dear e,

having read over the list again i already saw that there are some gaps ... which i hope to fill soon.

and - obviously - i have some (minor) issues with your disruption of my carefully crafted order of things.

but - you're the boss.

--raf*

Re: the ordering, on the web it's not a good thing to have one category with 20+ items. Too much scrolling.

Second, while some people may be interested in straight history (i.e. by period), many others (particularly those who don't know what happened when) will have an easier time searching by region or subject.

Anyway, feel free to suggest revisions to the order/categorization.

Also, I think we need a couple of solid books on the I-P conflict.

Re: ordering - perhaps do a link menu at the top which will bounce you down the page to the section heading? that way it is still a printable biblio.

I have quite a number of books that I could recommend for the biblio, some more niche, some less so - if people are interested I'll gladly pop them in a list with amazon links once I have a spare hour.

I believe the more recommendations the better, but Raf* Bey is there not a pronounced Turkish presence in your revision?

Not that I have anything against the civilising presence of Turks.

Also the utter absence of Bernard Lewis is an oversight. While I do not care for his forays into pretending to comment on modern MENA things, his historical works are very slid reads for people learning about the region and far, far more accessible than many of the current recomendations that will never be found this side of a Uni library.

Re: ordering - perhaps do a link menu at the top which will bounce you down the page to the section heading? that way it is still a printable biblio.

The "bounce" menu is on the side. Hmm, perhaps should have a link to a printable version without the template. Rather easy to do on the fly.

More book suggestions are welcome, I agree that there are gaps and a shortage of layperson-accessible works. Not a lot on the Maghreb either.

Still, this is the fun part and I've been meaning to revive the bibliography section for some time.

dear e,

will rethink/-work the order & also come up with some more books.

yes - india/pakistan isn't really in there. as far as i know, they're not part of MENA. but i'd have no problem with including them just because ... we feel like it.

dear l,

apart from shaw's 2nd volume, there is no turkish presence at all in the list. ottomans are not turks. there IS a regional stress & i'd be first one to admit it. it has to do with where i was schooled/trained. i simply am not educated enough in matters maghrebine to make suggestions on which the most important books on that region are.

as for bernard lewis - i am adamantly against including him. his books are readable, but so is a lot of other crap. i wouldn't suggest martin kramer and/or daniel pipes either. and no, lewis is NOT "more scholarly" than they are. i have made an effort to include books accessible to the non-specialist. i would be more than happy to highlight them in the list.

--raf*

Raf: I meant Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pakistan is potentially fringe, not interested in capturing India.

dear e,

right, RIGHT.

that's the hardest to pin down to a few books. which is why we avoid it, like dealing with "culture" ...

--raf*

I have to second eerie's suggestion - it would be nice to include some good sources regarding Israel-Palestine history/conflict. Understand if it's not doable, though.

Well.

Where to start?

By the numbers I suppose:
"part from shaw's 2nd volume, there is no turkish presence at all in the list. ottomans are not turks."

Queer, I would wager that among the names Kayali, Cemal Kafadar, Selim Deringil, Halil Inalcik, Sevket Pamuk, Zeynep Çelik one might find a Turk or two. If only by accident.

Good or bad, quite a large collection.

"there IS a regional stress & i'd be first one to admit it. it has to do with where i was schooled/trained. i simply am not educated enough in matters maghrebine to make suggestions on which the most important books on that region are."

I actually was not thinking of the utter disregard of the Maghreb and its complete absence from the reading list (being used to it by now).

But I am not terribly concerned with "most important books" as opposed to useful books. Most important books follow academic fashion and are not of core relevance to the uninitiated readers.

"as for bernard lewis - i am adamantly against including him. his books are readable, but so is a lot of other crap. "

Well, I am adamently opposed to the utter shite that is Edward Said and generally the shite that his crappy piece of ahistorical agitprop produced, but I kept that to myself out of fairness.

Bernard Lewis is an important and accessible author, and one which the average reader can learn a lot from - especially if fore-armed against his real weaknesses. Your politico-academic axe-grinding notwithstanding.

"i wouldn't suggest martin kramer and/or daniel pipes either."

Good, we can at least agree on that.

" and no, lewis is NOT "more scholarly" than they are."

That is complete and utter tripe.

Lewis was and is a solid scholar. Utter crap as a commentator on the modern, and certainly biased in a half dozen ways, but to put him with Pipes merely betrays a rather puerile bias on your own part.

"i have made an effort to include books accessible to the non-specialist. i would be more than happy to highlight them in the list.'

Well, what can I say, a gracious offer I am most uninterested in. I simply recommend making this somewhat more Catholic. Or it should be the Raf Bey reading list, a fine piece of advice to be sure, as I don't particularly want the Good Lounsbury name attached to it.

dear l,

we both seem to have jumped into the sea of misunderstanding ...

re: turkish presence -- i had understood it as related to content, not authors. as, in my academic life, i had mainly dealt with the wider ottoman world most of the books i think of tend to be related to that. and that accounts for a strong presence of people with turkish names.

re: I am not terribly concerned with "most important books" as opposed to useful books -- that all depends on the goal of the list. if the target group is "only uninitiated readers", then the list is obviously too academic.

re: Edward Said -- i've included his book not because he is "right" (i do have my own issues with a lot of his arguments) but because the "orientalism debate" is one that deals with the core of how MENA and the "west" interact. that's why i included the other two books, the first of one includes bernard lewis' review of said's book. it might be a good idea to also include one of lewis' tomes in this batch, as an example of an "orientalist".

re: I kept that to myself out of fairness -- since when are you fair?

re: Bernard Lewis is an important and accessible author -- yes, i never denied that -- and one which the average reader can learn a lot from -- here i think lays the main problem & the reason why i wouldn't include him -- especially if fore-armed against his real weaknesses -- because that is quite hard to do, lest there is a comment saying "don't read lewis before you've read xyz"? --

re: Your politico-academic axe-grinding notwithstanding. -- and i quote aqoul's statement of purpose: "The objective then is to provide [...] some small respite from ideological axe grinding of a Left or Right or other partisan variety, while still allowing pointed differences and even the odd bloodletting." the reason why i personally don't want lewis in such a list is because, in terms of scholarship, he's simply outdated and because, in terms of ideology, his books are essentialist - postulating an "unchanging, backward islam" & all that stuff.

re: Lewis was and is a solid scholar. Utter crap as a commentator on the modern, and certainly biased in a half dozen ways, but to put him with Pipes merely betrays a rather puerile bias on your own part. in the 50s/60s lewis was a solid scholar within the academic framework of the time. he no longer is. he is unwilling to even consider scholarly approaches that don't jive with his worldview. like pipes & kramer he lets his contemporary political bias determine his perception of "islamic" history, society, people, etc. and in terms of real politics he actually is in the same group as pipes & kramer.

re: Well, what can I say, a gracious offer I am most uninterested in. I simply recommend making this somewhat more Catholic. Or it should be the Raf Bey reading list, a fine piece of advice to be sure, as I don't particularly want the Good Lounsbury name attached to it. -- i sent a suggestion for a booklist to eerie. that's it. aqoul is your thing. you can do whatever you want. keep it, erase it, change it -- your call. i have no ideological axes to grind here. the objective determines the content. if you want it to be a list for novices to get a start in books on MENA then, as i said before, the list i suggested is too academic. if you feel that the "orientalism debate" has no place in the aqoul reading list -> delete it. if you feel that some authors are missing -> include them. if you feel that some comments are wrong -> erase them/change them/write your own. the list as it currently stands is not set in stone, is it?

i had been under the impression that the aqoul reading list would be, as a matter of course, a collaborative effort where many people suggest books, why they do include some but wouldn't include others, debate what the most useful categories are, etc.pp. and thus my contribution is precisely that - a contribution, one of many. i already have a private list of books - on my blog.

cheers,

--raf*

Well, the idea is to have an 'Aqoul list, which means including Said even though L thinks he's a wanker and including Lewis even though Raf thinks he's a wanker.

I think it is acceptable to put older Bernard Lewis works in the list provided that the remarks include caveats about his more recent overreaching re: modern issues.

It occurs to me that "A Peace to End All Peace" would be a nice post-WWI overview of things (incl. some Israeli-Palestinian info). Also, Kepel's recent "The War for Muslim Minds" seems to be aimed at a broader audience - perhaps more useful than the one I listed.

A Film/Fiction section might be helpful as well, particularly for cultural insight. Any lit or movie suggestions? I can guess some already.

Raf Bey Response

Raf Bey

Basha, I knew there was a reason I liked you, despite your silly reaction to my Leb bashing. Very sporting and fair response.

Now, there are some differences as of yet.

”we both seem to have jumped into the sea of misunderstanding ...”
Yes, one could say that, but I did tone down my initial take no prisoners response, although it was more amusing.
“re: turkish presence -- i had understood it as related to content, not authors. as, in my academic life, i had mainly dealt with the wider ottoman world most of the books i think of tend to be related to that. and that accounts for a strong presence of people with turkish names.”
Of all the items, this was the least concern. I simply found it odd to see quite so many Turkish names. Odd merely in a passing non-critical sense.
Like I said, I like Turks. My family has a long history with them. I’m almost an Ottoman restorationist (an amusing concept I found, really, I once knew in Jordan an P-Jordanian of Turkish descent who insisted he was an Ottoman restorationist. More as a way to offend his anti-Turkish compadres, but it was a highly amusing conceit).
re: I am not terribly concerned with "most important books" as opposed to useful books -- that all depends on the goal of the list. if the target group is "only uninitiated readers", then the list is obviously too academic.
Well, there is a tension there to be sure. While the core visitors may not be uninitiated, there should be some catering to that.
re: Edward Said -- i've included his book not because he is "right" (i do have my own issues with a lot of his arguments) but because the "orientalism debate" is one that deals with the core of how MENA and the "west" interact. that's why i included the other two books, the first of one includes bernard lewis' review of said's book. it might be a good idea to also include one of lewis' tomes in this batch, as an example of an "orientalist".
Well, I genuinely loathe Said, and don’t find him very useful at all. Stupid self-important git that represented the most self-indulgent idiocies of Palestianism and a bad scholar as well.
If he has a place, the old school does as well.
re: I kept that to myself out of fairness -- since when are you fair?
I’m always fair. I am simply mean or brutal, which does not exclude fairness.

re: Bernard Lewis is an important and accessible author -- yes, i never denied that -- and one which the average reader can learn a lot from -- here i think lays the main problem & the reason why i wouldn't include him -- especially if fore-armed against his real weaknesses -- because that is quite hard to do, lest there is a comment saying "don't read lewis before you've read xyz"? --
Which I think is fine. That is note Lewis’ weaknesses and forearm the reader. For two primary reasons. 90 percent of English language readers will encounter him, and better to have an informed read than an uninformed one.
Also, I do think he’s valuable in context.
re: Your politico-academic axe-grinding notwithstanding. -- and i quote aqoul's statement of purpose: "The objective then is to provide [...] some small respite from ideological axe grinding of a Left or Right or other partisan variety, while still allowing pointed differences and even the odd bloodletting." the reason why i personally don't want lewis in such a list is because, in terms of scholarship, he's simply outdated and because, in terms of ideology, his books are essentialist - postulating an "unchanging, backward islam" & all that stuff.
A fair cop on the last, but as to the first, excluding him entirely falls into the axe-grinding.
I am quite willing to willy-nilly exclude Kramer and Pipes. They are scum.
Lewis is merely old, backwards and tedious. Not the same thing.
And for the uninitiated his classic works are well-written and pretty effective – especially if one has the context to understand his errors (e.g. reifying legalism as actual practice – social historian he is not). His recent rot about “What went wrong” are boring and … not worth being published.
I am not ashamed at all to have him in my personal library, although at the same time I never recommend him without many warnings and caveats.
That said, I always recommend him as I know he’s a reader the average intelligent Joe can digest on history.
re: Lewis was and is a solid scholar. Utter crap as a commentator on the modern, and certainly biased in a half dozen ways, but to put him with Pipes merely betrays a rather puerile bias on your own part. in the 50s/60s lewis was a solid scholar within the academic framework of the time. he no longer is. he is unwilling to even consider scholarly approaches that don't jive with his worldview. like pipes & kramer he lets his contemporary political bias determine his perception of "islamic" history, society, people, etc. and in terms of real politics he actually is in the same group as pipes & kramer.
Well, again, I don’t disagree but at the same time I find it impossible to put him in the same boat as Pipes and Kramer. Pipes and Kramer are dishonest lying bigoted scum. Lewis is merely pig-headed, old with certain prejudices (a mild bigotry if you will). I will defend him against a charge of fundamental dishonesty.
With respect to his scholarship, for the non-scholar I feel that much of his work – up to those where he became “present minded” – remains very useful for the non-scholarly to read. I say this straddling both worlds. I am a businessman, not a scholar, for all that I love to dabble at scholarly things and prefer serious scholarship to popularizations, etc.
His classic (and excessively legalistic even I would say by classic standards) scholarship is far easier for the uninitiated to digest than most (but not all) more sophisticated works. As much as I enjoy some kinds of critical social history (but not the deconstructionist shit), I recognize that I could never get a colleague of mine in my sector to read it.
I can get them to read Lewis, and even given Lewis’ sins, my experience is that they walk away with a better appreciation (by our standards) than they had before of the Middle East. That is, whatever his biases, his classic historical works still bring people half way, and half way is better than not there at all (which is Kramer and Pipes for me).
Or, let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I’d rather be fair, forearm and recommend Lewis than give them something too much to digest.

re: Well, what can I say, a gracious offer I am most uninterested in. I simply recommend making this somewhat more Catholic. Or it should be the Raf Bey reading list, a fine piece of advice to be sure, as I don't particularly want the Good Lounsbury name attached to it. -- i sent a suggestion for a booklist to eerie. that's it. aqoul is your thing. you can do whatever you want. keep it, erase it, change it -- your call. i have no ideological axes to grind here. the objective determines the content. if you want it to be a list for novices to get a start in books on MENA then, as i said before, the list i suggested is too academic. if you feel that the "orientalism debate" has no place in the aqoul reading list -> delete it. if you feel that some authors are missing -> include them. if you feel that some comments are wrong -> erase them/change them/write your own. the list as it currently stands is not set in stone, is it?
Okay, let’s split a difference here.
First, Lewis belongs there because his core works are something that can bring people up to speed, and I think have value. For all that they represent outdated scholarship in many ways.

i had been under the impression that the aqoul reading list would be, as a matter of course, a collaborative effort where many people suggest books, why they do include some but wouldn't include others, debate what the most useful categories are, etc.pp. and thus my contribution is precisely that - a contribution, one of many. i already have a private list of books - on my blog.

Quite right. I was overreacting to your position re Lewis (and old school history, which I think has more value than post 1970s fashion would allow), as well as the present context of the inclusion of Ed Said, how I do indeed detest (although for far different reasons than is usual).

l-Moukhlis Benloun