Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure

#61 by kaalchakra,

No he never went back.

This is from Armughan-i Hijaz (The Gift of Hijaz), published posthumously.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

There can be no last gasp of imperialism as long as history lasts because that would be the end of the history itself.

The American imperialism in Iraq is the most recent edition of an old story and this story will continue in a different context and in a different manner with different observers, listeners, and narrators long after we have ceased to echo our opinions upon the passions of our times.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

nasah # 55

Did he ever go back to promoting (western style) democracy? He might have experienced a conversion rather than a temporary fling.

... On an aside, it is only this type of democracy which respectively places rapists, child molesters, and coffin stealers right at the top in the most established and much touted `democracies` of Israel, USA and India, in that order....

SR

Thanks for a detailed response. I think we agree in principle that Western style democracy is an instrument to safeguard the interests of a tiny ruling class. I think your computer-based election is also a very good suggestion. Currently I have been thinking on two points in this regard:

1. The first point is if voting (computer based as you suggested or paper based) then why not make it compulsory under penalty of law for every adult to vote. But I am not in favor of using it as a vehicle to choose among lesser of the two evil political contestants. I think voters must have an option to choose ``none of the above``, which would permanently disqualify all person on the ballet if say 60% of the voters chose that option. When that happens new candidates would replace the first two evil ones and the process goes on till a candidate is selcted which has an overwheming votes from general public.

2. The other point is completely opposite to that. As we see that in every society there is a spectrum of intelligence and education level among the masses. For example a city dweller though highly educated knows squat of agicultural issues of rural countryside. Similarly a farmer wouldn`t know anything how industrial urban polcies would effect a city urban professional. But in case of Pakistan, for example, we see that 80% of the vote comes from rural areas resulting in education ministers who were not even matriculate. So why not a commune like political heirarical system where people would choose their local candidates based on their local agendas. Whereas on international level there should be Politburo hierarical structure where only educated elite (in intellectual sense) could rise to the top like technocrates etc. For example in US, most of the Secrateries of differnt Departments (Minsiters) are extremely well educated and trained in that particular area for years. SWome of them are even PhDs.

#56 by Urstruly

That`s why I call Mustafa Kemal ``Ata-Turd``, despite that he came and sprinkled the earth from Maulana Rumi’s tomb on Iqbal`s grave.

#54 by freethinker,

Gill Saheb, thanks for reproducing the extract from ``The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam`` so, that removes any ambiguity. Your central premise upon which your argument rests is that the Caliphate as originally envisaged in Islam was `not` democratic, i.e. going by the generally accepted definition of rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. This premise is severely flawed.

The guideline in Islam is simply ``Who amongst you is the best in deeds`` (or Mard-e-Momin if you like), and not by descent. Iqbal interpreted this spirit to have been followed in Turkey’s Ijtihad on the Caliphate or Imamate being vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly, as opposed to a Caliphate by descent which the Ottoman Caliphate was.

Of particular note here is Iqbal`s contemptuous reference to contemporary religious authorities as `The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India` as opposed to what you allege that he rationalized his own stance through their silence. In fact he considered them irrelevant.

Iqbal ridiculed ``Western`` style democracy, and not Democracy however you define it per se`. That`s why he thought the Turkish abolishment of the Caliphate and rule by people`s representatives in the forms they had proposed was not only ``thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam``, but also necessary in view of the new realities.

On another contention in your post #41 i.e. ``Also the vested feudal interests do not want to lose control.`` This is actually exactly upside down. It is the vested feudal interests (or corporate, or several other types of oligarchs) who have the most to gain (and do) through Western style democracy, precisely for which reason Iqbal rejected and ridiculed it. This is not the democracy originally envisaged in Islam as given above.

Hope above vindicates Iqbal.

Regards.

Re: # 50 zeemax

Do not blame Iqbal. It is not his fault that he had high regards for Mustafa Kemal. Not many people know, except those who have studied the history of Turkey that Mustafa did raise the slogan of an ``enlightened`` and ``moderated``, ``modern Islam`` (sounds familiar?) for first 15 years after 1918. As a matter of fact he unified Turkish resistance against European and Greek colonialism under the banner of Islam. But once he had firm grip on power he started eliminating his allies through public executions and took a 180 degree turn (sounds familiar?) on his initial promises. He absolutely secularized the country to the extent that for certain period of time state machinery was used with its crushing powers to prevent Muslims from performing their daily religious duties. His moderation really fell hard on the Turkish women for whom the doors of education and employment were closed unless they took their clothes off. Fortunately, Iqbal passed away a few years before that happened, otherwise the the following couplet would have been his instead:

Teer kha kar jo daikha kameeNgahh ki taraf
apne hi dostoN say mulaqat ho gayi.

``He has frequently rejected the democratic form of government in his poetical verses. ``(freethinker)

correct -- as they say -- ``khaanay kay daaNt aur dekhanay kay aur haiN`` -- in early thirties Iqbal indeed had a fling with fascism

Zeemax: #50

Let me quote directly from Iqbal (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p. 157) as follows:

“Let us now see how the Grand National Assembly has exercised this power of Ijtihad in regard to the institution of Khilafat. According to Sunni Law the appointment of an Imam or Khalifa is absolutely indispensable. The first question that arises in this connexion is this: Should the Caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkey’s Ijtihad is that according to the spirit of Islam the Caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly. The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India, so far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly necessary to argue this point. The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam.”

The views expressed in the above extract are completely in contradiction of his views expressed in the verses that I quoted in my first post. He has frequently rejected the democratic form of government in his poetical verses. With regards,

Mohammad Gill

Speaking of retard prophets and gods talking about flying things and magic djinns, if I, your humble servant, were to drink a full glass of Vodka, smoke a pile of Marijuana stuffed inside a hookah, I can then easily imagine myself blabbering eloquently about pigs flying to Mars and white butter harvested on Moon`s surface.

#51 by sri

Sunni or Shia or whatever... why the F it matters so much that people end up blowing each other away for just such minor syntactic differences ( after all, both groups are called Muslims, aren`t they ?).

Incidentally, on the other board ``It is Never OK to Hit a Woman``, Urstruly and Sattar are duking it out over who should be called a Muslim and who should not. If such madness engulfs supposedly educated folks, one can only imagine the plight of the average Abduls back home.

The entire world, including the notoriously sluggish Hindoos, ARE BUSY LIKE WORKER BEES trying to make a better living, better future for themselves.

But muslims are a totally different morons all together. What is this UNBELIEVABLE MADNESS that engulfs muslims ? and believe me, as a backward caste hindu I have seen some unbelievable stupidity within Hindus, but this Muslims stupidity ``blows`` me away (pun intended). Sunni or Shia or whatever... why the F it matters so much that people end up blowing each other away for just such minor syntactic differences ( after all, both groups are called Muslims, aren`t they ?).

It is time westerners discovered some magic bio-weapon that can induce a little dose of rationality on the patients. Insha allah, we shall carpet bomb all muslim countries with such rationality weapon and cure the Islamic disease. Only then people will stop clutching that retarded book from 7th century and instead grab books written/inspired by REAL GODS such as Sir Newton, Edison, Nikola Tesla, etc...

Speaking of which... here is a case for polytheism isn`t it ? the retarded prophets and gods only spoke of flying things, magic light energies, unlimited food, etc but the REAL GODS like Edison, Newton, Wright brothers, etc actually made those things happen. If it weren`t for these gods a major portion of world`s population would still be having life expectancy measuring in few decades....