Kairos
مع فرعون ضد موسى
المشاركات: 464
الانضمام: May 2011
|
RE: متابعة لحديث هيكل /مشروع سايكس بيكو جديد ومخطط حرب مذهبية يتورط فيها الإخوان المسلمين
اقتباس:كانت البداية هي محاولة تذكية الصراع العرقي ' فارسي - عربي ' غير أن هذا التناقض لم يبلغ مقصده فجري تطويره بالفتنة المذهبية بناء علي نصيحة عدد من الخبراء وأولهم المستشرق الأشهر ' برناردلويس '.
حذاري من هذا الحاقد على شعوبنا، المتعجرف برنارد لويس. هذا يدعوا للهمج وللتدين المتشدد وللديكتاتوريات أن تبقى ممسكة بالمنطقة لكي تبقى الشعوب متخلفة في كل شيء:
ES: That's only if you assume that in history the victors are always the people, or whoever is triumphant, has a better or a stronger society, a more civilized society which may not be true...
BL: It doesn't have to be more civilized, I mean the Roman Empire and the medieval Islamic Empire were not conquered by more civilized peoples, they were conquered by less civilized but more vigorous peoples.
But in both cases what made the conquest, with the Barbarians in Rome and the Mongols in Iraq, what made it possible was things were going badly wrong within the society so that it was no longer able to offer effective resistance. Then there were others, the imperialists, and they said all the trouble is due to the western imperialists, more particularly the British and the French who invaded our countries. But then again the same question arises.
ES: I just talked to Noam Chomsky, and I asked him about what went wrong, and he said, 'I'll tell you what went wrong, and this is what Bernard Lewis won't tell you. What went wrong is that we had profound support of repressive regimes, we had British imperialism that destroyed national industries in Egypt, we had American support of repressive regimes, like the Shah, that is not a move towards modernization, but rather a repressive regime. And what it is, the trouble there that is we have created artificial boundaries throughout Africa and our imperialist impulses that created problems they can't solve. It's not their problem. How do you respond?
BL: Well, Mr. Chomsky's views on Middle Eastern history are about as reliable as my views on linguistics, but I'll let that pass. Obviously imperialist powers are not blameless in this respect. They did contribute, but they are not the cause of what went wrong. What went wrong is what enabled them to come and conquer these places. And the record of the Imperialist powers is by no means uniformly bad. They did some bad things, they also did some good things. They introduced infrastructure, they introduced modern education, they established a network of high schools and universities that previously did not exist, and many other things. They even tried to introduce constitutional government, parliamentary and constitutional government. It didn't take in the Islamic lands, but it worked quite well in India.
BL: The other point he raises, I am in agreement with him, much to my surprise. That is the, how shall I put it, the offense of propping and maintaining repressive governments. I don't think the Shah is a good example of that. The Shah's government was certainly not democratic, but it was a Scandinavian democracy compared to what has happened since in Iran.
BL: It's not our business what goes on inside these countries. Let them have tyrants as long as they're friendly tyrants rather than hostile tyrants. This is the familiar method that's been used in Central America, Southeast Asia and other places.
So in that sense I was speaking of a clash of civilizations. Between two religiously defined civilizations fighting each other the whole length and breadth.
Evan Solomon: But is it inevitable? And, specifically now?
Bernard Lewis: I don't like the word inevitable. What happened, obviously happened.
Remember when dealing with Islam. This is a very historically minded society. In this country if you say "that's history," you mean it's finished, irrelevant, of no present concern. Muslims, generally, do not look at history that way, they are conscious of the past.
I'm not saying that their history is always accurate, it may not be accurate, it may be wildly inaccurate. But nevertheless it is the self-perception in a historical framework.
When Osama bin Laden, in one of his statements, said 'for more than eighty years now we have been suffering the burden of shame and humiliation,' we meaning the Muslim world. I'm quite sure everyone in the Muslim world knew exactly what he was talking about.
http://web.archive.org/web/2008043006553...lewis.html
|
|
بحث
قائمة الأعضاء
التقويم
وثائق المساعدة
/
متابعة لحديث هيكل /مشروع سايكس بيكو جديد ومخطط حرب مذهبية يتورط فيها الإخوان المسلمين
