The West and Islam.

[stranger(*)]

The West does not understand Islam, and Islam does not understand the West. If that is true then "what are these misunderstandings".
thanks in advance for your responses

stranger(*)

[stranger(*)]

well at least I have been able to find this peace of article which was posted by peace under the topic "Al-Meraj":

".....Современная цивилизация и научно-технический прогресс навязывают человеку соблюдение каких-то новых, неестественных для него правил поведения, но наша душа
стремится избавиться от них, чтобы вести себя в соответствии со своей природой. Тем же единственным, что отвечает всем естественным потребностям человека,
является Ислам".

cheers

stranger(*)

[Chijik (a.k.a. Freestyler]

V tom sayte, gde ti eto otkopal, nichego drugogo i ojidat' to ne sledovalo...

If you are really into the matter, why don't you research into the works of the 19-20th century famous sociologists and econmists. Like the works of Marx, Max Weber, and Shumpeter and those of more recent ones (I simply don't remember know them all). They all explain why the West has suddenly gone far away in its development from the traditional societites, to which most Islamic countries now belong. Of particular importance can be Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"...
You may also find it interesting reading the Hegelian philosophy which explains why and how everything new rejects the old.

One of the important conlcusions you would make for yourself is that modern western societies are dynamic whereas traditional ones (including Islamic societies) are static. (BTW communism and other sorts of totalitarian regimes are also known to be static)

[stranger(*)]

no excuse for replying for such a long time, cheers for your reply. Probably the question was a bit dodgy, anyway:

It is impossible to reject that the world's elite enjoys supirior incomes and absorbs a vast amount of proportion of the world resources due to the fact that the physical, human, social and intelectual capital has been accumulated over the centuries. Still the elite has no intention of giving up what it has. This obviously creates a world of gangster states and states eaten out by gangs which will be the cause to turn the things to anarchic violence. Where can we see Islam here where Islam's militancy makes it attractive to be oppresed. Because it is the one religion that is prepared to fight.

Cheers,

stranger(*)

[Yahmaley]

Are Muslims and the West bound to clash? Dr Jafar Sheikh Idris, professor of Islamic studies, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences, Washington, gives an answer which supports the idea of peaceful coexistence.

Is it possible for the inhabitants of our global village to live peacefully together and reap the fruits of science and technology whose pace of advancement is ever increasing? Or are their religious, cultural and civilization differences bound to create clashes and wars among them? The matter is so important that it behooves Muslim intellectuals and statesmen to give it serious thought.

Western intellectuals are very much concerned with this question. But they are by no means agreed on the answer. One view is that the clash between Western civilization and others is inevitable, nay that it is already under way. Another view is that the real clash is within Western culture itself.

A third view is that people all over the world are heading toward Western political liberalism and economic capitalism, and that these systems constitute the end of history in these respects. A fourth view is that peaceful coexistence among people of different cultures and civilizations is possible provided they adopt secular pluralistic democracy.

What is the Islamic standpoint on this important and urgent issue? This paper is an attempt to give a brief answer to that question. But I am not speaking here as a social scientist who describes and explains actual reality; rather I am attempting to describe only theoretically what I consider to be the Islamic standpoint on this issue in our present circumstances. And my short answer is that it is a standpoint that is unequivocally on the side of peaceful coexistence. But to live peacefully with others you need sometimes to be fully prepared for war against them.

REASONS FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

1. Rationality is an inseparable part of the Islamic religion, and its rationality does include that important ingredient of judging actions by their consequences. but it is of course a rationality which is guided by other Islamic values. The preferred action is always the action which results in the greatest good, or the least evil. The main goods to be achieved in Islam for example, are ones which would be acceptable, in their general sense, to most people. These are: Spiritual well-being, mental well-being, human life, human wealth and honor. Judged by this rational standard and those values, peaceful coexistence and cooperation is definitely to be preferred over wars and clashes in normal circumstances.

2. While some religions, secular ideologies and psychological theories teach that the human person is born evil; while some teach that he is born neutral between good and evil and it is society which directs him one way or the other; and while yet others believe that there is no such thing as human nature; while some brazenly racist and others are discriminatory in other respects, the Islamic position in the words of its Prophet is that every child is born good. Whatever his or her present beliefs or cultural milieu, every human person is a potential Muslim. In viewing people of other beliefs and cultures, Muslims should not forget to see the original nature which lies behind the facade of those cultures.

[Yahmaley]

3. The best favor that a Muslim can therefore do to a non-Muslim is to invite him to Islam, to persuade him or her to come back to their original nature. But in doing so a Muslim is required to bear in mind certain facts, and to abide by certain principles, among which is the fact that since faith is a matter of the heart, no one can be compelled to accept it. This is understood from the verse which reads, "And invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom, and good admonition, and argue with them in the best of ways". How can this be achieved except in a peaceful atmosphere?

4. God tells his Prophet that however keen he is on people accepting the faith, most of them will not. All the same, He tells His Prophet that he is sent as a mercy to them, and that his main task is to never tire of inviting them to the truth.

5. Peaceful coexistence among people belonging to different religions and civilizations makes it easy for them to exchange material and intellectual benefits. It also helps them to cooperate in solving the problems which face them as inhabitants of a global village: Drugs, diseases, pollution, etc. But his ideal picture of peaceful coexistence and cooperation cannot be realized if the West lives in constant fear lest its hegemony be lost, and therefore do its best to prevent others from developing.

6. No rational person who has an idea of the amount of destructive weapons available in the world and the extent of the damage they can cause would hesitate to be against all kinds of wars, local or worldwide. To avoid wars however we must try to eradicate as many of their causes as we can. We must thus stand for justice and against all kinds of unfair treatment and aggression.

7. Muslims should play a big role in this because they are qualified to do so. Islam is a religion which does not compromise on moral values like truth and justice. Believers in Islam are urged to be allies to each other irrespective of race or time or place.

8. Muslims, in my view, have a special stake in peace. If peace prevails, Islam will have a better chance of being heard and accepted in the West, and elsewhere. Many people in the West and other parts of the world are coming back to religion so much so that what is called fundamentalism has become a universal phenomenon. People have discovered that science much as it is respected and valued by them cannot replace religion.

REASONS FOR BEING POWERFUL

Islam is however too realistic a religion to be pacifist. It is one thing to want to live peacefully with others, but quite another to make them have the same attitude toward you. On the whole, people of every culture desire to be more powerful than those who are culturally opposed to them. They take all steps which they deem necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity, and for the subjugation of others. In his new classic paper on clash of civilizations, Huntington tells us with unusual candidness that, "The West is now at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. Apart from Japan the West has no economic challenge. It dominates international political and security institutions, and with Japan economic institutions."

And: "In the post-Cold War, the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that would threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies."

Muslims are therefore enjoined to be materially powerful so as to deter those who might resort to aggression against Muslims or who are prone to use force to subjugate others. Material power can and should thus be an ally to the cause of spiritual development and not a contradictory of it.

[referee]

Chijik (a.k.a. Freestyler) (Oct 13, 2001 16:17):
V tom sayte, gde ti eto otkopal, nichego drugogo i ojidat' to ne sledovalo...

If you are really into the matter, why don't you research into the works of the 19-20th century famous sociologists and econmists. Like the works of Marx, Max Weber, and Shumpeter and those of more recent ones (I simply don't remember know them all). They all explain why the West has suddenly gone far away in its development from the traditional societites, to which most Islamic countries now belong. Of particular importance can be Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"...
You may also find it interesting reading the Hegelian philosophy which explains why and how everything new rejects the old.

One of the important conlcusions you would make for yourself is that modern western societies are dynamic whereas traditional ones (including Islamic societies) are static. (BTW communism and other sorts of totalitarian regimes are also known to be static)

sorry, Chijik, but I think your explanation would be only one-sided one, because it underpins the 'Western' paradigm of the society which comes from the Christian perspective. The idea of static and dynamic societies is based on specific Western concepts of the society classification which does not agree with other Western concepts explaining the society and civilisation, not mentioning Islamic ones.

I have several objections to such overview of West/Islam analysis:

1. If you look at the diverse unit of analysis solely from the Western perspective then you can't claim to have an objective analysis of the matter.

2. Within the Western/Christian sociological paradigm there is no agreement between the theories which explicate conflicts/clashes in diverse societies, so we can'r expect a final say on this matter by employing one theory or another.

3. It is a crude generalisation to make if we just regroup so many societies into two Western and Islamic. If someone is fit to do so, can he/she give more details of what Islamic and Western societies/civilasation stand for?

etc...

My alternative to this complicated picture would be to look at the specific aspects of misunderstanding. In other words, take some hot issues which are misunderstood and analyse the reason of misunderstanding. For instance, the idea of 'freedom':many believe that Islam puts limitations on an individual's liberty - Is it misunderstood or rightly noted? and so on....

[stranger(*)]

Referee:

<My alternative to this complicated picture would be to look at the specific aspects of misunderstanding. In other words, take some hot issues which are misunderstood and analyse the reason of misunderstanding. For instance, the idea of 'freedom':many believe that Islam puts limitations on an individual's liberty - Is it misunderstood or rightly noted? and so on....>

I would like to take this issue from my personal experience. I had a little bit chat with one portuguese guy. From things to things he asked me to explain what the right I have to say him that he should not drink alchochol although I have never told him. Probably he assumed it from the thing that I have never drunk in his presence. He said that I should respect whatever he does and he will respect whatever I do. And I explained him that it is my duty to say otherwise I will get punishment afterwards and you will be blaiming as well for not mentioning about not driking alchochol when it comes to judgment day. It seemed to me we found a little bit common understanding. However misunderstanding comes probably if I violate the rules of Islam and drink for example, alchochol. Sort of expression what he was saying to me and now what he is doing. Hard isn't it?

Another thing he asked me to explain was that whether it is only muslims who have a right to go to paradise, what about others who are living in a places that Islam have never been mentioned. And I said it does not mean if we are muslim we have a right to go to the paradise and The God knows what will happen with those people who have never heard about Islam and never read Kuran. Looks like we had again a little bit mutual understanding.

I would like just to say that we could diminish different sort of misunderstandings by listenning and talking to each other.

Cheers,

stranger(*)

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Yahmaley Rahmat fikrlariiz uchun, manu artil sindirarkan bir o'qib chiqing. http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/mainarticle.html
Mana bunis "Freestyler"ga- balkim endi pikrini o'zgartirar, yani Musulmonchlik agressiyani propoganda qilmasligini tushunib yetar. http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/the_pacifism_of_islam.html

Cheers, :)

[Freestyler@]

Theoretically, none of the religions propogate aggressionm, <Lucky>. And I am not against Islam as many erronously think here (although I admit I disagree with its doctrine, but just as much as I disagree with other religions' doctrines).

What I criticise is actually what you don't dare to criticise openly - what people have come to call the militant Islam, extremistic Islam.

All those suicidal hijackers, Bin Laden, Namangani, Taleban, Al-qaida - they all call themselves muslims. Yet they all use aggression (myagko skazano yesho).

Так что ты не мне объясняй, что Ислам - это мир, а своим собратьям :P

[warona]

ok.aqlimga hechnima kemayabdi.keyin yozarman.nu omad.

[U.B.]

uffffff, kak vy dostali a uje so svoim Islamom :) Nikto iz nas ne priderzhivaetsa ni Korana ni Hadisov, a posmotrite kak prekrasna vsyo ravno nasha zhizn'. :))))))))

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Very informative site,
http://members.tripod.com/~salems2/muslim_contribution_to_the_world.html