Sabtu, Oktober 10, 2009
Pengumuman Kabinet SBY-Boediono
CIKEAS, KOMPAS.com - Pengumuman kabinet masa pemerintahan Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dan Boediono yang akan bekerja sejak 2009 hingga 2014 direncanakan pada 21 Oktober 2009 atau sehari setelah pelantikan presiden dan wakil presiden yang baru.
Juru Bicara Kepresidenan, Andi Malarangeng usai mendampingi Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono bertemu sejumlah menteri di kediaman pribadi kepala negara di Cikeas, Bogor, Jumat malam, mengatakan, pengumuman tersebut dilakukan 21 Oktober 2009.
Dengan demikian presiden masih memiliki kesempatan untuk menyusun kabinet hingga hari pelantikan tiba, katanya. "Jadi masih ada waktu, tanggal 20 Oktober ada pelantikan presiden dan setelah itu, tanggal 21 Oktober pengumuman kabinet, sehingga masih ada kesempatan presiden untuk menyusun kabinetnya dengan baik," kata Andi.
Hal itu disampaikan Andi Malarangeng terkait pertanyaan waktu pemanggilan calon-calon menteri yang akan masuk dalam kabinet mendatang. Ia menjelaskan, hingga Jumat malam belum dipastikan jadwal Presiden Yudhoyono untuk memanggil sejumlah figur yang akan menduduki jabatan sebagai menteri dalam kabinet Indonesia Bersatu yang kedua.
"Sampai hari ini, belum ada pemanggilan calon-calon menteri. Presiden sedang memikirkan komposisi kabinet dan juga struktur kabinet sehingga sampai sekarang belum ada pemanggilan calon-calon menteri," kata Andi.
Menurut dia, bila pemanggilan itu sudah berlangsung, tentunya akan dilakukan secara transparan dan semua pihak dapat melihat figur siapa saja yang dipanggil untuk dimintai kesediaannya menjadi menteri untuk lima tahun mendatang.
Dalam kesempatan itu, Andi menjelaskan program kerja 100 hari dan program lima tahun mendatang sudah siap, sehingga nanti saat calon menteri diundang akan ditanya kesiapannya untuk mencapai target dari masing-masing kementerian.
"Para calon menteri tersebut mempunyai kesempatan untuk menyatakan sanggup atau tidak untuk memenuhi target tersebut, bila menyatakan siap akan diikuti dengan penandatanganan kontrak kerja serta pakta integritas," ungkapnya.
Andi menjelaskan, presiden tidak akan terburu-buru untuk mendapatkan kabinet yang solid, tajam, dan kuat. Sebelumnya, Mensesneg Hatta Rajasa mengatakan, Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono akan mengumumkan susunan kabinet pemerintahan SBY-Boediono segera setelah dirinya dilantik.
"Pada 20 Oktober Presiden dilantik dan tanggal 23 Presiden harus berangkat ke Hua Hin Thailand, jadi bisa ditebak kemungkinannya sebelum itu," kata Mensesneg Hatta Rajasa di Istana Negara Jakarta.
Dia mengakui belum mengetahui nama-nama calon menteri yang akan ditunjuk SBY, termasuk apakah dirinya akan ditunjuk kembali menjadi menteri, namun menurutnya ada sejumlah menteri pada Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu yang akan kembali menjadi menteri pemerintahan SBY mendatang.
"Saya tidak bisa bilang mayoritas, tapi ya masih ada orang-orang lama," katanya. Sedangkan mengenai struktur kabinet mendatang, Hatta mengatakan kemungkinan besar tidak akan berubah dengan jumlah departemen dan kementerian sebanyak 34.
A Note on Understanding Islam
A Note on Understanding Islam:
Liberalism’s Origins & the Superimposition of a Specific European Exp.
Friday, 19 June 2009
var sburl6894 = window.location.href; var sbtitle6894 = document.title;
var sbtitle6894=encodeURIComponent("A Note on Understanding Islam:Liberalism’s Origins & the Superimposition of a Specific European Exp."); var sburl6894=decodeURI("http://www.islam21c.com/general/a-note-on-understanding-islam-liberalisms-origins-the-superimposition-of-a-specific-european-exp.html"); sburl6894=sburl6894.replace(/amp;/g, "");sburl6894=encodeURIComponent(sburl6894);
Friday, 19 June 2009
var sburl6894 = window.location.href; var sbtitle6894 = document.title;
var sbtitle6894=encodeURIComponent("A Note on Understanding Islam:Liberalism’s Origins & the Superimposition of a Specific European Exp."); var sburl6894=decodeURI("http://www.islam21c.com/general/a-note-on-understanding-islam-liberalisms-origins-the-superimposition-of-a-specific-european-exp.html"); sburl6894=sburl6894.replace(/amp;/g, "");sburl6894=encodeURIComponent(sburl6894);
...this need for an individualist view on rights was based upon the weakness of Catholicism, inasmuch that it did not have the capacity to tolerate...
Having travelled to the America’s, Middle East and Europe, lecturing and debating on issues related to Islam, philosophy and politics, I have found a common trend when people try to understand Islam and its political authority. This common trend is the imposition of European history, intellectual development and religious experiences on the Islamic narrative. As a result of finding myself trying to deconstruct this common approach many times, I feel it is only wise to write some notes on how Liberal or European minds should seek to understand Islam and its political structures. One way of doing this is by explaining the specific political history of Europe, the origins of its predominant ideology and the different experiences in Islamic history.
Liberalism is purely a European product. Liberalism’s political values are the outcome of specific social and historical conditions, subjected to a specific type of analysis. Therefore it must be asked, is Liberalism an 'absolute' alternative to other ideologies, or is it historically and geographically bound?
History & Political Climate
Liberalism’s core political values, of individual freedoms and the primacy of individual rights, emerged and were developed as a result of a specific European problem.
History & Political Climate
Liberalism’s core political values, of individual freedoms and the primacy of individual rights, emerged and were developed as a result of a specific European problem.
This problem was the clash between the Catholic Church and the people who carried ideas that were incongruous with the Church’s doctrine and philosophy.The medieval Catholic Church never recognised other dogmas and beliefs. It frequently persecuted those who sought to promulgate non-Catholic ideas and practices in the public square. By the beginning of the 16th Century it sought to suppress Protestantism using the rulers of Spanish Netherlands and France who were sympathetic to Catholic intolerance.
In 1517 Martin Luther pinned to a church door in Wittenberg his famous theses attacking Catholicism. This event initiated a process, which is now called the ‘Reformation’, leading to a massive split in the Christian Church. This new version of Christianity – Protestantism – gained popularity in North Western Europe and many of its rulers adopted its doctrine as a means to bring to light their completed independence of the Pope and Emperor.
In spite of this, the Catholic Church pursued its oppression to the extent that, in the Netherlands, the Protestants revolted and after an eighty year war it became an independent state which succeeded the peace of Westphalia in 1648. During this period many massacres took place as a result of clashes between Catholicism and Protestantism. Some of these included the massacre on St Bartholomew’s Day in 1572 in France and the 30 years war in 1618 which was fought on German territory but involved the Catholic and Protestant states of Denmark, Sweden, Spain and France. There were many merciless massacres committed by both parties.
The Origins of Liberalism’s Premise
As a result of the revulsion of the huge scale of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, several parties were formed with the mandate to bring about reconciliation. Some of the members in these groups included the likes of Erasmus of Rotterdam who facilitated the Edict of Nantes which set measures of tolerance for the French Protestants, but also in England in promoting the Toleration Act of 1689.[2]
This climate produced the emotional and intellectual environment for the likes of Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Samuel Pufendorf who developed a new understanding of natural law which was to become the philosophical basis for Liberalism. These seventeenth century theorists developed an individualistic doctrine of rights. Professor John Charvet describes this individualist view as,“…the rights held by individuals independently fitting into, and filling a function within, a God-ordered purposive whole based on the good.”[3]
These theorists viewed the rights of the human being as independent to that of a societal context, and therefore rested on the premise of individualism. This was perfectly consistent in preventing any further religiously inspired atrocities because this individualist view took the rights of a human being abstracted away from God’s perceived will for society. In this way an individual belonging to the Catholic or non-Catholic tradition could be tolerated. However this need for an individualist view on rights was based upon the weakness of Catholicism, inasmuch that it did not have the capacity to tolerate.In this context is the individualist view of rights valid?
Since these theories were developed as a result of this clash and intolerance then it can be argued that in absence of this historical context these theories are no longer valid from a universal perspective. The reasons for this are due to their limited intellectual scope, the scope was to ensure European tolerance rather than seeking a true understanding of the human being and their standing in the world.This individualistic perspective was temporarily sufficient in providing a relatively quick solution to the problems faced in the 16th and 17th Century.
However in the absence of these problems nothing was done to review this individualist doctrine in order to ensure that it was philosophically and practically sound. It was just taken for granted because it solved the problems of violence and intolerance. This was problematic because individualism, as a premise for an entire political outlook, has been found to be philosophically incorrect and it has produce problems in society that have ensured its destruction.[4]
If Europe never experienced the intolerance of the Church, would have Liberalism developed as a result of thinking and humanity’s ideological progress? Or is Liberalism an accidental product of Catholicism’s coercive political nature?Is Liberalism Universal?Whatever the answers are to these questions, what can be concluded is that the most predominant ideology in the west emerged as a result of a specific history.
The claim by some liberal ideologues is that Liberalism is universal; however there are some philosophical issues with this line of thought. Firstly it is a logical fallacy to take something specific and make it general. What if non-European nations developed non-individualist views on natural rights and still created a cohesive tolerant society?Secondly when we do look into other societies, such as Islamic societies, it can be seen that in Islamic history there was no clash between state and ‘church’ or religion. There was a symbiotic relationship between the two. Tolerance, justice, compassion, rights and responsibilities resonated in Islamic societies, all due to the ruling religion at the time, Islam.[5]
Understanding Islam
It must be highlighted that Islam must not be viewed through the eyes of European history or understood by fallacious references to Catholic intolerance and coercion. Rather, Islam and its history, must be viewed without a reference to historical or intellectual baggage that is specific to Europe. Superimposing a specific negative history to understand another world view is fallacious and only skews understanding. To really understand Islam, or any other worldview for that matter, it must be understood – as the Chinese put it – by “emptying your tea cup”.
Useful Notes Kindness & Liberty
The Qur’an expresses kindness and liberty of belief, “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path.”“What will explain to you what the steep path is? It is to free a slave, to feed at a time of hunger, an orphaned relative or a poor person in distress, and to be one of those who believe and urge one another to steadfastness and compassion.”Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian expressed how Islamic rule in Spain favoured the Jews in the context of kindness and liberty of belief, “It was in these favourable circumstances that the Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans, as whose allies they esteemed themselves the equals of their co-religionists in Babylonia and Persia.
They were kindly treated, obtained religious liberty, of which they had so long been deprived, were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over their co-religionists, and were only obliged, like the conquered Christians, to pay poll tax…”
Tolerance and Popular Rule
Reinhart Dozy, an authority on early Islamic Spain, states with regards to Islamic tolerance, “…the unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also be taken into account. In religious matters they put pressure on no man…Christians preferred their rule to that of the Franks.”
Ulick R. Burke, a prominent historian specializing in the history of Spain, reached a similar conclusion, “Christians did not suffer in any way, on account of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule of the Arabs in Spain.”These historical realities were as a result of the cohesive values of Islam. The Qur’an states, “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
Justice
The Qur’an resonates with teachings of justice, “O You who believe! Be upholders of justice, bearing witness for God alone, even against yourselves or your parents and relatives. Whether they are rich or poor, God is well able to look after them. Do not follow your own desires and deviate from the truth. If you twist or turn away, God is aware of what you do.”“... God loves the just.”“O You who believe! Show integrity for the sake of God, bearing witness with justice. Do not let hatred for a people incite you into not being just. Be just. That is closer to faith. Heed God [alone]. God is aware of what you do.”
In Islamic history, where the cohesive values of Islam such as justice were propagated, the conclusions made by some historians are unparalleled, an Italian Rabbi, Obadiah Yareh Da Bertinoro, travelled to Jerusalem in 1486 CE and he wrote a letter to his father telling him about the country and its people under the Islamic Social Model, “The Jews are not persecuted by the Arabs in these parts. I have travelled through the country in its length and breadth, and none of them has put an obstacle in my way. They are very kind to strangers, particularly to anyone who does not know the language; and if they see many Jews together they are not annoyed by it. In my opinion, an intelligent man versed in political science might easily raise himself to be chief of the Jews as well as of the Arabs…”
The Jewish historian Amnon Cohen states that the Jewish minorities sought justice from the Islamic courts rather than their own, “The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…”
Distribution of Resources
The distribution of wealth and resources constitutes the macro-economy of the Islamic economic model; the Qur’an repeatedly mentions distribution of resources and charity. “Do good to the indigent till their economic imbalance is no more.”“Feed the indigent, without wishing any return from them, not even a word of thanks.”
The famous letter from a Rabbi found in Phillip Mansel’s book ‘Constantinople’, reflects the Qur’anic reality of distributing resources, “Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom...”
See ‘Is Islamic Society Barbaric?’ for more details http://www.hittininstitute.com/Article.aspx?ID=20&category=3
Notes:Source: http://www.islam21c.com/
[1] The Liberal Project and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press. 2008. p. 28
[2] Ibid p. 29
[3] Ibid p. 32
[4] See ‘Liberalism and its Effect on Society’ for more details http://www.hittininstitute.com/Article.aspx?ID=18
[5] Some of the Fruits of Islam when it experienced political power:
Nice note written by Dr W, June 21, 2009
Nice note, and it is something we must keep in mind when trying to understand why so many 'westerners' hate religion, especially when it seeks political power. However, how would you answer the liberal academics when they claim liberalism is universal because its origins are universal? They may say that intolerance is commonplace in the world, especially the muslim world.
Dear Hamza. A couple of points. I think the success of liberalism in the hearts and minds of non-muslims (and even Muslims) is that violence, intolerance, and coercion are phenomena not limited to Catholicism (or catholic history) but to mankind. This is why Hindus, christians, jews, muslims and atheists have embraced the ideology of liberalism.
Whilst Liberalism may have emerged as we know it rooted in the history you have outlined above - it seems to appeal, and work in many respects. Muslims are sometimes very quick to use a few scattered quotes about Islamic spain etc but Islamic history is not free of intolerance, violence and coercion. There have been problems between religion (church) and state - consider the civil war of the companions for instance. Did an Islamic liberalism emerge? the individualist view may be criticised theoretically or philosophically but in practice it protects people, individuals.
Islamic systems, which I assume you believe are perfect, have not done this in innumerable instances. today, is not true Hamza, that Muslims are the new Catholics (oppressive, coercive, intolerant)? Is it not they who blow up other Muslims opening their fasts and praying Friday prayers? what's the alternative sir?
Dear Sir/Madam, is liberalism free of intolerance, coercion and violence. Can you give me any examples of non-liberal Cathoilics, Jews and Muslims being responsible for the deaths of millions. The libarals are. The so called liberal governments have caused millions to die in very recent wars (Iraq alone inherited over one million deaths). Operation "enduring freedom" was to ensure freedom from tyrants but waht followed was the coercion of the masses into embracing an alien political system: Western style Democracy. Did you see the manifestation of the liberal tolerance in practice in Abu Ghurayb prison? Muslims do not give examples from Islamic Spain alone rather we look at our history objectively and when we do that, we come to realise that we were better of then than now. And the wars between the companions of the Prophet did not breed any intolerance for the Christians and the Jews rather there was peace for them.
John Bar Penkaye (a Christian monk writing in the riegn of Muawiyyah (r.661-80 CE), who was one of the contestants in the civil war of the Companions) writes that: ‘the peace throughout the world was such that we have never heard, either from our fathers or from our grandparents, or seen that there had ever been any like it’(Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests, London, 2008, P. 349). May Allah enable us to see the truth. Ameen. Wassalam.
To Apocrypha 2 written by A Rashid, June 24, 2009
The individualist liberal out look not only fails to convince ones intellect in a theoretical or philosophical discourse, it has also failed miserably in practice. To take one example, there are 46000 rapes taking place every year in the UK. How does Liberalism/Individualism protect the women of this country in practice?
While Islam in theory and practice protects the honour of women. For theory, please read the first 25 verses of chapter 24 (Sura An-Noor) of the Quran. For Practice, compare the rape statistics of the UK with that of the KSA (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), of course considering the poulation size at the same time. As for the Muslims being Catholics (oppressive, coercive, intolerant), you are right. These Muslims should be like Muslims, not like historical Catholics. They should follow the example of Mohammad SA, which breeds Tolerance, Peace and Freedom of religion. Islam is the solution/alternative.
Responding to Apocrypha written by Hamza A. Tzortzis, June 25, 2009
Dear Apocrypha, Thank you for your comments, Your first point needs to be substantiated: "I think the success of liberalism in the hearts and minds of non-Muslims (and even Muslims) is that violence, intolerance, and coercion are phenomena not limited to Catholicism (or catholic history) but to mankind.." I would challenge your assumption that Muslims have been won over by liberalism and its values, judging by current political trends and international polls (see Gallup & University of Maryland) you will conclude that the opposite is actually true. Over 70% of the Muslims world wants the Shariah (Islamic Law) as a part of their political makeup. This is antithetical to liberalism, in though and practice.
Your second point: "Whilst Liberalism may have emerged as we know it rooted in the history you have outlined above - it seems to appeal, and work in many respects." I must also challenge this. One example is that liberalism has failed society. Please see this article as an example. 'Liberalism and its Effect on Society' http://www.islam21c.com/britis...ciety.html
Your third point: "There have been problems between religion (church) and state - consider the civil war of the companions for instance. Did an Islamic liberalism emerge?" Is this the only example you can cite? If it is then you have used the wrong example. The 'civil' war was not a political battle that challenged the status quo. It was a theological concern. Please read your history. I would argue that no where in the 1100 year history was there a war or violence to remove Islam from the political arena. Islam simply doesn’t share European history.
An Islamic liberalism didn’t emerge because Islam doesn’t need to re-invent itself, and as previously mentioned there was no clash between 'mosque' and state, and I have shown this to you by explaining that your example is flawed. History has shown that when a society re-aligns itself with Islam, it succeeds. Your fourth point: "the individualist view may be criticised theoretically or philosophically but in practice it protects people, individuals. Islamic systems, which i assume you believe are perfect, have not done this in innumerable instances." Liberalism doesn’t have a monopoly on protecting individual rights.
The Islamic systems you quote, are they contemporary? Then I would disagree with your definition of an Islamic system, as one doesn’t exist today. Also, have you not seen the basic civil liberties being discarded because 'national assembly' has voted them down due to perceived threats? In Islam this will never happen because law is divine, it can not be voted down by any assembly. Liberalism always re-invents the same mistakes because when the pressure is on, it breaks its own principles. Did we not see this is the financial crisis? All of a sudden state involvement is on the agenda! How illiberal! Your last point: "today, is not true Hamza, that Muslims are the new Catholics (oppressive, coercive, intolerant)? Is it not they who blow up other Muslims opening their fasts and praying Friday prayers?" As I said there is no Islamic system in place today, so your analogy is baseless.....
salam. something's gone amiss here I feel. Hamza's article essentialy just says that liberalism emerged due to the violence and intolerance of catholicism. and 'apocrypha' suggested that the same problems exist in different forms within the Muslim condition. Adnan and Hamza's response didnt really address that did it? Whatever the reason the companions engaged in civil war and killed each other. (what's religion got to do with a decision to pursue the assassins of uthman now or later? i dont agree with Hamza, the civil war was very much political and not religious...in fact i dont understand why Hamza would say that it was religious - what history are you reading bro?).
The muslims raped plenty of women taking them as slave girls all across greater syria, iraq, north africa for instance. And i dont think there was a suitable answer for muslims being the new catholics - hamza simply suggested that there's no islamic system in place impying that these are the actions of rogue Muslims. But if muslims are blowing up each other and others indiscriminately, and its undeniable that they are doing this, then one could easily argue that catholics when they were intolerant were not following the teachings of their scriptures and these too were rogues. There have been plenty of rogue muslim forces (mu'tazila/khwarij/shia etc).
I mean we need to respond to these issues....but is this it? is this all we've got? A few figures of rape, and subjective cries of this is baseless and shallow requests to read history. What if they list figures of corruption and unreported rape in the muslim world because of tribal culture etc.
Islam and Human Rights
Islam and Human Rights
Emran Qureshi and Heba Raouf Ezzat
Emran Qureshi and Heba Raouf Ezzat
Are Sharia Laws and Human Rights Compatible?
In their correspondence, Emran Qureshi (journalist and expert for Islam and human rights) and Heba Raouf Ezzat (lecturer for political science and womens' rights activist) discuss the role of the sharia in Islamic countries and in how far sharia laws are compatible with human rights.
Dear Heba, Emran Qureshi
The Sharia law, as is practiced in many Muslim countries today, is clearly incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today Sharia is a source of injustice that profanes Islam and shames Muslims who adhere to a compassionate and merciful interpretation of their faith. At the same time I cannot see why a more humane and gentler Sharia law that is confined to the personal realm could not emerge in the future.
Traditional Muslims - apart from Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims who are dominant in Saudi-Arabia - have long recognized the legitimacy of multiple schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is in addition to latitudinarian Islamic juridical practices, e.g. the borrowing of more liberal practices from other schools of thought. It shows that there is a remarkable capacity in Islam for reinterpretation.
Nevertheless, I sadly think that a gentler Sharia is unlikely to emerge since today we are presented with the anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism, and moral depravity of these self-appointed Salafi guardians of Sharia.Instead one should ask the question: Why has Sharia become the marker of the Muslim state? Thus Islam as envisioned by Islamist intellectuals is simply a penal code, and an Islamic State, a penal colony, which enforces the "pure" Islam. This is an extraordinary failure on the part of modern Muslim thinkers.
Khaled Abou El Fadl, a prominent Islamic intellectual reformer in the United States, has observed of contemporary Islamist intellectuals "Instead of Islam being a moral vision given to humanity, it becomes constructed into the antithesis of the West. In the world constructed by these groups, there is no Islam; there is only opposition to the West." This is sadly true.These corrosive ideas do not spring from a vacuum. They arise instead from impoverished Salafi and Wahhabi discourses, which are corroding Islam from within.
There is a straight line between the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretations - a puritanical, anti-rationalist, misogynistic Islam with a punitive, intolerant Sharia - and the violence, which now bloodstains our faith. Those who challenge this moral and ethical perversion of our faith are instead attacked as heretics as we can witness in Saudi-Arabia.
Sincerely,
Emran Qureshi
Dear Emran, Heba Raouf Ezzat
The Sharia law is not only compatible with human rights but also the most effective way to achieve human rights. Human rights violations in Muslim countries - whose regimes are usually supported by Western allies - are not due to Sharia law. The violence in Islamic countries is mainly exercised by the state and dates back to the post-colonial era.
There was an attempt to secularize the different laws of the Islamic societies and to remove Sharia. The legal systems of the late French and British colonial powers were seen as a model for the judicial reformation and as a basis for modernising the state. However, these new secular and socialist regimes were totalitarian. They manipulated the up to then independent traditional religious institutions and appointed the heads of religious bodies and universities. Islam, when reduced to a penal code, was used to violate human rights.
Modern Islamic intellectuals were influenced by this. In their eyes the state was the means by which society and religion were being reshaped. In order to achieve an Islamic renaissance - and that is why Sharia has become the marker of the Muslim state – they tried to get their hands on the state. In the struggle against the totalitarian regimes they wanted and want to bring back the law of Sharia. For them it is only through the Sharia that the strength of Islam can be recaptured. This struggle is a matter of power, with religion used and abused by both sides.
The Muslim Brotherhood that is banned in Egypt advocates Sharia and has been running for elections for more than a decade accepting the rule of law. The word "Sharia" means path. The road of Islam encompasses belief and morality for an individual, as much as a legal, economic and social framework, to govern a society. Moreover, Sharia is a progressive platform which empowers the people and protects their rights against totalitarianism and utilitarian ultra-capitalism. It can be an egalitarian force for democratic social justice, in the Muslim countries and globally.
Islam’s central values are justice and personal freedom. However, they can also threaten Western economic interests when Muslim societies defend not only their cultural values but also aspire for economic independence. Reducing Islam to the individual moral dimension, as you would suggest, means that Islam loses its core as a progressive socialist liberation theology with a vision of a just society.
Ironically, the Islamic groups themselves are far from recognizing that and instead focus on penal codes and some outdated interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence. It is true though that some Islamic groups regard Islam as an anti-thesis of the West. However, this mainly results from Western support for some of the most despotic regimes in the Middle East.
Sincerely,
Heba Raouf Ezzat
Dear Heba, Emran Qureshi
On the whole I agree with you though with a caveat: Sharia may one day in the distant future be a positive force for change. Though for me it is emblematic of what is profoundly and pathologically wrong with the Muslim world. It seems that existing reality does not filter into the consciousness of this discussion. Sharia as practised today illustrates injustice and denies human freedom. For example, in parts of the Muslim world like Pakistan and Nigeria, women who are raped are prosecuted under Sharia law for fornication.
In Saudi-Arabia the amputation of limbs as a punishment still occurs. Is that an act that is morally defensible? Finally, women under the reign of the Taliban were denied basic human elementary freedoms such as mobility, education, and healthcare - all in the name of Islam. To their everlasting shame, many Islamist intellectuals remained for the most part indifferent or silent to these crimes.
The ideals of the existing Sharia are imbued with a Salafi and Wahhabi ideology. That’s why I do not only criticise Sharia as practised today, but also Salafism and Wahhabism, which provide the intellectual framework for the Sharia. I noticed that you could not bring yourself to say anything remotely critical or even mention these two ideologies by name.
Certainly there is no denying that colonialism was a disaster of epic proportions for Muslims - mostly because of the pathological reactive Islamist ideologies and despotic states that played a role in perpetrating violence that emerged. And I cannot at all disagree with you on Western state support for despotic regimes. However, it does not alone explain the violence in Muslim lands today or deny the fact that this violence is largely a result of a congealed globalized Salafi and Jihadi ideology.
This Islamist globalisation must be resisted. It is a violence that profanes past traditions of Islamic pluralism and tolerance (I know it is Ramadan in Pakistan because that is when Sunni Jihadi organisations best like to firebomb Shiite mosques).You define Islam as a political ideology and criticise Islam for being relegated to the realm of the personal moral dimension. Islam should apparently not be viewed as a moral vision for humanity, but instead be received as a utopian political ideology one in which the state enforces virtue, and has a socialist inflection.
Thus Islam for Islamists is nothing more than a utilitarian receptacle for their favourite ideologies de jour. I also sense a denigration of ideals that deal with personal liberties and freedoms, but I hasten to note that the human freedoms, which matter the most are those that are the closest to the individual.
Sincerely,
Emran Qureshi
Dear Emran, Heba Raouf Ezzat
I do not limit the Sharia to a political ideology, but instead view it as a solution, one that encompasses the public and private spheres and centralizes around civil and individual values. Civil morality and civic virtues have been, and will continue to be, central to the future manifestation of Islam.
These are rooted in a solid system of socio-economic welfare advocated by Islamic jurists over centuries, in which the average citizen is empowered and in which the grass root politics of presence is stronger than the elitist politics of representation.If today there is an "over-legalization" of the concept of Sharia - I am referring to abuses in the name of the Sharia - one cannot only blame the Islamists.
The spread of global capitalism and its impact on human rights should be ignored in this discussion, because for many Islamists - apart from the Salafis and Wahhabis who defend a puritan and exclusive understanding of the Sharia which they want to impose on Muslims and non-Muslims alike - Sharia presents a form of resistance to the global capitalist order which they feel is infringing on their communal and national rights. If some Islamists resort to violent means in order to impose Sharia we should also remember that for many other millions of civil activists Sharia remains a legitimate source of dignity and freedom and a trigger for global justice and equality.
In order to respect the right of Muslims to an alternative world view, a new vision needs to be established between how Muslims and the global civil society interact. Your reference to the misuse of Sharia in Nigeria or Pakistan is right, but in these cases Sharia was manipulated. Atrocities also occur in non-Muslim where there is no Sharia and where other cultural and religious values get abused.We need to understand in more depth why humans resort to violence. Otherwise we will continue to look at Muslims and their cultures as barbaric and view their Sharia as the root of all evil.
That would mean that Muslims can only hope for the future if they trivialize the role of Islam in their public life and restrict it to personal morality. This is simply not fair.
Sincerely,
Heba Raouf Ezzat
Dear Heba, Emran Qureshi
A democracy offers intrinsic political, economic and social benefits and does not deserve the condescension that you offer by "elite representation".I have problems with the "civic virtue" that you describe. On the one hand, Islamists, especially Salafis, tend to generalize their interpretations and project it backward into history in order to enforce validity. On the other hand "civic virtue" has historical as well as geographical specificities.
In "Islamic" Indonesia civic virtue is shaped by different influences than in cosmopolitan centres of Islam or in agrarian and nomadic regions. Centuries ago, civic virtues denied women denied the right to education. However, enforcing "virtue" and Sharia are staples of Islamist discourse: Thus Pakistani mullahs obsess about their citizenry watching Indian "Hindu" Bollywood movies and music and this pattern repeats itself elsewhere. Notice how here aesthetic and artistic endeavours are restricted in the guise of "virtue".
I also sense Islamists continue to profoundly define their worldview reactively vis-à-vis the West. Thus Islamism today is both a by-product of globalization. Islamists, as the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are ideologically driven will fail. Against that Islamists parties as you find them in Turkey that attempt to meet the needs and aspirations of its citizenry will be successful. In effect, these Islamists will help to secularize their societies.
Thus, Islamists are the harbingers of globalization: democracy, secularization, and individual rights. So I must congratulate them for this. Iran is a perfect example. There the young people of that country put bluntly want freedom from the Mullahs. Who would but think that possibility would arise from within political Islam?You also disparage capitalism in the name of Islam, but I suspect would not deny the appeal of the latest capitalist gadgetry (e.g. the laptop computer, cell phone, television, and Hermes scarves).
Please remember that Prophet Mohammad and his wife were humane business people that engaged in commerce. Recall the Hadith: "He who accumulates earnings by honest trade is the beloved of God."
Interestingly, it was thanks to mainly Muslim traders that Islam spread into India and South East Asia. That is a kind of Islamic globalization if you will that is not criticized by present-day Islamists.Finally, the intellectuals are responsible for criticizing their received traditions and practices. But I do not know one - not one single Islamist intellectual that criticizes in a sustained manner Salafism or Wahhabism (a cancer corroding Islamic traditions from within), and is further willing also to acknowledge the corrosive effects of Jihadi "suicide" violence.
To mention this is to not demonize Muslims, as it should be apparent that no people have a monopoly on virtue or vice. I also note that when Islamist regimes engage in genocide or mass murder we see little internal condemnation - witness the reaction to the genocide campaign in Darfur against African Muslims by the fascist Sudanese regime.What we see today is nothing less than a profound anti-intellectualism and immorality that is corroding the soul of Islam by those that purport to unfurl and defend the banner of Islam.
Sincerely,
Emran Qureshi
Dear Emran, Heba Raouf Ezzat
I support liberal as well as Islamic civic virtues as well as the celebration of human dignity and social welfare. But I do not believe that democracy necessitates a specific economic system. As Islam is more of a social democracy than an economically liberal one, it can be viewed as a democracy and platform to tame capitalism. If we enjoy the fruits of modernity, mainly science and technology as you pointed out, it does not mean that we should not be critical to the ultra utilitarian ideas some modernists advocated.
Capitalism is not what we are keen to defend but rather an egalitarian and humanist Islam.Darfur is a sad story if you wish to give an example of how a regime that advocates a narrow legal notion of Sharia can become so authoritarian and ignore equal distribution of national wealth and social justice as well as true power sharing. Yet allow me to ask: is this a problem of Islamic politics or rather a recurrent policy of African political elites?Iran is enjoying a dynamic political change and that we can only hope that other regimes in the region would allow the same transparency and openness.
I do not advocate an Iran without Mullahs in the public sphere, as the grip of Shii doctrines is strong, but I do advocate a larger presence of progressive voices. We should admit that an Islamic Iran has been relatively more democratic that the secular rule of the former "Shah of Persia" who was an ally of the "liberal" American administration.
Moreover, many Muslims have raised their voice against atrocities committed in the name of Islam. The Wahhabis and Salafis were subject to harsh criticism by Muslim intellectuals such as Yusuf Qaradawy and late Mohamed Ghazali. Both these intellectuals stressed democratic notions of women’s rights and minorities’ equality. Many other names can be mentioned in other contexts who had critical views regarding the practices of Wahhabis in the domestic politics of many regimes in the Arab peninsula.
It is true there are those who abuse Islam. In the same way we see liberals or socialists abusing the moral core of their respective ideologies, be it individual liberty or the primacy of social justice. In a global age we need to unite across ideologies, religions and cultures to defend us of extremists of any kind.
Through constructive debates we could come to democratic experience that, with time, sweeps away injustice, hegemony and arrogance in each and every corner of this small world and allows the heart of Islam to be recaptured as a message of mercy, justice and power sharing.
Sincerely,
Heba Raouf Ezzat***
The correspondence was conducted between June and August 2004. The letters were first published in the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau on 4 October 2004. The correspondence was initiated by free-lance journalist Monika Jung-Mounib, currently working in Switzerland.
Emran Qureshi is a journalist and expert for Islam and human rights. He is currently a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. "The New Crusaded, Constructing the Muslim Enemy" is his most recent publication (Columbia University Press, 2003). He resides in Ottawa, where he is working on his next book, "A Study of Islam and Human Rights".
Heba Raouf Ezzat teaches political theory at the Department of Political Science, Cairo University. She is co-ordinator of the Civil Society Program at the Center for Political Research and Studies at Cairo University and editor of the Global Civil Society Yearbook. She also works as womens' rights activist.
Source, Qantara Website: http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-373/_nr-6/i.html
What They Said about Muhammad
Description: The statements of western scholars who have studied Islam about the Prophet. By iiie.net (edited by IslamReligion.com)Published on 20 Feb 2006 - Last modified on 04 Oct 2009 Viewed: 16533 (daily average: 12) - Rating: 4.6 out of 5 - Rated by: 15Printed: 781 - Emailed: 16 - Commented on: 0
During the centuries of the Crusades, all sorts of slanders were invented against the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him. With the birth of the modern age, however, marked with religious tolerance and freedom of thought, there has been a great change in the approach of Western authors in their delineation of his life and character. The views of some non-Muslim scholars regarding Prophet Muhammad, given at the end, justify this opinion.
The West has still to go a step forward to discover the greatest reality about Muhammad, and that is his being the true and last Prophet of God for all of humanity. In spite of all its objectivity and enlightenment here has been no sincere and objective attempt by the West to understand the Prophethood of Muhammad. It is so strange that very glowing tributes are paid to him for his integrity and achievement, but his claim of being the Prophet of God has been rejected explicitly and implicitly. It is here that a searching of the heart is required, and a review if the so-called objectivity is needed. The following glaring facts from the life of Muhammad have been furnished to facilitate an unbiased, logical and objective decision regarding his Prophethood.
Up to the age of forty, Muhammad was not known as a statesman, a preacher or an orator. He was never seen discussing the principles of metaphysics, ethics, law, politics, economics or sociology. No doubt he possessed an excellent character, charming manners and was highly cultured. Yet there was nothing so deeply striking and so radically extraordinary in him that would make men expect something great and revolutionary from him in the future. But when he came out from the Cave of Hira with a new message, he was completely transformed. Is it possible for such a person of the above qualities to turn all of a sudden into ‘an imposter’ and claim to be the Prophet of God and thus invite the rage of his people? One might ask, for what reason did he suffer all the hardships imposed on him? His people offered to accept him as their king and to lay all the riches of the land at his feet if only he would leave the preaching of his religion. But he chose to refuse their tempting offers and go on preaching his religion single-handedly in the face of all kinds of insults, social boycott and even physical assault by his own people. Was it not only God’s support and his firm will to disseminate the message of God and his deep-rooted belief that ultimately Islam would emerge as the only way of life for humanity, that he stood like a mountain in the face of all opposition and conspiracies to eliminate him? Furthermore, had he come with a design of rivalry with the Christians and the Jews, why should he have made belief in Jesus and Moses and other Prophets of God, may God praise them all, a basic requirement of faith without which no one could be a Muslim?
Is it not an incontrovertible proof of his Prophethood that in spite of being unlettered and having led a very normal and quiet life for forty years, when he began preaching his message, all of Arabia stood in awe and wonder at his wonderful eloquence and oratory? It was so matchless that the whole legion of Arab poets, preachers and orators of the highest caliber failed to bring forth its equivalent. And above all, how could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature contained in the Quran that no human being could possibly have developed at that time?
Last but not least, why did he lead a hard life, even after gaining power and authority? Just ponder over the words he uttered while dying:
“We, the community of the Prophets, are not inherited. Whatever we leave behind is for charity.”
As a matter of fact, Muhammad is the last link of the chain of Prophets sent in different lands and times since the beginning of human life on this planet. The following are writings of some western authors regarding Muhammad.
Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol II, pp. 276-77:
“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls... the forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unit of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?”
Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, History of the Saracen Empire, London, 1870, p. 54:
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Quran...The Mahometans[1] have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’, is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p. 92:
“He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”
Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4:
“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”
W. Montgomery, Mohammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, p. 52:
“His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”
James A. Michener, ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion’ in Reader’s Digest (American Edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70:
“Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.
“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one God.”
“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumors of God’s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human-being.’
“At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever.’”
Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33:
“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.”
Footnotes:
[1] The term Mahometans and Mohammadanism is a misnomer introduced by orientalists certain due to their lack of understanding of Islam, in analogy to Christ and Christianity.
Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol II, pp. 276-77:
“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls... the forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unit of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?”
Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, History of the Saracen Empire, London, 1870, p. 54:
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Quran...The Mahometans[1] have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’, is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p. 92:
“He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”
Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4:
“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”
W. Montgomery, Mohammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, p. 52:
“His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”
James A. Michener, ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion’ in Reader’s Digest (American Edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70:
“Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.
“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one God.”
“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumors of God’s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human-being.’
“At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever.’”
Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33:
“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.”
Footnotes:
[1] The term Mahometans and Mohammadanism is a misnomer introduced by orientalists certain due to their lack of understanding of Islam, in analogy to Christ and Christianity.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
“....a mass of detail in the early sources show that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were like-wise honest and upright men.” (Vol. 12)
George Bernard Shaw said about him:
“He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness.”
(The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936)
He was by far the most remarkable man that ever set foot on this earth. He preached a religion, founded a state, built a nation, laid down a moral code, initiated numerous social and political reforms, established a powerful and dynamic society to practice and represent his teachings and completely revolutionized the worlds of human thought and behavior for all times to come.
His Name is Muhammad. He was born in Arabia in the year 570 C.E., started his mission of preaching the religion of Truth, Islam (submission to One God) at the age of forty and departed from this world at the age of sixty-three. During this short period of twenty three years of his Prophethood, he changed the complete Arabian peninsula from paganism and idolatry to worship of One God, from tribal quarrels and wars to national solidarity and cohesion, from drunkenness and debauchery to sobriety and piety, from lawlessness and anarchy to disciplined living, from utter bankruptcy to the highest standards of moral excellence. Human history has never known such a complete transformation of a people or a place before or since - and imagine all these unbelievable wonders in just over two decades.
LaMartine, the renowned historian speaking on the essentials of human greatness wonders:
“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls....his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was two-fold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with the words.”
“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all the standards by which Human Greatness may be measured, we may well ask, Is there any man greater than he?”
(Lamartine, Histoire de la Turqui, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp 276-277)
The world has had its share of great personalities. But these were one-sided figures who distinguished themselves in but one or two fields, such as religious thought or military leadership. The lives and teachings of these great personalities of the world are shrouded in the mist of time. There is so much speculation about the time and place of their birth, the mode and style of their life, the nature and detail of their teachings and the degree and measure of their success or failure that it is impossible for humanity to reconstruct accurately the lives and teachings of these men.
Not so this man. Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, accomplished so much in such diverse fields of human thought and behavior in the fullest blaze of human history. Every detail of his private life and public utterances has been accurately documented and faithfully preserved to our day. The authenticity of the record so preserved are vouched for not only by the faithful followers but even by his prejudiced critics.
Muhammad was a religious teacher, a social reformer, a moral guide, an administrative colossus, a faithful friend, a wonderful companion, a devoted husband, a loving father - all in one. No other man in history ever excelled or equaled him in any of these different aspects of life - but it was only for the selfless personality of Muhammad to achieve such incredible perfections.
Mahatma Gandhi, speaking on the character of Muhammad, says in (Young India):
“I wanted to know the best of one who holds today’s undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life.”
Thomas Carlyle in his (Heroes and Heroworship), was simply amazed as to:
“how one man single-handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades.”
Diwan Chand Sharma wrote:
“Muhammad was the soul of kindness, and his influence was felt and never forgotten by those around him.”
(D.C. Sharma, The Prophet of the East, Calcutta, 1935, pp. 12)
Edward Gibbon and Simon Ockley speaking on the profession of Islam write:
“I believe in One God, and Mahomet, an Apostle of God’is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honor of the Prophet has never transgressed the measure of human virtues; and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
(History of the Saracan Empires, London, 1870, p. 54)
Muhammad was nothing more or less than a human being. But he was a man with a noble mission, which was to unite humanity on the worship of One and Only One God and to teach them the way to honest and upright living based on the commands of God. He always described himself as, “A Servant and Messenger of God,” and so indeed every action of his proclaimed to be.
Speaking on the aspect of equality before God in Islam, the famous poetess of India, Sarojini Naidu says:
“It was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy; for, in the mosque, when the call for prayer is sounded and worshippers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and king kneel side by side and proclaim: ‘God Alone is Great’... I have been struck over and over again by this indivisible unity of Islam that makes man instinctively a brother.”
(S. Naidu, Ideals of Islam, vide Speeches & Writings, Madras, 1918, p. 169)
In the words of Prof. Hurgronje:
“The league of nations founded by the prophet of Islam put the principle of international unity and human brotherhood on such universal foundations as to show candle to other nations.” He continues: “The fact is that no nation of the world can show a parallel to what Islam has done towards the realization of the idea of the League of Nations.”
The world has not hesitated to raise to divinity, individuals whose lives and missions have been lost in legend. Historically speaking, none of these legends achieved even a fraction of what Muhammad accomplished. And all his striving was for the sole purpose of uniting mankind for the worship of One God on the codes of moral excellence. Muhammad or his followers never at any time claimed that he was a Son of God or the God-incarnate or a man with divinity - but he always was and is even today considered as only a Messenger chosen by God.
Michael H. Hart in his recently published book on ratings of men who contributed towards the benefit and upliftment of mankind writes:
“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.”
(M.H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York, 1978, p. 33)
K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, an Indian Professor of Philosophy in his booklet, (“Muhammad, The Prophet of Islam,”) calls him the
“Perfect model for human life.”
Prof. Ramakrishna Rao explains his point by saying:
“The personality of Muhammad, it is most difficult to get into the whole truth of it. Only a glimpse of it I can catch. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes! There is Muhammad, the Prophet. There is Muhammad, the Warrior; Muhammad, the Businessman; Muhammad, the Statesman; Muhammad, the Orator; Muhammad, the Reformer; Muhammad, the Refuge of Orphans; Muhammad, the Protector of Slaves; Muhammad, the Emancipator of Women; Muhammad, the Judge; Muhammad, the Saint. All in all these magnificent roles, in all these departments of human activities, he is alike a hero.”
Today after a lapse of fourteen centuries, the life and teachings of Muhammad have survived without the slightest loss, alteration or interpolation. They offer the same undying hope for treating mankind’s many ills, which they did when he was alive. This is not a claim of Muhammad’s followers but also the inescapable conclusion forced upon by a critical and unbiased history.
The least you could do as a thinking and concerned human being is to stop for a moment and ask yourself: Could these statements sounding so extraordinary and revolutionary be really true? And supposing they really are true and you did not know this man Muhammad or hear about him, isn’t it time you responded to this tremendous challenge and put in some effort to know him?
It will cost you nothing but it may prove to be the beginning of a completely new era in your life.
Kamis, Oktober 08, 2009
Herta Mueller Wins Nobel Prize in Literature
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 8, 2009
Filed at 10:18 a.m. ET
STOCKHOLM (AP) -- Herta Mueller, a little-known Romanian-born author who was persecuted for her critical depictions of life behind the Iron Curtain, won the 2009 Nobel Prize in literature Thursday in an award seen as a nod to the 20th anniversary of communism's collapse.
The decision was expected to keep alive the controversy surrounding the academy's pattern of awarding the prize to European writers.
Mueller, a member of Romania's ethnic German minority, was honored for work that ''with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed,'' the Swedish Academy said.
''I am very surprised and still can not believe it,'' Mueller said in a statement released by her publisher in Germany, where she is widely renowned. ''I can't say anything more at the moment.''
Peter Englund, the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, told The Associated Press this week that the secretive Swedish Academy had been too ''eurocentric'' in picking winners.
His predecessor, Horace Engdahl, stirred up heated emotions across the Atlantic when he told the AP in 2008 that ''Europe still is the center of the literary world'' and the quality of U.S. writing was dragged down because authors were ''too sensitive to trends in their own mass culture.''
After Mueller was announced, he told AP that ''If you are European (it is) easier to relate to European literature. It's the result of psychological bias that we really try to be aware of. It's not the result of any program.''
Mueller, 56, made her debut in 1982 with a collection of short stories titled ''Niederungen,'' or ''Nadirs,'' depicting the harshness of life in a small, German-speaking village in Romania. It was promptly censored by the communist government.
In 1984 an uncensored version was smuggled to Germany, where it was published and devoured by readers. That work was followed by ''Oppressive Tango'' in Romania but she was eventually prohibited from publishing inside her country for her criticism of dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's rule and its feared secret police, the Securitate.
''The Romanian national press was very critical of these works while, outside of Romania, the German press received them very positively,'' the Academy said.
Mueller, whose father served in the Waffen SS during World War II, is the third European to win the prize in a row and the 10th German, joining Guenter Grass in 1999 and Heinrich Boell in 1972.
Though Englund said the award was not timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism, that's how it was perceived by many observers.
''By giving the award to Herta Mueller, who grew up in a German-speaking minority in Romania, (the committee) has recognized an author who refuses to let the inhumane side of life under communism be forgotten,'' said Michael Krueger, head of Mueller's publisher Hanser Verlag.
Mueller emigrated to Germany with her husband in 1987, two years before Ceausescu was toppled from power amid the widening communist collapse across eastern Europe.
''This prize is the international recognition of the oppression of what happened in Romania and Eastern Europe,'' said Romanian actor Ion Caramitru, an anti-communist who rode atop a tank to the television station in Bucharest during the 1989 revolt and now heads the country's national theater.
Most of Mueller's work is in German, but some works have been translated into English, French and Spanish, including ''The Passport,'' ''The Land of Green Plums,'' ''Traveling on One Leg'' and ''The Appointment.''
Mueller's latest novel, ''Atemschaukel,'' or ''Swinging Breath'' is up for this year's German Book Prize, which will be announced Monday.
Mueller is the 12th woman to win the Nobel Prize in literature. Recent female winners include Austria's Elfriede Jelinek in 2004 and British writer Doris Lessing in 2007.
It's the first time four women have won Nobel Prizes in the same year. U.S.-based researchers Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider were among the medicine winners and the chemistry prize included Israel's Ada Yonath.
The prize includes a 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) prize and will be handed out Dec. 10 in the Swedish capital.
With literature, four of the 2009 Nobel Prizes have now been announced. American scientists won the medicine and physics prizes, while two Americans and an Israeli researcher shared the award for chemistry.
The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize will be announced Friday and the economics award on Monday.
Alfred Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who invented dynamite, established the Nobel Prizes in his will in 1895. The first awards were handed out six years later.
Besides the monetary prize, each award includes a diploma, a gold medal and an invitation to the prize ceremony in Stockholm on Dec. 10. The peace prize is handed out in Oslo.
Last year's literature prize went to French novelist Jean-Marie Le Clezio.
------
Associated Press Writers Alison Mutler in Bucharest, Romania, Melissa Eddy in Berlin and Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm contributed to this report.
------
On the Net:
http://www.nobelprize.org
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
