Promises of A Brave New World

Islamic world’s dilemma is that … over centuries collective Muslim understanding of Quran, role and interpretation of ahadith, and religion’s place in the political domain … have drifted and suffered at the hands of internal corrupt elements. These corrupt elements have exploited Islam for ulterior motives and selfish gains … while distorting its pure and simple teachings.

This corruption has injected in Islam steady doses of fanaticism, irrationality, political ambitions, and narrow interpretation of scripture. Superstition and irrational beliefs, over time, have overshadowed the message of Quran. Beliefs in prophets parting the ocean … raising the dead … being lifted to the sky with promises of returning to earth after thousands of years … turning sticks into snakes … being flown at night to meet God … have driven a wedge between rationality and religion.

Furthermore, clergy’s harsh position … when dealing with issues of human rights and liberties … has further alienated thinking, civilized, intelligent men. Islam has been manipulated … and Muslims are told … not to socialize with Jews and Christians … that jihad should be waged against polytheists … that it is ok to destroy statues of Buddha … that an Ahmadi reciting kalima should be sent to prison … that adulterers, apostates, and blasphemers should be killed … that wtc attacks were really a form of jihad against evil … that it is ok to beat women into wearing hijab …

As a result of this corruption … most intelligent men I know have become skeptical of religion, and justifiably so, see it as a ploy by the cunning clergy to secure positions of power and influence in the society. Consequently, the religious domain is dominated by men of questionable intelligence and/or dubious motives. These men write books … interpret Quran and ahadith … issue edicts of kuffr and death sentences over minor issues … while quietly merging their religious influence with political ambitions.

Such internal elements within Islam are the main cause of its downfall.

Dear Mr. Bavikatte:
Thank you, and you are most welcome. With regard to the issue of ``non-objectivity`` of Western science. Popper explains that such a value ``objectivity/nonobjectivity``, so far as Western Method, ie, method Western science is concerned - it has never existed, indeed cannot exist in the way many today percieve it - One does not just observe, a decision is made as to what to observe - this then is the point of view, the training, the non-objectivity, the observer brings with him/her to the process of, and observation itself. The issue of the ``non-objectivity`` is an essential part of the theory of contraction and expansion of Shariah. This theory is essential to a revival - one, that is based on reason. (Such an understanding, in my opinion, repositions the work the benevolent Imam Ghazzali - to the periphery, at least as far as the question of reason as a tool of construction and comprehension)
If you are interested, I will be more than happy to arrange an introduction for you with Dr. Mahmud and Ahmed Sadri, the translators, editors and critics/admirers of Soroush. Dr. Sadri will soon have his second volume of the works of Soroush available at book shops. By the way, in a conversation, Dr. Sadri had asked me if it was possible to arrange an invitation to Soroush from an institution in Pakistan, so that he may lecture and prepare works from Pakistan, was a glorious opportunity for Pakistan and Pakistanis to have such a scholar, once again, amongst them - unfortunately, I could provide no gaurantee for the safety of Soroush in Pakistan - itself a indictment of the quality of intellectual and spiritual endeavor, that mercifully is changing in Pakistan.
``is there nothing then that is transhistorical and divine??``.... See Soroush`s ``ethics of the gods`` - not a definite answer, and from my point, that`s what merciful about it - but a refutation of the position of logical postivists - and in this, we can see more clearly the hold of Popper on Soroush`s thinking.

Please, please explore with Chowkies the ideas on which the theory of hermenutic contraction and Expansion of Sharaiah is based on. It is central and important for us to understand.

.
kabir:

if you google you can access various sites on Sir Shaikh Muhammed Iqbal.

... try search under ‘iqbal poet philosopher’ here is one for the six lectures he delivered at the khuda baksh library in patna:

reconstruction of religious thought in islam:

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/index.htm


for your chosen canvas this space is too short…also i suspect chowk is the wrong medium for a serious and meaningful discussion without petty distractions…this you would have found by now:)

if you can bring yourself to ignore the nuances and tone it would have been interesting to learn of your take on sameerJB’s post #8...i would appreciate it very much if you can respond to the serious aspect of the criticism he levelled...

(sameer if you read this go to unplugged under academic later)

regards,

temporal

rgds,

t

Anaryan: Of course, there is nuffin more amusing. Unfortunately, no one has yet replied.

Does any Muslim know why our reward for not sleeping with 72 virgins is the chance to sleep with them forever?

Mr. Aryan has found a glitch in the Matrix methinks.

godot....American Express is 12 ++ head. And while he uses the name Aamir...he must in no way be confuzed with the aamir of Ansari, who is much more articulate and intelligent and does know what he`s talking `bout most of the time. Just so you know :)

AE, #40
It`s so funny you mention Ansari in your post!!! Aren`t two of you, among many others, the same?!!!!

Besides, what makes you think that you are ``mature`` to handle the site you mentioned, but not Drumz and Umer. From from I read, they are far better thinking persons than you...dude!!!! Now, don`t feel so guilty. You are destined for hell, any way! So, I say what the hell! Live it up!!!! Get that guilt out of your little 12-heads (which, by the way, don`t even equal to one normal head)!!!!!

Hobbes, thank you for enaging with the article despite its obvious length...I shall definitely check up on Mohammed Iqbal Lahori and Mohsen Kadivar....though I may have a hard time finding their writings where I reside currently....you are right about Popper`s influence on Soroush and Popper was sophisticated enough not to have missed out the philosophical and sociological value moorings of western science....Iam sure that Soroush was well aware of the non objectivity of natural science though from my reading of his writings he doesn`t dwell too much on it....hence the criticisms....nevertheless I could have misread him or missed some of his writings....finally, I agree with you about ``why the rush to define limits``, but as you can see, Soroush`s greatness lies in his ability to not merely engage the intelligentia but also the common people....he is models himself as an organic intellectual and hence takes upon himself the responsibility of addressing the fears of the ordinary muslim which is essentially that ``is there nothing then that is transhistorical and divine??``.....to do this effectively he may have to at least provide a set of hermenutic keys like Esack.....but again, this is merely my view of it.....once again, thank you for your efforts at enaging with the piece...Kabir

Prem#35

``Actually, the theorem that NO ideal society can ever exist was part of a dissertation I wrote some years ago. Begining with a few very basic assumptions, one can deductively prove this impossibility theorem``

Can you list the basic premise or the set of axioms from which the ``impossibility theorem`` follows. This is just an academic enquiry. I also have a line of thought basically inspired by Dawkins/Ridley that leads to a similar conclusion. BTW are you a social scientist?

#38 by DRUMZ on September 18, 2002 9:37pm PT
``though its not that hard to sh1t on theology.``

Yup. But doesn`t it make your day to hear an interesting explantion!

AmericanExpress: ``I think this article will fit in very nicely in there.``

I think ur corpse will fit nicely in a coffin.

Say my name again.

anaryan: LOL, though its not that hard to sh1t on theology.

A very warm welcome - readers are indebted to you, both for the lovely choice of topic and the excellent introduction you have offered to THE theme, that I am confindent will leads in direction most thoughtful and responsible Muslims will find themselves taking.

Speaking for myself, I thin k you have done a great service to readers, please do not be put off with silly remarks about the length of the piece, Chowk has an abundance of Literary criicis (self styled) - what`s important are multiplicity of doors, of avenues, for us to explore.

Liberation theology? Yes, well, that is certainly one way to interpret, to infuse this dialogue with a particular streak of thought; other ways of looking at this phenonmenon would not necessaruly arrive at ``liberation`` theology asa characterization - but then, that precisely the point - we cast open all doors, and through each, flooding streams of light representing different schools of thought - however; the essence of each is reason; and this is the single most important aspect to realize.

The list of Reformers that does not include Allahmah Mohammed Iqbal lahori and his ``Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam`` is a disservice and Mohsen kadivar deserves attention in this work and his absence is a criticism of this work. To the detractors of Soroush, one must ask, what is the rush? why the urgency to define limits, why shall we not take our time to explore and study, does the the subject not warrant considered, scholarly debate and study? As for his ``naivete`` in with regard to the value ladenness of Western Science`` - a characterization of science Soroush would have a difficult time time - The influence of Popper and Quine on Soroush and his writing is such that to offer as a criticism the suggestion the Sorush is ``naive`` when it comes to the value ladenness of science of Science , is to deny the influence of both Popper and Quine; it is an uninformed criticism.

So delicious are the themes in your work and so important to us, to discover, to debate, to explore - if anything, you have been too brief.
Chowk readers are yet to understand fully, what ``secularization`` is and who it is different from ``secularism`` - or even what the intellectual foundation of this inquiry with Islam is or even the intellectual and ethical founcdations of Democracy. Perhaps readers will find these worthy of exploration.

Asif,

Thanks for your reply. One rarely comes across people with such strong conviction.

Reg. the HereAfter:

The Quran asks of good muslims to exercise self-control in this world so that they may freak-out in the next doing the EXACT same things (sex, etc). What exactly is the point?

Is there a HereAfter-HereAfter? Since man seeks pleasure in this world and **ALSO** the next, the basic framework of both worlds seems to be the same - seeking more intense pleasure.

So what happens if we manage to control ourselves in the HereAfter also?

Can we have a still greater time in the HereAfter-HereAfter?

thx,

re: Shankar # 26

With you permission, Shankar, I will rephrase your statement in a more general context:

THE IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM:

NO ideal society can exist....it never has and never will.

Corollary 1: Those who are fanatically obsessed with creating an ``ideal`` society invariably end up replicating veritable hell on earth.

Corollary 2: Systems that can create a tolerably human value system only when they are ``perfectly`` implemented will always lag behind systems that can do so even as they are imperfectly implemented.

Corollary 3: Everytime you meet someone who claims that all the troubles X, Y, Or Z are facing are because system A, B, C, has not been ``perfectly`` or totally implemented, you can be sure you are confronting either a fool or a fascist.

Cheers.

P.S. Actually, the theorem that NO ideal society can ever exist was part of a dissertation I wrote some years ago. Begining with a few very basic assumptions, one can deductively prove this impossibility theorem. But this is neither the place nor the time to do so.

Let me explain. ``Poverty is my pride``--the scholars say that the poverty in this hadith (``faqr``) does not mean material poverty but the total lack of covetnous for the things of this world so that whether you have or do not have you are happy in your state; the actualisation of the belief that nothing really belongs to man--everything in reality belongs to Him (azza wa jalla-Glorious is He!) .so that one gives thanks to Him at all times and in all states. It is desiring nothing but Allah whether you have material wealth or not. As Urstruly pointed out Islam also instructs Muslims to take care of the basic needs of all Muslims. Hazrat Umar`s famous remark that I will consider myself responsible before Allah if even a dog under my jurisdiction is hungry! The Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam despite being the Beloved of Allah preferred to live a simple life--not out of necessity but out of choice! If he (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) had wished Allah could have given him all the treasures of the Universe--but he preferred to go hungry one time and eat one time; thus he ate only once a day when he did eat and he often spent long periods of time in voluntary fasting! subhan Allah! As he said alayhisalatuwasalam that I do sabr when I don`t eat and I give thanks to Allah when I do. At the same time many of the Companions had great material wealth--Islam is not communism!-- but they did not COVET this wealth. If they lost it all suddenly there spiritual state would not change. Hazrat Abu Bakr was the caliph of a vast caliphate--yet he only owned a pair of suits which he wore all the time which had many patxhes sewn on to them. The same for the other righteous caliphs and also Umar ibn Abd al Aziz (radhi Allah anhum). So having material wealth isn`t a crime in Islam. This `poverty` is a spiritual state of total contentment with whatever Allah has ordained for one. The word faqir actually derives from it: faqr. Many of the greatest Sufi saints were from very rich and even aristocratic backgrounds yet this wealth and this world had no value in their eyes. There is a saying--I am not sure if it is a hadith or a famous saying of the Sufis--that the world runs away from those who chase after it and it runs after those who do not want it! Thus the object always--as Imam Hamza has also said--for Muslims must be to always seek the pleasure of Allah and when we do that--as a side-effect of that Allah will bestow on us worldy glory too but THIS WORLDLY GLORY IS NOT THE GOAL!

When Muslims sought Allah and the Afterworld, Allah blessed us with glory and respect in this world too; when we forgot Him and began to chase after this duniya--the Duniya disgraced us!

We must remember the hadith: For the Believers this world is a prison and for the Unbelievers it is a paradise!

**
A poor Jewish beggar once saw this Muslim lord riding on his horse dressed in pomp and glory and looking the picture of wealth. So the jew stopped him and said that the hadith must be wrong (meaning the above hadith) because look at you you have all this wealth etc and are a Muslim but I am an Unbeliever and yet I am so poor! How can this be my paradise and your prison? The Muslim replied: Compared to what you will have in the Afterlife this state of yours now will seem like a paradise and compared to the blessings I will have (as a Muslim) in the Next life this wealth etc will seem like a prison!

***

I doubt if anyone actually read this longass article. Sameerjb too seems to have splattered his vomit without reading it :-))

Naqashbandi, I agree with your views on Hamza Yusuf.