Bernard Lewis is a name most Muslims, who have never read his books, love to
hate. He is the personification of the unrepentant Orientalist, whose profession
the late Edward Said stingingly rebuked for apparent academic bias. But I
personally feel that Middle Eastern commentators like Lewis and his protege,
Martin Kramer, represent an entirely different class from medieval orientalists,
who wrote at a time when the world of Islam was seen as an ever-present threat. Jewish intellectuals, especially, have accomplished much in presenting Islam in a
sympathetic light to a nominally belligerent western audience.
In his book, Lewis lovingly traces the last days of the Ottoman empire and the
difficulties faced in maintaining both its bulbous shape, and its
momentum for expansion in the face of a technologically-emergent West. He is
unstinting in his praise for the achievements of Islamic sciences and art, and
their contribution to the Renaissance. However, from the outset, Lewis makes it
clear that very definite streams contributed to the Islamic empire’s downfall.
The reversal of the scientific roles of Christian West and Islam was felt most
poignantly in the Ottoman capital, where European inventions like the printing
press was forbidden because it was considered blasphemous to subject the Koran
to a mechanical typeset. The relentless invasions carried out by the British,
French and Tsarist Russia exposed the incredible weakness of Ottoman borders.
Enemies could come and go at will. Only when the British or the French
intervened to halt Russian expeditions did the Ottomans realize that the only
thing that could defeat a Western army was another Western army.
Thereafter followed a half-hearted attempt at parroting Western dress codes and
military doctrine. But this, according to Lewis, was a tragically shortsighted
pogrom. Changing the superficial without the inner core that was culture and
civic society merely ensured the future dictatorial and militarized personality
of Middle Eastern states. He expands on three deep currents that the Western
world effected change on.
1. The abolition of slaveryLewis writes:
2. Equal rights for minority communities
3. Emancipation of women
"According to Islamic law…, there were three groups of people who did not benefit from the general Muslim principle of legal and religious equality- unbelievers, slaves and women."Lewis accepts that the rights of slaves and minorities were far more comprehensive in the Islamic world than in the West. He focuses most of his energies on the rights of women, instead. I personally found it rather wanting because the only institutionalized bias I am aware of is the diminished role of women as witnesses in an Islamic court. Most gender discrimination in the Islamic world inevitably originates from patriarchal customs. Despite this, he presents a compelling case for Muslims to begin a serious study on women rights. The nineteenth-century Ottoman writer, Namik Kemal, for example, lamented:
"Our women are now seen as serving no useful purpose to mankind other than having children; they are considered simply as serving for pleasure, like musical instruments or jewels. But they constitute half and perhaps more than half of our species. Preventing them from contributing to the sustenance and improvement of others by means of their efforts infringes the basic rules of public cooperation to such a degree that our national society is stricken like a human body that is paralyzed on one side…In ancient times, women shared in all men’s activities, including even war. In the countryside, women still share in the work of agriculture and trade…The reason why women among us are thus deprived is the perception that they are totally ignorant and know nothing of right and duty, benefit and harm. Many evil consequences result from this position of women, the first being that it leads to bad upbringing for their children."How visionary is the last statement, when one considers the dismal state of the Muslim umma today.
"For Israel…, the survival of the state, surrounded, outnumbered and outgunned by neighbors who reject its very right to exist, may depend on its largely Western-derived qualitative edge."I have discussed that oft-repeated but apocalyptic belief here and see no reason to rescind my view.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Lewis seems to fade in his analysis once he reaches the late-Ottoman era. He ahs some useful insights, but I don’t think the charge that he is unlike earlier Orientalists holds water. Watt is just as good, if not better. As for a Western historian of Islam, Marshall Hogdson, CE Bosworth and the late medievalist George Makdisi remain my favourites.
Accusations of being a ’scholar-combatant’ are not without basis when it comes to Lewis. After all, he is one of the intellectuals who is credited with influencing current US foreign policy towards the ME, as well as outlining that one of the ways to combat Soviet influence in Asia was to empower Muslim “fundamentalists” (for want of a better word). And no this doesn’t mean I believe “Zionists control the US”; more that considered intellectual opinions are obviously read in corridors of power — some more appealing than others and Lewis is more appealing to this US regime than say Esposito (who I use an example — I’m not saying he is any better/worse than Lewis as a scholar).
SheilaX replies: Thank you for your recommendations. Personally, I find John Esposito, like Karen Armstrong, rather too vague and apologetic when it comes to radical Islam and its roots.