Customer Reviews

Islam and the Myth of Confrontation: Religion and Politics in the Middle East

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Over the last two decades, Islamic revivalism in the Muslim world has been the subject of heated debates among academicians and policy makers. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Islam has often been perceived as a world-wide menace and the major threat to the West. Some scholars have directed attention to a large scale confrontation between Islam and the West that they call a "clash of civilization." Fred Halliday sets out to reject such interpretations. He provides an alternative, critical but cautious reassessment.

Halliday asserts that the Islamic threat to the West is propagated from two contradictory sides--from the West that seeks to turn the Muslim world into another enemy, and from the camp of those within the Islamic countries who advocate contadiction with the Western world in order to remain in power. Halliday contends that the idea of a prennial conflict with West is not just an invention of European or American demagogues. "As communism collapsed, and with it the range of parties and movements in the Third World that associated with it, some in the Islamic world appeared to confirm Western prejudices by affirming that they would indeed replace Bolshevism as the major challenge to the West, and would do so more effectively because their challenge was inspired by God."

"Isam and the Myth of Confrontation" is a scholarly contribution and extremely insightful book that sheds new light on a very complex issues involving the Middle East. General readers as well as experts on the Midlle East are certain to be enlightened by this excellent book.

Halliday's title "Myth of Confrontation" has thrown off more than one reviewer and probably left some potential readers to dismiss the book entirely. (It is ironic and also unfortunate, that another book more shallow and less valuable became a big seller because it's title appeared to be confirmed by 9-11 shortly after it was completed, "What Went Wrong?" - such are the fates and irrationality of opinion formation.)

Readers should start with the new Preface written a year after 9-11 and be prepared to work a little harder to think rather than merely find simplistic confirmation of bias they may have. This is not to say one always agrees - only that Halliday has worthwhile things to say to those with an open mind.

The first section has chapters on the Middle East in International Relations reminding us that similar drives apply as elsewhere in the world and that it is not totally and mystically unique. An interesting essay on the Iranian Revolution is followed by another on the Gulf War.

Part two provides mature reflections on select issues: "Islam and the West" and the validity of their mutual threats; human rights issues; and many sources of anti-Muslimism (one might wryly comment that his oversight misses Amazon reviewers and the darker side of the US Media). The conclusion critiques both Said and the Orientalists although it is not terribly satisfying and not really tightly constructed conclusion for the book so much as another essay.

Some general readers may find the analytical style a bit tough going built as it is on more than the flaccid assertions of some other more popular books. Yet the case that Islam is too varied, focus too much centered on domestic concerns, and conflicts of interest and character of various Muslim regimes and Fundamentalist groups too considerable for a meaningful interpretation based on Islam's "confrontation" or "civilizational clash" to really explain anything worth explaining is made - however indirectly. Conspiratorial theorists, paranoids, and Crusaders will be disappointed - but probably would not think their way through the book anyway (fundamentally convinced of their own just truth already).

Huntington's thesis is not directly addressed here but is, and should be, discredited by the discussion of particulars. (For a more direct analysis of that one should see such things as relevant chapter's of "Why America's Top Pundit's Are Wrong".) This book draws from specific analysis, Huntington's from broad generalization and assertions. Halliday is a scholar of Muslim themes, Huntington read Lewis's essay on "Rage" and not a whole lot more. Pundits, politicians, polemicists, press people have climbed on Huntington's bandwagon and policy has been effected - it is a pity that few have honestly considered alternatives. But then "60 million Americans can't be wrong" - no that was `Frenchmen'.

Halliday argues that there is no 'one' Islam but doesn't address the factors that necessitate the clash of civilisations.

Islam cannot happily exist in a secular framework as it has its own framework which is mutually exclusive.

Huntingdon's initial prediction of a clash was shallow but ultimately correct and Halliday's cultural discussion ignores the essence of the debate.

Given recent events, Freddy must be looking for work. Institutions as reputable as the LSE tend to demand that their faculty keep at least marginally in touch with the real world.

In seriousness, this book is poorly written, apologetic tripe. Those seriously interested in ME criticism should consult Ajami or Lewis, not hack journalists like Halliday (or Thomas Friedman, for that matter).