The Search for Moderate Islam

A board on Islam: Islam Question and Answer.This is worth checking out.

But they're not following moderate Islam; they're trying to create it!Like I already said, making cookies is not the same as having cookies, and neither are the same as eating cookies.I don't believe that the efforts of moderate Muslims have fully developed into the existence of a moderate Islam. It is still a work very much in progress.Taking the stance you take, where you pretend that it is already done, doesn't help the cause of moderate Muslims at all.We should recognize the importance of what these people are doing by realizing that their goals cannot be met within a culture that considers them already achieved. The fight between moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims isn't our fight. We need to stop throwing away the lives of our own people attempting to police someone else's religion.Debates like we are having now is all the more involved we really need to be. Humanitarian efforts should be humanitarian efforts only; it is no government's job to further the cause of any religion or religious belief.And as a non-religious person I have no interest in furthering certain beliefs for the sake of furthering those beliefs. The only reason I see to further moderate Islam over extremist Islam is because it might mean a lot fewer people getting blown up.My concerns are purely practical and secular, as I'm sure most people's on this forum are.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Not at all. And if you see that as my position, then it is understandable that you would disagree with me.I accept their claims on what they believe. I take them at their word; what they say they believe is what they believe. I'd certainly have no grounds for thinking otherwise.But something we might ask ourselves, and this goes to the point I've been making, is whether these folk are carrying on the traditions of reformers before them or whether they are coming to their conclusions separately and anew. My analogy regarded a single batch of cookies as the completed product. There's no 'next batch' in my analogy. But if you see the completed product as a bakery full of cookies, and admit that there are batches yet to be baked, then I think you've already accepted the notion that the goal has not yet been reached.But there's no point quibbling over possibly bad analogies. But there's a problem with this, and it was something I was hoping could be addressed with this thread.Your so-called 'moderate Islam' doesn't lend itself to spreading very easily because it is not complete. It is in its early stages; it is still the lofty ideas of a handful of moderate Muslims; and there is still plenty of disagreement about what moderate Islam should be.It's hard to spread the word when folks are having difficulty agreeing on what the word should be. It goes back to a point that dwise1 made:

quote:

---

dwise1 in Message 106:

​

Is there a moderate Islam? Yes, there is. It is what is practiced by moderate Muslims, who do exist, believe it or not. Is it an organized branch of Islam? Not that I know of.

​

Is there a moderate Christianity? Yes, there is. It is what is practiced by moderate Christians, who do exist, believe it or not. Is it an organized branch of Christianity? Yes, but only because of the influence of humanism and secularism.

---

If you want to simply define 'moderate Islam' as what is practiced by moderate Muslims, then, sure, that moderate Islam exists.But what good is that moderate Islam? It can't be spread by any reasonable means throughout the Islamic world; the people who arrive at their conclusions do so only after years and years of deep reflection.Perhaps it was my fault for working with the assumption that a moderate Islam should have some practical value and not only exist by definition alone.Or perhaps that's not such a ridiculous assumption.Our findings should have some meaning and value; they shouldn't just be the product of word play.

I still believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; that a religion is not simply a bunch of people with similar beliefs. It is popular for the west to blame itself; but that cannot happen, because it leads to people who ignore actual motives for bad behavior. Despite what some would like us to think, not everything that is happening in the Middle East is the result of economic or political difficulties (that is more western thinking); many of the people who are firing bombs and kidnapping children are doing so specifically and only on the basis of a religion they believe tells them they should.But I think you can agree with that. Obviously because people are getting killed in the name of Islam. Watch some of those debates I posted; the discussion is being had specifically because of the world we live in now where radical crazy Muslims are going around blowing up one another and sometimes other people too.Those are the times.

Not at all. But I can see how you might think that since you broke my paragraph apart and took pieces of it out of their context.My point: It is very 'western' to see the world in terms of economics and politicsthese are pretty much the driving forces behind individual decision making in the west; it's part of our culture. This is not part of everyone else's culture though. Where does that leave us? Whole cultures deciding to live in Backwardsville where governments are theocracies and human rights don't matter just to avoid accepting ideas they perceive as coming from the 'enemy'? Are they that stupid?I don't think so; instead I think the problem is that the area is so entrenched in its religious delusions that absolutely nothing else in the world matters beyond maintaining those delusions. 'Western' ideas are bad not because they are 'western' but specifically because they threaten to shatter the delusion.It's why we have fools in our own corners of the world working to bring religion into government. Their delusions are of utmost importance to them. It is obvious to everyone else that when religious sects run the government you end up with societies that look like the Middle East; but these people are fueled by their delusions beyond the capacity of common sense and basic observation to restrain them. You asked me why I felt different about Islam, not whether I expected it to behave differently.I do not expect it to behave differently. I do feel different about it though, for the reasons that I mentioned.I don't tend to hold strong feelings about the need for Christianity to become more moderate, or Taoism, or Buddhism, or...People aren't being murdered en masse in the name of any of those other belief systems, so they understandably give me less reason to be concerned than Islam, a religion in the name of which many people are being slain every day.Given this, I think it is understandable why anyone would feel different about the need for reform in Islam versus other religions.

Responding to your points in reverse order and in one thread: Some understandings of morality are superior.

quote:

---

Jaderis in Message 133:

​

I wholeheartedly agree, but the next question then becomes: how do we go about not being complacent with human rights violations without violating human rights and/or without potentially creating even bigger problems?

---

You get rid of whatever is violating human rights; I think it is assumed under most liberal governments that there is no right to violate the rights of others. That is one right that we don't have to be in the business of protecting.There was a link given at the beginning of this thread to another thread (Evil Muslim conspiracy...). I've been reading this thread. Modulous cites some information in a message there (that was also cited by Bill Maher in an interview that I think was linked to in this thread, but anyway):

quote:

---

Modulous in Message 131 in Evil Muslim conspiracy...:

​

The outlook is probably more like a huge percentage (perhaps even a majority in some places) want global Islam, Shariah for all, extreme modesty for women etc etc. The only difference is that despite wanting these things they are not always prepared to take extreme measures to acheive them, taking a more long term 'Allah will see to it eventually' kind of ending.

​

This however means that there is a strong temptation to 'look the other way' when it comes to certain situations. Sure, threatening to kill Rushdie is not condoned by this Muslim - but they might think that Rushdie brought it on himself and deserves to take some flak and should even 'expect' Allah to enact his vengeance through some 'extremist'. The means were questionable, but the end is noble kind of thing.

​

I went looking for examples of this attitude:

​

quote:

---

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

​

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

---

​

Source: telegraph

​

All this said - 'Islam' is a very wide demographic with probably more differences between groups than similarities.

​

quote:

---

About eight-in-ten Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan (82% each) endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery; 70% of Muslims in Jordan and 56% of Nigerian Muslims share this view. Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt are also the most supportive of whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; 82% in Pakistan and 77% in Egypt favor making this type of punishment the law in their countries, as do 65% of Muslims in Nigeria and 58% in Jordan.

​

When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law; in Nigeria, 51% of Muslims favor and 46% oppose it. In contrast, Muslims in Lebanon, Turkey and Indonesia largely reject the notion that harsh punishments should be the law in their countries. About three-quarters of Turkish and Lebanese Muslims oppose the stoning of people who commit adultery (77% and 76%, respectively), as does a narrower majority (55%) of Muslims in Indonesia.

---

​

The bottom line is: if religiously sanctioned death and mutilation is an extremist position - its a very common one.

---

This is why, at least partially, attempts to bring democratic systems to these areas have failed to restore basic human rights: the majority of people living in these regions don't want a society that recognizes basic human rights.The rest of the world is finding its hands tied and in a panic on what to do. How can you bring human rights to people who don't want them? How do you ensure the protection of people who do want those rights and would benefit from them?The rights of the oppressors to oppress seems to be an acceptable casualty in all this.Don't you think?

quote:

---

Jaderis in Message 132:

​

Of course, ridding the world of Islam means ridding the world of Muslims.

---

This is completely untrue. And it is beside the point. What I was saying is that Islam is not more important to the world than the preservation and spread of basic human rights and liberties. If, for example, convincing people of the need for human rights turns them from the Islamic faith, then that is a completely acceptable sacrifice for the world to make.We are not obligated to protect religious belief at any and all costs.I can't imagine any decent person thinking otherwise.Jon

I think you have misunderstood me.I did not mean that economic and political forces do not motivate the people of the Middle East. My point is that we should not discount the influence of religionwhich is unarguably greatby trying to understand the motives in purely western terms of economics and politics.There are a lot of factors involved and religion is a very big one that is often overlooked by many in the west because of our own cultural prejudices that place economics and politics at the front and discount religion as something meant to guide 'spiritual' matters and not for the making of major practical decisions.I think that handles the problems you had with my position regarding the role of politics in decision making. I just quoted you citing some statistics in another thread. To take one as an example, about 80% of people in Egypt think adulterers should be stoned. It is hard to imagine that these people are incapable of conceptualizing a non-stoning; I mean, this is what happens every time they don't stone someone. So clearly they have access to the notion that people don't have to be stoned.They choose to ignore it for some reason or another (probably largely religion-based) and instead vote to stone folks. I say that it is evil to sit by and watch people be oppressed.Doing the right thing is the right thing to do even if the people you do it for hate you for doing it. The problem with disagreement goes deeper than just people who can't see eye-to-eye. One of the problems with the ideals held by the moderate Muslims is that they largely arrive at those ideals after long and laborious critical analysis.It makes the whole thing too inaccessible. In contrast (though I don't like comparing religions) moderate Christianity is very accessible; there are slogans and buzzwords that anyone can understand quickly and without thought"love the sinner, hate the sin", "turn the other cheek", etc. This is spreadable. "Sit down and listen to my drawn-out logical argument" is not.If there is a moderate Islam, then it needs to organize itself into something meaningful that can actually compete with extreme Islam. Otherwise the whole thing is pretty much a matter of tossing about definitions and has no practical value.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

As far as the west having a hand in turning ordinary folks from good ideas, I'm not sure it matters. By refusing to accept a moderate form of Islam, the only damage they do is to themselves. Assigning blame makes for good footnotes, but it ultimately doesn't get much done.At most it means that moderate Muslims need to work harder to spread their message and emphasize that the values they preach regarding human rights are universal and not just 'western'.Whatever damage is done is done; whoever did it did it; we can only focus on the future. I say they are largely religious. I say this because I want to give the people living there the benefit of the doubt: It is more reasonable to see people destroying their own societies in the name of religion than in the name of sticking it to their enemy.Perhaps the impetus was to avoid being 'western', but there are plenty of ways to do that. Digging up the darkest aspects of their religion and enacting a hell on earth for millions of people was the choice they made. They decided on being down-right self destructive and that, I think, is the result of their religious belief. Which, in fact, means that you cannot even discern whether they are liberal or not. Because I'm not a Muslim and I don't see it accomplishing anything for people who are.

I think we are all taking ISIS seriously.

The continuation of the U.S. isn't the only concern, jar. More important than merely ensuring its own existence is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, who pay taxes, vote, and generally participate in the economic, social, and political cultures that make the country and its government possible.When people talk about hating terrorism or blitzkriegs, it's mostly because they fear for the loss of lives, peace, and prosperity that these things bring. That it might prevent their country from simply getting by is, from my observation, one of the least of their worries.Jon

Anyone can be PC.

Modulous and I have already had a pretty lengthy exchange on this subject. The bottom line is that demonstrating the existence of moderate Muslims does not demonstrate the existence of moderate Islam.

As I said, I've been over this with Modulous already. I'm not really interested in having the same conversation. If you want to read through our discussion and ask questions about my position or just talk about some new stuff, that's cool.But as far as me having the same conversation with you that I had with Modulous? Nah.

I believe Lincoln was a Republican...

Of course true or not, none of that has anything to do with the search for moderate Islam.