Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes

“Gossip, stories, jokes, rumors, historical impressions, religious mythologies, products, and other detritus of culture flow along with traders, travelers, and conquerors. Trade and travel routes thus function like capillaries, carrying civilizational blood.”

Ansary utilizes metaphors and symbolism in this quote, likening trade and travel routes to “capillaries” and cultural interactions to the flow of “civilizational blood.” This imagery emphasizes the importance of cultural exchange and connectivity in shaping civilizations.

“Zoroaster preached that the universe was divided between darkness and light, between good and evil, between truth and falsehood, between life and death. The universe split into these opposing camps at the moment of creation, they had been locked in struggle ever since, and the contest would endure to the end of time.”

Dichotomy illustrates Zoroaster’s teachings, portraying the universe as a battleground of opposing forces: darkness and light, good and evil. This clear, contrasting imagery symbolizes the perpetual struggle and balance between these dualistic elements within the cosmos. The repetitive use of the word “between” creates a rhythm that reinforces the constant and unending tension that defines existence in this perspective.

“Again Mohammed protested that he could not recite, did not know what to recite, but the angel—the voice—the impulse—blazed once more: ‘Recite!’ Thereupon Mohammed felt words of terrible grandeur forming in his heart and the recitation began.”

The repetition of the word “recite” emphasizes Mohammed’s initial hesitance and humility as well as the force of the divine command. The varied description of the divine presence, as “the angel—the voice—the impulse,” illustrates the multifaceted nature of Mohammed’s spiritual experience and the overwhelming moment of divine revelation.

“Mohammed was proposing something different and bigger. He was preaching that there is one God too all-encompassing and universal to be associated with any particular image, any particular attributes, any finite notion, any limit. There is only God and all the rest is God’s creation: this was the message he was delivering to anyone who would listen.”

The description of Mohammed’s message utilizes the literary device of antithesis to contrast the concept of a singular, all-encompassing God against the limitations of human perception and finite representations. The emphasis on God’s universality and the creation’s distinction from the divine underscores the inclusive nature of his message, challenging established religious and societal norms.

“Staggering wealth, dazzling beauty, two of the Prophet’s daughters for wives—what did this man lack? And yet Othman seemed haunted by the fear that he was not good enough.”

Despite Othman’s external wealth and societal position, his internal conflict, highlighted by the term “haunted,” reveals a sense of inadequacy. This contrast between outward success and inner turmoil reflects the complexity of human psychology and the pursuit of spiritual fulfillment beyond material achievements.

“To Shi’i there is always one imam in the world, and there is never more than one. They proceed from the premise that Mohammed had some palpable mystical substance vested in him by Allah, some energy, some light, which they call the baraka of Mohammed.”

The quote employs metaphor to depict the spiritual concept of the “baraka of Mohammed,” suggesting a unique, divine essence or energy passed through succession. This metaphor signifies the sacred and continuous lineage within the Shi’i belief system, emphasizing the uniqueness and singularity of the Imam’s spiritual authority.

“Again, Islam is not merely a creed or a set of beliefs: it is a program every bit as concrete as a diet or an exercise regimen. Islam is something one does.”

The analogy compares Islam to practical, everyday activities like a “diet or an exercise regimen.” This comparison attempts to demystify religious practice and expand the definition beyond its usual limits, presenting Islam as a tangible, active way of life, emphasizing the practical and lived aspects of the faith.

“As a matter of fact, most of the Holy Book spoke in very general terms: Stop sinning; behave yourself; have a heart; you will be judged; hell is an awful place; heaven is wonderful; be grateful for all that God has given you; trust in God; obey God; yield to God—such is the gist of the message one gets from much of the Holy Book.”

The repetition of the phrases that give directives or divine guidance (“Stop sinning; behave yourself; have a heart; you will be judged,” etc.) show that the ethical and moral imperatives central to the teachings of the Qur’an are no different from those of other world religions. Though Islam as a religion is often vilified in popular culture and history, Ansary shows that the Qur’an’s teachings are hardly unusual.

“The stability this engendered would, he hoped, let farmers and merchants generate the wealth needed to…provide the taxes needed to…fund the armies needed to…keep the order needed to…let farmers and merchants keep generating wealth.”

The use of ellipses in the quote creates a cyclical structure, illustrating the interconnectedness and dependency within the socio-economic and military systems. This literary technique communicates the idea of a self-sustaining loop, where each component is both a means and an end within a larger societal framework.

“At this time, the Muslim world knew as little of western Europe as Europeans later knew about the African interior. To Muslims, everything between Byzantium and Andalusia was a more or less primeval forest inhabited by men so primitive they still ate pig flesh.”

The quote employs simile and imagery to depict the mutual unfamiliarity between the Muslim world and western Europe, likening the latter to a “primeval forest” and its inhabitants to “primitive” beings. This imagery serves to highlight the extent of the cultural and knowledge divide of the time, and by likening Muslims’ knowledge of western Europe to Europeans’ knowledge of the African interior, Ansary highlights how removed the Muslims were from the Europeans and emphasizes the fact that the Muslims found Europeans uncivilized.

“The expedition was to be called a croisade, from croix, French for ‘cross,’ and from this came the name historians give to this whole undertaking: the Crusades.”

The quote explains the etymology of “croisade,” linking it to the French word for “cross,” which underlines the religious motivation and symbolism behind the name. This insight into the origin of the word “Crusades” helps depict the historical and cultural context of the period, emphasizing the religious undertones of these historical events.

“No one seemed to cast the wars as an epic struggle between Islam and Christendom—that was the story line the Crusaders saw. Instead of a clash between two civilizations, Muslims saw simply a calamity falling upon…civilization.”

The quote contrasts perspectives on the Crusades, using irony to highlight the difference between the Crusaders’ view of an “epic struggle” and the Muslim perspective, which saw the events as a tragic disturbance to their civilization from uncivilized attackers. This contrast centers the Islamic Perspective on World History and serves to underscore the subjectivity in historical narratives and the varying interpretations of the same events by different cultures.

“In Islam, however, the emphasis was not on the personal salvation of the isolated soul but on construction of the perfect community. People were not sinners to be saved but servants enjoined to obedience. They were born innocent and capable of ascent to the highest nobility but also of descent to the lowest depravity.”

Ansary uses antithesis to juxtapose the Islamic focus on communal perfection against the Christian emphasis on individual salvation. This device contrasts two religious approaches to questions of human nature and morality, highlighting Islam’s view of people as inherently innocent and capable of both high nobility and deep depravity.

“Their writings focused on reconciling Greek philosophy with Muslim revelations. Christians took no interest in that achievement, so they stripped away whatever Muslims had added to Aristotle and the others and set to work exploring how Greek philosophy could be reconciled with Christian revelations. Out of this struggle came the epic ‘scholastic’ philosophies of thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and others. The Muslim connection to the ancient Greek works was erased from European cultural memory.”

This quote revolves around the theme of cultural appropriation and neglect, detailing how Europeans adopted and transformed Greek philosophy to fit Christian theology while disregarding the contributions of Muslim scholars. This historical account uses the image of being “erased from European cultural memory” to depict the dismissal and underappreciation of Muslim influence on European intellectual heritage. It emphasizes the loss of acknowledgment for the role Muslims played in preserving and developing ancient philosophical thought.

“The Protestant Reformation was no single thing. Once Luther opened the gates, the passion spread in numerous directions with numerous reformers launching separate movements and many new sects springing up, each with its own idiosyncratic creed.”

The quote uses metaphor in the phrase “Once Luther opened the gates,” portraying the Protestant Reformation as a flood of diverse religious movements and sects. This imagery conveys the expansive and transformative nature of the Reformation, initiated by Luther’s actions, which led to a multitude of independent developments.

“Between 1500 and 1800 CE, western Europeans sailed pretty much all over the world and colonized pretty much everything. In some lands, they simply took possession, entirely supplanting the original inhabitants: North America and Australia suffered this fate, ending up as virtual extensions of Europe.”

Hyperbole is evident in the sweeping statement about European colonization from 1500 to 1800 CE; by saying that they “sailed pretty much all over the world and colonized pretty much everything,” Ansary illustrates the vast extent of exploration and domination during this period. The description of North America and Australia as “virtual extensions of Europe” further emphasizes the complete overhaul and dominance of these lands by European settlers.

“Trade is what people do instead of making war. Trade—why, it’s practically a synonym for peace!”

The quote utilizes irony in equating trade with peace, implying that commerce serves as a direct substitute for conflict. This statement exaggerates the pacifying effect of trade, humorously oversimplifying the complex relationship between commerce and conflict. The irony lies in acknowledging the optimistic yet simplistic view that trade inherently promotes peace, subtly critiquing this notion by highlighting the nuances and potential tensions inherent in trade relations.

“Europeans had achieved this dominance without any grand war or broadscale assault. The Europeans were scarcely even aware that there had been a struggle and that they had won. But Muslims noticed, because it’s always harder to ignore a rock you’re under than a rock you’re on.”

This quote represents contrasting attitudes to trade held by the Europeans and the Muslims. While highlighting the beneficial aspects of trade, it subtly criticizes the simplistic view of commerce as purely harmonious, ignoring the complexities and often aggressive nature of historical trade relations.

“Following the rules, however, does not provide the spiritual fulfillment people seek from religion. The bureaucratization of Islam created much the same stultifications and discontents that in Christendom had provoked the Protestant Reformation.”

The quote employs metaphor in describing the “bureaucratization of Islam” to depict the ritualization and formal structuring of religious practice, paralleling it with similar developments in Christendom. This metaphor criticizes the loss of spiritual essence in religious practices due to excessive formalization, likening it to the stifling effects of bureaucracy.

“Protestant reformers rebelled against the Church; Islam had no church. Protestant reformers attacked the authority of the pope; Islam had no pope. Protestants said priests could not mediate between man and God; Islam never had a priesthood (the ulama were more like lawyers than priests.) The Protestant reformers insisted on a direct, personal interaction between the individual worshipper and God. The Muslim prayer ritual had always been just that.”

The quote uses parallel structure to contrast the core issues addressed by Protestant reformers with the inherent characteristics of Islam. This technique highlights the fundamental differences in religious structures and doctrines between Islam and Protestant Christianity, emphasizing Islam’s alignment with some of the reformers’ critiques from its very inception.

“That is, no one looking at machine-made consumer goods said, ‘Gee, we, too, should have a Reformation and develop a cult of individualism and then undergo a long period of letting reason erode the authority of faith while developing political institutions that encourage free inquiry so that we can happen onto the ideas of modern science while at the same time evolving an economic system built on competition among private businesses so that when our science spawns new technologies we can jump on them and thus, in a few hundred years, quite independently of Europe, make these same sorts of goods ourselves.’”

Hyperbole is evident in the extended, hypothetical monologue, exaggerating the unlikelihood of non-European societies independently mirroring the complex sequence of historical developments that occurred in Europe. This hyperbolic statement humorously underscores the intricate web of cultural, scientific, and economic transformations unique to European history, casting doubt on the possibility of such a spontaneous and identical progression elsewhere.

“The nationalism I’m speaking of was (is) an idea. It didn’t develop where nation-states had formed, but where they hadn’t. It didn’t describe what was but what (supposedly) ought to be. The German-speaking people came into the nineteenth century as a multitude of principalities and kingdoms. Italy was similarly divided, and so was the whole of Europe east of Germany. Nationalism sprouted in these areas.”

The quote conceptualizes nationalism as an abstract idea, employing antithesis to distinguish between the actual political landscape of fragmented territories and the ideal of unified nation-states. This distinction between reality and ideology underlines the aspirational nature of nationalism, particularly in linguistically cohesive but politically divided regions.

“In the context of the European narrative, the Jews were victims. In the context of the Arab narrative, they were colonizers with much the same attitudes toward the indigenous population as their fellow Europeans.”

The quote uses juxtaposition to present differing perspectives on the role of Jews in European and Arab narratives, highlighting the subjective nature of historical interpretation. This comparison emphasizes how context can drastically alter perceptions, casting the same group as either victims or aggressors based on the narrative framework.