All Comments (92)

Tim,

Thanks for your comments. The references from Jefferson are helpful. I even copied and pasted them for future reference. A professor of mine from Yale, and a former Muslim, used to say that "Islam has yet to come to terms with Jefferson."

It seems that the idea of separation, as Jefferson envisioned it, is essentially a Christian idea. Christianity has always internalized the concept of living "in the world but not of the world," and the Bible describes Christians as "pilgrims and aliens" with our true citizenship beyond any nation-state or empire.

Islam, on the other hand, has always used the state as a tool. There are few examples of a Muslim majority society adopting anything like separation, although my professor often pointed at Senegal as a possible example. Most of Senegal is Muslim, but Christians enjoy freedom from government oppression. Of course, a likely explanation for Senegal's unique situation is that the governmental structure was set up by Western powers and then turned over to Muslims by democratic processes.

It may be cynical, but I'm not very optimistic about the possibility of an Islamic nation adopting an American-style separation that would guarantee the protection of both church and mosque.

Ah ken4

And another look at your post:

“Clearly you have never read al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-falasifa/Confusion of the Philosophers. In it he argues that the philosophers have 17 tenets that constitute "blameworthy innovation" and three that constitute heresy. The three are their claim of the world's eternity, their denial of God's knowledge of particulars, and their denial of bodily resurrection in the afterlife. Do any of these three points sound like the germ of the Enlightenment to you?

Actually they do, as any Westerner would. That was my point and you made it quite well, thank you. By rejecting these three theses as heterodoxy, he rejects out of hand the challenge rationalism brought to bear on western Christian theology and with its intellectual by-product the subsequent Enlightenment in the West.

It’s hard to see that if you have read al-Ghazali’s proclaimed heretical tenets you fail to make the next logical and historically factual step and admit his work was a powerful basis and tool for rejecting nascent rationalism in Islam.

Since you disagree with me that the lack of an appreciation for rationalism in Islamic culture caused its decline from its world-wide predominance share for us your learned opinion on the reason the greatest civilization the world had known to date became a backwater culture where religious dissent is met with mob violence and rationalism treated as heterodoxy?

That was the general topic of the essay; why dissent was stifled in Islam.

Perhaps you can blame it on those nasty Jews or godless Christians as Muslims so often do about their own problems?

Chris Hutchins may write a book that disparages Roman Catholicism but the Pope does not call for Christians world-wide to kill him. You find that only in Islam these days, along with a complete rejection of rational self-analysis that would make even a born-again Baptist blush.

Nevertheless, your nausating ad hominum and strawman arguments shows a fanatical religious streak and attachment to blind devotion, and perhaps where you see it as the source of all your virtue and strength, I see it as dangerous to rational, thinking human beings.

Your passionate attachment is more vital than the quality of the cause to which it is attached.

Btw: I learned about Islam the old fashioned way, through the Koran and an Imam.

Ryan, thanks for the clarification on the situation in Turkey. Everything comes down to freedom of religion. Jefferson thought Freedom of Religion was so important that he authored The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. This he considered one of, if not, his most important contributions. The Virginia Act became the model for our constitution and was adopted by other states. My belief is that Religious Freedom comes before all other rights can be enjoyed. Religious freedom is the dividing line between the West and the Islamic world.

Here are some of Jefferson's thoughts on Religion and government.

The Private Nature of Religion

"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60

"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

Government Intermeddling in Religion
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

"Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New London Methodists, 1809. ME 16:332

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546

"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

Religion Intermeddling in Government
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434

Establishments of Religion Undermine Rights
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1810. ME 12:345

"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801. (*)

"This doctrine ['that the condition of man cannot be ameliorated, that what has been must ever be, and that to secure ourselves where we are we must tread with awful reverence in the footsteps of our fathers'] is the genuine fruit of the alliance between Church and State, the tenants of which finding themselves but too well in their present condition, oppose all advances which might unmask their usurpations and monopolies of honors, wealth and power, and fear every change as endangering the comforts they now hold." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

"I have been just reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its fundamental bases is expressed in these words: 'The Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, and always shall be, that of the Spanish nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever.' Now I wish this presented to those who question what [a bookseller] may sell or we may buy, with a request to strike out the words, 'Roman Catholic,' and to insert the denomination of their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each wishes should domineer over the opinions of all others, and be taken, like the Spanish religion, under the 'protection of wise and just laws.' It would show to what they wish to reduce the liberty for which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness. It would present our boasted freedom of religion as a thing of theory only, and not of practice, as what would be a poor exchange for the theoretic thraldom, but practical freedom of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:128

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545

The Benefits of Religious Freedom
"The law for religious freedom... [has] put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:400

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545

"We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546

"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:546

"A recollection of our former vassalage in religion and civil government will unite the zeal of every heart, and the energy of every hand, to preserve that independence in both which, under the favor of Heaven, a disinterested devotion to the public cause first achieved, and a disinterested sacrifice of private interests will now maintain." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:318

Religious Illegality
"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"If a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play and reasons and laughs it out of doors without suffering the State to be troubled with it." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547

Ryan, the fact that Jefferson was so engaged in this topic during the forming of our nation is evidence of the battle at our birth between the clergy and our way of government. Jefferson was dealing with mostly Christians and states Christianity "is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." When the raw material is Islam, is it possible to do what the USA did?

Kuvasz,
Let's have another look at your post:

"It would seem more reasonable (although he might disagree from the grave) to lay Islam's throttle back from scientific and philosophic innovation at the feet of al-Ghazzali, for his "Destruction of philosophy/philosophers) written in the 12th century [LATE 11TH, BUT WHO'S COUNTING?], rolled back reason and reinforced the mystical aspects of Islam.

What has resulted over the last eight centuries has been in Islam a trend to distrust any tampering with established truths and accepted doctrines. If Ibn Rushd's retort in the "Destruction of the Destruction" a few decades later had carried the day, Islam would be seen as much more akin to the philosophy of Christian and Western thought and society; not surprising due to the influence of the ancient Greek philosophers on ibn Rushd's own views.

Too bad for us all, for from my readings of both, the latter is more, well, reasonable to modern thought.

The evolution of a fierce orthodoxy in Islam after the time of Ibn Rushd throttled the brightest intellectual and scientific culture the world ever saw up to that time. The manner of distrusting human reason and trusting mysticism in al-Ghazzali's "the Destruction of the Philosophy" served as a standard for later Islamic theology and served as a cudgel in the hand of those who swayed the ulema against rationalism."

It doesn't seem to me that I mischaracterized your claim. The main point holds. You were arrogant enough to presume to diagnose the trajectory of an entire civilization over nearly a millennium on the basis of half-digested nonsense you got from an introductory college course.

And what if you also layed the blame at the doorstep of al-Ghazali's later followers? Who might these be? Who do you mean exactly? You have no more knowledge of who they are and what they thought, did, or wrote than you have of the Confusion of the Philosophers.

Sorry young man. Think twice the next time you are tempted to parade your ignorance in response to the author of what you judge to be a "god-awful remark."

I think some clarification about Turkish secularism would be helpful. To begin with, the balance isn't between "Islamic and secular values." Exactly what is a secular value? Where are the sources for them? In Turkey the secularists are, for the most part, "worshipping" Muslims and the secularism in place is of a distinctly Islamic nature.

Unlike the example of the United States, secularism in Turkey doesn't mean the separation of governmental and religious spheres for the protection of each. Rather, secularism in Turkey is about government control of all aspects of religious life. For example, Turkey has a "secular" constitution, but all of the religious functionaries in mosques throughout the country are employees of the state.

In fact, the cost of implementing secularism in Turkey was the abolishing of Christianity. The ideals that brought about the Turkish revolution sought to protect Turkey as a land for Turkish Muslims, removing at all cost many of those who didn't fit this profile. At the same time, the rights of Christians were rolled back. Still today Christians are forbidden to open a seminary and universities aren't allowed to offer degrees in Christian theology. Public high schools are required to offer "religion" lessons, in which only Islam is allowed to be taught.

As it was during the Ottoman Empire, the oppression of Christians in Turkey takes a three-fold approach using: beaucratic inaction and legal inequality, police harassment in direct conflict with guaranteed rights, and distorted media representation fueling public enmity.

Turkey is a wonderful country with an amazing people, but it is naive to hold the current Turkish system up as an example to be reproduced. A curious fact of the Turkish system today has to do with the national identity cards which carry personal information, including religion. It is easier to change one's gender on the national i.d. card than it is to change one's religion.

I think some clarification about Turkish secularism would be helpful. To begin with, the balance isn't between "Islamic and secular values." Exactly what is a secular value? Where are the sources for them? In Turkey the secularists are, for the most part, "worshipping" Muslims and the secularism in place is of a distinctly Islamic nature.

Unlike the example of the United States, secularism in Turkey doesn't mean the separation of governmental and religious spheres for the protection of each. Rather, secularism in Turkey is about government control of all aspects of religious life. For example, Turkey has a "secular" constitution, but all of the religious functionaries in mosques throughout the country are employees of the state.

In fact, the cost of implementing secularism in Turkey was the abolishing of Christianity. The ideals that brought about the Turkish revolution sought to protect Turkey as a land for Turkish Muslims, removing at all cost many of those who didn't fit this profile. At the same time, the rights of Christians were rolled back. Still today Christians are forbidden to open a seminary and universities aren't allowed to offer degrees in Christian theology. Public high schools are required to offer "religion" lessons, in which only Islam is allowed to be taught.

As it was during the Ottoman Empire, the oppression of Christians in Turkey takes a three-fold approach using: beaucratic inaction and legal inequality, police harassment in direct conflict with guaranteed rights, and distorted media representation fueling public enmity.

Turkey is a wonderful country with an amazing people, but it is naive to hold the current Turkish system up as an example to be reproduced. A curious fact of the Turkish system today has to do with the national identity cards which carry personal information, including religion. It is easier to change one's gender on the national i.d. card than it is to change one's religion.

Karim Islam,
How could u be a Muslim and not know the contribution of Islam to World civilzation and especially to European/Western civilization especially thru eight centuries of direct peaceful coexistance in Muslim Spain? Islamic civilization interposed itself between classical antiquity and modern civilization;Without Islamic contribution,Western civilization would not be what it is as we know today-which contribution was the steeping stone,the infastructure on which the European renaissance and the industrial revolution were built.

I suggest you read a newly published book "Lost History" by Michael Hamilton Morgan who made a contribution to On Faith.

"Ken4: said......
Kuvasz,
Clearly you have never read al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-falasifa/Confusion of the Philosophers. In it he argues that the philosophers have 17 tenets that constitute "blameworthy innovation" and three that constitute heresy. The three are their claim of the world's eternity, their denial of God's knowledge of particulars, and their denial of bodily resurrection in the afterlife. Do any of these three points sound like the germ of the Enlightenment to you?

Philosophy of the time--usually referred to as Neoplatonic aristotelianism--had nothing to do with empiricism and rejecting portions of it did nothing to hinder scientific advance. And al-Ghazali did adopt many tenets of philosophy, above all, logic. He insisted in his work of jurisprudence, al-Mustasfa min `ilm al-usul, that noone could properly practice law without understanding the syllogism. Of course, logic isn't empiricism either, but that is another story.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Having so little of it, you should be wary of the danger of making such sweeping generalizations."

Ah, well perhaps my actual knowledge surpasses your understanding of the English language. It appears certainly so by defending al Ghazzali from an alleged attack I did not make upon him.

So if you can, and without moving your lips this time, read again and try not to act like arrogance is a virtue.

“al Ghazzali’s later adherents moved his mysticism well beyond Islam into every day life.”

Since you appear to have a smattering of Aristotle perhaps you are capable of understanding the basic equation of Aristotlian logic, that A is not B and that al Ghazzali was not his latter adherents? and that my issue was with what they did to snuff out any semblence of what the West called rationalism (and not as you again mislabeled for the convenience of your argument, "epiricism").

Or is it a reflection of your lack of confidence in yourself to place words in the mouths of your opponents the best way to defend yourself?

Shame on you.

Hi Jihadist,

Thanks for your post.

When you wrote," Muslims or Islam in Indonesia is different from Muslims ...", I already understood that, as you probably know. In my original post I pointedly spoke of Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia as quite different as that found in Arabia or Central Asia (Persian Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan).

By the way, there is an article in the op-eds for tomorrow by James Castle and Craig Charney about the resurgence of the Indonesian Tiger, which was derailed following the East Asian economic collapse in 1997. They make many of the same points you make in your post. The fundamentalist Islamic party only has ~ 7% support, whereas the centrist Islamic party (Nahdlatul Ulama) has broad support, much like the AKP in Turkey. Here is the web address.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101627_pf.html

As for Hamas, I think the credibility of the west was thrown out the window when Hamas was elected. Hamas was elected, not so much for their ideology, but because Fatah is a bloated, maggot filled corpse of corruption who couldn't deliver anything. The west should have let Hamas survive by moderating their views or die with their own rope.

I don't trust Tarik Ramadan at all. I think he thinks one thing and says another, so as to gain political respectability. He's a smooth-tongued serpent (I actually love snakes and I can't believe I've stooped to using Christianity's evil imagery to disparage some of the most beautiful creatures in the world) who shapes his views for his audiences.

Thanks for the heads up on Farish Noor. He looks interesting.

Maurie

Imran

What you listed sounds more like the Seven Sins of Christianity. Why forget to list slander and being hypocrites that are grave sins in Islam too? What's wrong with fornification with your own wife?

Jihadist

Just when I am starting to enjoy myself here throwing baits for reactions to see whether there can be any worthwhile discussion possible here. Aren't you busy monitoring markets?

Looks like they know about Ibn Rushd too. Not bad and quite promising.

DG

How do you know what God requires?

You been talking to Him lately?

Maybe That's the whole problem right there,
appealing to the invisible man who lives in the sky,
as if he actually existed.Same as the folks who are
dying to blow us all to hell.
Their whacky religion dishes out 92 virgins
to any believer with the balls to blow himself up
for Allah.
Not a bad deal if you really believe.
And you don't have to be crazy to fall for that one.
Just seriously religious.
Religion is dangerous,divisive and totally irrational.
There is no bigger problem.

Maurie Beck

Hello, I'm really busy dealing with market forces or trying to force them. I see you've met a friend of mine who use the handle "Islamist". I thought he never post here, but only to read:).

Let me try to answer some of your questions. We have to recognise reality to deal with it better. Ideologies remain that until implemented and tested in real time and life.

The west do tend to see the Muslim world through the prisms of its own experiences, systems, beliefs and values. Wrong approach. Muslims or Islam in Indonesia is different from Muslims and Islam in Iran due to the countries' different histories, Islamic sect/schools of thoughts and political systems.

Indonesia and Malaysia have powerful and effective Muslim NGOs (from those advocating human rights to charities) and political parties with members that runs to millions. We are scared too if our secular governments fail to deliver and to govern well, and lead Muslims to turn to Muslim political parties en masse as a sign of protest or to get an alternative form of government that may or may not be worse.

However, I do believe in giving the so-called Islamist parties the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to hear of allegations of corruption by these Muslim groups. The experieces with Islam centred political parties in Indonesia and Malaysia shows that they are anxious to prove they are better alternatives and are viable as governments as a competing force for the public minds and hearts.

We recognise the rise of Muslim political parties and organisations are due to the failures of secular goverments to deliver and the realisation that their governments are corrupt and ineffective. No one can deny that fact, no matter how unpalatable to secular or liberal Muslim.

Indonesian and Malaysian governments have so far, been able to deliver economically, practice democracy, have elections (in sometimes bumbling, sometimes fumbling and still learning ways), and to raise living standards. But at the sidelines, waiting in the wings, are Muslim political parties and associated NGOs, waiting to step in when secular governments fail to deliver.

Right now, secularism may seem to be marginalised in some Middle East countries due to due to the loss of credibility of the self-called secular governments and secular Muslims. Temporarily I hope for there is always cycles in history. I'm a fan of Ibn Khaldun among all classical Muslim scholars as you know. And Muslim populations, among the some of the poorest in the world, will support anyone who delivers basic services. They are being pragmatic there.

And so, Hamas comes in as the secular PLO became not only ineffective, but quite corrupt over the years. For many Palestinians, Hamas delivers services better, and from there, build trust and confidence among the Palestinians who are sick and tired of undelivered promises by the PLO for its people and for peace.

As for US policies in the Middle East, it not just Indonesian, Malaysian or any other Muslims in the world who are angered and dissapointed, but many non-Muslims too. No one is saying all Americans are to be held responsible for what President Bush decided.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Tarik Ramadan is seen to be the "now" voice by some, not Sayyid Qutb, who's too dogmatic and, in retrospect, shaped by independence movements and nationalism sweeping the Middle East as well as desire for Arab/Muslim unity to counter western domination in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. However, his books still sells well in Muslim countries that are economically poor, politically unstable with ineffective secular or or repressive governments. He do have appeal among alienated and marginalised Muslim youths in the Muslim world and in the west.

Extremist minorities and those resorting to violence taking over goverments in this day and age of the Internet, satellite TV and cellphones available even in the villages of Central Asia is improbable. Unless they control the military and stage a coup. They are more often hunted down and killed, or brought to court, charged and jailed, as happened in Pakistan, Central Asian states, Indonesia and Malaysia etc.

As for the rise of Nazism in Germany, that is an important lesson of how even one of the most civilised and educated people in the world, pushed into economic desperation and national shame as well as real and perceived unfairness by other nations, will support anyone who promise to bring back prosperity and national/ethnic pride.

But then, the Nazis don't know nor learn that extremism does not pay, but cost. They blindingly pursued their extremism and certainties until it is too late for them and at the cost of the lives of at least 20 million Germans alone. I don't want to get into here how many other lives they cost inclduing the Shoah, or to recall the too many extremist Nazi policies, self-delusions, self-destruction and, finally, destruction by the forces opposed to it. You already know it.

Any political or religious extremists who control countries and armies have much to learn from Nazi Germany. They are destroyed or destroy themselves or both.

Really got to go, or the markets will eat me alive.

Best regards as ever.
J

Kuvasz,
Clearly you have never read al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-falasifa/Confusion of the Philosophers. In it he argues that the philosophers have 17 tenets that constitute "blameworthy innovation" and three that constitute heresy. The three are their claim of the world's eternity, their denial of God's knowledge of particulars, and their denial of bodily resurrection in the afterlife. Do any of these three points sound like the germ of the Enlightenment to you?

Philosophy of the time--usually referred to as Neoplatonic aristotelianism--had nothing to do with empiricism and rejecting portions of it did nothing to hinder scientific advance. And al-Ghazali did adopt many tenets of philosophy, above all, logic. He insisted in his work of jurisprudence, al-Mustasfa min `ilm al-usul, that noone could properly practice law without understanding the syllogism. Of course, logic isn't empiricism either, but that is another story.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Having so little of it, you should be wary of the danger of making such sweeping generalizations.

Mr. Dickey are you trying to say we should simply abandon our faith and behave like Christians do by going to Church on Sunday and then violating GOD'S Commandments at all other times?

You can keep breaking GOD'S Laws by supporting adultery, fornication, spousal abuse, drug abuse, and greed - but leave Islam alone.

You are ill suited to comment on any religion for that matter!

There Anonymous

Do you feel better now having got that off your chest?

If you could,I'm sure you'd say a whole lot more.

But BEHOLD.You wrote a whole sentence all by yourself.

Every poster here is full of crap!

God does not require that we agree with one another. He does not even require that we fully understand one another. He rquires only that we live in peace. It is important for us to know a little bit about each other so that we can grow to respect one another and make dialog easier, but at some point (before too many people die on both sides)we need to begin discussing how we can live together in peace. Now that would be a worthwhile discussion! What we need is a few brilliant people with good ideas, and a lot of people who are willing to make sacrifices for peace so that we don't have to sacrifice young men and women of all faiths to hate and war.

kuvasz - If Ibn Rushd's retort in the "Destruction of the Destruction" a few decades later had carried the day, Islam would be seen as much more akin to the philosophy of Christian and Western thought and society.

Nice post and informative. However, I remember reading an article that actually laid the debacle in the stagnation of Muslim philosophy to Ibn Rushd. If I remember correctly, the writer suggested that it was the conflict between reason and faith in western civilization that resulted in the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, and the emergence of liberal democracies. Ibn Rushd in essence tried to harmonize those (opposing) views between faith in the divine and the philosophical acquisition of knowledge through reason, and the conflict failed to play itself out in the Islamic world as it did in Europe and the West.

If Muslims would only know the fundamental pillar of Islam,"Wahdahoo Lasharika Lahoo".( I am alone and don't associate me with any thing).

This is a reciprocal form of secularism.
In secularism,man says,"leave me alone".
In Islam,God says, "leave me alone".

As a Muslim, belief in one God should be our primary attachment. Such a philosophy in its purest form will dissuade us from the erosion of our faith. Call it human weakness, we managed to seek out so many other attractions in our faith that these attachments have come to occupy a significant part of our belief system.

The creation of sects is substantially assisted by this bank of rituals. Each sect chooses a few tidbits to prioritize in its belief system. The likelihood of combinations and permutations of these mini-attachments opens wide the possible number of sects.

As soon as the creations of these major and minor essentialities take root in a culture, we open ourselves to a plethora of conflicts. These conflicts are then exploited by the vested interests. As this becomes a livelihood of a critical mass of exploiters, it gets rooted in the economy, and perpetuates as an independent system.

Dear Islamist,

Sorry for getting your handle wrong.

As far as the Muslim Brotherhood, they scare the bejeezus out of me. Sayyid Qutb was just such a fanatic that wanted to recreate the Caliphate and would have used any method to justify those ends. To suggest that if the MB had been allowed power through democratic means that they would have moderated their views is an assumption that might not have been supported. They very well might have acted like the Nazis in Germany. Of course, the West cannot promote democracy on the one hand and then deny the legitimacy of a democratically elected government on the other (e.g. Hamas). However, if the people elect a bunch of fanatics to govern them, they get what they deserve and they will suffer the consequences. I think the West should have recognized Hamas and dealt with them straightforwardly. Then, if Hamas doesn't moderate its views, they should be dealt with harshly in terms of international support.

Islamicist

Thanks for your appreciation.

I'm still not sure how tolerant open societies deal with an extremist minority with no boundaries on behavior. In the U.S. during the 1930''s Depression, there were a lot of would be demagogues with energized followers (e.g. Father Coughlin, German American Bund, parts of the American Communist party). The rise of the Nazis in Germany basically destroyed these organizations in the U.S., though the Nazis are a good example of an extremist minority taking over a government.

Maurie Beck

I see now why Jihadist speaks highly of you. She also mentioned someone call Norry Howt and several other names.

Yes, we agree that countering intolerance by intolerance of fundamentalists and extremists is the best. The Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorists of Southeast Asia cannot be reasoned at all. But in open, democratic societies, countering intolerance is easier than in closed ones where governments control the media and rule by the gun. In some Muslim countries, the greatest terrorists and fundamentalists are goverments against their own people. Iraq under Saddam Hussein terrorised his own people in ways that makes terrorism by JI puny. Saudi Arabia has a fundamentalist government that would not even allow its female citizens to drive. Reasoning with or countering fundamentalist groups in open societies is easier than with fundamentalist governments that have an iron grip on its own people and suppress all legitimate oppositions.

The author of the essay asks why?

Three words....Salman Rushdie's fatwa.

That’s why. Okay?

Crimminy, did you forget that?

Frankly, I don’t care if Muslims eat dirt and die. Same goes for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religious sect who believes divine revelation is apriori and must supercede rational thought. They endanger those of us who don’t believe in Bronze Age fairy tales to protect us from the visicitudes of the world and the reality of the Big Sleep.

Btw.. to the author of the god-awful remark...

“Mr. Karim Islam - I must disagree with you. The great debate between Ibn Rush'd and Ghazzali was completely centered on Islam, Ghazzali claiming that actions of Allah (SWT) were a matter of adah, whereas Ibn Rush'd countered that as the ways are Allah are immutable, they cannot be considered adah and that Ghazzali's thesis denied the necessary connection between events and the divine wisdom of Allah.”

But, that is not actually what transpired is it? Nope, al Ghazzali’s later adherents moved his mysticism well beyond Islam into every day life. Since then, the beautiful and magnificant Islamic culture and civilization, one that spanned the Eurasian continent for over a millennium, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, declined intellectually, philosophically, and scientifically because it refused to adapt to change.

It would seem more reasonable (although he might disagree from the grave) to lay Islam's throttle back from scientific and philosophic innovation at the feet of al-Ghazzali, for his "Destruction of philosophy/philosophers) written in the 12th century, rolled back reason and reinforced the mystical aspects of Islam.

What has resulted over the last eight centuries has been in Islam a trend to distrust any tampering with established truths and accepted doctrines. If Ibn Rushd's retort in the "Destruction of the Destruction" a few decades later had carried the day, Islam would be seen as much more akin to the philosophy of Christian and Western thought and society; not surprising due to the influence of the ancient Greek philosophers on ibn Rushd's own views.

Too bad for us all, for from my readings of both, the latter is more, well, reasonable to modern thought.

The evolution of a fierce orthodoxy in Islam after the time of Ibn Rushd throttled the brightest intellectual and scientific culture the world ever saw up to that time. The manner of distrusting human reason and trusting mysticism in al-Ghazzali's "the Destruction of the Philosophy" served as a standard for later Islamic theology and served as a cudgel in the hand of those who swayed the ulema against rationalism.

The stress brought about by this roll back of rationalism in Islam was not overnight, there were still magnificent achievements by Muslims across a wide range of arts, sciences, architecture, and medicine, but the damage was done.

THE STIFLING OF RATIONALISM PLAYED AS MAJOR A PART IN THE DECLINE OF INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD AS DID THE MONGOL INVASIONS IN THE 13TH CENTURY TO THEIR PHYSICAL EMPIRES.

The West has had the dynamic tensions of the Cities of Man and of God in conflict, but Islam snuffed out this conflict long ago.

I am sore put to believe a scientific renaissance from Islam if each new scientific fact discovered is merely defined as mystical revelation of Allah, and any disputes about the features of such discoveries considered within the realm discourse for definitive truth by a council of mullahs.

Any such efforts of theology into a field requiring rationalism like science smacks of Lysenkoism.

or Allah-senkoism.

Hi Jihadist,

I read you post on this thread and I must say I have a very Western-centered worldview. What is going on in the Middle East and central Asia is beyond my understanding. As you point out, secularism is a backwater, so outside the mainstream that it seems to consist of old intellectuals mumbling amongst themselves.

If it was up to me, I'd have nothing to do with those countries. They could rot for all I care, even though there are good people walking among them. However, our modern global economy does not allow us to completely disengage, at least until we find our way out of our reliance on hydrocarbon energy sources.

Malaysia and Indonesia are another matter. Even though some Islamist parties have made inroads, I don't see Sharia becoming the law of the land anytime soon. The people there seem more pragmatic than the ideology that is so rampant in Arabia and central Asia. Those societies may distrust or even hate America because of our fool's errands in the Middle East, but I think that perception can be repaired.

Globo Mojo

All martydom accomplishes is to create cults of personality, which tend to become entrenched in some form of utopian idiological worldview. However, you raise an important point about the relationship between liberal democracies with open societies and those with intolerant worldviews. Open societies are very slow to recognize that reasoned discourse is often an unworkable response to intolerant extremists, whether those extremists are religious (fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) or of some other ideological foundation.

You may ask, what is the proper response? The first thing is to get the open society to appreciate the threat. The Europeans are just now recognizing the threat of intolerant Islam, though they still do not quite know how to deal with it. In the U.S., we recognize the threat of intolerant Islam, yet its kissing cousin, Fundamentlist Christianity has managed to weasel its way into mainstream American politics.

Many political writers remark on the pragmatism of the American polity. That is quite an assumption, especially if it turns out not to be true. Some of those of the Christian right would like nothing better than to turn our democracy into a religious theocracy. How does one deal with such a powerful, vocal intolerant minority? By being intolerant of intolerance. We cannot confront intolerance with moderation and reasoned discourse. It doesn't work.

Anonymous

My friend Jihadist is right. Call oneself Jihadist and all the west shakes. Call oneself an Islamist, and all the west trembled. LOL

Islamic governance means one that is just and corrruption free among other. Mastering the world with Islam means living according to Islamic principles, not to conquer the world.

On Muslim Brotherhood, AK of Turkey was somewhat like that too until they governed Turkey and modified their stance - flexbility.

Islamist groups and political parties in Indonesia and Malaysia also modified their stance once they won elections and governned or become part of government.

So, what you are saying is never give anyone a chance at governance unless it is acceptable to western norms.

Look at Algeria. Islamists won elections, deprived of governance and over 200,000 dead now. It the Islamists were given the opportunity to govern, what would have been?

There are no new ideas coming from the west. Only recycled ones. Let Muslims try out the forms of governance they want without western guidance, prodding and interference.

So many dim lights of Western Enlightenment here. There can only be one way - your way? I can't see Muslim Brotherhood taking over governance of America, ever. Not Muslims or Islam causing America's reduction in political and economic power but China for one.

Mr. Dickey, Very informative!

However, do not include me in the desire of Americans to want to use any Muslim "Magic"!

I can't think of anything that could have been dumber than what Bushie allowed by his idiocy!

I am Dumbstruck at the thought that we have allowed an Enemy-al-Sadr,-to ussurp the leadership of what was a Liberated Country, with the Shia Pulpit!

He should have been killed in the first week!

I want the Shia Government to be withheld any support, so it crumbles!

Replaced by a Secular, and Non-Sectarian Government that is there to insure rights of Iraqi INDIVIDUALS!

Please excuse the FACT we have a simplistic and niaeve Evangelical nut-job for our Commander in Chief! What amazes me, is you would have thought he'd of known better!-He is used to the Oil Industry!

Jililah wrote:

Muslims would have been far better off by following the rationalist Ibn Rush'd over Ghazzali, but as we cannot change history, we can advocate for the need to focus on rationalism and human rights NOW!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Karim Islam: wrote

To Jililah -You bragged that "islam brought science and progress when Europe was in the darkness."

Arab civiliztion (on the shoulder of religion Islam) preserved and developed further already existed science invented by past civilizations (Greek, India, Chines etc) had nothing to do with islam. So what were the contributions of Islam to this? Nothing at all. All those muslim-born scientists were not even good muslims and many of them did not even had faith on islam. You can not cite a single example that they created any trace of science out of islam (Koran and hadiths). So why you are bragging, heh? Islam pulled the muslim world backward to 7th century. Don't you see that? Come to your sense Mr. Jililah.

Karim (born muslim)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Mr. Karim Islam - I must disagree with you. The great debate between Ibn Rush'd and Ghazzali was completely centered on Islam, Ghazzali claiming that actions of Allah (SWT) were a matter of adah, whereas Ibn Rush'd countered that as the ways are Allah are immutable, they cannot be considered adah and that Ghazzali's thesis denied the necessary connection between events and the divine wisdom of Allah.

Although the Muslim philosophers benefited from the ancient Western philosophers, they were not at all copyist, but formed their own unique hypothesis completely within the framework of Islam. Ibn Rush'd inspired, in addition to Maimoinides, Albert the Great, Boethius of Dacia, John of Jandun, Siger of Brabant and Dante Alighieri.

That is only one example of many that can be offered of the great Islam-centered sages of the middle ages.

The Muslim scientist were only considered 'not good Muslims' by the stagnant minds of the fundamentalists threatened by their intellect. If you actually read Tahafut Al-Tahafut or any of the great works, you would see your fallacy of thought.

Here's a little list for your enjoyment:

I cannot figure why you would seek to sell the Muslims short. Not propaganda brother, this is history!

Timeline of Islamic Scientists (700-1400)

This chart depicts the lifes of key Islamic Scientists and related writers, from the 8th to the end of the 13th century. By placing each writer in a historical context, this will help us understand the influences and borrowing of ideas.

701 (died) - Khalid Ibn Yazeed - Alchemy

721 - Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber) - (Great Muslim Alchemist)

740 - Al-Asmai - (Zoology, Botany, Animal Husbandry)

780 - Al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) - (Mathematics, Astronomy)

787 - Al Balkhi, Ja'Far Ibn Muhammas (Albumasar) - Astronomy, Fortune-telling

796 (died) - Al-Fazari,Ibrahim Ibn Habeeb - Astronomy, Translation

800 - Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi - (Alkindus) - (Philosophy, Physics, Optics)

808 - Hunain Ibn Is'haq - Medicine, Translator

815 - Al-Dinawari, Abu-Hanifa Ahmed Ibn Dawood - Mathematics, Linguistics

836 - Thabit Ibn Qurrah (Thebit) - (Astronomy, Mechanics)

838 - Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari - (Medicine, Mathematics)

852 - Al Battani ABU abdillah (Albategni) - Mathematics, Astronomy, Engineering

857 - Ibn MasawaihYou'hanna - Medicine

858 - Al-Battani (Albategnius) - (Astronomy, mathematics)

860 - Al-Farghani (Al-Fraganus) - (Astronomy,Civil Engineering)

884 - Al-Razi (Rhazes) - (Medicine,Ophthalmology, Chemistry)

870 - Al-Farabi (Al-Pharabius) - (Sociology, Logic, Science, Music)

900 - (died) - Abu Hamed Al-ustrulabi - Astronomy

903 - Al-Sufi (Azophi - ( Astronomy)

908 - Thabit Ibn Qurrah - Medicine, Engineering

912 (died) - Al-Tamimi Muhammad Ibn Amyal (Attmimi) - Alchemy

923 (died) - Al-Nirizi, AlFadl Ibn Ahmed (wronge Altibrizi) - Mathematics, Astronomy

930 - Ibn Miskawayh, Ahmed Abuali - Medicine, Alchemy

932 - Ahmed Al-Tabari - Medicine

936 - Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahravi (Albucasis) - (Surgery, Medicine)

940 - Muhammad Al-Buzjani - (Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry)

950 - Al Majrett'ti Abu-alQasim - Astronomy, Alchemy, Mathematics

960 (died) - Ibn Wahshiyh, Abu Baker - Alchemy, Botany

965 - Ibn Al-Haitham (Alhazen) - Physics, Optics, Mathematics)

973 - Abu Raihan Al-Biruni - (Astronomy, Mathematics)

976 - Ibn Abil Ashath - Medicine

980 - Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - (Medicine, Philosophy, Mathematics)

983 - Ikhwan A-Safa (Assafa) - (Group of Muslim Scientists)

1019 - Al-Hasib Alkarji - Mathematics

1029 - Al-Zarqali (Arzachel) - Astronomy (Invented Astrolabe)

1044 - Omar Al-Khayyam - (Mathematics, Poetry)

1060 - (died) Ali Ibn Ridwan Abu'Hassan Ali - Medicine

1077 - Ibn Abi-Sadia Abul Qasim - Medicine

1090 - Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) - Surgery, Medicine

1095 - Ibn Bajah, Mohammed Ibn Yahya

1097 - Ibn Al-Baitar Diauddin (Bitar) - Botany, Medicine, Pharmacology

1099 - Al-Idrisi (Dreses) - Geography, World Map (First Globe)

1091 - Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) - ( Surgery, Medicine)

1095 - Ibn Bajah, Mohammad Ibn Yahya (Avenpace) - Philosophy, Medicine

1099 - Al-Idrisi (Dreses) - (Geography -World Map, First Globe)

1100 - Ibn Tufayl Al-Qaysi - Philosophy, Medicine

1120 - (died) - Al-Tuhra-ee, Al-Husain Ibn Ali - Alchemy, Poem

1128 - Ibn Rushd (Averroe's) - Philosophy, Medicine

1135 - Ibn Maymun, Musa (Maimonides) - Medicine, Philosphy

1140 - Al-Badee Al-Ustralabi - Astronomy, Mathematics

1155 (died) - Abdel-al Rahman AlKhazin - Astronomy

1162 - Al Baghdadi, Abdellateef Muwaffaq - Medicine, Geography

1165 - Ibn A-Rumiyyah Abul'Abbas (Annabati) - Botany

1173 - Rasheed AlDeen Al-Suri - Botany

1184 - Al-Tifashi, Shihabud-Deen (Attifashi) - Metallurgy, Stones

1201 - Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi - (Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry)

1203 - Ibn Abi-Usaibi'ah, Muwaffaq Al-Din - Medicine

1204 (died) - Al-Bitruji (Alpetragius) - (Astronomy)

1213 - Ibn Al-Nafis Damishqui - (Anatomy)

1236 - Kutb Aldeen Al-Shirazi - Astronomy, Geography

1248 (died) - Ibn Al-Baitar - ( Pharmacy, Botany)

1258 - Ibn Al-Banna (Al Murrakishi), Azdi - Medicine, Mathematics

1262 (died) - Al-Hassan Al-Murarakishi - Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography

1273 - Al-Fida (Abdulfeda) - ( Astronomy, Geography)

1306 - Ibn Al-Shater Al Dimashqi - Astronomy, Mathematics

1320 (died) - Al Farisi Kamalud-deen Abul-Hassan - Astronomy, Physics

1341 (died) - Al-Jildaki, Muhammad Ibn Aidamer - Alchemy

1351 - Ibn Al-Majdi, Abu Abbas Ibn Tanbugha - Mathematics, Astronomy

1359 - Ibn Al-Magdi,Shihab-Udden Ibn Tanbugha - Mathematic, Astronomy

Thank Zeus we finally at last have this Allah/God business straightened out.

Murphy is an optimist.

I am not sure who you are addressing the God/Allah question to.

In regard to Alam's article, the excerpt is from a Muslim publication and Muslims kept to the terminology of the Qur'an which is in Arabic, thus amongst themselves prefer Allah. When writing for a varied audience though, Muslims will frequently use God and Allah interchangeably.

For those who think that God and Allah might be different or Allah just a Muslim God, it is good to realize that Arab Christians also pray to Allah which simply means The God in Arabic.

As we obviously have some Brotherhood supporters trying to put themselves forward as honorable advocates of democracy, lets look at some history:

The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun) also known as the Ikhwan is a good example of what we must protect ourselves against.

The Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) organization describes itself as a political and social revolutionary movement; it was founded in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, who objected to Western influence and called for return to an original Islam.

The Brotherhood is an expansive and secretive society with followers in more than 70 countries, dedicated to creating a global Islamic order that would isolate women and punish nonbelievers. Its members and supporters founded al Qaeda, as well as one “of the largest college student groups in the United States.”

The Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism, Juan Zarate, stated recently, “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.” In fact, The MB 1982 secret plan, (the Project) recently exposed, instructs all members locally and globally “To channel thought, education and action in order to establish an Islamic power [government] on the earth.”

The Muslim Brotherhood has historically and continues to actively pursue the establishment of a Muslim regime that will serve as the basis to re-establish the Caliphate, not only by defending violence against civilians, The current leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, “recently issued a new strategy calling on all its member organizations to serve its global agenda of defeating the West. He called on individual members of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide to not only join the “resistance” to the U.S. financially, but also through active participation.” In the MB Project (1982), Point of Departure instructs members,” To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.”

In an interview to the London based Asharq Al-Awsat, an international Arab newspaper on December 11, 2005, Akef stated that “the Muslim Brotherhood is a global movement whose members cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the same religious worldview - the spread of Islam, until it rules the world.”

To that end, Akef said, “the Muslim Brotherhood… are an all-encompassing Islamic organization, calling to the adoption of the great religion that Allah gave in his mercy to humanity.” Meanwhile, according to its leader, the MB is busily cementing its ties: “We are in the global arena, and we preach for Allah according to the guidelines of the Muslim Brotherhood.

All the members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the international arena operate according to the written charter that states that Jihad is the only way to achieve these goals.

“Ours is the largest organization in the world,” he said.

Akef emphasized, “A Muslim in the international arena, who believes in the charter of the Muslim Brotherhood is considered part of us and we are considered part of him.”

In earlier interviews,

‘Akef called the U.S. “a Satan that abuses the religion.”

He said: “I expect America to collapse soon,”

declaring, “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America.”

Although U.S. observers often view the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Hamas as less violent than al-Qaeda, the Brotherhood has long been actively supporting global jihadi efforts.

“Prior to the U.S.-led attack on the Taliban regime, the Muslim Brotherhood actually had training camps in Afghanistan where it worked with Kashmiri militants and sought to expand its influence in Central Asian states, especially Tajikistan.”

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Muslim Brotherhood reacted to Hamas’ January 2006 electoral victory as not merely as a local achievement, but “a victory of the Islamic nation in its entirety,” and as an expression of the concept that “the path of Islam is the true solution.”

As the parent of all Sunni and many other Islamist terrorist groups,

the MB, to deflect attention, uses its long-term strategy, known as “flexibility” (muruna) in Arabic.

This chameleon-like adaptation is tactical moderation with the ultimate objective of complete Islamization of society.

Indeed, the MB’s 1982 project calls on members “To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level.”

Today, when the West focuses on Islamist terrorism, the MB usually refrains from publicly advocating violence. The MB’s 1982 Project, calls on its members:

“To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic [Islamic] principles… we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.”

As stated on its charter and its website:

the MB seeks to install an Islamic totalitarian empire, a worldwide Caliphate, through stages designed to Islamize targeted nations by whatever means available.

A principal danger of MB activities is that they are hidden behind “religious” ideology. Moreover:

this ideology dictates concealment (Kitman).

In fact saying, “we should keep hush-hush on things that are still in preparation.”

This ideology controls every aspect of life and seeks to impose that control on everyone.

In the end, the MB intends to overthrow all secular governments and impose Islamic law (Shari’a) worldwide, and it is diligently pursuing this goal.

In July 2005, former Kuwaiti minister of education Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i, wrote in the Arabic London daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat:

"The beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology."

Thus, on its website, the MB advocates,

“Establishing the Islamic government.”

“Building the Muslim state…Building the Khilafa…Mastering the world with Islam,”;

This would necessarily deprive Americans of their First Amendment, rights.

The first clause in the Amendment states there shall be “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The First Amendment also upholds an individuals’ right to religious freedom.

But as determined by its doctrine, the MB would exploit that right—along with First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly—to actively seek the imposition of laws that would deny religious freedom to everyone else.

Why do you not translate the word "Allah" to "God"?

Allah is God in Arabic - are you just trying to increase a perception that Muslims worship something other than "God"??

Would you in writing a story about the French refer to God as "Dieu" and not translate the word - to enhance a perception that they worship something 'different than we do' ???

Dear AS

Although Dr. Alam may see only one true interpretation, (The Humanitarian Islam), I readily admit that Islam can be interpreted in many many ways and is indeed a mosaic rather than a monolith.

I have pointed out that radicals and traditionalists tend to promote an interpretation focused primarily on the isolationist and militaristic Medinan verses, while moderates tend to promote an interpretation focused primarily on the compassionate and human-rights aspects pointed out by Dr. Alam.

You are right in highlighting that the mosaic of Islam is inclined to remain a mosaic and that is a good point. However this mosaic of many branches can all turn to the focus of a humanitarian model of Islam without sacrificing Sunni, Shia or Sufi identities.

Possibly, I was not clear enough. I am advocating a REFOCUSING on the Humanitarian aspects innate within Islam pointed out in his article.

The sects of Christianity were at one time highly violent, now although many sects remain the orientation is more humanitarian focused.

I am referring to a REFOCUSING. Although Dr. Alam's article points out the human-rights aspects of the Qur'an clearly and I have put his article forward to put these points before the public, as to whether or not Islam could ever be a monolith is something I think is highly unlikely.

Dr. Alam would have to further explain his own position himself. I cannot speak for him. If you wish to write him, I think there is a contact email address at www.alternatevoice.org

All the Best, Jililah