A worth reading article by Ahmed Rashid, famous for his writings on Taliban. He argues that USA should not be taking the lead because it is counter-productive and fruitless. Some excerpts;
“The crisis ISIS has created for the West and the Arab world cannot be effectively addressed until there is a broader understanding of what ISIS wants. The first thing we need to recognize is that ISIS is not waging a war against the West. In view of the staggering growth in the number of ISIS’s international recruits—there are now estimated to be some 18,000 foreign fighters from 90 countries—the growing possibility that some who have joined the group may return home to carry out acts of terrorism must be taken seriously. There is also a risk that others who never went to Syria, like the shooter in the Canadian parliament in October, will be inspired by ISIS to carry out such attacks.”
“In contrast to al-Qaeda, however, ISIS has not made the US and its allies its main target. Where al-Qaeda directed its anger at the “distant enemy,” the United States, ISIS wants to destroy the near enemy, the Arab regimes, first. This is above all a war within Islam: a conflict of Sunni against Shia, but also a war by Sunni extremists against more moderate Muslims—between those who think the Muslim world should be dominated by a single strand of Wahhabism and its extremist offshoot Salafism and those who support a pluralistic vision of Muslim society. The leaders of ISIS seek to eliminate all Muslim and non-Muslim minorities from the Middle East—not only erasing the old borders and states imposed by Western powers, but changing the entire ethnic, tribal, and religious composition of the region. ”
“A corollary to these Salafist ideas is ISIS’s determination to seize territory, carry out conquests, and reshape the Middle East as a single unitary state under a so-called Caliphate. Despite its hatred of Shias, ISIS has until recently largely avoided attacking Syrian government forces, a strategy that has allowed it to capture large amounts of territory already in rebel hands. Unlike Bin Laden and his followers, who worshipped martyrdom as a form of obedience to God, with rewards to be received in heaven, ISIS wants earthly power and possession of territory as well. As I have noted, in this respect ISIS is like the Taliban in Afghanistan, seeking to establish an actual Islamic state that it can govern according to its extremist precepts.
But it is also worth noting what ISIS is not doing. While ISIS leaders have frequently condemned and threatened the US, they have held back from declaring it a major target. The beheadings of Westerners are best understood as acts of revenge against the US bombing campaign, as well as propaganda designed to terrify outsiders and demoralize those fighting against it.
Significantly, they have not condemned Israel at all, nor have they sided with the Palestinians during the recent war in Gaza or carried out any campaign to help the Palestinian cause. This omission may be tactical: ISIS’s leaders may calculate they cannot afford to take on the well-equipped state of Israel for the moment but will do so in the future. Or it may be strategic: as ISIS consolidates a large territory in Iraq and Syria, its leadership may deem it more pragmatic to not make enemies of the world’s Jews so that it can live alongside Israel without incurring the wrath of the Israeli air force.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/02/isis-what-us-doesnt-understand/
Posted By F. Sheikh
Ahmad Rashid is a great political analyst about Islamic political complexties.
His analysis is thoughtful and multidimensional.
But his solution to the problem needs some additional analysis by Muslim intellsctuals.
Actually this is the crisis of Islam. Muslims are the victims of foreign aggression and internal exploitation of ruling class because there is history of absence of self analysis in Islamic culture.
Most Muslims think that Muslims are the victim of Western conspiracies. Even it may be true to some extent but Muslims don’t want to look at ISLAM Itself – What are the inherent intellectual limitations of Islamic value system.
Islamic values are Dogma Based, whereas western values are “Reason” and “Logic” based.
How can Dogma compete with Reason/Logic.
Dogma Based value system are by definition static.
Reason/Logic based value system is by definition Dynamic.
Universe is not Static.
Universe is Dynamic – perpetual change is happening.
Therefore, Muslim intellsctuals are extremely confused what to do.
Islamic monotheism is no different than Jewish monotheism.
Muslims look at Jews, how they are dealing with modern world dilemmas and challenges.
To be continued…….
Marwan Majzoob.
Mr. Majzoob is one of the few Muslims I know who thinks looking at the mirror in self analysis is the road to self improvement. I hope more of us do the same.
It looks like the article by Mr Ahmed Rashid was written to analyse the Western interest only. Off course ISIS is not against the West or Israel right now, so should we sit back and let them kill and destroy the Shias and Christians and other minorities. Although there have been no survey, but I am sure even the majority of Sunnis would not like to live under a strict religious government. ISIS is a terrorist organization, they are using American weapons and they are supported and armed by thousands of foreign citizens. Do we bear no responsility? After destroying the Arab world, they would surely turn their guns on us. So, should we be short sighted and let them contiue? I do not think this is a wise policy.
I think at present Islam is going through what Christianity and Judaism underwent. Western values have separated themselves from the religious values and this has watered down the inherent conflict between reasoning and belief/dogma . West has made religion a private matter with no interference in State affairs. Karen Armstrong argues in his new book “Fields of Blood” that all religions started as a political force and separation of Church and State is a recent phenomenon (
http://www.thinkersforumusablog.org/archives/7595). The current turmoil in Muslim world is a civil war within Islam between those who want to keep Islam as a political force, dominating all aspects of Muslim’s life, and those who are resisting and opposing it. Unfortunately the opposing side has different motives which range from safeguarding the oppressive and dictatorial regimes to modernize Islam to separate religion from State. There is lack of commitment and dedication from the opposing side, and they are hoping someone else will do the hard job for them.
Unfortunately when USA jumps in and takes the lead in the war, the focus shifts and it becomes a war between USA and extremists. I wish USA should stay out of it and let the countries like Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries face the music and deal with it. When USA takes the lead, everyone else sits back, relax and just watch the show.
I agree with Zaki Sabih that minorities’ rights and safety is paramount, but USA involvement is not the answer. It is the responsibility of the surrounding Muslim countries, who has enough resources, to facedown the ISIS and other extremists, but they are sitting back to safeguard their own narrow interests and are counting on uncle Sam to do it for them. It is in Muslims own interest to deal with this menace themselves, and they have the capacity to do it.
Fayyaz
Actually, I was trying to be polite before, but let me point blank. The West is heavily involved in the Middle East or the Arab World from post-colonial time to present day. Remember Mussadaq overthrow in Iran, an impatient and forceful opposition to Gamal Nasser’s secular Arab nationalism, SEATO; CENTO and the Baghdad Pact, Involvement in Afghanistan; strong financial and military support to Israel and opposition to Palestinian Independence movement; covert support to Saddam Hussein during Iraq-Iran war; involvement in Iraqi Kuwait dispute, Invasion of Iraq based on lies and illegal occupation of Iraq and destruction of the Iraqi army; support to rebel groups in Libya and imposition of no-fly zone, criticism of Morsi government and support to Egyptian army dictatorship; strong opposition to Assad secular government and military support of rebel groups; support of Saudi absolute monarchy; and no support for democracy in Bahrain; etc. etc.
This leads us to ponder what is the West foreign policy objective and goal in the Middle East. This is the real debate.
How did ISIS, this ragtag group become so powerful within months that it can defeat a well-trained and well-equipped Syrian and Iraqi army, occupy vast swath of land, take over the second largest city in Iraq and threaten Baghdad itself? I want to point out that role of Turkey and Saudi Arabia is very dangerous and questionable here. Turkey has allowed foreign fighters from all over the world to cross into Syria and joins the rebels; and the Saudis are helping them with money and weapons. Why? What is their interest? Turkey is a secular country –the only secular Muslim country — so why they are vehemently opposed to Assad’s secular government? In addition, what is Saudi Arabia getting out of this Caliphate?
Yes, there is a movement in the Arab and the Muslim world for reinterpretation of Islam and for democracy and secularism. However, we are not moving forward. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran used to have secular governments and more liberal societies, but now all three are more religious and conservative. There is lot to be done but intellectuals, secularists and reformers are more scared now because they will be hated and viewed as pro West. The Western political involvement has a negative effect upon the Muslim Reform movements in the Middle East.
I agree with Karen Armstrong that all religion started as political force, but I think Islam is more corrosive compared to Christianity or Judaism. Talibans, Jamaat Islami, Ikhwan, al-Nusrah, al Qaida, Khomeini are bad but Caliphate is the worst. Sadly, we do not have Renaissance or Reformation, yet.
Zaki Sabih
This comment by Zaki Sabih is complex, interesting and multi-faceted. It is primarily a description of Muslims and particularly Arab wold political, economical, social, cultural and intellectual dilemmas.
There are quite a few points which can be taken up for analysis and discussion by TF USA affiliates.
The interesting thing is that Zaki Sabih is not only aware of Muslims modern day dilemmas, he has the courage and audacity to talk about it.
Zaki Sabih has described the western intervention in Muslim world affairs during last 70 to 80 years. This is one point which can be discussed.
Then he talks about progressive movements (to dwmocratize and secularize the Muslim world).
He also mentioned the regressive movements (to make Muslim world more religious).
He expressed his surprise about Saudi Arabia and Turkey’s positions in present crisis.
These points can be discussed individually and consecutively.
At the end he says – the attempts to secularize the Muslim world – Renaissance in the Muslim world.
Let me make a categorical and a little provocative statement.
Renaissance like Europe in Muslim world is almost impossible.
The reason are in Islam itself.
Only Muslims believe, Qur’an is the word of God from beginning to end.
Christians and Jews don’t believe that their holy scriptures are word of God.
Most of them believe their holy books were written by people who were inspired by God.
There are quite a few other points which can be brought up if the discussion starts- otherwise it is nothing but just aggravation for most believers.
From Ghazali time 1111, Muslims are down the hill. Islam is inherently incompatible with Modernity.
Muslim intellectuals have come to clusion that attempts to Modernize Islam is sheer wastage of time.
Islamic law should be implemented as personal law (marriage, inheritance etc etc) like it was in India under British rule, and it was implemented in Turkey under Ata Turk and in Iran under Shah.
Muslim intellsctuals should attempt to secularize the society not to Modernize Islam.
It can be further discussed if there is any interest – time will tell.
I will say about American foreign policy towards middle east later on.
It is Muslims problems, only Muslim intellsctuals can find the solutions if they are willing to invest ant time in this quagmire.
Marwan Majzoob.
Muslims can’t depend or wait on intellectuals to secularize society. Intellectuals are weak and heavily outnumbered by illiterate imams making their living at every corner mosque. The only hope for Muslims is more guys like Ataturk who don’t have to fear for their life and have guts to impose sanity by force, and ruthlessly. I don’t agree that Muslims will not follow the Christianity into Renaissance and Reformation – we might have to reach the level of Inquisitions just like Christianity first, ignorance will be finally defeated by education, reason and logic will prevail, nature will make the unfit extinct. I am counting on nature. World history is there for reference; hardly ever intellectuals could change nations. Barbaric force finally brought change, even all religions spread through force and force will only bring the change needed.
This comment is on Babar Mustafa’s comment.
Babar Mustafa writes:
“Muslims can’t depend or wait on intellectuals to secularize society. ”
At present we have a privilege to look at the world objectively.
First question.
What is secularization of society?
My response to this question will be.
A society will be secularized when the political institutions are not controlled by theology.
Individuals are entitled to follow any belief system of their own choice in their personal life that includes their inner family structures.
Laws which impact the society at large are made thru legislative process under democratic principles. Like they are done in western society on major scale and other parts of the world except most of the Islamic world.
..
Secularization is a modern western concept which is the outcome of the intense struggle between dogma and reason/logic.
Why the Renaissance came in the Christian world and not in other parts of the world?
It is an important question which needs to be addressed by TF USA affiliates.
We shouldn’t reinvent the wheel.
We should look around. Collect the data. Analyze the situation and come up with possible solutions which needs to be discussed in group like Thinkers Forum USA and others.
….
This is the responsibility of Muslim Intellectuals. We know our heritage, history and past. We are the insiders. We know the details.
It is our responsibility to understand the problem and come up with rational solutions.
..
It is a lengthy and arduous process.
It is not one man’s job like Ataturk and Shah of Iran. See what happened in Turkey and Iran.
All secularization has been reversed in Iran by Ayatullahs and future of Turkey is also not certain.
Religious parties are on the rise.
Secularization can be reversed in Turkey.
Only time will tell.
In Turkey military was the custodian of secularism.
Secularism cannot be achieved by force.
If achieved, it will not be permanent.
Secularism should be an evolutionary process, like it happened in Western Europe.
It is only thru education and mass employnent.
First Muslims have to decide, they want to live under theocratic system like extremely suffocating and dangerous Saudi Arabia and slightly less suffocating Iran or free societies of Western Europe and North America.
To be continued. ….
Other points in Babar Mustafa’s comment need critical analysis. Personally I agree with Babar Mustafa’s objectives. But I may slightly disagree with the means he wants to use to achieve those goals.
Secularization thru force.
Secularization thru education, debates, discussions and arguments.
I think the later option has a better chance of success.
Muslims are not ready even to discuss the issues/problems, they are confronting.
That’s why we need Thinkers Forum USA.
Marwan Majzoob
The reason I say that force has to be used to separate political institutions from theology is that I am tired of listening to the Muslim intellectuals/Ulema declaring Islam not a religion but Din to emphasize that politics and Islam can not be separated and they compare prophet Mohammad and Khilafat that followed him with Jesus who didn’t get to establish any political system. I have no idea why our Ulema forget that all religions were heavily involved with state right from the earliest civilizations and earliest religions. Our intellectuals are thousands of years away from reconsidering this involvement and acknowledging that it is not unique with Islam. We are still spiraling down and afraid to change blasphemy laws and instead asking for implementation of Sharia and burning down schools etc. We can’t wait to follow the exact path of Renaissance to Reformation – we need to short cut this because we have European history to demonstrate that this is the path to progress.
The reason that Turkey and Iran are reverting to fundamentalism after brief encounter with freedom from stranglehold of ultra-conservatives is the propaganda of false past glory — our education is highly censored (again the failure of intellectuals), our history that is taught in schools is bogus.
I do not have any hope that the throat slitting (Talibans and ISIS) fundamentalists can be swayed and educated – they have to be eliminated completely like eradicating a plaque. It is better if we do it ourselves instead of inviting others to do this dirty job for us.
I would rather have the secularization forced down the throat first and then providing intellectuals the opportunity to show the masses how it is better than theocracy. May be seeing will make believing easy.
“RUTHLESSLY impose sanity by force, reason and logic will prevail, BARBARIC FORCE needed for change.”
Mr. Mustafa, I am surprised you shared your bloodthirsty fantasies on how Muslim societies should be reformed so openly. Mind you, I am not surprised you hold these views; As you have said, “World history is there for reference” for those who want to see the lengths rabid atheists have repeatedly gone to in order to rid society of religion if and when they obtain the means.
“nature will make the unfit EXTINCT. I am counting on nature.” Wow. Have you been reading Mein Kampf??
Dr. Sheikh recently posted an excellent interview with Karen Armstrong. I think the following quotes are very germane.
Communism was said to be a more rational way to organize a society, and yet it was based on a complete myth that became psychotic. Similarly, the French revolutionaries were imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment and erected the goddess of reason on the altar of Notre Dame. But in that same year they started the Reign of Terror, where they publicly beheaded 17,000 men, women and children.
Sam Harris said something like “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” — when you hear something like that, how do you respond?
It fills me with despair, because this is the sort of talk that led to the concentration camps in Europe. This is the kind of thing people were saying about Jews in the 1930s and ’40s in Europe.
This is how I got into this, not because I’m dying to apologize, as you say, for religion, or because I’m filled with love and sympathy and kindness for all beings including Muslims — no. I’m filled with a sense of dread.
A.A.
A little provocation is good to get the debate going. Aziz Sahib’s comments do look very noble as compared to my crude ones. I will take his advice and also Marwan Sahib’s and Fayyaz Sahib’s but I am not competing for Nobel peace prize; I am being truthful. How much time you peace lovers are ready to wait? I thought Islam is a religion of peace and its been around 1400 years but what do we have to show for? The words “ruthless” and “force” has offended some but can someone tell me if any war is fought without ruthless force? Was killing with swords and daggers more humane than atom bombs? What got settled peacefully? I am beginning to even feel offended myself at my bringing up the famous Charter of Medina, wasn’t that beloved charter implemented ruthlessly? Did appeasement policy of Europe work on Hitler? Wasn’t The West (of Mississippi) won ruthlessly? Didn’t Changez Khan ruthlessly ended the oppressive rule of Sultans and Kings? Force is always ruthless or ineffective.
So how long you all want to educate the throat slitters in Pakistan’s tribal areas, in Iraq and Syria? How long you are willing to wait to end persecution of Hindus and Christians in our pure land called Pakistan? Its been 1400 years if I may remind again since the advent of religion of peace. How long ago a woman was stoned to death in the court of justice for daring to marry by choice, how long ago a Christian couple was thrown alive in the kiln? How many did ISIS recently beheaded for being Shia, remember the decapitating of Pakistan’s army soldiers – I can be very graphic because I watched the video and may I remind that a political paryt (JI) that is supposedly following the right guided Caliphs pronounced those soldiers not Shaheed and instead Bait Ullah Mehsood declared Shaheed!! I am sure your hearts bled over these incidents more than mine but some patience you all have. I am sorry I don’t share your positive thinking.
I am sure most people would like to appear noble and maintain that intellectuals will carry the day eventually but please tell me who is going to tell billions of Muslims that its time to separate religion (ours) from state, that Sharia laws are outdated – I dare you all to say this in writing, and also that if a Muslim wants to disown Islam he/she be free to do that. If you can’t say it then please let horrendous ideas like mine take care of this impossible situation.
Note: Unlike pious hard core fundamentalist Muslims I would not like to see even a drop of blood spilled other than of these monsters I mentioned. Even God did not care for collateral damage so my “bloodthirsty” fantasy is actually quite Kosher.
Babar
Mr. Mustafa:
Your comments are difficult to respond to as you lump a whole bunch of separate issues into one big blob.
As for ISIS, Taliban and all the other “throat slitters”, 99% of Muslims are already aghast at what they are doing. And no one on this forum has even suggested that educating these sorts of people is the best way to deal with them.
Your comments were more general, in that you made clear your earnest desire to have secularism imposed on the Muslim world as a whole through barbaric and ruthless force. Let’s leave aside the issue of whether such a course of action is moral. It is much more important to note that this project has been tried repeatedly throughout the Muslim world, and has ALWAYS failed. The Shah tried in Iran. The Soviets and Americans tried in Afghanistan. Qaddafi tried in Libya. Nasser tried in Egypt. The Baathists tried in Iraq and Syria. Even Kemalism looks to be on very shaky ground in Turkey. My point is what you are advocating for is not new, and it does not work. If anything, living under the oppression of despotic secularists actually CONTRIBUTES to the belief that an Islamic theocracy is the only solution.
Then there is the issue of state-sponsored violence and it’s ultimate causes. A running theme plays out on this forum and everywhere else these days. An example of violence in the name of Islam is brought forward, and then 5 minutes later the wolves come out, endlessly pontificating on the inherent barbarism of Islam, how reason and logic and secularism are the solution, blah blah. And increasingly, it is fanatical religion-hating atheists such as yourself who are leading the charge.
But where does this certitude of the inherently violent nature of religion in general (and Islam in particular) along with the belief that secularism and the abandonment of God/religion will lead to some peaceful utopia come from? Does it come from a fair and accurate reading of history?
The Encyclopedia of Wars (perhaps the most comprehensive work of it’s kind) is a three-volume work that discusses more than 1,700 wars that have taken place throughout history. Only 7% of these were fought because of religious reasons. Even the most cursory glance of history confirms that the whole “religion is the biggest cause of bloodshed in the history of mankind” trope is a delusional fantasy.
And as Karen Armstrong alluded to, any thoughts that reason and secularism would rid the world of it’s primitive bloodlust should have ended during the French revolution. And that was in 1789! One would at least think the nail in the coffin for these sorts of arguments would have been placed in the 20th century. Or perhaps I should say the nail in 100 million coffins (give or take) would have been placed in the 20th century, since that is the number of people murdered by explicitly atheistic regimes in that era alone.
Allow me to be more explicit. A lot of horrific bloodshed has taken place and continues to take place in the name of Islam. But you can add up every person killed by every Muslim government over 1400 years and the body count would still pale in comparison to the slaughter atheistic governments inflicted on their populations in a fraction of the time. It is not an exaggeration that state sponsored atheism may have been the worst thing that has ever happened to humankind. It would be nice if you (and your two buddies) kept this in mind the next time you write a screed about how irredeemably barbaric Islam is. Muslims deserve a lot of criticism, but not from the likes of you. It is like Greece receiving economic advice from Zimbabwe. Or O.J. Simpson being lectured on his violent streak by Jeffrey Dahmer. Or Bashar Assad being rebuked for his ruthless dictatorship by Josef Stalin.
And please, do not bring up Scandinavia or the West in general and their plummeting levels of religious belief as evidence that widespread irreligiosity and free democracies are obviously compatible. As President Obama said in a different context, “You did not build that”. Civilizations are built over generations, centuries even. And the modern West was built by believing Christians who argued for the separation of church and state in explicitly religious terms. Whether a post-Christian West will be able to even maintain what their Christian forefathers created and bequeathed to them remains to be seen. Your comment;
“please tell me who is going to tell billions of Muslims that its time to separate
religion (ours) from state, that Sharia laws are outdated – I dare
you all to say this in writing, and also that if a Muslim wants to disown Islam he/she be
free to do that.”
I am willing to say all of this. And so are millions of others, including numerous members of the ulama and most if not all of the Muslims on this forum. And not even that, we would defend these positions in an explicitly religious manner. “Horrendous ideas like yours” are not required at all.
Quran, portion of 18:29:
And say, “The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.”
2:256, which hangs in almost every Muslim house in the world:
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
A.A.
I agree with Zaki Sabih’s comment “The Western political involvement has a negative effect upon the Muslim Reform movements in the Middle East”. The great historic perspective by Zaki Sabih also supports that West’s involvement has been and still is counterproductive and a bad omen-and fight with ISIS is no exception. When the West is involved, its own interests take precedent over everyone else’s interests, and this is the core of their foreign policy. The surrounding regimes of ISIS have the army, air power, weaponry and resources to eliminate ISIS, if they chose to do so. If many of these corrupt regimes are not willing to act, or are enabling ISIS because of their own narrow interests, then why not let them face the consequences.
I think time of new open era, which is a brutal force, will eventually force the Muslim nations to find their own way to separate state from religion. Countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Tunisia and Malaysia has found their own unique way to do that. The major hurdle in that transformation is the colonial era like corrupt, dictatorial, oppressive and undemocratic regimes, many supported by the West, and once masses get independence from these regimes, transformation will start.
It is worth reading following Q/A paragraph from Karen Armstrong on religious violence, lack of independent thought and modernity in Muslim lands.
Q-“So, when we in the West talk about religion as the cause of this violence, how much are we letting ourselves off the hook, and using religion as a way to ignore our role in the roots of this violence?
A-(Karen Armstrong) We’re in danger of making a scapegoat of things, and not looking at our own part in this. When we look at these states and say, “Why can’t they get their act together? Why can’t they see that secularism is the better way? Why are they so in thrall to this benighted religion of theirs? What savages they are,” and so on, we’ve forgotten to see our implication in their histories.
We came to modernity under our own steam. It was our creation. It had two characteristics. One of these was independence — your Declaration of Independence is a typical modernizing document. And you have thinkers and scientists demanding free thought and independent thinking. This was essential to our modernity. But in the Middle East, in the colonized countries, modernity was a colonial subjection, not independence.
Without a sense of independence and a driving force for innovation, however many skyscrapers and fighter jets you may possess, and computers and technological gadgets, without these qualities you don’t really have the modern spirit. That modern spirit is almost impossible to acquire in countries where modernity has been imposed from outside.”
Fayyaz
Great and thoughtful comments by Marwan Majzoob. Unfortunately our liberal friends do not have patience for the slow process of educating the public as you described. Egypt is the prime example. Liberals did not like Muslim Brotherhood government, did not want to wait till next elections to defeat the Muslim brotherhood and, with help of West, brought back the Army which is even more brutal than before. Now they are regretting.
In contrast in Tunisia, Islamist party, Ennahda, was in power and liberal opposition did not conspire with Army to overthrow them. The masses saw the rule of Islamic Party, and few weeks ago they voted out the Islamic party and elected liberal party, Nida Tunis in power. Many liberals argue that the Muslim Brotherhood was more extreme than Ennahda of Tunisia. I think it is a lame excuse. The liberals of Egypt were impatient and did not want to do the hard work of educating the public till next elections. They wanted the Army to do the dirty work and then hand over the power to liberals. It did not turned out that way.
I think as long as the democratic process of elections and democratic institutions building continues, even if it brings in power the Islamists, the reforms will follow. This process will bring in the new ideas and new blood. This process is never a straight line and many twists and turns will come in the way, but persistence in educating the masses and continuing this process is the only way to bring reforms. Success of this process rests more on the patience, hard work and ingenuity on the part of liberals than Islamists.
Fayyaz
Aziz Sahib, we have got this discussion going please don’t spoil it by personal attacks (ref. “likes of you”) and please don’t refer to other’s opinion as “blah blah”.
I tried to not go all over the place, my point is only that educating fundamentalists to be tolerant of others is not going to work and force will have to be used to change the trend of reviving Khilafat (by first Talibans in Afghanistan and now by ISIS in Iraq and Syria).
Since you agree that religion and state should be separate, you actually do agree with me on the method of achieving it too and I’ll show you;
1).You said that 99% Muslims are aghast too and educating these people (fundos) is not the best way to go. Why do you say that? You will not admit it but you know in the heart of your heart that these people will not change because they believe in teachings of Quran or Islam literally, its the word of God that must be upheld.
2). You quoted Shah of Iran, Qadaffi of Libya (I wouldn’t have included him), Jamal Nasir of Egypt ……tried it but failed. You endorse my point that in these less than ruthless attempts effort failed. Ataturk on the other hand did a better job by sinking a ship full of bickering so called Ulema.
3). You mentioned French revolution twice and 17,000 chopped heads at the guillotines, by which you perhaps were referring to Renaissance being exploration of secular world (nature, humanity) leading to revolution … my point is that change didn’t come about because of Dante, Leonardo da Vinci, or Michelangelo (might have been awareness factor) but what closed the deal was greased up guillotines in the end.
I can not take the liberty of concluding that you do not know what secularism is – you probably know well that being secular is not denying God or religions, rather the only system that gives freedom of religion to every one is Secularism.
You wrote above, ” If anything, living under the oppression of despotic secularists actually CONTRIBUTES to the belief that an Islamic theocracy is the only solution.”
Your point was clear about “despotic” but you confused it by adding secularists, when you implied that despotic and secularist is interchangeable I had to explain what secularist actually is. If you had said “despotic atheist” then your statement had some weight – but just dead weight, because I do not know of any atheist ruler killing people for being theists. Here we enter in a different debate which I should leave for some other time to settle – if Hitler ( a Roman Catholic I believe) started a war for the Darwinian concepts as you would argue and I would say that Karen Armstrong is right when she says that religion was never the prime cause of any war, it was always the control of resources for which every war was, and is being, fought. I don’t think you will be kind and reciprocate, and admit similarly that atheism was never the cause as well.
Note: Jews were targeted not because they were Jews but because of their philosophy of controlling economy.
I have a direct question; do you really believe that Haddood Islamic laws including blasphemy law can be repealed ever in Pakistan by educating people? Do you believe that even such an effort will be undertaken in our life time? How do you expect Pakistan to separate state and religion? I can only see a general (ruthless, sorry) making this change by force and gunning down illiterate tsunami of ignorance that will occur upon any such attempt. There are more Muslims in India than Pakistan and not any different from us but they dare not demand such laws in India because they know what Hindu fundos will do to them and not because those Muslims are better educated than our masses.
Babar
Mr. Mustafa:
Forgive me, I was not aware of the importance you placed on respectful, courteous debate!! Perhaps the dozens of mean-spirited, mocking, and disrespectful posts I have read over the years on this forum were written by a different B. Mustafa!
One can not be one of the main culprits for the vulgarization of debate on this forum and then ask for politeness from others. If anything, you should thank me for sticking up for your right to post whatever you want on this forum when the editors sought to censor you! Anyway, you are welcome.
educating
fundamentalists to be tolerant of others is not going to work and force
will have to be used to change the trend of reviving Khilafat (by first
Talibans in Afghanistan and now by ISIS in Iraq and Syria).
Again, no one on this forum has suggested otherwise. What has been suggested is that this force should be applied by the Muslims in that region (Iran, Turkey, etc.) and that the West deserves most of the blame for this fiasco. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq/Syria had people like this in power until decades of Western invasions created the vacuum that these groups have now stepped in to fill.
You will not
admit it but you know in the heart of your heart that these people will
not change because they believe in teachings of Quran or Islam literally,
its the word of God that must be upheld.
The belief that a literal reading of the Quran leads to Taliban/ISIS-ism is something you and they share. Nevertheless, it is false, and this is why the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe otherwise.
2). You quoted Shah of Iran, Qadaffi of Libya (I wouldn’t have included
him), Jamal Nasir of Egypt ……tried it but failed. You endorse my point
that in these less than ruthless attempts effort failed. Ataturk on the
other hand did a better job by sinking a ship full of bickering so called
Ulema.
No I do not endorse your point. These attempts were plenty ruthless, feel free to read about the Shah’s hated secret police or the treatment of the Ikhwan under Nasser for example. And as I said, all this secular oppression played a DIRECT contributory role to the rise of fundamentalism in these countries (Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb, al-Zawahiri etc). How much more ruthless would you have wanted to be? Would you have preferred unabashed genocide? Your last few posts certainly give that impression, I have never heard of anyone praising Genghis Khan for being a reformer before, most people tend to focus on the mountains of skulls he left in his wake.
And what evidence do you have that Ataturk was more ruthless than his cohorts? It seems that one could argue he was less so. Also, you curiously do not seem too upset of the massive violations of religious and human rights he ushered in (forced removal of fez/hijab, closing of Sufi lodges, making criticism of Ataturk a penal offense, destroying Ottoman Turkish, denying the cultural identity of the Kurds, etc.)
3). You mentioned French revolution twice and 17,000 chopped heads at the
guillotines, by which you perhaps were referring to Renaissance being
exploration of secular world
I keep mentioning the French revolution because it was the first historical episode that conclusively demonstrated your belief that modernity, secularism, and reason are somehow inextricably tied to peace and justice is false.
I can not take the liberty of concluding that you do not know what
secularism is – you probably know well that being secular is not denying
God or religions, rather the only system that gives freedom of religion to
every one is Secularism.
This is an excellent quote I found on Wikipedia…
Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, “the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience.” However, in the view of soft secularism, “the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion.”[7]
This is such an important distinction in my opinion. It is the “soft” variety of secularism, developed by Christian believers in Western Europe, that upholds freedom of religion and created the best governments known to mankind. This is the sort of secularism that Muslims should aspire to.
On the other hand, the “hard” variety of secularism (of which you are an unabashed proponent) universally denies freedom of religion and is responsible for the worst governments known to mankind. It is disingenuous for you to tout the benefits of the one when advocating for the imposition of the other.
If you had
said “despotic atheist” then your statement had some weight – but just
dead weight, because I do not know of any atheist ruler killing people for
being theists
You do not know of any atheist ruler killing people for being theists because you do not want to know, as it does not fit your preconceived notions of religion having an exclusive monopoly on religious intolerance. If you did want to know, then even the most cursory reading of history would be sufficient to demonstrate otherwise. Some other short snippets from Wikipedia…
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]
The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]
By 1939 over 99% of Russian Orthodox churches had been closed.[5] Under Krushchev, 50,000 clergy were executed and many of the church hierarchy was replaced by individuals who had connections with the KGB. In 1977, the constitution only allowed organizations that promoted Communism, which meant that religions were no longer allowed.[6]
In 1995, the Russian state commissioner confirmed that 200,000 Russian Orthodox Priests, monks, and nuns were killed.
I don’t think you will be kind
and reciprocate, and admit similarly that atheism was never the cause (of any war) as
well.
While I do not believe that a lack of belief in God causes war, I do believe that the lack of belief in (and fear of) God is a primary reason for the barbarism of all atheistic regimes. Religion does not “tame the beast” perfectly, but overall does act as a powerful incentive to respect human life, particularly amongst the rulers who otherwise see no power over and above themselves. Whatever Pakistan is, it is immeasurably better than North Korea.
A.A.
Briefly, without wasting time of every one, the BM who “vulgarized” discussion in the past must be some one else – I never intended to insult any affiliate but it was pointed out to me that my references to prophets (being wrong) were taken as insult and I have tried to be mindful of that.
I could be wrong but my impression about Egypt and Iran (Nassir and Shah) is not of secularization but rather of “liberal” rules. If you have read in detail I’ll take your word (by the way in colleges here any quote, from Wikipedia as fact, is not encouraged). One thing remains unchanged for me is that they must not have been ruthless enough.
About praising Chenghez Khan; It is said about wildfire too that it is good for the land/terrain’s productivity. you are right that Chenghez is remembered for barbaric conduct but it is also a fact that humanity benefited in the long run by barbarians (Goths, Huns, Vikings, Mongols …) routing Roman, British and French and the like empires. Those kings and Sultan’s had really taken it to their heads* that they were divine or half divine. How those kings gave death sentences or indulged in atrocities is no less barbaric. There is a role of barbarians in ridding the world of evil that those kings, Queens and our Sultans were.
I don’t agree with any hard or soft “Secularization” – I stick to the understanding of being secular same as I mentioned earlier. You should discard the hard one too, no need to take any “expert’s” word …dictionary is enough.
About “Lack of fear of God” being the reason of barbaric actions; Not agreed. “God” is created by man and used as a tool to commit horrendous crimes against not only humans, but animals too. There is no proof that any so called “wrath of God” was indeed God’s act but there are very logical explanations of “wrath” if one only tries to break this spell and learn a little bit about nature. Discussion will steer off sharply so I’ll drop it here and not have Shoib Sahib ax it. Lets just put fear of wrath of educated masses revolting against an atrocity. Lets hope that evil is seen as evil in whatever name. ISIS is evil, I have no other word for it.
Babar
* I read in the book “The Great Game” that Persian Muslim rulers at the time of WWI used to condemn petty thieves to gouging of their eyes, cutting noses or ears, slitting tongues, right in the courtyard of the ruler/prince and left them to wander in streets with orders that no one must help them. The prince used to wear special yellow robe known as “Ghuzub Poshak” while giving out sentences. There was a reason why Chenghez poured molten gold in the throats of greedy Muslim rulers.
Please don’t think I admire Chenghez or Hitler but there is always the other side too.
Babar Mustafa writes in his latest comment:
……..
“I can not take the liberty of concluding that you do not know what secularism is – you probably know well that being secular is not denying God or religions, rather the only system that gives freedom of religion to every one is Secularism.”
Babar Mustafa has explicitly stated what SECULARISM is.
Secularism is not denying God.
Secularism is not against any religion.
Secularism guarantees the FREEDOM to each individual to follow any religion of his/her choice.
Freedom of religion is only possible thru Secularism. All theocracies including Islam allow only state religion.
Charter of Medina was implemented by force.
Look at the world at present.
Only in the Islamic world theocracies exist.
– Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The most extreme forms of Islamic theocracies are in the making.
ISIS is Iraq and Syeria and Taliban in Afghanistan.
Concept of theocracy is the outcome of Monotheistic traditions. (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)
Jews never got a chance to establish a state except in twentieth century in Palestine.
It is only Christianity and Islam who established Theocracies during last 2000 years.
Christians in western europe and later on in North America were able to achieve thru Renaissance the separation of church and state which means SECULARISM.
..
Theocracies are only Muslims problem.
In medieval ages Theocracies were norm.
The tragedy is that even educated Muslims have sympathies for Theocracies in modern times.
Coming back to Secularism.
Secularism guarantees human FREEDOM.
Theocracies put a limit on human FREEDOM.
Secularism helps individuals to attain absolute FREEDOM.
Theocracies give individuals limited and conditional freedom.
A.A and B.M are doing a great service to TF USA.
One represents the ultra progressive section of TF USA. The other represents not so progressive section.
But their level of knowledge and power of articulation are impressive.
Mian Aslam, Wequar Azeem and Mirza Ashraf are unusually keeping silent.
I am personally feeling their absence.
Marwan Majzoob.
There has been some very interesting comments in the past few days on this thread and I have thoroughly enjoyed them except that when you look at the last end of the thread you’d never know what was at the beginning of this thread; just as a reminder the beginning was an article by Ahmed Rashid on whether the US should involve itself in the ISIS crisis. I went through all the comments and only one of them relate to the original article. It seems no matter what topic we start the discussion on, it always veers to the merits/demerits of Islam & God. This is not a criticism but just an observation. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we avoid this?
Shoeb Sahib, I am aware that discussion shifted a little and I would like to clarify that I had not commented on USA’s options regarding ISIS but had picked up on the following suggestion by Marwan Sahib,
“Muslim intellectuals should attempt to secularize the society not to Modernize Islam.
It can be further discussed if there is any interest – time will tell”.
This menace of ISIS is ours (Muslims) first and that is why I didn’t try to think much what USA should or should not do.
P.S. I can’t help but count myself in Muslims – its like my nationality, which is American now but I can’t cut off my roots. I hope this liberty (atheist Muslim) is taken in the same sense as African American or Irish American etc.
Babar
EDITOR’S NOTE AND QUESTIONS
I agree with Marwan Majzoob that it is important discussion and in order to make discussion more fruitful, I hope we avoid personal jabs. In order to keep discussion focused, I have posed few questions. I would appreciate the response.
1-Question for Marwan Majzoob; What do you think why the Rennaisance was limited to Western hemisphere and bypassed not just Muslim lands but much of the rest of the world also?
2- Question for Babar Mustafa (A) Let us assume ruthless force is the answer to enforce separation of State and Church. What are the chances of getting another Ataturk in rest of Muslim lands, when history tells us that most of the time selfish dictators grab power for personal interests and it nourishes further extremism? (B) What is wrong with following the example of Tunisia, Indonesia etc who have found their own unique way to separate state and religion and move forward?
3-Qusetion for Zaki Sabih; What do you think USA will accomplish in its fight with ISIS and what is the right course in ISIS and Syria problem.
4- Question for-Aziz A.- Do you think Secularism and separation of State and Church will be the answer to Muslim’s current plight.
All participants, especially Noor Salik, Mirza Ashraf,Wequar Azeem, Shoeb Amin, Suhail Rizvi, Nasik, Aijaz, Mumtaz, Mian Aslam can jump in and take a shot at any question. Please avoid personal jabs. Thanks
Mr. Majzoob,
Secularism guarantees the FREEDOM to each individual to follow any
religion of his/her choice.
All theocracies
including Islam allow only state religion.
Charter of Medina was implemented by force.
Look at the world at present.
Only in the Islamic world theocracies exist.
Concept of theocracy is the outcome of Monotheistic traditions. (Judaism,
Christianity and Islam)
It is only Christianity and Islam who established Theocracies during last
2000 years.
Secularism guarantees human FREEDOM.
All of the above statements you have written are categorically, unequivocally, 2 + 2 = 5, the earth is flat level false. It is intellectually dishonest to reach predetermined conclusions based off of blatantly false premises.
A.A.
A.A
You are hell of a guy.
I can learn a lot from you.
You are well read.
You are very articulate.
You are a powerful advocate.
But you chose to plead a case which is inherently weak and fundamentally flawed. You are a pro-religion guy.
…..
The last paragraph of your statement is very imporrant, I will visit it now as well as later on because there is lot of stuff to cover.
.
My answer to your statement can be in installments because you have intellectual capacity to make condense statements.
Having said that let us start to deal with your comment.
When a statement is wrong there are two possibilities.
Either the statement is factually incorrect or inferential invalid or factually incorrect as well as inferential invalid.
First I would like to ask you on what basis you are saying that all the statements you picked up from my comment are incorrect.
I would like to know what criteria you are using.
Secondly you picked up X number of statements from my comment and put them individually.
Are you not making them out of context?
What ever I wrote is the result of my study, reflection, discussion and analysis.
But they are just opinions which are subject to change and modification if new facts arise or my analysis was not correct.
I endeavor to be an analytical thinker and not a dogmatic believer. This principle I learnt from Bertrand Russell who is my guru and favorite intellectual.
He was a Philosopher.
He was a Mathematician.
He was a social activist.
He was a pacifist.
I believe his contract with City College of New York was terminated or suspended because of his progressive and radical ideas.
I am just giving you a clue to look into my thought process.
.
Bertrand Russell has helped me to think analytically, objectively and independently.
My concepts are subject to change all the time because I claim and try to be a thinker and not a believer.
…
Believers look for certainity.
Thinkers look for uncertainty.
Yes, UNCERTANITY
We can come back to it if necessary.
I will attempt to answer all your questions. But we have to set the parameters of the discussion.
When you say a statement is wrong I need to know why it is wrong – factually, inferential or both.
I also thank you for this challenge.
We can talk and discuss a lot.
In this interaction I can learn a lot from you.
I will also ask you few questions as we move along together.
I will come back to you. I am not running away.
Marwan Majzoob.
….
I am glad to answer editor’s direct question:
A). What are the chances of getting another Ataturk; Not very bright. But brighter than expecting Muslims collectively deciding to separate religion from state. It might be easier (my wishful thinking) for one person to emerge out of millions in any one country. Our society can’t be so hopeless that not even one person in a position of power would be willing to reform it. This person doesn’t have to kill hundreds or thousands. This person has to see how coward the champions of Islam are. West has seen it, has made them run like rats. Didn’t Bangla Desh just recently hang JI leader – what happened? Just a few hanging from the neck are enough to make these champions of Sunnies and Shias start singing unity songs of all sects and vow to end their bickering. Not even that, I say just hang the murderer of Governor Salman Taseer in public with warning to hang all who will come to protest it. Hang the people who falsely accuse minorities of blasphemy. I say lets test the “Jazba e Shahadat”.
B). Example of Tunisia and Indonesia: Tunisia’s case is very recent and by no means a “happily living ever-after”. Indonesia’s history is also quite bloody, a lot of influence of West during cold war and even now behind the scenes the real power is in the hands of the military and its secularism isn’t tested yet. East Timor (Catholics) separated and synagogues are under attacks…. I don’t consider this country becoming secular by popular opinion and actually its being forced to remain secular. Too short a history to count them as standard established secular societies.
West has shed a lot of blood to finally realize that separation of religion and state is best.
There will be blood here too to reach the same conclusion.
Babar
I am responding to Babar Sahib’s comment of Dec. !5th 4.37 pm., in the process breaking my own request to keep the comments focussed on the original topic. Many things have been said in this discussion and it is hard to respond to all the points but I’ll pick on one point, the one that I strongly disagree with. And that is his comparing the benefits of a wildfire – a natural occurrence – to what Genghis Khan and Hitler did. I find the comparison somewhat disturbing. EVEN IF – as you claim – something good came out of those murderers’ actions or that there was the so called “THE OTHR SIDE” , to believe such actions were the equivalent of some acres burning is highly inappropriate, to put it extremely mildly. Babar Sahib also goes on to say that the barbaric actions of the Goths, Barbarians did some good by uprooting entrenched empires So by the same logic, if Chengiz Khan’s brutality dislodged some sultans, does another even more monstrous killer have to come and dislodge the Khan to perpetuate that “good”? I am hoping that Babar Sahib got carried away in the heat of the arguments and that this does not reflect his true thinking.
No, Shoaib Sahib I didn’t get carried away and no to also the impression that you are getting about me that such monsters might be my heroes – I wrote at the end of my rant as well that I don’t admire them. Its in the metaphoric sense that I made the comparison of massacre to wildfire. I am obviously not succeeding in conveying that the increasing fundamentalist trend in the world will lead to catastrophe. Drastic measures are sometimes needed when conventional or preferable peaceful means fail to stop evil. As you must have seen the monsters struck again in Peshawar killing 132 innocent children, how can you still have any hope to change such animals into humans. Let me use the example from religious texts if natural phenomenon didn’t fit; As a believer you must admire what God did to Noah’s people, right? Cleaned the whole slate, drained the swamp !! I am okay with not taking any drastic measures to counter the increasing fundamentalism but then we have to wait for another event like the one killed dinosaurs (and which became a blessing for mammals and eventually humans emerged). I am not willing to wait for a natural catastrophe to be later attributed to God’s wrath. We can take the example of French revolution too if natural or biblical examples don’t fit – the bloody revolution is considered a good thing despite of 17,000 heads rolling down the guillotines, isn’t it?
I have received lectures on other forums from the believers on how important is evil in the world whenever I questioned God’s silence on plagues, slavery and rapes. Implying the same logic I can say too that Chenghez Khan did serve a purpose in the long run. I will gladly vote for intellectual revolution but only if you can answer why God’s action get a pass? Why global floods, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions are okay to punish homosexuality or overall bad behavior ??
Babar
I have no qualms about brutally destroying the idiots that did what they did in Peshawar and the same for similar groups. Trying to educate such people, I agree, is futile. But putting the elimination of these animals to the random destruction of Chengiz Khan & Hitler is just plain wrong. You may not see it that way but I hope most people do.
Also, I don’t know why you and some others, need to put down religion and God to buttress your arguments every single time. So just because there are unexplained (to human intellect) disasters that kill innocent people, it becomes ok to kill innocents by humans too??? You have to make your argument stand on its own merit, not by denigrating something else.(that’s what you are implying in your last paragraph). I agree that religion has many questions that it cannot answer logically and a lot of believers grapple with those same questions but I don’t feel the need to put down people who believe in things I have a hard time to believe in, in every single argument I make, every single time.
I agree with Shoeb, and I felt the same way that you got a bit carried away. I do not think anyone disagrees those violent extremists like Taliban should be dealt with force. But what about other non-violent Islamist parties like Jamat-e-Islami in Pakistan who are playing by the rules set up by the Enlightened class and want to bring Sharia Laws by political process. Should they also be eliminated by force ? Don’t they have the same rights as the Secular parties to plead their case before public? Do you think the Secular parties did the right thing in Egypt to a derail political process and bring in Army ? Army did put to death many Muslim Brotherhood leaders and it lead to violent reprisals, but it did not work the way you suggested that hanging few will deliver the message. Do you think whole Muslim Brotherhood should be eliminated because they played by the rules set up by the Enlightened and won?
TF members:
I really do not have an interest in engaging in a never-ending back and forth on this matter. And I certainly do not have any desire to engage in petty name-calling and gratuitously insulting behavior, especially since I am the one who took people to task on this forum for their obnoxiousness.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to really provide any insight into the crux of this matter without shining a hard light on the psychology of the type of people that I have been debating on this forum recently.
The reason every thread seems to get hijacked into an indictment and then defense of Islam is the presence of a small number of exceedingly vocal atheists who use this forum to incessantly inveigh against belief in God and Islam. Particularly after 9/11, a wave of atheist polemics came to the fore. This movement has for some reason taken on the moniker of “New Atheism” and has dominated both print and the airwaves for some time now. The debates on this forum are a microcosm of something that is taking place on a much larger scale.
There are a number of reasons why debating these types of staunch and assertive atheists can seem so difficult. This is where having an understanding of their general psychology proves useful.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism
This excellent article provides a lot of the necessary background for some of the points I will be making.
1. The “New Atheist” type is generally of high intelligence. This means they are well-represented amongst the intelligentsia, which gives their views instant credibility. It also means they are adept at the use of persuasive rhetoric to advance their opinions.
2. “New Atheist” types often combine a dearth of human empathy with an inability to form an accurate picture of the mental states of others. Anyone who has debated with a staunch atheist will be immediately struck by how gratuitously insulting and generally unlikable they almost always are. The fascinating part is how utterly oblivious they are when it comes to their own boorishness; they will routinely express amazement that anyone was offended or just chalk up their opponent’s anger to over-sensitivity!!
the BM who “vulgarized”
discussion in the past must be some one else – I never intended to insult
any affiliate but it was pointed out to me that my references to prophets
(being wrong) were taken as insult and I have tried to be mindful of that.
This is a classic example of the aforementioned phenomenon. For those who don’t know, B.M. has been writing dozens upon dozens of posts for years that seemingly were explicitly designed to be as rude, condescending, and hurtful to Muslims as possible, culminating in calling the Prophet a “bat-blind illiterate”. And the toxic and incessant nature of his (along with 2 other persons’) posts has been the explicit reason multiple Muslims who used to contribute here refuse to have anything to do with this forum anymore. Nevertheless, it is clear that B.M. actually had no clue he was offending anyone!! He expresses genuine befuddlement as to how anyone was offended by what he wrote and still thinks he was censured by the editors simply for politely making references that the prophets were wrong!
3. The third reason believers often find themselves flustered by atheist arguments has to do with the naivety many believers possess. The average believer argues in good faith, making earnest attempts to acknowledge both the validity of their opponent’s arguments and the weaknesses in their own. For example, only the most biased believer will seek to deny the fact that atrocities are routinely committed in the name of religion. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are grievously pained by each new outrage perpetrated in the name of Islam and acknowledge these horrors freely.
Staunch atheists almost without exception do the exact opposite. Self-righteous affectations of non-biased reasoning notwithstanding, their impetus for debate is not an earnest search for truth, it is their irrational and obsessive hatred of the concept of God/religion. If some fact furthers their interest, they will dutifully report it. If some fact harms their case, they will resort to obfuscation. And if that is not sufficient, they will just start making stuff up. And they will do it such an assertive and confident manner that you almost feel they must be telling the truth! After all, their unshakable certitude has to be based on something, right? I know I don’t going around positively asserting things unless I am 100% sure. One has to almost train oneself to stop projecting one’s sincerity onto others before you notice the heads I win/ tails you lose game that is being played.
Let’s spend a little time analyzing part of my recent exchanges with B.M. First, he wrote…
If you had
said “despotic atheist” then your statement had some weight – but just
dead weight, because I do not know of any atheist ruler killing people for
being theists
Let this statement sink in for a moment. He is claiming he is unaware of any atheist ruler killing people for believing in God!!!! Can you imagine some Muslim coming on this forum and saying he is unaware of any Muslim ruler EVER killing people for being non-Muslim? There would be 3 responses calling that person an ignorant imbecile posted within 10 minutes! It is utterly inconceivable that a literate human being living in America during the existence of the Soviet Union, communist Poland, North Korea etc. could have never heard a single thing about the religious persecution undertaken by the explicitly atheistic governments there. So why did he make this statement? Was he blatantly lying, or just engaged in a massive amount of self-deception? I would guess the latter, but in the end what is the difference?
Anyway, I resisted the opportunity to mock him for such a ludicrously indefensible point and instead wrote…
You do not know of any atheist ruler killing people for being theists because you do not want to know, as it does not fit your preconceived notions of religion having an exclusive monopoly on religious intolerance. If you did want to know, then even the most cursory reading of history would be sufficient to demonstrate otherwise. Some other short snippets from Wikipedia…
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]
The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]
By 1939 over 99% of Russian Orthodox churches had been closed.[5] Under Krushchev, 50,000 clergy were executed and many of the church hierarchy was replaced by individuals who had connections with the KGB. In 1977, the constitution only allowed organizations that promoted Communism, which meant that religions were no longer allowed.[6]
In 1995, the Russian state commissioner confirmed that 200,000 Russian Orthodox Priests, monks, and nuns were killed.
Now one would think that this would be the end of the matter. I did not expect him to admit that atheist regimes have been the biggest scourge on believers in the history of mankind, but one would assume that any rational human being would feel compelled to at least concede the point that the existence of an atheistic secular regime does not guarantee religious freedom.
His response was as follows…
(by the way in colleges here any quote, from Wikipedia as fact, is not encouraged)
To conclude, arguing with the type of atheists you run into on the internet or maybe on a personal level can be challenging, as they are smart, mean-spirited, and nearly impervious to rational arguments that contradict their preconceived biases. I am not debating with them in some foolish attempt to change their opinions, but only to try and expose their modus operandi for the TF members (and if I can give them a little taste of what it is like to be on the receiving end of some condescension, so much the better) . Finally, I would strongly recommend the following books to those who find this topic interesting.
The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens
by Vox Day
The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
by David Berlinski
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
by Edward Feser
A.A.
B.M.,
You wrote:
About praising Chenghez Khan; It is said about wildfire too that it is
good for the land/terrain’s productivity. you are right that Chenghez is
remembered for barbaric conduct but it is also a fact that humanity
benefited in the long run by barbarians (Goths, Huns, Vikings, Mongols
…) routing Roman, British and French and the like empires. Those kings
and Sultan’s had really taken it to their heads* that they were divine or
half divine. How those kings gave death sentences or indulged in
atrocities is no less barbaric. There is a role of barbarians in ridding
the world of evil that those kings, Queens and our Sultans were.
Let’s do a little editing of this paragraph.
About praising ISIS/Taliban; It is said about wildfire too that it is
good for the land/terrain’s productivity. you are right that ISIS/Taliban is
known for barbaric conduct but it is also a fact that humanity
benefits in the long run by barbarians routing Saddam, Assad and Afghan warlord
like empires. How those dictators gave death sentences or indulged in
atrocities is no less barbaric. There is a role of barbarians in ridding
the world of evil that those dictators were.
Correct if I am wrong, but I doubt you are as enthusiastic about the second paragraph as you are the first. And in a nutshell, this little thought exercise exposes your expression of horror for the murder of innocents as the hypocritical self-serving fraud that it is. If believers kill people, you feign outrage, but only as this furthers your anti-religious jihad. If some non-religious group kills 10,000 times more people, then oh well, what can you do, sometimes you need to crack a few million eggs to make an omelet.
I don’t agree with any hard or soft “Secularization”
Again, you don’t agree simply because it makes it harder for you sweep under the rug the approximately 150 million people (I underestimated the body count the last post) atheist rulers murdered over the last century alone. You are going to need a bigger rug. It is secularism developed by theists that lead to places like America, while secularism imposed by atheists lead to places like North Korea. Reform-minded Muslims who are sick of the endless tragedies resulting from Muslim theocracy would be wise to keep this in mind.
About “Lack of fear of God” being the reason of barbaric actions; Not
agreed. “God” is created by man and used as a tool to commit horrendous
crimes against not only humans, but animals too. There is no proof that
any so called “wrath of God” was indeed God’s act but there are very
logical explanations of “wrath” if one only tries to break this spell and
learn a little bit about nature.
Not agreed? You don’t say! But I just would like to point out for the readers that you don’t even try to offer a substantive rebuttal. I do not blame you, the historical record of atheist states would make that a pretty tall order. Instead, you go completely off tangent and retreat to your comfort zone of smugly condescending boilerplate about how God is a childish delusion, the poor animals, blah blah blah. Did I mention anything about a proof of the wrath of God in my comment? If not, then why did you? For all the readers, take note, this is a standard tactic atheists employ. Most of their positions are logically indefensible, that is why they like to always be the ones attacking.
Lets hope that evil is
seen as evil in whatever name.
Now this is a statement that hopefully all people can agree on! However, coming from someone who seemingly can not stop singing the praises of Genghis Khan and Hitler, it ends up ringing a little hollow.
Please don’t think I admire Chenghez or Hitler but there is always the
other side too.
That train has already left the station I am afraid. A couple of people have commented on this issue, offering you the opportunity to walk back your comments in the naive belief that you just were not expressing your thoughts properly. Shoeb Amin may hope “that Babar Sahib got carried away in the heat of the arguments and that this does not reflect his true thinking”, but Shoeb Amin is just incorrectly projecting his inherent decency on others. You have doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on your sick beliefs that people are like underbrush that sometimes needs to get burned off to let the forest grow.
I hope people do not think your bloodthirsty outlook is just a strange peccadillo you happen to have. The MAJORITY of the rulers of atheist regimes over the 20th century engaged in mass-murder of their citizens. People generally read about people like Stalin and Pol Pot and assume they were almost like some comic-book villain, who kills just for the sake of killing. They also tend to think these types of events are a barbaric relic of the past, and could never happen today. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What is man? Is he ultimately the handiwork of a Just and Merciful God, imbued with something of His spirit? If so, then that forms an excellent foundation for the sanctity of human life and dignity. Or is man just a bunch of atoms that just happen to be temporarily arranged in a certain configuration as a result of some blind processes? And if so, where is the sanctity in that?
Add up a materialist outlook that offers no reason to sanctify the individual along with the conceit that society can be vastly improved on the condition that certain beliefs are eradicated (religious, economic, etc.), and voila, you have all you need for gulags and killing fields to get going. The only thing exceptional about Stalin, Pol Pot, and the rest is they had the means to turn their ideas into actions. If you had similar means, you would be no different. I have no doubt that you take this as some uncalled for cheap-shot, but your writings leave no doubt that it is entirely deserved.
A.A.
P.S.
I can’t help but count myself in Muslims – its like my nationality,
which is American now but I can’t cut off my roots. I hope this liberty
(atheist Muslim) is taken in the same sense as African American or Irish
American etc.
I think I can confidently speak for the entire umma when I say: Please stop doing this immediately. “Atheist Muslim” might share some syntactic similarities to African-American and the like, but ultimately is better grouped with phrases like “married bachelor” or “carnivorous vegetarian”. Your delusional conceit that you somehow remain one of us (despite the fact you hold our core beliefs in contempt and would probably kill us en masse if you ever reached the heights of power) is not appreciated at all.
As usual an excellent comment by A.A.
But sometime A.A also gets carried away like few other TF USA affiliates.
It is a lengthy comment so it needs time to digest important points and then respond.
#1.
I think A.A is being slightly unfair to B.M
A.A has attributed “bat blind” expression to B.M.
As far as I remember it was not B.M
A.A is mistakenly attributing this to B.M
Only B.M can verify whether it was him or somebody else.
.
#2
A.A does not differentiate between Atheism, Communism and Fascism.
He lumps these 3 categories together under ATHEISM which may not be intellectually appropriate.
.
Atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is an existential intellectual condition which is directly linked to the perplexing question whether UNIVERSE was ever created or it exists eternally.
Aristotle using pure logic was able to make this statement 2300 years ago that UNIVERSE cannot be created. It has to exist eternally otherwise we fall into the abyss of infinite regress.
Most modern cosmologists and theoretical physicists have come to the conclusion that UNIVERSE we exist in does not need a creator. Either it exists eternally or it created itself out of NOTHING.
We need to read some books on UNIVERSE published by top univerties.
Princeton, Cambridge etc. etc.
.
Communism was an ideology initiated by Karl Marx based on Hegelian dialecticism. It was supported by lot of intellectuals because it’s ultimate goal was Social Justice.
Communism used atheism as one of the tools to achieve its goals.
Communists were against all religions.
Karl Marx famous statement that all religions are opium for the masses.
It doesn’t mean they were necessarily atheists.
To see the negative impacts of religion on humanity is one thing, to be an atheist quite another.
.
To be an atheist is not easy.
A.A has mentioned in the early part of his comment that atheist are normally people with high IQ. At the end he says they may be irrational as well.
Why Communism failed is a differnt and complex discussion?
Hitler and Mosoulini were Fascists, not atheists. Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
At the end A.A has recommended three books which we should read for a healthy discussion about atheism.
.
A.A himself is an enlightened believer, therefore, he also gets carried away when he speaks against atheism.
Other than being unfair to B.M this was an excellent comment.
I would expect that other TF USA affiliates would say something about this comment by A.A.
Marwan Majzoob
…
I have reviewed my old email records (the post was edited on this website which was part of the reason I got confused), and it is true that B.M. was not the one who called the Prophet a “bat-blind illiterate”. I would like to offer a sincere apology to B.M. for the error and for unjustly castigating him for saying it.
I still stand by the rest of my comments though 🙂
A.A.
Since two very respected affiliates (Shoaib Sahib and Fayyaz Sahib) have been very kind and polite in objecting to my reference to Chenghez Khan’s brutality as benefiting in the long run, I would like to retract/withdraw my comment and would like to reiterate that I value every single life, in any form, very much. It is also a fact that I am in a rage due to the savage ISIS beheading innocent people and getting carried away is easy.
I truly don’t wish to deviate from the topic and respond to AA and I request him to just check out definitions of Secular and Atheist in any dictionary and he should stop getting angry on atheists or secularists due to his misconception.
Fayyaz Sahib, On JI I am not very happy for their ex-Amir dragging his feet on calling our army Jawans, who gave their lives, Shaheed but mourning Mehsood’d death. He could not have been alone in his party who think like this and also I don’t like this party for crying, ever since I remember, that Islam was in danger in Pakistan and now that Islam is actually being misused by terrorists they are secretly terrorist sympathizers.
You are right that Muslim Brotherhood should have completed their term in Egypt and not removed by force and I have always objected to USA’s policy of not recognizing Hamaz as well when they won elections. West has always used double standards and has also been unfair. I do get angry when Muslims blame all their failures on conspiracies by Zionists or Capitalist West; West has its own interests and they will try to make policies accordingly but when our people are used by them then its our fault not their’s. I hear all the time that ISIS is created by USA, my shame is that its none other than Muslims themselves who are engaged in sectarian conflict since 1400 years. How come Ottomans couldn’t get Catholics and Protestants go at each other…how in the world Christians and Jews are united against Muslims given the fact of massacres of Jews during crusades as well. Which ever way we dissect, the fact is that Christians and Jews (other than hard core Israelis) in the West have separated religion from states but Muslims can’t come out of this “whole way of life” Din, that must govern their every aspect of life.
Babar
Editor’s Note
Aziz’s comment is the last comment on this topic. The discussion is closed on this topic.