Bernard Lewis: Pied Piper of Islamic Confusion

BigPeace ^ | 08-13-11 | Andrew G. Bostom

[Righting]

Here is but a very incomplete sampling of pogroms and mass murderous violence against Jews living under Islamic rule, across space and time, all resulting from the combined effects of jihadism, general anti-dhimmi, and/or specifically Antisemitic motifs in Islam:

6,000 Jews massacred in Fez in 1033; hundreds of Jews slaughtered in Muslim Cordoba between 1010 and 1015; 4,000 Jews killed in Muslim riots in Grenada in 1066, wiping out the entire community; the Berber Muslim Almohad depredations of Jews (and Christians) in Spain and North Africa between 1130 and 1232, which killed tens of thousands, while forcibly converting thousands more, and subjecting the forced Jewish converts to Islam to a Muslim Inquisition; the 1291 pogroms in Baghdad and its environs, which killed (at least) hundreds of Jews; the 1465 pogrom against the Jews of Fez; the late 15th century pogrom against the Jews of the Southern Moroccan oasis town of Touat; the 1679 pogroms against, and then expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Sanaa, Yemen to the unlivable, hot and dry Plain of Tihama, from which only 1,000 returned alive, in 1680, 90% having died from exposure; recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence—including pogroms and forced conversions—throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which rendered areas of Iran (for example, Tabriz) Judenrein; the 1834 pogrom in Safed where raging Muslim mobs killed and grievously wounded hundreds of Jews; the 1888 massacres of Jews in Isfahan and Shiraz, Iran; the 1910 pogrom in Shiraz; the pillage and destruction of the Casablanca, Morocco ghetto in 1907; the pillage of the ghetto of Fez Morocco in 1912; the government sanctioned anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims in Turkish Eastern Thrace during June-July, 1934 which ethnically cleansed at least 3000 Jews; and the series of pogroms, expropriations, and finally mass expulsions of some 900,000 Jews from Arab Muslim nations, beginning in 1941 in Baghdad (the murderous “Farhud,” during which 600 Jews were murdered, and at least 12,000 pillaged)—eventually involving cities and towns in Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Syria, Aden, Bahrain, and culminating in 1967 in Tunisia—that accompanied the planning and creation of a Jewish state, Israel, on a portion of the Jews’ ancestral homeland.

Real more at: http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/08/13/bernard-lewis-pied-piper-of-islamic-confusion

[bboop]

This is BY Bernard Lewis? Or how is he involved in this article?

[Steel Wolf]

After skimming this article, let me say this. Bernard Lewis is a great scholar. I understand the author's point that some of Lewis's statements are contradictoray. If you've actually ready any of his work, or look into what Islam is, you realize that when you approach a complex, thousand year history and culture as a scholar, you're going to see a lot of things that you can't explain consistently, because the subect natter itself is not consiset. You can only observe them in context.

Islam itself is a very tricky beast to study, because it is on one hand very strict and legalistic, and in others, opportunistic, flexible and insane.

The long story short, after reading this article, is that the author has studied Islam quite a bit, but doesn't share the scholarly detachment of Lewis. I suppose you could argue this either way, but some people prefer a moral tone to their history reading, so the idea of good and evil are not ambiguous in the reading.. Others prefer a detached, neutral exposition of the facts as they were, with a minimum of coloring by the observer.

[Righting]

It’s BY Bostom. ON Lewis.

[achilles2000]

There is no such thing as a neutral exposition of facts. Facts are not pre-theoretical. Other than that you have probably captured what is bothering Bostrom.

[Righting]

I have high respect for historian Prof. Bernard Lewis. I mainly wanted to bring the attention to the 'piece of history' A. Bostom tries to alert to.

Here's from an aerlier writing in the 1970s.

Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey: Volume 5, by Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, p. 85. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1977 (599 pages)

Despite the alleged 'protection' Islam afforded 'its' Jews, it will not be hard to list instances of Muslim massacres or murders of Jews, though actual numbers of casualties have not always been preserved in sources. In Morocco alone in the 8th century for example whole communities were wiped out by Idris I, in the 11th century 6000 Jews of Fez were massacred (1033) by a ruler who declared persecution of the Jews legal; when Fez was again the scene of mass murder of Jews in the 15th century, only 11 Jews were left alive; between the years 1864 and 1880, in Marrakesh, more than 300 Jews were murdered. In 1776, Basra Jews were despoiled and slaughtered. The Jews of Algiers were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830; the Jews of Mostaganem in 1897. The 12th century tide of terror spread throughout North Africa by the Almohads, a fanatical Muslim sect that gave 'infidels' the choice between Islam and death, and led to the destruction of Fez and Tlemcen Jewry; many other communities - like Meknes, Ceuta, Fraa Sijilmassa - were decimated or forcibly converted. Later legislation forced the new converts to wear humiliating garb and undermined the economic basis of the remaining Jews. Through the centuries, " the Jews were easy prey for a population embroiled in inter-tribal and inter- dynastic warfare. Usually unarmed, they were at the mercy of the mob eager for rape and pillage. Every change of regime, every famine or epidemic, every incident, no matter how small, was likely to mark an outburst of gory uprisings against the Jews.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AN6dSGr3kWcC&pg=PA85

[Sherman Logan]

Let it be known to you that the real meaning of freedom lies in the perfection of slavery. If the slavery of a human being in relation to God is a true one, his freedom is relieved from the yoke of changes. Anyone who imagines that it may be granted to a human being to give up his slavery for a moment and disregard the commands and prohibitions of the religious law while possessing discretion and responsibility, has divested himself of Islam.

This is not dramatically different from Romans 6: "Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life."

[Talisker]

Islam itself is a very tricky beast to study, because it is on one hand very strict and legalistic, and in others, opportunistic, flexible and insane.

It's only tricky to moral cowards.

Here's a solution: If Islam weighs 100 lbs., the parts that mandate killing non-muslims; or muslims that try to leave; or women who refuse to be property; counts for 99 pounds and 15 ounces of consideration.

ALL the other aspects of Islam - it's philosophy, it's history, it's culture, it's absolutely everything else, complex or not, IN COMPARISON, equals one ounce of consideration.

There, see? Morality means not having to think everything is equal.

Because it's not.

[Steel Wolf]

History has to be interpreted through a point of view, and no one is truly neutral. Even with that admission, there's a lot of play involved in how you want to present your topic. For instance, take the following two sentances about the same event:. I admit this is a very minimalized example of what we're discussing, but bear with me.

- Muslims killed 500 people at Alexandria for failing to pay the jizya tax.

- Muslims killed 500 people at Alexandria because they're intolerant jerks.

Sure, both sentences are true, but honestly, I don't need the morality of the event spoon fed to me. I just want to know what happened and why. I realize that some people feel slighted if the full moral dimension of the story isn't added, but I would argue that it's preferable for historians to play it as straight as possible, and let future generations draw their own conclusions.

[achilles2000]

The informational content of the two sentences is different, which partly accounts for your preference.

Here we go: “Muslims, because they were intolerant jerks, killed 500 people at Alexandria for failing to pay the jizya tax.” ;-)

[SuziQ]

bump for later reading