this is well written and really is helpful in understanding the roots of the problem caused by 911. the author obiously knowws what he is talking about and has the credentials and credibility to go along with it. he is the most knowledgable in the subject in current times. it really is sad that most americans can tell you who won a reality show but they cantell you of the roots of a war that they are fighting and losing thier children to!

There appear to be two schools of historical thought on the Middle East, and on Islam in a larger sense. The first is represented by Edward Said and is largely a post-modernist phenomenon. The second is best represented by Bernard Lewis and employs a more traditional, objectivist approach.

What Went Wrong? is a short but dense exploration of the wresting of civilizational dominance from Islam to Christendom that started around the 15th century and continues to this day. It is concerned with the Islamic perception and response to the events of this decline. The book however does not really answer its own question, and somewhat disappointingly it's a conglomeration of several different essays and lectures the author presented in Germany (before 9/11 coincidentally.) This does not mean it is value-less though.

The partial answer given is a fittingly polyglot one, covering most everything from military arms and organization to political structures to culture and the arts. The most major theme that I drew however is namely the Islamic superiority complex, rightly justified in the high Middle Ages, that led Islamic civilization to "rest on it's laurels" and stagnate -concerning itself with only itself- while the rest of the world simmered along a tortured but vibrant path towards progress. This superiority complex is still as strong today, fueling both biased and piecemeal attempts at modernization and the explosive frustration of being so clearly behind when those attempts inevitably fail.

This book is also one of those examples of when studying the "other" helps you perhaps learn more about yourself in the process. What is so amazing is that not only can no clear, striking answer be given to the question of what went wrong but the world very evidently can't answer the more important question of what went right with western ascendance. The west itself produces no concurring chorus to preach to the world the secrets of its success. Simply look at the diverging platforms of the different western political parties as prescriptions for future prosperity and the myriad authors giving all sorts of explanations for that prosperity, from Jared Diamond's Accident of Geography to Victor Davis Hanson's Culture is Fate. Although I certainly have my belief as to what the west does right (and may be doing wrong recently) so do others who have looked at the same data and convinced themselves just as strongly of opposite conclusions.

Mr. Lewis' most central argument as to both what went right and what went wrong seems to lay in the separation of church and state. But this is by no means his only answer and it would be a disservice not to recommend reading the book to gain not only a greater understanding of his partial answer but also to see into the spectrum of more important related questions and unknowns that unfolds in the intellectual pursuit started by the simple query of what went wrong. The most chilling possibility that glints dimly in the shadow of the author's answer is that Islam, as an all encompassing religion, culture and political system in one, may be unsuitable to ever reversing its relative slide with the rest of the world. The Christian Reformation was a hard fought, long, brutal and bloody affair. Can Islam restore itself to a fully functioning civilization in the world of peer civilizations (let alone really co-exist with them) and avoid the need for a reformation? And if not, just how bloody will Islam's reformation be? Current trends in the world leave the first question unanswered, but the second's answer decidely and darkly obvious.

There appear to be two schools of historical thought on the Middle East, and on Islam in a larger sense. The first is represented by Edward Said and is largely a post-modernist phenomenon. The second is best represented by Bernard Lewis and employs a more traditional, objectivist approach.

What Went Wrong? is a short but dense exploration of the wresting of civilizational dominance from Islam to Christendom that started around the 15th century and continues to this day. It is concerned with the Islamic perception and response to the events of this decline. The book however does not really answer its own question, and somewhat disappointingly it's a conglomeration of several different essays and lectures the author presented in Germany (before 9/11 coincidentally.) This does not mean it is value-less though.

The partial answer given is a fittingly polyglot one, covering most everything from military arms and organization to political structures to culture and the arts. The most major theme that I drew however is namely the Islamic superiority complex, rightly justified in the high Middle Ages, that led Islamic civilization to "rest on it's laurels" and stagnate -concerning itself with only itself- while the rest of the world simmered along a tortured but vibrant path towards progress. This superiority complex is still as strong today, fueling both biased and piecemeal attempts at modernization and the explosive frustration of being so clearly behind when those attempts inevitably fail.

This book is also one of those examples of when studying the "other" helps you perhaps learn more about yourself in the process. What is so amazing is that not only can no clear, striking answer be given to the question of what went wrong but the world very evidently can't answer the more important question of what went right with western ascendance. The west itself produces no concurring chorus to preach to the world the secrets of its success. Simply look at the diverging platforms of the different western political parties as prescriptions for future prosperity and the myriad authors giving all sorts of explanations for that prosperity, from Jared Diamond to Victor Davis Hanson. Although I certainly have my belief as to what the west does right (and may be doing wrong recently) so do others who have looked at the same data and convinced themselves just as strongly of opposite conclusions.

Mr. Lewis' most central argument as to both what went right and what went wrong seems to lay in the separation of church and state. But this is by no means his only answer and it would be a disservice not to recommend reading the book to gain not only a greater understanding of his partial answer but also to see into the spectrum of more important related questions and unknowns that unfolds in the intellectual pursuit started by the simple query of what went wrong. The most chilling possibility that glints dimly in the shadow of the author's answer in these pages is that Islam, as an all encompassing religion, culture and political system in one, may be unsuitable to ever reversing its relative slide with the rest of the world. The Christian Reformation was a hard fought, long, brutal and bloody affair. Can Islam restore itself to a fully functioning civilization in the world of peer civilizations (let alone really co-exist with them) and avoid the need for a reformation? And if not, just how bloody will Islam's reformation be? Current trends in the world leave the first question unanswered, but the second's answer decidely and darkly obvious.

The factual material in "What Went Wrong?" has been presented by Bernard Lewis many times before; almost all of it is in the essays collected as "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East."

So the interpretation and the timing are what matter here. Lewis had completed his text just before Sept. 11, 2001 In this short, but very concentrated form, presumably he was hoping to catch the attention of people unlikely to attempt one of his lengthier, scholarly works,

So what, we ask, is his interpretation? He pulls his punch here. In a summary, he lists what several other people have proposed for the terrible state of the Muslims. He rejects some of these but never quite says what he thinks about it.

As a potted history of the grandest sweep of Islam in its homelands, nothing could be handier. But I have serious problems with the bias. In fact, of all Lewis's books, this one goes the furthest in prettying up an ugly picture. As I have noted in other reviews, this is ironic. Lewis is the magister among westerners writing about Islam, but Muslims and their fellow-travelers, especially but not only of the Edward Said school, consider him the arch-orientalist, besmirching and misunderstanding Muslims.

Lewis makes a distinction here between "modernization" and "Westernization." Although not precisely defined, even by example, by modernization he means attempts by Muslims to gain the benefit of Western things without the baggage of western ideas. Whether this is even possible is not addressed by Lewis, although it has been by, eg, Taner Edis in "An Illusion of Harmony."

Much of the book is devoted to explaining why Muslims would want Western things, since for the first seven centuries or so they despised anything unIslamic. That was before their well-oiled plunder machine starting breaking down.

Here is where Lewis goes off the rails.

First of all, I cannot accept his repeated statements that Islam was the greatest, most scientific civilization in the world during its heyday. It was certainly politically powerful, but Islam was never creative.

One of the flaws, for me, in this book, is that it is limited to the Islamic heartlands -- places where the everyday language was or became Arabic, Turkish or Persian. There is not a word about Islam's spread into black Africa or south Asia. As I shall show later, things happened outside the core lands that call into question Lewis's final remarks.

Back to science. Islam took over the places and people who had provided most of the technological innovation of the human race. Charles Singer's massive "History of Technology" demonstrated that.

Once Islam arrived, it was as if a curtain had been dropped. In the succeeding 14 centuries, not one important device, method or insight has emerged from this area. Lewis's own best example is not scientific at all, merely a minor medical speculation that turned out to be correct, although it took Europeans to prove it.

That right there might answer the "what" of "what went wrong?" Islam somehow prevents its adherents from thinking creatively. (There are other kinds of creativity than making devices, harder to measure than by counting patents or exports. The area taken over by the Muslims also was the hotbed of this immaterial kind of creativity. No one will contend that Muslims have added much to the political or philosophical thinking of the Greeks.)

However that may be, eventually Muslims did want the weapons and wealth that Europe was beginning to acquire. Mere imitation did not work. Military academies were set up and cadets were sent to Germany, Italy and France to study.

Japan did the same a little later.

The difference in outcomes needs no comment.

But it is not at all clear that any significant fraction of Muslims ever even attempted "modernization," much less "Westernization." They may have thought they did, but whether any Muslims ever understood what was behind "modernization" is doubtful.

Let us take two examples, slavery and nationalism.

By now, slavery is illegal everywhere, even in Islamic countries, despite the fact that it is explicitly permitted in the Koran.

But legal antislavery is not the same as moral antislavery. No one wants to be a slave himself. The innovation of the West was moral antislavery, the deeply held notion that no one should be a slave.

This idea is not popular, never having spread east of the Rhine nor west of North America. Certainly there is no evidence that Muslims, any more than Germans, have internalized the idea of moral antislavery. (I have more to say about Lewis's misunderstanding of Islamic slavery in my review of "Race and Slavery in the Middle East.")

The same objections can be made to the idea that Islam was tolerant. It was a one-way tolerance, which is no tolerance at all.

When it comes to "Westernizing," the poster boy is Ataturk, and he is the epitome of the attempt to create a national consciousness out of a previously polyethnic, multireligious empire. But Ataturk was merely a Turk supremacist, he never believed in moral nationalism. Ask the Kurds, Armenians or Bulgarians.

Other examples could be adduced. So it is not clear in what sense Muslims can today be regarded as "modern," even in an anti-Western sense. Lewis gets this in some contexts, commenting on elections without choices and parliaments without power. In one of his other books, "Dragomans," he comments on the oddity of parliamentarism in almost all Islamic countries, even Iran, since it is a pure western import without the slightest sanction in the Koran or tradition. He understands that, with elections, function has not followed form, but fails to apply the same insight to toleration, slavery, nationalism.

Lewis rejects the idea that the failure of Islam was inherent in the religion. He is surely wrong here. The example of imperial China applies to Islam just as well. Fanatical devotion to ancient precepts is a proven road to political and social disaster. Even Europe sends that message; it was, as pro-Muslims love to point out, far weaker and poorer than the Islamic lands. It was the Hussite attack on the inviolability of authority that coincided with Europe's breakout.

Finally, Lewis asserts that the turmoil and anti-Americanism that are gaining so much ground in the Islamic homelands of southwestern Asia are a normal progression from the anti-imperialism formerly aimed to Britain or France. Specifically, in an afterword written following the attacks on New York and Washington, Lewis accepts bin Laden's statement that his primary motivating feeling was resentment at the presence of American troops in the sacred land of Arabia.

This cannot explain the (failed) Islamic coup in Trinidad nor the Islamic terrorism against Buddhists in Thailand.

Many other reviewers have pointed out both the high points and the shortcomings of this book. Overall, it's a worthwhile read, but its biggest drawback is that doesn't answer "what went wrong" directly. Now, if we were students in Dr. Lewis' class, where we could engage in Socratic dialecticism, that approach might be appropriate. But we're readers paying good dough for his book, and it's not too much to request that it address and answer its title issue.

My own conclusion bout the title issue, arrived at only after gleaning the information from the book, is that Mohammedism has fallen behind the rest of the civilized world because of (a) its combined religious-state-military nature, which allows it to be too self-contained to accept new, better ideas, (b) contempt for religions seen as corrupted, precursory or inferior, despite such religions being able to offer valuable insights into human betterment, (c) subjugation of one-half of its population by the other half, removing the energy and talents that first half could provide and (d) a generally Arabic worldview (which Mohammed in some cases blunted, but in others accentuated) on matters of right and wrong, gender roles, violence, wealth production, the importance of status and honor, and tribalism.

Lewis brings up some points that are debatable such as tolerance of religions during middle ages in Islamic areas. He would lead the reader to
believe that Christians and Jews lived therein without any religious difficulties.

This is a curiously kind review of Islam at its best, providing some polite insight into reasons that Western bilateralism is so very vulnerable to the unbending unilateralism known as Islam.

The esteemed Bernard Lewis, a beacon of honesty in a dark world of modern profs who appease Islam and bash the West at each turn, is the foremost writer on middle east history for a reason. Though as a Zionist, I wish he'd take a stronger stand on the Islamic beheaders, he is honest and explains why Islam is still a 7th century caliphate religion, and a (traitorous) joke. Well done. It's time for the American left, as dangerous, arrogant and irrational as any enemy America has, to wake up and stop siding with evil. Self-loathing is so unbecoming, especially amongst my fellow "Jews," who often find evangelical Christians more dangerous than Radical Muslims. Ignorance is also unbecoming. Bernard Lewis, though, is an important man. We need more like him in academia.

I found this book to be fairly disappointing. Lewis came up with some interesting insights here and there, but most of the book was a comparison of Islam and the West, without actually getting to the question posed in the title. There were only hints and suppositions, but no overarching thematic answer. I was hoping for more than that in an answer to an admittedly complex conundrum.

In the process of not answering, Lewis proposes key differences between civilizations, like the approach to music, and then doesn't get around to elucidating this difference for another two chapters. When he does (looking at how cultural differences in time effect music form), his hypothesis are intriguing, but not exceptionally relevant to the question of the book. And even in this, there are major elements that Lewis simply gets completely wrong- like how music is the one cultural element that had not invaded from the West into the Middle East. Even in 2002, when the book was published, any casual traveler in the Middle East would notice the profound depth of the MTV invasion, not just as an import but now as a form used within the culture. Most children in the Middle East- anyone below the age of thirty- listen to Western styles of music more than Middle Eastern styles. This has been true for awhile, and I can't comprehend how Lewis could have been unaware of this.

Towards the end of the book Lewis describes "the blame game", and again, this hints at a possible answer to what went wrong. But he never follows through on the idea, and only gives it a cursory glance.

This is a book with a lot of promise, but it's all build-up with no satisfaction. There are some good ideas, but you have to be familiar with the discipline to weed through the good from the bad. I don't recommend it for most readers.

Dr. Lewis presents a rather important thesis, albeit not a new one. He suggests, that as long as the bond between religion and state power remains strong, the modern Islamic civilization will be unable to compete with the West. "In the secularization of the West, God was twice dethroned and replaced--as the source of sovereignty by the people, as the source of object of worship by the nation..."

The title is the theme of the book. This is a critique of the culture of victimization of the Arab world in particular - blaming all their problems on the Americans and the Jews instead of cultivating a culture of self-criticism. In my own book "The Optimistic Jew: a Positive Vision for the Jewish People in the 21st Century" I claim it is also a cautionary for the future of Zionism - lest we Zionists desert our tradition of self-criticism and begin blaming our problems on external enemies and internal traitors -- as many on the paranoid Israeli right are already doing. Having the fifth most powerful army in the world and still cultivating a culture of victimization is truly in poor taste.

Lewis is supposed to be a major scholar of Islam but this book would probably fail a high school assignment. He may be an expert on the Ottoman Empire but he hasn't set foot in the Middle East for 40 years - and his lack of exposure shows in this book. When you take into account Lewis' neo-Conservative propensities, it becomes easier to understand the context, and more importantly the motivations, behind his work. Deeply disappointing.

A bit difficult to wade through, but, all in all a fascinating look into the Islamic world, a world which remains largely isolated from and unknown to the average American.

I picked up this book after seeing it referenced more than once in Ayaan Hirsi Al's two books "Infidel," and "The Caged Virgin." I wanted to get more insight into the dynamics creating the huge gap between Islamic and Western societies.



Reading between the lines of Ms. Ali's bibliography, it seemed clear that next to her own books, and those of Karen Armstrong, this book was one of the two or three most important historical sources for gaining a better understanding of the developmental gap between Islam and the West. After reading it, I am now more convinced than ever that this is true: that Bernard West's book is indeed an important source of such understanding.



The content of the book rides smoothly along on several interrelated but recurring historical themes:



(1) That continued and unjustified Islamic arrogance due to its earlier advances (mostly during the Middle Ages) over the West in art, commerce, economics, administration and military development and conquests, led the Islamic countries to over-estimate their superiority and to assume it to be immutable. Rooted in an air of moral superiority promoted by Islam, which although only an off-shoot of Judaeo-Christianity, was nevertheless seen by them as morally purer and superior to these roots. All of this allowed Moslems to develop a disdain and haughty attitude towards Westerners that exists even today.



(2) That the utter failure to acknowledge that, despite Islam's earlier superiority over the West, not only did the West eventually catch up, but by the time of the Renaissance, it had began to surpass them;



(3) That the Islamic countries also failed to see the real underlying reasons for the West's success and their own corresponding failure: the openness and plurality of Western societies compared to their own -- as this is best underscored by the priority given the development of individual freedoms, and their primary consequence, the free exchange of ideas;



(4) That the West's victory was thus not a victory over Islam so much as it was a victory over the West's own self-imposed and institutionalized ignorance as it was perpetuated through religious practices. That is to say, it was an intellectual victory mostly over the ignorance of the Catholic Church, but more generally over the very idea that religious dogma should trump or have primacy over science and scientific facts.



(5) That the closed rigid, authoritarian and hierarchical nature of Islamic societies (and by extension any society) entombed both the arrogance and the ignorance into a pressure cooker that still serves to stunt Islamic growth and promote its tensions as well as its underdevelopment.



(6) Recognizing but failing to deal with ones own lack of development (at any level, from the intrapersonal all the way up to the nation state) can have a life of its own: The denial upon which it must be based sets up the dynamics for, and the need for, rationalizations, excuses, lies and delusions that eventually create a sense of powerlessness, self-hatred, anger and frustration that cannot be contained without lashing out and blaming an external source.



The potency of the larger message of this book resonates with Samuel P. Huntington's "A Clash of Civilizations" and cannot be overlooked: that the arrogance of supposed superiority, compounded by religious ignorance, lack of intellectual development -- combined and contained within a closed delusional society are a potent interactive formula all on its own - and usually develops a life of its own. It becomes a a virtual pressure cooker for perpetuating all kinds of interpersonal, group and societal problems - all of which are best measured by tensions resulting from underdevelopment.



Put another way, these ingredients alone -- without the additional assistance of the traditional familiar litany of chauvinisms that we all know so well -- such as racism, colonialism, classism, and sexism -- can do the same work that these ills do all on their own.



In fact, myths of superiority, religious ignorance and arrogance, coupled with a closed hierarchical system seem to be a "stand-alone system generator" of societal and group ills, and tensions that lead directly to underdevelopment. These mostly internally generated pre-Fascist ingredients all by themselves form a self-sustaining system whose consistent output is group or societal misery, tensions, poverty and despair - all leading it seems inexorably to underdevelopment.



After reading this book, it cannot be overlooked that even in the West, especially in the U.S., we are now beginning a new turn of that same old wheel: With the conservative and fundamentalism movements again gaining prominence, we are slowly stumbling back into that same old Fascist like trap - using religion to whip people back into social, cultural, and political submission.



With myths of superiority, religious ignorance and arrogance, coupled with a closed hierarchical system, who needs racism, colonialism, sexism, classism, or other forms of intolerance? And although all of these maladies typically work hand-and-glove with religious ignorance, it is not at all necessary for them to do so: They alone can do all the heavy-lifting by themselves.



A tough message to swallow but thanks again to Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali this has been an eye-opener.



Five Stars

I bought this book mainly because of Bernard Lewis' reputation as the leading historian in the West on Islam and the Middle East. Well, I was deeply dissapointed.

I'm not going to even argue against his thesis (whatever it is, since he doesn't make it clear), but I want to point out some even more fundamental drawbacks:

1) He talks about the Muslim world as a whole entitity. Even if we suppose that the Muslim world constitutes a single civilization, he restricts his analysis to the Ottoman empire, Persia and the Arab world (relies mostly on the Ottoman empire even). There's no mention of Indian Muslims, the 30 million Chinese Muslims, and most importantly, there's no mention of either Malaysia or the most populous Muslim country in the world, Indonesia!!! How can one make a study that supposedly deals with Islam as a whole while ignoring Indonesia and Malaysia? Well, I guess maybe they just don't fit the pattern he wants.

2) Another obvious flaw is the shortage of references and evidence. OK, I guess he supposes that he doesn't need to back up his claims since he's so revered? What was especially astanoshing is that he makes huge assumptions (more like generalizations) and then backs them up with one or two quotes from individuals!! How can one make any claim about a whole civilization from a few quotes of individuals? One example is the attitude of Muslims towards Western science. Not to mention that the vast majority of quotes came from individuals in the Ottoman empire, surely not a representative of the Muslim world. Seems like Said had a point in Orientalism.

3) I was shocked when he says that the Muslim world rejected Western music and that it fell on deaf ears. Incredibely ridiculous, and it seems he's never been in a Muslim country before. Besides the obvious since the 90s, of how Western pop music is being incorporated into Arabic music, Arabs (to cite them as an example in the Muslim world) have incorporated many Western instruments in composing their music, and many Western styles such as the Operette were adopted. Arabic music legends such as the Rahbani brothers or Mohamed Abdel Wahab openly cite the influence of Western music on their art. Besides, there are plenty of Western music learning centers in Damascus, Amman, Cairo, Beirut..etc, where pupils learn to play Western instruments like the piano, the violin..etc.

I read the book and I am just like before reading it: so what went wrong? Mr. Lewis, although no doubt an excellent scholar, does not answer the question. He doesn't even treat the subject of the title (The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East). The book is not about Islam but about the Ottoman Empire almost exclusively. It doesn't analyze the roots of the current gap between Muslims and the rest of the world, but simply gives a series of historical accounts without any clear thread between them.
I think Mr. Lewis should have done much better.

I read the book and I am just like before reading it: so what went wrong? Mr. Lewis, although no doubt an excellent scholar, does not answer the question. He doesn't even treat the subject of the title (The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East). The book is not about Islam but about the Ottoman Empire almost exclusively. It doesn't analyze the roots of the current gap between Muslims and the rest of the world, but simply gives a series of historical accounts without any clear thread between them.
I think Mr. Lewis should have done much better.

One thousand years ago, the Muslim world looked upon itself as the richest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful society in the world. One thousand years later it looks upon itself as being generally poor, backward, and weak. What went wrong? That is the question posed by this book. Unfortunately, Professor Lewis does not give any definitive answer to this question. To some degree, this is because there is no definitive answer to give. What is more important is the question itself because it is at the root of much of the turmoil in the world today. The Muslim world looks upon the West as the thief who stole its birthright of wealth and power. How else could one explain the turnabout in this position relative to the industrialized western world? Professor Lewis gives many more rational reasons why this turnabout occurred, but no clear-cut single reason or even a simple list of reasons.

This is a short book (less than 200 pages long), packing in lots of history and insight. It is very useful for anyone who seeks to understand the motivations of those who seek to confront the West and regain their lost glory, wealth and power. It is recommended with the reservation that you will have to use the information provided and other readings in order to come to your own conclusion about "what went wrong".

The reader is directed to the opinion and my reply listed below. They bring out additional points that may be of interest.

One thousand years ago, the Muslim world looked upon itself as the richest, most technologically advanced, and most powerful society in the world. One thousand years later it looks upon itself as being generally poor, backward, and weak. What went wrong? That is the question posed by this book. Unfortunately, Professor Lewis does not give any definitive answer to this question. To some degree, this is because there is no definitive answer to give. What is more important is the question itself because it is at the root of much of the turmoil in the world today. The Muslim world looks upon the West as the thief who stole its birthright of wealth and power. How else could one explain the turnabout in this position relative to the industrialized western world? Professor Lewis gives many more rational reasons why this turnabout occurred, but no clear-cut single reason or even a simple list of reasons.

This is a short book (less than 200 pages long), packing in lots of history and insight. It is very useful for anyone who seeks to understand the motivations of those who seek to confront the West and regain their lost glory, wealth and power. It is recommended with the reservation that you will have to use the information provided and other readings in order to come to your own conclusion about "what went wrong".

For all the other problems with some of Lewis's work, this book starts off with a fair question. The Islamic world was at one point the world's most advanced civilization. One does not need to look very hard to find evidence of this. It is clear now that things have changed, so the question in the title is fair to a certain extent.

Lewis presents an interesting book by presenting chapters on culture, military reforms, governmental organization, etc. He really tries to look at all the different areas in which the Islamic world was being overtaken by the West. He notes that as the Islamic world started to fall behind, they started to look to the West to incorporate new ideas that would fix this new imbalance.

However, there is a glaring problem with this work. The problem is that Lewis treats the West and the Islamic world as if they were completely separate, and that the West was not trying to impose its will on the rest of the world. He does talk about contacts between the two civilizations, but if this were the only book someone has read on the topic, they would come away with the idea that the West was just minding its own business and not trying to advance its own interests.

This book is remarkably similar to his other recent bestseller The Crisis of Islam in that he presents a concise and well-written history, but when he tries to use the history to analyze the questions facing us today, he largely fails. If you're interested in the question Lewis asks, you should read this book, just don't expect an answer.

This book was an eyeopener on what is really going on in the Islamic world.

This book, along with Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer", will provide understanding of the nature of the conflict between Islamists and Western Society (which has been ongoing for more than a thousand years). Understanding, but no easy answers.

Bernard Lewis is a historian of the Ottoman era. Period. He sets himself up as an expert on Arabs and the modern Middle East, which is preposterous. He does not know Arabic and certainly does not routinely converse with modern Arabs, in all of their many countries. He uses terms like Unbelievers, which insults Westerners, when Muslims never do and never would -- that term is used by extremists whose mentality is much like that of our White Aryans. And just about as representative. In everything he writes, Lewis harps on the House of War and House of Peace, an idea one thousand years out of date. That was Crusader-era thinking, which was outrageous and should embarrass both sides today.
The problem is not religion, it is political policies, and long digressions into Crusader and post-Crusader history do not shed insight into beliefs and resentments today. He uses broad terms like "Muslim rage" -- all Muslims? Certainly not. Consider his assertion that it is an intolerable humiliation for Muslims to be taught by Unbelievers -- does that make sense? With the thousands of Muslims who are being, and have been, educated in the West? Who hire Western advisors?
"What went wrong?" Western intrusion into the Middle East region, that's what. Today most vividly illustrated by Israel and Iraq, and shoring up corrupt regimes like the Saudis (who are no friends of America and promote their exclusivist religion to our detriment). But to admit political issues is to bring up the too-painful possibility of reviewing America's policies, so Lewis et al. harp on religion (are 5 million Muslims in America motivated to hurt anybody? They are in every city and town. Do they hate America and or non-Muslims? Try asking them, because Lewis certainly has not).
Lewis has done immeasurable damage to the image of Muslims and Middle Easterners, and fostered much hatred based on his reckless statements. This is the EXPERT who advised the Bush White House and encouraged the neocon insanity to go about happily creating democracies in the Middle East which would then lead to love all around... easy success in Iraq would be just the beginning of this miracle. On this rests his credibility.

Certainly "What went wrong?" is a provocative question that many will find unpalatable from the start. However, it is the right question, and Lewis answers the question superbly. To deny that that the current state of Islam and the Islamic world is not in dire decay is simply agenda-driven or politically-correct blindness. Oppression of women and ethnic minorities is rampant -- women are not allowed to own property, drive cars, appear in public without the veil, and instead undergo clitorectomies, honor killings, and enslavement. Similarly, one can look at Muslim treatment of other Muslims, for starters, such as Saddam's gassing of the kurds, or the Iran-Iraq war, or the current Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq.

Lewis traces the insularity of Islam after its heyday during the middle ages, when it rejected or was slow to adopt "infidel" technologies, such as modern weaponry and the printing press. At the same time, Islamic societies did import some of the poorer offerings of the Western World, such as fascism and centralization of state power (brought on by bureaucracy, record keeping, and so on). These led to the Islamofascist dictatorships -- secular strongmen bolstered by an ideology, which we see in Egypt or Syria, or fundamentalist ones such as Iran, and would be examples, such as the resurrection of the caliphate that Bin Ladin seeks. A sad byproduct of this centralization was the elimination of intermediate power holders in the Islamic societies, which acted as a constraint on the capriciousness of central authorities. The loss of Halifa, the "rightful" empire of Islam, has fueled resentment as Muslims confuse Westernization with Modernity, or resent the successes of modernity, which have painfully few roots in the Islamic world.

Note that the work addresses what went wrong with Islam -- including the Middle East but not restricting itself to it. It would be disingenous, however, to assert that the Middle East is not the wellspring of Islam and that Muslims living in "Dar al Harb" are not strongly connected to the Hijaz -- the holy Arabian peninsula. It is similarly specious, as some reviewers contend, that problems in Islam are not profoundly influenced by historical antecedents in the Middle East.

Lewis as a writer is a master of beautful prose -- modest and pithy. He is able to convey complex information to popular audiences without sacrificing the integrity of his scholarship. "What went wrong?" is both the right question and the right book -- essential reading for all concerned about the rather obvious "clash of civilizations" that we see today.

Certainly "What went wrong?" is a provocative question that many will find unpalatable from the start. However, it is the right question, and Lewis answers the question superbly. To deny that that the current state of Islam and the Islamic world is not in dire decay is simply agenda-driven or politically-correct blindness. Oppression of women and ethnic minorities is rampant -- women are not allowed to own property, drive cars, appear in public without the veil, and instead undergo clitorectomies, honor killings, and enslavement. Similarly, one can look at Muslim treatment of other Muslims, for starters, such as Saddam's gassing of the kurds, or the Iran-Iraq war, or the current Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq.

Lewis traces the insularity of Islam after its heyday during the middle ages, when it rejected or was slow to adopt "infidel" technologies, such as modern weaponry and the printing press. At the same time, Islamic societies did import some of the poorer offerings of the Western World, such as fascism and centralization of state power (brought on by bureaucracy, record keeping, and so on). These led to the Islamofascist dictatorships -- both existing ones, such as Iran, and would be examples, such as the resurrection of the caliphate that Bin Ladin seeks. A sad byproduct of this centralization was the elimination of intermediate power holders in the Islamic societies, which acted as a constraint on the capriciousness of central authorities. The loss of Halifa, the "rightful" empire of Islam, has fueled resentment as Muslims confuse Westernization with Modernity, or resent the successes of modernity, which have painfully few roots in the Islamic world.

Note that the work addresses what went wrong with Islam -- including the Middle East but not restricting itself to it. It would be disingenous, however, to assert that the Middle East is not the wellspring of Islam and that Muslims living in "Dar al Harb" are not strongly connected to the Hijaz -- the holy Arabian peninsula. It is similarly specious, as some reviewers contend, that problems in Islam are not profoundly influenced by historical antecedents in the Middle East.

Lewis as a writer is a master of beautful prose -- modest and pithy. He is able to convey complex information to popular audiences without sacrificing the integrity of his scholarship. "What went wrong?" is both the right question and the right book -- essential reading for all concerned about the rather obvious "clash of civilizations" that we see today.

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 educacational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights - what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low." (p. 152)

"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 nquire 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 historcal decline of the much accomomplished 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" was also published under the title: "What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle East Response."

I give this one a grade of C+. 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."

I've read two other books by Lewis and found both of them to be much more comprehensive than this one. In fact, 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, backwards cultures on the planet.

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 educacational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights - what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low." (p. 152)

"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 nquire 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.

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" to be volume one of a two-volume set followed by "The Crisis of Islam."

"What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity" was also published under the title: "What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle East Response."

I give this one a grade of C+. 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."

First of all, consider the question that Lewis is trying to ask. What went wrong with the 'Middle East' and their 'failure' to modernize? And now think about how big this book is, about 150 pages. The 'Middle East' is a huge area extending from Morocco to Iran and he attempts to explain their 'failure' to modernize by reviewing the last years of the Ottoman Empire. That is just plain lazy work on the part of a historian who is supposed to be revered in his field.

Another issue is that he constantly refers to the 'Middle East' as 'Islam' as though Islam is homogenous or even centered in the Ottoman Empire. Granted the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was also the Caliph but the Twelver Shi'is don't consider him to be legitimate anyway. To consider Islam to have some kind of collective thought process when encountering the 'West' is reprehensible. Consider now the fact that the majority of Muslims don't even live in the Middle East or the Ottoman Empire. How can Lewis truthfully use the term 'Islam' in his book to refer to the entity that 'went wrong' when the area he's speaking about doesn't even constitute the majority of Muslims in the world!?

This book is a quick read for people who aren't in the field to think that they're informed about what is going on in the scary area known as the 'Middle East'. The worst part is that the only people who would know that this is full of holes and lacking greatly in background and professionalism are the people who wouldn't normally read it anyway. This is a dangerous book because the name Bernard Lewis is synonymous with Expert in Middle East affairs. This was a lazy, half hearted attempt to cash in on people's ignorance and only perpetuates the wrong ideas in people's minds. Bad Lewis, very very bad. Any 'liberal historian' who suggests this book should be beaten with this book, unfortunately for us the book is very thin so it will take a while to bring him down with it.

If you want better sources, look to John Esposito, Albert Hourani and Nikki Keddie. All of them have published widely and lack the obvious political biases of Bernard Lewis. Check them out.

This book was recommended to me by a liberal historian. Since then I've noticed that the Bush administration sought Bernard Lewis's advice at one point. The reason everyone respects him is that this historian in his nineties who has been studying the Middle East since the 1940s knows things we all ought to know about Muslim civilizations. But we were not taught any of these things in school--not even college. Not even graduate school, for most of us. Answers to the conflict between the West and the Middle East will be hard to find, but if we don't even understand the context, things will just get worse and worse. So please read this great book, and then go on to read more books by Bernard Lewis!

There is no doubting Bernard Lewis is a capable scholar. However he is one of the pioneers of the wave of apologetic Historians who are rewriting history. Basicaly, history to Bernard Lewis is: Muslims good Christians bad, all things from the west are bad and all things eastern good, all the worlds wrongs are the wests fault. He seems to beleive that the islamic invasions were paeceful and did not involve mass forced conversions and slaughter of non muslims. He is a totally unobjective historian who is guily of putting forward a mythical and fantisical account concerning the birth and rise of islam. He is directly part responsible for legitmising the modern wave of Islamic terrorism agasinst all non muslims today. He never questions the islamic sources authencicty and disregards all other non muslim sources on the rise of Islam. He has thrown away any opportuntiy to fairly study Islamic and Arab history. Bsically a coward and an apologist.

For those who want a more fair and realistic approach to Islamic history and Arabic History i can recommend these authors: Patricia Crone, Bat Yeor.

I also recommend anyone with an interest in attempting to find out the truth about the rise of Islam, to read the orginal islamic souces themselves. They paint a frighting picture, the opposite to Bernard Lewis's strange propaganda. See Life of Muhammed by Ibn Ishaq (the earliest biography written on Muhammed), every page is full of stories that will give you a better understanding to why Muslims are raging their terror across the world today.

In the post 9/11 world in which this book, subtitled "The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" was published, it should not be surprising that the reader would anticipate a discussion of the factors that led up to that awful day. This, however, is not to be found in What Went Wrong?

Instead we are treated to a cerebral discussion of various and sundry esoteric minutiae. We learn, for instance, that, "A distinguishing characteristic of Western music is polyphony, by harmony or counterpoint. This begins in its simplest form with the choir, in which matched voices sing different notes in a planned sequence to produce a combined effect; then comes the keyboard instrument, matching the ten fingers of the two hands, following different routes in a common purpose; and finally, the musical ensemble, from duets and trios to the full orchestra". While this is all well and good, and may even be mildly interesting on some academic level, it is hard to understand how it plays into a discussion of "The Clash Between Islam and Modernity..." that has led to the precarious times in which we live.

Or, on another note (harmony? counterpoint?) we learn that Robinson Crusoe was translated into Arabic by Butrus al-Bustani and published in the late 1850's. Big deal!

What we don't learn anything about is the rise of militant Islamism. There is no mention of Wahhabism or how this fundamentalist Islamic movement contributed to the rejection of modernity. The Muslim Brotherhood also is not to be found in the index, nor is there a mention of Sayyid Qutb, or his writing of the incendiary manifesto, Milestones. Furthermore, there is not a single reference to al-Qaeda, though Usama bin Laden does appear, albeit seemingly as an afterthought, in what appears to be a hastily added Afterword.

So what went wrong?

Beats me...

Lewis is a well known scholar on all issues pertaining to the Middle East. In this book, he aims to make a brief case on what happened to the Muslim world that made go from science and technology leader of the world in the 14th century to undervelopment and war defeats in the 19th and 20th centuries.

In rought 250 pages, it is very difficult to make a well argued case for a topic so extensive as this. In his explanation, Lewis divides the argument in two parts --

1. What made the Muslim world surge ahead of the West initially -- fractional societies in the west in the Middle Ages made Muslims regard the West (correctly) as a backward area. As a better integrated society, the Muslims were able to develop and disseminate technology far faster, borrowing ideas from the East (China and India had extensive contact with the Muslims).

2. What made the West catch up and pass -- here, the argument is a difficult one, but it makes general sense. Because of the tenets of freedom that came about with the Renaissance and French Revolution, the West liberated its societies and integrated them, allowing for the development of science and technology at a far faster pace than a rigidly managed society in Turkey at the time. Issues such as the freedom of women, freedom of press, equal rights, etc. emerged in the west initially, but since the Muslim world was accostumed to disregard the west, they fell behind.

Overall, the book touches on some major topics that are indeed important in development. However, I did finish the book with the sense that the argument was not complete. It can only partially explain to me the reason why such great societies as the Muslims in the 14th century, who went so far as to conquer Constantinople, drive deep into central Europe and invade most of Spain and Portugal, fell behind to the poin that they were conquered and remain today below average in development.

I bought this book on a recommendation from a friend, but after reading this book I'm frankly not sure the friend read this book. I was really looking for a thoughtful answer to the question in the title, but I now suspect the title is a gimmick to sell more books in a post- September 11 world.

This book is actually based on three lecture series by the author, and at the end a quick chapter titled "Conclusion" does not reach a Conclusion and does not answer the title question.

My guess on What Went Wrong? Corrupt, self-serving leadership, more interested in enriching themselves rather than transparent decision-making. The Indonesians have a term for this, KKN, for Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism.

I would give this zero stars if possible, but there are some interesting historical tidbits that might warrant 1 star.

I've read several of Bernard Lewis' books, and this one should be categorized as one of his most insightful. When the people of the west try to understand the current situation in the Middle-East they often rely on the sound bites and blame-casters they see on the television or read from in the newspapers. But the root of this hostility goes much deeper. As Lewis explains, the Muslims of today are struggling with the reality of what went wrong with the once great civilization that was Islam of the past. Bernard Lewis points to this struggle and suggests, the problem is not necessarily coming from outside (i.e., the Jews, the West, the apostates, the infidels, the Americans, etc.), but from inside. The question, he suggests, should not be, "who has done this to us", but rather, "where have we gone wrong?" The point being: it's so much easier to blame someone else for our problems - it's often very hard to suggest that the problem may be 'us'.

Mr. Lewis a, great expert in his field, makes it crystal clear as to what the question is and eliminates some possible answers (he makes a good case that it is mainly a problem that is internal to Islam, that is, the West and the Jews did not do it to them), but he does not give an answer as to why Muslim society has failed to modernize. And the author does not suggest that with more analysis and research he will come up with the answer. So that must mean that we will not get the answer until we have a successful (modernized/westernized) Islamic country. The various actions that a successful Muslim society takes to reform and become successful will indicate to us what may have gone wrong during the long decline that Islamic Civilization has experienced.
Bernard Lewis considers many things that could be holding Islam back, position of women etc., but he does not consider the Muslims treatment of interest rates and how that affects business development and the economy.

Luckily this book is only 160 pages, so I didn't waste too much time. It merely says Islamic countries used to be world-leaders, and now they're pretty backward. Very few examples of why and how this happened.

I thought it was going to be a history of Islam, but it's more a history of Islamic nations. It's sketchy, it's theoretical, and there's little filled in the middle of the ideas.

It'll say things like, "Modernity came from Christendom during the 18th and 19th centuries and changed the very way life was lived in Islamic countries." Then it gives no examples of what it means by that.

I applaud people who want to learn about Islam, but I recommend they buy a different book than this one.

Bernard Lewis is considered one of the few premier intellects to devote his life to studying the ancient and medieval Near East. While he has generated dozens of excellent books on the Middle East, What Went Wrong? is merely a short monograph that restates a series of speeches that he gave a few years earlier in Germany. Regardless, it is a powerful book filled with substantial primary source references and the cumulative insight of a man who has spent six decades studying the Middle East.

This book provides no answer to the question of what went wrong. Rather, it attempts to discuss how this question and the potential answers looked from the point of view of the Islamic world.

Lewis examines in exceedingly well documented form, the efforts in the Middle East to adopt some of the best practices of the "West". To a large extent, these efforts are complete failures or result in bizarre dysfunctional outcomes that actually make Middle Eastern populations less free, less healthy, and less prosperous.

Additionally, Lewis discusses the examples of slavery and polygamy as two relatively successful efforts of self reform in Islam. These examples show that the Islamic world is indeed capable of changing for the better when the correct dynamics are in place. However, in neither case are these changes complete or completely accepted.

For this reader, the one theme that holds true is the lack of individual creativity, flexibility, and self-discipline that mark the so called Western world. For some reason, these key characteristics stopped being part of the Middle Eastern culture - thus the somewhat cynical title of my review. One can go to any Middle Eastern city and see disaffected Arabs living off the dole of the local mosque while every manual labor job is performed by Pakistani and Filipino contract workers. To a large extent, technical jobs are still performed by Western or East Asian workers. Arab companies founded by Arabs, run by Arabs, and with Arab employees are the exception - not the rule.

If the Islamic world can ever be competitive again, it will be because of the energy and dynamism of Muslims from India, Indonesia, and, possibly, sub-Saharan Africa.

Indeed, if one looks at the current attempts at immigration reform and the so-called guest worker program in the United States, one wonders if we are not beginning to outsource our own energy and work ethic and are falling prey to the same arrogance and narrow mindedness that has caused continual decline in the Middle East over the last eight hundred years.

I read this book while overseas in Turkey. I was amazed by the historical development. The development of humanism in the west truly is a unique creation amist the monolithic religions of the east and middle east. In this instance, I consider governments, such as the chinese to be another form of religion. The chapter describing how the British and French attempted to export factories to the middle east was sad and in a way funny. The moslems thought that they could import technology without adopting western ideas --- too open for their society. These factories were in ruin a few years after they built them. All in all, a great work. I gave it only four stars because at times, the references were a little dull.

As a right-winger, i championed this book because of its "common sense" insights into the arab malaise. This book does a great job of explaining to folks who already have made up their minds that there is something wrong with people from the middle east. However, upon further research, i discovered that besides the historical facts as being invented or manipulated, Lewis has a history of racism against arabs. Lewis, it should also be remembered, counciled president Bush to go to war against Iraq. The book is actually quite dangerous to humanity's future. I hope that people be very careful reading this book. I would suggest that one reads this book in conjunction with Edward Said's "Orientalism" -- a book which is better researched and brings to light Lewis' racist arguments.

A pertinent survey meticulously detailing how the Islamic world fell from prominence in almost every field 700 years ago, to the stagnant, oppressive, backwater it is today. The author shows in detail how the status quo is enforced, while the very idea of progress is rejected. The region is rife with a myriad of self-inflicted problems because they are living more in the past than the present. The constant externalizing of problems rather than being dealt with internally is and has been self defeating. This can be seen and heard from a Cairo cafe to Arab foreign exchange students in the west talking about the Crusades and the destruction of Baghdad in 1258 by the Mongols as if it had occurred ten minutes earlier. Untill the Moslem world can do a "MEA CULPA" the clash of cultures may sadly go on for ages. This book is a must for anyone who wants to learn how the present is still being affected by the past.

A pertinent survey meticulously detailing how the Islamic world fell from prominence in almost every field 700 years ago, to the stagnant, oppressive, backwater it is today. The region is rife with a myriad of self-inflicted problems because they are living more in the past than the present. The constant externalizing of problems rather than being dealt with internally is and has been self defeating. This can be seen and heard from a Cairo cafe to Arab foreign exchange students in the west talking about the Crusades and the destruction of Baghdad in 1258 by the Mongols as if it had occurred ten minutes earlier. Untill the Moslem world can do a "MEA CULPA" the clash of cultures may sadly go on for ages. This book is a must for anyone who wants to learn how the present is still being affected by the past.

This is a good companion to books such as "The Holy Wars", and others that seek to explain the complex nest of hatred toward the West. While I enjoyed Lewis' views, one must keep an open mind in your exploration for the heart of what is now an awakened monster that will suck the life out of all of us if not gotten under control. The momentum of this monster is not concentrated in Iraq, Afganistan or Iran - it is spreading like wildfire all over Asia. Indonesia has the highest concentration of Muslims in the world and the natives continue to get restless. While we live in moral decay in the West, it certainly is far better than living in an oppressive terrany. Great information in a quick read.