Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah (CERI Series in Comparative Politics and International Studies (Paperback)) Paperback – March 21, 2006

A good summary of the issues

What is a Jew? Jews have wrestled with this problem for centuries. Are Jews an ethic group (a "people"), or merely adherents of a religion? The infamous anti-Semitic Lord Mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, accused of hypocrisy for hobnobbing with rich Jews, declared "I decide who is a Jew!" For the Nazis, Judaism was an ineradicable genetic taint. For the Israeli rabbinate, which must constantly interpret the "Law of Return" that allows any Jew to claim citizenship, the definition is highly legalistic (and not to the liking of many if not most self-defined Jews both within and outside Israel). In this provocative and controversial book the French political scientist Olivier Roy demonstrates that in a contemporary, diasporic context, the definition of who is a Muslim and of Islam itself is at least as difficult and ambiguous. Roy knows a great deal. But if you have read Hanif Kureishi's story "My Son the Fanatic," or seen the outstanding film of the same name (directed by U. Prasad, 1997), you already know the heart of the matter.To pursue the Jew-Muslim comparison: some young secular Jews become motivated to seek their roots and end up becoming Orthodox or even ultra-Orthodox; the Chabad movement is an organized attempt to get them back "into the fold." (One of my undergrad advisees, from Los Angeles, became so Orthodox that she considered it verboten to let me, a male unrelated by blood or marriage, shake her hand at Commencement despite a four-year advser-advisee relationship.) Most young Jews raised in a secular environment in the United States do not , however, become preoccupied with the question of identity, and relatively few aspire to "make Aliyah" (emigrate to Israel). In the Argentine film "Lost Embrace" ("El Abrazo Partido") (D. Burman, 2004) the protagonist is a deracinated young Jew in Buenos Aires who actually thinks about claiming Polish citizenship and starting over where his family's roots were. He goes to the Polish consulate to discuss his idea and the consul reacts with disbelief: "But you're a Hebrew!" "No," he replies, "I'm an Argentine." In this book Roy explores what similarly deracinated diasporic Muslims do in the West. Cut off from their "pristine" culture and homeland, they are faced with a variety of options. Roy is most interested in how and why some of them opt to become violent jihadists (something one does not see today in deracinated Jews). He argues that jihad as an option is a product of what he calls neofundamentalism, fused with the anarchist-Marxist tradition of the "propaganda of the deed." He says: "Radical militant jihadists fight not to protect a territory but to re-create a community. They are besieged in a fortress they do not inhabit....they know the enemy is in the fortress."The book was published in 2004, so it antedates ISIS and its attempt to create a new Caliphate. But in a sense the whole book is about the ethos informing ISIS, and the turn of history broadly confirms Roy's interpretation of diasporic Muslim social psychology. The question of identity is shared by diasporic Jews and Muslims, but is much more central in the banlieue than in Los Angeles or Brooklyn or Buenos Aires.Roy's ideas are not universally accepted among contemporary interpreters of Islam. The book is dense and repetitive and far from an easy read. But it is well worth the effort for the insights it delivers. (Now go see "My Son the Fanatic.")

There are plenty of ideas in this book. And I think it is worth reading, even though I rarely agreed with Roy's arguments or his conclusions.The author begins by saying that "culturalists" say that "Islam is the issue." And he disagrees with them. Yes, the culturalists include just about everyone: Islamists, moderate Muslims, Islamophobes, anti-Islamophobes, and orientalists. But not him. He's not so sure it even makes sense to discuss a Muslim culture. And he sees what most of us think of as Islamic struggles actually being examples of nationalism and ethnicity. While Islam may provide some people with a sense of identity, he points out that in the war against Israel, there's no real difference politically between the seculars and the Islamists. And he asks if jihad is really closer to Marx (Karl, not Harpo or Groucho) than it is to the Koran.I sort of blinked when I read that. While it might be true, I didn't quite agree with Roy's logic. He continued by explaining that the Chechens and the Levantine Arabs are engaged in liberation struggles. I think he's wrong about the Levantine Arabs. I see their struggle as being neither pro-religious, nor pro-nationalistic, nor even pro-ethnic, but very specifically anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-ethnic, and against human rights. Roy calls the Levantine Arabs a people, but I see them as an antipeople who have no positive goals for themselves that need to be satisfied but only goals of hurting a people they have banded together to fight. All this is quite the opposite of a liberation struggle. And using Islam as a means to get people to identify with one side in this fight does indeed make Islam at least part of the issue.Roy continues by discussing the fact that Muslims still come up with polemics against competing religions. According to the author, Christians, for the most part, do not. Well, the Catholics do not. The Evangelicals and the Christian Right Wing do. And Roy concludes that the Christians aren't really competing against Islam. But once again, I think he's overlooking the possibility that some people might consider polemics to be poor form. I'm as willing as anyone to discuss the advantages of polytheism over monotheism. But I do not want to appear as though I am trying to impose religious practices on others.Next, the author discusses the Westernization of Islam. Some of this section was quite interesting, especially the age-old differences between Sufis and Salafis. And later, there is a section on the future of Muslim terrorism and questions of deterritorialization. Once again, I had to ask what he really meant by that. Muslim terrorists exist in time and space just like the rest of us. At best, he meant to differentiate between explicit state support and implicit support from many of the people in a state.Near the end of the book, Roy says that this is a time of great intellectual confusion. As an example, anti-imperialist "supporters" of Women's Rights support the Taliban! Well, if he thinks he is confused, that is fine. I'm not. If you support the Taliban, you do not support Women's Rights.Yes, it is true that some Christian moderates are in an alliance with some Muslim fundamentalists. Some of them appear to be in this alliance to fight against Christian fundamentalists and Jews. And it may be interesting to see why. And yes, some Jewish moderates and Christian fundamentalists are allied as well, just to defend themselves. Once again, it may be interesting to see if these alliances extend to anything more than that. And I think it could be a good idea to investigate the very rare alliances of Muslim moderates and Jewish fundamentalists. But I think Roy has not offered us much merely by saying that there are alliances which cut across religious and political boundaries.I found the book interesting, and I think it contains some intriguing facts.

Roy certainly had an interesting angle when deciding to pen this book, which often makes for some of the most insightful and thought-provoking reads. His ideas on how globalization has affected Islam and his discussion on how Islam in itself should be held separate from what the general public knows as "radical Islam" was a stimulating counter to what is so often heard in the media today.However, I believed that as Roy did a decent job of supporting his ideas, I do not think that he did the best job of debunking the common belief that is already prevalently circulating the global community. Roy discussed the involvement of non-traditional Islamists, or jihadists, but I do not believe that he sufficiently contradicted the idea of purist Islam as also playing a role in terrorist activity (not saying that this is my personal argument, but simply reviewing his work).On an ending note, I think that Roy's book was a thoroughly intense read. It required my full attention from cover to cover, and being so-- it made it very easy to miss information if I was not paying complete attention to what I was reading. This resulted in having to re-read much of the book, just to get a full grasp on his argument.

Cannot believe that a serious scholar is confused of basic concepts such as fundamentalism and make extensive wrong statements. Granted, fundamentalism is not easy to understand. However, Bernard Lewis, Robert Spencer and many others got this correct: "Islamic Fundamentalism is a misnomer". This book confuses the readers about current challenges.

Excellent academic study detailing the change in Muslim neo-fundamentalist attitudes as ordinary Muslims find themselves objectifying and defining Islam in the global culture. Olivier's grasp of the mood swings in the Islamic milieu are pretty exact. He seems to have studied and experienced some of the target groups at close hand. It's a must read for any Muslim living in the West looking for answers to justify the current Islamic trends.