Combating Secular Extremism

[haviZsultan]

Combating Secular Extremism

https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/04/25/combating-secular-extremism/

Western governments and pundits ask Muslims to combat “Islamic extremism”, the first question that should be asked is ‘what is Islamic extremism? And what makes it a bad thing?’ These questions must be asked because the term ‘Islamic Extremism’ not only is attached to a negative preconception, but is used to refer to a reality and people which aren’t in truth ‘extreme’, this smacks of a prejudice unbefitting a society that believes that individuals and ideas are ‘innocent till proven guilty’.

Islam is a comprehensive way of life. It is an ideology that contains a specific viewpoint to life (the establishment of man’s purpose in life in the affairs of life) which forms an ideal and a basis for human society and whose solutions to human problems naturally and purposefully manifest themselves in the forms of Political, Economical, Ruling, Educational and Social systems as well as peoples universal rights.

If Islam is understood as such, then those who call for this way of life, comprehensively and ideologically and who reject systems built on the philosophic and political separation between man’s life, and his purpose in life (Secularism) and the ruling systems like Democracy (a self-interest based system based upon rule of the majority- but in reality ends up being a rule of the wealthy minority), are actually in fact, being true to their beliefs and making a principled stand for them.

These people should not be labeled ‘extremists’ by a others who misunderstand them and their ideas, but rather their should be labeled ‘Ideological’ or principled (someone who’s life is governed by principles and ideas). Why can’t Muslims follow Islam like others who believe and implement the ideology of Communism or (secular) Liberalism? Would it be fitting to call a Communist- an atheist extremist? (Because it is based upon materialism, which springs from atheism) or would it be fitting to call a Liberal- a Secular extremist? (because secularism is part of Liberalism).

These other ideologies propagate the comprehensive implementation of their core creeds and the rejection of others, so why can’t the Muslims do the same?

An extremist is not someone who follows an ideology/belief system, but rather an extremist is someone who claims to follow a particular one, but holds views which go outside its bounds. So a extremist in Liberalism, is someone who holds ideas based initially on Liberalism (e.g. individualism), but then hold views that go outside its bounds, like Anarchists (who reject Liberalism’s requirement of a state to protect individualism). Similarly, an extremist in Communism may profess they believe in Communism, but then hold beliefs that go outside its bounds like, advocating private property and free market.

The REAL problem today is not the Muslims who stay true to their comprehensive way of life; the real extremists amongst the Muslim community, are those who have adopted Western methodologies, Secularism, and Liberal philosophy.

These extremists generally follow two types:

1. One kind of extremist Muslim advocates Western pragmatic and utilitarian approaches to warfare, and therefore engages in Terrorism (claiming that by killing western civilians, it would compel them to stop their governments killing muslim civilians – and hence serving a ‘greater good’ in their view).
2. The other type of extremist Muslim, are those who attempt to distort and change Islamic laws by misrepresenting Islamic principles, deliberately twisted and taken out of context so as to render Islam compatible with secularism and Liberalism. This leads to the lobotomising of Islam, leaving it restricted to merely being a set of religious beliefs with no political impact locally or globally beyond wishy washy ‘values’. Furthermore, these Secular ‘Muslims’ are known for attacking the concept of Ummah (in its fullest sense), by severing Muslims from considering the affairs of Muslims in other parts of the world, and urging them to ‘integrate’ into artificially contructed nationalities and ‘identities’ to replace their former ones .

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“He who wakes up in the morning and does not think of the affairs of the muslims is not one of us” (Sahih muslim)

The ideas of utilitarianism, secularism and Liberalism are the real problem and extremism that Muslims need to deal with, and Muslims should make their utmost efforts to intellectually combat them and those who champion them.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) also said,
من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو رد

‘Whoever brings something that is not from our affair (Islam), it is rejected.’ (Sahih Bukhari)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Zibago @waleed3601 @haviZsultan @SHK @PersonasNonGrata @madokafc @Salik @Hell hound @T-123456 @A.P. Richelieu @Kaptaan

I want to ask the major question. How many people have liberals in Pakistan slaughtered to make their point. The fact is none. We are labelled as anti muslim, enemies of Islam and secular terrorists (for what reason god knows when no liberal has taken a single life)... I strongly want to see Islam succeed in Pakistan and thus I vouch for secularism. Secularism is a system that is perfectly compatible with Islam.

It will take decades for people to accept the liberal leanings of our Islamic religion and advocate an ideology of peace, freedom, egalitarianism and equality as declared in the constitution Hazrat Umar gave to the muslim nation. Secularism may be the only thing that can save Muslim world from deep rooted fundamentalism.

 

[Jungibaaz]

The poll options make the entire OP a loaded question.

As for the rest of the article, sometimes, one comes across a thing so absurd that no fitting angle to approach or challenge the argument can be seen, indeed it's wholly assailable. The many examples of conflation of distinct phenomena in that article is another thing I take issue with. Western values as you allude to but don't define; and of their contrast to the Islamic tradition, and the salto mortale attempt of defining extremism in a such a facile way, which may I add seems simplistic at best. The author knows little about anarchism and liberalism in the historical tradition it seems too, and separate to that, the way of defining extremism thus invalid.

For these reasons, I've not answered your poll.

 

[Luffy 500]

No. Extremists are those who draw the lines and boundaries of belief. Then they set in place extreme punishments for transgression.

Every belief by nature has boundaries. By definition every definition has set boundaries. Its common sense which is non-existent in intellectually colonized agenda driven liberals. And yes liberalism and secularism also has set boundaries and it also has punishments for transgressions. You yourself have set a line of defining extremism i.e anyone against secularism and liberalism are extreme. DO you realize how hypocritical and self-contradictory you really are? Liberals have definite standards for judging people based on liberal beliefs and values . People who doesn't subscribe to "universal" western values are labelled illiberal, barbaric , backward , extremist, intellectually shallow , medieval , dogmatic , mullah , etc etc. Eg. people who hold beliefs that homosexuality is sinful and immoral are labelled homophobic , people who question the notion of gender equality are labelled misogynist , people who have a beard are labelled bearded monkey , muslim women in veil are called ninja etc etc. Muslims around the world are called terrorist and extremist for simply holding on to islamic beliefs. Goes to show who the real bigots and extremists are.

Yes. Indeed we are desperate. Have you seen the state of most of the Muslim countries? You might be happy about rip roaring Bangladesh but I certainly am not happy about Pakistan. I see a great and beautiful people - the Pakistani's with historical legacy in the top 5 peoples on earth lagging behind reduced to illegal migrants and terrorism all because of sickness of a ideaology that is profoundly out of sync with the modern world peddled by medieval mullahdom that was the cause of retarded development in the first place.

No body asked you to be concerned. That's the problem. You see , people like you poke your noses where it doesn't belong. Be happy with your beliefs and let the muslims be happy with theirs. This is specially true in cases where you have a false sense of superiority and a very condescending attitude based on flawed premise.

Btw Bangladesh is a secular liberal country ruled by you kaptaan type people. PAK is also not much different. And what makes Pakistanis top 5 people on earth and not a somalian , eskimo , azeri or malay? Is racism inherent in intellectually colonized secular liberals?

I also refuse to look through "Western versus Mullahdom" prism. There is only modernism and medievalism in today's world. In China, in Japan, in USA, in Turkey, in Pakistan in Egypt. Mullahdom is the worship of medieval backwardness dressed as religion. It is a failed mindset. It is a mindset that arrested development of those Muslim countries in the first place. Yet a failed prescription is being offered as solution. Stupidity knows no bounds.

But you are looking through that prism as we speak. You are the one who have divided the world into binary west and non-existent mullahdom as per your definition based on secular liberalism. Your false sense of superiority is actually based on that very notion. What do you mean by modernism? Its actually a western construct based on western liberal secular philosophy , which is antithetical to Islam. You absurdly believe in the notion that secular liberalism is the only way to material progress and prosperity (as defined by the west) and then start judging people based on that belief. Your are superimposing a western historical narrative on the muslim world and creating problems where it doesn't exists. And in order to justify your intellectual colonization you have subscribed to the myth that islam has all the problems of medieval catholic Christianity and as such muslims need to be slaves of the "superior" secular west. What a typical uncle tom you are. DO you even question western ideas like secularism and liberalism , since you guys claim to be non-dogmatic open-minded lots?

The secularists or Western apologists as you might call them may have not done a great job (mostly because they failed in seeing through their reform and properly muzzling mullahdom with exception of Turkey where secularists were successful. You can go to Istanbul and then visiit your dump called Dhaka and compare) but whatever little progress you see is thanks to that Western educated, Western inheritance those countries have.

The great job you are alluding to is blatant persecution of muslims based on their beliefs as happened in turkey , the sick man of europe. You want to ban arabic , force women to give up their dignity , ban islamic schools, learning of the Quran and deny muslims the most basic human dignity. Such a open-minded bigot you are. Your are terminally ill if you entertain the notion that muslims should somehow accept such tyranny for so called "progress" defined by racist imperialist bigots.

And again , the dump called dhaka is the capital of secular liberal Bangladesh . No wonder its a dump.

Btw muslims around the world hate your idol ataturk because he espoused similar beliefs as you. He was an intellectually colonized tyrant who hated islam with a passion. DO you hate islam with a passion?

Take the case of Pakistan. Whatever runs in that country is largely product of British inheritance. The entire state machine is largely reflection of British. The institutions that function are almost clone left by the British including Pakistan Army.

Yup, and the current crop of your leaders are also legacy of secular liberal Britain. Most of your elites are corrupt liberal secularists and irreligious to the core. Their code of conduct is defined by secular materialistic values and they practice the highest form of individual freedom. Your courts are based on secular laws inherited from the British and since your elites are intellectually colonized they are inherently handicapped and as such require some form of constant guidance from their british teachers. The result is there for all to see.

The elite that gave birth to Pakistan was largely product of the British and that includes Jinnah.

The idealogue of Pakistan Sir Allama Iqbal (notice "Sir" a title endowed on him by the British ) was a product of what you call "Western" education and struggled to drag his primitive people to the modern world. His book Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam" was as you describe it "desperate" attempt by Iqbal to reconcile medievalism of the mullah and modernism.

Link > http://islamicblessings.com/upload/The Reconstruction Of Religious Thought In Islam.pdf

Sir Allama Iqbal - centre with Oxford University students who were the vanguard of the idea of Pakistan. Mullah free zone.

When did i say you can not have a decent education? That's straw-men argument on your part. Islam does not oppose education and study of natural sciences. Islam does not forbid gaining worldly knowledge needed by the society. In fact if the knowledge is gained with a proper intention of benefiting the muslim community and to gain the pleasure of Allah (swt) , then that may also be regarded as acts of worship.

Islam never forbade learning worldly sciences. The so called "primitive" Ummayad , Abbasid , Sejluk empires are proof of that. This "wahabi" scholar from your mythical "mullahdom" is also a proof of that:

https://islamqa.info/en/10489
https://islamqa.info/en/155691
https://islamqa.info/en/155691
https://islamqa.info/en/99983


As for Jinnah and Iqbal. As far as I know , none of them explicitly sanctioned secularism. More knowledgeable Pakistani members can comment on the issue @Zarvan @Psychic @Mrc

Second Jinnah was a human being and what he may or may not have wanted is NOT binding on muslims. He also never imposed himself on the muslims of the subcontinent. From history I get the vibe that he was a pragmatic tolerant leader who looked after the interest of the muslims of the subcontinent. And Iqbal was not the only thinker in the 20th century muslim world. He is only one among the numerous muslim thinkers and as a human , he would inherently make mistakes. Muslims respect these people for their contribution and take from them what is islamically sound , and reject what's islamically unsound.

There is no such thing as Western approach. Only approach to warfare which is use of force to advance your goals. Of course your ability to advance your goals is going to be dependant on what tools you have. If it is this (below) the effects are going to be limited.

On the other hand if you have these (below) than the effects are going to be 100 times worse. The motivation is the same. To kill. Just that one is more proficient at it.

Which of these guy's do you think is going to throw his weight around?

or

Intention and capability are two differant things. Don't mix them.

Another straw-men argument by an agenda driven liberal. You have comprehension problem.

 

[Psychic]

for Jinnah and Iqbal. As far as I know , none of them explicitly sanctioned secularism. More knowledgeable Pakistani members can comment on the issue

I do not claim to be a PhD on this issue but you are 100% correct that neither Jinnah nor Iqbal ever sanction secularism. The people who have no knowledge about Islam declare that since Iqbal was a proponent of ijtehad, he must have been a secular...Funny thing is that they conveniently ignore his 'Mard e Momin'.
As for Jinnah, I can quote several of his speeches and adresses in which he advocated for an Islamic constitution, laws, and even an Islamic banking system. He made it very clear.
The tactics of the secularists are that they cherry pick certain parts from Jinnahs speeches and then twist them according to their own thoughts and agenda.

 

[TMA]

I want to ask the major question. How many people have liberals in Pakistan slaughtered to make their point. The fact is none. We are labelled as anti muslim, enemies of Islam and secular terrorists (for what reason god knows when no liberal has taken a single life)... I strongly want to see Islam succeed in Pakistan and thus I vouch for secularism. Secularism is a system that is perfectly compatible with Islam.

It will take decades for people to accept the liberal leanings of our Islamic religion and advocate an ideology of peace, freedom, egalitarianism and equality as declared in the constitution Hazrat Umar gave to the muslim nation. Secularism may be the only thing that can save Muslim world from deep rooted fundamentalism.

What do you mean by secularism?

 

[livingdead]

extremism is bad no matter what the source is... secularism, islamism, feminism, vegetarianism.... if you are ready to commit violence to achieve your goal or get your point across, you need to be stopped.

 

[Luffy 500]

A classic example of secular extremism. Secular Britons radicalized going to syria to join secular kurdish terrorists:


British YPG fighters 'head to Manbij to face Turkish forces'
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-ypg-volunteers-head-manbij-face-turkish-forces-1840728706

@Kaptaan @Mentee @hinduguy @pak-marine @haviZsultan

 

[livingdead]

A classic example of secular extremism. Secular Britons radicalized going to syria to join secular kurdish terrorists:


British YPG fighters 'head to Manbij to face Turkish forces'
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-ypg-volunteers-head-manbij-face-turkish-forces-1840728706

@Kaptaan @Mentee @hinduguy @pak-marine @haviZsultan

nothing to do with secularism, everything to do with the side you choose.. your side is always good.. other side is evil..
when americans sided with mujahideens, they were the most upright men, fighting against godless communists.. you wont see americans praising commies... rather the 'virtuous men' who are their comrades.

 

[Luffy 500]

nothing to do with secularism, everything to do with the side you choose.. your side is always good.. other side is evil..
when americans sided with mujahideens, they were the most upright men, fighting against godless communists.. you wont see americans praising commies... rather the 'virtuous men' who are their comrades.

West sanctioned taliban goverment after the war. One of the major reasons for AF instability. Only PAK and Saudi Arabia recognized the taliban gov, the west isolated it rather than trying to bring in onto international system. Ideology is the major issue.

The Kurds are backed and glorified in western media. The western media tell their population that these kurds respect LGBT rights , give women equality and believe in liberal values and are secular. Did you forget the 1000s of images of "brave" kurdish women fighting in syria? WHat was the reason behind it? It was a PR stunt by PKK and YPD to gain western sympathy saying "hey look , we kurds are just like you guys mind,body and soul".

What did the Kurdish HDP in turkey do - they opnely fielded gay and femenist candidate in election and propagated it in western media. The whole world knowns what washington means by "moderate rebels".

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Secular Britons radicalized going to syria to join secular kurdish terrorists:

And? The litmus test here is do these people

(i) take up arms against British interests
(ii) take up arms against groups/parties that are aligned with Britain?

If the answer to (i) and (ii) is "No" then what is the problem with these "extremists"? Non. They are in fact just vanguard of unpaid British foreign policy interests. It all depends on your perspective. I live in UK so I have certain obligation to this state - that is implicit. If I felt Britain was entirely inimical to who I am then I would have to take a big breath. Then with some regret decide to place my views above the comforts of this country and move abroad to another country closer to my views.

I certainly would not sit in the "pub" full of alcohlics and preach about how "haram" drinking is.

 

[livingdead]

West sanctioned taliban goverment after the war. One of the major reasons for AF instability. Only PAK and KSA recognized the taliban gov, the west isolated it rather than trying to bring in onto international system. Ideology is the major issue.

The Kurds are backed and glorified in western media. The western media tell their population that these kurds respect LGBT rights , give women equality and believe in liberal values and are secular. Did you forget the 1000s of images of "brave" kurdish women fighting in syria? WHat was the reason behind it? It was a PR stunt by PKK and YPD to gain western sympathy saying "hey look , we kurds are just like you guys mind,body and soul".

talibs came later..am talking about mujahedeens.. guys who faught russians... talibs defeated mujahideens...
of course kurds are glorified by west because they are on the side of west... and kurds are eager to side with west so women fighter bla bla... whats so difficult to understand...

 

[Mentee]

A classic example of secular extremism. Secular Britons radicalized going to syria to join secular kurdish terrorists:


British YPG fighters 'head to Manbij to face Turkish forces'
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-ypg-volunteers-head-manbij-face-turkish-forces-1840728706

@Kaptaan @Mentee @hinduguy @pak-marine @haviZsultan

We are with our Turk brethren, case closed

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Sir Allama Iqbal on Turkish secularism ...


“The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India, as far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I find the Turkish view is perfectly sound.”

“The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that were set free in the world of Islam.”

“Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the realities of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life. To my mind these arguments, if rightly appreciated, indicate the birth of an International ideal, which forming the very essence of Islam, has been hitherto overshadowed or rather displaced
by Arabian Imperialism of the earlier centuries in Islam.”

Please take the time to read Sir Allama Iqbals:-

"Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam" > http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/

.

 

[Luffy 500]

And? The litmus test here is do these people

(i) take up arms against British interests
(ii) take up arms against groups/parties that are aligned with Britain?

If the answer to (i) and (ii) is "No" then what is the problem with these "extremists"? Non. They are in fact just vanguard of unpaid British foreign policy interests. It all depends on your perspective. I live in UK so I have certain obligation to this state - that is implicit. If I felt Britain was entirely inimical to who I am then I would have to take a big breath. Then with some regret decide to place my views above the comforts of this country and move abroad to another country closer to my views.

I certainly would not sit in the "pub" full of alcohlics and preach about how "haram" drinking is.

And that's exactly what's secularism is - self-centered materialism , hypocrisy , lies , deception, tribalism , arrogance etc i.e pure satanism. Thus secularism is blatant kufr.

Sir Allama Iqbal on Turkish secularism ...


“The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India, as far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I find the Turkish view is perfectly sound.”

“The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that were set free in the world of Islam.”

“Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the realities of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life. To my mind these arguments, if rightly appreciated, indicate the birth of an International ideal, which forming the very essence of Islam, has been hitherto overshadowed or rather displaced
by Arabian Imperialism of the earlier centuries in Islam.”

Please take the time to read Sir Allama Iqbals:-

"Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam" > http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/

.

Attaturk , the tyrant bigot banned Hijab , forced western clothing , changed arabic script to latin , banned Azan in Arabic and forced turks to make salah in turkish , legalized adultery and promoted all sorts of corruption imaginable. He was a open drunkard. He openly ridiculed Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and called islam "religion of the Arabs meant to drag turks to arab politics". The bigoted cretin was so intellectually colonized and hated Islam so much that he wanted to sever turkish umbilical cord with islam. He was pure anti-islamic bigot of the highest order and prominent Islamic scholars both inside and outside turkey declared him a kafir. He himself never bothered calling himself muslim and neither did he bother to keep a facade of muslimness public life. His followers of kemalism hates Islam with a passion. Kemalist used to call niqab wearing women "2 leged cockroaches" . These are the vile bigots who founded republic of turkey.

What Iqbal says has no value if it flies in the face of historical facts and Islamic principles. He was a human who inherently made mistakes and he wasn't even an islamic scholar. Muslims should take what islamically sound from him and reject what contradicts facts and Islamic principles.

I don't know much about iqbal but if PAK members know about him can attest whether he said such absurd nonsense or not. @Apprentice @django @Zarvan

May Allah (swt) never punish or test any other muslim nation with a tyrant like ataturk.

 

[pak-marine]

What do you mean by secularism?

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

also a picture illustration below