Methodology of Bernard Lewis- Summary of my PHD thesis
Title : “ The
Methodology of Bernard Lewis in his approach to the intellectual aspects of
Islamic History.” (in Arabic)
Scholar: Mazin S.
Motabbagani.
Degree: Ph.D.
University: Imam
Muhammad ibn Saud University, College
of Da
This thesis is an
attempt to study the methodology of Bernard Lewis in his approach to the
intellectual aspects of the Islamic History which logically excludes his
dealing with the facts of the Islamic history unless they are pertinent to the
intellectual aspects. In order to achieve this goal the topic was divided into
four main chapters. The first deals with the main features of the British and
American schools of Orientalism. hem a brief sketch of Lewis’ life has been
given , while the third section gives a detailed Lewis’ works in addition to
his various academic activities.
The second chapter
deals with the Qur’an , Hadith, Islamic theology and some topics of
Figh. Each of them has been dealt with in a separate section.
The third chapter
is about Islamic history and civilization. It was divided into seven sections
as follows:
1- The Biography
of the Prophet (PBUH)
2- The
reign of the first four Caliphs,
3- The
Muslim Jihad to pave the way for the spread of Islam.
4- Modern
history: Ottoman Caliphate, Zionism and the Palestinian
problem,
5- Lewis’
views about Islamic civilization,
6- The
structure of Islamic society.
7- A
critique of Lewis’ methodology in his study of Islamic history
and civilization.
The fourth
chapter deals with the contemporary Muslim World in three sections. The first
is about Lewis’ views of nationalism and communism. The second is concerned
with westernization. and The third deals with modern Islamic movements starting
before the second World War until the present time. This also includes Lewis’
dealing with the so-called “Fundamentalism.”
The thesis is
concluded by a summary of the
dissertation, a bibliography and some appendices.
Bernard Lewis
represents a multi-faceted phenomenon in his approach to Orientalism. He
combines the characteristics of the British and American schools of Orientalism
due to his British upbringing and education since he studied under prominent
British Orientalists. He was also subject to the influences of American
Orientalism since the early fifties through his various appointments as
visiting professor at many American universities. This influence was
strengthened when he finally relocated to the USA
Lewis has
followed the footsteps of traditional Orientalism in his study of Islam, its
theology , Islamic jurisprudence and in his study of Muslim sects and the
Ottoman Archives, and in his writings about
Muslim society, modern economics and religion in the Middle East along
with the Arab-Israeli struggle. he also took interest in recent years in
Islamic movements and their attitudes towards the West.
After a
thorough and deep study of Lewis’ writings in order to extract his methodology
and refute his misgivings or shortcomings, it was found that his study of the
Qur’an, Hadith, Islamic theology and Figh was neither original
nor authentic. He repeated the old views of past orientalists such as
Goldzeiher, Schacht, Brocklemann, Gibb, etc. However, Lewis has presented old
views in his lucid English and fertile activity as ‘new discoveries’ which made
them acceptable to Western readers and conferred upon him a high status and a
scholarly standing, and permitted him to present himself as an authority in
these topics, especially after passing of most of the earlier prominent
orientalists and the absence of new figures at par with his scholarship.
It was found
that Lewis’ method was to continuously suspect the validity of the Qur’anic
text while his methodology mixed truth and falsehood. He also ignored the facts
of the Qur’an.
Lewis is Known
for presenting his ‘opinions’ with great degree of finesse as if they were
established facts. He challenged, for example, the linguistic miracle of the
Qur’an by giving a few examples of foreign words in the Qur’an and occluded
from this that the Qur’an is not an authentic text!
His study of the Hadith
and the Sunna is based on his refusal to accept the validity of the Hadith
because it occasionally suffered from falsification. He failed to look deeply
and seriously into the efforts of the Hadith scholars to purify Hadith
from all traces of falsification. We find that Lewis said good-bye to
objectivity where he asserted the validity of Tabaqat literature
(biographies) but denied it for Hadith. Lewis has used his inverted
logic to deride Islam and Muslims when he chooses to cite some ahadith without
looking into their degree of validity according to Muslim standards.
Lewis has
chosen to study the weak points- from his point of view- of the Islamic history
or highlighting some sects such as al-Munafiqun(hypocrites)- which
he termed the ‘opposition party’,
Isma’ilis and the Zinj etc. He describes these sects with traits of heroism and
greatness. He portrays their leaders as geniuses, claiming that these sects
possessed authentic ideologies and organizations not yet fully discovered.
Lewis also claimed, without presenting solid proofs that Sunni sources are not
trustworthy.
In order to
distort the intellectual , theological and sociological aspects of Islamic
history, Lewis purposely reverts to linguistic explanations of some terms
without referring to Islamic sources or Arabic dictionaries. He also uses hasty
generalizations and past judgments in dealing with Islamic Jurisprudence. He
also purposely ignores some aspects of Islamic Jihad. His secularist
background prevailed upon his treatment of the relations between the Muslim
“Ulama and rulers, inspite of his admission of their role in objecting to any
violations of the Islamic Shari’at.
Lewis also
ignored or belittled the Islamic political thought by attributing it to
pre-Islamic practices or accusing it of dependence on foreign sources such as
Persian, Greek, or Roman.
His methodology
is also characterizes at times by taking texts out of context and the misuse of
Islamic and Christian sources.
Lewis has
followed the footsteps of many orientalists in depending on sources not
specialized in the topics he deals with, such as depending on al-Aghani as
a source for theological, sociological and historical topics. Other examples of
such sources are Alf laila wa lila and al-Iqd al-Farid. Lewis
also reverts at times to anonymous sources or the use of the phrase ‘sources
say’ without specifying them.
In his study
of the biography of the Prophet (PBUH), Lewis did not abide by scholarly
objectivity. His writings are simply polemical in many ways. He selected and
used the evidence to support conclusions determined in advance by ideological
and institutional authorities. Lewis depends largely, at times solely, on
orientalist sources for his study for his study of the Sirah. He was
even selective so as to choose only which paint a negative picture of the
Prophet(PBUH). At the same time he completely ignored the more objective
sources.
Lewis’ writings
about the Islamic civilization are more centered around one theme; to refute
its authenticity and to highlight the role played by non-Muslims in the
building of this civilization. He also belittled the status of the Islamic
civilization in the fields of trade and industry. He also adopted the view of
other orientalists in describing the Muslim mind to be ‘atomistic.’
Despite Lewis’
courageous attitude in the beginning of his career in criticizing the polemical
writings of some previous orientalists such as Lammans, we found that Lewis
committed the same mistakes he had criticized.
In order to
bestow objectivity upon himself and other orientalists, Lewis came up with two
categories for historians or specialists in Islamic and Arabic studies: those
belonging to the ‘free world’ and the others belonging to a world not enjoying
such so-called ‘freedom’. Those belonging to the ‘free-world’ are free from
pressures, and their incentives are pursuit of knowledge and nothing but
knowledge.
Lewis
methodology is also characterized by greatly simplifying the historical facts
or stating them very briefly to the degree that these facts loose their value.
He also concentrated on the economical and material elements in history besides
his aligning himself with Zionism.
In dealing with
currant affairs which dominated his writings in recent years, Lewis tended to
deal with these topics in the journalistic way focusing on sensationalism and
at the same time neglecting facts.
In spite of all
these negative points in the methodology of Lewis, he has offered a critical
view of the orientalist approach to the Islamic studies and uncovered many of
their shortcomings. He has been successful in developing these studies, from an
orientalis point of view, in the UK and the USA. However, the final decision
remains that negativism, flaws and hostility towards Islam and Muslims far
exceed the positive aspects of his studies.
Therefore the
study recommends, Muslims scholars should continue to study and scrutinize the
works of orientalists. These studies, however, cannot be achieved by individual
efforts alone. Indeed such efforts call for the expansion of departments
concerned with these studies in our universities and research centres. They
should be equipped with the necessary materials(i.e. books, periodicals,
research tools etc.) Muslim scholars must also be encouraged to study European
languages. They should also contribute to orientalist periodicals and
participate in their conferences and debates.
The works of
Arabic and Islamic students of Orientalism must aim at scrutinizing and
critical studies. At the same time we should be prepared to take the lead in
presenting our history and other subjects as what Dr. Al-Umery once said ‘ we
must first depict ourselves before ourselves, thereafter only we may take the
next step and depict ourselves before others.’
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق