Why did Islam remain a major political force unlike Confucianism

Or, in other words, why is Islamism a thing while Confucianism is dead as a political ideology?
If I remembered correctly according to what I've read on foreign affairs,it's got to do with the fact that the Middle East has tried various ideologies like communism,democracy,dictatorships and all of them have failed to deliver what they promised.Hence,they are trying out with Islam.
 
Or, in other words, why is Islamism a thing while Confucianism is dead as a political ideology?

Islam is a very coherent ideology, with an explicit political agenda; it is also a religion, with definite tenets, and explicit adherence. It can survive, and even flourish as an instiitution, with no political power. (E.g. India, which is about 15% Moslems.)

Confucianism is a philosophy with no specific markers. It was never comparable to Islam in its political force. (Yes, Chinese emperors "ruled according to Confucianism", but they were going to rule anyway, and Confucianism does not require anything much different from what a typical government would do.
 
Islam is a very coherent ideology, with an explicit political agenda

I suppose that you are referring to "political Islam" here, but I would be glad to hear, with reference to that, which political agenda is it supposed to have (I do not regard "obeying the Qur'an" or "implementing Shari'a" as political projects in themselves).
 
While I would argue that Confucianism exists in a way in the modern Chinese government, I would say that Confucianism as an ideology to be trumpeted around was discredited following May 4th, which rejected traditional values, including Confucianism. Islamism meanwhile was slowly getting stronger as Confucianism was (sadly, in my view) rejected.
 
Despite obvious Western influence, Chinese and Korean political and social culture continue to be strongly impacted by neo-Confucian ideology. In fact, in China, it's begun to become even more influential in recent years as the government has begun to openly embrace it. The reason why it's not as obvious and talked about as, say Islamism, is that neo-Confucianism is a quasi-religious set of philosophical principles that can exist in an essentially secular society while Islamism is a revolutionary theocratic ideology that seeks to replace secular institutions with Islamist ones.
 
While I would argue that Confucianism exists in a way in the modern Chinese government, I would say that Confucianism as an ideology to be trumpeted around was discredited following May 4th, which rejected traditional values, including Confucianism. Islamism meanwhile was slowly getting stronger as Confucianism was (sadly, in my view) rejected.
I would like to say that Confucianism was always there to masquerade the legalist regime.Now they've replaced Confucianism with the mask of socialism.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
but nonetheless, Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, and Buddhism is unable to prevent spread of Republicanism, Westernization and Christianity in 1850 to 1950, Socialism-Communism in 1940 to 1980.

China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Burma even Japanese and Thailand had healthy Communist Party, large Christian community , and successful labor union and conglomerate.

Islamic states successfully prevent Labor Union, Communism, conversion to Christianity. even Republicanism and Socialism only had short period of success Baath Nasser era 1950 to 1970. in many way Monarchy, Religion, and Tribalism survive way way better in Islamic countries compared to East Asia, India or Europe.
 
I would like to say that Confucianism was always there to masquerade the legalist regime.Now they've replaced Confucianism with the mask of socialism.
I wouldn't say always, I'd say whenever the dynasty got a strongman who could institute legalism as an emperor.
 
Last edited:

NoMommsen

Donor
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but ... doesn't the Qur'an give the believers the mission to spread their believe aka proselytize ?

Also I have the impression that confuzianism give it ... 'rules','recommandation' more on an individual scale, requestion the individual to obey these rules. While the Islam focus more (than confuzianism) focus on the/a society and its institutions, giving legal rules, instead of personal rules.
 
I'd also liked to say that Confucianism seems to be quite 'tainted'. From what I've gathered,a lot of people in modern day China seems to blame Confucianism for every problem that has occurred since the fall of Tang Dynasty.They saw the Confucian scholars' neutering of the army during the Song Dynasty for why China was frequently invaded and even conquered by foreigners.They blamed the Confucian scholars for corruption,political infighting and for selling out the Ming Dynasty to the Manchus during the fall of the Ming Dynasty.They also saw the Confucian obstinacy to trade,inventions and foreign ideas for China's eventual technological inferiority to Europeans.
 
Last edited:

NoMommsen

Donor
That's IMHO the big dissadvantage of confuzianism. It's an ideologie to 'conserve' everything, like an ant in amber, no place for new ideas, for development.

Something at least the medieval world of islam had a very different approach (one it unfortunatly lost).
 
Another thing about Confucianism I guess was that it's main supporters back in the olden days was the gentry elite.The landlord class was very much the Confucian Scholars.I think the CCP might see it as something the 'Bourgeoisie' and 'feudal aristocrats' used to oppress the proletariat with.
 
Last edited:
That's IMHO the big dissadvantage of confuzianism. It's an ideologie to 'conserve' everything, like an ant in amber, no place for new ideas, for development.

Something at least the medieval world of islam had a very different approach (one it unfortunatly lost).

Modern Political Islam (in its Sunni form) despises innovation no less. Of course, it also tends to regard everything happened after sometime in the eight century as "innovation". This would make it reactionary, rather than conservative (as it does not want preserve the status quo, but revert to a perceived better one according to a far past model). Which is, by the way, what Confucius himself had sought, mostly.
 
To answer the OP, however, I believe the main factors at work are, somewhat counter-intuitively, oil and the Cold War.
In the East Asian cultural sphere where Confucianism used to be a linchpin of political doctrine, progressive modern political ideas, mainly in the forms of Communism and (more or less) liberal democracy won (and competed).
In most Muslim-majority countries, neither of these was ever allowed a fighting chance, both by the local elites and the international Cold War order. Political Islam, funded by the conservative, (mostly) Western-aligned oil states, was a very useful tool in contrasting every even vaguely leftist challenge to the existing internal, regional and international order, and has been repeatedly supported, financed and given audience and undeservedly good press to this end (sometimes as a boogeyman).
Of course, political Islam itself did challenge the order and still does (it has to, to maintain a minimum of credibility, simply because the existing order is so glaringly unjust) but it does so from a reactionary standpoint. The endgame was the sort of corrupt bargain where regimes accede to most cosmetic, repressive and conservative demands of the religious political groups, therefore trampling over women and minorities, while keeping the more substantial demands of political participation and social justice largely unevaded, AND they possess, in the form of the same religious groups, a convenient excuse to be as tyrannical as they like.
(Iran is in many regards an exception to the above, but I am not going into it).
 
I might like to add that the Islamists' victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan probably gave the ideology a tremendous boost in legitimacy.It showed that Islamism can defeat superpowers.
 
I might like to add that the Islamists' victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan probably gave the ideology a tremendous boost in legitimacy.It showed that Islamism can defeat superpowers.

Of course. Although that conflict occurred in a Cold War framework - it is a major example of the dynamic of using (engineering, really ;) ) political Islam to buttress the Middle Eastern political order, through a healthy injection of oil money (and more than a little help from "the West").

Note however that by that point, Islamist discourse was well entrenched and the "left" thoroughly weakened - either because of its repressive turn in Soviet-aligned states (where incidentally, the liberally-oriented bourgeoisie, if extant at all, had been either destroyed or cowed into silence) or its deliberate (sometimes physical, with Indonesia as very clear case) destruction in most Western-aligned regimes (partial exceptions exist).
In part, Political Islam filled a void - it was more tolerated than leftist opposition, an it could be channeled abroad - Afghanistan had so many foreign fighters partly because both "leftist" and "conservative" authoritarian regimes used it as a dumping ground for dissidents - who could have thought they'd come back, radicalized, well-armed, fully trained and victory-diseased? ;)
 
Last edited:
I suppose that you are referring to "political Islam" here, but I would be glad to hear, with reference to that, which political agenda is it supposed to have (I do not regard "obeying the Qur'an" or "implementing Shari'a" as political projects in themselves).

The Koran explicitly states that Moslems are to rule. Moslems are to wage war against all non-Moslems unless they submit to Moslem rule, and accept the status of dhimmi.

As for "implementing sharia", I cannot imagine a more political project than imposing a code of laws. On everyone, not just Moslems.
 
The Koran explicitly states that Moslems are to rule. Moslems are to wage war against all non-Moslems unless they submit to Moslem rule, and accept the status of dhimmi.

As for "implementing sharia", I cannot imagine a more political project than imposing a code of laws. On everyone, not just Moslems.

The Qur'an never mentions dhimmi status. I also don't recall where it explicitly states that Muslims are to rule, (or where it explicitly discusses rule in any way) although certainly there is plenty of verses that may be interpreted to that effect.
Shari'a was never supposed to be applied to non-Muslim, and was not strictly speaking a code of laws anyway. Critically, it was not the product of political power (it was developed by scholars who were not necessarily on government's paybooks, and were indeed traditionally encouraged not to be). I would say that pre-modern Shari'a is as apolitical as a legal system can be. In modern times, implementing shari'a is... well, you can't implement traditional shari'a in a modern state, because it turns out to be a code of law. Of course, nobody seriously advocates really applying it. The modern "Islamic" program is to put an Islamic label on secular laws and secular state apparatuses but stuffing codes with repressive moralistic regulation that recall the letter of some shari'a norms, without having the same spirit (let alone context).
Few advocates of modern "political Islam" for instance have proposed to ban interest-based banking (although there are a few countries where it's illegal), while they commonly display an completely disproportionate interest for female headgear, for example.
 
Top