To educate myself on Islam, I have read a number of books in the past two years on Islam - ranging from those who trash Islam to those who defend it. Gregorian's book is a very good summary of the history and complexities of the issue of Islam and how it fits into today's world. It is adequate, but light on the Sunni/Shiite divide, which is a critical to understanding the Middle East today.

I debated whether this book should get 4 or 5 stars and decided on four because I think it avoids a critical question. Its theme is that religious tolerance is critical in today's world. But there are two forms of tolerance: a) accepting that others can disagree with you without beating them to a pulp, and b) believing that all religions are morally equivalent and acceptable to God - kind of a "more than one way to heaven/salvation" statement. Gregorian seems to lump those two thoughts together.

I speak not from a Muslim perspective, but a Christian one. In the mosaic of Christianity, the liberal denominations are moving towards a "all religions are acceptable to God" philosophy. Those denominations are also dying. The growth in the Christian community is with the denominations that believe in the uniqueness (and essential belief for salvation) of the historical Christian creed. And they are doing so accepting religious tolerance of the first kind, but not the second. I suspect this same issue is being played out in the Islamic world also - but because of the lack of freedom of speech, expression and religion (think Iran and Saudi Arabia especially), it is much more muted.

If one's religion is the unique truth (and most traditional Christians and Muslims believe theirs is), to deprive someone else of hearing that truth (missionaries, conversions, etc.) is morally repugnant within that belief system. If I am not allowed to try to convert someone to my belief system, then I am not allowed to practice my religion.

Because Gregorian takes a "can't we all just get along" attitude, answering how people with traditional beliefs deal with the second form of tolerance is necessary. I don't fault books that take a Islam is good or Islam is bad approach for not answering this question. They don't have to. But the "can't we all just get along" position must answer it. And Gregorian fails here.

The book was addressed to an American audience; its mission was to provide a brief survey of the Muslim world, its religion and ideologies, with the objective to destroy the understanding that Islam is a monolith and that America was at war with 'Islam', rather than with some specific Muslims. Given the small space that it had, the book does a remarkable job. I am sure an updated reprint will take care of the newish fad of 'Islamofascism'.
I must admit that I need the reminder of reason myself once in a while. Off and on I get carried away myself by popular rages. I fully endorsed Fallaci's rage after 9/11. I still will not throw her book away into the trashcan.
Things like the Rushdie Fatwah, the Bahmyan destruction, the various bombs, in first place the Bali ones, make me build up very strong negative emotions. One needs to direct these into the proper channels. One needs to read Gregorian and others once in a while.
My own education about Islam rested on the two pillars of a German writer of trivial adventure stories, which I read as a 12 y old, and then the remarkable Maulana Maudoodi's writings translated into English, when I was a twen. Then I put the subject away, done and settled. I looked at Islam like at Christianity, both somewhat irrational and surprisingly large sects following obscure faiths. Only the masses following them made them less than obscure.
Rage and neglect don't work, only knowledge does. So ok, let's get back to acquiring some.
About Gregorian: the book is not perfect.
I wish he had given a bit more space to the religion and its history. The first chapter is good for 35 pages, but couldn't he have done 50?
After explaining to us that Islam is not just about Arabs, Gregorian spends chapter 2, called Modernists and Traditionalists, almost entirely on Arabs.
There is also some PC attitude: on page 49 he says that 'the record shows that Islam is not adverse to science or technology'. However he proceeds by telling us that no science and technology happens, or very little. Other than arms. Similarly, he mentions that the basic education sector is a possible trouble zone, with teaching being left to unqualified ideologues on a large scale, but he does not elaborate on this 'hot potato'. Out of a sense of tact?
In chapter 3, Challenges of the 20th, he calls the Iran-Iraq war a war of Arab states. That must have been slipped in by an editor, I can't believe Gregorian could have made that mistake himself.
Further down in that chapter, he states that Z.A.Bhutto was Pakistan's President from 71 to 73. That is not wrong, but so misleading that it looks like a mistake. ZAB was Prime Minister until 77, when he was deposed, jailed, and later executed for (alleged) murder.
My point is: if the book makes these trivial mistakes where I catch them, how sure am I of the stuff which I have to take as stated for lack of own prior knowledge?
I will not hold it against the book that it mentions a major European problem only in passing: the integration issue. That is outside its scope.

I bought and read this book as part of my self-education program on Islam. It turned out to be not nearly as detailed as I had expected, especially in its discussion of the tenets of Islam and their application(s) in the modern world. The principal point of the book is to refute the popular perception of Islam as a monolith bent on clashing with and destroying Christianity and/or the West. Still, as far as it goes it is a very useful introduction, both reliable and objective, and, as others have noted, superior to Karen Armstrong and far superior to Robert Spencer.

(When I was in junior high school in the early '60s, the perceived threat to the U.S. was communism, and wanting to learm more about that pressing issue I bought a book by J. Edgar Hoover on communism. Needless to say, it wasn't very helpful, although it took me several years to come to that realization. Reading a book by Robert Spencer to learn about Islam would not be much different.)

I thought this book presented a balanced view of Islam - not alarmist in nature, but at the same time not pretending that there are not fundamentalists that attempt to use Islam to justify their actions. Quick and easy read - completely enjoyed it.

"Huntington [Samuel P. Huntington, author of THE CLASH Of CIVILIZATIONS And The REMAKING Of The WORLD ORDER] and others who write about a clash of civilizations do not recognize that class, tribal, family, personal, ethnic, cultural, economic, and national interests have always defied a unity of purpose that transcends all these divisions. As shown above, instances when the Muslim world was a unified monolith have been extremely rare. Throughout Islamic history, the gravitational pull of regional, dynastic, and since the nineteenth century nationalist interests has consistently outweighed the spiritual affiliations of some idealized, transcendent, organic umma. If history is a guide, it shows that in Islam, as in most major religions, there is a broad gulf between the ideal of unity and the realities on the ground." (ISLAM: A MOSAIC, NOT A MONOLITH, pp. 110-111).

The above paragraph provides the gist of Vartan Gregorian's excellent book, dispelling certain myths about both the Islamic world and Islamist extremism which are being promoted by some politicians, journalists, writers and religious leaders in the West.

Gregorian shows that the idea of a totalitarian Pan-Islamic juggernaut determined to engulf the world and submit it to "sharia" law not only is unlikely it has no historical foundation. While the fears of Islamist extremism are naturally not unwarranted and should be taken seriously, Gregorian also wants us to keep in mind the intense struggles between modernity and traditionalism, as well as religion and nationality in the Muslim world. Indeed, except for relatively brief periods in history, the Umma (the Muslim community) has mostly existed in a world fragmented by rival dynasties and states, willing to ally themselves with outsiders against each other. He reminds us that "Sharia" law, dreaded by many as some sort of universal Islamic system of punishment and coercion, is not a unified body of law, but rather exists within four specific schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali), each with their own levels of interpretation.

Islamist ideology itself is shown to be quite varied, running through a spectrum that includes the most uncompromisingly fanatical to those more moderate and willing to work within the system and participate in electoral politics. Gregorian goes further to explain Muslim extremism as historically a tool that's been used both by and against western dominance. What started as a reaction to the presence of European colonialism in North Africa and the Near East was also nourished and utilized by Great Britain and the United States against Marxist and other socialist movements in the region during the Cold War.

Despite popular conceptions, fostered by governments and media for their own advantage, Gregorian finds Islamism to be in decline. After the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan the Islamist movement fractured and struggles with competing constituencies and agendas. While acknowledging it as an optimistic view, Gregorian references Gilles Kepel (from his 2002 book, JIHAD: The TRAIL Of POLITICAL ISLAM) on the belief that "the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, represented not a growing threat from Islamist extremism but the reverse: they were a symbol of its `isolation, fragmentation and decline.'"

Vartan Gregorian was born in Tabriz, Iran, but is from an Armenian background. In addition to serving as president of Brown University, founding dean and provost of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, and president of the New York Public Library, Gregorian is presently the president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. ISLAM: A MOSAIC, NOT A MONOLITH grew out of a report submitted to Carnegie's trustees in the summer of 2001 on the need to promote public understanding for America's Muslims and also the need to ease their integration into American society. After September 11, 2001, the report took on a global perspective, developing into the more comprehensive survey that is this book. The next time you are in your local bookstore, wandering in either the Middle Eastern History or Religion aisles, ignore the glossed-over apologistic junk of Karen Armstrong on one end and the Islamophobic polemics of Robert Spencer on the other. Instead, choose to give this book a look over. You won't be disappointed.