The Search for Moderate Islam

Many of the practices of Christianity are simply ridiculous and have no place in a modern society. England has taken some steps, such as allowing women to own private property and to initiate divorce proceedings. Seems like a solid claim. Nobody who has tried so far has succeeded for over a thousand years. Millions have died in said attempts. Well, Jon the Great - how do we achieve this? You talk on this thread like Islam intrinsically cannot do this, I've been arguing that it can and has done this on a number of occasions and that we should be doing what we can do foster this process rather than entrenching extremism.Denying that moderate Islam exists or can exist, is not - in my view - conducive to fostering its growth. It just confirms what the extremists are saying when they radicalize people. If we're all agreeing with them, that doesn't seem clever to me. Islam insists on nothing, it is an abstract collection of ideas. Instead we have to deal with the people. We could say 'they are opting to live in perpetual war' if we like, 'therefore we can kill them to keep the peace'. Alternatively we could do something other than sound like a 12th Century Pope and use our brains and experience and evidence and ask 'why are these people living this way? Why are they psychologically drawn towards violence? Why are they reverting (and compared with the Ottoman Empire, that region as reverted) or attempting to revert towards a more primitive cultural perspective? Why has this collapsed empire not fully settled down in the last century? Why the continued unrest, cries of injustice, violence and patriarchy?' Any answer is likely to include religious concepts, and their effects on human psychology which are probably real and I'm not here denying them. But that's simply not enough. Moderate Islam exists and has been practiced. So we cana) do what we've been doing for a thousand years and hope we're helping and not making it worse or perpetuating it.b) try fostering the kind of environment that Christendom had that allowed for the moderates to gain ground, whatever the important factors there were.You want to do a)?Any evidence that will work?My evidence that b) could work is that it has done so before. My evidence that a) doesn't work is by pointing out the persecutions of the Jews and Christians and how it doesn't work, and is in fact couterproductive towards the ends we're aiming at. Short of murdering basically everybody of a certain religion who refuses to convert, I don't see how a) is a path that has any merit whatsoever

It's not irrelevant to point out that a religion that exists in largely moderate forms today, used to be very extremist, worse than Islam today even. If you had lived in those times, the notion that Christianity could become what it is today in Europe and the USA especially....would have been absurd. So no, that extreme totally life dominating religions can become moderate afterthoughts is not irrelevant to my views that the same might happen with Islam.Pointing out other similar examples from different cultures and societies when discussing anthropology is actually referring to evidence. Not irrelevant regardless of your repeated insistence that it is. I'm not disputing that the texts of Islam say what they say at all. I've read quite a bit of it myself, translated by reputable translators of course. She's wrong, in my opinion. It's the Hadith, and the fact that Muslims treat the ones they believe are genuine as infallible - is one of the biggest problems with Islam. Almost the entirety of the awful stuff is in there. And the Quran holds the key to destroying it as it actually forbids the Hadith. Indeed even some of the Hadith forbid the Hadith.And yes, much of moderate Islam treats it as infallible, but 'of it's time and needs to be interpreted for the modern world' and the like. Some moderates argue that the words Gabriel gave to Mohammed were timeless truths, but they became temporal when translated into Arabic which, may be awesome - it may have been the best language at the time to use, but it is not up to Allah's perfect majesty. Obviously people that take the Bible or the Qur'an literally and treat it as infallible are often dangerous lunatics I wouldn't want to be within ten miles of - and that's why we want moderates who have a more liberal approach to the texts.And that's why I am saying we should be promoting that this is possible, reasonable, ethical, and consistent with Islam. Because saying the opposite can't be helping. Exactly. So his prevarications tell us nothing about him other than he is aware he is being filmed, he is aware of his social and cultural context and his place within it and how that would drastically increase the chances someone would be angry enough to do bad things. Given what he does - he would have to be a raging moron to court controversy like that. It would be like indicating you are an atheist as a Presidential candidate. It will lose you the election, may cost you more as there are lots of nutters out there in the US. So why would you?We already know there are people that would kill him for denying the Hadith or the Qur'an as they see it. So what is there to learn by watching the video?Furthermore - regardless of the fears of safety - why would he alienate potential financial supporters by taking a definite position on his own religion? Personally I would want people in his position to receive media coaching about this. I'd recommend 'I am not going to discus my personal religious views in such a public sphere. I am not ashamed, but I feel doing so would run in conflict with my mission. Furthermore I am not a scholar, but I fear as a person in the media I might have a certain amount of influence and I believe that as I am not an Imam it is not place to participate in this fashion. Please can we move on?' But perhaps something punchier. I think 'I am not a theologian' is too punchy and people tend to consider him a 'weasel' for using it, rather than as someone who is trying to do things like live free of harassment. murder and financial consequences for his advocacy group. Correct. Same was true in Christianity, just ask William Tyndale. It can change, let's help that happen. Don't know if you haven't been paying attention - your posts indicate you've looked at the media about this subject. Isn't the deeply held religious convictions angle played on any of the media you watch? Of course it is. All the time. You've probably posted something that qualifies in this thread already. Everybody addresses it, it's the thing to address.So clearly you mean something else. What was that? I don't know what this sentence means. At best I can parse out that free speech and its advocacy is weird? Could you fill this thought out a bit for me, please? Actually, based on my conceptions of you, I might guess what you are trying to say, but it's not certain. Could you give an example of someone displaying this weird attitude, maybe that would help? What doesn't work? Accepting evil and claiming to be good? Well it does work on a pragmatic scale, people do it to good effect all the time. It's not coherent in and of itself, containing a contradiction. Is that what you are saying?Because again you are just saying that Islam is intrinsically evil, which is not true. It's not history that's killing each other or treating women and apostates poorly. As the reporter said. So again, where's the lie? If you think we raise Christians (the most closely related religion to Islam that exists, that isn't an offshoot of Islam) to excuse terrorism then you have not been reading what we've been saying. Could you try to do this from now on?Christians used to be awful, it was impossible to see it any other way. Christianity itself, the theological texts, the Papal and Royal decrees. All of that shit? That was obviously not helping. But much of that stuff was written for temporal/political reasons. After the political reasons existed, the religion conserved some of these notions, which really did not help. Neverthless, today we can say that Christianity is a problem still, for many of those same reasons, but the improvements are immense.The same could be said of its very closely related religion: Islam. It is not intrinsically evil, radical, extremist or anything and moderate variants can easily exist because humans are like that. Why is it having a problem growing and what can we do to help? I keep asking and you haven't really had much illumination to shed on the matter.

So no more complaints about how women are being treated by some Muslim communities in the Western world, or people blowing up buildings, right? Unless they're your women and buildings, obviously.

Religion is made up bullshit. Lying is a category error when it is applied to works of fiction. That's right. It's not lying, it's encouraging a milder form of a delusion to gain power. I'm not suggesting it is our duty. I am suggesting it is a good idea.Do you want to share a house with a psychotic who believes you are trying to murder him or a psychotic that thinks an epic poem is about him? No. That's not what I'm saying.He's trying to create changes. He has a specific focus and dedication. To publicly declare one way or another on an issue that divides the community he is working to help - would almost certainly work to undermine the success of the very thing he is working to achieve. That's the generic statement. I'm not condoning caged or its actions or membership - but from his perspective neither definitive answer helped him. Sounds pragmatic to me. If ever you are in the public sphere trying to promote some charity or advocacy group and you are asked a question the answer to which could either harm your group or cause you to be harmed or both...you can do the brave thing and fall on your sword and hope your martydom changes things, which it probably won't. But sometimes change happens, I hope you never get tested: most people fail and I'm going to guess it's a horrid feeling. I feel like we've been over this territory already.It's possible, it's been done, and it's difficult. We can't make it happen, but we can try to help. Denying the existence of those that are moderate, and more or less accusing them of being craven if and where they do is not the kind of environment we should be looking to create. Celebrating their successes and amplifying their voices as being reasonable and consistent with Islam rather than decrying them as lies seems better. More misunderstanding of my position. It's quite dizzying trying to figure out what you think I'm saying sometimes.We can't expect every Muslim with a public position to answer religious questions that divide his religious community on film with a view to broadcasting to millions.Even in cases where it might be argued to be appropriate, expecting them to do anything but what anybody else would do in the same social context would be foolish. You can call it being a weasel, but it's not your life and family in the firing line and I won't be judging you if you choose to be safe/prudent rather than brave/foolish. I don't think there's no hope. I've pointed several Muslims to you who have been quite public with their moderate views. But in Qureshi's case, whatever the truth is would be harmful to him. Call it weaselling if you like, I simply call it pragmatism. No.
That's what I've been saying for some time now. That's what I said in the quote above.Let's not wait, let's help make it happen.Get it? It's not pretending, its trying toa) discourage homegrown fanatics from engaging in wanton attacks on other citizens
b) provide assurances that it is not a war against Islam, but against some people who claim to be Muslims.Because you know who we desperately need to appease? A group whose members can really provide tremendous help in creating a lasting peace...they are called Muslims.So I'm fine with politicians using THAT kind of rhetoric. The kind of rhetoric that is the opposite of this is terrifying. And it still remains a point about which we do not disagree. I'm trying to talk about how we should handle the problems, and you seem fixated on repeating the things you think are problems.. Used to be that Kings and Popes had the final say and most people weren't even allowed to read the holy texts. Things change, sometimes in big and surprising ways very quickly or sometimes so slowly nobody really notices until some historian gets his phd on the subject. Indeed. Not really WAY behind the times. In a sense, it started centuries after the others, and there are reasons I've gone over as to why the Middle East in particular have faced such significant problems.My reasoning is that Turkey came out of the Ottoman empire with a strong benevolent leader (as far as strong leaders go, in any case). His reaction to the collapse of the Caliphate was Islamic Modernism and secularization. It worked out pretty well for Turkey.Other regions declared independence, fought the the west to get it, and after a leader arises the West didn't like, they'd depose him there'd be more struggling and conflict and the cycle would continue with resentment building all around to the point where homicidal hatred was practically a cultural norm.So a new strong leader has arrived. His name is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. We can fight him, or let him do as he will. Maybe the people will grow tired and rebel against him, another war, but their war. And maybe, maybe that's the solution. But can we really just stand by?It's difficult to break our interventions in an area like that, even just on moral grounds. But then there's the whole oil issue just to make sure this situation is likely to get much worse before it gets better. Personally I'd prefer you stop repeating yourself and telling me how bad you think Islam is Muslims are or whatever and start thinking what the best way to address the issues is and why.You claim you can erradicate Islam. It wouldn't solve everything, but I'm sure it'd help. How?You suggest we have dog in this fight and we stand by. Fine. Do we also withdraw our military bases, the military support of Israel and essentially concede to the demands?Alternatively you suggest moderating Islam. A fine idea. How do you propose we do that? By killing the extremists? If you feel the urge to reply telling me about how bad Islam is, how many Muslims are simply awful people, how the texts and people's opinions of them are an issue or how Islam is the only thing we need to consider in determining causality then I call it.If you have constructive things to say I'd be eager to hear.Why do you think Turkey manage to successfully utilize Islamic Modernism to create a pretty decent nation, geography and history considered.Why do you think other areas responded to the victory of the west as the Ottomans collapsed with Islamic Revivalism?How do we turn a culture from its Revivalist stance to a Modernist stance and how do we react when the Revivalists do unpleasant things in the meantime?Care to profer any opinion on that side of the discussion? You've criticized my understanding of the situation but I haven't been educated as to the true path to peace in the Middle East. If you would like to tell me, I'd be keen to hear.

I suggest you don't post videos discussing the history behind the current conflicts in the Middle East if you don't want to discuss it.Back to the topic. We've established that moderate Islam exists, but that it doesn't have the widespread acceptance we'd like. You seem to be angry about people lying about Islam, is this tied to the topic in some way and would you like to finish that thought if it is?

That's true about everything I say.Do you deny its existence today?

Sometimes it feels like you are denying it entirely. At other times you say it isn't prominent enough. Where are you today?

Because This is the same as wishing for less extremism. Which I believe you do in fact do, and have essentially spent some time on this thread indicating you would find preferable.Once you've answered why you are concerned with extremists and why you wish they are less influential, you'll understand why I am concerned with moderates and wish they were more influential.

When you've finished weaselling, could you answer the question in a straight forward fashion?

Yes you have. I used the qualified 'today' to indicate that it's difficult to know on any given day what your exact position will be as you've wobbled on the line a few times Message 1 Moderate Islam does not exist
Message 7 Moderate Muslims exist. Moderate Islam does not
Message 19 As above
Message 25 Peaceful Muslims exist; Islam is their religion.
Message 28 No Moderate Islam
Message 29 Where is moderate Islam?
Message 29 No moderate Muslims (or silent)
{a brief interlude of asking what Islam is}
Message 116 An acknowledgement of the existence of a proto-moderate Islam but this won't suffice until a certain (unspecified by Jon) degree of agreement exists. Presumably this is why nobody talks about moderate Christians, because of the lack of agreement over theological minutia
Message 118 Indicates you won't consider moderate Islam found unless it is 'coherent moderate Islam' {whatever that means} or a 'moderate Muslim community.' That you suppose that moderate Islam is a work in progress.
Message 123 you acknowledge moderate Islam would exist, if it was followed.
Message 126 you agree that a religion that is practiced by moderate Muslims, which might be called moderate Islam, certain does - but that is useless because it takes time to spread.
Message 138 you indicate you appreciate the need to make moderate Islam more appealing than extreme Islam, though you have adopted a tentative approach to its existence
Message 196 the thing that moderate Muslims follow is not moderate Islam
Message 297 maybe the Ahmadiyya could be moderate and presumably 'coherent' enough to qualify.
Message 328 Moderate Islam has not been presented to me
{Posts complaining about various examples of liberal sins, both the things that offend liberal values and liberals themselves sinning in the media etc}
{Sunni/Shia, the West's impact, resolutions moving forwards and Jon declaring he doesn't want to talk about this subject}My best guess is that you are still denying the existence of moderate Islam. This is why I said "Sometimes it feels like you are denying it entirely. At other times you say it isn't prominent enough. ". The only way these go hand in hand is if you are saying it doesn't exist. It is possible to argue it exists but isn't prominent enough or that it does not exist AND therefore is not prominent enough.Hence why I asked for clarity. Which apparently I didn't get by asking. I haven't forgotten, Jon. When I ask what your opinion TODAY is, my memory of your opinions of yesterdays is not something that should be called into question.Islam is a religion. This is just an abstract collection of ideas that we tie together as a single entity called Islam as a useful labelling tool. Early observers thought they were hearing a reformed Judaism, if my memory serves. It's actual nature is not relevant. You can't point at something and say 'that is Islam'. It's a thing that exists physically no more than Socialism or anarcho-feudalism is. Like with my religious ideas, there are some texts which are variously given importance and interpreted for modern day application depending on sect/school/personal opinion.Whether it is an extreme religion or a moderate one entirely depends on the believer. Therefore moderate Islam isn't something that is presented. It is the ideas that exist in the minds of the moderate believers. There are texts about moderate Islam, they sell in the millions. There have been authors of books on moderate Islam in governmental positions in the near east region (Egpyt springs to mind), there are mothers who teach their kids not to fight other people, to be kind to the poor and so on..... This is moderate Islam as much as it can exist. Moderate people saying and writing and doing moderate things, while believing the significant tenets of Islam.I was certainly never told to read a book on moderate Christianity to become one. I was just raised that way. Right now, a lot of kids are being raised in an extremist Islam. I thought it might be interesting to discuss why that happened, and how we might interrupt this cycle.You seem to have ceased discussing moderate Islam and just devolved in Coyote-esque 'hey look at this outrageous thing' trolling. Let me know if you want to continue, to unambiguously summarize your current position regarding moderate Islam and - if you require more to be persuaded that it exists could you explain what else you need? I mean, I'm pretty sure we've established that moderate Islam exists, that it would be nice if there was more of it. I thought discussing 'what next' might be interesting, but if we really are stuck with you at the position you were in message 1 - I don't think I have the endurance to get there. I'll simply conclude that you started by looking and finding nothing. You've been presented with millions of practitioners practicing it, not all in agreement about all things, and maybe too many are not liberal enough for Jon's tastes but moderate. So I guess, whatever you are thinking of may not exist. I can't say to be honest. Moderate Islam is what moderate Muslims believe. You acknowledge the latter, the former comes along by definition.If you still feel you have nothing, then I don't know what you are looking for and I wish you the best of luck.

America is fucking ludicriously powerful.
They have big guns.
They have historically developed the reputation for zealously charging at the enemy crying out racial slurs and raping and murdering along the way.The President, and commander in chief of one of the most well funded military machines in all of history, wanted to make it clear to the billions of Muslims in the world that he agrees with them that this is not Islam. That the guy with more nuclear weapons than anybody will ever need is perfectly aware that this is not a case of Islamic sand-niggers that need to be put down without care of collateral damage.The President is agreeing with the majority of the Muslim world who regard the organisation as un-Islamic. That this is not a Holy War. This is not the largest and richest Christian nation attacking Islam, but instead a secular nation tackling a religious perversion. As the spokesperson for America throughout the world I think this is an important thing to make clear.Imagine a violent Jewish sect emerging within a larger Jewish community in a Muslim dominated country. What would you regard as the moderate and Presidential response to the violent sect's violence?1. "They aren't Jews, who we know are a decent people. They are criminals and evil people masquerading under Jewish legalism to rationalize their wicked designs and convince others to join them. We will make sure we get the bastards."2. "It's the Jews - get them!" If you think that statement was made for Muhammed's benefit, you really are a terrific idiot. Why the hell would anybody complain that their President was being too diplomatic in this situation?Let's assume that calling it a lie is reasonable....Why are you complaining about the benevolent lie of a Christian politician in a thread about the search for moderate Islam?

It is very frustrating to talk with someone who doesn't address the evidence and rigidly holds onto their own ideal of what Islam is.Still I don't see why posting a 'lie' told by one person is useful in this topic which is about searching for moderate Islam. Could you explain? Of course not, why would I expect you to?When a media voice asserts Islam is to blame for violence, this is to be accepted as gospel apparently. When a media voice asserts that most Muslims want peace and that Islam is not intrinsically a religion of rampant rape, pillaging and murder - they are abhorrent liars. I get it - but neither of these things helps us to find whatever it is you're looking for so why must you and Coyote insist on doing it? While pointedly avoiding explaining why you think they are relevant.Please please please explain what a news report summarizing the history of bad blood between two groups is relevant to the discussion regarding the ontology of a different type of group even if you think the reporting is not honest, which you haven't established.And a diplomat, being diplomatic? I have no idea how that helps determine whether moderate Islam exists. It's not like I can rely on you to tell me either. I can try writing lots of words to inspire you to talk, I can politely ask, I can passive-aggressively needle you. Nothing seems to be effective - if you don't have the time for this discussion, wait until you do. Yes, apparently you still reject the existence of moderate Islam even as I give you the only evidence it is possible to give regarding it! "Where is belief system X??'
"Here are some holders of belief system X'
'But I want a treatise of ancient texts, summarised in thematic analysis form, and attested to by millions of Muslims unambiguously without any disagreements between them. All in English (preferably not translated). If you do that, I have a few other requirements - we'll get to them'
'????' You made an awkward simile, I extended it to explain how your perspective was too short term, this confused you:

quote:

---

There are cookies ready. The cooks are working on the next batch, we hope there'll be some improvements.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

There is no "completed product." when reforming a religion any more than there is a "completed product" on a given language.

---

You never responded to that point so blame yourself if we didn't get anywhere. Feel free to pick up on the fact that all religions, philosophies, cultures, politics, and language are human creations that change over time and tell me that we should be expecting a 'complete' English or Islam or Socialism or Buddhism. I think they are fictional and meaningless constructs, if you think a 'complete' version of any of these exist please expand on this notion further.By your own standards, it seems, extremist Islam doesn't exist: There are still extremist scholars issuing fatwa so clearly it is still a product that is baking, right?But on the other hand - there is a complete religious belief already there, despite someone working on another 'batch' both regarding the moderates and extremists. There were moderate Muslims in the 19th Century - some of today's moderates still read their books, so yes I can see no other way of regarding it other than as a complete religious position. As advanced theologically as Mormonism is, if not more so. It exists, as all beliefs do, in the minds of believers. You can access this, in part, through reading their books and listening to them speak. You might need to learn a few additional languages as almost everything that is written or spoken doesn't get translated into English. I have presented their books, their public declarations of peace, shown videos of them speaking and given you some of their trite idioms and catchy verses.The only thing I haven't done is formally written (or assessed someone else's formal writing) a summary of this whole thing. Which is hardly something you can expect of me, or anyone here. Could you explain which of your reasonable demands for evidence I have missed, and explain why it is required? Thank you.

Take the same advice Mr, This isn't a thread about Christianity. The ones in the OP for example. This is a discussion forum.If you don't have the time to have a discussion on a discussion forum then you don't have to. Post your complaints about Obama on your blog, or write about them in your journal if you aren't looking for a discussion at all! That's addressing the analogy, not the thing the analogy was about, which is the topic of our discussion. You think that deciding to not continue arguing about an analogy moves that part of the discussion forwards?You assert that moderate Islam does not exist because it is still being created and so has not been created, and reached its final form. I point out that no religion reaches its final form any more than a language does. Therefore, this undermines your argument that moderate Islam does not exist on the grounds people are still working on it. People are working on all extant religions, I'd wager. Sometimes not deliberately. Just like languages.Thus: Moderate Islam is something that some people believe in. Therefore it exists as much as any religion can be said to whether or not scholars are still writing about it. If anything, scholars writing about it, prove that it exists as an idea, which is all a religion can exist as.So - how do you respond to the notion that your 'incomplete' argument fails and we're left still with a religion that some people believe in which is Islamic and moderate. What should we call this moderate and Islamic religion?