Rating: 
Summary: Don't expect theological depth
Review: Armstrong is one of the biggest names in comparative religion these days, but anyone who's read two or three of her books quickly recognizes that she's long on historical nuts and bolts but rather short on probing the theological and spiritual dimensions of the religions she discusses. Her *History of God*, *Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths*, *Holy War*, *Muhammad*, and now *Islam*, typically leave me with a hungry feeling. After reading them, I feel as if I've been served salad but no entree.Even allowing that this book on Islam calls itself "A History," one would've hoped that there would be some discussion of the central religious beliefs of Islam. But instead, what Armstrong chooses to do is dish up for the reader a sometimes overwhelmingly detailed political and social history of Islamic internal squabbling and empire-building. The book would, perhaps be useful for a college student in a history course, but it offers very little for anyone prompted by the events of 9/11 to learn more about Islam. Having said this, I hasten to add that my dissatisfaction with *Islam* in particular and Armstrong's work in general isn't meant to suggest that I think her a shoddy thinker or flawed scholar. She is meticulous in her research, and obviously strives to be fair-minded (as she says of herself, she is a nonaligned "monotheist," and hence has no apparent axe to grind). But I do wish her obvious intellectual talents leaned a bit more in the direction of exploring the heart and soul rather than the outward trappings of the three Abrahamic religions she so admires. Without that kind of deep exploration, I fear that Islam will remain an enigma to many of us in the West.
Rating: 
Summary: Okay, but...
Review: As a brief, factual account of Islamic history, this seemed adequate. It's an easy read, certainly. But I found as I went on that the author occasionally makes sweeping, blanket generalizations that make less and less sense the more you think about them, such as the observation that "agriculture-based empires had a limited lifespan prior to modern times." (In fact, we have no idea about the lifespan of any "modern" regime, whereas certain pre-modern agriculture-based regimes, such as Egypt and China, are famous for their longeveity.)
While I found no factual errors in the author's central matter, these sweeping statements do not lead one to trust in the author's interpretations.
Rating: 
Summary: A necessity to read in context with today's events.
Review: I would like to say from the outset, that the worst part of this "slim volume" is, that it is a slim volume. Any religious movement that can rightfully claim 1,200 million followers and has a history as rich and variegated as Islam, is woefully under-reported when it is not a representative work consisting of tomes upon tomes of well-researched background material. Karen Armstrong, however she may be viewed by her adherents and adversaries, is known for meticulous workmanship, and here, the fact that Islam's history and historic figures are necessarily compressed in their width and breadth, faults the writer and the book - unjustifiedly. For those who have little or no knowledge of the tremendous impact of Islam on the world's cultures, this is a wonderful basis from whence to build upon. By all means, buy and study (not only read) this intense effort of a former Roman Catholic nun and her achievement will become clear and help you to better understand the very basics of the clearest, most precisely structured monotheistic faith.
Rating:
Summary: A decent short introduction to this vexing religion.
Review: This book gives the reader a good, general introduction to the religion of Islam. I only rated the book three stars simply because I think that the author purposely left out pertinent details in order to make the book short (and thus appealing to more people). Regardless, for those readers with a limited knowledge of Islam, this book will teach you many things you have not heard before about the relgion.
Rating:
Summary: View from the spiritual side.
Review: I started a reading program about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism soon after 9/11 to try to get a better handle on why the United States is considered the Great Satan - that is, why we seem to be the primary target of Islamic radicalism. I first started reading an earlier book of Armstrong's, A History of God ~ The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993). Having finished about half of it, through the advent of Islam, I put it down in favor of her history of Islam.
In both books she speaks to the cultural and philosophical history (i.e., the spiritual basis of Islam) more so than a political or event-driven history (albeit her Short History starts with a rather good chronology of key events from the Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdallah's first revelations in A.D. 610 through Iranian President Khatami's disassociation with the fatwah against Salmon Rushdie.) This is a different tack than I'm used to reading. She can be most interesting, yet tedious at the same time. She admires the deep spirituality of Islam and is quite sympathetic to it from that angle. This may be why she comes across to some readers as an apologist for Islam. I found it a useful approach, simply keeping it in mind as I read.
I drew several insights from her Short History.
· Islam is the very fabric from which the culture and politics of Muslim countries are woven. It is how Muslims define themselves (more so than Christians anyway), and how they interpret the world and events inside and outside of Islam. On page 46 she says, "The Quran spoke of the unification (tawhid) of the whole of human life, which meant that all the actions of the individual and all the institutions of the state should express a fundamental submission to God's will." This has to be completely inimical to Western secularism (or Enlightenment).
· As with Judaism and Christianityk, there are many sects within Islam, and they can be more fractious than their Jewish and Christian counterparts.
· Fundamentalism has created a tension throughout Islamic history, starting with the imperial Umayyad Caliphate period of the latter 600s - almost from the beginning of Islam - when the caliphs became less stringent in their pursuit of Islamic ideals than had been the Prophet himself and the rashidun (the "rightly guided" caliphs who guided Islam immediately following Muhammad's death). Salient examples are Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328) in the post-Mongol world, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92) and his reaction to Ottoman rule (which came to be known as Wahhabism, a puritan form of Islam still practiced today in Saudi Arabia). Fundamentalism, of course, carries on into today.
· Judaism and Christianity have their share of fundamentalists, some of whom were violent, but Islamic fundamentalism has a more pervasive theme of violence.
· Fundamentalism at its core is a response to secularization of Islamic governance. Muslims are duty-bound to overthrow apostate secular governments. Modern fundamentalists believe that jihad is the only way to combat secularization, and they raise jihad to the importance of a sixth pillar of Islam.* The West is not the root cause per se of secularization (which has occurred in the past), but the West is its engine today, and the US is at the forefront - the strongest, most influential Western nation.
(* The five Pillars of Islam are the five bases of the Islamic faith: shahada (confession of faith), salat (prayer), zakat (alms-giving), sawm (fasting, especially during the month of Ramadan), and hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca.)
· The core of the reaction to secularization is its perceived drift from the essence of Islamic principles and beliefs. That would explain today's fundamentalist movements, which probably are driven more from the pace of change today than the existence of change. That is, Islamic fundamentalism today is probably not a result of modernism per se, but rather a result of the dramatic rate of political and technological change and the resulting impact on Islamic culture. I think the same can be said, to some degree, of conservatism everywhere, religious and otherwise.
The last paragraph of her book provides an interesting caution. "The West has not been wholly responsible for the extreme forms of Islam, which have cultivated a violence that violates the most sacred canons of religion. But the West has certainly contributed to this development and, to assuage the fear and despair that lies at the root of all fundamentalist vision, should cultivate a more accurate appreciation of Islam in the third Christian millennium."
This book is neither the final nor the only answer to the riddle Islam holds for the Western mind. It's an excellent starting point, however.
Rating: 
Summary: An irreconcilable conflict of ideals and realities?
Review: Armstrong aims to -- and largely succeeds -- in providing a comprehensible succinct outline of the history of the religion of Islam and of political regimes (including a series of empires) that are Muslim. Armstrong covers 1400 years and a substantial part of the world in 187 pages of text. There are a lot of names and dates in the text, supplemented by a 31-page chronology, a nine-page dramatis personae, a four-page glossary of Arabic terms, and a nine-page topical bibliography. Is this too much information for readers unfamiliar with the subject to absorb? Yes. Even someone like me, who knows a fair bit about some parts of the story, can feel overwhelmed at the torrent of names and be tempted to regard the book as a reference to be dipped into rather than read through. However, Armstrong is not just throwing names and dates at the reader. A narrative/analytic thread is quite visible. And the basic, recurring conflict between a radically egalitarian religious mandate and very inegalitarian political/social/economic relations in Muslim societies betraying the vision of the Prophet Muhammed (570-632) is of greater general interest now than it was when she wrote the book. I have a great impatience with those who distinguish Christianity from what Christian institutions have done (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.) or claim that Marxism has never been tried (i.e., that the communist states of the 20th century weren't "really" putting Marxism into practice). Being sometimes consistent, I think that so many failures of Islamic regimes to produce the kind of society Muhammed envisaged demonstrates its unfeasibility.(I am obviously not a Believer.) I found Armstrong's account of the Mongol incursion particularly acute, that of the reaction to European colonialism a bit pat, but I highly recommend her acute analysis of the tension between what exists purporting to be Islamic and what the Quran says should be. This clash is the leitmotif of this splendid book.
Rating:
Summary: This book is fantastic
Review: Jam-packed with facts and clearly written, this book is absolutely outstanding. Not being Muslim, I don't know how biased this book is, but it's extremely interesting just the same.
Rating: 
Summary: A Real Disappointment
Review: The enormity of my disappointment from this book is a direct result of the high expectations I had based on a friend's recommendation and Ms. Armstrong's description as a scholar in the field. I found the book badly written, biased and lacking in critical depth. Ms. Armstrong bombards the reader with scores of names, dates and jargon. She wastes time describing minor events, sects and characters that did not leave a lasting impression on Islam or its interaction with the world. The level of detail and brevity of the work prevents the author from describing and analyzing the larger trends and does not offer the benefits of critical historical discourse. While the books is not blatantly biased and avoids many "classical" pitfalls of antagonistic statements regarding Christianity and Judaism it is far from objective. One example of such subtle bias is that the author properly explains that many acts performed by the early Muslims (pillaging, conquests, etc.) should be judged in their context and that this was not uncommon behavior at the time. The same understanding, however, is not extended towards any other culture or group whose actions are described by Ms. Armstrong. The emerging sense from the language is that the militant expansion of the Muslims was appropriate and understandable, but defeats that were inflicted on them by their rivals were not. Another example of misdirection (or simply sloppy work), out of many, is the description of the Suez Canal as an Egyptian project that was forcefully taken over by European powers. In fact, a Frenchman designed and built it, financing the work by selling shares to French investors with support, mostly in labor supply, from the local government. The British government later bought shares of the canal from the Khedive Said of Egypt, the other major shareholder. Having read the book I found myself disagreeing with the author's notion that there's some separation between "true" Islam and those that act under its auspices. All religions have some ideal form in the abstract; most religions are practiced differently by various sects or schools of thought and I find it hard to accept that we can say that those who do not follow our notion of the ideal religion do not represent it. Islam, just like Christianity, Judaism and all other religions is represented by all those who believe that they practice it. Among them you will find kind and generous people as well as thieves, militants or people having any other quality. If you are looking to learn objectively about Islam and the history of the Muslim nations, your money and time will be much better spent reading other books.
Rating:
Summary: Not quite
Review: Once B. Russell had said: "Christianity is less dangerous today, because less people believe in it". Today we have a religion (or an ideology) with a lot of momentum and this is not christianity or socialism. Sixty years ago it was the latter. This momentum makes others (us) afraid. Like socialism Islam has many interpretations and they do differ from each other by a great margin. Is Islam dangerous? That is the question of the reader at the start. Armstrong's book is focused on that question rather a well balanced short history. That is the main weakness. The answer she provides "In the essence it is not". But it is. Anything which can be led to fanaticism can be dangerous, especially if this thing provides people the distinction of "us" and "them". With that logic sports can be dangerous. Like religion it can lead into wars (Actually this is what exactly happened in 1969). Armstrong tries to fight against Christian prejudice about islamic violence. A historian should not make this fight. It is up the reader to decide whether early islamic conquests are religious wars or just the efforts of an expansionist state, which was very common at that era throughout the world.
Rating:
Summary: Great, short and well balanced
Review: I congratulate Karen Armstrong on a job well done. I Agree with some critics that the book is too short, however, for a detail history one can read Bernard Lewis's "The Middle East". I think this is a great resource for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. There are large numbers of Muslims in this world that
have no clue of the history, politics and development of Islam, this book solve the problem in 186 pages.
|
