-in the name of Allah-
Not long ago, thoughts of Islam and the west came to mind, and it occurred to me how long these forces have been in conflict. Why should western thought oppose Islam? Why should Islam oppose western thought? By a careful and unbiased analysis of both sides, I think a generally acceptable consensus can be reached.
The first question: why should western thought oppose Islam? To begin, we define what is 'western thought'. Traditionally, this notion has been bound in geographic terms to mean the United States, Canada, Britain, and the majority of Europe. Note how North America and Europe are fartherest away from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Another perspective in which difference can be perceived is in the course of history, which shows us exactly who has been writing and commandeering the majority of the world to do its bidding. The advent of science brought with it the rise of colonialism, as nations began to vie for the best in everything, to be always ahead in wealth, resources, and sometimes, ideologies. What compelled men to cross seas and be dazzled by the wealth they saw as untapped? What constitutes necessary action in establishing for one's nation the uppermost hand of rule and law, in the face of systems that previously existed? Why what was done, is a most difficult and easy question. The money, the trade, the wealth, the power, the land, the riches, all of these were prime motivations. To some extent, religion played a role, but almost entirely for superficial and broad, agenda-backing purposes. It is also true however, that all of this was gained by those colonial Europeans at a price, a price perhaps too steep to pay in hindsight. Not only does increase in empire size increase the chance for rebellion, as was the case of America, but also the means by which the industry established forever soured relations with almost every nationality in the world. The 'white man' almost simultaneously created enemies in every corner of the globe. First, and perhaps foremost, the lynching of Africana and everything it was. Their people taken, the culture, history, tradition, value, order, government, wealth, all destroyed by materialistic pursuit. Another region, that of southeast Asia, which served as a springboard geographically to the rest of Asia, was another casualty. Mainly British colonial interests, though including others such as the French and Dutch, the forces of imperialism dominated in exceedingly absurd ratios of colonist:native. How were such numbers divided? A haughty person might assume that the intellectual and material superiority were enough to conquer people of 'lower class'. It should be noted that Asia and Africana and similar in many respects, with the differnces of an indigenous nature. The subjugation of almost two entire continents occurred mainly through a very unassumingly simplistic ideaology: divide and conquer. Once a people have a reason to fight amongst themselves, to defeat them in any capacity, whether it be intellectually, scholarly, materially, ideologically, socially, economically, etc, becomes a very simple matter of moving in whilst the bickering and division consumes the mettle of a people. Another prime example of how European interests bred hate and enmity can be found in South and Central America, where the natives were used much as the Africana were for slave labor and general subservience to the tiny, ruling European elite. Their conquest occurred with the same principle of divide and conquer as with the other regions and peoples. The total number of subjugated continents now rises to about three: Africana, Asia, and South/Central America. True, the colonial interests gained what they wished for, at least initially, but was it truly worth the divide that now seperates the world? One of clear and honest moral background can easily answer 'no'. What was it exactly that colonial interests had to lose in the grand scheme of things? One looks at what wealth they amassed, what arts and sciences they were able to produce, and there appear to be few things that can classified as detrimental. However, the main loss that occurred was the loss of trust and respect by the rest of humanity, which was comprised of those who lived in all other lands besides that of developed western Europe. Why is respect and trust important? Clearly, it could have fostered honest trade, honest brokerage, and an honest exchange of ideas and materials, but it was the greed and avarice that consumed the ideologies of the 'empires' of the time. They wanted more than just trade agreements, more than just land treaties, more than just boundaries, they wanted all of it, ie anything that was of any value, that could even become valuable, was desired and demanded and pursued by whatever means necessary, a direct implication of military force. In retrospect and hindsight, it would have been more ethical, moral, responsible, eventually-beneficial, easier, and all in all more productive if those empires sought expansion with a respect of those peoples they dealt with. Nonetheless, hindsight is 20/20 and the 'should-haves' of the past crystal clear. Present day politics and geography have very staggering implications when one considers how it all came about. American geography depended entirely on the forced removal of Native Americans from their land, and this removal was of course accompanied by the murder, pillage, and plunder of countless Native tribes and nations. The geopolitical climate in the Middle East today is a direct result of the consequences of WWI, and to an extent, WWII. In the first so-called 'World War' (note the apparent and implied bigotry of western historians in their nomenclature of historical events: a war occurred between a handful of nations, yet it 'comprises' all of the 'world'. Subtle, yet astonishing), the fall of the Ottoman Empire meant that the territory it formely comprised, generally from Egypt to Afghanistan and as far north as Turkey and Kazakhstan, would be divided up into what essentially accounted for as puppet governments, whose leaders were loyal mainly to western powers, and if it were of any benefit, then their own people. The moral and ethical implications of this commandeering of humanity into politically and economically convenient divisions and subdivisions is about as obvious as the rest of this writing. Still, wherein lay the faults that would arise from this division? It would aid in everyone's understanding if the layman could imagine in how many of these countries has there occurred an attempted or succeeded revolution, both politically and militarily. I cannot think of a single country who escaped that mockery known as the 'Treaty' of Versailles and also the 'Treaty' of Bret-Litovisk. Every conclusionary element of those treaties had in mind soley the interests of western nations, in all facets imaginable. This included militarily, economically, politically, ideologically, and just about every other way in which a people can be subjugated. Of course, no one is without fault, and these faults became ever so clear when each of these countries, especially the 'mandates' of the Carribbean and Africana were faced with revolutions. How can a people repressed remain a people denied? Continuing on present-day geography, the plethora of literally explosive political and militarial situations around the world truly amount to only a testament of how humanity's reliance upon itself is a forgone mistake. There are concerns about North Korea's nuclear development, Iran's nuclear program, Syria'a involvement with Lebanese politics, Saudia Arabia's apparent link to terrorist funding, Sudan's ethnic divide, Pakistan and India's unending dispute over the Kashmir region, west China's Xinjiang province and the oppression of its Muslims, Canada's turmoil regarding the previously possible allowing of Sharia'ah law in independent courts, France's claim to secularism challenging the right of Muslim women to wear hijaab, Britian's recent dealings with terror attacks, Afghanistan's apparent lack of security in controlling the various warlords and their drug trade, Iraq's entirely elusive 'final solution' where no end is in sight, Indonesia's ethnic issues with the East Timor state, Chechnya and its ongoing conflict of interests with Russia over independence, Palestine and its struggle for independence from Israel, Ukraine's Prime Minister Yushchekno's (sp) disagreements with much of the political population, Germany's economic difficulties and the recent divide in who will become PM, America and its 'war' on terrorism, Turkey and its secularish regime implementing a steady move away from any ties to religion, Venezuala and its supposed dictator being at odds with the U.S. while supporting Fidel Castro's Communist state of Cuba, and the list goes on without any end in sight. In the thick of all of this, where and what is Islam? From its most basic source, it is the belief in one god, Allah, who has no partners in worship, and the belief that Muhammad (saw) is His slave and final messenger. Granted, this is quite a simple phrase, but how can its implications go so far beyond simplistic? The reality is that it is a guide on how to live, behave, and worship. Through this definition, one sees how far into the scope of human existence Islam actually permeates, which is to say that it encompasses the human being entirely. Therefore, and human effort to be outside of this will result in unavoidable conflict. As man was created, he has choices. A man may choose what he eats, how he conducts his affairs, but to what avail is this? In reality, the knowledge and wisdom any single person possesses is very insignificant, so how is this solved? From the beginning of human kind, there has always been some moral code of conduct. Some philosphers will disagree as to whether this was divine in origin or not, but that is an honestly moot point. If the earliest man, according to traditional anthropologic views, was so self-serving and self-centered, how did he come about to making a moral code? Would it not have been that a few ragtag band of 'early humans', after facing conflict, resort each to what they thought was best? In doing so, would they not have self-destructed as a society, howsoever limited it might have been? How could such varying elements such as human personality be brought to reconcile simply because of the devastation wrought by their brethren and predecessors? Who can say that they would not have killed all of themselves before any 'lesson' was learned? If a claim is made that some were more peaceful than others, than what is said about the evolutionary psychologists and the notion of the id, that supposedly 'ruled' over primitive men? Does the id infact take into consideration the existence of others, the existence of anything outside the self, or is it only self-subservient? I will conclude, though others may differ, than mankind could not have had the laws it did without Allah originating it and influencing it through the generations. Thus, it makes little sense that we (as people) should rebel to He who gave to us in the first place. For the 'sake of arguement', let us take the viewpoint of this scientific era, who believe in themselves and what they can 'deduce/induce'. They will recognize and acknowledge the necessity of a moral code in the implementation of a society. What remains lacking however, is how this code is enacted and enforced in modern society. Any sane scientist can understand and acknowledge the correlation between moral standards and instance of conflict, in that if the former is present, the latter is less likely to occur. Given that the latter is harmful to a society's well-being, what sense does it make, in the long run, to be at a point where morality means nothing? It incubates a society ripe for violence, generational degression, depression, and digression. Islam aims to solve this apparent dilemma by introducing and reinforcing the presence of Allah in the lives of humanity. The primary aim is to ensure the well-fare and well-being of all members of a society, and having each individual strive to be closer in his or her relationship with Allah. Being so comprehensive, Islam affects every aspect of existence, from social to political, from political to economic, there is not a sphere of life that goes unexamined, unjustified. Every action has a purpose, and that action which has no purpose, is discouraged from the get-go. It encourages unity at the most integral level, the family, all the way up to the leadership. Problems that arise in everyday affairs are tackled by looking at Quran, hadeeth, fiqh, and the subsequent stages of scholarship that the 'ulemaa engage in to derive a ruling for any particular issue. Wholistically, it means that one should be kind to his neighbor, forgive another of his faults, and entreat and enjoin upon himself and others to virtue and belief in Allah and what He has commanded. It means that one should be honest in buisiness dealings, honest in personal affairs, and forthright whenever he is required and sometimes when not required to be so, ie the exception being in the case of being jovial with a friend or spouse. It means seeking the truth wherever and whatever it may be, whether it be the fault one's own self has, or the truth in the world one did not previously realize. It means being open to what should be open and more closed when one should be more closed. Though at some points these points may seem subjective and arbitrary, in reality they are upon the singular guideline of being whatever pleases Allah.
Updated:
- 09.21.05 ~10AM. Topics furthered include finishing up a brief analysis of present-day politics and geography, an analysis of Islam, and (partially) its implications on societal, individual, and communal levels. More to come, inshAllah.
- 09.15.05 ~11 PM. Topics covered are the price paid by colonial interests and a short analysis of present-day geography. Further updates with their corresponding topics will be posted in time, inshAllah.
------ Topics remaining include: the price paid by colonial interests specifically (covered), analysis of present day politics and geography (partially covered), followed by an analysis of Islam, its background, history, implications on societal, individual, and communal levels, reasoning behind its injuctions, delineation of how it describes man's relationship with the Divine, the implications for social and political impact, the fallout from WWI, how and why it appears contradictory to western thought, a more-detailed description of western thought, its prevalent ideologies, beginnings in the humanities and evolution into the sciences, how science/arts contribute to western thought, where the fundamental division lies between western and Islamic thought, and finally (I think)- how the conflict between Islam and the west can be solved, from both a theoretical and practical perspective.
The first question: why should western thought oppose Islam? To begin, we define what is 'western thought'. Traditionally, this notion has been bound in geographic terms to mean the United States, Canada, Britain, and the majority of Europe. Note how North America and Europe are fartherest away from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Another perspective in which difference can be perceived is in the course of history, which shows us exactly who has been writing and commandeering the majority of the world to do its bidding. The advent of science brought with it the rise of colonialism, as nations began to vie for the best in everything, to be always ahead in wealth, resources, and sometimes, ideologies. What compelled men to cross seas and be dazzled by the wealth they saw as untapped? What constitutes necessary action in establishing for one's nation the uppermost hand of rule and law, in the face of systems that previously existed? Why what was done, is a most difficult and easy question. The money, the trade, the wealth, the power, the land, the riches, all of these were prime motivations. To some extent, religion played a role, but almost entirely for superficial and broad, agenda-backing purposes. It is also true however, that all of this was gained by those colonial Europeans at a price, a price perhaps too steep to pay in hindsight. Not only does increase in empire size increase the chance for rebellion, as was the case of America, but also the means by which the industry established forever soured relations with almost every nationality in the world. The 'white man' almost simultaneously created enemies in every corner of the globe. First, and perhaps foremost, the lynching of Africana and everything it was. Their people taken, the culture, history, tradition, value, order, government, wealth, all destroyed by materialistic pursuit. Another region, that of southeast Asia, which served as a springboard geographically to the rest of Asia, was another casualty. Mainly British colonial interests, though including others such as the French and Dutch, the forces of imperialism dominated in exceedingly absurd ratios of colonist:native. How were such numbers divided? A haughty person might assume that the intellectual and material superiority were enough to conquer people of 'lower class'. It should be noted that Asia and Africana and similar in many respects, with the differnces of an indigenous nature. The subjugation of almost two entire continents occurred mainly through a very unassumingly simplistic ideaology: divide and conquer. Once a people have a reason to fight amongst themselves, to defeat them in any capacity, whether it be intellectually, scholarly, materially, ideologically, socially, economically, etc, becomes a very simple matter of moving in whilst the bickering and division consumes the mettle of a people. Another prime example of how European interests bred hate and enmity can be found in South and Central America, where the natives were used much as the Africana were for slave labor and general subservience to the tiny, ruling European elite. Their conquest occurred with the same principle of divide and conquer as with the other regions and peoples. The total number of subjugated continents now rises to about three: Africana, Asia, and South/Central America. True, the colonial interests gained what they wished for, at least initially, but was it truly worth the divide that now seperates the world? One of clear and honest moral background can easily answer 'no'. What was it exactly that colonial interests had to lose in the grand scheme of things? One looks at what wealth they amassed, what arts and sciences they were able to produce, and there appear to be few things that can classified as detrimental. However, the main loss that occurred was the loss of trust and respect by the rest of humanity, which was comprised of those who lived in all other lands besides that of developed western Europe. Why is respect and trust important? Clearly, it could have fostered honest trade, honest brokerage, and an honest exchange of ideas and materials, but it was the greed and avarice that consumed the ideologies of the 'empires' of the time. They wanted more than just trade agreements, more than just land treaties, more than just boundaries, they wanted all of it, ie anything that was of any value, that could even become valuable, was desired and demanded and pursued by whatever means necessary, a direct implication of military force. In retrospect and hindsight, it would have been more ethical, moral, responsible, eventually-beneficial, easier, and all in all more productive if those empires sought expansion with a respect of those peoples they dealt with. Nonetheless, hindsight is 20/20 and the 'should-haves' of the past crystal clear. Present day politics and geography have very staggering implications when one considers how it all came about. American geography depended entirely on the forced removal of Native Americans from their land, and this removal was of course accompanied by the murder, pillage, and plunder of countless Native tribes and nations. The geopolitical climate in the Middle East today is a direct result of the consequences of WWI, and to an extent, WWII. In the first so-called 'World War' (note the apparent and implied bigotry of western historians in their nomenclature of historical events: a war occurred between a handful of nations, yet it 'comprises' all of the 'world'. Subtle, yet astonishing), the fall of the Ottoman Empire meant that the territory it formely comprised, generally from Egypt to Afghanistan and as far north as Turkey and Kazakhstan, would be divided up into what essentially accounted for as puppet governments, whose leaders were loyal mainly to western powers, and if it were of any benefit, then their own people. The moral and ethical implications of this commandeering of humanity into politically and economically convenient divisions and subdivisions is about as obvious as the rest of this writing. Still, wherein lay the faults that would arise from this division? It would aid in everyone's understanding if the layman could imagine in how many of these countries has there occurred an attempted or succeeded revolution, both politically and militarily. I cannot think of a single country who escaped that mockery known as the 'Treaty' of Versailles and also the 'Treaty' of Bret-Litovisk. Every conclusionary element of those treaties had in mind soley the interests of western nations, in all facets imaginable. This included militarily, economically, politically, ideologically, and just about every other way in which a people can be subjugated. Of course, no one is without fault, and these faults became ever so clear when each of these countries, especially the 'mandates' of the Carribbean and Africana were faced with revolutions. How can a people repressed remain a people denied? Continuing on present-day geography, the plethora of literally explosive political and militarial situations around the world truly amount to only a testament of how humanity's reliance upon itself is a forgone mistake. There are concerns about North Korea's nuclear development, Iran's nuclear program, Syria'a involvement with Lebanese politics, Saudia Arabia's apparent link to terrorist funding, Sudan's ethnic divide, Pakistan and India's unending dispute over the Kashmir region, west China's Xinjiang province and the oppression of its Muslims, Canada's turmoil regarding the previously possible allowing of Sharia'ah law in independent courts, France's claim to secularism challenging the right of Muslim women to wear hijaab, Britian's recent dealings with terror attacks, Afghanistan's apparent lack of security in controlling the various warlords and their drug trade, Iraq's entirely elusive 'final solution' where no end is in sight, Indonesia's ethnic issues with the East Timor state, Chechnya and its ongoing conflict of interests with Russia over independence, Palestine and its struggle for independence from Israel, Ukraine's Prime Minister Yushchekno's (sp) disagreements with much of the political population, Germany's economic difficulties and the recent divide in who will become PM, America and its 'war' on terrorism, Turkey and its secularish regime implementing a steady move away from any ties to religion, Venezuala and its supposed dictator being at odds with the U.S. while supporting Fidel Castro's Communist state of Cuba, and the list goes on without any end in sight. In the thick of all of this, where and what is Islam? From its most basic source, it is the belief in one god, Allah, who has no partners in worship, and the belief that Muhammad (saw) is His slave and final messenger. Granted, this is quite a simple phrase, but how can its implications go so far beyond simplistic? The reality is that it is a guide on how to live, behave, and worship. Through this definition, one sees how far into the scope of human existence Islam actually permeates, which is to say that it encompasses the human being entirely. Therefore, and human effort to be outside of this will result in unavoidable conflict. As man was created, he has choices. A man may choose what he eats, how he conducts his affairs, but to what avail is this? In reality, the knowledge and wisdom any single person possesses is very insignificant, so how is this solved? From the beginning of human kind, there has always been some moral code of conduct. Some philosphers will disagree as to whether this was divine in origin or not, but that is an honestly moot point. If the earliest man, according to traditional anthropologic views, was so self-serving and self-centered, how did he come about to making a moral code? Would it not have been that a few ragtag band of 'early humans', after facing conflict, resort each to what they thought was best? In doing so, would they not have self-destructed as a society, howsoever limited it might have been? How could such varying elements such as human personality be brought to reconcile simply because of the devastation wrought by their brethren and predecessors? Who can say that they would not have killed all of themselves before any 'lesson' was learned? If a claim is made that some were more peaceful than others, than what is said about the evolutionary psychologists and the notion of the id, that supposedly 'ruled' over primitive men? Does the id infact take into consideration the existence of others, the existence of anything outside the self, or is it only self-subservient? I will conclude, though others may differ, than mankind could not have had the laws it did without Allah originating it and influencing it through the generations. Thus, it makes little sense that we (as people) should rebel to He who gave to us in the first place. For the 'sake of arguement', let us take the viewpoint of this scientific era, who believe in themselves and what they can 'deduce/induce'. They will recognize and acknowledge the necessity of a moral code in the implementation of a society. What remains lacking however, is how this code is enacted and enforced in modern society. Any sane scientist can understand and acknowledge the correlation between moral standards and instance of conflict, in that if the former is present, the latter is less likely to occur. Given that the latter is harmful to a society's well-being, what sense does it make, in the long run, to be at a point where morality means nothing? It incubates a society ripe for violence, generational degression, depression, and digression. Islam aims to solve this apparent dilemma by introducing and reinforcing the presence of Allah in the lives of humanity. The primary aim is to ensure the well-fare and well-being of all members of a society, and having each individual strive to be closer in his or her relationship with Allah. Being so comprehensive, Islam affects every aspect of existence, from social to political, from political to economic, there is not a sphere of life that goes unexamined, unjustified. Every action has a purpose, and that action which has no purpose, is discouraged from the get-go. It encourages unity at the most integral level, the family, all the way up to the leadership. Problems that arise in everyday affairs are tackled by looking at Quran, hadeeth, fiqh, and the subsequent stages of scholarship that the 'ulemaa engage in to derive a ruling for any particular issue. Wholistically, it means that one should be kind to his neighbor, forgive another of his faults, and entreat and enjoin upon himself and others to virtue and belief in Allah and what He has commanded. It means that one should be honest in buisiness dealings, honest in personal affairs, and forthright whenever he is required and sometimes when not required to be so, ie the exception being in the case of being jovial with a friend or spouse. It means seeking the truth wherever and whatever it may be, whether it be the fault one's own self has, or the truth in the world one did not previously realize. It means being open to what should be open and more closed when one should be more closed. Though at some points these points may seem subjective and arbitrary, in reality they are upon the singular guideline of being whatever pleases Allah.
Updated:
- 09.21.05 ~10AM. Topics furthered include finishing up a brief analysis of present-day politics and geography, an analysis of Islam, and (partially) its implications on societal, individual, and communal levels. More to come, inshAllah.
- 09.15.05 ~11 PM. Topics covered are the price paid by colonial interests and a short analysis of present-day geography. Further updates with their corresponding topics will be posted in time, inshAllah.
------ Topics remaining include: the price paid by colonial interests specifically (covered), analysis of present day politics and geography (partially covered), followed by an analysis of Islam, its background, history, implications on societal, individual, and communal levels, reasoning behind its injuctions, delineation of how it describes man's relationship with the Divine, the implications for social and political impact, the fallout from WWI, how and why it appears contradictory to western thought, a more-detailed description of western thought, its prevalent ideologies, beginnings in the humanities and evolution into the sciences, how science/arts contribute to western thought, where the fundamental division lies between western and Islamic thought, and finally (I think)- how the conflict between Islam and the west can be solved, from both a theoretical and practical perspective.
5 comments:
oh NOOO ur becoming khuram aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh stop the madness!!!!!
sike ok. umm, that was too long, but ill read it when im bored. =D
yousaf that was an awesome post.
i can't wait until you post the rest of it.
btw, yousaf, you should write this out in an essay and then publish it. i'm looking forward to your conclusion because this is something i've thought about a lot and haven't been able to make any progress.
*bangs head against wall* i agree with comment #1...
its all because of the freemasons :psycho:
Post a Comment