Good Muslim, Bad Muslim Book Analysis

The book, having been written in the aftermath of the year 2001 September, Mahmood’s book of Good and Bad Muslim provides a chronological history of violence and terrorism. The act disentangles from the morality arising from the emergence of national interests alongside ethnic convergence, which instead locates to violence and terrorism “first and foremost as unfinished business of the Cold War” (P. 13). The two footings, the good and the bad were borrowed from the former United States President George W. Bush (p. 15). He used the words as a description of the utility of America’s foreign policy and not adherence to religion, as he stated that today’s ally could be tomorrow’s antagonist, and these change the labels to morally disparage American foes. In his book, Mahmood tries to argue that a deep consideration must look into terrorism and its beginning, which he believes is from the American foreign policy, which portrayed inequality in race. The book is a timely reminder of the critical need for equality.

The introduction of violence in the history of states or rather nations; Mahmood’s book commences by drawing the wider outlines of the relationship between violence and the nation-state’s modernity. In the book, he rejects violence as communal but rather an inextricable relation between modernity and the violence itself. (p. 5). The idea expressed in the whole book is that violence is not cultural, as people always say, but rather political in the real sense. The political-run fights that are funded by politicians within and outside a nation.

The first chapter of the book gives an account of political Islam building tentatively on the history of violence in relation to modernity. The chapter exposes how the travesties of Muslims, including Islam, are deployed to deliver ethical veneer for expansionist imperialism. The following three chapters of the book give an account of the violence of the American imperialist policies, starting right from the support they offered to the post-Vietnam anti-nationalist militia all through to the invasion of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iran. The book asserts the current terrorism, war and violence as a direct consequence of the imperialist policy used by the United States. The last chapter of the book gives an exhorting remark about the United States that “consistently seem to erode the support generate opposition” (p. 26).

Despite the books, the push for retreat from the moralized attack is unfortunately unheeded just from the academy, as it happens in the popular dissertation. Even though the way to go is through political and historical analysis of terrorism, state policy however, has been legitimized by academic inquiry much more than sustained the neutral inquiry. The September 2001 terrorist attack inflicted another level of terrorism attack. It exposed the level of terrorism of expertise in terrorism attacks according to Mahmood’s writing in the book. Terrorism is located from the theological outlines of Islam to the mass structural poverty experienced in most Muslim countries and the rapid increase in the youth population of these countries.

From the authoritative assessment of conflation in the supremacy policies and its critical examination, concretion with Mahmood’s book portrays the term terrorist is ascribed to the unwelcoming actors and under-defined intellects, including political hype-bound academic subjects built around the whole idea. Ahmed, the author, also underscored the logical negligence: “The contemporary environment is extremely inhospitable to reasoned discussion of terrorism, its forms, and the compulsions which produce them.” (Ahmed, p 2).

Terrorist violence in his writing is rendered as a phenomenon devoid of political pernicious virus and history as well. He says the eradication of this violence has only one way out and that is cultural renaissance and economic alleviation. However, this looks impossible because the only formula used is power relations and political relations with other nations.

Dr. Mamdani cites the beginning of political modernity in the ongoing violence, which is a clearly different opinion where people believe these two aspects are not related. He believes that the expulsion of both the Jews plus the Muslims away from Spain in 1492 and the concurrent subjugation of Grenada is what cemented the whole idea of racism and violence and the beginning of the so-called modernity. He says in his book that the modern state had two parties of victims, and those are “the internal victims of the state building and the external victims of imperial expansion” (p. 5). He says that the same concept applies to European imperialism, which he claims is also race-centered. He thus claims that all this colonization epistemological violence where other countries refer to others as uncivilized, hence coming to civilize them, is the source of all the violence we see now.

In summary, Mahmood’s book Good and Bad Muslims is written in the niche of political violence being associated with race and culture. However, in his writing, he believes the proclaimed violence arises from politics both locally and internationally. He believes that powerful countries like the United States, which always intervene with a notion of peacekeeping, always make the condition worse with their imperial policies. Actually, he believes that imperialism is the source of all the ongoing violence. He refers to the Spain eviction of 1492 as a clear indication that these powers were not actually fighting racial differences but were fighting with particular interest when they intervened in the violence of other nations.

Work Cited

Mamdani, Mahmood. Good Muslim, bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the roots of terror. Harmony, 2005.