April 3, 2003
THE SOURCE OF ISLAMOFASCISM:
Saddam's regime is a European import (Bernard Lewis, National Post, 4/3/2003)In 1940, the French government accepted defeat and signed a separate peace with the Third Reich. The French colonies in Syria and Lebanon remained under Vichy control, and were therefore open to the Nazis to do what they wished. They became major bases for Nazi propaganda and activity in the Middle East. The Nazis extended their operations from Syria and Lebanon, with some success, to Iraq and other places. That was the time when the Baath Party was founded, as a kind of clone of the Nazi and Fascist parties, using very similar methods and adapting a very similar ideology, and operating in the same way ...When the Third Reich collapsed, and after an interval was replaced by the Soviet Union as the patron of all anti-Western forces, the adjustment from the Nazi model to the Communist model was not very difficult and was carried throughout without problems. That is where the present Iraqi type of government comes from. As I said before, it has no roots in the authentic Arabic or Islamic past. It is, instead, part of the most successful and most harmful process of Westernization to have occurred in the Middle East....
[P]eoples of the Muslim Middle East have a tradition of limited, responsible government. While not democratic, this tradition shares many features of democratic Western governments. It provides, I believe, a good basis for the development of democratic institutions -- as has happened elsewhere in the world. I remain cautiously optimistic for their future.
Bernard Lewis -- and George Bush -- are right that our conflict is not a conflict with Islam, but with philo-tyrannic ideologies. And these ideologies originated in the West. The West, in fact, has always been the principal source of anti-Western values. While freedom and Judeo-Christian ethics were developing in places like the United States, a competing faith in totalitarian authority was developing in places like France (where Marxism, Fanonism, Khomeinism, and Pol Potism were developed).
Europe has been the most war-riven continent because of these contending ideas. It now appears that the rest of the world must follow in Europe's path until, at last, freedom wins. But I suspect the final battles will be fought, once again, in Europe.
Posted by Paul Jaminet at April 3, 2003 12:17 PMFirst, Europe hasn't been the most war-riven continent. All six stand about equal.
Second, the Naziphile Arabs, Turks and Persians were well under way before Germany ever invaded France.
Lewis has a difficult job. He has to find something good to say about the Arabs, lest he be lumped with people like me and Steyn who think there is nothing good to say about them. Problem is, he cannot find much and has to make it up.
Most hilarious was a piece he wrote last year in which he rather feebly praised Muslim concepts of friendliness to strangers. This is completely antihistorical, though it matches an Arab/Muslim national myth, the same way the French take pride in their logic.
Heh. I like the jab about French logic.
I will submit on history questions, which are not my strong point. But I think it's important to distinguish between Arabs and Muslims; and also between Islam as Arabs have recently practiced it, and the Islam that will be developed by free peoples.
In the end, it is the fascist ideologies of all stripes that are our enemy.
P.J.
Or their basis, socialism/collectivism.
Read the times review of "The Jewel of Africa" below for a micrcosm of how they evolve. Better yet, read "the Road to Serfdom" for a theory on how the scum rises to the top in such forms of governance.
I call it the Metronome Effect. Up to 1700 (1707 to be exact, when the last Muslim ruler of a potent army croaked), Islam was exapnsionist, triumphant, intolerant (though not as intolerant as 7th century Christianity had been), violent and universalist.
There is zero evidence that Islam, as a movement or a religion, abandoned any of those practices as goals; it just subsided in the face of superior firepower and organization.
The proof of this is that periodically Islamic leaders have attempted to challenge the West's superiority, and these challenges have come (coincidentally) exactly 100 years apart: Egypt 1798, Sudan 1898, New York City 2001.
Harry, I agree as regards history, but I expect Islam to change. It's plainly written in recent human experience that free societies prosper and become powerful while unfree societies become poor and weak. Muslims can see this too. Now they must ask themselves: does Allah want faithful Muslims to be prosperous and powerful, or poor and weak? I think they will decide that Allah wants them to be free, and therefore will declare the Islamofascists to be heretics. The example of a free Iraq will hasten that conclusion. It will give Iraqi Muslims a stake in defending what they have won.
Posted by: Paul Jaminet at April 3, 2003 6:50 PMI hope you're right and I'm wrong. I would be pleased to be wrong.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 3, 2003 7:54 PM