Rating: 
Summary: Secular vs. theological governance
Review: Mr. Lewis introduces many reasons why for centuries the world of Islam regressed from "the forefront of human civilization and achievement" to what it is today: an 'impoverished, self-pittying, oppressed Third World' region. But what struck me as the most probable and straightforward reason is it's inability to separate church from state. Since Islam is a self-fulfilling way of life, there is no reason to separate "religion" from "state"; they are one. And most of modernization doesn't fit into that way of life. So of course those who follow the letter of Islamic law, so to speak, can't fully enter the competitive modern world.As Lewis says, this has been their choice. I read that to mean that those who choose "authentic" Islam as both their religion and way of governance must learn to accept the consequences and not expect the rest of the world to embrace stagnation or apologize or compensate for their fall from supremacy. Maybe many "true" Muslims do just that, but unfortunately they aren't able to stop the radicals who can't. Lewis himself is a Muslim but supports separation of church and state and lives in the modern world, accepts secular laws and governance, while practicing his religon. So it should be. David Landes, a reviewer on the back cover of this hardcover book, says it well. Political correctness has no role in evaluating the importance of the international conflicts radical Muslims have brought to the Middle East, and now to our shores. We should all be aware of the dangers any theological governance could bring to a democracy such as ours. Christianity has corrected that mistake already as we evolved. I highly recommend "What Went Wrong" to all who care about the future of their children and grandchildren.
Rating:
Summary: Bernard Lewis is the best
Review: His works are scholarly and can be hard to read because the reader needs a high degree of knowledge as well, but a scholar is what he is. He isn't a popularizer, and that's what I like about him. His analysis is lucid, evenhanded and true. The bottom line of his book is that to treat the "other" as inferior is a path to destruction - and maybe we should heed the lesson. We always need to be open to others, no one has the final truth.
Rating: 
Summary: controversial, controversial, controversial ...
Review: Im still reading the book (plan to finish it tonight), but I ventured to read other people's opinions.
I agree that this book is an easy read, and has a lot of pretty entertaining facts, but I expected it to be more profound and less biased. Indeed, the title is extremely misleading - I suppose the one for the German edition properly reflected the big idea behind the book, but was not as catchy.
May be good point is the controversial character of the book, but it may mislead an unprepared reader.
Rating:
Summary: Middle Eastern Backwardness....An Explanation
Review: Bernard Lewis's book is not easy to read. Lewis does not do much of a job holding anyone's attention. He has not written this for impact. Its clearly intended to be a pure scholarly work. Having said all of that, it clearly is a most relevant book for those interested in trying to understand the attack on the WTC by islamic extremists, the ceaseless fighting by the Palestinians against Israel, and the general hostility towards the United States by the Arab world. Essentially, Lewis tries to pinpoint historical differences in Western and Islamic society that lead to the West achieving economic superiority. Some of the differences are quite illuminating. First, apparently, about the time the Renaissance was occuring in Western Europe, Islamic society which had one time flourished as a center for education and the arts was gradually becoming more and more inward. People in the west had an interest in the Middle East, but few people in the Middle East felt the West was worthy of attention. Second, Islamic society through the Koran and Shariah legitimized slavery, inequality of women, and poor treatment of non-believers in ways that didn't occur in most western countries. Third, western societies--largely at the request of religion--created the idea of separation of church and state. No such distinction was ever made in Islam, nor does it exist at present. Fourth, when it became apparent to Islamic leaders that their societies lagged behind the west, they saw the solution as to import western technology, failing to understand that western values are what produced the technology in the first place. That these countries lag behind the west cannot be disputed. If we take oil out of the equation, Lewis points out that all the countries together produce less wealth than the single European country of Finland. Its a tremendous shock when one realizes how many hundreds of millions of people live in Islamic countries. Besides being a challenge to read, Lewis does not deal much with solutions to the problems in his book. I would have been most interested in seeing him analyze these in more detail. I can recommend this book to serious students of the Middle East conflict with scholarly leanings. Other people might be well to read something that holds one attention easier and is easier to understand.
Rating: 
Summary: What went wrong indeed.
Review: If you are looking to learn what went wrong between the Judeo/ Christian world nd the Muslim world, I would recommend that you look at sources other than Dr. Lewis' book. After 160 pages,
the author never does really answer his question in the title. It may have been this, it may have been that. Unfortunately, before he gets to this soft conclusion he subjects the rader to a really long trek through Middle Eastern ancient history. Intersstingly, he doesn't say much of anything about World Wat I and the defeat of Turkey. The author acknowedeges that the book is built around a few lectures he gave. I think thi book is on the Best Sellers list only because of 9/11. It's an ill wind that doesn't blow someone some good. Two stars at the absolute best.
Rating:
Summary: What was Wrong with this Book?
Review: I am sorry, I am usually not so critical of books, but "What went Wrong?" was pretty boring and didnt live up to the reading I was expecting. I can imagine, with recent events such as 9/11, more and more people are interested in learning about the Muslim psyche and what makes them tick in this day and age. I was under the impression the book would thoroughly explain the deep seated hostilities between East and West from the days of the the Crusades to the present volatile situation in the Middle East... Instead, the book delved into some rather vague, and in my eyes, unimportant aspects of cultural rivalry that occured between East and West. In all fairness, the book did shed some light on the various social, economic and cultural events that led to the decline of the Muslim sphere of influence that once dominted the world. I did enjoy how the author talked about various components of Western advancement that led to the tables being turned including exponential advances in Western Naval prowess, the rapid development of modern weaponry and the West's shrewd diplomatic skills which let them to become a world power at the expense of their overly isolated and fundamentalist neighbors. Another disapointment was that the author seemed to focus the core of the book on the Ottoman Empire, which by all means was an important entity in the Muslim world for a great number of years. However, he didnt shed too much light on other Muslim entities like the Arabs and Persians (He did touch on them slightly). Maybe I am being too critical. Numerous people have enjoyed this book judging from the substantial positive reviews the book has received. However, I was disapointed. The positve strength of the book is it is a very quick read...at under 200 pages, I finished the book in two days. Regardless of my opinions, I recomend this book because it does educate the reader on the East/West divide to some degree. However, if you are looking for a book that explores the "current" Middle East dilemna, this is not the right book for you...
Rating: 
Summary: Good Sociology; So-So History
Review: Mr. Lewis does some things well in this book: He writes well. He makes interesting points on the comparative sociological development of the Muslim world vis-a-vis Western and Oriental civilizations. His comments on the Muslim-versus-Western views of time, space and borders are great. His last chapter is worth reading several times. Very enjoyable book. Nonetheless, this is no history book. You won't learn many hard facts about or a chronology of Middle Eastern or Muslim history. You can understand and enjoy the book without your own base of historical knowledge, but you'll have to read something else to get that base.
Rating:
Summary: Informative, interesting and somewhat persuasive
Review: Lewis sets out to explain what went wrong in Muslin nations, and he does so very well. His use of history is especially persuasive in explaining the fall of the Muslim world. The contemporary examples he cites also lend a great deal of support to his argument. My only problem with the work lies with Lewis' ultimate conclusion: basically that the Muslin world must not only modernize but also Americanize. Lewis argues, quite persuasively, that since the United States is the ultimate world power the Muslin world must adapt with that thought in mind. While I don't necessarily disagree with this conclusion (nor do I have the scholarly knowledge to argue an alternative), I do worry about what kind of policies may be enacted based on this type of argument.
Rating:
Summary: The Conflict Between Islam And Europe Was Inevitable
Review: (3/31/2002) What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Easter Response by Bernard Lewis (Oxford University Press : 2002, ISBN 0-19-514420-1)
This is the most recent (probably last) book by the 85-year old Lewis, America's last traditional (non-politically correct) Orientalist. In What Went Wrong?, Lewis traces the responses of Islamic world to its steady decline relative to Western Europe during the Second Millennium CE. (As Lewis points out, the universal use of Christian or "Common Era" calendar is enough to prove the irrelevance of Islamic culture in the modern world. Western Europe is the common heritage of the modern world, not the Islamic world.)
Lewis does not propose an answer to "What went wrong?", insisting that the answer must come from Islamic world. He quotes historical Islamic scholars on each page. (Unfortunately, most of the quotes bring to mind George Santayana's definition of fanaticism, "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.")
Lewis points out that the Islamic world often makes decisions that are incomprehensible to Western Europe. The Islamic world didn't adopt the printing press and the public clock until two centuries after they were common in Western Europe. The use of wheeled vehicles declined in the Islamic world while it rose dramatically in Western Europe. And, the concept of separation of church and state is foreign to the Islamic world.
He traces many of these decisions to three assumptions accepted without question by the Islamic world:
there is no acceptable alternative to a religious life;
the relationship between government and governed is authoritarian, usually a paternalistic form of fascist; and
the relationship between Islamic individuals and non-Islamic individuals is that of a superior and an inferior.
Perhaps Lewis offers no answer of his own because he thinks all answers are academic. Given these three assumptions, nothing can restore the importance of the Islamic world except ending the importance of Western Europe. Smashing Western Europe and forcing the world back to the Islamic world's level is a reasonable strategy to return the Islamic world to prominence in an impoverished world. Which sounds like an explanation of the current world.
Rating:
Summary: A helpful overview
Review: As a compilation of lectures and small essays, Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong does not lend itself to very definite conclusions about the ultimate cause of the Middle East's decline, or to examining the origins of the distinctively violent reactions to this great eclipse in the Arab world. What Professor Lewis does do very well is weave a rich tapestry depicting the wide variety of Western contacts with the Middle East over the centuries, in science, the arts, culture, and religion. Lewis writes that a critical measure of Western dominance was established very early on, when seafaring European powers developed vessels capable of embarking to the farthest shores. From that point, Europe could exploit wealth and exert influence in any part of the world, undermining the Middle East's central position as middlemen in land-based Europe-to-Asia trading routes. The Middle East's decline may or may not have been inevitable from this point forward, but even if it was, one definitely gets the sense that the Middle East could have coped better with decline. For instance, they could have adopted many more Western mores and practices than they did, and had they done so, they might have shared in some measure of Europe's prosperity. Unfortunately, Islamic theology and political thought was not set up to accept this alternative. Islamic scholars did not encourage Muslims living (and learning) in Western lands for fear their culture would become corrupted, and for a long while, the Ottoman Empire did not even keep permanent missions in the capitals of Europe. While Western culture allowed itself considerable leeway in maintaining separate religious and secular cultures (thereby encouraging freedom of action), Islamdom was more likely to believe that all action, scientific, military, or political, must be undertaken and justified under the auspices of Islam, leaving little room for a secular culture and civil society. Because of these cultural differences, the West proved more agile in seizing the opportunities of a new world.
| 
