« PKK is Using Al-Qaeda's Strategy | Main | Ein Volk, Ein Ummah, Ein Muhammad? »
October 29, 2007
God, Gold and Islam
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
LONDON — One of the things that strikes visitors to the British capital are the countless signs of its magnificence. The grandeur of the Big Ben or the Westminster Abbey, the elegance of The National Gallery or the Tate, along with all the handsome avenues and eye-catching monuments of central London seem to be testament to the majesty of the British Empire, which was, until just a half century ago, the world's preeminent superpower.
For the British, this splendor must be a source of pride. For the foreigner, though, it raises an important question: What made the British so successful?When one recalls that the world's current superpower, the United States, owes a lot to its British origins, the question becomes even more significant. There is a very evident Anglo-Saxon success story and what made it possible seems to be a very exciting topic to think about.
The Anglo-Saxon story
American scholar Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, just recently published a book which addresses that issue and offers insightful answers. As the book's name, “God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World,” implies, Mead thinks that religion has a very important role in the creation of the Anglo-Saxon ascendancy. “19th-century Britain and the United States today,” he notes, “are the countries that are in most respects the most thoroughly modernized by any definition”. Yet, he adds, they are also “significantly more religious than most.” According to Mead, that's not an accident. He actually argues that religion acted as a driving force in the progress of Britain and the United States.
The idea that religiosity can motivate modernization was developed before by towering intellectual figures such as Max Weber or Alexis de Tocqueville. Weber explained how the Protestant work ethic fostered capitalist production, and Tocqueville showed how religion in America enhanced democracy.
Mead posits a similar yet updated argument. After the British Reformation, he argues, “The English-speaking world… reached a new kind of religious equilibrium in which capitalism and social change came to be accepted as good things.” And hence came the religious drive for “progress.” He defines this perception as “dynamic religion,” which, unlike “static religion,” regards social change as not the corruption but the evolution of divine order.
Mead also emphasizes the pluralism of Anglo-Saxon societies, and contrasts them with other modern ones that believe in homogeneity. Elites in such countries have carried out bloody experiments to re-construct their societies according to “science and reason.” The French Revolutionaries and the communists, according to Mead, were good examples of such “reason nuts” and they all ended up in destroying the open society.Yet “human society must be torn between strongly felt ideals, because no one ideal can hold all the answers,” Mead asserts. “Open society must be secular and religious, dogmatic and free.”
What about Islam?
Well, good for the Anglo-Saxons to have realized all that. But what does all this mean for other societies and civilizations?
Islam is, of course, the hot topic here. Because unlike modern Europe, which is thoroughly secular, most Islamic nations are quite religious and considerably pre-modern. How to modernize them has been a crucial question for their elites since the 19th century. Many of those elites chose the way of the “reason nuts” and tried to reconstruct their societies by authoritarian tools and secularist goals. In return, they have faced strong reactions from those who remained loyal to their faith.
However the Anglo-Saxon story shows that modernization can come within a religious, not necessarily a secular, medium, if the religion in question is “dynamic,” not “static.”
But is Islam open to being a dynamic religion? There are many who would rush to say “no” — and the most zealous of them would be the secularists within Islamic societies — but the Islamic golden age of medieval times defy their arguments. Moreover there are many fine Islamic thinkers who theorize modernist interpretations of Islam. Of course an “Islamic modernization” which is only in history and on paper would not be terribly impressive. But there are also living and evolving examples — such as Turkey's new Muslimhood which is in favor of liberal democracy, not an “Islamic state.”
The event which took me to London this time, the conference titled “Muslim World in Transition: The Contributions of the Gülen Movement”, was addressing one of the leading actors of this saga, Fethullah Gülen. As Turkey's most popular Islamic scholar and sage, he has inspired a mass movement based on the deepest values of Islam articulated by Sufism. Gülen's millions of followers are not only preaching a message of peace and tolerance, but also leading an impressive effort of education and interfaith dialogue. One of the key features of this movement is their pro-business and entrepreneurial spirit, and it very much reminiscent of the Anglo-Saxon way of piety. The fact that the conference was hosted by the British House of Lords was, thus, quite symbolic.
Alas, if the Islamic world will be able to breed a “dynamic” interpretation of its faith, then Turkey, it seems, will be one of its main architects. So, keep watching.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at October 29, 2007 8:56 PM
May Lord be pleased with these people...
Posted by: Behruz at October 30, 2007 11:48 AM
I am left a bit confused. To me, it is not clear whether you are you are countering secularist arguments that religion is detrimental to progress or whether you are actually citing religion as a force of economic progress.
There are a few things which I believe need re-visiting:
Walter Russel Mead citing anglo-saxon countries as ‘significantly more religious than others’. I would not take this statement seriously. I am ignorant of the USA, but I live in Britain. Britain is not, by any definition, a religious country. The head of religion is the head of state but that’s as far as it goes.
It is important not to confuse the state which is Christian by name and a Christian country. Practicing Christians (people for whom religion is more than related to identity) are a real minority in the UK. If official statistics would like to reveal the truth about Britain, which they don’t, we would see that the most practiced religion in Britain is Islam. More mosque goers than church goers.
Historically, it is certainly not a dynamic interpretation of Christianity that has lead to economic progress. It is very much a totalitarian intolerant perceived interpretation of Christianity if not sheer Godlessness which created the wealth. This is why this wealth is poised not to last.
Britain’s wealth is directly related to its past empire. Without the colonies, there would have been no wealth. This is undisputable. Their finance to build spectacular buildings that impress you so much came from the Empire. These buildings are glorious but the Empire that financed them certainly wasn’t. Where you might see glory Mustafa, others see robbery.
The British robbed, pillaged, murdered and raped for their wealth. Is that Christian dynamism Mustafa? Of course not. British schools only teach the perceived legacy: ‘the spread of democracy’… No one tells of the hardship other countries went through in order to increase the standard of living in Britain during the industrial period.
I think you might have left the grandeur of London architecture affect your perception of the realities that forged modern day Britain. Religion would have helped Britain make its money in an honest and bloodless way which it did not. I therefore question if there is in fact any link between the two. This Walter Russel Mead seems well intentioned but inaccurate.
In relation to Islam, it is important to counter wahabi and salafist doctrine which lays numerous obstacles in the way of economic progress. Unlike Britain, we must build our wealth in an honest way. Let us become rich, but not with blood money, or someone else’s wealth, rich through intelligence and hard work. This is the example of some Anatolian businessmen but not all.
Posted by: Ceyhan at October 30, 2007 4:33 PM
Ceylan,
your analysis is ridicolous! I presume in the same way you can explain the richness of Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Danemark, or even Germany or Japan (the last one had some colonies but was fully distructed after WW2)....
uhmmm...fine minds around....
Posted by: echnaton at October 31, 2007 9:37 AM
Echnaton,
If my analysis is ridiculous, why not try to explain why that is the case rather than try insult me.
Anyone who has studied British history will not dispute the relation between past british wealth and trade. Trade was the main reason for the growth of the empire. I simply noted a few facts about the empire.
The point is you cannot apply that logic to other countries and I havent. Each country is different. I simply pointed out particularities of Britain.
Echnaton, if all you have to add is the conclusion of if someone is a 'fine mind'from a few paragraphs he has written, you're not really helping people see your reason. If it's just for the sake of insult then well done.At least I am bringing ideas and opinions to the forum, where are yours?
Posted by: Ceyhan at October 31, 2007 4:59 PM
I take offense at Ceyhan characterizing British success as solely due to the fact that they, "robbed, pillaged, murdered and raped for their wealth." Granted, the British had many failings during their time of ascendancy. However, they did a lot right as well. In terms of mastering economic and material resources, the British are the best. No other group can claim a similar legacy of scientific discovery, industrial invention, and economic expansion.
On the area of morals and ethics, I agree whole heartedly with Ceyhan that the British were brutal and oppressive in establishing their empire. However, to their credit, they gave up slavery, and gave up their empire, and are earnestly striving to make amends for past wrongs. This is more than can be said for many other empires (for instance Turkey).
On the subject of America, I can assure you that there is a sizable portion of citizens here who are devoutly religious. Though I am not of their ilk, I tolerate them, because I fear that our society would be missing out on something by only seeing the world in a secular light. This is one of the main points of Walter Mead's book, that Anglo-Saxon society is composed of a diversity of view points; religious, secular, and nationalist. It is the interplay between these three factions that creates a dynamic society.
It is not solely greed and violence that makes the Anglo-Saxon world powerful, it is also due to their unique form of religion, economy and society. You cannot libel an entire nation. There is evil and good in all societies and all people.
Posted by: bjorn at November 17, 2007 1:13 AM
Right now there are three dominant themes unfolding. Anyone who does not understand the history of these themes, is apt to be greatly confused as fear and denial continue to rise in our Western Societies.
The first is the long connection between market manias and credit expansion. These have been repeated for more than 300 years by politicians who love having a banking cartel tell them that they can create dollars "virtually at will." The greater the problem from the previous problem that they created, the greater the demand for more of the same with the public ignorant all along the way. Solving today's debt with tomorrow's debt has never been a long term solution to any society in human history.
The second is the movement towards pluralism with anything "Christian" being removed because it is "forcing religion" on individuals, while stating that a religion that teaches children to watch cartoons about becoming suicide bombers{check our Palestinian television}, and having family parties to celebrate your "martryed" son are nothing more than "freedom fighters" is insane. What other religion in the world has supported killing yourself for the destruction of innocent men, women and children? We are massively ignorant of Islam having acquired our knowledge in the West from Islamic leaders who are supported by the Oil that has supported their chair position since the Petrodollar began in the 1970s (remember the 400% increase on the price of oil in the early 1970s), and the Western academic elites that have never lived a day under Sharia law where women being stoned, and individuals being beheaded is taking place right now. Check out the US State Department's recent report on Human Trafficking around the world, and you may be surprised what you learn about the "moderate" Islamic countries.
Finally,we have embraced the idea that if only more experts could be hired by more government agencies to study the rest of us, then we would see our countries problems start to dwindle. We would ride our self of all those traditions and religions that have harmed our human life, and move ever faster towards world peace. Funny thing is, H.G.Wells espoused this same thing in his 1940 book The New world Order and his 1933 book, The Shape of Things to Come. He was a proud Fabian Socialist, but hey, political ideas are really only for intellectual discussions and debates. No connection to your world and mine, right?
If you agree with these premises then you are beginning to understand the three largest trends impacted our world. If you don't, start reading. As Bob Dylan said in the '60s, "Times they are a changin", and changing faster than anyone of us ever want to admit.
DW
Posted by: Best Minds at July 10, 2008 10:47 PM