The Mind of Jihad [Anglais] [Broché]

A reviewer should focus on the book, not celebrate his own prejudices and bigotry--as the previous reviewer of this book has done. Has he even read it? This valuable, cooly rational work is not a rant of any sort, but a careful historical analysis, based upon decades of studying the background material. Author Murawiec does not impose his own pre-formed views; instead, he does exactly what a serious researcher should do: He allows terrorists and the extremist thinkers who formed their beliefs to speak in their own words. Upon hundreds of occasion in this book, we hear the chilling, to-the-point (of the sword) writings, pronouncements and sermons of radical Islamist thinkers over the centuries. The author does, in my view, a brilliant, pithy job of describing how certain streams within Islam (not Islam as a whole) have constructed their own deviant theologies of death. Does the previous reviewer object to we, the people, hearing what our enemies have said for themselves? If we are ever to get beyond the totalitarian prejudices on both the extreme political left and right in our own country, it will be because concerned citizens read and think about serious works such as this (no mind develops if fed only comfortable, unchallenging food). And let us remember: Over the centuries and unto this day, the all-or-nothing fanatics who have afflicted Islam have killed far, far more Muslims than they have killed non-Muslims. The problem isn't faith, but fanaticism that corrupts faith. On a lesser level, unfair reviews scribbled down in a fit of political pique only make things worse. If we are unwilling to hear that which is uncomfortable, it will be far more difficult for us to do what is right. I strongly recommend this book for serious readers.

The first chapter in this book simply falls flat due to the author's casting of an overly broad net, and then trying to fit his evidence to his conclusions. The author uses Browning's Ordinary Men to compare and contrast the differences between violence from Muslims and Christians. The problem is the comparison in his context is not appropriate. The Einsatzgruppen was comprised of a wide variety of disparate men from differing backgrounds. Most of these men were recruited or drafted into their service and very few knew what they were going to be asked to do and even fewer volunteered. The Muslim extremists he compares them to, on the other hand, are voluntarily committing these acts. These men are not drafted, but instead seek out this violent confrontation. For this very reason the two are not appropriate comparisons. Furthermore Murawiec fails to acknowledge that in Browning's study he found that a certain percentage of men from the Einsatzgruppen showed no moral qualms at all with their new found duties. In fact a certain percentage seemed to relish the torture and brutalization of their victims. In fact Browning's own research actually contradicts this author's very assertion. The author either completely missed the point of Browning's book, or he has misused or taken him completely out of context for his own purposes.

The other main problem is the author is overly broad when discussing the different types of Muslim violence. He uses contemporary violence in the forms of the videoed executions and suicide bombers with state violence and public executions. The problem with this technique is that it melds the two different forms of violence into a single strand but they are vastly different. On the one hand he uses the violence from the Muslim Brotherhood to make his case, and then he turns around and shows violence emanating from the state to put down what he would consider terroristic violence form the Muslim Brotherhood by the Syrian government as a further example that supposedly proves the same point. By taking this overly broad approach all forms of violence can be used to prove his points, but his thesis becomes tenuous for this same reason. His use of public executions and its apparent popularity within Muslim societies as another fact that supposedly proves his contentions contains major holes because public executions have been just as popular in the Christian world throughout history as they are in the Muslim world. Not to mention the fact that these beheading videos received a tremendous amount of traffic in the US as well.

Chapters 5 and 7 were also very weak. While they did not fall as flat as the first chapter, they certainly seemed to add little to the book, and on the whole they seemed to be out of place with the rest of the work. They offered no real analysis at all, and instead seemed to degenerate into a simple historical overview of Muslim interaction with the totalitarian movements of the middle of the 20th century. The strength of this book is in the author's ability to go in and really analyze the radical movements, and dig out influences and trends to the evolution behind these movements. The author moved away from these strengths in these two chapters. While chapter 5 was somewhat interesting, it wasn't what I was looking for from this book.

Chapter 7, on the other hand, falls even flatter. The author gives a historical synopsis of the Algerian war for independence which takes up about a third of the whole chapter. The main problem is that he uses Horne's A Savage War for Peace as pretty much his only source, so if you have read that book then you might as well skip this part of this book since it relies heavily on his work. The other problem is that his rendering of this history dismisses a lot of context that refutes his conclusions. The author attempts to turn this war into a zero-sum game. Basically saying while both sides were bad the Muslims were worse thus proving his contention. The problem is it isn't a zero-sum game, and the violence from the FLN was not uniquely Muslim, but instead quite common to this type of conflict. The author doesn't take into account the years of colonial rule where the Muslims were largely left to languish on the peripheries of society. They were left in stasis with little improvements in their lives and many barely able to survive. What the author fails to mention is that colonialism created the situation in which these FLN thugs could flourish. Had the colonial regime cared to give back or attempt to improve the lot of the natives at all then perhaps the whole terrible history could have been avoided.

The rest of chapter 7 and 8 seem to have the same type of failings. They tend to dismiss the broader context of violence and terror around the world. The West has cultivated violence and terror itself for its own purposes.

With that said let me discuss what I liked. Chapter 2 and 3 were very strong. The author does a magnificent job discussing where the currents of radicalism emanated. What I really found elucidating is the author's discussion of the millenarian movements, and his comparing those movements with the Islamic movements that bare such a striking resemblance to these movements. This really created a whole new perspective for me from which to look at this sort of radicalism. His use of Gnostics and his compare and contrast methodology of looking at all Gnostics really helped me to understand the wellspring for this sort of radical ideologies. What the author does well is to show where these influential Islamic thinkers logic leads. What I found fascinating was the author taking the reader step by step through the process whereby these men like Qutb can conclude that the vast majority of the world is apostates, and it is his divine role to eliminate all of these people. One of the main points I came away with is just how dangerous these people are for everyone. Basically according to their beliefs very few are true believers and the rest of us are to be eliminated. Whether Athiest, Jew, Christian or Muslim these people are a threat to all of us.

Chapter 2 was a bit surprising. I had never assumed there was such a connection between Russian nihilism and radical Islam, but the author's analysis of both movements was eye opening. The way in which both set themselves up above the rest of humanity, and assume that they are the sole arbiters of truth which gives them the right to destroy anything and everything is frightening. I simply never would have seen the connection.

All in all this is a good book with some major flaws. The book changed the way that I will forever look at the Islamic religion. I feel as though I have a much deeper understanding of radicalism of all strains. This book made some important connections for me that will further my understanding and open up a whole perspective in my continuing education. For these reasons I tend to overlook some of my very real problems with this book and score it a 4 star instead of a 3. It is a deeply flawed work, but chapters 2,3 and 4 by themselves are worth the price and the time spent on this book. Despite its problems I do recommend this work.

This is an extraordinarily well informed, intelligent, and deep book on its subject. It sets the problem of jihad in the context of analogous, gnostic movements within Western, Christian culture, at the same time that it gives a time line and a profile of the extra-Islammic (illiberal) influences that have shaped the contemporary phenomenon of radical Islamism.