Are Moslems in the Verge of the Enlightenment Era(2)?

It is worthwhile here to mention that the title refers to the European enlightenment period that followed a millennium of what was dubbed later as the dark ages or the medieval ages, which ended in the seventeenth century Europe, and started the modern age. The dark ages was the time when church and Byzantine emperors formed an alliance to subject politics, education, and arts to strict religious prospective.*
From Answers.com “European intellectual movement of the 17th – 18th century in which ideas concerning God, reason, nature, and man were blended into a worldview that inspired revolutionary developments in art, philosophy, and politics. Central to Enlightenment thought were the use and celebration of reason.” In other words; enlightenment period was mainly the period of criticism and reason applied to all aspects of knowledge in life, of which religion was no exception, “The search for a rational religion led to Deism; the more radical products of the application of reason to religion were skepticism, atheism, and materialism.” And as a result; the age of Renaissance that led to modern life bloomed, palpable in arts, sciences, as well as separation of church and state in social and political life, emanating the concept of diversity and religious tolerance in modern behavioral patterns . It is also worthwhile to mention that at the dark ages, knowledge was strictly controlled, and available to churchmen and clergy, and a lot of sciences were developed through them, including reformation of Christianity to meet modern demands. Some of which graduated from churches and produced modern secularized theories of psychology and ethics were John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. The age of reason also gave rise to some radical views of some philosophers like J. J. Rousseau and Voltaire. Now whether the reason for the emergence of that era a reaction to church bureaucracy or the Spanish inquisition is not important, what is important is the fact that change is inevitable.
Now if we compare that to what is the Islamic communities are facing today, we would not see much difference except in time and its pace, and all the accumulated change in modern life, considering the boom in technology and the availability of information. Criticizing Islam, for example, using rational arguments is on the rise by Moslem scholars; such as Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, and Amina Wadud, in addition to many others, even with the fact that such thoughts may lead to execution. Not only that; but serious Islamic reformers like Ahmad Subhi Mansour, a graduate of Alazhar suggested dismissing the tradition of Mohammad (Hadeath) and his Biography (Sira) and resorting to Koran alone. Mahmoud Mohamed Taha went as far as suggesting only Maki (or was it Madani?) verses from Koran, and had to pay his life for it. Institutions are formed, like Moslems Against Shria, which suggested removing violent verses from Koran. And violent verses that led to bloody acts of suicide bombers should not be ignored as a diversion in Moslem mentality (pro or against) and its effect in inducing doubt. Now whether those scholars are successful in their efforts or not is not the point, the main thing is to acknowledge that there is a momentum within the whole Islamic communities, not just in the Kuwait society, indicating that there is something wrong with the Islamic religion that hinders its acceptance in the modern world, and that eventually Moslem scholars have to agree to some sort of new oration, if they care for the safety of religion within its communities; no doubt that this will not be without a price. Islamic governments should resort to secularism, not imposing by force its religious diction on the masses, there is no other way out, and this argument is also on the rise.** We shall not forget the role that parents have to assume in dealing with the new generation, but this will be my subject in the coming post.
To be continued.

* for more information: Mysteries of the Middle Ages and the Beginning of the Modern World, by Thomas Cahill.

** check this:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1830wmv&ak=null

النسخه العربيه:٠

الجدير بالذكر هنا ان انوه ان المقصود بالتنوير في العنوان هو عهد التنوير الاوروبي و الذي تلي الف سنه من عهد الظلمات او عهدالقرون الوسطي و الذي انتهي باوربا بانتهاء القرن السابع عشر، و اعلن بدايه العهد الحديث. و كان عهد الظلمات عندما تعاهدت الكنيسه مع امبراطوريات العهد البيزنطي لفرض النظره الدينيه علي السياسه و التعليم و جميع الفنون٠

و من موقع انسورز دوت كوم ” الحركه الفكريه الاوربيه في القرن السابع و الثامن عشر و الخاصه بالله (كفكره) و الاستنتاج المنطقي، و الطبيعه، و انخراط الانسان بالنظره العالميه (للقيم) هو الذي اوحي الي الثوره التطويريه في الفنون و الفلسفه و السياسه. واصبح مركز التنوير هو التفكير المنطقي.” مما يعني ان عهد التنوير كان عهد النقد التحليلي و المنطق لكل مظاهر العلوم في الحياه، بما في ذلك الدين، ” البحث في دين منطقي ادي الي الرّبويه (الايمان بالله بغير الاعتقاد بديانات منزله)؛ و كانت النتيجه الاكثر رادكاليه لتطبيق المنطق في( تحليل) الدين هو الشك (او نظرياتها) و الالحاد و الماديه.” و كانت النتيجه الكليه بزوغ عهد البعث الجديد و الذي ادي الي الدوله العلمانيه الحديثه، و ظهر تأثيره علي الفن و العلم بالاظافه الي فصل الكنيسه عن الدوله في الحياه الاجتماعيه و السياسيه، مطلقا العنان لمفاهيم مثل احترام التعدديه و التعايش السلمي بين الاديان في السلوكيات البشريه الحديثه. و كذلك الجدير بالذكر هنا ان في سنوات الظلمات الاوربيه، كانت العلوم مقتصره و بصوره كبيره علي طلاب الدين التابعين للكنيسه، و ان الكثير من العلوم انما تطورت عن طريقهم، بما في ذلك تحديث الدين المسيحي ليتماشي مع مطالب الحياه الحديثه، و مثال علي من تخرج من هذه المدارس و ساهم في تطوير السيكلوجيه و القيم العلمانيه الحديثه هو جون لوك و ثوماس هوبس. و عهد المنطق ايضا ساهم في بروز نجم بعض الافكار الفلسفيه الراديكاليه كمثل (كتابات) ج.ج. روسو و فولتير. و لا يهم هنا ما اذا ما كان هذا العهد هو نتيجه او رد فعل لبيروقراطيه الكنيسه او محاكم التفتيش الاسبانيه، المهم ان التغيير امر لا مفر منه٠

و اذا قارنا ذلك لما يواجه العالم الاسلامي اليوم، فلا نجد فرقا كبيرا الا في الزمن و سرعته، و كذلك في كميه التغيرات المتراكمه بما يخص المعلومات و سهوله الحصول عليها في العهد الحديث. فالنقد المنطقي للدين الاسلامي، كمثال، جار علي قدم و ساق من قبل الكتاب الاسلاميين؛ من امثال عبداللهي احمد النعيم و امينه ودود بالاظافه الي الكثير من الاخرين. حتي لو كان ذلك يعني وضع حياتهم في خطر. و لم يقتصر الامر علي ذلك، بل ان التحديث طال مفكرين اسلاميين جادين من امثال خريج الازهر احمد صبحي منصور و الذي الغي جميع الكتب المتعلقه بالحديث و السيره و اكتفي بالقران. و محمود محمد طاه الذي اكتفي بالايات المكيه (او المدنيه) مما اودي بحياته. و كذلك ظهرت حديثا جمعيات مثل جمعيه مسلمين ضد الشريعه (الرابط موجود في النسخه الانجليزيه)، ينادون بإلغاء الايات التي تدعو الي العنف في القران. و لا يجب ان ننسي تآثير هذه الايات و التي ادت الي الحوادث الدمويه من قبل الانتحاريين الاسلاميين و مدي تآثير ذلك علي الفكر الاسلامي (بين معارض و مؤيد) و تآثيره في الشك بالدين. و ليس بالاهميه هنا ما إذا كانت هذه الحركات ناجحه ام لا، و لكن المهم ان نعترف ان هنالك زخم قوي لهذا التوجه في التغيير، و ذلك ليس مقتصرا علي الكويت و حسب، انما اثره واضح بين جميع المسلمين، مما يؤشر ان هنالك خطآ ما في الدين الاسلامي عند تعامله مع متطلبات الدوله الحديثه، و انه لابد ان يآتي اليوم الذي يضطر فيه علماء المسلمين الي الوصول الي خطاب جديد اذا كان حمايه الدين في مجتمعاتهم يعنيهم في شيء; و بالطبع لن يكون ذلك بغير ثمن. و الحكومات الاسلاميه لابد ان تخضع للعلمانيه، فلا مفر من ذلك، كما انه ملاحظ في الاونه الاخيره ان هذا المطلب اصبح متزايدا. و كذلك لا يجب ان ننسي دور الاباء في التعامل مع الجيل الجديد، و لكن ذلك سيكون موضوعنا في البوست القادم٠

An Update: This clip was sent to me by one of my dear readers, It’s solidifying the message I was trying to convey; thank you

Advertisements

50 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. blacklight
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 09:27:06

    Dearest Ayya
    Secularism was a spontaneous mental evolution at that era . with its implementation the civil communities which lasted until today were established.

    its really ironic when people in Kuwait say “We want a civil modern country but with Sharea` as the main legislative resource”.
    you cant mix ancient with modern you will end up with a hostile, vulnerable system that addresses individuals out of its control as fiends and enemies .

    Schools, ministries , democracy …etc were the trophies that they gained after defeating church , this doesn’t necessary mean that mosque is less harmful or dogmatic as today Muslims claim.

    when we will learn to respect others novel achievements and stop linking it to a mindless entity like Islam .

    Reply

  2. mozart
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 10:28:25

    أول وثيقه قانونيه مقاربه للدستور كانت يطلق عليها أسم الماجنا كارتا و تم تاسيسها في انجلترا في القرن الثالث عشر الميلادي , و بعدها انتظرت اوروبا قرابة 500 عام حتى اقتنعت بفصل الثيوقراطيه عن الوثيقة القانونية , فكم سيستغرقنا نحن ؟

    Reply

  3. kila_ma6goog
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 17:09:00

    شكرا على التوضيح

    منتظرين

    Reply

  4. AyyA
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 20:28:04

    Blacky dear
    It’s only a matter of time dear, Islamist subverted science to make believe that Koran is miraculous and infallible. There will come a time when they would do the same to civil laws. Actually it had already started; some believe that democracy is the essence of Islamic religion and Shoora is its proof, regardless of the vast difference between the two.

    Reply

  5. الشايب الكويتي
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 20:43:09

    اعتقد ان رحلة التنوير الجديده ستكون طويله ومؤلمه جدا

    Reply

  6. AyyA
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 20:48:43

    Mozart
    الدساتير العلمانيه وقتها كانت فكره، و الفكره قابله للنجاح او الفشل، اما اليوم فهي تجربه بشريه تحمل في طياتها عوامل النجاح و الفشل، و هنا الفرق٠
    اليوم من يعارضها و يشوهها هم الاسلاميون، و اكاد ان اجزم انهم فشلوا في مسعاهم لانهم يعتمدون علي اساس ضعيف و مزيف، حتي لو كان اتباعهم الكثيرون، فلا يمكن للغربال ان يحجب ضوء الشمس، و لا تنسي ان مفاهيم اليوم هي غير مفاهيم الامس، خذ كمثال؛ في القرون الوسطي كان من الامور العاديه ان يقف الممثل علي المسرح و يقطع رقبه قطه حيه و يصفق له الحاضرون بدون ان يشعروا بآي غضاضه. اما اليوم، فهذا العمل يعتبر من الامور المقززه و لا تستسيغه الجماهير، بل قد يعرض من يقترفها الي المحاكمه. ما اقصده هنا ان التغيير ات لا محاله و لكنه لن يكون بنفس المده، و لكن بالطبع لن يكون بغير ثمن٠

    Reply

  7. AyyA
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 20:52:14

    الشايب الحبيب
    هذا ما يخبئه المستقبل، و لا يمكن التكهن به و لكن ما يحدث الان صحي و طبيعي في نظري، و هذا ما حاولت ان ابينه في هذ البوست٠

    Reply

  8. AyyA
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 20:53:30

    KM
    Glad that you got the point 🙂

    Reply

  9. حمودي
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 23:30:35

    سؤال:
    كيف تقبلت الشعوب الاوروبيه المتدينه في فترة العصور الوسطى هذا التغيير الى العلمانيه ولماذا لم تثور لارضاء الله ؟
    يعني لو يتم تغيير جميع القوانين الكويتيه الى قوانين مدنيه علمانيه لن يتقبلها الشعب وستكون هناك ردة فعل فماذا حصل بال

    Reply

  10. حمودي
    Aug 12, 2008 @ 23:31:34

    فماذا حصل بالضبط للاوربيين ؟

    Reply

  11. شرقاوي
    Aug 13, 2008 @ 01:37:35

    فضول الإنسان الطبيعي، و حبه في معرفة المجهول سيؤدي حتماً إلى البحث في ذلك المجهول. و هذا تطور طبيعي. و هذه طبيعة الاشياء. وينطبق على الأوربي، و غير الأوربي.

    إنها مسألة وقت.

    هذا الفضول دفع بالأوربيين في الشك في تفسير الكنيسة الكاثوليكية للأشياء. و أتى النقد من جهات كثيرة. من داخل الكنيسة و خارجها : مارتن لوثر، جوردانو برونو، كوبرنيكوس، كلهم رهبان. (أحرقت الكنيسة حياً الراهب جوردانو برونو لأنه تجرأ و قال بأن الأرض تدور حول الشمس، على خلاف ما فسره علماء الدين الكاثوليك).

    و ساعدت الإستكشافاتالبحرية الأوربية في توسعة آفاق البحار. و فتح التلسكوب و المايكروسكوب أبواباً إلى عوالم لم يكن يدركها الإنسان. فقد كانت فوق معرفة رجال الكنيسة. و لم ترد لهم حتى بالأحلام.

    إنها مسألة وقت.
    ـــــــــــ
    أردت ان أضيف إسم علي عبد الرازق، أزهري ألف كتاب “الإسلام و أصول الحكم”، سنة 1925. سحب الأزهر شهادته، و منعه من التدريس. و تم سحب كتابه من المكتبات.

    Reply

  12. شرقاوي
    Aug 13, 2008 @ 02:50:06

    p.s. I can only download the audio. I can’t recognize the speakers. Is there a video copy? , or another URL? Thanks.

    Reply

  13. شرقاوي
    Aug 13, 2008 @ 03:29:42

    p.s. 2
    I found it. No need to publish the URL.

    🙂

    Reply

  14. AyyA
    Aug 13, 2008 @ 10:52:46

    حمودي
    بدايه حركه فصل الدين عن الدوله كانت دينيه قادها الراهب مارتن لوثر صاحب الحركه البروتستانيه، و كان ذلك بعد ان غزا العثمانيون علي القسطنطينيه و قتلوا امبراطورها و الذي كان يمثل اعلي رتبه في الكنيسه الشرقيه و عينوا بدلا منه و بنفس الرتبه شخص اخر تابع للدوله العثمانيه. اما الكنيسه الغربيه فلقد كانت في تناحر دائم بين الامبراطور و الكنيسه علي من يكون له الحكم الروحي الاعلي. و تلت بعدها قرون من فساد الكنيسه و ساءت سمعتها و خصوصا من الناحيه الجنسيه و الاخلاقيه و قابلها حركه متزايده من ظهور الفلاسه و المفكرين، و خصوصا بعد احتكاك الغرب بالعرب الذين لهم الفضل في ترجمه الكتب الفلسفيه الاغريقيه القديمه و اعاده احيائها بين المفكرين المسيحيين و اليهود، و كذلك انتشرت العلوم الطبيعيه في هذه الفتره، مما كان له الاثر الكبير علي توجيه الفكر الغربي الي العلمانيه لحمايه الدين و خصوصا بعد ان ضاقوا ذرعامن فساد رجال الدين و سلطتهم. و لم يكن الامر سهلا فلقد قضت اوربا قرونا في الثورات و الحروب للوصول الي ما وصلت اليه الان٠
    اما بالنسبه للكويت، او الدول الاسلاميه عموما، فبآعتقادي ان التشدد و الفساد من قبل رجال الدين هو كفيل بان يوقض الناس و لو بعد امد٠

    Reply

  15. AyyA
    Aug 13, 2008 @ 10:54:50

    شرقاوي
    شكرا علي الاضافه و اثراء النقاش
    ما استغني عنك
    😀

    Reply

  16. nusoul20
    Aug 13, 2008 @ 11:09:15

    growing up me and my friends would always question everything they taught us in “islamiya” class and we nagged about women being treated unfairly in islam. not only women but men as well. nothing ever felt right about those lessons, i couldn’t accept a God saying those verses. all muslim think of the Quran as a miracle, something a God could only say. and I thought differently! my friend thought it was written by “horny bedouin” i still didn’t get why;/

    anyhow, I wish your prediction is right. i can’t for that enlightnment era. enlightnment got me at 16, i hope it will catch muslims sooner.

    Reply

  17. Medusa
    Aug 13, 2008 @ 17:38:50

    With one exception, muslim countries do not have to reinvent the wheel, they are already governed by liberal constitutions that summarize the western experience with power struggles.

    Reply

  18. zainab
    Aug 14, 2008 @ 08:22:40

    i know this is a total change of subject, but i would appreciate it if u would tell what is it that made you change from being a muslim to what u r now? i mean the exact moment, incident, and reason if u may 🙂

    Reply

  19. AyyA
    Aug 15, 2008 @ 01:07:51

    Medusa
    I agree, only these constitutions are not fully secular, sharea has been squeezed in its articles. And here is the problem, sharea is a complete system that contradicts civil, secular laws; its insertion does not make any sense, and will cause problems and duality until it is taken completely out.

    Reply

  20. AyyA
    Aug 15, 2008 @ 01:59:16

    Zainab
    My personal experience with faith was not a product of a moment or an incident. It was rather a voyage. But I can tell you that what started it was the invasion of Kuwait. Before that I was like any other practicing Moslem, had my high times and my low time and never bothered to look deep into religion. I accepted everything I learned from school, parent and environment. Prayed at times, and stopped at others and felt guilty, and worked to compensate for it. Fasted like everyone else in Ramadan, and at the same time had my share in partying. The invasion shook my grounds, in a sense it made me feel that we Kuwaitis brought that to ourselves by not abiding to God’s laws, and as a result I became more religious. I promised God to do my duty, first by paying a pilgrimage to Haj and wearing the veil as soon as Kuwait was freed. More than three years passed in getting deeper into my religion. The reason for that varies, some personal problems that I thought I could solve by using Islamic teachings, as well as Moslems actions of terrorism in the world using holy scriptures. I went through the stage where I believed that Moslems defamed the religion, and Islam was not to blame. I depended on my search in Islamic books, especially Koran, Hadeath and Sira to strengthen my belief when I did not find answers to many questions from the clerics. And the more I searched the more I got disappointed. I resorted for a period of time to the fact that even the origional books, including Koran must have been tampered with, especially when I found that they contain many contradictions, and I got more interested in the Islamic history. I was still a practicing Moslem although I rejected the scripture, it was this period of my life that I became a Sufi, taking the scripture allegorically and not literally, even here I was not comfortable because I felt I was deceiving myself in make believe that Islam is the right religion, when I knew that, like other religions, it was calling for prejudice and not accepting others, and couldn’t ignore the fact that I was creating my own religion and calling it Islam. Then I went through a period when I started rejecting religion, but not God. I practiced mysticism my own way for getting closer to God, especially when I joined a group of Raja Yoga. This group contained many people, from different ethnic groups and backgrounds. What united them was belief in God. Even in this group I did not find what I was looking for when I realized that it carried some remnants of old Hindu and Buddhist supernatural beliefs. Here I distanced myself from the group and I started practicing what made sense to me and alone. It was also in this period that I started looking into Christian faith by reading the first bible. Half way through I discarded it for I felt that it was not much different than Koran, may be worse when it comes to supernatural beliefs. My belief in God was not shaken until I read Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene” which was my first proper introduction to evolution theory, and the gate through which I began to read other scientific books, mainly about this theory, and extended to others. My interest extended to philosophy books until I was convinced that it was me all this time that created God in my life, when He was never there. Now for the first time in my life everything makes sense, and I feel more stable.
    What bothers me the most is that I spent all my life deceiving myself, and raising my children on false belief, wishing that they’d forgive me one day for my ignorance.
    I hope that this long answer and brief recount of my voyage was sufficient.

    Reply

  21. zainab
    Aug 15, 2008 @ 06:31:23

    your answer was Satisfactory..thank you 🙂
    but i don’t agree with you on the evolution theory just becuz as you know scientes agreed that you can’t create anything from nothing or nothingness so from where did the first organisms come from? i mean the original one that then evolved, how was it created? from nothing?

    Reply

  22. AyyA
    Aug 15, 2008 @ 10:37:52

    Zainab
    Ok, now let me be honest with you, first; when you said, “how was it created?” you are imposing the creation element into the argument. With science you have to have your options open, and creation is not even considered as an option because science does not give absolute answers like religion, it gives explanations, and the theories that could provide empirical evidences and survive time prevail, yet other options remain open. Second; I don’t think that I understood your question correctly, if you mean how the first organism came into being and then evolved, then the answer, according to science, is matter, and matter has always been there, now if the question is ; how did matter come into being then the answer is: nobody knows. But it does not mean that we could assume creation or insert God into the equation as a default, then we’d be straying away from science and relying on theology. This is now more of a philosophical question than scientific, but that does not mean that scientific research should stop there, who knows what future holds.
    Here is a nice clip that shows how the primordial soup was formed from Cosmos demonstrated by the late astronaut Carl Sagan, I hope that it is of some help:

    And also the Cosmic Calendar:

    Reply

  23. Medusa
    Aug 15, 2008 @ 18:49:12

    Zainab, NO THING could be created from nothing because nothing is basically the absence of existence. Nothing basically does not exist.

    Science does not suggest that life or the cosmos started from nothing, that is a religious premise. If nothing cannot cause thing to exist then god for sure cannot create life or the cosmos from nothing!!

    How did god create us or the universe?! According to religious dogma from nothing.. again that is a religious premise not science.

    Reality is the totality of existence, every THING that is there, exists and is brought up by another entity that exists. Matter exist and has always been. NO THING could be create from nothing.. if you can create!!

    The problem with the existence of god is first the definition of god as a sky god who can create absolutely EVERY THING, but who cannot be measured or detected or varified not by sense or modern technology.. now or in the future.

    If he does exist the way we are told then he is irrelevent to existence.. because we can attribute causes and their effects to material entities that could be measured and detected.

    You can probably see the flaw in the existence of such a god or supernatural entities, we can simply not be able to deduce from reality.. reality would collapse in it selce because it means he is simply deceiving god to false ends where things are not the way they are, objective knowledge woud simply not be possible!!

    It basically means that all human acheivements are not true..

    You could simply be writing these words, or some supernatural being that u cannot detected.

    Like I said before human sciences are not aimed to lead to dead ends where we are shrodinger’s cat juggling between states of existence and none, but to objectivite reality that exists and is unique to itself.

    Reply

  24. zainab
    Aug 16, 2008 @ 05:41:26

    ayya
    you still haven’t convinced me, i mean it still doesn’t make any sense to me what so ever, i saw the clips and i got nothing, if those mulecules lived in water then from where did the water come from? and the mulecules as well? they were just there? something is missing :/ if all the creatures evolved from something then why don’t they evolve now..i mean why don’t monkeys evolve into humans anymore, and why didn’t we evolve into something else…why did the evolving process stop here? it is becuz only one of them evolves into another specie then the breeding process begines, they multiply and then one of this group also evolves and so on and so on? i know alot of questions but bare with me plz 🙂

    Reply

  25. zainab
    Aug 16, 2008 @ 06:46:29

    medusa
    when i was reading your comment it felt like walking in circles, my head was spinning.
    you said that “god” does not exist becuz he can’t be messured, detected, or verified, but in some religions thier god is a piece of clay, a figure, you can see it, feel it, and touch it, they even have a pocket sizes god that you can take everywhere, this is the god that they worship, so by the scientific rules and standards does that mean that thier gods exist? it is not a representation of thier gods, THEY ARE thier gods! i don’t understand :/
    another question , do you think or believe that humans have souls or would you rank it under “supernatural beliefs”?

    Reply

  26. you-sif
    Aug 16, 2008 @ 10:22:32

    هل المسلمين على مشارف عصر التنوير؟
    تساؤل يثير الاهتمام

    وأشكر جهدك على ترجمة كتاباتك

    الجواب : لا
    وذلك أن المسلمين على مر التاريخ مرت عليهم الكثير من الحركات التي تنادي ببعض التغييرات وأخرى تنادي بتغييرات جذرية
    والأمثلة كثيرة – المعتزلة – الحشاشون وغيرهم ولم يفلحوا
    ونحن اليوم نعيش ونشاهد الصراع الفكري بين الشرق والغرب
    الشرق الذي يريد أن يتمسك بما لديه من تراث وقيم ودين
    والغرب الذي دخل بين أيادينا بالعولمة وثورتها

    علما بأن المسلمين يراجعون تراثهم وأسلوب تعايشهم بين حين وآخر حتى ولو مرغمين ومثال ذلك رفضهم للديمقراطية في بادئ الأمر وقبولهم لها في النهاية والارتضاء لنتائجها

    إننا بعيدين كل البعد عن عصر التنوير الذي ذكرتيه كمثال والمقارنة غير موفقة بين الظروف الحالية وجميع الظروف التي أتت للأوربيين بما يسمى بعصر التنوير

    ثابتون على الدين الاسلامي الحق
    ولا نرتضي غيره
    وننادي ببعض التعديلات على أسلوب حياتنا وننتقد بعض الأفكار
    هذا عصر التنوير الذي ننشده

    Reply

  27. AyyA
    Aug 16, 2008 @ 13:48:19

    Dear Zainab
    Evolution is not a magician’s hat where you could tap it and a scarf changes to a rabbit, nor a monkey is changed into human being with just a snap at our fingers, that’s a very primitive way to perceive it, and thanks to our corrupt education system that enhanced such ignorance. Evolution took billions and billions of years, and that was the reason why I posted the link of the cosmos calendar where it shows that human beings only came recently into existence (here is another link for more clarification: http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/universe/itsawesome/cosmiccalendar/page2.html ) which is only moments according to the year-long cosmic calendar that started after the big bang. Evolution went through stages of mutation, copying (good and bad), natural selection, and organisms that had to die so others would emerge. Evolution does not say that Humans emerged from apes, but rather that all living organism came from the same origin; star dust. Why do you think scientists anticipate water on Mars? Because they are looking for the first building block, they need to search for human history and how it evolved. Evolution is happening around us in nature every day. We can’t ignore the factor of time, nor can ignore the environment, its changes and the effect it has on the organism; AIDS virus evolves to different forms from one environment to another, and that’s why it is hard to tackle, and so does bird’s flu. Forensic science may have never developed. Michael Shermer; A scientist and columnist for Scientific America, said in his book, “Why Darwin Matters” that “ what I discovered was that preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of scientific inquiry-geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, population genetics, biogeography, embryology, and others-all independently converge to the same conclusion: evolution happened.” Evolution is the bases of biology, without it science would be lame.
    Now it’s not my position here to prove to you evolution theory because I am not the one who invented it, nor it is my specialty. If you care to know about evolution go to its proper scientific sources. I can help you with a very good source if you don’t mind reading over 600 pages that illustrate how it happened and what was all the intermediaries, which is the best written about the subject, as far as I know is a book by Richard Dawkins and called “The Ancestor’s Tale” . Now whether you are convinced or not of evolution theory or relativity theory would not make Darwin or Einstein any less scientists, nor it would make their theories any less credible. Today almost 100 percent of American scientists acknowledge Evolution theory, although theologians have fought it fiercely ever since the publishing of Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species” and still are in courts. Not a single case won the argument simply because evolution is proving every day that it is a reality, and now we have DNA as a solid proof.
    I wrote about this subject sometime back, if you care to read, this is the link:
    https://3asal.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/evolution-verses-creationism/

    Reply

  28. AyyA
    Aug 16, 2008 @ 14:05:15

    you-sif
    المسآله ليست مسآله ما نود و ما نشتهي، المسآله و ما فيها توقعات حسب المعطيات. انا مثلك لا اعتقد ان صرعات التحديث علي الدين الاسلامي سوف تنجح علي اعتبار سقوطها في السابق، و لكن من يعلم ما يخبئه المستقبل؟ و لكني اكاد ان اجزم بآن المسلمين سيتقبلون العلمانيه، اي فصل الدين عن الدوله، مرغمين، مثلما تقبلوا الديمقراطيه، حتي و لو بعد حين. وضع البين-بين له نتائج خطيره و بالاخص علي الدين و لا يمكنه الاستمرار٠

    Reply

  29. شرقاوي
    Aug 16, 2008 @ 17:02:13

    من أساسيات التطور تأقلم الكائن الحي مع بيئته. فإن لم يتأقلم، فإنه ــ لا محالة ــ إلى الزوال.

    حريق في مستشفى الجهراء قبل أشهر أوضح لنا خللاً كبيراً في مقدرتنا على التعامل مع الحوادث . بين لنا بأن المباني الحكومية تفتقد أبسط قواعد الأمن و السلامة. لا العامل في المستشفى يعرف كيف يتصرف، و لا المريض. منافذ طوارئ مكدسة أمامها صناديق، و طفايات حريق لم يتم فحصها منذ أن تم افتتاح المستشفى. الممرضون و الممرضات هم أول من خرج من المدخل الرئيسي.

    زوارق خفر السواحل، الشهر الماضي، تبحث عن حداقة طبع طرادهم. وبعد أربع ساعات من البحث لم تتمكن الزوارق من العثور عليهم. علماً بأن الحداقة أخبروا خفر السواحل بموقعهم (خط طول، و خط عرض). البحرية الامريكية، بعد أن عرفت عن الحادث، تمكنت في أقل من ساعة من انتشالهم.

    متى آخر مرة شفنا السيارات تصفط ، بكل ذرابة، على جانب الطريق لتفسح الطريق لسيارة إسعاف أو مطافي؟

    كل هذا يحدث، و الحكومة تلمح، و الجرائد تفصل، من أشهر عديدة، عن احتمال وقوع حرب جديدة في الخليج، و أن الكويت تقع على خط المواجهة الاولية.

    هل نحن شعب يستطيع أن يتأقلم، من أجل البقاء؟

    شعب من هذه النوعية، غير قادر على مجابهة أبسط الامورلا يمكن أن يواكب ركب التقدم. و سيظل ينتمي لتلك الشعوب المتخلفة، على حافة الحياة. فالنفط الذي يتدفق اليوم، سينقطع في يوم ما.

    أنا لا أقول بأن سبب انقراض أمم عبر التاريخ تفسره نظرية النشوء و الإرتقاء. و لكني أحببت أن أوضح طريقة من الطرق التي قد ينقرض فيها إنسان.

    Reply

  30. AyyA
    Aug 16, 2008 @ 21:54:28

    شرقاوي
    هذه هي الفكره بالضبط وراء نظريه النشوء و الارتقاء، و انا اذهب ابعد من ذلك بآن الدين اذا لم يتآقلم مع معطيات زمنه فسوف يكون مصيره الانقراض، و اعتقد ان المسيحيين فهموا هذه النقطه و حافظوا علي دينهم تحت النظم العلمانيه٠

    Reply

  31. Medusa
    Aug 17, 2008 @ 00:02:48

    Zainab, this is exactly my problem with religions, some religions, some cultures, some people, all think their opinions change the subjective reality.

    What science says that none of these are gods unless you could varify their properties.. meaning.. the universe or life do not varify god’s exitence, but the existence of god is justified by the ‘fact’ that god did create the universe and/or life.

    We could very well label Every thing that exists as god, and figures, he exists. If the universe needs a god, then these stone figurines might as well be he. Completely arbitrary and equivocal.

    Soul.. hmm.. what is it exactly?!

    Reply

  32. zainab
    Aug 17, 2008 @ 06:30:03

    ayya
    i’ll never convince you and you’ll never convince me…you might see perfection but i see flaws and missing links if you know what i mean, i don’t know if you already got from my comments that i am a muslim and i do believe in allah , if you didn’t , well again i am a muslim 🙂 i wanna say that you are a knowledgabale and a well read person, and i just want to leave you with two thoughts don’t make religion pay for people’s miuse and misunderstanding of it, the other thought is i have a win..win situation, see if my beliefs are true then i will earn what i deserve i will go to heaven that is a guarantee ” according to islam” and if you are right then i have lived a fullfilling life ” according to my standards ;)” i’ll die, and if there’s nothing after death, no judgment, no nothing then it wouldn’t make a difference, i mean i will be dead i won’t think to myself “DAMN! i did all that for nothing :/” but you, you have a 50-50 chance ” no need to explain i guess”
    o and one more thing شيعة in english is spelled shia’a
    wish you all the best in what life has to offer 🙂

    Reply

  33. AyyA
    Aug 17, 2008 @ 08:05:56

    Zainab
    Sweetie; I don’t recall that the argument between us was about anyone convincing the other of his beliefs, you asked me some questions and I answered, that was all. I never intended to change your beliefs nor convert you. If that what you understood; then you must have misunderstood my motives. I didn’t do that to my own children for one, let alone a complete stranger, because I do not believe that someone would be willing to change his beliefs over a debate unless he’s ready. I do not care if you are a Moslem or a Christian or a Buddhist for that matter. You believe what you want to believe. As for the 50-50 argument, let me quote Andy Rooney, “ Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there’s a 90% probability you’ll get it wrong.” to explain more; if you add up all the religions in the world, then your probability of going to heaven is much less than 50%. But regardless; a person with faith would not account for such chances, faith means submission without logic or thought.
    And about the spelling; thank you, but that’s not what answers.com says:
    http://www.answers.com/shiite

    I wish you the best in whatever you believe, even if He was a flying spaghetti monster.

    Reply

  34. AyyA
    Aug 17, 2008 @ 22:33:51

    Nusoula20
    Sorry I did not see your comment before, my bad… 😦
    As for school classes of Islamiya; I also had doubts, and questioned my teachers, but at the end of the day, I always pushed those doubts away from my head, believing that human mind is too narrow to understand God’s laws, and that there’s always a good reason behind them, even if we did not understand them. That was what I was trained to believe, and may be that was the reason why I did not consider knowing my religion or researching it deeply. I commend you for reaching your own decision at such a young age, that would prevent many problems you’d face later in life, for religion is a way of life; a system clustered with rules you abide to, even when they make no sense. It forces you to accept slavery to yourself as a female, and you are internally forced to differentiate between your daughters and sons in the way you bring them up, ordering them to obey without answering their many questions, in fact at times I forbid them to question. Now that I think about it, I feel really sorry for those times where I could have been more of an understanding parent. But I guess the difference between us lies within the unavoidable change in generation, and that is the reason why I stayed a pious person for a much longer time.

    Reply

  35. Medusa
    Aug 18, 2008 @ 00:03:56

    Zainab just like you would never convince stone worshipers that their gods are false. I’m sure they will look down on your beliefs with equal ridicule! How could anyone have blind faith in a being so remote and detached from their very existence.. at least stones exist for a fact.. even with they do not possess super natural powers!!

    According to islam, according to christianity, according to hindu-ism.. why should I a neutral bystander hold any bias in favor or against religions over the other.. why is islam superior to krishna consciousness when they basically monotheistics.. and have similar moralities…this is yet another objection of religions.. they provide no objective knowledge, god exist because he exist, or god exist because holy scriptures claim it, or god exist because he talked to ancient prophets, or he does because there’s a void necessity for his existence… that evolution is incomplete is not a sign of wrongfulness..

    before you could make suck claim, one must understand what are the foundations of scientific method.

    There is not tie of the existence of life and/or universe to a supernatural being.. because science deals with the physical reality!! Spirituality is deeply rooted in human history, it’s not a sign of truthfulness.

    God exists simply for the subjective opinions of religions… according to islam, according to christian u will never be saved if u don’t accept jesus as ur only lord and savior who died on the cross!

    Basically ur word against theirs.. how do you know which one is true..?

    Truth has requires soundness.. soundness comes in two stages.. logical consistency then varified thru practical consistency..

    what is logical and consistent with reality is necessarily true.. Dead ends are an option. There’s only one reality.

    Reply

  36. ولاّدة
    Aug 19, 2008 @ 19:08:22

    سنعيش على أمل أن نشهد عصر التنوير صديقتي

    يقول الرصافي
    والزهر ينبته السحاب بمائه
    كالعلم ينبت غرسه التفكير
    أن كان هذا في الحدائق بهجةً
    يزهو فذلك في النهي تنوير

    بالمناسبة ..أعجبني رأيك حول مقالة الدعيج …كان بالضبط ما كنت أفكر فيه ولكني لم اكن في مزاج يسمح بالجدل مع الأصدقاء المدونيين المنفعلين

    بالكويتي : ما لي خلق دندرة
    مع أني في بعض الأحيان أبحث عنها بلهفة

    :*

    Reply

  37. الشايب الكويتي
    Aug 19, 2008 @ 20:00:03

    ايا صغيرتي … وين رايج عن مقال الدعيج ؟

    Reply

  38. AyyA
    Aug 19, 2008 @ 23:30:47

    Medusa
    Thanks for taking the time to clarify some points, I do appreciate it. :*

    Reply

  39. AyyA
    Aug 19, 2008 @ 23:36:50

    Princess love
    احلي شي عندما اصحي بالصباح و اجد لك تعليقا، او بوست جديد يا عديله الروح. و لا استغرب ان يكون رآيك من رآي، و انا ايضا ترددت قبل ان اكتب تعليقي علي مقال بو راكان، و لكني وجدت انه من واجبي علي الاقل ان ابين وجهه نظري الشخصيه حيث ان اسمي ذكر في مقاله٠ دمتي دائما اميره الحب الحالمه
    :*

    Reply

  40. AyyA
    Aug 20, 2008 @ 00:02:33

    الشايب الحبيب
    كما ذكرت في تعليقي السابق، لم اكن اود ان اعلق علي مقال بو راكان و ذلك لاني محبطه من الاوضاع في الكويت، و ليس لان المقال لم يعجبني. و كذلك استغربت من رده فعل بعض الزملاء المدونين و لذا تركت تعليق بسيط في مدونه بو جيج ابدي فيه راي المتواضع٠
    الطائفيه عزيزي مرض منتشر في الكويت، و كوننا كمدونين لا نريد ان نلوث انفسنا بها لا يلغي كونها موجوده، اما عن التصنيف فنحن مصنفون من اليوم الذي ولدنا به، و اصبح ذلك جزء من تعريفنا مع اننا لم نختاره، و هذا لا يعني بالطبع اني اتفق او غيري يتفق مع التصنيف فكريا، و لكني لا انكر انني ولدت في عائله شيعيه و اكن كل الحب و الاحترام لاهلي حتي لو كنت لا اتفق معهم. خذ عندك علي سبيل المثال، لدي صديق امريكي عندما عرف نفسه علي قال بانه لا يعتقد بالاديان مع انه ولد في عائله مسيحيه بروسبتيريان، و لم يقل مثلا عائله مسيحيه كاثوليك، و كل عائله لها توجهها الفكري و السياسي و الديني. و مع اني اكره التصنيفات، و لكن هذا هو الواقع و انا اتقبله (مجبرا اخاك لا بطل)، و كل ما فعله بو راكان انه وضع الامور علي الطاوله باعتقادي ليبين ان الشيعه (حسب الخلقه) ليسوا اقل من غيرهم وطنيه. فانت من الذين يتابعون مدونتي و لذا اسالك كم من مره رايت انتقاد شخصي لاذع لي و لعائلتي و اصلي بالتعليقات و اتهامي بعدم الوطنيه؟ او حتي في مدونه شروق؟ بصراحه، مع انها قلّت في الاونه الاخيره و لكنها موجوده، رضينا ذلك ام ابينا. اما عن ذكر الاسماء فكما ذكرت سابقا، نكون من السذاجه بمكان اذا كنا نعتقد اننا لم نكشف حتي الان، الكويت صغيره و الخبر ينتشر فيها كانتشار النار في الهشيم، و كل من ذكرهم بو راكان في مقاله اشخاص عرفوا من ايام نبيها خمسه، و لا اري اي داع لاعطاء الموضوع اكبر من حجمه، و سيظل بو راكان الاب العزيز الغالي و احترم رايه كما احترم حقه في ابداء رايه٠

    Reply

  41. AyyA
    Aug 20, 2008 @ 00:22:03

    الشايب الحبيب
    قرآت للتو الجزء الثاني من مقال بو راكان، و اعتقد انه كفي و وفي
    تحياتي لك

    Reply

  42. Broke Saudi
    Aug 20, 2008 @ 09:12:30

    I think we’re far from the enlightenment era. Maybe it depends on the circle you surround yourself with, but Muslims are threatened by new ideas. They’re quickly shot down, and anyone who doesn’t share that generic beleif system is socially shunned. You don’t have to go far in Saudi to find an example of that; look at how Shiites are looked upon here, and the ridiculous thing is that they’re Muslims too! I think our fault is that we interwined our faith too much with our culture, and that will prevent any movement of towards enlightment to take root. You can have your free-thinking artists, philosophers, poets, and scholars but that’s nothing when the vocal/powerful minority (or majority in this case) doesn’t support them.

    Reply

  43. الشايب الكويتي
    Aug 20, 2008 @ 14:46:15

    ويولوموني ب محبيتي لج ….شكرا على الرد الراقي سأظل متابع للابد

    Reply

  44. AyyA
    Aug 21, 2008 @ 05:09:01

    Broke Saudi
    I do agree with you about the rise of Islamic radicalism, not only in Saudi Arabia, but also in the regions in which SA spread Wahabism, through charity work around the world. All with the blessings of world Islamic organizations. SA today holds the soul of modernity; oil. And it can’t deal with modern world, when radicals forbid it. and it is obvious with some –somewhat- new laws, like allowing women to drive for example. Less than a year ago, “Pope Benedict XVI and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia clasped hands at the Vatican on Tuesday in the first meeting ever between a pope and the Saudi monarch, who is entrusted to protect Mecca, the birthplace of Mohammad and the center of the Islamic world.” a peace conference? Between Moslems, Christians, and Jews? read the rest here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/07vatican.html?ex=1352005200&en=0a458c8bc8237153&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
    Just few years back, this meeting would have been considered a miracle, so what happened now?
    Actually I’m not looking through a lens to each country’s internal affairs in which I based my judgment; rather, I perceive it from a much wider perspective; world perspective.

    Reply

  45. AyyA
    Aug 21, 2008 @ 05:13:02

    الشايب الحبيب
    :*

    Reply

  46. cheers
    Aug 28, 2008 @ 01:46:30

    Moslem and Enlightenment does just dont much full stop.

    Reply

  47. cheers
    Aug 28, 2008 @ 01:49:41

    Moslem and Enlightenment is a sintax by it self dear friend.

    Reply

  48. ayamaline
    Aug 29, 2008 @ 03:02:20

    “I wish you the best in whatever you believe, even if He was a ((flying spaghetti monster.))”.. Damn u Dawkins and ur silly lines.. soo not funny

    Reply

  49. AyyA
    Aug 29, 2008 @ 03:11:51

    ayamaline
    Don’t forget he’s my enlightener 😉

    Reply

  50. Yomn
    Sep 15, 2009 @ 03:06:07

    I haven’t read all of your replies but i have a comment:
    I don’t think this will happen – at least not in Egypt. On the contrary, there’s an overall trend to get back to religion and extract all of our potentials thence. Scholars like Amr Khaled, Mustafa Hosny, Karim El-Shazly and others have already gained massive popularity because they have found in BOTH Qura’an and Hadith the calls for development and knowledge. We CANNOT seek an ordinary enlightenment, because the conditions of the country are very unfavorable. Religion, however, helps many of us to keep on working and studying patiently and enthusiastically although we are little paid and appreciated by our governments. It provides us with faith. If we lose this, and jump into an illusion of enlightenment, I believe that suicide rates will be countless. Yes, we are moving into an enlightenment, but a different one. We cling to our religion, the same religion that brought us atop of the world when we clung to it centuries ago. It was at that time that the Europeans drunk from OUR wells of knowledge. Muslims scientists of the middle ages (and those were committed Muslim, memorizing the Qura’an and the Hadith even before their sciences) wrote books that were studied all over the world for centuries. The Europeans use ARABIC numerals until today; Algorithm is named after Al-Khawarezmy; Algebra is named after his book Al-Jabr wal Moqabala; Ibn Al-Haitham invented the first camera ever; and Muslim physicians taught the Europeans medicine when their Church forbid it. Islam does NOT hold us back. God says in the Qura’an “Only scientists truly fear God” and our Prophet said “Seek knowledge from cradle to grave”. These are only examples, and i can give u hundreds if u wish. But u’ll ask me “why then aren’t we developed now?” It is BECAUSE we do not take religion as we should. Ever since Muslim leaders got indulged into worldly interests, we sunk back, we fell for occupations, and religion was merely our soother. that’s why i’m saying that our enlightenment now lies in seeking POWER in religion, not parting with it.
    I really believe we will see better days, WITH religion along – God willing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: