Much has been said about Islam being currently in a more backwards state than most other religions, however, it was not always so. A question is, when do you think it started to stagnate and turn backwards, and why? Coult it have evolved towards a more secular, spiritual (as opposed to temporal) aspect instead? If so, how and when? Is there any hope for it in the future?
When did Islam's fall from grace begin?
- Thread starter Midgard
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
There are probably many points:
- When they were beaten back from France in 732 and Constantinople (several times), which stopped their conquests
- When Baghdad was destroyed and the Caliph killed in 1258
- When they were finally ousted from Spain in 1492
- When the more sceptical movement of the Mutazilites started to decline
- When they didn't build a printing press
- When they were beaten back from France in 732 and Constantinople (several times), which stopped their conquests
- When Baghdad was destroyed and the Caliph killed in 1258
- When they were finally ousted from Spain in 1492
- When the more sceptical movement of the Mutazilites started to decline
- When they didn't build a printing press
I would say it was a gradual process... occuring first at the "edges" of Islam, and moving in. Islamic states, from what I've read, after the fall of Cordoba, tended to have one powerful Caliphate, and smaller Emirates past that. It was in the Emirates where the decay first set in, and moved inland as the last Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire began to slip from threatening Europe to being it's Sick Man. After the fall of the Ottomans, more radical sects than Ottoman Islam moved in. Note that Turkey, the center of the last Caliphate, remains the most advanced Muslim state.
HueyLong
Banned
But Islam continued to excel at arts and technology ahead of Europe, so that is not the point. That was not even the end of Islam's spread, but of the Arabs, which is a completely different matter.
But you still had amazing and forward thinking Muslims against the backwards Christians at this point Although the gap was lessening, it was not the decline of Islam, but the decline of the Caliphate (an outdated and disliked idea by many, even at that time)
This, I will accept. At that point, Islam began to degrade because trade began to decline through their lands. But it wasn't entirely because they were ousted from Spain.
Um, what? Muslims had printing presses, and only the most radical of sects spurned the technology. They were a bit behind Europe, but that didn't cause their religion to fall from grace.
I would have to say, Midgard, that Islam declined after the discovery of the Americas and the route to the Far East (both of which bypassed the major routes and income of Muslims)
Max Sinister
Banned
1) Nah, after 1258 Muslim science wasn't as good as it had been before. This might have something to do with the fact that their conquests were stopped already...
2) Yes, the trade loss also has to do with the fact that the Europeans discovered another way to Asia. "Cutting out the middle man" isn't good if you ARE the middle man.
3) AFAIK the first printing press in the Ottoman empire was in the 18th(!) century. At that time, the Europeans were already far ahead, of course.
2) Yes, the trade loss also has to do with the fact that the Europeans discovered another way to Asia. "Cutting out the middle man" isn't good if you ARE the middle man.
3) AFAIK the first printing press in the Ottoman empire was in the 18th(!) century. At that time, the Europeans were already far ahead, of course.
Islam did not 'fall from Grace'. It has always contained, and continues to contain, the most diverse elements, as has Christianity. It so happens that most of the areas today being majority-Islamic are historically at a low point in power and wealth. That kind of thing is not good for mental balance and creates a different kind of emotional and spiritual needs profile than being top dog. That brings other elements to the fore. But to suggest that Islam is 'fallen' and in need of 'saving' (interesting choice of language, that) is akin to suggesting that Germany, Japan or Italy had a 'Fall from Grace' and required national or cultural salvation. There is no prelapsarian state of innocence in Islam.
Consider it a figure of speech, more than anything else. Basically, almost all predominantly Muslim countries in the modern age are backwards in terms of social organization, government, politics, science, etc - that is a fact. However, there are reasons why most progress in the Muslim world tended to stop - nations do not go from being a "top dog" to being everyone's "poor cousin" at best overnight. My question referred to the underlying reasons, when it happened, and why Islamic world fell so far behind.
As far as "saving", I mean in terms of reconciling it with modernity, and bringing it into modern era - Turkey is veritably the only country that could be considered modern in that sense.
Are you suggesting that Germany did not require salvation??? That it did not need the massive discontinuity provided by 1945?
Do you really think it is acceptable for Saudi Arabia and Iran to continue as they are indefinitely?
Everything I know about Islam I learned on the web, so take this with a grain of salt... There were a couple of major philosophical differences between Islam and European Catholocism.
In Islam the "door of Ijtihad closed" sometime before 1000 CE. "Ijtihad" is personal interpretation of the Koran, and was forbidden in mainstream Islam. And sometime in the 900s, a prominent Muslim scholar declared that if the Koran and science conflict, then science is wrong.
In the West, the question of how to interpret the Bible is still a question of contention but Martin Luther and the Reformation put that power in the hands of the individual. Thomas Aquinas wrote that if the Bible and science seem to conflict, we're just not interpreting the Bible correctly.
In Islam the "door of Ijtihad closed" sometime before 1000 CE. "Ijtihad" is personal interpretation of the Koran, and was forbidden in mainstream Islam. And sometime in the 900s, a prominent Muslim scholar declared that if the Koran and science conflict, then science is wrong.
In the West, the question of how to interpret the Bible is still a question of contention but Martin Luther and the Reformation put that power in the hands of the individual. Thomas Aquinas wrote that if the Bible and science seem to conflict, we're just not interpreting the Bible correctly.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
When did Saudi Arabia and Iran declare war on the rest of the world and lose?
Both are sovereign nations that have not directly attacked us (at least not since 1979, and the Iranians still claim that a quasi-governmental action at best, in any case, it's long since resolved), we may not agree with how they treat their own citizens nor certainly with all their foreign policies, but they have as much right to work out their own destiny as we do ours.
Islam's decline began in 1529 when the failure of the Siege of Vienna ended their last real push into Europe.
Christianity's decline began in 1511, when Martin Luther ended the unity of Christendom. Since then mercantilism and nationalism have gradually replaced religion as the central governing institutions in the Western world. In the Islamic world, this did not happen, so the decline of their religion was reflected in their countries.
Germany did not need saving and was not 'saved'. It needed stopping and was stopped. It needed defeating and liberating. An effort at 'salvation' was made only in the Eastern half, and that didn't turn out too well.
I'd say that depends. I hold the weird and funny opinion that every community on this planet ios entitled to follow any policy it bloody well wants provided
- it does not hurt ay other community and
- its people (all of them, in equal measure and freely!) agree that this is the correct course.
Now I do not believe that either is satisfied by Iran or Saudi-Arabia, but if that were to turn out to be the case, I do not see why it should not be permitted for a nation to structure itself according to the precepts of traditional Islam. I would not want to live that way, but I am not the one *doing* it.
In the more pragmatic vein you problably meant that in, I do believe that both the Iranian and Saudi government could use replacing yesterday. I have no great hopes in either case, given that they have a powerful supporter in the US. But I have no problem with a genuinely democratic Iran retaining its identity as an Islamic republic or its stance on Israel.
Max Sinister
Banned
OK... but I'd say that was the exception. Andalusia had a strong Christian and Jewish population, many connections with the christian world, and besides, it was conquered in 1492. Was there a printing press (which wasn't forbidden too soon) in the Barbary states, or Songhai, or Persia, or the Delhi Sultanate, or SE Asia?
It stopped their conquests? Whaaaaaa? Maybe it stopped their conquests into areas a Westerner would care about, but India, Central Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa all would later feature spreading of Islam by conquest. Furthermore, it in no way stopped its non-military expansion. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world today, and many of its most densely populated areas had not yet been converted as of 732. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world today, was still largely Hindu.
I mostly agree with you, but a few things come up.
1) How do you define not hurting any other community? The concept seems too vague to be useful. In the example of Saudi Arabian gender relations, the Saudi's would say that they are honoring women by showing their love by protecting them from dangerous men with burkhas, from having to work, and letting them concentrate on their familial duties. Obviously as an American, I find all of this excuses to subjugate 50% of their population. Whose opinion on whetehr they are being hurt do you trust?
Another example: under your doctrine, I guess war is outlawed, seeing as it hurts another community.
(Side note: God, cultural relativism is a pain in the ass sometimes. Being a Victorian would have been so much easier- if you were a white male.)
2) All the people have to agree? Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I thought a plurality was all you needed.
Max Sinister
Banned
That's what I meant. If they had knocked out the European states, they wouldn't have been conquered by them some centuries later.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I have a sinking suspicion that the European Muslims would eventually prosper more than the ones in their homeland and may even end up colonizing them. Note how the center of power in Islam gravitated from Mecca to Baghdad to Constantinople (making a few detours along the way, of course). The only thing stopping this progression was Christendom, and if that were to be eliminated, the sky's the limit. Plus, the various subjects of the Ottoman Empire sometimes considered them to be foreign potentates (certainly this theme appears often in 19th century Islamist writings).
Their own, of course. It's rather similar to the famous dictum that 'the Chinese want wealth and stability, not Western notions of human rights'. I would argue (in both cases) that we had best actually ask them.
I am opposed to war under any circumstance and in any guise. Which does not mean I do not understand that war can be forced upon a guiltless party. But all war is deplorable and should, ideally, not happen.
I'm not happy with majoritarianism. By these lights, there would be nothing wrong with the roughly 80% whites in the US around 1950 deciding democratically that blacks don't get full rights. If the blacks had voted in favour, I'd be more convinced of the merits of that particular system...
I guess this is where we diverge in opinion. To me, it seems like there is a dividing line between things that can be classified as cultural differences, and things that are crimes against humanity. Maybe its the American in me speaking up (not that I'm saying America has an exclusive claim on these), but I believe people have certain unalienable rights- life, pursuit of happiness, etc. Communism or capitalism, dictatorship or democracy, or anything in-between, people must have these rights.
In the example of Saudi Arabia, even though they are not my customs, women wearing burkhas, not working, and being secluded away fall under "people do what they want". Stoning women to death for not doing such things crosses the line.
I agree with the "ideally would not happen" and "deplorable". I simply believe that there are worse things than war, and that if it takes war to prevent those things, then it is a necessary evil. To use the old standby, I would rather have some country declare war on Nazi Germany rather than let them continue their domestic policies.
If 100% agreement was required for state political action, no action could ever be taken. If some crazy nut out in Idaho who wears a tin helmet to stop the UN black helicopters from reading his thoughts doesn't want the US to do something, then it can't be done? I'm sorry, but if you truly believe that every single person must agree with every single decision, then I would peg you as someone who opposes the very concept of government. Which is kind of odd, because we would have never advanced beyond hunter-gatherers if people didn't badn together, and sacrifice some individual freedom for the benefits of unity.
To counter your example of race in the US, if your doctrine was followed, blacks would never have been given full rights- the Supreme Court decision that ended segregation came down to a 5-4 vote in favor of equal access.
Its generally put down as the 1970s IIRC with the Iranian revolution and the rise of extremism, prior to that islam just had a reputation as some kind of weird pseudo-christianity whose followers were peaceful, hard working folk.
For your talk of Islamic nations though... Well I'd say not until the late 1500s/1600s when the Ottomans began to stall, their nation was reliant on conquest and with no new ones happening....
All this stuff about dark ages Islamic science and all that...ugh just rubs me up the wrong way, really overly simplified.
Also to be technical: I wouldn't say islam is a religion of backwards countries. The middle east is poor by western standards, yes but still its 'developing'. The only really 'backwards' Islamic countries are those that have had rather a lot of war like Somalia and Afghanistan
For your talk of Islamic nations though... Well I'd say not until the late 1500s/1600s when the Ottomans began to stall, their nation was reliant on conquest and with no new ones happening....
All this stuff about dark ages Islamic science and all that...ugh just rubs me up the wrong way, really overly simplified.
Also to be technical: I wouldn't say islam is a religion of backwards countries. The middle east is poor by western standards, yes but still its 'developing'. The only really 'backwards' Islamic countries are those that have had rather a lot of war like Somalia and Afghanistan