Re: Atlantic article

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     There are considerable variations among
regimes in Muslim nations regarding this matter,
including among those that consider themselves
to be "Islamic," that is obeying Islamic law as
laid out in one of the shari'a codes (there are several
of these, four Sunni ones and several Shi'i ones).
     Actually, the issue in general is not who is
ruling, but what the law code is.  Thus, most Sunni
Islamic regimes (Afghanistan is an exception to this)
are not headed by Muslim clerics or ulema.  They are
led by kings, or presidents, or military dictators.  But,
the view is that these non-clerical leaders must implement
an Islamic law code or shari'a.  If not, they can legitimately
be overthrown in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists.
     In Iran, and more frequently in Shi'i regimes historically,
there is less separation of church and state.  Thus, Iran
is a theocracy, albeit with a more or less democratically
majlis (parliament) and president.  But the president is
a mullah, if a moderate one.  The judiciary, however, is
all mullahs.  And, all laws in Iran are subject to a veto by
the Supreme Council of Guardians, a kind of supreme
court, who are all high ulema, ayatollahs, etc., appointed
by the vilayat al faqih, who is Ayatollah Khamene'i,
successor to Imam Khomeini.  Thus, the great power
struggle in Iran is between two groups of clerics, those
allied with Khamene'i and his Council of Guardians
and those associated with President Khatami, who
was democratically elected, with the majlis on his side.
      Just to complicate things thoroughly in the case of
Iran, there are the banyans, or "foundations."  These
bodies, ruled by clerical ulema, are not state entities
but enjoy its protection.  However, they own and control
many of the enterprises in the economy and are very
rich and powerful.  Many of the enterprises formerly owned
by cronies of the former Shah are now in their hands.  The
most powerful is Mustaz'afan banyan, or "The Foundation
of the Oppressed," which even Khomeini mocked, remarking
that "the foundation for the needy has become the
foundation for the greedy."  The banyans are allied with the
fundamentalist faction and act semi-independently of
the government.  It is they who allegedly fund groups outside
Iran such as the Hezbollah, although the intelligence service,
the Mukhabarat, is also dominated by the fundamentalists
and apparently works closely with the banyans.
       One area where I might disagree somewhat with
Bernard Lewis is in his claim that the current Islamic
fundamentalist movements oppose "modernism."  They do
oppose secularism, no doubt.  But I think a more useful concept
here is one developed by Marina Rosser and me, that of the
"new traditional economy."  The idea is that some countries
seek a "third way" economy that is based on some traditional
religion, that the economy is to be "embedded" in this
religion, following the terminology of Karl Polanyi.  However,
the nation also aspires to be modern, especially regarding its
use of technology, especially given the military significance
of modern technology.  They want to be modern, but not secular.
       We introduced this initially in our textbook, _Comparative
Economics in a Transforming Economy_, 1996, Irwin, which
will be out in a second edition from MIT Press sometime next
year.  We have a chapter in that book on Iran in particular as an
example of an Islamic new traditional economy, although we
see the idea as relevant to India (appearing in our second
edition) and in Japan.  For those who want to see it discussed
in a journal  article, see "Islamic and Neo-Confucian
Perspectives on the New Traditional Economy," by Marina and
me in the EasternEconomic Journal, Spring 1998, vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 217-227.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University
Incoming Editor
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Existence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Atlantic article


> On PKT Mason Clark brought to our attention the following article,
>
> "The Roots of Muslim Rage"  -- The Atlantic, September 1990:
>
>     http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
>
>
> A key idea in this article that people of the Islamic faith
> feel that they have a natural right to politically preside over
> non-muslims (non-believers).
>
> Historically, Islam has proven to be very tolerant of
> other religions whenever they had political control.
> By having political control they feel the non-believers
> will of their own volition convert to Islam. For a "true"
> believer, it is blasphemy to allow non-believers to politically
> preside over them.
>
> Is it realistic for us to expect Islam to adopt our
> western political model where church and state are
> separate? I think we have to acknowledge that this
> expectation is completely unrealistic, so we need to
> work with Islam to stop human rights abuses which are
> clearly being perpetrated by some Arab dictators and
> Islamic fundamentalists.
>
> Harry
>