What's new

The role of militancy in the rise of atheism?

@haviZsultan
It would be good that we differentiate Wahabbism for its malignment of being a Wahabbi.
The history of the order would be a good place to start.
The father of the creator of the "Wahabbi" sect was a very respected scholar whose knowledge of Islam was well respected in the circles. So when Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab started propagating his own understanding in cahoots with the Saud Tribe people started listening to him thinking that "Wahabbi" meant that this was approved from the very knowledgeable and respectable ʿAbd al-Wahhab. Infact, when ʿAbd al-Wahhab heard of what his son was preaching he disowned him and even has his younger son write a pamphlet denouncing him.(this pamphlet can still be found in the Libraries of Osmania University in Hyderabad and in the Deoband libraries along with Orientalist collections..any other traces of it have been systematically eliminated by the Saudi Religious council).
So you may very well understand what has been taught by a person whose own father disowned him.

The father may have disowned him indeed. But the true person who is known to be the father of modern day Wahabism indeed was Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. We can say his father disowned him which is true but the empire was setup by him and he was the one who took the ancient lands of mutazila's like Basra and turned them into graveyards. Read this:

"The Wahhabis appeared in the Arabian desert [...] and revived the School of Ibn Taymiyya. The founder of the Wahhabiyya is Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab who died in 1786CE. He had studied the books of Ibn Taymiyya which became inestimable in his sight, deepening his involvement in them until he brought them out from the realm of opinion into the realm of practice. [...] The Wahhabis exaggerated [and bowdlerized] Ibn Taymiyya's positions and instituted practical matters that can be summarized thus:

The page on Wahabis is banned here in Karachi and I couldn't even access it with a proxy. :disagree:

Btw Osmania university had a huge role of our fathers family group (not of our house or relatives though but other members who share the family name) and Nizam. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I strongly object to linking wahabism to militancy.

How do you propose to delink it? It has been proposed that should the Wahabi themselves begin a the process of changing these ideas in their ideology, it would be most welcome as would their efforts to stop the funding of these movements.
 
@Chak Bamu atheism in theory is not a religion, its just not believing in existance of god because of insufficient evidence. Some atheist may display behaviour of a religious person (offensive to other's views, dogmatic and in some case proselytising) though.

Its not much different from a-flat-earthist or a-santa-clausist ...

Agree about the way you described many people become atheist ... but quite a lot do it by trying to make sense of things without any specific event happening to them.(or as a rebel)

I know all that. My point is that every atheist I have come across had either a cultural reason (belonging to a communist society that actively discourages faith in God), or a psychological reason. You just have to draw it out of the person. It is always there. To me having religion is a natural state of being. A person needs some philosophy, some faith base idea to help them make sense of this world, to deal with the fact that one has to die, to question if there is any permanence in this ever changing yet ever repeating world or ours.

Behavior is another matter. Usually one can tell that a person being obnoxious in the name of faith has some other reason behind their behavior. It is not that a religion actively teaches to go forth and be purposely obnoxious. Great religions do not do that. It is screwed up individuals who do that.

I believe most people question their beliefs at one time or another. Faith would be valueless without some private questioning. Quran is full of such reasoning. Try if you can get hold of "Struggling to Surrender" by Prof. Dr. Jeffrey Lang, an erstwhile atheist. He describes the process of his being pulled out of Atheism by his reading of Quran.

Since idea of God is so natural to humanity, that it always requires some sort of a crisis of emotions, reasoning, psychology to precipitate a response leading to Atheism.

A serial murderer who operated an extortion racket was asked to pray before execution. He retorted that he had a quarrel with God and thus would not pray. It is a priceless admission of so many things. Disbelief with implied belief. Rebelliousness and ego in opposition to submission.

Could you please elaborate? How is this misleading and superficial?

Unanswered questions if the hypothesis is followed logically. Imperialism does not seek converts as equals, for example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you propose to delink it? It has been proposed that should the Wahabi themselves begin a the process of changing these ideas in their ideology, it would be most welcome as would their efforts to stop the funding of these movements.

Sir, i know,understand,respect and regard your opinion with understandable logic backed by proven record. However i do refuse to admit blanket statements being made about ANY school of thought. Whabisim is not a centrally regulated corporation that they can simply pull the plug on extremism. Militancy is generated out of many factors, ie chronic, pathetic literacy rate coupled with 50% unemployment,extreme poverty and lack of justice.
 
What Taliban, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Qaeda are doing have nothing to do with "Wahabisim", and the difference between those people and Saudis is crystal clear, I didn't hear about Saudis killing foreign doctors and nurses in KSA, and many cases are happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with Islam, yes, there are Saudi terrorists but how many are they? 100? 1000? but how many fundamentalists are in Pakistan and Afghanistan? From my observation they are millions... Saudis bad practices are due to their culture not religion. Unfortunately, Muslims themselves link terrorism to Islam while there are terrorists in every single country, culture and religion.

All I understand from this thread is that some Afghans and Pakistanis are desperately trying to clean their bloody and backward image by blaming it on others.

@Sombozo, even blames it on Islam, well, if you weren't Muslims you would have been Indians.

No offence guys.
 
I know all that. My point is that every atheist I have come across had either a cultural reason (belonging to a communist society that actively discourages faith in God), or a psychological reason. You just have to draw it out of the person. It is always there. To me having religion is a natural state of being. A person needs some philosophy, some faith base idea to help them make sense of this world, to deal with the fact that one has to die, to question if there is any permanence in this ever changing yet ever repeating world or ours.

Behavior is another matter. Usually one can tell that a person being obnoxious in the name of faith has some other reason behind their behavior. It is not that a religion actively teaches to go forth and be purposely obnoxious. Great religions do not do that. It is screwed up individuals who do that.

I believe most people question their beliefs at one time or another. Faith would be valueless without some private questioning. Quran is full of such reasoning. Try if you can get hold of "Struggling to Surrender" by Prof. Dr. Jeffrey Lang, an erstwhile atheist. He describes the process of his being pulled out of Atheism by his reading of Quran.

Since idea of God is so natural to humanity, that it always requires some sort of a crisis of emotions, reasoning, psychology to precipitate a response leading to Atheism.

A serial murderer who operated an extortion racket was asked to pray before execution. He retorted that he had a quarrel with God and thus would not pray. It is a priceless admission of so many things. Disbelief with implied belief. Rebelliousness and ego in opposition to submission.



Unanswered questions if the hypothesis is followed logically. Imperialism does not seek converts as equals, for example.

Probably you have not come across enough atheists. Also there is a bias(similar religious/social/geograpical background) in your sample.
 
The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self for what a man wishes, he generally believes to be true.
 
What Taliban, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Qaeda are doing have nothing to do with "Wahabisim", and the difference between those people and Saudis is crystal clear, I didn't hear about Saudis killing foreign doctors and nurses in KSA, and many cases are happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with Islam, yes, there are Saudi terrorists but how many are they? 100? 1000? but how many fundamentalists are in Pakistan and Afghanistan? From my observation they are millions... Saudis bad practices are due to their culture not religion. Unfortunately, Muslims themselves link terrorism to Islam while there are terrorists in every single country, culture and religion.

All I understand from this thread is that some Afghans and Pakistanis are desperately trying to clean their bloody and backward image by blaming it on others.

@Sombozo, even blames it on Islam, well, if you weren't Muslims you would have been Indians.

No offence guys.
Yes, what Taliban, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Qaeda are doing have nothing to do with Islam either. I like how you blame the whole country with the acts of a few? And the 'culture' issue can be said about Pakistan too...
 
I don't agree with the premise of the article. In my experience, education and living in a tolerant society leads to an increase in the number of atheists.
A less tolerant environment drives people to group themselves which usually happens along the lines of faith. This need drives people towards more religion. So Wahabism wouldn't drive people to atheism and infact would end up making the society more religious.

The people mentioned in the article are usually the well off who are more secure and have access to means such as the internet where they find literature which legitimises their thoughts on atheism.
 
Ḥashshāshīn;3884344 said:
Yes, what Taliban, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Qaeda are doing have nothing to do with Islam either. I like how you blame the whole country with the acts of a few? And the 'culture' issue can be said about Pakistan too...

I am being better than you, I know that it's not right to generalize but that's the only way you understand it, terrorism is wide spread over there while terrorists are outcasted in other countries. Pakistanis blamed everyone except themselves.
 
@Chak Bamu... a must read article. To have a proper debate on the matter we need to separate what was taught by Zia from our minds. He promoted the concept that Islam and secularism are 2 distinct concepts and run on opposing tracks. This is the one thing I have noticed that limits or destroys any chances of debate with an Islamist. I have been having the same debate with Zarvan and co and it is tiring. Plus no one cares about the posts either and I feel like I am talking to myself.

If you can think of a hypothesis where the two are one I may try to convince you of the benefits of a secular system.

I would personally favour mu'tazili school of thought though but do read this article if you favor Sufism:



There are certain qualities of Islam that meld with secularism... but its the different schools of thought that are the issue. Hanafis are neutral, Wahabis are terrorists, Sufis mystics and Mu'tazili's secularists. We adopt mutazili thought and we are secular already.

Many Sufis would not be bothered by secular / Theocracy debate. But then some might be. There is no fixed rule here. It has much to do with the flexibility of thought and a perspective suitably introverted (sinfulness) and / or extroverted (virtue) as be the need of a particular moment.

Like I mentioned earlier, Sufism is an intensely private and practical path. Talking about it and reading Sufi poetry and philosophizing would get one no where. It is merely beating about the bush. I really do not look forward to having a discussion of what is or what is not Sufi. What one elder in this century or what another saint said in that century. At the core all such discussions are distractions and rather pointless. The heart of the matter is the change within. The re-orientation is important. But before anything else, it is the willingness to change. And for that you have to give yourself up to a Master. That, believe me, is the single hardest thing to do. Particularly for someone who thinks he knows a thing or two, has read a book or two, and can teach a fellow or two. Very very hard to do.

So you can go on and talk about what Bulhay Shah said, or what a particular school of thought teaches, or what particular philosophy is all about. But to me an engagement would be out of politeness, and not out of a desire to learn or contribute knowledge.

Sufi texts warn about a quest for political power for accomplished and established Sufis. My own Sheikh sb asks us to keep away from attaching to any political parties or putting our trust in any politicians. A pir-bhai decided to run for elections, and asked our Sheikh sb's blessings. He was told to not repeat this mistake. Consequently, out of the blue and against odds this guy got elected from around Sahiwal as an independent, spent five years in assembly and has never thought of re-election because for him certain values have a higher priority. Spirituality always trumps politics and occupies a higher moral plane. That is how our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a politician. Out of necessity and without compromising on Morality. Takes a Sufi to understand in what way Politics and religion are combined. Not religion for politics, or politics for religion, but morality and spirituality above politics. Precious few can do it.

Secularism gets a bad rap for various reasons. It is only bad if it divorces spiritual morality from politics. In our country secularism is associated with Alcohol, heterodoxy, anti-religious behavior and what not. Blame whom ever you wish, but this is what it is. In opposition to that practicing Muslims like myself opt for the safe and traditional, because that is how we are going and we can fix our course with minor adjustments. Path of least resistance a-la-1973 constitution.

You have to pay close attention to the rhetoric coming from a fringe and vocal minority who are militant in their approach. They are deluding themselves and others if they think that their prescriptions would create Utopia in Pakistan. The problems lie somewhere else in my view. Most people understand instinctively as to the place of religion within politics. It is by no means the only concern. In the order of priorities it is not even top five when it comes to elections. Some people would always use religion for personal gain, no matter where they are and no matter what religion they belong to. For example, do you really think that TTP wants some Islamic system in the country. No - their leadership is not even remotely concerned with religion. It is only a power game played by some Pathans, only because they can do it using religious rhetoric.

Obsessing about secularism would do nothing for us. The source of our troubles is elsewhere. The most secularism can do for us is introduce more instability in an already charged environment. A bunch of hyperventilating Mullah-types would make it another cause for the sake of Islam, and give a call of jihad against irreligious alcohol chugging conspirators. The cause of secularism is best left by the side for now. We are busy finding answers to questions that we have purposely avoided so far. These must be answered. The process would determine what we do with secularism next. Not vice versa.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since idea of God is so natural to humanity, that it always requires some sort of a crisis of emotions, reasoning, psychology to precipitate a response leading to Atheism.

Atheists look up to science to provide these answers. These answers are much more convincing than whatever is available in religious texts.
 
Probably you have not come across enough atheists. Also there is a bias(similar religious/social/geograpical background) in your sample.

More than half my adult life has been spent out of Pakistan. How can you then generalize about the bias in my sample?

BTW it is not a priority for me to go and find atheists. If destiny so desires, they shall find me. No biggie.
 
Atheists look up to science to provide these answers. These answers are much more convincing than whatever is available in religious texts.

Your view not mine. I do not see a conflict between religion and science. One is based on faith, the other is based on doubt. They do not readily mix. But fools would mix them and end up confusing themselves. The clincher however is when one actually sees an impossibility unfold before them. That make people like me relegate science to a lower plane of conscience, where it actually belongs. The heart of a believer knows. That is a comfort doubters have to do without.
 
Since idea of God is so natural to humanity, that it always requires some sort of a crisis of emotions, reasoning, psychology to precipitate a response leading to Atheism.

Seriously?

I grew up in Hong Kong, and my parents are Chinese Buddhists.

I am an Atheist simply because I haven't had any inclination to pick up a religion so far. No "crisis" of reasoning or emotions or whatnot, I simply haven't been bothered as of yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom