What do you think?
Rate this book
The New World of Islam
PREFACE The entire world of Islam is to-day in profound ferment. From Morocco to China and from Turkestan to the Congo, the 250,000,000 followers of the Prophet Mohammed are stirring to new ideas, new impulses, new aspirations. A gigantic transformation is taking place whose results must affect all mankind. This transformation was greatly stimulated by the late war. But it began long before. More than a hundred years ago the seeds were sown, and ever since then it has been evolving; at first slowly and obscurely; later more rapidly and perceptibly; until to-day, under the stimulus of Armageddon, it has burst into sudden and startling bloom. The story of that strange and dramatic evolution I have endeavoured to tell in the following pages. Considering in turn its various aspects-religious, cultural, political, economic, social-I have tried to portray their genesis and development, to analyse their character, and to appraise their potency. While making due allowance for local differentiations, the intimate correlation and underlying unity of the various movements have ever been kept in view. Although the book deals primarily with the Moslem world, it necessarily includes the non-Moslem Hindu elements of India. The field covered is thus virtually the entire Near and Middle East. The Far East has not been directly considered, but parallel developments there have been noted and should always be kept in mind. LOTHROP STODDARD
238 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2002
34 people are currently reading
427 people want to read
About the author
T. Lothrop Stoddard
30 books85 followersTheodore Lothrop Stoddard (June 29, 1883 – May 1, 1950) was an American political scientist, historian, journalist, anthropologist, eugenicist, pacifist, and anti-immigration advocate.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
August 2, 2023
Surprisingly nice old book. Stoddard was famously known as a scientific racist but he wrote a surprisingly broadminded and nuanced take on the Islamic world as it slowly emerged into modernity.
September 10, 2017
The Good:
He gives a decent overview of Muslim nationalist movements and pan-Islamic movements. Why did they form? How did they spread? Will they threaten European Empires? Particularly interesting is the intersection of Liberal and extremists in relation to Kaffir imperialism.
The Bad:
His treatment of Islamic history. He makes so many serious errors I had to question whether I should keep reading or not. I'll list a few examples:
He honestly thinks the Arabs are democratic because they never bowed to any strong leadership. First of all they united under Mohammed. Second, it's fallacious to say a bunch of warring tribes equals democracy. If anything it implies anarchy. Lastly, if they were so democratic, why are they under a stable monarchy now?
He whitewashes Mohammed and blames the Turks for Islamic extremism. Islam before the Turks was "liberal" and it was converted Christians who made it more extreme. Apparently he thought Islam spread throughout the world with milk and cookies before the Turks came along. Those evil ex-Christans also somehow forced their ideology onto every other Muslims. Hilariously he tries to say the Islam didn't really threaten Europe before the Turks. Spain was just a "border dispute" he says. Readers should refer to "Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman" by Seriver for a great analysis on the origins of Islamic extremism. Essentially he traces it back to the warring nature of the tribes of Medina and Mecca, which makes a lot more sense than just ignoring centuries of Jihad.
He says Hindus are naturally undemocratic and Muslims are naturally democratic. India, for all it's fault is still more democratic than Pakistan. So he's dead wrong. He also says women have it better in a Muslim harem than being a women under Hinduism. I mean, what can I even say to that?
Overall:
I can see why Muslims like this book. It lauds Islam and blames all of it's problems on everyone else. But historical distortions do not help anyone. It's predictive powers have failed. If this book had any value, Saudi Arabia would have been a democracy. India should be in anarchy. The "barbaric" Turks should be the least secular instead of the most secular. Turkey should be a hotbed of Islamic Extremism instead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Chinese Muslims, instead of being a "force to contend with" are being destroyed with ease. He's simple wrong on every conceivable level. I didn't rate this 1 stars because there are some interesting historical nuggets to be found, but overall, stay away from this book.
He gives a decent overview of Muslim nationalist movements and pan-Islamic movements. Why did they form? How did they spread? Will they threaten European Empires? Particularly interesting is the intersection of Liberal and extremists in relation to Kaffir imperialism.
The Bad:
His treatment of Islamic history. He makes so many serious errors I had to question whether I should keep reading or not. I'll list a few examples:
He honestly thinks the Arabs are democratic because they never bowed to any strong leadership. First of all they united under Mohammed. Second, it's fallacious to say a bunch of warring tribes equals democracy. If anything it implies anarchy. Lastly, if they were so democratic, why are they under a stable monarchy now?
He whitewashes Mohammed and blames the Turks for Islamic extremism. Islam before the Turks was "liberal" and it was converted Christians who made it more extreme. Apparently he thought Islam spread throughout the world with milk and cookies before the Turks came along. Those evil ex-Christans also somehow forced their ideology onto every other Muslims. Hilariously he tries to say the Islam didn't really threaten Europe before the Turks. Spain was just a "border dispute" he says. Readers should refer to "Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman" by Seriver for a great analysis on the origins of Islamic extremism. Essentially he traces it back to the warring nature of the tribes of Medina and Mecca, which makes a lot more sense than just ignoring centuries of Jihad.
He says Hindus are naturally undemocratic and Muslims are naturally democratic. India, for all it's fault is still more democratic than Pakistan. So he's dead wrong. He also says women have it better in a Muslim harem than being a women under Hinduism. I mean, what can I even say to that?
Overall:
I can see why Muslims like this book. It lauds Islam and blames all of it's problems on everyone else. But historical distortions do not help anyone. It's predictive powers have failed. If this book had any value, Saudi Arabia would have been a democracy. India should be in anarchy. The "barbaric" Turks should be the least secular instead of the most secular. Turkey should be a hotbed of Islamic Extremism instead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Chinese Muslims, instead of being a "force to contend with" are being destroyed with ease. He's simple wrong on every conceivable level. I didn't rate this 1 stars because there are some interesting historical nuggets to be found, but overall, stay away from this book.
February 6, 2016
كتاب ماتع قرأت منه الجزء الأول وأفاض شكيب أرسلان في التعليق عليه وكتابة بعض الفصول الإضافية الهامة جدا التي تفوق أهمية الكتاب الأصلي اذ كان الأمير شكيب أرسلان مطلعاً على الكثير من الأمور على التي تحدث عنها المؤلف وقريبا من الأشخاص الذي صنعوا الأحداث التي تكلم عنها المؤلف ومجموع ما سطره الأمير شكيب يوازي قريبا من ثلث الكتاب الأصلي وأنا على يقين أن الامير شكيب كان أقدر من المؤلف على الكتابة في هذه المواضيع لكن اكتفى بالتعليق على الكتاب
January 4, 2018
The author writes of Near Eastern civilization with a sense of awe, recognizing a formidable civilization lying dormant, but the scope of the book is much larger than that. He really does
try to touch upon the entire Islamic world from North Africa to China, covering history and then contemporary political and religious developments.
It's very apologetic towards Islam, and certainly does not dismiss it as a backwards or fanatic religion. As another reviewer has noted, he claims that the original Arabic tribal organization of Islam had a democratic element. I don't think its entirely disingenuous. It's the same manner I've seen Germanic barbarians and their assemblies described as democratic. It's certainly not the same as Western democracy however, and the author was trying to contrast it with the absolutism most associated with the Orient.
The author mentions Wahhabism and how despite its fanatic zeal, it could be a prelude to a wider, political, and productive reformation. I wonder how this theory would fit into the contemporary Middle East where the Wahhabi dominated Saudis fund schools throughout the region.
While the book starts off by focusing on religion, but that specific topic is diluted as the chapters go on, and by the time I'm reading about the worldwide effects of cheap labor in India I'm wondering how I ended up here, but of course the author aims to be writing about a civilization permeated by Islam and not just Islam itself. There's some interesting reflections here about the inevitable march of globalization, and how the developing world could take over a lot of the industrial capacity then residing in the West.
There is a lot of reflection about Islamic nations and their relations to Western imperialism, and it's implied that the latter is doomed in the long term. Among nationalist movements there was debate as to how much the West ought to be blamed for the regions' problems and how much it ought to be credited for helping to benefit them. The debate continues...
One hundred years later its a remarkably contemporary book, which is still valuable to read. Really the only major development missing is Israel. Zionism only gets a passing reference.
try to touch upon the entire Islamic world from North Africa to China, covering history and then contemporary political and religious developments.
It's very apologetic towards Islam, and certainly does not dismiss it as a backwards or fanatic religion. As another reviewer has noted, he claims that the original Arabic tribal organization of Islam had a democratic element. I don't think its entirely disingenuous. It's the same manner I've seen Germanic barbarians and their assemblies described as democratic. It's certainly not the same as Western democracy however, and the author was trying to contrast it with the absolutism most associated with the Orient.
The author mentions Wahhabism and how despite its fanatic zeal, it could be a prelude to a wider, political, and productive reformation. I wonder how this theory would fit into the contemporary Middle East where the Wahhabi dominated Saudis fund schools throughout the region.
While the book starts off by focusing on religion, but that specific topic is diluted as the chapters go on, and by the time I'm reading about the worldwide effects of cheap labor in India I'm wondering how I ended up here, but of course the author aims to be writing about a civilization permeated by Islam and not just Islam itself. There's some interesting reflections here about the inevitable march of globalization, and how the developing world could take over a lot of the industrial capacity then residing in the West.
There is a lot of reflection about Islamic nations and their relations to Western imperialism, and it's implied that the latter is doomed in the long term. Among nationalist movements there was debate as to how much the West ought to be blamed for the regions' problems and how much it ought to be credited for helping to benefit them. The debate continues...
One hundred years later its a remarkably contemporary book, which is still valuable to read. Really the only major development missing is Israel. Zionism only gets a passing reference.
نصف-قراءة
January 8, 2013قراءة هذا الكتاب كان أمراً صعباً للغاية .. توقفت عن القراءة بعد 450 صفحة تقريباً ( الكتاب عبارة عن مجلدين مجموع صفحاتهما حوالي 1000 صفحة - والمجلد الثاني أغلبه كتبه شكيب أرسلان وليس لوثروب ستودارد - ) .. توجد عدة أسباب لأطلق هذا الوصف على الكتاب .. أولها هو أنه كتب بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى .. أي يتحدث عن حاضر العالم الإسلامي بشكل مستفيض في فترة بعيدة نسبياً .. الأمر الآخر هو ترجمة الكتاب .. لا أحب هذا الأسلوب اللغوي في الترجمة ولا في الكتابة .. الأسلوب الذي يغلب عليه التكلف في الألفاظ والتراكيب والذي يبدو أنه سمة في كتابات مطلع القرن الماضي ( كأسلوب الكواكبي ) .. وأخيراً إضافات شكيب أرسلان المشوشة للقارئ .. فبعيداً عن المحتوى الثقيل للكتاب يضيف شكيب أرسلان حواشي طويلة ومستفيضة ولا تنتمي للموضوع الأساسي غالباً .. مما يجعل الربط بين فقرات الكتاب أمراً أقرب إلى المستحيل .. لذلك أعتقد أن الكتاب يستحق طبعة أخرى بترجمة مختلفة ..
بعيداً عن عيوب هذه الطبعة يحوي الكتاب كنوزاً ثمينة .. أولاً في مقدمته التي لخّص فيها التاريخ الإسلامي ونهوض الأمة الإسلامية ثم انحطاطها .. ثم توثيقه لحال الأمة الإسلامية في تلك الفترة .. بالإضافة إلى تحليله لأوضاع الأمة وإمكانية نهوضها " وإن كان تفاؤله مفرطاً في هذه الناحية " لكن تحقق بعض من توقعاته وتحررت الدول الإسلامية من الاستعمار كغيرها لكن للأسف لم تحدث النهضة في العالم الإسلامي ..
كتاب مفيد و غني بالمعلومات والأفكار .. أتمنى أن أراه في طبعة أخرى لأقرأه بشكل أفضل ..
بعيداً عن عيوب هذه الطبعة يحوي الكتاب كنوزاً ثمينة .. أولاً في مقدمته التي لخّص فيها التاريخ الإسلامي ونهوض الأمة الإسلامية ثم انحطاطها .. ثم توثيقه لحال الأمة الإسلامية في تلك الفترة .. بالإضافة إلى تحليله لأوضاع الأمة وإمكانية نهوضها " وإن كان تفاؤله مفرطاً في هذه الناحية " لكن تحقق بعض من توقعاته وتحررت الدول الإسلامية من الاستعمار كغيرها لكن للأسف لم تحدث النهضة في العالم الإسلامي ..
كتاب مفيد و غني بالمعلومات والأفكار .. أتمنى أن أراه في طبعة أخرى لأقرأه بشكل أفضل ..
October 18, 2024
In the early 20th century, the Islamic world was undergoing a profound transformation due to the influences of Western imperialism, modernization, and the rise of nationalist movements. This period was marked by an internal struggle as Muslim societies grappled with preserving their religious and cultural identity while adapting to new global realities. Countries like Egypt and Turkey became prominent examples of this tension, with leaders such as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey advocating for drastic reforms aimed at secularization and modernization, moving away from the traditional religious structures that had governed these societies for centuries.
In today's world, the Islamic world continues to face challenges that are, in some ways, a continuation of the same struggles observed in the early 20th century. However, the context has evolved significantly. Modern globalization, the rapid spread of technology, and the ongoing effects of political instability in regions like the Middle East have reshaped the landscape. While many countries have embraced aspects of modernization, others have doubled down on religious conservatism as a response to what is often perceived as the encroachment of Western values.
For instance, modern Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has seen a reversal of many of Atatürk’s secular policies, with religion becoming a more visible and influential force in politics and society. This stands in contrast to the early 20th-century push for secular nationalism that Stoddard documented. Similarly, the rise of Islamic political movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which seek to incorporate Islamic principles into modern governance, reflects a different outcome from the more secularized paths envisioned by reformers a century ago.
At the same time, Muslim societies in various parts of the world, from Southeast Asia to the Middle East and North Africa, are still engaged in debates around identity, modernity, and tradition. Issues such as women's rights, religious freedom, and the role of Sharia law continue to be central to the discourse, echoing the dilemmas of the early 20th century but in a contemporary context.
In comparing the early 20th century to today, one clear parallel is the enduring challenge of balancing tradition with the forces of change. In both eras, there is a significant diversity of responses within the Muslim world, ranging from full-scale modernization efforts to resistance in favor of preserving Islamic traditions. Stoddard’s observations, while rooted in a specific historical context, offer valuable insights that remain relevant in understanding the continuing evolution of the Islamic world in the face of ongoing political, cultural, and social changes.
In today's world, the Islamic world continues to face challenges that are, in some ways, a continuation of the same struggles observed in the early 20th century. However, the context has evolved significantly. Modern globalization, the rapid spread of technology, and the ongoing effects of political instability in regions like the Middle East have reshaped the landscape. While many countries have embraced aspects of modernization, others have doubled down on religious conservatism as a response to what is often perceived as the encroachment of Western values.
For instance, modern Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has seen a reversal of many of Atatürk’s secular policies, with religion becoming a more visible and influential force in politics and society. This stands in contrast to the early 20th-century push for secular nationalism that Stoddard documented. Similarly, the rise of Islamic political movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which seek to incorporate Islamic principles into modern governance, reflects a different outcome from the more secularized paths envisioned by reformers a century ago.
At the same time, Muslim societies in various parts of the world, from Southeast Asia to the Middle East and North Africa, are still engaged in debates around identity, modernity, and tradition. Issues such as women's rights, religious freedom, and the role of Sharia law continue to be central to the discourse, echoing the dilemmas of the early 20th century but in a contemporary context.
In comparing the early 20th century to today, one clear parallel is the enduring challenge of balancing tradition with the forces of change. In both eras, there is a significant diversity of responses within the Muslim world, ranging from full-scale modernization efforts to resistance in favor of preserving Islamic traditions. Stoddard’s observations, while rooted in a specific historical context, offer valuable insights that remain relevant in understanding the continuing evolution of the Islamic world in the face of ongoing political, cultural, and social changes.
March 11, 2021
أنا في بداية قرائتي للكتاب وألحظ من المؤلف الثناء بشكل مجمل على الإسلام ولكنه متسخط على بعض الخلفاء بعد الخلفاء الأربعة رضي الله عنهم الذي يجوز نقدهم بالإضافة إلى الإشارة للوهابيين في الجزيرة العربية بطريقة غير مباشرة عندما ذكر أن قلب الجزيرةالعربية منشأ الخوارج
ولي تعليقات اضيفها بعد الانتهاء من قراءته
ولي تعليقات اضيفها بعد الانتهاء من قراءته
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
February 8, 2020قرات النسخة الفرنسية، بجزء واحد، بدون ملاحظات ارسلان..
كتاب صعب....
كتاب صعب....
September 12, 2021
كتاب جميل وبدايه قوية تستدعي إنهاء باقي أجزاء الكتاب
October 22, 2023
Interesting take on Islam and India before the (((media))) dominated the subject. His description of India could be any current liberal city except the people in India were willing to work.
Read
March 20, 2016[1923]
Bien que cet ouvrage traite surtout des questions d’ordre politique et social, il est intéressant aussi à d’autres points de vue. L’auteur, disons-le tout de suite, est loin d’être impartial : il est imbu de tous les préjugés occidentaux en général, et de ceux du protestantisme anglo-saxon en particulier ; il réédite tous les clichés courants sur l’« obscurantisme » et sur le « progrès » ; il ne trouve à louer que ce qui lui paraît, à tort ou à raison, avoir une teinte de « puritanisme » ou de « rationalisme » ; et il a une tendance, assez naturelle dans ces conditions, à exagérer l’importance du rôle des « réformateurs libéraux » et surtout celle de l’influence occidentale. Il prend pour une « élite » ces rares éléments européanisés qui, au point de vue oriental, sont plutôt tout le contraire, et, trop souvent, des apparences tout extérieures l’empêchent de voir la réalité profonde, qu’il est d’ailleurs très probablement incapable de saisir. En effet, on pourra se faire une idée suffisante de son manque absolu d’intellectualité (défaut bien américain) pas ces deux exemples : les doctrines purement métaphysiques de certaines écoles arabes ne sont pour lui que « superstition et mysticisme puéril », et l’enseignement traditionnel, basé sur l’étude des textes sacrés, est « une ineptie qui pétrifie l’intelligence » !
Cependant, ce livre mérite d’être lu, parce qu’il est généralement bien informé ; aussi ne peut-on que regretter que l’auteur, au lieu de s’en tenir à l’exposé des faits, y mêle constamment des appréciations tendancieuses, aggravées par une multitude d’épithètes injurieuses, ou tout au moins blessantes pour les Orientaux. Il y a là, sur la politique anglaise en Orient au cours de ces dernières années, un certain nombre de vérités qu’il serait extrêmement utile de répandre. La partie la plus intéressante de l’ouvrage est peut-être celle qui est consacrée au « nationalisme » ; on y voit assez bien la différence des idées que ce même mot sert à désigner, suivant qu’il s’agit de l’Occident ou de l’Orient ; sur les rapports de la « nationalité » et de la « race », il y a aussi des considérations dignes d’être remarquées, bien qu’elles manquent un peu de précision.
Disons encore que le titre ne donne pas une idée exacte de l’ouvrage dans son ensemble, car il y est question, non seulement de la situation actuelle du monde musulman, mais aussi de celle de l’Inde ; cette étude embrasse donc à la fois ce que l’on peut appeler le Proche et le Moyen Orient. L’auteur est très prudent dans ses conclusions, ce dont on ne peut que l’approuver ; il s’abstient soigneusement de formuler la moindre prévision sur le cours ultérieur des événements. Enfin, malgré sa partialité évidente, il ne peut s’empêcher de reconnaître que, si certains dangers menacent l’Occident, celui-ci y a une large part de responsabilité.
La traduction est littérale au point d’en être parfois incorrecte, et elle est déparée par des bizarreries de langage qu’il eût été bien facile d’éviter. Ainsi, en français, on ne dit pas « bribe », mais « corruption » ou « vénalité » ; on ne dit pas un « papier », mais un « article » sur tel ou tel sujet ; « practically » ne se traduit pas toujours par « pratiquement », et ainsi de suite. Il y a aussi une confusion entre « indien » et « hindou », dont nous ne savons si elle est imputable à l’auteur ou au traducteur. Et, puisque nous en sommes à la forme, il est un peu ridicule en France, sinon en Amérique, de donner à la dernière guerre la dénomination apocalyptique d’« Armageddon ».
Bien que cet ouvrage traite surtout des questions d’ordre politique et social, il est intéressant aussi à d’autres points de vue. L’auteur, disons-le tout de suite, est loin d’être impartial : il est imbu de tous les préjugés occidentaux en général, et de ceux du protestantisme anglo-saxon en particulier ; il réédite tous les clichés courants sur l’« obscurantisme » et sur le « progrès » ; il ne trouve à louer que ce qui lui paraît, à tort ou à raison, avoir une teinte de « puritanisme » ou de « rationalisme » ; et il a une tendance, assez naturelle dans ces conditions, à exagérer l’importance du rôle des « réformateurs libéraux » et surtout celle de l’influence occidentale. Il prend pour une « élite » ces rares éléments européanisés qui, au point de vue oriental, sont plutôt tout le contraire, et, trop souvent, des apparences tout extérieures l’empêchent de voir la réalité profonde, qu’il est d’ailleurs très probablement incapable de saisir. En effet, on pourra se faire une idée suffisante de son manque absolu d’intellectualité (défaut bien américain) pas ces deux exemples : les doctrines purement métaphysiques de certaines écoles arabes ne sont pour lui que « superstition et mysticisme puéril », et l’enseignement traditionnel, basé sur l’étude des textes sacrés, est « une ineptie qui pétrifie l’intelligence » !
Cependant, ce livre mérite d’être lu, parce qu’il est généralement bien informé ; aussi ne peut-on que regretter que l’auteur, au lieu de s’en tenir à l’exposé des faits, y mêle constamment des appréciations tendancieuses, aggravées par une multitude d’épithètes injurieuses, ou tout au moins blessantes pour les Orientaux. Il y a là, sur la politique anglaise en Orient au cours de ces dernières années, un certain nombre de vérités qu’il serait extrêmement utile de répandre. La partie la plus intéressante de l’ouvrage est peut-être celle qui est consacrée au « nationalisme » ; on y voit assez bien la différence des idées que ce même mot sert à désigner, suivant qu’il s’agit de l’Occident ou de l’Orient ; sur les rapports de la « nationalité » et de la « race », il y a aussi des considérations dignes d’être remarquées, bien qu’elles manquent un peu de précision.
Disons encore que le titre ne donne pas une idée exacte de l’ouvrage dans son ensemble, car il y est question, non seulement de la situation actuelle du monde musulman, mais aussi de celle de l’Inde ; cette étude embrasse donc à la fois ce que l’on peut appeler le Proche et le Moyen Orient. L’auteur est très prudent dans ses conclusions, ce dont on ne peut que l’approuver ; il s’abstient soigneusement de formuler la moindre prévision sur le cours ultérieur des événements. Enfin, malgré sa partialité évidente, il ne peut s’empêcher de reconnaître que, si certains dangers menacent l’Occident, celui-ci y a une large part de responsabilité.
La traduction est littérale au point d’en être parfois incorrecte, et elle est déparée par des bizarreries de langage qu’il eût été bien facile d’éviter. Ainsi, en français, on ne dit pas « bribe », mais « corruption » ou « vénalité » ; on ne dit pas un « papier », mais un « article » sur tel ou tel sujet ; « practically » ne se traduit pas toujours par « pratiquement », et ainsi de suite. Il y a aussi une confusion entre « indien » et « hindou », dont nous ne savons si elle est imputable à l’auteur ou au traducteur. Et, puisque nous en sommes à la forme, il est un peu ridicule en France, sinon en Amérique, de donner à la dernière guerre la dénomination apocalyptique d’« Armageddon ».
March 12, 2025
Poor Stoddard.
🖊 Pro-Mohammedanism, anti-Christian.
CONTENT
Preface and Introduction.
The Decline And Fall Of The Old Islamic World
Chapter 1. The Mohammedan Revival
Chapter 2. Pan-Islamism
Chapter 3. The Influence Of The West
Chapter 4. Political Change
Chapter 5. Nationalism
Chapter 6. Nationalism In India
Chapter 7. Economic Change
Chapter 8. Social Change
Chapter 9. Social Unrest And Bolshevism
Conclusion
📕Published in 1922.
જ⁀🟡 Kindle Unlimited.
༺ ༅ ✬ ༅ ༻ ༺ ༅ ✬ ༅ ༻
My ratings for this work:
Content: ★☆☆☆☆
Grammar: ★★★★☆
Writing style: ★★★☆☆
Ease of reading: ★★★☆☆
My recommendation: ★☆☆☆☆
My total rating for this work: ★★★★☆ (2.4)
🖊 Pro-Mohammedanism, anti-Christian.
CONTENT
Preface and Introduction.
The Decline And Fall Of The Old Islamic World
Chapter 1. The Mohammedan Revival
Chapter 2. Pan-Islamism
Chapter 3. The Influence Of The West
Chapter 4. Political Change
Chapter 5. Nationalism
Chapter 6. Nationalism In India
Chapter 7. Economic Change
Chapter 8. Social Change
Chapter 9. Social Unrest And Bolshevism
Conclusion
📕Published in 1922.
જ⁀🟡 Kindle Unlimited.
༺ ༅ ✬ ༅ ༻ ༺ ༅ ✬ ༅ ༻
My ratings for this work:
Content: ★☆☆☆☆
Grammar: ★★★★☆
Writing style: ★★★☆☆
Ease of reading: ★★★☆☆
My recommendation: ★☆☆☆☆
My total rating for this work: ★★★★☆ (2.4)
August 19, 2015
هذا كتاب أمير البيان الأشهر، والذي تعقب فيه كتاب لوثرب ستودارد المستشرق الامريكي "حاضر العالم الإسلامي" وقدكتب شكيب أرسلان تعليقاته على ترجمة هذا الكتاب فطغت التعليقات المسهبة على متن الكتاب الرئيسي فأضحى المؤلف الذي لم يشغل سوى 300 صحيفة مجلدين كبيرين هما موسوعة تاريخية تصف أحوال العصر الذي عاش فيه الأمير، والذي يشدني لكتب أمير البيان جزالة ألفاظة وعمق لغته واشتعال قريحته، حتى لتصير اللذة في مجرد الوقوف على ألفاظه دون مضمونها لسحر لغته.
وشكيب أرسلان قلم هادر وعقل متوقد وقريحة ضافية وفطرة حاضرة، وهو مع كونه درزيا إلا أن روح الإسلام تتدفق من كتباته، وهو من جملة من دافع عن اللغة قي وجه أدعياء المنهج الجديد في اللغة، وهو إلى جانب ذلك شاعر مجيد، ومؤرخ ممتاز، ومجاهد وسياسي .
والذي أخذ على كتابه هنا كصرة اسهابه في ذكر مواضيع مختلفة بحيث ضاع في ثناياها الكتاب المترجم واندرست معالمه ولعل هذا من طريقة ترتيب التعليقات التي جاءت متضمنة في خلالها نصوص الكتاب الرئيس ولم تكن على حواشيه أو في هوامشه.
والله أعلم
وشكيب أرسلان قلم هادر وعقل متوقد وقريحة ضافية وفطرة حاضرة، وهو مع كونه درزيا إلا أن روح الإسلام تتدفق من كتباته، وهو من جملة من دافع عن اللغة قي وجه أدعياء المنهج الجديد في اللغة، وهو إلى جانب ذلك شاعر مجيد، ومؤرخ ممتاز، ومجاهد وسياسي .
والذي أخذ على كتابه هنا كصرة اسهابه في ذكر مواضيع مختلفة بحيث ضاع في ثناياها الكتاب المترجم واندرست معالمه ولعل هذا من طريقة ترتيب التعليقات التي جاءت متضمنة في خلالها نصوص الكتاب الرئيس ولم تكن على حواشيه أو في هوامشه.
والله أعلم
Currently reading
September 2, 2011dpt edisi terjemahan
November 22, 2012
يتحدث الكتاب عن تاريخ الاسلام المعاصر ..
August 12, 2020
more than a translation...the comments of Shakib are themselves a book of history!
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews