The Modernist Threat, and What YOU can do!

[Amadeus85]

^^you can use the search feature.. The topic is covered quite extensively from Arabia, to Persia to southeast Asia and Spain!

all the best

Yes I know Skye, I also believe that I have read it on this site several times. What I want to protest against is the sentence of Muezzin who wanted to compare aggressive, intolerant and warriorlike medieval Europe with tolerant, peacufeul Islam of those times. Obviously he forgot that before the first Crusade happenned, muslims were attacking Europe, from Spain, through Sicily to Constantinople for about 400 years.
And here I want to add that I dont think that religion should be just like from the hippie dreams, tolerant ala' Woodstock 69 or like all those "reformed" branches of New York judaism or american protestantism blessing gays and lesbians. But at least lets dont ignore facts like Muezzin did.

 

[جوري]

Actually that is not true at all.. I think perhaps your knowledge of history is skewed..
even if I were to accept it at all as a fact.. there is ethics to war, one only need to look at spain pre and after Islam before judging who brought what to whom.
Spain was the most enlightened city in all of Europe subsequent to Muslim rule, who by the way were invited there by the visigoth!

incidentally the first suicide bombers at all were from the nights Templar, killing a few of their own to get hundreds more Muslims..
little factoids they don't teach you in school!

 

[جوري]

Here is 17 pages worth of points back and forth, that I am simply not going to sum up for you:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/724-islam-spread-sword.html

 

[Shabir]

This thread when posted at AlMaghrib Forums - The Modernist Threat, and What YOU can do! ended up somewhere where none can see it.

is it because it is no more than a campaign to defame contemporary scholars who are actually trying to take us back to the olden day thus effectively trying to roll back the modernist threat that has been around for around 3 centuries?

I do not believe that any one cares whether we have shariah in our countries or not. so long as we do not have any defence industries and strong armed forces no one gives a hoot about the laws.

Saudi Arabia being a case in point; they have been subservient to UK since the beginning and they were allowed to have a form of shariah. and for defence they were allowed to hire soldiers from Pakistan and France etc. but now they are fully under the protection of USA yet still have shariah.

2 of the three countries that are under Western invasion, namely Iraq and Pakistan had no shariah but instead Iraq wanted a defence industry while Pakistan had one.

wasalam

 

[Amadeus85]

Ok so Islam born in first half of VII century in Arabia got in the same century to North Africa, Mezopothamia, Assyria, Egypt and Persia via war troops or sophisticated theological debates with Berbers, Assyrians, Persians etc etc. If Islam is civilization, law, way of life and religion in one so the arabic troops bringing the faith of the prophet to Persians, Berbers and Assyrians were doint it directly from the religious aims, just like the crusaders did 400 years later.
You say that Islam brought science and welfare to Spain? Well I might even agree. But jews say the same about Palestine - that they created a garden out of arabic deserts. Occupation is occupation.
To be precise I dont want to say that medieval Europe was human rights' champion, because it was not. Medieval Europe was everything but not modern secular Europe, in these good and bad points also. But Islam those times wasnt more peaceful, if it was, it might have remained in Arabia.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Islam was and is as peaceful as can get. Just because it allows self defense, which includes fighting, doesn't mean its any less peaceful.

 

[MSalman]

Religions should change as the times change, the world changes, and people change.

you do not explain why, neither you give any logical evidence! So what if the world changes or the people change. How is this an evidence that rules should also change? How is this an evidence that if the rules are changed then in fact they are changed for better! Whether we live in 21st century or 1st century is irrelevant to teachings of the religion and morality in general. There might be some minor changes - this variability is allowed in Islam - but generally speaking changes in time and world has no relevancy to established rulings and teachings.

Look at this way for example, killing an innocent person is still deemed moral, regardless of our changes and advancements. If so why should the punishment for such a crime be different from that which was in the past! If you disagree then why the crime itself is not considered moral today!?

Such change is quite possible even within a framework of divinely revealed scripture (although it is easier without it), and occurs on a small scale each and every time such scripture is 'interpreted'.

agreed with changes/interpretations on small scale but that is something which was not countered before in religious laws. There cannot be changes to previous established laws and that is what I am arguing.

 

[Pygoscelis]

(meanwhile, Muslim lands were full of scientific and mathematical advances, were protecting and gathering books etc).

This is actually true and is a good example of how religions change over time. During the Christian dark ages Islamic lands were actually open minded and pro-science and made many advances back then. So what happened? Islam entered a dark age of its own, from which it has arguably never recovered.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Islam hasn't entered the dark ages, Muslims have.

 

[alcurad]

But Islam those times wasnt more peaceful, if it was, it might have remained in Arabia.

and the Byzantines & Persians were doing what on Arab-and Berber, Egyptian and many other people's- lands in the first place? The Arabs more or less fought the European's out of the entirety of North Africa, as well as Palestine and Syria, same goes for Persians, but then again yes, there were many instances when the rules and principles of Islam weren't followed. but it's not so black and white.

on topic: modernizing is really a subjective term, there's too much tension and negativity directed at anything the religious castes dub modernist/secular etc, however there is no clear criteria for this dubbing, rather it seems 'enemies of the state' as well as anyone who threatens certain sectarian/mathhabi assumptions is simply called that.

Islam weathered all the previous centuries, and so could it now, regardless of this modernist threat, ie. don't blow this out of proportion, most of our current day scholars are actually doing more damage than those modernizing seculars whom the majority doesn't even listen to in the first place, otherwise why are we in the mess we are in now? there were no modernist threats in work since the time of the prophet, or were there?

 

[Muezzin]

This is actually true and is a good example of how religions change over time. During the Christian dark ages Islamic lands were actually open minded and pro-science and made many advances back then. So what happened? Islam entered a dark age of its own, from which it has arguably never recovered.

It's certain Muslims who are to blame rather than Islam as a religion, which teaches us to explore Allah's creation (i.e. it encourages scientific advance). We have to pull our socks up, to put it lightly.

EDIT: This is not at all to devalue the contribution of the many Muslim doctors and scientists worldwide. Nothing worth accomplishing is easy. The problem is as a whole, Muslims unfortunately tend not to be that interested in science, and in some cases blindly rebel against it even when it does not conflict with Islam. And the reason for this is because those particular people haven't learned Islam properly. And the reason for that is we haven't taught Islam properly...

 

[TrueStranger]

Salaam Aliakum

I am personally against anyone who wants to change the sunnah of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) and try to change the interpretation of the Quran, and I am equally against anyone who would use the sunnah of Mohamed (PBUH) and the Quran to fulfill their own evil goals, and yes there are Muslims who do that toady.

Why is it that Muslims are not outraged about the Muslim on Muslim violence, the dictators, the injustices committed against Muslims in Muslims nations by Muslims. Those who say they are fighting for Muslims and Islam but are actually harming and inflicting major destruction on their fellow Muslims, those who will call his Muslim brother that prayers five times a day a kafir, and easily shed his blood.

Walalahi this causes me more distress than a kafir killing a Muslim. There is nothing more sad than Muslims who are willing to kill Muslims, and have no regard for the lives of innocent women and children.

There are millions of Muslims around the world that are suffering because of other Muslims.

 

[alcurad]

^but the current -mis?-interpretations of the qur'an and more specifically sunnah are part of the problem, no? I mean our dictators are also supported by religious establishments, and Muslim on Muslim violence is usually 'justified' as per Islam according to at least one side..