So apparently according to these people, the Same holy prophet would order an army to not hurt the children, women, elderly, someone who surrenders and not even trees and yet would order killing of a poetess? Abu lahb, the one for which there is an entire chapter of quran on, actually caused so much suffering to the holy prophet that Allah had to send down a chapter against him and yet the holy prophet did not "order him to be killed" or that time when allegations against Aisha surfaced. Wasn't the holy prophet himself accused of being a poet during the early days of his preaching?
It was honourable at the time for someone like Khadijah bint Khuwaylid to marry a man from Abu Taleb’s lineage, and both lineages were greatly regarded. Nowadays, lineage isn’t something that matters much.
they call it "caste" in indian subcontinent and unlike what the indian hindu ideology is around their caste system, everyone assumes that islamic lineage taking is same as hindu caste division which is not it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_bint_Marwan
Ayatollah Khomeini SPECIFICALLY pointed this action out when ordering Salman Rushdie killed, so there is even a direct connection. And while you might not respect Khomeini ... I'm willing to bet a lot he knows more about islam than your whole family put together, and he's certainly not trying to please "the west".
"The prophet" was also a warlord that conquered territory.
I think everybody with any ounce of respect for the truth can agree: this was not, in any way, shape or form, a peaceful man. Insofar as that is criticism of Islam that is valid criticism.
But very few religions were peaceful at the time of their founding. Hinduism started with "a great war". Buddhism started with a war. Christianity started with a war, it was just a war against Christians, and eventually Christians took the offensive like good religious zealots keep doing. Judaism, seems to have started with a war. I'm sure the same is at least mostly true even for forgotten religions.
This is an interesting take on Hinduism and Buddhism. I am assuming you are referring to Great Wars of Ramayana and Mahabharata. Everyone participating in those was were the followers of Sanatan Dharma which is known as Hinduism today. Both wars weren't fought of religious ground. Buddhism started with Siddhartha noticing dukkha (pain) of life and leaving home to find solution.
What are your sources?
This is an interesting remark that gave me some new insight into Arabic culture.
That said, free speech wasn't a value in much of the West either, much less in places like Taiwan that are now democratic. Most of Europe was pretty conservative in the 19th century and the revolutionaries who fought for liberal values were mostly educated city folk, a smallish class.
The value of free speech is in the fact that it prevents the country from committing some serious mistakes, or at least reduces chances thereof. Authoritarian systems look awesome from the outside, while democracies with their free speech are obviously messy and chaotic. But in the long run, authoritarian systems tend to commit fatal mistakes like going into an all-out war that they lose (it is happening right in front of us in Ukraine), because no one dared defy the Emperor.
The stability of yesteryear is now gone. With the Internet, any idea can reach any audience in milliseconds, and Arab societies, like those conservative European societies earlier, will have to live with the inherent chaos. IDK what is means for the future of Islam; Christianity in Europe has already collapsed or is (demographically) collapsing. Even in former strongholds like Poland, the majority of young people are no longer religious and this trend, once it sets in, has proven almost impossible to reverse.
I noticed the same trend among youngsters in Turkey, though Turkey isn't an Arab country; but it is an important trendsetter in the Islamic world.
Authorian societies will never be as productive productive and never be good source of innovation. If people wish to live according to tradition, conservatism and authorian rule it is ok, but it is unlikely they will ever catch Western democracies in quality of life.
The UK used to be a massive colonial power that grabbed the world like it were an ice-cream cone, now they can barely respond to domestic crises. Yet they have become less authoritarian and conservative during the timeframe of their downfall. Currently, China has significant problems that could kill their future but they are currently demonstrating great innovation and scientific output. They have their own space station, are developing their own supply chains, have massive and ambitious infrastructure, TikTok is beating the Americans at their own game, and so on. Meanwhile, they have not seen a decrease in authoritarianism.
In fact, the current trend seems to illustrate that as economic growth stalls in the West, the population is turning to more authoritarian leaders. Perhaps our freedom was just a side-effect of fair weather, and we'll revert back once material conditions decrease?
Is this true for the UK proper? (Not the colonies, including Ireland.) Britain used to be quite a "lean state" domestically, while now being famous for having a lot of onerous laws micromanaging everything.
"now they can barely respond to domestic crises"
Interestingly, that was the case in the colonial era as well. Domestic problems in the UK were harder to address than wars on foreign continents. The Irish question was particularly stubborn. In 1914, shortly before the outbreak of WWI, there was actually a real risk of a civil war in Northern Ireland.
That’s a debunked 1980s conceit. Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and Korea are all counter examples. China is on the same trajectory.
Language, size, politics (especially the more polarizing they are) and the availability of resources (labor, land, capital and the like) has a big impact on which “traditionalist culture” is a big part of what dictates the active agents of that transformation. Biden’s administration aimed at being an active agent (E.g., statements to make Saudi Arabia a pariah) but the circumstances are not allowing that at the moment. The Saudis are aware of this intention of active intervention, which is why they emphasized the notion of “Arabs are a different people from the west” during Biden’s visit.
Being conservative (in the actual sense, not the political connotation) in the presence of the internet and the huge mass of consumable media - that is biased from a conservative perspective - is a challenge indeed.
Turkey seems to be embracing the inherent chaos easily, and I suppose that’s due to the presence of some Sufism that allows a great deal of tolerance (although, as an Arab Salafi so-called Wahhabi, that tolerance comes with a great deal of blasphemy, like worshipping by Mawlawi dancing, Rumi’s and Ibn Arabia’s spiritual pantheistic Wujood notion). That makes it similar that’s akin to Buddhism in how easy for it to spread. I heard of a Turkish Dervish creating some sort of a “Western Sufi Order” where dance moves are taught. But again, I’m not Turkish so my perception might be incorrect or misinformed. Would be interested to learn more!
> pantheistic Wujood notion
I think that is a willful misrepresentation. "God is the light of the heavens and the earth". Possibly I can make pantheism out of that Quranic statement asserting truth.
Ibn Arabi's reading of Qur'an was exceptionally subtle. Do you know what he got out of that very familiar story of Abraham and his son to sacrifice? "You have believed the dream/vision" (37:105) His take on this sign completely floored me. He was reading at an entirely different level. A superior level, imho. Comparing what is generally understood from this story of Abraham (in 'orthodox' Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to what Ibn Arabi says it means, really highlights the difference between the legalistic and mystic approach to religion. But yes, Prophet did indeed choose 'milk' over 'water' and 'wine'. There is that. And Jesus chose water but showed how at the end during 'celebration of wedding' it turns into 'wine'. So some of us go straight for the 'wine'. It is unorthodox, but "blasphemy" is a matter for a specific Authority to determine. I personally think this is the root problem in the Umma ..
> [T]here is a passive agent in the dissolution of traditional cultures by means of “globalization”.
I agree with this and used to worry about it too, but there is (at least in my analysis) an element of 'conspiracy to social engineer the planet' involved. Further, can mankind even be made homogeneous, and, is a homogeneous mankind the inevitable end result of globalization?
Consider: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you." (49:13)
So the verse concludes, as you probably know!, with "Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing, Fully-Informed".
It's funny. I was watching the other day a very amusing clip (on yt) of an interview of Stephen King on when he first met Stanley Kubrick (in course of making The Shining). And it starts off with King retelling how he got a call in the morning and it was Kubrick, and Kubrick starts off with "I think horror stories are ultimately rather optimistic". King asks, why? Kubrick says ~, because it implies an existence beyond our mortal life, and that's optimistic! King replies, but what about hell? (lol) And Kubrick says, I don't believe in hell. :)
Point being I feel optimistic that given that Allah is All-Knowing and Fully-Informed, then obviously it will end in sunshine, this "peoples and tribes" that God apparently wants to intermingle and get to "know one another".
/& Salaam
p.s. "know one another" seems to put some pressure on "traditional culture", don't you think? Change does occur after acquisition of knowledge, don't you agree?
I think your prognosis (which comes across as fear actually) may come to pass, but it will not be because US population is no longer primarily of European stock (some word!)
The primary driver has always been and remains culture. And culture in our age is an industry. And industry is subject to law & market. Liberal values are eroded because of the cultural content that undermine its validity and appeal. Non-Europeans will respond, I assure you, just as readily to formative cultural forces that engender an appreciation for liberal values, as do their "Anglo" fellow citizens. Likewise, both Anglos and the rest of us will also respond accordingly to cultural forces that are otherwise.
Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for, so please stop doing that.
your perspective is interesting, but you should not speak for all arabs. at most you can speak for conservative arabs
Moreover, the language of the claimed poet - I’m an Arab - is far different from the language of the time, far from being poetic, and the statement claimed that Prophet Muhammad said has a very different tone from his usual tone (He said “Who’d save me from Al ‘Asmaa bint Marwan?” and the Prophet himself mentioned that there is no savior other than Allah. The prophet approach would be something like يريحني (v. make me relaxed) from so and so. It’s a very horrible and easy to spot fabrication, the fabricator almost didn’t put any effort in it and used the language of his time instead.
You don’t need to mention a fabricated story to attack Islam’s take on free speech. Free speech is simply not a principle that was ever well-regarded in Islam. “Whomever believes in Allah and the last day should only say good or be quiet” and “Are people thrown into the depth of hellfire except by the sowing of their tongues” and “It is enough for one to be described as a liar is to talk about everything he heard”. The notion of “freedom” is a very western notion that - in its current form - very alien to the sort of freedom that Islam talks about: minimal freedom that is constrained by rules. Free speech certainly isn’t regarded as part of that minimal freedom. More like “constrained speech”, because of the inherent Islamic belief that free speech brings chaos. In times of Fitnah (tribulation, calamity) people are commanded by the Prophet not to speak a word: “Hold your tongue, stay at your home, and abandon the matters of public”; which is absolutely against free speech because people’s opinions are stirred most when there are events, and they’re commanded to be quiet and bottle it in.
It is just that we, Arabs, are a radically different culture that values stability and tradition. Something of the sort of “People should mind their own business”. Free speech undermines both. It’s a significant cultural difference that the west has no intent to respect, because they regard it as oppressive.
You don’t need to mention a fabricated story to highlight that.