The Search for Moderate Islam

Many of the practices of Islam are simply ridiculous and have no place in a modern society. France has taken some steps, such as banning the headscarf in certain places.You claimed we cannot get rid of Islam. I don't see why we couldn't. Of course, I don't really think getting rid of Islam is entirely necessary, as I've mentioned before. If Islam can join the modern world, then there is plenty of room for it here in the 21st century. But, as I've posted elsewhere, if Islam insists on living in the Middle Ages, the West has no obligation to recognize or tolerate it.

I'll give you that. Irrelevant. Have you read any of the stuff by Ayan Hirsi Ali that I've quoted and linked to? Her perception, as a former Muslim, is that the extremists are right: the texts of Islam really say what they claim they say.Her opinion is that the Qur'an itself (and other Islamic writings)and the fact that Muslims everywhere treat it as infallibleis one of the biggest problems with Islam.Did you watch the video I linked to in Message 386?Asim Qureshi can't bring himself to declare his disagreement. And how could he disagree? No matter how horrendous the writing, denying it is apostasy, punishable by death.This restriction on questioning even the most outrageous tenets of Islam is a major obstacle to reform in Islam. But no one addresses this. There is some weird attitude that Muslims can declare their devotion to the Qur'an (hadith, etc.) and all its evil while still maintaining the 'religion of peace' mantra. It doesn't work and Hirsi Ali gives good argument on the matter, which you can find by reading my other posts here. I am talking about the history of the matter. Of course not. And those teams have their origins in religious rivalry. And, of course, such conflicts aren't imaginary and were once major concerns in the west. However, two things should be said: this thread isn't about Christians; and, this stuff just doesn't happen in the Christian world anymore. As I've mentioned several times in this thread, our own history of failings doesn't excuse present behaviors (it didn't excuse our past ones, either).It's time to see how the disagreement began and commit ourselves to the stance that these behaviors, these religious wars, are simply inexcusable in the 21st century. They are killing everyone who they don't consider a true Muslim. And there are probably enough people who have joined the movement who simply like killing for no real reason at all.They aren't a monolithic group. That's the problem: you're only asking about now.

Then perhaps I can just duck out and let the moderate Muslims duke it out with the extremists.I don't have a dog in this fight.

I will dig around to see if she has given any citations. My source for her quote is in Message 118. Neither can lying.It is up to the Muslims who care enough to develop a form of their religion that can survive without holding texts infallible that call for killing apostates and stoning adulterers.It's not our duty to lie for Islam. It's someone else's duty to make the lying unnecessary. So you're saying he cares more about his image and maintaining the status quo than about saying what needs to be said?Sounds like a weasel to me. When another Muslim is too scared of the followers of his religion to promote a moderate form of it (and I am not saying that Qureshi follows a moderate form of Islam), what hope can there be for any moderate Muslims trying to reform their faith?I think your understanding of Qureshi's refusal to deny the naughty parts is worse than mine.According to you, we can't really expect any moderate Muslim to speak publicly about the need for reform out of fear for their lives.According to me Qureshi is just a weasel.Let's not believe that there is no hope for moderate Islam on account of moderate Muslims staying hush hush to keep their heads and let's just conclude that Qureshi's a weasel. The change in Christianity came slowly.Do we want to wait for Islam to make that transition? I mean politicians, particularly the President of the U.S. (and not just Obama, Bush is as guilty, for example) of pretending that deep down Islam is a religion of peace.It isn't. Just like there is nothing the Old Testament that would make someone think that Judaism is a deep down religion of peace.The peace comes from outside the religion.If there is peace in Islam, it isn't because Islam put it there.That is not addressed; and the fact that so many Muslims believe deeply in the truth of their non-peaceful texts, especially the non-peaceful onesso much so that even you agree that a prominent Muslim disagreeing with these texts commits career suicide in doing sois, as I've said, a huge obstacle to bringing about a meaningful reform in Islam.And I think Hirsi Ali raises a very important issue regarding whether the few moderate Muslims can win against the extremists who have the texts on their side in a culture where the texts have the final say. I think all the Abrahamic religions are intrinsically evil. From the warmongering gods to the punishments for the most benign of 'offenses'. There's very little in these religions worth anything good at all. That Jesus guy tried to change a few things, but all his followers just ported the bad crap into their new religion and kept on doing business as usual.It is only very recently that a couple of those religions have shaken off that crazy, and only after a lot of death, destruction, oppression, ...Islam, though, seems way behind the times on this.But, Mod, we've gone through this already (half my posts now are links to earlier messages and full of 'as I said already').If you think we're just going to rehash the same stuff, feel free to call it.

Asim Qureshi really isn't a good man. He excused Mohammad Emwazi's behavior as the result of his interactions with UK security services as if everyone who has had such interactions now has a license for terror.He is a weasel, no matter what he would have said in the video. Then which Muslims can we expect to answer these questions? I think honesty is the first step. That's partly because the title of this thread isn't "How to Fix Islam". It probably is. I'm honestly not interested in that discussion, and that's why this thread isn't called "How to Bring Peace to the Middle East".

It might have been better posted in the Multiculturalism thread. You say so. There are plenty of people here who would disagree with you. It's probably more tied to the Multiculturalism topic. Though I do think it is relevant here to point out that the 'religion of peace' line is a load of crap.

Haven't I made my stance on this pretty clear?

Those two go hand-in-hand.

Oh stop, Modulous. I've answered the question a number of times in this thread already.Just because it's been a while and you've forgotten everything we've discussed doesn't mean I'm going to repeat my entire position. Check out the following posts; they will more than adequately answer your questions: Message 99
Message 101
Message 118
Message 126
Message 138Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

President Obama believes that IS is not Islamic:

quote:

---

Statement by the President on ISIL:

​

Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic."

---

But IS is Islamic; in fact, very Islamic:

quote:

---

"What ISIS Really Wants" from The Atlantic:

​

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State "a problem with Islam." The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

​

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. "The only principled ground that the Islamic State's opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid," Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

---

What is the purpose of saying the Islamic State is not Islamic?Is Muhammad really worth lying for?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Fair enough. But it's hard to believe that the President of the U.S. doesn't know better. Especially considering our current president's religious background. And they would be wrong.Even if you want to argue that IS doesn't stand for Islam or that their views do not line up with the views of many Muslims, it is a lie falsehood to claim they are not Islamic.They are most definitely Islamic. And for the reasons I've cited in this thread, it's clear they are very Islamic.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Because it is the same sort of lie that has shown up in the sources cited by those in this thread who insist on obfuscation and ignoring evidence.

I'm just posting relevant links as I come across them. We've been over this before. You gave some links to moderate/liberal Muslims. I talked about cookies. And we got nowhere.Do you have anything different that you think will change the outcome this time around?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

What does it matter? It's been posted. If you don't find it relevant, don't respond to it. What media voice? What discussion?You might notice that the links I've been posting have not been in response to anyone. Of course I did:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 126:

​

But there's no point quibbling over possibly bad analogies.

---

You haven't missed anything. We just don't agree.