Wafah bin Laden Reality TV Show
Guardian Unlimited has an article on Usama bin Laden's neice who apperently lives in the US and has recently signed a deal to have her very own reality TV show. The article also informs us that Wafah bin Laden (now known as Wafah Dufour) is having a very hard time getting along with her life while having an uncle like the infamous Usama bin Laden. Having her very own reality TV show pushed the September 11th Family Association group to cry out against such an idea that will create a celebrity out of a bin Laden family member.
It is interesting to note the defence Regan Media had for Wafah against such attacks. They stated in her defence "She is a young woman who falls in love, has her heart broken, worries about her looks, doesn't always listen to her mother, and hasn't spoken to her father in years." Pretty cute isn't it? So this is a defence for a woman to be accepted in a Western society? Interesting. However, what's even more interesting is that Wafah Dufour went even further to try and become acceptable and integrate into the Western society by posing for a "photoshoot reclining in a bubble bath, wearing only a necklace."
Now you may ask this is all very well, but what does it have to do with political Islam (supposedly the main theme of this blog)? Well, Wafah Dufour summed it up by saying "I understand that when people hear my last name, they have preconceived notions, but I was born in America and I love my country." The point is people, that this woman is (or was?) a Muslim. However, if she didn't officially apostate from Islam, then the only remenant of the deen in her is an empty label. Religion is a set of rules and laws that a follower follows to the best of his ability in the belief that it will grant him a reward in some form whether in this life or the after. Wafah Dufour's true religion, the set of rules that she abides by, are certainly not Islam. Neither does she strives to please Allah. Her deen is the deen of Democracy and it is the people who she is trying to please and gain their acceptance. And not any people (not that it would make much of a difference) it is the non-Muslims that she is trying to please.
My point is that Wafah Dufour is a natural consequence of Democracy on our lands. The system of rule is like a religion, if a country adopts it, then the people will sooner or later follow unless in specific circumstances. It is because the system of rule is what creates the environment we live in, it will mold the people it is implemented on if not this generation then the next. Wafah Dufour is a Muslim who was born and lived all her life under a system with absolutly no hint of Islam. It is only natural that she turned out the way she did. The question now is, what about our lands? Let the Americans deal with their lands and let the British deal with theirs. The question is about what's on the way into our lands? The land between Morrocco and Indonesia. What system will you allow to take leadership? As Muslims are we not expected to live by Islam? And how can we live by Islam if the environment is un-Islamic? We can lock ourselves in our mosques and avoid coming out, but for how long? And will Allah be pleased with you living your life inside four walls trying to keep away of anything that will bring actual change. A shade for us and our children to live under that we can rest assured that no Wafah Dufours would come out.
Raising children depends on the parents first and then the society and then the government. The parents in their guidance and teaching and punishment. The society in determining what is normal, what is acceptable and what is laughed at and what is frowned upon. The government in it's laws and punishments, in it's educational curriculem and public services that provides the atmosphere required. The government is in it's implementation of the system, which thus molds the society which the family is a part of.
In the case of Wafah, we know her family failed by the fact that she rarely listens to her mother and never spoke to her father. We know the society failed by the fact that Wafah is constantly trying to please them firstly by posing naked and secondly by using her disobedience to her parents as a defence. We know the government has failed because a law student such as Wafah is actually stooping to such a low to gain acceptance of the society. And we know their system failed because to say the truth, the government is doing nothing less and nothing more than its implementation of the system itself which caused this mess.
It is interesting to note the defence Regan Media had for Wafah against such attacks. They stated in her defence "She is a young woman who falls in love, has her heart broken, worries about her looks, doesn't always listen to her mother, and hasn't spoken to her father in years." Pretty cute isn't it? So this is a defence for a woman to be accepted in a Western society? Interesting. However, what's even more interesting is that Wafah Dufour went even further to try and become acceptable and integrate into the Western society by posing for a "photoshoot reclining in a bubble bath, wearing only a necklace."
Now you may ask this is all very well, but what does it have to do with political Islam (supposedly the main theme of this blog)? Well, Wafah Dufour summed it up by saying "I understand that when people hear my last name, they have preconceived notions, but I was born in America and I love my country." The point is people, that this woman is (or was?) a Muslim. However, if she didn't officially apostate from Islam, then the only remenant of the deen in her is an empty label. Religion is a set of rules and laws that a follower follows to the best of his ability in the belief that it will grant him a reward in some form whether in this life or the after. Wafah Dufour's true religion, the set of rules that she abides by, are certainly not Islam. Neither does she strives to please Allah. Her deen is the deen of Democracy and it is the people who she is trying to please and gain their acceptance. And not any people (not that it would make much of a difference) it is the non-Muslims that she is trying to please.
My point is that Wafah Dufour is a natural consequence of Democracy on our lands. The system of rule is like a religion, if a country adopts it, then the people will sooner or later follow unless in specific circumstances. It is because the system of rule is what creates the environment we live in, it will mold the people it is implemented on if not this generation then the next. Wafah Dufour is a Muslim who was born and lived all her life under a system with absolutly no hint of Islam. It is only natural that she turned out the way she did. The question now is, what about our lands? Let the Americans deal with their lands and let the British deal with theirs. The question is about what's on the way into our lands? The land between Morrocco and Indonesia. What system will you allow to take leadership? As Muslims are we not expected to live by Islam? And how can we live by Islam if the environment is un-Islamic? We can lock ourselves in our mosques and avoid coming out, but for how long? And will Allah be pleased with you living your life inside four walls trying to keep away of anything that will bring actual change. A shade for us and our children to live under that we can rest assured that no Wafah Dufours would come out.
Raising children depends on the parents first and then the society and then the government. The parents in their guidance and teaching and punishment. The society in determining what is normal, what is acceptable and what is laughed at and what is frowned upon. The government in it's laws and punishments, in it's educational curriculem and public services that provides the atmosphere required. The government is in it's implementation of the system, which thus molds the society which the family is a part of.
In the case of Wafah, we know her family failed by the fact that she rarely listens to her mother and never spoke to her father. We know the society failed by the fact that Wafah is constantly trying to please them firstly by posing naked and secondly by using her disobedience to her parents as a defence. We know the government has failed because a law student such as Wafah is actually stooping to such a low to gain acceptance of the society. And we know their system failed because to say the truth, the government is doing nothing less and nothing more than its implementation of the system itself which caused this mess.
posted by Abdul Rahman Hilmi at 3/23/2006 04:35:00 PM
16 Comments:
If an environment is truly free, would not a person be free to freely exercise their religion as long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms of others?
If Wafah was free to live how she chose, why wouldn't an equally free person be free to live an Islamic lifestyle? In a culture of freedom, no one would be depriving that person of their freedom to live however they choose.
Also, are you denying that faithful Muslims do not live and correctly practice Islam in the freedom of the USA? Isn't choosing one example of someone you think did not "turn out right" simply ignoring the thousands of others who did?
[[If an environment is truly free, would not a person be free to freely exercise their religion as long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms of others?
If Wafah was free to live how she chose, why wouldn't an equally free person be free to live an Islamic lifestyle? In a culture of freedom, no one would be depriving that person of their freedom to live however they choose.]]
You're ignoring the effect the society has on individuals. You need to realise the fact that a Muslim who is raised in, say Afganistan, will most likely turn out different from a Muslim raised in the US. This would not be as much caused by the parents (who in both cases are Muslim) as it would be caused by the environment each child is raised in. If in the very least, we can stand on a common ground and accept that society does play a major role on the way individuals think, then we can build up from there.
In a society based on freedom, people would, on paper, have a choice to do what they wish to do within the boundaries of the law. However, taking the above point on the effect the society has in the thoughts of people, we will realise that the choices people will make, although they may believe they have absolute freedom and independance in their choice, is really just a consequence and product of the environment you have been raised in. I'm not saying that the Islamic system will provide such an independance of thought, neither am I even saying that such an independance is even possible. Society WILL have the upper hand and it WILL inforce it's thoughts on the individuals. The question is, what do we want the society to inforce and how do we want the individuals to turn out? This is where the ideological ruling system which is implemented by the government comes in, for it defines the environment.
Now how would that negatively effect a person who wishes to live Islamically? Well to put it simply, what happened to Christianity when Secularism took over Europe? Let alone how many people actually left the Christian faith, how many Christians actually pracitice their religion? Does it even have any degree of importance what so ever? No. And it is by no means an oppression against Christians. Go up to a Christian and he will most likely say that living in a non-secular country is unthinkable. He chooses to accept secularism. Or does he?
Wafah did not choose to turn out the way she did. She was the consequence of an environment which came naturally to her. I hope you're understanding what I'm trying to say. You do have freedom to use your thought and make a choice, but your whole thought, all the concepts you hold, came to you through a process of education. This education was brought to you by your parents, school, environment, friends, tv, etc.
[[Also, are you denying that faithful Muslims do not live and correctly practice Islam in the freedom of the USA? Isn't choosing one example of someone you think did not "turn out right" simply ignoring the thousands of others who did?]]
Actually I did think of that precise point when I wrote the article, you can even check the forth paragraph where I said, and I quote;
"My point is that Wafah Dufour is a natural consequence of Democracy on our lands. The system of rule is like a religion, if a country adopts it, then the people will sooner or later follow unless in specific circumstances."
I didn't go into what the specific circumstance is as it would require a whole new article which inshallah I would write soon. However, I'll make it clear now, that I did not intend to generalise. There are always exceptions to every theory and in this case, people could, obvously, go against the system of rule. These people, however, should have went through a specific education process or a special circumstance. The environment could have effected them differently, like for example a man who is disgusted by the use of women as sex object in TV adverts as compared to a man who enjoys it, both of whome could be a non-Muslim or a Muslim and both of whome were raised in the same environment. The environment will effect people, how it effects them is quite psychological, but in the end of the day, it is only a minority that will actually go against the system unless the system is directly oppressive on the majority.
Now the above reply to your last question is a general reply. As for Islam specifically, Islam, like Communism and Capitalism, is an ideology. It has it's specific laws and understanding of human nature. It has it's specific aim to establish, governmental rules to be applied. It has criminal law and a political understanding. So no, you cannot really be a Muslim living all your life in acceptance of the Western system without ignoring a large portion of Islam itself. It is similar to think a Communist can live in harmony in a Capitalist system. They are simply not compatible.
Did Osama Bin Laden turn out right?
I cannot see how this is related except for that you are trying to see where I stand in the Islamic extemism story. Well to put it as clear and simple as possible, no. I do not in any way support bin Laden or any bin Ladenist method to solve our problems.
The short version is, we do not engage in violence until the re-establishment of the Caliphate. So our main work as Muslims should be to re-establish the Caliphate using the method the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) took to establish the first Islamic State which he ruled.
The longer version of our view on violence is as follows.
During the early days of the Islamic message, the prophet and his followers had a very difficult time. They were sanctioned, tortures, slaughtered, robbed of their properties and thrown out of their homes. With all this unjustice on the prophet and his companions, the prophet refused to engage in violence against the tribes that attacked him. Several companions pleaded with him to raise up arms against Quraish (todays Mecca, the main tribe that opposed Muhammad) particularly Hamza, but the prophet refused and told Hamza to be patient.
According to the Seerah (biography of the prophet (pbuh)), the prophet has finally organised an army only after the establishment of the state in Madinah. And that was the first time that an sword was raised in the name of Islam. So no, we should not engage in any offensive violence whatsoever at the current state the Muslims are in. However, self defence is a different issue. If someone forces himself into your house you have all the right to protect yourself and your family. However, this is a case of individual self defence. I do not indorse an armed militia. That is unacceptable as far as my understanding of Islam is.
For an even more detailed analysis of the method we adopt to re-establish the Caliphate, read this.
Ok, we understand that following the prophet's example, you do not condone violence until your "army" has grown enough to be able to kill anyone who doesn't agree with your ideology. So, we won't use Osama as an example. Let's use the child molesters, the maid rapists, the drug abusers and the out of control male youths of Saudi Arabia. Did they turn out ok?
I wonder how many "Muslims" living in a society that forces them by shunning or threat of death to accept their religion rebel against that "religion" by giving it a bad name by becoming extemists like Osama?
asalamu alaikum um haleema
**you do not condone violence until your "army" has grown enough to be able to kill anyone who doesn't agree with your ideology.**
I have spoken of re-establishing a Caliphate, be definition, a country that will rule by Islam and bring all the Muslims together under the shade of the Quraan and Sunnah. If your idea of a Caliphate is one that will kill anyone who disagrees with it, then let me inform you um haleema. Our history is filled with great days that we are proud of, even if there were times when things went wrong, nevertheless, it wasn't as bad as it is today. We weren't only militarily powerful, but we were ahead of any other nation in science, poetry, architecture. Even non-Muslims wanted to live under the Caliphate that it is a documented fact that in the Shaam the Christians fought alongside the Muslims against the Crusaders. In Spain, it was the native Jews that opened the gates of Grenada (I think it was Grenada) for the Muslims to enter. So if it is the concept of the Caliphate that you're attacking, I have to say it is very uncalled for.
However, if you are attacking me personally, then I have very little to say to you um haleema. Where did you gather that I want to kill anyone who disagrees with me? Walahi I have nothing against the Christians and the Jews. Is it wrong for me to ask that we live under a system other than the tyrants and dictators that are ruling us in our own lands in Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, Lybia, Pakistan and all other Muslim states? Because this is all what I'm asking for. Is it too much? Or is it because I want a Caliphate as an alternative to those systems that are ruling us in our lands? In which case, the above paragraph suffice as a reply.
**Let's use the child molesters, the maid rapists, the drug abusers and the out of control male youths of Saudi Arabia. Did they turn out ok?**
I am not pro-Saudi, nor, for that matter, pro-Wahaab and his views. As for the rest of this quote, I wont reply to it.
**I wonder how many "Muslims" living in a society that forces them by shunning or threat of death to accept their religion rebel against that "religion" by giving it a bad name by becoming extemists like Osama?**
So I'm an extremist? Please um haleema, tell me, why do you think I'm an extremist? I'm seriously genuinely curious to know, what is it specifically that I said that makes me an extremist?
I will wait for your reply.
Assalamu alaikum
I did not mean for my comments to seem as a personal attack. You said: "According to the Seerah (biography of the prophet (pbuh)), the prophet has finally organised an army only after the establishment of the state in Madinah. And that was the first time that an sword was raised in the name of Islam. So no, we should not engage in any offensive violence whatsoever at the current state the Muslims are in." At the current state that the Muslims are in? What state would that be? Not powerful enough to win against the infidels? If I am misunderstanding please correct me. You think that all will be grand if only the muslims were united but I don't agree at all with any religion EVER raising the sword in the name of the religion. If God is in their hearts then raising of the sword is not at all necessary or appropriate. Who would they be raising the sword against? Another of God's creations? I believe that self defense is to save your "LIFE", not your "Way of Life" Do you deny that there are many Muslims alive today because they pretend to be Muslims because their existence as non-muslims would be perceived as detrimental to the "islamic" society that they live in? I am referring in this case to the man that recently had to be rescued from Afghanistan after his conversion. If a person was raised right and truly believes in what they were taught then there is nothing that can sway them to go against what they believe. Also, if there is no temptations then how are they to know that they are strong in their faith?
Why would you assume that I was calling you an extremist? You were saying that society affects the person and if they lived in a tight society that did not accept immoral behaviors then they would not turn out bad. I disagreed and gave you examples. Why won't you reply to that? I refuted your claim that a perfet sociey created perfect humans, that's all. You should not take all disagreements as personal attacks.
Assalamu alaikum
**At the current state that the Muslims are in? What state would that be? Not powerful enough to win against the infidels? If I am misunderstanding please correct me.**
What I said was a reply to a quetion about what I think about bin Laden and militant Islam. What I am saying is that, as far as our interpretation of Islam from the prophet's seerah, we do not ingage in violence before the establishment of a state to unify, organise and represent every single Muslim. That does not mean that the Caliphate is going to rampage throughout the world slaughtering infidels. Every country has an army and a defence system, that does not make them all evil, it's basics for any state. I don't know what wars will be fought in the future, I hope the Caliphate will finally bring peace and unity to all the Muslims so that we can finally turn on the TV and watch the news and for once in our lives not have to hear about Muslim terrorist do this and Western armies invade that. However, if pushed, if, say, the US decides to invade a part of the Caliphate, then yes, any sane mind would say that we will then have the right to militarily intervene in the defence of that part of the Caliphate. This is in comparision to today, when there is no representative body for the Muslims, we are not allowed to establish militant organisations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and the rest of them. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here. Will the caliphate have an army? certainly, just like any other country has an army. Islamically, are we allowed to have militant organisations without the existance of the caliphate? no, because the prophet never ingaged in violence, not even to protect the sahaba who were being tortured every day, not until he established a state in Madinah. And even then, the only military unit that should exist is the official caliphate army and not any seperate party or organisation. Will the caliphate be rampaging throughout the world with that army? Again, no. Just because it is Islamic does not make it a monster. Under the caliphate, the nile used to produce enough food to feed the whole of north africa. it was called the 'bread basket' of the caliphate. Today, Egypt and Sudan can't even feed themselves. If we could have the efficiency and the beauty of the caliphate again, by Allah we could bring the whole of Africa out of poverty inshallah. Do you have any other solution sister? NGOs? They feed people today and give them health care but until you solve the source of the cancer, the dictators, the tyrants, the inefficient and corrupt governments, the people will remain hungry tomorrow and will need more sanitation. It is like a virus that is causing several illnesses and you're trying to cure one illness after another, but as soon as you cure one and start with the next, the one you cured comes back again. It is not until you remove the virus itself that you will cure the whole body umm halima.
**I believe that self defense is to save your "LIFE", not your "Way of Life"**
it can go both ways sister. As a matter of fact, I would stress more on the 'way of life' rather than the 'life'. If you saved a way of life that you believe is pure and correct then you saved a whole lot of trouble for the future generations. If the caliphate was invaded after its establishment then dying for it is a very small price to pay to keep it from ruin all over again and throwing the Muslims into another 100 years of dictatorships, disunity, civil wars and failures and defeat.
**Do you deny that there are many Muslims alive today because they pretend to be Muslims because their existence as non-muslims would be perceived as detrimental to the "islamic" society that they live in?**
I really doubt there are many and even though, I don't see how that would fit in with topic. I am not preaching for al-Qaeda nor am I preaching for Saudi Arabia. Islamically, as far as my understanding, apostasy is not punishable unless in the case of treason and political betrayal, ie, hostility towards his community. But this way or that, this has little to do with what we're talking about. I do agree with you that all the current countries who claim to be Islamic are in reality nothing close. I never claimed to agree with them nor did I ever defend them or their opinions.
**You were saying that society affects the person and if they lived in a tight society that did not accept immoral behaviors then they would not turn out bad. I disagreed and gave you examples. Why won't you reply to that? I refuted your claim that a perfet sociey created perfect humans, that's all.**
Again, I do not agree with Saudi Arabia or the system of Saudi Arabia. The fact that so and so happens there does not add anything to your argument as I really agree with you that the Saudi system is un-islamic and un-acceptable.
As for the rest of your argument, are you saying that society has no effect on people? I've written two articles on the subject that should make everything clearer on the issue of society and people.
The Ideology
The Ideology II
Assalamu alaikum
I read your Ideology articles and sorry. It does not make what you are saying any clearer.
I don't care what kind of system of rule you have. There will always, always, always be free thinkers that will upset the system. You haven't ever tried to raise a teenager have you?
" If you saved a way of life that you believe is pure and correct then you saved a whole lot of trouble for the future generations"
But what if the way of life that you are trying to save itself causes a whole lot of trouble for future generations? Any way of life that stifles our God given free thought is doomed to failure. Democracy does not stifle this free thought in any way. Do you believe that it does?
The fact that Islam became a "Great Empire" and knowledge flourished and blah blah blah. Does not mean that that is what is needed again. How many people died during that spread of Islam? How many people were enslaved and oppressed? Just because something may have been better back then does not mean that it would be better now.
Of course the Saudi system is unacceptable but that is precisely because it IS at least attempting to be Islamic. But that is not what we were talking about. Your premise was that if a person lived in a society that was controlled it would affect that person and make them better people. If you want to make that claim then you would have to prove it. I don't think that you have. I do not know any society that is any more controlled than that one and it didn't make people any better. Please describe for me how a society with free thought (you must agree that there will always be free thought) can be perfectly harmonious with only one ideology accepted.
[I don't care what kind of system of rule you have. There will always, always, always be free thinkers that will upset the system.]
Actually I mentioned that in both my Ideology articles. If you indeed have read it you will have known that. I wouldn't call them 'free thinkers' I would call them inferiors to the dominant system. Indeed, there will always be inferiors in any system, be that Islamic, Capitalistic or a Commune. The thing is, unless the system is completely and openly oppressive, the inferiors will always be a small minority.
The fact that you raised a teenager should make you understand what I'm talking about. I'll give scenario for you to imagine and I hope it will be easier for you to understand this time. Imagine a child in the US, being raised by very wealthy parents who never refuse a request the child makes. They give him everything he asks for and he always gets what he wants, basically a spoiled little boy. Imagine another child in Somalia. His father was killed during the ongoing civil war and his mother could bearly provide for him some rice so that he could fill his empty belly every couple of days or so. All what he owns is the shirt on his back. Imagine after several years these children grow up to be men whilst the environment around them is still as it is. Nothing changed and all the circumstances that they lived with all their lives still exist. My question to you is, how different will both these men be? Let's say these men both had brothers and sisters and neighbours all of whome lived a similar life to them respectively. Who would be closer in character to who? Obviously none of them are going to be exactly the same as each other because as human beings we are all different. However, the difference between the American man and his brothers and sisters and neighbours will be much smaller than that between them and the Somalian group. Now the second step that you should understand, is why? Why are they different? The answer is because they have been raised in different environments. They have been raised under different circumstance and were taught how to live differently. The Somalian's world is completely different from that of the American, their interaction with the other human beings have not been the same as the Americans and their understanding on how to live through the day, what to worry about, how to react, who loves you and who hates you. It's a whole different world in war-torn Somalia as compared to the pampered life of the other man in the example.
Now what do we understand from this? That the environment plays a role in the way you turn out to be. I am not saying that everyone will be exactly the same, but they certainly wont be drastically different. I am also not saying that everyone within Somalia will be more or less the same. I never generalised, there will be some Somalians who will be very different from the others. But in the end, they will be a very small minority.
There is no such thing as "free thinkers", I don't want to sound too much like the Matrix movie, but there is no such thing as freedom either. Everything you do, every choice you make is a choice that you make due to certain education that you recieved while you grow up until the very last day of your life. This education comes from what you learn from your friends, school, tv, advertisments, the whole environment around you is information that will effect you day by day. This information builds concepts in your head and these concepts are the basis of your actions. This environment that provided you with all the information that you live within that molded your mind in such a way that you are, is an environment that is itself created by the system of rule. Capitalistic democracy, a communist system, fuedal environment, dicatotorship, Islamic system, they are all different and they all create different environments.
[Any way of life that stifles our God given free thought is doomed to failure. Democracy does not stifle this free thought in any way. Do you believe that it does?]
If you give a read to the short reply I gave to Anonymous above, I actually replied to this very point. In addition to what I said in the previous paragraph about concepts and actions, I would add the following. You claim that God gave you free thought. Tell me, where in the Quran or Sunnah did you get this from? If it does not say so directly in the Quran and you are going to have to give me an interpretation, I hope you realise the interpretation of Ibn Kathir or al Qurtubi or any of the scholars that lived their whole lives studying Arabic and Islam is better informed than your own interpretation of Allah's book.
As for whether "Democracy" stifles "free thought". Firstly, lets call the system by it's more descriptive name, Capitalism. Under Capitalism, the people that are in control are the big businesses. When it comes to it, in the end of the day, the US stepped over human rights, the UN and even the votes of its own people when it attacked Iraq. Then and there it is clear who really is in control. It is not the will of the people, the people are only allowed "freedom of choice" when it comes to matters that does not effect the revenues of the large businesses. They are allowed some freedom, and sometimes even, the large businesses might take some reduced revenue here and there, but that is all so that shallow minded people will actually think that they are in control. In reality, the true face of what you call democracy was shown when the US refused to listen to neither Europe, the UN, NGOs, and its own people when it invaded Iraq. Some people claim that Bush didn't win the elections, but I don't have alot of information about this matter so I wont argue for it. However I wont be surprised if it was true, as obviously Bush is a fool. The people who placed Bush in power are people who know that he could be controlled. Just like the people who helped Hitler come to power in Germany, the wealthy elitests, thought that they could control Hitler. The only difference is, in the US it worked.
[The fact that Islam became a "Great Empire" and knowledge flourished and blah blah blah. Does not mean that that is what is needed again. How many people died during that spread of Islam? How many people were enslaved and oppressed? Just because something may have been better back then does not mean that it would be better now.]
I would like you to give me from the Quran and Sunnah anything that says that we should oppress and torture people. As I already said several times that I do not indorce oppresion, I only indorce Islamic rule, you kept on coming back with claims that we want to oppress people and Islamic rule is oppresive. So obviously you should know something in the Quran and Sunnah that I am ignorant of that will create an oppresive system. If you can't provide that to me, if all what you can provide to me is Saudi Arabia and Taliban, then I have to say you really don't have any argument.
[Of course the Saudi system is unacceptable but that is precisely because it IS at least attempting to be Islamic.]
I'm going to have to ask you a question. I have been wondering from the post before this one but decided against asking as I feared I would offend you. Are you a Muslim?
[But that is not what we were talking about. Your premise was that if a person lived in a society that was controlled it would affect that person and make them better people.]
Where did you gather that from? I see 'controled' as opposed to your 'free'? And 'free' as opposed to Islam? First of all, I never said anything about "controlled" society. I said different. You Americans should learn that there are more colours out there than your red white and blue. Just because it's not a Western Democracy doesn't make it an oppresive system. The only way to prove that is to go through the laws of the state, and I don't know a better way than to give you a look at the constitution that we will be implementing inshallah.
There is no such thing as a free society. All your actions and choices are the results of the concepts you hold and these concept are the result of your environment. The environment would effect people differently but in general, people will not be drastically different in the same environment except in very few circumstances in which inferior people arise.
ok, I read your dream constitution. Now please answer these questions.
I am boy born to devout muslims but I decided on my own that I don't believe in everything in the Sharia and I no longer want to be considered Muslim. Now what happens?
I am a girl born to devout muslims but I do not want to wear hijab. It makes me uncomfortable so I refuse to wear it. What happens in that case?
I am a Christian woman living in your state. Do I have to follow your beliefs and cover or am I free to dress as I see fit?
I am a Christian woman who married a Muslim he became rather abusive and we divorced. What happens to the children we had?
I am a Christian and I love Jesus and I love to tell everyone I meet about his glory. How will that go over at the marketplace?
Do Christian or Jewish places of worship have any restrictions? I didn't see anything about anything other than mosques.
Times are hard and the "state" doesn't have enough to take care of all the poor. Do we go to war for the "booty"? What would be the justifications for war?
I understand that we must limit education so that the mind can be formed just right. So what happens when the child finds out that there is a whole world out there that they refused to teach him about. Such as, let's say, the Theory of Evolution. Or will that be taught? Will they be taught that there are people that belive in something other than they do? Why do non-muslims have to have an Islamic education? What happens if they disagree with their teacher? Or God forbid, spread the knowledge that they have of their religion or lack of religion?
Are children allowed to ask questions?
Are there any books that would be banned in the libraries?
Are Muslims allowed to have non-Muslim friends? Are they allowed in their homes? If so, are they allowed to read the Bible or the Torah or Book of Mormon or Dianetics that is on the coffee table?
Are the women not fit to rule? If not why not?
What if the woman wants to be a doctor and the man really loves children and cooking and cleaning. Can he stay home and raise the kids while she works?
Can women drive?
Yes, you are talking about a controlled society. I think that we have different ideas about what oppression means. Oppression means that you are not allowed freedom to make choices or to learn from your mistakes. You don't see it as oppression because all the rules are in agreement with what you personally believe in. What about the person that does not want these rules that you want? What about the woman that wants more choices than the ones that your constitution allows her. Would she not feel oppressed? What if she fell in love with a non-muslim that she was dealing with in business? Would she not feel oppressed when she was not allowed to love him? Would the mother not feel oppressed when her children are taken away from her because she did not believe in the "state religion"?
Please tell me what your definition of oppression is.
If there is no slavery in this Islamic state then why are slaves mentioned in the constitution?
"the US stepped over human rights, the UN and even the votes of its own people when it attacked Iraq."
1. Some could say that the US was liberating people who's human rights were being stepped on.
2. You think the UN should be abolished. I do too. They are corrupt and useless and some in it were making a lot of money with the Oil for Food program. Which is most likely why they were against the war in Iraq.
Democracy is not Capitalism. Democracy is a system of Government. Capitalism is a system of Industry. Each could stand alone. Free Enterprise, freedom of thought and education is what makes a person born into poverty have the ability to rise up from that poverty and become someone ( Colin Powell, J.K. Rowlings who is the writer of the popular Harry Potter books, Oprah Winfrey and Abraham Lincoln just to name a few)where that poor boy in Somalia would be lucky to get the priviledge of cleaning someone's toilets to put food in his belly.
Why does the Koran have to say that God gave us free thought. Does it say that he didn't? Does it say that God gave us itchy skin when bitten by a mosquito? Does your skin itch when you get bitten by a mosquito? Do you have free thought? If so, where did it come from? Did God give you your brain or not? Do you believe that there is such thing as free thought or is everyone just molded to think as their society thinks? Or do you just believe that it should be that way?
"This education comes from what you learn from your friends, school, tv, advertisments, the whole environment around you is information that will effect you day by day. This information builds concepts in your head and these concepts are the basis of your actions." Free thought allows you to pick and choose from these things, learn from them, grow from them. If for example, I believe, from all the things that I see or read or learn, that there is nothing better than to do charity work and help the underprivleged . How is it that my twin who had the same parents, same environment and education believes that it is up to everyone to make their own way in life and doesn't need or deserve her help?
Well, that's enough for now. I look forward to seeing your answers to my questions.
[I am boy born to devout muslims but I decided on my own that I don't believe in everything in the Sharia and I no longer want to be considered Muslim. Now what happens?]
Article 7 section c states:
"Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtadd) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have by themselves renounced Islam."
However, my personal opinion on the matter is that apostasy should come with treason and political hostility towards the state for it to be punishable by execution. This is my understanding and I am open to be correct, just as the constitution is open to be corrected (as can be seen in article 9, ijtihaad on the basis of article 12 to bring new rules or change the current ones is welcomed).
[I am a girl born to devout muslims but I do not want to wear hijab. It makes me uncomfortable so I refuse to wear it. What happens in that case?]
The hijab is not an individualistic issue, it's societal. If she does not wear the hijab in public she will effect the people around her as much as she would effect herself. So no, she is not allowed to go in public without wearing the hijab. According to hadith, she is only allowed to show her hands and face. The whole point of hijab is not for her benefit, Islam does not order women to wear hijab so that their hair would be better or they wont get sun burnt, it's a societal issue. It's to keep her modesty and insure she is not judged by her looks. It is to help keep the society modest and keep men's nadar straight. Removing the hijab would be the first step before a couple more generations when women would start walking with their bellies hanging out and their underwear showing. I went to Syria several years ago and just a couple of weeks ago a friend was telling me that I wont recognise it anymore in respect to what alot of women are wearing. Would this not effect the men? Do I have to go through the whole societal effect on people again?
[I am a Christian woman living in your state. Do I have to follow your beliefs and cover or am I free to dress as I see fit?]
In public you have to wear the hijab as well. It is the same reply as the one above. The hijab is not only for your benefit. However, keeping that in mind we see in article 7 d the following;
"In matters of food and clothing the non-Muslims are treated according to their religions within the limits allowed by aHkam Shara’iah."
I'm not sure what the limits are and what is allowed for non-Muslims in relation to clothing under the Islamic system that is not allowed for Muslims, but the simple fact that it is stated means that there might be some more freedom in clothing for non-Muslims. Although I doubt it will be absolute immoral freedom like you have in the West, I will still ask about it and get back to you as soon as possible.
[I am a Christian woman who married a Muslim he became rather abusive and we divorced. What happens to the children we had?]
Article 118
"The custody of children is both a right and duty of the mother, whether Muslim or not, so long as the child is in need of this care. When children, girls or boys, are no longer in need of care, they are to choose which parent they wish to live with, whether the child is male or female. If only one of the parents is Muslim, there is no choice for the child is to join the Muslim parent."
This is due to the fact that at this period in their lives, they will be raised according to their parents. In other words, if the child remains with the mother, he will obviously in this case be raised as a Christian. When there is such an option, either raise the child as a Christian or a Muslim, then certainly the Muslim option would be taken under the Khilafah. However, as a condition of custody in Islam, the parent who is taking custody should be able minded and of good character. If this abusive husband is insane, or is a criminal, etc, then the child will go to the mother.
[I am a Christian and I love Jesus and I love to tell everyone I meet about his glory. How will that go over at the marketplace?]
It wont bode very well. During the Cold War Communists in the US were thrown into prison. Today Muslims, whether extrimist or "moderate" are having trouble in there. A competeing ideology cannot be allowed to openly preach in public. However, Islam is more merciful than your US as Islam will allow you to do as you wish within your own homes and places of worship.
[Do Christian or Jewish places of worship have any restrictions? I didn't see anything about anything other than mosques.]
Indeed I couldn't see anything about that, neither actually could I see anything about mosques except for one section that says that they will be paid for by baytul maal.
What I do know is that all the current places of worship that they have are not allowed to be turned into mosques nor are they allowed to be destroyed or taken over by the government. This is an issue agreed upon by all the party members. There is one issue that I need to get cleared up. The existing churches are allowed to be, however, is it allowed for new churches to be built? I hear theories that say no, it's not allowed. They've been living with these churches for all these years, there is little reason why new ones should be built. However, we should also note that ALOT of churches, especially in Umayyad Spain, have been built by Muslims under Islamic rule. So there is a difference of opinion in this part of the issue. The beauty of Islam is that it allows a difference of opinion and allows people to research and do ijtihaad and produce their opinions based on the Quraan and Sunnah.
[Times are hard and the "state" doesn't have enough to take care of all the poor. Do we go to war for the "booty"? What would be the justifications for war?]
Article 178
"Ends do not justify the means, because the method is integral to the thought. Thus, the duty (waajib) and the permitted (mubaaH) cannot be attained by performing a forbidden action (Haraam). Political means must not contradict the political methods."
So no, we do not engage in war simply because we are running low on resources. If we did that we will be no different from the US.
[I understand that we must limit education so that the mind can be formed just right. So what happens when the child finds out that there is a whole world out there that they refused to teach him about. Such as, let's say, the Theory of Evolution. Or will that be taught?]
Is creationism taught in public schools in the West? With that, I think the theory of evolution will be taught and debunked along with any other un-Islamic theories that are widely followed in the world. Don't forget that if it wasn't for the Caliphate you would probably not even known who Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and alot of other philosophers were. Europe destroyed their books and burnt their followers and readers at the stake. It was the Caliphate that took them in, translated them and wrote books in reply to them.
[Will they be taught that there are people that belive in something other than they do?]
Same reply as the above.
[Why do non-muslims have to have an Islamic education? What happens if they disagree with their teacher?]
The Caliph will not pay for schools that do not teach Islamic education. However, as a rule of shariah, the government is not allowed to interfere with what happens within your own homes. As long as you don't take it out to the public, you can do whatever you want in your own home. If you so wish, you can educate your child yourself instead. There is a story where Omar (ra) was told that a man was brewing wine in his home and drinking it. When Omar (ra) heard this, he got so angry that he went to the mans house and peaked into his window. Indeed, Omar saw the man brewing and drinking wine, so he got up, broke in the door, went into the man's house and shouted "you will be punished for this". The man, without getting up told Omar "you peaked into my house, you broke down my door, you entered my house without me inviting you and now you want to punish me?" Hearing this, Omar (ra) emidiatly ran out and was never able to punish the man. This is because this man was brewing inside his home and was using it for his own private use, so he was in no way effecting the society.
If non-Muslims are indeed disturbed by the Islamic education provided by the government, then they could teach their own children in their own homes if they so wish.
[Are children allowed to ask questions?]
One of the very first lessons you learn with the party is that Allah created us to study and question everything around us. You will be very surprised at how open the party is and at the same time, how organised and obedient the members are.
[Are there any books that would be banned in the libraries?]
pornography? How to build a bomb at home? How to play poker? Can you be more specific?
The following few questions show a huge bias in your thinking, so I'm not going to bother to go through great details in them. I will just give a quick reply.
[Are Muslims allowed to have non-Muslim friends?]
Yes.
[Are they allowed in their homes?]
Yes.
[If so, are they allowed to read the Bible or the Torah or Book of Mormon or Dianetics that is on the coffee table?]
Yes.
[Are the women not fit to rule? If not why not?]
No, because there is direct and clear proof from the Quran and Sunnah that states that that is not permissable. The first one that comes to mind and the most clear and direct is this:
It was narrated that Abu Bakrah said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as their queen, he said, “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of them.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4163.
This is a sahih hadeeth that has a clear and direct order from the prophet not to appoint women as rulers.
[What if the woman wants to be a doctor and the man really loves children and cooking and cleaning. Can he stay home and raise the kids while she works?]
Yes. The general rule is the opposite, however if there is an agreement between the husband and wife to the contrary, then there is no Islamic law that states that that is forbidden. It is halaal, but not mustahaab.
[Can women drive?]
Yes. Women rode horses at the time of the prophet, I see no reason why they shouldn't drive today.
[What about the person that does not want these rules that you want? What about the woman that wants more choices than the ones that your constitution allows her. Would she not feel oppressed?]
Like what? The society will remain Islamic, however in the confines of your own home a man may jump up and down on his hands wearing nothing but diapers drunk to his guts for all I care. As long as when he steps out of his door, he is dressed modestly and acts respectably. What is it that is oppressive? The hijaab? Is it so mean and horrible? Is it such an awful practice that is so disrespectful and oppresive? To hear Westerners whinning about hijaab it makes you think it is like we're asking them to carry burning coal on their backs. No it is not so, and its benefits greatly outweigh that "discomfort" that you keep on talking about that it is apparent to me hat Westerners are just desperatly looking for something to argue about. If it is not the hijaab that you are implying over here, then what is it? Education? No one will be forced to send their children to school if they decide they will teach them at home. Market? The market will be exactly the same, only without the interests and the illegal products like drugs, alcohol, sex and gambeling. Is it the worship? No one will be forced to convert and no one's place of worship will be harmed. Is it representation? Majlis al Ummah will hold representative from every community and they will have as strong an opinion as that of any other community (article 101 - 107). Or no, I know what it is, it is a sterotype that anyone or anything related to Islam as a political system is oppresive, intolerant and abusive.
[What if she fell in love with a non-muslim that she was dealing with in business? Would she not feel oppressed when she was not allowed to love him?]
Even in the most secular and democratic country in the west, the general attitude is that men are the providers of the household. Whether that stems from custom, tradition, sexism or religion is argumentative. With respect to mental capabilities men and women are equal, however physical capabilities, men are more in advantage. This is why generally (but not strictly) men would tend to be the ones working and providing and women the ones at home. Although I have to stress again, this is a general concept and not a strict rule. Men could stay at home when women are working all the same. However what is more common is vice versa, this is not to say, one is correct and the other is wrong. Keeping that in mind, I return to your question. If the man is providing, then he should provide acceptable food, clothing and money that has not gone through riba or interest. He wouldn't have to do that by state law and thus the woman will be at a disadvantage if she wants to obey her deen. This is all secondary however to the fact that this particular rule is also directly spoken off in the Quran 2:221.
[Would the mother not feel oppressed when her children are taken away from her because she did not believe in the "state religion"?]
This has been replied to earlier.
[If there is no slavery in this Islamic state then why are slaves mentioned in the constitution?]
it is only mentioned once and I honestly believe it is mentioned as a formality. There is strong evidence from qyaas that slavery is obolished.
[1. Some could say that the US was liberating people who's human rights were being stepped on.]
That is besides the point. The issue I am raising is that the Western Democracy that you're protecting is not as democratic as you like to believe. It signs treaties and agreements and considers them as ink on paper. They take the vote of the people when it's on issues like "let's reduce the speed limit on this road", but when it's on let's invade this country for oil, no matter what the people want, no matter what agreements they signed, no matter what unions they joined or ideological ideas they hold, like freedom and democracy, they will step all over it.
[2. You think the UN should be abolished. I do too. They are corrupt and useless and some in it were making a lot of money with the Oil for Food program. Which is most likely why they were against the war in Iraq.]
Agreed on how pointless the UN is, but yet again, this does not change anything in the argument. You are not doing a good job defending democracy by telling me how corrupt a union where the Western powers have the most power in.
[Democracy is not Capitalism. Democracy is a system of Government. Capitalism is a system of Industry. Each could stand alone. Free Enterprise, freedom of thought and education is what makes a person born into poverty have the ability to rise up from that poverty and become someone ( Colin Powell, J.K. Rowlings who is the writer of the popular Harry Potter books, Oprah Winfrey and Abraham Lincoln just to name a few)where that poor boy in Somalia would be lucky to get the priviledge of cleaning someone's toilets to put food in his belly.]
Such circumstances are not unique to capitalism only. The free market is also available under Islamic law to provide similar opportunities. The only difference is that it is more regulated to as to insure that poor people don't get troden on, neither within the state nor outside. So in other words, you wouldn't have a Nike factory in Thailand working child labour until their fingers bleed.
[Why does the Koran have to say that God gave us free thought. Does it say that he didn't? Does it say that God gave us itchy skin when bitten by a mosquito? Does your skin itch when you get bitten by a mosquito? Do you have free thought? If so, where did it come from? Did God give you your brain or not? Do you believe that there is such thing as free thought or is everyone just molded to think as their society thinks? Or do you just believe that it should be that way?]
Like I said in my previous reply, there is no such thing as free thought. Choices we make are made due to concepts we hold. Concepts we hold, the choices that we decide upon, are based on our experiences and knowledge. Each of us have different experiences which come from our surroundings and our interactions with out environment. Our knowledge comes from our education which follows the education curriculem put down by the ruling government. This is basically what I have been saying in my previous post and the one that preceded it, I hope you understand it now.
[Free thought allows you to pick and choose from these things, learn from them, grow from them. If for example, I believe, from all the things that I see or read or learn, that there is nothing better than to do charity work and help the underprivleged . How is it that my twin who had the same parents, same environment and education believes that it is up to everyone to make their own way in life and doesn't need or deserve her help?]
Like I said in my previous post, we are not machines that will be programmed to do so and so. We are human beings and each of us are effected differently by the environment, plus our interactions with it is different at different stages of our lives. However, differences will not be as large between you and your sister as the difference between you and another woman living in some traditional tribe in Pakistan where women are raised in their fathers home and once they are of age are given to a predestined marriage.
I hope I answered all your questions.
I would like to add, just to make things as clear as possible. That in a "free" society, there is still an environment. There is still an interaction between us and other human beings and other things around us. As humans, it is thus only natural that this environment will effect us and thus our choices and opinions will not be drastically different in major issues as that of the greater majority. Most of the people would go with the flow and this means that they will follow the dominant way of thinking. whether that is consiously or subconsiously, it is true both ways, is not relevant. So even in a "free" environment, there is a common 'theme' (if I may call it so) that is present in the environment around you and would thus build on the basis of your thought.
Like I said to anonymous. There is no such thing as free thought as we need knowledge and cannot live in the absence of an environment of any sort. We are humans and humans need interaction which molds us each differently, but not very different as compared to humans being molded by completely different environments.
From "A"
My wife and I read with great interest the entire dialogue.
The original comment by Anonymous that I read above did not seem to me to follow logic, but it was intersting to see your response.
Um Haleema has posed some very good questions which you have answered in a good way.
I have a comment on the non-significant minority who disagree with the systems ideology and values. You use the word "Inferiors" though it seems slightly degrading.
I am currently an "inferior" in the US. It is true that as a non-significant minority my vote is almost always irrelevant since the majority create the rules, ellect the officials and rule according to different ideals than my own. My abuility to influence people is theoretically, however in practicality the western world has many systems in place to mute the voice of "inferiors," those with non-western values, ideas and point of view. It is for these reasons that I see no prospect for a good life in the US and my family and I have made a decision to relocate and forfeit our citizenship.
Many Muslims have immigrated to western countries in response to their invitations, and claims to a freedom which turn out to be tailor made for westerners and not inclusive to muslims. Fair enough I say: but they should bhave made it clear before they promoted immigration and while they promoted immigration, that they were and intend to stay Western in their thinking, values etc.
As a consequence of being filled with false grandeouse ideas of their new democracy, the new, unrepresented minorities have been trying to exercise their democracy all accross Europe to instigate changes and reforms to their new civilization. This is resulting in Ethnic tensions and string of new laws and legislation to make those democratic changes impossible. I say fair enough, westerners want countries molded after western values and western ideology to stay that way even if the population shift makes the people believing in those western values a minority. Interesting double standard however.
In a Western style democracy minorities with differing opinions and ideology from the majority even in theory, have no significant vote or voice intil their side simply increases the population of theri minority. However, as in the case with European countries right now, the majority sees the future questioning of their ideals and begins to vote to revise the laws so that the minority will never see a voice in the democracy. The answer has always been "well integrate" (shed your old self, beliefs and values and embrace those of the country you live in, just keep your religion.) This can be heard and seen in the dialogue and legislation of Holland, Germany, France, etc.
In muslim society the same thing is inevitable except for that there are no false promises. The value system is known to be founded on Islam and unchanging, citizens know they must work within it whether minorities or majority (the Muslims beign the majority and the non-Muslims being the minority)
why is it taking so long for my comments to post?
bismillah
hello there!
A Said:---------------------------
I have a comment on the non-significant minority who disagree with the systems ideology and values. You use the word "Inferiors" though it seems slightly degrading.
-----------------------------------
hmm...I guess you're right. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'inferior'. I suppose 'nonconforming' could have been a more suitable title?
Certainly by no means such people are to be degraded. I myself am an 'inferior' - to use that term - in the society I currently live in.
So I do apologise, I didn't think this one through. Thanks for pointing it out.
A said:-----------------------------------
It is for these reasons that I see no prospect for a good life in the US and my family and I have made a decision to relocate and forfeit our citizenship.
----------------------------------------
I wish you all the best my good brother. I even have a Syrian neighbour who got married to a convert a few years ago and they recently had a baby. He decided that the UK is no place to raise a child and so he is going back to Syria and start a life there.
Although I am happy for him and you and anyone who works and struggles to find a better life, the question is, to where? Certainly for a Muslim there is no place better to raise your child than in a country with a Muslim majority. However much they might stray, you can be sure it wouldn't go as bad as in other places. As I was once told, gold does not corrode, it only gets dirty.
But yet I still wonder, for how long can the Muslim hold on to their belief in the absence of any leadership or guidance? Islam came as a political system as well as a social one. This is the only way any system can survive. Political on its own without social guidance will oppresive on the people, and social without any political ruling will be pointless and destined to be lost. In 1924 we lost the political entity of Islam that the last prophet (peace be upon him) started himself in Medinah. What is left in our daily practical lives is the social Islam only and this, my friend, however great it is, will never survive on its own as it was never meant to be in such a state. Islam is only complete when it's political part and social part come together. Today we can see the confusion that has been creeping within the Muslims for the past few years. From the extremists who took to the sword to the secular who wants to reform Islam. This social aspect is slowly deteriorating as it has nothing to protect it, no political rule to shade it.
So where would we go? And for how long could we stay there before it becomes either a battlefiled for the extremists or an immoral Capitalist market for the secularists? Where could we run in this Earth?
A said:--------------------------------
In a Western style democracy minorities with differing opinions and ideology from the majority even in theory, have no significant vote or voice intil their side simply increases the population of theri minority. However, as in the case with European countries right now, the majority sees the future questioning of their ideals and begins to vote to revise the laws so that the minority will never see a voice in the democracy. The answer has always been "well integrate" (shed your old self, beliefs and values and embrace those of the country you live in, just keep your religion.) This can be heard and seen in the dialogue and legislation of Holland, Germany, France, etc.
--------------------------------------------
This is actually a very important point you have raised. The tension and confusion that you spoke off in the previous praragraph to the one I just quoted and the issue of integration that you speek of here. Where does loyalty lie and should people of different values and beliefs integrate and - as you said, shed off their beliefs and embrace the more dominant belief in the society they live in. Such conditions could only be compatible with ideologies which are really not meant to last. Ideologies that if integrated would not effect the main idea anyway. Take Judism and Christianity, they are perfect examples of ideas that have integrated quite well into secular societies. By integrate I do not mean that there message has not been lost, certainly it has been lost. The reason it has been lost is because it is really not meant to be a forever lasting message and the proof of that is the absence of any political guidance to such ideologies. They had very little problem integrating as they didn't have alot to give up anyway. Which leads us to another question, what exactly is being asked of the minority to give up? What you wear on your head, or where you worship your god are not issues that the system is really concerned about. What the system wants is conformity to its rule over all the people within its political boundaries.
However there is another side to it; back during the Cold War, the Communist ideology was the main threat and thus the enemy of the state were the communists and the communist sympathisers. After the fall of the USSR Communism is no longer a threat and thus Communism is tolerated today even though it is indeed a political ideology. The main issue then is, the ideology is obviously no longer a threat and thus tolerated. This gives the bonus advantage in that it would appear to the average persoon th freedom. If they indeed did then they would have had that freedom even during the cold war. This actually repeated itself with Islam. Several years ago, Islam wasn't the main issue in the world and thus politically, there hasn't been much of a strife between the Muslims and the West. Today, as Muslims are being more aware of political Islam, Islam is being more of a threat and thus the whole question of "where does the loyalty of the Muslims lie" is being asked more and more even by state officials.
A said:-----------------------------------
why is it taking so long for my comments to post?
-----------------------------------
I do apologise for that but I am moderating comments on my blog to avoid any advertisment posts that seems to be invading the blogosphere.
Thanks for your comment, it's really very insightful.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home