This new edition has come out in the wake of the Sept 11 bombings and and upsurge in interest in Bernard Lewis's works. Those expecting a "glossy," ripped-from-the-headlines history might be put off by this book... it is a slightly updated reprinting of his classic history written a half-century ago. While it may not be a popular coffee table book, it is a throrough, highly informed work on the group that gave its name to political murder. To be honest, I got much more out of it the second time I read through it... some of the names, medieval politics, and Islamic debates left me feeling lost. The second time through, more things fell into place and I appreciated the details a great deal more. Also, I greatly appreciated his incredible knowlege of the subject and the region as a whole, as well as his keen insights into Islamic thinking. Clearly, Lewis is one of the most important Middle East scholars in a long time. Those looking for a scholarly, de-mystifying, and on its own terms readable work on the Assassins will like this book. If you're simply curious about this mysterious group, you may get more out of this volume if you first read one of Lewis's broader introductions to Islam... click on the authors name and several good choices will show up.

Bernard Lewis remains one of the most respected Middle Eastern historians and is a name more Americans should be familiar with. "The Assassins" was originally published in 1967. This edition has been updated slightly but most of the text is unchanged. The work represents some of the best scholarly efforts of Professor Lewis, especially his work with original historical sources. Some readers may be disappointed with this book however, in that they may be looking for conncections with modern Islamic terrorism. Those connections are elusive. This is a history of sectarian divisions within Islam, particulary certain Ismaili sects of Shi'i Islam. Foremost among those divisions was a sect known generally as the Assassins (do not look for a direct connection between this fascinating religious sect and modern events...there is none). The Assassins began with the sinister Hasn i-Sabbah, and practiced religious and political murder often with the use of certain drugs (hashish for one which may have produced the Persian reference to this group). Oddly enough, most of the targets of the various orders of the Assassins were Sunni Muslims. Christians, such as the Crusaders, were only rarely singled out for their particular arts. As Lewis tells us the Ismailis were generally radical and the Assassins perphaps the most radical sect in Islam. This is a very readible volume, at a very affordable price. Although a scholarly work "The Assassins" is easily accessable to the general reader with an interest in the Middle East. As an undergraduate in college, this writer nearly wore out the single volume in the university library and is very happy to have a new edition in the bookshelf.

This book casts light on the mystery of the radical Islamic sect of the Assassins. Bernard Lewis dispels many of myths that surround this group of radical, fundamentalists that gave birth to the term for political murder. Of the myths he convincingly dispels is the one that lingers surrounding their name, that these fanatics did not go out in a drugged stupor to kill their victims. What is most interesting is that Lewis makes good use of the few Assassins chronicles that survive, so that we can see some of the inside workings of the sect, rather than rely on just Sunni or Crusader chronicles, which by their nature can be slanted. A must for any reader interested in the period of the Crusades...and also for college history professors.

Bernard Lewis the world's leading authorities on the Middle East discusses the eclipse of the Middle East in their last three centuries in power and how their decline is still felt to this day. For many centuries, the world of Islam was in the forefront of human achievement--the foremost military and economic power in the world, the leader in the arts and sciences of civilization. Christian Europe, a remote land beyond its northwestern frontier, was seen as an outer darkness of barbarism and unbelief from which there was nothing to learn or to fear. And then everything changed, as the previously despised West won victory after victory, first in the battlefield and the marketplace, then in almost every aspect of public and even private life. In his three essays Conquest, Expulsion, Discovery he examines how the Islamic world was transgressed from conquers to conquered. Lewis bases the expansion on three significant areas weaponry; education and navigation.

The Europeans gained significant advances in the field of weaponry; with the discovery of gun powder in the Far East. The Christian traders bypassed the middle east and bought this product home where it was adapted to deadly fire arms.

In 1492 the Spanish monarchs captured Granada, the last Muslim stronghold on the peninsula, and also expelled the Jews. The Jews got with them the knowledge of printing; but the rulers fearful of desecration allowed the Jews to publish books in any language except Arabic. This caused a significant regression in the transfer of knowledge to the masses; which the West took the maximum gain of.

Navigation was a major contributor for the economic development of Europe. The European ships were built for the Atlantic and were therefore bigger and stronger than those of the Muslims , built for the Mediterranean. The muslims also had the Atlantic coastline along Morocco. One obvious answer for the absence of Atlantic faring muslim ships were for the lack of ports on the Atlantic and also Morocco had the Atlantic to them selves in comparison the Europeans had to compete with one another. The sea faring enabled the West to gain the riches from America and colonize it.

Islamic civilization was eventually overshadowed by the achievements of European Christendom, and much of the Muslim world came under the direct or indirect domination of the West.

Having heard Lewis described as both "the" expert on the Middle East, and a stooge for the Turkish government, I was a little hesitant to start reading this book. I was pleasantly surprised by Lewis' look at the "other" important events contemporaneous with Columbus' 1942 discoveries. This is a tiny book, actually the transcript of a lecture series, easily read in a day. Lewis takes a different perspective in looking at the history of the time, much of which will already be familiar, and the pivotal nature of the events of the late 1400's, of which the discovery of the New World was but one.

Bernard Lewis says in the preface of his book The Political Language of Islam that it is mostly based on lectures held by him at the University of Chicago in 1986. Hence its structure appears unusual to someone expecting a standard historical or political book. The first chapter of five in the book is called Metaphor and Allusion. After giving a short overview of some principles of Islam and mentioning the role of Islamic states nowadays, it talks almost only about semantic issues. Meanings and origins of words are discussed and compared to appropriate words in Western languages. For someone who doesn't know the Arabic language this gives an interesting insight.
The other chapters refer each to a certain political field of the Islamic community. In particular these are: The government and associated organizations, the ruler, the people, the state, war, peace and obedience. In discussing each of these topics, the author jumps back and forward in history to show how Islamic society and the language have developed. He usually starts by giving information about how certain political things are and were in different parts of the Islamic world and in which way they were influenced by other cultures. This is followed by a brief discussion about accompanying words in the Arabic language compared to Turkish and Iranian expressions and an analysis of their meanings, origins and changes over the time. Then the author switches again to political issues, just to go back to the explanation of words shortly after. This rhythm is kept over the whole book.
Referring to that, one can say that The Political Language of Islam consists of a political and a semantic part. The latter seems to be the main purpose of the book. The reader gets to know facts he didn't even think of. The shown connections between different Semitic languages as well as their changes from outside make the reader understand some Islamic expressions better. The author gives many examples on why, when, where, how and by whom the Arabic, Turkish and Persian languages were influenced and how new words or the change of meanings or interpretations of words became necessary. Origins of loanwords in the English language are also shown, sometimes by citing the Oxford English Dictionary.
As a result of this, the reader gets a first impression of the Arabic language. Even when listening to translations of Arabian statements on TV or radio, he can understand some expressions better, because he knows from which Arabic word they come. He is better informed about the meanings of words like kafir (unbeliever) or jihad (Holy War).
The political part gives a quick overview on the topics mentioned further above. The book doesn't go very deep into details, but therefore gives a lot of basic information on various points and historical events. The views and behaviour of people in different parts of the Islamic world, mainly Arabia, Turkey and Persia, are compared. This is not reduced to Muslims. The role of non-Muslims, slaves and women under Islamic authority is discussed as well as the opportunities for Muslims in non-Islamic states. Examples of historical events help the reader understand, how sayings from the Koran could be interpreted.
Bernard Lewis gives the right amount of historical and religious background information needed to understand the context. This way the reader learns a lot about several issues in Islamic history. The focus is on the change of the borders of Islamic states, because the clash of different cultures caused the language to change.
Due to the fact that everything is seen from the language aspect, some of the political information is even repeated. This is not too bad, because the book seems to be designed for a reader who doesn't know much about Islam. Terms like "Hadith" are explained when introduced. The good notes at the end of the book help the reader who is new to Islam, to understand certain things better. They also give many links to further study.
On the other hand, the reader may get confused by the permanent change of semantic and political topics. The frequently appearing jumps in history prevent him from getting a general overview of the developments in the Muslim community.
Lewis, who calls himself a historian and Islamicist, avoids taking position on controversial topics. He writes the book from a neutral view, neither criticizing Islamic nor Western attitudes.
For anyone who is interested in learning something about history of Islamic politics, this book is interesting, though there are probably better ones that concentrate more on politics instead of exploring language terms. These parts of the book sometimes appear to be too long for someone who reads it for its political content.

Lewis's works are known for their depth of analysis while simultaneously being presented with a simple elegance that makes them approachable to those of us who are not Arabists or Islamicists. In this work he expounds on the language of political discourse in Arabia, Persia, Turkey and Islamic lands in general. Political vocabulary more or less confines and defines the range of this discourse so understanding the language is not mere semantics but indeed critical to the understanding of the development of Islamic political thought.

This short book (116 pages plus 52 pages of detailed notes and references, including an index) traces the etymology behind key political concepts in Islam. If you are an informed reader of current Mideast events encountering words like jihad, ayatollah, imam, shaykh, and fatwa and have a curiosity as to what these words are all about, under what context did they originally appear, and why they have contemporary relevance, you will find this unique volume hard to put down. The book is about the concept behind the word and its historical development more so than philological aspects, although the latter is also well covered. Originally published in 1988, an update reflecting the current state of affairs would be welcome. For example Islamic fundamentalists describe modern society as "jahili," a term originally used as a descriptor of Arabia before the time of the Prophet and related to the Arabic word for ignorance, "jahiliyya." Lewis' thoughts on how Muslims have dealt with attempting to end godless jahiliyya in the past and how it might apply to militant Islam today would have particular relevance as we try to understand the motivations behind the events of September 11th.

Examines the history of the growth of racism in Islamic culture, from near zero around the the time of Muhmmad, to much much higher levels later.

Lewis' has written a good book, albeit not an easy read. "The Multiple Identities of the Middle East" is based on three of Lewis' papers held at different conferences during the period 1989-1995. For this book, these papers were combined with material from articles and other conference papers Lewis has written.

The book is divided into nine chapters, covering topics such as Religion, Country, Nation, and the State to mention some of them. Rather than giving us a brief overview, the author goes deep, deep into details. For this reason, this book might be less accessible for the lay reader than other books in the same genre.

I am curious to the world in general, and I picked up this book because I wanted to understand more about the complexities in religion, culture and nations in the Middle East. Since I am one of those lay readers I talked about, I am not sure if I picked the right book as my introduction to the topic.

On a more personal note.. It's funny how the author chose to use the term "The Middle East" in the title of this book. This term is only used by people from the West. One thing I picked up from the book was that the "The Middle East" is probably the most misgiving label one can use. "The Middle East" is not a country, not a nation, and definitely not a race. Yet we use it to cover all of that...

A very good read if you already know the subject.

The Middle East has been a source of politically interesting news for Americans for a long time, and since September 11, the discussions have become more passionate, and more judgmental. And despite the area's growing influence on our consciousness, our understanding of the peoples there and who they are is one of vague categories.

Bernard Lewis does not offer a history in this short book, but rather a discussion of how people in the Middle East perceive themselves, and how they create and define their identities. We often tend toward the simplified assumption that political boundaries contain single ethnic groups, linguistic groups, religious groups, but as Lewis shows, these groups are overlaid in complex ways.

People who have only a Western perspective of the Middle East, and want to understand the area in a much more complex manner, should find Lewis' book to be a great introduction to the depth of the history and conflicts that exists there.

This book gives an interesting background to much of the modern attitudes of the middle-east and their historical basis. It explains how traditonaly society in the middle east has based itself around family/clan ties then religion and then state last of all.

In fact the concept of people belonging to and owning loyalty to a state is quite new to the region in many places as they don't have the long history of it that Europe has. It also explains how long standing traditions within holy law govern such things at the correct treatment of non-muslim minorities (in theory).

If you really don't know much about middle eastern and arab culture this book is a good introduction, to a society that is in many ways fundimentaly alien to western culture.

It should be noted that this book is ONLY an introduction and in many ways has a lot of generalisations, but it's a good starting point if you don't know much about arab culture (like me).

Bernard Lewis is an expert on Turkish/Ottoman history. The background of turkish history lies in the Ottoman empire and beginning from 1800 all the bases of ideas that Turkish Republic is based on flourished and evolved in Istanbul and in European cities. Since in Turkey I have learnt "propagandist" history and one-man show of Ataturk I have increased my perspective on Turkish history with this book. Lacking are what happened to minorities of Anatolia and the harshness of realities about that them. Anatolia was their land too. Their story has not been told.

Bernard Lewis offers a valuable survey of the history of modern Turkey. The first half of the book is a chronological discussion of the social and political events leading to the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Turkish nationalism. The second half of the book is a more in depth analysis of the key intellectual and political figures who worked both for and against the consolidation of power among the adherents of the C.U.P.

Bernard Lewis does not limit his study strictly to the historical issues; he discusses some of the important European missunderstandings that guided policymakers in the Near East. He also elaborates on diplomatic factors that affected commercial relations between the West and East; the history of the European "capitulations" in Istanbul, for example, is touched upon.

Where the book really shines, however, is in the second half where Dr. Lewis introduces the western reader to the Turkish periodicals, philosophical tracts and political pamphlets current in the 19th and early 20th cnetury; Dr. Lewis also explores the evolution of modern Turkish in a way that makes it accessible to those unfamiliar with the language -- stressing how important irredentism was in the propaganda of the revolution. The poetry and literature of the elite is contrasted with the language that was spoken by the average Turkish citizenry; a great deal of the rhetoric used by the Ottoman officials and even by the early activists of the Young Turk Movement, for example, was incomprhensible to the masses, because of its obsolescent flourishes and subtle illusions which could only be appreciated by the highly educated.

The dificiency of the book is that it's subject matter, although not intentionally exclusive, is more geared toward the specialist in Turkish and Near Eastern history. However, those familiar with some of the other historical factors surrounding the topics discussed shouldn't have any problem following the events as they unfold. But the scarcity of maps, and the oblique references to WWI and some of the other social and historical factors happening at the time (both in and outside of Turkey proper), may leave the less prepared reader a bit confused. But as a work of Turkish constitutional and intellectual history, and as an overview of the stunning accomplishments of Attaturk and his peers, it is an extremely rewarding read.

Bernard Lewis' books stand like a beacon in the great sea of dull academic literature on the Middle East. They're readable, thorough, focused, and non-judgemental, and most of them have already become classics.

Lewis' "The Emergence of Modern Turkey" is usually regarded as the standard book on the subject. It came out in 1960 and has been in print for forty years. This is the updated third edition. The book is divided into two parts. Part I ("The Stage of Emergence") is a straight-forward narrative of politics in the Turkish "heartland" (i.e., Turkey proper) from the 18th century to the Kemalist republic. The chapters are ordered chronologically, such as "The Impact of the West" (early 19th century), "The Ottoman Reform" (c. 1850 - c. 1890), etc.

Part II ("Aspects of Change") is organized thematically and addresses social themes alongside political ones. "Community and Nation", "Religion and Government," and "Elite and Class" are especially good. Here, Lewis analyses minority experiences and the impact of ideas, such as Pan-Islamism, laicism, and Ottomanism.

Lewis does relegate the Ottoman imperial lands to the sidelines, but, after all, this is a history of Turkey, not a history of the empire.

The book has a few drawbacks. First, as a reviewer below objected -- reasonably, I think -- Lewis doesn't say much about the Armenian genocides of 1894-96, 1906, and 1915. None of them get more than a paragraph's mention, in fact. While, like most recent historians of the Middle East, Lewis tries to accentuate the positive asoects of Turkish/Ottoman history -- which is certainly commendable -- there's no excuse for ignoring that history's darker side.

All in all, though, this is a classic. Lewis' other great books also are worth finding, especially his acclaimed "The Jews of Islam" and "The Muslim Discovery of Europe."

Even Professor Lewis' elegant prose cannot redress the serious limitations in this very disappointing book. Organizational lapses - the book is merely a "re-assembly" of lecture material delivered in November, 1981- may explain some of these inadequacies. More importantly, he ignores a voluminous amount of historical data, and his own sound advice to avoid "loaded comparisons". As a result, his analyses are plagued by grossly inaccurate generalizations, and awkward internal contradictions. I have focused my discussion on two egregious, broad reaching examples which best illustrate these major flaws.

Professor Lewis states, "..Persecution, that is to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical. Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were not normally called upon to suffer martyrdom for their faith. They were not often obliged to make the choice, which confronted Muslims and Jews in reconquered Spain, between exile, apostasy, and death. They were not subject to any major territorial or occupational restrictions, such as were the common lot of Jews in premodern Europe.." He then adds this somewhat contradictory caveat: "..There are some exceptions to these statements, but they do not affect the broad pattern until comparatively modern times, and even then only in special areas, periods, and cases..".

Professor Lewis frames this debatable premise by ignoring his own advice (about "loaded comparisons"), inviting a comparison between the Reconquista, and presumably, the jihad conquests that preceded the Reconquista. In fact, the first three centuries of Islam in the in the East overlapped the Carolingian rule in Christian Europe (747-987 C.E.), a period recognized by scholars as one when European Jewry experienced a considerable degree of security and prosperity. Muslim chroniclers themselves, in contrast, have described the ongoing jihad conquests during the same period (i.e., the first three centuries of Arab Muslim conquests), which included the destruction of whole towns, the massacre of large numbers of their populations, the enslavement and deportation of women and children, and the confiscation of vast regions. Indeed, between 640 and 1240 C.E., jihad conquests lead to the total and definitive destruction of Judaism and Christianity in the Hijaz (modern Saudi Arabia), and the dramatic decline of once flourishing Christian and Jewish communities in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia. In the North African Maghreb, Christians had been virtually eliminated by 1240 and the Jews decimated by Almohad persecutions (including an "Inquisition" for Jewish converts to Islam which antedated the infamous "Spainish Inquisition" by over two centuries).

Muslim Spain itself was a land of constant jihad ruled under Maliki jurisdiction, which offered one of the most severe, repressive interpretations of Islamic law. It was populated by tens of thousands of Christian slaves, and humiliated and oppressed Christian dhimmis, in addition to a small minority of privileged Christian notables. The muwallads (neo-converts to Islam) were in nearly perpetual revolt against the Arab immigrants who had claimed large estates for themselves, farmed by Christian serfs or slaves. Expropriations and fiscal extortions ignited the flames of continual rebellion by both muwallads and mozarabs (Christian dhimmis) throughout the Iberian peninsula. Leaders of these rebellions were crucified, and their insurgent followers were put to the sword. These bloody conflicts, which occurred throughout the Hispano-Umayyad emirate until the tenth century, fueled endemic religious hatred. An 828 letter from Louis the Pious to the Christians of Merida summarized their plight under Abd al-Rahman II, and during the preceding reign: confiscation of their property, unfair increase of their exacted tribute, removal of their freedom (probably meaning slavery), and oppression by excessive taxes. In Grenada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph, who protected a once flourishing Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslim community (at least three thousand Jews perished in an uprising surrounding the 1066 assasination, alone).

Professor Lewis also errors when he maintains that the Jews were somehow limited uniquely under European Christendom by being forced to practice usury, for example, which was reviled by Christians. In fact he appears to acknowledge that under the yoke of dhimmitude in Muslim countries, the most degrading vocations were set aside for the Jews, including: executioners, grave-diggers, salters of the decapitated heads of rebels, and cleaners of latrines (in Yemen, in particular, this was demanded of Jews on Saturdays, their holy sabbath). Islamic societies also exhibited their own unique forms of severe oppression of Jews, NOT found in Christian Europe, such as: abduction of Jewish girls for Muslim harems; enslavement (including women and children) during warfare, revolts, or for economic reasons (for example, impossibility of paying the jizya, a blood ransom "poll tax" demanded of non-Muslims); the obligation for a Jew to dismount from his donkey on sight of a Muslim; the obligation in some regions (like the Maghreb) for Jews to walk barefoot outside their quarters; prohibiting Persian Jews from remaining outdoors when it rained for fear of polluting Muslims. With regard to enslavement, specifically, from the Middle Ages, right up until their mass exodus in 1948, rural Yemenite Jews were literally Muslim chattel.

He offers yet another self-contradiction when he acknowledges the plight of Jews in Morocco and Persia (Iran) who were in fact confined to living in ghettos.

Finally, Professor Lewis also contends that, "..In the early centuries of Islamic rule, there was little or no attempt at forcible conversion, the spread of the faith being effected rather by persuasion and inducement..".

In fact, enforced conversions were not exceptional, they were the norm. Orders for conversion were decreed under the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks- ranging from Spain and the Maghreb, to Yemen and Persia. Moreover, during jihad, the (dubious) concept of 'no compulsion' was meaningless. An enduring practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the Muslim shari'ah. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves or their children were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased. Two enduring and important mechanisms for this conversion were concubinage and the slave militias.

I am a non-Muslim from a predominantly Muslim country. I grew up learning the traditions and history of Islam with my Muslim childhood friends.

Although as always, Prof Lewis writes well and convincingly (hence the 2 stars) it irks me (....no, in fact it dowright enrages me) everytime a non-Muslim Westerner who has never lived under the Islamic yoke proclaims with great confidence how tolerant Islam is. Having said this, although Prof Lewis tries to be politically correct, thankfully he is not as bias towards Islam as Karen Armstrong, Prof Michael Sells, Edwad Said and John Esposito.

It must be emphasised that Islamic jurisprudence with regards Islam's relationship with Jews is based on how Prophet Muhammad treated the Jews during his lifetime. Muhammad's first real contact with the Jews was in Yathrib (now known as Medina) where he encountered three Jewish tribes, namely Banu Qaynuga, Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The Prophet hoped that the Jews would accept him as the "One". When they did not, he was so enraged that not only did he instruct his followers to stop facing Jerusalem (but to Mecca) when they prayed but he attacked and pillaged all the three Jewish tribes. The first two were expelled after being relieved of their possessions. With regards the last of the three tribes (i.e. Banu Quraiza), he had all the men (about 700) decapitated outside Medina and enslaved their wives and children. Only one was spared because he embraced Islam. The rest of Prophet Muhammad's life was spent fighting 66 offensive wars against pagans and Jews including those at Khaybar [Hence, the contemporary Palestinian war cry "O Jews (Yahud) of Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is coming"]. Two of Muhammad's many wives and concubines (ie. Safiya and Reihana) were Jewish widows whose husbands and fathers, the Muslims killed. One of Muhammad's last instructions were to expel all Jews and Christians (all pagans have been forcibly converted) from the Arabian peninsula. It is clear in the Quran that he who obeys Prophet Muhammad, obeys God (Allah).

For those who are interested in knowing the true history of the Jews (and Christians) under Islam, I would like to recommend Bat Yeor's "Dhimmi" and "Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam" and Ken Blady's Jewish Communities in Exotic Places. Bat Ye'or's books include many texts by well-known Muslim historians and jurists showing the persecutions of and humiliations experienced by Jews (and Christians) during the 13 or 14 centuries under Islam. Although not all Jews were forcibly converted, there were a few occassions where this happened to Jews in a certain locality or community (i.e. Meshed and Isfahan in Persia). Ken Blady's book describes how Jewish communties once flourished in the Middle East and North Africa before Islam and how the Jews were persecuted. It seems that on the eve of the Muslim conquest, most of the world's Jewry were in the Middle East/Persia and North Africa. A great many of those Jews were forcibly converted to Islam and were absorbed by the Persians, Yemenis, Morrocan and Libyan Berbers, Tats, Kurds, Arabs, Afgans/Pathans etc.

As one can see, the difference with Nazism is Hitler killed all Jews including those who embraced Christianity. Islam on the other hand is not "technically" anti-semitic nor is it concerned with genetics. There are good Jews and bad Jews. The good ones are those who embrace Islam.

My last point is although politically correct pro-Islam Western historians always talk about the 1492 expulsion of Spanish Jews, few ever mention about the persecution in Spain by the Almohads where many Jews including the great Maimonides were forcibly converted to Islam. Also, although they talk about exiled Spanish Jews finding refuge in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire, they always fail to mention about those Sephardim who emigrated to equally tolerant Christian countries such as South west France (Bordeaux), Holland and England, and how their descendants fared so much better than their counterparts in Muslim countries. On the eve of the creation of Israel, descendants of those Spanish Jews who emigrated to Christian lands consists of many great merchant dynasties in America, Britain, Holland, France and Belgium whereas those in Muslim lands were living in abject poverty without knowing that they would be expelled in a few years time after the creation of Israel. There are or were dozens of Jewish peers in the House of Lords (such as Lord Rothschild and Lord Forte) and many more as American senators. How many Jews are allowed to remain in the Islamic lands? This more or less sums it up for the Jews of Islam.

Antedote for common polemics about "ageless (therefore inevitable) conflict between Jew and Muslim". The lessons are that historically Muslims have treated Jews better than Christians did until recent times and that Histocical Circumstances rather than innate religious ideologies explain the relationships that have varied in time and place. Iran and Morocco have generally been less tolerant of Jews. It is an interesting and revealing story probably more valuable than Lewis's "What Went Wrong" for understanding the Middle East. Too many readers who go further than the mainstream Press limit themselves to JDL or equally biased Muslim sources.

Western 'Orientalists' have a rather poor grasp of certain aspects of Asian history and culture. These mainly pertain to the descriptions of the nature of Asiatic religions and their role in history. This is particularly true of the scholars from reputed institutions such as the Harvard University. This book also suffers from the same problem. The ARYAN invasion is of critical importance to the origin of the principle Asiatic cultures and Indo-European linguistics in general. It has been very poorly treated. The later parts on the Achaemenid and Islamic periods have been better dealt with. The kushans while poorly understood have not been particularly well described in this text.

With the publication of Dr. Richard Frye's The Heritage of Central Asia from Antiquity to the Turkish Expansion (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996, hardcover (ISBN 1558761101 ) and softcover (ISBN 155876111X), 264 pages) at last we have for Central Asia an overview book worth reading by novice and veteran alike. As the title implies, topics in the book include geography, pre-history, Zoroastrianism and Achaemenid Persians, Alexander the Great and the Greeks, the Parthians, nomads, Kushans, Silk Road trade, Buddhism, Sogdians, Muslims, Turks and much more. There are several (somewhat small) maps and a fair number of illustrations and photographs. Appendix topics include sources, geographical names (always a challenge in Central Asia), rulers in Bukhara and Samarkand, Sogdian deities, languages and coinage. The book is fully-indexed. Professor Frye of Harvard University is one of the deans of the field, especially in the area of Persia and author of numerous books including the recently re-published Bukhara. The very real accomplishment of this book is its comprehensive form which for once does not concentrate solely on a single time or place, but instead successfully communicates a feel for what was happening in all the regions throughout these historical periods. Much is to be learned and many questions will be answered. In some areas of research, of course, due to insufficient sources, the jury is still out and Frye does what one wants him to: he sets up the parameters of the question and the possibilities such that when someday new finds are made, the reader can judge them in the proper context. When he speculates, he informs the reader that that is what he is doing and refrains from offering theories without evidence as if they were fact. The conjectures too, as well as the facts, are always interesting coming as they do from a researcher of this stature and experience. Dr. Frye, who met the famous Sir Aurel Stein, first of the Foreign Devils of the Silk Road, and by extension his work, is a link back to the earliest Silk Road research and forward to what may be revealed by future excavations of mummies in Xinjiang and in the newly-independent republics of Central Asia. This book will be a valuable and often-consulted volume in the library of anyone with a passion for the Silk Road.

In this book Lewis offers a historical account of the interaction between Muslim and western cultures from a Muslim perspective. Most of the book consists of a detailed account of the Ottoman Empire throughout the ages and its response to a real and growing economic, military and cultural gap between the Empire and its western rivals.

The book is very informative and mildly enjoyable, however as others have pointed out, it does not even attempt to answer the question raised in the title. Lewis takes a descriptive approach, describing the long and slow deterioration of Muslim civilization, but he does very little to explain the ultimate causes for this deterioration. Why is it that the Muslim world began its decline in the first place? The book provides no insight on the subject. Having said all this, the book is well researched, informative and is a good primer for anyone not too familiar with the history and culture of the Middle East.

The name Bernard Lewis, Cleveland E. Dodge professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, evokes different responses in different places. In the West he is celebrated as "the doyen of Middle Eastern studies". In the Middle East, he is viewed with a mixture of admiration and skepticism. His new book What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, much praised in the Western press, attracted some pretty bad reviews from Middle Eastern newspapers.

Lewis is accused of trumpeting Western superiority over other civilizations and of "either accidentally or deliberately overlooking or ignoring well-known facts about the Middle Eastern culture". But despite all his flaws and biases it must be acknowledged that Lewis is not one of your run of the mill Orientalist. He has spent decades studying and analyzing the Muslim world and provides unique insights into the Muslim world through the eyes of a Westerner.

In What Went Wrong? Lewis attempts to understand what led to the decline of Islamic civilization after a remarkable period of unparalleled dominance. For many centuries, the Islamic world was at the forefront of all human achievement in fields as varied as militarism, economics, arts and sciences. At the same time, Christian Europe was considered a land of the barbarians from which there was nothing to learn or fear.

Generally, the book obviously is written by someone who has enouugh background on the matter, and is fairly neutral in his analysis.

This is a brilliant book by a renowned expert, Bernard Lewis. He is a professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University. And, so it may surprise some readers to discover just how readable this, his most recent book, is.

Although this was written prior to 9/11, it could not be timelier. This is a timely read if you want if know about the culture that expanded from its roots in Mecca and Medina to one that ruled the Mid East, northern Africa, Spain, and Portugal and finally knocked at the gates of Vienna, not once, but twice. It is a history that we are dealing with today. Bernard Lewis presents a compelling argument that as military failures occurred, one explanation that took root in the Islamic world was that God was displeased because Muslims were not leading lives in accordance with God’s wishes. Religious leaders became more powerful, and culture became more insulated. They seem to have been disinterested in Europe.

This is a timely read, if you want to know about the culture that saw no rights for slaves, infidels, and women in the 7th century, and sees not need to change that stance even in the 21st century.

This is a timely read if you want to understand just what questions are being asked and answered. Is the question “What went wrong?” or is it “Who did this to us?” One answer leads to taking corrective actions and implementing change, the other answer leads to blaming others. I think that Professor Lewis does address what went wrong. What he does not do is this… he does not present us with a solution of how to fix it. He does not tell us how we can survive together… or even if we can.

I highly recommend this book.

Bernard Lewis has put together a great deal of information relating to the Muslim World and its relations to the Europe but there seems to be so much information placed into one book it can be difficult to figure out what exactly Lewis is trying to say in this particular book. The chapters are good because they deal with suth topics as the Muslim View of the World, Science and Technology and Cultural Life. He does provide some pretty detailed analysis of the relationship between the Muslim World and Europe but it seems like the book could have been split up into two or three seperate book in which he could have focused on particular areas of the topics in the Muslim Discovery of Europe.

"The Muslim Discovery of Europe" is a must-read for anyone interested in Middle Eastern history, especially the period between 1500 and 1900. Bernard Lewis writes in a silky-smooth, easy-to-read style, yet the book is erudite and not "Middle Eastern history for dummies".

Lewis explores how the "medieval iron curtain" between Christendom and Islam gradually broke down (to the extent that it did) between the Crusades and the middle of the 19th century, underscoring the Muslim world's changing views of Europe. From Islam's early days up through the Ottoman zenith in the 16th century, Islamic civilization was unquestionably more brilliant than its European counterpart. So Muslims didn't find much reason to be interested in the West. While Europe's Roman forbears might be worth a glance, the average Middle Easterner's image of a European before 1800 was the one (perhaps mythic) symbolized by the filthy Austrian soldiers who, in a 17th-century assault on Budapest (then an Ottoman city), turned an immaculate Turkish bath-house into a horse stable and then washed themselves in their animals' urine. With some justification, Muslim scholars reasoned that Europe had no important ideas and no important literature: the most noteworthy European writer of the Middle Ages, after all, was St. Thomas Aquinas, whose books obviously didn't have anything interesting to say to Muslims. Consequently, for centuries, educated Muslims thought it was a waste of time to learn about Europe. As late as the 18th century, Ottoman officialdom was still referring to Europeans -- in government documents -- with nifty little derogatory jingles like "Ingiliz dinsiz" (Englishman without religion), "Fransiz jansiz" (soulless Frenchman), and "Engurus menhus" (inauspicious Hungarian), not to mention the standard and official use of the term "infidel" (kafr). In a way, though, their ignorance is surprising only in hindsight.

By 1800, all this had changed. Napoleon's Egyptian campaign (1798) initiated a new wave of European imperialism that over the 19th century, and for the first time since the Crusades, would establish Europeans in positions of direct or indirect power in significant parts of the Middle East. Muslims saw up-close how far Europeans had left them in the lurch: militarily, scientifically, politically, and economically. Rulers recognized that "modernizing" (that is, Europeanizing) their societies was imperative if they were going to prevent foreigners from eventually taking over (some did anyway). The 20th-century implications of these changes were huge: the struggle between tradition and Westernization was (and is) one of the keynotes of modern Middle East history.

Lewis ventures far beyond wars and politics and addresses every aspect of the subject: in fact, politics figures into very little of the book directly. Chapter 3, for example, is entirely about language and translation, examining what Muslims thought and knew about European languages and literature on the eve of their "discovery" of Europe. Other chapters explore what Muslims who traveled to Europe thought about this formerly bizarre and exotic destination and the impact made on Muslims by Europeans who traveled in the Middle East. There are also sections on the economy, the reception of European culture, religion, the military, etc.

Again, Lewis' style is extremely fluid and this is a book that everybody can enjoy.

Bernard Lewis is a historian and expert on the Islamic world or more specifically the Middle East. In the Muslim Discovery of Europe he looks at how the Islamic world came to see the West and its influence.

Throughout Lewis shows the strange duality of the Islamic regimes and culture. In some ways tolerant of Christianity and Judaism (although more dismissive and contemptuous than is commonly realized), Islamic culture became incapable of making the next leap forward into a more secular, rationale society.

Here Lewis traces the perception of writers, scientists, diplomats and traders from the Ottoman empire through their letters, edicts and other writings. It is an amazing eye opener for those unfamiliar with non-western perceptions. Lewis shows a culture that is first progressive, then increasingly unable to come to grips with either the West or its science and technology. What was progressive becomes eventually, under the latter Ottomans, the definition of decay and backwardness.

This is great historical writing in some ways as important, though not as revisionist, as Eric Wolfe's "Europe and the Peoples Without a History". Highly illuminating and highly recommended.