What do you think?
Rate this book
إكتشاف المسلمين لأوربا
نبذة الناشر:
يحاول هذا الكتاب تقصى مصادر المعرفة الاسلامية وطبيعتها حول الغرب ومراحل تطوره فيتناول البعثات الاسلامية داخل اوروبا وكذلك الهجوم المضاد للمسيحية الغربية ضد الاسلام واندلاع الحرب الاسلامية المقدسة نتيجة لذلك، كما يتناول تجديد وامتداد العلاقات التجارية والدبلوماسية بين المسلمين والمسيحين على شواطئ البحر الابيض المتوسط وكذا ظهور حكام المسلمين الجدد في تركيا وايران والمغرب واكتشافاتهم في اوروباوذلك بعد انتهاء العصور الوسطى ، كما يتناول المراحل الولى للصدام الأوروبي الكبير- من القرن الثامن عشر فصاعدا- على أراضي المسلمين في الشرق الأوسط، وبدايات مرحلة جديدة فرض فيها الاكتشاف الاسلامي. والكتاب يشمل ثلاثة اجزاء الجزء الاول منه يتعرض للعلاقات بين الاسلام واوروبا الغربية متناولا الأحداث البارزة من زاوية جديدة.
اما الجزء الثاني من الكتاب فانه يتعلق باللغات التى استخدمت في الاتصال بين المسلمين والاوروبيين ،اما الجزء الثالث فقد خصص لموضوعات متنوعة.
يحاول هذا الكتاب تقصى مصادر المعرفة الاسلامية وطبيعتها حول الغرب ومراحل تطوره فيتناول البعثات الاسلامية داخل اوروبا وكذلك الهجوم المضاد للمسيحية الغربية ضد الاسلام واندلاع الحرب الاسلامية المقدسة نتيجة لذلك، كما يتناول تجديد وامتداد العلاقات التجارية والدبلوماسية بين المسلمين والمسيحين على شواطئ البحر الابيض المتوسط وكذا ظهور حكام المسلمين الجدد في تركيا وايران والمغرب واكتشافاتهم في اوروباوذلك بعد انتهاء العصور الوسطى ، كما يتناول المراحل الولى للصدام الأوروبي الكبير- من القرن الثامن عشر فصاعدا- على أراضي المسلمين في الشرق الأوسط، وبدايات مرحلة جديدة فرض فيها الاكتشاف الاسلامي. والكتاب يشمل ثلاثة اجزاء الجزء الاول منه يتعرض للعلاقات بين الاسلام واوروبا الغربية متناولا الأحداث البارزة من زاوية جديدة.
اما الجزء الثاني من الكتاب فانه يتعلق باللغات التى استخدمت في الاتصال بين المسلمين والاوروبيين ،اما الجزء الثالث فقد خصص لموضوعات متنوعة.
393 pages, Paperback
First published July 29, 1982
76 people are currently reading
1068 people want to read
About the author
Bernard Lewis
190 books493 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 31 reviews
February 11, 2020
In the twilight of his life Bernard Lewis unfortunately became better known for his neoconservative politics than his scholarship. That's a shame, because over the decades he did a lot of frankly invaluable work uncovering the history of the Muslim world, particularly the Ottoman realms on which he was an expert. This book is overflowing with original translations showing how Muslims viewed Europe over the years. For centuries, the continent was considered a frigid and barbaric backwater, of little interest in comparison to the rich lands of India and China. Only later did some faint rumblings of a Renaissance among the barbarians start to emerge. By the time that Muslims realized that they were falling dangerously behind intellectually, the political power that might have protected them was also eroding. And unlike, say, the Japanese who due to their distance felt less culturally threatened by Europe and could immediately embark on a wholesale adoption of its beliefs, Muslims felt deeply conflicted and cautious about imitating a people that they had long ago superseded.
The best parts of this book were the translations of Turkish and Persian diaries of Muslim travelers and intellectuals sharing their impressions of Europe. Their analyses of the French Revolution were amazing, as were many of their accounts of visiting Europe and being gawked at by incredulous crowds. There is even an account of a Muslim ambassador's friendship with a Viking princess at her court. Could one imagine such things existed? It was also somewhat funny to read the incredibly arrogant and dismissive way that Ottomans once discussed Europeans in their internal correspondences. This attitude took centuries to change.
Say what you want about the author, and there is much to criticize of course, but this book is a great service.
The best parts of this book were the translations of Turkish and Persian diaries of Muslim travelers and intellectuals sharing their impressions of Europe. Their analyses of the French Revolution were amazing, as were many of their accounts of visiting Europe and being gawked at by incredulous crowds. There is even an account of a Muslim ambassador's friendship with a Viking princess at her court. Could one imagine such things existed? It was also somewhat funny to read the incredibly arrogant and dismissive way that Ottomans once discussed Europeans in their internal correspondences. This attitude took centuries to change.
Say what you want about the author, and there is much to criticize of course, but this book is a great service.
December 9, 2014
برناد لويس..
مستشرق أمريكي يهودي صهيوني متعصب.. نعم
عباراته فيها تزييف والالتواء ومحملة بقدر كبير من الإيحاءات السلبية.. نعم
إلا أنه غزير العلم واسع المعرفة، وواحد من الخبراء العارفين بالتاريخ الإسلامي، وكتبه -برغم كل ما سبق- تظل مهمة وضرورية ونافعة وتستحق القراءة.
يعيب هذا الكتاب نوع من الارتباك في الأفكار وتقسيمها، وانتثار المعلومات بغير رابط متماسك في كثير من الأحيان، وقفز على فجوات دون محاولة التفسير والتغطية أو حتى اعتراف بالنقص في المصادر والمعلومات.
ومن عيوب الكتاب ترجمته التي جاءت سيئة، وبها أخطاء لا تخطئها العين العابرة فضلا عن العين المدققة لأن كتب برنارد لويس من الكتب التي يهتم بها المتخصصون ولا تروق للعامة بطبيعة الحال.. وقد بلغ سوء الترجمة أن جعل "الجمعات" = "الجوامع" وأنه ترجم safavids بالصفديين رغم أنها الصفويين وهو تركيب مشهور جدا
على أني في النهاية أقدر كل ترجمة مهما كان مستواها لأنها تفتح آفاق العرب على الجديد، ويظل للمترجم فضل هذا النقل وإن لم يبلغ عمله قصده.
مستشرق أمريكي يهودي صهيوني متعصب.. نعم
عباراته فيها تزييف والالتواء ومحملة بقدر كبير من الإيحاءات السلبية.. نعم
إلا أنه غزير العلم واسع المعرفة، وواحد من الخبراء العارفين بالتاريخ الإسلامي، وكتبه -برغم كل ما سبق- تظل مهمة وضرورية ونافعة وتستحق القراءة.
يعيب هذا الكتاب نوع من الارتباك في الأفكار وتقسيمها، وانتثار المعلومات بغير رابط متماسك في كثير من الأحيان، وقفز على فجوات دون محاولة التفسير والتغطية أو حتى اعتراف بالنقص في المصادر والمعلومات.
ومن عيوب الكتاب ترجمته التي جاءت سيئة، وبها أخطاء لا تخطئها العين العابرة فضلا عن العين المدققة لأن كتب برنارد لويس من الكتب التي يهتم بها المتخصصون ولا تروق للعامة بطبيعة الحال.. وقد بلغ سوء الترجمة أن جعل "الجمعات" = "الجوامع" وأنه ترجم safavids بالصفديين رغم أنها الصفويين وهو تركيب مشهور جدا
على أني في النهاية أقدر كل ترجمة مهما كان مستواها لأنها تفتح آفاق العرب على الجديد، ويظل للمترجم فضل هذا النقل وإن لم يبلغ عمله قصده.
November 8, 2007
Edward Said has long derided Bernard Lewis--which means i was inclined to like lewis. i was shocked upon reading this book at the sloppiness of the schoalrship. ch.2 is a particularly egregious example. lewis repeatedly uses phrases such as "common attitude," "in general," "in Muslim writings," "most Muslim jurists," and so forth, but he often makes these as mere assertions, w/o providing *any* references. and of the 7 endnotes to this chapter, if we exclude the 3 to the Qu'ran due to interpretive difficulties which lewis blithely and irresponsibly ignores, only 1 contains a reference to a primary source, so, *contra* another reviewer on goodreads, whatever this book is (i refrain from calling it what it is b/c i want to keep my reviews at least PG-13), it is most assuredly *not* a "good collection of primary sources." that comment leaves me dumbstruck. excuse me while i have a, "Did we even read the same book?" moment.
February 5, 2022
In recommending Bernard Lewis’ The Muslim Discovery of Europe, it may be as valuable to read it paired with Orientalism by Edward W. Said. Beginning with Said, he makes a fine case that the critiques of the Islamic word are inherently tainted by the racism, often blatant in the founding authors and the inability to judge a part of the world not itself tainted by colonialism. As much as I appreciate the wisdom in Said’s book. I was frustrated by his inability to provide any example of how one culture should study or write about another. This brings me to Professor Lewis.
What Is clearly and systematically demonstrated in The Muslim Discovery of Europe is that there was nothing in the belief system or practice of Islamic scholarship that gave its leaders and philosophers any ability to appreciate Europe as a locus of culture. From Islam’s years as a successful practitioner of military conquest and colonial power to its collapse into colonial subjugation, Da al Islam regarded Europe as a place of primitive, uninteresting people, ugly in habit, fatally misguided in thought and an active pollution of Islam in any instance where Europeans had displaced Islamic control. Incidentally for all of Islam’s institutional rejection of Europe as a civilized place, the ignorance of and disinterest in the Far East and Pacific rim had to be deliberate and in modern terms racist.
In building his case, Bernard starts form first principals from the Holy Koran as interpreted by its greatest philosophers and political thinkers. The Dar Al Islam recognizes nothing in the way of countries. The House is one undivided place all to be direct by a common religious directed law. Local political leadership is allowed but the assumption is that there is only one universal Caliphate. Local leaders are subject to its absolute will. Further there is only one necessary langue. The Caliphate is Arabic speaking. Whatever the local languages, Arabic is the language of a civilized people, its religion, its government, its literature and whatever other art forms are allowed.
Necessarily following this view, the mere fact that Europe was home to so many countries, and political and linguistical divides was proof that these people had nothing to teach. Their religion was divinely inspired. Christianity represented a movement forward in spiritual understanding. It was short of Islam and therefore its believers were behind the curve and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. The existence of a Trinity Spirit leading Christianity was a denial of the singularity of Allah and therefore Christianity cannot be honored as a governing power.
In successive chapters Lewis lays out how little these generations bothered with learning languages. They choose to depend on, Jews, traveling Christians or other non-believers to provide what little they were interested in knowing, or eventually the commerce that they grudgingly allowed with the slowly emerging Europeans. Even later when it became useful to exchange embassies, the visiting representatives of European countries were thought of as supplicants begging permission to be allowed to subject themselves to their superiors. Meantime the Embassy from the East wrote despairingly, often to formula about the inferior nature of life in these ungodliest of places.
Islamists deeply believed that any learning from the west was inherently unclean and that travel to and among Europeans was spiritually and physically unhealthy. Any objects important from the west needed to be somehow covered by example from the Holy Koran. The vary word ‘change” in Arabic is taken to mean, rendered unclean. Against the argument that Da Al Islam was willing to directly import and adopt western weapons and military technique; there was a religiously inspired exception. The guiding word from The Prophet is that one must “fight like with like”.
Before concluding that Islamic scholarship about the West is fundamentally crippled; or that there exists no Islamic based process for understanding the West, it has to be said that The Muslim Discovery of the West ends in the mid-19th Century. How Islamist thinkers have adopted to what we would think of as the pre-modern and modern world is nowhere addressed. The degree to which modern middle eastern scholarship is based on sympathetic, or at least non-religious based analysis is not a topic. No conclusion about the contemporary Levantine scholar thinks of Europe, (America barely exists in this book) is attempted, or intended.
The Muslim Discovery of Europe is a scholarly text. Lewis uses extensive examples from, Arabic sources. He will frequently make statement that depend on his having exhaustive research. Often it is stated that there are exactly this number of references to a subject and that certain formula were always used in descriptions. He points to the many times Islamic scholars will depend on earlier, flawed studies, and only latterly modified by what was often biased contemporary commentary. He is quite certain about the first time references to things like the Protestant Reformation or the existence of particular, usually more remote countries were acknowledged. All of this makes for more interesting reading. How well these pronouncements have survived later studies, is unknown.
Also because this is an academic analysis, he can be very repetitious. Like any scholar is intent is to apply his analysis to as many levels of culture as possible. From the internal thought processes to their logical consequences s applied to Muslim appreciation of western politics, art, fashion, media, literature and commerce. Too often yielding nothing new or unique to his hypotheses. It can become frustrating to read what can seem like the same thing in different instances, but this is often what is done to document a case. Overall, I was happier having finished the book than in its reading. It is also frustrating to not know how much traditional Islamic scholarship is impacting contemporary Islamist thinking.
What Is clearly and systematically demonstrated in The Muslim Discovery of Europe is that there was nothing in the belief system or practice of Islamic scholarship that gave its leaders and philosophers any ability to appreciate Europe as a locus of culture. From Islam’s years as a successful practitioner of military conquest and colonial power to its collapse into colonial subjugation, Da al Islam regarded Europe as a place of primitive, uninteresting people, ugly in habit, fatally misguided in thought and an active pollution of Islam in any instance where Europeans had displaced Islamic control. Incidentally for all of Islam’s institutional rejection of Europe as a civilized place, the ignorance of and disinterest in the Far East and Pacific rim had to be deliberate and in modern terms racist.
In building his case, Bernard starts form first principals from the Holy Koran as interpreted by its greatest philosophers and political thinkers. The Dar Al Islam recognizes nothing in the way of countries. The House is one undivided place all to be direct by a common religious directed law. Local political leadership is allowed but the assumption is that there is only one universal Caliphate. Local leaders are subject to its absolute will. Further there is only one necessary langue. The Caliphate is Arabic speaking. Whatever the local languages, Arabic is the language of a civilized people, its religion, its government, its literature and whatever other art forms are allowed.
Necessarily following this view, the mere fact that Europe was home to so many countries, and political and linguistical divides was proof that these people had nothing to teach. Their religion was divinely inspired. Christianity represented a movement forward in spiritual understanding. It was short of Islam and therefore its believers were behind the curve and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. The existence of a Trinity Spirit leading Christianity was a denial of the singularity of Allah and therefore Christianity cannot be honored as a governing power.
In successive chapters Lewis lays out how little these generations bothered with learning languages. They choose to depend on, Jews, traveling Christians or other non-believers to provide what little they were interested in knowing, or eventually the commerce that they grudgingly allowed with the slowly emerging Europeans. Even later when it became useful to exchange embassies, the visiting representatives of European countries were thought of as supplicants begging permission to be allowed to subject themselves to their superiors. Meantime the Embassy from the East wrote despairingly, often to formula about the inferior nature of life in these ungodliest of places.
Islamists deeply believed that any learning from the west was inherently unclean and that travel to and among Europeans was spiritually and physically unhealthy. Any objects important from the west needed to be somehow covered by example from the Holy Koran. The vary word ‘change” in Arabic is taken to mean, rendered unclean. Against the argument that Da Al Islam was willing to directly import and adopt western weapons and military technique; there was a religiously inspired exception. The guiding word from The Prophet is that one must “fight like with like”.
Before concluding that Islamic scholarship about the West is fundamentally crippled; or that there exists no Islamic based process for understanding the West, it has to be said that The Muslim Discovery of the West ends in the mid-19th Century. How Islamist thinkers have adopted to what we would think of as the pre-modern and modern world is nowhere addressed. The degree to which modern middle eastern scholarship is based on sympathetic, or at least non-religious based analysis is not a topic. No conclusion about the contemporary Levantine scholar thinks of Europe, (America barely exists in this book) is attempted, or intended.
The Muslim Discovery of Europe is a scholarly text. Lewis uses extensive examples from, Arabic sources. He will frequently make statement that depend on his having exhaustive research. Often it is stated that there are exactly this number of references to a subject and that certain formula were always used in descriptions. He points to the many times Islamic scholars will depend on earlier, flawed studies, and only latterly modified by what was often biased contemporary commentary. He is quite certain about the first time references to things like the Protestant Reformation or the existence of particular, usually more remote countries were acknowledged. All of this makes for more interesting reading. How well these pronouncements have survived later studies, is unknown.
Also because this is an academic analysis, he can be very repetitious. Like any scholar is intent is to apply his analysis to as many levels of culture as possible. From the internal thought processes to their logical consequences s applied to Muslim appreciation of western politics, art, fashion, media, literature and commerce. Too often yielding nothing new or unique to his hypotheses. It can become frustrating to read what can seem like the same thing in different instances, but this is often what is done to document a case. Overall, I was happier having finished the book than in its reading. It is also frustrating to not know how much traditional Islamic scholarship is impacting contemporary Islamist thinking.
January 30, 2018
I found this book extremely enlightening. It works as a reversal of the usual point of view of Western history books, which deal with Europeans meeting or clashing with the Muslims, newcomers at the world stage. It displays an impressive array of sources before the reader and it shows, with nuance and detail, how the Muslim world has viewed Europe and European affairs over time, going from disdain and (for a while justified) superiority to apprehension, fear and finally (sometimes grudging) acceptance. I did find it, at times, a bit repetitive, though I gather that the multitude of examples was necessary to bring the point home without oversimplifying a delicate subject, and a bit disorganized, as the book is not laid out chronologically (as a whole or within any of its thematic chapters). For someone without previous in-depth knowledge of the history of Islam and its interaction with Western thought, like me, it has in any case a lot of value, though I sense that others would prefer a more academic presentation, or would just consider this a starting point. I recommend this to anyone trying to get their bearings on the subject.
March 1, 2020
Bernard Lewis has many detractors and even though he does not have the style of flair of William Dalrymple; in this book he had done a commendable job of relaying what is written and adding to what is known.
Lewis states that at the concept of Bidaaa or innovation was was responsible for the the stulification of the Muslim world in the 11th century. He writes according to a saying ascribed to the prophet whoever imitates a people becomes one of them this has taken to mean that adopting or imitating practices characteristic of the infidel amounts to itself and act of infidelity consequently a betrayal of Islam
He states that the dictum and the doctrine which it expresses were frequently invoked by Muslim religious authorities to oppose and denounce anything which they saw as an imitation of Europe therefore as a compromise with unbelief. It was a powerful argument in the hands of religious Conservatives and was frequently used by them to block such westernising Innovations as technology printing and even european-style medicine.
That insight alone makes reading the book worthwhile.
Lewis states that at the concept of Bidaaa or innovation was was responsible for the the stulification of the Muslim world in the 11th century. He writes according to a saying ascribed to the prophet whoever imitates a people becomes one of them this has taken to mean that adopting or imitating practices characteristic of the infidel amounts to itself and act of infidelity consequently a betrayal of Islam
He states that the dictum and the doctrine which it expresses were frequently invoked by Muslim religious authorities to oppose and denounce anything which they saw as an imitation of Europe therefore as a compromise with unbelief. It was a powerful argument in the hands of religious Conservatives and was frequently used by them to block such westernising Innovations as technology printing and even european-style medicine.
That insight alone makes reading the book worthwhile.
October 31, 2008
Bernard Lewis takes excerpts and synopsizes dozens of individual Muslims' perceptions, lessons and realizations about Europe. Almost all of them are intriguing. Lewis also covers diplomatic contact between Islamic and European countries. The nation-to-nation contact parts of the book are the best because he explains what Europe learned from Islamic civilization and vice versa. The book ranges from Muslims' early contact with Europe to the early 19th century. It was more a collection of travel logs than survey that led to an explanation of an amorphous Muslim perception of Christian civilization.
Lewis now has many critics (Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, etc.) and I don't support many of the current political positions Lewis takes but I still appreciate his scholarship. He uses hundreds of primary sources for this book and does not attempt to cast any ethnic group in a negative light. I agree that he is not the most thoughtful scholar but he was not driven to write this book out of fear or disdain for Muslims.
Lewis now has many critics (Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, etc.) and I don't support many of the current political positions Lewis takes but I still appreciate his scholarship. He uses hundreds of primary sources for this book and does not attempt to cast any ethnic group in a negative light. I agree that he is not the most thoughtful scholar but he was not driven to write this book out of fear or disdain for Muslims.
July 24, 2016
As the previous books I read by the author, this book is filled with interesting details of the centuries long interaction between Islam and the West. These details were arranged with great talent reflecting the great knowledge of the author in the subject and the field.
The author arranges his book displaying and exploring the various aspects of interaction and mutual impact between both civilizations starting from the advance of Islam through it's historical conquests where Muslim perception of the need and curiosity of the West remained with no major change until the eighteenth century to then witness a more rapid change in attitude during the nineteenth century.
The author ends the book with a conclusion which could actually be a comprehensive summary of the subject and question of the difference of perception between the two civilizations with regards to interest, curiosity and discovery.
The author arranges his book displaying and exploring the various aspects of interaction and mutual impact between both civilizations starting from the advance of Islam through it's historical conquests where Muslim perception of the need and curiosity of the West remained with no major change until the eighteenth century to then witness a more rapid change in attitude during the nineteenth century.
The author ends the book with a conclusion which could actually be a comprehensive summary of the subject and question of the difference of perception between the two civilizations with regards to interest, curiosity and discovery.
March 6, 2021
This is very good, and in more ways than one.
Factually, historically, it's fascinating.
Scholarship-wise: ditto.
Impressive also is how he manages to handle all the names etc., without completely losing us, something difficult in this case.
Caveat: he states his main finding right at the beginning, i.e. that Muslims simply had no interest in, nor knowledge of, Europe/the West, they saw us as barbarians, uneducated, filthy, unhygienic, cruel and uncivilised (all of which, objectively, was rather true). So everything after that derives from that idea: each chapter addresses one particular aspect (social, historical, religious, travels, books etc), but you always know, right from the start, that the conclusion will be the same: they didn't know, didn't care, had no interest.
I would have liked that picture to shine through as I read, rather than have it shone in my eyes at the start.
But impressive book, and fascinatingly informative.
Factually, historically, it's fascinating.
Scholarship-wise: ditto.
Impressive also is how he manages to handle all the names etc., without completely losing us, something difficult in this case.
Caveat: he states his main finding right at the beginning, i.e. that Muslims simply had no interest in, nor knowledge of, Europe/the West, they saw us as barbarians, uneducated, filthy, unhygienic, cruel and uncivilised (all of which, objectively, was rather true). So everything after that derives from that idea: each chapter addresses one particular aspect (social, historical, religious, travels, books etc), but you always know, right from the start, that the conclusion will be the same: they didn't know, didn't care, had no interest.
I would have liked that picture to shine through as I read, rather than have it shone in my eyes at the start.
But impressive book, and fascinatingly informative.
May 29, 2019
Since I knew very little about the Muslims in Europe, this was an eye opener as to their long rule on the Iberian peninsula, trading with European nations and the art, math, science that can be attributed to them. However, in spite of the title's emphasis on Muslims, the author seemed to side step their culture, social interaction and other aspects that would have explained why Muslims responded the way they did to Europeans. The author several times reverts to their "lack of curiosity" which seems a short sighted approach and a European designation of Muslim interactions or approach to medical science, etc. Not sure how he comes up with that analysis.
October 30, 2017
Lewis is a renowned expert on Middle Eastern history and this book is very well researched. The West is generally ignorant of the Muslim Golden Age from, say, 800 to 1500. First Arab and then Turkish states flourished. They established powerful modern states which supported science, medicine, architecture, trade and military science. Their courts and cities were sparkling while most of Europe, and particularly northwestern Europe were Dark Age backwaters. Lewis tries to look from their perspective toward Europe. He uses a lot of passages from writers of that time. There is no doubt the Muslims were keenly aware of their superior culture and they rarely even mention the barbarians. When they do it is almost always done in a derogatory manner with insulting adjectives and scorn. However, as time goes on and the West gains strength the Muslims begin to question what is going on since they felt Allah had more or less preordained that their true faith must conquer the world. This is a problem up to the present. One thing that is interesting to me is that even when they were on top of the world, their scholars lacked even an academic interest in “barbarian” cultures, like China, but especially the West. This seems a cultural difference from Europeans who from the time of Herodotus and up through Polo and Richard Burton have always been fascinated to learn about exotic places. It was interesting to read Muslim views of Western law and politics. They were horrified when they saw the use of trial by ordeal to decide cases among Christian crusaders. They were also horrified by democracy where men made laws instead of using God's revelations as they did (yeah, right). European respect for women, and the apparent power of women also astonished the Muslim writers, even though by our standards women had a rough go. Lewis tries to ask why the west was ultimately more successful in innovating but has no sure answer. He feels that the European discovery of the New World, the Renaissance and the Protestant reformation all exposed them to a more open frame of mind. The Muslim religion was so sure of its own perfection it was unable to imagine the barbarians had anything to contribute to the world. Anyway, this is an informative book but rather slow and repetitive. It is probably invaluable to scholars in the field but a more casual reader may want to speed read to get the gist of the work.
April 21, 2020
I had to read this book for my World Civilizations university class but I tried to keep my rating as relevant to the contents of the book rather than my lack of interest in the subject itself.
This book was extremely boring. Now, I know most university books aren't incredibly fascinating but I do find aspects of history interesting. This book was just written in a way that scrambled my brain. I was literally dreading having to pick it back up and counting the hours until I'd be finished.
The author writes in such a way, that it's extremely difficult to follow what's happening. There is one story going on, but then halfway through it skips over to something else, and then halfway through that, it picks up again with the first story. I found it very hard to keep track, and this made writing my essay problematic. I wish that there were more authors writing in a style that was more appealing to students, rather than composing a book made up from hundreds of other books and texts.
Luckily, I'm finished, I'll never have to read it again. I can't say I've learned more than I've known from just a general knowledge of the Muslim culture and their experiences with Europeans. At times I felt fingers were being pointed in the direction of who was more evil, the Muslims or the Christians, but that's just how I felt.
This book was extremely boring. Now, I know most university books aren't incredibly fascinating but I do find aspects of history interesting. This book was just written in a way that scrambled my brain. I was literally dreading having to pick it back up and counting the hours until I'd be finished.
The author writes in such a way, that it's extremely difficult to follow what's happening. There is one story going on, but then halfway through it skips over to something else, and then halfway through that, it picks up again with the first story. I found it very hard to keep track, and this made writing my essay problematic. I wish that there were more authors writing in a style that was more appealing to students, rather than composing a book made up from hundreds of other books and texts.
Luckily, I'm finished, I'll never have to read it again. I can't say I've learned more than I've known from just a general knowledge of the Muslim culture and their experiences with Europeans. At times I felt fingers were being pointed in the direction of who was more evil, the Muslims or the Christians, but that's just how I felt.
February 19, 2023
This is a grand topic that certainly deserves better than this high horse treatment. You people lost the cognitive race of 18th and 19th centuries; we are the people who won it, and now we are going to enumerate your failures!
Where Lewis is closer to his actual specialty (pre-modern Ottoman Turkey), it is not all that bad, and in general for me the book served as a quite useful list of reverse travelogues and personalities on the seam between Muslim and Christian worlds. Each of these had to be studied separately from Lewis's treatment though.
It is where Lewis tries to paint a really broad picture that he becomes seriously insufferable. "Muslims gave polytheists two choices: Islam or death" (Mughal India is probably submerged at the bottom of the ocean for Lewis) "Muslims do not understand the concept of legislative activity" (Suleyman the Lawgiver and his kanun are probably orbiting a different star), treating travelers from Bengal and Morocco separated by centuries next to each other as if the only thing that mattered about them was their religion... a complete list of these arrogant morsels would be quite endless.
At least you can see what Edward Said was talking about in his Orientalism. I think though that Said was quite unfair and over-generalizing in that book, and Lewis is an extreme case.
Where Lewis is closer to his actual specialty (pre-modern Ottoman Turkey), it is not all that bad, and in general for me the book served as a quite useful list of reverse travelogues and personalities on the seam between Muslim and Christian worlds. Each of these had to be studied separately from Lewis's treatment though.
It is where Lewis tries to paint a really broad picture that he becomes seriously insufferable. "Muslims gave polytheists two choices: Islam or death" (Mughal India is probably submerged at the bottom of the ocean for Lewis) "Muslims do not understand the concept of legislative activity" (Suleyman the Lawgiver and his kanun are probably orbiting a different star), treating travelers from Bengal and Morocco separated by centuries next to each other as if the only thing that mattered about them was their religion... a complete list of these arrogant morsels would be quite endless.
At least you can see what Edward Said was talking about in his Orientalism. I think though that Said was quite unfair and over-generalizing in that book, and Lewis is an extreme case.
November 22, 2024
This was fairly unique, and I'd even say before its time, examination of the way Muslim writers saw European society. I was able to pick out a few inaccuracies when it comes to matters relating to the Islamic East (that is to say, Iran and beyond), but Lewis' real specialty and focus is with the literature of Turkey, Spain, Egypt, the Levant, and North Africa. These all happen to be areas which, by virtue of being along the Mediterranean, were in close contact with the Christians on its shores. The examples of cross-cultural interactions that he brings up are fascinating and he makes a reasonable argument for the limited and late nature of "borrowing". For example, it took decades for the new production technologies in Europe to catch the attention of Ottoman Muslims in the 18th century, except when it came to military goods and the mining sector.
I don't agree with some of his firm claims about the chronology of "falling behind", but my own views are close enough, the broader argument stands, and his examples are very valuable.
I don't agree with some of his firm claims about the chronology of "falling behind", but my own views are close enough, the broader argument stands, and his examples are very valuable.
October 4, 2023
It's fascinating to see two great civilizations living side by side without any major communication channels. It's often thought that the Christian and Muslim worlds have had strong ties for centuries, but this book proves otherwise.
Apart from a few minor exchanges, these two civilizations, and above all their peoples, didn't know each other very well until the 19th century, and even then.
Let's just say that the book focuses mainly on the Ottomans, Persians and Moroccans, as they were the first neighbors of Christian Europe.
That said, I found the book very interesting, and on top of that I loved reading the passages from the books of certain Christian and/or Muslim travellers and their analyses of other peoples.
Five stars.
Apart from a few minor exchanges, these two civilizations, and above all their peoples, didn't know each other very well until the 19th century, and even then.
Let's just say that the book focuses mainly on the Ottomans, Persians and Moroccans, as they were the first neighbors of Christian Europe.
That said, I found the book very interesting, and on top of that I loved reading the passages from the books of certain Christian and/or Muslim travellers and their analyses of other peoples.
Five stars.
August 5, 2024
كتاب جيد ونادر في موضوعه، فهو يتكلم عن نظرة المسلمين إلى الأوروبيين على طول تاريخ الإسلام في مواضيع مختلفة مع التركيز على الأتراك و نظرتهم لأوروبا خلال حكم الدولة العثمانية. الكتاب مكون من ١١ فصل مقسمة على حسب المواضيع من نظرة المسلمين للأوروبيين من خلال الأعمال العلمية أو التاريخية أو الحضارية وغيرها. تستطيع أن تقرأ كل فصل لوحده فكل فصل مكتفي بذاته مع وجود بعض التكرار بينها.
July 20, 2017
Originally published in 1982, this work shines a light out of alignment with much of our understanding of the Muslim history. So, it is a worthy read but should be read as one in a group for the historiography.
September 1, 2021
Lots of interesting information. Excerpts from primary sources are particularly enjoyable. I feel like its structure could have been a bit less disjointed though; there are very numerous time leaps between the medieval age and the late modern age in the narration.
Read
November 6, 2021DNF just don't have the concentration for such a detailed scholarly work outside of my usual pursuits. (Or any scholarly work at this point, actually) Got a couple of insights from the early chapters, though.
August 25, 2025
كتاب يأتي من تفكير استشراقي قديم من برنارد لويس مما يعطيك اشارات الى محتوى الكتاب
Read
September 27, 2025A person who has nothing to worry about starts frightening themselves with nonexistent things by inventing jinns and devils.
August 7, 2013
Very thorough history of the Muslim view of European/Christian society from the 6th century through the Middle Ages and Crusades up to the beginning of the 19th century. I was rather surprised by how little curiosity was exhibited about the "infidels", but it explains this several times in the book as viewed through a religious worldview and prism. Got a little dry here and there, but overall informative. I wish the author had included some more material from the various diaries and writings he mentions, he only gives us little snippets here and there, and it left me wanting to know more about some of the firsthand accounts that do exist from that time period.
November 4, 2015
As expected from Lewis, this book provides a wealth of insightful information on a perspective that is rarely highlighted. What Lewis achieves in substance he lacks in form; such a pity as to how disorganized and loosely connected the book is. Also as the book revolves around the 'discovery' of Europe, it implied addressing the initial encounters which took place in the 7th and 8th centuries. I was surprised that most of the content was related to the Ottomans in the 17th and 18th centuries rather than the initial encounters by the Arabs a thousand years earlier.
October 19, 2016
A very interesting and informative piece of work. The angle the light was shed from was specially very interesting when the author compared two very rich and different civilizations (Muslim and European) in all aspects of life. I agree with most of the author's observations.
Nevertheless, I don't think this comparative study included all the literature it should have included (Ibn Katheer's work is one of the examples). Therefore, the message that came through was biased to a slight extent. That's why I gave four stars for this book.
Nevertheless, I don't think this comparative study included all the literature it should have included (Ibn Katheer's work is one of the examples). Therefore, the message that came through was biased to a slight extent. That's why I gave four stars for this book.
January 17, 2009
Lots of interesting information, would have been improved if I had a better sense of history. Provides sufficient timeline to get a sense in the changes in the Islamic world with regards to Europe. Parts of the book felt very redundant. I remember liking The Crisis of Islam much better.
June 7, 2007
Bernard Lewis may be Dick Cheney's favorite intellectual, but this is an excellent compilation of primary sources from the Ottoman heyday on all things European.
How different societies view and attempt to understand each other is, of course, a highly relevant topic today and probably always will be.
How different societies view and attempt to understand each other is, of course, a highly relevant topic today and probably always will be.
Want to read
January 12, 2009Apparently it will be necessary to read this book with a filter, so that the true parts get in and the unsupported conclusions and stereotypes etc.. remain inactive. Not sure how to do that.. maybe need to read other things on the same subject first - if there are any?
August 18, 2010
التقييم يشمل الترجمة السيئة للكتاب ، الذي لم أستطع قراءته بلغته للأسف. وأنا أنصح بقراءته بلغته الأصل. أما المترجم الكريم فلم يكتفي بالترجمة ، بل وعلق كذلك على فقرات من الكتاب ، وليته لم يفعل. فله أخطاء عجيبة غريبة في هذا الكتاب.
September 3, 2011
Opera molto interessante. Sappiamo tutto di noi, "la culla della civiltà", e cosa pensiamo degli "altri". Ma gli altr, il mondo musulmano come ci vedono e come ci hanno visto nel passato? Sorprendente, interessante ed illuminante. Lettura che consiglio.
April 21, 2016
A real good overview by someone who clearly knows his subject. At first I thought that the book being published before 9/11 would be a problem, but I came to believe it is actually a strength. Fairly dry and sometimes feel repetitive, but still worth reading and I recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews