The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Amazon.com

Sam Harris cranks out blunt, hard-hitting chapters to make his case for why faith itself is the most dangerous element of modern life. And if the devil's in the details, then you'll find Satan waiting at the back of the book in the very substantial notes section where Harris saves his more esoteric discussions to avoid sidetracking the urgency of his message.

Interestingly, Harris is not just focused on debunking religious faith, though he makes his compelling arguments with verve and intellectual clarity. The End of Faith is also a bit of a philosophical Swiss Army knife. Once he has presented his arguments on why, in an age of Weapons of Mass Destruction, belief is now a hazard of great proportions, he focuses on proposing alternate approaches to the mysteries of life. Harris recognizes the truth of the human condition, that we fear death, and we often crave "something more" we cannot easily define, and which is not met by accumulating more material possessions. But by attempting to provide the cure for the ills it defines, the book bites off a bit more than it can comfortably chew in its modest page count (however the rich Bibliography provides more than enough background for an intrigued reader to follow up for months on any particular strand of the author' musings.)

Harris' heart is not as much in the latter chapters, though, but in presenting his main premise. Simply stated, any belief system that speaks with assurance about the hereafter has the potential to place far less value on the here and now. And thus the corollary -- when death is simply a door translating us from one existence to another, it loses its sting and finality. Harris pointedly asks us to consider that those who do not fear death for themselves, and who also revere ancient scriptures instructing them to mete it out generously to others, may soon have these weapons in their own hands. If thoughts along the same line haunt you, this is your book.--Ed Dobeas

Book Description

An impassioned plea for reason in a world divided by faith.

This important and timely book delivers a startling analysis of the clash of faith and reason in today's world. Harris offers a vivid historical tour of mankind's willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs, even when those beliefs are used to justify harmful behavior and sometimes-heinous crimes. He asserts that in the shadow of weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer tolerate views that pit one true god against another. Most controversially, he argues that we cannot afford moderate lip service to religion—an accommodation that only blinds us to the real perils of fundamentalism. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris also draws on new evidence from neuroscience and insights from philosophy to explore spirituality as a biological, brain-based need. He calls on us to invoke that need in taking a secular humanistic approach to solving the problems of this world.

Natalie Angier wrote in the New York Times: "The End of Faith articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated….Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say."

Customer Reviews:

A Guru for the 21st Century.......2007-10-08

Morally speaking, are Bronze-Age myths as good as it gets?

Sam Harris doesn't think so and he argues brilliantly for a
new religious paradigm to shepherd us through the 21st Century.

Like a Spanish Inquisitor Harris ruthlessly examines the shaky philosophical justification for Abrahamic theism and finds it wanting.

But Harris doesn't just convince us that there really is no Santa Claus, he offers us a new way forward. He proves conclusively that science and reason do not necessarily have to be divorced from spiritual inquiry and revelation.

Some of his detractors have said that Harris is angry at God, but
that of course assumes a fact not in evidence (the existence of God).

After hearing him speak at Aspen Colorado,
'angry' is not quite the adjective that comes to mind.
http://svayam8.blogspot.com/2007/07/sam-harris-at-aspen-ideas-festival.html

As hard as it may be for theists to accept, many disbelievers really are being intellectually honest.

Sam Harris is one of those. He isn't angry, he's just right.
Thank you Sam for being a beacon of reason in a dangerously
darkened world.

Letter to a Christian Nation

Something that will keep us pondering for a long time.......2007-10-07

Well, this book is one of those that you come across with an argument so solid that you cannot stop pondering about its ideas. Mr. Harris has laid down a set of ideas that for a long time will haunt us, and the generations to come. Mr. Harris exposition of his thesis is simply monumental. His lurid writing style and his exquisite manners have brought forth a fundamental issue.

Mr. Harris as in the moving The Kingdom have presented us a sordid reality. Either we continue with religions and destroy humanity or we dispose of religion and avoid genocide. Muslims wants us dead and we do not want Islamic doctrines in our life. Further, more 9-11 have presented us with the issue of Abrahamic Religions and their stupidity. Because of them we lost 500 years, The Dark Ages and because of them we are losing our freedom and technological progress.

Some rabble-rouser long ago hid truth from us. [...] God created man. [...] men create God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men! Gospel of Philip 71:34; 72:1-4 Nag Hammadi Texts

Fanaticism and Fundamentalism of the religious realm have ruin freedom and life itself! Both should be eliminated and replaced by logical processes, which will warrant freedom, progress, technological development, world peace and happiness to every single human being. Religious moral varies from religion to religion. Logical morality does not need to vary! 1+1=2 in USA and in China too! Morals should be in the same manner.

Mr. Harris has begun a movement that will be here long after he parts. It is a movement of personal right to live a life as one please and not as a few wants you to live. It is also a movement toward World Peace!

I do recommend this book to everyone!

Harris dares to imagine no religion.......2007-09-26

This book is so much fun to read I read it twice. Harris writes with passion, erudition, and razor-sharp wit. His book has forced so-called religious moderates to begin taking responsibility for the zealots they unintentionally shelter, and he has demonstrated that a world with powerfully destructive technologies, such as ours, can no longer afford the luxury of basing policy on tribal superstitions and on supernatural claims that cannot possibly be substantiated with evidence. Highly recommended.

About the same as fellow atheists Dawkins and Hitchens but a tad more reasonable.......2007-09-22

Sam Harris like Hitchens and Dawkins is a master at setting up religious straw-men and then knocking them down. It is more fun and sells more books than taking on the real thing. Then it becomes balanced and boring. The author looks at the great evils in the world, the cause of which many others have attributed to nationalism, capitalism, lack of "lebensraum" etc. and claims that religion was the real cause. "Knowingly or not Nazis were agents of religion."... "Stalin and Mao killed millions because "communism was little more than a political religion." Why are the millions killed by Paul Pot not mentioned was he not trying to please God like Stalin, Mao and Hitler? Looking at Webster's definition of religion it is clear that these three ruthless dictators were not great religious leaders.
The author is using words incorrectly to make false accusations. A "political religion" is not religion if it does not profess a belief in an after life and God. But the author ignores that fact, because he is out to pin as many bad things on the word "religion" as possible..
Unlike Hitchens Sam Harris is an atheist who does see bigger differences among religions. He thinks Islam, for example, is especially bad ("cult of death").
I did not know that Noam Chomsky was any kind of religious thinker but the author takes a swipe at Noam by stating that Chomsky's view of moral equivalence is a big mistake." It is not clear how that fits in with his attacks on religion, but he gets the third star for that anyway.

The End of Bad Arguments? Unfortunately Not.......2007-09-19

Sam Harris's "The End of Faith" is an assault upon religion, blind faith, and fundamentalist violence. However, clear thinking Christians have little to fear from Harris's social critique.

The majority of the book is an exposition of the evils, real or imagined, produced by religion. Harris discusses current atrocities, including September 11 and suicide bombings in Israel, as well as past atrocities, including the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. This leads to the natural question- if Harris (an atheist) is so critical of religious horrors, how can he explain the atheistic regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, which collectively were responsible for millions of deaths? Harris claims that, while they may not have been explicitly religious, these evil regimes were the result of poor thinking. He states in his afterword-

"While some of the most despicable political movements in human history have been explicitly irreligious, they were not especially rational. The public pronouncements of these regimes have been mere litanies of delusion- about race, economics, national identity, the march of history, or the moral dangers of intellectualism." [231]

Thus, we see that The End of Faith does not really support atheism or oppose religion, it simply supports reason and opposes blind faith. Otherwise, his critique of religion is completely arbitrary, as he admits in this quoted passage that the real enemy is not simply religious faith, but irrationality itself. Thus, Harris needs to demonstrate that Christianity inherently necessitates irrational faith if he wishes to demonstrate that it should be rejected. Throughout the book, Harris merely assumes that so-called "fundamentalist" Christians can only exist through blind faith, but his assumption is both unproven and incorrect. Despite railing on about the supposed irrationality of religion, Harris never once deals with any of the arguments offered by Christians either historically or in the present day. There is no critique of the Cosmological Argument, no consideration of the evidence for the empty tomb, no critique of biblical passages or doctrines. Harris simply assumes that Christianity requires blind faith, argues that blind faith is both stupid and dangerous, and declares victory. The problem is that he has never shown that Christianity requires blind faith.

The other problem with Harris's approach is a common one- he assumes that the misdeeds of religious followers invalidates the religion itself.

Thus, the majority of Harris's book is simply not relevant for intelligent Christians. Surprisingly, however, there is some value in The End of Faith. For example, he discusses morality and makes a good case for charitable giving, and discusses politics and law, and makes a good case for the legalization of (some) drugs as a matter of public policy. However, as a critique of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, "The End of Faith" fails quite miserably.

The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror

Average customer rating:

Brilliant
Worth Reading
Overrated
Time will tell
Excellent book

The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror
Michael Ignatieff
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Terrorism | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0691123934

Book Description

Must we fight terrorism with terror, match assassination with assassination, and torture with torture? Must we sacrifice civil liberty to protect public safety?

In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But we are pulled in the other direction too by the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today than trying to win the war against terror without losing our democratic souls. Michael Ignatieff confronts this challenge head-on, with the combination of hard-headed idealism, historical sensitivity, and political judgment that has made him one of the most influential voices in international affairs today.

Ignatieff argues that we must not shrink from the use of violence--that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not a program of torture and revenge. And we must not fool ourselves that whatever we do in the name of freedom and democracy is good. We may need to kill to fight the greater evil of terrorism, but we must never pretend that doing so is anything better than a lesser evil.

In making this case, Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism, from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and the unprecedented menace of Al Qaeda, with its suicidal agents bent on mass destruction. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but--just as important--restrained. The public scrutiny and political ethics that motivate restraint also give democracy its strongest weapon: the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent.

The book is based on the Gifford Lectures delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 2003.

Customer Reviews:

Brilliant.......2007-05-25

I've only read a few sections out of his book, and now I am determined to invest a few days out of my upcoming break to read his entire book. The man is brilliant, absolutely brilliant. The book, by all means, sheds light on matters that have most people in the dark. Definitely a worth while read.

Worth Reading.......2007-02-22

This is a well written book. Its basic theme is that democratic societies may have to, from time to time, suspend certain rights and freedom in order to deal with threats to their citizens or their very existance. The key presented is that these suspensions be limited by their scope in time and ultimately subject to review by the judiciary, democratic process, the public and the press.

The subject of torture comes up but what I found most interesting was the discussion of how we might have to react to the threat of nuclear or biomedical terrorism. As the cost of these technologies comes down it becomes more possible for society to be threatened by small groups or radical nations acting directly or anonymously through surrogates who would not be deterred by the threat of mutual self destruction.

Overall the message is that these are ethical issues that we must, even imperfectly, need to work out. Ignatieff's book does a good job of laying out directions of discourse. We may not get it right and we may have to even choose to do wrong for the greater good but the fact that we struggle with the question makes us a better society.

Overrated.......2006-08-13

This book seems to be about an interesting topic, namely what ethics ought we adopt if we are faced with threats of terror?

Ignatieff asks "What lesser evils may a society commit when it believes it faces the greater evil of its own destruction?" And he says this "question must not only be asked. It must be answered."

I disagree. I think Ignatieff displays an enormous amount of shallow thinking in this book. I think his question is not that good, need not be asked, and need not be answered.

What we ought to be interested in is the question of what rational people ought to expect people like us to do when faced with threats of terror. It's a slightly different question, although I admit that Ignatieff does deal with it to some extent. By "people like us," I mean just about any group or nation, rational or irrational.

Ignatieff wanders on, describing various threats to people and governments as well as the reactions to these threats. In many cases, the threats were overrated, making the reaction look overly intense. Ignatieff makes the point that at the time, the severity of each threat was not easy to determine.

The author says that "when civil libertarians try to explain why their own governments adopt repressive measures, they often blame unscrupulous politicians exploiting terrorism to pursue their own agendas. This fails to explain why politicians often get away with it." This makes a good point, but it does not go far enough. The public often agrees with the politicians, but why? Do such policies merely fit public agendas or are they in some sense the best options? Ignatieff is not good at answering this.

Ignatieff also says that terrorism generally works as an ancillary tactic, a "shortcut" to the proper (although uncertain) strategy of peaceful political mobilization. And he gives some examples of this. One is the Arab use of terror against Israel, which has not caused an Israeli surrender, has not caused Israelis to stop debating what to do, has not caused Israelis to abandon asking about the ethics of what they are doing, but has caused Israelis to fight back in a fairly united manner. This also makes a good point but does not go far enough. We need to see just how severe the threat is (destroying Israel, getting rid of human rights for Middle Eastern Jews, and so on) to appreciate what Israelis are up against and to see if the strategy of peaceful political mobilization would have much chance. But Ignatieff does not get into this either.

The author discusses the terrorist argument that "the weak must have the right to fight dirty; otherwise the strong will always win." Of course, this is nonsense. The strong can't possibly win a fight to oppress others in a fair world without using violence. And even if the strong do use violence against those who fight "clean," they will lose their share of wars. Ignatieff did not think about this enough.

At one point, Ignatieff says there are six kinds of terrorism!

1) Terror aimed at the overthrow of a state
2) Terror aimed at the promotion of a single cause
3) Terror aimed at the overthrow of a colonial regime
4) Separatist terror
5) Anti-occupation terror
6) Terror against a global power

He later adds nihilistic terrorism as pretty much a separate category. But I am not sure I like these categories very much. The Ku Klux Klan, while it might get put into one of these groups (say 2 or 4), is simply a racist terrorist organization. It should be described as such, but the author ignores it. The Stern Gang, an organization Ignatieff alludes to, certainly could be put in almost any of these categories, but in fact its most important goal was to get immigration permits for Jews! That's basically a group that wanted to obtain a specific human right; to lump it with all sorts of other "causes" is not very helpful.

Ignatieff says it is possible to justify armed struggle in defense of self-determination only if the group's just claims have been met by violence, if the refusal to meet the claims is systematic, enduring, and unlikely to change, if the claims are fundamental to the survival of the group, and if the struggle observes the laws of war and the rule of civilian immunity. I'm not so sure I agree. By the way, I think Israel's claim to self-determination comes pretty close to meeting these requirements. Yes, as the author says, there were (pre-state) incidents such as the King David hotel and Deir Yassin, but I think these may well meet these criteria as well. Perhaps we ought to call the Irgun members "freedom fighters," not terrorists. By the way, Ignatieff comes up with a truly silly statement about Arab and Israeli claims to land being equal. That is nonsense. Arab land is Arab. Israeli land is Israeli. Disputed land is disputed. In none of these regions are all claims equivalent, morally or otherwise.

Now, is terrorism often directed not only at an oppressor but at one's own people? Does it spur others to join you? Can it get others to attack one's whole society, forcing some neutrals to side with you? Does it involve a war against "collaborators" in one's society who oppose you, and does it suppress political dissent in your own population? Yes, and Ignatieff says so. Should one negotiate with terrorists (or with supposedly peaceful supporters of terrorist goals)? Are there really serious differences between freedom fighters and terrorists? The author discusses these questions as well.

This is an interesting book, but I think it needs considerably more thought and work.

Time will tell.......2005-04-19

Michael Ignatieff is a Canadian academic currently working at Harvard in the US. Among his past claims to fame were an argument in favour of Canada participating in the US-led attack on Iraq (on the pretext of its possession of weapons of mass destruction), and, more recently, an argument in favour of Canada's participation in North American anti-ballistic missile defence (on the scientifically-unfounded pretext that it is feasible). His track record on matters of life and death, and on the spending of billions of dollars, leaves a lot to be desired.

Similarly, in The Lesser Evil, Ignatieff is quick to come to the conclusion that we should be ready to sacrifice some of our civil liberties in order to combat terrorism. While young Canadians are to be expected to travel to the Middle East to get themselves slaughtered in the desert for a meaningless war, Canadians here at home are expected to surrender their hard-earned human rights to fight Canada's non-existent enemies.

Luckily for Canadians, we have other intellectuals, such as Naomi Klein and John Ralston Saul, for whom life and human rights are a lot more than the mere concepts they are for Mr. Ignatieff. Neither Canadians nor Europeans are buying into this Manichean, bloodthirsty discourse. The fact that the right-wing National Post is touting Mr. Ignatieff as prime ministerial material sums his views up as well as anything that could be written here.

Canadians who think that the current American government is leading that country to disaster, and who are interested in a more humane appraisal of the current situation which harbours some realistic hope for the future, should consult Jeremy Rifkin's The European Dream, and leave over-rated apologists such as Mr. Ignatieff to their ivory towers.

Excellent book.......2005-01-03

This is an excellent, short book that expertly tackles the problem of individual-rights based democracy versus majority-rights based democracy, and argues towards the existence of a middle ground that can assure a semblence of security without destroying the rule of law that a liberal democracy rests on.

The recognization that some suspensions are necessary, but that they MUST be regarded as 'lesser evils' is a compelling argument from this respected human rights scholar. The book convincingly lays forth its arguments, and critically dissects both the position of the civil libertarian and that of the security state.

Book Description

In this dazzling new series, philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Zizek interrogates key writings on revolution.

Robespierre's defense of the French Revolution remains one of the most powerful and unnerving justifications for political violence ever written, and has extraordinary resonance in a world obsessed with terrorism and appalled by the language of its proponents. Yet today, the French Revolution is celebrated as the event which gave birth to a nation built on the principles of enlightenment… So how should a contemporary audience approach Robespierre's vindication of revolutionary terror? Zizek takes a helter-skelter route through these contradictions, marshalling all the breadth of analogy for which he is famous.

"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless."—Robespierre

Containment: Rebuilding a Strategy against Global Terror

Average customer rating:

very disappointing
Viable Alternative

Containment: Rebuilding a Strategy against Global Terror
Ian Shapiro
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Terrorism | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0691129282

Book Description

In this powerfully argued book, Ian Shapiro shows that the idea of containment offers the best hope for protecting Americans and their democracy into the future. His bold vision for American security in the post-September 11 world is reminiscent of George Kennan's historic "Long Telegram," in which the containment strategy that won the Cold War was first developed.

The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and unilateral action has been marked by incompetence--missed opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden, failures of postwar planning for Iraq, and lack of an exit strategy. But Shapiro contends that the problems run deeper. He explains how the Bush Doctrine departs from the best traditions of American national-security policy and accepted international norms, and renders Americans and democratic values less safe. He debunks the belief that containment is obsolete. Terror networks might be elusive, but the enabling states that make them dangerous can be contained. Shapiro defends containment against charges of appeasement, arguing that force against a direct threat will be needed. He outlines new approaches to intelligence, finance, allies, diplomacy, and international institutions. He explains why containment is the best alternative to a misguided agenda that naively assumes democratic regime change is possible from the barrel of an American gun.

President Bush has defined the War on Terror as the decisive ideological struggle of our time. Shapiro shows what a self-defeating mistake that is. He sets out a viable alternative that offers real security to Americans, reclaims America's international stature, and promotes democracy around the world.

Customer Reviews:

very disappointing.......2007-08-01

I was very disappointed with this book and would have given it one star were i not such a big fan of the containment doctrine. I wanted to give this book 5 starts, but unfortunately it falls very short. The shame here is that Shapiro has a fantastic thesis; applying the doctrine of containment to fight terrorism is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, he does a terrible job of developing his thesis. And terrible is being complementary. This book is so poorly focused it is laughable. And its only 131 pages! My graduate thesis was longer. It is hard to be so poorly focused in such a short book. He probably really only has about fifty pages of real content in this book. Shapiro repeatedly drifts into tangents on Iraq, and while I agree Iraq is an unfortunate situation, he fails to make this really relevant and it makes the book smack of politicization and detracts from the few, dispersed good points he makes. The book is a quintessential definition of what can be wrong with academia. He develops a thesis, applies absolutely no sort of structured analysis to it whatsoever, and fails to explain how to actually go about implementing this policy. He never explains how he would actually go about implementing this. If he were to walk into to the NSC with this material he would get laughed out of the room because he makes no effort to bridge theory and practice. His lack of structured analysis is really frightening for someone who teaches at Yale. He makes some really dubious analytic leaps, has tremendous logic gaps throughout the book, and supports his theories with rants and claims, not evidence. In summary, great concept, poorly executed.

Viable Alternative.......2007-03-05

Shapiro presents a rational, concise, and morally consistent alternative to Bush's foreign doctrine of aggression and the Democrat's barren response. Supported by illustrations of former foreign policy successes and blunders, his proposal to rekindle the Cold War strategy of containment to fit a post 9-11 environment is apt and well worth consideration. Moreover, his prose, sprinkled with wit and metaphors ("Triangulation's centrol flaw is that it is good tactics but bad strategy. In the short run it can deliver as promised, but as soon as your opponent realizes what you are doing, politics becomes about shifting the goalposts."), turns what could be a dry subject into an engaging read.

Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power In a Violent World

Average customer rating:

Christian agnosticism
Needed wisdom from one of the best
just being against terrorism dose not make the war just.
Best book I Read This Year
Why we must fight

Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power In a Violent World
Jean Bethke Elshtain
Manufacturer: Basic Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Terrorism | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Law Enforcement | Criminal Law | Law | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0465019102
Release Date: 2003-04-15

Book Description

Inspired by the events of September 11, one of America's foremost political philosophers mounts an impassioned defense of "just war" against terror.

Jean Bethke Elshtain has been hailed as one of this country's most influential public intellectuals. Michael Walzer called her award-winning Democracy on Trial "the work of a truly independent, deeply serious, politically engaged, and wonderfully provocative political theorist." These rare qualities are once again vividly in force in Just War Against Terror.

In this hard-hitting book, Elshtain advocates "just war" in times of crisis and mounts a reasoned attack against the defenses of terrorism that have abounded since September 11. Arguing that those who defend terrorist acts on the basis of their "root causes"--poverty, political conflict, infringement of Western values on Islamic culture--minimize the responsibility of terrorists, Elshtain interrogates the sources of root-cause reasoning and traces them to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Judeo-Christian ethic of war and peace, compounded by "faux-pacifist" positions and retro-sixties cultural romance. Why, she asks, are pacifist alternatives so palpably inadequate? So implausible? often so irresponsible? How indeed does one respond to acts of terror that constitute an act of war perpetrated against one's own citizenry? Advocating an ethic of responsibility, Elshtain forces us to ask tough questions not only about the nature of Islam but also about ourselves.

Elegantly written and forcefully argued, Just War Against Terror offers a badly needed and refreshingly clear look at responses to terror in the modern world.

Customer Reviews:

Christian agnosticism.......2006-06-27

The problem that all authors of books similar to this one face is the fact that there is really no such thing as a "just war" as far as Christ is concerned. If you are a REAL Christian who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and, as such, IS God,and do all you can to live as Christ did, which is what He commanded of all true Christians, you can NEVER subscribe to the "just war" THEORY (I remind all...it's called a "theory"). Jesus was COMPLETELY (I repeat, COMPLETELY)NON-VIOLENT. To imply otherwise in order to realize a Constantinian (church-state) agenda is the height of hypocrisy and falsehood. The present author, Weigl, Novak, Neuhaus, et. al., are morally bankrupt apologists for Christian agnosticism...that's all.

Needed wisdom from one of the best.......2005-11-10

This is an excellent and accessible account of Just War as it relates to the War on Terror - primarily in Afghanistan. Should be read even by those unfamiliar with Just War for the clarity it brings to the discussion about American foreign policy and Islamofacism. A previous reviewer who claimed JBE is in need of more training "in law and morals" is not familiar with her work in the least. She is one of America's leading public intellectuals, and this work will show you why.

just being against terrorism dose not make the war just........2004-08-15

The author oversimplified in analysing a more complicated topic than she can handle. Just like what I put down as the title of this review: Being against terrorism only does not justify every single military action against any suspect of your choice. The author needs more training in the areas of law and morality.

Best book I Read This Year.......2004-08-13

This may be a stretch for some but worth the effort. Elshtain upends the moral universe by suggesting the obvious. Those outside the academic/seminary world may not see the significance but this is a great book. It seems like a college education can erase some common sense with regard to public policy for reasons understandable given the cynical world we live in but they are often wrong and deadly so. This book acts as an antidote to a boat load of gibberish from the looney left.

Why we must fight.......2004-06-30

This volume very nicely brings together four broad themes into one focused discussion. The nature of radical Islam, the threat of terrorism, the doctrine of just war, and the place of American power in a turbulent world are the major issues treated. University of Chicago professor of social and political ethics Jean Bethke Elsthain is well suited to this task.

She deftly merges the various streams of philosophy, theology, ethics, politics and international relations into a coherent account of how the US in particular and the West in general should proceed after September 11. She reminds us that appeasing terrorism is not the answer, yet we need to deal with the threat of militant Islam in a way that does not violate our own ethical codes and political ideals.

As such, this book has a bearing on recent events which were unknown at the time of writing, notably the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals. How can democratic nations defend both their values and their borders against an enemy that does not play by the rules, and is happy to use the freedoms associated with democracy in its attempts to destroy it? How can we uphold ethical standards and at the same time weed out those committed to undermining our way of life?

How can democratic nations respond to terror without resorting to terror? Indeed, can moral distinctions be made in this regard? Is all killing and the use of force evil, or is it sometimes justified? Should we accept the argument of moral equivalence which states that American use of force is just as bad as Muslim terrorism? And, as some assert, did America bring September 11 upon itself?

These and other questions are expertly addressed in this incisive work. An overriding theme of the volume is that America has a moral and civil obligation to withstand those who seek to destroy it. American has the right to defend freedom and the ideals and values that make America a beacon for many around the world.

Indeed, the author is also one of sixty signatories of "What We're Fighting For," which is included as an appendix to this book. This document explores some of these core values and the right of a democratic nation to celebrate those values as well as defend them, when necessary.

Segments of this volume examine the political realism of Tillich and Niebuhr, and lay out the doctrine of just war as elaborated by Augustine, Aquinas and others. Augustine said that tranquillitas ordinis, or ordinary civic peace, was the primary responsibility which a government must provide. Without secure civic order, none of the basic human goods that people aspire to can flourish.

Thus a just government will protect its people from internal anarchy and outward threats. And one of the greatest outward threats that Western nations face today comes from terrorists and fanatics, often associated with Islamic extremism. What happened on September 11 2001 was not the first of such assaults, but it was the most glaring and horrific. September 11 put the world on notice that there is a clash of civilisations underway, as Samuel Huntington has phrased it.

Those nations that value human dignity, religious freedom, and democratic polity are pitted against those who hate such values and want them eliminated altogether. The Osama bin Ladens of the world do not just want Western nations to withdraw to a small part of the globe, but they want them exterminated. We need to take the words of these fanatics at face value. When they say they hate what we represent and want to see us overrun by the rule of a theocratic Islam, they mean it. They have openly proclaimed that they are involved in holy war, and that their cause is right.

As such, free nations have a moral and civil obligation to withstand these terrorists and prevent them from implementing their agenda. It is neither Christian nor responsible to appease such opponents, nor seek to pretend that such threats do not exist. Loving your neighbour includes protecting them from harm and maintaining their dignity as human beings. Terrorists do not respect the democratic ideals nor the Christian virtues. Therefore a just war against terrorism is in order, and one does not have to have grave moral misgivings about it. To withstand the enemies of freedom and democracy is both a right and an obligation.

Book Description

The threat of terror, which flares in Africa and Indonesia, has given the problem of failed states an unprecedented immediacy and importance. In the past, failure had a primarily humanitarian dimension, with fewer implications for peace and security. Now nation-states that fail, or may do so, pose dangers to themselves, to their neighbors, and to people around the globe: preventing their failure, and reviving those that do fail, has become a strategic as well as a moral imperative.

This book develops an innovative theory of state failure that classifies and categorizes states along a continuum from weak to failed to collapsed. By understanding the mechanisms and identifying the tell-tale indicators of state failure, it is possible to develop strategies to arrest the fatal slide from weakness to collapse. This state failure paradigm is illustrated through detailed case studies of states that have failed and collapsed (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, Somalia), states that are dangerously weak (Colombia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan), and states that are weak but safe (Fiji, Haiti, Lebanon).

Customer Reviews:

State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror.......2007-09-12

Robert Rotberg, as a prominent scholar of the problems of the developing nations has compiled a set of essays by academicians on nations in Africa, South America and Asia which have been on the spectrum from weak to collapsed in recent years. Together these essays highlight in a descriptive manner the events and causes of state failure. Individually, many of the essays suffer from an academic writing style which makes them difficult to read due to their over-reliance on detail wherein the reader loses sight of the forest to for the trees. This volume would have benefited from a review chapter outlining the: causes dynamics, features and resolution of nations which have failed.

inaccurate in its review of at least one country.......2004-11-03

I can only judge the article on the the government failure in Tajikistan, as it is a country I both lived in and studied for many years. The author, Nasrin Dadmehr, explains the weakness of the current state by examining its historical background, but that background, as he presents it, is full of omissions and inaccuracies.

For instance, the word "basmachi" used to describe the armed rebel groups in 1920's Central Asia, does not mean "bandits" in Russian, as he claims. It means nothing in Russian because it is not of Russian origin but was adopted from one of the local languages, Tajik or Uzbek.

Another example is that the author keeps referring to the two factions fighting for control over government as "Communists" and "Islamists". It is true that these labels have been exploited by both sides in order to attract foreign aid from countries where those things matter (such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Russia). However, the actual division is based entirely on people's ethnic/regional affiliations. So unless you accept the idea that everyone born in Kulab is a Communist and a Gharmi accent automatically makes one a devout Muslim, those labels mean as much as the logos of two opposing teams in a football field. Chicago Bears are not really bears, the "Islamist opposition forces" are not united by Islam, and there has not been any Communists in Tajikistan for many years, apart from perhaps a few senior citizens nostalgic for the times when they had something to eat. So whenever anyone describes the conflict in Tajikistan as a struggle between Communists and Islamists it is a good indication that they have very little knowledge or understanding of the political situation in that country.

There are plenty of other inaccuracies as well, like the description of May 1992 events. According to the author, this is when "backed by popular support and two months of non-stop demonstrations <the opposition forces> succeeded in imposing a coalition government on the communists." In reality, the "imposing" part involved an ambush of the city airport by a heavily armed group of militants who proceeded to capture President Nabiyev as he was trying to flee the country and forced him, at a gunpoint, to sign his resignation. There was no "coalition government" created, and the following few months of the opposition's rule were filled with as much oppression and extreme violence towards Kulabis as was later directed at Gharmis when the power switched back around.

The two-month long non-stop demonstrations that had led to this incident included one for the opposition and one supporting the government. Both were heavily organized, with people being recruited and bussed in from remote villages to be fed, clothed, and financially compensated for the two months of camping in the middle of the city. No information about who was paying for all that "expression of popular will" on either side was ever publicly released.

Even if these omissions in the article seem minor or irrelevant, they reduce the complexity of the war in Tajikistan to a "goodies vs. baddies" comic-book type scaffle that incidentally brings about the collapse of the government. The collapse itself and the resulting chaos is described quite well. But glancing over so many important aspects of what had led to it makes the resulting analysis somewhat skewed and one-sided.

Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida

Average customer rating:

Postmodern situations, postmodern ideas
Great, thought-provoking
A most noble endeavour
A Philosophy left on the table....
But Read Truth and Justification

Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida
Giovanna Borradori
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Terrorism | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0226066665

Book Description

The idea for Philosophy in a Time of Terror was born hours after the attacks on 9/11 and was realized just weeks later when Giovanna Borradori sat down with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida in New York City, in separate interviews, to evaluate the significance of the most destructive terrorist act ever perpetrated. This book marks an unprecedented encounter between two of the most influential thinkers of our age as here, for the first time, Habermas and Derrida overcome their mutual antagonism and agree to appear side by side. As the two philosophers disassemble and reassemble what we think we know about terrorism, they break from the familiar social and political rhetoric increasingly polarized between good and evil. In this process, we watch two of the greatest intellects of the century at work.

Customer Reviews:

Postmodern situations, postmodern ideas.......2006-05-24

As Borradori states in his introduction, 'Both [Habermas and Derrida] hold that terrorism is an elusive concept that exposes the global political arena to imminent dangers as well as future challenges.' I think that this sums up what many people feel about the war on terrorism - unlike conflicts such as World War I and World War II, or even the more vaguely defined Cold War or Vietnam war, this is a war where there the front-line can be anywhere and nowhere, where the enemies can be anyone and no one, and where the tactics, strategies, motives and hoped-for achievables are so far removed from what traditional political and military methodology deals with that it requires a paradigm shift in our thinking. 'While the Cold War was characterized by the possibility of balance between two superpowers, it is impossible to build a balance with terrorism because the threat does not come from a state but from incalculable forces and incalculable responsibilities.'

As is typical of Derrida, he sees the relationship between terrorism and communication to be paramount. (I was first exposed to Derrida in theology classes, dealing with the postmodern predicament of looking for meaning in language and behind language in ways that make sense). It is perhaps ironic that the term that springs to mind most when contemplating Derrida is 'deconstruction', which is, in often a dramatically literal sense, what terrorism also hopes to achieve. 'The intellectual grounding of Derrida's deconstruction owes much to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century lineage constituted by Nietzsche, Heidegger and Freud. For Derrida, many of the principles to which the Western tradition has attributed universal validity do not capture what we all share or even hope for.' This becomes all the more problematic when dealing with those outside the Western tradition, such as occurred in Vietnam, Korea, and now in the war on terror.

For Derrida, communication is not simply political. 'Derrida engaged the themes of terror as a psychological and metaphysical state as well as terrorism as a political category.' This draws upon philosophical ideas that can reinterpret the events in various ways, as plays out in various media outlets even to this day. But the events of 9/11 for Derrida are not surprising. 'Was 9/11 truly unpredictable? Not for Derrida. ... The kind of attack that the terrorists launched in 2001 had already been prefigured in detail by the technocinematic culture of our days.'

Habermas also sees communication as a critical element. One issue for Habermas is the speed of modern mass communication - it 'works in the interest of those who select and distribute the information rather than those who receive it. Habermas suggests that the pressure of thinking and evaluating data quickly has a political import, because it facilitates an experience of politics based on the persona of the actors rather than the ideas that each of them defends.' Habermas' theory of communicative action, including its idea of violence as distorted communication, shows the importance of perception, understanding, critical analysis and response.

'Habermas understands modernity to be a change in belief attitude rather than a coherent body of beliefs. A belief attitude indicates the way in which we believe rather than what we believe in. Thus, fundamentalism has less to do with any specific text or religious dogma and more to do with the modality of belief.' This fits in many ways when one commentator I read recently who discussed the overall state of Muslim theology, expressing the understanding that the Muslims have never gone through a period of Reformation as Christendom did, nor have Muslims come to embrace the idea of a society and nation-state separate from religious. Indeed, we can hear echoes of this latter idea in political speech in America, often from groups that can be described as (and often embrace the term) fundamentalist. This will continue to be an issue in the war on terror.

Another issue for Habermas will be the issue of nation-state vs. international organisation power. 'Habermas is convinced that what separates the present moment from a full transition to cosmopolitanism is not only a theoretical matter but a practical one, too, for the decisions of the international community need to be respected. ... Unfortunately, the power differential between national and international authorities threatens to weaken the legitimacy of any military intervention and to retool police action as war.' This has been true not just in the twentieth century, but previously as well. The Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, and the United Nations have all failed to have power to counter the superpowers of their times; alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact relied heavily on one particular partner.

For both Derrida and Habermas, the war on terror is not as simple as Arab vs. West, Muslim against Christian/post-Christian society, or particular nations against one another. Perhaps had this been written after the recent situation with the Dubai acquisition of American ports being stopped, they would have pointed out that once again, our definitions and communicative premises fail - how does one balance the idea that foreign ownership of ports is unwise with the fact that few are concerned when British, Canadian, Australian or Norwegian firms do the same? There is a lack of definition about it all, even when all the words we use, to bring about clarity. The war on terror might be the quintessential post-modern situation.

Great, thought-provoking.......2005-09-06

It's a privilege to hear what these two minds have to say about our times, especially because their styles of thinking and the way they articulate today's problems are so divergent.

A most noble endeavour.......2004-03-25

Although the section dedicated to Habermas is brief and Derrida is allowed to make a more dynamic impact, Borradori knows very well what she is doing, and ensures that the end relult is that they both complement each other. These two thinkers might occupy opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to a whole host of issues, but "Philosophy in a Time of Terror" is not about who is right and who is wrong or about the reader choosing his/her favourite.
Habermas lays much of the groundwork, reminding us of the relevance of the Enlightenment, championing notions of the public sphere and communicative action. Reason, rationality and discourse have been, and always will be, essential components of any society wishing to realise the Enlightenment ideal. Just as philosophy was vital at the time of the Enlightenment, so too is it needed today in helping us come to terms with terrorism and in conceptualising a future which re-addresses the notion of citizenship, bestowing upon it a global and cosmopolitan character.
Derrida gets to work on much of what Habermas proposes, questioning received wisdom and conceptual systems through his own deconstructive methods. Focusing on 9/11 as an "event" and putting his own spin on globalization, we are invited to temporarily suspend belief and look at things from a more unfamiliar angle. Yes, some of Derrida's points are questionable, overblown and occasionally ridiculous, but his concerns have much in common with those of Habermas: how to realise a world society where primacy is given to international law and the religious undercurrents of political rhetoric are abandoned once and for all,dangerous as they all too often are.

This book is a reminder to us all of the role played by philosophy in shaping our present and a call for a return to philosophical reflection in order to forge a sustainable future for everybody. It's a start, and credit is due to Habermas, Derrida and of course Borradori for their collaboration. The world may well be awash with pragmatism (much of it needed admittedly) but there has to be a degree of reflexivity if we are going to avoid a groundhog day scenario. I mean, we're all idealists at heart, aren't we?

A Philosophy left on the table...........2004-03-23

The main issues I have with this book are:
1. the dialogue with Habermas is way too short. I don't know if he was on a time line, but, it is just as he is gathering a full head of steam that everything ends, and what he has to say and to subject to thoughtful consideration is profoundly worth mulling over deeply. I kept wishing Borradori would continue to probe further with Habermas. He is the foremost thinker in Germany since Heidegger and is as creatively determined to tackle this issue of terrorism as anyone could aspire to. He goes after the issues with a passion and a commitment. Perhaps there will be more from him in his own write in the future.
2. Derrida likes to hear himself talk and see himself write. The foremost exponent of Thesaurus Philosophy, Derrida does not so much hermeneutically deconstruct as blather on, much like a Michael Palin riff in Monty Python. Read the opening pages of the dialogue with Derrida, and then go watch Palin in THE CONCERT FOR GEORGE HARRISON, and I dare you to deconstruct the difference. I keep expecting Derrida to launch into the Lumberjack Song. He gets to the meat of the issue but then becomes obsessed with his own vocabulary, like the boring uncle at family gatherings. You would think there would be more drive from somone who experienced the sort of childhood and coming of age that he did, but, like so many other French thinkers, he seems to fall in love with the way words roll off.
3. Borradori comes up short with Habrmas and doesn't cut off or focus Derrida enough. Too much of her post dialogue analyses is reiiterative.
That's a pity on many fronts, because there is a significant trail to be traced from Kant through Hegel and into the Twentieth Century about the nature of peace, government and the fact that as Kant observed this is a bloody small planet and we need to figure out how we are all going to live on it without resorting to the criminality of these past centuries. Habermas is clearly focused on such questions. Derrida can clearly see the need to come to terms with them. A more disciplined interviewer might have made this the tome it could have been. God knows we need it.

But Read Truth and Justification.......2004-02-10

Amazon has really hyped this one for folks with my categories of interest and as a dialogue with supporting essays I found the relative closeness I felt with Habermas and Derrida interesting. The views of both in a discourse over the tragedy of 9/11 were close enough to the reader to touch. The discussion was in my living room. As one who normally reads Habermas for philosophical wisdom and has grown to avoid reading Derrida whenever possible -- what a difference! -- to avoid a loss of wisdom -- I felt this book was far more interview and less philosophy for some reason. The words were smaller than usual. The sentences shorter. There is the tie in with Europe's past of course. There is also the clear note that most American's are missing the bigger picture -- the European picture especially.

Book Description

It is tempting to regard the perpetrators of the September 11th terrorist attacks as evil incarnate. But their motives, as Bruce Lincoln’s acclaimed Holy Terrors makes clear, were profoundly and intensely religious. Thus what we need after the events of 9/11, Lincoln argues, is greater clarity about what we take religion to be.

Holy Terrors begins with a gripping dissection of the instruction manual given to each of the 9/11 hijackers. In their evocation of passages from the Quran, we learn how the terrorists justified acts of destruction and mass murder “in the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate.” Lincoln then offers a provocative comparison of President Bush’s October 7, 2001 speech announcing U.S. military action in Afghanistan alongside the videotaped speech released by Osama bin Laden just a few hours later. As Lincoln authoritatively demonstrates, a close analysis of the rhetoric used by leaders as different as George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden—as well as Mohamed Atta and even Jerry Falwell—betrays startling similarities. These commonalities have considerable implications for our understanding of religion and its interrelationships with politics and culture in a postcolonial world, implications that Lincoln draws out with skill and sensitivity.

With a chapter new to this edition, “Theses on Religion and Violence,” Holy Terrors remains one of the essential books on September 11 and a classic study on the character of religion.

“Modernity has ended twice: in its Marxist form in 1989 Berlin, and in its liberal form on September 11, 2001. In order to understand such major historical changes we need both large-scale and focused analyses—a combination seldom to be found in one volume. But here Bruce Lincoln . . . has given us just such a mix of discrete and large-picture analysis.”—Stephen Healey, Christian Century

“From time to time there appears a work . . . that serves to focus the wide-ranging, often contentious discussion of religion’s significance within broader cultural dynamics. Bruce Lincoln’s Holy Terrors is one such text. . . . Anyone still struggling toward a more nuanced comprehension of 9/11 would do well to spend time with this book.”—Theodore Pulcini, Middle East Journal

Customer Reviews:

Required reading for the thoughtful American.......2006-11-06

Lincoln's work is an attempt to formulate a theory of religion. While his success on that front is open to criticism, he gives an impeccable presentation of the religious dimensions of the American/Arab/Christian/Muslim/politics debate. Anyone who wants to hone their understanding of 80% of front page news should read this. Besides it gives documented proof of why Falwell and Robertson should not be listened to...ever...about anything.

Warrant for Terror: The Fatwas of Radical Islam, and the Duty of Jihad

Average customer rating:

From how Islamic law operates to how it determines the duty to jihad
Reviews mentioned on book cover
Excellent explanation of radical Islam
A good description of Islamic terrorism and jihad

Warrant for Terror: The Fatwas of Radical Islam, and the Duty of Jihad
Shmuel Bar
Manufacturer: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Terrorism | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

General | Islam | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

Church & State | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0742551202

Book Description

Warrant for Terror examines fatwas, which are legal opinions declaring whether a given act under Islam is obligatory, permitted, or forbidden and which serve as a major instrument by which religious leaders impel believers to engage in acts of jihad. This book is published in cooperation with the Hoover Institution.

Customer Reviews:

From how Islamic law operates to how it determines the duty to jihad.......2006-08-06

Plenty has been written about Islamist terrorism, but these writings can't explain why other groups who have even more to complain about haven't developed such religiously-based terrorist ideologies. Warrant For Terror: The Fatwas Of Radical Islam And The Duty To Jihad narrows its focus to the fatwas, legal opinions declaring whether a given act under Islam is permitted, forbidden or obligatory. From how Islamic law operates to how it determines the duty to jihad, Warrant For Terror offers many insights.

Reviews mentioned on book cover .......2006-06-18

The following are an abstract and some reviews on the book:
Abstract
Since September 11, 2001 much has been written about "Islamist terrorism," arguing that it is a perversion that has "hijacked Islam" in the service of social, political and economic grievances. However, such accounts cannot explain why other people that can lay claim to similar or more serious grievances have not developed such devastating religious terrorist ideologies. Moreover, many of the terrorists themselves have attested to their own religious motivation and their belief that they acted in accordance with the precepts of Islam.
Warrant for Terror examines fatwas, which are legal opinions declaring whether a given act under Islam is obligatory, permitted or forbidden and which serve as a major instrument by which religious leaders impel believers to engage in acts of jihad. These fatwas come from all over the Muslim world, but mainly from the Arab world. And they should not be dismissed as a cynical use of religious terminology in political propaganda. Many terrorists testify that they were motivated to act by them. Indeed, this book shows that Islamic law plays a central role in determining for believers the practical meaning of the duty to jihad. It also examines the underlying religious, legal, and moral logic of these fatwas and the depth of their influence in contrast to alternative moderate Islamic interpretations. And the book explores the wide scope of issues that these fatwas deal with, covering almost all facets of Islamic "law of war:" the justification for declaring jihad; the territory in which the jihad should be fought; whether women and children may participate in jihad; the legality of killing women, children and other non-combatants; the justification for killing hostages and mutilating their bodies; and the permissibility of diverse tactics and weapons, including suicide attacks and even nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This book also delves into the contradictions between the radical and the mainstream narratives and the sources of the weakness of the latter in the face of the former. In the conclusion, the author raises a number of provocative questions relating to the "religious policy" of the West in the face of the threat of Islamic extremism.

Reviews

"Non-Muslims rarely pay attention to the religious struggle within Islam. They must, urgently. Radical clerics, wielding the deadly accusation of apostacy, have silenced most mainstream Muslim clerics and regimes in the Muslim world on the issues of jihad and terrorism. We are at serious risk of having hundreds of millions of religiously-driven enemies and deferential followers."--R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

"Shmuel Bar has written one of the most important and compelling books in recent years. If you want to understand Islamic terrorism and jihad, this is the book to read. He has written an absolutely brilliant page-turning analysis of the dynamics underlying radical Jihad today--and for policymakers, analysts and the public, Warrant for Terror will provide you insights that few other books even dare try. This is one of the best books I have ever read on the dynamics of jihad and fatwas. Read it to be educated and to truly understand. Ignore it at your peril. Dr. Bar has performed a wonderful public service by compiling and analyzing the fatwas for us. This book is a bench mark in the literature on Jihad."--Steven Emerson, Executive Director, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, and author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Amongst Us.

"If you are sick of instant experts offering sound-bite style insight into the phenomenon of Radical Islam, then Warrant for Terror is the right medicine for you. Through an exhaustive yet refreshingly readable analysis of fatwas -- Muslim religious injunctions -- Shmuel Bar takes us deep into the minds of both those who issue calls for jihad and those who heed them. As a tool to understand the logic, the rationale, and the motivation of the enemy in the war on terror, this book is sure to be assigned in counter-terror training courses around the world. Thankfully, the rest of us can read it, too."--Robert Satloff, Executive Director, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

"Drawing on Arabic sources not typically available to English readers, Shmuel Bar outlines the way that fatwas from Muslim religious authorities have in recent years laid a basis for jihadism and terror. Warrant for Terror is critical reading to understand the nature of the challenge posed by radical Islamism today."--Francis Fukuyama, Johns Hopkins University

Excellent explanation of radical Islam.......2006-06-04

This is an excellent book for those wanting to understand Jihad and the justification for Jihad. How do Muslim terrorists justify killing innocent women and children? What are fatwas and why should we care?

Although somewhat scholarly, this book is readable and is perfect for those wanting to understand what motivates the evil doers.

A good description of Islamic terrorism and jihad.......2006-06-01

Since this book attacks some truly counterproductive behavior on the part of a politically strong element of Islam, I think we need to put this in perspective. As a Pagan and a Zionist, I strongly oppose religious fanaticism and tyranny. Islamic fundamentalism is just one more in a long line of bad ideas. But I think we need to be careful not to regard Islam as special in this regard. There is indeed a genuine threat to human society right now which is Islamic in nature, and that threat ought not be overestimated, nor underestimated, nor otherwise improperly described. And I think this book is fair here.

It is true that people of other religions, even in recent times, have behaved very badly. One need only look at World War Two, or Rwanda for examples. In order to be intolerant, it is surely neither necessary nor sufficient to be a Muslim! Still, this short book deals, quite properly, with Islam. And it raises an immediate issue. Whether one is a Muslim or not, to what extent ought one tolerate intolerance? I do not have an answer for that question, but I strongly feel that in the long run, intolerance such as what we are seeing today is self-defeating. And at some point, it is best for everyone if it is opposed. Failure to oppose intolerance quickly turns into complicity with it, especially when silence often implies consent.

This book shows that radical Islam is not merely intolerant but is also engaged in a fight against much of the world. And that Islam itself is indeed a characterizing element of Islamic aggression and terror. As the author explains in his introduction, some folks insist on dismissing all threats from Islam, going so far as to label concerned people (including even concerned Muslims) as "Islamophobic" or "bigoted." I think this book shows these folks to be not only wrong but a part of the problem.

Is there a way to fight back against religious leaders who preach in favor of intolerance, aggression, and terror? The author says that there is. Such acts are criminal, and they can be outlawed, with consequences awaiting those who engage in them. Sooner or later, in my opinion, something of this sort will happen. Meanwhile, I think that the Muslim community has to figure out how to avoid constant and costly wars, both within the ummah and against, um, the giaours.

I recommend this book.

The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy (Cultural Politics and the Promise of Democracy)

Average customer rating:

Everyone should have a working understanding of Neoliberalism.
Time to save human race running out

The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy (Cultural Politics and the Promise of Democracy)
Henry A. Giroux
Manufacturer: Paradigm Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Disaster Relief | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Theory | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 1594510113

Book Description

Neo-liberalism has become the most influential ideology of our times. It guides both Democratic and Republican policies and, increasingly, those of European and developing countries worldwide. In The Terror of Neoliberalism, influential cultural critic Henry Giroux assesses the impact of neoliberalism and points to better approaches to building real democracy.

Neoliberalism, too commonly regarded an economic theory, is a complex of values, ideologies, and practices that work more broadly as a 'cultural field'.; Giroux argues that its cultural dimensions erode the public participation that is the very foundation of democratic life. Under neoliberal policies, Giroux shows, populations are increasingly denied the symbolic, educational, and economic capital necessary for engaged citizenship. Giroux assesses the impact of neoliberalism on the language of democracy, race, education, and the media, offering alternatives necessary to restore our democratic institutions.

Customer Reviews:

Everyone should have a working understanding of Neoliberalism........2006-03-30

Henry A. Giroux's discussion of the current state of the American political environment and its neoliberal policy design has proven to be an excellent introduction and analysis of the motivations, resulting consequences, and possible future of a country afflicted with a cold, uncompassionate, and simplistic political, cultural, and militaristic direction. The Terror of Neoliberalism is a well-researched illumination of the current American political administration's real motivations and the policy, that which is now known as neoliberalism, which is being used to forward their agenda. Giroux draws on a two centuries' worth of progressive thinkers to form a coherent and cogent exposé of the latest trends in an economic capitalist system that has achieved an unfettered, deregulated, and unrestricted state never before seen. Drawing on the tome of knowledge produced by the likes of profound Marxists thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, and Jacques Derrida as well as the likes of engaged public intellectuals like the late Edward Said and Noam Chomsky, Giroux has formulated an eye-opening critique of contemporary America.

The strengths of the book lie within its ability to connect neoliberalism and its policy initiatives with the real life affects and consequences of its execution. Giroux discusses many aspects of complex American identities affected by these schemes, which include cultural, educational, racial, militaristic, and commercial realms. I believe that The Terror of Neoliberalism provides both the inexperienced reader and the engaged academic citizen with explanations and examples regarding neoliberalism's design and results of its implementation. Giroux does, what I consider, a wonderful job of tying together the American neoliberal policy environment with its resultant views of a newly designed racism, an abandonment of the future of the country through a disregard, mistrust, and neglect of youth, as well as the insipid nature of neoliberalism's absolute invasion of the culture arguably leading toward a new type of authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, Giroux finds himself repeating sections of the book verbatim throughout many of the chapters, which frustrates the flow of the reading and interrupts the continuity of the text. While these misgivings can be overlooked and the message of the book still readily grasped and undeniably appreciated, I have also found that the book lacks a good historical understanding of the origin and evolution of the neoliberal movement. This movement often traced back to the leadership of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but arguably traced back further to the post-WWII era with the establishment of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as well as the execution of the Marshall Plan is largely ignored in the book. While I find this to be a fundamental flaw in a text that works to elucidate a developing and frightening neoliberal tradition, the text still does an excellent job of providing the reader with a contemporary understanding of the terrifying outcomes of this policy design.

Giroux's book is admirable in its avoidance of defeatism in the face of an extremely well executed attack on civic freedom, critical intellectualism, and general welfare-state necessity. The Terror of Neoliberalism does not just leave the reader in a state of disbelief and depression at the harsh reality of American life, but provides the reader with an understanding of both how to critique the current political environment, and advice as well as theoretical designs for how to organize and resist its seeping infiltration of every aspect of life. Readers of Giroux's book will hopefully find themselves outraged and at the same time motivated to change the environment which they have been presented.

Time to save human race running out.......2005-07-22

This book is essential, but be warned, it is almost relentlessly grim.

As it should be, for it paints the United States as a country spinning away from any semblance of an actual, functioning democracy and into a web where capitalism is the new democracy and public participation in the phenomenon that shape our lives is largely removed or rendered a cynical joke. Giroux examines neoliberalism as the main 'philosophy' or force that has driven the USA toward a more private society where the social contract is chipped away, job, life, and health security are weakened to strengthen authority, inequality has gone through the roof, and of course, money rules. That it's now easier to imagine the end of the world before the end of the current strain of capitalism (which has pretty much replaced democracy) just about says it all.

Giroux covers the erosion of public debate, where the complete corruption of terms neutralizes discussion and discourages thinking ('conservative', 'liberal', 'terrorism', etc, etc), the slow death of public space, public service, and the obsessive privatization of life, and other major phenomenon you never hear about in the news because you'd probably want to kill yourself, or do something about it.

He's certainly not off point, if anything, he's rightfully disgusted about the state of affairs. Where is the outrage, he asks. As for the Bush administration, it's not new, it's just more extreme in its vision of an 'ownership society' and in the empty rhetoric of 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom from the government' that is, of course, a weapon against the common schlep who can only increase their human value by positioning themselves as profit-generators. The poor subsidize the rich, absorbing risk while the dough pours into the same few pockets. Everybody else can rent themselves out to whoever decides to keep jobs in the USA, where we endlessly consume while producing less and less. And the government, well, it's this terrible, meddlesome, flabby entity that should be cut down to size because it's restricting all of us. Unless, of course, that same government works overtime to protect the rich from the market forces that would destroy them as it bails out failing companies, enacts tariffs, and gives huge breaks to those who need it least so that we can all survive but hiring ourselves out to the same folks. If you're lucky, maybe you can work at a nice suburban office park that your favorite credit card or cell phone company has decided to establish in your area.

Judging by this sober assessment, the US of A is heading down the tubes, and fast. What does one do? The time to act is now, it seems, though our choices are fewer and fewer. When we're all sitting in front of a computer for 8-10 hours a day doing intellectually bankrupt work for pathological institutions that threaten to toss us out because we don't fit into their Excel columns, cost too much to take care of because of a massively inefficient health care system, and are subject to huge phenomenon that nobody really bothers to address in the pursuit of cash, I guess we can all hope we're near the blast radius when mankind decides to finally blow up the world.

Not the most cheerful book, it's a cold, hard look at what has happened to the state of democracy in the USA, and how the forces of capital have boxed and wrapped every facet of life, destroying anything the founding fathers had in mind. Time to go live in the woods.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books