Rating: 
Summary: Overshooting the mark
Review: In line with its title, the author of this book comes himself across as a bit of a Janus Head: an adherent of Sufism and religious pluralism on the one hand, a staunchly patriotic political conservative, on the other. The Two Faces of Islam is not the work of a detached analyst of political Islam, but an unabashed diatribe against 'Wahhabism' and the Saudi role in promoting this strand of Islam. Here lies the main weakness of this book: although Schwartz provides us with many interesting facts and noteworthy observations regarding the rich pluralist heritage of Islam, he is so selective in his argumentation against Wahhabism that it undermines his credibility.For example, in one and the same chapter, "Sword of Dishonor", Schwartz claims that the US should let Uzbek president Karimov get on with exterminating the Muslim extremists who are terrorizing his country, but that Washington should protest on every occasion against Russia's repression of the Chechens. His argument for this inconsistency: The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Hizb al-Tahrir are of a distinctly Wahhabi signature and thus a menace to Central-Asia's centuries-old pluralist Islam. Therefore they must be routed. What are the guarantees that Karimov will only target 'Wahhabis' and leave 'Traditionalists' alone? Chechnya's Sufi tradition, on the other hand, has supposedly survived intact and its representatives are in the vanguard of the struggle against a Russian-Orthodox threat. Since the assault on a Moscow theater it can hardly be denied that extremism has also taken root in Chechnya. Schwartz is so eager to lump all Sunni extremists together that he refuses to believe Bin Laden is anti-Riyadh. It is all a ploy to mislead the West. Yet at the same time he engages in what amounts to an apologetics of Khomeini and the Iranian revolution. Because he was educated as a philosopher and initiated in 'Irfan or gnosticism, the Ayatollah does not fit into Schwartz' paradigm of militant Islam. Instead Khomeini is credited as a "standup guy" who at least makes no secrets about his anti-Western views. Anti-Khomeinism in the West was fed by the Saudis because of their vehement anti-Shi'ism. Schwartz goes even further, Khomeini is implicitly dubbed a tolerant pluralist because he taught philosophy, was mystically inclined and wrote poetry in the same vein as the great Sufis. In furthering the cause of Sufism Schwartz could have selected a more convincing argument. In making his case against Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism, Schwartz is further hampered by having never visited the Kingdom and the use of secondary sources only. His selection of these is also questionable. It features Said Aburish but not Mamoun Fandy's excellent study of Saudi dissidents. Schwartz reviles explorer and royal confidant Harry St. John Philby although there is no evidence in the bibliography that he has read any of Philby's books or even Elizabeth Monroe's biography. T.E. Lawrence, however, is presented as a pure idealist, while certain studies shed a very different light on his persona, revealing both a deeply disturbed psyche and political duplicity. This selective use of material also explains his erroneous assessment of the succession question in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar, and former intelligence chief (now envoy to London), Prince Turki al-Faisal, are certainly high profile figures. But in the line-up for the throne the governors of Riyadh and the oil-rich Eastern Province -- one a full brother, the other the oldest surviving son of ailing King Fahd -- figure more prominently, yet their names - and those of some other key contenders -- are not even mentioned. His report of the Najran uprising in early 2000 fails to notice that the Shi'ites clashing there with security forces are Ismai'ilis (Seveners), while those in the Eastern Province belong to the Twelvers branch. Although the regime does regard the former also as a liability, failing to make the distinction is not only factually incorrect but also a misjudgment of the potential political impact. In his description of Wahhabism Schwartz lowers himself to the level of outright demonization. While it can hardly be denied that Wahhabism is rife with bigotry, difficult to engage in constructive debate, and generally not conducive to intellectual maturing, an attempt should be made to understand how and under which circumstances it developed, and how it is rooted in Islamic tradition. Whether we like it or not, Wahhabism is a factor of very considerable significance in the Muslim World as Schwartz is admitting by writing a book about it. Instead Schwartz makes himself guilty of what he accuses Wahhabism of: dualism and the inherent demonization of "the Other". Schwartz qualifies its namesake, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, as a "monster" and calls the inhabitants of Central Arabia "savages", prone to sedition since the time of early Islam. He also implies that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was bound to dissent due to his affiliation with the Bani Tamim: because the Bani Tamim had once joined the Kharijites, a descendant of the tribe is bound -- a millenium later - to concoct an equally uncompromising form of Islamic revivalism! In an attempt to further soil the Saudis' reputation, Schwartz wrongly represents them as belonging to the Bani Hanifa, a tribe associated with Musaylama, 'the false Prophet' active in Central Arabia during the days of the Prophet Muhammad. The Al Saud descend from the eastern Arabian Dur'u and the clan's ancestor Mani al-Muraydi was only in the 15th century invited by the Bani Hanifa to take up residence in Najd . With his eclecticism and invectives Schwartz has undermined his in itself sympathetic plea for pluralist Islam. Militancy, extremism, and other intolerant forms of Islamic revivalism have rendered the atmosphere in the Muslim world rather insalubrious and Saudi politics have some very unsavory aspects, but Schwartz' approach will do little to clear the air. There are certainly two faces of Islam, but readers would have been better served if the writer had elaborated more on that pluralist Islam instead of this negativist account of what Islam should not be about.
Rating: 
Summary: If you read only one book on Islam, make it this one.
Review: In the very short space of several hundred pages, Schwartz does something really remarkable: Out of the backdrop of a solidly-researched and tautly-written history of Islam emerges the picture of a river splitting in two. One branch, the original river of Islam, having emerged from earlier wars and the Crusades, meanders on, mostly peacefully. But another branch diverges and becomes a virulent strain of psychopathically-distorted religious fundamentalism. This nightmare began to take shape from 1703 with the birth of Mohammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the world's first Islamist terrorist, and descends to the present in its alliance with the Al Sa'ud. The Wahhabis -- the Haters of Music -- have always claimed all other forms of Islam to be heretical and have waged a 250-year war against all those who have resisted its ultra-puritanical doctrine -- Shi'as, Sufis, Christians, Jews. Now that war comes to us. In a brilliantly, and often beautifully, written book, we watch the two rivers separate and flow down into our time. Schwartz's condemnation of Wahhabism is unapologetic, as is his antipathy for the duplicity of the Royal House of Sa'ud. But it is condemnation and antipathy irrefutably supported by the facts. And in this time it is a book of unmatched value: For with the information contained within this masterpiece on contemporary Islam, we are able to separate mainstream Islam from its evil twin and fight a more intelligent and more compassionate War on Terror. It is a profound and often lyrical book, and Schwartz is remarkably brave to have written it (after you read it, you'll understand why). If you read only one book on Islam in our time, let it be this one.
Rating:
Summary: Polemic Leavened with Invective
Review: Islamic terror and its roots are an important and fascinating topic worthy of someone who actually speaks Arabic and is a scholar of the region's history. This gadfly book is composed mostly of invective and polemics. I recommend to anyone who seriously wants to consider this subject the work of Professor Bernard Lewis.
Rating: 
Summary: A Starting Point for a Discussion of Islamic Fundamentalism
Review: Journalist Stephen Schwartz's book is a starting point for a larger discussion on Islamic fundamentalism, especially its growth and its anti-Western and anti-American aspects. It is one that certainly deserves to be read, but with a critical eye to its flaws, many of which previous reviewers have pointed to great detail.
The book begins well with a breif history of Islam and a synopsis of its major theological principles, but Schwartz does not fully explain the differences between Sunni (or traditional) Islam and Shi'a Islam. This is, however, a major shortcoming in every book I have read on Islam, including Islam by Karen Armstrong, who may the best contemporary writer on religion and religious issues. The most striking difference between the two, as it has been explained to me, is the acceptance of legitimacy of the caliphate, which is akin to saying the greatest theological difference between Catholic Christianity and Protestant Christianity is the acceptance of the authority of the papacy. Other issues, such as interpretation of Qur'an and prestige of the Hadith, are glossed over. Still, his explanation of Sufism and the doctrinal differences between the four major schools of Shariah, while brief, is quite good.
The book looses its argument as it goes along. Schwartz does well in explaining the mistaken Western perception of Wahabbism as the dominate face of Islam and the growth of that sect and the Saudi "state", which he feels is little more than land controlled by the Sa'ud family, and to which he should have rightly focused his efforts. He dilutes his argument, however, by offering Ruhollah Khomeini as the face of benevolent Shi'ism, whose fatawa calling for the assination of Salmon Rushdie for alternative interpretations Qur'an and the life of Prophet Muhammad is not even mentioned in the book, and Chechan rebels as rightious freedom fighters. The evidence linking Osama bid Ladin to Suddamn Hussein is weak. All Islamic fundamentalism is clearly not Wahhabism and cannot be grouped under the same umbrella, but that does not make it any less dangerous; Hamas and Hezbollah, regardless of differences in sources of funding, bases of operation, and ideological doctrine, all covered in great detail, are still committed to the destruction of Israel.
Schwartz's criticism of international leftism as a global conspiracy of Communism is when I knew his argument had lost steam.
Still, the criticism mentioned herein and by other reviewers, while valid, should not shy one away from reading the book, although purchasing it is another story. Schwartz writes good prose and offers extensive documentation, but clearly has a hidden political agenda (supporting the current war on terrorism). I recommend reading the book, but with a skeptical opinion as to his numerous claims.
Rating: 
Summary: Journalism is not scholarship
Review: Mr. Schwartz attempts to convince his readers of an amazing fact about the conflicted nature of the Saudi oil empire, and he is almost convincing. The problem with Schwartz's argument is not so much that there is a dimension to Islam that has pernicious tendencies. Anyone can see that. The problem arises when he downplays the historic fact of Islam's continued reign of terror in one part of the world or another since the 7th Century. By labeling those who know history as Islamophobes, Schwartz defeats what may indeed be an intelligent insight into what really happening in the Islamic world. By contrast, Professor Bernard Lewis (Cultures in Conflict, Islam and the West, The Shaping of the Modern Middle East) and other disinterested Arabists more accurately and dispassionately identify the many faces of Islam through an accurate and scholarly historical approach.
Yes, Mr. Schwartz, the Ottomans welcomed the Spanish Jews, but under the condition that they would be willing to go anywhere they were sent and operate in conquered regions as a source of cash and secret intelligence. Resentment towards the Muslims and Spanish Jews throughout the Balkans as a result of this infiltration and occupation must not be ignored or minimized. What happened there is inexcusable, but is still understandable in light of history. To admit this fact of history would not undermine your basic premise that there is a dangerous element in Islam that must be rooted out if freedom and democratic principles are to survive.
We cannot afford to overlook the betrayals within our borders, as well as those in the Islamic world. Mr. Schwartz is a good journalist to draw our attention to it. He needs to show better scholarship before commenting on the past, however.
Rating:
Summary: Must reading to understand terrorism/Islam today
Review: Must reading to understand the problems of the middle east and the Islamic world today. Just where do the Saudi's stand on terrorism and what should be our relationship with them?
Rating:
Summary: A Rather Shallow Perception of Wahhabism
Review: One of the main problems with this book is that Stephen Schwartz tries to find every opportunity to knock Wahhabism and praise Sufism, while coming accross as being an impartial observer. However, this is not the case, as Stephen Schwartz is actually a Sufi convert. Furthermore, there is a crucial point that Schwartz and other critics of Wahhabism such as Dore Gold and Hamid Algar are overlooking. The principle ideological source of terrorism is not coming from Saudi Arabia, but rather, from the Qutbist groups of Egypt. These groups such as al-Jihad and what eventually became known as al-Qaeda are opposed to the Wahhabi scholars of Saudi Arabia. There has been a transformation within Saudi society since before the gulf war, in which these Qutbist and Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan) teachings have been seeping into the Saudi Kingdom. This became especially evident when some of the Saudi youth who travelled to Afghanistan during the U.S. backed war there met up with the Egyptian Jihadists. Another book which is carried by Amazon called The Wahhabi Myth by Haneef James Oliver goes into this subject quite accurately. In fact, this book actually refutes Stephen Schwartz in quite an interesting way. Part of that refutation can be found on the author's website. Hopefully, writers and critics will soon be able to refer to Wahhabism in a more objective manner. This is what is lacking in Schwartz's The Two Faces of Islam.
Rating:
Summary: Two cheers at best
Review: One of the oddest things about this book is its reviews, positive and negative alike. Apparently none of the reviewers have noticed that Schwartz, to the extent one can judge from a plethora of hints in the text (most obviously in the Acknowledgements) is, most likely, himself a Sufi. It is pointless, therefore, to guess whether he is on the Right or on the Left and whether his book is anti-Islamic - it definitely is not. It is, in fact, a polemical tract, and whereas I do not believe the picture of the contemporary Islam he paints is without merit, it is seriously flawed due to his relentless Sufi perspective. Thus, ayatollah Homeini gets away with a mild rebuke simply because he was a Shiite and pro-Sufi. The author somehow fails to mention that the practice of suicidal martyrdom was not invented by the Wahhabites. It goes a long way back with the Shiites and was widely practiced during the Iran-Iraq war. Iranian revolution, even though not exportable per se because tainted with Shiism, was an idea and an example that went a long way. Furthermore, Schwartz gives very different treatment to rather similar secular regimes. He professes great dislike for Kemal Ataturk but deals gently with Nasser of Egypt, pretty ugly character. Everything clears up once we recall that Ataturk banned Sufi orders, whereas Nasser who was fighting Wahhabi-like Moslem Brotherhood, left the Sufis alone. And so forth. The history of Wahhabism and its present day worldwide influence deserve to be widely known, and Schwartz is apparently well served by his Sufi sources. Still, terms like "diabolical" do not belong in a book that purports to retain some objectivity. To conclude, the title itself is wrong. It suggests that the diabolical face of Wahhabism is somehow balanced by the angelic face of Sufism. No, it is not - and not only because Sufism, thanks to its horizontal structure, is far from uniform and does not possess a hierarchy to speak for itself. Every major religion can possess only one merit in the eyes of those who are not its adherents: it could leave them alone. In other words, it could be either intrusive or ignorable. Islam, whatever its historical deserts, today does not pass this test.
Rating:
Summary: Good book about Saudi Arabia; not so good about Islam
Review: Schwartz is right to find two faces of Islam. But he is naive to think that only the face he approves of is the real one. Schwartz is a convert to the beautiful but heretical Sufi branch of Islam. So it is not quite right to portray him as "a Jewish historian."
The book has a sharp tone and makes a strong case for reassessing our ties with Saudi Arabia.
Schwartz does not address that the two faces are found from the very beginning of in the life of the Prophet himself.
Rating:
Summary: OK, but not great
Review: Schwartz's book provides one of the most comprehensive histories of Saudi Arabia to date. While the historical aspects of his writing are strong, though, he tends to drift into diatribes against the ruling party in Saudi Arabia that undermine the more contemporary portions of his book. Overall, this book is good reading as background to the problems and successes in Saudi Arabia, but ought to be supplemented by other sources (I would recommend Dr. Bernard Lewis).
|
