Why is most of the Islamic world so backwards?

[ohcrapitsnico]

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.

True, but remember the Ottoman sultans granted safe haven to Jews and Muslims suffering from the Inquisition. It was definitely more tolerant than Spain but thats not saying much.

I won't consider any of the Islamic countries as "modern" until they decriminalize homosexuality as a sin punishable by death.

 

[scy12]

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.

I got to agree. People take a system that was implemented due to political realism and making the life of the Ottomans easier as tolerance. The period of the Ottoman rule was a period of extreme taxation (do you know what haratsi is ?) and religious discrimination where Christians where second class citizents.

The Church had several rights regarding Christians (hence the miliet system).
Those where representation , getting taxes and etc. And normally when they wouldn't do anything in the margin that it was requested by them they would get the blame.

But indeed there where less tolerant places.

I think we need to see it for what it was. Which was an empire that while it did discriminate not muslims it also had multicultural richer classes and it didn't exterminate viciously other cultures. Instead they used the people that remained from the old empires to amass wealth and power on the hands of their Sultan.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

True, but remember the Ottoman sultans granted safe haven to Jews and Muslims suffering from the Inquisition. It was definitely more tolerant than Spain but thats not saying much.

I won't consider any of the Islamic countries as "modern" until they decriminalize homosexuality as a sin punishable by death.

This is true. But that's like saying that 210 degree water isn't hot because it's not boiling. I'm not saying they weren't better than their contemporaries, but they were certainly not the most liberal rulers ever by that time, either.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

This is true. But that's like saying that 210 degree water isn't hot because it's not boiling. I'm not saying they weren't better than their contemporaries, but they were certainly not the most liberal rulers ever by that time, either.

That tile goes to Akbar(in just Dar al-Islam), this goes back to why Islamic states in the post Mongol period were so conservative. The ruling races, who consumed all the upper strata of society, were originally militaristic nomads were very new to Islam, were not steeped in a liberal background but in one that new only war. Thats why then is when you hear of all the forced conversions, and the violent militancy thorugh which Islam was introduced into India and the Balkans, by Turks, Mongols, and mixes of these, not the Persians or the Arabs.

 

[TheLastOne36]

my finger... i'm missing out on the quote wars...

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

my finger... i'm missing out on the quote wars...

One less Euro-Islamophobe is fine.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That tile goes to Akbar(in just Dar al-Islam), this goes back to why Islamic states in the post Mongol period were so conservative. The ruling races, who consumed all the upper strata of society, were originally militaristic nomads were very new to Islam, were not steeped in a liberal background but in one that new only war. Thats why then is when you hear of all the forced conversions, and the violent militancy thorugh which Islam was introduced into India and the Balkans, by Turks, Mongols, and mixes of these, not the Persians or the Arabs.

Indeed. The Umayyad and Abassid Caliphates, and even the Caliphate under the Rightly Guided Caliphs were quite progessive and liberal, compared to both the world at the time, and to Islam after 1258, though a case could be made for it beginning before that time, either with the myriad Turkic tribes or the Buyids, at least in the Middle East proper. In the Maghreb, the Almoravids and Almohads had already begun the process you described, and especially the Almohads, instituted the most strict form of Islamic Rule to that date, rejecting all schools of Islamic Law and basing theirs purely on the Qu'ran and Hadiths.

It is perhaps ironic, then, that the most liberal Muslim state in the world is a Turkish one.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Indeed. The Umayyad and Abassid Caliphates, and even the Caliphate under the Rightly Guided Caliphs were quite progessive and liberal, compared to both the world at the time, and to Islam after 1258, though a case could be made for it beginning before that time, either with the myriad Turkic tribes or the Buyids, at least in the Middle East proper. In the Maghreb, the Almoravids and Almohads had already begun the process you described, and especially the Almohads, instituted the most strict form of Islamic Rule to that date, rejecting all schools of Islamic Law and basing theirs purely on the Qu'ran and Hadiths.

It is perhaps ironic, then, that the most liberal Muslim state in the world is a Turkish one.

Yes though before hand Morocco made many contributions in science and AFAIK they founded the first university still to be standing today. Many Islamic advances passed to Europe from Morocco. You're also faced with the similar situation where highly militatistic nomadic tribes came into control, the Berbers and such. Over in the East before the Mongols, there were nomadic invasions that were sbsumed by Islamic culture and came into control. However people like the Seljuk Turks did not obliterate the Islamic world, rather they took some political control and settled in areas where there were no Mulsims, they weren't able to dominate Islam. Arabs and Persians were still able to keep control in many of the productive areas like Transoxiana(sp), Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia.

However coming back to the Arabs, they were in fact militaristic nomadic tribes too. So why did they develop liberal traditions unlike the Turks and Mongols? Well it was partly because people like Muhammad tamed the beast and the Arab nomad blended with Arab oasis dweller. The Arabs did not lay waste to the land but were influences by Islam at its purest and blended with the locals very harmoniously. Actually thats why Arabia quickly fell back into the dark ages, because the nomad took back control.

Turkey is so liberal today because of heavy European influences.

 

[Halcyon]

Ah, the usual "it's not their fault, the others conspired against them" argument. Let's see...

I didn't say conspired. You can't argue that that part of the world didn't get a serious rogering from various massive foreign powers. You can't blame all of it on culture and lack of bootstraps, just as you can't blame the fall of the Incas or of Carthage exclusively on their faiths and/or lack of the will to power.

It's really not fair or acceptable to compare it with Europe, which was (during the Dark Ages) recovering from the chaos of countless barbarian invasions (Germanics, Slavs, Avars, Vikings, Magyars the list goes on). It is a fact that many of the knowledge produced by the Islamic world in this period was in fact derived from the work of others, mainly the Persians and Romans.

So Europe gets a pass for being ravaged by barbarians, but the Near East doesn't? Aren't you going to blame Europe's misery on repressive Christianity? It's just as fair, honestly. Religious extremism holds people back no matter what the religion is. Blaming specific faiths for what is ultimately a social phenomenon isn't 'fair or acceptable', either. Plus in the 8th century the Arabs and Turks were the barbarian invaders. Not long after, they were the advanced ones.

Religion may be a tool of oppressors but it is rarely their cause.

Mongol invasions were bad, that is true, but they

a) did not destroy the whole muslim world

True - India, bits of Turkey, most of North Africa and various unimportant parts of Indochina were spared. That's like saying that only recieving third-degree burns on 70% of your body means you're okay, though.

b) 95%? that's an overestimation

No, actually. The population of Persia has been estimated at 5m+ before the invasion in 1219; half of that were slaughtered immediately and 90% of the remainder were either starved or murdered during the next forty years. By 1260 the population was less than 250,000. That's a 95% drop. That's a lot.

c) Europe suffered some pretty bad catastrophies too: Black Plague wiped out at least 1/3 of Europe's population, perhaps even more.

And that was pretty bad, but losing 1/3 is not quite the same as losing 19/20 plus having all your cities and fields burnt. The Black Death was nothing by comparison. And again, the Black Death hit Asia just as hard as Europe.

d) most imporant point: other civilizations have been devastated by the Mongols too, but they recovered: China gradually assimilated them and then become more powerful than ever before.

China didn't get exterminated - the Mongols beat down their armies and replaced the ruling class, as had many other invaders before and after. I wouldn't say it strengthened them, as such; mostly it didn't change them at all. China (and India) have been pretty good at that, historically; strong culture and great numbers do wonders for assimilating invaders.


Note: The Christian kingdoms of the Caucasus haven't recovered, either (Georgia/Armenia). They were pretty awesome, once, too.

That's not an explanation. Again, China recovered, Russia recovered, Hapsburgs recovered.

Again, China was taken over, Russia surrendered and was vassalised rather than face slaughter, and the Habsburgs were German nobles (seriously, what?).

FYI, Mameluks were the first one who defeated the Mongols, they were the most powerful Muslim civilization in that time. You can't say that they succumbed to MUSLIM Ottomans because they were weakened by the Mongols.

Egypt did pretty well, honestly, for a country with no reliable trading partners or natural resources. Even today they're not really more backwards than, say, the Balkans, and doing better than (Christian) Ethiopia, which has had similar problems on the international stage. Plus the Ottomans didn't beat them until 1831, only 25 years after they threw out the French. Their current problem is repressive dictatorship, which as we have established is not unique to Islamic nations.

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.

They did develop. Compare the Seljuk Rum of the 12th century with Industrial-Era Ottoman Turkey. By comparison, compare Roman tech c.400ad with that six centuries prior - it's not an impressive difference. Big land empires suck at advancing (c.f. Orthodox Russia).

On top of that, Europe went backwards quite spectacularly between the 4th and 16th centuries. I will therefore assume that because they were Christian, it is Christianity's fault (and therefore that Christians should be looked down upon). I will back this up with selected misunderstandings about Christian theology.

Again, you are trying to lay blame on external factors without thinking about the internal factors - why were the Muslims lagging behind and incapable of resisting the Europeans? You know my answer to that.

Incapable? Well, Egypt and Persia put up quite a fight, and the Ottomans didn't fall until WWI, in which they were a major player. Perhaps there might be more to it than you think?

Anyway, the situation was reversed in the early days of Islam, where just about all of spain, south Italy and the Roman Empire were taken. The various Caliphates continued to be more advanced and economically developed than the squabbling, feudal Europeans or the stagnant Romaioi until the Horde came.

Actually, it had a lot to do with Christianity. Islam is even more intrusive religion than Christianity, and it influenced the culture much more. You can't say that islam had nothing to do with that, it would be as stupid as to say that Christianity had nothing to do with Crusades

Islam's pretty similar to Christianity, honestly. Were it not for the cultural associations they'd practically be sects of each other. (Technically they're both varieties of radical Judaism). You can't claim that Christianity didn't have an overwhelming effect on European culture, though. And don't get me started on the Crusades.

A completely absurd analogy, which is not really worth a comment.

What's wrong with it? It mirrors your logic perfectly, except with the biases reversed.

Clearly, it's not just him. Islam as a whole is at odds with modernity, with all the ideologies which are essential for modernization.

That's pretty arguable, and even so, Christianity is just as bad (see if you can find a serious Islamic religious movement which argues for flat-earth Geocentrism). As are Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Shintoism, Taoism...

There's got to be more to it than just what faith you follow, right?

You need to have relaxed culture to start economic growth.

Now we're getting somewhere. You know that Christianity prohibited banking, too, right? It's why Jews have a rather enduring reputation for being moneyed; they were the only ones in Europe allowed to lend money or recieve interest.

What changed? Not the religion - Europe is still Christian. Something else changed. Care to guess?

Even the Renaissance was mostly economically driven. The feudal system was completely antithetical to advancement - the serfs had no power, and the nobles liked it the way it was. It wasn't until increased urbanisation and the development of a middle class that Europe managed to do anything at all, and it took them a millennium to get to that point. It has been argued that the Great Plague was the tipping point, by simulateously increasing demand for labour, reducing supply, and driving people into cities. Quite a lot more to it than that, though.


Look, rather than just counterpoint everything I'll say this.

Trade.

Trade is the lifeblood of civilisations. Without trade there are only farmers, warriors and nobles, and civilisation remains in warring stasis.

Consider Sub-Saharan Africa. Not exactly the heart of civilisation, for the most part, but consider those places where it has thrived: Nubia, Ethiopia and the cities of the River Niger. Each rose to great heights and then collapsed when their trade routes disappeared. Look at Timbuktu, at Mali. Vast wealth gained from trade across the Sahara fed great centres of learning and culture, but they crumbled into warring anarchy once their trading partners started sailing around them.

You notice how most of the historical leading lights of technology are small, densely populated coastal states? Trade.

What preceded the Industrial Revolution in Europe? The Age of Exploration, of Sail. The bit where the nations of western Europe became massively wealthy trading powers.

Seriously, trade. The main trade routes of the Near East were Mediterranean sea-trade (limited somewhat by not being friends with Europe) and the Silk Road (obsoleted by the Age of Sail). Now it's oil, but in most places most of the oil wealth is embezzled by a few rich nobles, tyrants and/or oligarchs, who use it to buy golden toilets and American companies.

The world's never as black-and-white as you think.

 

[mrt144]

What the Muslims need is a Martin Luther

 

[TheLastOne36]

why do i always miss the good quote wars?

well i'll continue lurking for the rest of the thread.

Also out of the approximate 1.5 billion muslims in the world only 2/3 is "backwards" and that's excluding India and the richer parts of Pakistan, European Muslims, and the muslims of the americas. So yes the Majority of the islamic world is underdeveloped, but that's only like 60-65% which can still be called a "slight" majority.

Thanks to wikipedia for the numbers.

 

[Gecko1]

Idiot topic.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What the Muslims need is a Martin Luther

They had one. Well, at least Twelver Shi'ism had one. Problem was, his name was Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini.

It should be noted there were other reformers, Sunni reformers; men like Sayyed Jamal al-din al Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida, Ali abd al-Raziq, and women like Huda al-Sharawi, who very much tried to modernize Islam, to bring it up to speed with the world, and to liberalize it, by fighting for things like women's rights (I'm speaking specifically of al-Sharawi there).

 

[El_Machinae]

Cheezy and ohcrapitsnico should dominate every Islam thread from now on.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

What the Muslims need is a Martin Luther

Ah yes an anti-semitic rabble rouser, why not!

Islam doesn't need to be split any further, rather it needs to be revitalized and reformed. Islam's weakness is its division as you can clearly see and some 90% of the world are sunnins. I don't really see change happening in the Middle East, rather American muslims, who are generally the most liberal, educated, and most forward-looking Muslims, must push for that change and of course must first change the perception. This won't happen any time soon I guarantee you. I may be the most liberal muslim you come upon and people like me are being silenced, mostly by radical muslims(the bad kind). Thats why the king of jordan is keeping his mouth shut and his actions at a minimum or the conservatives will assassinate his ass very quickly.

The muslims I know are very aware of the dangerous state of things and we all do what we can to save Islam from people like Winner, Ahmadinejad, and Muhammad ibn abd-al-Wahhab. However I still think Muslims in America are too scared to do more than they already are changing things. In time things will change gradually.

 

[Winner]

there's your mistake, and that's why you see a problem in cultures...

a feudalist system profiting from trade is not a base for liberalism to emerge. industrialisation and advent of capitalism is.

Uh, and how do you think Capitalism was even created, in that oppressive feudalist system of oppression? If the culture didn't allow the wealthy merchants to acquire more rights, if the cities were not self-governing, if the guilds were not autonomous,

simply put

if the European culture didn't incude individualism, representative institutions, the concept of personal integrity and division of power between the kings, Church and wealthy citizens, no capitalism would ever appear and we would be stuck with feudalism (Europe, Japan, India) or centralized despotism (China and others) or theocratic governments forever.

Islamic civilization is very different from ours. Their nature helped them to conquer much of the world back in the Dark Ages, but the lack of things described above has prevented them to move on. They essentially begun to stagnate.

It's clear than even today, when they have access to our knowledge and expertise, they still fail to adopt modernity. Why? Well, simply because Islam doesn't cope well with it and Islam is more important for them then being modern. The result is widespread powerty and conflict.

 

[Winner]

The middle east and China suffered greater population loss from the black death than europe did , with estimates up to 2/3rds.

The point about the mongols is their destruction of the irrgation systems - in Europe or China after a marauding army you just shrug and wait for next years rains. In the middle east were you are trying to rebuild an irrgation system that took a decade to build and you only have a years worth of stored food on hand your population is going to crash, often falling to a point beyond which its easy to rebuild from.

They didn't destroy irrigation system in Arabia (if there were any), they didn't destroy it in Egypt. Still, these places stagnated like the rest.

Mongols are not a major reason why Islam stagnated.

As above, they had the advantage of not being desert crapholes.

Even if I accepted this ridiculous enviromental explanation, it does not apply today. Israel managed to build its country in the same climate and despite being constantly under threat, it managed to make it thrive.

The difference is so obvious that you can see where the southern borders are.

Plus, you still fail to explain why Islamic countries did not develop in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

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? ) remained poor. Malaysia could look like an exception, but then you see that it was mostly the Chinese minority who organized the improvement.

1) They beat a small mongol army operating at considerable distance from their sources of fodder. 2) You can win and still be weakened for the next attack. 3) Although both were muslim, the turkish takeover represented a steppe nomad despotism being imposed that was considerably less interested in economic development than the urbanised and commerical despotism that preceeded the mongols.

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.

 

[Winner]

turkey is different from most of the muslim world, the status of religion in turkey is closer to that of the western world than the rest of the muslim world, the people might be muslim but the government and legal system is mostly secular. the problem with islamic countries isnt islam its the fact that religion still has so much power over people

... which is what happens when ISLAM teach you that secularism is wrong.

Stop treating all religions as equal, because they're not. They're more like ideologies, some are succesful (liberalism), some not (communism).

While the West during the Cold war flourished, Communist bloc gradually became stagnant and then collapsed, because its ideology was inefficient and it failed to properly motivate the people.

Islamic culture is simply less open, less tolerant and too narrowminded to allow progress. Turkey is a fine example of how can Islamic country move forward, when it at least limits the damage done by Islam by adopting Western institutions and Western system of government. If the Turks once again adopted Islam as the only source of law, everything they achieved would go down the toilet.

 

[Winner]

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

I am not angry, why should I be? As for stubborness, that is a 'virtue' of my many opponents here, at least those who at least try to talk and don't hide behind trolls

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.

What is it that you don't understand on the last sentence of the opening post?

 

[Winner]

BTW, read this article: "What is the West" and then compare what you learned with Islamic culture. The differences are what is keeping it down.

The social and political traits of the West that Deutsch lists can be sorted into a few large categories. These are:

1) Limitations on the power of rulers. Western cultures have tended to limit the powers of rulers to prevent the emergence of despotism. Westerners prefer what political scientists call “the rule of law,” or the principle that no one, not even a monarch, is above the law. Furthermore, the West has limited the power of rulers by allocating spiritual and temporal power to different institutions, church and state.
2) Autonomy of individuals and groups. The West has to a greater extent than other cultures granted autonomy to individuals. Westerners have had a greater freedom to decide for themselves how best to live without interference from governmental or other authorities. Autonomy has two major expressions: Individualism, or the freedom of the individual to choose how to live his life; and Pluralism, or the freedom of individuals to form semi-autonomous groups rooted in social interests.
3) Tolerance. Tolerance is the trait that makes the first two possible. Only a tolerant culture can allow individuals and groups to express conflicting interests.