Whether or not one can gain necessary information by living in a country depends, of course, on what one is looking at. My point, which I stand by, is that the image of Wahhabis that you draw in “Two Faces” does not accord with the faith practiced by the majority of Saudis, Wahhabi though they are. My assertion is that you’ve created a straw man whom you proceed to trash. In the thrashing, you demean and defame the majority of Saudis. That, pure and simple, is what I dislike about your book.

I also assert that your book caught the crest of a wave of Saudi-bashing post 9/11 and that you seem perfectly content to take advantage of it. Nothing wrong with that, of course, though it isn’t actually a reflection on the merits of your argument.

And may I ask why this post, which dates to March, 2005, has again caught your attention? Have you discovered some new affront to your dignity?

And, I confess, as ‘another boring and self-important blogger’, I do not fall on my knees in abject horror at the thought of your status as a ‘widely-published author’. If there was ever an abject appeal to authority as that sentence, not to mention a bit of ad hominem, I’m hard pressed to find one. Nice going; it’s a keeper!

Furthermore, I did not engage in ad-hominem attacks on you. I do not know who you are and did not say anything about you personally. You, however, attempted to impugn my book, which has been translated and published as an official Islamic document, and me, by suggesting all sorts of nonexistent faults. Then you had the extraordinary nerve to claim that MY “attempt to overwhelm from a presumptive position of expertise instead of actually arguing your point does little to advance your argument.” Look in a mirror. “An attempt to overwhelm from a presumptive position of expertise” describes your method exactly.

There is no such person in Jewish religious history as “Rishi.” I demonstrated by the discussion of Kabbalah that no matter how many years you lived in the KSA you engaged in nothing here but a jealous little squealy bluff because someone has been more successful than you at dealing with Saudi… and without having to go there, just as Orwell did not have to go to Russia.

My book is now read around the world. Maybe your Saudi friends didn’t like it. Too bad for them. Lots of well-placed Saudis, including some close to King Abdullah, appreciate it.

In the end, I am a widely-published author, while you are just another boring and self-important blogger. Sorry to be rude, but facts are facts.

Agree with you cent per cent on this observation. Looking at South Asia (my origin per National Geographic’s Genographic DNA analysis), clearly the second largest Muslim population in a country, India, doesn’t have the same challenges as its twin neighbors. Of course I don’t want to minimize the challenges from the Deobandis but the heterogenous mix in India offers some religious solace (even though the socio-economic challenges are daunting for most minortiy groups).

Regards,

— Reza.

Schwartz was blaming Saudi Wahhabism as the sole source of terrorism–it was the topic of his book, after all–because that was a clearly identifiable target. His oversimplification of the picture earned him lots of money and airtime, but it was factually wanting.

At best, he was being intellectually lazy.

I don’t want to step in the middle of your debate with Stephen Schwarz. I simply want to add two observations:

1. Shia Muslims abandoned the Muslim organizations they founded in large numbers across the U.S. Whether they were made unwelcome by trend towards Wahabi practices in these organizations or they found funds to start parallel organizations remains unclear.

2. My father often remarks that many, many educational Islamic books published since the 80s seem to have a basic theme and a common set of phrases that point to a common origin. Guess the origin?

There has to a middle ground in arguments between Stephen and you.

Regards,

— Reza.

I’ve read your article and the answers of Stephen Schwartz with interest. I can’t say much about the controversy between you and Stephen re. Wahabi Islam. But I can say that he is right that the orthodox prayer service is built upon kabbalistic principles. (and so are the conservative and reform services, perhaps a bit less, but still.) Kabbalah is the inner foundation of Judaism, the references to principles of Kabbalah in the prayer service are many, as Stephen Schwartz pointed out. Yes, not every participant in synagogue might be aware of this. The prayer service is, as it were, ‘the outer garment’ of the inner, kabbalistic content, which is always to elevate the human soul, to bring it to a higher level. I don’t know enough about the realtionship of Sufism/Islam to know if that is the same ‘relationship’.
shalom from Yerushalayim, Eva

He takes on Stephen Schwartz and decimates him, even when Schwatz comes to comment. In the process, John details his nuanced and expert view of Saudi Arabia, Whabbism, and the development of extremism.

Not only have I lived and worked in an array of Muslim countries for the majority of my life, from Turkey through all of the Arab countries, but I’ve also lived in South and South East Asia, where strong Muslim minorities live. I’ve also a major concentration in Theology from Georgetown U. Your attempt to overwhelm from a presumptive position of expertise instead of actually arguing your point does little to advance your argument. I will acknowledge that when I use the term “Kabbalah” I am refering to the esoteric or hermetic Kabbalah, the current “interpretation” that dominates popular discourse.

I’m well aware that there is a deeper Kabbalah, as exemplified by the Zohar. I’m familiar, too, with Rishi and Rambab (Maimonides), as well as concepts like the Sefirot. I’m well acquainted with Shabbatai Zevi (17th C) and his mission, as well as that of Baal Shem Tov (18th C).

There’s a “go-lightly” form of Kabbalah that everyone can accept as good practice for living life. Equally, there are “Sufi-light” adherents who find much to appreciate in it’s New Age-isms. Neither are the “real” forms of their respective practices. That is my point and that is my criticism of your book.

I’ve no doubt that you’ve heard what you report from dissident Saudis. However, most Saudis are not dissidents. To try to interpret Saudi Arabia and the Saudi population, based solely on the perceptions of dissidents doesn’t really make a lost of sense, you know. I’ve no doubt, either, that you’ve picked up some factual information about Saudi Arabia and the religious practices of some Saudis. But by concentrating on the 2% that is truly dangerous, you demonize the other 98% and make is far more difficult for them to effect reform.

I don’t pretend to be the world’s leading expert on Saudi Arabia. But rather than “Potemkin villages”, I actually traveled around and through Saudi Arabia while living there for four years. I’ve stayed with shepherds during their spring grazing periods and eaten dinner with taxi drivers and grocers; I’ve spent long nights arguing with academics and journalists, as well as a range of religious scholars–Sunni, Shi’a, and Sufi. I’ve also done original research for the USG on Shi’a families of the Persian Gulf.

What you report in Two Faces is a stereotype of one sort of Saudi religious zealot. That type is unrepresentative of the population at large, as all stereotypes ultimate prove false.

I was, in fact, living in Saudi Arabia when your book came out. It served a somewhat useful purpose. Saudis who read it–and many did–were so dismayed by the untruthful scorn you heaped upon them that it did motivate them to get serious in fighting off the zealots. It provided a useful lesson for them about how thoroughly misunderstood their religious practices truly were.

I have absolutely no problem with Sufism, Kabbalism, mystical forms of Christianity. They all have their value and their adherents. But orthodox practitioners, those who eschew the mystical, also have their values. Those who pervert religion to reach their individual ends can hardly be called exemplars of those religions. This is the error you make in assuming that all, or even most Saudis adhere to the most radical forms of Wahhabism. They quite simply do not.

If you’d like to continue discourse instead of invective, I’m happy to oblige.