The book was in excellent condition and in addition it arrived in just a few days after I ordered it.

This book examines the hate that spews from the Middle East and why Muslims see the United States as the biggest threat to them. Ultimately, the author implies that Muslims hate the U.S. because they see them as the leader of the West and the biggest obstacle to their conquest of the world (the final triumph of Islam). Parts of the book explain the revolution in Iran and it's tactics to spread rumors to promote violence in the region. In addition, a good description is provided regarding the economic and educational retardation of the region. Finally, it mentions in the last chapter the "Death cult" of terrorism from which Al Qaeda spawned. Over all, it is a chilling read but it does tell it like it is.

This book is a must for anyone trying to understand Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. This book is short and sweet but packs a well reasoned, fact backed, punch. Read it!

The author is an infamous neoconservative. The best way to describe the book is that it's racist, oversimplified, biased, and ignorant. I hope the people who read this book ralize that it will only breed more ignorance and arrogance. Shame on you, Mr. Lewis!

As someone who has and worked in the Middle East, as well as studied it, let me recommend The Looming Tower, No God but God, The Shia Revival, and The Great War for Civilisation. Thease are accurate, eye-opening, insights into such a complex topic.

This book might suffice as a general introduction, but nothing more. I don't know much about the middle east, or about Islam in general, so I found much of this book fascinating; however, I also found much of it to be suspect.

One reason for my suspicion is the alarming lack of endnotes--especially in juxtaposition to the prevalence of quotes and "facts." One to 5 endnotes per chapter in a alleged non-fiction book is unacceptable. Additionally, as many other reviewers have also noted, the statistics and assertions Lewis sets forth are used in a rather deceptive manner and seldom appear to strike at the truth. It's hard to say that Lewis is deeply biased, since he attacks both sides (perhaps not equally). Instead I think the shortcomings of this book owe entirely to laziness, or, more likely, to the tight publishing schedule of a multi-book deal.

If you go into this book expecting reasonable analysis and sound conclusions you will be disappointed; if you go in expecting a gloss, a signpost pointing the way, then this book may suit you well.

This was recommended reading for us before we deployed to Iraq in 2005, but quite frankly I didn't think that much of it. While the author has some interesting points I found many of the arguments he made self-defeating and some of the history behind his assumptions invalid.

Disappointing simplification of Arab American relationship or lack thereof, its link to the decline of Islamic political power and the frustration of Muslims. Mr Lewis is successful in drawing up a picture of failures of Islam through the American prisms. Unfortunately, the arguments must be viewed in a broader context to be credible for those of us who have also lived outside the US. His linking of Islam hostilities to the Nazis and the Soviet Union is a bit weak, although some truth could be found in it. Overall, an interesting book for those who want to understand Americans' misconception of Islam written by a scholar within the middle of it.

Sophmoric reasoning, innuendo, and misleading "facts" characterize "The Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis, the US's best known scholar of the Middle East.

The first 60-70 pages of this brief book are a relatively dispassionate examination of why the Muslims are different from Christians. There are insights here worthy of attention -- although hardly original or brilliantly insightful. But the last 100 pages take on the character of a gradually building diatribe against the Islamic countries.

To give just one example of Lewis's misleading the reader, he characterizes the statistics about economic progress and quality of life in the Islamic countries as "devastating" (page 114). He reels off several pages of statistics to prove his point. Let's take just one set of figures and apply a degree of objectivity to it. The most widely accepted comparison among countries of quality of life is the "human development index" of the UN. Lewis portrays it as a "dismal picture" that Muslim countries do not rank higher. Brunei ranks 32, Kuwait 36, Bahrain 40, Libya 66, etc. But how bad are those rankings? Well, better than India, China, and Brazil -- which are often cited as the coming super-powers. And better than Russia, and better than more than 100 other countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. (The Human Development Index rates 177 countries in its latest version. The US ranks 8.)

Lewis insinuates that all the Middle Eastern Muslim countries rank near the bottom in terms of industry, education, life expectancy, and other quality of life indicators. That's plain wrong. A careful and objective scholar would have evaluated the statistics with more fairness. The Middle Eastern ountries as a group might be better described as "middling" or even "above average" in quality of life compared to the hundreds of millions of destitute poor in economic "powerhouses" like India and China or in truly poor countries in Africa.

Not that the Middle Eastern countries don't have problems. An unbiased scholar would note that they lag behind the West and several Asian countries in social and economic development. He might have a defensible case if he called their progress in the last 50 years "disappointing" compared to, say, South Korea. But for Lewis to throw all -- or even a majority of -- Middle Eastern countries into a pot of despair, poverty, backwardness, and evil is silly, wrong, and misleading. He's describing the half-empty glass, without giving the other side, the half-full glass. Fifty years ago Dubai was a flyspeck. Today, it's vying with Malaysia, another Muslim country, to construct the world's tallest building and buying chunks of the NASDAQ and the LSE.

Scholars of the Middle East like to talk about the Arab "street." If such a "street" exists, Lewis hasn't found it. Unfortunately, he has been influential over the decades in building up a body of biased scholarship.

Smallchief

This book is a blot on the reputation of the US's best known scholar of the Middle East. In what should be the capstone of a long and distinguished career Lewis has turned out a book of sophomoric reasoning, innuendo, and misleading "facts."

The first 60-70 pages of this brief book are a relatively dispassionate examination of why the Muslims are different from Christians. There are insights here worthy of attention -- although hardly original or brilliantly insightful. But the last 100 pages take on the character of a gradually building diatribe against the Islamic countries.

To give just one example of Lewis's misleading the reader, he characterizes the statistics about economic progress and quality of life in the Islamic countries as "devastating" (page 114). He reels off several pages of statistics to prove his point. Let's take just one set of figures and apply a degree of objectivity to it. The most widely accepted comparison among countries of quality of life is the "human development index" of the UN. Lewis portrays it as a "dismal picture" that Muslim countries do not rank higher. Brunei ranks 32, Kuwait 36, Bahrain 40, Libya 66, etc. But how bad are those figures? Well, better than India, China, and Brazil -- which are often cited as the coming super-powers. And better than more than 100 other countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. (The Human Development Index rates 177 countries in its latest version. The US ranks 8.)

Lewis insinuates that all the Muslim countries rank near the bottom in terms of industry, education, life expectancy, and other quality of life indicators. That's plain wrong. A careful and objective scholar would have evaluated the statistics with more fairness. The Middle Eastern ountries as a group might be better described as "middling" or even "above average" in quality of life compared to the hundreds of millions of destitute poor in economic "powerhouses" like India and China or in truly poor countries in Africa.

Not that the Middle Eastern countries don't have problems. An unbiased scholar would note that the Middle Eastern countries lag behind the West and several Asian countries in social and economic development. He might have a defensible case if he called their progress in the last 50 years "disappointing" compared to, say, South Korea. But for Lewis to throw all -- or even a majority of -- Middle Eastern countries into a pot of despair, poverty, backwardness, and evil is silly, wrong, and misleading. He's describing the half-empty glass, without giving the other side, the half-full glass. Fifty years ago Dubai was a flyspeck. Today, it's vying with Malaysia, another Muslim country, to construct the world's tallest building and buying chunks of the NASDAQ and the LSE.

Scholars of the Middle East like to talk about the Arab "street." If such a "street" exists, Lewis hasn't found it. Unfortunately, he has been influential over the decades in building up a body of biased scholarship.

Smallchief

This book is a blot on the formidable reputation of the US's best known scholar of the Middle East. In what should be the capstone of a long and distinguished career Lewis has turned out a book of sophomoric reasoning, innuendo, and misleading "facts."

The first 60-70 pages of this brief book are a relatively dispassionate examination of why the Muslims are different from Christians. There are insights here worthy of attention -- although hardly original or brilliantly insightful. But the last 100 pages take on the character of a gradually building diatribe against the Islamic countries.

To give just one example of Lewis's misleading the reader, he characterizes the statistics about economic progress and quality of life in the Islamic countries as "devastating" (page 114). He reels off several pages of statistics to prove his point. Let's take just one set of figures and apply a degree of objectivity to it. The most widely accepted comparison among countries of quality of life is the "human development index" of the UN. Lewis portrays it as a "dismal picture" that Muslim countries do not rank higher. Brunei ranks 32, Kuwait 36, Bahrain, 40, Libya 66, etc. But how bad are those figures? Well, better than India, China, and Brazil -- which are often cited as the coming super-powers. And better than more than 100 other countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. (The Human Development Index rates 177 countries in its latest version. The US ranks 8.)

Lewis insinuates that all the Muslim countries rank near the bottom in terms of industry, education, life expectancy, and other quality of life indicators. That's plain wrong. A careful and objective scholar would have evaluated the statistics with more fairness. Ranking 32 or 36 or 40 out of 177 countries isn't a tragedy for Muslims in Brunei or many Middle Eastern countries. They enjoy a pretty good life compared to the hundreds and hundreds of millions of destitute poor in economic "powerhouses" like India and China.

An unbiased scholar might have noted that the Muslim countries lag behind the West and several Asian countries in social and economic development. He would have a defensible case if he called their progress in the last 50 years "disappointing," compared to, say, South Korea. But for Lewis to throw all -- or even a majority of -- Islamic countries into a pot of despair, poverty, backwardness, and evil is silly and wrong.

Scholars of the Middle East like to talk about the Arab "street." If such a "street" exists, Lewis hasn't found it. Unfortunately, he has been influential over the decades in building up a body of biased scholarship.

Smallchief

Does a great job explaining the Middle East SNAFU, unlike any News Media channel!

Whether you lean on the right or left side of the paradigm is your own personal business, but I have to say after reading this book. I can now say without a doubt that I have a better grasp of the issues that engulf the Middle East. Bernard Lewis is a historian with impeccable credentials. In the book Lewis takes you through Middle Eastern history and explains the politics that metastasized from it. You won't believe that a 169-page book could pack so much information.
I'm not going to give away too much info, but I have to remind you to be circumspect when reading this book his opinions are in favor of the Zionist.
In chapter 3 of the book Lewis writes about the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099 AD. To get the other side of the story I recommend "Arab Historians of the Crusades" translated by Francesco Gabrieli.
Moreover, chapter 3 then takes you through the second Turkish siege of Vienna, in 1683, which was a defeat for the Ottoman Turks, and by 1914 Germany allied themselves with the Muslim element in the British, French and Russian empires, which paid off in 1933 when the Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with the Nazis.
In chapter 4 Lewis writes about the early encounters between the Muslim world and America. He ends chapter 4 in 2002. Only a scholar like Lewis could meticulously cram so much info in such a little book.
This was a great book, but don't believe everything in it. For example, Al'Qaeda doesn't really exist, and Osama bin Laden is really working for the CIA. Lewis will never divulge that information because of what side of the fence he dwells on. So if you want the complete story I recommend "The Terror Conspiracy" by Jim Marrs.
Even still, Bernard Lewis like Noam Chomsky is required reading.

If you don't have time to read hefty books about Islam then this 164 page book is perfect. Only an expert like Bernard Lewis would know how to boil such a complicated subject down to the essentials.

I am enrolled in an Air Force program that required reading three books off of the Chief of Staff Reading List. I chose this book to try and help me understand the Middle East and it has. It has raised more questions for me than answers, which is a mark of a good book to me. I spend time thinking about it after I've read a chapter and I can't say all books stick with me like that. It is an easy read and helps someone not familiary with the Middle East to understand the way they think and where their animosity towards the West comes from. Very interesting and thought provoking read, I would suggest it.

The celebrated colossus of Middle Eastern studies, Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton, needs no introduction. Since Sept. 11, 2001 he has emerged from the fustiness of the academic world into the spotlight of international politics. He has been quoted in learned and popular publications in America and abroad, and has been a confidant to the Vice President of the United States.

Almost 90 years old, Lewis has risen to the occasion with two recent books, pre- 9/11`s "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" and post 9/11's "The Crisis of Modern Islam" published in 2003. Both are sturdy hard-backs with quality paper and stitched bindings. They are built to last, and it's a good thing, because they will be of utmost relevance for the foreseeable future.

These two brief but jam-packed works are the Old and New Testaments of the current world conflict between Christendom and Islam, Modernity and the Dark Ages, Civilization and Barbarism.

I've read "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror" twice and continue to peruse it. Professor Lewis coined the term "The Clash of Civilizations" that his colleague Samuel Huntington used as a title for his own magnum opus on modern world politics.

If you're a book "under-liner" or marginalia scribbler you will find you've under-lined half the text before you're finished. I did this, and the second time around finished it so that almost the entire book is underlined and all the margins are filled.

Lewis calls the radical Muslims "fundamentalists" but avers that this is just a term of convenience. There is still some discussion about what to call these hate-filled death-cultists. Lewis ends his 164 page study of "Unholy Terror" with the following words: "If the fundamentalists are correct in their calculations and succeed in their war, then a dark future awaits the world...."

The celebrated colossus of Middle Eastern studies, Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton, needs no introduction. Since Sept. 11, 2001 he has emerged from the fustiness of the academic world into the spotlight of international politics. He has been quoted in learned and popular publications in America and abroad, and has been a confidant to the Vice President of the United States.

Almost 90 years old, Lewis has risen to the occasion with two recent books, pre- 9/11`s "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" and "The Crisis of Modern Islam" published in 2003. Both are sturdy hard-backs with quality paper and stitched bindings. They are built to last, and it is a good thing, because they will be of utmost relevance for the foreseeable future.

These two brief but jam-packed works are the Old and New Testaments of the current world conflict between Christendom and Islam, Modernity and the Dark Ages, Civilization and Barbarism. ("The Crisis," which is the New Testament, has four pages of helpful maps.)

I've read "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror" twice and intend to peruse it any number of times again. Professor Lewis coined the term "The Clash of Civilizations" that his colleague Samuel Huntington used as a title for his own magnum opus on modern world politics.

If you're a book "under-liner" or marginalia scribbler you will find you've under-lined half the text before you're finished. I did this, and the second time around finished it so that almost the entire book is underlined and all the margins are filled.

Lewis calls the radical Muslims "fundamentalists" but avers that this is just a term of convenience. There is still considerable discussion about what to call these hate-filled death-cultists. Lewis ends his 164 page study of "Unholy Terror" with the following words: "If the fundamentalists are correct in their calculations and succeed in their war, then a dark future awaits the world, especially the part of it that embraces Islam."

There are no stones left un-turned by Professor Emeritus Lewis! His wisdom and expertise are completely engaging as always. I've read all his books and it is true that they're heavily academic, but they are circumferential and complete with minimal un-checked opinion. Be prepared to contemplate and drop your concepts about life in the Middle east.

There are no stones left un-turned by Professor Emeritus Lewis! His wisdom and expertise are completely engaging as always. I've read all his books and it is true that they're heavily academic, but they are circumferential and complete with minimal un-checked opinion. Be prepared to contemplate and drop your concepts about life in the Middle east.

Let's get it out of the way quick. How could a book on a subject like the origins of Islam be written in such a thoroughly ENGROSSING manner to an American reader with little knowledge of the subject? Only scholar Bernard Lewis could pull it off. If I could sit down, and force President Bush and his staff to read one book on the subject that is the central core of his Presidency, you guessed it. This would be the book.

It is 164 pages of fabulous reading. Make no mistake about it. What this author has done is amazing. Bernard Lewis is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University. He has devoted his life to this topic and it shows. What is unique is that this massive mind is not full of himself. His language is plain spoken, and to the point. He says in a sentence what most authors need a paragraph, or a page to say.

Do you know how you know when you are in the presence of a MASTER THINKER? It's when he tells you something, and you say to yourself, that if I had a month to think about it, I couldn't have said it any better. That's what you get on every page of this book. There are some thoughts in this book that are absolutely original.

One of them is the concept of taxation without representation as it applies to Islamic countries. As you know, a major underlying premise of the American Revolution in the 1700's is that our citizens who were then British subjects for the most part were BITTER about paying taxes to England without representation. They were so bitter in fact, that they caused a war, a REVOLUTION in fact.

In the case of many Arab countries, these nations have abundant oil reserves, which finance the needs of the leadership on a daily basis. This means that the government is not reliant upon taxation with all the accompanying grievances that the population set feels towards the oppressive government. The oil reserves allow the government to escape the underlying dissatisfaction that our own forefathers felt towards Mother England.

Some of the things you will learn in this book are:

· In the Muslim perception, conversion to Islam is a benefit to the converts and a merit in those who convert him. In Islamic law, conversion from Islam is apostasy - a capital offense for both the one who is misled, and the one who mislead him - the law is unequivocal...the penalty is DEATH. P55

· Law in Saudi Arabia did not abolish slavery until 1962, and the subjugation of women remains in full effect. P58

· Osama bin Laden interpreted the collapse of the Soviet Union in a different way. It was their (Arab) struggle in Afghanistan that had defeated the mighty Red Army and driven the Soviets to defeat and collapse. Having disposed of the more ferocious and more dangerous of the two infidel superpowers, their next task was to deal with the other, the United States, and in this war the compromisers were tools and agents of the infidel enemy. P63

· The purpose of Iran taking the American hostages in November of 1979 was because the radicals in Iran believed that the moderates in Iran were trying to reach an accommodation with the United States. The taking of the American hostages would drive a wedge into that strategy which it did successfully.

· With the Soviet Union's implosion in the early 1990's, American foreign policy shifted from one of preventing Soviet penetration in the Mid East, to one of preventing any one Arab country from creating regional hegemony. This is why the United States waged the first Gulf War - OIL. P100

· In 1982, the Syrian dictator Assad leveled the city of Hama in his own country. They used tanks, artillery, and bomber aircraft. When they were finished they brought in bulldozers, and paved over the entire city like it was never there. In the process killing between 10,000 and 25,000 residents without regard to whether they were men, women, or children, or for that matter guilty of anything. P108

· What is even more interesting is that the United States said, and did nothing about Hama. In the years after Hama's destruction, Assad was visited by Secretaries of State James Baker 11 times, Warren Christopher 15 times, and Madeline Albright 4 times, and even President Clinton visited him in Syria. P109


The book is remarkable, and Professor Lewis has no axe to grind. He is not politically motivated. It is a pleasure to read such clarity of thought from anyone who is an expert on any topic.

Would you believe that the entire Arab world translates about 330 books per year into their language? This is 20 percent of the number that Greece alone translates. The entire Gross Domestic Product of all Arab countries is a little over $500 billion. This is less than every European country by itself. The smallest economy in Europe is Spain with close to $600 billion in GDP.

You need to know these things. We have a war going on. We gave the President our approval, and then found out that the war was not as it was made out to be. Whether you come from the Right or the Left on these topics, as a responsible American citizen, we need to have as much real, truthful information on this topic as we can get.

We need less information from reporters who want to spend 3 days studying the topic, and more from people like Lewis who have spent their lifetimes studying these topics. What does it mean that "No Arab leader has been willing to submit his claim to power to a free vote," or that under the Wahhabi teachings that dominate Saudi Arabia, "The burning of books was often accompanied by the summary execution of those who wrote, copied, or taught them," if those books were deemed contrary to Wahhabi doctrine.

In summary, read this SHORT, HIGHLY READABLE book, and you will have an infinitely better understanding of the Arab world. An understanding so extensive, that you will probably be more informed than most of the people in our government who are charged with the constitutional responsibility for this matter. We owe it to each other as Americans to be informed. Order it today.

Richard Stoyeck

A must read for every one who wants to be aware of the world around them.

Bernard Lewis' highly acclaimed "The Crisis of Islam" is a must read for all. Lewis is at his best in outlining the history of Islam from the Age of the Caliphs through the Ottoman Empire and the Age of Imperialism to the Middle East today. Those seeking a book that is politically correct will be disappointed as Lewis sticks to the hard facts of Islamic history, its religious beliefs and resultant behavior(s).

Lewis begins his book by defining Islam then proceeds through history from Islam's roots in warfare to the today's rise of Islamic inspired terrorism. Most will find the chapters on the `Marriage of Saudi Power and Wahhabi Teaching' and `The Rise of Terrorism' to be extremely relevant in understanding today's clash and what the future holds.

Lewis is quick to point out that Muslims do not to see a nation subdivided into religious groups but a religion divided into nations - something we are beginning to now understand as we deal with Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

"The Crisis of Islam" ends on a chilling note. Lewis points out that Usama Bin Laden's declaration of war against the US marks the resumption of the struggle for religious dominance of the world that began in the seventh century. "If the leaders of Al-Qa'ida can persuade the world of Islam to accept their views and their leadership, then a long and bitter struggle lies ahead, and not only for America...And a dark future awaits the world, especially the part of it that embraces Islam."

I experienced a crisis of confidence in the author's connectedness with what's going on in the Middle East when I came upon the following statement on page 21 of The Crisis of Islam:

"Unlike revolutionary France and Russia, revolutionary Iran lacks the means, the resources, and the skills to become a major world power and threat".

These words, written just three years ago, are so far off base that they cannot help but call into question Lewis' credibility, notwithstanding his stature as a great and learned scholar.

Here's another one: "But if one compares the record of American policy in the Middle East with that of other regions, one is struck not by its failure but by its success".

Gee, what I just saw on the news tonight didn't seem like the fruit of a long record of successful US policy in the region. Or maybe I missed something...

In spite of bloopers such as these, The Crisis in Islam is a far better book than its predecessor, What Went Wrong? Lewis chronicles the rise of terrorism and its association with radical Islam. He describes the integral role of jihad in Islam through the centuries, and thus creates a context for the crisis that follows out of its intersection with the modern world.

This is important material for the age in which we live.

I don't think this author hit one out of the park with "The Crisis of Islam." Most of this book was written before the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the downfall of Saddam Hussein, and it is obvious that Bernard Lewis was proposing that we should indeed invade and take down this repressive regime.

As Professor Elhadj puts it in his book, "The Islamic Shield," "...on April 9, 2003 the US army won the battle against a tattered Iraq. But, Iran, without firing a shot won the war for Iraq."

Perhaps the Iraqi invasion wasn't such a good idea, after all. I would definitely recommend "The Islamic Shield" over this book for its pragmatic suggestions on how to deal with terrorists. Bernard Lewis is less interested in practical approaches to countering fundamentalist regimes, than he is in the history and philosophy behind the (mostly) unequal relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The inward flow of oil to the West and the outward flow of money to repressive Muslim regimes are the roots of much evil in the Middle East. As the author puts it, "The custodianship of the holy places and the revenues of oil have given worldwide impact to what would otherwise have been an extremist fringe in a marginal country."

Saudi Arabia funds and controls the education of Muslim minorities in many countries, most controversially in the West, because of the reluctance of governments to involve themselves in religious matters--at least before 9/11. The extremist Wahhabi sect is providing indoctrination in "private schools, religious seminars, mosque schools, holiday camps and, increasingly, prisons" all over the world. The profound inequity of wealth in the Middle East has "created new and receptive audiences of Wahhabi teachings and those of like-minded groups, among them the Muslim Brothers in Egypt and Syria and the Taliban in Afghanistan."

How can the West counter this form of 'muscular' Islam and win the hearts and minds of its adherents? Indeed, is it possible? The slaughter of innocent, uninvolved citizens seems to have become the prime objective of the madrasa-trained terrorists. How can we or moderate Muslims counter that bias toward bigotry and violence?

Better education is certainly one of the keys, which is why Iraqi terrorists are slaughtering professors and the Taliban is busy blowing up schools that the British and American troops had rebuilt.

Bernard Lewis also advises us to stop supporting repressive regimes--even to the point of throwing them out, as was the plan in Iraq. He believes that "the war against terror and the quest for freedom are inextricably linked, and neither can succeed without the other."

I too would like to believe that's what we're fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan, but somehow that credo seems a bit oversimplified now that we've been in Iraq for almost four years. Read "The Crisis of Islam" so that you can make up your own mind on this life-or-death topic.

This small book has a load of recommendations on the back cover. Yet, I find it unsatisfactory. It meanders in and out of the history of Islam and the Middle East, but loses focus on the way. Subjects are touch upon by conclusion and generalisation, but not really in depth. It is obvious, however, that Lewis knows quite a lot - but still some clear mistakes (or misformulations?) in chronology and factual events mar the picture, and damages the feeling of trust to how the subjects are handled. It has some really interesting insights in how the USA became the great enemy of the Islamists, and many details that makes the Middle East history much more detailed than it usually appears. Yet, in walking there and there, it lacks the solid foundation on facts and events present in the books of Serge Trifkovic, for example. And while Trifkovic writes with determination and feeling for the importance of facing the Islamist threat, Lewis merely mentions the threat, but then walks on to something else. And he doesn't really connect the issues of Holy War and Unholy Terror in depth as promised in the subtitle.

Bottom line: While interesting, I suggest to spend time and money on better books. They are out there.

This book gives a concise overview of why the U.S. is currently the target of so much animosity from Islamic terrorist groups and most Middle Eastern/Islamic countries. A previous reviewer said that this book is not for the layman, but I disagree; it is precisely for the layman that Lewis has written this book. If a reader wants more detail, then he knows what to search for once he has read Lewis' book. Even without further research, the reader will have an understanding of the complicated history of the Middle East and the U.S.'s role in that history.

Many readers who aren't familiar with the background to the many problems in the Middle East today will be surprised to find out the roles that Islamic expansion, the Crusades, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and our own American culture have played in the situation. However, Lewis does not point the finger of blame at the West; he leaves that to the politically correct writers of our day who don't have a true grasp of the history and current conflicts in the region. Lewis tells like it is and shows how both Western and Middle Eastern countries have contributed to the modern quagmire in that area.

Lewis goes to some lengths to show that Islamic terrorist groups are violating tenets of their own religion through their murders and suicide bombings. However, in the end I believe he exposes why democracy will never work in Islamic countries: the ultimate goal of Islam has always been that the whole world will either be Islamic or subject to Islamic rule. Today's terrorists manipulate the frustration of the masses in order to try to get their support, and it appears that many are succeeding. Witness the Palestinian elections of 2006: the world hailed their attempt at democracy and then the Palestinian people promptly elected members of a known terrorist group, Hamas, into power. This touched off a series of events that led to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah (yet another Islamic terrorist group). I was a supporter of the effort to bring democracy to Iraq, but I now understand that this will be a failed experiment.

The bottom line for democracy in the Middle East is deftly summarized by Lewis as follows: "For Islamists, democracy, expressing the will of the people, is the road to power, but it is a one-way road, on which there is no return, no rejection of the sovereignty of God, as exercised through His chosen representatives. Their electoral policy has been classically summarized as 'One man (men only), one vote, once.'"

The U.S., European nations, and Islamic leaders who dare to try to modernize and democratize their countries are in for a never-ending conflict; that is, unless we give in to their demands for worldwide submission to Islamic rule. Keep your eyes on Europe; certain of those countries might just be foolish enough to eventually do so, and then the world will see just what these terrorists' true intentions are.

The problem is not with Islam. The problem is in your decadent american hearts. Your culture is filthy and your minds are closed. Allah closes the hearts of those who refuse to see the Truth:

"As for the disbelievers, whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is one for them; they believe not.

Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom."

Sura 2:6-7

You say we are violent but you murder children every day in Iraq, Afganistan, and in Palistine. This blood is on your head.

hasbilmilah

Was this review helpful to you?

Before 9/11, I worked with a couple of Lebanese Engineers. They had both traveled to the United States and decided to stay and raise their families here. In the Spring of one year before 2001, they both decided to pack up their families and move back to Lebanon. I had a long conversation with one of them about the big move to such an "unstable" place. He told me that we were in a war but were too ignorant to realize it. Of course, I laughed...what war? Another person of Middle Eastern descent told me to read something written by Bernard Lewis...his was the most honest depiction of the middle east. I've read Mr. Lewis since then, including "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror." A must read for all americans who wish to understand this war we've been in since....2000.

The Crisis of Islam is presented in such a way that it makes the reader think he or she will be getting in-depth analysis of Islamist terrorism in the post 9/11 world. However, this book is largely a very brief historical crash course most likely intended for those casual observers of international politics. If the book had been presented as a historical book, I most likely would have come away with a more favorable impression, but when you expect one thing and get another, it will affect your perception.

I found the historical portions of the book to be consistent with most other readings I've done in the area. The fall of the Ottoman empire, Western imperialism and the like are all discussed in a succinct manner. If found these parts of the book to be well-written and easy to follow.

However, the analysis part of the book is seriously lacking. It's almost as if Lewis isn't even trying here. He sort of half-heartedly spits out the tired "they hate us because of our freedoms" line. Granted he doesn't come across as simple minded as others have when making this statement, but when you consider the reputation of Lewis, I was disappointed with the results. I'd say it is a safe bet to read his historical works, but when he ventures into trying to explain the causes of something like terrorism, you most likely will not get the same quality.

"The Crisis of Islam" is a sequel of sorts to Bernard Lewis's best selling "What Went Wrong". In that book, Lewis dealt with the question of Islam's backwardness: why has the Islamic world lagged so much behind the West? In this book, Lewis tackles the related but separate question of Islam's belligerency: why do so many Muslims hate America and the West? Why were the 9-11 bombers Egyptians and Saudis rather then Korean, Vietnamese, Sudanese or Latin Americans?

There are essentially two schools of thoughts about the war with Arab and Muslim Fundamentalism. On the one hand, there are those who think that the Anti-Western feeling in the Muslim world is a consequence of specific Western offences. It is not always clear what those actions are, but top contenders are US support of tyrannical client states like Saudi Arabia, its support of Israel's occupation (or Apartheid if you prepare) of the Palestinians, the Colonial and post Colonial economic exploitation of the Arab world, and so on.

Supporters of this school of thought tend to see every area of Muslim/Western clash as a separate and mostly unrelated conflict: Palestinian carry our suicide bombing because of Israel's occupation of Palestine. The Iranians captured American hostages because of America's support of the Shah. The Arab Street vandalized Scandinavian Embassies because of the Muhammad cartoons; al-Qaeda attacked in New York because of America's "occupation" of Saudi Arabia and in London because of the Iraqi war.

The Other school of thought sees the root of the War with extreme Arab and Muslim states as rooted in some sort of Fundamental, ideological divide. The confrontation with al-Qaeda and other Islamic and Arab Fundamentalists is a battle between Ideologies. Like WWII and the Cold War, the West's fight against Muslim extremes is a battle between ways of life. According to this view, al-Qaeda and its cronies are not so much fighting because of any specific grievance - they are against the influence of Western Ideas in Muslim world. They fear Western materialism, immorality and secularity and its effect on Muslims.

According to that view of the world, what the first school's adherents see as a series of local clashes are actually different theaters in a worldwide struggle: al-Qaeda has branches in every Muslim and many Western nations. British born Muslims were behind attacks allegedly motivated by Israeli occupation of the Palestinian and British co-occupation of Iraq. Iran's Fatwa calling for the execution of Salaman Rushdie, and its support of the Palestinian suicide bombers, the wide spread anti-Israel sentiments in remote parts of the world, Muslim murder of Dutch film maker are all manifestation of the same phenomena: in Huntington's phrase "The Clash of Civilizations".

All this is of course a vast oversimplification. Few commentators on the Middle East hold one set of these views exclusively. The causes, characteristics, and alleged consequences of the confrontations are analyzed in vastly different ways, and the Policy recommendation of people within these two schools differ vastly (in the second school, there is a major difference between the Neo-Conservative and the traditionalist balance-of-power outlook; more on that later). But broadly speaking, this classification holds.

Bernard Lewis is a strong supporter of the second, "Clash of Civilizations" school (Full disclosure: I lean that way myself), and his book is a strong statement of that thesis. Thus the main shortfall of "The Crisis of Islam": Lewis asserts, rather then argues, his case. Lewis's "What Went Wrong" was richly grounded in Islamic history and development, including all kinds of historical evidence. In "The Crisis of Islam" Lewis routinely "reads the mind" of Arabs and Muslims: he will often quote a thinker or a manifesto as characterizing a broad segment of Arabs or Muslims; But the relevance of specific thinkers or arguments has to be argued, and here Lewis fails, sometimes spectacularly so.

The most egregious example is when Lewis spends the better part of four pages dissecting a "Letter to America", allegedly from Usama bin Laden (pp. 157-160). However, in the footnotes, Lewis writes: "the full text of the letter... [was] distributed via the internet... the personal authorship of Usama bin Laden is unlikely". Then why give so much attention for a letter that, for all we know, has been published by a fourteen years old blogger from the United Arab Emirates?

Another major issue that Lewis does not address is the relations between Arabs and Islam? Can Muslims in India, South East Asia and China really be classified along with Middle Eastern Arabs? How do none Muslim Arabs fit into the "Crisis of Islam"?

Even if we credit Lewis and the "Clash" school, there is still the question of what the policy consequences of Lewis's assessment. A major advantage of the "Western offenses" school is the clarity of its policy implications: If the West only stopped its aggression against the East, the conflict between East and West would cease.

"The Clash of Civilizations" school leads to two possible Western policies: the traditionalist, balance-of-power advocates tend to think that the US and Europe should "contain" the Middle East. Strong, pro-Western dictators like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak should be maintained and supported, as the main line of the West's defense against Islamic extremism. The Mubarak's of the world are much better then the alternative: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Ayatollah regime in Iran, and their supporters and imitators throughout the Muslim world.

The "Neo-Conservative" critics of this approach argue that it does not, in fact, ensure the safety of the West. In a U.S. client state like Saudi-Arabia, religious schools preached an extreme version of anti-Western Islam, effectively enough for most of the 9/11 Terrorists to be Saudis. America has trained and supported the Mujahadeens, the precursors of today's al-Qaeda. It has armed Sadam Hussein, only to see it turn against US allies Kuwait and Israel.

Furthermore, the New-Conservatives argue that it is immoral to allow dictators to exploit and oppress their own people. How can the US deal with regimes which discourage Free Speech, which routinely torture and oppress their citizens? How can the West support the violations of Human Rights? Thus, the West should promote democracy in the Middle East.

Lewis seems to vacillate between these positions. On the one hand he writes that "If one compares... American policy in the Middle East with that of other regions. One is struck... by its success" (p.99). On the other hand, in the book's conclusion, he clearly calls for US support to Democratic movements, and actually endorses the Iraq War (pp. 163-169). So which is it?

I think Louis, like me, is torn between the cold, heartless logic of the traditionalist school and the moral suasion of the Neo-Conservative agenda. Recent developments have not been kind to the Neo-Cons. The conflict in Iraq is gearing up towards a Civil War, if it is not there already. In every election held in the Muslim world, voters seem to elect extreme Muslim regimes. The fall of Mid East dictators seemingly leads to Lebanons and to Irans, not to any Muslim version of the Velvet Revolution. And yet, is there no way to merge together the Idealism of the Neo-Conservatives and the realism of the traditionalists? Is the Middle East so lost, that the only choices are between pro and anti-Western bullies? That is a grim vision to contemplate, for Islam and for the World.

Since the end of the Cold War, writers and political commentators have suggested that we have entered a new war - a war brought on by the "clash of civilizations". The theory, as told by writers such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis, amongst others, suggests that "the west" is at war with Islam and that this global divide will replace the earlier Cold War acrimony. Not for any particular reason or circumstance is this war being waged against us, they suggest, but merely because of its violent nature and hatred of western civilization. It is the very essence of Islam, a religion that does not share core values with ours which is the problem, and the only way to contain its violence is to be merciless in our efforts to do so.

Aside from this rhetoric being advocated as "fact" by news organizations such as FOX cable news, CNN, and most newspapers, this thesis has been regularly used by the powerful to justify wars. The U.S. used it to justify the war with Iraq and Afghanistan; Serbs and Croatians used it to justify ethnic cleansing of Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims; and it is used by Israel to justify their "war" with Palestinians.

The Clash of Civilization rhetoric suggests that the world will always be at war. As opposed to the Cold War with the Soviet Union (a country only in existence for less than a century), Islam is an old religion spread throughout the world. The framework of the Cold war between the Communist "east" and the capitalist "west" did prove useful in making this theory. The new war is between the rational, democratic, secular, and tolerant "west" and the irrational, fundamentalist, and violent "east". Orwell could have predicted this well: the new enemy created on the morning after the old enemies fell. It almost seems that for the "west" to feel at home with itself, it needs to be at constant war with some "other". Perhaps it provides some guidance to what we are and what we are not - we are simply not the "other". Perhaps Chomsky and others who have suggested that a major reason that states fight wars is for domestic reasons and for the disciplining of a nation's own population are right.

Not according to the "clash theorists" like Bernard Lewis, who claim that the clash will continue as long as Islam exists. He believes that the radical Islamic militants are not deviants from Islam, but actually have a more correct view of it. They will therefore likely become more influential over the years. But if such a clash really existed, why then do western nations continue to support both financially and militarily such Islamic groups and nations? As Eqbal Amad noted, the U.S. has long supported this very enemy, be it with Iraq (during and after the Iraq-Iran wars), the Saudi Monarchy, or the Afghani Mujahadeen.

Perhaps this theory falls within the entire framework of colonialism. Western colonial nations conquered the world and forced its non-western inhabitants to submit to their authority. It was believed and advocated that colonialism would help these "backward" people in the long run to become just like the colonists. Beyond the arrogance of the idea, colonialism developed sophisticated systems of slavery and servitude that sought to extract valuable natural resources from these areas for the sole benefit of their the colonizers own nations.

Interestingly anti-western Islamic militants use the same kind of "absolute conflict" to frame their war with the West. They say the conflict is between the hedonistic, degenerate, repressive, soulless West and the just, truthful, and moral center of Islam. Speaking to this subject, writers Qureshi and Sells note:

"Those who proclaim such a clash of civilizations, speaking for the West or for Islam, exhibit the characteristics of fundamentalism: the assumption of a static essence, knowable immediately, of each civilization, the ability to ignore history and tradition, and the desire to lead the ideological battle on behalf of one of the clashing civilizations".

Our eyes in the West do have the blinders of uninformed history of how the Middle East Islam views America's and the West's current confrontation with terrorism.

This Lewis' seeks to unload and inform in this compact, but chock-filled intro to the topic. He covers so much so succinctly, and there is therefore much to be digested in few words which would take for the interested some time to investigate. But he does put forward the idea that what is fueling much of the conflict is the Islam perception that America/Western alliance invasion and now occupation in Arabia is nothing short of renewed imperialism.

This coupled with many other factors which Lewis carefully ferrets out such as denegrating morality of America and interest for economic reasons of siding with inhuman dictatorships in Arabia is certainly read by Islam world as severe threats to be dealt with. Cast on all this the Israel issue and America is seen as major enemy.

Islam as political and religious is something very foreign to America, as we are based so much on freedom of religion and separation of church and state, that to see otherwise is apart from our history and experience. Freedom of belief and press and speech are so powerful, yet seen through Middle East, Islamic eyes totally different.

There are so many things here to ponder that truly most of us in the West are not familiar with, that this book will begin the enlightenment. Jihad, extremist Muslim groups, etc., sacredness of once captured land by Islam, etc.

Highly recommended for reread.

A first reader of this renowned Princeton Arabist might puzzle for a moment over whether he is a sympathist or an adversary of Arabs, Islam, and the Muslims. He is both.

Lewis represents that kind of 'Orientalist' that is disparaged by interpreters like the Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said. He is well versed in the Islamic texts, a visceral friend of the Arab and Muslim peoples, and a convinced proponent of the idea that in our time something terrible has hijacked the politics of the Arab and Persian world and the religion of the Muslim people.

That something is the radical response to the chasm that has opened up between all measurable indices of 'the West' and those of the Arab states, not to mention the Far East and the realm of Islam, a reaction that has unfortunately come to be called 'Islamic Fundamentalism'. Lewis is unmoved by arguments that attempt to diminish the sheer horror and indeed the un-Islamic character of bin Laden and those who associate with movements like the one he leads.

Lewis' Crisis of Islam provides a brief and coherent treatment of how things came to the awful circumstances that dominate the lives of Muslims and others in this first decade of the twenty-first century. He hints at how much worse they might become. For a Western reader who wants to understand why Muslims view the world-and us!-as they do, this book is a great place to start.

The audiobook version (Random House) is read by the author, who brings both erudition and emotion to the task.

Bernard Lewis is the rare historian who can synthesize vast amounts of material and present history in a cogent and compelling way for the educated, concerned citizen without pandering. This book helped me to understand the current conflict between elements of Islam and the West in ways a thousand newspaper/magazine articles and news programs did not. Balanced and fair.

Highly recommended. The audio version, read by the author himself, is also excellent.

First of all, Lewis'"Crisis of Islam" is not about the Iraq War or George W. Bush. Secondly, it is NOT an anti-Islam, anti-Arab, pro-Western polemic. For example, Lewis writes that:

(1) "The expulsion of religious minorities is extremely rare in Islamic history - unlike in medievel Christendom, where expulsions of Jews and, after the Reconquest, of Muslims were normal and frequent. Compared with European expulsions, 'Umar's decree was both limited and compassionate ... And unlike the Jews and Muslims driven out of Spain and other European countries, to find what refuge they could elsewhere, the Jews and Christians of Arabia were resettled on lands assigned to them ..." [xxix-xxx].

(2) "To most Americans, bin Laden's declaration is a travesty, a gross distortion of the nature and purpose of the U.S. presence in Arabia. They should also be aware that for many, perhaps most Muslims, the declaration is an equally grotesque travesty of the nature of Islam, and even of its doctrine of jihad. THe Qur'an speaks of peace as well as of war" [xxxii].

(3) "During the centuries that in European history are called medieval, the most advanced civilization in the world was undoubtedly that of Islam" [29].

(4) "Fighters in a jihad are enjoined [by the Qur'an] not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoners, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce, and to honor agreements ... At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder" [39].

(5) "There were certainly major negative consequences of imperialism and more broadly of Western European influence ..." [58].

(6) "There is some justice in one charge that is frequently leveled against the United States, and more generally against the West: Middle Easterners increasingly complain that the West judges them by different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans ... Sometimes, even where American interests are concerned, American governments have betrayed those whom they had promised to support and persuaded to take risks" [107].

(7) "Most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalists are not terrorists ..." [137].

(8) "All these different extremist groups sanctify their action through pious references to Islamic texts ... They are, however, highly selective in their choice and interpretation of sacred texts" [138].

(9) "Islamic jurisprudence is a system of law and justice, not of lynching and terror" [141].

(10) "Can [the attacks of 9/11 and other similar actions] in any sense be justified in terms of Islam? The answer must be a clear no ... [such attacks] have no justification in Islamic doctrine or law and no precedent in Islamic history ... These are ... acts - from a Muslim point of view - or blashphemy" [154].

The whole thrust of the book, in fact, is that the extremism of today is a result of a particular sect of Islam, Wahhabism, which arose in the past two hundred years. He even concludes the book by arguing: "There is enough in the traditional culture of Islam on the one hand and the modern experience of the Muslim peoples on the other to provide the basis for an advance toward fredom in the true sense of that word" [169]. These are hardly the words of a religious or racial bigot, so enough of that nonesense.

Some of the most fascinating and illuminating parts of the book deal with:

(1) The major difference between Christianity (and Judaism) and Islam regarding politics. While Christ told his followers to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's" and grew and developed for centuries as the "religion of the downtrodden", Muhammad founded a state and empire; therefore, he did not need to establish a separate church. For the formative first period of Islam, there was no experience of state persecution. Islam was the state and "God's approval of their cause was made clear to them in the form of victory and empire in THIS world." While Christ was crucified, and Moses died before entering the Promised Land, Muhammad died a sovereign and conqueror. The past centuries of Judeo-Christian superiority and victories is thus not just a humiliation for Muslims: It is a direct challenge to the truth of Islam itself. While Christians have been in dominant political positions throughout history, during their formative years they were not, and basically got used to being kicked around. While they have enjoyed holding power, they don't believe God entitles Christians to hold it.

(2) From the 7th Century the successors of Muhammad declared and fought an imperialistic jihad against the rest of the world. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient empire of Persia and absorped all its territories, thus threatening Central Asia and India. Much territory of the Byzantine Empire was conquered and the then CHRISTIAN provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa were absorbed "and in due course Islamized and Arabized, and they served as bases for the further invasion of Europe and the conquest of Spain and Portugal and much of southern Italy. By the early 8th century the conquering Arab armies were even advancing beyond the Pyrenees into France" [34]. After several centuries, Christendom began to turn the Muslim invaders back from Europe. The Crusades, NOT an imperialistic enterprise, but a brief and delayed response to centuries of jihad failed utterly. Subsequently a new phase of the jihad was inaugurated by the Muslim Turks who also pushed into Europe.

(3) The US-Israeli relationship is examined and Lewis debunks the thesis that Palestine is the root cause of Muslim rage by pointing out a number of interesting facts:

(a) In the 1930s, Nazi Germany was the main cause of Jewish migration to Palestine. The Nazis facilitated this migration "while the British, in the forlorn hope of winning Arab goodwill, imposed and enforced restrictions" [94]. Nonetheless, the Arabs openly sided with the Nazis who were encouraging Jewish migration to Palestine, and against the British who were trying to keep them out.

(b) The Soviets played a major role in securing the UN vote to establish Israel in Palestine and they then gave Israel immediate de jure recognition. The US was more hesitant and gave only de facto recognition. The Soviets immediately sent the Israelis weapons through Czechoslovakia after the war (to hurt the British) while the US maintained a partial weapons embargo. Nonetheless, the Arab (though not the Turks and Persians) embraced the Soviet alliance without bitterness!

(c) Throughout the 1950s, US dealings with Israel were limited and cautious. The US decisively intervened in 1956 to denounce the Israeli invasion of Egypt and demanded their immediate withdrawal. As late as the Six-Day War (1967), Israel relied for its weapons mainly on France. It was not until the return to the Arab world of Russian imperialism in the form of the 1955 Soviet-Egyptian arms deal (nonetheless hailed across the Islamic world) did the US-Israeli alliance begin. Thus, "the strategic relationship between the US and Israel was a consequence, not a cause, of Soviet penetration" [97].

Although Lewis does make several legitimate points, the overwhelming majority of this book is right-wing, anti-Islamic, pro-American rhetoric. Some of the "points" that he makes are so ludicrous that they are down-right laughable. For example, the Crusades are the only example of violence in Christianity, and even that wasn't so bad? Yeah, I'm sure.

Bernard Lewis has made a most valuable contribution in his in-depth look at "holy war," the ages old tool of mass manipulation. As we now see frightening signs of such faith-based extremism in its early forms beginning to take hold in the United States and we watch Europe engulfed in a clash of civilizations, it is in the interest of every world citizen to understand the phenomenon for what it is. Since September 2001 I have noticed more than the usual level of abuse of the phrases, "By God" and "Wallah." It seems we are convinced whatever fleeting thought passes through our heads is a lightning bolt sent from upon high.

Sir Winston Churchill understood fanaticism. The following is from his book "The River Wars":

"Few facts are so encouraging to the student of human development as the desire, which most men and all communities manifest at all times, to associate with their actions at least the appearance of moral right. However distorted may be their conceptions of virtue, however feeble their efforts to attain even to their own ideals, it is a pleasing feature and hopeful augury that they should wish to be justified. The sufferings of a people or class may be intolerable, but before they take up arms and risk their lives some unselfish and impersonal spirit must animate them. In countries where there is education and mental activity or refinement, this high motive is found in the pride of glorious traditions or in a keen sympathy with surrounding misery. Ignorance deprives savage nations of such incentives. Yet in the marvelous economy of nature this very ignorance is a source of greater strength. It affords them the mighty stimulus of fanaticism. ... It [fanaticism] gives men something which they think is sublime to fight for, and this serves them as an excuse for wars which it is desirable to begin for totally different reasons. Fanaticism is not a cause of war. It is the means that helps savage peoples to fight. It is the spirit that enables them to combine -- the great common object before which all personal or tribal disputes become insignificant. What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith was to the Arabs of the Sudan -- a faculty of offence or defense. It was all this and no more ... Those whose practice it is to regard their own nation as possessing a monopoly of virtue and common-sense, are wont to ascribe every military enterprise of savage peoples to fanaticism. They calmly ignore obvious and legitimate motives. The most rational conduct is considered mad. It is, perhaps, an historical fact that the revolt of a large population has never been caused solely or even mainly by religious enthusiasm."

So it is that men like Churchill can become great statesmen. They understand the tools by which populations are manipulated. The next time someone makes a pitch to you about your "desire to belong to something greater than yourself," at least recognize the tool at work when you don your uniform or reach for your wallet.

My wife got this book as we were hoping to learn more about Islam. We just wanted an unbiased, informative book.

The introduction and first chapter or two were quite informative. Then I started to notice that this book was not just telling me about Islam, but also arguing for the current U.S. foreign policy. Some of the book's claims also just didn't make sense. For example, the book dismisses what representatives of Islam tell us, that one of their chief concerns about the U.S. is the U.S. support for Israel. Instead, the book claims Islam's real antipathies for the West lie elsewhere. The book makes unsupported claims such as "...Middle Easterners increasingly complain that the West judges them by different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans..." [p.104].

This book's neoconservative leanings become truly apparent in the Afterword: "The American military intervention in Afghanistan and then in Iraq has had two declared objectives: the first and more immediate, to deter and defeat terrorism; the second, to bring freedom, sometimes called democracy, to the peoples of these countries and beyond." [p.165] There is no mention that the ostensible reason for the invasion was to eliminate Saddam Hussein's WMD. Another example, on page 168, refers again to the Iraq war as "The attempt to bring freedom to the Middle East."

Consequently, we were disappointed with this book, since it provides a biased view of Islam and becomes bogged down in supporting our current foreign policy.

In summary, if you just want to learn about Islam buy another book!

Finally, see the book America Alone, by Halper & Clarke, for an excellent discussion of who the neoconservatives are, how they have come to power, and how they have co-opted our foreign policy.

In 1918 the Ottoman Sultanate, the last of the great Muslim empires, was defeated. The area was partitioned by the British and French. The Turks liberated Anatolia in a secular movement headed by Kemal Ataturk. The Turks abolished the caliphate in 1924. Caliph means successor or deputy and acquired the meaning of commander of the faithful.

Westerners have difficulty understanding Middle Eastern concepts of history and identity. Islamic history is the working out of God's purpose and so it is learned. In the West the basic unit of civilization is the nation. By contrast, in the Middle East, a single Islamic polity is the ideal. For Muslims the Holy Land is Arabia, particularly Mecca and Medina. Irag and Baghdad are also significant. For a non-Muslim to set foot on sacred soil is a desecration.

Islam was a leading civilization in the Dark Ages. Judaism and Islam share dietary restrictions and an emphasis on laws. Christianity and Islam share triumphalism. The Muslims recognize no church-state dichotomy. Islamic society is both a polity and a religious community. Muslims have built up an elaborate apparatus of international consultation, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, (Buddhist and Christian rulers have not).

The critique of Muslim fundamentalists is societal. In Islam the struggle of good and evil acquired political, even military dimensions. Jihad means striving or effort. It is lawful to wage war against four types--infidels, apostates, rebels, and bandits. Only the first two count as jihad. Fighters in jihad are not supposed to kill women and children and the aged, to torture or mutilate prisoners, they are supposed to give fair warning and honor agreements.

Modern history in Europe and the Middle East begins in 1798 with the French Revolution and Napolean Bonaparte. Muslims resent western imperialism. Economic exploitation was followed by armed invasion and conquest. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the first Gulf War were a blow to secular nationalism.

World War Two and and the oil industry brought Americans to Islamic lands. Cinema and television were seen by Muslims. Anti-Americanism was fueled by some European currents. Then there was the overthrow of the Mosaddeq government in Iran in 1953. The most powerful accusation against America is degeneracy and debauchery. The value of Israel to the United States as a strategic asset had been debated. Democracies are both more difficult to create and more difficult to destroy.

Poverty and tyranny are problems in the Muslim world. Economic supremacy in East Asia and the West is frustrating. Low productivity and a high birthrate produce an unstable mix. The figures are devastating. Discrepancies are noticeable with modern media and communictions. Modernization has been even worse in politics than economics and warfare.

Wahhabism is the religious strain of Islamic belief practiced in Saudi Arabia. The expansion of the Saudi Kingdom transformed Wahhabism into a major force. Ibn Saud proclaimed himself King of the Hijaz in 1926. He was recognized by European nations. The kingdon was reorganized in 1932 and the first oil agreement was entered into in 1933. There was an outward flow of oil and inward flow of money. The new wealth brought bitter social tensions. It inhibited development of representative social institutions.

Islamic fundamentalists believe that problems have arisen from excessive modernization. Islamic jurisprudence is a system of law and justice, not lynching and terror. Killing without authorization is murder. This is a comprehensive and enlightening book absolutely essential for understanding current events.

Well, Bernard Lewis has some readers of this book calling him a liberal and others saying he is clearly a Republican; that seems like a pretty good indication that he did a reasonable job of heading down the middle. Lewis presents Western readers as much insight as he can into the mindset of the Muslim world, how it came to be, and how it is evolving today.

As is evidenced by Lewis being criticized from both ends of the political spectrum, his treatment of the situation seems pretty even-handed. Lewis explains the strong sense and knowledge of history in the Islamic world that we just don't have in the West. He discusses how politics and religion indistinguishable in Islam in a way that is completely foreign for those raised with our "Church and State" mentality. Lewis discusses how Muslim countries identify with one another in a way that more secular countries do not and shows that hatred and violence are often spawned in unexpected and counter-intuitive ways and places.

You come to see that some of the things that we think of as our greatest strengths in a Democracy are often seen by Islam as our greatest faults. Lewis also makes it abundantly clear that not all Muslims are Fundamentalists and that not all Fundamentalists are terrorists.

Lewis successfully lays out the inherent differences in mindset between the Western world and Islam. He doesn't praise or condemn either one, but he does point out where he thinks the actions of terrorists have deviated from the teachings of Islam. This book is pretty close to pure information and is good for Western readers who want to know more about a situation that will continue to impact their lives.

Recommended.