Why Are Muslim Countries Poorer?

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,328
Reactions
9 8,732
Nation of residence
United Kingdom

Interesting video.

One of the more interesting points is how Turkeys literacy in 1960's was at the level that the Netherlands was in 1650's. Got to thank Ataturk, if were able to make 5th gen fighter jets today, its thanks to Ataturks republic. We are just reaching literacy rates of Western europe in 2023, rates they had almost 400 years ago.

Makes you wonder had the Ottomans educated her citizens 300 years ago, instead of Ataturk starting it 100 years ago, maybe the world would already be coming to us for advanced fighter jets.

Inshallah western backed islamism doesn't succeed in taking us back to those days.

Also points out how Islamic laws basically hindered Muslims doing business and opened up business to be dominated by non muslim minorities. Just like in the Ottoman dying days the Armenians, Greeks and other non Islamic minorities dominated the economy. While the Muslims lived as poor peasents, the minorities who didnt even fight in the wars were living the best lives they could.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,235
Reactions
5 17,669
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
I believe these are the factors.

-Colonialism destroyed trade routes.

-Economy outsourced to minorities

-Muslims regardless of which empire it was Ottomans, Ummayads, Timurids, Mughals, Abbassids and Seljuks was conscripted to fight in the army. Fighting in the army was excused for Non Muslims which meant they can focus on education and trade also send their children abroad.

-Traditional society with no capitalist society.

-Leaders with no vision. This is why im critical of monarchy. You either get great leaders, good leaders or leaders that were utter shit.

-Diversity meant it was basically impossible for Muslim monarchs to enlist every ethnic group, tribe or clan to come together to modernise or fix the empires problems. Japan easily modernised because all of its peoples were on onboard to modernise and make Japan a world power so they dont get colonised. Samurai class easily got wiped out.

-Jannisaries became corrupt and a reactionary force same story with the Mamluks.

-Arrogance has a price the Ottomans and the Chinese learnt the hard way when they close themselves off to developments going around the world and in their neighbourhood. They thought they were perfectly fine and nobody can match their power.

-Religious class held too much power. Their power was not in check. Also believe the lack of a protestant work ethic doomed the Muslim World.

Muslim Empires all fell one by one either rotting inside or getting conquered or colonised.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,235
Reactions
5 17,669
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey

Interesting video.

One of the more interesting points is how Turkeys literacy in 1960's was at the level that the Netherlands was in 1650's. Got to thank Ataturk, if were able to make 5th gen fighter jets today, its thanks to Ataturks republic. We are just reaching literacy rates of Western europe in 2023, rates they had almost 400 years ago.

Makes you wonder had the Ottomans educated her citizens 300 years ago, instead of Ataturk starting it 100 years ago, maybe the world would already be coming to us for advanced fighter jets.

Inshallah western backed islamism doesn't succeed in taking us back to those days.

Also points out how Islamic laws basically hindered Muslims doing business and opened up business to be dominated by non muslim minorities. Just like in the Ottoman dying days the Armenians, Greeks and other non Islamic minorities dominated the economy. While the Muslims lived as poor peasents, the minorities who didnt even fight in the wars were living the best lives they could.

Every Islamic Empire in history did this.

Outsourced to minorities while Muslims were conscripted to fight in wars.

This took a toll. Wars are costly in money and in men.

Islamists can dream about the good old days. No point in imperialism if we cant exploit the lands we were ruling.

European countries mainly got rich by colonialism and imperialism. We could not even do that now its taboo to talk about it.

Now look at it we are poor as shit we have to migrate to the West.

As much as I critise the Gulf Arab countries at least they exploit their oil and get rich. They even said themselves it does not conflict with their religion.

Us Turks if one Turk gets rich we quickly guilt trip the fck out of them. We made being poor or poverty stricken a good trait rather than being rich.
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
301
Reactions
5 303
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan

Interesting video.

One of the more interesting points is how Turkeys literacy in 1960's was at the level that the Netherlands was in 1650's.

That was mostly because of the protestant reformation it was found that people who had a holy book in their own language were more likely to learn to read. this is why it was the religion that pushed science along.

One of the main reasons why the Ottoman population was so illiterate was due to the Quran being written in Arabic, which discouraged a lot of Muslims from learning how to read. this is why, despite the effort the Ottoman authorities put into educating the population there was apathy.

Got to thank Ataturk, if were able to make 5th gen fighter jets today, its thanks to Ataturks republic. We are just reaching literacy rates of Western europe in 2023, rates they had almost 400 years ago.

Most of the reforms were already happening before Ataturk came to power, and it is also important to remember that Europe is a lot easier to govern than mountainous Turkey due to Europe's flat land and river system.

Makes you wonder had the Ottomans educated her citizens 300 years ago, instead of Ataturk starting it 100 years ago, maybe the world would already be coming to us for advanced fighter jets.

The Ottoman sultans didn't have that much control over the empire in the 1700s as the small ice age forced the Sultans to decentralize the empire, in fact, the sultan only had control of Istanbul and three other cities by the start of the 1800s. When the Sultans regained control of the empire, they started to push for more education.

-Leaders with no vision. This is why im critical of monarchy. You either get great leaders, good leaders or leaders that were utter shit.

-Arrogance has a price the Ottomans and the Chinese learnt the hard way when they close themselves off to developments going around the world and in their neighbourhood. They thought they were perfectly fine and nobody can match their power.

The sultan's had more vision than every single Turkish government the republic produced since 1950 the republic didn't produce anyone who actually tried to build up institutions. Ataturk himself was actually a by-product of the sultan's attempts to reform the empire.

The motion that the Ottomans were arrogant is not true there was writing since the 1500s from Ottoman scholars and government officials about the sense the empire was entering an era of decline. The first attempt to reform the empire started all the way back in the 1600s but due to the small ice age, it failed.

That said Islamic law and Islam's obsession with Arabic and its tolerance did play a major part in the faller of Islamic Turkic empires, but the failure of the Muslim world since then has largely been a secular issue that is caused by the lack of strong state institutions after all most of Asia as was worse of then the Muslim world yet they managed to catch up.

The Ottoman sultans recognised the weakness of institutionalism in the Muslim world thus they tried to build strong institutions that became the original pillars that Ataturk built the republic over. That is why Turkey is the most successful Muslim country but sadly the foundations have constantly been attacked by various governments over the years thus leading to Turkey's current problem.
 

Merzifonlu

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
656
Reactions
23 1,939
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Because they reject science. Also they reject freedoms, person's base (fundemental) rights, etc, etc.

People in Islamic countries demand justice and mercy from their leaders. They never, ever demand freedoms and fundamental rights. They do not realize that there is no justice without rights and freedoms.
 

Maximilien Robespierre

Committed member
Messages
190
Reactions
1 220
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
That was mostly because of the protestant reformation it was found that people who had a holy book in their own language were more likely to learn to read. this is why it was the religion that pushed science along.

One of the main reasons why the Ottoman population was so illiterate was due to the Quran being written in Arabic, which discouraged a lot of Muslims from learning how to read. this is why, despite the effort the Ottoman authorities put into educating the population there was apathy.



Most of the reforms were already happening before Ataturk came to power, and it is also important to remember that Europe is a lot easier to govern than mountainous Turkey due to Europe's flat land and river system.



The Ottoman sultans didn't have that much control over the empire in the 1700s as the small ice age forced the Sultans to decentralize the empire, in fact, the sultan only had control of Istanbul and three other cities by the start of the 1800s. When the Sultans regained control of the empire, they started to push for more education.



The sultan's had more vision than every single Turkish government the republic produced since 1950 the republic didn't produce anyone who actually tried to build up institutions. Ataturk himself was actually a by-product of the sultan's attempts to reform the empire.

The motion that the Ottomans were arrogant is not true there was writing since the 1500s from Ottoman scholars and government officials about the sense the empire was entering an era of decline. The first attempt to reform the empire started all the way back in the 1600s but due to the small ice age, it failed.

That said Islamic law and Islam's obsession with Arabic and its tolerance did play a major part in the faller of Islamic Turkic empires, but the failure of the Muslim world since then has largely been a secular issue that is caused by the lack of strong state institutions after all most of Asia as was worse of then the Muslim world yet they managed to catch up.

The Ottoman sultans recognised the weakness of institutionalism in the Muslim world thus they tried to build strong institutions that became the original pillars that Ataturk built the republic over. That is why Turkey is the most successful Muslim country but sadly the foundations have constantly been attacked by various governments over the years thus leading to Turkey's current problem.
*The Ottoman sultans didn't have that much control over the empire in the 1700s as the small ice age forced the Sultans to decentralize the empire, in fact, the sultan only had control of Istanbul and three other cities by the start of the 1800s. When the Sultans regained control of the empire, they started to push for more education.*

No not even remotely correct most of the educated masses were either turks in balkans or greeks/armenians
Ottomans never tried to educate us turkmens.

*The Ottoman sultans didn't have that much control over the empire in the 1700s as the small ice age forced the Sultans to decentralize the empire, in fact, the sultan only had control of Istanbul and three other cities by the start of the 1800s. When the Sultans regained control of the empire, they started to push for more education.*

Reforms of what? No one in anatolia got educated got bossed around by devshirmes wrong again.
 

Rodeo

Contributor
Moderator
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,080
Reactions
23 4,260
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
you wrote several hundred pages on this subject, right? what do you say? Were we just dealt with a bad hand? 🤔 😂

Actually, I would much prefer it if you could wrote an extensive piece about educational policies and share any insights you might have on how to fix the system. I'd say you have much to offer on the subject. If you have the time of course. No pressure :coffee:

 
Last edited:

Rooxbar

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
414
Reactions
30 1,284
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
you wrote several hundred pages on this subject, right? what do you say? Were we just dealt with a bad hand? 🤔 😂

Actually, I would much prefer it if you could write an extensive piece about educational policies and share any insights you might have on how to fix the system. I'd say you have much to offer on the subject. If you have the time of course. No pressure :coffee:

haha :ROFLMAO: , the question about how the west got rich is not an impossible question to answer, but an impossible question to answer in a succinct but satisfactory way (on a non-academic setting like an internet forum nonetheless, where everyone is probably convinced their version of reality, which are mostly very run of the mill narratives, is the seal of all stories).

From the times of Francis Bacon (where the narrative about supremacy of printing press, papyrus and salt petre comes from) people have been trying to answer some version of this question. The modern answers include the works of Max Weber (much more interesting and older than the Voltairean 18th century answers provided in popular accounts; scholarly works have progressed past those kind of answers a long time ago, but popular accounts are far behind an answer that refuted the conventional wisdom a century ago), Joseph Needham, Eric Jones, Frank Braudel, Immanuel Wallerstein, J. D. Bernal, Nathan Sivin, Ian Morris, Thomas F. Madden, Michael Zmolek, Patrick Spread, Jeff Horn, Joyce Appleby, Andre Frank, Robert J. Gordon, Ellen Wood, Yingqiu Liu, Michel Beaud, Sven Beckert, and dozens more. Then there are less serious answers which are dismissed out of hand by more scholarly and erudite writers. These include stuff by Jared Diamond, Kenneth Pomeranz, Niall Ferguson, Acemoglu & Robinson (this one does regurgitate the findings of development economists who provided the original arguments which Acemoglu & Robinson spent their careers refusing to admit until they were forced to after the 2008 crash), etc.

But the question of "why Muslim countries are poorer" or "What is the path to development" are very different questions than the one about the wealth of the West. They are also much easier questions if you already assume the answer to the latter issue; esp. the question of development I believe has been answered, because this is 21st century, not the middle ages. There's a sort of a consensus among development economists about the optimal path to development. It's the path taken by China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea. All of them share certain core components (for instance infant industry protection while having domestic competition); but they all have problems also. The works of development economists like Jeffrey Sachs, Stiglitz, Chang are almost like a roadmap for development. But Lee Kwan Yew, I hold, could not have achieved the restructuring that he achieved during the cold war if he was alive today, as expectations these days are adjusted to the level represented by the bulk of social media content, i.e. stuff from western sources, so he would face severe social upheaval. But there are workarounds present.

On the question of "Why Muslim countries are poorer?" one must take into account the fact that what was abnormal was the rise of the west, not the inertia of all other societies who went on very similar and historically orthodox paths of development. What I think many are considering is that not only Muslim countries are poorer than the west, they also got stuck behind others who could develop in late 20th and 21st centuries much easier, due to availability of technologies and the globalized village; but these are a minority. I think this is not an interesting question, because it assumes a certain metaphysical essence to "Muslim" countries. You can look at christian or other non-Muslim countries which are situated in the midst of other Muslim countries and you can get your questions answered that way. I can assure you if there was a Muslim country in Latin America, its economy probably would look like your average Latin American economy, bar the minor fluctuations which one can assume to be the result of starting conditions, geographical peculiarities, etc.

In answering the former, more interesting question about the west's history, what people in their more common sense, and conventional wisdom answers ignore are quadruple fold: first they ignore to account for the sufficiency of their cause or causes, which in order to account for, they need to know the detailed microhistory and Alltagsgeschichte of those countries along with showing a certain controlled environment in the countries they discuss (an almost impossible task to guarantee in the case of all non-nomothetic sciences anyway, but particularly an impossible task in this case as those societies, obviously, are long gone). Second is they ignore to account for the necessity of their cause, and do not consider societies or instances where these causes didn't exist but development occurred. Third is they do not consider that the cause or causes they mention for the effect in question, might be just by-products of a more fundamental cause. So they ignore the possibility that their cause(s) comes second (making it at best an auxiliary cause) in the causal chain. Fourth and one of the most easy things to miss (and a crucial point of my argument in my forthcoming work, so I'm mentioning here it protestingly) is to assume the mechanism of actions of a cause to be immediate, completely disregarding slow-acting causes which set the ball rolling, taking the signs the ball takes down on its route as the real milestones. Hence they put the origins and roots of development at the earliest in and around renaissance (more scholarly works do understand that this cannot hold based on the drastic changes after the black death, themselves again by-products of other causes), or later, reformation; then there's the scientific revolution (a concept believed by those who haven't read more than one book of history of science, and in complete ignorance of Pierre Duhem, Dijksterhuis, Marshall Clagett, Edward Grant and modern serious historiography of science in general) and then comes the more unrefined commentaries which can even delay the causes and roots as late as the Enlightenment and the Industrial revolution. The most moronic ones are the deterministic ones of course, as their historical narrative is full of holes and what they make seem inevitable, was very much contingent.

So I cannot give my answer here as it is a complex web of anthropology, material cultures and amalgamation of factors (but one factor I can give you hints about and that is the essential differences in the type of population growth based on rice-farming, as opposed to population growth based on changes in approach brilliantly put forth in the works of G. E. Fussell, changes which predate the popular narrative about the black death and the ensuing revolts); but one thing I can tell you. All the causes you have seen mentioned, which are the most common answers in received wisdom and popular books of pantheon of liberal hegemony, are second-rate (i.e. subordinate and dependent) and fast-acting causes.

P.S. I tried to say nothing and I wrote 5 paragraphs. You can imagine what would ensue if I tried to actually say stuff. So I think I would cause less headache and it'd be to the benefit of everyone if I just didn't try to say stuff.
 
Last edited:

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,328
Reactions
9 8,732
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Because they reject science. Also they reject freedoms, person's base (fundemental) rights, etc, etc.

People in Islamic countries demand justice and mercy from their leaders. They never, ever demand freedoms and fundamental rights. They do not realize that there is no justice without rights and freedoms.

I definitely think the video if anything raises the problem in the conscience of Muslims. You can see in the comments of that video that it stirs reactions that causes people to expect and demand positive changes.

The collective social conscience is important because it creates pressures in society, either for the better or the for the worse. Its for good reason that despotic and corrupt governments try to control their media and hence control public sentiment.

If political islamists have their way i would conclude that further economic and social regression will set in. Its for this very reason that most political islamists are western backed like feto.
 
Last edited:

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,328
Reactions
9 8,732
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Some of the comments are quite interesting:

"Culture/mentality has a lot to do with it. Take 2 examples of former French colonies for instance: Morocco and Vietnam. When I visited these countries it immediately occured to me that in Vietnam (like in every other Southeast Asian country) everybody is actively doing something, being productive, both men and women. Sometimes it's just a small thing like selling slices of pineapple on the streets, but almost nobody is idly hanging around. In Morocco I noticed lots and lots of men doing absolutely nothing, whilst the women were almost invisible in outside life. When you ask a Vietnamese what they think of their former French colonizers or of America, they don't hold any grudge at all: it's in the past and their focus is on the future whereas in the islamic world there's a lot more of a perpetual victimhood mentality and living in the past, blaming the West for their destitute situation. Might be a important reason why Southeast Asia is making enormous progress and the islamic world isn't."

"As an Egyptian, I can shed light on the root issues plaguing our country—corruption, unchecked power dynamics, and the absence of democracy. The success-to-failure ratio is disheartening when it comes to businesses. Despite the populace's eagerness to tackle problems and build a brighter future, governmental support is lacking. Excessive taxes are applied, people are manipulated by power dynamics, which cripple businesses. A friend of mine is an investor in a hospital, he faced obstruction when expanding due to a powerful individual demanding an exorbitant payment of 2 million Egyptian pounds (around 70,000 dollars) just to operate. Unchecked power in the hands of undeserving individuals undermines progress and fairness."

"I am convinced education has a lot to do with it. I grew up in Lebanon, I was educated in the French/Lebanese system. Classes in arabic emphasized memorisation, rote learning and did not promote questioning and critical thinking. It was quite the opposite in the french part of the curriculum. Certain very conservative families (often Chia muslims) refused to even send their kids to anything other than islamic Madrassas, where all they did was to memorize the Koran. They would only go to get the most unqualified jobs, thus remaining at the bottom of the social ladder. This would generate a feeling of injustice and resentment as, in their view, they were doing everything right to be virtuous in the eyes of Allah and deserved to get ahead. They were being cheated of what was rightfully theirs by others. One of the consequences is that the sum total of scientific papers of value published by the islamic world (1.2 billion people) is equal to that of Spain (45 million). Another reason is the way muslims view law. In most muslim countries, you will notice the chaotic traffic, crazy driving, and loose traffic norms. Most muslims consider that the sharia laws were imposed by Allah and are sacred, to be followed scrupulously. All other laws are man made and thus are of lesser or no value. You can extrapolate this to democracy. Democracy is human centered, people decide for themselves under which laws they want to live under. Islam is centered on God, he decides, you submit. The leader, just like in mediaeval absolute monarchy, is the representative of God in temporal matters. And education has taught people not to question authority. We Europeans have a hard time understanding that in Islam, spiritual and religious life is not disjoined from public, political, professional and domestic life. It permeates everything. In Europe, people go about their daily lives not thinking about religion except, for some people, on sunday at church, or during certain religious celebrations and sacraments. Muslims are reminded 5 times a day by the muezzin that it is time to pray. Religion is omnipresent."

"As an African looking in, the main problems are political nepotism, militarisation of men, weakening of women, monopolisation of voices, homogeneity of thought, religious fundamentalism/fanatism, lack of proper education, children being viewed as extensions of their parents and not individuals with dreams and thought and obsession with their glory days of yesteryear. I saw someone mention poor geography which is an interesting point, although my contention is that it’s more so an issue of not knowing how to capitalise off of the geographical setup than it is about poor geography itself. I say this because if we look at the map of the Muslim world, the countries within it are in proximity to large bodies of water, oceans/seas to be precise. These territories can and should actually benefit from the transportation of goods and services, identifying possible opportunities for agglomerations in the region, but most importantly the transportation and aggregation of ideas that will completely revolutionise its geoeconomic landscape, so it’s baffling that they’re still lagging behind everybody else despite religiosity, delays in secularisation, and socio-political hiccups."
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,235
Reactions
5 17,669
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Muslims should try to get rich.

Stop treating being poor and poverty stricken as a good trait.

This goes for Orthodox Christians too.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,235
Reactions
5 17,669
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
I play lots of racing games I even bought myself a steering wheel and invested into my hobby.

You know what my parents say oh what a waste of money dont you think about the poor.

You see what I mean. I work and earn my money. Being poor is not a positive trait. This shit needs to stop.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,235
Reactions
5 17,669
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
That was mostly because of the protestant reformation it was found that people who had a holy book in their own language were more likely to learn to read. this is why it was the religion that pushed science along.

One of the main reasons why the Ottoman population was so illiterate was due to the Quran being written in Arabic, which discouraged a lot of Muslims from learning how to read. this is why, despite the effort the Ottoman authorities put into educating the population there was apathy.



Most of the reforms were already happening before Ataturk came to power, and it is also important to remember that Europe is a lot easier to govern than mountainous Turkey due to Europe's flat land and river system.



The Ottoman sultans didn't have that much control over the empire in the 1700s as the small ice age forced the Sultans to decentralize the empire, in fact, the sultan only had control of Istanbul and three other cities by the start of the 1800s. When the Sultans regained control of the empire, they started to push for more education.



The sultan's had more vision than every single Turkish government the republic produced since 1950 the republic didn't produce anyone who actually tried to build up institutions. Ataturk himself was actually a by-product of the sultan's attempts to reform the empire.

The motion that the Ottomans were arrogant is not true there was writing since the 1500s from Ottoman scholars and government officials about the sense the empire was entering an era of decline. The first attempt to reform the empire started all the way back in the 1600s but due to the small ice age, it failed.

That said Islamic law and Islam's obsession with Arabic and its tolerance did play a major part in the faller of Islamic Turkic empires, but the failure of the Muslim world since then has largely been a secular issue that is caused by the lack of strong state institutions after all most of Asia as was worse of then the Muslim world yet they managed to catch up.

The Ottoman sultans recognised the weakness of institutionalism in the Muslim world thus they tried to build strong institutions that became the original pillars that Ataturk built the republic over. That is why Turkey is the most successful Muslim country but sadly the foundations have constantly been attacked by various governments over the years thus leading to Turkey's current problem.

Republic of Turkiye also has its fair share of crappy leaders.

The difference is you are not shackled to a shit leader as you can vote them out or they can be forced to resign.

In a monarchy until the King dies or abdicates. You are stuck with a shit leader.

Then again the Ottoman Empire is a 600 year old empire. Like all good things in life it comes to an end. Nothing lasts forever.

Civilisations and empires all rise and fall.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom