Re: Economics of Islam

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

Colin,
      By "the West" I mean specifically those powers
in the West that exercised colonial or imperialist
control in the Middle East (is this an acceptable term
for you?).  That would include UK, France, and the
United States, although arguably could include some
other powers as well.  I think it is a waste of time
to specifically list countries when a reference to
imperialist conduct clearly indicates certain countries.
The discussion involved "imperialist conduct," both
in Lewis' article and in my remarks.
     I am a fan of Said's book, _Orientalism_ and well
aware of its arguments.  But, just because Said
criticized the use of certain terms does not mean
therefore that they are useless.  His book is not
perfect either, brilliant as it is.
      Your remarks here suggest that you are capable
of a serious critique of Lewis's article.  So far, I have
not seen one.  You are welcome to try.  I agree that
"pretty good" is vague, but I disagree that it is empty.
I have already provided my own disagreement with
Lewis.  I think that the current Wah'habist fundamentalist
movements are not "anti-modern."  Rather, they
advocate what I and my wife have labeled in print, the
"new traditional" economy.  Would you like to read the
sources I provided on that and engage this in a serious
manner?  Or are you going to confuse remarks directed
at talk radio bigots with a serious article by a great
scholar like Lewis (and, yes, he is a great scholar, even
if one disagrees with him)?  Maybe this is not what you
intended to do.  But it certainly appeared that you did.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Danby" <danbyc@xxxxxxx>
To: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>; "pkt"
<pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Economics of Islam


> Hi Barkley,
>
> >   I think the Lewis article is pretty good.  He
> > does not refer to "Islamic nations" as you imply
> > below, but to "Muslim nations."
>
> I did not imply that.  I was responding to the Mason Clark's post
> (http://csf.Colorado.EDU/forums/pkt/2001III/msg00493.html), and in my
response
> (http://csf.Colorado.EDU/forums/pkt/2001III/msg00501.html) I carefully
quoted
> the use of  the phrase "Islamic nations" *by* Clark, with a little ">".
How
> much clearer would you like me to be?
>
> > The former are
> > those that impose a shari'a form of Islamic
> > law as for example in Iran.  Lewis is well aware
> > of such distinctions.
> >       He did not mention the reimposition of the Shah
> > or the shelling of Lebanon.  But he did agree that
> > the West had behaved in an imperialistic manner
> > toward both the Muslim and Arab worlds.
> >       Most of the discussion in the article you cited
> > is directed at ignorami on talk radio, not Lewis, a
> > great scholar of Islam, whatever Said might say.
>
> Said's critique is directed at how issues are framed (among other things
his
> work questions the very stability and coherence of your category "the
West").
> Said's critique does not preclude the possibility that Lewis knows a lot
of
> things.  As I said in my last message this is not something that can be
> discussed via soundbites, which is why I will not respond to your empty
> "pretty good."
>
> Best, Colin
>
>
>
>