Product Description

This volume tells the whole story of Islam - its origins, doctrines and world-wide political dimension. From Muhammad's proclamation of a monotheism to rival Judaism and Christianity, it traces the emergence of a succession of empires in the wake of the Arab conquests, continuing through to the turbulence of the present-day Middle East.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #683894 in Books
• Published on: 2003-05-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 520 pages

The Independent, 31 May 2003
An absolute godsend. . .Balanced, comprehensive, enlightening — and a triumph for the Rough Guides stable of handy historical reference books

Observer 18 May 2003
The best of all recent publications on Islam

About the Author
Justin Wintle works mainly as a freelance author, editor and journalist. His books include: The Dictionary of Biographical Quotation, Makers of Modern Culture; and Makers of Nineteenth Century Culture; A Dictionary of Arabic and Islamic. He has written for many newspapers, magazines and periodicals. He currently contributes to The Sunday Times, The Financial Times and The Independent.

Customer Reviews

Though it is true ...
Though it is true that the Rough Guide History to Islam is not really a history at all, as the format allows for next to no analysis -- rather this and the others in the series are really chronologies -- the person above who complained that Justin Wintle does not know what he is talking about is himself a baboon. A politically correct baboon. With a politically correct red bottom which is the same colour as his shameless and ignorant face. For example... the fact is that there is no Arab or Islamic history written within three hundred years of the putative advent of Islam in the seventh century AD. There are only Western texts, and none of these set out the argument of the Koran. The suspicion is that the Koran was not at all written down in the seventh century AD but long after, perhaps not until the ninth century AD, and that two or three hundred years were spent in developing Islam -- a far cry from it coming instantly from Allah via the angel Gabriel as Mohammed sat in an Arabian cave. Christians looked at the early inchoate form of Islam and believed it to be a form of Arianism. And there is much in the ultimately evolved Islam to suggest that it developed out of an utterly unmetaphysical, un-Greek monophysitism, indeed monotheism -- if not Arianism than Judaism.

The further you get, the worse it gets
The very early stuff is useful and interesting. As we get into the Abbasid period, there is lots of detail. However, the maps are so basic that they are effectively useless. If you want a sense of place while reading this book, best get an historical atlas and read alongside.

This book looks like a rushed job and the entries for the first half of the twentieth century show it.

The book takes the form of a chronology with all the entries in date order. On p.364 Syria seems to become independent but it's still a French mandate on p.370. No mention is made of the Palestinian uprising in 1936 or of the Peel Commission, a major event in Palestinian history. On p.373 Turkey joins the Axis; in fact it declared war against them. On p.375-76 Mr Wintle mis-attributes the UN partition plan to the US. On p.378 we are told that Stalin was 'anxious that the USSR's unwanted Jews (have) somewhere to go'. While Stalin wasn't keen on Jews, to say the least, events showed that the last thing he wanted was a mass exodus. Rather, he saw Israel as left-leaning (albeit capitalist) country which would upset the imperialist influence of France and Britain in the region. This is why, at the very beginning, Israel's warmest backer was the USSR - hence the secret Russian arms (p.377).

This is a small taste of the inaccuracies and they don't get any better. It may be that the earlier stuff is just as bad, only I don't know the period so well. I feel angered by the obvious mistakes, but still the book is worth reading as long as you stop at p.207

Useful Chronological Reference
The author claims to be a 'non-Muslim historian' as though this gives him objective authority to truthfully research the history of Islam. Why he feels the need to highlight his non-Muslimness becomes apparent through the biased language he uses which draws obvious attention to the fact that he is anti-Islamic. I will draw your attention to the first chapter - perhaps the most important chapter.

page 4.
"Such a reformed society needed an ideology and this was provided by a series of revelations Muhammad CLAIMED to have received from Allah ..."

The implication is glaring that the author feels that Muhammad was a liar who claimed to receive revelation to further his own ends - and does not consider the possibility that Muhammad believed he received revelation which would be a fairer assemssment in light of the evidence -

The author tells us a little later on -

"For the non-Muslim historian, though, there are numerous problems of validation, quite apart from the 'authenticity' of the Koranic revelation. No contemporaneous mention of Muhammad is made in sources outside of Arabia, for instance, and the closest sources we do have for his life and mission are invariably Islamic"

Again the implication is glaring that only western non-Muslim historians can write reliable history - and Islamic history will inevitably be biased towards Islam. I propose that the non-Muslim historian also writes biasly - example below.

My favourite folly of the author is the huge value judgement he then makes without facts - with regards to what I outlined above about evidence and validation;

"It is also likely - THOUGH IT IS NOT RECORDED - that he spends some of his time aquiring a knowledge of Jewish history from Mecca's small Jewish community"

Useful as a chronological guide but it is a shame rough guides have employed a second rate author to write about a great history.