(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best middle east history books

You know facts tayaravaknin but you always add Pro-Israeli nuance. I remember your inane post about Camp David. I didn't reply at the time, why bother?, but I will now. It will be a nice lesson for you.


There are two myths regarding camp David and Baraks offers.

1. Arafat was offered everything, the best offer ever, but kept saying no. This was later used by Sharon as the excuse to expand settlements, as Arafat could not be regarded as a reasonable partner for peace.
   This is the Israeli myth that you have used here.
   
   
2. Israel offers were awful, the West bank and Gaza split into 4 cantons. A non-viable state. This was proof of Israeli bad faith as it would not allow a viable Palestine.
   This is the Palestinian myth.
   
   The truth is well documented and all parties agree on what happened, but neither add any context that explains what happened. My sources are Dennis Ross's book, The Missing Peace, and articles I've read written by the Israeli Slomo Benami and Palestinian Hussain Aga, both Camp David negotiators. All agree on the facts but differ widely on value judgments.
   
   The offer was what was it was claimed to be by the Palestinians, its right there in Ross's book, but that was the starting point for Israel, by the end the offer was of a contiguous state with a Jordanian border. Palestine would lose 9% of the West bank but gain 1% of Israel, also Israel would control Palestine border and airspace, and East Jerusalem would be largely annexed. That was the Camp David offer, more was offered later in Taba, and this further offer is often conflated with Camp David offer for propagandist reasons.
   The Taba summit was as close to peace as the two parties have ever come. That's a good Wiki on it should you care to look. ( Barak pulled out of that negotiation to fight an election that he lost.) Both sides think they were 6 weeks from Peace. Sharon nullified the talks.
   
   The Palestinian myth focus's on the first offer, The Israeli myth on the 5 month later offer.
   Both are true, both fudge the timing.
   
   A thumbnail sketch of the Camp David talks.
   
   Barak wanted a Short sharp negotiation, he watched Rabin's political capitol drain away and did not want a repeat.
   Arafat wanted pre-negotiation with final talks after outline agreements made.
   
   Barak had a plan that Ross went along with it. The plan was, A high stakes summit, A low offer, after 2 days Arafat would be under pressure to get something out of the summit, then make a offer Arafat would find acceptable. The US agreed to go along with this.
   
   The trouble was the Palestinians would not play ball. Their position could be thought of as this, if you have a car worth $11,000. and some one makes an offer of $2000 you do not start haggling from there as if that is your start point its unlikely you'll get close to $11,000. If you start haggling at $9,000, you'll get closer. So Palestinians simply would not even start negotiating. They also were very aware that is was a Israel + USA v Palestinians, with all the America advisers being pro-Israel Jews, ( Ross was AIPAC's policy wings chief of staff.)
   
   Thus the no's. This angered the Americans. "Why can't you start haggling?" they asked, "Why are their tactics OK and mine not" was the Palestinian reply.
   The Americans shuffled back and forth, "the time for games was over start talking" said Ross. But the whole exercise was an Israeli game with the US going along with it.
   Each time the Americans came back with a offer they said, this is the final offer for starting, but each time the Palestinians said "No" the came back with a better offer. This made them look complicit with the Israeli's which they were.
   For example, Ross wrote "I will always side with Israel strategic necessities over Palestinian aspirations." ( something like that.) but surely for Palestine controlling your own border with Jordan is an absolute necessity, not an aspiration?
   
   The Clinton Parameters after this and the Taba talks based on them were much better. This is what the US should have done in the first place, present what they though was a reasonable deal and got the others to sign up and discuss it. Dennis Ross was incapable of pressurizing the Israelis.
   It would be like having your mother-in-law brokering your divorce. She's not going to be able to pressurize her daughter in favor of you.
   
   I've obviously not written this for you, but others might read it and know the truth, you'll plough on regardless spouting about the "great" Camp David offer in future threads.
   
   
   I suppose I could go into the other "great" such as the Olmerts
   
   Here's the story on that one.
   
   Palestinian leadership accepted the 2008 offer, but Olmert had resigned and announced an election which he did not win and thus the offer was null and void.
   The timeline is
   Offer made Sept 16th 2008 24 hours later [Sept 17th Olmert resigns.]
   
   Palestinians accept Olmert peace offer
   
   Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday said that the recent peace offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is enough to get a final status agreement signed, but recognized that the outgoing Israeli leader does not have the ability to implement the proposal.
   
   "We could have peace in two days" if Olmert's offer could be implemented, Abbas told a group of Muslim clerics at the tail end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
   
   
   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009#Background)
   
   
   Feb 2009 Bibi Wins.
   
   
   

The OP is a bit one sided to be fair. He conveniently left out Taba Summit for example. So Here is a Comment someone wrote a long time ago about the Camp David talks( I will link it later in a quick edit Im on mobile now). The situation is much more nuanced than you think it is. The same applies for the different peace talks.


>That's not true. You need two to make peace, period. For example, as much as Barak was pro-peace, he couldn't do anything if Arafat kept rejecting his offers.

Please Educate yourself You know nothing of offers Nidarus.


Edit: Baraks "offers". Please read and digest and never refer to them again.

There are two myths regarding camp David and Baraks offers.

1. Arafat was offered everything, the best offer ever, but kept saying no. This was later used by Sharon as the excuse to expand settlements, as Arafat could not be regarded as a reasonable partner for peace.
   This is the Israeli myth.
   
   
2. Israel offers were awful, the West bank and Gaza split into 4 cantons. A non-viable state. This was proof of Israeli bad faith as it would not allow a viable Palestine.
   This is the Palestinian myth.
   
   The truth is well documented and all parties agree on what happened, but neither add any context that explains what happened. My sources are Dennis Ross's book, The Missing Peace, and articles I've read written by the Israeli Slomo Benami and Palestinian Hussain Aga, both Camp David negotiators. All agree on the facts but differ widely on value judgments.
   
   The offer was what was it was claimed to be by the Palestinians, its right there in Ross's book, but that was the starting point for Israel, by the end the offer was of a contiguous state with a Jordanian border. Palestine would lose 9% of the West bank but gain 1% of Israel, also Israel would control Palestine border and airspace, and East Jerusalem would be largely annexed. That was the Camp David offer, more was offered later in Taba, and this further offer is often conflated with Camp David offer for propagandist reasons.
   The Taba summit was as close to peace as the two parties have ever come. That's a good Wiki on it should you care to look. ( Barak pulled out of that negotiation to fight an election that he lost.) Both sides think they were 6 weeks from Peace. Sharon nullified the talks.
   
   The Palestinian myth focus's on the first offer, The Israeli myth on the 5 month later offer.
   Both are true, both fudge the timing.
   
   A thumbnail sketch of the Camp David talks.
   
   Barak wanted a Short sharp negotiation, he watched Rabin's political capitol drain away and did not want a repeat.
   Arafat wanted pre-negotiation with final talks after outline agreements made.
   
   Barak had a plan that Ross went along with it. The plan was, A high stakes summit, A low offer, after 2 days Arafat would be under pressure to get something out of the summit, then make a offer Arafat would find acceptable. The US agreed to go along with this.
   
   The trouble was the Palestinians would not play ball. Their position could be thought of as this, if you have a car worth $11,000. and some one makes an offer of $2000 you do not start haggling from there as if that is your start point its unlikely you'll get close to $11,000. If you start haggling at $9,000, you'll get closer. So Palestinians simply would not even start negotiating. They also were very aware that is was a Israel + USA v Palestinians, with all the America advisers being pro-Israel Jews, ( Ross was AIPAC's policy wings chief of staff.)
   
   Thus the no's. This angered the Americans. "Why can't you start haggling?" they asked, "Why are their tactics OK and mine not" was the Palestinian reply.
   The Americans shuffled back and forth, "the time for games was over start talking" said Ross. But the whole exercise was an Israeli game with the US going along with it.
   Each time the Americans came back with a offer they said, this is the final offer for starting, but each time the Palestinians said "No" the came back with a better offer. This made them look complicit with the Israeli's which they were.
   For example, Ross wrote "I will always side with Israel strategic necessities over Palestinian aspirations." ( something like that.) but surely for Palestine controlling your own border with Jordan is an absolute necessity, not an aspiration?
   
   The Clinton Parameters after this and the Taba talks based on them were much better. This is what the US should have done in the first place, present what they though was a reasonable deal and got the others to sign up and discuss it. Dennis Ross was incapable of pressurizing the Israelis.
   It would be like having your mother-in-law brokering your divorce. She's not going to be able to pressurize her daughter in favor of you.
   
   I've spent to much time on this. I'ii leave it here.
   
   
   
   
   
   

I had a post regarding my recommended books on the rise of Islam. I'll post it here again for your benefit:

> Here's the best ones: Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History and Robert Hoyland's In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire

> Edit: I have read the two books aforementioned, but I'd also recommend this book, which I haven't read: Hugh Kennedy's The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. All these books fit your criteria. I also have Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire, but I think this is the least recommendable because of the controversy swirling around it and the documentary it spawned. But it is interesting nevertheless.

I hope this will help!

EDIT: I'll add more recommendations, in regards to the Golden Age of Islam:

• G.R. Hawtings's The First Dynasty of Islam
  
• Amira K. Bennison's The Great Caliphs: The Golden Age of the 'Abbasid Empire
  
• Benson Bobrick's The Caliph's Splendor: Islam and the West in the Golden Age of Baghdad
  
• Halil Inalcik's The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600
  
• S. Frederick Starr's Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane
  
• Michael H. Morgan's Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists
  
• Jim al-Khalili's The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us The Renaissance

Your feelings are entirely valid. Don't bury them, don't listen to the negative reactionaries (including parts of some of these other posts), but continue to explore those feelings honestly. That is a beautiful act, to seek out those feelings within, and our entire lives are a journey to understand how we can be the best Muslims that we can be -- the most peaceful submitters to the power and optimal order of the universe.

I agree deeply that there's a critical difference between Islam and Muslims -- Islam is something ephemeral that we're all striving to understand and find the most balanced and noble path. 'Muslims' are each and every one's own pathway from that idea, the manifestations, and those are the imperfect beings and institutions that we all lament. I mean to say, perhaps your feeling is not an increasing feeling of intense criticism of Islam -- but rather an intense criticism of Muslims. I would argue that is much more than a semantic difference.

YOU are a living version of a manifestation and interpretation of the submission-middle-path called "Islam." Don't feel badly that other Muslims are deviating -- they have no influence on your path. Do it for your own connection with God, and iA you will find that inner peace along the path. God hears you.

This old tale really helped me a while back, and I recommend it -- a journey to find God, only to find society messes it all up (http://www.amazon.com/Ibn-Tufayls-Hayy-Yaqzan-Philosophical/dp/0226303101). Made me embrace the importance of getting out into nature often to find God as well.

Salaam brother/sister.

I'm not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but Burton Mack's The Christian Myth is the best religious studies book that I've read. It's short, elegant and profound. A Myth of Innocence is also good, but it might be a dense outside of a classroom. Both books deal with the study of the New Testament from a secular, sociological perspective, but there's a lot of theory on the concept of myth-making and social influences that can be more generally applied to other fields of religious study. Mack is sorta the antithesis to the "secular" Historical Jesus Movement, which is the dominant movement in academic New Testament studies (and insufferably stupid in my opinion but I'll save my rant).

Actually, the class that I read Mack for used Wayne Meeks's The First Urban Christians as an introduction to the topic. So, if you're really into learning about the origins of Christianity, that's a better place to start.

I never Islam from a sociological perspective, but I liked Hodgson's series The Venture of Islam for a relatively readable (if quite long with some extremely dense sections) description of the history of Islam and Muslim society. It's straight history, though, nearly textbook-style, but it does a great job interweaving all of the different strands and tracking competing and mutating social influences up to the 20th century (I didn't actually read much of the third book, which ends in the 1950's, I guess). Even my converted-to-Islam brother (le sigh...) doesn't hate it because Hodgson did more original research on Muslim history than probably any other Western scholar.

Sorry to ramble on. This was what I studied in college.

For understanding modern world history, Eric Hobsbawm is the best starting point.

• The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848
  
• [The Age of Capital: 1848–1875] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Capital:_1848%E2%80%931875)
  
• [The Age of Empire: 1875–1914] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Empire:_1875%E2%80%931914)
  
• The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991
  
  Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian and it shows in his work. But even the deeply conservative Niall Ferguson wrote that "his great tetralogy . . . remains the best introduction to modern world history in the English language."
  
  The other modern world history I want to mention is [The Birth of the Modern World] (http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Modern-World-1780-1914/dp/0631236163/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374136637&sr=1-1&keywords=birth+of+the+modern+world). It offers another perspective on the "long 19th century" and, as it is written by a very conservative historian forty years after The Age of Revolution, a nice contrast/counterbalance to Hobsbawm's work.
  
  [A History of the Middle East] (http://www.amazon.com/History-Middle-East-Peter-Mansfield/dp/0143034332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374137117&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+middle+east) is a great introduction to Middle Eastern history and politics which is unbiased, factual, and comprehensive.
  
  [The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985] (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Chinese-Revolution-1800-1985/dp/006039076X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137415&sr=1-2&keywords=great+revolution+china) is an excellent book on the birth of modern China. In it, John King Fairbank tries to show the dynamism of Chinese society and that western forces have had much less influence than the western historians who have framed the traditional story seem to believe.
  
  US History
  
  
• [The Radicalism of the American Revolution] (http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137693&sr=1-1&keywords=radicalism+of+the+american+revolution)
  
  
• [The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846] (http://www.amazon.com/Market-Revolution-Jacksonian-America-1815-1846/dp/0195089200/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137774&sr=1-1&keywords=the+market+revolution)
  
  
• [What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Hath-God-Wrought-Transformation/dp/0195392434/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137821&sr=1-1&keywords=what+hath+god+wrought)
  
  
• [Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877] (http://www.amazon.com/Reconstruction-Americas-Unfinished-Revolution-1863-1877/dp/0060937165/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137863&sr=1-1&keywords=reconstruction)
  

I think sermons would be in English, but prayers are always in Arabic as the language is important to the prayer. Here is a review of Masjid al Iman which says that they provide transliterated prayers which would help you follow along.

On Nov 6, the ICCNC is having an Eid festival which may be a great time to go along and see what things are like (Eid is sort of like the Muslim Christmas). I'd email them ahead of time and say you are interested in Islam and will attend. They seem friendly and seem to do mostly everything in English. link

I would also read the following:

No God But God by Reza Aslan

Muhammad by Karen Armstrong

What Everyone Needs To Know About Islam by John Esposito.

These are good intro books from a Western perspective.

You can begin reading to understand the history of the Kashmir conflict.
So here are some suggestions, based on where I began my own reading, and drawing on easily available publications by Kashmiris.

1. The good old Tracts For The Times booklet by Bajraj Puri - http://www.amazon.in/Kashmir-Towards-Insurgenc…/…/0863113842
   
   
2. AG Noorani's volumes on Kashmir (you can also find many articles by him, from Frontline, online) http://www.amazon.in/Kashmir-Dispute-1947-2012…/…/9382381155
   
   
3. Curfewed Night by Basharat Peer - http://www.amazon.in/Curfewed-Night-Kashmiri-J…/…/1439109109
   
   
4. A Long Dream of Home - The Persecution, exile and exodus of Kashmiri Pandits by Siddhartha Gigoo and Varad Sharma http://www.amazon.in/Long-Dream-Home-persecuti…/…/9385436201
   
   
5. Until My Freedom Has Come - a collection of short fiction, reportage, essays, news reports, interviews and a rapper’s song by Kashmiris, edited by Sanjay Kak http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/…/until-my-freedom-has-com…
   
   
6. BURIED EVIDENCE: Unknown, Unmarked, and Mass Graves in Indian-Administered Kashmir - a report by International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir (IPTK) http://www.kashmirprocess.org/reports/graves/toc.html
   
   
7. Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora? http://www.amazon.in/Remember-Kunan-Poshpora-Z…/…/9384757667
   
   
8. You can read updates from the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) http://apdpkashmir.com/ and JKCCS http://www.jkccs.net/ - these groups post Facebook updates also, regularly
   
   
9. Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths of Peace by Sumantra Bose - https://kashmirebooks.files.wordpress.com/…/sumantra-bose-k…
   
   
10. Some other good readings are included in this list compiled by HT http://www.hindustantimes.com/…/story-PKmPCQ5WtigTwp85vvSpR…
    
    
11. An interesting article by Yoginder Sikand in EPW traced the shifts in the Kashmiri movement in the 1980s http://www.epw.in/…/…/changing-course-kashmiri-struggle.html
    
    
12. Agha Shahid Ali - The Country Without A Post Office (poetry) http://www.amazon.in/Country-Without-Post-Offi…/…/0393317617
    
    
13. Jashn-e-Azaadi - How We Celebrate Freedom - a documentary by Sanjay Kak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJnwGEk1fzQ
    
    Start where you like, these are not in any particular order. It is most encouraging that so many, ignoring the ugly trolling and hate-filled propaganda, are asking to know more on Kashmir. Yesterday's silent march also saw many come forward to ask to know more. Silence can break the media-scripted cacophony, a space of quiet can allow voices of good sense, especially Kashmiri voices, to be heard, and make for a path to empathy and solidarity.

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: The radicalization of Islam in the Middle East ties into the division of the region by the western powers after WWI, and further during the Cold War, when the U.S. (not only, but in particular) supported the rise to power of radical religious figures in opposition to communist/leftist parties & figures who might be sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and therefore potentially threaten U.S./U.K. access to oil in the region. This included aiding in the over-throwing of democratically elected governments in favor of autocratic but U.S./U.K.-favored leaders - most notably the U.S.-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran, when Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown. The 1978 Iranian Revolution began as a popular uprising against the Shah who replaced him.

For more extensive reading on the subject:

Inventing Iraq by Toby Dodge (I have some major issues with Dodge's conclusions post 9/11, but the historical analysis that makes up the majority of the book is solid)

Spies in Arabia by Priya Satia, and Lawrence in Arabia are good histories of imperial ambition during the WWI period and its after-effects

Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan for the political maneuvering of the Western powers

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin

I also recommend Edward Said, if you're looking for cultural analysis as well as history

> If you want to read a good book about Orthodox Judaism, and the concomitant Talmudism, this book is very good: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745308198/104-2180085-3718365

> "Milking on the Sabbath. This has been forbidden in post-talmudic times, through the process of increasing religious severity mentioned above. The ban could easily be kept in the diaspora, since Jews who had cows of their own were usually rich enough to have non-Jewish servants, who could be ordered (using one of the subterfuges described below) to do the milking. The early Jewish colonists in Palestine employed Arabs for this and other purposes, but with the forcible imposition of the Zionist policy of exclusive Jewish labour there was need for a dispensation. (This was particularly important before the introduction of mechanised milking in the late 1950s.) Here too there was a difference between Zionist and non-Zionist rabbis. According to the former, the forbidden milking becomes permitted provided the milk is not white but dyed blue. This blue Saturday milk is then used exclusively for making cheese, and the dye is washed off into the whey. Non-Zionist rabbis have devised a much subtler scheme (which I personally witnessed operating in a religious kibbutz in 1952). They discovered an old provision which allows the udders of a cow to be emptied on the Sabbath, purely for relieving the suffering caused to the animal by bloated udders, and on the strict condition that the milk runs to waste on the ground. Now, this is what is actually done: on Saturday morning, a pious kibbutznik goes to the cowshed and places pails under the cows. (There is no ban on such work in the whole of the talmudic literature.) He then goes to the synagogue to pray. Then comes his colleague, whose 'honest intention' is to relieve the animals' pain and let their milk run to the floor. But if, by chance, a pail happens to be standing there, is he under any obligation to remove it? Of course not. He simply 'ignores' the pails, fulfills his mission of mercy and goes to the synagogue. Finally a third pious colleague goes into the cowshed and discovers, to his great surprise, the pails full of milk. So he puts them in cold storage and follows his comrades to the synagogue. Now all is well, and there is no need to waste money on blue dye.

> "Similar dispensations were issued by zionist rabbis in respect of the ban (based on Leviticus 19:19) against sowing two different species of crop in the same field. Modern agronomy has however shown that in some cases (especially in growing fodder) mixed sowing is the most profitable. The rabbis invented a dispensation according to which one man sows the field lengthwise with one kind of seed, and later that day his comrade, who 'does not know' about the former, sows another kind of seed crosswise. However, this method was felt to be too wasteful of labour, and a better one was devised: one man makes a heap of one kind of seed in a public place and carefully covers it with a sack or piece of board. The second kind of seed is then put on top of the cover. Later, another man comes and exclaims, in front of witnesses, 'I need this sack (or board)' and removes it, so that the seeds mix 'naturally.' Finally, a third man comes along and is told, 'Take this and sow the field,' which he proceeds to do."

Very weird... one almost gets the sense that there is an unspoken expectation that God would take delight in witnessing such artfully executed subterfuge.

Slaw brader! I urge you to learn the Kurdish language (whether Kurmanji or Sorani, which is closest to your family's origin) and try to pass it on to forthcoming generations, whether your own kids or friends/relatives who are also Kurdish. It's the most important aspect to our culture and it's what kept us alive after all this time. It also helps you interact with our music of course and learn the meaning behind the texts, some of which might be culturally inspired.

Literature wise, here are some books that help you understand the Kurdish politics a bit better and where we stand today and what we have endured as people in the recent past.

https://www.amazon.com/After-Knowledge-Forgiveness-Encounters-Kurdistan/dp/0813335809

https://www.amazon.com/Kurdish-National-Movement-Development-Contemporary/dp/081563093X

https://www.amazon.com/Mesopotamia-Kurdistan-Disguise-Banister-Soane/dp/1602069778

Music wise, some prolific singers are the following:

Omer Dzhey, Hassan Zirak. Most importantly, the national anthem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fne64RysKmA

To the extent that by 1978/9 it was widely (and accurately) believed in Iran that the US and Britain's secret agencies had influenced the 1953 coup, it surely had an effect on the outcome of the 1979 revolution against the Shah. The Pahlavi regime was viewed as dictatorial, capricious, overly luxuriant and un-democratic by its critics (among whom were both members of socially conservative anti-Imperialist Islamic groups and leftist/communist movements like the Tudeh (Masses) party). The Pahlavi regime after '53 largely relied on patronage systems, fueled by oil wealth, and viciously repressive police tactics (headed by the infamous SAVAK agency) to maintain its hold on power -- and its ability to do so was seen by many as conditioned by Western interests in keeping oil flowing, cheaply, out of Iran. The fact that M. Reza Pahlavi was originally harbored by the United States in the midst of the revolution fanned those flames. So if, by this question, you mean to ask whether the memory and after-effects of '53 had an influence on '79, then the answer (at least according to most of the scholarship on the issue) is an unequivocal yes.

If you mean something else by this question, then please clarify and I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.

Some further reading:

Nikki Keddie Roots of Revolution

Ervand Abrahamian Iran Between Two Revolutions

And you'll find a couple interesting sources on this in Akram Fouad Khater's Sources in Modern Middle East History

John Esposito! This book is focused a little more politically than theologically, but is overall really, really helpful. The title What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam is wonderfully accurate.

EDIT: Also I really like the method used by this book to teach about world religions. I think the author's idea about "ultimate concerns" will be helpful to you. The book is really brief but infinitely useful.

The context is modern Middle Eastern history.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement, as well as the Balfour Declaration are the key points in modern Arab history, that unfortunately most Arabs know nothing about.

It is also important to remember that this man who began the Arab Revolt due to promises made by the English, intended for one Arab state only.

The Arab revolt remains to this day the only war of independence fought by Arabs, unless you choose to count Kuwait's hiring of the US to fight Iraq a popular independence movement. The armies that fought during the Arab revolt were made up of Arabs from various tribes of Arabia, as well as from Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, etc. It even contained some Muslim volunteers from India. The Arab revolt saw the emergence of some great Arab heroes of the past century, such as Dhuqan al-Atrash, his son Sultan al-Atrash, Prince Rashed al-Khuzai, Ezz el-din al-Qassam, Fawzi al-Qawuqji, and many many others.

The context is the creation by colonial powers of national states where non existed before.

The context is key to our history as Arabs in a time where we care more about the next iphone than how our countries came to be made.

If you care enough to verify the statements I've made, feel free to read A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, or Inventing Iraq, another great book.

We did not create our countries, they were created for us and the statements and documents made by Balfour and others exist till this day, bragging about how he "drew lines on an empty map" based on accents and oil fields.

There is an excellent book called A Peace to End all Peace.

It gives a great view of WWI with all the actors in the Middle East from the perspective of a bunch of different people like Winston Churchill, Lawrence of Arabia, and Ataturk. It is also really easy and entertaining to read (I read it at the pool).

Let us go with your argument and see where we reach ...

First, this resolution never gave Israel the right to kick Palestinian from their land. The independence of Israel never meant not giving citizenship status to the original Palestinians living in their land. Actually, [UN resolution 194] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194) gives them the right to return back. The right that they were never given by Israel at any time since its creation. But you know what, let us assume that those Palestinians who were kicked out "according to UN resolution 181" deserve the suffering and yes it was hard to loose your land and home but this is UN whenever they decide something in New York, everyone should follow it.

You talk about UN resolutions as Israel respect any of them! According to the same UN, Israel should not be in the West Bank [UN resolution 242] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) and call it an OCCUPATION. I do not see why resisting an occupation is something questionable. Of course, there are other resolutions that you may like to read, you can look [UN resolution 3236] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3236).

It is easy to blame each other for things happened in 1947 or 1948. But if we are serious about finding a solution, we need to accept that occupation still exists and all nations on Earth has the right to live freely.

You may never agree with me, but I suggest you read War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History which is a book written by an Israeli historian Avi Shlaim who is a professor at Oxford.

I find both parties politically incorrect, however, occupying millions of people on a historical pretext of promised land and killing thousands of civilians every time your government has a political game is not really the way for humanity to advance in the 21st century.

This is a very large expanse of time in which many events took place and I unfortunately don't have time right now to cover the whole thing (nor the proper expertise) but if you have perhaps a more specific question I can likely give an informed and sourced answer (i.e. the rise of the Baathist party specifically or the Assad family within the Baathist party.)

In terms of some good sources to check out, David Lesch has written a ton about Syrian history, specifically in his twin books The New Lion of Damascus and The Fall of the House Assad between the two you should get a good glimpse of Syrian history under the Assads (with a definite focus on Bashar.) Just a word of caution, Lesch had a lot of personal interaction with Bashar (which is partially what makes him so informed) but this also leads to a bias towards Bashar in the first book which he is in a way trying to rectify in his second book.

Hopefully this helps, sorry I couldn't answer more completely.

We used this book for a course in Middle Eastern history & modern political movements in college. The author is a respected journalist and historian.

As a broad outline, there are four major Caliphate periods in Islamic history:

• The Rashidun Caliphs, the contemporaries of Mohammed who ruled the early Islamic community. Records of this era are strongly influenced by the mythology associated with the companions of Mohammed and the early days if Islam.
  
  
• The Ummayyads, who took over after the civil war that split the Islamic community into Shia and Sunni. They were primarily Arab and expanded territorially, but weren't really trying to create a pan-ethnic religious empire- just unite the Arab tribes and expand their territory.
  
  
• The Abbasids, who overthrew the Umayyads and expanded into a larger, not exclusively Arabic, community and had a heavy Persian influence. Their empire is the one responsible for preserving a lot of the knowledge of the classical world of Europe after the fall of Rome, and presided over a lot of scientific and technological developments.
  
  
• The Ottomans, who united the Turkic peoples of Asia Minor and conquered significant portions of Eastern Europe in addition to traditional caliphate territories like Arabia, North Africa, and Persia. The Ottomans were the last pre-modern empire to endure into the modern era, and their collapse shaped a lot of the modern Middle East and parts of Europe and Central Asia.
  
  There are lots of purely historical accounts of most of the eras of the caliphates outside of the Rashidun era- most modern Western authors will take a pretty balanced approach. Earlier Europeans were sometimes prejudiced against Islam in general because of religious or political considerations, and some authors from the Islamic world might play up the mythology of the caliphates, but if you stick to modern, mainstream academics you can shouldn't run into too much trouble.
  
  The Ottomans had the most direct influence on modern geography and politics. The Abbasids are probably the 'high point' in terms of culture and learning during an era when Europe had become a post-Roman feudal backwater. The Rashidun era is important primarily in terms of how it was mythologized later as a model for ideal Islamic communities, and the origins of the Sunni-Shia fault line. The Ummayyads to me are kind of a stepping stone between a regional tribal confederation and a multi-ethnic empire.
  
  There are also various other players of varying size- the Mamluks who controlled Egypt and parts of Africa during the Abbasid era, the Mongols, the Fatimids and some other North African and Berber confederacies... the Caliphates claimed authority over the entire Islamic world, but there were always states and tribes at the margins of their empire that had a lot of autonomy, or where authority was primarily symbolic or vestigial.

My favorite book was a Norwegian one by Sidsel Wold - "The country that promised everything". https://spartacus.no/boker/landet-som-lovet-alt-104 Not available in English I believe.


Basically a journalist who was a huge Israel fangirl for decades (leader of Norwegian friends of Israel, went to several kibbutzes etc) and later it soured when she realized the amount of groupthink involved.


A lot of colorful detail about the various ethnicities internally in Israel and the various protopolitics from the first settlers to Russian jews "invading" Israel at the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as constant sideglances to the implications for Palestinians.

This one is pretty unbiased, albeit maybe a bit overly academic: https://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Israel-Colin-Shindler/dp/1107671779

I've followed Noam Chomskys talks and writings on Israel as well, although that is, of course, politically charged through and through. He doesn't lie though..

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid By Jimmy Carter (of presidential fame) is a pretty good overview of the history of it all. He comes down pretty harshly on Israel iirc. The information is all there and he has a very unique perspective to share and personal stories that you can't get elsewhere.

Books. Plural. Many books. I can get you a bibliography of my dissertation if youd like. Cant produce it immediately because I have other priorities like taking care of my children at the moment but Wadie Wadeh is a great scholar to start with.

Edit: Misspelled his name, my bad. Its been a number of years.

https://www.amazon.com/Kurdish-National-Movement-Development-Contemporary/dp/081563093X

Another great scholar Ive referenced over the years is Andrew Mango. Just look at his topics he writes about. Give you some insight to my research. Theres also historical sources such as Turkish archives, which are very rarely translated so its slim pickings from there.

You could also read a book? Complaining that you know nothing and want to know more, then asking for Youtube videos on the subject is like saying you're starving then choosing to feast on a whole M&M.

Shindler's History of Modern Israel is a little dry (feel free to skim the intricacies of Israeli cabinet politics), but it covers the internal but public Israeli debates really well and explains why the Israelis continue to occupy the West Bank and Gaza as truthfully and even-handed as you can get in this subject. Joe Sacco's Palestine remains not just a landmark in comics twenty years after it was written but also the definitive account of the Palestinian experience under occupation, and the drudgery and oppression that go with being unfree in your own land. Both books will help you empathise, in different ways.

Muhammad ibn Saud founded KSA before oil was discovered (and without the help of the British), and at that time he was one of the most powerful warlords in the region. Al Saud consolidated its power after the Arab revolt when the British switched its support from Hussein to Al Saud (but this point he had already conquered most of the peninsula). The British didn't even know about the oil at this point. Oil wasn't even discovered till 1938, long after Saudi Arabia was a established nation

I agree the country wouldn't be as powerful today if not for oil but I hardly see how that's relevant.

A good read if your actually interested in the hisotry the

I explain that by oil of course, an increase in wealth. And yes there was 'a rise' in life expectancy -- as would be natural from 1950 to 1970 and it happened everywhere else in the world too -- but again, the point is that Iran didn't just continue to experience "a rise" but DOUBLED THE WORLD AVERAGE in improving living standards after the revolution.
See if you actually had set foot in Iran before and after the revolution, you'd know that there was a massive difference. Before the revolution, Tehran had huge shanty towns and slums, of the sort found in Manila. Just 20 minutes outside of Tehran, there was no clean running water or electricity. Not so anymore. Read this book then come back and argue.
http://www.amazon.com/Iran-Between-Revolutions-Princeton-Studies/dp/0691101345
But since you probably wont', here's the gist of it:

>The [Islamic] Republic’s constitution -- with 175 clauses -- transformed these general aspirations into specific inscribed promises. It pledged to eliminate poverty, illiteracy, slums and unemployment. It also vowed to provide the population with free education, accessible medical care, decent housing, pensions, disability pay and unemployment insurance....In the three decades since the revolution, the Islamic Republic -- despite its poor image abroad -- has taken significant steps toward fulfilling these promises. It has done so by giving priority to social rather than military expenditures, and thus dramatically expanding the Ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture, Labor, Housing, Welfare and Social Security. http://www.merip.org/mer/mer250/why-islamic-republic-has-survived

I found How Israel Lost by Richard Ben Cramer to be really informative and entertaining. I also suggest you check out A History of the Modern Middle East. It's rather lengthy, but there's a chapter on the birth of the state of Israel as well as some great analysis of its neighboring countries.

I can suggest some books that are really helpful in filling in the blanks.

For a basic overview of Islam's history and the reality of Islamic countries in the modern world I'd recommend "Introducing Islam."

For a seriously compelling look at the Sunni/Shia split and the conflict between the two sects I highly recommend "After the Prophet". Not only is this good history, it's a very well written.

And for a really excellent look at the misconceptions westerners have about Islam, and the ways in which those misconceptions are transmitted and perpetuated, you can't beat the works of Edward Said. He wrote three books on the subject that he considered a trilogy. They are:

Orientalism

The Question of Palestine

and

Covering Islam

Also, here's a documentary that is largely an interview with Said on the topic of Orientalism.

And a documentary called "Reel Bad Arabs" that examines the way the middle east is portrayed by western media.

A really brief but super-informative survey of 20th century Middle Eastern history is Avi Shlaim's War and Peace in the Middle East.

David Lesch's The Arab Israeli Conflict: A History focuses primarily on the eastern Mediterranean but discusses the region more broadly as well.

Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance covers the history Israeli-Iranian relations in a really engaging way.

In that case, my nation-state (the US) could withdraw the billions of foreign aid we send to Israel every year. And to Egypt for not attacking Israel. (They're by far the top recipients, unless we count Iraq. And it's probably not even counting other forms of military aid we send them.) Let the mightiest and most militant survive without my nation's intervention.

Or, we could support the significant Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, and eliminate what president Carter calls "apartheid."

Instead of stepping on a possible landmine, I'd recommend asking her about it to learn as much as you can from her. The national narrative differs quite a bit from most books.

So you've got the standard Fromkin:
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation-ebook/dp/B003X27L7C/

Karen House as an overview:

http://www.amazon.com/On-Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-ebook/dp/B007MDK5GM/

Then you've got the . . . interesting take on it from Alexei Vassiliev.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Saudi-Arabia-Alexei-Vassiliev-ebook/dp/B00F21X5Y0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

There's more stuff but that should give a fairly comprehensive overview for what you're looking on.

This guy thought Assad was the tops, interviewed him all the time, respected his ideas on reform and modernization. At the time I thought it was utter garbage:

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Lion-Damascus-al-Asad/dp/0300109911/

Then this same guy continued to follow the situation and changed his mind:

http://www.amazon.com/Syria-The-Fall-House-Assad/dp/0300186517/

>A widely respected Middle East scholar and consultant, Lesch came to know the president better than anyone in the West, in part through a remarkable series of meetings with Assad between 2004 and 2009. Yet for Lesch, like millions of others, Assad was destined to disappoint. In this timely book, the author explores Assad's failed leadership, his transformation from bearer of hope to reactionary tyrant, and his regime's violent response to the uprising of his people in the wake of the Arab Spring.

There aren't many examples of sane, well-adjusted, authoritarian fellows. They tend to turn out wicked regardless of their background or previous moral stances. Going to western university doesn't mean you become a sensible rational thinker, and leading a dictatorship or supporting your family even in its time of ultimate struggle is more fun than being a western professional (See: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi).

Hayy ibn Yaqdhan by Ibn Tufayl is sometimes credited as the first philosophical novel and is really quite good! It isn't too long, either.

This is a great idea. I recently read a book about Jewish religion and history and one of the chapters had to do with laws against non-Jews. The main premise of that chapter was to show how the Talmud distinguishes between Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles), and that non-Jews aren't afforded the same rights as Jews under rabbinical law. (This book was written by a Jewish Israeli so I'm inclined to believe most of what he said; plus he added a lot of commentary and research to back up every point).

I'm a Muslim, so I know what it's like for someone to take sections of the Quran out of context to make us look bad, so I don't want to do the same here. I try not to believe everything I read when it comes to religious texts, because they were written ages ago and have been interpreted a number of different ways over the years.

Still, though, I can't help but notice similarities between these laws and the way Arabs are treated in Israel, and I'm starting to wonder if there is some sort of link. I guess I want to know your opinions on the matter - when you were young, were you taught that there was a difference between Jews and non-Jews? What do you know about the education of Israeli children on these issues? Do you think that's why there's so much mistrust between Jewish Israelis and Arabs? Any opinions/thoughts would be appreciated. Also, I'm sorry if this was in any way offensive; I don't mean it to be, I just want to learn more about it and I really appreciate you taking the time to do this.

I feel that. I have a B.S. in Physics and have deliberately ignored most energy-related arguments on reddit so I don't have a stroke.

That said, it doesn't make you entirely wrong per se to suggest a call to action. But it is more nuanced than that - another poster in this thread discussed the frequent futility of active resistance in totalitarian regimes (of which Iran is not technically but some of the points apply). If you're genuinely interested in the subject of Iran, why it is the way it is, and why change there isn't going to happen overnight (even though it probably WILL happen), I recommend picking up a copy of The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. Quality read and a really good overview of the subject of modern Iranian culture with some insights into governance, civil society, feminist undertones, etc.

i know a professor and she did give this multiple book series for history a pass, the author is not an orientalist as well, the Venture of Islam:

https://www.amazon.com/Venture-Islam-Classical-Age/dp/0226346838/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523804477&sr=8-1&keywords=the+venture+of+islam&dpID=51KRFoNyv9L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Quran.com you can read, also see the text and listen as well.

Oh, a friend also used this when researching religions:


https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Religions-Plus-Huston-Smith/dp/0061660183/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523804928&sr=8-1&keywords=huston+smith+world%27s+religions

This book goes into it better but I'll quickly paraphrase.

The first caliphate started their invasions by taking over, getting local rulers to agree to their terms, and then setting up tents in the desert until they decided to start invading other areas. About 2-3 caliphs in they started hitting the entire issue of succession and so the Umayyad started getting the local rulers to convert following an invasion, although there was plenty of harrumphing over it. These local rulers allowed conversions but were considered lesser Muslims by the Arab invaders. It wasn't until Hisham that it was decreed that all could convert to Islam without issue.

It's important to look at modern Muslim-majority nations within the context of post-colonialism, and it's also important to note the biases of western media, authors, and audiences when discussing. The fact that you think that Muslims cannot objectively comment on on narrate their own histories or politics is a really problematic point of view. Do you think western perspectives on Islamic societies are unbiased towards and unaffected by western colonialist and imperialist involvement in said societies? Do you seek out Muslim, Chinese, Russian, or African narrations of western history and society too? Deeming non-western narratives of and contributions to historical or political discourse, among many other subjects, as being deficient is frankly a hallmark of western exceptionalism.

As for the first topic, the subject is really broad, and each Muslim-majority country has its own post-colonial narrative, but The Oxford History of Islam has three chapters specifically dealing with what you're trying to learn about - Ch 13 European Colonialism and the Emergence of Modern Muslim States, Ch 14 The Globalization of Islam, & Ch 15 Contemporary Islam: Challenges and Opportunities. Keep in mind though that this book just scratches the surface in terms of covering the historical development of modern-day Muslim states and the discussion doesn't really delve into the details of each individual country.

Secondly, I think you should maybe read some work by Edward Said. Specifically, you should look at Orientalism and Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. Orientalism is a critique of western perspectives on and representations of eastern societies. Covering Islam is a bit more specific obviously, and it analyzes objectivity of western narratives on modern-day Islam and Muslim-majority society.

John Esposito is a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown. Two books of his would fit what you are looking for. 1) What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam and 2) Islam the Straight Path

History books can be boring, but this one was very interesting

oh definitely, but there are so many more lies behind that, which led to Saidism being the dominant view in universities. The Truth can be found here: Islamic Imperialism, by Efraim Karsh (the writer of the article I posted)

another good rebuttal to the lie that its all about skin color is the case of Michael 'Younes' Delefortrie.

Elements of Murder: A History of Poison

Ignore the pulpy cover, there's a lot of depth here.

Also:

The Shadow Factory

The Ayatollah Begs to Differ

Just started that last one. Seems ok so far, but the Amazon reviews are promising.

> Is calling people 'biased white Americans brainwashed by their government' going to help that?

What inclusivity are you speaking of that automatically demonstrates a bias towards anything associated with Iran or the Islamic world in general and then dismisses everything else said based on this bias? You hold some bizarre ideas about inclusivity. Do you have a problem with the fact that white Anglo-North Americans are automatically conditioned by decades of relentless media and institutional propaganda to hold such bias? Because that is the truth of the matter and there is plenty of social science literature and analysis saying exactly this very thing. Start with Edward Sa'id's Covering Islam https://www.amazon.com/Covering-Islam-Media-Experts-Determine/dp/0679758909
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering_Islam

You say you support Iran and claim that you believe Baha'ism is a lie and false religion. Whether you actually do, well, the jury is out on that https://www.reddit.com/r/iranian/comments/aqvmvm/has_anybody_else_grown_to_like_ahmadinejad/egnh4dl/?st=juzmvf8d&sh=5d3f4656

Basic: Islam by Karen Armstrong

Intermediate: A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus

Advanced: The Venture of Islam by Marshall G. S. Hodgson, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3.

That's simply not accurate. The freedom of the people who live above it is paramount in their ability to actually demand a fair market price for the oil they sell, because when they don't, you have situations like Saudi Arabia Oil Concession, where western oil companies (then Chevron) are allowed to monopolize the world's largest oil reserves for far below market price. What you're saying is logical and follows economic theory, but has little relation to actual history. If you wanted to actually learn the history, I'd suggest A History of the Modern Middle East.

needs Hodgson's "Venture of Islam" (all 3 vols)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Venture-Islam-Volume-Classical/dp/0226346838

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Missing-Peace-Inside-Middle/dp/0374529809


|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|



This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting).

book link

The fact that he'd write this book calling out Israel demonstrates that Jimmy Carter has more fucking sack than any present day western public figure.

Ibn Tufayl's book Hayy Ibn Yaqzan tried out this subject.

I haven't gotten to this podcast episode yet, but the I assume some more details to that story will be talked about here.

http://www.amazon.com/Covering-Islam-Media-Experts-Determine/dp/0679758909

A Peace to End All Peace

It's not a general history of WWI, as it deals with the war in the Ottoman theater. To my knowledge, it's the definitive history of WWI and its aftermath in the Mid-East for a general audience.

>Well I have read the history always do. The zionists were dressed as Arabs while doing the bombings, like they blamed 9-11 on us.

You originally said the Brits were working with the Zionist? Why would the Zionist bomb the King David hotel if the Brits were their allies? During that attack no one "dressed as Arabs" and the Zionist sent warning letters before the attack.

>Read Balfour, read rothchild, read historical documents of the zionist invaders, moshe day an is the one I'm thinking of btw lol.
Can't school me friend, I know the truth, and I know the zionists run the banks, including the the fed.

You might know "the troof" but you clearly don't know a lot about the history of the formation of Israel.

How about you go read A History of The Middle East by Peter Mansfield (don't worry mein heir, he isn't a Joo) and then we can have a discussion on the plight of the Palestinian people.

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285026

I'd imagine that's a big part of it.

He's got to be about the only US President to bluntly denounce the policies in action in the Occupied Territories.

Just how much do you know about Saudi Arabia or the Saudi political system? I ask because in your first sentence, you state that a decapitation strike against the Saudi government pushes the royal family from power, yet the House of Saud is comprised of roughly 15,000 people--2,000 of which have power in one form or another in the government. Additionally, there are systems in place to help facilitate succession of the kingdom. And there are entire military services dedicated to ensuring the security of the government against internal threats. So the idea of a decapitation strike is fairly unlikely, which is to say nothing of the numerous other political and societal structures in place that would either facilitate or inhibit any attempt at a coup (especially by a non-state actor).

Before you continue drafting your storyline, I encourage you to read up on the history of Saudi Arabia, political Islam and Islamic extremism, and the international relations of the Arab World. Additionally, I would suggest taking a greater look at the Grand Mosque seizure of 1979 and its aftermath, and instances of a monarchy being overthrown by a non-royal entity. The coups against King Farouk of Egypt (1952), King Faisal II of Iraq (1958), King Idris I of Libya (1969), and the attempted coup against King Hussayn of Jordan (1970) might be good places to start. Not all of them will be applicable to you, but it should give you an idea of what a coup entails, what a successful coup looks like, and what the aftermath is.

With that in mind, I suggest the following books as a place to start:

History of Saudi Arabia and the Arab World

• On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines--and Future, Karen Elliott House
  
• Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia, Robert Lacey
  
• A History of the Arab Peoples, Albert Hourani
  
• The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine, Yaroslav Trofimov
  
  

  Middle East Politics
  

• Politics in the Middle East, James Bill and Robert Springborg
  
• The International Relations of the Persian Gulf, F. Gregory Gause III
  
  

  Islam and Political Islam
  

• What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, John Esposito
  
• The Many Faces of Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Muslim World
  
  

  Jihadism and Islamic Extremism
  

• Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone Needs to Know, Daniel Byman
  
• Jihad in Saudi Arabia: Violence and Pan-Islamism since 1979, Thomas Hegghammer

I'm not sure if you've never read up on the subject or are saying incorrect things intentionally. You cannot talk of the spread of Islam without discussing a massive amount of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

http://amzn.com/0300106033