The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

I much appreciated the publication in BOOKS & CULTUREof Michael Cromartie's interview with me ["The Myth of Islamic Tolerance," September/October]. As I have a very pronounced French accent when speaking English, this would account for problems in the transcription of the interview. I would like to correct three errors.

First, there is a distinction between the avaniasor awarid, which are forms of ransom money, extorted illegally from the dhimmis (Jews and Christians) and their community leaders; and the jizya (poll tax), which has a Qur'anic origin (9:29). If the jizya was not paid, then the laws of jihad resumed, and the dhimmi's life and property—sometimes that of the community—were forfeited. This distinction is explained in my book, The Decline of Eastern Christianity.

Second, the dhimmis' clothes, from head to foot, had to be different from that of Muslims—in texture, shape, and in color. The "enormous collars" mentioned in the interview are a misinterpretation.

Finally, as to the profound intellectual and spiritual ferment in the Islamic world today, I referred to it "In Algeria[not Nigeria], in Egypt, in France, everywhere."

Bat Ye'or
Switzerland

In her interview with Michael Cromartie, Bat Ye'or stated that a "myth of Islamic tolerance" has grown up in the twentieth century, which claims that Islamic regimes have historically tolerated Christians and Jews within their lands. The true history of Islamic persecution of dhimmis has been suppressed, she says, because of political and theological considerations: colonial authorities did not want "to antagonize Muslim countries," and Christians there, seeking to integrate themselves into Muslim society, blamed poor Christian-Muslim relations on the Jews. As a result, "We Jews and Christians bear some of the responsibility for the fate of our persecuted fellow believers. We have swept the real history of dhimmitude under the carpet."

Several things about this interview require a response. First, the assertion that Bat Ye'or's work represents a needed "revisionist" response to a twentieth-century "myth of Islamic tolerance" that allegedly prevails in literature on the history of the Islamic world is exaggerated. A search of the general histories of the Middle East on my shelf found little evidence of a "myth of Islamic tolerance" there. These histories present a more complicated story, usually noting that Islamic law protected Christians and Jews as "people of the Book," and favorably comparing that to the low status of Jews in Europe or in the Byzantine Empire. They also note, however, that this Islamic tolerance did not mean that Christians and Jews were the equal of Muslims, and list the several disabilities and humiliations usually required of Christians and Jews in Islamic lands: payment of the poll tax, discrimination in dress, inability to build new churches and synagogues, etc . …

Second, it would come as a surprise to me if many readers of BOOKS & CULTUREwere aware of or shared a commitment to a "myth of Islamic tolerance." If anything, Euro-American evangelical Christians share a common ignorance of intuitive prejudice against Muslims, the religion of Islam, and Islamic states, whether past or present.

Third, although Bat Ye'or is aware that today "there are many Muslim countries, and we have to be wary of sweeping generalizations," the interview made very few references to concrete times and places, leaving the reader rather with the impression that "Islam," an undifferentiated political and historical force, has oppressed Christians and Jews. Islam is a religion whose theological texts are open to analysis on the subject. But there are and have been numerous states and empires ruled by Muslims and Islamic regimes whose attitudes and practices with regard to non-Muslim minority (and sometimes majority) populations they ruled differed from time to time and from place to place.

Finally, Books & Culture's decision to limit the discussion of the political context of this book to the encouragement of struggling Muslim reformers and oppressed Christians seems naive. The "Serbian Network" has posted a lecture by Bat Ye'or on its Web site, where it appears to buttress present Yugoslavian ideology regarding Bosnian Muslims; and a reviewer in the Jerusalem Post wrote, "Certainly the Jews of Israel should not expect, were their political stamina to falter and their state to decay, that anything but a dismal and unbearable dhimmi fate would be their tragic lot, and end, in Palestine." Bat Ye'or's scholarship, in short, represents no advance from the politically and theologically motivated scholarship of past generations, which she decries. But unlike earlier colonialist scholarship, hers is useful to Christians and Jews who hate Islam, and to regimes needing to justify their efforts to eliminate Muslims.

Douglas A. Howard
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Mich.

John Wilson replies:

I appreciate Professor Howard's letter, which brings some important issues to the attention of our readers. For the most part, however, these seem to be only tangentially related to the interview. It seems indisputable that there is indeed a "myth of Islamic tolerance," given currency in many ways: in college survey courses, in scholarly works, and in a variety of other cultural media. Professor Howard tells us that "a search of the general histories of the Middle East on my shelf found little evidence of a 'myth of Islamic tolerance' there." Clearly he needs a bigger shelf. There he would find, for instance, John Esposito's Islam: The Straight Path (Oxford Univ. Press, expanded ed., 1991), a widely used introductory history of Islam. I have learned a great deal from Esposito, one of the leading Western scholars of Islam, but in this book he presents a picture of Christians under Islam that is not merely idealized but rather deeply false. His treatment of the issue of slavery is particularly shameful. And what is true of Esposito is true of many other scholars as well.

The flat assertion that Islam historically has been a more tolerant religion than Christianity (and this is the gist of the comparison as it is made in many books and survey courses) is simply false. Let's ask first what we mean by "tolerant" and then look at the historical record. What we find is that both sides have been barbarously intolerant by modern standards.

I am particularly troubled by Professor Howard's suggestion that Bat Ye'or's scholarship should be evaluated on the basis of whose interests it (presumably) serves. This sort of Foucault-inspired reading makes a mockery of history. On the contrary, I would argue that scholarship should be evaluated by the traditional canons of evidence, regardless of its alleged ideological payoff.

The myth of Islamic tolerance is by no means the only myth about Islam that circulates in the West. (There is the notion that "all Muslims are terrorists," for instance, or the idea that Muslim = Arab.) To give attention to the myth highlighted by Bat Ye'or is not to imply that the others don't need deconstructing as well. And the manner in which various groups may appropriate and use for their distorting purposes the findings of scholarship is another question still.

I have a much higher opinion of B&C readers than Professor Howard does. I believe that many of our subscribers read B&C precisely because they enjoy a Christian magazine that doesn't follow a particular party line on every conceivable subject. They want to read Michael Cromartie's interview with Bat Ye'or, and they also want to read Chris William Erdman's cover story in this issue, which speaks uncompromisingly about the savage persecution of the Bosnian Muslims and reveals the insidiousness of Serb propaganda, disseminated even by some members of the clergy.

Our Place in the Food Chain

As a Christian and cattle rancher, I'm used to the idea that my Karma is at low ebb. But lately, I often find our own churches judging me the same way. The latest example is Stephen Webb's book On God and Dogs [Commentary, September/October].

My livelihood consists of converting sunshine energy into living creatures. On our ranch, mother cows are herded through more than 80 pastures, harvesting plants as would any wild ungulates. Grass energy yields growth, fertility, and lactation. A thankful person would see this process as the handiwork of God.

Once my calves have spent their second summer grazing native pastures, and the grass goes dormant, they go to an outdoor feed pen for a finishing phase. Of all the feed used to bring beef to the table, only 15 percent of the energy is from grain. The remaining 85 percent comes from grass, hay, and oilseed byproducts (cottonseed, soybean, and sunflower).

Your writer expresses common ignorance when citing an "established fact" that grain could better feed people than cattle. This presupposes separate morality for us food producers. Why not follow this to its logical conclusion? For example, Mr. Webb's book sells for $30. This price suggests that it is hardbound, with a glossy paper cover sporting some cute pet. If truly concerned about the needs of both animals and people, why not produce it in paperback, and urge readers to donate the difference to feeding the world? Or better yet, only provide the book through libraries. That way, every possible resource may be used for those in need.

God's economy is not a futile zero-sum morality. Good thing, because I would hate to explain why we keep so many millions of pets in our affluent land while millions of our fellow beings starve. We do, I suspect, for the same reason vegetarians eat "low on the food chain": to feel good about ourselves.

I am blessed to live among living plants and animals. That's probably why I don't seek cheap sentimentality in order to feel good about myself. Productive work, healthy land, and some good pot roast is all the good feeling I need. When I carve thick slices of the roast, and give thanks for the bountiful prairie outside my door where the calf grew, I am at peace with my place in the food chain.

Chris Frasier
Limon, Colo.

Correction

As the result of an editorial error, the price of Kathryn Teresa Long's book, The Revival of 1857-58: Interpreting an American Religious Awakening (Oxford Univ. Press), reviewed in in our last issue by Joel Carpenter, was not given. The price is $45. If that is too steep for your budget, ask your library to order the book. (You might include a copy of Carpenter's review with the request.)

Copyright © 1999 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture Magazine. For reprint information call 630-260-6200 or e-mail bceditor@BooksAndCulture.com.