A great loss to the world. Good explanation and history of Islam and how it has been co-opted by terrorists and autocrats. In summary: Islam, starting from Mohamed supported democracy (not by that name of course). Fun fact: he apparently married a woman who ran her own business. ( )

In the end, this is kind of a two star book that gets an extra star because it contains a first hand account of the some of Pakistan's struggles with democracy.

In this book Bhutto -- who was assassinated not long after she returned to Pakistan and shortly after the book was completed -- tries to do many things. She gives an Quranic exegesis of why Islam and democracy are compatible despite the claims of extremists, she shares a personal account of her role in Pakistan's struggle for democracy, she gives a history of Pakistan, she takes us on a whirlwind tour of democracy in Muslim nations, and she presents her case for taking a stance for reconciliation between Western and Muslim nations and rejecting the Clash of Civilizations view of the relationship between Islam and the West.

Bhutto's exegesis is fairly successful in so far as it is sufficient to show that the Quran, like the Bible, can be interpreted in many ways. She did not convince me that the Quran was being misused to to justify violence anymore than I am convinced by progressive Christians that the Bible can't be used to justify any number of horrible things. However, she did convince me that it could also be used to justify a worldview that supported equality, democracy, and modernization. (When you don't believe these books come from a divine source, you don't get so caught up on their plurality of perspective.)

The other part of the book that is successful is where she is presenting her role in Pakistan's history as a memoir. Her account of the first attempt on her life the night of her final return to Pakistan was particularly compelling. When she switches to broader themes, it's clear that she is presenting a biased case -- not an unfairly biased case, but biased in the way that politicians always emphasize the themes that align with their goals.

Overall, I'm glad I read this, because I did learn a lot. But sadly -- and likely because of time and political pressure -- this book did not have the opportunity to grow into what it was attempting to be. ( )

It's unfortunate that she was assassinated earlier in the year, because had she stayed alive and been elected, Pakistan may have been able to evolve more toward democracy and away from militant radicalism. Her book also describes reforms and policies she would have pursued had she lived to have been elected. She did not subscribe the idea that Islam and Democracy are incompatible, and explains why. I'll be interested if the leaders of her Party will have the strength and support to put her policies in place and survive her radical opponents. ( )

The author's magnus opus, Benazir Bhutto, who served as Prime Minister of Pakistan (1988-90, 1993-96), and who was the first woman to lead an ostensibly democratic government in a Muslim majority state, Bhutto spells out her liberal/social-democratic views for Pakistan. Shortly before the book's release, Bhutto was assassinated. ( )

Heel het boek is er een aanklacht van de interpretatie van de islam door de islam en de westerse wereld. De moslims hebben grote problemen met de westerse ideeën over secularisme en modernisme. Beiden zouden de afgelopen eeuw de islamitische wereld negatief hebben veranderd door de vernietiging van islamistische waarden en sociale structuren. De islamitische landen probeerden de westerse economische politieke modellen te gebruiken maar met armoede en despotisme tot gevolg. De Verenigde Staten en het Westen worden verantwoordelijk gehouden voor deze twee kwalen en worden daarom als legitieme doelwitten beschouwd door degenen in de islamitische wereld die in confrontatie geloven in plaats van samenwerking.
Toen de gevoelens van democratie kwam in de oosterse islamistische wereld besliste de Westerse mogendheden om hun eigen belangen zelfs door middel van militair ingrijpen te beschermen en in te grijpen. De Verenigde Staten en andere Westerse mogendheden ondersteunden veelal een staatsgreep en verkozen het daaropvolgend dictatoriaal bewind boven de democratie die er zou kunnen komen. De belangen van het Westen waren tot schade van de plaatselijke bevolking meestal gecentreerd rond de eigen behoeften en ook het eigen anticommunistische beleid. Dus zullen weinigen tegenspreken dat de koloniale ervaring in de hele islamitische wereld een sterk verzwakkende invloed heeft gehad op de ontwikkeling van democratische gebruiken, verkiezingen en bestuur. ( )