Tamim Ansari's Afterword

After reading the afterword from Tamim Ansari's book Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:

1. What does Ansari see as the underlining reason for some Islamic radicals ' hatred of the West? Is is that they "hate democracy and freedom?" From what aspect of Islamic history do you think this view might arise?

2. What does Ansari mean when he reflects on his conversation with an Afghani villager about the upcoming elections and says, "It struck me that what Western planners call "democracy" was an extraneous apparatus this man shouldered because he had to, under which load he carried his real life as best he could" (352)?

3. Having studied Islam, why would you think that Ansari sees the Western attempt "to atomize society down to the level of individual economic units"(353) as a bad thing? [hint: think about the Umma]

4. Does Ansari think that if the West and Islam simply sit down and really understood each other that all the discord, arguments, and acrimony would melt away as mere "misunderstanding?"

5. According to Ansari, what doctrine of traditional Islam makes giving a liberal or softened view of jihad difficult?

6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?

REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks.