View Full Version : Political Islam
Political Islam
by Samir Amin
What is the nature and function, in the contemporary Muslim world, of the political movements claiming to be the one true Islamic faith? These movements are commonly designated “Islamic fundamentalism” in the West, but I prefer the phrase used in the Arab world: “Political Islam.” We do not have religious movements, per se, here – the various groups are all quite close to one another – but something much more banal: political organizations whose aim is the conquest of state power, nothing more, nothing less. Wrapping such organizations in the flag of Islam is simple, straightforward opportunism.
Political Islam is the adversary of liberation theology.
It advocates submission, not emancipation.
Modern Political Islam was invented by the orientalists serving British colonialism in India and was adopted intact by Mawdudi of Pakistan. It consisted mainly in “proving” that Muslim believers may only live under the rule of an Islamic State – anticipating the partition of India – because Islam cannot permit separation of Church and State. The orientalists conveniently forgot that the English of the 13th Century held precisely such ideas about Christianity.
Merciless Adversary of Liberation
Political Islam is not interested in the religion which it invokes, and does not propose any theological or social critique. It is not a “liberation theology” analogous to what has happened in Latin America. Political Islam is the adversary of liberation theology. It advocates submission, not emancipation. Mahmoud Taha of Sudan was the only Islamic intellectual who attempted to emphasize the element of emancipation in his interpretation of Islam. Condemned to death by the authorities of Khartoum for his ideas, Taha's execution was not protested by any Islamic group, “radical” or “moderate.” Nor was he defended by any of the intellectuals identifying themselves with “Islamic Renaissance” or even by those merely willing to “dialogue” with such movements. It was not even reported in the Western media.
The heralds of “Islamic Renaissance” are not interested in theology and they never refer to classic theological texts. For such thinkers, an Islamic community is defined by inheritance, like ethnicity, rather than by a strong and intimate personal conviction. It is a question of asserting a “collective identity” and nothing more. That is why the phrase “Political Islam” is the appropriate designation for such movements.
Saudi Arabia is a country without a constitution, whose rules claim that the Qur'an is a satisfactory substitute. In actual practice, the House of Saud has the power of an absolute monarchy or tribal chiefdom.
Of Islam, Political Islam retains only the shared habits of contemporary Muslim life – notably rituals for which it demands absolute respect. At the same time, it demands a complete cultural return to public and private rules which were practiced two centuries ago in the Ottoman Empire, in Iran and in Central Asia, by the powers of that time. Political Islam believes, or pretends to believe, that these rules are those of the “real Islam,” the Islam of the age of the Prophet. But this is not important. Certainly Islam permits this interpretation as legitimation for the exercise of power, as it has been used from Islam's origin to modern times.
In this sense Islam is not original. Christianity has done the same to sustain the structures of political and social power in pre-modern Europe, for example. Anyone with a minimum of awareness and critical sense recognizes that behind legitimizing discourse stand real social systems, with real histories. Political Islam is not interested in this. It does not propose any analysis or critique of these systems. Contemporary Islam is only an ideology based on the past, an ideology which proposes a pure and simple return to the past, and more precisely, to the period immediately preceding the submission of the Muslim world to the expansion of capitalism and Western imperialism. That religions – Islam, Christianity, and others – are thus interpreted in a reactionary, obscurantist way, does not exclude other interpretations, reformist or even revolutionary. Not only is the return to the past not desirable (nor actually desired by the peoples in whose name Political Islam pretends to be speaking); it is, quite simply, impossible. That is why the movements which constitute Political Islam refuse to offer a precise program, contrary to what is customary in political life. For its answer to concrete questions of social and economic life, Political Islam repeats the empty slogan: Islam is the solution. When pushed to the wall, the spokesmen for Political Islam never fail to choose an answer harmonious with liberal capitalism, as when the Egyptian parliament grants absolute freedom of maneuver to landowners and nothing whatsoever to the peasant farmers who work their land. In their unhappy effort to produce an “Islamic Political Economy,” the authors of manuals on the subject (financed by Saudi Arabia ) have only succeeded in applying a coat of religious whitewash to the most banal tenets of American liberalism.
A Turbaned Dictatorship In Iran
The Islamic Republic of Iran proves the general rule, despite the confusions that contributed to its success: rapid development of the Islamist movement in parallel with the secular, socialist struggle waged against the socially reactionary U.S.-aligned dictatorship of the Shah. Following the Shah's overthrow, the extremely eccentric behavior of the Mullahs was offset by their anti-imperialist positions, from which they derived a powerful popular legitimacy which echoed well beyond the borders of Iran. Gradually the regime showed that it was incapable of providing the leadership required to stimulate vigorous and innovative socioeconomic development. The turbaned dictatorship of the men of religion, who took over from that of the “Caps” (military and technocrats), resulted in a fantastic degradation of the country's economic machinery. Iran which boasted about “doing the same as S. Korea,” now ranks among the group of “Fourth World ” countries.
The indifference of the regime's hard right wing to the social problems facing the country's working class gave rise to the “reformers” whose aim has been to moderate the harshness of the theocratic dictatorship, but without renouncing its basic principle – the monopoly of political power. Recognizing the extent of the Islamic Republic's economic disaster, the “reformers” have made the pragmatic decision to gradually revise their “anti-imperialist” postures. They are in the process of reintegrating Iran into the commonplace comprador world of capitalism on the peripheries. The system of Political Islam in Iran has reached deadlock. The political and social struggles into which the Iranian people have now been plunged might soon lead to rejection of the very principle of “wilaya al faquih” which places the clergy above all other institutions of political and civil society.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has conceived no other political system than that of a one-party dictatorship monopolized by the Mullahs. False comparisons are frequently made between the Islamist parties and the Christian Democratic parties of Europe (i.e., if the Christian Democrats have governed Italy for 50 years, why shouldn't an Islamist party govern Algeria and Egypt?). But once in power, an Islamist government immediately and definitively abolishes any form of legal political opposition.
Continued.....
Political Islam Continued from the 1st post….
Neoliberal Theocracy
If Political Islam is only a version of neoliberalism, extolling the virtues of the market – completely unregulated, naturally – it is also an absolute refusal of democracy. According to Political Islam, religious law (the Shari'a) has already given the answer to every question, thereby relieving humanity of the difficulty of inventing laws – a basic definition of democracy – and allows us at most to interpret the nuances of divine law. This kind of ideological talk ignores reality, ignores the actual history of Muslim societies, in which it has obviously been necessary to invent laws, although this was done without saying so. It meant that only the governing class had the right, and the power to interpret the Shari'a. The extreme example of this kind of autocracy is Saudi Arabia, a country without a constitution, whose rulers claim that the Qur'an is a satisfactory substitute. In actual practice, the House of Saud has the power of an absolute monarchy or tribal chiefdom.
Contemporary Political Islam is not the outcome of a reaction to the so-called abuses of secularism, as often purported, unfortunately. No Muslim society of modern times, except in the former Soviet Union, has ever been truly secular, let alone offended by the daring innovations of any atheistic and aggressive power. The semi-modern States of Kemal's Turkey, Nasser's Egypt, Baathist Syria and Iraq, merely subjugated the men of religion (as often happened in former times) to impose on them concepts aimed solely at legitimizing the State's political options.
Western support for Political Islam has thus gone to grotesque extreme of furnishing weapons, financial backing and military training to the agents of Political Islam. In the case of Afghanistan, the pretext was “fighting communism,” but the odious behavior of these Islamists (closing schools for girls opened by the terrible “communists”) apparently gave no cause for regret – neither to the Western governments supporting them, nor to Western feminist organizations.
Political Islam is in fact nothing other than an adaptation to the subordinate status of comprador capitalism. Its so-called “moderate” form therefore probably constitutes the principal danger threatening the people concerned since the violence of the “radicals” only serves to destabilize the State, impeding the installation of a new comprador power suitable to the designs of the “moderates” beloved by the West (those of Iran are a good example). The constant support offered by the pro-American diplomacies of the Triad countries (U.S., Europe and Japan) toward finding this “solution” to the problem is absolutely consistent with their desire to impose the globalized neoliberal order in the service of dominant transnational capital.
The combination of neoliberal economy and political autocracy is perfectly suited to the dominant comprador class charged with management of societies at the contemporary capitalist periphery. The Islamist parties are all instruments of this class. This is true not only of the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations considered moderate, and whose close ties to the bourgeoisie are well known. It is equally true of the small clandestine organizations which practice “terrorism.” Both are useful tools of Political Islam, and the division of labor is highly complimentary between those using violence and those infiltrating state institutions (especially education, the judiciary, the mass media and, if possible, the police and military). For all such groups and activities, there is one objective: seizure of state power, although on the morning after the anticipated victory, the “moderates” will put an end to the excesses of the “radicals.” Immediately after the Iranian revolution, the Mullahs massacred the left-wing militants (Fedayin and Mojahedin) who had attempted to make common cause between their populist, revolutionary aims inspired by Socialism and the deeper mobilization of Political Islam. Without the Fedayin and Mojahedin, the triumph of the “Islamic” revolution would not have been possible. Since then, the Mullahs have recruited and trained millions of political terrorists from among the lumpen proletariat in order to enforce its rule.*
The existing power structures against which the movements of Political Islam are hurling themselves are the compradors, the national bourgeoisie of the region, fully subordinate to the diktats of neoliberal globalization. The comprador classes are not particularly democratic, even when they offer the gift of parliamentary elections which they call “multi-party,” and they often rely on the pretext of Islamic terrorism to justify their refusal of meaningful democracy (as in Algeria).
What this means is that the contest between the compradors and the Islamists is only a conflict between factions of the ruling class – a struggle for power, nothing more, between opposing leaders and their clients. Depending on the circumstances, the shape of the conflict varies from extreme violence, as in the case of Algeria, to dialogue, as in Egypt, where the government holds direct talks with the Muslim Brotherhood. Both sides in the conflict utilize Islamic demagogy in their attempts to capture for their own benefit the allegiance of the politically confused populace. Contemporary popular political confusion closely resembles that which followed the failure of hopes based on the populist nationalisms of the previous era (Nasser, Boumedienne, Le Bass). This time it results from widespread recognition of the social destruction wrought by the neoliberalism of the ruling comprador classes.
Popular political confusion in the Islamic world is in no small part due to the extreme timidity of the critique that the left had addressed in the previous period to the ruling forces of national populism. Yet the bourgeoisie in power is by no means secular. It pretends to be as “Islamic” as its adversaries, for example by enforcing many of the precepts of Islamic law – especially in the domain of the family – thus gradually making the ruse into reality. The resulting “compromise” solutions inevitably augment the dominant neoliberal and antidemocratic order. Thus the dominant international political and economic powers, led primarily by the U.S., see no inconvenience in the exercise of power by Political Islam. This says a great deal about the hypocrisy of Western advocacy of “democracy” and demonstrates that, contrary to the Western ideological equation of “market” and “democracy,” the two principles are in fact in direct conflict.
Continued......
Political Islam Continued from the 2nd post….
Ideological Complementarity
The two discourses of globalized neoliberal capitalism and Political Islam do not conflict, but are complementary. The ideology of American “communitarianisms” being popularized by current fashion overshadows the conscience and social struggles and substitutes for them so-called collective “identities” that ignore them. This ideology is therefore perfectly manipulated in the strategy of capital domination because it transfers the struggle from the arena of real social contradictions to the imaginary world that is said to be cultural, trans-historical and absolute, whereas Political Islam is precisely a “communitarianism.”
The diplomacy of the G7 powers, particularly that of the U.S., knowingly chooses to support Political Islam. The G7 lends such aid and assistance from Egypt to Algeria. In Afghanistan, U.S. support took the form of describing Afghan Islamists as “freedom fighters” against the horrible dictatorship of communism, which was in fact an enlightened, modernist, national and populist despotism that had the audacity to open schools for girls. Western leaders know that Political Islam has the virtue – for them – of making the peoples concerned helpless and consequently ensuring their compradorization without difficulty.
Given its inherent cynicism, the American Establishment knows how to take a second advantage of Political Islam. The barbaric “drifts” of the regimes that Political Islam inspires – the Taliban, for instance – are not drifts at all, but actually fall within the logic of their programs, and can be exploited whenever imperialism finds it expedient to intervene brutally, if necessary. The “savagery” attributed to the peoples who are the first victims of Political Islam is likely to encourage “Islamophobia” which may facilitate the acceptance of a “global apartheid,” the logical and necessary outcome of an ever-polarizing capitalist expansion.
Those the West called “Afghan freedom fighters” (in fact, hoodlums trained by the CIA) and “volunteers” (Algerian, Egyptian and other Muslims), nowadays fill decisive roles in military-terrorist actions around the globe, including major U.S. cities.
Western support for Political Islam has thus gone to the grotesque extreme of furnishing weapons, financial backing and military training to the agents of Political Islam. In the case of Afghanistan, the pretext was “fighting communism,” but the odious behavior of these Islamists (closing schools for girls opened by the terrible “communists”) apparently gave no cause for regret – neither to the Western governments supporting them, nor to Western feminist organizations. Those the West called “Afghan freedom fighters” (in fact, hoodlums trained by the CIA) and “volunteers” (Algerian, Egyptian and other Muslims), nowadays fill decisive roles in military-terrorist actions around the globe, including major U.S. cities. Support for Political Islam has included the illusory rubric of “political refugee” status, offered by the U.S., Britain and Germany, which has given the militants of Political Islam the power to organize and command their operations from abroad, thus maximizing efficiency and minimizing risk.
The ideological accompaniment to this alliance between the Western powers and Political Islam is an endless campaign of legitimation in the Western mass media, usually turning on an illusory distinction between “moderates” and “radicals,” or a pious chant of praise for the virtues of multi-cultural diversity, so dear to Americans, as everyone knows.
The ideological accompaniment to this alliance between the Western powers and Political Islam is an endless campaign of legitimation in the Western mass media, usually turning on an illusory distinction between “moderates” and “radicals,” or a pious chant of praise for the virtues of multi-cultural diversity, so dear to Americans, as everyone knows. Such forms of “respect” for diverse “communities” are very useful for the management purposes of neoliberalism and globalization, because they do not imply any confrontation on the terrain of real challenges. The “communities” in question play the game of neoliberalism, shifting the debate, if and when it occurs, from the real and practical problems of the here and now into the harmless celestial regions of the cultural imaginary.
Political Islam is thus in no way the adversary of imperialism, but is, quite the contrary, its perfect servant. This fact does not prevent Western ideologues and opinion-managers from resorting, whenever necessary, to the fairytale formulae of Islam as an implacable enemy of Western modernity, the “clash of cultures” so dear to Samuel Huntington and his CIA patrons. Such wars occur only on the imaginary plane, whereas in the real world, the victims of the “communities” represented by Political Islam suffer terribly under very real blows. The ideological war, furthermore, provides yet another cover for military-political intervention by the U.S. and its subaltern “allies” when and wherever the need might arise.
We should not be surprised that the U.S. is pleased by the services that Political Islam renders to its project of world hegemony. With the exception of Hamas in Palestine and Hizbollah in Lebanon (pre-911) and the Taliban (post-911), no movement of Political Islam is designated as an enemy by Washington. The pre-911 designation of Hamas and Hizbollah by the U.S. State Department as “terrorist organizations” was clearly an accident of political geography, since both are opposed to the state of Israel, which evidently takes precedence in U.S. considerations over everything else. Hamas and Hizbollah are the only manifestations of Political Islam fighting foreign military occupation, whereas the others direct their violence only at their compatriots. Double standards and hypocrisy – can we expect anything else from the imperialists?
911 and Beyond
Will the attacks of September 11 oblige Washington to revise its alliance with Political Islam? Diplomatic and intelligence cooperation with Iran and Sudan suggests otherwise. But we cannot help noticing that the events of 911 occurred at precisely the right moment to permit the U.S. to install itself in petroleum-rich Central Asia, a region well-situated to allow another turn of the geostrategic vise which the West has clamped around Russia, China and India. This has been the openly proclaimed strategic objective of the U.S. for over 10 years. Saddam Hussein has served well as justification for permanent U.S. military installations in the Gulf. Osama bin Laden could well do the same for U.S. policy in Central Asia. One cannot exclude the hypothesis that machinations of the CIA and its faithful ally Mossad may have been involved in some way.
In order to sustain and extend its hegemony the United States must always give supreme importance to its military interventions. We forget this at our peril.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samir Amin was born in Egypt in 1931 and received his Ph.D. in economics in Paris in 1957. He is director of Forum Tiers Monde, a research institute of Dakar, Senegal. He is the author of numerous books, including Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment (1974); Maldevelopment, Anatomy of a Global Failure (1990); Empire of Chaos (1992); Re-Reading the Postwar World: An Intellectual Itinerary (1994); Spectres of Capitalism; A Critique of Current Intellectual Fashions (1998).
Gabi Christov helped with translation of this article.
* For an analysis of the Iranian Revolution and its aftermath, see CovertAction Quarterly, No. 37, pp. 52-60.
“Political Islam” appears in CovertAction Quarterly, No. 71, Winter 2001, pp. 3-6.
CovertAction Publications. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 732 Washington, DC 20005
= = = =
From (Jan 22, 2007): SUDANESE@LIST.MSU.EDU: http://list.msu.edu/archives/sudanese.html (http://list.msu.edu/archives/sudanese.html)
End
HisHighness 02-Feb-07, 16:52 Interesting topic sultan ..go on.and hopefuly we will discuss interesting issues in this new pleasent environment..
comment.. ..
Submission to Allah is the essence of Islam therefore Muslim politicans must submit to Allah before anything else..on the other hand Muslim politicans should always consider our moderate Islamic teachings for the benefit of the Muslim nation..
Political Islam
by Samir Amin
What is the nature and function, in the contemporary Muslim world, of the political movements claiming to be the one true Islamic faith? These movements are commonly designated “Islamic fundamentalism” in the West, but I prefer the phrase used in the Arab world: “Political Islam.” We do not have religious movements, per se, here – the various groups are all quite close to one another – but something much more banal: political organizations whose aim is the conquest of state power, nothing more, nothing less. Wrapping such organizations in the flag of Islam is simple, straightforward opportunism.
Political Islam is the adversary of liberation theology.
It advocates submission, not emancipation.
Modern Political Islam was invented by the orientalists serving British colonialism in India and was adopted intact by Mawdudi of Pakistan. It consisted mainly in “proving” that Muslim believers may only live under the rule of an Islamic State – anticipating the partition of India – because Islam cannot permit separation of Church and State. The orientalists conveniently forgot that the English of the 13th Century held precisely such ideas about Christianity.
Merciless Adversary of Liberation
Political Islam is not interested in the religion which it invokes, and does not propose any theological or social critique. It is not a “liberation theology” analogous to what has happened in Latin America. Political Islam is the adversary of liberation theology. It advocates submission, not emancipation. Mahmoud Taha of Sudan was the only Islamic intellectual who attempted to emphasize the element of emancipation in his interpretation of Islam. Condemned to death by the authorities of Khartoum for his ideas, Taha's execution was not protested by any Islamic group, “radical” or “moderate.” Nor was he defended by any of the intellectuals identifying themselves with “Islamic Renaissance” or even by those merely willing to “dialogue” with such movements. It was not even reported in the Western media.
The heralds of “Islamic Renaissance” are not interested in theology and they never refer to classic theological texts. For such thinkers, an Islamic community is defined by inheritance, like ethnicity, rather than by a strong and intimate personal conviction. It is a question of asserting a “collective identity” and nothing more. That is why the phrase “Political Islam” is the appropriate designation for such movements.
Saudi Arabia is a country without a constitution, whose rules claim that the Qur'an is a satisfactory substitute. In actual practice, the House of Saud has the power of an absolute monarchy or tribal chiefdom.
Of Islam, Political Islam retains only the shared habits of contemporary Muslim life – notably rituals for which it demands absolute respect. At the same time, it demands a complete cultural return to public and private rules which were practiced two centuries ago in the Ottoman Empire, in Iran and in Central Asia, by the powers of that time. Political Islam believes, or pretends to believe, that these rules are those of the “real Islam,” the Islam of the age of the Prophet. But this is not important. Certainly Islam permits this interpretation as legitimation for the exercise of power, as it has been used from Islam's origin to modern times.
In this sense Islam is not original. Christianity has done the same to sustain the structures of political and social power in pre-modern Europe, for example. Anyone with a minimum of awareness and critical sense recognizes that behind legitimizing discourse stand real social systems, with real histories. Political Islam is not interested in this. It does not propose any analysis or critique of these systems. Contemporary Islam is only an ideology based on the past, an ideology which proposes a pure and simple return to the past, and more precisely, to the period immediately preceding the submission of the Muslim world to the expansion of capitalism and Western imperialism. That religions – Islam, Christianity, and others – are thus interpreted in a reactionary, obscurantist way, does not exclude other interpretations, reformist or even revolutionary. Not only is the return to the past not desirable (nor actually desired by the peoples in whose name Political Islam pretends to be speaking); it is, quite simply, impossible. That is why the movements which constitute Political Islam refuse to offer a precise program, contrary to what is customary in political life. For its answer to concrete questions of social and economic life, Political Islam repeats the empty slogan: Islam is the solution. When pushed to the wall, the spokesmen for Political Islam never fail to choose an answer harmonious with liberal capitalism, as when the Egyptian parliament grants absolute freedom of maneuver to landowners and nothing whatsoever to the peasant farmers who work their land. In their unhappy effort to produce an “Islamic Political Economy,” the authors of manuals on the subject (financed by Saudi Arabia ) have only succeeded in applying a coat of religious whitewash to the most banal tenets of American liberalism.
A Turbaned Dictatorship In Iran
The Islamic Republic of Iran proves the general rule, despite the confusions that contributed to its success: rapid development of the Islamist movement in parallel with the secular, socialist struggle waged against the socially reactionary U.S.-aligned dictatorship of the Shah. Following the Shah's overthrow, the extremely eccentric behavior of the Mullahs was offset by their anti-imperialist positions, from which they derived a powerful popular legitimacy which echoed well beyond the borders of Iran. Gradually the regime showed that it was incapable of providing the leadership required to stimulate vigorous and innovative socioeconomic development. The turbaned dictatorship of the men of religion, who took over from that of the “Caps” (military and technocrats), resulted in a fantastic degradation of the country's economic machinery. Iran which boasted about “doing the same as S. Korea,” now ranks among the group of “Fourth World ” countries.
The indifference of the regime's hard right wing to the social problems facing the country's working class gave rise to the “reformers” whose aim has been to moderate the harshness of the theocratic dictatorship, but without renouncing its basic principle – the monopoly of political power. Recognizing the extent of the Islamic Republic's economic disaster, the “reformers” have made the pragmatic decision to gradually revise their “anti-imperialist” postures. They are in the process of reintegrating Iran into the commonplace comprador world of capitalism on the peripheries. The system of Political Islam in Iran has reached deadlock. The political and social struggles into which the Iranian people have now been plunged might soon lead to rejection of the very principle of “wilaya al faquih” which places the clergy above all other institutions of political and civil society.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has conceived no other political system than that of a one-party dictatorship monopolized by the Mullahs. False comparisons are frequently made between the Islamist parties and the Christian Democratic parties of Europe (i.e., if the Christian Democrats have governed Italy for 50 years, why shouldn't an Islamist party govern Algeria and Egypt?). But once in power, an Islamist government immediately and definitively abolishes any form of legal political opposition.
Continued.....
Obviously one more time this is an effort to absolves islam from the bleak and intollerant aspect of this religeion. Sultan I did asked you in the past, who is more a muslim than the prophet mohamed himself? What goverment is more examplery for muslims than mohammeds own governeship...What is so different in the way he governed compare to what is now called political Islam? Has there been any period in history where Islam was purely religeon without the political part of it? was not mohammeds movement shortly from the begginging both religeous and statehood?
It is time for muslims to aknowledge the true deadly nature of their religeon and stop explaining away what is not explanable and find a way to reform itself for her own good and the good of the entire human race.
...on the other hand Muslim politicans should always consider our moderate Islamic teachings.
:) :p
Interesting topic sultan ..go on.and hopefuly we will discuss interesting issues in this new pleasent environment..
comment.. ..
Submission to Allah is the essence of Islam therefore Muslim politicans must submit to Allah before anything else..on the other hand Muslim politicans should always consider our moderate Islamic teachings for the benefit of the Muslim nation..
Ya Khalid,
The Piece is finished. I will await you comments after you finish reading it.
Please remember it is about politics and not religion.
Obviously one more time this is an effort to absolves islam from the bleak and intollerant aspect of this religeion. Sultan I did asked you in the past, who is more a muslim than the prophet mohamed himself? What goverment is more examplery for muslims than mohammeds own governeship...What is so different in the way he governed compare to what is now called political Islam? Has there been any period in history where Islam was purely religeon without the political part of it? was not mohammeds movement shortly from the begginging both religeous and statehood?
It is time for muslims to aknowledge the true deadly nature of their religeon and stop explaining away what is not explanable and find a way to reform itself for her own good and the good of the entire human race.
Chuchu,
This one is a bit more challenging! The first challenge is to read it in its entirety before you can give your standard diatribe to all things!
Ps: You can’t guess your way through it.
The article you posted continued, as below to my amazement!
"Will the attacks of September 11 oblige Washington to revise its alliance with Political Islam? Diplomatic and intelligence cooperation with Iran and Sudan suggests otherwise. But we cannot help noticing that the events of 911 occurred at precisely the right moment to permit the U.S. to install itself in petroleum-rich Central Asia, a region well-situated to allow another turn of the geostrategic vise which the West has clamped around Russia, China and India. This has been the openly proclaimed strategic objective of the U.S. for over 10 years. Saddam Hussein has served well as justification for permanent U.S. military installations in the Gulf. Osama bin Laden could well do the same for U.S. policy in Central Asia. One cannot exclude the hypothesis that machinations of the CIA and its faithful ally Mossad may have been involved in some way.
In order to sustain and extend its hegemony the United States must always give supreme importance to its military interventions. We forget this at our peril. "
Even islamic acts that is clear for all to see and beyond doubts, is being explained away!!!!!! wake up muslims and smell the roses, reform your religeons, aknowledge mistake and errors without which doom days will surely come!
Chuchu,
Once again I am owed by your intellectual brilliance, pursuit of the truth, and impartiality!
Thank you …. I am sure we are all blessed to have you among us!!
Lord haaaaaaaave mercy……………………………………… .please :confused:
This is the goverment under the prophet, sounds worse than the one under Mubarak of Egypt, similar to that of hassan el bastardo of Sudan.
FROM THE HISTORY OF TABARI, VOLUME 8, pages 97, 98 (1)
"According to Muhammad b. Umar [al-Waqidi]: "In this year a raiding party led by Kurz b. Jabir al-Fihri set out against the members of the Banu Uraynah who had killed the herdsman of the Messenger of God and driven off camels in Shawwal of the year 6. The Messenger of God sent Kurz with twenty horsemen.""
FROM THE HADITH OF SAHIH BUKHARI (2)
From Volume 1, #234
1.234: Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle ."
From Bukhari Volume 2, #577
2.577: Narrated Anas:
Some people from 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones.
Similar references are found in Bukhari 5.505, 7.623, and 8.797.
FROM THE SIRAT RASUL ALLAH (THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET OF GOD), BY IBN ISHAQ (3), pages 677, 678
"A traditionalist told me from one who had told him from Muhammad b. Talha from Uthman v. Abdul-Rahman that in the raid of Muharib and B. Thalaba the apostle had captured a slave called Yasar, and he put him in charge of his milch-camels to shepherd them in the neighborhood of al-Jamma. Some men of Qays of Kubba of Bajila came to the apostle suffering from an epidemic and enlarged spleens, and the apostle told them that if they went to the milch camels and drank their milk and their urine they would recover, so off they went. When they recovered their health and their bellies contracted to their normal size they fell upon the apostle's shepherds Yasar and killed him and stuck thorns in his eyes and drove away his camels. The apostle sent Kurz b. Jabir in pursuit and he overtook them and brought them to the apostle as he returned from the raid of Dhu Qarad. He cut off their hands and feet and gouged out their eyes."
FROM THE KITAB AL TABAQAT AL KABIR (BOOK OF THE MAJOR CLASSES), Volume 2, BY IBN SA'D, pages 114, 115 (4)
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Kurz Ibn Jabir al-Fihri towards al-Uraniyin in Shawwal of the sixth year from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah. They (narrators) said: A party of the Uraynah numbering eight came to the Apostle of Allah and embraced Islam but the climate of al-Medina did not suit them. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah ordered them to live with his milch-camels which used to graze at Dhu al-Jadr in the vicinity of Quba close to Ayr at a distance of six miles from al-Medina. They remained there till they recuperated and became fat. One morning they made a raid on the milch camels and drove them away. Yasar the mawla of the Apostle of Allah, with a party confronted them. He fought with them. They cut his hands and feet and pricked thorns in his tongue and eyes. Consequently he died. The news of his incident reached the Apostle of Allah. He sent twenty horsemen to pursue them and appointed Kurz Ibn al-Fihri their leader. They reached there, and surrounded them. They captured them, tied them, and seating them on their horses they brought them to al-Medina. The Apostle of Allah, was at al-Ghabah. They set out with them towards him and met him at al-Zaghabah, the place where flood water came from all directions. He gave orders and their hands and feet were amputated, their eyes were extracted. They were crucified. Then the verse was revealed to the Apostle of Allah:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land".
After that he did not extract eyes of anyone.
The milch-camels were fifteen in number which yielded much milk. They brought them back to al-Medina. The Apostle of Allah found one of the camels called al-Hinna missing. He inquired about it and was told that they had slaughtered it."
In dealing with this, I’d say that this is an extraordinary act of brutality on Muhammad's part. I believe that the criminals needed to be punished and I have no problem with putting them to death. But I do have a problem with torturing them. Let's review what was done to these men after they were captured and brought to Muhammad.
1) Their hands and feet were cut off.
2) Their eyes were seared with hot irons then gouged out.
3) They were thrown upon the hot, black rocks of the Harra desert. There they began to suffer the effects of dehydration. They begged for water, but none was given to them. In their pain and agony the men bit at the rocks.
Personally, I don't have sympathy for the criminals. I have no problem with the death penalty for their crime. But it amazes me that a man who claimed to be from God would treat other humans in this fashion. You can sense the bitter hate, the driving need for revenge in Muhammad's heart as he had them tortured in this way. I don't see God in this. I see dark spiritual forces, and dark fleshly forces at work, driving Muhammad to do this.
QUESTIONS
1) What happened to the "prophethood" of the prophet? After all, he was supposed to be in contact with Allah. Did Allah want the Muslims to be misled into believing that camel urine is medicine? Remember, Muslims are to follow his lifestyle today. Do they also believe that camel urine is a medicine? Do Islamic pharmacies prescribe camel urine? Why was he prescribing urine as a medicine? Ask Muslims you know if they drink urine as medicine.
2) Was it necessary for Muhammad to torture the criminals the way he did? What would the Muslims of today say if the Israelis were to torture Islamic terrorists in the same way? What would the Muslims today say if the Serbs were to torture Bosnian Muslims in the same way? What would the world say? What does your heart say?
3) If Muslims today condemn the atrocities that the Serbs or other perpetrate upon their fellow Muslims, then shouldn't they condemn the actions of Muhammad himself? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Muslims today justify Muhammad's actions upon his enemies, then they have no right to complain about many (not all) of the suffering inflicted upon fellow Muslims by their enemies.
4) If Muhammad were allowed by God to do this to the criminals, and Muslims are commanded to follow Muhammad's lifestyle, then what does this say about real Islamic society?
so stop this nonsense of political islam......it is islam and islam alone to blame!
Thank you lord … I guess I have my answer … too late you say! ;) :confused:
[quote=Sultan;268]Chuchu,
Once again I am owed by your intellectual brilliance, pursuit of the truth, and impartiality!
Thank you …. I am sure we are all blessed to have you among us!!
Sultan,
when your article accused the USA in collaboration with the jews of having blown up her own people and in essence absolved the islamic hijackers you see no problem with that despite of your overwhelming intelligences!!!!!!!
It is my pleasure, It is my pleasure buddy you are welcomed at any time, It is time for muslims to call spade, spade. Just as you are able to see "intelligences in none muslims like myslef, I hope you will as well in your fellow muslims"
Chuchu,
This one is a bit more challenging! The first challenge is to read it in its entirety before you can give your standard diatribe to all things!
Ps: You can’t guess your way through it.
Precisely sultan, The poison is in the details...It is naive to assumed that one could pick up this poison without thorough reading!
Sultan, I have no idea about your educational background and I will not assume one, I conclude by saying you do not know who Iam and you should not assume!
Chuchu,
Let us try this again because The article is contemptuous of political Islam, but unlike you, it explains how it arrived at that conclusion and does rely on recent history – some we have lived through in our own countries and clearly recognize.
The other part, which is the source of your apparent confusion, is its critique of neocons/liberals and their potential for mischief, real and/or imagined.
If it gives you any comfort I am confident enough to believe that it was Bin Laden and co who carried out the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. I have not read anything that persuades me to think that it was the product of a broader conspiracy.
However, I was also old enough to remember how the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan was contrived into Jihad by US and its friends in the Middle East – with funding and material support coming from the US treasury as well as Gulf states and the likes of Egypt. There is the case of fundamentalist Warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who received hundreds of millions of dollars from the US and is now working with Bin Laden. To this day the Government of Afghanistan still accuses Pakistan’s Intelligence Service of supporting its lovechild the Taliban.
If you are Sudanese and old enough you will probably recall that when our dictator and Imam was toppled by those of us who marched in the streets in 1985 he was being entertained and paid at the Whit House – so you see many of us tend to be dubious of the US position on Political Islam, which some of us do view as anathema to modernity and progress. We are equally dubious of the US’s commitment to democracy and development in our own countries. This article explains and balances these impulses.
Now – you are entirely free to continue in your baboonery by labeling me or the author as Islamists!
You want to attack Islam, fine, do so, but do it with facts and a little less glee because it is easy as far as doing a hatchet job if the intent is merely insults. If it is not, then I suggest you find another more rational way.
Thank you lord … I guess I have my answer … too late you say! ;) :confused:
Now you are communicating with the Lord!:D :D I congratulate you!
Precisely sultan, The poison is in the details...It is naive to assumed that one could pick up this poison without thorough reading!
Sultan, I have no idea about your educational background and I will not assume one, I conclude by saying you do not know who Iam and you should not assume!
Personally, I am very comfortable with ambiguity and incomplete knowledge – in my opinion neither one requires that men and women contrive a code to assure themselves of certainty!
Agreement here and elsewhere is not a condition for respect!
You may be the most educated person on the planet, but without the ability to critically think on your feet here you become just another tormented fanatic who won’t understand nor let any one else change the subject.
As for talking to lord it was to show you how easily, self-serving, it can invoked.
HisHighness 02-Feb-07, 22:55 Yt.
Please remember it is about politics and not religion.
we can't draw a line between politics and religion can we..atleast not for now becuase there is a global trend of 'religious politics' and think 'total' secularism is just a theory..
we can't draw a line between politics and religion can we..atleast not for now becuase there is a global trend of 'religious politics' and think 'total' secularism is just a theory..
Khalid,
Obviously with a title like “Political Islam” you can’t escape the nexsus, but emphasise the political rather than provide endless quotes from Buhkari and Moslem or verses from the good book beyond that it an open discussion.
Ps: I love your impression of a global trend - and who said anything about secularism????
UP - one more time! Hopefully, this time around, with a bit more useful input! :)
:mad:
One takes this thread to Samir Amin and you can assure that he gets a heart attack! Goodness, if Samir Amin is "An Islamist, read as in a supporter of piltical Islam" that woud be the end of world!!
Khalid, you simplifies things to the extent that you take it out of its meaning completely.
This article is about religion and ploitics, and it demostrates with clear examples how political power is so central that The Mullah's , the Sheikhs and all other political power mongers can be in line with those dressed in "Full Suits" being in the White House or any center of power from Europe, Japan etc and even sudan.
I wonder if you see Moore's Move " Fehrenheit 911", whether you get the reflections to many truths in this article!!
Thanks Sultan for a good read
Merfi,
You are most welcome!
Intellectuals in or from the Middle east are often accused of not dancing to the current song from the US Administration – this article explains a lot of why there perceptual variations between those who saw the rise of political Islam un the region and those who until very recently were its political midwife.
I posted another piece from the BBC about waning US influence in the region – the language there is bizarre – all of a sudden the governments of Egypt/Jordan/Saudia Arabia are not just pro-west and undemocratic, but now they are Sunni worried about Shiaa - as if the Shiaa revival will have Islamic rather than political implications!
Someone is improvising and it stinks!:cool:
What this means is that the contest between the compradors and the Islamists is only a conflict between factions of the ruling class
ÃÎÔí Ãä íßæä ÏßÊæÑ ÓãíÑ Ããíä ÞÏ ÔØÍ ãÚ ÇáãÇÑßÓííä ÇáßáÇÓíßííä ÇáÐíä íÍÇæáæä
ÊÝÓíÑ ßá ÔÆ ÈÇáÃÞÊÕÇÏ ÝÇáÇÓáÇã ÇáÓíÇÓí ÙÇåÑå ÃÚÞÏ ÞÏ ÊÍÊÇÌ áÌåÏ æãÓÇåãÇÊ ãÌãæÚÇÊ ãÊäæÚå ãä ÇáÇÎÊÕÇÕííä Ýí ãÌÇáÇÊ ÃÎÑí .. ÇáÇÓáÇã ÇáÓíÇÓí Ýíå ßËíÑ
ãä ÊãÙåÑÇÊ ÇáÇíÏíæáæÌíÇÊ ÇáÊí ÊÈäí Úáí ÇáÏíä æãä ÃÓÊÊÈÇÚÇÊåÇ ÇáÞÏÇÓíå ÝÈÚÖ ÇáäÕæÕ ÇáãÞÏÓå ÚäÏ åÄáÇÁ ÊÚßÓ ãÞÊÖíÇÊ ÇáÊÔßíáå ÇáÓíÇÓíå- ÇáÇÞÊÕÇÏíå - ÇáÇÌÊãÇÚíå ÇáÊí íÓÚæä áåÇ Ýåã ÞÏ áÇ íÞæáæä Ýí ÏæáÊåã ÇáãäÔæÏå ãÇ ÞÇá ÇáãÞÊÏí Èå áãä ÌÇÁå ãÈÇíÚÇ ÚäÏãÇ ÃÑÓáå
Ýí ÛÒæÉ æåæ íÞæá : ÃÐåÈ æÃÒÛÈ áß ÒÛÈÉ ãä ÇáãÇá ÝäÚã ÇáãÇá ÇáÕÇáÍ ááÑÌá ÇáÕÇáÍ
æáßäåã Ýí äÝÓ ÇáæÞÊ ÞÏ íÓÈÛæä Úáíå Ãæ Úáíåã ÇáÊãßíä ãä äÕæÕ ÃÎÑí ãÓÊãÏå ãä ÏæáÉ ÇáãäÔà ÇáãÓÊæÍÇÉ æÇáãÑÇÏ ÊßÑÇÑåÇ æÃÚÇÏÊåÇ ..
ÇáØÈÞå Çæ ÇáØÈÞÇÊ ÇáãÊäÝÐå Ýí åÐå ÇáãÌÊãÚÇÊ áíÓÊ ãÊãÇËáå Ýí ßá ÔÑÇÆÍåÇ æÍÊí Èíä
ÇáÇÓáÇãííä ÞÏ ÊÌÏ ÇáßãÈÑÇÏæÑ æÕÇÍÈ ÇáãÇá ÇáæØäí æÈíäåã áíÈÑÇáíæä ÕÇÏÞæä æáßäåã
ãÊÖÑÑæä áÃäåã áÇ íÍãáæä ÂíÏæáæÌíå ÇáÇÓáÇã ÇáÓíÇÓí .. ÃäÇ ÔÎÕíÇ ÃÚÊÞÏ Ãä ÇáÇÓáÇã
ÇáÓíÇÓí ÙÇåÑå ÃßÈÑ ãä åÐå ÇáÍÑßÇÊ ÝÇáÏæá ÇáÞÇÆãå Ýí ÇáÚÇáãíä ÇáÚÑÈí æÇáÇÓáÇãí
ßáåÇ ÈåÐÇ ÇáÞÏÑ Ãæ Ðáß Ïæá ÃÓáÇã ÓíÇÓí ÈÚÖåÇ ÕÑíÍ æÈÚÖåÇ ÍÇÖäÇÊ ÊÝÑøÎ ÈÃÓÇáíÈåÇ
Ýí ÇáÊÑÈíå æÇáÊäÔÆå ÈãÇ ÝíåÇ Ïæá ÃãËÇá ÇáÞÐÇÝí ÇáÐí íÑí Ýí ÇáÔÑíÚå ÔíÆÇ ãÊÎáÝÇ .. ÑÈãÇ íßæä ãä ÇáãÈÇáÛå Çä äÒÚã ÃäåÇ Ïæá ØÛíÇäíå áÃäåÇ ÐÇÊ ãÏÏ
ãä ÇáÚÇáã ÇáÛÑÈí ÎÇÕÉ áãä íÚÑÝ ÇáÊÇÑíÎ ÇáÓíÇÓí æÇáÇÌÊãÇÚí ááãÓáãíä ãäÐ ÇáÞÑä ÇáÓÇÈÚ ÇáãíáÇÏí æÍÊí íæãäÇ åÐÇ ÝåÐå ÇáØÈíÚå ÇáÓáØæíå ÇáÊÍßãíå áåÇ ÊÃÕíá Ýí ÇáÏæáå ÇáÃäãæÐÌ
ÇáÊí íÓãíåÇ ÇáãäÙÑæä ãäåã ÈÏæáÉ ÇáãÏíäå ÇáÊí ÊÃÓÓÊ Ýí ÝÖÇÁ ÚÑÈí ÝæÖæí áÇ ÓáØå
ãÑßÒíå Ýíå Óæí ÓáØÇÊ ÇáÞÈÇÆá æÃÚÑÇÝåÇ Èíä ÈÚÖåÇ ÇáÈÚÖ æÇáÇÓáÇã ÇáÓíÇÓí Ýíå Çáíæã
ãä íÞÑà áß : áÇ ÃßÑÇå Ýí ÇáÏíä ¡ æÇÏÚæÇ Çáí ÓÈíá ÑÈß ÈÇáÍßãå æãä íÞÑà íÞÑà ÂíÇÊ ÇáÓíÝ æíÞæá áß Çä ßá ãÇ ÚÏÇ Ðáß ãäÓæÎå .. ÇáÇÓáÇã ÇáÓíÇÓí ÇáÍÇá åæ ÃíÏíæáæÌíå ÝæÖí áÇä ÇáÇäãæÐÌ ÞÇã Úáí ãÌÊãÚ ÝæÖí æÑÈãÇ ßÇäÊ ÝæÖí ÎáÇÞå Ýí ÒãÇäåÇ æáßä ÃÌÊÑÇÁ
ÞÏÓíå ÇáÏíä íÌÚáåÇ ÚÕíå
..............Islam is a religion and state.,so it will not work ...:)
muhib,
I am not sure if your statement is true. Islam is a religion, however its against theocracy. and those who are trying to prove it otherwise are only dragging us back to the medieval ages.
Thanks Sultan. I will first need to finish reading it and will come back to comment later
salam everybody
muhib,
Islam is a religion, however its against theocracy.
Are you sure?
yup. as sure as I am sure how dumb you really are. oh wait, I was waiting for someone like "you" who knows Islam better than I do. plus why asking me questions when you failed to answer a question I asked some months ago???
HisHighness 04-Feb-07, 17:08 :mad:
One takes this thread to Samir Amin and you can assure that he gets a heart attack! Goodness, if Samir Amin is "An Islamist, read as in a supporter of piltical Islam" that woud be the end of world!!
Khalid, you simplifies things to the extent that you take it out of its meaning completely.
This article is about religion and ploitics, and it demostrates with clear examples how political power is so central that The Mullah's , the Sheikhs and all other political power mongers can be in line with those dressed in "Full Suits" being in the White House or any center of power from Europe, Japan etc and even sudan.
I wonder if you see Moore's Move " Fehrenheit 911", whether you get the reflections to many truths in this article!!
Thanks Sultan for a good readÇáÅÓáÇã ÇáÓíÇÓí... ÅÔßÇáíÉ ÇáäåÖÉ æÇáÊÌÏíÏ
GMT 22:45:00 2007 ÇáÓÈÊ 3 ÝÈÑÇíÑ
ÇáÇÊÍÇÏ ÇáÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Îáíá Úáí ÍíÏÑ
äÍä Ýí æÑØÉ ÍÖÇÑíÉ ËÞÇÝíÉ ÍÞíÞíÉ¡ ÊãÓø áÏíäÇ ÇáÍÇÌÉ ãä ÌÇäÈ Åáì ãäÇÞÔÉ ßá ÕÛíÑÉ æßÈíÑÉ Ýí ÍíÇÊäÇ æÝí ÊÝÇÕíá ÊÇÑíÎäÇ æËÞÇÝÊäÇ æÏíääÇ¡ æÊÖíøöÞ ÇáÞæì ÇáãÊÒãÊÉ ãä ÌÇäÈ ÂÎÑ ÍÑíÉ ÇáÝßÑ æÇáßÊÇÈÉ¡ æÊÌÈÑ Çáßá ÅáÇ ÇáÞáíá ÇáäÇÏÑ¡ Úáì ÇáÓßæÊ!
åäÇß íÞæá ÃÓÊÇÐ ÇáÝáÓÝÉ¡ Ï. ÝÄÇÏ ÒßÑíÇ¡ ÚÇãá áÇ íãßä ÊÌÇåáå¡ áÃä áå Ýí ãÌÊãÚÇÊäÇ ÇáãÚÇÕÑÉ ÏæÑÇð íÓÊÍíá ÅäßÇÑå¡ æ"ÃÚäí ÚÇãá ÇáÎæÝ": ÝäØÇÞ ÇáãÔßáÇÊ ÇáãÓãæÍ ÈãäÇÞÔÊåÇ ÚÞáíÇð æÝáÓÝíÇð Ýí ÇáãíÏÇä ÇáÏíäí¡ íÖíÞ íæãÇð ÈÚÏ íæã¡ æíÓíÑ Ýí ÇÊÌÇå ãÚÇßÓ áÐáß ÇáÐí ÚÇÔÊå ÃæÑæÈÇ ãäÐ ÚÕÑ ÇáäåÖÉ ÍÊì Çáíæã. æåßÐÇ íÔÚÑ ÇáÝíáÓæÝ ÈÃä ÇáãäÇØÞ ÇáãÍÑãÉ ÊÒÏÇÏ Úáì ÇáÏæÇã ÇÊÓÇÚÇð. áÞÏ ÇÎÊÝÊ ÈíÆÉ ÇáÍæÇÑ ÇáÍõÑ! "ÝÞÏ ÊÏåæÑ ãÓÊæì ÇáÊÓÇãÍ ÇáÝßÑí Ýí æØääÇ ÇáÚÑÈí¡ ÎáÇá ÇáÞÑä ÇáÃÎíÑ¡ ÊÏåæÑÇð ãáÍæÙÇð¡ æåÈØ ÇáÎØ ÇáÈíÇäí áÍÑíÉ ÇáÝßÑ åÈæØÇð ÍÇÏÇð¡ Ýí ÇáÓäæÇÊ ÇáÃÎíÑÉ ÈæÌå ÎÇÕ¡ æÃÕÈÍ ßËíÑ ãä ÇáãæÖæÚÇÊ ÇáÊí ßÇäÊ ÊäÇÞÔ ÈÓãÇÍÉ æÓÚÉ ÃÝÞ Ýí ÃæÇÆá åÐÇ ÇáÞÑä -ÇáÚÔÑíä- Èá Ýí ÇáÞÑæä ÇáÃæáì ááÚÕÑ ÇáÅÓáÇãí¡ ãä ÇáããäæÚÇÊ æÇáãÍÙæÑÇÊ¡ æÊÍæá åÐÇ ÇáÞÑä -ÇáÐí ÇÕØáÍäÇ Úáì Ãä äÓãíå ÚÕÑ ÇáäåÖÉ ÇáÚÑÈíÉ- Åáì ÚÕÑ ßÈæÉ æÇÑÊÏÇÏ æÊÎáÝ ÔÏíÏ¡ æáÇ ÊÈÏæ Ýí ÍíÇÊäÇ ÇáÑÇåäÉ ÃíÉ ÈÇÏÑÉ ÊÏá Úáì ÃääÇ ÓäÊÎáÕ ÞÑíÈÇð ãä ÖíÞ ÇáÃÝÞ åÐÇ¡ Èá Åä ßá ÇáÏáÇÆá ÊÏá Úáì Ãäå ÓíÔÊÏ Åáì Ãä íÕÈÍ ÇäÓÏÇÏÇð ÊÇãÇð áÃÝÞäÇ ÇáÚÞáí".
æíÓÊäÊÌ ÞÇÆáÇð: "Åä ÇáÊÓáØ ÇáÓíÇÓí æÇáÇÓÊÈÏÇÏ Ýí ÇáÍßã ßÇä ãä ÇáÖÑæÑí Ãä íäÚßÓ Úáì ÝßÑäÇ Ýí ÕæÑÉ ÎÖæÚ ãÊÒÇíÏ ááÓáØÉ ÇáÚÞáíÉ æÇáÑæÍíÉ¡ æÇäßãÇÔ ãÊÒÇíÏ áÞÏÑÊäÇ Úáì ÇáäÞÏ æÇáãÚÇÑÖÉ ÇáÝßÑíÉ¡ íæÇÒí ÈÇáÖÈØ ÇÎÊÝÇÁ ÇáãÚÇÑÖÉ ÇáÓíÇÓíÉ ãä ÍíÇÊäÇ". (ÇáÝáÓÝÉ Ýí ÇáæØä ÇáÚÑÈí ÇáãÚÇÕÑ¡ ãÑßÒ ÏÑÇÓÇÊ ÇáæÍÏÉ¡ 1985¡ Õ46).
æÞÏ ÊÒÇíÏÊ áÍÓä ÇáÍÙ¡ ÎáÇá ÇáÚÞÏíä ÇáãäÕÑãíä¡ ÝÑÕ ÇáÇÈÊßÇÑ æÇáÊÌÏíÏ ÈÝÖá ÇáÍÑíÇÊ ÇáÊí ÃÊÇÍÊåÇ ÇáÚæáãÉ æÇáÝÖÇÆíÇÊ æÇáÇäÊÑäÊ¡ ÝÇÊÓÚ ÝÖÇÁ ÇáÍÑíÉ ÇáÝßÑíÉ æÇáÓíÇÓíÉ Ýí ÇáÚÇáã ÇáÚÑÈí¡ æÙåÑÊ ãÄáÝÇÊ ÊäÇÞÔ ÈÌÑÃÉ ãÊÕÇÚÏÉ ãÇ ßÇä íÕÚÈ ÇáÌÏÇá Ýíå ÞÈá ÚÞæÏ¡ æÇÒÏÇÏÊ ÍÏÉ ÇáÕÑÇÚ Èíä ÊíÇÑ "ÇáÅÓáÇã ÇáÓíÇÓí" æÈÞíÉ ÇáÊíÇÑÇÊ.
æíÎÔì ÇáÊíÇÑ ÇáÏíäí ÈáÇ ÑíÈ¡ Ãäå ÓíÝÞÏ ÇáßËíÑ Ýí ÇáÍæÇÑ ÇáÝßÑí ÇáËÞÇÝí ÇáÝáÓÝí¡ Åä ÓÇÏ ÇáÇÚÊÏÇá¡ æÊÎáì ÇáÌÇäÈ ÇáÏíäí Úä ÃÓáÍÉ ÇáÊÎæíÝ æÅËÇÑÉ ÇáÑÃí ÇáÚÇã æÊÍÑíÖ ÇáÃÌåÒÉ ÇáÑÞÇÈíÉ¡ æÇááÌæÁ ãÈÇÔÑÉ Åáì ÓáÇÍ ÇáÊÞÇÖí Ãæ ÇáÊßÝíÑ.
æáßä¡ åá íÓÊØíÚ ÇáÊíÇÑ ÇáÏíäí ÇáÇÓÊãÑÇÑ Ýí åÐÇ ÇáãæÞÝ ÇáÐí æÞÝÊå ÇáßäíÓÉ ÇáßÇËæáíßíÉ ÐÇÊ íæã¡ æåá íÓÊØíÚ ÇáÊíÇÑ Ãä íÌãÚ Èíä ÇáÑæÍíÉ ÇáÌÐÑíÉ Ãæ ÇáÑÇÏíßÇáíÉ ÇáÔÇãáÉ ÇáÊí íÎÇØÈ ÈåÇ ÔÑÇÆÍ ÇáãÌÊãÚ æíÕØÏã ÈåÇ ãÚ ÇáÓáØÇÊ ÇáãÍáíÉ æÇáÏæáíÉ¡ æÐáß ÇáäÝóÓ ÇáãÍÇÝÙ ÇáãÊÎæÝ ÇáÐí íßÊäÝ ãæÞÝå ãä ÍÑíÉ ÇáÈÍË¿
íÞæá Ï. ÒßÑíÇ: "ãÇ äæÏ Ãä äÈíøöäå åæ Ãä åÐå ÇáãäÇÞÔÉ ÇáÝáÓÝíÉ¡ áæ ÓãÍ áåÇ Ãä ÊÊã ÈÍÑíÉ¡ áä ÊÖÑ ÈÞÖíÉ ÇáÏíä¡ Úáì ÚßÓ ãÇ íÊÕæÑ ÇáãÊÒãÊæä¡ Èá ÅäåÇ ÓÊÚãÞ ÇáÝßÑ ÇáÏíäí æÊÒíÏå ËÑÇÁð. æÇáÃåã ãä Ðáß Ãä ÚÞæá ÇáÃÌíÇá ÇáÌÏíÏÉ¡ ÇáÊí ÎÑÌÊ Åáì ÇáäæÑ Ýí ÚÕÑ ÇáÍÇÓÈÇÊ ÇáÅáßÊÑæäíÉ æÇáÕæÇÑíΡ áÇÈÏ ãä Ãä ÊÏæÑ ÝíåÇ ÃÓÆáÉ áÇ ÊßÝí ÇáãæÇÞÝ ÇáÊÞáíÏíÉ ÇáãÍÏæÏÉ ÇáÃÝÞ áÊÞÏíã ÅÌÇÈÉ ãÞäÚÉ ÚáíåÇ. æÞÏ ÊßÝ åÐå ÇáÚÞæá Úä ÇáÊÓÇÄá ÅÐÇ ãÇ ÔÚÑÊ ÈÃä Ýí Ðáß ÍÑÌÇð Ãæ ÎØÑÇð¡ æáßä ÇáÃÓÆáÉ ÐÇÊåÇ áä ÊÓßÊ Ýí ÏÇÎáåÇ ÅáÇ ÅÐÇ ÊáÞÊ ÅÌÇÈÇÊ íÏÚãåÇ ÇáãäØÞ ÇáÓáíã¡ æíÞÈáåÇ ÇáÊÍáíá ÇáÝáÓÝí".
ãä ÇáãÔßæß Ýíå¡ Ýí ÑÃíí¡ Ãä ÊÞäÚ ãËá åÐå ÇáÍÌÌ¡ ÇáÊí íæÑÏåÇ Ï. ÒßÑíÇ¡ Þæì ÇáÊíÇÑ ÇáÏíäí¡ Ýí Ãä ÊÊÎáì Úä ÓáØÇäåÇ Úáì ÇáäÝæÓ æÇáäÕæÕ¡ æÚáì ÇáÊÝßíÑ æÇáÊÝÓíÑ. æåßÐÇ íãÊÏ "ÇáãÔßá ÇáäåÖæí" Ýí ÇáÚÇáãíä ÇáÚÑÈí æÇáÅÓáÇãí. ÝÇáäåÖÉ ÇáÍÞÉ áíÓÊ ãÌÑÏ ÈÑáãÇä æãÕäÚ æãÕÑÝ æãÏÑÓÉ¡ Èá áÇÈÏ ãä Ãä ÊÕá "ßåÑÈÇÁ" ÇáäåÖÉ æÇáÊÌÏíÏ Åáì ÇáÅäÓÇä ÇáÝÑÏ¡ æÅáì ãÄÓÓÇÊ ÇáÝßÑ Ýí ÇáãÌÊãÚ¡ áíÕÈÍ ÇáÚÇáãÇä ÇáÚÑÈí æÇáÅÓáÇãí ÌÒÁÇð ÍÞíÞíÇð ÝÚÇáÇð ãä ÇáÚÇáã ÇáãÚÇÕÑ¡ æáßí íÕÈÍ ÇáÅÓáÇã ÇáãÓÊäÏ Åáì ÇáÅÑÇÏÉ æÍÑíÉ ÇáäÞÇÔ¡ ÏíäÇð ÚÕÑíÇð ÞæíÇð ÞÇÏÑÇð Úáì ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ßá ÇáÍæÇÌÒ ÇáãÚÇÏíÉ áå¡ ÈÚÏ Ãä íÊÎáÕ ãä ÇáÓãÇÊ ÇáÓáÈíÉ ÇáßËíÝÉ ÇáÊí ÃËÞáå ÈåÇ ÇáÊÎáÝ æÇáÊÎæíÝ!
Úáì ßá "ÅÓáÇãí"¡ ÝíãÇ ÃÑì¡ Ãä íÍÇæÑ äÝÓå: ßíÝ íØÇáÈ ãÌÊãÚå ÈÇáÎÖæÚ áÚãáíÉ ÊÛííÑ ÔÇãáÉ¡ ßãÇ ÊØÇáÈ ÇáÕÍæÉ ãÌÊãÚÇÊ ÇáÚÇáã ÇáÚÑÈí æÇáÅÓáÇãí¡ Ïæä Ãä íÚØíåÇ ÍÑíÉ ÇáÝßÑ æÇáäÞÇÔ æÇáÃãÇä ÇáËÞÇÝí¿ áãÇÐÇ íãÊáß ÇáãÓáãæä Ýí ÃæÑæÈÇ æÂÓíÇ ÇáÈæÐíÉ æÃãíÑßÇ æßäÏÇ æÃÓÊÑÇáíÇ ßá åÐå ÇáÍÑíÉ Ýí ÇáÊÍÇæÑ æÇáÔÏ æÇáÌÐÈ¡ ÈíäãÇ áÇ íÌÑÄ Ãí ßÇÊÈ Ãæ ãÝßÑ Ýí ÏíÇÑ ÇáÅÓáÇã Úáì Ãí ÍæÇÑ¿
íÊÕæÑ ÇáßËíÑ ãä ÇáÅÓáÇãííä¡ æÑÈãÇ ÇááíÈÑÇáííä¡ Ãä åÐÇ ÇáÊÍÕä ÇáÝßÑí ãßÓÈ ÍÞíÞí ááÊíÇÑ ÇáÏíäí. æÞÏ íßæä ÍÞÇð¡ æáßäøó áå ËãäÇð ÈÇåÙÇð Úáì ÕÚíÏ ãåã íãÓ ÇáÝßÑ ÇáÅÓáÇãí ÇáãÚÇÕÑ æÞÏÑÊå Úáì ÇáÊÌÏíÏ æÇáÇÈÊßÇÑ. æåÐÇ ãÇ äáãÓå ÈæÖæÍ Ýí ßá ãÚÇÑÖ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÇáÅÓáÇãí ÇáÓäæíÉ¡ ÇáÊí ÕÇÑÊ ÊÏæÑ Ýí ÍáÞÉ ÇáÊßÑÇÑ æÊÊÍÇÔì ÇáÌÏíÏ æÇáãÈÊßÑ æÇáÌÑíÁ ãä ÇáÃÝßÇÑ. Èá æãÇ ãä ßÇÊÈ ÅÓáÇãí äÇÖÌ Ýí ãÕÑ æÏæá ÇáÔÇã æÈáÏÇä ÇáÎáíÌ ÅáÇ æíÏÑß ÃÈÚÇÏ åÐå ÇáÃÒãÉ ÇáÎÇäÞÉ¡ ÍíË íÎÇÝ ÇáãÄáÝ ÇáÅÓáÇãí äÝÓå ãä Ãä íäØáÞ Ýí ÇáÊÝßíÑ¡ Ãæ íÌÏÏ Ýí ÇáÍæÇÑ¡ Ãæ íäÊÞÏ ÇáÓáÈíÇÊ¡ Ãæ íÕÇÑÍ ÇáÊíÇÑ.. ÝíäÒá Úáì ßÊÈå æãÞÇáÇÊå ÓíÝ ÇáãÞÇØÚÉ ÇáÈÊÇÑ¡ æíßæä äÕíÈ ÈÖÇÚÊå ÇáÝßÑíÉ ÇáßÓÇÏ.. æÇáÈæÇÑ!
æäÚæÏ Åáì äÞØÉ ãåãÉ íËíÑåÇ Ï. ÝÄÇÏ ÒßÑíÇ Ýí ÈÍËå Úä ÇáÚáÇÞÉ Èíä ÇáÝáÓÝÉ æÇáÏíä Ýí ÇáãÌÊãÚ ÇáÚÑÈí¡ æåí: "Åä ÝáÓÝÉ ÇáÏíä¡ Ýí ÇáãÌÊãÚÇÊ ÇáãÊÞÏãÉ¡ ÝÑÚ ãåã ãä ÝÑæÚ ÇáÝáÓÝÉ¡ íÔÇÑß Ýíå ÑÌÇá ÇáÏíä ÈÞÏÑ ãÇ íÔÇÑß Ýíå ÇáÝáÇÓÝÉ¡ æáã íÒÚã ÃÍÏ åäÇß Ãä åÐÇ ÇáÝÑÚ íÓÊåÏÝ Çáäíá ãä ÇáÚÞíÏÉ¡ Èá Åäå Ýí äÙÑ ÇáãÔÊÛáíä Èå íÓÊåÏÝ ÊÚãíÞ ÇáÚÞíÏÉ æÅËÑÇÁ ÇáÊÝßíÑ Ýí ãÔßáÇÊåÇ. æåÐÇ ÇáÝÑÚ -ãä ÇáÝáÓÝÉ- íÊäÇæá ãÓÇÆá ãËá ØÈíÚÉ ÇáÊÌÑÈÉ ÇáÏíäíÉ æÃåãíÊåÇ¡ æÇáÓãÇÊ ÇáããíÒÉ ááÅíãÇä ÇáÏíäí ÈÇáÞíÇÓ Åáì ÃäæÇÚ ÇáÅíãÇä ÇáÃÎÑì¡ æãßÇäÉ ÇáÏíä Ýí ÇáËÞÇÝÉ ÇáÅäÓÇäíÉ¡ æØÈíÚÉ ÇáÑãÒ ÇáÏíäí æÇááÛÉ ÇáÏíäíÉ¡ ßãÇ íáÞí ÖæÁÇð Úáì ÇáãÝÇåíã ÇáÃÓÇÓíÉ ßÇáæÍí æÇáÞÏÇÓÉ... ÇáΡ æáä íÓÊØíÚ ÃÍÏ Ãä íÒÚã Ãä åÐå ãæÖæÚÇÊ áÇ Êåã ÇáÅäÓÇä ÇáãÄãä¡ áÃäåÇ ÊÌÚáå ÈÇáÝÚá ÃßËÑ æÚíÇð æÊÝÊÍÇð Ýí ÅíãÇäå. æãÚ Ðáß ÝäÍä áã äÞÊÑÈ ãäåÇ Ýí æØääÇ ÇáÚÑÈí ÇáãÚÇÕÑ".
æÊÈÏæ åÐå ÇáÙÇåÑÉ ÃßËÑ ÅËÇÑÉ ááÍíÑÉ ÅÐÇ áÇÍÙäÇ ãÚ Ï. ÒßÑíÇ ÝÚáÇð Ãä "ÚáãÇÁ ÇáßáÇã" ÇáãÓáãíä ãäÐ ÞÑæä ÚÏíÏÉ¡ ÞÏ ÎÇÖæÇ Ýí ãÔßáÇÊ ÚÞáíÉ ÃËÇÑÊåÇ ÇáÍíÇÉ ÇáÏíäíÉ Ýí ÚÕÑåã. æÇáÂä¡ åá ÈÇÓÊØÇÚÉ ÇáÕÍæÉ ÇáÅÓáÇãíÉ Ãä ÊÊÌäÈ ÇáäÞÇÔ ÇáÝßÑí ÇáÚÕÑí¡ æÃä ÊÞæÏ ãÌÊãÚÇÊ ÇáÚÇáã ÇáÅÓáÇãí ÈãÇ Ýíå ãä ÝßÑ æãÝßÑíä æÌÇãÚÇÊ æãÄÓÓÇÊ¡ Ïæä ÅØáÇÞ ÍÑíÉ ÇáÈÍË ÇáÚÞáí¿
Ýí ÇÚÊÞÇÏí¡ íÞæá Ï. ÝÄÇÏ ÒßÑíÇ Ýí äåÇíÉ ÍÏíËå¡ Åä ÇáÈÍË ÇáÚÞáí¡ ÈÑæÍ ÚÕÑíÉ¡ Ýí ÇáãÔßáÇÊ ÇáÝßÑíÉ ÇáãÑÊÈØÉ ÈÇáÏíä¡ ßÇä íäÈÛí Ãä íÍÊá ãßÇäÉ ãåãÉ Ýí ÃíÉ "ÕÍæÉ ÅÓáÇãíÉ" ÊÑíÏ Ãä Êßæä ÍÞÇð ÌÏíÑÉ ÈåÐÇ ÇáÇÓã. "Ðáß áÃä åÐå ÇáÕÍæÉ ÊÏÚæ Åáì Ãä íßæä ááÏíä ÏæÑ Ãåã Ýí ÍíÇÊäÇ ÇáÓíÇÓíÉ æÇáÇÌÊãÇÚíÉ æÇáËÞÇÝíÉ æÇáÇÞÊÕÇÏíÉ¡ æãä Ëã ßÇä ÇáæÇÌÈ Ãä ÊÖÚ ÃíÏíåÇ Ýí ÃíÏí ÇáÝáÓÝÉ ãä ÃÌá ÇáÞíÇã ÈÇáÊÍáíáÇÊ ÇáãÊÚãÞÉ ÇáÊí íÓÊáÒãåÇ ÃÏÇÁ ÇáÏíä áåÐÇ ÇáÏæÑ Çáãåã Ýí ÍíÇÊäÇ ÇáãÚÇÕÑÉ".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 :ÚÏÏ ÇáÑÏæÏ
GMT 9:47:31 2007 ÇáÃÍÏ 4 ÝÈÑÇíÑ
ÇáÚäæÇä: áÇ íãßäåã Ðáß
ÇáÃÓã: ãÍãÏ ÇáÚÇãÑí
ÇáÏíä ÇáÅÓáÇãí ÃÕÈÍ ãäÐ ÝÊÑÉ ØæíáÉ ÃÏÇÉ ÈíÏ ÇáÓáØÇÊ ÇáÍÇßãÉ ¡ ÍíË ÅßÊÔÝ åÐå ÇáÓáØÇÊ ÈÃä ÇáÏíä åæ ÇáæÓíáÉ ÇáÓåáÉ æÇáÔÑÚíÉ ÇáÞÇÈÖÉ Úáì ÃÑæÇÍ ÇáãÚÇÑÖÉ Ïæä ÅÍÊÌÇÌ ÚÇã. æáåÐÇ ÈÞí ÇáÏíä ãäÐ ÚÏÉ ÞÑæä íÏæÑ Ýí ÏÇÆÑÉ ãÛáÞÉ ÈÇáßÇãá ÊÖíÞ ãÓÇÍÊåÇ ãÚ ãÑæÑ ÇáÒãä Çáì ãÇæÕáÊ Çáíå Çáíæã ãä ÊÞæÞÚ Úáì ÇáãæÑæËÇÊ . åÐå ÇáãæÑæËÇÊ ÇáÊí Êã ÊÌãíÏåÇ æÊÌÝíÝåÇ åí ÇáÃÏæÇÊ ÇáÎØÑÉ ÇáÊí ÊÞãÚ ÈåÇ ÔÚæÈäÇ . ÝÇáÏíä ÇáÅÓáÇãí ÊÍæá Çáíæã ÈÝÖá ÇáÓáØÇÊ ÇáÏßÊÇÊæÑíÉ Çáì ãÄÓÓÇÊ ÓíÇÓíÉ ãÊæÒÚÉ ÊäÇÍÑíÇð ÍÓÈ ÇáãÐÇåÈ . æÃäÇ Ýí äÙÑí Åä ãÇ ØÑÍå Îáíá Úáí ÍíÏÑ Çáíæã ÛÇíÉ Ýí ÇáÅåãíÉ æÞÏ ØÑÍå ßÊÇÈ ÓÇÈÞíä æßÇÊÈ åÐå ÇáÓØæÑ Èíäåã ÍíË ÃßÏäÇ Åä ãÇ íÓãì " ÈÇáÕÍæÉ ÇáÅÓáÇãíÉ " åí áíÓÊ ÈÕÍæÉ æáßäåÇ äæãÉ æÛÝæÉ æÊÎÏíÑ ÈÇáßÇãá ááÚÞá ÇáãÓáã . ÝÇáÕÍæÉ ÊÃÊí Ýí ÍÇáÉ æÇÍÏÉ ÚäÏãÇ íÓÊÞá ÇáÏíä Úä ÇáÓíÇÓÉ ¡ Ãí ÑÌæÚ ÇáÏíä ÇáÅÓáÇãí Çáì ÚÞáÇÁ ÇáãÓáãíä æÅäÊÔÇáå æÅäÞÇÐå ãä ãÎÇáÈ æÃäíÇÈ ÚãÇÆã æáÍì ÇáÓíÇÓÉ ÇáÐíä ÃÓÇÁæÇ ááÏíä ÅíãÇ ÅÓÇÁÉ . Åä ÇáÚãÇÆã ÇáÓíÇÓíÉ ÊÍÇÑÈ ÈÇáÏíä æáíÓ ãä ÃÌá ÇáÏíä ¡ ßãÇ ÍÇÑÈæÇ ÈÇáãÓáãíä æáíÓ ãä ÃÌá ÇáãÓáãíä
Khalid
What did you understand from this article you have posted?
This can not be an answer what I wrote and you have quoted above your post. Unless you agree with me.
This article is critical of political Islam and advocates for freedom of thought.
The current version of "political Islam" is not consistent with "freedom of thought".
HisHighness 04-Feb-07, 18:21 .
"freedom of thought".
merfi
salam.i brought the article becuase i think that i agree with much of what is being said about the complexity of the issue.... but is the problem with the people or with thought itself..i think there is freedom of thought but no freedom of expressing opinions that are against he mainstream..opposition is prosecuted worldwide..
|
|