Details

Buy it now from Amazon

The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization

Columbia University Press

List price: $75.00
Lowest new price: $11.00
Lowest used price: $0.43

Average customer rating: 4 stars

Between Islam and the West... Falls the Shadow?

What is the relationship between the Western world and the Islamic (and specifically the Middle Eastern) world? Richard Bulliet's book is a well written and insightful - and wrongheaded - assault on one school of thought trying to answer this question, and a proposal of an alternative.

Bulliet's target is the so-called "Clash of Civilizations" school, named after a classic work by the late Samuel Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, which I haven't read). Championed by such diverse group as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel), Bernard Lewis (The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror), Paul Berman (Power and the Idealists: Or, the Passion of Joschka Fischer and Its Aftermath) and Martin Kramer, the "Clash of Civilizations" school, to oversimplify, sees the Muslim world as containing an alien alternative to the West's secular, democratic and Capitalistic order. The Muslim world is dominated by "Islamism" (or "Radical Islam" or even "Islamo-fascism"), which, like Communism, is a dangerous ideology which has to be confronted, with a mix (possibly quite eclectic) of ideological, but also diplomatic and possibly military means.

The Alternative Bulliet offers is a blurry concept of an "Islamo-Christian civilization" "According to the Islamo-Christian civilization model, Islam and the West are historical twins whose resemblance did not cease when their paths parted". He talks about an "Islamic road to modernity" (p. 120). What does he mean by that? He mentions "religious democrats" but fails to tell us who they are and what they want (p. 125). As far as I can tell, the only policy implication in Bulliet's book is that we shouldn't prevent Islamist parties from competing in elections (p .128). This is not the place to discuss this claim in details (I talked about it in my review of "The Crisis of Islam" and Inside Egypt: The Land of the Pharaohs on the Brink of a Revolution), but, with the possible exception of Turkey, I don't think that's a good idea. Trusting that the Islamists would prove to be sheep in wolves' clothing is too large of a gamble, when it is based on remarkably little information (When discussing present Islamist groups, as opposed to their historic roots, Bulliet's well of information dries up, and he is left only with comparisons to the Western world. That thing ended happily in the West does not mean that gambling with foreign society is a good idea. We would do well to reread Reflections on the Revolution in France: A Critical Edition).

When attacking the "Clash of Civilization" school, Bulliet uses something very close to a straw man argument. He gives a distorted definition of the "clash of civilization" thesis, which is easy to knock down. Thus, he writes "According to the `clash of civilizations' hypothesis, the (Judeo-Christian) West has always been and always will be at odds with Islam."(p. 43). But this is hardly a necessary definition. Perhaps the Muslim world and the Western world were at unity in some distant time, and perhaps they would be again, but the important questions are whether they are clashing *now*, and whether they are likely to stop clashing anytime soon.

Bulliet attacks Bernard Lewis's central question in What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East? the Islamic world is different, not inferior, he argues. But the task is onerous - the Muslim world is clearly behind the Western world in every respect: Economic development, Technology, Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights and Women's Rights. Furthermore, with the economic rise of China and Asia, the Islamic world is now not only behind the West, but behind Asia. How can you deny that something went wrong?

One technique is to "take the long view". Talk about Muhammad Ali and Napoleon (p. 50); Stress, necessarily, the cultural effects of the Muslim world on Europe in the middle Ages; Lament its under-representation in Western discourse (pp. 32-33). The influence of the Muslim world may or may not be underestimated, but it is past; eight hundred years is a long time to live on memories.

Another technique is moral relativism: the popular supporters of Radical Islam are likened to the American religious right (p. 44), Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are matched with Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Meir Kahane (pp. 12-13). These comparisons are more significant for what they leave out than for what they contain. The American Religious Right, as unappealing as Liberals such as myself find it, is very, very different from Radical Islam. It lacks the sexism, opposition to basic human rights (barbaric Quranic punishments are regularly carried out in Saudi Arabia), gross anti-Semitism and disdain for democracy. It opposes Gay marriage, but does not encourage the execution of homosexuals. Bin Laden and Omar, and certainly Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad and the Muslim Brotherhood carry infinitely more weight among Middle Eastern Muslims than Jones and Koresh do in the West. Most importantly, the conduct of Western states is so different than that of Islamist states as to make the comparison ridiculous and insulting.

But along the way, Bulliet makes almost a volte face. It starts with a denial that the Muslim world wants the same things the West does. It is not a failure if Muslims don't want Western "degeneracy". This is a dangerous path to tread - what better proof of the Clash of Civilizations than if Muslims don't want freedom, democracy, human rights and Capitalism? Of course, the Islamists reject Westernization. But Muslims want much of what the West has - economic wealth, military power, and status. Isn't Islamism explicable, at least in part, by envy? Isn't it driven, at least partially, by resentment (See Amy Chua's World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability)?

Bulliet comes close to acknowledging the Clash of Civilization School when he writes that "the worldviews of Arab and Muslim rulers have been... conditioned by Islamic political traditions." (p. 61). He goes back, unbelievably, to the Grecians, and their opposition to Persian (read: Eastern) despotism (p. 63). Who's the Orientalist now?

That leads to a long argument that the people turned towards Islamism because the Islamists were the main force of opposition to the Middle East's 19th century tyrannical Modernizers. I'm not sure: the Catholic Church was Bismarck's main opposition, but Catholic fundamentalism is not a problem in modern Germany. Be that as it may, to explain is not to excuse - the Islamists may be against the Middle East's secular, modernizing tyrants (they are), but they are also against Modernism, democracy, human rights, etc. The Islamist cure is worse than the disease.

Thus while ostensibly protesting against the "Clash" school, Bulliet describes how Liberalism fails in the Muslim world because it is incompatible with Muslim culture, and how the Islamists are successful because the Muslim culture is predisposed to accept them. "The manifestos of the nonreligious print ideologues ultimately came to naught for lack of roots in an indigenous political culture. The preachings of the religious print ideologues sank deep because the roots were already in place."(p.92). When reading that, can a "Clashist" say to Bulliet anything but "Welcome aboard"?

In the end, what separates Bulliet from the Clashists, is not analysis - it is hope.
"I fully expect that the next twenty to thirty years will see religious leaders of tolerant and
peaceful conscience, in the mold of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela, eclipse in respect and popular following today's advocates of jihad, intolerance, and religious autocracy" (p. 161). Personally, I wouldn't bet on it.

Bulliet Gets It

I must point out, I am only half-way through the book but still feel qualified to add a few words here, right of future edits witheld of course.

Bulliet brings a very fresh view and analysis to the history of interaction of Islam and Christianity and most importantly distinguishes it from the more fundemantal interaction of East and West, which so many scholars have failed to grasp time and again.

His writing is efficient, incorporates much quantitative analysis and demonstrates a much deeper understanding of the subject matter than many other talking heads who are busily spouting sound bites for the masses.

He goes beyond "what went wrong" and asks and tries to answer the "why"?

I am not sure if he is really making a case for an Islamo-Christian civilization, but it is certainly important to note as he does, the common roots and institutions between these two so-called opposing world views.

Admirable attempt, but comes up short

While on one hand extremely sympathetic to the goals Richard Bulliet aspires to in The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization, I can nonetheless find a significant number of problems with the book on the other. To begin with, this is not a cohesive or well-organized argument. The first of four chapters fits the title of the book as Bulliet makes his argument that an Islamo-Christian civilization does exist. The following chapters have little to do with this theme, and seem like components of an entirely separate work.

Beginning with this first chapter, Bulliet attempts to rebut Samuel Huntington's A Clash of Civilizations, but he never once quotes Huntington or includes the book in his bibliography. While a lot of criticism thrown at Huntington from others is warranted, Bulliet is quick to criticize, but appears to only be vaguely familiar with Huntington's arguments. Being familiar with Huntington's work, I have to question how closely Bulliet actually looked at A Clash of Civilizations.

Beyond this, Bulliet's argument that Islam and Christianity developed on similar paths up to a point and then converged is unconvincing. He's trying to argue that the two religions and their developmental paths were similar, but he only manages to describe one and then the other without attempting to weave the two stories together. Considering the title of the book, this chapter comes across as somewhat of a failure.

The next (and completely separate) chapter is a rebuttal of Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong? Bulliet thankfully quotes Lewis here, but the end product isn't really a counterpoint to Lewis's arguments. Bulliet asks what went right, but only offers sections on disputes between religion and state, religious names given to children, and the impact of the printing press. Although Lewis's book has plenty of its own problems, Bulliet has not really responded to what Lewis argued.

Another largely unrelated chapter talks about Middle Eastern area studies in the West. Bulliet offers up an American version of Said's Orientalism theory and describes how the U.S. is ill equipped to really understand the Muslim world due to the tendency to look for Middle Easterners that fit the image we want to have of them. A fair criticism, but Bulliet displays his own knowledge to be lacking when he attempts to describe current American policy. An example is when he quotes James Woolsey as a "top government official." While Woolsey's statements affirm the picture Bulliet wants to present, he was Clinton's CIA chief for a few years and hasn't had a government job since. Woolsey's comments line up with some in the Bush administration, but not those who have had a consistent hand in shaping foreign policy.

This book was written with what were probably the best of intentions, but Bulliet doesn't deliver. If you want to hear a case made for Islamo-Christian civilization, you're going to have to look somewhere else.

Looking beyond the "Clash of Civilizations"

Samuel Huntington coined the phrase "Clash of Civilizations" in the early 1990s after the fall of Communism, when the growing power of Islam as a civilization and geopolitical force was beginning to challenge Western hegemony. But was Huntington right? Are Islam and the West really on a collision course?

No, Bulliet argues. And he doesn't do this as an "apologist for terrorism" as right-wing, neo-conservative pundits label anyone who seeks dialog over dissension with Islam and Muslims. Rather, he approaches the issue as a scholar who has been in the field of Middle East Studies for almost 40 years. And he doesn't just talk about today. He delves briefly but cogently into the history of positive interaction between Islam and the West.

For instance, he discusses how the role of Madrassas, those schools of Islamic learning that are associated with terrorism in the minds of most Westerners today, mirrored and influenced the development of universities in Europe.

Bulliet also points out the weaknesses of the common approach to Islam and Muslim societies, as reflected in the way Western Middle East Studies scholars idealize the Westernized elites of Muslim societies versus trying to understand the worldview of the average person in these cultures.

Bulliet also successfully challenges the views of America's top Orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis, whose generally negative view of Islam colors the way many American policymakers see the world and have developed their relations with Muslim countries based on it. Lewis is credited with providing the intellectual impetus for the current war on Iraq.

The case for Islamo-Christian Civilization is a necessary read for every student and scholar of the Middle East, as well as anyone seeking arguments for an alliance of civilizations in today's world, not a clash.

THE MOST ESSENTIAL BOOK OF OUR TIME

tracing how we both believe in peace, justice, humility, cooperation, family, and in God. Or so our publicists claim.

but most of all don't we all just believe in peace?
can't we all just get along?
Love thy neighbor
do good to those who harm you
love your enemy
treat others the way you want them to treat you
remember?