QuoteOriginally posted by: JohnnyThis is the conclusion of Lewis's article. It's the usual self-congratulatory claptrap that says "it's all their problem" and refuses to look closer to home. Yes, Middle East countries can do more to help themselves; but Western countries could help by resisting the temptation to meddle in the region.I think that's an unfair summary of Lewis' article. He notes bad things that were done by western powers, but other parts of the world have recovered much faster from greater wrongs. France did terrible things in Algeria and Britain carved up Arabian oil resources for its own benefit; the US has played power politics to fight the Soviet Union and guarantee cheap oil; the Seven Sisters were far too powerful in the 1950s and 60s; but none of this can convincingly explain the problems of countries in the arc from Iran to Morocco. Turkey was subject to the same forces and modernized far more successfully. Colonial repression was far worse in many other countries that thrive today. Nothing in the region compares to the destruction suffered by Germany, Japan and Russia, or even England and France, in the second world war.I admit that US/Soviet struggles in the 1980s led to short-sighted (at best) policies in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan which set back progressive forces. But in the last 15 years, I think the primary motivation of western powers has been to achieve peace and prosperity in the region, oil prices and global rivalries have been secondary.Moreover, the problems of these countries cannot be tied to either culture, people or Islam. Millions of people have emigrated, mostly to North and South America, but many to Europe and Asia as well. These people have been very successful as a group, without giving up their religion or cultural practices.I'm not sure what you mean by "not meddling." If that means keeping government hands off and allowing private companies to deal as they will; I say this is irresponsible and will certainly lead to disaster. If it means cutting off all arms sales, foreign aid, international investment to everyone; I think that will lead to a different disaster. If it means dealing only with the recognized governments of these countries and refusing to "meddle" by speaking up for civil rights, women, Kurds, Jews, Christians and minority political parties; I think that's wrong too.

"If so I would like to found a chair for the Psychopathology of Air Travel, research is badly needed on the obscure motives of some passengers on European shuttle flights." What happens on European shuttle flights? I'm curious.

This is the conclusion of Lewis's article. It's the usual self-congratulatory claptrap that says "it's all their problem" and refuses to look closer to home. Yes, Middle East countries can do more to help themselves; but Western countries could help by resisting the temptation to meddle in the region. The theses he advances is extremely pithy in the article -- his many books are quite long. And, he's a fan of Arabic culture, not someone trashing it from the sidelines. There's much more to his point and he cogently argues from a review of history. "Western" countries meddling is quite recent.A martian who'd observed European and Arabic/Islamic culture back 4 or 500 years ago would have been shocked to see the reversal of fortune.

If I may risk being accused of making an on-topic remark in an off-topic forum, I have been toying with the idea that Islamic economic and social outcomes are based on finance. The Arab conquests of 600-900 are not historically exceptional, the sudden creation of a 5,000 mile long area in the middle of the economicially significant world, with one language and one legal system was. During this period, Islam was the religion of the rulers, most subjects had not converted. The wealth of the early Islamic empire was based on finance and trade, intra-empire at first and later global exchange among India/East Asia on the East, Russia on the North, Europe on the West and Southern and Western Africa on the South.I think two important aspects of this are the monolingual focus of Islam and the primary employment of Islamic clerics as judges (as opposed to teachers in Judaism and pastors in Christianity).As trade and finance flourished, so did the Islamic empire's scientific, social, philosophic, artistic, military and literary advances.Then the Italians invent the bank. Suddenly Europe becomes the hotbed of financial innovation, which allows ventures that result in the mapping and conquest of most of the world, not to mention underwriting the Renaissance followed by scientific revolution, liberalism, rationalism, enlightenment and all that stuff. Most of the rest of the world either imitates the West or gets colonized by it. But the Ottoman empire and other Islamic political entities of this time are strong enough to resist colonization and proud and successful enough to eschew imitation. China is similar in this respect. So modern finance is much delayed, and the states lack the economic power to compete.I know there’s a lot of hand waving in all this, but I think it captures something important about the history of the region.

As trade and finance flourished, so did the Islamic empire's scientific, social, philosophic, artistic, military and literary advances.to a point this works. However, the West began to usurp the Muslim world in trade, opening up routes that they did not. They also broke out into the New World, which was a shocking revelation as new cultures were discovered that no one could guess existed.Finance is an effect, but I'm not sure that I agree that its a cause. Another curious anomaly was how Europe and the Muslim world reacted to the invention of the printing press and the production of the newspaper and newsprint [Lewis covers this as well].But, in the end, its not technological. Muslims were amused [if not outright contemptuous] of Europe's inability to speak one language and their constant internicene battles. There is some amusing correspondence between Muslim rulers and European heads of state, as the Muslims found European squabbling quite useful in advancing their own military campaigns and ambitions.Europe had to battle amongst themselves, suffer the shock of the Protestant reformation and the development of the secular enlightenment. If anything, there was a constant tension and wrestling with new, alien ideas. Church v State, Old World v New World, religious v secular.A touching letter where a Muslim scholar first encounters ballroom dancing and tries to explain it to his countrymen is one of many unusual pieces of correspondence that Lewis highlights that builds his argument. And the bemused reaction as Europeans travel great distances to gawk at new countries and people and events was something that the Muslim world found very odd and alien to their culture.So, to sum up, the one language and one legal system which vaulted them to supremacy on the world stage, inadvertently and unexpectedly left them in the slow lane of history. It is a fascinating story to read.

Hamilton, this book sounds interesting, which one is it?

But was it always thus? Remember Ibn Fadlan's mission to Russia for Caliph al-Muqtadir in 921? His account is worthy of a Victorian explorer, open, curious and observant. Muslims made several attempts to find out what lay west of Portugal and east of China. And they had their share of squabbling, the overarching loyalty to Islam seems no more significant than the overarching loyalty of most European states to Christianity.The key to the European voyages of discovery is not the navigational skills but the financing, and the same is true of European science and technology. At least that's my view of history.

Hamilton, this book sounds interesting, which one is it? Its Lewis's MUSLIM DISCOVERY OF EUROPE.

The key to the European voyages of discovery is not the navigational skills but the financing, and the same is true of European science and technology. At least that's my view of history. An interesting theses worthy of future discussion and examination. I will defer comment or evaluation until I've completely finished Lewis's book.