The Two Faces of Islam : Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism

Rating:
Summary: a place to start
Review: I found the book a generally good read. However, as someone who knows very little about Islam, I get the feeling that this book is not telling the whole story. He seems to paint the world of Islam in general black and white strokes, with 'good' and 'bad' Muslims. Another problem I had is that Schwartz makes alot of accusations about members of some American Islamic institutions being terrorrists, but buries any information in the footnotes. I felt that such strong accusations deserved more information in the book. One reader says that this should be the one book a person should read, but I would disagree. It is definitely worth the time to read, but it left me looking for some different points of view.

Rating:
Summary: Saudis as seen by a Sufi
Review: I tend to agree with the first review on this site by "a reader" who wonders whose side Stephen Schwartz is on. I have read his articles in The Weekly Standard and elsewhere and expected a more Western view of Islam. The acknowledgement section at the end of the text reveals what some chapters implied, that Schwartz is himself a Sufi mystic from a Jewish background. That explains his portrayal of the Shi'ites and Sufis in the Balkans, Caucasus and central Asia in innocuous terms, and his soft treatment of the Iranian Islamist revolution.

That being said, his book is an excellent and detailed portrayal of the rise of the Sa'ud dynasty and its partner, the Wahhabi sect of Islam, which I would describe as a Bedouinized, harsh and austere view of religion. I dislike the terms radical and fundamentalist because they suggest a return to the roots or foundational principles of a movement. Judging rom Schwartz's account of the life and character of Muhammed, there is very little of his basic principles in Wahhabism, which is militant and domineering, practicing a kind of religious colonialism toward all other branches of Islam using oil wealth to export its philosophy through building mosques, complete with Wahhabist imams and schools of indoctrination nearly everywhere. These are the source of mujahadin, who are not the philosopher warriors of the past but brainwashed juveniles who have been turned into suicide bombers in madrassas. They have had their view of life, the normal hope and ambition of young people, stripped away and a vision of martyrdom, resting in the Garden of Allah with 72 dark-eyed virgins, inculcated in its place.

This book left me with unanswered questions about the Iranian version of Islam, which Schwartz says is very strict, but not imperialist like the Wahhabis, but its recent meddling in Iraq and attempting to foment a Shi'ite uprising makes me doubt that.

The book is a collection of Schwartz's past writings as a journalist, and so seems disjointed and erratic at times, but it is nevertheless a good history of the Sa'ud dynasty and its support for terror around the world. More Westerners need to look beyond the assurances from our governments and media that Wahhabism is merely a conservative form of Islam. It's not. It's an apostate doomsday cult with the same kind of aims as Communism and Nazism, to conquer and control the world. It's as hostile to other historic brands of Islam as it is toward Jews and Christians, and it must not be allowed to use our laws and tolerance of religious pluralism as cover for its subversive and deceitful activities.

Rating:
Summary: Overkill
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, let it be 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: The Good. The Bad. The Ugly
Review: The GOOD about "THE TWO FACES..." is that it is superbly researched, well organized, and eloquently presented. FACES gives us a brief historical overview of the progression of Islam since its founding by the prolific self-annointed messenger of God - Muhammad - through the imprinting of Wahabbism by the early band of nomadic criminals we now refer to as Saudi Royalty. It is compelling reading for, and a "MUST read" by, every American in a position of political influence who's otherwise sheltered perspective needs a refreshing slap in the face. The verifiable facts on current Saudi and Islamic undercurrents makes Stephen Schwartz FACES an essential backdrop to our understanding of the route causes of 911, and renders nonsensical the oft repeated question: "Why do they hate us?"

The BAD has nothing to do with the facts as presented by Mr Schwartz. It has everything to do with his confounded objective of telling us that Islam is a wonderful religion that fell victim to Saudi shenanigans on the one hand, while on the other painting Islam's history of perverse anal-retentive dark-ages mentality. Mr Schwartz would have been much better off sticking to the abundant evidence disclosing Saudi complicity, both direct and tangential, in the spread of fundamentalist Islam to further their Imperial appetites rather than trying to defend Islam as a gentle loving religious movement in which we infidels all might want to partake.

The UGLY is Mr Schwartz' high browed dismissal of anyone who dares to question whether Islam rises to the level of a bonafide religion. "Self styled experts", he writes, "claim to have found the proof of deep flaws in Islam itself... These essayists and columnists sketched the image of an Islam that is intrinsically aggressive, contemptuous of modernity and the West, fearful of women, and hateful of reason and individuality." My God! What heady lamb's blood have you been imbibing Stephen? The very nature of Islam's pagan practices in Iran, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia, in Gaza, and in every corner of the world where fundamentalist Islam is the backbone of local society, screams of contempt for modernity and for the West.

The last straw of UGLY is Mr Schwartz omission of any reference from the Qur'an. The UGLY truth is that Fundamentalist Islam, as the name implies, is most directly correlated to the writings of the manic depressive Muhammad. Fundamentalist Islam became an instrument of the Saudi family to ensure control over their subjects. It is not, as Mr Schwartz tries to prove, a creation of the Saudi's. Anyone who takes the time to read the monosyllabic treatise of Muhammad will recognize where the Islamic world garners its hate for Jews, for non-Muslims, and most recently for non-fundamentalist Muslims.

Stephen Schwartz is an intelligent, articulate author. He could have done so much better by focusing on the facts, and not appending his personal agenda of favoring his few rational Muslim friends.



Rating:
Summary: Something far less than objective
Review: This is a very peculiar book. Schwartz takes a particular form of Islam--Sufism--which is certainly not the mainstream of the religion, and tries to use it as the yardstick by which to measure any other form of Islam. The result, as with most ventures in using the wrong tools, is a poor book.

Schwartz actually tells the reader very little about Islam, even his favored interpretation. Instead, he rants about how a strict traditionalist form of the religion must be the heresy. He makes it very clear that he doesn't like Saudis. Perhaps that's why he's never visited the country?

But if you don't actually know your enemy, then how do you critize him honestly? Schwartz hasn't figured that part out.

The book is worthless.

Rating:
Summary: An important evaluation of Saudi Arabian Islam
Review: We in the United States are used to the idea that Islamic extremists may be up to no good. And that some Muslim nations are behaving like enemies to us. But which ones? Iraq, when Saddam Hussein ruled it? Iran? Syria? Afghanistan under the Taliban?

How about Saudi Arabia, which has been an American ally?

This book describes Wahhabi extremism and gives a useful history of Saudi relations with the West.

The most interesting portion of the book is the chapter titled "Religious Colonialism," which describes what Schwartz describes as the Wahhabi conquest of American Islam. The author states that American Muslims are a rather diverse community. However, Wahhabis and Wahhabi money have taken over the leadership of many Muslim organizations. These include the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), the American Muslim Council (AMC), the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Wahhabi money also supports some Hamas operational groups such as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).

In addition, the Wahhabis have successfully lobbied to get non-Muslims to see them as the premier representatives of American Muslims. Schwartz notes a letter from a number of Christian organizations, including representatives of the United Church of Christ, the National Council of the Churches of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, the National Council of Catholic Bishops and a leading body of the Methodist Church. That letter protested alleged unfair media scrutiny of AMC activites and referred to AMC in its first line as "the premier, mainstream Muslim group in Washington."

The author concludes that we ought to search for reconciliation among the major monotheistic religions: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Of course, as a Pagan, I see not merely the need but also the difficulty of accomplishing this. Pagan religions are generally compatible, while monotheistic ones generally are not. Schwartz also concludes that America ought not try to maintain any political alliance with a Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. He looks forward to an overthrow of the Wahhabis there.

I'm deducting a star from my evaluation, because I think Schwartz goes a little overboard in his positive evaluations of all non-Wahhabi versions of Islam. But I think that those who have been unaware of the nature of Saudi Islam ought to read this book.