Islamic History

[PyariCgudia]

I’m really getting into this whole “what happened after the Prophet died” era of history.

Can anyone recommend me some good books to read on it?

[ravage]

Re: Islamic History

succession to mohammad is the most angrez and for all purposes “objective” book I’ve read on it, well partially read since it gets so tedious with all these references and talk about other books i havent heard of..plus a friend ran away with it while i was ‘resting’. fair warning though, he offended me a little, and apparently offends sunnis even more cause he eventually comes down on the shia side after killing us for a bit too.

Amazon.com: The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate:...

[armughal]

Re: Islamic History

try maulana maududi's "khilaafat or malookiyat"....
seems like a pretty good/short/unbiased book to me....

[armughal]

Re: Islamic History

ravage, the BOOK DESCRIPTION under the book u suggested says "In contrast to recent scholarly trends, the author takes up the Shi'i cause, arguing in defense of the succession of 'Ali."....
is this why u wish to recommend the book????

[ravage]

Re: Islamic History

mughal sahab, i did say this:

fair warning though, he offended me a little, and apparently offends sunnis even more cause he eventually comes down on the shia side after killing us for a bit too.

that said, this is the only work by a western author exclusively focusing on the issue between shias and sunnis immediately after the Prophet’s death..that I am aware of. owing to his non-Muslim status and his professorship at Oxford, there is bestowed on him a certain degree of objectivity that other sources, like books by (sunni) moulana moududi and (shia) moulana xyz might lack.

edit:

heres a pretty good review on that book by someone on amazon:

This book has been a flashpoint of controversy between Shi’i and Sunni Muslims since this has turned out to be a rare instance where a non-Muslim scholar [a status that ostensibly gives him an objective position wherewith the sectarian divided can be breached for the sake of historical truth] arrives at a conclusion somewhat in harmony with the Shi’i view of things. Unfortunately, the flurry of sectarian debate has overshadowed a work of great scholarly importance [exhibit a: the reviews written prior to this one] by an author who himself-as far as anyone can know for certain at least-had no intentions of propagating one tradition over the other.
The virulent Sunni opposition of the Sunni Muslims to this book relates mostly to the portrayal of Abu Bakr as a schemer, Umar as a bullying hothead, and Uthman as a rich fat-cat with a taste for nepotism while Ali is the rightful heir to the prophetic office. That is what the offended would get from the book. Actually, Madelung has a much more nuanced opinion of all the Caliphs which is the product of a mixture of deep admiration and criticism. Most frustrating to the Sunni Muslim, I would imagine, is how Madelung version of the events makes such ideas as ta’diil al-SaHabah wa-l-taba’iin, al-fitrah, etc. seem absurd and untenable [which many more progressive would admit are].

Most problematic within the work is the use of sources throughout. I don’t mean this in the sense conveyed in the ramblings of one reviewer “Dr. Siddiqui”] who seems to lack any coherent understanding of textual dynamics involved within Madelung’s various texts. For example, just citing a text does not equal an endorsement thereof; rather, what is important is how the text is integrated into the larger structure of the argument and how controversial texts are placed within a hierarchy of certitude and historical criticism. Madelung here is about as meticulous as one could be. Moreover, he has to be for he write against the pro-Sunni grain of almost all of what has been written in the entire corpus of Western scholarship hitherto.

Madelung, in reality, is a rather conservative scholar. His approach is optimistic-meaning that he doesn’t side with the skeptical branch of scholarship that rejects all the details and accepts reluctantly, often with extensive revision, the general outlines of the Muslim historical record. After all, ALL of the sources we have today on these events were written/compiled hundreds of years after the events they claim to record while simultaneously be the result of considerable political tumult.

Whatever side of these debates you fall, one has to admit that Madelung has written the most authoritative and interesting interpretation of the sources hitherto committed to writing. The case he makes from the Qur’an for Muhammad having intended Ali to follow him as the leader of the community is very crafty. His portraits of the intricacies of tribal conflicts and personal ambitions are masterful and stunningly lucid. Under his pen, these complex events regain a certain new-life. By the end of the book, Madelung makes one realize how astonishing it was that Muslim history actually took the direction it did, albeit while slaughtering many `sacred cows’ in the process…

Amazon.com: The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate:...

[armughal]

Re: Islamic History

^
u cannot expect him to remain unbiased when (according to what i copied from the site) his objective is to prove the shiite point of view....

[gupguppy]

Re: Islamic History

be sure to read

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/islamicbookstore-com/b6617.html

the author of this book, Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-'Arabi, was a leading Maliki hadith scholar and jurist, who died 543H.

[ravage]

Re: Islamic History

@armughal

^
u cannot expect him to remain unbiased when (according to what i copied from the site) his objective is to prove the shiite point of view…

you cant expect him to be unbiased while proving the shiite point of view? thereby, any piece of writing that proves a certain perspective is biased? thereby all unbiased writing must draw no conclusions whatsoever?

why this presumption of guilt, please tell me. there is nothing there on that site that would lead you to believe that he wants to prove the shiite point of view so badly that he became biased and dishonest in the process. It is absolutely possible that he examined the evidence at hand and decided to argue the case he felt was stronger.

If a judge reads out a guilty verdict in a court proceedings, do you automatically assume that he was biased throughout the trial?

I understand that you’re a scientist armughal, im surprised that you would assume prejudice simply because a scholarly case is presented for one side or the other.

I can vouch for this being an extremely tedious, extremely academic read, this is not a petty propaganda brochure.

Anyway, heres what I can find about this guy’s accomplisments:

Professor Wilfred Madelung, Emeritus Professor of Arabic and Emeritus Fellow of St John’s College, whose research interests include Islam and early Islamic history, Shiism, and Islam in medieval Iran and Yemen.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1998-9/weekly/150799/news/story_4.htm

[system]

Re: Islamic History

"Islam: A short History" by karen Armstrong
"Muhammed (PBUH) a biography of the Prophet" by Karen Armstrong

"History of the Arab People" by Albert Hourani (Excellent)

When u read Karen Armstrong, she has referenced her work to some excellent writings of books which are not readily available in the market.