Multiculturalism and Its Discontents: Rethinking Diversity after 9/11

by Kenan Malik

Our contemporary celebration of difference, respect for pluralism, and avowal of identity politics have come to be regarded as the hallmarks of a progressive, modern democracy. Yet despite embracing many of its values, we have at the same time become wary of multiculturalism in recent years.


In the wake of September 11, 2001 and the many terrorist attacks that have occurred since then, there has been much debate about the degree of diversity that Western nations can tolerate. In Multiculturalism and its Discontents , Kenan Malik looks closely at the role of multiculturalism within terrorism and societal discontent. He examines whether it is possible—or desirable—to try to build a cohesive society bound by common values and he delves into the increasing anxiety about the presence of the Other within our borders.

Multiculturalism and its Discontents not only explores the relationship between multiculturalism and terrorism, but it analyzes the history of the idea of multiculturalism alongside its political roots and social consequences.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Society, Religion

96 pages, Paperback

First published June 15, 2013

About the author

Indian-born British writer, lecturer and broadcaster, trained in neurobiology and the history of science. As an academic author, his focus is on the philosophy of biology, and contemporary theories of multiculturalism, pluralism and race. These topics are core concerns in The Meaning of Race (1996), Man, Beast and Zombie (2000) and Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate (2008).

Malik's work contains a forthright defence of the values of the 18th-century Enlightenment, which he sees as having been distorted and misunderstood in more recent political and scientific thought. He was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2010

Reviews

[Eitental · Rating 2 out of 5]

With a mere 105 very small pages (10.5cm by 18cm) and reading like a single, slightly rambling, essay, this is more of a pamphlet than a book. Kenan Malik tries to take a nuanced position, distancing himself from both multiculturalists and from mainstream (i.e. conservative, nationalist) opponents of multiculturalism. He does this by making a distinction between the “lived experience of diversity” and “multiculturalism as a political process” that aims to “manage and institutionalize diversity by putting people into ethnic and cultural boxes, defining individual needs and rights by virtue of the boxes into which people are put”. He claims to support the former along with “cultural diversity, mass immigration, open borders and open minds”, while strongly opposing the latter.

However, his arguments are fundamentally flawed. He portrays multiculturalism as a single, coherent ideology, whereas in reality it is a vague term applied to a broad attitude towards minorities that has been realized in a wide variety of different policies. What’s more, the ideology that he calls “multiculturalism” has little to do with actual multiculturalism policies. For example, he takes Tariq Modood’s assertion that “public attitudes and arrangements” should be adapted to accommodate minority cultures and in a shameless instance of reductio ad absurdum asks whether this means that schools should teach creationism to accommodate Christian fundamentalists or that homosexuals should be marginalized to accommodate homophobes. I am not familiar with Modood's work, but in the works of Will Kymlicka (whom Malik names as one of multiculturalism’s chief advocates) it is made perfectly clear that both the policies that he supports, and the actual multiculturalist policies of Western states, are rooted in and restricted by respect for individual human rights. That is to say, there are no examples of Western governments restricting human rights or going back on liberal democratic values in the name of multiculturalism, and no serious theorists have proposed this.

In a bizarre inversion of the cliché of self-righteous “liberals” describing everyone they don’t like as racist, Malik equates multiculturalism with racism, implying that multiculturalists want to force individuals to conform to the culture of their heritage. At this point it seems that Malik is attacking some kind of multicultural bogeyman that does not in fact exist. The idea that multiculturalism is rooted in a Herderian understanding of ethnicity has already been thoroughly dismissed by Kymlicka in 2007’s Multicultural Odysseys. Multiculturalist policies do not enshrine cultures as fixed and unchanging, as Malik suggests, but on the contrary multicultural societies see cultural exchange and hybridization as positive and natural. Malik’s criticisms could perhaps be applied to systems such those found in Israel and Malaysia, but these cannot rightly be described as multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, as Kymlicka has shown, seeks to increase personal freedoms for members of minority groups, not restrict them. Similarly, Malik attacks Germany’s exclusionist policies towards the Turkish minority and in particular the difficulty in attaining German citizenship, but he is wholly mistaken in identifying these policies as examples of multiculturalism, they are in fact the polar opposite.

Though I see no substance to Malik’s claim that multiculturalism is rooted in romantic nationalism or moral relativism, one valid point that he does raise is the possibility of multiculturalist structures inadvertently leading to conservative traditionalists (e.g. fundamentalist Muslims) gaining influence and marginalizing progressive or non-conformist members of a minority group. His thesis that the 2005 Birmingham race riots between blacks and Asians were a result of divisions exacerbated by Birmingham City Council’s “umbrella group” system is certainly very interesting and his criticisms of that system seem sound. However, he does not show this to be anything other than an isolated case of poor policy.

Central to Malik’s argument is the claim that minorities do not wish to assert their identities, but in fact only want political equality. He seems to come to this conclusion almost entirely on the basis of his own personal experience, assuming that just because he does not, no members of minorities want to maintain or assert distinct ethnocultural identities. He does make the very interesting claim that in the 1970s the French government promoted Islam among immigrant labourers to keep them away from trade unionism and socialism. I would certainly be very interested in reading more about this, but unfortunately Malik cites only one reference and then moves swiftly on, without giving any impression of how widespread or isolated this phenomenon may have been.

Another facet of Malik’s argument relates to free speech. However, instead of providing examples of how multiculturalist policies can restrict free speech, he goes on a rant about Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoon scandal. I know that Malik has a particular interest in the former case and has written a whole book on it, but it is unclear how it is relevant here, unless he is implying that multiculturalists tried to censor Rushdie and the Danish cartoon, claims that he does not make directly and that would not hold much water considering that materials critical of Islam are routinely published without hindrance throughout the Western world.

At the end of the book a quick critique is given of nationalist opposition to multiculturalism. Although this section is more in line with my own views, Malik’s reasoning is not much better here than in the rest of the work. In response to adherents to the “culture clash” theory, who view post-WW2 (Muslim and other non-European) immigration as fundamentally different to pre-WW2 (intra-European) migration due to supposed incompatibility of European and non-European (especially Islamic) cultures, he argues that there was considerable anti-migrant hysteria then too, with similar claims of cultural incompatibility. However, the fact that there was previously a widespread fear of migrants being culturally incompatible that proved to be unfounded does not preclude the possibility that today’s claims of incompatibility could be right. Furthermore, this defence ignores the significant contemporary movements that oppose migration from both within and without the EU, as typified by UKIP.

I cannot say whether this work is a deliberate straw man attack – consciously representing multiculturalism as something it is not in order to discredit it – or if Malik is genuinely confused. Either way, this polemic brings little of value to the debate. It lacks focus, cites sources sporadically and relies in part on “common sense” judgements and personal opinion rather than proper scholarship. Furthermore, although Malik attacks various policies and ideas, it never becomes clear what kind of system he actually supports. At times he seems to favour a libertarian approach of valuing individual freedom above all else, and at other times he seems to imply a need for vigorous promotion of national identities and civic values. I generously give this book two stars rather than one because it did raise a couple of interesting points and it is only short, so I didn’t waste an awful lot of time reading it.

[Rein · Rating 1 out of 5]

Malik makes several valid points: for example, he points out how the treatment of minorities as coherent groups tends to give voice to the most conservative representatives of them, and provides them with an interest to entrench those positions, because public policies vis-a-vis such minorities also influence the distribution of resources and authority. But all that is marred by the intellectual dishonesty of the author in portraying what he would like us to think multiculturalism is. I looked up some of his quotations that raised my eyebrows, but what I found, raised my eyebrows more. On p.17 he quotes Charles Taylor as saying: "Just like individuals, a Volk should be true to itself, that is, its own culture". At that point Taylor is summarizing Herder's views, and not uncritically. On p.21, Taylor is supposed to have said that the Canadian government should take steps to preserve the French language "through indefinite future generations". The original, however, says "Kymlicka’s reasoning is valid (perhaps) for existing people who find themselves trapped within a culture under pressure, and can flourish within it or not at all. But it doesn’t justify measures designed to ensure survival through indefinite future generations." Taylor, in fact, is thus saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what Malik claims. Kymlicka, in turn, is supposed to have said (p.19): "Justice between groups requires that members of different groups are accorded different rights." What Kymlicka actually says is this: "This argument over the primacy of the individual or the community is an old and venerable one in political philosophy. But it should be clear, I hope, how unhelpful it is for evaluating most group- differentiated rights in Western democracies. Most such rights are not about the primacy of communities over individuals. Rather, they are based upon the idea that justice between groups requires that the members of different groups be accorded different rights." Not quite the same, eh?
It should thus be said that with this book, Malik has done a fundamental disservice to the left-liberal critique of multiculturalism (which I consider plausible, although I do not share that point of view). By taking an idea of multiculturalism that has been concocted by its right-wing opponents and by forcing, dishonestly, proponents of multiculturalism into this straitjacket, Malik has reduced the legitimacy of his position, because we should not take seriously anyone who argues their point with such methods.

[Steffi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thanks for the recommendation. English original was published in 2013 ‘Multiculturalism and its Discontents: Rethinking Diversity after 9/11” and published by German publisher Novo in 2017, with an intro to the German edition by the author Kenan Malik.
In essence, this is a critique of multiculturalism from the left as well as critique of the arguments of the traditional right-wing opponents of multiculturalism. Importantly, multiculturalism does not refer to the multicultural state of society – consisting of members with varying multiple cultures and ethnicity – but a specific political strategy to organize multicultural societies along cultural lines.
The key argument is that both racist anti-multicultural as well as the current multiculturalism (as an expression of identity politics) are based on a conservative understanding of ‘culture’ and ‘culture’ as the primary arena of social struggle. While pursing opposing political ends – defending an authentic western culture from the influence of Islam/ other cultures on the right and defending authentic multiple co-existing cultures from western/colonial domination or discrimination from the left – both political projects are based on concepts of culture and ethnicity (and ‘Volk’) associated with the 19th century Romantic era’s conservative reaction to the universal ideas of the Enlightenment.

While traditional progressive struggles against colonialism and racism were ideologically rooted in wider social struggles against systems or structures of oppression (including capitalism, patriarchy etc) today’s multiculturalism project (as identity political more generally) is based on fragmented struggles around ‘romantic’ ideas of cultures and identity aiming to secure adequate recognition for fragile identities (and increasingly limiting freedom of speech to protect ‘cultures’ from offense, e.g. the prophet cartoon debate or the whole political correctness shebang).

Essentially, this the usual redistribution versus recognition critique of identity politics but looking at this through the lens of universal values associated with the Enlightenment thus arguing that rather than organizing multicultural societies as a community of communities we should continue to strive for universal values and rights such as justice, equity, freedom etc. This kind of society would and should necessarily include conflict and ‘insult’ between various values and lifestyles rather than aiming to live in a society where culture and values cannot be criticized and where every attempt to define universal values is understood as domination and discrimination (e.g., 'Islamophobia')

I guess this could be one part of the wider approach to critically analyze today’s fairly useless multicultural response to the rise of the far right and identity political more generally. I am just a bit wary of this Enlightenment and universal human rights discourse as it’s not a very far stretch from there to justifying military interventionism to defend the brown folks’ human rights. As always, I think a ‘materialist’ lens is much more powerful to understand that this kind of moral hashtag (#wirsindmehr) multiculturalism will only strengthen the far-right.

[Levibehemoth · Rating 4 out of 5]

In vielen Abschnitten sehr interessant und provokativ, es gab viele neue Erkenntnisse und ein neues Verständnis von Zusammenhang. Manchmal ist die Analyse nicht tiefgreifend genug.

[Saku · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malikin erittelee monikulttuurisuuden yhteiskunnalliseksi monikulttuurisuudeksi ja poliittiseksi monikulttuurisuudeksi. Yhteiskunnallinen monikulttuurisuus tarkoittaa yksinkertaisesti yhteiskuntia, joissa on useita eri uskontoja, kieliä, etnisyyksiä, ja muita elämäntapoja. Käytännössä kaikki länsimaiset ja suurin osa ei-länsimaisista yhteiskunnista voidaan laskea tähän kategoriaan.

Poliittinen monikulttuurisuus puolestaan viittaa pyrkimykseen hallita pluralistista yhteiskunta-rakennetta kategorisoimalla väestö erilaisiin kulttuuriryhmiin, joille annetaan foorumeita, resursseja, jne. oman identiteetin ja poliittisten tarpeiden toteuttamiseksi.

Malikin mukaan juuri poliittinen monikulttuurisuus tulisi nähdä negatiivisena asiana. Tämä johtuu poliittisen monikulttuurisuuden implikaatioista, jotka ilmenevät toisaalta yhteiskunnan pirstaloitumisena eri "kulttuuri-kupliin" ja toisaalta kulttuuriryhmien sisäisten toisinajattelijoiden ja vähemmistöjen marginalisoitumisena. Malik tarjoaa esimerkiksi ns. liberaali-muslimit, joita ei tunnusteta toisaalta oman ryhmänsä edustajiksi, mutta toisaalta he eivät myöskään kuulu muihinkaan väestöihin. Sen sijaan jokainen kulttuuriryhmä saa edustajakseen yleensä mahdollisimman konservatiivisia johtajia, jotka tulkitaan edustavan kulttuuriryhmän "puhdasta" muotoa.

Seurauksena tästä on vinouma yhteiskunnan institutionaalisen ja kulttuurisen tason välillä. Kun kulttuurisesti meillä on monenkirjava, kategorioita hylkivä ja jatkuvasti muuttuva perustaso, samaan aikaan institutionaalinen taso tarjoaa edustuksen vain osalle väestöä. Etuoikeutetut väestönosat puolestaan saavat poliittisia ja taloudellisia resursseja, joista eri kulttuuriblokit kamppailevat ja näin entisestään syventävät kuilua välillään.

Koska asetelma perustuu poliittisiin rakenteisiin, on siihen vaikuttaminen äärimmäisen vaikeaa. Kritiikki järjestelmää kohtaan tulkitaan yhteiskunnallisen monikulttuurisuuden vastustamiseksi, tai toisin sanoen ksenofobiseksi ja rasistiseksi möyhytykseksi. Lopputuloksena kritiikki muotoutuu mahdottomaksi, sillä monikulttuurisuuden puolustaminen tai vastustaminen edellyttää että se kohdistetaan sekä institutionaaliseen, poliittiseen monikulttuurisuuteen, että yhteiskunnalliseen, arkipäivän faktatason monikulttuurisuuteen. Malik huomauttaakin miten molemmat ääripäät pyrkivät ammentamaan valistuksen arvoista, toinen väittäen että niitä tulee suojella muita kulttuureja vastaan, toinen esittäen että meidän on rajattava sananvapautta taataksemme suvaitseva yhteiskunta. Ironisesti molemmat vaihtoehdot romuttavat valistuksen yhteiskunta-ideaalin täysin.

Malik peräänkuuluttaa luopumista poliittisesta monikulttuurisuudesta ja hyväksymistä, ettei kulttuurista kokonaisuutta voida hallita poliittisesti. Mitä tämä tarkoittaa jää kuitenkin suhteellisen hämäräksi. Tulisiko meidän luopua identiteettipolitiikasta kokonaan? Tai jopa aidata julkinen sfääri täysin irralliseksi yksityisestä sfääristä, kuten Hannah Arendt kannatti Little Rock-kiistan aikana. Luultavasti ei, sillä tällöin kaikenlainen puuttuminen yhteiskunnassa ilmenevään rasismiin ja muihin sortaviin rakenteisiin osoittautuisi mahdottomaksi. Malik vaikuttaakin vaativan rakenteiden poistamista, muttei huomioi että kyseiset rakenteet on pystytetty juurikin suojelemaan väestöä aiemmilta rakenteilta.

Malikin teksti tulisikin ottaa puhtaasti institutionaalisena kritiikkinä, joka vaatii uusien vaihtoehtojen hahmottamista tarjoamatta niitä itse. Väittäisin kirjan tarjoavan voimakkaita argumentteja sekä filosofian, historian, että sosiologian muodossa, yhdistettynä tapaus-esimerkkeihin. Kuten Tapani Kilpeläinen toteaa loppusaatteessa, Malikilla on muutamia historiallisia yksinkertaistuksia, jotka eivät kestä kriittistä tarkastelua. Nämä eivät kuitenkaan murenna kirjan pohjimmaista argumenttia.

[Zapatoo · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ein schmales Büchlein als, der deutsche Untertitel verrät es, Kritik am 'Multikulturalismus'. Gleich vorweg: leider bleibt unklar, was er denn präzise darunter versteht, als ideologische Konzeption lässt es sich nur schwer greifen. Ein Stück weit ist diese Zuspitzung durchaus der Übersetzung geschuldet. Der Originaltitel lautete schließlich noch 'Multiculturalism and its Discontents. Rethinking Diversity After 9/11" und verrät durch seinen 9/11- Bezug vielleicht etwas mehr von der Stoßrichtung des Buches. Zunächst aber fällt schon beim Titel die Anspielung auf Freud (dt. Das Unbehagen in der Kultur / engl. Civilization and its Discontents) unangenehm auf, mehr noch im Deutschen als im englischen Titel; vor allem weil er die Beziehung von Individuum und Gesellschaft durchaus noch verkehrt - sicherlich auch, indem Malik letztere seltsam segregiert und idealistisch betrachtet.
Das zeigt sich besonders daran, wenn er sich kritisch auf kollektive Identitäten bezieht, die er wesentlich auch für andere Personen negiert und gegenüber einer homogenisierenden Universalität, soziale Einbettung, Status in der Gesellschaft, Religionen oder traditionelle Praktiken sind dort quasi nur Folklore, als eigentlich aufzulösendes Konstrukt betrachtet, da deren Existenz bereits spalte. Deutlich wird das beispielsweise in der (ziemlich lückenhaften) Bezugnahme auf Stuart Hall, den er wie folgt zusammenfasst: "Das innere Selbst findet seine Heimat in der äußeren Welt durch die Teilnahme an einem Kollektiv [...] mit Kollektiven, die sich über Geschlecht, Sexualität, Religion, Rasse und insbesondere Kultur definieren" und dann folgendes entgegensetzt "Nichtsdestotrotz eint Kollektive wie Geschlecht, Sexualität, Religion, Rasse oder Kultur, dass sie durch Attribute definiert sind, die [...] gewissermaßen fixiert sind und die Gruppenmitglieder nötigen, sich auf eine bestimmte Weise zu verhalten" (45) Dass kollektive Identitäten und die daraus mehr oder weniger stabil sich generierenden Kollektive, ebenso heterogen sind und sich ebenso fraktionieren können, wie eine Gesamtgesellschaft blendet er aus. Dass sich Identitäten, mal abgesehen von seiner unvollständigen Auflistung - Klasse fehlt ziemlich merklich, nicht nur im Laufe des Lebens als veränderlich zeigen oder plural zu sein vermögen, vermag er sich vor dem Hintergrund seiner universalistischen Idealvorstellung nicht auszudenken. Auch über hegemoniale Strukturen, Rassismus wäre eine solche, und damit einhergehende Normvorstellungen, die sich aus den Machtverhältnissen des gesellschaftlichen Zentrums ergeben, verliert er keine Worte, scheint es für ihn also nicht zu geben.
Eine Geselslchaftsanalyse ersetzt er durch den Begriiff von Kultur, den er in sich homogenisierend verwendet, wenn er "jüdische oder fernöstliche" Gemeinschaften jeweils zu Kulturen macht und nur so seinem polit. Gegner vorwerfen kann, dass er den Ausbruch des Individuums daraus nicht für möglich halten würde und diese somit als starre Kollektive verstehen würden. Mir fehlt hier als Leser die Differenzierung derselben, die Frage wie und unter welchen Umständen sich welcher Identität zuordnet. Was das wiederum für ein solches Individuum heißen würde, wie (un-)vollständig eine solche Trennung wäre, bleibt offen. Sicherlich wird es ihm dabei leicht gemacht, wenn der postkoloniale Staat in bester Tradition - man denke an das Kazikentum - Honoratioren korporiert und diese als Vertreter der Pakistanis, Sikhs, Afrokariben usw. mit ein paar Krumen in seine Herrschaftsstrukturen integriert. Diese alte koloniale Herrschaftspraxis als Ausdruck von 'Multikulturalismus' zu deklarieren geht aber gewiss fehl, außer man reduziert diesen Begriff auf das alte divide et impera und lässt über Honoratioren differente Herrschaftspraktiken erst entstehen. Ein davon ausgehender Multikulturalismus wäre in der Tat völlig zu Recht zu kritisieren - dieser geht aber an den Analysen und Vorstellungen der "Vordenker" desselben vorbei.
Nur so lässt sich sein Fazit als 'progressiv' verkaufen, wenn er die Ausgangspositionen verkehrend behauptet, dass Kulturkrieger, also die selbsternannten Kreuzritter fürs Abendland, ebenso wie Multikulturalisten "betrachten Kulturen beziehungsweise Zivilisationen als homogene Einheiten. Beide insistieren auf der herausragenden Bedeutung kultureller Identität und auf den Erhalt dieser Identität" (110f)
Wie lässt sich aber ein Buch bewerten, das immerhin zur kritischen Auseinandersetzung einlädt? Vermutlich nur anhand seiner Kohärenz. Mich haben die Gedankengänge in meiner Auseinandersetzung nicht wesentlich weitergebracht, die Aussagen entsprechen dazu viel zu sehr dem neokonservativen Spektrum der AntiD-Szene mit dem fehlenden kritischen Blick für gesellschaftliche Strukturen.

[Nisveta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Malik examines the increasing anxiety about the presence of the Other within our borders. This books does a good job at focusing on the social consequences and political roots of multiculturalism.

[Jordan St. Stier · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting and compelling book about the modern multiculturalism and assimilationism movements and their flaws. Very well written as well, even with such a broad topic.

[Alex Birchall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent little book by Kenan Malik - the book tackles why multiculturalism as a political process has failed. We should celebrate the lived experience of diversity, but the need to place people into 'ethnic boxes' and emphasise differences between people, making those differences the centre of their identity, has rigidified social division. These divisions have arguably been one of the key catalysts lending fire to right-wing populism, which is so ascendant today. Those divisions, as well, are promoted and even celebrated by the cultural Left, which is increasingly coming to resemble in popular discourse the actual 'Left' or 'extreme-Left' because it is, too, so ascendant, as the Left has largely abandoned class politics. It is but largely politically unsuccessful.

Multicultural policies elevate a particular group of elites distinguished to represent their cultures. This is echoed in works by other sociologists which I have been reading recently. The creation of this new elite has angered many. In Britain, it is not homogeneous but split along regional lines and competing for resources - this is a consequence of those policies.

This short book should be read with Malik's others, and placed alongside other controversial but correct critics of 'culturalism' such as Jonathan Friedman, Mahmood Mamdani and Elizabeth Rata.

[Indran · Rating 1 out of 5]

A poorly reasoned, scantily researched, and tellingly brief "book" by a neuroscientist who wants to play sociologist. Just because his position is nuanced doesn't mean it's valid; once glance at the Wikipedia page for multiculturalism will show you that Malik has disingenuously invented a definition of multiculturalism that serves his purpose. The absolute howler is the notion that African slaves were not severed from their culture and traditions because, who's to say their behaviors once they got to the US (forcibly) are not a new, equally suitable culture? What we do at any given time, Malik claims, is our culture! Thus, anytime a culture changes for any reason, that's fate and should be accepted by true progressives, lest we not be prescriptive about the old culture being the "right" one. Give me a break. This is the second most obnoxious model minority after Bobby Jindal

[Melinda · Rating 3 out of 5]

tl;dr:
-ideology of multiculturalism developed as public policy influencing minority self-perceptions rather than vice versa
-"what is regarded as an offense to a community is really a debate within a community"
-the paradox of multiculturalism is that diversity ends at the edges of a minority community: assumption of minorities as homogeneous, or "plural monoculturalism"
-freedom of speech is particularly valuable in a diverse society, where ideas clash and people are offended; it's meaningless in a bubble
-pro-multiculturalists and anti-multiculturalists are often two sides of the same coin, assuming minorities to constitute monoliths, differing only in their judgment of them as either inherently good or inherently bad

[Mayowa Adebiyi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can be read in one sitting (and was) but will probably take a lifetime to digest. 'Multiculturalism' and 'those discontented with it' are the two classes which Malik takes aim at in less than 100 pages, taking apart what both sides mean by culture, either as a means of exclusion or the assumption that culture is not made but descends directly from the heavens.

[E.T. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Feel a bit cheated of my 300 rupees. This slim book is the same as the much longer and deeply satisfying "From Fatwa to Jihad" by d same author which I rated 5/5.

[Elias · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hyvin muotoiltuja ajatuksia, mutta kovin anglosaksikeskeinen. Jonkin verran myös suoranaisia asiavirheitä. Suomenkielinen painos kannattaa hankkia jos vain suinkin on siihen mahdollisuus.