Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
74 of 86 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Flawed but still good., September 5, 2001
I have read David Pryce-Jones review of Miller's book and, although I agree with Pryce-Jones that Miller misses the real root of the problems that plague the badly-named "Middle East," I do not share the British author's severity of judgement. "God has ninety-nine names" is, before anything, a series of photographs in words. The reader will not get the depth that a profound analysis of the region should have, but we are trading the scholarly insights of a historian (and Miller is not a historian) for the immediacy of a reporter. I found several problems with this book, but none was so grave as to make me change my strong recommendation. Miller writes with the typical attitude (it has been called arrogance sometimes) of those who come from the developed Western world and marvel or gasp at the way the unwashed masses of the Third World behave. She equates westernization with modernization and both with progress, and in the Middle East there is cosmetic westernization, shallow modernization, and scant progress, with the exception of the State of Israel, an altogether different sort of bird in a very dismal aviary. When confronted with the harsh reality of strong men impossing their will on their subjects, and whole countries going macho and abusing their women (and those women in many cases applauding and encouraging such attitudes), then Miller seems to understand that she is in a different world, one that never knew of chivalry, or the Renaissance, or the French Revolution until those concepts and philosophies were imported to the area by Europe. The Middle East then appears as a dangerous place where secular and not-so-secular governments, some allied to the West, some its declared enemies, fight mostly vicious little wars against the religious militants who want to overthrow them and impose Shari'a throughout the Islamic world. The level of nastiness seems to have gone down, curiously, in Iran, where Shari'a is supposed to be working since the Shah left. Miller writes chapters on ten countries, including Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. That the only country in the region where fundamentalists can participate politically as opposition, elect mayors, and run their show mostly as they see fit, is Israel, should not surprise anyone. That as soon as they acquire power (as in Sudan and Iran) fundamentalists make it practically impossible for others to be critical, except in open rebellion, should not be a surprise, either. Miller describes the area well, and her sense of being in the middle of things, plus the importance of the reporting, adds to the immediacy of the information we get. It would have been interesting to have chapters on Iraq, Turkey, and the Gulf States, but what she covers is well represented. I do not remember if Miller states that she speaks and/or reads Arabic, but the impression I got is that she can do neither. If this is the case, it would only show that, even though she reports candidly and helpfully, her understanding and vision must be limited. Pryce-Jones, of course, is right: power, and power defined and limited by honor and shame, are the key. Miller finally lets us get a glimpse of this phenomenon in her chapter on Jordan, where honor, shame, and conspiracy theories have prominence in pages 354-5. Her "Conclusions" chapter is special, since some of her opinions expressed before on the book, are refuted with a very politically-correct jab at the U.S. and its democracy, free markets, and (naturally) materialism. This is an uneven but valid work that should get the reader interested in the region. If that is the case, let me recommend "The Closed Circle: an interpretation of the Arabs," by David Pryce-Jones; "The Arab Predicament," by Fouad Ajami; "Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief," both by V.S. Naipaul; and any book by Bernard Lewis.
|
|
|
46 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Enlightening, May 30, 2001
By A Customer
Judith Miller is one of few who dares to blame the plight of minorities in Arab lands on the pervasive bigotry, racism and violence of Arab society. For that she is to be commended, not scorned. Ironically, Miller joins Moslem writers whose treatment of taboo subjects have been considerably more harsh than hers. Beyond the Veil portrays the Prophet Mohammad as a ... addict because he had up to 12 wives at the same time. Naguib Mahfouz' The Children of Gebalawi shows Mohamad as someone who smokes Hashish, and Nawal Saadawi recently declared The Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca, one of 5 pillars of Islam) a paganistic practice. Not to mention Salman Rushdi, whose Satanic Verses portrays the prophet as sexually perverted. How honest is Edward Said, on the other hand? When covering Islam in Moslem countries, Said suggests that journalists and commentators should avoid subjects embarrassing to Arabs and Moslems. That includes the treatment of Christians, Jews, Bahais, women and other members of oppressed or minority classes whose plight in the Arab world has long been neglected by western scholars. Said suggests that no Christian or Jew can legitimately criticize the Moslem world. That includes scholars like Bernard Lewis, Yael Bat Yeor (who grew up in Egypt) and Miller, a Jewish reporter for the New York Times. In effect, Said advocates a cover-up of Arab and Moslem atrocities. This can only perpetuate the suffering of those oppressed in Arab nations, including women. Miller sheds light on this arena. Said advocates a double standard. Which one is more honest? My vote's with Miller.
|
|
|
32 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Shedding light, May 29, 2001
By A Customer
Judith Miller is one of few who dares to blame the plight of minorities in Arab lands on the pervasive bigotry and racism of Arab society. For that she is to be commended, not scorned. Ironically, Miller joins Moslem writers whose treatment of taboo subjects have been considerably more harsh than hers. Beyond the Veil portrays the Prophet Mohammad as a sex addict because he had up to 12 wives at the same time. Naguib Mahfouz' The Children of Gebalawi shows Mohamad as someone who smokes Hashish, and Nawal Saadawi recently declared The Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca, one of 5 pillars of Islam) a paganistic practice. Not to mention Salman Rushdi, whose Satanic Verses portrays the prophet as sexually perverted. How honest is Edward Said, on the other hand? When covering Islam in Moslem countries, Said suggests that journalists and commentators should avoid subjects embarrassing to Arabs and Moslems. That includes the treatment of Christians, Jews, Bahais, women and other members of oppressed or minority classes whose plight in the Arab world has long been neglected by western scholars. Said suggests that no Christian or Jew can legitimately criticize the Moslem world. That includes scholars like Bernard Lewis, Yael Bat Yeor (who grew up in Egypt) and Miller, a Jewish reporter for the New York Times. In effect, Said advocates covering up Arab and Moslem atrocities. This can only perpetuate the suffering of those oppressed in Arab nations, including women. Miller sheds light on this arena. Said advocates a double standard. Which one is more honest? My vote's with Miller.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Jason Goodwin
by Bernard Lewis
by James Carroll
by Jason Goodwin
See all Editorial Reviews
