Islam the Underdog

[Sleeper]

I have been reading a wonderful book about Ali, and found the vino drove me to reflect on why there were no good looking women at the bar I was sitting in (none that were drunk enough to sleep with a short hairy guy or fall for my occasional bouts of charm), when I got to thinking about how little Islam has changed in respect to its ability to surprise us.

From Muhammed's victory (in a fight he started) against incredible odds at the Battle of Badr, to the african expansion, to the Mughals outstanding success in forming an Indian empire never matched again, and finally the Ottomans military triumphs and rapid blossoming of thought from art to philosophy to religion to technology, especially military.

Which got me thinking about the modern day and Afghanistan and Pakistan; how they will never let a Bhutto (populous) live and how little real progress the US is likely to make unless we stay there forever. How Sorkin wrote that recent movie which he thinks is an anti war flick but is really a pro occupation romp.

The terror and horror the Russians inflicted and how hard they fought with nothing until the US armed them. Really how hard they fought with nothing.

Which brings us back to Badr and a fundamental truth, something I don't say very often. The Mujahideen will never surrender. They will fight and breed until not a man lives and then the children will grow up to fight some more. They will fight until literally no man lives (the women are probably open to the western way). They will fight with nothing and with everything and they are capable of victory against overwhelming odds and growth so rapid it boggles comprehension.


Why?
Because they know they serve God. They know.
Something the increasing secular west best take note of.

America might just be the only western country who is planning for the future.
Just a thought.

[jankren]

From Muhammed's victory (in a fight he started)

The last time I checked he was kicked out of his own city along with his followers for peacefully preaching his belief. So how did he start the fight again?

Because they know they serve God. They know.

Thats the power of religion and the promise of heaven.

[Sleeper]

The last time I checked he was kicked out of his own city along with his followers for peacefully preaching his belief. So how did he start the fight again?

I meant the actual battle. Even Islamic historians admit it was because of either raids on Meccan caravans or one raid in particular.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Why?
Because they know they serve God. They know.
Something the increasing secular west best take note of.

Interesting post. Since you mentioned Badr, Afghanistan and the Soviet invasion, I'm assuming that you're focusing on the militaristic characteristics of the followers of Islam from the 7th century AD to modern times.

I think a key similarity from that time to this is the puritan element. For instance, they'd pray five times a day - war or no war. The fundamentalist factor also remains to this day. There's no room for change in the orthodox teachings. When the Caliph Omar dismissed his top-most general, Khalid bin Walid, his reason was that the followers started to thank the general for their wins, not God.

However, there are stark differences. When Mohammad, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Hamza fought at Badr, they were fighting for a system that was revolutionary. Everything the Quraish represented was old, obsolete and tyrannical. Islamic law, as proposed by Mohammad, was innovative and modern for the barbaric 7th century and beyond. However, when the modern Mujahadeen (the Chechens for example) enforce these same laws that were not changed after the 11th century AD, their system is outdated and harsh for modern society.

The modern Mujahadeen movements stem from the teachings of Shah Walliullah (early 18th century) and his son Abdul Aziz. Abdul Aziz and his brother's teachings eventually resulted in a militia being led against the Sikh invaders (who ultimately butchered them). That ushered in an era of insurgency and the ambition to fight even without a proper army and weapons. We see that continuing nowadays with militants armed with AK's fighting against professional armies across the world. Men such as Syed Ahmed Barailvi followed the path of Abdul Aziz and their concepts of "Dar-ul-Harb" and "Dar-ul-Uloom".


My second argument is that religious Muslims look at leadership from the likes of Umar bin Adbul Aziz aka Umar II. Here's a quote from the guy from Wikipedia:

Rulers usually appoint people to watch over their subjects. I appoint you a watcher over me and my behaviour. If you find me at fault in word or action guide me and stop me from doing it.

Again, this guy was a puritan. He had only two shirts and sold all his family wealth, putting the money gained in the public treasury. He was honest, simple and believed in swift justice. In today's rampant corruption, people look for leaders such as him.

Again, this is from Wikipedia:

Umar was extremely pious and disdainful of worldly luxuries. He preferred simplicity to the extravagance that had become a hallmark of the Umayyad lifestyle, depositing all assets and finery meant for the caliph into the public treasury. He abandoned the caliphal palace to the family of Suleiman and instead preferred to live in modest dwellings. He wore rough linens instead of royal robes, and often went unrecognized.
According to a Muslim tradition, a female visitor once came to Umar's house seeking charity and saw a raggedly-dressed man patching holes in the building's walls. Assuming that the man was a servant of the caliph, she asked Umar's wife, "Don't you fear God? Why don't you veil in the presence of this man?" The woman was shocked to learn that the "servant" was in fact the caliph himself.
Though he had the people's overwhelming support, he publicly encouraged them to elect someone else if they were not satisfied with him (an offer no one ever took him up on). Umar confiscated the estates seized by Ummayad officials and redistributed them to the people, while making it a personal goal to attend to the needs of every person in his empire. Fearful of being tempted into bribery, he rarely accepted gifts, and when he did he promptly deposited them in the public treasury. He even pressured his own wife--who had been daughter, sister and wife to three caliphs in their turn--to donate her jewelry to the public treasury.
At one point he almost ordered the Great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus to be stripped of its precious stones and expensive fixtures in favor of the treasury but he desisted on learning that the Mosque was a source of envy to his Byzantine rivals in Constantinople. These moves made him unpopular with the Umayyad court, but endeared him to the masses, so much so that the court could not move against him in the open.

However, there are drawbacks to having these sort of men in power. For starters, they are not pro-progress and their enforcement of justice can sometimes be very medieval. Furthermore, such men, especially these days, adhere to very strict and narrow-minded beliefs.


The second brand of leaders Muslims want are the likes of Harun al-Rashid. Wikipedia:

Hārūn gave great encouragement to learning, poetry and music. He was a scholar and poet himself and whenever he heard of learned men in his own kingdom, or in neighboring countries, he invited them to his court and treated them with respect. The name of Hārūn, therefore, became known throughout the world. At Tabari (v. 30 p. 313) refers to the physician Mankah coming from India to treat Harun. Harun had diplomatic relations with China and with Charlemagne.
Both Einhard and Nokter the Stammerer refer to envoys travelling between Harun's and Charlemagne's courts, amicable discussions concerning Christian access to the Holy Land and the exchange of gifts. Notker (p. 147) mentions Charlemagne sent Harun Spanish horses, colourful Frisian cloaks and impressive hunting dogs. Harun sent gifts in return. In 802 Harun sent Charlemagne a present consisting of silks, brass candelabra, perfume, slaves, balsam, ivory chessmen, a colossal tent with many-colored curtains, an elephant named Abul-Abbas, and a water clock that marked the hours by dropping bronze balls into a bowl, as mechanical knights — one for each hour — emerged from little doors which shut behind them. The presents were unprecedented in Western Europe and may have influenced Carolingian art.

Umar bin Abdul Aziz and Harun al-Rashid are complete opposites. Bhutto was a lot closer to being the latter than the former. Most modern Mujahadeen, thanks to the likes of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and Shah Abdul Aziz, want to bring back the system of Umar II. I'm of the opinion that they're a bit short-sighted in this regard.

[Sleeper]

I
However, there are drawbacks to having these sort of men in power. For starters, they are not pro-progress and their enforcement of justice can sometimes be very medieval. Furthermore, such men, especially these days, adhere to very strict and narrow-minded beliefs.

Your post was a great post, while mine was, as you said, only interesting.
I would like to address this part of your post as it is the most coherent, as you pointed out, to the present day. I have three bottles of wine in me and being a stout man that is not as many as one might think; it is, however, enough.

I recognize the great differences between the early Islamic empires and the Mujahideen. Rather than focus on Afganistan who only survived because of US armaments, my argument will begin with those US armaments.

There are plenty of countries ready and willing to supply the enemies of the west. Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France. There are huge populations moving slowly and inexorably towards Islamic fundamentalism (Indonesia). The Mujahideens' will is stronger than any Western will to imperialize, except for the current American administration.

Fanaticism, especially religious fanaticism is second in success as a means of warfare throughout history; though the lag behind technology (discipline being a form of technology) is daunting.

The west is in the process of falling to itself. These forums are a great example. In reality, Britain and the US are inseparable, yet the Brits on here have a deep seated resentment of America and Americans assume that Britain will always act in its best interests; which is not necessarily so.

America is polarized to a degree rarely seen in its history. The Republican party has cast its future with Christian conservatism and pragmatist Republicans will always choose moral constraints which are minor to reality and them over the mad disorganization which is inherent to the anarchic nature of liberalism.

Theodore Judson's Fitzpatrick's War is a scifi book of startling ideas. It is not a realistic future but it is worth reflecting upon.

God has always won in the past, especially god reinvented. I see no reason for Sodom or Gomorrah, as a loose, loose analogy, to end in anything but destruction and a hazard's tale. This was incredibly hard for me to post because I am so drunk I can hardly read the screen. I think I have been writing this for nearly an hour. I hope it makes sense.

[Da Skinna]

Not that I can compete with some of the posts here, but it seems these Abrahamic religions take pages from Eastern philosophies, like Toaism, yet when they try to enforce these beliefs with policies, it becomes a matter of control rather than guidance to a personal freedom.

It only reinforces my belief that religion can be made a tool with which to crush enemies.

Divine right is the highest, believing that God has given special powers to a certain people to do as they please in the name of God. There is no more profound belief in that its execution is indeed approved by the Lord above.

[Sleeper]

Religion is always a tool as is organized lack of it. It is used for good and evil, usually in a balanced way over time.
Belief in a God is the thing of philosophical worth.