Customer Reviews

Islam: Past, Present and Future

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

At first glance, Fr. Hans Kung's mammoth discussion on the dynamic world of Islam seems like a daunting task. Not only is the book rather sizeable, but a glance at the Table of Contents previews Kung's goal for the book: discuss practically everything about Islam!

Within approximately 700 pages, Kung manages to adequately discuss the origins of Islam, the life of the Prophet Muhammed, the first caliphs, the canonization of Qur'an, plus 1400 additional years of Islamic history, including discussions on the evolving religio-political dynamic within Islam, the emergence and adherence of Islamic jurisprudence, plus the impact of Islamic theology and philosophy in its own day and in later Western civilization. There is barely no stone left unturned in Kung's survey.

The fascinating aspect about this book is that it manages to cover so much ground while remaining completely relevant along the way. Kung manages to come across not just as a theologian or professor of ecumenism, but it's evident that he is an individual who is thoroughly knowledgeable about this subject, in the same manner as full-time Islamic scholars such as Ira M. Lapidus and John Esposito. Fortunately, his knowledge about the subject allows him to share a great deal of sympathy with Islam's history, its message, and its future. Kung even admits that certain characteristics of Islam have affected his own personal theology and understanding of history. However, just because he may be sympathetic does not mean that he allows for necessary criticisms to remain unsaid. Far from it! Kung asks Muslims and non-Muslims to engage in a critical survey of certain Islamic traditions and concepts, and he urges continual restoration in the Islamic world not just for its own sake but for the wider global organization.

Yes, the book may seem like a daunting task, but there will not be a moment wasted while spent reading this book. There's an incredible amount of information to learn about the Islamic world, and fortunately Hans Kung is willing to share that information with his readers!

With this volume, the Catholic theologian Hans Küng has completed the trilogy with began with his `Judaism' in 1991, followed by his `Christianity' in 1994. Each of these three books is arranged in a similar way, dividing the history of each religion into Paradigms, the shift from one Paradigm to another coming about chiefly through major historical events which forced corresponding changes in the intellectual history of those faiths. There is no need to be scared by this slightly pompous conceptual framework: the story is clear even without it. As Küng himself admits, there is a difference between paradigms in science (to which Thomas Kuhn applied the concept in the first place) and paradigms in religion. While it does not take long for a new paradigm in science totally to replace an earlier one, in the history of religion, old paradigms retain an extraordinary vitality even after new ones have been established; so that, for instance, in the Moslem world the intellectual notions of Muhammad's Islam and of the Islam of the medieval Caliphates still powerfully challenge those of more modern forms of Islam.

As he goes along giving an account of the development of Islam, Küng frequently makes comparisons with the developments in Judaism and, in particular, in Christianity, pointing out similarities and differences. Perhaps because he is a Roman Catholic, he is particularly interested in the comparison between al-Ghazali and Thomas Aquinas, to which he devotes many pages, while being very much briefer about Avicenna and Averroës, in whom most western writers have been more interested than in al-Ghazali. Küng's case for this disparate treatment is that unfortunately the former two, for all the influence they would have on Western thought, had no lasting influence in Islam.

Küng is not afraid of praising and of criticizing Islam: there is a particularly outspoken criticism of Islam when, at the end of the 12th century, that great and high-achieving civilization turned its back on further philosophical or theological developments. Its last great thinkers had far more influence on the West (which learnt a great deal from the Arabic `Renaissance') than they had on the Islamic world. The West went on to construct, on the base of the Arabic Renaissance, a Renaissance of its own, while the Islamic world did not experience a further Renaissance, nor a Reformation or an Enlightenment. The Scientific Revolution (which contributed so much to the development of technologies in the West) had no parallel in Islam, which had been preeminent in mathematics, medicine and science during its golden age. As a result the Islamic world was in due course humiliated by the greater might of the European powers.

But between the end of the Arabic Renaissance and that humiliation, there were some powerful Islamic empires - the Moghuls of India, the Safavids of Persia, and especially the Ottomans. The greatest weakness of Küng's book is that these three empires receive very cursory treatment. In particular there is no examination whatever of what made the Ottoman Empire so successful for some four centuries.

Only when the dynamism of the West impinged on the Islamic world in the 19th century did some Islamic thinkers make an attempt to modernize Islamic thought, though meeting great resistance. Indeed, because the modernizers were unable to protect the Islamic world against western political and then economic imperialism - and were indeed often accused of colluding with it - the traditional thinkers of Islam were able to identify their cause with angry nationalism, and so were able to gain even greater influence.

Rejecting the ideology of `a clash of civilizations', Küng is passionately interested in how, without fudging difficulties, the differences between Islam and the West and between Islam and the other two Abrahamic religions can be bridged. After 470 pages of describing the history of Islam, he devotes the remaining 190 pages largely to reflections on this topic. The suggestions he has for reducing the political tensions (for example about the Arab-Israeli issue) is fairly run-of-the-mill for those who are looking for the `reasonable' solutions that men of good will should be able to achieve.

As for his ideas about how the theological tensions between Judaism, Christianity and Islam might be reduced, he points out that the Hellenistic doctrines of the divinity of Jesus and of the Trinity became official Christian teaching only in 325 at the Council of Nicaea; and he suggests that all the three Abrahamic faiths should be able to find common ground in the Jewish Christianity of the time of Jesus. Yet he affirms that he himself accepts the decisions of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and is not suggesting that Christians should reject them. But if they don't, I can't see myself where the common ground would be in this area.

What might also help to establish common ground would be if the Muslims could see the Qur'an in the way that all but fundamentalist Christians and Jews now see the Bible (and as the suppressed Mutazilites of the 9th century once did): as divinely inspired, but created by human beings who have interpreted the inspiration in the historical context in which they lived. But Muslim exponents of such ideas (and Küng names several such) still run great dangers in the Islamic world.

Though Christianity has long had a bad record of intolerance, barbaric punishments, and subjection of women, it does now subscribe to the doctrine of human rights; and common ground between the religions would require that those Islamic countries which still do not respect human rights should reform. Similarly, Christianity has abandoned its military crusading mission, and there can be no common ground with those Muslims who still interpret jihad not simply as sanctioning the use of force in defence of Islam, but also as the duty to expand its rule by force.

In his conclusion Küng expresses his `unshakable hope' ... `that all three world religions together will [N.B. not `can'] make an indispensable contribution to a more peaceful and more just world.'

This book is lengthy yes, but if you really want a sincere and scholarly analysis of Islam from an objective perspective (a prominent christian theologian) then this is one of the rare books that will give you an accurate understanding of the subject. The visual aids in this book (i.e. charts, graphs, timelines)also make it very "user-friendly."

It is difficult nowadays to get an objective, nuanced opinion on Islam, neither flattering nor biased against it. If I were to recommend a way to try and achieve this, I would suggest reading several good books on the matter, including this one among them.

I was surprised that no one else had made a comment before to this masterful work, which, in my opinion, is impartial and wise and the best book on Islam one may find. It can be savored by the professional historian and the educated layperson alike. So I add mine, my rate being between 5 (content) and 4 (pleasure, sometimes falling to 3, sometimes raising to 5). I highly recommend it.

Other books that I would recommend reading (as Khaled M. Abou El Fadl -scholar trained in both Islamic and Western law- says, non-muslims "first and foremost [are to] learn and understand, because nothing helps the puritans' cause as much as Western ignorance, prejudice and hate") would be the following: A) ASSESSMENTS OF ISLAM: 1) Moderate Islam at its best: "The Great Theft : Wrestling Islam from the Extremists" by Khaled M. Abou El Fadl; 2) Harsh but well argued: "Muslims in the West: Redefining the Separation of Church & State" by Sami Awad Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh; and 3) Autobiography of a courageous woman: "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a controversial thinker with a very interesting life. B) HISTORY: 4) General: "The Venture of Islam", by Marshall G. S. Hodgson (nowadays a classic included in any bibliography on Islam); 5) Turks: "The Turks in World History" by Carter Vaughn Findley; 6) Political theory: "God's Rule : Government and Islam" by Patricia Crone; and 7) Jihad: "Understanding Jihad" by David Cook (it also seems interesting although I have not read it yet: "Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice" by Michael Bonner).

Additionally, as a complement to "Islam. History, present, future", I would also suggest to read (hoping that will be of use for those looking for a broad framework to understand the past) the following works, whose scope is as amazingly global as Küng's: 1. Agrarian cultures: "Pre-industrial societies" by Patricia Crone; 2. Economy: "The world economy. A millennial perspective" (2001) plus "The world economy: Historical Statistics" (2003) by Angus Maddison (a combined edition of these two volumes is to appear on December 2007); 3. Government: "The History of Government" by S.E. Finer; 4. Ideas: "Ideas, a History from Fire to Freud", by Peter Watson; 5. Religion: "The Phenomenon of Religion: A Thematic Approach" by Moojan Momen; and 6. War: "War in Human Civilization" by Azar Gat.

This is a book I find it difficult to rate highly enough, if there was a six stars category it would be needed.

Western ignorance of Islam is a huge impediment to our understanding of the events of these countries and perpetrates all kinds of misunderstandings. It is not helped by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and its involvement in terrorism. Books like Samuel Huntingdon's "Clash of Clvilisations" too have and continue to perpetuate misunderstandings, as the UN has recognised in its call for a "dialogue amongst civilisations", a call initiated first by the Muslim world.

Hans Kung states cogently that peace between peoples is only possible if there is peace between religions, and that such a peace is only possible if there is a situation of respectful dialogue between different religious faiths. It is the message of Vatican II, and Kung has dedicated his life to this task.

Without doubt this volume on "Islam: Past Present and Future" is possibly his most important work to date. His method of using "paradigms" to understand the historical development of the 3 Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is very useful in helping us all discover what is the core of "abiding truth" and what is "determined by contemporary context", of the specific paradigmatic circumstances of a time and place.

An intriguing part of this book is Kung's own deep researchers that the pre-Hellenic Jewish Christianity paradigm may have survived in Arabia to the 7th century and may have informed Mohammed's own highly favourable views about Jesus.

Kung has long practiced what he preaches, and a particular strength of this book is its use of Muslim voices and extensive research into what sincere and practicing Muslims say about such issues as interfaith dialogue, "jihad", and Islam's adaption to the developing post-modern world. These sections of the book are especially powerful, as it shows the developing tensions between fundamentalist "traditionalists" (who wish to return to the "classical" Abbasid understandings of Shariah and Caliphate), and (I hesitate to use the term) "moderates" (who wish to look at the original message of Mohammed as an example of being appropriate for time and place, and being prepared to understand the true historic development of their faith). As he clearly shows, Jews and Christians, concerned about the equivocal place of violence within Islamic tradition, need to look at the ways in which "The Wars of Yaheweh" can be appropriated to political use in Modern Israel, or the way in which "Crusades" have been used in colonial and post colonial times to capture the resources of others for ones own use, in the West.

He clearly shows that in a nuclear armed world, all religions need to examine their past, in order to "put their house in order".

Finally, this book is important because it is a clear message of hope. A hope that we need not become locked once again into a series of inescapable holy wars, a hope that there is a path forward that addresses a polarising world between those that have and those that have not, a world soon to have eight billion inhabitants living on fewer resources than we have today. And more than that, this book has clearly practiced what it preaches, peace and respect between religions is possible.

As a Protestant who has had a long-term interest in the great monotheistic faiths, I found Kung's work refreshing and stimulating. As a resident of New York City, who works 100 yards away from the World Trade Center, I wanted objectivity in the discussion of one of the world's fastest growing religions and the U.S.'s largest religious minority. I highly recommend this book as it provides both as well as the seller who delivered the product before I expected it and at an excellent price.

Hans Kung is again very thorough in his analysis of Islam. He relates it's history in a manner similar to his earlier works on Christianity and Judaism, describing the evolution of the religion in terms of paradigm shifts in which older sometimes stagnant forms persist but are enriched by efforts to relate to changing cultures. He continually compares the similarities in the changes that take place in these three Abrahamic religions. While complex, he still makes a very readable and comprehensive story.

I previously read the Quran, several hadith, and few other books about Islam and felt unsatisfied. I wanted more details on what made Muslims believe and act as they do. Kung's ponderous 767-page tome only partially met my expectations. The book includes abundant facts that were, on the whole, objectively presented. However, too much of the book was expended on Kung's opinions, interpretations, and advice, most of which was sympathetic to Islam. In addition, the book was a mind-numbing hard read, probably because the flow was lost in the translation from German.

A Christian theologian has written a 700 page book about Islam and he doesn't have a completely negative view about the religion. Does that mean he is ignorant or an apologist for Islam. That is most likely what some people will accuse Kung of, but their argument will be obliterated by the book itself. It spends a lot of time on the history of Islam, but it gives the practices and beliefs a good share of thought. The reason why he is not an apologist for Islam is because he himself argues against those who present a soft version of Islam. He says on page 598 that the apologetic argument that jihad is only for self-defense purposes "cannot be maintained." In other words, jihad is offensive in addition to defensive. I agree with Kung and many Islamic scholars agree, jihad for Muslims is a duty at any time. Now how does that coincide with the theory that Kung believes that Islam was not spread by the sword? He says that early Muslim armies only invaded for territory, not for spreading the religion by the sword and this makes sense as it coincides with the Quranic injunction that there is no compulsion in religion. The answer is that while Muslims may never force anyone to convert, they are obligated by God to ensure that the message of Islam is heard and seen by everyone. In other words, Muslims must do their best to give people a fair choice between Islam and whatever other belief systems that exist. That choice was not there at the time that Mecca was polytheist dominated and to be a Muslim meant to be tortured and threatened with death. Jihad needed to be done to give Islam the room to be practiced which is how it can be offensive, to clear the path for allowing people to freely choose Islam.

Now as I was reading this book, I was trying to decipher where Kung stood in terms of accepting the Prophethood of Muhammad. He says on page 68 that the Prophet could not have gathered the Quran and put it together because "as it is assumed by Muslims" he could not read or write. He then ends the chapter asking if some people have a special charisma or is the message of the Prophet not his words or the word of God. This is where the dividing line is drawn between believing in Islam and rejecting it. Did the Prophet make up this religion called Islam or was he only a mouthpiece or a bridge for the Creator of the Universe? I am on the side which believes the latter and I assume that Mr. Kung is on the other side or else he would have converted to Islam. Now if we take a close look at the argument that the Prophet made this religion up, we will find that it has holes in it large enough to push a meteor through it. He did not know how to read or write and he was not a philosopher or a scientist or an astronomer or a historian or a theologian yet the Quran presents information that all of these fields would provide. What does that mean? It means that this Quran could not have been compiled by one man in the desert who was illiterate. He needed someone who knew everything already and this was none other than the Supreme Being that we call God. If there is one book I recommend in addition to this one, it would be After Jihad by Noah Feldman. He explains that religion is not the problem in the Islamic world today, but it is politics that has put a straightjacket on the Islamic principles of justice that are inherent in Islam.

Well, I've only read the last 4 or 5 reviews or so, but I think they tend to miss the main point.
In Hans Kung's Islam: Past, present and Future, Kung is attempting to reconcile the message of Muhammed and the Qu'ran with the Christian faith.
To do this, however, he has had to dig beneath centuries of accumulated "gunk" in both religions, and try (through modern scholarship) to get down to the historic bedrocks of both faiths and then compare them.
For instance, Kung spends a lot of time looking at Muhammed-era Christianity (and Judaism) as it existed in the Arabian peninsula. This is important because the New Testament (as we know it today) did not exist at that time. So what did Arabian Christians believe? And given this, what did Muhammed understand of Christianity? And, more importantly, does the message of Muhammed align with the earliest and most fundamental teachings of Christianity? In other words, is the message of Muhammed a message for Christians also? (Remember that Muhammed did not see himself as contradicting the Gospel or the basic teachings of Jesus or the prophets of the Old Testament.)
These are not easy questions to answer, particularly given the huge numbers of layered cultural assumptions in the world's monotheistic faiths that have accumulated over the original material. but Kung does a remarkable job of stripping theology and history down to their bare bones and then investigating the similarities and differences.
This book is therefore only for open minded and intelligent searchers...those looking for some kind of dogmatic attack should go elsewhere.