Content area
Full Text
Omar Ashour. 2009. The De-Radicalization of Jihadists: Transforming Armed Islamist Movements. New York: Routledge Publishers, 205 pp.
Asef Bayat. 2007. Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist Turn. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 320 pp.
Michaelle L. Browers. 2009. Political Ideology in the Arab World: Accommodation and Transformation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 210 pp.
Gunes Murat Tezcur. 2010. The Paradox of Moderation: Muslim Reformers in Iran and Turkey. Austin: University of Texas Press, 320 pp.
Berna Turam. 2007. Between Islam and the State: The Politics of Engagement. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 240 pp.
Carrie Rosefsky Wickham. 2004. "The Path to Moderation: Strategy and Learning in the Formation of Egypt's Wasat Party." Comparative Politics 36, no. 2 (January): 205-28.
IN recent years, scholarship on political Islam has moved away from abstract debates about the compatibility of Islam and democracy and toward empirical studies of the practices and commitments of Islamist groups.1 A substantial portion of these analyses hinges on drawing a distinction between moderates and radicals, typically viewing them as supporting and opposing liberal democratic reforms, respectively. This has brought a new focus to the study of Islamists. Have the beliefs and practices of Islamist groups changed over time? What processes, mechanisms, and institutions promote moderation? This review essay examines the recent surge of studies that examine the inclusionmoderation hypothesis with reference to political Islam: the idea that political groups and individuals may become more moderate as a result of their inclusion in pluralist political processes. The books and articles reviewed here are representative of a cross section of the current debates. Most deal directly with the inclusion-moderation hypothesis; two additional books present related frameworks for understanding the shift in Islamist politics toward the embrace of moderation and liberal principles. Two central points of disagreement emerge in these debates, concerning (1) precisely what is being explained and (2) which mechanisms (and in what sequences) lead to moderation. Authors differ in whether they emphasize changes in behavior or changes in ideology; they also vary in terms of whether the focus is on groups, individuals, or both. These distinct analytical lenses, though sometimes overlapping, have produced different explanations of precisely when and under what circumstances inclusion can lead to moderation. Most of these...