Promises of A Brave New World

Is this tailormade by hobbes or for hobbes?
Why not choose the better path than reforming Islam by not reforming it. accepting it the way it is and then taking a shower and letting it go down the drain with other dirt. Decreasing its importance in life than reforming it is a better alternate for a lay Muslim.

Even Allah doesnt have enuff time to read that.

p.s. it just occurs to me that had I used the print feature on chowk rather than the one i used, it would have been less pages...just thought I`d correct my own folly, before someone else dares to do so!!!! cheerio!

....this article is far too long...more like a mini-dissertation, and in order for those of us on the run who print out articles to read, and comment on later...this printed on twenty-three pages...the poor tree :) Will comment more on it later...now that I have used up my print quota for the daaaay!

DRUMZy...#1
:)
Something tells me that Allah has already read this!!! Allah, the Omnipotent, the Merciful, the Compassionate one. And if Allah hasn`t read this, some less intelligent so-called humans are bound to...you know who they are!

Sanjay:

First a warm welcome to chowk…and hope you are well loricated!…this is a very timely and much needed article…and hopefully the debate that will follow here will not degenerate into entrenched and useless name calling.

Quickly read this…but this deserves a detailed and lesiurely read…ocmments will have to wait…but this for CHOWK EDITORS…in this new format…the ‘shelf’ life of a new article has been diminished to five to seven days on page one … this is an unfair time frame for an article of this nature…here are two suggestions to alleviate this problem…

1: insert a flasher between ‘article” and >> saying click >> to get full list which will take the browser to the list of current twenty articles

or

2: Leave this on page one for a longer time frame

rgds,

t

Sanjay,
Guyana sounds like an interesting place to be.
Regards.

Around three or four so-called Muslim scholars have taken every generation of Muslims for a downhill ride. The four people mentioned in this article are meant for the current generation`s ride. The previous generation was taken for a ride by Maudoodi, Khomeini, Syed Qit`b, Hassan Al-Banna. The one begore that was taken for a ride by Iqbal, Afghani, Mehdi Sudani and Ali Sharia`ati. And the one before that by the likes of Ali brothers. When are Muslim going to learn from the past mistakes for allowing such figures to cntrol their destinies?

Do we have similar three four Christians taking Christians or four Hindus taking Hindus for a downhill ride every generation.

Fact is that Islam never needed thinkers and philosophers; it needed invaders. It is a model that requires continuous expansion and forced submissions otherwise it is very static, frozen in time model. Therefore it can not be compared with other subjects and disciplines that are dynamic, evolving and changing. Any discussion of one static and frozen model with many liquid and dynamic models is useless. The only thing Islam can be compared with is the outcome in the form of its followers - the Muslims. Compare Islam and Muslims and not Islam and science or technology. Most successful Muslims are more distanced from Islam, at least that is my observation in sciences. Similarly most famous Christian scientists are more distanced from Christianity. I wonder why?

There is an inverse relationship between speaking a lot and knowing what ur talking about. Too many people speak on topics they can`t master (to master is to understand from different positions: NEVER just ur own).

One should speak on that which he has control over. This is almost always ONLY related to an issue involving that person. Otherwise she has to invoke silly articles and the opinions of others.

When the issue of religion has to do with something other then the following of one`s conscious, u can bet that the speaker has little understanding over what shes saying.

Its a lil funny that Everyone wants to find the pulse of this and try to pinpoint why millions believe in that. Who cares about why u think Islam is bullsh1t or great. The only thing that is worth talking about is U.

Re: Sanjay Kabir Bavikatte

First of all ``welcome`` to Chowk, with hopes that you will continue to contribute to the debate at Chowk.

I used to think that my artices were long, but this is one for the record books.

Ciao

Sameer # 8

Have to agree with you.
At a basic level, Science is about experiments , setting up of hypotheses and proving and disproving them , an ideal scientist is a seeker for the sake of knowledge one who cannot assume or cannot go by perosnal likes / dislikes.

Any model that assumes the result will not hold good , it may have its moments of glory but only because by chance it assumptions are matched by the results.

I hate to say this , even the so-called renaissance of Arab civilisation was not so much the outcome of Arabs as much as it was the contribution of Jews, Persians , Indians and Chinese of that time.

seeing the length and the breadth of this article -- one is reminded/cautioned by ghalib -- iss mazmooN ko purhne keliye ek oomr chahiye -- kaun jeeta hai teri zullf ke sur hone tuk.

All this scholarship to revive a half dead horse?

if we will only learn from the largest and the most innovatively successful community of the world -- how they have quarantined God and his gentle Son to an air-conditioned comfortable Church -- visit Him once a week -- and spend the rest of the week in carpentering a PARADISE on this earth with their Science and Technology -- for EVERYBODY -- including the God`s `favorites` -- the Muslim folks.

And the way the Christian folks are faring in 2002 -- their God MUST be VERY happy with them for that special treatment.

hasan

````Around three or four so-called Muslim scholars have taken every generation of Muslims for a downhill ride. The four people mentioned in this article are meant for the current generation`s ride. The previous generation was taken for a ride by Maudoodi, Khomeini, Syed Qit`b, Hassan Al-Banna. The one begore that was taken for a ride by Iqbal, Afghani, Mehdi Sudani and Ali Sharia`ati. And the one before that by the likes of Ali brothers. When are Muslim going to learn from the past mistakes for allowing such figures to cntrol their destinies?``(sameerjb)

True indeed. Couldn`t be said any better.

these are exactly the gentlmen who had -- bahre Zulmat meiN dauRaa diye ghorey hum ney -- and drowned the whole `Ummah` riding those ghoreys -- in that ``bahre Zulmat``-- never to surface again in the modern world.

nasah #13:

it almost seems from your post that your thinking and that of many other Muslims I have come across seems to go something like this:
Muslims as a whole are a lot poorer and technologically backward than the Judaeo-Christian world therefore they must be on Truth!
Naudhubillah! Since when has material wealth and well-being been a sign of being on Truth?! Nimrod ruled the world--yet a single person was sent to confront him: Hazrat Ibrahim alayhisalam --who was not wealthy and lived a most simple and austere life! Yet he was on Haqq; Pharaoh had masses of wealth and armies--Musa alayhisalam had a simple tent in which he and his followers stayed! Yet Musa alayhisalam were on Haqq!
The pagan Quraysh of Makkah had much wealth and pomp--Huzoor Paak alayhisalatuwasalam and Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq were alone and had nothing to eat except what Hazrat Aasiyah bint Abu Bakr could bring them as they hid in the cave--yet they were on Haqq! Yazid Paleed had vast wealth and a large army whilst Imam Husayn alayhisalam and his followers didn`t even have water to drink--yet they were on Haqq! Etc etc.

Outward material wealth has never been of much value in the eyes of God--and Muslims must never take it as a measure of Truth or not! This is our great tragedy that we now judge the truth or not of a group or ideology by the material well-being of its adherents whereas Our Aaqa alayhisalatuwasalam said, Poverty is my pride! (The scholars and Sufis have understood this `poverty` to mean the lack of desire of worldy things beyond ones basic needs).

So just cos the Muslims are poor now doesn`t make our Religion any less True and correct than it was when we were rulers of a vast caliphate from Timbuktu to Delhi!

When Muslims re-learn THAT again will be the day we rise again...
Iqbal stated it beautifully in his Jawab e Shikwa...

Seems like an interesting article--but WAY too long --I will read all of it perhaps later if I have the time and energy.

I am not sure about all of these ``reformers``--but Esack`s misguidance has been answered by Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad (TJ Winter). I will try to dig up the relevant-quite short article- if I can and post it on here.

All I will say is that what these modernists and reformers etc have to understand is that Islam does not *need* REFORMERS but what it DOES need are REVIVERS (mujaddids) as Islam is complete and not in need of reform but revival and that is why Allah has promised to send at least one reviver (mujaddid) in every Islamic century to revive the religion and its practise amongst the Muslims. Who is the reviver (mujaddid) of the current Islamic century? Allahu `alam. As for the 14th century hijri opinions vary but two are Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Barelvi and Shaykh Sayyid Yusuf al-Nabahani rahmatullah alayhuma.

The difference between revivers and reformers is that revivers are always from within the Traditional Islamic world whereas reformers--infuenced by some world situation eg Western cultural domination in the 19th/20th century over the Muslims--try to change the religion to fit into whatever the latest perceived wisdom is! Revivers--almost always awliya as well as great ulama--change the condition of the Muslims and make them return to practising Islam. Sir Ahmad Khan Aligari was a reformer who was so impressed and overwhelmed by British culture that he tried to change Islam so that it was in line with what Western science at that time understood to be factual! Thus he and his Necharis were resisted tooth and nail by the Traditional Muslims of India eg Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Rida Khan and Hazrat Haji Imdad Ullah Muhajjir Makki. The reformers always depart from recognised understandings within Islamic theology etc. for example for the Necharis hell and heaven were not actual physical places but names for conditions of the human state (!) and jinns were electromagnetic forces!!

In the opinion of Traditionalists Islam has no greater danger than these reformers!

As for the revivers--they are mentioned in the hadith. Perhaps the most famous of all revivers has been Mujaddid Alf al Thani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi Naqshbandi who revived Islam when it was in danger from the heretical policies of Akbar. (Mujaddid Alf al Thani = The REviver of the Second (Islamic) Millenium).

**
As for Allama Iqbal--although I disagree with many of his ideas--I am also a great admirer of him as he was a great lover of Islam and the Muslims and especially of Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. His heart burned with a passionate love. His poetry is testamony to that.

Ki Muhammad se wafa tu ne to Hum tere hain
Yeh jahan cheez hai kya, loH o Qalam tere hain!
**

Also Iqbal although initially enamoured of many things Western changed his position later in life as his thought matured. eg the subtitle of his work Zarb e Kaleem is Yaani Maghrib kay khilaaf ilaan e jang!
**
His Israr e Khudi, Javid Namah, Remuz e Baykhudi, Zabur e Ajam and Urdu works especially Bal e Jibreel are masterpieces of world literature and permeated throughout with Sufism--though in his unique form.

**
Dar dil e Muslim maqam e Mustafa ast

Aabru e ma zi nam e Mustafa ast.``

(sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)

Muslims don`t need reformers we need Revivers! Allah knows best but I wouldn`t be surprised if one of the Revivers of this current century (Hijri) turned out to be Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

sanjay...
welcome to chowk...this is your first article so just know (if you didn`t already) that you will get responses ranging from the positive to the positively degenerative, hopefully the latter will not be the case.

Lots of chowkwallahs have been complaining about the length, including moi to some extent...this could be remedied in a few ways, but I just wanted, with your permission, to point out one: i wonder if it is really all that necessary to write mini-biographies of the `intellectuals` whose competing visions you are describing. The main focus afterall is on the visions, no? Perhaps a phrase or two about them inserted at some point of the positions you are describing, OR an endnote/footnote at the end referring us to information about them would be more helpful?