The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization

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.

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?

Four chapters of this marvelous book deliver a strong, thoughtful, compelling message about understanding the past, present, and possible future of Muslim societies on their own terms. Would that pundits and media `experts' provide at least some part of this maturity. Bulliet eschews polemic and bitterness to provide sound perspective some of the most essential themes of public discourse and policy regarding the world of Islam. The whole book is a compelling alternative to common (and shallow, ideological, Islamphobe) views promoted by Neocons and others. Whatever your present perspective, understanding will be sharpened by careful reading of this excellent book. The only thing I do not like is the title, which makes a point but has mislead some reviewers already so that they dismiss or misunderstand the sound arguments presented. The first chapter condemns Huntington's thesis about the "Clash of Civilizations" indicating how it is both misleading and damaging. (Bulliet might have added it has been used for aggressive, hateful, and misguided policies that obscure economic, oil, and geostrategic motives). Christianity and Islam as social, political, and institutional matters are "siblings" not clashing civilizations and excellent comparative analysis about responses to often similar needs are enlightening. The second chapter "What Went On" provides much insight and more than the entire book with a similar title that has been widely promoted for those who want to think that they have answers "What Went Wrong". It is insightful and fascinating on topics ranging from expansion and conversion to the social and institutional place of clerics, law, religious hierarchy. "Looking for Love in all the Wrong Places", chapter 3, avoids polemic while showing how area studies in the US provided a sort of revised "Orientalism" driven by triumphalist assumptions about democracy, development, and capitalism all the more biting (and ideological) because of the competition of the Cold War. Even now this has not been corrected to deal with things more objectively and with some degree of empathy. The fourth and final chapter on the "Edge" analyses and speculates about the direction of development in Islam based on creative and changing situations that may become sources for broader future development - as they often have in the past. Bulliet eschews blame and bitter argument and does not dwell on the sometimes negative aspects of Colonialism, intervention, anti democratic interventions by democracies of the west. Nor does he dwell on terrorism, putting it in perspective as presently exceptional and not widely supported. He is perhaps, if anything, too kind to some of those critiqued. (There is the implication that an approach based on `clash' and antagonistic policy ideologues who intensely dislike Islam - including Pipes and Lewis as well as NeoCons perhaps - may create more terrorism. This is a whole other discussion however.) This is a short book (161 page

I have been hoping that someone with sufficient historical knowledge and eminent scholarship would present this case ever since reading both Huntington's "Clash of civilizations" and Lewis's "What went wrong?". Thank you Professor Bullient for putting in words exactly what I felt was wrong with both of those books and so much of the commentary that has surronded them since publication. As a Muslim convert that grew up in a Western Christian family, I agree with this approach completely. The big problem with the clash thesis is that it is so self-fulfilling - the more that people believe that the clash with the "other" is inevitable, so it becomes dangerously close. So much of what Huntington and Lewis say about Islam is based on selective and biased perspectives that ignore the complexity and diversity of the religion as practised in many different countries and cultures around the world, particularly in Asia. The case for Islamo-Christian civilization is a much more positive and sensible way of addressing the short-comings and problems that exist in some Muslim countries in the present day, irrespective of the cause of those problems. I hope that everyone that has ever read any of Huntington and Lewis will also be open minded enough to read this wonderful small book.

One of the few books published recently that seems to offer at least some hope for a peaceful settlement of the problems between the Islamic and Christian cultures. Unlike Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, the author says that we are not doomed to a struggle to the death, any more than the religious between Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Written from the viewpoint of a historian accustomed to see the world as a process of change, the author sees changes occurring in both camps. He sees a more moderate, accepting view coming from the Islamic world, with the modern day terrorists and religious conservatives being not unlike the Christian equivalents. This view is close to that I see from the few muslim people visiting here from other countries (such as Iraq). I have been wondering if their views represent a majority, a small minority, or are even just being polite to tell me what I want to hear. Let us hope this author is right. Sooner or later, we all have to live together on just one planet.