While the English version of Luis Alberto’s book is sure to...

While the English version of Luis Alberto’s book is sure to be embraced by Shī‘ite scholars and open-minded individuals, it may be criticized or conveniently ignored by some Western Orientalists who will allege a lack of objectivity on the part of the author. Ironically, they may accuse him of their own single greatest shortcoming: subjectivity. They may claim to see a mote in his eye while being blind to the beam that veils their own vision (Matthew 7:5).

They may even complain that the author is writing from a Shī‘ite perspective and has not remained impartial, a rule which apparently applies only to Muslim scholars since most Christian scholars rarely detach themselves from their own religious and ideological points of view. In the worst of cases, Christian scholars do not even pretend to detach themselves from their own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and other professional vices.

After calling into question his objectivity, this sector of Orientalists might move on to their second line of attack: Vittor’s approach and methodology. Despite the author’s expressed aim to present the Shī‘ite position--in all of its esoteric and metaphysical dimensions--he may be criticized for writing from a religious perspective. To be succinct, this would be a polite way of saying he is subjective, biased, and partial.

They might argue that the book is directed to English-speaking Muslims, rather than recognizing it as a scholarly work aimed at an academic audience. If Luis Alberto Vittor had said that Shī‘ite Islām was a Persian creation, that the Qur’ān was the work of Muḥammad which was copied from Jews and Christians, and that the corpora of prophetic traditions were mere legends, he would be embraced like a brother, cited incessantly, invited to conferences, and given generous grants.

Eventually he might even be appointed to a prestigious Chair of Islamic Studies or counsel the American President regarding policies in the Muslim world. While some Orientalists are eager to attack scholars who study Islām objectively, they rarely dare to criticize the pro-Christian or pro-Zionist perspectives of some of their most distinguished colleagues.

Rather than dealing with concrete facts and responding with sound, solidly-based arguments, some Orientalists may dismiss the author’s scholarship as subjective. These are the same scholars, however, who have shown little concern for the subjectivity of their own colleagues.