The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror

Rating:
Summary: The crisis of a civilization gone wrong
Review: Bernard Lewis is the dean of Middle Eastern historians. In his voluminous works he has traced the development of Islam politically, culturally and historically. Long before 9/11 he had a strong sense of Islam in crisis , of a faith and civilization which had once been among the most progressive of Mankind decaying into backwardness. There are a number of reasons for this given by Lewis- including the inability of the Islamic world to seperate church from state, its inability to free itself of the monopoly of religious learning alone, its focus on conquest and domination of lands and peoples. The turn to Fundamentalist and radical violence is in one sense a reaction to backwardness and failure, an effort to contend psychologically and militarilty with the West. As it is now there appears no easy way out for Islam from its backward situation, though Lewis raises the hope that a more moderate kind of Islam prevalent in the past can overcome the fanatical fundamentalists who have seized leadership in so many Islamic countries- and who are leading the world terror campaign against the West.

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: 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: 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: The book is based on a wrong fact
Review: By my own searches and reading in Islam (including my 14 years of living with them) and comparing that with what the book had to say :

The book trys to explain why islamic terrorists hate the west , trying to give us and impression that those people are people with diginity and pride .. who don't accept their lands and wealths to be taken (stolen) by other nations with the same feeling about others ... but simply that's not true.

Muslims subdued many countries crushing them down dead , or turning them into slaves and steal every dime they have .. this is any nations goals to rule over all , but simply not the moral values of a nations that pretends to be the nation chossen by God ..

Mohammed for example said :
Muslim: C41B20N4678 "Proof Of The Martyr's Attaining Paradise: Jabir said that a man said, `Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed?' He replied: `In Paradise.' The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed." Quoted (Prophet of Doom)prophetofdoom.net,

while the book declares :

Muslim martyrs used to fight to defend their souls and to save their religion , and had no intend to get killed ...

Most muslim ideologys are based on hatred to others , Jews are sons of donkeys and apes (look in faithfreedom.org)

Even christians are considered infidels that stand in the face of that god..

You can take a better look at islam in :

http://www.faithfreedom.org/
http://www.propehtofdoom.net/

or Read the book :

Prophet of doom (a report that explains real islam , and bathed islam by some liars)

Rating:
Summary: Understanding the mind of modern islam
Review: Bernard Lewis is the author of dozens of books on Islamic history, spanning some five decades. This volume examines the various undercurrents in the Muslim world today, and how a divided Islam is seeking to interact with the rest of the world. Arab unity, Lewis demonstrates, is now an oxymoron. Today no single Muslim polity exists, and this is part of the problem, or identity crisis, which the Islamic world faces.

For many centuries there was one Islamic community united by one ruler. Even when that community splintered into various states, there was still a discernable unified polity. No longer however. It is this divided and amorphous body, with the loss of a coherent center, that is now seeking to find its way in the modern world. Resentment, disorientation and despair have been part of the reaction.

Of course Islam is more than just a religion, it is a culture and civilization as well. As part of his historical examination, Lewis compares the Islamic and Christian civilizations. In many ways they are sister civilizations, he argues

They certainly have much more in common with each other than with the major eastern religious traditions. And of course both share common ancestry with Judaism. And both appeal to divine revelation and a divine law-giver.

But there are major differences as well. This is especially apparent in the relationship between religion, society and the state. They are clearly separate - or at least should be - in Christianity. But no such distinction exists in Islam. Church and state relations, so much of an issue of debate in Western Christian nations is not even an issue in Islam. The Muslim world is at once both a religious and a political sphere. One can choose between God and Caesar in Christianity. Both are one and the same in Islam.

And of course Islam responded to modernity in a much different manner than did Christianity. In fact, it can be said that it was Christian civilization that gave birth to modernism, and it has in many ways accepted its offspring. Islam on the other hand did not - perhaps could not - give rise to such a development, and even if it did, [...]

With the differing reactions to modernism in mind, Lewis examines the various responses to the crisis in Islam that has followed, with extensive discussion of one of the more frightening options, that of terrorism.

The rise of Islamic extremism is examined in detail, with helpful comparisons made of other forms of militancy, including the Christian Crusades. While some may seek to argue that the major monotheistic religions are the same in terms of the use of force, Lewis demonstrates some obvious differences.

He makes clear that while there has always been a history of armed conquest in Islam, Christian use of arms is both tangential and unjustified in terms of its own faith and its propagation. Indeed, while there are some similarities between the histories of Christian and Islamic civilization, this is an area of major difference. Jihad is a religious obligation in Islam, while the Crusades were a late, limited and [...]

While the concept of jihad can also be understood in a more general sense as a religious striving, from its inception it also had a military connotation. And throughout Islamic history, jihad has mainly been understood to mean armed struggle.

True, both Islam and Christianity have a concept of just war theory, but differences nonetheless exist. For example, much of Islam's wars were fought against the followers of other faiths. Christian battles tended to be in-house, against those seen as heretical and schismatic.

And to the modern Muslim terrorists at least, there is no such thing as collateral damage. Uninvolved civilians are a prime target. This is a major means of inspiring fear and winning psychological victory, along with gaining publicity. Christianity eschews such practices in principle, although Islam is not alone in resorting to such means. European terrorist organizations also spring to mind.

Moreover, there is in Islam no instruction to turn the other cheek, nor an expectation of swords being beaten into plowshares. In addition, there is the theory and [...] which is foreign to Christianity. It arose at an early period in Islam's history, and of course we get the term from a Muslim sect dating from the eleventh century.

Lewis makes it clear however that the bulk of Muslims are neither fundamentalists nor terrorists, and have little sympathy for their cause. And he leaves open the question as to which way the majority of Muslims will go. If they follow the path of groups like Al Qaida, then the future looks grim indeed. But if the majority pursue a better, more peaceful option, then there are hopeful prospects ahead.

But Lewis is realistic on this. He reminds us that of the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, only one, Turkey, has had any history of length of democratic institutions. The only other two at the moment who might move in this direction are Iran and Iraq.

And he rightly notes that the war against terror and the struggle for freedom are closely related. Fostering pro-democracy reforms in the Middle East will be difficult and painstakingly slow. But they are possible and must be pursued with the same rigor that we use in combating terrorism.

In sum, this book is both realistic in its appraisal of recent Muslim history, but sensitive to distinctions, and hopeful of a better future than what we have recently been through.


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.