The Roots of Islamic Reform

SAM said:
Hmm yes of course. Do you see your civil war or revolution as chaos, for instance?
Click to expand...
Came close. Neither one was a sectarian battle between rival theocracies, or involved any kind of "reform" of a fundie religion.

Do you have some kind of point here, or are you just taking the opportunity to bring up stuff you find interesting for some reason ?

The question about Western "hyper-individualism" and Islamic "common good" remains. Do you buy into that ?
 
iceaura said:
Came close. Neither one was a sectarian battle between rival theocracies, or involved any kind of "reform" of a fundie religion.

Do you have some kind of point here, or are you just taking the opportunity to bring up stuff you find interesting for some reason ?

The question about Western "hyper-individualism" and Islamic "common good" remains. Do you buy into that ?
Click to expand...

What I believe he says is that as European enlightenment gave rise to individualistic thought that broke with traditional thought, so also we see the same movement (from Tamiyeh's anti-monarchy stand which strangely inspired Syed Qutb's anti-government stand and Osama's anti-ally of monarchy stand) taking place in Islam. As in Europe it led to the crash of the monarchy, the onset of colonialism and the spread of a "rational" movement (eugenics for example was a very popular movement in the 1930s, with supporters in recognised 'scholars'), in Islam it is leading to the clash of the traditionalists with the individualists. Rather than escalate to the same conclusions as it did in Europe and America (where the war liberated women from their traditional roles but killed millions of people) Muslims should attempt to harness the good and avoid the bad.

Do you see a problem with this argument?

I think he is right about the Western hyper-individualism. From the guillotining of the elite in France to the civil war in the US to the rise of the labor classes in the communist countries and the conflicts that led to the partition of India and the demarcation of the ME to the holocaust and the world wars, these were all results of individualistic thought gone berserk (rights of the individual or perfect utopian society building better humans), supporting liberal democracy in these places, but without adequately gauging what was required for long term stability.
 
Your criticism of "rationalism" invokes only the worst examples thereof - that, specifically, of eugenics - while the good to be harnessed, by your tone in other threads, seems relativistic. Which good? For whom? How is the good being objectively estimated?
 
Haha nice try carcano. Traditional and original Islam are the most peaceful and perfect guidance for man. He was exttreme? I guess thats why he killed all of Mecca when he returned.... oh wait :rolleyes:
 
Also true. Both Christianity and islam promote perfect imitation of their prophets as the way to heaven. The one would get you a pacifist, the other, a bit of a militant, frankly, who ran about ordering deaths and making war, with its specifications of guilt and innocence and worthiness to death. The traditionalists are a little right when they say there's been a deviation from the original; it hasn't all been to the bad either. So the need may not be for reformers, but for liberalists.
 
Arsalan said:
Haha nice try carcano. Traditional and original Islam are the most peaceful and perfect guidance for man. He was exttreme? I guess thats why he killed all of Mecca when he returned.... oh wait :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, just the Quraysh, and a few poets and individual Meccans.
 
Arsalan said:
Haha nice try carcano. Traditional and original Islam are the most peaceful and perfect guidance for man. He was exttreme?
Click to expand...
Sure...selling a religion is just like selling bubblegum.

A moderate tone doesnt make for good advertising! :)
 
GeoffP said:
Also true. Both Christianity and islam promote perfect imitation of their prophets as the way to heaven. The one would get you a pacifist, the other, a bit of a militant, frankly, who ran about ordering deaths and making war, with its specifications of guilt and innocence and worthiness to death. The traditionalists are a little right when they say there's been a deviation from the original; it hasn't all been to the bad either. So the need may not be for reformers, but for liberalists.
Click to expand...

Im guessing you are talking about the Holy Prophet when you say he was a militant ordering deaths and making war? Incredible, after all Ive posted you still cling onto ur biased view:confused:
 
Carcano said:
Sure...selling a religion is just like selling bubblegum.

A moderate tone doesnt make for good advertising! :)
Click to expand...

i disagree with the Western defintions of fundementalist and the like. True Islam, as it was when it was revelaed and practiced by the Prophet, had nothing to do with the "extremist" definition
 
Arsalan said:
Im guessing you are talking about the Holy Prophet when you say he was a militant ordering deaths and making war? Incredible, after all Ive posted you still cling onto ur biased view:confused:
Click to expand...

What have you posted that would conflict with either a traditional or reformed (as defined above by Sam's sources) view of Mohammed? I came to my view objectively. Perhaps you should try the same.
 
Arsalan said:
i disagree with the Western defintions of fundementalist and the like. True Islam, as it was when it was revelaed and practiced by the Prophet, had nothing to do with the "extremist" definition
Click to expand...

What you have to understand is that most ideas that Westerners have about Islam and the Prophet have trickled down from western writers who have for centuries, portrayed the religion and Prophet in an unseemly light, manipulating Quranic verses and Hadiths to make spurious points unrecognisable to most Muslims. Even today, you can identify these people from the same practice. Rather than quote Islamic scholars and established recognised sources, they quote spurious scholars who make up their interpretations based on ignorance of both the language and the religion. In any other field this would be laughed at.
 
S.A.M. said:
Rather than quote Islamic scholars and established recognised sources, they quote spurious scholars who make up their interpretations based on ignorance of both the language and the religion.
Click to expand...
Quoting scholars, spurious or otherwise isnt neccessary. One only has to look at the Quran and the life of its author to determine that its traditional origins were as extremist as any version of the faith since.
 
Carcano said:
Quoting scholars, spurious or otherwise isnt neccessary. One only has to look at the Quran and the life of its author to determine that its traditional origins were as extremist as any version of the faith since.
Click to expand...

And the only thing one would find when looking at the life of the Holy Prophet objectively is love, peace, honesty, harmony and understanding.
 
GeoffP said:
What have you posted that would conflict with either a traditional or reformed (as defined above by Sam's sources) view of Mohammed? I came to my view objectively. Perhaps you should try the same.
Click to expand...

What sources have you used which made you come to that view objectively?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top