Do you guys think that the major Islamic nations will modernize any time soon? Or are they developing into some kind of anti-western religion?
My definition of a religion “modernizing” is that it becomes less extreme & more aligned with high-tech culture, but you can certainly use your own definition if you see differently.
Why would they? They have no need to. It’s a very big religion. I think modernizing would make more people leave than the number it would attract. The only thing I think might happen (as did last century witht the Catholic church) is they might loosen up about the Quran and other materials being translated. As I understand, that is a big no no. Other than that, no. There is no need to. The Catholic church is closer to the brink of dying out and they’re not really changing either.
I think it’s definitely possible. But these countries seem fairly able to use Western technology without adopting Western social views. I believe that technology is socially/politically neutral, ultimately. A country could be completely up to date technologically and still be a religious theocracy.
Whether or not the Islamic world becomes more socially and religiously tolerant depends on whether or not they can start seeing mankind as one group rather than as Muslim vs. Non-Muslim. Or Sunni Muslim vs. Shi-ite Muslim or whatever. I believe all men all across the world can be brothers if they can lay down their religious differences and see each other as human beings. Will they do this? I don’t know. I hope so. But that’s the answer.
Is Christianity “modernized?” Danish Christianity is different than Ugandan Christianity. Nepalese Buddhism is different than Japanese Buddhism.
It’s not religion, it’s culture. Islam is found from Senegal to Indonesia. That’s a lot of cultures. How can you begin to predict what will happen to dozens of cultures in countries as diverse as Burkina Faso, China, Bulgaria, Bangladesh, Iran and the Phillipines?
This is more of a GD topic, but I don’t believe this is sustainable. Up-to-date technology means non-restricted access to the internet. Browsing the internet means being exposed to alternative views, where open-mindedness is encouraged. Totalitarian theocracies survive on ignorance of the common people. It’s much easier to control the masses when they don’t know that similarly-oppressed citizens of other countries are revolting in the streets.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
I dunno. China censors their internet, but I don’t think anyone would claim that they’re not “up to date” technologically. They have the technology, they just don’t give their citizens unrestricted access.
For that matter, Iran also censors its interwebs - a technologically advanced theocracy.
The joy of running a theocracy, of course, is that the common people can be relied upon to keep themselves in ignorance and organise their own oppression – because that’s what they think God wants.
I don’t think wide-spread and unrestricted internet access has had a significant influence on opinions in the US regarding evolution, for instance.
Not that I’m suggesting that America is a theocracy, of course, but I don’t see why eastern Muslims would be any easier to persuade from their beliefs than western Christians.
Yes, if all men could just get along the way brothers do . . . :eek: . . . Did you ever have a brother?!
Have you read the posts on American message boards? People are stupid, they want to be stupid, and they don’t care at all about what the “truth” is. Look at how the US is reacting to the “threat” of Islamic influence. Is that us being “open minded”? Now put yourselves in the shoes of someone in a Muslim country who sees their entire culture under attack from western influences. If we freak out at someone wearing a head scarf, think how they feel to see someone who in their eyes might as well be naked walking down the street.
As for “controlling the masses”, our elite somehow convinced us that we should spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives to attack Iraq. Meanwhile they have the masses supporting economic and tax policies that are against their own interest.
Since Muslims are one giant uniform group I declare Muslims already modernized because selecting one part of a monolithic, uniform whole is just sampling. Turkey is a major Muslim nation, has embraced capitalism and democratic governance and now is trying to produce its own assault rifle. Question answered.
For my purposes, a religion “modernizes” when it starts tolerating a non-literal interpretation of its holy books. Thus far I don’t think that’s occurring much in Islam.
So I don’t think they’ll modernize soon, given that definition.
No, looking at the history here I would say a religion “modernizes” when it starts simply paying less attention to its holy books, however interpreted. Indifferentism is civilization’s best friend. When the majority of Muslims are “Ramadan-and-Hajj” Muslims the way there are “Easter and Christmas” Christians, modernity will have come.
Does not seem likely, especially if we look at the past record. Religion is about blind faith, which in turn is a state of mind. Technological advancement cannot do anything to change a person’s faith.
Islam by its nature is an extremely closed religion, and strongly discourages thinking outside of its set guidelines. Generally speaking, a person brought up as a believing Muslim is highly unlikely to even attempt to analyse or question his beliefs, and this is regardless of which country he/she is brought up in.
the lunatic libtard [del]atheocracy[/del] idiocracy thrives in the West despite all the technology and despite the Conservative opposition’s use of the internet to oppose their lies. The same can apply to Muslim theocracies or Baath-type fascist regimes, except they might be more proactive in shutting down websites with opposing views and punishing people who voice them.
While there are many undeveloped Muslim countries, some are developing rapidly, e.g. the traditionally prosperous and regionally dominant nations of Iran and Turkey. If the nearby Arabs remain underdeveloped and basically a punching bag for non-Arab powers (both regional and foreign) then it is hardly the fault of their religion as such.
That definition is not meaningful. To take the technology aspect first, how many religions are there that take any stance against technology? The only ones I can name are fringe groups like the Amish. Some people believe, as Rachellelogram suggested that the internet will necessarily work against radicalization because “open-mindedness is encouraged”. I have to wonder whether people who believe that have ever been on the internet.
The first part of your definition depends on the definition of “extreme”. At least according to normal understandings of the term, Islam is far more extreme now than it was fifty years ago or even three hundred years ago. From roughly 1400 to 1900 the Middle East and North Africa were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which had no desire to see fanatical Islamic groups within its borders. The Ottoman Empire fell apart during WWI and was replaced by various secular regimes, most of which sought to rebuild their countries along western lines. But in the 60’s and 70’s those regimes failed and radical Muslim groups stepped in to fill the void.
There already are “Ramadan Muslims” the same way there are “Easter-and-Christmas Christians” and “Rosh-Hashanah-and-Yom-Kippur Jews.” There are churches that share parking lots with mosques because they need overflow parking on different days. Many Muslim youth in America and other Western states are as thoroughly Westernized and liberal in their interpretations of Islam as any Christian who attends church only occasionally. There is as great a cultural range in Islam as there is in Christianity; consider the differences between modern-day Liberal Quakers and Southern Baptists, or between Unitarians and the Amish. To speak of Islam as a whole “modernizing” is a little silly; many groups will modernize drastically as Western culture has an influence, while others will fight to move in the other direction as a reaction. But it’s not a single monolithic entity, just like Christianity.
The first question would be how this applies to religions that don’t have a holy book or books.
The second, though, more clearly points out the flaw in the whole discussion. Some people seem to assume that all religions will follow the same path of intellectual development. In that formulation some people seem to think that a religion must have a renaissance around the 14th century just as surely as person must go through puberty around their 14th year.
But this presupposes that all religions are basically the same, which they are not. Christianity and Judaism are the only religions that ever “modernized” in the way that OP seems to have in mind. Some folks hold to a narrative in which Christianity opposed all steps of movement from pre-modern to modern society. But if Christianity actually supported those steps, that would explain why western civilization, starting out far behind other civilizations in the early Middle Ages, leaped ahead of the others by the end of the Middle Ages. It would also explain why waiting for Islam to “modernize” is an exercise in futility.
Christians and Jews believed in a living God who guides human history, and that holy books are intended to help us build a relationship with God. Muslims believed that God’s final revelation to humanity came through one particular book written in the 500’s. By definition Islam cannot incorporate any theology, philosophy, or wisdom from any other source. There’s no point in trying to get Islam to “tolerate a non-literal interpretation” or “pay less attention”. If that happens it won’t be Islam any more.
The “major Islamic nations” are modernized.
Top 6 largest Muslim nations:
Turkey(70 million people)-modern democracy, NATO ally, seeking EU membership
Indonesia(230 million people)constitution grants freedom of religion, has constantly over many decades popularly rejected movements to officially become an Islamic republic
Bangladesh(160 million)yet another secular democracy
Iran(75 million)extremely wired and cosmopolitan country, though currently a religious dictatorship. I’ve known 3 Persian women in my life. All very chic, smoking hot, Muslim, and just as easy as any Baptist.
Pakistan(170 million)yeah its officially an Islamic republic. But practices the most liberal and tolerant form of Islamic Law(hanafi). Mostly Sufi influenced moderate form of Islam.
Egypt(80 million)one of two Arab countries at peace with Israel. Just look at the recent uprising. Not much fundamentalist or traditionalist about it.
Did you have something else in mind when you meant major Islamic nation?