Playing Islam's advocate

[sun rise]

I wish Islam would hear its critics and its own would-be reformers and let go of at least some of its xenophoby and theocentrism.

I do not think there is a whole lot of room for that to happen, but I want to be proven wrong.

There is no such thing as "Islam" that could hear critics. Your statement assumes a Catholic church like organization which speaks for all Muslims and there is no such thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

All religions have words for unbelievers. In my youth, I was called a "kike" an insult because I was Jewish and not a Christian.

I don't think that is quite true, nor very relevant to the matter at hand. Islam is an unique case.

And today Buddhists are killing Muslims (...)

I am not aware of that. I would appreaciate a brief mention of where that might be happening.

So I'm familiar with religious insults.

Maybe we should not just accept that as a matter of course?

But for diversity in religious thinking, there are many many different interpretations of the Quran and Hadith to be found. Did you know that the Quran says that the state of Israel has come into existence due to the will of Allah as a sign we're living in the "end of days" (at least according to one translation):
When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." (17:100-104 contains that text in one translation).

And: http://submission.org/Befriending_Christians_Jews.html
This verse should not be used by any mean to negate the fact that among the Jews (and Christians) will be righteous people who can be good friends as explained in the above verses, they do not fight us in our religion or our homes. They can be our neighbors, colleagues, friends, co-workers...etc We will be good to them as they are good to us. We, all the righteous people of all religions ,can make the difference and make this world better by respecting each other, respecting the freedom of choice of each other, and remember that we all have the One and the same God.

As predictions go, it seems quite the unremarkable, vague one, don't you think?

I appreciate that those people are attempting to use common sense in interpreting it, but it seems clear to me that it is the common sense, not the prediction, that is of any value here.

But your call for morality over obedience is to me a false dichotomy because it assumes there is only one way to be obedient. It's like asking a Jew to not be obedient to Torah and Talmud when in fact there are many interpretations and ways of looking at some apparently terrible passages.

It is indeed generally the case that there is no need to choose between obedience and morality. That is not the point I presented, though.

Instead, I am saying that obedience to doctrine is no excuse to let go of basic moral directives, and that the Qur'an is not really supportive of that fact.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no such thing as "Islam" that could hear critics. Your statement assumes a Catholic church like organization which speaks for all Muslims and there is no such thing.

I quite obviously meant Muslim communities, but still, your objection comes out of the left field. There is no such assumption and I have to think you know that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am not aware of that. I would appreaciate a brief mention of where that might be happening.

Burma/Myanmar. The Buddhists, led by fanatical monks, have been massacring, torturing and persecuting the Muslims there. The Rohingya (Burma's Muslim minority) are essentially stateless and are treated much like Jews in Nazi Germany were. They are essentially committing genocide.

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...ateless-the-crisis-of-rohingya-muslims-part-i
http://theconversation.com/myanmars...s-is-producing-a-ready-supply-of-slaves-46108
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-ff-myanmar-monk-20150524-story.html

There's videos of Burmese Buddhists burning and skinning alive Muslims.

 

[Sakeenah]

That reminds me of a situation I once met and that seems to me to evidence a disturbing pattern.

Muslims tend to keep to their DIRs and even to insist on bringing discussions there even in situations that, to me, strongly advise against it, such as invitations for somewhat more direct discussion of Islamic topics (which would be better suited for a debate or at least a discussion area).

DIRs are by nature and by proposal inhibitors of actual discussion. Non-Muslims in a Muslim DIR are by necessity muted and tied. They can't speak their minds and they have serious restrictions on what they may even ask.

I would expect people interested in promoting a more open acceptance of Islam to invite people out of the DIRs, not into them.

There is an IMO disturbing if perhaps unconscious implication that Muslims tend to expect to never deal with any significant questioning. No doubt because they have been raised to see that as the proper behavior.

While it is often and rightly pointed out that this is a political reality as opposed to a necessarily religious one, the fact remains that plenty of Muslims live in less repressive countries, yet their attitudes are not all that noticeably different.

There is a very persistent feeling that while liberal Muslims may exist and perhaps in significant numbers even, the mindset that would welcome their acknowledgement as proper, representative Muslims apparently does not exist. It is not at all a situation that resembles the very open and ultimately peaceful if sometimes grumpy coexistence of various lines of Judaic thought or the impressive variety of interpretations of Christianity. Muslims seem to feel that there MUST be a right way of being Muslim and a wrong way, and that there is little room for honorable accomodation of different understandings.

Hi luis,

You mean muslims on RF arent passionately debating on threads like this to 'defend Islam'. I can only speak for myself as a muslim..as you know we muslims are individuals. So I'll try to explain my view point

Nowadays I prefer reading threads to posting. But if I post yes its mostly in Islam DIR..its not so that I can bring discussiond there and imo havent seen that happen much. Its because I personally don't feel the need to discuss with people who think I have to defend my religious beliefs..its the concept of 'guilty untill proven innocent'. I dont feel I have to defend,explain or apologize for my religious beliefs to please anyone.

Yes I agree there should be dialogue and discussion within the muslim community but also with other people who don't share the same beliefs.
There is already a lot of dialogue going on within the muslim communities but also interfaith..you might not hear it on mainstream media but you can simply google it.

personally I don't mind questioning and most muslims don't mind questioning..but I don't answer to ' I'm asking a question but in reality I'm telling you that you are less than me for believing in x,y z and you have to listen because im going to educate and safe you'

You mentioned that there's little room for different understanding /opinions..I disagree with this if you look at the muslim ummah (community) now and even hundreds years ago you'll see that muslims have difference of opinion on many issues and respect each other.

 

[sun rise]

Saint Frankenstein beat me to it.

Instead, I am saying that obedience to doctrine is no excuse to let go of basic moral directives, and that the Qur'an is not really supportive of that fact.

. The Quran is replete with basic moral directives, perhaps not the ones you believe in but moral directives none-the-less. One moral directive and doctrine is that men and women are equal according to one interpretation of the Quran:

Are Women & men Equal in Islam (Submission)?
The answer is different when it comes to God compared with traditional Islam. Every Westerner thinks that Islam is very chauvinistic and oppressive towards women. In Islam of today as practiced by most traditional sectarian Muslims, this is very true. However, in true Islam (Submission), as revealed in the Quran, nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Quran 3:195] Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER........."
http://submission.org/Are_Women_Men_Equal.html

 

[Aupmanyav]

Burma/Myanmar. The Buddhists, led by fanatical monks, have been massacring, torturing and persecuting the Muslims there. The Rohingya (Burma's Muslim minority) are essentially stateless and are treated much like Jews in Nazi Germany were. They are essentially committing genocide.

There is another side of picture too.

"The British forces retreated and in the power vacuum left behind, considerable inter communal violence erupted between Buddhist Rakhine and Muslim Rohingya villagers. The British armed Rohingyas in northern Arakan to create a buffer zone from Japanese invasion when they retreated. .. The period also witnessed violence between groups loyal to the British and Burmese nationalists.

Aye Chan, a historian at the Kanda University, has written that as a consequence of acquiring arms from the British during World War II, Rohingyas tried to destroy the Arakanese villages instead of resisting the Japanese. .. Rohingya Muslims from Northern Rakhine State killed around 50,000 Arakanese, including the Deputy Commissioner U Oo Kyaw Khaing, who was killed while trying to settle the dispute. Defeated, 50,000 Arakaneses eventually fled to the Dinaspur Chittagong Division of Bangladesh after repeated massacres by the Rohingya and Japanese forces."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_massacres_in_1942

"In May 1946, Muslim leaders from Rakhine State (Arakan) met with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked for the formal annexation of two townships, Buthidaung and Maungdaw, by Pakistan. Two months later, the North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (present-day Sittwe, capital of Rakhine State), which also asked that the region be annexed.

The newly formed government however, refused to grant autonomy or independence for a separate Muslim state, and refused to concede the area to East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). Local Mujahideen fighters subsequently declared jihad on Myanmar,[7] and began targeting local authorities and soldiers stationed in the area. The newly formed Mujahideen movement was led by Abdul Kassem. .."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar

(I stop here. If you are interested in more information, kindly check the Wikipedia article. Nobody likes insurgency in their country. Illegal Bangladeshi migrants are a problem in India too, many of them involved in subversive activities in collusion with Pakistan and their secret agency, ISI. There are Rihingya refugees in India also and they too are being contacted by Pakistani terrorists groups. It seems there is no peace wherever Muslims ae involved: http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi...ainst-india/story-eGVUShXi9jG1nPsjY8pDZK.html.
Al-Quaeda and IS are already trying to establish their presence in India. India is the real apple in their eyes with the second largest Muslim population in the world, 180 million)

 

[Shad]

Saint Frankenstein beat me to it.
. The Quran is replete with basic moral directives, perhaps not the ones you believe in but moral directives none-the-less. One moral directive and doctrine is that men and women are equal according to one interpretation of the Quran:

Are Women & men Equal in Islam (Submission)?
The answer is different when it comes to God compared with traditional Islam. Every Westerner thinks that Islam is very chauvinistic and oppressive towards women. In Islam of today as practiced by most traditional sectarian Muslims, this is very true. However, in true Islam (Submission), as revealed in the Quran, nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Quran 3:195] Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER........."

That is in regards to spiritual equality not earthly equality. You only quoted part of the verse but excluded the defining parameter of Heaven.

http://quran.com/3/195

You mentioned that there's little room for different understanding /opinions..I disagree with this if you look at the muslim ummah (community) now and even hundreds years ago you'll see that muslims have difference of opinion on many issues and respect each other.

Exactly, it all depends on who you talk to. If you talk to a supporter of KSA (state endorsed) view of Islam there may not be much to talk about at all. If you talk to a support of IS's views it is even worse. However if you talk to Sufis there is a lot to talk about as their views are not a rigid as those from KSA. As I said earlier at times people can not express every view they hold due to their location and the threat of the state. A major issue with Islam today is that different views within Islam clash with the state. A number of states are hostile to other views as they mix religion and the state for their benefit. Not being able to identify yourself leaves the other people with a puzzle which they need to piece together to see what any individual would label themselves as. By the time many finish this label puzzle a dialogue could already be over.

 

[Sakeenah]

That is in regards to spiritual equality not earthly equality. You only quoted part of the verse but excluded the defining parameter of Heaven.

http://quran.com/3/195



Exactly, it all depends on who you talk to. If you talk to a supporter of KSA (state endorsed) view of Islam there may not be much to talk about at all. If you talk to a support of IS's views it is even worse. However if you talk to Sufis there is a lot to talk about as their views are not a rigid as those from KSA. As I said earlier at times people can not express every view they hold due to their location and the threat of the state. A major issue with Islam today is that different views within Islam clash with the state. A number of states are hostile to other views as they mix religion and the state for their benefit. Not being able to identify yourself leaves the other people with a puzzle which they need to piece together to see what any individual would label themselves as.

I wouldnt say only sufis but majority mainstream muslims globally..isis and al qaeda supporters are a minority

 

[Shad]

I wouldnt say only sufis but majority mainstream muslims globally..isis and al qaeda supporters are a minority

I just wanted to mention a few extremes that are radically different which would produce different result in a dialogue. I have no intention to suggest there is a majority supporting the less than favorable views of IS.

 

[Laika]

My concern is that at a bedrock, foundational level, Islamic values and morals are in opposition to the values of western, secular society. For example:

- the west values secularism, Islam values Sharia
- the west values freedom of and from religion, Islam (and most Muslim leaders), does not
- as an important subset of this, the west is fine with apostasy, Islam thinks apostasy should be a (often capital!), crime
- the west values free speech, Islam thinks blasphemy should be a crime
- the west values scientific inquiry, Islam values such inquiry only as long as it doesn't contradict the Quran
(to be fair, many radical Christians have the same issues with science)
- the west is striving for equality for all, Islam is locked into misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia, and infidel-thinking

I would find it very refreshing to hear apologists just admit to a very different set of core values.

I feel uncomfortable answering this as you are essentially asking me to chose sides. its too black and white. What I hope is that there can be a reconcilation, but I do recognise there are significant differences that have to be overcome. there are very different sets of core values at work, but we have to find a way for them to come together. Muslims have to struggle with living in western societies and we also struggle with their differences too. it is hard, but as the alternative is a "clash of civilisations" I'm willing to try and find some compromise and middle ground where we can co-exist peacefully. that doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose or fight a Jihadist (and I have good reason to if it ever came to that), but that I don't think I will walk past one in the street. People who have recently come into this country and bring with them very different views on the place of religion in society and they have come here to stay. its an uneasy relationship between Guests and Host, but we need to find a way to learn to live with each other. I do recognise the differences, but I am trying to find commonground as well- even if its just on here on RF as a shared space between two different cultures and identities. I don't think it has to be "them and us" but it will take time and effort to reconcile the differences we do have.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is another side of picture too.

"The British forces retreated and in the power vacuum left behind, considerable inter communal violence erupted between Buddhist Rakhine and Muslim Rohingya villagers. The British armed Rohingyas in northern Arakan to create a buffer zone from Japanese invasion when they retreated. .. The period also witnessed violence between groups loyal to the British and Burmese nationalists.

Aye Chan, a historian at the Kanda University, has written that as a consequence of acquiring arms from the British during World War II, Rohingyas tried to destroy the Arakanese villages instead of resisting the Japanese. .. Rohingya Muslims from Northern Rakhine State killed around 50,000 Arakanese, including the Deputy Commissioner U Oo Kyaw Khaing, who was killed while trying to settle the dispute. Defeated, 50,000 Arakaneses eventually fled to the Dinaspur Chittagong Division of Bangladesh after repeated massacres by the Rohingya and Japanese forces."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_massacres_in_1942

"In May 1946, Muslim leaders from Rakhine State (Arakan) met with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked for the formal annexation of two townships, Buthidaung and Maungdaw, by Pakistan. Two months later, the North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (present-day Sittwe, capital of Rakhine State), which also asked that the region be annexed.

The newly formed government however, refused to grant autonomy or independence for a separate Muslim state, and refused to concede the area to East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). Local Mujahideen fighters subsequently declared jihad on Myanmar,[7] and began targeting local authorities and soldiers stationed in the area. The newly formed Mujahideen movement was led by Abdul Kassem. .."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western_Myanmar

(I stop here. If you are interested in more information, kindly check the Wikipedia article. Nobody likes insurgency in their country. Illegal Bangladeshi migrants are a problem in India too, many of them involved in subversive activities in collusion with Pakistan and their secret agency, ISI. There are Rihingya refugees in India also and they too are being contacted by Pakistani terrorists groups. It seems there is no peace wherever Muslims ae involved: http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi...ainst-india/story-eGVUShXi9jG1nPsjY8pDZK.html.
Al-Quaeda and IS are already trying to establish their presence in India. India is the real apple in their eyes with the second largest Muslim population in the world, 180 million)

Are you trying to excuse the horrific and shocking treatment of the Rohingya people? It seems so. That don't fly with me. Instead coming up with excuses, why don't you be a decent human being and denounce the atrocious treatment of the Rohingya by the misled Buddhist fanatics? Nevermind, I won't hold my breath because you are so overcome with hatred.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is in regards to spiritual equality not earthly equality. You only quoted part of the verse but excluded the defining parameter of Heaven.

http://quran.com/3/195

The rest of the verse is just saying that the Muslims that were persecuted because of their religion will be rewarded by God in the Hereafter.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you trying to excuse the horrific and shocking treatment of the Rohingya people?

Killing of 50,000 Buddhist Arakanese is OK with you? Yes, unfortunately, there is some hatred, because my own people have been pushed out of Kashmir valley just because they were not Muslims. But, is there a need to be one-sided?

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...ainst-india/story-eGVUShXi9jG1nPsjY8pDZK.html

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Killing of 50,000 Buddhist Arakanese is OK with you?

Wherever did I say that? Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing innocent people is reprehensible and should be quickly met with justice, regardless of who is doing it. If someone kills my family, that does not give me the right to kill, torment or persecute people who just so happen to be part of the same ethnic group as the murderer of my family. Otherwise, what you're saying is like saying it's okay for Jews to kill and persecute Germans because of WWII or that it's okay for Chinese people to kill and persecute Japanese people because of WWII. Or that white South Africans deserve to be killed and persecuted by black South Africans. Etc.

By the way, the source Wikipedia is using for that claim is Aye Chan, who is anti-Rohingya and is involved in the political movement against them. So I would be wary of it until an unbiased source can substantiate that claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is what exactly the Buddhist Myanmaris also would like, punishment to the pepetrators of violence. It is not something that happened in the past. It continues to happen even today. The two sides are at war. In a war the question who is right and who is wrong is futile. If they had come to Myanmar, the Rohingyas should have lived there in peace. Why should blame go to only one party?

Europe has allowed Muslims to come over. How would you feel if they start throwing their weight around asking for a 'vilayet' - principality of their own?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is what exactly the Buddhist Myanmaris also would like, punishment to the pepetrators of violence. It is not something that happened in the past. It continues to happen even today. The two sides are at war. In a war the question who is right and who is wrong is futile. If they had come to Myanmar, the Rohingyas should have lived there in peace. Why should blame go to only one party?

Europe has allowed Muslims to come over. How would you feel if they start throwing their weight around asking for a 'vilayet' - principality of their own?

I'm really not interested in reading your attempts to justify genocide. Go spew that to a Hindutva fascist or whatever. Such things are beneath me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not justifying geneocide, I am against the political implications of Pan-Islamism. It makes Muslims traitors to the non-Muslim countries where they live. That is why Muslim citizens of US, UK, France, Belgium, Russia, China or any other place India, Myanmar, Thailand, Philippines get involved in extremism.

 

[LuisDantas]

personally I don't mind questioning and most muslims don't mind questioning..but I don't answer to ' I'm asking a question but in reality I'm telling you that you are less than me for believing in x,y z and you have to listen because im going to educate and safe you'

Then you may understand where I come from.

You mentioned that there's little room for different understanding /opinions..I disagree with this if you look at the muslim ummah (community) now and even hundreds years ago you'll see that muslims have difference of opinion on many issues and respect each other.

I would certainly like to be convinced of it. I have basically given up, though.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

As a Christian who has fended off numerous attempts at homosexual rape by secularists,
I would far sooner join Islam than aTheism.

If you are queer, then of course you will not comprehend this simple fact.