Islam & the West

Guide Rating -

The only way to really understand the problems in the Middle East is to better understand its history - in particular, the history of Muslim reactions to Western power, influence, religion and policies. Even then, a complete understanding may be elusive, but without greater historical background, it won't even be possible. Very quickly, a study of the history of the region leads to the question: What went wrong?

This is a question which has plagued Muslims for generations, and it should command more attention from Westerners, because it is precisely this sense that something has gone wrong which inspires action - sometimes violent action - in so many devout Muslims. Bernard Lewis' recent book, written before the September 11th terrorist attacks, is aimed at addressing this very issue. The book is short, but it is packed with a great deal of history and historical analysis regarding the development of Islam and how Muslims have reacted to the West.

Why is there a sense that something has gone wrong? Because there was a time when Islamic civilization was at the forefront of all human civilizations. When European cities were still but villages, Muslim cities had paved streets and even street lights. The very best in scientific and philosophical works were produced by Muslim thinkers. More tolerance for different religious beliefs could be found in Muslim lands than just about anywhere else.

Today, however, the opposite is true - Muslim countries lag far behind most places in terms of science, philosophy, culture, and general tolerance. In Lewis' words, "Compared with its millennial rival, Christendom, the world of Islam had become poor, weak, and ignorant." When was the last time a Muslim scientist in Egypt or Pakistan won a Nobel Prize for scientific achievement? Why is it that no great Muslim singers tour concert halls around the world? Why can the greatest religious repression be found in Muslim countries? Why such a dramatic change? What happened?

Muslims identify which historical events much more closely than do most Westerners, and this makes them more willing to see a continuation between past and current injustices. There is a widespread feeling in the Middle East that something has "gone wrong," and understanding how and why this perception exists is important to better understand the many attempts to "fix" things.

When such dramatic reversals of cultural and national fortune occur, response can fall into two general categories: a focus on finding external (and some internal) enemies to blame, or a focus on internal failings of those who have simply strayed from the "true" path. Today, we can see both occurring among Muslims. On the one hand, we see attacks on the West and on Israel as engaging in a deliberate conspiracy, often along with corrupt Muslim leaders, to destroy Islam and eliminate Muslims.

On the other hand, we see calls to a "renewal" of "pure" Islam because people's failure to stay true to the original faith is what has caused their current problems. Religious extremists, like Osama bin Laden, typically use both arguments in their effort to attract a following.

Can the actual causes for the decline of power, influence and productivity in Muslim nations be identified? Bernard Lewis does not attempt to give any easy answers to such a complex and difficult question. Instead, he points out some basic facts of history and culture which, it seems, have played an important role in what has happened. In doing so, he presents a general survey of Islamic history and of Muslim responses to non-Muslim culture - a survey which is, in itself, very interesting and engaging.

One of the important factors which Lewis discusses is external and can be found in how Islam differs from Christianity. From the very beginning, Christianity has included at least an implicit acceptance of a separation between church and state. Christianity was a minority religion and at times an oppressed one, thus clerical power had to develop separate from, and often in opposition to, political power.

Such a separation did not always continue, but at least the seeds were always there and helped in the later development of a truly secular culture, generally independent of church domination. This secular culture, in turn, allowed for greater cultural, political and scientific diversity and experimentation. It is not a coincidence that the era when the West began to overtake Islam was around the same time that politics grew more independent of religion.

Islam, however, has never had any such separation in principle. Even when a separation existed in practice, it has been resisted by both the people and religious leaders. It is probably because of this, at least in large part, that no independent, secular society has had much luck in developing in Islam. Some leaders, like Saddam Hussein, have attempted it, but aside from regularly appealing to Islam whenever convenient, he has only gotten as far as he has through the brutal repression of religious dissent. A secular society which is simply imposed on the people, rather than which arises through the economic and political aspirations of the people, will not easily thrive.

Another important factor is internal and involves an apparent arrogance on the part of Muslims towards other cultures and civilizations. At times, Islam has adopted ideas and technologies from others, such as China. Too often, however, that has not been the case, especially with anything along the lines of philosophy. For example, Muslim writers preserved much of the scientific writings of the ancient Greeks, but retained relatively little of their philosophy - after all, they were polytheists and had nothing of value to communicate.

Christians in particular were disregarded as a possible source of anything interesting. Islam came after Christianity and, for Muslims, has always been a more perfect revelation from God. Everything truthful and of value had already been adopted through God's revelations to Muhammad, so what was the pointing of considering anything else which Christians might say? Whereas Western scholars, merchants and diplomats were eager to travel in Muslim lands, learn Muslim languages and translate Muslim texts, hardly any reciprocal interest was ever displayed.

For example, until the late 18th century, only one medical text had been translated into Arabic from any Western language - and that was a 16th century work on syphilis, known as the "Frankish Disease." The reason for this one exception was that the disease was regarded as having a Western origin - thus, it made sense to consult Western treatments. Nothing else which Westerners might have had to say on medicine, science or technology was considered worth even looking at.

The rejection is one of the more striking differences between the Middle East and other parts of the non-Western world that have in one way or another endured the impact of Western civilization. At the present time scientists in many Asian countries make important contributions to what is no longer a Western but a worldwide scientific movement. Except for some Westernized enclaves in the Middle East and some scientists of Middle Eastern origin working in the West, the Middle-Eastern contribution - as reflected for example in the internationally recognized journals that are the cutting edge of scientific progress - compares poorly with that of other non-Western regions or, even more dramatically, with its own past record.

Of course, this is not to say that a similar arrogance has never existed in the West. Quite a few leaders and scholars have argued that Western and/or Christian civilization has had nothing of value to learn from others. However, such an attitude was usually based upon religious prejudices, and as secular society developed, there were more and more people who were willing to ignore such claims in the hopes of gaining more knowledge and/or profits than others around them. There was, then, a counter-balance to arrogance which Muslims did not experience strongly enough.

Although Lewis does not offer any easy answers to the questions which trouble Muslims in the Middle East, he does help outsiders better understand the historical context which lies behind their conflict with the West. People reading the book in the hopes that the author does provide a definitive answer to the title's question will be disappointed.

However, those reading his book in an effort to better understand how and why Muslims today are so frustrated and angry at their current situation and their relative helplessness in the face of Western dominance will be richly rewarded.