Modernization was even more difficult for the Jew and Muslim. Modernism was hostile to the Jew and thrust upon the Muslim in colonial guise. These would see modernism with hate and mistrust.

In Eastern European Jewry, the Hasidim were a parallel to the New Lights of America. In 1735 a Polish tavern keeper, Israel ben Eliezer became a healer known as the Baal Shem Tov or Besht. He came at a time of great difficulty, poverty and corruption in the Jewish community and transformed the “Hasidim” (pious ones) into a mass movement of reform in opposition to the religious establishment, even founding their own congregations. Many rabbis had retreated into their books. The Besht transformed the tragic Lurianic vision of divine sparks into a celebration of God to be found everywhere. Nothing was profane, everything was holy. Hasidism would not separate as did modernism, religion and politics. By the early 19th century Hasidism was established across Eastern Europe. However, God was too holy, too unapproachable. Hasids believed they could not encounter God except through the guidance of a Zaddik (righteous man). The Hasid developed a practice of prayer accompanied by violent gesture which came to characterize them. They also developed practice that like all mystics before them, let them encounter the sacred presence.

In Lithuania, Elijah ben Solomon Zalman was “Gaon” or head of the Vilna Academy found intense and protracted Torah study to be a mystical experience. And he believed in the study of science and language and other modern disciplines. So there ensued much acrimony with the Hasidim. Only the development of Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment, caused the Yeshiva and Hasidim to join forces.

Moses Mendelssohn was a Jewish scholar whose broad genius joined him to the German enlightenment. But he found himself defending his faith from their hostility. Mendelssohn brought the modern perspective to his defense of Judaism, insisting that rationality determine all things. That what the scriptures might say had to be seen through the filter of reason alone. He advocated separation of religion and politics. Religion should be the private concern of the citizen – a most attractive idea to ghettoized Jews. His was the first attempt to make Judaism acceptable to others by forcing it into an alien rationalist mode. This included the general use of Hebrew (heretofore restricted to holy use) and the broad study of Jewish history.

European society still shut out the Jews from participation. America permitted Jews to hold citizenship. Napoleon believed in “liberté, egalité, fraternité and he granted citizenship to Jews in 1806. So of course the expansion of territory brought these modern ideas to the rest of Europe. Well, not quite. Napoleon backed up on his promises and only 2 years later imposed the “Infamous Decrees” - basically stealing their money, and erasing their identity. Jews simply as Jews, were a “problem” in the assimilating nations of Europe. It wasn't much better than suffering the previous segregation. Worse, old prejudice remained and when Napoleon was defeated, many Jews were put back in ghettos. The countries that permitted their Jews equality were notably more successful: Britain, France, Holland, Austria and Germany. Jews that were put back in ghettos (as in Eastern Europe) naturally returned to rabbinic and Hasidic tradition.

Some converted to Christianity. Two new movements arose to save Judaism from further decline. It is a recurrent theme in this book that a religious community in times of change and challenge often feels they are in deadly danger of annihilation. This terrible fear seems asleep in all humans.

Reform Judaism aimed to abolish the mythos of their tradition. Israel Jacobson wished to remove the outlandish aspects of his religion. Reform adapted some Christian practices of worship in their “temples” (rather than synagogues). This German advance was successful and embodied all the necessary criterion of modernity: personal faith, rationalism, liberal, humane. Scholars joined who felt Judaism was a faith that had evolved over time. They continued this processes of logos replacing mythos. Modern Reform has added elements of mysticism into their practice in true counterpoint.

As Reform Judaism was having some success in adapting to modern times and offering the disaffected and the young a means of retaining their Jewishness, traditional “old believers” were increasing their rejection of modernity. In 1803, Rabbi Hayyim Volozhiner, founded a new sort of yeshiva. The model of the Gaon, was to study the Talmud with an intensity that did not merely tell students about the Talmud but gave them a personal sense of the divine, and to join this to study of science and other worldly subjects. Volozhiner took this away and focused entirely on Talmud study. But he increased it. It was study without any other attention – and in isolation. From these Yeshivot came the ultra-orthodox Jews. Fundamentalism again in reaction to terrible threat, especially against their co-religionists and not the outside world. Yet these Yeshivot were in essence very modern in that they were voluntary, innovative, rationalist and centralized.

Other Jews found a middle course between ultra-orthodox and reform. In Frankfurt in 1851, Samuel Hirsch founded neo-orthodoxy. From a time when all Jews simply were part of a whole, now modernity was forcing them to choose from many difficult choices.

In Egypt and Iran, Muslims were having a bad time of it as well. Although Napoleon promised “all men are equal under God,” French liberation had come with a modern army – for 10 French killed, Egypt lost 2000. Napolean gave the ulema real power instead of their traditional consulting role. But many refused - they were unused and opposed to political authority. Then the British threw out the French and returned Egypt to the Ottoman Turks. Muhammad Ali seized control and made things stable again, with the Sultan's and the ulema's approvals. He was not educated, but a natural leader and he envied European power. He was responsible for bringing Egypt into modern times pretty much against everyone's wishes. What Europe took 300 years to do, he tried to do in 40. And not by education and reform, but by imitation of the West. Murder and mayhem were his tools. He eliminated the earlier ruling class, the Mamluks. He took all land ownership to himself in order to introduce modern agricultural method. He made cotton production the basis of the Egyptian economy. Also with production and markets: factories, mines, armaments, printing, foundaries. He created a new military and administrative class which was European educated. The fellahin (peasant class) received no education. This military aspect became a characteristic of modernism. Again different than Europe. Ali's army was also the tool of the Turks, and the means of his survival. This involved conscription and cruelty. To keep power over the ulema, he took away their money and their properties. In natural consequence, the religionists robbed of power, studied their books, and felt evil was outside their door.

In Turkey, modernity's arrival was no better. At the center of their own empire, they were not unawares of European ways. Their ambassadors were familiar and conversant with European thought. They saw the need to centralize the government of their empire, and to create a modern army. Jews and Christians were no longer to be “protected minorities” but be given full citizenship. In 1826 they began to do this. They left the religionists alone, but set up civil courts to replace the shariah courts. Throughout this change there was internal strife and external pressure.

The Suez canel was a typical example of exploitive advance of the Europeans. The progressive Ali was against it, seeing it as too much invasion and dominance. But Said Pasha gave in to French pressure Egypt ended up paying for it all: labour, materials, money and besides gave away 200 square miles of canal territory. Said's nephew Ishmail succeeded him and petitioned Napolean III for a better deal, and ended up paying France another 3 million pounds. Egypt was near bankruptcy. Other things like railroads and bridges and canals contributed. Ishmail advanced Egypt into modern times the most but couldn't pay for it. But the Suez was of such importance Europe couldn't let Egypt fail and things led to 1882 British occupation and control.

In the end, Egypt did not own a single share of the canel, and was not sovereign in their own country. Their experience of modernity was one of “deprivation, dependence, and patchy, imperfect imitation.” Egyptians lived between the new and the old. There would be new religious solutions.

Napolean's ambition was to take India with the help of Russia, so the British allied with Iran to hold him off. Iran's strategic location made also a pawn in European politics. There was no strong leadership. Iran had the worst of both worlds. Russian and British interests carved up the country, exempting their traders from Iranian law and tariff. By the end of the 19th century an opposition was forming. The ulema of Iran were more powerful than those in Egypt due to their independent financial status and their tradition of separation from politics with strong advisory status. Iranian merchants turned to the ulema for help. Popular expression was found in the Hussain rituals. The Shii had always found in this remembrance of the martyrdom of Hussain by Yazzid a reminder of the need for a just society. This popular faith clearly had revolutionary potential. At this time the focus on the suffering of Hussain shifted to the injustice of Yazzid. Two popular “messianic” movements arose.

From roots in Kerbala ( Iraq – the Shrine of Hussain), Karim Khan led the Shaykhi school from theory to practice. He taught that anyone could interpret the scriptures and the mujtahids were usurpers of power. He became aquainted with the ideas of Europe which he already understood to be a threat to Iran. This Shaykhi movement was elistist, conservative, defensive, separatist. He was not successful. A second movement centred upon Sayyid Ali Muhammad who in 1844 declared he was the bab (gate) to the divine. He declared himself to be the incarnation of the Hidden Imam. It virtually was a new religion. Like Joseph Smith he produced a new scripture, the Bayan, saying all other holy books were abrogated. Where Shiis had focused on past tragedy and future judgement, the Bab concentrated on the here and now – on building a better and more just world. Even when jailed, he had great influence. In 1848 in Khurasan, they announced a new world, triggering a general revolt over the nation. The revolt was put down and the Bab executed in 1850. But left behind was a taste of freedom and a dream. It was a great revolution and set the Iranian pattern. The Bab's brother Mirza Husain Ali Nuri Bahaullah created the new religion Bahai which embraced Western ideals.

Modernity is difficult. Sometimes it creates jihad (struggle).