The Post colonial era saw Muslim World being introduced to governance structures and ideas which were born and developed in Western Europe and which were introduced to the Muslim world as a legacy of the colonial rulers. Decades since colonialists ended their physical occupation of Muslim Lands, the Muslim World finds itself engaged in the fundamental debate about governance models and structures and the political, economic and social ideas on which these structures should be built. To the frustration of many the debate seems to linger on endlessly and an intellectual stalemate seems to have dominated the debate for decades. Hence the intellectual progression in the Muslim World has been held hostage to this stalemate leaving the Muslim World in a state of confusion and uncertainty due to lack of clear vision and direction. This in turn has lead to the economic, political and social stagnation and instability in the Muslim World.
At one end of the debate are a small group of liberal elite who are impressed with the West's extra-ordinary material progress. They have attributed Western progress to the evolution in Western political, social and economic thought during the renaissance period. They believe that for the Muslim World to achieve the same progress they need to divorce religion from public life as the Europeans did in the Post Middle Ages Era. They want the Muslim World to adopt Western ideals of secularism, pluralism, women empowerment, rights of minorities, nationalism, human sovereignty, private ownership, free markets, free speech, religious and personal freedom (libertarianism) and democracy. It is these themes which resound day and night in the Muslim World from the liberal circles. It is these ideals which serve as benchmarks to assess the societies in the Muslim World today. The level of Civility and Modernity of Muslim societies is determined based on the degree of their conformity to these ideals. It is worthwhile to note that the West encourages and insists on the same. So Western government and non-government organizations routinely issue progress reports, sharing their assessments about how civilized or uncivilized the Muslim World is based on its performance which is judged in line with these ideals.
However the liberals have erred in their judgment and in choosing the path for revival of the Muslim World. In adopting the solutions for the Muslim World and charting its way forward, the liberals have not utilized deep thinking rather have followed a superficial and empirical approach. They saw the extraordinary material progress of the Western World and wanted to replicate it. They saw the evolution in the political thought in the Western World and correctly concluded that West's material progress is connected to it. However they empirically (and incorrectly deduced), without studying their own societies, that by adopting Western Ideals, they would be able to usher in the same progress in the Muslim World. So what the liberals want to do is to borrow the intellectual experience of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe and apply it to the Muslim World without caring to regard for the particular factors which gave birth to European Secularism.
And herein lies the superficiality of their approach. Firstly because in charting out the intellectual path for the Muslim World, the liberals did not study Muslim society and its realities, rather they were content with the idea that European Secularism is not "European" rather "Universal" and insisted on its implementation throughout the Muslim World. They ignored the fact that European secularism is a reactionary political ideology which is a direct result of the repressive Christian rule which governed much of Europe throughout the Middle Ages (Or as they are now called). It was when the European population's frustration and anger at their miserable socio-economic and political conditions exploded in to a fierce struggle with the incumbent political authority, which happened to be the Church, that secularism emerged as "the new" thinking. The idea was to deprive the Church from its political power by depriving it off its legitimacy, "divine inspiration". So the liberals (free thinkers) of the time severely attacked religion, arguing it is without a factual foundation, that human reason triumphs over divine thinking and that human reason, being superior to the divine, should be the only source of legislation. So at the heart of Europe's intellectual revolution was the idea of the sovereignty of the human mind and the rejection (or relegation) of the divine which claimed, and was till then considered, the sovereign authority. Describing the liberal temperament Political Philosopher John Gray claimed:"It (liberalism) has been inspired by skepticism and by fideistic certainty of divine revelation" (Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths). So the soul of liberal thought was anti-religious and anti divine.
It was the absence of the "contextualization" of the European intellectual experience which was overlooked by the liberals in the Muslim World which lead them to the false idea of "Universalism" of liberal thought. Secondly the liberals totally ignored the history of the Muslim World in their attempt to repeat the European experience. The European experience with religion was in sharp contrast to that of the Muslim World. Muslims under the banner of the caliphate enjoyed stupendous progress in all realms of collective and individual life and the Islamic state from the time of the Second Caliph Umar bin Khattab till the great Osamni Caliph Suleiman Al Qanooni was the leading State of the World. Although it was a state which was governed by divine laws, science and technology prospered, the economy thrived and the basic right of its citizenry, that of food, clothing, shelter and health, education and security was guaranteed. As for knowledge and education, the Islamic State was renowned for its excellent centers of learning and the Islamic State directly supervised and encouraged intellectual discourse and learning. Jonathan Lyons in his book, "The House of Wisdom, How Arabs Transformed the Western Civilization" states:" Throughout much of the period in question, Arabic served as the global language of scholarship, and learned men of all stripes could travel widely and hold serious and nuanced discussions in this lingua franca. Medieval Western scholars who wanted access to the latest findings also needed to master the Arabic Tongue or work from translations by those who had done so." So unlike Christian Europe, there existed in the Muslim world, no frustration or anger with the divine, neither any desire to get rid of its rule nor any massive uprising against the "Islamic" character of the caliphate. There were ofcourse feuds, uprisings and disputes within the Islamic State but none were aimed at challenging the divine basis of the state. Even when the caliphate was finally abolished, Mustapha Kamal used fierce Turkish nationalism and brute force to achieve it and it is no secret that this could not be achieved without the direct help and supervision of the allies (France and Britain).
Moreover from the time the Arabian Prophet Muhammad (SAW) first presented Islam to the World, till today, never have the Muslims ever questioned the divinity of Islam and the sovereignty of the Islamic Code (Shariah) over all other such codes. Infact the Muslim World never abandoned human reason, as the extraordinary scientific and educational accomplishments under the caliphate testify; rather it limited its role to science and administrative matters while the legislative matters were solely derived from the Islamic Texts. Even when liberal ideas and democracy were introduced in the Muslim World under the direct rule of the colonialists, it was not presented by the colonialists as anti-religious and anti-divine, rather the colonialists sought to legitimize these ideas from Islam knowing well that the Muslim World can never be convinced to accept the supremacy of the human mind over that of the divine. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the appearance of a new brand of reformist Islamic scholars, who were mentored, sponsored and promoted by Western Powers, and who sought to legitimize liberal ideas by providing their justifications from Islamic text. Such an approach was a tacit admission by the West of the incompatibility of the Western ideals, which were deeply and fiercely anti-religious, with that of the Muslim World. The Constitutions of many secular Muslim countries today derive their legitimacy from the political support which Islamic Scholars provided in their passage, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan being a few examples. The perception that the Muslim World was "deceived" in to accepting liberal ideals is further enhanced by the huge support which Islamic Political Parties enjoy across the Muslim World, including those who had chosen to operate within the secular constitutional frameworks. The Justice and Development Party of Turkey (AKP), the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Jordan and Syria, Hamas in Palestine, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Al Nahda Movement of Tunisia are just a few of the many political parties in the Muslim world who openly espouse the idea that Islam should play a central role in the collective life of the Society. The existence of such movements with varying, yet considerable degree of public support further cements the belief that the Muslim World, even in this era of decline, has no inclinations in divorcing Islam from public life and adopting secularism. Whether these movements tacitly do so, and may have actually done so, is another matter and is not relevant to the present debate.
So the Muslim World is torn apart in an intellectual tug of War which has been described by some in the simplistic notions of an "identity crisis". There was never an identity crisis of the sort in the Muslim World. The Muslim World never abandoned its Islamic identity, even after it was introduced to the ideal of Westphalian sovereignty, although it had remained confused about her Islamic identity, and this identity remained dormant for some decades creating an impression of the embracement of Westphalian ideal of nation state. Moreover "identity crisis" is too simple a conclusion to approach a much more complex problem of intellectual stagnation. At the heart of the problem of intellectual stagnation in the Muslim World lies the forceful imposition of liberal ideas and solutions which emanate from the belief in the sovereignty of the human mind over that of the divine, on a population which is deeply conservative with a staunch and un-shaky belief in the divine code (Shariah) and whose experience with the unity of the state and religion reminds of her exalted status in the World.
The revival of the Muslim World, as so many thinkers in the Muslim World have correctly concluded, lies not in material progress or in investing in education, military or morally uplifting the society, rather the path to revival lies in the power of ideas which defines what a group of people and a society stands for and how its political and governance structures should be organized. It is indeed intellectual progression which precedes and which eventually results in the revival of a nation. At a time when the debate about the role of religion in society and the intellectual foundations of the Muslim World are in full swing, the boundaries of such a debate should be broadened to include new ideas. Until now this debate has been forcefully limited to how the Muslim World should be reformed according to liberal ideas and how the role of religion in public polity can be reduced and ultimately eliminated. And it appears that this approach has locked the Muslim mind and stopped it from progression as one finds this debate and its basic arguments being discussed by thinkers as back as two centuries ago when the West first introduced this debate to the Muslim intelligentsia. It is no secret that after such a long period this reformation hasn't taken place and the Muslim World has inched further from it rather marched towards it. It is time the basic questions are included in the debate which puts the liberal ideas on the table as well and which broadens the horizon of the debate to bring liberalism under scrutiny and challenge as opposed to the assumption of its universality and exclusion from rational scrutiny. That governance structures based on liberal ideals are the incumbent political structures which have failed to revive the Muslim World is ample justification for such an approach. Questions such as whether Islam and Democracy are compatible, whether a democracy would allow the abolishment of the idea of separation of state and church if the majority demands it, whether a liberal pluralistic society would tolerate a public debate within itself which advocates a role of religion in public life, whether the idea of Westphalian Sovereignty is indeed limited to Westphalia and its neighbors, whether free markets is a form of colonial exploitation should be asked alongside those of whether the caliphate is a totalitarian and unaccountable system, whether modernity and Islam can co-exist, whether Islam is a universal ideology and whether a comprehensive adoption of the Islamic ideology by the state, as was done by the caliphate of the past is the way forward for the Muslim World.
Those who believe in a rational discourse and a sincere debate should have no objection to such a "broadening of the debate". For the strongest advocate, which is already forcing this broadening of the debate, upon the Muslim intelligentsia, is the Muslim Street which is roaring for change suggesting that its patience with the stagnation in the Muslim World, has eventually run out.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Muslim
said:
 |
--------- PART 1 of 3 --------- I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the rejected. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. "Allah loves the benevolent" (3:134) A Model -------- (This is in relation to the issue of solving "life's affairs" or politics) Gold Silver Bronze Gold: Islam (100% Islam, Islam WITH Ijtihaad, Islam-of-Prophet-Muhammad S.A.W., "24ct PURE Islam") Silver: Secular Liberalism Bronze: "religion" (Christianity, "Islam" WITHOUT Ijtihaad, Alloy-Islam, "6ct gold ALLOY Islam") In terms of solving NEW PROBLEMS clearly secular liberalism is superior to "religion". Clear secular liberalism is better than "6ct Alloy Islam" or "partial Islam". This is because "partial Islam" or "bronze Islam" or "Islam that looks like Islam but is not really Islam-of-Prophet-Muhammad because-it-has-no-ijtihaad-so-cannot-solve-NEW-problems, this is because "6ct Alloy-Islam" is NOT really Islam at all (effectively). Effectively it is just a "religion" like Christianity. THIS is why The Ottoman's had to bring in the French Secular law to solve NEW political/societal issues. Partial-Islam-i.e.-Islam-without-Ijtihaad DOES NOT WORK. Partial Islam is as weak as Christianity at solving POLITICAL issues. We need FULL-Islam. As Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) practiced it: WITH ijtihaad. So the secular liberal Muslims are RIGHT to say that the separation of RELIGION (partial-Islam) and politics WOULD bring progress (in this life) as it has for The West. HOWEVER, Why have silver (secular liberalism) when we can have GOLD (100% PURE GOLD Islam) (24ct Islam)? Why have silver/bronze when we can have gold? 24ct PURE GOLD Islam is VERY different to Alloy Islam (bronze Islam). Gold Islam WITH Ijtihaad CAN solve NEW problems (e.g. the SUKUK, e.g. the HUKM for GENETIC CLONING.) Bronze Islam withOUT ijtihaad canNOT solve NEW problems (so is de-facto "a religion" like Christianity) This PURE-STRAIN (original-Islam), this 24ct-Prophet-Muhammad's (S.A.W.). ******** THIS Islam, PURE ISLAM, 100% Islam, Islam-with-ijtihaad, GOLD Islam, stands head and shoulders above (silver) secular liberalism. GOLD (Islam) is head and shoulders above silver (secular liberalism). GOLD. forget silver. ******** *** Clearly, PURE Islam's GOLD STANDARD is waaay better than the Dollar (Monopoly board game paper "fiat" useless "money") (Islam's GOLD v secular liberalism's worthless paper) (GOLD v worthless paper) PURE Islam's GOLD STANDARD family policies are waaay better than the toxic social policies of the liberalism. (Islam's FAMILY life v secular liberlism's family breakdown, PORNOGRAPHY, and PROSTITUTION) (Family v societal-breakdown-no-RESPECT-for-the-elderly, AND no-respect-for-authority) PURE Islam's GOLD STANDARD KHILAFAH is waaay better than "under-the-yoke-of-America/IMF" secular liberalism. (Islam's UNITY AND STRENGTH AND "REAL" INDEPENDENCE v secular liberalism's SLAVERY TO THE WEST) (TRUE LIBERATION v SLAVERY to the COLONIALISM) |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Muslim
said:
|
--------- PART 2 of 3 --------- PURE Islam's GOLD STANARD "ONE LAW for the rich AND poor" is waay better than "The law is only applied on the poor". Islam's JUSTICE v Secular liberalism's "RICH get away with it" America's "Exceptional" "City-on-the-hill-with-torture-dungeons" What is so "Exceptional" about a secular liberal City on the hill with torture dungeons? Why should we want soul-destroying secular liberalism? Secular liberalism is evil. Look at what it has done to the good American people. The Secular Liberalism (i.e. U.S.A.) IS a City on the Hill. It is a DARK CITY on the Hill, with BATS flying out of its DARK TOWERS, and TORTURE DUNGEONS built into the Hillside Secular Liberal City-on-the-Hill "Exceptional U.S.A." is a TORTURER (i.e. like a RAPIST) Secular Liberal City-on-the-Hill "Exceptional U.S.A." is a WARMONGERING Child butchering, oil-thieving, PARASITE. A secular liberal "Clean Shiny cup on the outside and DIRTY on the INSIDE" City lights from afar, but PROSTITUTION and DRUGS and EVIL close up. Secular Liberalism is HEARTLESS. Secular Liberalism is SOULLESS. Secular Liberalism is EVIL. A Rich EVIL DARK CITY ON THE HILL. THAT is secular Liberalism. Even many Americans are fed up with it. Why should we Muslims want to follow the example of the Torturing secular liberal U.S.A.? Why should we Muslims want to follow the example of those secular liberals who DROPPED THE ATOM BOMB (twice)? Why should we follow "do-what-you-like" secular liberalism? Why should we follow "no limits to the barbarism" secular liberalism? Why should we follow this secular liberalism that has produced a VAMPIRE (USA) that sucks the blood of Americans and everybody else? Why? Why should we become rich-at-the-expense-of-losing-our-souls? Why should we become evil? Rather we must be good, for "Allah loves the benevolent" (3:134) We should become rich AND be good. We must follow (pure) Islam. Only then can we have success materially AND "spiritually" (as the westerner understand spirituality) Otherwise we will become rich and soulless and have the same "self-destruction" problems they have in the West. Those are just some examples: PURE 100% 24ct GOLD Islam v Secular liberalism (full) Islam v secular liberalism GOLD..............v......worthless paper (dollars) Family............v...... family breakdown (do-what-you-like-and-follow-your-desires liberalism) TRUE LIBERATION...v..... "Do-what-we-the-West-say-or-we-will-bomb-you" secular liberal SLAVERY to the so-called New American Century Why have secular liberalism when we can have (pure) Islam? Why have silver when we can have gold (100% pure-24ct gold non-alloy-Islam)? True we WOULD develop (a little) if we reformed bronze-alloy-Islam (or 6ct partial-Islam) but at what cost? Forget bronze (or partial) Islam. Forget bronze islam that was never Islam at anyway. It was just a historical abberation. The doors of Ijtihaad have to remain OPEN forever. We don't need to reform bronze Islam-without-ijtihaad. We ALREADY HAVE GOLD standard Islam-WITH-ijtihaad. i.e. Islamic Khilafah State and the rest of Islam. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Muslim
said:
|
--------- part 3 of 3 --------- Otherwise with secular liberalism, We would STILL have to life under the yoke of the IMF (just like Greece) We would STILL have to follow the dictates of the "Mother-of-all-terrorists" secular liberal U.S.A. We would STILL be ENSLAVED. At best we would be like the Japanese (if we even reach that standard) Developed but SLAVES of AMERICA No disrespect to the Japanese but they are hardly INDEPENDENT in the real sense. 100% PURE 24ct Islam-of-Prophet-Muhammad (i.e. Islam) (i.e. Islam-Islam) (not sort-of-Islam) IS THE ONLY TRUE LIBERATION. Liberation from the evil IMF Liberation from the "TOXIC-ASSET-financial-weapons of-mass-destruction-Capitalism" BOOM BUST misery. Liberation from the Corrupted-by-money-Democracy (or "politicians-are-in-the-pockets-of-the-banks" DEMOCRACY) Liberation from the elderly-neglecting, FAMILY-DESTROYING, pornographic, prostituted secular-liberalism) Liberation 24ct PURE GOLD Islam or bust! Why have "second-best" "runner-up" TOXIC secular liberalism when we can have NUMBER 1 position (PURE) GOLD 100% 24ct Islam? Why have silver when we can have GOLD? Simply put: With secular liberalism we *might* end up like Latin America (at best) With secular liberalism we *might* end up like The Congo (at worst) (they HAVE Reformation-reformed-christianity) Forget it. With Islam (PURE ISLAM) we were the WORLD UNDISPUTED HEAVY WEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD. With Islam (PURE ISLAM) we were a SUPERPOWER. NOBODY, Nobody would even DARE to look at us in the wrong way, Nevermind do anything more. The Muslim "ties his camel THEN prays to Allah (S.W.T.)" Deen AND Dunya: no separation. Just like the Sahabah! (PURE 100%) Islam-or-bust We establish Khilafah "or-die-trying". The Khilafah is the FOUNDATION of the 5 pillars of Islam. Originally Fard-Kifayah it has NOT (yet) been established. This is Fard-Ayn! Allah is Greater Allahuakbar Alhamdulilahirabilaalameen! O Allah send Your peace and blessings on Prophet Muhammad and his family. O Allah send Your peace and blessings on Prophet Abraham and his family. O Allah establish Your Khilafah and make it strong. O Allah unify the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) on pure Islam. O Allah hear the Duah of the Oppressed Muslims, hear our duah Lord, and grant us our shield, the Khilafah, for we have no protector but You. O Allah bring the Muslims to (pure) Islam. O Allah grant us goodness in this life and the next life and protect us from the hellfire. O Allah make us an Ummah that controls its anger and does not take revenge, an Ummah that does not torture but rather forgives and does good and is kind, and strong. O Allah bring the secular liberal Muslims and all Muslims back into full pure Islam. O Allah bring the non-Muslims to (pure) Islam. Open their hearts to the truth my Lord. O Allah make us Muslims strong again and grant us the victory over evil as You granted it to previous generations. O Allah end our years in the wilderness. O Allah grant us the victory as You granted it to David (peace be upon him). O Allah forgive my sins. O Allah love me and accept my good actions. O Allah liberate the world from ignorance. O Allah bring the world into the light of Islam. O Lord and Master of the universe glory be to You! Accept my good actions and forgive sins and mistakes for you are the One who forgives. O Allah all praise is due to You for You alone are The Creator of the stars, the galaxies and all the worlds. Alhamdulilahirabilaalameen Ameen *** Allah knows best |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Muslim
said:
|
I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the rejected. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful "Those who control their wrath and are forgiving towards mankind (3:134) The Muslim Liberals may have a point. I can see where they are coming from. Ijtihaad is the key. From 1200 to 1950 -ish Islam was only "80% Islam". The doors of Ijtihaad were closed. 80% Islam is NOT Islam. It is like a different religion, effectively (It doesn't work). Let's call 80% Islam "Partial Islam". Closing the doors of Ijtihaad is the equivalent of shutting down critical enquiry in the West. So for 750 years Islam (technically "Partial Islam") was like a "glider". The ENGINE of Islam (Ijtihaad) had cut out. Our civilization glided for 700 then touched down around 1900. Then the Imperialist Powers dismantled it. *** But the issue in origin is not Western Imperialism. That is a symptom of the problem. *** There would be two ways to re-activate the Islamic Civilisation: 1) Switch on Ijtihaad or 2) The Reformation (asfagfirulla) Option 1 would be the first step in reviving Islam. Then the Prophet's (S.A.W.) method for re-establishing the Khilafah State would follow. This work is well advanced and is in the final stage. Option 2 would also work (theoretically) but there would be two problems: a) Islam would be destroyed, so our power would dissipate (and we would go to hell audubillah) b) We would end up like the Congo. They have a reformed Christianity, and look at them. Five million people have died in the last 15 years. Due to our resources the Colonialist States would never leave us alone. The Congo makes Iraq look like a picnic. Those areas without resources might develop but they would still be under the boot of colonialism. At best they might end up like Latin America. Option 1 on the other hand (i.e. The Khilafah) would likely transform us into a Great Power and then a Superpower. The last time this was tried, (the earliest Islamic history) it took 100 years from Embryo to Superpower. With today's technology we should be able to half that time or even less. In 1917 Russia left WW1 crippled and humiliated. Then it adopted Communism. By 1945 it was a Superpower. That's 28 years. But then it's not revenge. We control our anger. We forgive. That will make us stronger. "Those who control their wrath and are forgiving towards mankind (3:134) Allah knows best |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Muslim
said:
|
So we are clear on Jihad: The inner war is far more important than the outer war. Here is why: If the external enemy wins (i.e. we are killed) on the battlefield, we WIN. This is because we still go to paradise inshAllah. However, If the INTERNAL enemy wins (i.e. the enemy called "temptation") then we have LOST. This is because the sins can lead to hell, astagfirullah. So "the victory" is not to dominate "the (external) enemy" only to succumb to the internal enemy. The true victory is to defeat the internal enemy (sins, temptation, going beyond all civilized behaviour, evil) AND the outer enemy (the one trying to dominate us) THEN we achieve victory and go to paradise inshAllah. I say this in order to not mis-represent The Messenger (S.A.W.) He won the "inner game" AND He won the "outer game" "Spirituality" (as a westerner understands it, though for us inner and outer is ONE game) AND politics Spirituality and politics as ONE struggle. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Muslim
said:
|
I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the rejected. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. "The problem" at its root is shallow thinking. Basically Muslim Liberals have not analyzed the situation in detail. They have not done their "homework". The Liberal Muslim thinkers have failed to make an important distinction. That is, Jesus (peace be upon him) Mohammad (peace be upon him) *** These are two very different men. *** Jesus was like a Dalai Lama/Buddah/"spiritual person"/"The pilgrim" Mohammad was like a Dalai Lama/Buddah/"spiritual person"/"The pilgrim" AND Mohammad was like a "George Washington"/Mao kind of figure *** i.e. Mohammad was a "President" i.e. Mohammad was a Commander in Chief i.e. Mohammad was a field marshal/general i.e. Mohammad was a "Supreme Court Chief Justice" *** So Obviously Islam is going to be FUNDAMENTALLY root and branch DIFFERENT to Christianity. Jesus was never a "President" Jesus was never a Commander in Chief Jesus was never a field marshal/general Jesus was a "Supreme Court Chief Justice" "The Romans tried to crucify Jesus. Mohammad crucified the Romans!" Islam is awesome! Islam kicks ... Why should Allah be second best to the Romans? Why should Allah share power with Caesar? F (orget) Caesar! "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God's what is God's" (Bible) "THE LAW MAKING POWER BELONGS ONLY TO ALLAH!" (Quran) The bible is meek, humble, turn the other cheek, "Oh i hope the Romans don't hurt us" The Quran is STRONG, POWERFUL, "Who the hell are these Romans anyway?" NOBODY CRUCIFIES MUHAMMAD! *** Washington, Mao, would NEVER allow some "Romans" to dictate terms. Why should Muhammad? There is a basic difference in character. STRENGTH v meekness What could Jesus have done? Jesus had NO ARMY, NO SYSTEM to "sort out" the Romans. Jesus had no (secular) POWER. Mohammad was different. Mohammad had (secular) POWER. Caesar showed Jesus who's boss. Mohammad showed Caesar who's boss. *** The Muslim Liberal thinkers have completely missed this point. They are effectively thinking that Mohammad = Jesus. not so. The Muslim liberals need to overcome their "meekness" and realise that George Washington would never accept DOMINATION from "The Romans - of HIS time" (i.e. the British Empire) Mao would never accept domination from "The Romans" of HIS time (i.e. The West). Why should Muhammad accept domination from "The Romans" of THAT time (i.e. The Byzantines)? Why should Muhammad accept domination from "The Romans" of THIS time (i.e. The Americans)? The root of "The problem" is shallow thinking (shallow empiricism), assumptions that are incorrect and incorrect answers to the questions: "What is the true nature of (the) reality (that i am studying)"? "Have i got my -mental-model-of-reality- in my head , correct? Basically the Muslim Liberals need to do their "homework": "Muhammad = Jesus" is incorrect. Allah knows best |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abu Naser Muhammad
said:
 |
Secularism, a reactionary ideology, resultant of European experience! any attempt to universalize it & impose upon Muslim 'Ummah, who are at condition in contrast with above experience & mindset, is an intellectual shallowness & would utterly fail as presumed! Al'Hamdulillah! |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Muslim
said:
|
Also beyond the "idea" it's the practical "implementation" that really matters. Take Milton Friedman's clouded cuckoo land "idea" of legalising ALL drugs. In Milton Friedman's head it makes sense (because in theory land everyone is a responsible adult and is "free to choose") In REALITY the practical "implementation" of legalising ALL drugs would mean disaster. This is the problem with every kufr idea, Democracy, Capitalism, Secularism, Theory of Evolution, etc etc IT DOES NOT WORK! America went bankrupt in 1973 (when it could not pay France the gold it demanded). Since then America has been on "life support". It has been kept artifically alive by Saudi Arabian oil. If the Soviets had Saudi Arabian oil Communism would probably have survived too. That does NOT mean Communism is correct or viable. For too long these "beggars" have sucked our resources. But like Communism their "beggar system" (capitalism) is coming to an end. Capitalism was bound to fail, just like Milton Friedman's ridiculous idea of legalising COCAINE ! Allah knows best. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|