Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| good articles!! by Ismail Umar Ali |
|---|
| se7en |
| 07/09/01 at 17:16:43 |
| as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatAllahi wa barakatuh, hope y'all are well inshaAllah :) surfing I came across some good articles on [url=http://www.awate.com]awate.com[/url] --- not so sure about the site (based in Eritrea?) but some of the articles were very interesting.. check 'em out: [color=black] 'fundamentalism' I once made the following remarks during an ongoing discussion: "Our current civilization is the culmination of man's collective effort through years of toil and is not a monopoly of the west. Every civilization builds on the achievements of previous civilizations. For example, western civilization was inspired by Islamic civilization (although modern west never fully acknowledged it) and Islamic civilization was influenced by Greek civilization which in turn borrowed from ancient Egyptian civilization and so on." This was, of course, a simple historical fact but believe it or not, I was taken to task for mentioning an 'Islamic civilization'. Many Eritrean intellectuals had no inkling of what I was talking about since they never heard of any Islamic civilization much less of anything 'Islamic' that inspired western civilization. Ignorance of Islam and Muslims abounds not only among non-Muslims but also among Muslims themselves. The more ignorant a person is of Islam and its history, it seems, the more stereotypical his view of Islam becomes. This is because the version of Islamic history taught in much of the world is a history written from a western perspective with its deep-rooted rivalry with Islam dating back to crusades. A fact that led John William Draper to make the following observation: "I have to deplore the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has continued to put out of sight our obligations to the Muhammadans [Muslims]. Surely they cannot be much longer hidden. Injustice founded on religious rancour and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever. The Arab has left his intellectual impress on Europe. He has indelibly written it on the heavens as any one may see who reads the names of the stars on a common celestial globe." Note: Muhammadans is a term incorrectly used by westerners to refer to Muslims. As a result, many Eritreans, trained as they were in the western academic tradition, are not aware that Islamic thoughts and civilization were indeed the stimuli behind the renaissance movement in Europe. Many Eritreans never learned about the important contributions made by Muslims in the fields of medicine, philosophy, chemistry and many other disciplines of knowledge. That is why we find an otherwise educated intellectual like Hiruy acting like a complete ignoramus when it comes to Islam and Muslims and it is also in this respect that his glaring errors become totally understandable and forgivable (I will deal with those errors fully in part II). But before I deal with the specific charges he so carelessly and wantonly makes throughout his article, I want to place the whole issue of secularism and 'Islamic fundamentalism' in their proper perspective. The idea of modern secularism was a product of a western mind. It was western thinkers whose negative experience with religion embittered them towards anything religious that set the tone for the secular milieu in which we live in. Drunk with the technological marvels of their age, western thinkers slowly broke away from religion and led the world into the very depths of secularism. Whereas Islamic civilization flourished in a God-centered world, western civilization (not Christianity mind you) sprouted in a man-centered world-view. This man-centered way of thinking had no place for anything that could not be explained scientifically. Since even the most powerful instruments failed to detect anything supernatural, thinkers like Nietzsche concluded that God must be dead. A little later, the west brought forth a highly imaginative fellow by the name of Sigmund Freud who flatly told us that God had nothing to do with our condition - everything, including religion was explainable in sexual symbolism. Then came Darwin to audaciously puncture our ego by telling us that we are only glorified monkeys and his theory of 'the survival of the fittest' was to revolutionize the thinking of many sociologists and political thinkers who expanded it to include almost every phenomenon known to man. Then came communism, nihilism, existentialism and a host of other philosophical disciplines that totally repudiated religion. This secular ethos then spread to the rest of the world due to western military and technological hegemony that enabled it to impose its own worldview on its helpless colonial subjects. Western colonialism differed from previous conquests in history in that it was characterized by its systematic political, economic, cultural and intellectual subjugation of a magnitude unknown before. All the current confusion in third world countries is partly due to this conflict between indigenous cultures and the incomplete adoption of alien philosophies. In total disregard to existing indigenous cultures, the colonizers either ruthlessly imposed their own culture in the name of 'civilizing the natives' or else opted for total annihilation of the native. At first, Muslim countries for the most part, were the most ardent admirers of the west and were among the first to embrace western culture. They naturally assumed that the west, with its high sounding slogans of liberty, equality and progress would extend that to all humanity regardless of their ethnic, religious or cultural affiliation. They were soon to be disillusioned, however, as they saw that all the west was interested in was their petro dollars or in keeping them in economic and cultural domination. Some, like the late Gamal Abdel Nasser and Sadam Hussein turned to the Soviet Union that was to treat them even worse. The evidence that the west was only interested in reaping benefits for itself kept mounting and became so crystal clear that many understandably started to question western integrity. Many intellectuals who studied in the west came to the conclusion that if the west can claim superiority over other cultures, it is only in the technological and economic spheres etc. In the realm of morality, spirituality and social cohesiveness, it lags far behind many cultures it looks down upon. As a result many movements sprang up in the modern world to reclaim their cultural heritage and the Muslim world was no exception. If we understand this multifaceted phenomenon, it will not be difficult to understand the growing revival of religion in general and the explosive growth of Islamic movements in particular. The western media deliberately focuses on fringe elements of these revivalist movements for their sensational value. We constantly hear about some obscure and sporadic 'Jihad' organizations here and there but we never hear about the quite Islamic movements like the Tabliqh-I-Jamaat who are committed to a peaceful reformation of their society and whose followers number in the millions. It is this lop-sided and exaggerated images of gun-toting Mullahs ready "to annihilate others"(to which Hiruy alludes) that led a Georgetown University professor to make the following observation: 'The fallout has again been a tendency to equate violence with Islam, to fail to distinguish between illegitimate use of religion by individuals and the faith and practice of the majority of the world's Muslims, who, like their fellow believers in other religious traditions, believe in a religion of peace. Many failed to make the same distinctions with regard to Islam and Islamic organizations between the actions of a radical minority and the mainstream majority that were made so easily when, at roughly the same time, the world watched the Branch Davidian sect, an extremist 'Christian' group in Waco, Texas, kill FBI agents and, protected by an astonishing arsenal of weapons, hold off federal authorities for weeks' To this, of course, we can add 'terrorist' actions by the militant Irish Catholic revolutionaries, the bombing at Oklahoma, recent Serbian atrocities of 'ethnic cleansing' and many others. It is thus clear that if there was a threat of 'Islamic fundamentalism", there was also a corresponding "Judeo Christian' threat. What Muslims deny is not the existence of erring Mullahs and fanatical movements. There will always be such groups in all societies and in all climes. What Muslims strongly object to is the lumping of all Islamic movements under the fuzzy and convenient heading of 'Islamic fundamentalism" obscuring the diversity of Islamic movements. The very term "fundamentalism' is in itself a gross misnomer when applied to the world of Islam since it is peculiar to the Christian tradition. The term, described as "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching " has no equivalent in Islamic tradition. The main difference between Christian Fundamentalists and other Christians centered on the belief or disbelief in the inerrancy of the Biblical text. Although Muslims scholars have differed and continue to differ when interpreting a few injunctions of the Quran, there has never been a dispute over Quran's infallibility among mainstream scholars of Islam. That is why I must point out here, with all due respect to Hiruy's opinions, that his views on 'the threat of Islamic fundamentalism' are nothing but an archetypical echo of western parochial view of Islam and Muslims - a view that gained currency simply because the western 'Judeo Christian' culture dominates the modern world stage. If Islam poses a threat to the western culture, it is more in the form of an ideological nature. Islamic system of values squarely and seriously challenge deeply held secular presuppositions. Islam, more than any other major world religion has an alternate set of detailed guidelines on commerce, politics, economics, jurisprudence, and on many other societal issues. Being a worldview on a class by itself, it would be inappropriate to judge its precepts using western standards of morality particularly since the latter has increasingly become hedonistic in orientation. Western secular presuppositions can only become an obstacle in understanding Islam. By striking at the root of capitalistic exploitation (usury and interest) and by placing safeguards against monopolistic exploitation by the few, Islam also poses a formidable threat to western capitalism and dangerously jeopardizes the interests of all unethical money lending institutions and trans-national corporations. That is why some scholars have warned against a 'clash of civilizations' between Islam and the west. It is also true that Islam, more than any other religion, exhorts its followers to struggle against injustice and oppression. The grossly distorted ideal of Jihad that strikes terror in the hearts and minds of tyrants is nothing but a struggle against injustice and oppression. Although Islam repeatedly preaches forgiveness and mercy, it is adamantly opposed to turning the other cheek in the face of tyranny. As such, it has always been a great nuisance to oppressors and a target of would be imperialists. On this point Pat Buchanan remarks: 'To some Americans, searching for a new enemy against whom to test our mettle and power, after the death of communism, Islam is the preferred antagonist. But to declare Islam an enemy of the United States is to declare a second Cold War that is unlikely to end in the same resounding victory as the first." Buchanan was astute enough to realize that Islamic revivalism is not an isolated phenomenon but a deeply entrenched mass movement in many parts of the Muslim world. Unlike communism that was authoritatively imposed, Islamic consciousness transcends geographic, continental, and political boundaries. It is lack of appreciation of this phenomenon that prevented western "scholars on Islam" from anticipating events like Islamic revolution in Iran. It is also this ignorance that astounded western scholars when Islamic activists fairly and openly won elections in Algeria, Turkey and many other countries. Among the reasons why western scholars continue to err when appraising Muslim societies include paucity of competent scholars on the Middle Eastern affairs in general and on Islam in particular; lack exposure to Islamic values and culture and the secular academic bias that predisposes them to jump to conclusions. In his article, Hiruy made a blanket statement about how " the kind of ideology that Islamic Fundamentalism proposes" can be "anachronistic" to any society. He did not tell us why and how but any person who is conversant with the rudiments of Islamic jurisprudence would never make such a statement because Islam contains within its theological framework a sophisticated methodology for dealing with the changing circumstances of the day. This is achieved through a combination of Taweel (interpretation), Qiyas (deduction by analogy), Ijtihad (disciplined judgment by jurists), Istihsan (justice preference), Ijma (consensus), Shura (consultation) and so on and so forth. Since its inception, Islam has allowed differences of opinion on secondary issues. Not surprisingly, it does not permit differences of opinion on fundamental issues as these would nullify Islam itself. In part II, we will look at Hiruy's incomplete and somewhat fuzzy understanding of Islamic penal code and other related issues. As we all recall, the original subject was religion and government but since Hiruy chose to specifically attack Islamic Sharia, it calls for a specific Islamic response and InshaAllah, that is what I will do in part II. But before closing part I of my article, let me respond to the following comments by Hiruy: "One is also tempted to ask Ismail as to why he sees it fit for democracy- the rule of man to prevail over religion which is the rule of God. I hope that does not put Ismail in hot water with his co-believers." This reveals a serious confusion about the role of democracy in a given society. Hiruy needs to understand that democracy is not an arbiter of a system of values but a facilitator of public participation. No Muslim worth the name would place the 'the rule of man' over 'the rule of God'. In principle, every religion places its own doctrines above any earthly concerns. The stark reality no one can deny (expect a hypocrite) is the fact that we live in a world where competing values interact continuously and simultaneously. It is only natural for a believer in a certain ideology to wish for an atmosphere where his belief systems reign supreme. A communist would strive hard to make communism the ruling ideology. Likewise, a true Christian hopes to be governed in accordance with the teaching of Christianity. The same holds true for purely political ideologies and other secular beliefs. In like manner, a Muslim hopes and dreams for a Government that rules according to his beliefs. What could be more asinine than to expect otherwise? That is as far as the inner sentiments are concerned. But when we have to live in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society like ours or where there are competing ideologies clamoring for attention, democracy provides an avenue for peaceful coexistence. That is why I am for democracy without abandoning faith in Islam. Happy coexistence, dear brothers and sisters, does not necessitate that we throw overboard our own convictions. What it calls for is mutual respect and due consideration for each other's needs. |
| Re: good articles!! by Ismail Umar Ali |
|---|
| se7en |
| 07/09/01 at 17:19:51 |
| on sharia In part I, we have looked at secularism and ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ in their proper historical and cultural context. In this section, we will broadly examine the Islamic penal code contained in the Sharia (Islamic law). As I have indicated in part I of my article, one of the major obstacles in understanding Islam has been the secular presumptions that permeate the western academic culture. Edward Said (an Arab Christian) has estimated that 60,000 books dealing with the Near Orient were written between 1800 and 1950. Most of these books were on Islam and Muslims and most were deliberately falsified facts about Islam (I will elaborate further on this if the need arises). In many of these books, Islamic Sharia was distorted beyond recognition. Of the barrage of derisions that surround the religion of Islam nothing compares to the image foisted upon the western mind (and by extension upon the rest of the world) of an Islamic society that constantly indulges in flogging, stoning, and chopping off hands of its criminals. Often, the concept of crime and punishment in Islam is grossly misrepresented and a judgment rendered using external standards. Since the western penal code is often used as a standard to judge the Sharia, it may be worthwhile to look into the current state of the western penal code. Inherent weaknesses of the western penal code As we all know, the western penal code has become increasingly lenient towards criminals gradually reducing their punishments to an easily tolerable, painless experience. Accountability is lost as serious crimes are explained away as due to some psychological blemish or unfortunate upbringing. Although the impact of the latter cannot be underestimated and should always be kept in view, the fact that the penal system in style today has been unable to remedy the circumstances that lead to crime is in itself a measure of the inherent weakness of the modern western penal system. As a naturally corollary to this inherent weakness of the western penal code, jails have been filling up as never before as rapists, murderers, and burglars flock the penitentiary. Encouraged by the lighter sentences that awaits them, offenders keep committing the same crimes over and over again. Some countries are stricter than others and the controversy continues over whether stricter punishments would yield better results. Criminologists and sociologists continue to debate the determent value of capital punishment but the fact remains that the modern world continues to be plagued with gigantic societal problems which - as of yet- been unable to control. In fact, these problems seem to get worse and worse as a growing number of angry juveniles, addicts, and gangs enter the scene. This is important to understand because it underscores why we cannot use a failed standard to judge other systems. In other words, the western world as a leader in this trend cannot tell the rest of the world to follow its lead when it has failed to put its own house in order. Salient features of Islamic Sharia Now that we have hinted on the major flaws in the western penal code and how it fails to achieve its goals, what does Islamic Sharia have to offer? In answer, I can only give you a description of what Islamic Sharia seeks to achieve and what type of society it envisages. It is true, as Hiruy pointed out that Islamic Sharia punishes a thief by cutting off his/her hand and an adulterer by stoning. What the Sharia intends to achieve by these punishments and what it has achieved in the periods when these laws were in force is a highly moral society where the sanctity of the family is jealously protected and where life and property are held sacred. It must be noted here that the punishment for adultery is applicable only if the offender is reckless enough to commit the act so openly as to be seen by four EYE witnesses ( note the emphasis). Sharia seeks to preserve the sanctity of the familial bond by severely punishing anyone that threatens the harmony and stability of that primordial social unit. Similarly, severe punishment awaits those that threaten the sacredness of life and property. The punishment for adultery is relatively severe in Islam because it views the family unit in high regard and strives to eradicate anything that jeopardizes its cohesion. That is why it prescribes stoning as a punishment for adultery and that is also why it prescribes conditional polygamy. The latter is peripheral to the issue but as it happens to be the single subject that is guaranteed to raise eyebrows in our readers, allow me to divert to it a little bit. A detour to polygamy Monogamy is the norm in Islam but the door has been left open for contractually binding polygamy (technically polygyny) to serve as a bulwark against undesirable individual or social circumstances. The question then becomes whether polygamy should be left as an option. Let us together examine some of the issues surrounding the subject. In a perfect world, every woman will have a husband and every man will have a wife. We are destined, however, to live in an imperfect world where this is not the case. Today, in many parts of the world, women by far outnumber men. This is due to a number of reasons including the fact that a large number of men die in wars and the mortality rate is higher for males. A major War like the First World War can leave behind thousands or even millions of widows as it actually did in that war. What is the best course of action when we encounter such a situation? Let us forget about polygamy for a moment and think about other options available to handle this difficult predicament. Society may insist that every man can have only one wife. In doing so, however, it may unwittingly contribute to the growth of illicit relationships, prostitution, promiscuity and the creation of a class of women with illegitimate children and no legal rights as in fact happened in war-torn France that led a horrified Annie Besant to exclaim: "Monogamy with a blended mass of prostitution was a hypocrisy and more degrading than a limited polygamy." If society insists that every man can have only one wife regardless of situational factors, then there will be a large number of women who will remain single all their life. These single or widowed women have the option of either remaining celibate all their lives or being mistresses to married men. The psychological cost of the former makes it too impractical and difficult for most women to be considered a viable option while the ethical loathsomeness of the latter makes it unacceptable for most decent women. All other alternatives are equally unacceptable. Can polygamy offer a better option? Yes. In many cases, it does. In contrast to the above, Polygamy offers a home, a family and the additional security of full legal rights to women in such situations. There are women who do not mind sharing a man who treats them respectfully and equally and there are men who do not mind carrying this awesome responsibility. Those who object to polygamy on the plea of modernity should realize that some modern societies are on the verge of accepting homosexual marriages as we speak. In the glorious wisdom of our age, it is OK to have multiple mistresses, it is OK to be transsexual, it is OK to be transvestite, it is OK to be gay and it is OK to engage in all kinds of orgies, but it is not OK to be part of a formal, contractually binding polygamous marriage! Even sadism/ masochism has become more acceptable than limited polygamy! This is the degree of moral perversion that plagues the secular world. Now, let us go back to the penal code of Islam. Conditions under which Islamic Sharia is meant to be enforced In considering Islamic Sharia, we must first understand that its laws are not intended to be applied in a society where decadence has taken root or where exploitation runs rampant. The punishment for theft, for example, is not meant to be applied in an economically oppressive society where the poor are treated with callous disregard by the rich or where money lenders and bankers charge exorbitant amounts of interest for every little transaction or where the privileged control the justice system. Nor is the Sharia meant for a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer nor is it designed for a society where the wealthy receive all sorts of breaks at the expense of the multitudes or where the poor are constantly thwarted from climbing up the ladder. To chop people’s hands under such circumstances would indeed be indisputably unjust. That is why Omar, the third Kalif of Islam pardoned a thief after learning he did so to alleviate his hunger and proceeded to criticize his own administration for failing to provide for him. The same Kalif also suspended theft punishment during the year of famine when there was the slightest doubt that people might be driven to steal due to hunger. Similarly, the punishment for adultery was never meant to be implemented in a sexually charged society where one is daily bombarded with subliminal innuendos and frequent sexually explicit messages or where entertainment industries thrive by producing erotic movies or where writers achieve instant fame by writing tantalizing stories about steamy love triangles. Nor is it meant to be applied in a society where adultery has attained new heights of glory in the name of passionate love or where bars and exotic dancers have become commonplace. Sharia is not intended for a society where sex and vulgarity dominate people’s consciousness or where, whichever way you turn, one is sensually assaulted by a bimbo with a skimpy dress or a gigolo in tight jeans. Nor is it meant to be applied in a society where fun has become synonymous with dancing half-naked in smoke filled rooms or where people drink to oblivion. Under such circumstances, enforcing the Sharia would not only be inappropriate but positively murderous. The Islamic Sharia envisages a different world. It envisages a morally conscious society where the Baitul Mal (treasury) is constantly filled with Zakat (poor due) and where the Government is expected to provide for the poor and where consciousness of God pervades people’s thinking and where success is not measured by riches or money but by piety and good deeds. It also expects a society where every trace of suggestiveness has been removed and where public nudity or semi-nudity has been banned and where people walk around in decent attire and where morality is continuously kept alive. Islamic Sharia places the responsibility for feeding the poor, employing the jobless, and creating conditions conducive to morality on the society as a whole and if society fails to provide such an environment, then the specific punishments will not be resorted to. That is why Omar remitted the penalty for theft during the year of famine. But if, after providing such a wholesome environment, a person is irresponsible enough to resort to adultery in full view of four eye-witnesses or commits a theft when not impelled by hunger, then the Sharia penalties becomes enforceable. In effect, Islam enters into a contract with the citizen as if to say: It is the responsibility of the ruling body to care for you and provide you with a wholesome environment but if you still mess up, then we will consider you a menace to our decent society and you will be punished in such a way that you will never dream of committing the offense again. It is testimony to the great deterrent power of such punishments that the punishment for theft was executed only six times in the span of four hundred years when Sharia was in vogue. Even today, people who visit Saudi Arabia are struck by the absence of robbery. (Incidentally, this is not an endorsement of Saudi Arabia’s haphazard enforcement of the Sharia. I am simply making a point here). Dear awate.com readers: I am not trying here to persuade you one way or another. I am merely presenting you with an Islamic point of view to help you understand why Muslims continue to adhere to their own way of life. As we have seen, western record on morality and spirituality has been far from laudatory. We have also seen what Islamic Sharia seeks to achieve and in what sort of society its penal code is meant to be applied. In doing so, I have necessarily dwelt a little too long on the negative aspect of western civilization. But my article is not meant to be a wholesale indictment of western civilization. I am a great admirer of the western civilization and strongly deplore all stereotypical views of the west. That is why I have exclusively limited myself to the known evils of the west – weaknesses that are readily admitted by prominent western thinkers themselves. But no one, except a stubbornly close-minded person can deny the significant role western civilization played in advancing our civilization to a level that is both mind boggling and admirable. In recent times, western civilization has done a marvelous job in leading the world in technological innovation, space exploration, and genetic engineering, just to name a few and its system of Government has been adapted as a de facto standard by many countries in the world. But as dazzling as its achievements are, western civilization has shown many an “Achilles’ heel” the most obvious of which is in the moral and spiritual dimensions. Remember we are talking here in general. In the west, there have always been highly concerned individuals who tried to redirect the civilization to a healthier route. Several western thinkers have warned against moral relativism and the apathy that was threatening to destroy the human race. But the lust for power and material domination blinded many western countries from realizing the risks involved. Dire warnings from several scientists about global warming and the dangers of nuclear proliferation received little heed from a civilization that has developed such a voracious appetite for material progress. The west has a lot to offer. Every one seems to know that. But so far, little attention has been paid on how to avoid facing the same gigantic problems the west is currently plagued with. I have called for a spiritual revival in Eritrea simply because I firmly believe it is the better alternative. I see many Eritreans blindly imitating western modes of thinking and behaving without challenging them but a civilization that brought us so close to destroying our own planet cannot be considered, by any yardstick, as a worthy civilization that other people should envy or try to emulate. Instead of blindly imitating the west, developing countries should learn from the mistakes of the west and perhaps provide the west with a way out of its misery and thereby save it and the rest of mankind. That is why I once warned of “the dangers that loom ahead” for Eritrea. I have cautioned that if we are not careful, the day may not be far away when gay activists will parade proudly through the streets of Asmara demanding their rights while our teen age daughters will come home pregnant. Children growing up in a cultural vacuum vacated by religion will not be able to withstand an onslaught by the relativistic culture of the west. Once secularism, with all its force, captures the national psyche, there may be no turning back and the ensuing cultural confusion will not be easily remediable. How well prepared are we to prevent or face this possible calamity, if at all? |
| Re: good articles!! by Ismail Umar Ali |
|---|
| se7en |
| 07/09/01 at 17:07:25 |
non-violence A few articles on non-violence by some insightful Eritreans, prompted me to share my views on the subject. This site, hosted by Saleh Gadi, is dedicated to reconciliation. In a way, reconciliation is a call to non-violence and as a remedy to the endless cycle of hate, mistrust, and confrontation that beset Eritreans and as a bulwark against violence, reconciliation has no equal. But here, we have to be extremely careful not to confuse the grand concept of reconciliation with the repugnant notion of ingratiating ourselves to dictators. The former is a noble undertaking, the latter a demeaning one. This is not to say that I do not understand and sympathize with the views of those Eritreans that are calling for non-violence. I most certainly do. Understandably, Eritreans are tired of violence and tired of fighting. But what many fail to understand, in my view, is that dictatorship and violence, like Siamese twins, often go hand in hand and that one can't have either without the other. In other words, where there is a dictatorship, there is always violence and where there is violence, dictatorship lurks somewhere. Just think of all the dictators you know from Jenghis Khan to Mengistu and reflect on how many of them plunged their country in blood and terror and the link will be unmistakable. And if you think this does not apply to our situation, then I submit to you that you have not fully deliberated over the enormity of the destruction and suffering our people underwent in the last ten years. Since independence, the current leadership did not only leapfrog from one conflict into another with a speed that stunned observers and in a dizzying somersault that left a trail of blood, tears, and starvation, but also derided every third party that tried to help. I ask: in what way is the suffering of Eritreans in the last 10 years different than what we have undergone during the 30-year struggle for independence? Considering the staggering death toll, the countless number of displaced, and the incalculable amount of property loss that occurred in less than ten years, couldn't a case be made that those years were by far worse than any we had before? And after subjecting our people to these painful ordeals and immeasurable suffering, has the author of this turmoil ever repent of his actions? Or did he ever once renounce violence against his political opponents many of whom still languish in jail? Don't we observe him, even at this very moment, actively hounding his political opponents irrespective of whether they were upholders of non-violence or not? And in dealing with other nations, has he ever willingly negotiated a peace deal to avert an impending war? This being the case, is it at all sensible to limit our options to non-violence when confronting a leadership that lives and swears by the gun? "In order to get rid of the gun," Huey P. Newton observes, "it is [sometimes] necessary to take up the gun." Not surprisingly, tyrants and dictators love movements that limit themselves to non-violence and will often extol them as heroes and champions. But the common motto of all dictators being 'might is right', deep down they cannot but scoff at cooperation or conciliation as a sign of weakness. If they sometimes seem to adapt a conciliatory attitude, it is almost always to further their own goals. Hence, if we are to prevail over the well-equipped and deeply entrenched dictatorship that faces us, we need to employ whatever means available to us including (but not exclusively) armed self-defense. Here, I do not mean to imply that non-violence has no place in the struggle against dictators. No. On the contrary, it is absolutely indispensable and mandatory to include non-violent techniques in our quiver's choice. There are many techniques our people can use to resist oppression including demonstrations, sabotages, refusal to pay taxes, circulation of underground publications inside Eritrea, displaying defiant slogans, sit-ins, disseminating democratic ideals etc. All such acts of defiance have their place and are absolutely essential. But though the power of such activities cannot be underestimated and their value need to be fully recognized, such tactics, by themselves, have limitations and are sometimes terribly inadequate to break the back of an entrenched dictatorship because a powerful dictator can bring to a halt or immobilize unarmed protestors in a twinkling of an eye - a fact that was hair-raisingly demonstrated when ex-tegadelti tried to demonstrate in Mai-habar and when high school students were viciously bludgeoned in Asmara. When Gandi pleaded with his political rivals to renounce violence against the oppressive British Empire, some reminded him that all human beings are not mahatma's and that the British are the least so. Although Gandhi's non-violence played a great deal in achieving India's independence, it was not the only factor that forced the British out of India. But the vanishing British Empire found, in Ghandi's non-violence, a dignified exit out of India. We must ask here: if Gandhi, one of the most vocal advocates of non-violence could use non-violence against a foreign despot, why didn't we in the sixtieth? In other words, if non-violence can always bring results, why did the peaceful movement of the 40's and 50's fail and turn into an armed struggle in the 60's? Or are we stipulating that our forefathers blundered seriously when they initiated the armed struggle? Or is this a case of condoning violence when it is directed against a foreign tyrant and denouncing it against a domestic dictator? I am posing all these questions not for a theoretical diversion but to make you ponder over the issue and to make you realize that non-violence cannot be adapted at all times and in all circumstances as the only strategy. Some dictators may respond to non-violence, but ours is certainly not among them. In fact, self-imposed non-violence is likely to amuse His Excellency pleasantly and he is likely to spurn such efforts as an imported fanfare of a peculiar sort. MLK once stated: "Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible To which Malcolm X retorted: "I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence." The keyword above is intelligence. To respond non-violently when cornered by a hungry wolf or when trapped by a deranged psychopath is to exhibit extreme poor intelligence. Behavioral psychologists and psychiatrists have long known the phenomenon of incorrigible or hardened criminals who are beyond psychotherapy. A soft-spoken bully who single-handedly came close to reducing our 30-year struggle for independence to naught and who managed to wreck havoc to our entire country in a matter of years and who continues to terrorize his entire neighborhood is certainly past therapy of any kind. A restraining order is called for to keep him at a safe distance - perhaps somewhere in Zimbabwe to reunite with kindred souls. Brothers and Sisters: If some of you are seriously proposing that we become sitting ducks while we continue to be pushed around even when we have been so non-violent all these years as those ex-tegadelti were, you should solemnly consider relocating to a remote planet populated by mahatmas, dervishes and Yogis. But the fact is we dwell in that part of the galaxy where hooligans, fiends, dictators, and demons roam freely and where killers and oppressors are more ubiquitous than rabbis, Sufis, or Mahatmas. It is important therefore to understand the proper place of non-violence. Non-violence is just one and only one of the tools available to democratic forces and should never be taken as the only option because an opposition force whose strategy is limited to non-violence unnecessarily delays its success by needlessly limiting its full potential. Hence, democratic forces should neither renounce nor endorse violence but should employ whatever strategy works best in achieving their goals of total freedom while at the same time doing everything in their power to lessen the suffering of those caught in the cross fire. I leave you with the majestic and eloquent words of Thomas Paine: "Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? " The thief in our midst, ladies and gentlemen, did not only kill or threaten to kill his opponents but is now seeking a legal endorsement (in the form of elections) from the very people he just robbed and ravaged. Pray, tell me, what could be more insulting than this? What injustice equals this? |
| NS |
| Re: good articles!! by Ismail Umar Ali |
|---|
| se7en |
| 07/09/01 at 17:08:48 |
in response to an article on atheism What Stone expressed in his last article is of course nothing new. Atheists from the distant past to modern times have expressed more or less similar views. We must point out, however, that Stone's views are not classifiable as a product of pure intellectual atheism due to the vehemently anti-Islamic and anti-Arabic rhetoric discernible in them. Nonetheless, since we do not know who this Stone is and since he has crowned himself an atheist, we will take him as such (for the purposes of this article) and respond accordingly. Of course, Stone is within his rights to present and restate his views as many times as he chooses and we encourage him to do so. What we will not overlook and what we cannot condone, however, is a misrepresentation of facts of history. When he relates that the evolution of religion corresponded to the march of science, he was in fact presenting a highly jaundiced and a highly slanted view of history. A simple reflection on the atheism and agnosticism that flourished long before the advent of scientific method and a cursory analysis of modern monotheism that continues to thrive in the most advanced nations of earth and among highly reputed scientific personalities of our age, renders Stone's postulation outlandish and totally untenable even before we begin to examine its validity. We will therefore not give it any further consideration (unless of course someone requests it). But what Stone, in his own long-winded way, was trying to impress upon us was that his atheism was a product of his scientific thinking. Unlike outspoken atheists and agnostics of repute like Bertrand Russell who knew the boundaries of science, however, Stone rushes in "where angels fear to tread" and does not quit where his knowledge falls short. In other words, he does not merely express his doubts about the existence of God (as a true scientist should) but uppishly concludes that there is no God, no angels, no demons, no day of judgment, no paradise, and no hell! This is clearly unscientific because a scientist is supposed to be open about things science has not been able to fathom. All scientists acknowledge this limitation of science in deciphering the universe. That is why Russell, the most vehement critic of religion (particularly of Christianity) had to concede that there is no "conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God" which leads us to ask: if such an eminent philosopher/mathematician could concede lack of evidence to deny the existence of God, where does Stone's dogmatic certainty emanate from if not from egotism or ignorance or both? Not long ago, Stone was residing in the confines of his warm mother's womb without the foggiest idea what destiny God has in store for him - a puny, helpless creature with eyes, ears and bones hardly formed. From this humble beginning God guides him step by step to grow into a fully functioning human being with a fully developed brain that is capable of both good and mischief. If not God, who extended His loving hand and so carefully protected him and fashioned him into what he became today? His thinking faculty itself that he so foolhardily uses to deny the existence of the Almighty God is itself His handiwork and thus a limited machine to perceive the totality of reality. Coming from such a lowly origin as we all are and knowing our human limitations compared to the infinite dimension of the cosmos, what authority makes us pronounce that this grand universe is devoid of purpose or designer? It is perhaps this conceited side of man - his absentmindedness about his own lowly origins - that inspired Shakespeare to pen the following: "Man, proud man, Drest in a little brief authority, Most ignorant of what he 's most assured, His glassy essence, like an angry ape, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven As make the angels weep" Far be it from us to portray Stone as "an angry ape' but his "fantastic tricks before high heaven" will certainly make the angels, archangels and even demons shed tears of pity over the poor, benighted soul of him that pompously cried "no god, no angels". It is to describe the likes of Stone that Allah says in the Quran: "Doth not man see that it is We Who created him from sperm? yet behold! he (stands forth) as an open adversary! And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own (origin and) Creation: He says, "Who can give life to (dry) bones and decomposed ones (at that)?" And Allah Himself answers the question: Say, "He will give them life Who created them for the first time! for He is Well-versed in every kind of creation!- "The same Who produces for you fire out of the green tree, when behold! ye kindle therewith (your own fires)! In the above verses, Allah reasons with atheists by reminding them that the same entity that created life is also able to create it again. If God can create the myriads of stars, the exploding novas, the black holes and the ever expanding universe, why would He be unable to create Heaven and Hell or an entirely new dimension with its own set of laws and rules? In other words: if our intricately balanced and complex universe is a solid reality that we all perceive, why not another one with a different set of rules? "Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth", Allah reminds us in the Quran " able to create the like thereof?' - "Yea, indeed! for He is the Creator Supreme, of skill and knowledge (infinite)!" (36:78-81. Thomas Paine came to the same reasoned conclusion about the existence of God when he aptly remarked that 'revelation is the creation we behold'. Stone wanted to know why Allah chose "Arabic out of thousands languages as of [sic] the final message?" We counter by asking why not? Arabic is a beautiful and rich language and the sublimity and majesty of Quranic Arabic has never been questioned even by non-Arabs and non-Muslims (some even described it as a miracle). It has to be understood, however, that according to Islam, revelation did not begin with Muhammed. God revealed his message to Jesus (who spoke in Aramaic), to Moses (who spoke in Hebrew), and to Muhammed (who spoke in Arabic) among others. He is therefore not showing any partiality towards the Arabs. It is the view of Islam that God sent prophets and messengers from time to time to every people on earth to reveal reality in proportion to their readiness to accept the truth. In other words, though the fundamental teachings of the unity of God and the importance of doing good deeds remained the same, detailed moral, ethical and social teachings were given based on the cultural and intellectual readiness for it. It is for that reason, Muslims believe, why Jesus (pbuh) told his disciples: 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." As a messenger of God, Jesus (pbuh) knew that his people were not ready to receive God's message in its entirety. So he promised them that they would receive total guidance through the Spirit of truth. Christians translate the Spirit of truth to mean the Holy Ghost while Muslims consider this verse a clear prophecy of Muhammed's coming (pbuh). The Christian viewpoint, however, creates a difficulty since the Holy Ghost is part of the Godhead according to Christianity and is said to have been with Jesus during his whole ministry and even before. Therefore, Muslims see Christianity as having departed from the true teaching of Jesus. Islam teaches that Christ (pbuh) was a Muslim - one who submitted himself/herself to God and states that he never claimed to be God or the Son of God. That is of course, according to Islamic teachings. Islam also asserts that it is the first and last religion. That is why Abraham, Moses, Jesus and even Adam among others are considered Muslims because they all submitted to Allah and delivered whatever message God entrusted them to convey. They were all true messengers of God whose mission was to convey the oneness of God and to urge people to do good deeds. This they did faithfully and were themselves perfect examples of their teachings. It is thus essentially one message and its source one- God almighty. Islam also maintains that over the years, man kept drifting further and further away from this essential message of the almighty and kept corrupting His message and inserting his own ideas and every time that happened or whenever people have reached a certain level of maturity to receive a new message, God renewed His message with a new messenger. Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed and others were thus, a chain of prophets who came with that mission. According to Islam, for example, Jesus came to revive and fix excesses in Judaism while Muhammed (pbuh) did the same to Christianity. God also says in the Quran that there were other messengers that have not been mentioned in the Quran. For this reason Muslims cannot say definitely that Buddha or Krishna or other religious leaders were not messengers of God since it is possible that later generations corrupted their message with the passage of time. This, in short, is a lightening brief synopsis of the view of Islam on prophethood and revelation. And it is this broad outlook of Islam towards other religions and its holistic view of religion that made a European observer, familiar with both Islamic and western cultures to observe: ".. Islam has a still further service to render to the cause of humanity. .. No other society has such a record of success in uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavor so many and so various races of mankind. The great Moslem communities of Africa, India and Indonesia, perhaps also the small Moslem communities in China and the still smaller communities in Japan, show that Islam has still the power to reconcile apparently irreconcilable elements of race and tradition." He states the above advisedly because the prophet (pbuh), in his farewell message drove the point home when he emphatically declared: "There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab, nor for the white over the black nor for the black over the white except through Taqwaa (God-fearing)." Can anything be more explicitly stated about Islam's universal message and its egalitarian concept of the human family? Is it any wonder then that H.A.R. Gibb (quoted above) believes Islam has within it the power to "reconcile apparently irreconcilable elements of race and tradition"? Stone alleged in his article that there are 'many verses that commanded violence'. We would like to know where. On the contrary, we know the opposite to be true. All major religions including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc…not only 'decry' violence but also ardently preach peace. To emphasize the importance of human life, Islam teaches that if you kill one person it is as if you have killed all humanity and that if you save one person it is as if you saved all humanity. Similarly, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism all condemn violence and advocate peace. Again, Stone is confusing the actions of some who profess to adhere to a religion with the teachings of that religion. These are two distinct issues. As it would not be fair and proper, for example, to accuse all Eritreans by what Isayas did or did not do in their name, it would be equally unfair to blame Islam or Christianity for what some irresponsible Muslims or Christians did at one time or another. When we said Islam was not spread by sword, we, of course, did not mean that every individual Muslim from the dawn of Islam to the present day has been innocent. That would be a ridiculous proposition. If such a criterion was to be used, there would not be a single religion, party, or ideological grouping that would remain innocent. We were referring rather to the absence of a systematic and organized attempt in the history of Islam's rapid expansion to convert others to Islam by force. There has been none of that and as we pointed out in our last article April 16, 2001 (http://www.awate.com/columnists/pointblank/pointblankmain.htm), reputed modern historians have already dismissed such an allegation as a product of medieval prejudice against Islam. Stone equivocates when he tells us we don't need to "consult the pages of history books" to know whether "holy war" was waged against non-believers. We notice a shifting argument here because when we refuted the false allegation that "Arab Moslem invaders occupied our lands centuries ago", that line was quickly abandoned as untenable and when we later showed how the allegation was indefensible even globally speaking, we were are being told we don't need to "consult the pages of history books"! Let us therefore forget about history and patiently accede to Stone's request and examine the present. What do we find? "Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America", Hilary Clinton told Los Angeles Times in 1996, "a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people...". "Moslems are the world's fastest-growing group" echoed USA Today (Feb 1989) and according to Encyclopedia Britannica (vol 12) "Muhammed was the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities.....". "Islam continues to grow in America", CNN told us in its Dec 15, 1995 issue and added: " no one can doubt that!" Similar views were expressed by New York Times, 60 Minutes, and many others. If Islam needed the sword to convert people to Islam, why is it spreading so fast all over the world today despite the concerted efforts of its opponents and despite the negative image it has been painted with? What sword are Muslims using to convert people in the US, Britain, France and in many other European countries where it is spreading … and spreading fast? It is thus clear that Islam proliferates today for the same reason it has in the past: its concordance with human nature and its appeal to the intellect. But in the end, we must accept the fact that no matter what we say and regardless of how irresistible the evidence we present might be, we will sometimes run into a brick wall, (or a Stone if you will - no pun intended here) and we will begin to appreciate and understand what the author of the following words had in mind when he observed: "What the fool cannot learn, he laughs at, thinking by his laughter he shows superiority instead of latent idiocy". p.s. prayer and multiparty system: We acknowledge the fact that we cannot achieve a multiparty system by prayer alone but in concurring with Stone on this point, we would also be following the exact dictates of our religion because "God does not change people's condition until they change themselves" Quran 13:11. In other words, God helps those who help themselves! |
| NS |
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org |