and thought he was great! One of those eloquent traditional academics who can light up a lecture room without even raising his voice.
Some of the many things that struck me:
--His depiction of a Sultan or Caliph as being subject to the law. Subordinates have a duty to DISobey if the Sultan's orders are not in keeping with the Koran or the law.
--The group decisionmaking practiced in traditional monarchies like the Ottoman empire. Before setting an important policy, the Sultan had to confer with many groups -- tribal chieftains, religious authorities, scribes, the business community, etc.
--The origins of the Baath Party: France's colonies in Syria and Lebanon decided to stay with the Vichy government rather than the Free French in WWII. This allowed the Nazis to create a base there in the Middle East. This was the origin of Baathist party; it started with the Nazis and was modified by Iraq's alliance with Stalinist Russia.
--His statement that those who feel that we should let the Iraqis return to an authoritarian government because that's the way they've always done things shows an ignorance of Islamic history, a misinterpretation of the current situation, and a lack of concern about the future of Iraq.
He did make me think different about "democracy" in Iraq. Despite Bush's attempts to control the process, it would be a very good thing for the Iraqis to take the reins and have a truly representative government.