Islam: Where do we go from here?

[Laika]

Lets puts the whole question of whether Islam or Muslims are at fault aside for a moment and accept that there is a problem. For those of you who think Islam needs to change, I'd like to know how your going to achieve it.

Rightly or wrongly, I am concerned that much of the tone regarding "criticising" Islam is a free for all, where the question of whether people have the right to criticise Muslims is given much greater importance than the validity or the consequences of such criticism. The white noise of discussing the issue is treated as more important than what is actually being said.

We take for granted that we have the individual right to free speech. But the problem is that this criticism of Islam is no longer unique or confined to single individuals. It has the numbers to become a major political issue with practical consequences and we have to decide if the consequences are what we actually want. Its not about principles anymore but about policies.

Here's the thing. Its an issue now. Accross Europe and America the same criticisms of Islam are being made. Its not being censored or repressed. The "thought police" -assuming they ever existed- have lost. There is no longer any defence of political correctness that make any practical difference or can turn the tide of right-wing populism. You've won. You have the power and now your message can be broadcast on the internet. These are new political realities and the willingness to criticise Islam can now be translated into political action. That has risks and it has consequences. And the talk about free speech is now irrelevant because we couldn't shut you up even if we wanted to. This is no longer an issue to do with free speech but is becoming an issue to do with the boundaries of freedom of religion in western socities because the critics of Islam are in the ascendency.

So let me be exact here:

i) how are you going to turn the tide on Islamic Fundamentalism without violating the civil liberties of Muslims or the general population in the west as an unintended consequence?

ii) And what can western governments do to turn the tide in the Middle east without making the situation worse?

iii) how we draw a practical distinction between attacks on Islam as a religion and attacks on Muslims as a threat to their human rights?

 

[wizanda]

For those of you who think Islam needs to change, I'd like to know how your going to achieve it.

It is simple to point out; yet hard to change people....

2:285 The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."

The 'messengers' (rasul) were sent globally, therefore Islam is meant to be like Bahá'í; unfortunately separatist traditions crept into it through the addition of Hadiths, and it has become a shadow of what it was....

It could easily be said, that if all the prophets were Muslims, then Islam isn't about following the Quran, and everything religiously, it is about accepting the Oneness of God.

Yet getting people to recognize it in that context first of all is beyond, as many Muslims refuse to accept what their book says, just like all the other religious people do.

Within the political scope, this whole Islam being the threat is funded heavily by a those who would control the world for private gain....

It is a threat as it challenged usury, and says the Bible has been edited, which it has....

Thus destabilizing the political climate against those who edited it; thus the media for a thousand years, has been purposely encouraged that Islam becomes this monster, for the sake of power.

 

[YmirGF]

It is simple to point out; yet hard to change people....

2:285 The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."

The 'messengers' (rasul) were sent globally, therefore Islam is meant to be like Bahá'í; unfortunately separatist traditions crept into it through the addition of Hadiths, and it has become a shadow of what it was....

It could easily be said, that if all the prophets were Muslims, then Islam isn't about following the Quran, and everything religiously, it is about accepting the Oneness of God.

Yet getting people to recognize it in that context first of all is beyond, as many Muslims refuse to accept what their book says, just like all the other religious people do.

Within the political scope, this whole Islam being the threat is funded heavily by a those who would control the world for private gain....

It is a threat as it challenged usury, and says the Bible has been edited, which it has....

Thus destabilizing the political climate against those who edited it; thus the media for a thousand years, has been purposely encouraged that Islam becomes this monster, for the sake of power.

 

[YmirGF]

i) how are you going to turn the tide on Islamic Fundamentalism without violating the civil liberties of Muslims or the general population in the west as an unintended consequence?

I'm not convinced we should do anything. Perhaps the best tonic right now would be to leave them alone for a generation. Jus' sayin'...

ii) And what can western governments do to turn the tide in the Middle east without making the situation worse?

Part of the problem, aside from the inherent instability in Islam due to having no central authority, is that we have been trying to "fix" things for decades. We could simply take stands without being directly involved and stick to our guns. See who blinks first. If we end up fighting over principles rather than botched actions at least we would be fighting for what we believe in against something that does not.

iii) how we draw a practical distinction between attacks on Islam as a religion and attacks on Muslims as a threat to their human rights?

Be honest about the inherent problem in fanatical Islam.

 

[Kirran]

I'm not convinced we should do anything. Perhaps the best tonic right now would be to leave them alone for a generation. Jus' sayin'...

Issues with this come in the fact that it's hard to leave people alone when you see them every day, when you grow up alongside them, when they're your friends and neighbours and colleagues. If all Muslims lived in some faroff place and we never saw them, I could see your point, although even then the globalised nature of the world economy would make it difficult.

 

[icehorse]

So let me be exact here:

i) how are you going to turn the tide on Islamic Fundamentalism without violating the civil liberties of Muslims or the general population in the west as an unintended consequence?

ii) And what can western governments do to turn the tide in the Middle east without making the situation worse?

iii) how we draw a practical distinction between attacks on Islam as a religion and attacks on Muslims as a threat to their human rights?

i) i'm not too worried about this one - statistically it's a minor concern

ii) - slowly withdraw financial support for governments that support practices counter to the UDHR. Not overnight, but slowly and steadily.

iii) - Decades ago smoking was "cool". We were able to turn public opinion about smoking with no loss of life or limb. We need to make Islam "uncool". We need to make it embarrassing to follow Islam, unless and until Muslims create a reformed Islam that's truly compatible with the UDHR.

 

[LuisDantas]

Rightly or wrongly, I am concerned that much of the tone regarding "criticising" Islam is a free for all, where the question of whether people have the right to criticise Muslims is given much greater importance than the validity or the consequences of such criticism. The white noise of discussing the issue is treated as more important than what is actually being said.

It seems to me that having such a right may conceivably be a lesser consideration under certain circunstances, but lacking that right will unavoidably lead to ever growing consequences, none of them desirable.

Still, I understand and agree that there is such a thing as unjustified, destructive criticism. I am not quite sure how or whether it is significantly different from the overall radicalization of political behavior, though.

We take for granted that we have the individual right to free speech. But the problem is that this criticism of Islam is no longer unique or confined to single individuals. It has the numbers to become a major political issue with practical consequences and we have to decide if the consequences are what we actually want. Its not about principles anymore but about policies.

Fair enough. I would however hope that people would aim to see consequences to their political stances most of the time, albeit hopefully not often in a drammatical way.

Here's the thing. Its an issue now. Accross Europe and America the same criticisms of Islam are being made. Its not being censored or repressed. The "thought police" -assuming they ever existed- have lost.

I have to ask what exactly you mean by that.

The winds of public acceptance are certainly blowing towards favoring such criticism right now, but you make it sound like it is a permanent, well-settled, stable and universal reality, and that is far from the case.

There are still many good reasons to be careful about how one criticizes Islam. For one, the reality of a degree of paranoia and repression towards migrants of Muslim majority places of origin. For another, the existence of several Muslim governments with various attitudes, many of them justifying some worry.

There is no longer any defence of political correctness that make any practical difference or can turn the tide of right-wing populism. You've won.

Those two statements can't both ever be true far as I am concerned. Right-wing populism is a worse problem and threat than the dangers of unquestioned Islaam.

You have the power and now your message can be broadcast on the internet. These are new political realities and the willingness to criticise Islam can now be translated into political action. That has risks and it has consequences. And the talk about free speech is now irrelevant because we couldn't shut you up even if we wanted to.

It seems to me that it is slightly more accurate to say that what used to be a discussion about the limits of free speech has mostly made the transition towards general aggressiveness and radicalization of political discussions.

To a certain degree it was enabled by the impact of 9/11, but it is not a primarily Islaam-related reality now. Not in these days of talking openly about how the candidate our friends and relatives voted for ought to have been arrested already.

This is no longer an issue to do with free speech but is becoming an issue to do with the boundaries of freedom of religion in western societies because the critics of Islam are in the ascendency.

It was always such an issue regardless, wasn't it? Nor is that a bad thing, either. Those boundaries are a valid subject for discussion at any time.

So let me be exact here:

i) how are you going to turn the tide on Islamic Fundamentalism without violating the civil liberties of Muslims or the general population in the west as an unintended consequence?

The favored means is of course the spread of information.

There is a bad, permanent need for making people well aware of the reasons for worry, the need for questioning and challenge of what is ultimately a mixture of lies and somewhat well-meaning misinformation about the actual goals and nature of Islaam. While the freedom of religion must be protected, the reputation of the religion must be made accurate and well informed.

Social acceptance of Islaam (or lack of same) should be well tempered with accurate and widespread information about what is involved in it, including the political aspects and the social challenges that Muslim communities bring with them, even when they are minorities of miggrants or refugees. There is a very real clash of cultures and we all should address it is a sober, realistic way.

And yes, that does involve breaking a lot of typical Muslim expectations from the get-go. That does not seem to be really avoidable, and therefore it is best to cause the disappointment in a public, widespread way, before even more lives end up irreversibly tainted by it.

Secularism and laicism must be well spread, well explained, and well implemented.

ii) And what can western governments do to turn the tide in the Middle east without making the situation worse?

Realistically, very little.

Mostly encourage good will exchanges of people and awareness whenever the chance is met. I am all for it and I find it all-out necessary, but it will take decades before some tangible benefit is attained. And it does not really have very much to do with any governments at all.

It would be a very good thing if serious commitments to stopping the use of explosive weapons by governmental forces were made, though. That might cause very good consequences there, at least conceivably. But I doubt even either the public or the governments to accept such a necessary measure, so it is probably a moot idea.

iii) how we draw a practical distinction between attacks on Islam as a religion and attacks on Muslims as a threat to their human rights?

It is difficult, mostly because so many Muslims are genuinely confused on the issue.

Still, a necessary first step is to clearly establish and state secularist and laicist principles wherever possible. Leave no room for expectations that once there are "enough" Muslims there might be the establishment of theocratic principles in any given region or government. That people can and will criticize the Qur'an, Muhammad, and the doctrine of Islaam itself, and that it is how things should be. That respect is something to earn and nurture, not to expect to find ready-made and certainly not to demand with threats and violence.

Muslims are free to believe in Islaam. People in general are free to convert to it. But they should expect no particular privilege from that, and certainly not entitlement to protection from criticism or, civil laws. Nor religious privilege on the grounds of divine command or even of demographical right, either.

Muslims are as entitled to participating in political decisions as anyone else (although I must admit that I wiould have a very hard time trusting the political judgment of a random Muslim), but the decisions themselves must not be theological nor theocratic in nature. Muslims may or may not accept it, but far as political decisions are concerned God is irrelevant, in effect non-existent or at the very least a complete mystery with no clear desires. There is never such a thing as a valid law based on the will of god, or even "on the will of god as understood by the religious majority".

 

[jeager106]

Live with it. It isn't going to change.
There will always be "extremists" who believe killing masses of
innocents is somehow the way to attract others to a religion.
Works for me.
Yessireee. I have the greatest respect for a religion that openly promotes
conversion by death.
It's a shame most people don't understand that only 15% of Muslims
world wide take part in or support violent jihad.
What is 15% of 2.1 BILLION anyway?
Comforting what?
Christians have done the same. I recall just last...............................
well, then there was the..........................................well there must
have been SOME recent Christian criminal murders in the name of Jesus
wasn't there???????????????????????????
Didn't some splinter Christian group behead someone on world wide t-v
or something?
Oh, the Crusades. Let's not forget the Crusades.
(how long ago was that?)

 

[jeager106]

i) i'm not too worried about this one - statistically it's a minor concern

ii) - slowly withdraw financial support for governments that support practices counter to the UDHR. Not overnight, but slowly and steadily.

iii) - Decades ago smoking was "cool". We were able to turn public opinion about smoking with no loss of life or limb. We need to make Islam "uncool". We need to make it embarrassing to follow Islam, unless and until Muslims create a reformed Islam that's truly compatible with the UDHR.

R U SERIOUS?????

So you think society can make mass murder in the name of some "god"
uncool?
You equate mass murder with smoking a cigarette?

A bit sophomoric ain't it?

How do you plan on making a RELIGION "uncool"?
"embarrassing to follow Islam"? Why would a Muslim be embarrassed
about a chosen religion.
Were I a Muslim I'd be quite insulted at that premise.

2.1 BILLION Muslims in this world and I'll bet not one is embarrassed at being a Muslim.
Nor should they be.

 

[icehorse]

You equate mass murder with smoking a cigarette?

This might be the most blatant straw man I've ever encountered, I suppose congratulations of a sort are in order??!

Of course that's NOT what I'm suggesting, and I'm 99% sure you know that. So I have to ask (because I really can't even hazard a guess), WTF are you on about?

 

[icehorse]

Why would a Muslim be embarrassed
about a chosen religion.
Were I a Muslim I'd be quite insulted at that premise.

Let's recap here. If one identifies as a Muslim, that means they think:

- Muhammad is the ideal role model for human beings.
- The Quran is the literal, perfect, final and unalterable word of god

IMO, it's insulting for non-Muslims to have to swallow those ideas.

 

[jeager106]

This might be the most blatant straw man I've ever encountered, I suppose congratulations of a sort are in order??!

Of course that's NOT what I'm suggesting, and I'm 99% sure you know that. So I have to ask (because I really can't even hazard a guess), WTF are you on about?

Oh chill. It was a poor attempt at humor.
SORRY.
And thanks for the thanks for the strawman.
(what does WTF mean anyway? I'm not up on internet slang.)
(if it was a nasty remark then skip it, I don't want my feelings hurt. Sensitive sort ya know.)

 

[icehorse]

Oh chill. It was a poor attempt at humor.

Doh! I see it now, sorry. That just goes to show how crazy some of the posts here are...

 

[Kirran]

- Muhammad is the ideal role model for human beings.
- The Quran is the literal, perfect, final and unalterable word of god

There's a regionally significant, and globally present, movement within Islam which would quibble on the second point here. And might interpret the first differently to the orthodox, for that matter. Liberal Islam is a thing, and is far more viable in the long term.

 

[icehorse]

There's a regionally significant, and globally present, movement within Islam which would quibble on the second point here. And might interpret the first differently to the orthodox, for that matter. Liberal Islam is a thing, and is far more viable in the long term.

Well hooray! Does this movement have an official, findable name?

 

[Kirran]

Well hooray! Does this movement have an official, findable name?

Well it's just liberal Islam.

 

[suncowiam]

Why is this focused on Islam and Muslims? Why not any other religion?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

And thanks for the thanks for the strawman.
(what does WTF mean anyway? I'm not up on internet slang.)

That's not internet slang: it's been around since the 1950s, at least. Oxford English Dictionary: " An imaginary adversary invented in order to be triumphantly confuted."