Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles)

This is a good read for anyone wanting to learn more about Islam and it's fascinating history

Before any Westerner gets all excited and jumps on the bandwagon of Islam-bashing, read several histories. Then, you just might be glad that you didn't say anything stupid. This book offers a brief history of Islam, one of the three monotheistic faiths of the world (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), wandering across time via numerous imams and Islamic leaders, telling their good points and bad points, explaining how each thought, what they believed, what they did that was good and what they did that was harmful or ill-thought or immoral. Armstrong repeats a mantra, trying to show that the basic tenets of Islam demand tolerance for other faiths, social justice to all, and the equality of all (male and female, rich and poor, Muslims and those who practice other faiths). I found it interesting how so many factions started out with good ideals, but ended up becoming harmful or elitist or untrue to the founder's ideals. She began with Muhammed and ends with the turn of the millennium (16 years ago and pre-9/11). It is nice to get a pre-9/11 fair explanation of Islam. There are other books out there now that will be clouded by the airplane hijackers and the beheadings and bombers and shooters of the modern era, but this one isn't clouded by their hijacking of Islam. Read it for yourself. Hi-light areas you find interesting. I did. Here are a few things I picked up (just a few). "Islam" in Arabic means "surrender." Islam does not encourage attempting to convert others (contra, Christianity), but teaches adherents that each person's particular faith will lead them to God. For over a thousand years, Muslims did NOT hate Jews; that grew after the state of Israel was created in 1948 (following WWII) and Arabs were kicked out of their land, and the world applauded. Islam has experienced divisions and disagreements for the entirety of its existence, often resulting in battles and assassinations. I want to add one final thing, something that seems to imbed much of this book. I must be careful NOT to equate Islam with the current violent expressions that a few of its members engage in, but look at the totality of its existence and how it has been able to help people live in a tough world with unfair things that happen each day. As soon as I choose to ignore this, then I must apply the same standard to Christianity, and remember that Christians invaded Jerusalem and killed 30,000 Muslims and Jews, because someone felt that it would be a good thing to do (the list of Christian injustices is very, very long). Read the book See what you think.

Karen Armstrong, in Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles); and Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill, in Islam: The Religion and the People, give valuable insight into Islam for those of us who were not brought up within an Islamic culture. Just as we who grew up in America, even those of us who are not Christians, know a great deal about Christianity, so even one not of Islamic faith who grows up in a predominately Islamic country will almost inevitably get to know far more about Islam than most Americans ever do. Hence the need for us to read books such as these, which are both excellent and which nicely complement each other; Armstrong tells us more about the history of Islam, and Lewis & Churchill tell us more about Islam today. Both are fairly brief (Armstrong 187 pages of text + 15 of glossary; Lewis & Churchill 167 + 55)It can be quite difficult to get a correct understanding of another religion, because so many of the books and articles written about it are either by devout followers of that faith or by persons committed to disparage that faith as error and superstition.As you read these two books, you may be surprised at the parallels between Islam and Christianity, both good and bad. For example, both Jesus and Muhammad had very enlightened, egalitarian attitudes toward women (Muhammad often consulted with women about what to do, and Jesus made a woman his number one apostle, called apostula apostolorum, the apostle to the apostles*). Neither would have approved of the repression of women that has been so common in both Christianity and Islam. The teachings of Jesus and Muhammad are often ignored or worse by their "followers": e.g. the many murders employed in deciding who would be Muhammad's successors; "Muslim" suicide bombers indiscriminately killing the innocent even with no assurance that any guilty will be among the victims (I had to put "Muslim" in quotes, because by the very act mentioned, they render themselves unworthy of being called Muslim^); the Crusaders who would "rape and kill for Jesus"; the systematic raping of Muslim women by "Christians" in Kosovo and thereabouts.; the insistence of the "Christian" Bush administration on continuing use of torture (which was surely what prompted the slogan "WWJT? - Who Would Jesus Torture?). Clearly, both Jesus and Muhammad have been "followed" where they never led and never would have. (for more on this, see Charles Kimball, When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs (Plus)I have one problem with Lewis & Churchill. On page 163 they write: `Another term that is sometimes used, "Islamofascism." Is very naturally resented by Muslims in general, as combining in a single word the name of their faith with that of the most universally execrated of modern movements. For the same reason, this term is seen by others as accurately defining these movements and indicating their place in true Islam.' Now the first two sentences are true, but the final sentence is problematical. Some may think the term is accurate, but it is most definitely not. Fascism has no place in Islam. Fascism is authoritarian corporatocracy, essentially a takeover of government by big business, generally led by a dictator. Fascism is thus the antithesis of the communitarian principles of Islam as set forth by Muhammad. The self-contradictory term "Islamofascism" was coined as a put-down of Islam and of Muslims, an attempt to discredit and demonize both. As such, it is quite properly resented, not only by those of Islamic faith, but non-Muslims such as myself, who value human decency and are disgusted by attempts to incite religious hatred. For their failure to unambiguously reject this offensive term, I cannot give Lewis & Churchill the 5 stars they would otherwise deserve.Armstrong, 5 stars, Lewis & Churchill, 4¼[email protected]* Richard J. Hooper,The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene: The Historical Tradition of the First Apostle and the Ancient Church's Campaign to Suppress It, page 57.^ A Muslim is defined to be anyone (of Islamic faith or not) who lives by Allah's rules of behavior, as set forth in Islamic scripture, the Quran. Allah is an Arabic phrase meaning "The God."

Armstrong is a scholar and an authority on religion in general. It isn't possible to grasp what is going on in the Middle East and other Islamic lands out of the context of their history and geography. For that matter, it is necessary to have a working knowledge of Christian and Western history too, to put things in perspective. Armstrong has done that brilliantly. It is necessary to wade through the various leaders and who assassinated whom to get to the meat of the book. Her points on agrarian culture and democracy; fundamentalism and also the impact of the Mongol invasion are worth the price of the book. Readers have a really hard time getting beyond nationalistic and political interests to try to understand this important and influential part of the world. USA is a young country, but if we trace our history to Europe (I know not everyone came from Europe, but European influence is primary) we would realize we share a common humanity with all its creativity and also violent episodes. It's hard to feel morally superior without ignoring the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany just to name a few.