I'm reading a very interesting book by Bernard Lewis called "What went wrong?". It's an analysis of how the Islamic world went from the pre-eminent position among civilizations to a chronic trouble spot.
First, I should say that I'm not interested in name calling, blame allocation, or anything like that. As with most westerners, I'm not all that familiar with Islamic history and the book is a really interesting read. I wish merely to discuss, especially as there seems to be many here with some knowledge of Islamic history.
I've not yet read any conclusions, but the points raised in the book so far are very interesting. Some highlights:
1) Secularism is taken for granted in Christianity, yet almost totally alien to Islam. In part, this is because Christianity was a persecuted religion for most of it's first 3 centuries. There was never any chance of an early christian confusing the religion with the state.
Later, the fragmentation of the church, the resulting persecution of alternative forms of worship, and the seemingly endless religious wars in Europe almost forced christians to divorce church and state.
2) There is a very important difference between "modernization" and "westernization" in the minds of many muslims, which sometimes is overlooked by outside observers. For example, adoption of european military organizations, weapons, and uniforms by the Ottomans is modernization. The emancipation of women is westernization. Modernization = good, westernization = bad.
3) Ironically, westernization tends to be more advanced in the less democratic middle eastern states. For example, Attaturk basically forced the westernization of Turkey. Using the example of the emancipation of women again, Shah era Iran, Iraq, and Yemen all are more liberal in this area than, say, Egypt.
Interestingly and not surprisingly, muslim fundamentalists have a special hatred for Attaturk.
4) During the 18th and 19th centuries, as christian Europe was comming into contact more and more with the Ottoman empire, there was natural pressure to give more rights to christians living in muslim lands. Likewise, the British exerted pressure to end slavery in muslim lands. Strangely, there was no corresponding pressure for the emancipation of women.
Note: Obviously, the author considers the emancipation of women to be an important issue in east-west relations. In fact, he states that it is one of the most important issues for islamic fundamentalists.
5) In one of the more interesting points, the author analyses the differences in corruption in east and west. In the west, corruption usually takes place when the wealthy use money to buy power or influence power. In the east, corruption usually occurs when the powerful use their position to make money. Corruption is corruption, but the eastern version can also have harmful effects on the economy.
These are just some of the points in the book. As I said, I've not yet read or reached any conclusions (perhaps there are none) but it's an interesting read and it does open your mind to some of the differences between east and west.
Comments?
/bruce
First, I should say that I'm not interested in name calling, blame allocation, or anything like that. As with most westerners, I'm not all that familiar with Islamic history and the book is a really interesting read. I wish merely to discuss, especially as there seems to be many here with some knowledge of Islamic history.
I've not yet read any conclusions, but the points raised in the book so far are very interesting. Some highlights:
1) Secularism is taken for granted in Christianity, yet almost totally alien to Islam. In part, this is because Christianity was a persecuted religion for most of it's first 3 centuries. There was never any chance of an early christian confusing the religion with the state.
Later, the fragmentation of the church, the resulting persecution of alternative forms of worship, and the seemingly endless religious wars in Europe almost forced christians to divorce church and state.
2) There is a very important difference between "modernization" and "westernization" in the minds of many muslims, which sometimes is overlooked by outside observers. For example, adoption of european military organizations, weapons, and uniforms by the Ottomans is modernization. The emancipation of women is westernization. Modernization = good, westernization = bad.
3) Ironically, westernization tends to be more advanced in the less democratic middle eastern states. For example, Attaturk basically forced the westernization of Turkey. Using the example of the emancipation of women again, Shah era Iran, Iraq, and Yemen all are more liberal in this area than, say, Egypt.
Interestingly and not surprisingly, muslim fundamentalists have a special hatred for Attaturk.
4) During the 18th and 19th centuries, as christian Europe was comming into contact more and more with the Ottoman empire, there was natural pressure to give more rights to christians living in muslim lands. Likewise, the British exerted pressure to end slavery in muslim lands. Strangely, there was no corresponding pressure for the emancipation of women.
Note: Obviously, the author considers the emancipation of women to be an important issue in east-west relations. In fact, he states that it is one of the most important issues for islamic fundamentalists.
5) In one of the more interesting points, the author analyses the differences in corruption in east and west. In the west, corruption usually takes place when the wealthy use money to buy power or influence power. In the east, corruption usually occurs when the powerful use their position to make money. Corruption is corruption, but the eastern version can also have harmful effects on the economy.
These are just some of the points in the book. As I said, I've not yet read or reached any conclusions (perhaps there are none) but it's an interesting read and it does open your mind to some of the differences between east and west.
Comments?
/bruce
