Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism. Mahmood Mamdani. Department of Anthropology and. U. MAHMOOD MAMDANI. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A Political Pers on Culture and Terrorism. ABSTRACT The link between Islam and terrorism became a. Mahmood Mamdani’s Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold. War and the Roots of Terror is a book about historical memory and politics. Mamdani hopes.

Author: Yozshulkis Akigor
Country: United Arab Emirates
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 6 April 2006
Pages: 405
PDF File Size: 16.7 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.66 Mb
ISBN: 133-8-94247-980-4
Downloads: 34283
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Aranos

Should it be vad responsible for cultivating terrorist movements in Muuslim Africa and Central America? In Southern Africa, the immediate result was a partnership between the US and apartheid South Africa, accused by the UN of perpetrating “a crime against humanity. The Durban conference was about major crimes of the past, about racism, and xenophobia, and related crimes. It was determined to put a version of tradition at the service of politics. We are told that there is a fault line running through Islam, a line that divides moderate Islam, called genuine Islam, and extremist political Islam.

Mahmoood do we make sense of this? The Question of Responsibility. This argument was echoed widely in many circles, more recently in the New York Times. Both share a deeply messianic orientation. This is the context in which the US accepted responsibility for restoring conditions for decent life in noncommunist Europe.

In one of these articles, Eqbal distinguished between two broad traditions in the understanding of Jihad.

Good Muslim, Bad Muslim by Mahmood Mamdani | : Books

Their culture seems to have no history, no politics, and no debates. The new thing was that these terrorist movements specifically targeted civilians. Terrorism is not a cultural residue in modern politics.


But is it really true that people’s public behavior, specifically their political behavior, can be read from their religion? Instead, it habitually looks for a high moral pretext for inaction.

Transcript: Mahmood Mamdani on Good Muslim, Bad Muslim | Jul 03, 2006

The Contras were not only bood and shielded by official America; they were actively nurtured and directly assisted, as in the mining of harbors. Instead of dismissing history and politics as does culture talk, I suggest we place cultural debates in historical and political contexts. It is an Islamic version of the Christian notion of “just war”. Click here for Ahmed’s article explaining Jihad. A Challenge to Whom? Even if you should claim to know what is good for humanity, how do you proceed?

The first alternative gives you reason and evangelism; the second gives you the Crusades.

Perhaps no other society paid a higher price for the defeat of the Soviet Union than did Afghanistan. Whose responsibility is it? Could it be true that an orthodox Muslim is a potential terrorist? It has little trace of ethnocentrism. But it settled for the next best, the son of an illustrious family closely connected to the royal family.

Mahmood Mamdani: Good Muslim, Bad Muslim — An African Perspective

Even when it tries to harness one or another aspect of tradition and culture, it puts this at the service of a modern project. The Nixon Doctrine had been forged towards the closing years of the Vietnam War but could not be implemented at that late stage – the doctrine that “Asian boys must fight Asian wars” – was really put into practice in Southern Africa.

Or, the same thing, that an Orthodox Jew is a potential terrorist and only a Reform Jew is capable of being tolerant of those who do not share his convictions?


Contemporary “fundamentalism” is a modern project, not a traditional leftover. Official America has a habit of not taking responsibility for its own actions. Rather, terrorism is a modern construction. But now the CIA was determined to create one. Islam and Christianity have one thing in common.

After all, is there not less and less talk of the clash of civilizations, and more and more talk of the clash inside civilizations? Always, the idea was to leave a few to go and tell the story, to spread fear.

Afghanistan was a brutalized society even musli, the present war began.

Gad do you make sense of politics that consciously wears the mantle of religion? It endows programs at universities like Harvard and Yale. The question of responsibility for postwar reconstruction did not just arise as a moral question; it arose as a political question.

I think of civilization as a constant creation whereby we gradually expand the boundaries of community, the boundaries of those with whom we share the world – this is why it is so grotesque to see bombs and food parcels raining on the defenseless people of Afghanistan from the same source.

That initiative was musim the Marshall Plan. Second, the Reagan administration hoped to turn a religious schism inside Islam, between minority Shia and majority Sunni, into a political schism.