Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby RajeshA » 13 Dec 2011 13:44

Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History, Society, Memes, Agenda & Threat

On BRF, as we all see there has clearly been an increase in interest in trying to understand Islam. Much of the commentary is also critical of Islam. But we obviously have a problem in discussing Islam.

Over 165 million Indian citizens are Mohammedans and consider Islam their religion. So the question we always face is how to discuss Islam without hurting their feelings, exacerbating communal tensions in India, or for that matter isolating them from the Indian mainstream and Indian nationalism.

On the other hand, it would be irresponsible in not acknowledging how the Indian Civilization has been ravaged by groups who have availed of Islamic structures, its paroles and the mass of its adherents! In fact India still faces the threat from these groups.

Every Muslim in India is influenced by Islam, Humanism, their pre-Islamic cultural holdovers, the Modern World and religious apathy. Often Muslims would try to explain the rest - Humanism, Cultural Tendencies and Modernity in terms of Islam, trying to find sanction and confirmation in theology. That would always remain up for debate. Some may consider Humanism to be part of Islam others would consider both - Islam and Humanism, to be the two opposite ends of a spectrum, with every Muslim somewhere in between. Some may see the Muslim masses as simply people enslaved by the Ideology.

It is important to acknowledge that in such a discussion we should always be cognizant of the fact that Muslims belong to India and enjoy their inalienable fundamental rights in India. Also one needs to acknowledge that the discussion is not to humiliate them or hurt their feelings, but rather the aim of the discussion is to understand the nature of threat the Indian Civilization faces from Islamic groups and their ideology.

As we discuss Islam and its various aspects, it is important that we remain dispassionate about it, that it be discussed without the use of vulgarity towards the symbols of Islam. There should be no name calling! However the truth be spoken as it is! Satyamev Jayate! If something can be sourced from theological and historical discourses then it can be discussed, regardless of what light it may throw upon Islam - whether positive or negative.

It is one thing to consider Islam a threat, it is another thing to hate Islam. Any commentary we make, we can do it from the first perspective and we should strictly try to curb any hateful commentary, for that would undermine the objectivity this thread would like to portray!

At the moment, BRFites are spraying their analysis of Islam all over the place. Much of it lands in the TIRP Thread but it also lands elsewhere. This thread is being set up to provide a home for all those posts.

I have my doubts that this thread would last very long, considering that the Moderators may be averse to having the negative feelings of so many posters towards Islam, posted here on BRF openly and publicly. So anybody who is interested that this thread does last for sometime, should try to use some "enlightened moderation"!

However it may be worthwhile to collect those posts here than have those posts scattered all around the place, which makes the work of Moderators even more difficult.

If the Moderators feel that this thread is not warranted, it is their prerogative to shoot it down any time! I just feel that such a thread is part of the natural evolution of BRF and it is time to have this thread!

Thank you all for your cooperation in keeping this thread alive.

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby Atri » 13 Dec 2011 15:01

Understanding Islamic social power-structure: Critical Appraisal of Muhammad from perspective of memetics

Introduction

Philosophers come up with all sorts of philosophies they feel like. We have whole range of them. They are originators of memes.

The blame for misuse of ideologies and subsequent massacre of people lie on the head of kings and policy makers who utilize the suitable meme from available set of memes for gaining political mileage. Just like Constantine for life time was massacring Christians and on his death bed, accepted Christianity and started massacring Pagans. Constantine made Jesus as popular as he is today. Ashok made Buddha as popular. Without Constantine and Ashok, Jesus and Buddha were just another philosophers.

Muhammad was one of the very few originators of religious memes who patronized himself to become so successful. He did not depend upon some king. This shows that he was a successful human being. He became an authentic policy-maker of his kingdom and as I said, political policy-makers are the ones to blame primarily for misuse of the ideological memes. Muhammad being originator and implementor of Islam, gets both the accolades for being so immensely successful and criticisms for using his own philosophy for gaining political mileage.

The character was Adolf Hitler showed slightly similar trajectory. He came up with philosophy, he got power, he implemented his philosophy and became immensely popular. And later, infamous !!!

Muhammad was a man of power and always aspired to be one. He was an ambitious man. I am just looking at him as an ambitious politician and a human being, instead of divine messenger. This was not the case with Moses and Jesus as they were just another philosophers and not politicians and policy-makers. They came up with philosophy, people utilized it for their good and evil.

This "Islam in danger" mentality is the real pain in the ass for Muslims. Sadly Muslims don't recognize this. This is denotes the influence of Mullah-theocracy under whose exasperating influence lies the Muslim society, and will cause their doom in coming days.

The social power-structure

A Qazi or a Mullah controls the social matters and ascertains the "report-card" of spiritual progress of ordinary Abdul. And sad part is ordinary Abdul in India can't even think of rebelling because if he does, he will be branded as "enemy of Islam" by power-establishment and will bring "Islam in danger". Hence, Jihad against him.

"One God-One Book-One Prophet-No Pork" was so far the best definition of Islam given to me by an illiterate Thai-Muslim cleaning lady in my dormitory. This is the central dogma. Around this central dogma has developed a system in which Mullah who uses this opiate (of religion) to control masses and usurps power, himself consumed by the one. Thus, once a part of system which gives you enormous power as long as you keep ordinary Abdul frightened of divine wrath, it is an extremely seductive offer.

Ordinary Abdul is prohibited to learn Quran in his mother-tongue. He is prohibited and threatened with his life, he tries and makes his own interpretation of the book which somehow goes against this power-structure. He is forced to suspend his critical faculties in favour of faith and fear of Sky-daddy. He is actively dissuaded from free-thinking.

This power-structure is inherently linked perhaps with the nature and Chitta-Vritti of Prophet Muhammad himself. Belief in Allah is not enough to ensure the place in heaven. One has to depend upon Muhammad's favours and his influence on god to go to heaven and get 72 hoors. Thus, Muhammad made himself more powerful than Allah.

Thus, in Islam for all practical purposes, Muhammad, the Rasool, is supremely powerful figure. This is as perfect and complete as it can get. Muhammad will only talk to Allah about you if you were a true Muslim.

But who determines who the true-Muslim is and who is not, herein lies the real crux of the issue.

Historical aspects of expansion of Islamic power-structure

Muhammad made himself irreplaceable and went to Jannat. But he left behind a power-structure which was perfectly organized in otherwise dispersed pre-Islamic Arabia. Thus, this power-structure was perfected and cemented by Islamic expansion under first four Caliphs.

Interesting thing is that, the important civilizations of that age were Western-Roman, Eastern-Roman, Egyptian, Carthaginian, Persian, Indian, Chinese. Persians and Byzantines (eastern-Roman) were exhausted in long warfare with each other. Persia in particular; which also had similarly modelled monotheistic power-structure of one-main god (Ahura Mazda)-One messenger (Zarathushtra)-One book (Zend Avesta).

Egypt was decadent. Carthinigians were ideologically stagnated for some time. Byzantines were strong because they had new influx of ideas from all over the world Istanbul being on silk-route, had access to traders, technologies and most importantly ideas from China, India, Persia, Israel, Greece and Rome. Thus, it took time for Islam to overcome Byzantines.

The biggest losers in the expanding power-structure of Islam were Persians and Egyptians; Persians in particular. The soft-monotheism of Zoroastrian Persia could not counter the hard and perfected monotheism of Islam. The military might of Persia was already weakened due to Byzantine wars. Hence Persia crumbled. Yet, time and again, Persia, unlike egypt, has shown that its old civilization is not dead yet. The memory is still very much alive in subconscious minds of Persians. The most glaring example of this is the persistent popularity of "Shahnama" by "Firdowsi" in Persia for over a thousand years now.

Bhaarat or India, OTOH, was a different ball game for Islam. Arabs could not conquer any part of region which was under influence of Indic civilization for at-least 250 years since their first raid on Sindh in 640 AD. Until 711 AD, there were many successive waves which were thoroughly repelled. Muhd bin Qasim successfully ventured into Sindh. However, arabs were gradually replaced by Sumer Rajputs in Sindh. Battle of Rajasthan completely nullified any Islamic influence in subcontinent for almost 300 years.

Interestingly, Afghanistan resisted Islamization for 250 years after fall and Islamization of Persia. The most interesting thing, worth noting is that central Asia (turkmenistan, Khazak, tajikistan etc) was conquered and Islamized about centure before Gaandhar and Afghanistan was. And within 20 years of fall of afghanistan, the Islamic raids started on Gaandhar and Kekay. This shows the influence and resilience of Indic civilization.

The Islamic expansion in India was primarily Central-Asian. Central Asian tribal mentality has been eternal enemy of Indic civilization since Rigvedic days and battle of ten kings. This mentality was always invasive towards throughout the history. Just that after Islamization, this tendency became more rabid and malignant. Destructive, it always was. But ideologically inferior and barbaric than Indic civilization.

But, this was not new to Bhaarat and Indic civilization was accustomed to assimilating new tribes, people, ideas and memes from central asia and perfectly Indianize them. Scythians, Kushans, Huns, Yavans and many others are glaring examples of this fact. The central asian variant of Islam too was gradually on verge of Indianization. Dara-Shikoh was the primary example of this co-synthesis of new Indianized traditions. The turning point in Indian Islam came with advent of Aurangzeb in 17th century. Herein, lies the place of Aurangzeb, and hence Shivaji, in Indian history. The defeat of Dara was IMHO one of the most tragic incidence in Indian history. Without Aurangzeb, there would have been a perfectly Indian variant of Islam.

Propagation

Propagation of Islam is in fact propagation of Mullah-based social power-structure associated with it.

Sufis played a major role, yes. But once Islam was established, they found themselves enlisted as Kaafirs along with other Kaafirs. Any established monolithic power-structure does not like influx of new ideas. Rather it wants controlled influx of new ideas. They prefer standardisation and mass-production over innovation. This ensures efficient execution of power-machinery.

Even where Sufis introduced their abstract free-thinking ideas, this free-thinking was standardised and all anomalies were removed by forcible imposition and dominance of Deobandi Islam, which is now followed by Wahabi Islam. Wahabism is so far the most efficiently standardised school of Islam with maximum devotion of followers towards Qazi-Mullah power structure and minimum anomalies. Anomalies are looked upon as abnormalities and are violently uprooted. They follow the literal meaning of the book.

They can and have declared non-Wahabis as Kuffars. But so far, no Deobandi or Barelvi or Sufi or Shia or ahmediya or Bahai people have dared to declare Wahabism as Kufr and un-Islamic. The power structure, along with separation of Abdul and Ayesha from ability to think rationally, gives propagation of Deobandi and Wahabi forms of Islam maximum mileage. Most of others are already enlisted as Kaafirs and are on target list of suicide bombers eager to meet their 72 in paradise. This is because, deep down, every Mullah knows, that he cannot defeat the Wahabi interpretation of Quran as Non-Islamic unless Quran is reformed, which is not allowed. Hence it seems that deobandis will have to merge in with Wahabis or become as fanatic as Wahabis.

The cycle initiated for grabbing and then cementing a lucrative position in the power-structure (Qazi/Mullah) initiated by Prophet Muhammad ends in Wahabization of Islam.

Aurangzeb patronized the truer Arabic version of Sunnified Islam and imposed it on India. This had far reaching effects on world's geo-politics, which we are experiencing today.

He not only established the Islamic power-structure from grass-root level with Sunni Mullah or Qazi holding great powers in hand by imposition of Sharia, but did so emphatically, which alienated Shia, Sufis and people belonging to Indic civilization. This thing about Indic civilization is that the change happens slowly and more fundamentally. Hence most of the times, they prefer status-quo and timely evolution, instead of sudden change in form of revolution. Indic civilization is agitated only when some-one tries to forcibly disrupt the newly established status-quo.

Bhaarat as a civilization and country was rising under Mughals which ensured peace after 3 centuries of turmoil in NWFP and Ganga valley between constantly changing Delhi sultanates. There was Mughals in north, Vijaynagar in South which was instrumental in bringing peace and hence prosperity back to India. Aurangzeb disrupted that equilibrium. It was already disrupted owing to arrival of Islam. Changes were happening in Indic society to make final moves in assimilating the central-Asian version of Islam, just like civilizational and military victory of Indian kings over Indianized Scythians, Kushans and Huns.

Maratha movement and Sikh movement were primarily evolved in that sense. It was after beginning of fanaticism by Aurangzeb by destroying temples in Kashi and Mathura, that Maratha thrust shifted northwards. It further intensified with growing fanaticism of Aurangzeb. After death of Aurangzeb, the spurious and fast Maratha expansion partially destroyed this Qazi-Mullah based power-structure villages of Central India, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Orissa and partially in Ganga-Doab and Bengal and Eastern Punjab. It was already weak in Rajasthan. However, that was too fast and hence incomplete. I would say this was the only greatest achievement of Marathas in history of India. And they tried to replace it with traditional Indic system which was partially like Brahminical orthodoxy, but heavily influenced by Bhakti-movement which was quite popular in Maharashtra since its inception.

Instances of demise of Islam

Demise of Islam was seen most efficiently in Spain. When it was met with a society which was even more barbaric than Islam. Moors were culturally million times more civilized than Christian Spaniards. However, Jews and Muslims were plainly given three choices - either to convert to Christianity, or leave Iberia or Die. And this was continued policy over period of few centuries with full backing of another institutional power-structure called Roman Catholic Church.

The second instance where demise of Islam was in sight but did not happen was during Mongol invasions. Hulagu and other Mongols decreased the number of people in Iraq and Persia sheerly by genocide.

Third instance where demise of arabic version of Islam was in sight but did not happen was India. It was purely by means of Sam-Dam-Danda-Bhed technique over time of centuries. Indian civilization was enriched by many facets brought by Islam. However, when India was on her way to Indianize the very soul of Arabic Islam, Aurangzeb happened and subsequently Partition of India.

Concluding observations

Finally, it can said that, evolution and adaptation is fact of life which every replicating entity has to accept. And that evolution is best suited for the survival of a replicating entity or meme, when it is in harmony with surrounding or if it forces its surrounding to be in harmony with self.

Islam, when initiated, introduced much needed standardisation in otherwise free-thinking and dispersed Arabs. Standardization helps in efficient survival where resources are scarce and cost of living in terms of energy is high. Civilizations like India where resources are abundant and cost of living in terms of energy is ridiculously low, are better off being free-thinking and non-standardised because it is best suited for progress of mankind. Violent suppression of critical faculties of certain section of people leads to dissatisfaction between free-thinkers (Indic people) and standardised products (Sunni Muslims of Deobandi and Wahabi schools in particular) and hence leads to conflict.

Once ordinary Ayesha (common muslim woman) is emancipated from clutches of Qazi/Mullah based power-structure, the demise of this power-structure won't be far behind. It will be matter of one or two generations that this power-structure will meet its 72. Once Ayesha is emancipated, she will free Abduls as well. Because it is woman who holds the string of cradle and hence entire civilization.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby shiv » 13 Dec 2011 15:02

While Islam has had many threads devoted to it on BRF in the past, one more thread is always welcome because people are evolving even if the faith is not. Much water has flowed under the bridge since the last thread and new media (such as YouTube and Facebook) have added a new dimension to debate.

I read the following comment in the current Paki thread with interest:
viewtopic.php?p=1210726#p1210726
A_Gupta wrote:Muhammad is not really the issue, he was a man of his times, no more or less sanguinary than his contemporaries. The issue is those who fourteen centuries later take him as undebatable. One of the Hindu "ideal" persons is Shri Rama, and even so, Hindus debate whether he was right in shooting Vaali and exiling Sita from Ayodhya. That does not make Hindus respect him or worship him less. (And a Rodinson can turn Rama into another unappetizing character, it is not difficult to do.) Muslims have to realize that being critical of Muhammad is not incompatible with considering him the epitome of integrity and the most beloved of Allah. The lack of that critical attitude among Muslims is no more because of Muhammad than the bloodiness of the church set up by St. Paul and made official by Constantine is the fault of Jesus.

<snip>

All I can say is that we've become very sophisticated in understanding and interpreting our sacred histories; the Mussalmans with one-third our age have not yet, and may never get there, but we can't be sure of that.



Combining this post with an earlier one I had made something occurred to me. Will re-quote my post and later say what occurred to me
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/02/non- ... -the-west/
My name is Bosch and I’m a recovering Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.


The thought that occurs to me is one of "baseline". The baseline is how far you can go in expressing an opinion?

Expressing a contrary opinion in Islam invites punishment. Clearly a mullah who says "Suckle from your colleagues breast so you can work with her" or "Women drivers lead to prostitution" will not be considered sane or rational by most Muslims. So why don't we have hordes of Muslims ROTFL and mocking? One explanation is that they have blind faith and that they really are humorless morons. More likely their lips are sealed because otherwise their fate will be sealed.

Some weeks ago I pointed out that people always protect the most vulnerable thing they have. Footballers facing a goal kick cover their testicles. Mothers hold on to their babies. You hang on to your wallet in a crowd. Mohammad and Islam are protected by a death sentence because if you pick holes in either Islam is dead. Or that is the impression that has been created.

But I don't see Islam dying despite unprecedented modern day criticism of Mohammad and Islam. Only some practitioners of Islam are set to lose everything. AQnd they protest the loudest. But Muslims need to figure that out. Muslims are not criticised for following isiam, but they will be attacked if they use Islam to attack others. If Islam's main crutch is the elimination of/opposition to all Kafirs then Islam is set to lose. Those people who call for endless war and violence against non Muslims will have to simply be vanished.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby harbans » 13 Dec 2011 15:21

As long as Islamic Doctrine and it's Prophet teaches hatred, killing and victory by terror or other means over the Infidel, Kufr, Non Believer it should legitimately and openly be subject to scrutiny.

What sort of reasoning is that which says don't please talk about something which openly advocates my domination. What sort of reasoning will demand that i respect the very ideology and doctrine that seeks to eliminate and exterminate me and my kind. my culture and civilization.

Islams criticism must be much more mainstream. If Muslims get hurt by the criticism i'm sorry, but then they should be also hurt in a civilizational way with what much of their doctrine says about the unbeliever. Because that is nothing but the path of confrontation.

Narad
BRFite
Posts: 856
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 15:15

Re: Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby Narad » 13 Dec 2011 15:50

Problem is there has been no 'evolution' of Islam. The doctrine has been tactically deviced with in-built mechanisms to resist any critical scrutiny or revisionist attempt. Any such effort is a blasphemy of highest order. So basically Islam is a hard coded doctrine built upon loose borrowings from different tribes, the then prevalent customs, traditions, practices and beliefs. (Obsolete and irrelevant today)

Ahmedi movement can be considered as a revisionist attempt, a tolerant and Indic version of Islam. That may have given a local brand of Islam, a local prohet, a local Hajj spot and a sense of identity and belonging which is gravely lacking in the current arab pretending pakduls.

But Ultimately the in-built Islamic immune system prevailed and deprived a mass number of indic-Muhammadens from even being called a muslim.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby Agnimitra » 13 Dec 2011 21:45

RajeshA wrote:Every Muslim in India is influenced by Islam, Humanism, their pre-Islamic cultural holdovers, the Modern World and religious apathy. Often Muslims would try to explain the rest - Humanism, Cultural Tendencies and Modernity in terms of Islam, trying to find sanction and confirmation in theology. That would always remain up for debate. Some may consider Humanism to be part of Islam others would consider both - Islam and Humanism, to be the two opposite ends of a spectrum, with every Muslim somewhere in between. Some may see the Muslim masses as simply people enslaved by the Ideology.

1. The difference between the drill and the process is not clear to many Moslems, especially the ideologically driven ones.

Said Nursi was a Kurdish Ottoman ideologue whom present day Turkish Gulenists consider their main teacher for this age. Nursi was once asked how Moslems should think of modernity, especially the rapid technological progress and success of the kaafir Westerners. His reply was cold, yet philosophical -- think of them as powerful animals which can be made beasts of burden. Animals and birds have specific faculties and powers far in advance of normal human ability, and yet man has dominion over them. Similarly, Moslems should "ride" and "harness" the West, absorb and use whatever technology is required, but at the same time treat the faithless Western kaafir as a dumb animal and establish Islamist dominion by domesticating them -- primarily by introducing Islamic "solutions" for the inevitable problems that modernity throws up. On a related note, in private discourses Fethullah Gulen calls the Zionist nation the nafs-ul-ammara (physio-animal mind) of the human race -- to be subdued by the force of the will of Allah.

The above attitudes of Nursi and Gulen, if treated as a philosophical critique of unsustainable, hypertrophic development, may carry some validity. But when the animal-human difference is spoken of solely in terms of religious affiliation and observance of a particular set of religious drills, then it becomes problematic. Training routines, discipline and drills are part of all religions, with the understanding that the drill cuts new behavioral pathways. This is then supposed to be followed by a spiritual process.

This idea is not clear even within the predominant schools of Islam. In India, people like Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi (Imam Rabbani) had the idea that the perfection of spiritual process was the achievement of automaticity in performing the ritual routines of Shari'ah, with certain cognition. Again, IMHO this is a subtle idea, but it is problematic when there is no higher recognition of the validity of other forms (other religions and their methods).

It is this tautological ideology that is also responsible for a sclerotic society and worldview. In order to break out of this, one needs to break open this lock. This lock must be broken, both, philosophically/culturally as well as politically.

2. Philosophically, there have been several great thinkers and saints in Moslem countries who have broken out of this idea. Their poetry and teachings enjoy some degree of acceptance in popular culture, but they are used as poster-boys by the Islamist Ulema ideologues, and subtly subverted to funnel the faithfool into their trap. This is because although the output of these freethinking poets was culturally accepted, a proper school of philosophy was not allowed to emerge along those lines.

Apart from a theoretical BRF discussion, if one wants to actually engage with and help the Moslem peoples, one should use these freethinkers and saints as an entry point. Just as it has been used as a pressure valve by the Ulema when they had control over the coercive machinery of the state as well as the cultural space, similarly we can turn the valve the other way by taking control of that cultural space.

3. Politically, the hold of the Ulema on political power at the community as well as governmental levels needs to be loosened. It is noteworthy, for example, that most of the above referenced freethinkers in Islamized Persia emerged at a time when the country was overrun by Mongols. Only under the brutal hooves of the Mongol host did the greedy Islamist juggernaut become subdued and its aggressive energies sublimated to produce philosophical realizations that one could justifiably call the heritage of all humanity. The rest of the Islamic civilization's cultural output is purely parochial, imperialistic, deracinating, dogmatic nonsense.

So, apart from a BRF discussion, if one wants to see talented Moslems being helped, one must corral the Ulema and their thugs and put the Islamofascist machinery into the ICU. This must happen at least in some critical nodes and non-Arab Moslem societies, such as India, Iran.

JMT.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby brihaspati » 14 Dec 2011 00:27

Atri wrote:
Instances of demise of Islam

Demise of Islam was seen most efficiently in Spain. When it was met with a society which was even more barbaric than Islam. Moors were culturally million times more civilized than Christian Spaniards. However, Jews and Muslims were plainly given three choices - either to convert to Christianity, or leave Iberia or Die. And this was continued policy over period of few centuries with full backing of another institutional power-structure called Roman Catholic Church.


We have no real proof that "Moors" were more "civilized" than the surrounding Christians. When they started off in the 700's - the Goths there were Arrian and of a much more civilized variety than the Roman church. They had indeed shown often signs of civilization not shown by the Romans. On the battle field where the Spanish Goths were defeated, the "civilized" Moors [they actually came later - the first invasion was by an expeditionary Arab army that had been trying with at least 17 known attempts before which failed - and succeeded when a combined diversionary attack appears to have been orchestrated by the Byzantines on the Spaniards at the same time] - tortured to death the defeated goths and the wives and duaghters of the defeated were converted and "married" on the battle field itself.

We tend to have this setthi-induced mentality that signs of wealth, or sophisticated consumption or even "advanced technical knowledge" is "civilization". Civilization from the true Bharatyia perspective is about "values" - where the moors do not come above the Goths. Moreover, there is now indication that some of the atrocious behaviuour post Moor-expulsion from the christian side could have been led by neo-Christian switch-over "Moors" who had been influential landlords and military commanders within the moorish regimes. We do know of such examples in India too - like Kalapahar?

The second instance where demise of Islam was in sight but did not happen was during Mongol invasions. Hulagu and other Mongols decreased the number of people in Iraq and Persia sheerly by genocide.


It definitely weakened the Gulf Islamism, but the lack of a strong ideological antipathy structurally showed up in Hulagu's descendant kin [his nephew in fact] converting to Islam and becoming a tool of propagation.

Third instance where demise of arabic version of Islam was in sight but did not happen was India. It was purely by means of Sam-Dam-Danda-Bhed technique over time of centuries. Indian civilization was enriched by many facets brought by Islam. However, when India was on her way to Indianize the very soul of Arabic Islam, Aurangzeb happened and subsequently Partition of India.


In India it did not happen, becuase India had grown too confident of its belief in plurality and multiplicities. This was an inversion and corruption of "duality" which ascribed multiple views to the same object - but not the acceptance of multiple objects with the same view. This leads to confusion and paralysis - that maybe this new-fangled thing also represents "reality".

Concluding observations

Finally, it can said that, evolution and adaptation is fact of life which every replicating entity has to accept. And that evolution is best suited for the survival of a replicating entity or meme, when it is in harmony with surrounding or if it forces its surrounding to be in harmony with self.


Yes and no. Humans have not only adapted - but they have also sought to constantly control and modify their environment so that they can continue in their current adaptation without changing or having to adapt further. For example use of fire was to dominate the natural aspects of cold, bacterial contamination, or vulnerability to predators. This in turn reduced the need to evolve features that would lead to adpatation to cold, immunity, or counter-predatory biological features.

Islam, when initiated, introduced much needed standardisation in otherwise free-thinking and dispersed Arabs.

Not really - they had already been swept through by some particularly virulent forms of Juadism and extreme Christian sectarianism.

Standardization helps in efficient survival where resources are scarce and cost of living in terms of energy is high. Civilizations like India where resources are abundant and cost of living in terms of energy is ridiculously low, are better off being free-thinking and non-standardised because it is best suited for progress of mankind. Violent suppression of critical faculties of certain section of people leads to dissatisfaction between free-thinkers (Indic people) and standardised products (Sunni Muslims of Deobandi and Wahabi schools in particular) and hence leads to conflict.


I am not so sure that environs determine only one equilibrium. We should explore the possibility that there could be more than one equilibrium within the same game. The fact that certain meme systems appear to have been recurrent and persistent side by side with other systems should point us to exploring this.

Is it not possible that within the human psyche there are aspects which would be a natural home for the Islamist type? That there is nothing peculiarly genetic about Indians which immunizes them or frees them of such a mental space. This mental space is actually very well defined - it is a sense of biological control over biological resources which at the same time frees one of any guilt from society in seeking to express a desire for such control.

There is a group dynamic versus individual which Islam seeks to ensure through a militarization and constant expansion drive. This is all about using naturally existing physical coercive relations between humans - primarily between men and women, between intellectuals and non-intellectuals [men in power are at least exerting more of their intelligence and foxiness in manipulations to gather support] - to have a social-political system that enhances and reinforces these power-dominance-submission relations. Islam is thus providing at the basic level a platform where men can be "men", women can be "women", power-hungry ambitious men can become mullah and sultans - and the hunger for domination, [hence the peculiar persistence of sadism] biologically over women, and psychologically over society of less-ambitious-less-wily men.

In addition there is the added benefit of being free of guilt in the eye of peers whose support you need - if you are pursuing your own hungers, for women or for power. These desires have been explcitly sanctioned and approved as divine injunction. The main difference from philosophies that have retreated before Islam is that these others always put social shame on biological hunger and power-hunger. [Think of dominant Hindu/Buddhist/Christian philosophies - here "worldly" ambitions and "physical hunger" has come to occupy a socially undesirable value].

Once ordinary Ayesha (common muslim woman) is emancipated from clutches of Qazi/Mullah based power-structure, the demise of this power-structure won't be far behind. It will be matter of one or two generations that this power-structure will meet its 72. Once Ayesha is emancipated, she will free Abduls as well. Because it is woman who holds the string of cradle and hence entire civilization.


It is not only the institutional one - we also need an ideological counter to the aspects which free Islamics of guilt about their desires. We need a framework that will make them feel guilty about feelings that others too feel guilty about. That is a long term and perhaps everlasting fight - for it is between the two sides of human nature within the self.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society

Postby Agnimitra » 14 Dec 2011 00:36

brihaspati wrote:In India it did not happen, becuase India had grown too confident of its belief in plurality and multiplicities. This was an inversion and corruption of "duality" which ascribed multiple views to the same object - but not the acceptance of multiple objects with the same view. This leads to confusion and paralysis - that maybe this new-fangled thing also represents "reality".

Could you expand on this? Thanks.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests