The Wall St. Journal carries a ‘symposium’ on moderate Islam. A group of six writers on Islam, from an American neocon and an American academic, to a former member of Jamma Islamiya and a Malaysian politician offer their thoughts on the subject. The six are:
•Anwar Ibrahim: The Ball Is in Our Court
•Bernard Lewis: A History of Tolerance
•Ed Husain: Don’t Call Me Moderate, Call Me Normal
•Reuel Marc Gerecht: Putting Up With Infidels Like Me
•Tawfik Hamid: Don’t Gloss Over The Violent Texts
•Akbar Ahmed: Mystics, Modernists and Literalists
Read what they have to say:
September:01:2010 - 10:26 | Comments & Trackbacks (28) | Permalink
28 Responses to “What Is Moderate Islam?”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
September:01:2010 - 11:08
I think it is shame that there still such prejudices towards Islam. I found Husseins comment intereting that a ‘moderate’ muslim doesn’t mean one who adheres less to the religion. I have met many who have strict adherence to religion but one would never know it though. I have a friend who dresses western, has got western mannerism but quite devoutn and open minded. On the other hand , I also have met those the west sterotype as strick but are very open minded too. Where there is religion, there are most likley those who twist or misinterpet meanings.
A further reading for anyone who is interested is ( I think I have the title an other ‘What one billion muslims really think’ authored by ?Esposito. It good read.
September:01:2010 - 16:39
Interesting articles! I enjoyed reading these various points of view. Thank you for sharing them.
September:02:2010 - 14:56
Islam and Catholicism have the same goal………
They seek to impose a Political System on the entire world that is run by a select group of Religious Leaders.
Human Beings are human beings…..the one unique thing the America has contributed to the world is that the US Constitution provides some framework(as long as it is respected) to allow human beings the freedom to behave as they INDIVIDUALLY see fit.
Roman Catholicism does not allow for induvidual rights………..do as the Priest tells you or suffer the consequences…..
Islam allows for no induvidual rights……….do as instructed……..submit…..or suffer the consequences.
Look around you. The most miserable, poverty stricken places on the planet are all run by Roman Catholic dominated Govts or by Islamic Dominated Govts.
Western Europe is slowly throwing off the shackles of the Roman Catholic Church.
Africa suffers from both Islamic and RC domination.
All of the Islamic Middle East suffers from Dictatorships that survive by using Islamic codes. And they get more miserable with each passing day…..Imams survive because they are able to fool the masses into believing USA is to blame.
Turkey excells only because it is still SUPPRESSING the Islamic Sha’aria Impulse.
Now….
Let us Pray Together…..
“Lord, please save us from your followers, Amen.”
September:02:2010 - 17:31
Ummm… the Catholic Church sort of gave up that goal as a result of the Reformation. The Church has been pushed back further from that goal ever since. You might want to check French and Italian histories, for example, to see how the power of the church has been taken away. I know that the John Birch Society in the US still sees Catholic boogeymen in the closet, as did the KKK, but anti-Catholicism hasn’t been a useful political argument (excepting N. Ireland) in quite some time. In India, for example, anti-Christian bias it typically directed toward Protestant sects.
You might find this map useful. It shows that there are actually very few Islamic states–four or five–that have Shariah as their principal law. The others use it in a variety of way, from ‘informing the general law’ to ‘used only in family law’. It makes it all a little less scary, because it isn’t scary at all.
September:03:2010 - 07:48
Thanks for this post.
The view of these authors that the moderate or democratic Muslims are in the majority is important in the context of the conflicts related to Islamist extremism in the West.
When I came to this blog, this is what I too had argued.
The opinion of the majority of Muslims who are democratic or moderate should be respected and upheld if the West truly wants to protect the rights of the minorities on its soil.
Defending the right of the minorities does not necessarily mean defending the extreme intolerant view of a handful of people in that minority group.
A mature democracy should have the ability to distinguish between the opinion of the majority of the people within the minority religion, which is quite democratic and the opinion of a handful of extremists in that minority tradition, who are loud and destructive.
Promoting the extremist and intolerant view of the handful of the people in the said minority tradition does not serve any purpose.
Those who want to argue with me, I’m not coming back to comment here. So please don’t bother.
September:03:2010 - 18:53
John…
Thank you for this post. You have no idea how timely it was for me. Much appreciated!
September:03:2010 - 19:58
I put “moderate” Muslims in the same category as unicorns and chupacabras. I have heard of them, there have been sightings, and some have even been photographed on stage – but they really don’t exist. Radical Muslims kill, the so-called moderates make excuses and blame others.
If these people want the “moderate” badge, they have to do moderate, liberal things. They have to respect others, stand up for freedom, promote equality and renounce any connection between religion and state. Any and all. It isn’t happening. It can’t.
September:03:2010 - 22:43
Jay,
You can’t ban the Muslims from a democracy. Your argument doesn’t serve a fruitful purpose.
The democratic Muslims have clearly opposed Park51. What more can they do? It is for the US govt to support their right to be heard and their demand to be fulfilled.
If the US Govt doesn’t listen to them and plays into the hands of a small group of extremists, it’s the US govt’s fault.
By playing into the extremists’ hands the govt doesn’t protect the rights of the minorities. Rather it is trampling upon the rights of the minorities who are opposing Park51.
You’ll do well to support the large number of democratic Muslims who are opposing Park51.
September:03:2010 - 23:48
John-I just had the chance to read this Symposium. Thanks for making us aware of it. It is more stimulating of thought than proposing answers, as good symposia probably are.
I don’t read anyone making an equation between moderate Muslim and democratic Muslim. Rather an odd equation to make, as systems and governments are democratic rather than individuals. Islam has its own way of “consulting the people” ijtihad. Usually government sytems are imposed on the people, or at least people are born into them, and most have little ability to effect substantive change.
When I first sang “God Save the Queen” at school (age 5) I asked my mother why. She said something like, “because she is the Queen of our country”. I knew all about that idea (well versed in Queens of the land from fairytales), but then I wondered why the Queen of England not the Queen of Italy? I think I had reached the end of my mother’s patience with why’s for that day because I don’t remember asking or receiving a reply.
In other words we are born into the prevailing governmental system and are usually educated in it. People in non-democracies, or authoritarian regimes, aren’t lacking in critical faculties, they just know better than to say too much out loud in their home countries or in public fora. That is true of the Moroccans I know formed under Hassan II (not the exemplar his father was), and of others from different authoritarian regimes including Iran, Libya, and Saudi (leaving out the pseudo-democracies).
Many Muslims support Park51. It doesn’t make them extremists, or insensitive. A good example are the Muslims who wrote on their prayer there, as part of a 30 Mosques, 30 States and 30 days Ramadan road trip, which I have posted about:
Lailat Al Qadr: Praying Taraweeh at “Ground Zero Mosque” / Cordoba House / Park51 NYC
The 2 posts scheduled to follow that one also show American Muslims being “moderate” in mosques across the country. Many come from oppressive regimes, or did–Statue of Liberty, and all that refugee stuff.
They are embracing the American dream of working hard to make better lives for themselves and especially their children. Really, just like “moderate” Americans.
September:04:2010 - 07:08
I support Park51 and I’m not even Muslim! Does that make me moderate or immoderate?
September:04:2010 - 08:08
While ijtihad may be Islam’s way of consulting the people are there any examples out there where ijtihad is utilized anymore within Muslim majority countries? I think if Ijtihad were alive and well those countries would be in better shape economically and governmentally. So at this point ijtihad is a theory as it is not allowed to be used or applied.
And there are Muslims who don’t support it and I think that their voice is equally valid and certainly agrees with most of America whether one finds that distasteful or not. And I don’t think it makes them any less Muslim or crazy…I think it gives them a unique viewpoint among Muslims…and if we were in a MENA country if they didn’t think it was right they certainly couldn’t make that thought known. That is what is great about America and the West…even moderates that disagree have the right and the forum in which to say it.
September:05:2010 - 15:01
In my view, the terms moderate and extremists do not deal with how religious the Muslim is. Moderates work with the political process and do not advocate killing civilians or violently overthrowing governments. Extremists advocate killing civilians and encourage violently overthrowing governments. In my view, the same theology applies to any religion. Any individual who calls himself or herself a Christian who would advocate killing civilians in the name of Christianity, I would consider an extremists and not a true Christian.
September:07:2010 - 01:04
Daisy, You are too nice for your own good. I am not banning anybody. I am speaking my opinion. I just think it is time to tell Muslims the things they don’t want to hear, and that they certainly will not hear from mainstream institutions. They have the same rights as I but no more. I don’t have a right not to be offended. I just don’t believe the nice kind sweet harmless Muslims deserve to be called moderate. Remember these moderate Muslims believe the Quran, they accept it as the revealed word of Allah. Well, Allah makes it very clear that non-Muslims are vile or lower than animals and moderate Muslims seem to have no problems with this. Worse yet, they even refuse to think about Islam and its teachings. Let me give you an example: Last month I posted a few choice words to a debate about the Park51 mosque on the Global Voices Online site, for which a reader named Hady tells me I am ignorant of Islam when I said that “Allah says that non-Muslims are lower than animals”. Not only am I ignorant, he says, but I am a fascist and there is religious freedom everywhere in Muslim countries.
So I post this: Gosh, Hady, I wonder if I can find anything derogatory in the Quran about non-Muslims – you know, like comparing them to animals. Here, let me give it a try: Quran 8.55 – for the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him; 7.179 -They (unbelievers) are like cattle,- nay more misguided; 25.44 – They are only like cattle- nay, they are worse; 7.166 -Be ye (infidels) apes, despised and rejected; 98.6 – Those who reject (Truth) …They are the worst of creatures; 8.22 -Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah’s sight, are the deaf, the dumb, those who do not believe. But then again, The Quran says that unbelief is caused by Allah himself (16.93 – He causes to err whom He pleases; 4.143 – He whom Allah causeth to go astray) so, by logic, Allah is the cause of evil and unbelief. After causing evil and unbelief, Allah then gets to inflict barbaric torment on them (4.56 – Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty). Nice, hum!
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/08/12/usa-deconstructing-media-coverage-of-the-ground-zero-mosque/
For the first time ever GVO deleted one of my posts (my reply). Oh well. The fact is that Muslims are ignorant (forgivable) and they don’t care (not forgivable!), and this includes the ones that people love to tag as ‘moderate’. These moderate Muslims have no problem with the evil in the Quran and say “praise be unto him” after Mohammed’s name. Have they actually read the hadith? I wonder. Does the unending violence and loathing of non-Muslims in those writings bother them? Nope. Moderate Muslims don’t seem to care about what Muslims do where they dominate. How often do you find them protesting Muslims’ treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic societies? Very very very rarely. Most so-called moderate Muslims don’t believe in freedom of speech. Moderate Muslims seem to think that it is OK to insult non-Muslims yet feel they themselves cannot be offended.
Note that even the liberal media seems to think that “moderate Muslims” are just one insult away from becoming mass murderers. Well, that is what they keep saying, that if we insult them or hurt their feelings in any way, it will “drive them into the arms of the radicals”. So, in other words, their moderation is so deep that a simple critical word or two will make them become jihadists. Is that it? Now that is some moderation.
As to “democratic Muslims”, these are identical to the “moderate Muslims”. Same talk, same self-imposed ignorance, same inability to hear criticism of Islam, same propensity to call any critic ‘racist’ and ‘islamophobe’ rather than think, same hide-head-in-sand attitude. Remember, moderate Muslims accept the words in the second paragraph here as good and true, given by their god.
It may be that I am old and ignorant but I don’t understand this need to protect so-called moderate Muslims from debate about Islam or bruised feelings, or why must we also take their word at face value when they clearly subscribe to the same basic ideology as that of the radicals (the difference being that 1. the so-called moderates ignore Islam’s literal teachings, and 2. that they mostly don’t live in Muslim countries, which may explain point 1).The idea that most Muslims are peaceful and moderate is fallacious because most Muslims live in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, etc… where discrimination against non-Muslims is both inscribed in law and supported by popular opinion.
Let me put it this way, if I were a member of the Elks club and a small portion of Elks around the world continually preached hate and killed people, I would say goodbye to them in 10 seconds, even if 90% of Elks were good people. In fact, the Elk Clubs would be gone in no time because most people would not want to be even associated with Elks if that were the case, much less if it were revealed that the Elk’s charter says that non-elks are subhuman. Now consider also that Elks oppress Lions, Rotaries and funny-hat Shiners in the neighborhoods where they dominate, yet Elks in other neighborhoods say this means nothing and, by the way, you are hurting their feelings, so change the subject or else. There may be an analogy here, somewhere.
Daisy – Pretending that Muslims don’t have a serious moral problem is not fruitful either, much to the contrary. Note that I have yet to find one (Muslim) that could argue their way out of a wet paper bag.
September:07:2010 - 01:22
Chiara, some Muslims may be embracing the American dream, but in my opinion there are many of them that reject “western values”. I am talking about equality, freedom of religion and speech, separation of religion and state and respect for others. Even those that say they accept these want to do it on their terms. The problem is that Muslims have moved to the West but they have brought Islam and its value system with them. As you say, many of them support the building of the Park51 structure, knowing it hurts others. Almost all of them raised hell a short time ago about the stupid cartoons, showing that they want to impose their values on others and demonstrating that they don’t believe in freedom of speech, except for themselves. As I have always maintained, I will believe that Muslims in the West are moderate when Muslims in Islamic societies change their hearts and treat others as they want to be treated. Until then, they can suck on a pickle, protest and call me racist and islamophobe until the sun sets in a muddy field, and I hope you understand the reference.
Note also that Muslims, individually, always seem to be more reasonable then in groups. In one to one conversations they will say things that they would never say with other Muslims present. Is it self-policing? Fear? Moral infirmity? I don’t know, but it explains the pack mentality. Oby makes a valid observation about this.
As to your “moderate Muslims everywhere and not a radical to be seen” I would like you to explain why insulting tens of millions of Americans is not insensitive when a Muslim does it? You have no trouble saying that Americans are racists and Islamophobic yet you give the benefit of any and all doubts to a group of people who have, time after time, in country after country, shown their contempt and disrespect for others. I am talking about mosques all over America and around the world, paid for and staffed by Wahhabi trained Imams that have a tendency to say one thing one day and another the next, depending on who is near. I also refer you to the 30+ attacks and plots that have been conducted in this country by Muslims since 9/11, most of which were shut down before they could do the Quran 9:111 thing. I would suggest that you ask your Muslim friends to look up the word ‘persecution’. Note that in the Western mind, criticism and protest does not qualify as persecution. But then again, as I told you, few Muslims really understand and accept Western values.
Chiara, one thing I give you – your position is exactly that of the media, government, academia and so many of the so-called intelligentsia (you know, our moral betters). You and they look at the average American or Western European, or Australian and Canadian and you see a bunch of bigots, or worse. They rarely extend to the common people of those countries the kind terminology and sweet generalities that they so quickly bestow upon Muslims. The idea that good honest people can might actually understand Islamic theology and be aware of Muslims’ actions and sayings, and based upon these, rationally decide that this ideology is harmful to them and to society – it simply out of the question for the intellegentsia, isn’t it. It can only be misinformation and ignorance, or worse, right? Note the scorn and hate heaped upon anybody that dares criticize Islam. Look at the hundreds of articles published in opinion pages telling us how intolerant we are if we oppose Park51 – yet never a word about Islamic discrimination and hate. Look at Wilders and now Sarrazin in Germany. Never once can people like you see that maybe, just maybe, Muslims have by their actions caused this to happen, or that Muslims are up to their eyeballs in hypocrisy. It is always so easy to blame the common people, and let’s not forget the pat on the back down at the university.
Rather then go on and on saying the silly, insipid things I always say, I will ask you to explain a simple issue that is related to the whole question of Muslims in the West, their values and what they bring to the table of civil society. Please tell me why you think that a person who says “Praise be upon him” after Mohammad’s name and considers him to be a great moral example – someone to emulate – deserves the title of “moderate”. I’ll let it go at that.
September:07:2010 - 01:24
John, you are a moderate immoderate! I, on the other hand, am pushing it!
September:07:2010 - 04:20
Kactuz–Please don’t distort my words in one of your standard rants, and I’ll let it go at that.
September:07:2010 - 07:24
J: Your analogy to the Elks club is unapt. Picture instead, if you will, your living in a small town outside Montgomery, AL, circa 1915. Everyone in town is a Baptist. You believe there is something wrong with the way the Baptists are doing things, from the Mayor and the Police Chief down to the guy who runs the local grocery store and the woman teaching 4th and 5th grades at the local school. Your doctor, your mailman, your kids’ teacher, the neighbors who live on all four sides of you mostly disagree with you, but do agree that you might have a point on one or two issues. They don’t agree among themselves on which issues have merit, though. They’re all arguing from the point of Biblical inerrancy, however.
Your belief (for the purpose of this example) that evolution should be taught receives a lot of pushback from the school board and all the teachers who point to Genesis as definitive proof of your error. Your belief that women ought to be able to vote is scorned, because the Bible says otherwise. While you think the 14th Amendment makes all people equal, regardless of color, your neighbors think that Jim Crow has it right. You’d like to have a beer when you get off work in the pulp factory, but the preacher, armed with state law, insist that the state be dry. The police chief and his cousin the county judge believe they have a clear view of the law and enforce it as they see fit, not letting the first, fourth, fifth, or fourteenth amendments bother them too much.
Now, you think you’re just being ‘moderate’, asking nothing exceptional and indeed, asking only for what the law permits. You have a neighbor or two who agree with you on different points of your moderate agenda, but none who agree wholesale. But, J being J, you will insist on your moderate goals, even if they offend your fellow citizens.
What’s the result, do you think? Let’s say, again for the sake of argument, that you can’t get on a train and leave town, leave Alabama.
Are you going to stick to your guns, no matter that the grocer no longer wants your business; that the teacher is hassling your kids over every fault; that the police seem to find your car attractive at every sight of it; that your boss at the plant is critical of your every action and docks your pay at every opportunity he can find; that the doctor no longer makes house calls to your house; that your mail ends up under the box rather than in it on rainy days; that the Elks Club tosses you from its rolls; that you become the topic of Sunday sermons? Do you keep popping off about your ‘moderate views’ or do you learn to shut your mouth? You’re only being ‘moderate’, after all.
The example above isn’t perfect, either, of course. Living in 1915 Alabama, you have some choices that many would-be moderate Muslims don’t have. You could, actually, leave town pretty easily. You could take the train. You might even be able to take a bus to a major city where your moderate views were not seen as offensive. You could go to a city like New York, Chicago, or Philadelphia where your moderate views were commonplace. You wouldn’t have to learn a new language, though you might have to learn a new job. You would have to deal with dislocation, but you’d still be pretty much within the same culture.
Those options aren’t available to most Muslims. They don’t have places they can realistically go. They’re tied to family, whether or not their families share their moderate goals. They don’t have the skills or money to simply transport themselves to a ‘moderate’ part of the world. They’re afraid to give up everything they’ve known, including their languages, jobs, social networks. They learn that it’s easier to keep their lips zipped than to risk losing everything they’ve grown up with. They’re moderate, but they’re compelled to not make noise.
And forgive my questioning your willingness to quit any organization with even a small number of wrong-doers among its membership. Unless you are utterly self-employed, that’s not a luxury anyone can afford. If a fraternity in CA gets in trouble because of wild parties, need all brother organizations across the country dissolve? Because an employee ‘goes postal’ in a mail room, do you refuse to use the US Mail? If the CFO of your company embezzles, do you quit your job? Should all stockholders in that company immediately sell that stock? Because a teacher in the local high school has sex with a student, do you pull your kids from the school, the entire county school system? Because a Vice President of the US is convicted of accepting bribes, do you renounce your citizenship? Didn’t think so.
Now, some people draw clear lines in certain areas and live by their decisions. My mother, for instance, thought that Elizabeth Taylor was a slut and refused to see any of her films. I’ve friends who left the Catholic Church because of the way it dealt with its pedophilia problems. People do boycott various places and businesses due to what they see as legal or ethical failings. But they don’t boycott everything offensive. Different people will draw different lines about an acceptable level or source of bad behavior. Most draw their lines somewhere above ‘one miscreant’. Most look for something like systemic failure, not local failure. I suspect that that’s actually were you find yourself in real life.
Lucifer, after all, was highest among the angels until he got too full of himself, we’re told. His corruption, however, led to his being chased from Heaven. It didn’t lead to all angels being tagged as extremists.
September:07:2010 - 23:51
Chiara,
You did not answer that last simple question, much less the rest of the posting, nor did I distort your words.
Yes, let us not ever talk about Islam, Muslims and what THEY do and believe. The only real issue is Western ignorance and bigotry, right? If the West is a little more tolerant and avoids any negative thought about Islam and Muslims, the sun will shine on all of us and the bluebird of happiness will sing “zippity do dah” all day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqvBIR0k1_o
You know, I find this whole thing rather amusing. Even this kind of discussion is boring because there is little challenge or intellectual meat in it. It is a mere matter of facts, in this case, my facts, or my understanding of facts vs. yours.
I know you love a debate. Here is something to try on Chez Chiara… last week I was trying to reduce Islam and Christianity to the bare minimums. What, I ask, are the basic themes of each, or what are the essential messages in each theology. I came up with this:
Christianity is about sin and redemption.
Islam is about belief and unbelief.
Would you agree? Do you see the difference? What are the implications of this, or not?
September:08:2010 - 01:38
Oby–way up there, I accidentally poofed my reply on ijtihad a few days ago. In essence, it is still practiced in various ways in local councils, consultation with “key informants” as the anthropologists call them, etc. It is no longer the dominant modality of Islamic scholarship (of the non-academic variety) though it seems poised for a comeback. Free speech is limited in a number of countries, yet usually it is limited to direct attacks on the ruling powers–secular or religious. There are, however, areas of free speech about other topics, and different forms of minority protection.
It is hard to judge the degree to which the anti-Park51 group and the media have coloured the impressions of those being polled. A short while ago there was no problem, despite the development being planned and approved in concert with public laws and disclosure rules. I remember when Geller was a lone though loud voice. It is a shame to see something so normal being so perverted by fears and tangential agendas.
John–Excellent Alabama 1915 analogy!
Kactuz–”…and I’ll let it go at that.”
September:08:2010 - 07:14
Chiara…
I am glad to know that there are different forms of minority protection. I certainly will try to find out more about that. What I am wondering is, is it put into action? Can the minorities use it to gain protections? Another thing I am wondering is why, as in the case of Turkey if there are protections for minorities in place are the minorities leaving? Why has Turkey which had 2.5 million Christians in the early 1900′s now have 4,000? People don’t just up and leave unless there is a strong motivating factor or force. No one just decides to leave their homeland families, culture etc unless they have to for one reason or another. What makes the environment so hostile for them that they have to go? This is not a smart ass question. It is legitimate, fair question.
“It is hard to judge the degree to which the anti-Park51 group and the media have coloured the impressions of those being polled. A short while ago there was no problem, despite the development being planned and approved in concert with public laws and disclosure rules. I remember when Geller was a lone though loud voice. It is a shame to see something so normal being so perverted by fears and tangential agendas.”
While I suppose that can never be measured to know for sure, I see myself as an example. I mentioned awhile back somewhere on one of these blogs that I don’t watch the news, read the enquirer, listen to Fox, Beck et al and avoid as much of that sort of news as possible.I read it on Yahoo..one story (at first) and my immediate thought was “uh oh that’s not a good idea.” I was not swayed by anyone’s opinion. It was an instinctual, gut feeling. I am sure that there are those whipped up into a frenzy by the venues I mentioned, but believe it or not it is possible to not agree with it without having been influenced or have minds poisoned by that trumpet section. There are those of us who think it is simply inappropriate and can make that decision unaided by Beck. Although I am sure it would seem that Americans are lemmings as there are many united in this feeling and to some that would seem rather incomprehensible, many, I am sure, like me came to that decision without having to be told how to think.
That is has become infinitesimally more complicated by the coverage there is no question. I think one of the reasons there was no problem before is that people, myself included, did not know about it. Once they found out all hell broke loose…some with aid of the far right and some without.
September:08:2010 - 10:35
Oby–I have no doubt that many simply perceive it as a bad idea and without the help of the far right. I also don’t think that all Americans are lemmings. However, studies do show that opinion polls shift as media coverage spins a story in one direction or another, so it is a reasonable guess to think that many of the 70% were swayed, whether towards disapproval or towards a higher degree of disapproval.
September:08:2010 - 14:53
@John,
I liked your post. What also happens is you speak up and people sort of cluck and shake their heads- you’re foreign, you’re a convert, you’ve been mistaught, you’re not a native Arabic speaker, you don’t wear hijab, you don’t buy into the “science” of hadith = your opinion means nothing and please go educate yourself.
September:08:2010 - 15:14
That doesn’t bother me in the least. I know what I know and know that I don’t know everything. One thing I do, absolutely know is that I’m not a convert to any religion nor a follower of any religion. I think religion can and does play an important role in many peoples’ lives. I’ve seen it play an all-consuming role, too. All-consuming isn’t worth much except in funeral pyres.
September:08:2010 - 15:20
@John,
I meant that’s what I get when as a “moderate muslim” I try to say something not in lockstep.
September:09:2010 - 11:51
John, I know my position on this matter is somewhat at odds with most of your readers. Even so, tens of millions of people share my views. I understand the concept of “not antagonizing to not provoke” but it has become a tool in the hands of people that have an agenda that will lead to pain and suffering. Being understanding, that is, caving in to any and all demands by Muslims, will only lead to more outrage over matters that are increasing trivial. The object of that outrage is to advance a toletarian agenda. With this, their outrage becomes a weapon to be used to subvert and intimidate non-Muslims. It also instantly confers on any Muslim a status of “protected” and “empowered” that makes the rights of others irrelevant to any discussion. Is this what people want?
I certainly realize that my views are convenient to me because I have little exposure to the consequences of my words. I can say what I want about any religion or anybody because I live in Arizona, not Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Alabama, and because I can hide behind a nom-de-plum that protects me from the zeal of those who might not like what I say and are inclined to express that displeasure in a very vicious physical way. Certainly if I lived in those countries I would have to consider not only my safety and well being but that of family and friends. The simple fact that all of this is true shows how repressive certain cultures and ideologies are. Is this what we want? Why then is there this need or desire to not offend those cultures and ideologies when they are characterized by suffocation of thought and freedoms?
No example or analogy is perfect – but in the end we are left with real life and how we know and understand it. The key word there is “understand”. I am a product of my time, upbringing, experiences and mental processes, such as they are. I don’t expect everybody to agree with me, and if they did, I would wonder why I was so wrong.
As I have told you before, I see Western Civilization in a freefall. It is falling apart faster than I, a pessimist from way back when, would have ever believed. It is not just political or economic, but social and moral. Others have commented on this in words much more eloquently than I. We are doomed. Islam is a small but significant part of this. Muslim values are not those of the West and this unhealthy desire to sacrifice our freedoms to protect the feelings of a group of people that should the ashamed, yes ashamed, of their beliefs and actions, is beyond me. I have always liked history and it is so interesting to see major changes occur so quickly. America has gone from World power to debt-ridden, semi-developed, guilt-controlled, dogma driven, has-been state in less than half of my lifetime. I was in Singapore recently and one old gentlemen asked me “What is wrong with America, are you out of your F*ing minds?” So we live in a country where our leaders care more about not burning a stupid book than freedom of speech, the rights of tens of millions of non-Muslims, the subjugation of women, of the ideology behind people who persecute others and that explode bombs that kill men women and children. They don’t care enough about these to even ask Muslims to change their ways or rebuke them. Pathetic. Funny, I don’t remember any indignation when people burned Bibles, flags, or put Christian symbols in excrement and urine. Actually the old guy didn’t use the f-word, I added it for dramatic effect.
NO, I am not a joiner. I stand with Groucho on that. I am a member of no church, lodge, association, union or formal group. I even switched my registration to independent because I don’t want to be associated with some people.
I like your Mom already, she is really perceptive and smart – and there is the fact that Miss Taylor Burton Fisher DeMaggio Whatever (I was going to add all the names of her 8 exes as an insult but I’m too lazy to look it up!) only made 2 good movies in her long career, one being a Shakespeare work. I can’t think of ET without remembering Natalie Wood – a much more talented and pretty actress, even if equally screwed up.
Wasn’t Lucifer’s sin that of pride? “I will put my throne above the North Star, I will ascend into heaven, I will be like the most-high”. Isaiah, I think and I didn’t look it up. Lucifer’s angels made a choice. They followed their leader. I hate leaders; I can lose my way on my own, thank you very much – It is much more interesting. The problem goes beyond religion and applies to any ideology that is accepted without question. It is worse when that ideology doesn’t even allow you to question.
Sandy, people have been telling we that I don’t know anything since I was riding a round in a Packard. Oh well.
You all take care.
September:09:2010 - 12:27
J: I suspect you and I are much closer in age–and thus shared cultural baggage–than most of the readers here. I do hear what you’re saying. I simply think you’re wrong on a few points regarding Muslims and Islam.
I do agree that the Islamic world, as a whole, is greatly retarded in its development when compared to much of the world. There are places even more developmentally challenged, but they’re not the issue here. At least part of the cause for the retardation is that the way Islam has been interpreted in most of these countries leads to a blind acceptance of certain historic precedents and of ‘authority’. While ‘authority’ can be well-intended and function for the betterment of society, too often it serves only to serve itself, to maintain itself. But as the undeveloped, non-Islamic world shows, you don’t need any particular religion to fall into that pattern.
There are very bad people in the world. Some of those very bad people are Muslims. Particularly when they seek to claim that their very bad actions are not only justified by Islam, but mandated by it, they present a problem. That problem is shared both by non-Muslims and Muslims, though they suffer it in different ways.
Because I have lived in numerous Muslim countries and countries in which Muslims make up a significant majority, I know from the evidence of my own eyes and ears that Islam, per se, is not a significant problem to either the world in general or the US specifically. Some Muslims, a particular brand of extremists, are a danger.
But we create new dangers when we refuse to recognize the difference between the two groupings. If we demonize all Muslims, make life harder for them than necessary, insult them, disparage them, tell them that they’re liars who can’t be trusted, tell them that we don’t want them as neighbors, aren’t we creating the conditions that lead to radicalization? We are making enemies of people needlessly. Why would we want to do that? We don’t do it with other groups we find annoying or who act in ways that disturb us. If we have problems with, say, the Brits and their laws that make it too easy to sue for libel, we don’t start spitting at any random Brit. We argue in the media, we get Congress to pass laws limiting how British libel judgments will be treated in US courts. We see Burma as a major offender of human rights. We’re not a war with Burma. Instead, we rail at them in international fora, we impose boycotts. We don’t rough up the random Burmese we encounter. We don’t even say, ‘Burmese suck!’ We only deprecate the Burmese government.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Al-Qaeda hadn’t attacked on 9/11. Let’s say it was the ETA, the Basque terrorist/independence group. (I pick on them because they’re one of the few transnational terror groups I can think of, operating in both Spain and France, though not with governmental support.) We would certainly go after them. But would we go after all Catholics, because the majority of ETA is Catholic? Would we, even if ETA said it was for religious freedom? (Both Spain and France have a history of laws that restrict Catholics, after all.) Even more, would we go after all Christians, because Catholics are part of Christianity?
I think we err grievously if we cannot distinguish terrorists who act in the name of Islam from the universe of Muslims.
September:09:2010 - 14:58
@ jay,
So what’s a moderate Muslim to do? People like me speak-no one listens- and people like you say we don’t exist!
@John- I’m totally with your mom on the Liz Taylor thing….
September:21:2010 - 12:09
John and Sandy, I just wanted to follow up here. I do understand that there are good moderate Muslims – in the sense that people of goodwill use that term. I also understand that my position is easy for me because I have no responsibility, no influence and no power. I can say what I want because I see it as true and there are no consequences and nobody gets hurt. I sincerely believe that moderate Muslims are part of the problem because they have their heads in a hole in the ground and they do not stand up or speakout against the many aspects of Islamic theology and history that contribute to the many problems we see, and even those that do speak up seem to have no effect.
I can also understand that good moderate Muslims look at themselves, their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers and do not see the evil that I see. Well, maybe “evil” is too strong. Make that “trouble”.
Darnned if I know what to do! I keep getting the feeling this whole thing is a set up!
Sandy, but Miss Wood was hot and fun while Miss Taylor was cold and calculating. Too bad she (Wood) couldn’t swim!