What are the values of moderate Muslims?

[LuisDantas]

Well maybe it's because intellectual debate and thought has been stagnate with Muslims lately. It's accept it or you're kafir.

Not really a problem with Islam, more the practitioners.

I don't know about that. There are definite dangers in centering a whole religious practice in the idea of surrender to god's will.

It can work. It can be very healthy. But only if proper care to avoid excessive reliance on theism alone is employed.

Alas, all too often that is simply not done.

 

[SkylarHunter]

Are you sure that would be helpful?
Tempting as the idea may be under some circunstances, it does not sound like it would actually solve anything.

Actually, I do. Religious leaders have a responsibility with regards to how their religion is perceived. When Muslim promotes the use of violence against the rules of the religion they claim to follow but they are allowed to continue going to the mosque and being called Muslims, the idea being projected to the world and to the other Muslims is "it's okay, you can do whatever you like and we'll accept you here anyway".
If they were given the choice to be expelled of behave according to the rules of Islam, the violence in the world wouldn't end but at least those religious leaders would be showing everyone else that they sincerely don't support bad behavior.
The same way the catholic church moves pedophile priests to another parish instead of bringing them to justice, the Muslim religious leaders say with their mouths they are against violence but by the end of the day, everything goes.
Tudo farinha do mesmo saco!

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, I do. Religious leaders have a responsibility with regards to how their religion is perceived. When Muslim promotes the use of violence against the rules of the religion they claim to follow but they are allowed to continue going to the mosque and being called Muslims, the idea being projected to the world and to the other Muslims is "it's okay, you can do whatever you like and we'll accept you here anyway".

Somehow I just don't believe it to be quite that simple.

Sure, they could be expelled. But how would that be helpful?

If they were given the choice to be expelled of behave according to the rules of Islam, the violence in the world wouldn't end but at least those religious leaders would be showing everyone else that they sincerely don't support bad behavior.

That could easily backfire, you know. I believe it does in fact backfire fairly often. For it to work, there would need to be an impressive degree of good will and mutual understanding among Muslims.

Naturally enough, that is not so easy to find among those groups more likely to resort to violence. And expelling them will not make them more likely to listen to moderate voices, either.

Add to that that much of the violence commited by Muslims ends up having causes that are more political, social and economical than properly religious, and I just don't see the point.

The same way the catholic church moves pedophile priests to another parish instead of bringing them to justice, the Muslim religious leaders say with their mouths they are against violence but by the end of the day, everything goes.
Tudo farinha do mesmo saco!

An odd comparison, particularly at a moment when Catholicism seems to be moving away from that.

Besides, not too many Muslim authorities commit violence in person, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[icehorse]

For my money, it's a bit of a mistake to label Islam as a religion, as compared to - for instance - Christianity. Certainly they share some characteristics. But baked into Islam is a strong totalitarian message. Islam goes way, way beyond being about spirituality. It gets into every aspect of life. It is a total solution.

 

[LuisDantas]

For my money, it's a bit of a mistake to label Islam as a religion, as compared to - for instance - Christianity. Certainly they share some characteristics. But baked into Islam is a strong totalitarian message. Islam goes way, way beyond being about spirituality. It gets into every aspect of life. It is a total solution.

You realize this looks more like a criticism of Christianity than one of Islam?

There is no clear reason why religion should not get into every aspect of life. And your reading of a strong totalitarian message is a bit, to put it succintly, hasty.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, I don't blame Muslims for believing in God, for accepting the Quran as god-given unchanging scripture, and certainly not for taking their religious responsibilities seriously. It is not only their right, it sure beats paying lip service for those stances.

That Christians are sometimes seen as more reasonable because they don't take themselves seriously only lampshades how seriously off-track Christianity can sometimes be.

What I see as dangers and weaknesses of Islamic practice are not those traits. It is instead what I personally perceive as a lack of effective encouragement for personal Dharma-seeking, of having one's own religious conviction as opposed to trusting someone else's. Islam is much too external, much too centralized for me to find it appealing or particularly advisable.

Respect for authority is a good trait, but often can't help but feel that many Muslims are trying to develop way too much of it for their own good. Beyond a certain point, true respect must allow itself to challenge and question. It must respect its own discernment and demand the means to reconcile it with what one is asked to do or believe in. True harmony can't exist otherwise.

Of course, it can't help that many Muslim communities have undeniably been victims of xenophoby, political oppression, military destruction and humiliation. Far too many people have way too unreasonable expectations of the emotional and political maturity and wisdom of all too human Muslims whose cultures they may very easily end up despising and considering less than truly human. There is too much of a double standard at work. People seem to often forget what, say, bombing Iran or invading Iraq actually means. You can't in good conscience threaten so many millions of people and expect all of them to accept that reasonably and gracefully.

Admit that openly and with genuine regret, allow Muslims the opportunity to seek and hopefully find sincerity in you and begin to trust you, and a lot of healing can begin.

Until then, it can hardly surprise anyone that Muslims generally do not make a point of meeting the expectations of those who think of them as crazy beligerants that are maybe not actually humans in good standing. Respect must be offered before one expects to have it returned.

--------------------------

All of you, forgive me for the rough form of what I just said. It just felt that it was better to make an imperfect, even unfair expression of it than to remain silent. Hopefully some points will be corrected or at least clarified by those who dare to give me a chance of better understanding their perspectives.

To you, I extend in advance my thanks.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Luis,

I didn't make up this "totalitarian" idea, in fact I have had many Muslims agree with it.

Of course, it can't help that many Muslim communities have undeniably been victims of xenophoby, political oppression, military destruction and humiliation. Far too many people have way too unreasonable expectations of the emotional and political maturity and wisdom of all too human Muslims whose cultures they may very easily end up despising and considering less than truly human. There is too much of a double standard at work. People seem to often forget what, say, bombing Iran or invading Iraq actually means. You can't in good conscience threaten so many millions of people and expect all of them to accept that reasonably and gracefully.

I think the idea that Muslims have been unilaterally oppressed or "more" oppressed than other groups doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. Of course I agree that such oppression has happened. But you must also look at how Muslims have been oppressing each other (for 1400 years), how most terrorist attacks are Muslim against Muslim, and how Muslims have always oppressed non-Muslims, right up to this day. You must look at these examples as well. Look at East Timor, many regions of Africa, Kosovo, Armenia, and others.

One reckoning I heard is that since the beginning of Islam, BOTH Islam an Christianity have been guilty of killing between 200-300 million people in the name of their respective religions. None of this excuses the horrors in Iraq and so on. But Iraq doesn't give Muslims a "get of of jail free" card either.

As far as political maturity goes, it would be great if we had the time and a few spare planets lying around for such evolutionary processes to unfold.

Back to the OP again, understanding each other's core values ought to be considered a positive thing, not an attack.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi Luis,

I didn't make up this "totalitarian" idea, in fact I have had many Muslims agree with it.

They do, and with good reason.

I think the idea that Muslims have been unilaterally oppressed or "more" oppressed than other groups doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

Excuse me?

France and Great Britain promised Arabs independence and then denied it by way of the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1915-1916, after using them for their own ends.

Britain decided on the current frontiers of Iraq, dooming the land to endless internal strife among Kurds, Sunnis and Shias.

The USA and Britain staged a coup in Iran in 1953 out of oil interests, completely disregarding the basic rights of the Iranians.

Afganisthan was invaded by Soviets in the 1980s and by the USA in the last ten years.

Iraq was invaded, terrified and humiliated by a country that completely disregarded UNO directives and made a point of pretending that it did not, all the while stubbornly refusing to attain even a basic understanding of who those people they are demonising are.

I'm no expert and I am no doubt over-simplifying and simply ignoring a lot of relevant data, but still, I'm shocked by your statement.

Of course I agree that such oppression has happened. But you must also look at how Muslims have been oppressing each other (for 1400 years), how most terrorist attacks are Muslim against Muslim, and how Muslims have always oppressed non-Muslims, right up to this day. You must look at these examples as well. Look at East Timor, many regions of Africa, Kosovo, Armenia, and others.

All the more reason not to convince them that they have no other recourse, to the extent that it may be true.

One reckoning I heard is that since the beginning of Islam, BOTH Islam an Christianity have been guilty of killing between 200-300 million people in the name of their respective religions. None of this excuses the horrors in Iraq and so on. But Iraq doesn't give Muslims a "get of of jail free" card either.

Do you think that is what we are talking about? Hardly.

As far as political maturity goes, it would be great if we had the time and a few spare planets lying around for such evolutionary processes to unfold.

You make it sound like I'm proposing something particularly risky.

Back to the OP again, understanding each other's core values ought to be considered a positive thing, not an attack.

Indeed.

 

[icehorse]

Quote:
I think the idea that Muslims have been unilaterally oppressed or "more" oppressed than other groups doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
Excuse me?

France and Great Britain promised Arabs independence and then denied it by way of the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1915-1916, after using them for their own ends.

Britain decided on the current frontiers of Iraq, dooming the land to endless internal strife among Kurds, Sunnis and Shias.

The USA and Britain staged a coup in Iran in 1953 out of oil interests, completely disregarding the basic rights of the Iranians.

Afganisthan was invaded by Soviets in the 1980s and by the USA in the last ten years.

Iraq was invaded, terrified and humiliated by a country that completely disregarded UNO directives and made a point of pretending that it did not, all the while stubbornly refusing to attain even a basic understanding of who those people they are demonising are.

All good data. But you're showing only one side of the equation.

I have heard it said that a core message of Islam is to establish that, for Muslims:

"Islam is *us*, and the rest of the world is *them*".

Of course, depending on your Islamic sect, you will often view members of other Islamic sects as "them" as well. (As always, I welcome any corrections.)

Using that "us vs. them" orientation, all I'm saying is that when we look at these acts of oppression, Muslims dish out oppression as often as they get oppressed (since way before the Enlightenment), and we MUST be honest about that. Again, that doesn't excuse situations like Iraq.

I think that if we don't look at both sides of this equation we will be guilty of the "soft bigotry of low expectations", no?

 

[TashaN]

On the other hand, some Muslims immigrate to the West and begin steady efforts to introduce Sharia courts into secular societies. I believe that such courts undermine the constitutions of those societies and simply should not be allowed. Even for situations like divorce and inheritance. Sharia is completely counter to secular government.

If you truly value democracy then leave them do whatever they want, and the government will decide whether it's possible to do that or not. As Americans why they don't have the right to do that? maybe because they are *Muslim immigrants* who can't be considered real Americans like the other immigrants!

Oh wait! i thought all Americans were immigrants and that land belonged to the Indians!!!

Back to values...

In the West, 99.9999% of all Christian preachers do heavy editing of the Bible, especially (but not exclusively), of the OT. For all practical purposes, no Christian these days would advocate killing your neighbor for working on a Sunday, no one would advocate killing your wife for adultery. (Although of course murder does happen.)

What this means is that Christians have applied some set of values to how they use the Bible.

Now getting back to Islam, I have heard many Muslims say that Christians have corrupted their Bible and that their religions have become impure. Muslims often say that the Quran has not been corrupted and is pure. Further, *for the most part* (not entirely), interpretations of the Quran exist in the Hadith, which are also, for the most part, almost as old as the Quran.

So what I see is this clash between the values that existed in the ME 1400 years ago, which are viewed as unalterable, and the values of modern society.

This is why I ask about the values of moderate Muslims. I'm really curious to know how (or if), you blend together these two sets of distinctly different value systems?

I guess one of the assumptions I make here is that we all know that some small percentage of modern Muslims are quite violent. I don't know what name is preferred, sometimes these Muslims are called "extremists". To me this would be very similar to a modern Christian who was an "Old Testament Absolutist". (And I think a few such people exist.)

So as I read the Quran, I see it as very similar to the OT. The only difference is that very few people are "OT Absolutists", but many Muslims might be called "Quran Absolutists".

So again, I'm really curious to understand the values of Muslims who would not consider themselves to be "Quran Absolutists".

Did that make my questions clearer or muddier?

First of all, if you are going to go with this comparison of Christians do so and so, why Muslims don't, you won't be able to understand what really Islam stands for.

Secondly, America has a constitution. Do ALL Americans view it on the same way? no one killed Presidents and other innocent people in America because they claim to be patriots? How is that different from someone committing violence in the name of Quran?

Domestic terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_political_violence_in_Washington,_D.C.

All good data. But you're showing only one side of the equation.

And the same can be said about what you are trying to show, no?

I think superiority is a disease eating many Americans. Just because they have been there for around two centuries they believe that they hold the ultimate values and the rest suck!

You really need to read more about history. History didn't start with The American Declaration of Independence, and believe me, nothing last forever. Even if the US as it's today lasted for 1000 years to come, it will eventually become weaker and new super powers will eat it up and regard the US as backward then invade it even or divide it, you never know. If you think this can never happen to the US then you need to have a break from this discussion and go back to do your homework about how this world works.

Let me ask you this, in the same manner Americans lost their mind during 9/11 and decided to invade and kill all suspects, on the other hand, other nations have no right to defend themselves and fight back? oh yeah, that's because the US is the ultimate super power with the ultimate set of values and is always right and always have the right to treat people like **** and the other backward people can't do anything about it. Why? because they are not Americans!

This doesn't mean one should justify violence no matter the reason, but hey, i'm not the one who said ... All good data. But you're showing only one side of the equation.

 

[Sees]

It is a strange thing that any threads or posts discussing some negativity with the Islamic world always leads to discussion of some negativity concerning the U.S.

Who isn't taught as a little child "two wrongs don't make a right" ? It doesn't excuse any groups negative behaviors or provide any answers into why the behavior takes place.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a strange thing that any threads or posts discussing some negativity with the Islamic world always leads to discussion of some negativity concerning the U.S.

Why so? It is hardly a secret that there is considerable hostility and mistrust between the US, which have often enough presented themselves as agents of God against the Muslim infidels, and many if not most Muslims.

 

[Sees]

Why so? It is hardly a secret that there is considerable hostility and mistrust between the US, which have often enough presented themselves as agents of God against the Muslim infidels, and many if not most Muslims.

Of course there is always some Bush and media nonsense playing up the modern day crusades crap. It doesn't stop it from being a lame excuse to bring up the negative actions of others especially when talking about situations where there is no U.S. or West involvement. If it's not something we did currently or recently it's something from the early 20th century

The true issue is and will be - monotheistic theocracy ideologies do not mix well with modern secular society ideologies. There is a grand canyon size gulf between the way we take care of things and the way it is supposed to be according to Islamic tradition as per interpretation of those most influential the last 1,000 years.

Excuses are almost always lame.

 

[icehorse]

Hi TashaN,

If you truly value democracy then leave them do whatever they want, and the government will decide whether it's possible to do that or not. As Americans why they don't have the right to do that? maybe because they are *Muslim immigrants* who can't be considered real Americans like the other immigrants!

Not at all, where did that come from? Of course you are correct that in the U.S. (and probably anywhere that has a changeable constitution), citizens are free to try to amend their country's laws. But if a group brings ideas that are strongly against the values of the society, that group must understand that they will meet with vocal and spirited resistance. You want to promote communism in the U.S.? You are free to do so, but you're going to be challenged vigorously.

There is only one prominent group of people who don't want to play by the rules... Islamists. Over and over again we hear Islamists cry: "Islamophobia!". We never hear anyone say "Communist-phobia" or even "Nazi-phobia", even though there are communist and Nazi groups in the U.S.

First of all, if you are going to go with this comparison of Christians do so and so, why Muslims don't, you won't be able to understand what really Islam stands for.

Go back to the OP - this is why I started this thread, to understand what Islam stands for! Please tell me what Islam stands for! Seriously! That's exactly why I'm here!

TashaN - As far as the Iraq war and the rest of history, all I did was respond to Luis who presented only one side of the equation. Notice that I never denied ANY of what Luis said.

All I'm saying is that BOTH the West AND Islam have a bloody history and it goes back a long way, and it continues to this day on both sides. Have you taken the time to acknowledge what I've said?

Given this mutually violent past (and present), I think the way forward is to understand each other's core values.

 

[TashaN]

Nazis? come on!!!

Islam is more than a personal spiritual religion for an individual, it's a way of life for an individual and the whole community. Saying all that, that doesn't mean it impose a specific way for how we live literally but it gives us guidelines which we should follow then we can do almost everything we want. That's why a lot of people fail to comprehend this complexity and they try to simplify it. Some people even confuse our religion with political ideologies like communism. Just because Muslims' life today is rough, that doesn't mean they are backward or they don't value and respect common values with non-Muslims.

I know you are trying to understand but you can't understand if you keep upholding your values to be better values than Muslims'. We share lots of values with non-Muslims and we are different in some others. Does that make us less human? no. It just make us different, with an identity. Do we have to abandon our values and melt in others'?

So what do you want to know? i'm all ears.

 

[icehorse]

Nazis? come on!!!

Islam is more than a personal spiritual religion for an individual, it's a way of life for an individual and the whole community. Saying all that, that doesn't mean it impose a specific way for how we live literally but it gives us guidelines which we should follow then we can do almost everything we want. That's why a lot of people fail to comprehend this complexity and they try to simplify it. Some people even confuse our religion with political ideologies like communism. Just because Muslims' life today is rough, that doesn't mean they are backward or they don't value and respect common values with non-Muslims.

I know you are trying to understand but you can't understand if you keep upholding your values to be better values than Muslims'. We share lots of values with non-Muslims and we are different in some others. Does that make us less human? no. It just make us different, with an identity. Do we have to abandon our values and melt in others'?

So what do you want to know? i'm all ears.

You know when I mentioned Nazi's and communism, that was in a very specific context! That was by no means a comparison! Those were examples of ideas with value systems very different than the West's. No more.

Also, I'm not making any conclusions about "better" or "worse" values. In no way am I saying the West's values are "better". How could I say such a thing when I've admitted that I don't understand Islamic values very well?

Also, I got into the historical stuff only to respond to Luis.

With all of that out of the way, comparing values...

I'll propose that when we compare Western values to Islamic values, we can create three categories:

1 - Values unique to the West
2 - Shared values
3 - Values unique to Islam

The more shared values we have, the better off we'll all be. So, for example, it's safe to say that we all place a high value on strong, loving families.

At this moment, I'm focused on understanding when Islamic values are different than Western values. I don't consider myself any sort of expert on Islam, but I have put considerable effort into studying Islam. I also do my best to find the most neutral, factual information I can. I'm well aware that the news media loves to sensationalize anything and everything.

So, based on the study I've done, it seems that there *might* be some Islamic values that conflict with Western values. I might well be wrong about these values so I'll present them here so that they can be discussed and corrected:

1 - Islam values the "defense of Islam" more highly than it values freedom of expression.

If a Muslim says: "free speech is great, just don't criticize Muhammad", then it's not free speech.

2 - Islam values it's scripture more than it does true equality for all people.

While it's true that the West's record on human rights isn't spotless, my opinion is that it's far more progressive than Islam, up to this day. I believe that - in general - Islam is far behind the West in terms of misogyny, anti-Semitism, homophobia, apostasy, and tolerance for other belief systems.

3 - Islam seeks a totalitarian state more than it defends secular governments.

In other words, Islam seeks to weaken the separation of church and state. Islam seeks to spread Sharia, which is the insertion of religion into other areas of life.

There are others, but this list of three seems like a good starting point...

 

[LuisDantas]

Icehorse, you really should consider seeing Muslims as basically Mormons that learn Arabic instead of English for at least a while.

While not a perfect match, it will go a long way towards giving you a better understanding of their mindset.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course there is always some Bush and media nonsense playing up the modern day crusades crap.

GWB's stance on Islam was quite schyzo. He needed Muslim allies to support his invasions on a political level, yet at the same time I believe he actually stated that he believed to be doing God's work as he sent troops.

But I don't think you understood what I meant. It is only natural for US policy to be criticized as natural consequence of questions about how violent Muslims are.

It doesn't stop it from being a lame excuse to bring up the negative actions of others especially when talking about situations where there is no U.S. or West involvement. If it's not something we did currently or recently it's something from the early 20th century

Americans keep invoking the supposed desire of the Founding Fathers to justify odd things such as firearms possession. I don't think it is at all odd to bring up very real, very long-lasting consequences of political and military interventions that cause tragedy and mistrust to whole nations.

Why that would be a "lame excuse" I can only attempt to guess.

The true issue is and will be - monotheistic theocracy ideologies do not mix well with modern secular society ideologies.

That is true to an extent.

It is also hardly the issue at hand, or even a major component of it. Quakers and Mormons do just fine in reconciling those tendencies, for instance.

There is a grand canyon size gulf between the way we take care of things and the way it is supposed to be according to Islamic tradition as per interpretation of those most influential the last 1,000 years.

Yep. And each and every action that excuses abuse against Muslim populations further reinforces their conviction about which side of that canyon they should strive to be in.

 

[icehorse]

Icehorse, you really should consider seeing Muslims as basically Mormons that learn Arabic instead of English for at least a while.

While not a perfect match, it will go a long way towards giving you a better understanding of their mindset.

I'm open to that perspective but I have no idea what you mean. Can you say more about the parallels you see?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm open to that perspective but I have no idea what you mean. Can you say more about the parallels you see?

One is that deep down there is little to distinguish them from you and me that can't be fairly resumed to

1. A strong commitment to community values and duty towards each other
2. That makes a lot of reference to God in explaining itself

To the extent that their values differ from ours (and frankly, I wish mine were more like theirs. I truly, sincerely envy the social encouragement networks of both faiths) it is a matter of emphasis and mutal support. The values themselves are very much alike anyone else. Muslims see the Quran as a marvelous gift from God and a reliable guide to learn the right way of dealing with life. That is perhaps the one true Muslim trait which I can't quite understand or see myself emulating - and even that one is little more than a consequence of me being an atheist.

The bottom line is: they are people. Not cylons, not religious drones repeating the inhuman values of the Quran, not alien creatures that humanity should watch out for. Just people.

We can and should watch out for the behavior and beliefs of some of them. But the reason why we should is not a couple of references to Jihad in the Quran.

When push comes to shove, there is whole lot more of bloodthirst in the actual text of the Bible than in that of the Quran. Both texts can be abused, both texts are dangerous when misused by literalists - and as it turns out, the Quran very much less so than the Bible.

It may seem otherwise, but far as I can tell that is only so due to an unfortunate conjunction of

1. A decades if not centuries long history of xenophoby and traitorous warfare that makes Muslims quite justifiably mistrusting of non-Muslim leaders - a history, mind you, which is certainly not to be conveniently forgotten. Not while Lybia receives drone runs, Palestine has its homes destroyed under the hypocratical label of "defense against terrorists", and people all the place make a point of assuming that Islam is brainwashing from the get-go.

Way, way too much blood has been taken for the idea that it should be "forgotten" to be worth considering.

2. An actual, undeniable emphasis of Muslim societies in central administration and authority. This I consider a flaw of the Faith, but I just don't see how it is that different from a sizeable part of Christianity or even the Republican Party.