Shifting Sands - A Human History of the Sahara (Judith Scheele, 2025)

This is a new book that sounded interesting, in part as it relates to a part of the world I've not read about much.

But I quit about exactly halfway. The storylines are interesting enough, but the incessant drumbeat of anti-West, anti-capitalist assumptions wear me out. The usual statements to the effect that slavery by Western nations is unquestionably evil, slavery in Islamic or sub-Saharan situations is nuanced. At least the author points out that there were more slaves there over a longer time period. Also from the 2025 catechism: anyone that objects to migrants going wherever they want in whatever numbers is xenophobic and/or racist.

And I don't quite know how to place what I read, mostly because I still don't know much about this area. There is far more nuance than I realized about Sahara topography, variance in oases, tribes criss-crossing; this part is interesting. (The only time I had read about anything addressing this were the WWII books discussing the campaigns in north Africa.) 

I didn't know there is a vast store of water underground - of course now there is rampant pumping and time will tell if this depletes the stores.  So far it hasn't, though localized areas have gotten dried out. 

Camels are more amazing than I realized.

As far as I got, this was an interesting follow-on to the focus on deserts in the monastic world. 

The Silk Roads - A New History of the World (Peter Frankopan, 2015)

Interesting, readable summary though there are plenty of aspects I didn’t love, per below. The subtitle - “A New History of the World” - suggests too much scope - hard to be comprehensive - yet I like the focus on the old Silk Road territories (though he applies the “____ Road” concept pretty much around the world). 

Presents history in this part of the world as sort of a discovery, unknown; I think anyone that’s read much history would have quite a bit of knowledge here.  Still - it’s a useful book, a good overview notwithstanding the annoyances. 

I do the think the author falls prey to the 2015 (not new in 2015, and persisting) trend of demonizing the West and acting like other regions lack agency. Maybe I’m too sensitive to this approach but I don’t think so.  The chapter about slavery suggesting Europe more or less invented it - c’mon. Dismiss European motives as gold, power. Europeans as backward, venal. Mongols as wise administrators - OK a little violent in the conquest phase but then long periods of peace and prosperity, OK maybe so. Muslims as tolerant, open minded. Etc. Seems to selectively present the histories on these topics. 

British actions post-WWI described as making the Middle East unstable - this after hundreds of pages often describing conflicts in the Middle East going back thousands of years. OK. 

Interesting - the idea that the spread of the religions along the trade routes somewhat threatened those same religions, motivating the religions to become more strident.  Buddhism starts using big statues and nice shrines and stupas to stand out; Zoroastrianism becomes more nationalistic, loses much of its famous tolerance; Christianity more of a threat especially when Constantine gets on board. This lets up when Rome weakens due to the Huns, etc., but then resurfaces when the Huns weaken. And has continued.

Vikings/Rus were effective, a bigger factor than I normally think. 

His summary of the run-up to the Crusades was a useful complement to this recently-read book. 

Spanish taking silver and gold from the Americas on the ships; later oil is taken from the Middle East; this is discussed as some sort of illegitimate plundering. Not sure if this can be distinguished from actions of conquering groups throughout history.  And these supposedly advanced-peaceful societies didn’t have the know-how or interest to ever utilize these resources in the same way anyway. See Venezuelan oil. Yes, local labor was not treated well at all as part of the resource extraction, at least in the 16th-17th century Americas. As it happens. 

Russia experiencing difficulties in handling new central Asian territories, including fear of Islamic populations. Some history here.

Author kind of got bogged down in a lot of detail about Iran and Iraq in mid-20th century and into the 21st, I didn’t need that much detail plus the history here isn’t aged enough to draw conclusions. Britain trying to hang in there especially with Iran, I can see why Saeed’s generation saw the British behind so many things - they often were! US kind of steps into this role later. Lots of blame assigned to Brits and US. 

Russian revolution in early 20th-century - he writes that Russia was pushing self-determination in the various republics ha ha. Hilarious Lenin quote about freedom and rights on 335.

Page 391, Stalin’s speech opposing capitalism; author says (I think or hope paraphrasing Stalin) that capitalism is responsible for suffering, mass murder and horrors of the war of the twentieth century. Communism as “a new system that accentuated similarities rather than differences, that replaced hierarchies with equality” (author’s words) What?

Page 503 - the usual wrap up - everything is in a transition stage at the time the book is written, totally unclear what’s coming next! (As to everything looking back, it was obvious and easy to criticize.)

The Crusades through Arab Eyes (Amin Maalouf, 1984)

(276 pages)

Readable, not long, interesting throughout.

The invading Christians were of course an area of focus. But a bigger area of focus was the competition among what, at the time, were smaller Islamic states (if that's the right term), the intra-family succession battles, etc.  Shia-Sunni divide. A window where didn't have hegemony such as earlier caliphates, Seljuks, Ottomans. The various Christian invaders had plenty of intra-Christian squabbles as well. And of course this led to some alliances, some quite enduring, between Islamic and Christian groups!

Islamic and Christian leaders were united in respecting trade ("Silk Roads" book reinforces this) - interesting that the religious fervor only went about so far in those days. More common interests between Christian and Islamic elements than typically discussed when thinking about this era.

Crusaders often were excellent fighters, often were boorish and excessively violent; but never had the numbers to make a huge presence.  Were able to hold onto various cities and territories, including Jerusalem, for quite some time.

First Crusade 1095, last Crusade launched 1271 and Crusader presence mostly marginalized by 1291.  Saladin with a key victory (Horns of Hattin) in 1187. Predecessor (Nur-al-din) effective at using jihad-type language and concepts to whip up support. 

And then the incursion of the Mongols became a huge part of the end game of this story - Genghis Khan and descendants - destroyed Baghdad (a relatively "new" city) in 1258. Some Christian and some Islamic elements sought alliances with the Mongols - they were super powerful especially in the early going.

Seems like contemporary voices want to focus solely on Christian-Islamic divide created in the Crusader days, but the story was way more complicated than that. Accusations of "imperialism" are thrown around without remembering how places like Jerusalem fell under Islamic control in the first place. 

A History of the Muslim World From its Origins to the Dawn of Modernity (Michael Cook, 2024)

(846 pages)

I'm trying to better understand why Islam-dominated areas of the world - and now Islam-dominated areas of Western nations affected by immigration - seem to have issues, let's say.  This after what always seems like a rather glorious period hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

Certainly no simple answers based on this book; as with the impression from all the other Islam stuff I've read - this is a complex situation with many different actors and outcomes.

Author starts with helpful background.  Arabia area to the south of the two main empires (Constantinople and Persia). Two main empires expending huge energy fighting each other at end of sixth century and into seventh. Harassed by steppe folk from the north - sometimes an ally, sometimes a dire threat.  Desert folk from the south (Arabia area) don't have anything resembling a state, a few minor kinglets; sometimes harass southern fringes of the two main empires. Two main empires occasionally coopt a local Arab-area leader to help control other tribes/clans.  Arab area does have the black rock at Mecca and various local gods but not part of the main religious strands (Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian).  Lacking political structure and major religion, exposed to these concepts by declining imperial powers.

Ishmaelites = Arabs. Connection to Abraham.

Muhammed and founding of Islam.  Never not inextricably bound up with politics, formation of state, warfare. Fighting to survive in the earliest going.  Fighting to conquer in the following decades. Religious rhetoric is often about who should rule and how - separation of church and state never existed or was even considered in so many of these areas. This seems pretty important! 

Scope of conquered (colonized) territory is astounding. As is pace of colonization - 100 years pretty much did it.

Spread of Islam, spread of Arabic language - population of Arabs compared to populations of colonized territories - how was this possible?

Lots of discussion on this. An interesting idea was a very early decision that in the colonized territories, tax revenue would be collected and soldiers would be paid from this - a path to continued central control. Rather than just giving chunks of the colonized territories to successful generals - a path to atomization, compare feudal Europe. But many other factors mentioned, and scope of centralized control over the colonies was severely limited by distance and communication challenges.

The idea that Arabs - and later Arab nomads - would be placed in the colonies and would need lots of retainers, slaves, etc. These local folks gravitated toward Islam and Arabic. The process continued. Contributed to the long-term change.

Heavy duty taxation focused on non-Muslim populations.  Heavy duty utilization of slaves.

In the early centuries - my impression from this book is that Islamic leadership expended far more energy dealing with civil wars and rebellions than with third party threats. The variations of Islam in various parts of the colonized territories (and Arabia itself) - to a greater extent than I realized - not monolithic.

Early moves into Iraq - Arabia remained special but was not a place to center the Caliphate.

Long discussions of expansion across North Africa and into Spain.  Dealing with Berbers. More than one Caliphate (Spain, Egypt, Iraq).

Moves on to discuss expansion into Iran. India.  Rise of the Turks (in waves).

As more modern times approach - a real failure to keep up with technology, trade, etc.

Author seems to have an incredible knowledge of detail here.  

Good reminder to be very humble what I can figure out about this topic.

Sugar Street (part three of The Cairo Trilogy) (Naguib Mahfouz, 1956)

Overall comment spanning parts 1-3 - I really liked this. Length (trilogy format) allows author to develop the family characters. Story line nonetheless compact. Brings out a variety of characters, viewpoints, interests, behaviors; brings out the transition in Egypt from traditional ways to 20th century modernity; excellent with dialogue and especially with showing thoughts, reactions, emotions internal to each character.  And it's set in a part of the world that is not normally the subject of novels as least as far as I've encountered. I hope I learned something as well as enjoying the story, though the latter would be sufficient.

_______________

Specific to part 3 - 

(328 pages_

The next generation is growing up.  Yasin's son (Ridwan) getting well-connected; he takes after his father in looks.  We start seeing the parts of the story through the next-gen eyes.

It's now the 1930s. Egyptian nationalists still desiring to throw out the English but now Nazis and Italian fascists are recognized threats.

Khadija's son Ahmad - admires Kamal - disconnecting from traditional religion to Khadija's dismay - good discussions about how that happens.

Ahmad's brother is part of a group of young men who belief in a holy man - circa p. 1064 - a discussion of Egypt (or Arab world writ large) in relation to other countries - this sounds remarkably similar to today's conversations. "True belief" and faith (fundamentalist Islam) against materialistic cultures that won't stand.

This brother is in the "Muslim Brotherhood"; Ahmad seems himself as a Communist.

The health of the father (Sayyid) continues to deteriorate even though he is only in his early 60s; same is happening to his three closest friends - presumably a message about the effect of their habits.

Aisha's sadness.

Ahmad in love with fellow sociology student, then a co-worker.  Kamal getting older, still resistant to marriage. Lots of discussion of his thoughts on not getting married; reverberations from youth.

Throughout parts 1-2, Kamal is working as a writer - but lots of reflections by him and conversations with others about the value of his work - tends to be abstract/pure thought of limited interest.  How long to stick with this? Kamal continues teaching.  Ahmad writes for a magazine.

World War II arrives.

Role reversal - Sayyid is confined to the home (and then to his bed), Amina (the mother) is able to leave every day (visits mosques and her nearby relatives).

There is an air raid - more intense than those that preceded it - author does a really good job communicating this.  The father is forced to walk down the stairs and to a sheltered area, this is very hard on him.  The author does a really good job communicating this also. Sayyid's passing within a day or two - the author does a really good job with this.  Sayyid with outsize influence despite (or in part because of) his domineering and wayward ways - a core of family care that everyone noticed and relied on.

Author does a good job voicing the views of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communists - same rhetoric as always.  Authorities dislike.

I like that he doesn't wrap up with some tidy resolution of Kamal's marriage or professional status or beliefs.  The world is changing, Amina on her last days, on it will somehow go.

Palace of Desire (Part two of The Cairo Trilogy) (Naguib Mahfouz, 1956)

(445 pages)

[The names of the three sections are names of streets in old Cairo where characters live and much of the action takes place.]

Part 2 of the trilogy starts with the family very sad because of Falmy.

Amina (mother) affected most; she is aging rapidly, still mostly confined to her house but at least can go to the cemetery and mosque pretty much when she wants.

Father is also aging and getting some health scares - had seemed indestructible but behaviors (resumed after a several-years break) take a toll.  Author explores how aging felt to the father, did a good job.

Some looks at the daughters (Khadija, Aisha) who married the brothers.

Yasin not very good at marriage, impulsive, somehow genuinely likeable throughout.

Yasin's tastes overlapping with his father's.  Which creates situations.

Much focus on Kamal (youngest son) - he's growing up, getting educated, falling in love, has a best friend who is brother of his love interest.  Best friend and his sister move out of Egypt, Kamal loses his previously strict faith as he progress in his studies.  The author does a good job exploring how these losses affect Kamal. Modernity invading traditional ways.

Kamal tries alcohol, runs into Yasin in a brothel.

The father has a major health scare toward the end of this work and vows to change his ways.

Aisha's family is stricken with typhus.

The revolutionary leader so admired by Falmy and Kamal passes away as the book ends.  Another loss.

Palace Walk (part one of The Cairo Trilogy) (Naguib Mahfouz, 1956)

(533 pages)

This is the story of a family residing in Cairo.  Story line begins around 1915 - in the midst of WWI.  Not a big direct effect on Cairo, but Australians are occupying certain sections, English are running things, and Egyptian nationalism is roused by the trends affecting so much of the world in those days (Wilsonian self-determination sentiments and the like).

The political stuff gets much less attention than the family.

This first book spends a lot of time introducing the family members.

Father - Sayyid - extremely strict at home (conservative Islam, nationalist politics), boisterous and charming when with his friends.  Highly respected by all family members, admittedly they don't know much about what he does when he goes out with his friends every single evening (wine, women, song). He is a jerk in many ways but strong person, completely loyal as he understands it.

Mother - Amina - dominated by Sayyid but a nice human being.  Not allowed to leave the house except on a supervised basis to visit her mother every now and again. Feel sorry for her.

Yasin - eldest son (different mother than Amina).  He repeats a lot of Sayyid's behaviors. Lacks self-control.

Khadija - eldest daughter - caustic.

Aisha - next daughter - less development of her character - beautiful, likes singing, dislikes conflict.

Falmy - middle son - diligent student, headed for law school, deeply involved in politics.

Kamal - youngest son.

A technique that I really like - the author can convey what it's like when a character in a stressful situation has all sorts of thoughts running through his or her head - fear, humor, non sequitur, absurdity, practicality, etc.  When Sayyid is going to help folks filling the ditch; when he is waiting outside Aisha's delivery room, when Yasin is visiting his mother, etc.

Falmy as the vehicle for discussing political events in Cairo at the time.

Onto part 2!

The Alexandria Quartet (Lawrence Durrell, four parts released 1957-1960)

(884 pages)

Setting in this part of the world - Alexandria in particular.  Distinguishing it from Cairo - which is more African/Egyptian - Alexandria founded by a Greek, sited on Mediterranean, more European-focused.  

Be that as it may - I'm always fascinated by the mix of ancient groups happening here, evolving over time.  Islam as vast majority; Coptic Christians (Hosnani family featured), Jews, etc.Multiple ethnicities, religions, crossovers.

Favorite parts are set on the Hosnani lands - the "country squire" life, Egypt-style. Can see how the author would be a successful travel writer. Much liked the descriptions.

Also liked the descriptions of the (Brit) Foreign Service life.  The changes in the 20th century as government is turned back to the Egyptians.

Book 3 - shifts perspective - nice change of pace with a relatively longer read.

A couple of writers as key characters - writers writing about writers is not new and can be tedious - thought this generally was handled well, effective way to handle retelling of events from >1 perspective (in books 1-3).

Angst over love - a lot of this.  Overlapping relationships.

Darley - lead character, I'd say

Pursewarden - writer, a key voice

Pombal - Darley's oft-roommate

Justine - married to Nessim but a history; lost a daughter

Melissa - dancer, simple

Nessim; his brother Narouz; their mother Leila - wealthy, influential, politically active; Coptic Christians

Mountolive - connects with Leila; rises through Foreign Service

Scobie - an odd Brit character; comic relief?

Clea - artist

Destiny Disrupted - A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes (Tamim Ansary, 2009)

(357 pages)

Early parts of the book were making me uncertain about how far to go - author seemed rather credulous as to the activities of the founders . . . seemed to pretty much accept the stories as packaged (in a way that would never happen with Old Testament, Book of Mormon, etc.)  Also seemed to take the position that Islam's earliest days are part of a somewhat systematized history. But then he gets around to discussing how pretty much nothing was written down for literally centuries (as discussed here) . . . and I felt like the overall discussion from there on was well balanced, at least from my limited-knowledge perspective. (And this is not to diminish the founder-achievements, just to note the timing of emergence of written source materials. Which is relevant.)

I thought this was a highly useful overview - necessarily very compact given the geographic scope and long time period, but that's fine.  And I liked his premise - to help Westerners think about how the Islamic world (far from a monolith, of course) might think about the way the West emerged from a well-deserved reputation of "backwardness" relative to the Islamic world, to a position of greater development.

Some ideas that came through - not necessarily in order or particularly important, just thoughts that were new to me or came through in a different way - 

• He explains how there ended up being three caliphates when by definition only one was possible (Spain, Egypt, original (based in Damascus, Baghdad, etc.)]

• Discusses the extensive Persian influence in the "original" caliphate - as this book discusses - sheer numbers and cultural weight were telling.

• Religious tenets that talk about peace, etc. But warrior mentality, head-of-religion conflated with head-of-state; jihad; what can only be called imperialist expansion, right?  A religion that was literally fighting for its existence from day one - constant warfare or expansion coloring the development of the religion in those centuries before things were written down.

• Talks about how the Middle East areas that preceded Islam went through a cycle of expansion when everything works - easier to recruit and motivate warriors when you are capturing new territories and lots of loot that you can parcel out to them.  Clearly applied to Islamic expansion - and Western empires - nothing wrong with any of that, seems to be the normal order of things.  Except things get very difficult when expansion stops, let alone when contraction sets in.

• On the religious side - splits, fundamentalist, mystics (Sufi) emerge - normal for religions. And how the religion evolves to conveniently include principles congenial to those in power.  See also Christianity, LDS, etc.  A useful discussion.

• Part of Western self-loathing?  Our culture-setters endlessly pillory Christianity; European colonization is racist, violent imperialism using religion as a cover; true enough, but how distinguishable from expansion by Islamic or other groups?

• Liked his perspective on the Crusades.  Not nearly as significant to the Islamic world as the immediately-following incursion by Mongols - which was a genuine disaster.  He thinks Crusades were stressful enough, but much more trumped-up now.

• Author moves onto discuss Islam in India, longer discussion in this book.

• Throughout there is helpful discussion of separation of Sunni and Shiite, and how the Shiite portion became centered in Persia/Iran c. 1500. Mentions plenty of other subgroups - Sufi, fundamentalists - Saud/Wahhabi.

• Secular/modernist movements in 20th century - started earlier, but that's the era I'm familiar with from '60s and '70s.  Surprising how much that has changed.

• Good discussion of the failure of most of these countries to make much progress economically.  Abundant natural resources can be a curse - elites sell them off to foreigners in exchange for private riches, little concern about effect on the overall country (author cites Iran, others).

• The difficulty of development of a modern state when there is no separation of church and state.

And more.

India in the Persianate Age - 1000-1765 (Richard Eaton, 2019)

(397 pages)

Main premise seems to be what author considers a new and improved thesis - we shouldn't view this era so much on Muslim-Hindu axis, but instead Sanskrit-Persianate.  It's interesting to read about but the difference is pretty subtle for a reader like me. Does point out that Muslim rulers typically were relatively tolerant - even if for practical considerations like inability to regulate behavioral minutiae of a large population over great distances. Perhaps the author is commenting on (chiding) Islamic fundamentalists and/or Hindu nationalists? 

In any event it's a very helpful overview of the years 1000-1765.

Persianate (author's term) rulers arrive in the north, based in Delhi; pushed by Mongols from Persia/Iraq; also from Afghanistan, Hindu Kush. Not always pushed - some saw opportunity.  Expand past the Vindhya mountains into the south; first ring of territory is conquered/administered; further territories are left pretty much alone but required to pay tribute, and take on some Persianate influence.  This is happening starting around 1200.

Deccan peninsula is far from Delhi relative to ability to project power.  Pretty quickly - rebellions.  14th century - Vijayanagar - in the second ring of territories south of the Vindhyas.  Some Persianate forms, but far less influence than further north.  Religious tradition not Persianate - Siva, Rama (evolving, not clear to this reader!)

Vijayanagar as immense; forays into deep south.  1564 - Battle of Talikota - a quick ending to Hampi; what remains of Vijayanagar is centered further south. (Vijayanagar (and the Battle of Talikota) written up in this book . . . which this author dislikes as incorrectly emphasizing Muslim v. Hindu (in his opinion).)

Malabar coast - less influenced by Persianate.  Major trading - mostly due to pepper - all the way back to Roman times.  Tolerant. Syriac Christians, Hindu, Muslim esp around Calicut (the version from Horn of Africa etc,) - even the Islamic influence not so much Persianate.  Not dominated by the various sultanates, not even Vijayanagar.  Portuguese upset the balance.

Sikhs emerge - Guru Nanak dies 1539.  Succession issues.  Amritsar (Punjab).

Discusses the major northern rulers - the Mughals.  Early 16th century.  Babur - Mongol.  Big transition from nomadic/horse to more pastoral life, they didn't always like it at first.  A lucky series of mostly long-tenured, talented rulers.  Abkar.  Jahangir.  Some Europeans at court now.  Jahan (crowned 1628) - perhaps the peak of Mughul power and reach?  Builds Taj Mahal, Red Fort.  Aurangzeb (much less tolerant, more reactionary).  Burning resources in Deccan, Bengal, etc.  Rajasthan. Hard to subdue; expensive; Mughals weakening in general.

At end of book - 1765 -  European presence more and more noticeable; British starting to out-compete European rivals; India growing as part of global trade.

Something missing - there's almost nothing about life of the "common man" anywhere in India - though I guess the book probably doesn't set out to do that.  Lots of discussion about how state revenues were collected, little about taxpayer squeeze, which must have been intense in view of the wealth getting to the top layers.

Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi , 2004)

(160 pp (graphic novel))

Book club selection (via Nicole; session held (via Zoom) mid-October 2020).

liked the tone of the discussion about the revolution - effective at ferreting out the hypocrisy 

attitude of many toward Islam today reminds of Communism in 30s-50s, and still to this day.  Wilful blindness.  example: so intent on supporting Palestinians (or some vision of what that might stand for?)  against imperialist Israel that refuse to see that Palestinians (or aspects Islamism writ larger) has issues (like everything).  Very strange.

A religion founded on conquest and "end of time" religious principles, sometimes this bleeds through.

Iran as a political mess - poor, illiterate. Tehran no particular history. 

tough sequence post WWI:  shah-revolution-iran/iraq war

didn't so much like:  author felt very superior to other women she viewed as less enlightened . . . hmmm . . . associate freedom with sex and drugs, next stop is the analyst.  Husband as someone they all knew wouldn't last - huh?

didn't really care about her relationship travails

useful to see ourselves in these ostensibly extreme situations

when everything becomes political . . . how much do we differ?  government control of schools, ideology, statue toppling, street mobs 

after tracking this pretty closely with govt major and law school - now totally (and happily) keeping distance from politics

cycle when something like this lasts >1 generation . . . folks grow up in it . . . how to change?

you get a scenario where an all-encompassing $6T govt is claimed to hinge on a single SCt seat . . . each of the last dozen vacancies was claimed to determine the fate of the republic . . . 

deep orthodoxy in US; % of educators with identical political views

things that resonated:  tourist to Caspian; Reghabis leaving before borders closed

good book, thought-provoking

Arabs: A 3000 Year History (Tim Mackintosh Smith, 2019)

(536 pages)

I found this consistently interesting and useful - recommended. A motivation for reading is my confusion about the term "Arab" - so few of them it seems, yet widespread use of the term around the Middle East and Northern Africa, etc.

Notes follow -

opening segment explores period before Islam - seldom read about this - points out, that as one might expect, Islam didn't arise out of nowhere.  ideas attributed to Mohammed had roots

pilgrimage to a town mentioned cb Mecca precursor

settled areas in the south - current Yemen - including Saba (OT refers to as Sheba, as in "Queen of").  north interacting with Fertile Crescent.  wanderers in the center - nomads, raiders - referred to as a'rab, though origin unclear.  greener at one time, though that's so long ago.

as mentioned in this book - superpowers would use/abuse these folks (Babylonia, Assyria; Rome, Persia) in their own contests - became important power brokers over time - unique ability to travel and raid in unfriendly terrain. as superpowers exhaust each other, opportunity arises; combination of camels and horses - lethal!

organizing thesis for the book is the language - I think meaning "high Arabic" - not really spoken, but widely understood - Koran as highest expression

deciding to administer lands in Arabic probably saved the language, rescued it from fate of Latin/Greek, overcame thinness on the ground of actual Arabs

conquest and language spread first . . . then Islamization - hard to define it - Tom Holland discussion, this is a couple hundred years after the fact and with specific political and social needs to address.

Arabs from "the island" (saudi arabia proper) are few in number and swamped by locals in many or most places conquered during the outburst.  prime example = Persia - culture and numerosity overwhelmed - even in terms of Mohammed's [sons?] marrying Persian women

deep divisions from the very beginning

reactionary forces strong, seemingly significantly stronger than in other cultures - the idea that everything stopped with the Koran [and whatever approved interpretations] - rather amazing lack of progress that persists to this day

oddity of contemporary Egypt as an Arab state in many respects (other states in the area as well) - Arab, really?

complicated to say the least

In the Shadow of the Sword - The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World (Tom Holland, 2012)

(473 pages)

Author's writing style is unusual - often it feels like rambling, but in the end it feels conversational.  And informative.

This book - focused on what we can call late antiquity - has a couple main threads.  The common theme is the rise of Islam just as Rome (eastern half ) and Persia dramatically declined.

One of the threads:  how did these previously "backward" Arab folk become perhaps the most successful imperialists of all time?  And so incredibly quickly?  Why did the existing power structures collapse so rapidly?  As also discussed in this very useful work - some key reasons included (1) Rome (meaning Constantinople) and Persia were duking it out for a protracted period just prior to the time of the Prophet, to the detriment (and exhaustion) of both; (2) Rome (still meaning Constantinople) was burning resources trying to salvage something in Italy and elsewhere in the West; and (3) severe plague struck both Constantinople and Persia.  Suddenly - centuries of global power were beaten down.

And those factors do not belittle what the Arabs accomplished - the success is astonishing.  Author suggests that the idea that warriors dying in battle will achieve paradise was pretty much new with Islam - is that so?  I'm not aware of it on a wide scale previously, though certainly the idea appears later with the Crusaders.  (Not the key to Islam military success in those days anyway.)

Another thread - author explores the history of the Koran and its related religious texts - and goes into quite a bit of detail (some admittedly conjectural) that suggests, pretty strongly, that there is less direct connection between these documents and what may have been the Prophet's words than one might think.  For example - it appears that quite a lot of this material was written a couple centuries after the Prophet - with decided social/political considerations no doubt informing the writers.

He compares to the Old Testament - for a long time ascribed to Moses - but rigorous OT analysis reveals multiple authors, much of OT written much later, much of it speaking to specific contemporary political-social circumstances.  Sources that might permit similar analysis of Koran etc. generally have not been made available (or may not exist).  Intense self-criticism applied to the Bible; pretty much no culture of self-criticism as applied to Koran.

Oldest materials apparently don't emphasize the Prophet and raise questions about relative significance of Mecca/Medina; geographic sources seem to lie elsewhere (many farther north); it seems there was more borrowing of religious ideas than might be acknowledged if one wants to hold the position that everything was dictated to the Prophet by an angel (Gabriel as it turns out).  Discusses how Arabs were retained as mercenaries for both Roman and Persian, picking up lots of ideas (and serving in the north of the peninsula).  Jerusalem as an unlikely place of significance for Islam.

It's interesting to think about how religions get started - charismatic founder not writing things down; then the process of defining the religion plays out over a long period of time.  Christians fractious about theological details - Jesus certainly defined very little - but then with a Constantine - he can start ordering folks around - all of a sudden you have a Nicene Creed (325) - not that this ended the debates, but a structure was emerging after centuries.  Islam, Jews not really the same with this; author describes groups of scholars that develop materials (also centuries later!) and eventually gain control of the story (i.e. ultimately define the religion) - this is interesting if challenging to pin down.  Role of caliph in those days - combining temporal and spiritual leadership - confuses me.

Islam born in an atmosphere immediately permeated with local struggle/war and immediately expanding outward in an environment of conquest/war; and then needing to deal with handling subject peoples.  Christianity born with society's losers and core doctrines didn't get established from a war/conquest viewpoint; the warrior/imperial aspect really didn't launch until Constantine (312) (unfortunately it then seeped into the doctrinal).

And that is not to belittle the contents of the Koran or the Bible - these are pretty wonderful works no matter the provenance - it does suggest that it might be prudent to be a little less dogmatic on their contents!

Sometimes these "late antiquity" centuries feel rather lost . . . but there is lots of action . . . high points such as Constantine 312, Fall of Rome (in the west) 476, Hejira 622 . . . leading right to Tours 732 and Charlemagne 800 - and on it goes.

The Lost Book of Moses - The Hunt for the World's Oldest Bible (Chanan Tigay, 2016)

Entertaining and useful - but for my taste, way longer than it needed to be. (332 pages)

Book focuses on Moses Wilhelm Shapira, who in 1883 showed up in London with what he claimed was the world's oldest Bible scroll.  Rejected as a fraud - but when the Dead Sea Scrolls are found some 70 years later, the authenticity issue is reopened.  But by then no one knows where Shapira's scrolls ended up.

Shapira as an unlikely antiquities vendor - based in Jerusalem in second half of 19th century.  Problems with his sales of Moabite pottery.  His shop in the old city is a mecca for tourists - tourism being rather a new idea in Jerusalem in those days.

The author gets into long discussions of his detective work in trying to track down the scrolls - well-written, clever - but really who cares?  (I guess it did give some insight into how these artifacts - accumulated starting in 19th century - end up more or less lost or findable, as the case may be, in museum boxes - the fate of so much stuff, apparently.)

An interesting angle:  the discussions, if short, about the history of the Bible - Shapira's heyday overlaps with the first scholarly analysis of the development of the Old Testament.  Interesting to think that, until this time, so much rock-solid belief that e.g. the 10 Commandments were written on tablets by finger of God, etc.  Religion changes a lot if one considers that the foundational texts might be affected by the hand of man (similar strands with Mormon texts, also Islam).

Jerusalem's history so interesting - like so much of that part of the world, conquerors sweep through from time to time over the millennia - so in that sense, lots of conflict.  But when Shapira is active - 19th century - Jerusalem is coming off a period of relative neglect - no sign of the three-way fight among Christians, Jews, Islam that - here in 21st century - one would assume has been going on for centuries.  But to get started on that topic, I'd recommend this book.

The Valley of the Assassins - Freya Stark (1930-1932)

I very much liked this.  Per the "Introduction" we learn that the author was a most unlikely candidate to come up with a book like this - young, inexperienced, difficult growing-up circumstances.  She somehow took to the notion of spending time in various Islamic countries; in this case (early 1930s), mountainous hinterlands between Iran and Iraq ("Luristan").  These areas had barely seen Europeans (let alone female travelers).  Perhaps sensing some value from map-making etc., British authorities facilitate her travels.

I like that she tells a small-scale story of her travels.  It's the 1930s - but she is in a remote area - generally poor, deeply traditional, conservatively Islamic - her style permits a reader to somewhat imagine how travelers "got by" in remote areas like this not just in the 1930s, but no doubt for centuries and centuries before.  Are there still any areas so remote such that this kind of trip could happen?

And the travel story (and interaction with folks she encounters) is woven into the area's geography and history - in particular the Assassins  - who show up in Crusader and other tales - finally subjugated by Mongol invaders in 14th century.

Banditry everywhere - but travelers encountering groups residing in tents - or in some areas villages - are invariably treated well.  (Though I suspect her English-ness helped in this regard.)  Often the hosts are heartrendingly poor - yet would be deeply offended if their hospitality was refused.  There is an incredibly powerful passage around page 61 of the paperback version - the author is treated to dinner by poor folks - who harvest their entire (and paltry) crop of tomatoes to serve their guests a tiny meal - the host's children (at least the three sons) are so sad to see this long-awaited treat used in such a fashion - the daughter less affected because she knew - as a daughter - she had no hope of getting a bite anyway - an instructive intersection of traditional hospitality, poverty, gender roles, etc.

I hadn't connected that - so close by Tehran - there are jungles and rice-growing areas (and malaria) as one crosses beyond mountainous areas (still unmapped in the 1930s) on the way to the Caspian Sea.

Reminded me somewhat of the Fermor books (in particular this one, and also this one) - he's traveling through Europe in the 1930s - of course an entirely different stage of development, but like Stark, Fermor was describing a world in the midst of rapid change.

Lots to think about here.

Introduction to the Qur'an (W. Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell - 1970)

I would love to have a little better sense of the Koran (using spelling I'm most familiar with); have tried to approach it via a book or three (here, for example); not making much headway.  This book was favorably reviewed in part because it was released before the escalated tensions that seem to make authors overly cautious with their wording in more recent works.

But this one didn't help me much.  It was very focused on the text - pulling out various points at a greater level of detail than I could (or perhaps wanted to) handle.   There was quite a bit of discussion around historical context, but I would have preferred more.

Little or no progress based on this.

Midnight's Furies - The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition (Nisid Hajari, 2015)

Interesting, useful.  Seemed like a good follow-on to this novel.

August 15, 1947.  Nehru, Jinnah, Gandhi, Patel.  Mountbatten.  Focuses on the run-up to, and aftermath of, the "Partition" - with enough background to help make sense of this for general readers like me.

Perhaps it's just this author's presentation - but in the un-resolvable discussion about the relative importance of individual leaders and what I'll call larger historical-social movements - as applied to these years, the role of the leaders seems unusually important.

Reactions:

1.  Of course everyone involved here can be subjected to criticism, and the author almost goes out of his way to balance his criticisms of the each "side."

2.  But I keep thinking that the fundamental error here was Jinnah insisting on a separate country for Muslims - even though he perhaps didn't even think it realistic in the early going - but when Britain faded and the opportunity came, he stuck to the "separate state" principle.  By definition, that results in the leadership (ultimately on both "sides") practicing the worst kind of identity politics - educating the public that the two groups can't get along and must be separated; endless opportunities to demonize the "other" - all the bad things about mixing state-and-religion that so much of the rest of the world (though certainly not all!) had largely worked through centuries ago.

3.  And it's a hopeless struggle in any event - as one starts dividing by religion, where does it end?  Among other examples, check out the role of the Sikhs here.  If religions need a state, why not Sikhistan?

4.  Still - had Britain retained any type of staying power - seems that partition likely would have been avoided.  Britain simply out of resources in the immediate aftermath of WWII.  It was obvious to Britain that things were proceeding down a dangerous path, but - in response - Britain accelerated its departure.  Quickest path "out" was to accede to partition despite the dangers.  Such an unusual situation.

5.  Lots of detail about the refugees, the slaughters, etc.  That part gets a little tiresome but helps explain why the two countries remain at odds.

6.  Gandhi past his prime, trying to stop the violence, still capable of swaying public opinion.  Assassination comes from Hindu right-wing.

7.  (Courtesy of KHG), I've been reading big chunks of Steve Coll's Ghost Wars - where among other things he explains Pakistan's role in radicalizing, funding, arming fundamentalist Islamic groups across the Afghan border - including the Taliban and OBL - Pakistan started using these folks for proxy wars against India going all the way back to Kashmir in the first year post-Partition - some very real and very negative consequences.  This author gets into the same subject matter.

8.  So much negative energy between the two countries from Partition down to the present.

Seems a shame that the leadership couldn't find a way to create a federal (or whatever term applies) structure that encouraged folks to work together inside a single country - without demonizing any "other" group or individual.  That should have happened.  No doubt there would have been plenty of growing pains, but it doesn't take much imagination to see what actually happened as far worse.  Now to make the best of it . . .

Days of God - The Revolution in Iran and Its Consequences (James Buchan, 2012)

Gift from PJr and Nedda.

Author focuses on the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.  With a great deal of very useful background about 20th century events in Iran that led up to 1979.

A good reminder of the special kind of power that religious leaders (whether sincere or using religion as an avenue to power) hold over the faithful (or gullible, or whatever descriptor you prefer).  In many ways the success of Khomeini et al reminded me of modern U.S. politics - where belief systems seem to trump quaint concepts like listening carefully to those with whom you disagree, exploring alternative viewpoints, etc.  (Or as commencement season warms up:  the now-quaint idea of permitting speakers at the graduation ceremony who may not have 100% litmus test scores on points of college orthodoxy.) (Sigh.)  Where traditional religion loses its hold, it seems that other religious-like belief systems quickly step in.  (Which in turn reminds me of the Bolsheviks as I just finished reading a biography focused on ex-seminarian Josef Stalin's early adventures.)

Be that as it may - the book itself was really quite good, I ended up constantly dog-earing pages.  Definitely would recommend it.

Some thoughts:

1.  For all Persia's historical glories, I hadn't realized how thoroughly backward the country had become as 19th century turns into 20th.

2.  Pahlavis did not have a long pedigree; oft-criticized; but it seems like they did accomplish quite a bit through several incredibly challenging decades in the 20th century.  Reza Pahlavi - Iranian Cossack background!

3.  Challenges with new-found oil reserves, initially cutting bad deals with the Brits.  Oil wealth thus was not a factor until much later than I had realized.

4.  No active modern tradition of a centralized state - the bazaars were incredibly important.  And funded the Iranian clergy, which in turn became even more powerful.

5.  Useful explanation of Khomeini's rise, and why he turned on the U.S. as Iran's worst enemy - when the U.S. had really been a bit player compared to esp. Britain.  (The author says that the excuse was what seemed like a fairly insignificant set of rules about diplomatic privileges and immunities for U.S. citizens in Iran.)

6.  Petrodollars started gushing due to better deals with Brits et al, higher worldwide petro use, then the 1973 embargo.  Incredible growth; incredible spending (much on military); but as always in these situations - sustainable economy cannot be bought.  Not likely the necessary institutions will take root now.

7.  Stories of the Shah's departure, Khomeini's installation, the hostage crisis, the war with Iraq.

What a mess . . .

Jerusalem - The Biography (Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2011)

Book had received glowing reviews - and clearly deserved them.  This is one of the more helpful things I've read recently.  Bought it. Will use it for reference.

Author is a descendant of one of the leading Jewish families in Jerusalem (his great great uncle plays a prominent role).  Author - I hadn't heard of him previously - apparently he is known for writing popular histories.  But in his case this is a plus - as best I can tell, he's managed to write useful, balanced books that also are highly readable.

Jerusalem is a relatively small, remote town.  That somehow became ground zero for the three Abrahamic religions.  The history is simply unbelievable.

Hopefully any government official with any decision-making authority about sending Americans into this part of the world will have read this book carefully.  (And plenty of other materials.)  The issues run deep here in ways we cannot really fathom.

I like how he handles the Old Testament era - it's interesting how archaeology continues to confirm some of the Biblical figures (plenty others remain in myth-status).  David.  Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians.  Herod.  Paul of Tarsus - labeled "The Creator of Christianity" here - which is a pretty interesting thought.

Muhammad's seemingly tenuous connection to Jerusalem.  Turned into something big.  Crusaders.  Byzantines.  Richard the Lionhearted.  Saladin.  Ottomans, and periods of obscurity.

Napoleon's ill-fated Mideast tour spawns bestsellers and renewed Western interest.  Christian evangelicals - many in U.S. - see linkage to the last days.  Russians pour in.  Mark Twain.  WWI, Zionism.  1948.  1967.

Useful discussion how the Christians, Muslims and Jews all have so many sub-sects floating around, often at odds with each other.  The conflicts aren't just among the three major strands.

A city absolutely unlike any other.

Saladin (Anne-Marie Edde, 2008 (this translation 2011))

Lots of detail here, and I moved through it pretty quickly.  Other than lots of information about Saladin, I'm not sure it added a lot to the list of books that appears here.

Saladin is most famous for retaking Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187.  He was a Kurd that had great battlefield success and translated this into great political success from a power base in Egypt - united (if briefly (and half-heartedly at best for many groups)), disparate Islamic factions and thus could beat the Crusader states at a time when they were in some disarray.  Did not establish an enduring succession.  Not of royal family.

Interactions with Richard the Lionhearted and others brought him into popular literature in the West.

Among other things, the book  reinforces how long the disputes between Shiite and Sunni have been going on.

Saladin as probably very sincerely religious, certainly very aware of how to use this in politics.  Author discussed jihad (and heaven-via-death-in-battle) as she thought it worked in 12th century - probably not much different than now (most pay lip service, a few suckers/fanatics volunteer, most demur).

Interesting discussion of siege tactics in a pre-gunpowder era; they were able to chuck pretty large objects over walls from distance (and return fire from within the walls).

Saladin wasn't mythologized in the East until the 19th century - because his line of succession didn't last, there wasn't much of a hagiography push even for the re-conqueror of Jerusalem.  Then co-opted as a figure for Islamic unity, and adopted by folks like Saddam Hussein.