Perhaps another difference in our understanding of Lewis is that you never heard of him 24 hours ago <bg>

The point about Arab oil wealth is that 'poverty' in the Islamic world is fact. It only ameliorated by oil wealth, but the GDP of even countries with money gushing out of the ground is less than that of places like Singapore. But the educational system, research, political freedoms etc. are so far behind the West it should certainly be (and is) a cause for concern in those societies.

The idea that something is dramatically wrong in the Islamic world is not unique to Lewis. Adjami and a whole lot of scholars are asking the same questions.

But I can see this is an emotional issue for you, and your primary goal is to say "Bush Bad."

Believe what makes you happy. A great number of my countrymen certainly share your beliefs ( for a lot of the same reasons ) and a great number of the presidents supporters (to my mind) support him for the wrong reasons. Oh well.



>>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.
>
>Dean:
>
>Women do work in Saudi Arabia but they are limited to being Teachers in girls schools, doctors for women (but they actually treat men too) and other positions were their contact is exclusively women. In Jeddah, Saudi women go out shopping without their veils. Its not like here, but its not like Afganistan either.
>
>>'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.
>
>I didn't get that from my reading of Bernard Lewis. Possibly you interpret his words differently or you got that from somewhere else.
>
>>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.
>
>OK, I didn't know that was Bernard Lewis definition of poverty. They have good housing, schools, roads, services, medical care and education but they were paid for with decayed animals, so they are in poverty. This is an unusual definition and should have been explained in a footnote.
>
>>The Sudan has been very influenced by Wahhabi ideas - with very little economic or cultural success.
>
>I would say it isn't just the Sudan, where the Wahhabi's have been unsuccessful. It has been everywhere.
>
>>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.)
>
>Did Lewis specifically suggest that the country should be bombed with B52's, strafed with F18's and hammered with Hercules tanks as the best way of deposing Saddam?