Post Reply
Page 15 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Political Islam" - what's that?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 12:55PM #141
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Apr 9, 2012 -- 12:35PM, browbeaten wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 11:33AM, Miraj wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:11AM, Ibn wrote:


Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:09PM, Miraj wrote:

You're too generous, bro.  There's hardly a hair's difference there. If they're not Islamic, they're not Islamic.  They're just plain ole pols.


It's not being generous, although there is hardly any difference from our point of understanding, but this is one way to help them understand the difference. Funny thing is that none of them has said that there is no difference, which means they do think that there is some difference.


They are not willing to change the term "political Islam" to "Islamic politics" because they see them much different terms than you might think. One term focuses on Islam and the other on politics. That's why the resistence in swapping the terms.  



I don't understand why there's a need to do this at all.  I was clear to Christians that the acts of Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh were not about Christianity. And, to Jews, there was no equivocation of the Torat Ha’Melech to their everyday understanding of Jewish practice.  Yet, selectivity of which Muslim acts represent real Muslims tends toward evil, so much so, that an argument against it is considered to be unrealistic.


They ask why don't good Muslims speak out, as we are, but when they do, they are told they don't know what Islam really is.  No wonder they don't hear the others who speak out.




I suppose that our "idea" of speaking out is very different from each other.  When was the last time, a book has been pulled off the shelves or a movie pulled from viewing because it either reflected some form of hate or violence?  When was the last time a cleric or Iman was asked to step down because of his inappropriate views?  When was the last time a politician was removed/voted out of office due to their inappropriate views?  Where is the outrage?


For the most part, Americans wouldn't put up with such behavior, but that cannot be said for most, if not all, Muslim countries.  As far as I am concerned, inaction is implicit acceptance, especially on the scale we are discussing.




You must have been under a rock during the "Arab Spring".


There's a lot of stuff that goes on in Israel that Americans wouldn't put up with either. Frankly, remarks like yours are more evidence of the impenetrable and willful ignorance of the region that many Americans exhibit.  There is ongoing change, you're just not aware of it.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 1:38PM #142
browbeaten
Posts: 3,066

Apr 9, 2012 -- 12:55PM, Miraj wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 12:35PM, browbeaten wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 11:33AM, Miraj wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:11AM, Ibn wrote:


Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:09PM, Miraj wrote:

You're too generous, bro.  There's hardly a hair's difference there. If they're not Islamic, they're not Islamic.  They're just plain ole pols.


It's not being generous, although there is hardly any difference from our point of understanding, but this is one way to help them understand the difference. Funny thing is that none of them has said that there is no difference, which means they do think that there is some difference.


They are not willing to change the term "political Islam" to "Islamic politics" because they see them much different terms than you might think. One term focuses on Islam and the other on politics. That's why the resistence in swapping the terms.  



I don't understand why there's a need to do this at all.  I was clear to Christians that the acts of Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh were not about Christianity. And, to Jews, there was no equivocation of the Torat Ha’Melech to their everyday understanding of Jewish practice.  Yet, selectivity of which Muslim acts represent real Muslims tends toward evil, so much so, that an argument against it is considered to be unrealistic.


They ask why don't good Muslims speak out, as we are, but when they do, they are told they don't know what Islam really is.  No wonder they don't hear the others who speak out.




I suppose that our "idea" of speaking out is very different from each other.  When was the last time, a book has been pulled off the shelves or a movie pulled from viewing because it either reflected some form of hate or violence?  When was the last time a cleric or Iman was asked to step down because of his inappropriate views?  When was the last time a politician was removed/voted out of office due to their inappropriate views?  Where is the outrage?


For the most part, Americans wouldn't put up with such behavior, but that cannot be said for most, if not all, Muslim countries.  As far as I am concerned, inaction is implicit acceptance, especially on the scale we are discussing.




You must have been under a rock during the "Arab Spring".


There's a lot of stuff that goes on in Israel that Americans wouldn't put up with either. Frankly, remarks like yours are more evidence of the impenetrable and willful ignorance of the region that many Americans exhibit.  There is ongoing change, you're just not aware of it.




I sure hope you're right, but so far it doesn't really exist.  Do you have some examples to what I mentioned above?


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 4:27PM #143
Ibn
Posts: 4,756

Apr 8, 2012 -- 10:43PM, rangerken wrote:


The preceding post is justifying shariah, not arguing hat it isn't an example of political Islam. I maintain that you can put the name of any religion after 'political' IF that religion has govenmental authority and power. And since shariah is in fact a means of using Islam as the governing method of a state, that is by definition, political Islam.


Ken



Shariah is Way, Road or Path that has been shown by God to human beings to walk on in their life in this world. When walking the Path, one is in Islam. Shariah is not, therefore, means of using Islam as the governing method of a State. There are certain principles/guidelines in walking the Path such as consultation, peace, truthfulness, fairness and justice from which we can derive our governing method but actual governing method is not described in the Qur'an nor is the Qur'an a political book. Therefore, Islam described in the Book (The Qur'an) is not political Islam.   

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 4:49PM #144
Ibn
Posts: 4,756

Apr 8, 2012 -- 8:00PM, rangerken wrote:

How about saying that political Islam means that shariah is the law of whatever the land is, and therefore the society is governed according to Islamic law, and that obviously means that all politics are 'Islamic' so therefore you have politicl Islam.


That would be "Islamic politics" and not "political Islam". In such an Islamic political system rights of non-Muslims would be safeguarded (which is well within Islamic principles and requirements). Such a system is called Islamic political system rather than political Islam.


Apr 8, 2012 -- 8:00PM, rangerken wrote:

For those who believe that Islam is a complete lifestyle, economic system, political system, AND religion, of course Islam is political!


Why not "economical Islam", "religious Islam" or "spiritual Islam"?


Apr 8, 2012 -- 8:00PM, rangerken wrote:

If a cleric, of any religion, wields secular power based on religion, he or she is doing 'politics' based on that religion, and that is political whtever the religion is.


What is secular power based on religion?


Can he (a Muslim cleric) vote at an election? Yes, according to Islamic principles. He votes honestly (according to his religion). He has just taken part in a political system and used his religion in the process. Has he taken part in "political Islam" or "Islamic politics"?

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 6:34PM #145
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Apr 9, 2012 -- 5:50AM, Ibn wrote:


Full name of Pakistan is Islamic Republic of Pakistan. There is hardly any Islamic law there.


My nephew was taken by thugs to a railway line in Pakistan and his legs tied to the track. Train went over his legs, cutting one below the knee and one above the knee. Police took him to hospital and informed his father. Sadly he died in hospital a month later. Police won't investigate the case because they are waiting for the father to report the case to them first.



I am shocked and sorry to learn this, Ibn!



Islam does not require them to wait for the complaint before they investigate. What kind of Islamic Republic is Pakistan? Of course it is in the name of Islam but there is very little Islam about running it. The same way, there are many "Muslims" but there is very little Islam in them. They are "Muslims" in name only. The same goes for so called Islamic political parties. The name is chosen for getting votes but their works are often not Islamic (based on Islam).



Right, and my own position here would be: this is necessarily the case, by definition. It is the nature of the beasts "government", "state", and "this world" that is incompatible with the perfection that a religion stands for / strives for.


This is in my view the reason why in Western democracies, the idea of separating church and state, religion and state, was so successful for bringing about more justice and more equality: to abandon the illusion that we could ever attain this perfection, but accept the inevitability of shortcomings. Only then, we can speak about minimising shortcomings! We first need to acknowledge their inavoidability...



Most people in this forum are intelligent, educated and aware that what some so-called Muslims do is not according to Islam but still insist that they are doing it in the name of Islam.



I think we can agree on this. Certainly a few of us can. And move beyond this for addressing the current majority parties referencing Islam. Do we need to wait for everyone before we can make the next step? I don't think so. Another person's foolishness shall not be an excuse for my own foolishness...


Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:11AM, Ibn wrote:


They are not willing to change the term "political Islam" to "Islamic politics" because they see them much different terms than you might think. One term focuses on Islam and the other on politics. That's why the resistence in swapping the terms. 



There is no such resistance, as far as I am concerned - but it is pure cosmetics, so why stumble here, or construct a roadblock to dialogue? As quoted in the opening post, many Muslims have no problem with the term. We discuss politics here, not religion. When in this forum we say "political Islam" , we by definition mean "Islamic politics" (a term to which Miraj also objected).


Apr 9, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Miraj wrote:


First things first, Chari.  The language is important because, while you may be ready to move on, other posters here are not.  They would carry their prejudices onto any change in the dialogue and make it useless.  Your issue is with them, not us.



Why do you want to wait for the slowest? It comes across as a strategy not to move ahead at all. Why wait, Miraj? Waiting is not "first things first", it is procrastination and postponement - evasive behaviour.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 7:00PM #146
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:53AM, Ibn wrote:


Apr 8, 2012 -- 10:35AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Hello Ibn!


Why do many Muslims apparently see the labeling issue different than you? What do you think? Why do they consider meaningless the nuance you see as so crucial?


I am not sure what you are asking.



In the opning post, I quote from another thread - where a liberal Egyptian politician (Mr. Hamad Said) refers to the parties "Muslim Brotherhood" and "Al-Nour", which together consitute the huge majority in the Egyption constitutional assembly, as "political Islam" (LINK).



What do you think the other Muslims are seeing?



I don't think yet, here. I ask to gain a basis for forming an understanding.



I have no problem in any party advertising as "Islamic" or "Muslim" as long as it is democratic as well as Islamic. Name of the part means very little but it is the policies of the party that need to be looked at. If the policies are not "Islamic" or democratic then the name does not matter at all. In my view, most parties with "Islamic" in their names often turn out to be "unIslamic". Do you understand what I have just stated?



As I understand it, you say the label is irrelevant, but the deeds count.



Apr 8, 2012 -- 10:35AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Do you have something to contribute to our understanding of these political movements?



Initially, they would try to get some extra votes by advertising themselves as "Islamic" or "Muslim" but the proof will be in the pudding later on. People are against corrupt governments and think that "Islamic" parties may get rid of corruption in the country. This may lead them to vote for such parties. I can't blame them for thinking this way after seeing so many dictators in power enjoying their life by helping themselves other countries' national interests in exchange for their protection and support.



I think the same way.


Ibn: Forget about the name and look at their policies. Quite often what they will regard as "Islamic" will not be "Islamic". Taliban, an "Islamic" party is a clear proof when they were against educating girls. There is nothing in Islam that is against educating girls. I am a "Muslim" and try to live "Islamic" life. My daughters have been educated and are now professional educators.


Great... what political parties in the Arab Spring, do you think, express these values most closely? Or: allow for the expression of these values to sufficiently high degree?


Ibn: None of the so-called "Islamic" or "Muslim" parties are "political Islam". 


Fair enough that you see it this way, but in politics, it is the majority opinion that determines how a word is used... we can, ultimately, not live with a private language and still expect to be understood by others.


tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 3:41AM #147
Ibn
Posts: 4,756

Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:53AM, Ibn wrote:


Apr 8, 2012 -- 10:35AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Hello Ibn!


Why do many Muslims apparently see the labeling issue different than you? What do you think? Why do they consider meaningless the nuance you see as so crucial?


I am not sure what you are asking.



Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:00PM, CharikIeia wrote:

In the opning post, I quote from another thread - where a liberal Egyptian politician (Mr. Hamad Said) refers to the parties "Muslim Brotherhood" and "Al-Nour", which together consitute the huge majority in the Egyption constitutional assembly, as "political Islam" (LINK).


Thanks for the Link. I can now see the full picture and am able to answer your question.


It is the secularists, Muslims in name only, who have called it "political Islam". How can an unIslamic person tell us what is Islam or poilitical Islam?


I am not an Arab but it is obvious to me that these people are fighting for power in Eygpt and rubbishing of other parties is part of their politics to gain power. It is stupid of them to call their opposition "political Islam". Perhaps this is what has made Muslim Brotherhood angry and forced them to fight for the presidential election.


Apr 8, 2012 -- 10:35AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Do you have something to contribute to our understanding of these political movements?



Initially, they would try to get some extra votes by advertising themselves as "Islamic" or "Muslim" but the proof will be in the pudding later on. People are against corrupt governments and think that "Islamic" parties may get rid of corruption in the country. This may lead them to vote for such parties. I can't blame them for thinking this way after seeing so many dictators in power enjoying their life by helping themselves other countries' national interests in exchange for their protection and support.



Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:00PM, CharikIeia wrote:

I think the same way.


The point to understand is which party is going to work for country's national interests and which is going to work for their own personal interests and the interests of their foreign backers.


Ibn: Forget about the name and look at their policies. Quite often what they will regard as "Islamic" will not be "Islamic". Taliban, an "Islamic" party is a clear proof when they were against educating girls. There is nothing in Islam that is against educating girls. I am a "Muslim" and try to live "Islamic" life. My daughters have been educated and are now professional educators.


Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:00PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Great... what political parties in the Arab Spring, do you think, express these values most closely? Or: allow for the expression of these values to sufficiently high degree?


At this stage, their policies are not known because even the constitution hasn't been agreed. Once the constitution is agreed then they will have to publish their policies before the elections. At the moment, it is only the scaremongering that is going on.


Ibn: None of the so-called "Islamic" or "Muslim" parties are "political Islam". 


Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:00PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Fair enough that you see it this way, but in politics, it is the majority opinion that determines how a word is used... we can, ultimately, not live with a private language and still expect to be understood by others.


It is not the majority that has called it "political Islam" but one person or his secular party. It is clearly designed for foreign digestion and backing. No honest Muslim would call it "political Islam".

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 5:28AM #148
Ibn
Posts: 4,756

Apr 9, 2012 -- 5:50AM, Ibn wrote:

Islam does not require them to wait for the complaint before they investigate. What kind of Islamic Republic is Pakistan? Of course it is in the name of Islam but there is very little Islam about running it. The same way, there are many "Muslims" but there is very little Islam in them. They are "Muslims" in name only. The same goes for so called Islamic political parties. The name is chosen for getting votes but their works are often not Islamic (based on Islam).


Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:34PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Right, and my own position here would be: this is necessarily the case, by definition. It is the nature of the beasts "government", "state", and "this world" that is incompatible with the perfection that a religion stands for / strives for.


Therefore, it is religion that can bring in certain values and perfection rather than man-made laws that would not be compatible with any religion.


Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:34PM, CharikIeia wrote:

This is in my view the reason why in Western democracies, the idea of separating church and state, religion and state, was so successful for bringing about more justice and more equality: to abandon the illusion that we could ever attain this perfection, but accept the inevitability of shortcomings. Only then, we can speak about minimising shortcomings! We first need to acknowledge their inavoidability...


First, I don't believe the Western values were developed by being remote from religion. These values were developed by learning from religion after coming out of the dark ages. Both Christianity and Islam (in Moorish Spain) did play their part.


When I see Westminster Abbey next to the Houses of Parliament, and Courts of Justice close to St Paul Cathedral, in London, it becomes obvious to me that religion has played a great part in honest political values and establishing true justice.


When I think of the golden age in Islamic civilization of around 12th century, it was due to religious values at their best. Europe and the West was able to learn from such civilization. Therefore, religion has played its part in establishment of higher values and justice system.


Second, what happened since the 12th century in Islamic countries is a chain of events that West should learn from. Getting away from religion is a mistake that Muslims have made over the last 10 centries and the West is repeating exactly the same mistake after getting through the golden age. Just as Muslims had gradually become corrupt after the 12th century by ignoring their religious values, the Western governments are, after seperating religion from their works, becoming gradually corrupt.


Is the West going to follow the Arab Spring (which is very much about bringing in true religious values after a period of corrupt governments) in a few centuries' time? I think writing is on the wall. In the meantime, I see Muslims waking up from their slumber and trying to return to their true religious values in search of their golden age again. I don't think the momentum is going to stop now although it will take a long time to get to the desirable stage. Corrupt leaders have had their days. Pendulum has begun to swing in the other direction now.  


Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:11AM, Ibn wrote:

They are not willing to change the term "political Islam" to "Islamic politics" because they see them much different terms than you might think. One term focuses on Islam and the other on politics. That's why the resistence in swapping the terms. 



Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:34PM, CharikIeia wrote:

There is no such resistance, as far as I am concerned - but it is pure cosmetics, so why stumble here, or construct a roadblock to dialogue? As quoted in the opening post, many Muslims have no problem with the term. We discuss politics here, not religion. When in this forum we say "political Islam" , we by definition mean "Islamic politics" (a term to which Miraj also objected).


Now that you have started to think a little differently, I can confirm that Miraj's objection is justified. It is not "many Muslims" who have no problem with the term but ignorant Muslims (secular to be precise) who know very little what they are talking about. They are merely playing a political game just as other terms like "Islamists", "Islamism", "Islamic terrorists" and "Islamic extremists" have been used by the politicians in playing their political game. So far the game has been counter-productive. Why? Because aim of the game is misguided and political only in nature devoid of the real religious values that had made the West progress to its heights. Now it is down to man-made values taking no account of religious teachings of honesty and justice. Now it is down to greedy values of profits and GDP. Muslims have gone through this phase centuries ago and, I believe, are in a very early stage of learning from their mistakes.


Apr 9, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Miraj wrote:

First things first, Chari.  The language is important because, while you may be ready to move on, other posters here are not.  They would carry their prejudices onto any change in the dialogue and make it useless.  Your issue is with them, not us.



Apr 9, 2012 -- 6:34PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Why do you want to wait for the slowest? It comes across as a strategy not to move ahead at all. Why wait, Miraj? Waiting is not "first things first", it is procrastination and postponement - evasive behaviour.


Now that I understand the discussion a bit better, I think Miraj is correct. There is no point in discussing something that is just an illusion. By understanding the issue better and use of the correct words/terms will move the discussion faster.


I was clearly too far in front of the discussion. Coming back to join the rest, I see the point Miraj has been making. I am with her in this matter.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 12:56PM #149
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 15,649

Perhaps this is "Political Islam"

'Every aspect of life is to be Islamized'
By OREN KESSLER
04/10/2012 19:12
Egyptian activists translate address from Muslim Brotherhood candidate Shater, offering rare glimpse into his worldview.

The Muslim Brotherhood's main presidential candidate Khairat al-Shater seeks to fundamentally Islamize Egyptian society if elected, according to newly uncovered footage of an extended address he gave supporters last year shortly after his release from prison.

Egyptian activists have transcribed Shater's 90-minute address into English, offering a rare glimpse into the worldview of the normally tight-lipped candidate who is a frontrunner in upcoming elections to lead the Arab world's most populous state.

. . .

"Everywhere, the Brothers are working to restore Islam in its all-encompassing conception to the lives of people," Shater says in the address. "Thus the mission is clear: restoring Islam in its all-encompassing conception, subjugating people to God, instituting the religion of God, the Islamization of life, empowering of God's religion, establishing the renaissance of the ummah [worldwide Muslim nation] on the basis of Islam... Every aspect of life is to be Islamized."

"We call upon God Almighty to make this transformation the beginning of a new renaissance for the ummah and the shaking off of the state of backwardness from which it has suffered for decades," Shater says in the clip. "As Muslim Brothers, it is imperative that we, as well as the entirety of the ummah, God willing, take advantage of this revolution which took place in Egypt and continues in the countries surrounding us."

Shater uses the Arabic nahda to refer to his hoped-for renaissance. Nahda literally means "rising up," and can refer to prosperity or success rather than the strict Western meaning of rebirth
. . .

Last week the organization sent a delegation on a tour of Washington to meet with policy analysts, university students and the media. At every stop, the delegates assured their hosts they intend to preserve the rule of law and minority rights.

The Brothers' Freedom and Justice Party would be "as inclusive as possible—included liberals, secularists” and Christians, a Brotherhood lawmaker told an audience at Washington's Georgetown University, adding that peace with Israel would not be altered "unless if there is a massive popular will to change that."
. . .
Eric Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the Brotherhood's visit was an exercise in dishonesty. "They lied constantly and emphatically, as if there were simply no evidence of contrary views to the ones they were putting out," Trager told The Jerusalem Post. "Of course the evidence they were lying is freely available - the Brotherhood's history of opposing laws banning female genital mutilation, and its statements about wanting to put the Camp David Accords to referendum, are all public."

"Anyone seriously following Egypt has to know they were painting a highly inaccurate picture of themselves," he said.
. . .
full article:
www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 3:13PM #150
Ibn
Posts: 4,756

Apr 10, 2012 -- 12:56PM, rocketjsquirell wrote:


Perhaps this is "Political Islam"

'Every aspect of life is to be Islamized'


What was the point of them calling themselves "Muslims" if every aspect of their life had been unislamized over the last few centuries?


Perhaps it is a cry for 'back to basics'.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 15 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook