NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an idea I've been playing around with in my mind recently. It came when I started considering the years and things and how human beings are generally the same no matter where you go in the world. This is by no means intended to be an insult or trolling, but a real, serious consideration.

Let's begin.

Christianity (and thus, technically, modern Western Civilisation) was founded in and around the first century AD. It became the national religion of the Roman Empire after a hundred years of persecution.

The western Roman Empire collapsed, splitting Europe into hundreds of little principates. During that time, as Islam and barbarians began pillaging and plundering and attacking Christianity, the Church and its Christian Rivals began to become more and more important, taking more and more hold of the minds and souls of the people.

As the Western World stabilised in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the Church's hold loosened as the market and interest in this world began to return to the prominence they had held in Classical Times.

Now, apart from the USA (which is probably more of a Consumerist Society than a Christian one) and small pockets in Europe and so forth, the West is much more secular and religion is increasingly becoming an after-thought, something you pay lip-service to. In fact, for much of the past century one of the most Christian Countries (Russia and the Ukraine) on the planet became avowedly atheist, something only breaking down now.

Compare Islam and 'Eastern' Society:

Islam was founded in the 7th century. Mohammed was heavily persecuted by pagans and Christians. Within a century of his death, however, Islam had created an Empire stretching from Spain to Afghanistan. The Islamic Empire was one of the most enlightened in the history of man.

Then there were civil wars, splitting the Empire up. The smaller Empires maintained their cultural tolerance for a further few centuries, until the Europeans began to take over the trade-routes and assault Islamic centres directly.

This, in turn, means that the Arab states could now feel under attack, much like the West did 1400 years ago. Inferring from this, we could consider this to be the Dark Ages of Islam, where some of the believers feel that they must either abandon their culture and go to the West (such as Turkey under Mustapha Kemal) or hold tight to their beliefs and strictly obey their religion's precepts.

There are two ways of looking at this (admittedly simplistic) theory. Firstly, there's the depressing one, which says that modern Islamic culture is very much a medieval one and thus unable to cope with the modern world's technological advancements, and thus must either destroy them or be destroyed. The only realistic future, then, would be the death of Islam, a rather sad event should that come to pass.

Secondly, however, this could be a call to arms. Rather than attacking fundamentalist Islam as Medieval, we could embrace that, and move to help the moderates and the modernising forces in Islam. This means we'd be doing their work for them, but it's more reasonable than the other option.

Well, that's what I think. I'd like comments or criticism?

I have a comment to make. The West did not descend into the Dark Ages en masse. The eastern segment of the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire, which whilst very religiously conservative, was a flourishing civilisation. It was frequently attacked by Arabs, such as the Saracens, as well as other nearby fledgling states.

I find your analysis rather sound, and for once it is not a blind attack on the West. I would go for the second solution. The first is too harsh. We have the power to crush Islam, though do we have the right to do so?

The Byzantine Empire split apart from Western Civilisation shortly after Constantine. Furthermore, its position as a part of the Latinate Western World was always rather doubtful, consisting as it was of many Oriental States and cultures at its height, and even in its weakness being descended more from the Greek aspects of the Empire than the Latin.

In addition, the Orthodox Church in Byzantium was and is headed solely by a Patriarch, which meant that in practical terms the Secular Authority, represented by the Emperor, held the upper hand in many struggles, being as it was a Byzantine Empire (Imperium) and not a Kingdom.

Henry VIII (and all later British Rulers) and the Holy Roman Emperor also held Imperium, which in the case of Henry VIII led to a schism between England and Rome and in the Holy Roman Emperor led to struggles between the two temporal powers that considered themselves the heir of Rome.

Also, to describe the Byzantines as a flourishing society is a rather weak argument, as the central government had more in common with the corrupt Roman Emperors of the Dominate and later years than with the Emperors of the Principate, meaning the Byzantine court was often more oriental than that of even the Tsars of Muscovy in its affectations.

The Byzantine Empire split apart from Western Civilisation shortly after Constantine. Furthermore, its position as a part of the Latinate Western World was always rather doubtful, consisting as it was of many Oriental States and cultures at its height, and even in its weakness being descended more from the Greek aspects of the Empire than the Latin.
Greece is a Western European nation. It's the foundation of Greco/roman civilisation, which is in effect Western civilisation. Which oriental states and cultures did it consist of? Greece is geographically part of Eastern Europe, as are the Balkan states and Russia.

Also, to describe the Byzantines as a flourishing society is a rather weak argument, as the central government had more in common with the corrupt Roman Emperors of the Dominate and later years than with the Emperors of the Principate, meaning the Byzantine court was often more oriental than that of even the Tsars of Muscovy in its affectations.
So how does that diminish it's cultural and scientific achievements?

Actually, I've heard historians call this period of Islamic history a "reformation", basically pitting those who want reform, which could mean anything from secularization to theocratic states BUT based on a more individualistic form of Islam, against the anti-reformers, i.e. those who believe Islam should continue to be a religion where clerics have strict controls over the religious interpretation. Of course, I'm not sure of this, but it might fit...

Greece is a Western European nation. It's the foundation of Greco/roman civilisation, which is in effect Western civilisation. Which oriental states and cultures did it consist of? Greece is geographically part of Eastern Europe, as are the Balkan states and Russia.

Eastern Europe at the time of the Dark Ages wasn't culturally European except for certain parts of Romania. Neither the Lithuanians or the Hungarians were Christianized until the early years of the last Millenium. Also, the Byzantine Empire at its height was more than just 'Greece'. It was Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Cilicia, Bulgaria, etc. If you look at accounts from the Crusaders (and even the Alexiad, written by a Byzantine Princess), you can see that to Western Europeans the Byzantines were orientals.


So how does that diminish it's cultural and scientific achievements?

Byzantine achievements largely consisted of not being broken in half by barbarians and losing the achievements of their predescessors. But Byzantine history isn't the question here.

Actually, I've heard historians call this period of Islamic history a "reformation", basically pitting those who want reform, which could mean anything from secularization to theocratic states BUT based on a more individualistic form of Islam, against the anti-reformers, i.e. those who believe Islam should continue to be a religion where clerics have strict controls over the religious interpretation. Of course, I'm not sure of this, but it might fit...

Religion itself is also not a major question here. A more succint problem with Islam might be Arabic culture itself, as Mohammed in the Koran provides women (just as an example) with more rights than they are given in Arabic societies.

Also in a way similar to the Dark Ages, but with probably more lasting consequences for their society than it had with us.

Eastern Europe at the time of the Dark Ages wasn't culturally European except for certain parts of Romania. Neither the Lithuanians or the Hungarians were Christianized until the early years of the last Millenium. Also, the Byzantine Empire at its height was more than just 'Greece'. It was Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Cilicia, Bulgaria, etc. If you look at accounts from the Crusaders (and even the Alexiad, written by a Byzantine Princess), you can see that to Western Europeans the Byzantines were orientals.
Maybe to them they were, but Byzantine was very much a European empire. Asia Minor was always Greek, and Bulgaria, like you said, became European. The others were Oriental though. Indeed, parts of the Byzantine Empire were more Oriental than others, yet Greece itself is a Western European nation (probably the dissolution of the Byzantine empire caused it to revert though).

Byzantine achievements largely consisted of not being broken in half by barbarians and losing the achievements of their predescessors. But Byzantine history isn't the question here.
It was an extremely cultured society with great cultural achievements, but you're right, it isn't the matter at hand.


Religion itself is also not a major question here. A more succint problem with Islam might be Arabic culture itself, as Mohammed in the Koran provides women (just as an example) with more rights than they are given in Arabic societies.
Jesus more or less puts women on equal standing with men. Paul changed this, and early Christian societies, much like Arabic ones, followed his doctrine.

Actually, I've heard historians call this period of Islamic history a "reformation", basically pitting those who want reform, which could mean anything from secularization to theocratic states BUT based on a more individualistic form of Islam, against the anti-reformers, i.e. those who believe Islam should continue to be a religion where clerics have strict controls over the religious interpretation. Of course, I'm not sure of this, but it might fit...

Reza Aslan, No god but God?

Another analogy that needs to be drawn is the spread of technology. The crusades brought back much lost classical knowledge to Europe, and Europe became more intellectually vibrant and more technologically advanced. This helped lead to the renaissance.

The Arab world is rapidly modernizing, using Western technology and scientific ideas is forcing many Muslims to study these ideas and with this study comes other western, secular values(the same values the Muslims preserved in the teachings of antiquity during the height of their empire). These are the moderate, educated muslims, and they are the future of muslim society. The unwashed masses are extremely conservative, just as in renaissance Europe, but the educated and the wealthy are more secular, as in renaissance Europe.

The similarities are impossible to ignore. Of course, the question remains whether the advancement of the Muslim world will occur at the expense of the Western world. I don't think it will. There will be a great deal of conflict, but ultimately the two worlds will merge. The West has left Christianity too far behind to revert to it, Western culture is now primarily secular, not Christian. The Muslim World will certainly become more secular, and the conflicts between the two worlds will dissappear as this happens.

Another analogy that needs to be drawn is the spread of technology. The crusades brought back much lost classical knowledge to Europe, and Europe became more intellectually vibrant and more technologically advanced. This helped lead to the renaissance.
Something people rarely mention of the Crusades.

The Arab world is rapidly modernizing, using Western technology and scientific ideas is forcing many Muslims to study these ideas and with this study comes other western, secular values(the same values the Muslims preserved in the teachings of antiquity during the height of their empire). These are the moderate, educated muslims, and they are the future of muslim society. The unwashed masses are extremely conservative, just as in renaissance Europe, but the educated and the wealthy are more secular, as in renaissance Europe.
True, but wealth and education do not necessarily mean less conservative. Intelligence and education do not preclude the existence of bias in a person.

The similarities are impossible to ignore. Of course, the question remains whether the advancement of the Muslim world will occur at the expense of the Western world. I don't think it will. There will be a great deal of conflict, but ultimately the two worlds will merge. The West has left Christianity too far behind to revert to it, Western culture is now primarily secular, not Christian. The Muslim World will certainly become more secular, and the conflicts between the two worlds will dissappear as this happens.
One would hope so. That is, unless the Middle East does not become secular.

Nah. All bollicks.

The difference between Islam and Christianity is the the Christians spent about 500 years slaughtering each other over minor points in doctorine. And the Thirty years war.

After that, they settled down and became 'secularists', inasmuch as they stopped beleiving that there was some ultimate truth they had to enforce temporally.

Sure they still believed that each respective set had the ultimate truth, but they gave up on the idea that it could be forced or pushed on others by government or war.

Islam hasn't ever gone thru that.

-SNIP-
Likely, but it might very well take a long, long time.

Islam hasn't ever gone thru that.
Then why are there so many different groups with so many different iterpretations of the Koran? Islam has no central form.

Reza Aslan, No god but God?
Nope, just things I've heard from various people and places. Would you recommend that book?

Then why are there so many different groups with so many different iterpretations of the Koran? Islam has no central form.

Aye, but they still hold to the concept of the Umma before war. They've not had and type of reformation or counter-reformation which lead to the thirty years war that christianity had. The shia and the sunni split early on, and they've never slaughtered each other the way reformationist and counter-reformationists did. (per capita).

Basically, Islam hasn't gone thru the internal dissension that christianty did.

Aye, but they still hold to the concept of the Umma before war. They've not had and type of reformation or counter-reformation which lead to the thirty years war that christianity had. The shia and the sunni split early on, and they've never slaughtered each other the way reformationist and counter-reformationists did. (per capita).

Basically, Islam hasn't gone thru the internal dissension that christianty did.
Which could be the problem. That there is nothing to weaken it from within and move towards secularism.

Aye, but they still hold to the concept of the Umma before war. They've not had and type of reformation or counter-reformation which lead to the thirty years war that christianity had. The shia and the sunni split early on, and they've never slaughtered each other the way reformationist and counter-reformationists did. (per capita).

Basically, Islam hasn't gone thru the internal dissension that christianty did.
Shia and Sunni are NOT divided along the same lines as reformationists and counter-reformationists.

Which could be the problem. That there is nothing to weaken it from within and move towards secularism.

Yes!

That's my point. Christians, albeit intolerant gobshites, realized from their own intermural conflicts that they had, to a certain extent, adopt a live and let live policy in respect of holy dogma.

Muslims haven't slaughtered each other to that extent.

Shia and Sunni are NOT divided along the same lines as reformationists and counter-reformationists.

Expand on that. So I can shoot it down,

Yes!

That's my point. Christians, albeit intolerant gobshites, realized from their own intermural conflicts that they had, to a certain extent, adopt a live and let live policy in respect of holy dogma.

Muslims haven't slaughtered each other to that extent.
I wonder if they ever will. It may be the only way of breaking down fundamentalist Islam.

I wonder if they ever will. It may be the only way of breaking down fundamentalist Islam.

I really don't know. I know a lot of 'muslims'. At least I eat in their restaurants, and buy their gasoline. None of them seem to care about this crap.

Frankly, I blame the quislings in the west more than I do the muslims per se. Everyone knows who the trouble makers are, yet no-one wants to move against them because they claim this 'silent support'.

I say fuck it. Test their threats.

If nothing else, it may lead to their own thrity year war.

I really don't know. I know a lot of 'muslims'. At least I eat in their restaurants, and buy their gasoline. None of them seem to care about this crap.

Frankly, I blame the quislings in the west more than I do the muslims per se. Everyone knows who the trouble makers are, yet no-one wants to move against them because they claim this 'silent support'.

I say fuck it. Test their threats.

If nothing else, it may lead to their own thrity year war.
Which quislings exactly?

Aye, but they still hold to the concept of the Umma before war. They've not had and type of reformation or counter-reformation which lead to the thirty years war that christianity had. The shia and the sunni split early on, and they've never slaughtered each other the way reformationist and counter-reformationists did. (per capita).

Basically, Islam hasn't gone thru the internal dissension that christianty did.

No, Islam has had much worse internal dissent. Not on religious levels, but in terms of the state. Because for much of early Islamic history, Islam and its Empire were essentially one and the same, and when a ruling house fell apart so did the religion. In addition, the conversion of the Turks and Moors harmed the Arabs in ways too detailed to be gone into in depth here.

However, it was the Turks who destroyed the Byzantine Empire that had kept Islam and the West from being in real direct conflict after the fall of the Kingdom of Jeruselem, also along the way causing the West to turn and look for other routes to India than the Arab traderoutes.

And the Moors, through their brutal counter-crusade in Spain, made the following reconquista more brutal than the initial one, rendering Spain almost completely empty of Moslems until immigration began again in the seventies.

Which quislings exactly?

Jack Straw for one.

But generally western governments which allow law breaking in the name of 'tolerance'.

No, Islam has had much worse internal dissent. Not on religious levels, but in terms of the state. Because for much of early Islamic history, Islam and its Empire were essentially one and the same, and when a ruling house fell apart so did the religion. In addition, the conversion of the Turks and Moors harmed the Arabs in ways too detailed to be gone into in depth here.

You've answered your own question. If there was one.