Rating: 
Summary: Great book
Review: Great Book! It has taught me alot about the histories between the Western world and it's struggles with the Islamic Imperialists. The book has some very graphic details of tortured people...
Rating: 
Summary: This book is bias opinion, not history recounted
Review: I am not Muslim and have a Christian background, but from the beginning pages, this author shows a strong bias against Islam which makes it hard to read. He does this by presenting historical facts, then characterizing the event with his own comments, which are often critical and condescending to Muhammad and Islam. Want just one of dozens of examples? After detailing the jihad in Spain by "Almanzor the Victorious", Almanzor died. Mr. Fregosi then comments, that he probably isn't in hell,"A rejuvenated Almanzor may...be frolicking in the Muslim paradise with his houris (sic. concubines), though unbridled copulation hardly seems Almanzor's style." This is not a history book but a book of commentary and opinion. Too bad. A scholarly book on the subject would be welcomed but this isn't it.
Rating:
Summary: VIVIDLY WRITTEN AND WELL SOURCED WORK OF HISTORY
Review: I finished reading Paul Fregosi's book two nights ago and am still thinking about it. This was a memorable and engaging work of history, vividly written. I thought Fregosi's work was well documented and well "sourced" from an historian's and academician's standpoint. I also thought his was an original contribution (and counterbalance) to the existing literature. The early Islamists were the original imperialists. Centuries before Spain began its empire in the New World or the Hapsburg's ruled theirs, the Arabic Empire under the Umayyads and the Abbasids had already subjected (and even forcibly enslaved) entire peoples across North Africa, southern Europe, Italy, Sicily and the Middle East at the point (literally) of the sword. The imperialist facets of early Islam are a fact. When viewed from the perspective of the Islamic conquests of Europe in the 7th-12th centuries, the Christian Crusades are revealed to be what they always were - a counter-jihad or counter-crusade. These were responses to the highly successful Jihad of the Muslims. Pope Urban lifted a page from the Muslim playbook and came up with the Crusade idea. This is detailed in the book with appropriate cites. For all that, I thought Fregosi was fair, dispassionate and hard on both sides of these wars. At not several but MANY points in the book he condemns violence committed by both sides. I think he goes to some pains to indicate he is not anti-Muslim by sticking to the facts and by equally condemning all violence. Smart thing too, since some Muslims can display a tendency to violently react to anyone who criticizes or asks uncomfortably honest questions about their culture, faith, past military history, warrior-mentality, etcetera. Salman Rushdie is just the most famous victim of this reflex to condemn those who write or say things people of the Islamic faith don't like. Taslima Nasrin of Bangledesh is another example of a writer who has felt Islam's wrath. There are others languishing in jails who are less known to us in the West who did not tow the right Islamic line. So, Fregosi displayed some courage to write so eloquently on this type of subject. Fregosi's humanism, compassion, his passionate hope for a better and less violent future come through in his dedication (read it to see what I mean) and his final chapter, among other places. Fregosi can be tart, humorous, yes - a bit sarcastic too, but always, always, there is a caring, deeply morally concerned human being writing the story who mourns the deaths of so many. At some, more subliminal level, there is a deep sadness that permeates this book. Fregosi is by no means a "happy warrior" out to "get Islam." He mourns the torture, death, violence and enslavement of so many. He mourns the human rights abuses and abuse of women by the Arab empire and the Ottoman empire. He mourns the genocide committed by these regimes. I suspect he must have been under some psychological duress when he wrote his book given the seriousness of the subject matter. That too comes through. But there are also WONDERFUL real life heroes and leaders of wisdom, vision and compassion on both sides. And he happily discusses those individuals as well. I met some wonderful people in this book and they deserve to be remembered by us today. ...I can honestly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Facts are facts, regardless of "trendy" thinking
Review: I realize it may be trendy or "politically correct" to disparage any work that does not portray Islam as always positive and Western Christendom as guilty of all conflict with Islam. But those of us who prefer facts and reality will appreciate this book. It is filled with footnotes and historical references that can't be denied. Read it for yourself and check it's references. Be real, not politically correct--the truth will thank you for it.
Rating:
Summary: Facts are facts, regardless of "trendy" thinking
Review: I realize it may be trendy or "politically correct" to disparage any work that does not portray Islam as always positive and Western Christendom as guilty of all conflict with Islam. But those of us who prefer facts and reality will appreciate this book. It is filled with footnotes and historical references that can't be denied. Read it for yourself and check it's references. Be real, not politically correct--the truth will thank you for it.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most important books in print?
Review: Paul Fergosi has presented an history that clarifies many of the most bitter ethnic, religious, and political conflicts that are destabilizing the world today. His writing style is compellingly readable. Some may be surprized that history can be both informative and satisfying ("entertaining" would be an inappropriate word, though it comes to mind.) This book presents an abridged chronology of world-shaping events and people. There WERE truly heroic and evil individuals behind the works of fiction such as "The Lord of the Rings" that will be recognizable to even the casual reader. The battles of good versus evil, and not-so-good versus evil, and evil versus evil, are often horrific, and are presented as such, with heroism or duplicity or incompetence presented without silly notions of moral equivalence or political correctness. You learn of the events that created the hates between Serbs and Bosnians, Turks and Greeks. I've read many books, ranging from the dry and rather detached to the hysterical, liking Thomas Sowell's "Conquests and Cultures," Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," and the English translations of Bat Ye'or's books on Dhimmi. They won't appeal to the casual reader the way this book will, even if it is just because it contains descriptions of mayhem and a gay revolt. This book should be read because it helps define what the West is contending with today. As Huntington said on page 217, op. cit."The problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism, it's Islam,..." The people teaching history in high schools and colleges today don't KNOW history, or they choose to ignore it. My children have all had college-level history classes, and even in upper-division courses, were fed non-sense about the "diffusion of Islam" around the world. The latter courses were post-9-11.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacking in scholarship, overflowing with bias
Review: Paul Fregosi's book "Jihad in the West" is a book that likely will be looked at in the post-September 11th with a sense of "Why didn't we see it coming?" Although the book is enlightening and entertaining, it is not written with scholarly intent and will likely inflame Muslims and prompt some non-Muslims to wonder why the United States and NATO aren't rolling out the tanks, aircraft carriers and troops to begin another Crusade. Fregosi is blatantly biased, and does little to hide is disdain for Islam. This bias leads one to wonder how much hyperbole and license he exercised when writing the book. By trying to keep his writing from being dry, scholarship suffers. He presents information and makes statements, but does not cite the sources in the text with footnotes. He simply lists a bibliography at the end of the book, which presents problems if someone wanted to try to go back to the original sources and verify the information. This establishes a credibility problem with the book. Although the centuries of Jihad did produce considerable suffering and inumerable atrocities, it is hard to evaluate this book because the tone is so venomous. Because of the lack of scholarship, the reader is unable to determine how much of what is written in the book is fact and how much is exaggeration or artistry. This left me dismayed, since the obvious anti-Islamic bias obscures the facts and can only serve to foment anger and mistrust.
Rating: 
Summary: wrong image of Islam
Review: Some narrative is good and smart enough to at least recognize many contemporary numbers were exaggerated and many battles were alliances of convenience including Christians and Muslims together, sometimes on both sides. But there are many problems. Focus intensely on "jihad" starts with exaggerated assumptions about violence and deempahasizes the legitimate relations with dhimmis; this is exaggerated partly because of the two extremist incursions by Berber dynasties. This failure also derives superficial understanding of Islam and from 'listenening' to polemics rooted in early European fear and hatred of Islam and the Crusades and revived by post Nazi visions of persecution of religious minorities and genocide. If one wrote a recent military history of the US it would have to include the only use of Nuclear Weapons on civilians and bombing more than 20 countries since WWII.If it added 'evidence' of hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers" as further evidence of a violent civilization it would be rather like this book - which is sometimes nearly that crude. The conclusions about violence whether originally from the author or the publicist (one suspects that more books were sold with such a 'spin') are not warranted by the evidence (even that in the book) and even less supported by a broad knowlege of Islamic history. Part of the problem is that things are explained by 'religion' when religion was often merely a rationalization for political, economic, social, and strategic objectives. Part of the problem is shallowness from limited understanding of Islam in other places and other times. (More people probably became Muslims because of trade and cultural influences than from conquest worldwide. Most Muslims do not live in the middle East but in Sotheast Asia and in South Asia; there are more in china than numerous countries in the Middle East and North Africa.) The sources the author uses are not well selected, nor as current, as they should be. Even works recognized generally as of most major importance (in French and English) and available when the author wrote (I checked major missing works against publication dates) are not included. This may be why old religious, colonial, and orientalist biases are adopted uncritically. There is no deep understanding of Islam here, for much the same reasons (sources and focus). The author fails to distinguish the substantial differences between crusade and jihad, the former offering conversion or death in both theory and often practice while the later recognized and had some respect for Christianity and Judaism (their Prophets, institutions, values, even doctrines) and provided dhimmis status as a third alternative. In the most tolerant times there are cases of sharing Churches for worship (Muslims Friday, Christians Sunday) and of Zakat (charity tax of about 2 1/2% net worth) being used for the benefit of poor non Muslim dhimmmis). One gets little picture of the cultural and intellectual fruition of that difference in history. (Dhimmitude studies are infamous for that slant on history ignoring real niche opportunities,the significance of self-governement for dhimmis and the taxes and military service avoided by paying the capita tax for non-Muslims. Most of these are also likely to read history backwards after the identifying markers for Jews that accompanied pogroms in Russia and were accompanied by Brownshirt violence and a precursor to genocide in Germany.) If the author had better selection of sources and better understanding of Islam and its history the book would have been much sounder despite its decision to focus on essentially military history. The conclusion that war included violence would not have then been extended (by the author and even more strongly by many readers) as implicit in Islam. But of course fewer copies might have been sold; agendas are more popular than objectivity. The title itself spins relevance for the 21st century although little of the book concerns recent times. Sadly there is no better alternative history of Jihad in Europe now available although there are many better works to understand islam in Europe.
Rating:
Summary: Admirable but flawed
Review: This book is a completely admirable corrective to the current PC view of military relations between ancient Islam and ancient Christendom -- that PC view pays obsssessive attention to the Crusades, apparently launched against a peaceful group of Muslims in the Middle East without provocation. Or, to put the same thing in another way, a visit to any university library will turn up (say) 800 items on the Crusades, and just about nothing on the Jihad. Now, this is rather odd, since everyone knows and admits that the Muslims conquered an empire larger than the Roman in the space of just a couple of hundred years. Obviously, there was some -- uh -- FIGHTING going on in there! So, this is a great book for bringing up the subject. Europe and many other areas were under constant, deadly attack from Muslims for many centuries. The Jihad lasted much longer than the Crusades and was much bigger. This simple fact doesn't make Muslims "bad" or Christians "good" -- it's just historical fact. However, despite the presence of a bibliography, this is a BOOK WITHOUT FOOTNOTES. And, as a wise academic once remarked, "we all know what to think about those." No doubt footnotes could be supplied in a future edition, but right now -- every statement in this book is unsubstantiated. Not highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Good work but ....
Review: This is a good book but the author stops at Islam. Is Jihad, or conversion by force an Islamic phenomena? Absolutely not, for Christians has also had their own " Jihad" for centuries. We see the footprint of Christian army all over the world, and brutal conquer of other cultures and countries in the name of Christ. In some instances an entire population was almost eliminated. Anyone familiar with the history of religion would know that that there is only one religion that surpasses Islam in its brutality and that is Christianity. For the sake of completeness and accuracy the author should have gone over the Christian Jihad as well. Often when I mention these facts to my friends, they answer " But that is Catholicism and has nothing to do with Christianity and Christ". That is an arrogant answer, to claim that Christianity is something other than Catholicism is to say that for centuries there was no "Christianity" and in fact Christianity is rather a modern phenomena. Besides if we are to accept that the crimes of the Church is not representative of Christianity, then why should we not accept the claim of Moslems that the current application of " Jihad" is not a good representative of Islam? I guess what I am trying to say here is that whatever Christians accuse Islam of, they themselves are accused of it as well, perhaps even more. This behavior is by definition " Hypocritical".
|
