Arranged Marriages!

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Minuteman: "May I ask you what is the need of the moment. Should we 

go to fight the outside enemies or should we get rid of these inner 

enemies peacefully by better education"

While the Muslim fights some inner enemy, the outer enemy takes 

advantage of his distraction, and surrounds him, subjugates him, 

dominates him in every material and political way. It seems you would 

have it that all Muslims should strive for this inner peace and harmony, at 

the expense of the Umma. That is exactly the luxury the Muslim world 

can not afford, as the Powers That Be will be only too happy to have their 

goal made easier.

Education, education, education. I think that's what Margaret Thatcher 

said, while closing down the public education sector and handing state 

education apparatus over to the private sector. Just what education are 

you talking about? The one which teaches you to bow to the self 

proclaimed authority of the day (be it Big Pharma, the Military Industrial 

Complex, Big Banking or Big Bollywood) ? Or the education which teaches 

the socio cultural heritage of each ethnicity, and how it has been largely 

wiped out, subjugated, exploited and supressed for centuries, by those 

who now proclaim themselves to be the most developed, industrious, and  

powerful? The situation is dire, as you say, Muslims are in an 'intense bad 

state' largely because the main stream media tells you as much, and 

therein lies part of the answer.

I would just like to draw your attention to some history by way of 

illustrating what both Whisper and I seem to be saying of the importance 

of politics in Muslim relations with the rest of the world.

The Christian crusades were aimed at two things: economic dominance 

over the Muslim, and religious dominance over the Muslim. The early 

Arab-Muslim civilisations were based on commerce and trade, and the 

Spanish Catholic push to find a new trade route to the East was the 

reason behind Columbus' famous journey of 'discovery'. The hope was 

that a new sea route would allow the Catholics to avoid traversing Muslim 

lands, but also may provide them with a means of conquering Jerusalem, 

by discovering a 'back door' route.

In his essay for the two volume work The Legacy of Muslim Spain, Abbas 

Hamdan ("An Islamic Background To The Voyages of Discovery) writes:

-"If a new trade route to the East could be found, it would make Christian 

Europe economically independent of the Muslim Middle east. Indeed, 

some speculated that a trade blockade of the Middle East might well 

produce the economic strangulation and eventual political fall of the 

Muslim countries, thus liberating Jerusalem and opening the Middle East 

once again to the Crusades and to colonisation. Such a course of action 

was forcefully advocated by a Venetian nobleman, Marino Sanudo, who, 

in 1321 presented Pope John XXII his 'Liber Secretorum' or 'Opus Terrae 

Sanctae'; this contained a world map and his concept of a new crusade, 

involving a maritime blockade of Egypt which would bring about its 

economic collapse, to be followed by two waves of European Military 

invasions."

And I am forced to ask: what is the difference between the politics of 

1321 and the modern day use of UN sanctions to strangle a country and 

force its compliance to Western Judeo-Christian political desires?

(And an illuminating footnote: the map mentioned in the text above was 

of course plotted by Muslim-Arab traders, showing how the eternal 

Crusading spirit actually relied largely upon the scientific prowess and 

innovation of its very enemy to plan its wars.)

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Duende Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 27 July 2005 Status: Offline Points: 651	Post Options Post Reply Quote Duende Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Arranged Marriages! Posted: 16 January 2008 at 9:06am
	Minuteman: "May I ask you what is the need of the moment. Should we go to fight the outside enemies or should we get rid of these inner enemies peacefully by better education" While the Muslim fights some inner enemy, the outer enemy takes advantage of his distraction, and surrounds him, subjugates him, dominates him in every material and political way. It seems you would have it that all Muslims should strive for this inner peace and harmony, at the expense of the Umma. That is exactly the luxury the Muslim world can not afford, as the Powers That Be will be only too happy to have their goal made easier. Education, education, education. I think that's what Margaret Thatcher said, while closing down the public education sector and handing state education apparatus over to the private sector. Just what education are you talking about? The one which teaches you to bow to the self proclaimed authority of the day (be it Big Pharma, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Banking or Big Bollywood) ? Or the education which teaches the socio cultural heritage of each ethnicity, and how it has been largely wiped out, subjugated, exploited and supressed for centuries, by those who now proclaim themselves to be the most developed, industrious, and powerful? The situation is dire, as you say, Muslims are in an 'intense bad state' largely because the main stream media tells you as much, and therein lies part of the answer. I would just like to draw your attention to some history by way of illustrating what both Whisper and I seem to be saying of the importance of politics in Muslim relations with the rest of the world. The Christian crusades were aimed at two things: economic dominance over the Muslim, and religious dominance over the Muslim. The early Arab-Muslim civilisations were based on commerce and trade, and the Spanish Catholic push to find a new trade route to the East was the reason behind Columbus' famous journey of 'discovery'. The hope was that a new sea route would allow the Catholics to avoid traversing Muslim lands, but also may provide them with a means of conquering Jerusalem, by discovering a 'back door' route. In his essay for the two volume work The Legacy of Muslim Spain, Abbas Hamdan ("An Islamic Background To The Voyages of Discovery) writes: -"If a new trade route to the East could be found, it would make Christian Europe economically independent of the Muslim Middle east. Indeed, some speculated that a trade blockade of the Middle East might well produce the economic strangulation and eventual political fall of the Muslim countries, thus liberating Jerusalem and opening the Middle East once again to the Crusades and to colonisation. Such a course of action was forcefully advocated by a Venetian nobleman, Marino Sanudo, who, in 1321 presented Pope John XXII his 'Liber Secretorum' or 'Opus Terrae Sanctae'; this contained a world map and his concept of a new crusade, involving a maritime blockade of Egypt which would bring about its economic collapse, to be followed by two waves of European Military invasions." And I am forced to ask: what is the difference between the politics of 1321 and the modern day use of UN sanctions to strangle a country and force its compliance to Western Judeo-Christian political desires? (And an illuminating footnote: the map mentioned in the text above was of course plotted by Muslim-Arab traders, showing how the eternal Crusading spirit actually relied largely upon the scientific prowess and innovation of its very enemy to plan its wars.)

minuteman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 25 March 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1642	Post Options Post Reply Quote minuteman Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 16 January 2008 at 6:09am
	Dear whisper, my previous words had no effect on you. I would call the 1857 A.D affair a war of independence. But I cannot call it a Jihad. The muslims being highly divided into sects have no time and energy to fight any one else except themselves. There is no unity. There is no knowledge. What is the use of starting any war against any one and make a call for Jihaad. In order to understand the truth, we may look at the condition of the poor muslims who are being divided on many basis, education, finance, beliefs, politics etc. I DO NOT MIND that the people fight to regain their lands back but remember that all the wars/ struggles of the muslims in India were lost due to the treachery of the Muslims. Jaffar az Bangaal, Sadiq az Daccan. [ The two big traitors, Jaffar from Bengal and Sadiq from Deccan] I do not feel well about the policy of Maudoodi sahib for inciting muslim masses for Jihad. BUT I do feel good for Sir Syed sahib and Dr. M. Iqbal who told the Muslims to get educated. I myself was a victim of a misguidance from a maulvi who told me not to take up science subject in school because it was against Islam. On my questioning, the funny reason he gave was that science says it is the cloud that makes rain. But Quran says it is Allah who makes rain. The maulvis need lessons in politics too. But if they undestood their religion well, they will not need too much about politics. May I ask you what is the need of the moment. Should we go to fight the outside enemies or should we get rid of these inner enemies peacefully by better education. I will deal with your subject of too much politics and little prayers later Insha Allah. And you did not comment on my remarks about religious politics and political religions. Also please suggest some way for poor Muslims to get over their intense bad state. Is the solution in politics?? Or there is any other way too? Thanks for calling. Edited by minuteman

Whisper Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 25 July 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4752	Post Options Post Reply Quote Whisper Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 16 January 2008 at 4:13am
	Sorry, I do not understand much politics, nor do I believe (indulge) in it. Still I feel that all the problems of The Muslim today are the result of not understanding their religion (Quran) and not being peaceful, reasonable, God fearing. There may be a religious politics. But there should not be a political religion. My friend, I see your point, but could you educate us on what percentage of the Muslims are not being peaceful, reasonable, God fearing? For example, see how many religious political parties of Muslims are in sub continent? There are many Muslim leaders all having their own political party. On top of that, Muslims leave their religion and run after politics. They lose both the religion and politics. I didn�t realise that Islam requires Muslim Leaders to concern themselves just with *pooja path* (prayers and other rituals) and keep themselves buried in their *hujras* (seminal quarters)? That is the primary role of *prohats* (Hindu Monks) and Jesuit Priests. Islam is not merely a worship format or just a mere spiritual ladder. It�s a compact system, with dimensions that span virtually anything in our lives. Now, that includes politics. What�s the percentage of Muslim Leaders who have their own parties, in the sub-continent or anywhere else? My brother, would it ever be possible for anyone to establish a party and run it if there were no public demand for any such enterprise? And, isn�t democracy about inclusion of all shades of opinion? Love your poetry. But what about: *Juda ho deen jab siyasat se tau phir reh jaati hay faqt Changezi* (When we separate din from politics, we end up in Chengez Khan-ness) The mistakes that muslims made can be blamed on the religious clergy who were busy in-fighting, ignoring their duty from very long time, say the time of mughal emperors. Those kings were having dancing girls and music. The west was advancing in technology. The maulvis did not object to the bad deeds of their rulers but kept quiet. Bhai, the *tuzks* (diaries) of that time show that those pobre Mughals were most of the time engaged in statecraft and a range of other things. Are you trying to tell us that Idia, at that point of time, wasn�t turning out around 72% of global produce? And, the world was seeking some fast-track route to the Sub-Continent just because it was some dilapidated place? You are right, the west was really advancing in technology in the 16^th century, of beheading our �enry the VIII�s wives! Then suddenly, they were doing jihaad in 1857 against the British forces, along with hindus... Is it allowed to do any Jihaad in company with mushrikeen?? My friend, I need a lot of education from you on this point. It seems that my history of that period fails me. It registers it (what the English call a *Mutiny) as the Indian War of freedom from Company Maharaj � the East India Company�s loot. And, India was quite a homogenised entity, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Christians and the Parsis lived as a single integrated community � so they had to struggle against the occupiers, together. Then very educated persons were preaching against slavery, telling every one that indians were the slaves of the British. I could not understand that. I felt that the people of India were under occupation and they were the subjects of British empire. I have visited at least some people of opinion and I am afraid to say that almost 96% of them seem to differ with your view. You mean the 1957 War of Independence was wrong only because the Ulema were for it, but the ultimate 1947 independence was OKAY only because it was spearheaded by Gandhi and Jinnah? Or, you are saying that the very thought of freedom is a wrong thing? They were definitely not slaves. Is there not a difference between a slave and a subject?? Yes, there is just of the terminology. I feel and believe in Jihaad of the nafs (i.e. fight against the ill desires of the lower self, Nafs e Ammaarah). But to take up the sword or gun in the present day to gain land (autonomy) needs much understanding and calculations. It is a ill gotten desire of the self to look for the land or seat of power. So it�s kosher for the west to occupy Land, power or OIL with guns, but the Muslims should prostrate themselves on the ground and just do ata hayat o lilaah e* . . . without resorting to any practical means or acts for getting their poor lands back? I am no scholar, but I am sure you will educate me on what Islam dictates on that?

minuteman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 25 March 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1642	Post Options Post Reply Quote minuteman Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 January 2008 at 7:02pm
	Duende; Minuteman, sorry to interrupt here, but it strikes me you are showing the major cause for Muslim troubles all around the world: a refusal to consider politics above religious aspects. Sorry, I do not understand much politics, nor do I believe (indulge) in it. Still I feel that all the problems of The Muslim today are the result of not understanding their religion (Quran) and not being peaceful, reasonable, God fearing. There may be a religious politics. But there should not be a political religion. For example, see how many religious political parties of Muslims are in sub continent? There are many Muslim leaders all having their own political party. On top of that, Muslims leave their religion and run after politics. They lose both the religion and politics. Nah khudaa he milaa nah wisaalay sanam, Nah idhar kay rahay nah uthar kay rahay! [ They did not get closer to Allah and did not get any benefit from their idol worship (politics). They are neither hither nor thither, lost in the wilderness] The mistakes that muslims made can be blamed on the religious clergy who were busy in-fighting, ignoring their duty from vey long time, say the time of mughal emperors. Those kings were having dancing girls and music. The west was advancing in technology. The maulvis did not object to the bad deeds of their rulers but kept quiet. Then suddenly, they were doing jihaad in 1857 against the British forces, along with hindus... Is it allowed to do any Jihaad in company with mushrikeen?? Then very educated persons were preaching against slavery, telling every one that indians were the slaves of the British. I could not understand that. I felt that the people of India were under occupation and they were the subjects of British empire. They were definitely not slaves. Is there not a difference between a slave and a subject?? I feel and believe in Jihaad of the nafs ( i.e. fight against the ill desires of the lower self, Nafs e Ammaarah). But to take up the sword or gun in the present day to gain land (autonomy) needs much understanding and calculations. It is a ill gotten desire of the self to look for the land or seat of power. Please do not blame me about these things. I do not feel well about the teachings of maudoodi sahib and Ikhwaan (Egyptian Brotherhood) who turned the religion into politics at a wrong time. They did much damage to the Ummah. Maudoodi sahib even said that the mission of the prophet s.a.w.s. was political and that the Salat and zakat and fasting and Hajj are a training course for Jihaad (fight the world with the sword). He said that the prophet failed to make any headway in his mission until he took up the sword. That was to prove that islam was spread by sword. Not all muslims believe like that. I welcome the good advice of my friends whisper and duende and others.. Thanks, but no politics. I believe in religious politics but not in a political religion. hindus have religious politics (it may or may not be good for the muslims). The Jews also have their religious politics. So can the muslims have their politics for their faith. But muslims should not make the religion into politics. How can the ignorant muslims shout for any Jihaad. Firstthey are to good deeds and master their right knowledge before going into action. Kaisay teer andaaz ho, seedha to karlo teer ko ! (What type of an archer are you? Frist you should learn to hold the arrow in the right direction !) Remember that arrow is the important symbol of recent planned elections in pakistan. Edited by minuteman

Whisper Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 25 July 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4752	Post Options Post Reply Quote Whisper Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 January 2008 at 11:32am
	It is a problem of viewpoint: once we have established our own world view-point we tend to think everybody else must also have this same viewpoint. . . . then we begin implementing our view-point with 52,750 feet in the air kind of kindness!

abuayisha Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Muslim Joined: 05 October 1999 Location: Los Angeles Status: Offline Points: 5105	Post Options Post Reply Quote abuayisha Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 January 2008 at 6:53am
	"....that all things are not political and some situations are pre-existing of any other influence. " You may want to expand a bit on that assertion.

Israfil Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 08 September 2003 Status: Offline Points: 3984	Post Options Post Reply Quote Israfil Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 January 2008 at 12:38am
	Duende you should also realize that all things are not political and some situations are pre-existing of any other influence.

Duende Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 27 July 2005 Status: Offline Points: 651	Post Options Post Reply Quote Duende Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 January 2008 at 12:25am
	Minuteman, sorry to interrupt here, but it strikes me you are showing the major cause for Muslim troubles all around the world: a refusal to consider politics above religious aspects. If you are not interested in politics, then you shall never come to understand the apparent 'war on Islam' as anything more than an ideological battle between David and Goliath. I keep seeing it over and over on these forums: Muslims fall back on easy dogma to justify both their own lack of perspective, and their enemy's voracious war- mongering. The enemy of Islam is not another religious viewpoint, it is an economic model backed up by a political strategy: capitalistic free- market winner-takes-all. If you took the time, as Whisper suggests, to review the POLITICAL events throughout the Muslim world in modern times, you may be able to see the naked greed and hypocricy which motivated each event. But if you have previously decided that it was all prophecied in some sacred text, then therefore Muslims are condemned to sit back and conform to being perpetually under the yoke of the men and women who have taken money as their god. It is a problem of viewpoint: once we have established our own world view-point we tend to think everybody else must also have this same viewpoint. Washington, contrary to what many would have you believe, is not motivated by the Old Testament nor its fervent belief that Jesus will save the world, it is motivated by a need to monopolise world resources, and those include human beings. The winner of the War on terror, shall not be Christianity, Islam nor Judaism. It shall be the one who inspires the most terror: the one which has the largest military, the one who subjugates the largest portion of the world population to their rules, the one who either secures primary energy sources for its own use, or who ensures (by fomenting civil unrest or installing despotic rulers) those resources are left unexploited (in reserve for the day when they can comfortably return to claim them.)