Robert Spencer’s biography of Muhammad will be available in a few weeks, and galley copies are going out now. It will be fascinating to find out whom The Times and The Post and The Daily Scream will decide to assign the task of reviewing this book on Muhammad. Let's apotropaically guess: will it be the "brave reformer" Khaled Abou El Fadl? Fawaz Gerges, the hysterical "islamochristian"? The polymath rock star of Beirut and Irvine, California, Mark LaVine? The Shambhala Press star Carl Ernst? Or Michael Sells, who never quite informs his students about the Sira of Muhammad, that Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil? Some "expert" in international relations, the kind who solemnly tells NPR's Tom Ashbrook that Osama bin Laden is "deranged" (the very adjective I heard recently on "On Point")?
That, of course, is a most convenient way of rejecting the necessity of actually learning about what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and figure of Muhammad -- if those who so loyally follow the example of Muhammad, who are true to Qur'an and Sunnah, can blithely be dismissed. Don't expect Tom Ashbrook to know a thing about Islam so that he might be capable of raising an objection -- he knows as little today as he knew four years ago, that is to say, nothing at all.
Who will review it? In "The Nation" will it be high-cheekboned Katerina van den Heuvel herself, or earnest Jonathan Schell, or some other well-protected product of the Upper East Side, the ones who hold on to their trust funds very carefully, or even manage, like Wallace Shawn, to find a way to blend so beautifully the theories of Lenin with the cultural practices of Swifty Lazar?
Who will review it in The Sunday Times? The Times has been in the habit of assigning books, without fear but plenty of favor, to the likes of James Bamford. The assigning editor, Sam Tanenhaus, is apparently unaware that James Bamford has a history of making outrageous statements about Israel. He claimed in his book on the National Security Agency that the Israelis deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, and did so in order to prevent the United States from finding out about Israeli soldiers massacring Egyptian prisoners. This was a total fabrication, and the same viciousness about Israel can be detected in everything he writes. So if not Bamford, who of course knows nothing about Islam, who? Michael Scheuer, on the silly theory that since he was mentioned by Adam Gadahn, he must be someone of substance? Who will it be?
And at The Bandar Beacon, why not the best of the locals? That's right -- why not John Esposito himself? Surely he's the man to review the book. He's the head of the Center of Muslim=Christian Understanding at Georgetown. He's taught there, and taught previously at another Jesuit school, Holy Cross. He wouldn't fool us, would he? He's got no reason to defend Muhammad, does he?
At the Boston Globe, will it be H.D.S. Greenway, who has spent the last 30 years (at least) at Morrissey Boulevard instructing us all, smoothly, about the perfidy of Israel and the misunderstood, and quite wonderful Arabs of the PLO, of Egypt, of Jordan, and everywhere in the Middle East that David Greenway chose to go? But Greenway never bothered, not even in all those years of bow-tied and chinese-vased demi-retirement in Needham, to actually begin to find out something about Islam. Why, it was just 2-3 years ago that, in one column, he with surprise noted the fears of the Copts in Egypt, and suggested that this was a "new" development, just as some may thing that the promptings of Jihad are brand-new, without precedent, caused by that famous "conflict with modernity" we keep hearing about, when we are not hearing about "poverty" or "American foreign policy" or "Israeli behavior" as the supposed explanation for the behavior of Muslims from southern Thailand to northern Scandinavia to Cape Town, and on over to Dearborn, and all points in between.
Who will review this book? And who will enjoy dismissing it, without ever coming to grips with the evidence it presents, not from the mouth of Robert Spencer, but from Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd and all the other authorities, all of them Muslims, who provide Muslims today with their life of that Perfect Man, Muhammad, an inspiration Now and Forever?
Perhaps you have some ideas about what your local paper will do with this book, what guide to misinformation will be assigned the task of dispatching this book, of preventing readers even from buying it to judge for themselves. Since the evidence presented as to what Muslims are taught about Muhammad comes entirely from the most authoritative Muslim sources, it will be hard to deal with this book, unless the usual litany of pejoratives is used to call the author's good faith, and sanity, into question.
One wonders if the press realizes how much damage it is inflicting on itself through its palpable inability to deal with the subject of Islam. The vast silence about the doctrines of Islam is breathtaking. Islamic doctrines are never discussed in the Western press, though they are hardly hidden from view. Anyone can, through a few clicks on the computer's clavichord, or by looking at any of a number of websites, such as the scholarly www.dhimmitude.org, or such websites as www.answering-islam.org or that of ex-Muslims such as Ali Sina at www.faithfreedom.org, find out more in an afternoon than they have been given in the past five years by all the articles round and about the subject that have appeared in The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon combined. And similarly, much can be discovered, on the Internet and by visits to the library, about the practice of Islam over 1350 years -- about Jihad-conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims.
We don't accept the nonsense of Bush about this, so why should we accept the nonsense of the editorial board of The Times or the Beacon or The Globe or The Post or The Scream?
Go ahead. Make suggestions. Offer us a list of potential reviewers. Don't be too silly. Don't suggest Charlie Sheen or Jacques Chirac or Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter or Kofi Annan. Be serious.
It is entirely possible, for example, that the portentous Zbigniew Brzezinski will be asked to put in his two cents, by someone indifferent to, or ignorant of, his role in the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And one can imagine all those assorted indyks and rosses chiming in -- the people who have made their entire government careers, and even their post-government richly-endowed careers, on the basis of their belief that "negotiations" and "treaties" could have great significance, could bring to a permanent end the Arab Muslim opposition to the Infidel state of Israel. In other words, these people have spent 30 years without understanding Islam, and are prepared to spend the next ten or twenty in such ignorance. They have nothing to tell us, and have no business reviewing Spencer's book on Muhammad.
There will be no tangible reward for the best entry or entries, but admiration from afar. That should do.
Robert,
It would not surprise that even if there are bad or questionable reviews, like some movies that generate protests telling others not to go, your new book could end up generating interest among readers.
Why not George Bush? For all the times he refers to the religion of peace, he must know as much about islam as anyone.
Assalamau-laikum all,
I think that the best people to judge this book is muslims themselves.
I would hope that Mr. Spencer will have taken the utmost care not to take stanzas/suras out of context or indeed take a half a portion of a sura ....a mistake that the Kafur often make.
I will be ordering this book too...but only my friend's address in the UK.
I will read it on my next trip to the UK and leave it behind. I guess you are asking for too much trouble by order/taking it back to Pak.
Anyhow I'll see how it goes....whether I can get to the end of the book or not....I know that most muslims won't get past a few chapters.
Well, one thing is for sure. The person who gives the book a GOOD review should change his/her name and go into hiding. They'll soon find themselves on CAIR's hate mail list.
Naseem,
It's a shame that you feel you can't take the book back to Pakistan with you from the UK. Are you afraid of what may happen if people see you reading it? That's one of the nice things about living in the US. People can read and say whatever they please and don't have to fear getting their heads chopped off.
Thank you for your eloquent posts, Hugh. I would suggest Winston Churchill III as a reviewer of Robert's work. The man has a clear grasp of the subject at hand and is well respected within the academic community, which needs to honestly approach the looming Christian/Mohammedan conflict. An honest review by Mr. Churchill may serve as an impetus for discourse between the jihad watching world and academia that is sorely missing.
Churchill on Islamic Fundamentalism
Naseem, the problem with your suggestion is , finding an honest muslim. That's like looking for unicorns.....there aren't any.
It should be required reading for today's multi-culti architects here in the U.S. and in the U.K., most of whom know nothing about Islam and yet feel they are in a unique position to make prononcements about it. But, I doubt the halls of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, or Princeton would receive this book very well.
naheem, the book should make for some interesting taqiyya among your brothers, eh?
What is really needed for informing the masses about Islam is not yet another boring 300-page hardcover tome nobody will read, but a cheap, short paperback book written in an accessible, engaging style by someone like, say, Tom Clancy.
george_rem, I think Robert Spencer is trying to read educated people in academia (not that most of them would read it anyway)in the hope that SOME of them will read his work and cracks in the foundation will begin. He knows that it is through our educational institutions that incorrect images eventually are exposed. It takes time. The reason why this has to be done ACADEMICALLY and in a well-footnoted style is because it will be attacked and has to be defended. You defend ideas through the academic way of sourcing and footnoting. You have to lay the proof before the bar of the critics, so that there is no rational reason for their opposition. Bat Ye'or's works have gone that route. So has Andrew G. Bostom, M.D. in his recent tome on jihad.
Tracts can reach the masses. But they can also be easily attacked using false accusations.
This entire project may take generations, but eventually the truth wins out.
George Rem:
How do you know the book is boring before you've read it or even seen it?
Just wondering.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
It should be mentioned on the cover that the author was singled out for attack in the latest al Qaeda videotape. It would draw a little more attention to it and mply that anyone attacking the book was keeping bad company.
Wally:
Too late. The book had already gone to press before Adam broadcast his love note.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert,
How about your friend Daniel Pipes? Just an idea.
Robert, I should have been more clear. A book like that will certainly be boring to the average reader, who is only used to reading thrillers and the like and has a short attention span. They will not even pick it up in the bookstore.
The best way to teach non-academics is to disguise lecturing as entertainment, and to keep it short.
Fred, we do not have generations. What is needed is smart, massive, effective anti-Islam propaganda. The masses have to wake up NOW. Hollywood can help, popular fiction writers can be enlisted. The academic route is way too slow.
Bigcatgirl:
Dr. Pipes kindly contributed an endorsement, which appears on the back cover of the book. I will publish these endorsements in the coming weeks. But in any case, he doesn't review books he has endorsed.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Thank-you for posting back to me.
Look also to any former Muslims who from their own experiences can give a good review.
What is really needed for informing the masses about Islam is not yet another boring 300-page hardcover tome nobody will read, but a cheap, short paperback book written in an accessible, engaging style by someone like, say, Tom Clancy.
Posted by: george_rem
George_rem I've done something along the lines of your idea. It's not overly short, but it is accessible and is a fiction but is also polemic in tone. It contends the foundation of all the behavior rests solely in the canonical texts of Islam.
I've been rejected about 35 times but currently one literary agent is checking it out. It will be called A Plague on Both Houses when published. If I don't find representation through an agent soon, I will contact publishers directly. If no luck there, I will follow DC Watson's example and self publish. But the story is in the thriller genre and is accessible to those who find all of this too cerebral. I agree with you completely on the point that the masses need to be reached through an entertainment. I've put 3+ years into it and I hope it helps the effort spearfronted by Mr. Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and all the others.
I nominate the lovely dhimmi Vanessa Redgrave to review Robert's latest book. Sorry, April Fools is over.
On James Bramford. Right, Hugh, but it may worse than one thinks! One of Bramford's central contention's was Israeli suppression of the Liberty attack because of the Sinai massacares. His "ace" in the hole was a series of 'overflights' where US pilots actually had transcripts of what was said on both sides. Bramford alleges that this 'smoking gun' was deep sixed somewhere in a hidden, secret vault at NSA, but would prove all of the anti-Israeli allegations. He alludes to these audio tapes as being absolutely damming to Israel.
I watched him a year or two ago on Wolf Blitzer when the tapes came out. The tapes proved wtihout exception that Israel made a mistake. He, Bramford, was unhinged as the tapes played. Completely upset, lost and angry as a bull, discussing alleged massacares in the Sinai, but it was like he became unglued(much to this poster's satisfaction)when his entire house of cards came crashing down. I guess haters of any stripe do not really 'need' a 'reason' to hate, but it gives aid and comfort to the haters own super id.
I greatly look forward to Robert's latest book. And on the serious nature of reviewers, how 'bout Congressmen Tom Tancredo!
How about George Schultz? (Is he still around?).
As I recall, Schultz, as Sec of State, was always willing to give the PLO and Arafat, etc. the benefit of the doubt---until one day, someone placed a bomb in HIS limosine. Then, he saw the light, on terror.
"Right, Hugh, but it may worse than one thinks! One of Bramford's central contention's was Israeli suppression of the Liberty attack because of the Sinai massacares."
-- from a poster above
1. There were no "Sinai massacres" to cover up by attacking the S.S. Liberty; that was part of my point (see below). Bamford made that up out of whole (and flimsy, nearly diaphanous) cloth. When confronted, as he was on that show, with the actual tapes (or with the careful articles in rebuttal, as that by a former Judge), he simply falls apart, sputters, gets angry, and behaves exactly like a Muslim spokesman caught in taqiyya, attempting to bluster his way out of it.
2. My comment did mention exactly what you appear to think I failed to mention -- Bamford's invoking of this non-existent "massacre" of Arab prisoners supposedly being covered up.
"Right, Hugh, but it may worse than one thinks! One of Bramford's central contention's was Israeli suppression of the Liberty attack because of the Sinai massacares."
-- from a poster above
1. There were no "Sinai massacres" to cover up by attacking the S.S. Liberty; that was part of my point (see below). Bamford made that up out of whole (and flimsy, nearly diaphanous) cloth. When confronted, as he was on that show, with the actual tapes (or with the careful articles in rebuttal, as that by a former Judge), he simply falls apart, sputters, gets angry, and behaves exactly like a Muslim spokesman caught in taqiyya, attempting to bluster his way out of it.
2. My comment did mention exactly what you appear to think I failed to mention -- Bamford's invoking of this non-existent "massacre" of Arab prisoners supposedly being covered up.
Every college professor should be required to read the book. Not that it would even raise their leftist eyebrow, but it should be required. and then a test administered.
Naseem
We thought you could no longer access this website, due to a government committee in Pakistan set up to block offensive websites. So JihadWatch isn't considered offensive in Pakistan?
Anyway, this book cites solely Islamic texts, like Ibn Ishaq, for one. And Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim. If Pakis are going to give your dirty looks for possessing that book, just tell them that it's a tafseer on the Sira and Hadith, just as the tafseer itself is a commentary on the Quran.
If they hate it, they are just being Islamophobes, and should face trial in a Shariah court, and dealt with accordingly - according to Islamic law.
P.S. Wonder whether I'm giving ammunition to CAIR? ;->
I nominate the most obvious choice for a reviewer:
Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens has just the right amount of notoriety (though he's been smeared by his former fellow travelers) and he's at least closer to being a cigar than most other well-known commentators out there.
Robert
Just picking up where you left off in a previous thread...
Does the publisher actually publish the book in every language it knows, or is it simply a question of releasing translation rights to other publishers? In this case, for instance, would Regnery have to take the offered translations and publish this book in Hebrew, French, Greek, Tamil, Mandarin, Hindi, Russian, Spanish, Bengali, Thai, Bulgar, Greek, Marathi, Arhamaic..., or would it simply release the rights to those versions to those respective translators?
(Tells you what I know about publishing)
What about that Muslim reporter that you occasionally see on Fox News. Sorry, his name escapes me. He seems pretty level in his approach. He seems to have a good understanding of what is happening in the ME. He also seems conservative. His opinion might be quite interesting.