What Islam Did for Us: Understanding Islam's Contribution to Western Civilization

Reviews (See all 3) Write a reviewfor this

• 
  

  This is a truly god-awful book; I can’t believe the publishers and editors allowed this to pass into the public realm without some serious revisions. It is difficult to think of a book that has been more a waste of time or money; I can only urge anybody to avoid this book at all costs. The rather disappointing thing is that the central tenet and argument of the book is in my view an essentially correct and interesting one and one with which I have a considerable degree of sympathy. The proble... (show more)

  This is a truly god-awful book; I can’t believe the publishers and editors allowed this to pass into the public realm without some serious revisions. It is difficult to think of a book that has been more a waste of time or money; I can only urge anybody to avoid this book at all costs. The rather disappointing thing is that the central tenet and argument of the book is in my view an essentially correct and interesting one and one with which I have a considerable degree of sympathy. The problem is that the author doesn’t really engage with the subject, except superficially and spends far too much time on other topics which are at best tangential.

  Alarm bells should have been ringing when the author is revealed to be the author of “Rossyln: Guardian of the Secrets of the Holy Grail” which we are breathlessly told ‘provided invaluable source material for Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code’ (God help us!). Though described as a lecturer and a historian in the author bio, Tim Wallace-Murphy is a qualified doctor from the medical school of Dublin University. Quite what his qualifications are as historian and biblical scholar or what/where he lectures is not made clear. This makes the main problem with the book clearer: we are treated to a highly subjective and controversial account of Christianity which is not supported by most of the mainstream scholarship on the subject. Why this is necessary in a book that is meant to discuss Islam’s contributions to Western Civilisation is unclear. In fact only one chapter discusses the actual scientific, cultural and social contributions of Islamic society to the European West, a chapter that is only 22 pages long in a book of 217 pages. This is almost criminal as the rest of the book has little direct relevance to the subject, but covers the historical origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; the Crusades and the reaction of the Christian world to the rise of Islam, the development of the Ottoman Empire and the politics of 20th century in the Middle East. All of this is fine, except for the fact that it bears at best a passing relationship to what is meant to be the main thesis of the book. Clearly Wallace-Murphy intended to write a book about the troubled relationship between Islam and Christianity and why certain misconceptions about Islam arose and why they are wrong. Which is fine, except for the fact that this isn’t what the book is meant to be about and even excluding the title; the organisation of the book doesn’t hold up as it attempts to put forward an argument that isn’t directly addressed though being present in 90% of the book.

  A word on Wallace-Murphy’s description of Christianity and its origins. Some of the facts are now widely accepted by most scholars, archaeologists have now more or less successfully argued that major episodes in the Bible could not have happened as historical events, or at least have no material basis to support them whatsoever – the exile from Egypt and the wandering in the desert for 40 years, the size and nature of the Davidic kingdom etc. With regards to the Gospels, it is established that they draw on a single, older source, named ‘Q’ by scholars so many of the corrections and points made by Wallace-Murphy are somewhat redundant. Other arguments such as the debate over whether Jesus had any brothers or sisters and the role of James the Just, as Jesus’ brother and supposed successor are highly debatable and not uncritically supported by the sources; while they are likely to outrage most Catholics, they have been accepted by most Protestant denominations. The Res Deus concept and the role and nature of secret societies is much more controversial and not only is completely unsupported by any credible evidence but seems to be sensationalist occultism masquerading as serious history. In anycase, this has very little to do with the subject in hand. There are also large passages devoted to the violent and intolerant nature of the early Christian Church, towards pagans, heretics and Jews and this is contrasted with the more tolerant nature of Islam. Indeed, a large part of the book seems devoted to showing how intolerant Christianity was and by contrast how tolerant Islam was. This is only partly true; Islam certainly was much more tolerant towards other People of the Book such as Jews, Christians, Sabateans and occasionally Zoroastrians that Christianity was. However, it shouldn’t be overdone as an argument; Islam arose as a reaction against polytheism and Paganism and Muhammad made it a point to fight against what he saw was an illegitimate religious world view. The destruction of the idols and shrines to other gods and goddesses in the Kaaba and then throughout the Arabian Peninsula was symptomatic of the general attitude that Islam had towards pagan and polytheistic societies. One could argue that there wasn’t that much difference between Christianity and Islam in how they treated adherents of non-Semitic religions. Certainly, some of the Islamic incursions into such regions such as India; were not characterised by a nature of religious tolerance. There was also a substantial level of internal discord within Islam as the Sunni-Shia split demonstrated, Wallace-Murphy omits to mention that the first four heads of the Muslim society after Muhammad did not die peaceful deaths but were either murdered or assassinated. Some balance would have been suitable here; and it is difficult to escape the feeling that Wallace-Murphy is on an ideological mission to juxtapose Christian intolerance against Islamic tolerance. One could make this argument but it needs to be done much more critically and without partisanship (I am not saying that it is a correct argument however).

  Even in the paltry 22 pages that actually cover the subject matter directly; the treatment is rather shallow and not much more detailed than what most people would have picked up from general textbooks on the topic. Most school-children are already taught that the Greek Classics were transmitted to the West through Arabic sources; and the learning forgotten or destroyed after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, regained and recovered. There is nothing new in this and some more detail would have been desirable. Some of the other claims are questionable; it is by no means given that stained-glass painting or that the Gothic arch was copied from Arabic sources. While the earliest examples of stained-glass art were found in Persia, these preceded Islamic expansion in the region and there is no clear link to show how diffusion. The argument with reference to the Gothic arch is even weaker, with only two scholars speculating that the origin was from the East. Some of the most important impacts of Islamic and Arab society are for reasons not mentioned, not covered. The introduction of Romantic love, as a literary theme, originates from this period and most literary historians argue that its first appearance in the troubadour culture of southern France, has its origins across the Pyrenees in the Andalusian culture; where the concept of Romantic love as a theme for artistic expression was developed. This is an important theme which should have been explored as it consists of one of the major three literary innovations in writing; but it isn’t even mentioned by Wallace-Murphy. While the impact of geometry and algebra is covered; there is no mention of the fact that the modern numbers system and numerical script is Arabic; this was a huge step forward as doing even basic addition in Roman numerals was an extremely challenging task and with no concept of Zero more advanced mathematics would not have been possible.

  Despite the potential of the subject matter, this book is a major failure on almost all it sets out to do and is a real disappointment. To be avoided at all costs. (show less)

   

   

  by Conrad Barwa on Jul 11, 2009 at 06:58PM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• 
  

  This book is atrocious - I'm only finishing it because I'm irrationally stubborn. Short summary - 'Christians Bad Muslims Good'. There's so much potential material for a sober history - unfortunately, this is just a eulogy on Islam/polemic on Christianity. It doesn't help that the author seems to take the Ancient Inheritance myths of secret societies more or less at face value. I don't mean that he's giving a slightly unbalanced picture of Islam, I mean that he's not even bothering to give a ... (show more)

  This book is atrocious - I'm only finishing it because I'm irrationally stubborn. Short summary - 'Christians Bad Muslims Good'. There's so much potential material for a sober history - unfortunately, this is just a eulogy on Islam/polemic on Christianity. It doesn't help that the author seems to take the Ancient Inheritance myths of secret societies more or less at face value. I don't mean that he's giving a slightly unbalanced picture of Islam, I mean that he's not even bothering to give a balanced picture of Islam at all - everything that a modern liberal reader might find uncomfortable about the history of Islam is exculpated - nothing about the Asharites here! - while everything that a modern liberal reader might find admirable about Christianity has been removed. Meanwhile random assertions are thrown in about 'The Church' actively suppressively mystic contemplation (no references are given to these bits - it must just be 'obvious' - I thought the Dominicans got quite a lot of papal support ...). Don't trust anything you read here unless you read it somewhere else too. (show less)

   

  by Marios Richards on Dec 23, 2007 at 11:23AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• See all reviews
  Write a review