Today's Boston Globe printed a book review that wasn't quite a book review. Amherst professor Ilan Stavans "reviewed" two new works on Mohammed, Muhammed by Eliot Weinberger and Mohammed: A Prophet for Our Time by Karen Armstrong. Stavans began by criticizing Pope Benedict's recent statements at Regensburg:
"In a lecture at the University of Regensburg, in Germany, last month, Pope Benedict XVI talked about "jihad" as holy war and about using religion as an excuse for destruction and death. He quoted from a debate in the 14th century between Manuel II Paleologos, emperor of the Byzantine Empire, and a Persian cleric..... The immediate response in the Muslim world was one of outrage. In the end, the pontiff was forced to apologize, and maybe revisit his ideas about Islam."
When a book review begins with a misstatement like this, the bells go off - ding-ding-ding-ding!! Pope Benedict did not apologize for what he said, he expressed regret that the Muslim world reacted with violence. Pope Benedict has written and spoken about the nature and history of Islam for several years. I'm quite sure that he is not "revisiting his ideas about Islam" because of the riots, church burnings, and the deaths of a priest and a nun. The violence rather proved his point. Benedict's ideas are well formulated and based on an extensive historical and theological knowledge.
For the next two paragraphs, Stavans discusses how ignorant the West is about the life of Mohammed, notes that all religions have their fanatics, and he tells us what he knows about Mohammed's life, and lists several bibliographical sources. Four paragraphs in, he discusses one of the authors:
"Thus, the fact that Eliot Weinberger's increased curiosity toward the Muslim world is due, in large measure, to George W. Bush's intolerance ought not to be seen as an impediment."
Let's have some more of Stavan's ideology, shall we? I'm sure there's a book review in there somewhere! Finally, Stavans talks about Weinburger's book, which he dismisses as "useless" in a mere three sentences. Stavans then turns to Armstrong's book, noting that "she offers a panoramic perspective, meticulously following the path of the prophet from birth to death while analyzing the theological, social, economic, military, and cultural forces shaping him." She is criticized by Stavans for being didactic and having a stilted style. Armstrong is viewed by many conservatives (including Robert Spencer and Efraim Karsh) as sugar-coating Islam, ignoring or glossing over the unsavory aspects of its history.
Speaking of Robert Spencer, why no mention here of Spencer's recent book, The Truth About Mohammed? His book is currently ranked 49th top selling book at Amazon.com, and #31 on the NY Times best sellers list. Hmmpphh, oversight on the part of the Stavans or the Boston Globe? Reviews of Spencer's book can be found here and here.
The book review concludes with a suggestion for the Pope and all of us:
"The sword isn't absent in the Koran. Neither are tales of wisdom and morality. Pope Benedict shouldn't waste time in proxies and surrogates. He would do well by reading the Koran directly. So would we."
How do you say "chutzpah" in Spanglish*?
Well, I think that we would all do well by reading the Bible (some of the Acts of the Apostles are fascinating), and better knowing the literary, philospohical and religious underpinnings of our Western culture. But I wouldn't say that in a book review. Stavans is far too heavy on ideology here, and his piece belongs on the op-ed pages. So many academics just can't help themselves.
* Ilan Stavans is known for his research on Spanglish, which he calls a new American language, comparable to Yiddish and Ebonics. According to Wiki, he advocates teaching Spanglish in the classroom. Way to keep the kids back, Professor.
Comments