Why is most of the Islamic world so backwards?

[Winner]

I hope I don't have to define backwards here. Except the oil-rich Gulf countries, most of the Muslim countries are very undeveloped. From Morocco to Egypt, from Syria to Pakistan and from Bangladesh to Indonesia, Islamic countries seem to be an example of exconomic failure, politican instability and religious turmoil.

Now you probably know my opinion why is this the case, or some twisted version of it that my many opponents are spreading, but for the sake of clarity:

I believe, that Islamic world is in such a mess because their culture, which is based mostly on Islam, has formed their social struction in a way that made it very uncompatible with modernity. Modern way of life, modern ideas and modern methods of doing things all come from Europe, thus comes the widespread mistake that modernization = westernization. Islamic civilization often sees modernity as Western invention and they're too stubborn, proud or simply incapable of adopting it because their culture does not allow them to do that without giving up on many central tenets of their lifestyle. Islamic world thus mostly remains to be pre-modern, thus poor and undeveloped. While the Western world accepted the role of liberalism, emancipation, democracy and political and religious freedom, these concepts are in direct contradiction with the basic principles of Islam.

There were attempts to modernize the Muslim world by its own, indigenous means. Baasism and islamic fundamentalism (both sunni and shia variants) are two of these methods, the first mostly failed, while the second is on the rise. The obvious disparity between the rich Western world, which is in the eyes of many Muslims decadent place full of infidels who spit into the face of their Gods, and the Islamic world, which despite being right in its belief is poor and weak, is one of the main causes of global jihadist terrorism.

----------------​

The purpose of this thread is this: those of you who disagree fully or in part with me, come up with a logically coherent alternative explanation of why Islamic countries seem to be incapable of real modernization, preferably free of rants like "the West keeps them poor!" or "they live in a desert, they can't be rich!"

Those of you who just want to troll and flame, go somewhere else.

 

[Oerdin]

The short answer is culture.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Places like Oman only began industrialisation in the 1980s due to the decades long civil war fought back then. Iran went backwards to the middle ages after the ayatolla come into power. Iraq was quite modern and well educated until Saddam ruinnous wars.

 

[Winner]

Places like Oman only began industrialisation in the 1980s due to the decades long civil war fought back then. Iran went backwards to the middle ages after the ayatolla come into power. Iraq was quite modern and well educated until Saddam ruinnous wars.

Relatively. Modernity for the purpose of this thread is the living standard, liberal ideas, and technological progress we see in the Western world, Japan, newly industrialized countries, parts of Latin America and India.

Despite their relative wealth, Islamic countries are almost never liberal. Can you imagine Western liberal political parties winning elections in Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan or Iran? In some Muslim countries, the emancipation was enforced either by the Western colonialists or their own pro-Western elites (Turkey). Islamic countries in crushing majority of cases is either very Conservative (in islamic way) or Fundamentalist.

But in this thread, I am asking for the underlaying cause, I don't want to get bogged down in endless and fruitless discussions of what is "backwards" with people pointing out irrelevant exceptions over and over again. Cut to the chase, please (I am not addressing this to you personally).

 

[TopDog]

I completely agree with everything you have said.

 

[Left]

Colonial mismanagement first by the Turks and then later European Powers, extreme stratification leading to a poor populace with little to no educational and economic opportunities which in turn leads them to religious and political extremism.

 

[Perfection]

Because the Islamic world is located in deserty crapholes?

 

[OttoManD]

I agree with the overall thrust of your point...

But I don't know if culture is the best explanation.

For example, Saudi Arabia has (arguably) the strictest, harshest form of Islam, and the most oppressive interpretation of the shari'ah. And they seem to be doing quite well economically. Similarly, the Gulf countries in general are undergoing massive infrastructure modernization processes.

the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar are all engaging in massive mega-projects such as new universities, cities!!!, airports, etc.

So I don't think culture is the only factor here.

I do have a couple other things that I think should be taken into account.

1) Colonial era borders. Of the Arab world, only Egypt and Morocco have a history of being an independent state within its approximate borders. This is especially true when you look at the Mashriq. Lebanon has usually been part of the Damascene polity. Iraq and (Trans) Jordan were explicitly designed by the British to satisfy the competing power centres of the WWI Arab revolt. In the Gulf, the states were created by the British Empire in treaties with powerful families of the area. These families still rule Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the U.A.E. (This is not unique to the Arab world. Look at sub-saharan africa)

2) Other countries like to sell insane amounts of armaments to the various monarchs, autocrats and dictators. Not to put too fine a point on it, but arming dictators doesn't bode well for the success of indigenous reform movements.

3) I'm actually working on a thesis about this point, but in short, the Arab dictators (aside from the al-Saud family) tended to rely in the early post-colonial period on an ideology of "developmentalism". This was basically the argument that democracy, though desirable, was unable to create the necessary economic development. Autocracies were therefore necessary for economic development.

You can look specifically at Nasser, Hussein, Abdullah and Hafez Asad for this. As time went by it became apparent they were unable to deliver on this promise. Because of the aforementioned guns, reform movements and insurrections were rarely successful. At this point, the dictators had to create some sort of public legitimacy for their regimes. By opening up political space for the most hard-line clerics, they simultaneously were able to buy off a crucial constituency and create a sense of national legitimacy.


So while culture is definately a factor, I think it's important to look at the interplay between these factors. Lacking national, ethnic, (from artificial borders) or democratic (by shooting democrats) legitimacy, dictators looked to religion for legitimacy (especially after the failure of their economic ideology).

Thoughts, comments, criticisms are more than welcome!! Please try to keep them to the merits though!

 

[Halcyon]

Short answer: The Mongols.

Long answer: The Mongols, the Ottomans, the French, the British and the United States of America. I'll explain.

Once upon a time, the Islamic world was far ahead of everyone else. The Islamic world was pretty awesome back then Then the Mongols killed almost everyone. Seriously, they killed over 95% of the people in what is now Iran. They razed Baghdad, then the greatest centre of learning and culture in the world. They destroyed irrigation systems which fed millions and took thousands of years to build. They murdered everyone, and then started killing each other. Civilisation does not survive that without a few wounds.

They haven't recovered, yet. The Mongols ruled for centuries, and did no good at all. They were replaced in the Middle East by the Ottomans, who were just as bad. The Ottomans lasted until 1918, when the Europeans took over, did a terrible job, and then left. Less than a lifetime ago.

Persia on the other hand was doing alright once they started existing again in the 16th Century, although they'd have done a great deal better without Britain/France/Russia invading. Their current problems mostly stem from pre-WWII Imperial British muckery, followed by post WWII US muckery. Each sought to ruin the region's government in order to control Persian oil wells, cliché as that has become. The Western-installed Pahlavi dynasty Shahs were spectacularly rubbish, and the inevitable revolution was hijacked by crazy fundamentalists. Result: crazy people in charge. That was only forty years ago - they'll recover, eventually. Provided the US stays far, far, far away, rather than ruining everything again.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, just as Europe being a craphole in the seventh century had nothing to do with Christianity. In an odd sort of way, Islam was a uniting factor in the region: since faith was considered more important than nationality, the various Caliphates had really pretty multiethnic government systems. A mostly Turkic military, a largely Persian government and civil service, a largely Arabic priesthood, and so on. Saladin himself was a Kurdish king of Arabic Egypt, and that was fine.


Consider this equally dodgy generalisation: South America is mostly crap, too, by the same measure. They alternate between corrupt semi-anarchy and corrupt megalomaniacal dictatorships. South America is also very Christian. Therefore, South American misery is entirely due to Christianity.

Sure, powerful orthodox religious institutions have a lovely way of perpetuating miserable situations, but they don't often cause them. Prosperous civilisations mostly tolerate or ignore the doomsayers and the firestarters, rather than follow them.

[I'd probably drop some blame for the Islamic World's misery on Al-Ghazali, too - a theologian who basically rejected rational thought (too Pagan Greek) in favour of the assumption of divine will in all things (nice and pious). Essentially the father of Muslim Fundamentalism. He got far more say than he deserved, the bastard.]


Long story short: It wasn't until the Mongols, and it wouldn't still be if certain Empires could have kept their bloody hands out of it. It'll be okay in the future, if certain other nations could do the same.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wasn't the islamic world pretty advanced at one time. I think they had the same religion back then. So, it probably isn't due to the flavour of the religion.

edit: Excellent post Halcyon.

 

[philippe]

Short answer: The Mongols.

Long answer: The Mongols, the Ottomans, the French, the British and the United States of America. I'll explain.

Once upon a time, the Islamic world was far ahead of everyone else. The Islamic world was pretty awesome back then Then the Mongols killed almost everyone. Seriously, they killed over 95% of the people in what is now Iran. They razed Baghdad, then the greatest centre of learning and culture in the world. They destroyed irrigation systems which fed millions and took thousands of years to build. They murdered everyone, and then started killing each other. Civilisation does not survive that without a few wounds.

They haven't recovered, yet. The Mongols ruled for centuries, and did no good at all. They were replaced in the Middle East by the Ottomans, who were just as bad. The Ottomans lasted until 1918, when the Europeans took over, did a terrible job, and then left. Less than a lifetime ago.

Persia on the other hand was doing alright once they started existing again in the 16th Century, although they'd have done a great deal better without Britain/France/Russia invading. Their current problems mostly stem from pre-WWII Imperial British muckery, followed by post WWII US muckery. Each sought to ruin the region's government in order to control Persian oil wells, cliché as that has become. The Western-installed Pahlavi dynasty Shahs were spectacularly rubbish, and the inevitable revolution was hijacked by crazy fundamentalists. Result: crazy people in charge. That was only forty years ago - they'll recover, eventually. Provided the US stays far, far, far away, rather than ruining everything again.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, just as Europe being a craphole in the seventh century had nothing to do with Christianity. In an odd sort of way, Islam was a uniting factor in the region: since faith was considered more important than nationality, the various Caliphates had really pretty multiethnic government systems. A mostly Turkic military, a largely Persian government and civil service, a largely Arabic priesthood, and so on. Saladin himself was a Kurdish king of Arabic Egypt, and that was fine.


Consider this equally dodgy generalisation: South America is mostly crap, too, by the same measure. They alternate between corrupt semi-anarchy and corrupt megalomaniacal dictatorships. South America is also very Christian. Therefore, South American misery is entirely due to Christianity.

Sure, powerful orthodox religious institutions have a lovely way of perpetuating miserable situations, but they don't often cause them. Prosperous civilisations mostly tolerate or ignore the doomsayers and the firestarters, rather than follow them.

[I'd probably drop some blame for the Islamic World's misery on Al-Ghazali, too - a theologian who basically rejected rational thought (too Pagan Greek) in favour of the assumption of divine will in all things (nice and pious). Essentially the father of Muslim Fundamentalism. He got far more say than he deserved, the bastard. He's high on the shortlist of 'people to kill when I steal the TARDIS'.]


Long story short: It wasn't until the Mongols, and it wouldn't be if certain Empires could have kept their bloody hands out of it. It'll be okay in the future, if certain other Empires would stop murdering everyone.

p.s. You're a terrible person.

that sounds sound.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Europe had world war 1 and world war 2. Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it as well. Wars are destructive I think it has to do more with geopoltical factors as well.
After all the USSR emerged as a superpower despite the massive deverstation it suffered at the hands of Germany and Stalin.

 

[Tee Kay]

Short answer: realignment of world order, shifting of centre of world trade away from Islamic lands, general social and scientific stagnation in Islamic lands coinciding with shift towards a more militarised, autocratic state and greater conflict between Muslim powers (Ottomans vs Safavid Persia, for example). Finally, increase in European wealth (combination of trade and plunder) and scientific and technological knowledge and eventual colonisation/subjucation of Islamic lands.

 

[Tee Kay]

Despite their relative wealth, Islamic countries are almost never liberal. Can you imagine Western liberal political parties winning elections in Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan or Iran? In some Muslim countries, the emancipation was enforced either by the Western colonialists or their own pro-Western elites (Turkey). Islamic countries in crushing majority of cases is either very Conservative (in islamic way) or Fundamentalist.

I got one question for you: how many years did it take for Western Europe to liberalise to where it is today?

 

[Xyan]

Civ players ought to know...

It is just the consequences of choosing a different tech path..

 

[Joe Harker]

The big states yes, but what about small rich states like Qatar and UAE, sure they have oil money but so do the Saudis and These small Gulf states are very well developed

 

[holy king]

who says there would have been no age of enlightenment in a muslim france?
our relatively individualistic and free societies became that way because the influence of religion was fought back.
(the upcoming bourgouesie played an important role in this of course. one could even argue that the enlightenment was inevitable due to shifts in the economical structure that led to shifts in society's structure)


of course islam is a problem. as was christianity. do you know what islamic countries are "westernized" the most? it's the most industrialized. give it some time... (and let oil run out first, as it creates an artificial system in those countries)

 

[RedRalph]

good post Halcyon, although I do think the role of Islam holds these states back, not because of Islam in particular, but any state based on religion is bound to be backwards. Ireland was practically a theocracy until the 50s and believe me it was completely backwards. Its a combination of many factors, Halcyons post went most of the way to explaining it.

 

[scy12]

Relatively. Modernity for the purpose of this thread is the living standard, liberal ideas, and technological progress we see in the Western world, Japan, newly industrialized countries, parts of Latin America and India.

Despite their relative wealth, Islamic countries are almost never liberal. Can you imagine Western liberal political parties winning elections in Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan or Iran? In some Muslim countries, the emancipation was enforced either by the Western colonialists or their own pro-Western elites (Turkey). Islamic countries in crushing majority of cases is either very Conservative (in islamic way) or Fundamentalist.

Since you mentioned Turkey i must say that one backward not liberal culture was replaced by another one. One which in certain matters was worse.

Imagine how a country would be if the Nazis had never lost power and the closest thing you will get is Turkey. It is a state that was invented due to a military coup and was based on three principles which intact did provide a benefit to national interests of the Turks but none else. Those was exterminate anyone who was not a Turk so that Turks could take a bigger part in the economy sector in times where more businessmen where from Armenia and Greece. (Mass genocide). Go against Islamic tradition. And the policy of the country is decided by the military . And not just foreign policy , which measures such as expression of an opinion which is against the state to be punished greatly.


We see that Turkey is not a good example . I would propose Dubai and United arab emirates instead , which certainly are not there just due to their oil.

 

[Arwon]

That's the most blatant self-godwinning I've ever seen!