Rating: 
Summary: Superb
Review: Although short, this book gives a very interesting discussion of the history of the tension between the Islamic religion and the thrust towards modernization in the West. Belief systems are slow to adapt to new ideas, and this is brought out with great clarity in this book. Via the study of its past, the author gives the reader much insight into the events of today's Middle East, and inspires further reading on the subject. The author discusses the need for the citizens of the Ottoman empire to emulate the technology of Western Europe. The underlying theme of the book is that European power, resulting from innovation and experiment, changed the balance of power between the Ottoman empire and Europe. But for a Muslim, living in Europe was an abomination. One should not mix with the infidels. The author explains the need though for Muslims to do just this, due to the threats from the West. [The disciples of hate in 911 clearly did not mind living in Western society and learning of Western devices. One can only wonder if at any moment they may have connected with some of the people in the area in which they were living and then perhaps had second thoughts about what they were going to do. Anger and hate are emotions that are hard to sustain for long periods of time. They require much concentration to preserve. But a little religion always helps in this regard]. The Ottoman's solution to the threat of the West, was, according to the author, to return to the basics of the Islamic religion, a belief he reminds the reader is still predominant in the Middle East. What is most interesting from the standpoint of today is the role of France as being the dominant European influence. In the book the rise of the modern Middle East begins with the invasion of Egypt by Napoleon in 1798. Even before that time French schools existed in the Middle East and the French language was compulsory for military students. One inevitably compares the three major religions of the West when reading the book. Interestingly, Islam "wins" if judged by tolerance for those of different beliefs and equal rights, but fails miserably when notice is made of the attitudes towards slaves and women. But as the author points out, a slave can become free by choice of his master. The status of woman in Islamic society though is static and immutable, unfortunately. Clearly Middle Easteners were perplexed by the rise of the West and its achievements. What accounted for the superiority of the West? What is the source of Western success? Clearly, as the book brings out, Middle Easteners were seeking answers beyond that which religion gave them, and, in retrospect, they were certainly correct to doubt the efficacy of religion in this regard. For, as the author notes, it was the infidels who benefited from the changes taking place. The author also addresses the role of technology in the modern Middle East in bringing about change, imposing limits on both rulers and teachers. But the cowards of 911 used technology in an attempt to bring about the demise of the West. However they could not use it without meeting their own demise, and have thus proven again the sterility of their belief system, and those that supported them. Another interesting commentary in the book is the role of young people, particularly in Iran. Educated in the West, they brought to Iran the then alien ideas of freedom. With the turmoil now facing the leaders of Iran this very day, this is a special irony. Should one call the young people now battling in the streets of Iran the "New Young Ottomans", in reference to the "Young Ottomans" described in this book? The comparison might be too loose, since the street fighters now were not educated in the West (but they do have access to a huge information base of "corrupting" influences: the Internet). The biggest tragedy in the history of Middle East is the reluctance of Islamic society to accept the science of the West, given the incredible contributions of the Middle East to modern science and mathematics. The author asks the reader to consider the question as to why one would accept Islam as being an obstacle to freedom, science, and economic development, when in the past, and at that time closer to the sources of Islamic faith than now, it was a pioneer in all three of these? The answer is quite straightforward from the standpoint of science: those that were introducing science were not acting like Muslims when they carried it out. Shall we call them Muslims who sometimes practiced science or scientists who sometimes acted like Muslims? Either designation will hold, for the two are diametrically opposed: no amount of prayer or supplication will bring about the results of science, for that is to be done with discipline of thought and painstaking experimentation...and no scientific experiment can illustrate the soundness of Islam, or indeed of any other religion, Western or otherwise. In an afterword to the book, the author expresses grief and concern of course over the events of 911. He points out correctly that the followers of bin Laden are only a minority, and that most adherents of Islam are concerned with living in freedom, in living in a world that allows them to live their own lives under a responsible government. The author expresses hope that freedom will triumph as it did over the repressive regimes of the twentieth century. But it will. The human mind of the twenty-first century is too efficacious to fail in its cause in this regard. And with billions of such minds populating our planet, the odds are against a grim future. Now more than ever is the time to be proud of being a member of the human species.
Rating:
Summary: Living in the Seventh Century
Review: This scholar explains why the Moslem world has a hard time relating to the 21st century. It is a series of lectures given prior to 9/11, so is easy to read and not like a text book and is not angry or emotional.
Rating:
Summary: an essential primer
Review: I found Lweis's historical bacground of the development of the failure of Islam in a modern world fascinating and informative. An interesting aspect is his prediction of the necessity of regime change in light of the US decision to do so in Iraq. One could almost imagine the advisors of the Bush Administration reading this final conclusion and saying to themselves, AHA.
Rating: 
Summary: Deceptively disjointed, Islam's decline succinctly explored
Review: Released contemporaneously with the September 11th attacks, this book at first blush seems to consist of material slapped together to capitalize on the tragedy. The first three chapters on early Muslim successes were gleaned from a series of lectures the author delivered in Europe, and much of the other material was previously published. The central theme--the failure of Islamic societies to thrive in the modern world-- does not become obvious until Professor Bernard Lewis belatedly delves into disparate subjects such as clocks, secularism, and women's rights. Near the book's end, however, it becomes apparent why Professor Lewis initially introduced the reader to Islam's golden age. The common thread is that the Muslim world reached its zenith early and then failed to keep apace with the West. As modern societies demanded religious pluralism, women's' rights, and the emancipation of slaves, Islamic countries found themselves in essentially the same dark place as those nations they previously dominated--and for the very same reasons. Just as Muslims had been relatively tolerant and intellectually inquisitive while Medieval Christians encouraged violence and ignorance, those positions had reversed. This is a provocative theme in some circles, but the author makes an incredibly strong case. Scapegoats are easier to accept than blatant failure, of course, but facts are stubborn things. The author supplies ample facts. A particularly interesting chapter is devoted to time, weights, and measurements. Lewis uses the timepiece as a metaphor for Islam's decline from the world leader in scientific knowledge to a society reluctant to use watches and clocks built in Christendom. It is brilliant shorthand for the dissolution of a great civilization. There may be a few quibbles with some of the book's substance. The reader, particularly someone not well-versed in Middle Eastern history, might be left with the impression that Islam did not flourish until the Ottoman conquests. Professor Lewis never implies that to be the case but the devotion of roughly half of the book to the Ottomans certainly could leave that misimpression. Although minor, the author also implies the passion plays the Shia enact to commemorate the martyrdom of Hussein were introduced by Jewish actors expelled from Spain. Other scholars believe these plays came into prominence as a form of protest soon after the schism in Islam erupted between the Sunnis and Shia. Again, this is a small point of contention, but given the provocative theme it could be blown out of proportion to try to discredit the entire book. Lewis, perhaps the United States' preeminent Middle Eastern scholar, has been condemned as bigoted in some quarters because of the ideas floated here. The irony is that Professor Lewis, who is old enough and wise enough not to tolerate political correctness, sometimes pulls his punches. For example, the author gingerly approaches the delicate issue that may hold the answer to the book's ultimate question: whether traditional Islam is even capable of adapting to a modern world. The author clearly believes the faith can survive but fails to adequately explain why. His admiration of Islam's rich culture and history is undeniable. Further, Professor Lewis reluctantly mentions that there is a struggle in Islam between those sects that want to return to the year 800 C.E. and those that want to live in the present. The author has recently written (pulled together?) a book that expounds on this very theme, perhaps because he realized this was the most important issue that remained unexplored at the end of What Went Wrong? The case Lewis lays out here does not bode well for the masses of moderate, traditional Muslims. It will be interesting to read his new analyses. What Went Wrong? is a good introduction to Islam, Middle Eastern history, and the past struggles that undergird today's conflicts between the Muslim world and the West. There are better books devoted solely to each of these subjects, of course, but Professor Lewis has done a brilliant, succinct job of showing how these topics are so intertwined with today's news.
Rating: 
Summary: Informative But Hard Work
Review: The book reads like a series of academic lectures patched together--Lewis jumps around. It is certainly not a light summer read--a pity as Westerners could profit from Lewis's expertise. A good editor would have made the lessons more comprehensible. Hope American statemen and Bush (yes, mutually exclusive) are studying these same issues since after reading the book and understanding how deep the gulf is between the two worlds, it is apparent that shoving democracy and Westernization down Islam's throat is a recipe for disaster.
Rating: 
Summary: Dull and repetitive
Review: This appeared to be a short, highly praised book, and it did make some points; but after reading it, I couldn't help thinking that the title, "What Went Wrong?" refers more to the book itself than to the Middle East.
Rating:
Summary: This is far better than "The Middle East" that he wrote.
Review: If you want to extract quick information about Islam: Where it came from, how it was so far ahead the West, and then fell so far behind, this is a good book to read. I think that is the book Bernard Lewis meant to write when he wrote his unreadable "The Middle East." "What Went Wrong" is so much better.
Rating:
Summary: A 3.4 on a scale of 1 to 5
Review: I read this book for a very intense Ivy league book club. Many of us were disappointed in it.
Why? The book starts strong and informs the readers of many interesting facts about the early years of the muslim religion and the culture of Islam. I particularly appreciated the insights into the superiority of those in the muslim world-they felt that civilization and Islam were one and the same.
Lewis explores a number of themes with mixed results. I enjoyed and appreciated his insights into women's issues and cultural and social barriers. I was interested in his thoughts on the Muslim's religions interactions with technology. I had a more difficult time with his attempts at explaining his thesis "what went wrong?" This book started as a series of lectures and that might be the problem. Perhaps his words made sense when they were heard. My views were shared by many of my book club colleagues.
I would recommend this book to those most interested in political and religious history. Lewis certainly deserves credit for tackling a tough subject. However, if you have just a casual interest in Islam, I would suggest you look elsewhere for a more accessible tome.
Rating:
Summary: Shallow & repetitive
Review: We get pages and pages of examples of how Eastern culture decayed but no deep, *penetrating* look into why it changed the way it did. Yes, they became insular, suspicious of what they didn't understand, and regressive, but *why*? Lewis takes over 100 pages to say the same few things over and over, with lots of examples, some of which are interesting, but many of which are only repetitive. This could have been either a longer book with a bigger angle and more depth, or a shorter work, perhaps a lengthy article in a scholarly magazine. Also, he is as dull a writer as they come. Reading this, despite some good information, became a chore. In fact, you can skim after about the halfway mark. You're just getting much the same info over and over again by that point anyway. Worth a glance, but ultimately I didn't learn anything I didn't already know; I was just given many examples of the same symptoms, but no underlying explanation for the disease.
Rating:
Summary: What Went Wrong? This Book f.e.
Review: In 1999 Professor Lewis held a series of three lectures in Vienna and the transcripts form the backbone of this book. It contains some interesting details about the impression Ottoman Turkey got from its contacts with the West and its response. It is a story of failed reforms and some thoughts about the different perspective the Muslim world has in measuring time and distance. What is not there is the answer to the question put in the title. What went wrong? No idea, but hey, the Muslim world asks this question too. So if you are not particularly interested in Ottoman Turkey and its effort to reform itself better buy another book
| 
