The Faustian Soul of 'The West': A Response to Materialistic Objections to Islam

[c0de]

.
.
.

It is clear that the chief argument against Islam not just on this forum,
but everywhere, is based on this basic question:

Why is it that moslems believe that the conditions that propelled Western civilization to the top of the heap should be scrapped and the conditions that cause poverty, ignorance and ethnic and religious hatreds be put in place?

This is the fundamental complaint of all the materialistic critics, is it not?
So lets deal with this issue directly, instead of wasting time talking of
suicide bombers, and burqahs for women. First, lets break the issue down
into two parts:

1. What are these 'conditions' which are responsible for the rise of the West and;
2. Is Islam opposed to them?

I will answer the second question very directly: Yes.
Islam is opposed to these conditions, and I am proud
to say that it is. But the real issue is the nature of these
conditions.

The critics believe that the cause of Western supremacy are the democratic principles, of which they are so proud. Every neo-con in the world believes this. But this is a case of selective amnesia. These critics usually forget (or simply fail to mention) that democracy came to the West AFTER it had already established global supremacy. This is a basic fact of history and is undisputed. The West achieved total domination on the high seas and the battlefields before the rise of liberal democracy, during the colonial era. Therefore, those lofty humanitarian principles that are now present in Western nations can not be cited as the cause of its rise.

Islam is against those "conditions" which caused the West to rise to the 'top of the heap', because those conditions are what caused the West to lose its very soul. This is why this thread is not in political section of the forum. Because the core question is not of politics, or economics, but essentially represents the battle between spirituality and materialism. Oswald Spengler (Historian/Philosopher who wrote The Decline of the West) used a term "Faustian" to differentiate the Western Civilization from every other. He compares the "Faustian soul" to the "Magian soul" of the rest of the world. Without going into the details (for there are many) I will consider it sufficient to just say that everything the West did to get to the top, required the shedding of blood, the looting and conquering of entire continents and the genocide of entire races. This also is undisputed.

Just as Faust sold his soul, the West did the same. This is the sacrifice which The West made in order that it might rule the world. But like every deal with the devil, there was a catch: the net result of this unholy pact is that the power in the world today rests not in the hands of the West, which rules the world, but The Machine, which rules the West.

The greatest crime of the Western civilization is not the conquering of the world. Many other civilizations tried to do this before. It merely succeeded where the others failed. The real atrocity for which the West is responsible is the chief consequence of its awe-inspiring success: it has forced the rest of the world to emulate its methods, to follow in its footsteps.

Today, most of the the cultures in the world are an endangered species. There was an article in 2007 in National Geographic and it stated that 7,000 languages will be extinct by the end of this century. But the issue is much deeper then a threat to culture. Its essence lies in the fundamentally spiritual. The West, by taking up materialism and discarding the spirit, has enslaved itself to The Machine. It is true that it has derived enormous power and luxuries from this, but the entire field of post-colonialism attests to the damage the rest of the world has suffered, and continues to suffer because of its actions. These actions were only made possible because the precepts of faith were discarded. From that moment on, even religion itself was turned into an imperialist force, as it turned away from faith and became an institution (refer to Max Weber, and his proccess of evolution of religions).

Islam is in fact opposed to the conditions through which the West rose to supremacy. And so is Christianity, and Judaism. However, the materialists among us ask: what of all the benefits that materialism has brought the world? Well, from the point of view of faith, such luxuries are meaningless if they are achieved at the expense of one's soul. And that is exactly the price that was paid. At the end of the day, the development of liberal democracy is a tale of oppression, not of liberation. Only the shallowest of historical analysis can claim the success of the West as a guiding light for the rest of the world.

Unlike the claims of some, the majority of Muslims actually seek to emulate the West. They are not just "moderate" they are liberal! Most are ready to sacrifice whatever spirituality they have left, many have done so already. The Machine simply demands it. It has told the world what it needs to do, and has said that no "progress" can be achieved unless it does exactly that. And as for the radical militants in Muslim countries, the materialists have failed to provide any real evidence which supports the idea that the scripture of the Muslims, or the example of the Prophet supported the actions and ideologies of these radicals. What they have totally ignored, is the hand that materialism has played in the formation of the conditions which perpetuate the continual recruitment of young Muslims into these radical camps. They ignore these factors because any balanced view of world history will prove that materialism is the actual root of all the world's problems.

 

[Dream]

I do not know that it can be said the West is more materialist. Not many people can live as though they have no needs. An im-materialist decides that their needs are not real, but even a thief might not be a complete materialist if they're hungry. You can fast, but not forever. There is more than one kind of hunger, too. There is loneliness, thirst for righteousness, thirst for knowledge, and all kinds of hunger and thirst. For people life entails a paradoxical compromise between perfection of ideal spirituality and unspiritual actions necessary to obtain it. Even spiritual thirst requires physical action to quench. It seems what inside of us is the true machine. How can you externalize that and call it the West?

I know there is a band called 'Rage Against the Machine', but I was looking in your paper for a direct explanation of what it means to you. I am not familiar with the term 'The Machine', so I'm just trying to improvise. In the 60's there was a widespread fad movement called the Hippy movement or the Free Love movement which decried all materialism, but it fizzled out. The Hippies got discouraged, because they were becoming poor beggars living in insupportable conditions. Both good and bad came out of that movement.

 

[c0de]

Not many people can live as though they have no needs. An im-materialist decides that their needs are not real, but even a thief might not be a complete materialist if they're hungry. You can fast, but not forever. There is more than one kind of hunger, too. There is loneliness, thirst for righteousness, thirst for knowledge, and all kinds of hunger and thirst. For people life entails a paradoxical compromise between perfection of ideal spirituality and unspiritual actions necessary to obtain it. Even spiritual thirst requires physical action to quench. It seems what inside of us is the true machine.

Very True. The point made does not contradict this on an individual level.
It merely states that the crystallization of the Machine took place in the
Western Civilization.

I do not know that it can be said the West is more materialist....

How can you externalize that and call it the West?

Well, first of all, I can't take credit for it, as Spengler said this in 1930s.
The reason why he thought that the West is more materialist is because
of how it has harnessed of the power of the machine, which no other
civilization had been able to do. It is really interesting to see how he
arrived at this conclusion and he makes a very elaborate argument.
I suggest you read The Decline of the West, yourself to fully appreciate
the intricacy of the idea.

I know there is a band called 'Rage Against the Machine', but I was looking in your paper for a direct explanation of what it means to you. I am not familiar with the term 'The Machine', so I'm just trying to improvise. In the 60's there was a widespread fad movement called the Hippy movement or the Free Love movement which decried all materialism, but it fizzled out. The Hippies got discouraged, because they were becoming poor beggars living in insupportable conditions. Both good and bad came out of that movement.

If you want my personal opinion of The Machine then I will say that it is
greed and materialism incarnate. It is not the aspirations of the hippie
movements in the 60s. They were steeped in desires of the flesh, and this
is why their wave broke when it met the rocky shoreline. The Utopian ideals
are not what are meant here, as all Utopian are socialists in nature. The
"world improvers" as they dismissively referred to by Spengler. Ultimately,
they all function on utilitarian principles, which are just the same as the
Machine itself.

The truly spiritual is not concerned with this world, yet is not totally
ascetic either. There is a middle way, which is found in Islam, and many
Christians and Jews believe the same as well about their religion. What
the Machine has offered is all the comforts of this world, in return
for the soul. All "civilizations" come to this point, according to Spengler.
And this is the start of their decline. For me personally, there is no
difference between this entity and the concept of the "anti-christ"
or the "dajjal" that the Christians and Muslims are waiting for. Because
as I see it, the choice offered to civillization is the same choice offered
to individuals: All the pleasures of the world on a silver platter, in return
for our soul.

 

[Nick_A]

For someone that has ridiculed the "Great Beast" you do a good job in describing it. The thing is that you don't realize that Islam is as much a part of the Beast as the West. The beast is separated from its creator so imagines it and justifies itself through imagination.

Plato's cave is the domain of the Beast which functions as the great machine. The real questions isn't which is the more favorable aspect of the cave but how to be less of a part of the machine regardless of what you call yourself.

 

[Eclectic Mystic]

everything the West did to get to the top, required the shedding of blood, the looting and conquering of entire continents and the genocide of entire races. This also is undisputed.

No it isn't.

 

[c0de]

@ Nick

You already know where I stand on the opinions you have here expressed.



@ EC

As far as I know, it is undisputed. I have never encountered any scholarly opinion which tried to say that these crimes did not happen.

Just to clarify though, I did not say that these atrocities were always what the West intended. The British might not have intended to wipe out most of the Natives in America, but that is what happened. The Spanish might not have intended to do the same in South America, but that is what happened. Even still, it is very clear that in most cases, the atrocities which the weak suffered at the hands of colonial whips were very much intended, and this is undisputed. It is the nature of imperial power to be brutal, dehumanizing and cruel. All of this preceded the liberal principles that are present today in Western societies. The conditions which made the affluence of the West possible, were always rooted in exploitation.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates argues that as long as luxury remains the goal of any society, war must always be waged to secure that luxury. So if the internal society is to be satisfied, the external has to suffer. It is no coincidence then that democracies have always tended to externalize their negative energies, when compared to the authoritarian systems, which have always internalized all their negative energies and fed on their own populations. One could make the case that as soon as any authoritarian regime acquires the resources and means to externalize and expand, it uses this exploitation proccess in order to achieve that luxury. But the goal is always to pacify its own population through the soma of perceived democracy, with the methods described in Huxley's Brave New World. While on the other hand Orwell's 1984 can be seen as the means of control present in more primitive authoritarian regimes. But you will notice that the differences in both societies are only superficial because the end results are the same. The real rulers are invisible, and the population remains pacified. The Machine is present in both systems equally. It can even be argued that the system Huxley described is much more effective and efficient because here even the methods of control are invisible.

 

[Nick_A]

COde, your mistake is in believing Islam avoids the human condition of hypocrisy. It cannot so the results are the same as in the West. The delights of all perverse behavior and attachments to materialism, though discouraged by all the traditions, still arise at the slightest provocation. Welcome to life of sleeping humanity in the World.


Jesus said the same in Mark 8:

36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

Islam means peace, Christianity is the religion of love. But in reality we see the absence of peace and love. Now consider the conclusion of this article:

Islam and the Question of Violence

In conclusion it must be emphasized that since Islam embraces the whole of life and does not distinguish between the sacred and the secular, it concerns itself with force and power which characterize this world as such. But Islam, in controlling the use of force in the direction of creating equilibrium and harmony, limits it and opposes violence as aggression to the rights of both God and His creatures as defined by the divine Law. The goal of Islam is the attainment of peace but this peace can only be experienced through that exertion (jihad) and the use of force which begins with the disciplining of ourselves and leads to living in the world in accordance with the dicta of the shar'ia. Islam seeks to enable man to live according to his theomorphic nature and not to violate that nature. Islam condones the use of force only to the extent of opposing that centripetal tendency which turns man against what he is in his inner reality. The use of force can only be condoned in the sense of undoing the violation of our own nature and the chaos which has resulted from the loss of equilibrium. But such a use of force is not in reality violence as usually understood. It is the exertion of human will and effort in the direction of conforming to the Will of God and in surrendering the human will to the divine Will. From this surrender (taslim) comes peace (salam), hence islam, and only through this islam can the violence inbred within the nature of fallen man be controlled and the beast within subdued so that man lives at peace with himself and the world because he lives at peace with God.

Islam is based on denial through an established external morality. As Simone Weil describes:

"To set up as a standard of public morality a notion which can neither be defined nor conceived is to open the door to every kind of tyranny."

If Man is ever to awaken to his "theomorphic nature" it cannot come from tyranny. You don't want to see this. Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes

Islam condones the use of force only to the extent of opposing that centripetal tendency which turns man against what he is in his inner reality. The use of force can only be condoned in the sense of undoing the violation of our own nature and the chaos which has resulted from the loss of equilibrium.

Jihad must be an inner battle and the struggle of a person against themselves. What good can be accomplished by blaming another for our failings?

You want to play the blame game but consider Matthew 7

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Granted the West is in Plato's cave. But so is the rest of the world. The human condition must turn external morality into tyranny. Be aware of the speck in your own eye. If the author is correct in that we do have this inner theomorphic reality, we cannot awaken to it from intimidation natural for secular expressions of imposed external morality but rather from awakening to our inner morality.
Where a lot of Islam believes it is surrendering its will to Allah, they are actually surrendering it to the "Great Beast" which denies our wakening to our theomorphic nature.
We will always disagree on this but the cards are at least on the table.

 

[c0de]

You want to play the blame game...

Do I? Then why does the title of the thread contain
the word "response" in it? Was I the one who initiated
the attack?

COde, your mistake is in believing Islam avoids the human condition of hypocrisy.

A pretty bold statement from someone who has never read the Quran...
What qualifies you to comment on what Islam is, or isn't Nick?

Once you have answered the above questions, please go ahead and
post your reasoning to support this statement which you have made.
As your post doesn't actually contain any supporting evidence
or reasoning for any of the objections which it makes against Islam.

 

[Nick_A]

Do I? Then why does the title of the thread contain
the word "response" in it? Was I the one who initiated
the attack?


A pretty bold statement from someone who has never read the Quran...
What qualifies you to comment on what Islam is, or isn't Nick?

Once you have answered the above questions, please go ahead and
post your reasoning to support this statement which you have made.
As your post doesn't actually contain any supporting evidence
or reasoning for any of the objections which it makes against Islam.

You are the one pointing out the errors of the West. I am merely saying that the results in the world are natural for the level of our "being" "what we are." From this point of view life in the world will alternate between extreme compassion and extreme cruelty depending upon external circumstances. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is.

The Quran may say one thing and we do another. Will you join me in admitting our hypocrisy? If this is what we are and without self knowledge, how can you expect the results to be any other then what we've experienced other then through creating slave states?

 

[c0de]

You are the one pointing out the errors of the West.

Did I initiate the attack or was I responding to one?

And did I say the East is better then the West? No.
I created this thread as a response to those who have
said the West is better then the East.

The Quran may say one thing and we do another. Will you join me in admitting our hypocrisy?

This is not what you said last time. You said that Islam is hypocritical
without any knowledge of Islam. Now you are taking back that statement
and replacing it with one you know I will agree with. And I do agree with it.
This is why I never asserted the supremacy of the East over the West,
did I? How many times on this board have I held the Muslims responsible
for our own problems? Even in the last paragraph of my opening post on
this thread states the complicity of the subjugated.

 

[Nick_A]

Did I initiate the attack or was I responding to one?

And did I say the East is better then the West? No.
I created this thread as a response to those who have
said the West is better then the East.



This is not what you said last time. You said that Islam is hypocritical
without any knowledge of Islam. Now you are taking back that statement
and replacing it with one you know I will agree with. And I do agree with it.
This is why I never asserted the supremacy of the East over the West,
did I? How many times on this board have I held the Muslims responsible
for our own problems? Even in the last paragraph of my opening post on
this thread states the complicity of the subjugated.

cOde

The greatest crime of the Western civilization is not the conquering of the world. Many other civilizations tried to do this before. It merely succeeded where the others failed. The real atrocity for which the West is responsible is the chief consequence of its awe-inspiring success: it has forced the rest of the world to emulate its methods, to follow in its footsteps.

All I'm saying is that all this happens mechanically. Islam is as corrupt as anything else There is no choice in it. These are all lawful results for the human condition. How will you take the speck from your own eye? Without this beginning, nothing is possible.

 

[c0de]

All I'm saying is that all this happens mechanically. Islam is as corrupt as anything else There is no choice in it.

First you accuse me of attacking the West (when I was not
the one who was attacking), and now you are attacking Islam...
so who is being hypocritical?

What do you know about Islam? You have not studied its scriptures,
nor have any understanding of its deeper teachings. Yet you say
that it is hypocritical and corrupt???

 

[Nick_A]

First you accuse me of attacking the West (when I was not
the one who was attacking), and now you are attacking Islam...
so who is being hypocritical?

What do you know about Islam? You have not studied its scriptures,
nor have any understanding of its deeper teachings. Yet you say
that it is hypocritical and corrupt???

All the ancient traditions entering into our plane of existence as a conscious source begin to be interpreted by people without the necessary consciousness to do so and gradually produce all sorts of sects including the direct opposite.

I'm not against the Quran. I do believe that it has levels of meaning just as the Bible does to correspond with the inner understanding of the reader. So it isn't a matter of debating the Quran for me but rather respecting its inner meanings regardless of what the literalists have done with it much as the "experts" have done to Christianity.

Esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dream]

Here is an important related complaint: "A murderer, a thief, and a lazy bum are eating chicken in a castle while my good children, and my loyal wife along with me: a kind, forgiving and hard-working husband.....we all starve outside." How do can we come to grips with this paradox? Shouldn't good behavior be rewarded and bad behavior discouraged? Some believe reward comes in an after-life, and some don't. Many just hope such things will end on a future day yet can not hope to be breathing when it ever comes. How is it possible that the wealthy are so wicked?

You mentioned a lot of historical things that I'm marginally familiar with, and I also had never heard of ideas like Spenglers. Islam is being criticized by ruling systems which promote the idea of materialism? Ok, I can see that, although it is difficult for me since I'm not a Muslim.

Here is a link to Oswald Spengler's book on Google books which c0de mentioned. You can read part of it, or purchase the entire book. You cannot download the text. I have not read it, however I will probably at least skim it.

 

[c0de]

I'm not against the Quran. I do believe that it has levels of meaning just as the Bible does to correspond with the inner understanding of the reader. So it isn't a matter of debating the Quran for me but rather respecting its inner meanings regardless of what the literalists have done with it much as the "experts" have done to Christianity.

And you are free to hold any view you like.
As I said in my first reply to you here:
You already know where I stand.

 

[c0de]

Here is an important related complaint: "A murderer, a thief, and a lazy bum are eating chicken in a castle while my good children, and my loyal wife along with me: a kind, forgiving and hard-working husband.....we all starve outside." How do can we come to grips with this paradox? Shouldn't good behavior be rewarded and bad behavior discouraged? Some believe reward comes in an after-life, and some don't. Many just hope such things will end on a future day yet can not hope to be breathing when it ever comes. How is it possible that the wealthy are so wicked?

... It is easier for the wealthy to be distracted by the pleasures of this world. There is a reason why the Prophet chose to live in poverty to set an example.

You mentioned a lot of historical things that I'm marginally familiar with, and I also had never heard of ideas like Spenglers. Islam is being criticized by ruling systems which promote the idea of materialism? Ok, I can see that, although it is difficult for me since I'm not a Muslim.

You have accomplished something difficult then.

Here is a link to Oswald Spengler's book on Google books which c0de mentioned. You can read part of it, or purchase the entire book. You cannot download the text. I have not read it, however I will probably at least skim it.

This is the one I have:
Amazon.com: The Decline of the West (Abridged): Oswald Spengler: Books

Although, I might get another translation and a non-abridged version
as I was not fully satisfied with these editors and translators.