What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East by Bernard Lewis

Not the best of Bernard Lewis

Published January 24th 2002 by Oxford University Press, USA

Hardcover, 192 pages

I've read two other books by Lewis and found both of them to be much more comprehensive and satisfying than this one. My dissatisfaction stems from the title. The title What Went Wrong? implies a discussion of how the Islam world went from being the most advanced culture on the planet to one of the most insular and, in many ways, most backwards cultures on the planet. While such a discussion is implied, it is barely touched upon in the body of the book.

Lewis finally gets to this general topic in his conclusion. He notes, "By all standards that matter in the modern world-economic development and job creation, literacy and educational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights - what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low." (p. 152)

Bernard Lewis

"To a Western observer, schooled in the theory and practice of Western freedom, it is precisely the lack of freedom - freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination, to question and inquire and speak; freedom of the economy from corrupt and pervasive mismanagement; freedom of women from male oppression; freedom of citizens from tyranny - that underlies so many of the troubles of the Muslim world." (p. 159)

Lewis also notes that many Islamic countries blame their troubles on European colonialism and feel very inadequate when other former colonies surpass them as well: "The proud heirs of ancient civilizations had got used to hiring Western firms to carry out tasks that their own contractors and technicians were apparently not capable of doing. Now they found themselves inviting contractors and technicians form Korea - only recently emerged from Japanese colonial rule - to perform these tasks. Following is bad enough; limping in the rear is far worse." (p. 152)

Those are the the types of thoughts that I believed the book was going to be discussing throughout. Instead it gets included, almost as an afterthought, in the conclusion. The main body of the text is primarily concerned with how the Ottomans, and to a lesser extent the Persians, dealt with the rise of the Europe throughout the 1600s through the 1900s. Don't get me wrong, it is legitimate to discuss those issues, especially since they were the main two Muslim powers during that era, but it does little to illuminate the issues of the 21st century. It established a pattern of not keeping up with the West but little to add to an understanding of modern Muslim reaction to the West, with the exception of a few passing references to Khomeni's changes to the role of Islamic clergy in Iran that were not followed up on with enough detail to offer any insight.

A better book about modern Islam and an exploration into 'what went wrong' is Lewis' more controversial The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. It was one of the best books that I read in the entire year of 2004. It would not be a bad idea to consider What Went Wrong and The Crisis of Islam to be two volumes of a set that deal with the historical decline of the much accomplished historical Islamic civilization and some of its more modern adaptations to Western challenges, both perceived and real

What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity can be found on Amazon.com HERE.

I give this one a grade of 3 stars. The information is good and well-written. However, I felt like I had been a victim of a bait-and-switch scam - the title of the book and the text of the book really did not match. Maybe it should have been called "The Clash Between Islam and the European Renaissance and Enlightenment Movements."

Reviewed on November 18, 2006.

Islam: The Religion and the People by Bernard Lewis

Outstanding

Published in 2008 by Wharton School Publishing.

Islam: The Religion and the People is, without a doubt, the single best academic introduction to Islam that I have seen. It covers just about every facet of the religion for the non-expert, from what happens in a mosque on Fridays to the split between the Shiites and the Sunnis to how the Muslim world deals with not being able to charge interest to rules concerning food and the question of jihad.

This volume is short, well-written and thorough. It includes a glossary of terms mentioned in the book with more explanation (so the text does not bog down). Sidebars are included throughout the text with humourous notes that further illustrate the issues that are being discussed.

I have not encountered a better book to introduce Islam to the curious Westerner. I highly recommend this one to anyone heading off to a Muslim country, who works with Muslims or who is just curious about this popular, controversial and influential faith.

I rate this book 5 stars out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Islam: The Religion and the People.

Reviewed on November 9, 2008.

The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 years by Bernard Lewis

2000 years in 387 pages - A great effort but somewhat unsatisfying.

Published in 1997.

Don't get me wrong - I am came to The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years as a true fan of Bernard Lewis. His book The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror was one of the more thought-provoking books I read last year. However, this book is quite different than 'Crisis'. It's scope is massive, and it is a history book rather than a work of examination and informed conjecture.

Lewis addresses these shortcomings in his introduction and admits that it will be a difficult undertaking to do it well. He acknowledges that whatever format he chooses to cover this history, it will be unsatisfying for some. I give him credit for doing it well, but not as great as the other books and articles of his that I've read.

Bernard Lewis

The book is broken up into three general sections. The first is a general overview of the Middle East over the last 2,000 years. It is a bit overwhelming and frustrating. Overwhelming because the empires, dynasties and civilizations rise and fall so quickly that I felt like I was watching a time-elapsed movie. It was frustrating because there were some new areas (for me) that I really wished he would explore, such as the link between the Persians and the Jews of the Roman Era. I was also intrigued by the Coptic Christians, but learned little more than I already knew. Lewis is fairly skimpy with the life of Mohammed and the early spread of Islam as well. I give this section 3 stars.

The second section is called 'Cross sections' and it deals with specific topics throughout the 2,000 years of history, such as the military or agriculture. I give this section 4 stars.

The last section goes into the struggles the Middle East has experienced since Europe and the West have become such a vital part of the world since the European Renaissance. This is Lewis' strongest area and by far the most interesting to read. I give this section 5 stars.

So, the average of the 3 sections is 4 stars - my final score for this book.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years.

Reviewed on August 2, 2005. 

Five Cities That Ruled the World: How Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London and New York Shaped Global History by Douglas Wilson

Wow! What a Stinker!

Published in 2009 by Thomas Nelson

When I saw this title I was thrilled to pick this book up. I am a high school history teacher that loves classical history. I was eager to see what someone had to say about these 5 world class cities.

What I got was a poorly written mishmash of ideas that sort of worked themselves into some kind of theme that sort of held together to make a vague point from time to time. In other words, it read like one of my high school student's research papers.

I am a fan of Thomas Nelson publishing - they are a religious publisher that generally holds themselves to high standards. This book, however, makes me doubt my previous impression. Five Cities has a clever premise, an interesting cover but has no real substance and is full of too much supposition and theory rather than solid history.

What do I mean?

To be specific, on pages 8-9 he asserts that the Phoenicians, as part of a trade alliance with King Solomon, set across the Indian and Pacific Oceans (colonizing Polynesia along the way - and ignoring the fact that the Phoenicians preferred to hug the coastline when they sailed) to trade with and establish mines in Central and South America. They also created the Incan and Olmec civilizations. Also, they colonized Massachusetts. Really? Sure - just completely ignore DNA testing, decades of research and just go back to the old long-discredited theory that the Mayans must have really been a lost tribe of Israel because there's no way an Indian could have conceived of a city or a pyramid. He is asserting that only Middle Easterners could've imagined pyramids, despite the fact that every inhabited continent but Australia had pyramids structures of some sort.

I should have stopped right there, but I didn't. I finished the whole thing, mostly for the same reasons that people gawk at car accidents - I had to see how bad it really was.

The Jerusalem chapter is extraordinarily weak because it does not focus on Jerusalem's role as a cradle for 3 of the world's 5 largest religions. Rather, it focuses on the New Jerusalem mentioned in the Book of Revelations. Using an end of the world version of Jerusalem to explain why Jerusalem WAS important is poor logic at best and disingenuous at worst.

The exception to the rule that the Jerusalem chapter is very poor is the section on the Crusades (pp. 28-32). It was quite good.

When he moves on to Athens, he quotes Homer as though he were a trusted historian, not a storyteller (p. 46). He also mis-tells the story of Athena's birth (p.49). Hephaestus did not "attack" Zeus - he split his head open at the request of Zeus (he had a horrible headache and felt like something was trying to push out of his head). Literally, a splitting headache!

The Parthenon - the most famous ancient temple
in Athens, Greece

If Lord Elgin were alive today he could easily sue for libel (p.77). Lord Elgin rescued the art of the Parthenon in the 19th century by buying as much as he could - it was for sale on the open market - and sending it to London to be preserved. He "stole" them to save them, not because he was a thief but because the 19th century Greeks did not value their own heritage. If, on the other hand, he wanted to discuss why the British Museum does not return them to Athens, he would've had a better argument.

For reasons unknown he mostly skips over the Persian destruction of Athens and how the city re-built itself and instead gives a half-hearted history of the Peloponnesian War (Sparta vs. Athens).

The section on Rome struck me as neither great nor poor, which is a victory of sorts.

The London chapter assumes that the reader knows a lot about the struggle for religious liberty in Britain and Scotland and that one understands their Civil War - mighty big assumptions to make. As a result, it made for confusing reading for me (fairly well versed in the issues) and would be a mish-mash for most readers.

He also mis-attributes the George Bernard Shaw quote "England and America are two countries separated by a common language" to Winston Churchill. (p. 151)

The New York chapter is actually sort of bland, an anti-climax when compared to cities that had actual physical empires. He has a nice turn of phrase when he notes that when Dutch New Amsterdam became New York in 1664 "the first course of the American melting pot was served." (p. 158) However, we also have an inexplicable section on baseball (pages 168-171) that goes with nothing else in particular. There is not an over-arching sports theme in the book, just an orphan section on baseball...

Victor Davis Hanson (A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War) and Bernard Lewis (Islam: The Religion and the People), both fine authors and historians, are quoted extensively throughout the book, a fact that must be a source of professional embarrassment for both of them. Do yourself a favor, read Hanson and Lewis and skip this one entirely.

I rate this book 1 star out of 5.

This book can be found on Amazon.com here: Five Cities that Ruled the World.

Reviewed on December 22, 2009.

***EDIT August 9, 2020***
Please note: Today I came across information about other writings of Douglas Wilson that I am not comfortable with. He espouses a seriously warped view of American slavery and of women's rights. I do not endorse those views.