Lewis contends that Wahhabism is antithetical to the Westernizing influences which Saudi Arabia works so hard to prohibit within its own kingdom. I don't think you can dispute that. You certainly know the restrictions on 'freedom' experienced by anyone living or working in Saudi Arabia.

'Imperialism' is a word that gets kicked around a lot, but the meaning has morphed to include the influence of ideas and economics, not gunboats up the Yangtze. Interpreted in that way, it is certainly the 'imperialism' of Western ideas - from the Declaration of the Rights of Man through the 19th Amendment giving women the vote - are considered very threatening by the Wahhabis.

And considering something like GDP for societies whose 'wealth' is an accident of geography and would be completely non-existant but for the putrification of dinosaurs hardly commends its political or intellectual beliefs as being successful or reproducable in other countries not blessed with oil.

The Sudan has been very influenced by Wahhabi ideas - with very little economic or cultural success.

Read a little more Lewis - I think you are missing his points. And he definitely felt Sadam had to go. Much of neo-con thinking on the middle east has been shaped by Lewis's writings on the area over 40 years. ( I first started reading Lewis when I lived in Turkey in the 60s and was always impressed at how clearly he seemed to understand both the history and thee culture.)

>Charles:
>
>I have done some research now.
>
>I read the article on "Roots of Islamic Rage - Atlantic Monthly - Sept/1990. Not once does he mention that the Islamic Fundamentalists are against "freedom". He introduces the possiblities that they are against the West for: policy on Israel, sexism, racism and imperialsm. He discounts the first 3 and concludes that the Fundamentalists are against US Imperialism.
>
>I still think the policy in Israel is a factor but I think his premise is generally valid.
>
>I read some introductory paragraphs to "What went wrong" from Jan 2002. He opens with a blanket statement that all Islamic countries are in poverty. The truth is that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar had higher standards of living than the US in 2002, so I would have to question the quality of his research for that article.
>
>From what I can see he probably would not have advocated the support of Iraq against Iran in the 1980's or the attack of Iraq last year.
>
>You obviously interpret his material quite differently, but that is how I see it.