What's new

The two faces of ‘Muslim’ Modernists

Luffy 500

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
5,562
Reaction score
2
The ‘Muslim’ Modernist

https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/05/31/the-two-faces-of-muslim-modernists/


two-faces.jpg


There are a small group of ‘Muslims’ who have become fully intellectually colonialised and are so awed by Western civilisation, that they have embraced the Western ideology of Liberalism (Secularism, Democracy, Nationalism & Individualism) mind body and soul. Liberalism, known euphemistically as ‘Freedom’ or ‘Liberty’ is a materialistic ideology that puts the ‘individual’ above all other considerations, society, family and God. The new converts to Liberalism from the Muslim community are Liberal ‘Muslims’, but they are also known as Modernists – owing to the fact that they follow whatever is currently in fashion in the world [i.e. modern], even if it is based upon ignorant materialism.

“Is it then the judgment of ignorance that they desire? And who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure?” [Quran 5:50]

Unfortunately, so tied down to the Muslim community are they, that instead of leaving or apostating from Islam to pursue their desires as non-Muslims, they choose to remain amongst Muslims, and get Muslims to follow along with them.

‘They [the Hypocrites] wish that you reject (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like them). So, take not Auliya (protectors or friends) from them’ [Quran 4:89]

In order to twist Islam into a secular and Liberal mold, Modernists usually use strategies like ‘interpreting’ clear texts of the Quran that go against Liberalism, as either non-literal (allegorical) in meaning, abrogated by the ‘modern age’ or only valid for the exact ‘context’ they were revealed in (i.e. now expired).

Modernists then affirm and claim that their interpretations of the Quran are ‘definite’ and ‘certain’, which claim meanings that conveniently agrees with Liberalism – despite the fact that the verses they use are usually being open to interpretation and completely unrelated. They then reject large swathes of hadith that disagree with Liberal values (being their guiding usool [criteria]), and desperately find any hadith they can that can be ‘re-interpreted’ to fit their desired goals, no matter how convoluted their reasoning, and no matter how weak, unrelated, obscure or fabricated the hadith is.

‘He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah’ [Quran 3:7]

From this process, Modernists justify women wearing bikinis, same-sex marriage being halal, the hijab being optional – even dis-likable, women and men having identical inheritance and gender roles, a sharia government is called ‘unislamic’, but a secular one is called ‘Islamic’ by them. They claim the Hudud (penal) laws have ‘expired’, or even were ‘misunderstood’ for 1,400 years! Until of course, Liberalism came along to ‘guide’ us to a more ‘enlightened’ Liberal penal code.

‘The hypocrites, both men and women, are all the same. They order what is wrong and forbid what is right’ [Qur’an 9:67]

Understandably, Muslims respond by declaring Modernist beliefs to be not Islamic, and clear kufr (rejection of truth). The arguments and ideas of Modernists are rejected by Muslims, as not from Islam, and if it weren’t for the possibility of ignorance in this current declined state of the Muslim world – the Modernists themselves would rightly deserve to be denounced as outside the fold of Islam.

In response, the Liberal ‘Muslims’ claim that they are Muslims, because they testify to one God, and ‘all’ that is revealed in the Quran [except the political laws of course]. Modernists respond with feigned outrage that their ideas have not been respected under the Islamic right for difference of opinion. Modernists argue that no one can condemn a Muslim out of the fold of Islam for their or actions, nor their mere ‘difference of opinion’.

“There are some people who Say: ‘We believe in Allah and in the Last Day,’ but they are not really believers. They seek to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves without noticing. There is a disease in their hearts, and Allah increases their disease, they will have a painful retribution for what they have denied.” (Qur’an 2:8-10)

Of course, when an act of Terrorism is committed against the West by a wayward ‘Muslim’ [Terrorism meaning an act that deliberately targets civilians] – the Liberal ‘Muslims’ rush to condemn the individual as acting against the teachings of Islam, and even declare the individual as not a Muslim!

This is despite the fact that Terrorists too claim they have a valid Islamic opinion, and that it should be respected under the Islamic right of difference of opinion. The Terrorists argue that no one can condemn a Muslim out of the fold of Islam for their actions, nor their mere ‘difference of opinion’. In response, Terrorists call those Liberal ‘Muslims’ traitors and apostates.

The truth of the matter is, that both the Liberal ‘Muslims’, and the Terrorist ‘Muslims’ are both Modernists – each using the ideology or methodology borne of some current fashion in the world. In the end, the only truth in their judgements, is their judgements of eachother.

‘They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islam’ [Quran 9:74]

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

@Zibago @SecularNationalist @waleed3601 @haviZsultan @SHK @PersonasNonGrata @Sliver @madokafc @jamahir @Salik
 
Last edited:
.
this kind of interpretation is had become much hurdle for the development of Muslim society.


This is despite the fact that Terrorists too claim they have a valid Islamic opinion, and that it should be respected under the Islamic right of difference of opinion. The Terrorists argue that no one can condemn a Muslim out of the fold of Islam for their actions, nor their mere ‘difference of opinion’. In response, Terrorists call those Liberal ‘Muslims’ traitors and apostates.

my personal experiences dictates me, it was those radicalist Muslim who usually branded the non-believer of their teaching as Kafr, not vice versa as the liberalist Muslim usually get busy with their own work and life instead getting busybody by teaching other on how they should acts and behave according to their own "teaching".

Understandably, Muslims respond by declaring Modernist beliefs to be not Islamic, and clear kufr (rejection of truth). The arguments and ideas of Modernists are rejected by Muslims, as not from Islam, and if it weren’t for the possibility of ignorance in this current declined state of the Muslim world – the Modernists themselves would rightly deserve to be denounced as outside the fold of Islam.


which Muslim is deserved to declared other as clear kufr? the judgment of other belief is the prerogative act of Allah, not by human. Are the one who working out themselves with five principal of Islam, like praying to the God, fasting, paying their zakat, getting pilgrimage and other deeds, and is only have open mind and liberal thought is can be declared as Kafr?
 
.
It's more like an identity crisis. Almost every religious and cultural group is nowadays struggling with this phenomena. Recently, I met Dutch orthodox Christians at a big conference. They belonged to a small and very conservative Bible belt region in The Netherlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt_(Netherlands)

The conference was an interaction and dialogue between local Muslims and Dutch orthodox Christians. Guess what, many young orthodox Christians were finding it difficult and were struggling to identify themselves with the changing norms, values and customs in their own country. It was difficult for them to adapt to these demands. These were Dutch teenage youngsters.

The Pakistani liberals are a very unique bunch though. They have very complex issues. For them it is not just about adapting to the changing requirements of the society. They are truly dealing with an deep sense of identity crisis and some become extremely rebellious. They develop an intense hate love relation for self loathing.

The problem with Pakistani liberals is that their own hypocritical behavior has reflected upon the entire society. I'm not going delve into the specifics, but you ought to have expectations when your own house is in order. When that isn't the case, you are part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
.
Muslim societies are going through same period Europe went through before seperation of church and state the reaction what we see here will continue for a few more decades
Keep the kahrij ul Islam fatwas coming :D
 
.
It's more like an identity crisis. Almost every religious and cultural group is nowadays struggling with this phenomena. Recently, I met Dutch orthodox Christians at a big conference. They belonged to a small and very conservative Bible belt region in The Netherlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt_(Netherlands)

The conference was an interaction and dialogue between local Muslims and Dutch orthodox Christians. Guess what, many young orthodox Christians were finding it difficult and were struggling to identify themselves with the changing norms, values and customs in their own country. It was difficult for them to adapt to these demands. These were Dutch teenage youngsters.

The Pakistani liberals are a very unique bunch though. They have very complex issues. For them it is not just about adapting to the changing requirements of the society. They are truly dealing with an identity crisis and some become extremely rebellious. They develop an intense hate love relation for self loathing.

The problem with Pakistani liberals is that their own hypocritical behavior has reflected upon the entire society. I'm not going delve into the specifics, but you ought to have expectations when your own house is in order. When that isn't he case, you are part of the problem.
I did not know that there were any Orthodox Christians in the Netherlands: Muslims should try to make common cause with the Orthodox if at all possible.
 
.
I did not know that there were any Orthodox Christians in the Netherlands: Muslims should try to make common cause with the Orthodox if at all possible.

There are and they are deeply religious and conservative. In fact, more so than most conservative Muslims in certain aspects.
 
.
What is a "Muslim" modernist? The concept itself is oxymoronic same as a "Hindu" modernist or anything else. Either you are a Muslim or you are "Modern" in the true sense accepting Rationality as the One and Only value by which you live your life. The moment you are trying top fit your religion within the concept of "Modernity", you are becoming a hybrid and a hypocrite at best. You are keeping your feet on two boats which are bound to go on separate ways and we all know how that ends!
 
.
Very nice share
The ‘Muslim’ Modernist

https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/05/31/the-two-faces-of-muslim-modernists/


two-faces.jpg


There are a small group of ‘Muslims’ who have become fully intellectually colonialised and are so awed by Western civilisation, that they have embraced the Western ideology of Liberalism (Secularism, Democracy, Nationalism & Individualism) mind body and soul. Liberalism, known euphemistically as ‘Freedom’ or ‘Liberty’ is a materialistic ideology that puts the ‘individual’ above all other considerations, society, family and God. The new converts to Liberalism from the Muslim community are Liberal ‘Muslims’, but they are also known as Modernists – owing to the fact that they follow whatever is currently in fashion in the world [i.e. modern], even if it is based upon ignorant materialism.

“Is it then the judgment of ignorance that they desire? And who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure?” [Quran 5:50]

Unfortunately, so tied down to the Muslim community are they, that instead of leaving or apostating from Islam to pursue their desires as non-Muslims, they choose to remain amongst Muslims, and get Muslims to follow along with them.

‘They [the Hypocrites] wish that you reject (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like them). So, take not Auliya (protectors or friends) from them’ [Quran 4:89]

In order to twist Islam into a secular and Liberal mold, Modernists usually use strategies like ‘interpreting’ clear texts of the Quran that go against Liberalism, as either non-literal (allegorical) in meaning, abrogated by the ‘modern age’ or only valid for the exact ‘context’ they were revealed in (i.e. now expired).

Modernists then affirm and claim that their interpretations of the Quran are ‘definite’ and ‘certain’, which claim meanings that conveniently agrees with Liberalism – despite the fact that the verses they use are usually being open to interpretation and completely unrelated. They then reject large swathes of hadith that disagree with Liberal values (being their guiding usool [criteria]), and desperately find any hadith they can that can be ‘re-interpreted’ to fit their desired goals, no matter how convoluted their reasoning, and no matter how weak, unrelated, obscure or fabricated the hadith is.

‘He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah’ [Quran 3:7]

From this process, Modernists justify women wearing bikinis, same-sex marriage being halal, the hijab being optional – even dis-likable, women and men having identical inheritance and gender roles, a sharia government is called ‘unislamic’, but a secular one is called ‘Islamic’ by them. They claim the Hudud (penal) laws have ‘expired’, or even were ‘misunderstood’ for 1,400 years! Until of course, Liberalism came along to ‘guide’ us to a more ‘enlightened’ Liberal penal code.

‘The hypocrites, both men and women, are all the same. They order what is wrong and forbid what is right’ [Qur’an 9:67]

Understandably, Muslims respond by declaring Modernist beliefs to be not Islamic, and clear kufr (rejection of truth). The arguments and ideas of Modernists are rejected by Muslims, as not from Islam, and if it weren’t for the possibility of ignorance in this current declined state of the Muslim world – the Modernists themselves would rightly deserve to be denounced as outside the fold of Islam.

In response, the Liberal ‘Muslims’ claim that they are Muslims, because they testify to one God, and ‘all’ that is revealed in the Quran [except the political laws of course]. Modernists respond with feigned outrage that their ideas have not been respected under the Islamic right for difference of opinion. Modernists argue that no one can condemn a Muslim out of the fold of Islam for their or actions, nor their mere ‘difference of opinion’.

“There are some people who Say: ‘We believe in Allah and in the Last Day,’ but they are not really believers. They seek to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves without noticing. There is a disease in their hearts, and Allah increases their disease, they will have a painful retribution for what they have denied.” (Qur’an 2:8-10)

Of course, when an act of Terrorism is committed against the West by a wayward ‘Muslim’ [Terrorism meaning an act that deliberately targets civilians] – the Liberal ‘Muslims’ rush to condemn the individual as acting against the teachings of Islam, and even declare the individual as not a Muslim!

This is despite the fact that Terrorists too claim they have a valid Islamic opinion, and that it should be respected under the Islamic right of difference of opinion. The Terrorists argue that no one can condemn a Muslim out of the fold of Islam for their actions, nor their mere ‘difference of opinion’. In response, Terrorists call those Liberal ‘Muslims’ traitors and apostates.

The truth of the matter is, that both the Liberal ‘Muslims’, and the Terrorist ‘Muslims’ are both Modernists – each using the ideology or methodology borne of some current fashion in the world. In the end, the only truth in their judgements, is their judgements of eachother.

‘They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islam’ [Quran 9:74]

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

@Zibago @SecularNationalist @waleed3601 @haviZsultan @SHK @PersonasNonGrata @Sliver @madokafc @jamahir @Salik
 
.
What is a "Muslim" modernist? The concept itself is oxymoronic same as a "Hindu" modernist or anything else. Either you are a Muslim or you are "Modern" in the true sense accepting Rationality as the One and Only value by which you live your life. The moment you are trying top fit your religion within the concept of "Modernity", you are becoming a hybrid and a hypocrite at best. You are keeping your feet on two boats which are bound to go on separate ways and we all know how that ends!

Fully concur on this one. You're either one or the other. There is no middle-ground. The books, scriptures and other religious teachings clearly state how a person ought to lead his life. That applies to all religions and systems we can follow. You cannot cherry pick to add and remove certain aspects to your liking. The whole concept becomes diluted and altered.
 
.
Fully concur on this one. You're either one or the other. There is no middle-ground. The books, scriptures and other religious teachings clearly state how a person ought to lead his life. That applies to all religions and systems we can follow. You cannot cherry pick to add and remove certain aspects to your liking. The whole concept becomes diluted and altered.


This is one of the main problems I believe that we have in our subcontinent that we need to come out of. Religion makes us escape responsibility, when in reality we still fail to cope up with true "modernity". In South Asia, we still drive around cars with pictures of gods and goddesses or holy sites in them, with nimboo-mirch hanging, as we believe that it will make the journey safe! How the hell is God to blame that you can't operate a machine properly, ending up in accident, when He has already given you your two feet to walk on!
 
.
Muslim societies are going through same period Europe went through before seperation of church and state the reaction what we see here will continue for a few more decades
Keep the kahrij ul Islam fatwas coming :D

you are of course correct but i will add that the muslim community has had cycles of what you said like during the "golden age of islam" and in those times the hashisheen, who were the taliban of then, brought the illegal priest back into limelight and as with any mullah stream in our times, the hashisheen too collaborated with the crusaders against muslim leaders ( like salahaddin ayyubi ).

the priest class doesn't exist in islam and is one of the things islam stands against.

this was my thread from january 2016 that spoke of the modern socialist movements that muslims and muslim-majority countries/regions were involved in :

https://defence.pk/threads/the-comf...teryears-and-the-pious-muslims-of-now.417825/

this must be revived.

@Luffy 500 , what say you about zibago's text plus my addition??

and luffy, you are yet to answer to my long reply to you in the other thread.

What is a "Muslim" modernist? The concept itself is oxymoronic same as a "Hindu" modernist or anything else. Either you are a Muslim or you are "Modern" in the true sense accepting Rationality as the One and Only value by which you live your life. The moment you are trying top fit your religion within the concept of "Modernity", you are becoming a hybrid and a hypocrite at best. You are keeping your feet on two boats which are bound to go on separate ways and we all know how that ends!

islam was modern and sophisticated when it came about 1400 years ago because it was a early socialist movement... islam is more sophisticated even now in the socio-economic understanding than any non-socialist country in the world.

read my thread from december 2015 on how islam brought rights to the ladies of the world and how the modern indian civil laws derive from islam :

https://defence.pk/threads/prenups-in-indian-weddings-and-islam.413278/

however, the future of islam is melding into modernized marxian-jamahiriyan communism.
 
.
you are of course correct but i will add that the muslim community has had cycles of what you said like during the "golden age of islam" and in those times the hashisheen, who were the taliban of then, brought the illegal priest back into limelight and as with any mullah stream in our times, the hashisheen too collaborated with the crusaders against muslim leaders ( like salahaddin ayyubi ).

the priest class doesn't exist in islam and is one of the things islam stands against.

this was my thread from january 2016 that spoke of the modern socialist movements that muslims and muslim-majority countries/regions were involved in :

https://defence.pk/threads/the-comf...teryears-and-the-pious-muslims-of-now.417825/

this must be revived.

@Luffy 500 , what say you about zibago's text plus my addition??

and luffy, you are yet to answer to my long reply to you in the other thread.



islam was modern and sophisticated when it came about 1400 years ago because it was a early socialist movement... islam is more sophisticated even now in the socio-economic understanding than any non-socialist country in the world.

read my thread from december 2015 on how islam brought rights to the ladies of the world and how the modern indian civil laws derive from islam :

https://defence.pk/threads/prenups-in-indian-weddings-and-islam.413278/

however, the future of islam is melding into modernized marxian-jamahiriyan communism.



Did Marx exist when Islam first emerged as a religion? If not then why are you so desperate to fit the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) into what Marx has said so many centuries later? Whom do you consider a true Prophet then? Muhammad (pbuh) or Marx? If you are a true Muslim you should choose Muhammad(pbuh) or if you are a true Marxist you should choose Marx as many do! Please note Marx himself was a product of Industrial Revolution in Europe. Without Industrial Revolution there is no socialism. Whereas Islam thrived in a pre-Industrial society whereas now it's in comparative decline. I can go on further and argue how Marxists will see Islam as a superstructure to mobilize the men who were required to sustain a Islamic "despotic ruler" (refer to Marx's Oriental despotism) in medieval India or elsewhere.
 
.
Amazing read

you are of course correct but i will add that the muslim community has had cycles of what you said like during the "golden age of islam" and in those times the hashisheen, who were the taliban of then, brought the illegal priest back into limelight and as with any mullah stream in our times, the hashisheen too collaborated with the crusaders against muslim leaders ( like salahaddin ayyubi ).

the priest class doesn't exist in islam and is one of the things islam stands against.

this was my thread from january 2016 that spoke of the modern socialist movements that muslims and muslim-majority countries/regions were involved in :

https://defence.pk/threads/the-comf...teryears-and-the-pious-muslims-of-now.417825/

this must be revived.

@Luffy 500 , what say you about zibago's text plus my addition??

and luffy, you are yet to answer to my long reply to you in the other thread.



islam was modern and sophisticated when it came about 1400 years ago because it was a early socialist movement... islam is more sophisticated even now in the socio-economic understanding than any non-socialist country in the world.

read my thread from december 2015 on how islam brought rights to the ladies of the world and how the modern indian civil laws derive from islam :

https://defence.pk/threads/prenups-in-indian-weddings-and-islam.413278/

however, the future of islam is melding into modernized marxian-jamahiriyan communism.
I wouldnt call Hashasheens the Taliban of that era; that title would go to the Khwarij - in their ideology anyone that was not deemed Muslim was subject-able to death - this ideology contradicted Islam and led to the Caliphate declaring war upon them. Although Khwarij are now extinct; their influences can still be seen under the shadows of modern terrorists.

Did Marx exist when Islam first emerged as a religion? If not then why are you so desperate to fit the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) into what Marx has said so many centuries later? Whom do you consider a true Prophet then? Muhammad (pbuh) or Marx? If you are a true Muslim you should choose Muhammad(pbuh) or if you are a true Marxist you should choose Marx as many do! Please note Marx himself was a product of Industrial Revolution in Europe. Without Industrial Revolution there is no socialism. Whereas Islam thrived in a pre-Industrial society whereas now it's in comparative decline. I can go on further and argue how Marxists will see Islam as a superstructure to mobilize the men who were required to sustain a Islamic "despotic ruler" (refer to Marx's Oriental despotism) in medieval India or elsewhere.
How is Islam exactly in decline?

The current situation is the result of geo-political history in the Middle Eastern region and is sure to subside.

What is going on today is nothing compared to what Islam had to go through in the past. First Crusades broke the Muslim spirit and morale, Mongol invasion devastated the Islamic world, European colonialism led to a domino effect of choas - yet Islam has healed and has prevailed through any obstacle thrown at it.
 
.
How is Islam exactly in decline?

The current situation is the result of geo-political history in the Middle Eastern region and is sure to subside.

What is going on today is nothing compared to what Islam had to go through in the past. First Crusades broke the Muslim spirit and morale, Mongol invasion devastated the Islamic world, European colonialism led to a domino effect of choas - yet Islam has healed and has prevailed through any obstacle thrown at it.


If you define Islam within the Marxian paradigm as I had intended to do in the post, it automatically gets associated with power in this case that with the power of the "Oriental Despot" (Marx's own definition) who uses Islam in an instrumentalist way to mobilize support to sustain his rule. So comparing the pre-industrial middle ages when Muslim rulers in India, Iran or Ottoman Turkey held power one can say Islam (not as a religion but as a way to mobilize support to sustain despotic rule of Sultans) is in the decline.
 
.
@Zibago , it is ironical that the author of @luffy 's posted article is called "al andalusi" ( a appellation ) because this author is a reactionary but the 'al andalus' of old was the muslim europe that was intellectually advanced and to which the hashisheen went to kill the intellectuals.

also, if you search the author's site with "assad" and "gaddafi" you will come to the conclusion that the author is another agent of nato who has been set up for nato to take both sides of the argument... for example, about syria the author writes about usa ( government ) not doing anything when russia is bombing anti-assad "rebels" and that text really is another call by another propped-up nato agent to demand a formal military invasion of syria by nato.

our luffy must realize he is being used by nato.

Did Marx exist when Islam first emerged as a religion? If not then why are you so desperate to fit the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) into what Marx has said so many centuries later?

socialism has existed for countless years in varied proportions, where ever equality of socio-economic rights were demanded, where ever true democracy was demanded, where ever intellectual advancement was advanced through a progressive political system.

islam though was the first organized socialist movement.

marx and engels were no doubt among the shining stars in human history but they were only building upon previous advancements.

do we not know of the ancient greek idea of 'demokratia' which spoke of direct-democracy but sadly failed to be democratic because it excluded a large chunk of the population from decision-making, yet was without doubt a advancement over the monarchic traditions of the world??

do we not know of gautama buddha who cried in despair about the socio-economic deprivations of the majority population of india??

do we not know of prophet jesus who 2000 years ago demanded end to the interest-taking money lender??

and the last two are prophets of islam too.

Whom do you consider a true Prophet then? Muhammad (pbuh) or Marx? If you are a true Muslim you should choose Muhammad(pbuh) or if you are a true Marxist you should choose Marx as many do!

the line of prophets end with prophet muhammad as there is no reason for

i have had a series of talks with a senior member of one of india's communist movements and he never mentioned to me

and i am not a subscriber to traditional marxian thought but a modernizer and mixer of it and other socialist/communist streams.

i mentioned jamahiriyan thought earlier and this political arrangement theory from libya, written in 'green book - part 1', is how a communist political arrangement can be formed.

the social structures in a "communist" system, some derived from marxian thought, some from modern advancements, is the way to go.

for example, money system should be abolished as the simplest way to end most socio-economic injustices.

both islam and 'the communist manifesto' don't speak of this... however, there was a time when the ussr wanted to end the money system.

you see, socialism is a real-world ideology that has subtleties and not a college text book course where one has to follow exact to the definition so that one earns high exam marks.

Please note Marx himself was a product of Industrial Revolution in Europe. Without Industrial Revolution there is no socialism.

marx also speaks of tribal societies existing long long before the european industrial revolution. :)

Whereas Islam thrived in a pre-Industrial society whereas now it's in comparative decline.

islam itself is a ideology and not a physical unit.

where i would agree with you is modern-socialist muslim movements and countries ( muslim-majority ) have been in decline, but not automatically and inherently but through nato invasions and regime-changes and nato support to anti-socialist regimes ( like in indonesia and zia's pakistan ).

I can go on further and argue how Marxists will see Islam as a superstructure to mobilize the men who were required to sustain a Islamic "despotic ruler" (refer to Marx's Oriental despotism) in medieval India or elsewhere.

i agree that in old history almost all muslim leaders were monarchs/despots to one degree or another but they really were going against the spirit of true islam because islam doesn't support the idea of monarchy but is a democratic institution... monarchy is anti-democracy, whether of the ottoman sultans or of the mughals or the cairo caliph.

the only old-history muslim leader who can be excused was tipu sultan who really was a internationalist and in collaboration with the european-monarchy-demolishing napoleon bonaparte... these two were advancing a stream of socialism.

a article on tipu that i posted in november 2015 :

https://defence.pk/threads/tipu-sultan-a-secular-internationalist-not-a-bigot.409138/
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom