The book contends that, while a discussion of war features overtly in Islamic theology from it's earliest days, there are a multitude of different interpretations to specific references of such warfare in the Islamic holy books, that are sincerely held and practiced by many individual Muslims.

A contention being made, that what are described as "Islamic terrorists", are actually relatively few in number. Notwithstanding, the book also elaborates that such are not necessarily a marginalised fringe in Islamic society. The study stressing that the "guiding principles" of this minority are not a modern aberration of Islam - a religion that the books cites as purportedly having historical and theological origins which were allegedly "undeniably peaceful".

To the uninitiated this may sound like either a contradiction in terms, or at the very least creating a confusion that the book has stated it's intention to resolve.

As the book progresses it eventually becomes clear that what is being referred to is, that the Islamic prophet Muhammad allegedly focussed on prayer and meditation in his early years at Mecca (610-622AD). At that time, his approach to both Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims is cited as being "peaceful, cooperative and non-violent".

The book then illustrates how this professed attitude changed after opposition to Islam was experienced, with the prophet fleeing to Medina in 622AD.

Here the "peaceful" element of Islam is illustrated as being transformed into one which now permits Muslims to fight against those who would oppose the proponents of Islam.

Muhammad is then described as becoming a spiritual, political and military leader - who having increasingly gained power - became much more aggressive in his pronouncements against all opponents and non-Muslims. These "changes" resulting in numerous massacres and the enslaving of of opponents to Islam.

Having now acknowledged that Islam does indeed include a traditional militaristic theological component directed against non-Muslims - grounded in Muhammad’s example and backed by the Koran - an attempt is made to engage with the historical context of some of the cited verses pertaining to such warfare. Reference being made to the principle of abrogation, arguing that some Islamic scholars hold peaceful verses to be superceded by those that advocate violence. The study illustrates that the source texts of Islam now begin to contain passages that can easily be interpreted to permit/command violence of this kind.

The reader is left to wonder at how the nature of a perceived divine message can suddenly change in accordance with the prevailing conditions of the time. Sadly this element is not addressed in this book.

A subject briefly examined is how Islam teaches that Christians and Jews, the "people of the book", are not to be converted to Islam under threat of death, but may instead be allowed to live in an Islamic state/territory, albeit with an inferior status to the Muslim citizens. This is discussed along within it's historical context and how it applies to Christians and Jews today. I personally do not feel that the latter subject receives the necessary attention.

Another factor which I feel needed to receive more in depth discussion is how the Islamic mindset permeates the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The fleeting and brief references to such a pivotal issue are somewhat lacking in my humble opinion, although the content does cede that calls for Jihad against the Jews in what was Palestine existed long before the creation of any Jewish state.

In referring to "peace treaties" under Islam the study reveals that within the traditional Islamic doctrine of war, "peace treaties" are only supposed to be temporary and that there is no single Islamic authority accepted by all Muslims with whom negotiations can be held.

Many sections of the Islamic community are cited as believing that Muslims may freely break any agreement made with non-Muslims. Again the reader is left to ponder the implications of this in relation to ongoing conflicts across the globe.

Effectively the book contends that if Islam is going to be a religion of peace, and to coexist alongside Christianity, then it must relinquish its theology of violence based on the revelations in the Koran, while changing its Shari'a Law and allowing for equality of Christians. The text elaborating that Muslims must rethink literal interpretations of the Koran, particularly the elevation of the 7th century edicts of Muhammad at Medina, over what are described as the prophet's earlier and more "peaceable revelations" at Mecca. The reader must arrive at their own assessment of whether this can occur.

In the section devoted to "responses to Islamic terrorism", the book describes that "Islamic terrorists" do not function in isolation but are networked together and even linked to the Muslim community at large, from which they draw funds and new recruits. Here I feel that the reader is eventually presented with the depth and extent of the issues being considered in the present day.

While totally respecting the writer's opinions on a very difficult subject, I find myself disagreeing with him on some issues. Indeed, while I feel that the text strives to place an "acceptable" and "understandable" face upon many aspects of Islam, I also felt that it was frustratingly lacking in many areas.

For a fuller understanding of this subject, and a perhaps "deeper" understanding of it's reality on the ground, I would respectfully suggest reading the following three books. Thank you for your time.
"Why I Left Jihad; The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam" by Walid Shoebat.
"Jihad in the West; Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries" by Paul Fregosi.
"The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims" by Andrew G. Bostom.

Patrick Sookhdeo is a leading authority on the topic at hand. This well-researched and comprehensive volume gives us a rich understanding of the theological, historical and ideological features of the debate.

Sookhdeo is quite aware of the wide diversity of understanding and interpretation of the Islamic doctrine of war. Indeed, questions abound: How do we understand jihad? Is Islam a religion of peace? Is terrorism a logical inference from Islamic teaching? Is there one standard understanding in Islam that can be appealed to? How much weight do we give to the various interpretations? The questions are many and profound.

Yet Sookhdeo has been able to wade through the plethora of questions and provide some cogent and convincing answers. A beginning point to the many debates lies in the source of authority in Islam. Of course the Koran takes pride of place, but almost as important are the hadith (the traditions recording what Mohammed and his early followers said and did) and Shari'ah (Islamic law covering every aspect of life).

The author argues that from these three sources one can detect a clear teaching on the use of force and violence within traditional Islam. What do these three sources tell us about war and peace in Islam? There is no question that the Koran contains many clear suras (chapters) describing the obligation to use force, to wage war against the infidel, and so on.

Of course the Koran also contains many passages on peace and forgiveness. However, most of these peace suras come from the earliest-dated verses. But the Islamic doctrine of naskh (abrogation) declares that whenever there is a conflict between suras, the later ones take priority over the earlier ones.

The concept of jihad (literally, striving) can also take on a host of meanings. But Sookhdeo shows that from the beginning of classic Islam, the three main sources all pointed to an understanding of jihad as primarily militaristic. The hadith, for example, from very early onwards, show a understanding of jihad as mainly including physical warfare and literal killing. And Shari'ah also includes a clear concept of jihad as involving actual warfare.

Also, classic Islam divides the world into two main camps, Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) and Dar al-harb (the house of War). The former refers to all those under the rule of Islam, and the latter to those who are not. Muslims are under obligation to move all those in the house of War to the house of Islam. While there are many ways to achieve this, it is clear that the primary means for Mohammed and his early followers was by military conquest.

And since Mohammed holds such a high place in Islam, his actions become exemplary for his followers. And since Islam is not divided but one, to expand the religion of Islam is to expand its military and political domain as well. Thus a good Muslim will want to see all the world under the rule of Islam ('Islam' means 'submission').

Indeed, traditional Muslims consider it blasphemous when non-Muslims rule over Muslims. While moderate Muslims today may not want to see Islam promoted by the edge of the sword, militant Muslims and terrorists certainly do, and they feel they have proper theological and historical justification for doing so.

Consider also the Islamic understanding of peace. Peace is seen more as a negative, temporal and limited concept, while war, as defined above, is seen as a positive, ongoing and complete concept. Thus peace may be viewed as an interlude in jihad until all of the non-Muslim world submits to the house of Islam. Permanent peace in fact can only occur in the house of Islam. As long as some are outside that rule, real peace is not possible.

Sookhdeo tackles the question of war and peace in other ways in this book. He has extended historical discussions of Mohammed and his followers; various violent sects and movements within Islam; the motivation, training and activities of Islamic terrorists and suicide bombers; and a detailed discussion of martyrdom and suicide in Islam.

Concerning the last point, Sookhdeo reminds us that while suicide per se appears to be condemned in the Koran, the passages cited are in fact somewhat tenuous, and many radical Muslims are ready to argue that suicide bombing is really a form of martyrdom, not suicide. Indeed, Islamic radicals do not use the term 'suicide bomber' but shahid (martyr or witness).

In this regard it is interesting to note that no mainstream Islamic leader issued a fatwa (authoritative statement) condemning the suicide bombers following the September 11 attack.

Sookhdeo concludes with a chapter on what is to be done. He canvasses a number of options (including the observation that Islamic expansion in the past has only been stopped by military force), but argues that our best hope is to see Islam reformed from within. We must encourage moderate Muslims in their process of reform and do all we can to allow Islam to weed out the radicals. The process will be long and difficult, but it must be attempted.

In sum, this book goes a long way to dispelling the myths, and setting the record straight. We need to properly identify and recognize the enemy (radical Islamists) before we can adequately confront them. Only a right understanding of the problem can lead to its hoped-for solution.

Once the background history has been outlined, the book seeks to explain how the classical Islamic teaching has been used to motivate Terrorists and justify violent Islamic jihad in the modern world.

Finally, a contemporary debate on suicide bombers, global terrorism and various solutions to the ongoing violence tops off a well rounded and interesting book.
The authour writes in a clear manner and references thoroughly verses from the Quran, hadith and other sources.