Moderate Muslims
Discussion
Leading on from a couple of other threads, I thought this particular topic deserved addressing on it's own.
There's a lot of talk about 'moderate Muslims' but it seems very little definition of what this actually means. It surely is something worth discussing if we're to have any hope of identifying and tackling extremists before they kill people. Terrorism, supremacism and systematic violence don't just come about from a few nutty outliers, they thrive in a culture of resentment and with a strong ideological underpinning. Islam appears to be providing both of these in abundance.
So what makes a moderate? And what makes an extremist?
As I see it, being truly moderate means a supporting secular laws over Islamic law. It means unequivocally rejecting hudud punishments such as stoning and beheading. It means actively accepting that people can criticise and lampoon your religion, and violence is never an acceptable response.
Especially interested to hear from Muslims on how this. Are these things difficult for a Muslim to support? Does this debate happen within Muslim communities? Are there shades of radicalism or do you see it as a switch which becomes violence when flicked? Is there a fine line between piety and radicalism? Or are they different things completely?
There's a lot of talk about 'moderate Muslims' but it seems very little definition of what this actually means. It surely is something worth discussing if we're to have any hope of identifying and tackling extremists before they kill people. Terrorism, supremacism and systematic violence don't just come about from a few nutty outliers, they thrive in a culture of resentment and with a strong ideological underpinning. Islam appears to be providing both of these in abundance.
So what makes a moderate? And what makes an extremist?
As I see it, being truly moderate means a supporting secular laws over Islamic law. It means unequivocally rejecting hudud punishments such as stoning and beheading. It means actively accepting that people can criticise and lampoon your religion, and violence is never an acceptable response.
Especially interested to hear from Muslims on how this. Are these things difficult for a Muslim to support? Does this debate happen within Muslim communities? Are there shades of radicalism or do you see it as a switch which becomes violence when flicked? Is there a fine line between piety and radicalism? Or are they different things completely?
Similarly, how do we identify law abiding citizens so that we may then identify and tackle criminals or those that may become criminals? Perhaps everyone should be assumed to be criminals until they prove they are not, but since they might pass the test today but later change maybe internment for everybody is the answer?
Fantastic article here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/0...
Talks to some people really in the know, including a few familiar names, and discusses just this issue.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/0...
Talks to some people really in the know, including a few familiar names, and discusses just this issue.
pork911 said:
Similarly, how do we identify law abiding citizens so that we may then identify and tackle criminals or those that may become criminals? Perhaps everyone should be assumed to be criminals until they prove they are not, but since they might pass the test today but later change maybe internment for everybody is the answer?
Also - what defines a "criminal"? For example would it be hypocritical to break some laws (and then whinge about scameras etc) yet ask for the Wrath of God to be visited on people who break others?
Pork911
There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
AJS- said:
Leading on from a couple of other threads, I thought this particular topic deserved addressing on it's own.
There's a lot of talk about 'moderate Muslims' but it seems very little definition of what this actually means. It surely is something worth discussing if we're to have any hope of identifying and tackling extremists before they kill people. Terrorism, supremacism and systematic violence don't just come about from a few nutty outliers, they thrive in a culture of resentment and with a strong ideological underpinning. Islam appears to be providing both of these in abundance.
So what makes a moderate? And what makes an extremist?
As I see it, being truly moderate means a supporting secular laws over Islamic law. It means unequivocally rejecting hudud punishments such as stoning and beheading. It means actively accepting that people can criticise and lampoon your religion, and violence is never an acceptable response.
Especially interested to hear from Muslims on how this. Are these things difficult for a Muslim to support? Does this debate happen within Muslim communities? Are there shades of radicalism or do you see it as a switch which becomes violence when flicked? Is there a fine line between piety and radicalism? Or are they different things completely?
I personally dont like using the labels "moderate" and "extremist" as I dont believe these nutbags are even following their own religion. I also believe that we as humans can not judge anyone else. This view is shared by those I consider Piety also, its a "live and let live" mentality shared by the majority of muslims across the world. Just like most other religions you are judged by god when you die and will be punished accordingly. If you have heard the message/punishments it is entirely up to you after that and you cant be forced to act in a certain way. Examples in this can be found in the quran where prophets are warning their people of wrongdoings and their consequences and are not going around beheading people when they are not listening;There's a lot of talk about 'moderate Muslims' but it seems very little definition of what this actually means. It surely is something worth discussing if we're to have any hope of identifying and tackling extremists before they kill people. Terrorism, supremacism and systematic violence don't just come about from a few nutty outliers, they thrive in a culture of resentment and with a strong ideological underpinning. Islam appears to be providing both of these in abundance.
So what makes a moderate? And what makes an extremist?
As I see it, being truly moderate means a supporting secular laws over Islamic law. It means unequivocally rejecting hudud punishments such as stoning and beheading. It means actively accepting that people can criticise and lampoon your religion, and violence is never an acceptable response.
Especially interested to hear from Muslims on how this. Are these things difficult for a Muslim to support? Does this debate happen within Muslim communities? Are there shades of radicalism or do you see it as a switch which becomes violence when flicked? Is there a fine line between piety and radicalism? Or are they different things completely?
Prophet Ibrahim/Abraham : Stop Idolaters
Prophet Lut/Lot : Stop Sodomy and other homo stuff
Prophet Nuh/Noah : Stop being t
ts (Generally stop murdering and thieving)Prophet Hud : Stop idolaters again and elitism
Prophets Jacob/Yakub and Yusuf/Joseph : Stop jealousy/envy
Prophet Moses/Musa: Stop dude with a God complex oppressing people
Plus many more...
Remember these people are believed to be the best of mankind, they spread the message and then explained the consequences to people. We are taught that these are our role-models. They didn't go around kidnapping people and then chopping each others fricken heads off. How anyone can read the WHOLE Quran/Bible and then come to that conclusion somehow I have no idea.
Radicalism always stems from the lack of knowledge and education in Islam. Those who are radicalised/radicalising like to stick to certain parts of the Quran which are taken out of context. When the whole thing is read it is clear to anyone with more than a brain cell how these are to be interpreted.
My Background: British Active Muslim, born and raised, went through first 12/14 (I forget) years reading the quran after school in a mosque as most muslims have/are doing. Take religion seriously pray 5 times a day and never touched alcohol/pork.
Edited by triggerh4ppy on Monday 21st December 09:36
for me a moderate muslim is any muslims that are generally law abiding and do not go around committing acts of terrorism . i.e , the vast majority of them .they can thinks as many bad thoughts as they like, thinking bad things is not illegal. there are large groups of people in the world that i have lots of nasty thoughts about,paedos, politicians ,climate scientists etc etc. as long as i do not actually act upon those thoughts i see no problem with that.
Interesting trigger, thanks for replying.
Regarding the 'taken out of context' line I'm always a bit dubious of this. The Koran seems to be very well studied by scholars and Imams, and from what I have read of it, as the direct word of God, I don't see what context can really be added. So even where the Koran itself is peaceful the practice of it across all the major denominations is anything but.
Freely confess that most (not all) of what I have read about it has been pointed out by people generally not favourable to Islam.
Conversely I have quite often found that those defending Islam are keen on taking bits out of context.
It seems to be taken out of context and twisted in a remarkably similar way across time and place.
What context am I missing for instance with 9:29:
Regarding the 'taken out of context' line I'm always a bit dubious of this. The Koran seems to be very well studied by scholars and Imams, and from what I have read of it, as the direct word of God, I don't see what context can really be added. So even where the Koran itself is peaceful the practice of it across all the major denominations is anything but.
Freely confess that most (not all) of what I have read about it has been pointed out by people generally not favourable to Islam.
Conversely I have quite often found that those defending Islam are keen on taking bits out of context.
It seems to be taken out of context and twisted in a remarkably similar way across time and place.
What context am I missing for instance with 9:29:
Koran 9:29 said:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Genuine question and please don't take it as overly confrontational. I would like to hear alternative views.AJS- said:
Pork911
There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
Ah I see, you compare a moderate muslim to a low level criminal who must be stopped now before their criminality becomes more serious.There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
AJS- said:
It seems to be taken out of context and twisted in a remarkably similar way across time and place.
What context am I missing for instance with 9:29:
The context you're missing, I guess, is that you can find something along the lines of "death to the unbeliever" in virtually all religious texts. Most religious people don't tend to go around killing though. What context am I missing for instance with 9:29:
Koran 9:29 said:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Genuine question and please don't take it as overly confrontational. I would like to hear alternative views.pork911 said:
AJS- said:
Pork911
There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
Ah I see, you compare a moderate muslim to a low level criminal who must be stopped now before their criminality becomes more serious.There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
I somewhat agree with Trigger that 'moderate' isn't necessarily the best term, but I struggle to think of a better one.
However in the sense that as far as I can tell Islam at it's core believes in an Islamic system of government and sees violence as a legitimate way of bringing this about, those who take a spiritual and cultural message from Islam without actually doing this could be viewed as 'moderates' in exactly the way you describe. Secular Muslims would be a preferable term, but I don't believe it would be as accurate because in my understanding supporting a secular system of government requires a significant departure from traditional Islamic teachings.
Dan
I don't know of any command in the bible so unambiguously calling for violence towards and subjugation of non-believers, nor does the bible claim to be in its entirety the revealed word of God, nor does it have a tradition of being interpreted as such to the same degree Islam does.
AJS- said:
Interesting trigger, thanks for replying.
Regarding the 'taken out of context' line I'm always a bit dubious of this. The Koran seems to be very well studied by scholars and Imams, and from what I have read of it, as the direct word of God, I don't see what context can really be added. So even where the Koran itself is peaceful the practice of it across all the major denominations is anything but.
Freely confess that most (not all) of what I have read about it has been pointed out by people generally not favourable to Islam.
Conversely I have quite often found that those defending Islam are keen on taking bits out of context.
It seems to be taken out of context and twisted in a remarkably similar way across time and place.
What context am I missing for instance with 9:29:
This was sent to Mohammed after him and his followers were persecuted for 13 years. Muslims spent 13 years in Makkah they were not allowed to put their hand on any of the non-Muslims there while they were tortured and obliged to leave their homes, entrapped and not allowed to have their essential needs, Some of these people were of very high statuses in their tribes and very rich so had the power to retaliate but they were told not to. Because god wanted to show them that they wont spread Islam by the power of the sword.Regarding the 'taken out of context' line I'm always a bit dubious of this. The Koran seems to be very well studied by scholars and Imams, and from what I have read of it, as the direct word of God, I don't see what context can really be added. So even where the Koran itself is peaceful the practice of it across all the major denominations is anything but.
Freely confess that most (not all) of what I have read about it has been pointed out by people generally not favourable to Islam.
Conversely I have quite often found that those defending Islam are keen on taking bits out of context.
It seems to be taken out of context and twisted in a remarkably similar way across time and place.
What context am I missing for instance with 9:29:
Koran 9:29 said:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Genuine question and please don't take it as overly confrontational. I would like to hear alternative views.“Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth, best who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” 16:125
Its good that you put the whole quote in as a lot of people stop before the "until the they give jizyah willingly while they are humbled". So Jizyah, although it sounds like a something you would do in your bedroom, is just a tax. This is telling the people you are now allowed to fight people (this has to be within guidelines set in the quran, which basically means no physical violence unless you are in a state of war, so if you were to try use this now only intellectual/argumentatively) until they WILLINGLY pay a tax to the state (which at the time was an islamic state). We dont live in a islamic state and there is no real islamic state after them time. So unless you have an islamic state you cant implement this tax, so you cant pick a part of the quote and then use that until you have an islamic state.
So from this
1) Fighting doesn't have to be physical (even though in this case I think it was).
2) They have to pay this tax WILLINGLY
3) This was a message for the prophet of the time to implement in his state after 13 years of persecution.. Dude, thats some self restraint, I would find it difficult not to want to be banging some heads together after 13 years of them slapping my people around. If after 13 years of persecution the only consequence was a tax on the oppressors after the war was over, thats sounds pretty peaceful to me. They were not allowed to be opressed and prisoners of war are meant to be treated really well in islam. You have a duty to cloth them and feed them and are also not allowed to separate them from their loved ones.
Have a read of this:
https://prophetrejectors.wordpress.com/929-at-taub...
and
http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining...
These guys are studied scholars/imams.
Also remember how we are taught to treat prisoners of war. "The prophet commanded them to be kind to their prisoners, so they used to put them before themselves when it came to food… This refers to the one who is detained, i.e., they would give food to these prisoners even though they themselves desired it and loved it.”
Edited by triggerh4ppy on Monday 21st December 10:32
That's true, but the command wasn't revealed specifically for that context only. Was it? It is eternal. It doesn't only say fight those who have oppressed you, it says fight the non-believers, and those who don't live by the laws of Allah. I believe you're reading a bit too much into 'willing' submission if the only alternative on offer is death.
The jizya (tax only on non-Muslim) was most definitely not restricted to 7th century Arabia. It was imposed throughout much of the Muslim world and the Ottoman Empire up until the 19th century when it was abolished under pressure from European powers. It was reintroduced in parts of Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood government briefly took power.
And I suppose the point with both of those things is not actually what's in the book but how it's been interpreted and applied for 1,400 years by Islamic scholars and Imams and the governments of Muslim majority countries, and how many would like to see them applied today.
The jizya (tax only on non-Muslim) was most definitely not restricted to 7th century Arabia. It was imposed throughout much of the Muslim world and the Ottoman Empire up until the 19th century when it was abolished under pressure from European powers. It was reintroduced in parts of Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood government briefly took power.
And I suppose the point with both of those things is not actually what's in the book but how it's been interpreted and applied for 1,400 years by Islamic scholars and Imams and the governments of Muslim majority countries, and how many would like to see them applied today.
AJS- said:
pork911 said:
AJS- said:
Pork911
There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
Ah I see, you compare a moderate muslim to a low level criminal who must be stopped now before their criminality becomes more serious.There's lots of ways in which parents, schools and people in general identify bad behaviour before it turns into seriously criminal behaviour. Identifying someone who drives after 2-3 pints and is probably basically quite safe is a way of stopping that same person having a skin full later and being a complete menace. Catching and punishing someone who steals a Mars bar is a way of stopping them going on to greater things.
I somewhat agree with Trigger that 'moderate' isn't necessarily the best term, but I struggle to think of a better one.
However in the sense that as far as I can tell Islam at it's core believes in an Islamic system of government and sees violence as a legitimate way of bringing this about, those who take a spiritual and cultural message from Islam without actually doing this could be viewed as 'moderates' in exactly the way you describe. Secular Muslims would be a preferable term, but I don't believe it would be as accurate because in my understanding supporting a secular system of government requires a significant departure from traditional Islamic teachings.
Dan
I don't know of any command in the bible so unambiguously calling for violence towards and subjugation of non-believers, nor does the bible claim to be in its entirety the revealed word of God, nor does it have a tradition of being interpreted as such to the same degree Islam does.
anyway, you're wedded to the idea that being a muslim is somehow incompatible with living in a secular country and are searching for a solution to that
the problem has nothing to do with anyone but yourself
BTW, regarding quoting the full passage, well noted.
I'm not posting this to try and make Islam look like an evil religion. I would be pleased to find that I'd actually missed something and this passage is over ruled by something later, but that doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can tell from anything I have read about it.
And to declare my own interest - raised vaguely Christian (christened CofE, prayers at school, never thought much of it) with some vague Jewish connections that never counted for anything in that religion. Now an atheist, and don't feel the need for any gods at all.
I did at one time find something quite attractive about Islam. A girl for one thing. I never really gave any serious thought to converting but I admired the devotion and the passion which many Muslims clearly have for their religion, in sharp contrast to the sort of perpetual self-doubt and tepid nature of most Christians in the west, epitomised by the Church of England.
A Muslim friend gave me a copy of the Koran, which I didn't read cover to cover but I did start reading. The early passages pre Hijra are indeed tolerant and peaceful, but other parts of it just struck me as being insane, gratuitous violence.
Reading more and more about it (obsession is probably a fair description) it strikes me that the most believable explanation for this is that the koran was cobbled together much later than any actual Mohammed, as Arab rulers, surprised by their own success at annexing swathes of the territories of Persia and Byzantium (who had destroyed themselves fighting each other) found they needed a religion to hold their new empire together, encompassing as it did Christians, Jews, ZoroAstrians and others; and drive future expansion. The product is a religion which is militant by design and by evolution.
I'm not posting this to try and make Islam look like an evil religion. I would be pleased to find that I'd actually missed something and this passage is over ruled by something later, but that doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can tell from anything I have read about it.
And to declare my own interest - raised vaguely Christian (christened CofE, prayers at school, never thought much of it) with some vague Jewish connections that never counted for anything in that religion. Now an atheist, and don't feel the need for any gods at all.
I did at one time find something quite attractive about Islam. A girl for one thing. I never really gave any serious thought to converting but I admired the devotion and the passion which many Muslims clearly have for their religion, in sharp contrast to the sort of perpetual self-doubt and tepid nature of most Christians in the west, epitomised by the Church of England.
A Muslim friend gave me a copy of the Koran, which I didn't read cover to cover but I did start reading. The early passages pre Hijra are indeed tolerant and peaceful, but other parts of it just struck me as being insane, gratuitous violence.
Reading more and more about it (obsession is probably a fair description) it strikes me that the most believable explanation for this is that the koran was cobbled together much later than any actual Mohammed, as Arab rulers, surprised by their own success at annexing swathes of the territories of Persia and Byzantium (who had destroyed themselves fighting each other) found they needed a religion to hold their new empire together, encompassing as it did Christians, Jews, ZoroAstrians and others; and drive future expansion. The product is a religion which is militant by design and by evolution.
pork911 said:
how did you not compare it to criminality?
anyway, you're wedded to the idea that being a muslim is somehow incompatible with living in a secular country and are searching for a solution to that
the problem has nothing to do with anyone but yourself
I'm not.I believe there are genuinely secular Muslims such as Maajid Nawaz and Dr Zuhdi Jasser who sincerely believe in liberal, open societies. I'm fairly convinced that Islam as a whole needs fundamental reform. anyway, you're wedded to the idea that being a muslim is somehow incompatible with living in a secular country and are searching for a solution to that
the problem has nothing to do with anyone but yourself
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff