Must Reads on the Middle East

Ah our St. Bernard Lewis -- an Islamic Scholar par excellence -- well I wouldn`t give too much credence to Rabbi Lewis `insight` into the Midle East Muslim`s Madness -- where the Religious State of Israel and the Zionist Zealotry are innocent invisible bystanders to non existent mute interlocutors....

A Jewish scholar on Islamic affairs for the dumb Christian readers! -- is not unlike an Israeli wolf in Wolfowitz sheepskin leading the Zionist Zihad to `democratize` a secular Iraq into an Ayatolla la la land.....for Moshe Sharon`s Judea and Samaria...

+++
1. What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle East Response
2. Jihad vs McWorld: Terrorism`s Challenge to Democracy
3. Al-Qaeda, Casting a Shadow of Terror
4. Mullahs, Merchants and Militants: The Economic Collapse of the Arab World
+++

When I`m looking for an honest and unbiased views on the issue, these don`t exactly sound like the names I`ll be attracted to.

It is interesting to note that the books recommended are by zionists known for their bias and prejudice against the people of that region. Here is a retort to what went wrong by B. Lewis. Read the whole link by Prof. Shahid Alam but I will copy the part about what went wrong.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0629-Bernard.html

What Went Wrong?

In an earlier era, before the Zionists developed a proprietary interest in Palestine, the least bigoted voices in the field of Oriental studies were often those of European Jews. Ironically, Lewis himself has written that these pro-Islamic Jews ``were among the first who attempted to present Islam to European readers as Muslims themselves see it and to stress, to recognize, and indeed sometimes to romanticize the merits and achievements of Muslim civilization in its great days.`` At a time when most Orientalists took Muhammad for a scheming imposter, equated Islam with fanaticism, thought that the Qur`an was a crude and incoherent text, and believed that the Arabs were incapable of abstract thought, a growing number of Jewish scholars often took opposite positions. They accepted the sincerity of Muhammad`s mission, described Arabs as ``Jews on horseback`` and Islam as an evolving faith that was more democratic than other religions, and debunked Orientalist claims about a static Islam and a dynamic West. It would appear that these Jews were anti-Orientalists long before Edward Said.

These contrarian positions had a variety of motives behind them. Even as the Jews began to enter the European mainstream, starting in the nineteenth century, they were still outsiders, having only recently emerged from the confinement of ghettos, and it would be scarcely surprising if they were seeking to maintain their distinctiveness by emphasizing and identifying with the achievements of another Semitic people, the Arabs. In celebrating Arab civilization, these Jewish scholars were perhaps sending a non-too-subtle message to the Europeans that their civilization was not unique, that Arab achievements often excelled theirs, and that Europeans were building upon Islamic achievements in science and philosophy. In addition, Jewish scholars` discussions of religious and racial tolerance in Islamic societies, toward Jews in particular, may have offered hope that such tolerance was attainable in Europe too. The discussions may also have been an invitation to Europeans to incorporate religious and racial tolerance in their standards of civilization.

Yet the vigor of this early anti-Orientalism of Jewish scholars would not last; it would not survive the logic of the Zionist movement as it sought to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Such a state could only emerge as a child of Western imperialist powers, and it could only come into existence by displacing the greater part of the Palestinian population, by incorporating them into an apartheid state, or through some combination of the two. In addition, once created, Israel could only survive as a military, expansionist, and hegemonic state, constantly at war with its neighbors. In other words, as the Zionist project gathered momentum it was inevitable that the European Jews` attraction for Islam was not going to endure. In fact, it would be replaced by a bitter contest, one in which the Jews, as junior partners of the imperialist powers, would seek to deepen the Orientalist project in the service of Western power. Bernard Lewis played a leading part in this Jewish reorientation. In the words of Martin Kramer, Bernard Lewis ``came to personify the post-war shift from a sympathetic to a critical posture.``

Ironically, this shift occurred when many Orientalists had begun to shed their Christian prejudice against Islam, even making amends for the excesses of their forebears. Another factor aiding this shift toward a less polemical Orientalism was the entry of a growing number of Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, into the field of Middle Eastern studies. The most visible upshot of these divergent trends was a polarization of the field of Middle Eastern studies into two opposing camps. One camp, consisting mostly of Christians and Muslims, has sought to bring greater objectivity to their study of Islam and Islamic societies. They make an effort to locate Islamic societies in their historical context, arguing that Islamic responses to Western challenges have been diverse and evolving over time, and they do not derive from an innate hostility to the West or some unchanging Islamic mindset. The second camp, now led mostly by Jews, has reverted to Orientalism`s original mission of subordinating knowledge to Western power, now filtered through the prism of Zionist interests. This Zionist Orientalism has assiduously sought to paint Islam and Islamic societies as innately hostile to the West, modernism, democracy, tolerance, scientific advance, and women`s rights.

This Zionist camp has been led for more than fifty years by Bernard Lewis, who has enjoyed an intimate relationship with power that would be the envy of the most distinguished Orientalists of an earlier generation. He has been strongly supported by a contingent of able lieutenants, whose ranks have included the likes of Elie Kedourie, David Pryce-Jones, Raphael Patai, Daniel Pipes, and Martin Kramer. There are many foot soldiers, too, who have provided distinguished service to this new Orientalism. And no compendium of these foot soldiers would be complete without the names of Thomas Friedman, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Judith Miller.

In my mind`s eye, I try to visualize an encounter between this distinguished crowd and some of their eminent predecessors, like Hienrich Heine, Abraham Geiger, Gustav Weil, Franz Rosenthal, and the great Ignaz Goldziher. What would these pro-Islamic Jews have to say to their descendants, whose scholarship demeans and denigrates the societies they study? Would Geiger and Goldziher embrace Lewis and Kedourie, or would they be repelled by the latter`s new brand of Zionist Orientalism?

---

As for books on the region, I would urge readers to look here if they want to get an honest and intellectual and historical perspective abot the ME.

http://www.middleeastbooks.com/html/books/b-arabisraeli-title.html

http://www.middleeastbooks.com/html/books/b-islam-title.html

and also visit this site from time to time to get a balanced view of happenings in the ME
http://www.wrmea.com/

Where is Rahul Mahajan?

I am not sure how good Bernard Lewis is, i found him singularly lacking in perspective. Turkey is NOT the middle east and his basic assumption that turkey is the middle east makes his entire analysis seriously flawed.

Secondly, the UNDP Arab Human Development Reports are excellent reading.

finally, books which lump the middle east into one bucket miss out on serious and important nuances between countries. The issues facing saudi, tunisia, libya and iraq are far too different. There is, frankly little that is common across these countries.