What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror
A cosmic war is a religious war. It is a battle not between armies or nations, but between the forces of good and evil, a war in which God is believed to be directly engaged on behalf of one side against the other.
The hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, thought they were fighting a cosmic war. According to award-winning writer and scholar of religions Reza Aslan, by infusing the United States War on Terror with the same kind of religiously polarizing rhetoric and Manichean worldview, is also fighting a cosmic war–a war that can’t be won.
How to Win a Cosmic War is both an in-depth study of the ideology fueling al-Qa‘ida, the Taliban, and like-minded militants throughout the Muslim world, and an exploration of religious violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Surveying the global scene from Israel to Iraq and from New York to the Netherlands, Aslan argues that religion is a stronger force today than it has been in a century. At a time when religion and politics are increasingly sharing the same vocabulary and functioning in the same sphere, Aslan writes that we must strip the conflicts of our world–in particular, the War on Terror–of their religious connotations and address the earthly grievances that always lie behind the cosmic impulse.
How do you win a cosmic war? By refusing to fight in one.
The hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, thought they were fighting a cosmic war. According to award-winning writer and scholar of religions Reza Aslan, by infusing the United States War on Terror with the same kind of religiously polarizing rhetoric and Manichean worldview, is also fighting a cosmic war–a war that can’t be won.
How to Win a Cosmic War is both an in-depth study of the ideology fueling al-Qa‘ida, the Taliban, and like-minded militants throughout the Muslim world, and an exploration of religious violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Surveying the global scene from Israel to Iraq and from New York to the Netherlands, Aslan argues that religion is a stronger force today than it has been in a century. At a time when religion and politics are increasingly sharing the same vocabulary and functioning in the same sphere, Aslan writes that we must strip the conflicts of our world–in particular, the War on Terror–of their religious connotations and address the earthly grievances that always lie behind the cosmic impulse.
How do you win a cosmic war? By refusing to fight in one.
228 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
154 people are currently reading
3552 people want to read
About the author
Reza Aslan
20 books2,473 followersDr. Reza Aslan, an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions, is author most recently of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.
He is the founder of AslanMedia.com, an online journal for news and entertainment about the Middle East and the world, and co-founder and Chief Creative Officer of BoomGen Studios, the premier entertainment brand for creative content from and about the Greater Middle East.
His books include No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam (published 2005) and How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization and the End of the War on Terror (published 2009).
Read Reza Aslan's biography on RezaAslan.com,
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 203 reviews
January 3, 2016
This book explains how extremists think and how they affect the world (Extremist = a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action.) Evangelicals, jihadists, you name it, Aslan takes them on and explains their role in the post 9/11 middle-east conflict.
This book may shock you if you think of extremists as irrational, evil beings and it may surprise you just how much social justice and extremism have in common.
This book may shock you if you think of extremists as irrational, evil beings and it may surprise you just how much social justice and extremism have in common.
June 25, 2009
Although principally billed as an analysis and commentary on the so-called 'War on Terror' (ie - against Islamic Jihadists), the book is actually a wider discussion on religion, identity and violence. Perhaps the concept that bests summarizes his thoughts is that of al-wala' wal-bara', which would roughly translate to "faith and infidelity"; a "us vs. them" paradigm. A battle between those who share the same beliefs, and those who do not. This is not purely a Islam and Christianity treatise, but includes how this dichotomy can result in internal schisms - Zealots vs Jewish collaborators with Rome, or Jihadists against the "Near Enemy" - a fellow Muslim that have been deemed 'kafir' or an infidel.
For the most part, Reza does not demonize any sides, combining the right dose of analysis, passion and personal anecdotes. But, there is the slight exception to the Christian Right and other ultra-nationalistic, right-wing groups around the world. He would probably argue that such groups feed on the 'us vs. them' mentality and hardens divisions. Indeed, his main thesis is that the best way to win the cosmic war is not to fight it at all. He argues that the best way to deter Jihadists is not to engage on a religious level, but rather to make al-Qaeda irrelevant by listening to the concerns of local Muslims, and to encourage the growth of viable democracies in the Middle East. He does not say that the democracies need to mirror the American democratic system of government, but must, at least, reflect the will of the people and be seen as a legitimate government.
Lastly, I do want to note that at times, Reza is a masterful story-teller. This is how he describes the re-taking of the Temple Mount during the 1967 Six-Day War:
For the most part, Reza does not demonize any sides, combining the right dose of analysis, passion and personal anecdotes. But, there is the slight exception to the Christian Right and other ultra-nationalistic, right-wing groups around the world. He would probably argue that such groups feed on the 'us vs. them' mentality and hardens divisions. Indeed, his main thesis is that the best way to win the cosmic war is not to fight it at all. He argues that the best way to deter Jihadists is not to engage on a religious level, but rather to make al-Qaeda irrelevant by listening to the concerns of local Muslims, and to encourage the growth of viable democracies in the Middle East. He does not say that the democracies need to mirror the American democratic system of government, but must, at least, reflect the will of the people and be seen as a legitimate government.
Lastly, I do want to note that at times, Reza is a masterful story-teller. This is how he describes the re-taking of the Temple Mount during the 1967 Six-Day War:
I have that photo, here before me. Rabbi Goren is wearing Coke-bottle glasses, but I can tell you, I can see the light dancing in his eyes. With the ram's horn pressed to his lips he is Joshua, calling forth the wrath of God who crumbles mountains. He is Aaron, staring out with virgin eyes upon the land of milk and honey. He is Moses: see how the soldiers run to him through the parting of dust and rubble! Two thousand years of wandering in the wilderness, and now, at long last, Eretz Yisrael is secured. Surely redemption is at hand.
March 18, 2014
I was really unimpressed by this book. I'm unsure of what the author was trying to say. It's not just that he didn't answer his questions as that he never really posed questions to start with. On top of that he would start to pose interesting and inflammatory questions and then step back, leaving them on their own. It was like throwing firecrackers around as if they were chicken feed, unwilling to actually place them somewhere that can be useful. He also made a lot of sweeping historical generalizations that I do not appreciate. A lot of this book is Aslan's opinion dressed up as fact. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
August 9, 2011
Aslan has a wonderful ability to take a complicated subject that is so commonly misunderstood and misrepresented in present day media, and break it down to its more coherent pieces, while maintaining its integrity and providing thoughtful analysis. Aslan frames the current "Cosmic War" between Islam and the West within the context of today's failed War on Terror and a modern day version of the Christian crusades.
His writing is remarkably easy to follow and written with a contemporary understanding of the dominant issues in today's discourse on this matter. His history of jihadism is fascinating and well-documented. His exploration of the true reasons of Islamic fundamentalism (and its terrorist actions) is insightful and eye-opening.
Aslan refuses to accept the flawed and Islamophobic language that is so common today. His writing, like his interviews and talks, reflect his dedication to thinking about these issues in new ways and understanding the complexity of an all too commonly simplified argument: that Islam inherently fuels terrorism. I only wish the book was a bit longer and explored these ideas in more depth.
His writing is remarkably easy to follow and written with a contemporary understanding of the dominant issues in today's discourse on this matter. His history of jihadism is fascinating and well-documented. His exploration of the true reasons of Islamic fundamentalism (and its terrorist actions) is insightful and eye-opening.
Aslan refuses to accept the flawed and Islamophobic language that is so common today. His writing, like his interviews and talks, reflect his dedication to thinking about these issues in new ways and understanding the complexity of an all too commonly simplified argument: that Islam inherently fuels terrorism. I only wish the book was a bit longer and explored these ideas in more depth.
May 5, 2009
This was one fantastic read. I had a recent conversation with a close friend, where we talked about the modern-day dangers of religion, and how some of the harshest critics frame the issue unfairly. They choose to single-out religion as the main cause of terrorist acts such as 9/11, instead of looking at the situation from a sociopolitical standpoint. Granted, religion was involved, but it many other elements were at play.
Aslan's book takes this approach in attempts to rationalize the intent of a jihadist. In doing so, he not only glosses over the history of the religious fundamentalist movements of the three large monotheisms , but also explains how the struggles between them have been hurt further by the Bush Administration's foreign policy and rhetoric. Furthermore, he notes that the increasing strife is only made worse by globalization. Specifically, globalization brings cultures together and unifies differences, while the "us vs. them" rhetoric that we have gotten used to does just the opposite - paint the Muslim as an Other, as something to be feared. It is this alienation that confuses young Muslims in industrialized countries and drives them to identify themselves with radical, violent movements.
There is so much discussed in this book, and all of it relevant. I can't recommend it enough to anyone looking to make a little more sense of the long-standing chaos that daily hits the airwaves. There was even a paragraph in it that summarized "Jesus, Interrupted", which I read just last week. So that was nice.
Aslan's book takes this approach in attempts to rationalize the intent of a jihadist. In doing so, he not only glosses over the history of the religious fundamentalist movements of the three large monotheisms , but also explains how the struggles between them have been hurt further by the Bush Administration's foreign policy and rhetoric. Furthermore, he notes that the increasing strife is only made worse by globalization. Specifically, globalization brings cultures together and unifies differences, while the "us vs. them" rhetoric that we have gotten used to does just the opposite - paint the Muslim as an Other, as something to be feared. It is this alienation that confuses young Muslims in industrialized countries and drives them to identify themselves with radical, violent movements.
There is so much discussed in this book, and all of it relevant. I can't recommend it enough to anyone looking to make a little more sense of the long-standing chaos that daily hits the airwaves. There was even a paragraph in it that summarized "Jesus, Interrupted", which I read just last week. So that was nice.
September 26, 2019
Though this book is about a decade old, it doesn't feel that way as Reza Aslan explores the impact of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalism and how the political aspirations of these groups prevent peace from taking place in the Middle East. He writes clearly and helps one understand the religious and political underpinnings of this region. Worth reading, even now, as the same issues continue to plague this area.
January 22, 2018
Good overview of global terrorism, an excellent introduction for someone who had very little prior knowledge on the subject (like me). This book is almost ten years old now, but still very relevant, especially given the rise of nationalism in the US.
February 7, 2017
I am confused. The book title is clear-cut on what it aspires to achieve; providing ideas on how to win a 'cosmic' war and confronting radicalism. In the opening pages, Aslan makes a striking statement that the only way to fight a cosmic war is simply not to take part in it. An exciting premise that made me yearn for further elaboration.
The book however takes a different turn afterwards, as Aslan starts narrating the origins of Zionism, Islamism and engages in a mostly historical analysis of the origins of zealousness. Providing such a background is important to the reader, but I did not expect it to take almost three-quarters of the book. Aslan's writing is engaging and entertaining, yet as the book approached its ending, my frustration increasingly swelled when Aslan would not start to answer the question on every reader's mind. In the dying ten pages however, he starts to recount the all-too familiar recommendations, the most significant one being engaging Islamist voices in the democratic process. A sound advice but no rigorous dissection of the problems plaguing the Islamic world. He elevates the struggle to being a cosmic war, and does not address the down-to-earth war that needs down-to-earth solutions and radical changes encompassing the entire Islamic world. By confining his analysis to the global hard-core Jihadists, Aslan has confined the battle with these only and in many cases seemed to discount the increasing radicalization of more and more Muslims. He refers to this trend as a 'Jihadi pop culture' and somehow belittles its impact. No talk whatsoever about why moderate Sheikhs have 3K followers on Twitter at best whereas radical Jihadist sheikhs have over a million. No talk about the shocking increase in radicalization that can be easily identified by scrolling under any youtube video in Arabic or Urdu, whether it be a rerun of a Barcelona game or a Lebanese pop song, where you are most likely to start reading inflammatory radical talk in the comments.
Aslan talks about Muslims in Europe and the USA and puts the blame on the institutions there for not integrating Muslims. A lot of this is true, but no talk whatsoever about what Muslims need to do in return. He makes no mention of how on earth we can confront growing radicalism in Muslim-majority countries, except for asking for increased democratization. Any amateur is able to make such a statement, but I expected Aslan to say how he expected to do that in Saudi Arabia for example, and to address the venomous Wahhabist influence. He discounts the influence of madrassas by resorting to the claim that most of the suicide bombers of the 9/11 did not attend madrassas. Well Mr. Aslan, almost one out of every three Muslim taxi drivers I meet in London and Boston have attended madrassas and their radical views are astounding. It is the views of these taxi drivers that represent a timebomb and are reflective of much more than a harmless Jihadist pop-culture if no action is done.
He makes no mention whatsoever of any reform needed for Islam or the need to create a uniform Islamic 'Marjaeya' whereby no Sheikh in the world is able to make a fatwa on his own; all we need to do according to the writer is to include Islamist parties in the democratic process. As to the issue of compatibility with democracy, Aslan dedicates one sentence in the entire book by stating that it worked in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. That's it.
Sorry Mr. Aslan but this was disappointing and I feel cheated. The book should have been titled 'A Concise History of Jihadism', in which case it would have made a good book. However if that was its tile, I probably would not have purchased it and would have read instead for the likes of Fawaz Gerges. So it was definitely savvy for Mr. Aslan to create such an eye-catching title.
The book however takes a different turn afterwards, as Aslan starts narrating the origins of Zionism, Islamism and engages in a mostly historical analysis of the origins of zealousness. Providing such a background is important to the reader, but I did not expect it to take almost three-quarters of the book. Aslan's writing is engaging and entertaining, yet as the book approached its ending, my frustration increasingly swelled when Aslan would not start to answer the question on every reader's mind. In the dying ten pages however, he starts to recount the all-too familiar recommendations, the most significant one being engaging Islamist voices in the democratic process. A sound advice but no rigorous dissection of the problems plaguing the Islamic world. He elevates the struggle to being a cosmic war, and does not address the down-to-earth war that needs down-to-earth solutions and radical changes encompassing the entire Islamic world. By confining his analysis to the global hard-core Jihadists, Aslan has confined the battle with these only and in many cases seemed to discount the increasing radicalization of more and more Muslims. He refers to this trend as a 'Jihadi pop culture' and somehow belittles its impact. No talk whatsoever about why moderate Sheikhs have 3K followers on Twitter at best whereas radical Jihadist sheikhs have over a million. No talk about the shocking increase in radicalization that can be easily identified by scrolling under any youtube video in Arabic or Urdu, whether it be a rerun of a Barcelona game or a Lebanese pop song, where you are most likely to start reading inflammatory radical talk in the comments.
Aslan talks about Muslims in Europe and the USA and puts the blame on the institutions there for not integrating Muslims. A lot of this is true, but no talk whatsoever about what Muslims need to do in return. He makes no mention of how on earth we can confront growing radicalism in Muslim-majority countries, except for asking for increased democratization. Any amateur is able to make such a statement, but I expected Aslan to say how he expected to do that in Saudi Arabia for example, and to address the venomous Wahhabist influence. He discounts the influence of madrassas by resorting to the claim that most of the suicide bombers of the 9/11 did not attend madrassas. Well Mr. Aslan, almost one out of every three Muslim taxi drivers I meet in London and Boston have attended madrassas and their radical views are astounding. It is the views of these taxi drivers that represent a timebomb and are reflective of much more than a harmless Jihadist pop-culture if no action is done.
He makes no mention whatsoever of any reform needed for Islam or the need to create a uniform Islamic 'Marjaeya' whereby no Sheikh in the world is able to make a fatwa on his own; all we need to do according to the writer is to include Islamist parties in the democratic process. As to the issue of compatibility with democracy, Aslan dedicates one sentence in the entire book by stating that it worked in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. That's it.
Sorry Mr. Aslan but this was disappointing and I feel cheated. The book should have been titled 'A Concise History of Jihadism', in which case it would have made a good book. However if that was its tile, I probably would not have purchased it and would have read instead for the likes of Fawaz Gerges. So it was definitely savvy for Mr. Aslan to create such an eye-catching title.
February 4, 2018
His book tackles two questions:
1) Why the surge in religious identity?
According to him, there are two major parts to it, the failure of secular nationalism (which in the past has stripped away all religious and ethnic identifies) and the rise of globalisation. So, the void has been filled by relying on the religious identity.
2) What do you do about it?
He starts with asking us to differentiate between Jihadism and Islamism. The Islamist groups have grievances which can be "dealt" with - e.g. Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas but the Jihadist groups whose agenda is on a cosmic scale are not here for table-talk - e.g. Al-Qaeda. (This is definitely a very simplistic view but for someone who is painting every struggle with one brush of run-away-Jihad-is-coming, it is necessary to get a grasp of these distinctions)
He argues that, when given an opportunity in the political arena, the Islamist groups have taken on the responsibility and have done well. The classic example is that of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas which were "conned" in the name of democracy.
He is just awesome! Loved the book.
1) Why the surge in religious identity?
According to him, there are two major parts to it, the failure of secular nationalism (which in the past has stripped away all religious and ethnic identifies) and the rise of globalisation. So, the void has been filled by relying on the religious identity.
2) What do you do about it?
He starts with asking us to differentiate between Jihadism and Islamism. The Islamist groups have grievances which can be "dealt" with - e.g. Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas but the Jihadist groups whose agenda is on a cosmic scale are not here for table-talk - e.g. Al-Qaeda. (This is definitely a very simplistic view but for someone who is painting every struggle with one brush of run-away-Jihad-is-coming, it is necessary to get a grasp of these distinctions)
He argues that, when given an opportunity in the political arena, the Islamist groups have taken on the responsibility and have done well. The classic example is that of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas which were "conned" in the name of democracy.
He is just awesome! Loved the book.
August 16, 2019
I’m sure most people only think of Muslims when they think of religious extremists, but, as Aslan shows, they actually came into the game late. Jews and Christians have been using their absurd conviction that they know the mind of god for centuries.
Not only does this book set things straight, but it gives an in-depth history of each religions’ path to fundamentalism; its history, and, maybe, its future. It’s a must read for anyone who wants to know how we got here, and where we might be heading.
I’d love to think that this type of belief system will finally be shown to be the false narrative that it is, that all people, Jews, Christians, and Muslims will let go of their hubris and rigid mindset. But I’m not holding my breath.
Not only does this book set things straight, but it gives an in-depth history of each religions’ path to fundamentalism; its history, and, maybe, its future. It’s a must read for anyone who wants to know how we got here, and where we might be heading.
I’d love to think that this type of belief system will finally be shown to be the false narrative that it is, that all people, Jews, Christians, and Muslims will let go of their hubris and rigid mindset. But I’m not holding my breath.
April 27, 2023
First published in April 2009, "Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalization," by Reza Aslan, is a nonfiction book about the context and aftermath of the U.S. War on Terror (from 2001 up to the time of publication), and a cogent argument for promoting democracy in Muslim-majority nations.
The events in this book all happen before the Arab Spring, and that means Aslan could probably write an update to this book that would be equally compelling.
I love Aslan as an author as well as all of the books he has published, and "Beyond Fundamentalism" was another excellent read.
Recommended for anyone interested in U.S. foreign affairs and learning more about terrorism in general.
Five stars.
The events in this book all happen before the Arab Spring, and that means Aslan could probably write an update to this book that would be equally compelling.
I love Aslan as an author as well as all of the books he has published, and "Beyond Fundamentalism" was another excellent read.
Recommended for anyone interested in U.S. foreign affairs and learning more about terrorism in general.
Five stars.
May 1, 2012
A facetious reviewer might subtitle this book "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Islamism." I won't, because I'm not sure whether even a panel of experts on the book's subject could agree on how many stars to give it. In its favor, the book is a short, easy-to-read 173 pages asserting first a difference between Islamism and Jihadism and looking at a history of religious-inspired social movements from Masada to the present (not in that order).
Aslan devotes key parts of his analysis to the mind-set and backgrounds of the better known terrorists - 9/11 and 7/7 - in an effort to dispel Western stereotypes and direct attention to what he feels are the real origins of terrorist acts. Noting that militant jihadists typically spring from middle-class, educated families living in Europe, he ascribes their behavior to a youthful inability to forge a cross-cultural identity, while sympathizing with real and perceived oppression of Muslims everywhere and embracing a kind of religious extremism that actually rejects traditional Islam.
While some may pick up on his criticism of American foreign policies and the Bush/Rice years, many pages of Aslan's book actually sing the praises of American-style democracy, freedom of expression and religious tolerance. While maintaining that the only way to win a cosmic war (where Ultimate Reality is a Struggle between the Forces of Good and Evil) is to not fight one at all, he argues that the best way to deflate the perceived dangers of Islamists is to grant them participation in democratically run governments - an option that oppressive Middle East governments have generally rejected, with the tacit approval of the U.S.
Summed up like this, the argument of the book has the feel of something that could be very thin and insubstantial - more a matter of faith than a conviction based on more thorough analysis and research. Still, for an introduction to the issues, Aslan does a good job of opening up the subject for readers whose knowledge of Islam and the Middle East is no deeper than what can be gleaned from CNN. I'm settling on 4 stars for that reason alone.
Aslan devotes key parts of his analysis to the mind-set and backgrounds of the better known terrorists - 9/11 and 7/7 - in an effort to dispel Western stereotypes and direct attention to what he feels are the real origins of terrorist acts. Noting that militant jihadists typically spring from middle-class, educated families living in Europe, he ascribes their behavior to a youthful inability to forge a cross-cultural identity, while sympathizing with real and perceived oppression of Muslims everywhere and embracing a kind of religious extremism that actually rejects traditional Islam.
While some may pick up on his criticism of American foreign policies and the Bush/Rice years, many pages of Aslan's book actually sing the praises of American-style democracy, freedom of expression and religious tolerance. While maintaining that the only way to win a cosmic war (where Ultimate Reality is a Struggle between the Forces of Good and Evil) is to not fight one at all, he argues that the best way to deflate the perceived dangers of Islamists is to grant them participation in democratically run governments - an option that oppressive Middle East governments have generally rejected, with the tacit approval of the U.S.
Summed up like this, the argument of the book has the feel of something that could be very thin and insubstantial - more a matter of faith than a conviction based on more thorough analysis and research. Still, for an introduction to the issues, Aslan does a good job of opening up the subject for readers whose knowledge of Islam and the Middle East is no deeper than what can be gleaned from CNN. I'm settling on 4 stars for that reason alone.
June 14, 2017
Aslan describes the current state of terrorism as a Cosmic War. There are two sides; those with God and those with Satan. A Cosmic War cannot be won or lost. The only measure of success is killing the "others," Kafirs in Islam. There is no differentiation between men, women, and children Kafirs; they must all be killed; they are all part of Satan’s army. In this book, Aslan examines the history of religious fundamentalism, first in Jewish history, then Christian, and finally Islam. Historically, each of these great religions has involved itself in Cosmic War. Some radical factions of Islam consider themselves to be in a Cosmic War today against everyone who does not accept their definition of Islam; fellow Muslims who disagree with their radical version are the worst kind of Kafir. Modern day Jihadists are not much different in their desire to kill than other religious fundamentalists in history. However, in today’s world of high technology and the internet, they present problems that have never existed.
Aslan discusses the history of The Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism. He talks about how relations with the West changed when oil was discovered. But those changes are preceded by changes brought about because of the Crusades and then by colonialism. There are also changes that have been brought about internally during the history of Islam.
I was impressed with much of his work, but his solution seemed extremely weak. Basically, his thesis is that the only way to win a Cosmic War is not to fight it. America should ignore the terrorists and assist the creation of democratic states in the Middle East. These democracies would not necessarily be patterned after those in the western world, but would be compatible with Islam. Then, somehow, these democracies would overcome terror by removing the terrorists’ complaints. This comes from the theory that radicalization happens in three steps. Step one, convince the people that the current system is not working, second; convince them the system can be overthrown, and third; convince them they play a necessary part in the overthrow. The theory is that these new democracies will break the cycle at step one, and when terrorists gain political power, they will abandon terrorism. I’m not buying that – except if they gain absolute, global political power to force everyone to bow to Islamic law, which is their goal.
In my opinion there is a difference between Jewish / Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. The Jews, following instructions from their god, waged Cosmic War to clear the Promised Land, killing men, women, and children; and that was not the only case where Yahweh sanctioned that kind of scorched earth policy. However, each instance is narrowly defined in its cosmic reach. To clear the promised land, to defeat a specific enemy, etc. In Christianity, you can find no validation in the New Testament or the teachings of Christ to justify similar actions. Unfortunately, Christian leaders, beginning with some of the Popes of the Catholic Church, had no problem ordering Christians to wage Cosmic Wars of massive murder in the Middle East, Central and South America, etc. Generally, they fall back on the Old Testament for justification. And like, Judaism, they are specific. Islam comes with generalized Cosmic War imbedded in the Qur’an and the sayings and actions of Muhammad. It is no coincidence that the early steps in radicalization often involve increased activity in religious study, practice, and prayer. The radicalization is an adherence to fundamental, eternal teachings in the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad.
I have read all of the Qu’ran, parts of the Hadith, and three biographies of Muhammad, two by Muslims. I am no scholar, but I read what I read. According these sacred sources, there are only two types of people in the world; righteous Muslims and Kafirs. Kafirs are the disgusting, lowest form of live. They can be lied to, cheated, murdered, raped, dismembered, whatever. Islam has two valid sets of ethics. Medinan ethics call for the destruction Kafirs. Meccan ethics allow Muslims to live with Kafirs, but whichever ethics are applied, a Kafir can never be accepted as equal to a Muslim. Eventually, all people must submit to the rule of Islamic law. Peaceably or by force, global dominance of Islam must be brought about. The Meccan ethics allow Muslims to live with Kafirs, but this is only a temporary arrangement until the Medinan ethics gain enough power to force Kafirs to submit to Islamic law or die. I don’t know what is taught in Mosques. Perhaps the Medinan ethics have been abandoned forever among the peaceful Muslims. But it is clear to me that the Meccan ethics are the source of radicalization of Muslim youth. While those ethics remain enshrined in Islamic scripture, the consequences of Radical Islam remain.
Aslan does not address these basic teachings directly. His thesis is that the majority of Muslims want to live in a democratic state of their choosing, and that they want to live in peace in this world. That would be counter to what I understand Islam to be, but humans seem to be able make that kind of decision. For instance, the vast majority of Christians are perfectly happy with and totally support having an army to protect them from their enemies. They even encourage their children to join those armies, with no intention of ever turning the other cheek. However, there are the outliers; those totally devout Christians who would love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and die, letting the final judgement straighten it all out. My guess is, in Islam, we will always have to look out for the outliers; the totally devout Muslims who would happily die in the act of killing Kafirs in the service of Allah. This is the highest honor a Muslim can achieve in their version of heaven. All their sins will be forgiven if they are killed in the process of killing Kafirs – enemies of Allah. Homosexuality is a grave sin and those who practice it are enemies of Allah and subject to death. There are reports that Omar Mateen, (the killer who murdered 49 people at a gay bar in Florida) was gay. What a perfect way for him to get complete forgiveness of a grave sin and go to the highest garden in heaven.
If you let your country be flooded by Christians, you run the risk of having some radical believers who cannot be counted on to help your country in a time of war. On the other hand, if you let your country be flooded by Muslims, you run the risk of … … Is that Islamophobic? I have had dealings with Muslims in many ways over my career. When I see a Muslim, I don’t shake in my boots. But if I were walking the streets of Syria or some neighborhoods in Europe – I would probably have different feelings.
Though I don't agree with everything Aslan says, the book has a lot of good data and gives me a fuller picture of Islam in today's world.
Aslan discusses the history of The Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism. He talks about how relations with the West changed when oil was discovered. But those changes are preceded by changes brought about because of the Crusades and then by colonialism. There are also changes that have been brought about internally during the history of Islam.
I was impressed with much of his work, but his solution seemed extremely weak. Basically, his thesis is that the only way to win a Cosmic War is not to fight it. America should ignore the terrorists and assist the creation of democratic states in the Middle East. These democracies would not necessarily be patterned after those in the western world, but would be compatible with Islam. Then, somehow, these democracies would overcome terror by removing the terrorists’ complaints. This comes from the theory that radicalization happens in three steps. Step one, convince the people that the current system is not working, second; convince them the system can be overthrown, and third; convince them they play a necessary part in the overthrow. The theory is that these new democracies will break the cycle at step one, and when terrorists gain political power, they will abandon terrorism. I’m not buying that – except if they gain absolute, global political power to force everyone to bow to Islamic law, which is their goal.
In my opinion there is a difference between Jewish / Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. The Jews, following instructions from their god, waged Cosmic War to clear the Promised Land, killing men, women, and children; and that was not the only case where Yahweh sanctioned that kind of scorched earth policy. However, each instance is narrowly defined in its cosmic reach. To clear the promised land, to defeat a specific enemy, etc. In Christianity, you can find no validation in the New Testament or the teachings of Christ to justify similar actions. Unfortunately, Christian leaders, beginning with some of the Popes of the Catholic Church, had no problem ordering Christians to wage Cosmic Wars of massive murder in the Middle East, Central and South America, etc. Generally, they fall back on the Old Testament for justification. And like, Judaism, they are specific. Islam comes with generalized Cosmic War imbedded in the Qur’an and the sayings and actions of Muhammad. It is no coincidence that the early steps in radicalization often involve increased activity in religious study, practice, and prayer. The radicalization is an adherence to fundamental, eternal teachings in the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad.
I have read all of the Qu’ran, parts of the Hadith, and three biographies of Muhammad, two by Muslims. I am no scholar, but I read what I read. According these sacred sources, there are only two types of people in the world; righteous Muslims and Kafirs. Kafirs are the disgusting, lowest form of live. They can be lied to, cheated, murdered, raped, dismembered, whatever. Islam has two valid sets of ethics. Medinan ethics call for the destruction Kafirs. Meccan ethics allow Muslims to live with Kafirs, but whichever ethics are applied, a Kafir can never be accepted as equal to a Muslim. Eventually, all people must submit to the rule of Islamic law. Peaceably or by force, global dominance of Islam must be brought about. The Meccan ethics allow Muslims to live with Kafirs, but this is only a temporary arrangement until the Medinan ethics gain enough power to force Kafirs to submit to Islamic law or die. I don’t know what is taught in Mosques. Perhaps the Medinan ethics have been abandoned forever among the peaceful Muslims. But it is clear to me that the Meccan ethics are the source of radicalization of Muslim youth. While those ethics remain enshrined in Islamic scripture, the consequences of Radical Islam remain.
Aslan does not address these basic teachings directly. His thesis is that the majority of Muslims want to live in a democratic state of their choosing, and that they want to live in peace in this world. That would be counter to what I understand Islam to be, but humans seem to be able make that kind of decision. For instance, the vast majority of Christians are perfectly happy with and totally support having an army to protect them from their enemies. They even encourage their children to join those armies, with no intention of ever turning the other cheek. However, there are the outliers; those totally devout Christians who would love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and die, letting the final judgement straighten it all out. My guess is, in Islam, we will always have to look out for the outliers; the totally devout Muslims who would happily die in the act of killing Kafirs in the service of Allah. This is the highest honor a Muslim can achieve in their version of heaven. All their sins will be forgiven if they are killed in the process of killing Kafirs – enemies of Allah. Homosexuality is a grave sin and those who practice it are enemies of Allah and subject to death. There are reports that Omar Mateen, (the killer who murdered 49 people at a gay bar in Florida) was gay. What a perfect way for him to get complete forgiveness of a grave sin and go to the highest garden in heaven.
If you let your country be flooded by Christians, you run the risk of having some radical believers who cannot be counted on to help your country in a time of war. On the other hand, if you let your country be flooded by Muslims, you run the risk of … … Is that Islamophobic? I have had dealings with Muslims in many ways over my career. When I see a Muslim, I don’t shake in my boots. But if I were walking the streets of Syria or some neighborhoods in Europe – I would probably have different feelings.
Though I don't agree with everything Aslan says, the book has a lot of good data and gives me a fuller picture of Islam in today's world.
May 26, 2009
The "War on Terror" was, Aslan argues, an unwinnable war - a war that participants believed was being waged on a cosmic level as much as a planetary one; a war that was for eternity, not the here and now; a war that transformed the killing of innocents into an ethical act, since doing God's will was the only thing that mattered - concern for other people, even children, was irrelevant compared to serving God. Christian, Jew, or Muslim - certain members of each faith subscribed (subscribe!) to the idea of cosmic war, and rely on painting the world in broad ideological stripes. The key to undermining the power of each, Aslan argues, is to refuse to engage in cosmic war at all.
Aslan pulls no punches as he breaks down the politics and theology of the world's three major religions, with particular attention to the most right-wing expression of each: Jihadism, Zealotry, and Evangelical Fundamentalism. It's chilling to consider how little this world means to devotees of each - the present is merely a stage on which acts of supreme religious devotion take place. It's also revealing to consider how quickly and thoroughly the language of each slops over into secular life - how the post 9-11 world became about Us vs. Them, no matter which Us you consider yourself to be, facing off against which Them.
The only way to win a cosmic war, Aslan argues, is to refuse to engage in it - to eschew the idea that our actions are about Good vs. Evil, Us vs. Them, but instead tend to the everyday business of repairing infrastructures, widening political participation, improving education, and providing health care. It's a compelling argument, in a richly crafted book.
Aslan pulls no punches as he breaks down the politics and theology of the world's three major religions, with particular attention to the most right-wing expression of each: Jihadism, Zealotry, and Evangelical Fundamentalism. It's chilling to consider how little this world means to devotees of each - the present is merely a stage on which acts of supreme religious devotion take place. It's also revealing to consider how quickly and thoroughly the language of each slops over into secular life - how the post 9-11 world became about Us vs. Them, no matter which Us you consider yourself to be, facing off against which Them.
The only way to win a cosmic war, Aslan argues, is to refuse to engage in it - to eschew the idea that our actions are about Good vs. Evil, Us vs. Them, but instead tend to the everyday business of repairing infrastructures, widening political participation, improving education, and providing health care. It's a compelling argument, in a richly crafted book.
April 15, 2015
Beyond Fundamentalism - Confronting Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalization - by Reza Aslan was first published under the title "How to Win a Cosmic War". The original book was written in the aftermath of 9/11 before Bin Laden had been killed but far enough away from the event to have distance. I have yet to read a book that does a better job of addressing the underlying question that most on the street ask when considering the Jihadism seen primarily in the middle east - "Why do they hate us so much?". The War on Terror has become a religious war in which God is believed to be directly engaged - with both sides saying it is on "their" side. Mr. Aslan takes us on a meaty but very readable analysis of the rise of Jihadism. He sees the conflict and its history ina very clear way, and is able to write and say them in the same clear way. What fuels the conflict? What is the answer? At a time when religion and politics share more and more of the same vocabulary, and function in the same sphere, Mr.Alban states that we must strip the conflicts of our world of their religious unpinnings and address the earthy grievances that are at their root. This line from the book stands out and could be considered one of its credos - "How do you Win a religious war? By refusing to fight in one. Very highly recommended.
August 21, 2014
Seeing the first phrase in this book, you will consider it one of those Muslim writers who aimed to defend Islam after the 9/11 catastrophe! However Aslan used this as an introduction to lots of many things. He went through a historical journey in which he mentioned several Jewish & Christian radical groups, how they started, what they did ..etc till he reached today's Islamic Jihadist groups, how they started & what causes them to exist. In the last part of the book:" The end of the war as we know it", he described what he called "Generation E", the second & third immigrants who still can't feel natives, who lives isolated & to whom the Jihadist has acknowledged their weak point by providing them the hope they need to cling to!
The book was started very powerfully & I've enjoyed it a lot. However, its last chapter was a very weak one while illustrating USA as the democracy champion & peace sponsor in the Middle East!
It will be an interesting read to the Western reader more than an Arab, Muslim one. Also it lacks references to lots of historical events past & even recent ones.
The book was started very powerfully & I've enjoyed it a lot. However, its last chapter was a very weak one while illustrating USA as the democracy champion & peace sponsor in the Middle East!
It will be an interesting read to the Western reader more than an Arab, Muslim one. Also it lacks references to lots of historical events past & even recent ones.
April 30, 2012
“Natives restless; what are the drums saying Reza?” Reza Aslan seems like a pleasant enough chap. He writes about a lot of things in this book, a revised version of the poorly titled “How to Win a Cosmic War.” Of the things I actually know about—Israeli history, Biblical Studies, Liberation Theology—he makes amateur mistakes. This and the lack of Arabic sources in his bibliography and notes made me suspicious about the Islamic materials. He makes a distinction between “Islamism”—nationalist Islamic politics like Hamas and Hezbollah, who are local, “moderate” and attractive to the poor and disenfranchised—and “Jihadism” the transnational radicals who are “cosmic,” radical and attractive to the wealthy and educated. The only clear policy seems to be supporting democracy in the Muslim world. Sounds good, but I’m not convinced that Hamas is akin to European Christian Democrats. He does call our attention to the differences, disputes and tensions among the various Islamic political groups.
April 24, 2022
The human reasoning behind religious extremists
On 4 November 1995, a Jewish man called Yigal Amir assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin after the prime minister signed the Oslo Peace Accord, which promised to return lands seized in 1967 to the Palestinians as the first step towards a long lasting peace.
Yigal Amir has since been branded a radical, a zealot, a madman, and even a terrorist. But in his mind he’s only trying to safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of biblical Israel. And Rabin’s move, in his view, regressed the utopian dream of the totality of the Promised Land, because Israel needs to occupy all off the lands to ensure the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Indeed, Judaism and Christian Evangelist believe that the Kingdom of Heaven will finally come, and Jesus Christ will come down to Earth once again, when the 3rd rebuilding of the Temple Mount occur in the religious quarter in Jerusalem (the First Temple Mount was built in 957 BC but destroyed in 587 BC, and the Second Temple was built in 516 BC before destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD).
But the problem is, in the exact location where the Temple should be now resides the Dome of Rock, which is sacred for Muslims as it is the spot from where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ascended to heaven (the Dome of Rock was built more than 600 years later after the Second Temple was destroyed, in the year 692, which then collapsed in 1015, before being rebuilt in 1023 that lasts until today).
To fundamentalist Jews and Christians, this coming of Kingdom of Heaven prophecy somehow justifies Israel government’s awful treatment on the Palestinians, which became the basis of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s style of leadership. And in response, in their first free election in 2006 the Palestinians decided to ditch the pacifist Fatah and voted to give the leadership role to Hamas, which often resort to retaliate violence with violence that often associated with terror attacks. The Israeli-Palestinian relationship, with extremists in both sides, becomes regressively worse since then.
This is by far the most comprehensive book on the history of extremism. It shows the government policies that triggered extremists to react in a dramatic fashion, or terror attacks that in turn prompted governments to impose dramatic measures. It explains the philosophical and theological roots of some of the most notorious extremists in history from multiple religions, which actually shows that religious fundamentalists are not as “crazy” as they are portrayed to be. Instead, they are surprisingly rational, calculated, and also championing social justice although for a very different indoctrinated justifications.
Central to the fundamentalists' world view is the idea of cosmic war. As the author Reza Aslan puts it, "[t]he concept of cosmic war which in its simplest expression refers to the belief that God is actively engaged in human conflicts on behalf of one side against the other.” It is also the belief that it is not humans that are fighting on behalf of God, but instead God who fights on behalf of humans and using us as a some kind of pawn or soldier.
This is not a new phenomenon, however, because “[w]hen the Babylonians conquered Mesopotamia, they did so not in the name of their king but in the name of their god, Marduk, who was believed to have sanctioned, initiated, and commanded each battle. The same holds true for the Egyptians and their god Amun-Re; the Assyrians and their god, Ashur; the Canaanites and their god, Baal; and, most especially, the Israelites and their god, Yahweh.”
Or in a more recent history, it is what fueled the spirit of the Christian soldiers when in 1099 they launched the First Crusade to slaughter Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem to “take back” the city, with the Crusaders rallied to the cause with the justification of Holy War in God’s name. It is the same justification used by Salah al-Din who then recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, and eventually the Zionists in 1948 who captured the Palestinian land and created the state of Israel. It is also the same justification used by Al Qaeda when launching their terror attacks, George W. Bush on his “crusade” in Afghanistan and again in Iraq using false WMD claims, the counter-attack by Iraqis on fighting the invaders, and the many ISIS and ISIS-affiliate attacks across the world.
Instrumental to this cosmic war view is the role of framing. As Aslan commented, “[s]uccessful framing has the power to translate vague feelings of anger and resentment into tangible, easy-to-define grievances. It can also connect local and global grievances that may have little or nothing to do with one another under a “master frame” that allows a movement’s leaders to encompass the wider interests and diverse aspirations of their members.”
“These so-called “frame alignment techniques””, Aslan continues, “allow social movements like Jihadism to more easily create in-groups and out-groups. They help identify and, more important, vilify the enemy. They can even assist movement leaders in marking neutral bystanders as either sympathetic or antagonistic to the movement’s cause, all with the aim of compelling people to join the movement and do something about their grievances.”
In other words, framing helps converting the collective identity into collective action. And one of the easiest manifestation of collective action is violence, which transforms many complicated conflicts into a simple black-and-white view of us versus them. This is applicable in the Jihadist doctrine as well as the War on Terror that kills more casualties and destroys more countries than the Jihadists could ever wish for.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this book for me is the realisation that there is not much difference between the marginalised extremists throwing rocks in the street or using amateur suicide bombing as its mean to attacks, and those extremists who can have access to world leaders and much better weaponry, better media influence, and better diplomacy at international levels. It shows the gravest problem that the world is currently facing, with its ego and greed, but it also provides with perhaps the simple (but never easy) solution from Aslan himself: strip down all the religious jargons and justifications and address the real human problems and grievances that lie at their very roots, from their economic to social to political struggles.
Because, as they say, there cannot be peace without justice. But as you can tell from the 1 example from the book on the cosmic battle to control Jerusalem, justice is a highly complicated matter.
On 4 November 1995, a Jewish man called Yigal Amir assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin after the prime minister signed the Oslo Peace Accord, which promised to return lands seized in 1967 to the Palestinians as the first step towards a long lasting peace.
Yigal Amir has since been branded a radical, a zealot, a madman, and even a terrorist. But in his mind he’s only trying to safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of biblical Israel. And Rabin’s move, in his view, regressed the utopian dream of the totality of the Promised Land, because Israel needs to occupy all off the lands to ensure the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Indeed, Judaism and Christian Evangelist believe that the Kingdom of Heaven will finally come, and Jesus Christ will come down to Earth once again, when the 3rd rebuilding of the Temple Mount occur in the religious quarter in Jerusalem (the First Temple Mount was built in 957 BC but destroyed in 587 BC, and the Second Temple was built in 516 BC before destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD).
But the problem is, in the exact location where the Temple should be now resides the Dome of Rock, which is sacred for Muslims as it is the spot from where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ascended to heaven (the Dome of Rock was built more than 600 years later after the Second Temple was destroyed, in the year 692, which then collapsed in 1015, before being rebuilt in 1023 that lasts until today).
To fundamentalist Jews and Christians, this coming of Kingdom of Heaven prophecy somehow justifies Israel government’s awful treatment on the Palestinians, which became the basis of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s style of leadership. And in response, in their first free election in 2006 the Palestinians decided to ditch the pacifist Fatah and voted to give the leadership role to Hamas, which often resort to retaliate violence with violence that often associated with terror attacks. The Israeli-Palestinian relationship, with extremists in both sides, becomes regressively worse since then.
This is by far the most comprehensive book on the history of extremism. It shows the government policies that triggered extremists to react in a dramatic fashion, or terror attacks that in turn prompted governments to impose dramatic measures. It explains the philosophical and theological roots of some of the most notorious extremists in history from multiple religions, which actually shows that religious fundamentalists are not as “crazy” as they are portrayed to be. Instead, they are surprisingly rational, calculated, and also championing social justice although for a very different indoctrinated justifications.
Central to the fundamentalists' world view is the idea of cosmic war. As the author Reza Aslan puts it, "[t]he concept of cosmic war which in its simplest expression refers to the belief that God is actively engaged in human conflicts on behalf of one side against the other.” It is also the belief that it is not humans that are fighting on behalf of God, but instead God who fights on behalf of humans and using us as a some kind of pawn or soldier.
This is not a new phenomenon, however, because “[w]hen the Babylonians conquered Mesopotamia, they did so not in the name of their king but in the name of their god, Marduk, who was believed to have sanctioned, initiated, and commanded each battle. The same holds true for the Egyptians and their god Amun-Re; the Assyrians and their god, Ashur; the Canaanites and their god, Baal; and, most especially, the Israelites and their god, Yahweh.”
Or in a more recent history, it is what fueled the spirit of the Christian soldiers when in 1099 they launched the First Crusade to slaughter Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem to “take back” the city, with the Crusaders rallied to the cause with the justification of Holy War in God’s name. It is the same justification used by Salah al-Din who then recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, and eventually the Zionists in 1948 who captured the Palestinian land and created the state of Israel. It is also the same justification used by Al Qaeda when launching their terror attacks, George W. Bush on his “crusade” in Afghanistan and again in Iraq using false WMD claims, the counter-attack by Iraqis on fighting the invaders, and the many ISIS and ISIS-affiliate attacks across the world.
Instrumental to this cosmic war view is the role of framing. As Aslan commented, “[s]uccessful framing has the power to translate vague feelings of anger and resentment into tangible, easy-to-define grievances. It can also connect local and global grievances that may have little or nothing to do with one another under a “master frame” that allows a movement’s leaders to encompass the wider interests and diverse aspirations of their members.”
“These so-called “frame alignment techniques””, Aslan continues, “allow social movements like Jihadism to more easily create in-groups and out-groups. They help identify and, more important, vilify the enemy. They can even assist movement leaders in marking neutral bystanders as either sympathetic or antagonistic to the movement’s cause, all with the aim of compelling people to join the movement and do something about their grievances.”
In other words, framing helps converting the collective identity into collective action. And one of the easiest manifestation of collective action is violence, which transforms many complicated conflicts into a simple black-and-white view of us versus them. This is applicable in the Jihadist doctrine as well as the War on Terror that kills more casualties and destroys more countries than the Jihadists could ever wish for.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this book for me is the realisation that there is not much difference between the marginalised extremists throwing rocks in the street or using amateur suicide bombing as its mean to attacks, and those extremists who can have access to world leaders and much better weaponry, better media influence, and better diplomacy at international levels. It shows the gravest problem that the world is currently facing, with its ego and greed, but it also provides with perhaps the simple (but never easy) solution from Aslan himself: strip down all the religious jargons and justifications and address the real human problems and grievances that lie at their very roots, from their economic to social to political struggles.
Because, as they say, there cannot be peace without justice. But as you can tell from the 1 example from the book on the cosmic battle to control Jerusalem, justice is a highly complicated matter.
October 25, 2017
Kitap terör ve terörle mücadelenin iyi-kötü arasındaki kozmik savaşa ve bunun da Hristiyanlık ve İslam arasındaki savaşa dönüştürülmesi üzerine. Bütün dinlerdeki fanatik aktiviteler, bunun nasıl zeminlerde geliştiği bence objektif bir tarihsellik içinde oldukça güzel anlatışmış. Kitabın başlığında sorulan soru kitabın son bölümünün son iki sayfasında cevaplanmış. Onun da özeti: Ordularla savaşarak terörü yenemezsiniz. Demokrasiye güvenmek durumundasınız. Ve tabi kitap Obama'nın başkan seçilmesi ve umutla noktalanmış.
Bilemiyorum bu kadar girift ilişkiler içindeki bir sorunun cevabı başka türlü verilebilir miydi ama bir miktar hayal kırıklığı yarattı bende. Bölgedeki İslami hareketleri destekleyen diğer ülkeler ve para akışı ilişkilerinden pek bahsedilmemiş. Fakat yine de bir solukta okuduğum bir kitap oldu. Okumanızı tavsiye ederim.
Bilemiyorum bu kadar girift ilişkiler içindeki bir sorunun cevabı başka türlü verilebilir miydi ama bir miktar hayal kırıklığı yarattı bende. Bölgedeki İslami hareketleri destekleyen diğer ülkeler ve para akışı ilişkilerinden pek bahsedilmemiş. Fakat yine de bir solukta okuduğum bir kitap oldu. Okumanızı tavsiye ederim.
October 19, 2014
I don't agree with most of what he says about how Radical Islam is in the World. I also think Mohammed who was poor and saw they Jew and Christians at the time prosperous in his land. So he was actually quite a smart man he saw what they had done and how structured they were and how it benefited them and made them prosperous. So he did the same thing he was God inspired and started a movement to make his people prosperous and an economic powerhouse. I also disagree with him on Christianity though in the past it was a very violent religion and the Crusades prove that but it takes two to tango and Islam is the other side of that coin. There will never be a solution for Radicals they will always exist whether you promote democracy or socialism it is human nature.
July 17, 2014
Interesting book, pleasantly surprised to see that it referred to a book that I had partially read for my Seminar class- Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. Throughout the whole book I couldn't help but think the two were somewhat similar in their arguments.
However it felt like it went nowhere and I especially didn't like the cliche ending-- Obama being sworn in is by no means some kind of solution to anti-Muslim sentiment or the end of racism as we know it in America. The whole book questions American policy and practice but ends on a very exceptionalist sort of note and it just didn't sit that well with me.
One good thing I have to say though is that he knows how to weave a story well, because for all its faults, it was incredibly well written!
However it felt like it went nowhere and I especially didn't like the cliche ending-- Obama being sworn in is by no means some kind of solution to anti-Muslim sentiment or the end of racism as we know it in America. The whole book questions American policy and practice but ends on a very exceptionalist sort of note and it just didn't sit that well with me.
One good thing I have to say though is that he knows how to weave a story well, because for all its faults, it was incredibly well written!
March 27, 2022
Reza Aslan, with this concise but well analyzed work, gives great insight into the world of religious fundamentalism and extremism. He makes a clear distinction between Islamism which is a political movement having valid concerns and goals to bring about policy change at the local level and Global Jihadism which is a religiously fueled ideology buried in the concept of "cosmic war", or, a "war between good and evil" and is not confined to a certain territory. Beyond Fundamentalismm is a valuable source for anyone attempting to understand the circumstances leading to the rabid extremism prevalent in the Muslim world.
June 25, 2015
Informative, neutral, pro active. A must read.
For anyone who sees the daily news and wonders how the world has arrived to a state like this, to anyone who wonders how religious extremism can brainwash previously normal seeming citizens. This book goes over religious extremism from its earliest instances in ancient history, to the reasonings behind today's extremists, to a clear guidance on how to prevent future extremism. This is a well-researched, well-written, and well thought-out work.
For anyone who sees the daily news and wonders how the world has arrived to a state like this, to anyone who wonders how religious extremism can brainwash previously normal seeming citizens. This book goes over religious extremism from its earliest instances in ancient history, to the reasonings behind today's extremists, to a clear guidance on how to prevent future extremism. This is a well-researched, well-written, and well thought-out work.
November 26, 2011
No time for a real review, as usual. Short Version: Informative and well-written. Not an academic treatise, but instead written for those who follow the news closely, but would like a little more insight. Invaluable for presenting important distinctions typically glossed over in standard news and feature coverage (especially the difference between Islamism and Jihadism).
September 6, 2017
I wish I could make this and Aslan's No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam to every American's bookshelf right now.
November 15, 2018
After reading about Reza Aslan’s “Cosmic War” on The Internet, I decided to get this book and write a review of it. I had already reviewed Aslan’s book “Zealot.” Aslan came to America from Iran in 1979 as a young boy. He found Christ at a Youth Camp in California and became converted, but later lost his faith in Christianity when he could not refute the arguments of those who ridiculed his conviction that everything in the Bible is literally true. He later pursued a religious education in the USA, earning a B.A. in Religious Studies from Santa Clara University, a Masters in Theological Studies from Harvard, and a Ph.D. in Sociology of Religions from University of California. He now is famous for his books teaching and comparing Christian and Islamic understandings of religion, but he no longer believes in Christianity.
In his prologue, Aslan mentions his early experiences in America. Among other things, he realized that, when reciting the American pledge of allegiance, he was making a promise; and in return, a promise was being made to him. However, the events of 911 brought a change to the world, especially in America. Lines were being drawn. Sides were being chosen. “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” President Bush had warned, “In this conflict there is no middle ground.” Aslan characterizes this as “cosmic war.”
A cosmic war as described by Aslan “is a religious war. It is a conflict in which God is believed to be directly engaged on one side over the other . . . a cosmic war is like a ritual drama in which the participants act out on earth a battle they believe is actually taking place in heaven. A cosmic war . . . is a battle waged not against opposing nations or their soldiers or even their citizens but against Satan and his evil ministers . . .”
Aslan goes on to discuss the mediaeval crusades, describing them as earlier cosmic wars: He writes: “It may be difficult to reconcile the unrestrained bloodlust of these Medieval Christian soldiers with Jesus’s commandments to ‘love one’s enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek.’ But this is because Christianity’s conception of the cosmic war is derived not from the New Testament but from the Hebrew Bible . . . The knights who raped and pillaged their way to the Holy Land, who . . . boiled pagan adults whole in cooking pots, impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled, were cosmic warriors walking in the path of the Lion of Judah, not the Lamb of God.”
From this point on, Aslan loses me. He seldom picks up his opening theme that a cosmic war is primarily a celestial war that is actually happening in heaven. Instead, he falls into the same polemic that has always compromised human attempts to correct the evils in the world. He slants everything in a way that does not lead to a better understanding of the evil, but distorts it. Perhaps it might be true that some crusaders impaled infants on spits and devoured them grilled. I don’t know if that is true or not. I wasn’t there to observe it. But if it is true, wouldn’t everybody recognize it as evil? What good does it do to bring up these actions today, when these deeds were done almost a thousand years ago? All it does is provoke me and others to anger.
I think provocative statements like this only serve to further polarize humans in their conflict with each other. None of us today are responsible for the evil deeds done by people who have already left this life. Rehearsing these evil deeds over and over again only serves to encourage people to take action against the perceived perpetrators, and the action almost always winds up as an expression of hatred and retaliation. Hatred does not come from God who is merciful and long suffering because he is putting up with our sins. God desires our submission to his will, which reflects his love that animates everything he does. Hatred is instigated by Satan who seethes with resentment because God does not to permit Satan to take control of us who should belong to God. It is Satan who incites humans into hatred and oppression against others. Love, justice, and mercy are what animate God, as is testified in the first Surah in the Qu’ran: “In the name of God, the infinitely Compassionate and Merciful.” I believe there is indeed a cosmic war in progress. After reading Aslan’s book, I wonder how fervently Aslan believes it, even though he is the one who brought it up.
What is this cosmic war about? It is about Satan, a created spiritual person who wants to be a god himself and interferes with the human race to get humans to serve him rather than submit themselves to God’s will as they should. Satan’s major weapon in his war against God is his distortion of the truth as he enlists humans to aspire to what he wants. His influence is based on lies, like he lied to Eve when he conquered the first humans, and he is lying when he tempts us not to believe that God promised the woman and her husband a savior to crush the influence of Satan and rescue them and their offspring from bondage to Satan.
I don’t think God is going surrender his creation to a renegade angel, and I don’t think God wants a slaughter of humans occurring on earth. He did not even want conflict in heaven when Satan first rebelled. God’s loyal angels do not deserve to be embroiled in a conflict like that. God immediately cast Satan out of heaven onto Earth, and since Satan seduced the newly created humans, who so willingly entered into this rebellion, God will fight this conflict through them and all their offspring along with the promised human savior who will demonstrate that everyone God created, including Satan, must submit themselves to God. It is Satan’s rebellion against God and God’s will that the woman’s seed confront Satan that has brought this cosmic war to humans.
I think, in the world today, we all can see how different our human aspirations are from God’s aspirations. All through human history, every bit of injustice done against innocent victims is done by human beings, either prodded by Satan or through their own hatred, starting with the murder of Able by Cain, continuing all through history including the alleged impaling of infants on spits to be roasted and devoured by Christian crusaders, all the way up to the present day with the alleged atrocities inflicted by Muslims against the victims they mistreat. It’s not only brutal wars that have disgraced the human race; it is the incredible departure from everything that would demonstrate loyalty to God, like the blatant rejection of God by so many humans and the unimaginable oppression of other less gifted humans. I don’t think God is pleased with the conduct of those he created to love and serve him and who so willingly defy his commandments. In his war against god, Satan has destroyed the fidelity of all humans.
I don’t agree with Aslan’s polemic of provocative exaggerations of misconduct by the Christian world. It’s the same invective that Western news media directs today against the Muslim world. Some individuals in both worlds do not obey God as they should, but I think many in both worlds really do submit themselves, as best they can, to God’s will. Nothing good comes from this diatribe of lies and half-truths.
I think God wants each human to choose in our own hearts the side we want to defend, how we will act out this moral struggle that shows our fidelity to God. We should all be submissive to God’s will, but we are all influenced by Satan to prefer our own will, and we are stimulated through human anger to rage against other humans to get what we want rather than to direct our efforts interiorly so that we keep ourselves always submission to God’s will. We, the combatants in this cosmic war, are the ones who inflict injustice and oppression upon our fellow human beings, or if we choose submission to God, as God requires us to do, it could be any one of us who brings God’s mercy, compassion, and love to other human beings.
So how will this cosmic war play out? I think God’s holy will must be accepted and accomplished by everybody on Earth just like it is accepted and accomplished in heaven. We should choose submission to God. We must refuse submission to the influence of Satan. We must resist any temptation to inflict harm and oppression onto others that also share in God’s merciful love and toleration as they seek to discover God’s will themselves. The celestial cause of this cosmic war, Satan’s refusal to submit himself to God, cannot be tolerated forever. Sooner or later God will subdue Satan and punish him and all those who chose to side with Satan’s influence rather that submit themselves to God.
Aslan concludes: “In the end, we must recognize that the War on Terror could never have been won militarily. It is not enough for America’s capable military to seek out and destroy Jihadist militants. America itself must strive to create an open religious and political environment in the Muslim world that will blunt the appeal of Jihadist ideologies.”
I agree with his conclusion. We humans should not be waging war with each other. The violence and oppression that come with forcing someone to do our will does not come from God. I think God does not want force used because he does not want anyone to lose the sovereign free nature he conferred on all humans. I think what God wants is for each of us to freely decide to change our own attitudes and, of our own free will, to return to loyal submission to God. The challenge is to recognize what God’s will really is. A good guideline is God’s commandments.
If we want to participate in God’s victory in this cosmic war, we should encourage others in the logic of submission to God’s will without violating the sovereign free nature God has given to every person. I think what God wants is that each human recognize who God is and turn to God with gratitude and love because God created each sovereign person for a mission, and only by complying with God’s will with full submission can the destiny God has prepared for each one of us be accomplished.
I recommend “Cosmic War” to readers because it summarizes much of the history of religious wars that have plagued humans. Reading Aslan’s arguments caused me to search my own thoughts about God and Satan. I think Aslan’s book serves a good purpose, but Aslan could have explained his theme better if he had stuck to his original premise of what he thinks a cosmic war really is.
In his prologue, Aslan mentions his early experiences in America. Among other things, he realized that, when reciting the American pledge of allegiance, he was making a promise; and in return, a promise was being made to him. However, the events of 911 brought a change to the world, especially in America. Lines were being drawn. Sides were being chosen. “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” President Bush had warned, “In this conflict there is no middle ground.” Aslan characterizes this as “cosmic war.”
A cosmic war as described by Aslan “is a religious war. It is a conflict in which God is believed to be directly engaged on one side over the other . . . a cosmic war is like a ritual drama in which the participants act out on earth a battle they believe is actually taking place in heaven. A cosmic war . . . is a battle waged not against opposing nations or their soldiers or even their citizens but against Satan and his evil ministers . . .”
Aslan goes on to discuss the mediaeval crusades, describing them as earlier cosmic wars: He writes: “It may be difficult to reconcile the unrestrained bloodlust of these Medieval Christian soldiers with Jesus’s commandments to ‘love one’s enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek.’ But this is because Christianity’s conception of the cosmic war is derived not from the New Testament but from the Hebrew Bible . . . The knights who raped and pillaged their way to the Holy Land, who . . . boiled pagan adults whole in cooking pots, impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled, were cosmic warriors walking in the path of the Lion of Judah, not the Lamb of God.”
From this point on, Aslan loses me. He seldom picks up his opening theme that a cosmic war is primarily a celestial war that is actually happening in heaven. Instead, he falls into the same polemic that has always compromised human attempts to correct the evils in the world. He slants everything in a way that does not lead to a better understanding of the evil, but distorts it. Perhaps it might be true that some crusaders impaled infants on spits and devoured them grilled. I don’t know if that is true or not. I wasn’t there to observe it. But if it is true, wouldn’t everybody recognize it as evil? What good does it do to bring up these actions today, when these deeds were done almost a thousand years ago? All it does is provoke me and others to anger.
I think provocative statements like this only serve to further polarize humans in their conflict with each other. None of us today are responsible for the evil deeds done by people who have already left this life. Rehearsing these evil deeds over and over again only serves to encourage people to take action against the perceived perpetrators, and the action almost always winds up as an expression of hatred and retaliation. Hatred does not come from God who is merciful and long suffering because he is putting up with our sins. God desires our submission to his will, which reflects his love that animates everything he does. Hatred is instigated by Satan who seethes with resentment because God does not to permit Satan to take control of us who should belong to God. It is Satan who incites humans into hatred and oppression against others. Love, justice, and mercy are what animate God, as is testified in the first Surah in the Qu’ran: “In the name of God, the infinitely Compassionate and Merciful.” I believe there is indeed a cosmic war in progress. After reading Aslan’s book, I wonder how fervently Aslan believes it, even though he is the one who brought it up.
What is this cosmic war about? It is about Satan, a created spiritual person who wants to be a god himself and interferes with the human race to get humans to serve him rather than submit themselves to God’s will as they should. Satan’s major weapon in his war against God is his distortion of the truth as he enlists humans to aspire to what he wants. His influence is based on lies, like he lied to Eve when he conquered the first humans, and he is lying when he tempts us not to believe that God promised the woman and her husband a savior to crush the influence of Satan and rescue them and their offspring from bondage to Satan.
I don’t think God is going surrender his creation to a renegade angel, and I don’t think God wants a slaughter of humans occurring on earth. He did not even want conflict in heaven when Satan first rebelled. God’s loyal angels do not deserve to be embroiled in a conflict like that. God immediately cast Satan out of heaven onto Earth, and since Satan seduced the newly created humans, who so willingly entered into this rebellion, God will fight this conflict through them and all their offspring along with the promised human savior who will demonstrate that everyone God created, including Satan, must submit themselves to God. It is Satan’s rebellion against God and God’s will that the woman’s seed confront Satan that has brought this cosmic war to humans.
I think, in the world today, we all can see how different our human aspirations are from God’s aspirations. All through human history, every bit of injustice done against innocent victims is done by human beings, either prodded by Satan or through their own hatred, starting with the murder of Able by Cain, continuing all through history including the alleged impaling of infants on spits to be roasted and devoured by Christian crusaders, all the way up to the present day with the alleged atrocities inflicted by Muslims against the victims they mistreat. It’s not only brutal wars that have disgraced the human race; it is the incredible departure from everything that would demonstrate loyalty to God, like the blatant rejection of God by so many humans and the unimaginable oppression of other less gifted humans. I don’t think God is pleased with the conduct of those he created to love and serve him and who so willingly defy his commandments. In his war against god, Satan has destroyed the fidelity of all humans.
I don’t agree with Aslan’s polemic of provocative exaggerations of misconduct by the Christian world. It’s the same invective that Western news media directs today against the Muslim world. Some individuals in both worlds do not obey God as they should, but I think many in both worlds really do submit themselves, as best they can, to God’s will. Nothing good comes from this diatribe of lies and half-truths.
I think God wants each human to choose in our own hearts the side we want to defend, how we will act out this moral struggle that shows our fidelity to God. We should all be submissive to God’s will, but we are all influenced by Satan to prefer our own will, and we are stimulated through human anger to rage against other humans to get what we want rather than to direct our efforts interiorly so that we keep ourselves always submission to God’s will. We, the combatants in this cosmic war, are the ones who inflict injustice and oppression upon our fellow human beings, or if we choose submission to God, as God requires us to do, it could be any one of us who brings God’s mercy, compassion, and love to other human beings.
So how will this cosmic war play out? I think God’s holy will must be accepted and accomplished by everybody on Earth just like it is accepted and accomplished in heaven. We should choose submission to God. We must refuse submission to the influence of Satan. We must resist any temptation to inflict harm and oppression onto others that also share in God’s merciful love and toleration as they seek to discover God’s will themselves. The celestial cause of this cosmic war, Satan’s refusal to submit himself to God, cannot be tolerated forever. Sooner or later God will subdue Satan and punish him and all those who chose to side with Satan’s influence rather that submit themselves to God.
Aslan concludes: “In the end, we must recognize that the War on Terror could never have been won militarily. It is not enough for America’s capable military to seek out and destroy Jihadist militants. America itself must strive to create an open religious and political environment in the Muslim world that will blunt the appeal of Jihadist ideologies.”
I agree with his conclusion. We humans should not be waging war with each other. The violence and oppression that come with forcing someone to do our will does not come from God. I think God does not want force used because he does not want anyone to lose the sovereign free nature he conferred on all humans. I think what God wants is for each of us to freely decide to change our own attitudes and, of our own free will, to return to loyal submission to God. The challenge is to recognize what God’s will really is. A good guideline is God’s commandments.
If we want to participate in God’s victory in this cosmic war, we should encourage others in the logic of submission to God’s will without violating the sovereign free nature God has given to every person. I think what God wants is that each human recognize who God is and turn to God with gratitude and love because God created each sovereign person for a mission, and only by complying with God’s will with full submission can the destiny God has prepared for each one of us be accomplished.
I recommend “Cosmic War” to readers because it summarizes much of the history of religious wars that have plagued humans. Reading Aslan’s arguments caused me to search my own thoughts about God and Satan. I think Aslan’s book serves a good purpose, but Aslan could have explained his theme better if he had stuck to his original premise of what he thinks a cosmic war really is.
March 26, 2024
One of this book's biggest issues for utility is entirely out of the hands of the author, unless he writes a follow-up soon. Simply put, given this was published in 2009, it doesn't offer much in the way of analysis for post-2009 phenomena that have further complicated the issues raised - DAESH, Trumpism, Russian irredentism being framed as an anti-Western Christian crusade, Erdogan's increasing despotism and Kurdophobia, and so on.
For what it did cover, I did massively appreciate the contextualizing of modern Islamist and jihadist movements through a history that was highly digestible and accessible, easily allowing the reader to connect the threads, not only between grievances and responses, but parallel militant extremism within Judaism and Christianity. Useful though the historical background was, I can't help but feel it was placed a bit haphazardly - I could have sworn the history of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Afghan mujahideen and their combined relevance to the founding of al-Qaeda was told twice, albeit with different focuses. Once in a suitably detailed passage would have been enough, surely?
But even though Aslan could not have predicted how certain events would unfold following the publication of this book, his overly narrow focus on defeating and destroying the appeal of al-Qaeda style jihadism means that he doesn't even imply solutions to events that have made part of this book age poorly. Though he's correct about the hypocritical failures of Western foreign policy in the Middle East, using the AKP in Turkey as an example of a more practically-focused Islamist party to draw support away from violent jihadism is the most egregious example of parts of this book aging like milk. Far from being democratic and multicultural, the AKP has become more authoritarian and racist under Erdogan - in fact, in a roundabout way, because of their Kurdophobia, you can argue they have been tacitly aiding DAESH by targeting the primarily Kurdish YPG fighting them on the ground in Syria.
Despite recognizing that the networked world has made national identities more fuzzy, Aslan focuses entirely on Sunni extremism when talking about Islamic extremism, not giving a thought for Shia militancy among the Iranian government, the Houthi movement, and Hezbollah, despite the fact that they're loosely allied, and the Iranian government proved their transnational views way before this book by their targeting of Salman Rushdie, a British-Indian writer who had nothing to do with them. This loosening of national boundaries (ironically within nationalist movements) can be seen in how, though right-wing populist parties (like UKIP) initially drew support away from explicitly neo-fascist parties (like the BNP), they no longer act as a firewall due to the same far-right ideas and conspiracy theories freely mingling between these two initially separate groups - the firewall is on fire, and the same can easily happen, and seems to be happening, for nationalist Islamism and transnational jihadism. This isn't to say democratically-elected parties should be toppled from power just because they're Islamist (this, I agree with Aslan, would be a hypocritical move on the part of supposedly pro-democracy neocons), but it does mean that the situation is far complicated that Aslan implies.
Regrettably, the power of secularism is hugely missing from the conversation Aslan lays out here, as if the religious are the only ones with a stake in the idea of cosmic wars. The irreligious have certainly not been perfect on this front, some even arguably engaging in their own idea of a clash of civilizations. But they exist in both the West and the Middle East, and, at the very least, an argument can be made for the benefit of a more secularized politics. Aslan did hint towards this slightly in his epilogue, pointing out that the lack of official religious endorsement by the US government could serve to make Muslims feels more included there than in many European countries, but he also tries to frame nationalism as a failing form of secular identity, a bizarre claim, given that national and religious identities have gotten tangled up in each other since the beginning, among Francoists in Spain and Lebanon, the Ustase in Croatia, and in present-day America and Russia. What's more, whilst it's only a minor point, describing Obama being the child of a Christian and Muslim is misleading, given that Obama Sr. spent a lot of his life as an atheist. I don't know what the intention behind this was, but I can understand it being seen as erasure.
So, this book hasn't aged well, and I think it lacks the wide scope necessary for such an important issue, but its general tone for rallying people of different backgrounds to be united in an end for irrational violence is welcomed, and, if you're looking for a quick, digestible history of Islamism, this does a pretty good job.
For what it did cover, I did massively appreciate the contextualizing of modern Islamist and jihadist movements through a history that was highly digestible and accessible, easily allowing the reader to connect the threads, not only between grievances and responses, but parallel militant extremism within Judaism and Christianity. Useful though the historical background was, I can't help but feel it was placed a bit haphazardly - I could have sworn the history of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Afghan mujahideen and their combined relevance to the founding of al-Qaeda was told twice, albeit with different focuses. Once in a suitably detailed passage would have been enough, surely?
But even though Aslan could not have predicted how certain events would unfold following the publication of this book, his overly narrow focus on defeating and destroying the appeal of al-Qaeda style jihadism means that he doesn't even imply solutions to events that have made part of this book age poorly. Though he's correct about the hypocritical failures of Western foreign policy in the Middle East, using the AKP in Turkey as an example of a more practically-focused Islamist party to draw support away from violent jihadism is the most egregious example of parts of this book aging like milk. Far from being democratic and multicultural, the AKP has become more authoritarian and racist under Erdogan - in fact, in a roundabout way, because of their Kurdophobia, you can argue they have been tacitly aiding DAESH by targeting the primarily Kurdish YPG fighting them on the ground in Syria.
Despite recognizing that the networked world has made national identities more fuzzy, Aslan focuses entirely on Sunni extremism when talking about Islamic extremism, not giving a thought for Shia militancy among the Iranian government, the Houthi movement, and Hezbollah, despite the fact that they're loosely allied, and the Iranian government proved their transnational views way before this book by their targeting of Salman Rushdie, a British-Indian writer who had nothing to do with them. This loosening of national boundaries (ironically within nationalist movements) can be seen in how, though right-wing populist parties (like UKIP) initially drew support away from explicitly neo-fascist parties (like the BNP), they no longer act as a firewall due to the same far-right ideas and conspiracy theories freely mingling between these two initially separate groups - the firewall is on fire, and the same can easily happen, and seems to be happening, for nationalist Islamism and transnational jihadism. This isn't to say democratically-elected parties should be toppled from power just because they're Islamist (this, I agree with Aslan, would be a hypocritical move on the part of supposedly pro-democracy neocons), but it does mean that the situation is far complicated that Aslan implies.
Regrettably, the power of secularism is hugely missing from the conversation Aslan lays out here, as if the religious are the only ones with a stake in the idea of cosmic wars. The irreligious have certainly not been perfect on this front, some even arguably engaging in their own idea of a clash of civilizations. But they exist in both the West and the Middle East, and, at the very least, an argument can be made for the benefit of a more secularized politics. Aslan did hint towards this slightly in his epilogue, pointing out that the lack of official religious endorsement by the US government could serve to make Muslims feels more included there than in many European countries, but he also tries to frame nationalism as a failing form of secular identity, a bizarre claim, given that national and religious identities have gotten tangled up in each other since the beginning, among Francoists in Spain and Lebanon, the Ustase in Croatia, and in present-day America and Russia. What's more, whilst it's only a minor point, describing Obama being the child of a Christian and Muslim is misleading, given that Obama Sr. spent a lot of his life as an atheist. I don't know what the intention behind this was, but I can understand it being seen as erasure.
So, this book hasn't aged well, and I think it lacks the wide scope necessary for such an important issue, but its general tone for rallying people of different backgrounds to be united in an end for irrational violence is welcomed, and, if you're looking for a quick, digestible history of Islamism, this does a pretty good job.
August 6, 2018
I don't know what happened. The prologue and introduction was interesting and asked several intriguing questions. Unfortunately the rest of the book didn't answer them or even appear to attempt to - its a bit of a mishmash of essays(?) on the Israel Palestine conflict, Christian fundamentalism and global terrorism. I tried to be generous and read them individually rather than as trying to answer some general thesis but that didn't work well either. If you're interested in the rhetoric of the Bush Administration post 9/11 - a truly fascinating topic - there are far better books - If you're interested in Israel Palestine or religious fundamentalism the same can be said.
To be honest my thoughts on Aslan in general are quite mixed. I was introduced to him (as many were I'm sure) after his truly bizarre interview/inquisition on Fox News. I think he is good at what he does - 'religious studies' for the mass audience - the perfect go to for the likes of CNN and well... maybe not Fox... Certainly, I don't agree with much of what is poured out by the 'New Atheists' but to me Aslan doesn't provide strong rebukes of them or much of substance either - 'religions aren't violent people are violent;' a seemingly profound statement that after ten seconds one realizes is yet another platitude heaped on piles of others passing as astute commentary.
Certainly, I do agree with Aslan on a number of points, as I do with the likes of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins but I also agree with a lot of the criticism of the 'New Atheists' and of Aslan. They are actually quite similar in providing generic/sensationalist commentary about topics that merit far more scrutiny and discussion. Religions aren't inherently violent or peaceful - I can agree with Aslan on that but his lack of input on how religions (Islam, Christianity or otherwise) might (just might) contribute to global violence is either deliberately dismissive or inept. Yes... there are Buddhist monks that commit violence but that to me is such a flippant statement when discussing the proliferation of extremist groups that claim to be guided by Islam - which I thought was what this book was going to be discussing... Religions aren't the problem people are the problem.. right...
Also, I'm sorry but I have to provide one more critique in the sense that I tend to agree that Aslan oversells his credentials a bit (not as much as haters want but..). I'm no stickler for academia and the need to have a PHD in a subject matter to be worthy of discussing it but not having a true background in writing history was more than apparent throughout the work. If its meant to be a work of history please provide citation for blanket statements made about topics such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which are political, economical, historical etc not just religious.
Conversely, if a particular statement is meant to simply be a personal statement of the author than please label it as such. If Reza is content to be 'religious scholar/historian to the masses' then fine my criticism are baseless and that's his prerogative - but if you market yourself as a historian for even the amateur student in these subjects (a category I suppose I would fall into) then you have opened yourself up to criticism. I know that his PHD supervisor has come to his defense and I accept his opinion but I still the feel actual historical component is lacking.. I didn't see in this work what I am accustomed to seeing in other works by historians.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Reza is inherently biased on any of these topics because hes a Muslim - the rather hilarious if uncomfortable Fox News motto. Also, I'm not dismissing his background in religious studies and say this as more of a general statement on the state of what passes as 'scholarly commentary' these days. As someone with an education in Political Science I also find Reza's political observations quite shallow if not funny and yes... I do realize that I just referenced my own credentials which I am criticizing him for... but hey its my opinion not fact and am identifying it as such. Perhaps it is simply not possible to provide substantive observations on a mass level.
To be honest my thoughts on Aslan in general are quite mixed. I was introduced to him (as many were I'm sure) after his truly bizarre interview/inquisition on Fox News. I think he is good at what he does - 'religious studies' for the mass audience - the perfect go to for the likes of CNN and well... maybe not Fox... Certainly, I don't agree with much of what is poured out by the 'New Atheists' but to me Aslan doesn't provide strong rebukes of them or much of substance either - 'religions aren't violent people are violent;' a seemingly profound statement that after ten seconds one realizes is yet another platitude heaped on piles of others passing as astute commentary.
Certainly, I do agree with Aslan on a number of points, as I do with the likes of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins but I also agree with a lot of the criticism of the 'New Atheists' and of Aslan. They are actually quite similar in providing generic/sensationalist commentary about topics that merit far more scrutiny and discussion. Religions aren't inherently violent or peaceful - I can agree with Aslan on that but his lack of input on how religions (Islam, Christianity or otherwise) might (just might) contribute to global violence is either deliberately dismissive or inept. Yes... there are Buddhist monks that commit violence but that to me is such a flippant statement when discussing the proliferation of extremist groups that claim to be guided by Islam - which I thought was what this book was going to be discussing... Religions aren't the problem people are the problem.. right...
Also, I'm sorry but I have to provide one more critique in the sense that I tend to agree that Aslan oversells his credentials a bit (not as much as haters want but..). I'm no stickler for academia and the need to have a PHD in a subject matter to be worthy of discussing it but not having a true background in writing history was more than apparent throughout the work. If its meant to be a work of history please provide citation for blanket statements made about topics such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which are political, economical, historical etc not just religious.
Conversely, if a particular statement is meant to simply be a personal statement of the author than please label it as such. If Reza is content to be 'religious scholar/historian to the masses' then fine my criticism are baseless and that's his prerogative - but if you market yourself as a historian for even the amateur student in these subjects (a category I suppose I would fall into) then you have opened yourself up to criticism. I know that his PHD supervisor has come to his defense and I accept his opinion but I still the feel actual historical component is lacking.. I didn't see in this work what I am accustomed to seeing in other works by historians.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Reza is inherently biased on any of these topics because hes a Muslim - the rather hilarious if uncomfortable Fox News motto. Also, I'm not dismissing his background in religious studies and say this as more of a general statement on the state of what passes as 'scholarly commentary' these days. As someone with an education in Political Science I also find Reza's political observations quite shallow if not funny and yes... I do realize that I just referenced my own credentials which I am criticizing him for... but hey its my opinion not fact and am identifying it as such. Perhaps it is simply not possible to provide substantive observations on a mass level.
August 24, 2021
Good and fairly quick read. Talks about “cosmic wars,” which are basically where there’s no winning or losing because the objectives are other-worldly. This is what makes people involved in cosmic wars so dangerous. It also talks about conflicts in the Middle East, extremist groups and individuals, and fundamentalism. I found the portion about European animosity towards Muslim citizens and inability to accept Muslims as fully European (even if born there) interesting, particularly because of how it factors into extremism there.
There are some interesting sections about how youth are recruited Into extremist groups. Interesting observations are that they tend to be middle class, educated young man. There are also many who never engage in extremism even if they consume and buy into its propaganda. I learned a new term, “free riders.” People who share a movements grievances, who associate with the movements goals, and who absorb the movements symbols into their own identities, but who do not take part in the movements actions. Those who join chat room discussions and download videos but are attached casually, and as a form of rebellion. This is particularly interesting given the consequences of guilt by association we have seen in the last several decades and entrapment cases.
Also interesting to note what are the motivations for people to do things like suicide terrorism, and that hatred is really not enough of a motivator. Rather is something “positive“ like reputation or glory.
The last chapter titled “the middle ground” makes an interesting case about approaching politics in the middle east. He argues that making room for Islamism in politics will help to reduce the influence of Jihadism (read violence) by giving a legitimate (and more moderate) alternative to secular authoritarianism. Some quotes: “Terrorism thrives in societies were no public space exist for a legitimate political opposition.” “when peaceful voices are silenced, violence becomes the sole source of political expression.” “ when Islamist opposition has been suppressed, militant groups and religious extremist have gained favor.” This distinction between islamists and extremist groups is an important one. Thus we have to become comfortable with Islamist groups as legitimate political parties. Ultimately we (USA) cannot support free elections and then undermine them because we don’t like the results and punish people for their free choice. This is because Islamist groups are often the ones that try to “clean the streets.” I.e. serving the people most faithfully, that is why people vote for them. To conflate al-qaida with the muslim brotherhood, for example, is a major mistake.
The democratic process should be given a chance particularly since their supposed incompatibility is something people outside of the Middle East say about it rather than those aspiring for it within. Free political expression is the antidote to extremism. It makes for better societies, better religious expression and more stability.
There are some interesting sections about how youth are recruited Into extremist groups. Interesting observations are that they tend to be middle class, educated young man. There are also many who never engage in extremism even if they consume and buy into its propaganda. I learned a new term, “free riders.” People who share a movements grievances, who associate with the movements goals, and who absorb the movements symbols into their own identities, but who do not take part in the movements actions. Those who join chat room discussions and download videos but are attached casually, and as a form of rebellion. This is particularly interesting given the consequences of guilt by association we have seen in the last several decades and entrapment cases.
Also interesting to note what are the motivations for people to do things like suicide terrorism, and that hatred is really not enough of a motivator. Rather is something “positive“ like reputation or glory.
The last chapter titled “the middle ground” makes an interesting case about approaching politics in the middle east. He argues that making room for Islamism in politics will help to reduce the influence of Jihadism (read violence) by giving a legitimate (and more moderate) alternative to secular authoritarianism. Some quotes: “Terrorism thrives in societies were no public space exist for a legitimate political opposition.” “when peaceful voices are silenced, violence becomes the sole source of political expression.” “ when Islamist opposition has been suppressed, militant groups and religious extremist have gained favor.” This distinction between islamists and extremist groups is an important one. Thus we have to become comfortable with Islamist groups as legitimate political parties. Ultimately we (USA) cannot support free elections and then undermine them because we don’t like the results and punish people for their free choice. This is because Islamist groups are often the ones that try to “clean the streets.” I.e. serving the people most faithfully, that is why people vote for them. To conflate al-qaida with the muslim brotherhood, for example, is a major mistake.
The democratic process should be given a chance particularly since their supposed incompatibility is something people outside of the Middle East say about it rather than those aspiring for it within. Free political expression is the antidote to extremism. It makes for better societies, better religious expression and more stability.
July 26, 2021
Well, this certainly aged like milk.
Before going into how this book doesn't solve its own title, I think it's important to highlight the points that Aslan makes as signs of hope and areas of improvement within moderation of Middle Eastern politics, found in Part III of the book:
1) Praise of Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) - As it is abundantly clear now, Erdogan does not in any way support free and fair elections. He jails opposition candidates and journalists, has pushed a populist agenda which has punished any type of dissent for his absolute rule, and by his actions alone caused the military to try and stage a coup.
2) Support for Hamas as a "moderate political party" - When you set the bar for "political party" with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, then of course Hamas itself is going to look more moderate in comparison. That's akin to saying the ideas and policies of the National Policy Institute and Richard Spencer's ilk aren't as bad as the Ku Klux Klan, all are terrible and espouse violence against those who hold differing opinions. I'm surprised that Aslan holds his breath in hopes that Hamas will somehow do a complete 180 and forget the themes of martrydom, rocket attacks, and extrajudicial killings.
3) Belief that the Freedom and Justice Party (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood) would sustain democracy - I'm sure that Aslan thought he was prescient with the 2011 Egyptian election which overthrew Mubarak and placed Morsi in the presidency. Unfortunately, that lasted for all of one year before the military took back power. And it's hard not to see why, as Morsi was one to "temporarily" grant himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight, prosecuted journalists, placed people in prison without judicial review, and supported Muslim Brotherhood gangs that would inflict violence towards those critical of his party.
These in no way should be held as examples for how to weaken religious fundamentalism within governments in the Middle East, nor "win a cosmic war."
Now, as many other readers also indicate, the book itself was a scattershot of ideas without a central theme and ultimately a failure in addressing its own title. In the end I found it quite fitting that he would praise and juxtapose newly elected President Obama as a peaceful way forward, in comparison to the war monger, Bush Jr. I'm sure that Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald, and Edward Snowden would like a word with Aslan on that last point.
While I would certainly not recommend this book to others, if you're interested in some light reading (nowhere near the depth of MacCulluch, Hazleton, Norwich, or Wright) regarding the historical background of the Abrahamic faiths, then I would recommend Reza Aslan's other books, "Zealot" and (to a lesser degree) "God."
Before going into how this book doesn't solve its own title, I think it's important to highlight the points that Aslan makes as signs of hope and areas of improvement within moderation of Middle Eastern politics, found in Part III of the book:
1) Praise of Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) - As it is abundantly clear now, Erdogan does not in any way support free and fair elections. He jails opposition candidates and journalists, has pushed a populist agenda which has punished any type of dissent for his absolute rule, and by his actions alone caused the military to try and stage a coup.
2) Support for Hamas as a "moderate political party" - When you set the bar for "political party" with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, then of course Hamas itself is going to look more moderate in comparison. That's akin to saying the ideas and policies of the National Policy Institute and Richard Spencer's ilk aren't as bad as the Ku Klux Klan, all are terrible and espouse violence against those who hold differing opinions. I'm surprised that Aslan holds his breath in hopes that Hamas will somehow do a complete 180 and forget the themes of martrydom, rocket attacks, and extrajudicial killings.
3) Belief that the Freedom and Justice Party (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood) would sustain democracy - I'm sure that Aslan thought he was prescient with the 2011 Egyptian election which overthrew Mubarak and placed Morsi in the presidency. Unfortunately, that lasted for all of one year before the military took back power. And it's hard not to see why, as Morsi was one to "temporarily" grant himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight, prosecuted journalists, placed people in prison without judicial review, and supported Muslim Brotherhood gangs that would inflict violence towards those critical of his party.
These in no way should be held as examples for how to weaken religious fundamentalism within governments in the Middle East, nor "win a cosmic war."
Now, as many other readers also indicate, the book itself was a scattershot of ideas without a central theme and ultimately a failure in addressing its own title. In the end I found it quite fitting that he would praise and juxtapose newly elected President Obama as a peaceful way forward, in comparison to the war monger, Bush Jr. I'm sure that Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald, and Edward Snowden would like a word with Aslan on that last point.
While I would certainly not recommend this book to others, if you're interested in some light reading (nowhere near the depth of MacCulluch, Hazleton, Norwich, or Wright) regarding the historical background of the Abrahamic faiths, then I would recommend Reza Aslan's other books, "Zealot" and (to a lesser degree) "God."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 203 reviews