What do you think?
Rate this book
İslam'ın Krizi
"Müslümanlar kadar Müslüman olmayan okurlar için de takdirde şayan bir eser."
- The New York Times Book Review
"Dünyanın önde gelen İslam tarihçisinden beklenebilecek olağanüstü bir tarihsel derinlik."
- The Wall Street Journal
"Batı ve İslam dünyası arasındaki gerilimler üzerine yürütülmekte olan tartışmalara tam zamanında ve kışkırtıcı bir katkı."
- Business Week-
"Batı dünyasında hiçbir İslam tarihçisi Bernard Lewis kadar genel okurun ve akademik çevreleri saygısını kazanamamıştır.
- Baltimore Sun-
- The New York Times Book Review
"Dünyanın önde gelen İslam tarihçisinden beklenebilecek olağanüstü bir tarihsel derinlik."
- The Wall Street Journal
"Batı ve İslam dünyası arasındaki gerilimler üzerine yürütülmekte olan tartışmalara tam zamanında ve kışkırtıcı bir katkı."
- Business Week-
"Batı dünyasında hiçbir İslam tarihçisi Bernard Lewis kadar genel okurun ve akademik çevreleri saygısını kazanamamıştır.
- Baltimore Sun-
148 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
171 people are currently reading
4223 people want to read
About the author
Bernard Lewis
190 books495 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Bernard Lewis was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of many critially acclaimed and bestselling books, including two number one New York Times bestsellers: What Went Wrong? and Crisis of Islam. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years was a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. Internationally recognized as the greatest historian of the Middle East, he received fifteen honorary doctorates and his books have been translated into more than twenty languages.
Bernard Lewis was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of many critially acclaimed and bestselling books, including two number one New York Times bestsellers: What Went Wrong? and Crisis of Islam. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years was a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. Internationally recognized as the greatest historian of the Middle East, he received fifteen honorary doctorates and his books have been translated into more than twenty languages.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 337 reviews
February 4, 2011
This is very bad journalism. Stacked with miss-quotes, and downright lies. Pure fear mongering. Book like this appeared ib the 1930's in Hitler's time. The author should be called to account. This is not just an opinion its propaganda.
March 21, 2025
The best book I have ever read that helps a layman (such as myself) understand all the complex issues going on; truly eye opening. It is amazing how little we know about what is going on in this part of the world; I often think that is it is a very good example of how we tend to 'focus' on certain parts of the world to the exclusion of other parts.
October 14, 2016
الكاتب قارئ ومطلع جيد على التاريخ الإسلامي، أنصفنا في أكثر من نقطة، وبالأخص في فصل " ما هو الإسلام؟ " ، فهو على الأقل لم يدلس، وعرض وجهة نظر الإسلام كما هي، وإن كان كلامه في المجمل ضدنا.
حذر من إطلاق التعميم فيما يخص العالم الإسلامي، ثم أتى وخلط بين مواقف الحكام والشعوب، بين مواقف السنة والشيعة.
لكن يظل أكثر ما أثار سخريتي واستفزازي في نفس الوقت نقده لكراهية المسلمين لأمريكا، أمريكا البريئة، والتي دلل بها على تناقضنا الصارخ كمسلمين.
فذكر من الأمثلة: في الوقت الذي كانت تبطش به روسيا بمسلمي أسيا الوسطى، كان مسلمو البوسنة في حماية المروحيات الأمريكية، وفي الوقت الذي سارعت فيه روسيا للاعتراف بدولة إسرائيل، ترددت أمريكا في هذا القرار .. كل هذا لم يمعنكم أيها المسلمون من توجيه اللوم لأمريكافي حين مددتم أواصر العلاقات لروسيا.
أمثلته هذه دليل على الاجتزاء وكأنه لا يعلم شيئاً عن السياسة الأمريكية، السياسة القائمة على دعم الانقلابات، وإشعال الفتن، سياسة دعهم يقتلون أنفسهم بأيديهم.
ربما يكون محقا في الكثير من كلامه، ولقد تعلمت منه درسا مهما. أن أزمتنا فينا، ولا ينبغي التعلل بقوى الشر، والشيطان الأكبر والأصغر، وأننا لن نخرج من كبوتنا هذه إلا بأيدينا؛ ولكن أين الحل؟
حذر من إطلاق التعميم فيما يخص العالم الإسلامي، ثم أتى وخلط بين مواقف الحكام والشعوب، بين مواقف السنة والشيعة.
لكن يظل أكثر ما أثار سخريتي واستفزازي في نفس الوقت نقده لكراهية المسلمين لأمريكا، أمريكا البريئة، والتي دلل بها على تناقضنا الصارخ كمسلمين.
فذكر من الأمثلة: في الوقت الذي كانت تبطش به روسيا بمسلمي أسيا الوسطى، كان مسلمو البوسنة في حماية المروحيات الأمريكية، وفي الوقت الذي سارعت فيه روسيا للاعتراف بدولة إسرائيل، ترددت أمريكا في هذا القرار .. كل هذا لم يمعنكم أيها المسلمون من توجيه اللوم لأمريكافي حين مددتم أواصر العلاقات لروسيا.
أمثلته هذه دليل على الاجتزاء وكأنه لا يعلم شيئاً عن السياسة الأمريكية، السياسة القائمة على دعم الانقلابات، وإشعال الفتن، سياسة دعهم يقتلون أنفسهم بأيديهم.
ربما يكون محقا في الكثير من كلامه، ولقد تعلمت منه درسا مهما. أن أزمتنا فينا، ولا ينبغي التعلل بقوى الشر، والشيطان الأكبر والأصغر، وأننا لن نخرج من كبوتنا هذه إلا بأيدينا؛ ولكن أين الحل؟
December 2, 2014
Listened to this traveling to and from St. Louis on our recent Thanksgiving trek back to visit family. The author is also the reader and he does an excellent job.
Learned so much* it was hard to take it all in with just one listen. Want to return to it again. And yet even one listen was eye-opening. Given my limited understanding of the long and complex Middle East political situation, Mr. Lewis seemed to do a fair job presenting many sides, not just the Western perspective. In fact, he was often quite critical of America and her allies.
Also want to read What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam & Modernity in the Middle East when I finish rereading this.
*For example, I learned that the Qur'an promises rather severe penalties (in the next life) for suicides, thus seeming to be a contradiction as well as a prohibition for those who would claim religious justification for acts such as 9-11 or suicide bombers.
Learned so much* it was hard to take it all in with just one listen. Want to return to it again. And yet even one listen was eye-opening. Given my limited understanding of the long and complex Middle East political situation, Mr. Lewis seemed to do a fair job presenting many sides, not just the Western perspective. In fact, he was often quite critical of America and her allies.
Also want to read What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam & Modernity in the Middle East when I finish rereading this.
*For example, I learned that the Qur'an promises rather severe penalties (in the next life) for suicides, thus seeming to be a contradiction as well as a prohibition for those who would claim religious justification for acts such as 9-11 or suicide bombers.
November 30, 2012
I liked that that author is greatly knowledgeable about the Arab history and Islam, he should have been much able to detect the reasons for this crisis that Islam currently passes through.
Yet, I felt that book is a kind of being propagandist to Israel and its unconditional support by the U.S., instead of considering them as a main pillar of the crisis.
The title of the book isn't really focusing on Islam and its crisis as such. It rather focuses on the U.S. handling to this problem.
The book also provides a smooth narrative line, but it doesn't really end up with concrete solution with the U.S. problem with Islam.
The author is wary about the so called "Islamic terrorism" but isn't annoyed at all with any other atrocities committed by the Western countries or Israel in the Middle East, and that initiated the deep - rooted feeling of agony among Muslims. This feeling is attributed to be the main source for any terrorism to happen in this region.
Yet, I felt that book is a kind of being propagandist to Israel and its unconditional support by the U.S., instead of considering them as a main pillar of the crisis.
The title of the book isn't really focusing on Islam and its crisis as such. It rather focuses on the U.S. handling to this problem.
The book also provides a smooth narrative line, but it doesn't really end up with concrete solution with the U.S. problem with Islam.
The author is wary about the so called "Islamic terrorism" but isn't annoyed at all with any other atrocities committed by the Western countries or Israel in the Middle East, and that initiated the deep - rooted feeling of agony among Muslims. This feeling is attributed to be the main source for any terrorism to happen in this region.
June 16, 2016
A short 125-page focused book that honestly and hence in a balanced manner analyses Islam's relationship with the West. So many cobwebs cleared, so many things learnt; unbelievably in such a short book !
October 14, 2019
القحبة تلهيك وتجيب اللي فيها فيك
January 7, 2008
I am trying to gain a better understanding of why some Islamic nations and people of those nations have an intense hatred of American ideals, culture, and foreign policy. I think this book did an excellent job better informing me about the complex hisotry of Islam,the role the Soviet Union played in the Middle East, the Jewish/Arab conflict, the priciples of jihad, and explained about the various sects of Islam and their extremest teachings.
I now better understanding about how Islamic fundamentalists think and their rationale for the tactics that they use. I also have a clear understanding about their short term and long term goals are. One of the major issues is the distain for many moderate leaders of Islamist countries, such as Saddat in Egypt and the leaders in Saudi Arabia. These rulers are seen as disloyal to Islam for signing treaties with Israel, allowing "infidels" onto their soil, and working with Americans.
I also found it interesting to learn how the discovery of oil and the wealth it created in Saudi Arabia acted as the finiancial backbone of the islamic movements. Currently, the official type of Islam in Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism (a conservative 18th century reform movement of Sunni Islam) and as Saudi Arabia became more rich it began establishing Wahhabist centers around the Middle East and in western nations preaching the more conservative and pure form of Islam.
At one point the author gives a series of statistics comparing specific Islamic countries and then all Islamic countries in general to the rest of the world in terms of economic growth, income/capita, living standards...etc. Every time western nations with 1/5th or fewer the populations of muslim nations were as or more productive.
One of the most surprising statistics was that Islamic countries translate a very very small percentage of the book other westernized nations translate. This indicates that Islamic governments are much more restrictive of what their people may read or that there is internal pressure from religious figures condemning outside knowledge that may allow people to have independent thoughts. I think books allow a person to learn and think for themeselves and not rely on spoon-fed information from its leaders.
I now better understanding about how Islamic fundamentalists think and their rationale for the tactics that they use. I also have a clear understanding about their short term and long term goals are. One of the major issues is the distain for many moderate leaders of Islamist countries, such as Saddat in Egypt and the leaders in Saudi Arabia. These rulers are seen as disloyal to Islam for signing treaties with Israel, allowing "infidels" onto their soil, and working with Americans.
I also found it interesting to learn how the discovery of oil and the wealth it created in Saudi Arabia acted as the finiancial backbone of the islamic movements. Currently, the official type of Islam in Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism (a conservative 18th century reform movement of Sunni Islam) and as Saudi Arabia became more rich it began establishing Wahhabist centers around the Middle East and in western nations preaching the more conservative and pure form of Islam.
At one point the author gives a series of statistics comparing specific Islamic countries and then all Islamic countries in general to the rest of the world in terms of economic growth, income/capita, living standards...etc. Every time western nations with 1/5th or fewer the populations of muslim nations were as or more productive.
One of the most surprising statistics was that Islamic countries translate a very very small percentage of the book other westernized nations translate. This indicates that Islamic governments are much more restrictive of what their people may read or that there is internal pressure from religious figures condemning outside knowledge that may allow people to have independent thoughts. I think books allow a person to learn and think for themeselves and not rely on spoon-fed information from its leaders.
October 17, 2019
Senkit se tántorítson el, hogy ez a könyv a 2002-es eseményekre való reagálásként született, és azóta lelőtték a poénját – Bernard Lewis tanulmánya az azóta eltelt tizenvalahány év ellenére az egyik legkomplettebb, legérthetőbb elemzés a Közel-Keletről. Olvasmányos, rövid, hihetetlenül összeszedett, legnagyobb erénye pedig az, hogy bár elsősorban olyan elemekből építkezik, amit a téma iránt érdeklődők már hallottak valahol, tudni véltek, vagy csak sejtettek, de az egészet annyira koherens rendszerben tárja elénk, hogy elképesztően újszerűen hat. Az ilyeneket szokták alapműnek nevezni, a kétségbeesett olvasó meg felrakja a kívánságlistájára, mint az 1214. alapművet, amit még el kellene olvasnia, mielőtt meghal. (Természetesen az elolvasandó könyvek száma soha nem fog csökkenni, sőt közvetlenül az előbb említett végső határidő előtt éri el csúcspontját.)
Ez a könyv annyira egyértelműen és logikusan szól arról, amit ígér, hogy igazából nincs is mit mondani róla – pláne, hogy karcoltam már belőle ezt-azt. Mindazonáltal talán érdemes kihangsúlyozni egy aspektust, aminek Lewis érzésem szerint kiemelt fontosságot tulajdonít. Mind a zsidó-keresztény gyökerű nyugaton, mind az iszlámban jelen vannak azok a tendenciák, amelyek keresik a kapcsolatot az újjal és igénylik a változást, és azok, amelyek mereven elutasítják azt – a különbség az, hogy amíg Európában és az USA-ban ezek a nézetek folyamatos vitában állnak egymással (attól függetlenül, hogy éppen melyik az uralkodó politikai nézet), addig az arab világban a termékeny disputának jelen pillanatban nincs tere. Egyes jobboldali teoretikusok szerint ez a folyamatos „vitára való hajlam” általában véve a demokrácia hátránya a tekintélyelvű berendezkedésekkel szemben, mert elpuhítja a demokratikus rendszereket, ám ez egy ordas nagy baromság. Ugyanis amíg a fundamentalista iszlamizmus egy végtelenül leegyszerűsített és több ponton hazug gondolati séma alapján ítéli meg a nyugatot, mint homogén tömböt, addig nyugaton (épp a vitakényszer miatt) lényegesen több adat áll rendelkezésére annak, aki képet akar kapni az egyik legnagyobb világvallás belső folyamatairól – többek között épp az ilyen könyvecskéknek köszönhetően. És hát ha már valóban civilizációk összecsapásáról van szó (amit egyébként én vaskos csúsztatásnak tartok), akkor két rendszer közül nem annak van nagyobb esélye a másik fölé kerekedni, aki többet tud a másiknál, a másikról? Vesszek meg, ha Szun-Ce nem mondott valami ilyesmit… Amúgy meg: nekem speciel amúgy sincs szándékomban bárki fölé kerekedni. Momentán.
Ez a könyv annyira egyértelműen és logikusan szól arról, amit ígér, hogy igazából nincs is mit mondani róla – pláne, hogy karcoltam már belőle ezt-azt. Mindazonáltal talán érdemes kihangsúlyozni egy aspektust, aminek Lewis érzésem szerint kiemelt fontosságot tulajdonít. Mind a zsidó-keresztény gyökerű nyugaton, mind az iszlámban jelen vannak azok a tendenciák, amelyek keresik a kapcsolatot az újjal és igénylik a változást, és azok, amelyek mereven elutasítják azt – a különbség az, hogy amíg Európában és az USA-ban ezek a nézetek folyamatos vitában állnak egymással (attól függetlenül, hogy éppen melyik az uralkodó politikai nézet), addig az arab világban a termékeny disputának jelen pillanatban nincs tere. Egyes jobboldali teoretikusok szerint ez a folyamatos „vitára való hajlam” általában véve a demokrácia hátránya a tekintélyelvű berendezkedésekkel szemben, mert elpuhítja a demokratikus rendszereket, ám ez egy ordas nagy baromság. Ugyanis amíg a fundamentalista iszlamizmus egy végtelenül leegyszerűsített és több ponton hazug gondolati séma alapján ítéli meg a nyugatot, mint homogén tömböt, addig nyugaton (épp a vitakényszer miatt) lényegesen több adat áll rendelkezésére annak, aki képet akar kapni az egyik legnagyobb világvallás belső folyamatairól – többek között épp az ilyen könyvecskéknek köszönhetően. És hát ha már valóban civilizációk összecsapásáról van szó (amit egyébként én vaskos csúsztatásnak tartok), akkor két rendszer közül nem annak van nagyobb esélye a másik fölé kerekedni, aki többet tud a másiknál, a másikról? Vesszek meg, ha Szun-Ce nem mondott valami ilyesmit… Amúgy meg: nekem speciel amúgy sincs szándékomban bárki fölé kerekedni. Momentán.
April 11, 2019
كتاب اخترته ليكون موضوعا لمذكرتي لنيل شهادة الماستر في تخصص عقيدة إسلامية. كنت قد قرأت الإشادات المبهرة هنا في موقع جودريدز و في موقع أمازون عن الكتاب و صاحبه، ممّا حملني على قراءتي، فلم أصدق المفارقة العجيبة بين مضمون الكتاب و بين ما فهمه أكثر القراء و الذين هم من دول العالم المتقدم- على فرض أننا نتفق على معنى لفظ متقدّم-
و أقول للذين يتعجبون من مؤرّخ على فرض أنّه عبقري، كيف يكتب بهذه الركاكة و كيف يخوض في الترهات التي أكل عليها الدهر و شرب؟ المسألة يا جماعة تتعلّق بالغزو من نوع آخر و بآليات مختلفة عن تلك التي بتنا نقرؤها في كتب التاريخ. عندما يتعلّق الأمر بصناعة تجلب الأموال و بإنتاج يقيّض فرصة نهوض عملاق ، فلتكن الرداءة و الركاكة و الافتراءات شعارا للجميع. و تحيا صناعة الإرهاب و يحيا إنتاج الزومبي
و أقول للذين يتعجبون من مؤرّخ على فرض أنّه عبقري، كيف يكتب بهذه الركاكة و كيف يخوض في الترهات التي أكل عليها الدهر و شرب؟ المسألة يا جماعة تتعلّق بالغزو من نوع آخر و بآليات مختلفة عن تلك التي بتنا نقرؤها في كتب التاريخ. عندما يتعلّق الأمر بصناعة تجلب الأموال و بإنتاج يقيّض فرصة نهوض عملاق ، فلتكن الرداءة و الركاكة و الافتراءات شعارا للجميع. و تحيا صناعة الإرهاب و يحيا إنتاج الزومبي
January 17, 2025
*long and loud farting noise*
never trust a man with “genocide denier” as his second hit when you google him
never trust a man with “genocide denier” as his second hit when you google him
October 11, 2024
Candidly I have a love-hate relationship with Lewis, largely owing to his vocal support for the Iraq War, an unmitigated catastrophe that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and precipitated the emergence of ISIS. Moreover, his denial of the Armenian Genocide, a position overwhelmingly refuted by the historians, is both morally indefensible and egregiously offensive.
This book is not perfect, but within it Lewis demonstrates a strong grasp of the more radical political currents within Islamic society. His understanding of this politicized and religiously grounded perceptions of the West, which frames Western powers as 'crusaders' and Israel as a colonial imposition, comports with the empirical realities on the ground. To my eyes, his incisive evaluation of Islamism, in all of its stripes, has stood the test of time as a more persuasive analysis than Edward Said’s critique of him, which accuses Lewis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the region.
Indeed, while many of the criticisms directed at Bernard Lewis may have held merit in earlier decades, his tendency to paint Islam with an overly broad brush, amalgamating all Muslim adherents into a monolithic entity, remains a significant point of contention. However, the empirical realities suggest that the more fundamentalist factions, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, have demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience over time. These groups have engaged with political structures in ways that much of the Islamic world has either resisted or failed to be politically competitive. As such, the fact that political Islam would triumph in any democratic elections, while refusing to play by the rules which bequeathed them victory, speaks to this fact.
Importantly, however, Lewis offers compelling insights into the core issue underpinning much of the geopolitical tension—the establishment and subsequent expansion of Israel, a development that Muslims almost uniformly perceive as emblematic of colonialism, abetted by the so-called "Great Satan" or America. My primary critique of his characterization of the Muslim worlds reaction to Israel, though it carries considerable merit, is that it fails to adequately address the expansion of Israeli settlements and the contentious circumstances surrounding the state's formation—points that had already been acknowledged by Israeli historians (e.g Benny Morris) at the time. There is little doubt that the ongoing settlement expansion, coupled with violence perpetrated by settlers and/or the IDF against Palestinians, serves as a potent propaganda tool for fundamentalist Islamist factions. For these groups, it is a perpetual source of political leverage. In my view, it’s not just that Israelis are Jews who beat the Arabs, but that they continue to beat them, which is an additional source of consternation. It is striking how Lewis, in his analysis, seems to downplay or contort his perspective in a manner that minimizes the significance of this critical issue. Weird.
Ultimately, this book is likely to be a contentious read, although it gives valuable insights into the nature of fundamentalist Islam—a strain of the religion that, while not representative of the entire Muslim community, has nonetheless proven to be the most politically steadfast and consequential. For readers seeking a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the discontents fueling political Islam, I would highly recommend other books such as Eugene Rogan's The Arabs or Fawaz Gerges's The Making of the Arab World. Those offer the broader context of the underlying grievances shaping the region’s political landscape.
This book is not perfect, but within it Lewis demonstrates a strong grasp of the more radical political currents within Islamic society. His understanding of this politicized and religiously grounded perceptions of the West, which frames Western powers as 'crusaders' and Israel as a colonial imposition, comports with the empirical realities on the ground. To my eyes, his incisive evaluation of Islamism, in all of its stripes, has stood the test of time as a more persuasive analysis than Edward Said’s critique of him, which accuses Lewis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the region.
Indeed, while many of the criticisms directed at Bernard Lewis may have held merit in earlier decades, his tendency to paint Islam with an overly broad brush, amalgamating all Muslim adherents into a monolithic entity, remains a significant point of contention. However, the empirical realities suggest that the more fundamentalist factions, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, have demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience over time. These groups have engaged with political structures in ways that much of the Islamic world has either resisted or failed to be politically competitive. As such, the fact that political Islam would triumph in any democratic elections, while refusing to play by the rules which bequeathed them victory, speaks to this fact.
Importantly, however, Lewis offers compelling insights into the core issue underpinning much of the geopolitical tension—the establishment and subsequent expansion of Israel, a development that Muslims almost uniformly perceive as emblematic of colonialism, abetted by the so-called "Great Satan" or America. My primary critique of his characterization of the Muslim worlds reaction to Israel, though it carries considerable merit, is that it fails to adequately address the expansion of Israeli settlements and the contentious circumstances surrounding the state's formation—points that had already been acknowledged by Israeli historians (e.g Benny Morris) at the time. There is little doubt that the ongoing settlement expansion, coupled with violence perpetrated by settlers and/or the IDF against Palestinians, serves as a potent propaganda tool for fundamentalist Islamist factions. For these groups, it is a perpetual source of political leverage. In my view, it’s not just that Israelis are Jews who beat the Arabs, but that they continue to beat them, which is an additional source of consternation. It is striking how Lewis, in his analysis, seems to downplay or contort his perspective in a manner that minimizes the significance of this critical issue. Weird.
Ultimately, this book is likely to be a contentious read, although it gives valuable insights into the nature of fundamentalist Islam—a strain of the religion that, while not representative of the entire Muslim community, has nonetheless proven to be the most politically steadfast and consequential. For readers seeking a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the discontents fueling political Islam, I would highly recommend other books such as Eugene Rogan's The Arabs or Fawaz Gerges's The Making of the Arab World. Those offer the broader context of the underlying grievances shaping the region’s political landscape.
June 23, 2008
Princeton's Bernard Lewis is one of the most respected subject matter experts on the Middle East, well known the world over. This book was written three years after the War on Terror began, and does a masterful job of explaining the cultural rifts between Islam and the West, and the rise of Islamofascism.
If you want to know the real reason victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the entire Global War on Terror is so critical for global security, this book is a must read.
I have read this book at leats five times, and have bought multiple copies of the book to give to people I know who are interested in the conflict between Western and Middle Eastern Cultures. I have also purchased and listened to the audiobook from Audible.com.
If you want to know the real reason victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the entire Global War on Terror is so critical for global security, this book is a must read.
I have read this book at leats five times, and have bought multiple copies of the book to give to people I know who are interested in the conflict between Western and Middle Eastern Cultures. I have also purchased and listened to the audiobook from Audible.com.
March 16, 2013
Lewis does an outstanding job analyzing the nature, dynamics, and issues in Islam today. He really does a great job of relating these to Islam's history. This book is interesting and readable, and I recommend it to anyone seeking a better understanding of the Islamic world's struggles in resolving its problems and contradictions today.
December 29, 2019
عندما تقرأ هذا الكتاب ستفهم لماذا استطاع اليهود اختراقنا!
October 17, 2023
Written soon in the years following 9/11, this book offers insights into Islam's history with the west and why islamic terror has increased over time. I think Lewis is fair in his representation of Islam and the middle east, democracy has not had much success with Islam and fundamentalist forces will never tolerate any western influence in their nations. Lewis seems to argues for a neo-conservative position, that we need to support stable moderate Islamic countries or soon fundamentalism will spread.
July 23, 2018
This is certainly a good historical account of the events that underpin the shift toward Islamic radicalism and terrorism. I wish I’d read it sooner — it was published in 2003 — but life got in the way.
Lewis does address some of the Koranic scriptures in trying to describe some of the actions of the most radical fundamentalists in Islam, so I cannot find fault there. However, I thought he could have gone much deeper by addressing the curriculum in madrassas, sermons by imams, and use of Koranic scriptural interpretations (as well as what is used in the Hadith) that aided the shift toward radicalism.
Honestly, I knew most of what I heard in Lewis’s reading in “Crisis.” I’ve been paying attention to these issues since well before 9/11. But this isn’t a shortcoming in this book, nor is it a criticism. Yet there was more for development of the (violent) faith aspect to accompany the historical events.
I’d like to read Lewis’s account if he knew (through foresight or clairvoyance) what we now know about other terrorist attacks, the morphing of al Qaeda into the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), the Arab Spring (Winter?), the death of Usama bin Laden, and the struggle for influence in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia (i.e. Sunni Islam) and Iran (i.e. Shia Islam). His closing remarks highlight the concerns of Western European states regarding their Muslim minorities. Lewis is almost prescient in this regard (e.g. Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, etc.). A “Crisis” 2.0 would be a nice compliment to this publication.
Lewis does address some of the Koranic scriptures in trying to describe some of the actions of the most radical fundamentalists in Islam, so I cannot find fault there. However, I thought he could have gone much deeper by addressing the curriculum in madrassas, sermons by imams, and use of Koranic scriptural interpretations (as well as what is used in the Hadith) that aided the shift toward radicalism.
Honestly, I knew most of what I heard in Lewis’s reading in “Crisis.” I’ve been paying attention to these issues since well before 9/11. But this isn’t a shortcoming in this book, nor is it a criticism. Yet there was more for development of the (violent) faith aspect to accompany the historical events.
I’d like to read Lewis’s account if he knew (through foresight or clairvoyance) what we now know about other terrorist attacks, the morphing of al Qaeda into the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), the Arab Spring (Winter?), the death of Usama bin Laden, and the struggle for influence in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia (i.e. Sunni Islam) and Iran (i.e. Shia Islam). His closing remarks highlight the concerns of Western European states regarding their Muslim minorities. Lewis is almost prescient in this regard (e.g. Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, etc.). A “Crisis” 2.0 would be a nice compliment to this publication.
June 5, 2016
الكتاب يعد ممتازا في الكثير من افكاره و عرضه لتصور المسلمين للدول الغربيه إلا أني أخذ عليه كثره استناده و استشهاده بالنموذج الأيراني كنموذج للإسلام و كذلك المعتقدات الشيعيه و التي يعتبرها أغلب علماء المسلمين معتقدات فاسده.
كما ان الكتاب كان متحاملا و غبر منصف فيما يتعلق بالحركه الوهابيه.
و يؤخذ على الكاتب ايضا انه لم يوضح عقائد أهل السنة والجماعة بشيئ من التفصيل بل ذكرها إجمالا بينما استفاض في عرض عقائد الخميني و مواقفه و هذا قد يعطي صوره ممسوخه مشوهه عن الأسلام عند من لا يدرك طبيعه حال العلاقه بين السنه و الشيعه.
ويؤخذ عليه حديثه عن الحركات الباطنيه الخبيثه و الأسماعيليه و فرق الحشاشين من منطلقكونهم فرق إسلاميه و لم يوضح أنهم فرق اتفق اهل السنة علي انهم مارقين عن منهج الدين الحنيف. و لا ادري اكان هذا بدافع تشويه من الكاتب ام هو مجرد نقص في ادراكه لطبيعه الطوائف المسلمه و المنتسبه إلي الإسلام.
إلا ان الكتاب ككل يعد خيرا من الكثير من الكتب المترجمه و منصفا عنها في الكثير من الآراء و نقده للمجتمع الغربي او علي الاقل في وصفه لتصورنا للمجتمعات الغربيه.
كما ان الكتاب كان متحاملا و غبر منصف فيما يتعلق بالحركه الوهابيه.
و يؤخذ على الكاتب ايضا انه لم يوضح عقائد أهل السنة والجماعة بشيئ من التفصيل بل ذكرها إجمالا بينما استفاض في عرض عقائد الخميني و مواقفه و هذا قد يعطي صوره ممسوخه مشوهه عن الأسلام عند من لا يدرك طبيعه حال العلاقه بين السنه و الشيعه.
ويؤخذ عليه حديثه عن الحركات الباطنيه الخبيثه و الأسماعيليه و فرق الحشاشين من منطلقكونهم فرق إسلاميه و لم يوضح أنهم فرق اتفق اهل السنة علي انهم مارقين عن منهج الدين الحنيف. و لا ادري اكان هذا بدافع تشويه من الكاتب ام هو مجرد نقص في ادراكه لطبيعه الطوائف المسلمه و المنتسبه إلي الإسلام.
إلا ان الكتاب ككل يعد خيرا من الكثير من الكتب المترجمه و منصفا عنها في الكثير من الآراء و نقده للمجتمع الغربي او علي الاقل في وصفه لتصورنا للمجتمعات الغربيه.
September 8, 2007
Amazing review of muslim history as it relates to the western world. Lewis is one of, if not the best Western scholars on the muslim world. Middle eastern college kids get sent by their parents to his classes to learn their history. Anyhow, this is a concise, well written book on a very difficult topic. It really gives you a much better understanding of the origins of the conflict between Arabs and the West and Muslims and the West. I'd say this is a must read for anyone in the armed forces. Really everyone in america needs to better understand this conflict. Our battle shouldn't be with bombs and guns, but with better understanding and adaptation on both sides.
April 16, 2024
I heard Bernard Lewis was the greatest middle eastern scholar of all time and his work certainly holds up.
The agregious racism that liberals hold for Muslims is palpable in the press and media today. Liberals see the muslims as inferior peoples not worthy of condemnation for their oppressive regimes towards women and minorities. As westerners we should treat these cultures with respect by condemning the oppressive regimes that comprises much of this region. Giving tyranny a free pass merely perpetuates more tyranny.
The agregious racism that liberals hold for Muslims is palpable in the press and media today. Liberals see the muslims as inferior peoples not worthy of condemnation for their oppressive regimes towards women and minorities. As westerners we should treat these cultures with respect by condemning the oppressive regimes that comprises much of this region. Giving tyranny a free pass merely perpetuates more tyranny.
January 4, 2012
interesting, but ultimately unbalanced. this ended up on a lot of "professional reading lists", which without any sort of counter-balance is unfortunate. there's no denying that Lewis knows a lot about the Middle East--and in many ways loves it deeply--but there's also no denying that Lewis (to quote Edward Said) is writing from the perspective of a guy that hadn't "set foot in the Middle East in 40 years."
August 18, 2007
I wish this book was a bit longer, but it gets right to the point and makes you feel like an idiot for following the mainstream public stereotyping of Islam. If you want to know why so many muslim extremists hate the west (especially United States) read this book.
Read
July 7, 2025This book, which seems to many as neo-con, outdated, proved wrong slop, has fascinated me for several reasons.
First, I wanted to understand Bernard Lewis. The failure of America in Iraq has turned the most renowned Arabist of the western world into someone “who only learned Arabic to maligned Arabs” taken from Al -jezeera’s “obituary” of him (pissing on his grave would be more fitting).
To understand a person we have to see them at their most biased, most dogmatic . I admit, I have a soft spot for the Arabist. A type of man who learned Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew only to be called an orientalist once Edward said came to prominence and the Arab world was seen solely through the de-colonialist lens.
Bernard Lewis is a knowledgeable man. Yet he, in instances related to Israel (he might in other areas, I just don’t know enough about other areas to call him out) cherry picks stats to form a narrative. Most egregiously was him wondering why Palestinian nationalists supported Hitler when Hitler was the one encouraging Jews to immigrate to Palestine while Britain was the one trying to halt immigration. He’s implying their support was out of blind irrational hatred.
The truth is that while the 1939 white paper does imply an Arab state in Palestine and put quotas on Jewish immigration, throwing off the British yoke immediately was far more pragmatic. Also he ignores the British brutally suppressing the Arab revolt just a few years before. Both pragmatic, revanchist, and yes, perhaps anti-Semitic thought guided Palestinian nationalists to throw their lot in with the nazis. Yet the complete picture is never given to his target audience : upper middle class suburban Protestants trying to make sense of 9 / 11.
Second most heinous cherry picking was saying Jewish pre-state nationalist terrorism solely target military and occasional, administrative facilities. The irgun’s craven bombing of Arab cafes and war time acts of terror intended to precipitate Arab flight is not mentioned.
Yet to say Lewis learned Arabic just to malign Arabs is slanderous. I see a man with at worst romantic, and fetishitic attachment to the Arab world. He mourns that the Arab world has betrayed the tenants of Islam that made them an intellectual, pluralistic society in the Middle Ages. He thinks they are again capable of such a feat and thinks America should nudge them to do so.
If America had an easier time nation building in Iraq would this book be seen as a great piece of work which liberation millions of people from tyranny? America failed in Iraq mainly due to logistical, not ideological problems. And this book is all ideology. He provides us with no practical manual on how to replace saddam with a government by the people, for the people. If he did, perhaps the Iraq war would be remembered like the Korean War (not at all remembered).
First, I wanted to understand Bernard Lewis. The failure of America in Iraq has turned the most renowned Arabist of the western world into someone “who only learned Arabic to maligned Arabs” taken from Al -jezeera’s “obituary” of him (pissing on his grave would be more fitting).
To understand a person we have to see them at their most biased, most dogmatic . I admit, I have a soft spot for the Arabist. A type of man who learned Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew only to be called an orientalist once Edward said came to prominence and the Arab world was seen solely through the de-colonialist lens.
Bernard Lewis is a knowledgeable man. Yet he, in instances related to Israel (he might in other areas, I just don’t know enough about other areas to call him out) cherry picks stats to form a narrative. Most egregiously was him wondering why Palestinian nationalists supported Hitler when Hitler was the one encouraging Jews to immigrate to Palestine while Britain was the one trying to halt immigration. He’s implying their support was out of blind irrational hatred.
The truth is that while the 1939 white paper does imply an Arab state in Palestine and put quotas on Jewish immigration, throwing off the British yoke immediately was far more pragmatic. Also he ignores the British brutally suppressing the Arab revolt just a few years before. Both pragmatic, revanchist, and yes, perhaps anti-Semitic thought guided Palestinian nationalists to throw their lot in with the nazis. Yet the complete picture is never given to his target audience : upper middle class suburban Protestants trying to make sense of 9 / 11.
Second most heinous cherry picking was saying Jewish pre-state nationalist terrorism solely target military and occasional, administrative facilities. The irgun’s craven bombing of Arab cafes and war time acts of terror intended to precipitate Arab flight is not mentioned.
Yet to say Lewis learned Arabic just to malign Arabs is slanderous. I see a man with at worst romantic, and fetishitic attachment to the Arab world. He mourns that the Arab world has betrayed the tenants of Islam that made them an intellectual, pluralistic society in the Middle Ages. He thinks they are again capable of such a feat and thinks America should nudge them to do so.
If America had an easier time nation building in Iraq would this book be seen as a great piece of work which liberation millions of people from tyranny? America failed in Iraq mainly due to logistical, not ideological problems. And this book is all ideology. He provides us with no practical manual on how to replace saddam with a government by the people, for the people. If he did, perhaps the Iraq war would be remembered like the Korean War (not at all remembered).
July 26, 2024
I re-reviewed, forgetting that I had read it before. Second review follows this one:
The book provides a nutshell overview of the background dynamics at work in the Islamic world. Though he more implies than explicitly states why we are involved, Lewis is good at describing the ineptitude of the western and U.S. policies in this part of the world – the imposition of artificial country boundaries, the taking of sides in a highly factionalized Islamic world, the backing of dictators, the turning of our backs on former allies when they no longer served our interests, etc.
Lewis identifies three Muslim strains vis-à-vis the West. There are those who see the West and the U.S. “as the ancient and irreconcilable enemy of Islam, the one serious obstacle to the restoration of God’s faith and law at home and their ultimate universal triumph.” While aware of the flaws of the West, a second strain sees its value nonetheless and seeks “to join us in reaching toward a freer and better world.” The third strain, Lewis says, sees the “West as their ultimate enemy and as the source of all evil,” but for pragmatic reasons “seek some temporary accommodation in order better to prepare for the final struggle.” And from these three strains, Lewis cautions us not to “confuse the second and the third.”
The book’s title is ambiguous, and maybe that was intentional. Crisis for whom? Racked by rivalry and division, the future for Islam is far from clear. That’s a crisis I suppose for Islam and for the Islamic world. Facing a seemingly permanent and vehement strain of hostility from that world is a crisis for the West. On this point, Lewis writes: “[A] significant number of Muslims – notably but not exclusively those whom we call fundamentalists – are hostile and dangerous, not because we need an enemy but because they do.” The first and third strains referenced above that are Lewis's concern. There’s also no distinction between our government leaders and policies and the people on the streets. “Free elections mean that the American people freely choose their rulers and must,” Lewis writes, “therefore be held accountable and punishable for those rulers’ misdeeds – that is, there are no ‘innocent civilians.’” Lewis doesn’t really say why or how we should move in this world, though I think the book’s subtitle, “Holy War and Unholy Terror,” is strikingly bare in pointing a finger. For Lewis, a significant Muslim antipathy toward the West is, and will always be, open-ended. We’re in it for the long haul but, beyond self-defense, it’s not clear at all what being “in it” means, or should mean.
Second Review:
Lewis provides a deep history to the Western conflicts with the Muslim world. That history, he argues, is determinative regarding the current antipathies. Reading this book - it’s a four part series that appeared in the New Yorker - it might be easy to question history’s relevance to the modern world, as opposed to assessing the situation now and identifying pragmatic steps for moving forward.*
Lewis’ history argument pertains to those Muslim elites who believe that there can be no accommodation with the West and Christianity. The motivation behind this is less about the Western abuses inflicted on the Muslim world, versus a religious belief that there can be only one God and that there cannot be a competing God. Then the question are; Why this insistence on one true God, and why the insistence on conversion? Why the war against infidels? Is it, really, history, or is there something more fundamental going on - biological, psychological factors?**
Lewis says that the mistake of the West, particularly on the US side, is the support for dictators in the Muslim world who operate not in the best interests of “the people of the Muslim world” who, Lewis seems to argue, would be for Western-style democracy. I wonder how realistic that point of view is. In the Arab spring we jettisoned heretofore allies (Mubarak, and a more amenable - in his later iteration - Gaddafi), and got the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and an anything goes and stateless Libya. Rather than democracy and all of that, we took out Saddam Hussein, the one person in the Middle East who was an effective counter to Iran, and left Iraq open to the extremist pockets that continue to plague the West. Then there is the 20-year war in Afghanistan. We got absolutely nowhere in establishing a democratic state there. There’s a strong undercurrent to Lewis’s book that is rah-rah for American style democracy in the Muslim world, but isn’t it this - a secular version of Christian proselytizing - that seems to get us into jams with the Muslim world. Why is there this need to intervene on behalf of democracy, especially now where we have problems within our own house? Why not use a pragmatic approach, even when working with strongmen, that looks for opportunities to move forward together to serve mutual interests.
*Lewis writes: “In current American usage, the phrase ‘that’s history’ is commonly used to dismiss something as unimportant, of no relevance to current concerns, and despite an immense investment in the teaching and writing of history, the general level of historical knowledge in American society is abysmally low.”
**Lewis argues that its necessary to understand the historical forces that drive the fundamentalists, but I’d argue that the underlying driving forces are even more fundamental than that. The same question applies to Christian fundamentalism.
The book provides a nutshell overview of the background dynamics at work in the Islamic world. Though he more implies than explicitly states why we are involved, Lewis is good at describing the ineptitude of the western and U.S. policies in this part of the world – the imposition of artificial country boundaries, the taking of sides in a highly factionalized Islamic world, the backing of dictators, the turning of our backs on former allies when they no longer served our interests, etc.
Lewis identifies three Muslim strains vis-à-vis the West. There are those who see the West and the U.S. “as the ancient and irreconcilable enemy of Islam, the one serious obstacle to the restoration of God’s faith and law at home and their ultimate universal triumph.” While aware of the flaws of the West, a second strain sees its value nonetheless and seeks “to join us in reaching toward a freer and better world.” The third strain, Lewis says, sees the “West as their ultimate enemy and as the source of all evil,” but for pragmatic reasons “seek some temporary accommodation in order better to prepare for the final struggle.” And from these three strains, Lewis cautions us not to “confuse the second and the third.”
The book’s title is ambiguous, and maybe that was intentional. Crisis for whom? Racked by rivalry and division, the future for Islam is far from clear. That’s a crisis I suppose for Islam and for the Islamic world. Facing a seemingly permanent and vehement strain of hostility from that world is a crisis for the West. On this point, Lewis writes: “[A] significant number of Muslims – notably but not exclusively those whom we call fundamentalists – are hostile and dangerous, not because we need an enemy but because they do.” The first and third strains referenced above that are Lewis's concern. There’s also no distinction between our government leaders and policies and the people on the streets. “Free elections mean that the American people freely choose their rulers and must,” Lewis writes, “therefore be held accountable and punishable for those rulers’ misdeeds – that is, there are no ‘innocent civilians.’” Lewis doesn’t really say why or how we should move in this world, though I think the book’s subtitle, “Holy War and Unholy Terror,” is strikingly bare in pointing a finger. For Lewis, a significant Muslim antipathy toward the West is, and will always be, open-ended. We’re in it for the long haul but, beyond self-defense, it’s not clear at all what being “in it” means, or should mean.
Second Review:
Lewis provides a deep history to the Western conflicts with the Muslim world. That history, he argues, is determinative regarding the current antipathies. Reading this book - it’s a four part series that appeared in the New Yorker - it might be easy to question history’s relevance to the modern world, as opposed to assessing the situation now and identifying pragmatic steps for moving forward.*
Lewis’ history argument pertains to those Muslim elites who believe that there can be no accommodation with the West and Christianity. The motivation behind this is less about the Western abuses inflicted on the Muslim world, versus a religious belief that there can be only one God and that there cannot be a competing God. Then the question are; Why this insistence on one true God, and why the insistence on conversion? Why the war against infidels? Is it, really, history, or is there something more fundamental going on - biological, psychological factors?**
Lewis says that the mistake of the West, particularly on the US side, is the support for dictators in the Muslim world who operate not in the best interests of “the people of the Muslim world” who, Lewis seems to argue, would be for Western-style democracy. I wonder how realistic that point of view is. In the Arab spring we jettisoned heretofore allies (Mubarak, and a more amenable - in his later iteration - Gaddafi), and got the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and an anything goes and stateless Libya. Rather than democracy and all of that, we took out Saddam Hussein, the one person in the Middle East who was an effective counter to Iran, and left Iraq open to the extremist pockets that continue to plague the West. Then there is the 20-year war in Afghanistan. We got absolutely nowhere in establishing a democratic state there. There’s a strong undercurrent to Lewis’s book that is rah-rah for American style democracy in the Muslim world, but isn’t it this - a secular version of Christian proselytizing - that seems to get us into jams with the Muslim world. Why is there this need to intervene on behalf of democracy, especially now where we have problems within our own house? Why not use a pragmatic approach, even when working with strongmen, that looks for opportunities to move forward together to serve mutual interests.
*Lewis writes: “In current American usage, the phrase ‘that’s history’ is commonly used to dismiss something as unimportant, of no relevance to current concerns, and despite an immense investment in the teaching and writing of history, the general level of historical knowledge in American society is abysmally low.”
**Lewis argues that its necessary to understand the historical forces that drive the fundamentalists, but I’d argue that the underlying driving forces are even more fundamental than that. The same question applies to Christian fundamentalism.
August 6, 2023
If you have any interest in how we arrived at the complex modern Islam of today, this book provides a great stepping off point. It is by no means exhaustive, but will certainly point out topics that can and should be pursued further.
Mr. Lewis writes in a very objective format that allows your mind to absorb the information without political or accusatory bias. After finishing this book I immediately researched and happily ordered two more of his works.
Mr. Lewis writes in a very objective format that allows your mind to absorb the information without political or accusatory bias. After finishing this book I immediately researched and happily ordered two more of his works.
May 30, 2025
Illuminating.
December 23, 2015
Lewis is perhaps the foremost scholar on Islam and the Middle East. Right after 9/11 he did a couple of quick books - What Went Wrong and then this book.
He makes a series of generalizations about Islam including:
1) Islam fits historically between Judaism and Christianity. But it is different in some key ways. First, the key text in Islam is attributed to one prophet - both the new and the Old Testament have many writers. Second, Islam does not have ordination in a formal sense - that allows for some wide interpretations. Third, the concept I. Mark - render unto Caesar that which is Caesars does not work in Islam. Nations are subordinate to the religious law. The concept of one man one vote becomes one man one vote, once. Once an Islamic state is established no further democracy is necessary.
2) Islamic organizations are not like other alliances. The members of the Organization of Islamic Countries are a strange mix. When the soviets invaded Afghanistan the OIC did not do anything.
3) The comparison of Islamic states to the rest of the world are stark. They rank far down in development. One statistic stuck with me - since 900AD there have been about 100,000 books translated into Arabic - that compares to translations in Spain which exceed that number in one year.
4). The Nazis tried to involve Islamic states in their efforts. Writers like Rilke and Heidigger condemned the West as "soulless" that fit into the narrative of the current terrorists.
5) The concentration of wealth in the Saudis helped to fund schools and other foundations around the world that espouse an especially pernicious version of Islam. The book goes through the history of a number of Middle Eastern countries to show their development. There are very few public schools in the Middle East so much of what passes for education. Is controlled by people who link one brand of Islamic faith and money.
6) The US gets caught up in the rhetoric of the terrorists in part because we are perceived as successors to the colonialists (we do not get credit for our interventions in places like Bosnia). But also the European narrative of the US as a soulless place works against us.
7) He offers a comparison - most Moslems are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalist Moslems are not terrorists. But almost all terrorists are fundamentalist Moslems. That requires us In our responses to make some careful distinctions - not at all like either Trump or Obama.
Like all of Lewis' work this is a carefully laid out analysis. Even though the book is more than a dozen years old it is worth the read
He makes a series of generalizations about Islam including:
1) Islam fits historically between Judaism and Christianity. But it is different in some key ways. First, the key text in Islam is attributed to one prophet - both the new and the Old Testament have many writers. Second, Islam does not have ordination in a formal sense - that allows for some wide interpretations. Third, the concept I. Mark - render unto Caesar that which is Caesars does not work in Islam. Nations are subordinate to the religious law. The concept of one man one vote becomes one man one vote, once. Once an Islamic state is established no further democracy is necessary.
2) Islamic organizations are not like other alliances. The members of the Organization of Islamic Countries are a strange mix. When the soviets invaded Afghanistan the OIC did not do anything.
3) The comparison of Islamic states to the rest of the world are stark. They rank far down in development. One statistic stuck with me - since 900AD there have been about 100,000 books translated into Arabic - that compares to translations in Spain which exceed that number in one year.
4). The Nazis tried to involve Islamic states in their efforts. Writers like Rilke and Heidigger condemned the West as "soulless" that fit into the narrative of the current terrorists.
5) The concentration of wealth in the Saudis helped to fund schools and other foundations around the world that espouse an especially pernicious version of Islam. The book goes through the history of a number of Middle Eastern countries to show their development. There are very few public schools in the Middle East so much of what passes for education. Is controlled by people who link one brand of Islamic faith and money.
6) The US gets caught up in the rhetoric of the terrorists in part because we are perceived as successors to the colonialists (we do not get credit for our interventions in places like Bosnia). But also the European narrative of the US as a soulless place works against us.
7) He offers a comparison - most Moslems are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalist Moslems are not terrorists. But almost all terrorists are fundamentalist Moslems. That requires us In our responses to make some careful distinctions - not at all like either Trump or Obama.
Like all of Lewis' work this is a carefully laid out analysis. Even though the book is more than a dozen years old it is worth the read
July 3, 2012
Lewis is among the foremost scholars of the Middle East in the world. In recent years it has become fashionable to cast doubt on him because of his supposed support for the Iraq War or his advising the Bush administration. Such doubt is nonsense. Read his work and judge it for yourself. He knows his stuff.
This book is his attempt to explain, in brief, what cultural and historical factors could lead to 9/11. The amount of learning he brings to bear is massive, but his thesis is relatively straightforward. He explained it in "The Roots of Muslim Rage" more than 20 years ago. In his view, the problem stems from the Islamic world's failure to confront the challenges of modernity. The UN's Arab Human Development Report more than corroborates his thesis.
Along the way, he shares his own views on many controversial things, as he is entitled to do, and his views are not always those of the enlightened intelligentsia who spend their lives in the Ivory Cubicle. Lewis was an intelligence officer in the British Army in World War II. When someone of his learning and experience challenges conventional wisdom, especially when it comes to the topic of democracy in the Muslim world, it might be worthwhile to listen.
This book is his attempt to explain, in brief, what cultural and historical factors could lead to 9/11. The amount of learning he brings to bear is massive, but his thesis is relatively straightforward. He explained it in "The Roots of Muslim Rage" more than 20 years ago. In his view, the problem stems from the Islamic world's failure to confront the challenges of modernity. The UN's Arab Human Development Report more than corroborates his thesis.
Along the way, he shares his own views on many controversial things, as he is entitled to do, and his views are not always those of the enlightened intelligentsia who spend their lives in the Ivory Cubicle. Lewis was an intelligence officer in the British Army in World War II. When someone of his learning and experience challenges conventional wisdom, especially when it comes to the topic of democracy in the Muslim world, it might be worthwhile to listen.
January 29, 2011
Bernard Lewis is certainly one of the most renowned and respected scholars of Islam and the Middle East. This book, unfortunately, was not as long as I would have liked it to be. That being said, he does cram a great wealth of information into such a small volume.
The greatest strength of this book is it's organization and historical content. He does not pull many punches and tells the story of the middle east and Islamic relations with the West bluntly (for the most part.)
The only criticism I have and what earns it a four star rating instead of a five, is that near the end he glosses over certain aspects of mainstream Islamic theology and doctrine, such as abrogation, as wrong without providing an argument against it, which I do understand as this is more of a general overview;however, if someone mentions something as wrong, then one expects that the author would spend sometime on it. That was disappointing.
Other than that, this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.
The greatest strength of this book is it's organization and historical content. He does not pull many punches and tells the story of the middle east and Islamic relations with the West bluntly (for the most part.)
The only criticism I have and what earns it a four star rating instead of a five, is that near the end he glosses over certain aspects of mainstream Islamic theology and doctrine, such as abrogation, as wrong without providing an argument against it, which I do understand as this is more of a general overview;however, if someone mentions something as wrong, then one expects that the author would spend sometime on it. That was disappointing.
Other than that, this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 337 reviews