Why is most of the Islamic world so backwards?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

By and large, it's because their experience with the West has been a bad one. Between invasion, colonialism, and occupation, the Middle East (in which I'm including the Maghreb also) has had a bad experience with Western ideals, and, because of that bad experience, they have by and large come to equate the failure of those ideals in their country with the invalidity of those ideals, which isn't necessarily true. It's also important to note that the foundation of many of those ideals are things which do not exist in Islam, namely, seperation of church and state, but also the equality of the sexes. Yes, there have been many reformers, reformist movements, modernist movements, and other similar organizations that spoke for and fought for both of those things and then some, but in the end their efforts had little popular appeal, the reason for this is anybody's guess, but I'd say its because, by and large, sheikhs tend to be very very very conservative, as well as the major religous institutions, such as Al-Azhar and Qom. Without the support or sanctioning by some sort of prestegious school, attempts to modernize or reform Islam have, and will, fail. Nothing in the Middle East happens without the sanctioning of those institutions.

 

[Oerdin]

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.

Oman didn't have a civil war. You are thinking of Yemen.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

There is no point arguing with someone as stubborn and angry as Winner.

What cheezy said and puritannical sects like Wahhabism which was a reactionary movement to western colonialism have dominated the Middle East. Wayward governments formed out of the chaos in the past century have bben able to rule with such reckless abandon because the people are to abject and tired to really do anything about it. Islamic culture has shown it can be liberal and modernizing(for lack of a better term), look at Islam in the middle ages. Conservatism and isolationism created by mongol attacks and its hijacking by militaristic peoples who have penchants for war and only war took control of the midle east and set the stage for as stated earlier western imperialism to worsen things. Combine that with the utter destruction Islam faced by the Mongols recurrently, the drains on Islam the crusades created on lands not touched by the mongols, and the conquest, ecological degradation, and the resulting instability in places like west africa and there it is.

 

[aelf]

Still talking about the Mongols now? I find the fantasy of the Muslim Golden Age quite funny from both sides (Muslim and not). Of course there was a Golden Age, but blaming foreigners from extinguishing that age and preventing the Muslim world for achieving greater glories by today is a characteristic Jihadi all-rhetoric argument.

The conditions of the Islamic world today is largely due to relatively recent factors. Of course, all of human history also contributes (as to anything), but it is useless to talk about the Mongols when you clearly have the late Ottoman era, European imperialism and intervention and relatively recent despotic regimes* (that appropriate religion as a political tool) to talk about, things that are much more direct causes of the geopolitical situation there. And of course there is oil. If there is any resource that is capable of sowing political conflict and fostering instability, as well as propping up corrupt regimes that are befriended by practically the whole world, oil is it. Blood diamonds in Africa? I don't think they are even close. Oil has the advantage of being completely black and yet whitewashed by the world, since everyone needs it.

Islam facilitates the creation of the political conditions in the Middle East. It is a tool of legitimization and of the creation of greed-motivated conflict.


PS: By the way, Persia was under one of those despotic regimes*. Don't like the Iran's recent Shah? Well, he's not something new in the long line of Persian despots that had power in the past few centuries. There was nothing particularly great about that Persia.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Still talking about the Mongols now? I find the fantasy of the Muslim Golden Age quite funny from both sides (Muslim and not). Of course there was a Golden Age, but blaming foreigners from extinguishing that age and preventing the Muslim world for achieving greater glories by today is a characteristic Jihadi all-rhetoric argument.

The conditions of the Islamic world today is largely due to relatively recent factors. Of course, all of human history also contributes (as to anything), but it is useless to talk about the Mongols when you clearly have the late Ottoman era, European imperialism and intervention and relatively recent despotic regimes (that appropriate religion as a political tool) to talk about, things that are much more direct causes of the geopolitical situation there. And of course there is oil. If there is any resource that is capable of sowing political conflict and fostering instability, as well as propping up corrupt regimes that are befriended by practically the whole world, oil is it. Blood diamonds in Africa? I don't think they are even close. Oil has the advantage of being completely black and yet whitewashed by the world, since everyone needs it.

Islam facilitates the creation of the political conditions in the Middle East. It is a tool of legitimization and of the creation of greed-motivated conflict.

Um the Mongols laid waste to all the cities, committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, destroyed the land so that it would be barren for a thousand years, those type of things he actually did. Not to mention to this type of warfare continued and continued non-stop, Baghdad was sacked multiple times after 1258. Tamerlane, Ottomans, Safavids, Qajars, Turkomans,. uzbeks, etc all continued to wreak havoc on the land for centuries. This occurred nowhere else in the world at this scale.

 

[aelf]

Um the Mongols laid waste to all the cities, committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, destroyed the land so that it would be barren for a thousand years, those type of things he actually did. Not to mention to this type of warfare continued and continued non-stop, Baghdad was sacked multiple times after 1258. Tamerlane, Ottomans, Safavids, Qajars, Turkomans,. uzbeks, etc all continued to wreak havoc on the land for centuries. This occurred nowhere else in the world at this scale.

And so what? What has that really got to do with current conditions? Centuries are plenty of time to recover from such things. Europe went from backward to very advanced within a few centuries. And what of the wars in Europe occurring throughout that time? You want numbers? The French Revolutionary war involved a far greater number of people than the Ottomans could muster.

Like I said, all of human history contributes to current conditions (right from the invention of fire). But it is a terribly vulgar fallacy to assume that what we have now is because necessarily because of something horrible that happened centuries ago when there are more practical and realistic reasons that you can draw from recent times.

 

[Mirc]

This occurred nowhere else in the world at this scale.

I doubt it.

 

[OttoManD]

awwww. no one looked at my post.

 

[aelf]

awwww. no one looked at my post.

I definitely agree. I should perhaps have mentioned it. I just found it remarkable that some superficial explanation found much support. So much so that I forgot to give some support to a better explanation

I've also read that the rise Islamic fundamentalism is relatively recent (though with roots going back to centuries), and it is partly a reaction to the failures of liberal reformists (eg. Nasser, the Iranian republic and the Baathists) in the Muslim world. It is as much a reaction to the corrupt, despotic governments of the Middle East as to Western interventionism (mainly in support of the said governments).

 

[scy12]

I will move a step beyond and mention the word ships.

 

[lovett]

Ottoman Empire was a Muslim country and it had the opportunity to develop, instead it hindered technological progress. Again, why? I say it happened because of their Islamic culture, which they adopted.

I just thought I'd point out that no, The Ottoman Emprire was not a muslim country. In fact it was probably the most multi-ethnic, multi-religious and tolerant big country untill the advent of modern political sensibilities.

I do think oil is a hinderance to their social development today, yes, as is any government whose revenue stream comes from the ground, and not its people.

I think this is an interesting issue to explore. Consider that the vast majority of money in the Middle East comes from oil. Drilling, exporting shipping, ectcetera. Clearly this will have some affects.

Firstly, natural resources are often, ironically, the bane of industialisation. Mining or drilling or other primary sectors eat up huge amount of both skilled and unskilled labour. Industry and services can't compete. See: Dutch Disease, and the Dutch economy after offshore oil was discovered.

Clearly, the Middle east has the mother of all resource sectors. It pumps what, 40% of the worlds oil? 50%? Regardless, trillions of dollars. As such, the oil wells have unparelleled bargining capacity as concerns labour. If they want somebody, they get them. And they want lots of people. Thus, clearly Industrial and service sectors don't really have a chance, and hence the undeveloped nature of mainy oil rich, coincidentally Muslim countries. Note how Israel is both the only country in the region that doesn't pump oil, and the only country with an economy based on industry and services.

It gets worse, of course. To have your entire country dependent on a single resource leaves you completely at the mercy of people able to exert control over said resource. The Saudi Royal family, for example. In 'normal' economies a thousand different sectors and industries contribute to general economics life. It would be impossible to control them all. In oil-rich economies, not so much. Hence these areas are extremely vulnerable to the type of centralised, dictatorial control one sees them under. Again, it is pure coincidence that the Middle East is Muslim and oil rich.

 

[scy12]

I just thought I'd point out that no, The Ottoman Emprire was not a muslim country. In fact it was probably the most multi-ethnic, multi-religious and tolerant big country untill the advent of modern political sensibilities.

An interesting fact regarding that empire which could be relevant and also completly irrelevant to Winner's points is the fact that the merchant class usually at the area of western Turkey today was controlled mostly by Greeks , and Armenian merchants while the Ottomans lacked . Hence many where against the idea of an revolution since they "Had it well under the Sultan" . due to the fact they where incredibly rich and educated. They couldn't imagine that a century later , they would start to be hunted against and perish.

Now i wonder if this is due to Islamic tradition of the muslims that went there or due to the fact that those merchants having a bigger tradition of doing bussiness in those lands that continued even when they lost their empire under a different one.

As for tolerance i do think that it isn't as bright as you assume it is and islamc tradition played a role in the type of governance.

 

[Gooblah]

Well, we can establish the following nations as rich and modernized:

Saudi Arabia
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Qatar
Bahrain
Kuwait
Iran
Jordan

Note that all of these nations have oil, and all are part of the Gulf Cooperation Council except for Jordan and Iran. Iraq could be on the list, if its government pulls through and becomes much more stable. Of all these nations, only two are truly "Islamic", Saudi Arabia and Iran. Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE all are relatively secular and free, though women's rights is still an issue.

On the flip side, we have North Africa, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Palestine is an occupied territory; for one reason or another, small businesses find it hard to set up shop (terrorism, strict rules set down by Israel, small market due to low level of economic activity), and large businesses refuse to come (much for the same reasons). Lebanon has gone through what? 2 Civil Wars and an invasion? Even though it has a democratic tradition, constant warfare coupled with a brazen lack of infrastructure hampers growth. At the same time, the US-backed government is finding it hard to set up a progressive agenda due to the popularity of the fundamentalist Hezbollah. Syria is under a dictatorship, unlike the other nations of the Middle East. This hampers growth in many ways, and Syrian trade links are limited; they can't trade with Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq...you name it. Syria and Iran aren't exactly best friends, either. Afghanistan is currently undergoing a transition to democracy supported by Western "occupiers", coupled with a resurgent insurgency. It doesn't help that opium makes up a third of their GDP. Pakistan...well, you and I both know that they're unstable, have nukes, can't trade with one of the world's largest economy (their neighbor, India), are currently in a military and political stalemate, and are also facing a minor insurgency in the Hindu Kush regions of the nation.


I think this is an interesting issue to explore. Consider that the vast majority of money in the Middle East comes from oil. Drilling, exporting shipping, ectcetera. Clearly this will have some affects.

Firstly, natural resources are often, ironically, the bane of industialisation. Mining or drilling or other primary sectors eat up huge amount of both skilled and unskilled labour. Industry and services can't compete. See: Dutch Disease, and the Dutch economy after offshore oil was discovered.

Clearly, the Middle east has the mother of all resource sectors. It pumps what, 40% of the worlds oil? 50%? Regardless, trillions of dollars. As such, the oil wells have unparelleled bargining capacity as concerns labour. If they want somebody, they get them. And they want lots of people. Thus, clearly Industrial and service sectors don't really have a chance, and hence the undeveloped nature of mainy oil rich, coincidentally Muslim countries. Note how Israel is both the only country in the region that doesn't pump oil, and the only country with an economy based on industry and services.

It gets worse, of course. To have your entire country dependent on a single resource leaves you completely at the mercy of people able to exert control over said resource. The Saudi Royal family, for example. In 'normal' economies a thousand different sectors and industries contribute to general economics life. It would be impossible to control them all. In oil-rich economies, not so much. Hence these areas are extremely vulnerable to the type of centralised, dictatorial control one sees them under. Again, it is pure coincidence that the Middle East is Muslim and oil rich.

North Africa I don't know too much about, so if someone could enlighten me on that...

I think this is an interesting issue to explore. Consider that the vast majority of money in the Middle East comes from oil. Drilling, exporting shipping, ectcetera. Clearly this will have some affects.

Firstly, natural resources are often, ironically, the bane of industialisation. Mining or drilling or other primary sectors eat up huge amount of both skilled and unskilled labour. Industry and services can't compete. See: Dutch Disease, and the Dutch economy after offshore oil was discovered.

Clearly, the Middle east has the mother of all resource sectors. It pumps what, 40% of the worlds oil? 50%? Regardless, trillions of dollars. As such, the oil wells have unparelleled bargining capacity as concerns labour. If they want somebody, they get them. And they want lots of people. Thus, clearly Industrial and service sectors don't really have a chance, and hence the undeveloped nature of mainy oil rich, coincidentally Muslim countries. Note how Israel is both the only country in the region that doesn't pump oil, and the only country with an economy based on industry and services.

It gets worse, of course. To have your entire country dependent on a single resource leaves you completely at the mercy of people able to exert control over said resource. The Saudi Royal family, for example. In 'normal' economies a thousand different sectors and industries contribute to general economics life. It would be impossible to control them all. In oil-rich economies, not so much. Hence these areas are extremely vulnerable to the type of centralised, dictatorial control one sees them under. Again, it is pure coincidence that the Middle East is Muslim and oil rich.

.

The thing is, the Gulf is rich. Filthy, stinking rich. The government uses their riches not in foreign investment (though they are starting to), unlike China and India, but in social stipends to each family. The amount of money each family gets is more than enough to pay for mostly everything, so why start small businesses or switch to a sector other than government or oil? This results in a vacuum of skilled labor (by this I mean construction, industrial, etc). When oil resources start to run out, the people will be unable to cope with a forced shift from oil to economic diversification in order to maintain their current standard of living...and that could be very unpleasant for the rest of us.

 

[scy12]

Saudi Arabia is modernized ?

 

[Gooblah]

Aside from Sharia Law, yeah, its modernized.

 

[illram]

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!"

Translation: please post your alternative theories that advance my faulty premise that muslim countries are all backwards. (How is that "disagreement," which you comically ask for )

Regardless, your rant makes sound like you've never been to many--or any--muslim countries.

 

[Mirc]

I just thought I'd point out that no, The Ottoman Emprire was not a muslim country. In fact it was probably the most multi-ethnic, multi-religious and tolerant big country untill the advent of modern political sensibilities.

Sure........

 

[OttoManD]

I think we really really need to disaggregate economic development/modernization, political freedom/modernization and cultural westernization/modernization.

I don't know if the last one really counts as "modernization", even though many in this thread are asserting it does.

Political freedom, rule of law and human rights you can make a much stronger case for as a form of "modernization".

And economic development is a separate and crucially important form of "modernization".

So let's try to keep the three concepts as separate as possible.

 

[lovett]

Sure........

Yep. Sure.

Read about Millets. Different religious groups were allowed to retain their own traditions, language and even laws under the protection of the Sultans.
The Ottoman tolerance of diversity in religion and culture was shockingly new.
Far more tolerant the the previous regional power, the Byzantine empire. When Constantinople actually fell the Ottomans let all the sects that the Byzantine goverment deemed heretical to practice wherever they wanted, in peace.
Indeed, the Ottoman focus on meritocracy and successful multiculuralism is usually seen as a pivotal factor in there success.

Ottoman tolerance had probably not been seen since the fall of the Roman and Empire, and was not re-imagined till the advent of modern Europe.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I just thought I'd point out that no, The Ottoman Emprire was not a muslim country. In fact it was probably the most multi-ethnic, multi-religious and tolerant big country untill the advent of modern political sensibilities.

Excuse me? First off, since when was Islam an ethnicity? Second, Istanbul was the seat of the Caliphate, and the Ottoman Emperor was the Caliph. Third, I don't know how you define religous tolerance, but extra taxation (dhimmi tax) and eligibility for being enslaved into a military corps ( the devshirme system) is NOT tolerance. Nubuchadnezzar II letting the Jews return home is tolerance. Allowing the Egyptians to continue to pray to Osiris instead of Hades is tolerance. The dhimmi and devshirme might have been "tolerance" when compared to, say, Baldwin's massacre upon capturing Antioch or Jerusalem, but make no mistake of it, these were oppressive policies that singled out Jews, but Christians especially (only Christians could be kidnapped into the Janissary corps). To say the Ottoman Empire was not Muslim would be to say that Vatican City is not Catholic.

And lastly, I don't see how multi-ethnic really means anything in any of this.

EDIT:

Yep. Sure.

Read about Millets. Different religious groups were allowed to retain their own traditions, language and even laws under the protection of the Sultans.
The Ottoman tolerance of diversity in religion and culture was shockingly new.
Far more tolerant the the previous regional power, the Byzantine empire. When Constantinople actually fell the Ottomans let all the sects that the Byzantine goverment deemed heretical to practice wherever they wanted, in peace.
Indeed, the Ottoman focus on meritocracy and successful multiculuralism is usually seen as a pivotal factor in there success.

Ottoman tolerance had probably not been seen since the fall of the Roman and Empire, and was not re-imagined till the advent of modern Europe.

The Millet system was eh. Yes, it allowed for a reasonable amount of autonomy for certain sects, but they were still kind of a joke; yes they got to collect taxes, but they were still the dhimmi taxes they owed the Sultan, and disputes between millets were subject to Sha'ria Law.

Now, the Millet changes that came with the Tanzimat reforms in the 19th Century were a bit different, and allowed for more autonomy, but in the end it was too little, too late to save the Empire from fracturing. Also, those reforms were largely driven by a need to stay in competition with the West, and were largely based upon studies of Western institutions by Muslim scholars, and organized by hired Western officials. To mark them as a strength of the Empire would be a mistake, but to identify them as a progressive attempt by an Islamic government would be an accurate one.