What do you think?
Rate this book
Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires
"A ... history that brings to life the fascinating and complex world of the Prophet, Muhammad is the story of how peace is the rule and not the exception for one of the world's most practiced religions."--Jacket.
240 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 9, 2018
121 people are currently reading
1027 people want to read
About the author
Juan R.I. Cole
28 books101 followersJohn Ricardo I. "Juan" Cole (born October 23, 1952) is an American scholar and historian of the modern Middle East, Islam and South Asia. He is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. As a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs and US politics, he has appeared in print and on radio and television, and testified before the United States Senate. He has published many books on the modern Middle East and has translated Kahlil Gibran and Omar Khayyam. Since 2002, he has written a weblog, Informed Comment (juancole.com).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
March 2, 2019
This was an interesting take on the revisionist genre of Islamic history, but I don't think it was entirely successful. There's a seed here that another author might be able to pick up and germinate, but this book felt unfinished in a way, almost like a draft.
Revisionists of Islamic history view the classic sources of information on early Islam as unreliable, but where they go from there varies. You have works like Patricia Crone's old stuff that posits that basically all of it is a lie, up to and including questioning whether key figures were even real, then you have people who throw up their hands and say that since all of the early sources are unreliable, no one can ever truly know anything about this topic at all.
Professor Cole's take on this genre is that certain parts of Islamic history books are accurate, while others are not. That's a vague description, but it's the best I can do, because what it comes down to in this book seems to be largely "the stuff I like is real, but the stuff I don't like isn't". There's no methodology presented, and well-accepted events--the siege of Taif, the expedition to Tabuk, etc--are simply dismissed as later inventions with no further elaboration, solely because they conflict with the author's thesis. This is the book's key failing, and maybe it might be missed if this is the first time you're reading a work on early Islamic history. But for Muslims or people who just know a bit about the topic, it's really grating.
To sum up the book’s conclusions as simply as possible, the author states that Muhammad was traumatized by the long warfare between the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires. He sought to establish peace throughout the region and ideally wanted to integrate Arabia into the Byzantine Empire after the war’s conclusion. The book further states that while the Arab conquests did involve violent offensive warfare, this was not an intended part of the religion.
Of course, this immediately runs into a brick wall, namely the fact that the conquest of Arabia itself occurred in Muhammad's lifetime and was meticulously documented by every Islamic historian and traditionalist out there, from The Hadith: Sahih Al-Bukhari to The Life of Muhammad. Professor Cole's way of dealing with this, as stated, is that none of it is reliable--unless a particular factoid within those works supports whatever he happens to be discussing. The author claims in the book's introduction that he relies solely or at least mostly on the Qur'an, being mistrustful of other sources, but the entire premise the book is built around (Muhammad's travels as a merchant) relies on a detail gleaned solely from those other sources! Nowhere in the Qur'an is Muhammad called a merchant--we know that this was his pre-prophetic profession because the sira literature tells us this. Why is it okay to believe this detail, despite the extreme lack of attention given to Muhammad's life prior to the Hegira in classical sources, but we are told to ignore far better-sourced details from later eras? The author never explains why this "innovative" approach is logical.
And he certainly does not mind bringing in other non-Quranic sources when it suits him. Verses of the Qur'an itself that conflict with his ideas are handwaved away by tying them to various events in Islamic history, often in ways that stretch credulity (the 29th ayah of Surah at-Tawbah, for instance, which is universally accepted as being related to the expedition to Tabuk and talking about Jews and Christians, thus the entire concept of jizya, is claimed to instead be referring to the "warlike pagans" at Hunayn).
Cole's other conclusions are simply not given any support. They are stated, and we are meant to believe them. Perhaps some other author can pick up the "Arabia as a Byzantine province" thread, but it falls very flat here. More tediously, the author tends to present his views as somehow defending Islam or telling non-Muslims the "real story" of Islam. The only problem with this is the fact that the author's views of Islamic history have nothing to do with actual Muslims' views of that same history!
There are some positives: at around 250 pages, it's a quick read, and it has a narrow focus on one defined era (the life of Muhammad), which helps it avoid some of the pitfalls of other books on this subject, which tend to over-extend themselves. It is fully possible to read this entire book in two days, even if you have limited interest in the subject. The prose is fine. And it's at least unique contribution to the genre. But unfortunately it is more a collection of Cole's personal feelings than a reference book.
2.5 stars/5
Revisionists of Islamic history view the classic sources of information on early Islam as unreliable, but where they go from there varies. You have works like Patricia Crone's old stuff that posits that basically all of it is a lie, up to and including questioning whether key figures were even real, then you have people who throw up their hands and say that since all of the early sources are unreliable, no one can ever truly know anything about this topic at all.
Professor Cole's take on this genre is that certain parts of Islamic history books are accurate, while others are not. That's a vague description, but it's the best I can do, because what it comes down to in this book seems to be largely "the stuff I like is real, but the stuff I don't like isn't". There's no methodology presented, and well-accepted events--the siege of Taif, the expedition to Tabuk, etc--are simply dismissed as later inventions with no further elaboration, solely because they conflict with the author's thesis. This is the book's key failing, and maybe it might be missed if this is the first time you're reading a work on early Islamic history. But for Muslims or people who just know a bit about the topic, it's really grating.
To sum up the book’s conclusions as simply as possible, the author states that Muhammad was traumatized by the long warfare between the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires. He sought to establish peace throughout the region and ideally wanted to integrate Arabia into the Byzantine Empire after the war’s conclusion. The book further states that while the Arab conquests did involve violent offensive warfare, this was not an intended part of the religion.
Of course, this immediately runs into a brick wall, namely the fact that the conquest of Arabia itself occurred in Muhammad's lifetime and was meticulously documented by every Islamic historian and traditionalist out there, from The Hadith: Sahih Al-Bukhari to The Life of Muhammad. Professor Cole's way of dealing with this, as stated, is that none of it is reliable--unless a particular factoid within those works supports whatever he happens to be discussing. The author claims in the book's introduction that he relies solely or at least mostly on the Qur'an, being mistrustful of other sources, but the entire premise the book is built around (Muhammad's travels as a merchant) relies on a detail gleaned solely from those other sources! Nowhere in the Qur'an is Muhammad called a merchant--we know that this was his pre-prophetic profession because the sira literature tells us this. Why is it okay to believe this detail, despite the extreme lack of attention given to Muhammad's life prior to the Hegira in classical sources, but we are told to ignore far better-sourced details from later eras? The author never explains why this "innovative" approach is logical.
And he certainly does not mind bringing in other non-Quranic sources when it suits him. Verses of the Qur'an itself that conflict with his ideas are handwaved away by tying them to various events in Islamic history, often in ways that stretch credulity (the 29th ayah of Surah at-Tawbah, for instance, which is universally accepted as being related to the expedition to Tabuk and talking about Jews and Christians, thus the entire concept of jizya, is claimed to instead be referring to the "warlike pagans" at Hunayn).
Cole's other conclusions are simply not given any support. They are stated, and we are meant to believe them. Perhaps some other author can pick up the "Arabia as a Byzantine province" thread, but it falls very flat here. More tediously, the author tends to present his views as somehow defending Islam or telling non-Muslims the "real story" of Islam. The only problem with this is the fact that the author's views of Islamic history have nothing to do with actual Muslims' views of that same history!
There are some positives: at around 250 pages, it's a quick read, and it has a narrow focus on one defined era (the life of Muhammad), which helps it avoid some of the pitfalls of other books on this subject, which tend to over-extend themselves. It is fully possible to read this entire book in two days, even if you have limited interest in the subject. The prose is fine. And it's at least unique contribution to the genre. But unfortunately it is more a collection of Cole's personal feelings than a reference book.
2.5 stars/5
July 22, 2019
Drawing from geopolitical and archaeological detail but based primarily upon the Qur’an itself, Juan Cole’s Muhammad offers a portrait of a prophet and a faith that winds a path unfamiliar not just to the prejudiced West, but likely as well to many modern adherents of the Islamic faith.
The strength of Cole’s narrative lies primarily in its approach, following Muhammad’s early years as a merchant trader through to his death, and no further. This allows the book to ground its core assertions in the chronologically earliest verses of the Qur’an and geopolitically more clear-cut years of the Arabian peninsula, before the prophet and his followers were themselves drawn into complex moral situations.
The thesis behind these assertions lies in the belief that the pacifist, tolerant, community-oriented tenets of Islam are its true essence, and in particular its veneration of all monotheistic faiths and its admonitions against the coercion of conscience—people must be free to believe what they will (but an extra penny for you if you believe in the Abrahamic God).
The complexities involved with the later martial struggles and justifications of defensive war are then processed carefully through this lens. Here especially, Cole begins questioning the divergences between the narrative of the Qur’an and the generally held historical tradition. Bellicose details not found in scripture are dismissed as later embellishment, typically attributed to those looking for an upper hand in later power struggles, as justifications for regressive policies against non-believers, and to Bedouin raiders who subscribed to the faith but did not truly understand its values or message.
Two things stand out to me in this narrative.
The first is that the version of Muhammad’s faith portrayed by Cole, one that freely discounts the post-Qur’anic tradition whenever it veers toward the aggressive and the martially vainglorious, is sensible, believable as an interpretation of available materials, and coherent. In particular, the casting of the early faith against the background of an Eastern Roman-Sasanian clash of empires and faiths makes a certain sense of the teachings found in the Qur’an. That a community of monotheists is then held as a core value of this interpretation falls almost directly out of this background. I find it compelling—but then, I would.
The second is that as a piece of academic argument, and in particular one aimed at persuading readers of various beliefs incompatible with its contrarian message, it likely falls short. While observers of historicity in religion and the progression of prophetic messages and the stories around the men who bring them would be inclined to agree with Cole’s claims of later embellishment and misinterpretation, his dismissals do not come with enough evidence to dissuade those who already believe otherwise.
Often, Cole will reject particular accounts summarily on short phrasing—the Tabuk campaign, for instance, and the resulting tax-extracting treaties with dhimmi communities cannot have occurred as claimed, Cole asserts, because they “show signs of anachronism.” This relates to an unsupported phrase earlier in the paragraph noting that it is “highly unlikely that Herakleios’s army had reasserted itself in rural southern Transjordan,” and is accompanied with an endnote (these comprise a full third of the book) pointing at an academic paper on the acceptance of medieval Muslim accounts of history as it relates to Jewish communities by Jewish scholars, and probable issues in these accounts. This paper, in turn, appears to rest its case primarily on semantic shifts of terminology in those centuries, known and accepted (but unrelated) distortions made by early oral historians, and the political expediency of these historical claims (in particular the alleged Tabuk treaties) for later Islamic powers.
Elsewhere, critical reinterpretations of scripture are explicated only in the endnotes. Here, other problems emerge—in the case of Repentance 9:29, the admission of radical reinterpretation is made only in the notes, and while Cole lays an intertextual, a linguistic, and a historical case for his interpretation, these positive assertions alone do not seem to comprise a compelling enough argument to likely convince those who take the traditional reading. Contrarian arguments must generally meet the established orthodoxy as it stands and first demonstrate a deep understanding that orthodoxy, and then establish deeply inherent problems with those views, before proceeding onto alternative resolutions.
My quarrel is not that I do not buy into these arguments—I do—but rather that for being a contrarian thesis there is not enough evidence integrated inline with the main text, nor are the details definitive enough once excavated, to likely sway a doubtful mind. The lack of integration is a stylistic complaint, and the circumstantiality of the evidence is an academic one, but either way the impression that results feels like a lack of rigor, regardless of the truth of this feeling. Of course, it is probable as well that with the available sources the sort of rigor I refer to is impossible. This reality, I feel, does not discount my doubts on the efficacy of Cole’s effort.
Regardless, I am glad of this book and this interpretation, and I believe it presents a compelling interpretation of early Islam that many would be well-advised to peruse. But partly by its nature and partly by its construction, it is also a mere flight of fantasy—even if all its claims around the original intention of the faith are accurate, some critical parts of it do not reflect the tradition of Islam as held and practiced, nor does it carry enough hard evidence to make an appreciable impact upon that tradition.
The strength of Cole’s narrative lies primarily in its approach, following Muhammad’s early years as a merchant trader through to his death, and no further. This allows the book to ground its core assertions in the chronologically earliest verses of the Qur’an and geopolitically more clear-cut years of the Arabian peninsula, before the prophet and his followers were themselves drawn into complex moral situations.
The thesis behind these assertions lies in the belief that the pacifist, tolerant, community-oriented tenets of Islam are its true essence, and in particular its veneration of all monotheistic faiths and its admonitions against the coercion of conscience—people must be free to believe what they will (but an extra penny for you if you believe in the Abrahamic God).
The complexities involved with the later martial struggles and justifications of defensive war are then processed carefully through this lens. Here especially, Cole begins questioning the divergences between the narrative of the Qur’an and the generally held historical tradition. Bellicose details not found in scripture are dismissed as later embellishment, typically attributed to those looking for an upper hand in later power struggles, as justifications for regressive policies against non-believers, and to Bedouin raiders who subscribed to the faith but did not truly understand its values or message.
Two things stand out to me in this narrative.
The first is that the version of Muhammad’s faith portrayed by Cole, one that freely discounts the post-Qur’anic tradition whenever it veers toward the aggressive and the martially vainglorious, is sensible, believable as an interpretation of available materials, and coherent. In particular, the casting of the early faith against the background of an Eastern Roman-Sasanian clash of empires and faiths makes a certain sense of the teachings found in the Qur’an. That a community of monotheists is then held as a core value of this interpretation falls almost directly out of this background. I find it compelling—but then, I would.
The second is that as a piece of academic argument, and in particular one aimed at persuading readers of various beliefs incompatible with its contrarian message, it likely falls short. While observers of historicity in religion and the progression of prophetic messages and the stories around the men who bring them would be inclined to agree with Cole’s claims of later embellishment and misinterpretation, his dismissals do not come with enough evidence to dissuade those who already believe otherwise.
Often, Cole will reject particular accounts summarily on short phrasing—the Tabuk campaign, for instance, and the resulting tax-extracting treaties with dhimmi communities cannot have occurred as claimed, Cole asserts, because they “show signs of anachronism.” This relates to an unsupported phrase earlier in the paragraph noting that it is “highly unlikely that Herakleios’s army had reasserted itself in rural southern Transjordan,” and is accompanied with an endnote (these comprise a full third of the book) pointing at an academic paper on the acceptance of medieval Muslim accounts of history as it relates to Jewish communities by Jewish scholars, and probable issues in these accounts. This paper, in turn, appears to rest its case primarily on semantic shifts of terminology in those centuries, known and accepted (but unrelated) distortions made by early oral historians, and the political expediency of these historical claims (in particular the alleged Tabuk treaties) for later Islamic powers.
Elsewhere, critical reinterpretations of scripture are explicated only in the endnotes. Here, other problems emerge—in the case of Repentance 9:29, the admission of radical reinterpretation is made only in the notes, and while Cole lays an intertextual, a linguistic, and a historical case for his interpretation, these positive assertions alone do not seem to comprise a compelling enough argument to likely convince those who take the traditional reading. Contrarian arguments must generally meet the established orthodoxy as it stands and first demonstrate a deep understanding that orthodoxy, and then establish deeply inherent problems with those views, before proceeding onto alternative resolutions.
My quarrel is not that I do not buy into these arguments—I do—but rather that for being a contrarian thesis there is not enough evidence integrated inline with the main text, nor are the details definitive enough once excavated, to likely sway a doubtful mind. The lack of integration is a stylistic complaint, and the circumstantiality of the evidence is an academic one, but either way the impression that results feels like a lack of rigor, regardless of the truth of this feeling. Of course, it is probable as well that with the available sources the sort of rigor I refer to is impossible. This reality, I feel, does not discount my doubts on the efficacy of Cole’s effort.
Regardless, I am glad of this book and this interpretation, and I believe it presents a compelling interpretation of early Islam that many would be well-advised to peruse. But partly by its nature and partly by its construction, it is also a mere flight of fantasy—even if all its claims around the original intention of the faith are accurate, some critical parts of it do not reflect the tradition of Islam as held and practiced, nor does it carry enough hard evidence to make an appreciable impact upon that tradition.
December 4, 2021
يعتبر هذا الكتاب إضافة مميزة للمكتبة العربية،إذ أنه يغطي أحداث مهمة وهي مرحلة النبوة والبعثة من ناحية جيوسياسية ،بالتالي هي قراءة للسيرة لكن من منظور أشمل وأوسع،
إضافة إلى هذا، نجد أن الكاتب استخدم اسلوبا مميزا في السرد وهو: مقارنة الأحداث بتاريخ الديانات السابقة ليجد امورا مشتركة كثيرة كما سيصل لاشياء انفرد بها الإسلام وهذا مايعزز اطروحة الكاتب الأولية: الإسلام دين السلام .
رغم بعض الانحرافات المنهجية التي وقع فيها الكاتب ليستدل على أن الإسلام لا يدعو لأي حرب الا من باب الدفاع، وبعض التأويلات التي لا يوجد أي دليل عليها الا أن الدراسة هذه مهمة وتقدم إضافات جد مهمة في قراءة التاريخ الإسلامي
إضافة إلى هذا، نجد أن الكاتب استخدم اسلوبا مميزا في السرد وهو: مقارنة الأحداث بتاريخ الديانات السابقة ليجد امورا مشتركة كثيرة كما سيصل لاشياء انفرد بها الإسلام وهذا مايعزز اطروحة الكاتب الأولية: الإسلام دين السلام .
رغم بعض الانحرافات المنهجية التي وقع فيها الكاتب ليستدل على أن الإسلام لا يدعو لأي حرب الا من باب الدفاع، وبعض التأويلات التي لا يوجد أي دليل عليها الا أن الدراسة هذه مهمة وتقدم إضافات جد مهمة في قراءة التاريخ الإسلامي
March 25, 2021
محمد چگونه پیامبری بود؟ قرآن چه دیدگاهی راجع به صلح و جنگ دارد؟ مطالعات باستان شناسانه چه پاسخی می دهند؟
آیا قرآن اجازه ی جنگ یورشگرانه را به مسلمانان می دهد؟ آیا مکه با جنگ فتح شد؟ یا با راه پیمایی مسالمت آمیز مومنان ؟!
شرایط نظامی و سیاسی ساسانیان و امپراتوری روم در زمان بعثت پیامبر چگونه بود؟
آیا مسیحی ها و یهودی ها به بهشت می روند؟ قرآن در این باب چه می گوید؟
آیا ما به عنوان مسلمانان کتاب آسمانی خود را موشکافانه و به دور از آموزه های جاهلی خوانده ایم؟؟
آیا پیامبر را آنگونه شناختیم که امویان و عباسیان می خواستند؟ یا پیامبر را انگونه که بود و آنگونه که قرآن او را می شناسد شناخته ایم؟؟
سنگسار سنت یهودیان است یا ما؟ آیا قرآن اجازه ی سنگسار داده است؟
شاید هوان کل ،استاد دانشگاه میشیگان آمریکا، در این کتاب توانسته باشد به بسیاری از این سوالات جوابی در خور توجه بدهد،هرچند بخش هایی از کتاب شاید از آن رو که نویسنده مسلمان نیست با نظر شخصی من متفاوت بود و مانند هر کتاب دیگری باید با هوشمندی و تفکر مطالعه شود،اما کتابی است راهگشا،اگر میخواهیم اسلام راستین را بازشناسیم.
📚محمد،پیامبر صلح در گرماگرم ستیز امپراتوری ها
🖋️هُوان کُل
📝صالح طباطبایی
🏢نشر روزنه
📄۲۴۰ صفحه + ۱۰۵ صفحه منابع و پی نوشت
آیا قرآن اجازه ی جنگ یورشگرانه را به مسلمانان می دهد؟ آیا مکه با جنگ فتح شد؟ یا با راه پیمایی مسالمت آمیز مومنان ؟!
شرایط نظامی و سیاسی ساسانیان و امپراتوری روم در زمان بعثت پیامبر چگونه بود؟
آیا مسیحی ها و یهودی ها به بهشت می روند؟ قرآن در این باب چه می گوید؟
آیا ما به عنوان مسلمانان کتاب آسمانی خود را موشکافانه و به دور از آموزه های جاهلی خوانده ایم؟؟
آیا پیامبر را آنگونه شناختیم که امویان و عباسیان می خواستند؟ یا پیامبر را انگونه که بود و آنگونه که قرآن او را می شناسد شناخته ایم؟؟
سنگسار سنت یهودیان است یا ما؟ آیا قرآن اجازه ی سنگسار داده است؟
شاید هوان کل ،استاد دانشگاه میشیگان آمریکا، در این کتاب توانسته باشد به بسیاری از این سوالات جوابی در خور توجه بدهد،هرچند بخش هایی از کتاب شاید از آن رو که نویسنده مسلمان نیست با نظر شخصی من متفاوت بود و مانند هر کتاب دیگری باید با هوشمندی و تفکر مطالعه شود،اما کتابی است راهگشا،اگر میخواهیم اسلام راستین را بازشناسیم.
📚محمد،پیامبر صلح در گرماگرم ستیز امپراتوری ها
🖋️هُوان کُل
📝صالح طباطبایی
🏢نشر روزنه
📄۲۴۰ صفحه + ۱۰۵ صفحه منابع و پی نوشت
June 27, 2019
The 2018 book, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid The Clash of Empires by the Historian Juan Cole, views the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an as being a call for peace in the Arabian Peninsula and in the wider world amidst the conflict for control of the Middle East between the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) and the Sasanian Empires in the 7th Century C.E. Cole’s book is a good counter-weight to the writings of other non-Muslim writers on the Prophet Muhammad, such as the writer Thomas Cahill’s portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad and early Islam in his Mysteries of the Middle Ages which is in a more violent light. After looking through comments on Goodreads, I feel like Cole’s Muhammad is an excellent book for non-Muslims, like myself, to give non-Muslims a different view of the message of the Prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an, then some authors give. The Goodreads reviewer Zizi is correct that the fact that Cole’s book “has a narrow focus on one defined era (the life of Muhammad), which helps it avoid some of the pitfalls of other books on this subject, which tend to over-extend themselves.” Cole does his own translations of sources from Arabic and Persian for the book. Overall, I thought the book made a very readable argument that the message of the Prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an for non-Muslims was one of peace.
December 8, 2018
This book was absolutely fantastic! One of the best books that I’ve read all year. I highly recommend it.
December 18, 2019
Excellence read. Every American should read this book.
March 13, 2021
Preporučujem čitanje ove veoma zanimljive i izrazito korisne knjige. Meni se izrazito dopada. Ovu knjigu sam čitao i pravim osvrt na nju sa dva aspekta: kao dijete Zapada koji je iz dana u dan izložen vrlo negativnim komentarima o islamu i muslimanima gdje se redovito isti prikazuju kao bradati militanti koji jedva čekaju da aktiviraju bombu u tržnom centru kako bi povrijedili što više ljudi, te s druge strane čitam kao musliman i kao zaljubljenik u životopis mubarek Poslanika, s.a.v.s. U nastavku ću dati svoj osvrt sa oba spomenuta aspekta.
Prvo, kao dijete Zapada - ova knjiga je zlata vrijedna! Autor svim bićem ističe pozitivne i plemenite aspekte islama koji se na Zapadu stoljećima pokušavaju ugušiti. S tog aspekta, dolazak ove knjige u ruke jednog Amerikanca, Evropljana i drugih nemuslimanskih naroda koji su tako često izloženi dezinformacijama o islamu prava je blagodat. Istaknuo bih i predivan stil autora koji se često upušta u slikovito opisivanje i maštanje te književnim stilom, na divan način, komentariše i opisuje određene pojave.
Međutim, što se tiče čitanja očima zaljubljenika u životopis Poslanika, s.a.v.s., u tom slučaju ova knjiga nosi neke detalje s kojima se ne mogu složiti, a koji se teško mogu dobraniti i argumentovati.
Navest ću nekoliko aspketaka:
Prvo: autor se oslanja isključivo na Kur'an i karakterističan je po svojoj skeptičnosti u vezi svih drugih izvora koji govore o Poslaniku, s.a.v.s., uključujući i Ibn Hišamovu siru i druge sire koje su nastale u najranijem periodu islama. Ovakav pristup je, smatram, glavni krivac za sve druge pogrešne zaključke autora u ovoj divnoj knjizi. Da bi stvar bila čudnija, autor više vjeruje savremenim istraživanjima, nego najranijim izvorima koji su, kako autor tvrdi, nastali pod pritiskom Emevija i Abasija.
Drugo: autor se prečesto upušta u pretpostavljanje i koristi se izrazima "vjerovatno, sigurno je, zvuči logično da..." - smatram da upuštanje u slične pretpostavke ne pomaže mnogo u interpretaciji historijskih događaja.
Treće: ono što sam najviše zamjerio ovoj knjizi jeste što malo ili nikako ne spominje da je Kur'an objavljen Poslaniku, s.a.v.s., već radije prikazuje Poslanika, s.a.v.s., kao pismenog trgovca svjetskog ranga koji je putovao po svijetu, boravio u samostanima i vodio teološke rasprave i prije poslanstva, te se stvara utisak da su kur'anski ajeti, koji se nerijetko povezuju sa Biblijom ukazujući na sličnost, nastali kao produkt tih navodnih rasprava i istraživanja Poslanika, s.a.v.s.
Četvrto: stalno prikazivanje rane muslimanske zajednice na čelu sa Poslanikom, s.a.v.s., kao prorimski orijentisanu zajednicu. Koristeći se "vjerovatnoćama, logičnostima" i slično skoro da u jednom trenutku prikazuje Poslanika, s.a.v.s., kao rimskog vazala, od čega kasnije odustaje uz tvrdnju da je ipak bio samo saveznik, što je upitno.
Peto: islamsku teologiju prikazuje kao eshatološki pluralističku, drugim riječima - na onom svijetu neće biti spašeni samo muslimani, nego i kršćani, židovi, vatropoklonici, sabejci i svi monoteisti vodeći se pritom kur'anskim ajetima koji govore o spasu tih zajednica. Međutim, činjenica je da Kur'an nakon dolaska posljednjeg Poslanika, s.a.v.s., prihvatanje istog čini neizbježnim uslovom za onosvjetsko spasenje.
Šesto: dovodeći u pitanje sve izvore mimo Kur'ana, dok pokušava rekonstruirati bitke shodno kur'anskom tekstu, praznine riješava vjerovatnoćom i pretpostavkama. Ovakav pristup je rezultirao i negiranjem određenih bitaka koje se općepoznate u tradiciji, kao što su bitka na Mu'ti i bitka na Tebuku koje će autor okarakterisati kao "fikcije kasnijih autora koji su time željeli opravdati svoje napade na Bizantiju, koja je bila saveznik mirotvorca Poslanika, s.a.v.s."
Sve ove primjedbe nimalo ne umanjuju vrijednost ove knjige koja je potekla iz pera jednog nemuslimanskog autora i koja je vrijedna čitanja.
Prvo, kao dijete Zapada - ova knjiga je zlata vrijedna! Autor svim bićem ističe pozitivne i plemenite aspekte islama koji se na Zapadu stoljećima pokušavaju ugušiti. S tog aspekta, dolazak ove knjige u ruke jednog Amerikanca, Evropljana i drugih nemuslimanskih naroda koji su tako često izloženi dezinformacijama o islamu prava je blagodat. Istaknuo bih i predivan stil autora koji se često upušta u slikovito opisivanje i maštanje te književnim stilom, na divan način, komentariše i opisuje određene pojave.
Međutim, što se tiče čitanja očima zaljubljenika u životopis Poslanika, s.a.v.s., u tom slučaju ova knjiga nosi neke detalje s kojima se ne mogu složiti, a koji se teško mogu dobraniti i argumentovati.
Navest ću nekoliko aspketaka:
Prvo: autor se oslanja isključivo na Kur'an i karakterističan je po svojoj skeptičnosti u vezi svih drugih izvora koji govore o Poslaniku, s.a.v.s., uključujući i Ibn Hišamovu siru i druge sire koje su nastale u najranijem periodu islama. Ovakav pristup je, smatram, glavni krivac za sve druge pogrešne zaključke autora u ovoj divnoj knjizi. Da bi stvar bila čudnija, autor više vjeruje savremenim istraživanjima, nego najranijim izvorima koji su, kako autor tvrdi, nastali pod pritiskom Emevija i Abasija.
Drugo: autor se prečesto upušta u pretpostavljanje i koristi se izrazima "vjerovatno, sigurno je, zvuči logično da..." - smatram da upuštanje u slične pretpostavke ne pomaže mnogo u interpretaciji historijskih događaja.
Treće: ono što sam najviše zamjerio ovoj knjizi jeste što malo ili nikako ne spominje da je Kur'an objavljen Poslaniku, s.a.v.s., već radije prikazuje Poslanika, s.a.v.s., kao pismenog trgovca svjetskog ranga koji je putovao po svijetu, boravio u samostanima i vodio teološke rasprave i prije poslanstva, te se stvara utisak da su kur'anski ajeti, koji se nerijetko povezuju sa Biblijom ukazujući na sličnost, nastali kao produkt tih navodnih rasprava i istraživanja Poslanika, s.a.v.s.
Četvrto: stalno prikazivanje rane muslimanske zajednice na čelu sa Poslanikom, s.a.v.s., kao prorimski orijentisanu zajednicu. Koristeći se "vjerovatnoćama, logičnostima" i slično skoro da u jednom trenutku prikazuje Poslanika, s.a.v.s., kao rimskog vazala, od čega kasnije odustaje uz tvrdnju da je ipak bio samo saveznik, što je upitno.
Peto: islamsku teologiju prikazuje kao eshatološki pluralističku, drugim riječima - na onom svijetu neće biti spašeni samo muslimani, nego i kršćani, židovi, vatropoklonici, sabejci i svi monoteisti vodeći se pritom kur'anskim ajetima koji govore o spasu tih zajednica. Međutim, činjenica je da Kur'an nakon dolaska posljednjeg Poslanika, s.a.v.s., prihvatanje istog čini neizbježnim uslovom za onosvjetsko spasenje.
Šesto: dovodeći u pitanje sve izvore mimo Kur'ana, dok pokušava rekonstruirati bitke shodno kur'anskom tekstu, praznine riješava vjerovatnoćom i pretpostavkama. Ovakav pristup je rezultirao i negiranjem određenih bitaka koje se općepoznate u tradiciji, kao što su bitka na Mu'ti i bitka na Tebuku koje će autor okarakterisati kao "fikcije kasnijih autora koji su time željeli opravdati svoje napade na Bizantiju, koja je bila saveznik mirotvorca Poslanika, s.a.v.s."
Sve ove primjedbe nimalo ne umanjuju vrijednost ove knjige koja je potekla iz pera jednog nemuslimanskog autora i koja je vrijedna čitanja.
December 7, 2019
From one stereotype to another...
One might as well point to the decline of Mughal India and say the British Raj was a glorious moment of confraternity and love among man, as say Islam's success justified its violence.
Historians should embrace the complexity of leaders and prophets, not whitewash them into somebody they were not. A religion that violently seized power across the modern MENA region is not a hippie congregation. You can argue that the ends justified the means and that Islam created a better world that saved billions of souls; you cannot argue that Islam was more peaceful than its predecessors. The victors of war who repress and dictate the peace are not beautiful souls, but simply imperialists who succeeded. One could easily write the same on the Sassanids or Byzantines, had one of them triumphed and reaped the laurels of peace.
Skimmed this at the library and found it hard to maintain my cool. Is this education or indoctrination for the next generation? We live in an age of historical whitewashing as bad as that of triumphalist pre-WWII Europe. But it makes sense when you follow the money. History departments find themselves heavily funded by non-Western states like the Saudis, and produce far more intellectual drivel than expected.
Anybody who actually knows the history of Byzantium or Sassanid Persia knows that these were not the cliche proto-Nazi states that Juan caricatures, but normal imperial polities dealing with problems inherent in an age of demographic shifts among nomadic 'barbarian' tribes. And anybody who objectively reads the long history of the Arabic caliphates should know that Islam did not resolve the violence of nomadic invasions or autocratic rule.
Here I stand, I can do no other. Juan is not a good historian; he is a biased one. He would be that guy on the TV panel going out of his way to emphasize that ISIS and Islamism is clearly not Islam (ignoring centuries of endemic jihad and a very real modern bloodbath). One has to shift through the historical record with a bias, to say Islamic doctrine is inherently more peaceful than Christian doctrine. Good Byzantines and Arabs alike loved their fellow man, and their idealists obviously applauded peace and love more than war and hate. But history is not about ideals, it's about how ideals react to cold hard reality.
Political Islam did not resolve war or create a peaceful utopia in the MENA region. That is a fact. The Umayyads were slaughtered by the Abbasids. The Byzantines were eventually violently repressed by Arab and Turk. Nomads still eventually swarmed in and sacked Baghdad. Muslim fundamentalists and nearsighted secular liberals might applaud this book for whitewashing a complex man living in a complex time, but actual objective historians and students of the truth should not.
One might as well point to the decline of Mughal India and say the British Raj was a glorious moment of confraternity and love among man, as say Islam's success justified its violence.
Historians should embrace the complexity of leaders and prophets, not whitewash them into somebody they were not. A religion that violently seized power across the modern MENA region is not a hippie congregation. You can argue that the ends justified the means and that Islam created a better world that saved billions of souls; you cannot argue that Islam was more peaceful than its predecessors. The victors of war who repress and dictate the peace are not beautiful souls, but simply imperialists who succeeded. One could easily write the same on the Sassanids or Byzantines, had one of them triumphed and reaped the laurels of peace.
Skimmed this at the library and found it hard to maintain my cool. Is this education or indoctrination for the next generation? We live in an age of historical whitewashing as bad as that of triumphalist pre-WWII Europe. But it makes sense when you follow the money. History departments find themselves heavily funded by non-Western states like the Saudis, and produce far more intellectual drivel than expected.
Anybody who actually knows the history of Byzantium or Sassanid Persia knows that these were not the cliche proto-Nazi states that Juan caricatures, but normal imperial polities dealing with problems inherent in an age of demographic shifts among nomadic 'barbarian' tribes. And anybody who objectively reads the long history of the Arabic caliphates should know that Islam did not resolve the violence of nomadic invasions or autocratic rule.
Here I stand, I can do no other. Juan is not a good historian; he is a biased one. He would be that guy on the TV panel going out of his way to emphasize that ISIS and Islamism is clearly not Islam (ignoring centuries of endemic jihad and a very real modern bloodbath). One has to shift through the historical record with a bias, to say Islamic doctrine is inherently more peaceful than Christian doctrine. Good Byzantines and Arabs alike loved their fellow man, and their idealists obviously applauded peace and love more than war and hate. But history is not about ideals, it's about how ideals react to cold hard reality.
Political Islam did not resolve war or create a peaceful utopia in the MENA region. That is a fact. The Umayyads were slaughtered by the Abbasids. The Byzantines were eventually violently repressed by Arab and Turk. Nomads still eventually swarmed in and sacked Baghdad. Muslim fundamentalists and nearsighted secular liberals might applaud this book for whitewashing a complex man living in a complex time, but actual objective historians and students of the truth should not.
April 29, 2022
ثبت العرش ثم انقش !
كنت أمني نفسي بكتاب ماتع لأنه يتكلم عن رسول الله من وجهة نظر غربية و لكن الكتاب خيب توقعاتي إلى حد كبير
مشكلة الكاتب أنه اعتقد فكرة معينة و هي أن رسول الله كان مبعوثا للسلام العالمي وقت أن كان العالم مشتعلا بحروب فارس و الروم و الحروب الأهلية في الجزيرة العربية و في مقابل هذه الفكرة لوى أعناق النصوص القرآنية و تأولها بما يروج لفكرته بل و أنكر وقوع بعض الحوادث كغزوة تبوك لأنه يعتقد أن رسول كون تحالف بينه و بين الروم لإرساء السلام العالمي و لكن أصحابه بدلوا بعده و حاربوا العالم و غزوه و أن هذا الذي فعله أصحاب النبي و أتباعه مخالف لتعاليم رسول الله.
السلام جانب عظيم من جوانب الإسلام و لكن الله فرض الحرب لترسي هذا السلام و كان من الممكن أن يبرز الجانبين بل و جانب الحرب في الإسلام له آدابه و تعاليمه و في كلا الجانبين تبرز عظمة الدين
لكن فكرة قراءة السيرة النبوية في ظل السياقات التاريخية و العالمية وقتها فكرة جديدة و ربما نجد قراءة و مقاربة أخرى تستطيع أن تستخرج لنا بتحليلات و جوانب أخرى تزيد الموضوع ثراء
الترجمة جيدة و قام المترجمان بالتعليق على الكثير من الجوانب المشكلة .
كنت أمني نفسي بكتاب ماتع لأنه يتكلم عن رسول الله من وجهة نظر غربية و لكن الكتاب خيب توقعاتي إلى حد كبير
مشكلة الكاتب أنه اعتقد فكرة معينة و هي أن رسول الله كان مبعوثا للسلام العالمي وقت أن كان العالم مشتعلا بحروب فارس و الروم و الحروب الأهلية في الجزيرة العربية و في مقابل هذه الفكرة لوى أعناق النصوص القرآنية و تأولها بما يروج لفكرته بل و أنكر وقوع بعض الحوادث كغزوة تبوك لأنه يعتقد أن رسول كون تحالف بينه و بين الروم لإرساء السلام العالمي و لكن أصحابه بدلوا بعده و حاربوا العالم و غزوه و أن هذا الذي فعله أصحاب النبي و أتباعه مخالف لتعاليم رسول الله.
السلام جانب عظيم من جوانب الإسلام و لكن الله فرض الحرب لترسي هذا السلام و كان من الممكن أن يبرز الجانبين بل و جانب الحرب في الإسلام له آدابه و تعاليمه و في كلا الجانبين تبرز عظمة الدين
لكن فكرة قراءة السيرة النبوية في ظل السياقات التاريخية و العالمية وقتها فكرة جديدة و ربما نجد قراءة و مقاربة أخرى تستطيع أن تستخرج لنا بتحليلات و جوانب أخرى تزيد الموضوع ثراء
الترجمة جيدة و قام المترجمان بالتعليق على الكثير من الجوانب المشكلة .
September 2, 2021
Ok, I’ve completed this book.
I have no problem with its central thesis, that Islam had peaceful origins, I’m no exclusivist [thanks editing person in comments] (let folk choose whatever faith they want, or no faith if they prefer - it’s no big deal; I choose a spiritual path that I think is right for me). Yet I still had some issues with the book.
I don’t know about the extent to which 1400 years of established scholarship can just be discarded at whim and without more rigour. Why should I believe that Mohammed (SAW) went to Jerusalem except on Lailatul Meraj? Why should I believe that he was not illiterate? After having spent a month totally immersed in my deep reading of the Quran, a huge experience for me each time, I find myself less receptive to the “this is just another thing“ argument.
And I am so very very grateful for that.
I have no problem with its central thesis, that Islam had peaceful origins, I’m no exclusivist [thanks editing person in comments] (let folk choose whatever faith they want, or no faith if they prefer - it’s no big deal; I choose a spiritual path that I think is right for me). Yet I still had some issues with the book.
I don’t know about the extent to which 1400 years of established scholarship can just be discarded at whim and without more rigour. Why should I believe that Mohammed (SAW) went to Jerusalem except on Lailatul Meraj? Why should I believe that he was not illiterate? After having spent a month totally immersed in my deep reading of the Quran, a huge experience for me each time, I find myself less receptive to the “this is just another thing“ argument.
And I am so very very grateful for that.
September 4, 2021
الكتاب بيحاول يسرد الرسالة النبوية الشريفة من خلال الجيوسياسة الإقليمية في القرن السابع الميلادي. المحاولة حلوة ومتكررتش كتير قبل كده. بس في حاجات كتير محتاجة مراجعة.
July 16, 2025
Amazing book with a lot of interesting historical and religious commentary
April 15, 2022
The life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in its geopolitical context
This is a very well-researched book about how life was like during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), from the context of geopolitics. While many other excellent books on the Prophet focused on the person or the early Muslim community, this book adds into the dimension of his story by providing the crucial background environment.
It depicts the vibrant mash up of cultures and languages in the region, the crowded markets, the traveling merchants on top of a camel, how the trade routes operate, and most profoundly the influences of political superpowers on the ever changing and ever complicated conditions for trade and commerce.
It also shows the strong existence of Paganism within this rigidly hierarchical society, with Jews and Christian influences slightly receded and played only the minority roles. All of which became the young Muhammad’s working condition as a merchant in his early years, and later on became the political environment during the early days of the Muslim community.
The author, Juan Cole, is a Middle East political expert with decades of experience. And to write this book he reads the Qur’an, the Bible, and their many accompanying texts, as well as many other sacred books such as Zoroastrianism texts, not to mention a huge trove of historical findings - from those carved in stones, to the many scrolls, to academic research findings -, so that he can narrate the stories as accurate as possible with impressive relevant Quranic and Biblical citations to make the points across within the narration.
As Cole remarks, the main purpose of the book is to “puts forward a reinterpretation of early Islam as a movement strongly inflected with values of peacemaking that was reacting against the slaughter of the decades-long war and attendant religious strife.”
Indeed, Islam was born in the middle of a massive clash between two empires, the Romans and the Sasanian Empire (of Iran), that was fought with unparalleled brutality for nearly 3 decades. This shows the extreme difficulties for the Prophet to preach the message of peace, and also explains the context for some of the “war verses” that are often taken out of context and misinterpreted in modern days and/or criticized by those who don’t understand.
However, to be fair, the critics are not entirely wrong. While Cole said the early Muslim community under the leadership of the Prophet “resembles much more the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount than is usually admitted”, he also acknowledges that “[l]ife in medieval feudal societies did not encourage pacific theologies, and Muslims in later empires lost touch with the realities of the early seventh century.” But Cole then argues that, judging Islam from only the later empires is like judging Christianity from the actions of the likes of Pope Urban II, who launched the brutal Crusades in the Holy Land.
In other words, it is true that after the Prophet passed away Islam became increasingly militant, but as Cole remarks, “[w]e might consider some other historical parallels here. The peaceful spiritual founder of the Sikh religion in medieval India, Guru Nanak (d. 1539), was succeeded by more militant figures such as the fifth Guru, Arjun, and then by the tenth, Gobind Singh (d. 1708), who instituted warlike rules for the religion.” Hence, for those who pinpointed Islam as a violent religion by highlighting only the era after the Prophet has passed away, they’re technically right, but they’re missing the larger context: That all from secular to religious empires were also violent in those eras.
Furthermore, the book also highlighted some of the misconceptions of Islam. Such as the Sharia law, where the word sharia in the sense of Islamic law does not actually exist in the Qur’an, but instead the notion of sharia law was constructed by later generations using collected sayings and deeds attributed to the Prophet, which were passed down orally and many of which were actually folk literature, dubious, or even blatant forgery. In other words, there are also political infighting within the Muslim community, complete with all the egos and political agendas.
Another argument from the book is the possible geopolitical reason for the Hijra movement, where “[s]cholars have increasingly also tied the second half of Muhammad’s career, 622–632, to the maneuverings of Rome and Iran, even suggesting that his move to Medina from his hometown of Mecca may have been connected to Roman diplomacy.” The book also shows the massive backlash for the Muslim community in their arrival at Medina during the Hijra, and how the Prophet masterfully ride and change the political tide into a more favourable condition for Muslims.
But perhaps the most controversial argument of the book is about the eternally-debated intelligence of Muhammad before his encounter with the angel, which makes more sense and actually shows the brilliance of our Prophet more than what he was given credit for.
In Cole’s own words, “[a]lthough most of his biographers have treated him as a provincial holy man, Muhammad traveled widely. He would have been acquainted with Roman law, culture, and languages. Contrary both to later Muslim apologetics and to the assumptions of Western Orientalists, he was literate, as any great long-distance merchant would have been. He knew the Bible, probably in written Aramaic versions and oral Arab traditions, though possibly in Greek as well. In his thirties, I suspect, Muhammad’s inner thirst took him to Christian monasteries, eldritch shrines, Jewish synagogues, and Neoplatonist salons in Damascus and Bostra. Unexpectedly, his quest ended when its object came instead to him.”
All in all, as you can see, the book gives the human side of historical Islam, it provides the much needed context to fully understand what really happened, and shed a light into the political operator side of the Prophet, which, given the complicated geopolitical situation of his days, made his role as a messenger of God looks more important and his overall achievements of building Islam as the religion of peace even more impressive.
This is a very well-researched book about how life was like during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), from the context of geopolitics. While many other excellent books on the Prophet focused on the person or the early Muslim community, this book adds into the dimension of his story by providing the crucial background environment.
It depicts the vibrant mash up of cultures and languages in the region, the crowded markets, the traveling merchants on top of a camel, how the trade routes operate, and most profoundly the influences of political superpowers on the ever changing and ever complicated conditions for trade and commerce.
It also shows the strong existence of Paganism within this rigidly hierarchical society, with Jews and Christian influences slightly receded and played only the minority roles. All of which became the young Muhammad’s working condition as a merchant in his early years, and later on became the political environment during the early days of the Muslim community.
The author, Juan Cole, is a Middle East political expert with decades of experience. And to write this book he reads the Qur’an, the Bible, and their many accompanying texts, as well as many other sacred books such as Zoroastrianism texts, not to mention a huge trove of historical findings - from those carved in stones, to the many scrolls, to academic research findings -, so that he can narrate the stories as accurate as possible with impressive relevant Quranic and Biblical citations to make the points across within the narration.
As Cole remarks, the main purpose of the book is to “puts forward a reinterpretation of early Islam as a movement strongly inflected with values of peacemaking that was reacting against the slaughter of the decades-long war and attendant religious strife.”
Indeed, Islam was born in the middle of a massive clash between two empires, the Romans and the Sasanian Empire (of Iran), that was fought with unparalleled brutality for nearly 3 decades. This shows the extreme difficulties for the Prophet to preach the message of peace, and also explains the context for some of the “war verses” that are often taken out of context and misinterpreted in modern days and/or criticized by those who don’t understand.
However, to be fair, the critics are not entirely wrong. While Cole said the early Muslim community under the leadership of the Prophet “resembles much more the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount than is usually admitted”, he also acknowledges that “[l]ife in medieval feudal societies did not encourage pacific theologies, and Muslims in later empires lost touch with the realities of the early seventh century.” But Cole then argues that, judging Islam from only the later empires is like judging Christianity from the actions of the likes of Pope Urban II, who launched the brutal Crusades in the Holy Land.
In other words, it is true that after the Prophet passed away Islam became increasingly militant, but as Cole remarks, “[w]e might consider some other historical parallels here. The peaceful spiritual founder of the Sikh religion in medieval India, Guru Nanak (d. 1539), was succeeded by more militant figures such as the fifth Guru, Arjun, and then by the tenth, Gobind Singh (d. 1708), who instituted warlike rules for the religion.” Hence, for those who pinpointed Islam as a violent religion by highlighting only the era after the Prophet has passed away, they’re technically right, but they’re missing the larger context: That all from secular to religious empires were also violent in those eras.
Furthermore, the book also highlighted some of the misconceptions of Islam. Such as the Sharia law, where the word sharia in the sense of Islamic law does not actually exist in the Qur’an, but instead the notion of sharia law was constructed by later generations using collected sayings and deeds attributed to the Prophet, which were passed down orally and many of which were actually folk literature, dubious, or even blatant forgery. In other words, there are also political infighting within the Muslim community, complete with all the egos and political agendas.
Another argument from the book is the possible geopolitical reason for the Hijra movement, where “[s]cholars have increasingly also tied the second half of Muhammad’s career, 622–632, to the maneuverings of Rome and Iran, even suggesting that his move to Medina from his hometown of Mecca may have been connected to Roman diplomacy.” The book also shows the massive backlash for the Muslim community in their arrival at Medina during the Hijra, and how the Prophet masterfully ride and change the political tide into a more favourable condition for Muslims.
But perhaps the most controversial argument of the book is about the eternally-debated intelligence of Muhammad before his encounter with the angel, which makes more sense and actually shows the brilliance of our Prophet more than what he was given credit for.
In Cole’s own words, “[a]lthough most of his biographers have treated him as a provincial holy man, Muhammad traveled widely. He would have been acquainted with Roman law, culture, and languages. Contrary both to later Muslim apologetics and to the assumptions of Western Orientalists, he was literate, as any great long-distance merchant would have been. He knew the Bible, probably in written Aramaic versions and oral Arab traditions, though possibly in Greek as well. In his thirties, I suspect, Muhammad’s inner thirst took him to Christian monasteries, eldritch shrines, Jewish synagogues, and Neoplatonist salons in Damascus and Bostra. Unexpectedly, his quest ended when its object came instead to him.”
All in all, as you can see, the book gives the human side of historical Islam, it provides the much needed context to fully understand what really happened, and shed a light into the political operator side of the Prophet, which, given the complicated geopolitical situation of his days, made his role as a messenger of God looks more important and his overall achievements of building Islam as the religion of peace even more impressive.
November 6, 2023
Juan Cole offers an interpretation of the Qur’an and the Islamic tradition that is grounded in the concept of peace and respect for a pluralistic society, both ethnically and religiously. I learned a lot— just know that the book is fairly dense and not necessarily very accessible to folks without a foundational understanding of Middle Eastern history.
I would characterize this as a book that deals primarily with the early history of Islam, and secondarily with the history of the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself. It’s also important to keep in mind that Juan Cole is a historian, not a theologian, so this should appropriately be understood as a history book. For that reason, I would advise caution when reading reviews that disagree with and discard the author’s thesis on a doctrinal basis— Cole is clear that his is one out of a multitude of interpretations and he warns that it squarely contradicts the positions of both classical and modern exegetes.
I would characterize this as a book that deals primarily with the early history of Islam, and secondarily with the history of the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself. It’s also important to keep in mind that Juan Cole is a historian, not a theologian, so this should appropriately be understood as a history book. For that reason, I would advise caution when reading reviews that disagree with and discard the author’s thesis on a doctrinal basis— Cole is clear that his is one out of a multitude of interpretations and he warns that it squarely contradicts the positions of both classical and modern exegetes.
November 11, 2019
Nicely put 👌
November 15, 2019
Fascinating and in-depth review of early Islamic history and the Prophet's role in peace treaties and bringing warring factions closer!
December 22, 2022
This book dismantles the myths and misconceptions about the Prophet Muhammad, the teachings of the Quran, and the history of the prophet. Juan Cole relies on the text of the Quran, and elucidates how historians- Muslim historians - in writing the prophet's biography in the centuries after the prophet's death, militarized the Prophet's history to glorify military valor in the face of tensions with Christians and Jews. He methodically deconstructs the false narratives that have permeated Islamic history, always keeping the Quran in focus. I wish I had read this book when it was first published, and I wished books like this had been written decades and centuries ago.
October 14, 2019
That was disappointing. It wasn't bad, but I wasn't sure how far to push it.
Cole has an intriguing thesis: Muhammad's message was far more geared to peace than is commonly recognized in the west - or even among many Muslims themselves. He quotes chunks of the Qu'ran that fit his thesis and explains away other parts.
It's interesting, but ..... it often felt like he was pushing it a bit hard. Cole lost me quite a bit early on with constant equivocations. His take on Muhammad seemed heavily based on assumptions on how the prophet should/ought to have acted. For example, on page 19 alone, Cole uses "may have" and "might have" and "must have." That's a lot of guessing going on for one page. Two pages later he throws out "would have" and "perhaps." Not long after we get a "likely formed" and "I suspect."
Look, I get it. Theories are based on speculation. Theories about someone from 1400-plus years ago - for whom little was written down until long after he was dead - all the more so. But the barrage of guessing was more pronounced than it should be. I felt like I could make a bingo card with all his various guess phrases. In particular, I don't think he did nearly enough to explain how the Muslim world became an expansionist empire so dang fast after Muhammad's death if the man's message was so firmly centered on peace. (He compares it to the Sikh community, but that struck me as a bad comparison as they became more militaristic in part due to the persecution they suffered from the Mughal Dynasty. And even still, their mlitaristic development wasn't nearly so fast). I couldn't help but notice that while Cole is an expert on the Middle East, his main focus has been on more recent things - including the contemporary world. Is he reaching beyond his area of expertise here?
It's not without value. I especially liked how he paralleled what was occurring in the big Byzantine-Persia War with what was going on in Muhammad's own ministry. That does a good job arguing that Muhammad's words placed him on the side of the Byzantines in the war. (Again, so why'd they take land from the Byzantines so soon after Muhammad's death?)
I really respect the work Cole had done, but this was disappointing. 2.5 stars.
Cole has an intriguing thesis: Muhammad's message was far more geared to peace than is commonly recognized in the west - or even among many Muslims themselves. He quotes chunks of the Qu'ran that fit his thesis and explains away other parts.
It's interesting, but ..... it often felt like he was pushing it a bit hard. Cole lost me quite a bit early on with constant equivocations. His take on Muhammad seemed heavily based on assumptions on how the prophet should/ought to have acted. For example, on page 19 alone, Cole uses "may have" and "might have" and "must have." That's a lot of guessing going on for one page. Two pages later he throws out "would have" and "perhaps." Not long after we get a "likely formed" and "I suspect."
Look, I get it. Theories are based on speculation. Theories about someone from 1400-plus years ago - for whom little was written down until long after he was dead - all the more so. But the barrage of guessing was more pronounced than it should be. I felt like I could make a bingo card with all his various guess phrases. In particular, I don't think he did nearly enough to explain how the Muslim world became an expansionist empire so dang fast after Muhammad's death if the man's message was so firmly centered on peace. (He compares it to the Sikh community, but that struck me as a bad comparison as they became more militaristic in part due to the persecution they suffered from the Mughal Dynasty. And even still, their mlitaristic development wasn't nearly so fast). I couldn't help but notice that while Cole is an expert on the Middle East, his main focus has been on more recent things - including the contemporary world. Is he reaching beyond his area of expertise here?
It's not without value. I especially liked how he paralleled what was occurring in the big Byzantine-Persia War with what was going on in Muhammad's own ministry. That does a good job arguing that Muhammad's words placed him on the side of the Byzantines in the war. (Again, so why'd they take land from the Byzantines so soon after Muhammad's death?)
I really respect the work Cole had done, but this was disappointing. 2.5 stars.
September 25, 2020
Tries way to hard. Islam isn't a pacifist religion and neither is Islam a religion of war.
The argument the author tries to present here is based on the cherry picking of Islamic sacred texts and straight up discardment of the parts of early Muslim histories he dislikes (those that don't fit into his narrative, like the battle of Mut'a, expedition to Tabuk, raids launched by the prophet saws., etc.)
If anything, it is a good example of how manipulative religions are and how they can be interpreted in the way you want them to be interpreted.
Non objectively looking at the books of faith and history of Islam while choosing only the parts you can use to make your arguments while completely rejecting the ones which would clearly end up contradicting it.
On the other hand, a lot of useful information about Roman-Persian war and the broader sense of Roman/Iranian commonwealths and their relationships with Arab federates and tribes in Hejaz/Transjordan.
Interesting thesis based on the works of Bowersock about the Roman/Islamic alliance and preference for eachother in the wake of Sassanid aggression.
The argument the author tries to present here is based on the cherry picking of Islamic sacred texts and straight up discardment of the parts of early Muslim histories he dislikes (those that don't fit into his narrative, like the battle of Mut'a, expedition to Tabuk, raids launched by the prophet saws., etc.)
If anything, it is a good example of how manipulative religions are and how they can be interpreted in the way you want them to be interpreted.
Non objectively looking at the books of faith and history of Islam while choosing only the parts you can use to make your arguments while completely rejecting the ones which would clearly end up contradicting it.
On the other hand, a lot of useful information about Roman-Persian war and the broader sense of Roman/Iranian commonwealths and their relationships with Arab federates and tribes in Hejaz/Transjordan.
Interesting thesis based on the works of Bowersock about the Roman/Islamic alliance and preference for eachother in the wake of Sassanid aggression.
July 5, 2021
I believed this was a biography of the Mohamed, but as biographies go, this one is very skimpy on details about the person.
Instead the author argues, based on a selective reading of the Qu'ran and arabic sources, that Mohamed was an advocate for peace, only going to war when attacked or to prevent an attack.
Although to me this theory is plausible, it goes against the military history of Mohamed's followers. Even the author is forced to admit that less than two years after the death of Mohamed, his followers started raiding the neighbooring Byzantine and Persian empires. They were so successfull that less than 80 years latter, they were crossing into the Iberian peninsula. Not exactly the type of behavior expected from peacefull minded people.
However the biggest shortcomming of the book is claiming that Westerners (the US in this case) got Islam all wrong just because a few of its followers commit horrible crimes. Using the same argument, just because Mohamed was a pieous advocate for peace does imply that his followers behaved the same way.
Instead the author argues, based on a selective reading of the Qu'ran and arabic sources, that Mohamed was an advocate for peace, only going to war when attacked or to prevent an attack.
Although to me this theory is plausible, it goes against the military history of Mohamed's followers. Even the author is forced to admit that less than two years after the death of Mohamed, his followers started raiding the neighbooring Byzantine and Persian empires. They were so successfull that less than 80 years latter, they were crossing into the Iberian peninsula. Not exactly the type of behavior expected from peacefull minded people.
However the biggest shortcomming of the book is claiming that Westerners (the US in this case) got Islam all wrong just because a few of its followers commit horrible crimes. Using the same argument, just because Mohamed was a pieous advocate for peace does imply that his followers behaved the same way.
January 12, 2021
If one is looking for a historical perspective of Prophet's life, i.e. what was happening around the time and where his mission fitted globally then and now in 'political' dimensions, this book in quite neat.
Professor Cole's book not only provides that perspective but also provides a view of Prophet's own life with a zoomed out lens. The interactions and alliances built for sustainable peace are discussed in usual narratives as well but unless you zoom out, you can't appreciate the vastness of mind, inclusiveness of behavior and the combination of compassion and utmost tolerance required to lead like that; which He is famous for. Professor Cole has also provided his readings and understanding of certain relevant pieces from Quran which when combined with the historical view, opens up many rich meanings.
I am not a student of history but it was an enjoyable read.
Professor Cole's book not only provides that perspective but also provides a view of Prophet's own life with a zoomed out lens. The interactions and alliances built for sustainable peace are discussed in usual narratives as well but unless you zoom out, you can't appreciate the vastness of mind, inclusiveness of behavior and the combination of compassion and utmost tolerance required to lead like that; which He is famous for. Professor Cole has also provided his readings and understanding of certain relevant pieces from Quran which when combined with the historical view, opens up many rich meanings.
I am not a student of history but it was an enjoyable read.
September 13, 2022
cole is a weird western islam fan-boy scholar who ignores the fact the quran is a split personality, the Mecca personality and the Medina personality. so Cole picks and chooses which testimony suits his purposes. like "Muhammad as an old man would recite verses of the Qur’an that praised Christians for their loving attitude," end quote. this passage from sura 5 the table would only apply to Christians who submitted and declared allah the true god. that is clear in the next verse 5:83 quote "When they listen to what has been revealed to the messengers, you see their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the truth. They say, Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us among the witnesses." end quote.
March 19, 2019
This was a nice book that has an interesting take on the early scriptures of Islam. It was a bit boring in places.
May 31, 2022
ما الذي يُمكِن أن يُقدّمة " خوان كول" عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خلافًا لما قدَّمه غيره من المستشرقين؟ ربما يكون هذا السؤال مُلحَّا ونحن نفكر في القراءة لمستشرق يكتب عن سيرة النبي العظيم محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، لاشك أنّ هناك اختلاف وربما يكون هذا الاختلاف عظيمًا وهو إيمان خوان كول بأنَّ الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم هو نبي مرسل من الله تعالى لهداية الناس، بل ولنشر "السلام" كما يريد أن يقول كول وسط صراع عالمي بين إمبراطوريتين كبيرتين وهما الإمبراطورية البيزنطية ( الروم) و الإمبراطورية الساسانية ( الفرس)، في ظل ذلك الصراع يقرأ كول سيرة النبي العظيم وحياته ودعوته.
تبدو السّمة المميّزة في قراءة كول هو دمجه لطبيعة الصراع الإمبراطوري في مسيرة الإسلام وتشكُّلاته، بالتأكيد كان لهذا نواحي إيجابية منها معرفة المتغيرات العالمية التي صاحبت ظهور الإسلام وطبيعة الخلاف بين الفرس والروم و الانقلابات داخل السلطة البيزنطية نفسها وما أحدثتها من تفكُّكات أوصلت الفرس إلى بسط سيطرتهم على تخوم كانت تحت سيادة الروم مثل القدس، لكن على جانب آخر تُقدّم تلك القراءة مشكلة وقع فيها كول، وهي التأويل المتعسِّف لموقف النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من ذلك الصراع، حتى جعل المسلمين متحالفين في النصف الثاني من بعثة النبي مع الإمبراطور المسيحي هيراكليوس، وجعل كول من معارك النبي ضد المشركين الغرض منها – أو في أحد جوانبها- حماية الكنائس الرومانية في مملكة شرق الأردن وسورية في الشمال، إنّه يجعل في افتراض لا يقدر على إثباته أنَّ معركتي بدر وأحد كانتا لهذا السبب .
حقيقة من مجالات التميّز في هذا الكتاب استعمال الخلفيات السياسية الدولية والإقليمية والمحلية لقراءة الأحداث في مكة والمدينة، لكن أحيانًا كان يذهب الخيال بكول بعيدًا حتى جعل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حليفًا للغرب، وقد قال كول ذلك صراحة، ورغم أنّ كول قلل كثيرًا من أهمية كتب السيرة وقال أنَّه سيعتمد على القرآن الكريم وحده، إلا أنّه في الحقيقة لم يقدر على الالتزام بهذا الأمر، ولجأ لذكر أحداث لم يكن له من سبيل إليها إلا كتب السيرة، لكن الشيء المُلفِت للنظر أنّه رغم ذلك خالف نصوصًا قرآنية صريحة، مثلًا يُصرّ كول أنَّ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يُجيد القراءة والكتابة، وأنّه كان على اطلاع على كتابات أهل الكتاب، لا يقول بطبيعة الحال أنَّ النبي اقتبس أو نقل كما يقول غيره من المستشرقين، بل يبدو أنّ كول يؤمن بأصالة الوحي المحمدي، لكن مشكلة ادعاء كول أنَّه مجرد ادعاء لم يسنده أي دليل.
ورغم اعتماد كول على القرآن فإنه ينفي أنَّ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كفّر أهل الكتاب، أو نظر لهم كأنهم من أصحاب الجحيم، بل كي يستقيم له سرديته عن " السلام" وفق ما يتخيلّه كول نفى تمامًا فكرة الجهاد المسلّح، وقام بتأويل مفهوم الجهاد في القرآن لمعاني آخرى تبعد عن الفعل القتالي، وبالتالي كان عليه أن يبرِّر حروب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فما كان منه إلا أن وضعها تحت بند " الحرب العادلة"، حرب الدفاع عن النفس التي تهدف إلى إقرار السلام، وينظر إلى صحيفة المدينة على أنَّها دستور يُجسّد الميثاق السياسي للسلام والوحدة الذي أراده النبي العظيم، ثم يرى جهود النبي للسلام من خلال " صلح الحديبية"، ويرى في أحكام الصلح غير المذكورة في القرآن تشابه مع بعض أحكام الصلح الموجودة في معاهدة السلام بين الروم والفرس عام ٥٦١-٥٦٢، بما في ذلك الاتفاق على رفض استلام الهاربين، لكن كول رغم ذلك يشكّك في صلح الحديبية لكونه غير موجود في القرآن، رغم أنّه ذكر حوادث غيرها غير موجودة في القرآن بكل أريحية، ولكنه هنا يُشكّك في وقوعها قائلًا ربما قام كتّاب السيرة بإنشاء هذه الحلقة الوسيطة كمرجع لسورة الفتح حتى يتمكّنوا من تحويل دخول مكة إلى حدث عسكري.
يبدو أنَّ كول هنا يُضحِّي بأي حقائق تاريخية من أجل الحفاظ على سرديته عن السلام أو عن العلاقة مع الرومان أو مع الكفار أنفسهم، ومع إيمان كول أنّ الانتصار الحقيقي على الكفار كان انتصارًا أخلاقيًا، إلا أنّ ذلك لم يحول دون فتح مكة وهو الحدث الذي يقرأه كول ضمن إطار الحرب العادلة، فكول يؤكّد في كذا موضع على إدانة القرآن لحروب العدوان وتشديده على التسامح الديني، وبسبب أنَّ كول يُسقِط مفهوم الجهاد عسكريًا، كان عليه أن يذهب بعيدًا إلى مزيد من التأويل لحروب الرسول، لكن الأمر المفجع أنَّه لما وجد نفسه أمام مشكلة حقيقية مع حروب الخلفاء الراشدين، كان عليه أنّ يتَّهم خلفاء الرسول بتحويل حركة ( هكذا قال) نبي السلام إلى حركة متشددة، وعدّ ذلك نوعًا من الاستغلال مثل الذي مارسه قسطنطين وخلفاؤه بالمسيحية.
رغم أنّ الكتاب لا يحمل عدوانًا على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ويحمل له التقدير الكبير، ورغم أنّه استعمل بعض المقاربات التاريخية المنهجية المفيدة، إلا أنّ الكتاب لم يُعجبني، لأننا بالنهاية نريد أن يفهم العالم الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ودعوته كما أرادها هو، وأن يفهم العالم تفسير السيرة وحروب الرسول ومواقفه الدعوية والسياسية -إن جاز القول - وفق أصول ومفاهيم الشريعة التي أصلّها الأفذاذ من العلماء على مر العصور الذين هم بطبيعة الحال أكثر فهمًا للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وللإسلام من خوان كول الذي على كل حال قدّم مجهودًا يُشكر عليه وفق فهمه واطلاعه، ومن ناحية أخرى جاءت ترجمة الكتاب ممتازة كعادة كل ترجمات عمرو بسيوني وهشام سمير.
#قراءة_2022
#معرض_الكتاب2022
تبدو السّمة المميّزة في قراءة كول هو دمجه لطبيعة الصراع الإمبراطوري في مسيرة الإسلام وتشكُّلاته، بالتأكيد كان لهذا نواحي إيجابية منها معرفة المتغيرات العالمية التي صاحبت ظهور الإسلام وطبيعة الخلاف بين الفرس والروم و الانقلابات داخل السلطة البيزنطية نفسها وما أحدثتها من تفكُّكات أوصلت الفرس إلى بسط سيطرتهم على تخوم كانت تحت سيادة الروم مثل القدس، لكن على جانب آخر تُقدّم تلك القراءة مشكلة وقع فيها كول، وهي التأويل المتعسِّف لموقف النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من ذلك الصراع، حتى جعل المسلمين متحالفين في النصف الثاني من بعثة النبي مع الإمبراطور المسيحي هيراكليوس، وجعل كول من معارك النبي ضد المشركين الغرض منها – أو في أحد جوانبها- حماية الكنائس الرومانية في مملكة شرق الأردن وسورية في الشمال، إنّه يجعل في افتراض لا يقدر على إثباته أنَّ معركتي بدر وأحد كانتا لهذا السبب .
حقيقة من مجالات التميّز في هذا الكتاب استعمال الخلفيات السياسية الدولية والإقليمية والمحلية لقراءة الأحداث في مكة والمدينة، لكن أحيانًا كان يذهب الخيال بكول بعيدًا حتى جعل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حليفًا للغرب، وقد قال كول ذلك صراحة، ورغم أنّ كول قلل كثيرًا من أهمية كتب السيرة وقال أنَّه سيعتمد على القرآن الكريم وحده، إلا أنّه في الحقيقة لم يقدر على الالتزام بهذا الأمر، ولجأ لذكر أحداث لم يكن له من سبيل إليها إلا كتب السيرة، لكن الشيء المُلفِت للنظر أنّه رغم ذلك خالف نصوصًا قرآنية صريحة، مثلًا يُصرّ كول أنَّ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يُجيد القراءة والكتابة، وأنّه كان على اطلاع على كتابات أهل الكتاب، لا يقول بطبيعة الحال أنَّ النبي اقتبس أو نقل كما يقول غيره من المستشرقين، بل يبدو أنّ كول يؤمن بأصالة الوحي المحمدي، لكن مشكلة ادعاء كول أنَّه مجرد ادعاء لم يسنده أي دليل.
ورغم اعتماد كول على القرآن فإنه ينفي أنَّ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كفّر أهل الكتاب، أو نظر لهم كأنهم من أصحاب الجحيم، بل كي يستقيم له سرديته عن " السلام" وفق ما يتخيلّه كول نفى تمامًا فكرة الجهاد المسلّح، وقام بتأويل مفهوم الجهاد في القرآن لمعاني آخرى تبعد عن الفعل القتالي، وبالتالي كان عليه أن يبرِّر حروب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فما كان منه إلا أن وضعها تحت بند " الحرب العادلة"، حرب الدفاع عن النفس التي تهدف إلى إقرار السلام، وينظر إلى صحيفة المدينة على أنَّها دستور يُجسّد الميثاق السياسي للسلام والوحدة الذي أراده النبي العظيم، ثم يرى جهود النبي للسلام من خلال " صلح الحديبية"، ويرى في أحكام الصلح غير المذكورة في القرآن تشابه مع بعض أحكام الصلح الموجودة في معاهدة السلام بين الروم والفرس عام ٥٦١-٥٦٢، بما في ذلك الاتفاق على رفض استلام الهاربين، لكن كول رغم ذلك يشكّك في صلح الحديبية لكونه غير موجود في القرآن، رغم أنّه ذكر حوادث غيرها غير موجودة في القرآن بكل أريحية، ولكنه هنا يُشكّك في وقوعها قائلًا ربما قام كتّاب السيرة بإنشاء هذه الحلقة الوسيطة كمرجع لسورة الفتح حتى يتمكّنوا من تحويل دخول مكة إلى حدث عسكري.
يبدو أنَّ كول هنا يُضحِّي بأي حقائق تاريخية من أجل الحفاظ على سرديته عن السلام أو عن العلاقة مع الرومان أو مع الكفار أنفسهم، ومع إيمان كول أنّ الانتصار الحقيقي على الكفار كان انتصارًا أخلاقيًا، إلا أنّ ذلك لم يحول دون فتح مكة وهو الحدث الذي يقرأه كول ضمن إطار الحرب العادلة، فكول يؤكّد في كذا موضع على إدانة القرآن لحروب العدوان وتشديده على التسامح الديني، وبسبب أنَّ كول يُسقِط مفهوم الجهاد عسكريًا، كان عليه أن يذهب بعيدًا إلى مزيد من التأويل لحروب الرسول، لكن الأمر المفجع أنَّه لما وجد نفسه أمام مشكلة حقيقية مع حروب الخلفاء الراشدين، كان عليه أنّ يتَّهم خلفاء الرسول بتحويل حركة ( هكذا قال) نبي السلام إلى حركة متشددة، وعدّ ذلك نوعًا من الاستغلال مثل الذي مارسه قسطنطين وخلفاؤه بالمسيحية.
رغم أنّ الكتاب لا يحمل عدوانًا على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ويحمل له التقدير الكبير، ورغم أنّه استعمل بعض المقاربات التاريخية المنهجية المفيدة، إلا أنّ الكتاب لم يُعجبني، لأننا بالنهاية نريد أن يفهم العالم الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ودعوته كما أرادها هو، وأن يفهم العالم تفسير السيرة وحروب الرسول ومواقفه الدعوية والسياسية -إن جاز القول - وفق أصول ومفاهيم الشريعة التي أصلّها الأفذاذ من العلماء على مر العصور الذين هم بطبيعة الحال أكثر فهمًا للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وللإسلام من خوان كول الذي على كل حال قدّم مجهودًا يُشكر عليه وفق فهمه واطلاعه، ومن ناحية أخرى جاءت ترجمة الكتاب ممتازة كعادة كل ترجمات عمرو بسيوني وهشام سمير.
#قراءة_2022
#معرض_الكتاب2022
August 15, 2022
I very much enjoyed reading this book. Juan Cole has investigated the thought of Islams prophet Muhammad regarding non-muslims on the basis of the Quran, contemporary East-Roman thought, contemporary sources, and archaeology. Cole’s image of Muhammad differs from the Western image of Muhammad, but also, but less, from the Muslim image.
The West has often seen Islam as an enemy or as (morally) inferior. Edward Said’s “Orientalism” gives a good description of this. This has determined and skewed the Western image of Muhammad and Islam as more warlike than it actually is. According to Cole muslims changed Muhammads thought about peace and just war in the same direction, in order to justify a century of conquest by Arab armies (agression), e.g. by ascribing raids on caravans to him (also agression).
What does Cole write about Muhammad? 1) peace was a core value of Muhammad; his clan was guardian of the ka’aba and he was accustomed to negotiating peace between enemies. 2) freedom of conscience (and therefore of religion) and tolerance were also core values. According to Muhammad every monotheist who believed in resurrection and Final Judgement, and who did good deeds could go to heaven, no matter whether he or she was muslim, jew, christian or sabian (and later he added Zoroastrian). On the other hand Muhammad did insist on criticizing their religions and preaching Islam. As a measure of devotion he preferred the amount of “good works” above religious hair-splitting. As additional proof, Cole points at the religious tolerance in the empire conquered by the Arabs. 3) just war (i.e. defensive war) was also one of Muhammads core values. He was against aggression and preached goodwill once a war was over or the enemy repented or offered peace. According to Cole Muhammad fought only defensive battles, never took a city by force, nor ever raided a caravan. For instance in 630 he could take Mecca peacefully because a) he went there peacefully with a group of pilgrims from Medina, b) many Meccans were secret converts to Islam, and c) the defeat, in 627, of the Sassanids by the Romans had undermined the position of Muhammads enemies in Mecca, who were allied with the Sassanids. Cities in Yemen, like Aden and Sana’a, joined Muhammad because their elites converted to Islam. According to Cole Islam had a lot of soft-power.
Cole puts Muhammads history also in the perspective of the “world war” between the Sassanids and the Eastern Romans (610-628), in which the Romans lost what is now all the land from Syria to Egypt for about 15 years (including Jerusalem). As Muhammad felt naturally allied with the Romans (his thought built on their thought) this was threatening to him, not only psychologically, but also physically (the Sassanids might attack Medina). According to Cole all the destruction caused by the war strengthened Muhammads insistence on peace.
This books makes you contemplate how history as it is told is often a construct in which historical facts may be less important than the ideas and required justifications of the people constructing it. Of course this could be the case with Cole’s book too. It is strange that just one or two years after Muhammads death his Arabs started conquering a huge empire (agression), while Muhammad preached “no aggression”. According to Cole the quick conversion of so many Arabs meant that many of them did not internalise Muhammads thought, and they loved to raid. This was especially so for the natural fighters, the Bedouin. Another explanation is that Muhammad did change his thought on just war towards the end of his live (some claim that new war-verses in the Quran abrogated older peace verses), although I find it strange that a principled man like Muhammad would change his mind in that way (let alone an all-knowing God). It’s up to experts to discuss this further.
The West has often seen Islam as an enemy or as (morally) inferior. Edward Said’s “Orientalism” gives a good description of this. This has determined and skewed the Western image of Muhammad and Islam as more warlike than it actually is. According to Cole muslims changed Muhammads thought about peace and just war in the same direction, in order to justify a century of conquest by Arab armies (agression), e.g. by ascribing raids on caravans to him (also agression).
What does Cole write about Muhammad? 1) peace was a core value of Muhammad; his clan was guardian of the ka’aba and he was accustomed to negotiating peace between enemies. 2) freedom of conscience (and therefore of religion) and tolerance were also core values. According to Muhammad every monotheist who believed in resurrection and Final Judgement, and who did good deeds could go to heaven, no matter whether he or she was muslim, jew, christian or sabian (and later he added Zoroastrian). On the other hand Muhammad did insist on criticizing their religions and preaching Islam. As a measure of devotion he preferred the amount of “good works” above religious hair-splitting. As additional proof, Cole points at the religious tolerance in the empire conquered by the Arabs. 3) just war (i.e. defensive war) was also one of Muhammads core values. He was against aggression and preached goodwill once a war was over or the enemy repented or offered peace. According to Cole Muhammad fought only defensive battles, never took a city by force, nor ever raided a caravan. For instance in 630 he could take Mecca peacefully because a) he went there peacefully with a group of pilgrims from Medina, b) many Meccans were secret converts to Islam, and c) the defeat, in 627, of the Sassanids by the Romans had undermined the position of Muhammads enemies in Mecca, who were allied with the Sassanids. Cities in Yemen, like Aden and Sana’a, joined Muhammad because their elites converted to Islam. According to Cole Islam had a lot of soft-power.
Cole puts Muhammads history also in the perspective of the “world war” between the Sassanids and the Eastern Romans (610-628), in which the Romans lost what is now all the land from Syria to Egypt for about 15 years (including Jerusalem). As Muhammad felt naturally allied with the Romans (his thought built on their thought) this was threatening to him, not only psychologically, but also physically (the Sassanids might attack Medina). According to Cole all the destruction caused by the war strengthened Muhammads insistence on peace.
This books makes you contemplate how history as it is told is often a construct in which historical facts may be less important than the ideas and required justifications of the people constructing it. Of course this could be the case with Cole’s book too. It is strange that just one or two years after Muhammads death his Arabs started conquering a huge empire (agression), while Muhammad preached “no aggression”. According to Cole the quick conversion of so many Arabs meant that many of them did not internalise Muhammads thought, and they loved to raid. This was especially so for the natural fighters, the Bedouin. Another explanation is that Muhammad did change his thought on just war towards the end of his live (some claim that new war-verses in the Quran abrogated older peace verses), although I find it strange that a principled man like Muhammad would change his mind in that way (let alone an all-knowing God). It’s up to experts to discuss this further.
January 2, 2024
In this fascinating study of Muhammad and early Islam, Juan Cole refutes Western chauvinists and Muslim fundamentalists alike by situating the social and ethical vision of the Qur'an within the context of the brutal environment of inter-imperial warfare and religious acrimony in which it took shape.
The prophetic life of Muhammad was framed by a cataclysmic war between Byzantium and Sasanian Persia, which engulfed the entire Near East - including the Hejaz, where Muhammad lived and worked as a merchant, traveling along the trade axis running between Palestine and Yemen - and divided communities along religious lines. Christians battled Zoroastrians in a struggle that took on an apocalyptic tenor for each of the Abrahamic faiths; especially after the Sasanian capture of Jerusalem in 614. Jews within the Byzantine ambit sided with the Sasanians, chafing under Christian intolerance and lauding Khosrow II as a latter-day Cyrus. The pagans of Arabia mostly aligned with the Persians as well, attacking both Christian and Jewish communities in Palestine, Transjordan, and the Hejaz.
In the midst of this maelstrom, Muhammad sought to create a sanctuary of peace and concord among monotheists and friendly pagans. The Qur'an promises salvation for righteous monotheists - Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians as well as Muslims - and (at least physical) tolerance for pagans. It prohibits aggressive warfare and eschews religious exclusivism. It defends freedom of conscience and condemns any effort to proselytize with the sword. It prophecies the ultimate victory of Byzantium - the prevailing monotheistic power - over its Sasanian aggressors, and it identifies this victory with that of God Himself. When Muhammad's community fought defensive battles against the pagans of the Quraysh at Badr and Uhud, it was defending both Byzantium's Levantine frontier and the principles of nonaggression and interconfessional harmony, both of which are integral to the Qur'anic worldview.
That Islam has, in some quarters, become a byword for violence and intolerance is a sad reminder of how poorly the faith is understood among the Western public; even decades after the specter of "Islamism" was injected into Western political discourse by such events as the War on Terror and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is more needful than ever to illuminate the cosmopolitan essence of Islam, as well as the underappreciated consonance between the Qur'an, the ethical traditions of Judaism and Christianity, and the pluralistic values of Western modernity.
The prophetic life of Muhammad was framed by a cataclysmic war between Byzantium and Sasanian Persia, which engulfed the entire Near East - including the Hejaz, where Muhammad lived and worked as a merchant, traveling along the trade axis running between Palestine and Yemen - and divided communities along religious lines. Christians battled Zoroastrians in a struggle that took on an apocalyptic tenor for each of the Abrahamic faiths; especially after the Sasanian capture of Jerusalem in 614. Jews within the Byzantine ambit sided with the Sasanians, chafing under Christian intolerance and lauding Khosrow II as a latter-day Cyrus. The pagans of Arabia mostly aligned with the Persians as well, attacking both Christian and Jewish communities in Palestine, Transjordan, and the Hejaz.
In the midst of this maelstrom, Muhammad sought to create a sanctuary of peace and concord among monotheists and friendly pagans. The Qur'an promises salvation for righteous monotheists - Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians as well as Muslims - and (at least physical) tolerance for pagans. It prohibits aggressive warfare and eschews religious exclusivism. It defends freedom of conscience and condemns any effort to proselytize with the sword. It prophecies the ultimate victory of Byzantium - the prevailing monotheistic power - over its Sasanian aggressors, and it identifies this victory with that of God Himself. When Muhammad's community fought defensive battles against the pagans of the Quraysh at Badr and Uhud, it was defending both Byzantium's Levantine frontier and the principles of nonaggression and interconfessional harmony, both of which are integral to the Qur'anic worldview.
That Islam has, in some quarters, become a byword for violence and intolerance is a sad reminder of how poorly the faith is understood among the Western public; even decades after the specter of "Islamism" was injected into Western political discourse by such events as the War on Terror and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is more needful than ever to illuminate the cosmopolitan essence of Islam, as well as the underappreciated consonance between the Qur'an, the ethical traditions of Judaism and Christianity, and the pluralistic values of Western modernity.
May 13, 2022
This is a secular history of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad arguing that the intention of the founder of Islam was to create a unitarian community of monotheists and allied pagans, as a means of self-defense during a period where Constantinople and Sassanid Persia were at war. Cole goes straight to the Quran itself to make this argument, interpreting the verses against the secular political context in which they were being revealed. He does not take a religious view of the text as being the voice of God, viewing it as the Prophet Muhammad's own statements on present events. You could describe this as a minimalist history, as it disregards the historical records of later centuries about these times as politicized and unverifiable. Something that I didn't know was that controversial events from early Islamic history, like the killing of the Arab Jewish Banu Qurayzah tribe, are not actually documented in the Quran or hadith. They were recorded over a century later by Abbasid historians, or sometimes even as late as the 12th and 13th century in histories that were later taken as authoritative but would not hold up to our modern standards of historiography. The religious texts themselves say nothing about it.
Cole argues that the Prophet saw all monotheists and other opponents of the Sassanids as allies and also confederates in a future multiconfessional community that he was attempting to build. He was pro-Roman, seeing it as the major monotheistic power fighting an aggressive Persia. Warfare was only intended to be defensive and cease as soon as conditions of peace allowed. In later centuries, Muslim leaders did not take this interpretation. Many waged aggressive wars of expansion, though, as Cole notes, this does not really have bearing on what the Prophet Muhammad instructed or not. Other religions that formed political communities have similarly taken different courses over time, particularly as new sectors of society joined the religion. Cole makes a reasonably compelling case that contrary to common opinion (especially today) Islam was explicitly intended to be inclusive and ecumenical – a version of unitarianism with its own version of a good society and defensive rules bearing on Just War theory.
Cole argues that the Prophet saw all monotheists and other opponents of the Sassanids as allies and also confederates in a future multiconfessional community that he was attempting to build. He was pro-Roman, seeing it as the major monotheistic power fighting an aggressive Persia. Warfare was only intended to be defensive and cease as soon as conditions of peace allowed. In later centuries, Muslim leaders did not take this interpretation. Many waged aggressive wars of expansion, though, as Cole notes, this does not really have bearing on what the Prophet Muhammad instructed or not. Other religions that formed political communities have similarly taken different courses over time, particularly as new sectors of society joined the religion. Cole makes a reasonably compelling case that contrary to common opinion (especially today) Islam was explicitly intended to be inclusive and ecumenical – a version of unitarianism with its own version of a good society and defensive rules bearing on Just War theory.
June 24, 2023
الكتاب من حقل الدراسات الجديدة التي تتناول القرآن والاسلام بسبب النتائج التي تم الكشف عنها نتيجة استخدام الفحص الكربوني الذي أثبت أن النص القرآني يعود للقرن السابع الميلادي(عصر الدعوة) وليس القرن العاشر الميلادي كما ادعى الكثير من المستشرقين خلال الثلاث القرون السابقة ان نص القرآن كتبه المسلمين في القرن العاشر اي بعد ٣٠٠ عام من عصر الرسالة كما حدث مع الانجيل الذي كتب من قبل المسيحين في القرن الثالث
هذا الاكتشاف قلب الدراسات الاستشراقية رأسًا على عقب فإذا كآن القرآن يعود للقرن السابع فليس من الممكن ان يكون المسلمين مع الأوائل من قام بتأليف سور القرآن فالذي تبقى لهم افتراضين اما انه نص إللهي منزل من الله ام نص بشري مؤلف من النبي محمد نتيجة اتصاله وتعلمه من اليهود والنصارى وهذا ما يحاول المؤلف اثباته متجاهلا ان دلالات النص والمواضيع التي تطرق لها القرآن لم توجد في اي كتاب قبل القرآن ولا يزال النص القراني معجز الى اليوم بعد ١٤ قرن من نزوله في عصر يتصف بعصر العلم
اعجبني من الكتاب دراسة لحالة العالم قبل الاسلام في الصراع المتمثل بين الفرس والروم من عام ٦٠٣ الى عام ٦٢٩ ميلادي واخبار القرآن عن انتصار الفرس في ٦١٤ وان الروم سينتصرون وبعد ذلك سيكون الامر لله وهو ما ادى الى انتصار المسلمين على القوتين العظمتين الفرس والروم قبل منتصف القرن السابع
كما ان المؤلف تخيل احداث لم تقع ليبرر النتيجة التي كان يرغب في التوصل إليها في التالي
١- ان النبي استمر في التجارة حتى بعد بداية الدعوة وانه ربما اتصل باليهود والنصارى وتعلم منهم دينهم
٢-ان النبي كان يحاول بناء حلف مع البيزنطيين لانهم اهل كتاب للوقوف في وجه الفرس الذين قد يكونوا تحالفوا مع الفرس المجوس
٣-ان الاسلام دين سلام (صحيح) لكنه يستخدم هذا المبداء ليهاجم حرب الفرس والروم الذي كان وعد إللهي ولم يكن تخطيط بشري
لو تم مقارنة النص القرآني بمنفذ نزوله الى اليوم لوجدنا ان القرآن معجز في بلاغته وفي بعض اسرار الكون التي ذكرها القرآن والنتيجة التي يتهرب منها بعض المستشرقين ان الديانات السابقة للقرآن قد تأثرت بالقرآن وقامت بتعديل نصوصها حتى تستطيع مواجهة الدين الجديد كما قامت بدس الاسرائيليات في التراث الاسلامي لمحاولة صرف المسلمين عن فهم كتاب رب العالمين
هذا الاكتشاف قلب الدراسات الاستشراقية رأسًا على عقب فإذا كآن القرآن يعود للقرن السابع فليس من الممكن ان يكون المسلمين مع الأوائل من قام بتأليف سور القرآن فالذي تبقى لهم افتراضين اما انه نص إللهي منزل من الله ام نص بشري مؤلف من النبي محمد نتيجة اتصاله وتعلمه من اليهود والنصارى وهذا ما يحاول المؤلف اثباته متجاهلا ان دلالات النص والمواضيع التي تطرق لها القرآن لم توجد في اي كتاب قبل القرآن ولا يزال النص القراني معجز الى اليوم بعد ١٤ قرن من نزوله في عصر يتصف بعصر العلم
اعجبني من الكتاب دراسة لحالة العالم قبل الاسلام في الصراع المتمثل بين الفرس والروم من عام ٦٠٣ الى عام ٦٢٩ ميلادي واخبار القرآن عن انتصار الفرس في ٦١٤ وان الروم سينتصرون وبعد ذلك سيكون الامر لله وهو ما ادى الى انتصار المسلمين على القوتين العظمتين الفرس والروم قبل منتصف القرن السابع
كما ان المؤلف تخيل احداث لم تقع ليبرر النتيجة التي كان يرغب في التوصل إليها في التالي
١- ان النبي استمر في التجارة حتى بعد بداية الدعوة وانه ربما اتصل باليهود والنصارى وتعلم منهم دينهم
٢-ان النبي كان يحاول بناء حلف مع البيزنطيين لانهم اهل كتاب للوقوف في وجه الفرس الذين قد يكونوا تحالفوا مع الفرس المجوس
٣-ان الاسلام دين سلام (صحيح) لكنه يستخدم هذا المبداء ليهاجم حرب الفرس والروم الذي كان وعد إللهي ولم يكن تخطيط بشري
لو تم مقارنة النص القرآني بمنفذ نزوله الى اليوم لوجدنا ان القرآن معجز في بلاغته وفي بعض اسرار الكون التي ذكرها القرآن والنتيجة التي يتهرب منها بعض المستشرقين ان الديانات السابقة للقرآن قد تأثرت بالقرآن وقامت بتعديل نصوصها حتى تستطيع مواجهة الدين الجديد كما قامت بدس الاسرائيليات في التراث الاسلامي لمحاولة صرف المسلمين عن فهم كتاب رب العالمين
March 25, 2023
Unlike any other biography of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that I’ve read, this one situates his revelation amid a wider political context. Not only does Cole describe the politics of Mecca and Medina in heightened detail, but he also discusses how external politics – the Roman and Iranian empires at the time – may have impacted and influenced the Prophet’s political strategies.
On a related note, Cole reveals the many ways in which Islamic traditions and interpretations have been shaped by prevailing Jewish and Christian ideologies and philosophies. Overall Cole emphasises that the Prophet’s mission was one of reform through peace, and that the message he brought was an extension of the messages revealed to the other Abrahamic prophets.
He also argues that “Islam” as it was first used in the Qur’an, was a word used to denote these other monotheistic messages/religions, and that it wasn’t defined solely as the faith group founded by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). That "muslims" with a lowercase m denote the practitioners of all 3 Abrahamic monotheistic faiths. Yet, these central focuses on peace and pluralism were abrogated and overshadowed by the political motivations of later Muslim rulers. There are many other smaller yet equally thought-provoking points Cole brings up, such as the theory that the Prophet was literate, as any long-distance merchant would have been at the time.
Lots of interesting food for thought in this book, but it's emphasis on ancient politics makes for a slow reading if you're not all that familiar - or interested - in this genre of historical storytelling.
On a related note, Cole reveals the many ways in which Islamic traditions and interpretations have been shaped by prevailing Jewish and Christian ideologies and philosophies. Overall Cole emphasises that the Prophet’s mission was one of reform through peace, and that the message he brought was an extension of the messages revealed to the other Abrahamic prophets.
He also argues that “Islam” as it was first used in the Qur’an, was a word used to denote these other monotheistic messages/religions, and that it wasn’t defined solely as the faith group founded by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). That "muslims" with a lowercase m denote the practitioners of all 3 Abrahamic monotheistic faiths. Yet, these central focuses on peace and pluralism were abrogated and overshadowed by the political motivations of later Muslim rulers. There are many other smaller yet equally thought-provoking points Cole brings up, such as the theory that the Prophet was literate, as any long-distance merchant would have been at the time.
Lots of interesting food for thought in this book, but it's emphasis on ancient politics makes for a slow reading if you're not all that familiar - or interested - in this genre of historical storytelling.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews