Europe and the Islamic World sheds much-needed light on the shared roots of Islamic and Western cultures and on the richness of their inextricably intertwined histories; refuting once and for all the misguided notion of a "clash of civilizations" between the Muslim world and Europe. In this landmark book; three eminent historians bring to life the complex and tumultuous relations between Genoans and Tunisians; Alexandrians and the people of Constantinople; Catalans and Maghrebis--the myriad groups and individuals whose stories reflect the common cultural; intellectual; and religious heritage of Europe and Islam. Since the seventh century; when the armies of Constantinople and Medina fought for control of Syria and Palestine; there has been ongoing contact between the Muslim world and the West. This sweeping history vividly recounts the wars and the crusades; the alliances and diplomacy; commerce and the slave trade; technology transfers; and the intellectual and artistic exchanges. Here readers are given an unparalleled introduction to key periods and events; including the Muslim conquests; the collapse of the Byzantine Empire; the commercial revolution of the medieval Mediterranean; the intellectual and cultural achievements of Muslim Spain; the crusades and Spanish reconquest; the rise of the Ottomans and their conquest of a third of Europe; European colonization and decolonization; and the challenges and promise of this entwined legacy today. As provocative as it is groundbreaking; this book describes this shared history in all its richness and diversity; revealing how ongoing encounters between Europe and Islam have profoundly shaped both.
#952669 in Books 2014-08-24Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.45 x .41 x 5.49l; .0 #File Name: 0691163545216 pages
Review
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Wonderful book! Leiter argues that there's no reason to ...By Tim KWonderful book! Leiter argues that there's no reason to think religious claims of conscience should be given preferential treatment to secular claims of conscience. Each type should be given the same amount of scrutiny and accommodation. Tightly argued and well-written; if you have any interest in religion and society; Leiter's book is a wonderful place to begin.Russell Blackford's "Freedom of Religion and the Secular State" is a wonderful book that would nicely accompany Leiter's.0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Religion as special or a human product?By J. W. van EeThe title of this book seems somewhat deceiving. Not at stake is why to tolerate religion - a strange idea to contemplate; like: Why should we tolerate religious thinking? - but the question if an action; claimed on imperatives from religious based conscience; has preference compared to a same action that not has this hallmark. Or in practice for instance; may a Sikh boy wear a kirpan (ceremonial knife) in school; because of religious tolerance; and farmer boy not; while the men in his family have worn knives for hundreds of years.Getting to his conclusion Leiter tries to point out what has to count as religion and what not; and this seems a way that does not hold ground anymore. Albeit writing within tradition; this way has always been a troublesome route. The book ends; somewhat abruptly; with this sentence: "Toleration may be a virtue; both in individuals and in states; but its selective application to the conscience of only religious believers is not morally defensible".Before getting to this conclusion many pages are filled with quite elaborate reasoning; not always an easy read; that mention all foreseeable points and objections. Although I agree with this conclusion; I think that searching for the suchness of religion; like Leiter does in chapter 2; has become meaningless nowadays. The book thus left me with the feeling that this debate might profit from another point of view.For this; I would like to suggest three points.Jacob De Roover* has convincingly argued that our western idea of religion has since the dawn of science relied on the western form of Judeo-Christion religion and the argument; originally from Cicero; called the consensus gentium: “[t]hat there never was any nation sobarbarous; nor any people in the world so savage; as to be without some notionof godsâ€. This argument; taken on by Christianity has ruled the western debate about what is religion since almost two millennia; and is so entrenched in our western thinking; that it was not questioned any more. In my opinion chapter 2; trying to define religion; suffers also from this longstanding unperceived bias. Besides; we still have to overcome the scent of inherent superiority that is attached to monotheism.Iain McGilchrist** argues that the two hemispheres of the human brain have different functions. The right hemisphere; very broadly speaking; is of an unsurpassable creativity; while the left hemisphere; using language can put this into actual realized reality. So epistemologically; economy and the gods; both being products of the right brain halve; belong to the same level. Leiter's point that religion as such always holds some false or at least unwarranted belief (preface) is; viewed from this point; ungrounded. Economy is no different as Thomas Sedlacek*** has proven. A famous Dutch theologian once said: "All what is said about 'above'; comes from below."Yuval Noah Harari**** has brilliantly argued that our societies are based in imagined orders; systems of thought that are realized by the trust invested by (some) people in an idea of whatever kind. In this way; the political; economic and religious outlooks of our societies have taken shape. Religions are imagined orders like economy; communism and capitalism; or for that matter science as well.Taking these strands together it seems reasonable to argue that religions as systems of thought; as imagined orders; brought forth by the creativity of the right hemisphere of the human brain; are no different than any other system of thought; be it economics and money; politics; law; childcare or literature. Thus; imperatives from what is called religious based conscience are no different than those arising from politics of economics; and the like; in the end; they are all in fact fictitious necessities. Problems that arise from religion with demands on conscience do not stem from religion but from our biological wiring.Of course; this might not convince a true believer; because in his mind there is no 'reasonable doubt' that he might be wrong. What we now call religion reveals beautiful aspects of the human mind; but also less beautiful. This is even conceded by the most ardent believer. But ascribing these beautiful qualities to the own religion and the less beautiful ones to other's religion seems a fallacy that should open the eyes of even the most fundamentalist believer.In the end; in my opinion; conscience does only come from an acquired system of thought; whatever that system may teach; and acting on it in society is only possible within the constraints of whatever this society has deemed as proper. There is no absolute measure for this. Maybe we should remember that martyrs; that is; religious zealots of the past who lost their life in acting accordingly to the absolutist demands of their conscience; where then seen by society as madmen and criminals.This leaves open a wide area for debate; and the book fulfils any wishes on this point excellently. These constraints; and thus tolerance may be the topic of a heated debate; but religion as such; as if having a preferred voice in this debate; takes no part in it; because otherwise religion becomes indeed the perfect conversation stopper (Richard Rorty). Thus; any call on religious based conscience for exemption of general laws should fail per definitionem in so far as this claim asks for tolerance for action that is forbidden to others; the non-believers. The reason actually is that such call is in fact based in an essentialist reasoning; based on the irrefutable will of presumed higher beings (god or gods); and of so-called Scriptures that are not properly recognized as the fruits of the unique; inexhaustible human creativity.This does not mean that exemptions are out of sight anyway; but granting them should not be based on religious demands; but on making room for minority positions; and the greater good for all; a point that Leiter also brings up. I believe that giving preference to religious based claims of conscience; is unfair per se. I agree wholeheartedly on this with Leiter; but I would prefer a route that is more easy to get there.Jan Willem van Ee;The Netherlands* Jacob De Roover; Incurably Religious? Consensus Gentium and the Cultural Universality of Religion; Numen 61 (2014); Brill; Leiden.** Iain McGilchrist; The Master and his Emissary; The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World; Yale University Press; 2009.*** Thomas Sedlacek; Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street; Oxford University Press; 2011.**** Yuval Noah Harari; Sapiens; A brief History of Humankind; Vintage Books; 2014.0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Highly relevant readBy Geoff W SuttonI purchased this book after hearing Leiter speak so I could examine his arguments more closely. The concerns are clearly relevant as laws and court decisions have recently impacted traditions teachings of religious groups in the United States. I find the arguments in favor of religious tolerance with common side constraints persuasive.
