Posted on 02/26/2011 9:57:31 AM PST by mojito
...Horovitz: Broadly speaking, the notion of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is much disputed – from being perceived as essentially benign, unthreatening, even secular, according to one remark (later corrected, by US National Intelligence Director James Clapper), to being perceived as a radical and terrible threat. How would you judge it?
Lewis: To say that they’re secular would show an astonishing ignorance of the English lexicon. I don’t think [the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt] is in any sense benign. I think it is a very dangerous, radical Islamic movement. If they obtain power, the consequences would be disastrous for Egypt.
I’m an historian. My business is the past, not the future. But I can imagine a situation in which the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations of the same kind obtain control of much of the Arab world. It’s not impossible. I wouldn’t say it’s likely, but it’s not unlikely.
And if that happens, they would gradually sink back into medieval squalor.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
None of the muslim rebellions of the the lastmonth or so are about freedom. They are about picking a new tyrant. islam and freedom are incompatible
Exactly...
Oh, I will.
His output of scholarly works on islam is legendary, knowledgeable and until recently, entirely sympathetic. Of all people, he is in a position to grasp the enormity of the failure of the Middle East Culture, and islam, as a positive contribution to humanity and civilization.
With typical understatement, Lewis suggests that the Muslim Brotherhood could be disastrous to Egypt. No need for modesty here. It would be disastrous to the entire muslim world from Morocco to Pakistan, and by extrapolation, Asia Minor and Europe.
Personally, I strongly believe that India and China are safe. They have the population and determination to make islam go away permanently.
Bless their li'l ol' hearts.
I look forward to the event with admiration and gratitude.
"Hateful" you say?
About as hateful as reaching for anti-venom and the machete after the rattlesnake bites.
ping
Excellent point.
We in the West tend to think of a society as being either autocratic or democratic. Yet many traditional societies, Islamic as well as Chinese, Japanese, etc. had their own traditions of participation in decisions by those other than the formal leaders. This was in its way a (kinda sorta) type of democracy.
It was informal and highly dependent on the personalities of those involved, especially the sultan, emperor, shogun or whatever.
This was essentially the way medieval Europe worked. The King was (almost) never able to just do whatever he wanted. Absolute monarchy was a creation of the early modern period.
It was inaugurated, oddly enough, by artillery. Up to the invention of efficient artillery, a coalition of feudal lords could go more or less toe to toe with the King, so he had to respect their rights.
Artillery was so expensive only the King, as the representative of the entire nation, could afford it. Using it he could slaughter the lords' levies and knock down their castles in short order. The King had absolute power.
“If you’d read the interview, Lewis states quite clearly that the Western concept of freedom has no meaning in the Muslim world, and that Western-style multi-party elections are likely to lead to disaster.”
It’s too bad our politicians know so little about this throat cutting death cult.
It still boggles my mind why we are letting these anti-American Islamic supremacists into this country.
"And if that happens, [the muslim brotherhood prevailing] they would gradually sink back into medieval squalor.
"Remember that according to their own statistics, the total exports of the entire Arab world other than fossil fuels amount to less than those of Finland, one small European country. Sooner or later the oil age will come to an end. Oil will be either exhausted or superseded as a source of energy and then they have virtually nothing. In that case it’s easy to imagine a situation in which Africa north of the Sahara becomes not unlike Africa south of the Sahara."
Which is another story entirely. Africa, like the ummah, delusionally claimed that, once rid of the nasty "colonials," they would enter the era of world eminence and (sadly) world domination. The giant leap from primitive savagery to world rule. But the "colonials" took something with them that the savages are incapable of grasping : the primacy of individual worth, initiative and effort, which is the only ingredient that fuels the machine of excellence and which must be rid of the "central" absolute control of emperors, kings, imams, Obamas and despots of all descriptions, no matter how well-meaning.
"The sort of authoritarian, even dictatorial regimes, that rule most of the countries in the modern Islamic Middle East, are a modern creation. They are a result of modernization.
The pre-modern regimes were much more open, much more tolerant. You can see this from a number of contemporary descriptions. And the memory of that is still living."
For an islamic expert and a historian, this is an astonishing, head-exploding assertion.
It may have been "more open and more tolerant," but only if one were a muslim. Although there were brief periods where Christians and Jews enjoyed nominal equality, and even instances where expelled Jews were invited back because they were the craftsmen and the intellectuals (alas, those killed had no such option, and in every case the massacre was measured in hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands.)
"People talk about American imperialism as a danger. That is absolute nonsense. People who talk about American imperialism in the Middle East either know nothing about America or know nothing about imperialism. American imperialism is a term which might justly be used to describe some of the processes by which the original 13 states increased to the present 50. But as applied to American policy in the Middle East at the present time, it is wrong to the point of absurdity. Take the classical examples of imperialism: When the Romans went to Britain 2,000 years ago, or when the British went to India 300 years ago, an exit strategy was not uppermost in their minds."
Spot on, it is historically self-evident. Tell that to the ignorant useful idiots of the western world. In the US, Canada and GB, of most relevance to us Americans.
"One has to understand not so much the differences between the two as the differences in the political discourse. In the Western world, we talk all the time about freedom. In the Islamic world, freedom is not a political term. It’s a legal term: Freedom as opposed to slavery....
"... They just didn’t understand it. I mean, what does this have to do with politics or government? Eventually, they got the message. But it’s still alien to them. In Muslim terms, the aim of good government is justice.."
I despair at the ease with which Lewis dismisses this fatal contradiction. If the muslim mind can't accept the concept of "freedom" for all individuals, their justice will forever be a capricious, fake environment in which true civilization cannot exist at all, along with all the benefits of real civilization. They may buy the appearance of modernity, but they can't create it themselves, and will forever exist in turmoil. So they continue indefinitely to be in the grip of barbarism and brutality.
"...There are increasing numbers of people in the Arab world who look with, I would even say, with wonderment at what they see in Israel, at the functioning of a free and open society. I read an article quite recently by a Palestinian Arab whom I will not endanger by naming, in which he said that “as things stand in the world at the present time, the best hope that an Arab has for his future is as a second class citizen of a Jewish state.” A rather extraordinary statement coming from an Arab spokesman. But if you think about it, he’s not far wrong. The alternative, being in an Arab state, is very much worse. They certainly do better as second class citizens of the Jewish state. There’s a growing realization of that. People would speak much more openly about that if it were safe to do so, which it obviously isn’t."
Does Lewis not see what he is saying? Intellectuals in muslim countries may think rationally and logically, but neither the actual people of theWest Bank or Gaza enjoy the enlightenment that intellectualism may infer on them.
Given the opportunity, they would destroy the Jews to the last man, woman and child, with the ignorant assumption that the civilized nature of Israel would continue afterwards.
How does one transform ignorant aggression? Magic? Wishful thinking? Nice words by diplomats and Islamic experts?
“I despair at the ease with which Lewis dismisses this fatal contradiction. If the muslim mind can’t accept the concept of “freedom” for all individuals, their justice will forever be a capricious, fake environment in which true civilization cannot exist at all, along with all the benefits of real civilization. They may buy the appearance of modernity, but they can’t create it themselves, and will forever exist in turmoil. So they continue indefinitely to be in the grip of barbarism and brutality.”
Brilliant analysis. Spot on.
Muslims invaded and sacked Rome. They desecrated and looted St. Peter's Basilica.
Mecca, Medina and Qom have never been attacked and destroyed --- yet. Whether Israel, China, or India takes care of that reality check is immaterial.
It is a serious error for islam to assume that it has not happened because dar alb-Harb is incapable.
The unbelievers, up to now, have simply chosen not to. Subject to eventual change.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Thanks for posting.
Interesting analysis from Lewis. No concept of freedom just justice. IOW they want to be ruled albeit benevolently. This explains their propensity to invite in and flock to the Muslim Brotherhood who invariably pledge anti-corruption governance and social services.
Thanks dervish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.