Globalized Islam: The Search For A New Ummah (The Ceri Series in Comparative Politics and International Studies)

Rating:
Summary: One thing right
Review: One thing is 100% correct here. Islamism is a direct reaction tot he west, employing western concepts like 'human rights' and such other odd ideas to then attack the west. THe Islamic world was much more liberal and moderate before it came into contact with the west. The current wave of terrorism and hatred is based much more on islamic reading and studying in the west then actually the original 'Islamic civilization' before contact with the west. for instance the hatred of 'womens rights' is more based on a hatred of the western woman, then it is the way Islamic women actually used to act. The anti-semitism of modern islam is anothee aspect that was wholly stolen from the West. The search for the 'real' islam is a waste and this book is correct in understanding the Islamism is merely a search, like communism, for a third way. It is the wests coddling of Islam that has emboldened its most fanatic members, it is the lefts support of terrorism that created the 'left wing' terrorism that then transformed into militant Islamic terrorism, it is the wests self hatred that has made Islam hate the west.

Rating:
Summary: Engulfed in details
Review: The author presents bewildering array of facts. He certainly had enormous knoledge on the subject. It is a pity that he prefers to play with words instead of offering a proper analysis. Two quotations:
"When everything has to be Islamic, nothing is". Really?
"The illusion held by the Islamic radicals is that they represent tradition, when in fact they express a negative form of westernisation". Meaning what?
Still, if you have plenty of time and patience it might be worth to decode the convoluted paths of Mr. Roy arguments. I still have not make it to the end of the book - reading more than 30 pages daily is not possible.

Rating:
Summary: Where is Islam headed?
Review: There are plenty of ideas in this book. And I think it is worth reading, even though I rarely agreed with Roy's arguments or his conclusions.

The author begins by saying that "culturalists" say that "Islam is the issue." And he disagrees with them. Yes, the culturalists include just about everyone: Islamists, moderate Muslims, Islamophobes, anti-Islamophobes, and orientalists. But not him. He's not so sure it even makes sense to discuss a Muslim culture. And he sees what most of us think of as Islamic struggles actually being examples of nationalism and ethnicity. While Islam may provide some people with a sense of identity, he points out that in the war against Israel, there's no real difference politically between the seculars and the Islamists. And he asks if jihad is really closer to Marx (Karl, not Harpo or Groucho) than it is to the Koran.

I sort of blinked when I read that. While it might be true, I didn't quite agree with Roy's logic. He continued by explaining that the Chechens and the Levantine Arabs are engaged in liberation struggles. I think he's wrong about the Levantine Arabs. I see their struggle as being neither pro-religious, nor pro-nationalistic, nor even pro-ethnic, but very specifically anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-ethnic, and against human rights. Roy calls the Levantine Arabs a people, but I see them as an antipeople who have no positive goals for themselves that need to be satisfied but only goals of hurting a people they have banded together to fight. All this is quite the opposite of a liberation struggle. And using Islam as a means to get people to identify with one side in this fight does indeed make Islam at least part of the issue.

Roy continues by discussing the fact that Muslims still come up with polemics against competing religions. According to the author, Christians, for the most part, do not. Well, the Catholics do not. The Evangelicals and the Christian Right Wing do. And Roy concludes that the Christians aren't really competing against Islam. But once again, I think he's overlooking the possibility that some people might consider polemics to be poor form. I'm as willing as anyone to discuss the advantages of polytheism over monotheism. But I do not want to appear as though I am trying to impose religious practices on others.

Next, the author discusses the Westernization of Islam. Some of this section was quite interesting, especially the age-old differences between Sufis and Salafis. And later, there is a section on the future of Muslim terrorism and questions of deterritorialization. Once again, I had to ask what he really meant by that. Muslim terrorists exist in time and space just like the rest of us. At best, he meant to differentiate between explicit state support and implicit support from many of the people in a state.

Near the end of the book, Roy says that this is a time of great intellectual confusion. As an example, anti-imperialist "supporters" of Women's Rights support the Taliban! Well, if he thinks he is confused, that is fine. I'm not. If you support the Taliban, you do not support Women's Rights.

Yes, it is true that some Christian moderates are in an alliance with some Muslim fundamentalists. Some of them appear to be in this alliance to fight against Christian fundamentalists and Jews. And it may be interesting to see why. And yes, some Jewish moderates and Christian fundamentalists are allied as well, just to defend themselves. Once again, it may be interesting to see if these alliances extend to anything more than that. And I think it could be a good idea to investigate the very rare alliances of Muslim moderates and Jewish fundamentalists. But I think Roy has not offered us much merely by saying that there are alliances which cut across religious and political boundaries.

I found the book interesting, and I think it contains some intriguing facts.