Daniel Gordis has a rather repellent column up in the Jerusalem Post. It purports to be about the Park 51 community center, but it actually barely talks about it. Rather, its focus is on the need of Americans to know, with clarion certainty and no distractions, that we are in a potentially endless, apocalyptic war, with Muslims (yes, yes, not all Muslims are terrorists. But this observation, he writes, "only goes so far."). To the extent the Cordoba Initiative comes up, it seems to be that any indulgence to any Muslim, anywhere, risks distracting us from this steely steadfastness we'll need to pull through.
As Tim F. once noted, the possibility that Americans might forget that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11 "seems vanishingly unlikely when at any given time a Republican is running for office somewhere." But more fundamentally, what this article is, more or less, is an unapologetic paean to pure fear. It says that America's noted "gentility" (which, I imagine, is like France's noted courtesy. I love America and lots of things about it, but "gentility" is hardly among our better-known qualities) will be the end of us. For all its macho rhetoric about how we need to be strong and unified, it is cowardly and weak. For all the talk about how the terrorists wish to destroy us and our liberties (and, no doubt, they do), it seeks to do much of their job for them, by turning our robust, vibrant, and free society into a paranoid fortress. I fly pretty often, and no, US air travel is not "abominably unpleasant". It isn't, it doesn't have to be, and really, if that's the best you got, your siege mentality needs work. We have stood resilient for years against this threat, precisely by not making our state a ghastly imitator of bigoted, oppressive regimes worldwide; precisely by not deciding that their discriminatory hatred is not a sin to fight, but a model to emulate.
We do need to be both the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". But Daniel Gordis is not brave. He is weak. He is cowardly. He would have America panic and treat the Muslim community writ large as presumptive enemies, when what distinguishes America from so many countries around the world right now is the relative lack of homegrown Muslim radicalism. We've preserved that lofty status because we have no yet wavered from our belief that America is for all Americans -- that we are all equals here. Now, some folks, like Mr. Gordis, seek to cut and run from our constitutional commitments. There is no bravery in that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Mr. Gordis is only seeking to cut and run from the US constitution if he identifies as an American. By his own choice of words ("we" or "us" are only used to describe Americans in the past tense, in the present he means Israelis and it's third person plural for Americans), he doesn't.
Which is fine. The state doesn't own him because of where he was born, and he shouldn't feel tied down if he prefers to live elsewhere. But it's for this reason I agree the mention of Park 51 is mere pretext. Now we've reached the point where the "mosque" has jumped from the local to the national to finally the international op-ed pages. And with each jump it becomes more and more blatantly obvious that critics don't really give a damn what gets built in Manhatten. It's just that 9/11 is a better bloody flag to wave around than rich people complaining there are too many minarets in the skyline.
(I agree with him about air travel though. But the reason it's so unpleasant is precisely because of irrational concessions we've already made to fear. And in any case the EU has done the same thing.)
David,
You write: "He would have America panic and treat the Muslim community writ large as presumptive enemies, when what distinguishes America from so many countries around the world right now is that relative lack of homegrown Muslim radicalism."
Well, whatever might be the appropriate attitude for dealing with the Muslim community, the approach proposed by Mr. Gordis is, in fact, the one which has been most prevalent in our country's history. Which is to say, what you are writing is that you prefer not to presume concerns with individual Muslims or the Muslim community while, more commonly in our history, concern is the norm. In fact, the country presumed exactly such concerns with Germans, during WWI and WWII. And, in the Revolutionary War, there were concerns with anyone who seemed to show any real sympathy towards the Crown, with large numbers of people driven out of the country at the end of that war. During the Civil War, individual liberties were limited and habeas corpus suspended.
Now, regarding home grown terrorism from Muslims, we have now had numerous instances of it during the last year. We have a man in the military open fire on his colleagues. We have a man from Connecticut try to blow up Times Square in NYC. We have, previously, had a group from, I believe, NJ, trying to attack a military base. We also had two guys going near gas stations and shooting people all over the Washington, DC and surrounding areas. We have, in areas in, among other places, upstate NY, people being trained in camps to attack Americans (as shown by Bernard-Henri Lévy in his interesting book, Who Killed Daniel Pearl?, etc., etc. We had a plot in Massachusetts, broken up by the police, by two guys to shoot up malls. So, your claim is interesting, if true, but less important than you seem to realize.
We do have a radicalized group in the US Muslim community. Moreover, 80% of all mosques in the US get their funding from Saudi Arabia and, in such institutions, there is radical, anti-American and Antisemitic, materials openly available - courtesy of the Saudis. Presumably, that material might radicalize a few people.
Now, what can be said that is true is that most US born Muslims are not all that religious and do not attend mosques and, if they do, attend on occasion mosques. Such people, for the most part - leaving aside the possibility that at least a few may perhaps be parts of sleeper cells - are not radical and find the radicals to be loathsome.
I just find your approach to all of this entirely cavalier, as if the only concerns here were made up. The concern, however, is real.
Plenty of the concerns (like Gordis, apparently auditioning for the sequel to "Team America," speculating on some future attack making 9/11 look like "child's play") are made up. Straight out of 24, in fact. That's why even someone as intelligent as Justice Scalia falls back on Jack Bauer analogies when discussing terrorism. Am I to believe Scalia is such a crappy advocate that he'd bypass a bunch of more plausible arguments to Jack Bauer out of his ass?
Joe,
But, on the other side of the coin, a great deal of terrorism, most particularly by Muslims who claim they are doing Allah's work, are not made up. And, as I noted, the 80% of mosques that are funded by the Saudis and preach Wahhabi Islam and give out anti-American and Antisemitic materials and, in quite a number, preach hate - as shown by Steven Emerson in his important PBS documentary - must have a negative impact on Muslims interested in being at peace with their neighbors.
Which is to say, the concerns raised are real ones. That some people make some things up does not change that, there being a great deal to be concerned about. See this article by well known historian Ronald Radosh. The see no evil crowd - of which you appear to be a member - has a lot of explaining to do before the rest of us will be convinced that all is well, except a few bad apples, with today's Islam.
Just saying that 80% of mosques get some non-zero amount of money from someone in Saudi Arabia is hardly proof of anything beyond that. At first blush it sounds like a classic guilt-by-association statistic tailored by the slipperiest of infomercial flim-flam and bamboozlement artists. It's like saying Bush is a radical Muslim based on his connections to the Saudi royal family.
Show me the studies actually based on methodologically sound surveys of the congregations or imams of a random sampling of American mosques, if you want to make this argument.
Joe,
My suggestion is that you watch the award winning PBS documentary Jihad in America (which was highly praised, by the way, in The New York Times) by Steven Emerson. The film was made in 1994. It is an eyeopener.
You might also note Professor Radosh's comment, which maybe you overlooked:
As Mr. Kristof should note, however, the problem in the United States is that about eighty percent of American mosques are funded by the Saudis, and indeed are Wahhabi institutions. Scores of articles have appeared detailing the kind of words spoken therein by Imams, and the nature of the writings and textbooks they use in their schools — which promote anti-Semitism, opposition to Christians and other infidels, the institution of Sharia law, and the waging of Jihad.
In other words, not only is there funding but, in fact, there is also hate being taught in these institutions. Such has been documented. And, as the greatest of all historians of Islam, Professor Lewis, notes (as re-quoted by Professor Radosh):
“For the moment, there does not seem to be much prospect of a moderate Islam in the modern world. This is party because in the prevailing atmosphere the expression of moderate ideas can be dangerous — even life threatening.”
And, that is also in the US, not just the Middle East.
For you, this is all part of the see no evil reality that you have created - that is, fantasized.
joe,
I agree with him about air travel though. But the reason it's so unpleasant is precisely because of irrational concessions we've already made to fear.
I recently got to fly first-class, and it was pretty sweet. What makes air travel unpleasant is mostly due to cost-cutting by airlines (less legroom; stinginess with food and drink; curt treatment by staff), not to 10 minutes spent going through security. Other than the annoyance of not being able to bring more than 3oz of liquid in my carry-on -- an annoyance precipitated by a failed terrorist attempt in the UK, not at all by 9/11 -- there really isn't much that our paranoia about terrorism has made worse about air travel. (Oh, and I guess solely for flights to and from DC, that you can't use the bathroom for the last 30 minutes.)
N. Friedman,
If I watch that documentary and it fails to provide documentation of pro-terrorism preaching at 80% of mosques operating in the U.S. in 1994 (that would require documentation of thousands of different mosques), what will you give me? I'll send you a money order for $50 if it actually does provide such documentation -- would you reciprocate by sending $50 to me if it does not?
Well who am I to argue with scores of uncited articles? I won't, but I'll probably assume they're giving us quotations from a handful of individuals (and citing each other incestuously) and have nothing like the statistical rigor I requested.
So as long as we're just being anecdotal I'll mention that I grew up around a lot of what you might call moderate Muslims, if you even believe such a group exists, and my upbringing was far from cosmopolitan. Of course, I suppose they could really have all been sleeper agents on Taqiyya (the one who married a Christian woman and had a Jewish best man must be like a super-spy-- "Bond, Jihadi Bond.")
Joe,
If you had read what I wrote and what I have cited, your point that there are many, many moderate Muslims in the US is not in doubt. The issue, instead, is what goes on in mosques and how it, in fact, does radicalize those Muslims - the small minority of which who attend such services on a regular basis.
Obviously, you, with your vast anecdotal experience with Muslims while growing up, know more than the world's leading expert on Islam and Islamic history, Bernard Lewis.
My point is that my vast anecdotal experience is no more fallacious than your repeated arguments from authority.
And as usual, the authority is pretty damn questionable in the fist place. So if we are going to play this game, I could suggest that I am a more reliable authority by virtue of not denying the Armenian genocide or predicting Iran would launch a nuclear strike in 2006. Of course, when you call him the world's leading expert, you mean "he's widely considered as such by people who agree with my worldview."
In summation, it's all a rhetorical clusterfuck. That's why I prefer empirical data.
Joe,
I have difficulty discussing things with you because you do not actually address statements. Instead, you recast them to sound sinister and do so in a way that alters them and, in fact, what I intended.
In any event, the issue here is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence from which to extrapolate about a large group of people. Hence, your assertion that you had moderate Muslim friends is irrelevant. It tells me something about your biography, not about the opinion of most Muslim Americans.
Had you actually read what I wrote - instead of manipulating what I wrote into something else - you would have noticed that I stated:
Such people, for the most part - leaving aside the possibility that at least a few may perhaps be parts of sleeper cells - are not radical and find the radicals to be loathsome.
Your point is premised on my not having made the above quoted point.
Returning to the reality based world, the fact is that are Muslim Americans who harbor great hatred for the US, for Jews, for the West and believe that Islam is under attack. Such views, most likely, are pushed in Saudi financed mosques and thus have an impact on many Muslims - at least those who take their opinion cues from clerics.
As for you comments about Prof. Lewis, have you ever read any of his books? Or, is Wikipedia the basis for your knowledge of this world-famous scholar? I have to assume that it is the latter.
As far as I can tell, you have no knowledge at all about the topic, other than your childhood friends. The basis for a reader to choose your views over those of the world renowned Bernard Lewis would be what, exactly? That he holds view which differ from yours?
I am not wholly opposed to the use of empirical analyses such as public opinion polling. However, there are very serious limitations to using such techniques to know what people are really thinking and, more importantly, to determine what trends are important. Historical investigations tend, in that regard, to be more reliable because, to some degree, history displays outcomes and, as such, tells us which trends and which data were important to those outcomes - not the other way around.
So, when Prof. Lewis provides information on trends which, over the course of many centuries, have tended to move events in the Muslim regions and for Muslims, I take notice, most especially when he notes the same trend coming to fore later. And, as he notes: today, moderate opinion is a commodity that is under attack in Islam although, as he notes, during the history of Islam, there have been countervailing notions, within traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scripture, which have be used successfully in past ages to counter irrational forces that do, in fact, come to the surface. His concern is that such techniques are currently being silenced by bullies and violent people.
By contrast, you are in denial that there is, at present, a dangerous, irrational force that is impacting on very large numbers of Muslims. And, you deny the extent and meaning of the violence - a regular part, these days, of Muslim society throughout the world - while assuming that what drives that violence has no meaning for Muslims in the US.
Joe,
I have difficulty discussing things with you because you do not actually address statements. Instead, you recast them to sound sinister and do so in a way that alters them and, in fact, what I intended.
In any event, the issue here is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence from which to extrapolate about a large group of people. Hence, your assertion that you had moderate Muslim friends is irrelevant. It tells me something about your biography, not about the opinion of most Muslim Americans.
Had you actually read what I wrote - instead of manipulating what I wrote into something else - you would have noticed that I stated:
Such people, for the most part - leaving aside the possibility that at least a few may perhaps be parts of sleeper cells - are not radical and find the radicals to be loathsome.
Your point is premised on my not having made the above quoted point.
Returning to the reality based world, the fact is that are Muslim Americans who harbor great hatred for the US, for Jews, for the West and believe that Islam is under attack. Such views, most likely, are pushed in Saudi financed mosques and thus have an impact on many Muslims - at least those who take their opinion cues from clerics.
As for you comments about Prof. Lewis, have you ever read any of his books? Or, is Wikipedia the basis for your knowledge of this world-famous scholar? I have to assume that it is the latter.
As far as I can tell, you have no knowledge at all about the topic, other than your childhood friends. The basis for a reader to choose your views over those of the world renowned Bernard Lewis would be what, exactly? That he holds view which differ from yours?
I am not wholly opposed to the use of empirical analyses such as public opinion polling. However, there are very serious limitations to using such techniques to know what people are really thinking and, more importantly, to determine what trends are important. Historical investigations tend, in that regard, to be more reliable because, to some degree, history displays outcomes and, as such, tells us which trends and which data were important to those outcomes - not the other way around.
So, when Prof. Lewis provides information on trends which, over the course of many centuries, have tended to move events in the Muslim regions and for Muslims, I take notice, most especially when he notes the same trend coming to fore later. And, as he notes: today, moderate opinion is a commodity that is under attack in Islam although, as he notes, during the history of Islam, there have been countervailing notions, within traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scripture, which have be used successfully in past ages to counter irrational forces that do, in fact, come to the surface. His concern is that such techniques are currently being silenced by bullies and violent people.
By contrast, you are in denial that there is, at present, a dangerous, irrational force that is impacting on very large numbers of Muslims. And, you deny the extent and meaning of the violence - a regular part, these days, of Muslim society throughout the world - while assuming that what drives that violence has no meaning for Muslims in the US.
Joe,
I have difficulty discussing things with you because you do not actually address statements. Instead, you recast them to sound sinister and do so in a way that alters them and, in fact, what I intended.
In any event, the issue here is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence from which to extrapolate about a large group of people. Hence, your assertion that you had moderate Muslim friends is irrelevant. It tells me something about your biography, not about the opinion of most Muslim Americans.
Had you actually read what I wrote - instead of manipulating what I wrote into something else - you would have noticed that I stated:
Such people, for the most part - leaving aside the possibility that at least a few may perhaps be parts of sleeper cells - are not radical and find the radicals to be loathsome.
Your point is premised on my not having made the above quoted point.
Returning to the reality based world, the fact is that are Muslim Americans who harbor great hatred for the US, for Jews, for the West and believe that Islam is under attack. Such views, most likely, are pushed in Saudi financed mosques and thus have an impact on many Muslims - at least those who take their opinion cues from clerics.
As for you comments about Prof. Lewis, have you ever read any of his books? Or, is Wikipedia the basis for your knowledge of this world-famous scholar? I have to assume that it is the latter.
As far as I can tell, you have no knowledge at all about the topic, other than your childhood friends. The basis for a reader to choose your views over those of the world renowned Bernard Lewis would be what, exactly? That he holds view which differ from yours?
I am not wholly opposed to the use of empirical analyses such as public opinion polling. However, there are very serious limitations to using such techniques to know what people are really thinking and, more importantly, to determine what trends are important. Historical investigations tend, in that regard, to be more reliable because, to some degree, history displays outcomes and, as such, tells us which trends and which data were important to those outcomes - not the other way around.
So, when Prof. Lewis provides information on trends which, over the course of many centuries, have tended to move events in the Muslim regions and for Muslims, I take notice, most especially when he notes the same trend coming to fore later. And, as he notes: today, moderate opinion is a commodity that is under attack in Islam although, as he notes, during the history of Islam, there have been countervailing notions, within traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scripture, which have be used successfully in past ages to counter irrational forces that do, in fact, come to the surface. His concern is that such techniques are currently being silenced by bullies and violent people.
By contrast, you are in denial that there is, at present, a dangerous, irrational force that is impacting on very large numbers of Muslims. And, you deny the extent and meaning of the violence - a regular part, these days, of Muslim society throughout the world - while assuming that what drives that violence has no meaning for Muslims in the US.
Joe,
I have difficulty discussing things with you because you do not actually address statements. Instead, you recast them to sound sinister and do so in a way that alters them and, in fact, what I intended.
In any event, the issue here is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence from which to extrapolate about a large group of people. Hence, your assertion that you had moderate Muslim friends is irrelevant. It tells me something about your biography, not about the opinion of most Muslim Americans.
Had you actually read what I wrote - instead of manipulating what I wrote into something else - you would have noticed that I stated:
Such people, for the most part - leaving aside the possibility that at least a few may perhaps be parts of sleeper cells - are not radical and find the radicals to be loathsome.
Your point is premised on my not having made the above quoted point.
Returning to the reality based world, the fact is that are Muslim Americans who harbor great hatred for the US, for Jews, for the West and believe that Islam is under attack. Such views, most likely, are pushed in Saudi financed mosques and thus have an impact on many Muslims - at least those who take their opinion cues from clerics.
As for you comments about Prof. Lewis, have you ever read any of his books? Or, is Wikipedia the basis for your knowledge of this world-famous scholar? I have to assume that it is the latter.
As far as I can tell, you have no knowledge at all about the topic, other than your childhood friends. The basis for a reader to choose your views over those of the world renowned Bernard Lewis would be what, exactly? That he holds view which differ from yours?
I am not wholly opposed to the use of empirical analyses such as public opinion polling. However, there are very serious limitations to using such techniques to know what people are really thinking and, more importantly, to determine what trends are important. Historical investigations tend, in that regard, to be more reliable because, to some degree, history displays outcomes and, as such, tells us which trends and which data were important to those outcomes - not the other way around.
So, when Prof. Lewis provides information on trends which, over the course of many centuries, have tended to move events in the Muslim regions and for Muslims, I take notice, most especially when he notes the same trend coming to fore later. And, as he notes: today, moderate opinion is a commodity that is under attack in Islam although, as he notes, during the history of Islam, there have been countervailing notions, within traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scripture, which have be used successfully in past ages to counter irrational forces that do, in fact, come to the surface. His concern is that such techniques are currently being silenced by bullies and violent people.
By contrast, you are in denial that there is, at present, a dangerous, irrational force that is impacting on very large numbers of Muslims. And, you deny the extent and meaning of the violence - a regular part, these days, of Muslim society throughout the world - while assuming that what drives that violence has no meaning for Muslims in the US.
Joe,
I have difficulty discussing things with you because you do not actually address statements. Instead, you recast them to sound sinister and do so in a way that alters them and, in fact, what I intended.
In any event, the issue here is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence from which to extrapolate about a large group of people. Hence, your assertion that you had moderate Muslim friends is irrelevant. It tells me something about your biography, not about the opinion of most Muslim Americans.
Had you actually read what I wrote - instead of manipulating what I wrote into something else - you would have noticed that I stated:
Such people, for the most part - leaving aside the possibility that at least a few may perhaps be parts of sleeper cells - are not radical and find the radicals to be loathsome.
Your point is premised on my not having made the above quoted point.
Returning to the reality based world, the fact is that are Muslim Americans who harbor great hatred for the US, for Jews, for the West and believe that Islam is under attack. Such views, most likely, are pushed in Saudi financed mosques and thus have an impact on many Muslims - at least those who take their opinion cues from clerics.
As for you comments about Prof. Lewis, have you ever read any of his books? Or, is Wikipedia the basis for your knowledge of this world-famous scholar? I have to assume that it is the latter.
As far as I can tell, you have no knowledge at all about the topic, other than your childhood friends. The basis for a reader to choose your views over those of the world renowned Bernard Lewis would be what, exactly? That he holds view which differ from yours?
I am not wholly opposed to the use of empirical analyses such as public opinion polling. However, there are very serious limitations to using such techniques to know what people are really thinking and, more importantly, to determine what trends are important. Historical investigations tend, in that regard, to be more reliable because, to some degree, history displays outcomes and, as such, tells us which trends and which data were important to those outcomes - not the other way around.
So, when Prof. Lewis provides information on trends which, over the course of many centuries, have tended to move events in the Muslim regions and for Muslims, I take notice, most especially when he notes the same trend coming to fore later. And, as he notes: today, moderate opinion is a commodity that is under attack in Islam although, as he notes, during the history of Islam, there have been countervailing notions, within traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scripture, which have be used successfully in past ages to counter irrational forces that do, in fact, come to the surface. His concern is that such techniques are currently being silenced by bullies and violent people.
By contrast, you are in denial that there is, at present, a dangerous, irrational force that is impacting on very large numbers of Muslims. And, you deny the extent and meaning of the violence - a regular part, these days, of Muslim society throughout the world - while assuming that what drives that violence has no meaning for Muslims in the US.
Joe,
I have difficulty discussing things with you because you do not actually address statements. Instead, you recast them to sound sinister and do so in a way that alters them and, in fact, what I intended.
In any event, the issue here is that anecdotal evidence is not evidence from which to extrapolate about a large group of people. Hence, your assertion that you had moderate Muslim friends is irrelevant. It tells me something about your biography, not about the opinion of most Muslim Americans.
Had you actually read what I wrote - instead of manipulating what I wrote into something else - you would have noticed that I stated:
Such people, for the most part - leaving aside the possibility that at least a few may perhaps be parts of sleeper cells - are not radical and find the radicals to be loathsome.
Your point is premised on my not having made the above quoted point.
Returning to the reality based world, the fact is that are Muslim Americans who harbor great hatred for the US, for Jews, for the West and believe that Islam is under attack. Such views, most likely, are pushed in Saudi financed mosques and thus have an impact on many Muslims - at least those who take their opinion cues from clerics.
CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED
As for you comments about Prof. Lewis, have you ever read any of his books? Or, is Wikipedia the basis for your knowledge of this world-famous scholar? I have to assume that it is the latter.
As far as I can tell, you have no knowledge at all about the topic, other than your childhood friends. The basis for a reader to choose your views over those of the world renowned Bernard Lewis would be what, exactly? That he holds view which differ from yours?
I am not wholly opposed to the use of empirical analyses such as public opinion polling. However, there are very serious limitations to using such techniques to know what people are really thinking and, more importantly, to determine what trends are important. Historical investigations tend, in that regard, to be more reliable because, to some degree, history displays outcomes and, as such, tells us which trends and which data were important to those outcomes - not the other way around.
So, when Prof. Lewis provides information on trends which, over the course of many centuries, have tended to move events in the Muslim regions and for Muslims, I take notice, most especially when he notes the same trend coming to fore later. And, as he notes: today, moderate opinion is a commodity that is under attack in Islam although, as he notes, during the history of Islam, there have been countervailing notions, within traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scripture, which have be used successfully in past ages to counter irrational forces that do, in fact, come to the surface. His concern is that such techniques are currently being silenced by bullies and violent people.
By contrast, you are in denial that there is, at present, a dangerous, irrational force that is impacting on very large numbers of Muslims. And, you deny the extent and meaning of the violence - a regular part, these days, of Muslim society throughout the world - while assuming that what drives that violence has no meaning for Muslims in the US.
Unless Wikipedia is factually wrong in reporting what he actually writes, there is no problem in calling him out based on that. And your claim that he is the "world's leading expert" is certainly called into doubt by the controversies described in his entry. Have you read every scholar you'd dismiss as a naive leftist?
His concern is that such techniques are currently being silenced by bullies and violent people.
Yes, Fox News and its ilk have proven quite adept at this with their claims that "there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim" and their promotions of Coulter, Gellar, et al. Then they quick change the subject when someone burns down a mosque. It is not surprising in this environment that some Muslims will base their attitudes of "the West" on the stigmatizing tactics of the right and, yes, xenophobic elements of the center and the left. From the tenor of things, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people assumed we were a couple of Republican election cycles away from full pogroms. (A strong working knowledge of political science and American jurisprudence suggests that is not the case, but a lot of people don't have the benefit of that level of education. And even educated people can fall into a siege mentatlity.)
Joe,
The issue is not left or right. The issue is good scholarship versus not as good scholarship versus, in the case of Lewis, stellar scholarship.
I read what Wikipedia claims. That does not diminish the scholarship Professor Lewis one iota. It shows that he has taken opinions on controversial matters. As an historian of the Ottoman Empire, he has no even remote rival. The book, which is mentioned in Wikipedia, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, is among the best pieces of historical scholarship ever written. The book, contrary to what Wikipedia claims, makes no argument about the Armenian genocide. He merely notes the alleged number of deaths in a footnote and does not address it as central to the emergence of Turkey as as country from the Ottoman Empire. The accusation against Lewis is normally that he is too kind to the Ottoman Empire and Turkey - viewing its demise very sympathetically.
Having read a great many of his books, I feel rather confident that, unlike you, he actually knows something about Islam and Muslims and historical trends that have impacted on Muslims. And, as he notes: today's Islam is impacted by many rather intolerant Muslim forces that have crowded out more tolerant trends.
Since I am not a Fox watcher or a watcher of much TV at all, I do not know why you bring up Fox. My suggestion to you is that you read some books so that you can reach views that are not the mere manipulation of TV - the worst source to obtain useful information
I bring up Fox because you make similar stigmatizing arguments, even if you dress them up in more intellectualism. And indeed you seem to feel some ideological kinship, as you treat every Park 51 post as an opportunity to criticize Muslims.
I sense we are reaching another "dialogue loop," so I'm out. Take it away with the last word as usual, I guess.
the world's leading expert on Islam and Islamic history, Bernard Lewis
Except for all those pesky Muslim historians, of course.
renowned Bernard Lewis
Glenn Beck is "renowned," too. Don't use argument from authority; it's childish.
Rebecca,
Do you doubt that Lewis is renowned? Come on, you must be kidding. And, the book in issue is, as noted by numerous sources, among the best history books of the entire 20th Century. Foreign Affairs magazine lists it among the significant books of the last 75 years - a pretty rare distinction. Can you say that about anything you have written? I can't say it about my writings so I stand in awe of someone of his caliber.
Glenn Beck may be renowned to you but, prior to the last several months, I had never heard of him. Which is to say, I am not a TV watcher.
Joe,
I do not dress my views up. However right or wrong my views may be, they are at least based on reading books.
Post a Comment