Rating: 
Summary: "Islam and the West"
Review: For their clarity, accessibility and deep insight, these 11 essays represent top grade scholarship on the part of Bernard Lewis. Those interested in the historic interplay between Islam and (for lack of a better word) Christendom, as well as those seeking more knowledge of the roots of current world events, will learn much from Lewis. The essays defending Orientalism and critiquing Western Arabic translations are the best of the bunch.
Rating: 
Summary: defensive
Review: I bought this book after 9/11 to read up on Islam and the history of its relationship with Christendom and the West. I knew that the book couldn't be tailored to a post attack mindset, but I was actually more interested in the mindset of the Islamic mainstream before 9/11, and I thought this book would give me that. I was disappointed. Lewis begins well enough with early Islam versus Medieval Europe, and continues through the 19th century and the Ottoman Empire. I found myself frequently confused as I read these essays, since Lewis attacked most analogies used to understand the Islamic world, but provided no alternative comparisons. I had no patience for the essays about the subject of Middle East studies itself. It seemed premature to devote attention to european scholars of the Middle East before any discussion of Arab scholars. The only Arab scholar that was discussed at all was Edward Said, who was attacked as a politcally correct thought policeman. While academic freedom has often been the target of idealogues, I got the feeling that I would have found myself in agreement with Mr. Said, and regardless, I was interested in the Arab world, not in Lewis' critics. There was a defensive tone throughout the book, as if Lewis was writing to critics. Further, there was very little discussion of Islam, although many pages discussed other writings on Islam, both Arabic and European. So I don't know much more about the Prophet Mohammed than I did before, or the Koran or Islamic cosmology. Despite all this, I learned quite a bit from the book. There are good chapters on the Shiites and the roots of extremism. I found myself much more comfortable with the Islamic mainstream after reading this.
Rating:
Summary: pretty good comparsion
Review: In Islam and the West, Lewis takes a look at the relationship between Islam and the West. The have had conflict for since the early days of Islam. Lewis takes a look at conflicts such as the crusades, the three Muslim invasions of Europe-Moors in the Iberian Peninsula, Ottamans in Eastern Europe and the Tartars in Russia. He also looks at how the Muslim world in North Africa and the Middle East was one time more advanced then the Europe and how the two have reveresed positions. What Lewis spends a lot of time on is the perceptions of Islam had of the West and the perceptions that the West had on Islam. He looks at each side tried to discredit the other and how each perceivced themselves. Lewis also deals with the rise of political Islam in the 20th century after the end of WWI after the break up of the Ottaman empire. Overall, a pretty good comprision and hsitory like Lewis's other works.
Rating: 
Summary: An Interesting Collection of Earlier Essays
Review: In this recent work Bernard Lewis, a top scholar in his field, reasserts many of his earlier conclusions about the antagonistic relationship between the West and the Muslim world. While this collection of eleven essays is certainly compelling, it does not radically distance itself from earlier works. None the less, Lewis' criticism of several Western authors is informative, and his analysis is concise. Like many of Lewis' other works, it is written in a relatively simple style. An excellent text for mid level university classes. Generally unbiased.
Rating: 
Summary: Another piece of propaganda!
Review: Lewis has done it again. In his usual style of hiding behind his academic credentials, he has misrepresented Islam and Muslims while trying to appear sympathetic and understanding. Aren't there enough books in English by Muslims that we still need to read such works of prejudice?
Rating: 
Summary: A story of friction.
Review: More than many historians, Lewis' writing is meaty. Despite being written at a summary level, you get a sense of the depth of his research and his intellect in every page - in contrast to, for example, Bernard Kaplan, who, while often interesting, sometimes rambles and occasionally seems abstruse. Put another way, if you are inclined to highlight important passages in this book, you might want to use a paintbrush rather than a highlighter.
For the better part of a millennium the Muslim world (dar al-Islam) looked down on Christendom (part of dar al-Harb). Then, in the late 1600's, things began to change. Europe came to surpass Islam in every field - militarily, politically, culturally - culminating in the dismembering of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. This has colored the Muslim sense of self ever since - a situation made worse by the Islamic (especially Arabic) sense of pride and superiority. The reasons behind it and what to do about it occupy endless debate within dar al-Islam. That same debate is at the heart of Lewis' book.
"For Muslims, Islam is not merely a system of belief and worship, a compartment of life, so to speak, distinct from other compartments which are the concern of nonreligious authorities administering nonreligious laws [as is generally the case in the West]. It is rather the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal, and even what we would call constitutional law." (pg. 4.) Both Christianity and Islam contain, "The idea that there is a single truth for all mankind, and that it is the duty of those who possess it to share it with others..." (pg. 5.) Despite the common heritage, two distinct cultures emerged. Attempts at secularization met some success in the twentieth century, but militant fundamentalism is on the rise, bred by frustration, fueled by religious zeal, and sustained by hatred. The goal is a return to a utopian view of the authentic Islam of the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the rashidun.
Lewis' book is a collection of essays describing the interaction between Islam and the West and the impact each has had on the other. It is but one of a dozen or so books about Islam that he has written over the past several decades, each with a different approach to Islam. This one is a story of friction between two cultures. Well written and readable, it is interesting at times, scary at others, but always illuminating.
Rating:
Summary: A story of friction.
Review: More than many historians, Lewis' writing is meaty. Despite being written at a summary level, you get a sense of the depth of his research and his intellect in every page - in contrast to, for example, Bernard Kaplan, who, while often interesting, sometimes rambles and occasionally seems abstruse. Put another way, if you are inclined to highlight important passages in this book, you might want to use a paintbrush rather than a highlighter.
For the better part of a millennium the Muslim world (dar al-Islam) looked down on Christendom (part of dar al-Harb). Then, in the late 1600's, things began to change. Europe came to surpass Islam in every field - militarily, politically, culturally - culminating in the dismembering of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. This has colored the Muslim sense of self ever since - a situation made worse by the Islamic (especially Arabic) sense of pride and superiority. The reasons behind it and what to do about it occupy endless debate within dar al-Islam. That same debate is at the heart of Lewis' book.
"For Muslims, Islam is not merely a system of belief and worship, a compartment of life, so to speak, distinct from other compartments which are the concern of nonreligious authorities administering nonreligious laws [as is generally the case in the West]. It is rather the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal, and even what we would call constitutional law." (pg. 4.) Both Christianity and Islam contain, "The idea that there is a single truth for all mankind, and that it is the duty of those who possess it to share it with others..." (pg. 5.) Despite the common heritage, two distinct cultures emerged. Attempts at secularization met some success in the twentieth century, but militant fundamentalism is on the rise, bred by frustration, fueled by religious zeal, and sustained by hatred. The goal is a return to a utopian view of the authentic Islam of the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the rashidun.
Lewis' book is a collection of essays describing the interaction between Islam and the West and the impact each has had on the other. It is but one of a dozen or so books about Islam that he has written over the past several decades, each with a different approach to Islam. This one is a story of friction between two cultures. Well written and readable, it is interesting at times, scary at others, but always illuminating.
Rating:
Summary: Mature and readable scholarship.
Review: Overall, I enjoyed this book. Lewis knows his stuff, and how to teach it. In that regard, the contrast between him and Said seems to me like the contrast between a craftsman who does his job, and the office politician. Lewis understands Middle Eastern cultures thoroughly, he expresses his ideas clearly, and (it seems to me) is commmitted to telling the truth, honestly and fairly. Islam and the West is, of course, a broad topic, and the book is only 200 pages, with some repetition from other works, I think, so I was sometimes disappointed in Lewis' choice of topics. The book is primarily a history of intellectual understandings, and secondarily a reply to Said's attacks. It is not a political history of the two civilizations, though it gives a bit of that history. (Paul Fregosi's Jihad is the most enlightening book I've read on the military aspect of the relationship.) Lewis shows how the West became interested in Islam from the Middle Ages, and how Islam much later developed an interest in the other direction. He discusses Gibbon, colonialism, Islamic factions, and how Christians, Jews, and Muslims have seen one another. He also offers an eloquent appeal for honest and free historical study of other cultures. As a student of Asian cultures, I appreciated the way he emphasizes the need to understand other worldviews as they understand themselves, rather than projecting our categories onto them. His tone is sometimes ironic, but not, in my opinion, indulgently so. Said mostly deserves the drubbing (verbal smart bombs) he takes, though Lewis may be a touch thorough. (But with less collatoral damage than Said's sweeping invective.) Lewis asks why Westerners have studied other cultures, and gives several answers (beyond the power grab Said suggests): spiritual links to the Middle East, fear of jihad, the prestige of Arab science. I would add another. It seems to me Dr. Lewis is weakest when he talks about Christianity. He assumes that Christianity claims exclusive truth in the same sense as Islam. But a further reason that the West studied Islam I think derives from differences between the two faiths. Missionaries like Matteo Ricci and James Legge were often at the forefront of Western understanding of Asian cultures, and even today Christian missionaries translate the Bible into thousands of remote languages. I think this has to do with the Christian idea of the "word become flesh." In Christianity, God affirmed other cultures and languages by the incarnation, and underlined it with the miracle of Pentacost. This is quite different from the Muslim idea of the Koran writen in heaven in "pure Arabic," which can never be translated, and made a huge difference in the thought of people like Justin, Origin, Augustine, and Ricci. Lewis misunderstands why Christians reject Mohammed, I think. The difference between the two faiths, and the reason Christians mistrust Mohammed, is not just that one is earlier and one is later. Rather, we feel that Mohammed conforms to a type familiar in our scriptures, the "false prophet" or "anti-Christ:" the union of unscrupulous power with pretensions to divine authority. Lewis does Islam and Christianity the courtesy of taking both seriously, however, and that is enormously refreshing.
Rating:
Summary: Mature and readable scholarship.
Review: Overall, I enjoyed this book. Lewis knows his stuff, and how to teach it. In that regard, the contrast between him and Said seems to me like the contrast between a craftsman who does his job, and the office politician. Lewis understands Middle Eastern cultures thoroughly, he expresses his ideas clearly, and (it seems to me) is commmitted to telling the truth, honestly and fairly. Islam and the West is, of course, a broad topic, and the book is only 200 pages, with some repetition from other works, I think, so I was sometimes disappointed in Lewis' choice of topics. The book is primarily a history of intellectual understandings, and secondarily a reply to Said's attacks. It is not a political history of the two civilizations, though it gives a bit of that history. (Paul Fregosi's Jihad is the most enlightening book I've read on the military aspect of the relationship.) Lewis shows how the West became interested in Islam from the Middle Ages, and how Islam much later developed an interest in the other direction. He discusses Gibbon, colonialism, Islamic factions, and how Christians, Jews, and Muslims have seen one another. He also offers an eloquent appeal for honest and free historical study of other cultures. As a student of Asian cultures, I appreciated the way he emphasizes the need to understand other worldviews as they understand themselves, rather than projecting our categories onto them. His tone is sometimes ironic, but not, in my opinion, indulgently so. Said mostly deserves the drubbing (verbal smart bombs) he takes, though Lewis may be a touch thorough. (But with less collatoral damage than Said's sweeping invective.) Lewis asks why Westerners have studied other cultures, and gives several answers (beyond the power grab Said suggests): spiritual links to the Middle East, fear of jihad, the prestige of Arab science. I would add another. It seems to me Dr. Lewis is weakest when he talks about Christianity. He assumes that Christianity claims exclusive truth in the same sense as Islam. But a further reason that the West studied Islam I think derives from differences between the two faiths. Missionaries like Matteo Ricci and James Legge were often at the forefront of Western understanding of Asian cultures, and even today Christian missionaries translate the Bible into thousands of remote languages. I think this has to do with the Christian idea of the "word become flesh." In Christianity, God affirmed other cultures and languages by the incarnation, and underlined it with the miracle of Pentacost. This is quite different from the Muslim idea of the Koran writen in heaven in "pure Arabic," which can never be translated, and made a huge difference in the thought of people like Justin, Origin, Augustine, and Ricci. Lewis misunderstands why Christians reject Mohammed, I think. The difference between the two faiths, and the reason Christians mistrust Mohammed, is not just that one is earlier and one is later. Rather, we feel that Mohammed conforms to a type familiar in our scriptures, the "false prophet" or "anti-Christ:" the union of unscrupulous power with pretensions to divine authority. Lewis does Islam and Christianity the courtesy of taking both seriously, however, and that is enormously refreshing.
Rating:
Summary: Well written and interesting
Review: This book is an introduction to the history of Islam's interactions with the West. It begins with an overview of the advances of Muslim armies into Europe and explains that Western voyages of discovery soon led to the West surpassing the Muslim world economically and then militarily. And we see that in the century prior to the end of World War One, the Muslims were in steady retreat against Europeans. Lewis shows how in Western eyes, the Ottoman Empire went from being regarded as wicked and threatening to being mysterious but weak.
That brings up the issue of how Muslims live under non-Muslim rule. And we discover that the major issue is simply whether or not Muslims are free to practice their way of life.
Lewis then brings up the issue of translating Arabic terms. In most cases, translations are not a big problem. But there are some concepts which are not really the same in Arabic as they are in Western languages, such as "state," "freedom," "democracy," or "revolution." The author shows how the meaning of these words relates to Muslim behavior when Muslims have Western allies in wartime.
Perhaps the most interesting section is the one on Orientalism. Here, the author describes the frightful politicization of Middle East studies. Lewis shows how politics, generally antizionist politics, has often substituted for scholarship in this field. In my opinion, this understates the problem. The academic world has to maintain standards to be of value. If these standards are abandoned in one part of history, that will bring down the esteem and value of the entire discipline.
This is a very informative book, and it's easy to read. I highly recommend it.
|
