6 ms·

Isn't it funny that Wahabbists hate being called that ? They get really agitated and say we're not Wahabbis we're just true muslims. One interesting theory I

Isn't it funny that Wahabbists hate being called that ? They get really agitated and say we're not Wahabbis we're just true muslims. One interesting theory I read is that 19th Century Islam was forced to confront the reality that they had declined while Europe had soared. In the ensuing conflict of ideas the one that won out was the thesis that the Islamic world had declined because they had gotten out of touch with the true values of Islam as practised by those at the time of the prophet. Hence Salafism - Literally a return to the time of the prophet. Francis Fukuyama was laughed at for claiming the end of history a few years ago as he believed Western Democracy had achieved an eternal triumph. What are we then to make of these people who believe that the end of history happened more than a thousand years ago ?

kaz1 11y ago
If one says "keeping up the articles of Magna Carta, rather than resort to catastrophic violence on the part of the powerful outlawed states, would likely help lessen some of the chaos in today's world", does it imply that one is physically calling to go back to the thirteenth century? Similarly, Americans calling to restore the fourth amendment may not mean taking the clock back to the nineteenth century. Salafism in essence doesn't mean any different within the relevant conceptual framework. In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? How/why does it matter in the long run whether or not a bunch of Amoeba get transformed into more complicated organisms, or hot elementary particles end up forming heavy atoms and structures, or killing and chaos spreads among the humans a la world war II? From a materialistic/nihilistic standpoint, everything -- or nothing, for that matter -- can be viewed as triumph or end of some (part of) history (or not). Islam in the 19th century was no more and no less than what it was before, but the Muslims were (and still are) trying to come to terms with the colonial destructions and ensuing effects.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so yes.
  - kaz1 11y ago
    Though Fukuyama reportedly distanced himself from this later, I appreciate your answer. But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that". Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions; that is, from a materialistic viewpoint (which I presume is Fukuyama's and many of the fellows' here), how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after (or any other event, such as a massacre by some of the humans, in the universe, for that matter).
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      >But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that". I had considered you to be asking about Fukuyama's views. In my views, history doesn't have an end, except possibly for everyone dying out. >Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions; The what now? >how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after It's significant to the people living through it! How's that supposed to not count as significant?
- thewarrior 11y ago
  I don't understand what you're getting at but I'll try to explain. Fukuyama said that Capitalist Democracy was the pinnacle of civilisation. In the same way Salafi / Wahabbi ideology says that we must as much as possible live like the prophet and his contemporaries. Any innovation is derided as Bida/Heretical. So its not possible to reform certain laws in response to changing circumstances. Eg: Women can inherit only half of what men do. Now I'm not justifying this but this might have been pragmatic (socially acceptable??) for a time where women were subjugated and men were often the sole breadwinners for the entire family. However in the 21st century noone can really argue that its relevant. But if anyone tries to reform laws such as these you'll have the Wahabbis and Salafis going ape and branding everyone heretics. There was a cleric in my part of the country who had a very unorthodox interpretation of the scriptures. He was a brilliant orator and a scholar who could hold his fort against the traditionalists. He began gaining a lot of followers however one day he just disappeared and was never found again.
  - kaz1 11y ago
    Well, the key tenets of beliefs and the legal outline laid down in the revealed texts are essentially immutable, per what a Muslim is meant to subscribe to. If this core idea is not there, that is logically equivalent to not subscribing to the religion (whoever wants to change whatever at wherever renders any belief fundamentally void, let alone what one believes to be God's guidance). But the jurisprudential framework ('usul al-fiqh') encompasses the principles to formulate specific course of action according to the immutable legislative guideline (formulated from authentic texts) in the specific circumstances. An example, harming oneself is prohibited in the text, so smoking has the ruling of being impermissible as its harms are largely known now while earlier academics used to deem it disliked based on another textual principle. In short, there are constants and there are variables; without any constants, it all becomes tendentious whimsy. The ideas related to the roles, responsibilities and respectability of the individuals are different in the Islamic creed. Yes, a woman gets half from her father (her husband owes her, legally), and she is exempt from the basic responsibility to become the breadwinner. Any Muslim is meant to respect and care for his/her mother more than the father. Historically many Muslim women were scholars (https://archive.org/download/AlMuhaddithat/al%20-%20Muhaddithat.pdf https://archive.org/download/AlMuhaddithat/al%20-%20Muhaddit...) and rich (in the old Muslim heritage, many of the large endowments for public welfare are known to be from women). Besides, a merely demographically Muslim territory may not embody much of the Islamic ideals though. In the other part, I was referring to the epistemological basis regarding the concepts of triumph/progress; in particular, in a framework where basically, "we are from nowhere, we are going to nowhere and we are here for nothing", nothing really signifies anything. Thanks.
clock_tower 11y ago
I would recommend reading Bernard Lewis, _What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response_, which discusses the early stages of this conflict -- the failure of the Ottoman Empire. I'd also recommend reading up on the fall of the Qing dynasty, which occurred at about the same time, for about the same reasons; the two histories aren't the same, by any means, but they shed a little light on each other.

kaz1 11y ago

If one says "keeping up the articles of Magna Carta, rather than resort to catastrophic violence on the part of the powerful outlawed states, would likely help lessen some of the chaos in today's world", does it imply that one is physically calling to go back to the thirteenth century? Similarly, Americans calling to restore the fourth amendment may not mean taking the clock back to the nineteenth century. Salafism in essence doesn't mean any different within the relevant conceptual framework. In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? How/why does it matter in the long run whether or not a bunch of Amoeba get transformed into more complicated organisms, or hot elementary particles end up forming heavy atoms and structures, or killing and chaos spreads among the humans a la world war II? From a materialistic/nihilistic standpoint, everything -- or nothing, for that matter -- can be viewed as triumph or end of some (part of) history (or not). Islam in the 19th century was no more and no less than what it was before, but the Muslims were (and still are) trying to come to terms with the colonial destructions and ensuing effects.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so yes.
- kaz1 11y ago
  Though Fukuyama reportedly distanced himself from this later, I appreciate your answer. But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that". Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions; that is, from a materialistic viewpoint (which I presume is Fukuyama's and many of the fellows' here), how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after (or any other event, such as a massacre by some of the humans, in the universe, for that matter).
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that". I had considered you to be asking about Fukuyama's views. In my views, history doesn't have an end, except possibly for everyone dying out. >Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions; The what now? >how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after It's significant to the people living through it! How's that supposed to not count as significant?
thewarrior 11y ago
I don't understand what you're getting at but I'll try to explain. Fukuyama said that Capitalist Democracy was the pinnacle of civilisation. In the same way Salafi / Wahabbi ideology says that we must as much as possible live like the prophet and his contemporaries. Any innovation is derided as Bida/Heretical. So its not possible to reform certain laws in response to changing circumstances. Eg: Women can inherit only half of what men do. Now I'm not justifying this but this might have been pragmatic (socially acceptable??) for a time where women were subjugated and men were often the sole breadwinners for the entire family. However in the 21st century noone can really argue that its relevant. But if anyone tries to reform laws such as these you'll have the Wahabbis and Salafis going ape and branding everyone heretics. There was a cleric in my part of the country who had a very unorthodox interpretation of the scriptures. He was a brilliant orator and a scholar who could hold his fort against the traditionalists. He began gaining a lot of followers however one day he just disappeared and was never found again.
- kaz1 11y ago
  Well, the key tenets of beliefs and the legal outline laid down in the revealed texts are essentially immutable, per what a Muslim is meant to subscribe to. If this core idea is not there, that is logically equivalent to not subscribing to the religion (whoever wants to change whatever at wherever renders any belief fundamentally void, let alone what one believes to be God's guidance). But the jurisprudential framework ('usul al-fiqh') encompasses the principles to formulate specific course of action according to the immutable legislative guideline (formulated from authentic texts) in the specific circumstances. An example, harming oneself is prohibited in the text, so smoking has the ruling of being impermissible as its harms are largely known now while earlier academics used to deem it disliked based on another textual principle. In short, there are constants and there are variables; without any constants, it all becomes tendentious whimsy. The ideas related to the roles, responsibilities and respectability of the individuals are different in the Islamic creed. Yes, a woman gets half from her father (her husband owes her, legally), and she is exempt from the basic responsibility to become the breadwinner. Any Muslim is meant to respect and care for his/her mother more than the father. Historically many Muslim women were scholars (https://archive.org/download/AlMuhaddithat/al%20-%20Muhaddithat.pdf https://archive.org/download/AlMuhaddithat/al%20-%20Muhaddit...) and rich (in the old Muslim heritage, many of the large endowments for public welfare are known to be from women). Besides, a merely demographically Muslim territory may not embody much of the Islamic ideals though. In the other part, I was referring to the epistemological basis regarding the concepts of triumph/progress; in particular, in a framework where basically, "we are from nowhere, we are going to nowhere and we are here for nothing", nothing really signifies anything. Thanks.

clock_tower 11y ago

I would recommend reading Bernard Lewis, _What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response_, which discusses the early stages of this conflict -- the failure of the Ottoman Empire. I'd also recommend reading up on the fall of the Qing dynasty, which occurred at about the same time, for about the same reasons; the two histories aren't the same, by any means, but they shed a little light on each other.