Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.08 AVERAGE
4.08 AVERAGE
"...but of course in one sense there is no one 'Islam' -- there are many Islams. Or, put another way, there is one Islam, but many different ways Muslims live and interpret it that differ greatly."
This book argues that while the thought of it might be comforting for some, a world without Islam will not be very much different as the roots of East vs. West has little to do with religion and everything to do with political and cultural factors. The thesis is backed with numerous events that goes back predate Islam.
Through history, the book reminds the readers on how often religion has been and still is used as a vehicle of political contestation and confrontation. To prove his point, Fuller builds alternative scenarios of historical events to explore them apart from religion.
It helps to reshape our thinking to handle extremist-led terrorism acts as to, instead of "Islamisizing" the problem, see what really breeds it.
This book argues that while the thought of it might be comforting for some, a world without Islam will not be very much different as the roots of East vs. West has little to do with religion and everything to do with political and cultural factors. The thesis is backed with numerous events that goes back predate Islam.
Through history, the book reminds the readers on how often religion has been and still is used as a vehicle of political contestation and confrontation. To prove his point, Fuller builds alternative scenarios of historical events to explore them apart from religion.
It helps to reshape our thinking to handle extremist-led terrorism acts as to, instead of "Islamisizing" the problem, see what really breeds it.
This is not an easy read for me, but it does contain a lot of interesting argument by Graham Fuller. Graham Fuller was a vice president at a CIA department and had dealt with a lot of cases in the Middle East. From his own experiences and his research, he comes to an argument that the world without Islam will still be as chaotic as now. Islam, which now is often suspected as a violent religion, has little effect in most conflicts between the West and the East (especially middle east).
Fuller starts his book by digging through the history of Abrahamic religions: how Judaism, Christian, and Islam relate to each other; how conflicts arose between them; and what was actually the root cause of the Crusades. Eventually, the tense between the West and the Middle East has arisen even between Islam came through Prophet Muhammad PBUH; which suggests that Islam is not the root cause of the long West-Middle East friction.
Later, Fuller shows us the position of Islam in Russia, India (and Pakistan), and China, which represent the East world. He argues that Islam per se is not the driver of any society friction in those countries. I'm intrigued by the fact that Islam is the second largest religion in Russia and even recognized as the Russia's traditional religion, along with Orthodoxy Christian. In China, Han Muslim ethnic (Hui ethnic) was integrated well to the China society since the Song Dinasty (~ 10th century). The condition of Hui ethnic is contrast with the Uyghur ethnic in far west China, which is until now being persecuted by China government in the name of religion and 'Islam'. In India, Fuller argues that British colonialization and their political strategy were responsible for the hard friction between Hindu and Muslim in India and Pakistan.
Ultimately, Fuller's conclusion is a line that maybe we expect: Land, natural resource, and power clash; rather than Islam; are the drivers of most conflicts between the West and Middle East.
Fuller starts his book by digging through the history of Abrahamic religions: how Judaism, Christian, and Islam relate to each other; how conflicts arose between them; and what was actually the root cause of the Crusades. Eventually, the tense between the West and the Middle East has arisen even between Islam came through Prophet Muhammad PBUH; which suggests that Islam is not the root cause of the long West-Middle East friction.
Later, Fuller shows us the position of Islam in Russia, India (and Pakistan), and China, which represent the East world. He argues that Islam per se is not the driver of any society friction in those countries. I'm intrigued by the fact that Islam is the second largest religion in Russia and even recognized as the Russia's traditional religion, along with Orthodoxy Christian. In China, Han Muslim ethnic (Hui ethnic) was integrated well to the China society since the Song Dinasty (~ 10th century). The condition of Hui ethnic is contrast with the Uyghur ethnic in far west China, which is until now being persecuted by China government in the name of religion and 'Islam'. In India, Fuller argues that British colonialization and their political strategy were responsible for the hard friction between Hindu and Muslim in India and Pakistan.
Ultimately, Fuller's conclusion is a line that maybe we expect: Land, natural resource, and power clash; rather than Islam; are the drivers of most conflicts between the West and Middle East.
It's refreshing to read a book that attempts to think differently. As a history buff, I enjoyed the information though there was tmi in the middle part of the book. Overall, it was enjoyable as the writer does write well. But I won't call this a balanced book- it doesn't simultaneously and equally explain an issue from both side of the coin so I can understand why some party maybe frustrated but hey it's always fun to learn others POV too right? And past does help to explain things more logically.
Interesting and enlightening book. You don't have to agree with everything he says to realize that all the problems in this world are not solely due to religion. Without the existence of Islam, of even religion in general, you will still find conflicts of power between sides, namely West and East, Allies and Soviets, Rome and Byzantine, colonials and locals, Chinese Han and Uyghur resistance movement, or India nationalists and separatists, with factors intertwined between each other, from power struggles, political influences, economic conditions, and everything else. It is just that religion, as an expression of human being longing for transcendence and meaning, is such a great tool to motivate and mobilize movements, and prone for co-optation by political movements.
It is not that religion and theological difference does not trigger problems also, but this book encourages us to look much deeper and farther than solely blaming on one single scapegoat. Try to look holistically and we will understand slowly that we all probably have been misguided in finding the root of the problems all along.
It is not that religion and theological difference does not trigger problems also, but this book encourages us to look much deeper and farther than solely blaming on one single scapegoat. Try to look holistically and we will understand slowly that we all probably have been misguided in finding the root of the problems all along.
Well my childish otak ingatkan buku ni pasal kalau islam takde, algebra pun takda. Matematik tak berkembang, teknologi tak berkembang. Tapi buku ni mostly fokus terhadap terrorism dan juga hal0hal politik. Aku okay je la, sebab aku suka jugak benda-benda macam ni.
Buku ni bincang bagaimana kalau Islam takda, adakah peperangan masih akan berlaku, adakah krisis agam masih berlaku, adakah krisis antara dunia Barat dan dunia Arab masih berlaku? Benda-benda ni dihuraikan oleh penulis.
Penulis siap bukak balik sejarah-sejarah lama untuk justify benda ni. So kalau nak otak berilmu, boleh la baca buku ni.
English dia agak tinggi, so kalau hgpa budak muet band 3 macam aku, google translate kena jadi peneman kita.
Disebabkan English yg susah, jadi pengalaman membaca jadi kurang menyeronokkan. Well bukan salah penulis, tetapi salah kelemahan diri sendiri.
Apapun, aku suka buku ni. Tetiba jadi budak pandai lepas baca.
Buku ni bincang bagaimana kalau Islam takda, adakah peperangan masih akan berlaku, adakah krisis agam masih berlaku, adakah krisis antara dunia Barat dan dunia Arab masih berlaku? Benda-benda ni dihuraikan oleh penulis.
Penulis siap bukak balik sejarah-sejarah lama untuk justify benda ni. So kalau nak otak berilmu, boleh la baca buku ni.
English dia agak tinggi, so kalau hgpa budak muet band 3 macam aku, google translate kena jadi peneman kita.
Disebabkan English yg susah, jadi pengalaman membaca jadi kurang menyeronokkan. Well bukan salah penulis, tetapi salah kelemahan diri sendiri.
Apapun, aku suka buku ni. Tetiba jadi budak pandai lepas baca.
People have a lot of misconception about Middle East, the author goes on to dissolve them.
You know I have always wondered if Islam was the reason for terrorism how come we don't see terrorism rising in South-Asian countries (Indonesia and Malaysia has some of the largest Muslim population). This book answers that question pretty convincingly. It is the history which matters not the religion itself!
You know I have always wondered if Islam was the reason for terrorism how come we don't see terrorism rising in South-Asian countries (Indonesia and Malaysia has some of the largest Muslim population). This book answers that question pretty convincingly. It is the history which matters not the religion itself!
informative
fast-paced
Fascinating, filled with Graham’s astute political insight.
A World Without Islam is an argument that Islam, like any other religions and ideologies, have been used by factions as simply a vehicle for change, expressing anger or dissatisfaction or as a banner to be grouped under to maximize the effectiveness of revolutionary change. Islam, Graham argues, is not in itself the main problem.
Interestingly, to prove his point, Graham charts a map through the history of Christianity, delineating political, materialistic and social backdrops behind bloody episodes of wars that were characterized as being religious in nature. He quotes Luther, who famously said:
A World Without Islam is an argument that Islam, like any other religions and ideologies, have been used by factions as simply a vehicle for change, expressing anger or dissatisfaction or as a banner to be grouped under to maximize the effectiveness of revolutionary change. Islam, Graham argues, is not in itself the main problem.
Interestingly, to prove his point, Graham charts a map through the history of Christianity, delineating political, materialistic and social backdrops behind bloody episodes of wars that were characterized as being religious in nature. He quotes Luther, who famously said:
“The Devil can quote scripture to his own ends.”
Definitely a must-read to understand the many faces of political Islam, and religion in general.
"A World Without Islam" is an eye-opener. It taught me to view the Muslim world from a different perspective. I, for one, was guilty with the "why are Muslims violent nowadays compared to the Christians" mentality. This book helped me dismiss that question as nonsense. It instead explained to me that Muslims are looked at and projected to the world unfairly by the West. Policies by the West are partly to blame for what the Muslims are facing right now, so they should share the responsibility of helping them have a peaceful life. May the West stop pointing fingers at them, and may they stop naming Islam as the "root of the problem."
In short, a world without Islam is no different from the world we have now. Religion is not always the cause of current conflicts; in fact, it's merely invoked by some with vested interest to gain support, to "add fuel to the fire."
In short, a world without Islam is no different from the world we have now. Religion is not always the cause of current conflicts; in fact, it's merely invoked by some with vested interest to gain support, to "add fuel to the fire."
This is one of those books that I've always looked at but never pick up, always waiting for "another day", and that day finally came when I found it secondhand online. Going into this book, it has never occurred to me it was on war and terrorism, thinking that this touches more on what has Muslims of the past contributed to maths, science and technology. I was pleasantly wrong.
Let me first put it out here that I'm not one to keep in touch with global or political affairs. I hate them. I'm comfortable basking in my fiction world, but ignorance isn't bliss at times.
What I like about this book is that Mr Graham gives a history how we got to where we are. How things were before Islam came into the picture which gives a clearer view on the history behind it all. How geopolitical factor is the main drive behind these act of terrorisms covered with religion by the people in power. The more I read, the angrier I become with these people who consistently wants to interfere with areas that are not theirs in the first place (which sadly is mostly the European countries and US). Is this because historically, they have the barbarian blood in them? I wonder if they had not interfere at all in the first place, would the world be a totally different place now? Yes, they will always be a group of people in any area who wants to be the leader but could it be a totally different story since they are ethnically and culturally from the same place, so the understanding is on a better level across the board? This chaos that never ends seems to always be from people interfering in other people's business (I guess that's why the melayus have this saying to not jaga tepi kain orang).
I now understand why there's this separation between the East and West and the relationships between Islam and Russia, China, India. And why Russia is neither East nor West.
I like the suggestions that Mr Graham gives on what he thinks we should do to placate the situation. In a fantasy world, it would be great if we can do all that and start on a blank canvas, but the reality is what it is now. I wonder why is it so hard for the US to leave the Middle East though? The list of US military intervention in other countries is astonishing, from 1950 till now, there's always some kind of mission that they're involved in.
Some notable notes I highlighted in the book:
Granted there are more that I have to read in these matters and see different perspectives as this is only one book out of many, but it is a good start for people like me to get a comprehensive overview of what's happening. It was a slow read at first but peaked towards the end. Would totally recommend this.
Let me first put it out here that I'm not one to keep in touch with global or political affairs. I hate them. I'm comfortable basking in my fiction world, but ignorance isn't bliss at times.
What I like about this book is that Mr Graham gives a history how we got to where we are. How things were before Islam came into the picture which gives a clearer view on the history behind it all. How geopolitical factor is the main drive behind these act of terrorisms covered with religion by the people in power. The more I read, the angrier I become with these people who consistently wants to interfere with areas that are not theirs in the first place (which sadly is mostly the European countries and US). Is this because historically, they have the barbarian blood in them? I wonder if they had not interfere at all in the first place, would the world be a totally different place now? Yes, they will always be a group of people in any area who wants to be the leader but could it be a totally different story since they are ethnically and culturally from the same place, so the understanding is on a better level across the board? This chaos that never ends seems to always be from people interfering in other people's business (I guess that's why the melayus have this saying to not jaga tepi kain orang).
I now understand why there's this separation between the East and West and the relationships between Islam and Russia, China, India. And why Russia is neither East nor West.
I like the suggestions that Mr Graham gives on what he thinks we should do to placate the situation. In a fantasy world, it would be great if we can do all that and start on a blank canvas, but the reality is what it is now. I wonder why is it so hard for the US to leave the Middle East though? The list of US military intervention in other countries is astonishing, from 1950 till now, there's always some kind of mission that they're involved in.
Some notable notes I highlighted in the book:
Ironically, it is the most fanatic and rigid of Muslims, on the one hand, and their most zealous enemies in the West, on the other, who both seek to freeze Islam into one single immutable phenomenon, the better to promote it or denigrate it.
...the present crisis of East-West relations, or between the West and "Islam", has really very little to do with religion and everything to do with political and cultural frictions, interests, rivalries and clashes.
Sadly, when religion becomes linked with political forces, it tends to lose its soul - its spiritual dimension.
Yet the real issue is not the danger of religion per se, but of dogmatic thinking.
Power also brings a certain arrogance: the belief that we can control the situation, we are in charge, we can persuade or intimidate with ease - or so we think.
The very existence of the state, by definition, acknowledges the necessity of coercion to maintain society and order and to prevent anarchy; the only unknowns are the degree of coercion required, the methods to be used, and who is to sanction it.
Maybe it is the British imperial control of India over several hundred years - far more than "Islam" - that has the most to answer for in contriving this ill-starred and perhaps unnecessary partition that solved nothing (which, I need to finish up the book on the history of the Ganges river to relate this).
A key goal of Western policy must be to allow these regions to calm down, allow life to return to a more normal state, free of the provocative presence of foreign military forces, which will allow the Muslim aspect of identity to subside to its customary place as one of many competing characteristics of an individual's life. During most times in their lives, Muslims have many other things to think about than simply being Muslim.
War is most easily fought when its human consequences remain distant, invisible, abstract.
As von Clausewitz pointed out, war is fueled by emotion, which always outruns intent. Once the conflict begins, hatred is ratcheted up on both sides, atrocity generates counteratrocity in an endless upward spiral of mindless violence.
Futhermore, texts in most religions contain intemperate phrases that can be drawn out of context to support violent action, regardless of what the overall thrust of the religion is.
On the other hand, the power of the West at the international level has for many years flagrantly abused human rights, individual liberties, and right to life in its foreign policies and in its conduct of imperial or military campaigns - all in the name of ideals such as anticommunism, "democratization", preservation of "American leadership," and protection against terrorism.
Granted there are more that I have to read in these matters and see different perspectives as this is only one book out of many, but it is a good start for people like me to get a comprehensive overview of what's happening. It was a slow read at first but peaked towards the end. Would totally recommend this.
A World Without Islam
Graham E Fuller
One less desirable aspect of democracy is that it seems to require serious demonization of the enemy if the nation and public opinion are to be galvanized sufficiently to pay a serious price in blood or treasure at war.And the message as to why we are in confrontation or at war must be simplified enough to fit on a bumper sticker.In today's world,"islam"has become that bumper sticker for America.
পশ্চিমা বিশ্বের অধিকাংশ মানুষ,মেইনস্ট্রী্ম মিডিয়ার বাণীতে ভরসা রাখা মুস্লিম,অমুসলিম মানুষের কাছে বিশ্বের ইতিহাস শুরু-ই হয়েছে ৯/১১ এর পরে।কিন্ত এই বইয়ে দীর্ঘ দিন মধ্য প্রাচ্যে ইন্টেলিজেন্স অফিসার হিসাবে কাজ করা লেখকের মতে, ৯/১১ যে পশ্চিমা বিশ্বের অনেক বছরের কিউমেলিটিভ অবিচার,অনাচারের ফসল এটা এড়িয়ে,পলিসির পরিবর্তন না করে ইসলামকে দোষারোপ করার কারণে যে জিনিসটা সবাই ভুল বুজছে সেটা হচ্ছে রিলিজিওণ এখানে জিওপলিটিকাল অবিচারের এগেইন্সেটে ইউনিফাইং কজ হিসাবে ব্যবহত হচ্ছে।ধর্ম এখানে টুল মাত্র,নট দ্য কজ।
এর সমর্থনে উনি যে হাইপোথিসিস নিয়েছেন তা হচ্ছে ইসলাম যদি না থাকত তাহলে এখনকার গতি প্রকৃতি কি বর্তমানের মত-ই থাকত নাকি ভিন্ন হত?
আব্রাহামিক ধর্মগুলোর নিজেদের মধ্যে সম্পরক,তাদের থিওলজি,তাদের ইভুলউশন,রোমান সাম্রাজ্যের রোম আর কন্সটান্টিপোলে ২ ভাগে বিভক্ত হওয়া,সেখান থেকে ল্যাটিন আর অর্থোডক্স ক্রিশ্চিয়ানিটির নিজেদের আধিপত্যের দ্বন্দ্ব,প্রটেস্টান্ট মুভমেন্ট,রাশিয়া,চীন আর ভারতে মুসলিমদের আগমন আর কো এক্সিস্টেন্সের ইতিহাস নিয়ে আলোচনা করে ফুলার তার আরগুমেন্টে যা বলছেন তা হচ্ছে পুব পশ্চিমের এই রাজনীতিক দ্বন্দ্ব সবসময়-ই ছিল এবং এই দ্বন্দ্ব ইসলাম থাকলেও হত না থাকলেও হত।কারণ ধর্ম এখানে রাজনীতিক,অরথনইতিক আর সামাজিক আধিপত্যের লড়াইয়ে ব্যবহত হয়েছে।
বইয়ের ৩টা অংশ আমার কাছে বেশ ফ্যাসেনেটিং লেগেছে
১। ল্যাটীন আর গ্রীক রোমান (রোম আর বাইজেন্টাইন,আমি জান্তাম-ই না বাইজেন্টাইন সাম্রাজ্য কি)এর জন্ম,তাদের মধ্যেকার দ্বন্দ্ব যেটা ক্রুসেডকেও প্রিসাইড করে।এদের ইভুলুশনের কারণেই রাশিয়া সহ পুব ইউরোপের অধিকাংশ ক্রিসচিয়ান অর্থোডক্স(অর্থোডক্স ক্রিশ্চিয়ান নামে খ্রিস্টানদের যে বিশাল একটা ধারা আছে এটা-ই জানতাম)
২।ক্রুসেড।ওই যুগের মুসলিমদের কাছে ক্রুসেড ধর্ম যুদ্ধ ছিলনা। ২টা ঘটনার উল্লেখ বেশ দাগ কেটেছে।একটা হল জেরুজালেম দখলের পর নাইটদের ক্যানিবালিজম আর আরেকটা হলো কিং রিচারডের প্রতিজ্জা ভংগ করে আত্মসমরপণকারী সবাইকে পুড়িয়ে দেয়া।(অথচ রবিনহুড পড়ে ভাবসিলাম............।) ইসলাম তলোয়ারের জোরে ধর্ম প্রচার করার থিওরী যে বা যারা দেয় তাদের জন্য একটা তথ্য-ই যথেষ্ট"উম্মাইদ যুগে অধিকৃত জনগণের মাত্র ১০ ভাগ ধর্মান্তরিত হয়েছিল,যেটার হার ৪০ থেকে ১০০ ভাগ হইসিল আব্বাসীয় যুগে একাদশ শতাব্দীর শেষে"
৩।রাশিয়া আর চায়নায় মুসলিমদের আগমন আর অবস্থা নিয়ে।মজার একটা তথ্য দি,চায়নার পঞ্চদশ শতাব্দীর বিশাল সমুদ্র অভিযানের প্রধান এডমিরাল ঝেং হে একজন মুসলাম ছিলেন(হুই মুস্লিম,উইঘুর না)।
লেখকের সাথে আপনি একমত নাও হতে পারেন,কিন্ত ওনার থট এক্সপেরিমেন্টের পয়েন্টগুলা কিন্ত ফেলনা না মোটেই।ইতিহাসপ্রেমী এবং সন্ত্রাসবাদ নিয়ে যারা সবসময় একচোখা নীতির পক্ষে তাদের জন্য বইটা বেশ উপাদেয় হবেই বলে আমার ধারণা।
সবাইকে পড়ার জন্য রিকমেন্ড করছি।
আমার রেটিং ৪/৫
Graham E Fuller
One less desirable aspect of democracy is that it seems to require serious demonization of the enemy if the nation and public opinion are to be galvanized sufficiently to pay a serious price in blood or treasure at war.And the message as to why we are in confrontation or at war must be simplified enough to fit on a bumper sticker.In today's world,"islam"has become that bumper sticker for America.
পশ্চিমা বিশ্বের অধিকাংশ মানুষ,মেইনস্ট্রী্ম মিডিয়ার বাণীতে ভরসা রাখা মুস্লিম,অমুসলিম মানুষের কাছে বিশ্বের ইতিহাস শুরু-ই হয়েছে ৯/১১ এর পরে।কিন্ত এই বইয়ে দীর্ঘ দিন মধ্য প্রাচ্যে ইন্টেলিজেন্স অফিসার হিসাবে কাজ করা লেখকের মতে, ৯/১১ যে পশ্চিমা বিশ্বের অনেক বছরের কিউমেলিটিভ অবিচার,অনাচারের ফসল এটা এড়িয়ে,পলিসির পরিবর্তন না করে ইসলামকে দোষারোপ করার কারণে যে জিনিসটা সবাই ভুল বুজছে সেটা হচ্ছে রিলিজিওণ এখানে জিওপলিটিকাল অবিচারের এগেইন্সেটে ইউনিফাইং কজ হিসাবে ব্যবহত হচ্ছে।ধর্ম এখানে টুল মাত্র,নট দ্য কজ।
এর সমর্থনে উনি যে হাইপোথিসিস নিয়েছেন তা হচ্ছে ইসলাম যদি না থাকত তাহলে এখনকার গতি প্রকৃতি কি বর্তমানের মত-ই থাকত নাকি ভিন্ন হত?
আব্রাহামিক ধর্মগুলোর নিজেদের মধ্যে সম্পরক,তাদের থিওলজি,তাদের ইভুলউশন,রোমান সাম্রাজ্যের রোম আর কন্সটান্টিপোলে ২ ভাগে বিভক্ত হওয়া,সেখান থেকে ল্যাটিন আর অর্থোডক্স ক্রিশ্চিয়ানিটির নিজেদের আধিপত্যের দ্বন্দ্ব,প্রটেস্টান্ট মুভমেন্ট,রাশিয়া,চীন আর ভারতে মুসলিমদের আগমন আর কো এক্সিস্টেন্সের ইতিহাস নিয়ে আলোচনা করে ফুলার তার আরগুমেন্টে যা বলছেন তা হচ্ছে পুব পশ্চিমের এই রাজনীতিক দ্বন্দ্ব সবসময়-ই ছিল এবং এই দ্বন্দ্ব ইসলাম থাকলেও হত না থাকলেও হত।কারণ ধর্ম এখানে রাজনীতিক,অরথনইতিক আর সামাজিক আধিপত্যের লড়াইয়ে ব্যবহত হয়েছে।
বইয়ের ৩টা অংশ আমার কাছে বেশ ফ্যাসেনেটিং লেগেছে
১। ল্যাটীন আর গ্রীক রোমান (রোম আর বাইজেন্টাইন,আমি জান্তাম-ই না বাইজেন্টাইন সাম্রাজ্য কি)এর জন্ম,তাদের মধ্যেকার দ্বন্দ্ব যেটা ক্রুসেডকেও প্রিসাইড করে।এদের ইভুলুশনের কারণেই রাশিয়া সহ পুব ইউরোপের অধিকাংশ ক্রিসচিয়ান অর্থোডক্স(অর্থোডক্স ক্রিশ্চিয়ান নামে খ্রিস্টানদের যে বিশাল একটা ধারা আছে এটা-ই জানতাম)
২।ক্রুসেড।ওই যুগের মুসলিমদের কাছে ক্রুসেড ধর্ম যুদ্ধ ছিলনা। ২টা ঘটনার উল্লেখ বেশ দাগ কেটেছে।একটা হল জেরুজালেম দখলের পর নাইটদের ক্যানিবালিজম আর আরেকটা হলো কিং রিচারডের প্রতিজ্জা ভংগ করে আত্মসমরপণকারী সবাইকে পুড়িয়ে দেয়া।(অথচ রবিনহুড পড়ে ভাবসিলাম............।) ইসলাম তলোয়ারের জোরে ধর্ম প্রচার করার থিওরী যে বা যারা দেয় তাদের জন্য একটা তথ্য-ই যথেষ্ট"উম্মাইদ যুগে অধিকৃত জনগণের মাত্র ১০ ভাগ ধর্মান্তরিত হয়েছিল,যেটার হার ৪০ থেকে ১০০ ভাগ হইসিল আব্বাসীয় যুগে একাদশ শতাব্দীর শেষে"
৩।রাশিয়া আর চায়নায় মুসলিমদের আগমন আর অবস্থা নিয়ে।মজার একটা তথ্য দি,চায়নার পঞ্চদশ শতাব্দীর বিশাল সমুদ্র অভিযানের প্রধান এডমিরাল ঝেং হে একজন মুসলাম ছিলেন(হুই মুস্লিম,উইঘুর না)।
লেখকের সাথে আপনি একমত নাও হতে পারেন,কিন্ত ওনার থট এক্সপেরিমেন্টের পয়েন্টগুলা কিন্ত ফেলনা না মোটেই।ইতিহাসপ্রেমী এবং সন্ত্রাসবাদ নিয়ে যারা সবসময় একচোখা নীতির পক্ষে তাদের জন্য বইটা বেশ উপাদেয় হবেই বলে আমার ধারণা।
সবাইকে পড়ার জন্য রিকমেন্ড করছি।
আমার রেটিং ৪/৫