{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03464203233256351, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005773672055427252, 'mean_word_length': 5.080701754385965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Barnett R. Rubin, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Pp. 378.

The previous 502 pages, however, dealt with the Islamic discontent against the West and the self-versus-other conflict. By focusing on the theme of anti-Westernism, Dabashi is able to put Motahhari and Tabatabai on the same footing as Al-e Ahmad, Shariati, Taleqani, Bani-Sadr, and Khomeini. In fact, during the Revolution, the first two were comparatively unknown among the radical activists while the other five were household names precisely because they incorporated the radical theme of class warfare into their Islam. The less-popular ones were shunned by the Islamic activists precisely because they rejected the class analysis of their society. Tabataba^i's and Motahhari's critique of Marxism and class analysis may have carried weight in the small circle of seminary students, but among the far more numerous university students it was derided for what it was—half-baked and third-hand conservative arguments designed to preserve the socioeconomic status quo while implicitly questioning the political power structure. It is not surprising that Motahhari's followers denounced Shariati as a "Wahhabi," "Babi," and a "Jew-admiring Marxist." Shariati's followers responded by assassinating Motahhari, thus making him into a household name after the revolution. Dabashi is very polite in discussing these works of Motahhari and Tabataba-'i. But if a sophomore at an American university were to present these works as a term paper, he or she would probably get a C—a B, perhaps, for a valiant attempt, but definitely a D for lack of originality and primary sources.