The Roots Of Muslim Rage, By Bernard Lewis Options

[Halaku Khan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm


Am inviting intelligent criticism of this article by all Westerners, Pro-westerners, Pro-easterners and Islamists....this not intended for flame wars ....but intelligent critique! thank you !


Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified

by Bernard Lewis


The online version of this article appears in two parts. Click here to go to part two.

IN one of his letters Thomas Jefferson remarked that in matters of religion "the maxim of civil government" should be reversed and we should rather say, "Divided we stand, united, we fall." In this remark Jefferson was setting forth with classic terseness an idea that has come to be regarded as essentially American: the separation of Church and State. This idea was not entirely new; it had some precedents in the writings of Spinoza, Locke, and the philosophers of the European Enlightenment. It was in the United States, however, that the principle was first given the force of law and gradually, in the course of two centuries, became a reality.

If the idea that religion and politics should be separated is relatively new, dating back a mere three hundred years, the idea that they are distinct dates back almost to the beginnings of Christianity. Christians are enjoined in their Scriptures to "render ... unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's." While opinions have differed as to the real meaning of this phrase, it has generally been interpreted as legitimizing a situation in which two institutions exist side by side, each with its own laws and chain of authority -- one concerned with religion, called the Church, the other concerned with politics, called the State. And since they are two, they may be joined or separated, subordinate or independent, and conflicts may arise between them over questions of demarcation and jurisdiction.
Discuss this article in the Global Views forum of Post & Riposte.

Return to Flashback: "Coming to Grips with Jihad."
This formulation of the problems posed by the relations between religion and politics, and the possible solutions to those problems, arise from Christian, not universal, principles and experience. There are other religious traditions in which religion and politics are differently perceived, and in which, therefore, the problems and the possible solutions are radically different from those we know in the West. Most of these traditions, despite their often very high level of sophistication and achievement, remained or became local -- limited to one region or one culture or one people. There is one, however, that in its worldwide distribution, its continuing vitality, its universalist aspirations, can be compared to Christianity, and that is Islam.

Islam is one of the world's great religions. Let me be explicit about what I, as a historian of Islam who is not a Muslim, mean by that. Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught people of different races to live in brotherhood and people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It inspired a great civilization in which others besides Muslims lived creative and useful lives and which, by its achievement, enriched the whole world. But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that part, though by no means all or even most, of the Muslim world is now going through such a period, and that much, though again not all, of that hatred is directed against us.

We should not exaggerate the dimensions of the problem. The Muslim world is far from unanimous in its rejection of the West, nor have the Muslim regions of the Third World been the most passionate and the most extreme in their hostility. There are still significant numbers, in some quarters perhaps a majority, of Muslims with whom we share certain basic cultural and moral, social and political, beliefs and aspirations; there is still an imposing Western presence -- cultural, economic, diplomatic -- in Muslim lands, some of which are Western allies. Certainly nowhere in the Muslim world, in the Middle East or elsewhere, has American policy suffered disasters or encountered problems comparable to those in Southeast Asia or Central America. There is no Cuba, no Vietnam, in the Muslim world, and no place where American forces are involved as combatants or even as "advisers." But there is a Libya, an Iran, and a Lebanon, and a surge of hatred that distresses, alarms, and above all baffles Americans.

At times this hatred goes beyond hostility to specific interests or actions or policies or even countries and becomes a rejection of Western civilization as such, not only what it does but what it is, and the principles and values that it practices and professes. These are indeed seen as innately evil, and those who promote or accept them as the "enemies of God."

This phrase, which recurs so frequently in the language of the Iranian leadership, in both their judicial proceedings and their political pronouncements, must seem very strange to the modern outsider, whether religious or secular. The idea that God has enemies, and needs human help in order to identify and dispose of them, is a little difficult to assimilate. It is not, however, all that alien. The concept of the enemies of God is familiar in preclassical and classical antiquity, and in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as in the Koran. A particularly relevant version of the idea occurs in the dualist religions of ancient Iran, whose cosmogony assumed not one but two supreme powers. The Zoroastrian devil, unlike the Christian or Muslim or Jewish devil, is not one of God's creatures performing some of God's more mysterious tasks but an independent power, a supreme force of evil engaged in a cosmic struggle against God. This belief influenced a number of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish sects, through Manichaeism and other routes. The almost forgotten religion of the Manichees has given its name to the perception of problems as a stark and simple conflict between matching forces of pure good and pure evil.

The Koran is of course strictly monotheistic, and recognizes one God, one universal power only. There is a struggle in human hearts between good and evil, between God's commandments and the tempter, but this is seen as a struggle ordained by God, with its outcome preordained by God, serving as a test of mankind, and not, as in some of the old dualist religions, a struggle in which mankind has a crucial part to play in bringing about the victory of good over evil. Despite this monotheism, Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, was at various stages influenced, especially in Iran, by the dualist idea of a cosmic clash of good and evil, light and darkness, order and chaos, truth and falsehood, God and the Adversary, variously known as devil, Iblis, Satan, and by other names.


The Rise of the House of Unbelief

IN Islam the struggle of good and evil very soon acquired political and even military dimensions. Muhammad, it will be recalled, was not only a prophet and a teacher, like the founders of other religions; he was also the head of a polity and of a community, a ruler and a soldier. Hence his struggle involved a state and its armed forces. If the fighters in the war for Islam, the holy war "in the path of God," are fighting for God, it follows that their opponents are fighting against God. And since God is in principle the sovereign, the supreme head of the Islamic state -- and the Prophet and, after the Prophet, the caliphs are his vicegerents -- then God as sovereign commands the army. The army is God's army and the enemy is God's enemy. The duty of God's soldiers is to dispatch God's enemies as quickly as possible to the place where God will chastise them -- that is to say, the afterlife.

Clearly related to this is the basic division of mankind as perceived in Islam. Most, probably all, human societies have a way of distinguishing between themselves and others: insider and outsider, in-group and out-group, kinsman or neighbor and foreigner. These definitions not only define the outsider but also, and perhaps more particularly, help to define and illustrate our perception of ourselves.

In the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam. But the greater part of the world is still outside Islam, and even inside the Islamic lands, according to the view of the Muslim radicals, the faith of Islam has been undermined and the law of Islam has been abrogated. The obligation of holy war therefore begins at home and continues abroad, against the same infidel enemy.

Like every other civilization known to human history, the Muslim world in its heyday saw itself as the center of truth and enlightenment, surrounded by infidel barbarians whom it would in due course enlighten and civilize. But between the different groups of barbarians there was a crucial difference. The barbarians to the east and the south were polytheists and idolaters, offering no serious threat and no competition at all to Islam. In the north and west, in contrast, Muslims from an early date recognized a genuine rival -- a competing world religion, a distinctive civilization inspired by that religion, and an empire that, though much smaller than theirs, was no less ambitious in its claims and aspirations. This was the entity known to itself and others as Christendom, a term that was long almost identical with Europe.

The struggle between these rival systems has now lasted for some fourteen centuries. It began with the advent of Islam, in the seventh century, and has continued virtually to the present day. It has consisted of a long series of attacks and counterattacks, jihads and crusades, conquests and reconquests. For the first thousand years Islam was advancing, Christendom in retreat and under threat. The new faith conquered the old Christian lands of the Levant and North Africa, and invaded Europe, ruling for a while in Sicily, Spain, Portugal, and even parts of France. The attempt by the Crusaders to recover the lost lands of Christendom in the east was held and thrown back, and even the Muslims' loss of southwestern Europe to the Reconquista was amply compensated by the Islamic advance into southeastern Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna. For the past three hundred years, since the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 and the rise of the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa, Islam has been on the defensive, and the Christian and post-Christian civilization of Europe and her daughters has brought the whole world, including Islam, within its orbit.

FOR a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness. The Muslim has suffered successive stages of defeat. The first was his loss of domination in the world, to the advancing power of Russia and the West. The second was the undermining of his authority in his own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and laws and ways of life and sometimes even foreign rulers or settlers, and the enfranchisement of native non-Muslim elements. The third -- the last straw -- was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children. It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inevitable. It was also natural that this rage should be directed primarily against the millennial enemy and should draw its strength from ancient beliefs and loyalties.

Europe and her daughters? The phrase may seem odd to Americans, whose national myths, since the beginning of their nationhood and even earlier, have usually defined their very identity in opposition to Europe, as something new and radically different from the old European ways. This is not, however, the way that others have seen it; not often in Europe, and hardly ever elsewhere.

Though people of other races and cultures participated, for the most part involuntarily, in the discovery and creation of the Americas, this was, and in the eyes of the rest of the world long remained, a European enterprise, in which Europeans predominated and dominated and to which Europeans gave their languages, their religions, and much of their way of life.

For a very long time voluntary immigration to America was almost exclusively European. There were indeed some who came from the Muslim lands in the Middle East and North Africa, but few were Muslims; most were members of the Christian and to a lesser extent the Jewish minorities in those countries. Their departure for America, and their subsequent presence in America, must have strengthened rather than lessened the European image of America in Muslim eyes.

In the lands of Islam remarkably little was known about America. At first the voyages of discovery aroused some interest; the only surviving copy of Columbus's own map of America is a Turkish translation and adaptation, still preserved in the Topkapi Palace Museum, in Istanbul. A sixteenth-century Turkish geographer's account of the discovery of the New World, titled The History of Western India, was one of the first books printed in Turkey. But thereafter interest seems to have waned, and not much is said about America in Turkish, Arabic, or other Muslim languages until a relatively late date. A Moroccan ambassador who was in Spain at the time wrote what must surely be the first Arabic account of the American Revolution. The Sultan of Morocco signed a treaty of peace and friendship with the United States in 1787, and thereafter the new republic had a number of dealings, some friendly, some hostile, most commercial, with other Muslim states. These seem to have had little impact on either side. The American Revolution and the American republic to which it gave birth long remained unnoticed and unknown. Even the small but growing American presence in Muslim lands in the nineteenth century -- merchants, consuls, missionaries, and teachers -- aroused little or no curiosity, and is almost unmentioned in the Muslim literature and newspapers of the time.

The Second World War, the oil industry, and postwar developments brought many Americans to the Islamic lands; increasing numbers of Muslims also came to America, first as students, then as teachers or businessmen or other visitors, and eventually as immigrants. Cinema and later television brought the American way of life, or at any rate a certain version of it, before countless millions to whom the very name of America had previously been meaningless or unknown. A wide range of American products, particularly in the immediate postwar years, when European competition was virtually eliminated and Japanese competition had not yet arisen, reached into the remotest markets of the Muslim world, winning new customers and, perhaps more important, creating new tastes and ambitions. For some, America represented freedom and justice and opportunity. For many more, it represented wealth and power and success, at a time when these qualities were not regarded as sins or crimes.

And then came the great change, when the leaders of a widespread and widening religious revival sought out and identified their enemies as the enemies of God, and gave them "a local habitation and a name" in the Western Hemisphere. Suddenly, or so it seemed, America had become the archenemy, the incarnation of evil, the diabolic opponent of all that is good, and specifically, for Muslims, of Islam. Why?


Some Familiar Accusations

Among the components in the mood of anti-Westernism, and more especially of anti-Americanism, were certain intellectual influences coming from Europe. One of these was from Germany, where a negative view of America formed part of a school of thought by no means limited to the Nazis but including writers as diverse as Rainer Maria Rilke, Ernst Junger, and Martin Heidegger. In this perception, America was the ultimate example of civilization without culture: rich and comfortable, materially advanced but soulless and artificial; assembled or at best constructed, not grown; mechanical, not organic; technologically complex but lacking the spirituality and vitality of the rooted, human, national cultures of the Germans and other "authentic" peoples. German philosophy, and particularly the philosophy of education, enjoyed a considerable vogue among Arab and some other Muslim intellectuals in the thirties and early forties, and this philosophic anti-Americanism was part of the message.

After the collapse of the Third Reich and the temporary ending of German influence, another philosophy, even more anti-American, took its place -- the Soviet version of Marxism, with a denunciation of Western capitalism and of America as its most advanced and dangerous embodiment. And when Soviet influence began to fade, there was yet another to take its place, or at least to supplement its working -- the new mystique of Third Worldism, emanating from Western Europe, particularly France, and later also from the United States, and drawing at times on both these earlier philosophies. This mystique was helped by the universal human tendency to invent a golden age in the past, and the specifically European propensity to locate it elsewhere. A new variant of the old golden-age myth placed it in the Third World, where the innocence of the non-Western Adam and Eve was ruined by the Western serpent. This view took as axiomatic the goodness and purity of the East and the wickedness of the West, expanding in an exponential curve of evil from Western Europe to the United States. These ideas, too, fell on fertile ground, and won widespread support.

But though these imported philosophies helped to provide intellectual expression for anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism, they did not cause it, and certainly they do not explain the widespread anti-Westernism that made so many in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world receptive to such ideas.

It must surely be clear that what won support for such totally diverse doctrines was not Nazi race theory, which can have had little appeal for Arabs, or Soviet atheistic communism, which can have had little appeal for Muslims, but rather their common anti-Westernism. Nazism and communism were the main forces opposed to the West, both as a way of life and as a power in the world, and as such they could count on at least the sympathy if not the support of those who saw in the West their principal enemy.

But why the hostility in the first place? If we turn from the general to the specific, there is no lack of individual policies and actions, pursued and taken by individual Western governments, that have aroused the passionate anger of Middle Eastern and other Islamic peoples. Yet all too often, when these policies are abandoned and the problems resolved, there is only a local and temporary alleviation. The French have left Algeria, the British have left Egypt, the Western oil companies have left their oil wells, the westernizing Shah has left Iran -- yet the generalized resentment of the fundamentalists and other extremists against the West and its friends remains and grows and is not appeased.

The cause most frequently adduced for anti-American feeling among Muslims today is American support for Israel. This support is certainly a factor of importance, increasing with nearness and involvement. But here again there are some oddities, difficult to explain in terms of a single, simple cause. In the early days of the foundation of Israel, while the United States maintained a certain distance, the Soviet Union granted immediate de jure recognition and support, and arms sent from a Soviet satellite, Czechoslovakia, saved the infant state of Israel from defeat and death in its first weeks of life. Yet there seems to have been no great ill will toward the Soviets for these policies, and no corresponding good will toward the United States. In 1956 it was the United States that intervened, forcefully and decisively, to secure the withdrawal of Israeli, British, and French forces from Egypt -- yet in the late fifties and sixties it was to the Soviets, not America, that the rulers of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other states turned for arms; it was with the Soviet bloc that they formed bonds of solidarity at the United Nations and in the world generally. More recently, the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran have offered the most principled and uncompromising denunciation of Israel and Zionism. Yet even these leaders, before as well as after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when they decided for reasons of their own to enter into a dialogue of sorts, found it easier to talk to Jerusalem than to Washington. At the same time, Western hostages in Lebanon, many of them devoted to Arab causes and some of them converts to Islam, are seen and treated by their captors as limbs of the Great Satan.

Another explanation, more often heard from Muslim dissidents, attributes anti-American feeling to American support for hated regimes, seen as reactionary by radicals, as impious by conservatives, as corrupt and tyrannical by both. This accusation has some plausibility, and could help to explain why an essentially inner-directed, often anti-nationalist movement should turn against a foreign power. But it does not suffice, especially since support for such regimes has been limited both in extent and -- as the Shah discovered -- in effectiveness.

Clearly, something deeper is involved than these specific grievances, numerous and important as they may be -- something deeper that turns every disagreement into a problem and makes every problem insoluble.


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

[pakistanzindabaa...]

yaar, this is a really interesting article....

highlights some of the misconceptions the orientalists are either diliberately putting forward or simply doing it out of ignorance.

I can hardly say that about bernard lewis though. so i'd say he's doing it deliberately. this guy is however one of the few people in the west, who can put forward a well thought out polemic against islam. the rest are all like that ali sina character, trying to mislead people by narrating very questionable stuff.

some of the things that are wrong is that, lewis divides the world(according to islamic perspective), into bait-ul-harb(house of war) and bait-ul-islam(house of islam). thereby suggesting that either u're a muslim or ur an enemy.

there is a third house. bait-ul-sulh(house of (treaty) for want of a better word). you wont find any mention of that in his books.

also, he puts forward the idea that christianity(catholic) was the main opponent of islam, that islam was eventually subdued by it. in reality, the backs of the muslim empire was not broken by the "crusades". the crusades are seen as a relatively un-important part of muslim history. the destruction of baghdad among other events are much more important.

the deed was done by the mongols who had swept out of mongolia. the muslim empire eventually recovered(under the turks) but it was never the same again(baghdad has still not recovered from the massacare of ghenghis khan all those centuries ago).
the turks themselves are descendents of the mongols and the caucasians. they mixed a lot of their shaman religions into islam, hence you see the derveshes and their struggle for "inner peace".

"The third -- the last straw -- was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children."

no comment

"For a very long time voluntary immigration to America was almost exclusively European."

a hundred million slaves were brought to the americas. about 60% were muslims.

"This mystique was helped by the universal human tendency to invent a golden age in the past, and the specifically European propensity to locate it elsewhere."

again no comment

Bernard lewis tends to agrandize the "muslim threat" and generally puts forward the huntington doctrine. still the guy's a good read nonetheless.

alot of people here have absolutely no idea of the history of islam itself. we have people like jawan who propagate the one ended "nut" story :hitwall :hitwall :hitwall with absolutely no idea of its context. then we have sino, who do the opposite.

we have huge discussions about the salafis and their role in islam.

about 70-80 yrs or so ago, we used to have 4 sets of prayers around the kaaba(for the four schools of thought). the situation had reached such idiotic proportions that people were'nt allowed to marry others of a different school. right after, the fall of baghdad, qazis even had the right to punish people of they changed their school of thought. I'll say that for the salafi's...... they stopped that BS and in my book that itself was a very positive contribution to the entire muslim world. but its a free world and people are entitled to their own opinions.

[sinopak]

Zindabaad, Halagu

It is all too easy for Lewis and his likes to offer the view of the obscuritanist as that of Islam because so few Muslims today are willing to take on the obscuritanist themselves; it's a kind of default win for the point of view Lewis brushes Islam with.

The Struggle has little to do with anti-Western Islamism, it's only the very narrow view of how some western scholars and "Islamic" scholars as how Islam appears to them - in conflict with the West - The reality is that this struggle is really within Islam and the West and anit-Westernism are bit players in this struggle. The core of the conflict are questions such as "What is Islam" and "what does it mean to be a Muslim" - These related question are at the heart of the struggle within Islamia

[defender2000]

:ermm man I am confused and lost.

what I understand is, that now the West speaks for Islam as how it sees it and we are too much busy in cursing the west that dont have time to undertand the fundamentals of Islam and considering the liklyhood of living along with other faiths.

well we have a ready made excuse,

west's dual policies.
double standards
wests blief in the sumpremecy of white over black.
(Muslims mainly being black)

[sinopak]

Man, this is exactly what the totalitarians who hide behind religion want - just look at the issues as they frame:

west's dual policies.
double standards
wests blief in the sumpremecy of white over black.
(Muslims mainly being black

None of these have anything to do with Islam the religion and everything to do with Islam the ideology.

Is the West alone in dual policies?? Double Standards?? And my favorite Black/white weak/ rich/ strong/power - isn't that rich? and then they blame West for dual policies and double standards.

Are Europeans not Muslims?? Are Muslims defined by the color of their skin? Are we talking about Muslims or Hindus when some stress the color of the skin??
Are Chinese not Muslims?? or Russians?? or Indonesians??

[Halaku Khan]

I hadn't read him and I thought highly of him but as I read him more , I find myself disagreeing with him more . His pen slips a lot and his intellect and depth seems shoddy at best at times .

[Halaku Khan]

All this grandeur of America. Yes they participated in industrialization and all but even untill as late as 1930s....they looked like third world is now . The American eminence as we know it today was actually post WWII phenomenon. Thats only been 70 years or so !

Another value judgement in this and similar writings is the role of women. While some authors claim that Islam restricts women , others, like Karen Armstrong suggest that the Crusaders saw and took this respect for women back to Europe in the age of Chivalry adn thus gave European women some emancipation.

[DarthChorley]

agree with everthing halaku said!!!

these oreintalists delude themselves too much..so do some of our scholars !!

[pakistanzindabaa...]

actually, the problem is about shared values. The problem with muslims is that they tend to find ways to divide themselves further. it's not a new problem either. as i said b4, after the fall of baghdad this problem was at its height. we see the same tendency today.....

we see idiots in our religous community going around finding ways to "distinguish" themselves from the main body. forming sects and then trying their level best to impose those set of ideas upon others.

if you look at western writers almost all of them, stress the common ground we have with the christians. you dont find such writing among our people. i dont suppose qazi sahab has ever said anything like it. there are many very respected people among our community who should take such a similar stance. we should as a nation try to find common ground with others not find ways to differentiate ourselves from others.

this tendency is rightly percieved as dangerous and only helps us find more enemies everywhere.

strictly religously, we have much much more in common with the christians than we do with the hindus. and they themselves find it easier to interact with us than the indians. thats because our guiding ideals are similar to theirs. this is something, no one seems to notice, in our community. they are all too busy, declaring others as kafir.

[M21sniper]

This should have been a one word article:

Roots of muslim outrage.... Crusades.

[nofool]

My Webpage

[Halaku Khan]

M21Sniper ...your thesis is highly flawed !

Crusades is something the Muslims romanticize .....! They kicked some serious although belated ass !! How can that make them furious ???

Am reading What Went Wrong......right now.......and am beginning to to be NOT impressed .

[sinopak]

Halagu

"Another value judgement in this and similar writings is the role of women"

Are value judgements wrong?? I mean should we suspend our values as we evaluate?? Is such a thing possible??

The role of women?? Perhaps some women may be willing to comment.

[3BSD]

This should have been a one word article:

Roots of muslim outrage.... Crusades.

Dude, it should be the other way around. The Muslims defeated the Christians and drove them back to Europe.

-3BSD

[Halaku Khan]

Certainly need a womans opinion on THAT , but in the book he uses anecdotal experience of Turkish ambassadors observation as to how in Brussels the King stops and lets a woman pass on the street etc etc etc ....a fair lady with an umbrella and the courtesy provided to her by the King ......that is all elite society ! What was the status of women in teh masses ???

I think ....muslim women in gereral more liberated but the elite women were behind veils.

[sinopak]

Halagu

Civilization is about elite interactions; anyway, how would you care to respond to the question of "value judgements"?? Should, if they can be, suspended in our evaluations? What then shall form the basis of our evalutions??

Recall the Soroush Vs Davari and "The Three cultures" discussion - Shall we move to right/wrong, good/bad, in our evaluations or shall we suspend these and attach ourselves to historicism?

Muslm woman more "liberated"? Where? in the West?? or in Islamia?? and where in Islamia?? - Liberated in a society that devalues Liberty??

Back/forward/lateral/up/down to values, to ethics. Yes? No??

[Halaku Khan]

The role of women in society has got to be a measure ....afterall its atleast 50% of a population .

I don't know !

But if all women joined the labor force ...then we all will have very high divorce rates and single family homes and dysfunctional families begetting more dysfunctional children etc etc .....THAT increased role of women ( value judgement) will give rise to social externalities !

The only way out is if you recognize full time child rearing mothers AS a full time job and the State contributes to them some financial support...which leads us to debate over taxation.

Either way .....you have pros and cons !

[sinopak]

Halagu

This what makes Western society - superior! Respect for the freedom to decide for yourself - Thats why Muslims are wanting to be here than in Saudi, that's why the Pakistani city of Karachi looks like a giant add for "immigrate to Canada"

If Muslim Women are full time child rearer - why does she need University degree?? And why state must pay her anything?/ Why must the State take responsibility for the life choices of individual citizens??

"But if all women joined the labor force ...then we all will have very high divorce rates and single family homes and dysfunctional families begetting more dysfunctional children etc etc .....THAT increased role of women ( value judgement) will give rise to social externalities !"

Lots of "value judgements" in the statment above - Anyway, lets look at them:

1. Why do women want to join the labor force?? WHY??
2. Which values lead to a stong marriage?? Does the lack of these values play a role in High Divorce rate?
3. Single parent family?? If we grant that persons are sane (more, than less) and decide that being single is less painful - what does it say about the marriage?? What does it say about the values that keep the marriage strong.
4. What is dysfunctional family?? and who decides? For instance is a single parent family by definition, dysfunctional?? Or does it mean the content of the word "family" will have to change?? I mean if the word is to represent the perception of what "family" is.
So should "Change or it's agents be arrested??? IS "Change " inherently Good or Bad or is it that we characterize them as such??

See, Amigo, there was a time in which such questions were mother's milk to the Muslim, because such questions and answers created and maintained the Muslims, Alas, when questioning become not just a crime but a sin, only then did our intellectuals look to others, only when they themsleves were forced to cease being the engines of thought, virtues, ethics and innovation did others take over what were previously, our values.

[ironman419]

This should have been a one word article:

Roots of muslim outrage.... Crusades.

Dude, it should be the other way around. The Muslims defeated the Christians and drove them back to Europe.

-3BSD

For that to be the case Christianity would have to be a European religion, which it isn't. There are about 25 million Christians in the Arab nations alone.

[TNP]

There are two paragraphs in this piece by Bernard Lewis that we muslims should take a very close look at.
The first deals with the facts in the Quran which go against those which were later artificially introduced in muslims.
And the second paragraphs deals with hope, proof of which can even be seen on this forum

1-
"The Koran is of course strictly monotheistic, and recognizes one God, one universal power only. There is a struggle in human hearts between good and evil, between God's commandments and the tempter, but this is seen as a struggle ordained by God, with its outcome preordained by God, serving as a test of mankind, and not, as in some of the old dualist religions, a struggle in which mankind has a crucial part to play in bringing about the victory of good over evil. Despite this monotheism, Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, was at various stages influenced, especially in Iran, by the dualist idea of a cosmic clash of good and evil, light and darkness, order and chaos, truth and falsehood, God and the Adversary, variously known as devil, Iblis, Satan, and by other names."

2-
" THE movement nowadays called fundamentalism is not the only Islamic tradition. There are others, more tolerant, more open, that helped to inspire the great achievements of Islamic civilization in the past, and we may hope that these other traditions will in time prevail . But before this issue is decided there will be a hard struggle, in which we of the West can do little or nothing. Even the attempt might do harm, for these are issues that Muslims must decide among themselves. And in the meantime we must take great care on all sides to avoid the danger of a new era of religious wars, arising from the exacerbation of differences and the revival of ancient prejudices."

[TNP]

To all non-muslims, the second paragraph, after the highlighted portion, should be taken note of.
The current attempts of the US to "democratize" the region, will not benifit this new movement.
But further radicalize the region.

[sinopak]

TNP

Yes, Indeed, It must be highlighted and brought to the attention of some youthful and angry Muslims here, that the Tradition and culture of Islam is quite different from the message of totalitarianism.

Our culture and our tradition is compoed of the great thinkers, scholars, poets and our culture extolls love, both romantic and higher, that of God.

Our challenege is provide enough basis for peoples to realize that they have before them a choice as to what Islam must mean to them and to help them see for themselves, to decide for themselves, that Faith, Reason and Freedom is as much their culture and heritage as are the negative aspects of our culture and heritage.

[Halaku Khan]

Sino .....good point !

My heart tells me that everyone should have the right to pursue all kinds of relevant knowledge and cultivate their intellects.

But give me break ! Who picks up teh kids from school , who takes them to soccer practice ? and then who does teh cooking ?

Even liberated women feel cheated by femenism !
They got a raw deal .....liberation plus the domestic realm !

Unless you create a new generation of men with sensitivity training and make them play with dolls in childhood ....be a realist .....it aint happening !

There is new trend in the west where more and more women are staying home for the children out of choice ...despite teh income loss !

The west took this route but teh new trend is reversal !
Why not learn from them instead of going about making the same mistakes ALL OVER again.

However, this might just work in our traditional society where teh grand parents take care of children while mommy and daddy go to work .

I don't know !!!!!!!!!!

[Halaku Khan]

Okay ! Who in here is going to list teh reasons why mr. Lewis thinks the " reasons behind " teh Muslim rage???

Lets analyze his reasons !!! The causes !!

[sinopak]

Halagu

Yaar, you make such leaps From the Question, Why women opt for the labor market or business ownership, you go off to feminism.

What happened to survival? what happened to valuing a life without children or children later in life?? What happened to materialism as a value in society?? Or is it all about "hear me roar"?


"They got a raw deal .....liberation plus the domestic realm " A Raw deal? and the options were?? No choices?? and that's a not a raw deal?? Sometimes you are plain scary.

What does all this say about values? what does it say the role of economics?? Recall social transformations are predated by or coterminus with, a change in values.
"There is new trend in the west where more and more women are staying home for the children out of choice ...despite teh income loss ! "

And the evidence to support this assertion?

Sensitvity training? and do away with things like sexual tension and whatever it is that creates it?

Look at our own society, look how many people are as conscious about birth control, look at the role of economics in such decisions, look at things such as ultra-sound - what does it say about our values??
How many of us can afford to live as we did in our Fathers house?

[sinopak]

"Okay ! Who in here is going to list teh reasons why mr. Lewis thinks the " reasons behind " teh Muslim rage???
Lets analyze his reasons !!! The causes !!"

Ok, lets - this is what Lewis says"

"Rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness. The Muslim has suffered successive stages of defeat. The first was his loss of domination in the world, to the advancing power of Russia and the West. The second was the undermining of his authority in his own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and laws and ways of life and sometimes even foreign rulers or settlers, and the enfranchisement of native non-Muslim elements. The third -- the last straw -- was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children. It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inevitable. It was also natural that this rage should be directed primarily against the millennial enemy and should draw its strength from ancient beliefs and loyalties


The cause most frequently adduced for anti-American feeling among Muslims today is American support for Israel. This support is certainly a factor of importance, increasing with nearness and involvement. But here again there are some oddities, difficult to explain in terms of a single, simple cause. In the early days of the foundation of Israel, while the United States maintained a certain distance, the Soviet Union granted immediate de jure recognition and support, and arms sent from a Soviet satellite, Czechoslovakia, saved the infant state of Israel from defeat and death in its first weeks of life. Yet there seems to have been no great ill will toward the Soviets for these policies, and no corresponding good will toward the United States. In 1956 it was the United States that intervened, forcefully and decisively, to secure the withdrawal of Israeli, British, and French forces from Egypt -- yet in the late fifties and sixties it was to the Soviets, not America, that the rulers of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other states turned for arms; it was with the Soviet bloc that they formed bonds of solidarity at the United Nations and in the world generally. More recently, the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran have offered the most principled and uncompromising denunciation of Israel and Zionism. Yet even these leaders, before as well as after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when they decided for reasons of their own to enter into a dialogue of sorts, found it easier to talk to Jerusalem than to Washington. At the same time, Western hostages in Lebanon, many of them devoted to Arab causes and some of them converts to Islam, are seen and treated by their captors as limbs of the Great Satan.

Another explanation, more often heard from Muslim dissidents, attributes anti-American feeling to American support for hated regimes, seen as reactionary by radicals, as impious by conservatives, as corrupt and tyrannical by both. This accusation has some plausibility, and could help to explain why an essentially inner-directed, often anti-nationalist movement should turn against a foreign power. But it does not suffice, especially since support for such regimes has been limited both in extent and -- as the Shah discovered -- in effectiveness.

Clearly, something deeper is involved than these specific grievances, numerous and important as they may be -- something deeper that turns every disagreement into a problem and makes every problem insoluble.

So, if I understand correctly, Failure and Humiliation at the scope of the failure. Explantions: As in WHo is to Blame for the Failure of Muslim civilization : Someone else, not us. Other peoples ideas are to blame, not our own ideas (lack thereof).

[pakistanzindabaa...]

the chief amongst them is israel..... not a doubt about it..... then the support we have for local despots...... other than that in all sincerety, our own feelings of inaduaquicy do have a lot to do with it as well......

we all here claim to be the recipients of God's final revelation(including a social system) which is perfection in itself. yet when the reality of life hits we have to give way to it........ our majority lives in third world conditions and life is not easy there...... our religion commands us to do good and to forbid evil using authority. we do not possess that authority.

our people who dont live in the third world live under idiots like the sauds, who only divide the spoils among themselves and only trickle a meager pittance to the rest of the society. our religion has been taken over by extremists or idiots who seem bent to change it according to their own "enlightened" sect. our neighbours seem bent to exploit to their advantage, the weakened condition in which we are at this time.

we've(most of the muslims) just emerged from colonial rule, and the strong amongst us right now are the people who infact conspired with the colonial powers to exploit our collective resources. and who are again, busy doing the same thing. however, with time i believe we should come out of this...... the people themselves will assert their opinions. and we'll see a better distribution of resources, which will bring better education and a better standard of life for our people.

the US has to withdraw support for israel. the rest we have to do ourselves.

This post has been edited by pakistanzindabaad: Apr 5 2003, 01:55 AM

[sinopak]

Zindabaad

Israel is merely a excuse for weaklings who cannot face their own failure. If and when a Palentinian state is declared and recognized by Israel, still most Muslim countires will refuse to recognize Israel.

See, at the heart of this is the recognition of the scope of the failure. For me, this failure began with the rise of the asharite idea and in particular the attack of the beloved Iman Al-Ghazzali on the role of reason in Islam. This attack robbed Muslims of dicussing and discerning ethics as a engine in their societies.

And thus you see every manner of dysfunction, injustice and unfair attitudes, behaviour and laws, sanctioned as "Islamic". If islam were a confident civilization, why these calls for the return to a fabled perfect society and the perfect human being - both ideas antithetical to Islam - ?

See, witht he attack on reason, we are defenceless - What is right? what is good? We are no longer left with the vital Islam and vital Muslim who must continuously formulate answers to these in changing circumstances - instead we have rifidity, ossification, when right and wrong, good and bad can no longer be discerned by reason, what's left????

[TNP]

Exactly,

There wouldnt be an Israel if it wasnt for Checkoslovakian weopens in the first war.
But no one here is critisizing the Russians. And did you know that the Russians, in all of their military dealings
with the Arabs, never gave them enough weopens to actually win a war against Israel? And another thing,
it was the Russians which started the war of 62, when Nasser was in power in Egypt.
They gave false information to the Egyptians that Israel was increasing its forces on the borders with Syria.
Reconnaisance proved this to be untrue. But the Russians didnt let up. They sparked that conflict.
And it was this conflict in which Jeruselum was seized.

We need to realize that blaming America, Russia, the French or the Bristish is not gonna do us any good.
We need to get our act together, and do it fast.
Anger just makes you blind.
And ultimately, even if we were played, we allowed ourselves to be cheated.

Take Pakistan. We launched the '65 war. We destroyed our own economy... and now we blame American santions for the economy.
Is that not stupid? That is plain dangerous.

We need to forget the propoganda of the old generation. They failed us, they failed themselves.
Even these mullahs are their creation.
And we just cant afford to repeat their mistakes.
We need to take responsibility for our actions and rectify our mistakes!



Sinopak,

I just read an article that I think you should read, i'll post the url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
This is exactly the kind of thing we need to avoid. Without understanding the proper (and EXTREMELY COMPLICATED) context of this Iraq and middle east situation, people will not be able to resist the temptation to seek refuge in rage.

[sinopak]

TNP

2 Ideas:

1. It is clear from the comments of the two persons in the earlier part of the article, that in Pakistan, even among some educated, a majority position is being equated with being a correct or right position. No one is forcing anyone to vote for MMA, yet so deep is the self-hatred, that these persons would rather destroy their country, than, face up to the failure of such ideas. Too bad.

"Musharraf has made a blunder," said retired general Talat Masood. "He has given no space to the mainstream political parties..."

Yaar, I find this a totally invalid criticism. Mr. Musharraf did not twist the arms of the PPP and the "Mohtarmah" or any of their leadership, to not work with Mr. Musharraf and his team. The "Patriots" grouping is proof that while many are questioning the leadership of the "Mohtarmah", most do not.

Mr. Musharraf's own inclination is towards the kinds of ideas that can be characterized as "Liberal" in the English sense - yet what have we seen from these politicians? A rigidity that borders on suicide - so be it, this was their decision. It is they who must decide whether they will remain wedded to failed ideas or join hands with Mr. Musharraf and his team.

See, TNP, this is a "OPEN" universe, there are choices to make, nothing in human affairs is pre-determined, their is no such thing as inevitable - it's up to men and women to make choices, even failing to acknowledge the availablity of choices or failing to make choices, is also a choice.

[TNP]

Sinopak,

The PML-QA should start a new campaign and put up posters everywhere which read

"Its the Economy Stupid!"

Remind our people what our priorities are. We get so obsessed with what is going on elsewhere,
the important things get sidelined. Now look at the MMA, the only reason for their popularity is whats going
on around Pakistan. The MMA have nothing else to run on. They just shout out one distraction after another.
And people listen to them... why? Why are people more worried about the bombs in Iraq,
(A nation where the Indian Army used to train in 1979, mind you), then they are about our own economy?

What economic reforms does the MMA promise? Nothing, maybe some religious conversions, but
what growth does it promise? What economic plan has it brought forth? What is its credibility?
Before the current war in afganistan, these people didnt get more then 5% of the popular vote because of
these reasons. But now, people are just so distracted by Afganistan, Iraq, Israel-Palestine etc. that
they have forgotten the problems that still need attention in our own country.

We Pakistanis want to be the saviour of the Muslim ummah. The successors to the Ottoman's.
Thats not the problem, there is nothing wrong with having ambition.
But atleast get your priorities straight!
There have to be means to an end.
And what do these Mullahs think? They think we can save the muslim ummah through war? by defeating everyone by killing them?
I mean, where is their common sense?!!!


And now for a philosophical discussion.
You brought up a point near the end of your post.

See, TNP, this is a "OPEN" universe, there are choices to make, nothing in human affairs is pre-determined, their is no such thing as inevitable - it's up to men and women to make choices, even failing to acknowledge the availablity of choices or failing to make choices, is also a choice.

I have grown very cynical (or maybe just realistic) on this whole concept of free-will.
the way I see it, every person's actions are dependant on two things: his/her inherent instinct, and his/her circumstances.
Both of these factors combine to form a person's constitution. And our constitution is what determines our choice
Ultimately, it all comes down to mathematics.
the concept of "choice" seems special to us because we dont have the capacity to calculate all the unknown factors, and to
predict the actions of a person... thats all. Nothing special... atleast to me.

And even if we had free-will, what good does it do us with the introduction of the -guilt- and the -fear- factor?
What good is "free" will?... when if you follow your desires, you are threatened with Hell? (tell you what, I'll come back to this point).

Have you ever seen that movie "Blade Runner"?
In the end, the clone whose programmed end, is about to come, asks the man,
"Do you know what it is like to live in fear? Its like your a slave"
Interesting term isnt it? "slave"
the way I see it, I have more in common with the clone in the picture, then with the man.

What choice do the followers of Islam have, really?
a choice to give up "free-will" and become slaves.
Or to keep "free-will" and go to hell.

But then again, is that choice even ours to make?
Isn’t our choice dependant on our constitution?
Which in turn, is constructed and are controlled by God....
If so... how is our –will- ... “free” ?
The real question, which people should ask, is - what is the meaning of "free"? -

We are all pawns, Sinopak. Humans... Satan... Good... Evil... There is only one player moving the pieces, and that is God.
After all, the only distinction God made between us and the rest of creation, when he made us, was Man's knowledge. Not free will.
In fact, Adam was not even the first of creation to exercise "free" will. Satan exercised "free" will before us.
But then again, I think the same factors apply to Satan. Maybe God created Satan from the beginning to serve a purpose....

[sinopak]

TNP

What a fun post, I really enjoyed it. Yes, MMA are nobody, in terms of offering any solution.

Now to meat and potoatos:
Indeed Satan servs a purpose, our instriuction is that this life is a test as a prepartion. I, unlike you, see the idea of "free will" as integral to that preparation - but I see it as also necessary in more mundane aspects and attach it with the ideas of "indeterminism", and feed back loop and social change as problem solving leading to a new problem.

If I may, you seem not take the idea of values in to account in your formulation: For instance, based on our values, we have a option to opt out. Look, lets say that there is a consensus that education is a societal value and we agree that it ought to be the right of persons to avail it and that governemtn ought ot provide it - Can such a societal consencus evn exist with the agreement of what it would take, in the sense of taxes to support such a value?? Or for instance do we really value life but use ultrasound to distinguis the sex of the fetus and abort a girl child?? See, we do have a choice based on our values. If our value system is that a child is a gift from God, with a life given by God and can only be taken by God and that all other loss of live is regretable, what then might we say about aborting a girl child?? Lets say we are poor and cannot afford another child, if we abort the child, shall we not be saying that we value a human life in solely economic terms?? It's a choice we face about the value which we place on the meaning of our life, yes/no?

Free will and desire -- Freedom without responsibility??? Very Neitzsche, very childish, is rebellion of the knowledge of our condition freedom?? Are all desires good because they are our desires?? Isn't it boring, this hunger for sensation, is that what all like is? Is man just a animal??

[TNP]

The only thing which seperates man from animal, or for that matter, the rest of creation is knowledge.
I myself, tend to relate the concept of free-will to an individual, and thats it.
Because at the end of the day, we are all just that, individuals. And that is what makes us different.
My own conclusion on this matter is based on two simple guidelines:
1-Mathematics, and 2-theology. Because this concept of free-will can only be explained in such ways.
And I simply cannot find room for "free"-will in any of the two above.

You wer talking about values... Socio-economic values to be more precise.
It seems to me that your points actually go against the concept of "free-will".
Remember, I was talking about -circumstance-.
Values are a part of that category.
And these values when they come in contact with our inherent instincts (which may be related to the soul)
form our constitution.

It is the meeting of the two which shapes us. It is when we have to decide weather to go with or against the tide.
And the answer to that is dependant on our instincts...

Free will and desire -- Freedom without responsibility??? Very Neitzsche, very childish, is rebellion of the knowledge of our condition freedom?? Are all desires good because they are our desires?? Isn't it boring, this hunger for sensation, is that what all like is? Is man just a animal??

I did not mean rebellion = freedom. I do not believe that Satan is free, as I already said.
I hold the opinion: That the route a man takes in his life, weather it be right or wrong, is determined by his constitution,
circumstances and instinct, thats all.

Basically, what I am saying is that man has choice, he has will, call it free-will if you want.
But since our choices are products of factors, and these factors are ruled by God...
I differ on the meaning of the word "free".

As for responsibility, that is a byproduct of maturity.
And maturity is a consequence of guilt.
And guilt is a consequence of sin (sin your own or of that around you e.g. values).
And sin is the weakness of the constitution.

But hey.... iam an open minded person thankfully.
I can change my opinion once new evidence comes to light which
contradicts me. (God teaches by the pen).




p.s. You did bring up a very interesting point. The concept of "self" seems to be weak in soceity.
Indeed, most are happy following scio-economic values.

[sinopak]

TNP

Another great post.

Can "free" be equated with "reasoned"??

OK, but first help me understand better - why is it "mathematical"?? what exactly does that mean?

Circumstance and values -- Do we always think the same thing in the same circumstance? for instance, is there only one reasoned choice in any given circumstance? And really don't values come before circumstance??


I also find intriguing your idea of instincts and I am curiuos why instincts and why not what we have learned? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean, do you mean that what we learn is also instinct or has become instinct? or have I musunderstood "inherent instinct" completely??

Values + Inherent instincts = Constitution? So these instincts are never tamed? never subdued?

"As for responsibility, that is a byproduct of maturity." Not unless responsile and Mature mean the same thing and they do not.
"And maturity is a consequence of guilt" Are you using mature as the opposite of innocent??

"And guilt is a consequence of sin (sin your own or of that around you e.g. values)." Interesting expansiuon of the term "Sin" - so any awareness of not living up to one's own values, is not guilt??
"And sin is the weakness of the constitution" Of which compenent, values or inherent instincts??

Is the concept of the "self" weak in society?? Can you justify this statment???

[TNP]

Oh boy... a lot of questions indeed Sinopak, good hard questions at that.
(although I hope we are not making the most fundamental philosophic mistake here,
making a simple thing more complicated, instead of making a complicated thing
more simple).

Can "free" be equated with "reasoned"??

hmm.
Yes, I think it can.
But the decision you arrive at after the reasoning,
is still based on your mentality, which is a part of your contitution.

why is it "mathematical"?? what exactly does that mean?

Mathematical in the sense that the concept of "choice" can be termed as such.
The decision one arrives at, is subject to a number of factors, like in an algebraic equation.

Do we always think the same thing in the same circumstance?

Nope, not if the rest of the factors are different. Look at it mathematically:
Lets say X stands for our final choice a person arrives at,

X= A + B + C + D .... etc etc etc

Now lets say that -B- stands for circumstance, now if we know the value of B,
we still have to calculate for the rest of the factors. So like I said, the concept of choice
and free will might seem special to us, because one cannot predict the answer because
we simply cannot account for all the unknown factors. Especially those related to Instinct.

why instincts and why not what we have learned?

That was my mistake, I should have included acquired knowledge in my initial thesis.
Both are important factors.
What I meant by instinct is very simple, although it is hard to define.
Your a human just like me, I am sure you know what I mean.

Values + Inherent instincts = Constitution

No, not exactly.
Constitution is a product of a lot of those different types of factors.
Circumstance is one of them, values will also qualify. Instincts as well.
Acquired knowledge is another. It is an evolving thing, contitution.
As well it should be, and only in the closed minded does this become rigid.

"As for responsibility, that is a byproduct of maturity." Not unless responsile and Mature mean the same thing and they do not.

I think they are very closely related.
A person matures when he realizes he is guilty of sin.
And when he accepts his wrongs. And when he wishes he could go back in time to mend those sins.
Responsibility comes about through such proccess.
Trial and Error is invloved.

"And maturity is a consequence of guilt" Are you using mature as the opposite of innocent??

Indeed I am. I am a firm believer in the concept of "original sin".
That man is born bad, and has to refine himself.

so any awareness of not living up to one's own values, is not guilt??

Guilt is a hard quality to define, it is not as easily defined as one would think at first.
I person could feel guilt for something not even of his own doing. In fact, he could feel guilt
for something that was in no one's control, but just happened.

guilt and sorrow are very closely related.
Intertwined even.

"And sin is the weakness of the constitution" Of which compenent, values or inherent instincts??

Constitution as a whole.
Any weak factor in a man's constitution can contribute to its weakness.

Is the concept of the "self" weak in society?? Can you justify this statment???

LOL, I thought you yourself were justifying this statement in your own post, when you were talking about
a person doing something like aborting and killing girl babies.

Another example would be peer-pressure on kids.
e.g. A lot of them start smoking and drugs for this reason.
some stick with them for their own reasons,
but nevertheless, a valid example.

[Halaku Khan]

I don't always have the answers but I put them out there to be debated !!

Sino .... :) ...thus we come back to Mutazalite and Asharite !

In other words you propose that the sole cause behind muslim descendancy was the rise of Asharite scool of thought ???

If you were to write a book of the " Decline of muslim power" the sole reason would be teh Asharite school of thought going mainstream as opposed to Mutazalite ? Yes / No ??

[sinopak]

Halagu

The asharite school of thought has a had a great deal of influence on the attitudes of Muslims on a whole host of things, prime among them, the role of reason in life and in understand the Quran. There is a thread on this board called "The Challenege before Muslims", you may find that interesting.

Asharite school the "sole" responsible?? Hmm? No that cannot be the case, sole responsibility is not, at least as far as I have understood, the focus, but it is an excellent place to start.