Scan barcode
joshknape's review against another edition
If you want to know either the history of Islam in general, and especially if you want to know about Islamic theology, Islamic Imperialism is not the book you want. It's what its title describes--a history of empires and imperialist ideologies under the banner of Islam--and discussion of theology other Islam-related subjects is incidental and given only to support the thesis. You largely can't learn from this book what Muslims believe.
That said, it fully explains how for Muslims (especially Arab Muslims), dreams of regional and even world domination are inseparably tied to Islamic beliefs. The key is that unlike Christianity, Islam makes no distinction between sacred and secular government, and so notwithstanding that there is currently no Islamic caliphate (it ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I), Muslims believe that Islam must politically govern the entire temporal world.
Although quite short (under 250 pages) and concise in style, this book is written in a very academic (if concise) style. It expects the reader to already know basic details of Islamic political history (such as the difference between a "caliph" and a "sultan"), and it occasionally uses obscure terms without bothering to explain them.
That said, it fully explains how for Muslims (especially Arab Muslims), dreams of regional and even world domination are inseparably tied to Islamic beliefs. The key is that unlike Christianity, Islam makes no distinction between sacred and secular government, and so notwithstanding that there is currently no Islamic caliphate (it ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I), Muslims believe that Islam must politically govern the entire temporal world.
Although quite short (under 250 pages) and concise in style, this book is written in a very academic (if concise) style. It expects the reader to already know basic details of Islamic political history (such as the difference between a "caliph" and a "sultan"), and it occasionally uses obscure terms without bothering to explain them.
beejai's review against another edition
3.0
As time goes by and I learn and read more, I become more and more suspicious of books that have an incredibly long reach. When books are covering vast stretches of time and are global in their location, be very careful with what they are trying to say. I mean, it is good and we need books like that which give a bird's eye view of a topic, but it becomes much easier to bring in a bias when doing so.
Probably the best example of this would be Karen Armstrong. She is the master of writing historical narratives that cover thousands of years. While technically, her works would be considered history, the selective use of sources and the heavy slant she puts on them sends them (IMHO) more into the category of historical fiction.
This book does the same. Efraim Karsh covers the aggressive militarism of the Islamic world from the time of Muhammed right up to the present day. That's more than fourteen centuries of violence. In doing so, he also is attempting to demonstrate that all this violence was done in a Machiavellian pragmatic way where the leaders were just out for gold and glory. He is trying to say that they are no better, worse, or different than European colonialist powers.
In the facts he does present, Karsh does an excellent job. What is most interesting is the facts he leaves out. With the exception of his final conclusion he almost completely leaves out the religious motivation behind the aggression. There were two specific times he covers that I am most familiar with: the early years of Islam and the Armenian Genocide around the time of WWI. In both of these, it was glaringly obvious to me that his presentation of the facts was incomplete and incredibly slanted and his choice and use of sources questionable. I can only assume that those areas I am less familiar with were treated in a likewise manner.
I really do enjoy long history books like these. I just trust them less and less as time goes on. This book gets 3.5 stars from me, but I am rounding down because I would not recommend this book to anyone who is not already at least somewhat familiar with the topic.
Probably the best example of this would be Karen Armstrong. She is the master of writing historical narratives that cover thousands of years. While technically, her works would be considered history, the selective use of sources and the heavy slant she puts on them sends them (IMHO) more into the category of historical fiction.
This book does the same. Efraim Karsh covers the aggressive militarism of the Islamic world from the time of Muhammed right up to the present day. That's more than fourteen centuries of violence. In doing so, he also is attempting to demonstrate that all this violence was done in a Machiavellian pragmatic way where the leaders were just out for gold and glory. He is trying to say that they are no better, worse, or different than European colonialist powers.
In the facts he does present, Karsh does an excellent job. What is most interesting is the facts he leaves out. With the exception of his final conclusion he almost completely leaves out the religious motivation behind the aggression. There were two specific times he covers that I am most familiar with: the early years of Islam and the Armenian Genocide around the time of WWI. In both of these, it was glaringly obvious to me that his presentation of the facts was incomplete and incredibly slanted and his choice and use of sources questionable. I can only assume that those areas I am less familiar with were treated in a likewise manner.
I really do enjoy long history books like these. I just trust them less and less as time goes on. This book gets 3.5 stars from me, but I am rounding down because I would not recommend this book to anyone who is not already at least somewhat familiar with the topic.
goth's review against another edition
Not giving to give a rating, because that would be unfair.
For me as a layman the book was very dense, certainly not the easiest introduction.
It also seems the author holds his own distinct opinions (for example the reasons behind the Ottomans Empires entrance to WWI). He acknowledges other view points briefly, albeit to shortly for someone like me to fully understand the debate and evaluate the different positions.
For people familiar with the history of the region this should certainly spell an interesting read and possibly challenge some opinions (if I ever become one of them, I'll probably come back). Novices, please consider other options.
For me as a layman the book was very dense, certainly not the easiest introduction.
It also seems the author holds his own distinct opinions (for example the reasons behind the Ottomans Empires entrance to WWI). He acknowledges other view points briefly, albeit to shortly for someone like me to fully understand the debate and evaluate the different positions.
For people familiar with the history of the region this should certainly spell an interesting read and possibly challenge some opinions (if I ever become one of them, I'll probably come back). Novices, please consider other options.
More...