Both books �€“ Globalised Islam: the Search for a New Ummah by Oliver Roy and The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West by Gilles Kepel tackle the issue of Islam in all its forms�€™ that is militant or political; stating that Muslim neo-fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon. Roy on one hand takes a broad look at the organisation of militant Islam in a world where cross border communication has become easier than ever before concluding that the �€œWest has won�€. This apparently is evident to Roy not in the form of Coca Cola in the Middle East or the desire of poorer Muslims to migrate to the West but at the very core of Islam. He argues that Islam has become culturally and ideologically westernized and globalised and no longer does a single form of Islam exist. Islam has multiple forms just like Christianity and therefore has become westernized in that sense.

One third of the world�€™s Muslim population live as minorities, many in the western world and this according to Roy has caused the �€œdeterritorialisation�€ of Islam. It makes no sense for groups who are Muslim minorities to create an Islamic State within the western countries that they live in especially when there is an inevitability of them remaining minorities for a long time to come. The cultural clash between different generations of Muslims living in host countries is another aspect of globalised Islam. The younger generation can now choose to accept or abandon his or her religion. According to Roy, even Muslims in the Middle East have changed. No longer are they defending themselves against westernization but rather attempting to modernize Islam.

All in all, Roy makes some fascinating points. He uses westernization to argue even the political failure of the Muslim countries in bringing about democracy. He rightly points out that in the majority of the world�€™s Muslims are not Arab and that their political backwardness is probably because of their Arab culture and not because they follow the Islamic religion, he states relegating the idea of secularization leading to democracy. Using examples of Middle Eastern democracies, which are associated with dictatorships like the Shah of Iran, or the cancellation of the Algerian elections on the premise that the Islamists would have won. However, Roy doesn�€™t seem to be concerned with the political progress of these countries but rather the sociological modernization of these countries. He argues that even though the Islamic republic of Iran lowered the legal age of marriage to nine, the real average age has gone on rising and reached 22 by 1996. Literacy rates have also increased amongst Iranian women from 28% to 80%. He also, ignoring the entire phenomenon of ghettoes in Europe chooses to believe that Muslims in the West are no longer foreigners weakly trying to prove that Muslims in the West have many different identities that can be portrayed when chosen. But, Roy does not develop this theory effectively; instead, he simply, surmises that westernization and globalization have become pervasive in Muslim societies in the west and in their own home countries.

Kepels book in contrast, is more about geopolitical issues and war rather than on culture and ideology. Starting with the Oslo Peace Accord he argues that while the neo-conservative west and the Islamic world were both unhappy with the Oslo peace process and were relieved with its failure, it also forms the basis of a long standing bitterness between the two.

In an extensive look at Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor and second in command of the infamous al-Qaeda group, Kepel, states that this is the new generation of Muslim minds. No longer are they illiterate and unorganized militants but strategists who have an incredible sense of global trends and opportunities. Citing the example of the 9/11 attacks he believes that Zawahiri was intelligent enough to organise an attack where the purpose was not to merely cause economic damage, but to have an even larger impact on the Muslim world. He knew that such an attack would assimilate the Muslim masses all over the world and especially in the west. This was something that the west ignored and will have to bear consequences for in the near future. Neither Kepel nor Roy are trying to be anti �€“American, on the contrary Kepel seems to have a neo-conservatist leaning but is unsparing in his criticism on the situation building to 9/11 and post-Saddam Iraq. Kepel, goes on to argue that militant Islam has yet not won and from West Bank to Baghdad to Kabul there is �€œFitna�€.

In his commentary, Kepel goes on to analyze the role of Saudi Arabia, which he finds fascinating. Kepel, states that while Saudi Arabia, is a country that has given refuge, produced some of the deadliest Islamic militants and is responsible for expelling many of the regions secular regimes in Syria or Egypt, it is still considered an ally of America and it is mainly the Baathist regimes that the neo-conservatives seem to notice. The Islamists, Kepel states are potent in their aims. They have mastered the use of the media for their cause and now have a developed intelligentsia. Thus, with the neo-conservatives ignoring main problems such as Saudi Arabia, this has become a war that the Americans are loosing swiftly.

With a large percentage of the Muslim population living in Europe and other western areas this battle between the neo-conservatives and the Islamists will prove crucial. Kepel, convincingly argues that if these diasporas decide to join hands with the militants, the west will surely loose this battle. The only hope Kepel understandably has is in the new generation of Muslim minds that are educated and are taking an interest in democratic politics. He deems them as the last hope that we have before a catastrophe that will be the clash between the west and Islam. Though strangely enough after painting a grim picture of the future Kepel ends on a hopeful note stating that it is not too late and a new face of Islam is the answer.

Both books are integral to anyone trying to gain comprehensive understanding of Islam in the modern World. But Kepels argument and structure are far easier to read than Roy�€™s. Roy looses out on the translation from French to English making it difficult to put his point clearly. Besides rather than answering sociological questions, answering geo-political questions in the modern world seem to be more pertinent.