The military PowerPoint presentation on militant Islam makes much of the apparent exclusivity/rigidity of passages of text in the Holy Koran.

I cannot help but think of how the “I believe” part of my own Episcopalian liturgy would sound to a classroom full of young Muslim children who were being taught about Christian militancy:

 “I Believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen.”

(this is the 1661 version in our Book of Common Prayer)

None of us monotheists (Jews, Christians, or Muslims) sound very tolerant of other faiths when measured by our classic liturgy.

Most of us (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) are, in fact, hugely more tolerant than the literal reading of our scriptures might suggest.

Those who would assert their expertise about Muslims and their faith would do well to live amongst them for sufficient years to gain a close appreciation of the ways in which living their faith differs in meaningful and important ways from the literal reading of their texts.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at January 9, 2008 1:27 PM in response to Islamofascist Nonsense

Coughlin's PowerPoint slide show linked in Larry's note is horrific. The title slide suggests it is an official PACOM JIOC document, but I hope that is not the case.

 As someone who does speak Arabic, who does speak Urdu, and who has spent more than 20 years living/working in Muslim countries, I am left almost speechless by the combination of bigotry and ignorance displayed in Coughlin's PowerPoint presentation.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at January 9, 2008 12:33 PM in response to Islamofascist Nonsense

Is Hosni looking good for the long-term?  I share Mona's doubts. Hosni's formula has worked (to a degree) for three decades, but it is showing signs of terminal decay.

As I commented on Jason's post: Egypt is the country that:

     • Liberalizes the economy just enough to get by;

     • Democratizes its institutions just enough to get by; and

     • Provides just enough public education, public health and other public goods to get by.

While at the same time Egypt manages to:

      • Try just enough activists in military courts to keep them in check;

      • break just enough heads amongst street demonstrators to instill caution;

       • censor and occasionally jail just enough journalists and bloggers to remind folks who is in charge.

For a citizenry that has long thought of itself as the “mother of the universe”, Egyptians have been learning to get along with “just enough” for the past six decades. A little participation, a little politics, and a good deal of repression (albeit sometimes with a velvet glove and only infrequently with an iron fist) has taught Egyptians to expect very little from their leaders and the institutions of governance.

This works in part because of a tradition of servility and compliance. Egypt is not a culture of hot-headed-ness. It is a culture of acceptance and mild perseverance.

 Set in an Old Testament neighborhood, Egypt is in some ways a New Testament society. The meek may not be first, but they get by. Mubarak’s party, his security services, and his inner circle understand this very well.

Mona's  question remains, however, whether the old formula will work forever.

As more and more Egyptians get their news from Al Arabiyya and Al Jezira rather than from the staid, government dominated media, will they remain passive and accepting forever? One would not expect a rapid transformation in this very old society where time is measured in pharaonic epochs.

The old social science mantra of “the revolution of rising expectations” is probably not just around the corner. Mubarak’s son may not, however, be able to count upon the entropic weight of low expectations to ensure him a stable 40 year reign.

 He knows a bit more about the wider world than his father, and he may well be called upon to make some use of that worldliness.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 24, 2007 6:54 AM in response to The Algerian Angle

           The entropic weight of low expectations.

     Jason captures the puzzle of modern Egypt neatly when he writes “It's that synthesis of politics and repression that keeps Egypt stumping the conventional wisdom. “

Egypt is the country that:

      • Liberalizes the economy just enough to get by;

     • Democratizes its institutions just enough to get by; and

     • Provides just enough public education, public health and other public goods to get by.

While at the same time Egypt manages to:

      • Try just enough activists in military courts to keep them in check;

     • break just enough heads amongst street demonstrators to instill caution;

      • censor and occasionally jail just enough journalists and bloggers to remind folks who is in charge.

     For a citizenry that has long thought of itself as the “mother of the universe”, Egyptians have been learning to get along with “just enough” for the past six decades. A little participation, a little politics, and a good deal of repression (albeit sometimes with a velvet glove and only infrequently with an iron fist) has taught Egyptians to expect very little from their leaders and the institutions of governance.

       This works in part because of a tradition of servility and compliance. Egypt is not a culture of hot-headed-ness. It is a culture of acceptance and mild perseverance.

     Set in an Old Testament neighborhood, Egypt is in some ways a New Testament society. The meek may not be first, but they get by. Mubarak’s party, his security services, and his inner circle understand this very well.

       The question remains, however, whether the old formula will work forever. As more and more Egyptians get their news from Al Arabiyya and Al Jezira rather than from the staid, government dominated media, will they remain passive and accepting forever?

     One would not expect a rapid transformation in this very old society where time is measured in pharaonic epochs. The old social science mantra of “the revolution of rising expectations” is probably not just around the corner.

Mubarak’s son may not, however,  be able to count upon the entropic weight of low expectations to ensure him a stable 40 year reign. He knows a bit more about the wider world than his father, and he may well be called upon to make some use of that worldliness.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 23, 2007 7:59 AM in response to It's Good to be the President's Son

"How much is the military really ruling Egypt today?"

 Mubarak's Hizb Al Watani Al Democrati has, for the moment, probably replaced the Egytian Army as the principal modernizing institutional base of contemporary Egyptian authoritarianism.

The party has considerable representation from the 30-50 year old cohort of Egyptians. It has a reasonable smattering of middle and upper level party apparatchiks with international educations and international experience.

The Hizb Al Watani  may not look very modern by the standards of European or American political parties, but it has changed with the times in ways that the military establishment simply has not.

The Hizb Al Watani is probably not up to the challenge of successful competition under conditions approximating real democracy, but they have adquate "oopmph" to play in a political state that Tom Carothers would characterize as "feckless pluralism" --- which is where Egypt will probably remain for the coming 5-10 years.

 By contrast, the leadership of the Egyptian Army is an ageing, ossifying collection of has-beens.  Their salad days, such as they were, are now 30-50 years behind them.

The once-dominant Egyptian army has lost any semblance of military leadership within the Arab world. Professional military education standards in Egypt lag enormously behind those in the modernizing militaries of the region.

 The Army will remain a factor in politics, particularly the politics of succession, but it will not, by itself, be the decisive factor. The real action for the upcoming succession will lie with Mubarak's party.

The real action in Egyptian politics thereafter may well lie with il ikhwan il muslimeen - who have even more modernizing instincts than the Hizb Al Watani Al Democrati and who also have a measure of genuine legitimacy.

The Brotherhood may or may not tolerate pluralism, but they will most assuredly not be feckless.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 22, 2007 10:41 AM in response to Repressing But Not Ruling?

“Although the number of officers directly involved in the day-to-day governance of Egypt has declined precipitously since the 1970s, the institutions of the state ensure the status quo and their military’s central place as both the beneficiaries and ultimate guardians of the political order. “

As I commented on Jason’s post, I believe that this is changing.

The Egyptian military is beginning to run out of gas.

Mubarak's Hizb Al Watani Al Democrati has, for the moment, probably displaced the Egytian Army as the principal modernizing institutional base of contemporary Egyptian authoritarianism.

The party has considerable representation from the 30-50 year old cohort of Egyptians. It has a reasonable smattering of middle and upper level party apparatchiks with international educations and international experience.

The Hizb Al Watani may not look very modern by the standards of European or American political parties, but it has changed with the times in ways that the military establishment simply has not.

I would quickly concede that the Hizb Al Watani is probably not up to the challenge of successful competition under conditions approximating real democracy, but they have adquate "oopmph" to play in a political state that Tom Carothers would characterize as "feckless pluralism" --- which is where Egypt will probably remain for the coming 5-10 years.

 By contrast, the leadership of the Egyptian Army is an ageing, ossifying collection of has-beens. Their salad days, such as they were, are now 30-50 years behind them.

The once-dominant Egyptian army has lost any semblance of military leadership within the Arab world. Professional military education standards in Egypt lag enormously behind those in the modernizing militaries of the region.

The Army will remain a factor in Egypt's politics, particularly the politics of succession, but it will not, by itself, be the decisive factor. The real action for the upcoming succession will lie with Mubarak's party.

The real action in Egyptian politics thereafter may well lie with il ikhwan il muslimeen - who have even more modernizing instincts than the Hizb Al Watani Al Democrati and who also have a measure of genuine legitimacy.

The Brotherhood may or may not tolerate pluralism, but they will most assuredly not be feckless.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 22, 2007 10:40 AM in response to Reading RBNG on the Vineyard?

Paul's contract calls for severance equal to one year's pay (i.e. $400K) based on completing at least one year on the job (which he has).

Watch closely to see whether he gets something more.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 17, 2007 9:16 AM in response to What Happened to Wolfowitz the Strategist?

Thanks, Warren474, for this nice reply. Each of us probably misread the other by 10% and now the variances are resolved.

I am not an expert in the blogging history of the various posters here. I post infrequently & I recall that Daniel G has sometimes agreed with me and sometimes disagreed, but never in ad hominem way. This is of course judging from a small statistical base, but that's all I've got in this instance.

My only personal experience of really vindictive posting was back when I was in the stable of TPM Book Reviewers. The very nice woman who ran the Book Review process in those days, Kate Cambor, was a French historian. I made it a practice to include some lines of French poetry in many of my reviews - just as a friendly "writer's conceit" in honor of my "editor", Kate.

Wow! What a firestorm of hostility this provoked! Elitism! Intellectual arrogance! Dissing the hoi polloi. Foppery! And God knows what else.

Well, Kate is gone from TPM. I've dropped off the list of TPM book reviewers, and the venom of the anti-poesie-francaise crowd has been directed elsewhere.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 15, 2007 4:39 AM in response to Why Jews Envy The Irish

Warren 474 writes:

     "Professor Blackton, I think you're creating an opposition that doesn't exist in any sort of meaningful equivalence on MJ's threads when you equate "anti-semites" on one hand and "vicious protectors of Israel" on the other."

     What I actually said, Warren,  in reference to MJs posts was "So often ---even here at TPM, although less fequently in the posts following your essays ---- a single post from one of these ugly voices brings out a plethora of rants and raves from all quarters that destroys any semblance of discussion."   The "your" is a direct reference to MJ.

       I am more than willing to take the heat for my opionions, but less than ready to take the heat for opinions that are attributed to me by others. 

      I think that you are, at least in part, attributing to me something I did not say (write).

       Careful reading, Warren, is a step towards the civility of discourse that we should re-enforce at TPM. 

    Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 14, 2007 12:20 PM in response to Why Jews Envy The Irish

MJ Writes: "No one should be intimidated. Say what you will about AIPAC, neocons or, I don't know, the synagogue down the block whose parking lot too big or whatever. It is only anti-semitism when the criticism is of "the Jews"as if Richard Perle (God forbid) in anyway speaks for us."

You are, indeed, a voice of civil discourse, Mr Rosenberg. I would wish just two things in this regard:

**** That most bloggers were are sensible, temperate, and judicious as you are on this matter; and

****That the unpleasant minority (both anti-semites, on the one hand, and angy protectors-of-Israel-at-all costs, on the other) who write un-civilly on this and other blogs, would be met by the steely, cold silence that they deserve.

So often ---even here at TPM, although less fequently in the posts following your essays ---- a single post from one of these ugly voices brings out a plethora of rants and raves from all quarters that destroys any semblance of discussion.

I must confess that, when I bump into Mr Perle in my neighborhood, some less-than-civil thoughts pass through my mind. But I leave them there and settle for mumbling a somewhat unenthusiastic "Good morning, Richard".

Professor John Stuart Blackton

Posted at May 12, 2007 2:41 PM in response to Why Jews Envy The Irish