Scan barcode
Reviews
In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire by Tom Holland
radbear76's review against another edition
3.0
A comprehensive look at the roots of Islam by starting with the religions which preceded it. While interesting it jumps around in time a bit to describe the historical events from the perspective of the various major religions. This was a little confusing but not unmanageable. Overall the thesis that Islam is a religion constructed over time from multiple sources comes through very clearly as does the evidence supporting this supposition.
ianl1963's review against another edition
3.0
Do not think it is well suited to audiobook form; reader excellent, but the various sections make it hard for an old git to have all the times lines aligned when listening.
Too old to make notes, listen for enjoyment, too old to remember. :-(
As usual entertaining turn of phrase, but seemed flipant at times that did not seem quite apposite!
I know my ignorance; Tarquin from a previous book, but Bishop Cyril and I think there was a Maurice, make this "little" schoolboy snigger!
Oh and God finding it offensive for people to fart in sodom and gomorrah.
Need to listen again; as sometimes think, this is all part of my fertive imagination! :-)
Entertaining and interesting, but need time lines in context to make comparisons, which I'm sure is a failing on my part.
Too old to make notes, listen for enjoyment, too old to remember. :-(
As usual entertaining turn of phrase, but seemed flipant at times that did not seem quite apposite!
I know my ignorance; Tarquin from a previous book, but Bishop Cyril and I think there was a Maurice, make this "little" schoolboy snigger!
Oh and God finding it offensive for people to fart in sodom and gomorrah.
Need to listen again; as sometimes think, this is all part of my fertive imagination! :-)
Entertaining and interesting, but need time lines in context to make comparisons, which I'm sure is a failing on my part.
aorth's review against another edition
4.0
An enlightening read. There's no doubt that the fall of the Roman and Persian empires are closely connected to the rise of Islam, but the who, what, when, where, and why are more complicated than Muslims care—or dare—to admit.
Tied up in this historical drama are a long line of revisionists: the Achaemenid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests (mowbeds), the Western Romans and Virgil's Aeneid, the Jews and their Talmud, the Sasanid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests, and the Eastern Romans and their councils and creeds. Add to that a dozen bands of ascetics, heretics, and nomads, and lastly—seemingly out of nowhere—the empire of the Arabs.
The historical context for the explosive rise of the Arab empire is fascinating. Two story lines in particular struck me as significant. First, it seems that activities like burning copious amounts of frankincense, gathering around well springs, climbing on top of pillars, and worshiping stone cubes were commonplace during classical antiquity in the Near East. When the Roman empire adopted Christianity and started cracking down on these "pagan" practices in the fourth century, it was Arab tribes such as the Nabataeans—long time merchants of said frankincense—who lost their livelihoods. As the Arabs were a nomadic people inhabiting the wild fringes between the Roman and Persian empires, they eventually found lucrative new occupations as mercenaries for the warring empires—the Romans had the Ghassanids, Persians the Lakhmids. Later, in the sixth century, the bubonic plague would devastate the heavily urbanized Roman and Persian empires, again halting the cash flow to the Arabs. The plague didn't reach the depths of the desert, though...
The traditional Muslim account throws all of this background out the window. According to Islamic tradition the prophet Muhammad was an illiterate merchant who lived in the middle of the desert when he received the revelations of the Qur'an. Any of the striking similarities with other Abrahamic texts and traditions, Zoroastrian prayers, pagan rituals, and place names are explained away as God sending an updated version of his message to the world through a new prophet. For most Muslims it is simply enough to start world history from "Muhammad received revelations from God." Everything after that follows naturally for them. How the Qur'an actually came into existence still a mystery for the rest of us. Who wrote it? In what language was it written? Who was its audience? How many times was it edited? By who? Did Muhammad know about the Nicene Creed?
The reality is that there is very little surviving evidence from contemporary sources—Arab or otherwise—to support any of the miracles associated with the awesome rise of the Arab empire. The Battle of Badr? No sources outside of the Qur'an. Mecca, the "mother of cities", full of grapes and olives, located in the Hijaz? Location not mentioned in the Qur'an or on any maps until decades after Muhammad's death. The Islamic position that Christ didn't die on the cross? That's the same message that the heretic gospel of Basilides said four hundred years earlier. The intimate details we "know" about Muhammad's life and character from the biography (sira) of the prophet? Published over one-hundred-fifty years after Muhammad's death by Ibn Hisham, with zero surviving sources. The Meccan Ka'aba (cube) is the house of God? Arabs worshiped carved stone cubes all over Arabia for at least five hundred years before Muhammad (from Petra in the north, to Yemen in the south). Neither the shahada (testament of faith), "Muslim", "Islam", nor Muhammad's name appear anywhere in public for over fifty years after the Prophet's death. Muslims pray five times per day? Zoroastrians pray five times per day (and the names of their prayers are even the same)! And on and on it goes. Whatever really happened at the end of the ancient world we may never know, but the traditional Muslim account is definitely not it.
There is so much to be learned in this book. The text is thoroughly footnoted, endnoted, accompanied by maps, pictures, a concise timeline of major events, a list of characters, an index, a glossary, and a bibliography of primary and secondary sources (thanks to the extensive bibliography I've now added three more books to my "to read" list). I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a detailed account of the struggle for power in the Near East during classical antiquity.
Tied up in this historical drama are a long line of revisionists: the Achaemenid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests (mowbeds), the Western Romans and Virgil's Aeneid, the Jews and their Talmud, the Sasanid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests, and the Eastern Romans and their councils and creeds. Add to that a dozen bands of ascetics, heretics, and nomads, and lastly—seemingly out of nowhere—the empire of the Arabs.
The historical context for the explosive rise of the Arab empire is fascinating. Two story lines in particular struck me as significant. First, it seems that activities like burning copious amounts of frankincense, gathering around well springs, climbing on top of pillars, and worshiping stone cubes were commonplace during classical antiquity in the Near East. When the Roman empire adopted Christianity and started cracking down on these "pagan" practices in the fourth century, it was Arab tribes such as the Nabataeans—long time merchants of said frankincense—who lost their livelihoods. As the Arabs were a nomadic people inhabiting the wild fringes between the Roman and Persian empires, they eventually found lucrative new occupations as mercenaries for the warring empires—the Romans had the Ghassanids, Persians the Lakhmids. Later, in the sixth century, the bubonic plague would devastate the heavily urbanized Roman and Persian empires, again halting the cash flow to the Arabs. The plague didn't reach the depths of the desert, though...
The traditional Muslim account throws all of this background out the window. According to Islamic tradition the prophet Muhammad was an illiterate merchant who lived in the middle of the desert when he received the revelations of the Qur'an. Any of the striking similarities with other Abrahamic texts and traditions, Zoroastrian prayers, pagan rituals, and place names are explained away as God sending an updated version of his message to the world through a new prophet. For most Muslims it is simply enough to start world history from "Muhammad received revelations from God." Everything after that follows naturally for them. How the Qur'an actually came into existence still a mystery for the rest of us. Who wrote it? In what language was it written? Who was its audience? How many times was it edited? By who? Did Muhammad know about the Nicene Creed?
The reality is that there is very little surviving evidence from contemporary sources—Arab or otherwise—to support any of the miracles associated with the awesome rise of the Arab empire. The Battle of Badr? No sources outside of the Qur'an. Mecca, the "mother of cities", full of grapes and olives, located in the Hijaz? Location not mentioned in the Qur'an or on any maps until decades after Muhammad's death. The Islamic position that Christ didn't die on the cross? That's the same message that the heretic gospel of Basilides said four hundred years earlier. The intimate details we "know" about Muhammad's life and character from the biography (sira) of the prophet? Published over one-hundred-fifty years after Muhammad's death by Ibn Hisham, with zero surviving sources. The Meccan Ka'aba (cube) is the house of God? Arabs worshiped carved stone cubes all over Arabia for at least five hundred years before Muhammad (from Petra in the north, to Yemen in the south). Neither the shahada (testament of faith), "Muslim", "Islam", nor Muhammad's name appear anywhere in public for over fifty years after the Prophet's death. Muslims pray five times per day? Zoroastrians pray five times per day (and the names of their prayers are even the same)! And on and on it goes. Whatever really happened at the end of the ancient world we may never know, but the traditional Muslim account is definitely not it.
There is so much to be learned in this book. The text is thoroughly footnoted, endnoted, accompanied by maps, pictures, a concise timeline of major events, a list of characters, an index, a glossary, and a bibliography of primary and secondary sources (thanks to the extensive bibliography I've now added three more books to my "to read" list). I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a detailed account of the struggle for power in the Near East during classical antiquity.
jenn756's review against another edition
5.0
The 6th and 7th centuries was a bad time to be alive by all accounts, a period of extreme upheaval across Europe and Asia, seeing the collapse of the Roman Empire and the Sassanids and violent warlords sweeping in from all corners. It was this period that gave birth to Islam and saw the dramatic growth of Christianity, which as Tom Holland explains, is no coincidence.
The book starts with a dazzling set piece - the proud undefeated armies of Kusrow, King of the Sassanids, facing a barbarian army in the outer wastes of his Empire. It was a battle he confidently expected to win, only to be tricked and beaten in humiliating circumstances, thus signaling the beginning of the end of 500 years or so of Sassanid domination. The two big super-powers of the age had an uneasy balance of power, the border shifted backwards and forwards on the eastern side of what is now Turkey, but the status quo up until now had remained the same.
On the western side the Roman Empire had retreated to Constantinople, having mostly abandoned Europe, but was still force to be reckoned with. Holland explains how a series of vigorous Emperors impose Christianity on the region - it was ironic that having been a persecuted minority for so long, once in position of power they are so intolerant of minorities themselves. There is a long struggle between different Christian sects for domination, and it is this period that thrashed out the modern form of Christianity
Islam is a relative latecomer, and its origins seem murky in the extreme. Holland implies it is a fusion of dissident Jewish and Christian sects, and it beginnings (if I understand it right) came not from Mecca in Arabia, but from somewhere between Medina and Palestine. The Christian minorities had driven the minor sects out into the desert and here they coalesced and influenced local Arabs who were beginning to find their teeth as Roman power declined.
At the end of the Justinian period the whole region was devastated by the bubonic plague. It had an impact similar in scale to the Black Death, and decimated cities - the Sassanids as well as the Romans. The desert tribes were least affected having the least contact with rats, and it was this that that gave them the strength to destroy the established order. It must have felt like the end of the world for ordinary people living through it. Holland describes cities as wastelands with grass growing through the streets and garrisons and forts abandoned, and the Roman power base crippled. The Arab Armies marched in and destroyed everything - it doesn't seem an exaggeration to say Islam was forged in a blood bath. They toppled the Sassanids, and in the process more or less destroyed Zoroastrianism, which was closely allied with the royal family.
It’s a confusing period, hard to keep track on different factions and power struggles. The book is fascinating, I'm used to Eurocentric Roman history so I'm glad to correct the balance, but I'd think I'd need to do further reading to understand the period better. I'm a layman and in no position to review the credibility of `Sign of the Sword' but would recommend it to anyone interested in the period and the formation of religion.
The book starts with a dazzling set piece - the proud undefeated armies of Kusrow, King of the Sassanids, facing a barbarian army in the outer wastes of his Empire. It was a battle he confidently expected to win, only to be tricked and beaten in humiliating circumstances, thus signaling the beginning of the end of 500 years or so of Sassanid domination. The two big super-powers of the age had an uneasy balance of power, the border shifted backwards and forwards on the eastern side of what is now Turkey, but the status quo up until now had remained the same.
On the western side the Roman Empire had retreated to Constantinople, having mostly abandoned Europe, but was still force to be reckoned with. Holland explains how a series of vigorous Emperors impose Christianity on the region - it was ironic that having been a persecuted minority for so long, once in position of power they are so intolerant of minorities themselves. There is a long struggle between different Christian sects for domination, and it is this period that thrashed out the modern form of Christianity
Islam is a relative latecomer, and its origins seem murky in the extreme. Holland implies it is a fusion of dissident Jewish and Christian sects, and it beginnings (if I understand it right) came not from Mecca in Arabia, but from somewhere between Medina and Palestine. The Christian minorities had driven the minor sects out into the desert and here they coalesced and influenced local Arabs who were beginning to find their teeth as Roman power declined.
At the end of the Justinian period the whole region was devastated by the bubonic plague. It had an impact similar in scale to the Black Death, and decimated cities - the Sassanids as well as the Romans. The desert tribes were least affected having the least contact with rats, and it was this that that gave them the strength to destroy the established order. It must have felt like the end of the world for ordinary people living through it. Holland describes cities as wastelands with grass growing through the streets and garrisons and forts abandoned, and the Roman power base crippled. The Arab Armies marched in and destroyed everything - it doesn't seem an exaggeration to say Islam was forged in a blood bath. They toppled the Sassanids, and in the process more or less destroyed Zoroastrianism, which was closely allied with the royal family.
It’s a confusing period, hard to keep track on different factions and power struggles. The book is fascinating, I'm used to Eurocentric Roman history so I'm glad to correct the balance, but I'd think I'd need to do further reading to understand the period better. I'm a layman and in no position to review the credibility of `Sign of the Sword' but would recommend it to anyone interested in the period and the formation of religion.
jmschomers's review against another edition
4.0
very interesting book. With a lack of primary sources, this book examines the world that Islam grew out of. Very good description in the first few parts, but I would have liked more description and detail in the back part of the book.
c2pizza's review against another edition
3.0
A lot of the details appear to be more conjecture than fact. Outside of this rather large concern, the prose is lively and gives a definite feel of the atmosphere and ideas of the time making for a rather interesting - albeit cautious - read.
rosekk's review against another edition
3.0
If I was rating this book on writing quality alone, it would be at least 4 stars, probably 5. It was a really enjoyable read, and surprisingly easy to follow given that it's densely packed with a lot of history (much of which was unfamiliar to me). I expected to be a little lost, having to catch up on info that would be new to me, but instead the book managed to help me keep up without feeling like anything was skipped over.
As mentioned above, my knowledge of Islamic history is pretty slim (as is my history of the period in general). I therefore can't judge how well this stacks up against prior knowledge (because I have hardly any). I've seen that there's been some criticism about what sources were used and how, so some of the theories and suggestions about the less proven elements of the history are apparently controversial. I've tried to take what I've read with a pinch of salt, therefore. It was all interesting, and came across as plausible (to me at least).
The whole project of the book (as stated in the introduction) was to try and cast the same critical eye over the origins of Islam as the author feels has been cast over Christianity. Since religious scholarship is not my area of expertise, I'm not sure how much difference there is in studies of the two religions. The aim to have more knowledge of influential belief systems seems pretty positive (and the kind of thing I'd generally be behind), and yet I was a bit unsure about it. First of all, I can't help but think (and this book has cemented the idea for me) that some pieces of knowledge really are lost to time. That doesn't mean they should be studied, but I think the suggestion that the origin of a religion stretching back so far can be wholly uncovered might need to be reigned in a bit. You can learn more, and you can offer plausible suggestions to fill the gaps. I'm not convinced you can pin down exactly when and where something as complex as a religion arose. Furthermore, I can see why some people seem to be suspicious of the motivation behind such a project. While nothing in the book suggested to me that the author was Islamophobic, or that his intentions in writing the book were bad, I can see why the book might have struck people as an attempt to undermine Islam. Combined with the light-hearted (occasionally sarcastic) manner of writing, I'm not surprised it rubbed some people the wrong way.
Over all though, I'm glad I read it. It's reminded me how enjoyable reading about history can be (even if reading review of history books can be like straying onto twitter just as someone's being cancelled).
As mentioned above, my knowledge of Islamic history is pretty slim (as is my history of the period in general). I therefore can't judge how well this stacks up against prior knowledge (because I have hardly any). I've seen that there's been some criticism about what sources were used and how, so some of the theories and suggestions about the less proven elements of the history are apparently controversial. I've tried to take what I've read with a pinch of salt, therefore. It was all interesting, and came across as plausible (to me at least).
The whole project of the book (as stated in the introduction) was to try and cast the same critical eye over the origins of Islam as the author feels has been cast over Christianity. Since religious scholarship is not my area of expertise, I'm not sure how much difference there is in studies of the two religions. The aim to have more knowledge of influential belief systems seems pretty positive (and the kind of thing I'd generally be behind), and yet I was a bit unsure about it. First of all, I can't help but think (and this book has cemented the idea for me) that some pieces of knowledge really are lost to time. That doesn't mean they should be studied, but I think the suggestion that the origin of a religion stretching back so far can be wholly uncovered might need to be reigned in a bit. You can learn more, and you can offer plausible suggestions to fill the gaps. I'm not convinced you can pin down exactly when and where something as complex as a religion arose. Furthermore, I can see why some people seem to be suspicious of the motivation behind such a project. While nothing in the book suggested to me that the author was Islamophobic, or that his intentions in writing the book were bad, I can see why the book might have struck people as an attempt to undermine Islam. Combined with the light-hearted (occasionally sarcastic) manner of writing, I'm not surprised it rubbed some people the wrong way.
Over all though, I'm glad I read it. It's reminded me how enjoyable reading about history can be (even if reading review of history books can be like straying onto twitter just as someone's being cancelled).
hayo's review against another edition
2.0
So long. So boring. At least now I know I'm really not interested in the subject.
sleepyboi2988's review against another edition
4.0
Very good look at not only the rise of Islam but also of the state of the Christian, Pagan, and Jewish religions at the time period and how they all intertwined and mingled with each other more than their prospective religious leaders would have liked. Holland does a good job of presenting the convoluted mess that is the origins of Islam as well as the hypocritical views of the Christian and Jewish faiths. The intro/first chapter was sort of plodding to me and had me worried about the rest of the book, however that fear was quickly put to rest and the book really took off writing wise.