Reddit reviews A History of the Arab Peoples

Firstly, a caveat. I am not, nor have I ever been, a Muslim. I have, however, studied Islam at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

That being said, let me point out just a few huge blunders in this article:

>Mohammed was in Mecca preaching to any who would listen that he alone was the Divine Prophet of the One God, Allah

False. Mohammad claimed to be one in a line of many prophets. Islam also accepts Jesus, Moses, Adam, Noah and other as prophets.

>traveled to the Jewish city of Medina

Medina wasn't called Medina then. It was known as Yathrib. There were Jews living there, from the Jewish tribes of the Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayza and Banu Qaynuqah. But Arabs lived there as well. The name Medina is a contraction of the Arabic Medinat-ul-Nabi ( مدينة النبي ), meaning 'City of the Prophet'. It acquired this name only after Muhammad migrated there.

The author writes that, "Mohammed sneaked out of Mecca..." but also "Mohammed was consumed with rage over his being booted out of Mecca". Which is it? Did he sneak out or was he booted out? A serious contradiction.

>Even the Jews of Medina, who had shown him such kindness, were eventually driven from their homes while Mohammed's Muslim band pillaged the city

The three Jewish tribes I mentioned above were eventually driven out. This is usually based on betrayals of the conditions laid out in the Constitution of Medina, to which those tribes had agreed.

>In 630 A.D. Mohammed marched triumphantly into Mecca with 40,000 followers. His revenge was complete, but the horrors of Islam had only begun.

Inane. There were skirmishes between the Meccans and the Ummah (Muslim community) that culminated in the Battle of Badr, fought on March 13, 624 AD, when the Meccans attacked Medina. The Muslims won. A year later, in 625 AD, the Meccans attacked the Ummah in the Battle of Uhud, which the Muslims lost. In 627 AD the Meccans, allied with some of the Jewish tribes mentioned above, again attacked the Ummah in The Battle of the Trench. Ultimately the Muslims won the day and Mecca surrendered. To say all of this was 'revenge' for being driven out is simplistic, ignores the context of the event and shows no real understanding of the events leading up to the conquest of Mecca.

>In all, Mohammed had eleven wives, nine of them simultaneously, with the youngest being only ten years old. Eye-witness accounts claim that Aisha brought her toys with her when she was delivered to the Prophet of Allah.

Again, overly simplistic. Blood and family ties were--and are--central to Arab culture. We are familiar with marriage alliances in Europe, and in Arabia it was the same. Many of Muhammad's marriages were undertaken to cement alliances between tribes. Simply put, through this and other maneuvers, Muhammad united the Arabian peninsula in peace for the first time in its history. Yes, he married Aisha when she was young, but there is no real evidence to support sexual activity between them until she had reached the culturally-appropriate age for such according to Arab culture (this remains hotly debated...a debate beyond the scope of this post).

>Mohammed regarded women as nothing more than sexual toys and servants

Patently false. The Qur'an gives women rights they did not have before Islam. These included the right to initiate divorce; to inherit property; and to have their say in the governance of the Ummah. Additionally, the Qur'an forbade female infanticide, which was a common occurrence before Muhammad's prophetic career.

This entire article is full of invective, a lack of historical knowledge, and blatant fabrications designed to support an anti-Islamic agenda. It is fear and hate-mongering of the worst sort. It smacks of the kind of Bush-era paranoia and Islamophobia that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

You can find out more by following the links above. Also, the following books might be of interest:

Muhammad: his Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings

A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus

A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani

Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong.

Hope this helps.

Ajattelin olla kommentoimatta kokonaan, mutta nyt mennään niin aiheen vierestä ja niin pahasti pieleen niin on pakko kommentoida. On täysi myytti, että länsimaat ovat syypäitä lähi-idän ongelmiin. Lähi-idän ongelmat olivat olemassa jo kauan ennen länsimaita.

Ennen kuin kommentoin enempää, annan muutaman kirjallisuusviitteen...

• The Persians: Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Iran Paperback – Homa Katouzian
  
• A History of the Arab Peoples Highlighting Edition - Albert Hourani
  
  Ensinnä on täysi myytti lähi-idän olleen keskiajalla länsi- ja keski-Eurooppa edellä. Harha johtuu erilaisesta yhteiskuntarakenteesta. Lähi-idässä kaupungit rakennettiin siellä täällä olevien hedelmällisten saarekkeiden keskelle. Yhdellä alueella kaikki keskittyi ja keskitettiin yhteen metropoliin. Euroopassa taas ei ollut pulaa hedelmällisestä maasta ja maanosa oli täynnä pieniä linnoitettuja kaupunkeja, joissa kaikissa oli omat pienet yhteiskunnalliset instituutiot. Tämän takia lähi-itä näyttää kehittyneelle sillä siellä oli muutama iso metropoli. Eurooppa taas näyttää pimeälle paikalle sillä kaikki on pientä ja hajautunutta. Tosin tämä on myös osittain harhaa, sillä esimerkiksi Notre Damen rakennus aloitettiin jo 1163.
  
  Mielenkiintoinen seikka lähi-idässä on, että yhdyskuntarakenne on hyvin pitkälle pysynyt samana. Syyria on rakentunut Aleppo-Damascus kaksikolle. Irakia hallitsee Baghdad. Jordan rakentuu Ammanin ympärille. Egyptin sydän on Kairo. Kaikissa näissä maissa on myös samat ongelmat mitä oli 1000 vuotta sitten. Hallitsija hallitsee 100% metropolin sydämmessä. Mitä kauemmaksi metropolista mennään, sitä vähemmän valtaa keskushallinnolla on, kunnes jossain kohtaa hallinnon valta katoaa täysin ja on riippuvainen paikallisten heimojen hyväksynnästä. Maita uhkaavat uhat ovat myös samat kuin aikoja sitten. Aikoja sitten uhka keskushallinnolle tuli erämaiden heimoilta, jotka liittoutuessaan saattoivat kukistaa hallitsijan. ISIS:n synty ei ole mikään poikkeus lähi-idän historiassa vaan toistaa samaa vanhaa historiallista kaavaa.
  
  Persia tai paremmin sanottuna Iran on oma tapauksena. Iranissa ei ollut yhtä isoa hedelmällistä aluetta, joka olisi mahdollistanut isojen metropolien synnyn. Sen sijaan Iranissa yhteiskunta siroutui pieniin eristettyihin yhteisöihin. Näitä eristettyjä yhteisöjä sitoi yhteen yksi yhteinen kieli ja ennen kaikkea usko Shahiin. Iranin historia on lyhyesti sanottuna surullinen sarja sisällissotia jossa haastaja pyrkii saamaan vallan itselleen ja tulemaan Shahiksi. Olojen epävakauden johdosta iranilainen yhteiskunta on hyvin lyhyt jänteinen ja suoraan sanottuna paranoidi. Iranin iänikuisten sisällissotien kaavan rikkoi vain ainoastaan ulkopuolisen uhan ilmestyminen Venäjän ja Britannian muodossa. Kun nämä kaksi valtiota ilmeistyivät kuvioon, Iran oli jo jäänyt todella pahasti jälkeen muuta maailmaa. Länsimaalaiset intellektuellit mielellään maalavat Iranin kaikkien ongelmien syyksi Britannian ja Yhdysvallat. Tosiasia kuitenkin on, että Iran oli takapajula jossa valta oli niin Shahilla kuin Ulamalla. Jos 50-luvulla Ulama ei olisi asettunut Shahin puolelle, olisi se kaapannut vallan ennemmin tai myöhemmin. Yhdysvaltojen ja CIA:n väliintulo vain lykkäsi Ulaman valtaannousua.

...by preserving in translation many classical texts that would otherwise have been lost. Do you think Aristotle contributed to the Western Canon? The Roman Catholic church sure does, just ask St. Thomas Aquinas. Now who do you think you have to thank for that? I'll give you a hint.

And guess who Aquinas' favorite commentator on Aristotle was? This guy named Averroes, whose full name was Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rushd‎.

Try reading a history book; you might start with A History of the Arab Peoples.

Daaamn good book. It's not exactly a good starting point for learning about Arabic history though... Maybe A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani... I haven't found many single books that explain early Arabic/Islamic history in detail very well, but often have to read several books about parallel subjects. I am at the moment reading The House of Wisdom by Jim al-Khalili which is fascinating so far. Could be better in objectively presenting some material, but still a good read and is so far accurate from what I've read elsewhere.

History of the Arab People

By Albert Hourani

In no particular order:

http://www.amazon.com/Beirut-Jerusalem-Thomas-L-Friedman/dp/1250015499

http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Deceit-Imperial-Making-ebook/dp/B00BH0VSPI/ref=zg_bs_4995_5

http://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=zg_bs_4995_4


http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=zg_bs_4995_10

http://www.amazon.com/Arabic-Thought-Liberal-Age-1798-1939/dp/0521274230/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3

http://www.amazon.com/History-Arab-Peoples-Albert-Hourani/dp/0446393924/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4

http://www.amazon.com/Women-Gender-Islam-Historical-Modern/dp/0300055838/ref=cm_lmf_tit_9

http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Modern-Studies-Eastern-History/dp/0195134605/ref=cm_lmf_tit_10

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805068848/ref=cm_lmf_tit_17


As a non-Muslim, non-Jew, non-Arab, non-Semite, American, and having read these (yay strict immigrant parents!) and some other histories, as well as having had the attacks of 9/11 give me a neurosis about following the news in the Middle East/Central/South Asia as regards potential US involvement and issues:


A lot feels familiar to me, some of it even seems like stuff I know a good deal about, and a few things about "The Middle East" which is a massively rich and complex sociopolitical place and slice of humanity are things I'd consider myself very well read on.


And I don't know shit.


I can tell you as a native born American and US voter what I think my country's policies (in a limited, broad strokes sense) should be - - - but beyond that, there's very little I've ever seen as conclusive and firm coming from anyone who by dint of identity didn't have 'skin in the game' .

It's not exactly my thing, but I will make two book suggestions. One book that I found extremely helpful in understanding Zionism's beginnings and the development of Hebraic nationalism (almost wholly apart from the conflict with the Palestinians) was Arieh Bruce Saposnik's Becoming Hebrew.

Another, more classic work in the discipline would be Alber Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples. Of course only less than half the book deals with this issue, but it would be very interesting for you to read.

And lastly, a fun new book about Ottoman Palestine that turns some of the things in the previous two books on its head is Michelle Campos' Ottoman Brothers

As far as I know, the book is still representative of the current state of scholarship concerning the period. It deals exclusively with the period between 1914 and 1922, which is, by this time, relatively declassified in terms of documentation, so I wouldn't expect another book to eclipse it any time soon, unless someone happens to write a better synthesis of the available material.

It looks like the publisher recently released a 20th anniversary edition with an afterword from the author. That wasn't the edition I read, but I would imagine Fromkin's afterword serves as an index of more recent developments in the study of that period.

As for follow-up reading, my plan is to go regional, with a string of books about the development of the nationalisms that got their start in that period. So, on the one hand, I want to start digging backwards into the Ottoman Empire prior to the Young Turk movement (which more or less starts APTEAP), and on the other, I'd like to examine the modern histories of Transjordan, early Jewish nationalism, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Before I get to all of that, though, I've got A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani, which ought to keep me occupied for a while, once I start it.

What to read...

There's so much!

"The Ancient Near East" by Amelié Khurt is a great overall history.

Someone already mentioned History begins at Sumer and Ancient Iraq, they're a bit dated but still quite good. For a simple synchronic overview with nice maps look at Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia by Michael Roaf. Also another good history book A History of the Ancient Near East by Marc Van de Mieroop.

Regarding texts, there's a great book that does the history of Mesoptamia through primary sources The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation ed. Mark Chavalas.

That should get you started. Those book are all quite current or still very usable, let me know if you need anything else. As for later periods (i.e. post-Achaemenid) that's not my field... I read A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani which was quite good and as far as I understand a well respected overview of later Mesopotamian history.

A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani is a standard. It stretches back before the time of Muhammad to some of the cultural roots of what would later become Islamic law and tradition (for example, the Qur'an and the Hadith's roots in ancient oral tradition).

A lot of these suggestions (including the one above) seem really academic. For a lighter, more contemporary read, try No god but God by Reza Aslan. It's well written, easily digestible, and covers all the important points (including the pre-Islamic history of the region, which is essential especially if you're interested in Quranic law and early politics). Best of luck!