The Oxford History of Islam

Rating:
Summary: An excellent work which should have been longer
Review: This book covers a lot of ground in showing the rich diversity of Islamic civilizations throughout history. Each chapter is written by a leading scholar in the field, and the illustrations go far in enhancing the pleasure of the text.

However, there were at least two areas that needed inclusion: literature and Sufism. Given what the authors chose to discuss, these are almost vital inclusions, especially the latter in a "History of Islam."

Rating:
Summary: Good overview, but lacking details and editing
Review: This book provides a balanced, insightful overview of Islamic culture and civilization. The book describes events leading from the foundation of Islam on the west side of the Arabian Peninsula up to events circa 1999.

The first half of the book deals mainly with describing early Islamic (mainly Arabic) culture, including the religion itself and artistic and scientific achievements. These chapters present a great overview of Islamic culture (although they are somewhat biased towards Arabic culture) that has given me a new appreciation for Islamic art and science. Most of these chapters are written for the general reader, but one chapter on Islamic philosophy is inaccessible to people without a formal education in Western philosophy.

The second half of the book deals with Islamic history. The emphasis is placed on the larger forces at work in Islamic history, such as expansion of the Arabic empire, the empire's fragmentation, the spread of Islam, the effects of colonization by Europe, and present-day nationalistic trends. This portion of the book has left me with a clear understanding of the greater forces at work in shaping the Islamic world today. In doing so, however, it is careful to neither praise nor condemn historical Muslim figures or Islam as a whole. Instead, it critically evaluates their actions.

Despite the grand overview of Islamic history presented in this book, it fails somewhat to make the history more tangible. By focusing on grander, abstract trends in Islamic history, too many details about the specific people involved and the specific events that influenced Islamic history are lost. Therefore, the reader may understand how the Islamic world has generally been shaped by history, but he or she may not understand who or what specifically triggered these events. Furthermore, the more abstract focus makes the book seem very dry.

The other problem I had with the book was its editing and organization. Each of the 15 chapters is written by different authors, so the book does not necessarily read coherently from one chapter to the next. Some terms and events (such as the concept of fiqh or Islamic reforms in China in the 18th and 19th centuries) are explained multiple times in different contexts with different terminology. Few maps are included, and these generally lack detail. Pictures are not necessarily laid out next to the texts that reference them. The book also lacks a glossary, which I needed while learning some of the Arabic terminology.

Despite these faults, this book is a good introduction to Islamic culture and history. Nonetheless, it is only an introduction; readers who want more details about specific events (such as, perhaps, the Iranian Revolution) will need to look elsewhere.

Rating:
Summary: White-washes history.
Review: This is a beautiful book with a lot of lovely pictures and illustrations, and a great deal of useful and interesting information. I appreciated learning more about sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The chapter on the context between Aristotilian philosophy and Arabic theology was interesting. I also learned a lot from the chapter on Islam and Christianity, which generally seemed fairly balanced. This rather hefty volume helped fill a large hole in my historical knowledge, and I am sure I will continue to find it a useful resource.

I have two major complaints, however. First, I bought the book hoping to learn more about the history of Islam, the religion. While I appreciate the fact that the editor chose to tell us about art and law and economics too, it often seemed like the history of Islam, the religion, got drowned out the somewhat accidental details of Islam, the civilization.

In particular, I came to the text with questions such as, "How did Islam spread? What motivated those who spread it? How did the teachings and example Mohammed, in particular, affect human history?" These seem like reasonable questions to ask of an "Oxford History of Islam." But there was almost nothing about Mohammed in the book. (Fortunately, I had just read Maxime Rodinson's Mohammed, which is a good supplement to that portion of the book.) While the authors gave a great deal of information around the edges of other great expansionist periods in Islamic history, some kind of scholarly miopia seemed to prevent them from getting to the heart of the matter.

I wanted to know, for example, if the frequent claim that Indonesia became Muslim peacefully were true. Bruce Lawrence, in his chapter on Islam in Southeast Asia, hardly addressed the question of how the islands became Muslim, except, for example, in the following subordinate clause of one sentence: "Although the actual Islamic conquest of the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit took place in 1478, . . . "

That brings me to my second complaint. On page 352, there is a photo of a tomb, identified as that of Tamerlane. "His majestic blue-domed tomb epitomizes the splendor of Timurid architecture," the caption reads. When I read that, and leafed through the index for further references, I had to wonder: what kind of history of Islam is it that, in 750 pages, cannot find room for a single clear sentence about the greatest Muslim conquerer of all -- and less for his millions of victims? It is like writing a history of communism and only noting, in passing, that a fellow named Stalin inspired a new movement in socialist realist painting. (Granted, however, that the tyrants of yesteryear had much better taste in art.)

Similiarly, Lawrence seems to completely whitewash the thousand-year history of the Islamic assault on India, that Durant describes as "probably the bloodiest story in human history." Sultan Mahmud, the text merely notes, "not only pillaged and destroyed; he also built and rebuilt." (As, of course, did Stalin.)

It is said that history is written by the winners. The authors seem to want to prove that aphorism. Mohammed's own cruel career is glossed over a few pages. Tamerlane is memorialized with a pretty tomb, his victims ignored. Nehemia Levtizion seems to blame the Ethopians for putting up too good a fight, therefore bringing jihad down on themselves. (As opposed to other tribes that were simply swallowed.) Another writer calls the Medieval Europeans "xenophobic," and the European idea that Islam is violent is treated as a prejudice. Muslim armies had just conquered two thirds of the Christian world, launched attacks against Rome and Constantinople, and into France. If two out of three of your children had been kidnapped by a neighbor, would it be fair to call you "paranoid" if you locked your doors at night? (Or even in the day?) (See Jihad for more details.)

One author mentions an Islamic attrocity -- discreetly, so as not to embarrass anyone -- then marches on to the dogmatic but question-begging conclusion, "The contest is over political authority even when it is framed as a contest over religious truth." How, in a religion that does not distinguish between mosque and state, is one to tell the difference? And can we really generalize about what made Muslim conquerers tick in this way? From what sources?

Ira Lapidus is more frank, and suggests perhaps a bit more sympathy with the victims, in her description of the tyrannical Ottoman empire and its "divinely given mission to conquer the world." Again, I would have appreciated more details on exactly how the Ottomans formulated and explained their ideology, and how they related it to the Qu'ran and the career of Mohammed. But at least she does mention the "losers."

The book probably does deserve the five stars (...), in some respects. But I am getting tired of this habit of scholars whitewashing inhumanity and painting a pretty picture on top. I felt like giving it one star, in protest. But a lot of good scholarship and artistry went into the text as well, and it would be unfair not to acknowledge that.

Author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

Rating:
Summary: So much, so little
Review: To cover such a broad sweep for this subject in one volume is asking too much, but this book does a credible job of doing so. However, I felt I was missing something because so much critical detail was missing, such as how was the spread of Islam accomplished (key "wars," battles, overall strategy, common set of tactics?), only passing references to some of the giants of history, Crusades - what six Crusades-They barely get a mention, etc. I decided that the purpose of the book was to summarize; and if I want more depth, get it elsewhere.

The one thing which did drive me nuts was both the lack of more maps to better show places discussed in the text, and the lack of detail on the maps which were present. Beautiful photographs, but totally inadequate maps.

Overall, great book to start trying to understand one of the world's great religions, especially after September 11. It gives the reader coverage of a broad scope of subjects which require some familiarity to understand Islam, even those some readers might otherwise skip. However, if you are really intersted, plan on going on to other sources.