من بابل إلى التراجمة: تفسير الشرق الأوسط

by Bernard Lewis, طلعت الشايب (ترجمة), برنارد لويس

مادة هذا السفر الضخم كتبها " برنارد لويس" على مدى فترة امتدت نحو نصف قرن وهى تغطى موضوعات مختلفه . بعضها كان محاضرات وأوراق بحثية وبعضها الآخر مقالات ظهرت فى صحف ودوريات مختلفه ، وكلها تحمل بذور أفكاره وجذور منطلقات كتبه التى ظهرت فيما بعد "لتقيم الدنيا وتشغل الناس"
فصول الكتاب هى " رواية " برنارد لويس بعد حفر وتنقيب فى التاريخ ومحاولة الإجابة عن أسئلة المؤرخ المتعارف عليها : ماذا جرى ؟ وكيف ؟ ولماذا؟ ووضع ذلك كله فى السياقين الإقليمى والعالمى ، فإلى أى مدى نجح فى تقديم رؤية موضوعية ، أو كان – على الأقل – منصفاً لا يكيل بمكيالين ولا " يخترع" تاريخاً يناسب الحاضر ويتسق مع مستقبل مرغوب بحيث تبدو ولادة الحاضر والمستقبل من الماضى طبيعية؟
فى عبارة طريفة ، يصف المفكر الأمريكى " جورج سانتيانا " التاريخ بأنه " صرة أكاذيب عن احداث لم تقع يرويها أناس لم يكونوا هناك " .
" برنارد لويس " يؤكد أنه كان هناك ، وأن " هكذا تكلم التاريخ " فهل "هكذا تكلم التاريخ بالفعل" ، أم " هكذا تكلم برنارد لويس"

Genres: History, Middle East, Nonfiction, Islam, Cultural, Essays, Politics

860 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

Bernard Lewis was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of many critially acclaimed and bestselling books, including two number one New York Times bestsellers: What Went Wrong? and Crisis of Islam. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years was a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. Internationally recognized as the greatest historian of the Middle East, he received fifteen honorary doctorates and his books have been translated into more than twenty languages.

Reviews

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bernard Lewis is certainly one of the most articulate and prolific authorities on the subject of Islam and the Middle East.
In this compendium of essays and speeches on the topic covering the last 60 years, Lewis makes a palpable contribution to the subject and gives us some much needed answers.

Important points explain the Muslim prohibition on accepting the rule of non-Muslims, especially in lands that were ever under Islamic rule. This is illustrated by the Islamic faith's division of the world into the realms of Dar el Islam (House of Islam) and Dar el Harb (House of War) applied to any nation that is not under Islamic rule.
According to Islam, for misbelievers (non Muslims) to rule over true believers (Muslims) is evil and blasphemous and leads to the corruption of religion and morality or even the abrogation of Allah's law.
This may go some way to explaining the conflicts around the world where Muslims are under the governance of non-Muslim majorities such as Indian Kashmir, Serbian Kosovo, Israel and when it had a Christian majority-Lebanon.
It also may explain why Muslims in Western and Central Europe demand a high degree of legal protection which those countries no longer give to Christianity and have never given to Jews. Or even demanding Sharia law in parts of Europe, and for example harassing and attacking non-Islamic women who they see as being dressed immodestly.

Lewis' study of propaganda in the pre-modern Middle East may go some way to explain how Islamic propaganda (under tutelage during the 20th century of Fascism, Nazism and Communism) developed against Israel and Jews.
He studies monarchy in the Middle East pointing out the important point that republics and democracy are not synonymous at all. In Europe the surviving monarchies are without exception constitutional democracies, while the tyrannies of the world today, are, almost without exception, republics.
He also mentions republican dynasties where rule belongs to a single family.
One also has to look at Syria of the Assads, Iraq before the liberation of 2003 (where Saddam was grooming his sons to take over from him) and Libya and Egypt (where Gaddafi and Mubarak respectively are grooming their sons to succeed them).

Perhaps my favourite chapter is an Address to meeting in Jerusalem entitled 'The British Mandate for Palestine in Historical Perspective'
Over here Lewis puctures the myth that there was ever a country in the Levant called 'Palestine'.
While there were states in the region before the British Mandate, none of them were called 'Palestine'. Palestine was begun as a Greco-Roman term. The authorized version 'Old Testament' names 'Palestine' three times. all three were REMOVED in the revised edition because they are mistranslations of the word Philistia-Hebrew:Peleshet- not Palestine but Philistia.
The name was first used for two and then three provinces in the Roman Empire, survived briefly in the early Arab Empire and then disappeared. The Crusaders called the country the holy Land, and their state the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Under Ottoman rule people in the area identified themselves by religion or descent, most often by allegiance to a particular tribe. when they identified themselves by locality it was by the city or immediate district of province. so they would have been Jerusalemites or Jaffaites, or like the Syrians identified with the larger province of Syria (The Syrians regarded the Holy Land was regarded as a part thereof, as did many of it's Arab inhabitants).

Lewis dissects quite a few myths and propaganda ploys.
Including the purile argument that Arabs and pro-Arabs cannot possibly be anti-Semites because Arabs are themselves Semites.
The term anti-Semtism was an invention of the anti-Semites to provide a pseudo-scientific cover for Jew-hating and Jew-biting and did not apply to other Semitic peoples and certainly not Arabs.
Lewis also rights how universities and the powers that control academic and information discourse have repressed history that is not politically correct.
Hence students have been discouraged from studying the Arab role in the slave trade and slavery in the Middle East, even though the European slave trade of the 16th to 19th centuries was begun by the Arabs.
If this was made more apparent those who demand reparations for slavery from Europe and America would also have to demand the same from Arab states, which would certainly expose the anti-Western Third Worldist agenda.
He also points out that there is a very good argument for the case that, as the Crusades were preceded by Islamic Jihad against Christendom , there is a very good case for the argument that the Crusades were a long delayed, limited response to Muslim Jihad.

The author's 1970's essays on the hypocrisy of the United Nations are more true today than ever given the UN's obsessive focus on condemning Israel while ignoring all the real atrocities around the world.
A great exploration of the questions involving conflict in the Middle East region, though not an easy read.

Merged review:

Bernard Lewis is certainly one of the most articulate and prolific authorities on the subject of Islam and the Middle East.
In this compendium of essays and speeches on the topic covering the last 60 years, Lewis makes a palpable contribution to the subject and gives us some much needed answers.

Important points explain the Muslim prohibition on accepting the rule of non-Muslims, especially in lands that were ever under Islamic rule. This is illustrated by the Islamic faith's division of the world into the realms of Dar el Islam (House of Islam) and Dar el Harb (House of War) applied to any nation that is not under Islamic rule.
According to Islam, for misbelievers (non Muslims) to rule over true believers (Muslims) is evil and blasphemous and leads to the corruption of religion and morality or even the abrogation of Allah's law.
This may go some way to explaining the conflicts around the world where Muslims are under the governance of non-Muslim majorities such as Indian Kashmir, Serbian Kosovo, Israel and when it had a Christian majority-Lebanon.
It also may explain why Muslims in Western and Central Europe demand a high degree of legal protection which those countries no longer give to Christianity and have never given to Jews. Or even demanding Sharia law in parts of Europe, and for example harassing and attacking non-Islamic women who they see as being dressed immodestly.

Lewis' study of propaganda in the pre-modern Middle East may go some way to explain how Islamic propaganda (under tutelage during the 20th century of Fascism, Nazism and Communism) developed against Israel and Jews.
He studies monarchy in the Middle East pointing out the important point that republics and democracy are not synonymous at all. In Europe the surviving monarchies are without exception constitutional democracies, while the tyrannies of the world today, are, almost without exception, republics.
He also mentions republican dynasties where rule belongs to a single family.
One also has to look at Syria of the Assads, Iraq before the liberation of 2003 (where Saddam was grooming his sons to take over from him) and Libya and Egypt (where Gaddafi and Mubarak respectively are grooming their sons to succeed them).

Perhaps my favourite chapter is an Address to meeting in Jerusalem entitled 'The British Mandate for Palestine in Historical Perspective'
Over here Lewis puctures the myth that there was ever a country in the Levant called 'Palestine'.
While there were states in the region before the British Mandate, none of them were called 'Palestine'. Palestine was begun as a Greco-Roman term. The authorized version 'Old Testament' names 'Palestine' three times. all three were REMOVED in the revised edition because they are mistranslations of the word Philistia-Hebrew:Peleshet- not Palestine but Philistia.
The name was first used for two and then three provinces in the Roman Empire, survived briefly in the early Arab Empire and then disappeared. The Crusaders called the country the holy Land, and their state the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Under Ottoman rule people in the area identified themselves by religion or descent, most often by allegiance to a particular tribe. when they identified themselves by locality it was by the city or immediate district of province. so they would have been Jerusalemites or Jaffaites, or like the Syrians identified with the larger province of Syria (The Syrians regarded the Holy Land was regarded as a part thereof, as did many of it's Arab inhabitants).

Lewis dissects quite a few myths and propaganda ploys.
Including the purile argument that Arabs and pro-Arabs cannot possibly be anti-Semites because Arabs are themselves Semites.
The term anti-Semtism was an invention of the anti-Semites to provide a pseudo-scientific cover for Jew-hating and Jew-biting and did not apply to other Semitic peoples and certainly not Arabs.
Lewis also rights how universities and the powers that control academic and information discourse have repressed history that is not politically correct.
Hence students have been discouraged from studying the Arab role in the slave trade and slavery in the Middle East, even though the European slave trade of the 16th to 19th centuries was begun by the Arabs.
If this was made more apparent those who demand reparations for slavery from Europe and America would also have to demand the same from Arab states, which would certainly expose the anti-Western Third Worldist agenda.
He also points out that there is a very good argument for the case that, as the Crusades were preceded by Islamic Jihad against Christendom , there is a very good case for the argument that the Crusades were a long delayed, limited response to Muslim Jihad.

The author's 1970's essays on the hypocrisy of the United Nations are more true today than ever given the UN's obsessive focus on condemning Israel while ignoring all the real atrocities around the world.
A great exploration of the questions involving conflict in the Middle East region, though not an easy read.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another easy read. Numerous articles and short essays Lewis wrote of the course of several years. Topics area varied. Good for those avidly interested in the Middle East, as well as those who just want to read a short snippet every now and then.

[Ryan La Fleur · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bernard Lewis is one of the most renowned and controversial author on the Middle East and its relations with the rest of the world, more specifically “the west.” At first glance it would be easy to see why he would be considered controversial. He was a British born American academic who served in British intelligence during World War 2 and then with the British Foreign Office. He took controversial stances on the invasion of Iraq and the Armenian Genocide. He was highly sought after by the George W. Bush administration and has been considered a neoconservative. Additionally, he was Jewish writing about Islamic and Middle Eastern topics. That alone, in some people's eyes, would make him controversial. All this is true but seems to take a simplistic view of, much like the topic he choose to study, a much more complex person.

Reading through From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East was occasional difficult. Many of the passages were academic in the extreme and connecting the various articles that were written over the course of his entire 50 plus year career to the overall thread of the narrative was not always easy. This, however, is characteristic of the arguments Bernard Lewis makes and the complex and more nuanced stances he takes. He is just as hard on his own Jewish history, or as he points out, lack of history, and on the short term memory of his adopted homeland America as he is on the historical inclinations of Islamic historiography, Ottoman biographies, and Persian or Iranian historical constructs.

I do not agree with all of Bernard Lewis’ views or even some of the historic conclusions he makes in this volume. I also do not agree with everything his critics say regarding him or this particular book. Taking the longer and more nuanced view of a topic or a personality is not the easiest course and is often not the most popular either. However, any good critic, student or historian would do well to find the nuance and detail and exploit it. Nuance exploited and detail expanded upon does nothing but increase your credibility and strengthen your argument.

From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East is a thick volume and not intended for the novice in Middle Eastern or Islamic studies. While also not for the doctoral student, the volume covers not only the expected topics of the Israeli/Arab conflict, the Arab/Western conflict going all the way back to the Crusades, the Reconquista, and the Suez Crisis but spreads into more complex questions.The Sunni/Shi’a schism is addressed as well as the difference between traditional Middle Eastern concepts and the vast differences with that and the Ottoman and Persian/Iranian world views.

Having studied Middle Eastern, North African, Turkish and Islamic culture (more specifically the radical and militant variety) over the course of some 15 plus years, the most interesting development with the articles presented in the book were they consistencies and developmental changes in the articles themselves. Seeing the similarities between Bernard Lewis’ comments on the Suez Crisis and the assassination of Anwar Sadat and those of his comments on the Gulf War and the subsequent terrorist acts committed by al-Qaeda are fascinating. His own point of the consistency of cultures to either ignore or misuse history contrast directly with his own review of history and its potential misuse. Seeing his change in stance on the political spectrum but his overall consistency on the historical -used in the social scientific sense - is fascinating.

This also brings me to my most significant issue with the book. Its actual structure more than its content or tone.

The book is divided into three main sections, each of which is constructed by articles previously written and published in various other volumes or academic journals. The sections are entitled; Past History, Current History, and About History, respectively. The articles fall into the three main categories.

With the first section, Past History, Lewis deals primarily with historic, meaning pre-20th century or at the very least primarily with events prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. With these articles Bernard Lewis tries to set the stage for the interactions between the West or European powers and those of the early or Medieval Islam. He also attempts to place the few events that occur within the 20th century in context to their historic roots.

Part Two: Current History, deals with modern, or at least recently modern, events. These include the Gulf War, the Israeli/Arab issue, modern imperialism, both American and Soviet. This section is a little more difficult to follow as the articles don’t follow a strictly linear structure. Nor do they follow any thematic structure that was readily apparent. The articles taken individually are quite interesting and Bernard Lewis’s take on the differences and construction of modern Turkey from the remains of the Ottoman Empire are quite instructive.

It is with the last section, Part Three: About History, I have my primary issue. This section attempts to cover the nature of history and the study and influence of history and historical study itself. It is here the Bernard Lewis takes up his idea of the use, disuse, and misuse of history. He also discuss how the various cultures discussed throughout the rest of the book, broadly speaking the West or Europe, the Middle East or Islamic culture, and Jewish culture perceive history and its virtue in society. The final section attempts to be just that. A final section wrapping up the book and finally explaining the why of the structure. Section three would likely be more instructive if placed at the beginning of the volume as opposed to its end. It could then place the rest of the book in context and provide a framework on which to hang the two other sections.

From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East is an instructive book that goes beyond what would normally be just a beginners textbook and short of a volume for the more advanced student of international relations and Middle Eastern study. By reading and taking time to understand some of the nuance, which, I admit, can be difficult at times due to Bernard Lewis’ prose its is possible to discover a better understanding - not a perfect understanding - of a culture, a conflict, and issues that have been and likely will continue to be primary in world relations for the foreseeable future.

[Catherine]

Omg, finally done!

[Gerry Cragun]

Interesting articles but most of them outdated.

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 5 out of 5]

The more things change, the more they remain the same. This old truism is a succinct description of this collection of essays and articles by Bernard Lewis. The collection spans well over half a century of scholarly work of this doyen of Orientalism and Near Eastern studies. It is a fascinating walk through many facets of the rich history of the Middle East, and if you are new to the subject, as I am, it is probably one of the best starting points to the field. Many articles touch upon the subject that are as relevant today as when Lewis first wrote about them, which in many ways is a bit unsettling. I am always a bit skeptical about the use of ancient feuds and disputes as a justification for modern-day conflicts, but if a certain theme persists more or less unchanged for many centuries, then it would be foolish to ignore it. This book can be an invaluable resource to anyone wishing to cast aside those foolishnesses and better understand what is going on in that part of the world. In the example of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Lewis convincingly shows how it was both ancient and modern, fundamentalist and contemporary. It would not do the full historical justice to treat it just in the light of the fundamentalist rhetoric, nor through a prism of contemporary revolutionary rhetoric. Showing the interplay of those two themes is what Lewis excels at, and this book is replete with similar examples.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An uneven but interesting collection of essays

In reading and reviewing two of Bernard Lewis's recent books (What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response 2002 and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Holy Terror 2003) I was favorably impressed with not only his obvious erudition, but with his reasoned tone and his realistic perceptions. However, in this volume, which is a collection of some of his writings going back to the 1950s, I found myself a bit mystified. On the one hand there is the brilliance and eloquence for which the venerable historian is well known. On the other hand, there are some strange and unsettled statements which lead me to wonder if Professor Lewis has not lost some of his fabled acuity.

First, there is the inclusion of a very short piece entitled "We Must Be Clear" that he wrote for the Washington Post a few days after September 11, 2001 in which he is anything but. Apparently Lewis wants the US to be clear about its intentions in the Middle East in light of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. He concludes that "What is needed is clarity in recognizing issues and alignments, firmness and determination in defining and applying policy." (p. 370) What this vague and essentially empty pronouncement follows is Lewis's apprehension that some states are "friends" on two levels, one "a deep mutual commitment" and the other "based on a perception of shared interests." (p. 369-370)

One will permit me a "You don't say?" here. In this same piece Lewis mentions that Saddam Hussein "has made war against three of his neighbors..." and that the other states in the Middle East "are neither forgetful of the past nor confident of the future." What Saddam Hussein (and what his neighbors think about him) has to do with 9/11 is unclear. It's as if Lewis had something he wanted to say, some connection he wanted to draw, but was unable to be clear about it, perhaps for political reasons or because he thought he knew something he wasn't at liberty to share.

At any rate, even more disconcerting is the article entitled "A Time for Toppling" from the Wall Street Journal a year later (September 26, 2002) in which he seems to be a stalking horse for Bush's desire to invade Iraq. He doesn't however argue so much that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the US, but instead makes the claim that in order to solve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it is first necessary to deal with Saddam.

There is some legitimacy to this argument, and Lewis recalls Saddam's policy of rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with stipends of $10,000 to $25,000. However what is grievously wrongheaded about this "toppling" that Lewis seems unaware of--as was Bush and the neocons in the White House--is that in invading Iraq, the US would create massively more problems than it would solve, and would only exacerbate the predicament of the Israeli and Palestinian people, since the Arab and Muslim world would rally around a kindred Muslim nation invaded by a foreign power even if it was the fiefdom of a hated dictator. I am surprised that the usually wise and learned Professor Lewis could write so nakedly in favor of the foolishly aggressive policy of the Bush administration.

Personally, I think Lewis revealed here the true heart of the historian: such a person may be incredibly wise and reasonable when he has time to think and rethink an issue and has the benefit of his research and a considerable experience; however when he is called upon to make a quick judgment on events still warm in the doing, his judgment may suffer.

So let me recall the Bernard Lewis of the volumes mentioned above and let me quote from a couple of places in this collection in order to balance what would be, on the basis of these two articles, a misconception of the man. Consider, for example, this statement on the three Abrahamic religions of the Middle East: "If we look at them in a wider global perspective, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are different branches of the same religion....Compared with the religions of India, of China and of other places, they are as alike as peas in a pod." Lewis goes on to make the point that when Muslim and Christian say to one another, "'You are an infidel and you will burn in hell,' they understand each other perfectly." However "Such an argument between a Christian or a Muslim on the one side and a Buddhist or a Hindu on the other" would have been "impossible" because "They would not have known what they were talking about." (pp. 200-201)

This insight is from his essay "A Taxonomy of Group Hatred" which originally appeared in the Viennese review Transit in 1998-1999. This is a particularly good essay (published in English here for the first time) in which Lewis doesn't mince words about the human failing called hatred and gives a most interesting psychological and historical take on this most destructive emotion which he allies lamentably with the very essence of the human process of self-identity. He notes, "Loyalty to the tribe, however defined, and hatred of other tribes are at the very core of identity." (p. 203)

There are 51 essays arranged in three parts, "Past History," "Current History," and "About History." There are pieces on such diverse subjects as money, travel and food in addition to the usual political concerns of historians. Particularly good, because of the insight it affords us into the life of Bernard Lewis, is the Introduction in which he outlines his career as a Middle Eastern historian.

I recommend this book for readers who want to increase their knowledge of the Middle East. Here is Lewis's own justification for such a study: "The history of Islam is a vital and essential part of human history without which even 'our' own history is not fully intelligible." (p. 412)

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Omar Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bernie gets a lot of bad press from my friends, but the information to bullshit ratio is very favorable in his books. Well worth a read (some of the current affairs essays are dated, but not lacking in interesting information).

[Tsvimark · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent collection of writings on the Middle East, past and present!

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating series of essays on the Islamic world.

[Ignacio Andres · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelentes ensayos y articulos ,sobre dos mundos opuestos que son al mismo tiempo cercanos .

[Mina]

Butcher bought for you

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of essays is disturbing and enlightening as a window into the past, present and future of relations with the Islamic world. A couple things stand out starkly, 1)Why is Iran (Persia) so different from other Islamic societies? And why do they mix Islamic with western practices (no such thing as a parliament or constitution in original Islamic society yet Iran has them). 2) Very interesting how Pan Arabism came to the region (from European roots). How nationalism developed quite recently which could be a positive or negative. 3)How the worldwide Islamic community is reinforced by the mandatory Haj vs the lack of impact by the optional Christian pilgrimage to the Holy Land. 4) How we (non-Islamic) live in the Islamic "House of War" and we better not forget how it sets up future progress or conflict. I found his discriptions of why they hate us and how they view the Israeli-Palestinian problem to be depressing, if you ever think there will be a solution. Yet there are beautiful stories here of a civilization that once ruled the world, sometimes with wisdom and tolerance (of a sort). How tolerant the West or the East is of members of other faiths is not always quite what you might imagine. Many essays are worth rereading to really get the full picture and most are enjoyable. If you want to understand Islam and the West, this book must be in your collection.

[Mohamed · Rating 2 out of 5]

My luck with Dr. Lewis is mixed. Some of his books are impressive and well-thought such "Muslim discovery of the West." Others are half-backed like "what went wrong." His basic problem is that his area of expertise is the Ottoman Empire but he markets himself as an expert in every Islamic subject. An example of this problem is his hypothesis which he repeats in many place that asserts that Muslims cannot live within a non-Muslim society unless they are in a position of power. The problem with this hypothesis is that it neglects the existence of thriving Muslim communities in China for more than thousand years.

I bought this book by chance when I was Ina bookstore in Portland, assuming based on the title that it documents history of translation and translators. I was however disappointed to find the book a collection of articles with no clear connection written over perhaps 40 years and placed along bewildering order. The book has some gems however such as his description of his stay in Egypt during a sabbatical in the late sixties.

[Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of Lewis' shorter works, collected around the theme of interpretation, broadly defined. Lewis does not shy away from controversy - as he puts it, sensitive subjects are like sensitive body parts, in that they usually require attention. Therefore, even if you don't agree with his points, he still inspires thought. The volume is broken into three parts, the first historical essays on various aspects of Middle Eastern history, and the second made up of (what at least at the time were) current events pieces, ranging from the 1950s to the 2000s. The final section consists of essays on the practice of history. The first section is the most valuable, as Lewis has long been one of the most wide-ranging historians of the Middle East. Many of the pieces in the second section are somewhat dated, but still have relevance. The third section is of greatest interest to historians. Overall, the quality is excellent though, since the essays were all originally written to stand alone, there is some overlap. Well worth reading.

[Naomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lewis' essays that make up this collection cover a number of decades, shedding light upon murky or less well understood events in the Middle East, and reflecting upon historiography and the work of the historian. Lewis appeals not for nationalist historiography, but of a telling that make sense of things in what actually happened and then offering, as much as possible, unbiased interpretation. He follows his own appeal, and in so doing offers in this collection some real insightful gems and much to assist readers in understanding better the times we live in and the conflicts we are carrying on, seeking to end, or are starting.

[Kushal Karwa · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Bernard Lewis has given a variety of very good quality, chronological ordered and informative essays on Middle East. The language is very simple and free flowing. The author makes excellent connections between different topics of interest of the middle east - such as anti US attitude in Iran, dictatorship in Iraq and other middle eastern countries, Turkish national identity, et al.
A lot of historical perspectives combined in one book. Highly recommended!

[Stanislav Sokolenko · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting collection of essays on a variety of different topics. While there was a bit too much overlap in some of the essays for my taste, it did not take away from the collection as a whole. The most interesting aspect has to be the fact that these essays span a large portion of the author's career, giving a feeling of completeness from the reading experience.

[Michael Gerald · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have read of Bernard Lewis as something of an "expert" on the Middle East. But after reading this, I am in doubt if he deserves that. I have known some so-called experts from my university days and in my workplace who talk about this and expound on that. I hope Mr. Lewis is really not just one of those bags filled with hot air.

[Ur Salem]

“Until most christian countries ceased to be devout, the general attitude on religion was very intolerant. It was intolerant of other religions .. When the Muslim ruled Spain, Christians, Muslims and Jews lived side by side in reasonable harmony; when the Christians reconquered Spain, first the Jews then the Muslims were expelled.”
Bernard Lewis

[Carlos Alonso-Niemeyer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another great book from Lewis. This one is more of a collection of essays and stories of his dealings in the Middle East. If you are an "Arabist" like me, you will enjoy this book.
Not for the beginner reader.

[Kahilidoc · Rating 3 out of 5]

still reading. This is a collection of essays by Lewis spaning several topics on the middle east.

[Erika · Rating 5 out of 5]

good perspective on history

[Allison Thurman]

Library

[Y Anotherday · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear concise and well presented. No one knows the Middle East in such definitive detail as does Bernard. I highly recommend this book

[Craig Bolton]

From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East and What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response: 2-Volume Set by Bernard Lewis (2004)

[Craig Bolton]

From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East by Bernard Lewis (2005)

[Saman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dry book !

The articles range from the good, the bad and the ugly.

[Edith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very enjoyable collection of essays, even if I do take some disagreements with Lewis' take of modern (post-1990) history. Really liked the paragraph on first-person historical narratives.

[جليس الكتاب · Rating 1 out of 5]

It was a slow, dull and lifeless book. I were unable to complete it. The only book for Bernard Lewis that I were unable to complete.