This book is very enlighting. Easy to follow and holds much information. Enables you to understand the Islamic way better.

My most important comment is that we need to get a balanced view of Islam, and there is no one, in my mind, that can provide such a view better that Karen Armstrong, perhaps the world's most outstanding writer on religion today. Equating Islam and Taliban is as stupid and single-minded as equating mainstream Christianity and the KuKluxKlan. I am confident that moderate Islamic leaders will find a way to isolate the fanatics of Taliban and Wahhabism the same way as we did with the KKK.
Karen Armstrong's "Islam" will help restore some degree of sanity to a religion we as Westerners know much to little about.

Hans Johnsson

Karen Armstrong has written a decidedly sympathetic account of Islam. It is highly readable and presents an outline of Islamic history from the days of Muhammad up to the dawn of the 21st century. This book can serve as one part of an introduction to Islam, though more critical books should also be read (you can find some listed in the 1-star reviews).

Like any religious movement, Islam has had its ups and downs, its saints and its sinners, its thoughtful philosophers and its maniacal zealots. The zealots have the highest profile in the West these days. This is undoubtedly why Armstrong chose to present the religion in a positive light, as a counterbalance to the lunatic fringe that is always in the news.

I found this sweeping overview of Islamic history to be helpful and easy to read. It does not get bogged down in an excess of details. There are plenty of other books with that sort of information for those who are sufficiently interested to wade through them. I recommend reading this book "for what it's worth," bearing in mind the author's attitude and goals. I also strongly recommend reading the Qur'an for yourself. A very good translation into modern English is The Qur'an (Oxford World's Classics). Judge for yourself whether it seems to promote a culture of violence. Also check out the hadith (traditional stories from the life of Muhammad), which are highly regarded by Muslims. Sources in English include The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Volume I and The Wisdom of the Prophet: The Sayings of Muhammad.

This author has no understanding of the history of Islam. This book is full of lies and attempts to distort history. The author is either one of the most ignorant people with Islam or she is purposefully trying to distort the history of Islam.

Karen Armstrong, in Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles); and Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill, in Islam: The Religion and the People, give valuable insight into Islam for those of us who were not brought up within an Islamic culture. Just as we who grew up in America, even those of us who are not Christians, know a great deal about Christianity, so even one not of Islamic faith who grows up in a predominately Islamic country will almost inevitably get to know far more about Islam than most Americans ever do. Hence the need for us to read books such as these, which are both excellent and which nicely complement each other; Armstrong tells us more about the history of Islam, and Lewis & Churchill tell us more about Islam today. Both are fairly brief (Armstrong 187 pages of text + 15 of glossary; Lewis & Churchill 167 + 55)

It can be quite difficult to get a correct understanding of another religion, because so many of the books and articles written about it are either by devout followers of that faith or by persons committed to disparage that faith as error and superstition.

As you read these two books, you may be surprised at the parallels between Islam and Christianity, both good and bad. For example, both Jesus and Muhammad had very enlightened, egalitarian attitudes toward women (Muhammad often consulted with women about what to do, and Jesus made a woman his number one apostle, called apostula apostolorum, the apostle to the apostles*). Neither would have approved of the repression of women that has been so common in both Christianity and Islam. The teachings of Jesus and Muhammad are often ignored or worse by their "followers": e.g. the many murders employed in deciding who would be Muhammad's successors; "Muslim" suicide bombers indiscriminately killing the innocent even with no assurance that any guilty will be among the victims (I had to put "Muslim" in quotes, because by the very act mentioned, they render themselves unworthy of being called Muslim^); the Crusaders who would "rape and kill for Jesus"; the systematic raping of Muslim women by "Christians" in Kosovo and thereabouts.; the insistence of the "Christian" Bush administration on continuing use of torture (which was surely what prompted the slogan "WWJT? - Who Would Jesus Torture?). Clearly, both Jesus and Muhammad have been "followed" where they never led and never would have. (for more on this, see Charles Kimball, When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs (Plus)

I have one problem with Lewis & Churchill. On page 163 they write: `Another term that is sometimes used, "Islamofascism." Is very naturally resented by Muslims in general, as combining in a single word the name of their faith with that of the most universally execrated of modern movements. For the same reason, this term is seen by others as accurately defining these movements and indicating their place in true Islam.' Now the first two sentences are true, but the final sentence is problematical. Some may think the term is accurate, but it is most definitely not. Fascism has no place in Islam. Fascism is authoritarian corporatocracy, essentially a takeover of government by big business, generally led by a dictator. Fascism is thus the antithesis of the communitarian principles of Islam as set forth by Muhammad. The self-contradictory term "Islamofascism" was coined as a put-down of Islam and of Muslims, an attempt to discredit and demonize both. As such, it is quite properly resented, not only by those of Islamic faith, but non-Muslims such as myself, who value human decency and are disgusted by attempts to incite religious hatred. For their failure to unambiguously reject this offensive term, I cannot give Lewis & Churchill the 5 stars they would otherwise deserve.

Armstrong, 5 stars, Lewis & Churchill, 4¼.

Watziznaym@gmail.com

* Richard J. Hooper,The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene: The Historical Tradition of the First Apostle and the Ancient Church's Campaign to Suppress It, page 57.
^ A Muslim is defined to be anyone (of Islamic faith or not) who lives by Allah's rules of behavior, as set forth in Islamic scripture, the Quran. Allah is an Arabic phrase meaning "The God."