Peace, Technology, and Role of Ordinary People

[Talha777]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Ursula Franklin is not an "Islamist", but reading through her essays and her speeches, from what I know about her idealogy, she should have no bone of contention with "Islamists" or people who adhere to "Political Islam". I'm putting these words in quotation marks because I believe that these terms are meant to create an artificial distinction and division within Islam. Islam is an inherently political religion, and the West needs to acknowledge that. The Holy Quran espouses an egalitarian and just social and economic order. To be a Muslim is not to simply embrace some aspects of the religion, but one has to embrace all the aspects. But these days, from the way it is approached by contemporary society Islam is more of a mazhab rather than a deen. Deen means much more than religion. Christianity is a religion, primarily focused on theology, Judaism primarily focused on Torah exegesis, Hinduism on rituals and mythology, etc. Buddhism for example is basically a school of positive psychology with a subtle religious flavor. If Buddha was born in this age, he would not be considered a religious figure, but rather a radical psychologist. The way Islam is practiced today, and the way in which the West wants it to remain, is a religion that is confined to the mosque and ritual prayers and other outer manifestations of the religion. This is by and large tolerated in the West as well as the Western controlled Muslim world. But when one comes to the political aspect of Islam, and its teachings of social justice and rejection of capitalism, commercialism and globalization, the word "Political Islam" carries a strong negative connotation. Islam is unique among the religions, as the media definitely testifies to, in that it has a political and social manifestation.

The Promised Messiah (alaihi salaam) is considered to have said according to Bible, "My kingdom is not of this world". I believe that Christians have abused and gravely misinterpreted this statement to justify their doctrine of separation of Church and State. This saying of his not only does not justify secularism, it is a completely repudiation of secularism with its inherent qualities of worldliness. Jesus (alaihi salaam) also spoke highly on matters of social justice, saying that it is harder for the rich to go to heaven than for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle, even advising a rich yet righteous person to abandon all his wealth for the sake of salvation, and praising the poor woman who only donated a single copper coin rather than a rich person who could afford to donate more, etc. There is a strong corrolation between spirituality and social justice. In a godless and cold world, the main focus of life is gaining maximum profit out of any and every venture, living the most luxurious life possible, and fulfilling all of ones lusts and desires. In short, the godless world is a very hedonistic society. America today represents the pinnacle of this godless society in perhaps all of history. This explains why America is so eager to fight its War on Terror (War on Islam), because they fear losing their immoral way of life and they especially dread societies like Islamic Iran, which explains its constant demonization in the media.

Going back to Ursula Franklin, she wrote: “In the war of global competition the enemy are the people - not the people, meaning a particular class, group, or nationality, but all those people who look at community, at work, at nature, and at other human beings as sources of meaning and interaction and not as commodities.” (Peace, Technology and the Role of Ordinary People)

What I think is very significant about this statement of hers is that it occured before the "War on Terror". She has indirectly made a prediction and now at this moment it is being fulfilled. She has defined that the new enemy in our post-Cold War world as being those people who do not view others as mere "commodities". The Muslims who are fighting against the evil idealogy of the West such as myself are disillusioned by what humanity has been reduced to. We believe in religion, we see how governments placing restrictions on the power of religion by confining it to madrassahs and mosques is a clever policy to maintain their power and hold on society. They are happy as long as religious zeal is being channeled only in correct recitation of Holy Quran and painstaking hours of formulating fatawa on the most insignificant of things. I say that if people want to truly cultivate the Sunnat, they should not merely be concerned with following his dress or sleeping habits (dont get me wrong I am not condemning such attitutes at all), but rather they should widen their scope so to say and embody the life mission of Huzoor (Sall Allahu alaihi wa salaam). And his life mission was to spread the deen, with its virtuous qualities of justice, morality, and peace. As Ms. Ursula Franklin had predicted, the West would declare war on a "new enemy" that does not share its vision of turning everything in life into a quest for financial prosperity even if its means shedding notions of morality. For example, whereas drinking and gambling were once considered immoral in Christendom, the capitalist idealogy resulted in such activities becoming a social norm and something positive. Why? Because the more industries there are, the more diversified economy and therefore more $$$. In this way we can see how morality has fallen victim to the quest for maximum profit which characterizes western society. It can also be said that the feminist movement which gained ground during the 1960s and 1970s was also fuelled by this materialistic drive in the West. If women are working outside the home full time, interacting fully with men, the economy will further prosper, even if it means sacrificing traditional morality on the altar of the Free Market.

There is a saying of our Holy Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa salaam) that Dajjal will be one-eyed though our Lord is not one-eyed. Though I am not denying the literal meaning of this hadith, it seems to me comparing the vision of Dajjal to the vision of Allah is not inconsequential. The Dajjalic society is in many respects "one-eyed", in that its primary focus is economic progress at any cost.

Ms. Franklin said at the end of her great speech: “The peace we pray and work for is not a commodity, but the consequence of a just ordering of society. Thus there are essential political, human, and economic components that make peace possible. What would become possible through stable peace is the prevalence of justice, compassion, and fairness and with it the absence of fear."

People who condemn the armed resistance of Muslims against Western invasion and Zionist occupation say that they are being "un-Islamic" because Islam is a religion of peace. But as Ms. Franklin has beautifully pointed out, we need to radically change our conception of what peace truly is. The current idea of strict pacifism only strengthens and empowers the Western machine of perpetrating blatant injustice throughout the world for its own nefarious purposes without having to encounter any meaningful opposition. Peace, she says, is not merely the absence of war, but a just re-ordering of society so that there will never again be even a possibility or threat of war. I am not saying to devalue human life, but the laying down of one's own life should be willingly acknowledged as necessary for preserving something which is higher than human life. Those who die for the cause of Allah should not be regarded as fanatics and crazed people, which they are because our society cannot comprehend such selfless and noble acts when our own society is based on individualism and selfishness that even our children, whom in a traditional moral paradigm we are responsible for, are suffering. They are suffering because we don't consider it immoral anymore to have abortion or have the mother work outside the house, etc.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ يُنفِقُونَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ لِيَصُدُّواْ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَسَيُنفِقُونَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسْرَةً ثُمَّ يُغْلَبُونَ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِلَى جَهَنَّمَ يُحْشَرُونَ

The Unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder (man) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have (only) regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the Unbelievers will be gathered together to Hell (8:36)

If you truly believe in the Holy Quran as a something which has dynamic relevance to even this day and age, and if you for a moment would stop understanding it as simply a historical document with a subjective application as many Muslim unfortunately do so, you will realize that the above cited ayat is saying that the unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder men from the path of Allah. Who cannot see the manifestation of this divine insight in this day and age? Only the blind. Who cannot see that the West is actively promoting a "tamed" version of Islam to suit their own needs and agenda and to keep the sleeper from awakening to the Truth, because when he awakens there will be a Revolution, the mother of all revolutions! They will lose their hegemony, and as the Holy Quran says, "they will be overcome." So let them be overcome! May Allah Taala grant us a manifest victory. Ameen.

[MTAFFI]

Talha777

I think that anyone can take the Quran and interpret so that it suits their own desires. Just as anyone can take any religious book or otherwise and do the same. Tell me, how is the west at war with Islam with so many Muslims living in all of the western countries? You speak of the West and the money that is made in the west as if it is a bad thing, when it is not, it is simply a different life than that of what you live. If you wish to be poor and not allow your wife to work then that is your life choice, and good luck to you with it, however not everyone should have to share that view. I happen to have made enough money to not have to work (although I do sometimes), my wife is a nurse because she likes helping people and it gives her something to do couple days a week, what is wrong with that? Sooner or later the West will pull out of Iraq, then who will you wish to war with to make peace? What will be your reason for disliking the west then, our way of life right? Well what is different from that and the allegations of a War on Islam? You call on people to "resist" or whatever, but you are starting a war with someone else because you dont like the way they live. Not everyone reads the Quran, or practices a religion, or even behaves the way you or I may believe God intended us to but that does not make them an enemy.

You say in one statement
"This explains why America is so eager to fight its War on Terror (War on Islam), because they fear losing their immoral way of life and they especially dread societies like Islamic Iran, which explains its constant demonization in the media."
First of all you are immediately making the war something it is not, a war against Islam. The War on terror is named that because there is not country that is being fought, it is a group of individuals who have vowed publicly over decades to create a disruption and difficulties in the form of extreme violence to the security of people around the world. They believe as you do that the world should be ruled by a religious law, unfortunately not everyone practices your religion which causes a problem for the other 6 billion people in the world. You say that we fear of losing an immoral way of life, do tell who would we lose our way of life to? There is no fear of that because it is impossible, people in the US will live their lives however they wish (within the laws) and nothing that happens in the middle east will affect it. You speak of the Islamic state of Iran, I think that many Muslims on this board would agree Iran is not a true Islamic state, they are corrupt on every level and do very little for their people, in fact I would go as far to say they are a disgrace to Islam.

In short, you are faced with the frightening realization that not everyone believes what you believe, and they never will. If you wish for an Islamic State go to your government and request it, if you can get enough people to wish for the same sooner or later you will get it, the west surely isnt stopping it, there are countries all over the place that are not democratic. The west doesnt want war with Islam, if they did the war would have a defined enemy and would be much easier to fight than it is, however Islam does have a war, it is within itself.

[MTAFFI]

I almost forgot to ask you Talha777, do you believe that Islam can coexist with the rest of the world, with the rest of the world not being ruled by Islamic Law?

[Trumble]

Buddhism for example is basically a school of positive psychology with a subtle religious flavor. If Buddha was born in this age, he would not be considered a religious figure, but rather a radical psychologist.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Is the Dalai Lama, for example, thought of as being a "religious figure" or a "radical psychologist"?

Please try and learn something about Buddhism before commenting on it - and I don't mean the Harun Yahya rubbish.

[Darkseid]

I find no problem with Political Islam if it could be reframed to follow Allah's true ideas rather than the ideas of those that interpret and thus misread his ideas.

There is only one true interpretation of the Koran and that interpretation is that of the one prophet that constantly reincarnates on his own will to keep humanity on the right track.

And for one true matter, the government most be as pro-democratic and pro-federal as possibly regardless of what humans believe.

[wilberhum]

What are "Allah's true ideas" and how do you tell them from "the ideas of those that interpret and thus misread his ideas"?
Great concept. But until we here directly from Allah, we will never know which is true.
"There is only one true interpretation of the Koran" would be a true statement. The problem is that the interpretation is being done by humans and not god. Therefor we will never know what is true
"And for one true matter, the government most be as pro-democratic and pro-federal as possibly regardless of what humans believe." Is that in the Quran? If not, arn't you interpreting the Quran?

[Talha777]

I almost forgot to ask you Talha777, do you believe that Islam can coexist with the rest of the world, with the rest of the world not being ruled by Islamic Law?

Islam cannot coexist with anything short of Truth. Islamic law is only one thing we would like to see be implemented in the rest of the world. More importantly, we wish to see all of humanity embrace Islam as their religion.

Tell me, how is the west at war with Islam with so many Muslims living in all of the western countries?

This is not primarily a military conflict as it is an idealogical war, much like the cold war between capitalism and communism. This is a war as defined by Ursula Franklin, perhaps you should have read my thread more carefully. Anyways, Ms. Franklin has said: “In the war of global competition the enemy are the people - not the people, meaning a particular class, group, or nationality, but all those people who look at community, at work, at nature, and at other human beings as sources of meaning and interaction and not as commodities.” (Peace, Technology and the Role of Ordinary People)

Now that capitalism has defeated communism, we see that our society is completely coming under control of the whims of the free market, at the cost of religious morality. Christianity has utterly failed to address this spiritual crisis, in fact the fundamentalist Christians have embraced the new social world order. Muslims who want to see Islam play a dynamic role in the world affairs are the new enemy as defined by Ms. Franklin. That is why for example the West says that the goal of the "Terrorists" is the establishment of the khilafat. So in this way they are intimidating so called moderate Muslims to abandon the restoration of khilafat, though it is a fundamental religious duty to uphold khilafat. The West has intimidated the so called moderate Muslims into thinking that Shariat is something which is undesirable, and Islamic governance is incompatible with so called "human rights", democracy, etc. In this way we can see the West's agenda of making Islam into another Christianity, a religion bereft of any spiritual power, only an obscure identity that does not threaten the unjust lifestyle the West seeks to impose on the rest of the world in the service of the free market.

if you can get enough people to wish for the same sooner or later you will get it, the west surely isnt stopping it, there are countries all over the place that are not democratic

That is the greatest lie ever. The West is the one which maintains most of the regimes in Muslim countries. In Palestine when the Muslims voted in Hamas as their government, the whole Western world dispossessed them and made life difficult for them. Muslims can have democracy, but only if it means a government friendly to the West will be elected. Muslims all over the world want the borders between them to be erased and to be governed by the khilafat. Muslims despise their Western maintained rulers like Musharraf and Mubarak. Muslims despise the UN, which does not have their interests at all, but is an agent of Western hegemony.

[guyabano]

Islam cannot coexist with anything short of Truth. Islamic law is only one thing we would like to see be implemented in the rest of the world. More importantly, we wish to see all of humanity embrace Islam as their religion.

So, in other terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion, right? The same way, as it treats his citizens, women rights, freedom of speach, and so on?
Somehow, you remember me sombody..a german dictator in WW2 ?

[MTAFFI]

Islam cannot coexist with anything short of Truth. Islamic law is only one thing we would like to see be implemented in the rest of the world. More importantly, we wish to see all of humanity embrace Islam as their religion.

See Guyabanos post

That is why for example the West says that the goal of the "Terrorists" is the establishment of the khilafat. So in this way they are intimidating so called moderate Muslims to abandon the restoration of khilafat, though it is a fundamental religious duty to uphold khilafat.

It is how they go about establishing the khilafat that puts them at odds with the west. Killing and more killing is not a good way to go about establishing a government.

That is the greatest lie ever. The West is the one which maintains most of the regimes in Muslim countries. In Palestine when the Muslims voted in Hamas as their government, the whole Western world dispossessed them and made life difficult for them. Muslims can have democracy, but only if it means a government friendly to the West will be elected.

Why would the west make life easy for those who wish for its destruction? Why would the west provide aid to countrys government that clearly states over and over that it will never accept peace with a neighboring country? Why would the west make life easy for a government that is not friendly with them? That would be pretty stupid if you ask me.

Muslims all over the world want the borders between them to be erased and to be governed by the khilafat. Muslims despise their Western maintained rulers like Musharraf and Mubarak. Muslims despise the UN, which does not have their interests at all, but is an agent of Western hegemony.

If so many muslims despise it then why do they migrate to Europe and the US, why not Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Syria or any of the countries int he middle east somewhere that "borders could be erased" so that they may form one nation ruled by Islamic Law? They certainly wont acheive that in the US or Europe