Islamic Imperialism: A History

by Efraim Karsh

From the first Arab-Islamic Empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire, the story of the Middle East has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams. So argues Efraim Karsh in this highly provocative book. Rejecting the conventional Western interpretation of Middle Eastern history as an offshoot of global power politics, Karsh contends that the region’s experience is the culmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior, and that foremost among these is Islam’s millenarian imperial tradition.
The author explores the history of Islam’s imperialism and the persistence of the Ottoman imperialist dream that outlasted World War I to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics to the present day. September 11 can be seen as simply the latest expression of this dream, and such attacks have little to do with U.S. international behavior or policy in the Middle East, says Karsh. The House of Islam’s war for world mastery is traditional, indeed venerable, and it is a quest that is far from over.

Genres: History, Islam, Religion, Middle East, Politics, Nonfiction, Israel

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Efraim Karsh is director of the Middle East Forum, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, and Professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London.

Born and raised in Israel, Mr. Karsh earned his undergraduate degree in Arabic language and literature and modern Middle Eastern history from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and his graduate and doctoral degrees in international relations from Tel Aviv University. After acquiring his first academic degree, he served for seven years as an intelligence officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), where he attained the rank of major.

Prior to coming to King's in 1989, Mr. Karsh held various academic posts at Columbia University, the Sorbonne, the London School of Economics, Helsinki University, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Washington D.C., and the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel-Aviv University. In 2003 he was the first Nahshon Visiting Professor in Israel Studies at Harvard.

Mr. Karsh has published extensively on the Middle East, strategic and military affairs, and European neutrality. He is the author of fifteen books, including Palestine Betrayed (Yale); Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale); Empires of the Sand: the Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1798-1923 (Harvard); Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians" (Routledge); The Gulf Conflict 1990-1991 (Princeton); Saddam Hussein (Free Press); Arafat's War (Grove); and Neutrality and Small States (Routledge).

Mr. Karsh has appeared as a commentator on all the main British and American television networks and has contributed over 100 articles to leading newspapers and magazines, including Commentary, The Daily Telegraph, The International Herald Tribune, The London Times, The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

He has served on many academic and professional boards; has acted as referee for numerous scholarly journals, publishers, and grant awarding organizations; has consulted the British Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as national and international economic companies/organizations; and has briefed several parliamentary committees. A recent CENTCOM directory of Centers of Excellence on the Middle East ranked Mr. Karsh as the fifth highly quoted academic among 20 top published authors on the Middle East, with his articles quoted three times as often as the best of the four non-American scholars on the list.

He is founding editor of the scholarly journal Israel Affairs, now in its sixteenth year, and founding general editor of a Routledge book series on Israeli History, Politics and Society.

(meforum.org)

Reviews

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a perverse inversion of truth, leftwing opinion-makers have in Orwellian fashion tarred those resisting Islamic imperialism, with the brush of 'imperialism' themselves. And thus, instead of the vast Islamic Empire from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, correctly labelled as imperialist, those outposts that resist being forced into Islamic domination, such as the tiny Jewish State of Israel, have themselves been branded falsely and maliciously as 'imperialists' as well as 'fascists', 'colonialists', 'racists' etc and every other leftist catchword of abuse.
Ephraim Karsh challenges head on the notion that has been falsely sewn by left wing academicians and spin doctors that Islamic terror is "an understandable and unavoidable response to American arrogance and self-serving foreign policy."
He refutes the narrow minded and perverted left wing dogma that imperialism can only be a western phenomenon, and that Muslim extremists can only be victims of imperialism.
Karsh , an Israeli, comes from the nation that is today one of the primary victims of Islamic aggression, and of it's howling cheerleaders of the international left.

In fact, Karsh demonstrates that it is the Middle East where the institution of Empire not only originated (eg Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Iran and so on) but that imperialism in the middle east has actually outlived it's European counterpart.
Karsh illustrates how Islam is in inherently imperialist- "In the long history of Islamic empire, the wide gap between delusions of grandeur and centrifugal forces of localism would be bridged time and time gain by force of arms making violence a key element of political Islamic culture to date."

Karsh begins by tracing Mohammed's actions including his elimination of the Jewish presence in Medina and his violent conquest of the Jewish community of Khaibar and their subjection to dhimmi status, thus laying the ground for what would become the common arrangement of domination by Muslims of their non-Muslim neighbours.
The author explains the harsh rule and apartheid of dhimmitude- the indignities and servitude suffered by minorities such as Jews and Christians under this system.

In covering the history of Islamic imperialism from the time of Mohamed until today, Karsh covers the many atrocities visited upon non-Muslim minorities in the Islamic empires. These include the Madahbih al Sitting massacres of Christians in Damascus and Lebanon in 1860 of which the Maronites still speak bitterly of today, the brutal suppression of the Ottomans during the 19th century of their Greek subjects. and the horrific Armenian genocide of 1915-1916 by the Turks in which around 800 000 Armenians were slaughtered and and thousands of Armenian women and girls sold by the Turks into slavery.

The author traces the Arab-Jewish conflict over the Land of Israel to the perception by the Arab rulers that the Jewish National Movement commonly known as Zionism was a threat to the resurgent Arab imperial dream. As Karsh points out "Palestine" was not perceived as distinct and deserving of national self-determination but an integral part of the regional Arab order of which no element should be conceded at any cost."

The author reveals the truth that the conflict is in fact and always has been between Jewish national self-determination and Arab imperialism, "Palestine" being recognized by the local Arabs as Southern Syria in 1948.
The author go's on to trace the roles in Arab/Islamic imperialist ambition of it's historic kingpins such as the Nazi-inspired Hassan Banna Gamel Abdel Nasser, Yasser Arafat, the Ayatollah Kohmeini and the would be Hitler, Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
This book traces the truth of Islamic imperial aggression and the roots of today's conflict of Islam against Israel and the free world.

Merged review:

In a perverse inversion of truth, leftwing opinion-makers have in Orwellian fashion tarred those resisting Islamic imperialism, with the brush of 'imperialism' themselves. And thus, instead of the vast Islamic Empire from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, correctly labelled as imperialist, those outposts that resist being forced into Islamic domination, such as the tiny Jewish State of Israel, have themselves been branded falsely and maliciously as 'imperialists' as well as 'fascists', 'colonialists', 'racists' etc and every other leftist catchword of abuse.
Ephraim Karsh challenges head on the notion that has been falsely sewn by left wing academicians and spin doctors that Islamic terror is "an understandable and unavoidable response to American arrogance and self-serving foreign policy."
He refutes the narrow minded and perverted left wing dogma that imperialism can only be a western phenomenon, and that Muslim extremists can only be victims of imperialism.
Karsh , an Israeli, comes from the nation that is today one of the primary victims of Islamic aggression, and of it's howling cheerleaders of the international left.

In fact, Karsh demonstrates that it is the Middle East where the institution of Empire not only originated (eg Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Iran and so on) but that imperialism in the middle east has actually outlived it's European counterpart.
Karsh illustrates how Islam is in inherently imperialist- "In the long history of Islamic empire, the wide gap between delusions of grandeur and centrifugal forces of localism would be bridged time and time gain by force of arms making violence a key element of political Islamic culture to date."

Karsh begins by tracing Mohammed's actions including his elimination of the Jewish presence in Medina and his violent conquest of the Jewish community of Khaibar and their subjection to dhimmi status, thus laying the ground for what would become the common arrangement of domination by Muslims of their non-Muslim neighbours.
The author explains the harsh rule and apartheid of dhimmitude- the indignities and servitude suffered by minorities such as Jews and Christians under this system.

In covering the history of Islamic imperialism from the time of Mohamed until today, Karsh covers the many atrocities visited upon non-Muslim minorities in the Islamic empires. These include the Madahbih al Sitting massacres of Christians in Damascus and Lebanon in 1860 of which the Maronites still speak bitterly of today, the brutal suppression of the Ottomans during the 19th century of their Greek subjects. and the horrific Armenian genocide of 1915-1916 by the Turks in which around 800 000 Armenians were slaughtered and and thousands of Armenian women and girls sold by the Turks into slavery.

The author traces the Arab-Jewish conflict over the Land of Israel to the perception by the Arab rulers that the Jewish National Movement commonly known as Zionism was a threat to the resurgent Arab imperial dream. As Karsh points out "Palestine" was not perceived as distinct and deserving of national self-determination but an integral part of the regional Arab order of which no element should be conceded at any cost."

The author reveals the truth that the conflict is in fact and always has been between Jewish national self-determination and Arab imperialism, "Palestine" being recognized by the local Arabs as Southern Syria in 1948.
The author go's on to trace the roles in Arab/Islamic imperialist ambition of it's historic kingpins such as the Nazi-inspired Hassan Banna Gamel Abdel Nasser, Yasser Arafat, the Ayatollah Kohmeini and the would be Hitler, Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
This book traces the truth of Islamic imperial aggression and the roots of today's conflict of Islam against Israel and the free world.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 1 out of 5]

In The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, Khaled Abou El Fadl notes that two of the major things driving Islamic extremism are the use of torture and the constant stream of Islamophobic rubbish such as this book. Every time a book like this comes out, the extremists use it as evidence that "the West" is irreconcilably opposed to Islam.

To be clear, unlike either El Fadl or Karsh, I have no horse in this race. I was raised by an Episcopalian mother and Jewish father. My father's feelings about Zionism were ambivalent. I never knew any Muslims until recently. Although literally all the Muslims I have known have been peaceful and honest (generally more so than my other acquaintances actually), I have no desire to become a Muslim.

When I looked up Ephraim Karsh he seems to have good academic credentials, so I am at a loss to explain why he chose to start his book with a very misleading translation of a saying of the Prophet Muhammad. The only thing I can figure is that he is being selective with his facts; presenting them in such a way as to make his case.

Take for example the statement that there is no such concept as the separation of church and state in Islam. True and scary sounding, until you realize that the reason for this is that there is no analog for the concept of church in Islam. With no concept of church, how can you have a concept of separation of church? If you want to know about the history of secular ideas in Islam and how they apply in the present, read Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a by Abd Allah Ahmad Naim.

With so many good histories of the various Islamic empires and of the Prophet written both from an Islamic and non-Islamic view, I highly recommend you skip this trash and read something else.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

As time goes by and I learn and read more, I become more and more suspicious of books that have an incredibly long reach. When books are covering vast stretches of time and are global in their location, be very careful with what they are trying to say. I mean, it is good and we need books like that which give a bird's eye view of a topic, but it becomes much easier to bring in a bias when doing so.

Probably the best example of this would be Karen Armstrong. She is the master of writing historical narratives that cover thousands of years. While technically, her works would be considered history, the selective use of sources and the heavy slant she puts on them sends them (IMHO) more into the category of historical fiction.

This book does the same. Efraim Karsh covers the aggressive militarism of the Islamic world from the time of Muhammed right up to the present day. That's more than fourteen centuries of violence. In doing so, he also is attempting to demonstrate that all this violence was done in a Machiavellian pragmatic way where the leaders were just out for gold and glory. He is trying to say that they are no better, worse, or different than European colonialist powers.

In the facts he does present, Karsh does an excellent job. What is most interesting is the facts he leaves out. With the exception of his final conclusion he almost completely leaves out the religious motivation behind the aggression. There were two specific times he covers that I am most familiar with: the early years of Islam and the Armenian Genocide around the time of WWI. In both of these, it was glaringly obvious to me that his presentation of the facts was incomplete and incredibly slanted and his choice and use of sources questionable. I can only assume that those areas I am less familiar with were treated in a likewise manner.

I really do enjoy long history books like these. I just trust them less and less as time goes on. This book gets 3.5 stars from me, but I am rounding down because I would not recommend this book to anyone who is not already at least somewhat familiar with the topic.

[h · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are two types of thoughts about the role of Islam in the terror attacks that are perpetuated by people who claim to be Muslims.

First, there are the ones who readily try to explain the attacks as a reaction to white-imperialist actions committed by Christians for centuries. They claim that the Islamic civilization was a peaceful and enlightened society which was then repressed by Christian nations. Instead of invading, the Muslims were invaded. That explains the violent backlash the West receives by Islamic terrorists.

Secondly, there are those that say the West's foreign policies coupled with some extremist groups' "misinterpretation" of Islam has led to the terror attacks. The emphasis is heavily placed on how un-islamic those terror attacks are. No wonder that President Obama recently claimed that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

Not so fast, Efraim Karsh says. He says that viewing the terror attacks and hatred of the West in these two ways falsely try to explain the turmoil in the Islamic world as an offshoot of the global power struggle. He argues, however, that to understand this situation, we must analyze the dream that Islam proposed: an empire of the followers of Islam.

As compelling and true as his thesis is, he horrendously fails to develop his argument. He floods the readers with minuscule details that seem to be pointless. This topic itself is dry and full of details to begin with--the author tries not to make this read a little more easier and enjoyable for the readers. I could not, for the sake of me, remember the names of all the Caliphs and kings. At one point, they just became characters who were distinguished only by their names but not by their actions, similar to the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern characters in Hamlet.

Karsh fails to analyze the plethora of details he presents. It'd be nice to know, for example, how the incessant fighting between Muslims during the Abbasid dynasty relate to the author's original thesis. There were some analysis, but they failed to captivate my attention enough to convince me to keep reading.

I started the book with high hopes but this has been a waste of time. I think the author started to be more enjoyable and effective in the Epilogue but that was too late.

However, I now have more knowledge of the fighting between Muslims for the power to rule the empire. It was also enlightening to know that it only took Muslims about three decades before starting to fight among themselves--something that Muhammad forbade. Perhaps the part I most enjoyed was the analysis of Muhammad in terms of the thesis. He tried to bring the numerous tribes under a banner of Islam instead of being united by bloodlines. It was the same reasoning for the Umayyad and Abbassid dynasties. They cared little for religion, their main concerns were wealth and power. Islam was used simply as a tool to rule the people, as it still is being used. But that's not because the rulers are "misinterpreting" Islam, no. Islam was created for this purpose.

[Omar Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Efraim Karsh is unabashedly Islamophobic and a Right wing Zionist, so I was expecting a polemical book, but what I was not expecting was that it would also be a succinct and generally accurate summary of Islamic imperial history (Ummayads, Abbasids, Ottomans, Persian wannabes, modern Arab fantasists), though confined more or less to the core middle eastern region that is his area of academic interest.
India is a major (and unjustified) omission, since it is hard to argue that the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughal Empire were just sideshows, of limited consequence to world history. ..East Asia and West Africa are also completely missing but one could plausibly argue that the West African empires and small-timers like the Moros were never in the league of the big conquering empires of the core region and can be ignored in a small book like this one.
Anyway, well worth reading as a good summary of core-region Islamicate imperialist history.. even with his bias and all, the summary is not bad at all. And given current fashions, even the bias may have its uses.. to correct the opposite (conscious, but also unconscious) Western liberal biases that make many mainstream contemporary accounts a bit misleading. Then again, with Islamophobia becoming more mainstream, this "benefit" may soon be overtaken by circumstances.

[Erick · Rating 5 out of 5]

YOU NEED TO READ THIS BOOK!!! In order to understand Islamic terrorism, you NEED to know the history of Islam. Extremist thought wasn't just a random idea that popped into OBL's mind one morning; it's been a long time in the making. This book will take you on a tour of Islam that starts from Day 1 and explains how early conflicts with Jews and Christians spawned the opposed belief systems of Islam. You'll learn about Wahabism (spelled wrong. sorry!), Sunni beliefs, and Shiite beliefs. Is all this violence about a "clash of civilizations," or is it about theistic absolutism? You'll find out in this book! After reading this book, you'll be well-equipped to debate those who don't seem to understand why we need to confront Islam before we end up with another Ottoman Empire on our hands. Have you ever heard the propaganda that claims Christians started all the violence with Muslims by initiating the Crusades? IT'S A LIE. Constantinople (spelling?)was crushed by the Muslims as they attempted to expand the Ottoman Empire. The Pope ordered the Crusades to take back the City and to push the Muslims out of the Holy Land in modern-day Israel. But you'll learn all this after reading this book!

[Ogo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and important book that should be required reading in schools. Describing the atrocities committed by a historically rooted Islamic imperialism is not "Islamophobic". Describing Western imperialism or white supremacy does not mean you hate the West or hate white people. Islamic supremacy, colonialism and imperialism are real and have a long history not just affecting the West but Africa, the Middle-East, Central Asia, South Asia and SouthEast Asia as well. The largest geopolitical issues and cause of bloodshed in the modern day is Islamic imperialism. That is not to say all, or even most, Muslims are Islamic supremacists, however. This book explains it all and is very important in understanding the historical roots of Islamic imperialism.

[Raaha As'art]

Caveat lector! This author makes no bones about the fact that he is distinctly biased against the Islamic religion. I mean, I know all people are biased in one way or another with regards to various issues, but a pretence of objectvity would be pleasant, eh.

[Amin Hashemi · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book, provided only if one can turn a blind eye to its ideological overtones, manifested by the polemical nature of the book, which can be seen throughout the pages. Considering all the criticism it has received, it is only wise to take the views discussed in the book with a grain of salt.

[Terence · Rating 2 out of 5]

A better title for this book would be "The Islamic Face of Imperialism." At least the first half of the book, where Karsh looks at the expansion of Islam and Islamic states throughout the Middle East and North Africa up to 1918. (A major weakness of the book is the author's neglect of sub-Saharan Africa and points east of Iran.) For me, this part of the book is unproblematic. That religion has been used since recorded history began (and certainly before) to justify the means and ends of all sorts of polities and their ambitions should be obvious, and Karsh is good at showing how Mohammad and his successors from Abu Bakr down to the last Ottoman sultan were masters at it.

The second half of the book, however, reads like something else as Karsh abandons any references to Islam as a religion and focuses almost exclusively on the (secular) activities of the Moslem Brotherhood and the Palestinians. This part of the book wasn't bad. Though Karsh is an Israeli academic, I thought he was remarkably fair in his explanation of the situation in the Middle East. The problems I had with this section were (1) it did appear to be a change of focus from the first part of the book and (2), for all his objectivity, in his attempt to prove his argument that Islam is at the root of all the problems in the region, Karsh absurdly downplays or ignores any actors outside of Arabs and Moslems.

So it's another one of those guarded recommendations. I can't wholeheartedly praise the book but Karsh has some interesting things to say and presents them in a well written, thoughtful and reasonable style. For example, his analysis of the Palestinians' inability to respond effectively to Zionism was insightful. As well, his contention that Islamic political/social theory has not developed in the same way as the West's and that, as a result, neither side understands or can adequately respond to each other.

[Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book posits that pan-Arabism (and in effect pan-Islamism) is an euphemism for imperialist ambition. Karsh's starts with Muhammad and the beginning of Islam and ends in the 'present'. Internecine fighting occurred through the ages as individuals and groups hawked the idea of a universal Islamic empire for personal gain. In his conclusion, Karsh says "... Osama bin Laden and other Islamists' war is not against America per se, but is rather the most recent manifestiation of the millenarian jihad for a universal Islamic empire....

[Ciwan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very Good book, it really does help explain the rapid early rise of Islam, and what it was that made them early conquerors succeed with such speed. Hint, it was not because Islam was so lovely. :)

It then moves onto how that imperial / conquering mindset of the early Muslims morphed into the pan-Arabist movements of the 20th century that still plague the region to today.

I gave it three stars because I found that at certain places the data presented was weak, and extrapolations were used to make the point.

In any case, you should definitely read it.

[Craig Swartz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was very well written, albeit with a slight pro-Israeli tilt to it, nonetheless, it is well-researched with a brisk narrative. The reader gains an immediate and thorough knowledge in the history of Islam and what may portend for all of us with the rise of Islamism. Definitely worth the read for anyone anxious to get a handle on what is currently unfolding over there.

[Bennett Jarvis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decent read for someone well versed in Middle Eastern history. This book takes a different perspective on the Middle East than most academic works. It provides a critique on how scholars tend to talk about the Middle East and colonialism, centering Islamic civilization in its own imperial center and discussing the agency of Islamic empires and their successor states rather than their passivity before western imperialism.

That said, the author is of Israeli origin and this definitely shows in his writing. I would not recommend this book to someone who has little knowledge of the Middle East. While an interesting critique of academic discourses on Middle Eastern history, this book’s actual purpose is to claim that Islam and all Islamic empires and states have been driven by a unique imperial dream that subverts its own ability to maintain peace with the well-meaning West and Israelis. The author seems to overlook the global context within which events in the 20th century unfolded in the Middle East and, while his argument about imperial ambitions within Islamic culture are compelling, implies that such ambitions are not as central to Western culture.

In short, some of the information and arguments in this book are compelling and add another perspective. However, the agenda here is one that expels notions of western encroachment, elides hypocrisy and violence on the part of Israel, and attempts to paint Arabs as inherently violent and detrimental to a benevolent Western international order. Interesting read, but one that demands much caution.

[Don Incognito]

If you want to know either the history of Islam in general, and especially if you want to know about Islamic theology, Islamic Imperialism is not the book you want. It's what its title describes--a history of empires and imperialist ideologies under the banner of Islam--and discussion of theology other Islam-related subjects is incidental and given only to support the thesis. You largely can't learn from this book what Muslims believe.

That said, it fully explains how for Muslims (especially Arab Muslims), dreams of regional and even world domination are inseparably tied to Islamic beliefs. The key is that unlike Christianity, Islam makes no distinction between sacred and secular government, and so notwithstanding that there is currently no Islamic caliphate (it ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I), Muslims believe that Islam must politically govern the entire temporal world.

Although quite short (under 250 pages) and concise in style, this book is written in a very academic (if concise) style. It expects the reader to already know basic details of Islamic political history (such as the difference between a "caliph" and a "sultan"), and it occasionally uses obscure terms without bothering to explain them.

[Marvin]

Not giving to give a rating, because that would be unfair.
For me as a layman the book was very dense, certainly not the easiest introduction.
It also seems the author holds his own distinct opinions (for example the reasons behind the Ottomans Empires entrance to WWI). He acknowledges other view points briefly, albeit to shortly for someone like me to fully understand the debate and evaluate the different positions.
For people familiar with the history of the region this should certainly spell an interesting read and possibly challenge some opinions (if I ever become one of them, I'll probably come back). Novices, please consider other options.

[Alex McEwen · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the spirit of continuing not to write more than I must please enjoy an essay I wrote on this

Choose one of the societies examined in this week’s reading. Using at least two definitions of "empire" discussed in this week’s lecture, explain how that society either fits or challenges those definitions. (300 words)

Then, compare and contrast that society with a modern-day example of either an oppressor or oppressed state. How do the two societies relate or differ in terms of power, expansion, resistance, or governance? If they historically interacted, describe the nature of that interaction. (500 words)

1) The Umayyad Caliphate fits multiple definitions of empire. Doyle describes an empire as a centralized state that rules over diverse peoples through conquest and administrative control. By this standard, the Umayyads clearly qualify. They ruled a vast territory stretching from Spain to Central Asia, governed from their capital in Damascus, and established systems of taxation, law, and provincial administration to maintain control.

Kharsh defines empire as a state that holds ideological or cultural dominance, especially through the promotion of a unifying identity across ethnic and religious lines. The Umayyads used Islam as both a spiritual foundation and a political tool. While they tolerated Jews and Christians under dhimmi status, which made them second class citizens. Those who were forcibly converted to Islam we labeled as Mawali and were treated as Others, and werent allowed to hold full citizenship status. Kharsh even highlights that the militant version of Islam that the Umayyads promoted was in direct opposition to the rather egalitarian nature of Islam as Muhammed saw it. And so the Umayyads inevitably get overthrown by Mawali’s. He highlights that the Umayyads were the first pan-Arab state, they also promoted Arabic as the language of governance and built monuments like the Dome of the Rock to assert Islamic supremacy in contested spaces like Jerusalem.

That said, the Umayyads did not impose full religious uniformity. Their empire allowed for pluralism within limits and focused on loyalty and taxation rather than conversion. This suggests a flexible approach to governance typical of empires seeking longevity. But there were certainly limits. The Umayyads empire was an ethnostate. And Arabs held prominence over oppressed states. And non-Arab citizens were related to secondary statuses.

In light of these definitions, military conquest, centralized administration, and ideological unity, the Umayyads can rightly be understood as an empire. Their blend of religious authority, territorial ambition, and cultural integration places them firmly within the broader tradition of imperial rule in world history.

2) The Umayyads and the Byzantines were not only contemporaries but often rivals. Both claimed divine legitimacy, drew upon imperial models of governance, and sought to project ideological supremacy through architecture, language, and military strength. Yet they differed in structure, religious policy, and sources of cohesion.

The Byzantines, heirs to the Roman Empire, understood themselves as a Christian empire ordained by God. Their emperor, like the Umayyad caliph, served as both political and religious leader, acting as God's representative on earth. The state and the Orthodox Church were tightly entwined. Similarly, the Umayyads fused religious and political authority, though their legitimacy was more contested. Many early Muslims, especially Shiites, rejected the Umayyads as worldly rulers who betrayed the egalitarian spirit of Islam. The Byzantines, on the other hand, had centuries of dynastic precedent and more institutional continuity.

The two empires also approached religious minorities differently. While both practiced forms of tolerance, the rationale and practice varied. The Umayyads allowed Christians and Jews to live under dhimmi status, protecting their religious freedom in exchange for a tax. This system offered more stability than forced conversions, though it reinforced second-class status. The Byzantines often persecuted heretical Christians and non-Christians, especially during periods of internal instability or religious reform. The iconoclast controversy within the Byzantine Church, for instance, led to brutal crackdowns on dissent.

Economically and militarily, both empires were sophisticated. The Umayyads minted coins with Arabic inscriptions and Quranic verses, replacing earlier Byzantine and Sassanian models. This marked not just economic independence but cultural assertion. The Byzantines, for their part, maintained a gold currency and complex bureaucratic networks that sustained their imperial system even during territorial losses.

The interaction between these empires was often hostile. The Umayyads launched multiple campaigns into Byzantine territory, including the famous but unsuccessful siege of Constantinople. Still, war was not their only connection. The Umayyads inherited administrative systems from the Byzantines, especially in Syria and Egypt. Byzantine converts, scribes, and bureaucrats helped shape early Islamic governance. Likewise, cultural exchange persisted in art, architecture, and science, even amid religious rivalry.

In sum, the Umayyads and Byzantines were mirror images in some ways each a theocratic empire claiming universal truth, each using statecraft to support that claim. But they diverged in religious pluralism, internal legitimacy, and ideological unity. Their rivalry illustrates how empires often compete not just for land, but for moral and cosmic authority.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karsh asserts that the current conflicts that exist between and among middle eastern nations as well as the rest of the world are nothing new. Imperialism is ingrained into the region's culture, and Islam is a catalyst for middle eastern imperialsim. The writer, however is not out to condemn Islam or single it out unfailry. He does a very good job, however, of disproving the notion that Islamic nations and muslims are victims of western influence by pointing out the destructive internecine dynamics of Middle Eastern empires with Islam at their core.

[Michelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Islam is definitely a form of imperialism. It went from being denigrated by the west to celebrated-- yet both these takes are severely problematic (and mirror each other rather than rectify.) Today there is alot of apologia over Islamic imperialism with few even daring to call it that. The author provides some great insights though it is written in a narrative style and can be quite dull and hard to follow at times. At the same time, much is still missing.

[Cory Pedigo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is required reading for anyone looking to understand the geopolitics of the Islamic world from conception to recent history. Surprisingly unbiased and fact based which allows the reader to reach their own conclusions rather than over emphasize the author’s point of view. It should be eye opening for Muslims and critics of Islam alike!

[Ajay · Rating 2 out of 5]

An ambitious book in scope -- Efraim follows the history of Islam from the first Arab Caliphate to the Ottomans. He minimizes the influence of global powers (i.e. US, UK, France, USSR/Russia) in the region and places far greater emphasis on the imperial designs of local players. He attempts (and fails) to draw a convincing link between the imperialism of older empires like the Ottomans and the modern history of the Middle East. I only looked up the background of the author after reading the book, but it was glaringly obvious while reading that he had a strong bias against Islam and is misrepresenting history.

I'd say that this feels like two different books:
(1) a reasonably good history book that covers a wide scope of history and taught me a couple of things about the history of the Middle East (for Efraim spends far less time or completely ignores Islam's history in other regions like India, SE Asia, and Africa)
(2) a more contemporary few chapters that make unsupported assertions about the middle east at a speed that feels like a bad joke.

I'm sure there are other books that cover the history better (and with less bias) so would recommend skipping this one.

[Anthony · Rating 2 out of 5]

Applies a macro-analysis of the goals of Islamic Imperialism to individual Muslim leaders while not doing the same for Western empire/leaders (though admitting in the intro that this same analysis is obviously possible). Noting this possibility of analysis in the intro, then never again throughout the book left a gaping analytical hole that held East and Western empires (up through today) to different standards. As a result, it comes of as apologetic for Western Imperialism, despite the valuable history also noted within.

Also, the author confused American soldiers with US Marines when he states 18 Marines died at the battle of Mogadishu in the section on bin Laden in Somalia. As a former Marine, I took this personally (cue Michael Jordan meme). He also overused the words "millernarian" and "ostensibly". I stopped counting.

[James Minnigh · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author definitely has a bias in writing this book. That being said about the first half of the book which is about the rise of Islam is very well written. Not much bias that I can see shows in the beginning and is a good general knowledge of the rise of Islam and some of the early figures and Nations. The second half deals with the more recent goings on in the Middle East. As long as you take into account that this is being told from a Zionist point of view and take it as it is it’s good.

[Bob Lundquist · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of the subject.

[Cole Himali · Rating 3 out of 5]

SO GOODDDD. it was very dense though and felt a lot like a textbook. interesting thesis but I am not sure I completely agree with the argumentation

[Chris O'Meara · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book was very well written and fairly balanced. However, the second half is more of an Israeli spin/opinion on recent events in the Middle East.

[Muhammad Ammon · Rating 1 out of 5]

According to Efrahim, "Muhammad spent his entire life fighting enemies and people who are opposed to the establishment of Islam in the Arabian peninsula". Really ?

The most important criticisms of this claim is that Karsh failed to acknowledge the fact that the first thirteen years of Islam which known as the Meccan period there were no fighting permitted for Muhammad against his persecutors or oppressors. Politically, Muhammad and his companions did not have a political entity and military status core to oppose the oppression.


The first Islamic and political state was created by Muhammad after approximately fourteen years of oppressions, slavery, attempted murders and expulsion. Hence, Islam was not spread by a sward as Karsh alluded rather it was propagated by missionary preaching.

As me being a Muslim I know that prophet Muhammad was the most peaceful and trustworthy human being in this life. He lived a very simple and humble life to the extent that he had limited means of livings. Umar ibn Al Khattab (the second caliph after Abu Bakr) states that: I visited Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he was lying on a mat. I sat down and he drew up his lower garment over him and he had nothing (else) over him, and that the mat had left its marks on his sides. I looked with my eyes in the storeroom of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I found only a handful of barley equal to one sa' and an equal quantity of the leaves of Mimosa Flava placed in the nook of the cell, and a semi-tanned leather bag hanging (in one side), and I was moved to tears (on seeing this extremely austere living of the Holy Prophet), and he said: Ibn Khattab, what wakes you weep? I said: Apostle of Allah, why should I not shed tears? This mat has left its marks on your sides and I do not see in your storeroom (except these few things) that I have seen; Caesar and Chosroes are leading their lives in plenty whereas you are Allah's Messenger. His chosen one, and that is your store! He said: Ibn Khattab, aren't you satisfied that for us (there should be the prosperity) of the Hereafter, and for them (there should be the prosperity of) this world? I said: Yes.

In short, Muhammad did not have the basic means of feeding himself then from where did he manage to spent his entire life fighting enemies ?
Islam is not a religion of blood, fighting and destruction. Rather it is a religion of peace, compassion, prosperity and manners.

Finally, I do not believe that Efraim's work was objective, factual and historical proven.

[Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

What forces -- and which major players -- shaped the current Middle East (and its problems)? This volume is a welcome challenge to the typically anti-Israel, anti-West "conventional wisdom" about Middle Eastern history and politics --whether concerning the Crusades, or the events of the past century. Karsh actually believes Middle Eastern powers THEMSELVES have played a major role in shaping their fortunes, not simply been the victims of European (and, more recently, American) actions.

What's particularly intriguing is the author's demonstration of long-standing (*millennia*-long!) indigenous imperial traditions, longer and sometimes stronger than those of relatively recent (and now largely defunct!) Western imperialism. These trends pre-date & include early Islamic expansion (7th century) and the actions of major Middle Eastern players at the time of the Crusades (e.g., Saladin, whose actions are much more based on gaining power for HIMSELF than to oppose 'Western/Christian intrusions').

More important for current events, Karsh uncovers these trends in the shaping of the MODERN Middle East, both in the gradual collapse the Ottoman Empire (the 'sick man' major European powers actually did more to preserve than to destroy), and the key role played by native leaders (the Hashemites, Nasser, et.al.) seeking to realize their OWN imperial dreams. (Karsh's earlier *Empires of the Sand* on the 'long 19th century' [1789-1923:] covers the earlier half of this in more detail.) And, of course, this perspective sheds a very different light on the Israel-Palestine question.

For this last reason, if no other, those who tend to blame Israel & the West for all Middle Eastern problems, owe it to themselvs to read Karsh's works, if only for the sake of balance. This ought to be easier given Karsh's tone --moderate, not strident or contentious, nor simply looking to assign blame.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considering the vast scope of the topic - the approximately 13 or 14 centuries that Islam has been in existence as a geopolitical force, in addition to a religion, the volume covers the salient points of the historical journey through time in a concise and attention-grabbing manner. It is a very readable although densely written volume.

The thesis the author makes is that succeeding Islamic empires were much the same as prior and subsequent empires - with the same dreams of expansionism, aggrandizement, enrichment through plunder, etc - despite the "overlay" of the religious rhetoric about only undertaking jihad in order to bring about the "Kingdom of Allah" and so forth. Thus, the aim of the Islamic caliphate, and later, sultanate, is brought in line with all the other empires in world history, the difference being the other empires usually did not have a "convincing" religion or book such as the Quran to "justify" the extension of empire. The in-fighting among leaders who competed to lead the caliphate began shortly after the death of Muhammad - leading to never-ending plots, and murders, as well as actual battles among factions. The maneuvering continues to this day, with the "religiously-justified" Islamists trying to seize the cloak of past "glory" in their bid to establish a new caliphate in the Mid East, as opposed to the existing nation state system that was implanted or rather defined on paper in the region following WWI.

As the author states at the very end of the volume, the hope is the Muslim world in the Mid East will accept "the reality of state nationalism, forswear... the imperialist dreams, and make Islam a ....private faith rather than a tool of political ambition..." since the past 1,300 years or so has only brought grief to the area from the "would-be Saladins."

[Charles Hermelink · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amir Taheri of Asharq Alawsat (a leading Arabic International Daily, in their English edition) characterized the general field of this kind of scholarly work as being of two major sides, apologies defending Islam as the religion of peace, and that of the Islamophobes. What drew me to this book was that Taheri said Efraim Karsh's work here DOESN'T fall into either of those camps, despite the fact that other commentators continue to perceive the world as such and try to relegate Karsh and Islamic Imperialism to one or the other.

Rather, Karsh's thesis is that there's another paradigm for understanding Islam: Imperialism. With careful research (I particularly appreciate the footnotes on his sources) and lucid thought, Karsh details through history the Imperialist aspirations of Islam. Since Islam is a fusing of both religion and politics, his paradigm matches Islamic history - past and present - far better than attempts to divert and diminish his work as either Islamophobic or apologetic.

Be forewarned, though, the conclusions reached in Islamic Imperialism: A History will still be eye opening, empowering of a new set of glasses through which to interpret Islamic expansion - peaceful or violent, religious or political, and perhaps even chilling.