• DOI:10.1017/S1356186306286474
• Corpus ID: 164054440

The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. By David Commins. pp. xii, 246. London, I.B. Tauris, 2006.

@article{Robinson2006TheWM,
  title={The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. By David Commins. pp. xii, 246. London, I.B. Tauris, 2006.},
  author={Francis Robinson},
  journal={Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society},
  year={2006},
  volume={16},
  pages={320 - 322}
}

• F. Robinson
• Published 1 November 2006
• Psychology
• Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society

both natural (p. 136). Awareness of a “creative/active principle”, a “subtle inner resolve” (pp. 133, 136, 143) is real, irrespectively of its sometimes perverse uses (e.g. opportunistic missionaries in Cambodia: pp. 105–107). This book is tastefully presented, well written (if lengthy on the gospels’ contradictions), and one forgives the occasional unusual spelling; BC for AD on p. 111; “Pharisees” for “Sadducees” at p. 23; and the reversal of captions for illustrations 11 and 12. The glossary, bibliography of works used, and index are splendid. But what of the author’s own posture? The aged athlete teeters on the brink of a delectable pool awaiting his plunge (p. 51). Who will give him a shove? It is the reviewer’s privilege. Nature is concerned with reproduction and evolution – hence every specimen is dear. A forestdweller will ponder on this. The myth of Adam and Eve (myth (B)) is witty and sound notwithstanding literal-minded sarcasm (pp. 3, 57). Hominids were when Homo sapien was not; then Homo sapien was; ergo the Creation of Man. Until the discovery of the unconscious heart and mind were wrongly identified. To reproduce H. s. genders were required. The mature male is competitive, accumulative, aggressive; the female, designed for pregnancies and nurturing, dominates and manipulates while appearing as subservient. The lineage arbitrates between competing males and females. Nature can be pruned (John 15:1) but not ignored. Homo sapien is the only species to monitor its own slavery to her. A prophet who divulges his disconcerting (p. 74) discovery (cf. Genesis 1:27, here at p. 58), elated and self-defining (cf. Matthew 16:17, here at p. 41, cf. pp. 57, 138), becomes an enemy (p. 113) of Nature’s slaves. Socrates (Phaedo 66 C-D, here at p. 98) may have been such a prophet. If the unconscious and the calculating organ work together one has a single-minded command of self, fit to show compassion and indulgence. The hostility to Christ and his loyal disciples (however few) was understood from the first (Mark 3:31–35, 8:34–35; 10:28–30; cf. p. 15). No bodily resurrection is promised,3 but that oxymoron, the “pneumatic body” (1 Corinthians 15:44–53). Those that “inherit” it are its heirs and may demonstrate it (Luke 12:32, here p. 49), not as an iddhi but (cf. pp. 5, 27) as a particular freedom. Such a solution has no quarrel with science (cf. here pp. 119, 123, 145, 147). Snellgrove, noticing Chr. Lindtner, does not mention his theory that a gospel derived from a Buddhist text; nor bother with John Mackinnon Robertson, who linked Christ with Krishna.4 His solution is deeper, and this reviewer tries to shove him into it.