This is difficult to read for some reason.

Every once in awhile a book is written that is important, that meets the time it is published and takes hold. Engaging the Muslim World by Juan Cole should have been that book, but is not. In fact, the book is a disappointment in that it seeks to propose a dialogue by establishing a monologue on what is wrong with the West. Only in one area does he succeed - in establishing that the West (in particular, the United States) lacks a good understanding of the nuance of Islam and the various subtleties of it.

As this comes out clearly in the book, let's explore it further. It must be said that this is not a primer for Islam. There are better, more complete books that will give you a better understand. This book does little more than your freshman Comparative Religion 101 course. I would recommend picking up John Esposito's Islam: The New Straight Path or Karen Armstrong's Muhammad: A Prophet for our Time. But,,,,the book does a decent job of explaining the politics of secular versus Islamist versus fundamentalist as well as Shi'ite versus Sunni. The book, broken into geographical areas of the Middle East, covers the major players in each region and - in cases such as Iran - how these players cross boundaries. Understanding the nuance of Pakistani tribal politics versus the cosmopolitan politics of Islamabad is critical for solving the issue. Professor Cole does this well.

Where Cole falls down is in his prescriptive advice on fixing relations. Here, he falls prey to a decided lack of nuance and balance. For example, his advice for fixing the Palestinian problem is for Israel to draw back to 1948 borders and all will be well. Well, what about those who lived in the Israeli section pre-1948? Or their descendants? A major hold up continues to be the right of return. Perhaps not for the Palestinian Authority, but for Palestinian refugees.

He also performs mental gymnastics in becoming an apologist for the darker side of the Islamic world. He makes clear that violent fundamentalists are the minority, with most Islamic people feeling that the violence of terrorism is wrong - a bad offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from the mid-10th century. But he fails to see the impact today. Rather, he paints organizations such as Hisbullah as merely social and political organizations that have renounced terrorism. Instead, actions against Israel in the Sheeba Farms area were "legitimate" acts of national defense, as Lebanon laid claim to the area. Although there is a case for Israel to not be present there as mandated by the UN, the truth is that Lebanon was not a legitimate actor until Syria relinquished the claim to it in 2008. Of course, what is not said is that Syria had no chance of getting it back from Israel so it was little more than a political move.

Also involving Hisbullah is the Iranian funding of the organization. Cole claims that, naturally, Iran would never fight an offensive way. And perhaps that is true of it's own troops. But, as we learned in the Cold War when the US and Soviets had proxy countries - there is little difference between the sponsor fighting and the proxy. If Iran does sponsor Hisbullah and transfer arms to them, then Iran is engaged in war against Israel especially if - as Cole suggests - the leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has enough power to remove leaders of the militant organization.

The examples are endless in suggesting evil on the part of the US and the West and innocence on the parts of players from the Middle East. What we need today is not a book that take sides, but one that looks at the situation from the perspective of an honest broker who can call both sides on their lies. Tragically, Cole does not provide that book. ( )

Juan Cole is an expert on the Middle East and Islam. He first encountered Islam as a boy when his Army father was sent to the Horn of Africa. Later he spent 10 years living in Muslim countries and learned several of the languages used in this part of the world, and he has continued to travel extensively in the region.

The book is his attempt to show how Islam anxiety in the U.S. and American anxiety in the Middle East fuel misunderstandings. The book is a corrective to Islam anxiety in the U.S., which is dangerously under-informed about Islam. Cole seeks to remedy this ignorance.

The first chapter of the book is an excessively grim, albeit realistic, view of the world's energy situation. The world currently produces 15 terrawtats of energy. Estimates are that by 2050 the demand will double. Alternative energies aren't yet able to suppy a large part of the need. The U.S is more dependent than ever on foreign oil, and the chances are small it will be able to reduce that anytime in the forseeable future. And that's why Cole believes that Dick Cheney became convinced that a war with Iraq was necessary to secure the rights of U.S. oil companies to a supply of Middle Eastern oil.

Cole then goes into the histories of various Islamic groups and countries. For the most part, Muslims are more moderate than Americans give them credit for, and that is the lesson that comes across over and over as Cole shows the potent mix of religion, ethnicity, nationality, economics, colonialism, post-colonialism, and other factors that have created the current situation. If you know someone who blithely tosses off the term Islamofascism, please give them this book to read.

Cole's book was reviewed in the New York Times by David Sanger, author of the Inheritence, a book I read a few months ago and which scared me silly. He and Cole seem to have very different views of the Middle East, especially the dangers posed by Pakistan and Iran. I suspect, as is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. Read both, and decide for yourself. ( )