{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.048113207547169815, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006132075471698114, 'mean_word_length': 5.183673469387755, '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}}
War and Peace in Islam: A Critique of Islamic/ist Political Discourses by S.M Farid Mirbagheri (review)

contest the subaltern studies epistemological and methodological approach to decolonization. She sums up her analysis by arguing “. . . any project of decolonization which cannot link social and cultural relations of property and power and speak to social justice, but subsumes all issues of powered differences within a rhetoric of cultural nationalism, can only lead to new and internal forms of colonization” (p. 176). Two chapters are dedicated to Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali philosopher, poet, novelist, and writer, and his ideas on modernity, nationalism, colonialism, and women (Chapter 5, “Home and the World,” and Chapter 6, “Always Towards”). She considers Tagore’s writing, when fused with Marx’s analysis of capitalist alienation, to be a model of a “new humanist” pedagogy and praxis which can guide us “. . . to the theme of decolonization and the pedagogy of a decolonized self and society” (p. 225). The final chapter, “The Tradition of Sociology and the Sociology of Tradition,” is where Bannerji offers her powerful critique of Weberian sociological paradigm of tradition/modernity and East/West binaries. In this analysis, she reminds us of the nuanced approach in Marx and Gramsci’s “nondualist, meditational and formative view of culture/civil society and politics” (p. 23). She argues that “[s]cholars such as Weber contributed to a mass dissemination of the mythologies of ‘the Orient,’ ‘the East,’ ‘Asia,’ and their Western binaries — providing them with seemingly historical and sociological content” (p. 248). The core argument here, which deserves to be considered critically, is Bannerji’s point about Weber’s knowledge production as ‘ideological knowledge’ insofar as it de-historicizes and de-links relations among colonization, nationalism, capitalism, and imperialism, and instead presents these categories in dualistic or binary constructions in the form of East/West or Orient/Occident. The epistemological richness of the book makes it an indispensable read. Bannerji writes: