The Crisis of Islamic Civilization by Ali Allawi
This month’s issue of Prospect features a review by Robin Yassin-Kassab on former Iraqi Defence and Finance minister Ali Allawi’s new book, The Crisis of Islamic Civilization. The book delves into the thriving debate regarding Islam’s reaction to and role within modernity, shying away from the usual view that “ the Muslim world experiences backwardness to the extent that it resists secularisation.” 
Rather than sticking to this traditional view, which holds underlying assumption that there is an inherency within Islam to resist change, Allawi offers a more historical account, arguing that the decline of Islamic civilization and its descent into the rigid and poor socio-political and economic structures and conditions of today can be traced to the earliest contact between the Islamic world and Europe. With European colonialism came the complete dismantling of foundational and prosperous Islamic institutions in exchange for institutions which created the foundation for European civilization.
Allawi argues that with the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries, along with the onslaught of nationalism and statehood prospects as well as the disintegration of the Ottoman empire, came the additional replacement of Islamic values; he points towards the unapologetic luxury, consumer-worship and commercialism rampant throughout the Gulf region as an example of this severe void.
The solution thus for Allawi is not political reform within the Islamic world which pushes the faith more towards the private sphere, out of the public, but rather a greater presence, stating that “it is the absence of any formal and substantial Islamic political presence at the global level that contributes to instability and disorder.” An obviously, as Yassin-Kassab also notes, controversial opinion for the mainstream. He asserts that “since the loss of its multi-national empires, Islam…splintered between weak states lacking popular legitimacy and very often governed by client regimes. Muslim countries have thus become adjuncts of the established civilisational blocks—Morocco to Europe, for instance, or Malaysia to China—with no serious power capable or willing to defend suffering Muslims internationally. It is noteworthy that one of the only Muslim voices to have condemned China’s oppression of Uighur Muslims is al Qaeda.”
Rather than to emulate the Western build, it becomes dire for Muslims to return to Islamic values and institutions and rebuild their states in a fashion which hasn’t been bought secondhand. There must be a return to spirituality during what he believes to be the last phase of the Islamic civilization’s crisis.
Robin Yassin-Kassab writes an excellent summary of Allawi’s book, and addresses two major points of contention within the book. Allawi’s arguments are several, solid and often hit the nail on it’s head rather hard, but he does tread the dangerous Huntington civilizational-faultline thesis, pitting Islam against the West. Additionally, Yassin-Kassab also notes that the books serves to be more of a ‘lament than a program for renewal,” which offers much criticism and abstract ideas regarding the renewal of Islamic civilization but almost no real, concrete solutions.
Allawi’s primary discussion is also on the Arab world, unsurprising considering how it is with which he is most comfortable and familiar. But he commits a great error in giving the Arab world Muslim leadership, when it only makes up around 22% of the global Muslim population. While things seem unfortunate within the Middle East, in places such as Indonesia and West Africa there is a strong and growing attempt to revisit the idea of Islamic revivalism and it’s being done through education. Even the Muslim population of North America and Europe has stepped up to the challenge and has begun to sow the seeds for educational Islamic revivalism. From institutions such as Zaytuna and al-Maghrib, as well as the increasing presence of Muslim Student Associations and groups such as CAIR and ISNA, there is a very visible attempt by Muslims and Muslim leadership (at the civil society level, beyond state leadership) to bring Islam back into the lives of Muslims.
Allawi puts too much hope on the shoulders of the Arab Muslim world, when trends within Islamic revivalism, if we can even call it that, seem to indicate that if there will be a second-coming of Islam’s civilization prosperity it will be in the non-Arab world, and perhaps most likely even within the West (including Turkey, which has seen a strong incline towards a more public Islam in its non-urban populations) where Muslims have and continue to go beyond silly civilizational-faultlines,striving for an Andalusian sort of throwback to history.
Creating an Islamic Modernity
One of Allawi’s underlying points is worth greater attention and is a perspective which isn’t often considered by the mainstream discourse on the topic of Islamic reform and modernity. Allawi essentially is challenging the notion of economic, social and political prosperity through our only understanding of modernity – as something equivalent to Westernization. Rather than Westernize and lose something original and integral to Islamic civilization – whatever Islamic civilization is – it becomes imperative that Muslims create their own modernity rather than abide by, as previously quipped, a secondhand modernity.
Something which is modern is contemporary, reflective of the present and in vogue. The dictionary tells me this. But when we look at the words Modernity and Modernism (this time with the intentional capital M’s) we’re looking at two words which carry more than Oxford or Merriem’s take on them. Within most scholarship, the Modern Period refers to a shift within Western thought, governance and life. It spans the 16th century up until the 19th. During this period, there was a rationalization of Europe. In arenas where God (and the ever omnipotent clergy) once dominated, human reason and intellect came to conquer. Ideas regarding individualism, liberties, freedom, government; the separation between the public and private sphere; the rise of nationalism and the subsequent formation of the nation-state. The Modern period also saw the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the French, American and Russian revolutions. It was a period of change: the West leapt out of the Dark Ages, and entered a period of rejuvenation and rebirth. It was a period in which rejuvenation and rebirth meant that there were new and better ways of living life.
Unsurprisingly, everyone had their own conception of how the good life should manifest itself – more government less government, and so forth. But general principles were agreed upon. Also unsurprisingly, with the onslaught of colonialism, these ideas of how the good life is achieved were taken to the conquered territories. Slowly but surely these modern ideas, seen as progressive, became international institution and eventually an international ethos. Thus to progress within this world meant to fall into the governing ethos put in place by those who had come to dominate the international seas; to modernize, meaning to progress, has become synonymous with Westernization.
But can we stop there? And can we believe that the only good way to progress is through Westernization?
No. Definitely not.
The period following the European Dark Ages, up until the late 20th century, saw different attempts to create a state, the creation of a more powerful bureaucracy; greater military might; strict territorial lines based on ethnic homogeneity; the construction of the modern citizen and the institutionalization of education as a means through which a homogenous and obedient citizenry was created. And these were all common within the different system of governance which emerged – from republics to liberal democracies to socialist states. Without a doubt, some forms of governance came to dominate others. Most today consider liberal democracies to be the best route for governance, pointing towards the Democratic Peace theory, which posits that democracies will never fight one another as much power lies within the populace who will be more hesitant to go to war (amongst other factors). Rather than fight one another, they’ll fight non-democratic states and rape and pillage their economies and political institutions. Yeah.
The point being made here is that modernization, in terms of socio-political and economic progression, has seen different faces and phases. While liberal democracies are currently in vogue we cannot, especially intellectually, succumb to such a system as the pinnacle of good governance, at least in the universal sense.
Historical Islamic governance holds values and traditions similar to modern day ideas: federalism, small government, welfare-state (through the Waqf endowments, one of the first institutions dismantled/reformed under colonialism), multiculturalism, minority protection, education, and ethical consumerism and trade. What is now required is that Muslims themselves, with or without their state leaders, continue to educate themselves about the good which Islamic history has seen and created and bring this spirit back, fitting into the modern mould without having to sacrifice core and essential values and beliefs. 
In a recent lecture I attended, Dr. Jamal Badawi, a Canadian Muslim leader and scholar, discussed the issue of reforming Islam. He poignantly expressed the need for not reform of Islam itself as a belief system, but rather the reform of Muslims and their relationship with their faith. He spoke of tajdeed – or rejuvenation – through ijtihad, a legal process which involves individual interpretation on matters by scholars. You may have heard the term “the gates of Ijitihad” and how they have been closed within Sunni Islam for about 1200 years. An Orientalist propagation, it has been refuted time and time again, as it is a process built into the Islamic legal system, which still sees the use of ijtihad till this day. As Dr. Badawi points out, there needs to be greater education amongst both the Islamic scholars and the global Muslim populace. Scholars, in particular, need to associate themselves with the ever-changing state of the world and need to practice individual interpretation on new and important matters unseen to the Muslim world. It is through this that Muslims can begin to reform and modernize themselves, on their own terms and without sacrificing the essentials of their faith. This is not something new to the Islamic community, the process of social evolution has been integral to the history of Muslims; unfortunately it is one which has become overshadowed by the attempts to Westernize by the governments of Muslim lands. Badawi, along with other scholars such as Tariq Ramadan, seem to agree with the notion that Islamic revivalism will come not from the Middle East, but from non-Arab lands, especially within the West where Muslims find values and institutions identical to those within Islamic belief and history.
It’s not an easy road, or one which even guarantees success, but it’s the only option which perhaps remains for Muslims. Either Muslims succumb to the slow crumbling of their faith vis a vis political and social corruption or they take action which may not return the community towards the greatness it once experienced, but saves it from potential and further disintegration. Muslim societies need to modernize, but they, just like any other “civilizational faultline,” do not necessarily have to answer to any international authority. They need to fix themselves spiritually and their countries politically. They need to determine their own good life based on their own needs, not the demands of others. And this life does not need to be the antithesis of any one else’s take on the good life.
Especially Kanye’s.
[tarboush tip: Elizabeth]
Related posts:
- Allawi Running on Human Rights Platform
- Like Timex: Muslim Assimilation in Europe Takes a Licking and Keeps on Ticking
- The Battle for Mogadishu – Afghanistan Redux?
- How many Muslim women leaders can you name?
- Modernity cuts through Israeli Propaganda
What Does "Islam" Mean?
The word "Islam" itself means "Submission to Allah." The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of "Christianity" which was named after Jesus Christ, "Buddhism" after Gutama Buddha , "Marxism" after Karl Marx, and "Confucianism" after Confucius.
Similarly, Islam is not named after a tribe like "Judaism" after the tribe of Judah and "Hinduism" after the Hindus. The Arabic word "Islam" means the submission or surrender of one's will to the will of the only true god worthy of worship, "Allah" (known as God "the Father" in Christianity).
Anyone who does indeed submit to the will of Allah as required by Islam is termed a "Muslim," which means one who has submitted to the will of Allah. Many people in the West have developed the sad misinformed trend of calling Islam "Muhammadenism" and it's followers "Muhammadins." This is a totally foreign word to Muslims and unrecognized by them. No Muslim has ever called his religion "Muhammadenism" or called himself a "Muhammadin."
What Is The Basic Concept of Islam?
Islam teaches us that this life is a life of worship. We are placed on this earth in order to worship Allah and obey His command. During this earthly life we are subjected to a series of trials. We have the option of enduring these trials and conforming to certain laws, and our reward will be great in the next life, or we may decline to endure these trials and choose to not conform to the law, then we will be made to regret it in the next life.
Each person will be solely and completely responsible for their own final reward. We are also told that God has designed these laws to make this life a better, safer, and more tolerable one for us. If we elect to conform to them then we will see the result in this life even before moving on to the next.
We are told that the earthly life is a life of faith and work, and the next life is one of reward and no work. We have been placed on this earth to worship God, fast, pray, be industrious, good, kind, respectful, and a source of uprightness and morality. We are told that God has no need of our worship. Our worship can not increase the kingdom of God nor add to His power, however, it is in our best interests both in this life and the next that we do.
Unlike some other religions which claim that God entered in a covenant with a certain group of people and that this group is genetically better than all other human beings, or closer to God, Islam on the other hand teaches that no color, race, tribe, or lineage is better than any other. Islam teaches that all humans are equal in the sight of Allah and that the only thing that can distinguish them in His sight is their piety and worship.
"O humankind! Verily! We have created you from a male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily! the noblest among you in the sight of Allah is the most God-fearing. Verily! Allah is The Knower, The Aware." The noble Qur'an, Al-Hujrat(49):13.
Learn quran because it’s the best way to feel Islam learn quran online, learn quran http://www.learningquranonline.com
Posted by fahimkamranchard | September 14, 2009, 7:05 pmNice post! Thanks!
Posted by ZFA | September 14, 2009, 9:08 pmExcellent post,
I've always found it interesting how nationalism has become one of the biggest rallying cries in so many "Muslim majority" nations especially considering how alien a concept like nationalism is to to the psyche of many Muslim majority areas.
I can't think of many large Muslim majority countries that are homogeneous ethnically, thus how nationalism was able to emerge in these countries is quite interesting. Both of the countries the United States is occupying (Iraq and Afghanistan) are not countries with a single ethnic group or even one accepted religious tradition. I feel like nationalism has only served to further confuse the psyche of the last few generation of Muslims and other people in the developing world.
Just by looking at the reinterpretation of history that each of these countries has created gives you some insight into this newly created confusion. Watching these newly created countries fighting over which historical figure belongs to their "Nation" is a riot. Ancient "Islamic" Scholars like Avicenna, Al-Farabi, and countless others are proudly held up by nationalists as belonging to the Arabs, Persians, Tajiks, Afghans, etc, rather than belonging to whatever ethnicity they actually were (many of which don't exist anymore). Even Saladin is considered to be an "Arab Hero" despite the fact that hes Kurdish. Instead of accepting them for the ideological (whether spiritual or secular) perspective they promoted, they have now been reduced to nothing but propaganda figures to further nationalist perspectives.
Also, its quite fun to see how much of a boner orientalists and pseudo scholars of Islam get when discussing concepts like Ijtihad. Retard scholars like Lewis, and pseudo scholars like Irshad Manji love to discuss how if "only the Muslim world would just "open the gates of Ijtihad" they would usher in an Islamic revival that would make Muslims give up their aspirations, fully embrace the consumer lifestyle, and of course understand that Israel has a right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people.
They completely overlook the fact that Islam isin't the SOLE legal code in almost every Muslim Majority country (in fact in most Muslim majority countries various interpretations of Shariah law never extend out of the realm of "Family Law"). They also completely ignore the fact that the so called "Gates of Ijtihad" were never closed. Interpretations of Islam are consistently being changed in various parts of the world, its just that these pseudo scholars think that Muslims belong to some hive mind borg entity that can suddenly make Muslims living in places as disparate as Nigeria and Indonesia change everything they are doing on a moments notice. Just a quick trip to a handful of Muslim countries will show any retard that Muslims interpret their religion in MANY different ways, and that these interpretations are changing all the time.
Posted by Arayus | September 14, 2009, 10:23 pmThere are many essential aspects of modernization that are unique to western culture so it is not clear that it is possible to modernize without westernizing to a large degree. For example, empiricism is a mainstay of western culture. It is the basis for accepting what science says over what religion says. Or the separation of religion and state. Again, a uniquely western idea.
Look at successful examples of recent modernization. There are plenty of those in the far east. China and Japan are very much westernized.
The muslim world will not modernize because it does not want to westernize. That is the hard truth.
Posted by iii | September 15, 2009, 5:48 pmIt depends entirely on your interpretation of Westernisation. The Muslim world must adopt the modern form of academia and meritocracy, proper protection of property rights etc. if it wants to modernise. The irony is, both academia and meritocracy were prevalent during the 'Golden Age' but were replaced by more dogmatism.
Many Muslims seem to have misunderstood the root causes of Western success – a prime example being the Gulf. There are shiny new buildings, finance centres, shopping malls etc, but little industry, few incentives to work hard and make money, no thirst for knowledge. The skyscrapers and luxury malls are a symptoms of Western success, not causes.
Posted by Shafiq | September 15, 2009, 10:55 pmFrom my favourite scholar on this subject:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/is…
While teh article is about shari'ah, it's great in tracing the demise of Islamic systems of governance and makes it hard for Muslim countries to remain Islamic in their governance today.
Posted by SanaKF | September 16, 2009, 1:41 amI agree with Wael Hallaq that "shari'a is no longer a tenable reality, that it has met its demise nearly a century ago." Interesting views on Muslim states. The last paragraph seems the best.
I'm wondering what is the big attraction to Islamic law and all the problems associated with it, when certainly it isn't necessary to have it in order for an individual to have a relationship with their creator and to understand his will for their life.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 19, 2009, 9:11 am"Many Muslims seem to have misunderstood the root causes of Western success – a prime example being the Gulf. There are shiny new buildings, finance centres, shopping malls etc, but little industry, few incentives to work hard and make money, no thirst for knowledge. The skyscrapers and luxury malls are a symptoms of Western success, not causes."
Could not have said that better, and it is also how I viewed the Gulf countries, especially the UAE. The Muslims I met there seemed to be more excited about eating "halal pepperoni" at a halal pizza hut rather than actually building or creating their own unique international franchises. And of course creating indigenous industry, first rate universities, or actually creating an international company that isn't run by a board that is 90% European/American wasn't even close to being on anyone's agenda.
Posted by Arayus | September 17, 2009, 8:58 amBut that's my point – we have far too much of a narrow view of modernity and modernization. Westernization is just socio-cultural colonialism. Like I say towards the end, Muslims, like any other group, need to modernize on their own terms and meet their own needs not the demands of others. But anyone who doesn't want to westernize is unable to move forward because of the ridiculous and hegemonic restrictions put upon them through Western powers. We're now in teh post-modern period and its vital we rethink our approach to governance and international relations because it has only worked well for those who put it in place to begin with. Sure you have China and Japan westernizing, but at what cost? I can also point to much of (Sub-Saharan) Africa and most of Asia (especially South Asia which has one of the largest percentages of poverty and political corruption levels) as counter-points to where Western systems of governance (or rather attempts) have failed miserably. Why has the State, the nation-state as conceived by Western rationale, failed so completely and miserably in Africa and elsewhere? Colonialism was also a product of WEstern rationalism and part of the modernization process – doesn't make it good or worth emulating, yeah?
Also, most of the Muslim world has secular systems to varying degrees. Pure secularism is complete separation of religion and state but you can have lower levels of secularism. Whatever Islam remains within the governments (aside from Saudi and Iran) is mere and badly done lip service.
Posted by SanaKF | September 15, 2009, 6:12 pmWesternization is just socio-cultural colonialism
But anyone who doesn't want to westernize is unable to move forward because of the ridiculous and hegemonic restrictions put upon them through Western powers
What basis can you provide for that assumption?
governance and international relations because it has only worked well for those who put it in place to begin with
Consider Orientalism – the Western fascination or imitation and depiction of aspects of Eastern cultures. Why wasn't there some Eastern equivalent of that, an Eastern version of fascination and depiction of aspects of Western cultures?
I am not making my point very clearly, but I am asking how do you come up with the idea that the West created international relations all on their own, without the involvement of any others? When two cultures meet, negotiate, ect. naturally the stronger one will be favored in the outcomes. And so those religious ideals and morals that you mention come into play… I think it is safe to say that America's foreign relations have been among the most fair… consider the way that the Soviet Union behaved toward others after WWII and until it's collapse.
(Sub-Saharan) Africa and most of Asia (especially South Asia which has one of the largest percentages of poverty and political corruption levels)
So you are suggesting that instead of adopting values of honesty, they should have a completely different system which accommodates their propensity for corruption? Sana that is quite a desperate leap to be taking.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 19, 2009, 4:20 amWesternization is just socio-cultural colonialism
But anyone who doesn't want to westernize is unable to move forward because of the ridiculous and hegemonic restrictions put upon them through Western powers
What basis can you provide for that assumption?
governance and international relations because it has only worked well for those who put it in place to begin with
Consider Orientalism – the Western fascination or imitation and depiction of aspects of Eastern cultures. Why wasn't there some Eastern equivalent of that, an Eastern version of fascination and depiction of aspects of Western cultures?
I am not making my point very clearly, but I am asking how do you come up with the idea that the West created international relations all on their own, without the involvement of any others? When two cultures meet, negotiate, ect. naturally the stronger one will be favored in the outcomes. And so those religious ideals and morals that you mention come into play… I think it is safe to say that America's foreign relations have been among the most fair… consider the way that the Soviet Union behaved toward others after WWII and until it's collapse.
(Sub-Saharan) Africa and most of Asia (especially South Asia which has one of the largest percentages of poverty and political corruption levels)
So you are suggesting that instead of adopting values of honesty, they should have a completely different system which accommodates their propensity for corruption? Sana that is quite a desperate leap to be taking.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 19, 2009, 4:20 amWesternization is just socio-cultural colonialism
So adapting to some modern methods should be avoided if those methods exist in the West, because if the West discovered them first it would mean that a society and culture adopting them would be colonized by foreigners or their ideas somehow?
But anyone who doesn't want to westernize is unable to move forward because of the ridiculous and hegemonic restrictions put upon them through Western powers
What basis can you provide for that assumption?
By the way, I'm sure the developing world and those who don't have it will be happy to receive the h1n1 vaccine being made available to them by the Western powers.
governance and international relations because it has only worked well for those who put it in place to begin with
Consider Orientalism – the Western fascination or imitation and depiction of aspects of Eastern cultures. Why wasn't there some Eastern equivalent of that, an Eastern version of fascination and depiction of aspects of Western cultures?
And I am reminded of how in recent decades so many Westerners have gone to study Buddhism seeking enlightenment.
I am not making my point very clearly, but I am asking how do you come up with the idea that the West created international relations all on their own, without the involvement of any others? When two cultures meet, negotiate, ect. naturally the stronger one will be favored in the outcomes. And so those religious ideals and morals you mention come into play… I think it is safe to say that America's foreign relations have been among the most fair… consider the way that the Soviet Union behaved toward others after WWII and until it's collapse.
(Sub-Saharan) Africa and most of Asia (especially South Asia which has one of the largest percentages of poverty and political corruption levels)
So you are suggesting that instead of adopting values of honesty and accountability, they should have a completely different system which accommodates their propensity for corruption? Sana that is quite a desperate leap to be taking – trying to blame the West for what the leadership in Africa or Asia does. Which country or countries in particular would be to blame, anyway?
Do you think that suggesting they are not really responsible for their actions is helpful to them?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 19, 2009, 8:34 am“it is the absence of any formal and substantial Islamic political presence at the global level that contributes to instability and disorder.”
I couldn't disagree more. I think religion does best when it is separated from politics and government. It seems to me that religion thrives more when it is between individuals and their God, without all the materialistic concerns about status. I think that "a potential Islamic superstate" has become more important to some than a relationship with their creator.
The devastating effect that Islamic terrorism has had on global Islam and Islamic revivalism is understated. "The terror espoused by certain Islamist groups" is Islam's biggest challenge and yet many Muslims seem loathe to confront it, and even inclined to make excuses for it.
if there will be a second-coming of Islam’s civilization prosperity it will be in the non-Arab world
I don't think so. The Western societies will not have "Islam as a civilisational framework." But maybe in these free societies with modern values, the Muslims can find what it is that they need – maybe through "ijtihad" as a theoretical and ideological exercise.
Also, it seems that America's model for civilization is the most modern and most prosperous, and American civilization recognizes the importance of not only freedom of religion but the need for separation of religion and government.
Anyhow, is modernizing or progressing the same thing as Westernization? And if it is perceived to be, should it be rejected for that reason? Is it agreeing with Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis to suggest that Islam should modernize but certainly not westernize because there is a competition? hmmm.
I disagree that the purpose of creating education in Europe was to create an "obedient citizenry." Islam seems to put a great deal of importance on education, so I wonder why you would abase others who embrace education.
And – "While liberal democracies are currently in vogue we cannot, especially intellectually, succumb to such a system as the pinnacle of good governance, at least in the universal sense" – So we shouldn't succumb intellectually to the idea that liberal democracy is the pinnacle of good governance in the universal sense. In what sense, then, should we agree intellectually that while democracy is not perfect, it is the best form of government on the planet.
This is an interesting post.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 17, 2009, 9:54 amJust wanted to comment on one thing in particular, just because my response otherwise would be about 10 pages long and i have about 200 pages to read within two hours.
"I disagree that the purpose of creating education in Europe was to create an "obedient citizenry." Islam seems to put a great deal of importance on education, so I wonder why you would abase others who embrace education."
I'm not at all abasing others who have adopted education as a major goal for their society. Education lies at the root of a society's social, political and economic success – there is a strong statistical correlation to prove this. So I'm not hatin', Eagleface. But, what I do personally have issues with is institutionalization of education as a forms of creating an obedient and homogenous population. This is actually fairly new and not universal. If you look at, for instance, Muslim institutions of education prior to colonialism, you'll see that 1. It wasn't a universal/required medium (which has its merits and demerits). Education was at the heart of Islamic civilization, nevertheless, and was extremely loose in its formality. Just like with the Greeks and Persians, Arabs/Muslim spread education not for the sake of a homogenous population but for the sake of personal intellectual pursuits, solving dogmatic dilemmas, bettering the general way fo life through knowledge of the social science, medicine, engineering, etc etc.
That's not to say that formal education, which had a specific purpose to mold its students, didn't exist at all. To the contrary, the most influential and perhaps well known of these educational institutes were the Nizamiyya schools under the Seljuk empire, which were essentially put in place to promote Sunnism/Hanafism in opposition to the growing influence of the Fatimid Ismailis in modern day Egypt. But my point is that back then, be you of the Muslim civilization or confucian or greek or persian, you didn't have to sit in a class room and learn and become a product of a system in an attempt to fill up the job market. Education, even if limited to a few, was meant as a life system not as a means to a career. People who often were scholars, for instance, weren't rich in monetary wealth but had their needs taken care of by students, patrons, etc who sought their knowledge.
And one more:
"So we shouldn't succumb intellectually to the idea that liberal democracy is the pinnacle of good governance in the universal sense. In what sense, then, should we agree intellectually that while democracy is not perfect, it is the best form of government on the planet."
I'm not saying democracy sucks or that liberal democracy is not a good form of governance (note that there is a difference between the two – liberal democracy is a more specific form of the general democracy). What I am saying is that perhaps it is possible for a democratic state to be built upon religious principles, where there is a good balance between the religious and secular – as an academic, I cannot, personally, say that liberal democracy is the best form of governance. Monarchy was considered as such for centuries. But social evolution forces us to re-think our needs, demands, and abilities and we end up changing with the times and our institutions and systems change with us.
Posted by SanaKF | September 17, 2009, 5:00 pmBut, what I do personally have issues with is institutionalization of education as a forms of creating an obedient and homogenous population.
I wonder who you are thinking of? What immediately comes to mind is the film footage you see of children in madrases in Pakistan and other places – rocking back and forth reciting the Koran with glazed eyes. I wonder how much they are learning about math, science, social studies, medicine, ect. Who did you have in mind?
In times past education was reserved for the upper classes in many societies. Times have changed though, and that is a good thing.
perhaps it is possible for a democratic state to be built upon religious principles, where there is a good balance between the religious and secular
Yes, I think so. Religious principles, or morals, can have a foundation in democracy, without forcing certain religiosities onto people.
social evolution forces us to re-think our needs, demands, and abilities and we end up changing with the times and our institutions and systems change with us.
I agree, to an extent. Consider places that once were monarchies, that today are basically democracies (with elected parliaments, prime ministers, ect.)
Concerning Islam's modernity – I definitely think that Islam should be reformed in a way to root out, and protect against, those who want to use Islam just as a way to harm humanity. Perhaps that is the most crucial thing… cutting out the cancer that grows in Islam giving it a stigma, a bad name, throughout the world today.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 18, 2009, 3:11 pmDespite the fact that hardly any countries in the Muslim world observe Shariah' or have their national agendas set as "furthering" Shariah or establishing the "Caliphate," many western politicians and pundits judge the entire Muslim world as if this were the case. Their entire argument comes down to "Its Islam" and if we just reform or remove Islam all the problems would go away.
They dont even take into consideration simple facts like If Wahabbi beliefs are the root cause of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, then why is Wahabbi Qatar so much less repressive? If the Iraqi insurgency was led by al-Qaeda, then why were so many of its fighters secular nationalists? And why did the death of al-Qaeda Mesopotamia leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have almost no effect on the insurgency?
The issue is further confounded by just looking at the ridiculous things some of our mainstream U.S politicians have to say about issues they clearly don't know anything about:
"Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, speaking about America's adversaries in the so-called "war on terror," told the audience: "This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate."
Anyone thats taken a Middle East 101 course can tell you that his assessment is beyond retardation. The simple fact that Al-Qaeda has issued threats to Hamas (and Hamas has cracked down on Al-Qaeda inspired groups in the Gaza strip), that Hezbollah is Shia and vehemently anti-Al-Qaeda (and issued a press release condemning the 9/11 attacks), or that the Muslim Brotherhood primarily focus's on Egypt and not the entire world is completely lost on these uninformed commentators. To them, all these groups are exactly the same, and are a unified force trying to take over the world and establish the Caliphate in the White House. Instead of looking at each of these groups individually and creating policies to address each group individually, we instead lump them all together despite their huge differences.
In any case these commentators never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, forces that have nothing to do with Islam might play a HUGE role in the thinking and psyche of a people. Many commentators completely ignore the fact that the Middle East contains the most strategic resource the world has ever known, ignore the fact that every Muslim interprets Islam differently (just like every Christian, Jew, or Hindu interprets their religion uniquely), and that most of the Islamic groups in the Middle East are focused on their respective national concerns, (Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt etc) and that these groups aren't part of some umbrella organization headed by Cobra Commander himself.
But the retardation doesn't stop there. How many times have we heard the argument that Muslims "Hate Us" because of our "Freedoms?" Aside from the racist assumption that there are people who actually hate "freedom," plenty of polls have been done disproving the entire basis of this argument. In fact the famous Gallop Polls conducted on Muslims all around the world found that more than 95% of Muslims condemned the 9/11 attack, and the remaining percentage of people that supported the attacks, supported the attacks for political and not religious reasons.
http://www.gallup.com/consulting/worldpoll/26410/…
When our commentators, politicians, and nutjobs finally realize that Islam isn't the problem (or at least not the major problem), then and only then will we finally be able to devise political solutions to the problems that American foreign policy faces in the Middle East and the entire developing world in general. Because in the end, Islam or no Islam, if you invade someones country they will fight back, if you rape someones economies with unfair trade agreements they will become resentful, and if you mock a persons culture they will get angry. And thats the crux of the issue.
Posted by Arayus | September 19, 2009, 10:19 pm09/06/2009
Three Hamas women arrested for plotting suicide attack against Fatah
By The Associated Press
I guess Hamas didn't get your memo about stopping suicide attacks?
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 20, 2009, 8:27 amHow many times have we heard the argument that Muslims "Hate Us" because of our "Freedoms?
Surely not this guy or this guy or this woman ?
Islam is no problem at all.
People just want to have a good time
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 20, 2009, 8:59 am1) You do realize that many of those pics are forgeries.
2) Also, showing one Muslim with an absurd viewpoint, does not mean that there are 1.5 billion Muslims with the same absurd viewpoint.
3) You do realize, that I can find a site for any religious group that has absurd views like the one you linked me to. In fact a 5 second google search brought me to this site:
http://www.truechristian.com/membersmorfosa.html
Heres a snippet of their plan to "dominate" the world.
"Step 6: Kill off everybody who resists our rule, including everybody in the Middle East. We shall use the neutron bomb to whipe out their entire race. After all original occupants are destroyed; we shall occupy it ourselves and exploit all their recourses. We shall also demonstrate what'll happen to those who rebel."
"Step 7: We shall announce the world as one empire. Nobody shall oppose us, we shall bring peace and order to the planet for the first time in histary! We shall teach everybody the gospel; and Christianity shall become the official religion of the world; just like God wanted. It is our mission to bring the teachings of the gospel to every kingdom on earth. Now we are the only kingdom that rules the entire world. The truth is, either they listen to us, or they all burn in hell. The firey pits of hell and the reward of heaven shall deter anyone from even thinking about rebelling. Everybody is either a Christian or a traitor. Traitors shall ultimately be sentenced to death."
Now just because these nutjobs are using Christianity to justify an incredibly violent take over of the entire world, does not mean that there is a global Christian conspiracy to take over the world. I know you agree with me when I say that most Christians are good people who would be appalled by the views stated above. Likewise, most Muslims are appalled when their faith is used in such an appalling manner as well.
4) Finally, here is the real Palestinian reaction to 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQW5EyVq0E&fe…
Anyway, its hard for me to believe that your actually against "propaganda" when you rely on it for all your argumentation.
Posted by Arayus | September 20, 2009, 10:38 amOne public relations woman speaking on American television is the "real" Palestinian reaction, as opposed to crowds of Palestinians in the streets on the day of the attacks?
You bring up one tiny little group of outlandish people in something called "True Christian Church of Christ" as evidence of something? No one has ever heard of them before!
You claim that the well documented news photographs I showed you are forgeries? They are not, you should know better.
The domination of the world by Islam theme is a very common theme among Muslims. How could you pretend to not know that?
You obviously would like things to be a certain way, but often it is not the reality.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 20, 2009, 4:17 pmOne public relations woman speaking on American television is the "real" Palestinian reaction, as opposed to crowds of Palestinians in the streets on the day of the attacks?
You bring up one tiny little group of outlandish people in something called "True Christian Church of Christ" as evidence of something? No one has ever heard of them before!
I've been looking over that website – IT'S A FAKE! lmao! They won't provide an address, you have to be over 18 to look at the "kidz page" It has all the cliches… THE WEBSITE IS A FRAUD!
You claim that the well documented news photographs I showed you are forgeries? They are not, you should know better.
The domination of the world by Islam theme is a very common theme among Muslims. How could you pretend to not know that?
You obviously would like things to be a certain way, but often it is not the reality.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 20, 2009, 4:23 pm"You obviously would like things to be a certain way, but often it is not the reality."
Apparently, your the one who wants things to be a certain way. I've lived in quite a few Muslim countries, have Muslim friends in the US and never met a Muslim that would condone the things your talking about.
"The domination of the world by Islam theme is a very common theme among Muslims."
No its not. Calm down Eagle. Only in your warped world view is this the case. In any case look at all the mainstream Christian pastors in the United States that say absurd things, just check out the crap that comes out of John Hagee's mouth. But it doesent stop there, even our mainstream politicians such as Sarah Palin say things that sound like they came out of the mouth of Bin Ladin himself:
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-c…
Also, lets not forget all of George Bushs rhetoric….
"One public relations woman speaking on American television is the "real" Palestinian reaction, as opposed to crowds of Palestinians in the streets on the day of the attacks?"
*yawn,* you linked me to a video of a handful of Palesitnians jumping up and down (for reasons not given), yet thats supposed to be the mainstream reaction of the Palestinian people? Yet I link you to the official spokesperson of the Palestinian people who goes on to condemn the 9/11 attacks and express their sympathy. In any case, if you were to go to Palestine right now, you would find that the majority of Palestinians are sympathetic to 9/11. After all its easy for them to relate, they experience Israeli terrorism everyday.
Posted by Arayus | September 20, 2009, 7:50 pmThe reasons for the jumping up n down, clapping, and hooting n hollering was the 911 attacks on America which had just occurred. They were even throwing candy.
A handful? The streets were full of people. It made Palestinians look so bad, that is why that woman needed to come on TV and "explain"
Praying for our men and women in uniform is not only the right thing to do (whatever religion you are) – it is nothing like discussing how to dominate the world, so why did you make that comparison?
Iran’s President: Islam to dominate world in “near future”
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 21, 2009, 8:44 amEagle, are you WN? If you don't know what I'm talking about then you're not, but goodness, using BNP sources is a little risqué ain't it?
Posted by Suddha | September 24, 2009, 5:37 amHamas live under Islamic law. They have squads of religious police that go around harassing people for silly reasons. They detained and beat up a man for walking with his fiancee on a beach in Gaza.
Nothing in their Islamic law stopped them from doing this: List of Hamas suicide attacks
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 20, 2009, 4:26 pmActually, Hamas never imposed Islamic law in the Gaza strip, this is despite the fact that thousands of Palestinians have been pressuring them to do so. They have even crushed groups that have attempted to enforce Islamic law while attempting to create an "Islamic Emirate" in the Gaza strip.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/15/hamas…
Here is an interview with the head of Hamas, outlining his opinion on these matters:
KL: Does Hamas impose Islamic dress in Gaza? For example, is it compulsory in Gaza for women to wear the hijab, niqab or burqa?
KM: No. Intellectually, Hamas derives its vision from the people's culture and religion. Islam is our religion and is the basic constituent of our culture. We do not deny other Palestinians the right to have different visions. We do not impose on the people any aspects of religion or social conduct.
http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2009/09/i…
Posted by Arayus | September 20, 2009, 8:29 pmThere is no need to try to make excuses for Hamas. They are what they are.
Nothing in their Islamic laws stop them from doing this: List of Hamas suicide attacks
or this:
Three Hamas women arrested for plotting suicide attack against Fatah
09/06/2009
By The Associated Press
or this:
Hamas 'harming Gaza opponents'
A rights group has accused Palestinian organisation Hamas of killing or maiming alleged collaborators and political opponents in Gaza.
or this:
Hamas rockets a war crime: Human Rights Watch
"Hamas forces violated the laws of war both by firing rockets deliberately and indiscriminately at Israeli cities and by launching them from populated areas and endangering Gazan civilians," HRW programme director Iain Levine said.
Gaza/Israel: Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful
Launches from Populated Areas Endanger Israelis and Palestinians
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 21, 2009, 10:23 amThey have even crushed groups that have attempted to enforce Islamic law while attempting to create an "Islamic Emirate" in the Gaza strip.
That is only because they are rivals to Hamas… Hamas wants it all…
Hamas Battles Islamist Rivals in Gaza
Meanwhile…
Hamas "Morality" Cops Enforce Islamic Law – CBS News
Hamas launches Islamic virtue campaign in Gaza
…a campaign the Islamic Hamas movement has just launched in the Gaza Strip, aiming at fighting any scene contradicting with the Islamic law and promoting people's awareness of the Islamic virtue.
Hamas dress code aims to make Gaza more Islamic
It's all part of a new Hamas campaign to get Gazans to adhere to a strict Muslim lifestyle.
Hamas Dress Code Aims to Make Gaza More Islamic – ABC News
Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity
Hamas Implementing Islamic Law in Gaza
In the two-plus years Hamas has been running Gaza, a process of "creeping Shariah-ism" has been ongoing
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 21, 2009, 8:34 amUnder sharia law, Muslims and non-Muslims do not have the same legal status.
I think the desire for sharia law is based on selfish human ambition rather than piety.
If you read the writings of those who believe that Islam will dominate the world, they see establishing sharia law as a crucial step.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 20, 2009, 4:28 pmEagle, Shariah law isint a set Legal Code of laws. Shariah law refers to any code of laws that is based in Islam. Hence, this is why Shariah Law is very different in every Muslim country. You can't open the Qur'an and find a section called "Shariah Law," why? Because there is no legal code specified in the Qur'an.
In anycase, it is true that Shariah law can be implemented in such a way as to make Muslims and non-Muslims unequal. However, any legal system can do that, just look at the United States up until the 1960's with Jim Crow. However, Shariah law can also produce a corpus of laws that is so progressive that it would make us "enlightened westerners" blush.
So in reality, its up to the people implementing the law to come up with a legal code that fits what they think is just and right.
Posted by Arayus | September 20, 2009, 8:15 pmYou think that pointing out Jim Crow laws (which were faulty and were fixed) somehow justifies the fact that under sharia law Muslims and non-Muslims do not have the same legal status? Strange.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 21, 2009, 10:29 amnow a days there are many problem with Islamic community and there most fear is about the regime that they who speak about peach are thrown in to a cave so they leave the word of peace and go on the other way and on which they were never suppose to go we all as muslim have to think of a way to bring the main theme back the peace loving muslim and the support is the most important thing that we all needed
Posted by quran reading | June 6, 2011, 1:32 am