Andrew G. Bostom - Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism

Once again, I would not have been able to complete this book without the selfless support, and Job-like patience of my adored wife. My love for you is like Jacob's for Rachel.

Many friends and colleagues contributed helpful suggestions, and uplifting encouragement, notably, Ibn Warraq, Christine Brim, Jan Breslow, Ruth King, Diana West, Rachel Lipsky, Alyssa Lappen, and my rabbi, Jon Hausman.

The book is dedicated to my beloved mothera woman of uncommon honesty, and unvanquished pugnacitymy darling children, and the humbling challenge articulated by French philosopher and political scientist, Raymond Aron, thusly:

The intellectual who sets some store by the just and reasonable organization of society will not be content to stand on the sidelines, to put his signature at the bottom of every manifesto against injustice. Although he will endeavor to appeal to the consciences of all parties, he will take his stand in favor of the one which appears to offer humanity the best chancea historical choice which involves the risk of error which is inseparable from the historical condition. He will not refuse to become involved, and when he participates in action he will accept its consequences, however harsh. But he must try never to forget the arguments of the adversary, or the uncertainty of the future, or the faults of his own side, or the underlying fraternity of ordinary men everywhere.

The summer 2011 Claremont Review of Books contained a featured review essay by Robert R. Reilly

The failure of a young journalist

Lewis's legacy of intellectual and moral confusion has greatly hindered the ability of sincere American policymakers to think clearly about Islam's living imperial legacy, driven by unreformed and unrepentant mainstream Islamic doctrine. Reilly's highly selective and celebratory presentation of Lewis's understandingsthe man Reilly dubs the foremost historian of the Middle Eastis pathognomonic of the dangerous influence Lewis continues to wield over his uncritical acolytes and supporters.

German scholar Karl Binswanger concluded his brilliant 1977 analysis of the imposition of Islamic law on non-Muslims under Ottoman rule with a valid

It is absolutely scientifically justifiable to call cynicism and evil by their names.We were able to confirm these rational errors because they were in a domain which was susceptible to rational argument. This rational access is not given for another domain. We would like to call this domain religious, but prefer dogmatic, because it is not just a question of expressing the irrational but of stubbornly clinging. That this domain is Islamophilic follows from the fact that there is an attempt to present the moral aspect of an Islamic fact as ethically valuable (not value-neutral!), even if historic (and any other) sense does not support such an interpretation. It is understandable that the Orientalist has a predilection for those peoples with whose history and culture he is concerned and wishes to present them in a good light. All the same, such a process has nothing to do with science.

[W]homeverconsciously or notdownplays or misrepresents the morally negative aspects of the Dhimma or even distorts it into its (moral) opposite, because he would otherwise have to partially revise his pre-conceived evaluation of Islamic culture, he is behaving like the Marxist researcher who simply demonizes every manifestation of evil feudalism, instead of, or without (even therefore) investigating the functional accomplishments of feudalism. The Marxist researcher acts this way, because there is no place for critical examination of his own position in his pre-conceived conception of the world and science. For him scientific socialism is a dogma. Orientalist studies must defend itself from degenerating into an obstinate scientific Islamophilia. Or it will deserve the teasing name of orchid specialty (obscure and unimportant specialty) and not that of a science.

FROM DOGMATIC ISLAMOPHILIA TO INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL CONFUSION

During several notable speeches, starting in 2003, President George W. Bush repeatedly stressed the paramount importance of promoting freedom in the Middle East. Speaking in an almost messianic idiom, he termed such a quest

the calling of our timethe calling of our country.

He reiterated this theme while speaking to the American Legion on February 24, 2006, and offered the following sanguine assessment of progress:

Freedom is on the march in the broader Middle East. The hope of liberty now reaches from Kabul to Baghdad, to Beirut, and beyond. Slowly but surely, we're helping to transform the broader Middle East from an arc of instability into an arc of freedom. And as freedom reaches more people in this vital region, we'll have new allies in the war on terror, and new partners in the cause of moderation in the Muslim world and in the cause of peace.

Despite President Bush's uplifting rhetoric and ebullient appraisal of these eventswhich epitomized American hopes and values at their quintessential bestthere was a profound, deeply troubling flaw in hisand his advisersanalysis which simply ignored the vast gulf between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom itself. How did that happen?

Journalist David Warren, writing in March 2006, questioned the advice given President Bush on the nature of Islam at that crucial time by not only the paid operatives of Washington's Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the happyface pseudo-scholar Karen Armstrong, but most significantly, one eminence grise, in particular: the profoundly learned Bernard Lewis.

While Lewis put forth rather non sequitur, apologetic examples in support of his concluding formulation,serve as an appropriate starting point for our discussion.

Hurriyya, freedom, isas Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized Greatest Sufi Master, And this conception is not merely confined to the Sufis perhaps metaphorical understanding of the relationship between Allah the master and his human slaves. Following Islamic law slavishly throughout one's life was paramount to hurriyya, freedom. This earlier more concrete characterization of hurriyyas metaphysical meaning, whose essence Ibn Arabi reiterated, was pronounced by the Sufi scholar al-Qushayri (d. 1072/74).

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. God said to his Prophet: Worship until certainty comes to you. (Koran 15:99). As agreed upon by the [Koranic] commentators, certainty here means the end (of life).

Bernard Lewis, in his Encyclopedia of Islam analysis of hurriyya, discusses this concept in the latter phases of the Ottoman Empire, through the contemporary era.After highlighting a few cautious or conservative (Lewis's characterization) reformers and their writings, Lewis maintains,

there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of governmentto political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West. While conservative reformers talked of freedom under law, and some Muslim rulers even experimented with councils and assemblies government was in fact becoming more and not less arbitrary.