I enjoyed this book, and I gained a lot of context about Rumi's symbolism and themes and some respect for the secular, non-religious spirituality in Islam. The author's task is difficult, since Rumi is not always consistent. However, the book does stop short at several key moments when linking the overarching concept to the poetry. That is, in many cases, Baldock introduces themes for (sometimes) several pages, then some Rumi that he thinks fits; but, there's not always a good explanation on how it fits. These are minor gripes - I gained some historical, religious, and symbolic perspective from this book.
What isn't a minor gripe is Baldock perpetuation and defense of 13th (or 8th) century social ideas. He lost my respect in a half-page addendum titled "woman", where he says: "Many westerners take exception to the apparent subordination of women in Islamic cultures." It's not apparent. It's very real. "However, the subordination may arise...". It did arise. "... from the literal interpretation of a hadith from the Prophet, who said, "Put the woman last"!" Baldock's argument, and Rumi's own defense of the Prophet, is that woman is a metaphor for the ego, which is lesser to our higher spiritual selves: "... he meant your ego, for it must be put last, and your intellect first.
This is all rather simple: The metaphor is a bad one and it should never have been used. Rumi, writing from 5 centuries after Muhammad, couldn't find it in himself to criticize it. Baldock couldn't find it in himself to say, "This was a metaphor born of 8th century morality, and while the spiritual metaphor may tell us something, Rumi was clearly wrong to continue using it, just as Muhammad was wrong to write it." It's rather simple, Baldock - if you write, "Put the women last", fervent believers will put women last. Couldn't you have used a better metaphor, Muhammad? Couldn't you have at least called Rumi out on this, Baldock?