Benazir represented the moderate face of Islam. In this book she has attempted to highlight how democracy and Islam are mutually compatible, in the light of the Holy Quran. She had a broad vision and laid down her life fighting for her ideals. This book is a sincere effort on her part to reconcile the differences between the Western and the Muslim world. She has to be commended for bringing forth the point that the rise of militancy and fundamentalism poses the greatest threat to Islam itself; to put the blame solely on US imperial policy and the Cold War is unjustified. Islam has been hijacked by the elements with political ambitions, who seek to justify violence in the name of Jihad -a very noble concept which has been misconstrued for selfish motives. This book is a testimony to Benazir's wisdom, intellect and broad vision.

I am a US citizen of Asian descent. I knew nothing about Benazir Bhutto before reading this book besides that she was a politician of "one of those countries out there." Her story has educated me on the complicated situation between the Islamic countries and the West. Her ideas and plans make sense. I just hope that enough of our own politicians read this. Now that she's reached so many people with book and her legacy, I hope she is at peace.

This is a wonderfully written book with clear expositions in 318 pages regarding common misinterpretations of the Koran, which does not exclude other religions that believe in the same one God. She shows us how we need to recast ourselves to promote our democracy as the way to achieve peaceful coexistence of different religious and ethnic groups, through education and cooperation in economic development. She gives a very moving account of the many difficulties she had in trying to get a real democracy in Pakistan, and the multiple blocks and attempts on her life. The scope of her book is large and analyzes the conditions in many different cultures. She ends with many reasonable solutions to some of our problems. I only hope that our legislators read this profound, very moving,and clear book!!

This book really opened my eyes about the content of Islam as well as the politics pursued by west in other countries. I would really recommend it to everybody as it really gives a perspective! Furthermore, it makes one realize what a fantastic person Benazir was and what the world really lost when she was assassinated last year.

I was excited to read this book, but unfortunately it seems that the description given on the cover hyped it up a bit too much. I was hoping for more insight into Bhutto's views and her life, but unfortunately I didn't get much of either.

I enjoyed the first portion of the book, which is about the Quran and defuses some misconceptions people may have about Islam. The book in general, and the first part more specifically, relies a lot on works and
ideas produced by others which, while not what I had expected to find, I would prefer by themselves than with the commentary of Bhutto, which often seems flimsy. One such example of the flimsiness of Bhutto's assertion is when she equates archaic practices found in the Quran to those found in the Bible, her example being the stoning of adulterers. She leaves out the portion of the Bible when Jesus condemns the practice, which if included would rob her argument of its power.

In many places it is much too long. Her simple conclusions are supported with pages of drolling and usually repetitive historical information about virtually every country to have ever come in contact with the West.
Even in the last two sections, which would seem to require her input, she relies heavily on the conclusions of others, to which she adds flimsy additions, such as her assertion that the recent wave of terrorism across the world is not based on an Islam vs. The West mentality, but rather extremism versus moderation. I think the fact that madrassas and organizations such as Hezbullah spew hateful anti-West rhetoric on almost a daily basis takes the wind out of Bhutto's sails.

Although it is coherent and thoroughly researched, this book is a waste of time. Bhutto spends too much time supporting her ideas with repetitive examples that, after a certain point, become unnecessary. Her meager intellectual additions to the book are almost not worth reading. While I admire and agree with her message of reconciliation, I don't think that this book does effective job at achieving it.

The book is well-written with a noble purpose, but it is not an engaging read and will often leave you bored.

Reconciliation is a worthless book written to please the author's supporters in the west. The truth is that Bhutto and her entire family have never stood for "democracy". Rather, for multiple generations they have stood for a corrupt version of populism that over the decades has brought Pakistan to the brink of destruction.

Her father was the architect of two disasterous wars with India and brought about the civil war that ended in the dismemberment of Pakistan. Benazir, building on her father's legacy pursued a covert wars with India over Kashmir and greenlighted the creation of the Taliban. Over three generations, the Bhuttos have undermined any possiblity of democracy in Pakistan by turning one of the main political parties into their personal family posession.

But what does the book say? The book talks of the evils of dictatorship and western influence. The claims about dictatorship might be taken as remotely serious but for the sad fact that the Bhutto fortune and political legacy were originally built on their service to a military dicatator. There is also understandably no understanding or admission that the corrupt version of "democracy" associated with her family has promoted extreme Islam.

Most of her analysis of Pakistani history is self-serving and false. Her goal at all times is to protect the corrupt legacy of failure associated with her own relatives. She puts them up as the democratic alternative to Islamic extremists. She does this of course without revealing the anti-democratic origins of her political party or her father's role in driving Bengaledesh out of Pakistan through violence. She is also dishonest about the origins of the Taliban and "islamic extremism". She would rather blame (as her father did) the military rather than tell the truth about the corrupt commerical interests who were behind support for the Taliban. The intelligence services were the means but the end was willed by Pakistani trucking and other business interests.

Her views on Islam are incredibly bad. In her world, its the Ulema thats the problem. She favors an individualist interpretation of Islam no doubt so that the Ulema can be eliminated as a source of criticism for her party machine. The argument will go over very well with her western spoonsors though because its what they want to hear.

She also parrots back to the western audience of the book their views on Islam. None of what she says is credible and none of it would be said at home in Pakistan. But her sponsors in Washington and London will eat up every word.

Bhutto's untimely death proved yet again what the real game here is. With her death, the party passed as a family posession to the next generation. Even though that next generation was a 19 year old child. That is the contradiction in the book among the Bhuttos. Democracies are not created by political parties whose leadership is passed generation after generation from parent to child. That is rather something like a monarchy. Pakistan will only begin to progress when the family politics that the Bhuttos represent disappears.

Very absorbing and insightfull. Benazir Bhutto was an amazing, brave women in a hostile country. With her assassination, Muslim World lost one of the bravest and charismatic leader who had great potential of bringing change in the muslim world and specially in Pakistan. She was the last hope for Pakistan but would definitely be remembered as a historical leader who gave life for the cause of democracy and moderate Islam. I hope this book will remove some of the misconceptions of the West about Islam and Democracy in the muslim world.

Benazir Bhutto's knowledge of Islam, Pakistan and Democracy are so impressive and important. I found her take on the situation in Pakistan to be crucial to read as an American citizen. As an American, I feel a responsibility to learn and understand how successful democracies effect Islamic nations. U.S. actions and money connect us all to remote villages in Pakistan.

I read Three Cups of Tea then this book and really felt that I learned about an important and pivotal country that is desperately in need of democracy. Bhutto's assassination was tragic and sadly, predictable. Luckily, she was able to finish this important work.

I have read about a quarter of the book and would recommend it to anyone who has any interest in finding out about her life and what she stood for. The first section of the book is well written and intense. I'm still working on it.

Informative and well written; a must read for those looking for a good history of the Middle East, and those who want a good future there, too.

I thought it was a story of her life and some history of Pakistan. WRONG.

What an amazing woman. To take the risks that she and her family did for her country is simply amazing. Gets pretty technical, not an easy read, but definitely worth the time. I'll read it twice.

Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West

by Benazir Bhutto

A review by

Wayne A. Bley



As Dr. Mark Siegel states, Mrs. Bhutto is a brave woman who has provided for the non-Muslim a clear example by her life and in her written word, a clarion understanding of the tenets of the modern moderate Muslim. This is perhaps the greatest benefit she has performed in writing Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West.



Mrs. Bhutto's defense of the compatibility of Islam and democracy is clear and well articulated. In her assessment of this compatibility, she draws a wide line in the sand. Throughout the book she defends the construct of an Islamic democracy. At the same time she clarifies what separates an Islamic democracy from a classic liberal democracy. On one side of the line, and in this case being left or right of the line is immaterial, is classic liberal democracy. On the opposite side of the line is Islamic democracy, along with Christian democracy, Hindu democracy, Judaic democracy, secular democracy, humanist democracy, etc. What Bhutto explains by virtue of her repeated list of democratic values is that any democracy which is predicated on a particular religion is a restricted democracy because it is built on the principles, doctrines and tenets of a single set of religious texts. These restricted democratic values trump all other principles, doctrines and tenets that emerge from other religious texts. Mrs. Bhutto states the following: "Islam embraces all humanity under one God, discrediting all other exclusive religious claim to salvation. I don't believe there is anything quite like this in any religion on earth."[1] She is correct. While other religions may have tenets that may be described as "exclusive," only Islam has practiced this with such rigor across the geo-political domain for centuries. What Mrs. Bhutto assumes in this statement is that everyone else accepts her premise.



What distinguishes a liberal democracy from any exclusive religious democracy is the issue of freedom of religion. This freedom in a liberal democracy as defined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution establishes full and unfettered freedom of choice to change religion, reject religion, re-accept religion and practice religion, any religion, with complete freedom. This religious practice is not restricted to one's mosque, church or temple and may be openly lived out in society without fear of retribution or superficial acceptance or toleration.



Throughout the book, Mrs. Bhutto describes democracy, democratic rights, human rights and democratic governance. Occasionally she even uses the term "universal." However, in her lists of descriptors, she does not include freedom of religion although she spends considerable time defending the "no compulsion" Islamic tenet.[2] The repeated absence of freedom of religion is troubling.



Bhutto declares that "Islam as a religion contains more pluralism and justice than other religions and is in fact a more fertile ground for democracy"[3] and repeatedly uses the phrases "Muslim society,"[4] "government in Islam,"[5] "Muslim governance,"[6] "Muslim world,"[7] "Muslim nations,"[8] and states "in the modern world, modern interpretations need to be made while respecting the underlying principles of the Quran."[9] This usage demonstrates that Islam is not pluralistic in fact or practice. The use of the predicates "Muslim" or "Islamic" establishes the absence of freedom of religion unless everyone capitulates to the Quran as the single source of all knowledge and wisdom - a most naïve assumption on her behalf and on behalf of all Muslims.



Bhutto's discussion of political opposition and fitna is telling. "Political opposition has roots in the Quran. But while fitna (disorder through schism or divisions) is not allowed, other types of disagreement are. By prohibiting division and disorder, the Quran establishes limits on what is allowed in opposition. By showing the limit the opposition can go to, the Quran provides a political space for the opposition."[10] She again is consistent and duplicitous. Here she uses the phrase "political opposition" as defined by the Quran, therefore, negating religious opposition in its entirety in an Islamic context because all other religions are discredited[11] and Islam is the sole political governor.



Mrs. Bhutto's long discussion of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which includes a subsequent rebuttal by Stephen M. Walt, et al., in Chapter 5, validates the argument that the clash is inevitable so long as Muslims believe Muslims alone may rule and Islam must rule supreme. This is compounded by her examples of Islamic democracies listed in Chapter 3. The statement "Muslim nations are very different from Western nations in national experience. Specifically, Islamic law generally has a role in government, whether in secular Islamic states such as Kazakhstan or religiously ideological countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran"[12] establishes the intellectual and prescriptive divide between Western nations and Muslim nations. Her use of "Western" and "Muslim" could not be more clarion. It is Islam that is causing the clash or conflict.



Mrs. Bhutto defends the 1956 Pakistan Constitution[13] along with the Constitutions of other Muslim majority countries. These constitutions are unitary in nature by virtue of the inclusion of the terms Islam, Islamic, Quran, Sharia, and Allah, etc. within the body of the text. The inclusion of these terms demonstrates the coherence that exists between the moderate and the jihadist Muslim. A Muslim is a Muslim; Islam is Islam the world around.



When Bhutto describes her experiences as a student at Harvard, she states "I saw that people in America took their rights for granted: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement,"[14] she strangely neglects to include freedom of religion. She is entirely consistent in this regard.



At the end of the day what separates modern, moderate Islam from jihadist Islam is praxis and axis of approach. Both moderate Muslims and jihadists believe in the exclusive and solitary right of Islam to rule and reign. Both believe in the responsibility of a Muslim to enforce the Quran and the Sharia, however interpreted. Both believe it is the purpose of Islam to replace all other religious principles, tenets and doctrines with those that are Islamic. Therefore, the only legitimate democracy is an Islamic or Muslim democracy for all of mankind. Thus Islam and Muslims will be in a continual clash with those who believe in classic liberal democracy who do not have any desire to live under or believe in Islam, the Allah of Islam, the Quran and the prophet of Islam. This conflict will also exist with those who believe in other forms of democracy prescribed by other religious texts. Muslims must first be willing to remove references to Islam, the Quran, Sharia and the Allah of Islam from their constitutions if they expect non-Muslims to believe that Islam, be it moderate or jihadist, is in fact compatible with the rest of mankind. The prospect of reconciliation will continue to be denigrated by Muslims until Muslims believe and practice toleration beyond the tacit level.



Mrs. Bhutto is to be commended for her brave adherence to Islam and making it clear that Islamic reconciliation can only occur based on Islamic terms of reference. As a believing Christian and a believer in liberal democracy, living under Islam, even a modern, moderate Islam, would be to live with intolerance and constant fear. When Churches and other houses of worship are being built in equal size and number in every Muslim majority country, region, city and enclave, and the steeples are as tall as the tallest minaret, and the bells ring as loud and as often as the Islamic call to prayer, then there might be reason to take Muslims seriously.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Reconciliation, Page 31

[2] Ibid., page 32

[3] Ibid., page 63

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., page 66

[6] Ibid., page 75

[7] Ibid., page 76

[8] Ibid., page 86

[9] Ibid., page 67

[10] Ibid., page 72

[11] Ibid., page 31

[12] Ibid., page 86

[13] Ibid., page 170

[14] Ibid., page 270

Benazir Bhutto's book is a must read for all people who want to understand the history of Islamic thought in relation to women's rights, Jihad, religious diversity, and many other misunderstood concepts of the philosophy of Islam. Mrs. Bhutto's tragic demise by Islamic extremists encapsulates the
terrible dichotomy the world faces today: backward thinking Islamic fundamentalists who justify suicide bombing, killing of innocent civilians in the name of God for the purpose of bringing about an Islamic political state run by Sha'ria law, vs. mainstream Islam which is comfortable with diversity, and historically demonstrated tolerance of differing religions and differences of opinion within Islam. Mrs. Bhutto traces the history of Islamic thought, it's early flowering into the center of Western progressive thought and civilization from about 1000-1200AD, and its steady decline as a leader of intellectual, political and philisophical thought as a result of the conservative nature of cultural tribalism in the middle east filtering genuine Islam.
Mrs. Bhutto's book is an interesting and provocative readh and her voice needs to be heard and understood in this tragic war between moderate and fundamental Islam, and we are fortunate to have this legacy of hers, which is a must read for all who are involved in the debate of the so called 'war on terrorism.'

The book is very well researched. I was surprized with Ms Bhutto's vast Quranic knowledge. She makes a strong and convincing case for the compatability of Islam with Modern Democracy. It's so sad that this amazing woman, who could have helped brige the widening gulf between the Muslim world and the West, died in such tragic circumstances.

On the whole, I found Reconciliation a worthwhile and informative read. Bhutto is correct in her overall thesis that dictatorships (of whatever stripe) and Western interference in Muslim countries have retarded the development of Muslim democratic potential, and that this has helped spawn the Islamic extremist threat to Islam itself and the West.

Given her assassination, one gets the impression there might have been a rush to get this work to press. The book should have been better edited so the chapters did not seem overly dense, and the numerous quotations were footnoted properly.

Bhutto's analysis of stunted democratic growth across the Muslim world and the history of Western interference in Muslim affairs (colonialism and Cold War) is very good. She provides an in depth and firsthand account of Pakistan's domestic political development (and lack thereof), and the forces that have worked for and against democracy there. She is also clear about the goals and modus operandi of the Islamic extremists, militants and fanatics and their supporters within the Pakistani military and intelligence services.

Her treatment of the conflict within Islam between modernists and traditionalists is excellent. In essence, Bhutto advocates that Muslims reclaim their individual right to (re-)interpret their religious scriptures from the tradition-bound ulema (religious scholars) so that they can be aligned more with the realities of the present world and not the (largely mythical) past.

I do take issue with a number of Bhutto's observations and comments, and these are listed below:

(1) Bhutto gives a good overview of the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis. She criticizes Huntington's view that globalization will intensify civilization consciousness and the awareness of differences between civilizations, which will lead to cultural contempt and xenophobia. Her position is that it will instead lead to tolerance and pluralism.

In this, I disagree, as both outcomes are possible. Sayyid Qutb, for example, the ideologue of modern Islamism, studied in the U.S. Muhammad Atta and several of his 9/11 co-conspirators lived in Germany. They all suffered from culture shock and isolation, and their reaction to being in the West did not foster tolerance and pluralism on their part. Other people would have reacted differently or had different experiences, so, both Huntington and Bhutto's outcomes are possible. Just because one is exposed to something and understands it, doesn't mean one is going to like, tolerate or accept it.

(2) In the first chapter, Bhutto claims that while northern Europe was in the Dark Ages, "the great universities, scientists, doctors and artists were all Muslim." It seems to me that the Muslim proclivity to focus on the "West" (and Christians and Jews) too often ignores the "Rest" of the world (including other largely non-monotheistic religions), and she seems to suffer from this syndrome.

No doubt, there were also great Hindu and Chinese, let alone Byzantine, intellectuals, during this period, too. The Islamic "Golden Age" was to a large extent founded on borrowed learning (Greek, Persian, etc.) that Muslims added to (and later transmitted back to Western Europe). Not all of Europe was in the Dark Ages at that time, and the Byzantine civilization hadn't yet been completely destroyed by Muslim conquest.

In the last chapter, Bhutto gives brief acknowledgment to the contribution of the Greek intellectual tradition to Islam, yet she then states that "Islam's first generations produced knowledge and wealth that empowered Muslim empires to rule much of the world." Some of this knowledge was borrowed, as the Arabs found that the Persian and Christian civilizations they conquered (Syria, Egypt) were in fact much superior to their own, and some of the wealth was generated not through production or trade but rather through the booty and plunder of conquest and the poll-tax (jizya) levied on the subjugated Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. The prideful tone of her statement also conflicts with her interpretation of Islam as tolerant and peaceful.

(3) In Chapter 2, Bhutto states that, "Throughout history, the greatest crimes against humanity have been carried out in the name of God." Yes, and no. The fascists and communists may have created their own quasi-religions, but "god" wasn't part of their value system, and they slaughtered tens of millions.

(4) Although Bhutto does a good job explaining the different Muslims sects (though she chose to leave the Ahmadis out for some reason), and the currents in Islamic extremist thought and its modern reformist counterarguments, her portrayal of Islam is overly rosy and comes across as idealistic and a whitewash of both history and Islamic doctrine, something one might expect in Islamo-Disneyland.

Everyone seems to have an idea of what constitutes "true Islam," and she suffers from this complex. Specifically,

a. Democracy - she goes to great lengths to suggest that Islam's doctrines of consultation (shura) and consensus (ijma) and independent reasoning (ijtihad) make Islam and democracy compatible. Yet, from the earliest days, the caliphs were dictators.

b. Ijtihad seems to be the panacea for a modern Muslim reformist revival. The Shiites, unlike the Sunnis, never abandoned "independent reasoning," and yet they are stuck in the same ideological morass between tradition and modernity.

c. "Tolerance" and "Equality" - she claims these are inherent to Islam. From the earliest days into the mid-20th century, the Muslim treatment of the dhimmi Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians (let alone the Arab polytheists and non-monotheists subjugated or slaughtered during the Arab conquests) suggests otherwise. They may have more or less lived "peacefully together under Muslim rule," but maybe that was because the non-Muslim monotheists were forced to live in a ghetto, wear clothes that made them immediately distinguishable from Muslims, and be servile, while suffering for more than a millennium from fear, vulnerability and the constant threat of inhumane humiliations, tortures, persecutions, oppressions and massacres in the name of Allah. Nowhere in the book does she mention Pakistan's "blasphemy laws," which can get a Christian imprisoned or killed through no fault of their own.

Her arguments with respect to women probably carry more water, but she ignores the Koranic verses devaluing a woman's testimony and inheritance relative to that of a man.

d. Jihad ("struggle" to follow the right and just path) - this she addresses the way one would expect: "greater Jihad" being self-development in a spiritual sense, and "lesser Jihad" being "self-defense" or "just" war.

"Holy war" is a Western translation of Jihad. Although improper, that interpretation is not without merit. Islamic "holy war" was the Christian experience from the Arab conquests of Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Sicily, and Spain to central France (even Rome was sacked), and the Turkish conquests of Byzantium and the Balkans up to the gates of Vienna (1683). Had Islam been the "peaceful" religion its adherents make it out to be, then why the Arab conquest? Is aggression "self-defense" or "just" war? Why did Muhammad instruct his followers to conquer Egypt? Why didn't he send out missionaries, as the Buddhists and early Christians had done? Surely, that's "peaceful." Furthermore, the Hadith (traditions) define Jihad in terms of aggression with the aim of imposing Islam on the world. Arabo-Islamic imperialism easily ranks with British imperialism as the most successful in history. And it's still potent.

Bhutto acknowledges the "Sword Verses" (9:5) and states that slaying the
idolaters wherever you find them pertained to idol worshippers ("only those who reject God and his teachings outright") and not People of the Book (Christians, Jews). If Islam was "tolerant," then it should have tolerated Arab idol worshippers, too! There would be millions more Buddhists and Hindus alive today if it had.

Jihad, she claims, forbids the killing of innocents. Yet, the Koran also instructed Muslims to engage in "widespread slaughter," a policy of terror and intimidation carried out during the initial phases of conquest in each new land.

e. "Context" - throughout the book, Bhutto emphasizes the importance of historical context in interpreting the Koran. She criticizes the Islam critic Robert Spencer for taking verses out of context. Yet, throughout the book, she cites as an example of Islam's ostensibly inherent tolerance Sura 109:6: "You have your religion, I have mine. You go your way, I go mine." Nice quote, as is "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). What she doesn't say is that these verses were abrogated by later intolerant verses. 190:6 was "revealed" during the Meccan period when Muhammad and his small group of followers were being persecuted. Once they relocated to Medina and obtained power, tolerance went out the window. (Something that Europeans should take note of, if they have illusions to the contrary, like the former Swedish minister who stated that Muslims will treat Swedes well should they become a majority.) Again, Arab polytheists were given a choice of conversion or death. That's compulsion, not tolerance, no matter how you slice it. And slice it, they did.

f. Forced conversions - Bhutto suggests that Christian forced conversions of Jews and Muslims (there were many instances of this but she cites two: Spanish Inquisition and American slaves, respectively) "would not have been permitted in Islam." "True Islam?" There are innumerable historical instances when Muslims, not just the "street" but also caliphs, including some of the early ones, forced Jews and Christians (and others) to convert to Islam.

A few years ago in Gaza, a kidnapped Western news crew was forced to convert to Islam before being released. In Indonesia, in the late 1990s, thousands of Christians were not only forced to convert to Islam or be murdered, but (men, women and children) were also forcibly circumcised (or murdered).

g. Right to Religious Freedom - Bhutto states in several places that Islam allows for the free will of individuals to change faiths. Yet, a Muslim who changes to another faith is considered an "apostate," a capital offense. Either there is religious freedom, or there isn't. It can't be a one way street (e.g., conversion to Islam and no possibility of leaving that faith).

(5) Lastly, one of Bhutto's recommendations is for the Gulf States to "jump-start" the economic and intellectual development in the rest of the Islamic world. Yet, it is these very states, as well as Saudi Arabia, that have contributed to the funding and spread of the very Islamic extremist ideologies that Bhutto sees as a threat to the future of Islam, democracy in the Islamic world, and relations between the Islamic world and the West. Will they ante up? They didn't in 2006-2007 in the aftermath of the Pakistani earthquake and the tsunami off Indonesia.

The book opens with the author's detailing of the many ways in which the government refused to protect her, to include the banning of armored vests, cell phone jammers, etc. While I consider her foolish to have not used modern technology to reach more people safely, she died a martyr's death and this book ably represents her legacy.

This is an elegant, articulate, easy to read, carefully documented overview of the history, geography, culture, and disturbances that have defined the billion Muslims of today.

The author completely avoids any confrontation with Saudi Arabia, the regime that I hold responsible, along with Egypt, then followed by all those as discussed in the following three books:

Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush
The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Vintage)
Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025

I share with the author the diplomatically stated view that Western colonialism, followed by Western support of dictators against democracy, set the world back fifty years. In reinforcement of this point, but focused on the unnecessary Cold War, see The Fifty-Year Wound: How America's Cold War Victory Has Shaped Our World and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project).

It is in this context that the author finds it reasonable for many Muslims to welcome, not the attacks on the US, but the new-found US recognition of vulnerability. Of course this Administration is oblivious, and we have wasted blood, treasure, and spirit, but the fact of the matter is clear the titles of these two books:

The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People
A Power Governments Cannot Suppress

Overall the book is replete with quotations from the Quran, fully three quarters of the end-notes. This is one of the most thoughtful, methodical accounts I have ever seen of the history, geography, and misdirection of the entire Muslim world, more often than not at the hands of the West or secular dictators it installed and supported.

An essential part of the book is the refutation of the Saudi Arabian rejection of tolerance and the terrorist confusion of jihad as struggle with jihad as unjust war killing civilians.

The last half of the book is a catalog of countries I am going to list because I was surprised by the range--these are countries where a combination of colonialism run amok, and indigenous secular and clerics vying for power.

Afghanistan
Algeria
Argentina
Bangladesh
Comoros
Congo
Egypt
Greece
Guatemala
Iraq
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco
Pakistan
Persian Gulf
Tunisia

Having provided a magnificent tour of the horizon, she then devotes a very deep chapter to Pakistan's history. She concludes the chapter concerned about Taliban incursions deep into Pakistan, but cited Iqbal, "Tyranny cannot long endure."

Next the book gently slams Sam Huntington's "clash of civilization" into the ground, breaks every rib with a different contrasting scholar, and most admiringly, with pointers to Pippa Norris, Ronald Inglehard, Stephen Walt, and Richard Rubenstein.

Finally, the author concludes with what must now be regarded as her death-bed wishes for the future of Pakistan, of Islam, and of modernization. She considers modernization to be exclusive of extremism, and I for one, reflecting on the specific figures from Medard Gabel, E. O. Wilson, and Lester Brown, am happy to assert that for one third of what we spend on war, we could create heaven on earth. Combine that with the trillion a year that corporations and dictators loot through corruption, and the $500 billion of more than foundations squander willy nilly for lack of a strategic spending plan, and you get into real money.

She prays for more community responsibility and charity, for education and women's rights. And transparency of military budgets, for better election monitoring, for a Reconciliation Corps (see the superb book by USN Captain Doug Johnston, Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik

Her final two wishes are for the Gulf States to jump-start the Muslim renaissance, and for a Palestinian state (to which I would add, and the restoration of Lebanon as the Tibet or Paris of the Middle East).

There are so many other books I would like to tie to this one. Here are the two I have left within Amazon limits:
The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)
Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace

Two years ago, after reading Prahalad's book, I realized my dstiny was to be intelligence officer to the five billion poor. Today an Indian Brigadier pointed out to me that three of the five are split between China and India. That will guide my next year or two.

See all my other reviews and lists for a free graduate survey of reality and what is to be done to move away from the war and scarcity frame of reference to a prosperous world at peace frame of reference (at one third the cost in blood, treasure, and spirit).

[Additional extraneous observations dropped into comment.]

It is a book for both West and Muslim World. It shows us probably the only possible way to salvation in this fanaticism that surrounds us.

in this book, bhutto examines the recent history of many countries with islamic majorities and many of the issues surrounding islam and conflicts in understanding with western democracies. she offers hope that the people of pakistan will experience true democracy, and that that democracy may expand beyond its borders. published just weeks after her assassination, it is quite timely and germane to issues that the United States faces in the next few years, especially in its fight against terrorism and its disproportionate financial aid for military and intelligence operations in comparison with areas in which democracy can be achieved, such as election oversight, education, women's rights ... this is by far not the greatest work that i've read. the occasional bias seeps through in her writings. nevertheless, this is a book that is very important and ought to be read by those with interests in spreading democracy, achieving women's rights globally, and, in particular, the development of democracy and capitalism in pakistan.

...offers her take on Islam, democracy, and Pakistan. It is amazing that a true intellectual could have been so successful as a politician. I learned a lot from this book. She offers an interesting take on Islam and the Quran, on the prospects for democracy in the Middle East, on the history of Pakistan, and on international relations. I say "an interesting take" because one gets the feeling that there are other sides to many of the positions she sets out--especially concerning interpretation of the Quran, and Pakistani history. One can't help but be impressed by how well-reasoned and well-supported her positions are. Her optimiism about the future of Islam and democracy seems deeply dependent on her rationalistic approach to these issues. She repeatedly claims that democracy is the best defense against extremism. But Bush's notion of allowing democracy is to create safe space for it to develop (thus, the build-up in Iraq), whereas she is quite clear that it takes considerable civic development, which will not grow overnight. The difficulty of getting others to take this same approach was painfully shown by her recent and tragic assassination. What a loss!

She claims Castro's revolution was in 1957 it was really in 1959. She talks of Libya being a constitutional monarchy from 1959-69. She's right about teh end date but Libya's King Idris (whom Gadhafi overthrew in '69) was head of Libya before 1959! She admits the Shah's rule had some justice and I praise her for admitting that the US reinserted the Shah in 1953 rather than inserting him (as many authors wrongly do to make the Shah seem even less legit). But she is afr too easy on Khomeini's rule as he was much more deadly than the Shah ever was!

Have only finished the first two chapters so far. Easy enough to read. There could be more chapter breaks. Exciting. Thoughts seem a little scattered, probably due to the passion it has obviously been written with. Lots of history helps to understand Muslim perspective. Religious. Can't say that I think Ms Bhutto has a firm understanding about Christianity or Judaism, but that's acceptable.

It has helped me to sort through my feelings about the Islamic religion that have developed through media exposure and little study or communication with followers of the faith. Always good to get information about a religion from a member of the faith. Also good to get information about the government from someone on the inside.

The book has done for me what it sets out to do, and that is RECONCILE me to see the religion of Islam as another religion of the world, and no longer one that seems to spawn bad things.

I think anyone trying to make a decision about who to vote for in the US Presidential election and the Pakistani elections should take what this book says into consideration.

Benazir's assassination is one of the biggest tragedies our world has seen in recent years. She was a brave woman, and yes, a polarizing and controversial woman in Pakistan, but also, in my opinion - a true believer in democracy and political freedom. As Prime Minister of Pakistan, she never really was able to bring her vision to reality, due to oposing forces that never let her complete both her terms, but her return to her native land in 2007 brought a promise of hope and prosperity to the Pakistani people. She was a brave and inspiring woman, and her untimely death is one of the most unfortunate events in recent times.

Through "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy & The West", her legacy lives on, providing a coherent and articulate picture of her world-view, specifically as it relates to religion, geo-politics and specifically, Pakistan's future. Benazir and her co-author, Mark Siegel, provide a though-provoking and interesting view of where the world is headed, and through her words, we learn the extent of her vision which is now lost to us. A great read for those interested in the region and world politics and conflict, and also for those, who want to get an insight into the mind of one of the world's bravest women.