'Islamists'

[Kemble]

Taking you literally, doesn't that mean that Islam may only be meaningfully defined in function of said historical context?

Yes; I think the Islamic message was always supposed to be universal through all ages and the Prophet and the early followers as examples of how both an individual Muslim and the communal "Ummah" are supposed to structure life and society.

One of the consequences being that they are fully entitled to embrace peaceful and enlightened attitudes, regardless of how well-supported more violent takes might turn out to be?

In a religious person's worldview, not always.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's get to the heart of this.

What is Islam, as a collection of memes?

Sure. All religions are, and so are many other things.

How does it operate in this 'historical context'?

However its adherents decide to make it.

Like most religions, it is installed in conquered peoples as the framework for controlling their public and private mind.

Even taking that as true, it does not have to be or remain so.

First and foremost it was initiated to establish and perpetuate an order, a status quo, a way of the world; and it is institutions that act in this manner which keep the old world of Mohammed alive even on the ash-heap of history.

Not sure what you mean here. Sure, there are significant challenges in implementing Islam in the current time and with no warlike or repressive conotations. But they way you talk it seems that you find the very attempt somehow false or unworthy.

 

[Kemble]

Let's get to the heart of this.

What is Islam, as a collection of memes? How does it operate in this 'historical context'?

Like most religions, it is installed in conquered peoples as the framework for controlling their public and private mind.

First and foremost it was initiated to establish and perpetuate an order, a status quo, a way of the world; and it is institutions that act in this manner which keep the old world of Mohammed and every other atavist alive even on the ash-heap of history, continuing to inflame the world with their smoldering ruin.

It is actually so much more complex than this.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes; I think the Islamic message was always supposed to be universal through all ages and the Prophet and the early followers as examples of how both an individual Muslim and the communal "Ummah" are supposed to structure life and society.

Except that it is not really possible to keep with the times and also stay the same. Even a supposedly eternal doctrine needs to change and adapt.

In a religious person's worldview, not always.

All that means is that there will be disagreement.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Sure. All religions are, and so are many other things.

Exactly. And memes, like genes, are exposed to fitness and environmental suitability. But my point was not memes; the word entered the fray only to point to the components that Islam is made of so that we can review them, rather then getting caught up in 'everything's a meme!' - an unhelpful truism.

However its adherents decide to make it.

No, no, that's called revisionism. We're talking about how these components have worked in the 'historical context.'

Not sure what you mean here. Sure, there are significant challenges in implementing Islam in the current time and with no warlike or repressive conotations. But they way you talk it seems that you find the very attempt somehow false or unworthy.

Then I am misunderstood; Islam should be changed, must be changed, but changing it will cause it to venture outside of its very narrow and rigid box. It will not survive, as such, its transformation, and the end result will be the death of the prophet's dogmas.

I'm all for it.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, no, that's called revisionism. We're talking about how these components have worked in the 'historical context.'

I thought that revisionism involved reinventing what existed in the past, not what exists in the present or will exist in the future.

Then I am misunderstood; Islam should be changed, must be changed, but changing it will cause it to venture outside of its very narrow and rigid box. It will not survive, as such, its transformation, and the end result will be the death of the prophet's dogmas.

I'm all for it.

So am I, even if I don't necessarily agree that Islam will not survive as such once that is done.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I thought that revisionism involved reinventing what existed in the past, not what exists in the present or will exist in the future.

But we are talking about how things came to be, the historical context.

So am I, even if I don't necessarily agree that Islam will not survive as such once that is done.

Where will Islam be when the prophet and the word are invalidated in their authority, exposed to all manner of other memes with which to build a new framework? Most of the end result would be foreign material, or otherwise indigenous but unislamic.

 

[Kemble]

Except that it is not really possible to keep with the times and also stay the same. Even a supposedly eternal doctrine needs to change and adapt.

If you liked the last article by Crone, here's another one right along those lines:

So why is there so much fuss about this statement? Well, one reason is that it expresses a tolerant view that Westerners like to hear, so it is a good passage to dispel their prejudices about Islam with. But it is also a statement of great importance in connection with the question whether Islam can coexist with a secular sphere: is Islam a belief system that you can combine with a any political order that you like - as long as they are religiously neutral? Or is it a religion that dictates its own political order? That's a key issue today, and the "no compulsion" verse figures in the discussion. But you can't appreciate what people say about it today without knowing the traditional interpretations, so as I said, we have to look at the pre-modern exegetes. They start round about 720-750 AD.

No pressure, then: religious freedom in Islam | openDemocracy

 

[LuisDantas]

But we are talking about how things came to be, the historical context.

As it relates to the present time, if I am not mistaken.

Where will Islam be when the prophet and the word are invalidated in their authority, exposed to all manner of other memes with which to build a new framework? Most of the end result would be foreign material, or otherwise indigenous but unislamic.

And no doubt there will be some to say that it is not at all Islam, while others will say that that is what Islam was always meant to be.

In any case, no religion can legitimally avoid exposition to other memes. All of them get "foreign" material, if only from the changes of culture through time.

As for what should be called Islam or not, it seems to me that it is ultimately a pretty arbitrary call. You can easily make the case that Islam only existed during the Prophet's lifetime, for instance. But that suits little practical purpose.

 

[beenie]

I understand that we aren't diplomats or politicians here, and I'm very for world peace and liberalization, but ignorance or denials like this will never help solve the problem. The fact of the matter is Islam isn't purely non-violent and peaceful, and it isn't a necessarily totalitarianism trying to take over the world (at least any longer), and we have to understand that it is somewhere in between.

I can go along with that.

 

[beenie]

Mohammed lived a long time ago, in a world that no longer exists.

Much like anyone else, Muslims must decide how best to honor their traditions, and that unavoidably means also which parts should be disregarded or reevaluated. That is not only legitimate, but also necessary to keep their doctrine worthy and healthy.

Indeed. I fully support revisiting the older doctrine and seeing how and if it applies today. I'll get bashed by fellow muslims for saying this, but I strongly feel that if we don't do some sort of revising and evolving as a religion and culture, we will never be welcomed or understood. I feel we can do that without losing our identity.

*hides from weapons being hurled at me*

 

[Shuddhasattva]

As it relates to the present time, if I am not mistaken.

But we've not ventured into the past to understand the present time if we're resting on how Islam is variously interpreted today by Muslims.

(Another factor being how Muslims think others see Islam, as Islam continually defines its identity in relation to the Other(s).)

In any case, no religion can legitimally avoid exposure to other memes. All of them get "foreign" material, if only from the changes of culture through time.

Of course, but it's a gradient. Some religions are better than others at preserving their dogmas and excluding other memetic material. Islam is foremost, it's set up to resist change and conserve.

As for what should be called Islam or not, it seems to me that it is ultimately a pretty arbitrary call. You can easily make the case that Islam only existed during the Prophet's lifetime, for instance. But that suits little practical purpose.

You may end up without much Surrender before the Struggle is over.

 

[Kemble]

Indeed. I fully support revisiting the older doctrine and seeing how and if it applies today. I'll get bashed by fellow muslims for saying this, but I strongly feel that if we don't do some sort of revising and evolving as a religion and culture, we will never be welcomed or understood. I feel we can do that without losing our identity.

*hides from weapons being hurled at me*

It is being tried with the Quraneen: Fearless Fighters For Faith Freedom: AIC Interviews Ahmad Shaban, Egyptian Quranist researcher

But it still strikes me as an odd endeavor. Liberalism, equality, and self-enlightenment are not in line with the Islamic texts, and I think if folks want liberalism the divine authority of the Islamic texts will ultimately have to be questioned.

 

[Looncall]

Actually, the Taliban suppressed the opium trade, one of the major reasons for the war in Afghanistan in the first place.

Of course, when convenient, they also advantage themselves of it, but opium is primarily a slave labor institution relying on refugee camp slave labor (created and sustained by American interventionism) and processed with American equipment for American objectives.

That said, these people are not criminals - or rather, they are far more than that. They are legitimately religious people, fanatically so, and deeply schooled in Islam. They have enormous religious authority; for example, when my father was in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 97-99, a friend of his - Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, then a leading judge representing Islamic law, had a fatwa issued against him by bin Laden and his imam, and ended up hiding in protective custody until the fatwa was recalled due to a compromised understanding.

If your second paragraph is accurate, it is high time the world got rid of Islam.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

How do you figure? Second or third?

 

[savagewind]

"We" is Islam. The text clearly uses "fire" as a metaphor of guilt and shame throughout, such as in 4:10.

Quote mining doesn't help your cause.

How is Islam going to make an unbeliever drink as in?..... Hell is before him, and he is made to drink a festering water, Which he sippeth but can hardly swallow, and death cometh unto him from every side while yet he cannot die, and before him is a harsh doom. 14:16-17

I cannot imagine one instance where when someone IS MADE TO DO something it is a peaceable gesture. Am I missing something? What is the opposite of peaceable?

You say it is a metaphor for shame. How can someone be made to feel shame? I think shame comes from within, not without. It is my opinion a person can not be made to feel shame.
Jeremiah 6:15 Are they ashamed that they have committed abomination? No, they are not at all ashamed, neither do they know what it is to blush. Therefore they shall fall among them that fall; at the time that I visit them they shall stumble, says Jehovah.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is being tried with the Quraneen: Fearless Fighters For Faith Freedom: AIC Interviews Ahmad Shaban, Egyptian Quranist researcher

But it still strikes me as an odd endeavor. Liberalism, equality, and self-enlightenment are not in line with the Islamic texts, and I think if folks want liberalism the divine authority of the Islamic texts will ultimately have to be questioned.

As it happens, I agree. Yet it is up to Muslims to decide the future of Muslims.

It matters not that I sincerely believe that in order to save Islam as a viable religion they may end up building something that might not be very recognizable as my own conception of Islam, or anyone else's.

It does not even matter that they may have to consciously decide to boldly disregard the letter of their own scripture to do that, and perhaps find out that they no longer have an actual scripture then.

The way I see it, it is a leap of faith, a pretty much unavoidable one. Who knows, they might surprise us yet. It wouldn't be the first time. Islam has no duty to be coherent with my expectations or conceptions about it.

Besides, plenty of people seem to have done a lot of constructive advancement with Islamic doctrine, so I would rather not assume that I have full understanding of its actual potential. Nor do I need to. Drawing the line at encouragement of misoginy, violence and other actual misdeeds is plenty enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

You may end up without much Surrender before the Struggle is over.

Forgive my ignorance, but I failed to parse that. May you clarify? PM me if you feel that it would be best.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Forgive my ignorance, but I failed to parse that. May you clarify? PM me if you feel that it would be best.

Islam is Surrender. Jihad is Struggle.

Revolutionizing Islam from within would be the Great Struggle, but would it end in Surrender?

 

[Willamena]

How is Islam going to make an unbeliever drink as in?..... Hell is before him, and he is made to drink a festering water, Which he sippeth but can hardly swallow, and death cometh unto him from every side while yet he cannot die, and before him is a harsh doom. 14:16-17

"Drink" is a metaphor... drink the metaphor up... come on, I know you can.

I cannot imagine one instance where when someone IS MADE TO DO something it is a peaceable gesture. Am I missing something? What is the opposite of peaceable?

Really? You've never been made to consent to your mother's wishes because of guilt? Or, maybe that's just Jewish kids...

You say it is a metaphor for shame. How can someone be made to feel shame? I think shame comes from within, not without. It is my opinion a person can not be made to feel shame.
Jeremiah 6:15 Are they ashamed that they have committed abomination? No, they are not at all ashamed, neither do they know what it is to blush. Therefore they shall fall among them that fall; at the time that I visit them they shall stumble, says Jehovah.

Now you're stroking reality. How can someone not be made to feel guilt or shame for something they've done that they knew was wrong?