A Christian theologian has written a 700 page book about Islam and he doesn't have a completely negative view about the religion. Does that mean he is ignorant or an apologist for Islam. That is most likely what some people will accuse Kung of, but their argument will be obliterated by the book itself. It spends a lot of time on the history of Islam, but it gives the practices and beliefs a good share of thought. The reason why he is not an apologist for Islam is because he himself argues against those who present a soft version of Islam. He says on page 598 that the apologetic argument that jihad is only for self-defense purposes "cannot be maintained." In other words, jihad is offensive in addition to defensive. I agree with Kung and many Islamic scholars agree, jihad for Muslims is a duty at any time. Now how does that coincide with the theory that Kung believes that Islam was not spread by the sword? He says that early Muslim armies only invaded for territory, not for spreading the religion by the sword and this makes sense as it coincides with the Quranic injunction that there is no compulsion in religion. The answer is that while Muslims may never force anyone to convert, they are obligated by God to ensure that the message of Islam is heard and seen by everyone. In other words, Muslims must do their best to give people a fair choice between Islam and whatever other belief systems that exist. That choice was not there at the time that Mecca was polytheist dominated and to be a Muslim meant to be tortured and threatened with death. Jihad needed to be done to give Islam the room to be practiced which is how it can be offensive, to clear the path for allowing people to freely choose Islam.

Now as I was reading this book, I was trying to decipher where Kung stood in terms of accepting the Prophethood of Muhammad. He says on page 68 that the Prophet could not have gathered the Quran and put it together because "as it is assumed by Muslims" he could not read or write. He then ends the chapter asking if some people have a special charisma or is the message of the Prophet not his words or the word of God. This is where the dividing line is drawn between believing in Islam and rejecting it. Did the Prophet make up this religion called Islam or was he only a mouthpiece or a bridge for the Creator of the Universe? I am on the side which believes the latter and I assume that Mr. Kung is on the other side or else he would have converted to Islam. Now if we take a close look at the argument that the Prophet made this religion up, we will find that it has holes in it large enough to push a meteor through it. He did not know how to read or write and he was not a philosopher or a scientist or an astronomer or a historian or a theologian yet the Quran presents information that all of these fields would provide. What does that mean? It means that this Quran could not have been compiled by one man in the desert who was illiterate. He needed someone who knew everything already and this was none other than the Supreme Being that we call God. If there is one book I recommend in addition to this one, it would be After Jihad by Noah Feldman. He explains that religion is not the problem in the Islamic world today, but it is politics that has put a straightjacket on the Islamic principles of justice that are inherent in Islam.

Hans Küng, the eminent Catholic theologian (and liberal sparring partner with Pope Benedict XVI), turns his prodigious intellectual talents to the religion of Islam: what is it, where did it come from, where is it going? . . . and, most importantly, why we in the West need to be better informed as to its historical role and contemporary position.

First, the scholarly achievement here is extraordinary. The question "What is Islam?" is answered in an enormous tome that leaves hardly any node of historical development untouched. I'm not altogether sure who or what Küng's sources are, but he skillfully stitches together the complex strands of Islamic development, politically, religiously, and culturally. As such, it is a profound display, far more nuanced and compelling than breezy exposé such as _The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam_. Küng's principle, at heart, is that one cannot have peace whilst besmirching the religious beliefs of a billion people. It's a common sense approach, but it's difficult to have any meaningful discussion, at any level, without solid information as to the beliefs of the person sitting beside you.

The strength of this book is its exhaustive sense of Islamic history. If one can manage to get through the entire book, he or she will possess more information than %90 of the pundits spouting off at this current instant. While this is not the place for in-depth scholarly assessments, I'd like to acknowledge the interesting 'paradigm' strategy that Küng uses to organise his diverse themes. In a flow-chart, helpfully modelled in the inside conver, Islamic civilisation evolved through crucial stages, usually punctuated by sudden, transformative moments of adaptation and change. This may be a bit formulaic, but it does provide an interesting conceptual apparatus to tie ideas together.

Admittedly, this is primarily a historical-theological study, and pressing social issues, while addressed, are not given due consideration. Human rights under shari'a law in certain countries, for example, is given small analysis, almost always foregrounded against the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This issue, it seems to Küng, is the defining agitation in the 'clash of civilisations' between Islam and the West. But, as Küng demonstrates through close-ups, there cannot really be a clash between civilisations, nor a dialogue between them. Rather, select groups of individuals, somehow aligned with their representative identities, must come into contact with one another. If anything, this is a call to enriched discussion.

As a minor quibble, however, this heavy, academic tome will most likely put off a number of readers who may not have their leisure time to peruse this complex account. I do wonder who Küng's audience is . . . already enlightened fellow academics, who generally understand already that Islam represents a complex society(s) that include many different strata of beliefs and practices? I don't like the "Islam for Dummies" mentality either . . . but Küng tends to preach to his own small circle of attendees. None the less, his practical work in multi-faith dialogue, of which he is a tireless champion, is admirable. This book certainly makes a powerful contrast to Ratzinger's _Truth and Tolerance_, which allows Islam a position of respect, in so far as it measures against Orthodox Catholic dogma.

At first glance, Fr. Hans Kung's mammoth discussion on the dynamic world of Islam seems like a daunting task. Not only is the book rather sizeable, but a glance at the Table of Contents previews Kung's goal for the book: discuss practically everything about Islam!

Within approximately 700 pages, Kung manages to adequately discuss the origins of Islam, the life of the Prophet Muhammed, the first caliphs, the canonization of Qur'an, plus 1400 additional years of Islamic history, including discussions on the evolving religio-political dynamic within Islam, the emergence and adherence of Islamic jurisprudence, plus the impact of Islamic theology and philosophy in its own day and in later Western civilization. There is barely no stone left unturned in Kung's survey.

The fascinating aspect about this book is that it manages to cover so much ground while remaining completely relevant along the way. Kung manages to come across not just as a theologian or professor of ecumenism, but it's evident that he is an individual who is thoroughly knowledgeable about this subject, in the same manner as full-time Islamic scholars such as Ira M. Lapidus and John Esposito. Fortunately, his knowledge about the subject allows him to share a great deal of sympathy with Islam's history, its message, and its future. Kung even admits that certain characteristics of Islam have affected his own personal theology and understanding of history. However, just because he may be sympathetic does not mean that he allows for necessary criticisms to remain unsaid. Far from it! Kung asks Muslims and non-Muslims to engage in a critical survey of certain Islamic traditions and concepts, and he urges continual restoration in the Islamic world not just for its own sake but for the wider global organization.

Yes, the book may seem like a daunting task, but there will not be a moment wasted while spent reading this book. There's an incredible amount of information to learn about the Islamic world, and fortunately Hans Kung is willing to share that information with his readers!

This book is lengthy yes, but if you really want a sincere and scholarly analysis of Islam from an objective perspective (a prominent christian theologian) then this is one of the rare books that will give you an accurate understanding of the subject. The visual aids in this book (i.e. charts, graphs, timelines)also make it very "user-friendly."

It is difficult nowadays to get an objective, nuanced opinion on Islam, neither flattering nor biased against it. If I were to recommend a way to try and achieve this, I would suggest reading several good books on the matter, including this one among them.

I was surprised that no one else had made a comment before to this masterful work, which, in my opinion, is impartial and wise and the best book on Islam one may find. It can be savored by the professional historian and the educated layperson alike. So I add mine, my rate being between 5 (content) and 4 (pleasure, sometimes falling to 3, sometimes raising to 5). I highly recommend it.

Other books that I would recommend reading (as Khaled M. Abou El Fadl -scholar trained in both Islamic and Western law- says, non-muslims "first and foremost [are to] learn and understand, because nothing helps the puritans' cause as much as Western ignorance, prejudice and hate") would be the following: A) ASSESSMENTS OF ISLAM: 1) Moderate Islam at its best: "The Great Theft : Wrestling Islam from the Extremists" by Khaled M. Abou El Fadl; 2) Harsh but well argued: "Muslims in the West: Redefining the Separation of Church & State" by Sami Awad Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh; and 3) Autobiography of a courageous woman: "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a controversial thinker with a very interesting life. B) HISTORY: 4) General: "The Venture of Islam", by Marshall G. S. Hodgson (nowadays a classic included in any bibliography on Islam); 5) Turks: "The Turks in World History" by Carter Vaughn Findley; 6) Political theory: "God's Rule : Government and Islam" by Patricia Crone; and 7) Jihad: "Understanding Jihad" by David Cook (it also seems interesting although I have not read it yet: "Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice" by Michael Bonner).

Additionally, as a complement to "Islam. History, present, future", I would also suggest to read (hoping that will be of use for those looking for a broad framework to understand the past) the following works, whose scope is as amazingly global as Küng's: 1. Agrarian cultures: "Pre-industrial societies" by Patricia Crone; 2. Economy: "The world economy. A millennial perspective" (2001) plus "The world economy: Historical Statistics" (2003) by Angus Maddison (a combined edition of these two volumes is to appear on December 2007); 3. Government: "The History of Government" by S.E. Finer; 4. Ideas: "Ideas, a History from Fire to Freud", by Peter Watson; 5. Religion: "The Phenomenon of Religion: A Thematic Approach" by Moojan Momen; and 6. War: "War on Human Civilization" by Azar Gat.