http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2034009,00.html A contributing lurker sent me this article by Timothy Garton Ash. I saw him on CSPAN some time ago and was impressed enough to buy his Free World, America, Europe, and the Surprising Future of the West. Judy, if memory serves me, argued during our discussion, that he was much more to the Left than I took him to be, implying, I suppose, that I probably wouldn’t like him as much if I saw him in his natural, British, state. Well, be that as it may, I’ve only his writings and words to judge by and I once again appreciate something he has written. He argues for something very like what Dinesh D’Souza did, namely that we should ally ourselves with the Islamic Traditionalists and Moderates. He keys off of Hirsi Ali who takes a position like writers such as Robert Spencer’s (Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith ). D’Souza argued why choose to fight all of Islam if the arguments of writers such as Spencer (and Hirsi Ali) were to be embraced when there is a large majority in Islam who hold a more moderate view. But instead of a large silent majority as in D’Souza, I see that Ash has described a dissident moderate minority. I suppose Ash is justified in challenging Hirsi Ali’s credentials as a Muslim Scholar. I am not like some in dismissing a person’s scholarly abilities because he, or in this case she, lacks a credential in some particular area. Nevertheless, I did have doubts similar to Ash’s about Hirsi Ali’s scholarly grasp of Islam. I’m sure she could have applied herself if she wished and achieved a scholarly understanding. She has the intelligence, but inasmuch as she had become an atheist, I doubted that she had the will. She reminded me of Western atheists who denigrate Christianity with more passion than knowledge. Ash wrote, “I think Hirsi Ali is almost certainly right about God. And she’s definitely right about the shameful, unacceptable oppression of women in some Muslim families and communities in Europe. But I don’t think she’s right about Islam.” I disagree with Ash’s first clause. I don’t think Ali is right about God. I agree with his second clause, and then when he gets to the last consideration, I think that is something that has yet to be proved, but Ash has made up his mind. He doesn’t think she is right. Well, D’Souza wouldn’t either. And they may be right and Hirsi Ali wrong but I am not willing to declare on either side with certainty. Consider the two camps once again. On the Right side, let is say, are those who believe that Islam is a coherent civilization hostile to the West (among others). Huntington has taken that view and we could list Bat Yeor, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Oriana Fallaci, Claire Berlinski, and Robert Spencer as being in his camp. On the Left side we might list Fukuyama as representing the camp that sees a peaceful future as being inevitable. Thomas Barnett has fleshed out his views into a coherent set of arguments. Olivier Roy sees European Muslims adapting well to Europe (rather than the reverse). D’Souza believes there is no unalterable obstacle in Islam that prevents a growing amity between Christians and Traditionalists. And Ash, while he doesn’t see the Traditionalists as being as numerous as some others, thinks we should encourage them, however many they are and that good things could result. I cannot declare with Ash that I am convinced by some particular argument about the extent of this or that belief throughout all of Islam. Are Muslims essentially implacable in their beliefs such that they can do no other than oppose the West? Or are they essentially, if they engage in "right thinking" about Islam, compatible with the West and require only encouragement here and there, to achieve a lasting rapprochement with it? I don't know. I am not thus far convinced by either position, though I may try out the various arguments here from time to time as I read various books -- to the befuddlement of certain Lit-Idears not much given to the suspension of disbelief. Lawrence