The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization

Rating:
Summary: Wisdom in a media of shallow polemics
Review: Four chapters of this marvelous book deliver a strong, thoughtful, compelling message about understanding the past, present, and possible future of Muslim societies on their own terms. Would that pundits and media `experts' provide at least some part of this maturity. Bulliet eschews polemic and bitterness to provide sound perspective some of the most essential themes of public discourse and policy regarding the world of Islam.

The whole book is a compelling alternative to common (and shallow, ideological, Islamphobe) views promoted by Neocons and others. Whatever your present perspective, understanding will be sharpened by careful reading of this excellent book.

The only thing I do not like is the title, which makes a point but has mislead some reviewers already so that they dismiss or misunderstand the sound arguments presented.

The first chapter condemns Huntington's thesis about the "Clash of Civilizations" indicating how it is both misleading and damaging. (Bulliet might have added it has been used for aggressive, hateful, and misguided policies that obscure economic, oil, and geostrategic motives). Christianity and Islam as social, political, and institutional matters are "siblings" not clashing civilizations and excellent comparative analysis about responses to often similar needs are enlightening.

The second chapter "What Went On" provides much insight and more than the entire book with a similar title that has been widely promoted for those who want to think that they have answers "What Went Wrong". It is insightful and fascinating on topics ranging from expansion and conversion to the social and institutional place of clerics, law, religious hierarchy.

"Looking for Love in all the Wrong Places", chapter 3, avoids polemic while showing how area studies in the US provided a sort of revised "Orientalism" driven by triumphalist assumptions about democracy, development, and capitalism all the more biting (and ideological) because of the competition of the Cold War. Even now this has not been corrected to deal with things more objectively and with some degree of empathy.

The fourth and final chapter on the "Edge" analyses and speculates about the direction of development in Islam based on creative and changing situations that may become sources for broader future development - as they often have in the past.

Bulliet eschews blame and bitter argument and does not dwell on the sometimes negative aspects of Colonialism, intervention, anti democratic interventions by democracies of the west. Nor does he dwell on terrorism, putting it in perspective as presently exceptional and not widely supported. He is perhaps, if anything, too kind to some of those critiqued. (There is the implication that an approach based on `clash' and antagonistic policy ideologues who intensely dislike Islam - including Pipes and Lewis as well as NeoCons perhaps - may create more terrorism. This is a whole other discussion however.)

This is a short book (161 pages, Appendix, and notes) that will challenge readers of any stripe to improve their understanding, their reasoning, and perspective. It could well replace four longer books one might otherwise choose to read on these subjects. Attention is richly rewarded providing the mature and considered views of a thoughtful scholar that so clearly sets it apart from the many shallow books that have rushed to print since 9-11. Read it carefully whether your interest is history, exclusively current events, or speculation about the future.


Rating:
Summary: Disingenuous Dhimmi reading
Review: Here we see an attempt to finally find a Sulha or agreement in Arabic, between the West and Islam. The problem the author addresses is how to blend the two cultures creating some sort of hybrid monster called Islamo-Christian civilization. But the problem is that Islamo-Christian civilization already exists in Syria, Egypt and other places where Dhimmi laws keep the Christian in a state of perpetual fear while the Muslim is respected under the law. What the book really means is to try to find an Islamo-Western path, whereby the extremes of Islamic religion can be grafted onto the modern humanist approach of the West. Unfortunately, and this is the problem, this path cannot take place. Anyone who has researched even in the most paltry manner, the civilization of Islam can see that Islam does not coexist and certainly does not allow itself to be grafted onto non-Islamic civilizations. The West is no exception. The west values freedom of speech, accuracy in history, self critique, and equality for women, such concepts that rarely exist in Islamic societies, concepts that are irreconcilable. The Argument found in this book that Europe can be some sort of uber-testing ground where Islam is slowly absorbed and then combined with western thought simply is inaccurate and while it might work on paper or in the theoreticians lab it doesn't work among people. Turkey is a perfect example of a country that tried to accomplish this feat, and with more or less successful result for 50 years. But how did Turkey create an Islamo-Western society? First it whipped out all minority groups, leaving a country 100% Islamic and then it brutally suppressed the religious muslims, with the result that today it is becoming more and more militantly religious. Is this the path for Europe. This book thinks it is although it wont admit it and this is where the major flaw in the reasoning emerges. While this paints a nice utopian picture of coexistence, anyone who has studied Islam, should understand that this idea is false. Nevertheless this book should be read to understand the rush of academics to welcome their coming Dhimmi status in Muslim Europe. This is a definite contribution to the literature.

Seth J. Frantzman


Rating:
Summary: Please tell us what is Islam contribution to Earth
Review: I definitely want to know about Islam's contributions to human well-being...I cannot find any science, technology, music, art, philosophy, etc...at all in the whole Islamic civilization. Just killings, destruction, and murder...All is in the Koran clearly presented. Everything was stolen from civilizations that were conquered by Islamic swords. I guess that millions have died and many more will until we stop this anti-human religion and insanity. Shame on those on the West that ignore their own history because of the falling for the leftist's view of the 60th. Be smart! Read the Koran itself and learn about hate and terror as presented by M and Allah...The Book is just pure hate against anyone who is not a Koran believer. Please just read the book and learn the truth.

Rating:
Summary: Its about time
Review: I have been hoping that someone with sufficient historical knowledge and eminent scholarship would present this case ever since reading both Huntington's "Clash of civilizations" and Lewis's "What went wrong?". Thank you Professor Bullient for putting in words exactly what I felt was wrong with both of those books and so much of the commentary that has surronded them since publication.
As a Muslim convert that grew up in a Western Christian family, I agree with this approach completely. The big problem with the clash thesis is that it is so self-fulfilling - the more that people believe that the clash with the "other" is inevitable, so it becomes dangerously close.
So much of what Huntington and Lewis say about Islam is based on selective and biased perspectives that ignore the complexity and diversity of the religion as practised in many different countries and cultures around the world, particularly in Asia.
The case for Islamo-Christian civilization is a much more positive and sensible way of addressing the short-comings and problems that exist in some Muslim countries in the present day, irrespective of the cause of those problems.
I hope that everyone that has ever read any of Huntington and Lewis will also be open minded enough to read this wonderful small book.

Rating:
Summary: We Only Have One Planet
Review: One of the few books published recently that seems to offer at least some hope for a peaceful settlement of the problems between the Islamic and Christian cultures. Unlike Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, the author says that we are not doomed to a struggle to the death, any more than the religious between Protestants, Catholics and Jews.

Written from the viewpoint of a historian accustomed to see the world as a process of change, the author sees changes occurring in both camps. He sees a more moderate, accepting view coming from the Islamic world, with the modern day terrorists and religious conservatives being not unlike the Christian equivalents.

This view is close to that I see from the few muslim people visiting here from other countries (such as Iraq). I have been wondering if their views represent a majority, a small minority, or are even just being polite to tell me what I want to hear.

Let us hope this author is right. Sooner or later, we all have to live together on just one planet.

Rating:
Summary: Ignores the threat of an Islamo-Christian tyranny
Review: Yes, we humans have only one planet to share. And it sure would be nice to live together on it in peace. But unless one is prepared to fight against the establishment of a worldwide tyranny, simply agreeing to live in peace will probably produce misery. We've seen plenty of evidence that refusal to fight does not prevent aggression and wars.

And it seems to me that standing up to tyrants is something the author is not willing to do. He wants the Christian world, especially the European Christians, to ally themselves with the Muslims on Muslim terms. He thinks we all ought to focus on what we can learn from Muslim values. And he says that "blood is thicker than holy water."

Well, I'm a little suspicious of how all this will turn out. I can only imagine what, say, Bat Ye'or might write about it (probably that European Christians will wind up being treated as dhimmis by the Muslims if we take Bulliet's advice).

I'm also suspicious of a proposal for an alliance that argues against the writings of both Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. The reason is that both of these gentlemen have noticed some disturbing increases in Muslim violence against the West. If the alliance is to be with the more violent Muslim leaders, whom is this alliance going to attack? The Pagans and Jews? Not that it matters. All sides need to be discouraging self-righteous aggression, not allying themselves with it.

Some folks pretend that non-Muslims have two choices. Either choose pointless aggression and destructive warfare against the Muslims, or agree to cooperate with the Muslims on the terms of their most visible (and probably most violent) leaders. I think that's nonsense, and that either of these choices would lead to disaster. Instead, I think we need to take a stand in favor of human rights and stick to it.

I think Bulliet ought to have drawn a clear line and demanded that everyone must have human rights. And that everyone needs to demand human rights both for themselves and for everyone else. And if there are to be international rules, they need to be secular and fair to everyone, regardless of race, religion, color, or creed. But I didn't see him do that.