What can explain the failure of the islamic world to develop a modern society ?

Because of Islam

But Islam existed for 14 centuries user, surely it would've happened sooner

>surely it would've happened sooner
What would've happened sooner?

The failing to develop a "modern society"

That doesn't make any sense. Think before you post.

Ok I'll be sure to make it very clear for simple folk such as yourself next time around.

>Islamic countries failed to develop into modern societies, why?
>Because Islam prevents the development into modern societies
>Then why didn't Islam fail to develop into modern societies in the 8th century? /pol/ btfo

Are you literally brain damaged? Don't you realize that Islamic societies didn't (and couldn't) fail to develop into modern societies 10 centuries ago because developing into modern societies is, well, a modern event?

You should seriously consider killing yourself.

The Middle East was modernizing and forming nation-states at a time where European and European-educated ideologues were beginning to spread things like nationalism, socialism, and fascism. All the healthy reform ideals were subverted by radical and directives or compromised in the name of revolution, and in response violent reactionary forces gained a lot of steam and spread across the Muslim world.

There were a lot of cool political and religious reform ideas floating around in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century, but all of that got pretty much wiped out by a string of dictatorships and absolute monarchies drawing on national-socialist or Islamist policies to maintain power.

Modernity is relative to what time period it is you nonce. Now they aren't modernized, but they were far more 'modern' than most European countries in their heyday.

Do the world a favor and get sterilized, or at the bare minimum stop posting.

>Modernity is relative to what time period it is you nonce.
No it isn't you stupid faggot. The early cavemen who discovered fire weren't "modernized" because there were other tribes who still hadn't. Modernized has a specific meaning.

KYS

You could also add Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan but Islam is a meme at this point in Central Asia

This

Amazonian tribes deep in the rainforest now are just as modern as we are today, despite having technological differences to Western nations.

They lie, cheat, loot, steal, murder, and rape.

Does that sound like the sort of people who can build nations?

Tanzimat had a life on it's own. Young Ottomans emerged and pushed for faster reforms.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/57d2fa63e4b0f831f7071c1a?timestamp=1473447659853

Could this be the beginning of the end for WAHHAB'ding? I think its a step in the right direction. What do you think?

General arabic anti science sentiments since it debunks most of the bullshit in the Koran, and modern society is morally revolting to muslims while we see it as advanced they see it as disgusting degeneracy.

Korea and Japan just went monkey see monkey do they had no strong cultural ties to their former cultures.

I don't know if anything will really come about from this, but I did enjoy that delicious Saudi butthurt. Thanks.

Yet they lost Bosnia, and lost effective control of the Balkans, and were defeated by Italy, and then were defeated by the Balkan league, and got involved and suffered heavy casualties in WW1, and genocided the Armenians.

Social rights are a meme

Tbh that sounds like prime material for building civilizations

Then I hope you'll get gased.

And you just got your throat slit.

It's still the middle eastern country with more jews (except Israel of course).

In all fairness you're conflating secular with modern. The gulf states have developed infrastructure and large and well planned cities. In the strictest sense they are "modern".

>Saudis butthurt as fuck
feels good man

>heh guys look how progressive we are for excluding Saudi Arabia and disavowing wahabism, we're like the GOOD Muslims you know?
seems like bullshit

An Efypt leaded sunni world will always be more desirable than a KSA leaded sunni world, that's for sure. But isn't Saudi Arabia still quite strong politically? Not to mention it's growing influence in Pakistan.

They arent concerned to prove you something they want to keep a destructive force at bay which is the enemy of all mankind.

The ME has always had the misfortune of being the cross-roads of empires. As geo-strategic location is links most of the world's population, as the meeting point of Europe, Africa, and Asia. This has regularly made it a target for conquest.

Petro-states are at risk for the "recourse curse." You would assume undeveloped countries that discover a rich oil node or the like would benefit from that gain, but under capitalism, rich international investors buy it up and influential outside states establish a relationship with elites to corner the market, ensuring the benefits don't trickle down (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

Islam itself when embraced without second thought probably limits progress just as any ancient religion. If you follow a medieval blueprint to the letter, you get a medieval world. Its strict insistence on dogma ensures that science is restricted and questioning kept to a minimum.

High populations and low stability give rise to radicalism and war, which further impede economic progress and set up a vicious cycle.

*resource

typos

Resource curse is pseudoscientific bullshit created to explain away how Africa is such a massive shithole despite being so resource rich

>culture
>progressing

Nice meme whitey

Adherence to a "medieval blueprint" by Muslims is a recent phenomenon (early 1900's and onward), not a staple of the "ancient" religion.

Islam actually got its shit fucked up in a way pretty similar to the Catholic Church, where interpretation (tafsir) of canonical texts was relinquished to the individual instead of being put in the hands of textual experts (muftis)

This is the reason for all of the batshit crazy, archaic fatwas we see today: most people are idiots and interpret things as literally as possible because it's easy

The way Saudis reacted speaks a lot about how they view them selves and the rest of the Muslim world.

>If you don't support us, you must be a Iranian double agent!

>We give you money, NOW SUCK THIS COCK!

>We will drink the blood of the Shias, Sufis are heretics, X-group are closeted Shia Jews... WHAT?! THEY DIDN'T INVITE US?! HOW DARE THEY?! FUCKING SUFI SECTARIANS! #OneUmmah #MuslimUnity

And I still remember the when the Saudis started an "all Muslim" anti-terror coalition. Indonesia and Pakistan didn't even know they were part of it.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

This

>indonesia and pakistan didn't even know they were part of it

I seriously wish the USA breaks the alliance as soon as possible.

Lebanon and Malaysia didn't know either. Iran was excluded from the start of course.

>to develop a modern society ?

It has. You are just confusing wealth and not-wartorn with backwardness.

You think ISIS is unique to the Muslim world? If Europe or the US was being bombed, while having their radical elements armed by foreign powers, they'd be the same way.

Tanzimat actually caused the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, during their rise and peak, were a very libertarian Empire. They tried to reform, by claiming all it's subjects were now "Ottoman" instead of Arab, Kurd, Muslim, Christian, Greek, ect. This, of course, made everyone mad, they all rebelled, or sided with the british or french. So the Ottomans just started killing everyone.

You're an idiot. Modernization to you just means rich apparently. Not all countries have the wealth drained from 3 continents that had the natives wiped out and their resources stolen.

It's easy to be rich and "modern" when you shoot people who don't have guns.

The Middle east had an Empire collapse, and then recently decolonized. And since decolonizing, the US and the USSR basically played chess with those countries by force. And now, the US is backing Israel and Saudi Arabia with record breaking amounts of military aid so they can expand and destroy all the surrounding states.

It has nothing to do with secularism, modernization (whatever that means, to you it means being rich and white but only today, because apparently, when the Muslim world was the peak of the world, it still wasn't modern for some reason).

>where interpretation (tafsir) of canonical texts was relinquished to the individual instead of being put in the hands of textual experts (muftis)

that's fucking wrong.

muftis are at the forefront of modern mis-interpretations of hadith and quranic texts. There is actually constant fake sections of the Quran being taught by Saudi funded mosques in illiterate parts of the world like Pakistan, or wartorn Iraq, where there are no social structures to support the youth EXCEPT Saudi funded mosques.

Individuals use to be able to get up to the podium and speak on their own interpretations of Islam and what the local community needs to do to work together and fix it's problems.

Now it's commands being given from the "top" (aka wealthy Saudis) to further Saudi agendas. So it's actually the opposite problem of what you say.

are you kidding me famalam? tanzimat was very successful in creating a top-tier educated military officer class which then in turn built the turkish republic
ottoman empire by mid 19th century was doomed anyways, without tanzimat there would be nothing left of it

>Korea and Japan managed to create stable countries
You mean just Japan, and then they fixed Korea after annexing them in 1910. Even prior to the formal annexation Japan had essentially been colonizing Korea for years, more than a hundred thousand Japanese had moved to Korea and begun setting up businesses there. The whole reason Japan wanted to make Korea officially part of the empire was because it essentially already was, hence why they poured so many resources into modernizing it.

>You're an idiot. Modernization to you just means rich apparently.
No, it means being modern, which can be defined in many ways but which certainly incorporates concepts such as advanced forms of government, industrialization and scientific output.

> Not all countries have the wealth drained from 3 continents that had the natives wiped out and their resources stolen.
Oh shit nigga you just went full HuffPo. I suggest you go back to plebbit, you'll be safer there.

> to you it means being rich and white
I consider Japan to be more modern than all white majority countries. Did I just blow a fuse in your one dimensional brain?

Your post is almost a parody.

>Al-Nahda

Led by christians.

Same for Lebanon when it was christian it was a modern society, then when the shitkins became the majority it became a shithole.

Muslims are subhumans and can't produce a civilization, they can only produce corrupt, violent societies.

>Turkey
>secularism
Good luck trying to build a church there.

Only the former commie ones

well if your talking about post world war 1 then the answer is: they did, infact many of them mirrored the social and economic progress of the west. but post world war 2 they became a tool in cold war politics. coups,assassinations,and proxy wars gave way to political instability which led to the rise of religious fundamentalism through out the whole region and beyond.

except it is all with in the last few decades. purchase with oil money, designed and built by the West or East Asia.

dubai was a sleepy port town less than 30 years ago. where camels were serious transportation.

And they do business with many people across the world.

Butthurt much?

>I consider Japan to be more modern than all white majority countries.

Lol nigga only to superficial retards they are. Japan is on part or behind in many many things.

No it isn't.
Only an idiot would think otherwise.
For example having lots of resources put a huge target on your back when you are poor and your neighbour's/other countries want to pounce on you.

Eh my people are used to it.

complacency from slave labour transgenerationally inherited

Those pictures are funny btw.
>Hey let's take slums of a traditional East-Asian city. You know, like the ones we have back home in japan, and say these guys are primitive.

He means that for earlier times they were modern you retard.

It wasn't though. It was co-ruled by both Christian and Muslims at the highest levels mandated by the National Pact.

>Lebanon's unwritten National Pact of 1943 required that its president be Maronite Christian, its speaker of the parliament to be a Shiite Muslim, its prime minister be Sunni Muslim, and the Deputy Speaker of Parliament and the Deputy Prime Minister be Greek Orthodox.

the barbarism and backwardness codified in Islam can only be countered by the natural east asian predisposition towards orderliness.

Amongst caucasoids and negroids islam hinders cultural and societal development beyond a 19th century mindset

>What can explain the failure of the islamic world to develop a modern society ?

Internally you have/had hardcore 'fundamentalists' externally you have/had American (and UK) foreign policy meddling.

they interpret things literally because the quran explicitl tells them that the quran is a clear book that explains all things thus strongly encouraging that the quran should be taken at face value with the exception of certain verses that are prefaced as allegorical.

the only intellectually honest thing to do is to take Islam in all its backwards, 7th century, primitive, violent, tribalistic barbarism.

Christians and jews on the other hand do not have equivalent instructions to take things at face value so can interpret things at their convenience without it being as bviously dishonest.

>except it is all with in the last few decades

Like Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea?

All these 'petro-moarchies' as you refer to them do massive amounts of business which doesn't involve oil and are looking to diversify their economic portfolios.

Only sensible answer in this thread really.

it's pretty widely accepted that korea was the most backwater part of all of east asia, m8

you can calm down, cheok-sun, we like you now

>dangerous european ideologies such as nations
>dangerous european ideologies such as the treaty of westpalia
>dangerous european ideologies such as ethnic sovereignty
ah, right. the islamic reformists, whose ideas came out of a 1.4k year old book, that direct you the proper way to wipe your ass after you shit, who lived their entire lives herding sheep, was probably positively full of great ideas

in fact, they're still doing that today, since our poisonous nationalism never took off. let's investigate the average iq of these reformists.

Not him, it's still a useless troll image. South Korea was STILL the most backward part of East Asia except MAYBE the Chinese Interior, in 1945.

The Japs ruled it as a feudal backwater, and had every intention of keeping it that way.

It's like posting an image of
>Czechoslovakia 1945
And picking some slum
and then
>Czechoslovakia 1980
And posting some university. See, see how much the Soviets 'helped' the backwater Czechs?

>beyond an 11th century mindset
FTFY

the japanese installed more rail lines in the decade before ww2 in korea alone than they did in all of japan. again so for manchuria.

you're making a lot of assumptions about what the japanese intended to do with teir colonies, because for all intents and purposes, japanese colonies have fared much better than the colonies of any european power.

Riiiight, the decade before WWII. The one they spent gearing up for and participating in a massive land war in North Asia. That decade. Yeah, I can only imagine they were building rail lines strictly for altruistic reasons.

>you're making a lot of assumptions about what the japanese intended to do with teir colonies,
No, I'm make an informed judgement based on reading sources of their plans for the region, and how they ruled it.

>because for all intents and purposes, japanese colonies have fared much better than the colonies of any european power.
OK. First, that's an entirely facile way of judging how a nation was actually ruled. Second, that still doesn't work out so great, because that puts North Korea on the metric of Japanese Rule.

>Why did it fail when Korea and Japan managed to create stable countries that even outperform the west in some aspects?
Because Korea and Japan don't get their laws from sacred texts and their interpretations thereof.

Go secular - for real - or go home.

>Japan is on part or behind in many many things
I'd like to see how Japan is behind the west.

Great town, we'll see how it'll last after petrol run out.
Seriously, I can't take seriously those fat lokum from Saudi Arabia. This fascination for wealth, or at least external aspects of wealth (big towers, football club) only hide the fact these countries still produce nothing. No movie, no litterature, nothing came out of these states except wahhabism. Their economy is already ruined with the developpement of shale gas and alternative energies (Algeria is doing terrible too lately). Add to that the terrible social state of their country, where slavery is basically still authorized and you've got states that are among the most decadent and backwards in the world.

Dubai isn't Saudi Arabia though.

What kind of political and religious reforms?

i dont think you even read about these reformist movement at all if youre spouting dumb shit like this. please try read a book on the subject at least. youre on a history board, there is no excuse to be historically illiterate. you can start here from here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmad_Khan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Waliullah_Dehlawi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifa'a_al-Tahtawi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamāl_al-Dīn_al-Afghānī
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Abduh
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namık_Kemal

maybe we will if the houthis cause it to collapse

You had guys like Afghani, Abduhu, Ali Shirati, Qutb, the Banna brothers(Hassan Al Banna had a brother, look him up), Rashid Ridha, Albani, the Quranist movement(though there were much earlier individuals who could be considered "Quranist") and others. Some were liberal/progresive, Pan-Islamist or Islamist/fundamentalist, but they all brought something new to the table:modernism. You would need to learn about what each of them preached, to get a bigger picture of what each of the proposed ad tough was necessary for the Muslim world.

>American (and UK)

UK dindu nuffin

They started their reforms too late. Ottomans were already weak only kept alive by UK and France, Egypt was already on its way to becoming a puppet, Tunisia got invaded as they were trying to reform.

The problem wasn't the reforms wouldn't have an effect, the problem was by the time it could have an effect they were already subjects. Except Turkey which had its own problems by going too extreme with reforms.

Tanzimat was successful at what it tried to do, there is more cultural output in Ottoman history between 1850-1914 than it ever had before that. There are even woman writers and philosophers in this era, which would be unheard of before. The military was reorganised and they created a military officer caste that upheld the ideals of nation-state and personal liberty, except they went too far with it and started ethnic cleansing and genocides. Really the fault of Ottomans were not that trying but trying too hard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Armenian_churches_in_Turkey

Fuck off pol