This book is enjoyable, written by a religion scholar. It draws many parallels between the discourse of the al Qaeda brand of militant Islam and other leaders, such as Jerry Falwell and George Bush. Lincoln clearly doesn't equate Bush with bin Laden, as another reviewer argues. He does, however, explore the religious themes projected by the rhetoric of the two, and does so in a fair way. Lincoln explores the intersection of religion and politics in a way that is clear and easily accessed.

I recommend this book.

The main analyses of this post-9-11 book take place in "current political moment" and concern the 3-way tensions between Western secularism and Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.

The book's primary proposition is that Bush and Christian fundamentalists are in many ways like OBL and Islamic fundamentalists. Lincoln compares and contrasts - and in some ways equates - Bush and the Christian right with OBL and his jihaddis. Lincoln claims both groups seek to expand their religion into all spheres of public and private life, and in this way they are philosophically equivalent and equally dangerous to the secular ideals of the Enlightenment. Lincoln sees little intrinsic difference between these two groups in terms of their goals, belief systems, and rhetoric. Lincoln admits that Fawell's so-called "prayer warriors" are "less militant than al Qaeda", but he also points out that the televangelist's "religious ideal is equally maximalist."

Lincoln lumps together America's religious right (personified by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson) along with the Taliban, Hamas, and al Qaeda in the sense that they all want to bring about a comprehensive and maximalist religious order. Over 80% of the chapter titled "Jihad, Jeremiads, and the Enemy Within" is devoted to analyzing Falwell's infamous post-9-11 accusations. That incident plays a large role throughout the book, and was clearly a big motivation for Lincoln.

Lincoln achieves his conclusion, in part, by deconstructing speeches made by Bush and Osama to show "Symmetric Dualisms." They each employ similar rhetorical devices and underlying allusions. Both Bush and Osama see the world in terms of a "good versus evil" struggle, and both demonize their enemies. Bush and Osama each point out the moral failings of their opponents. Each portrays himself as a righteous protector of the weak, champion of a cause, and so on. Lincoln's technique is to break down a speech and scrutinize it line by line, looking for hidden meanings, subtext, allusions, and religious significance.

Lincoln deconstructs Bush's Oct. 7, 2001 address to the nation (delivered at the onset of the Afghan war). Lincoln insists that phrases like "the terrorists may burrow deeper into their caves...," anyone who sides with bin Laden "will take that lonely path at their own peril" are richly laden with Biblical allusions that only Christian fundamentalists (and busily deconstructing divinity professors) have the scriptural background to fully grasp. Lincoln's technique is like this: Bush said X. X "conjures up" biblical passages like Y found in the book of Fubar 57:123. Thus, Bush is intentionally "double coding" and speaking in "sotto voce" to "those who have ears to hear," while hoodwinking all the rest of us.

In short, Lincoln uses analytical devices and a dose of moral relativism to shred a speech into bits and to 'discover' its underlying structure expressed in terms of roles, characters, plot-line, and rhetorical devices. Having done this, Lincoln holds up OBL and Bush and essentially says "See? These guys are just like each other!"

I feel as if Lincoln has missed the forest for the trees. He is so wrapped up in dialectics, meta-judgments, meta-language, symmetric dualisms, and so forth, that he's conflated the risk of militant Islamic fundamentalism with Jerry Falwell and the Christian coalition.

I believe Lincoln is partly motivated by politics. On p.27 Lincoln claims that "an administration filled with oilmen, from the president on down" will not give in to OBL's demand to remove troops from Saudi Arabia. (Note: at the time I wrote this, I'm pretty sure U.S. troops have pulled out of the Saudi kingdom)

I was interested in the historical examples Lincoln gave, and I wish he would've spent more time developing those. The book has an extensive notes section which contains a lot of interesting and useful material.

The book is burdened with opaque phrases like "metadiscursive capacity," "polyvalent signifier," "soteriological dimensions," "Weberian ideal types," and "a more latitudinarian position verging even upon antinomianism." This academic language is off-putting to the lay person, and it is ironic given Lincoln's emphasis on "definitional clarity" and his admission that language can be "... considerably more complex than common sense ought to have it."

Instead of this book, I recommend "Terror in the Mind of God", by Mark Juergensmeyer. It is much easier to read, and I think it is more balanced.

Lastly, Lincoln writes about Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual godfather of modern Islamic fanaticism. Read "Terror and Liberalism" by Paul Berman for a much more comprehensive and readable treatment.