Is monarchy the best model for the Middle East?

[Traitorfish]

What "model"? You can't just propose to drop a funny hat on somebody's head and call that a model of political society.

 

[James Stuart]

What "model"? You can't just propose to drop a funny hat on somebody's head and call that a model of political society.

But by god, you should be able to! Forget caste, clan, or bloodlines; let's separate people by hats.

 

[Tahuti]

What "model"? You can't just propose to drop a funny hat on somebody's head and call that a model of political society.

Monarchs don't have monopoly on silly hats. Indeed, some of the best silly hats have been worn by servants of monarchs and republican heads of state.

 

[Traitorfish]

Have you considered taking up point-dodging in a professional capacity?

 

[Tahuti]

Have you considered taking up point-dodging in a professional capacity?

I will consider it. But that's maybe besides the point.

 

[gay_Aleks]

What "model"? You can't just propose to drop a funny hat on somebody's head and call that a model of political society.

Yes, but only the one with the funny hat surrounded with the bodies of his opponents.
Then, his ancestors will mess it up, all in all so that a new dynasty could arise.

The circle of liiiifeee monarchy!

 

[Mouthwash]

I mean, neither of you have actually bothered to define "clan" or "king" in a Middle Eastern context, or even considered that these definitions might vary with time and place. You both just seem to be heaping on Orientalist tropes and hoping they stick.

David Goldman defines it pretty well (although his critique mainly focuses on Islam, I think it's fair to say that Islam is embedded too deeply in Arab culture to be compartmentalized on its own):

The most nearly tribal pockets of European culture had the most traumatic encounter with modernity. But Islam is tribalism elevated to a universal principle. Islam presents itself as a universal religion, rising above tribe and nation. But in theology as well as practice, Islam sanctifies the petty tyranny of tribal society. This emerges most clearly in the Koran's defense of wife-beating in Sura 4:34.

It is not simply that the Koran explicitly encourages a husband to beat a disobedient wife. The Koran offers a well-articulated legal theory in support of wife-beating, and this theory presumes a society radically different from that of the Judeo-Christian West. All Western political theory places the individual in a social contract with the sovereign, just as biblical religion locates the individual in a covenant with God. The "inalienable rights" of the American Founding documents derive from a God who grants such rights to every individual by eternal covenant: no king, petty official, or family member can impair them. Islam's legal system is closer to the pagan model of ancient Rome: the paterfamilias is a "governor" or "administrator" of the family, a miniature sovereign within his domestic realm.

Westernized Muslim scholars not only defend wife-beating but elaborate on its broader legal implications. Muslim society is organized like a set of nested Russian dolls. The clan is an extended family, the tribe an extended clan, and the state an extended tribe. The family patriarch thus enjoys powers in his realm comparable to those of the state in the broader realm. That is the deeper juridical content of the Koranic provision for wife-beating.

The state in [Muslim] society devolves its authority to the cells from which it is composed, starting with the family, which is a state in miniature. The relationship of citizen and sovereign is reproduced at each level- state, tribe, clan, family. Ties of blood are stronger than such metaphysical abstractions as "individual rights."

 

[ParkCungHee]

The most nearly tribal pockets of European culture had the most traumatic encounter with modernity.

That sounds highly suspect. The European nations that had the most traumatic encounters with modernity were Germany, Russia, Spain and Northern Italy. Not exactly known for their "tribal pockets."

 

[Mouthwash]

That sounds highly suspect. The European nations that had the most traumatic encounters with modernity were Germany, Russia, Spain and Northern Italy. Not exactly known for their "tribal pockets."

This is tongue-and-cheek, right?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I find it hard to do anything but immediately disregard anything that says "Judeo-Christian" in contrast to Islam. Judaism and Islam have more in common than Judaism and Christianity. Hell, Christianity and Islam have more in common that Judaism and Christianity.

 

[James Stuart]

This is tongue-and-cheek, right?

I hope Goldman's essay is. The idea that one can refer to "Westernized Muslim scholars" as if they are a concrete bloc is arguably the most laughable comment he makes. There's also the fact that most European and American law is derived from codes other than that of the US, which renders that argument moot in any context other than the US itself. How Islam is "tribalism elevated to a universal principle," because it "presents itself as a universal religion, rising above tribe and nation," but Christianity, which is at least as universalist, probably more so, is somehow different, smacks of bias, not scholarship. Then there's how Islam is a series of Russian nesting dolls, but Western democracies, with their families, their cities, their districts, their counties, their states, and their nations, are totally something else guys.

One wonders what this guy does for a living. Oh look, he's an economist. If you mean a different David Goldman, Google doesn't seem to know them. And he claims that he "writes from a Judeo-Christian perspective." Cool. He started as a far left wingnut, writing radical economic texts, then became a conservative under Reagan. So he's a fallen communist. Cool. Why the hell he is qualified to define Islam's legal traditions, I don't know. Please tell me you mean someone else.

 

[Mouthwash]

I find it hard to do anything but immediately disregard anything that says "Judeo-Christian" in contrast to Islam. Judaism and Islam have more in common than Judaism and Christianity. Hell, Christianity and Islam have more in common that Judaism and Christianity.

Yes, they have the same themes and characters, but sociologically, Christianity and Judaism are two branches of the same tree. Islam on the other hand is much more like pre-Abrahamic paganism. Your reaction is justified, given the political abuse of the term.

I hope Goldman's essay is. The idea that one can refer to "Westernized Muslim scholars" as if they are a concrete bloc is arguably the most laughable comment he makes.

Taking a sentence from a book which summarizes an entire chapter's worth of material and then dismissing it as facile is not a respectable way of arguing.

There's also the fact that most European and American law is derived from codes other than that of the US, which renders that argument moot in any context other than the US itself.

He argues that the Western legal tradition is inherently Judeo-Christian. The point itself shouldn't be a difficult thing to comprehend, but it seems to be giving you a minor aneurism.

How Islam is "tribalism elevated to a universal principle," because it "presents itself as a universal religion, rising above tribe and nation," but Christianity, which is at least as universalist, probably more so, is somehow different, smacks of bias, not scholarship.

Well, I would assume that the argument, i.e., 'a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point' which Goldman has made might smack more of scholarship.

Then there's how Islam is a series of Russian nesting dolls, but Western democracies, with their families, their cities, their districts, their counties, their states, and their nations, are totally something else guys.

Kaiserguard would be so out of work by now.

One wonders what this guy does for a living. Oh look, he's an economist. If you mean a different David Goldman, Google doesn't seem to know them. And he claims that he "writes from a Judeo-Christian perspective." Cool. He started as a far left wingnut, writing radical economic texts, then became a conservative under Reagan. So he's a fallen communist. Cool. Why the hell he is qualified to define Islam's legal traditions, I don't know. Please tell me you mean someone else.

Three out of ten, and you're lucky to get that. I wish there was a Roget's ad hominems.

 

[James Stuart]

Yes, they have the same themes and characters, but sociologically, Christianity and Judaism are two branches of the same tree. Islam on the other hand is much more like pre-Abrahamic paganism. Your reaction is justified, given the political abuse of the term.



Taking a sentence from a book which summarizes an entire chapter's worth of material and then dismissing it as facile is not a respectable way of arguing.



He argues that the Western legal tradition is inherently Judeo-Christian. The point itself shouldn't be a difficult thing to comprehend, but it seems to be giving you a minor aneurism.



Well, I would assume that the argument, i.e., 'a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point' which Goldman has made might smack more of scholarship.



Kaiserguard would be so out of work by now.



Three out of ten, and you're lucky to get that. I wish there was a Roget's ad hominems.

So, you have no counter-argument, merely an accusation that pointing out the lack of qualifications of a person who is attempting to comment on Islam is somehow an ad hominem, while yourself using an ad hominem attack on my own argument. Cool. I have no idea what your 3-out-of-10 comment is in regards to.

As for the only criticism you actually offer, that my argument is facile because I took a sentence out of a chapter out of a book does not hold water. Firstly, it is you who posted that sentence. Are we not permitted to discuss statements posted by people on this discussion forum because we're not experts? That would limit a lot of arguments.

Secondly, does this mean that I cannot critique the sentence unless I have read the entire book, or at least the entire chapter? If the sentence displays shoddy logic, such as the belief that "Westernized Muslim scholars" can possibly be seen as a bloc in and of themselves, am I unable to point this out, because I have not read the book in which the claim is made? If I quote a sentence from Das Kapital, can you refute it, or do you have to read the book before you can make a counter-claim? If I post: "Black people are genetically inferior to white people" as part of an essay, do you need to read the entire essay, or are you permitted to refute the statement on its own merits?

Finally, Goldman's argument is not scholarship. For one thing, he's an economist and a musician discussing law and religion. I have no problem with that. But to tout him as an authoritative source on the subject is ludicrous. Obviously, you like the conclusion Goldman. But merely because you agree with an argument, you should not gloss over the faults of the person making it. Nor should you ignore the obvious illogic and poor argumentation he utilises in making that argument.

 

[Mouthwash]

So, you have no counter-argument, merely an accusation that pointing out the lack of qualifications of a person who is attempting to comment on Islam is somehow an ad hominem

I wonder why that also seems to meet the definition of ad hominem. Coincidences exist, I suppose.

If the sentence displays shoddy logic, such as the belief that "Westernized Muslim scholars" can possibly be seen as a bloc in and of themselves, am I unable to point this out, because I have not read the book in which the claim is made? If I quote a sentence from Das Kapital, can you refute it, or do you have to read the book before you can make a counter-claim? If I post: "Black people are genetically inferior to white people" as part of an essay, do you need to read the entire essay, or are you permitted to refute the statement on its own merits?

The claim about Westernized Muslim scholars was not consequential to the argument. You grabbed at it and claimed it showed his bias/ignorance. Given that they were the first words in a clearly spliced-off quote, you don't think it's reasonable to say that maybe there could have been more to it than that single sentence?

Finally, Goldman's argument is not scholarship. For one thing, he's an economist and a musician discussing law and religion. I have no problem with that. But to tout him as an authoritative source on the subject is ludicrous.

Noam Chomsky talks about politics all the time, and is referenced extensively. But he doesn't have a degree in political science!! What's with that?

 

[Tee Kay]

Yes because James totally uses Noam Chomsky as an authoritative source, oh wait no you just pulled that out of your ass.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes because James totally uses Noam Chomsky as an authoritative source, oh wait no you just pulled that out of your ass.

He's what? One of the ten most referenced scholars ever?

Basically, James believes that if you don't study something in a professional capacity, you aren't fit to be an authority on it. Even if you've actually studied it your entire life.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yes because that's totally what he said

For one thing, he's an economist and a musician discussing law and religion. I have no problem with that. But to tout him as an authoritative source on the subject is ludicrous.

He's got no problem with him talking about law and religion. There. Only with touting him as this expert guy. There are very very few people I'd consider "an authoritative source" on anything, for good reason. Especially when his views disagree with, like, all of the actual authoritative sources. Even someone who's studied something gets it wrong.

That Ancient Aliens guy probably studied ancient history his entire life, but you wouldn't consider him an authoritative source on ancient history would you?

 

[Tee Kay]

Re: tribalism

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Look I too can take verses out of context, interpret it my way, and apply it evenly to an entire billions-strong religious tradition.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes because that's totally what he said

That... actually is what he said?

He's got no problem with him talking about law and religion. There. Only with touting him as this expert guy. There are very very few people I'd consider "an authoritative source" on anything, for good reason.

I quoted him to define what I meant by "Middle Eastern king", as Traitorfish explicitly requested.

Especially when his views disagree with, like, all of the actual authoritative sources. Even someone who's studied something gets it wrong.

I don't think that many sociologists of religion study Islam explicitly. Could you link to... even one? A field which I have trouble verifying the existence of isn't going to hold a meaningful consensus.

There's also the fact that a good proportion of sociologists are charlatans.

 

[Mouthwash]

Re: tribalism

Look I too can take verses out of context, interpret it my way, and apply it evenly to an entire billions-strong religious tradition.

That's why like thirty percent of Christian marriages are cousin marriages.