Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Saintly_Jinn23

  1. The subject of the study was only with respect to how closely the parents were related within particular communities, if you read the source given by the guardian, one subject of study were the Amish and Hutterite communities, communities well known for not just racial uniformity but also for inbreeding. The subject of the study was inbreeding not racial compatibility or the performance of those who are mixed with those who are not.
  2. Say: "The Angel of Death, put in charge of you, will (duly) take your souls: then shall ye be brought back to your Lord." (Surah 32:11) It is He, Who takes your souls by night (when you are asleep), and has knowledge of all that you have done by day, then he raises (wakes) you up again that a term appointed (your life period) be fulfilled, then in the end unto Him will be your return. Then He will inform you what you used to do. (Surah 6:60) It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things). (Surah 8:17) "And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (Surah 3:50) Al-Khoi states: "There are some people who do not believe Amir-Al-Momineen (as) and other Imam's (as) to be God but believe that the Imam's (as) are the guardians of the affairs (Wali Amr) and the workers of Allah (swt) and they are the most beloved and closest to Allah (swt) and hence give Rizq (sustenance) to the creations of Allah (swt) and also believe that it is Allah (swt) who is true sustainer (Raziq). This is similar to the case of angel of death being the one who gives death, the angel of rain sending down rainfall, Prophet Isa (as) giving life to the dead with the will/permission of Allah (swt) as has come in the Holy Quran. Having such a belief is not Kufr and is not a rejection of any essentials (belief of Shiasm)." --"Sharh-el-Urwatul-Wuthqa" Vol.3 Pg.68 Sheikh Toosi states: "There was a difference among a group of Shias on whether Allah (swt) authorized the Imam's (as) to create and give livelihood. Some said that this is impossible and none other than Allah (swt) has authority to create. And others say that Allah (swt) has authorized the Imam's (as) over it and has delegated/authorized them and hence they create and give sustenance. And they (the two groups) disputed in this which was a severe dispute. Someone said why dont we approach Abi Jafar Muhammad bin Usman Al-Umree and ask him about this issue and make clear for you the right path in it because verily he is the way to the Imam of the Time (atfs) [Sahib Al Amr]. The group agreed on Abi Jafar and wrote the matter to Imam of the Time (atfs). And came the following letter from the Imam (atfs): "Verily Allah (swt) is the one who creates the bodies and distributes livelihood. Because He (swt) does not have a body and nothing is inside Him. There is none like him and He is the all hearing and all knowing. And the Imam's (as) ask Allah (swt) and He creates and the Imam's (as) ask Allah (swt) and He gives livelihood. Allah (swt) anwers their questions (in affirmative) and exalts them for their rights." --Al-Gaibah - Toosi, Pg.293-294 & Al-Ehtejaaj Vol.2 Pg.472 Imam Ridha tells us: "Likewise, this community has found Amir Al Momineen (as) a chosen servant of Allah. Almighty Allah has, through His special mercy, made him honorable so that he may show the creation the greatness of Almighty Allah and may establish His Proof before them. So, in the view of these people, their Creator is unable to create Ali (a.s.) and that Ali (a.s.) cannot be His slave.and raised Ali (a.s.) above that Allah is his Lord. With this view, they gave God’s Name to this slave of God." "When Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) and his true follower Shias saw this faulty attitude of this group, they prevented them from doing so. They told them that Ali (a.s.) and his pious progeny are the honored servants of the Almighty Allah. God has given them grace but they by themselves are not able to do anything, except what God has given them power to do. They do not have anything, except which God has granted them. They have no say in the matter of life, death and rising after death, need, needlessness, movement, stagnancy, except on what God has granted them power to do. His Lord and Sustainer and Creator is higher than all the virtues of virtuous people and He is Higher than what anyone can ever imagine. Anyone who considers all of them or any one of them god, except Only One God, has entered infidelity as he has gone wayward" --Al-Ehtejaaj, Vol. 2, Pg. 232-233 Sheikh Toosi once again states in Al-Ghayba, Pg. 387: What has been narrated to me by Hussein bin Ubaid ullah from Abu Abdullah al Hussein bin Ali, he said I was told by Sheikh Abu ul Qasim Hussin bin Rooh, who said that "There was a difference of opinion about Tafweed in our companions etc. So I went to Abu Tahir bin Bilal in his days of steadfastness, and informed him about this. He said: Wait for some days. I went to him again and he narrated a narration with his chain to Imam Abu Abdullah who said: When Allah decides for something, he presents that to Prophet asws, then Imam Ali asws, and then All Aimmah asws one after another till it reaches the one of Your era, and then it is given to this world. And when Angels decide to raise something to Allah, they present it to the Chief of Your era, then it pases from one to other (Imam) till it reaches Prophet asws. Then it is presented to Allah. So What is revealed from Allah, it is through their hands, and what is raised to Allah, it is through their hands. And they (Aimmah asws) are not free of him even for glimpse of time." Wilayat al-Takwinah refers to nothing except God himself acting through his vicegerents and does not imply a delegation of authority following resignation of his own nor does it imply independent authority. You've heard the saying "faith can move mountains"? Wiliayat al-Takwinah merely suggests a literal form of that. The faith and purity of Ahlul Bayt before God rewards them with certain vice-authority, but they defer to Allah before doing anything and do nothing that would displease him or contradict his will.
  3. I don't think you read the article very well. Nothing in the article first of all says anything about subjects with greater racial diversity necessarily marking higher. Again you are confusing two things that aren't necessarily related. The study was of 350,000 individuals from 100 communities across four continents and concerns only whether parents were more distantly related or not. But this says nothing about the race of the parents as a mixed race child may still have much less diverse gene pool than a non-mixed race child depending on the genetic history of their parents. Also, the article does not state that the racially mixed individuals necessarily scored higher due to more diverse genetics or even if there were any mixed race individuals in the study itself. The focus of the study was the effects of INBREEDING within those communities it studied. The flaw in your thinking is you are thinking racial diversity equates to genetic diversity and because genetic diversity increases chances of high intelligence, therefore so does racial diversity. But this logic is flawed because: a.) racially mixed people are not necessarily more genetically diverse with respect to the parents of individual children, especially if one or both parents are different races yet each more thoroughly inbred or different races yet first or second cousins or even brother and sister. b.) genetic disorders that plague one race more often or one particular bloodline within a particular race may become more problematic upon mixture with the individual genetic characteristics of an individual of another race, this could easily have an impact on any study of mixed children that may suggest they are somehow inferior or superior to non-mixed peoples as the failure or success of these individuals may be due to more individual genetic factors which may or may not impact children of the same race or who do not possess those special anomalies. c.) racial similarity does not necessarily imply genetic homogeneity as you'll find for example, that some groups of blacks or whites are in fact as distantly related to other groups of whites or blacks as they are to Chinese people, their race only implying some common ancestry at best and the recurrence of a particular set of dominant genes. The notion that common race implies greater genetic homogeneity has been dispelled for years and is nothing more than a holdover of bad 19th & 20th century racial science.
  4. I think the convert community just needs to organize itself a little better. This way, convert Muslims can feel like they are part of a bonafide Muslim community, but also not feel like they're dependent on the migrant communities too much and also interact and cooperate with these migrant communities with more confidence instead of being self-conscious. I think most of us, even when we share so much in the way of belief with other Muslims of non-white or migrant background, do always still have this sense that somehow we're "different" which is probably why a lot of white or black convert Muslims still spend a lot of time with their non-Muslim friends and family of similar racial or cultural background. It just feels a little less awkward. diverse parental genes=/=diverse racial makeup The article is pointing out the obvious that everyone already knew, that you're less likely to come out stupid if your mother and father aren't brother/sister
  5. I think people like yourself have made guys like Yasser Habib a bigger deal than he really is. Honestly, if you think Habib's the biggest excuse for Wahhabi/Salafi nutjobs hate Shi'a and that if we silence him a heavy chunk of these people will suddenly change their minds, you're incredibly naive. We suffer because we are Shi'a and no matter what we do, the takfiri ISIS-loving psychos will always find some excuse to murder us. Spending more time trying to blame some clerical nobody in London who's rejected by virtually all major Shi'a ulama doesn't help our condition at all.
  6. The six pointed star is not the traditional symbol of Judaism and was only adopted by the Jews. Many traditional Orthodox Jews don't use it. The oldest use of the symbol can be traced to Hinduism.
  7. Well, there are some ulama who pretty much think any and every marriage should be arranged (. And I've also noticed these are the same ulama who tend to accept but disapprove of mutah, which is usually the way people get around any restrictions with respect to dating or touching (as if mutah is something we're supposed to feel ashamed of )
  8. Yasser Habib isn't a Zionist just because you don't agree with him
  9. That article actually kind of contradicts itself. For one thing, all the answers to the questions it gives simply state that so long as the purpose is not to seek a kind of "pleasure" there should be no problem and yet it goes on to state any kind of relationship before marriage is thus haram. On top of that, no definition for "pleasure" is actually given. The article's conclusion is based on more than few presumptions and generalizes a bit as I know some of the maraji are more divided on the particularities of this matter than it makes them out to be. For example, Ayatollah Saanei is much more open to a mixed social sphere than Ayatollah Sistani is. Same goes for Ayatollah Khamenei when you compare him to Ayatollah Muhammad Shirazi or Sayed Rizvi. I would also add that avoiding any and all relationships with the opposite sex is absolutely impossible for most of us Muslims living in the West. Not only that, but I think the main reason so many young Muslim men easily fall prey to sexual deviancy in the West isn't always just the fault of an over-sexed Western society (and it certainly is so), but quite often it's the fault of their own families basically instilling them with this rigid kind of "even talking to a woman is a sin" and when faced with the impossibility of avoiding this "sin" in the West they just proceed to say "eh, what's one more? It's not like it's my fault. It's the infidel West's fault that I'm like this, what's a Muslim to do?" . Sexual repression often is one of the main causes of sexual deviancy because once some people, who have been totally denied everything, get the slightest taste of what they've been forbidden, they explode, while those who have had a moderate amount of healthy interaction with the opposite sex can often learn how to develop a greater sense of self-control and also learn how to reach a compromise with the culture around them without compromising their core value system. Personally, I have never seen any hard evidence to suggest the Prophet or the Imams ordered the seclusion all women or forbade all non-sexual interaction with non-mahram women. Quite the opposite actually, I have seen many narrations that depict the Infallibles (as) interacting with non-mahrams for the purpose of encouraging them to become better Muslims. And there have always been segments of Islamic societies themselves, particularly among rural or tribal elements who didn't follow such strict rules. My best advice to OP is to ask your particular marja and follow what they say or explain your situation in detail to the sheikh in charge of your local center and seek his counsel.
  10. I'm not going to argue with the point that the maraji have played a very important role in keeping our religion together, but they aren't the only element. The most important element has been the Shi'a of all classes and disciplines. I have read about it, and I know this incident and the role the maraji played was greatly exaggerated. The truth is many of the ulama who supported the tobacco ban in the late 1800's (not the 1920's) or had urged Sayed Shirazi and others to issue a ban had their own self-interests to worry about, as through their own private land holdings or through waqf lands or khums, a good portion of their own income came from the local tobacco industry. Allowing the concession to follow through, which some ulama were divided on as a matter of fact, would have hurt some of their own incomes. Also, most of the ulama who supported the tobacco protest did not support the Constitutional Revolution in Iran that followed. Unless you think the self-interests of the ulama inevitably serve the wider interests of all Shi'a or Iranians, it has to be understood in the context of the Iranian ulama's own stakes in a tobacco industry not owned by the British, not in the context of a romantic portrait of the ulama standing completely aloof and then running to the aid of the downtrodden (some of the ulama of the Qajar period were so wealthy even the Shahs got jealous). A very flimsy backbone at the moment if you ask me. There are a lot of things within Iran as well as outside that prevent them from really leading the Shi'a world to a more glorious age. Really? Are you suggesting that Shi'a were not at all going to fight ISIS unless Sayed Sistani said so? I think you have a bit of a depreciating view of your fellow Shi'a if you think that they would not rush to the defense of the Imams (as) or their brothers in faith unless someone gave a fatwa? Fatwas don't always work like that. In many cases, they are simply stating the general position that the community has already taken and making it official. Sayed Sistani's fatwa was mainly meant to clarify the nature of opposition to ISIS and prevent things from becoming an all out Shi'a-Sunni jihad. I'm an Usuli, I believe in following mujtahids, but the mujtahids are there to interpret the shariah, that doesn't automatically make them saints to whom we must swear absolute obedience and never question (and even the saints had to present proofs of their status to the people before the people would obey them) nor are they kings to whom we must pay tribute or face punishment. The mujtahid are scholars of law and seek to apply the law to their lives like any one of us who knows the law even a fraction does. Whether by this they obtain any special status with God depends all on their own personal discipline and resolve but to become a jurist does not suddenly give one a greater saintly status. Many of the great saints of Islam did not always come from the ulama, but sometimes from the illiterate peasantry or the simple merchants or even the slaves. I don't know about this Ahmad al-Hassan who claims to be al-Yamani (sounds like a cult leader to me), but brother, let us not react to extremism with a different kind of extremism. We should respect our maraji as we'd respect any great men of learning to whom we must turn for knowledge and we should guard them from slander, but unless they have been proven to possess a special kind of ismah, we must be willing and allowed to criticize them as well lest we fall into the trap of the Jews and Christians who obeyed their rabbis and priests to the point of disobedience.
  11. Thanks. Btw, I'm not saying at all that marrying into the migrant communities is a bad thing or that we should separate from them. But I believe that those of us Muslims who are white, black, latino, asian, etc. who are converts should be allowed to stick together in such a way that provides us with a sense of solidarity and a sense of independence which also allows us to have a much bigger say in the future of Islam in our own home countries. Shouldn't the course of Islam in a particular country where it is being introduced be lead in a good and equitable portion by those who were born here and whose ancestors are mostly from here and not only those Algerians, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Arabs, Iranians etc. whose connections to the land and people of the countries only go back so far? Of course those communities deserve to have a say as well if they actually want to contribute to an American/European Islamic cultural framework. I don't see anything wrong with an American Islam being just a little Persianized because I myself like Persian Islamic culture and identify with it naturally as a Shi'a Muslim, but of course of the Western converts probably should be helping more in a process of Islamicizing elements of Western civilization and in the picking and choosing of what elements from traditional Islamic civilizations are best for the Islam that is to take shape in the West. The two obstacles of course are that converts themselves are not very organized into tight-knit communities like the migrants are (part of this may be due to the breakdown of the family in Western countries that doesn't necessarily affect the new migrants) and another issue is that Islam is not simply coming into a foreign land here in the West but also coming into a more thoroughly modernized culture that is in conflict with not just Islam but also it's own traditional Christian and pagan past, which can create a greater sense of alienation in Western converts that one would not necessarily see in a more traditional land where the convert to Islam has a much firmer grasp of his own pre-Islamic heritage and can thus create a much more balanced admixture of the new and old.
  12. Am I bad for just being more relieved it wasn't another British Muslim who did it?
  13. While the responsibility of for the spread of Wahhabism lies mostly on the Saudi family's shoulders and they cannot be exonerated in the eyes of God for exporting that cancer which has resulted in the deaths and oppression of thousands as they enjoy all the decadent pleasures they wish, unless they do something especially virtuous in the eyes of God to put an end to it, my only issue is that I can't see anything coming out of their fall that isn't ten times worse unless they get replaced by another dynasty that keeps the same autocratic power structure We've seen how democracies and Wahhabism mix in places like Pakistan. It isn't pretty.
  14. I have to kind of disagree with this. Bringing various races and ethnic group together can just as easily be a problem more than it is a solution. There are many reasons why. 1. If there is a group that is disproportionate in its membership or affluence, the other less affluent or less numerous group can never have an very equitable say in the affairs of the community and have its future mostly dictated by that dominant group. 2. Often times, because different ethnic groups possess different individual interpretations or applications of Islam which may clash with others or to which the individuals of those respective groups are just attached to most, unless one folk Islam comes to naturally dominate them all, the only way to bring them all together is to impose a very bland, culture-less Islam that is simply a small set of rules and practices and which removes all the folk elements that give the Islamic religious tapestry all its color. Wahhabism has done a tremendous job at uniting Muslims of different races and nationalities, but at what cost? 3. There's a lot of talk about the creation of a Western Islam that is authentically Western and authentically Islamic these days, but I wonder to what extent this is at all possible if the average black, white or Hispanic Muslim convert who is not some guy propped up by Saudi backed dawah organizations or an apologist for the Iranian government who's married to an Iranian woman are not involved in these kinds of discussions or not equipped to participate. I think Europe suffers a much bigger problem of actual racism between non-white Muslim minorities and non-Muslim whites. This is due to a more explicitly racist and extreme right-wing and a very "straight, white Christian capitalist people are responsible for everything bad for brown people" kind of left-wing both of which have only a comparatively moderate (though growing) representation here so far. Both of these feed the hostility both groups have so that you have white Americans buying up more guns for an impending Muslim invasion to impose shariah law or young Pakistani hooligans in the UK assaulting white girls. I think both Europe and America suffer from racism going both ways. However, even among communities that don't have racism, Western converts still suffer a lot of alienation I think from people of their own race and cultural background considering them traitors or just fetishists for Islamic cultures and migrant Muslim communities taking a very condescending attitude toward them that all the converts can do is just sit and receive whatever kind of Islam they have and can't create anything on their own or be allowed to do so (not without violating the Islamic principles anyway).
  15. Last I heard, black Muslim minorities in the UK are extremely racist towards white people, especially Somalis who have a disproportionate crime rate (can't confirm)
  16. Should any of us really be cheering on the fall of al-Saud at this moment? Often times I think we Shi'a have a rosy view of the people of Saudi Arabia and blame everything on the royal family. But the average Saudi Arabian, even the so-called "liberal reformers" of the country, don't have very positive views of the Shi'a. The royal family may be trash, but they're probably the one thing that keeps that country from imploding upon itself and probably the best (I know it's not saying that much in this case) advocates the Shi'a of the country probably have under the otherwise very bad circumstances. The main reasons the Saudis execute Shi'a is either for political reasons that they would have executed them either way whether they were Sunni or Shi'a or because they need to make those more radical and popular Wahhabi elements who support the regime think they're doing something about the "Shi'a/Persian problem" which is also another reason for their exporting radical Wahhabism elsewhere. Honestly, our best interests might be served were the monarchy to remain intact and more than a few Saudi princes suddenly by some stroke of luck converted to Shi'a Islam themselves, which would provide Shi'a with something of a greater political lobby. The Saudi regime falling would result in something very, very bad for the Shi'a, far worse than the kind of oppression and deprivation they suffer from now. A monarchy with a half-hearted committment to their own Wahhabism is much more preferable than a Wahhabi democracy/socialist republic.
  17. On that note, we Shi'a are sometimes I think a little too generous to not actually call out Sunni terrorism for being Sunni terrorism because we're afraid that would be saying something to jeapordize Islamic Unity. But we have to understand that the vast majority of religiously motivated terrorist attacks in the world are done by members who formally or informally are part of the Sunni branch of Islam. The amount of actual Shi'a terrorist attacks are minuscule in comparison even when you consider those done in response to Sunni or Wahhabi aggression. This sort of terrorism is much less an "Islamic problem" and much more of a "Sunni problem" Sure, there is Shi'a terrorism but it is less than a third or even a fourth of Sunni terrorism. Some sources I have read seem to give a ratio of around 500-800 Shi'a attacks to every 17,000 Sunni motivated ones with a maximum of death toll of little over 1,200 for every 500 Shi'a attacks compared to something like 30,000 to 40,000 for all Sunni attacks since 2011. And also consider that Hezbollah was labeled a Shia terrorist organization simply for bombing Isreali Defense Forces not necessarily for intentionally harming large numbers of civilians and that many of the fewer Shi'a terrorist attacks are usually some kind of retaliation against real or perceived Sunni aggressions. While we should maintain unity and solidarity with those Sunnis who express unity and solidarity with us, we shouldn't be afraid to point out to the West that we as followers of the Ahlul Bayt don't have much if any part at all in the vast majority of Islamically motivated terrorist attacks, least of all those directed at civilian targets and that this is more of a problem for the Sunnis and that it is the Sunnis who need to do more, not us. It's not fair that the name of our religion should be dragged down in the mud for the sake of some sense of unity that hardly seems to be benefiting us these days.
  18. From what I understand after looking a bit more into it, the sheikh was already under fire for these comments about 2 or 3 months ago. The video posted in the opening post is actually almost 2 months old. It just so happens that since this incident at the nightclub occured not long after the sheikh was being criticized for a three year old lecture he gave in Michigan that someone in the Orlando news media dug it up. So now that this incident occurred, people are back hounding him again. Again, ignoring the fact that the sheikh and Mateen had absolutely no connection whatsoever and weren't even part of the same sect, let alone congregation. But the left-wing media needs some Muslim scholar to point at and say "these are the ones who are the problem." Again, the Left will say all this stuff about #notallmuslims but ultimately what they favor is the progressive, ultra gay-friendly Islam, just as they favor a progressive, gay friendly Christianity instead of a traditional, more conservative, anti-gay Christianity. That's why they will gladly protect Muslims' religious freedoms and freedoms of speech, provided it doesn't harshly criticize or too blatantly contradict Left-wing liberal social values. That's why it's not okay to crucify all Muslims but it's okay to crucify innocent, conservative Muslim religious leaders who simply try to help educate others on their views when asked to explain them. This is the future we chose, people. Better prepare for your state sponsored gay multdenominational and multiconfessional sheikhs who are all required by law to be married to four black men to ensure sufficient racial diversity. [Edited out]
  19. As usual, some Sunni radical (whose actions aren't even condoned by most of his own sect) does something and we end up getting blamed for it. My own personal view here is that the death penalty for homosexuals in the absence of the Infallible Imam (as) is at the very least negotiable, but all Dr. Sekaleshfar was doing was speaking on theoretical fiqh and explaining why he feels Muslim countries run by Muslim governments are justified to execute homosexuals to an audience that is probably under constant social pressure to reform their religious views to accept deviant behavior. He never said Muslim Americans should break American laws and trample on the rights given to American citizens by their own government. I have my own little differences the Doc because I don't follow Khomeini, but that's besides the point. What I think I should point out about this is that if as brother @baradar_jackson suggested someone said that under some conditions Muslims could be executed or deported in a legitimate Christian state, lots of people on the Left would be crying that the person is a racist or an Islamophobe. But here we see that our own clerical leaders' right to speak their minds are being curtailed by similar mob tactics because what was said was politically incorrect. And some people wonder why I was going on in the other thread in the Politics forum why I don't trust the Left in this country to defend our rights or freedoms, it's because their defending our right to freedom of religion or speech usually comes with such a fine print that we ourselves should never be politically incorrect. Look how easily they turn on us when just one mentally disturbed gay Muslim shoots up a club of precious gay snowflakes because he can't deal with his own cognitive dissonance caused by his living in sin and when one scholar who had absolutely nothing to do with such an incident, isn't even part of the same sect as the shooter , and condemned the action nonetheless refuses to apologize for staying true to the principles he expressed years ago and simply asks for people to listen to what he said. How quickly and easily the "open-minded" liberals in this country turn heel on us.
  20. Having an open-mind just means willing to listen to and consider other arguments, it doesn't mean you don't hold your own personal views. I was of course saying that while I try to keep an open-mind with respect to other points of view, I have very little tolerance for much of the Left, whose ideas and intentions I think have been proven to be at best simply misguided and at worst downright despicable. Well, for one the fact that the secular Left-wing throughout the 20th century was actually much more oppressive against Muslims than the Right has ever really been. Well, all I can say is that in America, the Muslim community has probably benefited far more from its values of free-enterprise than the European Muslims have benefited under quasi-socialist European countries. If there's one reason I remain suspicious of the Left, it is definitely their economic policies, never mind their social policies. I never said anything about theocracy. All I was suggesting is that we as Muslims should be free to develop our own political spectrum with its own "left" "right" and whatever other directions are possible within it. This is not something we can do if we just become a branch of Western Left or Right which cannot be expected to satisfy all the needs and desires of the Muslims sufficiently because they aren't principally Islamic movement. Whether it's the liberal anarchism of Ali Shariati, the Islamism of Sayid Qutb or Ayatollah Khomeini, the traditionalist anti-modernist views of Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, or the middle ground economics of Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, I think many Muslim thinkers have recognized before a need for Islam to develop its own systems of thought that while cognizant of Western developments, aren't simply branches of Western -isms. While we Muslims believe in social justice, our basic idea of social justice fundamentally differs from that of the Left-wing as the left's idea of social justice is rooted in secular ideals of equality, while Islam's idea of social justice is rooted in the divine revelation and it's more spiritually aristocratic or meritocratic approach and which is also concerned not only with justice towards men but justice towards God above all else Maybe from a secular liberal standpoint, but not necessarily from an Islamic religious standpoint. And that's where the conflict comes in Of course I never have supported the Far-Right, but to act as though the Left has always been the friends of Muslims is just naive thinking. For starters, the Far-Left were downright tyrants to Islamic countries, far more controlling than even the colonial powers were. The moderate Left in the West today is mostly concerned with "social justice" and a more democratic socialist economic policy, but I would still say this does a lot more harm than good in the long run for us to the degree that it in general does harm to the whole country. It's an issue of self-reliance and independence, i think. If we have to depend on the secular Left in the West to guarantee us all our rights or even to give us money to support ourselves through the state, I think that's a serious problem with very dangerous implications, as we've seen unfold in Europe with so many European Muslims totally and utterly dependent on the Left and on state programs. The Muslim community in America, on the other hand, is much more self-sufficient The only difference I think between you and I here I think is that I don't think left-wing social movements,generally speaking, create any real change because the principles upon which the contemporary left-wing idea of social justice is built on are just plain flawed, and if your foundation isn't right, then no matter how pretty the structure is, it is woefully unstable and dangerous.
  21. While you are perhaps right that we should not generalize, I think the main issue is that some of us here feel like we've gotten stuck in the middle of a tug of war between the Left and the Right in the West, with each side generally just seeing us as ammo against the other. The Left, while not nearly as hostile as the Right, are not always consistent or trustworthy and will just as easily use us and abandon us if its suits their greater interests. The strange silence of many of the Left as Obama does or permits even more terrible things than Bush did, who couldn't do a single thing without a bunch of leftists holding huge demonstrations of how he was just scum is just one proof of the sometimes duplicitous nature of some of those on the Left who claim they're our friends. Also even among the sincere and trustworthy of the Left, there's still the issue of a serious difference in social and political values/goals, even between many Muslims like myself who like to think we're a bit more open-minded.
  • Create New...