The Islamic Dark Age

  The events of the past few months and years have certainly highlighted just how bad things are getting in the Middle East. However, in this region of the world, it has been a long downward spiral, virtually uninterrupted for hundreds of years. There are many competing theories as to why this region is now rapidly destabilizing, and no doubt there are a number of factors, but to a student of history the answer should be clear - we have, after all, seen this pattern before. In what we colloquially refer to as the Dark Ages, from roughly the 6^th to the 13^th centuries, Western civilization experienced a similar dramatic collapse in its ability to grow, develop and move forward. Little notable literature was produced, there were few cultural achievements or architectural marvels created, and society stagnated under the auspices of a corrupt religious authority. Superstition reigned, knowledge was not valued or pursued for its own sake, and as a result, the wheels of progress effectively ground to a halt for several hundred years. Eventually, Europeans began to desire and pursue a deeper understanding of the world and the universe around them again, and with immense effort, dragged their struggling societies out of stagnation and into an era of scientific and cultural enlightenment known as the Renaissance. Today however, it is the Middle East and countries under strict Islamic rule that are increasingly embracing religious doctrine over reason and fact, that can only be best understood as an Islamic Dark Age.

  It wasn't always this way. At its peak, Islam was once a proud sponsor of science and the arts, and during this time the lands it controlled expanded, while it flourished culturally. Unlike today, there was also a broad tolerance of religious diversity. Unfortunately, it has largely turned away from this path over the past several hundred years, and although the rise of Western powers certainly played a role in the decline of Islam, this decline has been and will continue to be only further compounded and exacerbated by the rise of religious fanaticism. The valuation of doctrine over the pursuit of knowledge has taken deep root, to the point that science is frequently regarded as a form of Western propaganda (despite the fact that its principles are, of course, universal), and is considered sacrilegious wherever it conflicts with doctrine. This notion is understandable in a way, as it is the embrace of science that allowed Western powers to dominate many Islamic countries for so long, but science is merely a tool, and any tool is ultimately blameless. This is not strictly an Islamic phenomenon of course; many in the U.S. today see evolution as a threat to biblical literalism, and perpetually embarrass themselves by denying mountains of evidence. In the U.S. however, there is a rational, secular counter-argument to such views, while in Muslim countries such views are met with flogging and beheading. By allowing this anti-science mentality to spread like a virus, Islamic countries are virtually guaranteeing that they will be even more handicapped in the future when competing on the global stage. It is particularly stunning when governments and religious bodies in these countries openly condemn a scientific theory, advancement, or science in general, as any leader worth the title should be able to see the bigger picture, and the long-term results of doing so. This is one of the primary mechanisms by which societies fall into decay, akin to shooting oneself in the foot, and we are watching it unfold now, in real time. The West has had a part to play, there is no avoiding this point, but it must also be acknowledged that Islamic societies are just as culpable in their own ongoing decline.

  In the coming century, information will unquestionably be the deciding factor in the success of societies. We are now, like it or not, fully immersed in the Information Age, and while some Islamic countries have embraced communications technology, this is largely not the case. The reason, of course, is that open information is poisonous to religious ideology. The United States demonstrates this perfectly – previously one of the most pious nations anywhere, positively steeped in Christianity, it is now rapidly secularizing. Those who identify as “non-religious” are the fastest growing group, and this decline in religion almost perfectly corresponds to the proliferation of the internet. As children grow up with virtually unlimited access to information, it is much harder to indoctrinate them into one particular religious ideology. Leaders in theocratic countries are well aware of this, and attempt to counteract it by restricting internet access. However, this is a tide that cannot be held back, and the results are typically the same whenever leaders try to do so. The population grows to distrust and eventually despise leaders that don't trust them to think for themselves, they gain access to information anyway through alternate channels, but not before the country is handicapped both technologically and economically. An open marketplace for ideas is much more innovative, more productive, and more competitive. As such, closed societies will inevitably slide into obscurity as the century progresses and the countries of the world become even more interdependent and reliant on innovation as a driver of the economy.

  I make these points because this slide into decay is not inevitable, and it is my hope that it can be avoided. The world of the 21^st century will be one in which all countries will be tied together, closer than ever before, and as such, as one suffers, we all will suffer. Global prosperity will depend on recognizing our mutual interests, and raising those in poverty to a level where they can contribute to global society and the global economy. The old model, where a few prosper at the expense of the majority, is clearly broken, and is in part a driver of much of the extremism we see today, both in the Muslim world and elsewhere. By working to balance economic disparity, while simultaneously encouraging education (particularly of women), societies can be “jump-started”. This method has worked in the past and continues to work today wherever it is tried, but this cannot be done without the active participation of the countries in question. Fundamentally, it will be up to more moderate and progressive Muslims to make their voices heard, and help their societies overcome stigmas against science education and the empowerment of women. Some Muslim countries are leading by example where this is concerned, and they are clearly doing better than their counterparts in many respects. The least progressive countries, it seems, are the ones buoyed by oil wealth, for they do not feel pressure to change as keenly. For the time being at least, these countries, such as Saudi Arabia, can afford to do as they please, but this time is rapidly drawing to a close. The plummeting price of clean energy, in conjunction with a growing global distaste for oil, mean that these societies are living on borrowed time, unless they begin to embrace change now.

  While it may be demonstrable that societies tend to thrive more readily the more secular they are (look to the Scandinavian countries for example), I am not naive enough to think that the Islamic world is going to secularize anytime soon. It is possible, however, for religious societies to prosper, if one major condition is met: religion and government cannot mix. This, the control of the ruling class by the church, was one of the key reasons for the Dark Age in Europe, and it is theocratic rule which is driving Islam into a Dark Age today. Religion may indeed bring fulfilment to some, but it is, at its core, simply not conducive to effective government. Any society that is interested in making progress should recognize this first and foremost, and build up a wall of separation. Beliefs may drive some individuals, but facts are what drive functional policies and, by extension, functional societies.