The Decline of the East (review of What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response)

Navigator ^ | 3/2002 | Roger Donway

[jennyp]

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Islamic peoples and states adopted from the West the doctrines of nationalism and socialism. When these failed, many Muslims felt that they had tried "adopting Western ways," and it was time again to look to their own Islamic heritage. What needs to be said, in this regard, is that nationalism and socialism are actually the antithesis of the rationality and individualism that form the essence of Western civilization. They are Western in form, to be sure, because they were given expression by certain philosophers in post-Enlightenment Europe. At their core, however, nationalism and socialism are simply throwbacks to the tribal mindset and tribal life found among all primitive peoples. And therein lies the seed of much tragedy. When in their post-colonial stage peoples (in the Middle East and elsewhere) have felt the need to modernize, they have often looked to the contemporary West and chosen the most appealing system. Not unnaturally, collectivist systems have been the most appealing because they are simply the same old primitivism in modern dress. But for that same reason, collectivist experiments have failed to provide modernization, and that in turn has been viewed as discrediting everything Western, including the individualism that truly lies at our civilization's heart.

What a striking observation! I'm not sure about nationalism per se, but the socialism part? Oh yes. I immediately thought of post-colonial Africa.

[jennyp]

The-Objectivist-Center BTTT

[jlogajan]

I'm sure our own "fundies" would disagree that commingling of church and state was a major reason for the stagnation of Islamic society -- since they advocate the church as state.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[Free the USA]

good post

[ckilmer]

what I have read is that what the moslems were good at was taking. This would fit the first scenario of the author: the moslems fed off the riches of their inheritance and when they stopped expanding they lost their vitality because they didn't have an inheritance to take. What christians are good at is giving. Odd notions taking and giving. They are central to the notions of love. Jesus said it is better to give than to receive.
According to the christian view before creation jesus loved the father and the holy spirit and the father loved jesus and the holy spirit and the holy spirit loved jesus and the father.
According to the moslem view before creation God was inert.
Say how does something come from nothing?
Never Mind. Courage is made of three parts: faith hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[Rustynailww]

for later

[ckilmer]

what I have read is that what the moslems were good at was taking. This would fit the first scenario of the author: the moslems fed off the riches of their inheritance and when they stopped expanding they lost their vitality because they didn't have an inheritance to take. What christians are good at is giving. Odd notions taking and giving. They are central to the notions of love. Jesus said it is better to give than to receive.
According to the christian view ---before creation jesus loved the father and the holy spirit and the father loved jesus and the holy spirit and the holy spirit loved jesus and the father.
According to the moslem view--- before creation God was inert.
Say how does something come from nothing?
Never Mind. Courage is made of three parts: faith hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Alas this does not make for good historical analysis.
I went to google and did a search under : christianity science cause effect
these were some links that came up
CHRISTIANITY: A CAUSE OF MODERN SCIENCE?"
Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?
THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE
Christianity and the Birth of Science
The Social and Historical Impact of Christianity
CHRISTIANITY AIDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE>

[x]

Interesting reading. But many of the features of Islam that he deplores were applauded by Voltaire and other Enlightenment philosophes. To think that there is one clear road to modernity discernable in advance or one universally applicable recipe would be a mistake.

The West benefited from internal conflicts between religions and states. Other civilizations were wounded by precisely the same thing. And at the time who would have said that wars of religion or dynastic struggles may have brought bloodshed, but they would make the West stronger. Also, the West's great leap forward meant that it could build up a lead and leave competitors far behind, if not invade them.

Why couldn't Islam do what Japan did? Few countries could. The young Turks took a stab at it, and military elites in other countries did try to "modernize" them once independence came. His answers as to why this failed would have to be much better than mine.

Military elites proved no more successful at modernization in other parts of the world. They remained a small clique accustomed to command and don't unleash the productive energies of other parts of society, but Japan, which did succeed at modernizing, adopted precisely those nationalist, if not socialist, ideas that he condemns and was led in large part by the kind of military elites that did the Middle East no good.

[jennyp]

Interesting reading. But many of the features of Islam that he deplores were applauded by Voltaire and other Enlightenment philosophes.

What do you mean by that??? IIRC, Voltaire et. al. were arguing against the kind of church-state commingling that was 18th Century France.

[ThJ1800]

Bump for later

[knews_hound]

Easily one of the best analysis of the Islamic place in the world I have read.

His cogent points about the lack of reform seem to me to be at the heart of the matter.

Any religion that insists on uncritical devotion to interpretations written by MEN are doomed to failure. Without a seperation in religion and government, the natural tendancy of the religious leaders to interfere in the devlopment of society is almost certain. With such impeded devlopment, any such society is at the mercy of the clergy to determine what course of action is needed to advance, both personally and as a society.

I am afraid that Islam is mired in a system crested to garner power for the clerical elite at the expense of hte society as a whole, all in the name of keeping Islam "Pure".

What twaddle.

Cheers,

knews hound

[x]

But from Voltaire's point of view, Islamic clerics weren't meddling in the affairs of state as he saw Catholic clerics meddling in France. The good ruler would let religious leaders have their say in religious matters without presuming to lay down the law in secular affairs.

Voltaire saw nothing like the St. Bartholomew's day massacre in contemporary Islam. The fact that Turks could rule over Christians and Jews without forcing them to convert or massacring them contrasted pleasantly with some of the events of the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe.

Voltaire despised religious orders, such as were common in Catholic lands. The lack of clergy-laity division that your author notes in Islam would have appealed to him. He also disliked the stress on miracles in Christianity, and the underemphasis on miracles and metaphysical speculation in Islam also attracted him.

Voltaire did write a play about Mohammad and fanaticism that even today earns him the condemnation of Muslims, though his true target may once again have been the Catholic or Christian church he could not attack openly. But like other Enlightenment philosophes, he sometimes used Islam as a foil to bring out what he took to be the vices of the Christianity of his day. The same Muslims who attack his play, cite his attacks on the Trinity.

What comes out of the small amount of research I have put into this today, is that Europe of the early modern age was not only more intellectually inquisitive and economically active than the Islamic world of that time. It was also a good deal more ferocious about religious and political questions. Maybe Islam slumbered under a repressive and deadening blanket of passivity and conformity. But the West must have looked frightening to some people in those days, including to many who lived there.

Another thing that comes out is that many deplore that Islam never had a Voltaire. If and when it does, we can imagine that he would be more friendly to Christianity or Judaism than his co-religionists, as Voltaire himself found positive things to say about Islam that the Christians of his day would not.

[dennisw]

PINGING!   ) )  ) )  ) )  

If you want on or off me Israel/MidEast/Islamic Jihad ping list please let me know.  Via Freepmail is best way.............

[Jason Gade]

This article explains a lot. I've been wondering why American-style democracy is not more prevalent in the world, and this explains it better than anything I could think of.

[HP8753]

Maybe if they spent even 1/10 of the amount of time and effort creating scientists and "Great Thinkers" as they do creating religious fanatics,They'd be in a whole lot better shape.

or just maybe Allah frowns on "Bad Muslims"

[Travis McGee]

IMHO it's much simpler to understand islam's decine. It was strong only while it was growing rapidly and absorbing vital new people's and their ideas.

Once it had to "live within its borders" it went into terminal decline since they produce nothing new on their own.

[dennisw]

You may have noticed that the author is Bernard Lewis, the famous scholar of Islam. He must be 85 years old... I saw him on FoxNews one recent Sunday. He has a new book out and is promoting it .......

[jennyp]

Interesting. I've been reading Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim, and he mentions the Rousseauian fantasy of the noble savage, and their resulting fantasy of the noble Muslim. But yes, I see it does also mention Voltaire, a deist, using Islam as a foil to critique Christianity.

[dalebert]

thanks for the ping