Customer Reviews

What Went Wrong

5 star:		(94)
4 star:		(65)
3 star:		(55)
2 star:		(34)
1 star:		(45)

 

 

It is difficult not to ask this question when one sees that during the Middle Ages Islamic civilisation was far more advanced than Western Christian civilization in most areas, including science. Yet today, the combined non-petrol exports of all Arab countries amount to less than those of Finland, and in Spain each year more books are translated than the Arab world has during the last 1000 years.

Lewis clearly belongs to the school, which seeks to explain the fortune or misfortune of civilisations through their cultures, rather than geography or political events. There have been many studies in recent times trying to explain the backwardness of Arab countries in economical and other matters (see e.g. Arab World Competitiveness Report 2002-2002, Arab Human Development report 2002). All of these stop at secondary explanations, such as the discrimination of women, lack of freedom etc..... Lewis traces these back to their roots : the culture of Islam

Lewis paints a picture of an Ottoman world, the most powerful entity in and a proxy for the Islam world, not interested in learning much from the infidel west, except in military matters (to averts defeats). Cultural Exchanges between the West and the Ottoman world had been a one-way street for centuries, the West absorbing what was useful, and the Ottoman empire too aware of its superiority to contemplate learning from infidels. This superiority in part was due to Islam's view of Christianity as a precursor of Islam, i.e. less perfect. Still, military defeats in the 17th and 18th century forced the Ottomans to ask themselves what caused their decline and what was the solution. In the 19th century Ottoman rulers undertook a number of modernisations, which they hoped would strengthen the empire. This led to less freedom and more autocracy in the empire. Lewis points out that, whereas Europeans viewed freedom as the opposite of tyranny, for Ottomans the opposite of tyranny was justice, i.e. the ruler was there by right and that he ruled according to God's law. Little surprise that most experiments with democracy petered out soon. Lewis also notes a fundamental difference between Western and Middle Eastern economic approaches today: in the West one makes money to buy power and influence, in the Middle East one seizes power to make money.

In the chapter on social and cultural barriers, Lewis identifies and analyses three crucial differences, which have played a role: (the discrimination of) women, science and music. Lewis points out that, whereas Western powers imposed the abolition of slavery on the world, including Islam, little or nothing was done to promote the rights of women in the Islam world. Lewis does not attempt to elaborate the impact in economical or other terms of the discrimination of women in the Middle East. As to science, the hostility in Islam to science in later centuries is indeed all the more remarkable given the role Islam has played early on in developing and transmitting science from ancient Greece to Europe. Lewis speculates that, while the Ottoman world was willing to learn science from the infidel in military and medical matters, in other areas of science, which had more philosophical or religious implications this, was not the case.

Nobody can doubt the importance of the first 2 "crucial differences", women's status and the attitude to science, but to describe the different musical tastes of Muslims as a "crucial" difference strikes me as a bit over the top, and probably more illustrative of the cultural gap between Middle East and West, rather than a cause.

Lewis is far more compelling when he describes the very different attitudes between the Islam world and the western world regarding secularism. He notes the well known passage in Matthew where Christ says "render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" which has been interpreted as Christ endorsing a separation of the two spheres (I'm not sure though if there is not an element of "hineininterpretieren" or even wishful thinking in this interpretation), but also points out that Christianity has been a persecuted religion for centuries, leading to separate spheres for the (Christian) religion - e.g. canonic law - and worldly or political, whereas Mohammed was both a political ruler and the prophet, hence the only law accepted by Muslims as of divine origin and regulating all aspects of human life, whether civil, commercial, criminal or constitutional is religious law or Sharia. This fundamental difference explains according to Lewis the reluctance of the Muslim world to accept the western import of secularism, because it denies to Islam its role as a religion, which governs every aspect of life, and must be therefore heretic and rejected. It took someone with the stature of Ataturk to impose secularism, although even in Turkey secularism is on the defensive. Lewis clearly suggests that secularism would be a preferable outcome in the Middle East although Lewis does not explain how this could be achieved and this sounds rather like a long shot in view of the very long tradition of the supremacy of religion.

Lewis then devotes chapter six to the different perceptions of time, space and modernity and chapter seven to aspects of cultural change, such as the lack of interest in literature etc.... I thought this was interesting, though of secondary importance. Furthermore Lewis only now elaborates on the different musical tastes of Middle East and West (remember the third "crucial" factor of chapter 3 ?)

I think this is a very interesting book but it is not well pieced together or structured. It seems it is based on 3 different lectures given in the past by the author. At first it seems as if Lewis doesn't answer his own question; I think he does, but the answer is mixed up with so many other interesting facts and anecdotes that one needs a second read. It deserves it, because the issue is important (and the book is only 161 pages long).

As a number of reviewers have noted, this is not Lewis's best book. It could have used an editing to reduce redundancy, and it leaves some important questions unanswered. For example, Lewis raises the fascinating issue of the failure of the Middle Eastern world--alone, it seems--to appreciate Western Classical music. Ergo, what? He doesn't say. One is left wondering what he meant to say by raising this issue.

Having said that, I have been disappointed by the hostility toward Lewis that some reviewers on this site have manifested. Most egregiously, a reviewer on this site, whom I will not name, makes some patently untrue statments about Lewis and his work, in a seeming attempt to prejudice possible readers. To set the record straight: Lewis in fact DOES distinguish between "wesernization" and "modernization," doing so several times in the course of this book, and indicating exactly what is meant by both terms. Also, Lewis has NEVER denied the genocide of Armenians by the Turks at the beginning of the last century. Quite the opposite: in his history of modern Turkey, he gives the number of slaughtered Armenians as about 1.5 million--hardly a denial. What he said in his controversial "Le Monde" interview was that there was no evidence that the massacres represented an OFFICIAL POLICY of the Turkish government. Quite a big difference. This was his assessment as an historian who has mined the documentary record; I have no reason to doubt that he is correct. Let's drop the hysteria, shall we? The interview is available, and one is free to read it for oneself. And to say that Lewis was "convicted" in a French court without mentioning that his "punishment" was a fine of two Francs rather overstates the severity with which the quirky French legal system treated his analysis.

Lewis is still one of the finest Middle Eastern historians writing in English today. He is certainly biased, but his biases run strongly IN FAVOR of the Islamic world, which he describes as being historically tolerant, original, and sophisticated (if rather arrogant in its attitude toward the "infidels" of Europe). Again, let's not distort his record. This is man who greatly admires the achievements of Islamic civilization. The fact that he views the current Middle East as failing to live up to the promise of its classical age is hardly a failure on his part. Do yourself a favor: Read his "Muslim Discovery of Europe" on which "What Went Wrong?" is largely based. It is longer, but one of the finest books you'll ever encouter on the topic of Islamic civilization's contact with the West.

I bought this book after the horrific events of September 11 caused me to wonder how any faith, no matter how militant, could justify the murder of innocents. I am a retired lawyer and, when I had the time, pursued the study of history as a hobby. I do that a lot now. I understand this country's strengths and weaknesses, and found it beyond belief that we could be hated with such intensity, and that any religion or political philosophy could endorse such obscene behavior. Professor Lewis answers this question with his recognized expert understanding of a failed civilization. While Europe foundered into the dark ages following the fall of Rome, education, much of it from the far east, flourished in the Muslim world. But Western Civilization, largely as a result of the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, secularized government. The Muslim world has not done so to this very day, nor has it pursued scientific inquiry, music or literature, as was the case in the West. Lewis points out that other than seeking to learn about the West's military techniques after suffering a chain of defeats, science,technology, music and the arts were not important to a people who centered their lives on a medieval, militant religion. One of the first collisions between Islamic thought and that of the West arose from the latter's elimination of the slave trade. Slavery, to Islamic ways, was approved by Allah, and thus was not an evil practice.It was a troubling collision of ideas to the East, which has not been fully resolved to date. Lewis helps us to understand that this same antiquated thinking collides with Western enlightenment with respect to the status of women. It is in the area of personal rights and status that brings this failed belief system into profound conflict with Westernism. This is a powerful little book. Nomatter how much one may enjoy certain cultural aspects of the Middle East, the tension and hostility will not be eliminated easily. When one combines the frustration of a failed civilization seeking to return to a glory that has not existed for centuries, a religion that is based on and immured in medieval philosophy, and a substantial number of people who believe that any action against the "infidel" (that's us, folks), no matter how horrific, is morally good, there results a recipe for disaster. Thinking Americans should read and re-read this book. Understanding promotes good decision making, and as our nation moves further into its war on terrorism, our society has a real need for thinking Americans, both as decision makers, and as voters who elect them.

Certainly "What went wrong?" is a provocative question that many will find unpalatable from the start. However, it is the right question, and Lewis answers the question superbly. To deny that that the current state of Islam and the Islamic world is not in dire decay is simply agenda-driven or politically-correct blindness. Oppression of women and ethnic minorities is rampant -- women are not allowed to own property, drive cars, appear in public without the veil, and instead undergo clitorectomies, honor killings, and enslavement. Similarly, one can look at Muslim treatment of other Muslims, for starters, such as Saddam's gassing of the kurds, or the Iran-Iraq war, or the current Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq.

Lewis traces the insularity of Islam after its heyday during the middle ages, when it rejected or was slow to adopt "infidel" technologies, such as modern weaponry and the printing press. At the same time, Islamic societies did import some of the poorer offerings of the Western World, such as fascism and centralization of state power (brought on by bureaucracy, record keeping, and so on). These led to the Islamofascist dictatorships -- secular strongmen bolstered by an ideology, which we see in Egypt or Syria, or fundamentalist ones such as Iran, and would be examples, such as the resurrection of the caliphate that Bin Ladin seeks. A sad byproduct of this centralization was the elimination of intermediate power holders in the Islamic societies, which acted as a constraint on the capriciousness of central authorities. The loss of Halifa, the "rightful" empire of Islam, has fueled resentment as Muslims confuse Westernization with Modernity, or resent the successes of modernity, which have painfully few roots in the Islamic world.

Note that the work addresses what went wrong with Islam -- including the Middle East but not restricting itself to it. It would be disingenous, however, to assert that the Middle East is not the wellspring of Islam and that Muslims living in "Dar al Harb" are not strongly connected to the Hijaz -- the holy Arabian peninsula. It is similarly specious, as some reviewers contend, that problems in Islam are not profoundly influenced by historical antecedents in the Middle East.

Lewis as a writer is a master of beautful prose -- modest and pithy. He is able to convey complex information to popular audiences without sacrificing the integrity of his scholarship. "What went wrong?" is both the right question and the right book -- essential reading for all concerned about the rather obvious "clash of civilizations" that we see today.

Contrary to other reviews, I did find out what went wrong - A self-satisfied, successful culture progressed to the point of its own comfort only to be surpassed by the West in intellectual endeavors, scientific understanding, economic rewards, political power and cultural impact. The response was to not compete with the achievements of the West, but to retrench into "true Islamic" life. The hatred which resulted in the retrenchment is exacerbated by religious bigotry and racism fed by fundamentalist views of religion. What is shown to be true again in history is the lesson that the most cruel and despotic and dangerous person is that uneducated individual who has a gun, but no true ethic; who has a cause but who has no historical perspective; who wraps himself in religiosity, but,no matter how brutal or cruel or murderous his actions, believes that God is own his side. This is true with fundamentalist Muslims, Christians or Hindus. In the perspective of the current Middle East struggles, the lack of sophistication and fundamentalism prohibits the extremist from differentiating between murder and war; between martyrdom and suicide; and between and between the burga and modesty.

Here's a clue to the current situation: anybody who uses the word "Orientalist" to condemn Bernard Lewis is an example of what he's talking about, since they are 1) using the term as a slur to halt debate, and 2) looking to put the blame somewhere else than on Islam. These are in fact the two theses he explores, eruditely and with considerable sympathy: how theocracy made Islam rigid and resistant to progress at exactly the moment that rigid and theocratic Europe was opening up; and two, why the Islamic world still can't accept that this has happened and that it has anything to gain from the by-definition-inferior Christian world. That Lewis is no mere Fox News Channel Arab-basher is evident from the considerable space he devotes to subjects such as the rights of women (in which Islam in many ways was more advanced than the West until quite recently), or official toleration toward non-Muslims which often shaded over into actual favoritism in certain proscribed areas. And even his discussions of topics such as slavery (which, it is worth remembering, survived in Saudi Arabia until the 1960s) or the utter lack of separation of church and state in Islam, which you do not expect any western historian to be terribly sympathetic to, nevertheless present historical circumstances thoughtfully and without judgment.

This is not a completely easy book for someone with a limited knowledge of Arab and Ottoman historical figures, and if you're mainly interested in a viewpoint on the current situation, you might be best starting off with the Conclusion (which also appeared in The Atlantic) and working backward. However, there's no question that Lewis will greatly improve your understanding of why the Islamic world is the way it is-- that is, if you have that trait commonly mistaken as a purely Western one, an open mind.

A timely little volume, but Lewis is forced due to space constraints to offer no more than a precis of the arguments he develops at greater length and in greater detail in his recent (1995) The Middle East. This is a compendium of lectures recently delivered in England and material presented in articles the author has elsewhere published, and its focus is on why, after centuries of supremacy, the world of Islam has fallen behind the West in terms of cultural development.

The principal shortcoming of this book is its brevity, which requires the reader to approach it with a working knowledge of the basic history of Islam and especially the Ottoman Empire already in hand. Brevity also constrains Lewis somewhat from developing his arguments, hence one occasionally gets a rather broad-brush statement which is not developed into an argument at all, but left to stand on Lewis's formidable, but personal, authority. It is, in that sense, more a distillation of Lewis's theses than a comprehensive presentation.

This edition was in proof at the time of the 11 September attack on the World Trade Center, hence is in no sense reactive to that tragic event. It is, however, an illuminating and intriguing explanation of motive of the principal actors of that event and those to follow.

When I saw Bernard Lewis, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, in an interview on television, I was impressed with his depth of knowledge of Middle Eastern history, culture, and the Islamic religion. This book was written before September 11th, and the predominant thought I had reading this superbly written analysis of what events and developments had led up to the decline of Middle Eastern culture was: If we had only known... Bernard Lewis, at 85 years of age, has become the most highly sought after authority on the Middle East as a result of September 11th. The book examines issues Lewis deems central to the decline of the Middle East as a world player, and leads the reader into drawing his own conclusions based on a more thorough understanding of the underlying problems. This book is a MUST READ for anyone wanting to know the cultural and historical facts which undoubtedly played a part in the terrible tragedy that resulted on 9/11.

Why is it so important to read this book now? Well, it IS NOT a book about 9/11 or Islamic Radicalism directly. Instead, it is a book that delivers background on Islamic culture and how the power or resentment became a dominant force that has lead time and time again to extreme expression against the West in various forms.

Bernard Lewis has a depth of understanding of the history of this region that few others can equal. Add his wonderful way with words and his manner of expression and you have an unequaled treasure.

Some have complained that the book centers on Turkey rather than Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, or Saudi Arabia. The reason is the Ottoman Empire ruled the region from Turkey for hundreds of years until it broke apart in the twentieth century.

Others have complained that they felt it boring because it doesn't deal with the latest events. It went to press BEFORE 9/11. More than that, however, is the truth that the background provided here is essential to have more than a surface understanding of how these contemporary events came to be.

It is a slim volume but it is packed with wisdom, insight, and just plain wonderful writing. Treat yourself to this pearl.

Bernard Lewis's book is not easy to read. Lewis does not do much of a job holding anyone's attention. He has not written this for impact. Its clearly intended to be a pure scholarly work. Having said all of that, it clearly is a most relevant book for those interested in trying to understand the attack on the WTC by islamic extremists, the ceaseless fighting by the Palestinians against Israel, and the general hostility towards the United States by the Arab world.

Essentially, Lewis tries to pinpoint historical differences in Western and Islamic society that lead to the West achieving economic superiority. Some of the differences are quite illuminating. First, apparently, about the time the Renaissance was occuring in Western Europe, Islamic society which had one time flourished as a center for education and the arts was gradually becoming more and more inward. People in the west had an interest in the Middle East, but few people in the Middle East felt the West was worthy of attention. Second, Islamic society through the Koran and Shariah legitimized slavery, inequality of women, and poor treatment of non-believers in ways that didn't occur in most western countries. Third, western societies--largely at the request of religion--created the idea of separation of church and state. No such distinction was ever made in Islam, nor does it exist at present. Fourth, when it became apparent to Islamic leaders that their societies lagged behind the west, they saw the solution as to import western technology, failing to understand that western values are what produced the technology in the first place.

That these countries lag behind the west cannot be disputed. If we take oil out of the equation, Lewis points out that all the countries together produce less wealth than the single European country of Finland. Its a tremendous shock when one realizes how many hundreds of millions of people live in Islamic countries.

Besides being a challenge to read, Lewis does not deal much with solutions to the problems in his book. I would have been most interested in seeing him analyze these in more detail.

I can recommend this book to serious students of the Middle East conflict with scholarly leanings. Other people might be well to read something that holds one attention easier and is easier to understand.