|
Post by brmaruf on Aug 21, 2004 7:40:37 GMT -5
I just finished reading What went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response by Bernard Lewis, an appropriate book figuring that I am now in the Middle East. Bernard Lewis says in the book that Muslims failed to see the difference in modernizing technology or westernizing society. Basically as the West created things like the clock and printing press Muslims failed to use ijtýihad to manipulate these tools to their advantage. So what went wrong according to him was that Muslims sputtered and turn their Wheel, next attempted to account for this by becoming Western or Kufr in politics, military, and civil life {with women}. He also explains that at the same time the West {through their agents of course} imported nationalism on the Turks, Arabs, and Persians. Nationalism is a western creation. He mentions throughout the book that the Jews, which he is one, received more justice under Islaamic rule versus non islaamic rule, that their is no doubt that Muslims were the leaders of the world at one point, the west progressed when it turned towards “free thought and exploration” while Muslims lost it by not applying ijtihad to progress technologically with the west. He talks about the issue of women, but this is a silly poýnt for if the muslims lead the world with islaamic social system back in history why would we change towads western ways as a solution?. He mentions as well that despite Muslims attempting to adopt western ways of government and society the Muslims have remained declined.
A lot of what he says is indeed true. Muslims failed to hold tight unto the rope of Allah and use ijtihad to deal with a changing world at that time. The west infiltrated the ummah with agents within and without. Muslims should have turned back towards islaam and crushed the agents while making ijtihad to develop the society or to use modern technology. It is Allah’s promise that the righteous would be the rulers and it is my belief that this ummah can rise again but it will not happen with Muslims not putting themselves in the forefront of the islaamic movement and ummah’s cause. Too many people I have heard from are scared of the regime, pessimistic and cynical of movements and Muslims , or closer to disbelief versus belief. The state implements isalaam, where there is no state some Muslims would just sit around and watch impostors fake isalaam or sinners ruin society. Now perhaps more than ever sincere leaders are needed who are aware, courageous, and dedicated to the isalaamic cause. The problem is a political one, for when they pulled islaam apart it was not because no one was praying or reading the qur’an, but the impostors and agents destroyed the political unity and administration of islaam which was made easy due to the decline in thinking of the ummah at that time. So what Muslims must do is get the political ruler-ship back apply ijtihad to new issues and manage the affairs of people through islaam. That is when the greatness will return and no sooner. This is the vital issue. It clearly supersedes all other issues and it is the road towards revival IN-SHA Allah. May Allah help us to see it in our life time an let us remember that life and death are already written and there is no way to avoid what is written by Allah. Many blessings are around nowadays for struggle…why would we cancel this route for more concentration on salaat and talawah while the whole society around us is going to hell ruled by Tyrants who impose kufr over us?
was-salaam
br.ma'ruf
|
|
|
Post by brmaruf on Aug 21, 2004 11:56:35 GMT -5
here is a reply I got from brothersandsisters yahoo group:
my comments:
maybe you or I missed something...but this is what I said he said, and I agree with it. What we would say is that the State was in decline because they did not use jihad to apply to new situations that came about and had stopped carrying the da'wah to the world. ThMuslimsmabandoneded the use oArabicic which was needed for jihad. Muslims forgot the secret to is greatness, which was applying islaam in thinking and creating.
now what he says in the book on page 156 in his conclusion is that " for those nowadays known as Islamists or fundamentalists, the failures and the shortcomings of the modern Islamic lands afflicted them because they adopted alien notions and practices. They fell away from authentic Islam, and thus lost their former greatness." I agree with this statement. Many Islaamic groups and movements have said this.
And a point you forgot to add is that he says instead of taking western technology and leaving western culture...Muslims took all from the west. He does indicate that Western influence through its agents played a role as well. And by the way, I actually said nothing bad about him, he is jewish which is something he would admit and as I said he agrees and what we have said that Jews got more justice under Islaam than they ever had under "christian Europe." What is intersting too brother is that hizb ut tahrir said this long before and better than lewis ever did...I do not know where the correction on my part is needed. was-salaam
A brother's comments:
That is incorrect. If I may say so respectfully brother, you read in the book what you expected to him to say. Whoever speaks the truth should be accepted, no matter who he is. Remember, someone had told a Sahaba of the power of Ayat al Kursi. The Prophet (SAW) later told him that person was Shaytan himself, and that he spoke the truth. You can say what you want about Lewis, that he is a Zionist, and what not, but the fact remains that his book is one of the most correct assessments of the Muslims' situation yet. Even Muslims themselves refuse to acknowledge the state of decay we are living in. What B. Lewis was trying to say, as the Qur'an also advises us, is that the Muslims failed to look at themselves for the answers. He notes that certain Imans had blamed the deterioration of Muslim power on their neglect of the Shariah, but instead, the Muslim rulers began to adopt Western ways. What he points to is a very real situation. After the sixteenth century, the Ottoman empire began to wane. This was one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen, and the only period in Islamic history when Shariah was adapted as the legislative principle of government. But, the West, through their scientific advancements (which they initially were introduced to by the Muslims) began to step ahead of the Muslims. The Muslims were then unable to counter the military advances of the Europeans. As such, instead of looking at what they were "doing wrong", and this is what Bernard Lewis is trying to say, they looked at what the Europeans were doing "right". This brought upon a long period of secularization. And, as Lewis points out, the more the Muslims resorted to foreign methods, the further they slipped into collapse. Finally, the conclusion that Bernard Lewis makes is that, when the Muslims began to wane in power, they asked themselves "what went wrong". Their answer was adopting Western ways, when they should have been looking within themselves. This is precisely what the Qur'an advises us, when Allah says that he will not change the condition of a people until they change that which is in themselves. Instead, the Muslims should have sought forgiveness from Allah for their neglect, and sought ways that were suited to themselves and Islam, through the guidance of Allah. Jazak Allah Khayr, br
|
|
|
Post by brmaruf on Aug 21, 2004 12:37:45 GMT -5
This is from the book The Islamic State By: Taqiuddin an-Nabhani
Hizb ut-Tahrir published some time ago.
The Disintegration of the Islamic State
The intellectual debilitation of the Islamic State began in the fifth century A.H. At this time, some scholars called for the phasing out of Ijtihad, proclaiming that the doors of Ijtihad were closed and that all of man’s problems had been addressed. This signaled the downfall of the State. Although there were still some Mujtahideen left, deintellectualization had already taken root and this greatly affected the State. By the time the crusaders launched their campaign, the State was in no position to face the challenge. The State became engaged in continuous battles with the crusaders, lasting two centuries.
The crusaders emerged victorious at first and managed to occupy parts of the Islamic State. Then the State managed to recapture the occupied lands and vanquish the crusaders. Rule and authority were taken over by the Mamluks who neglected the Arabic language and the intellectual and legislative side of ruling. The door was slammed in the face of Ijtihad and the understanding of Islamic concepts weakened considerably. Scholars were forced to be content with Taqleed (imitation) and the ailment worsened.
This, however, only affected the State from within, since the State remained strong and its international standing remained intact. The Islamic State remained a superpower feared by all other nations, consolidating the largest and strongest part of the world at the time.
The ‘Uthmani State took control of most of the known world. In the 10th century Hijri (16th century CE), it united Arab lands under its rule and its dominion stretched over vast expanses of territory. The ‘Uthmani State concentrated on its military might and the expansion of its authority as well as the glamour of its rule and power. It also focused its efforts on the conquests and neglected the Arabic language (despite the fact that it is essential in order to understand Islam and one of the conditions necessary in order to effect Ijtihad). The ‘Uthmani State never paid attention to Islam from the intellectual and legislative point of view, consequently its level of thought and ability to extract rules for unprecedented situations was lacking. At the time, this weakness was not noticed by the Islamic State because it was at the apex of its glory, power and military might. Its ideology, legislation and culture when compared with that of Europe was superior in every respect. This comparison reassured the State and served to make its weaknesses seem both bearable and negligible. Europe was still plunged in total darkness, chaos and unrest. Europe attempted to launch a renaissance but it failed each time.
The ‘Uthmani State was in a much better situation compared with Europe and as a result it viewed itself as being superior in its culture and system of ruling. This caused the ‘Uthmani State to ignore the internal malaise that it was suffering from.
What turned the ‘Uthmani State’s attention from internal problems was its sweeping victory over Europe, its seizure of the Balkans and the Southeastern part of Europe. This victory sent shock waves to the rest of Europe and everyone became resigned to the fact that the Islamic army could never be defeated and that nobody could ever successfully face the Muslims. This was when the issue of the Eastern Question first surfaced. Its meaning then was to abort the danger of the ‘Uthmani invasion headed by Mohammed al-Fateh in the 9th century Hijri (15th century). The invasion continued until the end of the 11th century Hijri under the leadership of Sulayman al-Qanuny (The Magnificent).
The conquests were concentrated up until the middle of the 12th century Hijri (18th century) during which time the continuity of the struggle remained a major source of strength to the Islamic State.
The strength of the ‘Aqeedah of the Muslims and the specific concepts that they carried - although those concepts were not clear in their minds – had given the State a great moral boost and this helped to maintain their military might. Additionally, the presence of the Islamic ruling system, despite its misapplication, and the state of affairs in Europe contributed to the continuity and superiority of the Islamic State. At that time the Islamic State could have attempted to understand Islam properly and devoted much more effort to the teaching of the Arabic language and the encouragement of Ijtihad. The State could have devoted more effort to understand the intellectual and legislative side of Islam so that it established a strong foundation with which to launch its conquests. This would have enabled the State to liberate the rest of the world through Islam. The State would have been in a position to strengthen its structure and inundate the world with Islamic culture and in the process save the world from corruption and mischief. However, none of this actually happened.
Encouragement of the Arabic language was limited to giving the Arabs a few teaching posts and other minor positions of jurisprudence which had little effect on improving the knowledge of the Arabic language and had no effect in awakening the intellect. In order to revive the Arabic language, the State should have made it the official language, as should have always been the case. But this was not carried out. Again, because nothing was done on the intellectual and Fiqhi (jurisprudence) fronts the feeble and misguided efforts of the State resulted in the status quo continuing and the State remaining on the wrong track.
As soon as the second half of the 12th century Hijri (18th century) came the trend was reversed and the internal weakness became apparent because the State was founded on the remains of the misapplied Islamic system. The rule as a whole was more within the Islamic system’s milieu rather than being an Islamic system itself. This was due to the lack of understanding of Islam and its misapplication due to the lack of Ijtihad and Mujtahideen. In the 13th century Hijri (19th century) the scales of history swung between the Islamic State and the non-Islamic countries. The awakening of Europe had just begun and this became evident. Meanwhile, the consequences of the intellectual stagnation coupled with the misapplication of the Islamic system finally caught up with the Muslims.
The 19th century CE witnessed an intense intellectual revolution in Europe. Considerable efforts were made by European philosophers, writers and intellectuals and a comprehensive change in the European concepts occurred with the aim of uniting the people of Europe.
|
|
|
Post by brmaruf on Aug 21, 2004 12:38:23 GMT -5
Many movements were established and these played a great part in the emergence of new opinions about life. Some of the most significant events that occurred were the change of the political and legislative systems. The specter of the despot monarchy gradually disappeared to be replaced by republican systems based on representative rule and national sovereignty. This had a tremendous effect towards triggering the awakening of Europe from its slumber. The industrial revolution also had a telling effect on the European scene. There were numerous scientific discoveries and inventions springing from the minds of Europe. These factors boosted Europe’s intellectual and material progress. This material and scientific progress resulted in swinging the scales of power in Europe’s favor at the expense of the Islamic world.
On the international scene, the issue of the Eastern Question came to be altered so that it was no longer simply a question of containing the impending Islamic danger to Europe, but whether the Islamic State should be left as it was or whether it should be divided up. The European countries had different opinions due to the differences in their interests. This change in the Eastern Question and in Europe’s fortunes - reflected in its intellectual and scientific progress (e.g., the Industrial Revolution) - triggered a political swing between the Islamic State and the disbelieving states in favor of fragmenting the Islamic State.
The cause of the political revolution in Europe stemmed from intellectuals that sought to establish a new way of life. They adopted a specific viewpoint concerning life and embraced a new doctrine. Based on this revised outlook, they founded a system. This led to the change of thoughts and the set of values, creating a general transformation in their lives and this catapulted the industrial revolution into motion. Instead of looking and reflecting deeply on its ideology, instead of stimulating new concepts and resorting to Ijtihad to solve its problems according to the rules emanating from its ‘Aqeedah, instead of taking up science and industry, the Islamic State fluttered and became perplexed about how to react to Europe’s change of fortunes. It remained idle due to this confusion and this further led to its backwardness in science and industry. It therefore lagged behind other European countries in terms of material progress and prosperity.
The ‘Uthmani State was the Islamic State, the Islamic ‘Aqeedah was the basis of the State and its systems, the concepts of Islam were its concepts and the Islamic viewpoint about life was its viewpoint. It should have in fact looked into the new concepts that were emerging from Europe and measured them against its own ideological criterion. It should have studied the new problems from an Islamic perspective and given its verdict on those concepts and problems with the help of adequate Ijtihad according to the Islamic viewpoint.
Finally, the validity of such concepts would have to be judged. But the State did none of this simply because in their minds, Islam was not clear. It did not have any well defined thoughts because it did not take the Islamic ‘Aqeedah as an intellectual foundation on which all concepts are to be based. The ‘Aqeedah became lifeless because its lifeblood, Ijtihad had stopped flowing.
The Islamic culture - the collection of concepts concerning life - was not crystallized in the minds of the Muslims. The culture was not linked to the State’s actions. This led to a steep intellectual decline, thereby causing regression.
As a result, the Islamic State was taken aback by the intellectual, cultural and industrial revolution they witnessed in Europe. However, they did not react because they were intellectually paralyzed, as they could not come to a decision about adopting or rejecting Europe’s achievements or culture. They could not differentiate between what is allowed to be taken from science, discoveries and industry and what is forbidden to be taken from a particular culture, since the latter determines the viewpoint about life. They became stagnant and it was this which led to the backwardness of the Islamic State while the European progression gained momentum.
|
|
|
Post by brmaruf on Aug 21, 2004 12:38:48 GMT -5
The Muslims failed to realize the contradiction between the Islamic and European concepts. Another cause was their failure to distinguish between science, industry and inventions which Islam encourages Muslims to acquire, regardless of the source, and culture and ideology which can only be adopted from Islam.
The ‘Uthmanis did not properly understand Islam. Such blindness led the Ummah and the State to live haphazardly. Meanwhile its enemies held onto a specific system and carried it out. Europe became the possessor of an ideology, regardless of the validity of its creed, and the Islamic Ummah with its correct ideology was incipiently being relegated to live in the shadow of Europe’s ideology. The Islamic ideology, seemed remote from the people’s lives and a thing of the past because the Ummah resided in a State where it was misapplied. Despite the fact that the Messenger of Allah r said, “I have left with you two things, if you hold on to it, you will never go astray, the Book of Allah and my Sunnah” and despite the fact that the State was Islamic and the Ummah was Muslim, and despite its vast intellectual repository and wealth of Fiqhi knowledge being accessible to everyone, the State did not grasp the meaning of that Hadeeth and did not take the necessary steps to return to the roots of Islam, i.e., the ‘Aqeedah. The State did not make use of this wealth, a wealth which no other nation possessed, possesses, or will ever possess.
Indeed the Islamic State did not benefit from this wealth because as soon as Ijtihad was stalled and intellectual activity ceased the Islamic concepts became blurred in the minds of the Muslims and Islamic cognizance declined.
Books and other cultural and intellectual artifacts were kept on shelves and only very few learned people and scholars were left in existence. The desire to study and research diminished. The large amount of cultural and intellectual wealth within the State and society was not sought after because the State never encouraged the pursuit of it. Intellectuals sought knowledge for the sake of knowledge, or they sought knowledge to earn a living. Rare indeed were the ones who sought knowledge to benefit the Ummah and the State. Consequently, the scientific, cultural and legislative momentum did not exist and the understanding of Islam was in disarray. The Muslims understood Islam in a spiritual sense rather than intellectually, politically and legislatively.
The original idea of Islam and the method by which this idea is implemented had become vague. The Muslims could not correctly perceive the Qur’an and the Sunnah and began to think that Islam was merely a spiritual religion. They began comparing Islam with other religions from a spiritual point of view, instead of looking at Islam as being an ‘Aqeedah and a complete way of life. It therefore came as no surprise when the Muslim Ummah, under the leadership of the ‘Uthmani State, stood idle and confused before the European revolution. It remained visibly behind without being affected by the economic progress which Europe was enjoying nor by the multiple inventions that took place there, nor by the industrial revolution that had been launched all over the continent. The effect that this European material progress had on the State was somewhat minimal and never resulted in any notable benefit nor did it generate any material progress or any gain. Most Muslims perceived Europe’s achievements as being contradictory to Islam and called for the prohibition of adopting such elements of progress.
A vivid example of this was when the printing press was invented and the State decided to print the Qur’an. Some scholars prohibited its printing and they began issuing Fatawa prohibiting anything new and of accusing anyone who studied the natural sciences of being a disbeliever. They accused every intellectual of being a Kafir and Zindiq.
Conversely, a small group of Muslims at that time envisioned the need for adopting everything from the West, their science, education, culture and civilization. Those were the ones who had been educated in Europe or in missionary schools that had infiltrated the Islamic world. At first, that small band of Muslims made little impact on society. In the last years of the ‘Uthmani State the notion stating that the West adopted its culture from Islam and that Islam does not forbid the adoption of what conforms to it and that which does not contradict it, was spread amongst the Ummah. The West succeeded in spreading this concept until it was adopted by the majority of the Muslims, especially the educated ones - the scholars and jurists, who came to be known as “modern scholars” or “reformists”.
However, due to the real contradictions between the Western and Islamic cultures and because of the obvious differences between the Western and Islamic concepts about life, the attempts to harmonize the teachings of Islam with Western culture were doomed to failure. The reformists lost their way and in the process alienated themselves from Islam. Their misguided pro- Western approach failed because they could not correctly perceive the Western concepts and they neglected in the process the inventions, science and industry as they moved further away from Islam. The Ummah relied heavily on those reformists and as a result, confusion was exacerbated. The State was unable to take a decisive stand and the Ummah rejected all means of material progress, ranging from science, inventions and industries. She became weak and unable to stand or defend herself. This weakness encouraged the enemies of Islam to mutilate the powerless Islamic State piece by piece.
The missionary invasion, disguised as scientific cooperation, began infiltrating the Muslim land. At the same time the various movements that emerged succeeded in destroying the structure of the State. The concept of nationalism was implanted and avidly encouraged by the West, taking root in the Islamic State, such as the Balkans, Turkey, Arab regions, Armenia, Kurdish reqions and many other places.
In 1914, the State was on the verge of collapse. It entered the First World War and emerged defeated. Then, finally it was destroyed in 1924. Therefore, the Islamic State disintegrated and the dream that had eluded the West for many centuries was finally fulfilled. The West wanted to destroy the Islamic State in order to destroy Islam. With the disintegration of the Islamic State, the system in the Muslim land became non-Islamic and the Muslims have lived ever since under a non-Islamic banner. Since that time they have lived under disbelieving regimes ruled over by laws of disbelief, they have become unsettled and their situation has deteriorated.
|
|
|
Post by brmaruf on Aug 21, 2004 14:00:35 GMT -5
more of this thread
my comments:
What the book indicated by Lewis and what Taqiuddin an-Nabhani said is that Muslims did not intellectually use islaam to move with a changing society and technology. Because Muslims got too comfortable with the thinking that this was all we needed was "good of jihad and no continuous search for technological advances" they were left or we were left behind by the West...ijtihad was a huge factor in the fall of islaam at that time...of course there is a difference from revival and disintegration...disintegration is what the chapter is talking about.
Any misapplication of ISLAAM BY THE STATE CERTAINLY will affect things and lead to problems.
How in the world could we say islaam is an intellectual creed for humanity and not be able to judge if using a computer or radar is halaal or not?
I will not get caught up in a debate over interpretation of history...the issue at hand is that our decline is due to a political leadership that is missing called khilafah to rule by islaam and carry the da'wah as rasuluullah {saw) did.
It is a vital issue for muslims that should take top emphasis..we can live with different interpretations of history...but we can not live out the State...where ever you are act get up and work for this cause following the example of how rasuluullah (saw) did.
Hizb ut tahrir works sincerely around the world for this cause to restore the isalaamic state politically..unite the muslism under one khalifah and revive the ummah intellectually based on its creed that directs its future actions according to islaam to lead the world again insha Allah.
was-salaam
ma'ruf
brother comments:
--- In brothersandsisters@yahoogroups.com
> If find it difficult to state categorically that what the Ottomans did "wrong" was fail to keep open the doors to Ijtihad (or deduction). > > The article gives a specific interpretation of history, but offers up no evidence. > > First of all, there were two Islamic periods. First there was the Abbassid period. It was during the later part of that period that the laws of Shariah were devised, largely in response to the corruption of its rulers, though they never did so completely. > > Eventually, the Muslims were anihilated by the Mongols in the thirteenth century (the Crusades were a minor mishap compared to their ravages). Though in many parts the Mongols converted to Islam, this signaled the end of Islamic rule from the Middle East. > > As Allah promised, if we do not apply Islam, He will send another people who will. The Arabs definitely failed to do so, and so it was the Turks now settled in Turkey who took their place. > > So, the revival of Islam was not impeded by the closing of the Doors of Ijtihad. Rather, it proceeded succesfully despite it. > > The rules of Mehmed Fateh and Sulayman were the first instances of Islamic rulers committed to the implementation of Shariah. Sulayman was called "al Qanuny", which meant, not "the Magnificent", but "the Legislator". > > Subsequent rulers were less effective, and for this and othere reasons Ottoman power fell away. It was then that they became supseptible to European influence. > > Islam is a very simple religion. There is no complicated "intellectual" procedures we must adopt to serve Allah. It is all laid out in the Qur'an: > > "It is not Al-Birr (righteousness) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west; but Al-Birr is the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to the poor, and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, establishes As-Salât, and gives the Zakât, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are patient in extreme poverty and affliction, and at the time of fighting. Such are the people of the truth and they are AlMuttaqûn (2:117). > > Jazak Allah Khayr, > br.
|
|