Muslims and the ability to differ in public

Last week I went to listen to a French Catholic priest who was trying to enlighten the members of a church about Muslims and Islam. This man had lived all over the Middle East, he said, spoke Arabic, had friends of all religions, including Muslims, and was proud to say that he had celebrated mass in Saudi Arabia - without his dog collar.
I would never have believed that there are people like him unless I had heard him speaking myslef. He said a lot of things that made very angry because they were gross and deliberate misinterpretations of the Qur’an and the behaviour of unwitting muslims. His talk was certainly not aimed at improving relations between religions, and gave a lot of anti-islamists a boot, although based on incomplete, incorrect and flimsy evidence. I will not go into it here.

But one thing in particular struck me and I wanted your opinion on this. He said that muslims are unwilling to publicy differ with extremists or fundamentalists. He spoke, for instance, of a meeting where an Egyptian Muslim had held forth in a long and passionate speech about his right to four wives, and as soon as this priest stepped out of the room a Syrian couple came up to him and told him that they felt very differently about the issue of polygamy and wanted to disassociate themselves from what this man had said. This priest interpreted this action as the lack of courage of this couple to stand up in teh room under the gaze of fellow muslims and say something quite different. Then he cited the fact that in many instances muslims have been reluctant to condemn the terrorist attck on the Twin Towers outright. His conclusion; “The extremists always win”, because “moderate muslims cannot carry with them the weight of their religious convictions”. His conclusion: even if there are moderate muslims around, they are an aberration, as Islam is an extremist religion.
Opinions?

Shirin writes:


** He said that muslims are unwilling to publicy differ with extremists or fundamentalists. **


One has to agree with this statement. Because - proof is in the pudding!

Just check out the statements that have come out from muslim religious leaders - overwhelmingly against the US-Coalition attacking a fellow muslim country even though that country is waging terror & bloodshed.

They have, overwhelmingly, declared Jihad against this Coalition and against any muslims that support this coalition.

These same leaders stay quiet when muslims kill & repress fellow muslims and their non-muslim minorities. Maybe - this, too, is according to their understanding of Islam.
What- maybe?
This behaviour is according to their understanding of Islam.

These religious leaders - custodian of Islam, are unchallenged; majority of muslims have given in to their teachings as representing - Islam.

What else they can do?
Shariati Islam does not allow critical discussion of Islam, Quran & Sunnah.
It's all about - ** HEAR & OBEY **.

2) Shirin writes:


** His conclusion: even if there are moderate muslims around, they are an aberration, as Islam is an extremist religion. **


For a 100% shariati muslim practising Islam in its literal form based on sunnah or literal quran can never be moderate.
Simply put - it is impossible.

To become moderate - Islam will have to accept Esoteric & Evolving interpretations of Quran & Sunnah.

** REMEMBER - most of Islam's sharia'h is based on repressive hadiths! **

Why not use liberal hadiths for a liberal sharia'h of Islam?

You are not going to tell me that there are no liberal hadiths attributed to Prophet Muhammad sws - Are you?

** If Islam & its Sharia'h can be based on repressive hadiths then, surely Islam can also be based on enlightened hadiths. **

*His conclusion: even if there are moderate muslims around, they are an aberration, as Islam is an extremist religion. *
I don't see the above statement as an insult to the religion. Its a fair statement and we should accept Islam for what it is. Any alterations to the islamic teachings to suite your needs is NOT FAIR! If Islam allows four wives then thats the way it is!!!! People who pick and choose make me sick!

[quote]
To become moderate - Islam will have to accept Esoteric & Evolving interpretations of Quran & Sunnah.
[/quote]

untrue.. and an uninformed opinion at best.

btw who defines 'moderate'? The moment Muslims leave their true teachings there will be endless demands from all and sundry to 'dilute' their beliefs till they succumb happily to everyone's wishes.

I say it's good for Muslims to be 'extremist' in times like these. I know MOST of the stuff Muslims follow is wrong and against the true spirit of Islam, but sadly this 'extremist' language is the only language the 'civilized world' understands.

They want to see the Muslims as extremists.. I say put on the show.

The difference only arise because they ask about things which they know are part of the faith that don’t match with their own beliefs.

e.g., they won’t ask what do muslims think about drinking vanilla milkshakes, because we could quite comfortably answer, that’s just fine actually. They are very tasty

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

They ask about things which are articles of faith generally, or in this case, the 4 wives business. Fact is, it’s allowed and that’s that. You don’t have to like it, there’s just no point in pretending it isn’t the case.

I think most muslim leaders have condemned the WTC attack, but what pisses off idiots like faceup is that they point out that bombing starving nations in revenge is not an answer.

faceup yaar, your types won’t be happy until you can ESOTERICALLY wash down a bacon buttie with a can of Castlemaine XXXX and claim it’s the 6th pillar of Islam.

I never understand these people. Khao, peeyo, aish karo. But why do you need to stick your islamic label on this stuff? Does it really make you feel better?

[quote]
Originally posted by faceup:
**Shirin writes:


He said that muslims are unwilling to publicy differ with extremists or fundamentalists.


**

One has to agree with this statement. Because - proof is in the pudding!

Just check out the statements that have come out from muslim religious leaders - overwhelmingly against the US-Coalition attacking a fellow muslim country even though that country is waging terror & bloodshed.
**
[/quote]

What a load of nonesense.

Since 9/11, I've been to three Islamic conferences. At each one, the Imams went out of their way to state terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. As 'moderate muslims' we all agreed with them. They then codemned the richest country in the world for bombing the poorest... even when all of the suspected hijackers came from America's supposed allies in the middle east, and NOT Afghanistan.

Being a 'moderate muslim' I'm more than happy to condemn the deaths of innocent Americans in New York.

Can you bring yourself to condemn the deaths of innocent Afghans in Kabul?

I humbly suggest to you, that the proof is in that pudding.

[This message has been edited by Pilot25 (edited November 16, 2001).]

This guy does have a point. A good number of "Extremists" in Islam (or maulvi and their pillays) like to reason with Ak-47 or klashinkovs rather than listening to the opposite views. Take for example the situation in Pakistan and the blasphemy law. There's this one professor who'se currently facing trial under the blasphemy law for discussing prophet's personal hygeine prior to his prophethood. This dude will most certainly face death because the mullahs of the neighborhood have threatened to kill the judge if he hands down anything less than death penalty (they mean business since last judge who repealed such a punishment was gunned down).

So, in short, its very hard to reason with a chariya maulana and his pillays when they want to settle the issue with guns...

Before I ask my question, let me state that religion plays no part in my life. so this is simply an analytical question.

What I find very difficult is to understand the mix of religion and politics. I believe that in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia etc there is an offcial definiton of who can call himself or herself a muslim. Something like being a registered muslim. Why cant we let a person's faith be between him and his god?

I believe that there are people called Ahmed's in Pakistan who are persecuted by the state because they call themselves muslims but do not comply with the offcial definiton. To me this is like the middle ages. how is this kind of thinking possible in this day and age in a modern state?

[quote]
the 4 wives business. Fact is, it's allowed and that's that
[/quote]

i'll be steering away from the topic, but for the casual reader. NO it's not allowed. however some scholars would want to interpret the Qur'an in a way to agree to this theory.

please carry on with the discussion.

[quote]
Originally posted by Pilot25:
** What a load of nonesense.

Since 9/11, I've been to three Islamic conferences. At each one, the Imams went out of their way to state terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. As 'moderate muslims' we all agreed with them. They then codemned the richest country in the world for bombing the poorest... even when all of the suspected hijackers came from America's supposed allies in the middle east, and NOT Afghanistan.

Being a 'moderate muslim' I'm more than happy to condemn the deaths of innocent Americans in New York.

Can you bring yourself to condemn the deaths of innocent Afghans in Kabul?

I humbly suggest to you, that the proof is in that pudding.**
[/quote]

Well-said - dear Pilot! I encourage more like you to come forward and speak up!

But what is a moderate muslim?
If you refer to a thread run here called : Moderate Muslims - you will see the same sentiments that there is no such thing as - Moderate Muslims!

Do you or do you not follow the same Sharia'h of the Ahl as Sunnah wal Jammah codified for all sunnis?

Has any major Ahl as Sunnah muftis or eminent scholars agreed with you & your local clerics?

Based on what then do you make exceptions to the interpretations of these Sharia'h?

The community services that you speak about were nothing more than a Public Relations exercise. And, the Imam played both the sides because, as per you, he condemned US equally for bombing Afghanistan. One offsetting the Other - pretty crafty, eh!

The majority culprits may have been from Saudia but they were all trained in Afghanistan which is where their HQ & top brass is based!

The edicts of Jihad from all religious scholars of muslim countries against the Infidels and any who supported them are based on sunnah - basis of these Sharia'h laws!

** I am sure there are liberal sunnahs/hadiths that will support your viewpoints but they - the liberal hadiths are not the foundation of the Sharia'h imposed on the masses. **

WS

[quote]
Originally posted by Shirin:
**

His conclusion: even if there are moderate muslims around, they are an aberration, as Islam is an extremist religion.
Opinions?**
[/quote]

i would totally disagree with that one.
Islam is the path of moderation..extremism has no place in our faith


éí 'aaníígÓÓ 'áhoot'é

[quote]
Originally posted by hk:
** i would totally disagree with that one.
Islam is the path of moderation..extremism has no place in our faith
**
[/quote]

Can sharia'h like the following be called moderate:
i) Women are like field so cultivate it as ye see fit.
ii) Slay the Polytheists (infidels) wherever one may find them.
iii) Stone to Death all homosexuals & adulterers.
iv) Kill all apostates & blasphemers.
v) Amputate the limbs of thieves that steals a loaf to feed his starving family.
vi) Capture and Breed with Slaves as reward for Jihad.

A lot of slaying & killing taking place in your Islam of Moderation. What you are drinking is called the Ostrich Syndrome.

[quote]
Originally posted by faceup:
** Can sharia'h like the following be called moderate:
i) Women are like field so cultivate it as ye see fit.
ii) Slay the Polytheists (infidels) wherever one may find them.
iii) Stone to Death all homosexuals & adulterers.
iv) Kill all apostates & blasphemers.
v) Amputate the limbs of thieves that steals a loaf to feed his starving family.
vi) Capture and Breed with Slaves as reward for Jihad.

A lot of slaying & killing taking place in your Islam of Moderation. What you are drinking is called the Ostrich Syndrome.**
[/quote]

Faceup,

If you look at any religion and their actual books in their original forms they are all full of that type of stuff. The bible isn't any different, neither is the Torah. Hindu books are the most savage of the lot if you go back to the originals.

In recent times toned down versions have been introduced, but that hasn't happened with the Quran because it's still the original version as it was handed down. For better or worse i guess.

oy yeah, and the list you have made is pretty over the top. Shariah is tough enough without exaggerating e.g., ii) Slay the Polytheists (infidels) wherever one may find them.

that's just plain dumb.

faceup,

Out of your list the few you got right was stoning the adulterer and killing the apostate.

So why is this wrong?

[This message has been edited by scarface (edited November 18, 2001).]

Dear Pilot,

If you happen to read this, could you pls provide your opinions re: my post to you of November 16, 2001 09:14 PM

Dear scarface,

The others are there too, maybe, your understanding differs.

** Re: why stoning to Death apostates:**
Let me ask you this - If Islam is the truth and nothing but the truth then why the need for FORCE - like
*" kill those who leave Islam" *
to keep one inside the faith?

** Re: Stoning for Adultery:**
For one - this is not per quran but Sunnah and is continuation of pre-islamic customs.
Again, the preponderance of those stoned are women because, per sharia'h, they are unable to provide the *Four witnesses - male, adult & muslim, to prove her innocence * and for this - the male goes free and she gets her head bashed in. You call this justice? I don't!

Dear Mr Xtreme:
** Why can't Islamic Sharia'h be re-interpreted based on gentler hadiths? **

You should know that ** the present Sharia'h was codified along with the Four Sunni taqlids and are both based on rather - heavy-handed hadiths and this may have been the norm of their time, but are the same set of laws relevant today? **.

scarface and faceup.. (lots of faces)

both of you are wrong and many ignorant muslims are chiming in proving your gross misconceptions.

ISLAM doesn't ask us to 'stone' apostates or homesexuals for that matter... Mullahs do.

when you allege, please quote verses from the Qur'an to prove your point. A satisfactory counterpoint will be provided Inshallah.

[quote]
Originally posted by Pilot25:
** What a load of nonesense.

Since 9/11, I've been to three Islamic conferences. At each one, the Imams went out of their way to state terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. As 'moderate muslims' we all agreed with them. They then codemned the richest country in the world for bombing the poorest... even when all of the suspected hijackers came from America's supposed allies in the middle east, and NOT Afghanistan.

Being a 'moderate muslim' I'm more than happy to condemn the deaths of innocent Americans in New York.

Can you bring yourself to condemn the deaths of innocent Afghans in Kabul?

I humbly suggest to you, that the proof is in that pudding.

**
[/quote]

And there lies the biggest problem with the Muslim world today. It seems all we muslims have accomplished since the 11th is just to prove that the acts were not Islamic and the perpetrators are not "good" Muslims and hence not our responsibility.
Prophet Muhammed indicated 3 responses a momin could have when he sees wrong being done, we have chosen the lesser two responses.
I have yet to see a Muslim acknowledge the problems that beset the Ummah and at least admonish these nut cases that have taken the religion hostage.

To PakistaniAbroad
Islam has never been a 'closed' religion, and has never claimed to be in the last 1000+ years. The religion has always consisted of Qur'aan, Sunna, Ijtehad and Ijma'. It is the Wahabbis that have chosen to drop the last two and close Islam's doors and subvercively force their version on every muslim in the last couple hundred years. Most muslims, including you, are wahabbis and dont even know it.

Somer interesting and very relevant thoughts from Ziauddin Sardar:
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,556636,00.html

[quote]
Most muslims, including you, are wahabbis and dont even know it.
[/quote]

Most poeple like you wish to jump to conclusions without any basis or proof. When lacking cogent points to debate the message, you tackle the messenger.

The others are false too. Maybe it suits you that you don't research properly, just in case it is proven false and you have less reasons for opposing Islam.

Apostates aren't stoned to death.

The adultery situation you posed was wierd.

Any law in Islam is justified as being the command of Allah(swt).

Ignore everything else let's focus on this question.

What is your basis for right and wrong?

Your claiming that using force i.e. punishment for apostasy is bad.

You will say this is good this is bad and I will say this is good this is bad. My basis is that Allah(swt) truly exists and Allah(swt) sent revelation to the Prophet Muhammad(saw) i.e. the Qur'an. Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas decide right and wrong for me.

So why is it bad? What's your basis?

PakistaniAbroad,

I think the discussion has already been diverted enough.