Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
Sign in to follow this  
Safaa

What went worng

Recommended Posts

This is the third round of this debate.. Please find the previous one under http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=729

 

This part is about the big question , what went wrong with Islam to have the current main stream one that looks so ugly and out of Quranic context..

 

###################################################

 

 

 

 

From : Safaa

Sent : Monday, October 30, 2006 10:28 PM

Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD

 

Ala,

 

 

 

You wrote

"I would say that the evolution/regression of Islam to its current version isn't the evolution of Islam as such but the evolution/regression of whoever is fond of it and defend it for all sort of reasons. Subsequently, Islam evolution/regression became an extension of the psychology of those people, i.e. an extension of human psychology. In other words, muslims as humans cannot escape the desire to control, to dominate, to raise their self-esteem, to tolerate things and not others...etc as attempts to feel better about themselves, but humans have less perception of how to seek self realization/actualization or self-fulfillment through life experiences which (i.e. self-realization) can be enhanced by some aspects of religion as the sufis may have done
"

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to ask a question..

 

If all what we talked about was the decoupling, tolerance and ration of what the Quran was calling for and what Mohamed wanted to implement, then what had happened to twist all this in the completely other direction. In other word, what happened to make the main current stream of Islam so irrational ..

 

Cheers

 

Safaa

 

 

 

#############################################################

 

 

From : ala

Sent : Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:24 PM

Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD

 

This is terribly good question since it doesn't exploit the benign initial intention of Quran to assume a guaranteed better development of the current version of Islam.

 

It appears that one of the reasons can be traced to the dominant influence of cultural/biological/psychological factors over the Quranic instructional and spiritual factors during the process of our social development. In other words, we, humans, though are more tempted to follow a particular religious path to set some religious discipline ( to recover from emotional crisis, for instance) in our lives we are also tempted to develop capacities to meet our cultural/biological/psychological needs. The forces involved in such conflicting process are more in favour of the cultural/biological/psychological needs which subsequently developing to meet the humans’ desires and physical needs, but then you may argue by saying that religious/spiritual factors can be part of the cultural set of factors and that where we suggest that cultural/biological/psychological factors dominate leaving humans to develop in-line with our psychological/biological desires more than the spiritual ones. For example our hunter and gatherer ancestors’ societies suggest the need for dominant/aggressive male for secure food for instance for the family, so earlier societies including the west develop religions that let male’s domination as a normal course of action. Following this line of reasoning we can conclude that for instance hijab can be seen as a gesture of male subjugation of female to maintain a biological set up that prevent the attraction of other male to his (a particular male) female and to guarantee the production of offsprings for this female……..Salam Ala

 

 

 

################################################################

 

 

From : Safaa

Sent : Saturday, November 4, 2006 1:26 AM

Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... What went wrong

 

 

 

 

Ala,

While fully agreeing with the personal factors in drawing the collective Social and religious beliefs and thoughts, I would also put the Social-economic factors as the real reason behind the early evolution in Islam. Which, I think, governed the main stream Islam till now.

Islam had also brought its own conflict in a dialectic Hegelian paradigm...

Under severe poor deserted Arabia, calling for peace and prohibiting Ghazoo" attacks" that Arab Bedouins were used to in their life survival, early Muslims were in natural need to develop a new paradigm of survival... Some of their leaders thought it to be through attacking other non Muslim neighbors under a big umbrella of spreading Islam...

Such survival mechanisms found itself through the transformation of Islam from the religion of people to the State of religion. A transformation that necessitate a big evolution in the theological and Social believes. One can easily trace such evolution with the creation of the Khaliefa position after the death of Mohamed. A central position that is critically needed to run the new absolute religious state that ruled Muslims for next fourteen centuries. If you look deeply into that political change, you might end up with a whole new set of teachings that are based on the core teachings of Quran but to steer it into completely different direction. For example, the self centric Islam is now the nation "Ummah" centric one. Also in order to facilitate the new strong central government, the notion of absolute obedience to the Khalief became part of Islam pillars... The message of defense ONLY fight by Quran would be replaced by aggression under the spreading of Islam. The tolerance was replaced by cruelty...

 

Such a transformation was not without opposition by those who failed to understand such necessity. Some had refused it considering it as non Islamic such as those who refused to admit to the new Khaleef "Ahel rida" . They were fought to death as we know. Though might be in agree with the new system, others asked to implement it in some other ways that have some religious legitimacy, these were Ali's party "Alrawafid".

 

Such change had also generated a new set of thoughts on how to interpret Quran and deal with Mohamed and his Successors "Khalief". Instituting the absolute power of the Khlaif necessitates the absolute power of the original source "the prophet"..

From there the Sunna of Mohamed became sacred to the same level of Quran, and so the Sunna of the Khaleefs for Sunnis and Imams for Shia.

Abo Baker was quoted in his first speech as Khaleef

 

QUOTE

"I am the successor of GOD"
one disgraced Muslim immediately jumped in

 

QUOTE

" you are the successor of the prophet, we appoint you and we have the right to change that"..

 

The old highly spiritual Khaleef agreed, but later on, his successors went too far to consider them selves as equivalent to GOD him/herself!

 

Inorder to give legitimacy to the Khaleef, the sacred prophet biography "sunna" was much easier to manipulate and to be used to re interept Quran itself. The notion of secrecy was extended later to include the early companions too, specially those who agreed to this new paradigm. I don't know if such sacrecy was known during Mohamed life. Muslims used to question him “Is it from you or from Allah?"

 

The conflict had ended up with two parties in action, those who believe in using mind to interpret Quran and Islam against those who believed in using same mind but in following the formers "Takleed".. The leader of the first , Ali, was quoted when some of his followers asked him to comply with Maweia's call during Safeen war for judging per the Quran,

 

QUOTE

" Damn you, it is a text in the book , It is people who interpret to theirs" .

 

 

The later finaly won while the first's groups were brutally fought. They either got extinct "e.g. Muatazilis and Failasoofs" or got evolved in much more irrational paradigms of Welaya and sacred Imama "e.g. Sofi and Shia" .

 

Let me know your comment on this. It is important to examine my thoughts from different prospective before step further into this very interesting subject that I think critical in understanding our current problems...

 

Cheers

Safaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you make it sound so complex.

It is not.

 

You make it sound like something that happenned only in the past.

It is not.

 

It is simple and it is happenning right now. When the power of politics combines with the power of religion then it is more than one institution can bear. The institution becomes intoxicated with power and begins to wield religion as a weapon. It happenned to Christianity before and it is happening to Islam now. It is not some distant memory of 800 years ago. It is here. It is today. It is now. It is not the outcome of some Imams long since dead. It is the power and the product of the people who lead you today. They did not inherit this power from ancestors that are now dust. They take this power from you. They do not have an iron grip upon this power. It is held only through your silence and cooperation on Friday. It is you who give them power. It is your choice to challenge them in the name of Islam or remain silent as they use it to achieve political goals. The failing is not of Islam or of your leaders. The failing is of common Moslems who do not defend Islam from its greatest enemy .... other Moslems who covet power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moron99

Please be patient.. We are getting there soon..addressing all of your points.

 

 

 

 

#####################################################

 

From : ala

Sent : Saturday, November 4, 2006 3:46 PM

Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... What went wrong

 

 

Your analysis is based on historical events which has one focal point and that is the transition of Islam from the religion of people to the religion of state where the necessity for Khaleefas had been created. As for the socio-economic factors to me they are extension or elaboration of human biological/psychological survival needs...............I am not going to comment yet, just to give others space to have their input which you may need most at the moment..............Salam Ala

 

#######################################################

 

 

 

From : ala

Sent : Tuesday, November 7, 2006 12:12 PM

To : Safaa

 

Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... What went wrong

 

 

This is a little comment on some of the points you've mentioned. Your analysis though interesting but we need to dig deeper to get to the bottom of the matter.

 

(((((I would also put the Social-economic factors as the real reason behind the early evolution in Islam. Which I think governed the main stream Islam till now.

Islam had also brought its own conflict in a dialectic Hegel paradigm...

Under sever Poor deserted Arabia, calling for peace and prohibiting Ghazoo"

attacks" that Arab Bedouins were used to in their life survival, Early

Muslims were in natural need to develop a new paradigm of survival... Some

of their leaders thought it to be through attacking other non Muslim

neighbors under big umbrella of spreading Islam. Such survival mechanism found itself through the transformation of Islam from the religion of people to the religion of State. ))))))

 

This is simply a proof of the domination of psychological/biological factors over spiritual/religious ones (which we sort of agreed on). Muslims of the days targeting non-muslims was to meet the psychological/biological needs but masked by religious ones. In other words, Muslims regarded the invasion/conquering as a vital tool for their psychological/biological survival but that was coupled with the destruction of non-muslims communities to make two edged sword, one edge was used for the psychological/biological survival and the other edge was to annihilate the competitive non-Muslims rivals (Mushrekeen and Jews); but this still be fine but the question is why or what makes such strategy lasted and practised till our current days without any attempt to move away from it despite seen other nations had/have done so? i.e. why Muslims still use the strategy of elimination and invasion to get what they want? Mohammad himself used invasion and conquering very often to dominate the area of Arabia and impose Islam (Mohammad may have been right to do so as a powerful survival mechanism) and it is his acts of those days that maintained the same stand till today and not the later development of the Khaleefas as you've suggested. I can not see how he (Mohammad) justified it assuming that Quran prohibit it as some suggests. I think Quran didn't explicitly prohibit invasion or conquering. There are a lot of mixed messages in the Quran about this issue.

 

Your conclusion may seem solely based on skipping the need for the basic human's drives to survive psychological/biologically and going for the necessity of having a Khaleefa which wouldn't be seen as a survival element in the dynamics and the process of evolution/regression of Islam !!!!!!!!!!!!......Salam Ala

 

#########################################################

From: Safaa

 

Ala,

You brought two very interesting points

 

Why Muslims kept the course of ideology of domination and superior mentality till today

Mohamed him self used invasion and conquering to achieve his goals...

 

Let me first comment on the second point .. I don't want to look a defiant here, but reading through Quran , I never ran into any call that would clearly support such accepting invasion and conquer. However, reading through main stream Islam scholar books and specially what is claimed to be " Sunna Hadith and Seira" of Mohamed's sayings , such call is very clear.

 

According to my previous hypothesis of evolution , such conflict should be expected. If you read through my earlier reply, you might find that a whole new set of teachings were needed to be implemented after the death of Mohamed to support the aggression survival. Quran wordings were difficult to be manipulated by those early Muslims for different reasons, however the Mohamed's personal talks and behaviors are much easier to play with and would also be used to manipulate the interpretation of Quran.. I have many examples of such twist in interpretation that are nothing but based on Mohamed's hadith or behaviors, some went far to the extent that I failed to find correlation to the wordings.... We need to remember that Mohamed him self had prohibited documenting his talks, in order not to be mixed with Quran "Another prove that he didn't consider them sacred". The first "Sehah of hadith" of Mohamed sayings was "officially" archived more than two hundreds years after his death under absolute power of state of religion that would for sure drive it into it's benefits.. Till today Muslims don't agree on final list of which one of these sayings are absolutely authentic. Not between Shia and Sunni but also among within same sect too. Some specialists sarcaticly complained that Abo Huraira " Amaweed closest" had narrated a number of Hadiths that would take more than life time of Mohamed to say them.

 

If we agree that Quran is the only authentic undisputed " within Muslims" version of Mohamed teachings, then we need to be careful with any Mohamed's claimed calls that contradict Quran. I already went into details about this in the first round of this debate.

You might think that I am going too far with in my accusation to those early Muslims in their twisting to Mohamed's calls. I would convince myself by recalling that they had slaughtered his beloved grand sons and shell Mecca with Manjanik and storm his tomb in Medina through political struggle. Is it hard for them to twist sayings in order to support their religious reasoning for conquer?

 

 

I will keep for now the other most interesting point of why Muslims had kept such old survival mentality till now.. It is a whole subject by itself that all this discussion should be about .. I want to push it to the end and after we come up with a common understanding on what had happened

 

 

..

Any how I would like to hear from you and others .. The whole idea of this debate is to examine each other thought in order to get into some better understanding to our current problems with absolute domination of what is called main stream Islam, on our social and religious concepts, if any!!

 

Cheers

Safaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From : Zahir

Sent : Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:29 AM

 

Subject : Re: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... What went wrong

 

 

 

 

Dear Ala & Safa,

 

This is an interesting debate that I was following in the past few months and if you don't mind, I would like to add something that could make some value to the already rich discussion.

 

I don't believe that an idea, any idea, can be adopted, implemented and fully understood by its followers in the life of its creator or messenger. This is true for the different philosophies, ideologies and values made by different philosophers, leaders and thinkers. You can have many examples in your mind so I wouldn’t elaborate on this. So you need a time to absorb and understand. A time for a trial and error. A time for adjusting the interpretation.

 

The point that I would like to say, with the prophet’s 23 years of message, we can conclude that there were many people joining Islam for different reasons. Knowing the facts the masses in the Arabian peninsula became Muslims after the Mecca’s Fat’h which was in Ramadhan of 9th Hijri while the Prophet’s death was on 11th Hijri. This gives us a good indication on the level of understanding of Islam by Muslims at that time.

 

The factors affected the later events can be both personal interpretation of Islamic values or the ambition of the first and the following generations of Muslims (power and money).

 

To give you a good example on this, is the reason behind the RIDDAH wars during Abu Baker rule. As we all know, Muslims fought all the tribes that refused to give ZEKAH to BAYT EL-MAL, or the state treasury at that time, calling them MURTADDEEN. In reality, ZEKAH, during the prophet time was taken from the rich to the poor of the same tribe. The prophet was sending messengers and representatives to these tribes teaching them how to calculate ZEKAH and to distribute this charity to the needy among the members of the same tribe. Arabs accepted this new taxation on the riches as the money was not going to somewhere outside the tribe. Abu Baker, thought that it would be better to get the ZEKAH from these tribes to BAYT EL-MAL, to boost the state power in distributing that wealth. In reality, poor people not in Madenah or Mecca were hardly getting anything from that wealth because it wasn’t enough and it was distributed into some other activities.

 

You may say, we are talking about the way Abu Baker interpreted of Islamic practice and rule, who was among the first Muslims. I'm not questioning the sincerity of the Abu Baker in implementing these values as sincerity has nothing to do with understanding.

 

 

Yours

 

 

Zahir

 

#########################################################

 

From : ala

Sent : Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:08 PM

 

Subject : Re: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... What went wrong

 

 

 

Zahir...Delighted to see your solid contribution to this debate/discussion/disagreement/agreement/chat/talk or it may be a battle of thoughts to find a truth (not the truth) ...etc.

 

I can simply say that I can go along with your idea of interpretation/misinterpretation/, progression/regression....etc of the initial ideas/ideologies/doctrine...etc into something that may not reflect the original intention of the thought, as in the message of God had taken different path from what it intended. But what I would like to say is that we still need to find/explore reasons behind Islam's regression (that is my perception but can be a progression in the eyes of others) in many social respects for instance. Of course my perception of regression is measured by the criteria of the most humane system of Thoughts (i.e. liberal democracy) that is capable of developing human's potential to its max as we perceived it now. Therefore, I would like to add to your account this: yes...there may be factors that caused the regression of Islamic practises that were related to the interpretation of Quran or Mohammad's views at the time (e.g. Abo Bak'r interpretation of Zeka tax), but why did that happen? and the possible answer is, as you briefly mentioned, seeking power/recognition..etc and that in itself (seeking power and recognition) can be seen as psychological/biological factor and not religious factor!!!! In other words again, psychological/biological factor do dominate human's behaviour and any masking of them by religious/spiritual facade wouldn't make the real factors beyond the psychological/biological scope, therefore Mohammad's initiation of invasion and conquering, of Mushrekeen and Jews, is valid and that makes Islamic practises like any other human's desire nothing more nothing less, so we, as human, still under the influence of human instincts and experiences rather than the fear of higher and abstract authority.

 

Good to hear from you Zahir and I hope I got your point...now dear Safa and Zahir it is over to you if you like and have the time to respond................Salam Ala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...