“Should god be de-radicalised?” A Secularism vs Political Theism debate

October 14, 2009

“Should god be de-radicalised?” A Secularism vs Political Theism debate (Part 1)

“Should god be de-radicalised?” A Secularism vs Political Theism debate (Part 2: Q/A)

Debate: “Should God be de-radicalised? – Religion and state in the modern world”

Date: 29 September 2009
Venue: Central London
Speakers: Bob Churchill of the British Humanist Society (www.humanism.org.uk ), and Abdullah al Andalusi of the Muslim Debate Initiative (www.thedebateinitiative.com ).

In the modern world, religion is seen as a relic of the past, as being unable to deal with contemporary problems, and at worst, being the cause of today’s afflictions and problems.

But is this accurate? Is religion the cause of modern day wars, social breakdown and global warming? Isn’t it rather the mass industry of materialistically-focused societies producing, and polluting, in mass quantities without regard to the ethical limits we find common in religion? Is public morality in decay due to the secularisation of society? Are wars about Oil and nationalism, rather than religion?but Lastly, can religion provide answers which are fundamentally lacking in Secularism?

Both sides of the debate, both ideological Secular Atheist and ideological Theist, debate the role religion should play in the 21st century in this intellectually stimulating discussion- Should God be de-radicalised?

Speakers:

Bob Churchill

Bob studied Philosophy at the University of Warwick and Queens University, Canada. He worked in communications and marketing, then systems development, before joining the British Humanist Association in January 2008 as the Membership and Web Manager. He now liaises with local humanist groups, manages membership communications, and has been responsible for the BHAs online presence during the Atheist Bus Campaign. He has represented the BHA on radio and television and has discussed philosophy, religion, values and Humanism in public debates and interfaith forums.

Abdullah al Andalusi

Abdullah is a former Christian who embraced Islam at a young age, and has studied Islam in depth since he was 18. He also has an academic background in Computer Science. Abdullah has had a long experience in working for Islamic revival and the establishment of Islamic shariah in the Muslim world.

His activities involve speaking at community centres, universities, colleges and appearances on various TV programmes. He is experienced in debates with Atheists, Secularists and Christians, and has be involved in public and radio debates with Atheists and Christians.


Answering an Athiest’s critique on Islamic movements

February 28, 2009

Response to an Atheist critique on Islamic Groups working for Khilafah

A Video Response to an atheist’s critique of Islamic Groups and the Islamic State (Khilafah). This video seeks to explain not only the cause of the group specifically mentioned: Hizb ul Tahrir, but all non-violent Islamic Groups in general who nobly work for the establishment of the Caliphate in the Muslim world. This work does not just represent the goals of these groups, but the aspirations of the enitre Muslim world for a better future, in this life and the next.

I strongly recommend all Muslims join and work with all (non-violent) Islamic groups working upon the method of the Prophet (saw), to re-establish the noble Khilafah and the Islamic world as an enlightened civilisation again.


The failure of freedom

February 12, 2009

chilhood_povertyThe image of children working in factories earning a pittance, having no education and in many cases having abusive parents has become synonymous with the third world. However an enquiry which took over three years to compile with the input of a number of independent experts turns this completely on his head and is a damning indictment of Britain.

The Good Childhood enquiry found that selfish adults damaged the lives of children and how family break-up, unprincipled advertising, too much competition in education and income inequality act as big contributory factors causing misery for children in Britain.
According to the panel, “excessive individualism” was to blame for many of the problems children faced, however the panellists then presented a set of shocking ineffectual policy proposals to improve he quality of family life experienced by children, they proposed:

a) a civil birth ceremony conducted by a registrar in which parents publicly accept the responsibilities of parenthood

b) free parenting classes available around the time of birth

c) free psychological and family support if relationships struggle

d) rules making it easier for parents to stay at home to rear their children

Britain is becoming a commonplace where mothers have left for holidays leaving children as young as 3 to fend for themselves. There have also been situation where mothers have gone to clubs or social events and have left young babies on their own, only for neighbours to have called the police due to the constant crying.
What sort of society has Britain turned into when the nations adults need civil birth ceremonies to ensure they accept their responsibilities as mothers and fathers.
Whilst Britain justified its part in the Iraq invasion of taking freedom to an oppressed people, the very same idea has created a scenario where adults view rearing children as an obstacle to enjoying a lifestyle which has become symbolised by excessive alcohol consumption, drugs and unrestricted sexual practices.
Britain has become a contradictory place. There is the scenario where more and more teens are having unplanned pregnancies making Britain the place with the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe. Then you have the opposite scenario which has caused Britain’s acute population problem of an aging population where many adults delay marriage or having children (currently more and more are having no children at all) in order to pursue that career, owning their own property or having that regular annual holiday.
Anyone who looks at this issue with the seriousness it deserves will realise that parenting classes or birth ceremonies will do little to halt the meltdown of the family. In capitalism individual freedom supersedes values such as responsibilities, accountability and loyalty which are all critical in building strong families. Is it little wonder that childhood is full of misery?


The Economic System of Islam, the alternative system for humanity

November 7, 2008

How do we organise the distribution of resources amongst a society? How do we eliminate poverty? How do we ensure justice yet progress at the same time in a society?

 

This Video introduces a review of Capitalism and Communism’s approach to these problems and introduces the Islamic alternative and answer to the Human Economic Problem.

This it The Islamic Economic System.

Part 1: The irrational basis of Capitalism and Communism and the deficiencies in their systems.

Part 2: The elucidation of the Islamic system.


Can Muslims Participate in Democracy?

November 3, 2008

 

Is Democracy a rationally based system that solves the problem of how man can justly resolve his affairs? Does man know better what is good for him? Do the ‘Democratic’ leaders of the world, truly have confidence in the ‘public will’? Is Democracy truly representative? Is it able to truly prevent ruling by a privileged elite? Does it not contradict the Islamic principle of legislative soveriegnty belongs soley to God (Allah)? Can Muslims participate in such a system? 

 

Abdullah al Andalusi presents a discussion on all these questions outside the oldest founding place of Democracy- the houses of parliament.

 
 
Part 1 – The rational critique against Democracy
 
 
 
 
Part 2 – The Islamic objection to Democracy
 
 
——————————————————————————–

 

 

Can Muslims participate in Democratic elections?


Does Freedom really exist? – The Fallacy of Western Ideals

August 15, 2008

Do people possess choice? What is choice? How do you define it? Is it having the capacity to decide between two different things? Or is it the availability of more than one different thing?

 

Free will is the ability to choose between different actions and beliefs.

 

But what motivates free will? What compels an individual to make a choice?

 

Interests which emanate from the human instincts compel the intellect to decide between different options- for the purpose of satisfying those interests (instincts).

 

Therefore, all decisions are based upon interests. Controlling someone’s interests will therefore control their decisions. Having a monopoly on the means of satisfaction, is having a monopoly on peoples decisions.

 

The sentence ‘’I had no choice’’ – does not mean the individual was denied alternatives, but rather, the alternatives available carried an ‘interest cost’ to themselves which they judged not as beneficial when compared with their primary interests.

 

When someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to give him your money, he did not physically compel your arms to go into your pockets and produce your wallet. Rather, he offered you a choice; one choice carrying an interest loss (losing your wallet) and the other, non-compliance, which carries another interest loss (death), usually it will depend the individual and circumstances, whether he makes one choice or the other.

 

Oppressive regimes do not take away choice; rather they compel people through threat of significant interest loss, should individuals not choose to comply. Some threats involve different interest losses than others.

 

These can range from denying luxuries and social interaction (prison), unpleasant physical experience (torture/beating) or just termination of one’s life (execution).

 

In the west, the conception of ‘freedom’ is merely an illusion, since humans possess free will in any given society. Rather, the structure of state control in the west is arranged differently then other countries. This difference manifests itself in how western society uses interests as a means of control.

 

Though the western states prevent extreme threats to interests, like punishment for murder, torture (well, to some extent) and execution (by threatening the same back in return). It does not prevent the causes of which motivate people to choose extreme actions against their fellow humans.

 

The reason is, because humans have more interests than the western philosophy caters for or protects. The right to family, intellect, adequate wealth and abode are neglected interests that form the naturally generated interests of man.

 

By restricting interests to only the legal right to pursue wealth, oppression is created, as only the wealthy (strong) can afford to attain (buy) and financially maintain (secure) these natural interests.

The weak that cannot attain these interests, neither secure them or maintain them; then they are placated with the slogan that they are ‘free’ to choose to attain these interests if the choice were made available to them!

 

The problem is that the reality is quite different, they may be free (in principle) to make a choice between alternatives, but they are not free if they are denied alternatives they cannot afford (like better health care for one!) but that which they need (as humans).

 

Western ‘liberty’ is merely a reactionary ideology against feudalism. Freedom to become wealthy (freedom of ownership) was a reaction against social barriers imposed on serfs.

 

Freedom of expression and belief and personal freedom was a reaction against church domination and control.

 

The American war of independence was against Britain because of Britain’s unfair (economic) interest control which was ‘against liberty’ – even though Britain was a well reknown libertarian state at that time!

 

Interests control decision

 

It is the absence of cost that determines whether a choice is free, not the absence of force. Any choice which carries a cost is not free – and ALL decisions are not free from a ‘cost’

 

Islam does not protect the right to choose everything, but rather it protects the ‘fountain of choices’; the natural interests of man (human nature). Islam prevents people from choosing against the natural interests of themselves and their fellows – which is the purpose of man – to worship his lord via fulfilling his natural interests in the manner ordained by God, because it pleases God.

 

Islam allows and facilitates man to pursue his true interests- worship and pleasure of Allah (swt), not material benefit for it’s own sake.

 

‘Masalaha’ (i.e. interest) in Islam is that which benefits the individual in the hereafter (the true enlightened self-interest!). Something done for the sake of this world, will not benefit the individual in the next life and therefore is considered against (Islamic) ‘maslaha’ even though the action may bring benefit to the individual in this life.

 

Let us choose to make a choice to worship Allah (swt), establish Islam on earth and take Islam as the way of life that forms the best alternative of mankind, in this life and the next.

 

Let us not sup from the false gods of western ideology, but rather worship the One God who sent us the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to liberate mankind and lead us into guidance by giving us a weighty burden- the Quran and the duty to implement Islam as individuals and as a unified Islamic State (khilafat ul Rasool).

He (Allah) has sent His messenger with the guidance and the true Deen, and will make it dominate all Deens, even though the mushrikeen detest it” (Quran 61:9)


Combating Secular Extremism

August 14, 2008

This article was written for a leaflet given out by Dawah carriers at the Secularist talk: ‘Combating Islamic extremism’ given by Tariq Ramadan, hosted by City Circle on 27th March 2006 at the London School of Economics.

Combating Secular Extremism

 

Whereas some people may ask “how do we combat Islamic extremism?” the first question that should be asked is “what is Islamic extremism and is it a bad thing?” This question must be asked, because the term ‘Islamic Extremism’ not only is attached to a negative preconception, but is used to refer to a reality and people which aren’t in truth ‘extreme’, this smacks of a prejudice unbefitting a society that believes that individuals and ideas are ‘innocent till proven guilty’.

 

Islam is a comprehensive way of life. It is an ideology that contains a specific viewpoint to life (the establishment of man’s purpose in life in the affairs of life) which forms an ideal and a basis for human society and whose solutions to human problems naturally and purposefully manifest themselves in the forms of Political, Economical, Ruling, Educational and Social systems as well as peoples universal rights.

 

If Islam is understood as such, then those who call for this way of life, comprehensively and ideologically and who reject systems built on the philosophic compromises between man’s life and his purpose in life (Secularism) and the ruling system of it- Democracy (a self-interest based selection by the majority- of a minority to rule the people), are actually in fact, being true to their beliefs and making a principled stand for them.

 

These people should not be labeled ‘extremists’ by a others who misunderstand them and their ideas but rather their should be labeled ‘Ideological’, like others who hold the ideology of Communism or Capitalism. Would it be fitting to call a Communist- an atheist extremist? (Because dialectical materialism and materialism is based on atheism) or would it be fitting to call a Capitalist- a Secular extremist?

 

These other ideologies propagate the comprehensive implementation of their core creeds and the rejection of others so why can’t the Muslims do the same?

The REAL problem is not the Muslims who stay true to their comprehensive way of life, it is the Muslims who have adopted Secularism and fused it with Islam using Islamic principles taken out of context, so that Islam becomes compatible with western ideology and restricted to merely being a religious set of beliefs with no further political impact locally or globally and Muslims integrate into artificial nationalities which sever them from considering the affairs of Muslims in other parts of the world.

 

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“He who wakes up in the morning and does not think of the affairs of the muslims is not one of us” (Sahih muslim)

 

These ideas are the real problem and Muslims should make their utmost efforts to intellectually combat them and those who champion them.

 

The Messenger of Allah (saw) also said,


من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو رد

‘Whoever brings something that is not from our affair (Islam), it is rejected.’ (Sahih Bukhari)


Islamic Talk: Secularism and Islam

August 10, 2008

Islamic Talk given in a Southall community centre on February 10th 2008.

Talk held in West London, discussing Secularism, it’s fruits, social and political effects and the mentality it creates in it’s adherents. This is then followed by a contrast with Islam and the Islamic system for Society.