Islam, backward?

It's fair to say that most Islamic societies are backward, but that is a different statement from saying that Muslims are backward. Individual by individual any Muslim or Arab person is no better or worse than any Westerner.

"The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000" by Paul Kennedy is an interesting read on why starting from similiar levels of underdevelopment about 150 years ago Arab societies and economies have failed to develop where East Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have thrived.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006860524/qid=1087733594/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_2/026-6826900-7060468

The most extreme Islamic Wahhabist fundamentalists (al Queda) aim to impose Islamic rule across the world and to kill or enslave all non-Muslims. There was a program about these extremists operating in Europe on TV a few weeks ago, a group called al-Majihiroun (?). They also interviewed some moderate Muslims who made a very good point that these people are happy to come to countries like the UK or France and use the freedom of speech here to undermine and attack our democracies and yet if they tried to do that in an Arab country like Egypt or Syria they would find quickly themselves in prison having their gonads attached to the national grid.

The moderates they interviewed also said that they felt that these extremists carry out terrorist atrocities but they (the moderates) have to take the backlash. As an Irish person I felt complete empathy with that. - I knew exactly where they were coming from.

The perceived "backwardness" of Islam is more to do with the wealth and traditions of Islamic countries than the religion itself.

Actually I think it does have a lot to do with Islam itself - not in sofar as the religion is backward but the effect it has had. Though on the surface Christianity and Islam are fairly similar theyre actually poles apart. Christianitys founder was the son of a carpenter, a religious dissident and executed as a threat to the state. One of his teachings was give unto caesar what is caesar and give unto god what is gods, supporting the idea of a seperation between church and state. His followers were persecuted for hundreds of years before finally being accepted. when the roman Empire moved to Byzantium, the Bishop of Rome remained in what was now a backwater threatened by the Germans, granting him independance from the Imperial court.

On the other hand the founder of Islam was a King and a general who successfully defeated his enemies and founded an empire, which his successors spread by sword and treaty in an exsplosive exspansion across north africa, the Iberian penninsula, into central France, north across the middle east to the boundaries of the roman empire which they eventually overwhelmed, invading as far as Austrian Vienna.

The point is that the idea of a seperation of Church and State is alien to the islamic culture. The prophet was their leader both in spiritual and temporal spheres. Without that sort of seperation, liberty suffers - there is no secular law, only religious law, theres no checks and balances to protect the rights of individuals and so on and so forth. In that light, it contributes to backwardness.

Wasn't Christianity like this for a long time, until the Middle Ages? Didn't the church control most of Europe up until this time? I would argue that Christianity did not have this ethic of the seperation of church and state either until this time. It was only when Europe began colonising (and became more wealthy) and underwent the renaissance did the seperation begin.

No, I dont think so - For the first 400 years the Church was illegal. After that the dominant state collapsed leaving the Church isolated, and it actually acted a restraining force on the dozens of autocratic kings, dukes and barons. It certainly didnt control Europe as many popes were slain, blinded, deposed and so on and so forth by those rulers over history. When the Church became too powerful the reformation provided another brake on the influence of the Pope. So, there was competing powers that restrained each other from total power.

The struggles in Europe between the Church and the kings, between the kings and their aristocrats, between the church and dissidents led to the establishment of laws and rights to keep the peace - the Treat of Westphalia in 1648 ended decades of war by simply stating the religion of a state was the religion of the ruler, end of story and providing some rights to freedom of worship. The same for stuff like the Magna Carta where rebelling barons forced King John to give them rights that prevented them simply being dragged off an executed whenever he chose.

Slowly but surely, liberties began to be established and protected, leading to economic development and greater tolerance, culminating with the spread of democracy.

That sort of patchwork of competing institutions didnt exist in the Islamic world - the temporal ruler was also the spiritual leader. Neither did the religion have that "oppressed by the state" heritgage. I think that has a greater effect on the character of the Islamic world than relatively late and short colonisation by European powers. If real, free, open elections where held in say, Saudi Arabia , right now - its practically certain the most fundamentalist, anti western, anti democratic, anti modernisation/social reform party would win. That would happen across the Middle East. Even in Turkey (which has never been colonised) , the army had to "overrule" democratic elections that returned an Islamic dominated government as recently as 1998. And Turkey is the most secular Islamic state around. Islam is contributing to the problems there, not solving them.

Originally posted by tom dunne
Didn't the power of the church give rise to the reformation?

No,
the power of the church was incidental, the reason why the reformation began was because Luther was angry at the corruption of the Church the selling of indulgences his belief in the doctrine of justification by faith alone etc...