Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments?

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

to give a crude example that I am sure you guys will misinterpret again as me suggesting Islam is backwards etc (its really because I watched a very interesting documentary on this). imagine if we were an amazonian tribe. some western researchers came and took us to a modern world with technology and different value systems etc. then we went back to our own society. some people said our way of life is compatible with theirs. others said lets reject it. a third said lets mix and match a fourth said lets all become like americans. consider their thought process with that of the tribe in the next village that was undisturbed. do you agree that Muslims living in modernity have this kind of thought process in comparison to the ones who were lets say ‘undisturbed’?

This is the documentary by the way, very interesting/disturbing: BBC Four - Storyville, Secrets of the Tribe

[kakaballi]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@ravage

lets set aside the question of inferior/superior. when I say modern, i am referring to a society with the following properties: a market economy with relations of capital that is industrialized, where the nation-state is a meaningful concept, where power is based on democracy, where religious figures do not have formal power and the state's function is secular in nature (it is not carrying out responsibilities in service of God but the people that elected it. It has been a long time since any country sent a letter to a neighbouring country asking it to convert to its religion and accept its authority for example). An age where authority is decentralized and state functions are rationalized, and science/empirical measures are used to advocate for responsibilities of the state, and religion is diminished into a way of thinking. It is these phenomena that are positively correlated with development; countries with higher HDI type indicators tend to have more of these properties than others...........

You cannot leave the question of superior/inferior aside as far as the question of certain civilizations being influential on other societies is concerned. It is a stroke of luck that we are living in times when 'superior' civilizations have the properties you described. The characteristics of 'superior' civilizations become a model for other nations/states to follow and they are not necessarily the ideals.

The ideas that you are calling 'modern' come from those civilizations which happen to be strong and powerful at this point in time of history. At the times of Persian empire or Middle ages, the world ideals were different. Many of those 'modern' ideas are present in Islamic tradition if we decide to look closely and follow them. Ofcourse, the people living in 'modern' countries would be influenced by their ideas either because they like them or because they do not want to be considered 'paindu' by those societies.

The ideas that you are calling 'Muslim thought process' are those generic ideas that historically were common in weaker and oppressive societies where a small section of people exploit a large majority through the use of religion or social 'regulations'. It is only a coincidence that we are living in times that almost all countries with Muslim majority are economically and politically weak.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

lets say you are right about historically there being different centers of power that project their ideas. if so, at some point a Christian may have asked his fellow Christians.. hey guys, do we have two ways of thinking, one in a Christian light and one in this powerful, encompassing dominating idea of the world?

The question I put does not change even if at different points different ideas have dominated the world. you are mixing an idea that does not change my question, with a compatibility idea about Islam and modernity.

[diwana]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@ravage

lets set aside the question of inferior/superior. when I say modern, i am referring to a society with the following properties: a market economy with relations of capital that is industrialized, where the nation-state is a meaningful concept, where power is based on democracy, where religious figures do not have formal power and the state’s function is secular in nature (it is not carrying out responsibilities in service of God but the people that elected it. It has been a long time since any country sent a letter to a neighbouring country asking it to convert to its religion and accept its authority for example). An age where authority is decentralized and state functions are rationalized, and science/empirical measures are used to advocate for responsibilities of the state, and religion is diminished into a way of thinking. It is these phenomena that are positively correlated with development; countries with higher HDI type indicators tend to have more of these properties than others.

Consider this forum. When the question of gay marriage comes up, you have many arguing for or against it. Where did this question come from? What arguments do they use? Lets consider the question of stoning that was in PA. Most would not participate it in themselves. Some say they dont because they are not convinced that the person is guilty, a very modern notion of your place in society vis a vis the qazi. You have a few people arguing for such penalties with the notion that it deters crime. That seems to me a modern, utilitarian defence of a religiously mandated punishment. People will similarly say that such punishments apply only to people who have basically had public sex (4 witnesses), and Islam doesnt want public indecency. Others will characterize irtidad penaties as treason. You have some Muslims saying lets allow alcohol but tax it very highly so that it discourages people from drinking it. Consider this forum itself! You have a religion forum suggesting that religion has its place, you have many others such as politics, life and relationships etc etc where religiously based opinion is only one, usually marginal form of input.

These are modern rationalizations of religion, and symptomatic of the two ways of thinking most Muslims in modernity have. When confronted with any given issue or news event they will think in two ways. They will think of it in a rational/secular light and they will think of it in a religious light. One side or the other might win, or they may try to reconcile these two. But this two sided thinking will happen in some order to some degree.

All I am doing is asking whether you agree that those of us who live in modern countries or in cities in Pakistan (more developed, more modern) have these two ways of thinking, which I am contrasting with Muslim thought process in earlier times, or Muslim thought process in underdeveloped countries/regions. I am not saying that earlier times were illiterate or they abused women etc, nor am I (atleast as yet :)) putting down people who live in underdeveloped parts of the Muslim world.

@ravage

to give a crude example that I am sure you guys will misinterpret again as me suggesting Islam is backwards etc (its really because I watched a very interesting documentary on this). imagine if we were an amazonian tribe. some western researchers came and took us to a modern world with technology and different value systems etc. then we went back to our own society. some people said our way of life is compatible with theirs. others said lets reject it. a third said lets mix and match a fourth said lets all become like americans. consider their thought process with that of the tribe in the next village that was undisturbed. do you agree that Muslims living in modernity have this kind of thought process in comparison to the ones who were lets say ‘undisturbed’?

This is the documentary by the way, very interesting/disturbing: BBC Four - Storyville, Secrets of the Tribe

Sorry ravage,

You come out to be very confused person by writing some of statements above.

You say words like modern and underdeveloped and then say forget about superior or inferior.

You did try to equate word Islamic to underdeveloped. Not really true. Islam does not put gun to people who want to progress. ( anti-Islamics do)

Very mixed up thoughts you posted by the way.

Try bullet points and instead of writing a whole paragraph with mixed up ideas, and write short sentences making one point each.

Bottom line: Say clearly what you want to say so it can be discussed further. Thanks.

[kakaballi]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@ravage

lets say you are right about historically there being different centers of power that project their ideas. if so, at some point a Christian may have asked his fellow Christians.. hey guys, do we have two ways of thinking, one in a Christian light and one in this powerful, encompassing dominating idea of the world?

The question I put does not change even if at different points different ideas have dominated the world. you are mixing an idea that does not change my question, with a compatibility idea about Islam and modernity.

When the Moors were ruling over the area that is called Spain now, they had what you call 'Islamic Thought' and were the most modern civilization by the standards of that time. Their massive contribution to development of 'modern' Europe, primarily through translations and dissemination of knowledge is accepted by all.

You somehow think that Islamic ideas stifle development which is opposite to what it should be. It is exactly the unislamic ideas that are keeping many so-called-Islamic states 'under developed'.

[picoico]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@ravage

(it is not carrying out responsibilities in service of God but the people that elected it. It has been a long time since any country sent a letter to a neighbouring country asking it to convert to its religion and accept its authority for example).

Any modern country, you mean? I think you're confusing an imperial zero-sum mentality with something that is somehow exclusively religious. The state of affairs has only marginally evolved. During the cold war, the hostility rooted in ideological differences was not much better. Western hostility to Islamism (and vice versa) is essentially a cold war scenario...again, not much better than a blunt demand for the other to 'convert' to one's ideals. :)

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@diwana

Sorry ravage,
You come out to be very confused person by writing some of statements above.
You say words like modern and underdeveloped and then say forget about superior or inferior.
You did try to equate word Islamic to underdeveloped. Not really true. Islam does not put gun to people who want to progress. ( anti-Islamics do)
Very mixed up thoughts you posted by the way.
Try bullet points and instead of writing a whole paragraph with mixed up ideas, and write short sentences making one point each.
Bottom line: Say clearly what you want to say so it can be discussed further. Thanks.

Sorry my writing confuses you. Im afraid not everything can be written in bullet form. You again made several defensive suppositions that I wont bother correcting. If you cant discuss the issue, that sucks for me, but I’ll survive.

@kakaballi

When the Moors were ruling over the area that is called Spain now, they had what you call ‘Islamic Thought’ and were the most modern civilization by the standards of that time. Their massive contribution to development of ‘modern’ Europe, primarily through translations and dissemination of knowledge is accepted by all.

As did I! I already asked the same question in light of your presentation of history i.e. different regions had power at different times, at one point it was Islam, and Islam was projecting the ideas of the age. That just means that other religions would have had to grapple with this question.

You somehow think that Islamic ideas stifle development which is opposite to what it should be. It is exactly the unislamic ideas that are keeping many so-called-Islamic states ‘under developed’.

No, Islam doesnt have an issue with development.. everyone wants development I think the conflict is between Islam and modernity (and modernity is correlated with development). Aspects of it you say are compatible, I never questioned that. I’ve constantly been saying that there are different approaches to synthesizing/adapting/rejecting the two types of thinking, and this effort will dominate intellectual thought.

@picoico

Any modern country, you mean? I think you’re confusing an imperial zero-sum mentality with something that is somehow exclusively religious. The state of affairs has only marginally evolved. During the cold war, the hostility rooted in ideological differences was not much better. Western hostility to Islamism (and vice versa) is essentially a cold war scenario…again, not much better than a blunt demand for the other to ‘convert’ to one’s ideals.

I agree. I dont consider imperialism or faux-imperialism in the least better. Modernity does not imply that I am flattering them, unfortunately the assumption by many is that I am saying modernity->civilized. While American/Colonial imperialism was a demand to ‘convert’ it was not a religious demand (which is lets it be modern). And while Islamism does have that demand to convert, its not coming from a Muslim state.

[kakaballi]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@ravage

.....As did I! I already asked the same question in light of your presentation of history i.e. different regions had power at different times, at one point it was Islam, and Islam was projecting the ideas of the age. That just means that other religions would have had to grapple with this question......

So, at one point in time, ideas and traditions of people called Muslims were accepted as most modern in the world and that is the answer to the title of this thread.

It is not the religions that face these questions. It is just civilizations going through different cycles in history. (Un)fortunately, we are living in one where areas with Muslim majority populations are underdeveloped and it is relatively recent phenomenon (last 300 years). Dark ages in Europe didn't mean that it was actually Christianity what was a problem.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@kakaballi

So, at one point in time, ideas and traditions of people called Muslims were accepted as most modern in the world and that is the answer to the title of this thread.

Slight correction. Muslims would not be accepted as ‘modern’ at the time of their power. Modernity in the sense I am using, refers to a set of social attitudes and structures that are prettyspecific to this age. Yes Muslims in their ascendancy would be developed and not modern.

It is not the religions that face these questions. It is just civilizations going through different cycles in history. (Un)fortunately, we are living in one where areas with Muslim majority populations are underdeveloped and it is relatively recent phenomenon (last 300 years). Dark ages in Europe didn’t mean that it was actually Christianity what was a problem.

The thread is about living in the world we live in. It could be that at one point Muslims were projecting the ideas of their age, but they are not. All the initial question was, which ought to be a pretty simple ‘yes’ once you understand the context, is do we have two ways of thinking… one with modernity which we can call in your terminology the idea of the age, and one with an Islamic hat on (unless we live in an environment where the first does not impact us).

This cyclical view of history btw is an alien idea anyway. Abrahamic religions have [linear conceptions of history](http://www.allaboutworldview.org/christianity-
and-history-linear-conception-of-history-faq.htm), with some allowance for ups and downs.

[kakaballi]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

^ There is world beyond wikipedia. Please find accepted and respected definitions of modernity in sociology and political science literature and let me know if they contradict with ‘Islamic thoughts’ as you put. The Moors were as ‘modern’ as any western state now. Reading history would clearly answer the question: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments?

If you correlate modernity with secularism, then obviously you will find clashes and the question becomes so obvious that it doesn’t need an answer.

If you are impressed by ideas such as those presented in this book, then you might be interested in some of the responses as well. If you do believe that the modern philosophy has roots in independence, individual liberties and freedom of thoughts, then you might also read up on what went on during ‘modern’ imperialistic expansions.

Please be clear on what you are really trying to say.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@kakaballi

^ There is world beyond wikipedia. Please find accepted and respected definitions of modernity in sociology and political science literature and let me know if they contradict with ‘Islamic thoughts’ as you put. The Moors were as ‘modern’ as any western state now. Reading history would clearly answer the question: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments?

Please dont assume that just because Im citing wikipedia, that is my source. Wikipedia happens to be one of the most accessible sources of info, but please do specify what particular parts of the modernity writeup you disagree with and on what basis. In the meanwhile lets quote some definitions from sociological/historical departments, and see if it conflicts with what I have been saying so far:

It deals primarily with the presuppositions and consequences of the two “cumulative and mutually reinforcing processes”: (1) Rationalization (development of market economy coupled with the rise of state bureaucracy and political participation), and (2) Secularization (disintegration of religious world view and creation of autonomous spheres of science, morality and art).

http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/rise.htm

see this little intro slide:

http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI2110/Lectures/Lect2/sld002.htm

Modernity was understood in three ways. It concerned the development of a capitalist economy based on the use of science to develop new technology, the emergency of states with bureaucracies allied with military organizations, and the decline of religious authority as the main arbiter of moral values accompanied by the rise of the model of the self interested purposive actor.

Redirect Notice

This is modernity as defined by Weber, Marx, Durkheim etc, and extended later on by sociologists. Can you, using definitions of any one of these people, describe the Moors as modern? If so I’d be very interested.

If you correlate modernity with secularism, then obviously you will find clashes and the question becomes so obvious that it doesn’t need an answer.

Secularism is an aspect, I’d add individualism, rationalism and mechanisation of the state’s bureaucracy, lately globalism/consumerism, the prevalence of science as an arbiter of physical and social reality even intruding into the moral sphere, pluralism, the absence of certainty and the fragmentation of authority, isolation and alienation of individuals, the diminution of religious authority. Its not just secularism.

If you are impressed by ideas such as those presented in this book, then you might be interested in some of the responses as well. If you do believe that the modern philosophy has roots in independence, individual liberties and freedom of thoughts, then you might also read up on what went on during ‘modern’ imperialistic expansions.

I am not motivated by the book you mention, and you assume too much if you think I romanticize imperialism or even modernity. For myself, please note that I have been writing [each is a separate link, and should also give an idea about my sources and view of modernity] about the attendant lack of meaning and certainty in modern life for a while, with an unstated post-modernist pov. For sociology, lets remember that prominent sociologists suggest that genocidal events such as the holocaust are anaspect of modernity, I think, convincingly.

Be honest though, did you actually read the response you linked to, because then you’d have come across this:

They [Muslims] live within Winfield’s post-protestant modernity, and like the millions of Protestants and Catholics, atheists, agnostics and those of a myriad other faiths, work out their own series of contextual responses.

Which is essentially I am saying. So do you agree with what you have cited?

The response you quote by the way is a post-modernist rebuttal of a modernist book. As it happens, post-modernists now comprise of liberals who are somewhat multicultural, and dont wish to give the values developed during the modernist age precedence. Post-modernists are relativists, modernists are relative absolutists. Post-modernists would resist intrusion in other cultures on issues such as FGM, which modernists might rail against on human rights grounds, while post-modernists would resist on cultural relativism grounds. Does not mean that the conception of modernity has changed.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

a few short clips of a philospher most closely reflecting my view of modernity.

modern faith (paul ricoeur)

orwell was a pie eyed optimist

kafka's sunday stroll

marcuse's optimism

fight to feel anything

consciousness and despair

[kakaballi]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

You want to preserve the concept of modernity in 'post-modern' times but you are not allowing me to take it back a few hundred years! :P

You found out what I was trying to say. I will summarize it. The situation with 'Muslim world' is not because of 'Islamic thought' but because of contexts and factors beyond religion, the reactions to which are sometimes justified using religion.

In the context of your original question, please answer two questions.

1. Do you think "individualism, rationalism and mechanisation of the state's bureaucracy, lately globalism/consumerism, the prevalence of science as an arbiter of physical and social reality even intruding into the moral sphere, pluralism, the absence of certainty and the fragmentation of authority, isolation and alienation of individuals" being exhibitions of 'modernization are also the sources of development?

2. What aspects of modernism that aid in economic development of nations (apart form reduced influence of religion on state and economic institutions) clash with "pure Islamic thought"?

P.S. let me know what do I have to do with the bunch of course outlines you linked here? :P

[kakaballi]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@ravage

a few short clips of a philospher most closely reflecting my view of modernity......

Ohhh... I get it now...

Modernity is creation of armies of zombies without ability or time to think about things that were supposed to be important, their roles pre-determined, and doing what they are told to, without question.. Naaa, not compatible with religion at all. Thanks.

Over and out.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

^ you constantly misunderstand my question as one of compatibility. Even if you found it compatible with modernity in every respect that would still be a synthesis of two systems of thought.

I wouldnt say that these are post-modern times... post-modernism had huge sway about 10 years ago in the social sciences, and they were explicitly feuding against a scientific world-view associated with modernism.. they've diminished in influence now.

1) Some may be sources of development, others may be consequences of it. The reliance on technology, the bureaucratization of the state making it rule bound and efficient (also resulting in alienation etc), capitalism, possibly consumerism are sources of development. Increased decentralization, individualism, fragmentation of meaning resulting from eroding traditional authority etc are consequences.

2) Thats an incorrect way of looking at it. You are apparently looking at it from a social policy planning perspective where you want to adopt some things not adopt others and grow the economy. Im looking at it from an individual's perspective. We live in this modern world (most of us on this forum atleast), with the particular values and social systems the modern world has. A number of them, such as secularism, individualism, gender roles, sexuality, notions of public/private property and rights, notions of human dignity, notions of international law, values related to pluralism and religious equality and so on... engender thought processes in the same individual derived from two distinctly different systems of thought: modern and Islamic. Sometimes one will be rejected in favor of the other, other times there will be a synthesis or mapping of the two. This should not be a controversial claim.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@kakaballi

P.S. let me know what do I have to do with the bunch of course outlines you linked here? :P

I'd like you to substantiate your claims about Moors being modern by the definitions you suggested I look up sociological/political etc. You expressed mistrust of wikipedia, well, basic definitions from college courses are pretty much the same as wiki. I'd like you to make your point about the Moors with some basis rather than just claiming it.

You told me about the world that existed outside wikipedia. Show me this world where the moors are modern in the eyes of sociologists and political scientists.

@kakaballi

Ohhh... I get it now...

Modernity is creation of armies of zombies without ability or time to think about things that were supposed to be important, their roles pre-determined, and doing what they are told to, without question.. Naaa, not compatible with religion at all. Thanks.

Over and out.

A completely reductive presentation of a very deeply thought out philosopher. Not sure why you'd want to do that.

[dhanya_podena]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

@ravage

I avoided using the word progress as it is somewhat subjective. Modernity and development are both somewhat empirical terms, whereas progress I guess depends on where you start. I wouldnt qualify Iran as either modern or developed (nor do I regard it as progressive for that matter).

Lets begin with some definitions:

Modernity typically denotes “a post-traditional, post-medieval historical period”, in particular, one marked by progress from agrarianism via the rise of industrialism, capitalism, secularization, the nation-state, and its constituent institutions and forms of surveillance (Barker 2005, 444). …
Modernity - Wikipedia

Modernization typically involves a rationalization of society’s functions (as opposed to motivations based in religion or tradition). The bolded parts in the above definition are also reasons why religion is usually having to respond to the pressures of modernization. Whether your adapt, or reject, your intellectual output will be coloured by modernization, and it wont be the same as the fictional Islamic society mentioned in my last post.

Development is again a measurable quantity. Iran does OK, it is ranked 70th out of 160 countries, basically about midway. Without incurring argument, it is clear that some measure of suppression is required in keeping modernity at bay, as evidenced by the recurring protests.

Dude there are many secular African bushmen. Adding secularism to definition of modernity is a fallacy. Its like blending together a few characteristics of comtemporary societies and claiming one could not have come without another.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

A -> B != B -> A

[dhanya_podena]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

A -> B != B -> A

Show me a casual relationship of A -> B, not just association.

Otherwise thsi definition is like the Sikh joke, who went to learn from Bernadey Shah (Bernard Shaw). After 2 months Bernard Shaw asked him, "i live with my wife. If i tell you that there are 2 people in my house, one is my wife, who's the other one?" Sikh thought for quite a while but couldnt come up with an answer. Bernadey shah said idiot, other person will be me and dismissed him. Sikh came back to his village and asked his people, i live with my wife, if i tell you there are 2 people in my house, one is my wife and who'll be the other one? Villagers said, other one will be you, Sikh sadi, idiots other one will be Bernady Shah.

[ravage]

Re: Can pure Islamic thinking only exist in underdeveloped or repressive environments

who said A->B is a causal relationship to begin with :). i believe i've said B is positively correlated with A if B is modernity and A is development. As for modernity and secularism, the definition you quote me as quoting simply says this is what is typically denoted by the term.