Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Islam and Muslim reactionaries

      The Muslim reactionary is front and centre stage these days. We all know someone like this, or even we ourselves think this way without even being aware of it. It's a dangerous way to think as it's illogical and it damages the Muslim community in many ways. First of all it's un Islamic, Islam is Islam no matter who's in power with regards to global affairs whether it be George W Bush and America or Napoleon's France. These things don't change what Islam is.

What is a Muslim reactionary?

      Muslim reactionaries engage in a form of Islamic belief that is heavily political with regards to the Western world. They manipulate and adjust their belief with regards to what the west is. They believe that whatever the west is, Islam is surely the opposite. If the west is skyscrapers and mini skirts, then Islam is Burkha's and caves more or less. Usually those are the extreme reactionaries who are a very small part of the population. However the reactionary mindset has penetrated even the moderate Muslims. I am here to debunk this reactionary mindset and to give clarity that Islam is not what the west "ain't" rather Islam is Islam and that it agrees with the west on allot of issues and has a significant disagreement with the west on others.

The wrong logica behind the Muslim reactionaries way of thinking.

       The Muslim reactionary thinks like this, first Nicolous Sarkozy is against Islam, therefore whatever Nicoloas Sarkozy asks of Muslims is un Islamic and therefore we should do the opposite. Here we can see the first logical falasy that indirectly these Muslims are defining their Islam by what Nicolos Sarkozy says or does. The thinking is as follows, Nicolas Sarkozy is against Islam, Nicolas Sarkozy bans the Burkha, therefore the Burkha is fundamental to Islam. In reality the Muslim jury on the Burkha is out, however most Muslims believe the Burkha is apart of Arabic culture rather then Islamic necessity. However the reactionaries define their Islam by what the West wants. Often I wonder if the west is aware of this, and then purposely selects people that they know Muslims will not like, for example Salman Rushdie to speak about things that are good for Muslims knowing they will react by doing the opposite and hurting themselves? For example, Salman Rushdie says "Muslims should be highly educated and live in luxerious apartments in major cities", the reactionary says, I hate Rushdie, Muslims should live in mud huts and education is useless". Then an Islamic scholor comes along and tells the Muslim reactionary that, according to Islam it is Halal "to be highly educated and live in a luxerious apartment". The reactionary will say, you "house slave" you sound just like Rushdie etc.

The reactionary mindset is child like.

      This reactionary mindset is almost child like. Like when a parent tells a child to go to his room and study and instead the child sneaks out to play video games at a friends house even though the studying would do the child some good. The child is aware that he needs to study but in order to spite the parents would rather play video games even though he is aware the studying would do him some good. Another example with regards to this way of thinking has to do with democracy. Since the west wants democracy for Muslims, democracy must be inherantly un Islamic and Muslims should shun it. Again Islam is what it is, and not what the west wants or the opposite of what the west wants. However what the west wants for Muslims more often then not does correlate with Islamic teachings ironically.

What the West wants for Islam and what Islam wants for itself are pretty similar.

      The West wants Muslims to be highly educated and literate, and Muslims want that too, and Islam demands this. The west wants wealthy societies, with no hunger or poverty, as does Islam etc. The West believes in honest and open business dealings and so does Islam etc. So the West and Islam have allot of fundamental agreements. It's time for Muslims to grow up and stop being child like in thier approach. Its almost like when someone has a feud with their boss who wants them to resign but they purposely stay on to force the boss to fire them. When you know the right thing to do is resign, you resign, no matter what the boss wants from you. Similarly if you are a Muslim, you do the right thing no matter what America wants. If America wants you to build sky scrapers and drive around in nice cars, and Islam also says this then you do it.

The Solution.

      Ultimately what the west is and what Islam commands have radical differences and massive similarities. Drinking no alcohal and women dressing modestly may seem like huge differences but in the grand scheme of things, being an honest, caring loving and decent person, which both Islam and the West command are far more similar. It's time for Muslims to stop enlarging religious differences and to start competing with the world. No more reacting to the West, but rather following the Quran and Sunnah for what they are, and moving forward trying to engage the modern world by competition and friendship. If America wants me to watch the Cricket match and drive to the local pub for chicken wings, that's fine by me, of course my beveridge will be non alcoholic and my chicken wings will be Halal.

Posted by

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Muslim Brotherhood: Can it be achieved?

Muslim Brotherhood the current state of affairs.

    The topic of Muslim brotherhood is one often spoken about by Muslims. You here the frustration among Muslims debating the topic. In fact I am going to start this article by first saying that Muslims should be realistic and pragmatic in their approach to Muslim brotherhood. After all the Quran says God loves those with common sense. First of all Muslims lag behind everyone else in brotherhood. The Chinese are united more or less, as are the Indians. Same with the West under America's tutelage. So we can say that with respect to brotherhood Muslims are far behind the rest. We often see others using Muslim countries as staging area's to bomb or attack other Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait aided the United States in bombing and destroying Iraq, Pakistan helped USA attack and bomb Afghanistan etc. So the state of brotherhood in Islam at a Macro and Major level is miserable. There is hardly any Muslim brotherhood even within Muslim states. In many Muslim countries there are low level or major civil wars going on, the situation is pretty miserable. George W Bush made a promise to turn Muslims against each other after 9/11, and so far he seems true to his word. Of course Muslims do not need the schemes of George W Bush or America to find reasons to kill or maim each other etc.

The Islamic Superstate, Muslims Uniting through dialogue. 

      First to dispel any Utopian myths, some Muslims believe that even though Muslim unity is non existent that is can miraculously arise out of Muslims joining hands and uniting into a massive Islamic super state that is run by Islamic law. This is a fantasy outright. First of all most Muslim states are dirt poor, incredibly so. Even the "wealthy" ones with masses of oil wealth have no real value, as they have no major industries or universities or research and development. You could say they are rich not wealthy. They are rich like a man who wins the lottery, however once his money dries up he will be poor again. However a man who has a solid education and proper investments is said to be wealthy as he actually has some proper skill or ability to generate wealth. He is not just lucky with oil etc. So the idea that allot of broke dysfunctional states can join up together and become a superpower is highly unlikely.  It sounds like the friend most people have who is broke and struggling to pay rent at his apartment. He asks you to be his roommate  as you are also broke and struggling to pay rent. The logic here is that if two struggling broke guys unite they can be somewhat more powerful together  While some of this is true it will not change the situation of two broke and struggling guys. It seems like it is really two broke and struggling men trying to take the easy way out, and instead of doing the soul searching and hard work needed to generate more income or get oneself education, they would just rather unite and be poor and broke together. Thus, if even miraculously somehow every Muslim nation decided to form some kind of superstate which in of itself will most likely never happen, it would still, be poor, weak and corrupt. However there is really no historical precedent for this every really happening except maybe the European Union but even that project is not totally complete and it is suffering from massive difficulty. Also keep in mind most European States are wealthy and developed.

     A realistic approach

      I have come to the conclusion that if Muslims were to ever unite it would have to happen in the only way most massive political bodies are created. That is through power, both economic, military and industrial most of all. After all even NATO at this moment is a result of 250 years of development. The Western powers have never been allied or united. Why are they somewhat United today? One reason, because of American power. Remember America started off as 13 British colonies in North America. Then they had a civil war and United North and South. Then they expanded into places like the Philippines Porto Rico and Hawaii  Then Alaska etc. World War 2 subjugated continental Europe to America and North East Asia etc. America's empire then expanded into Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union was disintegrated. Thus American power was created by painstaking and relentless generational hard work, and millions of slaves toiling for centuries as well as through industrial advancement and military power. For the Muslims there will be no way around this generational commitment to hard work and industrialization. No short cuts or easy answers either as Muslim cannot use slaves.

       If one nation state can arise and primarily take the lead in science, culture, religion and industrial technology. It can serve as a beacon of hope for the Muslim world. If one country or political entity can strive despite western sanctions and pressure to break free through the sheer hard work, productivity and piety of it's people then the Muslim world may have an anchor for unity and progress and success. However without this embryo of hope I do not see any realistic chance of Muslim brotherhood.  A powerful state could unify the Muslims under certain cultural agreements such as the modest dress of women and men and the prohibition of alcoholic drinks etc. With world class industries and universities it could start a fire of progress across the Muslim world. Thus the powerful state to set the pace seemingly is the only chance realistically at revival for Muslim power.