2021/08/24

The Kite Runner (film) - Wikipedia

The Kite Runner (film) - Wikipedia

The Kite Runner (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Kite Runner
Kite Runner film.jpg
Theatrical release poster
Directed byMarc Forster
Screenplay byDavid Benioff
Based onThe Kite Runner
by Khaled Hosseini
Produced byWilliam Horberg
Walter F. Parkes
Rebecca Yeldham
E. Bennett Walsh
StarringKhalid Abdalla
Zekeria Ebrahimi
Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada
Homayoun Ershadi
CinematographyRoberto Schaefer
Edited byMatt Chesse
Music byAlberto Iglesias
Production
companies
Distributed byDreamWorks Pictures
Paramount Classics
Release date
  • December 14, 2007
Running time
128 minutes
CountryUnited States
LanguagesDari
English
Pashto
Urdu
Budget$20 million[1]
Box office$73.2 million[2]

The Kite Runner is a 2007 American drama film directed by Marc Forster from a screenplay by David Benioff and based on the 2003 novel of the same name by Khaled Hosseini. It tells the story of Amir, a well-to-do boy from the Wazir Akbar Khan district of Kabul who is tormented by the guilt of abandoning his friend Hassan. The story is set against a backdrop of tumultuous events, from the fall of the monarchy in Afghanistan through the Soviet military intervention, the mass exodus of Afghan refugees to Pakistan and the United States, and the Taliban regime.

Though most of the film is set in Afghanistan, these parts were mostly shot in KashgarChina, due to the dangers of filming in Afghanistan at the time.[3] The majority of the film's dialogue is in persian dari, with the remainder spoken in English and a few short scenes in Pashto and Urdu. The child actors are native speakers, but several adult actors had to learn Dari. Filming wrapped up on December 21, 2006, and the film was expected to be released on November 2, 2007. However, after concern for the safety of the young actors in the film due to fears of violent reprisals to the sexual nature of some scenes in which they appear, its release date was pushed back six weeks to December 14, 2007.[4] The controversial scenes also resulted in the film being banned from cinemas and distribution in Afghanistan itself.[5]

Made on a budget of $20 million,[1] the film earned $73.2 million worldwide.[2] The film received generally positive reviews from critics and was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2007. The film's score by Alberto Iglesias was nominated for Best Original Score at the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards.

Plot[edit source]

Setting: San Francisco, 2000[edit source]

The film opens with an Afghan-American writer, Amir Qadiri, and his wife, Soraya, who are watching children flying kites at a bayside park. When they arrive home, Amir finds waiting for him packages of his new novel, A Season for Ashes, which has just been published. Soraya refers to the book as Amir's "baby," hinting at the couple's inability to have a child of their own. Amir then receives an unexpected call from an old friend of his father's, Rahim Khan, who is living in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Flashback: Kabul, 1978–79[edit source]

Ten-year-old Amir is the son of a wealthy man, known locally by the honorific title "Agha Sahib." (Amir refers to him as "Baba," meaning "father.") Agha Sahib, a philanthropist and iconoclast, is a Pashtun living in Kabul. Amir's best friend Hassan is the son of the Agha Sahib's Hazara servant, Ali. Amir participates in the sport of kite fighting, popular among the boys of Kabul. Two kite flyers compete to cut each other's kite strings, the defeated kite becoming the prize of the winner. Hassan serves as Amir's spool-holder and "kite runner," who retrieves the defeated kite. Hassan has the ability to determine where the loose kite will land without watching its course through the air. Hassan has deadly aim with his slingshot, and one day on Hassan's birthday, Amir gives Hassan a slingshot made in the United States. Hassan pledges his loyalty to Amir, swearing that he would eat dirt if Amir so asked.

Amir also is a writer, and he often reads to the illiterate Hassan. Hassan particularly likes to hear the story of Rostam and Sohrab from the Persian epic Shahnameh. Baba disapproves of his son's bookishness, and complains to his friend and business associate Rahim Khan that the boy doesn't stand up for himself, letting Hassan fight his battles for him. Amir overhears this conversation and Rahim Khan goes to Amir's room to assure him that his father loves him. Amir says that he believes that his father resents him because Amir's mother died in childbirth. Rahim Khan also encourages Amir to keep writing.

Amir and Hassan are often bullied by an older Pashtun boy, Assef and Assef's two friends, who harbor ethnic hatred against Hazaras. Cornered one day by the three boys, Hassan protects Amir by threatening Assef with his slingshot. The bullies flee, but Assef promises revenge.

Amir then enters the citywide kite-fighting contest, while his father, (who was a champion in his youth) and Rahim Khan, watch proudly from a balcony. Amir then breaks his father's record of 14 "kills", and Hassan sprints off to "run" for the last defeated kite. After Hassan has been gone for some time, Amir decides to look for him, and finds Hassan trapped in a dead end by Assef and his two friends. However, Amir does not assist Hassan because he is too afraid to intervene, and decides instead to watch the events unfold while concealed.

Assef then demands Amir's kite as a payment for letting Hassan go and Hassan refuses, asserting that the kite rightfully belongs to Amir. Assef then beats and rapes Hassan in retaliation, while his friends hold the boy down. Disgusted, Amir flees the scene, and when Hassan emerges bleeding, Amir pretends not to know what has happened. Unfortunately, Amir is wracked with guilt over the next few weeks and avoids Hassan, who spends all his free time in bed. Ali and Baba then question Amir to find out why Hassan is acting so strangely, but Amir feigns ignorance about what actually happened to Hassan.

One day, Amir walks to the tree where he often read stories to Hassan, and finds Hassan teaching himself to read. Angry, Amir accuses Hassan of cowardice, and throws pomegranates at him, while daring Hassan to strike him. Hassan respectfully refuses, and instead picks up a pomegranate which he smashes into his own face. Later on, Amir asks his father if he has ever considered replacing his servants Ali and Hassan. Baba then angrily rebukes Amir, declaring that since Ali has worked for the family for over 40 years, Ali and Hassan will always stay with them.

Baba then throws a massive party for Amir's birthday, but Amir is unable to enjoy it, due to memories of what happened to Hassan. Assef also attends with his father, and Amir is forced to accepts his enemy's gift and well-wishes. Rahim Khan presents Amir with a blank book for his stories, and senses something is amiss. He assures Amir that Amir can tell him anything. However the next day, instead of telling the truth, Amir decides to plant his new wristwatch, a birthday present from his father, under Hassan's pillow, and tells everyone that Hassan stole it. Hassan is confronted by Amir's father, and instead of professing innocence, he falsely confesses to stealing it. Although Hassan is quickly forgiven, his father lets Agha Sahib know that he and his son can no longer work for him, and much to Baba's distress, they pack their belongings and leave.

In June 1979, the Soviet Union militarily intervenes. Agha Sahib leaves his house in the care of Rahim Khan and flees to Pakistan with his son. They travel by truck with other refugees and, along the way, they are stopped by a Soviet Army private, who demands sex with a young wife and mother who is among the refugees. Amir's father intervenes, daring the soldier to shoot him, but the situation is defused when the soldier's superiors appear. The husband of the young wife thanks Agha Sahib, who tells the husband that no thanks is necessary. Later, the refugees are transferred into the empty belly of an oil truck in order to be effectively smuggled across the border undetected. Amir is frightened by their circumstances, and Agha Sahib comforts him by having Amir recite poems.

Flash Forward: Fremont, California, 1988[edit source]

Baba runs a service station and operates a stall at a weekly flea market. Amir earns a degree at a local community college, and Baba, though disappointed that Amir wants to be a writer rather than a physician, says that Amir can earn money by working with him.

One day at the flea market, Amir's father introduces him to General Taheri, another Pashtun and a former officer in the Afghan army. In passing, Amir meets Taheri's daughter, Soraya, and Baba notices that Amir finds her attractive. Later, Amir gives Soraya a copy of one of his stories for her to read, but the General, who has little regard for artists, takes the story from Soraya, tosses it aside, and speaks dismissively to Amir.

Soon after, Baba is diagnosed with lung cancer, and he becomes gravely ill. Baba refuses to stay at the hospital and wishes to live his last days at home. After Amir brings him home, he asks his father to ask General Taheri for his daughter's hand in marriage. Taheri agrees, but Amir's father tells him that Soraya wants to speak with him. On a chaperoned stroll, Soraya reveals that when the Taheris were living in Virginia, she ran away with a Pashtun man and lived with him until her father came to retrieve her. Soon after, the Taheris moved to California to flee the gossip surrounding them. Amir is shocked, but still pledges his love, and they marry. Baba dies soon afterward.

Flash Forward, 2000[edit source]

Rahim Khan persuades Amir to visit him in Pakistan. He tells Amir that the situation is bad, but that Amir has an opportunity to "be good again." Amir cancels his book tour and goes to Peshawar. Rahim Khan, who is dying, tells Amir that after several unsuccessful stints with caretakers at Baba and Amir's home, which Rahim Khan had been looking after, he had asked Hassan to return, which Hassan did, with his wife and son. Later, Rahim Khan had to flee to Pakistan when his own health deteriorated and the Taliban took over power after the civil war. But Hassan and his family remained in the home. One day, the Taliban appeared at the house and demanded that Hassan vacate the premises, declaring that no Hazara could be in legitimate possession of the house. Hassan refused to surrender the house, and the Taliban executed him in the street, then also killed his wife. Hassan's son, Sohrab, was taken to an orphanage. Rahim Khan urges Amir to return to Kabul to find Sohrab and give him a letter written by Hassan, who had taught himself to read and write. Amir resists until Rahim Khan reveals that Hassan was not really Ali's biological son. Rahim Khan says that Amir's father, Agha Sahib, had had an affair with Ali's wife and was the true biological father of Hassan, as Ali was infertile.

Amir agrees to go to Kabul, accompanied by a driver, Farid, who helps him don a disguise with a fake beard and negotiate the Taliban-controlled city. Amir and Farid go to the orphanage where Sohrab was taken and learn that Sohrab was taken away by a Taliban official who occasionally takes away young girls or boys. They are told that they can meet the Taliban official at a soccer/football match in Ghazi Stadium. Amir and Farid attend the match, where they witness the Taliban stoning adulterers at half-time. Amir manages to get an appointment to see the Taliban official.

After arriving at the Taliban official's house, Amir is surprised to find that the assistant of the official is actually Assef, who recognizes Amir immediately, even with the fake beard. Assef presents Sohrab as his dance boy. Assef agrees to let Sohrab go, but he begins to beat Amir as "payment." In the confusion, Sohrab is able to pull out his slingshot—the same slingshot that Amir had given to Hassan when they were boys—and shoots Assef in the eye. Sohrab and an injured Amir manage to escape through a window and flee in Farid's car.

When they get back to Peshawar, they find that Rahim Khan has died, but he has left a letter for Amir. The next morning, Sohrab has disappeared. Amir desperately searches for Sohrab in the city, ending up following a boy to a mosque. When Amir returns to Rahim's apartment, he finds Sohrab waiting for him in the stairway. Sohrab reveals that Assef would rape him before morning prayers and that he'd left because he didn't want his abuser to "get him" anymore. Amir assures Sohrab that that will not happen again.

Back in San Francisco, Amir introduces Sohrab to Soraya, and the couple welcomes Sohrab into their home. Later, Amir's father-in-law General Taheri demands to know why they have taken in "that Hazara boy." Amir reveals that Sohrab is his half-brother's son and stands up to his father-in-law to demand respect for the boy. The film ends with Amir teaching Sohrab how to fly kites and volunteering to act as Sohrab's "runner." As Amir runs off to fetch the defeated kite, he repeats, to Sohrab, the words Hassan had said to Amir when they were boys: "For you, a thousand times over."

Cast[edit source]

  • Khalid Abdalla as Amir Qadiri, a young novelist who fled to the U.S. as a boy during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
  • Zekeria Ebrahimi as Young Amir
  • Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada as Young Hassan, Amir's childhood friend who was the victim of brutal torment. It's later revealed Hassan was Amir's brother.
  • Homayoun Ershadi as the Agha Sahib (Baba)
  • Atossa Leoni as Soraya, the daughter of General Taheri and Amir's spouse.
  • Shaun Toub as Rahim Khan
  • Saïd Taghmaoui as Farid
  • Abdul Salaam Yusoufzai as Assef, Amir and Hassan's childhood tormenter who became a Taliban official as an adult.
  • Elham Ehsas as Young Assef
  • Ali Danish Bakhtyari as Sohrab
  • Maimoona Ghezal as Jamila Taheri
  • Abdul Qadir Farookh as General Taheri
  • Khaled Hosseini (cameo) as Doctor in the park
  • Camilo Cuervo as a Taliban Soldier
  • Nasser Memarzia as Zaman, an orphanage director
  • Mohamad Amin Rahimi as a Taliban official who made speeches in Ghazi Stadium
  • Chris Verrill as Dr. Starobin, a Russian-American doctor
  • Amar Kureishi as Dr. Amani, an Iranian doctor
  • Nabi Tanha as Ali, Agha Sahib's house servant
  • Ehsan Aman as a singer at Amir's and Soraya's wedding
  • Mehboob Ali as Amir's taxi driver in Pakistan

The two child actors were aged 11 and 12 at the time of the filming.[6][7]

Production[edit source]

Due to dangers of filming in Afghanistan, much of the film was recorded instead in the western Chinese city of Kashgar, which is located about 500 miles from Kabul and shares many visual similarities.[3]

Critical reception[edit source]

The film received generally positive reviews. As of June 2020, the film holds a 65% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 176 reviews with an average rating of 6.44/10. The site's critics' consensus states: "Despite some fine performances, The Kite Runner is just shy of rendering the magic of the novel on to the big screen."[8] On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 61 out of 100, based on 34 reviews.[9]

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times named it the 5th best film of 2007.[10]

Controversy[edit source]

Though the child actors enjoyed making the film, they and their families expressed worries about their situation after the film's release. Regarding one scene, Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada (young Hassan) said, "I want to continue making films and be an actor but the rape scene upset me because my friends will watch it and I won't be able to go outside any more. They will think I was raped."[6] The scene was depicted in a less harrowing manner than originally planned; it contained no nudity, and the sexual aspect of the attack was suggested only very briefly at the end of the scene (also, a body double was used).[11] There were also fears of intertribal reprisals, as the character Hassan was a Hazara and the boys who bullied and raped him were Pashtun.[12]

The government of Afghanistan at the time, led by President Hamid Karzai, decided to ban the film from theaters and DVD shops, both because of the rape scene and the ethnic tensions. The deputy Information and Culture minister said: "It showed the ethnic groups of Afghanistan in a bad light. We respect freedom of speech, we support freedom of speech, but unfortunately we have difficulties in Afghan society, and if this film is shown in the cinemas, it is humiliating for one of our ethnic groups."[13][14]

For their work on the movie, Zekeria Ebrahimi (young Amir) and Mahmoodzada were initially paid $17,500 (£9,000)[15] each, and Ali Dinesh $13,700 (£7,000). Arguments were later made that the boys were underpaid.[6] Additionally, Ebrahimi has said, "We want to study in the United States. It's a modern country and more safe than here in Kabul. If I became rich here I would be worried about security. It's dangerous to have money because of the kidnapping."[6] Paramount relocated the two child actors, as well M. Ali Hassan (Sohrab) and another child actor with a minor role as Omar, to the United Arab Emirates.[16] The studio reportedly accepted responsibility for the boys' living expenses until they reached adulthood, a cost some estimated at up to $500,000.[17]

After four months in Dubai, Ebrahimi and his aunt returned to Kabul in March 2008. After receiving threats on his life, Ebrahimi was forced to remain indoors and be home-schooled by an uncle. He has since claimed that he wishes he had never appeared in the movie.[18] Mahmoodzada stayed in Dubai for two years but returned to Kabul because his other family members could not get a visa to join him. Back home, he was continuously targeted by both the Hazara Shia's (for portraying them as a weak community) and by Pashtun Sunni (for portraying them as bad and cruel). The repeated humiliation resulted in Mahmoodzada—with the help of human smugglers—moving to Sweden; as of 2017, he was living in Borlänge.[19]

Awards and nominations[edit source]

YearAwardCategoryResult
200880th Academy AwardsBest Original Score – Alberto IglesiasNominated
2008Golden Globe AwardsBest Original Score – Motion Picture: Alberto IglesiasNominated
2008Golden Globe AwardsBest Foreign Language Film USANominated
2008BAFTA AwardsAnthony Asquith Award for Film Music – Alberto IglesiasNominated
2008BAFTA AwardsBest Screenplay – Adapted: David BenioffNominated
2008BAFTA AwardsBest Film Not in the English LanguageNominated
2008AARP Movies for Grownups AwardsBest Supporting Actor – Homayoun ErshadiNominated
2008AARP Movies for Grownups AwardsBest Movie for GrownupsNominated
2008Art Directors GuildContemporary FilmNominated
2008Broadcast Film Critics Association AwardsBest Young Actor – Ahmad Khan MahmoodzadaWon
2008Broadcast Film Critics Association AwardsBest PictureNominated
2008Christopher AwardsFeature FilmsWon
2007Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association AwardsBest PictureNominated
2008Hollywood Post AllianceOutstanding Color Grading Feature Film in a DI ProcessNominated
2008Houston Film Critics Society AwardsBest Foreign Language FilmNominated
2007International Film Music Critics Award (IFMCA)Best Original Score for a Drama Film – Alberto IglesiasNominated
2009International Online Film Critics' PollBest Original Score – Alberto IglesiasWon
2007National Board of ReviewTop Ten FilmsWon
2008North Texas Film Critics AssociationBest Foreign Language FilmWon
2007Satellite AwardsBest Original Score – Alberto IglesiasWon
2007Satellite AwardsBest Screenplay, Adapted – David BenioffNominated
2007St. Louis Film Critics AssociationBest FilmNominated
2007St. Louis Film Critics AssociationBest Foreign Language Film (Afghanistan)Nominated
2007St. Louis Film Critics AssociationBest Cinematography – Roberto SchaeferNominated
2008Visual Effects Society AwardsOutstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Motion PictureNominated
2008World Soundtrack AwardsSoundtrack Composer of the Year – Alberto IglesiasNominated
2008World Soundtrack AwardsBest Original Soundtrack of the Year – Alberto IglesiasNominated
2008Young Artist AwardsBest Performance in an International Feature Film – Leading Young Performer: Zekeria EbrahimiNominated
2008Young Artist AwardsBest Performance in an International Feature Film – Leading Young Performer: Ahmad Khan MahmoodzadaNominated

References[edit source]

  1. Jump up to:a b http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Kite-Runner-The#tab=summary
  2. Jump up to:a b http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kiterunner.htm
  3. Jump up to:a b French, Howard W. (31 December 2006). "Where to Shoot an Epic About Afghanistan? China, Where Else?"New York Times. Retrieved 2007-02-15.
  4. ^ "'Kite Runner' release delayed to protect young stars"CNN. AP. 5 October 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-11-09. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
  5. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-kite-runner-banned-in-afghanistan/
  6. Jump up to:a b c d "'Kite Runner' Boys Fear Afghan Backlash"Rawa News. January 14, 2007.
  7. ^ The Kite Runner (2007) - IMDb, retrieved 2020-01-05
  8. ^ "The Kite Runner"Rotten TomatoesFandango. Retrieved June 17,2020.
  9. ^ "Kite Runner, The (2007): Reviews"Metacritic. Retrieved 2007-12-14.
  10. ^ Roger Ebert (2007-12-20). "The year's ten best films and other shenanigans"Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2008-01-05.
  11. ^ "Inside 'The Kite Runner' Rape Scene"Defamer. October 5, 2007. Archived from the original on October 11, 2007.
  12. ^ "The Kite Runner: real-life drama that forced four child stars into exile"Daily Telegraph. 18 December 2007.
  13. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-kite-runner-banned-in-afghanistan/
  14. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/entertainment/7193431.stm
  15. ^ Dean Nelson and Barney Henderson (26 January 2009). "Slumdog child stars miss out on the movie millions"The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
  16. ^ "Life In The Raw"The Age. Melbourne. January 6, 2008.
  17. ^ "Studio to delay release of Kite Runner to protect Afghan actors"M&C Movies News. October 4, 2007. Archived from the original on July 31, 2007.
  18. ^ Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson (July 2, 2008). "'Kite Runner' Star's Family Feels Exploited By Studio"All Things Considered. National Public Radio.
  19. ^ The Daily Telegraph

External links[edit source]


No God but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan | Goodreads

No God but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan | Goodreads



Want to Read

Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Preview

No God but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam

by
Reza Aslan
4.10 · Rating details · 25,110 ratings · 1,600 reviews
A fascinating, accessible introduction to Islam from the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller Zealot

INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER • A finalist for the Guardian First Book Award

In No god but God, internationally acclaimed scholar Reza Aslan explains Islam—the origins and evolution of the faith—in all its beauty and complexity. This updated edition addresses the events of the past decade, analyzing how they have influenced Islam’s position in modern culture. Aslan explores what the popular demonstrations pushing for democracy in the Middle East mean for the future of Islam in the region, how the Internet and social media have affected Islam’s evolution, and how the war on terror has altered the geopolitical balance of power in the Middle East. He also provides an update on the contemporary Muslim women’s movement, a discussion of the controversy over veiling in Europe, an in-depth history of Jihadism, and a look at how Muslims living in North America and Europe are changing the face of Islam. Timely and persuasive, No god but God is an elegantly written account that explains this magnificent yet misunderstood faith. (less)

GET A COPY
Kobo
Online Stores ▾
Book Links ▾

Kindle Edition, 384 pages
Published August 30th 2011 by Random House (first published March 15th 2005)
Original Title
August 24, 2021 – Shelved

Write a review

Nov 28, 2011Susan rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Our Bible study class decided we wanted to learn something about Muslims. We were woefully ignorant on the subject and needed to learn something about the religion. Someone recommended this book and it turned out to be a great choice. I have to be up front that I knew nothing about Muhammad and so it was great place to begin. One thing that came as a surprise to me was that Muhammad, like Jesus, did appreciate women and their contributions. It was the followers who came after both of them that twisted their message. Muhammad married an older woman, Khadija, a wealthy and respected businesswoman. He was in a monogamous relationship with her until she died. He valued her and she was his advisor, advocate, lover and friend.
The book goes into the many sects of Islam. It's very much like Christianity that varies from Catholics to Mormons to Jehovah's Witnesses to Evangicals.It seems like we have many similarities but there are also cultural differences. I really learned a great deal and don't feel as ignorant as I did before. It's a great jumping off place to expand your horizons. (less)
flag314 likes · Like · see review



Jul 12, 2010Will Byrnes rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: terrorism, nonfiction, religion-and-sprituality, religion

Reza Aslan - from The Guardian

Aslan has produced what should be required reading for anyone with an interest in things Islamic, whether that interest be religious or geopolitical. He makes clear that there are several types of Islam, and that fanatical, fundamentalist Wahabism is not the only brand on the market. I found the book eye-opening. The only reason I did not go for that 5th star is that the text can get quite dry, and in the early going was a sure cure for consciousness. But it was well worth the effort to stick with it. It is not only important to know one's enemy, but also one's potential and even current friends.

=============================EXTRA STUFF

Links to the author’s personal, Twitter and FB pages

His latest book is God: A Human History, published in 2017 (less)
flag187 likes · Like · 31 comments · see review



Jul 26, 2019BlackOxford rated it it was amazing
Shelves: favourites, philosophy-theology, islam, iranian
Riding the Tiger

Various studies of religion over recent decades show a remarkably similar pattern of development that seems to be universal. The start of religious movement is most often sociological and economic. The deficiencies of the prevailing conditions are typically expressed in syncretistic religious terms borrowed from whatever spiritual traditions are available. These social/spiritual insights are progressively codified and formalised as doctrine with only an increasingly vague connection to the original motivating social conditions. As a religious establishment forms to ‘protect’ emerging doctrine, this establishment takes responsibility for interpreting the meaning of religious practice in new circumstances. It is not unusual at this point that differences in interpretation cause schisms among adherents, leading to competing sects.

Aslan’s story is of Islam, but its main points are exactly these and are equally applicable to Christianity. Muhammad, for example, used precisely the same strategy as St. Paul in creating a ‘super-tribe’ of equal members open to all by simple affirmation of a fundamental tenet. Just as with the medieval papacy in which every doctrinal decision was politically motivated, so in Islam the collection of Hadiths, interpretations of Muslim doctrine, were equally political and used to further political aims by leading Muslims. And just as in Christianity, the initial religious thrust in Islam toward social justice and mutual regard succumbed quickly and persistently to the interests of the religious establishment in maintaining its position of power.

Islam is syncretistic, just as is Christianity, and both from similar sources. Islam assimilated its strict monotheism and the idea of prophecy from Judaism, much of its ritual from the pagan cults of Arabia, and its cosmology from ancient Zoroastrianism. But arguably, its most important acquisition was the Christian notion of faith, and the related compulsion to proselytisation. Neither of these was present anywhere among the tribal religions of the Arabian peninsula nor among the ancient religions of Mesopotamia and Persia. They were innovations strictly from Christian sources and, as with Christianity, formed the foundation for a doctrinal religion with global ambitions.

“Religion, it must be understood, is not faith,” says Aslan. He goes on to point out an essential aspect of this fact: “With the exception of a few remarkable men and women, no Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian, or Muslim of this time would have considered his or her religion to be rooted in the personal confessional experiences of individuals. Quite the contrary. Your religion was your ethnicity, your culture, and your social identity.” Religion, in other words, was a fact of human existence, not a set of beliefs about what other people had perceived as divine revelation. And so it has remained ‘with the exception of a few remarkable men and women’ throughout history. Faith is the basis of a new kind of tribalism which is grounded not on genetics or shared cultural background but on the verbal affirmation of an inner conviction.

But Aslan does not develop the implication of his own observation. Religions of faith are inherently expansive, and, therefore, combative, regardless of their doctrinal content. Both Islam and Christianity have the intention of world-wide conversion. They both have a need to justify themselves as bearers and guardians of truth and to overcome others who claim such truth. The paradox of a Christianity which claims its truth as universal divine love yet feels justified in committing any human horror to prove it, is only rivalled by the paradox of Islam which recognises the gift of human life as divine and is willing to kill in order to ensure others share that recognition. Such is the nature of faith and its doctrines, no matter what such doctrines are. Faith itself, not any particular belief, is the key to understanding these religions of faith.

Doctrinal faith is also inherently prone to fragmentation. That is to say, it promotes conflict, often intense, where none had previously existed. Claims to orthodoxy, correct beliefs, are as diverse in Islam as they are in Christianity. So, consequently, are the mutual anathemas that are delivered most vehemently against those who are closest but not identical in matters of doctrine. Such fragmentation is not promoted or maintained by the rank and file believer who typically has no idea of the content or complexity of doctrinal pronouncements. Rather, it is the result of religious leaders’ political ambitions justified on the basis of alternative interpretations of foundational texts. Put rather more simply: doctrinal religion is necessarily ideological and essentially divisive.

It might be argued that all religion is a political activity in the sense that one of its essential functions is to establish the distinction ‘them’ and ‘us’. But with the doctrinal religions of Christianity and Islam this ethnic distinction, which can be merely descriptive, is transformed into a political judgement that leads to alienation and hatred. Small-scale tribal tension becomes global competition. Possibilities for negotiation among conflicting parties are eliminated by opposing claims to absolute truth. In fact the politics of doctrinal truth tends toward the elimination of all other politics as is clear in such apparently different cultures as that of Afghanistan and Alabama, or of Tehran and Washington D.C.

If Aslan’s analysis is broadly correct, and I think it is, there seems to be an almost instinctive turn to religion in order to justify radical social action. His narrative of Muhammad’s striving against the inequities of contemporary life in Mecca, for example, is parallel to that of St. Paul in his struggle against the inequities of the Roman Empire. In addition, in order to establish their divine credentials for questioning the existing order of things, both men attacked those religious practices closest to them - Paul his native Judaism, and Muhammad his native veneration of the Ka’ba. Similar narratives could easily be developed for Hinduism and Buddhism among other religious movements

Having fulfilled its function in mobilising support for such social change, however, religion quickly develops its own self-serving agenda. The politics of religion then become conservative and, when required, oppressive in order to further its own claims to power. Doctrinal religions based on texts (and therefore interpretations) are most prone to such political cooptation. Whatever spiritual ‘luminosity’ might be present in such texts is inevitably overcome by political expediency. The social objectives riding the tiger of doctrinal religion always winds up inside.

Postscript: For more on doctrinal religion and its alternatives, see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... (less)
flag107 likes · Like · 14 comments · see review



Aug 15, 2007Conrad rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: owned, history
An astounding work. This book really took the top of my head off. Aslan is an excellent writer, and the book isn't too academic, but his command of Arabic and, at the same time, comprehensive familiarity with not one but at least three or four different English translations of the Quran (and the misunderstandings that result therefrom) makes this well worth reading.

Aslan makes a strong case for the Hijaz as a place of prelapsarian cultural intermingling for Jews, Christians, and Muslims; his portrait of Muhammad makes the Prophet both a divinely inspired revolutionary and a reformer with secular concerns and family problems of his own for whom it would be impossible not to feel sympathy. Aslan also touches on the liberalizing effect of the spread of Islam, which allowed adherents of the three monotheistic religions to live peaceably in Spain for a time, introduced strict laws limiting legal retribution and encouraging forgiveness, redistributed wealth with an eye to enriching the impoverished, and spurred reforms in the way women were treated in inheritance laws.

The book also discusses the Iranian revolution, and the vexed relations between Iran and the United States. Aslan seems to think that the aims of Iran's revolutionaries and those of American liberals were/are more alike than either group bothers to recognize now. This is a perspective that I would imagine is unlikely to make Aslan many friends in either country, both of which are now run by cynical men. How unfortunate.

My only objection to the book, and it is a minor one, is that Aslan spends a lot of ink criticizing the Ulama (conservative academic interpreters of the Qu'ran) over the past several hundred years, but he does not specify exactly who these people are, saying only that the Ulama did this and the Ulama did that and everything they did was always all wrong. This could use a little more parsing; I find it hard to believe that the Ulama is quite as univocal as that, even if it is as stultifying and traditionalist as he suggests.

Anyway, this is an excellent book, readable, relevant, profound, subtly ideological but also very persuasive. Prepare to leave this book with a very different perception of what it means to be Muslim than you will ever get from Christiane Amanpour. (less)
flag77 likes · Like · 9 comments · see review



Sep 30, 2008Kelly rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Recommends it for: everyone with the slightest interest in religious studies or current affairs
Recommended to Kelly by: Conrad
Shelves: inshallah, current-affairs-and-politics, 21st-century
"Don't like the question? Don't accept the premise. Then change the conversation."

This quote (from West Wing- yeahyeahyeah) kept coming to mind while I was reading this book. Reza Aslan has done this to absolutely brilliant effect. This book, which functions both as an introduction to the religion of Islam and a political statement on current affairs, frames Islam and its history in terms meant to make it sympathetic and understandable to an audience raised in Judeo-Christian based, secularized Western societies. As a Muslim scholar of religions who was born in Iran, but who left as a child due to the Islamic Revolution to be raised and educated in America, Aslan is perfectly placed to understand exactly what it is that needs to be talked about and how.

Aslan begins his book with a discussion on the climate in which Islam came into being- he shows us 7th century pagan Arabia, with its nomadic tribes of all different faiths- including Christians and Jews and polytheists of all sorts. He shows us evolution of Mecca and the culture into which the Prophet Muhammad was born. We see how all of these things affected the formation of Muhammad's initial community of followers (who Aslan presents as egalitarian, socialist reformers with fair minded justice in mind), the development of Islam, the Recitation of those things contained within the Qu'ran. We are shown a religion without a leader after the Prophet dies, struggling to understand the way it should go, how his words should be understood, what to do with the power they have as the Islamic empire increases in size and power. The religion breaks off into various family groups, ideologies, and radical small sects. Various people use the religion for their own gain, as a distraction, to claim legitimacy. Powerful, traditionalist scholars of the Qu'ran who believe in a literal interpretation of the text take control for a very long time- the Ulama. Everything is twisted by this group, by political leaders, by imams etc, and all in the name of supposedly the same ideal, to get back to some mythical, perfect paradise. As Aslan points out again and again in his book:

"Muhammad in Medina" became the paradigm for the Muslim empires that expanded throughout the Middle East after the Prophet's death, and the standard that every Arab kingdom struggled to meet during the Middle Ages...Regardless of whether one is labeled a Modernist or a Traditionalist, a reformist or a fundamentalist, a feminist or a male chauvanist, all Muslims regard Medina as the model of Islamic perfection. Put simply, Medina is what Islam was meant to be.

And the argument goes on and on as to what this ideal of perfection means. Does this sound familiar? That's because it should. Aslan weaves another major plot thread throughout this book, which is the idea that we are presently living in the age of the Islamic Reformation, and all the violence that we see is an internal struggle, not a "clash of civilizations". He brings up the many similiarities he sees to the Christian Reformation throughout the book, arguing for understanding and hope for the future:

"What is taking place now in the Muslim world is an internal conflict between Muslims, not an external battle between Islam and the West... All great religions grapple with these issues, some more fiercely than others. One need only recall Europe's massively destructive Thirty Years' War between the forces of the Protestant Union and those of the Catholic League to recognize the ferocity with which interreligious conflicts have been fought in Christian history. In many ways, the Thirty Years' War signaled the end of the Reformation: perhaps the classic argument over who gets to decide the future of a faith. What followed that awful war was a gradual progression in Christian theology from the doctrinal absolutism of the pre-Reformation era to the doctrinal relativism of the Enlightenment. This remarkable evolution in Christianity from its inception to its Reformation took fifteen vicious, bloody and occasionally apocalyptic centuries.

Fourteen hundred years of rabid debate over what it means to be a Muslim; of passionate arguments over the interpretation of the Qu'ran and the application of Islamic law; of tribal feuds, crusades and world wars- and Islam has finally begun its fifteenth century."

If this seems like a superficial parallel on some levels, that's true. There are a lot of differences in the form this "Reformation" has taken and how it has taken shape, but to get bogged down in that would certainly miss the point- that Islam and its followers are no different from any other major religion, no more backward or primitive, just at a different stage in their process than the rest of the world. This is especially remarkable given that some radical, fundamentalist sects have gained control of large sections of Islam due to historical circumstance, use of force and financial might (yeah this means Saudi Arabia), and due to colonialism, "Christianizing" missions, financial incentives and internal struggles, there is a large sympathetic audience to some parts of this theology and its ultimate consequences.

Aslan showed me a glitteringly complicated, sophisticated faith, with its brilliant and dark places, like any powerful religion has. He showed me the evolution of the Sunnis, Shi'ites (Shi'ah) and the Sufis, the small radical sects that have had an effect on the future, and the long line of intellectuals and their historical circumstances (affected by them just like Muhammad was) and how faith was bent and twisted and shaped to suit current needs- showing Islam is by no means an inflexible faith. He ends in arguing that there is hope for an Islamic democracy, but an indigenous one, not one forced on it from the outside. A tolerant Islamic state is possible, it just hasn't succeeded yet, but it absolutely could.

It is true, Aslan does construct his own "Muhammad in Medina" from the evidence available, just as everyone else does. But it fits beautifully with his argument that interpretation is up for debate and everyone should be allowed to bring their various ideas on the topic to the table. His ideal is beautiful and passionate and earnest. Moral and upright, liberal and full of optimism. Naive? Perhaps. But nevertheless, what he presents is a possibility, and one that I think everyone would do well to hope comes about.

The only possible weaknesses I see here are: Some may find his arguments "apologist." He addresses this issue himself at the beginning of the book, basically saying that he's okay with that as there is no higher calling than to defend one's faith. I admire that he was so upfront about what he was doing, but I will say that it did make a few of his arguments a little hard to buy. It is easy to see him discarding evidence that doesn't fit his vision of Islam by the wayside, and a few times directly contradicting himself in the service of making it work. For example, I found the part of his book on women in Islam and how Muhammad was actually this super liberal guy who was just affected by the times he lived in somewhat spotty. Just saying that everything is the fault of the Muslim men who followed Muhammad and controlled everything, while a nice sop to the feminist part of me, isn't entirely convincing. I also found his end chapters on the way that a non secular, tolerant, but officially Islamic state could grow up, fairly unconvincing as well. I liked the ideas, but its clear that practical application is not his forte, which is fine, it just weakened his final argument that everything is going to be all right. He has a tendancy to go off into misty, dreamlike prose when he gets to an argument that is hard to defend. I understand that partially- it is hard to talk about faith in general, but it can get a little silly and distracting sometimes.

However, if you just keep those few things in mind, I couldn't imagine a better introduction to the faith than this book. He opened up a whole new world of perspective for me and gave me the language to articulate a lot of what I hate about those dumb "clash of civilizations" people without resorting to lefty talking points. He left me curious, engaged, much more careful to judge, and absolutely wanting to know more.

I don't know what better recommendation I can give than that.




(less)
flag58 likes · Like · 25 comments · see review



Jun 06, 2014Cecilia Nelson rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: religion, cultural
I have extremely mixed feelings about this book.

On the one hand:

There are multiple cases of seemingly intentional skews. One particular example is Aslan's analysis of the practice of stoning adulterers: He says it was instituted by Umar, the second successor of Muhammad. Umar apparently lied about it being a part of original Revelation that was somehow "accidentally" left out of the authorized text. Aslan then refers to the hadith collections of Muhammad al-Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj as the most "respected" and "reliable" canons. Well, sorry, but Bukhari and Muslim both contain multiple incidences of the Prophet commanding and overseeing the stoning of adulterers, meaning it was NOT introduced by Umar and has its basis in hadith/sunna, Quran notwithstanding (this punishment is prescribed by the Tawrat/Torah/Old Testament, which is why Muhammad did it). There is absolutely no way that a Muslim and scholar on Islam like Aslan is not aware of this, making it feel like more of deception than a mistake. In my opinion, this is just one of many instances where Aslan scapegoats Umar and other prominent figures in Islam's history to exonerate Muhammad himself (and by proxy Islam) of violence and/or misogyny and other morally reprehensible practices.

On the other hand:

Most sources of information on Islam originating in the West (that I have seen, at least) are slanted in the other direction: emphasizing incidents of violence and misogyny in the Quran, sunna, hadith, and history of Islam. This intentionally produces a decidedly ignorant, oversimplified/out-of-context and ethnocentric perception of the religion. Anyone with any proximity to Islam knows that here in America, viciously discriminatory attitudes against Muslims are horrifyingly common. These ideas are not benign: hate-crimes against Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim are well-documented and it would be ignorant to not deem Islamophobia a potential contributor when considering the litany of atrocities and human rights abuses committed by the American government and Armed Forces in the so-called War on Terror and prior. This considered, is it really so wrong or inexcusable for a Muslim to intentionally present only the most cuddly, friendly face of his faith?

In short, despite my personal discomfort with its biases, if a person said to me "I'd like to learn something/more about Islam", this is the book I'd hand them because if I'm going to influence someone's perception of 1/5 of the world's population, I'd rather bias them towards positivity than hatred and fear. Hence the 4 stars. (less)
flag55 likes · Like · 11 comments · see review



Dec 06, 2012Joe rated it it was ok · review of another edition
Oh man. What a conflicting review to have to write. On one hand, we have a wealth of easy-to-read historical and cultural information about Islam in a great, readable format for Western audiences. On the other, we have an author so blinded by personal bias that I routinely had to put the book down and walk away.

The author, Reza Aslan, clearly knows his history as a scholar of Islamic culture and a personal believer, himself. It makes sense that the book is at its best when Aslan focuses objectively on the history and culture of Islam and presents the facts. He's a great writer who really does a nice job of making history sound like fiction (a rare trait), and these passages are a joy to read. If the entire book were presented in this manner, this would be an easy five stars.

Unfortunately, his aforementioned bias compromises the entire integrity of his work. At times, Aslan is drawn into argument regarding common criticism of Islam and its system of beliefs; it almost seems as though he feels compelled to personally defend its honor. Whether he's defending jihad as "just slander the Christians started during the Crusades," or explaining how Muhammad's slaying of 400-700 Jews in early Medina "can't really be classified as genocide since he only killed one percent of the Jewish population," you get the distinct impression he's defensively and emotionally reacting to scholastic criticism.

This happens often with regard to the prophet himself, Muhammad. In the first hundred pages alone, Aslan defends the following:
- Muhammad's marriage to a six year old girl ("But everyone back then was doing this! And he waited to consummate until she was nine!")
- Muhammad's polygamy in general to nine wives in ten years ("He had to hold the kingdom together with political alliances!" Hard to see how marrying a slave girl helps in that regard.)
- The Ummah's penchant for caravan raiding ("It's not stealing, it's redistributing wealth!")
- Perhaps most egregiously, he defends dhimma not as an example of Islam's subjugation of other religions, but actually of its religious tolerance? A quick internet search provides plenty of Muslim sources who believe quite the opposite.

Historical context is often important, especially when looking at religious history. Islam is certainly not the only faith to commit these kinds of acts, but sugarcoating it with baseless excuses just comes off as pandering to critics. This wouldn't be so bad if Aslan spent any time citing other sources who could verify his claims, but there's usually no substantiation whatsoever with regard to these claims; often, I'd be disappointed when Googling just about any of the claims when I suspected he was being overly subjective.

It's a shame "No god but God" suffers from these issues, because when Aslan sticks to the facts, he's an immensely talented storyteller that really could have created something special. I don't have a dog in his fight when it comes to what I think of Islam, but unfortunately, the defensive attitude in which he confronts fair criticism leads me to believe I need to do further reading before I make any sort of judgment. And isn't the point of a book like this to settle some of those feelings, not create more? (less)
flag53 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review



Dec 16, 2012Zayn Gregory rated it did not like it · review of another edition
Shelves: islam
Tight composition, fast pacing, authoritative tone: it's no surprise it was a bestseller. Of politics and history it is a good introduction for the non-muslim. But if the intent was to present a vision of how muslims should understand their faith under the challenge of modernity, it falls way short. Even presuming the raft of hostile orientalists he draws from represented the most neutral and authoritative of western scholarship on Islam, the author's own tone and framing make it needlessly more odious. We are informed the Prophet was "indecisive", an "empty vessel", a "hooked nose" Arab, that the Quran *was dictated by* its environment, that the 5 daily prayers are apocryphal, and for that matter the entire hadith corpus should be thrown out the window, etc. I'm not reverse FoxNewsing him and saying he must be a staunch muslim to write a book on Islam. I'm just saying this book is speaking to and from a position so far removed from the Islamic scholarly tradition that I can make no use of it. (less)
flag44 likes · Like · 6 comments · see review



Oct 22, 2007Paul rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: about-islam
"Religion, it must be understood, is not faith. Religion is the story of faith." That is the reader's key to this fascinating account of the origins and development of Islam. Faith is a way of moving and being in the world; religion is a body of traditions and practices and institutions that preserve the story of how to move and be in the world that way. In order to speak to new generations, traditions adapt, but faith is eternal. From this perspective, Reza Aslan retells the story of Islam. Written in clear prose and filled with memorable stories both personal and traditional, I found my mind and heart easily staying engaged with this book.

"This book," writes Aslan, "is, above all else, an argument for reform. There are those who will call it apostasy, but that is not troubling. No one speaks for God - not even the prophets (who speak about God). There are those who will call it apology, but that is hardly a bad thing. An apology is a defense, and there is no higher calling than to defend one's faith, especially from ignorance and hate..." In these words, I perceive at once an acceptance and a desire for dialogue, and a fatalistic attitude. Just as Islam's beginnings took place 600 years after the beginnings of Christianity, Aslan argues, so the Islamic Reformation is taking place now, 600 years after the Protestant one. Just as pre-Reformation Christianity was divided into Orthodox and Roman confessions, so today's Islam is divided into Sunni and Shi'ah. Whirling around early Christianity were ascetics and mystics, as Sufism does around Islam. And as did Christianity during the Reformation, Islam today is finding its way into a more literate citizenry's hands. "[T]he Christian Reformation was an argument over the future of the faith - a violent, bloody argument that engulfed Europe in devastation and war for more than a century. Thus far, the Islamic Reformation has proved no different. ... It took many years of violence and devastation to cleanse the Hijaz of its 'false idols.' It will take many more to cleanse Islam of its new false idols - bigotry and fanaticism - worshipped by those who have replaced Muhammad's original vision of tolerance and unity with their own ideals of hatred and discord. But the cleansing is inevitable, and the tide of reform cannot be stopped. The Islamic Reformation is already here. We are all living it."

The question is, how shall we live it? Are there enough people in today's world who understand the futility of violence and will not charge or be led into it? Are there enough of us who understand that power is only valuable as a means and bankrupt as an end? Can the foundational principles of true faith - tolerance and dialogue - guide us in the ways of peace and toward the spirit of mutual love? Can we peaceably contain the bigots and fanatics? Collaboration, not coercion, is the ideal in every healthy heart. Shall we choose many more years of violence and devastation to achieve any goal, or shall we choose tolerance, dialogue and justice made in the spirit of mutual love? During the Christian Reformation, Socinians in Poland and Unitarians in (now) Romania chose the latter. There weren't enough of them to turn the tide of violence in their day. I have to believe that there are enough people today who would choose and rely upon love rather than power, tolerance rather than force. All it takes is simple human choice. (less)
flag32 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
===

Product description
Review
"Grippingly narrated and thoughtfully examined . . . a literate, accessible introduction to Islam."--The New York Times

"[Reza] Aslan offers an invaluable introduction to the forces that have shaped Islam [in this] eloquent, erudite paean to Islam in all of its complicated glory."--Los Angeles Times Book Review

"Wise and passionate . . . an incisive, scholarly primer in Muslim history and an engaging personal exploration."--The New York Times Book Review

"Acutely perceptive . . . For many troubled Muslims, this book will feel like a revelation, an opening up of knowledge too long buried."--The Independent (U.K.)

"Thoroughly engaging and excellently written . . . While [Aslan] might claim to be a mere scholar of the Islamic Reformation, he is also one of its most articulate advocates."--The Oregonian

About the Author
Reza Aslan is an acclaimed writer and scholar of religions whose books include No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam and Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. He is also the author of How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror (published in paperback as Beyond Fundamentalism), as well as the editor of Tablet & Pen: Literary Landscapes from the Modern Middle East. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife and three sons.
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth
Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth
Reza Aslan
4.4 out of 5 stars 5,197
Mass Market Paperback
$18.62
 FREE Delivery
God: A Human History
God: A Human History
Reza Aslan
4.5 out of 5 stars 515
Paperback
$19.25
 FREE Delivery


How would you rate your experience shopping for books on Amazon today





Very poor Neutral Great
Customer reviews
4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5
859 global ratings
5 star
 69%
4 star
 20%
3 star
 6%
2 star
 2%
1 star
 2%
How are ratings calculated?
Review this product
Share your thoughts with other customers
Write a customer review

Top reviews
Top reviews
Top reviews from Australia
Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in Australia on 26 September 2016
Verified Purchase
Well written.
Helpful
Report abuse
Amazon Customer
4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars
Reviewed in Australia on 22 March 2016
Verified Purchase
A very informative book.
Helpful
Report abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Andrew Ross
4.0 out of 5 stars Well researched and written but too pious and uncritical
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 31 December 2017
Verified Purchase
Reza Aslan is a good writer and a good historian of religion. His 2013 book Zealot on Jesus was excellent, so I had high hopes for this 2011 book on Islam. Many hopes were indeed fulfilled: the historical timeline is clear, the known facts are in place, the conjectures are properly flagged, the context for contemporaries and believers is sketched credibly, and the final result is easy and pleasant to read.

Any historian of Islam will be confronted with controversy and compelled to take sides. Aslan takes the side of the Sufis, a relatively gentle and reflective tradition in Islam with mystic leanings, which grew up in the shade of the Shia branch of the Mohammedan faith in lands that had rich and deep traditions of belief and philosophy. In doing so, he distances himself from the Sunni branch and those of its variants such as Wahhabism that have attracted Western anger in recent years.

What Aslan does not do, and what diminishes his book for me, is stand back far enough from the entire tradition of veneration for the revelations of the Prophet, and their expression in the series of texts that form the Quran, to see the wood for the trees. Even today, no pious Muslim would dare regard the revelations or their canonical expression as anything but holy, but for a modern Westerner with some respect for science and rational thinking the leap of imagination required to take such affirmed holiness at face value is just too great. This reader at least is driven to taking a remote anthropological stance on the Arab and related societies of a thousand plus or minus a few hundred years ago and regarding their strange belief system as shot through with hardly less nonsense than any other ancient myth or curious narrative.

Despite his Muslim roots, Aslan is a modern Western writer, so he must must see the need to keep such rational readers on board, even if in the end he parts company with them in continuing to venerate his holy relics. There may be a learning curve here, for he does a fine job in standing back from Christian or other pieties in discussing Jesus in his later book Zealot; perhaps it is easier to stand back from a faith one feels no residual need to defend or believe in. Modern societies with Christian or Muslim roots are surely robust enough to rise above superstitious awe in face of alleged revelations and the purportedly holy texts that spring from them, or at any rate we can only hope so, if we are to avoid a new clash of civilizations.

Like Aslan, I have some sympathy for the Sufi thread in the story of Islam, and feel some distaste for the hardened institutional forms of the Muslim faith, which like their Christian equivalents have led to serial disasters in the societies swayed by them. Unlike him, however, I see little hope for a revival of Sufism in the Muslim world and indeed little hope of sufficient reform within Islam to accommodate it to the constraints of life in an age of global connectivity, robots, and nuclear weapons. Only a clean separation of secular life, including politics, from the inner life of religion can enable us to regulate the modern world, it seems to me, and even a revived Sufism would be of no obvious help in doing so.

In summary, then, a modern history of Islam, especially one that like this volume takes us up to contemporary political issues surrounding the ongoing wars in Muslim majority societies, can only work for Western readers if it rises above a partisan perspective. As it is, Aslan seems to feel sympathy for the victim narrative that Western imperialists have cruelly exploited the Muslim world, which must therefore rise up and restore its fortunes by defeating the infidels. This cuts no ice with me, even in the context of a volume of history that otherwise deserves some praise.
Read more
26 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Adrian J. Smith
5.0 out of 5 stars Revealing, insightful, and highly readable
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 8 March 2016
Verified Purchase
Having read various works on both the history of Islam, and Islam's current issues over it's own identity, this work in particular, stands out.
The book has many strengths, but perhaps what stands out is the insight given into the life of Mohammad, and how he was a genuinely universal social reformer. From the early chapters, a portrait of Mohammad as a genuinely tolerant man with universal and all inclusive aspirations, is unveiled, in stark contrast to the intolerant vision of Islam such contemporaries present in the world today.
The chapters about the prophets succession, and the Sunni-Shi'a divide are of particular strength, and a notable feature of Aslan's style is how he juxtaposes the work with examples from the present, or recent history.
The last chapter is a work on Islam's current identity issues, and how there are many Islam's out there. For a work examining Islam's identity and current issues, it is best to read Ali A Alawi's Crisis of Islamic Civilization, however the strength of Reza Aslan's work is an overall history of Islam.
The current edition has been updated and rewritten very well, and it shows that Aslan takes great care in keeping his work up to date.
On the whole, this book can be recommended to both those who are familiar with Islam, or those who are just curious, as this book sheds much more light on the history that most contemporary scholarship, and is both readable, accessible, and highly informative. In short, a masterwork!
Read less
6 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Lorenzo Baldi
4.0 out of 5 stars Very good but not flawless
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 2 April 2016
Verified Purchase
The book is unquestionably good. It gives you a great account of the origin of the faith and its belief. It is not however, flawless. First of all, the writer is a strong believer himself and sometimes doesn't seems to be completely unbiased. Per se, this can be understood and forgiven, but sometimes it seems quite clear that the writer is "forgetting" to explain important bits, leaving the reader feel some degree of contradiction (i.e. I failed to understand how a "by no means wealthy man" that is just a Sheik of a "tiny oasis", like Ibn Saud could have been chosen by Wahhab as his ally and so be important in the astonishing successful conquer of the arabian peninsula).
Small grievances aside, it is a good book which I strongly recommend.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
emily@aol.com
5.0 out of 5 stars I also liked to hear about Muhamads life and what an amazing ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 9 September 2015
Verified Purchase
Really well explained aspect of todays Muslim life for someone who didn't know very much about it. He explains from the aspect of a `Westerner`what it is to be Muslim today and some of the difficulties they are facing within their own religion and among the different factions. I also liked to hear about Muhamads life and what an amazing man he was but I feel he would be turning in his grave if only he knew how his followers changed aspects to what he preached and lived. I have more peace of mind knowing that he respected other faiths (to a certain extent) and did not set about calling everyone else `non believers`, those where his followers who went to be more radical.
5 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Ann
5.0 out of 5 stars Easy to read
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 5 March 2018
Verified Purchase
Easy to read, but very educational and provides a different view point on Islam. For anyone wanting to find out more about the religion and a view on we are where we are now, a very good read.
Report abuse