This was the third of Peter Heather’s books that I picked up this year, primarily because I could and because I had already enjoyed two of his other wThis was the third of Peter Heather’s books that I picked up this year, primarily because I could and because I had already enjoyed two of his other works. But also because it has been some time since I read a book on the history of Christianity, the last one being a mammoth ‘Christianity the first 3000 years� by Diarmaid MacCulloch and a more fun and interesting ‘Dominion� by Tom Holland.
Compared to those two works, this one did not seem to offer anything particularly new or interesting. Heather’s work’s key takeaways were that christianity’s triumph was complex, with conversions taking place in different ways in different regions; with politics of a region and its relationship with the new religion being intertwined, and that the faith emerged with several ‘flavors� so to speak, as it adapted local customs and cultures and myths, leading to the creation of Roman, German, and later Irish and other variants. The narrative is well written, and the book is not excessively long, despite covering the story of a religion which took several centuries to triumph.
Rating 4 of 5, I hold Peter Heather to higher standards and expected a little bit more than what I got here. ...more
“collective memory, is essentially a reconstruction of the past that adapts the image of historical facts to the beliefs and spiritual needs of the pr“collective memory, is essentially a reconstruction of the past that adapts the image of historical facts to the beliefs and spiritual needs of the present.�
Bart Ehrman is an interesting intellectual who is able to bring a level of historical inquiry I wish more historians and scholars were able to bring to classical Islam in this day and age, but unfortunately, given the absence of much written record and the tenuous politics of dealing with Islam and the Muslim extremists in the public in this day and age prevents such insightful works to be published about our religion and its early historiography.
This is partially, not completely, why I have to settle for similar tools and inquiries being applied to Christianity � the tools and insights remain the same, and conclusions and analyses related to memory, oral traditions, time lapses between actual events and their documentation, etc. can all consistently and accurately be applied to Islam as well. This book, I thus found fascinating, and given the author’s other similar sounding works, I will likely continue finding interesting in the days to come. Furthermore, his easy to read writing makes this thorough work of scholarship extremely accessible, and for that alone it ought to be rated 5 of 5.
Look Ma, a Sapiens-esque book which I managed to complete without throwing it aside! Joking, joking. A light read with a ton of content and ideas packLook Ma, a Sapiens-esque book which I managed to complete without throwing it aside! Joking, joking. A light read with a ton of content and ideas packed into a short book that makes sweeping takes and grandiose assertions about why Humans have managed to make it to the moon � ‘it has to do with our coevolution of genes and culture as can be seen through fire and beauty …� um what are you even saying?
Anytime an author becomes convincing because of the quality of their writing, one must always take a step back and ask ourselves � where does randomness play a role here? Is chance ascribed any value, or were the current products of coevolving cultural genetic something somethingy inevitable? of the evidence provided to support the priors, is any attempt made at evaluating evidence which would disprove the same? If not, we are simply enjoying linguistic gymnastics intended to give us all a dopamine blast which necessarily follows a pretense of knowledge �
I need to stop. Rating 2.5 of 5 rounding to 3 ...more
I picked up Sagan’s book mostly to get a feel of his writing. I have previously enjoyed physicists writing on other subjects � whether its Alan Sokal I picked up Sagan’s book mostly to get a feel of his writing. I have previously enjoyed physicists writing on other subjects � whether its Alan Sokal on post modern intellectuals or Roger Penrose on Consciousness � and decided to give this book a shot. Furthermore, Sagan existed before our age where some of the more forceful advocates of science such as Dawkins, etc have become a lot more controversial, so Sagan felt like a step back into the ‘good old times� for lack of a better term.
This book is a bit dated � as it was written in the 90s � and some of the issues it talks about at length (such as UFO sightings) have become peripheral or marginal in the 21st century. Otherwise the case made for science was not particularly novel � those of us who value the logic behind the book are bound to automatically like the work, whereas those who do not will never end up reading this book. A more modern work would focus more on science denialism when it comes to vaccination, climate change, or the plethora of other scientific issues that have become a cultural clashpoint today.
Read it to see what advocates for science and rationalism focused their attention on in the 90s, but otherwise, a fairly interesting but not exactly mindblowing read.
This short book was an absolutely outstanding read! Heavy on content, flowing with ideas and knowledge, every other sentence of this work would leave This short book was an absolutely outstanding read! Heavy on content, flowing with ideas and knowledge, every other sentence of this work would leave you better informed than the previous one. I am not sure if the phrase ‘coffee lounge book� carries a negative or a positive connotation, but if I owned a coffee lounge or a small library frequented by intellectually inclined individuals who I wanted informed on the history of how ideas in physics, the mind / consciousness and history, have developed and where we as humans stand with what major questions in each of these fields, I would have certainly used this book.
Not only is Grayling extremely well informed, he has written this book with a general audience in mind, making his writing extremely accessible � although I daresay, in the past few years I have been passionate about these three subjects (physics in my teens and early 20s, history then and now, and mind / consciousness more lately in my 30s) so my commentary on their ‘accessibility� might be off somewhat? Still, give this a shot because I have yet to find a book that does this much justice to these subjects, in such few pages.
Rating: 5 of 5, absolute must read for everyone...more
One stone is a stone, two a feature and three a wall! Fascinating way to state it takes three data points to show a trend! This short introduction to One stone is a stone, two a feature and three a wall! Fascinating way to state it takes three data points to show a trend! This short introduction to Archaeology was insightful and fun to read. Both the content and the style of writing are excellent, and the author spaces out the history of archaeology with chapters/sub chapters about the actual practice keep the book engaging throughout.
This short primer is an excellent introductory read on the subject of the mind - how it differs from the brain, and the philosophical and scientific iThis short primer is an excellent introductory read on the subject of the mind - how it differs from the brain, and the philosophical and scientific issues dealing with consciousness. The authors perspective is the non dual, materialist scientific perspective shared by the likes of Dennett, etc. As a primer, this is a good book to begin with, however its short length left me feeling if there was more the author wanted to speak on the subject but somehow decided not to. Did not learn anything particularly new, but would recommend this to anyone interested in dipping their toes into this subject.
I picked up this book in order to do some justice to left anarchist takes on history � my prior experiences with Graeber, Kropotkin, etc. all lead me I picked up this book in order to do some justice to left anarchist takes on history � my prior experiences with Graeber, Kropotkin, etc. all lead me to conclude that anarchists may find some solid niche critiques, but seem to be overwhelmingly sweepingly wrong (or even absurd) in their takes. Against the grain did not do much to change the overall opinion, but compared to previous reads, this provided better reasoning and at least some fascinating insights (especially about early settlements in Mesopotamia, preceding farming and being carried out by hunter gathers).
Scott seems to argue that agriculture was not adopted by societies or individuals, it was imposed on by the top by power brokers in order to extract surplus resources which would then enable wealth accumulation, bureaucracy and army formation and state creation. This frankly, does not sound digestible. Over the arc of human history, if for millennia oppression alone created the need for agriculture, why did the early settled societal collapses not lead to a reversion to alternatives? Why did agriculture continue to prosper well into our day and age instead?
He also raises some good questions � why were cereals used for state formation, but not say lentils � but instead of inquiring into the possibilities of why this never happened, he pulls out the one trick pony ‘because the tax man could steal this better�. Sure that can be considered as a possible hypothesis, but is that the only possible reason why? Asserting a single answer whilst ignoring every other possibility, despite the quality of the writing does not do justice to the question raised, and this is something I feel leftist texts which intend on selling a particular ideological framing are incapable of getting.
There are however parts where the reasoning and questioning is insightful, such as Scott suggesting that early state collapse should be more expected than unexpected (societies were only just being bound by norms, and swinging between constructs was likely simpler then) and how until the 16-1700s most people lived outside state control so our notions of barbarians need to be revisited.
Overall, an interesting work which was far better than other left anarchist texts I have read, but still suffering from some consistent problems I find with such works.
The author, Seb Faulk, has made an interesting effort to correct the notion of the Dark Ages by providing examples of intellectual and scientific workThe author, Seb Faulk, has made an interesting effort to correct the notion of the Dark Ages by providing examples of intellectual and scientific work that existed before the Renaissance period. He does so through the lens of an otherwise unknown monk, who used a variety of tools and toyed around with a variety of ‘sciences�, all of which demonstrate that this was a period of learning and advancement and not an intellectual black hole. I, however, am not too convinced by the effort, even if I find myself willing to consider the underlying thesis � that the Middle Ages were not a period of darkness and that some knowledge and learning existed (or even flourished) during this period.
For starters, to show intellectual progression or the growth of ‘science� during this period in the select geographical areas (the focus obviously is on Europe as the Middle Eastern world was far ahead in learning during this period), the author needed to demonstrate the state of all available knowledge at the beginning of the time period, and at the end of the time period. If there was no difference, or not much difference, then the alternate hypothesis would likely hold true � that the Dark Ages were ‘dark� after all. Or, even if progression was not there in qualitative terms, the author could have made a case for a quantitative dispersion of knowledge � more people adopting a more scientific attitude could ostensibly make the case for the Middle Ages not being dark � and that while they did not produce intellectual or engineering miracles, they dispersed the knowledge and attitudes far and wide, creating the circumstances for the future Renaissances to happen. The author does not manage to do this as well.
What we have instead is the life of one monk, or in my language n = 1, I dare say, which on its own makes neither the case for qualitative improvements nor quantitative dispersion. All it shows is that some knowledge existed, some intricate tools were used, and that some learning took place. The rest of the book where the author bogs down the reader with intricate details of mechanics of tools, etc. serve no purpose other than to make it sound like the author is bending over backwards to create a wordy narrative in the absence of concrete arguments or meaningful data. Surely no one has argued that the Middle Ages were a time when Europe went back into the Stone Age or the Bronze Age. As life continued, so would all human activities, which necessitates the fact that some knowledge would have persisted and some tinkering with ideas and tools would have continued through this period � we are talking about a time span of centuries after all.
Consider the persistence of homeopathic medicinal cures in our day and age � these are a relic of a long lost past that still exist in my part of the world. These practices also have a methodology (or a ‘science�) behind them. Their existence does not make the case for the persistence or appreciation of ‘science� in the areas where they exist. Furthermore, if an outdated, scientifically useless practice can exist today as a carryover from many millennia ago, then surely some knowledge, some learning, some engineering tinkering could have easily carried over through the few centuries comprising the Middle Ages as well.
The idea that medieval people were stupid is a straw man worthy of middle school books, but the argument made here seems to have emerged out of an undergraduate level thesis. Compare this effort with works that end up describing the intellectual heyday of a time period by focusing on many intellectuals � such as those of the Vienna Circle � and you would be able to see how this book seems to have made more of a case for how the ‘Light Ages� probably were not that well lit after all.
Interesting attempt though, and the writing is generally pretty readable except where the author gets into describing mechanics, etc. Rating 2.5 stars rounded up to 3 ...more
A few of my friends had been recommending Barts work for a while, and so I decided to check what he has to write with this book- and now I owe my frieA few of my friends had been recommending Barts work for a while, and so I decided to check what he has to write with this book- and now I owe my friends one!
Barts writing is very accessible and the content thoroughly well researched - he traces the history of the idea of heaven and hell as preceding the Abrahamic faiths, with variants present in Egyptian and Greek mythologies, all the way to their inculcation in Christian theology. I wish a day would come when the same could be written and the narrative extended to include Islamic beliefs which pretty much take Judeo Christian ideas and alter them somewhat.
I wanted to write a long response to this book, but unfortunately life took precedence and I have waited far too long since reading it, and have thus I wanted to write a long response to this book, but unfortunately life took precedence and I have waited far too long since reading it, and have thus forgotten some key things that I wanted to talk about, so forgive the rambling nature of this review � I may come back and reorganize it better later. In a nutshell, I feel that Brown has done Islamic apologetics a lot of justice, and from both an apologetics point of view, as well as that of an academic interested in exploring the subject, this book was thorough and well done � except for one glaring point which I feel somewhat undid his effort.
And that is found in this ayat of the Quran: “This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion� (Quran 5:3)
Better known as the ghadir ayat for Shias or the final khutbah ayat for Sunnis, in which Allah proclaims Islam to have been *perfected*. Any modern intellectual effort at reconstructing or reframing Islam as something other than its original 6-7th century values and practices ultimately has to grapple with this notion of finality and *perfection*, which by the way every practicing Muslim or everyone who has been raised Muslim is fully aware of, given that it is always used as the argument against any change in our societies. You cannot escape from it, unless of course if you’re safely insulated in a western academic bubble, and have a primarily academic minded and somewhat sympathetic audience. This claim of perfection is moral, ethical and legal, and thus to state any practice found within Islam up till this revelation as anything other than a part of that perfection is to not be honest with the effort. Thus narratives which suggest that ‘Islam always intended X� must always contend with this fact. If Islam truly intended something, why would it not take place before the declaration of perfection and finality?
This is a consistent argument I find with apologetics of Islam: the retroactive re framing of current outcomes as ‘always having been intended� in the first place. It is also by far the most hollow form of reasoning as it ultimately has to explain how (as in the case of slavery) it took the several centuries for humanity to randomly stumble into anti-slavery positions given the industrial revolution and the desire of the British colonial elite (for theological political economic and ethical reasons) to stamp out slavery from the planet. This is also the argument that current believing practicing Muslims are most likely to default to.
Let us also take two other examples � the issue of prohibition of prostitution and the issue of divorce. Islam completely forbids the former, and considers the latter ‘acceptable but bad�. For Islam to be perfect in 6-7th century, these two notions were enunciated and ruled upon. Our social norms regarding both have changed over time, and so we look at the same differently today, and will look at both even more differently in a few more decades. If global international politics results in every society accepting the current western liberal ethos on both prostitution and divorce, will we see another back bending effort to claim Islam originally intended to bring us to those conclusions � despite the passage of 1400 years and social change dictated by global politics? Norms and mores related to divorce have changed in this direction already in Islamic societies, those on the former may change as well. Now replace prostitution or divorce with slavery, and especially sex with slaves captured in war, and you can clearly see how the task setup by believer academics like Brown is impossible to begin with.
Furthermore, the comment on perfection as mandated by theology is also important because the British efforts to end slavery have a basis in theology - that of Quakers. Quaker theology identified slavery as condemnable, as inconsistent with ideas of equality, etc. This is something Islam missed out on. This also weakens the entire set of arguments around “everyone was doing it, nobody imagined a future without it, until it became economically infeasible in the 18th Century�. At least one theology did manage to condemn slavery and it has a historical role in ultimately ending it.
Where then does this leave us with the book as is, and the arguments provided therein? I believe Brown has done an incredible job, his writing style is simple, he does not shy away from presenting arguments his detractors would throw at him, and does his best to counter them with examples and counterarguments. He makes readers think and contest notions they may not have before � for eg he begins with challenging the idea that what we call and condemn as slavery today is something that has historically existed, even if the word used has been the same. This is factually correct, even if not novel. Democracy meant something very different to Athens in 1000BC and the Roman Republic was nothing like a modern republic, even if we use those terms to refer to something very similar today. This is necessary given the current zeitgeist � given western ascendancy and its efforts to eradicate chattel slavery after creating it in the 17-1800s, us moderns think of slavery along those lines. A Mameluk however was also a slave, but was a part of the ruling elite of Egypt in the Middle Ages.
While this is true, I believe the strain of argument is, for lack of a better term, is pretty much beside the point. For Islam to be absolved of the ‘crime of slavery� we need not address the post Muhammad post Rashidun eras. We also need not take into account variations in the social institution in the years and centuries after. We can take slavery for what it was even then, and still see it as vile. Brown himself stumbles into this, and ultimately is unable to reconcile himself with the notion of ‘sex with slaves captured in war� � which would have necessarily involved not just an acceptance of rape of girls of any age range captured in war.
All arguments for the benign nature of different forms of slavery, whether or not some outlier scholars over time tried to limit or regulate slavery, pretty much become irrelevant when you realize that Islam declared itself to be complete and perfect whilst accommodating sex/rape of slave girls captured in war. Comparisons with other historical cases � such as Spartacus rising against Roman slavers but taking slaves himself are also beside the point. They serve the role of an intellectual whataboutism, and that too an inadequate one. This is because the likes of Spartacus etc. never claimed to be perfect for all times to come, and they have no role to play in the lives of billions of people today. Islam claimed perfection, and this flows through in other social and political issues as well.
All in all, this is apologetics done incredibly well, it is just sad that the effort is ultimately doomed, because you cannot reconcile your current 21st century ethos with those of the pre modern past. Brown also stumbles into accepting this in the last chapter or so, which leaves one wondering what if anything was accomplished by the book. Given some of the other reviews, it seems quite clear that Brown ends up pretty much confirming everyone’s priors with this work � those wanting to him to rest the case against Islam / slavery seem to think he has managed that, whereas those who, like me, believe the opposite, end up realizing the same.
Rating 4 of 5 stars for the effort, and for documenting and addressing valid data points and questions. Also high marks for beginning the effort with ‘I am a white Muslim academic based on the east coast� declaration � it shows self-awareness regarding identity and modern politics without becoming self-flagellating as they often do so on social media discourse....more
To begin with I found the title of this book oddly similar to Bart Ehrman’s book � Misquoting Jesus � except that book is written by an ex-Christian cTo begin with I found the title of this book oddly similar to Bart Ehrman’s book � Misquoting Jesus � except that book is written by an ex-Christian critically analyzing quotations attributed to Jesus, whereas this book does nothing of the sort. Misquoting Muhammad is a sweeping summary of Sunni claims regarding Hadith scholarship as it has presumably existed through the ages. I tried to keep aside my assumptions regarding what the book is intended to be, but after finishing it, I was left with no doubt that this exists to offer mildly believable apologetics regarding the tradition of dealing with hadith literature.
The Sunni narrative of the ‘science� of hadith collection and verification over the centuries past is presented, except without any real attempt at questioning the claims. If this were a work produced in a seminary of Pakistan, that would be understandable. But for a ‘western scholar� to not thoroughly examine the critiques of Islamic historical documentation as provided by the likes of Crone, or even consider notions of historical memory, culture, psychology (retroactively infusing personal biases etc.) while presenting the story of hadith documentation completed in the centuries after Muhammad, would only be astonishing if one continued carrying the assumption that this is a serious critical inquiry to begin with.
The hadith were ‘collected� from the descendants of the companions of Muhammad, who provided ‘chains of transmission� (X heard from Y on the authority of Z) over a period spanning well over a century, over areas spanning thousands of kilometers, over ethnic linguistic and culturally different populaces which were starkly different from the one in which Muhammad was born. For e.g. Bukhari the most prominent Hadith complier was a Persian, not a native Hejazi Arab, from Bukhara in modern Uzbekistan � a distance of nearly 4000km from the Hejaz � and he was born over a century after Muhammad). Brown presents his documentation of hadith literature without even a half-baked criticism that I have provided in the previous sentences.
The only critical evaluation presented is the one presented by Sunnis for aeons � the process was thorough, the hadith were compared against similar sayings provided by similar chains of transmission and categorized as strong or weak or forgeries accordingly. What this reasoning completely misses out on is the assumed objectivity of Bukhari or the compilers themselves � they too were products of their culture and time, and were far removed from the era of Muhammad, so their standardization is at best a commentary on what they found to be commonplace or what they intuitively felt was ‘right�.
Outside of the process of Hadith documentation, there is also no serious attempt made in even more ‘subjective� places. (What I mean by this is, a believer-scholar like Brown could not really be expected to critique the edifice on which his theology stands, but at the very least he could have been expected to more thoroughly evaluate the strands of reasoning deployed in taking different approaches to hadith interpretation. Brown does this only sporadically, just enough to make the work feel like it has touched on potential criticisms, without ever really diving deep into them.
Although I must admit, the few places where he does seem to raise a critical question, the questions are interesting, and they make you think. One such case was towards the end where Brown evaluates modernist approaches regarding interpreting the Quran without resorting to hadith literature � Brown manages to show that not only does this become next to impossible, he also questions the assumption that using Hadith as a vector will necessarily lead to socially reprehensible outcomes � and that a Quran only approach can similarly lead to � let’s say less than ideal social outcomes. Unfortunately, this makes the whole work more of a disappointment � it is clear that Brown does not lack the tools for critical inquiry, he just chooses not to engage them as thoroughly as he could. To me, the natural extension of his reasoning easily leads to discarding both the Quran and Hadith literature as ‘uninterpretable�, for lack of a better term, as far as decision making in this day and age are concerned. This conclusion is almost dripping from his closing chapters, but to expect Brown to proceed in that direction is to expect too much off him.
How then should I rate this book? High for readability. Thorough, for the mechanics it describes � contains all you need to know about how Sunni ulema, etc. have grappled with questions regarding the relevance and interpretability of hadith literature throughout the ages. Very highly, for giving Western audiences insights into the Sunni hadith intellectual tradition, and juggling apologetics with an attempt to present a serious work. Also, very highly, for head on presenting and addressing some of the more stand out criticisms of Muhammad/Islam as they exist in Western/secular popular discourse. Very low marks for reasoned critical inquiry though. 3.5 stars rounded up to 4, seems fair I suppose.
Interesting quote and what it reveals about the book:
“When a work becomes canonical its internal order and logic are guaranteed by the collective will of the canonical community. Its consonance with the known truths and reality outside the text is similarly committed to. What Frank Kermode referred to as the Principle of Complementarity is the willed assumption of the community that has invested value and meaning in a text that the text must make sense within itself and against its extratextual surroundings. It cannot suffer from senseless internal contradictions. It cannot clash with what is known to be true outside the text. What the biblical scholar Moshe Halbertal termed the Principle of Charity is the willingness of a canonical community to read its texts in the best possible light and in a way that defuses or elides contradictions with truth or order.�
My TLDR: people believe whatever they want and extract from a text whatever they desire....more
Loading...
