Bernard Lewis: Preeminent Scholar On Islam

Professor Bernard Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. At a recent forum at the Pew Forum on Religion, Professor Lewis had a few words about Islam in today's world.

(Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt)

He had quite a few words regarding the subject, including his observation that Islam has entered "the Stalinist phase" of it's existence, and that has a global effect. We can see this as is evident in Iraq. It was not bad enough that they were beheading "infidels," but their brutality on those that do not follow the path of the Islam the Islamosfascists are on is comparable only to the bloody hands of Stalin. Those who do not believe, those who help out the terrorist's enemies (even for a better life) are shown merciless reciprocity. We know our enemy uses innocent people as shields, as couriers for bombs, as distractors, and as enabled accomplices. But we have further evidence of what our enemy will do to end resistance to their "rule." (No, I will not comment on the smear brought up by Michelle at this time; I want our readers to concentrate on the last panel which identifies the victims by those that killed them. That would be "insurgents," which is PC-speak for Islamofascists.)

They have, indeed, entered one of the bloodiest phases of their existence in this war. Not only in their sheer cowardly malice of setting traps and bombs for our troops, but in using civilians as barriers between themselves and our forces, and killing those civilians because of their desire to have sanity in their lives rather than the chaos of subjugation and dominance.

But, the most telling point that Professor Lewis has is in regard to Iran's president--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: (Emphasis mine)

I am inclined to believe in the sincerity of Ahmadinejad. I think that he really believes the apocalyptic language that he is using. Remember that Muslims, like Christians and Jews, have a sort of end-of-time scenario in which a Messianic figure will appear. In their case, in the case of the Shiites, the hidden imam who will emerge from hiding, who will fight against the powers of evil, the anti-Christ in Christianity, Gog and Magog in Judaism, and the Dajjal in Islam, a role in which we are being cast now. And he really seems to believe that the apocalyptic age has come, that this is the final struggle that will lead to the final victory and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Others in the ruling establishment in Iran may share this belief. I am inclined to think that most of them are probably more cynical and regard it as a useful distraction from their domestic problems and also a useful weapon in their external relations, because he has been doing very well and he seems to be succeeding, for example, on the question of nuclear weapons. And every time they make an advance, we move the point at which we won't tolerate it anymore, and this has happened again and again. Each time, we say, the next step we will not allow. We have shown ourselves to be, shall we say, remarkably adaptable in this respect, and this is no way to win friends and influence people.

I think that the way that Ahmadinejad is talking now shows quite clearly his contempt for the Western world in general and the United States in particular. They feel they are dealing with, as Osama bin Laden put it, an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real resistance. And they are proceeding on that assumption. Remember that they have no understanding or experience of the free debate of an open society. Where we see free debate and criticism, they see fear, weakness and division; they proceed accordingly, and every day brings new evidence of that from Iran.

I think it is a dangerous situation. And my only hope is that they are not right in their interpretation of the Western world. I have often thought in recently years of World War II you were told earlier that I'm ancient myself. The most vividly remembered year of my life was the year 1940. And more recently I have been thinking of 1938 rather than of 1940. We seem to be in the mode of Chamberlain and Munich rather than of Churchill.

And why would he think any differently than this. Thomas and I can see this already. We warned it was North Korea all over again with these "one-on-one" talks. We sit corrected. Right now, Professor Lewis is quite correct. It is 1938 all over again, and we (instead of Great Britain and Neville Chamberlain) are negotiating with the modern-day Hitler. He has stated he will wipe out Israel. He will use nuclear weapons in the way that many on the Left believed that America did during the Cold War; a "stick" over any nation that may oppose us. That was not true then, and it is not true now. We use our nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent. Our enemies know that we are willing to use them, again.

But Iran's move towards nuclear weapons is something that gives both of us pause, and we are not heartened by the overtures of the administration to focus on diplomacy. We, in Iran's eyes, are not negotiating from a point of strength, and Thomas and I agree on that. We look desperate to the world to head off this runaway train. Ahmadinejad has picked up on that, I think, and is using it to his fullest advantage.

He knows we are blocked in the UN effectively; the statements from the president this past weekend do not matter. The words of others around the world will be as easily broken as Hitler's non-agression pact with Russia. If the president is counting on Russia and China to back his play if things go badly, he is a fool. Their support will not be there. We will be back to "unilateral cowboys" as we had to be in Iraq.

I do hope that diplomacy will work, but I am not holding my breath. Professor Lewis has brought up the point that we have been hammering on for months. President Bush is vilified as some sort of religious zealot; a man who has "stated" he was "chosen by God." (Ignore the fact the Left cannot provide one solid piece of information to prove this point, please; they like it better when you just buy the talking points, and do not investigate.) Yet here we have a man in Iran that has deemed himself to be the usher for the 12th Imam--the Islamic messiah. His rhetoric is far more over the top compared the president's, and Ahmadinejad has already directly threatened one nation.

If we do not deal with this, the threat that will erupt from Iran may be one that the world has no choice but to respond to. I fear, however, that the PC, do-not-rock-the-boat attitude that is prevalent in the world right now will hinder such a response. We already see this forming in Europe, as Mark Steyn has observed on countless occasions over the last few months. No one wants to confront the threat.

Not in Europe. Not in the Middle East. Not in the "hallowed" halls of the UN. We cannot even get our own Congress to take a look at what is going on over there. They are more concerned about domesstic issues, and that is not to downplay their importance or relevance; the issues they are addressing issues of paramount importance (albeit, ineptly). However we have a clear threat looming on the horizon, and all they can do is argue over whether the three-tier "solution" in the Senate immigration bill is the right move. If Iran gets nuclear capabilities--the ability to build nuclear weapons--these petty issues will not amount to a hill of beans.

We will be at war, and the stakes are the highest in such instances. No one in the world wants to see a possible nuclear exchange between us and any other nation who thinks they are the biggest dog on the block, and can take us. This is a possibility that wakes me, and makes me worry about the future. And I wonder where the rest of the world is on this issue. Clearly, they are not here; in the here and now recognizing a threat that has reared its head once again.

The Bunny ;)

Addendum:
A salute to the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy on this 62nd Anniversary of D-Day. And yes, this is an anniversary that I noticed the cage-liner media, for the most part, missed. Too many outlets focused on the numeric date--6/6/06--rather than the arespect due to those who served and sacrificed in 1944.