The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization

by Richard W. Bulliet

Conventional wisdom maintains that the differences between Islam and Christianity are irreconcilable. Pre-eminent Middle East scholar Richard W. Bulliet disagrees, and in this fresh, provocative book he looks beneath the rhetoric of hatred and misunderstanding to challenge prevailing--and misleading--views of Islamic history and a clash of civilizations. These sibling societies begin at the same time, go through the same developmental stages, and confront the same internal challenges. Yet as Christianity grows rich and powerful and less central to everyday life, Islam finds success around the globe but falls behind in wealth and power.



Modernization in the nineteenth century brings in secular forces that marginalize religion in political and public life. In the Christian world, this simply furthers a process that had already begun. In the Middle East this gives rise to the tyrannical governments that continue to dominate. Bulliet argues that beginning in the 1950s American policymakers misread the Muslim world and, instead of focusing on the growing discontent against the unpopular governments, saw only a forum for liberal, democratic reforms within those governments. By fostering slogans like clash of civilizations and what went wrong, Americans to this day continue to misread the Muslim world and to miss the opportunity to focus on common ground for building lasting peace. This book offers a fresh perspective on U.S.-Muslim relations and provides the intellectual groundwork upon which to help build a peaceful and democratic future in the Muslim world.

Genres: Islam, Religion, History, Politics, Christianity, Nonfiction, Philosophy

192 pages, Paperback

First published October 6, 2004

About the author

Richard W. Bulliet is a professor emeritus of history at Columbia University who specializes in the history of Islamic society and institutions, the history of technology, and the history of the role of animals in human society.

Richard grew up in Illinois. He attended Harvard University, from which he received a BA in 1962 and a PhD in 1967.

Several of his books focus on Iran but deal also with the larger Muslim world, including The Patricians of Nishapur: a Study in Medieval Islamic History (1972), Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History (1979), and Islam: the View from the Edge (1994). His books on a broader view of Islamic history and society include Under Siege: Islam and Democracy (1994) and The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization (2004). His book (1975) brings together his interest in the histories of technology, animal domestication, and the Middle East, dealing for example with the significant military advantage early Muslim armies gained from a slight improvement in the design of cloth camel saddles. He would return to the history of animal domestication with his Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human-Animal Relationships (2005).

He is the writer and editor of books of more general interest as well, including The Columbia History of the Twentieth Century (editor, 1998), The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East (co-editor, 1996), and The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History (co-author, 1997). He has also written several novels which draw on his knowledge of international politics and the Middle East, and is a promoter of the validity of comics as an art form.

His first fiction book, Kicked to Death by a Camel (1973), was nominated for an Edgar for “Best First Mystery”. His other fiction includes Tomb of the Twelfth Imam (1979), The Gulf Scenario (1984), The Sufi Fiddle (1991), and The One-Donkey Solution (2011).

Bulliet’s commentaries and opinion pieces on the Middle East have appeared in such newspapers The Guardian, New York Times International, and Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Reviews

[الخنساء · Rating 2 out of 5]

الكتاب مقسم لأربع مقالات
المقالة الأولى تتحدث عن حضارة إسلامية مسيحية سارت على التوازٍ، ويفترض بأن هناك حضارة مسيحية في شرق أوروبا قامت بالتواز مع الحضارة الاسلامية في دمشق أو بغداد أو غيرها.
هذه المقالة جائت رداً على هنجتون وصراع الحضارات بإبراز فكرته تلك حول الحضارة الاسلامية المسيحية
مقالته كانت محاولة ربط أفكار غريبة وبالقوة لإثبات صحة افتراضه السابق وعبر بعض إيراد الأفكار الخاطئة أو الأخرى التي لم يهتم بإثبات صحتها التاريخية وهكذا ويبدو لي أن يفهم الاسلام كدين من خلال فهمه للمسيحية ولا يبدو له أي إختلاف عقدي أو تاريخي بينهما سوى بعض الفروقات التي أعتقد بأنها خفيفة.
أيضا محاولته هذه قللت من دور الحضارة الإسلامية وهذا ما لا يمكن قبوله طبعا، وتقليله من شأن الفروقات التي تثبت تفوق المسلمين بحضارتهم وقتها وتخلف الأوروبيين.
أكثر ما أثبت لي تشوش المعاني لديه هو تطبيقه مفهوم اليمين واليسار السياسي الغربي، على المجتمع الاسلامي دون أي انتباه لوجود اختلاف أو فروقات مابين المنطقتين.
المقالة الأخرى كانت للرد على المستشرق برنارد لويس وذلك بمحاولة تطبيق الإفتراض السابق بالمسار المشترك للحضارتين الإسلامية و المسيحية، وهنا يوضح بعض الفروقات التي تثبت تفوق الحضارة الإسلامية و اختلافها عن الغربية، والتي لا يعتقد أبدا بأنها دليل على افتراق الحضارتين أو بالأصح تنقض نظريته.
المقالة الثالثة كانت تتحدث عن مؤسسات الاستشراق أو المؤسسات الأمريكية المعنية بسياسات دول الشرق الأوسط، والتي ترتكب خطأً ( من جملة أخطائها الغير منهية طبعا) عرفه هو بأنهم يبحثون عن أشخاص شرق أوسطيين يشبهون الأمريكان ( او الغربيين) ليحبوهم، وبذلك عليهم أن يحولوا الآخرين الذين لايشبهونهم أو يأثروا على ثقافتهم وسياسة بلدهم حتى يتمكن الأمريكين من القبول بهم، وبالتالي محبتهم، هكذا بكل بساطة شرح بوليت الأفكار المنتشرة في بلاده تجاه الشرق الأوسط، و قام بالإعتراض عليها متفهماً بان للمنطقة خصوصيتها والتي تجعل أمراً كهذا غير ممكن على المدى البعيد أو القصير وذلك باستطلاعه لعدد من المقالات والكتب حول هذا الموضوع.
تأثير كتاب إدوارو سعيد حول الاستشراق يبدو واضحا، خصوصا في المقالة الثالثة حيث وضع عنواناً جانبياً وتحدث عن كتابه، واستفاد من أفكاره خصوصا فيما يخص نظرية التفوق الغربي التي تفترض أن على العالم الإسلامي أن يلحق بالغرب لأجل التطور وأن الغرب والغربي هم المقياس.
أعطاني فكرة حول الاستشراق الأميركي الحديث المرتبط بمؤسسات الهيمنة السياسية وليس عبر مؤسسات أكاديمية بحثية كما كان الاستشراق الأوروبي يغلف نفسه، ورغم إن إدوارد سعيد كتب كتابه عن الاستشراق الأوروبي لكن بوليت يقول هنا بأن ما ينطبق على الاستشراق الأوروبي بالإمكان تطبيقه على الاستشراق الأميركي الحديث.
المقالة الأخيرة كانت قراءة استشرافية لمستقبل الحضارة الإسلامية والأمة ككل، يفترض هنا بأن الدور سيكون للدول البعيدة أي في الأطراف كأندونيسيا وغيرها، و لن يكون من داخل الدول المؤثرة حاليا مثل مصر أو السعودية أو باكستان لأسباب عدة ذكرها، وقال بأن الأزمة الحالية في العالم الإسلامي هي أزمة سلطة وسيكون حلها عبر هذه الأطراف وعبر المؤسسات وليس الأفكار، و سيكون دور الدول ذات المؤسسات الدينية الرسمية مثل الأزهر والإفتاء في السعودية هامشيا وثانوياً، لأن تدخل الدول في تنظيم المؤسسات الدينية ومراكز الإفتاء أضعف دورها في هذه الدول، وأن الدور التاريخي لعلماء الأمة كان يأتي من خارج المؤسسة الرسمية الحكومية عبر مساهمة العلماء في رفع الظلم ومجابهة الحكام وهذا ماتم سحبه من تحت أقدام العلماء اليوم عبر المؤسسات الحكومية والتنظيم الإداري لها، وتنبأ أيضا بتفوق الاسلام السني مقابل الشيعي و الذي تنبأ له بأزمة داخلية.

[Ted · Rating 3 out of 5]

Less of a "case" than the writer's detailing of a parallel history.

[Nuruddin Azri · Rating 4 out of 5]

On how printing press creates a new authority. The author also gives a glimpse of commentary on Huntington's Clash of Civilisation, Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong and Said's Orientalism. The author invites the readers to search for a common ground between Islam and Christian civilisation (just the same tone as in Shaykh Abdallah Ben Bayyah's book; al-Irhāb: al-Tasykhīs wa al-Hulūl). But this one is more to the historical lens.

[Hamish Cameron · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're interested in the relationship between "the west" (and in particular American foreign policy) and the Muslim world, this is mandatory reading.

[Alaa · Rating 3 out of 5]

قلبك طيب يا ريتشارد.

[Evie Oosting · Rating 3 out of 5]

Embracing liberalism and its profound sense of equality, especially one that predates society (Lockean liberalism), inherently requires acknowledging that another way of life promoting inequality is bad. This feels contrary to our tolerant nature, but when tolerance for other societies butts heads with our devotion to natural human rights, either we side with the founding fathers in universalizing rights, or we decide that rights have borders. This places liberals (not the party, the modern gov system) in the tension between professed acceptance of other societies and cultures, and in navigating approaches when women are systematically deprived of their rights in other countries, when genocide turns the ground red with blood in Sudan, and when a government orders its people to kill specific political opponents in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, North Korea, etc etc. You can't choose both- either you believe in rights as something equally bestowed on every person, or you believe those rights have borders that command tolerating the violation of those rights. Bulliet tries to endorse both, promoting the liberal view while shying away from what he deems bold statements about the world, i.e. refusing to make overarching statements about Islam while implicitly making those statements by deeming specific actions evil, by his recognition of the liberalized 'edge' of Islam as the most promising part of the whole, and by determining that the best solution is participatory democracy and greater freedom of thought. I appreciated his takedown of Lewis, but the tenuous design of his argument (Islam and Christianity appear less like twins and more like two distinct civilizations, so pretty much what I already thought they were) leaves me yet more convinced by Lewis. Bulliet's remarks are most instructional in their critique of how the Middle East has been perceived, especially in chapters 2 and 3, but otherwise lack a strong vision for how the Middle East should be seen, wavering between a tendency for liberalism and a fear of essentialism.
Ultimately, I see his vision (shared by Noah Feldman and Abdullahi An-Naim) of what Islamic civilization could be (see ch 4). Still, Bulliet's insistence that we view everything through a lens of impartiality is negated by any belief in liberal values, which require us to take a particular stance. This review is really only on the sidelines of what his work discusses, but it really irked me that he critiqued Lewis for his westernized view while sharing those same prejudices, only more disguised. We are all marinated in the same values, for better or for worse, and it would do better to embrace them boldly if our end goal is that they are realized for everyone.

[Jared Morningstar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great conceptual approach for understanding the historical unity between Islamic and Christian civilizations. Bulliet traces the path that the West / Christendom and the Middle East / Islamic civilization have taken since ~600AD and shows how the sibling civilizations were continuously responding to the same types of historical developments. What sets them apart is their different responses to the challenges they faced. In this, he highlights the historical importance of the 'Ulama in Muslim society and shows how their role as interpreters of the Sharia was what allowed tyrannical political power to be kept in check until the modern period. Another theme that Bulliet tied in at this point was the importance of justice, rather than liberty, in the consciousness of Muslims – both historically and still today.

A worthwhile read for anyone trying to understand modern interfaith relations between Muslims and Christians in light of the current world political context. Bulliet definitely goes far beyond a simple post-colonial approach and digs deep into history and politics.

[Waleed · Rating 3 out of 5]

A provocative title, but fairly thin stuff. Only the first of four chapters deals with the title, and it is an interesting but underdeveloped case for seeing Islam and Latin Christianity as having a sibling relationship.

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Astounding in breadth and depth. I definitely need to re-read this

[yahya · Rating 5 out of 5]

out: judeo-christian framing of the west
in: islamo-christian framing of the west

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought Bulliet brought up some good points, especially in rejection to Bernard Lewis' infamous "What went wrong." The fact of the matter is we need to honestly look at our own history before passing judgment on the Muslim world's current issues, and realize there's actually quite a bit of imitation running both ways. I'd recommend it as a quick read for people in Middle East Studies, but its probably not that relevant for many outside that sphere.

[sumaiyya · Rating 4 out of 5]

So far the book is great. It's a little intense but portrays a very clear history of scholarship in Islam and parallels it with Christianity. It then discusses where things went awry and why we're in the current situation we are today. I'm not completely done yet but when I do I'll post something more thorough

[Racheal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bulliet makes some incredibly interesting and very unique points in this book. The problem is that they are so disorganized and also that he tends to ramble on about the less interesting stuff too often. Still. Worth at least skimming for the few gems he offers on understanding Islamo-Christian relations.

[sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

some really interesting concepts...the later chapters are more interesting than the earlier ones....not the easiest, but short read

[May · Rating 5 out of 5]

Coming soon.

[Cyrus Faizee]

این کتاب ترجمه اینجانب است که خواستم معرفی کنم

[Ethar Abuhashish]

الحضارة الإسلامية المسيحية