Moderate Muslims
Discussion
Trigger
I'm a westerner with a western viewpoint, discussing how the west should approach the problem of fanatical religious violence from certain sections of the Muslim world. I absolutely do think that liberal, democratic, secular western countries are much better than theocratic Islamic states.
The difference it makes, exactly as you said of the recent interpretation of the Koran I posted up the other day, is that it may or may not take hold amongst Muslims over the course of decades. The older and more militant interpretations are widely read.
Is jizya only paid after a war in your understanding?
Not sure where the idea of there being no Islamic state without the consent of every Muslim comes from. Right from the death of Mohammed there was a split between the supporters of various different successors, and several different people became Caliphs without the consent of 'all Muslims.'
Some Muslims very much do believe they are in a holy war. They hit the headlines pretty often.
I think on balance, given the grim choice, I would rather be in a country that was invaded by a western power than by the Taleban, IS or Boko Haram.
I recognise that Islam makes provisions for conquered people and vanquished enemies which were probably lovely in the context of 7th century Arabia but they don't seem to have evolved the concept much.
The Muslim Brotherhood was the elected government of Egypt when they started trying to impose it. And in fairness they were actually elected in a reasonably free and fair election. Which highlights the problem. There is a cultural and ideological struggle within Islam and at present the blowhards seem to be winning and the democrats and liberals seem to be losing. This is very much against the interests of the west and of liberal Muslims IMO.
Countdown
Not ignored at all. See above. It's in the interests of the west and the world as a whole that Islam can evolve into something less violent and more compatible with liberal democracy. It's life and death to many Muslims.
I'm a westerner with a western viewpoint, discussing how the west should approach the problem of fanatical religious violence from certain sections of the Muslim world. I absolutely do think that liberal, democratic, secular western countries are much better than theocratic Islamic states.
The difference it makes, exactly as you said of the recent interpretation of the Koran I posted up the other day, is that it may or may not take hold amongst Muslims over the course of decades. The older and more militant interpretations are widely read.
Is jizya only paid after a war in your understanding?
Not sure where the idea of there being no Islamic state without the consent of every Muslim comes from. Right from the death of Mohammed there was a split between the supporters of various different successors, and several different people became Caliphs without the consent of 'all Muslims.'
Some Muslims very much do believe they are in a holy war. They hit the headlines pretty often.
I think on balance, given the grim choice, I would rather be in a country that was invaded by a western power than by the Taleban, IS or Boko Haram.
I recognise that Islam makes provisions for conquered people and vanquished enemies which were probably lovely in the context of 7th century Arabia but they don't seem to have evolved the concept much.
The Muslim Brotherhood was the elected government of Egypt when they started trying to impose it. And in fairness they were actually elected in a reasonably free and fair election. Which highlights the problem. There is a cultural and ideological struggle within Islam and at present the blowhards seem to be winning and the democrats and liberals seem to be losing. This is very much against the interests of the west and of liberal Muslims IMO.
Countdown
Not ignored at all. See above. It's in the interests of the west and the world as a whole that Islam can evolve into something less violent and more compatible with liberal democracy. It's life and death to many Muslims.
One more quick point on jizya.
Islam isn't the only system to do this and probably didn't invent it so much as adapt existing arrangements under Byzantine and Persian rulers.
What it shows is not that Islam is in itself evil or militant or imperialist so much as that it has been adapted and interpreted to be so for the expedience of rulers. As religions are.
It seems that it is in the process of shedding this but this has inspired a counter reaction amongst some sections.
Islam isn't the only system to do this and probably didn't invent it so much as adapt existing arrangements under Byzantine and Persian rulers.
What it shows is not that Islam is in itself evil or militant or imperialist so much as that it has been adapted and interpreted to be so for the expedience of rulers. As religions are.
It seems that it is in the process of shedding this but this has inspired a counter reaction amongst some sections.
triggerh4ppy said:
The stoning stuff, Its what they did before weapons. Its the equivalent to death by gun squad which is still being practised today. I am not saying I agree with the idea, it may be outdated but the way you guys are talking is exactly how ISIS want to impose their ideals/values here no matter if you agree with them or not. This is not tolerant at all. ISIS are a bunch of bellends for thinking it and I dont agree with the west wanting to impose what their deem acceptable on that side of the world either. We dont go to Japan and tell them how they eat is odd. Its their justice system. They seem happy with it. If they are not happy with it the its the publics choice to vote in/out or uprise against the government.
I don't find moral equivalence very persuasive. We have weapons and there are much more humane ways to kill people. Even beheading is at least quick. You may not like it but I am honest enough to say that I simply believe ny moral system is better than this moral system as it tends to produce societies which are more stable, prosperous, creative and happy.The uprising/voting out part is a bit more like it, and that's where change must come from. It seems that currently owing to our complete lack of understanding we are supporting the wrong uprisings.
Alpinestars said:
AJS- said:
I'm not stopping you, but if your only view is that you're bored of this thread then I can state my view that it's probably a good idea not to bother with it.
I don't value your views. TTwiggy
Do you think black people are more prone to criminal behaviour?
Yes I think that would be a legitimate topic to discuss. Why not? Provided you could make a logical case for it. And I don't think you would have much difficulty in finding a black person to say robbing banks or selling crack is always and everywhere wrong.
In Triggers defence his main concern appears to be the west imposing it's values on other countries rather than him necessarily supporting stoning. Again though this raises the question of how we engage with organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain, with apparently moderate opposition groups in Muslim countries and with the Muslim population at home.
What do they really think? If it's offensive to question or discuss it on the one hand, but on the other it's expected that Muslims are equally represented in public life and fairly treated by the media on the other we're in a strange position.
Do you think black people are more prone to criminal behaviour?
Yes I think that would be a legitimate topic to discuss. Why not? Provided you could make a logical case for it. And I don't think you would have much difficulty in finding a black person to say robbing banks or selling crack is always and everywhere wrong.
In Triggers defence his main concern appears to be the west imposing it's values on other countries rather than him necessarily supporting stoning. Again though this raises the question of how we engage with organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain, with apparently moderate opposition groups in Muslim countries and with the Muslim population at home.
What do they really think? If it's offensive to question or discuss it on the one hand, but on the other it's expected that Muslims are equally represented in public life and fairly treated by the media on the other we're in a strange position.
This is the problem with moral relativism. It undermines things which should be obvious. And produces the strange spectacle of well meaning western liberals arguing in favour of stoning women to death for sex outside marriage.
As I understand JS Mill (not completely by any means) his point was more a philosophical one that morality shifts over time, by degrees. Not that every barbaric and backwards practice is the moral equivalent of a developed justice system.
Stoning adulterers is wrong because it's a symptom and a cause of a repressive backwards society. Fair trials and humane punishments are the reverse of this.
You can treat this as an objective fact, even if it is not so in the philosophical sense, and the result will be a more humane and more decent society. You can keep re-examining and proving a new every step of this process but the end result is confusion and inertia. Something which doesn't impede the march of those who have moral absolutes which are much worse.
And now I'm 3 beers in and up to my ankles in wrapping paper, I'm probably going to be quiet for a few days. Sanity and harmony can return. Merry Christmas and festivities to everyone.
As I understand JS Mill (not completely by any means) his point was more a philosophical one that morality shifts over time, by degrees. Not that every barbaric and backwards practice is the moral equivalent of a developed justice system.
Stoning adulterers is wrong because it's a symptom and a cause of a repressive backwards society. Fair trials and humane punishments are the reverse of this.
You can treat this as an objective fact, even if it is not so in the philosophical sense, and the result will be a more humane and more decent society. You can keep re-examining and proving a new every step of this process but the end result is confusion and inertia. Something which doesn't impede the march of those who have moral absolutes which are much worse.
And now I'm 3 beers in and up to my ankles in wrapping paper, I'm probably going to be quiet for a few days. Sanity and harmony can return. Merry Christmas and festivities to everyone.
Disastrous seems to think it's a grey area. Trigger seems to have no problem with it in principle provided it's in accordance with the wishes of the people. TTwiggy presumably opposes it but feels much more strongly that my obsession with Islam is bringing the site into disrepute than people advocating stoning does.
What's also quite striking is that nobody in the course of that discussion just said "hey I'm Muslim and I believe stoning to be always and everywhere wrong." How easy would that be?
What's also quite striking is that nobody in the course of that discussion just said "hey I'm Muslim and I believe stoning to be always and everywhere wrong." How easy would that be?
It's not really hyperbole. Making it the moral equivalent of any other form of justice is an argument in its favour. There are degrees of arguing in favour and one of those is to say it isn't wrong in principle just not suited to our society at present. If at some point in future there is a Muslim majority in the UK or part of it at some point in future how would a moral relativist argue against them introducing stoning if they wanted to?
Why never?
Anyway it isn't a pointless argument IMO. If you believe (as I do, obviously) that Islam is a force for evil in the world and a dangerous one at that then it's worth fighting every inch of the way in the hope that it will encourage the change needed to make it a more benign religion.
Anyway it isn't a pointless argument IMO. If you believe (as I do, obviously) that Islam is a force for evil in the world and a dangerous one at that then it's worth fighting every inch of the way in the hope that it will encourage the change needed to make it a more benign religion.
Zod
That's exactly why I would like it to be very clear that it's always and everywhere wrong, to be much more critical of those countries which practice or tolerate it, and to be very clear that those who don't believe it is wrong have no business coming here. To the original point of this thread, that's why it is so important that we understand Islam and are able to identify the genuinely reformist modernising Muslims from those who will trot out the ROP mantra while continuing to push for greater Islamic influence in the west.
That's exactly why I would like it to be very clear that it's always and everywhere wrong, to be much more critical of those countries which practice or tolerate it, and to be very clear that those who don't believe it is wrong have no business coming here. To the original point of this thread, that's why it is so important that we understand Islam and are able to identify the genuinely reformist modernising Muslims from those who will trot out the ROP mantra while continuing to push for greater Islamic influence in the west.
I hardly expect to change the world on PH but if it gets a few people thinking, learning a but more and voicing these legitimate concerns then it's all to the good.
If knowing a bit more about Islam and its history sows division and mistrust then so be it. Those who want to 'tolerate' the culture which breeds terrorists, rape gangs and supremacist zealots should be isolated and mistrusted. Those who are genuinely interested in reforming it should have no problem in picking the right side. It's the one that makes no excuses or accommodation for stoning people to death.
As per my original post about moral relativism, even if it's true on a metaphysical sense it seems to me that it pays dividends to behave as though some things are absolute and eternal.
If knowing a bit more about Islam and its history sows division and mistrust then so be it. Those who want to 'tolerate' the culture which breeds terrorists, rape gangs and supremacist zealots should be isolated and mistrusted. Those who are genuinely interested in reforming it should have no problem in picking the right side. It's the one that makes no excuses or accommodation for stoning people to death.
As per my original post about moral relativism, even if it's true on a metaphysical sense it seems to me that it pays dividends to behave as though some things are absolute and eternal.
Stewie
I don't think my sense of closure is really the important thing here.
What that would give is an interesting starting point for a further discussion.
As far as I can tell the koran doesn't actually mandate stoning anywhere, though the hadith and many centuries of Islamic jurisprudence do. So again in the spirit of the original point of this thread it gives an interesting starting point from which to discuss the dividing line between a genuinely moderate cultural Muslim and someone who believes in sadistic public execution of promiscuous women.
Frankly someone who believes stoning is acceptable given certain conditions is barely worth talking to (though I will read it anyway) as we don't have a common ground to start with. If I wanted to for instance make an aeroplane fly I would be interested in the opinions of physicists, mechanical engineers and even amateur loons who had tried and failed, but not someone who simply said it will fly if God wills it.
But it's really all a bit moot because so far no devout Muslim has actually said there's a version of Islam which does say sadistic public execution is always and everywhere bad. Abd remember Muslims are most definitely not moral relativists.
There are actually some Muslims who have said so. Zudhi Jasser, Majiid Nawaz to name but two. But there are not that many more.
I don't think my sense of closure is really the important thing here.
What that would give is an interesting starting point for a further discussion.
As far as I can tell the koran doesn't actually mandate stoning anywhere, though the hadith and many centuries of Islamic jurisprudence do. So again in the spirit of the original point of this thread it gives an interesting starting point from which to discuss the dividing line between a genuinely moderate cultural Muslim and someone who believes in sadistic public execution of promiscuous women.
Frankly someone who believes stoning is acceptable given certain conditions is barely worth talking to (though I will read it anyway) as we don't have a common ground to start with. If I wanted to for instance make an aeroplane fly I would be interested in the opinions of physicists, mechanical engineers and even amateur loons who had tried and failed, but not someone who simply said it will fly if God wills it.
But it's really all a bit moot because so far no devout Muslim has actually said there's a version of Islam which does say sadistic public execution is always and everywhere bad. Abd remember Muslims are most definitely not moral relativists.
There are actually some Muslims who have said so. Zudhi Jasser, Majiid Nawaz to name but two. But there are not that many more.
Disastrous
No I didn't find a local imam. I hit an insurmountable language barrier very quickly. I did have a chat with a self declared imam which I won't embarrass myself or decent Muslims with.
If anyone does by some chance know of an imam in Bangkok who would be open to discussing these things then I would be very interested. Alternatively if anyone would recommend an "ask an imam" website then that would also be interesting. The ones I found searching Google did not look promising.
No I didn't find a local imam. I hit an insurmountable language barrier very quickly. I did have a chat with a self declared imam which I won't embarrass myself or decent Muslims with.
If anyone does by some chance know of an imam in Bangkok who would be open to discussing these things then I would be very interested. Alternatively if anyone would recommend an "ask an imam" website then that would also be interesting. The ones I found searching Google did not look promising.
Ridley
I also said why this is difficult. I will visit a mosque at some point but I'm not going to take a day off to traipse around Bangkok looking for an English speaking Imam. It's hard enough to find decent cheese.
Barry
I have never said that Muslims are just nasty and sadistic people who stone women to death for kicks. In fact that's more like the 'Religion of Peace' position which insists anything bad has nothing to do with Islam. It is a well established part of Islamic law which ia still practiced today and which most non Muslims and many Muslims find abhorrent.
However even Muslims born and brought up in Britain seem a bit hesitant about saying this simple statement.
Their prophet by any decent modern measures was a bloodthirsty lunatic. His only saving grace is that he lived in 7th century Arabia where standards were much different. If Muslims can't disagree with their prophet even to the modest extent of condemning this most brutal and sadistic form of murder then I believe this is a massive problem and something we in the west should consider very carefully before allowing large scale Muslim immigration or making accommodations to Muslim sensitivities, let alone insisting at the highest levels of government that violence is nothing to do with Islam.
Re Iran, it has this same struggle going on between the maniac Islamist government and a people who want to progress and develop. Unfortunately they too don't want to disagree with their prophet and their government, like that of Saudi Arabia and like IS are not all that far off in their interpretation of the quran.
I also said why this is difficult. I will visit a mosque at some point but I'm not going to take a day off to traipse around Bangkok looking for an English speaking Imam. It's hard enough to find decent cheese.
Barry
I have never said that Muslims are just nasty and sadistic people who stone women to death for kicks. In fact that's more like the 'Religion of Peace' position which insists anything bad has nothing to do with Islam. It is a well established part of Islamic law which ia still practiced today and which most non Muslims and many Muslims find abhorrent.
However even Muslims born and brought up in Britain seem a bit hesitant about saying this simple statement.
Their prophet by any decent modern measures was a bloodthirsty lunatic. His only saving grace is that he lived in 7th century Arabia where standards were much different. If Muslims can't disagree with their prophet even to the modest extent of condemning this most brutal and sadistic form of murder then I believe this is a massive problem and something we in the west should consider very carefully before allowing large scale Muslim immigration or making accommodations to Muslim sensitivities, let alone insisting at the highest levels of government that violence is nothing to do with Islam.
Re Iran, it has this same struggle going on between the maniac Islamist government and a people who want to progress and develop. Unfortunately they too don't want to disagree with their prophet and their government, like that of Saudi Arabia and like IS are not all that far off in their interpretation of the quran.
Ridley said:
Who decided that's the true Islam and true Muslims? You? Trump? Fox News? Daily Mail?
It seems in my short time on PH we're constantly being told by AJS etc. ALL Muslims want us dead and that their mission in life is to either convert or kill. There are 1.5Bn Muslims. If they wanted us dead, we'd be dead.
Get over it.
Umm, not quite. That means there are about 5.5 billion non-Muslims, and since a big chunk of the countries which follow the ROP are backwards despotic hellholes which can barely hold themselves together, if they wanted us dead they woudl probably be dead.It seems in my short time on PH we're constantly being told by AJS etc. ALL Muslims want us dead and that their mission in life is to either convert or kill. There are 1.5Bn Muslims. If they wanted us dead, we'd be dead.
Get over it.
But I have never said all Muslims want us dead. I have said, as KJH said quite robustly that it is a violent, supremacist religion and political creed which seeks domination and creates misery and oppression.
It Isn't in the quran but the hadith as Troubleupmill said. Amusingly it is also said in the hadith that it was meant to be in the quran, but the page was unfortunately eaten by a goat.
Ibn Majah 1944
http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9
It seems that the verse would have been abrogated (even God changed his mind on eternal truths occasionally) by later verses anyway "in recitation but not ruling" so you didn't have to say it during recitals anymore but you still stoned naughty people to death.
Bukhari records this as being a concern
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/56
But Islamic jurisprudence has made sure the faithful stayed true to it in Saudi Arabia, and a few other places.
Well known islamophobic site islamtoday.net also discusses this
http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1229
Ibn Majah 1944
http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9
It seems that the verse would have been abrogated (even God changed his mind on eternal truths occasionally) by later verses anyway "in recitation but not ruling" so you didn't have to say it during recitals anymore but you still stoned naughty people to death.
Bukhari records this as being a concern
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/56
But Islamic jurisprudence has made sure the faithful stayed true to it in Saudi Arabia, and a few other places.
Well known islamophobic site islamtoday.net also discusses this
http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1229
Edited by AJS- on Friday 8th January 14:44
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff