Rating: 
Summary: An impressive and well-written book
Review: Islam has plenty of adherents. But how is it doing overall?
One might think that the trend is positive for most Muslim nations. After all, as Lewis shows us at the start of his book, the past few decades have seen an end to imperialism. The nations of north Africa are free. So are Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, and several former members of the Soviet Union. And the value of Arab oil has made many Muslim nations rich.
On the other hand, we've also seen the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. If Islam is going to get into a war with the West, that is indeed a problem. Even if there is merely a continuation of terror, we'll all be regarding Muslims with increased suspicion. And those of us who have Muslim friends and relatives, or are Muslims ourselves, will sense this suspicion, in some cases first-hand. Is terror an integral part of Islam? If not, what can be done to dissociate Islam from it?
Lewis explains that Islamic nations are typically more religious than nominally Christian ones. And Islam is going through a period in which some radical elements are finding great fault with foreign societies, and want to fight them.
Lewis makes an interesting point. While we may see Usama Bin Laden's attacks on us as a desperate attack against the world's biggest military power, al-Qaeda did not see it quite that way. Instead, they saw the United States as too morally corrupt and militarily enfeebled to fight back hard enough to win. This contempt for the United States was in part due to our failure to protect the Shah of Iran when he was threatened by Islamic radicals (followed by allowing people from our embassy to be held hostage for over a year). American tolerance and support for many Arab dictators has not helped us in this regard.
Lewis then addresses three major issues: lack of modernity in Islamic nations, the influence of Wahhabi teaching, and the rise of terrorism.
The lack of modernity is realized by most people in the Islamic world. They know they are falling way behind the West in gross national products and in scientific contributions. And some want to modernize and become more competitive. But others see modernity as the problem. These include the Wahhabis, a reactionary group that preach a radical version of Islam and use vast oil revenues to advertise. And this has led to much of the terrorism we see from radical Islamists at present.
Lewis explains that for these terrorists, the slaughter of civilians who appear to be bystanders is not collateral damage: these people are the main targets. On top of that, counterattacks against the terrorists, who carefully hide themselves among Muslim civilians, make it appear that both sides are killing civilians and allows those who want to be misled to see the issues falsely.
While Lewis does not see the radicals as being representative of Islam, he does see them as having a major effect on Arab politics. Arab media have tended to report on the events of 9/11 much as they do about the slaughter of Jews in World War 2: it never happened, it was greatly exaggerated, it was deserved, and it's a shame it wasn't even worse. While Arab media aren't yet saying that the World Trade Center wasn't knocked down, they do say that Arabs couldn't have done it. And while they very rarely say that America deserved worse, they often say that we brought it on ourselves.
The most interesting part was having Lewis remind us of what the radicals demand from us. They insist that we embrace Islam, stop our, um, oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery, and admit that we have neither principles nor manners. In addition, we have to take their side in their wars against Israel, India (Kashmir), Russia (Chechnya), and the Philippines. On top of that, we are to get our people out of their lands, end our support for corrupt Arab leaders, and be nice to the radicals.
They're not called radicals for nothing, are they?
Luckily, there are many Muslims who have a very different point of view, and see America not as demonic but as a land "of human rights, of free institutions, and of a responsible and representative government."
This is why Lewis concludes that Islam is in crisis. If the radicals manage to become accepted as the leaders of Islam, they and we are headed for serious trouble. If the radicals fail, we in the West will find these nations to be true allies and friends. In any case, the choice the Islamic world makes is very important for all of us and especially for the Muslims themselves.
I think everyone ought to read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: A key to understanding the present conflict
Review: Lewis is without a doubt one of the top scholars of Middle East history and always presents a fair and balanced analysis of current events informed by a vast knowledge of its history. This is a brief and helpful explanation of the reasons behind the current divide between the West and Muslim Arabia. Lewis takes us on a historical journey through the Middle East with particular attention to its relations with the West, first Europe, then America. You will learn about...The history of the region is thoroughly steeped in the experience of the rise and fall of empire. Though the idea of a modern clash of civilizations as expounded by some lacks sufficient evidence and is only defended with great difficulty, the age of empire was a clash of civilization, particularly where Islam met Christendom on the eastern edge of Europe and the western edge of first the Arab empire, then the Ottoman empire. This was particularly acute in Palestine, as it was holy ground to both faiths, and the Crusades and their aftermath are examples of the ferocity of this clash. The experiences of the Crusades and their attendant horrors helped to lay a foundation for resentment between cultures. Islam does not have to be an inherently intolerant faith, although it has had its intolerant moments, particularly in the Arab caliphate and the Safavid Empire of Iran. This is not much different however than much of the behavior of medieval Europe under the suzerainty of the papacy. However, unlike Christianity, Islam began as a religion tied to the state and the expansion of the first Muslim empire was inseparable from the spread of the religion. While modern Europe began emerging under the prodding of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and political reform, the Ottoman Empire fell into a period of retreat that ended in its post-WWI dismemberment by the West. Since that time the development of political institutions and the diffusion of culture has been a transfer of Western ideas eastward, and in some cases outright implantation by the West. While Europe had hundreds of years to develop the modern concept of the nation-state, Islam had it imposed. Imposition is never as successful as indigenous evolution, and the failure of "modernity" as we understand it was aided by its failure. History is contingent by its nature. The rise of the House of Saud and its marriage to an emergent 18th century Wahhabist extremism, aided by vast revenues from a future exploitation of oil in the 20th century, provided the resources and means needed to spread an intolerant and oppressive form of Islam around the world. A radical ideology came to govern Arabia, the center of the Muslim world, a place Muslims regard as the source of their religious tradition. An imposition of political constructs unfamiliar and doomed to failure, a lack of effective economic management of resources, vastly deficient standards of living in a globalizing economy dominated by America, plus extremist religious fundamentalism and the wealth and patronage needed to spread it around the world. The result: international terrorism. We are where we are for very specific reasons. Lewis brilliantly explicates this.
Rating:
Summary: Islam is a Lie- proven by moslems-Dr. Jarir Al-Qidwa
Review: Looking over transcripts of some Arab 'educational' material and couldn't believe what I'd read. According to Palestinian educational television, Islam is a lie based upon lies. Of course they never actually say this, but if one extrapolates the absolute 'truths' they present, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Below are just some of their illogical or damning teachings (depending upon your point of view) that can be drawn from these latest diatribes. But first, some facts.
It is undisputed fact that Islam regards Jesus as a prophet.
It is undisputed fact that Jesus was Jewish.
Let's start with something very, very basic -- something even the two esteemed historians who presented the material, Dr. Jarir Al-Qidwa, Head of the PA Public Library and Arafat's Advisor on Education, and Dr. Issam Sissalem, Senior Historian and Educational TV host, former head of History Dept. of PA University, can understand.
(...)
"He (Jesus)and his followers used to worship in the temple which other Israelites used. The message of Jesus was to call people back to the religion of Abraham and Moses from which they had gone astray."
and
"Based on the statements of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.), Muslims believe that Prophet Jesus will return to earth at a time when Muslims will be in a dire need of a leader."
and
"The Holy Quran also gives a detailed account of the mission and lives of Jewish prophets like Moses and Zakarea (Zechariah)."
Meanwhile, both Dr. Al-Qidwa and Dr. Sissalem state that there is no such thing as Judaism nor that Jewish King Solomon's Temple existed:
Al-Qidwa: The Temple is the fruit of their (Jewish) imagination.
If what these two 'learned' individuals claim is true, then Islam, which claims Jesus (who was a Jew) as one of their main prophets and future saviors, is based upon a lie.
At the same time, the statements of Dr. Al-Qidwa and Dr. Sissalem fly in the face of facts proven by legal expert and erstwhile Judaism researcher, Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Al-Zaqaziq. In the August 9, 2003 edition of the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi stated that he takes as fact the Bible's account of the Exodus: "...is based on what is written in the Torah. It can be found in Exodus, [Chapter] 35, verses 12 through 36..."
That Dr. Hilmi tried use these facts as the basis to sue every Jew on the planet for gazillions of dollars is immaterial. That he clearly stated in his interviews that he had verified the factual aspects of the Bible, even using the Egyptian police to do the detective work is significant. Dr. Hilmi has stated that the Hebrew Bible is fact, and that the Jews of today are absolutely the descendants of the Jews of yore. This alone flies in the face of what Drs. Al-Qidwa and Sissalem present:
Sissalem: "I want to point out that we should not focus much on what is called the [Biblical] Hebrew tribes, who are in fact Bedouin Arab tribes. There is no connection between them and these Khazar Jews [of Israel today]. Those [Hebrew - Arab] tribes were erased and ceased to exist and no traces were left of them..."
If nothing else, Dr. Sissalem has negated Dr. Hilmi's lawsuit against modern-day Jews by saying that we have no relationship to the Jews enslaved for hundreds of years by the Egyptians. It also implies, by extension, that if the Egyptians want to sue for return of goods ostensibly stolen from the ancient Egyptians, they should be suing the Bedouins. Unless of course, Drs. Sissalem and Al-Qidwa are wrong...
Further along, a very damning statement comes from the esteemed Dr. Sissalem:
"...the Bible expresses a tradition of legends, that has no connection to history." (emphasis mine)
Notice how he didn't state 'little connection,' or even 'only partial connection.' Dr. Sissalem stated very clearly the word 'NO.' Yet if one reads the Koran, it clearly states that Abraham settled, by God's command, in the place of what would become the Ka'ba (22,27).
Since Dr. Sissalem stated that the Bible has "...NO CONNECTION TO HISTORY," any mention of certain individuals and even groups from the Bible must be false. Therefore, since the Koran mentions Abraham, it must be a lie too. The same holds true for other individuals and groups mentioned in the false piece of literature, the Bible, as well as the Koran. Such people as Ishmael and Moses, and groups such as the ancient Egyptians. Therefore, the words of Mohammed, as written down in the Koran, are based upon a lie.
This aforementioned statement even negates the rest of these learned men's arguments that the 'Palestinians' are the descendants of the Canaanites and therefore entitled to take away Israel's land from the Jewish people and claim it for their own:
"...when our nation or our Canaanite forefathers came to Palestine."
Since the Canaanites are extensively written about in the Hebrew bible, according to Dr. Sissalem, there is no such thing as Canaanites since the Bible has "...no connection to history."
This means that the Palestinian claim of being the ancient Canaanites is a lie.
In essence, Drs. Al-Qidwa and Sissalem have not merely proven that the Koran is a lie, but that their very own contemporary scholars and statesmen are citing falsehoods when they quote the Koran, since it frequently mentions people and places which are mentioned in the Bible, and, as they will tell you, has no connection to history.
So instead of discrediting the Israel and the Jews, these two distinguished Arab experts have proven that Islam is a lie based upon lies. Bravo --
Rating:
Summary: Informative, independent of political inclination
Review: Recently Lewis has been under harsh criticism. His critics contend that Lewis falsely and unnecessarily associated the conflict between the West and the radical Islam organizations of late as an extension of the medieval Christianity-Islam conflict. They also assert that Lewis had "missed-out" in understanding the impact of post-Ottoman developments to the dynamics of the modern Middle East. However in my opinion central to their criticism is the fact that Lewis had served the current administration as something of an advisor for the administration's Iraq policy (and "failed" at the war). Lewis, his critics claim, shares with Kemal Ataturk the conviction that Islam is fundamentally anti-modern, and asserts that a convincing display of Western power will accelerate the pace of the Middle East embracing democracy.
There are more than many things one can learn from this little book despite such criticism. To the eyes of a nonspecialist the book is found well organized, to the point, and extremely informative. I do not know for a fact whether Lewis associating the Crusade with the confrontation predates bin Laden's 1998 message to the world, but it was the title of this message ("Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders") that designated the Crusaders as the enemy of the World Islamic Front. Also mentioned in relative detail are the British and French occupations of the Middle East, the Soviet Union's influence in the region, as well as the stages in Middle East's formation of the perception of America.
The question of whether Kemal's way (total separation of religion from state) is the only way for Muslim countries to achieve democracy is in my view can only be verified through history. By this I do not mean (nor am I knowledgeable enough) to say that there cannot be a form of democracy that incorporates elements of religion. It is more to say that the world hasn't witnesses such system yet. And for this reason I find it difficult to digest the criticism against this book. If the criticism were against the proponent of a failed policy it would be a different matter (I personally am against the intervention in Iraq). Luckily Lewis' such conviction is only mildly expressed in the afterwords of the book, and even then readers can decide for themselves.
Rating: 
Summary: Why write a book based on UnTruths?
Review: This book is a sad depiction of one who has no knowledge of religion and is just trying to make a book about a popular subject, distort the facts, and make lots of money....
Don't buy this book... It's a waste of time. Instead, buy something like "The Islamic View of Women and Family"
Rating:
Summary: Excellent primer on history of Islam and MidEast politics
Review: This book provides historical and background information on the relationship between Islam and politics in the Middle East. The author then uses the historical framework to analyze and explain the actions of Middle Eastern nations and provide guidance as to how we should deal with these countries in the future.
I found the book to be fairly objective though I'm sure some will be offended by its non-PC treatment of Muslim fanatics who have twisted Islam for their own deviant purposes.
This book should be required reading for all state department employees, and included in the core requirements for college students.
Rating:
Summary: explaination of why Islam conflicts with the West
Review: This concise book offers an explanation of why terrorist want to strike America. This is an indispensable source of information which aids in the understanding of recent events.
Bernard Lewis gives valuable incite into the mindset of the Islamic world. He briefly explains the founding principals of Islam and in the process reveals its violent nature. "Jihad" for example, calls for an armed struggle against infidels or nonbelievers. Jihad is the religious obligation of each member. If conquered an infidel must be either converted or destroyed.
Lewis states that the events in history, even more than the events of today, have shaped Muslim outlook on the west, and on America in particular. Lewis points out that Muslims have been haunted by their failure to subdue Europe in the Middle Ages and the humiliation that followed as a result of being forced back to the Middle East by the Christian infidels.
When confronted by imperialistic powers, Arabs realized that the only way to expel the imperialists was to play them off against one another. For protection the Arabs allied themselves with super powers, which shared a similar interest with them. They allied with those who also opposed the west and Christianity. First they allied with the Nazis then with the Soviet Union.
Lewis points out the many grievances that the Muslims have held against America. Looking back on the past, and upon observing American culture, Muslims draw the conclusion that America is the great Satan. America threatens the expansion of Islam as well as Islamic values.
Lewis makes it clear that terrorists hold a distorted interpretation of Islam. Lewis examines the distorted interpretation that terrorists hold. In fact many of their actions are not legitimized, but condemned by Islam. The Qua'ran for example condemns the non-distinguished killing of civilians, while terrorist suicide bombers do not pay heed and kill anyone. Radical Muslims, after examining the trials of Islam in the past, conclude that Muslims are not religious enough. Their goal then is to intimidate people into submission to Islam. These radicals believe that they caused the collapse of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Further more they believed this victory was a display of Allah's favor on them.
With the Soviet Union destroyed, what superpower is left to threaten Islam but the United States?
Lewis ends asking- in which direction will Islam go? Will extremists gain leadership of Islam and promote violence?
In summery- This book simply states facts the making an argument. The author's writing doesn't discriminate against Muslims, nor is his writing politically slanted.
Lewis explains how history has influenced the Muslim outlook on the world today.
Lewis shows that the origins of terrorism are founded in history.
Rating:
Summary: Unpleasant Truths, Troubling Possibilities
Review: What drew me to this book is probably what attracts the majority to this subject: finding out more of how terrorism, 9/11, and Islam fit together. I hear about how bin Laden and groups like the Taliban refer to themselves as 'true practitioners of Islam', and I wonder where that belief stems from. Bernard Lewis does an excellent job of shedding light on this perspective. First, an overview of Islam is presented. The Prophet Mohammed, the pillars of the Muslim faith, and the central role the Koran plays in Muslim society is shown. Later, it is shown that despots, dwindling opportunities, less money, the failure of Islamic nationalism, and the inescapable plenty of the West is making the Arab world more and more desperate. Bin Laden offers a solution to all these things via his fundamentalist causes and beliefs. In a hopeless world, people look to the man who says 'I have the answer'. Some follow. This is not a flag-waving, chest-beating book. Lewis does not attack the religion, which is more repect than some here afford the author. His examples are all public record. He is careful to state that not all Muslims are inherently terrorists, nor are they all intolerant radicals. But these do exist, as does the potential for many more. The theme here isn't 'America's the greatest, sucker'. It digs deeper than the Chomsky arguments, suck as the Palestinian/Israel conflict and the unwavering wrongness of America. It was an educational book, and in my opinion even-handed. You will learn more. Also, discovering why we are called "The Great Satan" was really fascinating. Maybe they hate our (sexual) freedoms after all.
|
