What do you think?
Rate this book
Partisans of Allah: Jihad in South Asia
The meanings of jihad have been highly contested over time. They have ranged from the philosophical struggle to live ethically to the political injunction to fight the enemies of Islam. In this book, Jalal seeks to retrieve the ethical meanings of this core Islamic principle as it has been applied in South Asian history.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2008
26 people are currently reading
519 people want to read
About the author
Ayesha Jalal
34 books239 followersAyesha Jalal is a Pakistani-American historian and academic, and the Mary Richardson Professor of History at Tufts University. Her work focuses on the military-industrial complex, post-colonial politics, and Muslim identity in South Asia. She is also known for positing in The Sole Spokesman that the Partition of India and Pakistan was less a political necessity than a terrible human tragedy and that the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was a pragmatist who was motivated by greater rights for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent than the creation of a separate state.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 17, 2020
When in 2014 Munawar Hassan, then ameer of JI, in response to a reporter said that "we should promote the culture of Qitaal" (killings) many reacted like it was something new what he said. Given Modudis' exclusionist view of Islam, rejecting every alternative to a political Islam as shirk, calling them words like "Jahiliya" and advocating the killing of even Muslims who don’t follow sharia, this above statement doesn’t seem out of proportion. Maududi is hailed as one of the most prominent and hardliner advocates of jihad and political Islam along with Syed Qutab of Egypt in recent times. Maududi was a continuation of a long history of advocates of jihad in one way or another in South Asia dating back to Sirhindi in times of Akbar.
I loved this book because it studied jihad in south Asia in a historical context. In South Asia, we have mixed classical Islam with local cultures and added to its colonial-era which resulted in some new brand of Islam incompatible with the rest of the world. The adventures of Syed Ahmed in Balakot should have been a lesson for future jihadis, which were started to liberate the country from the British and ended up fighting co-religionists. this is the template even for present days jihad where they stuck up killing Muslims (although they don't consider them Muslims).
Another misconception about political Islam is when a Muslim state is established, there won't be further need for jihad. These adventurers will find new ways of killings and fightings the way they did after 1947 when after the creation of a Muslim majority state, new problems were to define Muslims and to legitimize killings of those not fulfilling criteria of Muslims . sectarian militants outfits consider their jihad against other sects of Islam as pure as waged against non-believers.
August 2, 2012
An eye-opener and a joy to read. Jalal writes really well and draws the connections very clearly and intelligently. Given the Pakistani history curriculums that teach everything piecemeal and in censored versions, we don't really get a broad view of the things that have contributed to our evolution as a nation. This book makes up for that and makes you want to learn more.
March 2, 2012
Long overdue, a book on the development of the indigenous jihad consent in the Indian subcontinent. I thoroughly enjoyed the detailed explanations accorded by the author when going through the various proponents of jihad.
February 9, 2018
Many parts of the world we live in are awash in jihadi violence where a group of ultra-orthodox Muslims kill people of their own religion as well as others. The concept of jihad is sanctified by the Koran and enjoined as a duty of every Muslim believer. But what exactly is jihad? The gory pattern we see enacted in the Middle East is a violent one in which its perpetrators believe it to be their religious obligation to kill non-believers and Muslims themselves who don’t subscribe to their brand of orthodoxy. Apologists of Islam denounce the terrorists on the basis of religious precepts enshrined in the Koran. They maintain that there are two kinds of jihad, the greater one (jihad al-akbar) which focuses on the moral uplift of the individual and the lesser one (jihad al-asghar) which sanctions violence in rare, specified instances. Unfortunately, the voice of the pacifists is submerged in the din of carnage orchestrated by jihadis who nurture hopes of usurping worldly power as part of the package. This book dwells on the religious significance of jihad, its origins in South Asia in the eighteenth century, its growth in the intervening period and the takeover of Pakistan by extremist outfits in the 2000s. Ayesha Jalal is the grandniece of the renowned Pakistani fictionist Saadat Hasan Manto and is the Mary Richardson Professor of History at Tufts University. She is the author of many books on Islamic history and the dogmatic underpinnings of jihad.
The literal meaning of ‘jihad’ is the ‘striving for a worthy and ennobling cause’, which has over the years turned into holy war against non-Muslims. Even though apologists studiously argue that jihad as killing people (qittal) is not approved in Islam’s holy traditions, the sad fact is that pious Muslims in all ages looked upon it as a sacred duty. Even in the first century of Islam, the Kharajite sect defined jihad as legitimate violence against the enemies of Islam (p.8). Muslim legists defined jihad as armed struggle to legitimize the wars of conquest fought by the Umayyad (661 – 750 CE) and Abbasid (750 – 1258 CE) caliphs. All these cases of religious violence make the readers wonder whether it is indeed sanctioned in scriptures as claimed by the terrorists. Otherwise, why do people living in widely varying topographies as Indonesia and Egypt and in as diverse a time spanning fourteen centuries stumble upon the same idea of jihad as violence to subjugate people of other religions? Jalal bends over backwards to justify jihad to mollify modern sensibilities. This appears as nothing more than the butcher’s assistant caressing the animal to be slaughtered while the butcher sharpens his knife. She claims that the concept of a ‘dharma yuddha’ (just war) in Hinduism and similar constructs in Judeo-Christian tradition is akin to jihad. But the acknowledged point remains that although all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims.
That jihad, probably in its less violent incarnation, is supported by a leading intellectual of his times such as Mohammed Iqbal is galling for us. The poet and philosopher who is also the spiritual founder of Pakistan penned a poem titled ‘jihad’ in which he impelled his compatriots to rise up against British colonialism in a jihad. Unfortunately, most such jihads against the British invariably turned against hapless Hindus and Sikhs once the jihadis get to experience a taste of British weapons. Jalal extols the virtues of the Islamic system which grants followers of other religions the status of zimmis upon payment of a tax called jizya. This is claimed to be a ‘substantial improvement’ over slavery! The Hanafi code which consecrates this barbarity is termed ‘liberal’. Those unfortunate people ending up as zimmis silently suffer under the yoke of Islamic domination. They are not allowed to join the armed forces of the country, their testimony is discounted in a court of law, and are forever doomed to be second-rate citizens. Their voice is not allowed to rise outside their own homes. Jalal’s brazen upholding of Hanafi jurisprudence as ‘relatively broadminded’ is disgusting when she points out that it protects the property of non-Muslim people in an Islamic state, but goes on to add that their womenfolk would be treated as war booty just in the same way as jewels and money (p.34). Civilized society should pose here a moment to reflect on the moral corrosion in an Islamic society in which a western-educated author – that too, a woman – sanitizes such savage doctrines and repackage it as wisdom of the forefathers of Islam.
The book’s greatest significance is its crystal clear narration of the growth of jihadism in India. The Mughal Empire started disintegrating right at the death of the bigoted emperor Aurangzeb’s death. Hindu states of Marathas and Rajputs began to extract their revenge for centuries of oppression. A religious scholar, Shah Waliullah became incensed at this slight and exhorted his disciples to wage jihad against the infidels. He advised them to avoid the company of non-Muslims of devilish composition, proposed harsh measures against the Hindus and Shias, suggested banning of Holi and Muharram festivals and urged rulers to confiscate Hindu wealth. He tempted Ahmed Shah Abdali of Afghanistan to invade India and destroy its infidels. He assured god’s recompense to the invader in the hereafter, at the same time offering incalculable booty by pillaging his own countrymen. Waliullah was a proponent of Wahabism and believed steadfastly in its core principles. He had enthusiastic followers in India. Sayyid Ahmed Barelvi, Shah Ismail and 600 of his followers embarked on a jihad against Punjab’s Sikh kingdom in a bid to compel ‘Ranjit Singh to turn Muslim or cut off his head’ (p. 90). Both of them were killed in the battle at Balakote in 1831, but their tombs still continue to inspire suicide bombers operating in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The jihadi leaders preached strange ideologies. Sayyid Ahmed Barelvi insisted that any girl continuing unmarried for twelve days after attaining puberty would become the property of the mujahideen (jihadi fighters) (p.102). Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan gave out a ruling that presented with the choice of giving water to a thirsty infidel or a dog, a believer should make the offering to the dog (p.146).
The book exposes the true colours of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who passed off as a secular leader of the Indian National Congress but harboured notions of jihad. The author herself is surprised at his being mistaken as secular, whereas he was a proponent of Islamic universalism. As per this ideology, Muslims are part of an Ummah, which is a conglomeration of believers cutting across national boundaries. Azad’s logic was that Indian Muslims should take offense at the ill-treatment of his coreligionists in Egypt or in the Balkans. When India reeled in the aftermath of the First World War, Azad and his cronies advocated for an assault against the British for their unseating of the Sultan of Turkey! This solves another puzzle in Indian history. The Jalianwala Bagh massacre occurred in response to a popular uprising against the Rowlatt Act which curtailed freedom of expression. But why should the British impose such a draconian law in India after the war in which India wholeheartedly sided with them and Gandhi in fact participated in the war effort? The hidden reason was the revolutionary activities of the jihadis who plotted to subvert British power. Their underground operations forced the government to put forward harsh measures that ended in the brutal genocide at Jalianwala Bagh in which none of the jihadis were killed. They would shed blood only for religion. However, there were some among them who exhibited compassion and mercy to their brethren among other religions. Maulana Fazl-i-Haq Khairabadi was one such personality. Maulvi Chiragh Ali maintained that Islam was being judged by the standards of Sharia created by men rather than the ethical principles of Koran. Sharia had not been held sacred or unchangeable by enlightened Mohammedans in any age since its compilation in the fourth century of Hejira.
Ayesha Jalal’ style is not amenable to easy reading, but offers some elegant contemporary prose. A glossary given at the end is redundant as she clarifies each new term as and when it is first encountered. Detailed notes are compiled after the main text, but don’t include a bibliography. A good index also accompanies the text which covers the entire range of jihadis from Shah Waliullah in the eighteenth century to Hafiz Mohammed Saeed of the twenty-first.
The book is recommended.
The literal meaning of ‘jihad’ is the ‘striving for a worthy and ennobling cause’, which has over the years turned into holy war against non-Muslims. Even though apologists studiously argue that jihad as killing people (qittal) is not approved in Islam’s holy traditions, the sad fact is that pious Muslims in all ages looked upon it as a sacred duty. Even in the first century of Islam, the Kharajite sect defined jihad as legitimate violence against the enemies of Islam (p.8). Muslim legists defined jihad as armed struggle to legitimize the wars of conquest fought by the Umayyad (661 – 750 CE) and Abbasid (750 – 1258 CE) caliphs. All these cases of religious violence make the readers wonder whether it is indeed sanctioned in scriptures as claimed by the terrorists. Otherwise, why do people living in widely varying topographies as Indonesia and Egypt and in as diverse a time spanning fourteen centuries stumble upon the same idea of jihad as violence to subjugate people of other religions? Jalal bends over backwards to justify jihad to mollify modern sensibilities. This appears as nothing more than the butcher’s assistant caressing the animal to be slaughtered while the butcher sharpens his knife. She claims that the concept of a ‘dharma yuddha’ (just war) in Hinduism and similar constructs in Judeo-Christian tradition is akin to jihad. But the acknowledged point remains that although all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims.
That jihad, probably in its less violent incarnation, is supported by a leading intellectual of his times such as Mohammed Iqbal is galling for us. The poet and philosopher who is also the spiritual founder of Pakistan penned a poem titled ‘jihad’ in which he impelled his compatriots to rise up against British colonialism in a jihad. Unfortunately, most such jihads against the British invariably turned against hapless Hindus and Sikhs once the jihadis get to experience a taste of British weapons. Jalal extols the virtues of the Islamic system which grants followers of other religions the status of zimmis upon payment of a tax called jizya. This is claimed to be a ‘substantial improvement’ over slavery! The Hanafi code which consecrates this barbarity is termed ‘liberal’. Those unfortunate people ending up as zimmis silently suffer under the yoke of Islamic domination. They are not allowed to join the armed forces of the country, their testimony is discounted in a court of law, and are forever doomed to be second-rate citizens. Their voice is not allowed to rise outside their own homes. Jalal’s brazen upholding of Hanafi jurisprudence as ‘relatively broadminded’ is disgusting when she points out that it protects the property of non-Muslim people in an Islamic state, but goes on to add that their womenfolk would be treated as war booty just in the same way as jewels and money (p.34). Civilized society should pose here a moment to reflect on the moral corrosion in an Islamic society in which a western-educated author – that too, a woman – sanitizes such savage doctrines and repackage it as wisdom of the forefathers of Islam.
The book’s greatest significance is its crystal clear narration of the growth of jihadism in India. The Mughal Empire started disintegrating right at the death of the bigoted emperor Aurangzeb’s death. Hindu states of Marathas and Rajputs began to extract their revenge for centuries of oppression. A religious scholar, Shah Waliullah became incensed at this slight and exhorted his disciples to wage jihad against the infidels. He advised them to avoid the company of non-Muslims of devilish composition, proposed harsh measures against the Hindus and Shias, suggested banning of Holi and Muharram festivals and urged rulers to confiscate Hindu wealth. He tempted Ahmed Shah Abdali of Afghanistan to invade India and destroy its infidels. He assured god’s recompense to the invader in the hereafter, at the same time offering incalculable booty by pillaging his own countrymen. Waliullah was a proponent of Wahabism and believed steadfastly in its core principles. He had enthusiastic followers in India. Sayyid Ahmed Barelvi, Shah Ismail and 600 of his followers embarked on a jihad against Punjab’s Sikh kingdom in a bid to compel ‘Ranjit Singh to turn Muslim or cut off his head’ (p. 90). Both of them were killed in the battle at Balakote in 1831, but their tombs still continue to inspire suicide bombers operating in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The jihadi leaders preached strange ideologies. Sayyid Ahmed Barelvi insisted that any girl continuing unmarried for twelve days after attaining puberty would become the property of the mujahideen (jihadi fighters) (p.102). Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan gave out a ruling that presented with the choice of giving water to a thirsty infidel or a dog, a believer should make the offering to the dog (p.146).
The book exposes the true colours of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who passed off as a secular leader of the Indian National Congress but harboured notions of jihad. The author herself is surprised at his being mistaken as secular, whereas he was a proponent of Islamic universalism. As per this ideology, Muslims are part of an Ummah, which is a conglomeration of believers cutting across national boundaries. Azad’s logic was that Indian Muslims should take offense at the ill-treatment of his coreligionists in Egypt or in the Balkans. When India reeled in the aftermath of the First World War, Azad and his cronies advocated for an assault against the British for their unseating of the Sultan of Turkey! This solves another puzzle in Indian history. The Jalianwala Bagh massacre occurred in response to a popular uprising against the Rowlatt Act which curtailed freedom of expression. But why should the British impose such a draconian law in India after the war in which India wholeheartedly sided with them and Gandhi in fact participated in the war effort? The hidden reason was the revolutionary activities of the jihadis who plotted to subvert British power. Their underground operations forced the government to put forward harsh measures that ended in the brutal genocide at Jalianwala Bagh in which none of the jihadis were killed. They would shed blood only for religion. However, there were some among them who exhibited compassion and mercy to their brethren among other religions. Maulana Fazl-i-Haq Khairabadi was one such personality. Maulvi Chiragh Ali maintained that Islam was being judged by the standards of Sharia created by men rather than the ethical principles of Koran. Sharia had not been held sacred or unchangeable by enlightened Mohammedans in any age since its compilation in the fourth century of Hejira.
Ayesha Jalal’ style is not amenable to easy reading, but offers some elegant contemporary prose. A glossary given at the end is redundant as she clarifies each new term as and when it is first encountered. Detailed notes are compiled after the main text, but don’t include a bibliography. A good index also accompanies the text which covers the entire range of jihadis from Shah Waliullah in the eighteenth century to Hafiz Mohammed Saeed of the twenty-first.
The book is recommended.
April 23, 2011
A dynamic intellectual history of the ways in which South Asian Muslim scholars have understood "jihad" in the pre-colonial, colonial and modern period.
April 1, 2017
Ayesha Jalal is a renowned South Asian scholar and has written a number of thoroughly researched books on the region's history, sociology and politics. However, I had never read any of her work because I felt she is too academic and as much as I would like to boast my intellectual capability, I felt my capacity to absorb these matters is only superficial. This book proves that I am an accurate judge of myself.
In this book she has looked at the origins of Jihad in South Asia. Al Qaeda & ISIS are primarily Arab jihadist groups and thus not much thought is given to the jihad culture in Paistan (an offshoot of the subcontinent) by the western hemisphere. The west does acknowledge the extremism in Pakistan but general opinion is that our extremism is more of an Indian problem than a wide spread global one. One or two pakistani terrorists trying to blow up a van in NYC or a failed tower bombing isn't much thought about, in my opinion. Pakiatani jihad has only recently become against the western culture and values. Previously, it had always been directed against India and when we were part of the subcontinent it was against the Hindu domination of the region. The writer has briefly covered the main characters and building of this jihad against Hindu dominion some of whom we have briefly read about in our course books (depicted as great learned ulemas) and some we don't know about. The book starts with the only established jihad war of the subcontinent which was Muslims against Muslim. How's that for an irony!
I liked the book but the writing style was academic so it's definitely not for a reader like me who wants a good narrative style even when reading a non-fiction.
In this book she has looked at the origins of Jihad in South Asia. Al Qaeda & ISIS are primarily Arab jihadist groups and thus not much thought is given to the jihad culture in Paistan (an offshoot of the subcontinent) by the western hemisphere. The west does acknowledge the extremism in Pakistan but general opinion is that our extremism is more of an Indian problem than a wide spread global one. One or two pakistani terrorists trying to blow up a van in NYC or a failed tower bombing isn't much thought about, in my opinion. Pakiatani jihad has only recently become against the western culture and values. Previously, it had always been directed against India and when we were part of the subcontinent it was against the Hindu domination of the region. The writer has briefly covered the main characters and building of this jihad against Hindu dominion some of whom we have briefly read about in our course books (depicted as great learned ulemas) and some we don't know about. The book starts with the only established jihad war of the subcontinent which was Muslims against Muslim. How's that for an irony!
I liked the book but the writing style was academic so it's definitely not for a reader like me who wants a good narrative style even when reading a non-fiction.
August 6, 2014
A masterful review of the practice and concept of jihad in the South Asian context. The book analyses various Muslim religious leaders and their ideas beginning with Shah Waliullah in the 18th Century and ending with the modern day practitioners of jihad in the form of radical organisations such as the Lashkar e Taiyaba.
The author argues that jihad is a much misunderstood context and Islam has been branded a violent religion without a proper understanding of its nuances. The author stresses on the different interpretations of jihad by various Muslim thinkers and how some emphasised the lesser jihad and some the essential jihad which, as the poet Ghalib wrote, is the constant struggle to be human.
This book is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the politics of the Subcontinent as the challenges and contradictions thrown up by Muslim thinkers over the past three centuries have had a profound impact on life and politics in this part of the world. The book shows that rulers and aspiring Muslim exclusivist leaders have at times used the concept to jihad to further their wordly agendas rather than strengthen the spiritual struggle.
The book perhaps deserves a 5-star rating but I found the style to be dense and some of the explanations of core concepts lacking in lucidity in parts.
The author argues that jihad is a much misunderstood context and Islam has been branded a violent religion without a proper understanding of its nuances. The author stresses on the different interpretations of jihad by various Muslim thinkers and how some emphasised the lesser jihad and some the essential jihad which, as the poet Ghalib wrote, is the constant struggle to be human.
This book is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the politics of the Subcontinent as the challenges and contradictions thrown up by Muslim thinkers over the past three centuries have had a profound impact on life and politics in this part of the world. The book shows that rulers and aspiring Muslim exclusivist leaders have at times used the concept to jihad to further their wordly agendas rather than strengthen the spiritual struggle.
The book perhaps deserves a 5-star rating but I found the style to be dense and some of the explanations of core concepts lacking in lucidity in parts.
Read
March 2, 2016A wonderful eye opening book about a concept which was misinterpreted, used for purposes and finally lost its real meaning in Muslim world.
December 31, 2020
This book starts with the word Balakot.. Remember the surgical strikes done in 2016?, Balakot has been in vogue since the early 1830s when probably the first jihad was waged by Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed and Shah Ismail against the Sikh rulers.. So jihad at Balakot has captured the imagination of many a generation.
The question of jihad is natural to find out, more so for a practising Muslim. With a quest to find out one single answer to What, why and how of Jihad, my journey to finish this book took more than a year. It's not for everyone.
The idea of armed struggle against a tyrant has been in vogue since the decline of the mughal empire and since then till now, the word Jihad has been used to mean many things not just spiritual, but temporal. The book elucidates detailed thoughts of the thinkers like Shah Waliullah, Jamaluddin Afghani, Obaid Ulla Sindhi, Sayyid Ahmed Khan, Azad, Allama iqbal and finally with Mawdudi at length. Each one of them lived in different stages of western empire and had to call fellow Muslims to rally up for a resistance - few went overly exclusionary with their ideas and no space for other religions and few defined jihad as an internal struggle. Between these extremities, the concept has been a clarion call to meet many of the temporal requirements of power. The book also says about how the many sects in Pakistan use the concept to advance their own interests and what remains is a cesspool of society.
A scholarly work which I may not refer, yeah and jihad doesn't have one single meaning, it changes the way you look at it.
The question of jihad is natural to find out, more so for a practising Muslim. With a quest to find out one single answer to What, why and how of Jihad, my journey to finish this book took more than a year. It's not for everyone.
The idea of armed struggle against a tyrant has been in vogue since the decline of the mughal empire and since then till now, the word Jihad has been used to mean many things not just spiritual, but temporal. The book elucidates detailed thoughts of the thinkers like Shah Waliullah, Jamaluddin Afghani, Obaid Ulla Sindhi, Sayyid Ahmed Khan, Azad, Allama iqbal and finally with Mawdudi at length. Each one of them lived in different stages of western empire and had to call fellow Muslims to rally up for a resistance - few went overly exclusionary with their ideas and no space for other religions and few defined jihad as an internal struggle. Between these extremities, the concept has been a clarion call to meet many of the temporal requirements of power. The book also says about how the many sects in Pakistan use the concept to advance their own interests and what remains is a cesspool of society.
A scholarly work which I may not refer, yeah and jihad doesn't have one single meaning, it changes the way you look at it.
May 31, 2020
This book is a very valuable contribution to the study of Islamic thought in India.
Ayesha Jalal does some serious Historian's work in this book. Unlike most of her academic colleagues, due to Ayesha's Pakistani and Muslim background, she delves deep into primary sources. Her knowledge of Urdu is a great asset. The result is a discourse on Islam and Jihad, which operates on a very vast domain of sources, opinions, and approaches.
She challenges many notions held sacred by western academics as well as ideological Muslim historians of the subcontinent.
She recreates the historical debates on the issue of Jihad, Islam and violence, in the Indian subcontinent in light of the historical context which surrounds them.
Some of the limitations on the book might be the authors eulogy for "liberal" Islam.
This is a valuable contribution to the study of Muslim nationalism in the Indian subcontinent.
Highly recommend it.
Ayesha Jalal does some serious Historian's work in this book. Unlike most of her academic colleagues, due to Ayesha's Pakistani and Muslim background, she delves deep into primary sources. Her knowledge of Urdu is a great asset. The result is a discourse on Islam and Jihad, which operates on a very vast domain of sources, opinions, and approaches.
She challenges many notions held sacred by western academics as well as ideological Muslim historians of the subcontinent.
She recreates the historical debates on the issue of Jihad, Islam and violence, in the Indian subcontinent in light of the historical context which surrounds them.
Some of the limitations on the book might be the authors eulogy for "liberal" Islam.
This is a valuable contribution to the study of Muslim nationalism in the Indian subcontinent.
Highly recommend it.
July 10, 2017
this begins in the 1850's explaining that jihad is actually a man's fight to be a polite human being. Shares that a guy wanted to go jihad but there were few takers to his offer, so, he had to borrow fund$ to pay the guys to jihad (usually they would do it for free with the pay off being that they got to loot war booty.)
Say Islam feels threatened by Capitalism, Freedom, and Democracy. Includes first-person accounts of thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Often times information is given and then says 'allegedly'. Occasional insight but not an engaging read, reader may have to push through. some B/W images and two maps.
Say Islam feels threatened by Capitalism, Freedom, and Democracy. Includes first-person accounts of thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Often times information is given and then says 'allegedly'. Occasional insight but not an engaging read, reader may have to push through. some B/W images and two maps.
Read
August 22, 2011The vision, at the end of World War II, of a world of sovereign nation-states, legitimate powers of law and order with a monopoly on the use of force within recognized boundaries, was a long shot. Some regions proved resistant to the formation of functional states, and it happens that many of those incompletely formed or failed states are in the Muslim world. Generally, the challenge came from the imbalance between resources, population, and the quality of institutions. Read more...
June 9, 2014
Great insight of birth of jihadist in South Asia.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews