While I am in large agreement with Shadi Hamid’s essay, I find myself a bit underwhelmed for a few reasons.

Needless to say, demands for complete justice in this world, humanly rather than divinely enacted, are dangerous, potentially lethal, and inevitably will be disappointed.

Robert Nicholson and Shadi Hamid’s conversation addresses questions about the West and the Muslim world in a modern context, but it also contributes to debates that have been going on for centuries.

Recently, Providence editor Robert Nicholson sat down with Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. In a wide-ranging conversation, Hamid addressed the lack of cross-cultural understanding in the West, the value of pluralism, the possibilities of democratic reform, and the potential for increased Christian engagement with Muslim neighbors.

In an excellent review of Shadi Hamid and Will McCants’ Rethinking Political Islam, Olivier Roy says there are generally two ways to think about Islamism: contextualist or essentialist.

According to Sebastian Gorka, ISIL is simply another form of totalitarianism, a political regime seen under Hitler and Nazi Germany that recognizes no limit to its authority and attempts to permeate every aspect of public and private life. Yet, peace with ISIL and other jihad-driven Muslim groups seems much more difficult to attain.

Hamid’s Islamic Exceptionalism argues that Islam is far different from other religions in how it relates to governance, law, and the modern nation-state.