Moderate Muslims
Discussion
Alpinestars said:
AJS- said:
In a very strict interpretation that's true, but clearly the vast majority of Muslims do pick and choose otherwise they'd all be fighting non-believers wherever they found them, imposing jizya taxes and all sorts. The interesting thing is where and why they draw the line.
What's that stuff they put on non stick pans?Who are "they"??
Islam's PR isn't really my concern.
It seems like a good reason for peaceful Muslims who want to live side by side with people of other faiths to say quite clearly that they oppose the bad things done in the name of Islam though. And perhaps to devote a bit more time and energy to opposing them rather than simply rather than simply taking offence at anyone criticising Islam.
Of course you don't have to do this, and you don't owe it to me or anyone else. But don't complain that people criticise Islam when from an outsiders perspective we see all the well known problems we've discussed and yet the things that seem most likely to get an angry response from Muslims are cartoons, or any other perceived slight against Islam.
It seems like a good reason for peaceful Muslims who want to live side by side with people of other faiths to say quite clearly that they oppose the bad things done in the name of Islam though. And perhaps to devote a bit more time and energy to opposing them rather than simply rather than simply taking offence at anyone criticising Islam.
Of course you don't have to do this, and you don't owe it to me or anyone else. But don't complain that people criticise Islam when from an outsiders perspective we see all the well known problems we've discussed and yet the things that seem most likely to get an angry response from Muslims are cartoons, or any other perceived slight against Islam.
No, I think the religion needs very deep rooted reform, and the PR would look after itself. Many Muslims appear not to think so, so the PR comment was about what is needed to address Islam's awful image.
I am trying to think if I was a peaceful Muslim how I might do this, and the idea of very explicit denunciations of the violent and supremacist aspects of many understandings of Islam seem like a good place to start. From the outside the serial failure to do this seems like a tacit acceptance of it, while the indignation and rage directed at any criticism seems to confirm this suspicion.
I know enough Muslims to know they/you are not all blood thirsty maniacs seeking world domination. That would be a ridiculous thing to say.
I do suspect there's a large element of confusion and conflict within Muslim communities and even within the minds of Muslim as individuals on these matters as well. On the one hand people want to live in peaceful, developed, democratic countries with all the freedoms they have. On the other hand this seemingly benign religion which has been part of your ethnic and familial identity for generations appears to be saying all these things. It must feel like a sort of betrayal to criticise or disregard key tenets of the religion.
I am trying to think if I was a peaceful Muslim how I might do this, and the idea of very explicit denunciations of the violent and supremacist aspects of many understandings of Islam seem like a good place to start. From the outside the serial failure to do this seems like a tacit acceptance of it, while the indignation and rage directed at any criticism seems to confirm this suspicion.
I know enough Muslims to know they/you are not all blood thirsty maniacs seeking world domination. That would be a ridiculous thing to say.
I do suspect there's a large element of confusion and conflict within Muslim communities and even within the minds of Muslim as individuals on these matters as well. On the one hand people want to live in peaceful, developed, democratic countries with all the freedoms they have. On the other hand this seemingly benign religion which has been part of your ethnic and familial identity for generations appears to be saying all these things. It must feel like a sort of betrayal to criticise or disregard key tenets of the religion.
Re celebs and priests. I don't think celebs are anything like a homogenous enough group to have any sense of collective responsibility. It wouldn't make much sense for say Andy Murray to apologise on behalf of Jimmy Savile, or go out of his way to condemn him. Though if asked I would expect him to say yes, child molestation is wrong. Albeit perhaps with a puzzled look on his face.
I think the Catholic church was absolutely disgusting in regards to child abuse and I am amazed it suffered as little damage as it did. Though I believe in the fullness of time it will prove to be worse. Yes I would very much expect any sincere Catholic to be very clear in denouncing that sort of behaviour and the cover up.
To the best of my knowledge the Anglican church has never really had such a systematic and widespread abuse with official sanction and complicity but I would very much expect it to be held to account without compromise for the occasions when it has, and again I wouldn't imagine it would be very much of an issue for sincere most protestants to say they are against child abuse.
I think the Catholic church was absolutely disgusting in regards to child abuse and I am amazed it suffered as little damage as it did. Though I believe in the fullness of time it will prove to be worse. Yes I would very much expect any sincere Catholic to be very clear in denouncing that sort of behaviour and the cover up.
To the best of my knowledge the Anglican church has never really had such a systematic and widespread abuse with official sanction and complicity but I would very much expect it to be held to account without compromise for the occasions when it has, and again I wouldn't imagine it would be very much of an issue for sincere most protestants to say they are against child abuse.
Alpinestars said:
There's a lot of opinions and views there from a man who knows 2 Muslims at last count.
It's good that you don't treat celebs as a homogenous mass, because they aren't. Neither are Muslims, as you've already admitted. So why the double standards?
I would have thought that's quite obvious.It's good that you don't treat celebs as a homogenous mass, because they aren't. Neither are Muslims, as you've already admitted. So why the double standards?
Muslims, pretty much universally have the same koran, and believe in the same prophet and some broadly similar traditions. David Attenborough, Phillip Schofield and Madonna do not have these things in common.
If you can't talk about Muslims as a group in any sense then you can't say it's essentially peaceful either.
allnighter said:
ou could not be more wrong if you tried!
ETA: There are at least 73 sects of Islam. Go figure!
So which ones have a significant variation of the koran? I'm not saying there aren't, but I'm saying that I don't know of any. As I understand it there are a few minor grammatical and stylistic variations in some of the versions in North Africa.ETA: There are at least 73 sects of Islam. Go figure!
Edited by allnighter on Monday 11th January 18:09
Alpine
Yes I would expect any decent person, celebrity or otherwise to condemn sexually abusing children.
I think anyone reviewing that period of time would say that certain attitudes to sexual liberation were wrong.
It appears that the BBC, parliament, the church and certain other institutions covered for child abuse. This is clearly utterly wrong and no sensitivities should be spared in investigating this and bringing them to justice.
I don't think apologies are really the thing, and I don't recall asking any Muslims to apologise. It's about distancing yourself, your ideology and your institutions from this behaviour and these beliefs. And as I said, yes I would expect anyone when asked to condemn child abuse. As I would expect any reasonable person to condemn stoning.
968
See above. Show me a different version of the koran. Ideally one with lots of peace and tolerance. Non-judgemental and forgiving.
Show me a school of Islamic jurisprudence where severe punishments for adultery and apostasy don't apply, and where an apolitical version of Islam encourages living alongside people of other religions as equals, in peace, permanently.
Or the surah 9:29 which says "DON'T fight the non-believers or impose taxes on them. Just let them get on with it."
Of course there are variations on the traditions, and it's probably more hotly debated and analysed (to a phenomenal level of detail) than any other religion. Most of which don't even have schools of jurisprudence. But none of them in 1,400 years as far as I know have really nailed this business of living peacefully with other faiths, treating women humanely and steering clear of aggressive expansion. It's starting to look like a pattern.
Anyway this has all lost it's way a bit.
If we can all agree that stoning and the other barbaric punishments are wrong, and that most Muslims are not violent terrorists, and even asking them to simply affirm this is somehow insulting and divisive, then how do we go about identifying those who potentially are violent before they cause harm? How do we single out and remove the radical Imams inciting people to go and join IS? Or the charities who fund Hamas? Or choose which side to back in a civil war?
If we can all agree that stoning and the other barbaric punishments are wrong, and that most Muslims are not violent terrorists, and even asking them to simply affirm this is somehow insulting and divisive, then how do we go about identifying those who potentially are violent before they cause harm? How do we single out and remove the radical Imams inciting people to go and join IS? Or the charities who fund Hamas? Or choose which side to back in a civil war?
Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 12th January 03:44
Berw
The trouble with this is it gives no way of knowing who we are dealing with. The example of Syria is a good one where it seems that the British government found the first group of people who believed that Assad was not very nice, and decided to throw their lot in with them. Only by a narrow defeat for Cameron in parliament were we not bombing Syria in support of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
It seems that it's precisely the grey areas where the trouble starts because in these areas savvy extremists, typified by the MB, can sincerely say Assad is horrible and dance around the fact that they would replace his regime with something much worse, more closely resembling IS or Saudi than the sort of secular society most western governments would like to see and I believe most Muslims would rather live under.
It's very unfashionable, but perhaps a bit of *well chosen* polarisation is exactly what's needed as I ultimately believe the majority of Muslims, as decent people will choose the right side of this debate and it will be the violent and the supremacist ones who are left behind. History usually works this way when people have two alternatives, and I believe will when the trouble makers can't hide behind a mass of ordinary Muslims who don't want to kill or oppress anyone but understandably feel upset when their religion is 'attacked' by outsiders and confused when people commit atrocities in it's name.
Something which must happen within Islam itself, but something that the west should be aware of IMO as we clearly do have a vested interest in the fallout from this process and in the outcome.
Though I agree with what (I think?) is your position that there are also cultural issues which are distinctly Arab and can't be applied to all Muslim groups.
The trouble with this is it gives no way of knowing who we are dealing with. The example of Syria is a good one where it seems that the British government found the first group of people who believed that Assad was not very nice, and decided to throw their lot in with them. Only by a narrow defeat for Cameron in parliament were we not bombing Syria in support of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
It seems that it's precisely the grey areas where the trouble starts because in these areas savvy extremists, typified by the MB, can sincerely say Assad is horrible and dance around the fact that they would replace his regime with something much worse, more closely resembling IS or Saudi than the sort of secular society most western governments would like to see and I believe most Muslims would rather live under.
It's very unfashionable, but perhaps a bit of *well chosen* polarisation is exactly what's needed as I ultimately believe the majority of Muslims, as decent people will choose the right side of this debate and it will be the violent and the supremacist ones who are left behind. History usually works this way when people have two alternatives, and I believe will when the trouble makers can't hide behind a mass of ordinary Muslims who don't want to kill or oppress anyone but understandably feel upset when their religion is 'attacked' by outsiders and confused when people commit atrocities in it's name.
Something which must happen within Islam itself, but something that the west should be aware of IMO as we clearly do have a vested interest in the fallout from this process and in the outcome.
Though I agree with what (I think?) is your position that there are also cultural issues which are distinctly Arab and can't be applied to all Muslim groups.
GT03ROB
It's not about going around grilling random Muslim individuals about whether they support stoning though. As I said you could have something like a federation of organisations who agree to some basic values and renounce some common problems. You could identify particular Imams, scholars or political movements within Muslim countries which are genuinely not radical and support these. And you could act more decisively against things like the MB insurgency in Syria. You could avoid cock ups like the ill thought out overthrow of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein which led to more violence than they prevented. Opportunities like the Arab spring could have been made more of rather than squandered by handing over government to the MB again (in Egypt) and hoping they would turn out to be nice. You could identify genuinely persecuted asylum seekers and offer genuine asylum without opening your doors to thousands of angry young men.
But you need to identify the good guys an the bad guys before you can do any of these things.
You can't just accept these things as an article of faith when millions of Muslims across many Muslim countries clearly do support for these things and when many Muslims in Britain and other western countries clearly have some level of sympathy.
It's not about going around grilling random Muslim individuals about whether they support stoning though. As I said you could have something like a federation of organisations who agree to some basic values and renounce some common problems. You could identify particular Imams, scholars or political movements within Muslim countries which are genuinely not radical and support these. And you could act more decisively against things like the MB insurgency in Syria. You could avoid cock ups like the ill thought out overthrow of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein which led to more violence than they prevented. Opportunities like the Arab spring could have been made more of rather than squandered by handing over government to the MB again (in Egypt) and hoping they would turn out to be nice. You could identify genuinely persecuted asylum seekers and offer genuine asylum without opening your doors to thousands of angry young men.
But you need to identify the good guys an the bad guys before you can do any of these things.
You can't just accept these things as an article of faith when millions of Muslims across many Muslim countries clearly do support for these things and when many Muslims in Britain and other western countries clearly have some level of sympathy.
Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 12th January 09:11
I think it's perfectly legitimate to question if I'm just saying this because I am racist, and even if I inevitably say No to form your own opinion based on what else I say. This has been discussed at length believe it or not. But I'll repeat it anyway: I am not racist. I live in a mostly non-white country and am married to a non-white wife, and have a daughter who is only half white and is the light of my life. Despite my lack of Muslim friends I do have friends who are Indian, Thai and Iranian that spring to mind who are ethnically indistinguishable from Muslims. I have met plenty of Muslims and not had any problem with them on a personal level.
And I'm not demanding an apology from anyone.
The vast majority of any large grouping will be generally decent people getting on with their lives. That didn't make fascism or communism any less of a problem when they had the levers of the German and Russian state.
Ideas count.
And I'm not demanding an apology from anyone.
The vast majority of any large grouping will be generally decent people getting on with their lives. That didn't make fascism or communism any less of a problem when they had the levers of the German and Russian state.
Ideas count.
Challo
I don't think our foreign or domestic policy reflects very well on the work of our security establishment. At least the ones advising the politicians.
It is not about what I expect of Muslims and I don't expect them to care anyway except in so far as many seem to dislike any criticism of Islam.
I believe the bad PR is mostly justified.
Alpine
I've never said that Muslims were a homogeneous mass. It would be ridiculous.
I've answered your daft question at least twice. No I don't think white male celebrities of a certain age should apologise for or in any way be held responsible for child abuse by a certain few. There's no big book of white male celebritihood which mandates child abuse. There are no schools of celebrity jurisprudence. There are no scholars of Hello magazine or hadiths of Jimmy Savile recording intimate details of his life and claiming he is the perfect example of a white male celebrity.
Reforming Islam is for Muslims. I can comment, for all that's worth and point out the things that I as a somewhat interested westerner find disturbing about it. You can ignore me or correct me, but just getting all defensive and calling me a bigot does little to change my perception.
I don't think our foreign or domestic policy reflects very well on the work of our security establishment. At least the ones advising the politicians.
It is not about what I expect of Muslims and I don't expect them to care anyway except in so far as many seem to dislike any criticism of Islam.
I believe the bad PR is mostly justified.
Alpine
I've never said that Muslims were a homogeneous mass. It would be ridiculous.
I've answered your daft question at least twice. No I don't think white male celebrities of a certain age should apologise for or in any way be held responsible for child abuse by a certain few. There's no big book of white male celebritihood which mandates child abuse. There are no schools of celebrity jurisprudence. There are no scholars of Hello magazine or hadiths of Jimmy Savile recording intimate details of his life and claiming he is the perfect example of a white male celebrity.
Reforming Islam is for Muslims. I can comment, for all that's worth and point out the things that I as a somewhat interested westerner find disturbing about it. You can ignore me or correct me, but just getting all defensive and calling me a bigot does little to change my perception.
allnighter said:
he problem does not lie in the book.It's the Zillions of hadiths that have been written starting from about 200 years after the messenger died, and people have attributed a lot of stuff to Muhammad based on hearsay and whatever suited their agenda at the time. This grey area grew over time and contributed to the creation of many sects to both divisions of Islam (Sunnis & Shia). Sharia law is mostly based on hearsay so that tells you something.
People invent stuff left, right and centre and claim Muhammad said it, but the funny thing is if you referred back to the Quran, you would see instructions forbidding the recording of anything the prophet said so as to preserve the authenticity of the Quran. The irony is that after the death of Muhammad, the Arabs did exactly the opposite of what was instructed to them in their holy book, hence all the divisions and disagreements that you see today with no less than 73 sects associated to Islam. There is even a sect called the Quranist (self-proclaimed reformists) who accept the Quran as scripture, but rejects the religious authority of the Hadith.
If all these sects cannot agree with each other, and some even kill each other, how can anyone begin to think about the idea of reforming Islam and where to start. Hadiths contradicting the book, hadiths contradicting other hadiths, scholars contradicting other scholars, and everyone is a self-declared prophet (sarcasm alert!) and claims he holds the "truth" to what God/Allah conveyed.
Everyone is different hence the reason you should never lump Muslims together. Everyone thinks differently about their faith, some take quranic verses literally, some take them as symbolism for something else, and some look at them in their historical context. Others, who are mostly uneducated, are not aware of what the book say and rely on hearsay (Hadiths) and so on and so forth. Some even believe Niqab and FGM are cited in the Quran because someone who lives next door told them while they were playing dominos in the local café.
You even get some bright doctors and engineers totally blinded by this crap, disregard the warning signs their brain is giving them, and embrace charlatanism based on what some f
kwit scholar said, thinking Ah it must be Allah's command so I cannot go against it.
Islam's biggest weakness is Hadiths, and seeing that people are unwilling to disregard hearesay and invented sayings, there will always be conflicts and sects. Nothing can change that.
Good post. It seems from my reading that much of the militancy was very politically expedient for the later caliphs, so any twisting of the original peaceful nature of Islam happened in the 8th and 9th centuries. Not last Friday.People invent stuff left, right and centre and claim Muhammad said it, but the funny thing is if you referred back to the Quran, you would see instructions forbidding the recording of anything the prophet said so as to preserve the authenticity of the Quran. The irony is that after the death of Muhammad, the Arabs did exactly the opposite of what was instructed to them in their holy book, hence all the divisions and disagreements that you see today with no less than 73 sects associated to Islam. There is even a sect called the Quranist (self-proclaimed reformists) who accept the Quran as scripture, but rejects the religious authority of the Hadith.
If all these sects cannot agree with each other, and some even kill each other, how can anyone begin to think about the idea of reforming Islam and where to start. Hadiths contradicting the book, hadiths contradicting other hadiths, scholars contradicting other scholars, and everyone is a self-declared prophet (sarcasm alert!) and claims he holds the "truth" to what God/Allah conveyed.
Everyone is different hence the reason you should never lump Muslims together. Everyone thinks differently about their faith, some take quranic verses literally, some take them as symbolism for something else, and some look at them in their historical context. Others, who are mostly uneducated, are not aware of what the book say and rely on hearsay (Hadiths) and so on and so forth. Some even believe Niqab and FGM are cited in the Quran because someone who lives next door told them while they were playing dominos in the local café.
You even get some bright doctors and engineers totally blinded by this crap, disregard the warning signs their brain is giving them, and embrace charlatanism based on what some f
kwit scholar said, thinking Ah it must be Allah's command so I cannot go against it.Islam's biggest weakness is Hadiths, and seeing that people are unwilling to disregard hearesay and invented sayings, there will always be conflicts and sects. Nothing can change that.
So perhaps the better question would be how do we identify which sects are peaceful. Which are militant. Which institutions are controlled by which sects and which parts of these sects. Which charities and advocacy groups are genuinely peaceful and which are jihadist.
For organisations like the MCB something along the lines of Charlie's declaration doesn't seem unreasonable. It doesn't have to be mandatory but a sort of qualifier for groups like the MCB, before politicians take their pronouncements or advice too seriously. Let alone give them funding. You could ask all religious groups to sign up to it if that satisfied the desire for equality.
The MCB claims to speak on behalf of Islam and 'Muslims affairs' in the UK and claims to represent all sects, and appears to have the ear of the media and politicians when they need a Muslim voice. If I were a peaceful Muslim I would probably be railing against this more than "bigots" who have a negative view of Islam.
As to why Muslim groups in particular are expected to sign up to this, I believe it was actually written by a Muslim - Dr Zuhdi Jasser, who I have mentioned a few times as a very sincere, peaceful Muslim. So ask him. In the preamble it says he believes he is engaged in a 'battle for the soul' of Islam.
Preamble said:
We are Muslims who live in the 21st century. We stand for a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam. We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate.
We seek to reclaim the progressive spirit with which Islam was born in the 7th century to fast forward it into the 21st century. We support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by United Nations member states in 1948.
We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. Facing the threat of terrorism, intolerance, and social injustice in the name of Islam, we have reflected on how we can transform our communities based on three principles: peace, human rights and secular governance. We announce the formation of an international initiative: the Muslim Reform Movement.
We have courageous reformers from around the world who have written our Declaration for Muslim Reform, a living document that we will continue to enhance as our journey continues. We invite our fellow Muslims and neighbors to join us.
Obviously the republican bit would have to go in the UK. And I don't really see how you can have a religion if it doesn't claim to be the way to heaven, but the sentiment seems good. We seek to reclaim the progressive spirit with which Islam was born in the 7th century to fast forward it into the 21st century. We support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by United Nations member states in 1948.
We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. Facing the threat of terrorism, intolerance, and social injustice in the name of Islam, we have reflected on how we can transform our communities based on three principles: peace, human rights and secular governance. We announce the formation of an international initiative: the Muslim Reform Movement.
We have courageous reformers from around the world who have written our Declaration for Muslim Reform, a living document that we will continue to enhance as our journey continues. We invite our fellow Muslims and neighbors to join us.
Allnighter
I don't think getting individuals to sign it is practical or fair for the reasons you say.
For institutions like the MCB who do claim to represent peaceful Islam and to speak for Muslims who wish to live side by side with non-Muslims on an equal basis it seems reasonable to ask that they do at least agree to these basic principles of a free society.
I don't think getting individuals to sign it is practical or fair for the reasons you say.
For institutions like the MCB who do claim to represent peaceful Islam and to speak for Muslims who wish to live side by side with non-Muslims on an equal basis it seems reasonable to ask that they do at least agree to these basic principles of a free society.
I don't see how that's putting words in your mouth. But I think we're talking at cross purposes.
I'm not saying we should go around shoving this in the faces of every Muslim and treating them as terrorists if they don't.
I would think an organisation like the MCB could make something like that part of being affiliated with it so that when people donate to an affiliated charity for Gaza they are buying clothes and food for people not guns and bombs. Or when tge government seeks advice from Muslim groups they know that these groups have committed to these values and are not jihadist fronts. When an organisation is not affiliated you can ask why.
I'm not saying we should go around shoving this in the faces of every Muslim and treating them as terrorists if they don't.
I would think an organisation like the MCB could make something like that part of being affiliated with it so that when people donate to an affiliated charity for Gaza they are buying clothes and food for people not guns and bombs. Or when tge government seeks advice from Muslim groups they know that these groups have committed to these values and are not jihadist fronts. When an organisation is not affiliated you can ask why.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff