The agenda is quite clear - to mislead the people and to alleviate the status of those people who were clearly enemies of the mission of the Prophet of Islam. The author calls Muawiyah "a person of Hilm" and "indeed Ameerul Mumineen". I think it is sufficient to introduce Muawiyah as "son of Hinda" and somebody who fathered "Yazeed" Muawiyah was kind and forbearing only when he had to face a powerful person who, he feared, might curb his power and topple his government. If Anybody wants to learn about his treachery - he should study the terms of his agreement with Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib and see how much he remained faithful to the terms of the agreement. He was simply a power hungary politician. There are other better authors who have been quite neutral in judging about personalities.

Shaban's work focuses primarily on the economic factors which influenced early Islamic history. He re-examines such well studied topics as the reasons behind Medina's acceptance of Mohammad (and his followers) leadership and the deaths of Ali, Hasan & Hussain through an economic rather than a theological lense. Accordingly, he stresses throughout his work that the spread of Islam outside the Arabian peninsula was far more a result of economic necessity than religious zeal.

Shaban's work is perhaps most accesible when he focuses on the very early period of the Prophet and the rightly guided Caliphs. As he moves into the early Ummayad period the work becomes rather dense and somewhat difficult to follow. None the less, his observations on the respective geopolitical positions of Syria, Arabia, and Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) during the period when Islam was expanding outside of the peninsula, whatever the reasons, are fascinating and go a long way in answering questions about the Middle East as it stands today.

Shaban's work can best be appreciated by someone who is familier with "accepted" theories of Islamic history and yet is interested in a different yet highly plausible account of how the faith spread beyond its early converts.

The book was somewhat dry, yet it was informative. Although on the surface the author tried to remain unbiased, it was evident that he was pro-khomeini. There was no mention of the 1000's of people murdered under his authority, especially that of the Bahai's who lived in Iran. Yet the Shah was portrayed as an oppressive ruler who had no regard for his people. Without knowing the actual history of Iran and that of the revolution, this book would be hard to follow.

I had Dr Milani two semesters ago for an International Politics class. I found him to be a rather open minded professor, but in this book he presents a rather one sided argument. Still, for those not familiar with the Islamic Revolution this book may be helpful. I would recommend reading other sources for further information and formulating your own opinions.

I don't want to spend too much time in discussing this book therefore I will just give 1 example of the ignorance of the author about the subject. The famous naval battle between Persians and Greec at Salamis took place, according to the author, at the colony of Salamis on the island of Cyprus!!!!

This book was written for the Cultures of the Past series, and is intended for juvenile readers. For being so small (69 pages, including the glossary), it does succeed in giving an overview of its subject. The book covers the Persians from prehistory, through the conquest by the Arabs in 642. It also describes their culture, covering such things as architecture, food and clothing, religion, and much else.

This book is not perfect; indeed, calling Salamis a Greek colony on the island of Cyprus is a glaring error. However, this book has many excellent pictures, and its layout does make it a very good introduction to the subject. Overall, I do recommend this book.

This book is supposed to tell you about the first years of the brutal theocracy created in Iran by a group of semi-literate mullahs led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Instead, it becomes a rather sinister apology for the mullahs.
The author, an Israeli journalist who spent many years in Iran,offers absolutely no analysis of why the mullahs, Khomeini in particular, behaved as they did.
Nor does he speak of the mass executions, the brutal repression of ethnic revolts, the widespread corruption and the use of terrorism as a weapon that have become halmarks of the Khomeinist theocracy.
Even more farcical is the author's obsession with economic factors in the middle of a great human tragedy.His implicit claim that Iranians deserved to have this kind of regime has, since, been rejected by facts as a majority of Iranians have turned out to vote against the Khomeinist hardline candidates in a series of recent elections.
At the time the book was written Khomeini was at war with Iraq's despot Saddam Hussein. That kept both dangerous regimes busy while alsoo dividing and weakening the Muslim bloc. Israel secretly helped Iran by sending weapons in order to prlong the war.Also at that time it was Israel's policy to support Islamist groups, including theLebanese Hezbollah and the Palestginian Hamas against nationalist and leftist Arab movements. This is, perhaps, why Bakhash is so sympathetic to Khomeini and his gang.
Written in a confused prose, this book throws a great deal of mist on a situation that the author himself regards as a mystery.
Pierre Benedile

This scholarly dissection of the Islamic Revolution in Iran is mostly concerned with its domestic issues. Iran's foreign affairs in this period are addressed only to the extent that they played important roles in domestic power contests. So if you're looking for detailed accounts of the American hostage crisis, the Rushdie affair, Iran-Contra, Iranian support of the Lebanese Hezbollah, or even the Iran-Iraq war, you won't find them here (although I think that reading this book will greatly enhance your understanding of such accounts). Instead, you will find exhaustive examination of internal struggles over land distribution, urban housing and the nationalization of industry and agriculture. Not that Bakhash's concern is solely economic--the book is primarily about political conflict: the debates on the constitution, the factional infighting within the party and the government, the endless polarization between "moderates" and "hardliners", the mystifyingly equivocal and minimalist leadership provided by Khomaini. In fact, if there is one flaw in this book (especially given its title), it is that Khomaini's behavior is left unanalyzed and enigmatic in the extreme. No attempt is made to explain his strange political moves: promoting and supporting moderates like Bani-Sadr, and then agreeing publicly with their enemies; stirring up the radical sentiments of the Majles (the legislature), while standing solidly behind the conservative Council of Guardians that sytematically vetoed radical economic legislation; encouraging those who sought diplomatic rapprochement with the West, and simultaneously torpedoing their efforts without warning. But this frustrating (though key) detraction aside, the book is very well written and researched, and I found myself unable to put it down--it elbowed aside every other book I was in the middle of reading, until it was finished.

As an aside, this book strengthens my impression that Hashemi-Rafsanjani (who was speaker of the Majles throughout most of the period covered) has played a uniquely central role in post-revolution Iran. We can only hope that someday Rafsanjani writes a full and frank memoir of his experiences.

Somehow I did make it through this book, but it was only out of sheer force of will. It was poorly written and dull. I thoroughly enjoy books on Iran in particular and the Middle East in general, but this book was more of an exhausting sob story than it was an interesting autobiographical journey. There's only so many pages that a person can endure a laundry list of complaints. If you're looking for a journey into today's Iran, read "Searching for Hassan" or "Honeymoon in Purdah."

I expected to learn something by reading this book, but unfortunately it's very poorly written and edited--I think both author and publisher are at fault here. Worse, I felt no sympathy at all for this woman by the end of the book--and I'm a feminist! This is not the memoirs of a sane or rational person. She is certainly largely to blame for her troubles, in fact I think she's as mentally unstable as her husband. I bought this book merely for one's woman's perspective on what it must be like to live in Iran, but the book failed to deliver even that. The author lacks any insight into her own mental state and her descriptions of daily life are vague and confused.

First on the writing style. This book is extremely hard to read and difficult to follow because she skips around too much and gets off subject. One minute she's 30-something, next line she flashes back to age 10 with no warning. I am an American Muslim and I don't pretend to know everything that goes on the world, especially in Shia Iran. So I can't say if she is telling the truth or not but for God's sake why do you expect IRAN to be like UK? It makes no sence to me to complain about all the stuff that happened when it was HER own decision to go there, not once but TWICE. If it was too much to handle the fisrt time WHY GO BACK? I think she brought all her hardship on herself. Not every Muslim is going to be as strict as the next. If you can't handle it, find a more laidback environment and live the kind of life you want. Don't go to one of the strictest countries (Shia/Islam-wise) and expect the country to change for you. AHHHHHH!

The author does not know how to spell Dr. MOSSADDEGH'S name correctly. Again another American ignorant. Just as they call us EYE-RAINIANS.

This book is a competent history of the politics of Iran and the place of Musaddiq in it. The other reviewer's statement about the spelling of Musaddiq's name is rather silly: it's a matter of a transliteration of the Farsi letters using an Arabic pronunciation (Musaddiq) vs. one that is derived from Farsi pronunciation. In short, it's no reflection on the quality of the work whatsover, if anyone was prone to take such a silly review seriously to begin with.

This is a very poorly written book. There are hundreds of spelling and grammatical errors. I can't believe a publisher actually printed this book, or that nobody with some education proofread it before it was published.

The book seems to be a collection of drawings, extracts from other books or articles, and another book (perhaps in Farsi from the same author). It is a mix bag of disjointed short description of stories from Shahnameh (the legendary / mythical history of the ancient Iran) and the history of the Persian Empire. The pages, the stories, and the whole book do not flow together.

I do not know that much about the subject itself, but I suspect that there are a lot of wrong information in the book as well.

This is realy my first book I am reading on Iran and the great Persian history. It gave me a great insight of the pre-islamic Iran. I agree that the book is not well edited. However, it wraps up many thousand years old Iranian civilization development from inception to pre-islam. The first four chapters include Iranian mythology. and the last four chapters are about the begining of the Persian empire to the end around 6th century A.D. The writer is not a historian. He is trying to put together a book about the Iranian history which he felt missing in the market. The stories are short from each kingdom and pro-iranian. He put them in a chronological order. there is many editorial mistakes in this book. I recommend it to the Iranians who must be reminded of their very important history which they are very proud of.

Is there any chance to publishe a book about Iran with corporation of an Iranian publlisher and a Fernch publisher? I mean text would be provided by French publishr and everything else (photos , misenpage , and printing , binding ) by an Iranian publisher . If the answer is positive ,please let me know. Best regards javad yasavoli

I really don't like social studies. I'm just trying to get information for an essay, and i cant seem to find anything.

The author of this book is an American academic who visited Iran in the 1970s and wrote an interesting research paper on the political elite under the Shah.
In " Majestic Failure: The Fall of the Shah", Zonis revises and expands some of his conclusions in that earlier research.
Zonis seems to believe that the Shah's fall was almost solely his own fault , and not a result, at least in part, of the activities of the mighty coalition of forces ranged against his regime- from the Soviet bloc to radical mullahs to European and American leftists.
Thus the entire book is structured in a way to show the Shah's regime as one programmed to end in disaster. It is as if , writing about a man who has been killed in a car crash, we blame him for having been unkind to his mother-in-law or having spent too much time on a golf course.
A more balanced account of the Shah's eventual fall can be found in William Shawcross's " The Shah's Last Ride: The Betrayal of An Ally" which shows the callous way in which successive American administrations dealt with Iran and its leader.
A more accessible, and ultimately more informative, account of the Shah's turbulent reign is offered in Amir Taheri's " The Unknown Life of the Shah".
For an understanding of the Shah's foreign policy go to James Alban Bill's " The Eagle and the Lion".
As far as this reveiwer is concerned there is still room for several more books on the Shah. A READER IN HAMPSTEAD