Archive for the ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ Category

Declare–Rakhine–an Independent Rohingya Muslims State.

September 11, 2017

 

Rohingyas are living in Myanmar since 8th Century. A most persecuted Muslim minority since 2013 UN.The Rohingya faced Military crackdown in 1978,1991,1992, 2012, 2015 and NOW in 2016–2017. UN officials and HRW have described Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya as ethnic cleansing, while there have been warnings of an unfolding genocide.

 

Accession into Pakistan.

During the Pakistan Movement in the 1940s, Rohingya Muslims in western Burma organized a separatist movement to merge the region into East Pakistan. Before the Independence of Burma in January 1948, Muslim leaders from Arakan addressed themselves to Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked his assistance in incorporating the Mayu region to Pakistan considering their religious affinity and geographical proximity with East Pakistan. The North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (modern Sittwe) two months later. The proposal never materialized since it was reportedly turned down by Jinnah, saying that he was not in a position to interfere into Burmese matters. After Jinnah’s refusal to accept northern Arakan into the Dominion of Pakistan, some Rohingya elders who supported a Jihad movement founded the Mujahid party in northern Arakan in 1947. The aim of the Mujahid party was to create an autonomous Muslim state in Arakan.

There are 103 million in and around Myanmar and about 105 million spread in other countries.

Yanghee Lee, the UN special investigator on Myanmar, believes the country wants to expel its entire Rohingya population.

 If UN can declare—East Taimour—& —South Sudan— for Christians, why not –Rakhine— for Rohingya Muslims?

Advertisements

Which Morality—Modern or Virtuous–is Right?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (by Shakir Mumtaz January 2017)

(Morality based on common sense! Can common sense be trusted? Ethical Egoism says that “One person’s common sense may be another person’s naïve platitude” It is also called “revisionist theory” for it declares that “our common sense moral views may be mistaken, therefore, need to be changed”)

Morality predicates every facet of human life. It has always been, fervently, debated by the scholars and thinkers of almost all the societies, as to what constitutes morality, what should be its source and how its parameters should be determined and so on. I have therefore embarked on this interesting but multifarious topic to explore; by consulting various perspectives and sources, and present a cogent picture for the readers; to make up their own mind, after weighing for and against reasons and arguments.

Modern morality (or moral philosophy) has a rich and fascinating history. A great many thinkers have approached the subject from a wide variety of perspectives and have produced theories that both attract and repel the thoughtful people. Almost all the classical theories developed by philosophers of undoubted genius are, however, vulnerable to crippling objections. Hence, one is left wondering what to believe?

Derek Parfit, “Reasons and Persons” 1984 put it very aptly as “Non-religious ethics (Morality) is the youngest and least advanced” Thomas Hobbs, foremost British philosopher of 17th Century tried (unsuccessfully) to provide an alternative to Divine Philosophy*1 by arguing as follow. “Suppose we take away all the props for morality. We assume, first, that there is no God to issue commands and reward virtues; and second, that there are no moral facts built into the nature of things. Moreover, we deny that there is any sort of universal altruism built into human nature—we see people as essentially motivated to pursue their own interests. If we cannot appeal to God, moral facts or natural altruism, is there anything left on which morality might be found? After all this, he suggests an alternate, in the form of “Social contract” and commonly accepted mechanism (Govt.), to enforce the terms of the contract. Then he conjectures an untenable “state of nature”, insinuating absolute chaos, to support his hypothesis. “State of nature”*2 is governed by “the Laws of Nature” and Laws of Nature not only describes “how things are” but also “how things ought to be” as well. Things are always as they “ought to be” solemnly serving their natural purposes (Theory of the law of nature). He replaced God with altruism and moral facts and His command and control by an indispensable Government. Mundane and temporal end-result suggested was— “the gain of the benefits of social living”. This outrageous endeavor could simply be classed as a “Blatant Hobbesian Intellectual Egoism”{Dishonesty/Arrogance). After close scrutiny of this hypothesis, Thomas Hobbs is also found to be guilty of defying “the minimum conception of morality”. (By the way, Islamic theology makes use of “minimum conception” with respect to the performance of basic obligatory rituals, ensuring the salvation of the believers in the hereafter).

It might be of interest for the readers to know, that morality is not an issue as such in most parts; especially in predominantly monotheistic and polytheistic societies, of the world at all. Centuries-old religious ethos shaped their cultural traditions and social practices in consonance and the life goes on smoothly. The issue of morality, for the most part, arises when an equitable and just resolution is sought in the face of conflicting interests. It is generally thought that formulation of morality started from the Greeks. This treatise, therefore, would start from there; foregoing the issue of the actual origin of morality, which according to some sources goes back to Prophet Adam. Greek philosophers such as Pluto, Aristotle and Socrates and some other eminent scholars resorted to reason in formulating the moral laws of their time; while counting on the character to establish the virtuous traits of a man. Questions were framed as “What is the good of man?”, “What traits of character make one a good man?” This was happening 400 years before the time of Jesus Christ. With the spread of Christianity however, a new idea of “Law Giver” and “Obedience to His commands” was introduced. St Augustine, the most influential and prominent thinker of 4th Century, however, “distrusted the reason” and taught that virtuous life rests in the unwavering subordination to the commandments. From here on when the Christian Scholars, philosophers discussed the issue of virtues; it was within the context of “Divine Law”, and theological virtues including “Obedience” occupying the central place. On the contrary, Greeks gave “reason” the center stage. They viewed the “reason” the source of practical wisdom. Virtuous life for them was inseparable from the life of reason.

After renaissance, however, morality took another turn and Philosophers stopped turning to the Greek way of reasoning or Christian way of obedience to “Divine Law” but to its secular equivalent called “Moral Law”. “Divine Fiat” was replaced by “Human reason” and by following its directive would decide which actions are right? The question was changed from “what traits of character make a good person” to “what is the right thing to do?” “Virtue” was replaced by secular ‘rightness of actions” & “obligations” thereby promoting the element of individualism and self-interest (selfishness). Human reason gave rise to the conception of Hubristic “ought” as a standard for most advantageous actions; petrifying the Human-reason with inconsistency; hence similar reasoning was acceptable in one situation, but not in the other. Later moral theories from the seventeenth century onward; such as “Ethical egoism”, “Utilitarianism”, “Social Contract Theory”, all were developed and promoted in the same vein of individualism and self-centeredness.

Utilitarianism, in particular, proved to be the harbinger of Religion divested morality. A theory presented by David Hume (1711-1776) formalized by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), vehemently advocated by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his son James Mill. After the 18th and 19th century’s series of upheavals, America was a newly developing country and traditional morality was up in the air. Bentham’s conception of Religion divested morality; in conscious opposition to Christianity; especially for those escaping the Church of England’s persecution, proved to be a boon. He argued “Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in this world” Bentham was also given the assignment of reforming the laws and constitution of England along utilitarian lines. Needless to say that despite huge influence utilitarianism had severe flaws. One of its more developed forms, Act-Utilitarianism, recognized it to be a “radical doctrine” “that implied that many of our moral feelings may be mistaken” Ethical Egoism, as a “revisionist theory”, also asserted the same theme.

An Australian philosopher J.J.C Smart (1961) published a monograph, challenging the common sense (morality) as it cannot be trusted. His assertion challenges us to rethink matters that we have taken for granted. To accentuate the point further, here is the opinion of a Swedish Sociologist Gunner Myrdal which he gave after his classic study—American dilemma in 1944 ”There must be still other countless errors of the same sort that no living man can yet detect, because of the fog within which our type of Western cultures envelops us…”

Bentham and Mill were leading a revolution as radical as Marx and Darwin of 19th Century. To understand the radicalness of their theory an excerpt is quoted as “Gone are all references to God or to abstract moral rules written in the heavens. Morality is no longer to be understood as faithfulness to some divinely given code or to some set of inflexible rules” The concept of individualistic worldly happiness—known as “Hedonism”– was promoted. Mills introduction of the notion “Individual is sovereign” pushed it even further.

Kantian morality although, hovers around religious lines but; he seems to have circumvented God and religion; probably to prove that besides; all- encompassing God’s commands notion; there are rational and logical grounds on which Divine Morality could be asserted with the same potency. Kant however, abjured the serpent-windings of the Utilitarian theory because, he said, the theory is incompatible with human dignity. (God confers “dignity” to human—Qua’an 17:70). His formulation of “hypothetical Imperatives” VS “Categorical Imperatives” exposes the vainness of Modern Morality. It can, therefore, safely be deduced that most of these Religion-Divested Moral theories provide only plausible answers to the difficult questions, but lack the potency and conviction of Divine Morality– providing definitive solutions built in the rigor of observance of its rules and rituals. (All classic theorists, needless to say, hold not only opposing but critical views about Divine Morality).

Recent thinking on morality is ready to take yet another turn. Philosophers are debunking the ”Moral Law” theory as bankrupt and advocating radical idea to go back to virtue based Aristotelian Morality to salvage the subject. This idea was first floated by a British Philosopher G.E.M Anscombe in 1958; suggesting that modern moral philosophy is misguided because it rests on an incoherent notion of “law” without a “Law Giver” She further elaborated that the very concepts of obligation, duty, and rightness, on which the modern philosophers have concentrated their attention, are inextricably linked to this nonsensical idea. Therefore, she argued, we should return to Aristotelian approach, and virtue should once again take the center stage.

Philosophers in this camp share the opinion, that virtue-based morality is 
superior to the other kind of (Religion divested) morality because of the 
following reasons. 

1) Moral Motivation. Virtuous Morality is appealing because it provides a natural and attractive account of moral motivation while the other kind of morality falters on this account. It can be explained in terms of an example quoted, in Journal of philosophy in 1976, where the value of merit of morality was juxtaposed duty. In this case, a patient was visited by some friend; that made patient delighted but: when he found out that the visitor was just doing his duty and did not really come for him, the visit turned cold and bereft of moral value. The desire to do the right thing for the right reason and doing it out of an abstract sense of duty is not the same. 2) Ideals of Impartiality. Virtuous morality can accommodate partialities very well since it recognizes that some virtues are partial and some are not. It also recognizes that love of family and friends is an inescapable feature of the morally good life. Ideals of Impartiality in modern moral philosophy, however, do not add up. John Stewart Mill put the point very succinctly when writing about Utilitarianism that “Utilitarianism requires (the moral Agent) to be as strictly impartial as a benevolent and disinterested spectator”. A mother loves her children and cares for them in a way that she does not care for other children. “She is partial to them through and through”. Same is the case with friends and family members.

3) Divine Morality provides a pleasing practical “fit” between; – a) Impartiality of reason. b) Adherence to set rules for life, serving everyone’s interest. c) Fulfillment of our natural inclination and moral duty to care about others. Making morally behaving a natural dispensation. 4) An Anthropocentric view of Aristotle (and of many philosophers of ancient); which modern philosophers and scientists vehemently refute, has been categorically asserted in Qura’an. This assertion, in the same vein, also refutes the accusation of the human being as “vein-species”. https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/the-anthropocentric-character-of-the-universe-special-status-of-man-and-yet-his-denial-of-god/ Conclusion A trajectory of traits of both the schools of Philosophy has been presented above, making it easy for the readers, to weigh and decide for themselves.

  • 1Divine Philosophy—means virtue/religion based philosophy.
  • 2Always serving their purpose regardless of our favorable or unfavorable understanding of their operations.
  • 3 Moral philosophy and Modern Morality are interchangeably used.

Why Islam, cannot be Liberalized?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why Islam, cannot be Liberalized?

From the earliest time of Islam; even during the period of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH); attempts had started being made, by various groups such as Jews, Christians, and Pagans, to change/reshape Islam. God, therefore, guided Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to guard against t he temptations of such offers. Saying: “They wish that you would soften [in your position], so they would soften [in return, their position toward you], and do not obey every worthless habitual swearer, [And] scorner, going about with malicious gossip – A preventer of good, transgressing and sinful, Cruel, and an illegitimate pretender” (Surah Al Qalam 68, V 9-13) God also guided the prophet (PBUH) saying: “O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (Qura’an 66:98)

“Many of the People of the Scripture (including liberals and reformists) wish they could turn you back to disbelief after you have believed, out of envy on their own account [even] after the truth has become clear to them. So pardon and overlook until Allah delivers His command. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent” (Qura’an 2:109). On the other hand, God took upon Himself to protect the main source of injunctions—The Holy Qura’an— declaring–”Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qura’n and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Qura’an, 15:9). And warned (interpolator, reformists) saying: God revealed the book (Qura’an) with the truth, and those who disagree about the book (its essence or injunctions) are far out in the schism. (Qura’an 2:176) Consequently, every single word, every single consonant, every single vowel has remained intact till this day and will remain so until the end of the world. Currently, there are lots of so-called– reformists, Muslim and Non-Muslim alike, keen to reform Islam to suit their Westaphalic whims and liberal values. They perhaps liken its intended reformation to the reformation movement in Christianity. Such reformers normally are bereft of the knowledge of Islam and even if they have some, it is scanty and facile. They, however, sure have the fervor and zealotry of an extremist— defined by a great American Political theorist–Michael Walzer.

An interesting characteristic of these so-called reformers is that they want to swim along the—propaganda inflicted– liberal-mindset, by distorting Islam to conform to its modern liberal values. In Qura’an, it is stated that when it is said to them (reformers)“Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are but (Musleh) reformers”, “Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not” (2:11-12)

This genre of reformist may also be traced in the cross-pollination of Martin Luther King and Rousseau.

God issued an absolute command not to accept the offer of the Jews and Christians (with their corrupted/abrogated ideas–which, by implication, also applies to so-called reformers, liberals, and modernists) in the following words. “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion. Say:–Guidance of Allah is the only guidance. Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which has reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against Allah” (Qura’an, 2:120). Here is yet another verse in Qura’an which forbids Muslims from wavering or taking an impermissible liberty in any field of life.”Those who believe, enter Islam completely, do not tow the lines of the Satan, who is your clear enemy” (Q 2:208) Supplemented by– “Life of this world is attractive (enticing) to nonbelievers; who ridicule those who believe—but—those who fear God(following all commands without deviation, distortion)will be successful (above disbelievers) in the hereafter” (Q 2:212)

After these absolute ordinances, no God fearing, sensible Muslim would dare accept their attenuating ideas. Recent chronology of the efforts to liberalize Islam Since the middle of the 19th century; due to the Protestant theological proliferation; a host of self-styled modernist, reformist, revivalist et al have sprouted in almost all Muslim-majority countries and in the western countries; with some concentration of Muslims. They pretend to have understood “The Real Islam” for the first time; adopting either an extremist or a liberal position, although both are untenable and in contravention of Islamic teachings of moderation. Sometimes they employ alien terms, to sound elitist and convincing, such as “religion is a matter of heart”, emotions or, a borrowed term from William James “religious experience” These pretenders, sometimes go as far as divesting Islam of its ritualistic performances; either absolutely or to a relegated level; consigning them to social exigencies or personal preferences, described as—a personal matter between man and God—-giving this deviation a flavor of Hobbesian individualism.

It is heart-wrenching to know that, Islam is being misconstrued and misrepresented in the West for a very long time, even by a leading publication such as Economist (London). “In persuading the Muslim majority countries to look upon themselves as the Eastern most part of the West, Economist argues, that Islam also implies one to one relationship between believer and the God he believes in, a direct contact without an intermediary and in this relationship, in which a single God speaks directly to the core of a single man, is the basis of individualism. The Protestant ethic is grounded on precisely the same concept” (Economist-Published on May 17-23, 1975 pg 80 Special Survey).

Tertiary guidance system in Islam The very concept of direct guidance (without an intermediary) in Islam is limited only to the first degree of guidance. (It is for every creature regardless of faith or level of comprehension) It is, however, not available, in the case of the second degree; where the intermediation of a prophet and scripture in inevitable, for it is specific to the believers to be imbued with the religious knowledge. Here is a Qura’anic verse which categorically excludes the nonbelievers (including doubters/agnostics) from the guidance of second degree; specific to Islam and a Muslims, for earlier Divine religions stand abrogated. “Whosoever believes in God, He guides his heart” (Q 64:11) also (Q47:11) & (Q 29:69) Third degree is reserved for the chosen ones such as:-“To whom God has blessed, namely, the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs and the righteous” (Q 4:69) further accentuated by “not the way of those who have earned your (God’s) wrath, nor of those who have gone astray” (Q 1:6 ){nonbelievers or apostates} (Note: – In the case of a gradual progress of some from 2nd to 3rd grade, an intermediation of 2nd level may, however, be involved. Very select few, such as the prophets and the men of God, would become entitled to special guidance absolutely directly—Example being the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH). For those, interested in further details on the subject of guidance, here is the link:- https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/psychological-dimension-of-quraan/

In Qura’an an emphasis is placed on the word “Musleh” which the reformers use to disguise their activities by, using colorful phrases—as mentioned above— and the ideas of social amelioration. Allah sternly warned such people by declaring: “And Allah knows the one who makes mischief distinct from him who promotes good” & “Do you think you will be left alone, as it is? God knows what you do (Q 2:220) & (9:16) Diehard reformist; who persist in their reformation agenda; mostly to appease their western impulse of modernity or to emulate western liberal values; while still claiming to their nostrum Islamic Identity, are in fact discreetly challenging the will of God as was done by the people of the old. “Evil is that for which they have sold out their selves: that they should deny what Allah has revealed, so they came out wrath upon wrath” Q 2:90 (Jews held a grudge against God as to why an Arab, (Muhammad-PBUH), instead of a Jew was awarded prophethood—for they wanted God to have acceded to their wish/desire).

This kind of strain of thought is often exhibited in complaints, atheist hurl at God’s retributive system.

Islam, in the Qura’an, Has been specifically designated as a moderate religion. In verse 143 of Surah Baqara, it is said: “We made you a moderate Ummah” (nation/community). Here is the exegetical account of this verse. God has bestowed upon the Islamic Ummah an unparalleled distinction of being moderate, balance, central and just. Exegetists also used a synonym “Mu’tadil” to fully explain the veracity of the word “Wast” (middle, central), which means moderate, temperate just, equal. For, it is of utmost importance for the health and vibrancy of any community/body to maintain its equilibrium and temperateness, else a deterioration or illness would ensue. This concept/doctrine of Moderation has been further elaborated in another verse (Q 57: 25) by pointing towards its objective, saying: “We sent Book and the Balance, so that men might uphold justice & We sent the iron in which there is great strength—it is of many uses for men” Book here signifies the source of guidance and Balance denotes justice, equilibrium, moderation and temperateness in man’s behavior with firmness and strength of the iron. The characteristics of the “TRUTH” & “JUSTICE” are further stressed in the verse (Q 7:181) “ We have created an Ummah (Of Muslims) which guides by the truth and by doing justice with it”(dispenses the justice guided by the truth).

EXCEPTIONALISM OF ISLAM Let us be clear about Islam that; it is distinctive in its relationship to politics and public life. Islam is different from any other Divine or even Major religions. It, therefore, entails profound ramifications for the world, we all live in. We may like it or not. We may accept it or not. Despite extreme Anti-Islam, Anti-Muslim sentiments, it is an enduring reality. The world has to understand it, respect it and live with its EXCEPTIONALISM.

Another fact to be borne in mind is that; Islam’s political dimension is also distinct from the West’s politico-religious experience of Protestant Reformation; followed by Enlightenment, culminated at modern-liberalism. That was in response to the Catholic Church’s Clerical stranglehold over the Christian doctrine and practices. Islamic doctrine and Practices, fortunately, face no such stranglehold, mainly due to its exceptionalism. Islam could not and would not be pushed into the private realm as was Christianity. This fact should be imprinted upon the minds of so–called Liberals and Reformists. Islamists from 1928 to date, despite their arduous gradualistic/continual approach, are reeling from their failures. Reformists, Liberals, therefore have no choice but to come to terms with Islam’s Exceptionalism. In mainstream Islam, clerics (unlike Catholic Clerics or Shia’a Clerics in Iran) do not wield power as such but rather provide a crucial check on the ruling class against excesses.Western cultural-essentialism however, prevents these liberals, reformists, from appreciating the role Islam is playing in the Muslim world and beyond.

These so-called reformists not only advocate a “progressive” (actually confuted) interpretation of the Islamic Laws but also its basic irrelevance to the public life—on the pattern of separation of religion from the politics in the west—the foundation of a pluralistic post-enlightenment, modern liberal society. Given the Islamic historical imperatives, it is not only difficult but almost impossible. Here is an interesting and enlightening quote, from late Harvard Scholar (a reformist) Shahab Ahmed: “of the capaciousness, complexity, and often outright contradiction contained within the historical phenomenon* of what we call Islam”. He further says: “But each faith tradition is also defined by boundaries expectations, and the accumulated weight of history. What religious scholars and lay believers alike have committed themselves to for centuries” –in the case of Islam, since its very founding— its (reformation) is irrelevant, for the simple reason that if something has never been done before, then it is least likely that it will start being done all of a sudden, fourteen centuries later.

It is continuously propagandized by the antagonists of Islam that it is a retrograde, medieval, backward, fundamentalist and anti-modernity religion of antiquity. Whereas Islam is the most modern, most sophisticated religion of any major religions. This presents us with a paradox: It is precisely the Islam and Islamic Law’s modern bent that makes Islam all the more relevant and resonant in today’s politics. Within Islam’s vast legal traditions, there are a number of ideas and precedents that lend themselves to modern notions of social justice, rule of law, egalitarianism, guaranteed women’s rights to own property, make their own living, compulsory redistribution of the wealth (Zakat—a mandatory year-end deduction/payment from the wealth held by a Muslim) and social security (Baitul-Mal—a state-managed public trust-fund) for older or handicapped people.

Freedom of Choice and rule of law Lacking, church-like (or Vatican like) dominant an institution, a Pope like head-clergy, availability of several schools of thought and the instrument of Ijtihad: there is ample scope of choice and adaptability. In Islam, due to its overarching corpus juris (Shari’a), both the caliph (head of state) and the subjects are treated equally. A caliph cannot claim unlimited or absolute (king-like) authority because the sovereignty belongs to God. All these instrumentalities ensure the freedom of choice and rule of law. (under the Islamic{ shaia’a}law, as the law of the land). In nutshell, there is no logical reason for Muslims to choose either Modernity or Liberal ReformationL over already most modern Islam. One could be fully modern and yet a fully-fledged good Muslim. Muslims, therefore, had never been in need of choosing between, their own traditions and those of others. Shura (Consultation) and Ijma’a (Consensus); the precursors of modern Democracy; are in fact, updated and repackaged products, borrowed from the Islamic heritage.

Failures of liberalization experiments At the time of religious and cultural encroachment through colonial rule, the assertion of Islam became distinctly political rather than just, or primarily, theological. Given its uniqueness, those (colonial) forces could not strip Islam of its better status, vibrancy and exceptionality: reducing it to just another religion. (Like Christianity) To the extreme surprise of many, Islam happened to be the most modern of Abrahamic religions. Islamic Corpus Juris (Sharia’a) proved to be more secular than the Christian conceptions of Law and Politics. It is a kind of the point of departure, since it is, kind of, the secularity of Sharia’a, which makes it more relevant and resonant in present political landscape. Islam already embraces the concepts of pluralism, politics, consultative and consensual processes (precursors of democracy) whereas, Christianity came into conflict and lost.

Egypt, Turkey, and Tunisia have a long history of reformation/liberalization of Islam as well as the Forced secularization (Westernization) experiments and their eventual failures. This trend, in the modern times, started in the 19th Century by Heavyweights such as Sayyed Qutub, Mohd Abduh, Jamal-Ud-din Afghani, Rashid Rida and Hassan Al Banna etc. This effort, despite miserable failures, is still underway owing to the current Islamists/reformers such as Ikhwan ul Muslemeen (Egypt), Erdogan (AKP), and Rached Ghannouchi (Ennahda). Ghannouchi of Tunisia tried to change Islamism and perhaps even Islam, assuming that the two are interrelated. He thought that the ideological divides somehow could be transcended by neutralizing them. The greatest failure of such Islamists/reformers is owed to their politicizing Islam; Polarization is inevitable when Islam seizes to be, as it once was, (unadulterated) the source of unity, solidarity, and consensus. The underlying reason for any such attempt’s failure is that Muslims by definition; as per the revised assessment of an Islamist Abdul Moneim Abul Futou; are Salafi, in the sense that they emulate the most pious earlier Aslaf (Prophet-PBUH, Companions, and two succeeding generations) and support the Sharia’a. Surprisingly, in most of the Muslim-majority countries and across the board, Muslims, despite all these reformation efforts, are becoming more devoutly observant.

He also confessed that the titles of liberal or Islamist/reformist are just for political exigency.
CONCLUSION Liberalism (a precursor of Atheism) and Islam cannot go together as the former fails to provide much except general disdain of religion and letting the men loose; to choose their own way of life (doing away even with the distinction between virtuousness and sinfulness); whereas later provides an affirmative vision for leading a benevolent and virtuous life in this world, as well as a blissful life in the next. (For a Muslim, it is the very foundation of his creed and purpose of being).

This is the main reason why liberals, reformists fall back on virulent anti-Islam attacks.

Islam for various cultural, historical and theological reasons is distinctive in how it relates to politics. Often recurring themes in the west such as “Islam is the Problem” and “Islam needs a reformation” are the result of liberals/reformists unwillingness and inability to understand, as to how and why Islam, in its original form, matters to so many all around the world? It is simply a modus Vivendi and raison d’etre for a Muslim.

Nation state & Islam Wael Hallaq, an Islamic Law scholar, charges Islamists being obsessed with the Modern-State. US foreign policy stalwarts such as Henry Kissinger and Dennis Ross charge them for being incompatible with the Westphalian order. It simply exposes the inherent weakness of the skewed thinking of Islamists/reformist. Nation state and Islam, despite their tenuousness, co-exist anyway!

Caliphate The concept of Caliphate, after the demise of Ottoman Empire in 1924, never died but rendered near-impossible. The emergence of Islamic State, despite its unwarranted violent behavior, colossal failures and possible annihilation, has nevertheless, resuscitated and strengthened the potential for a Pan-Islamic Caliphate on the Salafi Model (opposite to Islamic-State’s extremist model). For the West, The only long term solution (keeping up with its centuries-old traditions of inclusiveness and tolerance) is to let the Islam find its place in the western societies on the model of consensual democracy in the Western Europe. Islam for Muslims is as –non-negotiable—as the human rights are in the American Constitution and in those of many other countries. The operation of (Shari’a) courts should be allowed on the pattern of Canon Law Courts and Jewish Law Courts. West has to work around the ideological and foundational divides; which, most likely, will remain constant.

Statistical facts, validating the inexorability of Islam According to “The Almanac Book of Facts”, the population increased 137% within the past decade and the Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%. 100,000 people per year converting to Islam, only in America. For every 1 male convert to Islam 4 females convert to Islam.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/ https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

Source Material: Various Books, Qura’an, Tafseer and Shadi Hamid’s Islamic Exceptionalism.

*Much of the early Islamic history (not the religion) available today is based on the Ahadith and is challenged for lack of basis in primary source material and contradictions based on secondary material available. (History should not be confused with the actual Islam—primary source for which is, the Holy Qura’an and only authentic Ahadith as the secondary source). Italic text

Interpersonal relationship between Muslim and Non-Muslim

August 31, 2017

“Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything – unless it is to protect one against them in this way. But God warns you to beware of Him: for with God is all journeys’ end.” (Q, 3:28) 

 

Muslim seem oblivious to or Ignorant of this important aspect of Islamic teachings. Befriending Non-Muslim has become cursorial; Muslim are dealing and even living with them (in a relationship) like with their fellow Muslim. {Muslim women marrying Non-Muslim men is strictly forbidden and Haram) Read: – https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/muslim-women-marrying-non-muslim-men/

 

Although, it can be easily understood from the Qura’anic text that dealing with the Non-Muslims, despite the requisite cordiality, compassion and empathy, ought to be within defined limitations. Non-Muslim should be helped and dealt with on purely humanitarian/empathetic grounds, but without, any emotional attachment. Such attachment is permissible only with fellow Muslim. The obviating reason is that they do not subscribe to Islamic faith/religion and are rather against it. Disbelievers (in Islam) are described in Qura’an as the enemies of Allah (SWT)(Q, 8: 59,60) {Despite the fact that, they may express nothing of the sort, or may even offer a favorable opinion—which would tantamount to a lip service in the face of their disbelief}.

Note:- From the Psychological point of view, such contents of words may be fallacious, due to their (Non-Muslim) long ingrained and sustained experiences otherwise, for their body language would be sending a (true but) contrary messages.  

A formal friendship at the level of mutual dealing is, no doubt, permissible; but, that too is not favored if Unnecessary.

In Qura’an it has been declared repeatedly that– they would like to see you adopting their faith and way of life. (Psychological truth)  From everyday experiences; it is clearly evident that most often; Muslims who befriend with Non-Muslims; imitate and emulate them, compromising their distinct identity and religion. So called liberal/secularist/modernist Muslim even talk in their language, temerariously criticizing Islam, Qura’an and the Prophet (PBUH). It has therefore been sternly warned that such people cut off any bond with Allah (SWT), for they become one of them (disbelievers)          (Q, 3:28).

Allah (SWT) in Qura’an, used the word “Zalimun” instead of “Kafiroon”; Likely widening the scope, to include such people.  Allah therefore clearly forbids a true Muslim from keeping the company of not only the Non-Muslims but also of those, acting like them. It has been said in (Q, 6:70) that “unbelievers; are the people, who have been detained in the punishment of their evil deeds”. Which is further articulated in verse (Q, 47:15) by declaring that “their entrails will be shattered apart” (due to drinking boiling water as the punishment for their denial and disbelief). This verse also informs that their disbelief is harmful to those who like to sit in their company hence would be caught up in the same punishment as the disbelievers. (Ma’araful Qura’an Pg. 393, vol 3). As the wrong environment affects its surrounding so does the bad company by pushing human beings into the abyss of sinfulness. “This is how Allah (SWT) brings disgrace, damnation upon those who do not believe, for their hearts are not open for the truth but dash for the evil”. (Q, 6:125).

 

 

Several verses, with varying shades of meanings, against the FRIENDSHIP WITH NON-MUSLIMS are presented in the Holy Qura’an. Some of which are:-

IMPORTANT NOTICE

 One should not pick and choose a verse to present his/her own (skewed) point of view instead a collective outcome, of all the verses on the topic, should be the one guiding and binding. (Q, 2: 85 & 4: 150)

 

Allah’s enemy is your enemy.

“O those who believe do not take my enemy and your enemy as friends having love for them and whosoever from among you do that have gone astray” (Q, 60:1)

 A friend with them is one of them.

“O those who believe do not take Jews or Christian as friends, for they are friends among themselves. And whosoever has friendship with them is one of them” (Q, 5:51)

 Believers shouldn’t befriend with unbelievers, even if kinfolk.

“You shall not find those who believe in Allah and in the hereafter having friendship with those who have enmity with Allah and His Messenger, even though they may be their fathers or sons or brothers or members of their tribes” (Q, 58:22)

 

Feeling honored/proud by having Non-believers as friend

Those, who take disbelievers as their allies instead of the believers, Do they seek with them honor {through power}? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah (SWT) entirely. (Q, 4:139)

 

Sitting in the company of Non-believers

And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah (SWT) (recited), they are denied (by them) and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed you would then be like them. Indeed Allah (SWT) will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together, (Q, 4:140)

 

The only friends

Your friends can only be Allah (SWT), His Prophet (PBUH) and those who believe” (Q, 5:55)

 

Social interaction with Non-Muslims, for clear understanding and exercising due restraint, has been described, under four (4) categories.

Mawalat. (Affairs of the Heart) –For Allah knows what is in your hearts–(3:29) (Relations involving Love or Emotional attachment).

This is specifically What all these verses vehemently prevent a Muslim from.

 

Psychological reasoning

 Need to belong

According to the hierarchy of needs, humans need to feel love (sexual/non-sexual) and acceptance from others. In fact, the need to belong is so innately ingrained that it may be strong enough to overcome physiological, safety needs, as well as religious restraints, such as children’s attachment to abusive parents or staying in abusive romantic relationships or a Muslim woman marrying a Non-Muslim man. Such examples illustrate the extent to which the psychobiological drive to belong is entrenched hence harmful (one may, therefore, appreciate the rationale and vehemence with which Islam prohibits such a bond between the two with clashing/contradicting religious beliefs.

 

 Attachment Theory

Social acts that reinforce feelings of attachment also stimulate the release of neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and endorphin, which alleviate stress and create feelings of contentment. Such contentment, however, may prove to be fleeting due to ingrained religious disparity and even if it is fictitiously presumed to be there, in the beginning, may evade soon.

 

Prophetic injunctions

Apart from the above cited psychological reasons, there is a logically reasoned Injunction issued by the Prophet (PBUH) which lays the ground rules for an association (particularly the marriage as any other type of association is out of the question in Islam).

 

In Islam, there is a concept of “Kuf” which means —equal, alike or matching. Under this Principal, there are two sub clauses which need to be considered when accepting/rejecting the marriage proposals. (or contemplating an association for that matter).

 

These are “Lineal Homogeneity” & “Familial Homogeneity” Prophet has instructed that girls should be married in their”Kuf” which means—equality(compatibility)—rather than equalness. The likeness of spouses in their religion is incumbent and necessary for the validity of the marriage. The marriage of a Muslim girl with a disbeliever is not valid; even if the girl agrees to it. (So is not the interpersonal relationship). (religio-legal verdict—hukme-tashriee).

 The rationale here is that it is not simply the matter of “right of woman”; which may be dropped at her pleasure, Instead, it is the “right of God” –a Divine- injunction, under the clause of Familial Homogeneity. 

 A question or doubt may be raised about the whole religio-legal-verdict stated above. The validity of it has very eloquently and in unequivocal terms been stated in Qur’an as– “Prophet has more right to men and women of his (Ummah) community than their own selves” and also that “And it becomes not a believing man or woman, when Allah and His prophet have decided an affair (for them) that they should claim any “say” in that matter”      Surah Al Ahzab 33, V 6 & 36

 Finally, Allah forbade such relationship in categorical terms in Surah “Mumtahinah”–(She who is examined) #60, V – 10–in the following words “Neither these (Muslim women) are lawful for them, Nor are those (unbelievers) lawful for these (believing) women” All such relationships which existed at the time of revelation of this verse were ipso-facto severed.

 Muwasat. (Concern)

Non-Muslims ought to be dealt with favor, generosity, compassion, sympathy, and concern. It also includes charitable help and support, condolence, consolation or any other well-intentioned attitude of wishing them well.  Confirmed in the following verse:

“Allah does not forbid you from treating those, who have not fought with you because of your faith, nor have they driven you out of your homes, with benevolence and equity” (Q, 60:8)

 Mudarat. (Cordiality)

This category of dealings involves customary cordiality, adequacy in courtesy, pleasant and mannerly politeness.

Muamalat. (Dealings)

This category involves things such as employment, wages, industry, technology, business dealings, benevolence, and human-interests.  

Note: Most of the permissible interactions, however, would become impermissible if it becomes harmful to the interest of the general body of Muslims such as arms sales to a group fighting against Muslims.(war situation exemptions to older folks, Non belligerent folks, children, religious folks(priests/monks etc), places of worship, livestock and crops/orchards etc nevertheless, would apply).

Exception

An exception; under the category of MAWALAT; where there is a severe threat to one’ life or overarching-interest, is allowed. “Unless you guard yourselves against an apprehension from them” in such a case an (outwardly) expression of affection and love is permissible (Q, 3:28). This position is also supported by the Hadith, “Allah (SWT) has forgiven my people from, mistakes, forgetfulness, and acts done under compulsion/duress” (*1)

 Concealment of feelings of affection and love for Non-believers                           (Do not incline towards unjust, lest Hell fire catches you) (Q, 11:113)

At times it happens that people emotionally attached to Non-Muslims verbally deny it in the presence of fellow Muslims. Such people have been warned by Allah in the following words, “whether you conceal what is in your heart or disclose it, Allah knows it” (Q, 3:29)

 A superficial look at the inhibitive verses might generate an intolerant view of Islam which is dispelled in various verses of the Holy Qura’an, Ahadith, Sunnah and the dealings of the revered Companions.

 How Prophet (PBUH), Sahabah & Khulafa’a dealt with Non-Muslims?

Examples

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), at the time of famine in Mecca, personally went out to help his enemies who drove him out of Mecca earlier.

Then after the conquest of Mecca, he gave general amnesty to all those who fought against him.

Caliph Umer Farooq allowed stipends and allowance to needy Non-Muslims living under his rule.

 An Obvious question, however, may arise here, why Allah (SWT) has warned against the friendship with Non-Muslims so sternly?

The answer is given through a Qura’anic verse and a Hadith (Bukhari and Muslim).  “My Prayer, my sacrifice, my life, my death all are for Allah, the Lord of the worlds” (Q. 6:162) Prophet (PBUH) has been reported to have said “Whoever loves for the sake of Allah (SWT) and whoever hates for the sake of Allah (SWT), has perfected his faith”(*2) It means that Iman/Faith remains incomplete unless a Muslim’s love, friendship, hate and enmity all are subordinated to Allah Almighty. That is why at the end of verse 3:28, for the ones who defy this injunction, it is said that “you are one of them”.

The premise on which the edifice of—“No-intimate relationship with Non-Believers”— is based is the primal purport of the temporal life of a Muslim.

The primal-purport of a Muslim’s life is to remember and serve Allah (SWT). Everything else including all affairs of life, politics, business, Government and social relationships ought to be subservient to this primal purport.

Conclusion

(Allah (SWT) therefore has strongly forbidden an intimate friendship/relationship with any Nonbelievers under any circumstances).

*1–An-Nawawi’s Hadith No.39 (On the authority of Ibn Abbas). A  Hasan (fair)  Hadith related by Ibn Majah, Al-Baihaqi and others.

*2–Sunan Abu Dawud 4681, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani.

 

AUTHOR’S PRAYER.

It is hoped that this treatise would help men and women of understanding in tackling the endemic of the entrenched interpersonal relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims with Divine guidance; provided through Qura’an and Hadith, while applying human logic and reasoning as well rather than succumbing to the reflexes of sentimentality.

Note:        An abridged form of this topic.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/can-muslims-be-friends-with-non-muslims-especially-jews-and-christians/

 

Liberalization? Not Islam.

January 14, 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shakirmwp/sandbox

“Many of the People of the Scripture (including liberals and reformists) wish they
can turn you back to disbelief, afrter you have believed.

President Trump would mean—AMEXIT!

July 14, 2016

Given the Worldwide disgust for Donald Trump, it can surely be envisaged that the USA would have a tough time maintaining its position as the most sought after country in the world. His dire lack of understanding of foreign affairs and foul mouthing is the main cause of this disgust; which unfortunately is not limited only to the people at the helm of affairs; but also common people at large. His demeanor, his abrasive communication style, his hairdo, even his shady business practices are all under  the minute scrutiny of these people. Those in his camp; trying their best to get him elected; would sure have to cut a sorry figure; should he be elected; though he has but a fairly remote possibility, for it would be a travesty. Justice Ruth Ginsberg’s recent remarks are just a tip of the iceberg. Another impending factor is his selection of VP. Should he pick someone like Newt Gingrich; who is known for his intransigence and confrontational politics, would be like committing suicide. Even the selection of Chris Christy would not sit very well. He sure would need someone with a softer image, astute, intelligent and well trained in international affairs personality; to brighten his chances, if at all, at the home front and internationally.

 

Hillary, though hugely favored by the establishment, Wall Street, and Corporate-America, also has some challenges but of different nature. She is blessed in the sense that, numerous forces are working to keep her troubles smothered. She however, most probably, would not be able to extend Democratic rule for 16 years. Despite excessive compromises, she might not be able to fulfill most of her campaign promises. She would be truncated to like a lame duck president, even in her first term. That would be regardless of the fact that; some republicans clandestinely wanted her to become the next president, for they do not want to endorse and work with Donald Trump at any cost. That, however, would not mean that she would be given a free hand. E-mail issue will keep her dodged. Although she is a shrewd politician, would not be able to gain the unwavering support of many even in her own party. She would not only abandon the “custodian of Obama legacy/agenda” position but may also work with republican to undo some of its components. Clintons sure would become richer whereas, Chelsea and her hubby, most likely, would land highly coveted positions. Chelsea may even dash into the politics. Obama’s nominated Supreme Court judge, most likely, would not be confirmed.

 

Bernie Saunders today on the 12th of July 2016 endorsed Hillary Clinton, which will send a wave of disappointment and disgust in his supporters, for Hillary was never their choice. Young voters, most likely, would stay away from the elections altogether, which may favor Trump. Hillary will keep nodding her head to Bernie’s speech as many times as she has to, once elected, it will be a different ball game. Bernie has proved to be the worst hope dasher in the recent electoral history of the USA. His strategic blunder, most likely, was playing a nice guy to Madam Secretary!

 

 

President Obama has severely compromised the dignity of the office of the President by   supporting Hillary Clinton. Her bungling of Bin-Ghazi situation, being swept under the carpet, is the blatant example of rich protecting rich. Have the whole world not been accusing the corrupt politicians of the third world for the same thing until yesterday? President should have stayed above the fray. He stooped down grotesquely from his mantle. He simply borrowed a page from the manual of dirty politics of the third world. Does this not tell us where we are heading as a Nation? Wake up fellows! Immigration, refugee issue, Islamophobia all are but petty issues, which are sucking up all our energies and distracting from the “REAL” issue. Oligarchy of tax-forgiven 1 % and their trillions stashed in off-shore banking units is the real issue. This money can pay our National debt many times over. We do not have to work at minimum wage and three jobs to make ends meet. America can easily afford free healthcare and free education; there will be no danger of social security going bankrupt, veterans going homeless. These corrupt self-serving politicians would not do it, for they can’t afford to annoy their masters.

.

Divine Wisdom

May 10, 2016

Koran And Glasses - csp0074385

 

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

(In the name of God The most gracious and the most merciful)

عَلَّمَالْقُرْآنَ

Allamal Qura’an (Surah Ar-Rahman 55 V 2)

Ar Rahman (The Gracious) has taught the Qura’an.

Just one word of Qura’an would show the veracity of Divine wisdom (Qura’an) for the people of intellect and understanding.

The word “Allama” (to teach) a verb, according to Arabic grammar, requires two object. One is direct and other indirect.

1) The one of which knowledge has to be imparted (taught).

2) The one to whom the knowledge has to be imparted (taught).

(1-is the source and 2-is the recipient)

Here the first object is Qura’an while the other one is not specified.

Some scholars/exegetes opine that it is Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) who was taught the Qura’an directly by God (through the medium of Jibrail (Gabriel- A.S) for onward dissemination to the entire creation. (Not only Muslims)

Let us look at it from another, rather a subtle, point of view.

The purpose of the Qura’an is to give guidance, about good morals and righteous deeds, to the entire creation; therefore, the 2nd object is left deliberately unspecified to ensure the dissemination.

عَلَّمَهُا لْبَيَانَ (4)خَلَقَ الْإِنسَانَ  (3)

Next verses # 3 & 4 say:- He created man. He taught him how to express himself.

Man’s creation ranks first and foremost in the natural order of things so much so that even the imparting of knowledge proceeded after his creation.

This also determines the sole purpose of the creation of human and gene (Jin), stated in (51:56) We created man and Gene (Jin) for nothing but worship. Worship without guidance is impossible.(Nevertheless, the mention of Qura’an precedes the creation of man in surah Ar-Rahman—but imparting of the knowledge became possible only after man’s creation. Hence, man acquires first and foremost position in the natural/rational order of things).

 

 

  1. shalimarinsurance.com
  2. https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
  3. https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp

Vitriolic White Man      

April 26, 2016

160311194851-trump-rally-protest-chaos-erin-acosta-00005212-large-169

                                                Current Presidential election campaign has exposed several fault lines of American society. Economic stagnation has veritably changed the mass-psychology, way of rationalization, level of tolerance and religiosity. Economic slumber of decades; engendered an undercurrent in the societal conduct; in the form of a vitriolic white man’s rebellion against immigrants and religions; which in its aftermath, must have landed sociologist, behaviorist and anthropologist alike on a unique learning curve.

 

Despite a recent uptick in economic activity; due to sustained steering coupled with huge capital injections, has not resulted in the alleviation of the average Joe. Although jobs are being generated and added to the workforce but mostly of part-time and temporary nature; which due to the global-parity-compulsions offer lower pay with least or no benefits. The result is that families are faced with a permanent state of uncertainty and fear. Due to shrinking or stagnant income in the face of rising costs; everyone has to pitch in to maintain their abode intact; which in turn has destroyed the fundamental structure of a family; more so of a white family, who used to be a conspicuous representation of a thriving, prosperous, well-knit American society. Father, who used to hold an esteemed status in familial-hierarchy, has either gone missing or become irrelevant. His role has been relegated to one of the breadwinners of a group. He now has to compete with younger people, of different tastes, odd work schedules, with a different set of issues, and somewhat better informed; pretending to be a family-head in control. In extreme cases, he has to even swap the role with his spouse. There is hardly an occasion for dinner table exchange of banalities. This has destroyed the inner core of the society transforming it into a bitter and intolerant one.

 

On the outer spectrum as well there is a huge shift due to the variegated flow of immigrants. They come with their own ingrained set of values; which are often at odd with American values; more so with inconceivably perverted values, which misleadingly are being boasted about and chaperoned as freedom of choice and expression.

 

In nut-shell white man is under a constant onslaught from every direction. First, he ceded to irreligiosity in the cloak of utilitarianism, then to the Abolition of slavery, then to the justification-of-equity in the shape of affirmative action, then to Mexicans and Latino workers. The recent spate of variegated immigrants, however, is the harshest, since it is at a (financially) hard time. There are not many jobs, not enough income, fractured family structure, degradation of moral values and society, as a whole, up in arms. It has pushed a sizeable segment of society in belligerent mode. A recent survey showing 24% increase in suicide rate (especially women) is an alarming vindication of societal frustration. They are vehemently against the influx of immigrant (mostly Muslim immigrants/refugees—given the sustained, premeditated demonization of Islam and Muslims). An unscrupulous, demagogue, presidential hopeful, Donald Trump, seized on these sentiments and started targeting Muslim and Mexican to win the election.

 

These immigrants come with their own set of values, work hard, get a good education and often land good jobs or establish successful businesses. They often stay and operate within their own groups except when they have to otherwise. They adopt American values but strictly based on necessity or compulsion. (Second generation, however, acts and behaves on more American less immigrant level). In fact, they traverse in parallel value-systems with ease; one from back home and the other need-based American. Their work ethics, moral standards, religious ethos and ratiocination; which are time-tested, put the white man under immense pressure despite their minimal proportion. White man seems to have been pushed to the wall for enumerated reasons. Ironically they feel under threat of being wiped out, as a majority, within their own country, which is ironically claimed and owned by all equally! They, as early settlers of several generations ago, think have an emphatically exclusive, claim and rights to America, unlike a newly sworn citizen. (Needless to say, it is the most cherished part of being an American for which some pay very heavy price).

 

This hurt is more pronounced in the middle-class and most in the lower middle class; who, more often, lay down an exclusive claim of being true American. These folks are so frustrated that they are ready to take on anything and everything. They think it is the matter of their survival. I am all sympathetic to their “Nationalistic” plight, but now this is other’s adopted/chosen home too; who after few generations would be standing with them, in the same shoes! The jingoistic course of action, chosen by them, therefore, is misleading and futile. They should rather, gain awareness, Learn, how to re-invent themselves, retrain, get educated, stay away from drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex/pregnancies, hate, anger and frustration. Stop hating religions and God; because it simply deprives one of the privilege and faculty of contemplation, entailing humbleness and sense of gratitude. A recent jump in suicide rate could very well be related to this deprivation. Start having normal families and achievable goals. It won’t be long that you will become relevant and important as anyone else Stasis is unsustainable. Harboring negative feelings is an anecdote of self-immolation. Trump phenomenon, as people call it, is not really a solution to the ills of an American man. It is but an opportunistic cashing of the situation by a tabloid-famed, self-indulgent, demagogue. In the end, he probably would be flying high but you sure would be the in worst of a situation. The truth is that none of the politicians is interested in your or my welfare but his/her own. It is time for sagacity and wisdom to prevail. The choice is yours!

 

  1. shalimarinsurance.com
  2. https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
  3. https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp

 

Islamophobia—Through YouGove Poll & Pew Research Center Study.

December 30, 2015

men-praying-800x430

Hostility toward Muslims in America exists due to a lack of familiarity with Muslims (and ISLAM).

55% of surveyed Americans had an “unfavorable” opinion of Islam.

 

Islamophobic sentiments are more common among Americans who are 45 and older, those who are Republican and those who are white.

 

2015 data shows that 3% of Americans identify as atheist (as well as 4% who say they’re agnostic and 16% who say they’re nothing in particular). By contrast, less than 1% of Americans identify themselves as Muslim.

 

29% of Americans (and 43% of Republicans) still believe that Obama is a Muslim, according to a poll by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation. (Often white, often Republican)

 

AMERICAN EXPERIENCES

You Gove Poll asked.

(1) Do you personally happen to work with a Muslim? –– 74% said no.

(2) The survey also asked whether respondents “happen to have any friends who are Muslim” – 68% said no.

(3) Another 87% said they had never been inside a mosque.

 

Indeed, a YouGov survey conducted in the days after Trump’s comments found that 40% of Americans supported a national registry of Muslims. Yet again, those views were more commonly held mostly by— older respondents and those who were Republican.

 

 

MUSLIM EXPERIENCES

Pew conducted a survey that sought out only Muslim respondents, in 2011, they found that negative experiences were commonplace: 28% said that in the past year, people had acted suspiciously of them, 22% said they had been called offensive names and 21% said they had been singled out by airport security.

 

Reflect Being an American honestly! Does this unjust Islamophobia based on sheer ignorance and prejudice represents true AMERICA?

Why Muslims are Shari’a averse?

February 12, 2011

Shari’a Law is based on Qura’an, Hadith, and Sunnah ( the practices and verdicts of Prophet Mohammad-PBUH); which all Muslims, regardless of sect and persuasion, are supposed to follow. Despite its canonical status in Islamic theology, there is not a single Muslim Dominated state where it is practiced in its letter and spirit. Even Saudi Arabia, which is often, erroneously, presumed a Shari’a Law state, is severely deficient in its application.

The result is that out of 54 Muslim dominated, so called Islamic states, there is not a single Islamic state practicing the Islamic Laws in its entirety. In Islamic theology, unlike Christian doctrine, there is no concept of separation of religion and State. Some countries, such as Pakistan, are deceptively running two parallel judicial systems, to pacify/suppress the criticism of the conservative segments of the societies. This segment, for political compulsions, is often, slanderously dubbed as extremists Salafis or Wahabis. These groups, in the face of negative connotations, are generally very small and lacking a cohesive strategy for the propagation of their religious doctrines.

There is an elaborate history behind this strange aversion to Shari’a by Muslims. The love-hate situation of this Islamic legal code has weathered several phases.

After the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), there was a blank or dark period of several hundred years. There was no work done on the collection or arrangement of the prophetic traditions (Ahadith). When it started: despite the best process employed: for sorting out the most reliable/authentic ahadith, the skepticism could not be obviated, especially among different sects of Islam, which had emerged in this period. Most of the religious division and sectarian problems stemmed from this period.

This lack of across the board acceptance of authentic Ahadith resulted in the weakening of the institution of shari’a. Ir-repairable damage was done by the division of Muslims in various sects; especially the Shia’a/Sunni; who opted to go with their own set of collection of Ahadith.

Another factor which halted the process of re-invigoration or the organic re-alignment of the religious norms (in the light of Hadith and Sunnah ) happened to be the suspension of Ijtihad (thoughtful intellectualization of the Islamic code of Law) until recently. (Though in Shi’a sect this process continued on a much smaller scale; since the Shi’a sect has always been very small in number)

A very potent propaganda against the Shari’a Law came from the Christendom. Upon deep analysis it transpires that the psychological trauma, suffered by the Christendom at the hands of Muslims, gave rise to a sense of religious and cultural inferiority; which culminated in this all out aggression against the Shari’a, the bedrock of Islamic system.

On the other hand, however, west came out of the slumber of dark-ages due to the Muslim’s splendor and enlightenment, which also challenged the core ethos of Christianity reducing them to fallacies. Muslim’s conquest of the Europe therefore, is being paid in kind.

The West, not only came up with various maligning, misleading propaganda techniques also, cunningly unsuspectingly dissuaded the Muslim elites from following the Shari’a Law.

Muslims failed, to counter these distortions from an intellectually mature standpoint, and resorted only to whining and complaining. They succumbed to these distortions due to their intellectual, educational, religious slumber, which had set in among the Muslims. Westerners, on the other hand, continued developing in educational, industrial and technological areas; which steeped Muslims further into the sense of inferiority complex. The reasons for this Muslim regressive mentality were many, few of which are elaborated below.

Morally bankrupt Muslims started taking refuge/pride in so-called modernized/westernized elitism. Devoid of piety and full of lust for worldly gains became their hallmark, It rendered them morally and spiritually weak, thus scared of harsh punishment meted out under Shari’a Law. The aversion to the Shari’a Law developed out of created fear.

Westernization, under the disguise of modernization, was adopted with regressive mentality and inferiority complex. This dark period, eras of dynastic courtships and blind loyalties; especially resulted in scuttling the organic progression of science, philosophy, ijtihad, religious and secular education. This un-naturally cultivated behavior, in contrast to natural egalitarianism, pushed the Muslims into inferiority complex and crisis of identity.

The emergence of Kamal Atta-Turk, Jamal Abdul Nasir, Mohammad Abdu and Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan, on the Muslim Horizon, is the result of this regressive, inferiority complex ridden mentality. They immensely damaged the Muslim Nation. It created two classes of the followers; one is Modern, west educated, anti-Islamic in essence. other is: oppressed, deprived, economically left out but eager and willing to follow the Shari’a Law in letter and spirit. All the deprivations made him bold and religious enough to be a die-hard follower of Shari’a law, as the only way of salvation in this world and the hereafter. He made it his article of faith and hope.

The first one, maintains a social status in society, generally laced with secular education and well resourced, but often devoid of religious education. This so called Elite, Westernized/Modernized class exhibits avid reluctance, doubt, disregard, and in some instances outright rejection, of this Islamic Code of Law. This class looks down upon religious education and people despite being proud of calling themselves Muslim. A Crisis of Identity, double standard and hypocritical stance.

West has successfully created a parallel man-made code of justice, which is in stark contradiction and negation of Divine justice.

The distinction between the two codes is that the former is devoid of compassion. It seeks out the proof of fault to punish. The Divine justice, on the contrary, exhausts all possible means to give the benefit of the doubt to forgive and the punishment is rendered, as a last resort, in absolute situations when there is no shade of doubt left. For example, in the case of adultery, there is a mandatory requirement of four witnesses; which in normal circumstances is almost impossible to present. In the case of a killing, the litigation under Shari’a Law, is between the killer and the relatives of the victim. If the relatives of the victim forgive the killer there is no punishment awarded.

Under the Man-made Law, however even if the relatives of the victim forgives, the State will not absolve the killer of the crime and he/she would yet be punished. (That is probably why man-made Law is called Blind; since its application is mechanical instead of humane and compassionate)

The point here is that the propaganda of inhumane, harsh punishments rendered under the shari’a law is absolutely out of place and misleading. I will end this piece with one narrative. In the time of one of the four companions of Prophet Mohammad, someone was caught stealing and held liable for severance of one of his hands. The Punishment could not be carried out, as the ruler of the time (the companion of the Prophet) failed to provide the opportunities which would have prevented the compulsion of stealing. The ruler instead was held liable for the circumstances and the punishment was rescinded.

Blogshakir.shalimarinsurance.com
https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

TRANSGENDERED-PEOPLE PUBLISHED. ACCESS MY BLOG.

LOOK FOR MY UPCOMING ARTICLE “MASTURBATION” & MANY MORE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


%d bloggers like this: