Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles) by Karen Armstrong

Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles) Reviews

• 
  Riku Sayuj

  Armstrong tends to view all of history through the prism of the specific conflicts of our day -- to be accurate: from a vantage point situated near the Arab-Israeli Conflict. That is helpful, but also distorting, occasionally. Not a good book to learn about Islamic history, but useful as a corrective read for those already familiar. It gets quite tiring to be repeatedly referred back, even if with every justification, to the crusades and to the colonial harassments when referring to the west, and to the cultural superiority and religious universalism of Islam...
• 
  Renee

  Honestly, why do I keep picking up Karen Armstrong's books?
  It's not that she is a bad writer, just an exceptionally boring one. When I listen to 'Islam: A Short History' I feel like I'm being hit by a verbal machine gun fire of names, dates and places. Unfortunately few of these fact 'bullets' remain in my brain.
  She starts off innocently enough, giving an account Muhammad's life and then ....'BANG, BANG BANG!' she hits you with a blitzkrieg of boring, impersonal facts.
  About three quarters of the way through the book Armstrong picks you up, dusts you off, and tries to console you with a bit of modern history on Islamic fundamentalism. But it's too late. I'm already suffering from academic PTSD.
  Yet I sense that I'll still read her next book, 'A Short History of Myth'...
• 
  Saquib11c

  the book is written by an author who has complete grip on the subject. although she is not a muslim but she expressed herself in an absolute superb way and brought the correct perspective of islam. although in west the religion of islam is misunderstood as the religion of killings or it is being spread by sword etc but the history of islam tells us it is not so. the writer show up all the important events and depicts that no where in islam it is ever encouraged to kill other human beings if they are non muslims. but i dont know when the westernes will look in to it and learn it is not the religion which make some of the muslims extremists but it is the sufferings which some of their brother undergo in palestine, bosnia, afghanistan, iraq and other parts of the world whihc force or tend them to do some undesirable things. which are certainly prohibited in islam like suicide but they in their wrong perception and just like to take revenge do it. but there is nothing wrong wiht the religion and its followers but with the wrong and unjust behaviours of the west towards some of the muslim countries.
• 
  Ushan

  Karen Armstrong is a former Roman Catholic nun who writes popular books about history of religion. Here she tells the conventional story of Islam from the revelations of Muhammad till the present day: the rises and falls of empires, of dynasties, of religious schools. I do not know the relevant history well enough to criticize Armstrong's handling of facts, though I was surprised to read that the importance of Battle of Poitiers is often exaggerated by Westerners. How could it be unimportant, if different historians estimate that it involved 15,000 to 80,000 Frankish and 20,000 to 80,000 Muslim soldiers at an age when Western European nations had about 10% of their present-day population? Her interpretations, however, are apologetic. She never says anything bad about Muhammad: did he really want to create a community where everyone, rich or poor, commands absolute respect? Did he really work for the emancipation of women? She condemns the West for being prejudiced about Islam since the Crusades, yet writing about present-day Muslims, Armstrong says that when they look at Western society, "they see no light, no heart, no spirituality." This is wrong: all three are very much present in Western society, yet she does not condemn the Muslims for this view. I sense double standards. I was also unsettled by her insistence that she knows that Islam is really a religion of peace and tolerance, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Armstrong writes that Pakistan spends too much money on nuclear weapons while a large part of its population lives in abject poverty, "a situation that is abhorrent to a truly Muslim sensibility." The only truly Muslim sensibility is one that is expressed by the Muslims themselves, not by a former Catholic nun, and somehow I've never heard of a Pakistani antinuclear movement. Likewise, she says that Sayyid Qutb's vision of Islam distorted both "the message of the Quran and the Prophet's life." The message of the Quran is whatever the faithful read in it - not her, and as the story of Qutb's student Ayman al-Zawahiri and the movement he now heads shows, this vision is quite significant.
• 
  Clif

  A few years ago I took an undergrad course on the Ottoman Empire. There was a great deal of reading on the history of Islam so I was exposed to the material before reading this book.
  
  Karen Armstrong has done a perfect job of telling the history of the religion and it's prophet without creating a huge off-putting and overly detailed account that would drive away many readers.
  
  The history of Islam is exciting and probably alien to most Americans. Looking from the other direction, America has been unfortunately a large and meddlesome presence in the Arab world for over a century. The interaction of the Ottoman Empire with Europe has caused friction for centuries. For those who want to understand why Muslims have an attitude about the West, this book is a valuable resource. It takes the reader up to modern times and Armstrong's comments are most illuminating as she writes with sympathy for both Islam and the West.
  
  Empires come and go, rise and are put in the shade. This story offers a period of 1400 years to examine the process involving the Byzantines, the Persians, the Mongols and, of course, the Europeans as seen from the lands of Islam.
  
  You will get a lucid explanation of the varieties of Islam, the leading thinkers of the religion and a nice sprinkling of Arabic words that are helpfully contained in a small glossary.
  
  I was so impressed by this book that I decided to read the author's account of her experience being a nun (Through the Narrow Gate) and intend to investigate other books in the "Modern Library Chronicles" series from the publisher of which Islam is a part.
  
  
• 
  Osman Ali

  للتحميل
  
  http://www.mediafire.com/view/u88gd8n...
  
  
  "الست دي مسلمة حتى لو معترفتش بكده"
  
  الجملة دي كانت بتنط في عقلي كلما انتقلت من صفحة لأخرى ومن فصل لأخر في هذا الكتاب
  
  الكتاب وقع تحت يدي مصادفة اثناء بحثي على طاولة كتب قديمة في جناح سور الازبكية بمعرض مكتبة الاسكندرية الدولي للكتاب وسبحان الله فلو كنت أبحث عنه في المكتبات ما وجدته والكتاب موجه في الاساس للقارئ الغربي الذي لايعلم عن الاسلام سوى هراء اعلام الاسلاموفوبيا
  
  الكتاب يبدأ باستعراض موجز جدا مصحوب بالتواريخ الميلادية لتاريخ الاسلام بدءا من بعثة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرورا بالخلافة الراشدة ثم الدول المتعاقبة "الخلافات الغير راشدة" واخيرا العصر الحديث
  
  ثم يبدأ الفصل الأول بلمحات سريعة واختصار رائع للسيرة النبوية في بضع وعشرين صفحة ثم الخلافة الراشدة ثم الدولة الاموية فالعباسية ثم الدويلات الاخرى كالفاطمية والمغولية والمماليك ثم الدولة الصفوية والدولة العثمانية
  واخيرا عصر الاستعمار "الاستخراب الغربي" ومعاهدة سايكس وبيكو ثم العصر الحديث والانظمة العلمانية القمعية الدموية التي سيطرت على الحكم في الدويلات الاسلامية الوليدة
  
  وأيضا وبالتزامن مع التاريخ السياسي استعرضت تاريخ المذاهب والفرق والائمة الكبار وتقريبا دافعت عن الجميع بلا استثناء لأنه وكما ترى افكارهم كانت نابعة من حب الاسلام حتى ولو بعدوا عن تعاليم الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وهذا خطأ طبعا كما ذكرت هي وكما نعلم جميعا
  
  وظاهرة الجماعات الأصولية والتي ليست بدعة اسلامية كما يدعي الاسلاموفوب حتى من مسلمي الميلاد والبطاقة ولكن بداية ظهورها كان في الولايات المتحدة على يد المتطرفين البروتستانت وأن الأصولية موجودة في كل العقائد سواء المسيحية او اليهودية وحتى الهندوسية والبوذية, وأن التسمية غير دقيقة مع الحالة الاسلامية لأن كلمة أصولية تعني العودة إلى أصول الدين المتفق عليها في جميع الفرق والمذاهب الاسلامية ولاعلاقة لها من قريب أو بعيد بالتطرف ولكن للاسف اصبح هذا المصطلع هو التسمية المتعارف عليها لجميع المتعصبين في جميع الديانات
  
  الحديث عن الصحوات الاسلامية المتعددة في العديد من الدول والتي ححاولت التوفيق بين الديموقراطية والتحديث وفق مرجعية الاسلام وتدخل العلمانيين من ابناء الدول بإجهاضها بوحشية وقمع بمباركة الغرب الديموقراطي وتأثيره على ظهور فئات المتطرفين ويا سبحان الله وكأن التريخ يعيد نفسه مرارا وتكرارا ونحن في 2015
  
  وفي النهاية لقد خاضت كارين صراعا مريرا للدفاع عن الاسلام بكافة طوائفه ومذاهبه على مر التاريخ لا لشيء الا لقناعتها انه الدين الخاتم من عند رب العالمين
  
  جزاك الله خيرا كارين أرمسترونج
• 
  Kevin

  
  Armstrong's brief (circa 190 pages) history of Islam is necessary reading, but not particularly well written. Her account is based in the fact that there can be no separation of religious from political histories when it comes to Islam: for the Islamic notion of 'salvation' "does not consist in the redemption of an 'original sin' committed by Adam and the admittance to eternal life, but in the achievement of a society which puts into practice God's desires for the human race" (24).
  
  A true history (rather than a cultural study), the book is full of names and dates--many of which, I must admit, were embarrassingly unfamiliar to me. The book is divided into five chapters: "Beginnings," the story of Muhammed's sacred visions, the Rashidun (first four caliphs after the Prophet's death), and the first fitnah (the civil strife that came in the wake of mutiny by the supporters of Ali, Muhammed's cousin, and Ali's subsequent assassination, leading to tensions between Syrian (i.e., Sunni) and Iraqi (i.e., Shia, reformist, loyal to Ali) Muslims that would set the pattern for the following centuries); "Development," detailing the newly monarchical Umayyads (whose capital was in Damascus), the Abbasids (who violently overthrew the Umayyads, ca. 750), and the emergence of the esoteric movements, notably Falsafah (i.e., "philosophy," rationalist interpretation of the Quran) and Sufi (mystic); "Culmination," describing the (largely minimal) impact of the Crusades, and the expansion of Islam, particularly under the Mongols (1220-1500), who had no deep religious identity and thus absorbed and diffused Islam; "Islam Triumphant," an account of the Safavid (Iran), Moghul (Indian subcontinent) and Ottoman (Turkey and Middle East) empires in the 14th-17th centuries--the time of Europe's awakening from its backwater status; and "Islam Agonistes," a quick run-through of Islam since 1750, an account of the decline of the empires, and the rise of Fundamentalism.
  
  Armstrong makes no mistake about her intent: to clarify and counter Western misconceptions about Islam (this approach comes to a head in the last chapter). However, the brevity of the book makes it difficult for her to do more than make assertions.
• 
  Mark

  Islam is one of the most talked about and least understood subjects that has bearing on our foreign policy and security today. But Islam is so rich in history, theology, tradition, literature, and practices that it is a challenge to grasp it on a cursory level. Armstrong makes a valiant attempt to bring much of this to light in the space of fewer than 200 pages. She devotes much ink to the political traditions of Islam and their bearing on today's events. She does well at giving us food for thought about the history of Islam's relations with the West over the past two centuries, and why some streams in Islam (the ones we tend to hear most about) are in conflict with the West. I believe it is critical for us to become more knowledgeable about Islam before rendering superficial judgements about it; this book offers a good starting point.
• 
  Salem

  This is a very important book. Required reading, regardless of the nature of your religious views, or whether they exist or not.
  
  As a Muslim, I know most of the historical figures and events explored in this book, but with varying levels of familiarity and in a discontinuous manner. This book is excellent in formulating a relatively complete (albeit somewhat shallow) picture of Islamic history, stemming from the Rashidun Caliphate, to the Ummayyad, Abassid, and Ottoman medieval empires, to the state of the “dependent Islamic block” that constitutes the Muslim World in modern times. The book’s scope spans at least 1300 years; miraculous if you consider its small number of pages.
  
  It also presents condensed biographical accounts of many major Islamic figures, including religious reformers such as Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, al-Afghani, and Sayyid Qutb. Figures discussed are not exclusively political or scholarly (or, as is common in Islamic history, a combination of both), but also cultural and philosophical, including Rumi and Ibn Khaldon (figures that are rarely incorporated into the orthodox Islamic historical canon).
  
  This book also attempts outlining Shiite historical and theological topics, immensely useful for those who belong to the mainstream, Sunni Islam (including myself) whose typical school curriculum deliberately leaves out any mention, let alone comprehensive study, of Shia Islam.
  
  Along with compassion and an earnest desire for understanding, Karen Armstrong brings an informed, inductive eye to why disconnected events occurred and general trends prevailed at one point or another.
  
  I’ve read this right after Armstrong’s other seminal work on Islamic history, Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time; something I would undoubtedly recommend.
  
• 
  Shawn Thrasher

  A short history is right and sort of a shame. 1,404 years of history squashed into 222 pages (including index and two glossaries) - its possible to do, but the result isn't much fun. This is mostly a case of "just the facts, ma'm" with much of the personality and romance of Islam pretty much stripped out. It's well written, but dryly so - the "wet" of history lies in those personal stories. One of my biggest complaints about the book, however, was the tremendous amount of Arabic words, italicized, that weren't defined in glossary in the back. What's the point of having a glossary if all the unfamiliar words aren't listed in it? What was interesting was this is a pre-9/11, pre-Afghani & Iraqi War, pre-Arab Spring and pre-Syrian uprising - but just barely so. The last chapter hints at things to come; Karen Armstrong isn't a fortune teller, but she did have a good idea at the clash of Islam and the West would continue. That last chapter was the best; several new chapters could easily be added.
• 
  Kaelan Ratcliffe ▪ كايِلان راتكِليف

  Karen Armstrong truly knows how to tackle the difficult task of making the human spirit and desire for understanding God comprehensible to the uninitiated. This introductory book is a truly beautiful work. Highly recommended for anyone wanting to grasp such a complex and historically, spiritually rich religion. Outstanding.
• 
  Becky Hintz

  Should be titled "Islam: A Short History, and Why All Religion is Bunk Anyway." Armstrong does a decent job of tracing the history of Muslim political movements, but gives short shrift to the actual beliefs driving these movements. Some of what she says simply defies belief, such as her insistence that Muslim Fundamentalism is less prevalent and less threatening than the fundamentalism of virtually every other religion. She writes with the clear objective of promoting interfaith dialogue by insisting on a picture of Islam that simply does not exist in the modern world. Her hypothetical Islam is peace-loving, tolerant, and egalitarian. Find me one Muslim country actually characterized by these things and yes, we can talk.
• 
  Algirdas Brukštus

  Neblogas trumpas įvadas į islamo pasaulį.
• 
  Jeff Koeppen

  This is another book I wish would've been written, and read by me decades ago. As a lad growing up Catholic, I learned all about the various denominations of Christianity but knew virtually nothing about Islam before reading this book. Like most Christians, or former Christians such as myself, most of the what we know if Islam is from what we see on the news. This book is an excellent, very short, history of Islam starting with a nice detailed description of the life and times of Muhammed and telling its history all the way through its epilogue, written in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks.
  
  The book does a great job outlining how Islam changed from Muhammed's original vison to the modern day, and interestingly points out how world events around the Middle East such as the Mongols in the 13th century and the Crusades in the 11th century shaped the religion and its followers. We also learn of the major leaders and the different factions, and how their interpretations of Islam's ideals changed the course of things.
  
  My favorite parts were the chapters about the beginnings, particularly the life and teachings of Muhammed, the chapter about the arrival of the West, and the epilogue. I highlighted large portions of the chapter describing how Islam was affected by the rise of Europe in the 18th century and the subsequent rise of America. It was basically two worlds colliding. The epilogue is a nice wrap-up and brings Islam's history right up to the current time, although I would really like to hear the author's take on the murders related to Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
  
  In addition to the concise and interesting historical narrative, the book also contains ten maps, a 1,400 year chronology, a list of key figures in the history of Islam, a glossary of Arabic terms, a pronunciation guide, notes, index, and suggestions for further reading. There is a lot of information packed in to this short book. It is certainly a suitable primer on Islam. I think many Westerners have a tainted view of Islam and base opinions of it on the actions of some its followers. It's a good idea to read up on something you don't understand. It worked for me, I learned more in these 191 pages than I had in my prior 55 years.
• 
  Kristin

  This might better be subtitled "A Short Defense" rather than "A Short History", as Armstrong is mainly writing to address common Western prejudices against Islam (and I would have appreciated her disclosing this, rather than disguising her book as a history). The section on Muhammed is particularly painful in its overly apologetic tones, as Armstrong is obviously minimizing the less savory parts of history (the massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah for example is explained away as a normal feature of a chronically violent society) while she magnifies the parts about Muhammed bringing peace to Arabia. She is also a little too overtly choosy over which parts of history she wants to paint as authentic divine revelation: she describes Muhammed as "being the recipient of a divine revelation". On the flip side, a few pages later she describes how the leaders of a later rebellious revolt "claimed to be prophets, and produced Quranic-style 'revelations'". In the second instance, revelation gets put in ""'s, I guess so we know which part of history Armstrong's deity was really behind.
  
  As long as I could keep Armstrong's biases in sight, I enjoyed learning about the history. I enjoyed her theory about fundamentalism being a reaction to modernity. Unfortunately, the book was published in 2000, so lacked commentary on the more recent controversies surrounding Islam (such as the Islamic/Islamist distinction that seems to have cropped up in Western circles in more recent years). But my interest has been piqued enough that I think I will pursue some more recent books on Islam.
• 
  Anum

  
  
  A Non-Muslim's view of Islam...
  
  Considering that this book is written by a Non-Muslim author about Islam, I found this book very interesting. Karen Armstrong has summed up the history of Islam in about 170 pages, which is an achievement on its own; however, I did feel that in parts the book presented a very garbbled up mess of the facts.
  
  However, one thing is for sure, this book is uniquely thought-provoking. The muslims need to be creative and think of a solution for themselves. They need to free themselves from the clutches of the past and the influence of the west to come up with a unique solution of their own, which will specifically target their problems.
  
  It was a good read and I would recommend this book for all who want to read an unbiased version of Islamic history.
• 
  Adam

  From Publishers Weekly
  Readers seeking a quick but thoughtful introduction to Islam will want to peruse Armstrong's latest offering. In her hallmark stylish and accessible prose, the author of A History of God takes readers from the sixth-century days of the Prophet Muhammad to the present. Armstrong writes about the revelations Muhammad received, and explains that the Qur'an earned its name (which means recitation) because most of Muhammad's followers were illiterate and learned his teachings not from reading them but hearing them proclaimed aloud. Throughout the book, Armstrong traces what she sees as Islam's emphasis on right living (? la Judaism) over right belief (? la Christianity). Armstrong is at her most passionate when discussing Islam in the modern world. She explains antagonisms between Iraqi Muslims and Syrian Muslims, and discusses the devastating consequences of modernization on the Islamic world. Unlike Europe, which modernized gradually over centuries, the Islamic world had modernity thrust upon it in an exploitative manner. The Islamic countries, Armstrong argues, have been "reduced to a dependent bloc by the European powers." Armstrong also rehearses some basics about Islamic fundamentalism in a section that will be familiar to anyone who has read her recent study, The Battle for God. A useful time line and a guide to the "Key Figures in the History of Islam" complete this strong, brisk survey of 1,500 years of Islamic history. (Aug.)
  Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.
• 
  Mehrsa

  This is, as advertised, a very short intro to Islam. I love Karen Armstrong's longer books on religion. She's a balanced scholar that is able to approach faith without hostility or total dedication. She's a rare gem of a writer. This book was too short for those who are familiar with Islamic history, but it's a great intro for those who do not. I loved her Fields of Blood as an explanation of violence and Islam.
• 
  Noella

  De auteur beschrijft op een eenvoudige manier de geschiedenis van de Islam en wat de religie inhoudt.
  Ik kan het echter niet eens zijn met de manier waarop ze in de laatste hoofdstukken schrijft over fundamentalisme.
  Dus ik heb wel wat bijgeleerd, maar wanneer de schrijfster van het historische en theoretische overgaat naar haar eigen mening, kon ik mij niet meer vinden in het boek.
• 
  Hamza Sarfraz

  Too apologetic, contradictory, and simplistic for my taste.
• 
  Terence

  When I watch our pundits pontificate on affairs in the Middle East, I usually wind up pounding my forehead on the table: Things can't possibly be as simple as all that, and this "short history" of Islam proves that.
  
  As usual, Armstrong packs a lot of information into a small package. This is a high altitude flight over 1,500 years of Islamic history so the reader shouldn't expect to become an expert in sufism (for example) but it drives home several points:
  
  1. Islam is a far more complex phenomenon than a bunch of savage fanatics waving their swords and swearing "death to the Great Satan. Obvious with even a minimum of reflection but always a good corrective considering the "crap" the media bombards us with.
  
  Just to mention one tradition that has a direct bearing on Western development: Faylasuf (philosophy). Without the efforts of men like Avicenna and Averroes (and other, less well known lights) it's unlikely the West could have recovered as much of its Greek heritage as it has. Not to mention those traditions that have no direct Western parallel such as Shariah and sufism.
  
  2. Until c. 1750, Western Europe was a backwater in human history, and the Crusades were a brushfire war on the periphery of Islam. The richest, most advanced, most innovative civilizations of the world were either Islamic, Chinese or Indian.
  
  3. Islam today wrestles with the same problems that plagued the West in the transition from the agrarian paradigm that had ruled human destiny since 10,000 BC to the modern one.
  
  Armstrong goes to great length to show that Islam is no more prone to violent extremism than any other creed, religious our secular. In fact, Islam's emphasis on creating a just society here on Earth was several centuries ahead of the West's concerns about social welfare and human rights.
  
  Unfortunately, knowing human history, it's the reactionaries and fundamentalists who write the agendas. The moderate voices on all sides are drowned by the fear-stricken shouts of the bigots (just witness the hysteria over Iran).
  
  As with Muhammad, the earlier bio I reviewed this week, this is a good introduction to a complex subject for any non-Muslim wanting to escape the simplistic BS that passes for analysis in the mainstream press.
• 
  M Jahangir kz

  A very good read.
  In this book Karen Armstrong has provided a n overview of world second largest religion Islam from its beginning in 7th century to the 20th century.
  
  Author has been very unbiased and had done a great justice to this book, in particular has addressed some of the prejudices that west have in dealing with Islam.
  
  It is a short book of 150 odds book, but written very precisely and covers every major/ minor event right from the beginning of Islam, to its development to its culmination to its triumphant.
  
  It is a great book to read on Islam from the Western author perspective, author discusses the event in chronological way, she begins with the life of Muhammad the prophet in the earlier chapter, here she tell us about the early upheaval of Islamic foundations, here she tells us about the struggle of prophet, from revelation to preachings to the battles to getting rid of pagan religion from Mecca then to the death of the Prophet.
  
  In next chapter she discusses about the first four caliphates of Islam, then afterwards the Ummyad caliphates, Abbasid calphates, the main thing of 8th century Islam was it's conquest of different region of the world such as north Africa, Afghanistan, Sindh, Spain, middle east.
  
  In coming chapters she discusses the conflicts within Islam, and it's sects, the begining and the later story of the conflicts is clearly unfolded in the book, then later the books talks about the Invasion of Chengez khan on Muslims territories, the period of Monguls. Book also talks about the Ottoman empire, moghul empire and safaiyad empire.
  
  In last chapter it talks about how the rise of the west in 16th century, and then colonial power of west with the declines of muslims empire in 18th century, provided the easy root for west for dominating the Muslims over the next 200 years.
• 
  Alison

  Written before 9/11 and the better for it, this book is an understandable account of the history of Islam from the Prophet to the modern era, focused on the decisions and actions of Muslim political leaders and clerics. The fourth book on the topic I've read in the last couple of months, it admirably filled in gaps, particularly in regards to the gradual development of Shii Islam, and the Iranian state, and the growth of Sunni Islam to become the majority interpretation.
  Armstrong's clear preference, however, is the role of Sufi mysticism, and this is covered with both depth and open admiration. At times Armstrong's preference for spiritualistic ritual and practice annoyed a little, but it didn't detract from the overall clarity and detail in the book.
  I mentioned at the beginning that the book - published in 2000 - is the better for predating the events of 9/11 and the aftermath of war and Islamaphobia. Without the need to re-emphasise constantly that Islam is not inherently violent, Armstrong is able to just paint a brief picture of a complex, multifaceted, multi-shaded religion, which developed local and sectional variants across the globe. She traces Islam's push-pull relationship with state power in a fascinating account, leaving her own conclusions tentative.
  Her strong assertion of the importance of modernity, and her thesis that Islamic worlds need longer to develop their own form of it, made a few too many unexamined assumptions for me to be entirely comfortable with it, and despite getting a lot of history out of the book, I'm not rushing to read her other work.
• 
  Jonfaith

  Another samizdat read. The brevity proved itself frustrating as Ms. Armstrong cleaved succint defintions and proceeded while distinctions and details spasmed mutely in the wake.
  I suppose I remain resentful as she is an ecumenical apologist. People turn to her for the best word, not the most informed nor incisive. She obliges with humility. I suppose that quality should be crucial to religion.
• 
  Andrés Astudillo

  Cuando compré la colección de 12 tomos de Historia de las Civilizaciones, sabía que me quedaría un poco corto con la historia de Oriente. Toda nuestra vida, y todo el enfoque que le damos a nuestras actividades diarias casi siempre están enfocadas con las costumbres del medio evo, y consecuentemente de Occidente. A veces nos acordamos de esa España que fue parte de las conquistas del Islam casi por 700 años, y no valoramos lo suficiente las palabras que son reminiscencia de eso, tales como: imán, almohada, alhajas, ojalá; los arabismos se pueden encontrar igualmente en más campos semánticos tales como: en el de los oficios (alcalde, alfarero…) la agricultura (albaricoque, zanahoria…) los alimentos (escabeche, almuerzo…) y varios más, y se calcula que hay aproximadamente 4000 palabras en castellano con origen "moro".
  El enfoque que nos proporciona Armstrong, es cronológico. Primero nos da el resumen de eventos importantes de manera cronológica desde las primeras acciones del Profeta, el cual fue uno de 6, incluyendo el Jesús que conocemos acá en Occidente. Luego procede a escribir y narrar de manera prolija los acontecimientos después de la muerte del Profeta, y también explica el enfoque que se le da a la religión islámica. Con esta lectura comprendí que la religión muchas veces es como el cauce de un río; lo puedes direccionar para regar plantas, como para dejar morir de hambre al enemigo.
  La parte final es un breve ensayo sobre el fundamentalismo religioso, en donde explica que el fundamentalismo no es más que un -golden age thinking- aplicado a la modernidad; es la negación del presente y las ganas de regocijarse en la religión tal y como fue en sus inicios: tribal.
  Es increíble por otra parte que, la parte occidental de Europa ya había vivido, ya estaba un poco más avanzada, tanto que una religión monoteísta, aparecería 7 siglos después del nacimiento de Cristo, y 3 después de la Caída de Roma. Por tanto, se puede observar claramente a la historia de la religión islámica como un aprendizaje (muchas veces fallido) de Occidente, y se puede llegar a pensar en la riqueza que existía en Oriente, debido a que por la decadencia de la administración, nacieron 3 imperios: el otomano, el mogol y el safawí.
• 
  Rishab Katoch

  As someone who has grown up in areas almost completely devoid of Islamic influence and Muslim populations, this has been a fascinating read. Karen Armstrong provides a very readable and informative history of the Islamic world in this short book. It covers life of prophet Muhammad, the many glorious Islamic empires and the eventual subjugation under the Western powers. It also has a very interesting chapter on fundamentalism and modernity in Islamic world. Reading this does provide you with a lot of context for many of contemporary issues in both the Islamic world and where Muslims are a minority, while simultaneously reminding the reader of the incredible diversity of Islamic schools of thought. The only problem I had would be the book seems like a defence of Islam and it makes you feel like you're not getting a very balanced picture.
• 
  Keith

  I was hoping to learn more about Islam by listening to this book, but it just seemed overwhelmingly biased in support of Islam. From the get-go, the author says things like some ignorant people think Islam is anti-women, but Mohammed wasn't. He was like the most woman empowering person ever. You heard they hate the Jews? Mohammed was like the best friend of the Jews. She forgets to mention that soon after his death the Jews were forcibly removed from Arabia because Mohammed had said "Let there not be two religions in Arabia." In fact, the only things they treat women and Jews poorly about they actually just learned from the Christians, so there.
  
  I have never read the Quran, so I can't offer a critique of how she portrays the message. I can judge how that message has been interpreted by Muslims through the centuries. Although I am Christian, I can make unbiased judgments and comparisons. That is what Armstrong did not do. Everything was a justification or excuse for what Islam has done. According to Armstrong, pretty much everything that has been done wrong by the followers of Islam is due to ignorance and bigotry from the west.
  
  If the Muslims did something wrong (which Armstrong very reluctantly admits), you can be sure that the Christians and Jews have done something worse so nothing to see here, remember how awesome Islam is? Here is another story of how the Dhimmi, the non-Muslims, had to pay extra taxes because they weren't Muslims and had to wear certain clothes but they just freakin loved it. This was actually their preferred lifestyle. If Muslims expanded their empire and conquered other kingdoms, all you hear is wow, they were so strong and amazing. Christians doing the same were bloodthirsty invaders intent on committing atrocities. Armstrong is one of those people who view certain types of invaders as evil (Christians), and other invaders as totally justified who really just made everything better (Muslims).
  
  When the Muslims lost the battle of Poitiers (Tours), it wasn't a big deal because they didn't really want crappy Europe anyway so this tremendously significant battle really didn't matter at all so no need to talk about this defeat. Her writing about this battle reminded me of a teenager deeply in love who then gets dumped but she doesn't care because he was a loser anyways so why would she even want him?
  
  The author really pounded home that all faiths are equally violent. This is a claim you really have to do some mental gymnastics to get behind. Acts by governments and kingdoms are difficult to judge (just because a leader is a certain religion or leads a people of a certain religion doesn't mean he is basing his decisions off of that religion), but we can see when religion is the motivation for individuals. The fact is, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions have not led to terrorism like Islam has. The author says that anyone who thinks Islam is anything but the religion of peace is just ignorant. Well, there is a significant percentage of Muslims who disagree and believe terrorism is justified. She wrote the book in 2000, so I wonder if she still would say that people who make this correlation are ignorant. Many of the terrorists are sponsored and trained by Muslim countries (which is different than a Christian country since Islam is religious as well as political).
  
  She also doesn't seem to understand what fundamentalism is. She describes fundamentalists as people who have changed their views and are unhappy with society. The opposite is what happens; the societal norms have changed but the individual beliefs haven't. It is ridiculous to say all fundamentalism is the same. I would be considered a Christian fundamentalist, but I'm not going around chopping off people's heads and making women into sex slaves.
  
  I wasn't looking for a total condemnation of Islam. I listened because I wanted to learn. But I felt like I was lied to. Obviously all religions have had people do bad things in its name, but it doesn't mean everything is equitable. There is only one religion right now that goes around intentionally murdering children, women, the elderly and many more atrocities. I only wanted an honest look from Armstrong. Maybe only 10% of Muslims worldwide believe terrorism is justified, but in a religion of that size that is a ton of people who think people should be getting murdered.
  
  In the end I didn't really learn much because I didn't feel like I could trust anything she said. I'm sure there is plenty that Armstrong wrote that was true, but there was so much dishonesty in the book that I doubted most of her claims that I didn't outright disbelieve.
  
  The narrator was excellent.
• 
  Sena

  First off: I was intrigued by this book because the author, Karen Armstrong, used to be a Catholic nun (and I used to be a Muslim), and I thought it would be interesting to read a non-hostile outsider's thoughts on Islam. Overall, I do think she was the right person to write this book, and she has a bunch of awards to prove it.
  
  I'm writing this review to mainly gather my thoughts and remember the key points to take away from this book, because I do not intend to read it again. It's a well-written, insightful book but the topic itself is quite boring (the Umayyads and the Abbasids, oh boy. I hated learning about these in high school history. And I hate it now. Surprise surprise.)
  
  Armstrong divides her book into 5 parts:  beginnings, development, culmination, triumphant and Islam agonists. Here are my thoughts and notes:
  
  - The beginnings part talks about the prophet Muhammad. Armstrong introduces Islam as a religion meant to bring social equality and peace to war-torn Arabia. I find it interesting how some of the first adopters of the religion were women and slaves, because Muhammad preached about equity, charity, and a just society. It’s emphasized multiple times that social justice is at the core of Islam.
  
  - According to Armstrong, Muhammad had not come to cancel the older religions, to contradict their prophets, or to start a new faith. The first Muslims respected the faiths of the Jews and Christians living among them since they were also "ahl al-kitab", or "people of an earlier revelation".
  
  - Armstrong treads lightly during this chapter. For example, she mentions the massacre of the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah, which sided with Mecca (the enemy of the first Muslims) during the Battle of the Trench. All the men of the tribe were killed and women and children were sold as slaves. Armstrong is quick to follow this bit with "it would be a mistake to judge it by the standards of our own time." She explains that this was the only way to prevent war and further uprisings from hostile tribes. Most importantly, she stresses that it wasn't a move against Jews in general, and that the early Muslims respected Jewish prophets and people. She even mentions that "Anti-semistism is a Christian vice." Well, given the current state of the world, I don't think it's only a Christian vice anymore. I wanted to mention this because I noticed other instances of Armstrong treading lightly, and maybe for good reason, as we know what can happen to those who criticize the prophet. Or perhaps she simply didn’t want to vilify Islam.
  
  - It seems the wars fought during Muhammad's time were mostly on the defensive side. Once he dies though, the Muslim society does what it must: it expands. They're not allowed to attack each other anymore, because they are all Muslim tribes. So they start raiding and conquering the neighbouring regions. Soon enough, they spread to Syria, Egypt, Iraq. This is not entirely in an effort to spread Islam, it is also a pragmatic effort to bring money and land into the growing empire. They have a strange system. Muslims aren't allowed to settle into the lands they conquer, instead they live in garrison towns built for them in strategic locations. They're not allowed to plunder the conquered lands, but the lands pay rent to the Islamic empire. The troops aren't very happy.
  
  - Of course when an empire grows large, it brings many problems (these are the fates of empires before industrialism). Uthman gets the worst of it, when the expansion finally slows down. Tensions escalate when he appoints Muawiyyah (the son of Muhammad’s old enemy Abu Sufyan) as the governor of Syria. Muawiyyah is fairly capable, but this move makes the people of Medina angry. One more interesting thing happens at this point in time: Uthman has a single version of the Quran approved and the rest discarded. ("The rest
  - Ali's turn as caliph is spent squabbling with Muawwiyah over who is the one true caliph. Eventually Muawwiyah wins. One interesting point is that Muawwiyah has the support of the Syrian Muslims and Ali has the support of the Iraqi Muslims, which is a divide still continuing to this day. And then, Ali is killed by an extremist, the Umayyads begin their rule. After them, the Abbasids.
  
  - The Abbasids rule the empire like monarchs. “Where the Prophet had always been addressed informally by his given name, like any other mortal, the caliph was styled as the “Shadow of God on earth”. This is highly un-Islamic (social justice, equality of everyone, and so on.), but since the empire is doing well economically under this rule, the people don’t complain too much. The Abbasid period is a time of renaissance for Muslims, there is a lot of progress in science, arts, medicine, astronomy, etc. Many people start actually studying the Quran and set up a judicial system derived from it (the Shariah).
  
  - Meanwhile, the Shiis develop a belief system of their own, based on really understanding the Quran and recovering the hidden (batin) meanings there. I don’t know much about this, it sounds like meditation of a sort. They set up an “Imam” system where the Imam is the actual religious leader of the people, he can decipher the batin meaning, and he passes it down to his successor. The Shiis keep to themselves.
  
  - Around this time, al-Bukhari collects what is today considered to be one of the most trustworthy anthologies of the hadith (which are phrases spoken by Muhammad). The Muslims also use these practices and sayings of Muhammad to further shape the law and their way of life. At this point it’s been more than 200 years since Muhammad died. They do try to verify each hadith by tracing it back to who was relaying the information, and whether they were trustworthy or not. This could not have been easy in the year 800, when they had no internet, voice recordings, photos, etc.
  
  - Armstrong makes an interesting note: “Beliefs and doctrines are not as important in Islam as they are in Christianity. Like Judaism, Islam is a religion that requires people to live in a certain way, rather than to accept certain credal propositions. It stresses orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. Anyone who remained faithful to the Pillars was a true Muslim, whatever his or her beliefs.” Then she introduces a bunch of different practices that were born around this time. It’s interesting to me how readily some of these practices are embraced by groups and the general populace. I guess the people back then were a little less rigid in their life philosophies: if they liked something, they simply adopted it.
  
  - The book also goes into some detail explaining the belief around the Twelfth Imam of the Twelver Shiis. The Twelfth Imam is believed to have been miraculously concealed by God, and he would someday come back as the Mahdi. The Ismailis believed that Mahdi would be the seventh final prophet. (This is against everything I was taught as a Sunni Muslim, by the way. Muhammad was clearly the final prophet, as far as I remember. I guess the Muslims of today are more rigid then those back then.) There are also the Sufis, who are on the more spiritual side of Islam. “Sufis learned to concentrate their mental powers while breathing deeply and rhythmically; they fasted, kept night vigils, and chanted the Divine Names of God as a mantra.”
  
  - Then came the Seljuks (Turks!!) where the educated Muslims (ulema) started gaining power and more or less keeping the empire together. During this time, the Ismailis also became a terrorist group (referred to as the hashashin, because they government spread scare-rumours(?) that they were high on opium as they were attacking - fun fact, this is where the word assassin comes from!) All of this came to a big halt when the Mongols invaded.
  
  - The book talks about the great big three Islamic empires of the time: the Safavids, Monghuls, and Ottomans. The Safavids were based in Iran, and the ruling class wanted the empire to be Shii, though most Iranians at that time were Sunni. There was a huge (and initially, forceful) transformation which resulted in many Iranian traditions still in place today. The Monghul empire was in India, and its most prominent ruler (or let’s say the one that stood out to me the most) was Akbar, the philosopher king. Akbar was a very tolerant ruler, respectful of all religions; he became vegetarian to not offend the Hindus, built many Hindu temples, and built a “house of worship” where people from all religions could meet and discuss. And in Turkey, there were the Ottomans. In Turkish history classes, this chapter of history was glamourized. And it does seem like a glamorous period true, but after reading about the Safavid and the Monghuls, it really doesn’t seem like it was the only glamorous empire of it’s kind. At this point, I want all the fundamentalists Turkish people who long for the Ottoman past to read this book, and realize that it was just another agrarian society. Grew big through conquests, built fancy palaces for the rulers, grew too big to handle and feed, the upkeep was unsustainable, and eventually it was doomed to fail.
  
  - The final part discusses fundamentalism. I liked how Karen Armstrong describes where this movement comes from and how every religion has its fundamentalists. Typically, fundamentalism emerges when modernization is advanced in a society. Initially, the religious populace tries to adapt to the modernization and reform some of their traditions. However, when the reforms don’t work as efficiently as intended, fundamentalism is born and modernization is rejected altogether. There is great fear in fundamentalism, they tend to believe secularism intends to wipe religion out (which historically, might not have been such a false assumption).
  
  - The last chapter of the book is quite bizarre. Karen Armstrong starts off by stating how some secular governments have committed acts that were anti-religion and that this has led to a fear of secularism in the Islamic world. This is absolutely a fact. However, she also seems to hint that the way forward for Muslims is by their governments becoming more Islamic. I respectfully disagree, I believe all governments should be secular. She quotes Rashid al-Ghannouchi, the leader of the exiled Renaissance Party in Tunisia: “He rejects the secularism of the West, because the human being cannot be so divided and fragmented.” Yusuf Abdallah al-Qaradawi: “The West must learn to recognize the Muslims’ right to live their religion and, if they choose, to incorporate the Islamic ideal in their polity.” Eh, what about the non-Muslim citizens who happen to live around the Muslims, and what about their right to not incorporate any religious ideal in their polity?
  My personal opinion: I believe the Muslim world should absolutely strive for secular governments. The modern law of many Western countries already adheres to the moral codes of Islam, i.e., don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape, etc. I believe the way forward is by having an extremely woke secular government that treats the Muslim population with respect and listens to its needs. Historically, this has proven to be difficult due to an abundance of prejudice. The secular government has generally tried to “modernize” the people, by belittling them, trying to change the way they speak, dress, pray, etc. The Muslim world doesn’t need more of that. It needs modern, secular laws, but also for their religious needs to be met. Turkey in particular has suffered enough both because of its secularists and its fundamentalists. There has to be a secular government capable of keeping the religious populace happy as well.