Customer Reviews

Jihad In The West Muslim Conquests From The 7th To The 21st Centu

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Reading this book is to discover a lost history of a besieged and battered Europe that was either glossed over or treated very superficially in History of Western Civilization 101.

Paul Fregosi deserves a great deal of credit for returning this history to those of us who are sorely tired of the "hate the West" propaganda that our intellectual elites pump out on a daily basis. The latest version of this phenom is the "Islamic civilization good, Christendom civilization bad" paradigm that is so prevalent in Western media and academia today. An anonymous academic of Islamic studies recently told the NY Times, "You can't say anything but sugary nonsense about Islam on college campuses today." The powerful twin silencers of our political correctness cult and the threat of violence a la the Rushdie affair have colluded to deprive us of the true history of Islamic civilization, even here in the "free" West.

Undeterred by the fact that the originally intended publisher of this book, Little Brown, declined to publish his book due to fear of a violent Rushdie-like reaction, the courageous Fregosi dishes out anything but sugary nonsense in this well-written book.

He introduces us to a long line of Ottoman Sultans who make the worst medieval monarchs of France or England look like Boy Scouts in comparison. Using the Quranic verse denouncing "mischief as worse than homicide" as justification, the triumphant heirs to the Ottoman throne routinely murdered their brothers, sons, half-brothers, male cousins and nephews to ensure a "peaceful" succession to the trhone. (Even three-year-old toddlers and pregnant concubines of the previous Sultan were not spared). Each Sultan and most wealthy nobles maintained huge harems of women captured by slavers to serve as "concubines" -- i.e. sex slaves who had little choice in the matter. Even in the pre-Enlightenment times, Westerners would have considered this practice as "rape" but the Ottoman nobles considered it God's law as outlined in the Quran. The Ottomans also depended heavily on assassination as both a domestic and foreign policy tool. Those who displeased the Sultan, high or low, could count on a silent throttling or poisoning or summary beheading on any pretext, without benefit of trial. One Sultan had his entire harem of nearly three hundred concubines executed simply because he suspected that one of them was unfaithful.

That was the way that the Ottomans treated their own kind; imagine how they treated those they considered their "enemies." Here's an example: when one Ottoman conqueror slaughtered a garrison of several hundred Christian troops guarding a Mediterranean fort, he had their dead bodies laid out in a huge rectangle and ordered wooden planks to be placed upon them. Then he and his troops gathered around this unusual table and ate a picnic meal off of it.

Fregosi outlines the constant, often unilateral attacks that were visited on European Christendom by first the Moors and secondly, the Ottomans. He introduces us to long-forgotten heroes who fought valiantly to stem the tide of these vicious attacks: Janos Hunyadi of Hungary; Jan III Sobieski of Poland, Skanderberg of Albania; Don Juan of Austria (today, chiefly remembered as the prototypical "Latin Lover" rather than the hero of the decisive naval Battle of Lepanto, which checked Ottoman hegemony in the Mediterraneon.) He rehabilitates the image of the much-maligned Isabella of Spain and correctly points out that the Reconquesta of Spain -- often portrayed by the politically correct as the regrettable triumph of Christian fanaticism over Muslim "tolerance" -- was actually the brutal nationalistic struggle of an indigenous people intent on driving out an alien occupier. (After all, the official language of "Muslim Spain" was Arabic, not Spanish.)

I am not opposed to giving Islamic civilization its due for its many positive achievements. But neither do I support the current fashion of softening, disguising and discounting the dark side of this belief system's past, out of fear of causing another Rushdie situation or for the politically correct sake of avoiding the "hurt feelings" of Muslims. All other religions and belief systems are subjected to rigorous analysis in our popular press, on our college campuses and in scholarly books. We do a disservice to ourselves when we exempt Islam from this process because of fear or political correctness, but this is the prevailing norm we encounter today, except for those rare instances when a courageous author like Paul Fregosi steps forward to remind us of the truth.

As another reviewer noted, this book is a welcome antidote to prevailing propaganda pumped out by "historians" such as Karen Armstrong. Published by an obscure house called Prometheus Books, this work doesn't have the benefit of the marketing budget or cushy magazine reviews that push along a Karen Armstrong book. But it has gained an audience, largely through word of mouth. I recommend that readers not only purchase it but pass it along to their friends to continue this word of mouth trend.

150 yrs of colonial rule have left these chapters of history untold for a long time. We've been told that the crusades were a brutal chapter in the west's history (they were in fact horribly brutal on both sides) but these have been over for 700 yrs, were retricted to a 200 yr span and were concentrated on one geographic area. Jihad, on the other hand, has had a 1300 yr history of brutality and enslavement that has no Islamic corrective because historically Jihad is a virtual 6th pillar of Islam; in fact the only way one can ever be certain of salvation is to die in Jihad. The other 5 pillars will never guarantee a place in paradise. The West always had the tension between what is right and what was done in these wars; Islam had no such tension since it was a warrior faith in which Jihad was commanded. A good read with a good biblio but I wish it had been footnoted.

Great Book! It has taught me alot about the histories between the Western world and it's struggles with the Islamic Imperialists. The book has some very graphic details of tortured people...

I realize it may be trendy or "politically correct" to disparage any work that does not portray Islam as always positive and Western Christendom as guilty of all conflict with Islam. But those of us who prefer facts and reality will appreciate this book.

It is filled with footnotes and historical references that can't be denied. Read it for yourself and check it's references. Be real, not politically correct--the truth will thank you for it.

Paul Fregosi's book "Jihad in the West" is a book that likely will be looked at in the post-September 11th with a sense of "Why didn't we see it coming?" Although the book is enlightening and entertaining, it is not written with scholarly intent and will likely inflame Muslims and prompt some non-Muslims to wonder why the United States and NATO aren't rolling out the tanks, aircraft carriers and troops to begin another Crusade.

Fregosi is blatantly biased, and does little to hide is disdain for Islam. This bias leads one to wonder how much hyperbole and license he exercised when writing the book. By trying to keep his writing from being dry, scholarship suffers. He presents information and makes statements, but does not cite the sources in the text with footnotes. He simply lists a bibliography at the end of the book, which presents problems if someone wanted to try to go back to the original sources and verify the information. This establishes a credibility problem with the book.

Although the centuries of Jihad did produce considerable suffering and inumerable atrocities, it is hard to evaluate this book because the tone is so venomous. Because of the lack of scholarship, the reader is unable to determine how much of what is written in the book is fact and how much is exaggeration or artistry. This left me dismayed, since the obvious anti-Islamic bias obscures the facts and can only serve to foment anger and mistrust.

I am not Muslim and have a Christian background, but from the beginning pages, this author shows a strong bias against Islam which makes it hard to read. He does this by presenting historical facts, then characterizing the event with his own comments, which are often critical and condescending to Muhammad and Islam. Want just one of dozens of examples? After detailing the jihad in Spain by "Almanzor the Victorious", Almanzor died. Mr. Fregosi then comments, that he probably isn't in hell,"A rejuvenated Almanzor may...be frolicking in the Muslim paradise with his houris (sic. concubines), though unbridled copulation hardly seems Almanzor's style." This is not a history book but a book of commentary and opinion. Too bad. A scholarly book on the subject would be welcomed but this isn't it.

I was wondering that the people as you have mention in the book, they don't blame the "islamic teachings" for the wraths, they blame the people. Because Islam itself never allows people to do any injustice. People are viewing a completely wrong image of Islam through these books. It's only one side of the religion.

Some narrative is good and smart enough to at least recognize many contemporary numbers were exaggerated and many battles were alliances of convenience including Christians and Muslims together, sometimes on both sides. But there are many problems. Focus intensely on "jihad" starts with exaggerated assumptions about violence and deempahasizes the legitimate relations with dhimmis; this is exaggerated partly because of the two extremist incursions by Berber dynasties. This failure also derives superficial understanding of Islam and from 'listenening' to polemics rooted in early European fear and hatred of Islam and the Crusades and revived by post Nazi visions of persecution of religious minorities and genocide.

If one wrote a recent military history of the US it would have to include the only use of Nuclear Weapons on civilians and bombing more than 20 countries since WWII.If it added 'evidence' of hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers" as further evidence of a violent civilization it would be rather like this book - which is sometimes nearly that crude. The conclusions about violence whether originally from the author or the publicist (one suspects that more books were sold with such a 'spin') are not warranted by the evidence (even that in the book) and even less supported by a broad knowlege of Islamic history. Part of the problem is that things are explained by 'religion' when religion was often merely a rationalization for political, economic, social, and strategic objectives. Part of the problem is shallowness from limited understanding of Islam in other places and other times. (More people probably became Muslims because of trade and cultural influences than from conquest worldwide. Most Muslims do not live in the middle East but in Sotheast Asia and in South Asia; there are more in china than numerous countries in the Middle East and North Africa.)

The sources the author uses are not well selected, nor as current, as they should be. Even works recognized generally as of most major importance (in French and English) and available when the author wrote (I checked major missing works against publication dates) are not included. This may be why old religious, colonial, and orientalist biases are adopted uncritically. There is no deep understanding of Islam here, for much the same reasons (sources and focus). The author fails to distinguish the substantial differences between crusade and jihad, the former offering conversion or death in both theory and often practice while the later recognized and had some respect for Christianity and Judaism (their Prophets, institutions, values, even doctrines) and provided dhimmis status as a third alternative. In the most tolerant times there are cases of sharing Churches for worship (Muslims Friday, Christians Sunday) and of Zakat (charity tax of about 2 1/2% net worth) being used for the benefit of poor non Muslim dhimmmis). One gets little picture of the cultural and intellectual fruition of that difference in history. (Dhimmitude studies are infamous for that slant on history ignoring real niche opportunities,the significance of self-governement for dhimmis and the taxes and military service avoided by paying the capita tax for non-Muslims. Most of these are also likely to read history backwards after the identifying markers for Jews that accompanied pogroms in Russia and were accompanied by Brownshirt violence and a precursor to genocide in Germany.)

If the author had better selection of sources and better understanding of Islam and its history the book would have been much sounder despite its decision to focus on essentially military history. The conclusion that war included violence would not have then been extended (by the author and even more strongly by many readers) as implicit in Islam. But of course fewer copies might have been sold; agendas are more popular than objectivity. The title itself spins relevance for the 21st century although little of the book concerns recent times. Sadly there is no better alternative history of Jihad in Europe now available although there are many better works to understand islam in Europe.

A very good insight into any religion is provided by looking into the life of those who first promoted it from an outsider's point of view (which might differ from the point of view the insiders wish to be known).
If one wishes to promote a religion today one would invariably state it to be "peaceful and loving", but the "fine print" is to be read, among other places perhaps, in its prescriptions on how to treat "the others".
From these two points of view (looking at the founders and the ways the others are to be treated) the book is trully illuminating on Islam, a MUST READ for anybody showing any kind of interest in it.
I wonder what those who laughed at the author's claim that the threat of Islam was still near thought after 9/11...

Those who hold up Christianity as a panacea must be reminded of the religion's bloody and oppressive past, which is exemplied as well in the crusades against the Muslim "heathen" as in anything else. However, there is an unfortunate trend among modern scholars to present the historical encounter between Christendom and Dar al-Islam as a completely one-sided affair, with the Muslims invariably being the hapless victims of imperialist Christians. In truth, Islam has no better a historical record than Christianity, as Paul Fregosi's JIHAD IN THE WEST demonstrates.

Fregosi takes us through the history of Islamic imperialism and violence, from the time of Muhammad to the Yugoslavian civil war, showing us that Islam is no more inherently peaceful, and no more immune to hijacking by the unprincipled, than is Christianity. The history of Christendom versus Dar al-Islam is not a history of evil versus good, but merely a history of the contention between two equally ambiguous powers, with Christendom emerging the temporary victor. What makes JIHAD IN THE WEST unique is that these points are driven home with hardly a nod to terrorism. Look to the past, says the book, before Dar al-Islam lost power, and you will see that its ambiguous face is its true face, rather than the product of Western oppression that so many claim.

To be sure, JIHAD IN THE WEST tells only part of the story. It tells us about the damage Islam has done, not about the numerous ways in which it has enriched the world; it tells us about the atrocities Muslims have committed, not about the atrocities they have suffered; it tells us about the warlords and conquerers, not about the scholars and scientists. However, the part of the story Fregosi relates to us is a part too often neglected by modern scholars, in their frenzy to bash Western civilization. JIHAD IN THE WEST thus provides a much-needed balance to current trends, and is useful to read alongside of standard accounts of the relationship between the West and Dar al-Islam.