Louis and the Delay of Arabs and Muslims
Bernard Lewis (1916–2018), the British-born American Jewish philosopher, is considered one of the most important historians and thinkers of the 20th century, the architect of the “New Middle East” project, and a former advisor to George W. Bush. He authored several valuable works, most notably those concerning our condition, such as *What Went Wrong?*, which examines the trajectory of Arabs and Muslims, explaining how they reached their current state after having once been a people of stature. For centuries, from the 7th and 8th centuries onward, and even under Ottoman rule, they were at the forefront of military, economic, scientific, and cultural power, surpassing Europe in many fields.
In his book, Lewis reveals the causes of this transformation and how the Middle East responded, often through denial, blaming the West and Jews, and internal betrayal. He argues that the decline was largely pre-colonial, not caused by the Mongol invasion, but stemmed primarily from deep-rooted cultural, social, and institutional obstacles that prevented adaptation to modernity. They fell behind militarily and technologically due to defeats against European navies and armies. All their attempts to import technology failed for religious and cultural reasons. Meanwhile, the West surpassed them thanks to capitalism, industry, innovation, and the experimental sciences.
In contrast, Islamic societies suffered from rigid social hierarchies, limited social mobility, and attitudes hostile to broad scientific inquiry. They rejected learning from others; even the use of the printing press was forbidden by religious scholars and was not adopted until more than 450 years after its invention. Their sense of superiority, rooted in past glories, led them to neglect learning from the “infidel” West, in stark contrast to the West’s curiosity toward the East. Issues such as the role of women, secularism, music, arts, and civil society further entrenched this backwardness. There was also significant political and social resistance to reform, which remains strong to some extent, often emanating from religious institutions. Furthermore, nostalgia for “reviving Islamic glory” prevailed over sustainable secular modernization, with the exception of Atatürk’s Turkey.
Lewis does not hold Islam as a religion responsible for the decline, noting that it was once a dynamic force. Instead, he highlights how certain interpretations and intertwined political-religious structures hindered adaptation to modernity, such as resistance to secularism, despite the fact that secularism helped the West resolve conflicts between church and state. Lewis sees the problem as lying in the inability or unwillingness of the Islamic world, particularly the Middle East, to fully confront and adapt to Western sources of power due to internal cultural stagnation, leading to a long, painful decline and continuous turmoil.
Critics of Lewis’s thesis argue that he oversimplifies complex historical processes, essentializes Islamic culture, and downplays external factors such as colonialism and Western interventions, reflecting an Orientalist or ideological perspective. Although he was a distinguished historian, the book, republished after the September 11 attacks, provoked sharp academic and political reactions. Critics contend that he minimized the devastating impacts of European colonialism, economic exploitation, arbitrary border demarcations, support for authoritarian regimes, and subsequent interventions, which he largely ignored. Edward Said, author of *Orientalism*, viewed Lewis as a prime example of the very current he criticized, arguing that his work served the interests of Western powers (which later became new conservative forces) by portraying the “East” as backward, tyrannical, or incapable of self-modernization.
Some Arab and Muslim clerics argued that the book insults Islamic civilization and promotes the idea that Muslims are “worthy” only of emulating the West. Meanwhile, Lewis’s supporters praise his linguistic and historical depth, his courage in confronting uncomfortable patterns, and his focus on internal accountability. Critics of his viewpoint overlook the fact that many countries suffered under European colonialism and despotism, yet rose and progressed, while our countries remain in their previous state.
Ahmed Al-Sarraf
