Why is most of the Islamic world so backwards?

Countries like Taiwan or South Korea managed to radically improve their economy, while countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh or Indonesia (they have nothing but desert there too, right? :lol: ) remained poor. Malaysia could look like an exception, but then you see that it was mostly the Chinese minority who organized the improvement.

Bangladesh has had the wonderful fortune to have their country flooded every other year.

Pakistan has suffered from two main things: a lack of adequate leadership after 1951 (when Liaquat Ali Khan died), and intense regionalism dividing the country. The most obvious example of this was the loss of East Bengal, which became Bangladesh in 1971. However, intense confict between the Baluchistanis, Sindis, Punjabis, and frontier tribesmen (to say nothing of the Muslim majority in Kashmir), have stifled attempts by the largely inadequate military governments to get anything "real" done.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about Indonesia to discuss it, but it doesn't seem to be doing horribly bad.


In fact, Ottoman sultanate was not very different from other Islamic government of that time. People still talk about Islamic world like it was always as rich and prosperous as during the Abbasid golden age, which is nothing but pure mystification. Islamic civilization was altready stagnating by the time the Mongols came. They managed to get Palestine conquered by a bunch of knights, despite having total superiority in numbers.

The Islamic World during the first three crusades was a very fractured one. The First Crusade arrived at more or less the perfect time; the Buyids were invading from the Azerbaijan area, the southern coast of the Persian Gulf was entirely in rebellion, and the Seljuks were running rampant over Syria and most of Anatolia. To add to it all, the Ismaili Fatamids were advancing on Baghdad, seat of the Caliphate, and no Sunni was ever going to see Baghdad fall into the hands of the false Fatamid Caliph. They were busy fighting each other, and the Christian crusaders were lucky enough to arrive in the middle of this. Once Saladin was able to reunite most of Syria and Jordan with Egypt around the time of the Third Crusade, the Christians never stood a chance.

To make the Crusades out to be some sort of fantastic Muslim ass-kicking expedition, displaying the clear superiority of Europe, is really quite silly.
 
I'm afraid I don't know enough about Indonesia to discuss it, but it doesn't seem to be doing horribly bad.


Indonesia's doing alright. The young (ten years old) democracy looks remarkably sturdy and seems fairly vigorous. Human rights are pretty good and the goverment seems to be working well enough. The economy is pretty poor, but growing at a respectable rate (6%). Unemployment and GDP per capita were lower and higher respectively before the 1997. The Asian Financial crisis hit Indonesia very hard. All of its surpluses and reserves were wiped out and the economy contracted by almost 15%. Nowadays, high food and oil prices are obviously having something of an affect in depressing growth.

Having said that, I think it's really hard to blame Indonesias' Islamism for its economic misfortune.
 
It's amazing how people who get defensive over one culture/religion using a liberal argument turn around and say crap about another. Well, as Ibsen pointed out, most liberals are not really liberals.

PS: I have pretty, or you could even say very, liberal views. But I disdain the liberal label because of clowns like this guy.

You have clearly misunderstood me and I'm sorry if my sarcasm came off wrong but I made that statement because much of the Middle East is already anti-Semitic. Oh well. Anyways my point is that a charismatic leader developing in the Middle East with the aims similar to Martin Luther wouldn't go well. First he would be assasinated so quickly we would never know his(no her sorry this is the middle east) name and secondly charismatic leaders run away with themselves in the Middle East and the culture of Dar al-Islam is a very communal one as opposed to individualistic although I do believe some sense of greater individualism is needed rather than everyone just being sheeples. As in my earlier post the change in Islam will come in America and will spread to the Middle East. Your average Middle Eastern person doesn't care about changing Islam because they have been taught to hate the west by puritannical sectarianism funded by saudi oil money.
 
You have clearly misunderstood me and I'm sorry if my sarcasm came off wrong but I made that statement because much of the Middle East is already anti-Semitic. Oh well. Anyways my point is that a charismatic leader developing in the Middle East with the aims similar to Martin Luther wouldn't go well. First he would be assasinated so quickly we would never know his(no her sorry this is the middle east) name and secondly charismatic leaders run away with themselves in the Middle East and the culture of Dar al-Islam is a very communal one as opposed to individualistic although I do believe some sense of greater individualism is needed rather than everyone just being sheeples. As in my earlier post the change in Islam will come in America and will spread to the Middle East. Your average Middle Eastern person doesn't care about changing Islam because they have been taught to hate the west by puritannical sectarianism funded by saudi oil money.

Most of the middle east hates Arabs ?
 
because the muslim techgroup is 0.8 times the latin techgroup.
 
I am referring to Jews when I say Semites. So don't argue semantics.

But Jews are not the only Semitic people. I am inclined to ask , why do you refer only to Jews when you say Semites. Couldn't you rather say most middle east is Anti-Jewish and be correct (in the attempt to successfully convey your message)?
 
But Jews are not the only Semitic people. I am inclined to ask , why do you refer only to Jews when you say Semites. Couldn't you rather say most middle east is Anti-Jewish and be correct (in the attempt to successfully convey your message)?

I'm done with this thread if you are really going to stoop down to arguing about that. I've made my points and stated how it is and thats all you have.
 
I'm done with this thread if you are really going to stoop down to arguing about that.

I am not arguing about that , i am just nitpicking a common mistake. End . Moving on with the rest.
I think one can perfectly see why i am doing it . Let's agree to agree because i am correct on this simple mistake and to move on.
 
Indonesia's doing alright. The young (ten years old) democracy looks remarkably sturdy and seems fairly vigorous. Human rights are pretty good and the goverment seems to be working well enough. The economy is pretty poor, but growing at a respectable rate (6%). Unemployment and GDP per capita were lower and higher respectively before the 1997. The Asian Financial crisis hit Indonesia very hard. All of its surpluses and reserves were wiped out and the economy contracted by almost 15%. Nowadays, high food and oil prices are obviously having something of an affect in depressing growth.

Having said that, I think it's really hard to blame Indonesias' Islamism for its economic misfortune.

It's not quite so rosy, though, percisely because the kind of social problems that might really hurt China is prevalent there and might engulf it, the difference being that Indonesia doesn't have such a strong history of a single shared identity.

And it's not like the Suharto years were either. The Monetary Crisis was sort of a wake up call for the the political situation in Indonesia, revealing it for its fragility behind a veneer of stability and progress. I would compare the regime with that of Nasser. Populist, appearing to be progressive and indeed quite successful in many respects at least for a while, but ultimately not something that is necessarily good or lasting.

In fact, quite a few Middle Eastern countries are doing better, even if they seem to have more repressive political atmospheres. It's not like the silencing of opponents or breakaway groups is not common practice in Indonesia anyway (just look at East Timor for a well-known example).

You have clearly misunderstood me and I'm sorry if my sarcasm came off wrong but I made that statement because much of the Middle East is already anti-Semitic. Oh well. Anyways my point is that a charismatic leader developing in the Middle East with the aims similar to Martin Luther wouldn't go well. First he would be assasinated so quickly we would never know his(no her sorry this is the middle east) name and secondly charismatic leaders run away with themselves in the Middle East and the culture of Dar al-Islam is a very communal one as opposed to individualistic although I do believe some sense of greater individualism is needed rather than everyone just being sheeples. As in my earlier post the change in Islam will come in America and will spread to the Middle East. Your average Middle Eastern person doesn't care about changing Islam because they have been taught to hate the west by puritannical sectarianism funded by saudi oil money.

Anti-Semitism clearly isn't the issue here, so that was strawman-ish even if it wasn't mildly offensive. And there is nothing wrong with a more liberal outlook on religion. In principle there is nothing individualistic about the Catholic Church, but today it is pretty liberal. Changing Islam per se is probably not an issue. The issue is how to apply in ways that are not so repressive and clearly favouring a certain ruling strata in society (eg. patriarchalism).
 
I am not arguing about that , i am just nitpicking a common mistake. End . Moving on with the rest.
I think one can perfectly see why i am doing it . Let's agree to agree because i am correct on this simple mistake and to move on.

Why would he do that when you're the one that is apparently wrong??

Wiki article linked earlier said:
Etymology and usage


Cover page of Marr's The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism, 1880 edition


The term Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews. However, the term antisemitism is specifically used in reference to attitudes held towards Jews. The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile").[7] Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was synonymous with Jewish, in contrast to its usage by Renan and others.
In 1879 German political agitator Wilhelm Marr used the phrase Judenhass (hatred of Jews) in his book "The Victory of Judaism over Germanicism. Observed from a non-religious perspective." ("Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.") to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge.[8] In his next book, "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism", published in 1880, Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus - antisemitism.
The book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country.
So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the January issue of "Neue Freie Presse". The related word semitism was coined around 1885. See also the coinage of the term "Palestinian" by Germans to refer to ethnic Jews, as distinct from the religion of Judaism.
Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and anti-Semitic are not directly opposed to each other (unlike similar-seeming terms such as anti-American or anti-Hellenic). To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many scholars on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim) now favor the unhyphenated antisemitism[9] in order to emphasize that the word should be read as a single unified term, not as a meaningful root word-prefix combination.
The term antisemitism has historically referred to prejudice against Jews alone, and this was the only use of the word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice against other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."[1] Yehuda Bauer also articulated this view in his writings and lectures: (the term) "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to."[10][11] A similar point is made by Professor Shmuel Almog, of the Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who writes "So the hyphen, or rather its omission, conveys a message; if you hyphenate your 'anti-Semitism', you attach some credence to the very foundation on which the whole thing rests."[12]
In recent decades some groups have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs or Anti-Arabism[citation needed], in the context of answering accusations of Arab antisemitism; further, some, including the Islamic Association of Palestine, have argued that this implies that Arabs cannot, by definition, be antisemitic.[citation needed] The argument runs that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, "anti-Semitism" should be likewise inclusive. However, this usage is not generally accepted.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, since I've never been to the Middle East, but I get the feeling that a lot (maybe not a majority) of Arabs aren't anti-Semitic nearly as much as Anti-Israeli. And there's a difference. And I also wouldn't go so far as to say that constant war with Israel is harming the Middle East. Again, look to the GCC as the proof of that.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, since I've never been to the Middle East, but I get the feeling that a lot (maybe not a majority) of Arabs aren't anti-Semitic nearly as much as Anti-Israeli. And there's a difference. And I also wouldn't go so far as to say that constant war with Israel is harming the Middle East. Again, look to the GCC as the proof of that.

What about Assyrians? Arabs tend to not like them either.

That means they are anti-semetic.
 
Why would he do that when you're the one that is apparently wrong??

Because i am not wrong on this issue. i find popularity of words being an aceptable reason for changing their meaning if the words which are about describing established groups of people with a history behind them with one subgroup or different entirely group. That is because such group already exists.

Which makes the use of the word such as completely nonsensical because their can be two meanings for it.

The one being antisemitism the one who is against semitic people. Which is correct by etymology of the word.

The other being not against semitic people but only against jewish people which completely negates the etymological meaning of the word. It is claimed to be correct by popularity.

Contrast it with the word Racism. A term which instead of initially meaning about all discrimination and then being applied to only a group of discrimination it goes in the complete oposite path.

If one could argue semantics ... Racism = Discrimination by race

It can also mean discrimination regardless on the reason.

Now the "new" meaning does not make the previous one incomprehensible because it expands on the meaning of it and one can describe discrimination due to race by the word Racism. And it can be etymologically explained due to the reason that Humanity is one species and racial differences even if they exist are not always easy to notice. Anything having to do with race as a result is natural to lean to general discrimination.

The use of the word Racism to mean discrimination is a successful one.

Then we have the use of the word antisemitism which may in fact have a tradition over due to German antjewish racists popularizing it along with many other terms (Aryan) , and Jews reaction to this which for several reasons which have nothing to do with the etymology (meaning of the word) was popularized.


You may choose to use a word that is etymologically wrong ofcourse but i can also choose to show you how it is so and that a term that is applied to mean against all semitic people can not mean "Being against jews and not other semitic people".

But i do believe "to prove that you are correct " , you will keep doing the same mistakes.
 
What about Assyrians? Arabs tend to not like them either.

That means they are anti-semetic.

No ! You see semitic people are Arabs , Assyrians , Jews but those who are antisemitic are only against Jews. It makes perfectly sense !
 
Plus maybe it's different in other languages.
 
words grow and evolve over time. the context of their usage isnt necessarily logical.

But is this evolution of this word mature enough ? I think not.
Words usually have some logical reasons behind it. Anyway i am not one to stand against the context of word usage unless it currently goes against the meaning of the almost same word. And since this phenomenon is quite recent and we can see the reason it was adopted by some , i can say that it didn't evolve , mature and grow over time. This means that this is the time-phase where i can explain why it is illogical .
 
Back
Top Bottom