Article - The Myth of Moderate Islam
-
So the author of the article appears to have read the Koran and is to the view that he is saying, "The extremists are a relatively honest bunch who are merely passing the bigoted Koran unadulterated to the Muslim masses." The assertion is that the Koran is the source of their doings and the terrorists are relatively innocent, the by-products. Muslims have knowledge of this bigoted Koran and just somehow developed this ability to ignore human values and become life-size fart bombs. Meh. I'm pretty miffed he has painted the situation that way.
I don't agree with everything that was said there, but I certainly agree with much of it, and much has already been said. It is what it is and I lack any capability to explain more, unlike what Gendaken has done. However, I still maintain that the prevailing fanatic idealogy is a misrepresentation of Islam that arises partly from the literal intepretation of the Koran as the absolute word of God and that doesnt mean I'm absolving Islam of its faults and troubles. For the literalist, Islam seems to invoke a lot of violence and wrongdoing. As a Muslim myself, there are verses in the Koran that I feel very uncomfortable with. But literalism shouldnt be placed much emphasis in the first place. The Holy Books were meant to be thought about. The lady saint Rabia used to cross out verses from her Koran which she didn't agree with because "her God" could not have said those things.
I am also for the religious reformation and actual education for the indoctrinated community. The activity of understanding the Koran according to the context in which they originated, etc etc (except some in the article) - actually, has been the practice of Sgrean Muslims all along as far as I know.
That is how an Sgrean Muslim reconciles, lwflee?
--------------------
I hope now to address some issues concerning Islam's tenets put forward by the article that are the two main causes for extremism. The rule of abrogation and the dividence of the world into two parts, Dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (abode of war) .
1. Rule of abrogation.
The concept was invented as a result of a poor understanding of the Koran. It has been negated far long ago. The scholars base their claim on a corrupted translation and intepretation of the verse, which is below.
"Whichever revelations We abrogated or cause to be forgotten, We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God is capable of all things?" 2:106
This is the abrogation verse which is from a chapter in continuation on the topic of past prophets and their Holy Books, for example the Torah, Psalms and the Gospels. Here its stated that God substitutes them with something better or similar, indicating the Koran. It wasnt about the verses within it. Therefore, the earlier peace verses arent abrogated and still are very much upheld. And still on the past Holy Books, they must be honored as ever, for in another later passage, "Why do they ask you to judge among them, when they have the Torah, containing God's law, and they chose to disregard it? They are not people of Faith." | "Subsequent to them, we sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the previous scripture, the Torah. We gave him the Gospel, containing guidance and light, and confirming the previous scriptures, the Torah, and augmenting its guidance and light, and to enlighten the righteous." | "The people of the Gospel shall rule in accordance with God's revelations therein. Those who do not rule in accordance with God's revelations they are the wicked."
That is as far as I understand.
2. Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb
There is no mention of this concept in either the Koran or Sunnah. They were products of the Jurispundence (called Fiqh) in the middle ages when the Islamic state expanded and faced several issues about their concise borders which were often very bloody. More definitions were coined, Dar al-‘Amn (abode of security), Dar al-Sulh (abode of treaty), etc. This classical theory bears the stamp of those times, and it was never universally accepted even then, for not only it sounds imperial in tone and triumphalist in vision, the assuming of an eternal conflict between them are morally problematical and politically untenable. It has been made long defunct too by the successive jurists and scholars, for circumstances and structure of life has changed.
That is as far as I understand again.
Old and obsolete components of history are being propogated and sealed back into the religion.
-
Religion is all in the mind of men - even the strongest minded person will feel weak when staring at all the stars on a clear night, and questioning his own existence.
In the current war against the terrorists - who are Muslim fanatics -Gendaken is correct in mentioning Sir Gerald Templer's strategy of 'winning the hearts and minds' during the Malayan Emergency - in the war against the Malayan Communist Party.
Body count alone is insufficient, as was seen in the Vietnam War - which was lost when public opinons - (in the USA and across the Globe) - were molded and succumbed to the propaganda of the anti-war establishment - that was non-too-subtly used as a Third War Front by Communist North Vietnam and their Russian and Chinese supporters.
Winning the 'hearts and minds' of the Muslims - worldwide and those affected in the war zones - will require the battle of the air waves, the web zones, and also in the medias.
Contrary to Gendaken's statement that Islam do not have a single figure head - as the Catholics have their Pope, and the Anglicans have their Archbishop, or the Tibetans have their Dalai Lama - the Muslim Community always have a Leader in every community (although no single Muslim figurehead has smilar stature as the Pope, Archbishop or the Dalai Lama over its religion ) .
It could take the form of an individual Imam, or a Council - such as seen in Iran, where they have the late Ayatolah Khomeini.
http://www.islamist.org/images/ldrpro.pdf
http://www.al-islam.org/leadership/1.htm
This group of individual leaders from the different communities, or a Council of Imams, could be recruited in the battle for the 'hearts and minds'.
This approach was used in Singapore, where bridges were built to reach out to the Muslim communities, and to push them to integrate themselves into the wider external communal activities and not just to isolate and cloister themselves in religious studies and internal religious services.
To the hardened fanatics, psychological warfare will be needed to break their hardened spirits, and it is of no help from the liberal minded and the liberal media to expose all the methods employed by the not too sophisticated 'cowboys' in the Abu Ghraib prisons or Guantanamo Bay.
Singapore is seen as a strong defense ally of the USA in the fight against terrorism. Yet no western liberals have highlighted the methods employed by our Singapore ISD to break the will of those suspected terrorists and hardened criminals.
Neither has any western liberals or their media highlighted the methods used by our Singapore Police to obtain 'confessions' from criminal suspects - all of whom are prevented from getting any LEGAL ADVISE during the investigation period.
Yet the 'result justify the means'. -
I wouldn't be surprised if Ah Hao were wrongly sent to the gallows if that were the case.Originally posted by Atobe:Singapore is seen as a strong defense ally of the USA in the fight against terrorism. Yet no western liberals have highlighted the methods employed by our Singapore ISD to break the will of those suspected terrorists and hardened criminals.
Neither has any western liberals or their media highlighted the methods used by our Singapore Police to obtain 'confessions' from criminal suspects - all of whom are prevented from getting any LEGAL ADVISE during the investigation period.
Yet the 'result justify the means'.
-
Originally posted by iveco:
Despite the claims of innocense, will 'Ah Took' have led the Police to find 'the Box' on the slope of a hill with thick vegetation ?
I wouldn't be surprised if Ah Hao were wrongly sent to the gallows if that were the case.
Chia Thye Poh claimed his innocence against the charges from LKY that 'he is a Communist agitating the armed overthrow of the Singapore Government' - and he resisted the ISD for twenty odd years - to all the taunts and temptations of early release by making a simple admission.
Francis Seow claimed his 'torture' in the hands of the ISD, and refused to admit any guilt to all the accusations of 'wrong doings' that were thrown at him by the ISD interrogators.
These are extreme cases of 'torture' applied, and if you are innocent, you stand on your ground. -
Well, he wasn't allowed access to his legal counsel when he was taken into custody. Your earlier post implied that all suspects should have access to lawyers even while the investigations are underway.Originally posted by Atobe:Despite the claims of innocense, will 'Ah Took' have led the Police to find 'the Box' on the slope of a hill with thick vegetation ?
Reminds me also of the Marxist Plot in 1987 that implicated the whole Catholic diocese. Some ex-detainees have horrifying stories to tell. -
Originally posted by iveco:
Will the Police be less 'efficient' if the suspects were given access to lawyers, or legal advise ?
Well, he wasn't allowed access to his legal counsel when he was taken into custody. Your earlier post implied that all suspects should have access to lawyers even while the investigations are underway.
Reminds me also of the Marxist Plot in 1987 that implicated the whole Catholic diocese. Some ex-detainees have horrifying stories to tell.
In the Singapore context, Lawyers are supposed to be guardians of the Law, and to assist the Legal System to execute the Law and maintain justice.
If the person is guilty, the Lawyer should advise the accused the consequences of the charges, and to advise the accused to work with the Law, so as to mitigate the deeds committed.
In more liberal communities, it will seem that the PRIMARY ROLE of the Lawyer is to look after the RIGHTS of the Accused, without much thought to the RIGHTS of the Victim(s). The RESPONSIBILITY of the Lawyer is only to look after the Rights of the Accused, and not the implementation of justice.
With the Singapore System, the Internal Security Act has allowed the ISD and the Police wide latitude in dealing with all Citizens - whether legitimately or otherwise, at the whim of the Political Elite.
Unlike in the past, there is NO Right of Appeal against detention under the ISA, and although there is a Review Committee, it is tainted and has no legal authority to challenge any further Ministerial Order.
In other words, there is 'zilch' checks and counter balance in the Singapore context.
The Internal Security Act should definitely be used against CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS; and its use against those involved in POLITICS should be abhorred.
As LKY had so eloquently stated - ( when Singapore was part of Malaysia, and the Ultras were clamouring for LKY to be arrested under the ISA provisions ) :
" If you arrest a man for differences of opinion, what do you do next ? " -
Well, Atobe, the situation becomes really tricky when there's no single acknowledged leader.
Now maybe Gauze can correct me on this, but I understand that the overall body of Islamic followers is known as the ummah, and from the year 632 till 1924 the Caliph was the acknowledged leader of the ummah. However, the Caliphate ceased to exist with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and since then leadership within Islam has taken place at national, if not grassroots, level.
On a national level, the islamic leader is the Mufti or Grand Mufti, and one rank down in the hierarchy is the Imam, who leads a mosque.
However, the structure is flexible is that in the absence of an Imam, religious services can be conducted by any member of the congregation who is knowledgable in the ways of Islam.
Because of this structure, some issues may arise when you consider the direction that the ummah takes. While it takes a Mufti to issue a fatwa (Islamic legal pronouncement), the fatwas issued by different Muftis can contradict each other.
Of course, some people also abuse the flexibility of the system. Osama bin Laden, despite not being a Mufti, has taken it upon himself to issue fatwas. This is in itself not a problem except that a misguided few have actually taken his fatwa seriously.
In turn, the Spanish Mufti issued a fatwa against OBL, but I believe (can't remember where I read it) that some new developments following the London bombings may in fact invalidate the Spanish fatwa.
The above illustrates the issues involved in attempting to win the hearts and minds of the ummah. While the ummah is a concept of a unitary entity, and while the only satisfactory conclusion to the current problems is for peace to be made between the ummah and the rest of the world, one would have to question if the concept of unnah can be treated as a practical reality that concrete actions can be based upon.
The alternative, as you pointed out, is to decide on courses of action on a case-by-case basis, but that approach has its own problems. After all, what's to say that if you take a hard line with one community, you won't offend the members of a community that you have already reached out to and made peace with?
Rather than a game of pick-up sticks, this job's as tough as building a platform out of those sticks standing on their ends - move one stick wrongly and the whole lot could come crashing down. -
Yes, Gedanken, this seemingly 'leaderless' community of Islam, also presents a confusing multitude of self-proclaimed leaders and experts of this religion - which itself is also splintered into different sects and sub-branches of multi-ethnic practises.
It brings into question the concept of 'RELIGION' in itself, or the 'Myth of Religion' - and not just 'The Myth of Moderate Islam'.
The 'curse' of mankind is for religion to have existed - with all its prescribed morals and ethics, it practises and restraints - that allow ONE Person or a Group of Persons, to dominate over others - dominating the entire globe, or nations, or societies, or communities.
It is in the environment of ignorance, superstition, self-doubts, weakness, and confusion that allow Religion to thrive, and which allow opportunistic MEN to seize a potent vehicle as a short cut to POWER.
This is the type of situations that more sophisticated Men and Communities are afraid of, where entire society can be put into imbalance by opportunistic men, who can seize power by capitalizing on human deficiencies.
The only way to eradicate such threats to this world is through the spread of global education, political, social and economic development, with the full participation from every political entity on this globe.
Note that cultural development has not been mentioned, as cultural development will depend on the characteristics of the community, and its development cannot and should not be influenced by that of another culture - so as to prevent 'Cultural Imperialism' . -
Isn't that contradictory? If the community of Islam is "leaderless", how does that allow "ONE Person or a Group of Persons, to dominate over others"? This "leaderless" approach allows the Muslims the choice to follow the path of Islam they think is right, which of course leads to other types of problems.Originally posted by Atobe:Yes, Gedanken, this seemingly 'leaderless' community of Islam, also presents a confusing multitude of self-proclaimed leaders and experts of this religion - which itself is also splintered into different sects and sub-branches of multi-ethnic practises.
It brings into question the concept of 'RELIGION' in itself, or the 'Myth of Religion' - and not just 'The Myth of Moderate Islam'.
The 'curse' of mankind is for religion to have existed - with all its prescribed morals and ethics, it practises and restraints - that allow ONE Person or a Group of Persons, to dominate over others - dominating the entire globe, or nations, or societies, or communities.
So sophisticated men don't believe in religion? There are countless of examples proving otherwise. You are however right in that what is needed is education, more specifically the ability to think critically. The reason why the extremists follow Osama is because they abdicate their right to think critically and too readily accept Osama's word. The problem is therefore not the religion itself but is within us humans. The question then arises on whether religion impedes on our ability to think critically. I do believe that it depends hugely on how it is taught.Originally posted by Atobe:It is in the environment of ignorance, superstition, self-doubts, weakness, and confusion that allow Religion to thrive, and which allow opportunistic MEN to seize a potent vehicle as a short cut to POWER.
This is the type of situations that more sophisticated Men and Communities are afraid of, where entire society can be put into imbalance by opportunistic men, who can seize power by capitalizing on human deficiencies.
The only way to eradicate such threats to this world is through the spread of global education, political, social and economic development, with the full participation from every political entity on this globe.
Religion is akin to technology; just because it it can be abused, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used at all. Afterall, it can be an instrument for good as well. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Isn't the 1-liner translations a bit simplistic? Here are some links that gives another perspective:
[b]Koran 5:33
The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is : Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land
Koran 8:37
In order that Allah may seperate the impure from the pure, Put All the impure ones (Non-Muslim), one on top of the another in a Heap and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost
Koran 58:5
Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty
To understand the verses, you may wish to visit the following site:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/terrorist2.html
For some alternative views of Islam and the Koran - ( caution required )
The history of Islam, Muhammad and the Koran
http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammed.htm
Truth about Islam and the Koran – it will shock and surprise you
http://www.keithhunt.com/Islam.html
[/b]
Destiny of People of the Book
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016694&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
Do Muslims Want to Kill People of the Book?
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016498&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
Does the QurÂ’an Teach Violence?
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544502
The gist is that the Qur'an teaches Muslims to respect the Jews and Christians as they afterall worship the same God. The only difference is that they do not believe in the Last of God's Prophet. As such, "they will be judged on the basis of the principles of justice and mercy, considering the good beliefs they sincerely hold to be true." However, Muslims are cautioned against making close friends with those from the other 2 religions.
As for violence, the Qur'an give Muslims the right to attack those who attack/opress them but only as a last resort.
"Part of the problem of misunderstanding is that, unlike other religions, Islam offers information and guidance about every aspect of a personÂ’s life, pleasant or unpleasant as it may be. Unfortunately, war is a fact of life. It has always been and it always will be a fact of life until we can all learn to live together in peace and harmony, regardless of our cultural and religious backgrounds. Islam acknowledges this fact of life and offers concrete, just and practical solutions to problems of all types, including war. "
Quite interesting, isn't it? If you view it from a non-religious perspective, there seems to be a logical evolution to these 3 religions. Judaism belonged only to the Children of Israel. Then, there arose a need to spread religion to the other people. So along came Jesus with a religion that has a mass appeal. But then another problem arose. Although Christianity has mass appeal, it is found to be too idealistic, vague and impractical to apply to real world scenarios. So along came Islam, which doesn't try to have the same mass appeal as Christianity but proposes practical solutions for real world scenarios with precise and thorough instructions and laws on how one should behave in every aspect of one's life. -
And from the Shi'ite heartland of Iran, Baha'ullah emerged. His followers were called Baha'is.Originally posted by kheldorin:Quite interesting, isn't it? If you view it from a non-religious perspective, there seems to be a logical evolution to these 3 religions. Judaism belonged only to the Children of Israel. Then, there arose a need to spread religion to the other people. So along came Jesus with a religion that has a mass appeal. But then another problem arose. Although Christianity has mass appeal, it is found to be too idealistic, vague and impractical to apply to real world scenarios. So along came Islam, which doesn't try to have the same mass appeal as Christianity but proposes practical solutions for real world scenarios with precise and thorough instructions and laws on how one should behave in every aspect of one's life. -
Originally posted by kheldorin:
Is there any contradiction - if you had understood the term "seemingly" that should have been included in your hurried reading.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Yes, Gedanken, this seemingly 'leaderless' community of Islam, also presents a confusing multitude of self-proclaimed leaders and experts of this religion - which itself is also splintered into different sects and sub-branches of multi-ethnic practises.
It brings into question the concept of 'RELIGION' in itself, or the 'Myth of Religion' - and not just 'The Myth of Moderate Islam'.
The 'curse' of mankind is for religion to have existed - with all its prescribed morals and ethics, it practises and restraints - that allow ONE Person or a Group of Persons, to dominate over others - dominating the entire globe, or nations, or societies, or communities.
Isn't that contradictory? If the community of Islam is "leaderless", how does that allow "ONE Person or a Group of Persons, to dominate over others"? This "leaderless" approach allows the Muslims the choice to follow the path of Islam they think is right, which of course leads to other types of problems.Originally posted by kheldorin:
Sophisticated men ? Do they exist ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
It is in the environment of ignorance, superstition, self-doubts, weakness, and confusion that allow Religion to thrive, and which allow opportunistic MEN to seize a potent vehicle as a short cut to POWER.
This is the type of situations that more sophisticated Men and Communities are afraid of, where entire society can be put into imbalance by opportunistic men, who can seize power by capitalizing on human deficiencies.
The only way to eradicate such threats to this world is through the spread of global education, political, social and economic development, with the full participation from every political entity on this globe.
So sophisticated men don't believe in religion? There are countless of examples proving otherwise. You are however right in that what is needed is education, more specifically the ability to think critically. The reason why the extremists follow Osama is because they abdicate their right to think critically and too readily accept Osama's word. The problem is therefore not the religion itself but is within us humans. The question then arises on whether religion impedes on our ability to think critically. I do believe that it depends hugely on how it is taught.
Religion is akin to technology; just because it it can be abused, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used at all. Afterall, it can be an instrument for good as well.
Clever men understand the complexities of Man's mind, and if their own minds are more superior than those within the Community, they will be in a better position to influence and manipulate those weaker minds.
To those who "abdicate their right to think critically" - do you think they have any capacity to think in the first place ?
Will it not be more realistic that the minions, who followed Osama, were men with weaker minds ?
In every and any groups, there will always be the Elite that provide leadership and organisation, so as to seize the opportunities to influence the minions and use these mindless mass to propel themselves into political power.
Organised societies with an elected government must always fear those who are prepared to usurp power by manipulating the mindless mass. -
[quote]Originally posted by kheldorin:Originally posted by kheldorin:
Isn't the 1-liner translations a bit simplistic? Here are some links that gives another perspective:
[b]Destiny of People of the Book
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016694&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamEDo Muslims Want to Kill People of the Book?
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016498&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
Does the QurÂ’an Teach Violence?
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544502 [/b][/quote]
Your post of 17 August 2005 - 04:02 PM seems odd to the flow of events, and comes FIFTEEN DAYS 'out-of-synch'.
Did you read the post out of context, when my post was in response to maggot's post of the same date at 01:47 PM (on Page 2 of this Thread) ?
The reply given in my post was in response to a specific request - if you can discern from the text.
2 August 2005 - 03:05 p.m.Originally posted by maggot:
Where can I find this verse?
Death to all unbelievers of Islam?
The gist is that the Qur'an teaches Muslims to respect the Jews and Christians as they afterall worship the same God. The only difference is that they do not believe in the Last of God's Prophet. As such, "they will be judged on the basis of the principles of justice and mercy, considering the good beliefs they sincerely hold to be true." However, Muslims are cautioned against making close friends with those from the other 2 religions.
As for violence, the Qur'an give Muslims the right to attack those who attack/opress them but only as a last resort.
"Part of the problem of misunderstanding is that, unlike other religions, Islam offers information and guidance about every aspect of a personÂ’s life, pleasant or unpleasant as it may be. Unfortunately, war is a fact of life. It has always been and it always will be a fact of life until we can all learn to live together in peace and harmony, regardless of our cultural and religious backgrounds. Islam acknowledges this fact of life and offers concrete, just and practical solutions to problems of all types, including war. "
Quite interesting, isn't it? If you view it from a non-religious perspective, there seems to be a logical evolution to these 3 religions. Judaism belonged only to the Children of Israel. Then, there arose a need to spread religion to the other people. So along came Jesus with a religion that has a mass appeal. But then another problem arose. Although Christianity has mass appeal, it is found to be too idealistic, vague and impractical to apply to real world scenarios. So along came Islam, which doesn't try to have the same mass appeal as Christianity but proposes practical solutions for real world scenarios with precise and thorough instructions and laws on how one should behave in every aspect of one's life. The present day religions of Christianity and Islam (in alphabetical order) has their holy books originating from the Torah, which is the Reference Book of God's Words to the Jewish people.
The Bible as we know it today is a record by scribes in the days of Abraham through the disciples of Jesus, all of whom had dutifully recorded the events of their period for posterity sake.
The Bible consist of the Old Testament from the writings during Abraham's period, and the New Testament from the writings of the Disciples of Jesus.
The Islamic faith had depended much on the passing of the Word by recitation in spoken verses, and carried on through the ages, and it was only during the time of the Prophet Muhammed that an attempt was made to put these verses on paper.
The question of accuracy has always bugged the scholars of both religions.
With so much interpretation of both Holy Books based on the little HUMAN knowledge of GOD's intent in the WORDS written, can it not be possible for the WORD to be distorted and interpreted with the narrow scope of the Human Minds ?
The problem is not in the understanding of Islam by Christians, or by others.
The problem lies in the fact that Islam and its Holy Book is being abused by Men with little training or understanding of GOD's intention.
With so much of the original Islam being lost through the Ages, in the recitation of spoken verses, can there be any accuracy.
If there are inaccuracies, will it not open itself for abuse and errors in the interpretation of the ORIGINAL INTENT from GOD - (if those books are from GOD ) .
Religions are all about ideals and idealogies - it imposes on Man's Individuality and Freedom.
RELIGION ?
Where or How did it come about ?
A Moderate Muslim's View of the Bible
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/pourhassan.html
Islam and Koran
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Zwemer/God/chap1.htm
The Torah
http://www.blessedquietness.com/alhaj/torah.htm
The Word – Torah, New Testament and the Koran
http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=200246