Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: The Future of Islam

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    788
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    Yes we will have to agree to disagree---(by the way, Your description about Islam, Quran, Submission etc are strange to me....but if you are listening to the wacky ideas of Hirsi ali---I can understand where you might be coming from)

    ----My examples of Christianity were all Modern---present day.
    ---some Christian human beings are just as barbaric as ISIS--because a small segment of humanity will always be barbaric no matter what label we put on them---so we have Christian soldiers burning civilians with white phosphorus in modern warfare---then they end up with PTSD go off to some church for counselling and forgiveness---just google the subject of "Moral Injury" and how various churches are dealing with it....

    ...and Modernity "celebrates" barbarism---but their religion is "nationalism"---a mythical concept with arbitrary, invisible lines-on-a-map that divide people into made-up identities....who then fight vicious wars such as the World Wars.....or the aggressive wars of today.....then celebrate it with monuments and holidays---like the Vietnam war memorial..... in which civilians and children were burned with napalm and the aftereffects of the chemical weapons, land mines etc are still felt to this day!

    We can all be barabaric ---only, we cover up our own misdeeds and point fingers at others.

    When it comes to destruction---it does not matter at all if religion is in or out of the mix---human beings will fight wars IF there is not a strong, ethical, moral Justice system to prevent and restrain such a universal human tendency.....
    ....and when it comes to restraining such a human tendency---RELIGIONS (Wisdom teachings and philosophies about ethics/morality with a strong component of the concept of Justice) could do a far better job of it than any other modern ideologies such as liberalism, nationalism, secularism etc.....
    ....and this is true of Islam as well---becoming more knowledgeable about Islam, its philosophies, history and diversity encourages more tolerance, acceptance and compassion and less "takfirism" (a Muslim term used to describe exclusivist and intolerant ideologies)


    also.....
    This is from the Quran Surah 10 verse 99
    "If your lord had willed, all the people on earth would have come to believe, one and all. Are you going to compel people to believe against their will?"
    there are many more verses like this in the Quran that promote diversity, tolerance and compassion. so....If takfiris such as ISIS were sincere in their beliefs---they would not be takfiris in the first place---they would be Sufi..a tradition that is highly tolerant, inclusive and mystical.

    In the Islamic world-view toxic ideologies are characterized by what is called Shirk (Division) which is opposite of Tawheed (Unity). Whatever the label, Islamic or non-Islamic,...any ideologies/philosophies that encourage divisions, disunity, and strife among human beings are harmful and those that encourage unity, harmony and peace are beneficial.

  2. Amen robrecht amen'd this post.
  3. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    788
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    Thanks for your interesting responses and comments....I had just finished a similar discussion with an Atheist on another space a couple of months ago, but got kicked out of his blog because my views were "disturbing". I appreciate your being patient and responding back---it was fun.

  4. #13
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1566
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    I don't like either characters and don't agree with their views---while I can excuse Harris as being ignorant, Nawaz should know better---and so loses credibility.
    The problem with the above discussion is that it is based on 1) false assumptions 2) removed from (fact-based) historical context.

    From the start the discussion is based 1) Clash of civilizations---West (liberalism, secularism...etc) vs "Islam" (everything opposite of the "West") and how if this "Islam" can be just a bit more like the "West" everything will be well and all problems solved.....!!.....
    2) In order to make "them" (Islam) more like "us" (West)----Islam needs to "reform"(Islam-lite, privatize, "cultural" Islam)
    3) "Islam" = Isis = "Islamist"
    4) "Theocracy" Vs "Secularism"
    ....and much more....but let me deal with these points first....

    A major problem with these types of discussions is that labels such as "West, "Islam" etc, are ambiguous, flexible and unbalanced....(for ex---"West" is a geographical territory and "Islam" is a value system) If we assumed that the Modern "West" follows the "Enlightenment" heritage then we can properly compare and critique the two value systems of "Islam" and "Enlightenment"---but to do so fairly, we need to put them in proper historical context because their environment and historical trajectory shaped the expression of these value systems in different ways. (though...since we are all human beings---our core ethico-moral principles are universal, regardless of what religious/non-religious label we put on ourselves)

    ...
    Hi, siam. I was kind of surprised to read this portion of your post. Are you yourself not frequently making blanket statements about Western modernism? I have only tried to follow a few of your discussions so this may not be a fair characterization, but that is the limited perception I've gathered so far. I do agree that many people in the West (as everywhere) are blind to their presuppositions and toxicities.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  5. #14
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    788
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    @robrecht

    Yes---I do criticize Western/Modernism but not because I (Eastern, Tradition...etc) am "better"---rather, I also consider myself both Modern and partially "Western". Any Muslim cannot really divorce themselves from the heritage of the Enlightenment philosophers because many of their ideas/philosophies came from Muslim (and Non-Muslim) philosophers of the Islamic Golden age. And yes---often these are very general blanket statements because the nature of the statements about Islam are also blanket and general. My purpose is to point this out and re-use such perceptions so that there might be space cleared up for a more nuanced discussion.

    For example---Harris/Nawaz want people to be more like the "West"/"Modern"/liberal,secular etc---but this is exactly what ISIS also wants---it wants everyone to follow their "Islam" because they think it is "best"/Superior---or whatever. We (humanity) won't get anywhere by trying to make everyone like "us". Instead, we need to respect and celebrate differences because that is what God wants. Without these differences, we human beings cannot grow in compassion and mercy. I think it was Jesus (pbuh) in the Bible somewhere (?) who said something along the lines of it was easy to love someone similar but difficult to love the other/enemy---I forget the exact expression.....

    If we are to deal with the kind of "values"(vices?) crazies like ISIS are promoting---we need to look at our own best values and articulate them consistently---only blaming one group of people, while we ourselves engage in those very things is inconsistent and hypocritical. While many of our best values may be universal, their expression and implementation will be diverse and we need to respect this aspect of human creativity and allow for, and promote diversity both geographically as well as generationally....So, for example, Christianity and Islam will have many of the same ethical and moral principles---but how they are understood within our traditions and our world-view may be different---as a result, the implementation of the ethical principle of charity, for example,---may take different shape and that should be respected.

    Secularism has given us many benefits---but it is not well suited for a global age. Both secularization and globalization erode "identity". Identity perceptions are very important for human beings individually as well as collectively. Global religions on the other hand---are very well suited for tomorrow....they give identity that is not limited to an imaginary geographical boundary, but is global. They also have within their traditions, the ability to articulate moral and ethical values and have the potential to restrain toxicity. That is why I think Pluralism rather than Secularism is the way of the future.

    Nawaz was an "extremist" in his own words. While his experience should be considered---it also has to be understood that the majority of the worlds Muslims, who have never been extremist---will have difficulty relating to his experience or his arguments. Using a fringe experience like that of Nawaz to pursuade Muslims is like asking an ex-member of the Arayan nations (on offshoot of the Christian Identity movement) to persuade your average Christian about the toxicity of their beliefs?!!? Its just not very credible. Instead, a scholar like Abdullahi An Na"im does a far better job and more accurately underscores the challenges an average Muslim/Muslim-majority country face today. (I don't agree with his views as I advocate Pluralism rather than Secularism---but I can respect his views and the challenges he speaks of are well articulated and nuanced)
    (For those who are not into scholar-talk, Mustafa Akyol is an average, non-extremist Muslim whose views are interesting)

    links....
    Christian Identity movement
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

    Promoting change for Muslims
    http://law.emory.edu/faculty-and-sch...m-profile.html
    Last edited by siam; 03-02-2016 at 07:38 AM.

  6. #15
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1566
    You're probably thinking of Lk 6,32 (cf Mt 5,46):

    “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them."
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  7. #16
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1566
    By the way, it was interesting to read about Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, one of the precursors of the Christian Identity ideologies.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  8. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    788
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    The abuse of the "chosen people" idea has led to harmful consequences. When human beings do good, there is no need, in our hearts, to justify or find excuses for it, but when we do harm/bad---it is common to justify.

    The colonization efforts also used justifications such as "white man's burden" or "civilizing mission"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
    One view proposes that whites have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world economically and socially. The term "the white man's burden" has been interpreted by some as racist, or possibly taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of "undeveloped" national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called "cultural imperialism".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilizing_mission
    The intellectual origins of the mission civilisatrice can be traced back the Christian tradition dating from the Middle Ages. European thinkers had naturalized social change by using the development metaphor. In the eighteenth century history became to be seen as an unilinear unending inevitable process of social evolutionism with the European nations running ahead. Racists saw the "backward" nations as intrinsically incapable but the more "progressive" thinkers like the Marquis de Condorcet postulated a holy duty to help those peoples "which, to civilize themselves, wait only to receive the means from us, to find brothers among Europeans and to become their friends and disciples".

    Evolutionist views survived colonialism. Modernization theorists declared that traditional customs had to be destroyed, traditional societies had to adapt or to disappear.

    Development criticism sees development therefore as continuation of the colonial civilizing mission. To become civilized has always meant to become 'like us', therefore "Civilizing" now meant that in the long run all societies had to become consumer societies and renounce their native traditions and habits.


    and American ideas of Manifest Destiny/American exceptionalism are also put to use for U.S. wars....

    It is good to be proud of our achievements and it is necessary to have identity-perceptions---but when this becomes excessive, it falls into "Shirk". This is because claims of being special/chosen can lead to the mistaken belief that God is "ours" alone. To exclusively appropriate God is Shirk because (One) God is universal and is the creator of all human beings. God's compassion and mercy extends to all humanity regardless of our conceptions of God or the identity-labels we choose for ourselves.

    Wahabism is worrisome. Most Wahabis are average, peaceful Muslims----but Wahabism is a "modern" idea that is exclusive and intolerant because of its strong identity-constructs. While people should have the right to believe what they feel is right for them, and diversity is important, it is also necessary to promote respect and dignity for all in an environment of equality and justice. We need to work towards a balance and harmony of the needs of individuals and groups in our global community.

  9. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    788
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32



    If one were to ask (in the "West) an open ended question such as does Secular Liberalism (political theory) need reform (and reform = improvement/betterment) the answer would easily be Yes...but if the assumption were that Secular Liberalism needs to reform into "Islamism" the answer would likely be a horrified NO!. ....
    As Cesari explains...Modern Islamism is structurally the same as Modern Secularism---both use State power.
    However, in terms of their (original) intentions both had similar ideas---the organization of people in a way that empowers them through a system of Balance of power.

    Empowerment is ineffective unless one knows how to make use of it wisely---and for that a society needs an independent education system. Along with quality educational institutions, one also needs systems that will facilitate the smooth running of a society and this is done through Law/Judiciary. So, one could say that the 3 basic institutions that need to be independent of each other in order create balance are the State systems, the Judiciary systems and the Education systems....Diversity within these systems is an important way to create the freedom to progress and for improvement...so all these systems need to have multiplicity in their specific implementations, communally and/or regionally.

    In order to have Liberty, a society/individual needs systems of empowerment (education, law, politics), So, if Liberty is the goal of any ideology/socio-political theory then these universal aspects need to be considered. Another universal aspect that needs to be considered is Economy. This is because full Liberty cannot be achieved in a state of poverty. Therefore, we need to consider an economic system that encourages and rewards human endeavors that generate profit while at the same time promotes the realization that the distribution of wealth for the empowerment and happiness of those in society is a socio-political and human responsibility.

    These (universal) aspects are all interconnected so that any ideology/socio-political theory about Liberty should consider them together rather than separately.....however, how these universal pieces are structured, implemented, and labeled will depend on the specificity of the environment in which they are to be used.....
    Last edited by siam; 03-09-2016 at 05:20 AM.

  10. #19
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,232
    Amen (Given)
    1133
    Amen (Received)
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post



    If one were to ask (in the "West) an open ended question such as does Secular Liberalism (political theory) need reform (and reform = improvement/betterment) the answer would easily be Yes...but if the assumption were that Secular Liberalism needs to reform into "Islamism" the answer would likely be a horrified NO!. ....
    As Cesari explains...Modern Islamism is structurally the same as Modern Secularism---both use State power.
    However, in terms of their (original) intentions both had similar ideas---the organization of people in a way that empowers them through a system of Balance of power.

    Empowerment is ineffective unless one knows how to make use of it wisely---and for that a society needs an independent education system. Along with quality educational institutions, one also needs systems that will facilitate the smooth running of a society and this is done through Law/Judiciary. So, one could say that the 3 basic institutions that need to be independent of each other in order create balance are the State systems, the Judiciary systems and the Education systems....Diversity within these systems is an important way to create the freedom to progress and for improvement...so all these systems need to have multiplicity in their specific implementations, communally and/or regionally.

    In order to have Liberty, a society/individual needs systems of empowerment (education, law, politics), So, if Liberty is the goal of any ideology/socio-political theory then these universal aspects need to be considered. Another universal aspect that needs to be considered is Economy. This is because full Liberty cannot be achieved in a state of poverty. Therefore, we need to consider an economic system that encourages and rewards human endeavors that generate profit while at the same time promotes the realization that the distribution of wealth for the empowerment and happiness of those in society is a socio-political and human responsibility.

    These (universal) aspects are all interconnected so that any ideology/socio-political theory about Liberty should consider them together rather than separately.....however, how these universal pieces are structured, implemented, and labeled will depend on the specificity of the environment in which they are to be used.....
    All this is well and good, but does not address the reality of Islam in the modern world, and in any reasonable scenario of the future. Most Islamic countries operate as a theocracy ruled by Shiria Law. The Shiria Law is not consistent from country to country, and it is based on old principles of law, some as old as the Old Testament. These systems of laws fail to meet the standards of modern International Law. On the other hand the more modern contemporary spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith are more in line with International Law and as a matter of fact a standard and guide for modern International Law. It also recognizes the separation of secular government and spiritual Laws of the Baha'i Faith, and represent a theocracy only within the Baha'i electorial process by the consent of those that believe.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  11. #20
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    788
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    ---My opinion is that the type of government makes little difference, theocracy, monarchy, democracy or any other organization of government (government = the management/administration of an organized society). What is more important is how does the "system" balance power---because without a balance of power, there will be a tendency/inevitability of an abuse of power which will lead to oppression....
    ---Most systems of law in Muslim-majority countries are hybrid systems because colonization destroyed the infrastructures of the "Islamic" system and replaced it with European ones....
    ---"Modern international law" or what passes as one---is inconsistent (with exceptions in cases of some types of commercial law perhaps). The well-armed nations exploit and/or oppress those that are weaker and get away with it. IMO, this is because "Western" ethical principles do not have a wholistic and robust understanding of the concept of Equality/Human dignity and because of this they have an inadequate concept of Justice.
    ---Insofar as religion posits that human beings are spiritual/have spirit----ethics and morality cannot be separated from living life ---because only a person striving for integrity and (noble) character can hope to be at "peace" spiritually. This means that all aspects of life (politics, economics, law, education,....etc) have to be governed by principles of ethics/morality in order to achieve inner and outer peace. Modernity is a mess because it does not get this!!!

    If Bahai religion is "Modern" then it is doomed because "Modernity" is not in balance and harmony. The reason for that is because it is not a wholistic paradigm based on Unity (Tawheed) rather it is a divided world view that attempts to separate various aspects of life and living---Modernity has aspects that lean towards "Shirk"/Division. Contemporary religions (way of life)/spiritualities are not wrong, only, the default standard of comparison should not be "Modernity".

    Liberty---In some historical trajectories---the concept of liberty developed from a condition of oppression (Feudalism) so that liberty came to be understood as freedom from oppression. But Islam is not just about the outer realities humanity finds itself in, but also the inner (spiritual) reality and so there is another dimension to "liberty" (similar to Buddhism)....The liberty of the spirit from the oppression of excessive desires. The way towards this dimension of liberty is submission (to God's will/law). This is because human nature was made with an inherent potential for peace (inner and outer peace) and by following the instructions of the "manufacturer" some measure of this potential can be achieved.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •