I usually try to be measured, deliberate, and even kind in my review of a book. But I’ll say it right off the bat: “Lost Islamic History” is terrible.
This is a chauvinistic, nationalist summation of Muslim history, which suffers from epistemic fallacies, and poor scholarship. It is essentially Muslim propaganda, and bad even at that.
The book attempts to counter the inferiority many feel to the West by focusing on the material and scientific accomplishments of past Muslim civilizations. Of course, that isn’t what defined those civilizations; it is what defined those civilizations that led to their material and scientific success. The same holds true for the modern West, or the many successful societies throughout history – the principles they adhered to are what make them distinct, and what is responsible for their material achievements. However, are their greatest achievements then not the principles themselves?
The author manages to edify the reverse of this into the reader’s mind, establishing material success as the metric of note for a society. But what does it mean when societies that are not Islamic are materially successful, and when societies that are Islamic, are not?
Evidently, this is not good. Hence the author attempts to convince the reader that the positive material trends in Muslim society all came from religiosity, while the negative all came from their reversal. Towards this end, the author writes lengthy listicles noting different scientific achievements of Muslim society, and appropriates a few from others along the way.
One should ask, are long lists the best way to communicate a Muslim harmony with, and contribution to scientific literature? And what also is the implication for Muslim society when some of the items the author claims Muslims to have invented, like the decimal system's number zero, are by common knowledge known to have been invented by others?
To the first question, given the materialist hole he had dug himself, I’m not surprised the author felt he had to create lists of achievements to get himself out; that may very well have been his only option.
The second question raises many more significant points.
For one, if other civilizations are creating equal or greater material achievements, I’m not sure what makes Muslim society particularly unique. Secondly, the fact that he got this simple matter wrong implies he is either willfully twisting history (more on that later), or lacks any factual rigor (more on that later). It calls into question everything he writes, and because everything he writes is literally his opinion/narrative of history, without a single footnote to speak of, that’s a serious problem.
Material success is obviously important for a society. I’m not some hermit living in a hut, and in fact Islam clearly supports the opposite:
Quran 28:77 “But seek, with that (wealth) which Allah has bestowed on you, the home of the Hereafter, and forget not your portion of legal enjoyment in this world, and do good as Allah has been good to you, and seek not mischief in the land.”
What the author fails to communicate is that all civilizations rise and fall. The failure of one classical civilization simply gave rise to the next. All good things must come to an end, but from its ashes often arises something new and as beautiful, if not more. The end of the Greeks doesn’t mean a condemnation of their ideas (evidently not, as they are potentially the most influential philosophical tradition in human history). The end of the British Empire doesn’t mean we should reject common law. In the same way, just because Muslim society isn’t doing so well today, doesn’t mean we should give up on Islam. In the end, the Mongols conquered and captured more intensely than any civilization before it – does that mean they were a better society? Many of the successes that the author lists are products of thinkers and ideologies that are viewed as heretical today, like the Mutazila. Does that mean that Islam is in fact the problem?
Muslims should focus on taking the good of what has worked, and examine what hasn’t. Instead of ingratiating themselves to some external philosophy or metric, as this author inadvertently makes the reader do, they should focus on incorporating these lessons into their own independent philosophy and tradition (which are often lessons that are purely material in nature, and have no implications to religion, as science and religion are two mutually exclusive domains) – but I’m beginning to diatribe a bit here and should get back on topic.
This failure of the author to appropriately establish the rise and fall of civilization plays into some Arab-centrism as well. The Abbasids existed for hundreds of years, but relatively early into that reign their existence became purely nominal in nature. The author attributes everything during this period to the Arab rule of the Abbasids, yet in fact many different dynasties and empires arose that operated autonomously, and were led by different ethnicities. If you want to discuss scientific advancements during the so-called Golden Age, it is for example, impossible not to mention the Persians, who are not Arabs. They brought their own effective system of bureaucracy which lent itself to such material advancement (it wasn’t some inherent character of the Persian gene), and was not a product of Arab rule. The effective splitting up of empires within a nominal Muslim umbrella allowed for the rise and fall of empire to occur naturally while maintaining cohesive unity, and demonstrates how real Muslim societies could operate, rather than the caliphate utopia that this book essentially puts forward in its place. In fact, it is clear both this multi-culturalism, and decentralization/diffusion of authority played a large role in helping Muslim societies prosper.
The book continues to get worse by taking the traditional nationalist propaganda route of victimhood, the reductive and convenient other, and more bad scholarship. The discussion of the Fatimids is laughable.
For starters, the author continually says ‘the Muslims’ and ‘the Shias’, as if to imply they are two mutually exclusive groups. There is no problem if a work is meant for a specific religious audience (that being Sunni, if that wasn’t clear by this point, though it gets even more narrow later on). In fact, I’d encourage this. And if that group has negative views of others, it is okay to essentially say as much, without compromising the truth. However, given the world’s Sunni authorities don’t say all Shias are not Muslims, even though they voice often vociferous disagreements, it’s a bit hilarious that the author decided to kufr-blast Shias right out of the pall of Islam.
Moving on, the author says things like the Fatimids and their ‘Sunni-free agenda’, along with a bunch of other statements implying the Fatimids are essentially evil, and that Shia-Sunni conflict is inevitable and everlasting. I’m sure the author believes this (it turns out he has made some very interesting statements). But later on, the author mentions that the Abbasid seat of the Caliphate is effectively run by the Buyids, a Persian dynasty. What he fails to mention at this time, however, is that the Buyids are in fact a Shia dynasty. If Sunni-Shia conflict is so inevitable, and Shias are sooo evil, how is that they are, without catastrophic war, running the seat of the Sunni Caliphate??? Evidently, this a serious problem for the narrative he has crafted, and so he decides to leave it out.
This review is becoming very large, but still there tons of things I can discuss. The author mentions the House of Wisdom, his convenient center to the Golden Age, but it is questionable if it was ever so important. He mentions Ibn Sina, but one should look up Ibn Sina to see for themselves if Ibn Sina fits the author’s mold. There are more characters for which could be said the same. Some of his sections on the Edge are of questionable historicity (though at this point I guess that’s par for the course) and a bit misleading if you know a little bit more. I can’t recall the author every really mentioning the atrocities that Muslim leaders committed, though it would often be truthful to do so. It was an interesting and non-normative choice to use Aurangzeb as the dividing line for the Mughals in the way he did (usually its Akbar, and Aurangzeb is often blamed for their downfall, which is very debatable). Unfortunately, I doubt the author did it on any historical basis, but simply made an ideological choice. I found it funny how he defended Aurangzeb by accusing his critics of being anachronistic, while never extending that courtesy to others. It would’ve been nice if he illuminated some of the modern debate around that historical figure, but alas this was asking too much. It was interesting, also, that he chose to break again with conventional history in his description of the preacher Abdul Wahab, and what he left out when discussing the Arab revolts. And there are indeed many many more things I could add -- but if I keep doing so now, I’ll never stop.
The author did do an almost A-Z of Muslim history, and the book was simple enough for easy consumption, though I wouldn’t say the writing itself was a particular strong suit. But this doesn’t mean this is an exactly Islamic book, or one I would give to a Muslim to be read, given its shortcomings. If water was warm, I’d consider giving it to someone -- but I wouldn’t if it was dirty and near poisonous.
Two things, I think, capture the fundamentally broken nature of this book.
First off, and most revealing I feel, it chooses to not include the suffix of respect (pbuh) after the Prophet’s ﷺ name. Ostensibly, this to appear more secular, detached, and academic (of course, he seems to throw this out the window when writing the material of the book itself). Yet the Islamic tradition refutes the notion that you cannot write (pbuh) after the Prophet’s ﷺ name and be objective. What does it say when he chooses to not do this?
Secondly, most, or an especially large part of the book, is spent on the Islamic Golden Age. That isn’t too surprising, given the books focus on material matters. However, the very idea of the Islamic Golden Age is seen by many as Western Orientalist invention (whether it is or isn't is not my point). The author's use of this narrative contradicts his Lost and Islamic premises, and his bland regurgitation of it is non-insightful. Many argue that the idea the great demise of the Islamic world was due to the Mongols, and that the Islamic zenith merely happens to coincide with the period that most benefited Europe is in question (especially as many regions were autonomous anyways, later Muslim empires arguably reached equal heights to the Abbasids, and recognized Golden Age figures are only the ones that contributed to European philosophy). The author does not entertain this at all, and due to the totality of his work it seems evident that it is not a choice made on merit of argument, but lack of depth. Does it make sense to use Western ideas of Muslim history to reclaim our ‘Lost Islamic History’? I’ll leave that question up to you.
I will, however, make one clear statement. If this is our history, and what the Muslim world seeks to reclaim through such novels – chauvinistic nationalism, shoddy untrue claims, victimhood and otherization – then it is best our history stays lost. On that I insist.