Irshad Manji versus Reza Aslan

[ScimitarXEdge]

she reminds me of jumanji

Irshad Manji? ...More like Irshad MANGY lol

[Catya Sher]

Scimitar,
Yes I know vilayat-i-faqih, the Rule of the Jurisprudent.
But Shariati is not the only one who didnt' go for that.
The Iraqi marja's didn't either. Some Iranian ones too.
I believe Shariati had some Marxist strains at least woven throughout his writings.
We can look this up a little more.
I won't read him though because of this image I have locked in that he is too waffly - let's put it that way - on socialism.

GYE - Who's jumanji?!

[Catya Sher]

About the MANGY - that's what I was thinking too!!
I thought it might be rude to say - but as long as you did...
People's names never lie about them...

[ScimitarXEdge]

Well it was the British who expelled him from India.
Why on earth would he have gone to another British domain, Egypt, where he would already be on the watch list clearly?
I don't know, I have always had mixed feelings about him.
His IDEAS sound nice.
But WHO was HE himself? That's the shady part to me.
I want to look at this more carefully.
I'm going to go back and read some more details and we can continue about him.
The point is to get to the real truth whatever that may be.
Now the Qutbists took inspiration from him, right, through his devoted disciple Abduh?

When was Sayyid Jamaluddin Al-Afghani in India?

Yes Qutb draw from 'Abduh; but Qutb has a doctrine of Takfir which the extremist groups use now.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Scimitar,
Yes I know vilayat-i-faqih, the Rule of the Jurisprudent.
But Shariati is not the only one who didnt' go for that.
The Iraqi marja's didn't either. Some Iranian ones too.
I believe Shariati had some Marxist strains at least woven throughout his writings.
We can look this up a little more.
I won't read him though because of this image I have locked in that he is too waffly - let's put it that way - on socialism.

GYE - Who's jumanji?!

I never claimed he was the only one; clearly my reference to Sayyid Jamaluddin Al-Afghani demonstrates that.

Shari'ati isn't a Marxist; I don't understand why you insist he was despite knowing that he has literature condemning Marxism.


If you don't read and judge the material of the accused just because an "alleged" reputation; then this is intellectual dishonesty

and I abjure intellectual dishonesty whether by a Muslim or a Kafir.

[graveyardofempires]

Scimitar,
Yes I know vilayat-i-faqih, the Rule of the Jurisprudent.
But Shariati is not the only one who didnt' go for that.
The Iraqi marja's didn't either. Some Iranian ones too.
I believe Shariati had some Marxist strains at least woven throughout his writings.
We can look this up a little more.
I won't read him though because of this image I have locked in that he is too waffly - let's put it that way - on socialism.

GYE - Who's jumanji?!

jumanji is the title of an american movie where some guys play a sort of dice game they found on a construction site,it took them to another time and all up sudden there were all types of animals coming from the game,one of those animals was a monkey and this manji reminds me of that monkey.strange.

[graveyardofempires]

Irshad Manji? ...More like Irshad MANGY lol

she is a ghwar mangay,thanks for pointing it out that fits perfectly.

our teachers used to call dumb students ghwar mangay(oiled mangay) and it means no matter how much you say something the person wont get it.water doesnt stick to it.

[ScimitarXEdge]

she is a ghwar mangay,thanks for pointing it out that fits perfectly.

our teachers used to call dumb students ghwar mangay(oiled mangay) and it means no matter how much you say something the person wont get it.water doesnt stick to it.

I would say she's a ghw*l mangay, because that is what she's full of.

[graveyardofempires]

I would say she's a ghw*l mangay, because that is what she's full of.

LOl thats disrespect to mangay

[Toramana]

Hi Barakzai, thank you for posting Dalia & Irshad...Both were eloquent and I really enjoyed the discussion...But As I have heard him, Reza is also good.

Although, I don't agree with both on some ideas.

I am on the reformist side as I already have said on this forum again and again...

[Alchemist]

Scimitar!
You're very bright.
But also what about Al-Afghani's having been inducted into the FREEMASONS!
I read that this morning.
It's believed that he worked for THEM.
He used their motto, as I recall.
There may have been TWO agendas with him.

Some people think he worked for the British - and question why he went to Egypt at all, Egypt having been under British control at that time.

Then, what's funny too is that his ideas have been used by the American Neo-Cons to justify a huge alert about anyone advocating the return of the Caliphate.
TODAY! So many years later, they brought him back to terrorize any sincere people wishing for the good old days.

Very helpful about Manji. These are the only people whose voices get much coverage on this topic: those who parrot the line most wished for by those same Neo-Cons/American power elites/Bilderbergers/their slaves

That is not true.

People think he was inducted into the freemasons because he gave lectures at the "crescent lodges" in eygpt which is an off shot of freemasonary. But that doesn't mean he was a member. Most members of freemasonary, up to the 31st degree are kept in the dark and their rituals and lodge activity is no different than the aristocratic "hang out" clubs. Freemasonary, even in america, at that time, 150 years ago, was a place where professionals, like lawyers and doctors, joined up to make contacts with others. They didn't have the phone book back then, and this was a successful referral system. Keep in mind that Albert pike was a contemporary of Sayed Jamaludin, so freemasonary hadn't been given its full "morals and dogma" yet.

Jamaludin didn't just stay in Eygpt, he also gave similar efforts in Turkey and Iran. His hope was to convince the Shah of Iran, The Wali of Egypt (who had broken away from the Ottomon) and the Sultan of Turkey to unite together before everything falls apart. His efforts went in vain. He warned all three of them that if they didn't put their differences aside the whole ummah would be in peril. Their egos didn't give way and right after egypt fell to the british and the ottomons after ...and the iranians too.

Even the brits and the french all admit that Jamaluddin was more effective than any army.

He didn't just go to Islamic countries. He went to france and even to America and in Russia, it was him who convinced the Tsar to allow the publication of Qur'an's translation.

He was unique. If you read his life and his ambitions ... all I can say is this. Every century the Islamic Ummah has a champion sent by allah, without a doubt the 19 century had Jamuluddin.

[Alchemist]

about irshad manji

she was a nobody until 9/11 happened.

After that day all the television networks were looking for "muslims" to showcase Islam. And I remember seeing her on every show! The producers liked her because, I suppose, she has that "fire"...."I am a feminist muslim and patriarchy sucks!". That's her whole life story. She wrote a book after and got a big fat pay check with which she bought a condo. I think she lives in canada, I am sure she is canadian. She has no qualifications to be on the show, but I guess she had some lady friend in the television networks. I don't mind manji soo much. She only appeals to gullible and hapless teens who need to blame something or someone for their misery. If you go to her website you will read kids telling her how she expresses the same frustration they have with their bearded fathers who are too disconnected and aloof to care for the western/materialist needs of their fobby kids who can't be cool like everyone else and party. She doesn't deserve a thread of her...I can't even believe i wrote about her right now lol .. oh well.
Since we are all ranting on fobby muslims (wannabe westerners), the one I find most fake is "Tariq Ali". I had watched him, along with manji, sit there and explain "fundamentalism" on television. And because he was so quite and had this expression on his face like he had it all figured out...I got curious. So I bought this fool's book and two chapters in to the book and he is still writing about his life experiences to set up for his political views and I already learn that this man is an absent minded fool. He describes how he feel out of the fold of islam at the age of 12 when his pakistani father would take him to the qari to learn Qur'an. He figured the exercise it self was futile and that the way his father "forced" to do it was what made him "realize" that islam is just some "custom"....this guy was obviously writing to impress non-believers and win them over with his frankness of disbelieve. And then I figured it out--- all these people on television who say they represent Islam are just a bunch of sycophants! In their closets they are thanking Allah that they have been born into a muslim family, only to reject it and be accepted with open arms into the succulent bossoms of the west...the dream of every fobby nerd! Nothing but a bunch of small minded losers. I took his book and threw it in the garbage bin and till this day regret the lose of my 10 dollars! Tariq Ali...if you are reading this- I want my money back!

[ScimitarXEdge]

That's really what I take from Sayyid Jamaluddin Al-Afghani; place differences aside, work together and cooperate your resources, your political goals and your economics and such to break free from the subservience and dependence on Europe and external resources and facilities.

There are many ideas of Sayyid Jamaluddin Al-Afghani I critique

like his attitude that religion must be purely dogma and that it inhibits free investigation.

As a Mu'tazilah ; I know that the intellectual advance of human relationship to Existence and understanding the Causes of Existence and Operations of Nature; are crucial. These are extensions of the religious call. Not exemptions to the religious call.

I believe Sayyid Jamaluddin Al-Afghani's argument here was a reaction to the Mullocratic approach that was present. Where the Imam's opinion was merely all there was.

This is why I am critical of standard traditionalism. I believe that's what Al-Afghani was really intending anyways.

[Alchemist]

he was beyound his time

In The Refutation of the Materialists, Afghani gives a scathing criticism of the naturalist/materialist position from the scientific, philosophical, ethical, and social points of view. He identifies the materialists as the epitome of evil intent on destroying human civilization. He traces the history of modern materialism to the Greek materialists, among whom he mentions Democritus, Epicurus, and Diogenes the Cynic. This short historical survey is followed by a scientific and philosophical criticism of Darwin and his evolutionary theory. Afghani rejects the idea of chance in nature and accuses the materialists of attributing “perception and intelligence” to atoms (i.e., matter) in and of themselves. He rejects totally the idea of universe as a self-regulating structure without a higher intelligence operating on it. This is without doubt the most philosophical section of the treatise.
Afghani then moves to his social and ethical criticism of the materialists. According to him, the materialists are intent to undermine the very foundations of human society. They try to destroy the “castle of happiness” based on the six pillars of religion. These six pillars are divided into three beliefs and three qualities. The first belief is that man is a terrestrial angel, i.e., he is God’s vicegerent on earth. The second belief is that one’s community is the noblest one both in the sense of belonging to the human world against the animal and plant kingdoms, and in the sense of belonging to the best human and religious society. This inherent exclusivism, for Afghani, is the most important motive for the global race of goodness, which lies at the heart of all world civilizations. The third belief or doctrine that religion teaches is that man is destined to reach the highest world, i.e., his innate ability to transcend the merely material and realize the spiritual within himself.
In addition, religion inculcates three ethical qualities in its followers. The first quality is what Afghani calls “modesty” (haya’), that is, the modesty of the soul to commit sin against God and his fellowmen. The nobility of the soul increases in proportion to the degree of its modesty. Afghani considers this quality to be the most essential element for the ethical and social regulation of society. The second quality is trustworthiness, which underlies the very fabric of a society. The survival of human civilization is contingent upon mutual respect and trust, without which no society can have political stability and economic prosperity. The third quality promulgated by religion is truthfulness and honesty, which, for Afghani, is the foundation of social life and solidarity.
Through these six pillars, Afghani establishes religion as the foundation of civilization and denounces materialism as the enemy of religion and human society. To stress this central point, Afghani mentions the Batinis and the Babis as followers of naturalism/materialism in the Islamic world. He also mentions Rousseau and Voltaire as modern materialists and uses a very strong language in condemning their “sensualism” and anti-moralism. He even goes so far as to classify socialists, communists and nihilists as nothing other than mere variations of materialism in the ethical sense of the term. He holds the materialists responsible for the destruction of such great nations in history as the Persian, Roman, and Ottoman Empires. Since the materialist does not recognize any reality other than gross matter and ‘sensuality’, he paves the way for the reign of passions and desires. In this sense, the materialist is immersed in the worst kind of metaphysical and ethical mistake and cannot be trusted even on a purely human level.
In the last part of the treatise, Afghani turns to religion and, among religions, to Islam as the only way to salvation for humanity. He compares Islam to other world religions and asserts its superiority, implying that Islam is the only religion to cope with the challenges of the modern world. It is worth noting that Afghani concludes his treatise with a short statement that has become the hallmark of Islamic modernism:
If someone says: If the Islamic world is as you say, then why are the Muslims in such a sad condition? I will answer: When they were [truly] Muslims, they were what they were and the world bears witness to their excellence. As for the present, I will content myself with this holy text: “Verily, God does not change the state of a people until they change themselves inwardly”. (Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism, p. 173)

[ScimitarXEdge]

Indeed