5 comments about A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan.

1. There isn't much of substance that I can add to the many excellent reviews already posted here. But perhaps I can provide some comments in minimalist fashion that can get this important book into the hands of "a wider audience." I think there is much we 21st century Americans can learn from William Jennings Bryan. I will divide my comments into two sections: the first dealing with the literary value of the book and the second noting things we can learn from Bryan's life.
   
   The Book -
   1. The organization and pacing is excellent. Nine of the twelve chapters are divided into discreet time periods that correspond to the various political episodes of his life, which was largely defined by his participation in the political life of America. The other three chapters - his early years, his career on the Chautauqua public speaking circuit, and the response of his political admirers - work very well, never losing the focus of the book, politics and evangelical Christianity.
   
   2. This is a good read. The level of diction and writing style is just right for a popular audience. Best of all, Kazin does not "get in the way" of his subject, Bryan. Some academics seem to want to display ALL their knowledge, whether it fits into the narrative or not (are you listening, Joseph Ellis?), but Kazin resists the temptation. I am quite certain that Kazin knows a lot more about Bryan and his times, but, thank God, he is keeping it to himself. I read a lot of history and biography and this effort would have to be in my top 10% in terms of its literary value.
   
   William Jennings Bryan -
   1. He is a very important figure for the history of the Democratic Party, but I am not sure why, even after reading this biography. Certainly, he was an important figure in the Democratic Party during an era when they transformed themselves from the conservative laissez-faire era of Grover Cleveland into the liberal activist times of FDR. If you can overlook his racism and support of prohibition (more on that below), almost all of his positions would be cheered by 21st century liberals. Was Bryan responsible for helping the party make this remarkable transition, or was he simply in the "right place at the right time", fortuitously carried along by other leaders or social forces beyond his control? In either case, he is far more important in the making of modern America than historians have heretofore recognized.
   
   2. He is important for evangelicals who want to be engaged in politics(Self-disclosure: I am an evangelical who is vitally interested in American politics). I think he lived an exemplary life, one that other evangelicals could emulate, but what does that look like for me? It seems to me that 19th century evangelicals generally favored an activist government, working for reforms like abolition, temperance, education, care of the mentally ill, etc, yet that seemed to die after Bryan left the scene. The social gospel seemed to suck them into a new paradigm of seeking "salvation" only in this world and ignoring the next. They turned formerly evangelical denominations - Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran, etc. into sects that seemed to downplay Christ's gospel for the social gospel. Personally, I am disappointed in their religious direction, yet I am also disappointed in the path taken by those who stayed "true" to evangelical principals. They largely abandoned politics until the abortion controversy of the 1970s and since then, have all too often been used by economic conservatives for purely electoral purposes. I think there is a "third way", in which one defends the gospel in spiritual matters, yet also sets an independent course in political matters, all the while using scriptures as the guide to best "love your neighbor."
   
   3. He is important for today's Democrats. He was obviously deeply committed to many issues that 21st century Dems feel are important, yet he came at these concerns from a Christians perspective. Can Dems allow this type of person to have an important place at their "table"? I'm not talking about phony rhetoric. That will not work because it will be obvious that it is not sincere. I am talking about being serious about making people of faith feel welcome in the Democrat Party. For example, could a Pro-Life Democrat ever be allowed by party bosses to run for President? Not in the past, but perhaps in the future. Secularists and secularism has controlled the party for many, many years. I feel it hurts the party very much in "fly-over" land.
   
   4. A word about his racism and silence about the KKK. Indefensible in our day, but in his? Wilson was certainly racist, and did much to deepen Jim Crow. Why is he given a pass? (For that matter, why is Sen. Robert Byrd of West Va., former KKK organizer, given a pass on his embarrassing past?)Most people were very racist in Bryan's times, including most of the Democratic Party. So why is he singled out for censure? I think a lot has to do with his evangelical identity, and his role in the Scopes trial. Some secularists loathe evangelicals and, I think, have trouble thinking in a balanced way about someone like Bryan. Take a look at the ridiculous review of this book by Publishers Weekly on this site. How does someone read this book and produce that review?



2. If you want to know more about William Jennings Bryan, this is the book for you.
   
   Very well done!



3. Why read a book about a politician who lost the US presidential election three times in a row, and was a white racist to boot?
   
   More than just retelling an American history story, Kazin's masterpiece of US political history does an excellent job of bringing back to life a political scene that has long since passed and mostly forgotten. I burned through this book in one sitting.
   There has not been a WJB biography of this magnitude for quite some time.
   
   Kazin himself in the introduction admits mixed feelings about his protagonist, and there are certainly warts to Bryan's character seen through our 21st century lens. He does an excellent job pointing these issues out, despite the title of the book that makes Bryan sound like a saint. He wasn't - he profited impressively from his public speaking, and like many of his party, was a racist.
   
   What makes Bryan's life worth studying is one sees the start of the 20th century Democratic party in terms of their economic issues. Additionally, one also sees echoes of Bryan's religious bent to politics in modern politics today (think: what recent presidents have invoked the name of God repeatedly, and managed to win overwhelming majorities in rural areas? hmm). No wonder many politicians like him, at least pieces of him...



4. William Jennings Bryan is somewhat of an enigmatic figure in American history. Many of his contempories saw him as a dangerous radical while today he is often seen as a fundamentalist reactionary. How in the world can one man be thought of in such vastly differing ways? In this book Michael Kazin has attempted to answer this question and at the same time he has gone a long way toward clearing the reputation of this great man.
   
   To be sure, Bryan had his flaws and Kazin does not try to gloss over them at all. As a product of his time Bryan was not a friend of African-Americans but how many politicians of his time were? Bryan was also had a terrible problem ever admitting that he was wrong as did his fellow progressive Woodrow Wilson and both men ran into trouble because of it. Still though, when one looks at his entire career Bryan looms as a very large presence in the history of the reform movements of early twentieth century America.
   
   Of course the biggest thing that Bryan is remembered and reviled for is the famous Monkey Trail in Dayton Tennessee. It is all too easy to look at this episode and see a reactionary rather than a progressive thinker but even on the issue of Darwinism this book shows that in some ways Bryan was very much ahead of his time. Bryan critics often fail to mention that many of the early proponents of Darwinism used Darwin's theory to justify eugenics, which is the idea of taking the weakest people out of society so that only the strongest genes will be passed on. Bryan foresaw the serious implications of this idea and it was one of the key reasons that he fought Darwinism so fervently. It was almost as if Bryan could already see Hitler and Stalin with their death camps and this aspect of Bryan's stance on this issue should never be forgotten.
   
   Mr. Kazin has with this book given us the most balanced biography of William Jennings Bryan that I have ever come across. His close association with race bating bigots like Ben Tillman and Tom Watson is not the least bit whitewashed but then again neither are his accomplishments. This book shows us the Bryan who had his warts but who also fought long and bitter fights to gain equal rights for women, to see that free enterprise run amuck would not trample the rights of the average wage earner, and who is as responsible as anybody for the adoption current Federal Reserve System. People all over America owe Bryan a debt of gratitude every time they get their Social Security check and every time that they go to the bank feeling secure because their money is insured. Yes, this author points out Bryan's flaws but he also takes pains to remind the reader of all the positive good that Bryan did and he does so in a very pleasing way. There is not in fact a single boring page in this book. The author's arguments are clear and well defended, his writing style and research are superb and most importantly he has taken up this project with an open mind and because of this he has turned out what I consider the authoritative biography of William Jennings Bryan.



5. I think this book is a must read for everyone. The author goes over the top to try and make this vile; hateful man a hero. I think people should read this book because it could effectively be a mirror to those who think no one else can see their true identities. Bryan's time was many years ago in America but the mere fact that people of today still try and sugar coat who and what he was; speaks volumes of today's America.
   
   I think this book is an accidental education. Only a moron could buy into the author's attempt to make this man a hero...a "Godly" one at that.

No comments about Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

5 comments about Playing for Keeps: Michael Jordan and the World He Made.

1. This book not only offers the most incisive portrait of Jordan, the Bulls championship years, and the NBA of that era, but is also wonderful Halberstam, who tells the story with an epic sweep. Simply a beautiful work from cover to cover.



2. Nike turned Michael Jordan into a dream. Nike funneled in 1984 all of Nike's advertising resources in one player instead of in several teams. Nike made Michal Jordan a cultural icon and featured him as a star amidst other entertainment stars. And in the beginning Jordan didn't even like Nike sneakers. He preferred Adidas. Ultimately Nike paid Jordan in roughly 1 million dollars a year for five years. In 1984 no one realized that Nike was getting one of the great bargains of the time. Nike was a shoe company in great trouble. Michael Jordan saved Nike by his appeal to the youth. In the mean time basketball benefited from satellite reception that was just opening the world of cable television. Satellite reception facilitated cheap broadcasting. Bill Rasmussen obtained channel space on a communications satellite. His ESPN opened new broadcasting opportunities for basketball. In Playing for Keeps David Halberstam tells the tale of Michael Jordan in the broader cultural context. In this book Halberstam displays his usual journalistic skills. But somehow I missed the emotional involvement of his other books. The Summer of 49 and The Breaks of the Game learned me more about the relevance of sports.
   
   Luuk Oost



3. As someone very familiar with Michael Jordan's career I was startled by all the new bits of information crammed in this book. Its clear Halbertstam did his homework. He employed an exhaustive interview process that yields so many new anecdotes and perspectives of Michael Jordans career. I particulary enjoyed all the stories of Jordan showing flashes of greatness early on while being recruited by North Carolina. The book makes it clear that even at those early stages while no one could predict what was to come, those around Michael had never seen anything like him.
   
   Halbertstam also reveals the background story for many of those surrounding Jordan during his run with the Bulls. Namely Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Jerry Krause, Jerry Reinsdorf, and others. He delves into their lives, paints a picture of their character, and allows you to understand what motivated all these contrasting personalities along the way.
   
   It must be noted that the writing of David Halbertstam is just incredible. If you're a fan of Michael Jordan or just basketball this book is a must read. The subject could not be approached by a more accomplished author.



4. 
   I'm not a big Halberstam fan, and this book didn't change that opinion.
   
   The subtitular "world that he [Jordan] made" is never really explored in any depth, and this is a surface-skimming bio of Jordan with the addition of some mini-bios on major figures in his life (David Falk, Dean Smith, Phil Jackson, etc.).
   
   The research is limited and insight is scant as Halberstam leans heavily on material already published, pulling entire sections of the book (e.g., his thumbnail bio of Jackson) from the subject's own earlier book. He returns to quote the same two or three sports writers time and again (Sam Smith - Chicago Trib and Jordan biographer - OK, but Bob Ryan - Boston Globe - a dozen quotes???).
   
   "Playing for Keeps" is a fast-reading Jordan sketch, a 400 page magazine article, during which Halberstam defers to Jordan too frequently: no real examination of the gambling, glossed over recount of James Jordan's murder, no meaningful exploration of Jordan the global commercial icon.
   
   For my taste, this book is another disppointment from Halberstam.



5. Halberstam does it again. With a keen eye and a knack for pulling the reader in, David Halberstam is one of our great modern writers. Just when you thought you knew Jordan, "Playing for Keeps" shades new light (not all of it flattering) on our greatest modern basketball player.
   
   Well worth it.

5 comments about Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time (Eminent Lives).

1. It would be too much to expect that the founder of any of the world's major religions could be understood from one book, even at the introductory level (not counting sacred scripture, direct exposure to which may be essential). Consider Christianity, consider Buddhism. In the U.S., especialy after 9/11, it may be especially difficult to understand the life of Muhammad. Even before 9/11, even from the early times of Islam, Christian sources were critical of Islam and Muhammad. It is difficult to get a balanced read from any single source: if such a source exists, how to know which it is?
   
   I had read the Qu'ran years ago but recently have read criticisms of Muhammad from conservative Christians. I had been impressed from my own reading of the Qu'ran and by my Muslim friends so was more than skeptical of the criticisms I read of both Islam and Muhammad. Not expecting to get to an answer easily but not wanting to spend too much time to get some perspective, I opted for this portrait which, by intent, set out to present Muhammad in a "balanced way". I had not read Karen Armstrong before. I knew she did not have a scholarly background in Islam ( excepting self-made), but that she seemed respected in the area of comparative religions, although not without critics. So I chose this book expecting it to have introductory value and to offset or put into perspective some criticisms of Muhammad I had heard from conservative Christians.
   
   This is an exceptionally well-written book and it does not seem to dodge some of those aspects of Muhammad's life that others were critical of. It does, as Armstrong intended, appear to attest well to his contributions. I expect it will serve me well as I learn more about Muhammad and the formative history of Islam, which I mean to do.
   
   Armstrong does bring alive the conditions under which Muhammad responded to challenges and made key decisions. The success of early Islam was far from a "done deal". On the other hand, it by no means seems that Islam was nearing any final form when Muhammad died [of course, think how far from any final form that was of Christianity or Buddhism when Jesus and the Buddha died].
   
   Any impressions of Muhammad I have at this point are tentative but having read this book I feel better equipped to consider the impact of Muhammad on how women were treated in Islam, of the expectations on Muslims to care for one another, of how Muslims should treat others (Armstrong emphasizes the pluralism of early Islam), of how the fight for survival was mingled in to the efforts to reveal the sacred. Armstrong presents a complex and dynamic Muhammad, who changed and developed, leading his people while at the same time experience the revelations of the Qu'ran]. There is a lot to take in here and, for me, re-reading the Qu'ran seems on inevitable step.
   
   It does seem most remarkable, as Armstrong makes quite clear, that Muhammad so strongly discouraged that he himself be regarded as divine. Armstrong writes, echoing Abu Bakr, who was close to Muhammad about a warning from Muhammad: "He was a mere mortal, no different from anybody else." Armstrong quotes Abu Bakr: "O people, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. If anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." [ Ibn Ishaaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, 1012 in Guillaume, Life of Muhammad]. How different Christianity would have been with such an understanding: the nearest Christian teaching have been as that of Arius and rejected by 4th century Christian orthodoxy.
   
   There is plenty of information about historical events, revelations from the Qu'ran as they occurred, historical context that helped give me at the least a side of the picture of Muhammad's life. Is Armstrong's depiction too sympathetic? I can't decide yet. It will undoubtedly take time. There seems to be a struggle to control how we view Muhammad and early Islam: it would be surprising if I were otherwise but makes it difficult to expose biases and factor them out to the extent they can be.
   
   As for the current situation, I plan to read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) soon. I recently read Alaa Al Aswany's Chicago: A Novel, an outstanding novel about Egyptian Muslims adjusting to life in the post 9/11 U.S. It provided me at least some sense of how Muhammad and Islam guide the day to day life of U.S. Muslims, fictional characters but perhaps seeming all too real.



2. Karen Armstrong, noted religious historian, writes here her second biography of the prophet Muhammad, this time with the explicit intention of combating the rampant Islamophobia of the West.
   
   I knew almost nothing of the prophet before reading this book, and so Armstrong's is a welcome (if not scintillating - she can be a bit dry) introduction. I appreciated the historical and cultural context she placed him in, the stories from his life, and her non-condescension towards the spiritual. That said, her bias seems clear by the end: This is a favorable portrayal. Muhammad eschews luxury ("not simply a waste of money, but ingratitude, a thankless squandering of Allah's precious bounty"), he champions religious tolerance, non-violence, and women's rights (the veil was only for his wives, to protect them from his enemies). Armstrong seeks to put his repeated marrying and his sometimes brutal actions (beheading several hundred Jews, for example) into an - again, sympathetic - cultural context. Of course, with books like The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion on the market, a sympathetic portrayal from a learned outsider is perhaps welcome. Yet I would have appreciated a more balanced-feeling book. And Armstrong gives no clues to the gap between the Muhammad she portrays and the perceptions of Islam by the West today (oppression of women, religious intolerance and violence among certain subpopulations). That said, as Laurie Goodstein writes, this may be a good way "to glimpse how the vast majority of the world's Muslims understand their prophet and their faith" [1].
   
   With those caveats: I would recommend this to a novice desiring to learn of the prophet; but of course, since I haven't read any others, perhaps I'm not the one to ask. (Once I tried Introducing Muhammad but drifted on to other books.)
   
   I located three professional reviews easily available on-line. One is positive: "Ms. Armstrong argues that he [Muhammad] prevailed by compassion, wisdom and steadfast submission to God. This is the power of his story and the reason that more parents around the world name their children Muhammad than any other name" [1]. The other two are negative, one on content (the book "is a thinly veiled hagiography" [2]) and the other on style ("Readers will find her style stilted" [3]).
   
   [1] Laurie Goodstein, "Seeing Muhammad as Both a Prophet and a Politician," New York Times, 20 Dec 2006. [Also published in the International Herald Tribune.]
   [2] Efraim Karsh, "The Perfect Surrender," The New York Sun, 25 Sep 2006.
   [3] Ilan Stavans, "The path of the prophet," Boston Globe, 29 Oct 2006.
   
   * I listened to the unabridged audiobook, narrated by the author. It was only six discs but took me a while, as this isn't exactly a page-turner (or track-turner, if you will).
   
   ** One aspect I found particularly interesting was that some stories paralleled stories from my own faith tradition, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example, when one antagonist went to attach Muhammad and was instead converted, followed by another; this is evocative of a story about early Mormon apostle Wilford Woodruff. And when an army of Muslims is slaughtered but their bravery leads to the conversion of many of the attackers, the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in the Book of Mormon comes to mind.



3. Karen Armstrong's Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time directly addresses the central conflict of our times, "Some Muslim thinkers regard the jihad against Mecca as the climax of Muhammad's career and fail to note that he eventually abjured warfare and adopted a nonviolent policy. Western critics also persist in seeing the Prophet of Islam as a man of war, and fail to see that from the very first he was opposed to the jahili arrogance and egotism that not only fueled the aggression of his time but is much in evidence in some leaders, Western and Muslim alike, today."
   
   Karen goes out of her way to present a balanced and fair perspective on the life of Muhammad. She does this by basing her biography on the Prophet's response to al-Jahiliyah: commonly translated as "an Islamic concept of 'ignorance of divine guidance.'" Karen examinees more than Jahiliyah's theological significance, going into its practical impact on the culture of the Arabian peninsula. The dominant jahili spirit of the time was arrogant, quick to take a offense, warlike and vengeful. Islam, as practiced and taught by the Prophet, Karen makes clear, was a rejection of all of these traits - usually to the great consternation of his followers:
   
   "And the servants of Allah, Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant (jahilun) address them, they say, `Peace!' " (Sura The Criterion 25:63 - translation from The Qur'an: Text, Translation & Commentary.)
   
   The revelations that form the Qur'an came to Muhammad not always in dreams or trances, but were sometimes aggressive even terrifying experiences. Muhammad describes the nature of revelation as gently falling like rain" and, at other times, traumatically, where he feels his "soul ripped away."
   
   After revelation, even the Prophet needed to take time to understand what had been revealed. Karen writes, "[Allah] instructed Muhammad to listen to intently to each revelation as it emerged; he must be careful not to impose a meaning on a verse prematurely, before it's full significance had become entirely clear."
   
   "High above all is Allah, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Qur'an before its revelation to thee is completed, but say, "O my Lord! advance me in knowledge." (Sura Ta-ha, 20:114)
   
   Karen, like others, notes that the Qur'an itself has been structured as high-level Arabic poetry, a concept central to the impact of the Qur'an on its Arabic audiences. This is a point entirely missed by Western audiences. You can get some sense of it by listening to a good chanter reciting the verses, but it's a shallow appreciation at best. Karen describes how listening to "the rich, allusive language and rhythms of the Qur'an helped [the Muslims] to slow down their mental processes and enter a different mode of consciousness."
   
   Karen portrays, through the biography, the Qur'an's shared vision of the "people of the book" - the Islamic concept of a shared heritage of monotheism between Muslim, Christian and Jew:
   
   "Say: `We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will [lahu muslimun].' " (Sura The Family Of 'Imran 3:84)
   
   In addition to the creed that there's "no God but God" these three great religions believe in a similar destiny and consequently all deserve both tolerance and freedom to practice their faith:
   
   "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Sura The Table 5:69)
   
   "To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. It is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute[.]" (Sura The Table, 5:48)
   
   I have a couple of minor complaints. I wish that Karen had used the Qur'anic names for the characters that both the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an have in common. For example, Jibrl for Gabriel; Ibrahim for Abraham; Isa for Jesus; Musa for Moses, and so on. After all, Karen is telling the story of Muhammad and quotes extensively from the Qur'an. It just would have seemed more natural and less distracting to me.
   
   Another problem is that the book is edited sloppily in a couple of places: for example on page 43 (of my paper bound edition) a footnote starts out explaining that "Arabs customarily take an honorary title known as the kunya [...] Muhammad was known as"
   
   And the footnote ends right there. Whatever Muhammad was known as, was lost somewhere between Karen's word-processor and the printing press.
   
   Karen's biography of Muhammad reveals a very human prophet; a man who struggled with his faith, culture, peers and enemies. She strikes a balance between the "easy" teachings of Islam (tolerance, generosity, etc.) and the "hard" teachings, contrasting "jihad" to Augustine's "just war" is a comparison most Christian minds would prefer to avoid.
   
   Karen ends the book with some good advice, "If we are to avoid catastrophe, the Muslim and Western worlds must learn not merely to tolerate but to appreciate one another. A good place to start is with the figure of Muhammad [...]"
   
   All in all, this was an interesting read, only occasionally "preachy" and a good introduction for those who may want to pursue deeper studies in Islam or the Islamic culture that has so dramatically shaped the Middle East. I wish I'd read it before tackling In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad. It would have made that book a lot clearer.



4. "Islamic Sex Laws Are Easy to Break, Impossible to Enforce"
   Los Angeles Daily Journal
   
   August 5, 1999
   
   By Khaled Abou El Fadl
   
   Laws endeavor to resolve conflicts and regulate human behavior. However, often the real force of law is in making moral points, educating and indoctrinating. Some legal systems moralize explicitly, while other legal systems indulge in the fiction of moral neutrality. But all legal systems say something about the morality of right and wrong.
   
   For example, in Islamic law, one of the world's oldest and perhaps most significant legal systems, sometimes morality is the only point - which is hardly surprising considering that Islamic law is also a religious system. But what is fascinating about Islamic law is the way it balances competing moralities at the expense of the possibility of enforcement.
   
   For instance, Islamic law is reputed to be a rather strict, puritan legal system. This is both true and false. Consider the way Islamic law punishes illicit sexual relations. The punishment for fornication or adultery in Islam is rather harsh. A fornicator is flogged 100 lashes, and an adulterer is stoned to death. However, adultery or fornication can only be proven in two ways.
   
   First, it can be proven by a free, uncoerced confession that is repeated three times on three separate occasions. If the alleged perpetrator confesses twice but recants on the third time, he or she cannot be punished.
   
   The second way fornication or adultery can be proven is by the testimony of four adult males who witness the actual act of penetration. It is not sufficient for the witnesses to catch the couple naked in bed. Likewise, if the witnesses see an act of oral copulation, that is not sufficient. A videotape or pregnancy is also inadequate to prove fornication or adultery. Furthermore, the evidence is excluded if the witnesses violate the defendant's privacy. In other words, spying will not do.
   
   A false accusation of adultery or fornication will result in punishment for sexual slander, which is 60 hard lashes. For example, if three witnesses say they saw the act of penetration while the fourth witness changes his mind at the last minute saying, "I am not sure I saw the penetration," then the first three witnesses are punished for slander.
   
   Obviously, in Islamic law the crime of fornication or adultery is hard, if not impossible, to prove. So why have the punishment at all? There are two competing values here.
   
   Illicit sexual relations must be condemned. At the same time, people should mind their own business, and spying or slandering cannot be tolerated. The solution was to make the moral point that fornication and adultery are terrible crimes, and only if they could be proven would they be punished severely. Nevertheless, the issue is generally between a person and God. Societal interests are implicated when these crimes are committed openly and publicly.
   
   At the same time, an accusatory culture in which people spy and slander is reprehensible, and that will be punished as well. Unlike our legal system, making the moral point is a sufficient justification for the law, even with practically no chance of enforcement.



5. Read the Koran. It is a short book. There is no need to rely on Karen Armstrong to tell you what it says. Her omission of the parts of the Koran which call for violence and intolerance makes her book a truly one-sided affair. To her credit, she warns you of her agenda right up front. She wants to convince you that a particular point of view is correct. What she does not say is that she omits passages from the Koran, Muhammad's utterances, and other facts inconsistent with that point of view.
   
   She says nothing of the passages in the Koran which tell Muslims not to help unbelievers and not to be their friends. She ignores the parts of the Koran which mandate violence against unbelievers (Suras 8 and 9, for example). She does not mention the Hadith relating Muhammad's statement that, before the Final Day, the Muslims will kill the Jews (If you think such things have no relevance to Muslim's today, you will find reference to this Hadith in Article 7 of the Charter of Hamas, the present ruling party in Palestine). To read Armstrong's book, you would not guess that most Muslim scholars teach - based on Muhammad's statements - that unbelievers should not be allowed to set foot on the Arabian peninsula.
   
   Armstrong also fails to take into account the principle of Koranic interpretation which requires that later suras be given more weight than earlier ones. Muhammad's earlier suras tend to sound more tolerant and peaceful - he was part of a small minority in Mecca when he uttered them. The later suras are more intolerant and violent because they are from the time when Muhammad was in power in Medina, raiding Meccan caravans for a living. "Raiding" means killing people (Armstrong says killing people was not really the point), taking their property, and enslaving survivors. Armstrong says Muhammad did these things to get the Meccans' "attention." No doubt. These later suras are given more weight by Muslim scholars.
   
   Armstrong does relate some facts which reflect badly on Muhammad. That is unavoidable in even the most pro-Muhammad account. When she does so, however, she consistently makes excuses or tries to explain them away. She does a truly remarkable job of telling the story of the Muslims' execution (by beheading) of 700 male captives in one day, the selling into slavery of their families, and Muhammad's approval in advance of these actions. It is clear these executions could not have happened if he had opposed them. Muhammad is a "prophet for our time" anyway.
   
   Armstrong also blurs the distinctions between Islam and other religions. For example, she says that Muslims believe in Jesus, but does not point out that the Koran clearly denies the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God and also denies he was crucified. While it may be fair to point out that Muhammad believed in Jesus, it seems misleading not to add this information.
   
   Because you must read several other books - including at least the Koran - to disabuse yourself of the silly notions Armstrong states as fact, her book seems a waste of time.

5 comments about Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

1. Written by the dying hand of one of the chosen men of his time. For any scholar of Grant, Civil War or Military History, these readings are a must. Grant's military genius was without equal. Had his superiors, early on, had his keen foresight, the Civil War could have ended a year or two earlier. Another great read is "Grant" by Jean Smith.



2. Grant finished this lengthy memoir on the eve of his death from throat cancer. Impoverished at the time, the ex-President made his wife rich from the proceeds. Simple, straightforward, earnest narrative, sometimes ironic, sometimes colorful, always unpretentious. Inevitably self-justifying, but candid nonetheless.
   
   The most memorable anecdote describes his first action in the 1861-65 war. Although he was a combat veteran of the Mexican War fourteen years earlier, he was scared, almost frozen, as he led his men against the enemy position. When he arrived, the enemy had evacuated. "The reb commander was as scared as I was. It was a lesson that served me well for the next four years."
   
   Excellent general's-eye descriptions of the battles for Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Cold Harbor. His proudest contribution to the Union victory seems to be his strategy of "coordinated attack". He believed the early rebel success was due to the fragmentation of the National fources, which allowed the outmanned rebels to concentrate on one fragment at a time.
   
   Grant is full of forthright and fascinating judgments: he revered Lincoln and Sherman, detested Hallek, disliked Stanton but respected him.
   
   Civil war buff? Don't neglect this.



3. It is surprising that the most balanced and impartial view of U.S. Grant should be written by Grant himself. His style of writing is clear and sparse, recounting fact as fact and without lengthy editorializing. A must read for any civil war buff or serious historian.



4. I think this is the only real account you can get of the civil war. It's...Great!



5. This book really provides incredible insight into Grant and what made him a great general. In a plainspoken & straightforward manner he gives a recount of his role in the war and his military philosophy (attack). Unlike a modern autobiography we get nothing personal or confessional (not necessarily a bad thing). Any mention of drinking, or his dismal presidency are omitted and his family gets only a paragraph or two; which is fine because no one is interested in Grant's parenting or presidenting tips.

5 comments about Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy.

1. I'm not a baseball, or even a sports fan, but a good biography is worth reading no matter how the subject spent his or her life. I was drawn to reading this because I happened to see Koufax pitch one of his last games. It was in Chicago, and he lost to the Cubs. I've seen maybe half a dozen pro baseball games, and that's the only one I remember at all. Leavy is a fine writer; her prose is energetic and highly readable. Any really good biography is also history, and she made the historical setting, of the days when Koufax was actively pitching, come alive. Baseball, like the rest of the world, has changed a lot in the last forty years, but if Koufax made an impression on me way back then, he must have been some phenomenon! A fine read from any angle.



2. This admirable biography mixes a little baseball history with its revealing insight into one of the game's greatest pitchers. Readers learn much about Sandy Koufax, from his Brooklyn childhood, to his college basketball days, to his modest-then-stellar career with the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers from 1955-1966. As these pages show, Koufax was highly intelligent player who marched to his own drum. He also emerged from several years as a struggling southpaw into the game's most dominant hurler. During the five seasons (1962-1966) that he dominated baseball Koufax sported a phenomenal 111-34 won-loss record and 1.95 ERA - far eclipsing the game's other top hurlers. Sadly, painful arthritis in his pitching arm led him to retire (at age 30) after the 1966 season, when his superb record (27-9, 1.73 ERA) helped lead his team to another pennant. As a Jewish player, Koufax endured occasional Anti-Semitic taunts, and he made headlines by electing not to pitch the opening game of the 1965 World Series due to a major Jewish holiday. Still, many teammates thought him quite cool, and Pirates slugger Willie Stargell said that hitting against Koufax was like trying to drink coffee with a fork.
   
   Author Jane Levy interviewed hundreds of teammates, friends, etc., in writing this book, although Koufax himself declined to participate. His absence leads to a slight feeling of incompleteness, but this remains a very interesting and revealing effort.



3. I'll agree with the author that Sandy was a terrific pitcher and an introvert in a sport where it seems like all the really big stars were all capitalizing on their fame. But the really great thing about the book were all the personal stories...between catcher and pitcher, Drysdale and Koufax, kids and coaches who grew up with Sandy, opposing players and managers who played against the Dodgers, etc.
   
   Certainly there was some myth-making going on...by the author as well as many of the teammates who played with Sandy. I think that's what happens when you meet up with an extraordinary talent who enjoys his privacy on his terms.
   
   Loved the little quotes by Ernie Banks and the one story when Mickey Mantle faced him in the world series. Baseball isn't just a fun game to play...it's the stories that are fun as well and this book tells them very well. You'll enjoy it.



4. I really do not know much about the history, stats, or events of baseball. This book was so much more than that. It makes you wish you had either known or met Mr. Koufax. This is a story that both men & women from all walks of life would love. It was a reminder that truly complex, compassionate,non-conforming men are out there. Who are not so much impressed by WHAT they do, but more about HOW they do it. Today's athlete would never make the choices and sacrifices that Mr. Koufax did. Sadly, those days are long gone.



5. Growing up a huge LA Dodger fan, I eagerly consumed each page of this book. I received A Lefty's Legacy a few years ago, read a few chapters and put the book down as Jane was a little too down in the details about Sandy's adolescence. How he dealt with his step-father, sandlot ball and his aspirations of playing basketball provided some insight into Sandy's character, but the content was rather dry and dull.
   
   I did find the 9 "innings" of the perfect game, interlaced in between chapters of the book (and Koufax's life) curious and interesting. But honestly, as a perfect game starts out, there is a lack of excitement...even as described within this book.
   
   There has been criticism over Jane's inclusion of Sandy's decision to observe Yom Kippur (instead of pitching game 1 of the '65 Series) and the details surrounding Sandy's Jewish heritage. I found that chapter very telling in who Koufax was then and is now, breaking down the misconceptions of his perceived reclusive life.
   
   For a Koufax or Dodger fan, this book is a must.

5 comments about The Last Comanche Chief: The Life and Times of Quanah Parker.

1. Good, well put together book about Quanah Parker.
   If you like native American history, this is one book you should defiantly have for your personal library.



2. I received the book in a timely manner and it is everything I hoped it would be.



3. This is a very good book if you are interested in the life of Quanah Parker. . . Very Good
   
   Thank You,
   Lehman Tiller



4. Written okay, but I mean REALLY! Why not saint the individual who is the subject of this book? Perhaps he could walk on water to among all of his other superhuman qualities???? If you take the time to read the reviews here - all by people who are wannabe Indians and/or haters of their own heritage and race - you'll get a very distorted view of what this book contains - which is a record of brutality, sadistic butchery, and mindless aggression against other peoples, until of course, elements such as the Texas Rangers took the starch out and fight out of said noble Red Aristocrat.
   But there is an even more important point that needs to be addressed. This point concerns how ANY modern-day writer can possibly write about a long-dead individual of a completely alien culture in an accurate way. That is, its one thing to write about what this particular Indian ( or any other individual Indian of any other tribe ) did during his life according to what is known of his ACTIVITIES, but it is utterly impossible to write about his FEELINGS, his DESIRES, his MOTIVATIONS, his THOUGHTS, etc. Since the writer cannot "get inside the mind" of this Indian, how can he possibly offer the reader anything except story, not fact concerning this Indian's character and personality? This author, and many like him, simply weave their own biases and tastes into a personality profile of one Indian or another, and then offer this trash to the reader as FACT, when in fact it is mere story telling.
   If you happen to be interested in the Comanche, read "Comanches - Pimlico Wild West Series", and get FACTS, not modern-day fiction-as-fact. For example; take note that the Comanches slaughtered other Indian tribes without mercy ( almost exterminating many groups of the Apeches ) and ran a bustling slave trade in which they sold captives among themselves or to the Spanish. They also acted as mercinaries, accepting money from the Spanish to exterminate Apaches in the northern Provinces of Mexico ( in one year, the Comanches were paid 18,000.00 Pesos for Apache scalps - 6 Pesos per scalp! ).
   And except for the Kiowa, who often had their bloody, horrific, sadistic outrages mistaken for depredations of Comanches, the Comanches were easily the most brutal and fiendish of all the Plains Tribes when it came to abuse, torture, and inhuman treatment of captives ( Red, White, or Mexican ). No, there is a LOT the reader should be aware of in books dealing with Indians such as these, but such FACTS are carefully kept out of the reader's awareness by books like this one. Read on through this review of mine and learn!
   
   This sort of quasi-sob story type of literature (proliferating these days) which deals with long-dead Amer-Indians and events of the past really are annoying. Much better books are Three Years Among the Comanches: The Narrative of Nelson Lee, the Texas Ranger and Nine Years Among the Indians, 1870-1879: The Story of the Captivity and Life of a Texan Among the Indians as well as Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879 and lastly, Life Among the Apaches (Bison Book). And be sure not to miss The Kiowas (Civilization of the American Indian Series). Each of these books which I recommend is superb in its own way and for specific reasons, and all will serve to blast the reader straight out of the present Politically Correct SPELL of Fiction-As-Fact concerning the American Indians of the Western Frontier - a spell which has been cast by the likes of Dee Brown with his psuedo history-fantasy "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" and movies like K. Costner's imbecilic "Dances With Wolves" ( or more appropriately, "DUNCES With Wolves").
   
   Thanks to crack-brained leftist snivelers making one highly slanted documentary after another, and of course the hack writers who seek to twist historic record and fact so it conforms to their own civilization-depreciating schemes, we are swamped with PC Sob Story works like this one that leave the unknowledgeable reader with a completely FALSE impression about what actually happened under the vast and lonely skies of the center of this continent only a few hundred years ago.
   
   Consider this problem seriously. You are being fed half-truths, distorted information, and twisted facts in many cases by books such as this one. Now, if you're interested in an ACCURATE perspective on the Wild Frontier, read the titles I've recommended for you here, especially "Comanches - Pimlico Wild West". If you're one of these well-programmed PC flunkies who thinks he or she "has it all figured out" when it comes to the poor, helpless, hounded AmerIndians of yesteryear, then you absolutely must read the titles I've recommended here! I DARE YOU! Do this and THEN read this book and other trumped-up trash literature such as "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" and watch "Dunces With Wolves" and you'll see just how the wool's been pulled over your eyes!



5. Bill Neeley gives new life to the legend of Quanah Parker, Numu Paraiboo. More than just a biography, this book gives valuable insights into the culture and lifestyle of the Numunuu people and the training of the "Lords of the Plains", the best mounted cavalry in the world. Highly recommend for its accuracy and truth. Five stars

5 comments about Gone Native: An NCO's Story.

1. A well-written document by one of the troops on the ground. Crazy moments of a GI under stress, a good feel for the local hill people, and remembrances of buddies in the field. Some of the actions and soldiers described by Cornett have been written about by others and it is always good to see another version of events, not for differences but for shades and nuances to flavor the stories.
   
   A personal growth story: A boy does good, does bad, then good again and manages to live through the process in a war that featured so many wrong decisions from higher and so many incompetent lower and mid-level officers more concerned with careers than with their men.



2. This was a good book to read. It gave a new perspective from "pre-military to post. I considered giving it 4 stars, but for an overall score, I thought 3 stars was more justified.
   
   I can recommend Gone Native to anyone who is thinking about purchasing this book, but it is not a page burner and it seemed to ramble a little towards the end. But in no way would I want a perspective purchaser of this book to think it's not a good one. It is. He is frank and honest and what landed him in the stockade was quite refreshing. (You always hear about the other guy. Well, Cornett was the other guy. Thank you for your honesty.)



3. Once I started reading the book, I could not put it down. I kept coming across places and people I knew and it brought back a lot of memories. I eventually supported several of his units with intelligence and map overlays for "sensitive" operations, and was in-country myself for six years. I had several run-ins with jerk officers but thankfully they were rare. But I did pull my .45 on three Pentagon O-6s at a SOG briefing when they refused to assist us. Luckily, an SF 1SG Deluca grabbed me and said they were not worth killing as they ran from the room. A couple of weeks later I was jerked out of VN and sent to Germany. I recommend this book to everyone who wants to know how close many of us got to the Vietnamese and the war, and I would very much like to be in contact with the author.



4. This was one of those books I didn't want to put down until I was done.



5. I have read hundreds of Vietnam nonfiction books and this is in the top 15 for sure. Great book and flows great, did not want it to end...

5 comments about Mary Chesnut's Civil War.

1. Mary Chestnut was an insightful, well educated, frustrated woman in a society that did not openly encourage women to become interested, certainly not involved, in politics. James, Mary's husband, was what we would call a Washington/Richmond insider. Poor Mary had to convine herself to venting in her diary which requires a good background in the politicians of the day to be informative. For this reason I give it only 4 stars, The earlier edition,Diary from Dixie, was edited by the diarist to be more politically acceptable and better able to sell. There is a considerable amount of gossip in the book which will be interesting to those interested in the personal lives of prominent Confederates, e.g., the affair between General John B. Hood and Sally Preston. Anyone willing to wade through the book with the help of a good who's who in the Confederacy will indeed find this book valuable and interesting.



2. Reading this book is like opening a door through time and having a daily cup of coffee & gossip session with Mary Chesnut. She was from a fine family with her father being a senator and one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina. Her husband, John Chesnut Jr., was also a senator before the war. He remained politically connected in the Confederacy. He was a general and an aid to Jefferson Davis. Given her situation in life it is not surprising that Mrs. Chesnut had an elite circle of friends and knew everyone that was anyone.
   Mary loved to gossip and name drop and had very strong opinions on any given subject. She had no children so she had plenty of time to be self indulgent and a bit vain. She really must have been a fascinating person as people seem to be drawn to her. Varina Davis was one of her closest friends and she visited the Davis home frequently. She believed slavery to be wrong & hated the fact that there were so many racially mixed children that looked very much like the master of the plantations. She complained about the costs involved in keeping slaves and thought the time had come to abolish slavery. On the other hand, she spoke of slaves like children that needed to be cared for. She also had never had to take care of herself or run a house. She relied totally on her servants for everything.
   She wrote this diary with the intention of including rumors, facts,and anything she might be thinking at the time. John Bell Hood was a frequent visitor and is talked of in her diary quite frequently. She talked about Hood's love for a woman and of his wounds. She referred to him as their "wounded knight". She was a very opinionated, outspoken, and (I think) spoiled women. There are no great military strategies and battle description in her book. She describes the dinners they had or how people were dressed. She talks of all the gossip about all the differert generals and the politics of the day. Reading her diary is like sitting down for coffee with her and listening to the events,real or rumored, that she chats about. She loves all the gossip and thrives on attention She had a front row seat to all events about the war, civilian life, and the downfall of the Confederacy It's wonderful to have the chance to get to know Mary Chesnut with her candid way of writting. She also writes of the trials and tribulations when everything was crashing down aroound her. Her first experience of wearing old clothes, food shortages, no money, & wondering all the while what was going to happen to her and her husband. People were dying all around her and her. Her entire culture & lifestyle were disapearing, everything simply falling apart, yet she kept up her writting. What a fascinating woman Mrs. Mary Chesnut must have been.
   It may be a little difficult to read for some. I think maybe most difficult for men for much of it is "idle chatter" that women do when they get together. There is much information in here that you can only get from someone in the middle of it all.



3. This book is very interesting but it is hard to follow. The intro is very interesting but once you get into the diary part she skips from one topic to another and it assumes a lot. I think it will be worthwhile - it is just going to take me a while to get through it.



4. Mary Chesnut was a name dropper, and thank goodness, because in passing along her gossip, opinions, news, and personal undertakings, she created the most comprehensive day-to-day record of life in the Confederacy that we have. Although this is both a diary and a later refurbishment of earlier writings (to the point it almost becomes a memoir in epistolary form) Mrs. Chesnut, an aristocratic lady in a position to know a great deal about the workings of her short-lived nation, makes everything seem like a first-hand conversation. Chesnut, like Mrs. Grant and Amanda Wilson, a Civil War-era diarist from Cincinnati, Ohio, has a true gift at making the distant seem immediate. Her reports on the initial euphoria of southern independence from the north and later the reality of hardship and war, are touching, even for one not in deep sympathy with her ideals. What I took away from this diary was something of the horror of loss, as Mary Chesnut's society reeled from death after death, not just of men from combat, but children and women in part from the deprivations war mandated they endure. By the mid-point of her diary, it is a rare entry, indeed, in which Chesnut does not tell of the passing of at least one more friend, or son of a friend. She lived through the destruction of a society and a war in which blood flowed in rivers. Chesnut personally knew a number of the primary figures of the American Civil War, including the wife of Jefferson Davis. She gives a point of view that is not hamstrung by being modern in sensibility, and charts a course of the war's prosecution that might vicariously suggest a later alteration of the record in northern-authored history books. For all these reasons, Chesnut's diary is worth reading.



5. "Mary Chesnuts's Civil War" is a monumental reading task: lviii introductory pages, 836 pages of smallish text, and 49 index pages listing more than 1,000 people mentioned in the text. The Editor received a Pulitzer Prize for his work.
   
   The diary (actually much of it was written or elaborated nearly twenty years later) begins on February 16, 1861 at the time of the secession of the Southern states from the Union and ends abruptly on July 26, 1865 after the surrender of the Southern armies. Mrs. Chesnut, the friend of Southern leaders such as Jefferson Davis, spent most of the war years in Richmond and her plantation home in South Carolina.
   
   Mary Chesnut purveys gossip among the elite and offers sharply worded opinions about the South, its leaders, negroes, and slavery. On page 71, we see for example that Robert E. Lee is being called a traitor by some people after his early military failures. Of Gen. Joe Johnston she says, "Being such a good hater, it is a pity he had not elected to hate somebody else than the president of our country." An outspoken woman of about 40 with a goodly share of self esteem Mrs Chesnut does not spare her husband -- who she despises -- and acquaintances from her worldly opinions. With passages on virtually every aspect of day to day living as well as the rush of events leading the downfall of the South, the diary of Mary Chesnut may be the best single source about life in the South during the Civil War.
   
   The most vivid passages in the diary are about the end of the war when the fashionable Mrs. Chesnut feels the pinch of poverty and despair as the Yankee armies conquer South Carolina and burn down her plantation home. She captures the fear of Southerners, "as of a Bengal tiger in the home" of the Yankees and of the newly-freed negroes. "The weight that hangs upon our eyelids -- is of lead"
   
   I haven't read this book cover to cover. I pick it up occasionally and randomly read a few pages or look up the entry for a event of interest. There is sufficient material to spend weeks reading and puzzling out the meaning of elliptical statements or distant relationships or obscure references. The Editor has done a splendid job identifying in notes nearly all of the people Ms. Chesnut mentions and in clarifying the events to which she refers. This is a book you might choose to take to a desert island as it is nearly unconquerable as well as fascinating.
   
   Smallchief

3 comments about Mastery, Tyranny, and Desire: Thomas Thistlewood and His Slaves in the Anglo-Jamaican World.

1. This is an absolutely brilliant book, and I do not use that word lightly. It is must reading for anyone interested (even tangentially) in Caribbean history or indeed in fascinating history in general.



2. This fascinating book is scrupulously researched and very well-written. It is also, in its fine-grained portrayal of the slave-holder Thomas Thistlewood, deeply disturbing. The paradox that Burnard explores is how Thistlewood, an amateur botanist and would-be student of the enlightenment, could also be a sadistic slave-holder in a viciously degrading society. It's extremely thought-provoking, and Burnard's own careful judgments seem consistently on the money. For me, this is an ideal work of academic history.



3. I recently read a thorough review for this book and can hardly wait to receive it now. I've read bits about Thistlewood before, but this book, based heavily on his diaries, seems like it will cover more on the man and his life in Jamaica.