Start at 2:30. The man speaking is Fahad Qureshi, founder of Islam Net.
The following exchange is the real meat of the video. In large part, the who audience member who asks the question (at the beginning) does not participate in the survey except to identify himself as Muslim; the rest of the audience is involved, though:
Qureshi: Every time we have a conferenceevery time we invite a speaker,
they always can come with the same accusations: this speaker supports
death penalty for homosexuals; this speaker supports death penalty
for this crime or this crime or that; he is homophobic; they
subjugate women; etc., etc., etc. It's the same old stuff coming all
the time. And we always try to tell themI always try to tell them.
It's not that speaker that we're inviting who has these extreme,
radical views as you say. These are general views that every
Muslim actually has; every Muslim believes in these things.
(@ 3:30)
Qureshi: How many of you are normal Muslimsyou're not extremists; you're
not radicaljust normal, Sunni Muslims? Please, raise your hands.
Audience: [raises hands unanimously]
Qureshi: ... How many of you agree that men and women should sit separate?
Please, raise your hands.
Audience: [raises hands unanimously]
Qureshi: ... Next question: How many of you agree that the punishments
described in the Koran and the Sunnahwhether it is death,
whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it isif it is from
Allah and his messenger, that is the best punishment ever possible
for humankind and that is what we should apply in the world?
Who agrees with that?
Audience: [raises hands unanimously]
Qureshi: Are you all radical extremists?
Audience: [sporadic hands raise with humorous intent]
Qureshi: So, all of you are saying that you are common Muslims. ... Please,
raise your hand if you're like this extreme Islamic sect or anything
like that?
Audience: [hands down unanimously]
Qureshi: How many of you ... go to the normal Sunni mosques? Please, raise
your hands.
Audience: [raises hands unanimously]
Qureshi: So, what's the politicians going to say now? What is the media going
to say now? That we are all extremists, that we're all radicals, we
need to deport all of us from this country?
I find it telling how the speaker and audience understand 'extremism' and 'radicalism'. They do not judge things as 'extreme' or 'radical' on the basis of their distance from mainstream, secular morality; instead, they judge things as 'extreme' or 'radical' on the basis of their distance from mainstream Islamic thought. By this logic (and this is the argument the speaker is making) Muslims who support stoning for adultery, for example, are not 'extreme' or 'radical'they are 'normal' Muslims!
The organization Qureshi heads isn't in Saudi Arabia or Iran; it's in Norway!
We cannot simply consider a Muslim moderate just because they say they are (the same holds true for anyone, of course, Christian, atheist, etc.). We must examine the beliefs held. We must look at the holy books and what they say and how they are interpreted.
He also has some information on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who I was going to make a long post about, but decided against since there is simply so much information out there and all of it easy to find and well worth reading/watching.
You can watch the video she was involved in making by googling and following the YouTube link. It is called Submissionthe meaning of the word 'islam'. It's director, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated, left dead in the street with a note stabbed into him threatening Hirsi Ali for, well, speaking her mind.
Anyway; it's all really easy to find. I hope other participants here will check it out!
Except that stoning for adultery is not in the Qur'an and is therefore not actually covered by the question asked meaning you can't make this conclusion.
It is directly covered by the question. Anyone who watches the video or reads the transcription I provided in Message 92 will hear/read it for themselves.
Well, you'll notice the speaker doesn't restrict his question to the Koran (or even just Allah). But if you want to ignore most of what he has asked his audience and only focus on:
"How many of you agree that the punishments described in the Koran and the Sunnahwhether it is death, whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it isif it is from Allah and his messenger, that is the best punishment ever possible for humankind and that is what we should apply in the world?"
... then I suppose we can do that.
Should we focus on whipping adulterers, dismembering thieves, imprisoning overtly-sexual women, or...?
These are punishments from the Koran, from Allah.
Do you admit that the setting is inappropriate to garner realistic answers?
It is not ideal. But it is a better setting than a research poll conducted by white Westerners.
If so, I think we're done with that video as 'evidence' of anything.
We are all aware of the large number of extreme and radical Muslims and we are familiar with the extreme and radical religion (which they apparently consider just ordinary Islam) that they practice.
I don't think I need to explain why the punishments I've mentioned are not at all moderate. No one needs me to convince them that the attitudes revealed in the short video are concerning to anyone who believes in honoring basic human rights.
I'm not going to go into what is wrong with whipping adulterers, or stoning them, or whatever else. To a moral person, the problems with these punishments and the beliefs on which they are based are plainly apparent and require no explanation.
This thread was started so that evidence for moderate Islam could be presented. So far, no one has even defined what moderate Islam is let alone shown evidence that it exists.
Some small-time anecdotes about friends and a handful of Koran verses promoting peace stand against the statements, beliefs, and behaviors of the Islamic powers of the worldthe oppressive Middle Eastern countries where human rights are disgustingly violated daily in the name of Allah and Muhammad.
When looking for evidence of moderate Islam, we cannot ignore the forest for the trees.
We need to be talking about the forest, not just the trees.
I can see your mind is already made up, you don't have to reassure me of your prejudices. ... Yes, and it seems to have turned into 'let's use confirmation bias to prove law abiding citizens are the same as terrorists'. Pretty disgusting, but the Americans are gearing up for another righteous Crusade, so I suppose this makes the impending clusterfuck of death more palatable. Has 'weapons of mass destruction' no more persuasive power?
Of course. I'm prejudice. I should not question the basic decency of anything labeled a 'religion'. My views on Islam are just after-the-fact justifications for my feelings of American superiority and western imperialism. If bunny rabbits were sitting on my oil, I'd hate them.
My remarks in Berlin were a plea to lift the iron curtain of political correctness so that citizens can engage in politics through peaceful means and debate, and thus channel their frustrations with immigration and Islam through the system. This is elementary political sciencebut, of course, Islamists and their friends on the Left have twisted my words to make me sound like I was applauding an atrocity. Multiculturalist policies and political correctness make it easier for radical Muslims to preach, inspire, mobilize, and target immigrant communities on the grounds of religious freedom. And those who criticize them in Europe are silenced or branded as racist Islamophobes. In the long run, you get more jihadist ghettoes and intolerant right-wing enclaves. That is the tragic outcome of decades of policies that had good intentions in theory, but in reality have instead cemented divisions between groups and bred too much insularity and mistrust. We cannot be so afraid of causing verbal offense that we lose the ability to have open debatebecause that debate will still be had, but by less peaceful means. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, w/ Sam Harris
If you can't set aside your own prejudicesthat anyone who questions the basic decency of a 'religion' is an ill-informed bigotthen I don't see how a discussion about any religion can move forward.
If something is bad it's bad. We both have to be comfortable coming to that conclusion. If we aren't, then we cannot have an honest discussion. We must also both be comfortable coming to the opposite conclusion, but I see no problems with that in this case. (You should already know from my other posts here that I have more sympathies for religious belief than most.)
Is it more extreme to get 100 lashes for adultery or lose most of your liberties for 3 years for selling weed while being black, for example? I don't know you perspective on this, because you won't commit to an argument.
We're not talking about black people selling weed. That you think such a statement could even be relevant is evidence of your inability to discuss the issue without coloring me as a stupid, stuck-up American.
Again. Let's stop assuming that I'm here to do some Muslim bashing and have a sincere discussion.
I'm not asking you to, we both know, this isn't a thread about what moral problems white westerners have with Islamic law.
In as much as moral white westerners believe in equal treatment of women, acceptance of homosexuality, the freedom to choose a religion or no religion, etc. then that is exactly what this thread is about.
We are looking for a moderate Islam. Is there a moderate Islam? Is there an Islamic law that recognizes equal treatment of women, acceptance of homosexuality, freedom to choose a religion or no religion, etc.?
That is the issue at the center of this discussion!
I don't understand why you posted a quote about the dangers of radical Islam when we're talking about moderate Islam. Obviously we should criticize Islam. This is not the thread for criticizing Islam. This is about the ontology of moderate Islam. You keep trying to find examples that confirm your belief that there is none, which was my criticism.
I'm trying to point out why I started this thread: the extreme and radical Islam that dominates the media, the Internet, discussions by atheists (Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, etc.). As I said in the OP, we don't have to look very hard to find crazy Islam. Non-crazy Islam, on the other hand, is less obvious.
On the face of it, then, Islam appears crazy (it's certainly the argument made in this debate: Islam is a Religion of Peace). So I'm genuinely curious to know if there is an actual moderate Islam out there.
Yes, you do. You are the one making an argument, so you need to actually make it, rather than relying on innuendo. Is it more extreme to get life for three strikes, or whipped for adultery, for example? To answer this kind of question, you need to identify what makes a punishment 'extreme' and what makes one 'moderate' and explain why this distinction is useful for us and...I mean really, do I really need to teach you how to construct an argument?
Well; for what it is worth I think putting people in prison for drugs is stupid. Whipping people is also stupid. I can't really compare them. They should both be gotten rid of. I condone neither practice.
Obviously, distinguishing between 'moderate' and 'extreme' is not useful in and of itself. But it is the purpose of this thread to find a 'moderate' Islam. If you think the distinction between 'moderate' Islam and 'extreme' Islam is not useful, that is fine, but if you are going to use this opinion to avoid providing examples of 'moderate' Islam, then you're really in the wrong place.
Sayyid Al-Qemany? Nasr Abu Zayd? Khalil Abdel-Karim? Abdolkarim Soroush? Muhammad Shahrur? Ahmed Subhy Mansour? Edip Yksel? Gamal al-Banna? Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im? Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri? Ahmed Al-Gubbanchi? Mahmoud Mohammed Taha?
Have you examined the work of any of the groups?
Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity? Muslims for Progressive Values? Quranism?
Because you haven't commented on the actual moderate Islam these people are trying to create and I wondered why.
I will review these people/groups and try to see if I can discern some common thread of moderate Islam that unites them.
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.
Well, that's perhaps part of the issue then.
It can be very difficult to pull people from the extreme forms of Islam when there is no coherent moderate form to pull them to. Whatever the reason for Christianity (and, well, pretty much every other religion) having an organized moderate form, the fact is that a moderate form exists; it is readily accessible to new converts; it is well-enough defined that it can be set in opposition to fundamentalist forms; etc.
Is Christianity (or any other religion) perfect? Of course not. But there seems to be something fundamentally missing from Islam that other religions and belief systems do possess and can point to unanimously as 'moderate'. And you seem to agree that, in the scheme of things, there really is no moderate Islam, especially not in the sense that there's a moderate Christianity, a moderate Judaism, etc.
But when I come to look for a moderate religion, what do you think I am looking for? I can find moderate people easily enough. And I can find moderate people who believe moderate things. But moderate people believing moderate things isn't what makes a moderate religion: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
So I think a moderate religion should in some way resemble what we know to be moderate religions, otherwise we must ask why we classify them under the same label.
Islamic governments, Christian governments. No difference. Except that secular governments have existed and operated in the "Christian" West for far too long for the governed to readily hand control over to the implementation of "true Christianity's" "God's Law", whereas Sharia Law has a much longer history in Islamic societies.
This is misleading. The west was historically run by powers within the Christian church; it was, essentially, a theocracy. It was, in fact, mostly Christians who fought to move away from such a system. It was Christians who drafted the Bill of Rights and the freedoms of religion that it granted. It was Christians who fought to end slavery. The modern ideals embraced by humanists and secularists are largely the product of moderate Christianity.
These ideals emerged as moderate Christianity came to the forefront of the religion as a whole and largely (and peacefully) suppressed or otherwise quieted the extreme forms: They are the product of an ideology revolution within Christianity.
And maybe, just maybe, Islam is going through such a revolution now. Perhaps an organized moderate Islam will appear at the top of the pile and in the majority when the dust, smoke, and blown-up bodies settle. However, even if this is the case, we live in the 21st century and no one is okay with religious ideologies battling one another on a stage where ammo consists of actual bullets and bombs instead of intellectual arguments (like we see in the debates within other religions, for example). If the world we have now is the world required for the emergence of a moderate Islam, then I think it is fair to ask ourselves whether it's worth it. Is Islam so important to the world that we must preserve it at any cost under the guise of religious freedom and diversity? Would it be wrong to say that perhaps we don't want to bother with a moderate Islam or any Islam at all given the religion's clear inability to work out its differences in ways that don't get mass numbers of people killed (notice, Muslims are mostly just killing one another)?
Typically religious freedom and respect for the concern of other religions go out the window when human life and individual liberties are at stake.
Your attitude is nothing but the pop-culture bastardization of modern western thought: to view all motives as economic or political and believe that this is true across time and throughout the world.
But this is not the case. Not all people are so motivated, especially in different cultures where economic and political concerns may play no roles whatsoever in decision making.
The Middle East has been at war with itself since before the Americas were even discovered. Pretending that the West is responsible for these conflicts is just a veiled attempt to inflate your own sense of importance in the world.
The West did not cause the instability of the Middle East, even if its attempts to fix the problem have often failed or even made matters worse.
It might be chic to pretend that the Crusades never 'really ended', but it is by no means factual.
Well it was the Crusades (and the Reconquista). Then the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire wasn't 'at war with itself', just a few conflicts with Persia and the like. But they collapsed around WWI and their former territory was divided up by France and Britain (Sykes—Picot Agreement) and some of it promised to the Jews (Balfour Declaration). Some Arabs tried to assert independence but Europe's superior position gave them the power. Jews were given the all clear to start moving into the region of Palestine.
Then came the revolutions and struggles for independence, some worked out (eg., Syria, Egypt) others didn't (eg., Iraq, 1941 (courtesy of the British (Saddam was about 4 years old at the time))).
As WWII built up and took place, the rest of the nations declared independence. Afterwards the British left the area completely leaving behind the new State of Israel in a social context of Arab Nationalism vs Zionism resulting immediately in the 1948 war. Mini-Hitlers were being spawned all over the place as people started to promise to destroy the now hated Israel and well.... the rest is modern history.
What makes you think the West don't have responsibility?
Don't be ridiculous, the Islamic world has been at war with itself since the death of their prophet.
Did you get chance to look at the Moderate Islam I pointed you towards yet?
I don't think 'studied' is the right word. But I browsed through a few and have come up without much.
If you see a common thread, it might be better to just point it out instead of presenting me with long lists of names to spend countless hours reviewing in search for some commonality.
I have been reading the Wikipedia page on liberal movements in Islam and have not been too impressed so far. There seems little agreement on anything.
Might we say that there are Muslims attempting to reform Islam and that no agreeably reformed stage has been clearly reached?
So which of those ancient conflicts do you think is most responsible for the modern day instability of the region?
Conflict and instability in the Middle East are equal symptoms. There is something else that causes both of them and has been causing both of them for many centuries now.
Ah! You want me to do a thematic analysis of the collected works of Reform Islam and present the common themes that run throughout? No. No thanks. You want to find moderate Islam, by which you mean Progressive Islam? There it is. Enjoy learning about it. Let me know what you think. I don't see any rhetorical requirement that I find 'common threads', as I am here only to assert existence.
There are reformers; I won't deny that. But that has never been the issue of this thread. The issue has been whether there is a moderate Islam.
It seems like your source finds the same problems with Islam as I've mentioned:
quote:Nasr Abu Zayd (emphases added):
The majority of Muslims are not aware of the historical background and the temptation is to quote texts and explain them literally, thus, understand them out of their historical context and interpret them as being universal rulings of God for believers in every time.
This seems to fit the impression given by a quick read of the Wikipedia article I cited earlier:
Muslim liberals focus on individual autonomy in the interpretation of the Qur'an and ethics rather than focusing on the literal interpretation of the Qur'an. This thinking may have a precedent in the traditions of Sufi and Islamic mysticism[9] although different in many ways, including the purpose of interpretation. The reformists, however, are often criticized by more traditional scholars, as some of the beliefs are seen by the 4 traditional Islamic madhahabs as "kufr" or unbelief. As such, many Muslims believe this phenomenon to be the result of culture and individualistic philosophical ideas, rather than being based on the textual evidence of the Qu'ran and the Sahih Hadith. Those Muslims thus conclude that the Islamic reform movement has no place in the Islamic Shariah. ... It is also accepted by most liberal Muslims that a woman may lead the state, and that women should not be segregated from men in society or in masjids. These views are generally rejected by traditional Muslim scholars, including scholars from the four schools of Islamic thought, as they have been in the past.
Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her discussion with Sam Harris (also cited earlier):
Muslims who do not want to live under sharia law are attempting to separate religion from politics. But they won’t be able to do that unless they address these doctrinal issues. They won’t be able to win the argument against the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, because like every other Islamist or jihadist organization, the Brotherhood is delivering a message consistent with what’s really in the Koran and the hadith. If you want to stand up to these people, you have to address the doctrine. You have to look at the Koran and say that there are parts of it you don’t consider moral anymore.
People arguing for a moderate Islam, such as Nasr Abu Zayd, seem to be working on their own; they are reformers not backed by a coherent moderate Islam or moderate Muslim community.
Does that sound like the makings of a moderate Islam?
Sure. But the 'making of' implies that it is not yet made and so does not yet existmaking cookies is not the same as having cookies.
Similarly, the existence of reformers shows the need for reform and that reform has not yet come (otherwise there'd be no need for reformers). This means that today, as the matter stands, reformers such as Nasr Abu Zayd have not been successful in creating a moderate Islam, and so it is not unreasonable to say that, for now, moderate Islam does not exist. It is, instead, in the process of coming into existence, and whether its emergence is successful or notwhether it will emerge as the dominant form of Islamonly history and many, many lost lives, will tell.
You still seem incapable of grasping the difference between moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.
Yes, they have different moral standards than you do (community standards being more important than individual liberties, punishments may vary, the normal right-wing conservative obsession with 'clean-living' and modesty, different ideas of social roles and how to bank etc., etc.).
I suppose it's easy to view the oppression of women as a 'conservative obsession with "clean-living" and modesty' when you are not a woman who is being oppressed by those obsessions.
community standards being more important than individual liberties
Oh come on, Mod! The concern for individual liberties is the definition of liberalism. The goal of maintaining 'community standards' is the same nonsense behind all the conservative attempts to restrict free expression, sexual freedoms, etc.
Such crap has no place in a moderate or liberal society, culture, or religion.
It's an Abrahamic religion. It'll need reforming until it doesn't exist. There are reformers in Christianity trying to get homosexuality more accepted, for instance. When you are looking for moderate Islam, you are going to find reformers. What the hell else were you expecting? That's what a moderate version of a religion requires.
This thread isn't about other religions.
Rather than denying their existence, how about you amplify their voices so we're not just hearing about the extremists?
Because I am not a Muslim. It's not my religion to fight for.
This statement of yours should be directed at Muslimsmoderate ones.
Which is what the rest of the educated world has been saying for a long time. I'm glad you finally caught up with this - but you aren't going to help it emerge by denying its existence and reinforcing that Islam is all about the 8th Century morality and social views.
Do you honestly think that I have any obligation to defend someone else's religion? I'm here to find moderate Islam, not to fight for it. You shouldn't be surprised that I am scrutinizing your points, because that is how a debate is conducted.
Implying that I am uneducated because I refuse to simply accept your arguments outright is to take a pretty low road.
For someone who didn't seem to know about the existence of the Five Pillars, the Six Articles, the Hadith of Gabriel - it seems a little rich for you to pontificate on this subject don't you think? Perhaps its time for me to give up and just let you believe that you have something new and true to say on the subject despite literally not knowing the first thing about it a few weeks ago . Deny the existence of something that exists if you like, it just kind of makes you look like a dick.
More on the low road, I see.
I guess I will have to be content with being seen as an ignorant American Islamophobe. Your spottings of moderate Muslims are simply not going to convince me of the existence of a moderate Islam.
The truth is that I really hope that a moderate Islam can emerge swiftly in the Islamic world and put the fundamentalist Muslims out of business. That peace can prevail over violence.
But if that cannot happen then I will settle for just getting rid of Islam all together.
I have no feelings for the religion and I care more about keeping people alive than keeping them faithful.
™ Version 4.2