The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror

Rating:
Summary: An Objective Insight
Review: I was looking for a book on the Middle East crisis that provided more depth and insight than what was available through television pundits and daily news reports but could be read without a huge time commitment. This book fit the bill. It can be read on a Sunday afternoon and, considering its' core is some previously published articles melded together, it reads very well.

I appreciated the author's objective critique on the subject and felt he did an excellent job of assessing the pulse of the rest of the world, especially Europe, and their views on 911 and the Middle East.

Rating:
Summary: Fundamentalists and their blasphemy of Islam.
Review: A good read about the crisis in Islam. The reader gets to view how contemporary Muslims blaspheme their own religion by performing acts of terror that are not sanctioned by Islam. Khomeini issues a fatwa ordering the death of a author in a remote land. Lewis descibes how this is very much against the laws of Islam. Imagine a holy man violating the very laws he has lived his life under. Usama bin Laden orders suicide bombers to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Another blasphemy. Islam condemns suicide and the killing of innocent people. Yet the Muslim world just yawns, and says America deserves it. Lewis does do a good job with detailing the crisis in Islam. If this great religion comes under the control of such people as Khomeini and bin Laden, they will destroy this religion and the progression of their people. Muslims must act to break these people who blaspheme their religion.
Despite the previous reviews, this book gives a lot on information on the Muslim attitude and what needs to change in order for this great religion to become a progressive part of their believer's lives. The Muslim world cannot just blame the West for their problems. They must actively focus on the problems which face their society without playing the blame game.

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: (4 1/2) Does This Book Deserve One Or Five Stars?
Review: READ IT AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF! Since I am reviewing this book several months after publication, there have been thirty-three previous reviews posted on Amazon (although some of them seem primarily to be attempts to discredit or criticize Profesor Lewis rather than discuss the book in any detail). Rather than the rankings approximating the usual normal curve or clustering in agreement, they follow a pattern more common when many of the individual ratings are based on the politics of the reviewer (although fortunately nowhere to the same extent as in the cases of Hilary Clinton or Ann Coulter). Thus almost half the ratings (15) are five star, followed by 7 four star ratings, 6 with one star, 3 with two stars and only two ratings with 3 stars. Ergo, everyone loved or hated the book (or Bernard Lewis); almost no one was neutral.

I have begun my review in this manner for several reasons. First, there are several reasonably succinct and well thought out reviews of this book already written by individuals probably more qualified than I and which articulate my thoughts. (My rating should make obvious what my reaction was.) Second, I want to emphasize that if you are interested in this book it is more important than usual to read a fair crosssection of the reviews. Third, my methodology is meant to illustrate the reason for my opening advice. Last, I wanted to put in context the following description of my reaction.

I have relatively little detailed knowledgs of Islam and have gradually been trying to become more informed since 9/11, a day on which several of my friends were killed. I have been aware of Professor Lewis' reputation and had previously read a few excerpts from his NEW YORKER article and his previous book WHAT WENT WRONG and was impressed by his easy to read writing style. A newspaper review of this book convinced me that it was time to stop procrastinating and begin my education concerning Islam. I was not disappointed. This book far exceeded my hopes. The organization of the text was straightforward, starting with a definition of Islam and proceeding through a history of the various sects (including the role of the Saudis in the rise of Wahhabis) and its contacts with and views of Christianity, the Soviets, and Western democracies. It is incredibly easy to read for a book this scholarly; it increased my knowledge and aided my perspective immensely . My only complaints were that if anything it was too brief, contained too few references to additional material (the appended notes are very brief), and that given his knowledge the author's insights were kept to a bare minimum. This is especially true in that the implications of this book are relatively pessimstic regarding the possibility of establishing a detente betwen the current Islamic extremists views of a secular society and our own.

I cannot comment on the criticisms regarding the accuracy of the scholarship, although what I did already know corresponded with the author's presentation. However, the other criticisms are unfounded. As I stated, it is easy to read and relatively well written. It is balanced, it specifically is careful not to equate all of Islam with these extremists and carefully differentiates the terms Arab fom Islam. Last, it directly criticizes the House of Saud despite the close ties of our government with the Kingdom's rulers (who are close friends of the Bush family), thus the criticism of others that Professor Lewis is a blind supporter of this administration's policies is blatantly false. These false accusations lead me to believe that the majority of the negative reviews are based on poltical disagreement rather than careful reading of the book.

My usual practice is to read nonfiction books one chapter at a time and then take a break to digest what I have learned, This book was so interesting and easy to read that I often found myself engaged enough to continue reading further than planned. So, if you are a Middle Eastern scholar, an Islamic fumdamentalist, or have strong political views, you may not like this book. I recommend that everyone else take the time to decide for themselves and believe that you will likely gain some insights from reading it.

Rating:
Summary: A World Gone Wrong
Review: People forget that a small sector of their society also sincerely belives that God has abandoned them. They have not proven themselves worthy of God's favor. It has lead some to intensify their efforts and take the struggle to extremes. It's a development from another struggle over power and its use in the management of society. Complications developed with the emergence of the state. It has grown stronger. Once upon a time people held that economic development preceded political development. In short the dime would drop and people would figure it out for themselves. So you left them alone. Unfortunately, economic interests would too often become entrenched with political power and both parties looked askance at competition. With today's state, economic development never really advances without political development. Governments must be changed through a peaceful tranfer of power. The Middle East has never been prepared for this carousel of change. More importantly, oil allowed any ruler of any state to run the country independent of those economic interests that were supposed to lead to political development. The nationalization of the oil industry simply put it into the pockets of governments which then effectively became the property of Presidents for life and his colleagues. Either way economic development was too often impaired and without recourse to a political process that could lead to change in the Middle East is it any wonder it in this stupor? What went wrong? Or should we really ask ourselves what do we do? In 1919 the imperial regimes faded, in 1945 the fascists fell, in 1989 the communists collapsed. It may have begun in Europe but it won't stop there. The right to rule is being challenged around the world. I hope somebody knows what to do. Time isn't on our side.

Rating:
Summary: Terribly inaccurate, one sided and misleading
Review: I will not go into the details of the book otherwise the allowed 1000 words would not be enough.
Do not be impressed by the prestigious academic position of the author, or by his vast historical
knowledge, which he employs to convince the readers with his superficial analysis. It doesn't
take much effort to find out how emphasis is placed on certain issues inappropriately. By doing so,
apples are mixed with eggs all the time. The book is full of contradictions, half of the truth -
most ridiculously in Chapter 5.

If you are seeking a compact, and thus not comprehensive, lesson of Islamic history, this book might
be useful, and therefore, two stars. But if your aim to learn something about the political evolution
of the Islamic world, do not waste your time with this book.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting and compelling analysis
Review: In The Crisis of Islam Professor Lewis expands on both The New Yorker article from November 2001 that served as the basis for this book and on his companion volume What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002). He writes with grace, clarity and a remarkable succinctness that makes this attractive little book a pleasure to read.

He begins by defining Islam geographically, politically, historically and as a world religion to be compared to and contrasted with other great world religions. He notes how closely related are the three Middle Eastern religions, calling Judaism, Christianity and Islam "variants of the same religious tradition." He adds that Christianity and Islam, alone among the major religions of the world have in common the belief "that they alone are the fortunate recipients and custodians of God's final message to humanity, which it is their duty to bring to the rest of the world." (p. 5)

And therein I would say lies a problem. But it is not a problem of Christianity or Islam per se; it is a problem stemming from a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of religion. When the offices of state are in the hands of clerics or ayatollahs who believe they have absolute knowledge of truth from God, rather than just a guidance about which they may be fallible, one can be sure that personal choice and freedom or the discoveries of science will be tolerated only in so far as they are in conformity with their "absolute knowledge." Lewis makes the further point here and in What Went Wrong, that in the West there is separation of church and state, and in Islam there is not. Indeed in Islam political power comes from God, not from humans; therefore democracy is unlikely to prosper.

Lewis illuminates how this crucial distinction works in practice: The ideology of democrats "requires them, even when in power, to give freedom and rights to the Islamist opposition. The Islamists, when in power, are under no such obligation." He adds that their principles "require them to suppress what they see as impious and subversive activities." (p. 111) This explains in part why almost all the states in the Middle East are autocratic or theocratic.

A related phenomenon restricts any effective opposition other than that of fundamentalist Islam itself. Lewis notes that the rulers can forbid political parties and political meetings, but "they cannot forbid public worship and they can to only a limited extent control sermons." Consequently, the "religious opposition groups are the only ones that have regular meeting places when they can assemble." He adds this telling observation: "The more oppressive the regime, the more it helps the fundamentalists by giving them a virtual monopoly of opposition." (p. 133)

A good portion of the book is devoted to the geopolitics, including Western and Soviet imperialism, that helped to shape the Middle East as it exists today (as well as the warlord mentality of Middle Eastern lands). He emphasizes the support of repressive regimes by the US, first as a hedge against communism, and then with the end of the Cold War, as a hedge against "the emergence...of a single regional power that could dominate the area and thus establish monopolistic control of Middle Eastern oil." (p. 100) In Chapter VIII "The Marriage of Saudi Power and Wahhabi" he implicates the US in support of a self-indulgent monarchy that has grown decadently rich while its people remain largely uneducated and relatively poor.

Some of the book is devoted to a perception of the way people in the Middle East view Americans and why Osma bin Ladin and others see America as the primary enemy of Islam. Clearly, conservative ideological Islam which views the American lifestyle as hedonistic, sinful, and morally lapsed will have trouble co-existing with the culture that gave us, e.g., "Sex in the City." And while the Ayatollah Khomeini could comfortably denounce the US as The Great Satan, Lewis makes it clear that the primary reason many people in the Middle East hate the US is its support of Israel.

It is clear from Lewis's analysis that the backwardness of the Middle East stems from many factors, not the least of which is fundamentalist Islam itself. By the way, Lewis uses the term "fundamentalist" with reservations, saying that it is a misnomer, originally applied to Christian conservatives. I think whether you call the true believers in an intolerant and violent Islam "radicals" or "fundamentalists" really makes no difference. They are jealous of the superior power and prestige of the West and the success of Israel and in their frustration are obsessed with revenge against a world from which they feel alienated.

Obviously, Lewis is no "neoconservative" in the manner of the present White House as some have charged. His is a balanced and very well informed view of the Middle East that doesn't take sides. He actually bends over backwards to be fair. In this way, he does not please ideologues on either side. But ignore his critics. Bernard Lewis is a man who knows what he is talking about, and a man well worth reading.

I want to add that when it is believed that the final knowledge of humanity is contained in a book or a book and commentaries two thousand years old, or even only thirteen hundred and some years old, one can be sure that such knowledge will be backward not only scientifically, but socially and politically as well.

Rating:
Summary: Where Islamic Fundamentalism Came From.....
Review: Those who struggled to make it through Bernard Lewis's book "What Went Wrong" can take consolation in the fact that "The Crisis of Islam" is better written and easier to understand. This book is a very reasonable and scholarly attempt to explain the following:

1. Differences between Western and Islamic countries;
2. How these differences have resulted in economic and political difficulties for Islamic countries;
3. Finally, how these difficulties gave rise to Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism against the West.

Lewis spends some time in the beginning chapters of the book in explaining the concept of Jihad (or holy war) and what it means and what it does not. He explains the interpretation and mis-interpretation of Koranic verses by some Muslims He deals with the importance of the Crusades to Muslims (it represents the last time they had a victory against the West. Finally, he highlights some differences in Islamic Western societies that lead to the West gaining economic superiority.

The book really comes alive in the last few chapters as Lewis sets the stage for terrorism and movements like Al Quaida. He does this by describing the image many Muslims have of the West as immoral, he discusses the weak state of economies in virtually every Islamic country, and he discusses how the West has supported tyrannical regimes for long periods of time in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, and Saddam Hussein--when he was making war on Iran.

It is important for people in Western countries to recognize that terrorist groups do not represent all Muslims. Terrorist groups do frightening things, but represent numerically small groups. Many Muslims completely disagree with how the terrorist groups interpret the Koran. For example, terrorists endorse suicide bombers. Most Muslims would tell you that anyone who commits suicide in their religion is certain to go to hell.

What I sense from what Lewis says in this book is the problem is largely a problem of these societies. Although, we can and should temper our support for those countries run by unpopular despots. Other than this, there is not alot the West can do other than combat terrorism when it occurs. Its up to these countries to recognize they have problems and attempt to fix them from within.

Rating:
Summary: A Brief Primer on the Middle East and Its Troubles
Review: Bernard Lewis is one of the most respected Middle East experts, but unlike other writers who can make that claim he is also a noted historian rather than a journalist or retired military officer. His expertise is based on a lifetime of scholarship and is beyond question. Recently, he also hit the best seller list with "What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response," a collection of essays that are best appreciated by those with some prior knowledge of Islam and the Middle East. His latest work, "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror," is also derived from previous essays and articles, but here Lewis has ably integrated earlier pieces into a single, and very readable, book. The purpose is clearly to provide a post-9/11 source on Islam and the Middle and their relationships with the West, especially the United States, that is accessable to those who are not experts in the study of these issues. Modest in length, this is still a detailed work that speaks with a unique authority. He may not map out possible strategies or policies, though he does have an in as an advisor to the Bush Administration, but he certainly tells us something about the thought processes, and the belief system of a culture that seems so alien to many Americans. In reference to the sources of terrorism that use Islam as justification he concludes that the West has every right to defend itself, but must also seek some "useful" understanding of the "forces" that "drive" these people. "The Crisis of Islam" works quite well in illustrating these "forces." Actually, Lewis is far more successful in explaining "what went wrong" in this volume than in his more celebrated, earlier work. If this work also becomes a bestseller it will be good news simply because it will mean that an increasing number of people are educating themselves about peoples, cultures, and problems that they know so little about.

Rating:
Summary: Polemic not wisdom from this update of
Review: A serious scholar using a reputation as an historian to write polemic rather than provide some wisdom is unfortunate. To do this about a politically sensitive subject where attitudes contribute to deaths is worse. However after 9-11 the book will sell, especially to those looking for quick answers.

Taking advantage of the general ignorance, fear, and bias, of the public using one's reputation to provide a misleading appearance of objectivity and balance is fundamentally dishonest. It is truer to Lewis's own biases than his facts.

Too harsh on Lewis? Two things suggest that I'm not too harsh at all. First, this work is an opportunistic post 9-11 update on his 1990 article in the New Yorker about "Muslim Rage". Second, his bizarre claims about Jerusalem are inexcusable given his knowledge of the Middle East.

"Anger" is possibly reasoned, circumstantial, particular to a number of individuals. But Lewis chose to write about "Muslim Rage" irrational, endemic, violent, unjustified, innate in a whole people. Nonsense! Yet lapped up then, quoted as authoritative by the likes of Samuel Huntington as an example of the "Clash of Civilizations", and continuing to serve as generalized, simplistic, unfair, and misleading - it has been satisfying for those wanting a 'quick fix' answer. This is Gresham's Law applied to the public discourse rather than the economy. It allows denial of real causes and reasons, political, economic, social, and military.

The particular bizarre pro Israeli (and not even all Israelis would agree) discussion of Jerusalem is damning. Describing Al Aqsa Mosque with its monotheistic quotations from the Qur'an on its exterior as anti-Christian propaganda, Lewis promotes Jerusalem as a Jewish and Christian city not holy to Muslims. He ignores (what he certainly knows) that Muslims first prayed towards Jerusalem as the primordial center of Abrahamic faiths. He also ignores that the most celebrated nights of the year commemorates the Miraj when Muhammad traveled from Mecca to the site of Al Aqsa to ascend to the heavens and the presence of Allah (literally or as metaphor).

The impression one gets is that Muslims are mostly all like a small minority of radical extremists who rage against the West and that this is innate in Islam. (The morality of terrorism of the powerless versus mass killing by the more efficient airborne military is another subject entirely.) The fact that terrorists are few, that their causes are usually particular and political, that they are not widely supported is appreciated in the epithet "unholy" terror, but the analysis goes little beyond simplistic notions about an anti modern backward people humiliated by Western superiority and jealous of its position. This allows a state of denial rejecting that much is anger, not rage, and based on legitimate grievances using the methods of the weak against overwhelmingly superior military power. Particulars of quoting bin Laden or describing the Wahabis do little to diminish the mass condemnation of Islam in this book.

Most Muslims don't feel morally inferior because the West is materially better off and militarily strong. They are not jealous of the materialistic extremes of the West. For most a return to fundamentals is renewal of Faith and self purification, a personal and patient quest. (This is the "greater Jihad" not warfare which is the "lesser Jihad.") Muslims call, ask, others to see the wisdom of their faith and don't in theory or practice command violent world conquest as suggested by Lewis. One reverts to Islam as the primordial Faith with the same God and many Prophets shared with Christians and Jews who may, with righteous and God fearing lives be saved. (Neither of these Faiths allows this for Muslims.) Both times the Muslims took Jerusalem they were far more tolerant and less violent than the Crusaders. The image of violent conquest and forced conversions is outrageous given what we know of history - but it always underlies the attempts to paint Islam as innately violent. ( "Modern" Christians the 20th century have been far more warlike and perpetrated mass genocide and slaughter on a scale unknown even to the (pre-Muslim) Mongols.) Muslims don't draw the conclusion that this is the very nature of Christianity however.

Until historically recent times Islam was more tolerant than the (now secular) West. Even now tolerance continues to be fragile and racism common in the West. Islam has continued to be doctrinally and to a considerable degree in practice, less racist, color conscious, and elitist than the West. It had none of the problems with science, having earth as less than the center of the universe, etc. that held back the West. The current problems and anger are not so much as innate to Arabs or Islam as a product of historical experience. They are not innate to Islam.

Lewis reinforces bigotry but adds no understanding for anyone with meaningful knowledge of Islam or the Middle East. In a vacuum he seems profound, some with an agenda will like the book. Real understanding, balance, something closer to truth all lose out. He certainly does nothing to understand 9-11 or avoid further terrorism.