Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JSTOR has a few reviews of Karsh's books from academic journals. Not sure that they have direct hyperlinks, though.
- - - - - - -
- This place is some piece of work. Every entry CONTINUALLY changed to the Arabist/PC point of view. I just cited a quote attributed to Morris from your FORMER wiki entry in which he ADMITS Karsh was correct. Still Cached on Wiki Backup: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ip7QlqXXk2YJ:en.cyclopio.com/Efraim%2520Karsh+%22My+treatment+of+transfer+thinking+before+1948+was,+indeed,+Superficial%22&cd=38&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
".....In reviews of Fabricating Israeli History, Benny Morris was Forced to Concede certain Refutations made by Karsh: "Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, Superficial... He is probably Right in Rejecting the Transfer interpretation I suggested in 'The Birth' to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947].[11]. - Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point."[12].
Of course, all quotes now point him Denying Karsh's charges. So tell me Chimpsky's.. what happened to the quoted section? It hurts the Chimpsky/Wiki view and some Arabists objected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 ( talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Isarig ( talk · contribs) is censoring Cole's direct response to Karsh's criticism of Cole's blog, using the bogus reason that Cole's blog is not a WP:RS. (Ironically, he is at the same time insisting that a blog comment be included on the Cole page). I understand his point but I think it is invalid here - Karsh's article is called "Cole's bad blog," it is about Cole's blog, and Cole replies specifically to Karsh's arguments on his blog. Cole is a reputable source, and his blog is widely cited in the mainstream media, and this section of the Karsh article is specifically about Cole's blog. To erase Cole's response to Karsh's criticism of his blog just because the response appears on that blog smacks of censorship.-- csloat 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, those arguments don't wash. Read WP:RS. It's not a "rule", it's a guideline, and in this case it is clear that Cole's arguments on his blog are directly relevant to Karsh's arguments about his blog. You're just wikilawyering (and doing a poor job of it) to make a weak case. If you want to remove the section on Cole from this page, fine, but if it's going to be here then the response should not be censored. Your claim that TNR publishing something makes it non-libelous is feeble. What is libelous that Cole said? If you have a question about something we can discuss it. TNR publishing Karsh's words does not guarantee that they are non-libelous. The only way to determine that is to sue someone for libel and see who wins in court. As for your second claim, you are doing a terrible job of trying to make a red herring out of this. The issue here is Cole's blog (again, that's the title of the article by Karsh! To pretend otherwise is laughable). Cole is responding to Karsh's criticism of his blog. The only reason for censoring it is you don't think Karsh is right but you want to hide the response so that maybe others will think he is right. Again, it's just feeble. Give it up. As for your final point, you're right this article is about Karsh, but the section in question is about Cole and his blog in particular. Cheers!-- csloat 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
ISArIG, Isarig always always wikilawyering, i actually went to law school and practice law but avoid legal phrases, as they advised us in law school, and try to communicate using plain english and common sense. I've often wondered what you do for a living? Cole is kind to Karsh compared to Benny Morris, isn't he? Take Care! Will314159 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
ISRIG: quit wikilawyering. I adopt CSLOAT's logic IN TOTO. I will repeat it for you:
I adopt his reasoning but not his sentiment. Just reasons of reciprocity. Karsh appears on Cole, Cole appears on Karsh. Cole is not as deragatory to him as Benny Morris. Cheers. Will314159 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
ISARIG, u r wrong on WP:RS. It's aim is so we can rely on the source of facts. It is not directed at OPINIONS. In fact blogs make verifying the sources of opinions even easier. Especially when the source is juancole.com. It's a very elementary point but you don't get it. I feel for you. Cheers. Will314159 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
WHEN a discussion descends to scatalogical (shxt) language it usually means one of the proponents is being very hardheaded. your interpretation of the rules as others have pointed out is idiosyncratic. Cheers. Will314159 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
While I have not read Karsh's book "Islamic Imperialism," I have noticed that several columnists, including Max Boot, Suzanne Fields and Shulamit Reinharz (wife of the President of Brandeis University) have repeated Karsh's assertion that the words "I was ordered to fight all men" are to be found in Muhammad's farewell address. This is not their source. Karsh himself, months after the publication of the book, has continued to repeat this attribution, for example in his review of a book by Karen Armstrong. These are the opening words of "Islamic Imperialism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.73 ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 November 2006
The introduction of the book begins as such:
"I was ordered to fight all men until they 'There is no god but Allah.'"
Prphet Muhammad's farewell address, March 632
I can't find anything in the notes section of the book find where Karsh sources this quote (or the others attributed to Saladdin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden that follow). The first citation is marked a paragraph down. Also, Islamic Imperialism is currently being distributed as "compliments of [t]he Institute on Religion & Democracy," as noted on the title page of the book. The book also lists its subject headings as: "1. Islam--History. 2. Islamic Empire--History. 3. Imperialism--History. 4. Jihad." --
Rezashah 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Tallicfan20 ( talk) 05:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a grave ovesimplification to call the received wisdom of Middle Eastern studies to be that Muslims are victims. That's far from the case with most scholars and even where they are considered victims it's time and location bounded. It needs to be cleaned up and sourced. gren グレン 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's from two books, and it reads nothing like an attack. At all. The idea that there are BLP violations in there is quite absurd. But I agree it could be more specifically sourced, and dust jacket info really isn't all that useful, so I won't be restoring it. csloat 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is time that Karsh view will be presentd side by side to Morrises/kahalidi view in Nakba Zeq 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This section violated WP:COATRACK WP:BLP From WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true. Historicist ( talk) 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Two items removed from "praise section":
Currently there are 7 bits of praise listed in the Praise section. All of them are cited to the same document. This amount of copying from the same source is probably a copyright violation, but I'll leave that issue for now. More importantly, what is that source? It has the title "Professor Eframin Karsh; Mediterranean Studies, School of Humanities; Reviews of his authored books". No author is clearly indicated and the use of "his" suggests Karsh might not be the author. Probably it is the work of some secretary or research student, but since the document is hosted on the server of Karsh's department we can assume that at least it has his approval. So we can judge it according to the rules about self-published sources. The criteria which must be met include:
Looking at the document, we see that it is a carefully selected collection of positive sentences extracted from a large number of reviews, without a single negative remark to be found. There is no pretense at balance whatever. In other words, it is purely self-serving. As for authenticity, the nature of the document is clearly seen by an example I mentioned above. One of the "reviews" given is this:
Anyone with the patience to track down the source (TLS, Nov 28, 1997) will find that Morris was being sarcastic. Morris writes that when he examined the matter in more depth his opinion got stronger than before! So Karsh's selection of 14 words distorted the original source. So much for "authenticity".
So, in summary, the document fails two of the criteria for validity as a source. As well as that, it is itself very poorly sourced. There is never more than a publication name given, never any dates, volume numbers, page numbers or urls that are needed for verification. Compare this to the Criticism section, where every item has a precise location given.
The solution is very simple. Select some examples from the document, find the original sources, and quote them! Zero talk 07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Using Karsh himself as the real source of almost everything in the "praise" section is unacceptable. Everything there needs to be cited to a third-party source, just as the rules say. Here is an example of why that rules are important:
These words were correctly extracted from The Sunday Telegraph, 21 May 2006. But later in the same article, Taheri writes:
So this article could just as easy be mined for the "criticism" section. Of course Karsh's extract avoids these criticisms, which is what we should expect in a self-serving self-published source (explicitly forbidden by WP:RS). That's why we can't use it. This is a notice that everything sourced to Karsh's summary is going to be deleted unless it is adorned with proper citations. I'll even help by putting a proper reference on the first one. Zero talk 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Islamic History
Rejecting the received wisdom in the field of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, which views "empire" and "imperialism" as categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States, and which regards Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, as the long-suffering victims of the West's aggressive encroachments, Karsh argues that the Middle East's experience is the culmination of long existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior, first and foremost the region’s millenarian imperial tradition. External influences, however potent, have played only a secondary role, constituting neither the primary force behind the Middle East’s political development nor the main cause of its notorious volatility.
Karsh first developed this argument in Empires of the Sand: the Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923 (Harvard University Press, 1999)- a comprehensive reinterpretation of the origins of the modern Middle East that denies primacy to Western imperialism and attributes equal responsibility to regional powers. Refuting the orthodox belief in a longstanding European design on the Middle East culminating in the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, as well as the notion that the European powers broke the Middle East's political unity by carving artificial states out of the defunct entity, Empires of the Sand also lays to rest the popular myth of "Perfidious Albion" by proving that it was Britain's Arab war allies who duped the largest empire on earth into backing the "Great Arab Revolt," rather than the other way round.
In Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) Karsh carries this argument much further. He shows that not only was the birth of Islam inextricably linked with empire, but that, unlike Christianity, Islam has retained its imperial ambitions to the present day. From the Prophet Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. The last great Muslim empire may have been destroyed and the caliphate left vacant, but the dream of regional and world domination has remained very much alive. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining the "lost glory" of the caliphate and establsihing the worldwide community of believers (or umma).
In Karsh's view, this vision is not confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This was starkly evidenced by the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of Osama bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons (2006), and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London in July 2005. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam’s war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.
Hi guys, I'm reading one of Professor Karsh's books at the moment and visited this page to find out more about him. Please could somebody create a page explaining the above phrase, used in this paragraph?
According to Howard Sachar, he is "the preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist (politically-rightist) Movement in Zionism
I've got a vague idea of what it means, but a link would be very useful. Thanks. Msepryor ( talk) 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Debresser: Pipe's reference is self-published. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Also, it looks like a couple of edits violate 1RR. Kindly revert. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Reliability is not the question, due weight is. For the section on Empires of Sand I think the balance of weight is about right, an acolyte lavishing praise while the general view of the academic community is given its due weight. For Palestine Betrayed it seems a bit off. That could be resolved by trimming Pipes or adding more from the rather large volume of negative reviews that work received. Oh, and Daniel Pipes is not "renowned", thats just funny. nableezy - 16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The funniest thing here is the belief that praise from Daniel Pipes is a good thing to have. I say leave it in. Zero talk 01:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JSTOR has a few reviews of Karsh's books from academic journals. Not sure that they have direct hyperlinks, though.
- - - - - - -
- This place is some piece of work. Every entry CONTINUALLY changed to the Arabist/PC point of view. I just cited a quote attributed to Morris from your FORMER wiki entry in which he ADMITS Karsh was correct. Still Cached on Wiki Backup: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ip7QlqXXk2YJ:en.cyclopio.com/Efraim%2520Karsh+%22My+treatment+of+transfer+thinking+before+1948+was,+indeed,+Superficial%22&cd=38&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
".....In reviews of Fabricating Israeli History, Benny Morris was Forced to Concede certain Refutations made by Karsh: "Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, Superficial... He is probably Right in Rejecting the Transfer interpretation I suggested in 'The Birth' to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947].[11]. - Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point."[12].
Of course, all quotes now point him Denying Karsh's charges. So tell me Chimpsky's.. what happened to the quoted section? It hurts the Chimpsky/Wiki view and some Arabists objected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 ( talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Isarig ( talk · contribs) is censoring Cole's direct response to Karsh's criticism of Cole's blog, using the bogus reason that Cole's blog is not a WP:RS. (Ironically, he is at the same time insisting that a blog comment be included on the Cole page). I understand his point but I think it is invalid here - Karsh's article is called "Cole's bad blog," it is about Cole's blog, and Cole replies specifically to Karsh's arguments on his blog. Cole is a reputable source, and his blog is widely cited in the mainstream media, and this section of the Karsh article is specifically about Cole's blog. To erase Cole's response to Karsh's criticism of his blog just because the response appears on that blog smacks of censorship.-- csloat 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, those arguments don't wash. Read WP:RS. It's not a "rule", it's a guideline, and in this case it is clear that Cole's arguments on his blog are directly relevant to Karsh's arguments about his blog. You're just wikilawyering (and doing a poor job of it) to make a weak case. If you want to remove the section on Cole from this page, fine, but if it's going to be here then the response should not be censored. Your claim that TNR publishing something makes it non-libelous is feeble. What is libelous that Cole said? If you have a question about something we can discuss it. TNR publishing Karsh's words does not guarantee that they are non-libelous. The only way to determine that is to sue someone for libel and see who wins in court. As for your second claim, you are doing a terrible job of trying to make a red herring out of this. The issue here is Cole's blog (again, that's the title of the article by Karsh! To pretend otherwise is laughable). Cole is responding to Karsh's criticism of his blog. The only reason for censoring it is you don't think Karsh is right but you want to hide the response so that maybe others will think he is right. Again, it's just feeble. Give it up. As for your final point, you're right this article is about Karsh, but the section in question is about Cole and his blog in particular. Cheers!-- csloat 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
ISArIG, Isarig always always wikilawyering, i actually went to law school and practice law but avoid legal phrases, as they advised us in law school, and try to communicate using plain english and common sense. I've often wondered what you do for a living? Cole is kind to Karsh compared to Benny Morris, isn't he? Take Care! Will314159 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
ISRIG: quit wikilawyering. I adopt CSLOAT's logic IN TOTO. I will repeat it for you:
I adopt his reasoning but not his sentiment. Just reasons of reciprocity. Karsh appears on Cole, Cole appears on Karsh. Cole is not as deragatory to him as Benny Morris. Cheers. Will314159 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
ISARIG, u r wrong on WP:RS. It's aim is so we can rely on the source of facts. It is not directed at OPINIONS. In fact blogs make verifying the sources of opinions even easier. Especially when the source is juancole.com. It's a very elementary point but you don't get it. I feel for you. Cheers. Will314159 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
WHEN a discussion descends to scatalogical (shxt) language it usually means one of the proponents is being very hardheaded. your interpretation of the rules as others have pointed out is idiosyncratic. Cheers. Will314159 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
While I have not read Karsh's book "Islamic Imperialism," I have noticed that several columnists, including Max Boot, Suzanne Fields and Shulamit Reinharz (wife of the President of Brandeis University) have repeated Karsh's assertion that the words "I was ordered to fight all men" are to be found in Muhammad's farewell address. This is not their source. Karsh himself, months after the publication of the book, has continued to repeat this attribution, for example in his review of a book by Karen Armstrong. These are the opening words of "Islamic Imperialism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.73 ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 November 2006
The introduction of the book begins as such:
"I was ordered to fight all men until they 'There is no god but Allah.'"
Prphet Muhammad's farewell address, March 632
I can't find anything in the notes section of the book find where Karsh sources this quote (or the others attributed to Saladdin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden that follow). The first citation is marked a paragraph down. Also, Islamic Imperialism is currently being distributed as "compliments of [t]he Institute on Religion & Democracy," as noted on the title page of the book. The book also lists its subject headings as: "1. Islam--History. 2. Islamic Empire--History. 3. Imperialism--History. 4. Jihad." --
Rezashah 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Tallicfan20 ( talk) 05:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a grave ovesimplification to call the received wisdom of Middle Eastern studies to be that Muslims are victims. That's far from the case with most scholars and even where they are considered victims it's time and location bounded. It needs to be cleaned up and sourced. gren グレン 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's from two books, and it reads nothing like an attack. At all. The idea that there are BLP violations in there is quite absurd. But I agree it could be more specifically sourced, and dust jacket info really isn't all that useful, so I won't be restoring it. csloat 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is time that Karsh view will be presentd side by side to Morrises/kahalidi view in Nakba Zeq 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This section violated WP:COATRACK WP:BLP From WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true. Historicist ( talk) 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Two items removed from "praise section":
Currently there are 7 bits of praise listed in the Praise section. All of them are cited to the same document. This amount of copying from the same source is probably a copyright violation, but I'll leave that issue for now. More importantly, what is that source? It has the title "Professor Eframin Karsh; Mediterranean Studies, School of Humanities; Reviews of his authored books". No author is clearly indicated and the use of "his" suggests Karsh might not be the author. Probably it is the work of some secretary or research student, but since the document is hosted on the server of Karsh's department we can assume that at least it has his approval. So we can judge it according to the rules about self-published sources. The criteria which must be met include:
Looking at the document, we see that it is a carefully selected collection of positive sentences extracted from a large number of reviews, without a single negative remark to be found. There is no pretense at balance whatever. In other words, it is purely self-serving. As for authenticity, the nature of the document is clearly seen by an example I mentioned above. One of the "reviews" given is this:
Anyone with the patience to track down the source (TLS, Nov 28, 1997) will find that Morris was being sarcastic. Morris writes that when he examined the matter in more depth his opinion got stronger than before! So Karsh's selection of 14 words distorted the original source. So much for "authenticity".
So, in summary, the document fails two of the criteria for validity as a source. As well as that, it is itself very poorly sourced. There is never more than a publication name given, never any dates, volume numbers, page numbers or urls that are needed for verification. Compare this to the Criticism section, where every item has a precise location given.
The solution is very simple. Select some examples from the document, find the original sources, and quote them! Zero talk 07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Using Karsh himself as the real source of almost everything in the "praise" section is unacceptable. Everything there needs to be cited to a third-party source, just as the rules say. Here is an example of why that rules are important:
These words were correctly extracted from The Sunday Telegraph, 21 May 2006. But later in the same article, Taheri writes:
So this article could just as easy be mined for the "criticism" section. Of course Karsh's extract avoids these criticisms, which is what we should expect in a self-serving self-published source (explicitly forbidden by WP:RS). That's why we can't use it. This is a notice that everything sourced to Karsh's summary is going to be deleted unless it is adorned with proper citations. I'll even help by putting a proper reference on the first one. Zero talk 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Islamic History
Rejecting the received wisdom in the field of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, which views "empire" and "imperialism" as categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States, and which regards Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, as the long-suffering victims of the West's aggressive encroachments, Karsh argues that the Middle East's experience is the culmination of long existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior, first and foremost the region’s millenarian imperial tradition. External influences, however potent, have played only a secondary role, constituting neither the primary force behind the Middle East’s political development nor the main cause of its notorious volatility.
Karsh first developed this argument in Empires of the Sand: the Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923 (Harvard University Press, 1999)- a comprehensive reinterpretation of the origins of the modern Middle East that denies primacy to Western imperialism and attributes equal responsibility to regional powers. Refuting the orthodox belief in a longstanding European design on the Middle East culminating in the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, as well as the notion that the European powers broke the Middle East's political unity by carving artificial states out of the defunct entity, Empires of the Sand also lays to rest the popular myth of "Perfidious Albion" by proving that it was Britain's Arab war allies who duped the largest empire on earth into backing the "Great Arab Revolt," rather than the other way round.
In Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) Karsh carries this argument much further. He shows that not only was the birth of Islam inextricably linked with empire, but that, unlike Christianity, Islam has retained its imperial ambitions to the present day. From the Prophet Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. The last great Muslim empire may have been destroyed and the caliphate left vacant, but the dream of regional and world domination has remained very much alive. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining the "lost glory" of the caliphate and establsihing the worldwide community of believers (or umma).
In Karsh's view, this vision is not confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This was starkly evidenced by the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of Osama bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons (2006), and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London in July 2005. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam’s war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.
Hi guys, I'm reading one of Professor Karsh's books at the moment and visited this page to find out more about him. Please could somebody create a page explaining the above phrase, used in this paragraph?
According to Howard Sachar, he is "the preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist (politically-rightist) Movement in Zionism
I've got a vague idea of what it means, but a link would be very useful. Thanks. Msepryor ( talk) 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Debresser: Pipe's reference is self-published. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Also, it looks like a couple of edits violate 1RR. Kindly revert. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Reliability is not the question, due weight is. For the section on Empires of Sand I think the balance of weight is about right, an acolyte lavishing praise while the general view of the academic community is given its due weight. For Palestine Betrayed it seems a bit off. That could be resolved by trimming Pipes or adding more from the rather large volume of negative reviews that work received. Oh, and Daniel Pipes is not "renowned", thats just funny. nableezy - 16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The funniest thing here is the belief that praise from Daniel Pipes is a good thing to have. I say leave it in. Zero talk 01:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)