c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
but why won't what worked on the mutazili work again on these guys, then?
I said why in my first post on this thread man... (last paragraph).
but why won't what worked on the mutazili work again on these guys, then?
what an interesting opinion and one with which i have much sympathy - but one could say the same about the west, as well. i like the way you think.
that's interesting, too, albeit it's what people who like edward said always say about bernard lewis. maybe i don't entirely understand the argument itself, but it doesn't seem that the "orientalist" point of view differs very much from your own! could you expand on this point?
you seem to be assuming, however, that there is such a thing as "the west" that has "an agenda" and that would appear to me to be far too simplistic. the west is not monolithic, it is made up of thousands of squabbling factions who agree on very little; the perception i get from many middle easterners and people in the developing world is that there is a group of rich countries that get around the table and divide everything up between them. now, that i would concede was true in the age of empires, the treaty of tordesillas, the sykes-picot agreement and the "scramble for africa", but global capitalism itself has destroyed the possibility for such things to happen. it's not like they can even agree anything at the WTO, davos, or G7/8 summits.
now there i agree again, BUT with the important caveat that it will never come from saying "whatever is within is pure and good and whatever is outside is corrupt and evil", as is said by the saudis, the taliban, the iranians and indeed some factions in the US and within all religions including judaism. i reject this point of view.
the western intelligentsia is too scared of being thought racist nowadays to seriously engage in critical thinking.
i have an odd, but amazing little book by a chap called mohamed charfi who used to be a minister in tunisia i think it was, called "islam and liberty". in this book he basically argues what you're saying and gives some of the sources and structures which would allow islam to develop out of its current mediaeval sclerosis - basically, not a reformation or enlightenment, but a return to the values of islam interpreted in such a way as to allow liberty rather than tyranny as has happened in most of the places where they are kidding themselves that they have "islamic" government; in this, i believe the maghrebis have an amazing opportunity to show the way for the entire muslim world.
i get what you're saying, DIB, but we'd say the same thing about polish judaism, russian judaism, american judaism as opposed to moroccan, iraqi or indeed ethiopian judaism. i think, however, that saying that "judaism remains the same" is a little too idealistic rather than realistic.
it is not my concern what jesus may or may not have said, or is reported to have said in the christian scriptures. the book of matthew is an evangelist document aimed at getting jews to convert to christianity and has to be read as such. it is not a sacred text for jews, just as jesus is neither a prophet nor a sacred figure for jews and the quote you give is therefore irrelevant; our position remains that the jews are not "lost sheep", we still have the Torah of G!D and we read it, study it and keep its laws to this day. to suggest otherwise is in fact rather insulting, but i'm sure you didn't intend that, you are always very polite.
and as for om kolthom: KILILILILI!!!! we are not worthy!! i only, unfortunately, have one of her albums but she is surely one of the great singers the world has ever produced.
b'shalom
bananabrain
it is interesting that you put it like that. it was observed in a conversation i was having the other day that, whereas being an adherent of some religions is not considered an "activity", being jewish actually is. it is quite time-consuming. i suspect the same is true of being muslim. one should, of course, make sure to note that islam is not *a* culture, but a multicultural entity, rather like judaism. russian jews are very different from iraqi jews are very different from ethiopian jews are very different from british jews - culturally speaking, at least. it is the effort of (to pick a not-exactly-random example) groups that seek to effectively engineer islam into a basically salafi-arab monoculture, christianity into a southern-US revival monoculture and judaism into a ashkenazi-haredi-yeshivish monoculture. so, really, taking culture seriously can be just as bad!c0de said:Religion today is a part of culture. For example, church attendance is very high in the U.S, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of faith. Just because Muslims take their culture very seriously, also does not mean there is more faith in Islamic societies.
i think you said in the other thread that it was part of a series of interlocking crises, in which i think i might well concur.The coming Iranian Crises is not the real problem
i think i do. this chap malek bennabi seems like an eminently sensible fellow. mohamed charfi is saying something very similar, in fact. the thing is, that i can't really see that bernard lewis is saying anything different - the main difference seems to be that edward said doesn't think muslims ought to listen, because bernard lewis is "a westerner" and therefore a "mind-coloniser". that to me seems eminently daft. he reads like nothing of the sort.DIB said:It is the idea of one of the most prominent Muslim thinkers who deeply analyzed the causes of Muslims downfall, and looked for the causes of dvelopment and civilization. Unfortunately, he hasnt yet taken the right position he deserves. May be, because responsibles dont like those who talk about the late train. They like only only those who say that the train come on time. I think you got what I want to say.
if you want to call something "scientific", it needs to be peer-reviewed and utilise control standards like double-blind testing. i highly doubt that edward said's work - or indeed anyone working in the liberal arts - meets such a standard either.Well, as I understand from Edward Said, Orientalism is not a science in itself. Why? Simply because science requires objectivity that we almost miss it in Orientalism.
but that's not what bernard lewis says at all!!! not even slightly!!! he is a scholar of arabic, persian and turkish and holds all three cultures in the highest of regards - this is an astounding claim and one which i don't feel is borne out by the reality.Edward Said remove the mask from Orientalism whom he said that it was a step for paving the way for colonizing the Islamic countries. Orientalism mainly paints the Orientals as savage, barbarous people with a very savage religion.
but the thing about global capitalism, DIB, is that it largely depends on intangible things like intellectual property and "knowhow", not just finite natural resources. and the thing about ideas and knowhow is that they cannot really be owned. ideas can spread without institutions, without anything. skills can be trained. what bernard lewis says is that it was about the ottomans failing to pick up on *knowhow*, in particular how to use the printing press. i hardly think you can call this "colonising of minds" - it is no good owning a shiny new rifle if you don't know how to clean it. it is untrue to say that these intangible resources cannot be created in an islamic society, when the original islamic society was incredibly creative from this point of view. if you ask me, the only really *islamic* issue is the traditional interpretation of the world "bid'a" - innovation. now, a prohibition of theological innovation is one thing, but to extend it to vital areas of intellectual development, as has arguably happened, would really constitute a far bigger brake on progress in the muslim world than colonisation ever could - i mean, this is where you *could* look at the japanese; arguably, they faced "mind-colonisation", but they made their own way eventually. unfortunately, of course, they went through an ill-advised phase of "shiny toys", ending in the debacle of the second world war.Well in a global capitalism world, bananabrain, I think they have to find the market, right? The resources, right?
but surely it's not just a matter of having a plan, but a matter of having a *good* plan.I believe that we are a part of others' plans because we are without plan.
oh, come on, DIB. the vast majority of people killed in iraq have been killed not by the "west", but by insurgents and militants - sponsored in many cases by so-called "islamic" regimes. and saddam killed thousands not just during the iran-iraq war, but after 1990, when we should have got rid of him. yes, of course, he shouldn't have ever been supported in the first place, but that was the sort of thing that happened during the cold war. i don't see you having a go at the russians and chinese for doing the same thing. this is the most pervasive notion, the idea that "the west" wants nothing more than to kill muslims! it is quite simply *ridiculous*.They decalre we have weapons of mass destruction...they defied the whole world, and they declared the war....they killed thousand of millions, and they are still doing....For what?!
i can believe this of certain institutions and corporations, but in the long run, this will do them no good. oil is running out. look at the guys in dubai - they realise that oil won't last; isn't green the colour of islam? surely this is where the muslim world can lead the way!It is for the sake of controlling petrol wills...for getting contracts of building infra-structure...
this is *nonsense*. there is no reason for the west to do such things. iraq's museums were looted by local saddamite mafia thugs, not the american army. it wasn't the british who blew up the bamiyan buddhas, but the taliban.for destroying the cultural heritage....
well, arguably. the trouble is that many of the people who claim to be doing exactly that are deeply unpleasant and include many of their own cultural practices. the salafis and the taliban claim that they are "simply removing the additions and returning to the practices of the prophet and his companions" - and this is very far from being the case. who is to judge what is an "addition", then?Some people are programed to believe that some traditions are of religion. It happens. I admit. But religion remains free from these "additions". There is an urgent of clearing up, and transmitting the real teachings to people. A need of renewal...
it is interesting that you put it like that. it was observed in a conversation i was having the other day that, whereas being an adherent of some religions is not considered an "activity", being jewish actually is. it is quite time-consuming. i suspect the same is true of being muslim. one should, of course, make sure to note that islam is not *a* culture, but a multicultural entity, rather like judaism. russian jews are very different from iraqi jews are very different from ethiopian jews are very different from british jews - culturally speaking, at least. it is the effort of (to pick a not-exactly-random example) groups that seek to effectively engineer islam into a basically salafi-arab monoculture, christianity into a southern-US revival monoculture and judaism into a ashkenazi-haredi-yeshivish monoculture. so, really, taking culture seriously can be just as bad!
i think you said in the other thread that it was part of a series of interlocking crises, in which i think i might well concur.
well, i think that's the approach stark and finke take - except i don't think they include atheism. i'd be interested to see how well it fits their propositions.c0de said:I wish more studies were done to get a statistical picture... I have a feeling the figures would make the supposedly isolated atheists very happy.
well, i think that's the approach stark and finke take - except i don't think they include atheism. i'd be interested to see how well it fits their propositions.
i don't know anything about secularisation theory - have you got a link? also, i haven't identified in the stark and finke book i've read anything like the assumption that religiosity = faith. if anything, they are focused on the social interactions that surround religious system.You know its funny... even though Stark's argument is supposed to contradict Secularization Theory, I actually use his work to support this hypothesis. I recently discovered that I am not the only one. Other contemporary defenders of ST do the same. The whole idea that religiosity = faith is a flawed assumption, which, once recognized, can turn Stark's entire thesis against him.
that's actually stark and finke's theory about "tension" with the surrounding society - high-tension groups being "cults", low-tension groups being "churches".But I do have my disagreements with ST, for example; the idea that secularization increases overtime. IMO, it was always at a constant, it just becomes more apparent in some eras, and recedes in others, depending on the political and cultural climates of societies.
i don't know anything about secularisation theory - have you got a link?
Exactly, thats where they screwed up, they didn't make that distinction at all. This has left an opening for the supporters of ST to simply broaden their definition of secularization. Parry, and strike...also, i haven't identified in the stark and finke book i've read anything like the assumption that religiosity = faith. if anything, they are focused on the social interactions that surround religious system.
aaaaarrrrrgghhhh!!!! unfortunately, this has not previously resulted in terribly good outcomes. the muslim community in the UK has tended to judge its uleima on "authenticity", but this has resulted in taliban types from villages in pakistan and native-speaker arab "sheikhs" who have basically made the uleima look like a bunch of backward, paleoconservative extremists who are totally out of touch with how the community actually lives. you cannot just hand over responsibility to religious experts, that's like taking your brain out and putting it on top of the wardrobe. these people have to be accountable to the community, not dictating to it what to do: they only have wilayat al-faqih in iran, amica!Amica said:What Muslims need to do is choose religious leaders (Ulaama) from each of their communities/countries who will sit down and find the best solution for all of us.
Has it ended yet?? Please tell me has it ended yet!!???
I doubt it will end before you, old man![]()
What do you get when you take out all faith from Islam and replace it with a cold rational materialism? You get a new brand of "Muslim" who calls himself a "Quran Aloner".... Granted not all of them are the same, and many are not as extreme as others, but one thing is certain: these are the people who will totally change the Islamic landscape within a century. This much is clear to me.
This might sound like dialectics (its not) but a counterpart to the rightist Taliban has arisen in the extreme secular left. These are the people who will take over the Muslim world (FOX News was wrong, it won't be Osama bin Laden). These "Quran Aloners" are a very small and fragmented minority today, mostly in the middle to upper classes. But they contain all the characteristics that a future mainstream movement needs to have and become the dominant Muslim denomination of the future. And all the work that the radical conservative Muslims are doing is directly contributing to their rise.
Their principles are diverse, but they have a few common beliefs. Almost all of them reject the "5 prayers" scheme. Some only accept 3, some reject the prayer totally, saying it was never meant to be an actual ritual. They also reject the significance of Mecca, and refuse to face it. Some of them believe that everything that takes place in Mecca is pagan idolatry.
These beliefs may sound very far fetched and crazy to the mainstream Muslims today, but it is very clear to me that that these beliefs will become the mainstream views within the Muslim ummah. It happened with Rome, with Christianity, it happened again with the Reformation. And the same will happen in the Muslim world... It is the same pattern with every new religion. If it attracts the middle-to-upper classes at first, you can bet it will keep expanding until it is the dominant force. There are no statistics, but I bet they are adding at least 40% new members per decade, just as the LDS Church. Such a growth, while it seems small at first, is exponential.
I don't really have much in common with mainstream Muslim sects either.. most of the time I am disagreeing with their beliefs... but this group of "Quran Aloners".... this is something completely different. Some of these people can hardly be considered Muslims at all, as some of them don't even believe in the finality of revelation, and feel that the Quran is "incomplete"... In my book, these people are much more dangerous then the Taliban, because their beliefs are much more attractive for the majority. Theirs will be a silent revolution, without weapons, without beheadings... And all the conservative Wahabi Taliban types are only making it easier for them, because it is -Islam- which is being put on the chopping block because of their actions.
... This is inevitable. There is no way to stop this... Many Muslims will convert to their side in the coming decades. Anyone in fact who values a self-negating "rationality" above faith will join their ranks. Maybe another war, or two, is all that is needed for a major shift in ideology to take place.. and when the time comes, these people will be waiting to step up and offer their "solution": a complete reformation of Islam, stripped of all faith... Setting the stage for a slow evaporation and drift towards a total materialistic atheism in the Muslim world....
I say this is inevitable, because this time, unlike the time of the Mutazillites, there are no core battallions left in the Muslim world to hold back this tide of skepticism... Too much faith has eroded over the centuries... There are not going to be any more al-Thalabis or al-Ghazalis, this time... they will win.