Muslim scholar: Islam + violence are linked

[Akivah]

This is a little too extreme. To be a phobia it must be very much stronger than 'criticize,' A phobia would be an unreasonable illogical fear of something.

I agree. That's why the term is bad.

 

[sayak83]

Criticizing Muslims is not a phobia. Call it anti-muslim or counter-muslim instead.

It comes from words like homophobia I guess.

 

[shunyadragon]

It comes from words like homophobia I guess.

The root is - phobia which means fear, most often an irrational fear. I do not believe it is related to homophobia, except it is also an irrational fear . . .

 

[Akivah]

I believe most Christians consider Christianity a Religion of Peace.

If you speak to their victims, then you will hear something different.

 

[Muffled]

An interesting article for a variety of reasons:

In Interview, Top Indonesian Muslim Scholar Says Stop Pretending That Orthodox Islam and Violence Aren't Linked

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

...Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present

I share this desire [to combat extremism] — that’s a primary reason I’m speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won’t work. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it. One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.

...Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior ...

And there's an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.



Some context, the organisation that this cleric represents alone has more members than there are people in the GCC Gulf States who fund the majority of extremism and have had a terrible influence all over the world. Many who seek to criticise Islam though seem to prefer siding with the Gulf Arabs as to who best represents Islam and usually phrase discussions in terms of their ideology.

Any meaningful discussion of Islam and its role around the world in the 21st C really needs to acknowledge there are multiple Islams, and treating them as being the same thing is an impediment to clear thought and understanding. Just like people reflexively crying 'Islamophobia' is.


Thoughts?

I believe there is nothing in the Qu'ran that supports terrorism. There are verses that support self defense.

I believe the view on Islamophobia was that the concept that Islam causes violence is not justified simply because the terrorists are Muslim. It would be like saying that all Christians are Crusaders.

 

[Muffled]

I'll just sit back and watch as the usual suspects crawl out of the woodwork to condemn this practising Muslim as an Islamophobe, an apostate, a kafir who knows nothing about Islam etc

Either that or he's subject to death by irony at the hands of Islamist extremists for daring to link their faith to their actions.

I believe the terrorists are very happy to link their faith with terrorism but more than likely they act from the evil in their hearts and use a warped idea of the text to justify their evil actions.

 

[Muffled]

It is quite obvious to me that this so-called "Muslim cleric" is an Islamophobe, an apostate, and a kafir who knows nothing about Islam!

Oops! Sorry! I was reading over someone's shoulder.

I believe you should hear what they say about me as a Christian when I say I know what the Qu'ran is saying better than their teachers.

 

[Augustus]

I believe there is nothing in the Qu'ran that supports terrorism. There are verses that support self defense.

I believe the view on Islamophobia was that the concept that Islam causes violence is not justified simply because the terrorists are Muslim. It would be like saying that all Christians are Crusaders.

The article mentions violence in general, not just terrorism. It also relates tho the entire theological spectrum, not just the Quran.

That aspects of this have been used to justify violence is different from saying it is necessarily violent. Given that the cleric is the leader of (probably) the world's largest Muslim organisation, he certainly doesn't subscribe to that theory.

His argument is that some people focus too much on a narrow literalist textual reading without trying to understand the contextualised message contained within.

 

[LukeS]

I say to some Muslim brothers sometimes, its likely that oil that is keeping the gulf states in power, not their fiqh (jurisprudence). If you take the oil away their "success" which seems to come from above and be related to their piety, it may not be there. Its said in the Koran "don't be like the companion of the fish" (i.e.Jonah), to me meaning relying solely on Gods miraculous intervention after you foolishly got into dire straits.

We have to distinguish between a kind of lottery win (oil) and proper Islamic values which IMO would bolster culture rather than merely focus on externals of piety and crush everything else. Unless, well, the Koran isn't a true book, and the Muslims will be done with when the oil is gone.... just like the people of Ad and Thamud etc before them?

I'm getting a filtered version of life in the Middle East I accept. Salam.