Iran restricts "Western" social sciences

[Meow Mix]

Without doubt.
Sciences there especially if we talked about social sciences (the topic of this thread), yes of course since they are founded on a pure materialistic atheistic basis.

Science is materialistic becuase it has a limited scope of utility -- that of the empirical, observable, testable world. If something is being studied that isn't testable then it simply isn't science. Because of this fact, I don't understand how someone can object to science being "materialistic" when its sole purpose IS to describe and predict the material world?

 

[YmirGF]

Science is materialistic becuase it has a limited scope of utility -- that of the empirical, observable, testable world. If something is being studied that isn't testable then it simply isn't science. Because of this fact, I don't understand how someone can object to science being "materialistic" when its sole purpose IS to describe and predict the material world?

Details, details, details. Really, Meow Mix. Have you no shame?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As for secularism; colonization, slavery, racism, "world wars", the nuclear bombs, pollution, destructing and exhausting the planet, decline of the family, suicide and psychological disorders, spread of immorality and indecency and others are things that I usually take into my consideration before I describe secularism as being successful. The entire world payed a lot and thanks to the Western civilization.

What does any of that have to do with secularism?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As for secularism; colonization, slavery, racism, "world wars", the nuclear bombs, pollution, destructing and exhausting the planet, decline of the family, suicide and psychological disorders, spread of immorality and indecency and others are things that I usually take into my consideration before I describe secularism as being successful. The entire world payed a lot and thanks to the Western civilization.

I am against colonization, slavery, nuclear weapons and pollution, etc. too. I am with you there. However, I'm skeptical that we can blame these ancient institutions on "modernism". Slavery for example was around for thousands of years, Islam did not abolish it, it was abolished by people who embraced "modern thinking" about human rights and equality. Colonialism and empire existed long before the Western empires. I don't want to defend imperialism. But, it's ridiculous to say that "modern" imperialism was especially bad, when it's only in the modern age that imperialism became considered a bad thing at all. If we're going to compare "modern" to ancient imperialism, we might consider the contrast between the Turkish or Egyptian or Mongol or Byzantine empires, vs. the United Nations, and the peaceful independence of India, Pakistan, Canada, and many other former colonies.

You can't take a bunch of "modern" philosophies, like social Darwinism, Communism and corporatism, and lump them together with other things, like humanism. They are totally different things.

I also agree that opposing and criticizing the government without any fear is crucial. But I was discussing a certain point.

But isn't the idea that everyone has an inalienable right to criticize the government one of those "modern" ideas?

 

[Sahar]

But isn't the idea that everyone has an inalienable right to criticize the government one of those "modern" ideas?

I'd like to reply to this part first.
If this was true, so what?

I have no problem whatsoever with getting benefit of the Western advancement in the different fields but also what I want to see is being able to say "no, this doesn't fit us and our values" and say "yes these are going to serve our interests" and so on.

...and thus they will get the benefit of the Western thought and experience and be aware of what is contradictory to the Muslim view at the same time.

But actually this principle is deeply rooted in the Islamic thought.
Every Muslim is required to fulfill the Islamic obligation of commanding good and forbidding evil. Also, it is the responsibility of every Muslim to offer advice to all his Muslim brothers and the leaders of the Muslim nation. ...The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) urges every Muslim to fight mischief and combat injustice and never accept oppression. Upon being asked about the best form of Jihad, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best form of Jihad is upholding the truth before a despotic ruler.” It is also reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The master of martyrs is Hamzah and comes after him a man who gets killed just because he stands to a despotic ruler commanding him to do good and give up evil.” ...Appointing incompetent people and dismissing, without justifiable cause, the qualified ones is surely a sinful act, and, thus, a form of evil. ...The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: “If my followers fail to stand up to an oppressor and say to him: ‘You are an oppressor’, then there will be no good in them.”
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/91739-political-islam.html

When Omar was the muslim caliph , clothes came in quantities from Yemen..Omar distirbuted them equally in public among the people.
Some days later he was seen wraped in a garb that matched with his size ,which meant that he had taken for himself more cloth than he had given every body else

One day ,with that long garb on ,Omar went up the pulpit to address people and urge them to join the army .He started his address saying :
" O brethren !listen and obey ."

And instead of being answered with warm shouts and applaud ,a strong voice was heard saying to him "No listening and no obedience "

Omar ,ver calmly ,looked at the speaker who chanced to be "Abdul Rahman ibn Awf " and said " Why ? May allah have mercy on you "

abdull Rahman with a daring voice said : "Supposedly you took the same lenght of cloth as you gave everyone of us .How then ,have you had that grab tailored to you ,when you are taller than anyone of us ? You must have favoured yourself with more cloth "

In defence of himseld ,Omar summoned his son abdullah to explain how all that had happened ,and abdullah proceeded forward to declare that he had relinquished his share of the cloth to his father to allow him to have a suitable garb tailored for him to meet the people in

upon hearing that ,"abdull Rahaman ibn Awf" said : " now we listen and obey "

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/80344-muslims-authoritorian-followers.html

And a very important aspect in the Islamic system of government, is the governors are accountable; every able Muslim has the right (not only has the right but it's obligatory) to question or to correct the imam if he deviated from the Shari'a laws and violated his commitments and in some cases it can reach to the degree of Imam's removal from his position. This can be seen clearly in Abu Bakr and Ummar ibnil-Khattab (the first and second Caliph's respectively) speeches to their people; “If I follow the right path, follow me. If I deviate from the right path, correct me so that we are not led astray. Obey me as long as long as i obeyed Allah and his messenger, and if i disobeyed Allah and his message, you shall not obey me" Abu Bakr. Umar ibnil-khattab said the same thing in many places...

What I want to convey is that every able sane Muslim has an obligation to question the government. If Muslims collectively didn't question the government when it deviates from Shari'a and when it commits injustice, then they are sinful. No joke in this. Removal of the government can be an option up to rebellion and overthrowing the oppressive ruler/government (this has been a subject of very heated debates between the scholars of Islam).

 

[Meow Mix]

What I want to convey is that every able sane Muslim has an obligation to question the government. If Muslims collectively didn't question the government when it deviates from Shari'a and when it commits injustice, then they are sinful. No joke in this. Removal of the government can be an option up to rebellion and overthrowing the oppressive ruler/government (this has been a subject of very heated debates between the scholars of Islam).

I think this is great, but why then haven't Muslims overthrown half of the despotic predominantly Islamic governments in various countries like Iran and Afghanistan (when it had the Taliban)? Is this notion of overthrowing despots not common amongst Muslims in those countries?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Hi Not4ME

Thankyou for your response. It is good to see a view point from within the country and culture itself.

I have never heard of Ibn Khaldun in any of my studies (im doing an applied social sciences degree). Which i think is a failure on the universities behalf. We really only get taught western thinking.

But i have to say, rejecting knowledge/fact just because it doesn't fit your ideals and values is willful ignorance.

Knowledge/fact should be celebrated not something to be afraid of.

-Q



This power of criticizing other peoples' knowledge and experiences need a lot of promotion and emphasis here. Muslims need this power and they need to emphasize science, research and good education. This is our way to leadership among other nations.[/quote]

 

[Sahar]

I think this is great, but why then haven't Muslims overthrown half of the despotic predominantly Islamic governments in various countries like Iran and Afghanistan (when it had the Taliban)? Is this notion of overthrowing despots not common amongst Muslims in those countries?

Overthrowing a government is a very dangerous thing that can not be dealt with lightly at all. It can lead to chaos, loss of souls and civil war. That's why it was a topic of debate among the Islamic scholars.
From OnIslam;
"The issue of rebelling against an oppressive ruler is to be decided after an accurate study of Shari`ah priorities. Muslim scholars in the past stated that this can be allowed if there is preponderance of probability that the oppressive ruler can be overthrown without inflicting greater harm. This is based on a well-established rule in Islam: “Fending off smaller harm must not result in creating a greater harm.” Likewise there is a rule: "Resort should be to the lesser of the two evils." Only if these conditions are met and these rules and cautions are taken into consideration, then it is obligatory to embark upon overthrowing an oppressive ruler or agent; otherwise Muslims should bear patiently, doing their best to lessen the effects of his oppression and evil."
Overthrowing an Oppressive Ruler

So we should resort to the peaceful means and patience as much as possible.

Iran indeed witnessed the overthrowing of Shah Mohammad (whose policies were secular) in 1979 which was the fruit of the Islamic revolution led by Khomeni. And the Iranians voted for Iran to be an Islamic republic. Who told you exactly that the Iranians are not satisfied with or want to change their political system or current regime? :sarcastic Do you speak on their behalf? Just because you don't like the system and the government there, Iranians should overthrow it!!!

 

[Sahar]

Btw, Meow Mix, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/80344-muslims-authoritorian-followers.html,
This thread deals with the Muslim silence towards the corrupted regimes, with the questions of "why we are so apologists for our unislamic regimes ? when will the time come when we clearly anounce it " Enough " ?!"

You may want to read it, I consider it to be one of the best discussions we had in Islam DIR.

 

[Meow Mix]

Iran indeed witnessed the overthrowing of Shah Mohammad (whose policies were secular) in 1979 which was the fruit of the Islamic revolution led by Khomeni. And the Iranians voted for Iran to be an Islamic republic. Who told you exactly that the Iranians are not satisfied with or want to change their political system or current regime? :sarcastic Do you speak on their behalf? Just because you don't like the system and the government there, Iranians should overthrow it!!!

But Iran as it currently stands is despotic. It's constantly under watch for human rights violations, including gender inequalities (such as women constantly being worth half that of a man in Diyya and testimony, inheriting much less than males from relatives, etc.), not wearing hijab is an arrestable offense, no freedom of press/media if it's deemed contrary to Islam...

Bahai faith is banned... irreligious rights are not recognized (they can't join Parliament for instance)... different punishments for non-Muslims and Muslims for the same crimes... apostasy is punishable by death (at least on the books)...

The Iranian government killed people in prisons in 1988 without trials (as many as 12,000!)... homosexuality is punishable by death or life imprisonment...

Iran practices internet censorship. It executes people under the age of 18 occasionally. It practices harsh punishments for minor crimes such as stoning or amputating hands and feet.

Yes, it is utterly despotic... a cesspool of primitive, disgusting barbarians with no respect for human dignity. (The government, not the people).

 

[Meow Mix]

Btw, Meow Mix, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/80344-muslims-authoritorian-followers.html,
This thread deals with the Muslim silence towards the corrupted regimes, with the questions of "why we are so apologists for our unislamic regimes ? when will the time come when we clearly anounce it " Enough " ?!"

You may want to read it, I consider it to be one of the best discussions we had in Islam DIR.

Cool, I'll check this out tomorrow. Have to hit the sack for the night, I'm beat!

 

[kai]

What I want to convey is that every able sane Muslim has an obligation to question the government. If Muslims collectively didn't question the government when it deviates from Shari'a and when it commits injustice, then they are sinful. No joke in this. Removal of the government can be an option up to rebellion and overthrowing the oppressive ruler/government (this has been a subject of very heated debates between the scholars of Islam).

the problem is though who exactly is defining the definition of sharia? Iran has its version, the Taliban has theirs, Saudis have theirs and according to them their not deviating at all.

You see to the Iranians who are hanging children from cranes they are not committing an injustice they are carrying out justice according to thier version of sharia. The greatest weapon religious despots have is when they have convinced the people that to rebel against them is not rebelling against their government but to their very religion, to rebel against Islam.

The old men in beards who issue fatwas allowing the Iranians or Taliban to carry out their actions know exactly what they are doing using Islam itself to create a defence around themselves.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

And here we have, in a neat little two sentence package, a clear and concise example demonstrating the dangers of religion when it's taken too far for the health of the mind and the capacity to actually think.

It literally almost breaks my heart. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, why would anyone ever stop using it?

your objection is against religious regime, but in fact it exist in Iran , what shall opponent do?

as well ,change the regime by using democratic weapons and democratic warplanes and liberal tanks?

but before doing that, a propaganda must take a place!


in dark ages Europe was suffering from relegious regime , however nearby islamic state was booming, they translated a diversity of sciences from ancient greek siences and indain sciences.
religious rgime in that time wasn't an obstacle then

 

[Starsoul]

Is there a "western" view to science?

The one that says 'religion is all ****.'

 

[Sahar]

But Iran as it currently stands is despotic. It's constantly under watch for human rights violations, including gender inequalities (such as women constantly being worth half that of a man in Diyya and testimony, inheriting much less than males from relatives, etc.), not wearing hijab is an arrestable offense, no freedom of press/media if it's deemed contrary to Islam...

Bahai faith is banned... irreligious rights are not recognized (they can't join Parliament for instance)... different punishments for non-Muslims and Muslims for the same crimes... apostasy is punishable by death (at least on the books)...

The Iranian government killed people in prisons in 1988 without trials (as many as 12,000!)... homosexuality is punishable by death or life imprisonment...

Iran practices internet censorship. It executes people under the age of 18 occasionally. It practices harsh punishments for minor crimes such as stoning or amputating hands and feet.

Yes, it is utterly despotic... a cesspool of primitive, disgusting barbarians with no respect for human dignity. (The government, not the people).

Aaaaaah!! This is your opinion. I'd like to know what Iranians think of all this. It's Iranians' decisions after all, not you.
Secondly there are things on your list that I might not disagree with and there are others that I may disagree with, just to let you know. And yes, we will go into countless heated arguments.

 

[Sahar]

the problem is though who exactly is defining the definition of sharia? Iran has its version, the Taliban has theirs, Saudis have theirs and according to them their not deviating at all.

You see to the Iranians who are hanging children from cranes they are not committing an injustice they are carrying out justice according to thier version of sharia. The greatest weapon religious despots have is when they have convinced the people that to rebel against them is not rebelling against their government but to their very religion, to rebel against Islam.

The old men in beards who issue fatwas allowing the Iranians or Taliban to carry out their actions know exactly what they are doing using Islam itself to create a defence around themselves.

Was Taliban or the King in KSA freely chosen by the people? (We know that people in Iran already agreed on the type of the governing system, maybe a section of the newer generations are a little dissatisfied with it.)
That's why the concept of representation of the public will and driving the government's legitimacy from the people is important. And if we talked about healthy political life, then there would be different political groups that have different directions on certain things but all work under the umbrella of Islamic Shari'a. So the people can freely choose the party they think would serve their interests. Secondly, the government is accountable. I said this earlier in the thread with a lot of emphasis.
There is nothing whatsoever called opposing the government means opposing Islam. I personally never heard any of these regimes on your list claimed this.

 

[Sahar]

The problem with any thread about Islam (it could be the same with any thread but I am more familiar with threads revolving around Islam and Muslims) that it take different directions. When I am focused on a certain aspect and topic, I find the thread has went into another direction and then I have to shift my focus to the other topic. To me, it's not easy to shift my focus like this and discuss all the variant topics at the same time. I don't know how you can discuss a variety of topics at the same time!! :rainbow1:

 

[Aquitaine]

As for secularism; colonization, slavery, racism, "world wars", the nuclear bombs, pollution, destructing and exhausting the planet, decline of the family, suicide and psychological disorders, spread of immorality and indecency and others are things that I usually take into my consideration before I describe secularism as being successful. The entire world payed a lot and thanks to the Western civilization.

How come you link all these factors in with Secularism, as if they were caused by it?

Do you know what Secularism actually is?

 

[kai]

Was Taliban or the King in KSA freely chosen by the people? (We know that people in Iran already agreed on the type of the governing system, maybe a section of the newer generations are a little dissatisfied with it.)
That's why the concept of representation of the public will and driving the government's legitimacy from the people is important. And if we talked about healthy political life, then there would be different political groups that have different directions on certain things but all work under the umbrella of Islamic Shari'a. So the people can freely choose the party they think would serve their interests. Secondly, the government is accountable. I said this earlier in the thread with a lot of emphasis.
There is nothing whatsoever called opposing the government means opposing Islam. I personally never heard any of these regimes on your list claimed this.

What i was thinking was maybe because a government says its administering sharia and scholars are issuing fatwas backing up this claim that its harder for a person who is just trying to be a good Muslim to think of opposing such a government.

 

[Meow Mix]

your objection is against religious regime, but in fact it exist in Iran , what shall opponent do?

as well ,change the regime by using democratic weapons and democratic warplanes and liberal tanks?

Definitely not, I'm against the war in Afghanistan/Iraq and certainly wouldn't be for any other wars (may they not happen!) to "spread democracy."

I may talk a lot of crap on Iran's leaders but I don't like America's leaders either, especially the administration that invaded Iraq and lied to us about the reasons to do so.