Moderate Muslims
Discussion
Right,
Regarding to letter to al-Baghdadi, I don't find much encouraging here. The thrust of it seems to be they don't have much of a problem with what IS are doing, but rather how they're doing it. For example they don't reject the notion of a caliphate but make the claim that it requires universal consent of all Muslims. The very beginnings of the religion saw the split between the Sunni and Shia, deriving straight from a disagreement over who was the rightful successor to Mohammed. By this definition there was never any rightful Caliph. This is perhaps a Quranist viewpoint but certainly doesn't appear to be a mainstream one. It might be nice if this could become the case as it would enable large chunks of Islamic jurisprudence to be thrown out.
Why couldn't they simply say that they believe religion should be a private matter for individuals, not a matter for the state? If they in any way believe this.
Regarding hudud, they simply seem to be stating that you need to follow the correct procedures before stoning or beheading someone. As a non-Muslim I find it very easy to say that no procedures or standards of proof make stoning someone to death acceptable. Most Muslim countries don't actually act on this punishment. Why couldn't these 24 scholars have taken the opportunity to simply say it's now 2015 and we don't stone people to death because it's cruel and barbaric?
I don't believe those Islamic scholars actually think any such thing. They rightly reject IS's means of achieving an Islamic caliphate, but they don't reject the end itself.
Even that is fine in itself, believe what you want. My point is from a western perspective isn't it a good idea to be aware of the difference before deciding someone is a moderate?
It's not just some bizarre dispute in my head either. In 2013 David Cameron was all for bombing Assad and supporting the insurgency there. Now he has done a complete about turn and appears to want to support Assad. He claims there are an army of 70,000 moderates waiting for our help but how exactly are we identifying these moderates? What have we changed in the last couple of years to better enable us to do this?
Trigger
I am still struggling to find any definition of 'Children of Israel' which includes Mohammed. All seem to mean it only as the descendents of Jacob.
Voldemort
Even if I am racist (somehow, against some unspecified race) does that make me wrong?
Pork
No *you're* an idiot.
Berw
Why should attempting to understand and discuss Islam push Muslims towards extremism?
Regarding to letter to al-Baghdadi, I don't find much encouraging here. The thrust of it seems to be they don't have much of a problem with what IS are doing, but rather how they're doing it. For example they don't reject the notion of a caliphate but make the claim that it requires universal consent of all Muslims. The very beginnings of the religion saw the split between the Sunni and Shia, deriving straight from a disagreement over who was the rightful successor to Mohammed. By this definition there was never any rightful Caliph. This is perhaps a Quranist viewpoint but certainly doesn't appear to be a mainstream one. It might be nice if this could become the case as it would enable large chunks of Islamic jurisprudence to be thrown out.
Why couldn't they simply say that they believe religion should be a private matter for individuals, not a matter for the state? If they in any way believe this.
Regarding hudud, they simply seem to be stating that you need to follow the correct procedures before stoning or beheading someone. As a non-Muslim I find it very easy to say that no procedures or standards of proof make stoning someone to death acceptable. Most Muslim countries don't actually act on this punishment. Why couldn't these 24 scholars have taken the opportunity to simply say it's now 2015 and we don't stone people to death because it's cruel and barbaric?
I don't believe those Islamic scholars actually think any such thing. They rightly reject IS's means of achieving an Islamic caliphate, but they don't reject the end itself.
Even that is fine in itself, believe what you want. My point is from a western perspective isn't it a good idea to be aware of the difference before deciding someone is a moderate?
It's not just some bizarre dispute in my head either. In 2013 David Cameron was all for bombing Assad and supporting the insurgency there. Now he has done a complete about turn and appears to want to support Assad. He claims there are an army of 70,000 moderates waiting for our help but how exactly are we identifying these moderates? What have we changed in the last couple of years to better enable us to do this?
Trigger
I am still struggling to find any definition of 'Children of Israel' which includes Mohammed. All seem to mean it only as the descendents of Jacob.
Voldemort
Even if I am racist (somehow, against some unspecified race) does that make me wrong?
Pork
No *you're* an idiot.
Berw
Why should attempting to understand and discuss Islam push Muslims towards extremism?
Pork
What sort of response do you expect to simply saying everything I write is idiotic?
Trigger
From an outsider's perspective I would say that anyone who can say they are happy to live under secular laws as equals with people of other faiths or none, and anyone who would unequivocally say that there is no place for hudud punishments in the modern world is probably not a problem. This seems to be something than many self-described moderates have a problem with, and it is something that seems to be in conflict with the traditional understandings of Islam.
No offence taken, my understanding of Islam is limited but hopefully improving.
Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi gave himself that name. No doubt he is a proper lunatic, but I find it hard to believe his interpretation is entirely arbitrary and made up. It seems to fit too well with the core texts and it seems so attractive to many Muslims who go to join it. That's not to say they are living entirely by the core texts, they obviously skipped the bit about no compulsion in religion, and reject what I understand to be a direct command of treating the Yazidi as 'People of the Book' but none the less well founded in Islamic texts and history.
And it's not just IS. There are jihadist groups in Thailand, Nigeria, Somalia and many other places besides saying very similar things. They may all be doing an element of cherry picking and interpreting in their own way, but even if this is so it seems persistent enough to think that the texts and teachings lend themselves to this.
I similarly don't know a great deal about Hinduism. I know they had the awful custom of Suti, which I understand is all but gone save for a few incidents in remote areas.
I know a little about Sikhism and it seems to have an emphasis on equality and freedom o conscience at its core. Something I can't say for what I know of Islam.
I am married to a Buddhist so know a little more of that. I would say it tends to instill a sort of passivity and feeling of powerlessness over ones own destiny which isn't all that healthy. But they don't seem to go in for violence in any very consistent way or with much enthusiasm.
Yes there are raving lunatics of all these, and every other faith. There are atrocities carried out by people who believe their people/race/religion/country or whatever is right and all others are wrong and inferior. But I can't think of any that appear to do this as consistently as Islam.
I have spoken with Muslims before, it may surprise some people to learn. Even with an Imam, though I was not 1/10th as sceptical/guarded as I am now. Personally, I find it much easier to get a complete understanding via this sort of forum where I can cross reference things and consider my responses than talking to someone face to face where skilled people can easily brush things aside.
Thanks for that kind offer though. I live outside the UK. I also actually live about 500 yards from a mosque. I will be back in the UK at some point next year and may well take you up on this.
Though *all* my questions would probably take a few days.
Until then the sanity of people who are driven insane by internet threads will have to suffer.
So a question. What are your thoughts on this? And on how it will be received by ordinary Muslims?
http://4freedoms.com/group/theology/forum/topics/a...
Dr Tawfik Hamid, himself a former radical has written a commentary on the Koran, a sort o new 'tafsir' which he claims emphasises the peaceful and tolerant over the violent and the supremacist.
I haven't read it, but this seems like exactly the sort of thing that is needed IMO.
What sort of response do you expect to simply saying everything I write is idiotic?
Trigger
From an outsider's perspective I would say that anyone who can say they are happy to live under secular laws as equals with people of other faiths or none, and anyone who would unequivocally say that there is no place for hudud punishments in the modern world is probably not a problem. This seems to be something than many self-described moderates have a problem with, and it is something that seems to be in conflict with the traditional understandings of Islam.
No offence taken, my understanding of Islam is limited but hopefully improving.
Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi gave himself that name. No doubt he is a proper lunatic, but I find it hard to believe his interpretation is entirely arbitrary and made up. It seems to fit too well with the core texts and it seems so attractive to many Muslims who go to join it. That's not to say they are living entirely by the core texts, they obviously skipped the bit about no compulsion in religion, and reject what I understand to be a direct command of treating the Yazidi as 'People of the Book' but none the less well founded in Islamic texts and history.
And it's not just IS. There are jihadist groups in Thailand, Nigeria, Somalia and many other places besides saying very similar things. They may all be doing an element of cherry picking and interpreting in their own way, but even if this is so it seems persistent enough to think that the texts and teachings lend themselves to this.
I similarly don't know a great deal about Hinduism. I know they had the awful custom of Suti, which I understand is all but gone save for a few incidents in remote areas.
I know a little about Sikhism and it seems to have an emphasis on equality and freedom o conscience at its core. Something I can't say for what I know of Islam.
I am married to a Buddhist so know a little more of that. I would say it tends to instill a sort of passivity and feeling of powerlessness over ones own destiny which isn't all that healthy. But they don't seem to go in for violence in any very consistent way or with much enthusiasm.
Yes there are raving lunatics of all these, and every other faith. There are atrocities carried out by people who believe their people/race/religion/country or whatever is right and all others are wrong and inferior. But I can't think of any that appear to do this as consistently as Islam.
I have spoken with Muslims before, it may surprise some people to learn. Even with an Imam, though I was not 1/10th as sceptical/guarded as I am now. Personally, I find it much easier to get a complete understanding via this sort of forum where I can cross reference things and consider my responses than talking to someone face to face where skilled people can easily brush things aside.
Thanks for that kind offer though. I live outside the UK. I also actually live about 500 yards from a mosque. I will be back in the UK at some point next year and may well take you up on this.
Though *all* my questions would probably take a few days.
Until then the sanity of people who are driven insane by internet threads will have to suffer.
So a question. What are your thoughts on this? And on how it will be received by ordinary Muslims?
http://4freedoms.com/group/theology/forum/topics/a...
Dr Tawfik Hamid, himself a former radical has written a commentary on the Koran, a sort o new 'tafsir' which he claims emphasises the peaceful and tolerant over the violent and the supremacist.
I haven't read it, but this seems like exactly the sort of thing that is needed IMO.
Try and condense it down a bit.
I simply think that stoning is wrong, always and everywhere. How we seek to influence or admonish Saudi Arabia for using it is a lot more complicated, but it doesn't seem a great ask to expect that people defending Islam as a moderate and peaceful religion could be equally unequivocal about saying that it is wrong. Especially when it does *appea*r to be quite a deeply rooted part of Islam, rather than simply a Saudi custom.
I should think if you started telling people in the UK that then you would have a queue of police officers coming after you as long as the queue of would be bank robbers.
I don't see the peaceful and moderate side of Islam in the way it's quite immediately apparent in Sikhism. There are allusions to it, but there are also many passages which seem to be very clearly exhorting violence and supremacism.
I am aware of the 'ethnic cleansing' in Rakhine, and aware of it's background. There are no angels there, but I don't see much comparison with say Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood.
I don't see this as recent. Islamic conquest, subjugation and violence goes all the way back to the beginning.
Why is an internet discussion, with all of the vast resources of the internet at our disposal and time for considered and complete replies likely to cast Islam in a bad light?
Still alive and disbelieving. I've never said that I think all Muslims are evil or all mosques are covers for militant cells. It's a rather tricky subject and my grasp of Thai (I live in Bangkok) is not up to discussing theology and history.
So is it fair to say that these are an evolving body of documents? If so it still seems to be a step in the right direction.
Again referring to Wiki, sorry, best I've got, brings up only a handful of English tafsir. The first one I could read online was the Tafhim version, which was originally translated to Urdu, completed in 1972. It was then released in English by the Islamic Foundation in 2006. Far from perfect I agree, but they have this to say about the jizya in the infamous surah 9:29:
This is jizyah of which the Muslims have been feeling apologetic during the last two centuries of their degeneration and there are still some people who continue to apologize for it. But the way of Allah is straight and clear and does not stand in need of any apology to the rebels against Allah. Instead of offering apologies on behalf of Islam for the measure that guarantees security of life, property and faith to those who choose to live under its protection, the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of jizyah. For it is obvious that the maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the Way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. That is why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as its zimmis by paying jizyah, but it cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and impose them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring to an end their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.
As regards the question, “What do the non-Muslims get in return for jizyah”, it may suffice to say that it is the price of the freedom which the Islamic state allows them in following their erroneous ways, while living in the jurisdiction of Islam and enjoying its protection. The money thus collected is spent in maintaining the righteous administration that gives them the freedom and protects their rights. This also serves as a yearly reminder to them that they have been deprived of the honor of paying Zakat in the Way of Allah, and forced to pay jizyah instead as a price of following the ways of error.
Hardly love thy neighbour.
Of course that is only one source, and a flawed one as I said. Any other tasfir you would recommend?
I simply think that stoning is wrong, always and everywhere. How we seek to influence or admonish Saudi Arabia for using it is a lot more complicated, but it doesn't seem a great ask to expect that people defending Islam as a moderate and peaceful religion could be equally unequivocal about saying that it is wrong. Especially when it does *appea*r to be quite a deeply rooted part of Islam, rather than simply a Saudi custom.
I should think if you started telling people in the UK that then you would have a queue of police officers coming after you as long as the queue of would be bank robbers.
I don't see the peaceful and moderate side of Islam in the way it's quite immediately apparent in Sikhism. There are allusions to it, but there are also many passages which seem to be very clearly exhorting violence and supremacism.
I am aware of the 'ethnic cleansing' in Rakhine, and aware of it's background. There are no angels there, but I don't see much comparison with say Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood.
I don't see this as recent. Islamic conquest, subjugation and violence goes all the way back to the beginning.
Why is an internet discussion, with all of the vast resources of the internet at our disposal and time for considered and complete replies likely to cast Islam in a bad light?
Still alive and disbelieving. I've never said that I think all Muslims are evil or all mosques are covers for militant cells. It's a rather tricky subject and my grasp of Thai (I live in Bangkok) is not up to discussing theology and history.
So is it fair to say that these are an evolving body of documents? If so it still seems to be a step in the right direction.
Again referring to Wiki, sorry, best I've got, brings up only a handful of English tafsir. The first one I could read online was the Tafhim version, which was originally translated to Urdu, completed in 1972. It was then released in English by the Islamic Foundation in 2006. Far from perfect I agree, but they have this to say about the jizya in the infamous surah 9:29:
This is jizyah of which the Muslims have been feeling apologetic during the last two centuries of their degeneration and there are still some people who continue to apologize for it. But the way of Allah is straight and clear and does not stand in need of any apology to the rebels against Allah. Instead of offering apologies on behalf of Islam for the measure that guarantees security of life, property and faith to those who choose to live under its protection, the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of jizyah. For it is obvious that the maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the Way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. That is why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as its zimmis by paying jizyah, but it cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and impose them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring to an end their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.
As regards the question, “What do the non-Muslims get in return for jizyah”, it may suffice to say that it is the price of the freedom which the Islamic state allows them in following their erroneous ways, while living in the jurisdiction of Islam and enjoying its protection. The money thus collected is spent in maintaining the righteous administration that gives them the freedom and protects their rights. This also serves as a yearly reminder to them that they have been deprived of the honor of paying Zakat in the Way of Allah, and forced to pay jizyah instead as a price of following the ways of error.
Hardly love thy neighbour.
Of course that is only one source, and a flawed one as I said. Any other tasfir you would recommend?
Imams can also but nut jobs. For a 14 year old satanist you've made some valid points in defence of Islam that have given me pause to think and areas to read up on more. I tend to think that with logical, honest discussion and the huge resources available on the internet you can find out a lot of useful stuff.
I'm not really convinced talking to an imam will add anything that this can't, but I've said I will do it as soon as practical.
In the mean time, unless one of these learned fellows actually wants to defend Islam on this channel I don't see any reason why I shouldn't continue to discuss it with those who wish to on a politics forum.
I'm not really convinced talking to an imam will add anything that this can't, but I've said I will do it as soon as practical.
In the mean time, unless one of these learned fellows actually wants to defend Islam on this channel I don't see any reason why I shouldn't continue to discuss it with those who wish to on a politics forum.
2 reasons for that Trigger.
Firstly, like any ideology, it's not really what the academics and the highly learned people think of the finer details that really matter. It's the guy with the gun/bomb/army/police force.
Secondly, and related, I would like to think that if I was part of an ideology or religion which I would feel I was betraying by condemning the practice of stoning people to death for adultery, then I would leave it.
Firstly, like any ideology, it's not really what the academics and the highly learned people think of the finer details that really matter. It's the guy with the gun/bomb/army/police force.
Secondly, and related, I would like to think that if I was part of an ideology or religion which I would feel I was betraying by condemning the practice of stoning people to death for adultery, then I would leave it.
I'm not having a dig at you Trigger. Just an open debate about what Islam actually is.
We all have our own morality, and mine says that stoning for adultery is always and everywhere wrong. Yours apparently doesn't. I would need something a bit more than referring up to an imam to keep me part of a faith which condones or even demands this sort of punishment.
If your view is representative (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) then I think it's something that is worth being aware of as regards political Islam.
Deuteronomy and Leviticus are part of the laws of Moses, so as I understand it form the basis of Islam too. By the 7th century, the problem was that the Jews and Christians had polluted these laws. At least partly by not taking them seriously enough.
But I'm neither Jewish nor Christian, so that's not my fight. And because Jews and Christians no longer stone people to death for adultery it's not really what's under discussion here anyway, except perhaps that you might look at the way Judaism and Christianity have evolved to be able to fairly peacefully coexist with other faiths in a way that Islam in significant ways has not.
TTwiggy
Same way I justify buying Saudi Arabian petrol or any number of things which are made in China. That's life. It doesn't mean I have to agree with everything those regimes do or that I forfeit any right to criticise them or hope they change.
Stewie
I have pointed out bits of Islam I find admirable, and I have pointed out Muslims who I believe are sincerely reformist. I don't see that as cherry picking.
I suspect I will find as I have before that I simply can not agree with their basic ideology that they want an Islamic form of government, and believe that stoning is acceptable.
Trigger
I appreciate your contributions. It doesn't mean I agree with them. I don't see how 'willing submission' after being 'fought wherever found' is really conducive to inter-faith harmony, and I don't accept that it related only very specifically to one time and place because I can't find any source that agrees with that and have pointed out ones that don't.
I don't know what the crazy guy proves. I've never said all Muslims are crazy, or all Muslims are anything. I think this is a struggle which needs to happen in Islam to make it more compatible with the modern world that I'm sure most Muslims and most Arabs want to be a part of. It's a struggle that I feel we in the west have a very scant understanding of, and because of that we are prone to huge policy blunders which more often help the regressive, reactionary and wrong side of that struggle.
We all have our own morality, and mine says that stoning for adultery is always and everywhere wrong. Yours apparently doesn't. I would need something a bit more than referring up to an imam to keep me part of a faith which condones or even demands this sort of punishment.
If your view is representative (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) then I think it's something that is worth being aware of as regards political Islam.
Deuteronomy and Leviticus are part of the laws of Moses, so as I understand it form the basis of Islam too. By the 7th century, the problem was that the Jews and Christians had polluted these laws. At least partly by not taking them seriously enough.
But I'm neither Jewish nor Christian, so that's not my fight. And because Jews and Christians no longer stone people to death for adultery it's not really what's under discussion here anyway, except perhaps that you might look at the way Judaism and Christianity have evolved to be able to fairly peacefully coexist with other faiths in a way that Islam in significant ways has not.
TTwiggy
Same way I justify buying Saudi Arabian petrol or any number of things which are made in China. That's life. It doesn't mean I have to agree with everything those regimes do or that I forfeit any right to criticise them or hope they change.
Stewie
I have pointed out bits of Islam I find admirable, and I have pointed out Muslims who I believe are sincerely reformist. I don't see that as cherry picking.
I suspect I will find as I have before that I simply can not agree with their basic ideology that they want an Islamic form of government, and believe that stoning is acceptable.
Trigger
I appreciate your contributions. It doesn't mean I agree with them. I don't see how 'willing submission' after being 'fought wherever found' is really conducive to inter-faith harmony, and I don't accept that it related only very specifically to one time and place because I can't find any source that agrees with that and have pointed out ones that don't.
I don't know what the crazy guy proves. I've never said all Muslims are crazy, or all Muslims are anything. I think this is a struggle which needs to happen in Islam to make it more compatible with the modern world that I'm sure most Muslims and most Arabs want to be a part of. It's a struggle that I feel we in the west have a very scant understanding of, and because of that we are prone to huge policy blunders which more often help the regressive, reactionary and wrong side of that struggle.
So offensive or at least uncomfortable, rather than tiresome. That's ok.
My original question was about how we identify and separate radical and potentially violent Muslims from moderate and normal Muslims. I don't see that as Muslim bashing. Surely it's a question most Muslims would be keen to answer, and can hopefully contribute to answering?
Are you not perhaps a bit narrow or patronising, and thinking of Muslims as some outside group who will stumble across this site at take umbridge or assume it some closed whites only club, rather than as members of this site quite capable of discussing their faith and not requiring you taking offence on their behalf?
My original question was about how we identify and separate radical and potentially violent Muslims from moderate and normal Muslims. I don't see that as Muslim bashing. Surely it's a question most Muslims would be keen to answer, and can hopefully contribute to answering?
Are you not perhaps a bit narrow or patronising, and thinking of Muslims as some outside group who will stumble across this site at take umbridge or assume it some closed whites only club, rather than as members of this site quite capable of discussing their faith and not requiring you taking offence on their behalf?
rscott
Fair question about the fixation on stoning for adultery.
First of all, Saudi Arabia is not the only country to practice it. Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, UAE and Yemen at least have provision for stoning in their laws. Afghanistan and Iraq have recorded recent (i.e. last 5 years) incidents of unofficial stonings.
This demonstrates that it's not some local custom tolerated in the remoter parts of Arabia, but something clearly associated with Islam in West Africa, SE Asia too.
It's also interestingly not actually mentioned in the Koran. It is mentioned in the hadiths, and apparently according to Aisha (one of Mohammed's wives) it should have been included in the Koran.
Yemen (one of the most repressive Islamist countries) hasn't actually carried out stoning in living memory as far as anyone can tell.
Also, as I understand it stoning is quite clearly mandated in Jewish scripture in the same way for similar offences. This is actually the origin of the law in Islam. And yet Israel doesn't carry out stonings, and as far as I know nobody has been stoned to death by Jews in living memory. They have reformed it away or forgotten it.
So as I see it it's a good barometer of how truly moderate someone is. It shouldn't be a big deal for anyone peaceful and moderate to say that in 2015 they believe stoning has no place in the laws of civilised countries. That's not saying we should bomb Saudi Arabia until the stop it, or that we should dann them as bad people for this being part of their culture historically. But for a western Muslim claiming to be moderate and secular it seems a fairly low bar.
Alpine
Like Disastrous, if you find it tedious why keep popping up to say so? This is the only thread of mine on the first 2 pages and there are plenty of other threads about topics not relating to Islam. I find house prices fairly tedious and very well covered so I haven't even clicked on that thread.
You find it uncomfortable and you wish the thread wasn't here. You have repeatedly claimed I have some hidden agenda and never said what it is. If you genuinely think it's agenda driven or gratuitously offensive then report it.
Otherwise I find your repeated attacks which add nothing to be genuinely tedious, they are stifling quite an interesting discussion and displaying a sort of paranoia which doesn't flatter you or your cause.
More generally, what is even more sad about this is that there is a sincere and knowledgeable Muslim who appears quite happy to discuss this and who has said that he does not feel insulted by it. A discussion which clearly several people do find interesting, and the usual few people feel the need to pile in with their usual attempts to shut it down and suggest some form of racism/bigotry/hidden agenda.
Trigger
Thanks for that. I will read a bit more before responding.
Fair question about the fixation on stoning for adultery.
First of all, Saudi Arabia is not the only country to practice it. Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, UAE and Yemen at least have provision for stoning in their laws. Afghanistan and Iraq have recorded recent (i.e. last 5 years) incidents of unofficial stonings.
This demonstrates that it's not some local custom tolerated in the remoter parts of Arabia, but something clearly associated with Islam in West Africa, SE Asia too.
It's also interestingly not actually mentioned in the Koran. It is mentioned in the hadiths, and apparently according to Aisha (one of Mohammed's wives) it should have been included in the Koran.
Yemen (one of the most repressive Islamist countries) hasn't actually carried out stoning in living memory as far as anyone can tell.
Also, as I understand it stoning is quite clearly mandated in Jewish scripture in the same way for similar offences. This is actually the origin of the law in Islam. And yet Israel doesn't carry out stonings, and as far as I know nobody has been stoned to death by Jews in living memory. They have reformed it away or forgotten it.
So as I see it it's a good barometer of how truly moderate someone is. It shouldn't be a big deal for anyone peaceful and moderate to say that in 2015 they believe stoning has no place in the laws of civilised countries. That's not saying we should bomb Saudi Arabia until the stop it, or that we should dann them as bad people for this being part of their culture historically. But for a western Muslim claiming to be moderate and secular it seems a fairly low bar.
Alpine
Like Disastrous, if you find it tedious why keep popping up to say so? This is the only thread of mine on the first 2 pages and there are plenty of other threads about topics not relating to Islam. I find house prices fairly tedious and very well covered so I haven't even clicked on that thread.
You find it uncomfortable and you wish the thread wasn't here. You have repeatedly claimed I have some hidden agenda and never said what it is. If you genuinely think it's agenda driven or gratuitously offensive then report it.
Otherwise I find your repeated attacks which add nothing to be genuinely tedious, they are stifling quite an interesting discussion and displaying a sort of paranoia which doesn't flatter you or your cause.
More generally, what is even more sad about this is that there is a sincere and knowledgeable Muslim who appears quite happy to discuss this and who has said that he does not feel insulted by it. A discussion which clearly several people do find interesting, and the usual few people feel the need to pile in with their usual attempts to shut it down and suggest some form of racism/bigotry/hidden agenda.
Trigger
Thanks for that. I will read a bit more before responding.
Trigger
So, first things first, it appears this interpretation was written in 2014, by Abu Amina Elias, an American convert to Islam. Not to say it's wrong or any less worthwhile for that. It's surely something much more akin to what a genuinely peaceful religion would be about. The challenge seems to be about getting more people to accept and champion this and other more moderate versions over the many other interpretations throughout the ages which have given Muslims and excuse/reason to be extremely aggressive.
A couple of points on the commentary itself:
The defensive principle can be very elastic. Mohammed apparently used it to avenge a transgression and repel a planned invasion which hadn't yet happened. Osama Bin Laden emphasised defence rather than aggression heavily in his 2002 Letter to America, and of course found plenty of transgressions and perceived threats of invasion. That's not to say his interpretation is any more valid or faithful, but obviously it was sufficiently persuasive to a large enough number of people to coordinate and execute this attack.
Elias uses the word 'tribute' in place of 'jizya.' 'Jizya' and 'submission' are the significant things about this passage as I see it, because apart from the violence it mandates the jizya tax which only applies to non-Muslims and the idea that non-Muslims must submit to Islamic rule. This is important because it sets a pattern of differentiation which really enshrines Muslim dominance and supremacy in the political sphere. You wouldn't get a country run by Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians who decided to tax themselves but not apply this to Muslims. The much more extensive ' dhimmitude' laws which came about during the later conquests are well enshrined in Islamic jurisprudence and much more far reaching.
I am aware that Muslims paid the zakat, something like tithes and it often was used to help the poor, but the implementation of jizya taxes throughout the ages was very definitely not a sort of social security system. It was a straight out tax paid by non-Muslims to Muslim rulers.
At present a significant number of Muslims take it to mean anything but tolerance, peace and defensive resistance. Even though the jizya was abolished (under pressure from European powers) in most of the Muslim world the principle of Islamic supremacy and domination in politics remains strong. The Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt started reimposing the jizya in 2013. IS impose it on Christians and others in the areas they control.
Many take this and other passages as a straight out exhortation to violence in order to establish and enshrine Muslim supremacy in state law. Of course many also don't take it this way, but then I see no reason why it isn't a simple matter of affirming that it's preferable to live under secular laws, as equals with people of other faiths and none, on a permanent basis. Some Muslims do say this but very many more seem to obfuscate and avoid it, or affirm their faith to sharia as supreme. Which essentially means supremacism. To the original topic of this thread, this can be one of the ways of identifying Muslims who are genuinely peaceful and democratic in their outlook, and thus identifying those who are contributing to a culture of resentment, supremacy and separatism which fosters violence.
This is the battleground as I see it. You can interpret it either way, or in another way completely. You can even ignore it or see some vague allegory in there. One of the things I admire about Islam is that it does have active debate and disagreement and can (ever so slowly) evolve. This is a battle/debate for moderate and reformist Muslims to take to the violent and supremacist ones. I suspect this will take centuries rather than years to achieve a genuinely secular, personal Islam which actively rejects violence and supremacy. And it doesn't hinge on overthrowing one dictator or stamping out IS. There is a deep rooted cultural problem which is creating the conditions for violence and tyranny.
From a western/secular point of view, the important thing is that we are aware of this for what it is. This will enable us to do two things. Firstly respond intelligently to problems when they arise rather than blundering a destroying. Iraq and Afghanistan are cock ups by any standards. Libya seems like an opportunity we not only wasted but turned into a catastrophe by getting rid of an aged and ailing basically secular dictator and allowing his replacement with lunatic fundamentalists. In Egypt we encouraged 'democracy' in the crudest sense of having a vote without any thought to how this would pan out when a theocratic government took office, as it inevitably would. In Syria we narrowly avoided using our military power in support of an Islamist insurgency backed by the Muslim brotherhood, and that more because parliament had no appetite for war in 2013 and Cameron lacked the power to push it through. We are now bombing buildings in the desert, undoubtedly making more enemies, apparently fighting IS with no real end game in mind. These actions appear to be actively hindering the progress I would think most westerners and most peaceable, democratic minded Muslims would like to see. And that's because we don't and won't acknowledge it for what it is.
The second thing this greater understanding would achieve is enable us to be a bit more firm in our own culture and institutions. This means saying that people in the west have the right to criticise and lampoon religion and violence is never the right response. This is important because in the current middle east it is impossible. Those who genuinely wish to interpret Islam in a peaceful and personal way or encourage democratic reforms are often drowned out by shrill fundamentalists. Muslims and others living in western countries can contribute a lot to this if there is a culture of open enquiry and free discourse, but this can not happen if we allow the same loud angry voices to silence them here as they do in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether they're screaming death to blasphemers or screaming offence and persecution, the screamers shouldn't win.
So, first things first, it appears this interpretation was written in 2014, by Abu Amina Elias, an American convert to Islam. Not to say it's wrong or any less worthwhile for that. It's surely something much more akin to what a genuinely peaceful religion would be about. The challenge seems to be about getting more people to accept and champion this and other more moderate versions over the many other interpretations throughout the ages which have given Muslims and excuse/reason to be extremely aggressive.
A couple of points on the commentary itself:
The defensive principle can be very elastic. Mohammed apparently used it to avenge a transgression and repel a planned invasion which hadn't yet happened. Osama Bin Laden emphasised defence rather than aggression heavily in his 2002 Letter to America, and of course found plenty of transgressions and perceived threats of invasion. That's not to say his interpretation is any more valid or faithful, but obviously it was sufficiently persuasive to a large enough number of people to coordinate and execute this attack.
Elias uses the word 'tribute' in place of 'jizya.' 'Jizya' and 'submission' are the significant things about this passage as I see it, because apart from the violence it mandates the jizya tax which only applies to non-Muslims and the idea that non-Muslims must submit to Islamic rule. This is important because it sets a pattern of differentiation which really enshrines Muslim dominance and supremacy in the political sphere. You wouldn't get a country run by Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians who decided to tax themselves but not apply this to Muslims. The much more extensive ' dhimmitude' laws which came about during the later conquests are well enshrined in Islamic jurisprudence and much more far reaching.
I am aware that Muslims paid the zakat, something like tithes and it often was used to help the poor, but the implementation of jizya taxes throughout the ages was very definitely not a sort of social security system. It was a straight out tax paid by non-Muslims to Muslim rulers.
At present a significant number of Muslims take it to mean anything but tolerance, peace and defensive resistance. Even though the jizya was abolished (under pressure from European powers) in most of the Muslim world the principle of Islamic supremacy and domination in politics remains strong. The Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt started reimposing the jizya in 2013. IS impose it on Christians and others in the areas they control.
Many take this and other passages as a straight out exhortation to violence in order to establish and enshrine Muslim supremacy in state law. Of course many also don't take it this way, but then I see no reason why it isn't a simple matter of affirming that it's preferable to live under secular laws, as equals with people of other faiths and none, on a permanent basis. Some Muslims do say this but very many more seem to obfuscate and avoid it, or affirm their faith to sharia as supreme. Which essentially means supremacism. To the original topic of this thread, this can be one of the ways of identifying Muslims who are genuinely peaceful and democratic in their outlook, and thus identifying those who are contributing to a culture of resentment, supremacy and separatism which fosters violence.
This is the battleground as I see it. You can interpret it either way, or in another way completely. You can even ignore it or see some vague allegory in there. One of the things I admire about Islam is that it does have active debate and disagreement and can (ever so slowly) evolve. This is a battle/debate for moderate and reformist Muslims to take to the violent and supremacist ones. I suspect this will take centuries rather than years to achieve a genuinely secular, personal Islam which actively rejects violence and supremacy. And it doesn't hinge on overthrowing one dictator or stamping out IS. There is a deep rooted cultural problem which is creating the conditions for violence and tyranny.
From a western/secular point of view, the important thing is that we are aware of this for what it is. This will enable us to do two things. Firstly respond intelligently to problems when they arise rather than blundering a destroying. Iraq and Afghanistan are cock ups by any standards. Libya seems like an opportunity we not only wasted but turned into a catastrophe by getting rid of an aged and ailing basically secular dictator and allowing his replacement with lunatic fundamentalists. In Egypt we encouraged 'democracy' in the crudest sense of having a vote without any thought to how this would pan out when a theocratic government took office, as it inevitably would. In Syria we narrowly avoided using our military power in support of an Islamist insurgency backed by the Muslim brotherhood, and that more because parliament had no appetite for war in 2013 and Cameron lacked the power to push it through. We are now bombing buildings in the desert, undoubtedly making more enemies, apparently fighting IS with no real end game in mind. These actions appear to be actively hindering the progress I would think most westerners and most peaceable, democratic minded Muslims would like to see. And that's because we don't and won't acknowledge it for what it is.
The second thing this greater understanding would achieve is enable us to be a bit more firm in our own culture and institutions. This means saying that people in the west have the right to criticise and lampoon religion and violence is never the right response. This is important because in the current middle east it is impossible. Those who genuinely wish to interpret Islam in a peaceful and personal way or encourage democratic reforms are often drowned out by shrill fundamentalists. Muslims and others living in western countries can contribute a lot to this if there is a culture of open enquiry and free discourse, but this can not happen if we allow the same loud angry voices to silence them here as they do in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether they're screaming death to blasphemers or screaming offence and persecution, the screamers shouldn't win.
TankRizzo said:
AJS- said:
Disastrous
Why would you keep coming back to a thread you find tiresome, just to post how tiresome it is?
Because it gives him and his little sneeries something to discuss on their 163-page "sneer at Pistonheaders" thread on Chew The Fat.Why would you keep coming back to a thread you find tiresome, just to post how tiresome it is?
A whole thread dedicated to berating certain PHers for being obsessive, sad and hateful. Talk about projection.
You can read it on Google's cached pages here
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cac...
TTwiggy uses the same name, others don't seem to. Anyone going to own up to being spast1kunt (nice) who came out with this little gem:
I wish I had a bit more knowledge of psychology because I'm sure that AJS would be pretty easily diagnosable by a professional.
Which would be a good parody. If it were parody.
I wish I had a bit more knowledge so I could find the answer I want. I wish I knew a bit more about physics so I could easily build a perpetual motion machine.
Anyw
Countdown said:
AJS- said:
Countdown
Would you at least agree that Islam has a PR issue?
Absolutely. There's a huge amount of anti-Islamic bile and spleen vented on the Internet, it needs countering by people who have the time, the patience, and the knowledge to counter it. I know various people who have tried to put the "mainstream" view forward on PH but it gets incredibly boring and repetitive after a while.Would you at least agree that Islam has a PR issue?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff