From: "Malik Sezgin" <sezgin-AT-unternehmen.com>
Subject: Re: new world order
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:52:28 +0200


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Michael Eldred" <artefact-AT-t-online.de>
An: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. April 2003 17:52
Betreff: Re: new world order


> Cologne 10-Apr-2003
>
> Malcolm Riddoch schrieb  Thu, 10 Apr 2003 02:24:46 +0800:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 02:14  PM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:
> >

[ ... ]


Greetings from Germany,

Since there is often mention of Islam and Muslims recently on the list, I tought it might be interesting to hear some thoughts that come to a Muslim mind when reading some of the messages ...


> From the little I've read on the Middle East written by indigenous critics,
> the whole region seems to be a political-social basket case. The ferment of
> millions of young men without prospects of any sort of satisfying living
> under repressive regimes is a powder keg which is not just waiting to
> explode -- it is exploding and it can only get worse unless something starts
> pushing in the opposite direction. The caliphism inherent in Islam is
> antithetical to the establishment of civil society (a Western invention)
> which demands the secularization of religion.

In order to contribute to a better understanding of what is behind the thing called "calliphism" above (no critisism or irony is intended hereby) some aspects of the word khalif may be briefly touched here:

It is used by Allah in his book to describe the human beings purpose in general. Khalif is one who stands in his place in the abscence of the king. He is a guardian, keeper and administrator of goods. Man is Allahs khalif in the sense that he is the guardinan of His property (Eigentum, der gem=E4=DFere Name f=FCr das Seiende - see Beitraege). This goes in general for every human being as a potential to be realised.

Two moments highlighted from the life of the first khalif, Abu Bakr:

After the death of the Last Messenger, some of the Arab tribes refused to pay the Zakat, (one of the five pillars of Islam, a tax to be taken from the Muslims from their surplus riches - in the case of money when it has remained for a year in their possession without being put to use- by those in command in the name of Allah and to be distributed immediately, without any delay and storing up, among eight categories specified in the Book of Allah) claiming that the command to take it from the Muslims was specific to the Messenger and that the obligation ceased with his passing away. Abu Bakr insisted that the command was to those in command in general and said the famous words to the effect that he would "fight them if they were to refuse even a hobbling cord which they used to hand out to the Messenger".

>From this same man, we know that when he spoke about knowledge of the secret of the (divine) essence which the name Allah indicates, that he said words to the effect that "realisation of the incapacity to grasp is [itself] understanding"
(In the Arabic sentence _one_ word, daraka, is used to express realisation, grasping and understanding - for those who have some knowledge of Arabic: "Darku'l-Ajzi ani'l-Idraku Idrakun").


> The Islamic world itself needs
> to loosen up and try to revive its more admirable traditions of tolerance in
> which scholarship, culture and commerce flourished. (E.g. the main centres
> of Aristoteleanism a thousand years ago were places like Constantinople,
> Damascus, Cordoba, Baghdad.)

This is based on a saying of the Last Messenger of Allah, that wisdom is the lost property of the Muslim: he picks it up where he finds it.

I heard recently that Muslim philosophers always spoke of Aristoteles as "the first teacher" and as the second teacher they would mention al-Farabi.

Ibn Rushd, known as Averroes in the West, while he adhered to the supremacy of the shariat in any case, defended the position that the acquiering of the "Ancient Knowledges" (Greek Philosophy) was not just recommendable but obligatory for those with the capacity to reflect.

Mention of "revival" is a good opportunity for a few general remarks: in principle Islam is not a culture or a composition of traditions. It is the outline of the limits of sound human behaviour (see Beitraege on die Bahnen des Da-seins) while its nature is not that of a grid but rather that of cornerstones indicating limits. However, human beings live in traditions which can be and are derived from Islam, but they are always to be checked against the basic principles. Where this is neglected you find that traditions become the substitute for the law and are turned into taboos. Traditions have always to do with and are shaped by the local and epochal circumstances which ever change, hence -and this fulfills the demand formulated above- the necessity to always refer back to the original phenomenon (Medinapolis at the time of the Last Messenger and the three generations after him) and readjust the own situation.


> Jews, Christians and Moslems got on pretty well
> with each other under Islamic rule at that time.

Any Muslim would double and triple underline the part "under Islamic rule" in the sentence above and comment that that was the secret to that well-along-with-each-other.


> Can a tie still be woven
> today between the more praiseworthy Islamic traditions and imported Western
> civil rights (including individual rights for women)?

On a far deeper level there is a tie which awaits to be highlighted. Two brief hints:

According to Muhyiddin ibn Arabi, one of the greatest gnostics among the Muslims, shariat and "philosophy" are from the same source, the Divine. In one of his books he says: "One category is called wise policy which He put in the nature of the selves of the great people. They prescribed limits and set down laws by a power which they find in themselves in each city, direction and climate, according to what the disposition of that area and their tempers demand by their knowledge of what wisdom accords. By that means the property of people and their blood, family, kin and relations is preserved. They call them laws (nawamis) which means "causes of good" since in technical usage, the Namus is that which brings good.
The nawamis are laws of wisdom which men of intellect set down which originate from Allah's inspiration while they are not aware of that. They are meant for the benefit of the world, its order and connection in places which do not have a Divine Shariat sent down nor knowledge of the One setting down these laws."

We can see here the use of the word "Namus" (plural: Nawamis) as law which is the Arabic pronunciation of the Greek "Nomos". The same word is also mentioned in a report by his wife about the first revelation to the Last Messenger: After the first revelation he was worried that people could make fun of him and what he was entrusted with. In order to support him, his wife suggested to visit an uncle of her who was a knowledgeable man who knew the history of the people before and also the Thora and the Bible. When the Last Messenger reported about what had happened the old man said among other things: "This is the Namus that came to Moses before."


> The rise of repressive Wahhabism, or the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
> through its own despotism (the sultans were often busy murdering their own
> relatives) and inability to face the challenge of Western technology are
> failings which come from within Islamic civilization.

If you are intending to say by the above, "It is the Muslims fault" - that's acceptable to a degree. But to say "that something like repressive Wahhabism could rise" (and claim to be Islam) "is the proof that Islam is a failiure" would be a bit simplistic. I would never say things like "because Americans bombed Hiroshima I am not going to read Aristotele or Plato".

Repressive Wahhabism is something which we have been warned of by the Last Messenger himself (among many other things to come). They certainly would not have had that effect we now know of if they had not been immensly backed by those who had an interest in the downfall of Islamic rule. In fact, wherever you find a deviant sect among Muslims in the last two centuries you find also a supporting hand behind them which had an interest in the weakening of Islam.

The collapse of the Ottoman Reich was certainly not simply due to "its own despotism" - despotism was certainly not inherent to it. There are many examples of peoples on the Balkans inviting the Ottomans to come and take over since they knew that rule according Islamic law would ensure them with the freedoms they lacked.

The matter of the killing of princes is a (sad) matter having to do with a very specific historical interpretation of the laws pertaining to personal rule and the preservation of it to prevent civil chaos. The practice was abolished by Sultan Abdulhamid II. who ironically till this day is presented as the symbol of so-called "Ottoman despotism".

Rather, the downfall of the Ottoman Reich began with the introduction of paper-money over and against gold and silver bi-metal currency, a public debt which came along with interest and an institution for the regulation of that debt and also with conditions for the granting of debts such as abolishment of significant parts of the shariat as the first results of a new current called the "Tanzimat-i Hayriyye", the "Beneficial Reforms".

As for the "inability to face the challange of Western technology": a closer examination of the development of "Western" technology in its 'modern' form (the last three centuries) reveals the parallel evolving of financial powers practising usury which also overcame the traditional rule in Europe (see for example the development of the railroads in Europe and the people involved in the financing of the projects and the financial instruments used). In that sense, I would not necessarly speak of "Western" technology but of "usurious technology". (Greetings to all ecologists at this point - usury kills the whales, not the Japanese, or: spare the person, name the vice).

As hinted above: Islam is not a civilisation or a culture. It is a filter for those or a soil for them to rise from. One should always carefully discriminate between the basic principles of Islam and whatever Muslims in a given situation do.


> The blame for the
> rotten state of the Islamic world today cannot solely or ultimately be
> attributed to Western colonial powers.

True - worse are those hypocrites and half-baked intellectuals among the Muslims without whom nothimg could have been achieved. Examine any of the troublemakers among Muslims today: the Wahhabis, the Taliban, the (so arrogantly self-titled) "Muslim Brotherhood" and so on, and you will find that they can be traced back to some hypocrite or an ignorant pooh-poohed by the opponents of Islam (e.g. the relation between Muhammad Abduh of Egypt and Lord Cromer of England.)

However, they could do what they did because of an ever increasing ignorance among the Muslim masses. Can you imagine that when Napoleon arrived in Egypt, he claimed that he and his company were the true Muslims who had come for revival - and the people believed him! Allah says in his book: "Allah certainly does not change the state of a people unless they change what is in themselves."

On the other hand, in accord with Allahs words to the Muslims in His book, "And if you turn away, He will bring forth another people [who will take on Islam] , and they will not be like you", more and more "Westerners" (sorry about this horrible word used here for brevity) become Muslims. You would be surprised to know how many of the parents of the many Muhammeds mentioned by Rene in a recent message, -not only in Holland, but all over Europe, and as I hear occassionally, also in the Americas- have at least one parent who is a European (or American) Muslim. Further, the number of those with both parents European (or American) is incrasing every year.

In this respect, it will be interesting to watch what will happen when the dust of the recent war settles and the soldiers and the simple people, now free to speak about Allah, come closer. A sincere Muslim may have many faults and shortcomings but he is certain that he is bearing the truth in him - this is his pride. And this is a visible thing which does not need words to come across and strike. It may be that look in the eyes of that little girl or boy in the street on the way home or the old man with the curved back coming out of the local mosque after the morning prayer before sunrise ...


> > Ultimately my opposition is
> > founded in a notion of a possible distinction between good and evil
> > within the horizon of death, if you must know. I have this vague idea
> > forming about a fundamental ontological ground for morality, related to
> > temporality and dissolution. As far as I know this has nothing to do
> > with notions of private property and the distribution of wealth...
> > maybe you could enlighten me?
>
> I don't know if there's a connection. But I do think that there is an
> ontological question residing in the question of a capitalist-democratic
> world-game. A more old-fashioned terminology for this is the bourgeois form
> of society. Form here has to be understood ontologically as _eidos_. The
> human individual is not only a fundamental ontological phenomenon
> (investigated, say, by SuZ in concepts such as Jemeinigkeit), but also a
> socio-ontological phenomenon pertaining to social relations, i.e. to how
> people living in society have intercourse with each other. Social
> individuality on this level requires the private individual and hence a
> private sphere depriving society access. An essential condition for this is
> private property, i.e. that the individual can set up the usages and
> practices of everyday life with his/her own useful things as s/he likes.
>
> Private property goes along with the social relation of commodity exchange
> on markets. Individuals sociate with each other in exchanging, which by
> convenience becomes money-mediated. Such cash-nexus societies allow
> remarkable degrees of freedom in the configuration of everyday life.
>
> As far as I can see, the capitalist-democratic world-game as a social form
> allows diverse cultural ways of living. Sure there are many severe
> shortcomings in any capitalist-democratic society, and social and political
> struggle is a constant feature, but at least the form allows struggle and
> movement. It also allows for the play of self-interest, a virtuous feature
> which should not be underestimated. The capitalist-democratic social form
> also has to be compared with alternatives, the most obvious probably still
> being socialism (if we leave aside Islamic theocracy).

We may leave aside not only a so-called "Islamic", but any kind of theocracy. However, there will be soon no way around _Islam itself_. Perhaps it is now the time to look deeper into the absolute prohibition of usury by Allah in his book. The Muslims are the only people who still point to this destructive element which is to human social intercourse, which is at the base, as correctly observed in principle, commodity exchange and the use of money, as is poison to the human body. Aristotele speaks of it I was told, in his Politics, right at the beginning in book one. Christians used to condemn it until Reformation.

Questions like 'what is money?', 'what can be used as money what can be not?', 'what is the purpose of money and when is this purpose overstepped?', 'what is a market and what are the rules pertaining to it?', 'What is trade, what a usurious transaction?', 'what is the relation between equity in trade, and justice?' to mention a few, need to be addressed.

The legal definition of money in the shariat is: _any_  *_merchandise_*  _commonly accepted_ in a given market, i.e. a tangible commodity, itself valuable. Not that monopolised, imposed symbolic paper stuff of today (except viewed as paper) or bits on some storage device (except the storage device itself is offered). Precious metals have been used throughout history as money because of their characteristic to last. This quality of lasting (Best=E4ndigkeit) has a deep connection with value.  It is one of the legal obligations of the khalif to ensure the integrity of the currency, the weights and measures.

Once I listened to a European Muslim scholar on this subject speaking before a non-muslim audience and he mentioned that the people known today as economists were called "The Sect" at the turn of the 19th/20th century. He also recommended to his audience to read the canto called "Usura" by Ezra Pound in order to get a feeling of what damage usury causes.


Sincerely,
Malik Sezgin

HTML VERSION: