Book Review of Reza Aslan's , No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, an...

Book Review: Islam and the Future of Tolerance, A Dialogue By Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz

Islam and the Future of Tolerance, A Dialogue

By: Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz

Why I Got This Book: I love to dislike Sam Harris, I'm really not on the same page with him as an intellectual on social issues especially when he talks about religion, he's a pretty hardcore atheist and sometimes his views come off as pretty intolerant especially referring to Islam, but every once and  a while he's able to make some very interesting and valid points, especial how political correctness is really affecting social and political analysis. Another thing I respect about the Harris is the fact that he's always willing to sit down and have a constructive debate, expect with Ben Afflict, jajajajaja. And I must say it very important to read intelectuals and academic who you do not agree with because it does make you cuestions things that you sustain and helps you filter put some erroneous ideas one may have and on the other hand it helps muture others.

Now for Maajid Nawaz, I discovered him in a video post recommended to me by youtube, where he talks about the Voldemort effect, where he criticises liberals and the left in general who have no idea how to affront religious extremism. So when I found he going to collaborate on a book with Sam Harris I was fascinated to find what would come this.

Sam Harris

Central Thymes:
•    Both authors establish the need that Islam must reform to adjust to the modern world, and it must come from within the faith.
•    The book does to great lengths in trying to explain that Sam Harris's views even though very critical of the regressive left, he's by no means is to be mistaken to side with the right. Especially in the extra Q & A the book has Harris explicitly explains that he finds the hard right repulsive and he wants nothing to do with being politically identified with them.
•    Harris starts the conversation establishing that Islam is not a religion of peace and if extremist are given a chance they will impose sharia law, and the thing is that views are the most honest interpretation of their faith. But Maajid confronts Harris's position that Islam is not a religion of peace but just a religion, that is interpreted by its followers, with no voice of its own.
•    Maajid explains that personal grievances like suffering racism isn't enough to push some into Islamism or extremism. He throws into to the mix Identity crises, charismatic recruiter and Ideological dogma that satisfies the immediate need of that person.
 Maajid affirms that many Jihadist are not observant religious people they just need to find a release for their violence. Now the big question I ask to this affirmation is, does Islam as a belief system creates an easy avenue to this situation? Now Nawaz does explain that Jihadist like Islamist do get picky and choosy in the way they interact with their faith, to accommodate their needs, their political agenda. But faith is a big factor, here's where Harris adds his criticism of the regressive left that tries to ignore the faith aspect of this problem and many times acting as Muslim apologist for some hardcore Islamist. He also mentions how political correctness get in the way of any analysis or any honest debates, a true betrayal to liberalism and from my personal point of view they are tremendously reactionary driven more by passion than logic. Sam expresses that silencing these constructive narratives leaves the door open for the hard right like Neo-nazis to being the only voice to address this issues which just make everything worse.
•    Nawaz explains that in the west there is an odd anti-west political undercurrent that shames anything the west does just going overboard with the anti-colonialist discourse, having an orientalist fetish, uses reverse racism, tend to side with hardliners that tend to spark internal community conflicts in their search for what is culturally authentic. Minorities do not need to integrat and must auto segragate, in the name of perserving their culture.

Maajid Nawaz

•    Islamist are not the same as Jihadist, and many times they opose each other, having Jihadist revile islamist inclination towards using western institutions like democratic election.
 Islamist and conservatives are also not the same.  Conservative Muslims push back if an Islamist government tries to push a particular interpretation of Islam, this is the same with Jihadist. Maajid explains that initially conservative Muslims are the secret weapon against Islamist and Jihadist because it is possible that they could side with a secular government. But conservatives do take negative position referred questions of human rights, especial towards toward women and LGBTQ people.
 Even though many lean on the moderate Muslim for the change in the Muslim world, they are a silent majority that are not politically active in the fight against Islamist and Jihadist, especially in the west, they are citizens  that just happen to be Muslim, their religion is secondary to their identity. Therefore they do not engage politically as Muslims.
What I liked :
•    Book has an interview format, with Harris asking most of the questions and Maajid answering in the audiobook it voiced by its authors.
•    I found Maajid's personal story and his account  of his time as a Islamist very interesting. He explains the roots of his extremism in part is due to institutional racism that he suffered growing up in the UK, and his personal grievances were capitalized by local Islamist, which he joined Hizb Ut-Tahrir. This particular group which didn't engage in terrorist activities but did push Islamist revolutionary activities around the world, focusing on military officials to join their ranks. After being imprisoned in Egypte he was reform with the help of Amnesty International that helped to free him.
•    It fascinating how the book explains a worrying reality when dealing with Islamist on how they capitalize on failures, be it interventions gone wrong or not interving to help Muslims, it's almost a lose-lose situation.
•    Maajid really digs in deep into the issue that some words and concepts like seculer or seculerism do not translate well into arabe and it is a chaleng inits self training to correctly explain these subjects to be able to start a proper political debate in many Muslim countries.
•    Harris does press Maajid every once  in a while with the poor human rights statistics in many muslim countries.
•    Maajid establishes that England is a particularly complicated case refered to be a hotbed for extreamest.
•    It is facinating to hear Sam's curiasity about how sinsecer reilgous fanatics are, in a series of question for Maajid and if there can be posers who play the religous card for political gain.

What I didn't like or Debatable Stuff:
•    It feels like a wasted opportunity that they do not debate much in this book, you get the impression that both authors go to great lengths to clean up Sam Harris's image.
•    Harris feels watered down in this book, he's not his this atheist self.
•    Even though I also think Islam needs to be reformed, also think it's tremendously arrogant and over-simplistic, the way it is presented in this book.
•    Sam Harris seems to not understand that moderate Muslims do not necessarily interpret that Quran literally, he does understand that moderate religious people tend to relatives their religious beliefs and tend to cherry pick what to abaid from their faith, this tends to be the fact for most people across many faiths.
•    Harris establishes that the Quaran need to be edited, while Maajid goes down the path of the need for reinterpretation.

Book Review: God, A Human History By: Reza Aslan.

God, A Human History

By: Reza Aslan.

Why I Got This Book:

I've pretty much interested in this authors body of work for a while now and this is his latest book.
Central Thymes:
•    Aslan explains that it has been a basic constant in the evolution of humanity the concept/idea of God/s from the very early man up until today. Another constant is the humanization of the Devine. Humanities first religions viewed the first deities as superhuman entities endowed with human traits and characteristics, and up until now people describe God with human attributes
•    Reza defines religion as a language that tries to express and explain a fundamentally unexplainable experience of trying to commune with God/s. Religion creates a large number of symbols, metaphors and rituals that allow the believer to communicate with the divine.
•    The institution of myths and rituals leads to the need of servants and attendees to the need of the God/s, spawn the birth of formal organized religion.
•    The belief in the Soul is a Universal Human trait that can be traced to the first humans, and possibly to other humanoid species like the Neanderthals.
•    One of the first signes of very early religous expresion was the fact that humans started to bury their dead, and they had seemed to follow certain rituals and many times the grave had a marking so it could be revisited.
•    The concept of a soul was already understood by the early man much before any ideas relative towards the divine,  but it has been lost in time how and exactly when man discovered the concept of the soul.  Now when people passed on their soul went to another realm which could be accessed by the living through dreams, altered states and progressively through rituals.
•    Aslan explains for early humans there was an invisible force a universal soul called Mana, it was impersonal, inmaterial and supernatural, a force that takes abode in all animate and inanimate things. The Mana evolved into the idea of a personal soul that once the persona is dead it becomes a spirit. As time progress the souls of the dead were believed to inhabit things, trees, mountains, the moon... for these people they all were pulsing with life, they were animated there for humanized. For the first humans, their soul were no different from those of animals and objects, this is the cornerstone of a ancients forms of animism. As time progressed more some of these spirits became individualized gods each serving a particular function in a final phase these individual deities fused together into one omnipotent and universal God. This is a very very brief summary of Aslan's evolution of God. 
•    Lord of the Beast or god of the Hunt is one of the first types of deities of great importance in the evolution of God/s, common to many cultures. It a diety that is the ruler and guardian of the forest. Believers must have its favor to have a good hunt, but there was solidarity between hunter and prey, overseen by this deity.
•    Morality played no role in early religions, deities were considered beyond morality and at worst amoral.
•    Religion is not an evolutionary adaptation, it's a byproduct of two other preexisting evolutionary adaptations. The first of these being Hypersensitivity Agency Detection Device (HADD), which is an adaptation to help human survival, but makes humans attribute agency human cause behind unxplained events. Basically, we as species have a cognitive bias towards agency. The second is called Theory of Mind humans perceive none humans that pose some type of similarity with us we project human traits and characteristics, we anthropomorphize things, animals and events.  HADD+ Theory of the Mind+ Concept of the Soul+ Right Circumstances / Context  = God and Religion. If I have a soul other people and things must too, there must be a connection.
•    Myths are not elaborated story that are basically lies, they are meant to convey a particular perception of the world trying to explain why things are the way they are. Folk Memory is basically a universal myth that crosses most or all cultures, like the great flood or the Garden of Eden.
•    The transition from nomad life to agriculture lead man to change their focus on the gods from humanized god sky fathers to earth female deities like Gaia that centered the worship around the fertility of the land tied to the fecundate  woman.
•    The evolution of early deities was cult to ancestor to deified nature to humanized gods. Now as timed progress the humanized gods became too human, like in the case of the Greeks which lead to some to seek non-anthropomorphic God.
•    Akenaton and Zarathustra were the first cases in history to establish Monotheism, but in both cases, they both failed to take hold, people had a hard time in accepting a single deity. Now in the case of Zarathustra's teachings changed and evolved over time to become Zoroastrianism.
•    Aslan explains that Monotheism has only existed for around 3000 years, and defines it as the sole worship of on God and negation of all other deities, they are false. He also explains the concept of monolatry is the worship of one god over other, that would be the case of early Judaism, we'll get into this in a bit.
•    Evolution Lord of the Beast to Mother Earth to Pantheon of Material Deities to Higharqui of Deities.
•    The transition politeism to monolatry to monotheism is part of phenomena called political morphism which is the divinisation of earthly politics, basically, in the societies where this happened, there was a concentration of political power y their faith reflected this situation.
•    The destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem at the hands of King Nobuconezer in 586 BCE generate a real crises of faith and identity for the Israelites, which ended up with them redifing their tribal God Yahweh. Aslan explains that tribal societies their  Gods actually fought with them when in conflict with other tribes, so if they lost in their God had failed them. In the case of the Israelites, they rationalized this situation was a punishment from Yahweh and it was all part of his divine plan. For Aslan this identity crisis is the true birth of monotheistic Judaism, because previously the Jewish people practiced monolatry. Now their God was singular, personal and eternal.
•    Reza explains that the old testament there are actually two distinct  Gods El / Elohim and Yahweh and that the early Israelites practiced monolatry, with El being the older deity.  In the Old Testament El is referred as God and Yahweh is mentioned as the LORD, and El used to be represented with a Bull, an Oxin or a Caff.
•    For Reza, the monotheism of early Christianity was used to validate the position of the Pope, as the absolute head of the Church.
•    Reza explains how the society that Mohammed was born into a polytheist society, and that Allah was a sky god much like Zeus for the Arabes and with time became a high god. The Polytheism in Arab society was highly evolved absorbing the gods and prophets of other faiths, including from Judaism and Christianity, feed off many of these religious traditions especially Judaism summarized them, fixed what he considered wrong ( like idol worship)  and established that Allah was Yahweh, and there for the one and only God, going up against the Meccan establishment.   
•    Now Mohammed tried to rid Islam of a humanized God by prohibiting its representation but the Coran is plagued with anthropomorphic characterizations of Allah and it qualities and attributes.
•    Islamic scholars shay away from addressing theological issues focusing on legal issues. Aslan explains how Sufism tries to overcome the limitations of  early Islam and set out to try to answer: What is God?
•    Aslan end the book with Pantheism, which is something ver similar to the Force.

What I liked :
•    Why does Man need to humanize the Devine? Why do fashion God/s in our own image? Is the compilation to humanize the divine hardwired in our brains? Do the belief in God and Religion give Humans any evolutionary advantage?  Good opening questions for this books  Introduction.
•   In this book like in others that Aslan has written on religious issues, Reza always gets into personal aspects on how the subject has affected him as a person or was part of his past in his personal  spiritual journey. In this case we get his own complete evolution of how his religious views and how he defines God, how they  have changed and matured from his perspective ( he doesn't use this word  but it is implicit in the book) from being Muslim to a Christian back to being a Muslim, to a Sufi Muslim and finally becoming a Pantheist.
•    Even though the book is pretty long it is very focused and organized with the information, it follows a natural progression of ideas using historical evolutions of the idea of God/s.
•    Aslan explains that this book does not try to prove if God/s actually exist, it just focuses on how man define the divine and its evolution.
•    I liked how Aslan uses the concept of Adam and Eve to explain the early evolution of religion, and how he uses their expulsion from Eden to explain the transition to a sedentary life for humans which meant a big shift in man's faith and beliefs. 
•    Aslan seems to struggle with the biological origins of faith in God, because it does undermine belief in God in general.
•    Myths about talking tree seem to have been a big deal.
•    I found fascinating Reza account how man actually suffered becoming sedentary and forming the first small cities, it was almost an act of faith for man to establish them selves they actually lost a lot from there nomad life, for example, their diet was severely reduced and agricultural work was backbreaking. This also ties into what I read on the history of book by Fernando Baez, which explained man wrote the first epic myths because the longed to see the world as nostalgia towards a nomadic life.
•    It is interesting how Aslan links the transition of human society from being nomads to establishing themselves in sedentary community dedicating themselves to agriculture, with the stratification of society and the formalization of religion.
•    Aslan affirms that hunting made man master over space farming made man a master over time.
•    Political Morphism mentioned earlier is one of the most interesting concepts in the book.
•    I discovered what the Demigorge was.
•    Aslan does a good job explaining how the tinitary conception of God and the true nature of Jesus of the early Christian Church provokes a colossal rift in it first community of believers.
•    Aslan explains how Mohammed  was very much a product of his times, and humanizes his origins trying to cutting through myths and traditions. 
•    When Aslan talks about Islam and how to interpret the Coran his Shia upbringing does shine through.

What I didn't like or Debatable Stuff:
•    What Aslan presents about Gobecly Tepe and how old it possibly is, does open many debates, around when and why did man created writing and on the impact of this temple structure on pushing the builders to become sedentary. Basically one of the first forms of organized religion made man sedentary not Agriculture, it was a byproduct of this situation or had a convergent evolution.
•    Aslan sort of skims over and oversimplifies the worship of ancestors that is characteristic of early human societies, and is still present in some faith. I guess it possible that this would muddy up his linear cut and dry analysis.
•    I was let down because Aslan centers his analysis on western faiths mostly, with little mention of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism..., it feels like it would have complicated his linear narrative.
•    When talking about the trinitary conception of God of the early Christian, Aslan does omit talking about the Holy Spirit. The chapter about Christianity in general is one of the weaker chapters of the book.

Book Review and breakdown Slavoj Zizek's Trouble in Paradise. From the End of History to the End of Capitalism (2014) Work in progress

Trouble in Paradise. From the End of History to the End of Capitalism  (2014)

Here a link to a brief video that I made on the subject: link to my incredible video review of the Slavoj's book

By Slavoj Zizek

Why I Bought This Book: I actually caught a couple of dissertation of Zizek online, it was recommended to me by my Youtube feed. And immediately I was fascinated with him because even though I do not share most of his views on politics and international relations, he has a refreshing point of view from the left, being very critical of his own political background. So I went out to get one his books and to my surprise, I found about ten published books in Spanish at my local book store, I had no idea that he was such an established author.

What I liked and  Central Thymes:

·         Slavoj establishes that conservatives are not really conservatives, they have latched on to an ever changing capitalism system, becoming reckless. Even if it destroys many traditional social institutions, putting social cohesion under immense pressure. This is very true from my point of view, and it's increasingly evident that many time put ideology over the well being and the way of life, backing policies that are detrimental to them.

·         The real Conservative is the person that admits that there is antagonism in the capitalist system and it has gotten to certain dead ends. It is the person that calls out against out simple minded capitalist progress, so the radical left finds its self-playing the role of being the new conservatives. He's actually onto something here but later abandons this idea later in the book.

·         Rightwing conservatives always defend the freedom of choice but taking away the options.

Slavoj Zizek

·         Neoliberalism has taken market competition into every aspect of life, like in education and health.  

·         Zizek establishes a fascinating concept that in modern capitalism individual people are not seen as parts of the work force, but as entrepreneurs that make use and take advantage of his or hers economic capital. And while their lives progress they most take investments decisions relative to their economic well-being. They make a good and bad investment, like changing jobs, adding or losing their personal capital. After reading this I couldn't help to think about credit cards, and how debt is a possible way of political and financial control. But the book actually goes in this direction after that explain that there is a tradeoff of losing social protection for the debt. So from my point of view but I think Slavoj would be on the same page, be my personal conclusion with this is basically debt ties down social mobility something conservative just love. Slavoj uses the example you do not have the right to a home but must access long term credits.

·         People are free to make financial decisions so they are responsible they are their own capitalist responsible for their own future, but conservative just love to forget about how debt and externalities can ruin people's lives.

·          State must roll back its control to give the system freedom.

·         Slovoj has an obvious soft spot for pop culture and that brings some color to the book.

·         Slavoj expresses that the people that we call Islamic fundamentalist, are Pseudo-fundamentalist who are deeply troubled, fascinated and fixated on the lives of the nonbelievers, they obsess about the sinner and infidels. In their battle against sin, they are actual exteriorizing their lack of faith and conviction fuels the violence. They also secretly consider themselves as inferior, so politically correct discourse from the west towards these people just drives these people off the wall. The cultural difference isn't the issue with these fundamentalists, because are pushed to act  out of how much they have become similar to us.

What I didn't like:

·         It is interesting and frustrating at the same time that this book lacks any kind of focus, while in his dissertations he's much more centered and straight to the point, normally it's the other way around.

·         The lack of focus is so bad at moments where you as the reader actually get lost in what the hell he was talking about. The author is all over the place and just bombards you with information, it hard to keep up with what he's trying to explain.

·         At the book references Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History"  as one of the main concepts that it wants to debunk, but never revisits the idea after the introduction.

·         Zizek accuses Christianity of preparing the groundwork for this situation, one owes God infinite debt for one's life. But for me at least being Catholic I that it religious doctrine does not go hand and hand with hardcore capitalist doctrine, or just ask Francis what he thinks about neoliberalism.

·         Institution like Wikileaks is a true sign of the progressive democratization of information, the author completely ignores the political aspect of this phenomena. Now he's right in how that information will become more ubiquitous as time progresses, from my point of view it will not be a Hacker thing 20 years down the line.

Reading this book you get the feeling that I'm missing out on things because I'm not familiar with the rest of his body of work, you have to know what makes this guy tick to really appreciate what he's trying to convey in this book, I got to read his older stuff. So I can't grade this book.

Book Review and Analysis History of Jihad, Fourteen Centuries of Blood in the Name Ala. By Jose Javier Esparza (Work in Progress)

Book Title: History of Jihad, Fourteen Centuries of Blood in the Name Ala.

Author: By Jose Javier Esparza  (Journalist)

My Personal Expectation with de Book ( Basically why I Picked it up): Even though I have other books on the subject I picked this one up to see if it had a deferent perspective on the subject.

Update: It's been 6 months since I bought the book and it literally torture to read it, it's not well written, poorly balanced and clearly the author has an issues with Islam, his approach isn't very academic at all, but I should have seen this coming in the sub title, stupid me. The final review and Analysis will come out in a about a month I hope.

Book Review and Analysis: Making War in the Name of God by Christopher Catherwood (Work in Progress)

Book Title: Making War in the Name of God

Author: Christopher Catherwood (History Professor in the University of Cambridge and the University of Richmond. Member of the  Royal Historical Society).

My Personal Expectation with de Book ( Basically why I Picked it up): The topic presented in the title of this publication, is something that always has interested me, religious conflicts, and the subject  has dominated my studies since I have gotten my hands of Samuel Huntingtun's Clash of Civilizations more than 15 years ago . Now the title establishes Wars in the name of God so I'm gearing up for a book that will present me, the reader, with a wide range of conflicts between many religions,  or at least the ones that symbols are on the cover Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The title and cover doesn't give us a time frame so I guess the book goes back to the dawn of organized religion. So sit tight my review and analysis of the book will probably come around in two weeks maybe. less.   

So a finished my review and Analysis of this interesting history book, that basically is about the conflict between Christianity and Islam so here is my breakdown, of the stuff I liked.

Central Thymes and Concepts, that interested me as the reader:

• The author explains that there is two classes of Jihad, the first being minor or military and major or religious, which is the internal struggle for sanctity, and the author affirms that most Muslims that live in the west view the second as the right path. But in the west most none Muslims do not know this distinction and only think of Jihad as those violent acts that one sees on the TV or reads in scores of book on the subject. Now Christopher doesn't it leave it there he recommends reading David Cooks, Understanding the Jihad, and that author establishes that even though most Muslims today view Jihad as an internal struggle, historically the military concept of Jihad has prevailed. that this division is more of a modern novelty, and that the internal struggle is more of a perpetration for the military struggle.
•  Catherwood  affirms that people in the West and in the Islamic world must stop repeating  that the West as a civilization is responsible for perpetual aggression against the Islamic World, that they are victims of Imperial Christianity, these is a bold affirmations that the author  defends pretty effectively, establishing that since the death of the Prophet Mohammed, from  632 till 1683, Islam had been on a expansionist aggressive with the leader of the State was also the leader of the faith, with Christianity on the defensive. Christianity in its early phases was a persecuted and was clandestine faith, while Islam from the beginning has been militaristic and political, where the leader of the faith was the head of State. but this example of  Catherwood is not to show how evil Islam is, but to give people  some historical perspective and the author directly establish that Islamic world acted as an imperial power in expansion, just like the West has been acting since colonialism as individual Nation States not in the name of a faith.
  
• The author presents a unique perspective referring to how the crusades started citing Bernard Lewis that explains that the true conflict that had arose in Palestine  sparking the crusades wasn't a conflict between Christian and Muslims ( in the first phase), but really  between Sunni and Shia Muslims to end the dominion of the Fatimid's, there was a Sunni need of ending this heresy in the heart of the Muslim world, and the famous Saladin was the man to do it.
  
  
  
  
  • The book on page 115 establish one of the sad aspects of religious conflict that  I hadn't noticed explicitly, when these conflicts explode people kill people that they know, civilians kill civilians, even women and children, this is a shocking but true conclusion.  For some reason in religious  conflicts convert the other in something infrahuman that does not have the right to live and sadly there are many examples that makes validate this point.
    There is a need humiliate the other, denigrate him/her, dehumanize then p116, doing this make the act of killing easier for people that normally would not attack and kill someone like a soldier, the enemy is a virus a plague that can destroy your life and everything around you and also your god your reason of existence. People like Osama bin Laden take a normal human conflict and take it out of Its context to a cosmic level to get divine sanction, there is no sin or wrong doing God thinks It's ok. Once the Other is dehumanized and terrible act against the Other is valid because It's the Will of god, they are not personal enemies they are gods enemies.
    
    
    
    
    • Chris presents the reader  how Orthodox Christian's  religious animosity towards Muslims evolved, and to a certain extent it a byproduct of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that was  left on standby during the time the existence of the  State of Yugoslavia. Author establishes that the Balkan War was a religious War First and foremost. In the Ottoman empire each religious group was classified in the Millet System, so Orthodox Christian were in the Orthodox Millet. The Ottoman Empire really cracked down  on the Balkan region and there were mass conversations in Bosnia and in Albania. Serbs considered the Slavs that converted traitors of their blood line. And one must add that Serbs had their own Orthodox Church that governed itself, symbol of the lost Serbian Empire. For Serbs to be Serb is to be Orthodox and vice versa, and all this tied to the land. Author establishes it wrong to use the term ethnic cleansing during the Balkan Wars, because the groups involved are all of the same ethnicity: Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, it was a religious-cleansing.
      
      
    
    
   

 
 


The Good stuff about the Book:

• Book concentrate on the conflict between Islam and Christianity, but it  also dives into internal conflict in each faith.
  
  

  • Author actually does something pretty interesting  establishing that it's possible that he'll not be objective, establishing that he's a religious person, a Anglican to be exact and that  his maternal family come from Wales. while his paternal family comes from North Ireland, and he explains that this has a great impact on his religious views. This is valuable the an author that  actually addresses this issue because many authors act like their  totally impartial or do their best, but almost always their religious or political views  seep in, so knowing this right of the bat you know how to filter the information, but the funny thing is that  in this case this author is one of the most objective ones that I've ever come across in a long time.
    • Chris points out there is a problem with authors that work on Islam and conflicts related to this faith; I must add with any faith , or they establish that  it's a totally aggressive religion prone to violence (like another book I'm reading ...) or a totally not responsible for any violent acts, and just some individuals are the ones causing  some trouble but don't represent the faith, so the author establishes both of these points of view are wrong, and I'm on the same page that one has to find some middle ground. From my point of view one cannot say Islam is a religion of Peace or Christianity is a Peace, this is wrong they are just religions and nothing else, now in this case they both have holy books that promote peace but also violent acts, what I've learned over the years people take what they want from their faith a tend to discard the rest, in other words religious people are picky, so the people make faiths violent or peaceful.
    • The chapter about the war in the Balkan and why it happened, has one of the best explanations that I've have ever come across about this conflict, the author really nails it in this part of the book.
      

      • Book set me on the search of a author that Chris cites called Vmik Volkan that seem pretty interesting.
    • The book is well written in the aspect that the author goes straight to the point, he doesn't go overboard with information and it a easy read I finished it pretty fast because it's enjoyable, because the author writes from his perspective it isn't a copy and paste of another history  book, authors do that sometimes when you get with these types of books.

       
      
      

The Bad:

• Book on the cover references the conflicts with Judaism but only refers to them marginally, but a Jewish star is on the cover one would think there would be more about their conflict with other faiths, it mentioned how the suffered at the hands of the crusaders, but there is no mention of the Arab Israeli conflict.  
• The Author sustains that the  Balkan Wars where the principle motors in the birth of modern Fundamentalist, pretty much forgetting Chechnya and Afghanistan.
  • Book only concentrates on the conflicts between Christianity and Islam, and at moments in goes in to the internal struggles of each faith, but vary rarely mentions other faiths, so the title of the book is just to brood and a little misleading because you get the idea that possibly the book covers  all religious conflicts.
   
   
  
  

Overall: I'm going to give this book a 7 out of 10, becuase you can tell the author takes the book to his confort spot the Balkan Wars omiting tons of stuff, maybe changing the title you acutally fix this.