Customer Reviews

Islam and the West

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Bernard Lewis is not regarded as the foremost scholar of Middle East for naught. Islam And The West is a serious dissertation not so much of the Muslim culture and Islam faith, which are very large subjects, but how one should even attempt to understand them. This is a short, but very substantial book.

The author points out that many popular interpretations and beliefs about Islam, which are common currency in the Christian West, are actually incorrect. Still more notions which are common in the West have no real equivalents in the Islamic paradigm.

It is not hard to see, with a deep understanding of the Islam faith and the Muslim culture, that many "commonsense" formulations of, say, the Palestinian solution, simply won't work, or why most people could not comprehend the Islamic Revolution (actions of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers,) or of the Taliban. This is simply because the Islamic faith is not comparable to the Christian or Judaic faith, the Islamic state is not equivalent to the Western state, or any other state, for that matter, and that the Islamic teaching is central and all encompassing to the purpose in life of the "fundamentalist" Muslim. Our faith in such fundamental concepts as patriotism, peaceful co-existence, trade, and a good many others are either non-existent or even forbidden in the Islamic mind. Use of these concepts in formulating political solutions in that part of the world will inevitably fail.

Islam And The West is a must-read for politicians, journalists, scholars and ordinary Joes like myself, who have a serious interest in the Middle East issues. Besides the high quality of the studies presented, Bernard Lewis's writing style, especially with his careful choice of words, and elegantly crafted sentences, surely has helped make this book a classic.

Bernard Lewis, the dean of Middle East scholars, has been much lambasted by people like Edward Said, who have pummeled him with all manner of polemics. None of that caterwauling masqueraded as debate has removed Lewis from his throne as the leading living Middle East scholar. What makes Lewis such a marvel is that, in a field beset with politics, he neither seeks to eviscerate nor canonize his subject. Here is a man who loves Arab culture and Arabic, but is capable of insightful commentary and analysis.
Lewis' work on how Islam and "the west" encountered each other, defined themselves as being in opposite of the "other," and the conflicts that arose is still the standard. Even more enjoyable, Lewis writes with a wonderful readable style and presents the information in an accessible way. I highly recommend this book and, if you like it, you should pick up his other classic, Middle East and the west. 2

Bernard Lewis's book is alternately fascinating and frustrating. If you come to it expecting either a history of the relationship between the Islamic and Western worlds, or an analysis of their relationship in recent decades, you will be disappointed. The book consists, rather, of essays dealing with various issues in Islamic-Western relations, such as problems in translating Arabic texts into European languages, the idea of country and patriotism in the Islamic world, and disputes between scholars of Middle Eastern studies.

Despite the somewhat esoteric topics, however, the book is not just for scholars. Lewis's breadth of knowledge, and a writing style much more interesting than that of most academics, makes this book intriguing reading for almost anyone with an interest in Islam and the Middle East. I picked up many intriguing facts and anecdotes from the book.

But it's not perfect. For me, the problem in Bernard Lewis's approach is summed up in one of the book's first essays -- on Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. Lewis offers a fascinating study of what various Muslim scholars have said over the centuries about the theological implications of Muslims living under the laws of non-Muslims. Then he admits that the average Muslim probably has little or no knowledge of these theological debates and it is uncertain what effect these ideas have on how real people live their lives. He insists, though, that they must have some effect, and in any case, how can we find out any information about religious ideas except by listening to religious scholars? That's pretty much like saying that papal pronouncements are the only knowledge we can have of what Catholics think. Scholarly and theological debates are interesting, but how religious ideas effect people's lives is even more so -- and that area is not only beyond the scope of Lewis's work (which is understandable), but is something that he writes off as irrelevant and unknowable (which is absurd).

And for me, this limitation is a problem throughout the book. Lewis is a marvelous and almost always interesting scholar when he is discussing the history of ideas. But he repeatedly jumps to the conclusion that those ideas filter down to ordinary people's lives with little change. It would be far more interesting, and relevant to the general reader, I think, to see how those ideas play out in the real world.

Bernard Lewis, of course, is the well-known Princeton professor (emeritus) who emerged, after 9/11, as the principal "interpreter" of the world of Islam for U.S. audiences. In the introduction to this book, he proposes that he will illustrate the way that the worlds of Christendom and Islam view each other. Unfortunately, as noted by the previous reviewers, this is a collection of essays (several of which were previously published) rather than a de novo work, and the individual parts are only variably subordinate to the overarching goal. Despite this limitation, which gives the book a disjointed feel, there are some valuable insights here. The first essay is a very brief review of the history of the interaction between Islam and Christendom, which makes the important point that, for much of the history of that interaction, the European kingdoms were of only peripheral interest to the vastly greater civilization of Islam. Subsequent essays briefly review the history of the Shi'a, and the problems of cross-cultural communication illustrated by the difficulties encountered in attempting translation of Islamic texts. There are effective critiques of the late Edward Said's theory of Orientalism, which claims that the study of non-Western, and particularly Islamic, history by Westerners constitutes cultural imperialism masquerading as historical analysis. But the most useful insight to be gleaned from these essays is the explication of the role that religion plays in the world of Islam, and the contrast between Islamic and non-Islamic views of the proper relation between religion and the State. Although we are slowly becoming more aware of this fundamental difference between our own view of the place of religion in the affairs of man and that of many, perhaps most, in the Islamic world, Lewis manages to make this difference explicitly clear. The insight would be most valuable to those seeking to build new polities in the Middle East.

Overall, I enjoyed this book. Lewis knows his stuff, and how to teach it. In that regard, the contrast between him and Said seems to me like the contrast between a craftsman who does his job, and the office politician. Lewis understands Middle Eastern cultures thoroughly, he expresses his ideas clearly, and (it seems to me) is commmitted to telling the truth, honestly and fairly.

Islam and the West is, of course, a broad topic, and the book is only 200 pages, with some repetition from other works, I think, so I was sometimes disappointed in Lewis' choice of topics. The book is primarily a history of intellectual understandings, and secondarily a reply to Said's attacks. It is not a political history of the two civilizations, though it gives a bit of that history. (Paul Fregosi's Jihad is the most enlightening book I've read on the military aspect of the relationship.) Lewis shows how the West became interested in Islam from the Middle Ages, and how Islam much later developed an interest in the other direction. He discusses Gibbon, colonialism, Islamic factions, and how Christians, Jews, and Muslims have seen one another. He also offers an eloquent appeal for honest and free historical study of other cultures. As a student of Asian cultures, I appreciated the way he emphasizes the need to understand other worldviews as they understand themselves, rather than projecting our categories onto them. His tone is sometimes ironic, but not, in my opinion, indulgently so. Said mostly deserves the drubbing (verbal smart bombs) he takes, though Lewis may be a touch thorough. (But with less collatoral damage than Said's sweeping invective.)

Lewis asks why Westerners have studied other cultures, and gives several answers (beyond the power grab Said suggests): spiritual links to the Middle East, fear of jihad, the prestige of Arab science.

I would add another. It seems to me Dr. Lewis is weakest when he talks about Christianity. He assumes that Christianity claims exclusive truth in the same sense as Islam. But a further reason that the West studied Islam I think derives from differences between the two faiths. Missionaries like Matteo Ricci and James Legge were often at the forefront of Western understanding of Asian cultures, and even today Christian missionaries translate the Bible into thousands of remote languages. I think this has to do with the Christian idea of the "word become flesh." In Christianity, God affirmed other cultures and languages by the incarnation, and underlined it with the miracle of Pentacost. This is quite different from the Muslim idea of the Koran writen in heaven in "pure Arabic," which can never be translated, and made a huge difference in the thought of people like Justin, Origin, Augustine, and Ricci.

Lewis misunderstands why Christians reject Mohammed, I think. The difference between the two faiths, and the reason Christians mistrust Mohammed, is not just that one is earlier and one is later. Rather, we feel that Mohammed conforms to a type familiar in our scriptures, the "false prophet" or "anti-Christ:" the union of unscrupulous power with pretensions to divine authority. Lewis does Islam and Christianity the courtesy of taking both seriously, however, and that is enormously refreshing.

More than many historians, Lewis' writing is meaty. Despite being written at a summary level, you get a sense of the depth of his research and his intellect in every page - in contrast to, for example, Bernard Kaplan, who, while often interesting, sometimes rambles and occasionally seems abstruse. Put another way, if you are inclined to highlight important passages in this book, you might want to use a paintbrush rather than a highlighter.
For the better part of a millennium the Muslim world (dar al-Islam) looked down on Christendom (part of dar al-Harb). Then, in the late 1600's, things began to change. Europe came to surpass Islam in every field - militarily, politically, culturally - culminating in the dismembering of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. This has colored the Muslim sense of self ever since - a situation made worse by the Islamic (especially Arabic) sense of pride and superiority. The reasons behind it and what to do about it occupy endless debate within dar al-Islam. That same debate is at the heart of Lewis' book.
"For Muslims, Islam is not merely a system of belief and worship, a compartment of life, so to speak, distinct from other compartments which are the concern of nonreligious authorities administering nonreligious laws [as is generally the case in the West]. It is rather the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal, and even what we would call constitutional law." (pg. 4.) Both Christianity and Islam contain, "The idea that there is a single truth for all mankind, and that it is the duty of those who possess it to share it with others..." (pg. 5.) Despite the common heritage, two distinct cultures emerged. Attempts at secularization met some success in the twentieth century, but militant fundamentalism is on the rise, bred by frustration, fueled by religious zeal, and sustained by hatred. The goal is a return to a utopian view of the authentic Islam of the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the rashidun.
Lewis' book is a collection of essays describing the interaction between Islam and the West and the impact each has had on the other. It is but one of a dozen or so books about Islam that he has written over the past several decades, each with a different approach to Islam. This one is a story of friction between two cultures. Well written and readable, it is interesting at times, scary at others, but always illuminating.

This book, Islam and the West, is a collection of essays combined to provide three different aspects to the Islamic world. It provides insight to the deeply religious Islamic world and helps to dispelled myths about the vastly different culture. Islam and the West bridged the gap between western ideas and the Islamic values, creating a better grasp on the actions of the Islamic world.
Bernard Lewis' book has much to offer its reader, particularly if the reader is has any desire to understand Middle East relations. As Lewis suggests in his book, it is impossible to understand Middle East relations without understanding the Muslim religion and this book provides much of that understanding. This book is a learned, forceful analysis that treats Islam with respect, not condescension. The greatest benefit a reader can gain from Islam and the West, is the rare opportunity to step out of one worldview and catch a glimpse of another.

Bernard Lewis gives the reader two fascinating trips in this book: one into the world of Islam, and the other into the scope of his scholarship. I can't recommend it enough to those interested in learning more about Islam and the West. And, by the way, his essay on Edward Said is worth the price of the book alone...

This book is an introduction to the history of Islam's interactions with the West. It begins with an overview of the advances of Muslim armies into Europe and explains that Western voyages of discovery soon led to the West surpassing the Muslim world economically and then militarily. And we see that in the century prior to the end of World War One, the Muslims were in steady retreat against Europeans. Lewis shows how in Western eyes, the Ottoman Empire went from being regarded as wicked and threatening to being mysterious but weak.

That brings up the issue of how Muslims live under non-Muslim rule. And we discover that the major issue is simply whether or not Muslims are free to practice their way of life.

Lewis then brings up the issue of translating Arabic terms. In most cases, translations are not a big problem. But there are some concepts which are not really the same in Arabic as they are in Western languages, such as "state," "freedom," "democracy," or "revolution." The author shows how the meaning of these words relates to Muslim behavior when Muslims have Western allies in wartime.

Perhaps the most interesting section is the one on Orientalism. Here, the author describes the frightful politicization of Middle East studies. Lewis shows how politics, generally antizionist politics, has often substituted for scholarship in this field. In my opinion, this understates the problem. The academic world has to maintain standards to be of value. If these standards are abandoned in one part of history, that will bring down the esteem and value of the entire discipline.

This is a very informative book, and it's easy to read. I highly recommend it.

For their clarity, accessibility and deep insight, these 11 essays represent top grade scholarship on the part of Bernard Lewis. Those interested in the historic interplay between Islam and (for lack of a better word) Christendom, as well as those seeking more knowledge of the roots of current world events, will learn much from Lewis. The essays defending Orientalism and critiquing Western Arabic translations are the best of the bunch.