Keith,
The
local university has a good educational channel for those wishing to earn
degrees via TV.
One of
their courses is on the mid east.
I
watched the series of lectures last year and have started again this year (note
to Ed. W., it is on channel 65 from ll:30 am to 1:30 pm on
Tues.)
Now
into my 2nd year of this and I am still having difficulty taking a personal
position vis a vis the various players in the mid east.
The
prof. has said a number of times that in his view the best way to see Islam vs.
the West is the Moslems have a vision of a past that was perfect and much
of Islam is the wish to recapture the perfection of what was, as expressed
in the Koran--the direct word of God. The West has a vision of a perfect
future and much of the West is about how to create and get to that
future.
(note
that this tends to support the view that fundamentalists of whatever religion
have more in common with each other than they have in common with modernists of
their own religion....)
OK,
ready for slings and arrows and brickbats but what do others
think?
arthur
-----Original Message-----145. Vital decisions for Islamic countries
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Futurework] Vital decisions for Islamic countries
Around the 12th century in Western Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East three main religions were contending against one another -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Despite the fact that all three were pretty closely related in their origins and traditions, their relationships were sometimes very bitter, either in their influence on kings and princes at what we would now call national level policies (such as going to war or not) or in the microdynamics of small communities. Christianity and Islam were similar in that they were securely embedded within respective secular authorities and, indeed, were extremely militant when protecting their interests, whereas Judaism was more reclusive and more concerned with family, community and business.
Besides the main theological differences between the three religions, there were also other doctrinal differences which seemed far less important at the time but which had momentous consequences in due course. One was the question of usury -- the charging of interest -- for example. The attitude of the Christian pontiffs in Constantinople and then in Rome waxed and waned over the matter for centuries before finally deciding in favour of allowing usury by about the 16th and 17th centuries. Islam, however, was quite specific: it was forbidden. Indeed, it's only been in recent decades (since the development of Middle East oilfields) that contractual devices have been developed whereby Islamic banks can be founded and can operate in the normal banking sort of way though without teh formal charging interest on loans.
The Jews, however, compromised in a curious way. The charging of interest was not allowed between Jews but it was allowed in the case of Jews lending to Gentiles. This had the effect that better-off Jews would tend to lend money outside the Jewish community rather than to his brothers-in-religion. This is not to say that Jews did not lend to one another, indeed they were enjoined to be support one another generously but the general drift of lending and banking went outside. In time, Jewish banking became significant all over the Mediterranean countries and Europe and Jews were often persecuted for this reason alone.
The other 'small' matter was the respective attitudes of the three religions to learning, science and technology. Two principal streams of new learning were entering Europe at this time at around the 11th and 12th centuries. One was from China by the overland route via the Great Silk Road, and thence through Venice, and also via the Mongols through central Europe. This was mainly of practical technologies and included military innovations such as the cannon. The other comprised the translations of the Greek classic authors and philosophers into Arabic which also entering Europe through Venice and other Mediterranean ports. Both of these streams of new learning had tremendously invigorating effects on both Christianity and Islam but with very little on Judaism because by this time it was being frequently harried from one country to the next. The Jews had managed to set up a viable nation in Khazaria in the neighbourhood of the Black Sea at about the 5th century but, by the 12th and 13th century this was already falling apart. Thus, unlike the other religions, they had no interest in defending territory so military technology in particular passed them by.
However, as Christian merchants increasingly began to dominate Mediterranean trade, Islam itself became increasingly defensive and began turning against the burgeoning sciences and technologies of Europe. The Jews had already ignore military innovations and might have done the same for the other technologies. In fact, there were great disputes between learned rabbis as to whether scholars should study science or whether to devote themselves exclusively to the Talmud.
The Jews might very well have become as anti-science as the Moslem were it not for one rabbi above all others. This was Maimonides, a prolific writer and commentator who, just as St Paul had done for the early Christians, made it his business to correspond with Jewish communities all over the Mediterranean. Consequently, his reputation and influence spread from Spain (he was born in Cordoba) into Europe and across to Israel and Eygypt. When he died in 1204, he was accepted as one of the most eminent scholars of his time, even by Thomas Aquinas who referred to him with reverence. The long and the short was that, throughout his writings, Maimonides had come down firmly on the side of science, saying that so long as it didn't interfere with Talmudic studies and so long as it was studied for the betterment of mankind, then its study was allowable.
From this time on, as the Islamic empire and trading retreated in the Mediterranean region it also increasingly turned against scholarly learning and science in particular. This even extended to the printing of the Koran -- which only occurred late in the 19th century, hundreds of years after the Bible had been printed by Guttenberg. And so it continues to this day with the result that, in comparison with the hundreds of thousands of new titles published every year in Europe, America and Asia the number of books in Arabic is only a few hundred and most of those are religious in nature.
This is the big problem that faces the relatively few Arabic scholars and scientists who have been educated in the west when faced with the blank refusal -- indeed, aggressive opposition -- of Moslem mullahs and clerics in most Islamic countries to allow secular education in the schools they control. Last year, under the aegis of the United Nations -- and with great courage -- some of those scholars produced the UN Arab Human Development Report. To their surprise, it sold like hot cakes except, unfortunately, in some of the Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia -- which is accumulating large numbers of young males who have no jobs and for whom it badly needs new enterprises. Much the same applies to most other Islamic countries, too.
On the anniversary of the first Report, the same scholars have continued with a second attempt and this has just been published. The following item is from the Economist.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
KNOW THYSELF
A cry for learning -- and freedom
HEFTY official reports do not usually make riveting reading. Since its launch last year, however, no fewer than 1m copies of the UN Development Programme's Arab Human Development Report have been downloaded from the internet, making it the hottest work of Arabic literature ever, bar the Koran. The lure was that the report, compiled by a team of Arab academics, addressed issues that growing numbers of Arabs have noted but few had dared to air. It spelled out bluntly the chronic problems that have delayed Arab progress and offered sensible but politically challenging remedies for tackling them.
A similarly distinguished panel has just released a follow-up volume that focuses on one key area of concern, the poor Arab performance in generating knowledge and stimulating inquiry. The contributors' own educational backgrounds illustrate the problem. Four-fifths of them are graduates of western universities.
Again, the candid language and shocking statistics are likely to stoke furious debate in the region. Despite progress in some spheres, suggests the report, today's Arabs as a whole have shown a peculiar lack of curiosity towards science and the broader world. Not only have they trailed in advancing research; they have lagged even in sustaining their own rich cultural tradition.
The report does not mince words, even about such sticky subjects as religion. "The conventional religious sciences have remained unchanged and have failed to produce results," it says. "In the absence of peaceful and effective political channels for dealing with injustices...some political movements identifying themselves as Islamic have adopted extreme interpretations of Islam and violence as a means of political activism." The prescription? Focus on teaching values rather than mere formulae, get the state out of mosques, and reopen the "Door of Ijtihad", or free theological inquiry.
In essence, the whole report is a cry for freedom. Authoritarian states, it says, have abused their obsession with control to stifle all argument. "Freedoms that are hostage to matters of security, to censorship and to self-appointed watchdogs of public morality are freedoms denied. The first victims of this denial are creativity, innovation and knowledge."
The patient knows he is sick. The physicians know the cure. The question is whether the would-be surgeons -- Arab governments -- have the skill or the will to perform the operation.
The Economist -- 23 October 2003
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>
