Rating: 
Summary: Islam Is Not a Timeless, Monolithic Culture
Review: "What Went Wrong?" Is a cultural explanation for the relative decline of the Islamic World. The book operates at three levels of analysis: religious text, religious authority/interpretation, and the broader cultures of Islamic societies. Thus, to call the analysis "culturalist", while a crudely accurate labeling, does not capture the nuance of the book's important focus on Islamic theology itself, in addition to the ways in which this theology has interacted with culture directly through text, and indirectly through the ulema and other mediating forces. Lewis often uses phrases like "according to Islamic law and tradition . . ." (67), without specifying the relative impact of law versus tradition.
Obviously, the reader then sees immediately that Lewis' project leaves itself open to suspicions of Orientalism, reification, and other postmodern pathologies, not only because the book conspicuously implies that the Islamic world is "backward", inferring that progress equals some degree of Westernization, but also because Lewis "essentializes" Islamic religion itself, treating religion as though it is a coherent, consistent factor throughout history. Not only does this focus ignore political, economic, demographic and other accounts of problems such as poverty and autocracy in the Middle East, but it also provides an account of Islamic "backwardness" that blames fundamental problems within Islam itself, as opposed to any external force. This is a highly controversial line of argument, and is sure to anger many. Nonetheless, Lewis pushes on, drawing on history, text, and interpretation to trace the roots of the decline. In doing so, he combines disparate strands of argument into a broad indictment of Islamic culture's ability to flexibly adapt to Western success and regain a position of relative power. Speaking historically, his first strand of argument is the Muslim world's lack of curiosity about the West, coupled with a fatal case of civilizational over-confidence, due to its long historical zenith as the center of civilization and learning. This lack of curiosity, Lewis admits, was more due to the actual status of superiority, and had little to do with Islamic culture itself. Lewis seems to greatly respect the early achievements of the Islamic world. However, religion truly comes into play as a negative force, for Lewis, when the Muslim world realizes that the West has gained the upper hand, and yet is unable to do anything about it. Why does religion prevent the catching-up process? Because Lewis argues that religious authorities, "classical jurists" in his terms (36), ruled that Muslims could not live among the infidels, thus obviously blocking the necessary technical, scientific and educational exchanges that could have transferred some of the West's learning to the Middle East. Muslims were prevented from learning from Christians by their own theological prejudices, prejudices which Christians lacked, or at least were able to overcome by necessarily traveling to the Holy Land, trading, learning Middle Eastern languages, etc. Lewis also argues that a recurring theme in Muslim discourse is blaming the decline of the Muslim world on having strayed from religion itself: "if things are going badly, we are being punished by God for having abandoned the true path" (45). This has led to a social re-trenchment of religious tradition, of course, which for Lewis only exacerbates the problem of backwardness. Thus, Islamic societies are caught in a vicious cycle, because they attempt to address their backwardness with more of the very factor that made them backward in the first place. Another factor is the Muslim attitude towards science itself. Lewis claims that, for Muslims, "philosophy was the handmaiden of theology and science merely a collection of pieces of knowledge and devices" (46). This argument is problematic, however, because it doesn't explain the flourishing of science and secular knowledge under the Muslim golden age. Thus, the danger of arguments like this is that they treat religion as an unchanging, timeless force, obviously losing sight of important interactions between religious interpretation and real-world events, through which religious law and culture can be changed over time. More blame gets parceled out to the subordinated role of women in Islamic law, tradition and culture. Again, the reader isn't sure how much these forces stem from theology, and how much from the broader society. Lewis attributes the lesser status of slave, woman, and unbeliever to "revelation", "the precept and practice of the prophet", and "the classical and scriptural history of the Islamic community" (84). While the first two are certainly theological, one might argue that the third variable could be entirely cultural, shaped by economics, politics and demography, and have little to do with actual sacred texts. Thus, even if we follow Lewis on this point regarding the status of women, we wonder why similar revelations regarding the role of women in Christian theology are not so zealously enforced. Obviously the rise of secularism in the West is responsible for the liberated status of women, and Lewis has a theological cultural story for why secularism has not taken root in the Middle East: "certain profound differences of belief and experience in the two religious cultures", such as different "foundation myths" (100). Again, we are not sure if a "religious culture" is the same thing as an entire culture whose members happen to practice the same religion, at least nominally, or whether it is something much more narrow and specific. Are all nominal Muslims part of Islamic religious culture? Lewis seems to imply that they are. Thus, in the final analysis, Lewis' ambiguity keeps him from sounding dangerously simplistic. However, this game becomes too much of a stretch, even for his considerable talents, when he audaciously argues on page 156 that it is not "plausible" to blame Islam itself for the decline of the Middle East, as if he had been doing anything else for the previous 155 pages!
Rating:
Summary: Weak, leaves most of the Middle east obscure
Review: Lewis, who is an eminent Middle east/Islamic scholar tried to tackle the age old question "Why are Islamic countries and Islamic societies so backward(a liberal might use the word 'culturally different in place of that)? He tries to look at the Ottomans as an example. Lewis seems to miss the boat on this one. Islam first invaded Christendom in the 7th century and by 732 was at the gates of Paris. From this period it was pushed back in spain until it was driven out in 1492. Now Islam recovered quickly, having dealt with the crusaders it blossomed in Turkey. The Ottomans were the first to use Cannon in Europe when they crushed the Byzantines and flooded into eastern Europe. Now 'What Went Wrong'? tries to answer why it is that Islam, so advanced, having 'invented' the number 0 and having 'preserved' the works of Plato and Ptolemy, why this religion of 'Peace' suddenly declined after the 17th century, recieving one military disaster after another from the hands of the Eropeans(who had been so backward only 500 years before in the eyes of Islam). Lewis tries to show how the Turks confronted these dilemmas with legal reform and tried to 'modernize' themselves. Unfortunatly the only modernization the turks got was learning genocide against the Armenians and then becoming secular under Attatuck. Lewis has tackled the wrong country and drawn the wrong conclucions from this short study. What went wrong? Why did Islam, once so advanced, become so backward and retract itself to acting the way it did in the 7th century. Why does Sadui look more like it did in the 600s then it looks like modern day New York? Lewis doenst confront this dilemma. He doesnt confont the question of why Europeans nations were able tos eperate church and state(although bloodily) while Islam remained entrenched in state sponsored religion. The reality is that Lewis did not do an expansive study of this phenomenon. For the same reason that the Chinese rejected British imperial civilization only to adapt another western concept: communism, can we understand why Islamic countries have also saddled themselves between the secularism of Attaturk and the fundamentalism of the Taliban. Maybe 50 years ago when Socialist Ba'ath parties and nationlists like Nasser and secularists like the Shah and Attaturks succesors where in charge we would have been acxking ourselves 'Why is islam so leftist?' Lewis simply doesnt understand that countries like Suadi and Afganistan that have chosen to stay in the 7th century are simply backward totalitarian states trying to keep a small group of wealthy men in power, its no different then Stalin, and we should only view it as being 'wrong' in the send that we should want these countries to be democratic. Islam and democracy are compatible and modernization ios compatible, in America we modernized the savage repressive deep south, how is it any different to civilize the Saudis? It just takes time, money, and some killing. Lewis's book is an interesting study, perhaps more relevant for those interested in Ottoman interpretations of western advance.
Rating: 
Summary: Succinct, Fair, Informative....
Review: What is missing from all the tomes lamenting the poor condition of Muslims, particularly in the Mideast, is the seeming absence of sympathy for the very folks they purportedly support. The author has an almost reverent respect for the glorious Islamic past and seems to lament the long slow descent into oblivion. He also has a sympathy for the trapped peoples in the string of endless dictatorships from Morocco to Pakistan. What had been a vibrant culture of science, mathematics and literary exploration has become a cesspool of tragedy. It is a harsh judgement, but the arc from Morocco to Indonesia is artistically, financially, scientifically, militarily and polititically irrelevant in the modern world excepting oil, terrorism, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The big question Muslims ask themselves is not "Who did this to us" but "What did we do wrong?". I gave only four stars due to some redundancies and the lack of a definitive reason why Islamic states have turned out like they did. Of the many reasons suggested (religion, geography, arts, denigration of women) one surmises that it is a combination of several, the foremost being the role of religion and the state. A secular state is possible (Turkey) but extremely rare. The role of law, art, science and civics in modern society still takes its cue from a 1400 year old book. People who recognize their secondary standing want reasons (or scapegoats). Islam has alternatively blamed Christians, Jews, Western imperialists, capitalism, other Muslims, even communism. None of these is correct in itself. It is true that Christian Europe surged ahead in almost every endeavor; it is true that Jews established the only successful state in the area and defeated five Arab armies; it is true that Westerners conquered them;it is true that capitalists discovered and exploited the one natural resource of the region.... Not only the West but now the East is forging ahead. Korea, a devastated nation just fifty years ago and without natural resouces, is a super-economic power. More telling, Malaysia has shown the ability to join this move to the 21st century as long as religion has been constrained from government. Israel is mentioned only in passing and this is correct since the existence of Israel has absolutely no bearing on 99% of the Islamic world. Why should Algeria, Qatar or Indonesia care if a tiny slice of land in the Fertile Crescent is occupied by non-Muslims? The solution to the problem will require deep and perhaps earth-shaking changes in attitudes and perspectives. The author ends by noting that European ways have conquered the world and even those detesting this influence will use European methods to register their distate.
Rating: 
Summary: AtheistWorld.Com Book Review
Review: This book leaves out much to be desired.
You are better off reading "Islam Exposed" by Solomon Tulbure ISBN: 1932303456
Rating:
Summary: Why the people of the Middle East lag behind the West.
Review: While Europe was in the dark during the Middle Ages, the Middle East was the center of tolerance, learning, and political development. Sometime during then and now, the West (Europe and North America) became the leaders with the rest of the world falling behind. While some areas (Far East Asia) have caught up with the West, the Middle Eastern countries (except Turkey) have stagnated and no longer count in the economy (other than oil extraction). How did this happen? Lewis seeks the answers for the stagnation of the Middle East.
The focus is on Islam and how to an extent it has held up the Middle Eastern countries from developing the society, economy, and political structure. Lewis details how Turk, Persian, and Arab societies have developed, and what keeps them from moving into modernity. Not only are these societies stagnating, but real risks are at stake if these countries turn fundamentalist. These risks will confront the West.
I good summary of why the Middle East is failings its own people. Lewis cites plenty of examples to give his views credence. A pretty good read.
Rating: 
Summary: Christian Secularism:
Review: Christian Secularism: If the backwardness of Islamic nations is due to a lack of secularism and their religion’s inherent sexism, then what explains the backwardness of non- Muslim countries in South America, China, India, large sections of Africa and Far East? If Christianity were the moving force behind Western Civilization, to what can we attribute Japan’s advancements considering its blatant sexism and cultural bias against women? Let us consider Max Weber’s Theory of Capitalism, the main authority recognizing Christianity’s fundamental role in the rise of Capitalism. Despite many wrong interpretations of Weber’s theories, he himself, admonishing those who consider religion as the main force behind Capitalism, considers Protestantism as simply a cultural backdrop for Capitalism. The Capitalist culture sprang from pre-existing socio-economic relationships. In some of his later writings, he finds unique features to the West as causal chain of characteristics of rational capitalism, including the entrepreneurial organization of capital, rational technology, free labor, unrestricted markets, and calculative law. As Anthony Giddens emphasizes, “of course, religious beliefs are only one among various sets of influences which may conditions the formation of an economic ethic, and religion itself is heavily influenced by other social, political and economic phenomena.†Secularism, meaning the division between church, as a religious institution and state as institution of political power, was a result of capitalist advancements, and not vise-versa. Separation of the King and the Pope in medieval Europe was not the same as the separation of state and the Church established during the modern time. What explains Japan’s success in adopting capitalism among many other Eastern nations is the existence of a feudal system similar to what existed in Europe and which gave rise to the economic foundations of private capital as opposed to governmental ownership in other countries. Bernard Lewis does not explain the rise and fall of Islamic Civilization; he also fails to illuminate how Western Civilization, with the Roman and Greek cultures in leading positions in earlier times, was left behind the Muslim world in later decades. How did Christian secularism fail to play its role at this time? What explains the sudden jump in Western civilization after ten decades of backwardness? And, if as Lewis mentions, it was Islam that created, what he calls advanced culture, then how did it fail to ensure its dominant position? If Christianity gave rise to Western Culture, then what explains the Roman and Greek cultural dominance, and what caused the West’s relative cultural demise later during the middle Ages? It is my belief that it was not Christianity that caused the West’s advancements, and nor was it Islam that caused the backwardness of the East. It was in fact capitalism that was the main force behind modern advancements in the West, and that in turn came about due to the evolution of feudal relations. While in the East governmental ownership prevailed, in the West private ownership was dominant; it was the creation of a system based on private ownership that gave the West the edge. Lewis has overlooked the multiple factors involved in both western development and Eastern backwardness. Unlike him, Huntington, for instance, identifies these multiple factors “as the core of Western civilization.†These include the following: Classical legacy, Catholicism and Protestantism, European languages, separation of spiritual and temporal authority, rule of law, social pluralism, representative bodies, and individualism.
Rating: 
Summary: Every Moslem Should Read This Book!
Review: This slender volume provides a concise history of how the East and West have developed differently. While once far ahead of the West, Islam over time became complacent and lethargic, and slowly lost its lead over the emerging Occident. The change was gradual. The Scientific and Cultural developments of the Renissiance certainly marked the beginning of the West's ascendancy. The many bloody religious wars of the 16th-17th centuries gradually taught Western Civilization that in order to thrive it must seperate church from state. This is something that never occured in Islam, and this is one of the main points Mr.Lewis makes here. Islam has always been the source of all government and law in moslem states. This has become the main impediment for the Middle East's growth today. Lewis also points out that Islam's backward treatment of women is another major problem. Islam has gone seriously wrong in holding back the educational development of half its people. No wonder Arab children grow up largely ignorant today because their mothers are ignorant as well. The Moslem state sees no reason why women should be educated, and so the bitter cycle goes on generation after generation. Perhaps the most significant point made in this book is that the Middle East today must decide which path it will take. The choice is clear: Islamic extremism and retension of the past, which will continue to identify Islam with fanaticism and terrorism, or a progressive step forward like the modern state of Turkey has done. Until the Middle East learns to develope a secular outlook, and seperate church from state, the region will likely continue to spiral out of control. Already it is decades behind the rest of the world in nearly all areas. All moslems should read this book and look seriously at themselves and how they might begin to undertake change.
Rating:
Summary: A very accessible introduction to the Muslim world
Review: I found the book to be a very readable history of the Middle East. It was readable because 1) background knowledge of Islam, other than a general interest to current affairs, is not required, 2) there aren't many cross-references (that force one to flip back and forth), and most importantly, 3) explanations are clear-cut and very much self-contained. These are remarkable for a history text, and as such I consider the book particularly suitable for casual readers like myself. The book covers wide spans chronologically, geographically, and conceptually. It starts out with major wars fought, then an analysis of economical/political structures, and finally illuminates socio-cultural differences. I particularly enjoyed the chapter that discussed the concept of time and space of Islam. Below are some passages I found informative/revealing. "For traditional Muslims, the converse of tyranny was not liberty but justice."
"In the West, one makes money in the market, and uses it to buy or influence power. In the East, one seizes power, and uses it to make money. Morally there is no difference between the two, but their impact on the economy and on the polity is different."
"For men to wear Western clothes, it would seem, is modernization; for women to wear them is Westernization, to be welcomed or punished accordingly."
"Islam recognizes no ordination, no sacraments, no priestly mediation between the believer and God. The so-called clergyman is perceived as a teacher, a guide, a scholar in theology and law, but not as a priest."
"One may even say that there is no orthodoxy and heresy, if one understands these terms in the Christian sense, as correct or incorrect belief defined as such by duly constituted religious authority...Where there are differences, they are between the mainstream and the fringes, between orthopraxy and deviation. Even the major division within Islam, between the Sunnis and the Shia, arose over an historical conflict about the political leadership of the community, not over any question of doctrine."
"The office of ayatollah is a creation of the nineteenth century; the role of Khomeini and of his successor as "supreme jurist" an innovation of the twentieth."
"Polyphony, in whatever form, requires exact synchronization. The ability to synchronize, to match times exactly, and for this purpose to measure times exactly, is an essential feature of modernity and therefore a requirement of modernization."
Rating:
Summary: Interesting perspective.
Review: Although I've studied the Ottoman Empire from the perspective of Islamic Egypt, I've never investigated it from its own. Bernard Lewis's book What Went Wrong is a nice recap, although very brief, of Ottoman history especially with respect to the West and Christianity. It is also for the most part an objective study. In some respects the gradual decline of a top-heavy, tradition bound empire is almost to be expected. It happens to most of them; there seems to be a maturation and senility process to governments, much as there is to people, again with longevity being the only variable. On the other hand the attempt of the Turkish Sultanate to correct defects by setting aside prejudice and adopting some of the cultural traits of the "enemy" is a more modern phenomenon. Japan is the most visible and successful example. Two of the issues that Lewis makes a pointed effort to highlight seem to me, however, to be somewhat myopic. For instance, why the adoption of Western style music should be important, I'm not sure. That there should be a resistance to it is hardly surprising as recent studies on mind/brain reveal. It would appear that all humans develop an appreciation for music just as all develop language skills, and as with the latter there appears to be a time limiting factor to that acquisition. Both language and music are developed prior to adolescence, and once established tend to be difficult to change. Furthermore, if the individual is reared in isolation, neither skill is developed. Perhaps this is why changes in musical taste tend to be a phenomenon of youth even in our own culture. The second issue with which I am inclined to disagree is the status of women in the Middle East. Having lived briefly in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia and being female myself, I have some--admittedly limited and skewed--knowledge of the subject. Within these cultures women, at least in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have considerable influence, even if it is not necessarily visible to the outsider. For his time Mohamed was probably the first feminist--the second if you count Jesus of Nazareth! Furthermore, much of Islamic rules and regulations are interpreted against the background of centuries, indeed millennia, of local cultural values. Admitting that there are always individual differences among people, in general most of the women I met in the Middle East were very strong people. (I once told a friend that if you had to pick between stepping in front of an angry Egyptian woman or an on rushing train, pick the train; you had a better chance!) Probably the most conservative elements in any culture are women. It is probably women in this country who slow down changes to the status quo at least as much, if not more, than men. Women are people-people. They know how to work the "system" in their own culture and traditions to their advantage. Change the culture and the traditions, and you put them at a marked disadvantage. If the introduction of women into the workplace has been a slow phenomenon in the Middle East--reducing the talent pool by half as the author points out--part of the problem is that many of these Third World economies have difficulty generating jobs enough to employ even the male half of their population. Women who work in the home, are not "unemployed." Part of the issue I take with the author, and with our culture in general, is that much of the work that "stay-at-home Moms" do is not recognized as "significant" in our society. In high school I took "home economics." I'm not even sure they teach it anymore, but one of the things that I failed to take in at the time--that most people fail to take in--is that there IS an "economics" of the home. Done well, especially if the work place salaries of the individual doing it would be low, it can be a significant savings to the family. A reduction of expenses can be the same as an increase in family income! When jobs are scarce and poorly paid anyway, increasing the applicant pool by doubling it will only make wages even lower and jobs even scarcer.
Rating:
Summary: There are no easy answers
Review: I've just skimmed the other reviews on this book prior to writing this review, and I just put the book down having spent a couple of days with it. I am frankly astonished at the number of different views of the same book people have come up with, accusing the author of being pro-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-Turkish, and anti all of the above. He also, depending on your point of view, is a hack or a bigot. Actually, near as I could tell, he's none of these things. I have heard him on the radio, and read other of his books, and he clearly admires much about the Middle East and Muslim culture, with some reservations. These reservations seem to play the largest part in the controversy over his biases: the question raised by the book is seen by some to be unfair to the Middle East, others think it oversimplified. It isn't simple, of course, it's just a simple question. And to those who think that things haven't gone wrong, or that the responsibility is misplaced, I can only say that they should have read the book one more time. The book itself, as noted by other reviewers, is a pastiche of several lectures given in the late 90s, and three articles written earlier. One of the criticisms of the book is that it suffers from the problem many essay collections and the like. They tend to be disjointed and have something to offend or upset almost everyone. This book is no exception. Not only that, the author has the temerity to pose a question, discuss the parameters of it, and then leave the answer up to the reader. This of course creates problems. One large one is that this book is seen as an introduction to the Middle East problems. Instead, it's just short, and a summary, but needs to be read carefully, and pondered, not just skimmed. Further, the anecdotal character of the narrative tends to illuminate things, if you pay careful attention to what's written, but it also can distract you, if you don't. One reviewer thinks that Lewis's point is that the Ottoman Empire lacked clocks. His actual point is that the Ottoman Empire was so uninterested in the outside world that when the need occurred, the clocks had to be imported, and fell apart if they broke, because no one knew how to repair them. It's not about the clocks, it's about the larger point. Again, one of the unfortunate parts of the book is that the author doesn't present answers to the questions. All he really does is refine the questions, and provide context for them. This is distressing if you're looking for easy answers, but of course those don't exist, especially in the Middle East. The result is provocative, if troubling: you're left wondering if there is an answer at all, and not certain any one will be able to discern such answers, if they exist at all. This is an insightful, thought-provoking attempt to dig into the problems of the Middle East and at least intelligently pose the question, so that the answer can emerge. It's a good book, and I recommend it.
|
