Modernist dogma assumes no modern form can be inferior to a premodern one

Evidence

These modernist religious convictions (like all convictions of traditional religion) also entail the derivative dogma that no modern form can be inferior to its premodern predecessor(s) or analogue(s). Thus, a claim to the effect that, say, the Islamic premodern conception of the rule of law is as robust as, if not more robust than, the Euro-American model is dismissed out of hand, without evidence whatever, as preposterous or mythical. What is not seen as preposterous is the power that this dogma exercises over modernist minds, one that is self-justifying and entirely resting on unfounded supremacist ideology. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 1014

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the teleological-progress critique in Restating Orientalism’s broader argument and in postcolonial historiography generally. — connects to: Friedrich read modern poetry’s abnormality against older exemplary forms — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2230
• SEED: Essay angle: premodern rule-of-law traditions as a case where ‘progress’ framing obscures lost institutional sophistication.