Islam Imitates the West
Faith and Philosophy
| July 19, 2006
| Tim
Some people say religions can never change -- but of course, that's not entirely true. All kinds of changes happen -- for better or for worse. Islam, at its zenith, certainly absorbed a lot of technologies from the countries it conquered.
Here's a rather different reaction to change I read about recently:
In a bizarre example of Iraq's creeping "Talibanization," militants visited falafel vendors a couple of weeks ago, telling them to pack up their stalls by today or be killed.
The ultimatum seemed so bizarre that, at first, most laughed it off -- until two of them were fatally shot as they plied their trade....
"I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Muhammad the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either."
"I felt like telling them there were no Kalashnikovs in Muhammad's time either, but I wanted to keep my life."
(Handy new technology, those Kalashnikovs.)
Another unfortunate Western influence on Islam is the prevalent anti-Semitism we see in some Muslim countries today. As I understand it, Islam used to be more tolerant towards Jews than Christians were. But somehow, things have reversed -- what changed?
If you trace the strain (the way the CDC would trace a virus) you can follow it from European esoteric societies (precursors to the New Age movement) into Nazism, who then allied with radical elements in Islam (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) and taught them Nazi-style antisemitism. Some of these populations are still infected, sadly: The document which shaped the Nazi movement, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is still given credence.
Likewise, Osama bin Laden seems to learn from the West. At first, his diatribes were -- from Michael Moore's point of view -- all wrong. He was upset about Spain not being Muslim. (Very un-PC-view that.) He was upset with the presence of infidels on the Arab peninsula. (Not very multi-cultural.) He appeared to be only tangentially interested in the Palestinian problem. And he failed to specifically hate George Bush -- worse, as Michael Moore openly complained -- OBL attacked an area which had primarily voted for Democrats! (the Islamic extremists' natural ally???)
But later, even OBL got in line: Before the 2004 election, he released a statement threatening any US states which deigned to vote for George Bush. (A bit odd, since Bush was supposedly helping him by waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Guess he missed that memo.)
Recent observers noticed that Islamic extremists seem to have become obsessed with the Rotary and Lion's clubs. And, according Slate, this is once again just more recycled Western silliness:
From the start, many confused outsiders believed that Rotary clubs were a branch of the Freemasons. While this wasn't true, it also wasn't made up out of whole cloth: At least one and perhaps two of the first four Rotarians were Masons, and until the practice was banned, some early Rotary clubs accepted only Masons as members. This supposed Mason-Rotarian connection ensnared the Rotarians in the conspiracy theories and suspicions that long plagued the Masons....
But what does this have to do with Islamic fundamentalism? The answer seems to be conspiracy gridlock: For years fundamentalist Islam has borrowed wholesale from European conspiracist cosmology. Ever since Protocols of the Elders of Zion was first translated into Arabic, it's provided a handy explanation—Masons and all—for the Western menace to the Islamic community. (In Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr's paper Al Hawza published a picture of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and explained that their hand gestures were a sign of the Zionist-Masonic conspiracy.) And, like the Catholic Church, Islamists lumped Rotarians in with the Masons and called both anathema.
It's sad we can't get people equally interested in the US Constitution.
I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Muhammad the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either.
That is so stupid that I'm having a hard time understanding it, and I gotta ask: Do you have a proof that that's what was said? Or just propaganda ;)
As I understand it, Islam used to be more tolerant towards Jews than Christians were. But somehow, things have reversed -- what changed?
We stopped following Islam. That's what changed. Islam says select a Caliph. Majority of muslim countries have dictators.
Islam says no corruption, be honest. We don't do that. Comming from Pakistan, there's so much corruption you won't believe it. E.g. if you have a theft in your home, and you go to Pakistani Police to report, first thing they'll do is.....arrest you!!! And I'm not joking, and it's not an isolated case. My uncle was. Unless you have some politician backing you up.
There was a lecture I'm hearing one Friday in mosque. Molvi was saying some thing "It will take a lot of effort to make current muslims true muslims", etc. etc. Then he said "On the other hand, our current non-muslim have to just say they are muslims and there's a good muslim right there". Every one was in shock.
It cracks me up every time. And it is true Tim. Stop drinking beer and you are a good muslim right there! Just go to mosque on Friday and booyah, u get 70 virgins.
When we were following Islam, people were converting Islam like crazy. How it spread in the early days when Eorope was still in Dark Ages.
Islam, at its zenith, certainly absorbed a lot of technologies from the countries it conquered.
Not only that. Many Muslim scientists invented many things and some modern inventions are based on it. E.g. Camera was invented by a muslim scientist "Ibn-al-haissam", and so many others. And I can give a lot of other examples.
http://www.islamicity.com/Science/scientists/
And the buildings Muslims build. They have a whole new style of their own. Some are still visited. E.g. Taaj Mehel.
Well, the only country I could give you an example, which is following Islam is.....Canada. Seriously! Even with our right wing nutty prime minister.
Saudua Arab has dictator ship. Un-islamic right there. Take oil from them and they're screwed.
Vendor: "I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Muhammad the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either."
Imran: That is so stupid that I'm having a hard time understanding it, and I gotta ask: Do you have a proof that that's what was said? Or just propaganda ;)
Everything written down somewhere could be false. I have no "proof" for anything, much less something which appears in a newspaper. Of course, people accept things on less than "proof" all the time, they just tend to get selective when a nerve gets hit: the standards demanded go up or down depending on our biases.
My own filter works a bit like this: If something in a paper tends to go against what I perceive its biases are, then I am less likely to suspect it. For example, if the New York Times admits welfare reform works, that's probably good evidence in favor of that.
Likewise, as far as I know, the Washington Times tends to lean right: so I'd guess they'd generally favor the war in Iraq. Presenting evidence that regime change might lead to a Taliban-style government would probably not be a war-supporting narrative.
But why should this be incredible or even unlikely? The Taliban managed to find a justification in Islamic law (correctly or incorrectly, I do not know) for banning all kinds of things, including kite-flying and women's shoes which made noises when walking. In Saudi Arabia, apparently there have been prohibitions on women using cell phones with cameras, bans on Pokemon -- why should it be impossible to believe others with similar motivations couldn't claim to find similar grounds for banning falafel? Is there some grounds by which kites can be banned but not falafel?
We stopped following Islam. That's what changed. Islam says select a Caliph. Majority of muslim countries have dictators. Islam says no corruption, be honest...
Just as I'd agree the West has stopped following (or even become hostile to) Christianity, I'm sure.
When we were following Islam, people were converting Islam like crazy. How it spread in the early days when Eorope was still in Dark Ages.
Much of that was armed conquest and second-class status for Dhimmis, Imran. I'm certainly not saying all (of course not!), but you can't neglect that as a large factor.
But certainly, on the other hand, as a non-Muslim, I'd also agree that the Islam I see practiced during the Calphiate is a much more attractive version than the one which seems moribund today. I sometimes hope that many Muslims can re-shape parts of Islam, as widely embraced, back to the one I understood to have dominated historically.
Well, the only country I could give you an example, which is following Islam is.....Canada. Seriously! Even with our right wing nutty prime minister.
Well, I wish your ideas about Islam would dominate, Imran. Islam-as-Canada wouldn't be something that would bother most people, and would probably attract more converts -- after fixing the Quebec part, of course. ;-) (Just joking.)
What is it about Canada, you feel, that makes it Islamic?
Ok we agree on much here.
kites can be banned but not falafel?
Well in Pakistan / India, there's an Indian day Basant in which ppl fly kites tied to glass-sharp "Manja" and try to other guy's kite.
The "defeated" kite (with Manja) float in the air, kids runing after it. Founders are keepers.
Safety hazard? Road accidents are quite common that day. Manja got stuck with electrical wires, causing power outages. Every year there's some accident, e.g. a guy on motorcycle got his throat cut by manja etc.
I would ban this stupid roof top sport if I could. And I fly kites, in park, without manja, and very safely.
Camera with cell phone.....I would ban if I could, since it is quiet .... privacy concern. I can take picture of ppl in subway and...C'mon Tim. And I have moto razr. But I would ban both men and women. Men both so than women. Specially young ones.
Women shoes, beyond me. Perhaps they were spending too much money on it ;) I admit, Islam allows women to wear makeup and what not. Nothing wrong with shoes.
Here is my take on it, when a regime "force ppl", it fails. That's human history!
Much of that was armed conquest and second-class status for Dhimmis, Imran. I'm certainly not saying all (of course not!), but you can't neglect that as a large factor.
Islam and Chritianity are the most popular religions. Chritianity is the biggest one, Islam is, I think come close to 2nd. Still, muslim countries are from Morocco to Indonesia. Fair treatment of Zimmis ensured it. They were 2nd class alright but had they not been treated fairly, armed conquests would be focused on fighting internal zivil wars. They were complete freedom for their religion and they could practice their own laws regarding their matters. It is in Shariah to give Zimmis that right.
Again, if it was brute force, it would have evaporated like mongols or nazis or huns. Just like eastern Roman Empire, that embraced christianity (constantine 1 / Byzentine) outlasted their western counter part by a thousand years. Brute force vs. treating ppl fairly. And 2nd Komenanian king John II was loved by all.
Majority of Zimmis converted to Islam. E.g. Pakistan.
True, they were not first class, but in middle ages, they were treated far better than non-christians in Midieval Euorope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmis
"A dhimmi (also zimmi, Arabic: ذمي, plural: اهل الذمۃ, ahl al-dhimma) was a "free" (i.e. non-slave), non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia — Islamic law. A dhimmi is a person of the dhimma, a term which refers in Islamic law to a pact contracted between non-Muslims and authorities from their Muslim government. This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus.[1] The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India from the 7th century until modern times.[2] Over time, many dhimmis converted to Islam. Most conversions were voluntary and happened for a number of different reasons but forced conversion played a role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia where Shi'a Islam is dominant.[3]
Dhimmis were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and accepting Muslim supremacy.[4] Taxation from the perspective of Dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, Cahen states, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes" and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of Dhimmi's subjection. [5] Various restrictions and legal disabilities placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[6] Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character. [7] Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs,[8] although persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical.[9] While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe."[10]"
What is it about Canada, you feel, that makes it Islamic?
Freedom of Religion. (with the current right wing government, I run a real threat of being arrested, honestly. There are some arrests of Muslim yought recently without much grounds), and civil equality. US is too involved in the affairs of other countries, and freedom of religion sounds funny there when US government had been supporting dictators in other countries. They did in Pakistan, All millitary regimes.
Regarding the kite-flying and women's shoes, the reason I raised it was not to ask whether you agreed or not, but to simply ask why the report should be suspect, when all kinds of "banning" happens elsewhere.
Here is my take on it, when a regime "force ppl", it fails. That's human history!
Imran, EVERY regime eventually fails. Strong-armed regimes like the USSR failed. And so did nice, weak ones -- like Latvia, before the USSR. Rome grew by conquering and failed by being overly decadent and tolerant. And someday both of our countries will be ancient history too.
I respect your view, but I'm not sure it has the historical support you'd like.
Ok we agree on much here.
We do indeed, in general, Imran.
But we don't banter back and forth on the things we agree about, because that's boring, no? :-)
Imran: It's good to be honest!
Tim: Yeah!
Imran: Yeah!
So I read the stuff you write which I completely agree with but only respond regarding the comparatively fewer differences...
Fair treatment of Zimmis ensured it. They were 2nd class alright but had they not been treated fairly...
Here you are, complaining that you feel Muslims will be arrested in Canada in slightly higher numbers now that a non-liberal is in power, and then you also claim it can be "fair" to be a second-class citizen???
Yes, of course, there were many areas in Islam where some minorities were treated better than in some other areas at the time. Likewise, I could say that the US (as you seem to envision it) might be terrible towards Muslims, but it's so much better than, say, Saudi Arabia or China is towards Christians -- so it must be "fair".
Yes, there are puff-pieces which generally give a favorable spin to dhimmitude, but there are also dissenting facts one can site to show the bias. Contrast this mild-sounding summary in Wikipedia:
The "dhimma" was the most oppressive in Morocco, where Jews were subjected to what Norman Stillman called “ritualized degradation”, as well as in Yemen and Persia.
with this better-supported this entry at reference.com:
The occupation of Persia however was not a smooth process. Many Arab Muslims for example believed that Iranian converts should not clothe themselves as Arabs, among many other forms of discrimination that emerged. (See "Mohammedanische Studien" Goldziher. Vol 2 p138-9.) And there are various reports of brutal and inhumane treatment and massacres of Iranians by the Arab forces that are well documented. (See "Ansab al Ashraf" or "Futūh al Buldan" by Baladhuri, p417. Also: Tabari. Series II p1207. Also: "Tarikh e Sistan" p82. Also: "Tarikh e Qum" p254-6.)
Likewise, here's a nice-sounding quote from Wikipedia (which you also cited) from Bernard Lewis:
While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe."
Yet counter-examples are just as easy to find. Regarding Jews in Yemen, for example:
[Christian] Ethiopian rule [of Yemen] ended in the 7th century with Muslim conquest. The Muslim conquest changed Jewry in this area forever. Jews went from being equal citizens [under Christians] to dhimmis, second class citizens in Muslim countries who are officially protected under law as believers in a non-Islamic faith. They were required to pay a poll tax, a standard tax for Jews, Christians and other protected peoples in the Muslim world. They did not have much contact with other Jewish communities. Over the years their culture took on similarities to Arab culture, and little is known about this early part of Arab rule in Yemen, but we know the Jewish community was in distress from letters in the Cairo Genizah.
And of course, if you didn't happen to be a Jew or Christian, or didn't agree to this lowered position, then typically you were to be killed. And you know full well the entire purpose of the dhimmi status is, in fact, humiliation, not "fairness".
My point here isn't a tit-for-tat argument about who dun worse -- among generations of people long dead, many of whom both you and I would readily repudiate on either side. My point is simply that dhimmitude was an important part of the conversion process -- not because dhimmis were so impressed with how wondefully they were treated*, but simply because most people prefer not to be humiliated for generations.
(* There were cases where dhimmis were treated well -- but good treatment tended to intefere with their desire to convert. For example, even relatively recently Jews in Iran enjoyed freedoms (uncovered women, going on dates, being able to consume alcohol) many Muslims didn't -- but that didn't tend to lend itself to many Jewish conversions.)
Tim: What is it about Canada, you feel, that makes it Islamic?
Imran: Freedom of Religion.
You mean Canada would never arrest someone for merely citing the bible, or something like that?
There are some arrests of Muslim yought recently without much grounds...
Without "much" grounds? Are you referring to this case? Sounds like there were plenty of grounds for an arrest.
If not, what case are you referring to?
US is too involved in the affairs of other countries...
I'm not sure this part makes sense. I can see how someone might think one nation should never use money, offers of trade, offers of polical support to influence another. Certainly, if you believe that is evil per se, no matter what the influence is intended to accomplish -- then several countries (Russia, China, the USA, France, the UK...) are very bad indeed.
But I'm not sure what this has to do with freedom of religion on it's own. Mexico, for example, is deeply involved in the US's internal politics -- it meddles extensively in internal US affairs. Does that make Mexico opposed to freedom of religion?
... and freedom of religion sounds funny there when US government had been supporting dictators in other countries.
If supporting dictators is wrong, then wouldn't opposing them be right? What is your stance?
It seems to me that if supporting dictators is wrong, you've got a long list of nations to be unhappy with, as most countries have done so at one time or another.
Even Canada: Pierre Trudeau -- a liberal Canadian leader I presume you would support -- admired and supported Fidel Castro. He allowed Cuban military planes to refuel in Newfoundland on their way to the USSR. Fidel and Castro were close friends; Castro even was a pallbearer at his funeral.
Castro is a dictator, no?
Likewise, Canada (under the previous government, mind you) was vastly expanding trade with China which has very little freedom of religion. Wouldn't this added trade "support" China's government? So does Canada then also, by association, lack a freedom of religion?
Finally, last I heard, the Taliban wasn't very keen on freedom of religion. And you have just criticized George Bush for supporting Pakistan -- after all, you say, Pakistan is a dictatorship.
So then how do you square that with your own comments here, where you also seem to support the Taliban and said Pakistan should have also supported the Taliban:
Many Pakistani are extremely critical of Pakistan dependence on foreign aid. There is so much corruption there that it is unbelievable. (our fault) I’m not proud of Pakistan’s begging. We should have stood by Talibaan. (You may disagree. I don’t care. I know what they did and how they rule....)
If it is wrong for the US to support Pakistan -- presumably because Pakistan has insufficient religious freedom -- then how can you argue Pakistan should have "stood by" (i.e. supported) the Taliban -- which allowed even less religious freedom than the US? If the US has more religious freedom than the Taliban, shouldn't Pakistan have supported the country with better freedom, even if not perfect?
I'm not trying to set up you here. Perhaps there's a perfectly rational explanation. I am just confused as to what the rules are supposed to be here. (It could even be that you've changed your views as time went by. Nothing wrong with that either: I've sure done plenty of that.)
Finally: I'm glad you think Canada is an excellent Islamic country because you believe Islam demands total religious liberty and -- I presume (correct me if I err) -- therefore also believe it is wrong to persecute someone because of their religion.
As I said before, I wish all Muslims had the same view. (And also, to be fair, all Christians likewise!)
God bless you.
- Tim
Thanks for the detailed reply Tim. There are many points, I'll go with them post by post.
Here you are, complaining that you feel Muslims will be arrested in Canada in slightly higher numbers now that a non-liberal is in power, and then you also claim it can be "fair" to be a second-class citizen???
Being a second class citizen was comparitively better in "those" ages, centuries ago. When slave trading etc. was a business. We should be far better now. Well, we are actually. But far from perfect.
And I'm actually concerned about those arrests. And I should be careful what I post on public boards. One of those 17 kids arrested posted he wanna kill harper on a message board. (A tupid thing to say, but....so many kids post intention to kill so many ppl....)
RE: Those kids. Same arrests had happened before
Talibaan:
A lot of stuff said in media about Taaliban is...propaganda, justifying or a try to justify the civilian lives there.
US Supported Talibaan
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.
- Talibaan never attacked US, did they? It was Al-Qaeda, different entity.
- Talibaan infact consisted of majority of Afghan ethnic group, i.e. Pathan.
- The alternatives, Northern Alliances were no better. They never had majority support, and had a long list of war crimes. Taaliban was actually a revolution by afghans against many Northern Alliance leaders.
- Taalibaan discouraged heroin. It is huge problem in Pakistan, and I think it is a concern in US as well. Since Talibaan is gone, it's back.
- Northern Alliance never appeared to promise more relgious freedom than Talibaan. US supported Taalibaan in nineties and reversed in 2001. Which US policy I'm supposed to agree with?
If it is wrong for the US to support Pakistan -- presumably because Pakistan has insufficient religious freedom
Wrong assumption. Pakistan has complete religious freedom. You can go to church, Mandar, Temple in Pakistan. There were many churches in Islamabad. They are not historical churches, given that Islamabad was built on empty land in 1960s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamabad
So they must be newly built. I passed by one daily on my way to college and it was often busy by christians.
Support to "dictators" of Pakistan is what I was referring to.
Of course, Saddam was supported too by US, wasn't he?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
So this is what I don't understand. Saddam was suported at one point, then labeled as real bad dude. So bad that Iraq has to be attacked. Lot of Iraqis got killed ebcase he was supported, and...opposed. Many US soldiers got killed too but much difference in numbers.
Talibaan was encouraged, it's support was encouraged, then......it was bad, fundamentalist and had to be overthrown.
So if US is supported you at one point, you should be real worried, they may turn against you at any time. Better thing to do will be never trust US. If you happen to be ruling some crazy country ;)
- Trade with China
Well, trading is different than giving weapons to dictators to supress their opposition. E.g. Saddam was given chemical weapons to supress Kurds.
Without "much" grounds? Are you referring to this case? Sounds like there were plenty of grounds for an arrest.
Well Tim there's a ban on that case. What are the grounds you're talking about?
One thing I strongly condemn. Expressing an intent to "behead" our Prime Minister, Steven Harper and Kidnap the "MPs". If I find any young stupid kid in my family having these (or any violant) ideas, he'll be in a lot of trouble.
Steven Harper even reduced GST, kept his promise. Liberal before him didn't met single promise, except allowing gay marriage. And the corruption.
Harper did cease many environmnetal shit though.
Again, proper way is .... not to vote Harper. Or write to him what you think about it.
I have been student of Islamic studies for 13 years, going to mosque all my life. At least once a week. And I have no idea where all this violant ideas come from! Why do I, from the same religion, same Quran, know it is so very wrong and un-islamic to do that.
I have been student of Islamic studies for 13 years, going to mosque all my life. At least once a week. And I have no idea where all this violant ideas come from! Why do I, from the same religion, same Quran, know it is so very wrong and un-islamic to do that.
People (when sufficiently motiviated) read the documents in different ways, Imran. The same thing happens in Christianity or -- in a more secular context, in America.
In Massachusetts, state Supreme Court justices recently read the state's Constitution -- which stated explicitly that marriage was an arrangement between a man and woman -- as permitting male/male relationships to be called 'marriage'. Obviously, I wouldn't come away with that same interpretation.
In Christianity, there are verses (which seem reasonably clear to me) saying we should never call clergy terms like "Father" (Matthew 23:9) and that clergy must be married (1 Timothy 3:2). Somehow, those who lead the Catholic church have come to what appears to be the opposite conclusions.
These are a lesser matter than the use of violence of course, but it illustrates the same principle: the same document can be read quite differently by two different groups of people, depending on their tradition, assumptions, motivations, and context.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« USA Today: How Not to Report the News |
Front Page |
Page Two
| George Lakoff on Freedom »
|
I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Muhammad the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either.
That is so stupid that I'm having a hard time understanding it, and I gotta ask: Do you have a proof that that's what was said? Or just propaganda ;)
As I understand it, Islam used to be more tolerant towards Jews than Christians were. But somehow, things have reversed -- what changed?
We stopped following Islam. That's what changed. Islam says select a Caliph. Majority of muslim countries have dictators.
Islam says no corruption, be honest. We don't do that. Comming from Pakistan, there's so much corruption you won't believe it. E.g. if you have a theft in your home, and you go to Pakistani Police to report, first thing they'll do is.....arrest you!!! And I'm not joking, and it's not an isolated case. My uncle was. Unless you have some politician backing you up.
There was a lecture I'm hearing one Friday in mosque. Molvi was saying some thing "It will take a lot of effort to make current muslims true muslims", etc. etc. Then he said "On the other hand, our current non-muslim have to just say they are muslims and there's a good muslim right there". Every one was in shock.
It cracks me up every time. And it is true Tim. Stop drinking beer and you are a good muslim right there! Just go to mosque on Friday and booyah, u get 70 virgins.
When we were following Islam, people were converting Islam like crazy. How it spread in the early days when Eorope was still in Dark Ages.
Islam, at its zenith, certainly absorbed a lot of technologies from the countries it conquered.
Not only that. Many Muslim scientists invented many things and some modern inventions are based on it. E.g. Camera was invented by a muslim scientist "Ibn-al-haissam", and so many others. And I can give a lot of other examples.
http://www.islamicity.com/Science/scientists/
And the buildings Muslims build. They have a whole new style of their own. Some are still visited. E.g. Taaj Mehel.
Well, the only country I could give you an example, which is following Islam is.....Canada. Seriously! Even with our right wing nutty prime minister.
Saudua Arab has dictator ship. Un-islamic right there. Take oil from them and they're screwed.
Posted by: Imran on July 19, 2006 04:45 AM