Maudoodi & The Mahdi

[Urederra]

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.

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....

O'RLY?

And the history of a guy born in 1840s will help? How far are we allowed to go to in history to examine the causes behind radical islamist movements today?

You want to know the why, rather than the when or where? It is in my post.
I'll copy down again to make it clearer.

Year 632, Mohammad, founder of Islam, dies.
Year 711, The muslim invasion of Europe begins.

Do you need any more clues?

 

[Che Guava]

O'RLY?

And the history of a guy born in 1840s will help? How far are we allowed to go to in history to examine the causes behind radical islamist movements today?

You want to know the why, rather than the when or where? It is in my post.
I'll copy down again to make it clearer.

Year 632, Mohammad, founder of Islam, dies.
Year 711, The muslim invasion of Europe begins.

Do you need any more clues?

Good grief guy, I was jus trying to explain why this might not have been posted in world history. Sorry if I hit a nerve....

 

[Urederra]

Sorry, I shouldn't have replied to both posts with only one answer.

Did I look angry? Because I wasn't.

 

[Rambuchan]

Wow, subtle point there Urederra. Don't you think it's a bit simplistic and distant?

 

[Urederra]

No, I don't think so.

What is distant anyway? the history of a guy born in the 1840s is a valid point? If it was that way, would you find reasonable for french people to blow up german trains today just because what they did in the 1940s? Or the Polish? Why polish don't attack germany for the same reason?

The reason for the 9/11, London attack, yesterday's plot is the same reason why they invade Europe in 711. Khomeini said it, Bin Laden said it, Adbenwhateverhisnameis says it from time to time. Only the ones who prefer not to listen don't understand, but it has been said so many times.

 

[EdwardTking]

Ismail had appointed Charles George Gordon Governor-General of the Sudan in 1877. Soon after he arrived he started to end the slave trade, which at that point dominated the economy which was controlled by the tiny minority of Arabs. Before his arrival some 7 out of 8 blacks in the Sudan were enslaved by the tiny minority of Arabs; the native Africans formed well over 80% of the overall population. Gordon's policies were effective, but the effects on the economy were disastrous, and soon the Arab Social Ascendancy came to see this not a liberation from slavery, but a modern-day European Christian crusade and Muslim and Arab social dominance. It was this anger that fed the Ansars' ranks.

So Sudan was just like the American Colonies and the Boers, a revolt
by the lighter skinned middle and ruling classes because their comfy
lifestyle was at risk from restraint to exploits such as racially based slavery.

Now the Chinese at least had a moral cause, opposing opium traders.

 

[Sidhe]

Thanks, very interesting read. I think people are taking this in a vaccuum at least as if it's the sole cause and not the root. As you say Ram there is alot more to this than just the foundations, sadly people are taking this as the sole reason without reason. If you really want to know why this sort of fundementalism became widespread then you do need to do a little more research. And so do I obviously Thanks again Ram I knew a bit about the Mahdi but little about the other.

 

[Tulkas12]

It was an interesting read, I knew about mahdi as well as a few others here did.
I'm not saying their reasons, and there are many of them, are without merit. I'm just saying their reactions are absurd.

 

[aneeshm]

@ Ram

I may be biased , but I have an insider's view . There is an anti-Brahmin secular fundemantalist Maharashtrian organisation called the Sambhaji Brigade . They are people who view the times of the Marathas as a golden period of history , and who seek to return to it . Because it is a secular fundamentalist anti-Hindutva organisation , it has a number of Muslim members . On the other extreme is the Shiv Sena - a Hindu cum Maratha nationalist organisation . The only common thing between them is that both accept Shivaji as their ideal , and that both are militant . That's the point I'm trying to get across - Shivaji has shaped Marathi culture like nobody else in the last few hundred years . And his effect on Indian history are also fantastic - he revived the Hindu spirit . After the disintegration of his empire , the country still remained , by and large , in the hands of a Hindu polity .

The irony is that under this polity , Muslims were better off than they were now . Because this polity did not want trouble , it worked very hard to scotch any violence against Muslims . It even sponsored Muslim festivals ( a procession of Muslims , sponsored by the state , was taken out every year in Indore under Holkar ( regents of the Marathas , later independent kings ) rule ) . There is not a single instance of an anti-Muslim riot in Maratha controlled areas . Muslims had a real chance at progress . Whereas today , the administration and Muslim politicians will sell the community's interests for votes . Muslims are given small things by their politicians - such as a subsidy for the Haj pilgrimage - in order to get their votes . So they remain backward , because the Muslim politicians know that they need not actually do anything for the community , they must simply give them a few token things to keep them happy .

A preliminary google search revealed nothing about any anti-Muslim riot during Maratha times - probably because the Marathas were very , very able administrators , and stopped any troublemaker before he could get people to riot .

You have an outsider's view - you cannot access the sea of Marathi literature concerning Shivaji which I can . The only commentary by a Western author about Shivaji which I came across in a Google search was by an anti-Shivaji person - which is not good , because it shows that currently , Western scholarship is biased against Shivaji .

I defy you to find me a single instance of Shivaji's anti-Muslim bias or anything of the sort which you are insinuating . He was a guerrila fighting against a state , not a terrorist trying to destroy a culture .

 

[Whomp]

Very interesting Ram. Thanks.
I don't mean to jack the thread but have you ever read the book:

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin? Highly recommended.

What I find fascinating about your piece is how it all interconnects throughout history. Muhammad Ahmad battles Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener due to his great success in the Middle East is made Britain's Secretary of State for War during World War I. Kitchener having spent most of his career in the Middle East makes sure the Middle East is at the forefront of Britain's policymaking. He's also able to greatly influence such people as Mark Sykes from within his inner circle and Lord Kitchener is able to dictate his wishes to Sykes. Sykes and François Georges-Picot write the Sykes-Picot agreement on how the Middle East will be split up.

In the meantime Lenin releases a copy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement as well as other treaties causing great embarrassment among the allies and growing distrust among the Arabs.
Attempts to resolve the conflict were made at the Sanremo conference and in the Churchill White Paper of 1922, which stated the British position that Palestine was part of the excluded areas of "Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus".
This agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western/Arab relations, as it negated the promises made to Arabs through T.E. Lawrence for a national homeland in the Syrian territory in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire.

Wiki on Sykes-Picot agreement

Then there's the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which stated how the British government favored the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

This could not help but sow seeds of doubts within the minds of those ruling the Central Powers as to where the loyalty of their own domestic Jewish populations lay. For the Jews of Austria-Hungary, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, the Balfour Declaration put at direct odds their loyalty to state against any Zionist sentiments that they may have harbored.
From a historical perspective, a fascinating “what-if” of the Twentieth Century concerns the hypothetical of Imperial Germany issuing its own version of the Balfour Declaration in October or November of 1917, prior to the December 2nd issuance by Britain. Were the Imperial German Foreign Office able to reconcile the Turkish side of this issue and make such a declaration, the impacts of such an event could have significantly re-written the history of the latter half of the last century.
The realities of managing the Ottoman Empire's participation within the Central Powers effectively prevented this from happening, however. At the time, most of the area of Palestine was still under the control of the Ottoman Empire, greatly limiting Germany’s ability to court Zionist leaders. Skipping ahead for a moment, it is interesting to note that the borders of what would become Palestine had been outlined as part of the May 16, 1916, Sykes-Picot Agreement secretly concluded between Britain and France over the eighteen months prior to the Balfour Declaration.

Wiki on Balfour Declaration of 1917