democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[ذو الفقار]

BTW what do you think is going to happen in the West in the next two decades? My own prediction is that the current liberal systems will collapse sooner than expected. Western states are drowning in debt which is growing so fast that its almost impossible to stop. There is a growing social and political polarization in Europe and the USA, that will eventually lead to violent clashes. And then an "European Spring" might happen in Europe, of course much less harsher because unlike the Arab states European nations have older populations and poverty is not that widespread so people have many things to lose.

I know when I tell my friends about this, they don't believe me. They seriously think that nothing will ever change in the West. They don't realize that a decade before the Perestroika, URSS seemed undefeatable and strong,.. and then it suddenly collapsed. I believe Western nations are going through a similar process right now.

A few years ago there was a lot of talk and anxiety about the collapse of the U.S. dollar, but obviously that hasn’t happened. If it had happened it would have been huge, worse than the stock market crash of 1929. I still think it can happen but for now that has been delayed. Right now I’m closely watching this Russian scandal in American politics. It’s following the same trajectory as Nixon’s Watergate scandal. It’s quite possible Trump will be forced to resign the presidency. That too has the potential to make a huge global impact.

But what I’m really worried about is that right now the ground is being set for World War 3. Two camps are being aligned against each other for war. Like the previous world wars, it could be on many fronts, maybe the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, Ukraine, and/or Kashmir. Suffice to say, we are living in very turbulent times, I can sense a major storm is brewing, it will be the biggest global event since 9/11 which led to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the broader War on Terror. Incidentally, the War on Terror is being wrapped up and we are entering a new phase of confrontation between powerful States.

[ذو الفقار]

Concerning the Mu’tazila, I agree with maneatinglizard that today’s modernists parallel them. In those days Muslims were wrestling with Hellenism and the intellectual assault on Faith by Greek philosophy. Ever since Alexander the not so great facilitated the spread of Hellenism through his conquests, there has been an intellectual struggle between Hebraism and Hellenism. That original culture war saw its first violent manifestation during the Maccabean Revolt. But the wrestle has continued until today. Islam comes out of the Hebraic line while modern Western civilization out of its Hellenic roots. Whether the Jewish Hellenists, the Muslim philosophers and Mu’tazilites, and now the Muslim modernists, they have all essentially failed to capture the soul of their respective communities. The orthodox, no matter how weakened due to the political and social reality, always dominates religious narrative simply because they are the most faithful to the tradition. The ordinary people find more reassurance among the orthodox because the need to maintain cohesion in the community. Without cohesion the community disintegrates. This is why the established foreign power uses the modernists as its lackeys to help facilitate the assimilation of the defiant community, stuck to its traditions.

Iblis talks about how the Mu’tazila made contributions to Islamic jurisprudence and theology, but they never made a name for themselves in the domain of mysticism. That was the realm of the orthodox. They developed mysticism and through it were able to energize popular religion and capture the soul of the community, the ordinary average Muslims. Mu’tazila had confined themselves to their ivory towers, like today’s modernists, and therefore made themselves irrelevant.

[ذو الفقار]

I reproduce below an entry from my blog that details the Islamic concept of Uzlaa "withdrawal" that I am putting forward as the path contemporary Islam has to take in order to preserve itself:

رَبَّ جِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَائِيلَ وَإِسْرَافِيلَ أَعِذْنِي مِنْ حَرِّ النَّارِ وَعَذَابِ الْقَبْرِ: The Companions of the Cave (Sura 18:1, 16)


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نحمده ونصلى ونسلم على رسوله الكريم

The eighteenth chapter of the Suhuf-i Mutahhara with its unmistakeable apocalyptic theme embodies an important lesson for the Muslims of the latter days when it narrates the story of the As-Hab al-Kahf or the youth who sought refuge in a cavern:

إِذْ أَوَى الْفِتْيَةُ إِلَى الْكَهْفِ فَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا آتِنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ رَحْمَةً وَهَيِّئْ لَنَا مِنْ أَمْرِنَا رَشَدًا

When the youths retreated to the cave they said: “Our Lord, grant us from Yourself mercy and facilitate for us from our affair in the right way.”

(Sura 18: 10)

وَإِذِ اعْتَزَلْتُمُوهُمْ وَمَا يَعْبُدُونَ إِلَّا اللَّـهَ فَأْوُوا إِلَى الْكَهْفِ يَنشُرْ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُم مِّن رَّحْمَتِهِ وَيُهَيِّئْ لَكُم مِّنْ أَمْرِكُم مِّرْفَقًا

“And when you withdraw from them and what they worship except Allah, then retreat to the cave. Your Lord will spread for you of His mercy and will facilitate for you from your affair in ease.”

(Sura 18: 16)

The theme of withdrawal and retreating away from the false society is especially important as a lesson for the present day Muslims in the midst of all sorts of trials which they must resist in order to protect their faith. The ‘Uzla (withdrawal) discussed in Surah 18: 16 is in fact twofold; 1. withdrawal from them, i.e., the society of Jahiliya (ignorance, “barbarism”) 2. withdrawal from their objects of worship, their false “gods”. The second is obviously a spiritual withdrawal, to remove oneself from their false religion, practices, and system, and purify oneself from the uncleanliness of idolatry, as Allah Most High commands:

وَالرُّجْزَ فَاهْجُرْ

And keep away al-Rujz (unclean idols)

(Sura 74: 5)

وَالَّذِينَ اجْتَنَبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ أَن يَعْبُدُوهَا وَأَنَابُوا إِلَى اللَّـهِ لَهُمُ الْبُشْرَىٰ

And those who avoid al-Taghut (false gods) lest they worship them, and (instead) turn to Allah; for them are glad tidings

(Sura 39:17)

But in order to enact the second type of withdrawal as per Sura 18: 16, the turning away from and avoidance of the false “gods” and idols, the youths of the cave first enacted withdrawal from the people and society. It is this first type of ‘Uzla which I am discussing in greater depth:

This withdrawal from a society consumed by Jahiliya, infused with idolatry, disobedience to Allah, and corrupt to the core takes on several forms. The youths of the cave represent an example of true Believers who took their withdrawal to a physical level of separation by actually retreating into a cavern. The Prophet ﷺ foretold his own Umma that a time will come with his followers too will have to enact this kind of physical withdrawal from society in order to safeguard their faith:

يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَكُونَ خَيْرَ مَالِ الْمُسْلِمِ غَنَمٌ يَتْبَعُ بِهَا شَعَفَ الْجِبَالِ وَمَوَاقِعَ الْقَطْرِ، يَفِرُّ بِدِينِهِ مِنَ الْفِتَنِ

A time will soon come when the best property of a Muslim will be sheep which he will take to the top of mountains and the places of rainfall (valleys) so as to flee with his Religion from trials.

(Sahih al-Bukhari: Kitab al-Iman; Bab Min al-Dini al-Firaro min-al-Fitan)

إِنَّ الْهِجْرَةَ خَصْلَتَانِ إِحْدَاهُمَا ، أَنْ تَهْجُرَ السَّيِّئَاتِ وَالْأُخْرَى ، أَنْ تُهَاجِرَ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ، وَلَا تَنْقَطِعُ الْهِجْرَةُ مَا تُقُبِّلَتْ التَّوْبَةُ ، وَلَا تَزَالُ التَّوْبَةُ مَقْبُولَةً ، حَتَّى تَطْلُعَ الشَّمْسُ مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ

Verily, al-Hijra (emigration) is of two types: the first is to emigrate from sins, and the second is to emigrate to Allah and His Messenger. And al-Hijra shall not cease as long as repentance is accepted, and repentance shall not cease to be accepted until the sun rises from the west.

(Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal)

Then there is also a psychological, emotional, and social separation from the society one lives in. This too is imperative for the believing Muslims who happen to live in a society of Jahiliyya and corruption but are unable to physically emigrate to another land where Islam is established and there is no corruption or retreat into the remote areas in order to safeguard their faith.

Two illuminous companions of the Prophet ﷺ, namely, Abu Dharr al-GhifariRA and Salama b. al-AkwaRA, retreated into the desert of Rabadha to live among the Bedouins for the purpose of fleeing from trials. When the oppressor al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf taunted Salama b. al-AkwaRA because he imagined that Salama had committed apostasy by retreating into the desert to live among the Bedouins, Salama replied:

لاَ وَلَكِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَذِنَ لِي فِي الْبَدْوِ

“No, but rather the Messenger of Allah ﷺ permitted me to stay with the Bedouins.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari: Kitab al-Fitan; Bab al-Ta’arrubi fil-Fitan)

Retreating into remote areas, such as caves, mountains, rainfall valleys, and the desert is all for the purpose of safeguarding one’s faith and fleeing from the trials and afflictions of the world. Some may argue that it is akin to cutting oneself off from the Jama’a of the Muslims, but that is not the case, as the Hadith of Salama b. al-AkwaRA illustrates. That is not to say that a wrong intention and motivation for departing from the Muslim society, such as that which came to characterise the Kharijite factions, is not condemnable and dispraised. But in the latter days especially, behavior which resembles the khuruj of the old Kharijites in leaving urban centers and withdrawing to form separate, small communities for the purpose of safeguarding the faith will in fact be considered as practing the Sunna, as long as an attitude of mass-Takfir (excommunication) of Muslim societies is avoided. Hence, the As-Hab al-Kahf represent a model and inspiration that Allah has cited in the Holy Qur’an for especially Muslims of the latter days to emulate.
In his book, Gilles Kepel discusses the type of ‘Uzla that was practiced in Egypt during the time of President Anwar el-Sadat:

“The imprisoned Islamicist militants were divided in their reading of Signposts. While the old-guard supporters of Hudaybi defended established dogma against heresies by publishing ‘Preachers, Not Judges’, the youth soon split into various factions. These may be classified in two major currents, which disagreed as to the proper interpretation of Qutb’s term mufasala, or ‘uzla (‘separation’, ‘withdrawal’). One tendency held that withdrawal from society meant only spiritual detachment, while the other felt it meant total separation. Those who preached ‘spiritual detachment’ from society called themselves the jama’a al-‘uzla al-shu’uriyya (Spiritual Detachment Group). They argued that contemporary Egyptian jahiliyya society had to be excommunicated (takfir), but they were aware of the dramatic consequences any enunciation of takfir could have, since they found themselves in a position of ‘weakness’ (istid’af) relative to the enemy jahiliyya society. Since they continued to live within society, they concealed their views, pronouncing the takfir secretly in their hearts while awaiting the advent of the phase of ‘power’ that would enable them to excommunicate a society which they would then have the capacity to combat without beeing doomed to defeat. Not unlike the Shi’ite sects that practice kitman (concealment), every Friday they pretended to pray before an imam whom they actually held to be an infidel…The other faction, which preached mufasala kamila, or ‘total separation’ from society, agreed with the first tendency that jahiliyya society had to be excommunicated. They were also aware of the danger of pronouncing this excommunication while they were still living in society in a ‘phase of weakness’. But their method of averting danger was to withdraw from society and to create, on its margins, a little Society of Muslims, which would then excommunicate jahiliyya society without ‘concealment’.” (Muslim Extremism in Egypt: The Prophet and Pharaoh, pp. 74 – 75)

“In May 1975 the Cairo daily newspaper al-Akhbar published an article about Shukri and his disciples, calling them ahl al-kahf (people of the cave), an expression used in the Koran to designate the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus and, by analogy, any others who sought withdrawal from the real world. The group’s wanderings in the mountains seem to have made an impression both on the authors of the police reports and on the journalists who copied them. In reality, however, the group had lived only very briefly in the grottoes. Most members lived together in furnished rooms in the poor neighborhoods ringing Cairo and other cities.” (ibid, p. 77)

The latter group described by Gilles Kepel was the Jama’at-ul-Muslimin led by Shukri Mustafa (1942 – 1978). They were nicknamed Takfir wal-Hijra by the Egyptian media. Undoubtedly a pure Kharijite group, Takfir wal-Hijra was highly influenced by Syed Qutb’s Signposts (or Milestones) and moulded by the political atmosphere created by Nasser’s modernist, secularist and pan-Arabist regime in Egypt. But throughout the history of the Umma, including its modern history, there have been various tendencies and sects among the Muslims who practiced ‘Uzla to different degrees. These groups often bore the unmistakeable mark of Kharijism, Shi’ism and Sufism. These particular expressions of Islam share with each other a sense of protest and dissent from the Muslim mainstream and political establishment. I believe that a healthy dose of this expression of spiritual and political dissent from the mainstream and the establishment is not only Islamic but is, upon deep introspection, the very theme and flavor of pure Islam. However, extreme manifestations of ‘Uzla such as mass-Takfir of Muslim societies, terrorism against the State and even worse, against civilians, and the doctrine of ‘concealment’, represent a fundamental divergence from the Qur’anic and Sunni expression of ‘Uzla. The Prophet ﷺ warned specifically about many groups emerging from the east, their distinctive sign being their shaven heads (Sahih Muslim: Kitab al-Zakat). This description fits many sects and subsects of Kharijism, Shi’ism and extreme versions of Sufism based in the eastern lands, especially Iraq. To compare these kind of misguided groups to the As-Hab al-Kahf is obviously a mistake.

[ذو الفقار]

Another reason Mu’tazila didn’t persist as an independent group was because they never started popular pietist movements and therefore create a mass following. That’s not to say that pietism was the exclusive realm of orthodox Sunnis. Muhammad b. Karram, founder of the Karramiyya school of kalam, led a popular pietist movement that was somewhat apocalyptic and focused on the significance of Jerusalem. Ibn Karram was known for his personal charisma, piety and asceticism. Although his particular brand of Kalam theology, the Karramiyya, didn’t persist, other parts of its legacy were maintained, such as the institution of the Khanaqa which the Karramiyya developed. Orthodox Sunnism basically had the ability to integrate different theological streams and subsects into its fiber. That has always been its dynamism. One need only read Ali Hujweri’s Kashf-al-Mahjub Abu Talib al-Makki’s Qut-al-Qulub, and Ghazzali’s Ihya Ulum-al-Din, to trace the assimilation of ideas of distinct mystical streams into what became orthodox Sunnism. The great contribution of the Sunni revivalists was in bringing Sufi mysticism into the mainstream, and emphasizing the need for both observing the strictures of the Shari’a and tempering the legalism of Islam with the mystical dimension developed by the Sufi saints. This I believe was Ghazzali’s great contribution, and was reinforced by the contribution of the elders of Deoband in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

My own Panjpiri / Mamati maslak has at times been accused of bearing Mu’tazilite characteristics and influence, such as our belief that the punishment and reward in the grave happens not in the actual burial plot, but in a parallel realm that is called grave technically, but is perhaps better translated in English as ‚purgatory‘, an intermediate world or dimension. Similarly, our rejection of some folk beliefs that have become associated with orthodoxy, such as the idea that the Prophets are living a bodily/physical life in their graves. But as far as I know, the Mu’tazila rejected the idea of punishment and reward in the grave altogether, and did not merely interpret it as occuring in another dimension separate from this world as we Panjpiris do. Likewise, the Mu’tazila rejected the Karamat (miracles) of saints and most devastating of all, they rejected Ilham and Kashaf (divine inspiration) to non-Prophets among the Umma.

This latter doctrine of the Mu’tazila in rejecting spiritual visions and inspirations is what made them fundamentally opposed to mysticism and resulted in their decline and fall.

Coming back to popular pietist movements, we see that they emerge from time to time and have a very positive impact on reviving and re-energizing Islam among the masses. Beginning with dynamic Sufi movements, and in more modern times, the Tablighi Jamaat and to a lesser extent Salafism. This feature of generating pietist movements seems exclusive to orthodoxy and I cannot imagine modernist movements, no matter how intellectual, ever generating a pietist tendency, which we have seen is so critical to maintaining the persistence of Islam especially in times of uncertainty.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

How do you think the age-old debate over literal vs figurative has practical application in the discussion over the political fikr of Islam I am putting forward as an alternative to democracy and other forms of a modern state. I welcome scientific and intellectual inquiry and criticism based on rationality about the political fikr of Islam. But there is a fundamental difference in outlook. I believe mine is more faithful to the fundamentals of Islam and its basic message. That outlook is that God wants us to focus on protecting our Faith during this era of tribulation.



Not running and hiding from ideas. We have the tools and potential to address the ideas of the modern world, including the flexibility to assimilate those ideas which are good. But we have to withdraw from mainstream society and create our own counterculture based on the 'state within a state' model. This is hardly running and hiding from challenging ideas or avoiding them. It is a social phenomenon which itself is based on a very compelling thought.

You cannot prevail without the orthodox. You don't have the grounding in your tradition, and we are living in an era where identity and tradition are making a comeback.

What you;'re doing is trying to rebrand orthodoxy, you're not actually doing the leg work

saying "We have all the answers better than they do" is NOT a debate , This isn't even theory, it's vacant posturing. ol

It's not even about whether we can prevail without the Orthodox, the Orthodox are presently stagnant and will inevitably left behind ....you don't know how to adapt to new challenges. The Orthodox think Muslims will come with swords and horses. , However, I'm not againstt the "counter-culture" idea , but not in the sense you seem to convey, "withdrawing" is not an effective strategy as much as becoming technocratically savvy and learning how to neutralize subservisive inflouences.. You're using analog methods for a digital age. I don't mean passing cryptic messages through social media, that's amateurish. If you want to create a counter-culture you can't be too obvious and that's going to require involvement in the machinery you're up against.

We do have grounding in tradition, we're inspired by historical legacy. but we're not here to imitate history, we're here to advance it. The Orthodoxy is stuck trying to recreate Salaf Al-Saliheen, even though they themselves admit they can't.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Likewise, the Mu’tazila rejected the Karamat (miracles) of saints and most devastating of all, they rejected Ilham and Kashaf (divine inspiration) to non-Prophets among the Umma.

This latter doctrine of the Mu’tazila in rejecting spiritual visions and inspirations is what made them fundamentally opposed to mysticism and resulted in their decline and fall.

This point I agree on, this is why I don't simply want to emulate the Mu'tazilah, but draw upon their positive concepts. I actually come from a family with Mystic associations, though myself am not a Sufi. There is much value in the esoteric and esoteric sciences of Islam and one must not dispell it simply on grounds that it is not deductible by common analysis. Even The Atheist thinker Sam Harris endorses the merits Mystic experience, though not in the way Muslims would of course.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Concerning the Mu’tazila, I agree with maneatinglizard that today’s modernists parallel them. In those days Muslims were wrestling with Hellenism and the intellectual assault on Faith by Greek philosophy. Ever since Alexander the not so great facilitated the spread of Hellenism through his conquests, there has been an intellectual struggle between Hebraism and Hellenism. That original culture war saw its first violent manifestation during the Maccabean Revolt. But the wrestle has continued until today. Islam comes out of the Hebraic line while modern Western civilization out of its Hellenic roots. Whether the Jewish Hellenists, the Muslim philosophers and Mu’tazilites, and now the Muslim modernists, they have all essentially failed to capture the soul of their respective communities. The orthodox, no matter how weakened due to the political and social reality, always dominates religious narrative simply because they are the most faithful to the tradition. The ordinary people find more reassurance among the orthodox because the need to maintain cohesion in the community. Without cohesion the community disintegrates. This is why the established foreign power uses the modernists as its lackeys to help facilitate the assimilation of the defiant community, stuck to its traditions.

Iblis talks about how the Mu’tazila made contributions to Islamic jurisprudence and theology, but they never made a name for themselves in the domain of mysticism. That was the realm of the orthodox. They developed mysticism and through it were able to energize popular religion and capture the soul of the community, the ordinary average Muslims. Mu’tazila had confined themselves to their ivory towers, like today’s modernists, and therefore made themselves irrelevant.

Oh come on, this is just ad-hoc rebranding of Mu'tazilah. What you're saying is simply untrue.

Wahhabis are Ultra Orthdoox and always undermined the communities they were from for the benefit of Foreign occupiers . Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are perfect examples of this. The Orthodox trying to co-opt their failures on Rationalists, when our historical record shows otherwise.

Just as I said before the Muslim Youth in the West are becoming ensared to Western Liberalism and starting to have favorable attitudes about Homosexuality, Transgenderism and even Muslim women marrying Non-Muslims precisely because the Orthodox don't have an effective response to these things. You only appeal to mindless tradition, rather than cogence, jingoism than rationality, emotional romanticism than sound awareness.. We live in n age where we have so much information about anthropology, socio-biology and nature in general, the Orthodox are largely unprepared and thus can't give an effective response ....they're afraid to because some of these ideas might require them to abandon certain orthodox dogma. I mean The Orthodox can't deal with the fact that humans evolved as a species because they take a literal reading of Humans being made of clay. It's insane.
The best they can do is quote mine and seek refuge in crappy Harun Yahya books.

the last part about mysticism is correct though.

[Firdousi]

Yes the cure is worse than the disease. I can only imagine far-right nationalism rising among the uneducated. The only educated ones who are part of that movement are the ones who are in clear leadership positions, using their education to manipulate the dull, dimwitted ones. But ordinary educated people have some degree of immunity from becoming far-right nationalists. Considering that in the West college-education level is quite high, I don't see far-right nationalism ever becoming the dominant force in the West. Poland and Spain aren't exactly the best countries of Western Europe. Right-wing nationalism is rising among the lower income and lesser educated, that's why in Germany it is in eastern part of Germany, and in France and Britain among the working class.

This is a reactionary movement. It doesn't have any enlightened vision on how to make the West innovative and strong again. The West is on a downward spiral and no indication that trend will be reversed. Of course they still have some advantages like great scientific minds and institutions. They have the potential to restore themselves but they will have to make some major reforms which it seems they simply don't have the stomach for at present.

East Asia is going to rise economically, but they also lack that spirit of innovation and imagination which originally made the West great. So for the next century or so I see that globally we are going to slow down. There will still be advancements in technology, but the major social problems aren't going to be solved anytime soon. Unless there is some new radical revolution that is all encompassing, i.e., intellectual, political, economic, and scientific, I don't see the world getting back to where it was a century ago. That's not to say the world was great a century ago, but it was on an exciting trajectory.

They don't need to be majority in order to become the dominant force. Hitler got "just" the 30% of the votes and managed to create a fascist regime. This nationalist people are a bunch losers who have no brain and nothing to lose so they are more willing to sacrifice themselves than the educated people who tend to me more soft, pacifist and less prone to violence. Dont underestimate them.

[Firdousi]

A few years ago there was a lot of talk and anxiety about the collapse of the U.S. dollar, but obviously that hasn’t happened. If it had happened it would have been huge, worse than the stock market crash of 1929. I still think it can happen but for now that has been delayed. Right now I’m closely watching this Russian scandal in American politics. It’s following the same trajectory as Nixon’s Watergate scandal. It’s quite possible Trump will be forced to resign the presidency. That too has the potential to make a huge global impact.

But what I’m really worried about is that right now the ground is being set for World War 3. Two camps are being aligned against each other for war. Like the previous world wars, it could be on many fronts, maybe the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, Ukraine, and/or Kashmir. Suffice to say, we are living in very turbulent times, I can sense a major storm is brewing, it will be the biggest global event since 9/11 which led to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the broader War on Terror. Incidentally, the War on Terror is being wrapped up and we are entering a new phase of confrontation between powerful States.

The collapse of dollar is a real possibility. China is buying huge amount of gold. In due time they may dump dollar which would have a massive global impact. I am quite sure Chinese will try to bring back the "Gold standard" and create some sort of system similar to Bretton Woods. That would be the last nail in the coffin for the West.

I find unlikely WW3 due to several factors such as nuclear deterrance, globalization and an increasing interconnected world, where trade is thriving, people are getting wealthier (ergo less willing to fight), there are plenty of connected interest and because in the modern world, wars between strong states are considered irrational, s tupid and a waste of time and resources. Over 90% of modern conflicts are asymmetric and proxy wars. Thats why USA is unable to win wars. Ironically its the global system created by the USA which is killing the USA.

On the other side, sometimes s hit happens. You can't control everything. I mean a century ago the world was also enjoying the Pax Britannica just like we are now living under the dying Pax Americana. Trade was thriving and there were a growing number of educated and globalized people preaching humanism, brotherhood and pacifism. And then one guy was shot dead in Sarajevo and world descended into chaos.

You see every century has one turning point that will determine the dynamics of the century. In the last century, it was 1917 and 1918. We haven't reached that critical point yet. Some people believe it was 9-11, the Iraqi war, the financial crisis of 2008 or even the election of Trump. I don't think so, because those events despite being dramatic situations weren't important enough. In my opinion we will reach that point within three years. Donald Trump is not the disease, but a side effect of it. Mr Trump will fail. I just wonder what will happen then. 62 million frustrated and angry Americans voted for him, what will those people do once they lose their last hope? In my opinion it will be the beginning of a huge mess in the USA that will spill over the rest of the West and the world. That will be the turning point I was talking about. That will be the moment where the world will descend into a lot of instability and danger that might even trigger a global war.

[salman47]

Concerning the Mu’tazila, I agree with maneatinglizard that today’s modernists parallel them. In those days Muslims were wrestling with Hellenism and the intellectual assault on Faith by Greek philosophy. Ever since Alexander the not so great facilitated the spread of Hellenism through his conquests, there has been an intellectual struggle between Hebraism and Hellenism. That original culture war saw its first violent manifestation during the Maccabean Revolt. But the wrestle has continued until today. Islam comes out of the Hebraic line while modern Western civilization out of its Hellenic roots. Whether the Jewish Hellenists, the Muslim philosophers and Mu’tazilites, and now the Muslim modernists, they have all essentially failed to capture the soul of their respective communities. The orthodox, no matter how weakened due to the political and social reality, always dominates religious narrative simply because they are the most faithful to the tradition. The ordinary people find more reassurance among the orthodox because the need to maintain cohesion in the community. Without cohesion the community disintegrates. This is why the established foreign power uses the modernists as its lackeys to help facilitate the assimilation of the defiant community, stuck to its traditions.

Iblis talks about how the Mu’tazila made contributions to Islamic jurisprudence and theology, but they never made a name for themselves in the domain of mysticism. That was the realm of the orthodox. They developed mysticism and through it were able to energize popular religion and capture the soul of the community, the ordinary average Muslims. Mu’tazila had confined themselves to their ivory towers, like today’s modernists, and therefore made themselves irrelevant.

Can you specify which Muslims you are talking about? Pre-Quran or Post-Quran?
Because after Quran, we never fought Greek. i.e. they were very insignificant.

[ذو الفقار]

Can you specify which Muslims you are talking about? Pre-Quran or Post-Quran?
Because after Quran, we never fought Greek. i.e. they were very insignificant.

Are you serious? I'm talking about the intellectual struggle with Greek philosophy, a well known phase in our history, not Muslims actually fighting with Greeks.

[mixxedpashtana]

Democracy is an abstract term. It's practise can be very different than its "meaning". Therefore you cannot say it's a failure on its own. You must reflect on a state to argue whether its a failure.

Same as communism for example. Communism, the ideology, is much different than communism practiced as a system.

If you ask me a tribal community (for example) can be democratic as well, whereas the people decide over their political position and send representatives in order to achieve their (political) goals.

[UnknownUser]

Democracy might not work in this part of the world because its not compatible with the way of life/culture there. Its completely rooted in Western conscious as the single definitor of modern Western culture. In the Islamic context, democracy might be incompatible with Islam since Khuda/God is the ultimate ruler, and rules of God are eternal.

[salman47]

Are you serious? I'm talking about the intellectual struggle with Greek philosophy, a well known phase in our history, not Muslims actually fighting with Greeks.

Why were the Muslim intellectuals struggling with Greek Philosophy? Sounds quite unnecessary!
Also the most of the ideas in the Islamic Golden Age were inspired by those 'Greek Philosophers/Scientists/Thinkers', i don't know why thats bad. Before you say something opposite, it is quite apparent from your post that you view Greeks 'negatively', Mazlims struggling with Greek Philosophy.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Everytime I hear the word "democracy", I just think about the occupy wall street days.

I happened upon a march they were doing at that time, and they were shouting "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE"... yeah, people with massive safety nets, a minimum wage that would never be supported by a free market, luxuries when compared to the rest of the world, access to debt when they're not creditworthy, and those people congregate to bitch about how "hard" their life is.

I just keep thinking of that stupid protest.