Reviews for The Failure of Political Islam

The average rating for The Failure of Political Islam based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-08-02 00:00:00 Joshua Lovi The one review of this book on this site does not do it justice. Hence, this is my take: This book is perhaps the best statement and explanation on why Islamism as a political tool has failed miserably. Far from being rooted in the Islamic scholarly tradition, political Islam is a reactionary movement whose ideological philosophy is rooted in Marxism and the violent revolutionary program that gave so much expression to the Independence Movements during the 50s, 60s and 70s. Though I do not agree with 100% of Olivier Roy's conclusions, the book nonetheless is a must read for anyone interested in global politics and the role that Islam is blamed for playing in global terrorism. Far from being the consequences of the teachings of a 7th century Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), it is more of a case of chickens and roosting. Daniel Pipes hates the book. That has to count for something... The fact that critics of the book cannot see how September 11th proves the authors thesis only demonstrates that when people have made up their minds, facts mean absolutely nothing. I would highly recommend that this book be read in conjunction with Imperial Hubris and War at the Top of the World. I am a Muslim and I do not disagree with the author. Not all Orientalists are bad.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-08-29 00:00:00 Joseph Barbaro Why cannot be Islam accepted like Christianity in the West? Is it because Islam and politics don't mix or is Islam actually a culture in itself? West has used two methods to deal with Muslim minority, multiculturalism and assimilation. Multiculturalism assumes that the culture remains the same, generation after generation while assimilation means that culture disappears in the mainstream. The book has probably the best description of Islam-ism and new-fundamentalism I have read thus far. Check this out, 'Since sovereignty belongs only to God, the Islamists reject the notion of popular sovereignty and accord only contingent value to the elective principle. If no individual comes forward as the evident 'Amir', then he can be elected by an advisory assembly or even by universal suffrage, both of which, in this case, do not express sovereignty, but community consensus.' Wow, so that's the reason why the Islamists reject all politics and populism movements. Scary stuff, if you hail from Pakistan. But there is good news as well, as most of the leaders of the movement, Maududi, Hasan al-Banna, Syed Qutub, Ali Shariati, Khomeini are dead, with no real decedents leaving only brochures, prayers, feeble glosses and citations of canonical authors. It had to happen when you consider all the leading Islamists apart from Khomeini did not hail from the Ulema heritage, and spent most of their energies taking down recognised Ulema of their eras, therefore it is logical that their fans and supporters had to reject any of their descendants. Relax Pakistanis, this is only a passing phase. Check out some of the should-be assertions coming out of the current Islamic mouthpiece, 'if everyone is virtuous then harmony automatically exists among men.' Also 'there is no requirement of state, if society is virtuous then it can exist on itself.' And 'in Jihad, there is no obligation to produce result.' The trouble is that Islamists are caught in the vicious cycle of 'no Islamic state without virtuous Muslims and no Muslims without Islamic state?' arguments. I am pretty sure enough individual dialogue will expose the weakness of this Islamic dialogue, eventually. The book also explains the ideology of the new-fundamentalist, their hate of Western clothing, sports and especially their isolation, where even non-Muslims greeting them with Asalamu Alaikum is frowned upon. They also tend to reject any participation of women in politics and shun intellectual research, replacing it with fideism (reliance on faith), which means that everything Islam says is true and rational. And what constitutes of a new intellectual of the new fundamentalists? According to Olivier, 'The new intellectual is a mere tinkerer; he creates a montage, as his personal itinerary guides him, of segments of knowledge, using methods that come from a different conceptual universe than the segments he recombines, creating a totality that is more imaginary than theoretical.' I have found his analysis very relevant and practical when I consider my numerous dialogues with these new intellectuals. Objective analysis like these are instrumental in understanding ever shifting trends in current Islamic thought which are become ever more difficult to grasp in dearth of any literary giants of the now defunct Islamism movement. The book concludes with a prophetic analysis, how can new fundamentalism succeed when it's predecessor giant Islamists failed to change the mainstream Muslims? The constant hatred and rejection of Western culture is a mere attempt at recognition, with an element of fascination. A fundamentalist society does not represent hated of the other, but rather of oneself and of one's desires. He goes on further, Islamisation is actually an agent in the secularisation of Muslim society because it brings the religious space into the political arena. Wow, what an analysis. Olivier cites Islamic Iran as an example where religious practices are on the down.