Rise of "Islam" in the world

[W.11]

I think this is quite the analysis.
Islamists do ruin the name of Islam and Muslims worldwide, Salafi ideology is spreading and it is devastating to inter-religious tolerance.

and a jew comments on it, who's zionist ancestors have blood of innocents on their hands and he lives in a country carved out of blood of the innocents

 

[soldierofallah]

Compare the islamic nations to non islamic ones.Are they any better?How much is their contribution to human civilisation compared to west/china/other nations?How much peaceful and stable are they compared to others?How much rights do their citizens enjoy compared to west..?You still want islam to dominate the world?

Look back in history n see how the khilafa performed compared to other nations. if everyone on this planet gave zakath than poverty would perish foool.

 

[soldierofallah]

....

Is it you in the picture ?

hahahahaha NO bro, i just liked it. im 16 by the way n he looks in hes 30s.

 

[ephone]

I do not have to be american so as not to believe this nonsense.

When you say "no religion has or can spread at such a speed", you forget your biggest enemy so far: Christianity???

Islam will enter every house, every land will be conquerd by us as “falsehood is bound to perish”which is stated in the quran, even if every kufar on this planet turns againtst muslims than wallahi not even than can they end this religion. now 1 in 4 people on this planet are muslims and islam did this in 1400 years NO religion has or can spread at such a speed, subhanallah. islam WILL dominate the word inshallah and the khilafa will too return very soon inshallah... stop it if u can america, peace.

 

[Armstrong]

Of course I understand the difference between pan-Arabism & pan-Islamism, which is why I used the term pan-Arab Islamism (in light of the events of the "Arab Spring"). But I would argue, that in light of the current "Arab Spring", that pan-Arab nationalism is having a huge overlap with pan-Islamism, uniting all the Arab nations under "the caliphate". I talked to a "religious Muslim cleric" from Egypt, & another one from Tunisia living in the US, & both of them were pleased by the "Arab Spring, as they thought this was an Islamic revival, which would eventually result in the "puppet regimes" being overthrown for an Islamic caliphate. The results of Libya post Gaddafi are for everyone to see, which I had predicted for a long time.

I can agree with you on how Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism might have intermingled in the Arab Spring but generally its more or less a rudderless movement of Secularists, Islamists and a bunch of other 'ists'. Tis true that the Muslim Brotherhood has gained a lot of popular support in Egypt but as long as they are doing it democratically, they are, essentially, reflecting the will and wants of millions of Egyptions out there. Additionally the good thing about democracy is that if I don't like you I'll vote you out the next time. Their commitment to democracy has its origins far back when Hasan Al Banna started the organization and they are a decent mix of liberal-progressive with some pretty conservative elements. All in all, I'm not sure that they're the bogeyman that we've been led to believe...I mean Banna was after all Ramadan's grandfather and we all know how progressive Tariq Ramadan is. Besides, their commitment to democracy and the political awakening of the general population in the backdrop of the Arab Spring ensures that a Mr.Zia like Islamization that is unacceptable to whole swathes of the population would be very difficult to happen.

I have not talked about militancy on this thread, because I believe there are certain reasons as to why anyone belonging to any religion or creed can become militant. But my concern is that whatever societies pan-Islamists govern are backward, intolerant, chauvinistic, uneducated, impoverished. It shows me that the Muslim world needs a revival inside before coming out to the world. The fundamental problem with pan-Islamism/Salafism is that it is reformist. It believes the world has deviated so much from the true meaning of Islam, that they need to reform everything. They believe women should have a limited role in society, they believe education that goes against their understanding of Islam is haram. They think Shias & Sunni Barelvis, & Muslims around the world do biddat & shirk. They have a general belief that everything that did not happen in the Prophet(S)'s life is impermissible.

I think Pan-Islamism is a state of mind. I could argue that Iqbal was a Pan-Islamist, that Jinnah had occasionally hinted towards the same, and yet neither of the two belonged to an extremist or intolerant mindset. So not all kinds of extremism needs to expressed in militant terms or needs to be of a religious connotation - there are enough liberal extremists out there who are so fixated on their respective stance that they wouldn't hear anyone elses and even entertain the possibility of some revision on either's part. Similarly, the Hizb is another organization that is extremist but within the bounds of law and we can't stop them from preaching their side of the story even if its bile towards the rest of us...so counter their arguments by producing more scholars like Hamza Yusuf and Mr.Ramadan. Otherwise we risk being just as extremist in our crackdowns as those same bearded baboons.

Btw, I do not support Iran either, the way they have influenced Iraq, Syria, Lebanon & even Pakistan in terms of extremism is there to see. The concept of Taqleed is means for them to politically control the Shia Muslim population under one banner, a similar concept to "the caliphate" in Arab countries/pan-Islamist countries. But the effect of pan-Islamism is much more profound and greater to see, I have been to Iran, Syria; & these societies are not as suppressed as pan-Islamist societies.

The reason could possibly be because more Muslims prescribe to the Sunni branch of Islam than any other, perhaps even overwhelmingly so. And the Caliphate does seem to be perceived rather differently by either of our sects. Hence because of greater number the potential for abuse is that much greater.

I do not think a Western style democracy (as much as I would like that) is necessarily the best way for Pakistan. I am perfectly fine with Pakistan being the Islamic republic of Pakistan, as long as the Islam, unless the "Islam" we are talking about is the Sufi-flavored Sunni Barelvi Islam, alongside which Shias, non-Muslims, other groups etc have co-existed peacefully for centuries. The rise of the Deobandis (who are ideologically close to the Salafis) & the Salafis is threatening that co-existence, & is threatening to radicalize the followers of the ideology alongside which people have co-existed peacefully for for centuries.

I'm not sure about Western style democracy myself, I mean Iqbal related to it as thus : 10 assez are equal to 1 man. I don't really have a stance on it yet so I'll get back to you once I've studied it in more depth. But you're right the present political status quo may be fine, however, I'm also thinking along the lines of what Lebanon practices - Confessionalism; perhaps giving people the required space to be comfortable in would be the better way even if it means that we've officially subscribed to the view that we're not Muslims - we're Shites, Sunnis, Qadiyanis etc. and Non-Muslims. I believe the speaker of the NA being a Sunni, the speaker of the Senate being a Shia, the Presidency reserved for Non-Muslims and Non-Muslims alone and the PM being free for all, could be something that we can look into.

I agree with you, some of the names of scholars you have taken here are truly what the Muslim world is missing today. Although I would think there are many good thinkers like Tariq Ramadan, Tahir Qadri etc present in the Muslim world as well. Although we are getting more educated by the day, & are confronting more problems openly, the problems are also increasing at a faster rate, which is why things are becoming more challenging. But I am glad we are debating these things here, in Zia's time, we would not have been able to hold this debate freely on an open forum.

Yes but how many of them are being produced here in the Muslim world. In fact, we've driven off people like Mr.Javed Ahmed Ghamidi because many of us didn't agree with him. So the future is indeed bleak but at least we're inching forward. You're right a return of the Zia era is not on the cards at the moment but rallies like the Difa-e-Pakistan and the support they get are certainly troubling.

I am a proud Pakistani citizen, first and foremost. My passport says I am a Pakistani citizen, & that is what I am to the world. A Pakistani citizen regardless of religion is more important to me than other Muslims around the world. It is important for a brother to behave like a brother, regardless of religion.
I am a Muslim for myself. I have great affinity to Sunni Barelvism & Sufism as well, although I am from the Shia sect of Islam. I am also a fully practicing Muslim, I have read the Quran a few times with tafseer; & have read Sahih Bokhari, Muslim & al-Tirmidhi as well. I have also read other religious books from other religions, & non-religious books as well.

Abaai yaar, tu mareee ga to nahin Forgive me If I didn't elucidate properly enough, I mentioned our respective political and religious dispositions simply to impress upon you the point that we both, apparently, prescribe to a different stance on either politics or religion and yet we are having this conversation as respectfully as we can and then part as friends. This is the encouraging bit...because people like us who can agree to disagree are in abundance out there and Inshallah with more education, exposure and self-criticism coming out of the Muslims Community we're going to gain numbers.

 

[soldierofallah]

I do not have to be american so as not to believe this nonsense.

When you say "no religion has or can spread at such a speed", you forget your biggest enemy so far: Christianity???

Yea, christianity has existed for over 2000 years where else islam has existed for 1400 years, use ur logic mate. islam is the fastest growing religion not christianty, islam has the fastest conversion rate not christianty. give islam another 600 years and you’ll see the result.

 

[Armstrong]

You misunderstand me. I never said political religion/political religion nationalists aren't a problem. I am also contesting your claim that Salafism, which is a school of thought, isn't a problem. I am arguing that Salafism as a school of thought is a problem as well.

I never meant to imply that Boko Haram or al-Qaeda are the examples of groups that practice the Salafi school of thought. And I agree with you when you said Salafi scholars condemned suicide bombings, as they are un-Islamic. That is not the issue.

The issue is that Salafism as the school of thought is reformist. It believes the world has deviated so much from the true meaning of Islam, that they need to reform everything. They believe women should have a limited role in society, they believe education that goes against their understanding of Islam is haram. They think Shias & Sunni Barelvis, & Muslims around the world do biddat & shirk. They have a general belief that everything that did not happen in the Prophet(S)'s life is impermissible. So to summarize, yes, they are the problem.

I think both the Saudi regimes and the Iranian Cultural Centres have spread enough bile by exporting their respective creed or revolutions to the rest of the Muslim world. But Mr.Ejaz is right you're mixing up acts by a nation state with an ideology, because I don't agree with your view that the Salafi School of thought is somehow the root of the problem. As I mentioned earlier, I have met many a practicing Salafis who are liberal and progressive and for them their Stance on Islam is what propelled them towards that. The Salafi Islam, as I understand it to be, have a certain stance on things that they think should be made a part of religion and that stance states that we should derive our theological dogmas from what the Prophet or his Companions did - Period. This is where the extremism may stem from, for a segment of the Salafis may argue, rather aggressively, that whatever comes afterwards is impermissible and hence must be quelled, perhaps even forcefully. However, like wise, there is a segment of the same Salafis that argue that whatever comes afterwards is something that we, the Human beings, came up with as an answer to our changing circumstances and that such flexibility is perfectly permissible but don't make it a part of faith that cannot be criticized if we don't agree with it. As such you are free to choose or refuse whatever you like but don't be offended if we disagree with you.

I dunno about you but I'd find the second bit perfectly acceptable. As for the first one, again, it isn't because of the inherent flaws in the School of Thought but rather because of its acceptance by an extremist mindset. I mean, I remember once going to a Shia Imam led mosque and, me being a Sunni obviously didn't know the difference in some actions, so I prayed by imitation and incorporated the actions I knew. Many Shias walked up to me and said : Aap Sunni hain, And I replied : Haan jee. Most smiled and were okay and yet some of them were like WTF don't they have enough mosques of their own. And when I came back and related the story to a friend of mine...he was, ironically, like : Don't we have enough mosques of our own. Now either of those exclamations, to me, are extremists and yet I would be deeply offended if either of the Schools of Thought of those fellows would be labelled as being potentially, inherently problematic.

So again I say, Mr.Bilal - its not the School of Thought that is extreme its a segment of the adherents and they are many across the board in different religions and socio-political belief systems. I would be deeply offended if someone called Hinduism an extremist ideology simply because there are Hindu Ultra-Nationalists out there or that Communism was evil because Stalin couldn't stop killing. Both of the aforementioned are, in one way or the other, derived from their respective canonical literatures and both of them have a massive potential of abuse owning to the human issues they deal with and the voluminous size of their works.

 

[shiv]

Yea, christianity has existed for over 2000 years where else islam has existed for 1400 years, use ur logic mate. islam is the fastest growing religion not christianty, islam has the fastest conversion rate not christianty. give islam another 600 years and you’ll see the result.

This thread is about reforms in Islam. So stop the fastest conversion rate crap. U maybe right but that's offtopic.

#pan-arabism and pan-islamism are two words i learnt today. Hoping rational thinking muslim members to prevail in this thread rather than fanboys..

thread rate so far 5/5

 

[53fd]

I can agree with you on how Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism might have intermingled in the Arab Spring but generally its more or less a rudderless movement of Secularists, Islamists and a bunch of other 'ists'. Tis true that the Muslim Brotherhood has gained a lot of popular support in Egypt but as long as they are doing it democratically, they are, essentially, reflecting the will and wants of millions of Egyptions out there. Additionally the good thing about democracy is that if I don't like you I'll vote you out the next time. Their commitment to democracy has its origins far back when Hasan Al Banna started the organization and they are a decent mix of liberal-progressive with some pretty conservative elements. All in all, I'm not sure that they're the bogeyman that we've been led to believe...I mean Banna was after all Ramadan's grandfather and we all know how progressive Tariq Ramadan is. Besides, their commitment to democracy and the political awakening of the general population in the backdrop of the Arab Spring ensures that a Mr.Zia like Islamization that is unacceptable to whole swathes of the population would be very difficult to happen.

Democracy is good for a nation where the majority of the people are educated, & been exposed to other perspectives & POVs: in other words, an "un-repressive" society. As Libya has shown, uneducated tribals might want to do something, but that might not be in the interests of the nation. I fear the same thing for Egypt & many other Arab states.

I think Pan-Islamism is a state of mind. I could argue that Iqbal was a Pan-Islamist, that Jinnah had occasionally hinted towards the same, and yet neither of the two belonged to an extremist or intolerant mindset. So not all kinds of extremism needs to expressed in militant terms or needs to be of a religious connotation - there are enough liberal extremists out there who are so fixated on their respective stance that they wouldn't hear anyone elses and even entertain the possibility of some revision on either's part. Similarly, the Hizb is another organization that is extremist but within the bounds of law and we can't stop them from preaching their side of the story even if its bile towards the rest of us...so counter their arguments by producing more scholars like Hamza Yusuf and Mr.Ramadan. Otherwise we risk being just as extremist in our crackdowns as those same bearded baboons.

I permit everyone to express their opinions, even if I deem them to be extremists by nature, as long as they aren't committing crimes or going against the law. But would I want them to influence our society less? Yes. Because they can threaten the intra & intercommunity harmony of our society.

 

[saiyan0321]

what people need to learn is there is a huge difference between a religion ideology and the mindset of a person who will manipulate those teachings for his own extremists need....... for example if a muslim extremist attacks a non muslim saying he is being killed bcz he is a kafir and at that point another muslim comes and defends that non muslim saying his religion is tolerant and forbids such killings and calls it murder. what will you say both are muslims it means that the mindset of people is different. the only way to stop this is education and awareness and not just Quranic or islamic education but maths science and other fields.

 

[saiyan0321]

to those who support caliph-ism in the world caliph was a system where the people would agree that this is the most pious and well suited person to rule and he would rule till he would die such an honest system is impossible to implement now in areas where people cant say yes or no without the agreement of waderas and sardars. thus you cant expect tings to be fair then

 

[53fd]

But Mr.Ejaz is right you're mixing up acts by a nation state with an ideology, because I don't agree with your view that the Salafi School of thought is somehow the root of the problem.

No, I am not talking about "political Islam", the instrument Saudi Arabia & Iran have used to influence other nations in the world. I am not talking about the Arab Spring per se either. I am more interested in majority non-Muslim nations; in Europe, America or Australia; where many Salafi (adhering) Muslims come in from other countries in large numbers, & then fail to acclimatize & become a threat to the balance & harmony of society. You don't see that happen to adherents of other religions, only certain Muslims for the most part.

On a separate note, I was also talking about Muslim majority societies in Central Asia, that were secular to begin with, but now becoming more Islamist with political Islam/pan-Islamism, where powers have used it as means to achieve their geostrategic goals. And then the Middle East as well.

The point is that whether Islam has been used as a political means to an end, whether political/militant Islam has been used or not, ALL Muslim majority societies throughout the world have (unfortunately) exhibited they are backward, intolerant, chauvinistic, opposed to change etc; which includes the rising Salafi influence as well.

As I mentioned earlier, I have met many a practicing Salafis who are liberal and progressive and for them their Stance on Islam is what propelled them towards that. The Salafi Islam, as I understand it to be, have a certain stance on things that they think should be made a part of religion and that stance states that we should derive our theological dogmas from what the Prophet or his Companions did - Period. This is where the extremism may stem from, for a segment of the Salafis may argue, rather aggressively, that whatever comes afterwards is impermissible and hence must be quelled, perhaps even forcefully. However, like wise, there is a segment of the same Salafis that argue that whatever comes afterwards is something that we, the Human beings, came up with as an answer to our changing circumstances and that such flexibility is perfectly permissible but don't make it a part of faith that cannot be criticized if we don't agree with it. As such you are free to choose or refuse whatever you like but don't be offended if we disagree with you.

Now I agree with you, I have met many Salafis who appear liberal & progressive. But the problem is that even though they are liberal, they promote "Takfiri" thoughts, that others have deviated from Islam & they are the reformists. No other school of thought claims to be reformist, or accuses others of Shirk & Biddat like this group does. It employs a rigid outlook of religion & life, & threatens the harmony that exists between different groups in society; even if they don't advocate militancy and seem liberal. And I do not mind them expressing their views, no matter how extreme they are (they have a right to this), but the problem to this situation is education & "meaningful exposure". The change needs to come from within.

I dunno about you but I'd find the second bit perfectly acceptable. As for the first one, again, it isn't because of the inherent flaws in the School of Thought but rather because of its acceptance by an extremist mindset. I mean, I remember once going to a Shia Imam led mosque and, me being a Sunni obviously didn't know the difference in some actions, so I prayed by imitation and incorporated the actions I knew. Many Shias walked up to me and said : Aap Sunni hain, And I replied : Haan jee. Most smiled and were okay and yet some of them were like WTF don't they have enough mosques of their own. And when I came back and related the story to a friend of mine...he was, ironically, like : Don't we have enough mosques of our own. Now either of those exclamations, to me, are extremists and yet I would be deeply offended if either of the Schools of Thought of those fellows would be labelled as being potentially, inherently problematic.

The difference between my mindset & other Salafis is that I consider my sect's views as a certain interpretation of Quran & Ahadith. I consider it as an opinion, & not set in stone. I could be right or wrong in my interpretation as well. My sect or Sunni Barelvis do not accuse others of Shirk or Biddat, & they have co-existed peacefully for centuries, alongside non-Muslims (even in non-Muslim countries). With the rise of Deobandi & Salafi elements inside Pakistan (some militant/political, others not), we see a danger to the balance & harmony of our society.

The problem with Salafis & their mindset is that they think that their beliefs are set in stone, & others are wrong. They make definitive claims about what they think is right & what is wrong, & that promotes Takfiri thoughts. So yes, I believe it is a problem. They already make their minds & come to their conclusions before talking to other sects/groups. So yes, I believe it is a problem, & a threat to different groups in a community/society.

I am not saying all Salafis are like this, but most are. The reason for that is that unlike other ideologies, Salafism is a reformist ideology, it seeks to "reform" Islam, & thinks the world has deviated from it, & aims to bring it back to what it was 1400 years ago (sometimes almost literally). In fact, many Salafis believe that everything that the Prophet(S) didn't do in his lifetime is impermissible. So again, I would argue strongly that yes, Salafism as an ideology is a danger to the world, even if it isn't militant or political. It threatens the balance & harmony of free, secular societies throughout the world even if it isn't militant or political. But that does not mean they shouldn't have the right to voice their opinions freely, the way to get past this is education & "meaningful exposure". I am happy we can learn to agree to disagree.

 

[ephone]

Where does it have the fastest conversion rate? In your house???

If Islam is practiced like today's radical way, you won't see it in 600 years.

Yea, christianity has existed for over 2000 years where else islam has existed for 1400 years, use ur logic mate. islam is the fastest growing religion not christianty, islam has the fastest conversion rate not christianty. give islam another 600 years and you’ll see the result.

 

[boris]

Democracy is good for a nation where the majority of the people are educated, & been exposed to other perspectives & POVs: in other words, an "un-repressive" society. As Libya has shown, uneducated tribals might want to do something, but that might not be in the interests of the nation. I fear the same thing for Egypt & many other Arab states.



I permit everyone to express their opinions, even if I deem them to be extremists by nature, as long as they aren't committing crimes or going against the law. But would I want them to influence our society less? Yes. Because they can threaten the intra & intercommunity harmony of our society.

This is a point one must raise as far as Afghanistan is concerned be it democracy or be it communism you cant take over their culture something even which Zbigniew Brzezinski stated to Bush that go to A'stan and eliminate the threat but no nation building,no democracy spread as they are still a medieval society.The Soviets were worried because the tribals were against the modernisation,liberalization taking place in the city and they rebelled.The Afghan tribes are more comfortable with their old way of living.

You cant rule the Afghans,period.They prefer their pashtuns,muslims ruling them and they hell as well don't want foreigners meddling in their affairs.

 

[soldierofallah]

Where does it have the fastest conversion rate? In your house???

No not in my house, in the world. looks like ur one of those lazy mamas boys who just sits his backside all day on the sofa, do some research than come an argue with me (by the way plz do some research on islam, especialy the growth rate)