I didn't really put too much thought into it. What it probably breaks down to is how the in-group is defined, how sharp its boundaries are, whether those boundaries are permeable, and if so, how so and to what degree. So I guess it could be one or the other or maybe a bit of both sometimes. You just need to look into how the definition changes, or not, over time. Go ahead and poke holes in that or add to it.

Iran, run by a medieval institution which I'd characterize as belonging to an earlier stage of development, might make for an interesting study here. That a powerful ethnic minority within an Arab empire became a bunch of schismatics is probably not a coincidence.




You might be right. One of the next books in my queue deals with Saudi Arabia somewhat. I'm looking forward to it. Do you know how equally all classes within the country are expected to adhere to the rules set by the Saudi ulama?



No, but I just remedied that. I think there's an important distinction to be made here. His point is that we the readers are being cheated by not having access to expertise, mine is about people trying to sidestep an argument, that is, to refudiate the expertise someone else might bring to bear in a discussion.

I agree with what Friedman wrote. One of things I've noticed about so many of the reports covering the Middle East is that they are penned by Jews or Christian Zionists ( I often check into the authors' backgrounds because I'm cynical and suspicious ). Then we have Op-ed pieces... ahahahaha! The Israel lobbies, AIPAC and Likudniks do a very good job of creating and promoting agenda-driven media which distorts or ignores narratives that are inconvenient for Israel.