Charles Haywood's Reviews > The Road to Mecca
The Road to Mecca
by
by

This is a fascinating book—half travelogue and half conversion memoir. Muhammad Asad was born a Jew, Leopold Weiss, in the Austro-Hungarian empire (in what is now Ukraine, the city of Lvov). He was prominent both in interactions with the West in the 20th Century, for example as Pakistani ambassador to the UN, and in theological work, including translation and exegesis of the Q’uran. Asad is regarded, and should be even more regarded in these days of Al Qaeda and ISIS, as a voice for a revitalized, mainstream (he would accurately reject the term “moderate�) Islam. But long before that, he was just a Westerner adrift and looking for spiritual answers.
Asad found those answers in Arabia. In many ways, The Road To Mecca is of the same genre as other travel books of Western men fascinated by Arabia in the first third of the 20th Century, such as Lawrence of Arabia, or lesser known figures such as Wilfred Thesiger (Arabian Sands). A certain type of Western man (a woman could not have had the opportunity) fell in love with the people and landscape of pre-petroleum Arabia, believing that the people had unique virtues (though they admitted the people were not composed only of virtues) and the land brought out the best in men. Some of this smacks of naïve love of the idealized noble savage, of course, and you see the same thing more commonly with Westerners and East Asian cultures like Tibet (hello, Richard Gere!). Conversion to Islam was not the norm, though, for Westerners entranced by Arabia and the Arabs. But Asad was simultaneously on a spiritual quest, and, like others before and since, after rejecting much else found what he was looking for in Islam.
Asad’s memoir is told in the form of flashbacks during a desert trip in 1927 with a traveling companion, ultimately to Mecca (not for his first time)—at the time he lived in Medina, so he had made the hajj pilgrimage several times already. In his book, he alternates descriptions of Arabian geography (as well as Syria, Iraq and Iran, and a little of the Maghreb), with descriptions of key Arabs and their personal and political doings (he knew Ibn Saud well, along with a host of lesser players, although not, apparently, the Hashemite kings of the Hejaz, deposed by Ibn Saud but later kings of Jordan to this day, and, briefly, Iraq). And all along in his book Asad is narrating his own life, and his own religious development, with apparently great honesty and clarity.
Asad rejected Judaism and became agnostic early, although he came from a rabbinical family. His main objection to Judaism is that he could not believe in a God that was focused nearly to exclusion on one people—he repeatedly and accurately contrasts Islam’s ability to embrace all kinds of people and form a new community from them with the exclusive aspects of Judaism. But Asad does not fall into the kind of crude anti-Judaic attitudes so common among modern Muslims, even though such an attitude is well supported in the Q’uran and the Sunnah, and is the historical norm in Islam. (Q’uranic verses such as 2:62, frequently quoted to make Islam seem universalist, “Surely those who believe, those of Jewry, the Christians and the Sabaeans . . . . whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day, and works righteousness, their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be upon them, and neither shall they sorrow� are not to the contrary—their exclusive interpretation in Islam has always been that those verses only apply to Jews before Jesus, and then to Christians before Muhammad, and have zero application today, after Muhammad. See The Reliance of the Traveler, the main Shafi’i “catechism,� at w4.4) He was, however, very opposed to Zionism and the founding of Israel, and friendly with Jews such as Jacob de Haan, a Dutch Jew assassinate by the Haganah in 1924 for favoring negotiations with Arab leaders.
Asad also seems to have considered Christianity, or so he asserts. If I had an objection to this book (although to object to someone else’s reasons for his personal conversion is obviously pretty silly), it is that he does not seem to understand Christianity at all, in that he ascribes to Christianity critical doctrines not actually found there, and ascribes his rejection of Christianity to his aversion to those (bogus) doctrines. The core “doctrine,� to which he returns repeatedly, is that Christianity (supposedly) believes matter and the body evil, and the spirit good. He contrasts this to Islam’s holistic approach, in which nothing Allah has made can be bad, and each human’s physical body and spirit are both key concerns of Islam.
But of course this is a false view of Christianity. More precisely, it is a heretical view. It is the view of the early Gnostics, the Manichees, and the Albigensians, all rejected by mainstream Christianity. They posited dualism—that, as Asad says, the body is bad and the spirit good. But mainstream Christianity holds the opposite—like Islam, it holds that all what God has created is good, though of course Islam and Christianity both hold it can be mis-used. Asad appears to have missed the key doctrine of Christianity of the resurrection of the body, found in both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles� Creed. There is a difference between Christianity and Islam, in that Islam does not recognize original sin and Christianity does have non-heretical strains that emphasize spiritual precedence, such as the eremitic monks, but it is just not correct to posit the dualism that Asad appears to be believe to be central to Christianity.
Asad also falls into silly historical errors, such as supposing Islam’s view of the West is dictated by the Crusades, and that the Crusades were the formative moment of Western civilization, whereas in reality the Crusades were forgotten by Muslims (who won, after all) until their memory was resurrected for political purposes in the 19th Century, and were and are of minor importance in the West as well, except as a modern day tool for ignorant Americans to traduce Christianity and the West. He (in passing) also follows the common Muslim habit of erroneously ascribing important scientific inventions to Muslims, from algebra and trigonometry to “Arabic numerals� and the compass, in the usual effort to compensate for Muslim lack of scientific contributions in modern times (or, really, since the 11th Century, and even then mostly by non-Muslims under Muslim domination, and nearly all second-order scientific contributions). But these flaws are understandable and not at all germane to Asad’s basic narrative.
He also points out what are today interesting historical nuggets, such as that until the 19th Century Wahhabi “revival,� the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula were seen as the laxest Muslims at all, and are now the most religious (not always to everyone’s benefit, then or now—Asad, while recognizing certain virtues, notes that it made them “proud, haughty men who regard themselves as the only true representatives of Islam and all other Muslim peoples as heretics�). Finally, he inadvertently confirms a variety of Western views of Islamic cultures as retrograde in certain areas as entirely correct, as when he notes how a family desperately tried and succeeded in hoodwinking him into marrying an 11-year old virgin. (He divorced her when he discovered her age on their wedding night, and did not consummate the marriage.) “[Her mother] was stupefied [by his demand to immediately divorce the girl]. She had never heard of a man who refused so choice a morsel—an eleven-year-old virgin—and must have thought that there was something radically wrong with me.�
Presumably this doesn’t really matter for Asad’s personal conversion. He was attracted to the community of believers in Islam; the fact that Islam provides answers to nearly every question in life, particularly those not directly related to spiritual matters, but to all matters of life (in this Islam is not dissimilar to such Christian groups as Opus Dei or Third Order Franciscans, though the comparison probably shouldn’t be stretched); the harmony of Muslim belief; and the peace Islam brought to the people he knew. He says himself that what he had was “a longing to find my own restful place in the world,� and he found it in Islam. One thing to keep in mind, of course, was that the 1920s were a time when many in the West, after the First World War, despaired of any future for the west. As Asad says: “A world in upheaval and convulsion: that was our Western world.� Islam offered a world united in itself, without any upheaval and convulsion, if properly ordered according to its own principles.
Asad is broad-minded, tolerant, and fascinating. Those are not characteristics in good odor among many strains of modern Islam, which tends in many cases to be anything but modern. His translation/exegesis of the Q’uran, The Message of the Koran, is banned in Saudi Arabia for supposed Mu’tazili tendencies (perceived as undermining the alleged divine nature of the Q’uran) and a willingness to strongly endorse ijtihad, or continued analysis and reasoning, in exegesis of the Q’uran. But whatever your theological predilection, these characteristics are what make Asad’s memoir very much worth reading.
Asad found those answers in Arabia. In many ways, The Road To Mecca is of the same genre as other travel books of Western men fascinated by Arabia in the first third of the 20th Century, such as Lawrence of Arabia, or lesser known figures such as Wilfred Thesiger (Arabian Sands). A certain type of Western man (a woman could not have had the opportunity) fell in love with the people and landscape of pre-petroleum Arabia, believing that the people had unique virtues (though they admitted the people were not composed only of virtues) and the land brought out the best in men. Some of this smacks of naïve love of the idealized noble savage, of course, and you see the same thing more commonly with Westerners and East Asian cultures like Tibet (hello, Richard Gere!). Conversion to Islam was not the norm, though, for Westerners entranced by Arabia and the Arabs. But Asad was simultaneously on a spiritual quest, and, like others before and since, after rejecting much else found what he was looking for in Islam.
Asad’s memoir is told in the form of flashbacks during a desert trip in 1927 with a traveling companion, ultimately to Mecca (not for his first time)—at the time he lived in Medina, so he had made the hajj pilgrimage several times already. In his book, he alternates descriptions of Arabian geography (as well as Syria, Iraq and Iran, and a little of the Maghreb), with descriptions of key Arabs and their personal and political doings (he knew Ibn Saud well, along with a host of lesser players, although not, apparently, the Hashemite kings of the Hejaz, deposed by Ibn Saud but later kings of Jordan to this day, and, briefly, Iraq). And all along in his book Asad is narrating his own life, and his own religious development, with apparently great honesty and clarity.
Asad rejected Judaism and became agnostic early, although he came from a rabbinical family. His main objection to Judaism is that he could not believe in a God that was focused nearly to exclusion on one people—he repeatedly and accurately contrasts Islam’s ability to embrace all kinds of people and form a new community from them with the exclusive aspects of Judaism. But Asad does not fall into the kind of crude anti-Judaic attitudes so common among modern Muslims, even though such an attitude is well supported in the Q’uran and the Sunnah, and is the historical norm in Islam. (Q’uranic verses such as 2:62, frequently quoted to make Islam seem universalist, “Surely those who believe, those of Jewry, the Christians and the Sabaeans . . . . whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day, and works righteousness, their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be upon them, and neither shall they sorrow� are not to the contrary—their exclusive interpretation in Islam has always been that those verses only apply to Jews before Jesus, and then to Christians before Muhammad, and have zero application today, after Muhammad. See The Reliance of the Traveler, the main Shafi’i “catechism,� at w4.4) He was, however, very opposed to Zionism and the founding of Israel, and friendly with Jews such as Jacob de Haan, a Dutch Jew assassinate by the Haganah in 1924 for favoring negotiations with Arab leaders.
Asad also seems to have considered Christianity, or so he asserts. If I had an objection to this book (although to object to someone else’s reasons for his personal conversion is obviously pretty silly), it is that he does not seem to understand Christianity at all, in that he ascribes to Christianity critical doctrines not actually found there, and ascribes his rejection of Christianity to his aversion to those (bogus) doctrines. The core “doctrine,� to which he returns repeatedly, is that Christianity (supposedly) believes matter and the body evil, and the spirit good. He contrasts this to Islam’s holistic approach, in which nothing Allah has made can be bad, and each human’s physical body and spirit are both key concerns of Islam.
But of course this is a false view of Christianity. More precisely, it is a heretical view. It is the view of the early Gnostics, the Manichees, and the Albigensians, all rejected by mainstream Christianity. They posited dualism—that, as Asad says, the body is bad and the spirit good. But mainstream Christianity holds the opposite—like Islam, it holds that all what God has created is good, though of course Islam and Christianity both hold it can be mis-used. Asad appears to have missed the key doctrine of Christianity of the resurrection of the body, found in both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles� Creed. There is a difference between Christianity and Islam, in that Islam does not recognize original sin and Christianity does have non-heretical strains that emphasize spiritual precedence, such as the eremitic monks, but it is just not correct to posit the dualism that Asad appears to be believe to be central to Christianity.
Asad also falls into silly historical errors, such as supposing Islam’s view of the West is dictated by the Crusades, and that the Crusades were the formative moment of Western civilization, whereas in reality the Crusades were forgotten by Muslims (who won, after all) until their memory was resurrected for political purposes in the 19th Century, and were and are of minor importance in the West as well, except as a modern day tool for ignorant Americans to traduce Christianity and the West. He (in passing) also follows the common Muslim habit of erroneously ascribing important scientific inventions to Muslims, from algebra and trigonometry to “Arabic numerals� and the compass, in the usual effort to compensate for Muslim lack of scientific contributions in modern times (or, really, since the 11th Century, and even then mostly by non-Muslims under Muslim domination, and nearly all second-order scientific contributions). But these flaws are understandable and not at all germane to Asad’s basic narrative.
He also points out what are today interesting historical nuggets, such as that until the 19th Century Wahhabi “revival,� the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula were seen as the laxest Muslims at all, and are now the most religious (not always to everyone’s benefit, then or now—Asad, while recognizing certain virtues, notes that it made them “proud, haughty men who regard themselves as the only true representatives of Islam and all other Muslim peoples as heretics�). Finally, he inadvertently confirms a variety of Western views of Islamic cultures as retrograde in certain areas as entirely correct, as when he notes how a family desperately tried and succeeded in hoodwinking him into marrying an 11-year old virgin. (He divorced her when he discovered her age on their wedding night, and did not consummate the marriage.) “[Her mother] was stupefied [by his demand to immediately divorce the girl]. She had never heard of a man who refused so choice a morsel—an eleven-year-old virgin—and must have thought that there was something radically wrong with me.�
Presumably this doesn’t really matter for Asad’s personal conversion. He was attracted to the community of believers in Islam; the fact that Islam provides answers to nearly every question in life, particularly those not directly related to spiritual matters, but to all matters of life (in this Islam is not dissimilar to such Christian groups as Opus Dei or Third Order Franciscans, though the comparison probably shouldn’t be stretched); the harmony of Muslim belief; and the peace Islam brought to the people he knew. He says himself that what he had was “a longing to find my own restful place in the world,� and he found it in Islam. One thing to keep in mind, of course, was that the 1920s were a time when many in the West, after the First World War, despaired of any future for the west. As Asad says: “A world in upheaval and convulsion: that was our Western world.� Islam offered a world united in itself, without any upheaval and convulsion, if properly ordered according to its own principles.
Asad is broad-minded, tolerant, and fascinating. Those are not characteristics in good odor among many strains of modern Islam, which tends in many cases to be anything but modern. His translation/exegesis of the Q’uran, The Message of the Koran, is banned in Saudi Arabia for supposed Mu’tazili tendencies (perceived as undermining the alleged divine nature of the Q’uran) and a willingness to strongly endorse ijtihad, or continued analysis and reasoning, in exegesis of the Q’uran. But whatever your theological predilection, these characteristics are what make Asad’s memoir very much worth reading.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
The Road to Mecca.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
February 1, 2015
–
Finished Reading
February 21, 2015
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)
date
newest »


Thanks for the detailed thoughts—although I think you miss the mark in most of your points.
1) I have about thirty other reviews that touch on Islam, about half of which discuss it in detail. This was, I believe, the first review I did that touched on Islam. You can find the rest at:
2) There I also address the question of the degree to which Islam contributed to the modern world, which is to say, nearly not at all. “A few second-tier mathematical concepts contributed mostly by non-Muslims under Muslim domination� would be more accurate. To be sure, the Islamic world’s flourishing occurred at a time when Europe was beginning its flourishing (though nobody sensible believes in the propaganda of the “Dark Ages� anymore). But that ended a thousand years ago. And, of course, most Greek and Roman culture was preserved by the Byzantines, not the Arabs.
3) My point about Opus Dei was that Islam is attractive because it provides all possible answers to all possible questions; this is the role of hadith, fatwas, and so on.
4) I am extremely well-informed about the Crusades, and medieval history in general. The propagandistic idea that the Crusades were mostly about spoils, or second sons, or any other economic motive was disproved decades ago (and pushed by anti-Catholic propagandists like Gibbon and Runciman). That the Crusaders attacked Christians and Jews en-route is of mere passing historical interest. No, it is not with good reason that the name “Crusaders� is being removed; it is due to bigotry and stupidity.
5) My point (very clearly made) is that Asad made his choice to reject Christianity, by his own account, based on a wholly incorrect belief about what Christians believe. And he converted in 1926, not “in the 1930s,� so your argument makes little sense (nor is it something Asad mentions).
6) Gary Wills, like Karen Armstrong, is an apologist for Islam who ignores its flaws. I actually have a certain sympathy for Islam, as you’ll see from other reviews. But nearly everything Americans are told about Islam, whether by the Left mainstream news, or by George W. Bush and the neoconservatives, is an ignorant pack of lies. The Kharijite strain in Islam, for example, is a wholly legitimate, mainstream, and relatively common perspective, that totally lacks any Christian analogue. I note you ignore my specific examples of other retrograde behavior that is mainstream in Islam.

As to Asad, he & his family were subjected to antisemitism well before he became interested in Islam, that being the reason why Zionism flourished in places like Germany & Austria well before the Nazis came to power. Germany was a good Christian country & nonetheless accepted Hitler &his henchmen but then America is full of good Christian men & women, many of whom elected a pagan as their president. Liberty Baptist College even declared him a "Prophet". There is a dark side to humanity, no matter which flag it raises & which religion it declares the only true one.
Just to be clear,Leonard Weiss did not reject Christianity in favor of Islam; rather, Christianity rejected Leonard Weiss & his family, at birth!
Your point in attempting to undermine the role of Arabs, Muslim & the Middle East (& in Spain) in contributing to & serving to preserve mathematics & higher learning is an example of xenophobia even more than just Islamophobia, a state of mind in which you would proudly claim membership, for what reason is known only to you.It doesn't diminish you or folks like you to admit that algebra has Muslim/Arab roots, any more than does admitting that China developed a printing press well before Gutenberg.
You did not indicate how many Muslim countries you've visited or provide details of your experiences within those countries. However, given that Mark Twain once said that "travel is the enemy of prejudice", my thought is that in spite of his sage advice, you are better off staying home rereading books that confirm your bias. By all means, don't read Ornament of the World: How Jews, Muslims & Christians lived in Harmony in Medieval Spain by the late Yale University professor, Maria Rosa Menocal, with a forward by the late Yale scholar Harold Bloom.
I do support that you gave 5*s to the book by Leopold Weiss, who became Muhammad Asad, a fascinating story of oneman's personal transformation.

It is sad that you have descended into silliness.
1) Of course Wills is an apologist for Islam. He’s a leftist (though he didn’t start there, and masquerades as a house “Republican.� And the Left, because of intersectionality and oppression theory, is very defensive of Islam. QED. (“Islamophobia� is a stupid and meaningless term.)
I’m an Eastern Orthodox Christian, myself.
2) Zionism in its original form had little to do with antisemitism; that is a historical inaccuracy. It was founded by assimilated Jews subject to little or no discrimination. You apparently lack all knowledge of German history except what can be gotten on Twitter. Germany most definitely did not “reject Jews� until the rise of political antisemitism in the wake of World War I.
Whether or not Asad was subjected to antisemitism, and whether that was relevant to his conversion (he says nothing about either in this book, suggesting the answer is “no� to both), your original statement about the �1930s� was wrong and clownish, which you should admit.
3) Once you have read my other reviews about Islam, you may comment on the contributions to the modern world of the Islamic world, which are modest (though not zero). Algebra, by the way, was invented by Diophantus, before Christ, and this is not disputed. (And the same is true for Chinese contributions, who did not invent the same type of press, and more to the point, like gunpowder, made nothing of it and what else they did invent, unlike the Europeans.)
4) Islamic Spain as some type of wonderland is a total myth cooked up by apologists. Read my review of “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise,� or of Brian Catlos’s more recent book, “Kingdoms of Faith.�
5) The idea that visiting modern Muslim countries is necessary to understand historical Islam, or is even of any benefit to doing so, is silly (and designed to allow you to puff and preen yourself, to your own humiliation).

As to not knowing anything about Germany, my heritage is partly German &I lived there for a time. Beyond that, I took 3 courses from Dr. Kurt von Schuschnigg, chancellor of Austria prior to the Anschluss & learned just a bit about WWII from someone who had an up close & personal confrontation with Hitler. It was a rare opportunity, much like having George Adamson for a neighbor while living in Africa.
No one said that Spain was a perfect situation under the Muslims, or under Franco for that matter but there were long, documented periods of tolerance before Ferdinand & Isabela signed a compact to allow all religions to coexist, & then almost immediately broke it, evicting Jews & Muslims. Perhaps you've done enough reading to have learned about the Inquisition?
Not comprehending that Leonard Weiss & family encountered antisemitism in Germany in the 1920s or the history of pogroms directed at Jews is a case of almost intentional ignorance, much like your view of Islam. By god, you are at least consistent!
Garry Wills may not be to your political or religious liking but he is a scholar with a great reputation & does considerable research prior to any book he deals with. He is an unapologetic Roman-Catholic but also a scholar who believes that objectivity is the craft of intelligence. For that reason, before beginning his work on the Qur'an, Wills faulted himself for not having read it. Once he did & after some serious background research, he crafted the book I recommended earlier. Unlike you, he did not feel that Islam was in competition with Christianity.
Condemning an entire religion like Islam would be like taking Christianity to task because it is embraced by the Ku Klux Klan or because it was misused by a pagan president flashing a bible as a prop in a photo op.
As to travel, it changes the traveler, broadens the mind & reveals things that represent real life lived by real people, stuff not in books. Living in Africa for several years was a life-changing experience but so was, to a lesser degree, spending time in Iran & Oman, Jordan & Egypt. As indicated, in your case, I would not recommend that you leave your secure bunker. As stated, I've never had a bad experience traveling in a Muslim country, nor in meeting Muslims in my own land.
Fortunately, you stand out among readers at this site as someone for whom books are merely a vehicle to buttress a prejudice, not an opportunity to expand one's view of the world &its people. That makes you a very rare commodity, quite thankfully.

As to n..."
1) Well, this is a new and amusing low in logical fallacies. You take the old fallacy of appeal to authority, meaning using the factual statements of someone perceived to have authority as true for that reason, and make it even more silly, by appealing to authorities without even any statement of facts, relying on the aura of virtue and knowledge you think they give you. Congratulations! Or something.
2) I don’t publish primarily at ŷ; I have more than 500 lengthy book reviews, about two million words, written over the past five years, at my main site. It’s popular! Join the movement!
3) I had to look up “George Adamson,� he’s so unimportant and irrelevant. But to Boomers, maybe he mattered.
4) I will grant that Spain under Franco was pretty excellent.
5) Speaking of intentional ignorance, how about you give some specific examples of the antisemitism that caused Asad to make his choice, and explain why he never once mentions that as a reason or a problem for him? How about you give, let’s say, one example of a “pogrom� in Germany after, say, 1800? (Of course, “pogrom� is a modern Russian phenomenon, but any mob behavior directed at Jews will do.) You won’t, of course, because you specialize in broad statements lacking any factual truth, that sound good to you and allow you to feel good about your very limited knowledge.
6) Oh, I have travelled all over the world, and have multiple citizenships, as well as speak several languages.

I find it fascinating someone wants to complain about a supposed agenda in a long (though average for Mr. Haywood) review after he gave it FIVE stars. The defense of Islam by non-Muslims is a truly bizarre phenomena (see Ben Affleck). Great review again on a book I will never read, but now I feel I know enough already. Thanks!

I find it fascinating someone wants to complain about a supposed agenda in a long (though average for Mr. Haywood) review after..."
I agree with this! Thanks!

My most excellent teacher of Classical Chinese and Chinese Culture dr. Burchard Mansvelt Beck recently died - God rest his soul ( no irony there from this avowed and stalwart atheist) - HE NEVER SET FOOT IN CHINA. (Or, as prof dr. Karel van het Reve, the famous Dutch Slavist, once wrote: if the argument that "you ain't been there, therefore you don't know (etc.)" holds water, then we should disregard all history, since none of the historians who present the past to us were there at the time and thús do not know what they're talking about.)
KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT, CHARLES! You have my blessing.

Thank you! Wow, that is a super-cosmopolitan and interesting background. I will do my best to keep up the fight . . .


Yes, of course Algebra (from the Arabic for Al-Jabar, or reunion of broken parts) & many mathematical & engineering concepts originate with Arabs. And most but not all Arabs are Muslim, therefore suggesting that there is indeed a connection. The beginning would seem to have been around 830, not exactly a high point in European culture.
Beyond that, the Middle East was the bastion of higher learning in the 8th--12th centuries, with places like Baghdad & Damascus centers of learning when Europe was, as mentioned in the Dark Ages. Part of what was preserved included the books of ancient Greece & Rome, including culture contained within those books, translated into Arabic. As Casey Stengel used to enjoy saying: "You could check it out."
The reference to the Catholic group, "Opus Dei", seen as a cult even by some Catholics, began in Spain (mostly around Burgos) in the late 1920s & doesn't have a great deal to do with the erstwhile Leopold Weiss, unless I missed it.
And the Crusades were in fact aimed at recovering the so-called Holy Land, though some "crusaders" were also brigands, in search of spoils more than blessings or indulgences for the remission of sins, with the Knights Templar.something of an exception. Many if not most Muslims seemed to view "crusaders" as unwashed & uncivilized. Just to be clear, some crusaders attacked Jews & even other Christians en route to Jerusalem.
Obviously,it is with good reason that the name "Crusaders" is being removed from sports teams & other points of reference, including at Valparaiso Univ., a Missouri Synod Lutheran college. No, it isn't just another attempt to be "politically correct", though it is definitely an attempt not to offend without cause in an increasingly diverse world.
You seem somewhat surprised that Muhammad Asad might have considered Christianity prior to deciding to forsake his Jewish (religious) background in favor of Islam, for reasons he articulates in the book. If you lived in Germany during the 1930s & happened to have the ill-fortune to be Jewish, how appealing would Christianity have been to you, even though some Protestant & Roman-Catholic Christians quite certainly did oppose Hitler & the Nazis, with some even coming to the rescue to Jews. After all, most of Asad's family perished in the Holocaust in Germany & other predominantly (at least nominally) Christian countries.
I've lived in a country with a large Muslim population & have spent time in at least ten Muslim majority countries (including Iran, Qatar, Egypt & Oman) and I've never come to the conclusion that you have about the religion.
If you actually read the Qur'an, you will not find the sort of conclusions you seem to draw. Or if in doubt, try reading Garry Wills book, What the Qur'an Meant & Why it Matters. And just to be clear, Prof. Wills is a scholar of the 1st rank who just happens to be a devout Roman-Catholic.
Draw your own conclusions about Asad's book but don't attempt to politicize your religious views, whatever they might be.
All religions contain certain elements that are subject to being hi-jacked by those in need of something to hide behind, from extreme militant Islamic groups to the KKK. I've taken the time to consider & comment on your review because there were in fact elements that I enjoyed reading. However, I don't see the need to buttress a G/R book review with personal interpretations that drift far afield. Bill