Those exotic rankings

...............................................................
---------- Shiraz Bashir writes: ----------
"The 500 Most Influential Muslims"
Sorry Zulqarnain...
Your Zaid Hamid did not make it to the list. Zardari did along with Dr. Israr... Initial pages give good overview of various sects in Islam and some good summary of these influential leaders.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22854716/The-500-Most-Influential-Muslims
********************************************************

---------- Waqqas Akhtar replies: ----------
>> Criteria: "... people whose influence is derived from the practice of Islam or from the fact that they are Muslims ..."

And that is the list of "most influential muslims" they've managed to come up with? Right!
While some of these gentlemen are definitely respectable fellows, let's talk about the elephant in the room. Most influential, says who?
Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding? George-town university? Why don't we go and ask Vatican to "rank us" and then proudly distribute the ranking among ourselves? What happened to "questioning everything"?
"500 most Christianity-compatible Muslims" yes, "500 most pliable out there" maybe, but they're telling us that Zardari is "influential through parctice of Islam"? Who are they kidding?
Is this university trying to compete with Tora-Bora university?
********************************************************
 
---------- Usman Ali replies: ----------
>> "...or from the fact that they are Muslims..."
While I generally dont read much into these lists, still Sir Waqqas, I highlighted those words "Green" for you.
********************************************************
 
---------- Waqqas Akhtar replies: ----------
Thanx.
And you mean to convey ... ?
********************************************************
 
---------- Usman Ali replies: ----------
That Zardari bhai is on that list because of the fact that his passport lists him as Muslim and his current role makes him the Chief Commander of the forces of the only majority-Muslim nuclear country.
********************************************************
 
---------- Waqqas Akhtar replies: ----------
Well then, that kind of defeats the whole purpose of such a ranking.
Think about it. Why is this George-town gang so knowingly* intent at misnaming this exercise? Zardari did not win more votes than Sharif because he is percieved to be more "Muslim", nor is his influence derived from "the practice of Islam" in any way, nor has it anything to do specifically with "the fact that he is a Muslim". He, like many others on this list, are in countries where Islam is the majority religion and they happen to be its subscribers.
Presenting these individuals as a list of "Muslims" while ranking them on all criteria BUT their being good (or poor) followers of teachings of Islam is the very intellectual dishonesty that I am pointing out. Why bunch these individuals up on a criteria that had no evaluated effect on their percieved influence? Go ahead call it "The 500 most influential kings / rulers / politicians / landlords ..." and we won't mind.
In this context, the term "influential Muslims" is a mere marketing gimmick.
Example: "George W. Bush was among the most influential Christians of year 2004." ... what good is that statement? What information does it bring?
[*] I said "knowingly", as I am *really* hoping that they know about Islam. If they don't, they better get to that first.
********************************************************
 
---------- Shiraz Bashir replies: ----------
So all these are not Muslim? Who has given you right to decide that? Are you God ?
Re, What does these rankings do
It tells user to find out who is who when it comes to discussion.
That's all to it. They are not going to come to you to make any decisions.
********************************************************
 
---------- Waqqas Akhtar replies: ----------
One: All three of your questions are squarely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I did not judge any of the individuals in there. They did.
Two: Your perception of what these lists are for is utterly personal, and is absolutely and only confined to you. What influence, perception and motivation others will derive from it will vary from person to person.
Three: Even if I take your version that "such a list tells a user to find out who is who when it comes to a discussion" and that it will not affect "making of decisions", this version is extremely self-negating. If a discussion is not to lead to a decision (through exchange of information and gaining of knowledge) what else is it for?
Four: Let's not push the discussion to inconsequential extremes. You're missing the question we should be asking: "How is the influence (or the lack of it) of these individuals "attached" to their being Muslims and where has this aspect been studied and evaluated?"
Unless that evaluation is carried out and included there-in, this is just another "fanboy" list with a fancy title coming from some George-town gang trying-out their Muslim-Christian understanding thing (as stated in the preamble).
********************************************************

---------- Shiraz Bashir replies: ----------
Re, How is the influence (or the lack of it) of these individuals "attached" to their being Muslims and where has this aspect been studied and evaluated?"
I don't understand your question. You dont have yard stick to measure who is Muslims and who is not.
These all are Muslims. Their passport says that. They said shahada and believe in one God and essentials of Islam. Explain me by an example. What you think is top 5 influential Muslims? What criteria you want Georgetown University to use?
By the way it is well regarded University and has professors who know law and policy. So it would be great to ask this question directly to them and see what they say.
Re, My perception is personal. Of course it is. Just like your perception is personal about US. Dare I say based on conspiracy theories (like TTP is funded by CIA)
I use simple criteria about gauging influence of a Home Sapien* ruling a land where Muslims live. If I go to Saudia, King of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques exerts total influence in region called Saudia. So on so forth.
********************************************************

---------- Waqqas Akhtar replies: ----------
Oh com'on! that is like randomly spraying a discussion up with multiple disjointed assertions. Anyways, in the hopes that someone is actually reading it and learning something from it, I'm going to give it another shot. I'll try my finest to even give a reply to the ones not closely related to the discussion at hand.
1. As to explanation on why I find the bunching up of these people together under the category "Muslims" absurd, as I said earlier, go ahead call it "The 500 most influential kings / rulers / politicians / landlords / economists..." and it will amount to something. Presenting these individuals as a list of "Muslims" while ranking them on all criteria BUT their being good (or poor) followers of teachings of Islam is an implied intellectual dishonesty.
2. Yes, these all have declared themselves to be muslims and yes their passport says that. Nobody is counting if they're muslims or not. Nobody should be. Let me repeat: Nobody is required to rate Muslims just for being Muslims. Is it clear? Now, that we have gotten that out of the way, let's return to the real calibration question for this pseudo-list, i.e. what effect does their being Muslim has on their being so-called "influential"? And to what extent? And how does them being good followers of teachings of Islam (or otherwise) affect their being more or less influential? Where's all that study? If they had no study in that regard to put forth, then Georgetown gang, by using the word "Muslims" in the title is only deploying a marketing gimmick for this list of theirs in the hope that someone will bite and spread it around on forums and facebook and yahoogroups, etc. thereby giving these pseudo-intellectuals the status of deciders of who gets to be "role-model Muslim".
3. If it is a "well-regarded" university, it should continue doing that "well-regarded" stuff, whatever it is.
4. I don't see any point in asking them more and "seeing what they say". They had two hundred pages to say what they had to. Ranking criteria, study methodology, tests conducted, explanation to the choice of titles conferred, evaluation rationale all come as a basic requirement to carrying out any and all rankings. The fact that they've chosen not to share any of that in this fan-boy document, with the readers, is their "reply" to "what they have to say".
5. Any news, analysis, remarks and commentry where the letters, C and I and A appear do not automatically make it a conspiracy theory. Link: http://rt.com/v/2010-01-13/537574_cia-live-15-00.flv
6. The king of Saudi Arabia exerts influence in Saudi Arabia not because he is a muslim but because he is a king. George W. Bush was exerting influence in US not because he was a christian but because he was the President. As I asked earlier, how much sense would it make if some other "well-regarded" university, say Tora-Bora university, is to publish a list saying George W. Bush was among the most influential Christians of year 2004? What will that list accomplish? While a list of influential entrepreneurs or a list of influential physicists or a list of influential CEO's makes sense and serves some purpose for people who look up to them, since when have bundling up random people on the basis of faith become public service? And why would someone bite on that, and try to forward the missionary-zeal of a George-town gang to others around them, is completely beyond me.
********************************************************