What do you think?
Rate this book
What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East
Paperback, inscribed inside front and back cover, excellent binding and clean inside pages. We ship fast.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
236 people are currently reading
5458 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 430 reviews
May 22, 2018
This is a scholarly look at the interactions between Islam and other civilizations, primarily European Christianity, and secondarily India and China. It is filled with interesting bits of information and comprises a pocket history (under 200 pages) and analysis of Islam. Although it is a short book it reads much longer. It is a worthwhile read, but I suspect that it’s primary value will be as a reference.
May 21, 2018 - Bernard Lewis passed away today. The NY Times Obit covers the controversy engendered by the opinions of this Middle East expert - Bernard Lewis, Influential Scholar of Islam, Is Dead at 101
P 6
For centuries, Islam represented the greatest military power on earth—its armies, at the same time, were invading Europe and Africa, India and China. It was the foremost economic power in the world, trading in a wide range of commodities through a far-flung network of commerce and communications in Asia, Europe, and Africa; importing slaves and gold from Africa, slaves and wool from Europe, and exchanging a variety of foodstuffs, materials, and manufactures with the civilized countries of Asia. It had achieved the highest level so far in human history in the arts and sciences of civilization. Inheriting the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece and or Persia, it added to them several important innovations from outside, such as the use and manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India. It is difficult to imagine modern literature or science without the one or the other. It was in the Islamic Middle East that Indian numbers were for the first time incorporated in the inherited body of mathematical learning. From the Middle East they were transmitted to the West, where they are still known as Arabic numerals, honoring not those who invented them but those who first brought them to Europe. To this rich inheritance scholars and scientists in the Islamic world added an immensely important contribution through their own observations, experiments and ideas. In most of the arts and sciences of civilization, Medieval Europe was a pupil and in a sense a dependant of the Islamic world, relying on Arabic versions even for many otherwise unknown Greek works.
P 53
In an Islamic state, there is, in principle no law other than the sharia, the Holy Law of Islam. The reforms of the 19th century and the needs of commercial and other contacts with Europe led to the enactment of new laws, modeled on those of Europe—commercial, civil, criminal, and finally constitutional. In the traditional order the only lawyers were the ulema, the doctors of the Holy Law, at once jurists and theologians. The secular lawyer, pleading in courts administering secular law, represented a new and influential element in society.
P 54
Westerners have become accustomed to think of good and bad government in terms of tyranny versus liberty. In Middle-Eastern usage, liberty or freedom was a legal not a political term. It meant one who was not a slave, and unlike the West, Muslims did not use slavery and freedom as political metaphors. For traditional Muslims, the converse of tyranny was not liberty but justice. Justice in this context meant essentially two things, that the ruler was there by right and not usurpation, and that he governed according to God’s law, or at least according to recognizable moral and legal principles.
P 100
If one may admit, in a limited professional sense, the existence of a clergy, there is no sense at all in which one can speak of a laity among Muslims. The idea that any group of persons, any kind of activities, any part of human life is in any sense outside the scope of religious law and jurisdiction is alien to Muslim thought. There is, for example, no distinction between canon law and civil law, between the law of the church and the law of the state, crucial in Christian history. There is only a single law, a sharia, accepted by Muslims as of divine origin and regulating all aspects of human life: civil, commercial, criminal, constitutional, as well as matters more specifically concerned with religion in the limited Christian sense of that word,
P 103
The reasons why Muslims developed no secularist movement of their own, and reacted sharply against attempts to introduce one from abroad, will thus be clear from the contrasts between Christian and Muslim history and experience. From the beginning, Christians were taught both by precept and practice to distinguish between God and Caesar and between the different duties owed to each of the two. Muslims received no such instruction.
May 21, 2018 - Bernard Lewis passed away today. The NY Times Obit covers the controversy engendered by the opinions of this Middle East expert - Bernard Lewis, Influential Scholar of Islam, Is Dead at 101
P 6
For centuries, Islam represented the greatest military power on earth—its armies, at the same time, were invading Europe and Africa, India and China. It was the foremost economic power in the world, trading in a wide range of commodities through a far-flung network of commerce and communications in Asia, Europe, and Africa; importing slaves and gold from Africa, slaves and wool from Europe, and exchanging a variety of foodstuffs, materials, and manufactures with the civilized countries of Asia. It had achieved the highest level so far in human history in the arts and sciences of civilization. Inheriting the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece and or Persia, it added to them several important innovations from outside, such as the use and manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India. It is difficult to imagine modern literature or science without the one or the other. It was in the Islamic Middle East that Indian numbers were for the first time incorporated in the inherited body of mathematical learning. From the Middle East they were transmitted to the West, where they are still known as Arabic numerals, honoring not those who invented them but those who first brought them to Europe. To this rich inheritance scholars and scientists in the Islamic world added an immensely important contribution through their own observations, experiments and ideas. In most of the arts and sciences of civilization, Medieval Europe was a pupil and in a sense a dependant of the Islamic world, relying on Arabic versions even for many otherwise unknown Greek works.
P 53
In an Islamic state, there is, in principle no law other than the sharia, the Holy Law of Islam. The reforms of the 19th century and the needs of commercial and other contacts with Europe led to the enactment of new laws, modeled on those of Europe—commercial, civil, criminal, and finally constitutional. In the traditional order the only lawyers were the ulema, the doctors of the Holy Law, at once jurists and theologians. The secular lawyer, pleading in courts administering secular law, represented a new and influential element in society.
P 54
Westerners have become accustomed to think of good and bad government in terms of tyranny versus liberty. In Middle-Eastern usage, liberty or freedom was a legal not a political term. It meant one who was not a slave, and unlike the West, Muslims did not use slavery and freedom as political metaphors. For traditional Muslims, the converse of tyranny was not liberty but justice. Justice in this context meant essentially two things, that the ruler was there by right and not usurpation, and that he governed according to God’s law, or at least according to recognizable moral and legal principles.
P 100
If one may admit, in a limited professional sense, the existence of a clergy, there is no sense at all in which one can speak of a laity among Muslims. The idea that any group of persons, any kind of activities, any part of human life is in any sense outside the scope of religious law and jurisdiction is alien to Muslim thought. There is, for example, no distinction between canon law and civil law, between the law of the church and the law of the state, crucial in Christian history. There is only a single law, a sharia, accepted by Muslims as of divine origin and regulating all aspects of human life: civil, commercial, criminal, constitutional, as well as matters more specifically concerned with religion in the limited Christian sense of that word,
P 103
The reasons why Muslims developed no secularist movement of their own, and reacted sharply against attempts to introduce one from abroad, will thus be clear from the contrasts between Christian and Muslim history and experience. From the beginning, Christians were taught both by precept and practice to distinguish between God and Caesar and between the different duties owed to each of the two. Muslims received no such instruction.
January 25, 2019
أين الخطأ؟! الخطأ بالتأكيد داخل هذا الكتاب.
يطرح المؤلف سؤالا ولكنه لا يجيب عليه، وينطلق في سرد لأحداث تاريخية منتقاة بطريقة خبيثة وليس لها علاقة بعنوان الكتاب
مشكلة كتاب مثل هذا في رأيي أن القاريء عندما يعرف التاريخ الشخصي للمؤلف المتحيز ضد الموضوع الذي يكتب فيه، فإنه لا يصبح قادرا على تصديق أي معلومة واردة في الكتاب حتى لو كانت صحيحة تاريخيا . ويجب أن أعترف إني في قراءتي لأي شيء يكتبه برنارد لويس أكون على حذر شديد من تصديق أي شيء يكتبه، رغم أنه بالطبع لا يستطيع تزوير التاريخ بالكامل
برنارد لويس مؤرخ إنجليزي يهودي معروف في الغرب بأنه متخصص في التاريخ الإسلامي وفي تاريخ الدولة العثمانية. وفي أعقاب أحداث 11 سبتمبر 2001 في الولايات المتحدة تم استدعائه ست مرات خلال أقل من ثلاث شهور للبيت الأبيض في واشنطن. ولكن ليست المشكلة في كونه يهوديا وإنما في كونه كما يقال ذو "أجندة" محددة تجعله غير محايد وغير منصف في كتاباته، وقد أشار إلى ذلك الدكتور رؤوف عباس في مقدمته ودراسته للكتاب، إذ أشار إلى بعض أسماء لمؤرخين يهود اتسموا بالموضوعية في كتاباتهم. وإن كان هذا لا ينفي أيضا أن مقال الدكتور رؤوف عباس لا يخلو هو أيضا من شيء من التحيز المتوقع للعرب ولتاريخهم
يحتوي هذا الكتاب على
- كمية لا بأس بها من المعلومات التاريخية يمكن أن تكون صحيحة
- يعترف المؤلف بالإنجازات الضخمة والمؤثرة في العلوم المختلفة التي قام بها المسلمون والعرب في العصر الذهبي للحضارة الإسلامية، ولذلك فهو يبدي اندهاشه من التأخر والتدهور الذي أصابا هذه المنطقة التي كانت تقود العالم في أحد عصوره.
- إختيارات لأحداث ومواقف وأمثلة من التاريخ بطريقة إنتقائية يبني عليها المؤلف أحكاما عامة شاملة
- مقابلة بين الشرق "المسلم" والغرب "المسيحي" حتى في الجوانب التي لم يكن للدين فيها أي دور. وكمثال على ذلك حديثه عن "الصراع" داخل دولة إسرائيل بين اليهود الشرقيين الذين تربوا في مجتمع "إسلامي" وجلبوا معهم ما أسماه "التقاليد اليهودية الإسلامية" وبين اليهود الغربيين الذين تربوا في مجتمع "مسيحي" وجلبوا معهم ما أسماه "التقاليد اليهودية المسيحية". فهو يرى ذلك على أنه صراع ثقافات إسلامية ضد ثقافات مسيحية، وذلك بدون الإشارة إلى انحياز اليهود الغربيين في إسرائيل ضد اليهود الشرقيين واعتبارهم مواطنين من الدرجة الثانية؛ وأيضا مع تجاهل للميول الشديدة المحافظة لدى جميع المجتمعات المتدينة على السواء بصرف النظر عن عقيدتها
- إختصار العالم الإسلامي كله في الدولة العثمانية، وإختصار علاقة العالم الإسلامي بأوربا في علاقة الدولة العثمانية بها. ومعروف عن هذه العلاقة الأخيرة أنها كانت في مجملها علاقة عداء سياسي وحروب. فليس غريبا إذن أن يكن العثمانيون كل المشاعر السلبية للأوربيين [وأن يبادلهم الأوربيون نفس المشاعر، وإن كان المؤلف يختار ألا يركز على هذه النقطة الأخيرة]. ولكن المؤلف يقتطع هذه الكراهية من سياقها ويقوم بتعميمها على كل المسلمين في كل عصورهم. فهو يردد أكثر من مرة أن المسلمين يرفضون أي نوع من التعامل مع غير المسلمين باعتبارهم كفارا؛ ذلك رغم أنه في عدة مواقع أخرى من الكتاب يكرر أيضا أن اليهود مثلا رغم أنهم تعرضوا لشيء من التمييز في المجتمعات المسلمة مثل الأقليات الدينية الأخرى، إلا أن ذلك التمييز - رغم أنه كان معتادا في العالم كله في تلك العصور- كان أقل بكثير من التمييز الذي تعرض له غير المسيحيين في أوربا في نفس الفترة
- الأهم من كل ذلك أن المؤلف لا يجيب عن السؤال الذي وضعه في العنوان "ما الخطأ؟" إلا في الفقرات الأخيرة من الكتاب وبطريقة مبتسرة للغاية. فكل المواد التاريخية التي وردت في الكتاب في مجمله لا تؤدي حتى إلى هذه الإجابة التي يذكر فيها كلام عام ومبهم عن غياب الحرية وغياب الانفتاح على الآخرين وغياب القيم الغربية، ويشير طبعا إلى نظريات المؤامرة التي يعتنقها الكثير من العرب ليفسر بها ما هم فيه من تأخر، ولكن بدون حتى أن يربط ذلك بالتاريخ الإستعماري البشع الذي تعرضت له تلك المنطقة. ويسخر أيضا من كراهية العرب لأمريكا أيضا بدون الإشارة إلى الدور الشنيع الذي تقوم به الإدارات الأمريكية المختلفة في الإنحياز للإسرائيليين ضد العرب وفي الإبقاء على الصراعات وحتى خلق صراعات جديدة بين الدول العربية . حتى أنه يتهم العرب بمعاداة السامية [وهي تهمة يمكن أن تكون صحيحة لو أوردها غيره من الكتاب المحايدين] بدون الإشارة إلى الدور الفعلي الذي قامت به الحركة الصهيونية - ولا أقول اليهود - في الإستيلاء بالقوة على بلد عربي بالكامل تحت أنظار العالم كله.
يطرح المؤلف سؤالا ولكنه لا يجيب عليه، وينطلق في سرد لأحداث تاريخية منتقاة بطريقة خبيثة وليس لها علاقة بعنوان الكتاب
مشكلة كتاب مثل هذا في رأيي أن القاريء عندما يعرف التاريخ الشخصي للمؤلف المتحيز ضد الموضوع الذي يكتب فيه، فإنه لا يصبح قادرا على تصديق أي معلومة واردة في الكتاب حتى لو كانت صحيحة تاريخيا . ويجب أن أعترف إني في قراءتي لأي شيء يكتبه برنارد لويس أكون على حذر شديد من تصديق أي شيء يكتبه، رغم أنه بالطبع لا يستطيع تزوير التاريخ بالكامل
برنارد لويس مؤرخ إنجليزي يهودي معروف في الغرب بأنه متخصص في التاريخ الإسلامي وفي تاريخ الدولة العثمانية. وفي أعقاب أحداث 11 سبتمبر 2001 في الولايات المتحدة تم استدعائه ست مرات خلال أقل من ثلاث شهور للبيت الأبيض في واشنطن. ولكن ليست المشكلة في كونه يهوديا وإنما في كونه كما يقال ذو "أجندة" محددة تجعله غير محايد وغير منصف في كتاباته، وقد أشار إلى ذلك الدكتور رؤوف عباس في مقدمته ودراسته للكتاب، إذ أشار إلى بعض أسماء لمؤرخين يهود اتسموا بالموضوعية في كتاباتهم. وإن كان هذا لا ينفي أيضا أن مقال الدكتور رؤوف عباس لا يخلو هو أيضا من شيء من التحيز المتوقع للعرب ولتاريخهم
يحتوي هذا الكتاب على
- كمية لا بأس بها من المعلومات التاريخية يمكن أن تكون صحيحة
- يعترف المؤلف بالإنجازات الضخمة والمؤثرة في العلوم المختلفة التي قام بها المسلمون والعرب في العصر الذهبي للحضارة الإسلامية، ولذلك فهو يبدي اندهاشه من التأخر والتدهور الذي أصابا هذه المنطقة التي كانت تقود العالم في أحد عصوره.
- إختيارات لأحداث ومواقف وأمثلة من التاريخ بطريقة إنتقائية يبني عليها المؤلف أحكاما عامة شاملة
- مقابلة بين الشرق "المسلم" والغرب "المسيحي" حتى في الجوانب التي لم يكن للدين فيها أي دور. وكمثال على ذلك حديثه عن "الصراع" داخل دولة إسرائيل بين اليهود الشرقيين الذين تربوا في مجتمع "إسلامي" وجلبوا معهم ما أسماه "التقاليد اليهودية الإسلامية" وبين اليهود الغربيين الذين تربوا في مجتمع "مسيحي" وجلبوا معهم ما أسماه "التقاليد اليهودية المسيحية". فهو يرى ذلك على أنه صراع ثقافات إسلامية ضد ثقافات مسيحية، وذلك بدون الإشارة إلى انحياز اليهود الغربيين في إسرائيل ضد اليهود الشرقيين واعتبارهم مواطنين من الدرجة الثانية؛ وأيضا مع تجاهل للميول الشديدة المحافظة لدى جميع المجتمعات المتدينة على السواء بصرف النظر عن عقيدتها
- إختصار العالم الإسلامي كله في الدولة العثمانية، وإختصار علاقة العالم الإسلامي بأوربا في علاقة الدولة العثمانية بها. ومعروف عن هذه العلاقة الأخيرة أنها كانت في مجملها علاقة عداء سياسي وحروب. فليس غريبا إذن أن يكن العثمانيون كل المشاعر السلبية للأوربيين [وأن يبادلهم الأوربيون نفس المشاعر، وإن كان المؤلف يختار ألا يركز على هذه النقطة الأخيرة]. ولكن المؤلف يقتطع هذه الكراهية من سياقها ويقوم بتعميمها على كل المسلمين في كل عصورهم. فهو يردد أكثر من مرة أن المسلمين يرفضون أي نوع من التعامل مع غير المسلمين باعتبارهم كفارا؛ ذلك رغم أنه في عدة مواقع أخرى من الكتاب يكرر أيضا أن اليهود مثلا رغم أنهم تعرضوا لشيء من التمييز في المجتمعات المسلمة مثل الأقليات الدينية الأخرى، إلا أن ذلك التمييز - رغم أنه كان معتادا في العالم كله في تلك العصور- كان أقل بكثير من التمييز الذي تعرض له غير المسيحيين في أوربا في نفس الفترة
- الأهم من كل ذلك أن المؤلف لا يجيب عن السؤال الذي وضعه في العنوان "ما الخطأ؟" إلا في الفقرات الأخيرة من الكتاب وبطريقة مبتسرة للغاية. فكل المواد التاريخية التي وردت في الكتاب في مجمله لا تؤدي حتى إلى هذه الإجابة التي يذكر فيها كلام عام ومبهم عن غياب الحرية وغياب الانفتاح على الآخرين وغياب القيم الغربية، ويشير طبعا إلى نظريات المؤامرة التي يعتنقها الكثير من العرب ليفسر بها ما هم فيه من تأخر، ولكن بدون حتى أن يربط ذلك بالتاريخ الإستعماري البشع الذي تعرضت له تلك المنطقة. ويسخر أيضا من كراهية العرب لأمريكا أيضا بدون الإشارة إلى الدور الشنيع الذي تقوم به الإدارات الأمريكية المختلفة في الإنحياز للإسرائيليين ضد العرب وفي الإبقاء على الصراعات وحتى خلق صراعات جديدة بين الدول العربية . حتى أنه يتهم العرب بمعاداة السامية [وهي تهمة يمكن أن تكون صحيحة لو أوردها غيره من الكتاب المحايدين] بدون الإشارة إلى الدور الفعلي الذي قامت به الحركة الصهيونية - ولا أقول اليهود - في الإستيلاء بالقوة على بلد عربي بالكامل تحت أنظار العالم كله.
July 21, 2019
This is a strange book. It manifestly fails at answering the questions it raises but I still ended up enjoying it for its unexpected historical gems and erudite prose. As a contemporary Muslim I am intimately concerned with "What Went Wrong," so to speak, and how the ills of contemporary Islamic civilization could possibly be remedied. Due to Lewis' own background this book was heavily focused on Ottoman Turkey, almost completely ignoring the vast majority of what constituted the Islamicate throughout history. On one hand this results in a wildly blinkered outlook. On the other, I respect him for sticking to his strengths and not attempting to weigh in on things outside his expertise.
In the end, however, Lewis doesn't even properly define "what's wrong" let alone outline how it got to be wrong or what might be done about it. The book is more like a collection of interesting things Lewis has come across over the years, that an editor has tried to arrange in a chronology to explain the historical trajectory of Islamic civilization — specifically the Ottomans. That's about it. But within that there was some fascinating stuff; like an Ottoman firman in response to the French Revolution and a French writer's rather touching reflection on the Middle Eastern perception of time.
Any review of Lewis has to acknowledge the problematic political views he held later in life. Consider that the acknowledgement. This book came out in 2002 and was clearly a pastiche of his other research pasted together to respond to a rush of post-9/11 interest. By the standards of much of today's hateful propaganda Lewis sounds like a positive Islamophile. He's not perfect, but one could easily find worse sources of guidance. And regardless of what one thinks of his politics — I have a problem with them, for the record — he was a formidable historian, not to mention an elegant writer.
In the end, however, Lewis doesn't even properly define "what's wrong" let alone outline how it got to be wrong or what might be done about it. The book is more like a collection of interesting things Lewis has come across over the years, that an editor has tried to arrange in a chronology to explain the historical trajectory of Islamic civilization — specifically the Ottomans. That's about it. But within that there was some fascinating stuff; like an Ottoman firman in response to the French Revolution and a French writer's rather touching reflection on the Middle Eastern perception of time.
Any review of Lewis has to acknowledge the problematic political views he held later in life. Consider that the acknowledgement. This book came out in 2002 and was clearly a pastiche of his other research pasted together to respond to a rush of post-9/11 interest. By the standards of much of today's hateful propaganda Lewis sounds like a positive Islamophile. He's not perfect, but one could easily find worse sources of guidance. And regardless of what one thinks of his politics — I have a problem with them, for the record — he was a formidable historian, not to mention an elegant writer.
December 7, 2010
Full of historical mistakes and misconceptions. The author is clearly biased, and presents some of his ideas as if they were well-known facts.
If you really want to know what went wrong, read something else by a trusted author. I recommend: A History of The Modern Middle East by Cleveland.
If you really want to know what went wrong, read something else by a trusted author. I recommend: A History of The Modern Middle East by Cleveland.
September 18, 2020
Bernard Lewis is one of the greatest living historians on the subject of Islam and the Middle East. Indeed it a testimony to his greatness that he was attacked by the loathsome Edward Said, for stating some home truths about Arabs and Islam. Islamists and radical Left intellectuals see any criticism of the Arab and Islamic worlds as racist. so much for the supposed role of the intellectual that one must question everything and strive after the truth.
Lewis traces the zenith of Islam as a a paramount world civilization in up to the 15th century and is not sparing his praises. But he also honestly examines why Islam has become a backward and violent society-he examines the cultural, social, religious, political and economic aspects.
The slave trade from Africa was started by Muslims and in earlier centuries Muslims had raided Europe for slaves, as far north as England and Scandinavia. This puts paid to the modern myth punted by left wing activists of Muslims as the innocent "other". Muslim religious leaders in past centuries opposed the end of slavery as they saw it a crime to prohibit what Allah had allowed as it was a crime to allow what Allah had prohibited.
The modern history of the Middle East is traced by the author to the 1798 expedition to Egypt General Napoleon Bonaparte. For the first time one of the heartlands of Islam was subjected to the rule of a Western power and the direct impact of Western attitudes and ideas. What particularly enraged the Muslims in Egypt was the abolition of discrimination of the Christian Copts that had long been living under a heavy dhimmi status of enforced subservience. The equality of the Copts and their employment by the French authorities was seen as a blow to Islamic pride.
Also vital in explaining the decline of Islam as a civilization. With only half of the population allowed to take part in all aspects of society-cultural, social, religious political and economic, this is immensely destructive to a society as it sacrificing half of it's potential!
The struggle for the emancipation of women made some progress in the twentieth century in the more socially and economically progressive parts of the Islamic world such as Turkey, and pre 1979 Iran. The violent reaction to this from Islamic fundamentalists was a large factor in the rise of Islamism as a militant political ideology in the 20th and 21st centuries. The Ayatollah Khomeini after seizing power in the bloody
Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 gave the rights afforded to woman under the Shah (Iran under the Shah was in it's time the most progressive country in the Muslim world terms of rights, freedoms and equality for women) prominent place in the misdeeds and crimes attributed to the Shah's government, As Lewis writes : "From the traditional point of view the emancipation of women, specifically allowing them to reveal their faces , their arms and their legs and to mingle socially in the school or the work place with men, is an incitement to immorality and promiscuity, and a deadly blow to the very heart of Islamic society, the Muslim family and home. The battle continues".
Similarly the emancipation forced by the West on non-Muslims negatively impacted on vested interest in the Muslim elite. The roots of Islamic hostility to Israel lie in two areas
1 The resentment of the Jews becoming equals that the Jewish State of Israel meant as the Jews had always been a despised and subservient minority, The idea of a state-no matter how small-in the heart of Arab Islam, ruled by Jews, was too much to bear, and the insult was compounded by the defeats the lowly-regarded Jews had dealt the Arabs after the many Arab attacks on Israel and the Levantine Jews before that.
2 The State of Israel was an example of democracy, equality and freedom for women that struck at the heart of Islam. This negative influence on the Arab masses could not be allowed and so the Jewish presence in Palestine that became the re-established Israel had to be demonized and destroyed. we need to look also at the class roots of whipped up hate against the Yishuv. The Zionist halutzim were importing new ideas of democracy, women's emancipation, free enterprise vis-a-vis feudalism. All this threatened the effindi class that lived off the tenant farmers, didn't it?
Lewis does mention how the Islamic world can get out of this rut but first he points out they have to stop the blame game, blaming the Turks, the Mongols, the 'Imperialists', the Jews, the Americans which grows stronger every year
A potent and compelling account of Islamic history.
Lewis traces the zenith of Islam as a a paramount world civilization in up to the 15th century and is not sparing his praises. But he also honestly examines why Islam has become a backward and violent society-he examines the cultural, social, religious, political and economic aspects.
The slave trade from Africa was started by Muslims and in earlier centuries Muslims had raided Europe for slaves, as far north as England and Scandinavia. This puts paid to the modern myth punted by left wing activists of Muslims as the innocent "other". Muslim religious leaders in past centuries opposed the end of slavery as they saw it a crime to prohibit what Allah had allowed as it was a crime to allow what Allah had prohibited.
The modern history of the Middle East is traced by the author to the 1798 expedition to Egypt General Napoleon Bonaparte. For the first time one of the heartlands of Islam was subjected to the rule of a Western power and the direct impact of Western attitudes and ideas. What particularly enraged the Muslims in Egypt was the abolition of discrimination of the Christian Copts that had long been living under a heavy dhimmi status of enforced subservience. The equality of the Copts and their employment by the French authorities was seen as a blow to Islamic pride.
Also vital in explaining the decline of Islam as a civilization. With only half of the population allowed to take part in all aspects of society-cultural, social, religious political and economic, this is immensely destructive to a society as it sacrificing half of it's potential!
The struggle for the emancipation of women made some progress in the twentieth century in the more socially and economically progressive parts of the Islamic world such as Turkey, and pre 1979 Iran. The violent reaction to this from Islamic fundamentalists was a large factor in the rise of Islamism as a militant political ideology in the 20th and 21st centuries. The Ayatollah Khomeini after seizing power in the bloody
Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 gave the rights afforded to woman under the Shah (Iran under the Shah was in it's time the most progressive country in the Muslim world terms of rights, freedoms and equality for women) prominent place in the misdeeds and crimes attributed to the Shah's government, As Lewis writes : "From the traditional point of view the emancipation of women, specifically allowing them to reveal their faces , their arms and their legs and to mingle socially in the school or the work place with men, is an incitement to immorality and promiscuity, and a deadly blow to the very heart of Islamic society, the Muslim family and home. The battle continues".
Similarly the emancipation forced by the West on non-Muslims negatively impacted on vested interest in the Muslim elite. The roots of Islamic hostility to Israel lie in two areas
1 The resentment of the Jews becoming equals that the Jewish State of Israel meant as the Jews had always been a despised and subservient minority, The idea of a state-no matter how small-in the heart of Arab Islam, ruled by Jews, was too much to bear, and the insult was compounded by the defeats the lowly-regarded Jews had dealt the Arabs after the many Arab attacks on Israel and the Levantine Jews before that.
2 The State of Israel was an example of democracy, equality and freedom for women that struck at the heart of Islam. This negative influence on the Arab masses could not be allowed and so the Jewish presence in Palestine that became the re-established Israel had to be demonized and destroyed. we need to look also at the class roots of whipped up hate against the Yishuv. The Zionist halutzim were importing new ideas of democracy, women's emancipation, free enterprise vis-a-vis feudalism. All this threatened the effindi class that lived off the tenant farmers, didn't it?
Lewis does mention how the Islamic world can get out of this rut but first he points out they have to stop the blame game, blaming the Turks, the Mongols, the 'Imperialists', the Jews, the Americans which grows stronger every year
A potent and compelling account of Islamic history.
January 14, 2025
I read this because, despite the low star ratings and hateful reviews, it was on Thomas Sowell’s recommended reading list. I figured I’d agree with Sowell more than the general reviewers.
I was right. ☺️
If you are anti-Israel, and you like using them in the blame game for the Middle East’s problems, you won’t like this book. The author gives a different string of reasons and uses the entire book to back up his answers. It’s actually a very detailed history of the Muslim world and its coping mechanisms or its embracing of the Western and Modern worlds.
The book can get a bit technical and textbook-ish, but I think this helps to prove that the subject was thoroughly researched and from so many angles (despite what some reviews say). The little I do know of the Byzantine period, the Crusades, and the Middle East in general wasn’t contradicted.
The conclusion was brilliant and I appreciated the observances and the perspective the author had. Particularly on his comparisons/evaluations of the pros and cons of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim worlds. In fact, Christians (churches, as well as homeschool families) would do well to consider their own situations in this world and ask themselves “what went wrong” - they might find they’ve made some similar mistakes to Islam, or better, learn from these mistakes and avoid them.
Ages: 16+
Content Considerations: nothing to note.
I was right. ☺️
If you are anti-Israel, and you like using them in the blame game for the Middle East’s problems, you won’t like this book. The author gives a different string of reasons and uses the entire book to back up his answers. It’s actually a very detailed history of the Muslim world and its coping mechanisms or its embracing of the Western and Modern worlds.
The book can get a bit technical and textbook-ish, but I think this helps to prove that the subject was thoroughly researched and from so many angles (despite what some reviews say). The little I do know of the Byzantine period, the Crusades, and the Middle East in general wasn’t contradicted.
The conclusion was brilliant and I appreciated the observances and the perspective the author had. Particularly on his comparisons/evaluations of the pros and cons of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim worlds. In fact, Christians (churches, as well as homeschool families) would do well to consider their own situations in this world and ask themselves “what went wrong” - they might find they’ve made some similar mistakes to Islam, or better, learn from these mistakes and avoid them.
Ages: 16+
Content Considerations: nothing to note.
February 1, 2013
What went wrong? The Middle East, once a power to be reckoned with, is now noted for its poverty, political weakness and the under-education of its people. Some say it is the fault of outside powers. Professor Lewis looks deeper, seeing this not as a cause but a symptom. He explores why the region was vulnerable to those outside powers.
He notes that some have considered the causes to be military, economic and/or political weaknesses. Attempts to modernize in these areas have met with military failure, continued poverty and democracy without freedom. For root causes Lewis looks to the culture, specifically, the historical and current role of women, attitude towards science and the role of music.
I was glad to see a serious discussion of the role of women as a cause for poverty, etc. Having half of the population hobbled in participating in the economic, political, intellectual and cultural life, by its very nature, "dumbs down" the environment. Also, what kind of grown ups are expected to result from having the sole parent responsible for raising children limited in experience of the real world? A sheltered life and a sub-standard education do not prepare anyone for the many roles (guiding, role modeling, advising, advocating/protecting) a parent or caregiver must play.
Although replete with examples, music is the weakest discussion. Lewis' analysis works for me if music is seen as a proxy for the characteristic ignoring/shunning of western life and culture (he discusses clothing, learning languages, marrying "outsiders"/diversity separately). Lewis shows a long history of insularity. In music, as with science, the culture looked inward and did not easily absorb new ideas. Both music and art have been suspect by some Middle Eastern religious leaders. There is a history of not just censorship, but total prohibition in different parts of the Middle East.
Lewis shows how insularity stunted the political development of the region. While it received ambassadors it did not send them. It used messengers who would deliver and return. With this system and no foreign languages studied/spoken, generations of experience in diplomacy were lost.
Often books that result from synthesizing lectures, articles, etc., are disjointed or repetitive and don't read well together. This book, does a reasonable job of joining of 3 lectures and previous publications.
I recommend it for anyone interested in the cultural roots of the problems in the Middle East.
He notes that some have considered the causes to be military, economic and/or political weaknesses. Attempts to modernize in these areas have met with military failure, continued poverty and democracy without freedom. For root causes Lewis looks to the culture, specifically, the historical and current role of women, attitude towards science and the role of music.
I was glad to see a serious discussion of the role of women as a cause for poverty, etc. Having half of the population hobbled in participating in the economic, political, intellectual and cultural life, by its very nature, "dumbs down" the environment. Also, what kind of grown ups are expected to result from having the sole parent responsible for raising children limited in experience of the real world? A sheltered life and a sub-standard education do not prepare anyone for the many roles (guiding, role modeling, advising, advocating/protecting) a parent or caregiver must play.
Although replete with examples, music is the weakest discussion. Lewis' analysis works for me if music is seen as a proxy for the characteristic ignoring/shunning of western life and culture (he discusses clothing, learning languages, marrying "outsiders"/diversity separately). Lewis shows a long history of insularity. In music, as with science, the culture looked inward and did not easily absorb new ideas. Both music and art have been suspect by some Middle Eastern religious leaders. There is a history of not just censorship, but total prohibition in different parts of the Middle East.
Lewis shows how insularity stunted the political development of the region. While it received ambassadors it did not send them. It used messengers who would deliver and return. With this system and no foreign languages studied/spoken, generations of experience in diplomacy were lost.
Often books that result from synthesizing lectures, articles, etc., are disjointed or repetitive and don't read well together. This book, does a reasonable job of joining of 3 lectures and previous publications.
I recommend it for anyone interested in the cultural roots of the problems in the Middle East.
May 8, 2018
I’ve always shuddered when considering Bernard Lewis. That condition will likely continue.
It is interesting that Lewis repeats the question “who did this to us “ throughout this slim polemic. The question asserted by Lewis regards the slipping of prestige from the Ottoman Empire to the embarrassed Middle East of the late 20C. Such was the question bandied about across the United States after the righteous struck Manhattan.
These alleged clashes of civilization might be constructs or crutches. Said taught me that. They do fuel a great deal of opinion as well as policy across the globe.
It is interesting that Lewis repeats the question “who did this to us “ throughout this slim polemic. The question asserted by Lewis regards the slipping of prestige from the Ottoman Empire to the embarrassed Middle East of the late 20C. Such was the question bandied about across the United States after the righteous struck Manhattan.
These alleged clashes of civilization might be constructs or crutches. Said taught me that. They do fuel a great deal of opinion as well as policy across the globe.
March 3, 2015
more orientalist claptrap from imperialist extraordinaire.
September 2, 2025
I read it at the suggestion of a Jewish couple in Santa Monica who were surprised that I hadn't read it yet. That was in 2002 just a half-year after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Having spent more than 20 years (now 30+) in, around, and of the Middle East, I thought their surprise was a little out of place, but they didn't know that. It is a well written analysis, some of which I agree with. The Middle East is not easy for Westerners to understand. Our culture and history are entwined with theirs going all the way back to the time that Africans, i.e. all of us alledgedly, erupted onto the Euro-Asian continent. If you think DNA findings are also a subset of history as I do then you might agree that our mutual disagreements, divisions, and so-called diversity are likely the result of what direction that we think that we have evolved from and the direction that we are headed in. Put in the mix human frailties such as ambition, greed, cruelty and not doing homework, and there you have it. Lewis' book is not necessarily about all of that, but it lets us get a glimpse of what we already know and at least suspect. It is a short volume and very easy to follow--maybe a good introduction if you've never had too much to do with the Middle East.
December 5, 2015
Page 144 (my book) speech of Kemal Ataturk in 1925
That same might and power which, in defiance of a whole world, made Istanbul forever the property of the Turkish people [in 1453], was too weak to overcome the ill-omened resistance of the men of law and to receive in Turkey the printing press, which had been invented at about the same time. Three centuries of observation and hesitation were needed, of effort and energy expended for and against, before antiquated laws and their exponents would permit the entry of printing into our country.
There are some interesting observations on the history of the Middle East. For hundreds of years this region was at the forefront of civilization – in science and art – and of human relations (for example women could own property and slaves had entitlements). But for the last two to three hundred it has lagged far behind developments in the West – and in fact in many cases has regressed. It is near the bottom for human dignity (the treatment of women). It has to import technology and scientific knowledge. As the author points out, “Civilizations” like China which was also exploited by the West and was a basket case one hundred years ago – is now an economic and technological giant.
The author attempts to answer “What went wrong”. I don’t feel he quite succeeds. Some of the chapters were meandering and I found it annoying that he jumped back and forth chronologically in time. As one example he discusses slavery, but this is at the same time period when it existed in the United States so I was left wondering why it was even brought up.
He provides several examples of how over time Middle Eastern countries had to import technological products, particularly for warfare. He makes the distinction between modernization (which many want) and Westernization (viewed as contamination and in contradiction to the teachings of Islam). One of these was the emancipation of women in Western society, which made little inroads in the Middle East despite some internal attempts.
The author suggests that Islam may be one of the root causes of “What Went Wrong”. Religious leaders in Islam, modeled recently to some extent on the hierarchical structure of Christianity, have used Islam to enforce autocracy and the subjugation of its’ people, particularly the repression of women. Since the advent of the Ayatollah in Iran in the late 1970’s most Middle Eastern countries have regressed in human rights terms, with religion being much more pervasive. Perhaps the only country with some degree of stability and “democracy” is Turkey which under Kemal Ataturk became secular in the first half of the 20th Century. That too has changed in the last 30 years.
That same might and power which, in defiance of a whole world, made Istanbul forever the property of the Turkish people [in 1453], was too weak to overcome the ill-omened resistance of the men of law and to receive in Turkey the printing press, which had been invented at about the same time. Three centuries of observation and hesitation were needed, of effort and energy expended for and against, before antiquated laws and their exponents would permit the entry of printing into our country.
There are some interesting observations on the history of the Middle East. For hundreds of years this region was at the forefront of civilization – in science and art – and of human relations (for example women could own property and slaves had entitlements). But for the last two to three hundred it has lagged far behind developments in the West – and in fact in many cases has regressed. It is near the bottom for human dignity (the treatment of women). It has to import technology and scientific knowledge. As the author points out, “Civilizations” like China which was also exploited by the West and was a basket case one hundred years ago – is now an economic and technological giant.
The author attempts to answer “What went wrong”. I don’t feel he quite succeeds. Some of the chapters were meandering and I found it annoying that he jumped back and forth chronologically in time. As one example he discusses slavery, but this is at the same time period when it existed in the United States so I was left wondering why it was even brought up.
He provides several examples of how over time Middle Eastern countries had to import technological products, particularly for warfare. He makes the distinction between modernization (which many want) and Westernization (viewed as contamination and in contradiction to the teachings of Islam). One of these was the emancipation of women in Western society, which made little inroads in the Middle East despite some internal attempts.
The author suggests that Islam may be one of the root causes of “What Went Wrong”. Religious leaders in Islam, modeled recently to some extent on the hierarchical structure of Christianity, have used Islam to enforce autocracy and the subjugation of its’ people, particularly the repression of women. Since the advent of the Ayatollah in Iran in the late 1970’s most Middle Eastern countries have regressed in human rights terms, with religion being much more pervasive. Perhaps the only country with some degree of stability and “democracy” is Turkey which under Kemal Ataturk became secular in the first half of the 20th Century. That too has changed in the last 30 years.
April 22, 2009
At first I loved this book, then I realized Lewis was incredibly flawed with his "they hate us for our freedom's" thesis.
May 21, 2018
5نجوم لانه كاذب بارع
December 31, 2008
In this sleek and informative book, noted Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis examines the interaction between the Islamic world and the West. It's a fascinating and illuminating book.
At one time, the Muslim world was the richest, most powerful, and culturally advanced civilization on the planet. The Muslim empire encouraged education and learning, treated its minorities reasonably well, traded with its neighbors, and conquered every army it faced.
Because of its obvious superiority, the Muslim world felt that no other culture or nation - Christian Europe, India, China - offered anything of value. Muslims paid little attention to what was going on inside those countries, beyond what immediately affected them.
So when Europe advanced through the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, the Muslims missed it. Suddenly, their armies were losing. Suddenly, they were losing previously won territories to backward nations like Russia. Even Napoleon himself successfully invaded Egypt.
But it went beyond the military. Europe and other regions were catching up to Islamic knowledge and surpassing it. Many Muslims belatedly realized they had better keep a closer eye on the Western world, and maybe even learn from it. But not enough Muslims agreed, and though Muslim embassies were established in western capitols, and many Muslim ambassadors wrote alarming books about the rapid advancement of the West, the Islamic world fell further behind, in military and economic terms. It is still trying to catch up.
In the meantime, the Western world was having its own effect on the Muslim world. Some influences were eagerly adopted, others resisted, others adopted grudgingly. So when you hear Muslims today bemoaning the corrosive Western influence of their culture, they have a point. It's been going on for centuries, though, and Muslim nations haven't always handled it well.
Lewis examines every aspect of Western influence - art, music, time, technology, and more. It's a surprisingly exhaustive account for such a slim book. Short or not, the book is a vital tool for gaining an understanding of the Muslim world today.
At one time, the Muslim world was the richest, most powerful, and culturally advanced civilization on the planet. The Muslim empire encouraged education and learning, treated its minorities reasonably well, traded with its neighbors, and conquered every army it faced.
Because of its obvious superiority, the Muslim world felt that no other culture or nation - Christian Europe, India, China - offered anything of value. Muslims paid little attention to what was going on inside those countries, beyond what immediately affected them.
So when Europe advanced through the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, the Muslims missed it. Suddenly, their armies were losing. Suddenly, they were losing previously won territories to backward nations like Russia. Even Napoleon himself successfully invaded Egypt.
But it went beyond the military. Europe and other regions were catching up to Islamic knowledge and surpassing it. Many Muslims belatedly realized they had better keep a closer eye on the Western world, and maybe even learn from it. But not enough Muslims agreed, and though Muslim embassies were established in western capitols, and many Muslim ambassadors wrote alarming books about the rapid advancement of the West, the Islamic world fell further behind, in military and economic terms. It is still trying to catch up.
In the meantime, the Western world was having its own effect on the Muslim world. Some influences were eagerly adopted, others resisted, others adopted grudgingly. So when you hear Muslims today bemoaning the corrosive Western influence of their culture, they have a point. It's been going on for centuries, though, and Muslim nations haven't always handled it well.
Lewis examines every aspect of Western influence - art, music, time, technology, and more. It's a surprisingly exhaustive account for such a slim book. Short or not, the book is a vital tool for gaining an understanding of the Muslim world today.
January 7, 2016
Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong? begins with the question "Why did Western countries advance in science, technology, trade, and other areas of social and economic life and Middle Eastern countries, especially those considered part of the Muslim world, did not?" Lewis then proceeds, throughout the bulk of the book, to address topics unrelated to the book's central question. The reader is treated to excursuses on warfare in the Muslim world, for example, and issues related to the Muslim world's reluctance to accept Westernization and technology and ideas and attitudes association with modernization, but not much in the way of a connection to pushing some thesis or other answering the question. Then, finally, in the conclusion of the book, Lewis returns to the central question, and feigns an answer. Lewis writes:
To a Western observer, schooled in the theory and practice of Western freedom, it is precisely the lack of freedom--freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination, to question and inquire and speak; freedom of the economy from corrupt and pervasive mismanagement; freedom of women from male oppression; freedom of citizens from tyranny--that underlies so many of the troubles of the Muslim world. But the road to democracy, as the Western experience amply demonstrates, is long and hard, full of pitfalls and obstacles.I don't even necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but what is there in the way of argument that this is the correct position to assume? And is this Lewis's position? If so, why not have established it upfront as the thesis and then made the remainder of the book an argument and provided support for this thesis? Probably because this book was originally a series of lectures he had given that begin with some kind of topic, like Islamic warfare, for instance, and then each meander for 20 or so pages without a thesis.
February 24, 2017
Bernard Lewis is an eminent Middle Eastern Historian. Currently, Dr. Lewis is Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern History at Princeton University. In the late 1990's during a series of lectures at the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna, Austria he spoke about this fascinating historical topic. The series of lectures was known as "Kultur and Modernisierung im Nahen Osten" and formed the basis for what eventually would become this book.
Imagine, if you will, the year 1453- Islam is at the forefront of human civilization and achievement. Since its advent as a religion-Islam had spread, by right of conquest and the sword, from Arabia to Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. In the eighth century, from their North African bases, Islamic forces conquered Spain and Portugal and invaded France; in the ninth century they conquered Sicily and invaded the Italian mainland (in 846 C.E. Muslim forces were able to use the River Tiber to sack Ostia and Rome). This provoked a series of reactions leading towards the emphasis in Europe (a concept that had no meaning circa 800 CE, though oft compared to the concept of Christendom) of increased cooperation among Christian nations and mounted effective counter attacks. A subsequent series of events to recover the Christian "Holy Land", known to us as the Crusades ended in failure and expulsion. To be fair to the Europeans (or Christians, if you prefer) it was safe to say that the Islamic forces, at the time, represented the greatest military power on the face of the Earth (Islamic forces invading variety of countries from Africa and Western Europe to China, Russia and India); it was the foremost economic power in the world, trading in a wide range of commodities (slaves to gold/silk/spices) from around the world. It had, at that time, achieved the highest level, so far, in human history in the arts and sciences that comprised civilization. In fact, in my opinion, Medieval Europe owes a great debt to Islam for the arts and sciences that not only survived, but flourished, in the Islamic scholarly world and was slowly transmitted to the West. It could be argued the apex of Islamic power was in the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Yet even before the Renaissance, Europeans were making significant progress in the civilized arts and with the advent of New Learning, they advanced by leaps and bounds, leaving the scientific and technological and eventually the cultural heritage of the Islamic world far behind them. That is where this book comes in- a broad based look at "What went Wrong" for the Islamic world.
The book then goes on to break down the causes into several different sections from lessons of the battlefield in regards to military technology and theory; the quest for wealth and power-a good look into the development of commerce and business in the Christian (or Christendom which eventually becomes Europe) lands versus Islamic ones; other sections include social and cultural changes as well. They illustrate how historical and cultural leanings have caused the lack of secularization that is endemic in the Middle East today.
The book does and excellent job of showing why exactly the driving patterns for change and progress that made up the Renaissance were lacking in the Islamic world. There are many fascinating and important facts and points brought up in this excellent book. But the single, overwhelming conclusion seems to be the lack of secularization in the Islamic world. Unlike Christendom, wherein the power of the Church and the Christian religion's secular power essentially imploded under the dual pressure of the rise of absolutist Kings and the shattering effect of the Reformation, the Islamic world had no such equivalent (the Sunni/Shia split is not over doctrine, per se, but over succession).
This is an excellent study of how fundamental precepts of Islam have created this situation. It is a well thought out book, written by someone who is profoundly interested in the Islamic world and all its great history and traditions. Without going into the book too much, this is one worth the time to read, it shows a variety of factors from religion to commerce, culture, and governments have all caused the current situation of how a thriving, cutting edge civilization was overtaken and then completely dominated by its Western rivals. The entire book is centered on the question of "What went wrong"?
Yet, if this is such a good book why did I give it 4 stars? In essence- the length. This superb book seemed a little short. I realize it was based off a series of lectures,but would have assumed before publishing them as a book, versus a collection of lectures, he would have added more to the book. It is not a long book, though it is deep. The author has a deep love and respect for the Islamic historical world and does a good job of being fair in explaining what went wrong.
Imagine, if you will, the year 1453- Islam is at the forefront of human civilization and achievement. Since its advent as a religion-Islam had spread, by right of conquest and the sword, from Arabia to Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. In the eighth century, from their North African bases, Islamic forces conquered Spain and Portugal and invaded France; in the ninth century they conquered Sicily and invaded the Italian mainland (in 846 C.E. Muslim forces were able to use the River Tiber to sack Ostia and Rome). This provoked a series of reactions leading towards the emphasis in Europe (a concept that had no meaning circa 800 CE, though oft compared to the concept of Christendom) of increased cooperation among Christian nations and mounted effective counter attacks. A subsequent series of events to recover the Christian "Holy Land", known to us as the Crusades ended in failure and expulsion. To be fair to the Europeans (or Christians, if you prefer) it was safe to say that the Islamic forces, at the time, represented the greatest military power on the face of the Earth (Islamic forces invading variety of countries from Africa and Western Europe to China, Russia and India); it was the foremost economic power in the world, trading in a wide range of commodities (slaves to gold/silk/spices) from around the world. It had, at that time, achieved the highest level, so far, in human history in the arts and sciences that comprised civilization. In fact, in my opinion, Medieval Europe owes a great debt to Islam for the arts and sciences that not only survived, but flourished, in the Islamic scholarly world and was slowly transmitted to the West. It could be argued the apex of Islamic power was in the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Yet even before the Renaissance, Europeans were making significant progress in the civilized arts and with the advent of New Learning, they advanced by leaps and bounds, leaving the scientific and technological and eventually the cultural heritage of the Islamic world far behind them. That is where this book comes in- a broad based look at "What went Wrong" for the Islamic world.
The book then goes on to break down the causes into several different sections from lessons of the battlefield in regards to military technology and theory; the quest for wealth and power-a good look into the development of commerce and business in the Christian (or Christendom which eventually becomes Europe) lands versus Islamic ones; other sections include social and cultural changes as well. They illustrate how historical and cultural leanings have caused the lack of secularization that is endemic in the Middle East today.
The book does and excellent job of showing why exactly the driving patterns for change and progress that made up the Renaissance were lacking in the Islamic world. There are many fascinating and important facts and points brought up in this excellent book. But the single, overwhelming conclusion seems to be the lack of secularization in the Islamic world. Unlike Christendom, wherein the power of the Church and the Christian religion's secular power essentially imploded under the dual pressure of the rise of absolutist Kings and the shattering effect of the Reformation, the Islamic world had no such equivalent (the Sunni/Shia split is not over doctrine, per se, but over succession).
This is an excellent study of how fundamental precepts of Islam have created this situation. It is a well thought out book, written by someone who is profoundly interested in the Islamic world and all its great history and traditions. Without going into the book too much, this is one worth the time to read, it shows a variety of factors from religion to commerce, culture, and governments have all caused the current situation of how a thriving, cutting edge civilization was overtaken and then completely dominated by its Western rivals. The entire book is centered on the question of "What went wrong"?
Yet, if this is such a good book why did I give it 4 stars? In essence- the length. This superb book seemed a little short. I realize it was based off a series of lectures,but would have assumed before publishing them as a book, versus a collection of lectures, he would have added more to the book. It is not a long book, though it is deep. The author has a deep love and respect for the Islamic historical world and does a good job of being fair in explaining what went wrong.
May 15, 2019
This is a capsule history of Islamic civilization in the Middle East from about 1500 to the present, with an emphasis on how from the late 1600s it fell further and further behind the West in wealth, culture, and military might. Lewis puts the blame on a myopic and inward-turning culture that took hold in the region. When European universities established chairs of Arabic and Persian, no European language was studied in the Ottoman or Persian realms. Europeans travelled often to the East and wrote popular books about their travels, but Muslims traveled to Christian lands only when absolutely necessary, returned as soon as possible, and wrote little. Western literature was totally ignored. Western history was almost totally ignored. Western science and technology aroused little interest until military defeats made their need obvious. Even such everyday devices as clocks and printing presses were not widely adopted until the 19th century, long after they were widespread in the West.
Lewis dismisses the argument that Islam itself is incompatible with an advanced and curious culture. He stresses that Islamic civilization led the world in the Middle Ages and eagerly sought after and preserved the knowledge of antiquity. He also has little patience with those who blame the imperialists, the British, the Jews, or the Americans. He notes that the decline started long before they arrived, that in fact the decline made such interlopers possible, and that whenever such interlopers left things only got worse.
The book is full of wonderful tidbits. Did you know that when the British Empire was working to abolish the trade in black slaves from Africa to Ottoman lands, at the same time there was a trade in white slaves from the Caucasus that the British totally ignored?
Lewis does go too far at times. He says the Caliphate must have already been weak in the 13th century to be conquered by the Mongols, but the Mongols also conquered China, so I'd say they were pretty much irresistable. But on the whole, he seems to be fair-minded and to base his judgments on broad scholarly knowledge of the historical evidence.
Lewis dismisses the argument that Islam itself is incompatible with an advanced and curious culture. He stresses that Islamic civilization led the world in the Middle Ages and eagerly sought after and preserved the knowledge of antiquity. He also has little patience with those who blame the imperialists, the British, the Jews, or the Americans. He notes that the decline started long before they arrived, that in fact the decline made such interlopers possible, and that whenever such interlopers left things only got worse.
The book is full of wonderful tidbits. Did you know that when the British Empire was working to abolish the trade in black slaves from Africa to Ottoman lands, at the same time there was a trade in white slaves from the Caucasus that the British totally ignored?
Lewis does go too far at times. He says the Caliphate must have already been weak in the 13th century to be conquered by the Mongols, but the Mongols also conquered China, so I'd say they were pretty much irresistable. But on the whole, he seems to be fair-minded and to base his judgments on broad scholarly knowledge of the historical evidence.
May 24, 2018
The book gives the reasons behind the decline in the Islamic world and the big cultural, educational and scientific gap between the West and the Islamic world that had a pretty decent openness and progress during the dark ages in Europe. Many reasons contribute to that mainly; the stays of women in the society, the lack of separation between religion and state, the reluctance to accept western values and learn from it due to the rise of conspiracy theories. The author believes that middle eastern state spent their time answering the question: who did this to us rather than what went wrong. And it is usually easier to blame others for misfortunes. The book is highly interesting but I believe there are some inaccuracies when it comes to the history of Europe.
Read
July 30, 2011Before I even start to read this I just want to say "Wow!" It takes a lot of fortitude (though not necessarily an equal amount of brains) to title your book about Islam "What Went Wrong." I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Edward Said is talking about in "Orientalism."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as I expected, an extremely judgmental look at the Middle East and Islam. This is absolutely what Said is talking about in "Orientalism," and I'm very surprised to find the rave reviews offered by those such as Time, The New York Times Book Review, the Washington Post and others. They clearly don't look much deeper into an issue such as Islam than for its most basic and most generalizable features. In the Orientalist tradition, Lewis essentially attempts to make the point, using the absolute barest of evidence, that there is something wrong with Islam and the Middle East, essentially because they are not like us (the West), and they don't necessarily want our type of lifestyle.
This is my first Lewis book to read, but I have a feeling I'm not going to find much difference in earlier works. In terms of ethnocentricity and sheer ego, this book is essentially the Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh of scholarly work on the Middle East and Islam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as I expected, an extremely judgmental look at the Middle East and Islam. This is absolutely what Said is talking about in "Orientalism," and I'm very surprised to find the rave reviews offered by those such as Time, The New York Times Book Review, the Washington Post and others. They clearly don't look much deeper into an issue such as Islam than for its most basic and most generalizable features. In the Orientalist tradition, Lewis essentially attempts to make the point, using the absolute barest of evidence, that there is something wrong with Islam and the Middle East, essentially because they are not like us (the West), and they don't necessarily want our type of lifestyle.
This is my first Lewis book to read, but I have a feeling I'm not going to find much difference in earlier works. In terms of ethnocentricity and sheer ego, this book is essentially the Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh of scholarly work on the Middle East and Islam.
September 12, 2013
A brilliant exegesis of Islam's present challenges, a reflection that's helping all of us understand the conflict all over the world today. I found this an interesting and informative book. Bernard Lewis describes of how far and how quickly Islam had spread by the sword and conquest after it was established in the Med-evil 600s. Back then Islam was the center of knowledge, culture and medicine during the Middle Ages of the West. The West, or what was really Europe, was struggling for centuries, and attempts like the Crusades in the Middle East to recover land and peoples taken by the Islamists were in the end unsuccessful. The West had some success like the re-conquest in Spain, and the defeat of the Muslims (Ottomans) at the Gates of Vienna.
Then in the past couple of centuries, starting around 1798 when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt, the tide has been running with Christianity and the West against the Middle East and Islam.
It also served as a reminder to me of how little the mainstream West (Europe & America) know about the Middle East and Islam, and how much more we can learn. Great read if you like History & Politics (and Religion)!!!!!!!
Then in the past couple of centuries, starting around 1798 when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt, the tide has been running with Christianity and the West against the Middle East and Islam.
It also served as a reminder to me of how little the mainstream West (Europe & America) know about the Middle East and Islam, and how much more we can learn. Great read if you like History & Politics (and Religion)!!!!!!!
November 16, 2015
برنارد لويس لمن لايعرفه مُستشرق بريطاني عاش في أمريكا من أصول يهودية في فترة من مراحل حياته تحول الى صيهوني متعصب للفكر المحتل وأنتج مجموعة كتب تعنى بدراسة الإسلام والشرق الأوسط
لويس فشل فشلاً ذريعاً في اخفاء انفاسه الصهيونية، فكتاباته دائما ما تحمل في طياتها الكثير من العنصرية والكره المباشر والغير مباشر للإسلام ، سرد في كتبه وفي هذا الكتاب بالتحديد الكثير من المعلومات التاريخية المغلوطه التي قد تبدوا للقراء الغير مُلمين بالتاريخ وكأنها حقائق ..
لويس فشل فشلاً ذريعاً في اخفاء انفاسه الصهيونية، فكتاباته دائما ما تحمل في طياتها الكثير من العنصرية والكره المباشر والغير مباشر للإسلام ، سرد في كتبه وفي هذا الكتاب بالتحديد الكثير من المعلومات التاريخية المغلوطه التي قد تبدوا للقراء الغير مُلمين بالتاريخ وكأنها حقائق ..
January 15, 2009
Good book with little biased view for Muslims, but a good book for reading the point of view of Christians or a Christian writer that what created the current scenario regarding the change in attitude of the West regarding the Muslims.
July 18, 2017
Hva gikk galt i Midtøsten, regionen som en gang var senter for verdens fremste sivilisasjon, hvor vitenskap, kunst og kultur blomstret? I denne boka undersøker Lewis spørsmålet gjennom kapitler som "Lesson from the Battlefield", "Social and Cultural Barriers" mm. Boka er interessant, den gir et innblikk i noen av de vesentlige lange linjer man får innsyn i gjennom Midtøstenstudier. "Meanwhile the blame game - the Turks, the Mongols, the imperialists, the Jews, the Americans continues...but for growing numbers og Middle Easterners it is giving way to a more self-critical approach...". I konklusjonen oppsummerer Lewis med at det er her håpet ligger, at folk i Midtøsten skal bevege seg fra å skylde på ytre påvirkning gjennom historien til å fokusere på hva de kan gjøre selv. Jeg liker særlig hvordan han nevner kvinners frigjøring som viktig for positiv endring. Boka er preget av å være skrevet for 15 år siden, mye vesentlig mangler, ikke minst de store forskjellene mellom land i Midtøsten. Men skal vi holde oss til de lange linjene er det kanskje ikke en fremmed tanke å se at demokrati utvikles sakte, kanskje er det likhetstrekk mellom de forsøk på endring vi ser i Midtøsten i dag og de utfordringer mange Europeiske land stod overfor fra 1848. "But the road to democracy, as the Western experience amply demonstrates, is long and hard, full of pitfalls and obstacles".
August 21, 2020
Batı'daki önemli Şarkiyatçılardan Bernard Lewis (1916-2018), ABD'li muhafazakar 'neo-con'lara yakınlığı, Ortadoğu'nun yeniden şekillendirilmesindeki olumsuz düşünsel rolü, Edward Said'le tartışmaları vs gibi nedenlerle genelde göz önünde olan ve eleştirilerin odağındaki bir isimdi... Şüphesiz bu durum, eserlerini daha tartışmalı ve merak edilir kılsa da İslam dünyasında pek sevilen bir isim değildi.
Lewis'in 2001'de yayımlanan bu kitabıysa nispeten tarafsız bir gözle, tarihsel gerçeklerden ve mukayeseli okumalardan yola çıkan, iyi bir panoramik değerlendirme. Sonuç kısmı tatmin edici olmasa da, kendi adıma perspektifinden istifade ettiğimi söylemeliyim.
Lewis'in 2001'de yayımlanan bu kitabıysa nispeten tarafsız bir gözle, tarihsel gerçeklerden ve mukayeseli okumalardan yola çıkan, iyi bir panoramik değerlendirme. Sonuç kısmı tatmin edici olmasa da, kendi adıma perspektifinden istifade ettiğimi söylemeliyim.
December 14, 2021
A scholarly and readable examination as to how, in less than 500 years, the centers of civilization shifted from the Islamic World to Western Christendom...Lewis, one of the greatest living historians on the subject of Islam and the Middle East and is often targeted by those who see any criticism of the Arab and Islamic worlds as racist, provides a number of possible theories as to how and why this shift in civilization takes place...Excellent!!!
September 1, 2025
كتاب مثل اغلب كتب لويس مليء بالاستشراق والنظرة القديمة التي تتهم الاسلام في شتى مجالات الحياة
June 11, 2017
Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong was published shortly before the events of 9/11. That he had a popular history of the Muslim world and was a well-established British American scholar of the Middle East made him one of the major "talking heads" of the post 9/11 period. It also gave him access to policy makers. Both of these facts may color some of the reviews of this book. It is popular history , meaning it is not as scholarly as it could be. It is brief and must needs be less than comprehensive. It draws from earlier works and his lectures and for readers with a deeper background; it is not entirely ground breaking. Finally it is focused on the Ottoman Turks. His unspoken hypothesis being that Muslim Turkey was the Center of the Muslim world and represented the peak achievements of that religion and culture. It is for others to make or deny that argument; I lack the scholarship to address this point.
The question Professor Lewis wished us to understand is one that has been frustrating Muslims for almost 200 years. At its height as represented by the Ottoman Empire, the center of culture, scientific and technical learning was the Muslim world. What would become the Renaissance in Europe was based in part, on the math (algebra) the art and protected learning from many cultures including lost (To the West) Greek and Roman texts
And so generations of Muslims students would learn of the great achievements, military victories and scientific advancement of generations gone to dust. These same students would find that their present world was as rarely respected, often suppressed clientele states under western domination. From medicine to machinery, western products were desired and comparable Middle Eastern items despised. National boundaries would be imposed with no thought to historic or religious boundaries and all of the rest of the second class status of a people being exploited. Naturally the contrast between being the conqueror and the conquered, the leader and follower demand the question: What Went Wrong?
In part the balance of this book is an effort to answer this question and in part it is a warning as to kind of resentment created by having to ask these questions. That so few of the then Middle Eastern leadership was working to answer or to improve upon these conditions fed into a growing preference for action outside of then existing political institutions.
In brief the answers Dr Lewis suggest is to describe an Ottoman Empire, both the political and the social body that was complacent and self-satisfied. Foreign travel was discouraged, because no foreign nation had anything to teach, or worth visiting. The study of foreign languages was a waste as no foreign languages had books worth reading. From the point of view of the Ottoman, Non-Ottoman populations had an inferior, corrupt religion, effete culture and could only contaminate rather than uplift.
Eventually the The Ottoman would come to respect western arms and military, allowing this technology into the realm, but this would be one of a very few exception. For the rest, Studies of non-Ottoman peoples and acquisition of non-Ottoman learning was suspect and unlikely to raise one in the government or society of the Middle East.
Intended or not, I think What Went Wrong can also serve as a warning. Many of the same attitudes that promoted stagnation in the Muslim word can be experienced in the US. There is in the US, a flavor of religious based strictures against learning and science. Topics that require tolerance and free flow of information may face a parallel attitude that contributed towards the slide of the Ottoman Empire into the "Sickman of Europe".
It is not yet common, but I can introduce you to people who think the rest of the world has nothing to teach us. There are American who actively resent the idea of learning foreign languages and look sideways at those who readings cross linguistic boundaries. Of course any science, from any place that makes for better weapons and war fighting is welcome But there is also a trend to treat all other science as suspect and prefer religion based or homeopathic alternatives.
A person unschooled in the history of the Middle East can learn much from What Went Wrong. All of us should consider which of these lessons play-out today, here and not just there.
The question Professor Lewis wished us to understand is one that has been frustrating Muslims for almost 200 years. At its height as represented by the Ottoman Empire, the center of culture, scientific and technical learning was the Muslim world. What would become the Renaissance in Europe was based in part, on the math (algebra) the art and protected learning from many cultures including lost (To the West) Greek and Roman texts
And so generations of Muslims students would learn of the great achievements, military victories and scientific advancement of generations gone to dust. These same students would find that their present world was as rarely respected, often suppressed clientele states under western domination. From medicine to machinery, western products were desired and comparable Middle Eastern items despised. National boundaries would be imposed with no thought to historic or religious boundaries and all of the rest of the second class status of a people being exploited. Naturally the contrast between being the conqueror and the conquered, the leader and follower demand the question: What Went Wrong?
In part the balance of this book is an effort to answer this question and in part it is a warning as to kind of resentment created by having to ask these questions. That so few of the then Middle Eastern leadership was working to answer or to improve upon these conditions fed into a growing preference for action outside of then existing political institutions.
In brief the answers Dr Lewis suggest is to describe an Ottoman Empire, both the political and the social body that was complacent and self-satisfied. Foreign travel was discouraged, because no foreign nation had anything to teach, or worth visiting. The study of foreign languages was a waste as no foreign languages had books worth reading. From the point of view of the Ottoman, Non-Ottoman populations had an inferior, corrupt religion, effete culture and could only contaminate rather than uplift.
Eventually the The Ottoman would come to respect western arms and military, allowing this technology into the realm, but this would be one of a very few exception. For the rest, Studies of non-Ottoman peoples and acquisition of non-Ottoman learning was suspect and unlikely to raise one in the government or society of the Middle East.
Intended or not, I think What Went Wrong can also serve as a warning. Many of the same attitudes that promoted stagnation in the Muslim word can be experienced in the US. There is in the US, a flavor of religious based strictures against learning and science. Topics that require tolerance and free flow of information may face a parallel attitude that contributed towards the slide of the Ottoman Empire into the "Sickman of Europe".
It is not yet common, but I can introduce you to people who think the rest of the world has nothing to teach us. There are American who actively resent the idea of learning foreign languages and look sideways at those who readings cross linguistic boundaries. Of course any science, from any place that makes for better weapons and war fighting is welcome But there is also a trend to treat all other science as suspect and prefer religion based or homeopathic alternatives.
A person unschooled in the history of the Middle East can learn much from What Went Wrong. All of us should consider which of these lessons play-out today, here and not just there.
February 10, 2023
"Until the lion learns to write, every story would glorify the hunter".
What is wrong about Arabs and Muslims is that they do not make a counter-knowledge that stands against the insanity of Orientalists.
Is it normal that the word "colonialism" is not mentioned, even once, in a book about the relationship between East and West mostly during the last three centuries? Of course NOT! This would not help Lewis’ agenda.
Lewis is clearly biased and has an ideology. If you think he is not, go check your prejudice.
After you finish this book, you will have one answer to "What went WRONG?". Islam is Bernard Lewis' target. In spite of his sweet poisonous conclusion, according to Lewis, Islam is a fork in the western throat that should be abolished by western medicine…
Islam is not just a belief-system, but it is a culture, a civilization and a power that did miracles in the past. Lewis’ message to the west is, “Islamic world should not revive its power again.”
The west already has its justifications for messing with the Middle East and supporting Israel; terrorism, enlightenment and modernization. Justifications based on the advises of Islamophobic pseudo experts such as Bernard Lewis.
Lewis knows how to choose his words in a way that makes you think he is stating real un-doubtable facts. Truth and nothing but the truth! Actually he narrates some historical events that did happen then penetrates them with his conspiracy in the form of biased unfair analyses.
He asserts that non-Muslims, slaves, women, western colonialism, other civilizations and even the sink in his mother's kitchen suffered from Muslim's terrorism and inflexibility.
This book is a must read, not because it is honest, it is not, but because it displays how Orientalism is such a demon. I think Lewis is targeting and addressing the western reader. He is planting his false assumptions hoping that they would become FACTS and theories. He is giving policy makers keys that he hopes, would end Islamic influence once and for all. Muslims and Arabs should definitely read this book although Lewis does not care about their reaction to his lies. Poor Lewis felt terribly threatened by Islam and established his oeuvre upon demonizing it.
All I have to say now is this, Arabs and Muslims need to take the charge of telling the world who they really are away from Western media and Orientalism.
What is wrong about Arabs and Muslims is that they do not make a counter-knowledge that stands against the insanity of Orientalists.
Is it normal that the word "colonialism" is not mentioned, even once, in a book about the relationship between East and West mostly during the last three centuries? Of course NOT! This would not help Lewis’ agenda.
Lewis is clearly biased and has an ideology. If you think he is not, go check your prejudice.
After you finish this book, you will have one answer to "What went WRONG?". Islam is Bernard Lewis' target. In spite of his sweet poisonous conclusion, according to Lewis, Islam is a fork in the western throat that should be abolished by western medicine…
Islam is not just a belief-system, but it is a culture, a civilization and a power that did miracles in the past. Lewis’ message to the west is, “Islamic world should not revive its power again.”
The west already has its justifications for messing with the Middle East and supporting Israel; terrorism, enlightenment and modernization. Justifications based on the advises of Islamophobic pseudo experts such as Bernard Lewis.
Lewis knows how to choose his words in a way that makes you think he is stating real un-doubtable facts. Truth and nothing but the truth! Actually he narrates some historical events that did happen then penetrates them with his conspiracy in the form of biased unfair analyses.
He asserts that non-Muslims, slaves, women, western colonialism, other civilizations and even the sink in his mother's kitchen suffered from Muslim's terrorism and inflexibility.
This book is a must read, not because it is honest, it is not, but because it displays how Orientalism is such a demon. I think Lewis is targeting and addressing the western reader. He is planting his false assumptions hoping that they would become FACTS and theories. He is giving policy makers keys that he hopes, would end Islamic influence once and for all. Muslims and Arabs should definitely read this book although Lewis does not care about their reaction to his lies. Poor Lewis felt terribly threatened by Islam and established his oeuvre upon demonizing it.
All I have to say now is this, Arabs and Muslims need to take the charge of telling the world who they really are away from Western media and Orientalism.
June 8, 2009
After reading `What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East', I was impressed with Mr. Lewis' level of detail and clarity of writing on topics such as religion and modernity. Now, after completing `The Middle East', I'm reminded yet again of his talent to construct detailed historical account of the political, religious and socio-economic aspects of life in that region. In this latest book, Mr. Lewis examines the major factors leading to the complexity of issues plaguing the Middle East today.
Beginning with the rise of Islam in the 6th century and it subsequent spread to all neighboring kingdoms, the author examines the impact of a religion on the core structure of society, its influence over culture, art, the rationale behind the rivalry of Eastern states (then Persian now Iran) and the West (Syria, Egypt, then Anatolia- now Turkey), military conquests and the resulted political reforms. Readers will learn about the causes behind the low economic growth of the entire region (despite its rich oil reserves), about the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, about the formation of the Jewish state and subsequently the country of Israel, about the numerous military conflicts in the region since 1949 and a host of other historical facts.
This book is complex in nature and requires a complex reader with deeper interests and even an advanced set of thought. It's great for history enthusiasts, students of the Middle Eastern societies, diplomats and/or businessmen planning to live and work in that part of the world.
Beginning with the rise of Islam in the 6th century and it subsequent spread to all neighboring kingdoms, the author examines the impact of a religion on the core structure of society, its influence over culture, art, the rationale behind the rivalry of Eastern states (then Persian now Iran) and the West (Syria, Egypt, then Anatolia- now Turkey), military conquests and the resulted political reforms. Readers will learn about the causes behind the low economic growth of the entire region (despite its rich oil reserves), about the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, about the formation of the Jewish state and subsequently the country of Israel, about the numerous military conflicts in the region since 1949 and a host of other historical facts.
This book is complex in nature and requires a complex reader with deeper interests and even an advanced set of thought. It's great for history enthusiasts, students of the Middle Eastern societies, diplomats and/or businessmen planning to live and work in that part of the world.
May 2, 2013
Interesting and informative book. I began reading this book with a negative view of the author because of previous work I've seen from him, mainly excerpts and small articles. They presented to me a person who was very racist towards Middle Easterners and who firmly believed in Western Imperialism Supremacy over the Middle East region. After reading this book, I have changed my view point into a more positive because of how he delivered his information. Even though I still noticed a certain supremacy attitude on some portions of the book Bernard Lewis did not hide the facts of the Supremacy of the Middle East in one point of history. He provided the credit that Middle East have earned and deserved especially with the assistance of the development of the Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe. He posed many questions and answers on why the Middle East have fallen behind in development compared to Europe and unfortunately there are many factors as to why. Because of the amount of factors it makes it difficult to pinpoint the reason why the Middle East fell behind. To blame Religion as the sole culprit is an uneducated answer and to blame religion at all is even worse. Islam was the religion which generated the rebirth of science and development which consequently allowed the European to experience their golden age. The question to ask in regards to Religion is not "What has Islam done to the people" but to ask, "What has the people done to Islam?" These comparative questions are what stood out the most for me in his book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 430 reviews