The Middle East

Very well written.

A quack “historian.” It’s the MENA in the eyes of a no-nothing

The Middle East goes up to 1995 and is a good start, I think, for reading about the middle east. Since it covers a large area and many years it doesn't go into much detail about specific areas, but gives the overall view of what was happening.On thing that he does well is to express an earlier world view that formed as Islam advanced from the Middle East to Africa and part of Spain, feeling that they were the culmination of religion - Mohammed being the last of the prophets in thier view, and their success in conquest being attributed to the rightness of their cause. Though they studied their own history, the history of the western world was not seen as being of value. In the 1800 and 1900 hundreds, then, when they met with military reversals, it was a shock that led to a deeper questioning of their own purpose. The earlier view is easy to empathize with in the U.S., because, whatever we think of the uses made now of U.S. power, it is very much ingrained in us that the U.S. is one of, if not the most powerful, at the moment. U.S. power may be declining, and, if it becomes clear, that it is, I think that will be a shock. Bernard talks about the response to that, from attempts to establish democracy, to rejection of the west and turning to Islamic fundamentalism.There is a section towards the end where he talks about the question of whether the middle east was better off for its contact with western imperialism. He concludes that general life conditions are better, although he says the positive effects were more where the colonial power was actively involved in administration such as in India. This is a statement that I simply don't know enough to evaluate, though I have doubts, certainly, as a general statement about colonialism.There is very little about the position or role of women, although the former is covered generally, as earlier being restrictive though with some legal rights not available to European women at the time, to some loosening with modernization, and increasing restriction with the turn to Islamic fundamentalism in some places. This is a topic, though, where the specifics would be helpful, with more on areas with different prior cultures, or among various social classes, or branches of Islam.

This book is fairly dense, but if your goal is to absorb lots of information about how the middle east got where it is (circa mid-1990s), this is a decent start.It's somewhat slow going just because of the density of information, but I was able to follow the progression without having to refer to previous pages *too* much. The writing style is succinct but not devoid of a few pleasant flourishes, overall quite readable.

Good book. Now a bit dated but provides a lot of earlier context. Not an easy prt of the world and unlikely to be so any time soon.

Bernard Lewis takes on the task of explaining from history how the Middle East got to where it is today. To this end he reaches far back into history, beginning with the pagan Hellenistic world, successor to the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran, which became divided into a Christian and Roman west and Iranian and Zoroastrian east. While necessary background, this is remote history and is concluded by page 55.For the next 330 pages or so Lewis charts the Islamic history of the Middle East, from its origins with Mohammed, through the Arab, Seljuk and Mongol periods, giving the lion’s share of the treatment to the Ottoman era. Again, this is probably right, since the Ottoman Empire has had the most profound effect on the Middle East today.The political and military history is summary, and much of the treatment is thematic. There are also chapters given over to social, religious and economic factors. The last section of the book deals with the reaction of the Middle East to the increasing influence of Western Europe, beginning with the Ottoman defeat at Vienna in 1689, and culminating with the post-1918 partition between Britain and France. It will be interesting if his observations of the current scene, penned before 9/11, are vindicated in the long run.I found many of the thematic elements in this book helpful, especially for an understanding of the Islamic mindset. Thus, the solidarity between Muslims, the origins of the main Islamic sects, the purely utilitarian attitudes towards non-Muslim cultures and societies (until the modern era), and the tension between participation in the often ephemeral Muslim states and the duties of a pious Muslim. Lewis effectively highlights continuities (eg. between Helleno-Roman and Persian society on one hand, and Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates on the other) as well as major discontinuities (eg. the impact of the Seljuks and the Mongols).Lewis also demonstrates a sympathy and historical understanding towards the Middle East that challenge many preconceptions held by Westerners today. One cannot understand the Middle East as a contemporary region, nor the Muslim outlook, without ingesting Lewis’ lessons.However, I found the lack of a sufficiently detailed narrative annoying. If I had not had some basic reading in Middle Eastern history, I would have struggled to make sense of the historical sections of the book. A blow-by-blow “kings and battles” treatment is obviously inappropriate for a book that appeals to the general reader, but the general reader needs some help through the bewildering kaleidoscope of Muslim dynasties (at least before the rise of the Ottomans). Lewis is important reading for anyone wanting to understand the Middle East, either in its history or where it is today. I would not recommend him, however, as the definitive treatment or introduction.