Customer Reviews

Islam: The Religion and the People

5 star:		(47)
4 star:		(36)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Of the making of books about Islam, there is no end, especially not in the post- 9/11 environment. Unfortunately, books about Islam published to a popular readership too often fall into the mutually exclusive categories of hagiography (e.g., those by Karen Armstrong) or demonology (e.g., those of Robert Spencer). Well, almost mutually exclusive. Stephen Schwartz manages both to sanctify Sufism and demonize Wahhabism in the course of one book (The Other Islam). What is needed is a just-the-facts-ma'am approach, which is what Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill provide in Islam: The Religion and the People.

Lewis is a nonagenarian Orientalist of international repute and impeccable scholarship, formerly of Princeton University. Churchill is a past president of the World Affairs Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has authored numerous books on Islam, Arabs, Turks, and all things Middle Eastern. This is their first book together.

In addition to its just-the-facts-ma'am approach, this book is welcome for its concision, evenhanded tone, historical depth, and scope of coverage. This book introduces the reader to the broad spectrum of ethnic groups that identify themselves as Muslim, their faith, their scripture (the Koran), their religious habits, their attitudes toward nonbelievers and deviant believers, their divisions (especially Sunni versus Shia), their history, their attitude toward government and the economy, the role of women, and the challenge of "radical Islam." It also does a good job of comparing and contrasting Islam with its predecessor religions, Judaism and Christianity, and of outlining the competing schools between and within Sunni and Shia Islam. An Appendix addresses issues of Arabic language, the Muslim calendar, and food and drink. And a glossary defines a cornucopia of terms from abaya to Zaidi. One interesting feature of the book is its citation of examples of Muslim humor throughout. Interesting, and very humanizing of Muslims and their faith.

On the other hand, in an introduction of such brief length, there are bound to be disappointments. I was surprised that Lewis and Churchill did not devote a chapter to Muhammad, which is standard in such introductions. The book does not have footnotes, a bibliography, or a list of suggestions for further reading. If this is your first book on Islam, you won't know what to read next. Finally, while the book outlines the various Sunni and Shia schools, it does not explain in sufficient detail the fundamental points that divide them from one another, the exception being its explanation of the basic division between Sunni and Shia Islam itself.

Overall, however, I found this to be a good introductory level text to the religion and people of Islam. If it does nothing else, it will provide interested readers with a tolerant, fair-minded treatment of a group and its faith whose perception in the American mind is too often tainted by apologies or excoriations, but not balanced scholarship.

I am an avid student of Middle Eastern History, Military History and Foreign Policy History, and while I know the basics of Islam, I am by no means well versed in its subtleties or religious tenets, modes of worship, etc. So this slim volume seemed an excellent opportunity to learn something about a religion that weighs so heavily on the subjects above. Unfortunately, what I got was a book that felt like the outline for a much larger book and which says almost nothing about the life and message of Mohammed.

This absence of any discussion of the actual religion of Islam is so puzzling (and glaring) it is almost hard to explain. The best way I can think of is to imagine a non-Christian reading a book ostensibly about Catholicism in which the only discussion of Christ's life is "The apostles spread Jesus' message throughout the Mediterranean basin, eventually supplanting the official pagan religion of Rome." Well, OK, but what was the message? Why did they spread it? Why was it embraced? Etc.

These questions apply equally well to Islam and would seem fundamental to any outsider understanding the religion and yet none are addressed. The authors do a succinct job of explaining the spread of Islam and the various schisms it has faced, but they never actually explain at all what it is Muslim's believe and in what ways it is different from other religious traditions (i.e. Isaac vs Ishmael as the heir of Abraham). Moreover, vastly more lines are spent on Islamic Humor than is spent on what Mohammed did or said or is believed to have done or said.
It is almost as if the book assumes a grounding in Islamic religion prior to reading, which makes no sense because this clearly is a survey text that reads like the textbook (albeit a well written one) for a 100 level college course. Ample attention is paid to subjects of genuine interest like the role of women, finance and radical Islam (to name a few), but absent a grounding in the doctrines of the faith it all seems oddly disconnected.

This isn't a bad book, per se. As I indicated above, it does offer an interesting survey of topics relating to Islam, but I suspect that most potential readers, like myself, are interested in a grounding in the religion, rather than its attendant political and cultural effects, and in that regard "Islam: The Religion and The People" sorely disappoints.

Jake Mohlman

Bernard Lewis' Islam is an antidote to the lies being circulated about Islam by Christian fundamentalists. The first thing that springs to mind on opening up this book is it's sober, matter-of-fact approach to the subject, something which stands in marked contrast to approach taken in fundamentalist circles, where we are commonly told that Muslims worship a black stone, or that they are pagans, etc.

In fifteen chapters, the authors look at such topics as what Muslims DO believe, the role of the mosque, diversity and tolerance, the role of women, of dress, language and writing, as well as radical Islam. By no means is the book perfect. Sometimes a subject seems to end abruptly, without going into detail. An example of this is the section on "Honor Killing and Mutilation." We are given a little information but no examples are provided. At times the text seems choppy, and the book takes on the appearance of a collection of short articles or, in places, factoids. This is less surprising when you consider the broad range of subjects addressed against the book's modest length (223 pages).

These complaints aside, the information provided is useful. The prose is clear and easy to follow and terms are translated. The reader will walk away from this book with a better understanding of what Islam is and what it is not, and in today's volatile religious environment, that can only be seen as a good thing. Highly recommended.

Bernard Lewis's latest collaborative book effort with Buntzie Ellis Churchill, entitled "Islam: The Religion And The People", (hereinafter referred to simply as "book") has resulted in a book worthy of both praise and criticism.

Before I begin any criticism, let me affirm that I am an admirer of Prof. Lewis' work, his scholarship, and his courage in speaking out against radical Islam. My criticism herein is meant to be constructive only and is not meant to dissuade anyone from reading his body of work. I have read many of his books and my understanding of Islam and the Middle East was greatly advanced by doing so. While I have some criticism of the book, I am in complete agreement with many of his conclusions, including his view that the clash of civilizations we are now experiencing is every bit as much of an important World conflict as the previous fight against Nazism and Bolshevism. I also agree with the book's warnings that due to Islam's advance, the West is in serious danger, the outcome of the conflict between the West and radical Islam is in no way assured, and that if we are to survive the threat from radical Islam "it is important to understand precisely and accurately, the source, nature, and purpose of the attack - that is to say, the very identification of the enemy we are to confront." I am further in absolute accord with the book's assessment that Muslim migration to the West has resulted in a potential fifth column beyond terrorists' "wildest dreams" and that "their work is facilitated and even helped by the widespread mood of guilt and self-denigration in the West, often expressed in the form of multiculturalism and political correctness."

For making the foregoing points alone, Bernard Lewis and Ms. Churchill deserve tremendous praise and perhaps even a medal because it takes immense courage to state such views. But the courageous points made in the book are somewhat diminished by other deficiencies that are worthy of discussion.

My greatest disappointment was when I noticed that Prof. Lewis' latest book did not clearly explain the centrality of Muhammad to the Islamic faith nor were the type of unsavory details of Muhammad's life that help anyone trying to understand modern Islamic terrorism clearly explained. I see this deficiency in an inordinate number of books about Islam, but it is more troubling to see such an error of ommission by such a great historian. I was left with the impression that the book either assumed the reader knew of Muhammad's importance to Islam or believed, in error, that the book covered the topic well enough. But this was a book that was clearly designed to be an Islam 101 beginning reader for non-Muslims and, as such, its discussion of Muhammad was wholly inadequate.

I strongly believe that any book that seeks to explain Islam needs to carefully emphasize Muhammad's role in founding the religion and the nature of the religion as an allegedly revealed religion. The failure to do so is a significant flaw in any book that purports to explain Islam no matter how well other important issues are covered.

I was also disappointed to see that Prof. Lewis claimed that any belief that Muslims worshiped Muhammad as Christians worship Jesus is "entirely false." At best, such a statement needs clarification. At worst, the statement is not completely accurate because some people that claim to be Christians deny that Jesus was anything other than a man and their level of worship of Jesus is easily surpassed by much of the Islamic world's worship of Muhammad. Readers of the book would be better served had the following points been clearly made as I will attempt to further clarify and explain below.

As Islam's Founder, Muhammad's Story is Crucial to Understanding Islam

Usually, but not always, a religion's origins can be traced to the shared beliefs and ideas of one individual. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all have this feature in common - they all originated from one founder, but not the same founder. However, there is something more to the two largest religions in the World, Christianity and Islam. They are known as revealed religions. With respect to Islam, this means that the religion arose from the thoughts and ideas of Islam's founder, Muhammad, because he claimed that his thoughts and ideas, at least those set forth in the Qur'an, were revealed by Allah. (Fn. 1)

Muslims have no dispositive proof that Allah spoke to Muhammad or that he was a prophet. (Fn. 2) Islam is, therefore, driven by faith in Muhammad. Faith distinguishes a person's religion from his or her acquired knowledge based upon observation, experience, and education. If one could prove that any particular religion was correct by direct and/or circumstantial evidence, then it would no longer be a religion. It would simply be an awareness of God and his commands much in the same way that one is aware of the government that holds authority over us and those aspects of the law that impact our lives.

Revealed religions like Christianity and Islam depend upon the faith of the religions' adherents that the founder of the religion was who he said he was and that he revealed what God intended for believers to understand about God and how God intended for people to conduct their lives and gain salvation. Muhammad was the sole founder of Islam. Unlike Christianity, Islam's holy Book, the Qur'an, stems solely from its founder. The Bible, by way of comparison, has many contributing authors over many hundreds of years. Because Muhammad was not only Islam's founder, but was also the soul source of the religion's holy book and Islamic doctrine, it is crucial to point out with the maximum possible degree of emphasis that Islam is all about Muhammad and to understand Islam one must have a full understanding of all that is known about Muhammad.

Why Islam is All About Muhammad

The faith aspect of Islam is what differentiates a Muslim from a person that has simply studied Islam and is familiar with Islam's confession of belief. A Muslim is a person who publicly states at least one time with conviction based upon his or her faith that: There is no god but Allah and Muhammad was his Prophet. (Fn. 3) This profession of faith or confession of belief is known to Muslims as the Shahada - an Arabic word meaning to testify. A person that says the Shahada with conviction is a Muslim because he or she is believed, in essence, to be testifying that there is only one God named Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet. Muslim means one who surrenders or submits in Arabic. Muslims are taught to say the Shahada five specific times per day during ritualistic prayers while facing Mecca. Given that, amongst other things, Muslims, at least practicing Muslims, say that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah multiple times every day during prayers, that belief is indelibly and deeply imprinted into their belief system. The overwhelming reinforcement that occurs in Islamic culture that Muhammad is Allah's prophet and messenger begins at birth and continues throughout life. As one narrator accurately and eloquently phrased it, the Shahada is "whispered into the ear of every newborn Muslim child and lingers on the lips of the dying. They [words of the Shahada] have been the subject of Islamic poets and calligraphers down through the ages." (Fn. 4)

Given the centrality of and absolute importance of Muhammad to Islam, it would be more accurate amongst non-Muslims to refer to Muslims as Muhammadans and Islam as Muhammadanism given that the religion is predicated entirely upon what Muhammad alleged Allah revealed to him, Muhammad's life and Muhammad's instructions. It is not, therefore, surprising that countless people from all walks of life have referred to Islam as Muhammadanism for centuries.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the beginning of wisdom with respect to an understanding of Islam is the realization that Muhammad did not just bring monotheism to the Arabian Peninsula. Seventh century Arabs were probably eventually headed toward monotheism anyway. Of far more significance is the fact that Muhammad also brought the belief that Muhammad was the Prophet, Apostle, and Messenger of Allah, that Muhammad had to be obeyed as commanded by Allah, and that Muhammad's life was the perfect example for living. It is this aspect of Islam that so negatively impacts the modern world.

The aspect of Islamic belief that Allah commanded that Muhammad must be obeyed and, further, that his life is a perfect example for Muslims to follow has overwhelming ramifications when trying to gain an understanding of Islam. It is not, therefore, hyperbole to say that Islam is all about Muhammad. The very name of the largest sect of Muslims, Sunni Muslims, derives from the word Sunna, which means "path"the path being the following of Muhammad's example.

Muhammad is Seemingly Worshiped by Millions of Muslims

Muhammad is so central to Islam that one of the objective measurements of how well one understands Islam is the degree to which it is understood that Muhammad has been all but deified in Islamic culture. While Muslims deny that Muhammad was anything more than a man whose life was a perfect example to emulate - the Quran states that Allah instructed Muhammad to tell others: "I am only a mortal like you" (Fn. 5) - in reality the degree of reverence and devotion afforded him suggests that somewhere along the line he was raised to near divine status by much of the Islamic world. This reality explains why Muslims can become so violent over perceived insults to Muhammad.

While many people are familiar with the controversy that arose after Salmon Rushdie published the Satanic Verses in the United States and after cartoons that depicted Muhammad were published in 2005 by a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten, less well known incidents occur periodically that highlight the near deification of Muhammad. For example, in 2002, riots erupted killing 200 people after a Nigerian newspaper suggested that if Muhammad were alive at the time that he might have chosen his bride from among beauty contestants. While these violent eruptions are typically portrayed by the media as unrepresentative of Islam, the reality is that such homicidal rage resulting from criticism of Muhammad is deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine. For example, when Muhammad and his warriors marched on Mecca and the Meccans surrendered, most were spared but Muslim apostates and anyone that was known to have criticized Muhammad or made satirical statements about him were murdered as clearly set forth in the Sirat Rasul Allah as translated by A. Guillaume. (See also Fn. 6) What is also truly ironic about the violence is that the statement that Muhammad would have chosen a bride from among the beauty contests is probably accurate. Muhammad had an eye for lovely women. He had numerous wives and relationships with his slaves. His recorded history undisputably reveals that he took captured women as wives or concubines. A man that went so far as to take his adopted son's wife as his own and to proclaim that God supported the conduct would have had no qualms whatsoever about taking one or more of the beauty contestants as wives or concubines.

One of the definitions of worship is "ardent devotion or adoration." It is undeniable that there is significant ardent devotion or adoration of Muhammad throughout the Islamic world. What other conclusion can we draw other than there is some level of worship when violence erupts as a result of fair, seemingly innocuous comment about a beauty pageant. While official Christian doctrine would at first blush seem to go much further in causing worship of Jesus than does Islamic doctrine cause worship of Muhammad, in practice many Muslims seem far more protective of Muhammad and certainly act in anger at the slightest insult to him whereas Christians seem to tolerate the most severe, irreverent criticism, depictions and portrayals of Jesus without violence. Accordingly, while Prof. Lewis makes an arguable point when he states that any belief that Muslims worshiped Muhammad as Christians worship Jesus is "entirely false," his analysis of Islam and the degree of understanding he imparts to his readers would be far better served by a more clear explanation of his point because there is undeniably significant worship of Muhammad throughout the Islamic world. However, readers of Prof Lewis' book might, in error, well conclude otherwise. I suspect that there is a certain teacher still smarting from the so-called teddy bear incident that could perhaps enlighten Prof. Lewis as to Muslims' actual sentiments about Muhammad. I am, of course, referring to the 2007 incident wherein Sudanese authorities threatened a British teacher with 40 lashes and a Muslim mob threatened to kill her after she allowed her young students to name a teddy bear Muhammad in a class project. If such an incident is not evidence of some degree of worship, I cannot help but wonder what would constitute such evidence.

An Understanding of Muhammad's Violent Acts Helps Explain Islamic Terrorism

The book also could have and should have explained far more of the details of Muhammad's life that modern terrorists emulate. New students of Islam would clearly have a better understanding of Islam if they understood that Muhammad had critics and rivals alike killed, that he ordered captives beheaded and tortured, that he waged war for no reason other than those he attacked were non-Muslims, and that Islam alone among the World's religions commands the faithful to wage war on non-believers for the sole reason that they do not accept that Muhammad was God's prophet. (Fn. 7) While Prof. Lewis does give some information on these topics, he seems to refrain from full disclosure and a completely candid discussion. It may be that as an academic he fears the backlash that might ensue from such a candid discussion.

The Book also does not Carefully Distinguish between Original Islam and Evolved Versions

I was also disappointed in the book in that it seems as if Prof. Lewis uses some evolved version of Islam as a baseline when he makes such statements as "[t]oday we face a third such totalitarian perversion -- this time, not of a country, nor of an ideology, but of a religion, Islam." Prof. Lewis seems to justify his position based on friendlier versions of Islam that appeared over the ages and what he views as perversions of the Islam practiced by moderate Muslims. However, I think his readers would be better served to be taught what Islam was as preached and practiced by Muhammad and then clearly delineating it from softer versions of Islam that developed at various times and places over the centuries. While I agree that terrorists seem to take some liberties with Islamic doctrine, there is a great deal of support within actual Islamic doctrine for their views and conduct and they are hardly "hijacking" Islam or "perverting "Islam" simply because other Muslims have at certain times and places developed a more peaceful version of Islam than the one actually established by Muhammad himself. If anything, it seems that peaceful Muslims are the ones that hijacked or perverted the religion and we would be far better off if they simply converted to Christianity rather than pretend that Islam is something that it is not and in the process causing such confusion about the true, original nature of Islam. While Muslim apologists can and do craft many disingenuous arguments that seek to place the harsher aspects of Islamic doctrine in a softer light, the history of Muhammad and his first coverts proves that the harsher aspects of Islamic doctrine were meant to be taken literally.

Suicide Bombings Do Not Take as Much Liberty With Islamic Doctrine as Asserted in the Book

One alleged perversion of Islam that Prof. Lewis discusses is the modern phenomenon of the suicide bomber. Islam certainly denounces suicide and suicide bombers are a new development in Islam given that, obviously, there were no bombs in Muhammad's time, but the concept is a mere degree of change from the prior belief that a man that willingly goes to certain death fighting non-Muslims "in the name of Allah" was assured his place in paradise to the belief that a suicide bomber who does the same thing, but whose death arises from his own attack on the enemy as opposed to the enemy's direct hand, is also assured of paradise because the goal is not suicide, but to kill the enemy for Allah. It follows that while the suicide bomber may well be a new development in Islam as Prof. Lewis states, it does not seem to be nearly as much of a clear-cut "perversion of Islam" as Prof. Lewis appears to believe. Sadly, while the terrorists may be taking some liberties with their faith, they nonetheless seem to be far closer to the Islam Muhammad preached and practiced than cultural Muslims that are perfectly comfortable living in peace with non-Muslims without, at a minimum, reducing them to dhimmi status.

Terrorist leaders can and do make very convincing arguments that Islamic doctrine supports their conduct. Their arguments are, at least to those that accept the Qur'an as the literal word of God and accept Muhammad as a perfect example to emulate, far more convincing than the disingenuous arguments of those that have tried to falsely portray Islam as a religion of peace. Religions seem to generate a certain spirit in their most ardent followers that varies from religion to religion. The modern spirit of Islam seems to drive the most deeply devout toward hatred and violence toward non-Muslims and quite often other Muslims. The hatred, at least toward non-Muslims, is very well supported by Islamic doctrine. One thing that cannot be denied is that Islamic terrorists are acting well within the spirit generated by Islam from nearly its inception as a religion that promoted hatred and violence toward non-Muslims. In that regard, Islamic terrorists are being just as faithful to their religion as Mother Teresa was faithful to the original spirit of Christianity by seeking to help the poor and downtrodden.

Finally on this topic, I am not so sure that there is not some actual support for suicide/homicide bombings in Islamic doctrine. In the Sirat Rasul Allah, regarding the attack on the Khaybar Jews, a story is told of a Muslim warrior who died when his "sword turned upon him as he was fighting and gave him such a grievous wound that he died of it." Exactly what happened is not made clear, but it may be that his sword was deflected back and caused the Muslim warrior to mortally injure himself. In any event, the Muslims were in doubt as to whether the warrior died a martyr under such circumstances because he died, just like a suicide bomber does, of his own weapon. However, Muhammad declared that "certainly he is a martyr." Again, exactly what is meant by his sword turning on him is not clear, but this passage certainly lends some support to the notion that one can die as a result of one's own weapon while killing non-Muslims and nevertheless die a martyr with Muhammad's blessing. As such, the modern suicide/bomber is not nearly the absolutely clear-cut "perversion" of Islam as alleged in the book. Muhammad exhibited a great deal of pragmatism when it came to killing non-Muslims and an overall understanding of Muhammad and how he lived and what he said arguably does support any means whatsoever that is employed to advance the spread of Islam and the destruction of any enemy in the way of "war in Allah's cause" also known as Jihad. At a minimum, the legitimacy of the suicide/homicide bomber as an Islamic martyr is an arguable point.

The Book Does Not Explain the Danger of Moderate Islam

The book goes too far in asserting that it is a perversion of Islam threatening Western civilization. Given such a view, it comes as no surprise that Prof. Lewis gives no indication in his book that we should be concerned about moderate Muslims and if he does it is so subtly stated that i missed the point. However, if we are to be honest and true to ourselves and our inalienable right to survival, we must concede that Islam is a threat in all of its guises.

Moderate Muslims have no legitimate doctrinal support for their peaceful version of Islam. As a result, moderate Muslims are not nearly as vibrant and motivated a group as fundamentalist Muslims are and offer nominal assistance and support, if any, to non-Muslims terrorized by fundamentalists. A small number of fundamentalists seem capable, therefore, of controlling vastly greater numbers of the less devout and radical.

Worse yet, moderate Muslims seem to have fallen into the role of a Trojan horse. While they may be passive and not overtly dangerous much in the same way as the wooden Trojan horse was not dangerous in and of itself, their presence protects and hides fundamentalist Muslims. Moderate Muslims inadvertently act as a shield for the radicals. It is also the existence of moderate Muslims that confuse Westerners about the nature of Islam. In short, moderate Muslims make it hard to identify, root out, and destroy Islamic terrorists.

Further, because individual Muslims sometimes display great individual qualities, we continue to allow Muslims to immigrate to the West despite the fact that Muslim immigration results in a certain percentage of fundamentalist Muslims infiltrating the West and inevitable Islamic inroads into Western culture with all of the evils that follow.

From where do the terrorists recruit their members? It is, of course, from the ranks of moderate Muslims. Even the children of moderate Muslims sometimes become fundamentalist Muslims in Western countries. While their parents, foe example, may have cut their teeth on moderate Islam while growing up in those parts of the World where some government exerts control over what is taught in the Mosque, their children receive the full Wahhabis blast in Western nations where the Saudis and others are free to control the nature of what is taught by their financing of Mosques and the training of the Imams that teach in them.

It may well be that it is the so-called moderate Muslims that turn out to be Allah's best weapon against Western culture. The migration of Muslims to Western nations is unprecedented in history. The long-term effect will be no different than the Muslim migrations that followed the great Arab Conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries. The only difference is that this time no military victory was needed to clear the path for the migration.

Conclusion

Why it is that Western nations with deeply established and cherished values that are completely at odds with Islamic/Muslim values allow so many Muslims to settle within their borders so as to threaten the very nature of Western culture is beyond comprehension. Perhaps, at least in part, it stems from the failure of so many books about Islam and alleged experts on Islam from telling the complete truth about the nature of the religion as nothing more than pure Muhammadanism with all that necessarily follows from that conclusion. Sadly, Bernard Lewis' latest book has fallen into the same error albeit to a far lesser degree than most other books about Islam.

I found this book to have been a very helpful (and readable) resource in understanding a subject I originally knew very little about. Although I still do not feel confident enough to actually have discussions about Islam, I no longer feel completely in the dark about something so foreign to my own particular culture. Lewis puts Islam into a global context, discussing its history, hardships, triumphs, and practice. He makes it easier to grasp the difficulties that many Westerners may have when trying to perceive and/or assess Islamic culture through our own (often) secularized lens. But make no mistake: Lewis does not ultimately present Islam as the peaceful religion that the politically correct world would have us to believe, and I think his last few chapters are most revealing on this notion. Like Christianity, Islam is a religion of both peace and war. One particular passage that struck me is the following, where Lewis explains that, for Muslims,
"the world is divided into two parts: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), where Muslims rule and Muslim law is enforced, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world where infidels still rule. According to traditional teaching, the obligation of jihad will continue until all the world either adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule. This perpetual war may be interrupted by truces, which may even be of long duration, but it does not end until final victory. In fact, such `truces' do not differ greatly from the so-called `treaties of peace' that punctuated the military and diplomatic relations of rival European powers through the centuries" (148-49).
Yet the last page of Lewis' conclusion puts the matter, I think, into a more glaring light:
"If we are to survive this threat -- and it is by no means certain that we will -- it is important to understand, precisely and accurately, the source, nature, and purpose of the attack -- that is to say, the very identity of the enemy that we confront" (167).
I was left wondering whether this was a plea to Westerners to confront our own ignorance regarding such a huge population of the world, or, by immediately and unambiguously calling (radical) Muslims "the enemy," whether it is rather a fuzzy, yet defensive declaration of war?

"Islam: The Religion and the People" is a good primer on the Islamic faith, but it doesn't live up to its billing in discussing the followers of the faith. Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and pundit on Islam-Western relations, and co-author Buntzie Ellis Churchill present the history and traditional practice of Islam in basic terms for the Western reader. They elucidate the role that religion plays in public life in Muslim nations and distinguish between Islamic orthodoxy and aberrant doctrines espoused by some radical groups who have adopted self-styled versions of Islam in order to legitimize illegal, often violent, behavior toward Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The book imparts a basic understanding of the Muslim faith and its role in Muslim culture and government. We get a whirlwind history of Islam and the Muslim world's relationship with Christendom, including analysis of the differences and similarities between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and their central doctrines. Islamic Law (Shari'a), Sunni and Shi'a Islam, the diversity of accepted theologies, the function of mosques, the place of women, war, and Islamic economic practices are also discussed. This includes comment on the legality of some recent East-West clashes such as the 1989 fatwah issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini calling for the deaths of novelist Salmon Rushdie and his publishers and the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet in 2005.

There is almost no discussion, however, of how modern Muslims really live. Reading this book, one would get the impression that all Muslims follow the faith as it was 1000 years ago. In reality, Muslim countries have populations that range from secular to "fundamentalist", with most people deriving a certain structure and value system from Islam but little more. Even women in Iran and Saudi Arabia wear mini skirts under their abayas. "Islam" will help the reader understand the basis for the institutions and the values that pervade Islamic cultures, but it is very little help in understanding what the average Muslim does or thinks about it. The discussion of radical Islam is likewise cursory, and it fails to mention the infamous abuse of "takfir" by radicals to justify attacks on fellow Muslims.

It would be remiss in today's world to discuss a book about Islam without mentioning its politics. The authors view Islam as a religion that has been moderate and historically more tolerant of non-believers than Western cultures were until the Enlightenment and recent radicalism as a deviant movement that imperils the Muslim world. That is a conventional view of Islam. But the authors' politics are evident in their condemnation of secular Marxist regimes, polygamy, and Hezbollah. And they reach the unbelievable conclusion that "it is by no means certain" that the West will survive the threat of radical Islam, which they consider a monstrous enemy of civilization. Um, really, while radicals are certainly a threat to the Muslim world, they can do no more than take pot shots at the West. "Islam: The Religion and the People" is a good primer on Islam but does not attempt to educate the reader on how modern Muslims live and fares poorly in addressing Islamic-Western relations in anything but the broadest terms. It seems dashed-off to me.

Islam is and has been a hot topic of discussion for many years. In spite of that, many Westerners have a deficit of solid information on the subject. This is a remedy to that.

It is more of an overview than an in-depth look at this topic. The authors cover a lot of ground. It includes the following: The Five Pillars of Islam, history of Islamic law, women, dress, and much more.

The authors cover the good and bad including such things as female genital mutilation, terrorism, suicide bombers, and other newsworthy items. There are some facts related in here that will be a surprise to many. One of these is that the Islamic tradition is strongly against suicide. Another is this: 'At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism.'

The case is accurately made: 'Most Muslims are not fundamentalists', and 'most fundamentalists are not terrorists'. These are good points. They are balanced by the commentary that these facts are 'obscured by the unwillingness of some Muslim communal leaders and religious dignitaries to condemn terrorist acts unequivocally.'

In addition to the wealth of information provided, there are several examples of Islamic humor throughout that make it fun as well.

This is a good look at an important topic. I recommend it.

Bernard Lewis has been called "the doyen of Middle East studies." He is undeniably one of the most prolific and controversial writers on Islam in the western world today.

Lewis' latest work, in collaboration with Buntzie Churchill, is an extremely basic primer targeted to a mainstream (one might say "less sophisticated") audience. Like his other recent treatises, such as "The Crisis of Islam" and "What Went Wrong?," this book draws heavily on his extended and more academically substantive previous work. Indeed, whole paragraphs are nearly lifted verbatim from one book to the other. Unlike his other recent popular works, "Islam" generally steers clear of contemporary political analysis and assertive commentary.

In short, this book is sufficient as a general and balanced introduction to Islam for high school-aged Americans. If you are more mature and more broadly educated but relatively ignorant of Islamic history and religious practices, I would strongly recommend Reza Aslan's "No god but God" as a better place to start than this.

This book could be read both from start to finish, or browsed through to read up on the topic of choice, though I'd recommend reading the first three chapters at least as background before jumping to other areas of the book.

The writing style is engaging but dry. It's an easy read, but don't think for a moment that means it lacks lots of relevant information.

For me, personally, "Islam, the religion and the people", has educated me on multiple levels - explaining the religion, of course, but also how these Muslim beliefs translate into societal behavior and individual actions. I'm reading Robert Baer's "The Devil we Know", just now, and with both books combined, I feel as if I've discovered an entire new world, one which is both intriguing and certainly at times, frightening.

In the discussions of the treatment of women, for example, we learn that Muslim men can find a way to have almost anything they want -- fully sanctioned. If they wish to visit a prostitute, they can have a 'temporary' marriage, for a set term which can be a day, or years, as the man wishes. In general, women's rights in strict Islamic countries are regressing, not progressing.

This book is full of information like this - and it doesn't just tell you the fact, it explains WHY they believe and act as they do in each case. In his conclusion, Lewis leaves us with a rather chilling overall picture of Islam, and tells us "To fight an enemy, it is necessary to understand him."

For students of both comparative religions as well as world politics, this book is a fascinating MUST read.

This fairly slim book (256 pages) is a great introduction to Islam -- the beliefs, the history, the people, the different sects, etc. (Finally, I know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a!).

I found it to be a tad dry at times, but definitely more readable than many other books of this variety. Particularly helpful is a large glossary in the back that explains many terms that people reading or hearing about Islam might encounter.

If you're really interested in learning about Islam in depth, you'll probably need to do more reading. But for someone who just wants to look beyond the spin and learn more about the religion and the people who practice it, especially as they relate to world events, this is a great resource.