Hit the fast-forward button...

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

If someone expresses an opinion that seems to run counter to accepted mainstream conventional thinking, why do we (or some of us) rush to criticize that individual? i am referring to my Sheikh thread from two weeks ago but in general, to certain things i am noticing.

At a time when Cordoba was bursting with libraries, all of the rest of Europe and the rest of the world (including what today is called North America) was plunged in literal and figurative darkness. When church officials in most of Europe were calling for the burning of books on the grounds that they were considered heretical, Muslim Spain was bursting with Jews, Muslims and Christian intellectual figures all debating and discussing - read up on Cordoba, Seville, Andalusia. These were areas light years ahead of their time. No book was burnt, madrassas did not carry a negative connotation, Islamic clerics were synonymous with knowledge/wisdom/open minds. Debating/discussing - these were considered acts of piety and positive indulgences.

Hit the fast-foward button - we’re in the 21st century. We’re supposed to be much more enlightened, much more civilized. Yet we’ve regressed to the point where anything out of the ordinary, the slightest bit critical of Muslims (whether it be governments/countries, etc.) is akin to heresy. Oh my God, Nadia, why are you criticizing them? Why are you anti-Arab? Why are you anti-Muslim? Why are you [insert random label and categorization]?

We (we as in the Muslim world) seems to have lost the moral highground when it comes to free thinking and expression. God Forbid someone should express something out of the ordinary…whether it be about perverted greedy Sheikhs, or Muslim African Americans. Contemplate on the following for a very careful minute - Muslim Cordoba in the 8th century was so much more open-minded and enlightened than most of the Muslim world in the 21st century. Rather sad, if one thinks about it.

2

it is sad to see how our minds succumb to the media's portrayal of things....
we r so hypnotized by them that we dont even care to see that any other side of the picture may even exist....
the respected news channels tell us that the arab rulers r bad - so thats it....
and if someone dare correct us then he's just come out of the dark ages and has no place in this enlightened world where my channel's news is the only truth....

3

I am shoo enlightened.And shoo shensitive.

:crying:

4

^ Neither understood the points i was attempting to make in this thread, or even made an attempt at comprehending me which would have, at least, gained my respect if nothing else. Then again, i am hardly surprised.

5

Nadia, read my posts in religion and you'll see I'm trying to convey exactly the same message as what you said here.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
^ Neither understood the points i was attempting to make in this thread, or even made an attempt at comprehending me which would have, at least, gained my respect if nothing else. Then again, i am hardly surprised.
[/QUOTE]

ur like a goora newspaper and like so called insaani haqooq
ke tanzeems especially run by women in Pak. Giinn ko sirf coin per "crescent" ka DHulm he nazar attaaa heee.

7

A very good post. Why has the Islamic world stuck in rewind.

All good except for this littel unelightened nugget. <>

Interestlingly enough though, it is a misnomer that the Islamic world was the only "leader" during that time. China, India, Meso america all has thriving civilizations. WHile th chinese and the INdians and some of mesoamerica has come out of hte shackles of colonialism...Interestingly enough by Fast forwarding. most of the islamic world still wants to rewind to seek some great glory.

8

Lets ignore crackpots nadia (if you're even considering replying to some posts). I agree with you.

"Moderate" Muslims has become a bit of a token word for Islamophobes/american conservative media for the kind of Muslims they would like. Non-practicing, pro-america, for the sake of illustration (and ofcourse, not passing judgement or anything) Imdad-esque Muslims.

But instead of recoiling from that and blowing ourselves up, or atleast wishing to do something along those lines, those who do believe that there is a third path need to realise the troubles in our midst, without necessarily waving american flags sipping coca cola.

9

Ravage bhaijaan, please don;t refer tO Nescio and Rehman as crackpots. It is not nice. :nono:

Tell me why is it that only the muslim world looks at the past as it;s future while all other countries/people look at the future for their future.

If the chinese went around lamenting the ming dynasty and hoping for it’s resurgence, if the Japanese looked at the Meiji era as it;s inspiration in the wake of WWII or the Mexicans looked at Montezumas citdels as inspiration, they would all be placing blame everywhere else instead on concentrating on looking at the future. Hence, reformation, and reformation will happen as it has been happening for over the last millenium.

10

Its natural to take inspiration from your past, if you supposed it to be glorious.

Case in point, BJP seems to drag Hindutva into almost any issue, reminding people that once they too had built Qutb minars, while the Arabs were busy conquering them.

Problem lies in fixating on that and that alone, instead of actually applying it to anything.

11

Exactly Ravage, yet the BJP cannot dictate policy for learning (as the safrroniztion agenda edfeated in 2002), economics (gov't has become a facilitator instead of inhibitor), culture (young people want what young people want. The ayatollah or Bal Thakeray, neither can inject religious stupidity in advancement and thought).

Here is the crux... hindus on a whole do no think that going back to the greak Dravidian or Aryan kingdoms or Buddhist realms where science, literature, arts were the result of religion or a "model".

The english do no think that because of their religious makeup, they were able to have an empire greater than any other in the world and that that is the goal.

The chinese do not think that it is because of Buddhism that they were the leaders of art and science at a certain time in history.

All these are historical datapoints, not realistic models to adopt for the future.

12

I wonder if history really repeats itself?

Hypothosis.

The age of Cordoba was about the 1st millinium.....

The Christians [Catholic Church] of that era (Dark Ages) were intolerant, superstitious and uneducated. The average people of Christiandom lived as serfs... basically share-croppers under a political system that would never improve their lot.

Attending mass was rule to their lives and the people were soothed by the Priests teaching that, " the poor* shall inherit the kingdom of heaven."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The word poor seems to represent an Aramaic ányâ (Hebr.anî), bent down, afflicted, miserable, poor; while meek is rather a synonym from the same root, ánwan (Hebr.ánaw), bending oneself down, humble, meek, gentle.

Some scholars would attach to the former word also the sense of humility; others think of "beggars before God" humbly acknowledging their need of Divine help.

<~~~But the opposition of "rich" (Luke, vi, 24) points especially to the common and obvious meaning, which, however, ought not to be confined to economical need and distress, but may comprehend the whole of the painful condition of the poor: their low estate, their social dependence, their defenceless exposure to injustice from the rich and the mighty.*****

^ And <~~~ is proboble view of the life of Serfs.

Besides the Lord's blessing, the promise of the heavenly kingdom is not bestowed on the actual external condition of such poverty.

The blessed ones are the poor "in spirit", who by their free will are ready to bear for God's sake this painful and humble condition, even though at present they be actually rich and happy; while on the other hand, the really poor man may fall short of this poverty "in spirit".

Now we enter the second millinium.

I notice intolerance being taught to muslims with heavenly reward.

13

**

:flower1: phew. So that means i am not alone in this wilderness.

Rehman1, Thanks for the categorizations and letting me know what i am. :k: i was really confused before about what i was :bummer: You categorized me and put me into a neat little package :k: Thanks yaar, i really wanted that from someone who has never talked with me personally nor ever met me. :flower1: Thank you.

Ravage,
The “third way” —> That is precisely what i am talking about.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Exactly Ravage, yet the BJP cannot dictate policy for learning (as the safrroniztion agenda edfeated in 2002), economics (gov't has become a facilitator instead of inhibitor), culture (young people want what young people want. The ayatollah or Bal Thakeray, neither can inject religious stupidity in advancement and thought).

Here is the crux... hindus on a whole do no think that going back to the greak Dravidian or Aryan kingdoms or Buddhist realms where science, literature, arts were the result of religion or a "model".

The english do no think that because of their religious makeup, they were able to have an empire greater than any other in the world and that that is the goal.

The chinese do not think that it is because of Buddhism that they were the leaders of art and science at a certain time in history.

All these are historical datapoints, not realistic models to adopt for the future.
[/QUOTE]

Neither do Muslims, as a whole, think of going back to earlier times. The proportion of Khilaafatites is about as high as the proportion of RSS crackpots who want to drive minorities into the sea.

As opposed to almost any government I can think of though (in the Muslim world).. India's majority, ruling party glorifies and embelishes their version of history as stated party philosophy.

The idea is to take inspiration from what used to be our heydey. If we were forward thinking once, and are not now, isnt it a good idea to remind ourselves of it?

And yes, religion was the major mobilising force behind the rise of the Muslims.

15

^
and khilafat is bad because....????

16

because its probably not the most realistic approach towards the betterment of Muslims at this stage.

if at some point in time we can go beyond Pakistanis paddling rafts across the indian ocean, arabs shooting them dead and hiring indians to work for the jobs they were paddling across the sea for, if Muslim countries can see Kashmir the same way as we see Palestine (instead of falling over themselves to see who can ingratiate themselves more to that country), if the OIC does anything more than convene for speech-fests, perhaps then the question of "khalifa" would reflect anything other than lunacy.

Meanwhile, talk about more realistic things, more immediate things. Things you can actually do more than just talk about.

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *

Neither do Muslims, as a whole, think of going back to earlier times. The proportion of Khilaafatites is about as high as the proportion of RSS crackpots who want to drive minorities into the sea.

As opposed to almost any government I can think of though (in the Muslim world).. India's majority, ruling party glorifies and embelishes their version of history as stated party philosophy.

The idea is to take inspiration from what used to be our heydey. If we were forward thinking once, and are not now, isnt it a good idea to remind ourselves of it?

And yes, religion was the major mobilising force behind the rise of the Muslims.
[/QUOTE]

Actually that is untrue...The ruling party forms a gov't as part of a coalition and none of it's right wing ideologies are represented as policy for the Indian gov't.

TH eproblem I see is that inspiration is being sought as if religion had something to do with it. Religion had absolutely zilch to do with advances in muslim spain.AS it had little to do with in Buddhist thought in the times of Ashoka, pagan roman thought in the times of the empire or Shinto/Buddhist practices in times of the Japanese resurgence post wwII. In post industrial world, religion has been an inhibitor to advancement as opposed to a facilitator. Secular thought is what has won out, as best practices often do.

THere is nothing wrong with looking at Maimonides as inspiration or Kabir or Aryabhatta or whomever...the moment you make the leap that religous thought was behind the success of a civilization you are stuck in the past.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Actually that is untrue...The ruling party forms a gov't as part of a coalition and none of it's right wing ideologies are represented as policy for the Indian gov't.

[/quote]

perhaps it isnt able to represent its idealogies because it is as yet a coalition? but the fact that a party such as BJP with its stated philosophy is infact the dominant political force demonstrates that there is (IMO) retrogressive thought elsewhere apart from the Muslim world, based on ancient, adopted, embellished versions of history.

[quote]

TH eproblem I see is that inspiration is being sought as if religion had something to do with it. Religion had absolutely zilch to do with advances in muslim spain.AS it had little to do with in Buddhist thought in the times of Ashoka, pagan roman thought in the times of the empire or Shinto/Buddhist practices in times of the Japanese resurgence post wwII.

[/quote]

But religion did have to do with it. Take the (limited part of the) world ten years before Islam, and ten years after it. The establishment of Muslim glory days definitely had to do with the establishment of Islam, rather than any sudden Arab national pride week type scenario.

[quote]

In post industrial world, religion has been an inhibitor to advancement as opposed to a facilitator. Secular thought is what has won out, as best practices often do.

[/quote]

That would be your opinion, moreso than anything else. America remains for the last two centuries, a very religious country, and simultaneously a torch bearer for industrial advancement. On the contrary, European countries, with the advancement of secularism, have denigrated to second string status (not to draw a correlation here, even though the oppurtunity presents itself.. but to throw a monkey wrench in your argument)

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *

perhaps it isnt able to represent its idealogies because it is as yet a coalition? but the fact that a party such as BJP with its stated philosophy is infact the dominant political force demonstrates that there is (IMO) retrogressive thought elsewhere apart from the Muslim world, based on ancient, adopted, embellished versions of history.

[/Quote]

But the mantra that they espoused doesn't resonate with the populace as we are seeing in India. A more communal entity like the congress was the leader in sepratist and sectarian thought. The indian populace has embraced the BJP becuase they have been able to showcase the economic achievements of the past 6 years, not the religious ones. When you hear political speeches in INdia they include ram, allah, jesus, chanakya, ashoka, akhbar, patel, gandhi etc...they do not include superiority of one religion over another.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
But religion did have to do with it. Take the (limited part of the) world ten years before Islam, and ten years after it. The establishment of Muslim glory days definitely had to do with the establishment of Islam, rather than any sudden Arab national pride week type scenario.
[/Quote]

A unifying force whether Islam or a some supreme political/military leader could have achieved the very same. Plus you have to look at, as you rightly said, the arab world before Islam. I am not sure if it is a huge accomplishment if you establish a common law and belief system that some progress was made. It was not because they were worshipping idols that they were not leaders in the field of science and philosophy. Because some people around the world were exactly that and worshipped idols.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
That would be your opinion, moreso than anything else. America remains for the last two centuries, a very religious country, and simultaneously a torch bearer for industrial advancement. On the contrary, European countries, with the advancement of secularism, have denigrated to second string status (not to draw a correlation here, even though the oppurtunity presents itself.. but to throw a monkey wrench in your argument)
[/Quote]

You are confusing religion with state practice. America is a big country as large as Europe, go to Italy or Spain, or eastern europe, religion is far more or as prevalent in terms of numbers as it is in the US.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
But the mantra that they espoused doesn't resonate with the populace as we are seeing in India. A more communal entity like the congress was the leader in sepratist and sectarian thought. The indian populace has embraced the BJP becuase they have been able to showcase the economic achievements of the past 6 years, not the religious ones. When you hear political speeches in INdia they include ram, allah, jesus, chanakya, ashoka, akhbar, patel, gandhi etc...they do not include superiority of one religion over another.

[/quote]

I guess you'd have more knowledge of the speeches than I. I merely have www.bjp.org to by, and the philosophy there does seem like stuff dreams are made of.

[quote]

A unifying force whether Islam or a some supreme political/military leader could have achieved the very same. Plus you have to look at, as you rightly said, the arab world before Islam. I am not sure if it is a huge accomplishment if you establish a common law and belief system that some progress was made. It was not because they were worshipping idols that they were not leaders in the field of science and philosophy. Because some people around the world were exactly that and worshipped idols.

[/quote]

great. so Islam was the unifying force to bind together a dissipated people into a world power. Given that Muslims tend to give their religion a lot of importance, it makes sense to use that as inspiration if we see ourselves reduced from what we used to be.

As far as whether or not our inspiration makes sense from your standpoint is concerned, its irrelevant when we're talking about Muslims non? So long as we're inspired towards better things, you should sit back and focus on the results.

[quote]

You are confusing religion with state practice. America is a big country as large as Europe, go to Italy or Spain, or eastern europe, religion is far more or as prevalent in terms of numbers as it is in the US.
[/QUOTE]

You were the one who said religion is an inhibitor to advancement, without anything to back it up, or any qualifications of state versus people. I merely pointed out that it isnt necessarily so. And the european countries I had in mind were Britain and France, both world leaders till the 20th century. Now, whereas Britain is the most secular country in the world (as far as personal beliefs go), it is completely subservient to one of the most religious countries in the world (US) with levels of belief at par with Pakistan and Libya.