5 comments about Dreams Of Trespass: Tales Of A Harem Girlhood.

1. I found this book to be entertaining, educational, inspirational and thought provoking all at once. I personally and Americans in general are largely confused and misinformed about the concept of the harem and how the women in them lived; and it is no wonder or surprise that we are! It seems that even within the high walls and locked gates of the harem the residents cannot agree on the subject! What is a harem? Is it a den of iniquity? A commune? A brothel? A prison? An extended family? A refuge?
   
   Told from the perspective of a 6-9 year old girl growing up in a domestic harem in Morocco in the late 1940s, this book has a freshness and naiveté that only a child can muster as she ponders her place in her home, society, and the world at large.
   
   Her observations of the world around her are uncensored, and guide the reader to a greater understanding not only of other cultures and other women, but of our relationships and ourselves. Only a child has the innocent courage to stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
   
   As I learned about another world, I began also to draw parallels to may own life and current times. Changing laws does not grant freedom to individuals. Here in America we have all the freedoms that these women were deprived of and fought for, and yet in many cases we remain trapped- prisoners of our fears, our habits, our insecurities, and our weaknesses.
   
   In this book I found lots of hope and inspiration, reminding me of many ways to experience freedom inwardly- without the necessity of changing outward circumstances.
   © 2006 Shahina



2. The book was great and interesting. Amazon sent it very quick.



3. I couldn't help but fall asleep whilst reading this book. I only was able to go through about a little over a half, mostly because I was required to read it. Generally, the book is about a middle eastern girl living in a Harem and surrounded by the conflicting Western Power, the French Army. Lots of battles with tradition and western cultures, and primarily about the rift between men and women. So you're in for a subtle yet quite obvious gender conflict, which was in my opinion awfully sexist (I know it's from the view of a woman but that doesn't take away from the fact that she explicitly tries to write as if she were a child again with "innocence" yet fails because of her mature agenda). The author, Mernissi, spends about 10-15 pages per chapter driveling on about the most useless facts or coincidences. Just when you think she's reaching her point and finally bear fruit, it's the start of a new chapter and another take on a topic or segment of her life that is completely irrelevant.



4. I read this after returning from Morocco. The insight into what life used to be like for most women enriched my understanding of the culture which I found fascinating. I'd spoken with several women while in the country who are "liberated" but heard none of the story of the lives of women who adhere to the old traditions. I saw many others who still live behind closed walls. This is the story of the latter group's growing up years that I couldn't have gotten otherwise.



5. Ms. Mernissi states that "The frontier is in the mind of the powerful", and that "...looking for the frontier has become my life's occupation. Anxiety eats at me whenever I cannot situate the geometric line organizing my powerlessness." This book is a very moving first-hand account of the secluded life of a young girl, born into a prosperous family in Fez in the 1940s. She is confined in a harem, which in this case consists of the women and children of an extended family, imprisoned behind walls and a guarded gate for their own protection in an occupied city. "When Allah created the earth, said Father, he separated men from women, and put a sea between Muslims and Christians for a reason. Harmony exists when each group respects the prescribed limits of the other. Trespassing leads only to sorrow and unhappiness. But women dreamed of trespassing all the time. The world beyond the gate was their obsession."
   
   Throughout the book she illustrates the ongoing attempts of her mother and grandmother to discover the outside world, establish their individual identity, and exercise some tiny bit of control over their own lives. Her mother listens to radio Cairo when the men are out of the house, and despite her mother-in-law's disapproval, embroiders birds on her clothes instead of traditional patterns. Although her mother is barred from attending literacy classes by a vote of the leading men of the family, Fatima and her cousins are allowed to attend public school when the country's religious leaders vote to support women's education and schools are opened to female students. Suddenly the outside world is open to her, but she still feels powerless. Her Aunt Habiba provides liberating advice: "It is not enough to reject this courtyard - you need to have a vision of the meadows with which you want to replace it." Fatima must now discover her unique, personal dream, the vision that would give her direction and light. This is a radical change: she is not just a daughter and future wife and mother, she is also an individual with unique and valuable gifts to share with the world.

5 comments about Executive Power.

1. President Hayes has the power, but he looks the other way when it gets down to the real world of dealing with terrorists. This is where Mitch Rapp and his Seal Team take over and feel the justice of the gun is the only justice that terrorists understand.
   
   Mitch's world was very simple for him and his method of operation straight forward, but then his identity is revealed by a stupid politician and now he has a target on his back throughout the world. To even complicate his life more, he gets married. He promises his new bride that he will modify his profession and stay on the side lines during operations; you'll find that nothing could be further from the truth.
   
   Mitch and his Seal Team are called upon to deal with a corrupt Phillipine General who is allowing an American family to be held hostage. If this isn't enogh to do, they have to stop an international terrorist who is bent on creating another War between Israel and the Arab countries. This has a great twist to it. This was my first Mitch Rapp story and I will read more.



2. The first reaction I had to this book after I finished reading it and put it down was... why was it called "Executive Power"? Except for the fact that the Chief executive doesn't exert his power, I think it is a great title! Seriously, the title sounds great, and there is even a bullet hole in the cover to make it seem like POTUS is involved in some action or shows off his power, but alas, it is more Mitch and his wife who is sad while he is away (which is getting tiring).
   
   Parts of this book were enjoyable, but for the most part, it is a place holder while I get ready to read the next book in this series. If you want a good type of book like this, that actually uses the chief executive's power, try reading Gary Grossman's book "Executive Action" which (like the title says) features an executive involved in some action. Just be warned that some of the earlier versions of that book had serious typos. I assume they've been cleaned up since it was published.



3. Not Flynn's best work and not the most entertaining of Rapp's exploits. However, still good enough that I want to read the next in the series and that as a whole, it remains one of my favorites.



4. I love Flynn's books, but this one was not one of his best. I thought the history and politics of Israel and Palestine was very interesting. There were actually two story lines in this book. The Palestinian plot by David against the Saudi millionaire misfit who sponsored David's terrorism and then the kidnapped family in the Philippines. Rapp is directly involved in saving the family and it was a bit far-fetched. Rapp's new wife is a pain. She is a reporter who is only interested in getting a story and not about keeping her mouth shut regarding Rapp's covert activities. This book cannot compare to Memorial Day.



5. If you like political intrigue and/or spy novels, I suggest doing yourself a favor and just buy all of Vince Flynn's books now. Start with "Term Limits" and you'll be hooked. "Executive Power" is excellent. But, of course I have followed these characters through the first 4 of this series. The character development happens throughout the series so you may not be as drawn to the characters if you read "Excutive Power" first.

3 comments about A Year with Rumi: Daily Readings.

1. While Coleman Barks is to be commended for introducing many people to Rumi, his renditions of Rumi's poems scarcely reflect the original Persian. Barks, who does not speak Persian (another word for Farsi), took much better translations for AJ Arberry, and rephrased them for his books. In the process, he lost much of the accuracy and most of the character of the original poetry. Those interested in better translations of Rumi should get a hold of Reynold Nicholson's or AJ Arberry's translations.



2. Coleman Barks is a poet, and his treatments of Rumi bring that poetry into a contemporary context. Like everything that is not pure science, these things are, of course, matters of taste. I am not a Farsi scholar or speaker, but as I understand it - and this is fairly often discussed/hotly debated - the complexities of Sufi poetry in the original languages make it pretty much untranslatable. Here is part of Robet Bly's excellent review of Barks' work, he expresses it so well:
   
   "Rumi has, to the recent amazement of many people in the Western culture as well as the Islamic culture, been able to speak directly to contemporary readers. One of the greatest pieces of good luck that has happened recently in American poetry is Coleman Barks's agreement to translate poem after poem of Rumi. Rumi, like Kabir, is able to contain and continue intricate theological arguments and at the same time speak directly from the heart or to the heart. Coleman's exquisite sensitivity to the flavor and turns of ordinary American speech has produced marvelous lines, full of flavor and Sufi humor, as well as the intimacy that is carried inside American speech at its best."
   --Robert Bly
   
   If the Barks translations speak to you, you'll likely love having a daily meditation book, which this is.



3. I love this book - Coleman Barks does a wonderful job of translating Rumi's poems. I am enjoying working my way through the year!

5 comments about Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism.

1. This is a fine book by "Ibn Warraq." Rather than merely point out a few errors in Ed Said's "Orientalism," it launches into a full-scale defense of the West.
   
   In my opinion, Ed Said was not the first human being to write an untruth, merely the first to put so many untruths in print. And while "Orientalism" is indeed ghastly garbage, one has to wonder about those on university campuses and elsewhere who have taken it seriously. Obviously, "Orientalism" should not be banned just as the words to the "Horst Wessel lied" should not be banned. But one would have to wonder about a university professor who, for political reasons, taught his class the Horst Wessel lied. And I have to wonder about the teaching of "Orientalism" as if it were scholarly work rather than trashy propaganda. As the author of "Defending the West" tells us, quoting Clive Dewey, "Orientalism" clearly touched "a deep vein of vulgar prejudice running through American academe."
   
   Ibn Warraq gets off to a good start by mentioning the aggressive tone of "Orientalism," which he characterizes as "intellectual terrorism" given that it "seeks to convince not by arguments or historical analysis but by spraying charges of racism, imperialism, and Eurocentrism from a moral high ground; anyone who disagrees with Said has insult heaped upon him." And it is disgusting, as the author points out, to see Said's hatred of the country that gave him such privileges as a tenured professor at Columbia University (a university he did much to disgrace). As for his idea that French and British academic studies of Arab lands were part of an imperialist plan, Ibn Warraq reminds us that the first French university chair in Arab studies was founded in 1538 and the first British one in 1633, well before any French of British imperial adventures in the region.
   
   On top of that, the author mentions that Said "always assumed the role in the West of an Islamic expert and has never flinched from telling us in unscholarly journalistic articles what the real Islam is." That's pretty rich of Said, a Christian agnostic. Ibn Warraq says that Said's work "has encouraged Islamic fundamentalists, whose impact on world affairs hardly needs underlining."
   
   Of course, Said omits any context from which various Orientalists wrote. As Ibn Warraq puts it, "even a casual comparison of the rival imperialism of Islam" ought to show that the British Empire should not be dismissed as a purely negative historical force.
   
   Does "Orientalism" at least make logical arguments, albeit using a distorted selection of material? No. It "displays all the laziness and arrogance of the man of letters who does not have much time for empirical research, or, above all, for making sense of its results." I found it interesting that a meritless work written by a propagandist can take years of work to refute, simply because some folks have decided to taunt others by honoring it.
   
   Ibn Warraq applauds Western values as "a system that does not affront our reason and humanity." He warns us that "only within the framework of certain institutions can humankind hope to realize its humanity, that we discard our hard-won institutions at our own peril, the veneer of civilization of most people disappears outside their civilizing confines."
   
   On the other hand, Ibn Warraq warns us that, a little paradoxically, Western rationalism, universalism, and self-criticism can lead to their opposites. For example, "limitless self-criticism leads to self-hatred, as witnessed in the buffooneries of Michael Moore, the exaggerations of Robert Fisk, and the fanaticism of Noam Chomsky."
   
   I agree with the author's reaction to "Orientalism." And I recommend this book.



2. DEFENDING THE WEST: A CRITIQUE OF EDWARD SAID'S ORIENTALISM is the first in-depth critique of a work that for three decades has received nearly unanimous recommendation and discussion. Said's thesis was that the Western image of the East was biased by colonialist attitudes and racism: this reconsideration offers a powerful rebuttal to college-level audiences, surveying misinterpretations in Said's original survey of scholarly literature and providing college-level collections strong in history and culture with a fine reinterpretation. Collections housing Said's work need this rebuttal.



3. Ibn Warraq, author of other brilliant and explosive books such as Why I Am Not a Muslim finally deals the death blow to Edward Said's mythmaking Orientalism (Penguin Modern Classics).
   
   It is a needed critique because so many in the academy have been seduced by Mr. Said. Edward Said was a Anglican Arab raised to an upper class family that lived the life of the jet-set, travelling back and forth from mansions in Egypt, Lebanon and Jerusalem. Said, after his upbringing that included Armenian and Jewish servants, went on to claim that the west was racist for daring to write about the history of the 'East' from a western perspective. He claimed that only Muslims could tell Muslim history and only Arabs could write Arab history.
   
   Warraq shows that not only was Said wrong in asserting that western portrayels of the 'east' were racist, but that in most cases the west romantisized the east and accepted it and learned from it. This is most true today when most western scholarship never critiqus the Koran or the 'east' but instead accepts all the myths it has itself created. This incisive and wonderful book dares to break down these myths and explode them.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



4. For 25 years, many leaders and candidates have accepted the willful misinterpretation of Western history instigated by Columbia University's infamous late professor, Edward Said. Western civilization could greatly benefit if current presidential hopefuls read this bromide of a book, identifying the damage Said caused---and providing a curative.
   
   Politicians here gain a yardstick to measure Western cultural grandeurs (including intense self-criticism)---compared with ongoing social dysfunction, disintegration and horrors over 1,400 years of Islamic history.
   
   Colleges requiring students to read Edward Said's Orientalism should also require this 24-karat tome, rebutting Said's flawed evaluation of the West---what Ibn Warraq identifies as inadequate methods, incoherence, tendentious interpretations---and amusing, but dangerous "historical howlers."
   
   He credits Said for courage and self-criticism---in disparaging Arab writers insisting "the Jews never suffered..., the Holocaust is an obfuscatory confection created by the Elders of Zion," or supporting criminal French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy.
   
   But Orientalism's "pernicious influence" made Arab and Muslim self-examination---especially criticism of Islam within the West---nearly impossible, Ibn Warraq shows; it "taught an entire generation ... the art of self-pity," blaming all Arab and Muslim miseries on "wicked imperialists, racists and Zionists" whom Arabs and Muslims almost universally blame for their failure to reascend.
   
   Alas, Said neglected historical Islamic imperialism---from Mohammed's invention of "one true faith" through the 17th Century, with reprises whenever wealth, time and war materiel sufficed. Petrodollars fueled the recent Islamic renewal of this effort---via "modernized" Muslim Brotherhood ancient Islamic strategy, supremacist jihad---and aggressive 21st century financial jihad through "shari'a finance."
   
   Terror-advocating "experts" like former Pakistani Shari'a Court jurist, Taqi Usmani set Islamic banking standards for the MB construct that was established to promote Islamic supremacy. Usmani serves on the shari'a board of Saudi Arabia's terror-funding Dallah al-Baraka; in July 2007 he advised U.K. Muslims to live peacefully only until they acquire military strength to "establish the supremacy of Islam." Syrian Abdul Sattar Abu Ghuddah is a senior-level advisor to al-Baraka.
   
   Christian, and not an Islamic scholar, Said nevertheless "bludgeoned into silence any criticism of Islam"---adding late-modern inadmissibility to ancient Islamic shari'a tradition: Muslims (or non-Muslims) criticizing Mohammed or Islam are guilty of blasphemy, punishable under Islamic law by death.
   
   Ibn Warraq shows innumerable Western to Islam. Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz avowed, "Napoleon's campaign" ushered Egypt from "centuries of obscurantism" into modernity, including discoveries of pre-Islamic Egypt, which now anchor Egypt's tourism.
   
   Said held, "the Orient was viewed as something inviting French interest, penetration, insemination--in short colonization...." He ignored the German, Russian, Italian and Western Jewish scholars who created Islamic, Middle Eastern and Arabic studies, thereby gutting his thesis.
   
   Ibn Warraq finds Westerners and Western history and thought characterized by "three tutelary guiding lights,"--rationalism; universalism; and self-criticism. Pursuing truth and knowledge, Westerners accepted others and all humanity--and consistently criticized societies to improve them. Sir Jadunuth Sarkar credited the English with India's 19th century Renaissance---a mass-recovery from 500 years of Muslim jihad invasions (1000-1525), when an estimated 80 million Hindus perished.
   
   But Islamic orthodoxy remains "suspicious of `knowledge for its own sake'." Unlimited intellectual inquiry is "dangerous to the faith." The 2003 Arab Human Development Report thus found fewer books translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years than Spain translates in one year; Greece (population, under 11 million), annually translates five times the foreign books as all 22 Arab nations combined (population, 300 million).
   
   Arab and Muslim pleas for assistance often brought Western "imperialists" to the Middle East to start with, Ibn Warraq notes. Sultan Selim III declared Jihad after Napoleon's 1789 Egyptian conquest---joining the infidel British and Russians to protect his imperial territories from the French. In 1804, the Ottomans got territorial guarantees from Russia and Austria; In 1809, they again allied with the British. In 1866, the Sultan permitted Suez canal construction, against British and French objections. Egypt's Khedive Ismail nearly bankrupted his protectorate---and in 1875 sold the Suez to Britain for its £4 million nominal value to unwind debts. Only reluctantly, the British helped quell riots that followed---yet the Sultan refused Britain's request that he repossess canal ownership.
   
   Said ignored historical evidence, mimicking superficial French "existentialists, structuralists, deconstructionists and postmodernists" methods, and "grandiose theories" supported by "flimsy history or empirical foundations." Said's signature work displays "laziness and arrogance" of a literary man lacking time for empirical research or need to prove his results.
   
   Said offended worst by neglecting comparisons. Using them, Ibn Warraq affirms the West.
   
   Said excoriates Western slavery. But Muslim traders were far more culpable. From 1700 to 1929, Arabs traded over 17 million black slaves---including 1.5 million who perished crossing the Sahara; little over 11 million crossed the Atlantic. The Occident outlawed slavery. Muslims saw Western abolitionists as "a threat to their very livelihood but also as an affront to their religion."
   
   Tenth century Arab geographer al-Maqdisi described "Zanj," Bantu-speaking East Africans, as "people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair and little understanding." A 10th century Persian treatise called Africans "people distant from the standards of humanity." A 13th century Persian wrote, "the ape is more teachable and more intelligent than the Zanji." Islamic social scientist, economist and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) argued, "Negro nations" submitted to slavery since they "have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals..."
   
   Even "tolerant" Ottomans perpetuated slavery through tradition and religion---and lacked an abolitionist movement, write Ehud Toledano and Turkish historian Y.H. Erdem.
   
   Ottomans also manufactured and traded eunuchs--boys castrated throughout southern Europe, North Africa and the Near East to maintain large Ottoman harems for the upper classes. Following "total removal of testicles and penis," eunuchs suffered extensive hemorrhaging and death rates upwards of 90% in sub-Saharan and west-central Africa.
   
   Every Middle East scholar and library should own this book.
   
   --Alyssa A. Lappen



5. The book is OK (like any book, I guess), but Ibn Warraq is way too serious about the subject, in my view. It is understandable, considering the impact of Said's "scholarship".
   But, still, Edward Said is not an "intellectual terrorist". I think there is a difference between terror and pogrom. To call Edward Said a terrorist, or an intellectual, would be as ridiculous as to call Trofim Lysenko a scientist, or a biologist. Terrorist have to hide his intentions. Pogrom is done with a certain assurance of impunity. That's exactly what Edward Said have done.
   I guess there is some point in refuting Said's ravings. But overall it looks a little bit odd: really, if you are normal, you wouldn't go to a clinic for mentally ill for some quarrels or intellectual discussions. There are doctors or nurses for that.

5 comments about The Satanic Verses.

1. The Satanic Verses is a rich, provocative but disjointed novel that never delivers as cohesive work of writing. As I'm a huge fan of Rushdie I found this book disappointing as a novel compared to any of his others. Nevertheless the book is enthralling in its own way through its complex metaphor and characterisations. For my part i found this book the most difficult of his to read and was only propelled to finish by its infamy. Not being well versed in the Quoran i clearly missed out on significant undercurrents which might sweep others along far more easily. Basic questions of the nature of prophets and God's word were easily grasped and hence the book felt overworked without a deeper knowledge of Islam. I do feel however that some elements of the book will last with me for my lifetime and on that basis it's hard discount.



2. I was also reading this book because it was on the Modern Library's Top 100. I know very little, if nothing at all about the Muslim or Indian culture, but I still enjoyed this novel. Although most of it was probably way over my head, once I got into the first few chapters of the book I couldn't put it down. I thought it was witty, and quite funny. I think Rushdie is an intelligent man and look forward to reading his other works.



3. A cross-cultural, modern morality tale by a master storyteller. Being a fairly schizophrenic work at times, one has to keep a good grasp of the whole firmly in mind while reading some very seemingly confused or ill-timed sections or passages. The pleasure, of course, is in seeing everything come together in its complexity as the story draws on. Not everything about the book is golden, per se, for it is impossible to completely understand if the reader is not fairly familiar with both western (read: British) and Indian culture. There are references, even behaviors, the reader has to take on faith, which can weaken the piece at times. It is easy to become confused, but if the reader presses on, continuity returns as a reward. Thankfully, the faults are far smaller than the victories.



4. Very strange book, but then I like strange. I fear that much of his artistry is lost in the translation. To really enjoy this book you must read from a different cultural viewpoint.
   
   This is very dark fantasy with some good twists and turns.



5. My wife commented drily as she saw me reading this day after day that it was probably one of the least read bestsellers. Two decades after its controversial release, does this novel merit the considerable attention it demands from any reader taking on over five-hundred pages of often densely Joycean, exuberantly Dickensian, or meditatively magic-realist prose? I think the stories in isolation have many moments that reward careful examination. However, they are dispersed among long sections in which not much happens of any account, so far as the reader's concerned. Rushdie seeks to make a statement about the clash of East and West, the formation of Islam, a surrealistic trek from Pakistan to the Arabian Sea, and London's multicultural ferment. He does manage to explore all these realms, but only with intermittently engrossing scenes.
   
   This novel took me days to finish. My favorite parts probably overlapped those that earned its author greatest hatred among Muslim critics: how the Prophet started Islam under the dictation of Angel Gibreel for me sustained my interest most consistently. The clash of Al-Lat, the female goddess worshipped in Mecca, and Al-Lah, the god who allows no competition, makes for intriguing tension as Hind, the representative of the polytheist old guard, squares off against Mahound the Messenger, who finds himself soon entangled in the dictations and prevarications of Gibreel. "The war between us cannot end in truce." (123) Rushdie contrasts this 7th-century reimagining of how Islam began with contemporary scenes set in London, that intensify other ideological clashes.
   
   In one vignette, Pamela, the lover of Saladin, offers a poignant eulogy for the post-colonial era: "It has been quite a culture, brilliant and foul, cannibal and Christian, the glory of the world. We should celebrate it while we can; until night falls." (190) In exile in London, an Imam's condition spurs this reflection from the omniscient narrator: "In exile no food is ever cooked; the dark-spectacled bodyguards go out for take-away. In exile all attempts to put down roots look like treason: they are admissions of defeat." (190) I found such observations more durable than the fictional post-modern tricks that Rushdie used to keep the stories moving, as these often thwarted easy identification by the reader and wearied me.
   
   Such narrative leaps are acknowledged, as Mimi notes: "I have read 'Finnegans Wake' and am conversant with postomodern critiques of the West, e.g, that we have here a society capable only of pastiche: a 'flattened' world." (270) "Salman the Persian," an early witness to Mahound's claims of being a chosen mediator between Al-Lah and the people of Mecca, suspicious of how the Prophet in seemingly contemporary fashion appears to be angling the revelations supposedly received from Gibreel as a divine messenger to suit his own mortal situation, observes: "This was when he had the idea that destroyed his faith, because he recalled of course that Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if non-corporeal, God." (376)
   
   This astute judgment makes it hard to take the Qur'an at face value anymore. Salman begins to insert what are called the "satanic verses" into the oral revelation, at first as a little joke, then as a way to bring down the pride of the Messenger whose fame and power increase as he is judged the recipient of the divine Revelation of Submission, the new faith that ousts Hind and the goddess-worshippers and the prostitutes-- an episode that numbers among the best in this tale. Mahound is determined to avenge himself in the name of Allah upon Salman and Hind and their kind: "Writers and whores, I see no difference here." (405) This contention between those who understand human desire and cater to mortal weakness against those who dominate the temptings of the flesh with the demands of the spirit-- all the while making exceptions for their own positions of power-- make for thoughtful pages here.
   
   Finally, as with a nod to Nabokov, who'd I'd been thinking about when trudging on through Rushdie's increasingly complicated storylines, Saladin as Chamcha explodes in frustration at this knotted Arabian concatenation of one episode after another: "I give up, anyway. How are you supposed to read a man who writes in a made-up lingo of his own?" (456) This applies to portions here as much as "Pale Fire." The later section on the pilgrimage to the sea by Mishal and her contingent, as they plod on to the Arabian Sea, suffers by comparison with the more evocative scenes from the labyrinthine brothel or even the set-piece of a miniature London at a party on the sets of Shepperton studios. Rushdie has too many balls to juggle in the air, and it's still eighty pages to go. Still, it's probably rewarding enough for the patient.
   
   The glimpses may be worth it, of Alleluia Cone's Himalayan portage, of Chamcha's polyphonic chaos caused at the expense of his rival and one-time pal Farishta, and of their exchanges on the relative distinctions of life lived in Bombay vs. London. No reader will fail to be moved by such chapters, but there's lots of languor intervening that challenges the casual visitor to this audacious and multi-levelled novel. It's all summed up to the moment, 90% through, on pg. 472 of the paperback in case you're totally at sea, however. Gibreel's dreams multiply as he faces the final apocalyptic (of course) showdown with rival Saladin.

5 comments about Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam.

1. Bowden does a superb job of putting together a story as exciting as any spy novel I've ever read. He intertwines the experiences of the various characters involved so smoothly that you think he must have created the entire plot himself. And the fact that it's nonfiction makes the book that much more gripping. I found myself learning a great deal about the politics of the Middle East without having to wade through another standard, heavy historical text. Great book!



2. Guests of the Ayatollah presents the extensively researched, impelling non-fiction style for which Bowden has become widely acclaimed through his other best sellers. As someone who has read other Bowden books, I felt Guests of the Ayatollah is his best book to date.
   
   In this book, Bowden provides the intense, all-inclusive details from start to finish of the 444 day Iranian Hostage Crisis. The reader is taken inside the holding cell of each hostage and witnesses in vivid detail the daily routines, abuse, and emotions each hostage endured during their stay. I quickly became a fan of certain hostages such as diplomat Michael Metrinko, who so adamantly despised his captivity and insulted his captors for which he suffered solitary confinement and severe beatings up to the 444th day. While Bowden shares the heroic stories of the hostages, he doesn't disregard certain hostages who fellow captives felt were cowards and swine.
   
   Bowden has become widely acclaimed for his ability to investigate the subject of each book and then transpose his research into dramatic details for readers, and Guests of the Ayatollah is no exception to his method. Where Guests of the Ayatollah differs from other Bowden books is in its significant focus on the Iranian and American political environments during the hostage crisis. Bowden provides an in depth summary of the Carter administrations options and its secretive negotiations with what still existed of the volatile Iranian government. Rather than provide his opinion on the performance of the Carter administration, Bowden does a fine job of avoiding personal bias, and allows the reader to reach an informed conclusion in regard to the politics surrounding the Hostage Crisis.
   
   Some reviewers seem to feel that Bowden provides justification for the actions of the hostage takers. I don't believe this is accurate given that Bowden spends very little time examining the Shah's government other then to acknowledge America's continued support for the Pahlavi government up to the revolution. I found that on the controversial issues Bowden provides the facts and allows the reader draw his/her own conclusions. However, Bowden offers one prevailing conclusion that the Iranian Hostage Crisis established the power of the mullahocrasy in Iran, which runs the government to this day. The epilogue goes on to examine whether or not the hostage crisis benefited Iran, and concludes the establishment of the mullahocracy has done more harm to the country.
   
   If you enjoyed Killing Pablo, you will definitely enjoy Guests of the Ayatollah. If you liked Black Hawk Down you will also enjoy this book, though it doesn't assert the amount of focus to military operations given in Black Hawk Down. If you have not read anything by Bowden, you should, and Guests of the Ayatollah is a wonderful starting point.



3. When the American Embassy in Iran was overrun by radical students, I like most Americans followed the story very closely. This book was an eye opening experience as to what happened on the inside. How the hostages were mistreated, starved, and beaten by radicals. But, they were also treated with kindness by some of the radicals, which I had never heard before. The only fault that I have with the book is that it seemed to finish up much more quickly than it started and you feel a little cheated. Overall a good book. I admire how the hostages handled themselves and how they were able to continue on with their lives when they got released.



4. 
   Mark Bowden is a genius at bringing intensive historical events to life and Guests of the Ayatollah doesn't disappoint. While easy enough to step back and look at the boiling pot of the clash of cultures and paranoia that led to the takeover. However, his ability to bring to light the individual stories, including tracking down the hostage takers gave an incredible insight into the mindset of the key players. I was particularly fascinated by his ability to not just focus on the takeover and Desert One pieces, but also highlight the more interesting vignettes from the 444 days.
   
   Bowden is a great reader for his own material, which only makes the audio book more interesting. If you're a fan of Bowden or want to understand more about militant Isalam, this is a can't-miss.



5. Reads like a thriller novel, but is 100% true. If you are completely unfamiliar with the history of Iran from about 1945-1979 you should probably spend at least a few minutes learning about that before reading this book. The book jumps right into the drama of the hostage crisis without providing much background.
   
   I listened to the audiobook. The pros of the audiobook version are that it is skillfully read by the author of the book. The con is that the audiobook is abridged.

5 comments about America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between the United States and Its Enemies.

1. A few months ago, at the suggestion of a friend who is active in the American intelligence community, I subscribed to the Friedman's Stratfor email newsletter. In it I have found some of the best analysis out there. It consistently gives clear, concise, and factual explanations of world events--something that is very rarely found in the mainstream media today.
   
   This book met the same high standard. The discussion covers the 9/11 attacks and the American response. Friedman attempts to cut through the fluff and public statements and looks at the hard geopolitical realities of the events, and he does an excellent job of doing so.
   
   I was constantly impressed by the innovative explanations he develops. For example, he argues that a major reason for the Iraq war was to put greater pressure on Saudi Arabia to reign in Islamists. Another compelling idea is that the very purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to provoke an American overreaction, which would in turn help Islamists gain ground within the Muslim world.
   
   [...]
   
   Friedman's prose is succinct and readable, with the occasional entertaining anecdote to keep things interesting. This makes for a fast and enjoyable read.
   
   My only criticism (and it is a significant one) is that Friedman does not cite any sources. There were many facts that I would like to have looked up, but I had no idea where he got his information.
   
   Still, this was a tremendously good book. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in America's contemporary foreign policy.



2. George Friedman gives us a rare look behind the scenes of America's fight with radical Islam. It was fascinating to get a look at how the U.S. viewed acts of terror and terrorists in general before and after 9/11. Friedman goes into detail that you simply cannot get from watching the news or reading papers. For example, Friedman lays out many reasons for invading Iraq other than WMD's. These include: a need for an impressive military victory to send a message throughout the Arab world, a point of leverage to deal with Saudi Arabia, and the fact the Saadam was a brutal dictator. Friedman discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various U.S. intelligence and law enforcement services in great detail. He also explains why Al Qeada has been as successful as they have and what seperates them from other terrorist groups. The book takes the reader through the military operations and campaigns of the first three years in the global fight against terrorism. For a more specific look at Al Qaeda and the rise of radical Islam see Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower."



3. Dr. Friedman explains the birth of Al-Qaeda, the failures of U.S. intelligence, and the goals and objectives of both the Bush Administration and Al-Qaeda in this fascinating and well written book. You're not going get this analysis in the major media.
   
   In short, Dr. Friedman says that the 9.11 attack was nothing really personal -- it was just a way for O.B.L. to unite the Arab world. The other main point: the invasion of Iraq was purely a strategic move to demonstrate the prowess of American forces to Saudi Arabia who was caught in the middle of Al-Qaeda on its turf and cooperating with its ally the U.S.
   
   In the end he concludes that the U.S. is generally winning the war but only time will tell who the real winner will be (and there will not be clear winners).



4. I highly recommend reading this book as one source in a broader study of US foreign policy since 2001. The author of this book, George Friedman, provides an interesting geopolitical explanation of the reason the US invaded Iraq under President George W. Bush as part of the broader war on terrorism. Even if one does not agree with Friedman's analysis, this book provides excellent insights into US foreign policy interests both in the Middle East and globally concerning the war on terrorism (including Afghanistan) that goes beyond events reported in the mainstream press. The book was published in 2004, so Friedman's analysis does not deal with events since that time. However, the book is still valuable for a different viewpoint into US foreign policy since 9-11-2001.
   
   NOTE: the title of the book might give the impression that this is a conspiracy theory type book. Not so! Friedman provides background material and analysis from a geopolitical viewpoint. Since the geopolitical aspects of international events are rarely discussed adequately in the press, this book analyzes the reasons for US foreign policies that are rarely, if ever, reported in the press. Hence, the title "America's Secret War" concerning the war on terrorism. Friedman also provides insights into the security interests of other nations involved in this conflict, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others.
   
   One drawback is that the author does not provide documentation for certain facts cited in the book. This is because the book focuses on his analysis of these facts. Still, providing references for these facts would make this book even better.



5. AMERICA'S SECRET WAR is a blow by blow account of the Bush regime's "war on terrorism." And while several chapters do offer valuable insights -- particularly the author's discussion of the war in Afghanistan -- overall, the book is a mine field. I cannot recommend it because the author, George Friedman, is either incredibly stupid in believing that a rag tag bunch of 19 jihadists using cell phones outsmarted the most sophisticated security establishment in the world on 9/11 -- or he is just downright devious.
   
   In the intelligence world deception is a finely honed art. The game is played by subtly spicing truth with falsehood -- and there are enough examples in AMERICA'S SECRET WAR for us to suspect that George Friedman is spinning yarns. Allow me to be blunt: He is quite skillful in the art of lying.
   
   Here are some examples:
   
   Friedman mentions the US-Iran discussions that followed 9/11 -- but he fails to acknowledge that in 2003 Iran made a bona fide peace offer to the US that could have resulted in a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement -- IF the US had responded. Iran offered to cooperate in the Gulf, to disarm Hezbollah, to accept stringent IAEA oversight of its nuclear program, and even signed onto the 2002 Arab peace offer, indicating that Tehran was willing to live in peace with Israel -- provided the Palestinians received a measure of justice -- in the form of a state.
   
   As we know, the National Intelligence Estimate in November 2007 provides strong evidence that the 2003 Iranian offer was genuine. The NIE concluded that Iran abandoned work on its BOMB program in 2003, which -- notice -- coincides with the date of the peace offer. The real question, which Friedman never mentions, is why the US rejected the Iranian peace offer out of hand.
   
   Friedman also poo-poohs the 2002 Saudi peace offer, characterizing it as nothing but political posturing. He writes: "The Saudis had consulted nobody about the idea. which meant that this radical proposal didn't even have the backing of [prince] Abdullah's own government." (p. 244)
   
   This is total BS. In fact, the 2002 Arab peace offer had the backing of every member of the Arab League -- and again -- could have become the basis for an Isareli-Palestinian peace settlement -- IF Israel and the US had responded favorably. Both, however, simply ignored it.
   
   The Saudi Prince Abdullah actually went so far as to personally confront Bush about the Palestinian issue during his June 2002 visit to Crawford Texas. At that meeting Bush promised Abdullah that he would take steps to solve the Palestinian question. Of course, as we know, Bush did nothing of the kind -- because his idol Ariel Sharon opposed a peace settlement.
   
   Friedman is also dishonest when he writes about an Iranian BOMB --as if Iran already had nuclear weapons. When in fact they did not -- and do not. There is no excuse for his getting this wrong. As a self-described intelligence expert Friedman should have known this. We must interpret this "error" as a case of calculated deception on his part.
   
   
   Friedman's confused analysis of why the neo cons invaded Iraq fails to persuade -- and again -- we must conclude that the author is simply fibbing to us. Friedman fails to mention the obvious: that the war was largely about controlling Iraq's oil -- and had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I would argue: It was also about destroying Iraq as a nation -- leaving Iraq prostrate so that it could never again challenge Israeli hegemony in the region. Now why couldn't an expert like Friedman simply tell the truth and state the obvious? Clearly, he has an agenda.
   
   Friedman gives a really bizarre justification for the US policy of arming BOTH Iran and Iraq during the bloody war which raged between these two nations between 1980-1986. He states that if either Iran or Iraq gained "the upper hand in the region it would try to sieze part or all of Saudi Arabia." (p 253) Which, again, is total nonsense. Why couldn't the author simply state the obvious: The US pursued a wicked policy of bleeding and weakening both nations for its own selfish reasons -- and also to divert attention from Israel's continuing illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. It had nothing to do with protecting Saudi Arabia.
   
   Friedman also repeats the lie that Saddam Hussein kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors in 1998. This lie has been told so frequently that it has taken on a life of its own. But Scott Ritter, the chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, knows what actually happened because he was there. According to Ritter it was Bill Clinton who ordered out the UN inspection team, on the eve of a major US bombing campaign in late 1998, Operation Desert Fox, which was an attempt by the US to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Indeed, this is why the Iraqi leader then refused to allow the inspectors to return. He correctly accused the US of using the UN inspection effort to gather intel about Saddam's whereabouts in an attempt to take him out. Ritter affirms this is what actually happened. Now, why couldn't Friedman get this right?
   
   What is Friedman's agenda? We get a clue from the author's discussion about the Madrid bombings in March 2004, which he attributes to al Qaeda. Yet, today, we know al Qaeda had nothing whatever to do with that attack, which ocurred shortly before major elections in Spain. The bombing was almost certainly staged by operatives of the ultraconservative Spanish government then in power -- as a way of terrorizing the Spanish people into re-electing that same government. They blamed it on Basque separatists. Fortunately, the false flag attack failed. The Spanish people saw through it -- and voted out Bush's allies -- in the process, electing a new populist government that immediately fulfilled its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq -- consistent with the strongly anti war sentiment in Spain. Here, again, by misfiring, the author shows his true colors.
   
   Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR -- which claims to be an independent intelligence agency. However, I suspect he has links to the Israeli Mossad and maybe even to the CIA. The reader should beware: Read the book with a discerning eye -- because the author weaves many falsehoods between the lines. He is a liar.

5 comments about World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.

1. World War IV was not quite what I expected, and the title certain belies the contents of the book, although it performs several necessary functions despite its brevity. The American public is fed a steady drumbeat of pessimism and oftentimes outright hostility towards anything that George W. Bush has done or will do. Podhoretz places what GWB had called the `Global War on Terrorism' into the lager historical context of `World War IV,' which was preceded by World War III (the cold war). Objections to the current war on Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, are deconstructed into component strains of American isolationism extending back to Woodrow Wilson's presidency, outright anti-Americanism continuous with 1960's radical movements, metastasizing liberalism bordering on outright socialism, Democrat party hypocrisy and the myriad schools of foreign policy with Cold War genealogy. Podhoretz also demystifies the currently misused term `neoconservative,' exposes the blatant and shameful politicization of national security by the Democrats and succinctly defines the `Bush Doctrine.' I would highly recommend this book to both liberals and conservatives, although the former group is in desperate need of historical context in their often a-historical arguments.



2. The Bush Doctrine on our struggle against Islamofascism is basically correct but by not naming it "World War IV" the doctrine lost clarity and focus and that has had a negative effect on the conduct of the war.
   The author takes on all critics from the left the right and the media with logic and facts. He is fair in blaming Presidents from both parties for decisions that made 9/11 possible.



3. A book called The Much too Promised Land by Aaron David Miller makes Carter out to be a hero by talking about his success at Camp David but deletes any mention of how Carter let the pro-Israeli Shah fall and the anti-Israeli Khomeini rise! This book shows how Carter is indeed responsible for Khomeini's and now even Ahmadinejad's bad succcess!



4. The title of the review says it all. If you want to kill scary brown people on behalf of hardliner Zionists in Israel and the Lobby, then keep drinking the neoconservative Kool Aid. The whole world knows that the so-called War on Terror was conducted using already created off the shelf plans (PNAC), and is about US-Israeli domination of all resources in the region, from oil in Iraq to water in southern Lebanon.
   
   Face reality or Drink the Trotsky loving Pod Man's Kool Aid and continue to be conned by the same old Wilsonian interventionist myth about America's role in making the world safe for democracy. Whatever keeps Israel happy and gets Lockheed its welfare check, Nanny/Surveillance/Police State at home and endless war abroad, all wrapped in the flag, soaked in patriotic self-love, and delivered by an all powerful executive. Rah rah rah, everyone loves a winner, nobody likes a loser, especially The American People. That is what "Conservatism" has become.



5. Its hard to believe in 2008 that so many racists still feel comfortable
   spouting hate against 1 million people. 99% of whom are innocent and good.
   Yes, I have been to the middle east and not as a colonial occupier with a gun but as a traveler who respected their culture. I don't believe the
   WEST is the best philosophy. That is juvenile type of thinking. You boys like to play at war without contemplating the long term effect of everyone involved. Shame on all of you!
   Ms. Podhoretz is beyond shame. His belief system is as extreme as Osama Bin Laden without a doubt. People who are that arrogant glory only in there own light. THIS BOOK sucked and good thing I got it second hand!

5 comments about Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.

1. This book is an education for everyone about the situation in the Middle East. It's a sobering picture of that area. Kudos for the author for her bravery in rejecting the Muslim party line. Her solutions for the problems there are - peace, not war - love not hate. God bless her.



2. This book is so important in our understanding of how the radical terrorists operate.Not all Muslims are terrorists and most peace loving Muslims, Buddists, Jews and Christians can't get thier heads around this type of political madness.



3. Nonie Darwish tells it like it is...her story is amazing and I applaud her courage and strength for telling it.
   
   As an American living in Iran for three and a half years leading up to the Iranian Revolution of 1978, I witnessed firsthand some of the frightening and unstable mindsets of those obsessed with jihad. I totally related to her story, especially the part when she returned to Egypt for a visit after 20 years. Because then she was seeing her country through the eyes of an American.



4. This is a book that every thinking American should read! Its insight into the Muslin world and the Muslims' way of thinking is imperative to our understanding of why we are having so much trouble trying to impose our standards on them. They are taught hatred of Americans from birth -- how can we hope to change that? If you want to improve your insight into the present conflict in Iraq and understand the problems there, you MUST read this book!



5. In this book, Nonie Darwish traces her life from a childhood spent as the daughter of a Muslim shahid in Egypt to her adult life as a conservative Christian in the United States. This amazing transformation took place because of her insight into the hatred preached by Muslims whose goal in life was to eradicate Israel and the United States. Instead she sought freedom and security in America, a country she has come to love and admire. She shows the Arab culture from the inside and she describes the inhumane treatment of people, especially women, who are under sharia law.
   She explains how Muslim customs dehumanize people and cause a breakdown in the family and in society. She feels that her purpose in life is to warn Americans about the dangers of Islam and the true intentions of a culture that is, even now, working its way into America via immigration and influencing our citizens, especially on college campuses. This is an eye-opening book and should be required reading for Americans.

1 comments about An Introduction to Islam for Jews.

1. All people known How had Jews and Islam relationship.To know who are them will be building good relations. This book can make Jews know about Islam.