Professor Lewis' book What Went Wrong?, a concise survey of how Islamic Civilization fell from world leadership, was in pre-publication on 9/11. After the terrorists attacks on that early September morning he became the most sought after Middle East scholar in the West. He is professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and the author of The Muslim Discovery of Europe, Islam and the West, The Crisis in Islam, and numerous other books.
tothesource: Why does the Arab world loathe America?
Lewis: I would prefer to use the term “Muslim world” rather than “Arab world.” Iran is one of the first countries to adopt the new Islamic radicalism. In a sense Khomeini’s Iran started the whole movement that has produced figures like bin Laden. Now Iran is Muslim but it is not Arab. Interestingly Khomeini was the one who coined the phrase “Great Satan” as an epithet to be used against America. In the Koran Satan is not an imperialist or a conqueror. He is a tempter. The Koran says that Satan is insidious in the arts of men. So America is perceived as dissolving the solid Islamic virtues. This is what Khomeini was terrified about, and in a sense he was right.
tothesource: Which America do the Muslims object to the most, the “old America” of the 1940s and 1950s or the new America that has been transformed by the 1960s?
Lewis: The radical Muslims are objecting to the new America—the one that they encounter now. In this respect the works of Sayyid Qutb are deeply influential. He objects to American profligacy and degeneracy. He insists that American prosperity has been accompanied by a terrible moral decline. He compares America today to the Bedouin culture of moral depravity that preceded the Islamic revelation of the prophet Muhammad in the Arabian desert.
tothesource: We often hear people compare the “fundamentalists” of the Islamic world with the “fundamentalists” of America. Is this a valid comparison?
Lewis: It’s meaningless. It’s an error of terminology. People are using terms marked by Christian history to apply to a quite different culture and civilization. It is similar to using the “church” and the “mosque” as interchangeable terms. They are not. The “church” and the “mosque” serve quite different purposes in Christianity and Islam. The term “fundamentalist” is a specific Christian term. It refers specifically to American Protestantism, and to a series of publications called “The Fundamentals” that were written to set down the basic elements of Protestant Christianity. We shouldn’t take this term, which is often misused even in the Christian context, and apply it to the Muslim world, where it fails us entirely.
tothesource: Today there seems to be an opportunistic alliance between Islamic radicals and Arab nationalists opposing America in the Middle East. How is this possible?
Lewis: How was it possible for America to have an alliance with the Soviet Union against the Nazis? The moment the Third Reich was defeated, the Cold War began. So groups are often united by a common enemy, a perceived common threat. The Islamic radicals are opposed to us because we are perceived as the infidel. The nationalists are opposed to us because they see us propping up dictatorships in the Muslim world.
tothesource: Muslim immigration and high Muslim birthrates may one day make Europe a Muslim continent. What can Europe do to avoid this?
Lewis: Marry younger and have more children. What else can Europe do? It can’t really stop Muslim immigration.
tothesource: What does the future hold for Christianity and Islam?
Lewis: Conflict. Christianity is spreading in many parts of the world, including the Muslim world. Traditionally conversion from Islam is strictly forbidden. It is defined as apostasy which is punishable by death. So Christianity and Islam seem to be headed for a collision in many areas. The danger of conflict is especially acute where the two meet on equal terms, as in some parts of Africa.
tothesource: How important is oil revenue for the Muslim world, and has the money been good for them?
Lewis: No, they’d be better off without oil. You know the phrase, “No taxation without representation.” Unfortunately the converse is also true. “No representation without taxation.” Oil revenues have created a financial bonanza that has allowed the despots of the Muslim world to avoid having to secure the consent and support of the citizens. So regrettably these oil revenues have inhibited the development of democratic institutions.
tothesource: Where will this all end?
Lewis: We are seeing a continuation of a centuries-old struggle between two of the world’s great universal religions. Christianity and Islam are historically successive, with Islam claiming to be a “successor” to Christianity. The two are geographically adjacent, and have frequently claimed the same territories. Finally the two are theologically akin. Both believe that they have an exclusive truth for all people in all places at all times. So what really brought Islam and Christianity into conflict was not their differences but their resemblances. Each wanted to bring its exclusive and universal message to the world, and each saw the other as the primary obstacle. Today the West is different—it is no longer Christendom in the sense that it was during the Crusades—but the conflict continues, with no end in sight. |
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
