Moderate Muslims
Discussion
Is that meant to be reassuring trigger?
Just a nice light 100 lashes on a cool day, and only if 4 people see you being indecent. And false accusations of adultery or even gossiping will get the accuser 80 lashes so it's a 2 way street!
If he has studied the Koran as extensively as you say, and I am pretty sure he has, then I stand by everything I have said. It is an insane and dangerous political religion which needs to be brought into the modern world if it is to avoid a massive and horrible clash with civilisation.
Just a nice light 100 lashes on a cool day, and only if 4 people see you being indecent. And false accusations of adultery or even gossiping will get the accuser 80 lashes so it's a 2 way street!
If he has studied the Koran as extensively as you say, and I am pretty sure he has, then I stand by everything I have said. It is an insane and dangerous political religion which needs to be brought into the modern world if it is to avoid a massive and horrible clash with civilisation.
Well he doesn't mention stoning, that is true. Stoning isn't in the koran. He doesn't rule it out either.
What he does is talk clearly and eloquently about his opinion which he has clearly given a lot of thought to that 100 lashes is the appropriate penalty for public lewdness, subject to having 4 witnesses, because that's what it says in the koran, which he "knows" to be correct because of the gut feeling he gets from reading it. A feeling he assumes all humans would share.
In other words this is exactly the problem. It isn't a few loons out in the desert taking a iffy translations of obscure passages out of context and twisting them, but people who really do understand Islam and its teachings, read the koran very much in context and decide that it's a good idea here and now.
What he does is talk clearly and eloquently about his opinion which he has clearly given a lot of thought to that 100 lashes is the appropriate penalty for public lewdness, subject to having 4 witnesses, because that's what it says in the koran, which he "knows" to be correct because of the gut feeling he gets from reading it. A feeling he assumes all humans would share.
In other words this is exactly the problem. It isn't a few loons out in the desert taking a iffy translations of obscure passages out of context and twisting them, but people who really do understand Islam and its teachings, read the koran very much in context and decide that it's a good idea here and now.
BJG1 said:
If it makes you feel better I was friends with several Muslims at university. I am 100% certain all of them think stoning is always wrong, in any case
That's a high level of certainty. Did you ask them? If they think that then fine. There are Muslims who think this and many who I believe are conflicted about it, as the video above suggests. I don't see any Muslims on this thread saying it though and it seems to be something that is veru difficult for Muslims to say. So no that doesn't help.
The thing is they haven't. That's why I keep bringing it up. They've said they don't want to introduce it in the UK now. A nice concession. But as far as I have seen nobody has said that they, as a Muslim believe stoning to be always and everywhere wrong.
It's not about hatred but understanding what it is. I don't believe any rational western person could understand very much at all about Islam without having some very serious reservations about its increasing influence and the increasing fervour of its followers.
It's not about hatred but understanding what it is. I don't believe any rational western person could understand very much at all about Islam without having some very serious reservations about its increasing influence and the increasing fervour of its followers.
Pretty obviously "they" are all these nice peaceable Muslims everyone but me seems to know who are always and everywhere against stoning people to death.
I actually do know of certain Muslims who are against stoning, and they are very aware of the need to reform Islam, the danger that Islamism poses to the world and the failings of western policy in supporting the wrong people because of a refusal to understand what we are up against and a fear of being seen as racist or discriminatory.
I actually do know of certain Muslims who are against stoning, and they are very aware of the need to reform Islam, the danger that Islamism poses to the world and the failings of western policy in supporting the wrong people because of a refusal to understand what we are up against and a fear of being seen as racist or discriminatory.
Alpinestars said:
Perhaps someone could set one up for you. What would it look like?
I suppose the simplest way to do it would be 4 optionsMuslim and believe stoning is always wrong
Muslim and believe stoning is sometimes right
And the same for non Muslims
But the poll in itself wouldn't be that instructive. The interesting thing though would be the discussion about how being a Muslim who is always and everywhere against stoning squares this belief with believing in the other fundamental aspects of Islam.
BJG
You would have to ask a Christian but I would imagine something along the lines of "I don't take it that literally" or "these rules were given in a certain time and place and my understanding of the teachings of Christ favour equality and kindness and leave judgement to God."
Challo
It would give a starting point for a discussion of how Muslims can arrive at this opinion, which will help the rest of us identify truly moderate, reformist Muslims from the potential radicals.
As things stand I get the impression that a large proportion of the 5% and rising of our population who are Muslim think that in the right conditions it's perfectly OK to stone someone to death for their sexual activities. And I find that a bit of a problem.
What are the positive aspects of Islam?
I did mention some a while ago. The trouble is they all carry huge caveats.
They have a very highly developed system of scholarship which studies and debates the texts in extraordinary detail. Yet all 4 major schools of Sunni jurisprudence and the major Shia ones agree with the violent supremacist aspects.
They have the doctrine that you can't compel someone to follow religion. You can make it bloody uncomfortable not to though.
They have a system whereby they can coexist with people of other religions. But that depends on others agreeing to second class status and living by Islamic laws anyway.
The koran enshrines certain limits on the worst excesses of violence against women. Those excesses are pretty far across the line of what most of the rest of us would consider barbaric.
The vast majority of Muslims have no desire to slaughter infidels or live in repressive backwards societies. But this puts them on a direct collision course with their religion when taken seriously.
There are positive aspects to Islam and the western world is completely oblivious to them as well as the negative aspects because it doesn't want to see them. It wants a "religion of peace" with nice food and a simple explanation of what we did wrong this time to make those poor people so angry with us. It's not that simple.
You would have to ask a Christian but I would imagine something along the lines of "I don't take it that literally" or "these rules were given in a certain time and place and my understanding of the teachings of Christ favour equality and kindness and leave judgement to God."
Challo
It would give a starting point for a discussion of how Muslims can arrive at this opinion, which will help the rest of us identify truly moderate, reformist Muslims from the potential radicals.
As things stand I get the impression that a large proportion of the 5% and rising of our population who are Muslim think that in the right conditions it's perfectly OK to stone someone to death for their sexual activities. And I find that a bit of a problem.
What are the positive aspects of Islam?
I did mention some a while ago. The trouble is they all carry huge caveats.
They have a very highly developed system of scholarship which studies and debates the texts in extraordinary detail. Yet all 4 major schools of Sunni jurisprudence and the major Shia ones agree with the violent supremacist aspects.
They have the doctrine that you can't compel someone to follow religion. You can make it bloody uncomfortable not to though.
They have a system whereby they can coexist with people of other religions. But that depends on others agreeing to second class status and living by Islamic laws anyway.
The koran enshrines certain limits on the worst excesses of violence against women. Those excesses are pretty far across the line of what most of the rest of us would consider barbaric.
The vast majority of Muslims have no desire to slaughter infidels or live in repressive backwards societies. But this puts them on a direct collision course with their religion when taken seriously.
There are positive aspects to Islam and the western world is completely oblivious to them as well as the negative aspects because it doesn't want to see them. It wants a "religion of peace" with nice food and a simple explanation of what we did wrong this time to make those poor people so angry with us. It's not that simple.
I have had those conversations stewie, and it comes back to this need to reform.
I can't get iplayer here but will trt to look it up elsewhere.
I am odd. A bit obsessive by nature.
BJG
You're too late for the racist thing. That's been done to death. Anyway if my only motivation for saying all this is a mask for racism is the point invalid?
True nobody needs to justify anything to me but when people are so very ready to condemn any criticism of Islam you wouldn't think it would be any great leap to condemn stoning people to death.
I can't get iplayer here but will trt to look it up elsewhere.
I am odd. A bit obsessive by nature.
BJG
You're too late for the racist thing. That's been done to death. Anyway if my only motivation for saying all this is a mask for racism is the point invalid?
True nobody needs to justify anything to me but when people are so very ready to condemn any criticism of Islam you wouldn't think it would be any great leap to condemn stoning people to death.
To clarify the "5% and growing" is the approximate proportion of the British population which is Muslim not the proportion of Muslims who believe in stoning.
Zod
As far as I can tell that link says exactly what I have said. Stoning is deeply ingrained in Islamic jurisprudence and in mainstream understandings of Islam.
They appear to take the position that this is wrong anyway which opens up the possibility that other well established aspects of Islam are indeed problematic in the modern world. This points towards a newer and more flexible understanding of Islam. Did I mention that this is something I am very much in favour of?
Would be interested on your thoughts on that link Trigger?
Zod
As far as I can tell that link says exactly what I have said. Stoning is deeply ingrained in Islamic jurisprudence and in mainstream understandings of Islam.
They appear to take the position that this is wrong anyway which opens up the possibility that other well established aspects of Islam are indeed problematic in the modern world. This points towards a newer and more flexible understanding of Islam. Did I mention that this is something I am very much in favour of?
Would be interested on your thoughts on that link Trigger?
Zod said:
The truth is that you have no wish to know about Muslims who condemn violence. It doesn't fit your immutable view of the world
And this is truly back to front.The whole point of this thread was about making this distinction. The one that Cameron completely failed to make before the first Syria vote where he was essentially in favour of using the British military to support Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. It gave us a sharia constitution in Iraq. And it turned Libya from an opportunity for reform into a civil war.
We're systematically ignoring the non-violent, reformist Muslims (I've named a few) because their message is uncomfortable and does not conform to our view. Instead we are listening to those telling us what we want to hear, and shout it loudest.
Here is another group of genuine reformists who are very unambiguous in their rejection of political Islam and violence
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7009/muslim-refo...
If they would listen to people like Jasser as much as they listen to organisations like CAIR, essentially an MB front with documented links to Hamas, which seems to have the ear of the Obama administration.
Muslims are people. I don't think I've said all Muslims are anything, think anything or do anything. I have talked about Islam as a belief system, which in fact quite the opposite to homogenous has been studied by many different schools and debated extensively throughout it's history.
The problem is all too often it has found excuses for violence, supremacism and subjugation in there. This is for the simple reason that it is right there in the core text the koran, which is pretty much universal across all sects of Islam.
But no I don't think all Muslims are bad people. I think their belief system is bad and needs to be reformed if it's to peacefully coexist with the rest of the world.
But that is something for Muslims to do.
My main gripe is really that the west is approaching the problem of radical Islam in such a stupid way that we're making the problem worse not better, and harming ourselves and our own societies in the process.
We're backing the wrong groups. Opposing the wrong governments. Listening to the wrong 'moderates' and generally being manipulated by the very worst of Muslims, at the expense of of genuine reformers and the vast majority of ordinary people born into Muslim societies who just want to get on with their lives.
We're ending up this way because we refuse to understand it and we're scared to discuss it and we really, really wish it wasn't happening. But it is.
The problem is all too often it has found excuses for violence, supremacism and subjugation in there. This is for the simple reason that it is right there in the core text the koran, which is pretty much universal across all sects of Islam.
But no I don't think all Muslims are bad people. I think their belief system is bad and needs to be reformed if it's to peacefully coexist with the rest of the world.
But that is something for Muslims to do.
My main gripe is really that the west is approaching the problem of radical Islam in such a stupid way that we're making the problem worse not better, and harming ourselves and our own societies in the process.
We're backing the wrong groups. Opposing the wrong governments. Listening to the wrong 'moderates' and generally being manipulated by the very worst of Muslims, at the expense of of genuine reformers and the vast majority of ordinary people born into Muslim societies who just want to get on with their lives.
We're ending up this way because we refuse to understand it and we're scared to discuss it and we really, really wish it wasn't happening. But it is.
Zod
There's nothing there that I would disagree with. The site appears to be written by people who genuinely believe that stoning is wrong regardless of what it says in the texts. What's your point with this?
Challo
What does anyone ever achieve by talking on the politics subsection of a motoring site? I find it a very interesting subject and I believe it's a very important subject.
The main point about moderate Muslims is that not all who profess to be are. It seems like a bit more knowledge would be very useful in knowing what is what.
There's nothing there that I would disagree with. The site appears to be written by people who genuinely believe that stoning is wrong regardless of what it says in the texts. What's your point with this?
Challo
What does anyone ever achieve by talking on the politics subsection of a motoring site? I find it a very interesting subject and I believe it's a very important subject.
The main point about moderate Muslims is that not all who profess to be are. It seems like a bit more knowledge would be very useful in knowing what is what.
It does.
Is stoning a tenet of “Islamic” law?
Stoning is a highly debated issue among Muslim religious clerics, and there is no consensus within the global Muslim community over the validity of the practice as “Islamic Law.” Although there is no mention of stoning in the Quran, many Muslim clerics cite instances in the Hadith, the acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, when discussing the legitimacy of the practice of stoning in Islam. Although the Quran (Surah al-Nur 24:2-9) only stipulates 100 lashes for adultery, the Prophet Muhammad reportedly had a number of men and women stoned in his time, which is taken as evidence for those who argue for the codifying of this punishment as Shariah, or Islamic Law.
They then go on to say why they don't believe in stoning from an Islamic point of view, which seems plausible to me.
So good. They appear to be genuine reformists and I wish them well. I also wish we would back and listen to more groups like that and be a bit less naïve with groups like the MCB or the Syrian opposition who are Islamists with good PR.
Is stoning a tenet of “Islamic” law?
Stoning is a highly debated issue among Muslim religious clerics, and there is no consensus within the global Muslim community over the validity of the practice as “Islamic Law.” Although there is no mention of stoning in the Quran, many Muslim clerics cite instances in the Hadith, the acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, when discussing the legitimacy of the practice of stoning in Islam. Although the Quran (Surah al-Nur 24:2-9) only stipulates 100 lashes for adultery, the Prophet Muhammad reportedly had a number of men and women stoned in his time, which is taken as evidence for those who argue for the codifying of this punishment as Shariah, or Islamic Law.
They then go on to say why they don't believe in stoning from an Islamic point of view, which seems plausible to me.
So good. They appear to be genuine reformists and I wish them well. I also wish we would back and listen to more groups like that and be a bit less naïve with groups like the MCB or the Syrian opposition who are Islamists with good PR.
Edited by AJS- on Monday 11th January 11:32
Well, apart from the fact that Trigger alone has said that he believes stoning is wrong, and a couple of weeks ago he thought it was just a matter of time and place.
But let's move on anyway as this is getting a bit tired. If you don't think that's the right way to separate the potentially violent radicals from the peaceful and moderate ones, then how do we identify people before they blow something up or kill people?
Or is identifying it early the wrong approach entirely?
One thing that would seem to make sense is a sort of counter organisation to the MCB. An umbrella organisation for Muslim groups, charities etc which expressly reject political Islam and hudud punishments. But again that has to come from Muslims.
But let's move on anyway as this is getting a bit tired. If you don't think that's the right way to separate the potentially violent radicals from the peaceful and moderate ones, then how do we identify people before they blow something up or kill people?
Or is identifying it early the wrong approach entirely?
One thing that would seem to make sense is a sort of counter organisation to the MCB. An umbrella organisation for Muslim groups, charities etc which expressly reject political Islam and hudud punishments. But again that has to come from Muslims.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff