Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
>But in any society a text or a constitution will be 'elevated'.

In a sense, yes. But as I pointed out in post <186> using the Quran as
the "elevated" text is very much different than a constitution. The
Quran would be a source of law whereas a constitution is a framework
for making law. Yes, the U.S. constitution contains things are like
laws but mostly it's a framework. And one critical difference is a
constitution is amendable. The U.S. constitution has been many times.
Can the Quran be amended?
  

    

Perhaps it's just in the method of expression, but I read a significant
difference between Sajjad's #178 and Farooq's #183. Sajjad made some very
valid points about limitations in absolute freedom of expression.  Farooq
called that freedom 'irrational'. I'm wondering how much of that is a real
difference of opinion and how much is in the choice of words.

I will also note such web sites:

In Islam, freedom in its general sense is a well-established fact. At a
time when people were enslaved intellectually, politically, socially,
religiously, and economically, Islam came to establish the freedom of
belief, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom to criticize.
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=108378
  

    

On another matter:

> #194 <sajjadkhan>
> The true test of U.S. values will be whether they tolerate an elected
> leader who is anti U.S. or seek to undermine him. At present Karzai and
> the Iraqis who are likely to win on Jan 30th do not fit this category.

That is correct except for one thing. I do not see the current US
administration as a group that really believes in U. S. values. They will
pay lip service to such ideals, much as some in the Islamic world pay lip
service to Islam, but fall short in practice, even to the most basic
requirement of submission to the will of God.

Personally, the easiest way for the US To leave Iraq is for an elected
government to say 'go'. I would be happy to see that happen for two
reasons. One is that we would be out of the mess and it would be up to the
people there to settle their issues. The second is that if I am to espouse
an ideal, I have to accept the consequences of that ideal. Saying that the
ideal is OK only if it comes out the way we want is hypocrisy. To believe
in freedom and not to accept it when free people make a choice I don't
like is to not believe in freedom at all.
  

    
re: "[...] when the Caliphate does emerge, which I think
it will, it is important to understand the philosophy and values that
underpins it, not just accept the usual stereotypes."

Such a state doesn't exist yet.  Who can say what the future will
bring?  I'm sure there are many different opinions among Muslims about
what such a state would be like, and most of them will be wrong. 
Learning the details of a plan that will probably be changed doesn't
seem like a good use of time and there are probably more important
things for non-Muslims to know about Islam in the meantime.

Maybe I should ask a different question.  What are the most important
things that you hope non-Muslims will learn from your magazine?
  

    
>Spiritually you're the grandchildren of the idealistic Pan-Islamists
>and Communists of the 1950's

Ignoring the specific compliment, I think this point is important. Yes
we do seek high ideals without believeing in utopia. We do accept that
principles and values should always outweigh interests especially when
holding on to these principles is sometimes extremely inconvenient.
It's a shame many in the West especially since 9-11 have forgotten this
axiom.
  

    
>New technologies breed new laws, as we've seen with medical advances
involving gene modifications, modern means of transport, global trading
and speculation in land or comodities, new weapons, telecommunications
innovations spawning  regulations, and of course the evolution of
computer uses and crimes...How does traditional religious law --
specifically Islamic law, but this might see parallels in groups who
want Christian nations -- deal with changes in what we do and know how
to do?<

Good question. I think we need to distinguish between two areas that
of research and developement, and application. Science and technology
is not exclusive to any one nation or the product of any one ideology
rather it is universal because it is a matter of understanding how our
world functions and utilising this knowledge to improve our standard of
living, which is independent of ideology.

Ideology comes into play when we decide how we utilise this knowledge.
So in Islam all science and technology is researched but how we use it
is determined by the Shariah. So with respect to cloning the Shariah
will determine its application and limits. Ijtihad has been done on
cloning by a number of scholars, so one opinion is that cloning plants
to increase their productivity is permitted but to clone human beings
is not allowed because it breaks the lineage and family structure.

The application of nanotechnology would need to be studied. With
respect to medical nanotechnology and the development of nanobots this
application would be allowed according to the following evidence:

"Allah has created the illness and the cure. So seek the cure"
(Hadith) 

Again the application of computer and telecommunication technologies
would be determined by the Shariah. With respect to surveillance, the
state cannot use these technologies to spy on its citizens, which is a
big issue today. Communication technologies could not be used for
pornography as another example.

So the differences with the west is upon application. 
  

    
Also, as a total cultural aside, did you see the Afghan film "Osama"?<

I haven't seen that film, however I have seen a film called
'Khandahar' which is an interesting work. It highlights for me how
Muslim artists need to to communicate with an international audience.
To this end some people are working on developing an Islamic cinema
with its own conventions and methods. 
  

    
>I like the economics processes but have two questions: wine? and the
veil?<

With regards to the use of alcohol in medicine, it is permitted. The
veil is not obligatory upon women.
  

    
There seems to be a reference to a past Caliphate that approached the
ideal. Can you outline where and when that was?
  

    

> we do seek high ideals without believeing in utopia. We do accept that
> principles and values should always outweigh interests especially when
> holding on to these principles is sometimes extremely inconvenient.

I think most of us here would agree with that idea. We might put
different weights on what is realistically acheivable, but that is
a great statement.

It does lead to a question. Is achieving a Caliphate an absolute or not?
How much deviation from the ideal is allowable before it crosses the line
and is not a true Caliphate? Such questions could be raised about the role
of the Caliph, how he or she is selected, law making procedures, economics
etc? Suppose a Caliph, for example, decided to make peace with Israel
after engaging in ijtihad. Would that automatically mean the the Caliphate
was illegitimate?
  

    
>Can you detail a little bit about when that was and where?<

There are differences as to when the golden age really began and
ended. Many scholars say it began during the Abbasid era from the 8th
century until Baghdad was conquered by the mongols in 1256. This period
is rich in philosophy, science, mathematics and technological
innovations etc. However accomplishments began to emerge much earlier
during the period of Umayyad rule from 661 to 750. The Ottoman period
was also rich in learning but as we know the Ottoman State declined
culminating in occupation by the British and French forces who divided
the Caliphate and installed puppet regimes.

"It was under the influence of the arabs and Moorish revival of
culture and not in the 15th century, that a real renaissance took
place. Spain, not Italy, was the cradle of the rebirth of Europe. After
steadily sinking lower and lower into barbarism, it had reached the
darkest depths of ignorance and degradation when cities of the
Saracenic world, Baghdad, Cairo, Cordova, and Toledo, were growing
centers of civilization and intellectual activity. It was there that
the new life arose which was to grow into new phase of human evolution.
From the time when the influence of their culture made itself felt,
began the stirring of new life." (The Making of Humanity, 1919, by
Robert Briffault)
  

    
As much as I like to reflect on our history. The Muslim world needs to
move on and realise that its achievements were because of Islam. It
was when the Muslim world began to lose its understanding of Islam that
we began to decline. The closing of the doors of ijtihad precipitated
this downfall. 
  

    
Farooq, I don't understand that statement in the least. Do you suppose 
that any current extremist, from bin Laden on down doesn't agree with that 
statement, and yet, presumably, have an entirely different visualization 
of what "because of Islam" means?

In other words, the statement is so dependent on each individual reader's 
prejudices and inclinations as to have no useful generalized meaning. 
Describing "love" or "red" would be simpler.

But, even at its most general, I would have to disagree. The Muslim world 
was at its height during those periods when it was most open to ideas from 
the entire world. The more anomie sunk in, the more narrowly "Islam" began 
to be interpreted (and there are parallels in all long-lived civilizations 
that come to mind) the less vital the culture - a declining negative 
feedback loop.
  

    
Thanks for the response, Farooq. And well said, Ari.

I've done a little reading of that period circa 8th and 9th centuries.
There was marked skepticism regarding the absoluteness of the Quran
and Quranic law and it came from different angles. There was a
scientist, Abu Bakr al-Razi who lived in the 9th century, who  came at
it from a scientific angle. There were the zindiq poets who were kind
of like beatniks. And there were folks like Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali who
came from a spiritual angle and maintained the so-called proofs of the
Quran's divinity not only didn't work but diminished Islam's core
spirituality which was necessarily mystical and not accessible
rationally.

This kind of open skepticism was eventually suppressed and that, as
much as anything, probably marks the end of the golden age.
  

    
Very well said, Ari. Thanks for globalizing that thought.
  

    
>In other words, the statement is so dependent on each individual
reader's prejudices and inclinations as to have no useful generalized
meaning<

Its really a very simple point. Thinkers in the west say that western
civilisation progressed *because* of the Enlightenment and the
separation of religion and state. Similarly my point is simply that the
Muslim world progressed when it adopted Islam as the basis for
determining solutions to human problems. So one needs to analyse why
the Muslim world declined. Was it because of Islam or was it something
else? As has been pointed out in this discussion some argue that the
Muslim world can only progress upon secular philosophy, which I totally
disagree with. Especially when people haven't understood the causes of
decline in the Muslim world. What worked for Europe does not mean that
it is either correct or that the whole world should follow it. 

>The Muslim world was at its height during those periods when it was
most open to ideas from the entire world<

Being open to ideas does not itself lead to creating a dynamic
civilisation. The Muslim world has been open to ideas for centuries and
has adopted secular ideas as a basis of progress. So there are more
fundamental reasons as to why the Muslim world reached the heights in
learning and progress. If it was as simple as being open to ideas then
the Muslim world would not be in a situation of decline.
  

    <scribbled by gerry Thu 27 Jan 05 07:25>
  

    
Farooq, do you think it was primarily colonialism and/or
neo-colonialism that caused the decline in the Muslim world?  If so,
could you expand on the details of how it affected that decline?

(I addressed the question to Farooq in response to <216>, but I'm sure
we'd also like to hear from you on the subject, Sajjad.)
  

    
>Being open to ideas does not itself lead to creating a dynamic
>civilisation.

The heck it don't!
  

    
>Its really a very simple point. Thinkers in the west say that western
>civilisation progressed *because* of the Enlightenment and the
>separation of religion and state.

I'm not convinced that many thinkers say that, unless they are referring 
to the shorthand by which the fact that there =was= such a period 
represents the West's opening itself up to new ideas. The Enlightenment 
didn't cause the change - it could happen because the societies had 
changed (and then became, I think, a notable part of encouraging further 
change).

It is true that many people, myself included, say that the separation of 
religion and state is a good thing. I can't think of any modern examples 
that contradict this idea, and my hazy memory of Arab history suggests 
that while some lines of rulers were considered also religious leaders, it 
isn't clear to me that this was different from the English concept of the 
divine right of kings. I can only speak authoritatively for Jewish history 
where it was always clear that the King was NOT head of the religion and 
(if anything) to be distrusted in religious matters. (Samuel's speech on 
this subject still rings plenty true in many ways.)

The world is also different from the age of the Prophet when it was okay 
to slaughter all unbelievers. We haven't stopped ethnic cleansing (a sad 
thing to write on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz), 
but it is less well-regarded as a way to spread belief.

And, yet, I would argue that at its height, Muslim civilization was no 
different. In his writings, the Jewish Rabbi, Saadya Gaon, in mid-tenth 
century  of the common era, writing from Bagdad, laments that he refuses 
to attend sessions of the Kalam, wherein the various sects and branches of 
Islam and all other beliefs were debated because "even belief in God could 
not be taken for granted, or used in argument ... Everybody, therefore, 
has to limit himself to rational arguments...."

This differs markedly from the sense I get from you that there was some 
Muslim Camelot where the prejudices of today held sway successfully and 
were justified. But, like Camelot, I don't see what you describe in any of 
my few Muslim histories.

In particular, I would contend that the Muslim world suffered from 
Colonialism because it was a corrupt society in decline - it was not the 
European nations who caused that decline; they merely had the 
opportunism and technology necessary to take advantage of it.
  

    
>Its really a very simple point. Thinkers in the west say that western
civilisation progressed *because* of the Enlightenment and the
separation of religion and state. Similarly my point is simply that
the
Muslim world progressed when it adopted Islam as the basis for
determining solutions to human problems.<

I think both are mistaken premises, and in the same way.

It is precisely *because* they are such simple points that they fail
to provide a reliable explanation.  Something as huge and complicated
(and questionable) as the "progress" of western "civilization" is
neither a known quantity nor easily attributable to any single factor. 
With hard work and lots of specifics, we can tease out what appear to
be common tendencies, but even then at any given moment you have all
kinds of cross- and counter-currents operating at the same time, so
it's all just way too messy to reduce to something as unrealistically
tidy as "separation of religion and state" (which has been achieved in
far fewer "Western" states than imagined) or "adoption of Islam as the
basis for solving human problems" (which, again, has only been applied
in a very piecemeal way).

Separation of religion from the state, for example, does little or
nothing towards explaining the dramatic differences in national-scale
opportunity following WWII.  For that, you have to consider (among
other things) the fact that most of the territory controlled by the
United States did NOT serve as a WWII battleground.

Similarly, non-adherence and/or superficial adherence to Islamic
principles per se doesn't give one any kind of workable understanding
of the deep contrasts between and among the many different ways such
deviation is manifest.  Saddam Hussein was a *secular* dictator, and
Osama Bin Laden is "muslim" in the same way that Timothy McVeigh was
"Christian," but simply saying that Hussein and Bin Laden both strayed
from Islam doesn't do much towards explaining their behavior, nor does
it account for the *FACT* that regimes and nations which do stray from
Islam can and do rise in prominence in power.
  

    

> okay to slaughter all unbelievers

My reading of history says that was not true - tribes who broke treaties
were subject to being attacked but that is a different matter.

> In particular, I would contend that the Muslim world suffered from 
> Colonialism because it was a corrupt society in decline - 

Everything, including societies, has a life: birth, growth, flowering and
death. I can imagine that many after Rome fell mourned the loss but it was
not possible to recreate it. The same IMO is true of the Caliphate.  One
can learn lessons from the past and take what is best into the future, but
trying to recreate the past can not work.
  

    
>I'm not convinced that many thinkers say that<

There isn't any disagreement amongst historians that the Enlightenment
and the separation of religion from state was the main impetus behind
Europe's progress. Indeed it is celebrated by western politicians as
the example the world should follow if nations are to achieve
modernity. Isaiah Berlin writes about this in 'The History of Ideas'
and 'The Age of Enlightenment'. Eric Hobsbawm in his book 'The Age of
Revolution' describes the relationship between the Enlightenment and
the French Revolution. Samuel Huntingdon discusses these themes in his
essay, 'The Clash of Civilisations'. Francis Fukuyama also states what
is well understood in western history and political thought in his book
'The Great Disruption' and 'The End of History.'

"The Age of Enlightenment (or The Enlightenment for short) was an
intellectual movement in 18th-century Europe. The goal of the
Enlightenment was to establish an authoritative ethics, aesthetics, and
knowledge based on an "enlightened" rationality. The movement's
leaders viewed themselves as a courageous, elite body of intellectuals
who were leading the world toward progress, out of a long period of
irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which began during a
historical period they called the Dark Ages. This movement provided a
framework for the American and French Revolutions, as well as the rise
of capitalism and the birth of socialism. It is matched by the high
baroque era in music, and the neo-classical period in the arts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment
  

    
>it was not the 
European nations who caused that decline; they merely had the 
opportunism and technology necessary to take advantage of it<

I agree.
  

    
One of the interesting tensions in world history, and one that may be
new to our age, is the one that Ari, and others, talk about. The
decline of particular civilizations and the opportunism of others to
take advantage of it.

What may be unique to us is a sense of an emerging Global cililization
that transcends borders and local/national politics. I know that's
idealistic, but i think it's being born. If that's true,and I'm not
certain that it is, Farooq and Sajjad, how would your thinking keep up
with a new, transforming civilization, rather than seemingly pulling an
idealistic rabbit from an old hat?