When we hear that Muslims are anti-democracy we always assume totalitarian fascism as the alternative. Here is a Texan Muslim explaining anti-democracy. Abu Abdullah (Abu Hamza's sidekick) always painted a picture of kaffir's and christian's living happily under Islamic rule before. He said that sometimes christians prefered Islamic rule. He spoke of a "Zacca" system of taxation which you pay once a year which allows you to practice your own ways and exempts you from war.
I would like to film more of how Muslims think this utopian Islamic ideology would work in the 21st century as we don't have it explained to us properly.
In my own experience, much as genuine Islamists would like Allah to be in control I fear that any sort of power corupts those that weild it and attitudes to this corruption make a lot of difference. For example in India, and other places in the third world where bribery is a way of life you can usually get on with what you want to do as long as you involve yourself in this corruption.
In Goa all the restaurants and the bigger time drug dealers pay a percentage to the local mafia. The Police can spoil this sometimes, but only to a point, and only with new tourists. In the valley we were staying in the local mafia guy who used to ride past us on his shiny new enfield told me that the previous year they had tied the police up and left them in a ditch full of shit all night because they busted the same house twice. We smoked chillum openly on the balcony in Chapora while Police busted almost every Israeli in trendier Anjuna.
In the UK sensible Police turn a blind eye sometimes, and in London those of us who don't see eye to eye with the law are luckier than most, yet the Police and media rarely deal with the corruption of the rich.
In Pakistan, we get the impression that a lot of people would like to see homosexuals killed under Islamic law, yet in Peshawar I saw more gay people openly "hanging out" on the street than I do in London.
I don't know what to conclude here. A lot of gangster movies tell us that there is a morality in corruption. While I live in a society where some of my freedoms are at risk and I believe this to be corupt, I have to rely a bit on the morality of corrupt people and I find a certain level of corruption to be beneficial. I'm not against it.
When the Vikings sailed up the Thames they were wary of Londoners because they assumed that anyone who didn't live off the land was corrupt. I can understand the logic behind this.
5 comments:
Interesting point, finely nuanced.
Such a film would be compelling.
Us-and-themism is a predominant form of fear-based societal shortcomings. Human nature is what it is, and tribalism is natural in all its varied forms, but why don't we learn from our mistakes? That's what bends my mind.
As long as God, or Allah, or whatever, is seen as "out there" and not "in here, out there, and everywhere" there are going to be power-trippers on the planet. And therein lies the generator of corruption.
Did I miss the point?
Dave it would be interesting to see how it would pan out in today's world. Historically in SE Asia, the last great Muslim rule ended with the mughal empire.
It ruled most of India and Pakistan in the 16th and 17th centuries. It consolidated Islam in South Asia, and spread Muslim (and particularly Persian) arts and culture as well as the faith. For much of their empire they allowed Hindus to reach senior government or military positions.
The Moghuls brought many changes to India:
Centralised government which brought together many smaller kingdoms
Delegated government with respect for human rights
Persian art and culture
Persian language mixed with Arabic and Hindi to create Urdu
Periods of great religious tolerance
A style of architecture (e.g. the Taj Mahal)
A system of education that took account of pupils' needs and culture
The Empire he founded was a sophisticated civilisation based on religious toleration. It was a mixture of Persian, Mongol and Indian culture. Under Babur, Hinduism was tolerated and new Hindu temples were built with his permission. Trade with the rest of the Islamic world, especially Persia and through Persia to Europe, was encouraged. The importance of slavery in the Empire diminished and peace was made with the Hindu kingdoms of Southern India. Babur's first act after conquering Delhi was to forbid the killing of cows because that was offensive to Hindus. Akbar (the 3rd emperor) worked hard to win over Hindu leaders. He thought all religions should be tolerated, and that a ruler's duty was to treat all believers equally, whatever their belief. He established a form of delegated government in which the provincial governors were personally responsible to him for the quality of government in their territory. He ended a tax (jizya) that had been imposed on non-Muslims. He allowed a large amount of autonomy to the provinces. For example, non-Muslims were not forced to obey Islamic law (as was the case in many Islamic lands), and Hindus were allowed to regulate themselves through their own law and institutions.
Akbar's son, Emperor Jahangir, readopted Islam as the state religion and continued the policy of religious toleration. Jahangir’s approach was typified by the development of Urdu as the official language of Empire. Urdu uses an Arabic script, but Persian vocabulary and Hindi grammatical structure [I love it cos its my mothers language :) ]. Aurangzeb was the last great Mughal Emperor. History's verdict on him depends on who's writing it; Muslim or Hindu. He was an observant and religious Muslim who ended the policy of religious tolerance, not longer allowed the Hindu community to live under their own laws and customs, but imposed Sharia law (Islamic law) over the whole empire. His extremism caused Mughal territory and creativity to dry up and the Empire went into decline. The Mughal Emperors that followed Aurangzeb effectively became British or French puppets. The last Mughal Emperor was deposed by the British in 1858.
but you know this already, right?!
fantastic. thanks for all that. I am a lazy researcherbut I knew a bit of that. This is why all the Muslims I have spoken to go misty eyed about the past Islamic empires.
As you say, I'm not sure how things would pan out now, but "Islamofascism" is neither the whole story nor the prefered option for the fundamentalists I have spoken to.
We can all be accused of nonsense by those who have different beliefs about society.
The main thing I get from listening to genuine Islamists who have grown up in the west is that they have more positive things to contribute to society than our media structure is letting on.
I find those that have enjoyed our "freedom" aren't the same as the Taliban, and even the Taliban weren't entirely an evil empire.
As I've said before I think its all about serious engagement with people. We always find our differences are not so different after all.
Dave- You are a born diplomat. I just watched the squatters clips and they just reinforced my opinion.
People making the big decisions should be convinced of the possibility of getting along. The system seems rigged, in the US anyway, to elevate the belicose.
Post a Comment