Lesson One for the modern Muslim: remember, this is not the 8th century

[NGONGE]

Salman Rushdie

 

 

 

A FEW weeks ago, in an article written in response to the London bombings, I wrote about the urgent need for a “reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern ageâ€.

The response to this article has been widespread and extremely interesting. Naturally there were those who rushed to dismiss my arguments because they came out of my mouth. “The man who lost his personality and beliefs should not speak about the great religion of Islam,†wrote Anna Tanha, of Glasgow.

 

 

However, there was an encouraging flood of more positive commentary, much of it coming from Muslims. “Absolutely right; it is time Muslims accepted that it is Islam’s 8th-century attitudes that are causing so much suffering in the 21st-century world,†wrote Mohammed Iqbal, who comes from Leeds, home of three of the 7/7 bombers. “Please keep dogma aside and let reason be part of the debate. We believers have done enough to harm ourselves. What European monarchs and clergy did in the Dark and Middle Ages is exactly what Muslim rulers and clergy are doing to the Muslim world,†argued Nadeem Akhtar, from Washington, DC.

 

Ozcan Keles, of London, insisted that only “faith-based Muslim leaders†could perform the act of Quranic reinterpretation known as ijtihad, but Haroon Amirzada, a former lecturer at Kabul University, felt that “secular Islamic and non-Islamic Western and Eastern scholars and politicians should work together to modernise Islam to meet the realities of our timeâ€.

 

Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of Hillingdon, Middlesex, pointed out that: “There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Britain who do not follow their religion as strictly as do the older generations . . . We are the mainstream Muslims who are keen to live in peace and harmony with other faith groups, feel proud of being British and are patriotic . . . I know of no organisation that represents the secular and liberal Islam that the vast majority of Muslims follow.â€

 

Several writers challenged me to take the next step and hypothesise the content of such a reform movement. The nine thoughts that follow form an initial response to that challenge, and focus primarily on Britain.

 

It may well be that reform will be born in the Muslim diaspora where contact (and friction) between communities is greatest, and then exported to the Muslim majority countries. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened. The idea of Pakistan was shaped in England, too. So were the history-changing characters of Mahatma Gandhi, Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the pro-British Indian Muslim leader Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.

 

British Muslims, who are mainly of South Asian origin, should remember their own histories. In India, Muslims have always been secularists, knowing that India’s secular constitution is what protects them from the dictatorship of the (Hindu) majority. British Muslims should take a leaf out of their counterparts’ book and separate religion from politics.

 

Remembering history, part 2. Within living memory, Muslim cities such as Beirut and Tehran were cosmopolitan, tolerant, modern metropolises. That lost culture must be saved from the radicals, celebrated, and rebuilt.

 

The idea that all Muslims are kin to all others should be re-examined. The truth is that, as the bitter divisions between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias demonstrate, it is a fiction, and when it deludes young men such as the British 7/7 bombers into blowing up their own country in the name of an essentially fantastical idea of Islamic brotherhood (few British Muslims would find life in conservative Muslim countries tolerable), it is a dangerous fiction.

 

Pan-Islamism, part 2: the people most directly injured by radical Islam are other Muslims: Afghan Muslims by the Taleban, Iranian Muslims by the rule of the ayatollahs; in Iraq, most people killed by the insurgency are Muslims, too. Yet Muslim rhetoric concentrates on the crimes of “the Westâ€. It may be that Muslims need to re-direct their rage against the people who are really oppressing and killing them.

 

In the 1970s and 1980s the politics of British peoples of South Asian origin were largely organised around secular groups, mostly run by activists of Left-Marxist persuasion. The Black/Asian unity of that period was broken, and then replaced, by the mosque-based, faith-determined radical Islam that grew in part out of the protests against The Satanic Verses. That ground needs to be reclaimed (not necessarily by Left-Marxists) by creating truly representative bodies. Then the increasingly discredited “leaders†of the Muslim Council of Britain can be relegated to the fringes where they belong.

 

Reformed Islam would reject conservative dogmatism and accept that, among other things, women are fully equal to men; that people of other religions, and of no religion, are not inferior to Muslims; that differences in sexual orientation are not to be condemned, but accepted as aspects of human nature; that anti-Semitism is not OK; and that the repression of free speech by the thin-skinned ideology of easily-taken “offence†must be replaced by genuine, robust, anything-goes debate in which there are no forbidden ideas or no-go areas.

 

Reformed Islam would encourage diaspora Muslims to emerge from their self-imposed ghettoes and stop worrying so much about locking up their daughters. It would emerge from the intellectual ghetto of literalism and subservience to mullahs and ulema, allowing open, historically based scholarship to emerge from the shadows to which the madrassas and seminaries have condemned it.

 

There must be an end to the defensive paranoia that led some Muslims to claim that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks and, more recently, that Muslims may not have been behind the 7/7 bombings either (a crackpot theory exploded, if one may use the verb, by the recent al-Jazeera video).

 

Not so much a reformation, as several people said in response to my first piece, as an Enlightenment. Very well then: let there be light.

 

 

Source

[NGONGE]

The above should be read alongisde the following this thread.

 

 

Mr Rushdie is back. He’s firing on all cylinders and sprinkling his article with lots of sense and wisdom. In fact, if one sets emotions to one side and reads the article with an ‘open mind’, one is bound to concede the man’s ability to reason and convince.

 

Still, those with a grasp superior to that of a ten-year-old when it comes to reading and writing, would also recognize that being able to reason and convince does not equal being right (it’s a real shame that one has to make such qualifications in every piece one writes, but, such is the nature of discourse in this place).

 

There are many problems facing the Muslim world today. There are many more facing Muslims in the West. Writers, intellectuals and scholars in the Muslim world are conducting their own debates on all issues concerning Muslims (there are even Doctors and Professors being imprisoned in Saudi Arabia and other places for daring to voice opinions incompatible with the official line).

 

These same lights are also discussing the problems facing the Muslims in the West and offering opinions, solutions and fatwas. The vast majority of them have not lived in the West and do not understand nor appreciate the intricacies involved in living in such environment. Many offer solutions that are the exact carbon copy of those being applied in (predominantly) Muslim lands! Round holes and square pegs spring to mind.

 

In the West, Muslim opinions are divided right down the middle. One group rejects all solutions, ideas and thoughts that are different to Muslim conventional wisdom. Islam is perfect, they say. The problem is with the people. People should come back to the way of Allah and everything will be fine! Though the advice is great, it is not a practical solution to the problems facing Muslims in the West today. Still, regardless of how many times one shouts, there is no convincing the pseudo-mullahs.

 

The other group, are those that completely bought the secular dream. They decided to shed the cultural aspects of Islam (and in their eyes that is almost everything). They chose to keep their faith, belief and spirituality private. With some, it’s so private that one only finds out that these people are Muslim when they occasionally condescend to transmit such a well-hidden secret.

 

Within each of these groups, there are huge numbers of people that know this is not the ideal situation or place to be in. They realise and are amazed at the folly of the pseudo-mullahs. They despise the excesses of the ‘designer’ Muslims. However, at every turn, they’re confronted with these two choices and almost forced to pin their flags to one of these crooked masts!

 

Many of these people suffer from rabble-rouser fatigue. They don’t want to hear the same old rhetoric about the West and how it seeks to corrupt our young, poison our souls and dilute our faith. Most have heard this a million times before and fully understand these arguments. A good number reject such rhetoric. However, they also reject the rhetoric of the secularists, liberals and faithless.

 

This is unlikely to remain the case for too long though. The Mullahs (pseudo or otherwise) mainly reside in mosques, Muslim countries or (specifically) Islamic websites. Their messages, arguments and ideas are only seen by those that actively seek them out. And even when one does seek them out, they (mostly) leave a lot to be desired.

 

The other group is mainstream. One sees them at work, school and on TV. They spread the message of tolerance (which is a great message by the way), peace (another great message) and understanding (how could such people ever go wrong?). They recruit figures from all over the Muslim world to help them further their objectives. In addition, they use people like Salman Rushdie (above), Irshad Manji and the like. People that (despite their deviations) are of a similar background to Western Muslims and have (had) similar experiences, faced similar obstacles and ruminated on similar thoughts!

 

Their articles seem to be appearing on newspapers on a daily bases now. They manage to appear on regular news programs and even talk their way into presenting their own documentaries about Islam. This constant bombardment (one that uses good logic, coherent arguments and fair analysis) slowly chips at the will of western Muslims and creates cracks in their stubborn resistance. The Mullah’s (artificial ones mainly) meanwhile, wring their hands, promise hell fire and pat each other’s back for their own steadfastness and indefatigability!

 

Is it not time that the ‘silent majority’ stood up to both groups. Should we not (depending on what side you find yourself leaning towards) air our own opinions on the subject and why we think one side is correct or why we reject one (or both)?

 

Read Rushdie’s piece above! If you disagree with it, can you possibly challenge it without appearing like a child having a tantrum or a half-wit? Could you present an acceptable argument without sounding like a hypocrite? Good. That’s what needs to be done. The man said, let there be light..

[DraGon]

"Let there be light" is a christian concept.

 

In Islam its "FOLLOW THE STRAIGHT PATH"

 

I see the light in Rashids argument but the light is obscuring my vision of the STRAIGHT PATH.

I need a reasonable and trustworthy amount of light that will uluminate the PATH, THE STRAIGHT PATH.

 

Allahu Yallam..

 

Good read tho.

[Baashi]

Ngonge,

 

Granted Salman Rushdie is a prolific writer. His talent in articulating views or dramatizing plots has been acknowledged in many circles. He had put, in the past, his talents into use by writing Satanic Verses and won much praise from many corners mostly from like-minded people who had suspected all along that the Divine revelation Prophet Mohamed recited and preached is not what Muslims made it out to be. He has offended millions of follow Muslims by writing that book. Although I am reluctant to question other people’s faith, given the man’s public work, it’s not farfetched to say that a deep faith in the essence of Islam is lacking from his part.

 

I am not that impressed by the eloquence of hypocrites like Rushdie. I am the view that when it comes to issues of larger concern to Muslims, only sincere and pious Muslims who are genuinely interested in reclaiming (restoring if you will) Islam from the confused souls (be it reformers - those who are itching to introduce innovation to Islam- and enraged Muslims who lost their moral compass due to frustration and desperation) should take part the discussion in finding way out of the backwardness that’s been characterized Muslim countries all over the world.

 

The exhortations of the likes of Rushdie and Manji are not to be heeded. The reason being that they are for secularism, for relativism, for homosexuality, etc the opposite of what Islam is all about. The line between the two camps is very clear. Any effort to reconcile the two will fail. A hypocrite’s exhortation is meaningless and changes nothing.

 

Now that being said, let me address the central point of your post. I’m not sure if I got the gist of the post but I have a hunch that you are impressed by how reasonable and articulate Rushdie has been in his latest write-up. In addition you are worried that the two groups one group being the Rushdie’s camp and the other being not so enlightened mullahs are ripping the Muslims masses apart. These two are presenting the masses a dilemma you implied.

 

The question you posed therefore is should they let them run away the ball, as it were, and let them celebrate in a false victory over each other at our expense! Moreover, to paraphrase you again, the silent majority, you thought, has an obligation to chip in and declare where they stand in this conflict staged mostly in the western media! These are good questions even though I don’t regard the Rushdie camp as sincere and genuine Muslims and hence don’t equate them with the mullahs. For mullahs with all their mistakes, they have the best interest of Islam at heart and the idea of restoring Islam might appeal to them.

 

Nevertheless, I ask you how you suppose the silent majority to go about your suggestions?

 

There are many genuine and sincere Muslims out there who don't get exposure the likes of Manji and Rushdie seem to be getting. They reason, they take great pain in articulating the hopes and aspirations of the masses by calling diamond a diamond. One of these great minds is S. A. Abdi and has put a great solution on the table. His solution is called "The Hudaibia Approach" and it's inline with the Prophet Mohamed's (pbuh) worldview. I posted that article in SomaliaOnline Weekly Bulletin thread. I can't be bothered to dig that up and provide the link.

 

PS: I’m sure you agree with me that opinions vary and reasonable people can sometimes disagree in good faith. If nomads don’t agree with your line of reasoning or see things through different lenses that doesn’t mean that they have comprehension problem. All it means is that they just don’t see the way you see things.

[Haaraahur.]

Bashi I coudn't have said it better than you!

[Baashi]

Sxb I found the article I mentioned in my prev post. In the interest of informing the nomads about the existence of sincere Muslims that has a sensible, sound, and reasonable approach to present crisis, I posted (I hope you don't mind) this article.

 

Note the author's interest is empowering Muslims (solidarity is encouraged) by tapping to the modern knowledge and existing technologies all the while keeping their sacred Islam intact. This is what I like to call reclaiming Islam or restoring Islamic institutions without reducing the Divine texts to man made constitution open for amedments.

 

I wonder when his likes would get the exposure of likes of Ayan, Manji, and the well known author Mr. Rushdie enjoy in the Western media.

--------------------------------------------

 

The Hudaibia Approach

 

5/9/2004 - Political - Article Ref: IV0404-2291

Number of comments: 3

Opinion Summary: Agree:2 Disagree:0 Neutral:1

By: S. A. Abidi

Iviews* -

 

As a Muslim I agreed with my Spiritualist friend who was willing to offer whatever sacrifices were required for defending Islam. But I believe every Muslim must use his intellect and take into account the realities around him or her before taking any action. One must ensure that the ends as well as the means at his disposal meet the moral standards of Islam. For instance, it would be unthinkable for me to rob someone in order to buy a ticket for Hajj, or to attack a whole army with the help of two friends and getting killed without achieving anything. With such perceptions I found it difficult to share with my friend the perceptions of the dangers and the sacrifices that he carries with him.

 

My spiritual friend is well versed in theology, but has no clue of sociology and historiography that was founded by Ibne Khaldun who explained how societies succeed and fail. When he talks of knowledge, he is not referring to Algebra, which takes its name from the Arabic book Kitab aljabr wa al-muqabalah written by Al-Khwarizmi or for that matter Algorithms which is a highly developed mathematical concept worked out by the same Muslim Arab whose corrupted name it still bears. Yet the scholar was a product of a madrassah of 9th. Century Baghdad and this friend of mine graduated from a 21st. Century madrassah in Pakistan. He has not heard of these 1200 years of gems of knowledge that were borrowed by those nations who now rule the world, because the knowledge of religion has since been separated from the knowledge of the world around us, that was never the intention of Islam.

 

Perhaps his compartmentalized knowledge that excludes the realities of the changed world, is the cause of confusion in coping with the world that he hardly understands. No wonder he is frustrated in finding why has his society collapsed over him. A person with such a victimized perspective may buy or steal Klashnikoves in desperation to express his rage but may not be able to repair them when they malfunction. Such a person may aim guns at the enemy but may not know how to calculate the trajectory. In his frustration he is ready to lay down his life to bring back the glory of Muslims but he has no idea how it will come about.

 

Though his intentions of defending Islam are noble but his sacrifice of life may go to waste because the idea of defeating his perceived enemies with the destructive weapons that he borrows from them, is by itself self-defeating. It would have been a different story, had he chosen to borrow the instruments of construction from his adversaries to build his strength, like his adversaries did in the 15th. Century Europe.

 

First of all he must identify his true enemy that has put Islam in danger, which is his IGNORANCE of the technology of progress. That makes him an incomplete entity in the world community that is driven by knowledge. He must pick up the threads where he had left and make a run to join them with the present day realities, whatever it may take. It is not as formidable a task as it may look at first sight. He has sufficient means to educate himself and the sources of information are in plenty and faster than ever. All he needs is the will to overcome the obstacles in his way to recovery. This may however need sacrifices --- but a different kind of sacrifice.

 

He has to prevail upon the rulers who decide his destiny, not to misappropriate billions to keep in their personal accounts, but spend for educating the masses. It may cost them their power and treasures, but will make them more respectable and their nations more powerful. He has to join forces with his compatriots in other lands to bring about solidarity and to ensure cooperation in trade, industry and research that are the true sources of power of a people and only guarantee for peace. These efforts may no doubt put my friend in trouble. He may be put behind the bars, but such sacrifice of personal freedom will deliver freedom to Ummah in the long term. This may cost him even his life, but it will be a worthwhile sacrifice and will deliver what no suicide bomber has been able to achieve.

 

My spiritual friend asked me, how could he survive as a weakling, while the long process of change takes place. He does not have to go far looking for an answer. It is already spelt out in the great wisdom of the treaty of Mecca that can be called the "Hudaibiya Approach". When you do not have the wherewithal to prevail upon your adversary, there is no need to kill innocent people, which is against the teachings of Islam, or get killed yourself in vain. Use diplomacy --- simply make peace and persevere. This approach may be used to enhance the strength of your social and moral values and to re-structure your knowledge base, which will win you more friends and make your economy and defense capability stronger.

 

Those who are trapped in Wana, (Wana is located about 17 miles from the Afghan/Pakistan border on the eastern edge of a valley approximately 4,500 feet in elevation. In March 2004, Pakistan military carried out an operation in the region against suspected al Qaida and Taliban members) are sadly the victims of circumstances and their own miscalculations. Their clever friends made them believe that they were fighting a war against the Godless Communists and defending Islam. In fact they were sacrificing their lives in defense of Capitalism. When the truth was revealed and the friendship turned sour, they became the victims of the same Capitalism --- for Capitalism has no friends but the lust for wealth. Sadly, it is questionable whether these fighters did serve Islam then or are serving it now, despite their pious intentions. Valor may be a commendable quality, but watchfulness comes first. Not only should one know his enemy but should also be able to choose the battleground where he can win.

 

People who want to master their destiny must possess the KNOWLEDGE of how societies progress and grow from strength to strength in the fields of economy, science, technology, diplomacy and solidarity with friends, and how the greedy adventurers can be kept away. A deep faith in the essence of Islam should provide an anchor, which others may learn to emulate.

 

The author is an independent commentator based in Karachi, Pakistan

[NGONGE]

Great article, Baashe. However, it really does not address the problems we face here in the West.

As I already said in my first post, there is an abundance of writers, scholars, intellectuals and fraudsters in the Muslim world. The debate there has been (from the days of Jamal-El-Deen Al Afghani and Mohamed Abdo) and is still raging in those parts of the world. I have come across great articles by Egyptian, Jordanian, Kuwaiti and North African writers (of all walks of life and all ideologies/political persuasions and religious sects). They all speak about the Muslim Ummah in general and the assumptions they make as they build their various hypothesis is that Muslims are in charge of their own destinies and can rule themselves. All well and good if you lived in Muslim lands. However, most of it does not apply to you and me in our daily lives.

 

You say that you are not interested in what Rushdie has to say because he’s a hypocrite. You have been lucky enough to have been around when the row over Rushdie’s book exploded in the late eighties/early nineties. Like me, you probably eagerly followed the news back then and knew all that was needed to be known about Rushdie and his Satanic Verses (I will bet though that you have not read the book). Having been there and seen the events unfold, you have strong feelings about Rushdie and his ‘hypocrisy’. Hence, why you feel justified in rejecting all that he says. However, the majority of the Muslims in the West are not you and I. Many don’t even know about Rushdie’s background (it has been almost 18 years since his book was first published and the first murmurs of disapproval heard).

 

The issue is not one of being impressed with Rushdie’s ability to write, not for me anyway, for I don’t agree with the man’s ideas to begin with. I don’t agree with his ideas because I know better. I don’t agree with him because I have the education and knowledge (albeit basic) to rightfully reject some of his arguments (he makes sense in parts). The issue is for others to be impressed with Rushdie’s words. I shudder to think what a sporadically educated Western Muslim will make of such words (assuming that the artificial-mullahs didn’t get him/her first). The article itself already carries letters of encouragement from some UK Muslims who liked Rushdie’s previous piece about Islam. Try to read the piece again in that light and not how it relates to you then let us begin this debate, saaxib.

 

PS

To say that opinions vary, people disagree and not everyone follows the same line of thinking is to state the obvious, saaxib. You have your occasional faults but (usually) stating the obvious is not one of them. Am I to assume that this was a gentle telling off then?

 

I’m afraid I’ll have to lecture you again, saaxib. Have the goodness to bare with me as I rant.

 

Baashe, if I say to you that the sky is blue and you tell me that it is cloudy, we have a disagreement. We might use the power of sight to SEE if it is indeed blue or cloudy. It is possible that even with the naked eye we would still struggle to decide if the sky is blue or cloudy. I might decide that it is more blue than cloudy and therefore it is blue. You might decide that it is cloudier than blue and therefore it is cloudy. Though it’s trivial, this is what I consider to be a disagreement, having different opinions or a different line of reasoning on the SAME issue.

 

When I tell you that the sky is blue and you decide to argue about the shortage of rain and blame the ozone layer or some such nonsense, I’m forced to conclude that your reading comprehension abilities are wanting.

 

Those I accuse of having appalling reading capacities have proved me right time and again. Those I’ve accused of being emotional have been blubbering all over the site since the day it was opened.

 

This place is an online version of a Somali coffee shop. When I go to one of those and am faced with some simpleton spouting nonsense in my direction and expecting me to engage him in a non-existent debate, I would normally put him down and mock him mercilessly. Will you call it arrogance? So be it.

 

Moreover, I’m an adult, a grownup and a responsible person. I don’t debate with kids. I either teach them or tell them off (the latter has been taking place on SOL quite often lately). In this place, one can’t guess the ages of the Nomads (they could be eight or eighty for all I know). However, one can and should always judge them by the words they write and the debates they put forward. Many here attempt to punch above their weight and fail miserably. I said it before and say it again, this is not due to a lack of intelligence on their part. This is due to un-harnessed emotions, uncultivated minds and the enemy of all men, HASTE.

 

If you give me reason to think you suffer from bad reading skills, I shall not mince my words and waste my time and yours by engaging you in endless argument. I shall tell you to work on your reading before attempting to take part in serious debates. The rules of the site might forbid personal attacks, however, in this case, nothing but a personal attack will suffice. If one points out to a deaf man that the wax build-up is what’s causing his deafness, one is doing the deaf man a service methinks.

[xiinfaniin]

The issue of reforming Islam is not a new one. It has been around for a long time. Its proponents have tried tirelessly but failed miserably to get their message to the masses, let alone celebrate the success of its sabotaging affect. The reason is very simple indeed. They lack very important ingredients for undertaking any reform (reform is the wrong word here as we talking about divine text; reclaim, as Baashi suggested, is good alternative). Following are those critical components they missed and the nature of their newly found ideas. Discounting those who deliberately decided to dwell in the darkness, I hope this could help genuinely confused souls.

 

It is generally agreed by all Muslim jurists and commonly accepted by the Muslim masses that the divine word of Allah (Qur’an) and the sound tradition of his Messenger (Axaadiith) are sacred texts whose fundamentals can’t be altered. This, by default, is the Ijmaac of Muslim Ummah. Hence, by advocating reforming these texts and by attempting to recast their teachings these westernized Muslims have, on the outset, shown utter disregard for what the masses hold so dearly. They address issues that concern Muslim society and yet they sound outsiders. They praise Islamic values and take pride in its universality and yet they seem to have blind admiration for every thing Western. Alas, they even want and actively seek to apprehend the basic Islamic concepts and attitudes to the conformity of that of the West.

 

From the issues ranging political systems to social structures, these so called moderates have attempted to introduce alien ideas that can hardly fit and have no place in the Islamic faith. For them, Hijaab is a primitive practice of the 8th century and a symbol of backwardness. In the disguise of women rights (ignoring women wear Hijaab by choice), they hopelessly try to defame its practice. For some, the notion of moral relativism is quite appealing. For they have sadly lost their moral moorings, they see no problem with the sexual wantons and other social ills and even want to reform Islam to tolerate it and show respect, as they claim, for the diverse sexual orientations. In the political arena, the moderates sing, once again, the popular songs of the west. The separation of the mosque and the state is the solution they prescribe for our political ills. Without considering the historicity and the political and social factors of this concept they advise Muslims to adopt merely because those who practice it seem to have better governance than that of Muslim countries. And finally they advocate the notion of free speech and take it to a different level. Mr. Rushdie is prime example of what happens when one lets his lower soul to lead. He made a living on demoting and degrading the Prophet of Allah. When the Muslim public protests in the thousands, the West shows dismay at the sheer intolerance of the wailing masses.

 

What these ideas show is how dishonesty these reformers are. It shows how ignorant they are about the basics of Islamic jurisprudence, for instance. It is obvious these westernized moderates have been disconnected from and lost in touch with the pressing issues in the Muslim world. Thankfully the Muslim mainstream understands them for what they are. And despite NGONGE’s assertion, the Muslim mainstream has long impeached the intellectual integrity of the likes of Rushdie and does not find their writings appealing. If one thinks that the likes of Rushdie and Manji are ‘sprinkling lots of sense and wisdom’ with their articles and the Muslim mainstream is buying it, he must be reposing under the shades of delusion. That which seems to him as a lofty tree is indeed deprived from its branches. Ha ku daalin adeer.

 

On the other hand, those who want to reclaim Islam have done so by preaching to the masses (not writing from the distance, mind you) and highlighting what the real problems are. The reason Muslims descended from their height is not because Islamic concepts and principles failed to keep pace with this ever-changing world, they point out, rather it is because Muslims has neglected their responsibility, declined to awaken their inner consciousness, and failed to regenerate their lost glory. The reform is long due. But it is not about Islam. Rather it is about Muslims. There may be snippets of undesirable and violent peeks, but in the most part the genuine Muslim scholars are doing good job at reforming Muslims. In where I live I am witnessing how these reforms are resonating with the Muslims in the west. The practice of ribaa is addressed, conservative Muslims schools are established, and questions about voting, taxes, and loyalties are probed. The Hijaab is slowly but surely coming back in practice. For NGONGE’s information, beards are growing with thickness and trousers are receding. But more importantly, the conservative and traditional Muslim teachings are coming back. In the first time in a long period, I have been able to attend Xalaqaat of diverse subjects; Abuu-macaal’s Jurisprudence, Tahawi’s Islamic Caqqiidah, and the Raxabiyah of Islamic inheritance.

 

As gloomy as it may seem, in the Muslim world there are shoots of hope. More importantly there seems to be a proof that this religion can not be and will never be a plaything for the debased hands of the likes of Rushdie..

[Baashi]

Very well Ngonge.

 

I was under impression that you are one of the few articulated nomads who wouldn't just get to the Ma fahmi kartid level due to the frustration stemming from the fact that your views don't seem to get through as you would like them to. Don't panic for I completely understand where you are coming from. FYI, Ma fahmi kartid is a phrase used by a great man who just couldn't see eye to eye with his nephew on matters of great importances.

 

This great man, Somali by the way, was full of himself, knew many things from the top of his head, and take a great interest in his nephew's development. He would lecture him about how things are and how he sees it. The nephew had habit to surprise him and ask his great uncle a question about the subject he is preaching. The questions this kid had managed to come up time and again were very simple. His questions were based on different perspective, however.

 

Out of frustration the great uncle would throw his hands at air and say that famous phrase Adeer, ma fahmi kartid. He wouldn't just answer kid's questions! It was a defence mechanism and the phrase was indicative of what's lacking from the old man. He just simply didn't have the wisdom and patience to give the answers the kid demanded of him to understand in order to try to put two and two together.

 

The point is obvious! It's time to find your nitch and cross the bridge and once understand that reosanable people will sometimes disgaree and always one side will claim that the other side just don't get it and try to accuse them of being obtuse, ignorant, or partisanship. If you choose this name calling dig you seem to be resorting to a la Ma fahmi kartid style, our discussion will be pointless.

 

The better way in dealing with people in this kind of setting is to ask clarification or to limit the scope of the topic by stating the thesis in a concise and clear manner. That way, the misunderstanding can be eliminated.

 

Now, with that lecture from my part, let's call it even and decide whether we want to continue the discussion in a goood faith so we can at least try to understand where other side is coming from. I think I know where you are at on the issue. I have asked you how you suppose the 'silent majority' to go about what you have in mind. You could simply share your thoughts and we could take it from there.

 

Short in time saaxiib...will be back tomorrow Allah willing. In the meantime, try to be calm. Think hard and try to sell whatever you have in mind. You will find me reasanble and accomodating but I will not hold back my take on the issue. I know you can do it.

 

I don't think we have a big disagreement here.

[NGONGE]

^^^ There is no point, saaxib. When it comes to serious debates, I want to debate with like-minded people. People that I would learn from or those that would help me to see things from a different angle. Those that I believe to be of a lesser level of understanding, knowledge or comprehension I needn't waste my time ‘educating’. Experience tells me that this is a thankless task and that people with the blinkers fully switched on are never likely to ‘learn’.

 

Still, I’m an optimist and know that if you knock a door long enough someone eventually opens up.

 

I don’t think this thread is worth pursuing because, after reading my contributions (I even referred to that Irshad Manji thread) and my opinions you still asked me what I think the silent majority should do (it makes me wonder if you actually read either of these threads). At least you were one step ahead off Xiin, who just rehashed old arguments and did not deal with the points I raised.

 

 

The perplexing thing here is that I don’t regard either of you as obtuse or lacking understanding. Maybe it’s just religious topics that do this to you!

 

At any rate, this topic has been tarnished now and I doubt it could be resurrected by either of us. Should someone present us with new arguments, I’ll be sure to return. In the meantime, I’ll beg your pardon and politely decline from entering into another of those cul-de-sac argument.

[Baashi]

^^^ There is no point, saaxib. When it comes to serious debates, I want to debate with like-minded people. People that I would learn from or those that would help me to see things from a different angle.

Those that I believe to be of a lesser level of understanding, knowledge or comprehension I needn't waste my time ‘educating’.

Experience tells me that this is a thankless task and that people with the blinkers fully switched on are never likely to ‘learn’.

Just what I suspected all along!

 

I think you are on the right track. Don't waste your time with people of a lesser cognitive abilities which I'm sure are hard to find anyway! I too would probably have reached the same conclusion had I find myself in the same situation. If you could only listened to yourself...you would probably have noticed that your absorbing posts are beyond comprehension . Never have I thought that you would stoop this level of arrogance! Xataa calla Haamaan yaa Fircoon

 

In the final analysis, this topic and the tone of it will speak for itself. You would think that it is common courtesy to refrain from this kind of gutless tactics.

 

Oh! how was my assumptions were wrong! I actually thought that you can easily convince nomads that what you are advancing are right, easy, and common sensical; that the fact that Rusdie, Manji's enlighteneded, sound, reasonable, and rational argument is admirable and at the sometime wrong. The fact that this is not happening is very telling saaxiib.

 

I wanted to monitor the thread and make sure that you are being challenged enough that you would be forced to spill all the wisdom you never cease to showcase.

 

Allas! Hanaan gobonimo iyo halkaan, hadiyad eegaayey; Haf miyaad la tidhi xeyr sidaad haan ku dhayaneeyso- Yaa ka dhacday!

[Castro]

There is no reforming Islam. What defects are to be removed? What errors can be corrected? What improvements can be made?

 

Islam v 2.0 is an option many other religions have pursued. But that defeats the purpose of following the divine words. So what to do? Renunciation? Abstention? Rushdie and Manjie have essentially renounced Islam but just can't get themselves to say it publicly. But before you start applauding Castro, think long and hard what that means. Why it only means they're aware of their renunciation.

 

Just how many people you know (including yourself), even those who are "practising" muslims, have renounced it as well but have quarantined those neurons in their brain that reached the conclusion. Faith is a moving target. It comes and goes. But sometimes it goes and it stays gone. Many of us, including myself, imagine the almighty, the day of judgment and other intangibles, in the exact same way they did as toddlers. I mean, really, how much further has your understanding of the intangible world improved since the age of 4?

 

Reform is a fork in the road. It separates those who have held their bets with their faith and will live watching their stock in the afterlife rise from those who have bet the afterlife is just after with no life and will reform Islam to remove the nuisance it has become in their lives.

 

P.S. I've read no conclusive scientific research to support the above statements. They are entirely my own "heartfelt intuitions or emotional inclinations".

[Baashi]

Reform is a fork in the road. It separates those who have held their bets with their faith and will live watching their stock in the afterlife rise from those who have bet the afterlife is just after with no life and will reform Islam to remove the nuisance it has become in their lives.

Ain't that true!

 

So what you make of the point that the 'silenty majority' are being influenced by the ones who have, for all practical purposses, renounced their religion and would want to reconcile the tolerant liberal views that do see divine revelation as being "nuisance" and religion that prides itself as way of life and won't give an inch away?

 

How do you suppose the "silent majority" (millions scattered all over with no unifying leadership to date) go about in accomodating to those who have been empowered and given exposure to preach to the target group that they should take the necessary steps in order to integrate to secular pluralistic society?

 

What have Castro done so far about the problem personally? Or still better question would be where does Castro fall on the spectrum: a)you admire for how sound and rational the exhortations of hypocrites are, b)you are indecisive and helpless member of the silent majority, c)you are practicing muslim described as being "beard-stroking", "hijab-adjusters" (bal goormaa sunnadii cilad laga dhigay) ignorant semi-mullahs or d) wishy-washy outsider (still Muslim) standing at the sidelines observing the events as they unfold as if they don't matter to him at all?

 

It's no surprise to me that you have renounced "Reform" at once Bravo!

[Castro]

Originally posted by Baashi:

Or still better question would be where does Castro fall on the spectrum

I invoke my fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

[Baashi]

^It has been the tradition of the competent lawyers to start hitting on the grounding doing all that is required to uncover the relevant details of the person who opted to invoke the 5th.

 

You are not on trial nor are you on suspicion of anything worth investigating. You are asked these questions because you are merely a star witness of discussing an issue of great importance to us and your cooperation might be helpful to shed light on the psyche of those who sympathize with the liberal-inclined Muslims who wish to have their cake and eat it too.

 

Since you chikened away and opt to guard your privacy (unnecessarily for no one has a stomach for that kinda discussion), the manly man has no recourse but to retire and wait when an interesting issues like this come up again.