Maudoodi & The Mahdi

[Rambuchan]

I have quoted the essential point that is the key to why your point of view is wrong.

The rest may well be interesting for other issues, but is not the essential point as to why you are wrong.

If you can fault my logic then we can continue the debate.

I told you that I believe your view is wrong simply because people do not exist in a vacuum, as you like to think. You say they would have these views even if they existed in a vacuum --- what have you got to back that up?

Also, I gave you good reason why your view is to be questioned. Let me just post it once again then. Maybe you'll actually read it and take notice of how it refutes your view, rather than just saying that it doesn't.

But [the British Empire] did exist and his writings display heavy reference to their existence. In reading his works, you can find a direct causation. The secularism, modernisation and westernisation that British colonial rule brought to the Indian Subcontinent were precisely what he was reacting against whe he proposed a return to religious ways of living. Here's a bit you must have read past...

Maulana Maududi developed a highly critical perspective of Western concepts, such as nationalism, pluralism and feminism, which he viewed as imperialist tools to undermine non-Western societies and enforce Western domination over the lives of Muslims. He proposed that the Muslim world should purge itself of foreign elements and wage jihad ("struggle") until all of humanity was united under Islamic rule. He translated the Qur'an into Urdu and wrote prolifically on numerous aspects of Islamic law and culture.

This is referring to the works of Maududi. Did you go and read those works since yesterday? If so, did you skim read past all the parts that bang on about the West and how an opposing ideology needs to be developed?

Otherwise, why should my opinion change? I have a logical arguement to which you have no counter. In your place, I would question my own point of view.

Your logical argument simply goes: "They would have these views anyway". I've posted a whole load of material to demonstrate how these views of radical Islam, from their very inception, have precisely been developed through an interaction with the West. I've shown how these views are designed in opposition to the values of the West and how the vacuum you keep speaking of simply does not exist.

Yet you keep pretending that there is no interaction between the cultures, no meeting point, and no history of conflict to feed into these views.

And to back up that 'logical argument' you've given me what exactly?

 

[JoeM]

"They would have these views anyway". I've posted a whole load of material to demonstrate how these views of radical Islam, from their very inception, have precisely been developed through an interaction with the West.

This may well be, however seeing as we already agree that the ideology would exist "within a vacuum", and as it is the ideology that is the motivator for terrorist actions we can disregard the factors surrounding it arisal when talking about the causal factors of reactionary Islamic terrorism.


As I've posted in other threads, if you want to talk about the opinions and motivators of anyone other than the members of terrorist cells your opinion might be valid.

 

[Rambuchan]

This may well be, however seeing as we already agree that the ideology would exist "within a vacuum", and as it is the ideology that is the motivator for terrorist actions we can disregard the factors surrounding it arisal when talking about the causal factors of reactionary Islamic terrorism.

I think I was foolish to say: "Agreed, one might hold this position if Britain did not exist."

When I consider it, Maududi's ideology simply could not. There are far too many references in his work to the British military, secular and modernist world view that was being imposed on the Sub Continent in his lifetime. His ideology has no context or meaning without these opposing references.

So scratch me off that statement. Sorry, but it doesn't make sense.

Please, explain how his thinking could exist in a vacuum because I can't find myself agreeing with that when I consider his work more carefully.

As I've posted in other threads, if you want to talk about the opinions and motivators of anyone other than the members of terrorist cells your opinion might be valid.

Do you not see how those terrorist cells are bring the same ideology as Maududi coined and advocated? (eg. 7/7 video bears out his thinking quite plainly.)

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I think I was foolish to say: "Agreed, one might hold this position if Britain did not exist."

When I consider it, Maududi's ideology simply could not. There are far too many references in his work to the British military, secular and modernist world view that was being imposed on the Sub Continent in his lifetime. His ideology has no context or meaning without these opposing references.

So scratch me off that statement. Sorry, but it doesn't make sense.

If it hadn't been the British would it not have been the French, or the Dutch, or any of the Western Imperialists at the time? Presumably so. Therefore the fact that it was the British is irrelevant as to whether the anti-West Ideology would have been formed or not. If I understand correctly that is.

 

[JoeM]

If it hadn't been the British would it not have been the French, or the Dutch, or any of the Western Imperialists at the time? Presumably so. Therefore the fact that it was the British is irrelevant as to whether the anti-West Ideology would have been formed or not. If I understand correctly that is.

The fact that contributors to the ideology were motivated by a particular factor is indeed irrelevant as it is not a primary tenet of the ideology. They could've been pissed off with anything. The point is that the ideology is the motivator, not the people behind the ideology, and not the factors that influenced the people behind the ideology. Or any other causal link back to Creation itself.

@Ram, it's a shame you've back-tracked, because I thought we were making progress there.

It really comes down to what an ideology is, though I don't seem to be able to explain it well enough admittedly.

 

[Rambuchan]

JoeM: Question is, what motivates this ideology? I think it's pretty clear from a look at Maududi's thinking.

I have no problem with backtracking when I am wrong.

 

[JoeM]

No it's not, an ideology exists by itself. It is a collection of ideas that form an ideal way of living.


People are motivated. In this case they are motivated by the ideology.


Re: backtracking; Unfortunately you were right, now you are wrong. It appears that you have backtracked because you can see that this undermines your position.

 

[Rambuchan]

JoeM: This is getting tedious now and demonstrating the less admirable qualities of OT. If you read and truly understand the ideology of Maududi (it's all over the OP), then you will see that this is one ideology that does not exist in a vacuum. I've quoted some relevant sections to both you and Bozo. You say you've read all the material I've posted, so how come you are not seeing the basis of his ideology and what motivates it?

 

[Che Guava]

Interesting stuff Ram and certainly relevant to the world today.

The fact that contributors to the ideology were motivated by a particular factor is indeed irrelevant as it is not a primary tenet of the ideology. They could've been pissed off with anything. The point is that the ideology is the motivator, not the people behind the ideology, and not the factors that influenced the people behind the ideology. Or any other causal link back to Creation itself.

I quoted this just because, well, I guess I see things in the opposite way. I beleive that ideologies are born out of conditions of necessity, and that the an ideological movement is more a vehicle to allow for a change of conditions. I don't think that marxists, for eg, were cast in that role simply because Marx wrote about class struggle. People in a situation that they don't like look to explain it in a simple and all-encompassing ideal; in the case of marx those people were poor (or sympathized with them) and found a theory (class struggle) that would allow them to explain present conditions, and set out a road-map to rectify it. In the case of the roots of islamic extremism, I feel that it was born out of a necessity to counter the influence of western culture in islamic societies. You can take a cynical view that they wre created to prevent a loss of power or influence from the traditional elements of muslim society, or that 'everyday' muslims with no particular power in those societies simply didn't like to see thier traditions and way of life being cast aside. Either way, the ideology became a plan, a motivator, and a unifier to reject western values because that is what the people wanted, not the other way around.

 

[JoeM]

An ideology has to have a purely internal logic structure or it falls apart - it is not an ideology. It describes an ideal way of living.

The ideal is a semi-feudal religious oligarchy.


If British foreign policy is fundamental to the ideology of islamic terrorists, how would the ideology exist without Britain?

It wouldn't, therefore it cannot be fundamental to the ideology, therefore British Foreign policy is not the causal factor in these terrorist operations.

 

[JoeM]

I quoted this just because, well, I guess I see things in the opposite way. I beleive that ideologies are born out of conditions of necessity...

Of course they are. This does not contradict my stance in anyway. However, once an ideology is formed it hangs together by itself or not at all.

To say that whoever these guys formed their opinions in the context of the world they lived in is not the same as saying British Foreign policy is the causal factor of Islamic terrorist operations.

 

[Che Guava]

An ideology has to have a purely internal logic structure or it falls apart - it is not an ideology. It describes an ideal way of living.

The ideal is a semi-feudal religious oligarchy.

But don't most ideologies have an endpoint or ideal society/way of life attached to them? I know that they have to be logical (well, for the most part) but to use marxism again as the typical political ideology: it has a plan, it has directions, and it identifies reasons for it. I feel like radical islamism is the same. Maybe I'm not quite understading you...

If British foreign policy is fundamental to the ideology of islamic terrorists, how would the ideology exist without Britain?

It wouldn't, therefore it cannot be fundamental to the ideology, therefore British Foreign policy is not the causal factor in these terrorist operations.

British foreign policy is only one part of the larger rejection of western values. In the begining, british foreign policy created the conditions for these movements to arise and thrive. Once an ideology like this gets started, however, I think it takes on a life of its own: the same 'rules' and aparent truths from the philosophers mentioned can be applied to any other situation in which muslims feel marginalized against western culture, just the way that european mrxism found applications in latein america, asian and african societies. What it boils down to, though, is that when people are unhappy with thier condition, they find something to explain it and rectify it. Radical islamism is universal enough to apply to muslims living in poor muslim countries (where it can explain why they are poor and the US/Britain/etc is rich) or muslims living in western countries (where it can explain the feelings of being on the outside of mainstream society).

 

[Verbose]

If it hadn't been the British would it not have been the French, or the Dutch, or any of the Western Imperialists at the time? Presumably so. Therefore the fact that it was the British is irrelevant as to whether the anti-West Ideology would have been formed or not. If I understand correctly that is.

But the British empire provided the specific modalities of the situation. History is like that, specific, and to a point irreducible to principles.

On balance it is otoh true that the important aspect was the collective weight of western influence experienced by all manner of societies faced with it.

 

[aneeshm]

Even if we accept for the sake of argument , Ram , that the stirrings caused by the imperialist powers of Europe is the cause of the existence of the enemy's ideology , even then that does not justify the ideology itself , does it ?

And you forget that India was a victim of an imeprialism far crueller that European imperialism for nearly a thousand years - that of Arab Islam . But did that lead to a reaction similar to that of the orthodox Muslims today ?

 

[Rambuchan]

Even if we accept for the sake of argument , Ram , that the stirrings caused by the imperialist powers of Europe is the cause of the existence of the enemy's ideology , even then that does not justify the ideology itself , does it ?

Whoever said I was looking to justify it? I opened this thread for our greater understanding, not for justification.

And you forget that India was a victim of an imeprialism far crueller that European imperialism for nearly a thousand years - that of Arab Islam . But did that lead to a reaction similar to that of the orthodox Muslims today ?

Actually, it did.

See the guerilla tactics of Shivaji Bonsle
See the religious nationhood ideas acted upon by Banda Bahadur.

I hope you see the relevance of these, I thought you would have considered this yourself before posting aneeshm.

 

[aneeshm]

Whoever said I was looking to justify it? I opened this thread for our greater understanding, not for justification.

Did I ever say that you were justifying it ?

Actually, it did.
See the guerilla tactics of Shivaji Bonsle
See the religious nationhood ideas acted upon by Banda Bahadur.

I hope you see the relevance of these, I thought you would have considered this yourself before posting aneeshm.

Being a Maharashtrian , Shivaji is an integral part of our culture . Our children grow up on stories of his bravery and courage , of his narrow escapes and of the treachery of his enemies .

And you will , again , have to admit that guerrila tactics against an army are very , very different from terrorist tactics against civilian populations . Both Shivaji and the Sikh nationalist used guerrila tactics against the Mughal empire - not against civilians , because they considered civilians their own people . They did not try to commit terrorist attacks in Mecca or in Delhi in retaliation for the Mughals' cruelty at home , did they ?

Shivaji was Hindu enough not to kill civilians in places he conquered . He was Hindu enough to make sure that mosques were not attacked by his army . He was Hindu enough that any captured Quran which fell into his army's hands was returned to the maulvi in the next village they passed through .

Can you say that for the Arab Muslim imperialists ? For the Islamic theocratic states which exist today ? Does Saudi Arabia treat the holy books of other religions with the same respect ? Or do they confiscate them whenever someone is travelling into the country ?

Nowhere in India did an undirected rage , a wish to lash out even if at the cost of their life , exist . Whatever anger there was took the form of organised resistance against imperialism , not that of killing innocent civilians . Can you say the same for the angry Muslim youth of today ? Is their anger directed into constructive pursuits ? Into organistaion ? Or is it directed into terrorism , a sadomasochistic death-wish ?

 

[downtown]

Interesting Post Ram. I've read it all...I'll think about it today, and come up with my response a little later. I'd like to check a few things in my textbooks first.

 

[Urederra]

And you forget that India was a victim of an imeprialism far crueller that European imperialism for nearly a thousand years - that of Arab Islam . But did that lead to a reaction similar to that of the orthodox Muslims today ?

since this is kinda of a history thread opened shortly after the failed plot and without any apparent link with it I just going to drop some historical facts:

• year 632: Muhammad, founder of Islam, dies
• year 711. Muslims invade Europe.
• year 721. battle of Tolousse The Battle of Tolouse (721) was a victory of an Aquitanian army led by Duke Odo of Aquitaine over an Umayyad army besieging the city of Toulouse, and led by the governot of Muslim Spain Al-Samh ibn Malik al-Khawlani. This victory stopped the advance of the Muslims in Europe.
• year 1212 Battle of las Navas de Tolosa the muslim invasion in Europe begins to decline.
• year 1529 The siege of Vienna. The muslims try it again, this time from the East.
• year 1571 The battle of Lepanto The invasion is stopped again.
  

I hope it helps to bring light to the unknown reason this thread was opened in OT.

If It doesn't help. Here it is a Veronesse painting. just enjoy the view.

 

[Che Guava]

Urederra: I don't think it was intended as a historical thread as much as one examining the causes behind radical islamist movements today. While that obviously involves history, I think the emphasis in the OP was on the why, rather than the when, where and how....

 

[Rambuchan]

Urederra: What's your point? I've clearly stated my reasons for starting the thread at the beginning of the OP (no sarcasm, no innuendo, no wry quips, quite an effort for me!) Please share yours.

aneeshm: I hope to come back to you with details later about your response. I don't have the info to hand and no time to dedicate searching the net for it. Suffice to say right now, I think you've given us a slightly biased rendition of Shivaji and you've even told us why your bias is in place.