30 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
What does Jihad mean?, May 20, 2005
This review is from: Understanding Jihad (Paperback)
It is difficult nowadays to get an objective, nuanced opinion on Islam, neither flattering nor biased against it. If I were to recommend a way to try and achieve that, I would suggest reading several good books on the matter, including this among them, for in my opinion it is quite complete and fairly assessed.
This work aims to answer the following question: Which is the meaning of jihad? Holy war or spiritual striving to improve oneself?
Pursuant to the author, during the first several centuries of Islam the interpretation of jihad was unabashedly aggressive and expansive, and the conquest achieved by Islam in the VII and VIII centuries C.A. have been seen by Muslims as one of the incontrovertible proofs of Islam, so that nowadays they are unwilling to confront the fact that such conquest were basically as unjustified as European colonial conquests. The so-called "greater jihad" (i.e., the one with an ascetic and pacific meaning) seems a patently apologetic device not well attested in the hadith literature, which was adduced in order to overcome a resistance to the acceptance and legitimacy of jihad.
Cook also points out a reasonable outsider must conclude that radical Islam is indeed a legitimate expression of Islam, yet the fact that the majority of contemporary Muslims do not actively participate in militant jihad demonstrates a decisive rejection of which the radical Muslims are keenly aware. The reality is that jihad during the past two centuries has been a dismal failure, with the possible exception of the expulsion of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Besides, it also represents a danger to Muslims, for it is all too easy to turn it against them.
All that (and much more that I do not mention in this summary) is developed in 235 pages (footnotes included), the book being divided in the following chapters: 1. Qur'an and Conquest; 2. The "Greater Jihad" and the "Lesser Jihad"; 3 The Crystallization of Jihad Theory: Crusade and Counter-crusade, 4 Jihad during the Nineteenth Century: Renewal and Resistance; 5. Radical Islam and Contemporary Jihad Theory; 6. Globalist Radical Islam and Martyrdom Operations; Afterword; Appendix: Some Translated Documents (e.g. A Communiqu' from Qa'Idat Al-Jihad concerning the Testaments of the Heroes and the Legality of the Washington and New York Operations, April 24, 2002).
Nevertheless, although the content is very interesting, the book often happens to be a tough reading; therefore I have rated the book as a 4 start book (content: 5 starts; pleasure of reading: 3 to 1).
Other books that I would recommend to read would be the following:
ASSESSMENTS OF ISLAM:
1) The best, impartial, wise: "Islam. History, present, future" by Hans Küng (written in German, already available in Spanish, English translation coming in 2007).
2) Harsh but well argued: "Muslims in the West: Redefining the Separation of Church & State" by Sami Awad Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh.
3) Moderate Islam at its best: "The Great Theft : Wrestling Islam from the Extremists" by Khaled M. Abou El Fadl
4) Autobiography of a courageous woman: "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a controversial thinker with a very interesting life.
HISTORY:
1) General: "The Venture of Islam", by Marshall G. S. Hodgson (nowadays a classic included in any bibliography on Islam).
2) Turks: "The Turks in World History" by Carter Vaughn Findley.
3) Political theory: "God's Rule : Government and Islam" by Patricia Crone.
4) Jihad: it also seems interesting although I have not read it yet: "Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice" by Michael Bonner
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A rare piece of intellectually honest scholarship on a crucial concept and reality for the 21st Century, July 27, 2009
This review is from: Understanding Jihad (Paperback)
This is an excellent book on the subject of jihad and the books it cites include all the key canonical texts of Islam, including the Qur'an, which is rife with incitements against non-Muslims, and the ahadith (the 'traditions' of Muhammad's words and deeds, compiled by pious Muslims). It will certainly get some people's backs up since it reveals the doctrinal and historical basis of militant, offensive (as opposed to merely defensive) jihad. Cook maps the origins of jihad from the time of Muhammad, who conducted numerous raids and unprovoked attacks upon local tribes (attested by his authoritative Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq), through to its crystallization within Islamic law. He utterly refutes the Islamic apologist nonsense of John Esposito et al in showing that jihad as a struggle within one's 'soul' - called the 'greater' jihad - never appeared in any authentic hadith, and never superseded the prevailing notion of jihad as 'warfare to spread Islam'. The fact that offensive jihad to spread Islam is an obligation for the Muslim community in all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence is never tackled by such Islamic apologists. The meaningless charge of Cook being 'right' wing may be expected but is a typical and empty accusation made by people who don't like the truth be told. It does nothing to address the facts and arguments presented by Cook, who is an Arabic scholar with direct access to all of the primary source materials. Considering that most Islamic studies departments in Western universities are dominated by 'scholars' of the Edward Said school - i.e. 'intellectual terrorists' as Ibn Warraq would call them - or are funded by Saudi money with a vested interest in sanitising Islamic studies, it comes as no surprise that many academics would shun this work. However, this is lucid, dispassionate, insightful and brilliantly articulated. If I could recommend one book on jihad, in addition to Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad, Bat Ye'or's Islam and Dhimmitude or Walid Phares's Future Jihad - OK, that's four in total - then I would strongly recommend this. Militant jihad for the sake of rendering Islam dominant did not start with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, nor with the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyed Qutb, as some "moderate" Muslims claim (take Ed Husain's autobiographical The Islamist as an example of a work that pretends to be authoritative on this but fails miserably to be so). Cook's book puts the entire lineage of jihad theory and practice into historical context, and despite its permutations he concludes that it has always been pushing at the horizon.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Well-researched discussion of jihad, March 30, 2007
This review is from: Understanding Jihad (Paperback)
One hears so many different things about jihad, it is very easy to become totally confused. And much of it is so biased and politically motivated that it's hard to know what to trust. This book does a pretty good job discussing jihad- what it is, and its history. This author basically argues that, contrary to some who might argue that jihad is solely peaceful spiritual striving or only defensive, it traditionally has meant, among these other things, religiously sanctioned war, defensive or offensive, against non-Muslims.
The book does a better job at being objective than much of what I've read. This is not to say the author doesn't have a bias; it becomes evident that he probably does. However, he does a good job at backing his case with evidence- namely, numerous quotations from the Koran and hadith and from medieval Muslim jurists and other writers. Thus I am inclined to beleive his main argument. He may, however, be a bit harsh on those Muslims who argue that jihad is only peaceful or defensive- he calls them all "apologists" when some of them at least may be trying to reform one of the more outmoded, barbaric aspects of traditional Islam.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
