I must confess I approached this work with a bit of scepticism, expecting that a rosy picture would be given, and any problems swept under the rug. However, it turned out to be a well-argued thesis that the problems between the West and the Islamic world are relatable to a larger set of differences and antagonisms that have to do with geo-political tensions from way back in history e.g. between Rome and Byzantium (Constantinople), rather than with any specific quirks of the religion itself. Indeed, the author argues that even without Islam, there would probably still be these tensions between the West and the East (the Rest?), if nothing else between Western (Roman, Catholic) Christianity and Eastern (Greek, Orthodox, Russian) Christianity. Of special interest to me as a reader from India, are the chapters on Islam and Russia, Islam and China, and Islam and India (the last a region that rarely figures in international accounts). On the whole, this is a book that throws a fresh and self-revealing light on the phenomenon of Islamic and other fundamentalisms, and should be of great help in approaching the present-day 'fault-lines' in international relations. However, I could not help feeling that the author ended up sounding a bit disingenuous toward the end, by throwing the entire burden of accommodation on forces outside the Muslim world. Perhaps a better understanding can be aided by comparing with other world religions apart from Christianity, especially the way Buddhism has spread and held its place in different polities. "Just sayin'". ( )

Fantastic, full of depth & insight, even at points when i disagreed with him he made his point very clearly & respectfully. Very historically & politically informed. Not just some book of apologism for Islam because it's very clear how his perspective is informed from very real experiences & data, it's not a matter of bias. He acknowledges divergent opinions and engages with them clearly & factually. ( )

A must read for all, including me, who unknowingly link terrorism to Islam. The book explains the reasons behind growing unrest across the globe with the help of facts. Great job done by Fuller. ( )

Bacaan hebat yang membawa wacana Islamphobia (dan juga anti-Amerika) yang selalu tersasar perbicaraannya kembali ke landasan yang lebih waras. Dengan mencadangkan hipotesis kepada pembaca (tentunya lebih kepada pembaca barat) akan sebuah dunia tanpa Islam, Fuller membawa pembaca menelusuri sejarah, geopolitik dan agama hingga pada akhirnya memaksa pembaca berfikir, apakah dunia hari ini akan berbeza jika Islam tidak pernah wujud.

Buku ini pada dasarnya ialah satu refleksi pemikiran seorang pemikir Amerika, yang juga bekas timbalan pengerusi National Intelligence Council di CIA, terhadap dasar-dasar Amerika Syarikat terhadap dunia Islam terutama dunia Arab dan Timur Tengah yang membawa kepada kewujudan keganasan global dan peristiwa 9/11.

Dengan jelas Fuller membawa pembaca menelusuri sejarah perhubungan Timur-Barat sejak zaman sebelum Islam (Byzantine - Rom), zaman kebangkitan Islam, perang salib, reformasi agama di barat, penjajahan barat sehinggalah kewujudan Amerika Syarikat sebagai kuasa besar dunia hari ini. Sepanjang perjalanan itu Fuller menghujahkan bahawa setiap konflik yang berlaku di antara Islam-Barat bukanlah produk agama semata-mata. Bagi beliau yang lebih mendominasi setiap konflik Timur-Barat (dibaca Islam-Barat) itu adalah lebih kepada pertembungan pengaruh, kuasa, ekonomi, geopolitik dan sebagainya.

Beliau juga mencadangkan penyelesaian yang lebih rasional terhadap masalah keganasan yang menghantui dunia hari ini dengan menyarankan Amerika (dan barat) melihat perkara keganasan ini melangkaui tembok agama sebaliknya memahami realiti yang berlaku adalah produk daripada sebab-akibat sejarah, politik dan kuasa.

Buku yang sangat sesuai dibaca bagi meluaskan horizon pemikiran kita tentang sejarah hubungan timur-Barat dan memahami pemikiran alternatif dunia barat terhadap konflik yang melanda dunia Islam hari ini. ( )

Interesting concept. However, much of the influence of Turkish policies and influence in Islamic countries was ignored. The concept is simplified as trouble between East and West, and not over religion. I didn't buy his argument, but it was expressed well.