Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
82 of 91 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Going where few others dare, January 17, 2003
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).
|
|
|
33 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Small In Size But Profoundly Insightful And Informative, August 18, 2002
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.
|
|
|
36 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Anti-Lewis Bias is Ill-informed, June 3, 2002
By A Customer
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Bernard Lewis
by Bernard Lewis
by Bernard Lewis
by Bernard Lewis
by Bernard Lewis
See all 34 books this book cites
