What's new

Two events in history which put flourishing Islamic world into reverse gear

Arresting members of parlament in a big sweep of the country is an indication of things gone wrong.
That doesnt answer my question.
Dont beat around the bush and answer my question.
What has changing the constitution got to do with the situation of the Kurds?


FYI those arrested members of parliament openly supported the PKK,i would have cutt them up alive,burned them and then executed them(them Lucky bastards).
 
The history of resistance to Islamic traditionalists/Ulama by Muslim rationalists can be traced back to the latter half of the first century of Hijra ... The "Qadariyah" were the first ones to challenge traditionalists` doctrine (which defended the actions of Ummayad Caliphs) during the Ummayad Rule ...

But the most important rationalist movement was the Mu’tazila Movement (a continuation of Qadariyah) .. The Mu’tazila movement rose to become the dominant movement within Islam during early Abbasid period (2nd century Hijrah) .. A lot of the scientific advancements we think of today associated with the Abbasids were under Mu’tazila influence , it produced a lot of great thinkers , philosophers , scientists , mathematicians etc. itself and inspired many others ... this movement helped greatly diversify Islamic intellectual and theological discourse ...They have had a tremendous impact on the history of the Muslim world ... And later , it inspired the thinkers of European Renaissance ..

One might wonder that why don't we know much about this great rationalist movement of Early Islamic Era... All we know about them today is from what their "adversaries (Traditionalists/Muhaditheen) have written about them . Even the name Mu’tazila (meaning those who withdrew) was given to them by the traditionalists . The Mu’tazila referred to themselves as "Ahl al-Adl wa Tawhid" , (people of Justice and Tawheed) .....History tells us that it was the Ulama and traditionalists who, with the help of ruling elite, persecuted Mu’tazila, declared them heretics, burnt their books and wrote lies about them (as was proven later) .. The traditionalists vehemently opposed the Mu’tazila as their standing in the society was jeopardized .. The reason of their opposition was not religious or theological, but purely political .. It was Caliph Mutawakil who supported ulama ... Mu’tazila were branded heretics during his rule and Ulamas` orthodoxy was adopted as the "state religion" ... !! The Mu’tazila ideals were unacceptable to both , Ulama and the Ruling elite ... Mu’tazila challenged the social status of Ulama (connected with their religious hegemony) , ...... and the Mu'tazila ideology would encourage public to ask questions regarding the wrong deeds of the ruling elite !!

Two Men at the forefront of "Anti Mu’tazila campaign" were Ahmed Bin Hanbal and Ismail Bukhari ... !!! And very few might know that the main reason behind compilation of Hadith Collections (going against the tradition maintained by the first eight generations of Muslims) was "codification of traditional Islam" to counter the Mu’tazila ideology , which was far more developed and logical ...


@haviZsultan

For centuries Mu’tazila were believed to be a "heretic" sect ; as the people who preferred human wisdom over revelations ... a lot was written against them by the traditionalists ... until the latter part of the 20th century, when the 11th-century texts of Abd al-Jabbar al-Qadi were unearthed in Yemen .. Abdul Jabbar was a famous Mu’tazila theologian ... And his works clearly show that Mu’tazila were not "secular rationalists" (as traditionalists would want us to believe) but "theological rationalists" who preferred revelation of God over everything else .... !! Had Mu’tazila survived , Muslims today would have been "centuries" ahead ... Probably leading the world ......... We lost to the Islamic clergy once , this time we need to defeat them .. once and for all ...




Islamic history is a stage on which two fundamentally opposed intellectual forces have been struggling for pre-eminence — a dynamic, scientific rationalism (Rationalists) pitted against a reactionary, obscurantist gnosticism (Traditionalists)....

The Mu'tazila had a tremendous impact on the Muslim world ... The Abbasid Caliph Mamun (a Mu'tazila himself) greatly patronized them . The House of Wisdom (Arabic : Bayt al-Hikma) was a library, translation institute and school established in Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq. It is considered to have been a major intellectual center during the Islamic Golden Age. The House of Wisdom was founded by Caliph Harun al-Rashid (reigned 786–809) and culminated under his son al-Ma'mun (reigned 813–833) who is credited with its formal institution ....

During the reign of al-Ma'mun, astronomical observatories were set up, and the House was an unrivaled center for the study of humanities and for science in medieval Islam, including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, alchemy and chemistry, zoology and geography and cartography. Drawing on Indian, Greek, and Persian texts, the scholars accumulated a great collection of world knowledge, and built on it through their own discoveries. By the middle of the ninth century, the House of Wisdom was the largest repository of books in the world


This house gave to the world people like Ibn e Haitham (the first true scientist), Mathematicians like Khawarzimi, Philosophers like Kindi, Physicists like Al Jazari, Physicians like Hunain, Astronomers like Sind Ibn e Ali and this list is very long ... Al Ma'mun, al Mu'tasim, and al Wathiq followed the sect of Mu'tazili, which supported mind-broadness and scientific inquiry, until the time of al-Mutawakkil , who endorsed a more literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith. The caliph was not interested in science and moved away from rationalism, seeing the spread of Greek philosophy as anti-Islamic .... Traditionalists had won ... Mutazila were branded heretics . They were persecuted , there books burnt ... A great rationalist movement in Islam had met its unfortunate end !!


Then came the Asharites ... who were neither traditionalists , nor rationalists and they claimed to be the people who followed the middle path ... the greatest of them is believed to be Imam Ghazali .. (though one can argue that he was not an Asharite) .. And his greatest opponent was Ibn e Rushd ; the Rationalist ...


Unlike traditionalists , Ghazali didn`t believe that Islam was anti science .. And unlike rationalists , he rejected all non Muslim philosophies (sciences) ...


Ghazali came to the conclusion that : “But to all of them (Philosophies/sciences), despite the multiplicity of their categories, cleaves the stigma of unbelief and godlessness.” (McCarthy,Freedom and Fulfillment 70)

The implications of this skepticism are quite far reaching when looking at the fundamentals of religious teachings in the context of the explosion of scientific knowledge in the modern era .



German orientalist Eduard Sachau rightly blamed the theology of Ash'ari and its biggest defender Ghazali specifically for the decline of Islamic science starting in the tenth century, stating that the two clerics were the only block to the Muslim world becoming a nation of "Galileos, Keplers and Newtons." ........


On the other hand , Ibn e Rushd , the prominent Maliki jurist , and the chief opponent of Ghazali`s philosophy , could not inspire his fellow muslims much , but he had a great impact on Western European circles ... So much that he has been described as the "founding father of secular thought in Western Europe" ....


Today majority of the Muslims hold Al Ghazali in high regard but they follow the ideology of Ibn e Rushd (though unknowingly) ... Ghazali believed that " Non Muslims` scientific knowledge" should be rejected by the Muslims .. Ibn e Rushd believed that Knowledge is knowledge , no matter from whom it comes ... And today we all study "western sciences" without even thinking for once that it is against Islam ... !!

Also in traditionalist sunni islam (asharite as well) , Khilafat is necessary , just like Quran and Sunnah .. It were the Mu'tazila who believed that Khilafat is not necessary and could be replaced by any system of government depending on circumstances ..



Muhammad Asad was the religious advisor to Jinnah .. The conservatives claim that Jinnah had set up a department of Islamic reconstruction under Muhammad Asad ... Thus it is proven that Jinnah wanted an Islamic Pakistan ... Only if the conservatives knew that this is a self defeating argument ... !! Muhammad Asad has been accused of showing extreme bias towards Mu'tazila in his writings , by the contemporary scholars .. !! one can easily guess what kind of "reconstruction" Jinnah was interested in ... And Mu'tazilite/rationalists are founding fathers of western secular thought .. ... keeping this in mind if one reads all the speeches delivered by Jinnah, and one can easily understand that what Javed Iqbal meant when he said ... "it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state."


===========

@TankMan

I have been banned from that thread for expressing views that the PDF management thought were provocative and inflammatory , therefore replying here

I agree with most of what you have written except for what you wrote about Iqbal. Also we can discuss neoliberalism in detail on some related thread.

Regards

Ibn Rush (Averroes) is indeed a big deal in the west. I remember as part of a philosophy module at university our French lecturer emphasized the importance of Ibn Rushd on the likes of Aquinas and Siger of Brabant, to the extent that a new school of philosophy in the West emerged called Averroism.

Rapahels "School of Athens" shows Ibn Rushd next to the likes of Aristotle and Socrates. This fresco is in the Vatican.

averroes.jpg
 
That doesnt answer my question.
Dont beat around the bush and answer my question.
What has changing the constitution got to do with the situation of the Kurds?


FYI those arrested members of parliament openly supported the PKK,i would have cutt them up alive,burned them and then executed them(them Lucky bastards).

The result of the constitutional change would give Erdogan power.
The election result some years ago, gave HDP enough votes to block Erdogan
from getting a qualified majority in the parlament,
and Erdogans reaction was to start provoking the Kurds.
The Kurdish situation in Turkey is intertwined with everything else.

MPs in Turkey can get in trouble for just speaking Kurdish.
As long as support is verbal, they should be met by arguments, not by arrests.
 
The Kurdish situation in Turkey is intertwined with everything else.
No,it is not.
You are making it a Turks versus Kurds which it is not.
MPs in Turkey can get in trouble for just speaking Kurdish.
What a bullcrap,nobody cares if you speak Kurdish in my country.
Btw,i have Kurdish family so,i know first hand.
Lets hear it from a Kurdish citizen of my country.
@TrMhMt bro,care to comment?
 
@A.P. Richelieu

I am a Kurdish dude and what you say here is bullcrap.

None is in trouble just because speaking Kurdish including mp's. The problem in Turkiye is not being a Kurdish but supporting terrorist pkk. I know that I am ruining your pinky dreams but the fact is that we Kurds have no problem with Turks and the gov. but pkk supporters.

Dude you westerners must understand that pkk doesn't represent us and we Kurds are not pkk. You must stop equaling us.

I don't know you. You may either biased/stereotype westerner or just lack informed about pkk issue.

FYI Kurds voted akp and Erdogan. Most of Kurds pro-Erdogan in Turkiye.
 
Last edited:
@A.P. Richelieu

I am a Kurdish dude and what you say here is bullcrap.

None is in trouble just because speaking Kurdish including mp's. The problem in Turkiye is not being a Kurdish but supporting terrorist pkk. I know that I am ruining your pinky dreams but the fact is that we Kurds have no problem with Turks and the gov. but pkk supporters.

Dude you westerners must understand that pkk doesn't represent us and we Kurds are not pkk. You must stop equaling us.

I don't know you. You may either biased/stereotype westerner or just lack informed about pkk issue.

FYI Kurds voted akp and Erdogan. Most of Kurds pro-Erdogan in Turkiye.

Let's hope You guys are right then.
From our point, we see a lot of symptoms of things going awry in Turkey,
but have no problem giving You the benefit if the doubt.
You are the guys that have to live with any consequences, not I.
 
Let's hope You guys are right then.
From our point, we see a lot of symptoms of things going awry in Turkey,
but have no problem giving You the benefit if the doubt.
You are the guys that have to live with any consequences, not I.

Dude don't believe what mainstream media says to you. Their job is lying and creating fake news and stories about Turkiye and Kurds.

Do you really wanna know the truth come and visit southeastern Anatolia and than visit Kurds who live in other cities of Turkiye than you will know the truth.

Unfortunately EU states helping and assisting pkk militants-supporters towards Turkiye. Your country one of 'em. Your lands have been safe house for pkk militants for decades. And now they picture it like whole Kurds pkk and Turkish gov. kills Kurds in Turkiye.

Thanks god my people recognized that the sneaky plans of EU. That's the why Erdogan is the no1 leader for Kurds and they go vote for him and his party. I am 100% sure your media doesn't say this truth.
 
The problem with that is not everyone shares your (or the dominant) moral system. The most accepting society will be in which everyone lives by his/her conscience. One law for all doesn't sound very equal, if everyone is equal why does only the majority gets to decide what laws their society will be governed by.

In this system equality doesn't make any sense.
 
That reinforces my point, the chance of that happening legally does mean it could happen. Immutable rights are only given in religions where majority cannot overrule God. In a secular society if majority decides to subjugate minority there is nothing stopping them, nothing is immutable, Constitution was written by humans and it can be overruled by humans.

Don't you think sir religion created minorities. So religion is protecting them. In secular society there is no minority in the first place.

The question is, can God be overruled in religious society.

Without humans there is no God. Even God is equally distributed among humans. When God said, "I was sick you didn't cure me. I was hungry you didn't feed me".

God has given its powers to humans. Its humans who are taking time to discover those powers.

So one day we will bring major changes in religion e.g. prayer timings an direction in spaceship.

God is the distance between front and rear view, next distance upto the target is human rationality. Latter distance keeps changing depending upon the target. Those who deny human rationality, can't hit the target.
 
Don't you think sir religion created minorities. So religion is protecting them. In secular society there is no minority in the first place.

Do you think people will cease to have differences if you get rid of religion? Why are there loads of secular ideologies..? My point is we should strive for freedom of conscience instead of trying to create a utopia where everyone thinks the same like robots because that is never gonna happen.
 
A country is bound by treaties, and becoming member of the United Nation means that You are obliged
to follow basic human rights, and if You persecute your citizens, then you might face the wrath of the UNSC.
UNSC is of course limited by the veto power.
In the case of the US, the supreme court will overrule anything that is unconstitutional.
Changes to the consitution needs a qualified majority, and typically it has to be voted twice with an election in between.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...s/news-story/3d6e50d67b0cc79c8583ed66363388f5

I doubt that supreme court will intervene. America is an anti Muslim anti Islam country and Muslim should leave America asap before it gets worse. They killed so many natives that there are hardly any left, they are capable of worse than a ban.
 
Last edited:
Pity that you were proven wrong immediately by the federal court,
which deemed that part of Trumps executive order was illegal.

The ruling doesn't say it is constitutionally wrong to profile people according to their religion. Secondly it only applies to people who already have documents to enter USA and does not include people who would want to apply. This fascist promised to target Muslims (and Mexicans) and its just been a week, and I predict he is now gonna start policing opinions held by Muslims, which he will call (terroristic opinions). Islam is already a heresy in USA, it is demonized regularly on USA media.

The court order prevents the government from sending immigrants back to their home countries because it would cause them “irreparable harm,” but it is unclear if they will have to remain in detention until a substantive ruling on the constitutionality of the ban is delivered

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-halts-trumps-immigration-ban
 
So all of you want to make the Muslim world great again... Well it's not that difficult, and it could be done without bloodshed and in very short time, even in few days... Simple Let's choose a relatively strong common enemy and let's push him to attack the Mecca... job is done. :)
Have fun
 
Last edited:
The ruling doesn't say it is constitutionally wrong to profile people according to their religion. Secondly it only applies to people who already have documents to enter USA and does not include people who would want to apply. This fascist promised to target Muslims (and Mexicans) and its just been a week, and I predict he is now gonna start policing opinions held by Muslims, which he will call (terroristic opinions). Islam is already a heresy in USA, it is demonized regularly on USA media.

You said that the supreme court would not intervene.
Courts did intervene, so Your first prediction was wrong.
Why should anyone care about your future predictions?

(Not that I defend or support Trump in any way)
 

Back
Top Bottom