Objectivity in what is termed as a "review" is discarded right at the beginning and Chaudry makes it abundantly clear that he views the author as part of an industry that thrives on the misery of Muslims.
 
His arguments and observations are largely reactionary and stem from bitterness, envy and just to use his own phrase are largely meaningless. He rants against Tarek's quotes from the Quran, when the former makes the argument in his book that the Quran makes no provisions for a theocratic state.  At that point, the reader is waiting for his argument and like the rest of the critique, the wait is futile as Chaudry simply paraphrases another verse which actually supports Tarek's argument instead of weakening it.
 
Chaudry also fulminates against the use of such terms as Islamist and the Islamic state and blames the author for not defining or describing these terms and using them on every other page.  It seems that Javed Chaudry was reviewing another book or more appropriately, he is living in another world. From the introduction to the  conclusion, the author provides scores of examples and uses primary sources to define these two very terms. There are extensive quotes in the book from the works of Syed Qutb and Mawdodi, the grand ayatullahs of the global Islamist movement, on these very definitions and examples. In a rather pathetic attempt at a grand flourish, Chaudry asks:
 
"It is rather peculiar that a 400 page book that discourages from setting up an Islamic state does not define what makes a state an Islamic state.  Would a country where a vast majority of the citizens are Muslims called an Islamic state, or a country run on Islamic laws would be identified as an Islamic state? There is a whole chapter criticizing the creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state. It would be a valid question to raise as to why a Jewish state can be viable while an Islamic state is not? "
 
This is again another example of a complete lack of honesty on the part of the reviewer as the book goes into great depth wrt the socio-political, ethical, moral and theological precepts of the Islamist movement and devotes 3 sections to  3 countries with overwhelming Muslim majorities who have presumptively labeled themselves as Islamic states.  The reviewer also succumbs to the typical neurosis of blaming and criticizing others when the glare is on the self. The book does not claim to talk of other religions and as such, one wonders why the reviewer had to bring in Israel, when the book (as the reviewer himself claims) is specifically about quest for an "Islamic State".
 
This neurosis on the part of the reviewer plumbs its lowest depths when he dishonestly ducks the question of Muslims assuming any responsibility in their role in the "Jihad" against the Soviets. He conveniently labels the Mujahideen/Taliban as some sort of anti-imperialists who are "still fighting against the invaders"
Which invaders is he talking about? Is he referring to the violent movement in the Northern areas of Pakistan as an anti-imperialist struggle!!!!
 
The rabid Wahabi-Deobandi nexus of militant groups comprise not just local Pushtoons but Punjabis as well as Arabs, Chechans, Uzbeks, Uighirs, Bengladeshis amongst other ethnic groups.  From beheading the local Shia Pushtoons to killing moderate Sunni leaders and bombing girls schools and stoning women, I wonder which part Chaudry is referring to as an anti-imperialist struggle against invasion?
What invasion? The Pakistani state has lost its writ and sovereignty in these areas where the Taliban have imposed their draconian laws and are collecting revenues via extortions and heroin trade. To completely twist these facts, Chaudry indulges in the usual conspiracy theories that permeate the drawing rooms of the Pakistani petty bourgeois, be they in Lahore and Karachi, or London and Toronto.  This urban gossip is then passed on as historical facts to the next generation and is deeply damaging as it completely absolves the chattering upper middle class from any responsibility and leads to the sort of perpetual myopia that is the hallmark of Chaudry's "review".  Sadly, such reviews can only stand in these drawing rooms and list serves where the rest of the group nod their heads (or mousse) in unision without pointing out the flaws and contradictions of the conspiracy theories that Chaudry charades as analytical critique. Like others, he struts his stuff in groups that are mentally lazy in not calling his bluff, therby padding his delusions of grandeur!  While some might find this assessment harsh, how else can it stated any differently.  After all, in the very discussion thread which was initiated by this attempt to review a book (without obviously reading it properly), the reviewer was invited to an open discussion on this very book which he ducked out of.  This act of intellectual cowardice is the hallmark of the pseudo-intellectuals who have read a few and select pages of Zinn and Chomsky and are now masquerading as anti-imperialists and finding good company with wannabe celebrity activists who utilize him for their hatchet jobs!
 
Ali Abbas Inayatullah
Karachi