Customer Reviews

Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

John Esposito is the author of one of the very best introductions to Islam currently available, ISLAM: THE STRAIGHT PATH, and is one of the most respected Islamic scholars currently working in the US. It was with enormous excitement that I discovered that Esposito had written a book that addresses the concerns that most Americans and Europeans have in the wake of 9-11.

This book is invaluable for understanding both the variety of traditions in Islam concerning Jihad, a term which means, simply, "struggle", and not, as many in the US imagine, something akin to "war". This "struggle" is most often, as Esposito explains, spiritual than military, and he is outstanding at showing the wide variety of views concerning the forms "jihad" can take. Even for those who believe in a military "jihad" Esposito demonstrates that there are many viewpoints. He is also superb at integrating these varying understandings with the origins of Islam. One of his great achievements is in showing that just as there is enormous diversity in Christianity (just compare the beliefs of Anglicans, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Roman Catholics, Russian Orthodoxy, Pentecostals, Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses, and Presbyterians, to take merely a few Christian traditions, and the point is grasped), so also there is a vast amount of diversity in Islamic belief. He points out that the vast majority of Muslims do not countenance violence against innocent civilians. The focus, however, of this book is on that minority that embraces violence.

Esposito discusses not only traditional Islamic teachings on Jihad and the relations of Islam with non-Islamic individuals and countries, but also 20th century thinkers and activists. This was the part of the book I found most helpful. Esposito shows how the terrorists are frequently driven by a set of ideas derived from specific writers or schools of thought. The have been inculcated in specific ways of conceiving the state of Islam's relation with the rest. These thinkers have argued for a purer form of Islam, for the establishment of genuine Islamic governments in primarily Islamic countries, for the severing of cultural and economic ties with the West (even to the extent of ceasing to export oil), for the elimination of an American and European presence and influence in these countries, and for the establishment of a homeland for the Palestinian people. And, unfortunately, many--though by no means all--of these thinkers conceive it as legitimate to employ terrorist acts of violence to achieve these goals.

While UNHOLY WAR has many virtues, it does have couple of weaknesses. The weaknesses consist in the fact that for most of us, the situation with terrorism is an immensely practical issue: we want to know what can be done, what solutions exist for resolving this situation, how Muslims and Westerners can peacefully coexist on this planet. Esposito does offer a final chapter that addresses some causes for hope, primarily in the shape of paradigms within Islam itself that offer alternatives to those espoused by Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. This was the weakest part of the book, by far. The individuals that Esposito mentions have not, unfortunately, captured the imaginations of many Muslims who are engaged in the struggle to right what they see to be the wrongs inflicted on Islam by the US and European civilization. I would love for Americans and Middle Eastern Muslims to understand each other; for now, I would be content with extremists ceasing acts of terrorism and for Americans to begin addressing in concrete the Muslims very real complaints about US military presence in Saudi Arabia and the failure to respond to needs for a Palestinian homeland.

Stylistically, the book is not as well written as one might hope. The first chapter especially is sometimes a bit flat. Perhaps the desire to get this book published quickly is partly at fault for that. Nonetheless, this is a book that can be read with enormous profit. Like me, perhaps a reader will be left feeling actually less hopeful afterwards, especially after learning how widespread ultraconservative Hammadi Islam has become. But anyone reading this will definitely have a greater understanding of the intellectual underpinnings of the more radical elements of contemporary Islam.

Having read a few of John Esposito's other books I had come to appreciate him as one of America's most level-headed analysts of things Islamic. That is why the first chapter of 'Unholy War' was somewhat disappointing. The description of Osama bin Laden's career as a militant Muslim appeared not to differ very much from many other, superficial accounts of this new 'posterboy' of international terror. Thankfully this unease was dispelled by the remainder of the book, where Esposito shows himself again as somebody with a willingness to understand, without becoming apologetic.

For in the second chapter the author seems to regain his composure when he constructs a genealogy of the Islamic Jihad doctrine. The reader is guided through the earliest time of Islam, via the lone medieval figure of Ibn Taymiyya and the 18th-century revivalist Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, to three exponents of modern-day Islamic reformism: the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, the Pakistani writer-activist Maulana al-Mawdudi, and the chief ideologist of Islamic radicalism, Sayyid Qutb.

As this chapter only gives a brief account of the development of the Jihad concept, there are certain unavoidable generalizations. Unfortunately the depiction given of Shi'ism is somewhat simplistic. However, with this historical account Esposito makes the less-informed reader aware of the fact that the past is of great importance for giving meaning and guidance to Muslim identity.

Crucial in this section of the book is the underscoring of the fact that Muslims disagree among themselves about the exact meaning of Jihad. The fact that until to date the United States government judged Islam's holy and unholy warriors by their goals is another excellent observation. They were called liberators when fighting America's Cold War adversary, but brandished as extremists as they toppled America's ally, the Shah. Future policy makers should heed the implicit warning that is contained in Esposito's qualification that things are never that simple.

The third chapter is without a doubt the best. Discerning a new dimension of radical Muslim activism: globalization, the author also focusses on the mutual misunderstandings and misconceptions that exist between the Western and the Islamic World. Where Westerners tend to see Islam as a religion of the sword, Muslims equal Christianity with Crusades and hegemonic ambition. Later history has done very little to dispel these grossly simplistic images.

But these images do bear a relevance for today's situation. European colonialism ended Muslim expansion that had continued since the days of the Prophet. This setback was formative for the Muslims' present mindset. Combined with the Muslim notion that Islamic societies must reform themselves in every age, 'they make a combustible mixture'.

Western domination has not only had an impact on the relationship between the Muslim and Western world, but also on the relationship between rulers and ruled in the Islamic world itself. The upheaval created by Western interference has still not petered out. Most of the Muslim states are creations of colonialism and the prevalent systems of government are still authoritarian. Esposito warns against drawing the conclusion that repression and dictatorship are therefore inherent to Islam.

Esposito cautions also against two other misleading generalizations, which are the result of ignorance regarding the complexities of Muslim society.

One is the assumption that radical Islam is only about armed resistance, violence, and terrorism. But there is another side to it as well. Even organizations that are involved in terrorist activities, like the Hizbollah and Hamas, have at the same time provided vital social, educational, and health services for their communities where the governments have failed to do so. Such contributions to the raising of living standards will get them the enduring support of the people, even if such organizations are at the same time guilty of atrocities against outsiders.

Another mistake is to group all forms of Islamic reformism in gloss categories and use umbrella terms. Esposito cites the misdenomination of all radical Muslims as Wahhabis or Salafis. The original meanings of these terms referred to very specific historical movements, while the latter term was - ironically - first used to denote that trend in Islamic thought, which encouraged the incorporation of modernist concepts and ideas.

In the final chapter of the book, Esposito makes an attempt to introduce empathy into our stand towards the Islamic world. He points out that if we presume 'the other' as being completely different from what we are, then we will find in 'the other' whatever we are looking. There is a real danger that we will be tempted to demonize the other.

Instead we should try to take a look at the historical experience of the Islamic world through their eyes. In addition to that we must endavor to judge Islam by the totality of its teachings, and not take extremist ideas living at the perify as representing mainstream Muslim sentiment.

Furthermore, religious traditions have come into being through the interactions of their predecessors. While we accept that a Judeo-Christian tradition has been internalized and turned into what we call 'Western society', most Westerners have difficulty in coming to terms with the prospect of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. And yet such encounters have already taken place in the past: in Asia Minor, Spain, and Sicily. They have been vital not only for the formation of Islamic civilization, but also for some of the most fertile phases in Western thought.

It is on these grounds that Esposito rejects the unavoidability of a clash of civilizations. Too much cross-fertilization has already taken place. Western and Islamic traditions are pluralist and not monolithic. Towards the end of the book he presents also a number of representatives from the Islamic world who acknowledge the existence of such a pluralism. It is such figures who can act as bridge-builders from the Muslim side, while similar minds start at ours.

Esposito has done a good job in presenting the many facts that are not known to common public in the West. I feel Esposito has been very brave and upfront. He's been outspoken, yet also well balanced. He does not try to please anyone. Also, contrary to what his critics might say, he is not one sided. In fact, to put it more appropriately, this book fills up a hole in the western media, by presenting the other side of the story, which is largely missing from the media. It is a great read because it helps REALISTICALLY answer many questions the west has about Islam, rather than giving self-satisfying short answers which make no sense. The author also differentiates between terrorists, and Muslim activists all over the world. He explains how various rulers, Western and Islamic, have cleverly used the tag of terrorism to curb legitimate opposition in many Muslim countries. Wherever he has tried to correct a wrong western perception of a Islamic principle, he has given solid references and examples. If you don't already have your mind made up on blaming the religion, feel there are questions unanswered by the media, want to know the facts, or just want to hear the other side of the story from an unbiased resource, I would recommend this book to you.

John Esposito is a professor of religion and International Affairs at Georgetown, born and raised a Catholic, and one of the founders of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. He's also a consultant to the State Department, which means he's politically knowledgeable. His books are not only level-headed and impartial, they're knowledgeable -- he has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, which is more than the authors of most of the sensationalist books on Islam on the market at the moment. He really has no agenda except (as obvious) to promote understanding between religions.

Given that, it's refreshing to read this book. It gives the background of why people like bin Laden exist (he doesn't excuse them -- he just tells us why they exist), gives the Islamic doctrine of jihad (which, despite people who throw the term around indiscriminately, means a defensive war under certain limited conditions), and tries to explain how the doctrine of jihad is being misused. People who refer to the "real meaning of jihad" as what happened on 9/11 are simply displaying ignorance and a resistance to becoming informed.

Dealing with 9/11 means dealing with the complex morass of issues that provoked it. Esposito helps us understand some of those issues. He also provides a glossary in the back for Arabic terms that the media has no trouble using as if they know what they mean (such as shari'a).

The media distorts Islam so out of proportion that any attempt to correct inaccuracies is denounced as "whitewashing." Esposito does not whitewash. He tries to explain and promote understanding. He is not pro-Islam. In fact, he's not pro-anybody. He states facts and he doesn't explain everything in terms of good-guy/bad-guy, white/black, good/evil. Although that is bound to make some people uncomfortable, the world is not black and white.

I highly recommend this book if you want to stop being manipulated by the media and to make a sincere attempt at understanding some of the turmoil in the world today.

Like many others (I'm sure), I selected this book based on the credentials of its author. I had hoped for a well-researched, reasoned, and, above all, TRUTHFUL meditation on the topic. By my naive reasoning, a respected social scientist, through their passionate dedication to a chosen field of research, would keep fidelity with the facts of the matter, and add the true insight that is born of this passion.

What I got was somewhat older, some eyestrain, and a sense of having been cheated.

This is not to say that this work hasn't had an impact on my life. As a result of my exposure to Mr. (Dr.?) Esposito's work, I am now FAR more distrustful of muslims in general and, for the first time, open to the weird conservative theory that universities are more about indoctrination than education. Congratulations, John.

This is, put succinctly, the most intellectually dishonest tripe I have read in 40+ years of reading. Esposito should be ashamed of this work, as should any university allowing him a venue for such illogical excrement.

To save other naive souls the time and aggravation, allow me to sum up Mr. Esposito's blindingly insightful work in 10 points he would like you to understand:

#1. All muslims are very nice people.
#2. Well, maybe not ALL of them, but the few bad apples like bin laden are only products of highly respected muslim teachings of a few hundred years ago and about 50 years ago. #3. What these naughty muslims are doing is completely against the teachings of the Koran, even though it really kind of isn't, if you interpret their behavior as a form of self-defense for Islam.
#4. None of this matters anyway, because Christianity is at least as bad if not much worse, considering the crusades, who can blame them for the premeditated killing of women, children and other muslims?
#5. And while we're on that topic, all of this is our fault anyway (Espisito, in perhaps the most spectacular example of reverse reasoning ever witnessed, actually cites the NATO policy of high-altitude flight during missions over Bosnia as one of the many "crimes" committed by our muslim-hating country against Islam).
#6. Muslim society and culture is actually far more progressive in its treatment of women, because the ladies love to wear the pretty scarves (and, presumably those alluring burkhas). It doesn't matter that they can't occupy high positions of government because... because... it just doesn't, OK?
#7. This is all the Wahhabi's fault. Wait a minute... no it's not. Sorry about that.
#8. Islam is perfectly compatible with democracy, even though the Koran clearly states that all government must be overseen by at least one Imam. Trust me on this one...
#9. Islam is a wonderfully tolerant religion. The Koran specifically states that, under certain restrictions, it is perfectly OK to allow Jews and Christians to go on living.
#10. Apart from us, the only other cause of terrorism in Islam is our habit of forcing savage dictatorships on the arab peoples. Egypt is especially yucky. We should drop our support of that government, so the Islamic freedom fighters there could get on with their various chores, like throwing grenades at Anwar Sadat for signing a peace accord, or machine-gunning German tourists in the Valley of the Kings.

So there you have it. The sense that the reader comes away with is that Mr. Esposito believes that, in writing this book, his role is higher and far more noble than simply communicating the sum of relevant knowledge on the topic. After all, the lesser beings he will enlighten are far too stupid and irresponsible to make up their own minds. Much better to write a clumsy, unsolicited and suspiciously incompetent defense to some invisible accusation than inform.

Perhaps this author might consider that the first step to dealing with the problem is recognizing it as a problem-not denying it through weird, irrelevant contextualizations, or justifying it with obscure or imagined offenses against the muslim world over the last 300 years. Through this dishonest and condescending rubbish, he has not only vaporized his own credibility in my eyes, but that of his subject premise as well.

John L. Esposito casts himself in the role of King Canute in his latest book, apparently attempting to single handedly hold back the tides of Islamophobia which he perceives to be sweeping the West in general and post 9/11 America in particular. Esposito takes an opposing view to that expressed by the likes of Alan Dershowitz that we should waste no time agonising over motivation, cause and background to Islamic terror attacks. Esposito feels it is important to understand the background to the conflict and the way the people involved think. I agree. It's an excellent aim. And far from just politically correct - to understand the enemy (and Esposito points out the Muslims in general are not the enemy) aids, is even essential to, the fight. To understand is not to excuse. Nor is it to forgive.

Unfortunately, at times Esposito blurs the lines a bit and by the end of the book I felt this had eaten into his credibility quite a bit. He seems to have bought into the whole Post-colonialist reading of history and that isn't the least of it. One of Esposito's central ideas is to demonstrate that Islam and the West are not incompatible and that there is no "Clash of Civilisations". Again, I agree that there is no clash of civilisations. However, Esposito spends much of his time talking about how Muslims and Christians can live side by side - far less time talking about how Muslims and secularists can cheerfully live side by side. Which is a worry. He also perhaps goes a little far in sticking up for the idea of Western standards of Human Rights as being unnecessary and patronising in an Islamic World context. A little bit of cultural relativism goes a long way, but at times Esposito ends up sounding like a left wing version of the numerous big business defenders of "Asian Values" in places like Malaysia. Worst of all is his defence of the work done by people like Hamas and Hezbollah in the realms of education and "public service". Esposito seems to dislike the tendency of Western governments to limit funding to these groups and apparently is of the view that a clear and genuine seperation exists between the abovementioned groups terrorist activities and their charitable works - this is a dangerous point of view that can at best be put down to willful naivety.

So a good book in concept then, but heavily flawed in execution. Esposito's coverage of the various thinkers behind militant Islam is useful and he obviously has a passion for his subject but while I would recommend this book as something to provoke, moderate and get the old brain ticking over I would caution against taking it as completely gospel.

The recent furor at the Univ. of N. Carolina concerning a required book reading for all incoming Freshmen revived my attention to learning more about Islam. The book in question, "Approaching the Qu'ran" by Michael Sells had provoked a firestorm in N.Carolina amongst the Christian right. This commotion also caught the attention of Ted Koppel, who then presented an interview on "Nightline". In that show, John Esposito, who was totally unknown to me, gave a thoughtful and reasoned assessment of the UNC book situation and pointed out the importance of learning about Islam in the post 9/11 world.

I perused the Sells book in a bookstore and decided that I didn't want to know about the Qu'ran text line by text line. It seemed important to learn about a more global context of Islam in terms of history, politics, geography, etc. That's when I began to read "Unholy War--terror in the name of Islam". I found it to be concise, even handed in discussing terrorism and radical Muslims, and insightful in understanding how the world has come to 9/11. His third chapter: 'Armies of God' is particularly helpful in understanding recent events. Since other Amazon reviewers have detailed chapters in the book, I will not rehash them here. Suffice it to say that Esposito's book covers much ground but is very concise.

I'm also reading "What went wrong?" by Bernard Lewis, who sheds historical light on the interplay of Muslim and Christian societies. But Esposito's "Unholy War" helps the reader connect and understand more directly the activities of the Muslim extremists and today's happenings. This is the book that should have been recommended by the U.N.C. faculty for its Freshmen.

Esposito, certainly one of the foremost scholars today who deals knowledgeably with the interrelationship of Islam and Christianity, has produced this short but extremely readable and relevant book detailing in succint form what he believes to be the issues that are the basis for the struggle between radical Islam and America. I highly recommend this book for people who come to the issue with little prior knowledge about the issues shaping the problem, or anyone who wants to have a better understanding of the topic, regardless of the amount of knowledge they bring to the table. This book just may whet your appetite for more reading on the subject!

I picked this title hoping to increase my understanding of how these groups justify terror in pursuit of their goals. Esposito is an expert (per his bio), but after reading the book, I'm concerned. The conclusion I got from the book is that mainstream Islam is now the violent, death-to-the-infidel that myself and most others fear. The author does some justice to Islam's history, skipping though, some very important events. The battle of Tours and the later seiges of Vienna, where Moslem expansion into central Europe ended, are skipped. I have to think that if a people's memory is that long, that these defeats play some part in the character of the culture. Esposito fails to mention them. Also, his reformers of the last part of the book are mostly without voice outside of a very small area. I'm glad there are a few peaceful men (notice no Muslim women are mentioned anywhere) but, historically every major cultural change has been accompanied by years of violence. The freeing of the French people, and the American Civil war come to mind. The dictators and tyrants who currently rule the mid-east know this and are very wary of having their subject peoples direct their frustration inward. They would all probabaly be replaced if attention was directed to the true source of the citizens troubles. Esposito mentions this, but doesn't elaborate. I wish he had. Fine background into Islamic belief, but fails to truly describe why thousands danced in the streets of Levant on 11 Sept '02.

The 9/11 attacks left most Americans stunned, angry, and uncomprehending. As it became clear that these attacks had been committed in the name of Islam, the struggle became to understand how religion could be used to justify the slaughter of innocents. The media, the government, and ordinary citizens sought answers to questions: Who are the extremists who perpetrate such deeds? Why do they hate us? What do they hope to achieve? Does Islam teach that such terrorists are holy warriors? In this brief, clear-sighted, and accessibly written book, John Esposito, one of the world's most respected scholars of political Islam, provides answers to these and many other questions that have risen in the wake of the attacks.

Teachers/Librarians: 9th to Adult - Social Studies/Humanities