Muslims have only themselves to blame for their poverty, misery and violence

[gobear]

However, as MM dramatically pointed out, Muslim culture, by and large, is has now fallen behind in the technical areas.

Wait a sec, as I have pointed out, “Muslims culture” covers large territory. Are you saying that Saudi Arabia and Nigeria share the same culture? Are you saying that Indonesia and Albania are identical in their societal outlook and cultural values?

Are some countries backward because they’re Muslim, or are there other reasons unconnected to their religion?

How about
bloated, statist economies
lack of infrastructure
overpopulation
degraded environment
lack of governmental accountability and transparency?

If Iran were a multi-party representative democracy, would it be as militantly fundamentalist as it is now? Is Islam incompatible with democracy? Is the popularity of fundamentalist Islam a cause, or a symptom, of deep societal problems?

I do agree that, while disagreement with Israel’s policies are not necessarily anti-Semitic, a lot of anti-Semites are hiding behind the guise of merely being anti-Israel.

[Kimstu]

gobear: *At least 9 predominantly Muslim states–Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, Mauritania, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey–have full diplomatic relations with Israel. *

So does India, with the second-largest Muslim population of any country in the world (after Indonesia); its overall population is nearly 15% Muslim.

[hijack]
december: *E.g., as a mathematician, I’m aware that the important concept of zero was developed by Muslims. *

As a historian of mathematics, I have to correct you on that one. Place-value numerical systems and zero-placeholder symbols go back as far as the cuneiform tablets of ancient Mesopotamia, and zero-placeholders also appeared in the mixed alphanumeric-decimal/place-value-sexagesimal notation of Hellenistic astronomy. The full place-value decimal system with zero that we use today was developed in India sometime around the beginning of the current era, and this system came to the Muslim world sometime during the Umayyid or early Abbasid caliphate before the ninth century.
[/hijack]

*It’s unfortunately true that many Muslim countries do suffer from poverty, misery, and violence. But, why? *

It’s unfortunately true that many non-Muslim countries do suffer from poverty, misery, and violence, including Papua New Guinea (66% Christian, 34% indigenous religions), Lao PDR (60% Buddhist, 40% animist/other), Zimbabwe (almost 100% some mixture of Christianity and indigenous religion), and Haiti (94% Christian). Why is that? Would you say that “Christians (or Buddhists) have only themselves to blame for their poverty, misery, and violence”? Attempting to imply that Islam is somehow the cause of poverty in poor nations that have a large Muslim population is at best much too simplistic, and at worst downright religious bigotry.

As a Jew, I feel threatened by this situation. I don’t know where anti-Israel ends and anti-Semitism begins.

It’s not always easy to tell. Nonetheless, as a Jew (of sorts), I consider it my responsibility to keep the distinction clear in my own mind, and not to assume that criticism of Israel = hatred of Jews. I wouldn’t even go as far as you do in asserting that Mahathir’s remark about Jews massacring Palestinians in Jenin necessarily reflects Muslim bias against Israel; even many non-Muslims, including many supporters of Israel, including many Israelis, are at the very least extremely worried about what the IDF may have done in Jenin and want it investigated.

In the middle ages, Islamic culture was ahead of Christian culture in many respects, including scientific areas.[…] How it came to lag behind, and what can be done to catch up are worth discussing.

Well, if that was what you wanted to discuss, I’m afraid you didn’t express yourself very well. From your thread title, one gets the inaccurate impression that what you intended was to insinuate that any Muslim complaints about other countries should be ignored, because any problems that the Muslims have are really all their own fault. Given that that’s not what you meant to say, I suggest that you ask the mods to lock this thread and start a new one with a less misleading title: something like “Why are many predominantly Muslim nations now less scientifically or technologically advanced than many predominantly Christian ones, and what should they do to catch up”?

[Truth_Seeker]

Wonderful. We’ve passed from Camus to Kerouac. December’s stream-of-consciousness debating style has taken us from why Muslims don’t win Nobel prizes to why Amnesty International hates Israel. It is bad enough to hijack your own thread, but December manages to hijack his own posts.

originally posted by December
**Mahathir’s statement illustrated the importance of culture. As we all know, some countries that were poor in the late 1940’s have succeeded in becoming wealthy and well-educated. E.g., Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, Japan.

**
Yes. What of it? Some countries were rich that are now poor. What are you suggesting these four countries have in common besides not being Muslim? Or are you saying that simply not being Muslim is enough?

Second, what is this constant babbling about “Muslim culture?” Islam is a religion. The idea that all Muslims share the same “culture” is laughable. Chinese Muslims have have no more in common culturally with, for example, Indian Muslims than Nebraskan Christians have with Sudanese Christians.

By the way, I hate to break it to you, but lots of Muslims outside the Mid-East really don’t care about Israel that much one way or the other. Muslim folks in, say, Indonesia or China or India – or even Pakistan – are not all planning their lives around the destruction of Israel, as you seem to imply.

[Truth_Seeker]

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Sparc!

[december]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
December’s stream-of-consciousness debating style…

Since you’ve criticized a “stream-of-consiousness debating style,” it’s only fair to hold you to your own standards,

What of it? Some countries were rich that are now poor. What are you suggesting…

I’m suggesting that poverty alone isn’t a sufficient explanation for lack of technical advancement.

Second, what is this constant babbling about “Muslim culture?” Islam is a religion. The idea that all Muslims share the same “culture” is laughable.

Calling something “laughable” looks like stream-of-conciousness debating. Are you saying there are no common elements (beyond religion) to Muslim cultures? Please explain your assertion and provide evidence. And, why should we believe your opinion, rather than Mahathir Mohamad’s?

I hate to break it to you, but lots of Muslims outside the Mid-East really don’t care about Israel that much one way or the other.

Again, what is your evidence of the feelings of citizens of these countries toward Israel? What fraction of their Muslim citizens have antipathy towards Israel? Please cite your sources.

[sup]Gee, criticizing someone’s lack of cites is fun, and it doesn’t require any research or knowledge at all.[/sup]

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by december *
Are you saying there are no common elements (beyond religion) to Muslim cultures?

Hrrrmmm…Well, see, it sort of seems self-evident to me. If you have individuals from what can ostensibly referred to as “two different cultures”, like say Cantonese and Gujarati, and the one commonality they obviously share is belief in some form or another of Islam ( not necessarily identical, any more than Catholics and Protestants are identical ), then I would say that the only common element is that they are Muslim.

Short of spending hours discussing comparative anthropology and sociology of those two groups, I’m not sure how one would prove this.

If you can think of something else common between them, other than the universalities of the human condition, I’d be interested.

By the way what common culture do Dutch Reformed Afrikaaners in South Africa and Catholic Guatemalan Mayan Indians share other than the fact that they are ostensibly Christian?

• Tamerlane

[tomndebb]

As we all know, some countries that were poor in the late 1940’s have succeeded in becoming wealthy and well-educated. E.g., Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, Japan.

Gee, the fact that every single one of these particular countries received massive amounts of support from the world’s richest nation since WWII would have nothing to do with their ability to overcome poverty.

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by december *
** I’m suggesting that poverty alone isn’t a sufficient explanation for lack of technical advancement. **

Huh? Is that what you think links these four countries? First of all, “poverty” in terms of “low GDP per capita” is more of a symptom of a problem than it is a problem in and of itself. If you take a country without out much in the way of development and provide it with a whole bunch of highly educated citizens (human capital), provide it with ample access to cash and credit (financial capital) and a well-developed legal infrastructure you’ve got . . . Israel. Many elements are necessary for an undeveloped country to industrialize rapidly. Some very poor countries manage to get the mix right and do pretty well, for example, Botswana. Even some Muslim countries do, like Malaysia. Religion can, of course, play a role in this but it’s only one factor out of many.

I have to point out here that the question, “What caused the decline of the Islamic world relative to the West after 1400?” is a different debate than "Why hasn’t Egypt been able to industrialize its economy?

**Calling something “laughable” looks like stream-of-conciousness debating. **

**Are you saying there are no common elements (beyond religion) to Muslim cultures?

**
Some “Muslim cultures” do have some similarities beyond religion. This, however, isn’t because they’re Muslim, it’s because they have a shared history. Greece and Turkey have much in common despite the fact that Turkey is predominately Muslim while Greece is predominately Christian. The Philippines and Sweden, by contrast, have very little in common culturally despite the fact that both are 90+% Christian.

So in answer to your question, predominately Muslim countries do not necessarily have any common elements apart from religion. Religion influences the culture, but it doesn’t define it. Malaysia and Afghanistan share a religion, not a culture.

**why should we believe your opinion, rather than Mahathir Mohamad’s?

**
As per your OP, Mahathir says nothing about culture.

The veteran leader made his provocative comments in a speech to religious affairs ministers meeting for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which groups 57 Muslim countries.

Mahathir said Muslim education had concentrated too much on religious dogma, neglecting worldly subjects such as science, mathematics and philosophy.

Again, what is your evidence of the feelings of citizens of these countries toward Israel? What fraction of their Muslim citizens have antipathy towards Israel? Please cite your sources.

Well, it appears there were some protests in Indonesia!

**Around 150 Muslim students marched through Jakarta’s main streets to protest in front of the United Nations representative office and the U.S. embassy where they tried unsuccessfully to ram through a police cordon.

In the world’s most populous Muslim nation, hundreds of other demonstrators lambasted the Jewish state on the streets of Java’s old royal city Yogyakarta, and of Makassar, the capital of South Sulawesi province in the eastern part of the world’s most populous Muslim nation.

**
Fortunately,

**Although most Indonesian Muslims and major moderate Muslim organisations have condemned the Israel aggression and strongly sympathize with the Palestinian cause, calls to join a holy war in the Middle East have met muted response.

**
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020403/reuters/njak305013.html

There have actually been much, much, bigger anti-Israeli demonstrations in Europe! Forget the Indonesians, Israel ought to be worried about the French and Italians!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Mideast%20Reaction

**[sup]Gee, criticizing someone’s lack of cites is fun, and it doesn’t require any research or knowledge at all.[/sup]

**
Just your style, eh?

[DPWhite]

December is beginning to remind me of right wing provocatuer David Horowitz. Someone tries to say or do something responsible for themselves or their “organization” and the nut just bashes them over the head with it.

I think it is a good idea for people, particularly religious people, to acknowledge the role of God in their lives and to take responsibility for spreading the love and caring of God. I think it is reprehensible to take that out of context under a stupid headline and beat the responsible person over the head with it. That isn’t what the good kind of conservatism is about.

The original speech mentioned was daring and challenging to listeners to whom it was addressed. To suggest that it somehow means that Muslims are intellectually inferior by religion and culture is just disgusting. The speech was made as a challenge and inspiration, with useful and candid self-criticism, not an excuse for outsiders bash them over the head.

I note that most Americans (of whom I assume December and I are both members) rarely subject our cultural, political and religious ideas to some critical analysis of the same sort.

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by december *
Mahathir’s statement illustrated the importance of culture. As we all know, some countries that were poor in the late 1940’s have succeeded in becoming wealthy and well-educated. E.g., Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, Japan.

You may be interested to know that there were a number of tracts written in the early 1900s which explained why Japan was a) undeveloped and b) incapable of development. The reason given was that the Japanese were peculiarly unequipped for industrial labor. (Translation: Race and/or culture).

That some nations became first world countries during the post war era and some didn’t constitutes an interesting natural experiment. I don’t see how Mahathir or december has shown culture to be a more important influence than, say, economic policy. (One Illustrative Example: North vs. South Korea).

(And actually, I wouldn’t place too much weight on “Western support”, except to the extent that successful economies attract international investment. And this element is not critical IMHO, as most investment is typically financed internally.)

Apropos nothing: It’s sort of strange to say that (for example) the Bengalis are too blame for their own poverty. I could blame their governmental policy. I suppose I could blame a majority for electing that government. I find it hard though to point at a Bengali and say, “Serves you right for living in such a crappy regime.” I recognize that the OP was probably using shorthand, but I thought I might make note of this anyway.

[december]

** Truth Seeker**
Some “Muslim cultures” do have some similarities beyond religion. This, however, isn’t because they’re Muslim, it’s because they have a shared history.

I didn’t mean to claim that religion was the cause.

So in answer to your question, predominately Muslim countries do not necessarily have any common elements apart from religion. (my emphasis)

I agree.

As per your OP, Mahathir says nothing about culture.

I was defining culture broadly to include education.

Mahathir said Muslim education had concentrated too much on religious dogma, neglecting worldly subjects such as science, mathematics and philosophy.

DPWhite
December is beginning to remind me of right wing provocatuer David Horowitz

Thank you. Both of us have moved from left to right. Both of us were involved in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. However he has always been far, far more active than I.

I think it is reprehensible to take that out of context under a stupid headline and beat the responsible person over the head with it.

I agree. I’m sorry for that headline, DP.

flowbark
That some nations became first world countries during the post war era and some didn’t constitutes an interesting natural experiment. I don’t see how Mahathir or december has shown culture to be a more important influence than, say, economic policy. (One Illustrative Example: North vs. South Korea).

You are correct that I haven’t shown it, but I believe it to be true. Economist Thomas Sowell has written several books on the subject. He gives many examples where culture transcended country. That is, where immigrants took their cultural strengths and weaknesses with them.

Again, I regret the title. My point was to discuss how Muslims can turn their culture more toward technical proficiency. E.g., Japan succeeded in this sort of endeavor starting in the late 19th century.

[astorian]

I’m most disappointed by the weakness of the arguments mustered by the would-be defenders of Islam, especially because I KNOW they’re capable of much better arguments- ESPECIALLY Tom.

I mean, COME ON, Tom- trotting out the “Nobel voters are Eurocentric” canard is beneath you. That MIGHT explain why Arab poets or novelists are shunned, but what the heck is “Eurocentric” physics ort "Eurocentric " chemistry? You really think the Middle East is silled with Nobel-caliber doctors who’ve been shunned because “Eurocentric” Swedes are ignoring their miracle cures?

Perhaps intelligent people aren’t bothering to make intelligent arguments because they don’t take December seriously, and don’t want to waste serious thought or debate on a perceived troll. Maybe they were just feeling lazy. Either way, December’s critics haven’t bothered to make anything resembling a coherent rebuttal (though December certainly doesn’t help his own case, when he makes silly, obvious errors like calling ALbert Camus a Moslem).

But since December asked why so few Moslems have won Nobel Prizes (I’m going to stick to the science awards here), I’ll point out something nobody else has said: Nobel Prizes are generally awarded decades AFTER the honoree has done his best or most important work. If American scientists dominated awards in, say, the 1970s, that reflects great work they were doing in the 1930s or 1940s. If American science in the year 2002 were in serious decline (I’m not saying it is, just making a point), that might not be reflected by the Nobel Prizes for another 30 years.

Now, if you were to visit the science departments at the leading American universities right now, there’s no doubt whatsoever that you’d encounter a large number of East Asians and Middle Easterners among the top graduate students. In many of these programs, you’re far more likely to find Middle Easterners than native-born white Americans.

There are loads of brilliant young Iranian, Indian and Pakistani physicists and chemists at Harvard, CalTech, MIT, and all the other leading science programs in American academia. Many of them are doing work now that will earn them Nobel Prizes years from now.

So, make no mistake about it- there are currently MANY brilliant Moslem scientists and engineers, and many of them WILL be earning Nobel prizes in years to come.

[tomndebb]

the “Nobel voters are Eurocentric” canard is beneath you

The “Eurocentric” charge has been levelled against the Nobel committes on several occasions. Since my point was that the comment was tacked, tangential to the discussion, and was silly on the face of it, I saw no point in doing a rigorous examination of all the data. (One point made by those who claim Eurocentrism is that even the Asian recipients have generally been people who worked in Europe or North America.) Perhaps the committees are not as Eurocentric as they have been portrayed; december’s initial comment was irrelevant to the rest of the OP and has been found wanting on so many levels that my initial comment regarding its ridiculousness stands.

[ElvisL1ves]

C’mon, folks - most Nobel categories are in the sciences. Wouldn’t it be surprising if most of the awardees weren’t from, or worked in, those parts of the world that have the best facilities and other support structures for the sciences? Asians, Africans, and South Americans have been similarly “underrepresented”, but is december blaming Buddhism and animism and Catholicism for that?

Nope, we got us a simple case of Muslim-bashing here. The OP might as well have said “Nuke the towelheads!”

[Sparc]

I would like to take this opportunity to make clear all of us being bashed’s indignation and regret.

We the Swedes never meant to be Eurocentric. We the Europeans never meant to be pro-Muslim. My brethren in the nation of Islam have in confidence sworn to me that the Muslims never meant to be losers.

Therefore we are mightily sorry if we came across that way, but hell we just did as well as we could. Hence we find that the current allegations being weighed against us might be fair, but are still quite difficult to bear.

As a result, we would like to repent, and in best faith of all people’s tolerance towards each other we would very much appreciate if someone could tell us what forum and at what time thus can be best achieved.

In repentance and show of our guilt we shall at this time of reckoning sacrifice by stoning; a number of fundamentalist Imams to be determined, the EU Council, His Royal Majesty C XVI G of Sweden and Pope JP II.

Once again we apologize and sincerely hope for a day of reconciliation, even in light of our terrific transgressions.

Yours regretfully
Sparc on the behalf of;

The Kingdom of Sweden, The EU, The Roman Catholic Church and the Nation of Islam

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
REsponsibility for being colonized? Oh, as much as any victim has responsibility for not being strong enough to fight off an attacker.

I don’t think that just because a country lost a war, that automatically proves that they were the victims.

The market is an abstraction, my dear, dear Ryan.

I thought it was pretty obvious I was speaking metaphorically. Oh, right, I wasn’t speaking. I was typing.

I don’t believe a ‘special antipathy’ from the West ever entered into the equation before your useless intervention.

I think that it’s very obvious that this thread, in advancing the notion that Muslim nations are responsible for their own welfare, is obliquely addressing the idea that Christendom is responsible for Muslim countries’ welfare, and that the latter idea is greatly influenced by the idea that Christendom has a special antipathy for Muslims.

[system]

Although this is utter waste of electrons as I know very well this particular intervention has the main purpose of being deliberately obtuse:

Blame:

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
I don’t think that just because a country lost a war, that automatically proves that they were the victims.

Insofar as not one colonized nation was in any way capable of threatening the territorial integrity of any of the Euro colonial powers, one can safely characterize them as objects of aggression.

A deeper discussion of colonial history, besides being wasted on you, is also taking this off-topic.
Markets, ‘metaphorically’

I thought it was pretty obvious I was speaking metaphorically. Oh, right, I wasn’t speaking. I was typing.

Yes, it was obvious. It was also obvious that your ‘metaphorical’ point was wrong as a matter of fact and theory.

Tangents:

I think that it’s very obvious that this thread, in advancing the notion that Muslim nations are responsible for their own welfare, is obliquely addressing the idea that Christendom is responsible for Muslim countries’ welfare, and that the latter idea is greatly influenced by the idea that Christendom has a special antipathy for Muslims.

Firstly, what is “obvious” in the contex of your analysis is a highly discussable issue, but leaving that aside:

(a) The issue of development and responsibility is rather larger than ‘Christendom’ --however charmingly archaic it is-- insofar as Japan, for example, is a major donor nation.
(b) Further the issue of responsibility is the actual history of colonization, which if it has not escaped you, was undertaken by a sub-set of ostensiblely Xtian nations. There is, if only by chance, an overlap.
© The concept of antipathy does not of necessity enter into the issue, and certainly was not part of the discussion up the point where your intervention interjected it, as such your phrasing rather injected the idea, and falsely implied it was already in the convo. Of course, the issue of … semantical clarity does come to mind.

[Truth_Seeker]

I’m in a bit of a hurry today so I’ll just hit the low points.

*Originally posted by december *
**I didn’t mean to claim that religion was the cause.

**
Let’s see, you now claim religion isn’t the cause. However, we’ve also established that there is no such thing as “Muslim culture,” despite your continued sloppy use of the phrase. So it’s not religion and it’s not culture . . . What are we supposed to be discussing? Is there anything left of the OP?

**I was defining culture broadly to include education.

** Frankly, I find this disingenuous. You ask for explantations and evidence, get them from several sources and then say “I meant education!” If that’s what you meant, you should have simply clarified matters rather than wasting everyone’s time.

In any event, education also varies widely in Muslim countries. I don’t believe Turkey, for example, teaches religion in public schools at all. Lots of Muslim countries have poor educational systems, but it’s generally not because all the teachers are radical fundamentalist Islamic clerics. Even the Madrassa system in Pakistan (which is made up of private schools often funded by Saudis) that has gotten so much bad press is a result of the failure of public education. Kids usually attend them because they have no other choice.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Insofar as not one colonized nation was in any way capable of threatening the territorial integrity of any of the Euro colonial powers, one can safely characterize them as objects of aggression.

For both Algeria and the Ottoman Empire, and probably many others, a very strong case can be made that they were the aggressor.

(a) The issue of development and responsibility is rather larger than ‘Christendom’ --however charmingly archaic it is-- insofar as Japan, for example, is a major donor nation.

Donor nation? What does that mean?

(b) Further the issue of responsibility is the actual history of colonization, which if it has not escaped you, was undertaken by a sub-set of ostensiblely Xtian nations. There is, if only by chance, an overlap.

I think that my cohice of terms was sufficiently clear.

© The concept of antipathy does not of necessity enter into the issue, and certainly was not part of the discussion up the point where your intervention interjected it, as such your phrasing rather injected the idea, and falsely implied it was already in the convo. Of course, the issue of … semantical clarity does come to mind.

I have already explained how I think that it enters. Instead of responding to htat, you have simply repeated what you already said.

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *

For both Algeria and the Ottoman Empire, and probably many others, a very strong case can be made that they were the aggressor.

How many others? Care to provide a list?

I can think of one other possible “agressor” - Burma in 1824. What they were threatening was largely territory that Britain coveted/considered in their sphere of colonial influence. Hardly Britain herself. The territories annexed after the Burmese defeat of 1826 weren’t core Burmese territories, but rather outlying areas like Arakan and Tennasserim that Burma had conquered themselves in the course of their own empire building. Regions that had no say in Burmese aggression and presumably were peopled with folk yearning to be free, rather than be incorporated into the apparatus of a different imperial power. And the second and third Anglo-Burmese wars that led to the progressive annexation of the rest of the country were pretty much completely British instigated affairs.

The Ottoman Empire - Moribund and decayed state that was no threat in of itself, but was showing signs of modernization and development. The Anglo-French ( and attempted Greek ) partition was a.) Based on inertia and sheer greed and b.) In hindsight ( and even in some analyses at the time ) was probably a mistake that set the stage for future tragedies in the region.

Algeria and the North African coast in general ( exclusive of Egypt and Morocco, which IMO have little argument for their permanent conquest other than pure colonial aggrandisement ) were sources of piracy, 'tis true. But declining sources. By the 19th century they were less vital threats than they were annoyances. You might be able to make the argument that punitive campaigns were justified. But permanent annexation and an attempt to maintain that into the mid-20th century as a cure for piracy? Doesn’t hold up.

If you want to make an argument that colonial expansion was defensive in nature to any significant degree ( or any degree at all ), you’ll have to make a stronger case.

• Tamerlane