Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-crown-prince

    Is this the start of the Islamic Enlightenment?
    Has ISIS and the fundamentalists' desire for a return to the Islam of Muhammad actually brought about the opposite?
    Or is it just a reaction to the knowledge that when the oil runs out, their ability to do WTF they want will likewise run out?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I would argue that Islam as it existed during the time of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and for several generations after, when you see the rise of universities systems in the Muslim world and Europe-Islamic Spain-that level of tolerance-Jews, Christians and Muslims, studying and living side by side...when you back to Medina-the society they had there, with Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sabeans, Pagans, all side by side, doing their thing-but united in the common good...well, what we see NOW is so far off from that....no, what we see most times today in terms of the representation is so far from that, its no wonder that the Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him) said 3 generations after him, would no longer be of him, that deviations and all manner of things would start to creep in.

    Now, a true return to the Islam at that time would in fact be moderate. Now, we shall see what steps are taken, in fulfillment of this very nice pledge. The interesting thing about a pledge I had to come to learn, of course, when raising money for charity-pledges count for nothing until funds are actually received! So, we shall see, I am prayerful and hopeful...for sure the discussion and the roundtables and the reform is going to have to include some new people at that table whose voices have previously either been ignored or unheard.

    (Original post by QE2)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-crown-prince

    Is this the start of the Islamic Enlightenment?
    Has ISIS and the fundamentalists' desire for a return to the Islam of Muhammad actually brought about the opposite?
    Or is it just a reaction to the knowledge that when the oil runs out, their ability to do WTF they want will likewise run out?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-crown-prince

    Is this the start of the Islamic Enlightenment?
    Has ISIS and the fundamentalists' desire for a return to the Islam of Muhammad actually brought about the opposite?
    Or is it just a reaction to the knowledge that when the oil runs out, their ability to do WTF they want will likewise run out?
    I think we all knew this was coming eventually. A few years ago they allowed women to vote, hold political positions and now they can drive so soon we'll probably see a much reformed Saudi Arabia with some more liberal views. The crown prince is certainly going to reign for many years to come to hopefully his actions are not undone by the next when he dies.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-crown-prince

    Is this the start of the Islamic Enlightenment?
    Has ISIS and the fundamentalists' desire for a return to the Islam of Muhammad actually brought about the opposite?
    Or is it just a reaction to the knowledge that when the oil runs out, their ability to do WTF they want will likewise run out?
    Everything I've read about Mohammed bin Salman is a genuine reformer and really desires to modernise Saudi Arabia. The question is whether he has the power to do so; is he willing (or able) to take on the power and influence of the ulema, the Islamic wahhabist clerics, upon whom the Saudi state is based (and with whom the founder of Saudi Arabia made a deal 300 years ago).

    I shall watch with interest. I really hope he is successful.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nah. They allowed women to drive for convenience reasons. For their own benefit. As long as the same people are in their political system then there's no chance.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Everything I've read about Mohammed bin Salman is a genuine reformer and really desires to modernise Saudi Arabia. The question is whether he has the power to do so; is he willing (or able) to take on the power and influence of the ulema, the Islamic wahhabist clerics, upon whom the Saudi state is based (and with whom the founder of Saudi Arabia made a deal 300 years ago).

    I shall watch with interest. I really hope he is successful.
    The royal family have complete control in that country... The top clerks are appointed by the royal family. They gave them the power and they can take it away just as easily.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luq_ali)
    Now, a true return to the Islam at that time would in fact be moderate
    I completely disagree. The Islam of the 8th and 9th century,in Baghdad (and longer in Spain), was certainly a time of great vitality, energy and learning. But Mohammed was very unlike what happened in Spain and Baghdad.

    The murder of the Banu Qurayzah, one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia (there used to be many native Jewish tribes in Arabia), by Mohammed, showed what kind of man he was. I don't argue he was in some way unusually bloodthirsty or cruel for his time. The 7th century was a very tough time to be alive; life was often nasty, short and brutish.

    But the actions of Mohammed (raiding, conquering, taking slaves) strike us as being exactly what he was; a desert raider and bandit who started a religion and grew to be a sub-regional warlord.

    Unfortunately, after a couple of centuries of vitality and energy, Islam went into stagnation and it pulled the Middle East down with it. It also had a homogenising effect on all of the places it conquered (except Spain). Think of how amazing heterogenous the Middle East was before Islam; all those city states with their different gods, the Egyptians with their beliefs, Phoenicians, the Byzantine Empire, the Jewish schools of philosophy. Christianity struck the first blow for homogeneity, but Islam finished it off.

    Islam had the effect of Arabising and homogenising these areas, and unfortunately Islam's openness to the learning and philosophy of antiquity, in the two centuries after Mohammed's death, stagnated and eventually Muslims in these parts of the world became almost solely interested only in Muslim history, in what previous Muslim clerics had written.

    So much energy of Muslims was expended on theological / jurisprudential questions rather than exploring broader scientific and philosophical questions, I believe it created an inward-looking mentality that the Muslim world is only now starting to recover from.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ninja Squirrel)
    The royal family have complete control in that country... The top clerks are appointed by the royal family. They gave them the power and they can take it away just as easily.
    The monarch is an absolute monarch, but no person ever has absolute power and the Saudi kings have always had to take into account the views of the clerics. That's not a legal question but a question of politics, and practical reality.

    The royal family have often had to push reform through in the teeth of almost violent opposition from the clerics. The clerics write the textbooks, until recently they policed the streets, they run the legal system. The monarchy fears that if it declared all-out war on the clerics, then there might well be a wahhabist revolution.

    Most members of the House of Saud are relatively progressive. Not by Western standards, but certainly by current Saudi standards. They would rather be closer to, say, Kuwait than what they are now. It is fear of the clerics that has prevented more widescale reform
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I see you have bought hook line and sinker into the Orientalist lies that have widely permeated the internet, and of course, were widely the basis of "Islamic studies" in Europe, back when they were commissioning translations of The Holy Qur'an under such titles as "The Quran of the False Prophet"-and other such titles, which obviously showed bias and the intention behind the same.

    What you most conveniently omit and leave out is the history of exactly what happened with the Banu Qurayzah tribe. I would need to first ask you where you studied this issue, did you go back and read the histories of that time, and in particular, which historical accounts did you rely upon and what sources-original sources did you read, or are you simply parroting words without ever having directly, yourself, read the source materials-originally in Arabic? (but also available, of course, with parallel English, French, German, etc.)

    The truth of the matter is that there was a peace treaty between Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Christians and others. There were those members of that tribe, who -and I find it MOST interesting you leave this out-which shows malice-committed treason and sided with the enemy attacking Medina-breaching the treaty resulting in the death of Christians,Jews and Muslims. The Banu Qurayzah actually selected, as arbiter, a man who was from among their tribe, to decide what punishment should come to those guilty parties-(because there were those who defected and who took no part in the act of sedition and treason)-a man who was also Jewish but had converted to Islam some time earlier. The punishment dolled out was indeed death, for some, NOT all of the male members. And I can most certainly tell you in modern societies-including the UK-the penalty of a citizen taking up arms against the state or union, and then killing -in cahoots with enemy attackers, the people they have betrayed-is punishable by death(in many countries) or at the very least, life in prison. Now, conveniently-you make it seem like it was just unprovoked and unsolicited death. Why did you NOT give the actual context, and then, let people judge or assess the merits for or against the actions?

    You repeat this classical fabrication of some raiding parties, of some going out offensively-to raid -that is a complete lie. In reality, it was Muslim caravans being besieged, and in defensive aspects, in direct response-as in self-defense, raids were then conducted on enemy caravans UNTIL such time as hostilities were ceased, agreements were reached, wherein the caravans were allowed to cross-with peace-much the same way as when Muslims ruled Palestine, and allowed the very same treaty and accord. When Umar The Caliph, rode into Jerusalem, after the conflicts -and there was a peace treaty-he did not do what Christian Knights did(In fact, on one was killed, and he refused, when offer to pray in the Church of The Holy Sepulchre, which thanks to him(and other leaders who came after him), still stands specifically refused to do for fear it would lose its status as a Christian center of worship), centuries later, ride in and kill men, women, children, Muslims, Christians and Jews(all of whom were non-white, which is why they were NOT equal-not even the non-white Christians-no they were savages to be murdered and killed-and of course we see that mindset, playing out NOT in the times of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)-no-we see that playing out through the European/Western models of colonialism and colonization that continued for hundreds upon hundreds of years, up till near the present, when the last bastion of white supremacy fell in The USA-the Union of South Africa in 1990.

    Its interesting -you act as if what happened in Spain and other parts of Europe under Muslims, just came "poof' by magic. However, historically, most respectfully, either you are mis-educated, or uneducated-or worse...for that egalitarian society existed in Medina, under The Constitution of Medina-you omit, you omit that Muhammad was invited to Medina by Jews, Christians, Pagans, and Muslims to lead them in such a society. You omit people swore, volunatarily oaths of loyalty and citizenship to that society to NEVER betray it or take up arms against or aid the enemy in attacking, why do you omit those things? WHY was he(Muhammad) invited?Do you know the answer to that question, have you studied the history, I mean-read some actual substantive works, doctoral thesis, or are you just going by some trash you read in some blurb and that you are recycling verbatim without any sure or certain facts? The REASON The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) was invited by these people-they did NOT have to invite him, he was NOT in a position of rulership or strength-in fact, he was in a weak position being persecuted. The REASON he was invited was because he was preaching about people living together in peace, he was preaching AGAINST the endless cycle of violence, religious wars, persecution, burying women children alive, racism, sexism, ending slavery(except in the case of captives of war, see, they could then get freedom by either teaching a Muslim to read who could not read, ransom from relatives (whether financial or exchange of prisoners) or converting to the faith.) Well before the Magna Carta-The Prophet Muhammad was preaching unity, respect for other religions...Umar's actions in Jerusalem, did not come from a vacuum-they come from the example of his teacher! When The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) rode into Mecca, after years of persecution, with people who had murdered and even eaten parts of his family members bodies, all were forgiven other than a few who fought to the death rather than surrender, you don't find that in European History at the time. (and let me stop here...the nerve of you to even mention slavery at that time, when what Europe did and the West did in slavery-that genocide, not in one region, but all over the world-wherever they went-for hundreds of years, dispossessing people of entire family histories. How many African, Asian countries had to get independence from the boot of oppression in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, how many lives were ruined, countries and wealth exploited, countries underdeveloped)

    The advice that Imam Ali gave his General, Malik well before Muslim Spain existed, was that the people he was governing over, where either his "equal in faith or equal in creation" so to treat the people well and with equity. So please do not try to pass this false lie that the wonders of Muslim Spain and that egalitarian society that sprung up in those times around the world in Muslims centers of learning-just came out of some vaccum-they came from the example of The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) who was sending letters and dispatches to foreign lands, who was setting up diplomacy in China-where Islam has been since his life-time-the earliest Mosques there were built in the 630's! When did a Muslim army sail the ocean and conquer and "Arabize"-which is a racist term by the way, Malaysia, Indonesia, The Philippines, Singapore(the latter two have significant Muslim populations, but are in the minority, of course), when did these invaders that you say did these things go to Australia and savage and enslave and brutalize the Aborigines, who recorded their interactions and trade with Muslims, and adopted certain aspects of influence, as has been documented by The University of Melbourne and other studies, into their culture, going back well before the first Europeans came there and started to murder and oppress and do the evil rancid things that of course, continued in outright racial discrimination until the 1970's...not to think of the current condition of the Arboriginal people as a whole. The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) did not do that.

    What of the spread of Islam into Egypt, into North Africa, and other regions? See, there is this notion of some massive armies sweeping through-but that is historically a lie. Egypt had a significant and overriding Christian Majority (now of course, we know the invading Greeks, Romans and other European powers had been going there for centuries and exploiting the people there) -by comparison to the number of Muslims...you conveniently leave out the threats and attacks of the Roman Empire/Byzantines, and others-they were not sitting back saying "hmm, we have these Muslims here, who are coming up, and we are going to let them exist and be at peace with them." It seems you have not done much research or study, either as a undergraduate or postgraduate or doctoral student in any of these areas, or just plain picking up some historical books and reading. Truth of the matter is that one of the reasons Islam spread among various people (but that they would often incorporate parts of their own culture-see, if it was Arabized as you falsely say-you would NOT have had the blends of culture and religion you still see present to this VERY DAY throughout Muslim Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. When you talk to people , from Nigeria, for example, they will tell you, until recently-with the rise of Isis and other groups, Muslim and Christians and traditional African religious persons went to school, side by side, lived together in peace, intermarried, celebrated mutual holidays-you still do find this in Africa to this VERY day -but if you have NEVER lived in or visited extensively beyond the resorts and hotels-parts of Africa, you would NOT known this from personal experience.

    Finally, keep in mind, something-people were making Hajj, who believed in The One God, Allah, more than a thousand years before the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH), including from Egypt, Ethiopia (another big early settlement of Muslims, where no sweeping army or Arabized" things, contrary to what you are saying, took place. Your comments, most respectfully, show a fundamental lack of knowledge and study, and again, border on racist propaganda) and other parts of Africa,


    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I completely disagree. The Islam of the 8th and 9th century,in Baghdad (and longer in Spain), was certainly a time of great vitality, energy and learning. But Mohammed was very unlike what happened in Spain and Baghdad.

    The murder of the Banu Qurayzah, one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia (there used to be many native Jewish tribes in Arabia), by Mohammed, showed what kind of man he was. I don't argue he was in some way unusually bloodthirsty or cruel for his time. The 7th century was a very tough time to be alive; life was often nasty, short and brutish.

    But the actions of Mohammed (raiding, conquering, taking slaves) strike us as being exactly what he was; a desert raider and bandit who started a religion and grew to be a sub-regional warlord.

    Unfortunately, after a couple of centuries of vitality and energy, Islam went into stagnation and it pulled the Middle East down with it. It also had a homogenising effect on all of the places it conquered (except Spain). Think of how amazing heterogenous the Middle East was before Islam; all those city states with their different gods, the Egyptians with their beliefs, Phoenicians, the Byzantine Empire, the Jewish schools of philosophy. Christianity struck the first blow for homogeneity, but Islam finished it off.

    Islam had the effect of Arabising and homogenising these areas, and unfortunately Islam's openness to the learning and philosophy of antiquity, in the two centuries after Mohammed's death, stagnated and eventually Muslims in these parts of the world became almost solely interested only in Muslim history, in what previous Muslim clerics had written.

    So much energy of Muslims was expended on theological / jurisprudential questions rather than exploring broader scientific and philosophical questions, I believe it created an inward-looking mentality that the Muslim world is only now starting to recover from.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-crown-prince

    Is this the start of the Islamic Enlightenment?
    Has ISIS and the fundamentalists' desire for a return to the Islam of Muhammad actually brought about the opposite?
    Or is it just a reaction to the knowledge that when the oil runs out, their ability to do WTF they want will likewise run out?
    Looks like we will see the sale of alcohol and brothels legalised in Saudia Arabia then. Won’t be long before stag and hen parties go for saucy weekends in Saudia.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-crown-prince

    Is this the start of the Islamic Enlightenment?
    Has ISIS and the fundamentalists' desire for a return to the Islam of Muhammad actually brought about the opposite?
    Or is it just a reaction to the knowledge that when the oil runs out, their ability to do WTF they want will likewise run out?
    Maybe they just want to embrace moderate Islam?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luq_ali)
    X
    I stopped reading about halfway into your agitated and largely unlettered rant.

    Essentially your excuse comes down to, "The arbitrator said we should murder them, and obviously we just have to do what the arbitrator says, no matter how immoral".

    If the arbitrator told them to have sex with a 9 year old girl, would they have to do that too? (Oh, I forgot; Mohammed did do that).

    The idea that Mohammed exercises no moral agency in the murder of people who had already been defeated and taken prisoner, and that it was acceptable to kill prisoners and enslave an entire people, shows just how warped your morality is. The reliance on the arbitrator's decision as a moral fig-leaf of justification is indicative of how unjustifiable their actions were.

    Of course, history is written by the victors and so we don't know if there was any arbitrator at all. That could be completely made up. All we do know for sure is that Mohammed ordered the vast majority of this group of unarmed male prisoners to be murdered, and enslaved the remaining males, along with the women and children.

    Mohammed is supposed to be an example for all the ages; a timeless exemplar of human virtue. You can't say, "Well, it was the 7th century". Either what he did is moral or it's not. And any thinking person can see it's not.

    Anyway, it's clear your sense of morality and ethics is so warped such as to make any debate over these matters utterly impossible. There is no common ground between a sane, modern person like me and someone such as you who accept enslavement, murder of prisoners and child rape. And on the question of history, it's clear that you have a giant historical chip on your shoulder, a historical/cultural inferiority complex that drives you to defend everything the Islamic warlords did. Again, reasoned debate with such a person is impossible.

    Good day to you, sir.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I will do you even better-I stopped reading your response, after the first sentence! I see you have no historical basis or facts you can cite that contradict or contravene what I have offered. Evidence-and I don't say this as a lawyer-I say it has a person interested in history is the key. Honestly, having previously exchanged messages with you, I must confess I was rather surprised and mortified about some of the things you wrote. However, in the fullness of time, what is hidden, shall be revealed and all things are made manifest, if we are just patient and allow people to reveal themselves. In any event, I wish you no animosity, and hope you continue to progress forward in whatever studies or work you are doing.

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I stopped reading about halfway into your agitated and largely unlettered rant.

    Essentially your excuse comes down to, "The arbitrator said we should murder them, and obviously we just have to do what the arbitrator says, no matter how immoral".

    If the arbitrator told them to have sex with a 9 year old girl, would they have to do that too? (Oh, I forgot; Mohammed did do that).

    The idea that Mohammed exercises no moral agency in the murder of people who had already been defeated and taken prisoner, and that it was acceptable to kill prisoners and enslave an entire people, shows just how warped your morality is. The reliance on the arbitrator's decision as a moral fig-leaf of justification is indicative of how unjustifiable their actions were.

    Of course, history is written by the victors and so we don't know if there was any arbitrator at all. That could be completely made up. All we do know for sure is that Mohammed ordered the vast majority of this group of unarmed male prisoners to be murdered, and enslaved the remaining males, along with the women and children.

    Mohammed is supposed to be an example for all the ages; a timeless exemplar of human virtue. You can't say, "Well, it was the 7th century". Either what he did is moral or it's not. And any thinking person can see it's not.

    Anyway, it's clear your sense of morality and ethics is so warped such as to make any debate over these matters utterly impossible. There is no common ground between a sane, modern person like me and someone such as you who accept enslavement, murder of prisoners and child rape. And on the question of history, it's clear that you have a giant historical chip on your shoulder, a historical/cultural inferiority complex that drives you to defend everything the Islamic warlords did. Again, reasoned debate with such a person is impossible.

    Good day to you, sir.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    ISIS cant really call themselves muslims
    since they destroyed the temples and statues
    The caliphs have themselves preserved
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Everything I've read about Mohammed bin Salman is a genuine reformer and really desires to modernise Saudi Arabia. The question is whether he has the power to do so; is he willing (or able) to take on the power and influence of the ulema, the Islamic wahhabist clerics, upon whom the Saudi state is based (and with whom the founder of Saudi Arabia made a deal 300 years ago).

    I shall watch with interest. I really hope he is successful.
    I'm really hoping that he succeeds, even if only partially - it was great hearing his comments.

    The real problems in Saudi go much deeper than mere religion of course - the whole structure of this and the other Gulf monarchies, with their absolutist rulers backed up with western weapons paid for with oil - is a deeply corrupt one. It is non-viable in the modern world and will collapse. The question is, can he manage this collapse with reform and survive, or will the end be bloody and chaotic?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 27, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.