing those in power, a man au-dessus de la melee. It was nonsense, but perhaps, in light of the consequences of his two major ventures (the third, his attempt to help some of the outwardly more plausible "reformers" in Egypt -- but ones who remain adamant on Israel -- also have been misplaced, and will remain so until he decides that the only way to encourage reform is to stop the Jizyah of foreign aid, not just to Mubarak, but to Egypt period).

Lewis is a historian. To an extent that really can be presented as substantial, he taught their history to Muslims.

And today, he still does. He says that traditional Islam, the day-to-day Islam of before the despotic rulers of the post-colonial period has the solution. He says “go back to your traditions: debate the matter as you used to do. Then, no-one would have been able to make most of you believe that suicide bombing is okay, like today.” I challenge anyone to prove him wrong on that.

And that is not contradicted by the fact that most Muslims of our days may be deluded into thinking that such attacks are any good at anything. Not in the least.

I agree that Islam – the laws of Islam, the deeds of the prophet – is a shameful disgrace for all eternity, but I can’t help but see a potent element of solution in the people themselves. Even if they look crazy by now, Muslims are the solution. And to tell them that they can, that they actually could, once upon a time, keep their reason in front of their religion does help. It may not have a perceptible impact yet, but it isn’t wrong for that. We might not want to actively support that vision – that’s too close of a contradiction for us – but we shouldn’t fight it or stigmatize it.

ajm-

So we should lie to Muslims about their mythical "reasonable" past in order to disarm them now?

If it work only work.

But they "know better":

The infidel dog Crusaders mock the "perfect man" and the "true God", and need to be conquered.

And all of our wishful thinking won't alter what the Koran tells them.

They need to reform the Koran, and learn a peaceful method of arguing for their vision of the world, or face a future of endless war with the infidels.

typo above-

"...would only work..."

(Too much work on the brain.)

Alain Jean-Mairet attempts above to justify Lewis's remarks as being addressed to Muslims. But Lewis has no influence among the Muslim masses; Prince Hassan, Halil Inalcik, Fouad Ajami, and others of that ilk are hardly the Muslim masses who need to be persuaded that "suicide bombing" is un-Islamic.

Lewis's real and only audience, at this point, are intelligent Infidels. The effect of his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords, and for the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project which, he now claims, was "mishandled," that it was merely a matter of botched execution and not of something that was always messianic, silly, and missing-the-point -- the point being not to make a Muslim state a splendid example of what could be done if only an entire Infidel army came in, overturned the regime, and spent a few hundred billion dollar4s, but rather to create the conditions in which the camp of Islam would be divided and demoralized (instead, as of now, the camp of Infidels being divided and demoralized, with the successful exploitation, in Western Europe, of the pre-existing mental conditions of antisemitism and anti-Americanism, used to divide the two parts of the Western Alliance, America and Europe).

Lewis may believe he can have some effect on Muslims world-wide. He can't. But he has an effect on Cheney and others in the Administration. Instead of distancing himself now from the policy about which he was such an enthusiast (or at least, that is what so many took him to be), he ought to explain that the Iraq business was a mistake, that the hostility between Shi'a and Sunni cannot be overcome, that he grossly underestimated both the Shi'a resentment and the crazed Sunni determiniation not to give up political (and therefore economic and every other kind of) power, that he underestimated the willingness of the Kurds to continue to remain in an Arab-ruled state, that he had not given thought to the obvious use of Iraq as the ideal place to allow sectarian and ethinc fissures within Islam to fester and to grow, and to hope that outside Muslim states, chiefly Iran and Saudi Arabia, would in turn be forced to use up men, materiel, money, and attention in helping their respective sectarian sides within Iraq.

He could say this. He could admit to it, instead of refusing to discuss Iraq in public at all, except to allude to the "mistakes" of others -- always of others, never of Bernard Lewis.

He could.

Archimedes,

"Approximately 30-60% of Muslims see those [suicide] attacks as legitimate retaliation against a militarily more powerful foe."

That figure seems too low; what's your source?

Talking of wishful thinking: how are the chances to convince our Western constituencies to support a strategy of systematically demoralizing people already facing terrible difficulties? Nada. Zilch. Zéro pointé.

You can howl at horrible Islam all you want, as long as we are not able to prepare some project either together with Muslims or at least with a strong compassionate part towards them, you just won’t put that Sisyphos’ stone up hill. No way (even in a total war, it still would be doubtful). You won't convince enough people to show the necessary resolve before you can come with some credible way to achieve it together with SOME Muslims.

Lewis proposes to have Muslims find in Islam’s past some good tools for building their future. Now that’s an idea I definitely can live with, whoever is pronouncing it. The fact that Lewis is who he is rather adds to its value, whatever you may think of his mistakes otherwise. And I sure don’t think he is lying. What? You can doubt that any Muslim ever realized what we are now discussing right here? You can believe that no Muslim community in history sincerely tried to get around the trap of that faith? Think again.

Lewis idea is not just his. It does have a potential among Muslims. If the West builds on that, for example because of Lewis, many Muslims might follow. It would build a bridge. Towards reform. And then our job here will be to make sure that the process will stay transparent enough.

Now, I don’t think that’s enough, far from that, but it goes the right way, so why break it. Of course it will need much more than such ideas, or suppositions, or incitements. It will need pressure; it will need determination, purposes, decisions based on solid knowledge, at last. And jihadwatch is a shining star of that effort, for sure. But that doesn’t mean that we have to be right all alone. It will be difficult, too, progressive, with lots of setbacks and disappointments. And not only on our side. We have to be open for people going a slightly other way (more so if they are as good as Lewis) and for the efforts of the other side too.

We have to.

ajm,

You neglect to acknowledge the points that were raised in Robert's article in the first place, and thus you continue trying to make a case based on faulty assumptions. Notably, you ignore the problems in Islamic history, in the Islamic texts, and in present-day beliefs and practices (in which suicide attacks in jihad are approved by the majority of Muslim leaders). This is exactly the problem with Lewis.

Criticizing Islam is not "howling" at it.

You are hopelessly mistaken if you believe that moderate Muslims will by themselves work to change Islam. They don't see any problem with Islam. Moderate Muslims think Islam is perfect.

Where were the widespread moderate Muslim protests when the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan wanted to execute Abdul Rahman, the ex-Muslim who (they claimed) had apostatized from Islam in converting to Christianity? Where are the widespread moderate Muslim protests when "blasphemers" are imprisioned and/or executed? I can tell you exactly where the vast majority of them were: Either protesting Mohammad cartoons, or doing nothing. Most moderate Muslims, with a few exceptions (e.g., FreeMuslims) did nothing. Moreover, the grass-roots moderate Muslims not only did nothing, but many of them are frankly in favour of executing apostates. Abdul Rahman had to be ushered out of Afghanistan, otherwise he'd have been torn to shreds by non-Taliban "moderate Muslims" who were threatening to do exactly that. Only the influence of non-Muslims saved Mr. Rahman. Had it not been for the international pressure from the non-Muslim coaltion countries that have troops in Afghanistan, that man would have been executed. Where are the moderate Muslims protesting people who are executed or imprisoned for blasphemy against Islam? If moderate Muslims cannot even take a stand against such clear-cut problems as the apostasy and blasphemy penalties, what hope is there for them to deal with more complex problems?

Much the same could be said for suicide bombing. It has a receptive audience, which is most Muslims. They are in an inertial state of acceptance of suicide attacks on non-Muslims (indeed, if anything, approval of suicide attacks against non-Muslims has increased). Only an outside force will alter those views, and that outside force is non-Muslims (non-Muslim and ex-Muslim critics).

Muslims' attitudes will be influenced by social and political pressure. That pressure will come from a non-Muslim majority that is "howling" (with good reason) at Islam.

Lewis can cook up all the pleasant lies that he wants, and you can ignore all the facts that you want. Neither of you, nor your pollyanna approach, will have any positive impact on reforming Islam, because you deny that there is a problem in Islam. We've tried pollyanna for the last approximately 35 years. Look at the results.

TV,

Source is the PEW website, which publishes these statistics. I give a wide range, rough estimate, because these figures vary from country-to country. Most likely, these figures are higher in certain countries such as Saudi Arabia (this, I would guess, is about level with or slightly higher than Pakistan because they have a similar "education" system and same type of anti-Infidel propaganda). Also keep in mind there is probably some error introduced because of the nature of the questions (which I consider poor). The questions should have specifically refered to suicide attacks against non-Muslims, but they don't. If the questions did refer specifically to non-Muslim victims, the approval ratings for suicide attacks would obviously be much higher.

ajm,

"Talking of wishful thinking: how are the chances to convince our Western constituencies to support a strategy of systematically demoralizing people already facing terrible difficulties? Nada. Zilch. Zéro pointé."

I believe you are making a decision such that somebody's alleged feelings of being demoralized (or tactical use of the claim of being demoralized) are more important than human life. I believe that it is more urgent to criticize the Islamically-approved killing of non-Muslims, ex-Muslims, alleged blasphemers and critics, political dissidents, gays and lesbians, adulterers, etc., than it is to be concerned about alleged "demoralization." I suggest that you need to get your priorities straight. In fact, our criticisms, if acted upon, would protect moderate Muslims who occasionally might slip up and say something deemed to be un-Islamic. But you won't even permit criticism, so how can people act to fix a problem if they believe there is no problem or are not allowed to talk about it?

But let's step back and ask: Why should someone feel demoralized for hearing criticisms about religiously-approved murders? Are they so self-centered that they feel nothing for the victims of the Islamically-approved attacks? Why aren't they, in light of those criticisms, energized to change Islam, to seize power from the Islamists, to promote a grass-roots movement against the various kinds of Islamically-approved murders? Actions, and inactions, sometimes speak louder than words.

Do we hold back legitimate criticism of any group in society out of fears that the members of that group might become "demoralized"? Come of it! They're adults! We criticize all political and religious ideologies and Islam should be no exception.

So I criticize the Islamically-approved practice of killing women and children in suicide attacks. Now suppose some moderate Muslim feels "demoralized." Given the enormity of the issue, why should I or anyone else waste time worrying about how moderate Muslims feel about Islam's image being tarnished? Isn't it more important that we stand up for the victims, and not those who, overall, support those murders of non-Muslim women and children? Moderate Muslims will only change their attitudes when there is real social and political pressure on them to change.

Extremely well put, Archimedes.

I'd add that we see very little evidence from among "moderate" Muslims to defy their fellow misunderstanders of Islam in all their heinous violence. Instead we see Muslim disinformation agents working feverishly to convince only non-Muslims that violence has nothing to do with Islam.

I'm hard put to imagine why I would or should have ANY regard for the feelings of such "moderates". They are FAKES, or they are FOOLS.

When a scholar can no longer bear to face the truth, it's time to quietly retire.

And that goes for Bernard Lewis. His dissembling has only encourage the fools to accelerate us downward.

Archimedes,

Now you start to twist the debate – why? You say that I neglect Robert’s assumptions, that I ignore the present situation – nothing could be more wrong. I say that if Lewis distinguishes elements of solution in the history of Islam – and here he is the expert, with Robert’s full acknowledgment – than there quite probably are some and we’d better use that.

Then you are targeting a bogeyman – who is talking here of “widespread Muslim protests”? Only you. I say that most Muslims are deluded. Of course, in such a situation, you cannot gather large numbers of “moderate” people. Moderates are by definition rather peaceful people, and you need fighters, or at least quite resolute people, to oppose fanatics.

Yes, suicide bombing is quite in. Yes, our (real) allies in Islam are quite weak. So what? Yes, we need “a non-Muslim majority that is ‘howling’ (with good reason) at Islam”, but then those people need to stand on some values. And Muslims are drilled from infanthood to admit that only Islam has the right values. So if we are just a bit smarter than the average street protester, we should be able to accept that they want to believe in themselves, and look beyond mere words. How do your think that we will come to such a majority?

It is a huge reform. It might very well start with a few uncomfortable questions about suicide bombing in relation with nuclear power, no?

Once the need of a debate on that is there, we can hope. See: I’m proposing, for example, to make pressure on Saudis (who are quite preoccupied by Iranian weaponry, as you will easily figure out) to organize a great popular divan in Mecca, where people (in the dozen of thousands) would have the opportunity to discover the reality of their scriptures and discuss them in the protected and pious atmosphere of an anonymous electronic forum, one that would respect some basic rules of such divan (control of the possession of the necessary knowledge, striving for unanimity, evolving votes to that effect). In such a facility, you could gather the real opinion of people, the voice of their hearts. And it would be a pretty strong voice – straight from Mecca. That’s also an idea, a bit like Lewis’. Let’s make them numerous, rather than questioning each detail of them beforehand.

And then you twisted my point on our constituencies. The fact is that in our full democracies, you cannot gather majorities for a resolute action, such as the demoralizing (a proposition of Hugh’s) of the camp of Islam. What you say doesn’t touch that. But let’s slide: yes, Muslims despise our criticism, that’s but normal. That is a common effect of faith, and Islam is a very strong one. All criticism from outside has no value, all the more when it comes from people condemned by the faith as people perverting piousness. It’s not just politics, man, it’s religion.

And then you go back to square one: yes, “moderate Muslims will only change their attitudes when there is real social and political pressure on them to change”, but then our constituencies won’t allow us to make such pressure unless we can show that we have some understanding of a peaceful solution in advance. See: that’s the point. If we want to exercise enough pressure, we need some positive ideas about how moderate Muslims might take the edge, within Islam. Now, that’s a hard one indeed, and delicate on the top of it, but then what are you expecting after 1400 years of that?

ajm,

I'm not twisting your points, but making my own. I will acknowledge this much: We appear to have the same goals. However, we appear to have completely different understandings of the same phenomena. Here are a few responses, not entirely complete, but life goes on...and hopefully forward and not in circles.

(Your statements in italics)

"It’s not just politics, man, it’s religion."

In Islam, politics and religion are one entity. If Islam were only a religion (i.e., a personal matter of belief) we would not be having this discussion and there would be no need for this website.

"The fact is that in our full democracies, you cannot gather majorities for a resolute action,",/i>

Actually, we can, in the case of non-Muslims and some moderate Muslims. Example: The recent rejection of sharia (last year) in personal and family law in Ontario. Had the general public not been so overwhelming opposed to this scheme, it is not clear what the Liberal government was going to do. Only after opinion poll results came in showing that the vast majority of citizens opposed the introduction of sharia, and when well-known celebrities and human rights activists became involved, did the Liberal government finally reject the scheme.

The fact is that the attitudes of the majority play a big role in government policy.

"If we want to exercise enough pressure, we need some positive ideas about how moderate Muslims might take the edge, within Islam."

I just suggested at least one, earlier: We need to replace radical clerics with moderate reformers, and this can be facilitated in the west by governments. Governments won't do anything if they believe there is no problem.

Everything comes back to the basic point about truth-telling, alerting non-Muslims and Muslims alike about the problems in Islam. Lewis' approach works against that, Robert's works in favour of it. I prefer Robert's truth-telling approach.

Is Lewis a better scholar of Islamic history? I think you are taking Robert's generous statements a little too literally. Better scholar with respect to what? Dhimmitude? Actually, Bat Ye'or has filled that gap, a gap left by Lewis and many others. A better scholar in regards to the history of jihad? I guess it depends on your criteria, but Lewis is no scholar of jihad. How about the Koran? Does Lewis know the Koran? Not much. I suspect many of the posters at this site know more about the Koran. He is evidently not even aware of the extent of the anti-Semitism in the Koran. Has Lewis ever written that the worst crime in all of Islam is disbelief? Not that I'm aware of. My impression is that he does not even grasp the basics, which underly all Islamic laws (i.e., the principle that the disbelievers are not equal to believers, and that disbelief is the worst crime). Did his statements on Islam help us understand 9/11, Salman Rushdie affair, Cartoon affair, Abdul Rahman affair? No.

Does Lewis help us understand why Muslims target and kill Israeli women and children? No; in fact, he has only confused the issue with his whole mix-up of regular suicide with the seeking of martyrdom in jihad. That was an elementary mistake; there's no other excuse for it. As Robert says, on that issue, Lewis is just wrong.

I agree with the assessment of Archimedes about the incompetence of Bernard Lewis: but how could a Bernard Lewis be so incompetent? It's astounding and staggering and inexplicable; and yet, there's no other explanation for why he says and writes the things he does. If there is an answer to this astounding conundrum, it points to Lawrence Auster's tantrum (which nevertheless may be true) about how profoundly liberalism has infected the West -- so profoundly, its insidious infilitration penetrates nooks and crannies and interstices that many people don't notice, and even deny when they don't realize they embody them. When people talk about "left" and "right", and "liberal" and "conservative", they are, often without realizing it, not seeing the forest for the trees: they regard the forest as a neutral context, within which there are leftists and conservatives. However, it may be as Auster says, that the forest has become compromised: the very context within which we are to adjudge "left" and "right" is left-skewed, left-oriented.
Our political compass by which we measure orientation has become out of whack (perhaps Flaubert's Sentimental Education was Auster's canary in the coalmine), and it takes passionate ranters like Mike Savage, Lawrence Auster, Oriana Fallaci, and Dennis Miller to perturb our already disturbed & deformed moorings sufficiently to jostle us out of our mistaken sense that we know left from right anymore.

Well, okay, I’ll let life go on. But just for the record:

When I was talking of religion vs. politics, I meant depth of conviction, not some theoretical separation between the concerned institutions. And there, once again, I find more light in Lewis’ approach: in traditional Islam, all is religion, but the debate involves many societies built around other interests, he says. That’s their way, and that’s workable, at least for grounding a solid project of reform of their unacceptable laws (jihad, hududs, dhimma).

Rejecting sharia in the West is not really an achievement. I’d say it is a minimal stand. And it was rejected there because of a hurried move of Islamists. Over here, they’re smarter, they wait until they form a substantial part of some constituency, and then no politician can support such an anti-sharia stand without jeopardizing its election. Now, if you want to stop that, it is Islam itself that you have to ban. You’ll impress me when you’ll get to that. I hope you will.

You want to “replace radical clerics with moderate reformers” but you dismiss in advance reformers who would base their stand on some Islamic tradition. That’s too difficult a stand within Islam. And it shows that what you actually want is radical reformers.

Yes, governments should state clearly what’s wrong in Islam itself, rather than make believe that the bad parts are outside the religion. Here, we are together. Let’s stay at that.

And as for your critical remarks on Lewis, let’s hope he’ll replicate or anyhow prove his point. That part of the debate beats me.

AJM -- it seems to me that you're very familiar with the contours of this battlefield, and that you have a fairly realistic appreciation of the nature of our enemy.

It's not hard to extrapolate some of your comments and conclude that perhaps you have already despaired of winning a war, and are searching for comforting compromises.

You said "Rejecting sharia in the West is not really an achievement. I’d say it is a minimal stand." I suggest that rejecting Sharia in the West is an achievement inasmuchas it indicates a growing awareness of the implications of such cancerous endeavors by Muslims. I also suggest that this "minimal stand" is really an initial stand.

If "it is Islam itself that you have to ban", then why discuss measures which fall short of that goal?

Clearly our fellow citizens are not yet aware of the monster which stalks us -- this is a harrowing truth. But I am convinced that a consciousness of the heinousness of our enemy is not far under the surface for most inhabitants of Dar ul Harb. The mechanisms of the human psyche have not been expunged, despite the efforts of latter day zealots to end the march of history and forever alter the nature of man. Such persons may seem to have the upper hand today, but millions of years of precedence makes their legal hold on us look tenuous to me.

We CAN expose this complicated to understand but in the end easy to recognize enemy! Islam's binary world view is a weapon we can marshall against them.

We CAN push this enemy back. Islam's enormities are more than adequate to elicit deep conviction. That is, if they're exposed for what they are, and if those who siphon off our focus and comprehension are dissuaded of repudiated.

We CAN win. We must.

jsla – I sure am not despairing. I just think that we cannot be that picky, that we have to use all possible forces against that enemy. Not really that he is that strong, but because to lose now would mean too much of a lost. You are right, we must win.

But who are we?

If I am considering working with Muslims, it is also because a real victory has to be that of people. Against delusion. For that is what Islam is in the first place – the worst delusion ever.

So if I want to ban Islam, it is as a step on the way, as a mean, towards something which can gather a larger consensus. See: I think it is realistic now in Switzerland, for we really still can do it here with some positives goals, and without risking a civil war or bad troubles. And we do have enough information, feedback and lesson from other countries where it is hardly feasible now without some quite bloody encounters. I’d very much prefer bloody encounters than Islam winning, please note. But I just don’t believe that we could gather a majority on that right now.

If the banning proves successful in Switzerland, it will become possible to enforce it, more or less, in other countries, where the situation is less favorable. And we will thus have a real strong message to Islam: reform or disappear. And then we might see a real reform forming.

Now, don’t get wrong, I don’t have any hope whatsoever for any Islam based on Koran and Sunnah. I just think that those are bad enough for being recognized as such even by Muslims, if they have a good chance to see them in a correct light.

I think that if they create a good set-up, Muslims will be able to convince themselves by the hundreds of thousands that Muhammad is not the right model. And if that set-up is in the same time a nice place to learn about some good ways to replace that model, possibly grabbing in some tradition, some origins where Muslims can resource themselves, then the world will have won. Within a generation or two.