What are the values of moderate Muslims?

[Pastek]

Good question, I'm not sure that I ever claimed that there were a set of 21st century values, but perhaps there are themes such as:

- human rights (equality for women, gays, Jews and so on)

Do you value free speech? Equal rights for all? Secular government? Freedom of religion?

(If you do, then you SUPPORT criticism of religion, equal rights for women and gays, support for Jews, the denial of Sharia, and you support apostasy.)

Of course it's possible to support some of those, but not all.

How about equality for women and Jews and gays? If Sharia was the law of the land, then in many important respects, the law would view women as worth half or a third as much as a man. Does that seem okay to you? Again, these are core values we're discussing, and I know they're not the easy ones to discuss, so I appreciate your responses!

Question : Why always jews in particular ? Are you trying to say something ?

I would understand if you ask about hindus or buddhists are they are more and more in Africa and Middle east and they are not from the "People of the Book".
I could have understand this question : what about the rights of polytheists, what about the rights of the atheists ?

I can understand the question about gays too as in the Quran it doesn't say a lot about them.

But the jews and the women ... and you say that you read the Quran ? Really ?
But the answers are in the first sourates !

 

[icehorse]

Hi Assad91,

Again, it's up to the natives. Not someone
Faraway and ignorant of the culture, people, etc.

The people in Iran seemed to know what they were doing when they replaced the Shah and adopted Wilayat al Faqih.

As you might recall, I started this thread because I want to know more about the core values of Muslims. In other words, I would agree that I'm "ignorant" of the values of people who live 9000 miles away from me. And here we have this remarkable tool called the internet that allows us to enlighten each other - hooray.

I don't know much about "The Islamic Republic of Iran" (although I assume from that name that it holds the Quran in high esteem?). I know that the culture is very, very old. I know that relatively recently in history the West has meddled in Iran's affairs. Even more recently, Khomeini was Iran's supreme leader, and amongst other things Khomeini issued a fatwa with a DEATH SENTENCE against Salman Rushdie for the crime of writing a NOVEL critical of Islamic scripture.

Assad91, I'm here to learn. If you can give me a more balanced understanding - great! If you can mention books or articles, fantastic!

 

[icehorse]

Hi Pastek,

It strikes me that while the Quran speaks negatively about all non-believers (polytheists, atheists, and so on), it is particularly negative towards the Jews. That's the only reason I mention them - as a response to what I read.

What we in the West hear mostly about Islamic intolerance is that it is directed at women, gays, and Jews. I'm sure there is also intolerance towards Hindus for example, but we don't hear that much about it.

 

[Pastek]

Hi Pastek,

It strikes me that while the Quran speaks negatively about all non-believers (polytheists, atheists, and so on), it is particularly negative towards the Jews. That's the only reason I mention them - as a response to what I read.

Hi,
Well this is your point of view. Anyway you talked about the rights of the jews but you should know if you read the Quran that it was explained in the first sourates (as for the rights of women).
It's not because muslims have had problems with some people that they must be unfair.

If you take the Bible, you'll probably read unpleasant things about non believers too. Doesn't mean that jews of that time were commanded to be unfair.
You should make the difference between the conflicts and the Law.

 

[cocolia42]

For all I know you have just spoken the exact truth (although I still disagree, but that is just me).

All the same, it stands to reason that society, family, needs and priorities changed a whole lot in about 1400 years, and Islamic practice may naturally have to adjust to some degree.

I know that most Muslims don't really see much sense in that. It is still my sincere belief.

Those of us who follow a religion because we sincerely believe it to be the Truth would find no sense in changing our religion to fit societal trends. Religion is there to guide us, to show us right from wrong. Right and wrong don't change as easily as our minds do.

 

[cocolia42]

As far as the values you list, I appreciate the time you took to assemble that list, but how did you arrive at it? It strikes that your list (which is very nice by-the-way), came more from you, than it did your scripture.

I ask, because I could use many, many verses from the Quran to put forth values opposite to many that you list.

Interesting. My list came directly from scripture. That's why the scripture that supports the value is listed directly under the value.

I'd really like to see the verses that put forth values opposite to the ones I listed. Please share.

 

[LuisDantas]

Those of us who follow a religion because we sincerely believe it to be the Truth would find no sense in changing our religion to fit societal trends.

Possibly.

However, a religion does not a priori have any need to refuse to acknowledge social trends, particularly such important ones as the spread of literacy and the development of technology.

If I am not mistaken, Islamic adherents learned a whole lot about how to reject slavery in the last few centuries. That is to their credit and certainly does not constitute an attack or rejection to Islam.

Nor is it a particularly isolated case. There is much that is not particularly related to the Quran, yet all the same of obvious relevance to Muslims in the current times.

Truth, even religious one - perhaps particularly religious truth - has no reason to fear learning how things change along the centuries. If for no other reason, because it must learn to deal with those changes and decide to which extent (if any) they should be accepted.

To pick an obvious example, there are no clear references to crack cocaine in the Quran, while there are several to alcohol. All the same, Muslims can and IMO should have clear stances about that matter. Am I wrong?

Religion is there to guide us, to show us right from wrong. Right and wrong don't change as easily as our minds do.

Indeed. That is why we should develop our wisdoms to the best of our abilities.

 

[icehorse]

Hi,
Well this is your point of view. Anyway you talked about the rights of the jews but you should know if you read the Quran that it was explained in the first sourates (as for the rights of women).
It's not because muslims have had problems with some people that they must be unfair.

If you take the Bible, you'll probably read unpleasant things about non believers too. Doesn't mean that jews of that time were commanded to be unfair.
You should make the difference between the conflicts and the Law.

hi Pastek,

I'm not sure if I understand you, but I *think* I do, so let me give you an answer... I *think* you're saying that I have to consider the historical context of when the OT and the Quran were written? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I have to say that I have a real problem with that idea. Both the OT and the Quran say that they are the ETERNAL word of God. It is very clear in the Quran that Allah WILL ALWAYS BE ANGRY with non-believers. Not just based on some temporary, historical situation, HE WILL ALWAYS BE ANGRY, FOREVER.

 

[cocolia42]

Possibly.

However, a religion does not a priori have any need to refuse to acknowledge social trends, particularly such important ones as the spread of literacy and the development of technology.

If your religion commands you to seek knowledge, then you should seek knowledge always. If you religion commands you to educate men and not women, then you should educate men and not women. It's quite simple.

If I am not mistaken, Islamic adherents learned a whole lot about how to reject slavery in the last few centuries. That is to their credit and certainly does not constitute an attack or rejection to Islam.

The Qur'an says, "Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous."

It says, "And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass? It is the freeing of a slave"

It says, "Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise."

If "Islamic adherents" learned how to reject slavery in the last few centuries, it's because they forgot that Islam teaches us not to have slaves in the first place.

Nor is it a particularly isolated case. There is much that is not particularly related to the Quran, yet all the same of obvious relevance to Muslims in the current times.

Truth, even religious one - perhaps particularly religious truth - has no reason to fear learning how things change along the centuries. If for no other reason, because it must learn to deal with those changes and decide to which extent (if any) they should be accepted.

To pick an obvious example, there are no clear references to crack cocaine in the Quran, while there are several to alcohol. All the same, Muslims can and IMO should have clear stances about that matter. Am I wrong?

Crack cocaine falls under the same category as alcohol...because it alters your state of mind and is harmful to your health. This is not changing our religion to suit the times. Allowing women to lead prayers would be changing our religion to suit the times. Allowing men to marry men would be changing our religion to suit the times. Do you see the difference?

 

[icehorse]

Interesting. My list came directly from scripture. That's why the scripture that supports the value is listed directly under the value.

I'd really like to see the verses that put forth values opposite to the ones I listed. Please share.

Hi cocolia42,

For one example (we can discuss others as well), you mentioned:

• Freedom of Religion
  • 2:256 There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

Of course, this is a famous quote.

However I've seen a list of over 500 times when the Quran instructs Muslims that non-believers are to be mistrusted and despised in every way. To take a few examples, the Quran says that non-believers want Muslims to suffer, non-believers will lie to Muslims and will cheat Muslims. The Quran says that come judgment day, non-believers will try every excuse and every lie to avoid going to hell. The Quran says that non-believers will criticize Muhammad, will criticize the Quran, will interrupt recitations, and on and on and on and on, 500 times.

So, one time the Quran says "no compunction in religion" and 500 times it says that non-believers are horrible in every way.

So cocolia42, it makes me happy that you hold the value "freedom of religion", but it seems to me that you got that idea somewhere else, and used that idea to find the one or two places where the Quran supported the idea you already had. No?

 

[LuisDantas]

If your religion commands you to seek knowledge, then you should seek knowledge always. If you religion commands you to educate men and not women, then you should educate men and not women. It's quite simple.

I must disagree here. One can't in good faith deny his own testimony, and it tells me that women should not be denied education.

If a religion says otherwise (my religion or someone else's), then I will simply have to differ. Or be convinced otherwise, perhaps.

The Qur'an says, "Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous."

It says, "And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass? It is the freeing of a slave"

It says, "Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise."

If "Islamic adherents" learned how to reject slavery in the last few centuries, it's because they forgot that Islam teaches us not to have slaves in the first place.

I take it that my choice of words was unfortunate? I meant no slight when I used "Islamic adherents". On hindsight, it does look unwieldly. Sorry about that. I will attempt to avoid such cumbersome wording in the future. No offense was meant.

Now about slavery, maybe I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that the first few to learn from the Quran did not have quite the radical rejection of slavery that contemporary Muslims have. The text of the Quran itself is of course the same, but the understanding of how to correctly interpret it seems to have changed indeed.

Which is of couse very fair and good, but nevertheless still an indication of how cultural perceptions change, sometimes for the better.

Or am I mistaken here?

Crack cocaine falls under the same category as alcohol...because it alters your state of mind and is harmful to your health. This is not changing our religion to suit the times.

A fair interpretation, and one that I must support heartily.

All that same, it is still an interpretation, and someone else might disagree with it. Religious people can't help but take some responsibility for choosing how to interpret their faiths. Nothing wrong with that, quite on the contrary!

Allowing women to lead prayers would be changing our religion to suit the times. Allowing men to marry men would be changing our religion to suit the times. Do you see the difference?

You are, of course, correct. I think those would be fair and constructive choices, but you certainly do have a point. Some interpretations would be clearly at odds with the actual text of the Quran.

I wouldn't disapprove of that, but that is just me. I'm no Muslim.

 

[cocolia42]

So cocolia42, it makes me happy that you hold the value "freedom of religion", but it seems to me that you got that idea somewhere else, and used that idea to find the one or two places where the Quran supported the idea you already had. No?

No

However I've seen a list of over 500 times when the Quran instructs Muslims that non-believers are to be mistrusted and despised in every way. To take a few examples, the Quran says that non-believers want Muslims to suffer, non-believers will lie to Muslims and will cheat Muslims. The Quran says that come judgment day, non-believers will try every excuse and every lie to avoid going to hell. The Quran says that non-believers will criticize Muhammad, will criticize the Quran, will interrupt recitations, and on and on and on and on, 500 times.

So, one time the Quran says "no compunction in religion" and 500 times it says that non-believers are horrible in every way.

When you make a statement like this, you should be prepared to come with your proof. Let's see the 500+ verses from the Qur'an that say non-believers are horrible in every way. And more specifically, the verses that are opposed to freedom of religion.

And it's not one time that the Qur'an talks about freedom of religion. There's even a surah dedicated to it. Wanna hear it? Here it goes

Qul ya ayuha alkafiroon (Say, "O disbelievers,)
La a'budu ma ta'budoon (I do not worship what you worship)
Wala antum 'abidoona maa'bud (nor are you worshippers of what I worship)
Wala ana 'abidun ma'abadtum (nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship)
Wala antum 'abidoona maa'bud (nor will you be worshippers of what I worship)
Lakum deenukum waliya deen (for you is your religion, and for me is my religion)
​

​

 

[icehorse]

Hi cocolia42,

I believe you with your quote, but I don't recall it - can you tell me which verse it is? So, I was wrong, apparently there were a few places where the Quran allows religious freedom. (Although, in the interest of keeping the conversation on track, I've avoiding bringing up the idea of abrogation in the Quran.)

In any case, I just did a Google search on the terms "quran nonbelievers 500" and quickly came up with a few links. Of course, these links are critical of Islam and other religions, but I think that the list of 500+ is still valid. So, from the "Skeptics Annoted Bible":

Intolerance in the Quran

Of course cocolia42, you have every right to ask me to back up my statements. But I'll commit to you openly, that I won't knowingly make any claims that I don't think are true. (I might generalize or simplify, but only for the sake of clarity, not with the intent of lying.)

 

[cocolia42]

I must disagree here. One can't in good faith deny his own testimony, and it tells me that women should not be denied education.

If a religion says otherwise (my religion or someone else's), then I will simply have to differ. Or be convinced otherwise, perhaps.

Remember, I was talking about people who follow a religion because they sincerely believe it is the Truth. If you believe it's the truth, you can't disagree with it. You can disobey it, but you can't disagree with it because then it would no longer be the truth

I take it that my choice of words was unfortunate? I meant no slight when I used "Islamic adherents". On hindsight, it does look unwieldly. Sorry about that. I will attempt to avoid such cumbersome wording in the future. No offense was meant.

I wasn't try to imply anything about your choice of words. I simply wanted it to be clear that they were your words, not mine.

Now about slavery, maybe I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that the first few to learn from the Quran did not have quite the radical rejection of slavery that contemporary Muslims have. The text of the Quran itself is of course the same, but the understanding of how to correctly interpret it seems to have changed indeed.

Which is of couse very fair and good, but nevertheless still an indication of how cultural perceptions change, sometimes for the better.

Or am I mistaken here?

I guess it's important to distinguish between indentured servants and slaves. Being forced into slavery was never allowed. Except in war. Those captured can be enslaved for a time, then freed. But indentured servants are allowed. It's an agreed upon contract. And even then we are encouraged to free the indentured servant by paying whatever price the owner asks. And in some cases, freeing them is a form of atonement.

A fair interpretation, and one that I must support heartily.

All that same, it is still an interpretation, and someone else might disagree with it. Religious people can't help but take some responsibility for choosing how to interpret their faiths. Nothing wrong with that, quite on the contrary!

Not so much an interpretation....
The Qur'an says, "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful."

I don't think it's a stretch to consider cocaine an intoxicant.

If we were talking about caffeine...that would be open to interpretation.

 

[cocolia42]

Hi cocolia42,

I believe you with your quote, but I don't recall it - can you tell me which verse it is? So, I was wrong, apparently there were a few places where the Quran allows religious freedom. (Although, in the interest of keeping the conversation on track, I've avoiding bringing up the idea of abrogation in the Quran.)

It is the 109th chapter of the Qur'an (al-Kafiroon) and it was not abrogated. And there are more verses that promote freedom of religion.

In any case, I just did a Google search on the terms "quran nonbelievers 500" and quickly came up with a few links. Of course, these links are critical of Islam and other religions, but I think that the list of 500+ is still valid. So, from the "Skeptics Annoted Bible":

Intolerance in the Quran

This list is a complete joke. It misquotes the Qur'an, adds to the Qur'an, and takes words out of context.

First of all, it claims the Qur'an is a manifesto for religious intolerance. Not true. We are to tolerate other religions. But the fact remains (no matter what religion you follow) that there can only be one truth. The Qur'an is simply telling us that it is the truth and anyone who doesn't believe that is on the wrong religion. The Bible says the same thing, but no one cares.

I'm not going to go verse by verse through this list here. If you need clarification, we can start a new thread and discuss the list.

Of course cocolia42, you have every right to ask me to back up my statements. But I'll commit to you openly, that I won't knowingly make any claims that I don't think are true. (I might generalize or simplify, but only for the sake of clarity, not with the intent of lying.)

You may not have the intent of lying, but it seems you don't have the intent of finding the truth either. If you do, you should go to the source (the Qur'an and sunnah) instead of these ignorant websites.

 

[LuisDantas]

Remember, I was talking about people who follow a religion because they sincerely believe it is the Truth. If you believe it's the truth, you can't disagree with it.

See, that is the thing. Truth is something to be cared for, not something to be received passively. It must be pursued. Our conceptions of it must be continually checked against the actual facts.

For that reason, disagreements with taught doctrine is not only acceptable; it is in fact badly needed, so that the doctrine can be evaluated and improved.

No religion is above that basic reality, IMO.

You can disobey it, but you can't disagree with it because then it would no longer be the truth

I have no problem whatsoever in accepting that both one's conception of truth and any religious doctrine must both be checked for their degree of truth. Which, in fact, can only change according to time and culture.

So I am afraid that I can't agree with you here.

I wasn't try to imply anything about your choice of words. I simply wanted it to be clear that they were your words, not mine.


I guess it's important to distinguish between indentured servants and slaves. Being forced into slavery was never allowed. Except in war. Those captured can be enslaved for a time, then freed. But indentured servants are allowed. It's an agreed upon contract. And even then we are encouraged to free the indentured servant by paying whatever price the owner asks. And in some cases, freeing them is a form of atonement.

No argument here.

However, I still maintain that both the existing and the desired, wisest understandings probably have changed along time, and that it is for the best that they do.

For instance, I don't know that too many Western Muslims would actually embrace the idea of war slavery these days. And I certainly see no reason why they should.

Not so much an interpretation....
The Qur'an says, "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful."

I don't think it's a stretch to consider cocaine an intoxicant.

If we were talking about caffeine...that would be open to interpretation.

I guess I agree. Caffeine never did much for me one way or the other, but so many people assure me that it does for them, that I have no reason to doubt them.

 

[icehorse]

cocolia42 - You may not have the intent of lying, but it seems you don't have the intent of finding the truth either. If you do, you should go to the source (the Qur'an and sunnah) instead of these ignorant websites.

Hi cocolia42, When I read the Quran, I took many notes. (I wish I'd taken more.) I did not verify every entry on the list of 500. On the other hand many of those quotes seemed familiar to me, and certainly - having read the Quran - the number 500 seems about right. I did however "spot check" the list, and my spot checking verified that the list seems accurate. Of course they are also summarizing verses into a few words. I did the same in my notes, and I'm sure if you've ever taken extensive notes on a large book, you've made summaries yourself.

I think you are finding small details to disagree with, but missing the main point. The Quran "tolerates" other religions once for every 50 times (to be really conservative), it attempts to humiliates nonbelievers.

I also find your word "tolerates" to be interesting in this discussion. To me it implies that Muslims do NOT think of non-Muslims as equals, but instead as lesser people to be "tolerated".

 

[TashaN]

What exactly is wrong with Muslims wanting sharia in Muslim majority countries?

Exactly!

I don't think I will ever fully understand such reasoning, seeing how nations are so arbitrary anyway.

As for being free of coercion... well, that is just not possible in this world and this reality we live in. I'm not sure I would even want it otherwise. Things such as slavery and Apartheid must be challenged.

Are you under the impression such a thing like slavery and Apartheid exist within Shariah?

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you under the impression such a thing like slavery and Apartheid exist within Shariah?

Oh no. That is why I chose them to illustrate my point. They are clear examples of once-accepted practices that had to be challenged, including by "foreigners".

 

[Pastek]

hi Pastek,
I'm not sure if I understand you, but I *think* I do, so let me give you an answer... I *think* you're saying that I have to consider the historical context of when the OT and the Quran were written? Am I understanding you correctly?

Exactly

If so, I have to say that I have a real problem with that idea. Both the OT and the Quran say that they are the ETERNAL word of God. It is very clear in the Quran that Allah WILL ALWAYS BE ANGRY with non-believers. Not just based on some temporary, historical situation, HE WILL ALWAYS BE ANGRY, FOREVER.

Yes. So ? If you don't believe in God (or the "Abrahamic God) what's the problem ?