Written in response to September 11, Unholy War is aimed largely at an audience unfamiliar with the subject matter of Islamist movements and terrorism. Esposito has not written an apologetic book and is in no way trying to suggest that terrorism in any form is warranted. After having read the book cover to cover, the one-star reviews that others have written apparently came from people that didn't bother reading the book. The point of this review is not to engage close-minded people, but please don't let their rantings and ravings keep you from picking up what is ultimately a very helpful book.

Unholy War is divided into four chapters. The first looks primarily at Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the most well known terrorists in the world. Esposito looks at their backgrounds and provides a brief description of how these men became what they are today. The chapter looks at the personal histories of each individual with emphasis on the events and experiences that shaped their lives. Chapter Two explores the idea of jihad and some of the foundations of Islam. Anyone that finds themselves asking whether or not Islam is a violent religion or how men like Bin Laden are able to twist Islam to fit their worldview will come away from this chapter with a wealth of knowledge. Chapter Three provides a series of case studies that are relevant to violent Islamic movements. Egyptian movements, Hamas, and Wahabism are all discussed here. The sections on Wahabism are particularly helpful as Esposito explains that while the term often times is applied liberally to violent movements, it is actually the brand of Islam propagated and practiced by the Saudi regime. He also discusses "Wahabism" in the central Asian context of states like Uzbekistan and Tajikstan. Although brief, the section is valuable since most discussions of this subject tend to leave out events in these countries. The final chapter offers some thoughts on how to move forward. The recurring theme here is that Islam is not a monolithic or static religion. Esposito provides brief character profiles of several prominent Muslim leaders that are moderate reformers that in no way condone the actions of what ultimately is a very small percentage of the world's second largest religion. For those that always lazily ask "where are the moderate voices condemning the violent actions of al-Qaeda?", well...Esposito provides several in his brief final chapter. The biggest problem with people asking this question is that they must assume that just because they don't hear the moderate voices, the moderate voices must not exists. It doesn't take much time or effort to find them. Either these people just aren't trying, or they're purposely trying to make people think all Muslims are violent. Either way, it's bringing the discourse down to a dangerous and ignorant level.

Even though Unholy War is aimed at someone not necessarily familiar with the subject, those well versed in Middle Eastern politics and history will still find the book useful as a brief refresher. Esposito is a wonderful writer and one of the most respected Islamic/Middle Eastern historians out there. The book's ultimate goal is to bring to light some of the more important issues surrounding a very complex subject. Esposito is largely successful in achieving this goal and the discourse on the subject will surely benefit from his work.

Written in response to September 11, Unholy War is aimed largely at an audience unfamiliar with the subject matter of Islamist movements and terrorism. Esposito has not written an apologetic book and is in no way trying to suggest that terrorism in any form is warranted. After having read the book cover to cover, the one-star reviews that others have written apparently came from people that didn't bother reading the book. The point of this review is not to engage close-minded people, but please don't let their rantings and ravings keep you from picking up what is ultimately a very helpful book.

Unholy War is divided into four chapters. The first looks primarily at Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the most well known terrorists in the world. Esposito looks at their backgrounds and provides a brief description of how these men became what they are today. The chapter looks at the personal histories of each individual with emphasis on the events and experiences that shaped their lives. Chapter Two explores the idea of jihad and some of the foundations of Islam. Anyone that finds themselves asking whether or not Islam is a violent religion or how men like Bin Laden are able to twist Islam to fit their worldview will come away from this chapter with a wealth of knowledge. Chapter Three provides a series of case studies that are relevant to violent Islamic movements. Egyptian movements, Hamas, and Wahabism are all discussed here. The sections on Wahabism are particularly helpful as Esposito explains that while the term often times is applied liberally to violent movements, it is actually the brand of Islam propagated and practiced by the Saudi regime. He also discusses "Wahabism" in the central Asian context of states like Uzbekistan and Tajikstan. Although brief, the section is valuable since most discussions of this subject tend to leave out events in these countries. The final chapter offers some thoughts on how to move forward. The recurring theme here is that Islam is not a monolithic or static religion. Esposito provides brief character profiles of several prominent Muslim leaders that are moderate reformers that in no way condone the actions of what ultimately is a very small percentage of the world's second largest religion. For those that always lazily ask "where are the moderate voices condemning the violent actions of al-Qaeda?", well...Esposito provides several in his brief final chapter. The biggest problem with people asking this question is that they must assume that just because they don't hear the moderate voices, the moderate voices must not exists. It doesn't take much time or effort to find them. Either these people just aren't trying, or they're purposely trying to make people think all Muslims are violent. Either way, it's bringing the discourse down to a dangerous and ignorant level.

Even though Unholy War is aimed at someone not necessarily familiar with the subject, those well versed in Middle Eastern politics and history will still find the book useful as a brief refresher. Esposito is a wonderful writer and one of the most respected Islamic/Middle Eastern historians out there. The book's ultimate goal is to bring to light some of the more important issues surrounding a very complex subject. Esposito is largely successful in achieving this goal and the discourse on the subject will surely benefit from his work.

Esposito do not blame the fundamentalists only for the conflict but also he blames the misunderstanding of America and its policies toward the Muslims world for escalating the conflict.
Esposito has his own agenda, as he is the founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, he want to see a dialogue between the West and Islam. Interestingly that the center he founded is funded by a Saudi Billionaire Prince, a connection which makes Esposito judgments questionable somehow.
Also he tries to present liberal Islam (he calls it reformed) as a strong candidate to defeat the terror creed embedded in fundamental Islam. While he forget that most of the Muslim figures he is referring to have little weight in the Muslim religious arena.

Instead of spending the time to read this book you could engage in an activity that would be more entertaining and/or more worth your time...like sleeping or donating blood through a collapsed vein!

Now, I can definitely appreciate Esposito's attempt to offer some solutions. There are a surplus of folks who write books or give speeches about problems and why they are problems, but there are too few offering solutions. This was the only aspect of the book I found useful and respectable. The rest of the book was hard for me to swallow.

It was stated that: "One cannot overstress the fact that Islam does NOT condone terrorism. In point of fact, Islam strictly prohibits killing of innocent civilians. Those who perpetrate these abhorrent atrocities are hijacking Islam. It is imperative to understand that an overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor terrorism and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians." Well...if the OVERWHELMING majority of Muslims were so adamantly against terrorism and murder then WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE THEY? This is the major obstacle that anyone who writes a book on this topic must face. Where are the masses of Muslims protesting what Al Qeada did to America? Why were there hundreds of thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets just hours after September 11th, 2001? If a Muslim man (living in a Muslim nation) decides to leave Islam for a Christian faith then why must he fear for his life?

You know, I really hate to say it because it's a pensive outlook on the world in which we live, but Islam just isn't the religion that Mr. Esposito claims it to be. It's not irresponsible, immature, or warmongering to say that Islam isn't happy with the existance of Isreal because the evidence is on the news and in the papers almost every single day!

It would be a great day in my life if I could recant the things I've just written because it would mean a complete reformation of Islamic nations, but I fear such a change simply will not happen because of the inherrent nature of the religion that is Islam. I applaud Mr. Esposito's attempt to dumb-down the nature of Islam in an effort to paint it as a peaceful, funloving way of life, but in life...if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...well, then...it must be a duck, right?

One last thing...why is it considered provincialism to even remotely say that Islam is not a religion, state of mind, or way of life that is peaceful and centered around love and honor? I think the social-liberals have hijacked thinking in a way that is not their own, thus making it nearly impossible for a man to be taken seriously if he doesn't already march to the beat of their drum. I tend to call a spade a spade and until I'm proven otherwise I will continue to hold the opinion that Islam is a religion of oppression and antipathy. I do, however, look to the day when hoards of Muslim people gather together to dispell the malevolence of their religion and culture that has taken a stranglehold of how they should be living and what they should be practicing in way of religion.

Don't buy the book if you don't want to be spoonfed the idea that Islam is a religion of peace and beauty. Go ahead and buy the book if you're unsure what to believe because it might give you some ideas to think about. Definitely buy the book if you truly believe Islam is a cultural and religious beacon of love, peace, and gentle nature that is simply just misunderstood.

The problem is not with Islam. The problem is in your decadent american hearts. Your culture is filthy and your minds are closed. Allah closes the hearts of those who refuse to see the Truth:

"As for the disbelievers, whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is one for them; they believe not.

Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom."

Sura 2:6-7

You say we are violent but you murder children every day in Iraq, Afganistan, and in Palistine. This blood is on your head.

hasbilmilah

when brainswashed people like insidous from Fresno used ad-hominem to attack this book,you know this book is a must read.

when brainswashed people like insidous from Fresno used ad-hominem to attack this book,you know this book is a must read.

John Esposito, a noted authority on Islam, has written an eloquent defense of Islam. Extensively researched, this book completely dispels many of the prevailing misconceptions about Islam. Esposito argues that Islam must not be looked upon as monolithic. Needless to say, only an imbecile can argue otherwise given that over 1 billion Muslims inhabit this world, many of whom speak different languages, have different cultures, traditions, mores and histories. Christians, Jews, Hindus and others are different even though they share some common characteristics. No matter how many things members of any given group have in common, they can never be the same.

Esposito astutely observes that the root causes of fundamentalism are social and economic grievances. Contrary to popular belief, Islamic fundamentalists do not target the West because of its wealth and prosperity. This is a convenient albeit simplistic and flawed explanation. Here are the reasons why this explanation falls short. First and foremost, virtually all fundamentalists come from the countries where despair and abject poverty are commonplace. Second, they initially emerge as resistance groups opposing the authoritative regimes and/or struggling against oppression. A case in point is Hizbollah, an organization which was created following the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Another example is Hamas, which was also created following the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, not all organizations arise in response to an external threat; many organizations fight against the autocratic regimes.

Esposito differentiates between a Jihad which is waged in self-defense and the "expansionist" Jihad which is waged against atheists and non-Muslims, the latter being strongly rejected by a vast majority of Muslims. Esposito further asserts that many Western commentators use quotes from Quaran to prove that the religion Islam condones and even encourages terrorism and violence. The problem with this method is that these quotes are frequently taken out of their proper context and the period in which they were written. For example, Esposito shows a quote often used by the Western experts to demonstrate that Islam encourages a conflict with Christians and Jews. Nonetheless, he then shows a verse immediately following this quote which explicitly states that the Muslims should seek peace if that is what the Christians and Jews also want. Paradoxically although unsurprisingly, the Western experts deliberately overlook this verse.

One cannot overstress the fact that Islam does NOT condone terrorism. In point of fact, Islam strictly prohibits killing of innocent civilians. Those who perpetrate these abhorrent atrocities are hijacking Islam. It is imperative to understand that an overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor terrorism and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians. Only if one's life is threatened is murder permitted. While Esposito acknowledges that certain elements of the Quaran may be obsolete and controversial, he also says that the same holds for Christianity, Judaism and every other religion. More importantly, Esposito correctly observes that unless we acknowledge the root causes of terrorism and fundamentalism it will be almost impossible to win the war against terror. For instance, if I am seriously ill I cannot possibly expect a recovery unless my doctor finds out what is wrong with me. If misdiagnosed, I will never get well again.

So, in order to win the war against terror, Mr. Esposito suggests that the following must be done:
- The moderate Muslim populations must confront the extremist elements within their communities and strongly condemn terrorist attacks.
- Respected Muslim scholars must offer their interpretation of controversial verses in order to explain to the Muslims that Islam does NOT teach violence and terrorism. Islam preaches empathy, peace and piety.
- The U.S. must reevaluate and alter its extremely flawed foreign policy. The U.S. must stop supporting autocratic regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The unconditional support for Israel must come to an end; the U.S. must start judging the actions of Israelis by the same standards it applies to all Arab countries. When Israel violates human rights it must be punished just as Iraq, Iran and other Arab countries get punished.
- We must do everything to bridge the gap between Islam and Christianity.

Only when we understand that living in peace and harmony is for the benefit of all will we have a decent chance at obliterating terrorism. After all, the only thing that really matters is the content of a man's character. Whether one is Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu is completely irrelevant but I guess that is only a utopia. I hope not!

This extraordinarily well written book is strongly recommended to all who wish to gain a more complex and nuanced analysis of the Islamic fundamentalism.

P.S. Unfortunately it seems that the only way for the people of this earth to unite is in face of a threat from the outer space. Have not we human beings learned anything from the history?

John Esposito, a noted authority on Islam, has written an eloquent defense of Islam. Extensively researched, this book completely dispels many of the prevailing misconceptions about Islam. Esposito argues that Islam must not be looked upon as monolithic. Needless to say, only an imbecile can argue otherwise given that over 1 billion Muslims inhabit this world, many of whom speak different languages, have different cultures, traditions, mores and histories. Christians, Jews, Hindus and others are different even though they share some common characteristics. No matter how many things members of any given group have in common, they can never be the same.

Esposito astutely observes that the root causes of fundamentalism are social and economic grievances. Contrary to popular belief, Islamic fundamentalists do not target the West because of its wealth and prosperity. This is a convenient albeit simplistic and flawed explanation. Here are the reasons why this explanation falls short. First and foremost, virtually all fundamentalists come from the countries where despair and abject poverty are commonplace. Second, they initially emerge as resistance groups opposing the authoritative regimes and/or struggling against oppression. A case in point is Hizbollah, an organization which was created following the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Another example is Hamas, which was also created following the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, not all organizations arise in response to an external threat; many organizations fight against the autocratic regimes.

Esposito differentiates between a Jihad which is waged in self-defense and the "expansionist" Jihad which is waged against atheists and non-Muslims, the latter being strongly rejected by a vast majority of Muslims. Esposito further asserts that many Western commentators use quotes from Quaran to prove that the religion Islam condones and even encourages terrorism and violence. The problem with this method is that these quotes are frequently taken out of their proper context and the period in which they were written. For example, Esposito shows a quote often used by the Western experts to demonstrate that Islam encourages a conflict with Christians and Jews. Nonetheless, he then shows a verse immediately following this quote which explicitly states that the Muslims should seek peace if that is what the Christians and Jews also want. Paradoxically although unsurprisingly, the Western experts deliberately overlook this verse.

One cannot overstress the fact that Islam does NOT condone terrorism. In point of fact, Islam strictly prohibits killing of innocent civilians. Those who perpetrate these abhorrent atrocities are hijacking Islam. It is imperative to understand that an overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor terrorism and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians. Only if one's life is threatened is murder permitted. While Esposito acknowledges that certain elements of the Quaran may be obsolete and controversial, he also says that the same holds for Christianity, Judaism and every other religion. More importantly, Esposito correctly observes that unless we acknowledge the root causes of terrorism and fundamentalism it will be almost impossible to win the war against terror. For instance, if I am seriously ill I cannot possibly expect a recovery unless my doctor finds out what is wrong with me. If misdiagnosed, I will never get well again.

So, in order to win the war against terror, Mr. Esposito suggests that the following must be done:
- The moderate Muslim populations must confront the extremist elements within their communities and strongly condemn terrorist attacks.
- Respected Muslim scholars must offer their interpretation of controversial verses in order to explain to the Muslims that Islam does NOT teach violence and terrorism. Islam preaches empathy, peace and piety.
- The U.S. must reevaluate and alter its extremely flawed foreign policy. The U.S. must stop supporting autocratic regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The unconditional support for Israel must come to an end; the U.S. must start judging the actions of Israelis by the same standards it applies to all Arab countries. When Israel violates human rights it must be punished just as Iraq, Iran and other Arab countries get punished.
- We must do everything to bridge the gap between Islam and Christianity.

Only when we understand that living in peace and harmony is for the benefit of all will we have a decent chance at obliterating terrorism. After all, the only thing that really matters is the content of a man's character. Whether one is Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu is completely irrelevant but I guess that is only a utopia. I hope not!

This extraordinarily well written book is strongly recommended to all who wish to gain a more complex and nuanced analysis of the Islamic fundamentalism.

P.S. Unfortunately it seems that the only way for the people of this earth to unite is in face of a threat from the outer space. Have not we human beings learned anything from the history?

This person "gnossie" is a friend o Danial Pipes or Daniel Pipes himself hiding as "gnossie". Stay way from his review, It is just another Islamophopic broken record. Americans are not ignorant,as gnossie assumes, and CAN tell the difference between A Scholar like John Esposito and cheep rhetoric produced by the likes of Freedman, Pipes and others in their class.

This person "gnossie" is a friend o Danial Pipes or Daniel Pipes himself hiding as "gnossie". Stay way from his review, It is just another Islamophopic broken record. Americans are not ignorant,as gnossie assumes, and CAN tell the difference between A Scholar like John Esposito and cheep rhetoric produced by the likes of Freedman, Pipes and others in their class.

. . . and I use the word in its strictest sense: "more harmful than is apparent."

The only reason Esposito has been able to rise to the heights of his profession is basically because his audience consists either of Muslims who approve of all the congratulatory things he says about Islam, or Americans who simply don't know one way or the other -- and naturally would like to believe his drivel about "the peaceful religion."

Notice that his audiences never consist of those (non-Muslims) who haved lived and traveled in the Middle East, who speak and read Arabic, who have read the Koran, or who have dealt with Muslims and Arabs for years. Such people invariably revile Esposito and would promptly laugh him off stage.

Still, it's interesting how someone can study a subject academically for all his life and never really see it . . .

For a useful analysis of Islam without rose-colored glasses: Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones, Thomas Friedman, Victor Davis Hanson, Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Daniel Pipes -- even Bernard Lewis, if you must.

Esposito, certainly one of the foremost scholars today who deals knowledgeably with the interrelationship of Islam and Christianity, has produced this short but extremely readable and relevant book detailing in succint form what he believes to be the issues that are the basis for the struggle between radical Islam and America. I highly recommend this book for people who come to the issue with little prior knowledge about the issues shaping the problem, or anyone who wants to have a better understanding of the topic, regardless of the amount of knowledge they bring to the table. This book just may whet your appetite for more reading on the subject!

He tells it like it is. No B.S.

Muslim extremists follow Wahabism, not Islam. Both Muslim Extremists(or wahabists) and anti-islamic authors try to reinterpret the Quran(usually by taking verses out of context) to justify the killing of innocent civilians.

The Quran still remains unchanged. Fact is, the Quran encrouages believers to promote justice by any means necessary. Cause without justice, one can't have peace. It is a realistic book.

Anti-Islamic authors tend to show what some brutal Muslim leaders have committed and then try to relate it to Islam and make it seem as if these leaders are doing what Islam instructs. They want to prove that Islam is Muslims! It is NOT! Not one book exists that shows me a verse from the Quran that tells Muslims to spread Islam by force! Not surprising, cause it doesn't exist.

Yes, there are more than 1.2 billion Muslims around the world, but how many follow the Quran? Sadly, not as much as one might think(espicially in the arab world)

Very recommended book.

Read the book for yourself and make up your own mind; for all the critics i have only one question: did you really read the book?

Esposito sure has a nice way of glossing over the truth. The heart of the matter is missed and the fundamental force behind the Islamic faith is left in the corner of the closet somewhere. Since he shared his ideas, and we do have 1st Amendment rights, here are mine - the Islamic faith and the teachings of the Koran are to drive the believer of these misconceptions with a goal of world domination - religiously and if necessary, violently. How blatant and how clear the Koran is. How necessary for us to realize that to stop the core of this terrorism is to stop the spread of this "religious system", or dare I/we say - militant system? It's also time to put an end to political correctness.

Professor Esposito is yet another Muslim apologist. Dr. Ali Sina of faithfreedom.org has challenged Dr. Esposito multiple times to debate him over whether Islam is really a religion of peace, or whether it is a religion of hate and intolerence. Dr. Esposito has never accepted Dr. Sina's challenge. If you really want to learn the truth about Islam, I recommend Ibn Warraq's book "Why I am not a Muslim". I also recommend "The Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis (Lewis is another apologist, but he is brutally honest about some of Islam's more hateful teachings.) Remember, Islam is not a religion of peace, but that doesn't mean we need war with Muslims. Muslims are the primary victims of Islam. We can win without war if scholars like Dr. Esposito were only honest and able to convince Muslims that their religion is a lie.