‘An important book for young Muslims and society’
It seems that Ed Hussain’s book The Islamist continues to be the talk of the town. In reviewing, while Madeleine Bunting danced around without direct approval or disapproval, Riazat Butt haughtily dismissed it with the amusing put-down: “Next time a young Muslim man calls me a Hindu bitch because I don’t wear a veil I’ll put it down to their vulnerability and lack of cuddles.” Yesterday HuT’s Taji Mustafa got his soapbox and somehow made into a muddled article about why the Khalifah is so great. Surprise surprise. Sometimes I think Pizza HuTters are mostly drones incapable of addressing the topic without mentioning 15 times why everyone is stupid for not supporting their project. Not so different to the Sikh Khalistanis then.
Anyway, another interesting review, this time by Dr Tahir Abbas of Bham university.
From his blog:
Soon after he returned to Britain, 7/7 happened and Ed reflects on this. How could this have happened? Why were people so blind to the radicalisation of young Muslims? It is clear now that the security services have been simply unable to keep pace with the spread of this cancer and society as a whole has paid the price. But, ultimately, the problems are not going to go away that easily. South Asians make up over two-thirds of Muslims in Britain and yet there are no scholars from this community who can adequately lead. The people who make up the Muslim Council of Britain emerged from an existing assortment of various groups with degrees of affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamat-e-Islami, and are of a particular age and therefore indoctrination. New Labour has been in bed with the Islamists and they have not known it.
…
This book is an important for young Muslims, men and women, but for society as a whole, too. It has important lessons about humility and humanity, forgiveness and fortitude, with an overriding message of hope pervading throughout its pages. Policy-makers, commentators, researchers, and educators take note. Radical Islam is here in Britain, and without a concerted effort on the part of the silent majority, it will remain. ‘The Islamist’ is a valuable but also quite necessary book, and it needs to be read wide and far.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, Muslim, Organisations
Huh? What’s amusing about that? Is that really what they’re calling people these days? ‘Hindu’ is a curse word for them? Jeez these people are like a concentrated black hole of pure hatred. They hate everyone without discrimination. Actually I can see how that is funny, it’s not just Jews and white people they hate, it’s an all consuming radioactive hatred. I’ve never seen anything like it before, they probably hate the sun when it rises in the morning, open the curtains and shriek, ‘Stinking Kaffir Sun! Stop shining your rays on the bodies of Stinking Infidels and bringing them Joy!”
Nasty nasty nasty people.
very strange – im sure people have different perceptions and all – but i fail to perceive how anyone who ever had anything to do with/on the fringe of islamic societies in british universities in the 90s could dismiss what the book contains as ‘fiction’. either they’re too defensive and can’t deal with a critique ( perhaps that applies to riazat butt -she does do that WEIRD islamophonic thing after all – with fatwas on doing your eyebrows and other equally ridiculous things)
the problem is of course that these kinds of books may reinforce stereotypes and that becomes the accusation leveled at them. regardless of the content. ‘oh it will spur on islamophobes’. i can’t say anything about the rubbish elements of my religion anymore without being poked at by my ‘co-religionists’ for providing fodder to the ‘islamophobes’. i had more freedom to criticise religion and authority when i was a teenager in the middleast! god everyone is so BLOODY sensitive. they really can’t deal with the fact that somewhere, under the stereotypes, is something we need to grapple with.
one only has to go and read what that man Qaradawi says about apostasy to get a glimpse of this ‘underbelly’
there is nothing of substance in Riazat’s post about Ed – apart from the to be expected attack. i feel like saying – and about what those mullahs who went about preaching hate and kill the apostates in the 90s? how come everyone thought that was OK then, but now its ‘oh well they were the extremists’/ really? when i was at uni – if someone had told them they were ‘extremists’ i would have gone out of my way to have more of a look than my accidental brushes with them – it was all packaged as mainstream stuff.
Yes indeed Sonia. These people were around when I was at University in the early 1990’s and they were even more out, loud and proud and aggressive when I was doing my post graduate 4 years ago.
You say how can people be in denial about this — well, didnt the Guardian actually employ a HuT journalist for a while? Also, the biggest con trick of the last twenty years is how this raggedy assed bunch of fascists convinced white liberal saps of the Guardian persuasion (like Madeline Bunting) that they were just normal chaps protesting against Palestine. They got their technique and rhetoric down perfectly. They nailed the Left and duped them like a bunch of gormless saps. They took over campuses too in the same way. They worked it well, you have to hand it to them. All the entryist strategies, the front organisations, the utilising of Marxist rhetoric as cover for their nasty hate ideology. So of course there will be resistance amongst some to this message that Ed Hussain brings. Because nobody likes to be shown up as a sap.
sonia how did the Jamaat Islami ideology translate into the situation we are now in?
I sense that it is a little nebulous? Maybe by setting a tone, an atmospherics, they set up the mindset generally to make this kind of politics fertile. Is that a fair assessment? And was there a conscientious pushing of this agenda? When did it happen? Was it in the 1970’s or 1980’s, when activists started saying that we will promote this kind of Islam through book shops and pamphleteering? Who were the movers on this thing? Or was it just a spontaneous thing that picked up momentum in a vacuum, where no other Muslim activists were organising?
Pakistani Mawdudi ideology + Saudi money + Bunglawala types + white liberal SAPS = 2007
i daresay jagdeep! – but its a bit presumptuous to imply that those who actually did go around the islamic society circuit were imagining things. which isn’t fair either -it’s imagining everyone was a good little muslim at these events, taking all that crap in and not using their brains for themselves or keeping quiet about what they thought as they didnt want to piss their mates off! now it may be the case that was the vast majority of people ( certainly was at the univ. of sheffield. i imagine the british muslims who didnt join the islamic society at sheff uni. were therefore the only ones with any sense ) but there were people like myself who noticed this. maybe we all speak up (and get accused of whatever it is we will be accused of by the conformist muslims)
i remember abul taher who writes for some newspaper now was at sheffield uni back then when i was there, now he was sensible and i remember back in 2000 was covering articles about this whole scene.
Do you see things changing sonia?
Also, the biggest con trick of the last twenty years is how this raggedy assed bunch of fascists convinced white liberal saps of the Guardian persuasion (like Madeline Bunting) that they were just normal chaps protesting against Palestine. They got their technique and rhetoric down perfectly. They nailed the Left and duped them like a bunch of gormless saps.
That is an accurate statement, Jagdeep.
However, what you fail to mention is the fact there WERE people warning of just such a scenario, but they were regularly dismissed as vulgar racists by Britian’s political class. Unfortunately, it was only after innocent people were murdered that the learning curve accelerated.
It isn’t so much that Islamists are smart, it’s more a case of progressives being blinded by their own correctness.
Sunny’s remark that the Jihadists resemble the Kalistan crowd fudge important distinctions that should be made.
The terrorism of extremist Sikhs had a rational political goal; the creation of a Sikh homeland. To this end they targeted politicians and others whom they thought stood in the way. They tended to eschew the gratuitous murder of innocent civilians, although the Air India tragedy shouldn’t be overlooked.
The jihadists, on the other hand, hate and target just about everyone including many of their own co-religionists. They hate to the point of utter madness.
Just us again!
TFI
They tended to eschew the gratuitous murder of innocent civilians, although the Air India tragedy shouldn’t be overlooked.
haha!
Set up your own strawman and knock it down yourself in two easy sentences.
Khalistani terrorism is as relevant as Irish terrorism to the issue at hand. Both are dead and buried and long gone. This is stupid and pointless sidetracking.
It’s up to Muslims now to get to grips with this, because ultimately it’s only if they stand up and repudiate the ideology doing the rounds, ostracise and stigmatise the haters, that it will be truly defeated. Some people still have to face up to this reality. Madeline Bunting’s interview with Ed Hussain calls him naive because right wingers are ‘feasting’ on his book to prove their points about Islam. But this just shows the half-wit intellectual levels of the saps. The horse has already bolted. Not talking about it for fear of what the Telegaph says won’t change anything — they will say that stuff anyway. And Madeline Bunting, Queen of the Saps, calling anyone else naive is simply hilarious. The point is not to not talk about it, the point is to defeat the cancer whilst defeating the right on their substantive points. The saps don’t even understand this simple truth, and that’s half the reason why we’re in the situation we’re in now.
sho’ nuff
“They tended to eschew the gratuitous murder of innocent civilians, although the Air India tragedy shouldn’t be overlooked”
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/victims.html
A bit difficult to overlook such an atrocity, the second worst international terrorist attack of all time which murdered 329 innocent people including 80 children
well jagdeep it seems to have changed for the worse in as much harder to speak openly critically about religion/religious practice/religious figures etc. as a lot of individual muslims seem to feel personally that they are being attacked if someone one is critical. and if you’re critical you’re branded a ‘traitor’ more often than not.
i should know!
Oh come on Sunny, how can you compare the call for Khilafah with the ‘Sikh Khalistanis’ The Khilafah or Caliphate was a reality that built a great civilization, and contributed much to loosening European thought when it was stifled under the rigorous chores of scholasticism. The question for Muslims now is how a Muslim polity enshrined by the Shari’ah can operate in the modern world.
Khalistan, on the other hand is, to the best of my knowledge, an abstract concept, lacking any historical basis – infact more rooted in modern nationalism.
I am aware you are not a fan of HT – on certain issues neither am I, however if you are going to draw parallels at least be more informative.
Abul Taher’s name was mentioned, unfortunately I have had the experience of being exposed to his rather unholy journalistic skills, during my time as President of the Islamic Society. Actually i don’t think people who are commenting upon Islamic Societies have actually really been that involved with the members – most of whom are just normal people – well, apart from some of us looking a little different!
It’s news to me that someone claims to be referred to as a ‘hindu bitch’ for not wearing hijab. At our Islamic Society we had many non-Muslims attend our events, some debated (and boy did they debate) others joined in with our recreational activities, including Sikhs and Hindus. Having strong views on social/political issues does not mean we lose our basic humanity.
I find it strange that people on this forum, who take pride in being ‘non-conformist’ are seeking for Muslims to conform to ‘modernity’ without a challenge. It seems all dogmas are a no ago, apart from a liberal one.
“everything’s so sensitive” etc. got to tiptoe around and stuff like that.
@Jagdeep: When you said “These people are like a concentrated black hole of hatred”.
Well, by your posts and tone, so are you. Oh sorry, I forgot. Its okay for you to be but not for them, right?
sonia, the first step is to identify the strand of politicised victimhood religious ‘ummah’ nationalism that transfers Muslim grievance to the streets of Britain, isnt it?
Look at the Bunglawalas and the other ’soft’ Islamists — this is their open agenda, to bring the ‘intifada’ and everything else to Britain, so it’s an easy step to blame everything on the West for everything. I remember seeing Salma Yaqoob bring Zionism and the Iraq War into a debate on what is wrong with Birmingham City Council’s Equal Opportunity Policies (something like ‘we talk about exporting democracy, but we dont do this and that in Birmingham, who is ‘we’? Birmingham City Council? Yeah yeah bring your grudges and sectarian politics to the local level, well done)
If you can defeat this mentality I think you will have made a big step to dealing with the problem. Whether this permeates the ghettos (the physical and mental ones) remains to be seen. This ideology, allied to eternal victimhood, grievance culture, hysteria, is a tenacious virus.
I don’t call people Hindu Bitches, spread hatred of Jews, hatred of the West, hatred of everyone not like me. That’s what they do. I don’t do that.
They have succeeded to a certain extent, because the way that these black holes of gravity-sucking hatred have made you feel defensive when I describe them as such shows how deeply this has infiltrated some people. Tone indeed.
@Jagdeep: Okay, so basically I am the one getting defensive? And yet as soon as I accuse you of something, you exhibit very similar ‘defensive’ behaviour (i.e. “Its not ME, its them. I’M not the one doing it etc.”).
“Tone Indeed” indeed.
The jihadists, on the other hand, hate and target just about everyone including many of their own co-religionists. They hate to the point of utter madness.
Soso, you’re back to trying to whip a horse that you know very little about. Plenty of Khalistanis murdered co-religionists back in the days in pursuit of their goals.
Random Guy, Jagdeep: can you please at least bicker about something relevant?
i dunno jagdeep who started what. i daresay these things always go in cycles. for me whats interesting is obviously its not as simple as religion exists –> someone will turn into a terrorist or a violent person, rather that religion has been used throughout the ages to justify violence. so there are quite a few questions – one strand that i am interested in is exploring the societal context in which people have committed ‘terrorist’ actions, and the lives of the individuals also
and second – a proper look at the ‘religion’ as it was constructed and used to justify violence. for me – as a muslim – of course what is of particular relevance is HOW much of it is actually in the annals and texts of religious tradition etc. And if its there, why is it there, how did it get there, how come we ( or most of us) didn’t know it was there, and why didnt anyone say anything about it all along, and now – what comes next.
i daresay a lot of ordinary muslims are worried about what “skeletons” might come of the closet. i’ve been unearthing quite a few skeletons meself. not pleasant stuff and im sure no one wants a crisis of faith that’s why its all going to stay in the cupboard.
Random Guy, you are getting defensive. Why are you defending these bigoted black holes of hatred from ‘my tone’? My words and ‘tone’ are equivalent to the hatreds of these far right racist bigots anti semites and terrorists? Don’t make me laugh dude, get some perspective.
Sunny, I’m not bickering about anything, just correcting him.
It seems all dogmas are a no ago, apart from a liberal one.
Saqib, would you like me to put a banner across the top saying this is a website about progressive / liberal views? I’m not apologetic about that. If you have an argument against it, make it. Don’t complain about a liberal bias because I’m not hiding that.
As for Khalistan/Khilafah – there is more parallel than you think or may care to admit. The so-called Khilafahs in the past were not as utopian as HuTers like to make out, and Sikhs did have a kingdom under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, which people want to replicate (though with their own “utopian” ideals, which are anything but).
sonia, every religion has a bloody history. Concentrating on key texts and annals has the risk of lapsing into determinism, and missing out the direct political and ideological underpinnings of movements that can glorify and sanctify certain hatreds. In the context of India, Hindutva violence is rooted in hyper nationalism rather than the texts of Hinduism, the same could be said for Sikh extremists, or to use another example, Jewish extremists who asassinated Begin.
Seems to me that there is a direct ideological root to the problem that interprets Islamic history in a certain way — your average Joe Bilal doesnt care about such things and follows his faith as he does. The ones who subscribe to the Islamist ideology belong in a tradition apart from mainstream Islamic theology, but for a variety of reasons has become very loud and virulent. What are the roots of this ideology, who perpetuated it here, who keeps it alive now? We should be able to put dates and names to these things in recent British history (as well as name them and identify them now in the present)
Sunny
I wasn’t attacking the forum for being ‘Liberal’, actually i find it quite interesting. I was making a more general point about Liberalism having its own dogmas.
Thanks for clarifying the issue of the Sikh Kingdoms…i’m from Indian Punjab myself originally so appreciate learning more about the region.
You are right about the utopian position which groups like HT can put across, actually that’s what annoys many Muslims, me included. However the substantive point was that the caliphate was a reality which did bring a lot of progress and good to the regions where it was. In fact to even say just caliphate is narrowing the debate. Where Muslims organised their lives around the shari’ah they did bring relative peace, stability and material progress. One can always point faults, and yes during times of political instability their was turmoil caused in some regions. But that was not the dominant picture. As Muslims this is what we need to reflect over with humility.
Yes! The liberal stormtrooper with his dagger in one hand and whip in the other, is herding Muslims into concentration camps of modernity where they shall be neutered of their dogma.
The laughable thing is not so much the paranoia and cry baby mind that gives fertile ground for this kind of thinking, the laughable thing is what is asserted as the ‘dogma’ to challenge the bogeyman of ‘modernity’ — more or less nothing but religious nationalist doggerel, wet dreams of imperial power, constant reactive separatist mentality. A wet tissue of intellectual decrepitude and lazy religious nationalist fantasies.
By the way, liberalism is not a dogma, liberalism is a condition that allows you to live freely your persecution fantasies and freely speak and express your hostility to everything and everyone that is ‘not me’ — you couldnt exist without liberalism, you bunch of cry babies.
Is the lesson of this that Muslims need to live under sharia to prosper now, or that in the medieval world any kind of arbitrary legal system brought improvements to lives that would otherwise by weak in the face of despotism and feudal rule?
You have as much idealism and utopianism as HuT, it would seem.
@Sunny: that exchange was relevant, for all the (unfortunately) wrong reasons. How the hell can we have a debate when there is so much prejudice?
My anna’s worth is that the ‘Autobiography of Malcolm X,’ and ‘To kill a mocking bird’ will remain far more important to young people (muslims or not) and society than Ed Hussain’s book.
Clearly, he brings some of the criticism on himself via his annoying ‘I was gullible, fanatical and well scary/stupid in my teens and 20s, so listen to me now and please call me Ed’ stance.
Pity as some of his more personal extracts, like being shocked by the segregation and hypocrisy of life in Saudi, or explaining how HT/Islamisist types, by speaking in English and talking about politics can attract young people in a way that urdu/bangla speaking village mosques can not, do ring true – so he deserves more from the Guardian than being bracketed with Melanie P by ‘Mad Bunting’ in her review.
Random Guy , stop acting being so lazy, trying to stigmatise someone whose tone you don’t like by claiming that they are prejudiced. Look, I can play that game and say you’re prejudiced and full of hatred. It’s stupid and works both ways. It’s whining and ridiculous. Say what you want to say, don’t complain because I lay into bigots.
AsifB, my guess is that Ed Husain’s book will tell you more about the current situation in Britain than either of those two books. I havent read Malcolm X but To Kill a Mockingbird is wonderful and it does no harm to read that anytime. Depends on what you want to read and learn.
It may be enough that Ed Husain has done a service simply by advancing arguments and giving his own account in a discussion that needs more moderate Muslim voices critical of violent tendencies.
I understand why Muslims feel defensive because of the demonisation of them by some people. Muslims like every other minority dont want to be seen as being singular and reduced to stereotypes. That’s why it’s important to have as many voices from all minorities speak and none of them to be elevated as the emblematic one. If people do that to Ed Husain they’re wrong and need a corrective, just as any one single account of Sikh, Hindu, Jewish or Black life shouldnt be taken to be emblematic or definitive.
Jagdeep,
Please i’m trying to have a proper intellectual and mature conversation – adopting this type of attitude will add nothing to the debate we have at hand.
I freely admit that liberalism has its value, particularly in secular societies where the alternative is…well, not worth thinking about. However this may not be the case everywhere.
People have always co-existed without the advent of liberal ideology. Let’s not confuse things such as tolerance, respect for law and order, peace and stability as being only the products of modernity, otherwise we will end up setting an intractable debate of utopias.
I have already made my point about khilafah in my previous post. By the way, to claim that ‘islamist ideology’ is not from mainstream islamic theology is not quite true. The classical books of islamic jurisprudence talk about and elaborate upon issues of governance, law and order, economy and society. What’s different with the ‘islamist’ movement is the way it has developed historically as a counterweight to first Western Imperialism, and then to find a place in Muslim society. With out doubt some of the ideas of some Islamist movements are heavily influenced by other secular ideologies, ironically marxist ideas of revolution, however that should not mean we ignore some its very theological basis.
I was making a more general point about Liberalism having its own dogmas.
Maybe… but you’re welcome to challenge them, no one has stopped you from doing that. I’m still unsure what specific dogmatic ideal you refer to.
However the substantive point was that the caliphate was a reality which did bring a lot of progress and good to the regions where it was. In fact to even say just caliphate is narrowing the debate.
I don’t know if this will annoy you or not, but so did Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s kingdom. He was one of the very few in the greater Punjab area to regard all his subjects of religion equally, built a state that included Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims together, and protected people from incursions by the English and the Afghanis. And there was plenty of intellectual freedom to boot. It’s no surprise then that Sikhs also look towards that as their goal, couched in their own power-grabbing tendencies.
Look, if people want a Khalifah, then so be it. I’m off the view that people should live under whatever system if they freely vote for it. But the point here is about offering them the choice, not thrusting them into a system whether they like it or not. Pakistan was supposedly built as the perfect Islamic state and the mullahs there have caused nothing but trouble for the people, especially women.
So forgive me if I’m cynical of the motives of HuTters, especially when they’re more interested in condeming others than exercising compassion.
Jagdeep,
“I understand why Muslims feel defensive because of the demonisation of them by some people.”
No you don’t!
And you cannot know because for as long as I’ve known you, you’ve not let any one of them tell you their concerns.
It doesn’t seem correct that at times you write with insight, and at others a red mist descends.
Sunny
I’m not actually annoyed about the Sikh Kingdom, my university training has been in modern European history and ideas so i am slightly guilty of being euro-centric.
I agree with you regarding HT, this is why many Muslims, whilst agreeing the concept of Khilafah will be critical of them, for yes their style has been, over the years abbrasive to say mildly. I do think they have matured over the years however.
Look Sunny you are absolutely right that people should have the right to choose what political system they want to live under. If they chose a secular liberal system through a free vote, even i will say in the Muslim world, then that is their choice. If they want Khilafah, then again that is their choice. I don’t believe in utopias, different systems have their strengths and weaknesses, or should i say a different emphasis on what are the important guiding values in society. Only this approach will put an end to the extremism and terrorism we are now witnessing.
Pakistan is in a very sorry state indeed, and really what people their need is the elimination of corruption, accountability and representation at different levels in society. In many ways it is a torn state, with secular liberal elites, emergent middle classes, who have deep islam values, and the traditional communities in rural areas.
I’ll develop what i meant of ‘dogma’ over a period of time in my posts…however i must say i have three exams and one assignment to boot for next week so i may be infrequent.
I’ll develop what i meant of ‘dogma’ over a period of time in my posts…however i must say i have three exams and one assignment to boot for next week so i may be infrequent.
Look forward to it, and good luck with the exams. The rest of your post too, I agree with…. though one note of slight contention.
I do think they have matured over the years however.
Agreed, but it depends how you look at it. The BNP have also ‘matured’ over the years to tone down their rhetoric and learn to play the system with smooth talking. The question is whether one still trusts their motives. I think for the vast majority of non-Muslims, once they know HuT’s history and ideals, this trust won’t come anytime soon.
“Clearly, he brings some of the criticism on himself via his annoying ‘I was gullible, fanatical and well scary/stupid in my teens and 20s, so listen to me now and please call me Ed’ stance.”
what’s wrong with that – why should it annoy people? cos he’s writing about it and getting attention? frankly most people would never admit they’d been a fanatic, money or not.
i can see that people might not like what he says – but again, a lot of criticism of the book is simply a bit like pointing fingers..’traitor!’ and annoyance at the media glare.
Sunny
Actually Pakistan wasn’t built on the basis of an Islamic state. Ironically most of the Muslim scholars of India were opposed to the creation of Pakistan. Even Maulana Maududi was against the creation of Pakistan initially. This may have been due to what they had witnessed in Turkey, where Islam was being systematically removed from any expression in public life.
Opinion is divided as to just what Jinnah intended for Pakistan to become. Some believe it was secular, others say an Islamic republic…which to me is the same thing anyway.
I thought i should just mention that.
“They tended to eschew the gratuitous murder of innocent civilians, although the Air India tragedy shouldn’t be overlooked”
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calm down RAZ. I was only trying to be balanced. The Air India tragedy galvanised Canda’s Sikh community to such an extent that support for Sikh terrorists dried up. The indignation resulting from the atrocity was palpable among rank and file Canadian Sikhs.
Soso, you’re back to trying to whip a horse that you know very little about. Plenty of Khalistanis murdered co-religionists back in the days in pursuit of their goals.
Sunny, I in no way wish to glamourise Sikh terrorists, but as Jagdeep pointed out the salient aspects of the Kalistan “cause” are closer to those that motivated Irish terrorists, and not the present jihadis.
Oh come on Sunny, how can you compare the call for Khilafah with the ‘Sikh Khalistanis’ The Khilafah or Caliphate was a reality that built a great civilization, and contributed much to loosening European thought when it was stifled under the rigorous chores of scholasticism. : Saqib.
First of all, most of Islam’s stellar achievements are actually the intellectual property of the peoples conquered by the Arabs. “Arabic” numerals, for instance, existed centuries before Mohammed and are, in fact, Indo-Persian decimels. The Great Mosque of Cairo, oft-cited as the finest example of Islamic architecture, was designed and built by Coptic engineers and architects. There are many, many similar examples that a combox just won’t accommodate.
When you take the time and exercises the patience to investigate many of Islam’s intellectual claims, you often find much less than you thought you would….
One other thing, what is there to be proud of when an ideology/religion treats the indigenous populations of conquered lands (conquered WITHOUT provocation, by the way) as second-class citizens in their own homes? How can that be viewed illustrious or progressive?
The question for Muslims now is how a Muslim polity enshrined by the Shari’ah can operate in the modern world
Here we go! No, the task now before Islam is one of ridding the Muslim world of sharia and sharia-inspired law and moving it into sync with the modern world. If that task isn’t taken up by Muslims, then the whole Islamic world, with its sharia-inspired dysfunctions, risks becomming a millstone around humanity’s neck.
The Islamic world needs less Islam, not more, because societies ruled by sharia are universally stagnant and static. Islam’s track-record stretches back 1,400 years; sharia based societies have been tried over and over again, and NONE have worked.
Do you want to bring back the Soviet Union, as well, Saqib?
Soso
I can’t find the energy to respond to the rest of your post – but in your eyes it would be quite legitimate to state that the Americans have not delivered a single innovation since all US inhabitants are immigrants.
Its space technology was built by ex-Nazi scientists etc etc etc
I have heard this sort of trash before – you can do better.
The Air India tragedy galvanised Canda’s Sikh community to such an extent that support for Sikh terrorists dried up. The indignation resulting from the atrocity was palpable among rank and file Canadian Sikhs.
This statement alone shows how little you know. In fact, Vancouver is the last hotbed of Khalistani fundamentalism, even including Punjab. And there are plenty of deniers out there too, who still see it as an Indian plot.
What I want to know the after they have performed the frontal labotamy, installed the aerial and installed tape recorder on repeat, do the scars left on the HuT victim itch?
TFI
This statement alone shows how little you know. In fact, Vancouver is the last hotbed of Khalistani fundamentalism, even including Punjab. And there are plenty of deniers out there too, who still see it as an Indian plot.
I’m quite aware of the situation in Vancouver….including that knock-down, drag-out brawl between competing Sikh factions that took place a few years back!
My point, Sunny, was to establish a distinction between between indiscriminate murder motivated by blind hatred (jihadist) and that which is harnassed to a CLEAR political goal( Khalistan). Sikh terrorism isn’t concerned with conquering the world; it isn’t supremacist-based in any way, shape or form.
P.E.R.I.O.D.
From now on I shall use the example of Northern Ireland to make such points.
I can’t find the energy to respond to the rest of your post – but in your eyes it would be quite legitimate to state that the Americans have not delivered a single innovation since all US inhabitants are immigrants:Refresh.
Refresh, I’ve no idea what your statement is about.
One could draw a parallel between the European conquest of America and the Arab conquests of North Africa and the Middle East if, and only if, the indigenous inhabitants of N. America were more advanced than Europeans and if those Europeans, post-conquest, exploited the talents and technologies of Native Americans.
That’s clearly not the case.
Although, to be fair, we should remember that the Manhatten skyline is largely the product of Mohawk (Iroquois) high-steel workers. For some odd and unknown reason they’re immune to vertigo; they’ve absolutely no fear of heights.
Opinion is divided as to just what Jinnah intended for Pakistan to become. Some believe it was secular, others say an Islamic republic…which to me is the same thing anyway.
There are far too many contradictions in that statement to go away quietly. If Jinnah wanted a secular state for Pakistan, why did he push for on the grounds of a Muslim majority? Jinnah took his chance and went all out for personal glory while he could, lets be honest here. He was scarcely intrested in advancing secularism for Pakistan. In spite of being an alcohol-quaffing elitist.
How exactly can an Islamic republic be the same thing as a secular democracy? You can either have one thing or the other – but to opt for an Islamic republic and say it’s the same as a secular state is having cake and eating it too. A secular liberal democracy is, by definition, protective of it’s minorities. Has this been the case in Pakistan where the Blasphemy Law has been legislated into it’s constitution and then used as a weapon to attack the Ahmadiyya and other minorities?
‘And there are plenty of deniers out there too, who still see it as an Indian plot.’
Yes, like by Zuhair Kashmeri and Brian McAndrew who, by the way, are not Sikh: http://www.amazon.com/Target-Indian-Intelligence-Service-Penetrated/dp/1550282212/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-2560781-3925405?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179251663&sr=8-3
Sunny, your gaping knowledge of Khalistan and Sikh affairs is all too apparent.
‘Opinion is divided as to just what Jinnah intended for Pakistan to become. Some believe it was secular, others say an Islamic republic…which to me is the same thing anyway.’
Such stupidity. Although I know what you are trying to get at – that Islamic governance would allow for a secular way of life where minorities would get equal status to Muslims – the very notion is idiotic in the extreme.
Even semi-literate Mirpuri villagers have the intelligence to understand that Islam is theocratic, dogmatic and hateful of non-believers.
As for Jinnah, opinion is not divided. He was a pork guzzling wine drinking Muslim – not dissimilar from Attaturk – who could not bare the thought of living alongside, or being ruled by, the infidels.
I’m quite aware of the situation in Vancouver….including that knock-down, drag-out brawl between competing Sikh factions that took place a few years back!
Now would be a good time to take your own counsel and bow out gracefully.
sid
Soso stated his aim thus:
“My point was to establish a distinction between between indiscriminate murder motivated by blind hatred (jihadist) and that which is harnassed to a CLEAR political goal( Khalistan). Sikh terrorism isn’t concerned with conquering the world; it isn’t supremacist-based in any way, shape or form.”
That Sunny seems unable to fathom such a simple and unquestionably true statement says a lot about Sunny.
Sunny should bow out, not soso.
Thanks Muzumdar.
Sometimes I just don’t get Sunny. You same something positive about the Sikh community and he labels you “patronising”.
You say something critical and you’re then a racist.
Ya just can’t win.
Wow man!
I find it really strange that people can get so worked up over a casual statement. It seems every time i write something some people just want to explode…and in the process miss the main point i am making.
Firstly i am only stating what people are talking about.
I am neither pro or anti Jinnah.
Sid,
My understanding as to why Jinnah may have wanted a separate homeland for Muslims was because he felt that in a Hindu dominated India, following the rise of extreme Hindu Nationalists, Muslims would not be able to defend their interests. Whether he was right or wromg is a very different matter.
It is true that Jinnah was not considered especially religious, even fairly secular…hence the divided opinion.
Sid, now let me educate you on the nuances of political organisation. An Islamic State is usually referred to by Muslims as a state where the constitution, law and government is rooted in the shari’ah. It’s meant as a rough translation of Khilafah…as that sounds better than Caliphate.
The idea of an ‘Islamic Republic’ is much more vague…this is where the divided opinion emanates from. It could, as i think it is meant to, refer to a country where the state religion is Islam, like in Britain where the state religion is Christianity. In Britain, because of this, the Church has certain privileges, (much to the annoyance of the National Secular Society and Humanists) such as statutory holidays on Easter & Christmas, Sundays etc.. However, when it comes to matters governing the state, Christianity is not the BASIS of law and political decision making, though of course the arguments and ideas advanced may be Christian inspired – this is clearly the case on issues like abortion, euthanasia etc.
The same would be true in a so-called Islamic Republic. Because the majority of people in Pakistan, even those who are secular are more influenced by Islam than are say people in Britain with regards to Christianity, it is more likely that their initial political arguments and policies will reflect this influence. Over a period of time, because these arguments are not rooted in Islam, they will wither away, as have Christian arguments in Britain; hence the state will become more and more secular in both its setup and form. For example no one would take seriously a political argument made by Christians that euthanasia is wrong as ‘God can only take life’ for even the issue of God existing is in doubt. The argument of euthanasia is centred on choice and what its wider social impact may be.
It’s interesting you mention Ahamdis. Did you even know that Moulana Maududi, when he wrote a tract illustrating as to why the Ahmadis belief put them outside the fold of Islam (this has a consensus amongst scholars) he was actually put in prison and sentenced to death! That hardly seems the operation of a fully fledged Islamic state.
Pakistan’s political history has jostled from secular, corrupt ‘democrats’, military dictatorships (i believe 3 coups) with each regime chopping and changing its bed-fellows, sometimes secular, sometimes Islamic.
Because Muslims have a great attachment to their religion politicians have exploited these sentiments to push through popular policies to strengthen their grip on power. Sometimes the Islamic parties have joined in to support certain policies, other times they haven’t.
Sid and Muzumdar, i really do recommend you go away and do some more reading…oh and preferably not on wikipedia! I may not agree with Sunny on a lot of things, however at least he has the capacity to advance his arguments through reason and evidence. Perhaps this is what you are struggling to come to terms with.
Soso
Sunny is a self-loathing Sikh. For some reason he sees only the negative aspects of the Sikh community and seems to think that every other Sikh is oblivious to these aspects.
If he opened his eyes and used his brain, he would be able to see and understand your point: not all terrorism is the same.
My point, Sunny, was to establish a distinction between between indiscriminate murder motivated by blind hatred (jihadist) and that which is harnassed to a CLEAR political goal( Khalistan).
I’m not sure there is that big a difference, except in the details of the propaganda used on the footsoldiers.
Osama has a perfectly clear political goal: he wants to be King of (currently Saudi) Arabia. That doesn’t strike me as radically less realistic than a Greater Ireland.
That political plan has the same kind of relation to HuT as the Crusader King Richard had to the Children’s Crusade.
If people believe silly things, you have to use matching propaganda to get them to fight for you. But, at the end of the day, the contents of the propaganda make very little difference to the result. It could be about ‘freedom’, 72 virgins or clams.
Warriors fight when a charismatic leader tells them to, just like a baby sleeps when a lullaby is sung. The words are just sounds.
Soso
Thank you very much for actually demonstrating how the Islamic Civilization was enriched by non-Muslims, both their work and ideas.
Funny, on the one hand you claim that Islam treats indigenous people as second class citizens, whilst then also claiming that it was indigenous culture and ideas which made the world of Islam great. And guess what also, Shariah was the basis of the state, showing how Muslim did, and can co-exist with non-Muslims then and can do so anywhere else, irrespective if the basis of the state is shariah or not.
If you read Jewish history, and I say this with humility, you will find that the golden age of Judaism was in Muslim Spain…not Muslims saying this but other people…
Amongst the great achievements of Muslims in the realm of knowledge, particularly in Europe was the preservation of the classical works of the Greeks, which they translated into Arabic and built exhaustive commentary upon. The Europeans then were able to access their own tradition, kept safe by Muslims, and benefit and integrate the ideas of these commentaries, particularly the works of Aristotle. The best example is that of Ibn Sina or, as he is known through his anglicized name Averroes. Certainly this is the feeling of the celebrated British Philosopher, Bertrand Russell…though I wouldn’t recommend anyone reading his work ‘History of Western Civilization’ as it is a very personal, dry and dare I say pessimistic view of the world.
I have actually studied European thought in depth for my degree so I am fairly conversant with the main themes and developments.
I guess it just shows Soso you can’t gain knowledge and become intellectual just by flicking through wikipedia!
‘I’m not sure there is that big a difference, except in the details of the propaganda used on the footsoldiers.’
Are you telling me there is no difference between a Khalistani freedom fighter being told to blow up a politician’s house because he is responsible for the rape of 20 women and the massacre of a village AND an Islamic mujahid being told to massacre a town of Coptic Christians simply because they are not Muslims?
Get a grip.
‘Osama has a perfectly clear political goal: he wants to be King of (currently Saudi) Arabia.’
What? You really are deluded. He wants to bring down monarchical forms of government and establish a Khalifate – this doesn’t involve Kings or Queens as Islam doesn’t allow for monarchy.
‘That doesn’t strike me as radically less realistic than a Greater Ireland.’
Greater Ireland? Are you on smack? It’s a UNITED Ireland that Sinn Fein-IRA want, not a ‘Greater’ one (whatever that is). A united Ireland is much more of a reality (within 25 years or so) than a pan Arab Islamic super-state.
‘Warriors fight when a charismatic leader tells them to.’
No, this is not the only criteria. The conditions for revolution/uprising have to be right for ‘warriors’ to get up and fight.
Are you telling me there is no difference between a Khalistani freedom fighter being told to blow up a politician’s house because he is responsible for the rape of 20 women and the massacre of a village AND an Islamic mujahid being told to massacre a town of Coptic Christians simply because they are not Muslims?
Not very much different: in reality the people doing the latter will be told the Copts raped some virtuous muslim girl, ate babies, or whatever. Everyone feels their hate is justified.
Note: the arabic word ‘mujahid’ is correctly translated into English not as ‘mujahid’ (in arabic, it is not an exotic loan word), or even as crusader (in arabic, it is not an obselete figure of fun). The best available translation is probably ‘freedom fighter’; every Hollywood film tells us that is the one thing worth fighting for, every politician tells us they own the exclusive distribution rights to the concept.
So I would be careful of using that word to describe any cause you do not support.
He wants to bring down monarchical forms of government and establish a Khalifate
Similarly, the difference between a Khalif and a King is pretty much linguistic: plenty of rulers called Kings have operated under systems very much like the ultra-islamist proposals.
Greater Ireland? Are you on smack? It’s a UNITED Ireland
Do you believe in some kind of observable national spirit or soul that that would make the distinction meaningful?
HuT are a malign organization. Somewhat more sophisticated in the way they operate now compared to the mid 90’s, however they are still targeting young Muslims in colleges and universities and because of the situation in Bangladesh young people of Bangladeshi origin.
They have tried and failed in my particular College of the University of London, but they are a constant threat to harmony. Fortunately the students union is very well clued up and the College is very supportive.
I swear some of you speak out of your arses.
The jihadists, on the other hand, hate and target just about everyone including many of their own co-religionists. They hate to the point of utter madness.
The Jihadists, yes. Islamists, no.
Jagdeep, I won’t even start with you. Your vision is so narrow that I’m surprised people even bother with you.
In a court of law, if a suspect is charged with one offence, tried, and released, he cannot be judged based on that offence again. Why don’t people see terrorism as that too? My only fear now is that we’ll be so concentrated on figuring out what the “Extreme Islamists” are going to do next, that someone else is going to worm their way into something huge that’ll hit us on a large scale.
I’m intrigued about this book now.
*puts it on a list after Hirsi Ali’s The Infidel*
He was a pork guzzling wine drinking Muslim – not dissimilar from Attaturk – who could not bare the thought of living alongside, or being ruled by, the infidels.
Who’s Muzumdar, Naxal’s brother or something? The language is the same.
If you had any brains or knowledge of history, you would know that plenty of Sikhs around that time also didn’t want to be part of India or be ruled by Nehru. What does that mean? They don’t want to be ruled by ‘infidels’? The stupidity of you Khalistanis who come on here is astounding.
Saqib Sattar at #59
But it is not the case that Pakistan has become more secular since Jinnah, has it? The only time Pakistan lurches towards cod-secualarism is when a military dictator like Zia or Musharraf take over and then proceed to kick the Ulama into submission.
There also seems to be a fundamental contradiction in your passage above, you say:
“Over a period of time, because these arguments are not rooted in Islam, they will wither away, as have Christian arguments in Britain; hence the state will become more and more secular in both its setup and form.”
So which one is it to be? How will secularism be encouraged if ideas not based in Islam wither away?
And finally, you are right that Maududi was clapped into prison after writing a seditious pamphlet attacking the Ahmadiyya. But the Blaspehmy Law is still included in the constitution and is still used to marginalise and attack the Ahmadiyya long after the death of M Maududi.
what would be useful for young muslims would be to actually find out what religious tradition has involved since the 7th century – i.e. read all the dodgy hadiths including the wishy-washy ones, realise that fiqh had regulated sex-slavery and concubines for men to ‘enjoy’, + the theoretical problems therefore if fiqh is not reformed and somehow the ‘khilafah’ is resurrected, controversial incidents in the Prophets’ life – ( at the very least if only to work out how to explain it away) – and last but not least – history i.e. the ‘empire’ bit. then everyone can make up their own minds about what they find palatable and what they don’t – from the beginning, so that no nasty shocks await them later on in life. and in this day and age with the internet – people are going to find out anyway and have questions.
Oh of course..and Quranic Exegesis as well – this would no doubt open the eye of many young women.
Saqib Sattar:
You make some excellent points about the Caliphate and other issues. However, you fail to distinguish between the lack of learning in pre-Renaissance Catholic Europe, and the continuation of Roman ideas in the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire.
“Amongst the great achievements of Muslims in the realm of knowledge, particularly in Europe was the preservation of the classical works of the Greeks, which they translated into Arabic and built exhaustive commentary upon. The Europeans then were able to access their own tradition, kept safe by Muslims, and benefit and integrate the ideas of these commentaries, particularly the works of Aristotle.”
Did Arabic commentaries have a great impact on the Western understanding of Aristotle (I am asking from genuine ignorance)?
Even if you feel you know better than someone else and want to correct them, do not sneer at them, as you seem to have a worrying tendency to do.
Good luck with your exams.
“Did Arabic commentaries have a great impact on the Western understanding of Aristotle ?”
Early understanding, yes. More people in Western Europe then knew arabic than Greek, probably. However, European philosophy then turned to the original Greek writings and stopped reading arabic commentaries, which were mainly on translations into Arabic. Even so, muslim interpretations of Aristotle, Plato and other Greek philosophers had more long-term influence on western philosophy than on muslim philosphy, because of the influence of the mutazalites, who emphasised the importance of human reason in interpreting the universe on mediaeval western philosophy, just as the muslim world became dominated by the asharites who emphasised the power of god and the absolute truth of divine revelation, just when Europe began to move away from that.
It is also gratifying to learn that there is a body of Islamic Jurisprudence (fiqh) that is being developed which takes into account women’s and minority rights. Spearheaded by Mahmud Hasan, from Canada. He was involved with the steering commitee which turned down the proposals to incorporate Shariah into Canadian law, last year, on Islamic principles.
Since most Muslim scholars are oblivious to human rights issues and will not even entertain ideas from laiety or non-scholars, it’s good to find people like Mr Hasan.
Me Hasan has produced the bulk of his exegeis in Bengali and Arabic, but is in the process of translating his published works into English.
This is a very interesting forum actually. Look guys i have an exam tomorrow so i’m gonna quickly rush through a few things, hence i might be a bit too general. If you want to take up the discussion with me at a later time i would be very happy, my blog is http://saqibsattar.blog.com/. I won’t be responding to this forum for a while.
Sid,
You need to stop making incorrect generalisations…Zia was not secular leaning…he was the one who made Pakistan more leaning towards Islam! He was the one who supported the Afghan Mujahedeen against the Soviets. Sid, rather then making erroneous generalisations and then passing them of as facts, just be honest by saying ‘I think’ this is the case so on and so forth. You would win more respect, especially when you do make some other intelligent and interesting points.
As for the contradiction, I don’t see it, I would advise you to re-read my post, if it is still unclear I will attempt to clarify. I suspect when it comes to Muslim issues you are not distinguishing between nationalists and Islamists, hence you referring to Jinnah and Mustafa Kemal as hating infidels.
Sonia
Without doubt all aspects of Islam, including those which you categorise as ‘unpalatable’ should be brought to the surface. However is the issue one of rejecting these aspects out of hand or looking to understand the context and the guiding philosophy of Islam. This may, or may not annoy you slightly Sonia, but many young women do go through the Qur’an and decide to embrace Islam upon making an overall evaluation, and not getting bogged down in trivia.
This is a big topic… and i read your section regarding the ‘Eye on Gay Muslims’ where you elaborated more on this point. Perhaps you can create a specific thread for this topic at a later point in time. In any case I will at a later date write something on this on my blog.
Rumbold
Thanks for wishing me well for the exams.
I’m sorry to hear you felt that i was basically being slightly arrogant – God Forbid. If that is how i came across then i do apologise to everyone. However I felt some of the people were making erroneous remarks just to look good…oh well, maybe it’s just me as a Muslim feeling victimised again!
About the renaissance, well was I giving a snapshot view. The Renaissance took place in different ways in different regions at different times. Too be honest, i’m really not sure of its impact in the Eastern side of Byzantine – however it is interesting just to observe how the Western half was almost sectioned of. I might look into this further.
Regarding Aristotle, then yes what i said is very true. In fact i was told this point blank by my lecturer at University who said that the world of Islam had safeguarded Aristotle. Christian Theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas actually used Aristotle to further develop Christian theology, in, i believe something like the 12-13th century, i can’t remember exactly.
You see early Christian theology was neo-platonic, and actually they were quite suspicious of Aristotelian metaphysics (indeed some of his medical ‘findings’ were decidedly dodgy). Even amongst Muslims, there was much suspicion of Aristotle, backing up the point Roger made about it having less impact upon Muslim thought – certainly long-term. It probably had more influence on Muslims in Spain…perhaps Roger can elaborate on this point.
The Europeans then were able to access their own tradition, kept safe by Muslims, and benefit and integrate the ideas of these commentaries, particularly the works of Aristotle. The best example is that of Ibn Sina or, as he is known through his anglicized name Averroes
These are islamic golden-oldies.
Averroes was practically run out of town, and Maimonedes fled tolerant Muslim Spain in the middle of the night with little more than the shirt on his back.
Muslims go to great pains to prove they’ve relevance for, to prove they’ve contributed to, the Western philosophical tradition.
They don’t and they haven’t.
Islam in this domain is redundant.
And guess what also, Shariah was the basis of the state, showing how Muslim did, and can co-exist with non-Muslims then and can do so anywhere else, irrespective if the basis of the state is shariah or not.
Hmmm…then why did the chief architect of The Great Mosque of Cairo, a Christian, have his HANDS CHOPPED OFF once the job had been completed?
So he wouldn’t design another building of equal stature, that’s why.
Another classical “Islamic” monument, the Al Aqsa Mosque, was designed and constructed by enslaved Persian Christians.
Is there no end to this tolerance?
Back in the 1970s archeologists In Iraq discovered what were later recognised as electric batteries dating from the 500s.
At the time, during the Chariots of the Gods hysteria, some even suggested the existence of these batteries was proof we’d been visited by space aliens.
Well, the Orthodox monks of the time weren’t space aliens ( they were found in the ruins of a monastery)
It was later surmised that during the early Byzantine period some individuals had mastered the principles of electro-plating. These batteries were used to send a weak electric current through an acid solution in which lead goblets and such were immersed in order to plate them with a thin layer of gold. The process was only re-discovered in the 18th or early 19th centuries.
In Syrian monasteries, during the same period, chemistry seems to have been the preferred discipline. Two enterprising monks discovered a chemical formula that was only re-discovered in the early 20th century.
The monks called it “greek fire”. We know it today as napalm.
Eléanor d’Aquitaine, a frequent visitor to the Constaninople of the 1100s, had a pair of early pocket watches, something was wasn’t supposed to have been invented until centuries later.
She and her husband, King John, would co-ordinate their watches in the morning so that they could meet at a precise hour in a precise place for a session of passionate love away from the prying eyes of the courtiers.
Averroes, on the other hand, couldn’t give you the time of day.
The probleme is that the Byzantines have left no descendant civilisation that could champion their achievements.
There is Russia, of course, but Russians are *evil*. Islam certainly won’t fess-up and neither will the Roman Catholic Church…..both responsable for the destruction of this culture.
So no one knows about the 6th century Orthodox monks who, centuries before Marco Polo, travelled all the way to China, discovered the secret of silk, and who returned via Southest Asia making maps as they went, maps that Arab mariners would later use.
No one knows of the Byzantine mastery of steam-engines either.
And architects and engineers the world over still can’t understand how Hagia Sophia remains standing, even though it’s in one of the most earthquake-prone areas of the earth.
However proof comes in strange ways. Does anyone here ever wonder why the Crusaders in 1204 eschewed the WHOLE Middle East and Jerusalem in favour of Constantinople? Took ‘em 40-odd years to carry off all the loot.
Vulgar, rapacious thieves, slaves to their appetites, always gravitate to where the greatest wealth and greatest treasures are to be found.
Follow the thieves, cuz they follow the money.
I’ve a question for you Saqib; in 1453 the Muslim Turks slaughtered the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople, so how can Islam be said to have “saved” the Greeks?
Muslims murdered the Greeks, and then attempted to expropriate their intellectual achievements in order to claim them as their own.
Saqib Sattar
Try and read my comments at face value rather than extrapolate your own meaning into them. I didn’t say Zia was secular, but I did say he managed to keep the Ulama take full control over Pakistani legislature and kept them in line.
As for the contradiction, I don’t see it, I would advise you to re-read my post, if it is still unclear I will attempt to clarify. I suspect when it comes to Muslim issues you are not distinguishing between nationalists and Islamists, hence you referring to Jinnah and Mustafa Kemal as hating infidels.
Another one of your etrapolations, of you’re confusing my comments with Muzumdar’s from earlier in the thread. Re-read your comment:
Over a period of time, because these arguments are not rooted in Islam, they will wither away, as have Christian arguments in Britain; hence the state will become more and more secular in both its setup and form.”
How do you figure the withering of ideas not “rooted in Islam” (whatever that means) would lead to more secularism?
But then, coming from someone who likens an Islamic state to a secular one, I’m not expecting an epiphany.
Hmmm…then why did the chief architect of The Great Mosque of Cairo, a Christian, have his HANDS CHOPPED OFF once the job had been completed?
Is your point Soso, that Christian and Jewish armies of the past were the tolerant kind?
i’m one of these people interested in the 1204 crusade and the sacking of constantinople. most people dont even know that Crusade existed ( i daresay cos they never made it over to the holy land..ha) why do you think it was the case soso?
Ok, i’m slightly going back on what i said… but just this once.
Soso, you rehearse some incidents, which i don’t have complete knowledge over, however if these are the only examples you can bring then they don’t disprove what i am saying as i am talking about the dominant theme and characteristics of the Islamic Civilization. If the hands of the architect were chopped of then this is not from the shariah…as that only happens to thieves. To be fair, some of the Sultans had corrupt practices…i believe the same fate occurred to Muslim architects in the Ottoman Empire…or was it India. Perhaps someone may want to find out.
You make a lot of points in the middle of your post…most of which seem to endlessly ramble on incoherently…i wonder if you pinched some of this from the internet.
If you want to debate me then address me point by point, and not get onto a soapbox with your liturgy. You clearly have not done this, what the hell has Marco Polo got to do with my points about Greek ideas and Aristotle? You haven’t made any substantive points to disprove what i have said in this regard. I will have to deconstruct your post, and then at a later time give you a point by point analysis and breakdown. If this thread closes before then, then please email me on my blog…we can then resume this later with more depth and clarity.
Until then take care mate.
Sid you said.
(post 68) ‘But it is not the case that Pakistan has become more secular since Jinnah, has it? The only time Pakistan lurches towards cod-secualarism is when a military dictator like Zia or Musharraf take over and then proceed to kick the Ulama into submission.’
You then said, in response to me.
(Post 76)’I didn’t say Zia was secular, but I did say he managed to keep the Ulama take full control over Pakistani legislature and kept them in line.
Oh, and where in the post did you say the latter point. You didn’t so i had to infer you were implying that Zia was pro-secular, for as you said, let me repeat.
‘…Pakistan lurches towards cod-secualarism is when a military dictator like Zia or Musharraf take over and then proceed to kick the Ulama into submission.’
I don’t think i need to comment more on this point, as it’s really getting quite ridiculous.
If i confused you with the other guy, then you have my apologies. As for the other point i will get back to you on that, as i need to be far more considered.
I don’t think i need to comment more on this point, as it’s really getting quite ridiculous.
well since our exchange started with your claim that a secular society and an “Islamic Republic” are the same thing, and then going on to elaborate how the withering of non-Islamic ideas will help develop secularism, what did you expect?
Soso:
“Does anyone here ever wonder why the Crusaders in 1204 eschewed the WHOLE Middle East and Jerusalem in favour of Constantinople?”
One of the main reasons was the worsening relations between Eastern and Western Christendom in the 12th century, which contributed to massacres of Western Europeans in Constantinople in the latter part of the century, as well as all the problems over the route of the 3rd Crusade.
“I’ve a question for you Saqib; in 1453 the Muslim Turks slaughtered the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople, so how can Islam be said to have “saved” the Greeks?”
It was not the Ottomans/Turks that transmitted Aristotle to Catholic Europe, it was the Arabs/Iranians. Therefore the point stands. I think it was more to do with saving Greek culture then Greek lives anyway.
Saqib:
Arrogant was perhaps too strong a term. I simply meant that if you disagree with someone you do not need to say that they got their information from the internet/Wikepedia. As you know, historical evidence is such that multiple conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence (I am not advocating post-modernist rubbish- just that things are not always clear cut).
i read the book.
no suprises really. i found the 90s stuff quite intriguing because i missed it! the closer he came to our present time the more it became clear that he has a few fashionable axes to grind.
I only heard some of the 90s legends, some of his accounts are factually quite wrong through, by all accounts. The islamist is a bit like zia sardars ‘autobiography’, that vibe of ‘they are all terrible, i am the hero’. The difference being that zias had quite an interesting cosmopolital life story to tell and thinks wildly about things.
Ed seems an extreme character, at least in the way he describes himself, both as an islamist (whatever that means) and as an anti-islamist. The kind of person i’d like to avoid. Can i allocate myself a different geographic identity to you please!!!
People have changed since the 90s, thats not how he wrote it, only he and shayk hamza are allowed to change. everyone else can be thrown away because Ed came back from Damascus with the truth.
Anyhow, as well as serving the Gove/Phillips agenda i reckon theres some good advice in the early and mid sections of the book to Muslim organisations if only they can endure his daft telegraph friendly style. Its like holding a dirty mirror to your face.
you might be interested in reading Jagdeep’s comment upthread. Addresses your Phillips/Telegraph reservations.
sunny,
why do you feel the need to include “earlier jewish armies” in your comments? surely it doesn’t make sense to take the descriptions of the biblical israelites at face value if you don’t accept other parts of the Tanakh as being valid historical documents? is this just for balance? it seems an extreme attempt at it, unless you are referring to a *historical* example of these “ancient jewish armies” that i am not aware of – and i don’t mean the book of joshua. even josephus is not regarded as terribly reliable when it comes to accounts of martial conduct.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Saqib Sattar:
I think the most important effect of the influence of the asharites in the islamic world and the mutazalites in western Europe was that it made science much more poeeible in the latter. Most notably, the asharites rejected cause-and-effect. They thought there was only one cause- God- and one effect- everything else.
I remember a passge in al-Ghazali, the most influential asharite, where he argued that fire and burning had no connection but god chose that the two should coincide. An extreme case, but if you think like that you’ve got problems with science. By-and-large the renaissance and the enlightenment later missed eatern- orthodox- Europe. the effects and ideas were imported later, but the actual process of a culture changing what it thought and the way it thought didn’t affect them directly.
It was not the Ottomans/Turks that transmitted Aristotle to Catholic Europe, it was the Arabs/Iranians. Therefore the point stands. I think it was more to do with saving Greek culture then Greek lives anyway
Rumbold, it was the Greeks of Byzantium who transmitted the works of Aristotle to Catholic Europe.
Both Arsitotle AND the Greeks can get by quite well without Islam.
Is your point Soso, that Christian and Jewish armies of the past were the tolerant kind?
No, my point was this; non-muslims in sharia-ruled muslim-majority states suffered horribly. They were exploited, harassed, enslaved, taxed and even murdered, and all this justified and even encouraged by Islam’s core texts.
It continues to this day.
http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=3608
Saqib’s rose-tinted portrait of a tolerant Caliphate is an complete fabrication
It varied- like all political systems- from time to time and place to place, Soso. The injunctions to give limited toleration to “people of the book” in the quran probably meant that on average mediaeval muslim states probably weren’t quite as murderously intolerant of people with some of the wrong beliefs as christian states. Some muslims now think that exactly the same kind of toleration is all that is needed.
Soso:
“No, my point was this; non-muslims in sharia-ruled muslim-majority states suffered horribly. They were exploited, harassed, enslaved, taxed and even murdered, and all this justified and even encouraged by Islam’s core texts”
If one takes the example of the Jews in the medieval period (c.800-c.1450), they were better treated under the Caliphate than in Christendom. Byzantium introduced anit-Jewish laws, some of which stipulated the punishment of a fine of 30 pieces of silver, thereby perpetuating the Blood Libel, while the authorities also organized pogroms to distract attentions from their own failings. Western Europe was in some ways even worse, with the mobilisation of the first Crusaders causing mass Jewish slaughter on the Continent, as those knights going off to fight were worried that the Jews would try and take over while they were gone.
Life under the Caliphs at the time was not a bad of roses by any strech of the imagination. The jizya was too much for some families, yet there was still a thriving Jewish community and comparatively little pesecution, apart from a short spell under Caliph Hakim, affectionately known as ‘the mad’ to contemporary Islamic chroniclers.
at the risk of getting it in the neck from the bernard lewis-haters here, he points out that although the jews of the islamic world had a set of religiously-guaranteed rights and were never so persecuted as they were in christendom, we were never so emancipated and free and had equal rights as we do in so-called christian countries today. even the much-vaunted golden age of the andalucian convivencia was marred by occasional occurences of intolerance and persecution, as occurred under the almohads and almoravids – that’s the reason maimonides and his family left córdoba.
the caliphate was no bed of roses, but then neither was anywhere, with the possible exception of places like india and china where they had other fish to fry.
b’shalom
bananabrain
“we were never so emancipated and free and had equal rights as we do in so-called christian countries today”
I would hope that people would be more free in the 21st century than they were a thousand years ago! Nevertheless, we shouldn’t forget that as recently as 1945, 6 million Jews were getting exterminated right in the heart of the so-called christian europe.
we shouldn’t forget that as recently as 1945, 6 million Jews were getting exterminated right in the heart of the so-called christian europe.
That’s not entirely accurate, Raz.
Hitler hated Christianity and National Socialism, with its emphasis on a superior race, is the very antithesis of Christian sentiment.
That said, there have been many, many incidents in Christian countries over the centuries of virulent, murderous anti-semitism.
And yes, that anti-semitism was, at least in part, inspired by certain Christian doctrines. Blaming the Jews for the “murder” of Christ, and such, is a good example.
It varied- like all political systems- from time to time and place to place, Soso. The injunctions to give limited toleration to “people of the book” in the quran probably meant that on average mediaeval muslim states probably weren’t quite as murderously intolerant of people with some of the wrong beliefs as christian states Roger.
I’ve no probleme with you statement Roger, but you should remember that the “people of the book” to whom you refer were the indigenous inhabitants of this region.
Imagine for a moment if, unprovoked, I invaded and took over your home and then charged you a tax to sleep in your own bed.
Would you call me tolerant?
Were the Spanish Conquistadors tolerant?
Simply saying that Islamist oppression varied from place to place and from time to time doesn’t present the true picture.
I’m bored of this subject. I think the book says it all, in any case.
Hi everyone, exam went well…got three to knock out next week!
I was made aware of a couple of events in the UK which are relevant to the discussion we have had on this thread. You may like to check it out: http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=693
‘I’m bored of this subject. I think the book says it all, in any case.’
That’s what usually happens Soso if you keep going round and round in circles…after a while your head starts spinning.
You still haven’t proven anything to counter my earlier posts…namely the transmission of Greek, and specifically Aristotelian knowledge to Catholic Europe.
Simply by stating something, or posting a web link does not win an argument. It seems that although mainland Europe had benefited from the Greek method of debate and reason, it clearly hasn’t extended to all of us! (I did make one error, ibn Sina is known as Avicenna, nor Averroes, that’s ibn Rushd.)
It is no wonder you are continually trying to take the debate down different paths, it a good way of digressing from the main argument, which obviously it seems you cannot counter.
You do, and I give you credit, pinpoint the greatness of the Byzantine empire of the East…and yes they also played an important part in transmitting knowledge (something which I never denied!). Let me state again, it does not disprove my earlier position.
On your last point:
‘Imagine for a moment if, unprovoked, I invaded and took over your home and then charged you a tax to sleep in your own bed.’
That’s not strictly true is it now soso?
The vandals meted out harsher treatment to even their fellow Christian brethren. The level of taxation in Muslim Spain was generally lower – oh, and it didn’t relate to peoples beds either.
Again, you fail to contextualise these things and use every opportunity to show Islamic history in a negative light. Soso just by admitting that there were some, at least some, not many, but some, good things in Islamic history will not, I am sure defile your staunchly anti-Islamist position! – Chill out mate…don’t be so insecure.
I think the points made in earlier posts stand. Yes, the minorities were generally better of, yes there were arbitrary outbreaks of intolerance (which affected all people including the Muslims) and yes a large part of this would not qualify as tolerance in the modern sense.
The issue of tolerance in and of itself is a very big topic, and one which really fascinates me. We probably need another forum for this however.
John Locke, the great English philosopher articulated the embryonic concepts of tolerance in a liberal society based on the social contract. Ironically even he was against extending this tolerance to Catholics… he viewed them as being subversive, as they had loyalties outside of state…this has interesting parallels for Muslims today.
And this brings me to an interesting debate…what are the reasons behind extending tolerance? Are they born out of a genuine commitment to some universal principles, be they secular of religious, are they born out of negotiated settlements, or political expediency? Now once we begin to evaluate societies, both past and present through these conceptual frameworks we can enhance our ability to understand the ‘quality’ of these tolerances.’
For example, if there was more tolerance in Muslim societies vis-à-vis Christendom then why? And if there is more tolerance in contemporary Western Secular societies than contemporary Muslim societies, then why? If Muslim societies of the past generally were tolerant, why did at times this not occur, i.e. the time of Caliph Hakim and his Church demolishing antics? Similarly what of the general tolerance in the Secular West, ostensibly not extended during the premiership of Chirac in relation to religious attire?
This type of questioning will help us to truly appreciate and understand debates in both history and in contemporary times.
Anyway, enough of my own ramblings…gotta get back to study. I’m reading the works of John Rawls…fantastic guy!
Soso
‘Hitler hated Christianity and National Socialism, with its emphasis on a superior race, is the very antithesis of Christian sentiment.’
Guess what the Nazi party stood for ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’
I think you meant Communism…who were meant to be the agents of the untermenchen (sub-human) Russians!
Roger,
Sorry, i nearly missed your earlier post. Thanks for that…i believe that the asharis developed within the mutazalites, or something like that. You make a very interesting point on scientic development.
Saqib Satar,
Interesting posts you drop in here, thanks.
I think it is worth pointing out that this whole ‘debate’ about scientific advance can be a bit sterile. Wasn’t it Newton that said he had ’stood on the shoulders of giants’ in order to come up with what he had understood about light?
When the USA landed a man on the moon, the reason much of the human race was excited about it was because it was a culmination of events that had started in ancient china, rockets, developed in the Byzantine and Caliphate eras, mathematics, gone through massive development in Europe, rockets again, and been delivered because of cold war rivalry. (And that is the stripped down, simple version) It was, in effect, an achievement the human race could be proud of.
Douglas Clark
Thank you for you kind words…thank you again to those who have visited my blog with kind words…i put the picture of myself only today, a bit hazy but at least you know i do exist!
Ultimately you are right; it has been an overall effort from the human race to arrive at where we have.
However I don’t believe the debate necessary has to be sterile.
It is a bit like a football match…overall it’s a team performance that counts and wins you the match…your star players get most of the plaudits, they hog the limelight…however there were those quiet individuals in defence who went unnoticed…but there role was vital also in different ways.
My point being everyone needs a special mention for their unique contribution, not to brag, but to feel appreciated, and importantly to be encouraged to continually improve and strive in pursuit of excellence.
Also, it helps us to understand what methods, ideas and concepts enabled us to reach these heights, and how we can continue to be inspired in new ways by them.
A lot of the debate on this thread has been about how Europe got back its Greek heritage. That’s interesting, because it shows how Europe actually went BACK to go FORWARD…meaning it had to rediscover some key ROOT concepts and ideas, and then work out how to reinvent or apply them to new circumstances. This point about Europe and the Greeks is interesting however; as many of the Philosophes drew inspiration not through embracing the Greeks initial ideas, but in juxtaposition to their own critical views…it was a dialectical relationship.
It’s almost like when; I think it was John Major who said ‘back to basics’ – we need to go back to original premises – roots – to derive new inspiration.
Another interesting example is the Australian Cricket coach, or former coach, John Buchanan…He had a phenomenally successful career…he actually planned some of his strategies around the Chinese warlord Sun Tzu…he had the foresight to apply old knowledge in new contexts. This is what gives as human inspiration, often through reinvention and adaptation.
So I would say there is great benefit to be derived…as long as there is teleology, and not just for…well…intellectual masturbation!
Take care my friend
Further to the last post…it is also, at times about reinventing your own personal perception, both of yourself, and your environment. Some ideas, princples are timeless…an excellent resource is Stephen Covey…i recommend his works to everyone.