Who says it has to be either/or?
The part where you (well, where someone) makes inflammatory pronouncements regarding those religions when they don’t even have a glancing familiarity with their content, that’s what part.
Aw, man, don’t be messin’ with JEWEL!
God - no offense taken at all! Both Coll and Tamerlane are both incredibly learned, and that’s not a wank, it’s just fact. Their depth of knowledge is incredible.
The only knowledge I have of this area is my own experiences having lived here for two years (not long - but you can learn quite a bit in that time here even with your eyes shut!) and the extremely valuable, interesting and informative interaction I get on a daily basis with Arabic friends and associates.
I think what makes me shudder most about the ignorance and attitude of people like Brutus is that in a less well-travelled lifetime, I may have shared at least in part their horrifying un-knowledge and false assumptions. I am just extremely grateful that my career and desire for change and new experiences have brought me to places such as this, and forced - what in the UK was almost certainly a much narrower mind and understanding - wider open.
Frequently? That was not my memory of what Col has posted on the subject:
Reference to some of Lewis’s comment on the slave trade having been superseded by later scholarship. 11-15-2000 04:05 PM (There are two allusions to Lewis in April, 2002 that simply note him as one of multiple authors on the topic of slavery.)
Side note that Lewis has some information on the development of Sharia law. 06-04-2002 11:47 PM
A recommendation to read Lewis in regards to Jews and Islam. 10-10-2002 09:10 AM
Another recommendation to read Lewis regarding Jewish perspective of Islam, 10-11-2002 09:57 AM
General recommendation to read Lewis. 10-16-2002 08:15 PM
Direct suggestion to IzzyR to read Lewis. 10-22-2002 08:16 PM
Specific recommendation to read Lewis’s Political Language of Islam, 11-05-2002 2:18 PM
Hmm, fourteen citations to Lewis including eleven express recommendations and four specific statements (two of them hours apart in the same thread) that Col does not entirely agree with Lewis on specific points–and in three of those he still generally recommends Lewis. That certainly looks more like what Col said than what IzzyR said.
My guess is that Lewis takes a harsher view of contemporary Islam than Collounsbury does, including support for war with Iraq, for example. Col likes to dismiss such views as being bigoted and uninformed. But I’m guessing.
For a recent article/interview with Lewis, see this
Tomndebb,
You can quibble about the word “frequently” - I was going from memory - I see at least three qualifications in your links here. But you should observe, if you read your own cites, that the majority of these cites are recommending specific works by Lewis, as opposed to his work in general. In these cases, no qualification is needed. If you look at the general recommendations to read his work, they are usually accompanied by disclaimers that this applies to his historical works only.
And Collounsbury does not merely respectfully disagree with Lewis’ position on current events - rather, he finds him to be “naive” and his analysis “weak for its dependence on classically oriented sources”. So the notion that Collounsbury can respect the idea that someone can have a legitimate difference of opinion with him as opposed to being mentally deficient in some way has not been shown.
My earlier post stands.
However, I have to express my admiration for your doing all that work in looking up and coding. Collounsbury has a lot of toadies who pop up to express their undying gratitude to him for opening up their eyes and showing them the True Light. But there’s not much effort in that. You are a true ally in the foxhole.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**Three points:[ol][li]I have great respect for knowledge in general… [/ol] **[/li][/QUOTE]
Based on how successfully this one snuck under the radar, december has a great future awaiting him as a defense consultant.
I’m sure you’d have done as much for me.
I disagree with your take on Collounsbury here. When someone holds a disagreement with someone’s analysis of a situation, this isn’t the same thing as disagreeing with them over which flavor of ice cream is the best: generally, a disagreement over analysis is because you think the other person’s analysis is in some ways flawed.
If Collounsbury criticizes someone’s analysis for being naive or for relying too much on classical sources, that’s a legitimate criticism – it’s not like he’s calling Lewis a poopyhead or a boogereater. Now, I’m not familiar at all with Lewis’s work, so I can’t evaluate whether his criticisms are correct – but they are not meaningless criticisms. They are well within the bounds of legitimate debate.
Lewis, for his part, might criticize Collounsbury for an underreliance on classical sources, or for an overpessimistic approach to US/MENA relationships. I don’t know whether such criticisms would be accurate, but they too would be legitimate criticisms, would not point to any megalomania on Lewis’s part.
Daniel
Daniel,
I’m not sure I disagree with you here. I did not introduce the Lewis angle in an effort to prove from it that Collounsbury cannot tolerate dissenting opinions. It was he who introduced it in an attempt to prove that he can. If you categorize another’s analysis as weak and naive it is not a proof that you can’t tolerate dissent, but it does not seem like much proof that you can either.
Further, as I noted earlier, I have not seen anyone hold up Lewis’ work as the basis for argument against Collounsbury’s opinion in some way. As such, it would not be surprising if his criticisms were more muted than in situations when he actually confronts others’ opinions in debate.
Fair enough, Izzy. I don’t have a dog in this fight, to use an expression that could get me fired.
Daniel
So, what exactly are Col’s qualifications to speak as an expert? I know he lives and works in the Middle East, is his expertise based simply on X years doing that? Has he an undergraduate or graduate degree(s) in Politics, Islamic history, or anything of the type? How widespread are his experiences, is he well versed about Pakistan and not so much about Turkey, for example? Is he a Muslem, and if so, what flavor? Does he have family or is he married into an Arabic family? Is he Arabic himself? Turkish? An ex-pat American? Knowing this will help me judge how to weigh his opinions. The Ozymantis-like tone of the OP not withstanding, I’d like to have some of the questions above answered to help me judge his posts.
Pistachio? 
In the GD thread, Coll revealed that he is a WASP with dark colouring. IIRC from his spelling he must be a merkin.
Actually, some of his spelling has tended toward the Anglophile, or on some occasions, the Francophone (Tchetchen, for example, rather than Chechen).
None taken, I absolutely agree.
Tsk. I would hope you wouldn’t necessarily label everyone who agrees, expresses respect for, or defends the gentleman in question, as being a “toady”.
I’ve certainly never considered gobear to be the toadying type :).
Me, on the other hand - It could be. I’ve always been fond of Anurans ;).
- Tamerlane
Look upon my works, ye mighty, or I shall bite your head off after we mate?
LMAO!
Hey, Shelley made it up, it’s not like I misspelled “Kat”. 
Our pal Percy Bysshe had Ozymandias. Ozymantis is pure Weirddave through and through.
I met a traveller from an ancient land…
Which reminds me of when Ole died and went to heaven. Robert Frost died at the same moment, you see, and St Peter said that there was only room for one of them in Heaven, and decided that whichever of the two made a better poem incorporating the word ‘Timbuktu’ would be allowed entry.
Robert Frost wrote:*
I travelled through a distant land
My feet burning upon the sand
I saw a train passing through
On the way to Timbuktu*
St Peter felt it only fair to read Ole’s poem as well…
Ol’ Tim and I a-hunting went
Spied three maidens in a tent
They were three and we were two
I bucked one and Timbuktu
…
…Percy Bysshe Shelley I ain’t.
Because only the educated would know he was ever called “Brutus,” and the uneducated would just think he’s always been called “Bluto”? 
I haven’t seen Brutus doing that anywhere in this thread.
If he’s got a history of doing that elsewhere, then I see your point.