Colonial Islam
All honest people, originated from colonial countries or exploited nations, share the idea that colonisation was a shame of human history, like slavery, it was an attack on fundamental rights. Yet, if we want to understand why it happened, we have to recognise that colonial powers needed their people and policies in their colonised countries.
What was at stake was the economic and social logic. Beyond many examples, by following logic of precise deployment of its history, we can see that colonial powers have constructed a consistent dichotomy of relations between a centre (the heart of the system of exploitation) and the periphery (made up of dominated countries and peoples).
In a later development, the twentieth century brought a new identity and bogus strength to some of the colonies. Oil became the new engine of the economic growth of industrial countries and consequently an additional motive of colonial plunder. Therefore, dependent states were newly formed to help the colonial hyper-exploitation, excessive property rights and opening up markets for the goods of colonists. These circumstances leading to the governmental corruption, lack of democracy and political opposition set the stage for the religious movements.
These movements had no real solutions for the objective problems. Even if some of these movement in Islamic countries in e north Africa or the middle East were the main anti- colonial forces, but the movements were being revived when there was no progressive, democratic and secular alternative.
Colonial forces naturally looked for their interests; they sometimes fought patriotic religious, but often respected and even propagated religion. They needed religion to keep their colonies the most illiterate, the least developed, the most superstitious, and the most subjugated. Plunder and looting of the colonies, without such social conditions, could not be easily committed in the history of colonisation.
More than the institutions, like army, civil service and judiciary, which have systematically been set up in the colonies, colonial powers needed religion to better control the vast territories they had acquired during the nineteenth century.
By enforcing and manipulating religion, sect, cult and a unnecessary traditions, they could practically create a continuous atmosphere of backwardness. In many cases like common wealth countries, the colonial grip on these ex-colonies would not easily diminish even after their physical departure of the British Empire.
The conquest of the Americas by the Europeans in the 16th century was the first modern form of colonisation, an extremely brutal form which resulted in the genocide of the Indians of North America, Indian societies in Latin America thrown into slavery and black slavery through the whole continent, north and south.
However, in the 19th.century, the “civilised” Europe did not find it necessary to commit similar genocides. Actually with the development of new means of production, new organisation of exploitation was necessary. Consequently, colonies were not only natural resources, but also the sources of cheap labour.
Therefore, missionary in many African societies was the moral protector for the colonial administrators, planters, merchants, and western penetration. The colonialists considered Christianisation of the colonial subjects as a necessity, but in the case of Islamic colonies, it was not the same.
Because of adamant belief of Muslims in Islam, the missionary’s role was in fact replaced by the Islamic clergy or ulama. The colonial officials did not intervene in matters pertaining to Islam or Islamic traditional practices. British Empire handled with a great number of influential religious leaders, as it was the case of Iranian celrgies.
The colonialists’ policy and their infamous political games consisted in using regressive sense of religion to restrict the natural awareness and intellectual development of the indigenous people so that in many spheres of activity the country remains within the colonial periphery. Another hand, strict adherence to Islam was not so firm or so uniform throughout Muslims. The education policy gave advancement in the colonial system to those educated in colonial schools. Thus it was produced a generation of Muslim bureaucrats who were westernised and alienated to their own native culture, what created a dependent class of society capitalism in the favour of colonial powers.
While the minds of some people had to be transformed or westernised, the minds of most people were kept in religious backwardness so that colonial rulers would not be disturbed by the local population. The main strategy was that with the help of their corrupt and reactionary protégés or accomplices, the colonies remain either mental slaves of the colonial masters or incompetent for independency. In this perspective, religion, conscious or unconscious, could pave the path.
From the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries Islam expanded into many new territories around the world. The political power of the Islamic community rose to new heights again with the uprising of the Safavid Dynasty in Iran and the Ottoman Empire in Anatolia (Turkey).
The two Islamic empires had control over most of North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, India and central Asia. During the reign of these empires, Islam spread throughout many new regions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and many were converted to Islam. The Safavid Empire fell in the eighteenth century, the Ottoman Empire, which was more aggressive, continued to expand and finally fell in 1924.
In 1914, the Ottoman Islamic Empire entered World War I on the side of Germany, and along with Germany lost the war. The Ottoman Empire fell into the hands of the British and the French who created many of the modern boundaries in the Middle East and set the region on the course it took through the twentieth century. It was the end of the last bastion of glorious Ages of the Islamic world.
From the beginning of the twentieth century, it was clear that the Islamic world was left behind of any new progress. The religion, as the foundation of a common society, was intellectually moribund. Its strict rules have been standing in the way of modern changes, and therefore the Islamic world could not join the European industrial revolution. From then on, the secular world has considerably taken over the leadership of the new world.
This industrial revolution has since then changed the power equation between Europeans and other peoples of the world. With industrial might, Europe gradually transformed its values, its material bases of living, and its institutions.
Today, besides condemning the atrocities of the colonial or capitalist West, we, the honest people os Islamic world, have to accept that many of western values belong to the process of the modern civilisation and thus must be accepted and adapted to the native cultures.
The unfettered preaching of hatred about the democracy and its culture is either a blind argument of conspiracy theory or a conscious falsification of the Islamists.
Another development in this century that has also affected the Islamic world was the rise of communism and the establishment of the communist states in the world. From the nature of its anti-West, it was considering for some Muslims a political front to assimilate with, but for the most of them, it was a “Kufr” of atheism.
The emergence of Marxist thought was seen by most Muslim intellectuals as an alien demon to fight and keep away from the mental and physical spaces of Muslim peoples. Though, many Islamic political organisations or parties have accepted a Stalinist model, but are more characterised by their anti-communist than anti-West. The legacies of communism remind them that the problem of atheist culture will be more dangerous than the western New- liberalism. Communism has always remained the main challenge to the Islamic world in the favour of the capitalist system.
When Islamists today consider huge differences between Islamic societies and Euro-American peoples, they see the values, institutions, and material way of life, which are only different from their own, therefore rejected. This Islamists’ evaluation is nothing but a product of their reactionary thought. The bottom-line is that there is no escape from the fact that there exist differences between Islamic and the Western culture and way of life, but the solutions proposed by Islamists do not escape from a future disaster of apocalyptic proportion.
Islam incorporates rules for every aspect of life. There is instruction for every detail of a Muslim’s daily life. The Sharia (Islamic law) applies to all aspects of life and religious practices. It describes the Islamic way of life, a way which has historically reached to the state of being colonised or economically dependent and undeveloped.
Islamic civilisation in a very great part of the Islamic world was not resulted in the process of human development in a normal set of principles, but started by destroying many ancient civilisations and imposing Islam on their occupied territories. The ancient great civilisations from Iran, Syria and Egypt were the victims. Though, a little part of indigenous civilisations was exploited for the benefit of the imposed Islamo-colonialists, but the main part was banned or not tolerated, as we know this case in Iran.
The difference between the Islamo-colonisation and the classic colonisation is that the early Islamo-colonialists not only plundered, exploited and looted the colony, but also destroyed the native civilisation in the favour of Islamic creed. Today, the followers of the Islamic invaders shamelessly argue that a loss of an Islamic identity is a profound danger for the independence of new generations of the Islamic world.
An “independent” Islamic society for them is a model of the Dark Ages, a Talibanist or Khomeinist way of life; it is preferably a way to paradise as a martyr during an Islamic Holy War(Jihad). This new advent of international political is now a new extension of the colonisation.
While many other non-Islamic colonies could develop, the Islamic world because of its religion could never act accordingly to develop after the initial colonisation era ended. Because under the classic colonisation, there was a gradual transformation of population in the world, whereas under the dependent dictators to the international capitalism, there were thousands escaping the dictatorship, but under the new model of Islamo-colonisation, millions, if possible the majority, of people would escape their countries.
When intellectuals escape the country, the IRI forces a model of Islamo-colonisation. Sooner or later, they have open the way for the monopolies of the capitalist nations for looting the country. Today, a great part of the Islamic world moves from a classic model of colonisation of the West to a new model of an archaic Islamo-colonisation, a model of backwardness with an open perspective for the future foreign exploiters.
The state of economic dependence with Islamic ruling class cannot be changed. There can always be commercial monopolies, supported by the capitalist states, plundering the resources of the undeveloped nations. The real solutions are the rapid development through adapting native cultures to democratic and secular values of modern civilisation.
del.icio.us
BlogMemes
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Google
Reddit
Facebook
TwitThis
Mixx
Loading ...
[…] Colonial IslamMidEastYouth.com - 14 minutesTherefore, dependent states were newly formed to help the colonial hyper-exploitation, excessive property rights and opening up markets for the goods of … […]
I think you’re writing on a wrong blog. This site belongs the muslims.
Serendip obviously can’t read, because this site is an interfaith one.
At the advent of Islam, it expanded by military conquest. Even during the life of the Prophet, the military subjugation of surrounding Arabian tribes took place. When Islam had conquered this and the rest of the region now known as the Middle East (which includes conquering by force the “Holy Land” which had been in the hands of the Christian Byzantine empire), they began to expand toward the West. They conquered North Africa ethnically cleansing the world of the Vandals. (Let it be known on behalf of Islam that the populations living under the Vandals were more than pleased to be rid of them, and preferred Muslim rule.) After that they invaded the European continent at two points: Iberia and Sicily. Even still there was no significant retribution or defense by the Europeans. The first was at Tours or Poitiers in 732 (one of the first church sanctioned acts of war, let it be known that it was in defense of Christendom from the Muslims). Here Charles Martel and another in a similar battle in Italy, halted the invasion of the Ummayid caliphate’s armies.
An interesting point about Muslim history, after the defeat of at Tours and the halted progress, there was internal strife and the Ummayids were overthrown. It stays true throughout Muslim history that Islam is only stable when their is a successful military dictatorship in place.
Serendip
An attack upon Muslims is not the purpose of this aricle. Apart from accuracy of any religion, I developed the use or abuse of Islam under colonial powers.
Such a little article is not certainly enough to shed light on all aspects colonialism. I just focused on the religious composant; the one that today emerges under political Islam, as a new form of inner colonisation in the Islamic world.
We are all colonized
Sorry mideastern youth, i’m neither youth nor mideast, but I’d like to point to the fact that effective Islam was originally nothing but institutionalized slavery and rapetivism! Once you settle with this you get a new historical jig-saw-puzzle (see e.g. my home area and the Vikings trafficking of white slave girls to Islam) that fits the (slave)history of most countries in Africa and huge parts of Asia!
Also note that tech development is inevitable, i.e. most of what is considered “western” (incl. Japanese etc) would, if freed, be similar globally! Yes, Islam might be a good candidate for a temporary stop to tech development but who really wants it and what’s the price?
In the end the crucial question is how soon we will adapt to an equally inevitable de-sex segregation based on the idea of global and individual negative human rights!
JR: I hear you. Islam’s colonialism of mind and body lingers on to this day…I think on many levels this type of colonialism is much more insidious and devestating than geographical and material colonialism.
An attack upon Muslims is not the purpose of this aricle. Apart from accuracy of any religion, I developed the use or abuse of Islam under colonial powers.
I must take exception. I tend to think that your thesis, - that western powers used Islam on a conscious basis to subjugate Muslims - is rather absurd.
During the colonial period, western powers did not know enough about Islam to use it as a power source (and they still don’t). In fact, most evidence points to the fact that western colonialism was always marked with the greatest circumspect respect for Islam.
What westerners knew then, though, as they know today, is that Islam is simply deficient in preparing people for a modernism that advances exponentially.
The problem is not how westerners treated Muslim lands; the problem is wholly how Muslims reacted to the technologically superiority of the west.
Japan stands as a shining example of what choices underdeveloped societies had. Islam wasn’t necessarily the problem, but there is something in mideast Muslim societies today that certainly is: the lack of introspection.
That kind of introspection is very well alive in far eastern societies, as well as western societies. Why doesn’t it exist in the mideast?
Serendip
The insidiousness you mentioned is gradually damaging the whole adaptive faculties of the Muslim world to get along with the social evolution of modernisation.
Once again, whichever side we originate from, we should not blame Muslims (because it worsen the situation), but condemn the political Islam for the sake of all sides.
I definitely agree with this statement. Blaming and attacking Muslims really does feed the violence and extremism. You should target the real, actual causes instead of inciting hatred by bitterly stereotyping Muslims everywhere.
The insidiousness you mentioned is gradually damaging the whole adaptive faculties of the Muslim world with the evolution of modernisation. Once again the, whichever side we originate, we should not blame Muslims (because it worsen the situation), but condemn the political Islam.
Finnpundit
I have not invented the thisis about use or abuse of Islam by the colonial powers. This is an obvious fact, even so obvious that through generations is mechanically spread in the popular thoughts. Many names of Iranian clergy can be mentioned who had dubious relation with the colonial power of British Empire.Such names exist in other colonised countries too.
The colonial powers used any tool to consolidate their plundering policies, including Islam, and perhaps this is a traditional reason that they understimate the uncompromised Islam of today’s Islamists.
This is an obvious fact, even so obvious that through generations is mechanically spread in the popular thoughts.
It’s not an obvious fact at all, it’s rather a matter of opinion. Just because many generations mechanically spread such ideas doesn’t mean it would necessarily be true.
Islam simply did not interest colonial powers to the extent you’re implying. The British did not interfere in its practise (the way, say, Spaniards interfered in the religions of the New World), and went to unusual lengths to curtail Christian missionaries in their colonial holdings.
This idea is simply another attempt to paint Muslims as some kinds of victims of the west. It is a means of avoiding facing the fact that Muslims themselves are responsible for their own underdeveloped socio-economic status.
Finnpundit: It’s is Islam which has hijacked the brain of all muslims; hence the socio-economic status.
Islam takes away one’s ability to think and develop independent thoughts thus rendering individual decision making capacities for their fate irrelevant. Islam is an instruction manual on how to leave your brain at the hands of clergies and when you do that you’re relieved of exploring and making hard choices in your life.
Serendip is right. We Muslims are merely zombies. Machines. Mindless automatons. No intellect. No thinking capacity. No worth. We are so incredibly bare, a nothing.
I’ll have you know that some of the richest people in the world are Muslims, as well as some of this world’s richest achievements.
You don’t look at the poorest African nations and blame Christianity. Countries whose life expectancy is as low as 32, and whose main religion is Christianity, don’t have to suffer the inconvenience of people saying “Jesus made you broke!”
You don’t look at the poorest Christians within countries like India and Pakistan and blame Christianity. So why do it with Islam, it is merely a lack of knowledge on political history. Much of the responsibility lies in the leadership. It was during Islamic cultures that the Arab world was once the educational center, especially Iraq. Muslim scholars contributed a lot in developing many scientific and mathematical theories. It’s due to today’s context that their brilliance is forgotten and discredited. This phobia, also the source of hatred and harsh stereotypes, is nothing short of sickening. Blame the people themselves, and their own incompetence, which often doesn’t have anything to do with the faith. It makes no sense to blame the religion.
Islam’s golden age is a myth
This “golden” period in question largely coincides with the second dynasty of the Caliphate or Islamic Empire, that of the Abbasids, named after Muhammad’s uncle Abbas, who succeeded the Umayyads and ascended to the Caliphate in 750 AD. They moved the capital city to Baghdad, absorbed much of the Syrian and Persian culture as well as Persian methods of government, and ushered in the “golden age.” ( Engineering an Empire; 5 parts)
Many of the scholars, scientiest, writers that muslim think were Arab, were in fact, Persian and since they were forbidden to write in Persian, they had to publish their work in Arabic, however, many of them managed to save the language by writing in Persian as well calendestinly (Hafiz, Sa’di, Ferdowsi and so on). For example, the founder of algebra was Kharazmi who was a Persian but since history is written by victors (Read 350 years of Arab/islam Occuaption of Iran) , he is considered an Arab by many Arabs. I was shocked to find out when talking to Arab friends that many of the Prominent Persians who contributed so much to the civilization are considered Arabs. I recently heard that in some books they are mentioning Ahmad Shamloo as an Arab, which is unbelievable since he only died a few years ago in Iran and all of his poems are in Persian.
At any rate, All religions are myth and fairytales.
Serendip,
Why are you making this debate one about Arab vs. Persian roots/contributions? How is this at all relevant? We are talking about Muslim contributions, in general.
Ahmed ibn Yusuf Al Misri, Sinan ibn Thabit, Ibn Al Banna, Al Uqlidisi, Aqi Al Din, Muhammed Targai, Ibn Sina, Ahmed ibn Majid, Al-Razi, the list is endless. All of these people made endless and crucial contributions to philosophy, astronomy, math and science. Throughout history, the Indians, Arabs, Greeks, and Persians worked hand in hand to develop each other’s theories, unlike the racist bullshit we are met with today where people racially compete. Arabs studied in East India building upon their numerical systems, the Greeks and Arabs translated each other’s works, while Persians wrote in Arabic they were able to teach and also learn from their Arab brethren, fellow scholars. These contributions came hand in hand. No one should resort to racial superiority and claim all great achievements as their own, it is the source of much of the racism that we are trying so hard to get rid of today. This website is specifically here to make us all aware of the fact that we can only progress as a region if we work and network together, which is how all these past achievements were made possible.
These diverse populations taught each other, learned from each other, and stood together like one progressive and consistent civilization instead of hatefully claiming each other’s works and isolating themselves in superiority. Arabs refer to their numbering systems as “Indian Numbers” giving credit where due. All Arab students of math and history know the Indian contributions very well. And we’ve been taught in school about Persian and Greek achievements in terms of math, physics, and philosophy. We acknowledge and embrace these developments, instead of claiming it as “me, mine, ours.” When one race/group feels superior and insists that other groups (or members of a certain faith) are incapable of producing anything of intellect, that is the one mentality that stops us all, as humans, from progressing. It inspires and incites a lot of hatred and it furthers a gap that wasn’t there to begin with. It’s natural to compete, but never when you do it while undermining the worth of others.
That doesn’t make its followers people with no history, culture, reputation, intellect, and rights. This is a matter of personal opinion, nothing more. And it’s fine for you to think that, it’s not however fine for you to insist that Muslims didn’t and are incapable of contributing anything of worth to this world. It has hateful and racist implications that aren’t backed with historical facts, since history disagrees with you completely. Muslims - either Persian or Arabs - contributed more than you can ever dream of. Don’t judge Islam merely by what you see today, which mostly has to do with politics, not religion (i.e, most Muslims don’t live in the Middle East or Arab world.) In fact, there are millions in India, China, the USA, France, all of which are homes to growing economies, and all of them house some of the wealthiest Muslims. Like I said before, I don’t see anyone explaining the struggles of countries within Africa that are way more poorer and less politically stable yet have Christianity as their official religions. It wouldn’t make sense to blame their ills on Jesus or Christianity, and thus it wouldn’t make sense to blame any of our issues on our faith either. It’s simply irrelevant, and a lazy, inaccurate conclusion.
It is a sad day when hundreds if not thousands of amazing scholars are reduced to a mere footnote, simply because people feel that it is their duty to constantly discredit the religion they represent. I wish you would just learn to treat everybody as humans, the way we all deserve to be treated, instead of allowing your insipid bias to cloud your vision of any achievements, whether be it those done by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, or Baha’is, we are all contributing to humanity in the end, to which you are a part of, and should thus understand and support.
Finnpundit
I see you interpret exaggeratedly biased some points of your interlocutor. I did not claim “Islam simply interested colonial powers”, I said “colonial powers were interested in any means, including Islam, to consolidate their plundering in the Muslim colonies.
According to historians, a great number of Iranian clergy was protégé of the British. Many royal houses in the Middle East cannot be uprooted from their colonial terrain.
This is a by the way a futile terrain for sowing democracy and progress in this region.