What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East (Paperback)

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).

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.