What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in
the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, c. 2002. Excellent. June 2003.
The original post below was not particularly good. They were my original notes as I went through the book the second time. But the book is so good, I feel I need to do it more justice, so I will update with a slightly different approach.
Introduction
What is the book about? What is the recurring theme? At some point in/after the 15th century, the "Muslims" recognized that they were being surpassed by the "west." They asked themselves how they had gone wrong; they tried to find the "thing" that made the west so successful. Throughout the book the author returns to the search that the Turks, the Ottomans, the Iranians, the "Muslims" took, looking to find what the west had that accounted for its success.
What era are we talking about? The era between the decline of antiquity and the dawn of modernity, that is, in the centuries designated in European history as medieval. -- p. 3
What was the only serious rival to Islam as a world faith? Christendom. -- p. 3
For medieval Muslims, what was meant by Christendom? The Byzantine Empire, until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 (40 years before Columbus). The remoter lands were seen as barbarian.
At the peak of Islamic power, what was the only other world power that was comparable? China.
Islam's "competitor" in the Medieval period? The Holy Roman Emperor.
When did the change occur? During the New Learning; during the Renaissance; during the period of great translations. -- p. 7
When did the final defeat of the Moors in Spain occur? 1492. The same year Columbus discovered America (though that would not have been know in Spain until a year later; Shakespeare/Othello, ~ 1603).
In addition to the Holy Roman Emperor, who were the next to threaten the Muslims? The Russians -- p. 8
What was the other Muslim empire to threaten the Ottomans? The Persian Empire
Who was the founder of the Persian Empire? A Turkish-speaking Shi'ite from Azerbaijan, ruled from 1501 - 1524. He and his successors, the shahs of the Safavid line, challenged the Ottomans.
There were few successful military campaigns by the Christians during this period. Name one. Under King James I, the great naval battle at Lepanto, Greece, in the Gulf of Patras.
When and why did the Turks make peace with the Austrians? In 1606, because of their distractions with Persia.
Who found a way to get past the Muslims trading routes? At the end of the 15th century, Vasco da Gama sailed around Africa. This effectively led to Europeans able to outflank the Muslims.
Where did Muslims focus their attention on mastery of the world? Europe -- p. 15
Islamic failures in the 16th and 17th century. Where did Russia get its first toehold in the Mideast? In 1696, Peter the Great captured Azoz, the first Russian stronghold on the shore of the Black Sea.
About this time, what event clearly showed how badly the Muslims had been defeated in Europe, Russia? 1699: The Treaty of Carlowitz, signed between Ottoman Empire and the Holy League, mediated by the Brits and the Dutch. -- p. 17
TO BE CONTINUED
Original Post
I first read this book back in 2003 or thereabouts; it's an incredible book. It is only 165 pages long; one could read it over a weekend. It provides the best overview to the Muslim perspective. I can't imagine discussing current events in the Mideast without having read this book.
The notes below were begun and pretty much finished in 2004, but editing continues and additional material is likely.
After many weeks thinking about this book, and having done a lot of British history reading, the question isn’t so much “What Went Wrong” for Islam? Rather, it is a question of “why did the non-Islam countries break away from the Dark Ages and enjoy modernity?”
I think the answer may in part be due to the strong British monarchy, perhaps beginning with Henry VIII or monarchs like him. Henry VIII dared take on the church and when he succeeded that gave other folks courage to think for themselves. And as long as their thinking did not upset the monarch, they were allowed to continue thinking.
Henry VIII took on the church, and the Scots took on the English, and I think that fostered the Scottish enlightenment.
Muslims: only real competitor were Christians; only other civilization was China, but that was remote, and homogeneous.
Introduction and Chapters 1 - 2
700 - 1750: to and fro, back and forth Islam vs Europe
~ 1720: Muslims (Ottoman Empire) - to defeat the Austrians
needed NOT only western weapons (muskets vs swords) but also western
training, structures, tactics (remember AWC: for military revolution -
doctrine, organization, technology - need all three [3])
BUT even that NOT enough - European invention and
experiment. USAF - battlelabs, wargames, real wars, tradition of
experimenting
P. 23: Ottoman Muslims, after suffering significant
defeats, asked what did WE (the Ottomans) do wrong.
In 1650's Ottoman Muslim writers
argued failure due to Muslims trying to take up western ways - they argued
Muslims must return to the "the good old ways."
The author argues this
argument still resonates in much of the Middle East: a need to return to
Muslim fundamentalism - the "good old ways."
Prior to 1800, Muslims not allowed to visit / settle in
non-Muslim countries. Muslims took NO interest in non-Muslim advances.
Finally in 1830, Muslims started allowing diplomatic
missions in Europe.
But, questions always asked of the religious leaders - if it
was acceptable to borrow / use ideas / tools of the infidels. Generally the
religious leaders said "no" unless it made for an advantage in Muslims
fighting against the infidels. Bottom line = Muslim leaders resisted
modernity at every turn!
Meanwhile, 1800's - Industrial Revolution in the
west!
What did the religious leaders stand to lose? Everything.
1850's: lawyers needed to work contracts with Europe, but
only law is shari'a - Holy Law of Islam.
Journalists - opposing voice of Islamic rulers who wrote of
the religion
Education: had been the province of religious leaders.
So, the new order: journalists, lawyers, educators.
p. 54 +
During 19th century, Muslims noted European merging practice of constitutional and representative democracy, sometimes called freedom. (I wish the author would have dealt with this concept in greater depth; after a couple of pages, he simply regurgitates history of the region.)
The auuthor speaks of Muslim's understanding of freedom -
definitely different than our own interpretation. For us, it's tyranny vs
freedom. For Muslims, it's tyranny vs justice!! Being "free" of Saddam
means one thing for US, another for Iraq!
Again, on p. 60, the author suggests the words "freedom" and
"independence" may be mutually exclusive when used by Middle Easterners!!
“Westerners have become accustomed to think of good and bad government in terms of tyranny versus liberty. In Middle-Easter usage, liberty or freedom was a legal not a political term. It meant one who was not a slave, and unlike the West, Muslims did not use slavery and freedom as political metaphors. For traditional Muslims, the converse of tyranny was not liberty but justice. Justice in this context meant essentially two things, that the ruler was there by right and not by usurpation, and that he governed according to God’s law, or at least according to God’s law, or at least according to recognizable moral and legal principles.
The first of these raised important questions concerning succession, which became increasingly urgent after the abolition of most of the monarchies in the region. The second was sometimes discussed in terms of a contrast between arbitrary and consultative government. Both remain crucial issues at the present day.
“In addition to the basic contrast between tyranny and justice there was a second contrast, though often not always invoked, between arbitrary and consultative government. The first denoted the capricious ruler deciding and acting on his own; the second the wise and just ruler who consulted others.
While Muslim texts from the Qur’an onward speak of “consultation,” no formal procedure of consultation or definition of those to be consulted was ever worked out in theory, let alone applied in practice.
“Words meaning “free” and “freedom,” in a political sense, occur occasionally in 18th century Middle-Eastern writing, always in a European context … “ and then the author starts comparing various government styles in Europe / Middle East during the 19th century.
If I read this correctly, is this one piece of the puzzle: freedom means not being a slave? Maybe only non-believers were slaves; there if you became a believer, you were not free (not a slave) but you were subject to laws of Muslim as interpreted by a local cleric. (By the way, slavery is “legal” according to the Qur’an.) And just like in the Catholic religion in which “believers” aren’t allowed to vote on whether the Pope will chose abortion or not; rather, the believers accept the Pope’s word. Muslim freedom is freedom to be subservient to the Muslim religion. Again, because there is no separation between religion and state (the religion is the state), the definition of “freedom” is different in Muslim countries from that of Western countries in which there is separation of church and state.
Chapter 3: cultural differences between Islam and westerners: status of
women, science and music.
Author uses three examples from 18th and 19th century to help explain “what went wrong.” The three vignettes are all told by Turkish travelers to Europe and concern women, science, and music. In Europe, women were respected, “out of love for Mother Mary” which would conflict with Muslim belief. With regard to science, they were not curious and, in fact, felt some scientific advances were examples of “Frankish” trickery. And, music: they preferred not to listen to “the tedium of their kind of (European) music.”
Although other Western and Middle Eastern leaders were focused on military, economic, and political differences, this author pointed out the “status of women, though probably the most profound single difference between the two civilizations, attracted far less attention than such matters as guns, factories and parliaments. Westerners did not differ greatly from Middle Easterners in this astigmatism.”
Although there were isolated incidents of some calling for “liberation of women,” “even the enrollment of women in a traditional professions like teaching was too much for some of the militant Islamists. Khomeini, in his sermons and writing both before and after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, spoke with great anger of the inevitable immorality that, he said, would result from women teaching adolescent boys.” – p. 72.
“Westerners tend naturally to assume that the emancipation is part of liberalization, and that women will consequently fare better in liberal than in autocratic regimes. Such an assumption would be false, and often the reverse is true. Among Arab countries, the legal emancipation of women went farthest in Iraq and in the former South Yemen, both ruled by notoriously repressive regimes. It has lagged behind in Egypt, one of the more tolerant and open of Arab societies.
It is in such societies that public opinion, still mainly male and highly conservative, has the greatest influence. Women’s rights have suffered the most serious reverses in countries where fundamentalists of various types have influence or where, as in Iran and most of Afghanistan, they rule. Indeed, as already noted, the emancipation of women by modernizing rulers was of the main grievances of the radical fundamentalists, and the reversal of this trend is in the forefront of their agenda.” – p. 73
“The emancipation of women, more than any other single issue, is the touchstone of difference between modernization and Westernization.” – p. 73.
The author distinguishes between modernization and Westernization. I wonder if all agree: many argue that fundamentalists are concerned with modernity. Perhaps this author is correct; modernity is less a problem (albeit still an issue) than Westernization. For example, the Iranians want to build an atomic weapon (or at least nuclear power plants – very modern, and if they want to do it themselves, they will have to learn the science, again, very modern. But they refuse to wear the western clothing that would be associated with running a power plant, unless it was inherently necessary.
Chapter 4. Modernization and Social Equality
Slavery: legal for Muslims. “From a traditional Muslim point of view, to abolish slavery would hardly have been possible. To forbid what God permits is almost as great an offense as to permit what God forbids.” Interesting, very interesting.
“Slavery was authorized and its regulation formed part of the shari’a” and even more it was “part of the central core of social laws.” It would be very difficult for religious leaders to strike out an entire section of their law; I guess it would be like the US Supreme court striking out one of the current amendments to the constitution. And worse, for Muslims, there is no one single Muslim religious leader. Even if one Muslim religious leader spoke out against slavery, others would point to the shari’a and that would be that. Western pressure finally ended the practice of slavery in Muslim countries.
However, slavery remained legal in the Ottoman Empire and Persia until the early twentieth century; it was finally abolished in Yemen and Saudi Arabia in 1962.
Chapter 5. Secularism and the Civil Society
“Secularism is the modern political meaning – the idea that religion and political authority, church and state are different, and can or should be separated – is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its origins may be traced in the teachings of Christ, confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and, in a sense, imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom. The persecutions endured by the early church made it clear that a separation between the two was possible; the persecutions inflicted by later churches persuaded many Christians that such a separation was necessary.”
Separation of church and state, or secularism, was something that separated Christianity from other religions. In pre-Christian Rome, Caesar was God, and for the Muslims, too, God was the supreme sovereign, and the caliph was his vice-gerent, “his shadow on earth.”
Christianity’s experiences, however, were not without precedent; Judaism had also experienced persecution.
Note how prescient this author is, writing before 9/11 and our current problems: “More recently, there has been a strong reaction against these changes.
A whole series of Islamic radical and militant movements, loosely and inaccurately designated as “fundamentalist,” share the objective of undoing the secularizing reforms of the last century, abolishing the imported codes of law and the social customs that came with them, and returning to the Holy Law of Islam and an Islamic political order. In three countries, Iran, Afghanistan, and Sudan, these forces have gained power.” – p. 106.
Now, why did the author state “inaccurately” as designating these movements as “fundamentalist”? Two possible reasons: first, “fundamentalism” was first applied to Christianity and had to do with basic common tenets of Christianity across all the various Christian churches and a return to the Bible as the ultimate source; second, Muslims are Muslims. There is no “fundamentalism” within Islam. There is a separation between Shiites and Sunnis but that is probably more of a difference between leadership than beliefs.
“At the present time secularism is in a bad way in the Middle East.” – p. 108. The author suggests that secularism may not survive anywhere in the Middle East. “Of those Middle Eastern states that have written constitutions, only two have no established religion. One is Lebanon, no longer an encouraging example of religious tolerance or secularization. The other, as already noted, is the Turkish Republic, where, while the general principle of separation is maintained, there has been some erosion. The ex-Soviet republics are still struggling with these problems.” – p. 108.
“In the Islamic world, the dethronement of religion as the organizing principle of society was not attempted until much later, and the attempt was due entirely to European influences. It was never really completed, and is perhaps now being reversed. Certainly in Iran, organized religion has returned to something like the status it enjoyed in the medieval world, both Christian and Islamic.” – p. 112.
“beyond the pale” – p. 114.
Chapter 6: Time, Space, and Modernity
“The modern history of the Middle East, according to a convention accepted by most historians of the region, begins in 1798, when the French Revolution, in the persons of General Napoleon Bonaparte and his expedition, arrived in Egypt, and for the first time subjected one of the heartlands of Islam to the rule of a Western power and the direct impact of Western attitudes and ideas. Interestingly, this aspect of the French occupation was seen immediately in Istanbul, where the sultan, as suzerain of Egypt, was much concerned about the seditious effect of these ideas on his subjects … released a proclamation refuting the doctrines of revolutionary France.”
Good discussion of concept of time – very different than western concept.
Good discussion of space – no distinct boundaries; one ruled as far as he could collect taxes. “Medieval states did not have frontiers in the modern sense. On land as in time, there was no precise line of demarcation, but rather a zone, a band, or interval. This was sufficient for all practical purposes. Islamic laws regulating relations within and between states deal with people, not places.” – p. 127.
Good discussion of music, polyphony, team playing, synchronization, etc. – p. 128 and following.
So, although some political leaders and military leaders (including insurgents and Al Qaeda) have come to understand the importance of time and synchronization, these are concepts foreign to the masses.
Chapter 7: Aspects of Cultural Change
Concept of Western music.
Discussion of Muslim interest in history. Medieval Muslims were very interested in Muslim history but had no interest in non-Muslim history. “The first Turkish printing press, which flourished in Istanbul in the first half of the 18th century, printed all 17 books, of which a fair number were books on history.” Compare this number of 17 to what the British were printing in the 18th century!
“Today, for the time being, as Ataturk recognized and as Indian computer scientists and Japanese high-tech companies appreciate, the dominant civilization is Western, and Western standards therefore define modernity.” – p. 150.
