Eva Luna: Salafism is a political/religious movement ( not really a sect ), a reactionary backlash against western ideals ( transmitted or imposed via colonialism ) that originated in the nineteenth century in places like Egypt and Syria. Salaf means ancestor ( roughly ) and salafists were back-to-basics traditonalists and literalists that wished to return to the era of their devout ancestors. It is a similar ( but not identical ) to Wahhabism theologically, insomuch as it rejects modernism and innovation in Islam. So you might say Wahhabis are generally salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabi ( i.e. follow the Hanbali school of jurisprudence et al ).
The jihadist-salafists are our modern fundamentalist/extremist terrorist types ( and associated political movements ). The term was self-adopted by ultra-fundamentalists militants in recent years ( post-Gulf War ) to distinguish themselves from the “sheikhists” which is how they refer to al-Saud family and their semi-compliant ( but still ostensibly salafist ) court ulema. Basically these are the al-Qaeda folks and their like-minded associates. For them the militant lesser jihad is the central theme and for many the U.S. is number one target and threat. The even regard more “moderate” Islamists like Egypt’s Muslim Brothers with suspicion and derision.
Now lessee, a little more background on the volumes I cited:
Lapidus is a historian from UC Berkeley whose academic specialty seems to center around the culture, arts, and society of medieval Ayyubid and Mamluk Egypt. His volume is basically a massive survey course text for Islamic history and culture with all that implies. Very broad in scope, very neutral in tone, but with plenty of detail ( about 1000 pages of largish paperback ).
Farah is a historian from U of Minnesota whose area of specialty seems to be the Ottomans ( or some facet thereof, at least I have seen a work by him on Ottoman 19th century political history in Lebanon ). Again, I would say this is a pretty even-handed ( a little less dry and neutral than Lapidus though - not necessarily an insult to Lapidus, I like dry in survey texts ) survey text that traces the origin of Islam, basic beliefs, and its proliferation and differentiation. It is in a few ways ( but hardly all ) a shorter, more general version of Lapidus. I don’t think it would be at all redundant to read both ( I’ve cited from both on different issues ), but Farah’s book at ~400-odd pages is a lot shorter ;). I would say that Farah pays a lot more attention to philosophical issues and less to surveying Islamic history ( except early Islamic history ). When he does tackle history, it is more from the standpoint of the evolution of ideas rather than the geo-political history Lapidus provides. Both books have nice little glossaries.
Esposito is a Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown and the Director of the Center of Muslim-Christian Understanding there. That might give you an idea of his bias ;). While he is very upfront about the threat of political Islam, he is also very much a proponent of the idea that ultimately Islam in general is perfectly compatible with western ideals and this particular book is a very lucid exploration of both themes, by focusing on the nature of the first. It’s quite concise ( under 300 pages ) and a very readable select history of Islamic extremism and the reaction to the west in the 20th century Middle East.
Kepel is a sociologist and political scientist, Professor of Middle East Studies at the Institute for Political Studies in Paris and is one of Europe’s leading experts on political Islam. The original title of the book I cited is Jihad, Expansion et decline de l’Islamisme ( 2000, Editions Gallimard ) and that is actually a more descriptive working title. He traces the history of the myriad forms of Islamism in the 20th century, their success, and in his opinion, their ultimate failure as political movements. He is of the opinion that as a political philosophy it is on the wane and for the English edition he even shoehorns in a brief comment of the WTC disaster and why it doesn’t necessarily invalidate his hypothesis. He may or may not be correct in his final analysis, but if you want a detailed history of 20th century political Islam, this is an excellent book. It is a little more detailed as a history book than Esposito’s ( but only a little ).
Dunno if that was precisely what you were looking for , but there ya go :).
If you are interested in more directed books in this general area, topic-wise, I might have further suggestions. For example I have a very good volume on the political gyrations around the succession to Muhammed which engendered the Sunni/Shi’a split or maybe you’ve had a long suppressed fascination with the Mamluk-Ilkhanate political/military struggles in the 13th century :p. ( Seriously, I do have some more “general” titles lying around, if you’re interested ).
):