The Dispatches on War (Part V)

Re: # 46

Fuzair, thanks for the information, but I believe that faisaluno is not interested in such an answer - he wanted to know why facism killed 50 million in Europe and my answer, to him, was to highlight that it not facism alone, which was responsible for the deaths of 50 million people.

Ciao

Re: # 47

Romair, I did answer your questions, though you may disagree, with it. As I said, most of your post was a lecture, to me, and the questions, which you raised; I did answer. As to mixing the historical, with the present that started with faisaluno positing the two and even though I would have wished the discussion to have remained historical, faisaluno made sure that it would not! :)

I was not bringing in religion but stating that religion was a cause of the problem. Romair, Islamic politics are religiously based to such an extent, that it is impossible to treat the subject without discussing religion of Islam and its influence on politics. Had Islamic politics been a secular idea, then your wish of not bringing in religion would have been granted.

Ciao

Ferozek #45: There were two questions I asked:

- How can you compare European mode of politics to an, ``Islamic`` mode, when there is no Islamic mode.
- What kind of centarlized theocracy existed in the Muslim empire of 600-700s that you are refering to

I am not sure if you answered either. The main argument you seemed to be forwarding was that if Muslims want to advance, they need to get out of the Islamic mode of politics and government. When such a mode is not even defined, then what exactly does Islam have to do with anything. You are now just looking at today`s world, when initially, in your argument, you were looking at it historically. Historically, Muslim countries have had all kinds of govts., from secular, to shariah, to kingdoms to tribal, to fascism to anything else. As have all countries in the world. Do keep in mind that the European model, is even today only practiced by a minority of the world. All other non-Muslim countries have had govts. similar to Muslim countries, off and on........

Hence, one needs to look at it as rise and fall of empires, and not bring Islam, unnecessarily into every discussion, as the solution or the problem....

Secondly, I cannot think of a single theocracy in the Muslim caliphate during the 600-700s. How could you state, ``do you not think that Islam, judging by its politics, made the wrong choice in 600s and 700s AD by opting for a centralized theocracy``

The Ummayads ruled till mid 700s. And then the Abbassids ruled. None of the first four Caliphs were theocrats. They were businessman, soldiers, and beaucrat(s). Muwaiyah bin Abu Sufyan, the fifth, was a general, and commanded a portion of the Army, under Khalid bin Walid (?) along with Abu Sufyan`s other son. After him, Yazid down to Walid, I cannot see any theocrat, much less a centralized theocracy. The last one, Abdur Rahman, fled to Spain, and founded the dynasty there, which certainly wasn`t theocratic.

The Abbasides who took over weren`t theocrats either. All of them were kings, who expanded their empries, like most kings do.

So where is this, ``centralized theocracy of the 600-700s`` that you are refering. Once again, aren`t you bringing in religion, as the cause of a problem, when there is no historical context of it.....

I think Chowk`s disease and Pakistan`s disease of seeing religion as the solution or problem of everything - past or present - is quite dangerous........

Feroz,

Aaaah, this takes me back to my undergrad days; intellectual discussions about ``What is fascism?`` I would beg to differ to some extent with your answer. The Fascists/Blackshirts were NOT a conservative party. You`ve allowed the Marxists/Socialists to impose their cockeyed definition of fascism on you. The Fascists were Right Radicals, as opposed to the status quo as the Marxists/Socialists. Mussolini struck a deal with the King in order to gain power; didn`t mean that he was in favor of the monarchy or preserving the artistocracy (although his daughter did marry into it... damn parvenu social climbers!). Something like a rigidly Catholic political party is what you are talking about in your post, not the Fascists.

Now, if you were to argue that the Fascists were coopted by the existing elite, then I would`t disagree with you. Fascism was a result of the nihilism coming out of WWI and the proverbial lower-middle class fear of the mob/working class. The breakdown of law and order in Italy (caused in large part by the Fascists themselves) allowed Mussolini to appear as the Champion of Law and Order and the spokesman for the Silent Majority. The key difference between Fascism and Socialism is that Fascism rejects Marxist Class Struggle as a defining characteristic of all presocialist Modes of Production. Fascism, as exemplified by such institutions as Mussolini`s Grand Council of Fascism, views the state as an organic entity, not capable of being split along class lines. Therefore they attempt to overcome the economic/social/political divisions in society and why their ideas have always appealed to a considerable portion of society.

Considering that Right Hegelians became Fascists and Left Hegelians became Socialists, this view is perfectly understandable. Marxists also hold to the idea of the Organic State--but that it can exist only under Communism and no other mode of production. In practice, both Socialism and Fascism reject the idea of individual liberty and civil rights, and favor the Fuehrer Principle--Mussolini/Hitler/Khomeini/Franco/Zia/Bose/etc is always right. They also reject the idea of the market/economy existing as an entity separate from the state.

While virtually any and all authoritarian govts are labelled ``Fascists`` by ``Progressives,`` there is a world of difference between some superficial similarities and true Fascism.

Re: Romair # 32

Thanks for waiting...

I will start, with comments where I am in partial or complete agreement, with your post.

I agree, that there is an overt emphasis on religion, and not enough emphasis on the rise and fall of peoples and nations. However, all debates on Chowk do dove-tail into either a India-Pakistan-Kashmir-I am right-you are wrong-I am-we are better than you debates, or Islam right or wrong types of debates. There is too much, it seems, intellectualization percolating in Chowk discussions. :)

Having said, I think most of your post was an explanation countering my arguments, which unless you correct me; I do not think needs an answer, because I agree, with a good portion of what you have stated.

The question, which you directly asked concerned the mode of Islamic government. In my definition, a mode of government means the manner in which it is practiced and not necessarily, what it means in a theoretical sense. There is major slip, between the lip and the cup, when it comes to how Islamic nations govern themselves and how they define the rights of their citizens, which in most cases are politically motivated than they are religiously observed as the Quran might suggest. The comparsion, between an European government and an Islamic one can be made, because there is no mention of any correct form of government in the Bible either, which also addresses the issue in generally vague terms. The comparsion can be made in the sense that both forms of government rose in need to the political demand of the day and not due to any religious considerations, and yet how they dealt with the issue of sharing power differed vastly, and would have different consequences for their societies.

As an example, in an ideal sense, power should be transferred peacefully, but in a real world that will seldom happen, so my concept of power transfer is then based on a distributive balance of power. Islam`s politics have been marred by an inability to transfer power peacefully and since, the Prophet (PBUH) did not leave a clear successor, nor nominated one, during his life time, the crisis of power has been one of the most common themes in Islam`s politics.

Elections do not really answer the question on how to improve this transfer of power, as much as an agreement, between different stake holders in power, on how to manage the transition of power from one person to another. Likewise, I define democracy as more of an ability to transfer power peacefully than simply electing representatives. The right to vote does not qualify a nation as democratic, but how it deals with power and balances it within its competing groups, which defines democracy. In the case of Islam, this idea was not well defined and as a result, there were the periodic power struggles, whose aim was not to share power, but to consolidate it by denying it to the others.

The Quran does not, to the best of my understanding, offers a guide on how to faciliate this power transfer and as I mentioned; this power transfer evolved in the light of the political experiences of the Muslim politics.

Ciao

Re: # 42
ferozk
I agree with most of your post, officially Britan has no written constitution, but it has statuettes and precedents, Britain is the birth place of modern parliamentary democracy.
The monarch has no real power, I believe one reason given for not having written constitution is why have something which might be outdated 5 years down line, so they argue why not pass bills as and when required and democracy is more dynamic it adopts to changing times and circumstances.

Regards
aslam

re: faisaluno

This is in reply to your questions about facism.

The answer why facism was responsible for the deaths of so many Europeans in the last century is not as simple as you make it out. Facism was the result of the collapse of the prevailing ruling structures in Europe after the First World War. With the collapse of the European monarchies, there existed a vacuum resulting from the fact that the old notions of European political institutions were discredited and in this space, communism was stepping forth as a major political idea. Facism was a reaction to, what was seen as the communization of European politics and such, it was a political movement and not so much as a political philsophy.

The origins of facism lay in Italy, where Benito Mussolini created a conservative political party in the 1920s to resist communism and thus, end the political anarachy in Europe by re-instituting some sense of law and order based on the old ideas of European conservative pro status quo politics. Later on, in Germany, Hitler would take this idea and infuse it with a sense of patriotism and nationalism as a response to the humilations of the Versailles agreement of 1919.

It was the identification of German nationalism, with the basic idea of facism - law and order, which created a potential source for abuse of power and, which would finally create the conditions that led to the Second World War; German nationalism. What killed 50 million people was not facism itself, but its combination with nationalism, militarism to justify a particular brand of politics.

Ciao

re: faisaluno

Sorry for the delayed reply.

It seems that there is a difference of opinion on the term ``colonialism`` and in my view, it is not important or necessary, for example of Iran and Turkey, to have been physically colonized by Europe. Colonization can also be attributed to the mind and an argument can be made that Iran and Turkey, though not directly colonized, were influenced by the European ideas, which indirectly contributed towards a colonization of the mind in these societies, whereby these states thus were influenced by European political, and cultural thoughts.

Secondly; I think that you are making the implication of the Iranian clerics being influenced by the mullahs in the 1907 Iranian revolution; I did not make this allegation. My suggestion was that political power, in Islam, was always meshed with religion and this was done by non-clerical leaders and not always by the mullah/cleric combine, as you have alleged. Besides, your statement, `` iranian clerics were key players behind the revolution 1907. to claim that these mullahs were influenced by clerics is compltely absurd bordering on comical in fact in my opinion`` seems contradictory; what is the difference between mullah and cleric? In my opinion they are the same and your statment in my opinion is comical! :)

Your reference to the Ottomans fighting wars with Iran as proof of Muslims not submitting to an authority is misleading. Ottomans fighting Iran was, and, is an example of state relations and deals, with issues of balance of power and sovereign interests. It does not shed light on the internal politics of these nations, and nor does it offer proof that the population was able to challenge the notions of a central authority in an internal sense.

Your fourth question/statement dealt, with British constitution. Britain does not have a written consitution per se, but its constitutional tradition is based on the laws passed by the parliament defining the sovereign powers vis-a-vis the supremacy of the parliament. In a series of bills, the parliament was able tor resistrict the powers of the monarchy and was in the process able to create a seperation of powers, which were legally (consitutionally) balanced between the monarchy and the parliament. Britain`s unwritten constitution is based on the legality of the acts of parliament and on legislative precedents. Therefore, Britain does have a constitutional politics, and it was this idea of constitutional politics, which brought to India. Therefore, your statement that Britain does not have a constitution and thus, could not bring it to India is misinformed.

First of all, western nations invaded Muslim lands, because they were politically weak and divided and easy to conquer and in this sense, the fault lies with the Muslim governors of those lands and not with the western powers. This was a simple case of opportunity and there was no morality involved in it and neither should one be attributed. Why did the British conquer India? The British, like the Europeans, took advantage of the political disarry of the Muslims and not because they came with the intentions of conquering the Muslim lands, as you allege.

Why, are Pakistanis immigrating to Canada? Why are the Muslims willing to settle in the west? Why are the Muslims, worldwide, not immigrating to Saudi Arabia, for example?

Your quote: ``please give an example where european colonialist instituted ``the freedom of speech, religion, economic rights`` in lands that they conquered while europeans were ruling those lands?``

India, was one such land, where the British brought their laws and sense of justice and the British constitution gave the Indians alot of freedoms. Had this situation not existed, of political tolerance, Muslim League`s politics and Congress`s politics would not have been tolerated by the British; Muslims were allowed to practice their religion and as to the economic rights; its denial was the result of a Muslim choice not to educated themselves in English and to choose political and economic segregation from the mainstream of Indian political and economic affairs.

Your last question was, ``how do you explain the banning of islamic parties by secular turkish governments for most of the last century? please also explain in what way is the current govt in power in turkey drawing support from western ideology...``

First of all, Islamic parties were not banned by secular governments in Turkey as much as they were by the Turkish military, which had appointed itself as the guardian of Turkish secularism. The present Turkish government, though an Islamic party, is following a western based political model in hopes of gaining enterance into the European Union. The Turks are moving towards an idea of pluralistic politics and are establishing their democratic credentials in order to join European Union and in this sense; the present Turkish government is drawing support from a western ideology - democracy.

Ciao

P. S: Please wait till I have finished replying to Romair, before you post more questions. Also, please know that it takes considerable time to read your comments and make replies to them and if your intention is/was, as you have said to provoke me, then I do not appreciate this intention. I am willing to debate, with you but I am not going to waste my time replying to you if your intention is simply to elict a negative reaction out of me.

Faisaluno

Cultural periphery does not mean officially sanctioned unequal status. Truly admirably, that is a problem that Islam (unlike our Hindu tradition) did avoid within its own fold.

There is a certain sense in which most people view Saudi Arabia/Arab world forming the core of the Islamic world, and places like Malaysia or Indonesia (no matter what their relative population sizes may be) its periphery. That`s the sense I was speaking of.

---

Malaysia`s developmental/disciplinary methodology is hardly different from that followed by some others in the region, singapore for example. That approach is specifically East Asian, local. Muslim countries located in other parts of the world may try to emulate that South East-Asian methodology, but the results may not be entirely satisfactory.

IMHO, Malaysia has become the great mirage for many educated Muslims worldwide looking for a viable path to modernization.

Re: # 38 faisaluno

what is your take on the NEP/Bumiputra policy of Malaysian gov. wasn`t it an affirmative action by the aggressive majority.
The Malaysian Chinese mostly accepted the NEP as a necessary evil for cessation to Malay aggression. Collectively the Indian and Orang Asli form the lowest strata of the population in terms of economic ownership. It needs to be noted here that the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia are not considered Bumiputra under the Federal Constitution despite having arrived before the Malays (see Bumiputra for further information).
In recent years, the NEP has come under attack as being an inefficient system that promotes a laid-back attitude among the Bumiputras. Several implemented policies of the NEP which give economic advantage to the Bumiputras are viewed as heavily discriminatory, such as quotas in ownership of public company stock, housing sold exclusively to Bumiputras, etc.
Some Bumiputras have spoken of reducing or eliminating the NEP; for example, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his maiden speech as United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) president to the UMNO general assembly in 2004 stated ``Let`s not use the crutches for support all the time, the knee will become weak``. Badawi went on to state that continued usage of crutches would eventually result in needing a wheelchair instead. As of October 2004, Badawi has not addressed any significant concerns about the NEP.

Not all Bumiputra political leaders shared Badawi`s views. For example, Badruddin Amiruldin, who was elected as UMNO`s Deputy Permanent Chairman, waved a book about the 13 May incident at the assembly during his speech while declaring, ``No other race has the right to question our privileges, our religion and our leader``, continuing that any such action would be akin to ``stirring up a hornet`s nest``. The following day, Dr. Pirdaus Ismail, an UMNO Youth Executive Committee member, stated, ``Badruddin did not pose the question to all Chinese in the country. Those who are with us, who hold the same understanding as we do, were not our target. In defending Malay rights, we direct our voice at those who question them.``

---

can you tell about the reaction of Mahathir Mohd after the financial crash of late 90`s. Friedman says that he accused the jews and Soros for it.

Also, his vitrolic against democracy, as a tool invented by jews didn`t really impress the world.

Re: Faisaluno #37

Really? ALL Muslims are equal? Do you know that there are (were) separate graveyards in Zanzibar? One for Arab muslims (the slavers) and one for black muslims (the enslaved)? Even in death there wasn`t equality. And the less said about Sudan, the better?The Koran may preach about equality, as does the Bible, but the reality is quite different.

kaalchakra, malay political leadership deserves full credit for the economic development in malaysia because malay leadership has complete control over malaysian institutions and thus over policy formulation and implementation. its safe to say that malaysia would not have progressed if malay leadership had adapted the same policies as that adapted by the govt of w.bengal or bangladesh or bihar or even indian government. for example try and bribe a malaysian police officer or take a piss in the middle of street and see the reaction.

ferozk,

this discussion has been enjoyable for me. thanks for your time. also thanks for the civil manner in which you have dealt with some of my provocative remarks. i will once again respond to some of the points you have raised tomorrow.

kaalchakra. there is no such thing as periphary in islam. all muslims who recite the kalma are equal no matter what part of the world they reside in.

re: faisaluno and Romair

Faisaluno, I see that you did not answer my questions, but expect me to answer your questions. I will have to read all my previous posts first, to determine if I am actually making the allegations, which you claim I am, or you are simply putting words in my mouth.

Romair, I will answer your questions, but can you wait till have I have answered failsaluno?

Ciao

Faisaluno

Malaysia`s Muslims have precious little to do with the country`s economic progress. And in few other countries what Malaysia has would be called either secular or democratic.

In general, why are Islamic world`s model nations (such as they are) always at its cultural periphery, nations whose links with Islam are at best tenuous, or deeply controvertible?

re: my last post had a big fat typo

in point #3 please read ``mullahs were influenced by clerics`` as ``mullahs were influenced by europeans``.

btw this is what a u.s. state dept study has to say about the 1907 consitution revolution in iran:

http://www.country-studies.com/iran/the-constitutional-revolution.html

The shah`s failure to respond to protests by the religious establishment, the merchants, and other classes led the merchants and clerical leaders in January 1906 to take sanctuary from probable arrest in mosques in Tehran and outside the capital....In August the shah was forced to issue a decree promising a constitution. In October an elected assembly convened and drew up a constitution that provided for strict limitations on royal power, an elected parliament, or Majlis, with wide powers to represent the people, and a government with a cabinet subject to confirmation by the Majlis. The shah signed the constitution on December 30, 1906. He died five days later. The Supplementary Fundamental Laws approved in 1907 provided, within limits, for freedom of press, speech, and association, and for security of life and property. ..``

also coincidently, an article on malaysia in today`s daily star - a ``secular`` lebanese newspaper. article completely contradicts ferozk`s contention that muslim progress has been bought by ignoring islam

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=18209

Islam has reconciled Malays with economic development

By Ooi Kee Beng
Commentary by
Monday, September 05, 2005


A big worry in Iraq and the wider Middle East is that Islam and modernization are enemies. But Malaysian history over the past three decades shows that this belief is mistaken. In fact, Islamization has proved to be an effective political means of reconciling the majority of Malays to the country`s rapid economic development.

In the early 1970s, when it was still an overwhelmingly agrarian country and Islamization was just gaining momentum, Malaysia embarked on its so-called ``New Economic Policy,`` designed to help the majority Malays gain a bigger share of the country`s wealth. After three decades of spectacular economic growth, many Malays have become prosperous and content not only through secular capitalism, but through the country`s renewed sense of Islamic identity, one which - for the most part - embraced modernization. (Of course, paradoxes appear every now and then, such as when globalization is advocated alongside demands for stronger censorship.)

ferozk,

for someone who claims to be a historian, you sure do display a real ignorance of historical facts. either that or you deliberately ignore or misrepresent facts because those facts dont fit your agenda.

here is my response to some of the points you raised. i will be grateful if you can specifically questions i have repeatedly raised on european colonialism along with the rise of fascism in the last century?

1. iran and turkey were never colonialised by europeans. therefore your assertion that colonialsim played a part in the political development of those countries at the turn of the century is incorrect.

2. iranian clerics were key players behind the revolution 1907. to claim that these mullahs were influenced by clerics is compltely absurd bordering on comical in fact in my opinion.

3. ottoman empire fought plenty of wars with iran which also attacked muslim held territory in the sub continent. your assertion therefore that muslims, unlike europeans, submitted to a unitary authority is completely incorrect.

4. britian it self does not have a constitution. please explain how a country that does not have a constitution itself introduced the concept of ``constitutional government`` in the sub continent? also what proof do you have to insinuate that democratic instituitions could not have developed without british influence, also fyi, thailand was a country that was never colonialised by eurpeans. yet the thailand is democracy. please explain how this was achieved without the help of europeans?

5. what proof do you have to indicate that muslims are moving to western countries because of political reasons? also why in your opinion have millions of indians moved to the middle east? and why did western countries invade muslim land?

6. if european tradition has given ``the freedom of speech, religion, economic rights`` to the world, please explain the rise of fascism in the heart of europe at the start of last century?

7. please give an example where european colonialist instituted ``the freedom of speech, religion, economic rights`` in lands that they conquered while europeans were ruling those lands?

8. how do you explain the banning of islamic parties by secular turkish governments for most of the last century? please also explain in what way is the current govt in power in turkey drawing support from western ideology?

Ferozek #31:`` Also; the Muslim nations, which you mentioned as democratic, became so by following an European model and not a Islamic mode of government;``

A couple of points:

Could you highlight what the, ``Islamic`` mode of politics or government happens to be? To the best of my knowledge Islam does not lay down a mode of govt. I have not been able to find one in the Quran. It just lays down broad abstract guidelines. Give zakat. Help the poor. Give women some inheritance. Everyone, black or white, etc. is equal. etc. etc.

Since there is no mode of politics or govt. defined, how can a comparison even be made, between European and Islamic modes?

As an example, could you highlight how govt. is supposed to be transfered, under an, ``Islamic`` mode of govt. Are there supposed to be elections? Is there supposed to be a coin toss? Could you reference that to the Quran? One would think for something to be, ``Islamic`` it would have to be traced to the Quran. Correct.

If one looks at history, the, ``Islamic`` method of transference of power is to kill the reigning khalifa. Usman and Ali, both, being assasinated..........

If we merely go by historical traditions, of what the Muslims did, and not by any well-defined, ``Islamic`` mode, then the mode of politics that appears is that the Khalifa was elected by a group of representatives. Abu-Bark, Umar, Usman, Ali, Muyawiya? all came into power this way. They were all, however, Arabs, from a very localized area - infact basically two families. After Muyawiya, it turned back to the old tribal and family chieftan mechanism. Back to kings.

``do you not think that Islam, judging by its politics, made the wrong choice in 600s and 700s AD by opting for a centralized theocracy?``

Which one of the above two modes (uptil Muawiya and after) do you consider to be, ``central theocracy.`` I actually don`t see any theorcracy in either of these. They seem to be nothing more than internal maneuverings of groups to gain power. Bascially politics. Do keep in mind that Ayesha and Ali went to war over politics and transfer of power. In fact, none of the Muslim khalifahs and rulers in the 600s and 700s were theocrats. At least none that I know of. Could you name a few? They were all prominent heads of families and powerful beurecrats chiefs. Banu-Ummiyah and Baun-Abbas were not known as theocrats - niether before Islam, nor afterwards (600-700s etc.)

Theocracy, in the sense that you seem to refering to it, is basically a Christian concept. Primarily a European Christian one. Even today, theocracy, as a religious discipline, exists in Catholicism (and various other relgions). It is not even a religious discipline in Islam; much less a political discipline. Anytime, ``theocrats`` have come in to gain power, in Muslim countries it has either been through democratic elections, or indirectly through supporting kings etc (Saudi Arabia). I have not heard of any theocrat gaining political power, by using Islamic tradition as his basis. Quoting the Quran to declare himself King. Much like Popes did. In fact, can you name some Islamic theocrats that have ever had the same direct political power as the Christian Popes.

This is probably one of the reasons secularism never appeared in Islam. Because, in Islam, there was no central Pope. Hence no central religious figure, through religion, could claim so much power and cause so much harm. In fact, all the religious side of Islamic politics has occured when maulvis were either voted into power (directly through elections, or indirectly through a revolution), or when the non-maulvi ruler turned toward religion, himself.............

So I have never bought into the theses on, ``Islamic modes`` of politics, since I cannot find any such mode in Islam. Nor can I find anything related to, ``centralized theocracy`` in Islam. Not even today........

The causes for the decline of countries, with mostly Muslim populations, circa 1800-1900s probably has far more complicated reasonings. The European rennassaince was quite unique and limited. It was not the norm, but the exception. The rest of the world, including the non-Muslim world (India, China, Africa, South America, Russia etc.) was still operating on the old system. Even now, the population of the world (Western Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia) that have established European enlightenment, is still limited to less than 20% of the world`s population......

I think countries eventually decline. Much like NFL footballs team decline. No one can stay at the top forever. They get lethargic, due to various reasons. Or other countries, just move ahead. Sometimes it is demographics. Five hundred years from now, maybe the Africans will be ruling the world. Then maybe India or Siberia or Argentina..........

After all, I have never met more competent and successful people than Jews........And they are almost extinct, even though they ruled the world at one time, and laid the core foundations of Abrahamic religions..........

Perhaps we tend to concentrate too much on religion, in our analysis on this site, and not enough on real and important factors that lead to declines and rises of groups of people...........

Re: faisaluno # 29

In 1907, and with the Young Turks, there was an European influence, but this influence did not exist in 600s and 700s AD in the formative years of Muslim political development. As to the Young Turks and the Iranian Revolution of 1907, they were not resisting centralized authority as much as seeking to replace it. Ataturk did not de-centralize the power in Turkey, but he simply replaced the centralized rule of the Ottomans, with a more westernized notion of centralized rule.

The European wars, from 1500 to 1945, were basically wars to prevent the domination of Europe by a single power and to maintain the idea of multi-polarity in European politics. Europeans were willing to fight to maintain the de-centralized nature of European political than appease a centralized power in Europe. The wars were fought to maintain a balance of power, within Europe and were fought against any nation, which sought to distrub the prevailing European balance of power.

Faisaluno, my question to you is this: why was there was no representative government in Muslim lands in 600s and 700s AD? Why did Islam favor a centralized idea of government combining both religion and politics?

Also; why was it that it took the experience of colonialism to teach the Muslims about democracy and representative governments? Why could they not evolve a process of representative governance on their own? Why did, for example, it took the arrival of the British to bring constitutionalism to India and why could not the Mughuls have done it prior to the arrival of the British?

To borrow a page from your logic of judging the past in the light of the present; do you not think that Islam, judging by its politics, made the wrong choice in 600s and 700s AD by opting for a centralized theocracy? Where is the freedom of speech, religion, economic rights in Muslim lands? If Islamic governance is so perfect than the European one, then why are Muslims wishing to migrate to non-Muslims lands and are wishing to live under an imperfect western political system than live under the perfection of a Muslim political system in their own lands?

Also; the Muslim nations, which you mentioned as democratic, became so by following an European model and not a Islamic mode of government; the Young Turks were influenced by European political thought and not ancient Muslim politics.

Why did Muslims need Europe to teach them about representative governments and democracies and did not learn these ideas from Islamic or Muslim political traditions?

Why is the Muslim world, in 2005, seeking to move towards the European traditions of political pluralism and not towards the medieval Muslim ideal of politics?

If as you suggest, the Muslim political experience was better than the European one, then why is the world not aping the Muslim notions and ideas about political power? Why is the world rejecting the idea of a theocracy? Why do the Muslim nations need a theocracy to justify their politcal sense of legitimacy?

Ciao

Please read a really insightful article on the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza at Frontline magazine http://www.flonnet.com/fl2218/stories/20050909005312800.htm, titled ``The `Withdrawal` Hoax in Gaza`` by Aijaz Ahmad.

ferozk:

i will be grateful if you can explain the following:

1. as far as i can understand, you are implying that because of historical traditions, muslims have tended to accept without protest, central authority as excercised by kings in the name of islam. if this is the case, how do you explain the rise of young turks in the late 1800s and the constitutional revolution in iran in 1907?

2. if there were sufficient checks and balances over european executives since the middle ages, why did so many european countries go to war with each and with other civilizations so frequently? also why was there no large scale dissent among the population against these wars?

3. at this point in time, the following muslim countries can safely be described as representative democracies:

indonesia, malaysia, bangladesh, turkey, lebanon, nigeria (from the top of my head)

how come these countries were able to achieve democracy despite the historical baggage?

Re: UmerMurtaza# 24

I am not the smartest student of history here or any where else. Period. :)

To answer your questions, Muslim Spain was located on the periphery of Europe and it did influence Europe in a limited sense, but not to the extent that Italy did in ending the dark ages. The European bridge to the Middle East was Italy and not Andalusia. By the time the European dark ages finally ended in 1500s, Muslim were no longer a power; having been defeated by Spain in 1492.

The importance did not lie in the role of Greeks getting their knowledge wrong, but in the fact that Europeans discovered the heritage of their their past knowledge and besides; it was Greek philosophy and humanism and not the Greek methodolgy of hard sciences, which greatly influenced Europe.

Yes; I do believe that the modern Europeans will have to acknowledge the Muslim contributions to Europe`s renaissance.

It might be hard to identify Muslims, with ancient European history, because ancient European history`s time period is considered as one from 1500 BC (early civilization in Crete) to about 500 AD (end of the Roman Empire in western Europe). During this time period, Islam did not exist and neither was there a Muslim presence in Europe. Therefore, to accept the Muslims as a part of ancient European history might be a wishful proposition. Islam and Muslims had no role in ancient European history, because they did not, historically, exist at that time. The only manner, which could allow for a Muslim identification, with ancient European history would be the fabrication of the historic chronology itself and then, we will not be dealing with history, but speculation. :)

It is for this reason, why such an identification might be problematic and not, due to the reasons, you think such a link cannot be made.

The stages of European history are identified, other than the ancient history as mentioned above, as the Byzantine Period and this lasted from 200 AD (overlapping the decline of Rome) to about 1453. The time period of medieval Europe (also known as the dark ages) is considered to be from 476 AD to 1450 AD. Renaissance is considered to be from 1300s to about 1600s and the period of enlightenment is from 1600 to late 1700s. The period from 1400 to 1789 is considered as the period of pre-modern European history and the modern European history starts, with the French Revolution in 1789 and goes to the present.

Ciao

Re: faisaluno # 25

I will try to answer your queries/comments.

1. I never said Europe was a secular utopia; that is your interpretation and not mine of the events. The point of the discussion, which seems to have escaped your comprehension was not that Muslims have to emulate the European experience from the end of the dark ages to World War II, but that Muslim and European political development took different routes. The suggestion of the article is that in the 600s and 700s AD, both Muslim and Europeans were experimenting with different types of government and issues of power sharing. Whereas, as the Europeans were able to develop a political system of checks and balances to resist centralized power; the Muslims opted for centralized power, which combined both politics and religion and thus, Europe`s lack of a centralized power was more conducive towards a political debate on the issues of representative system of government, emerging, than that of the Muslims`.

2. The article is about history of the time period 1000 to 1200 AD and not about the politics of modern Europe. In 1000 to 1200 AD, the Europeans of the time had no idea, what the future held and to study those people, it is a good idea to study their actions without attaching the wisdom of hindsight to their motives.

Renaissance was a time period, when the European nations had pretty much established the basic outlines of national government. Representative democracy grew out of a dynamic interaction between the monarchs and and the middle class merchants (which is what the second part of this article, will deal with) as kings in order to raise taxes had to give the middle class some political representation. This would led to the idea of town charters eventually leading to constitutionalism. Representative democracy grew as the merchants developed their own laws to govern the towns; their own court systems and started to serve as counsellors to the king on matter of taxations.

3. In 600s and 700s AD, when the basic ideas of Muslim theocratic power were being articulated, there was no European colonialism and such, I did not overlook it. My intention was to write the article, based on the awareness of the issues in the time period being discussed and not use hindsight to judge the events of the period as you are doing. :)

Pardon my saying so, but it seems that you have an historic axe to grind and you are deliberately confusing the political issues of medieval Europe, with recent history to disprove the secular nature of European politics in the present time frame.

Ciao

hey umer,

thanks for the info on assassins. i certainly did not know that aga khanis are descendants of the this group. i will certainly look at my aga khani friends from a whole new light.

ferozk:

1. i was deliberately misleading in my use of the term ``dark ages``. my intention was to counter your insinuation that europe that emerged after the dark ages was a secular utopia that muslims should now seek to emulate. the period from the end of dark ages to the end of wwii was a period as bloody as any period in european history for both, the inhabitants of europe as well as other civilisations that came in contact with europeans. in fact as the french campaign in algeria indicates, even after end of wwii, the french had little regard for non european lives.

2. renaissance and enlightenment, the term used to describe the period after dark ages, resulted in the rise of fascism in the heart of europe i.e. germany, spain and italy. please explain how this development met ``ideals of representative democracy`` as you indicate in your essay above. btw even now, far right enjoys strong support in many parts of europe and has formed govt in austria and in denmark and the far right candidate got about 20% of the vote in last french presidential elections. in the u.s, about 25% of the voters describe themselves as conservative christians.

3. you completely ignore the role of colonialism in hampering development of political institutions in islamic world. societies in the throes of foreign occupation do not develop political institutions. turkey and iran were two muslim countries that were not under direct european occupation. there was a fairly strong development of secular institutions in these countries around the end of 19th century. howver in both cases, euorpean and american interference caused a setback. both countries now appear on track. also there was a rise of secular govt in the m.e. for a period of time ex. egypt and syria.

Feroze,

Being the smartest history student over here, and from your ilogs I sense that you yearn for a sense of balance in the delivery of history, how do you feel about:

1) The term, Dark Ages, being used to identify Europe as an ignorant entity when a very large chunk of Europe, i.e. Andalusia, was anything but Dark? Is it because the ever shrinking Andalusia was a successful Muslim domain for almost 700 years? Which continent did Andalusia belong to? Africa or Europe?

2) Do you seriously consider the role of the Andalucians to be as mere transmitters of Greek knowledge when the Greeks got so many things wrong, including their mode and methodology of the hard sciences?

3) Do you not think that there needs to be a paradigm shift on part of the European Historians to acknowledge not just the Muslims’ contribution (to whatever degree) towards the Renaissance but also to accept the Muslims as part of ancient European history?

I fear that 3) is very hard to swallow because it means having to give up on the substance of Renaissance – a rebirth. Accepting the above will make Renaissance more of an egg hatching.


Faisal,

There’s not much original stuff available on the Assassins. The works of Juwayne are useful. The Persian Nizaris (Ismailis) were called assassins by the Sunni Arabs because ‘Hashishiyoon’ was a derogatory term. Also, the myth of hashish was further propagated by the stories of Marco Polo.

He narrated how young Nizaris were brainwashed into the ideas of heaven and beautiful virgins. Their souls were then said to be transported to heaven (via the use of hashish) for a brief glimpse of what lay awaiting them. Beautiful woman would greet them and show them around lush gardens. They would then feed them more hashish, sending them back to sleep. When they awoke, they would find themselves back in the real world. Hence, the desire to return to heaven would be passionately instilled within their hearts and so on and so forth…

The Nizaris were a devious bunch of fuckers (one whose resilience, passion and strategies I admire nevertheless). They had absolutely no remorse or compassion for the rest of their Muslim brethren. On occasions they allied themselves with the Crusaders. But I don’t blame them because as a group, they were on the verge of extinction and they had to do what they had to do. They never changed themselves (courtesy of their philosophy of taqqiya). They were wiped off at Alamut Castle by the hordes of Hulego and it was many centuries later that they made a come back – this time benignly – in the form of the Aga Khanis.

Umer M

Re: faisaluno # 21

The term ``dark ages`` in European history refers to the time, between the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476 AD to Renaissance in the 1400s. This period was called the ``dark ages`` because it was marked by a lack of learning and knowledge in Europe. The criteria for calling the period ``dark`` was based on the levels of knowledge in Europe and not on the brutality of its wars.

It was a literary classification, and not a moral one, to describe nearly a thousand years of European history. The ``dark ages`` ended after the crusades, because Europe re-discovered the ancient works of Greeks and Romans, courtsey of the Muslims, and this transmission of knowledge back to Europe led to a revivial of learning and knowledge in Europe. Hence, once Europe regained its ``enlightenment``, it was no longer existing in ignorance (darkness) and thus, the crusades are credited with ending the European dark ages.

Ciao

few months ago, i wrote an ilog on how islamic response to crusade provides a lesson for the ummah today. enjoy:

salahuddin, the assassins and king baybars: their relevance to the ummah today.

salahuddin: sunni kurd from barveen sudee. played a big role in uniting syria with egypt. combined state provided the resources muslims needed to take on and kick gunda gora crusader ass out of middle east. and unlike the crusaders who massacred innocent civilians in the cities they captured, salahuddin treated most of his captors with a great deal of kindness. even europeans give salahuddin credit for this. kaiser willhelm in fact refurbished salahuddin`s tomb. another interesting fact about salahuddin is that he died a pauper.

lesson for ummah: fairly obvious. 1. strength in unity 2. muslims can fight the good fight without resorting to barbarity. 3. leaders who steal from state khazanah, such as asif zardari has done, should be lynched.

the assassins: cool shite terrorist group from the time of salahuddin. wanted to assassinate salahuddin because he over threw shite rulers of egypt. the assassins smoked hashish before going on suicide missions. eventually saw errors of their ways and made peace with salahuddin.

lessons for the ummah: fairly obvious.

baybars: ruthless muslim ruler (an ex-slave) and a fearless and brilliant soldier from the 13th century who fought the mongols to a standstill and kicked out europeans from the middle east once and for all (you think muslims have it bad now!). this is what one crusader had to say about him: ``more brilliant than Caesar but nastier than Nero``. was regarded as an efficient administrator as well. paid special attention to infrastructure development.

moral of the story: ummah cannot live by jehad alone.

so if the crusades were the end of dark ages in europe, why did the europeans kill upwards of fifty million of their own citizens in the early part of last century and then after that, why did the french kill one million algerians? btw crusaders, while passing through germany, also lynched thousands of jews residing in those parts. for the next thousand years, this act would be repeated all over europe in places as far apart as england, spain, france and off course germany - the site of the first mass pogrom against jews organised by crusaders.

should`nt the end of dark ages in europe meant the ending of mass scale killings by europeans - something that did not occur for a thousand years after the crusade.

Re: Netizen # 12

Netizen, you are right.

I did mention that after Westphaila there was an emgerence of the nation-state in the sense that the idea of a nation-state, as a political sovereign entity, was accepted by the Europeans. However, this idea was helped by the crusades in the sense that it weakened the feudal power and as the barons, were away fighting the Turks; the kings had an easy time taking over their lands. Also, the kingly consolidation of power was also helped by the fact that a good portion of the European nobility died in the crusades.

Hope this helps...

Ciao

Re: dost-mittar # 13

Merovingians were the first kings of France and they had a very strong political alliance, with the popes in Rome. It was the Merovingians, who won the lands from Lombards and gifted them to Rome, which would later on become known as the Papal Lands. In fact, the it was the French nobles and Norman lords, who led the First Crusades. Prior to Richelieu, France was a staunch supporter of the Vatican.

As to the da Vinci Code`s thesis on the origins of the Merovingians, I guess that would explain the traditional French arrogance. :)

Ciao

Re: mantolives # 16

Yes, the intention is to publish it, but it needs a lot of work sprucing up the references and footnotes.

Is Daily Times interested in running it as a monthly op-ed or opinion piece or what ever?

Ciao

Re: ferozk#9
Is that it. I just thought muslims are not good at math.

and your last article probably covered that…..


Regards,

Faruk

Feroz,

The whole series has been awesome...

Hope you are planning on publishing it.

Feroz,

It would have been really helpful had you given a list of references and bibliography; with that it is easier to understand how did you come up with your perspective. History is nothing but persepective; objectivity has nothing to do with it.

I will read the article over the weekend before I opine.

Feroz,

It would have been really helpful had you given a list of references and bibliography; with that it is easier to understand how did you come up with your perspective. History is nothing but persepective; objectivity has nothing to do with it.

I will read the article over the weekend before I opine.

You are awesome, feroz!

I am learning a lot about christianity and history these days, from you and from `Prof. Langdon` of The da Vinci Code. Except that in the case of `Prof. Langdon` it`s hard to tell where history ends and fiction begins. But it struck me that you also make a mention of Merovingians, which according to da Vinci Code was a prgeny of Jesus. And according to that book, crusades were really started by the church against paganism.

A trivial point:
``Rudyard Kipling may have been correct about the inability of the east and the west to be one, but there was a time, when the path of the Muslims did cross, with the Europeans and in the process, irrevocably changed the course of history.``

Mecca may be Mashriq to Europeans but it is Maghrib to us:-)

Re: # 11

``The idea of a nation-state took a more tangible shape in the 1300s and the 1400s, and this was also the result of the crusades. ``

Mr. NHK,

wasn`t it in one of your earlier articles that you discussed about the 30 year war concluding with treaty of Westphalia and the emergence of the nation states. So how come yoy are attributing it to crusades?

---

``In any case, the point is, that the European political tradition does not favor the idea of Europe being politically and economically dominated by one nation. ``

I would agree with that, todays enemy became tomorrows ally only to deter aonther powerful hegemonist state. If you remeber just before WWI France was trying to bring to Germany immediate ascendency to power/strength but the other european states ignored it, thinking that France is just paranoid. Eventually the entire continent suffered.
A similar situation can be seen today. Yesterdays enemies like France and Germany are good buddies and have become the ``old europe`` whereas britain, u.s. are welconing the ``new europe`` consisting of the poor ex-communist states.

``This streak of political independence in Europe is one of lingering lagacies of the feudalism, where power was usually fragmented and limited, and which created a multi-polarity of power interests, within a kingdom itself, which hindered the centralization of power despite many attempts. ``

I have read about multi-polar europe from 1500 onwards but not about multi-polar nation state except Germany which was fragmented until the mid 1800.

Re: Fuzair # 10

There are about four or five more articles, in this series, and once they are all done, I will post a detailed list of bibilographic references. I had considered the issue of whether to post references, with each article or as a seperate ``article`` itself and I decided on the second choice.

As to the centralized European power, I think the concept needs to be clarified. I am not refering to centralized power in the sense of nations, like Richelieu`s France or Tudor England or Spain, which had pretty much centralized power its power by 1492. Henry II was still presiding over a feudal structure of localized and de-centralized power regardless of his status as a dictator. Centralized power, in the Europe of the time period, meant whether a nation had a power to establish a structure of power over Europe much like Pax Romana and my idea of centralization of power is more a continent based concept than a simple regional/national construct as you seem to be implying by your examples. European resistence to the idea of centralized power is based on the balance of power, where power is equally distributed across Europe. It is an idea that argues that no one nation should be dominate to dominate the continent. The Europeans had no problems, with the centralization of power regionally, but were opposed to it on a continental level.

There is no denying the fact that kings of Europe did not try to centralize power, but they were resisted bitterly even in their own kingdoms by their own vassals, who were not shy from making alliances against their own kings to keep their political influence. The idea of a nation-state took a more tangible shape in the 1300s and the 1400s, and this was also the result of the crusades. The European monarchs were able to benefit from the fact that European nobility was killed in the crusades and many kings annexed the land of their vassals, while the nobles were fighting in the Holy Land. In any case, the point is, that the European political tradition does not favor the idea of Europe being politically and economically dominated by one nation. This streak of political independence in Europe is one of lingering lagacies of the feudalism, where power was usually fragmented and limited, and which created a multi-polarity of power interests, within a kingdom itself, which hindered the centralization of power despite many attempts.

As to the concept of the justice war and doing it ``justice``, I have mentioned the idea in one of the early articles. Thus, there was no need to explain the concept in detail. Besides, a good article on Chowk should not be more than five pages in lenght and should be ``scanable`` in that sense that it is easy to read and does not involve too much scrolling.

In any case, you have mentioned that you also skimmed the article instead of taking the time to read it. :) Had I gone into detail and explained everything, the majority of the people, would have still skimmed the article, because it would be too long and too long winded. :) I have to write articles on history, on Chowk, for a readership which wants the basic facts to generate a discussion, and what ever details, I leave out chances are they will be addressed in the interacts. :)

If you can explain the concept of the just war and the early contacts, between the Muslims and the Byzanines; go for it! :) Fuzair, the intent of these articles is to broaden my own understanding of history and not to preach it to the Chowk readership. As student of history, I know that history has many interpretations and not just one and I welcome a good, constructive debate on this topic. Afterall, my hope is to learn more and understand the issues better from the input of the various interacts and not to score any debating points. :)

I maybe a teacher in a real life, but on Chowk, I am just a student, who has a lot to learn and I am willing to learn, if you or the other Chowkwallahs are to willing to teach! :)

Ciao

I`ve only taken a quick skim through the article, Feroz, but a few of quick points.

1) Khalid bin Walid, Saifullah, defeated the Byzantinians at the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 AD and thus maintained the Arab conquest of Syria. This was well before the 700 date you give as the earliest contact between Arabs and Byzantinians, and Syria is not in Asia Minor.

2) While centralized power may have been resisted in Europe, centralization of power is also a dominant theme in European history. The Norman/Plantagenet ruler of England were certainly centralizers, admitttedly with varying degree of success (Henry II was quite a dictator; John Lackland gave us the Magna Carta--indirectly of course). France was a centralized power under Richlieu in the 17th century--much later on than the period of your narrative--and the centralized monarchy reached its zenith under Louis XIV--l`etat, c`est moi, remember?

3) Christian ``Just War`` doctrine is much more complex than the abbreviated version you have given; involving also how war is waged, the level of injustice involved, diplomatic efforts, etc.

4) Near the end (3rd and 4th last para) you confuse ``Arabs`` and ``Seljug Turks`` several times; I assume simple typos?

5) Given the audience, it might have been a good idea to mention that the Catholic Church spent a lot of its time carrying out Crusades against Christian heretics as well; Muslims weren`t the only ones getting ``Crusaded`` against.

Not a bad first draft but needs a fair bit of polishing... ;-)
BTW, where are the references?

re: Ana and Vertex

LOL!

I think that the Chowk editorial staff is better placed to answer that question.

Part IV was submitted prior to this article.

Ciao

yeah, is part IV the one that chowk failed to publish before part V, or is it that you failed to submit it before part V.

okay, so maybe ``failed`` is not the best choice of verb.

i guess i will attempt to read the article now. :)

muqaddam,

A travesty of facts? That is a bit over the top.

A well researched article which does offer an insight into history, one must say. although a little longwinding. However, the use of the term ``Muslim World`` in the context of the article is a little jarring. In the period which the article refers to, there were only the Byzantine and the Crusaders vying for supremacy over the Ottoman and the Baghdad Caliphate. References can only be found to geopolitical situations and the then preponderent powers. There is no mention of the term ``Muslim World`` in the archives. The use of the term ``Muslim World`` purports to attribute to the Muslim states or populations as far as the Indies and farther a participatory role in the events in Europe and Asia Minor of those days which is a travesty of facts. Let us be fair to history.

I may be blind...but are we missing part IV?

Great read Feroze. Thanks.

fr,

nicely done ! .......... it was one heck of an easy read and i will send it to my daughter who has no use for history because it is ``sooooo boring``

F.R.Khan this is by far the best article chowk so far. You are an excellent story teller, and when you have the facts at your fingure tips, what yousay is simply exhilarating. I envy the students who you taught history!

Ferozk,

Awesome! I loved the treatment of the subject and the dexterity with which you go to and fro in the annals of time, linking the many loose ends into a cogent analysis. How did I miss your earlier dispatches? Guess, I`ll go back and read all of them.

The heavy compounding of sentences makes it a difficult read. The flow would be much smoother if these big sentences were broken, wherever possible, into more manageable chunks.