What does Isl�m mean to you?

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Hello there folks. When I used to follow Isl�m, I always wanted to know people’s reasons why they turned to this religion, and what made them strong in their faith, what experiences they had. I admired, about the Christian community, their dedication to a living, breathing connection to their saviour.

In Isl�m, I mostly read boring, dry, legalistic, copy & paste type texts which would bang on at length about the necessities of praying, fasting, and suchlike. To which I would reply: “I know. It’s in the qur’�n.� I wanted more personal details, such as when my father told me he turned to the qur’�n for solace and comfort after his father died, and grew more and more religious.

So, I ask you: what does Isl�m mean to you? Personally?

I would also like to ask this of any non–muslims reading this as well: you may hear about muslims in the news, know a few people who have turned to Isl�m and whatnot, but what does it mean to YOU?

[cnorman18]

Edited in the interest of brevity and as a result of some retractions, which will be clear in a moment.

Hello cnorman18,

If you're just going to reject and dismiss the remarks of the Muslim scholars and thinkers that I have posted here as "evidence," as well as the rest of the discussion presented in the article to which my post was linked, I don't think I have anything more to say.

The claims of a few people who call themselves moderate Muslims do not demonstrate, as you claimed, that the majority of Muslims practice tolerance, respect and pluralism, or that these are an integral part of Islam.

Let me clarify; my point was more that there are Muslims who DO think those things, and that THOSE Muslims are those whom we should encourage and dialogue with.

Let me retract a number of claims I have, indeed, made without evidence here:

I cannot claim that the majority of Muslims in the world are nonviolent and tolerant people with essentially benign beliefs. I don’t know that that is true, though that remains my opinion.

I think it is absolutely beyond dispute that there are in existence SOME Muslims with beliefs and practices of that nature. I think it also beyond dispute that those beliefs were, at other times and in other places, much more common and indisputably “mainstream�; see below. Both of those facts seem to me beyond dispute.

I also think that there are Muslims -- some of whose remarks I have posted here -- who believe that those benign and tolerant beliefs ARE integral and essential to Islam; whether they are or not, I would agree that I am not qualified to say.

Now, to go on:

The religious texts of Islam openly call for bigotry, hatred and intolerance...

So do those of Christianity and Judaism.

That they do.

I despise all the Abrahamic texts…

That seems clear enough from your posts. More on that later.

…and praise the seemingly boundless human ability to deal with cognitive dissonance or convince itself that loopholes such as "inspired but not dictated by God" solve the problem of the infinite cruelty, pettiness, and general distastefulness of the God of Abraham as he is described in the Bible.

I also think that that kind of thinking is praiseworthy. I see no reason not to advocate precisely such a change of perspective for Islam, and it seems clear that many Muslims do just that. It puzzles me that you seem to think that such efforts are doomed to failure and should be abandoned and ridiculed, when they have been largely successful in both Judaism and Christianity.

Islam's texts are much clearer in their enjoining Muslims to practice Sharia law (and enforcing Islam's clear political agenda) than Christianity's are in practicing Mosaic law and gaining political dominance. "New covenant" etc. excuses are aplenty for the latter. There exists no such excuses available to Muslims for ignoring the words in the Quran.

The best they can do is twist meaning in some places enough so that a particular element is more palatable than "first appears", but they cannot do this in all instances by a long shot.

Furthermore, there is only one author of the Quran according to all the mainstream schools of Islamic "thought" - Allah.

The same cannot be said of the holy texts of Christianity or Judaism.

This makes an undeniable difference in the "reformability" of a religion.

At one time, all that COULD have been said of both Judaism and Christianity. There is not a lot of “wiggle room� in the OT either, but Jews don’t commonly stone disrespectful sons to death at the city gate, and never have.

During the medieval period, we Jews didn’t hold out a lot of hope for the “reformability� of Christianity, either. The Reformation wasn’t much help at first; read Martin Luther on Jews and you’ll see what I mean.

The FACT is that, as some of the speakers I quoted pointed out, in ages past -- in fact, during that same medieval period -- the Islamic Arab world WAS more tolerant, more pluralistic, and generally more enlightened than any other culture in the Western world. The “Golden Age� of my own people was (until the present day in America) 12th-century Muslim Spain. That ended, alas. But the idea that there is no hope for Islam’s reformation seems to me to be simply and objectively false. What it once was, it can be again -- or, at least, I have seen no arguments that demonstrate that that is impossible. Unlikely? Maybe. We’ll get back to that.

There are Muslims who think that their religion CAN be reformed and renewed and changed. What kind of sense does it make to deny that, pronounce the religion beyond hope or redemption, and tell them to give up?

From where I sit, the short answer is “none.�

I do not claim that the majority of Muslims are extremists by the most common Western understanding of "extremist".
This isn't the point.
Many Muslims are also, in my experience and like adherents of other religions, utterly ignorant about their faith and the history of violence of the man they profess to look up to, and many of them just go through the motions without ever really thinking about it or questioning it.

In other words, many just don't care that much - especially the ones we have in the West who fled the Islamic hellholes that their brethren have created.

I agree on all these points; and the same could have been said, and could still be said, of Christianity and certainly of Judaism. Few believers are really that deeply versed in the details and the history of their faiths; they have rather internalized the POSITIVE teachings of those religions and follow those, without much regard for scholarly technicalities and the teachings of literalists and fundamentalists. I would happily admit that Islam has more difficulty with those latter issues than other religions, particularly in recent years; but I firmly believe that most Muslims, ignorant of their faith or not, are basically good people.

The fact that most believers do NOT, in practice, believe in or practice these repressive and toxic things, and DO live in peace with their neighbors, and are NOT in sympathy with the extreme, repressive, and violent elements of their religions -- whatever the texts, when literally read, may say -- is precisely why I say that there is hope for reform of Islam as well.

Will it be easy? No. The reformation of Christianity wasn’t easy either. But the Inquisition no longer maintains torture chambers, the Blood Libel is no longer casually accepted as proven fact, and I haven’t heard of the Roman Catholic Church burning any heretics lately.

What is the point of denying all hope?

It seems to me that your position is, simply put, that all the Abrahamic religions are worthless, but that Islam is the most worthless of all. I disagree; I find positive aspects and value in both Judaism and Christianity, in spite of the violent and repugnant passages in their sacred texts and their bloody histories. With Islam, that value is, for many outside the religion, harder to find; but many, if not most -- I admit that “most� is my opinion only -- Muslims seem to find positive value there as well. I don’t think blanket condemnations and the denial of any hope for reformation and change are productive or positive in any way. If there are Muslims who wish to highlight the positive aspects of their religion and push for reform and moderation, I don’t see the logic or the benefit of spitting on their efforts and discouraging them as futile.

My contention is that Muslims are easy to radicalize because of the way the religion is fundamentally designed: one flawless text dictated by God, one prophet who's a great example but also a murderous, lecherous, intolerant warlord, etc.

Do you have a statistically significant sample of Muslims who deny that the Quran is dictated by Allah?

Doesn’t matter. Many Christians think that the Bible was dictated by God, but they STILL don’t stone their children.

I have always said that Jews, and only Jews, are qualified or have the right to define Judaism. I would also say that Muslims, and only Muslims, are qualified or have the right to define Islam.

You aren't, and don't.

Yet despite these words you are the one trying to pass off Islam as a fundamentally tolerant ideology, etc. Do you see the problem here?

No, I don't. I'm not trying to pass Islam off as anything; I freely admit that I know little about that religion.

Did you not make the claim that

"From what I've seen, Islam is an ancient and honorable religion that teaches peace, honor, love for one's neighbor, caring for the poor, the orphan and the widow, devotion to God and to the Good, and moral responsibility and rectitude."

If you want to state that this is only your opinion, that's fine.

What else could “from what I’ve seen� mean?

Moderate Islam will always be shaky at best.

The same could have been said of moderate Christianity in the 12th century. Moderate Christianity, from that medieval perspective, is now the norm. Are you prepared to declare that you have the power to predict the future?

What’s wrong with trying to change it?

There will always be a Muslim who will say "Hey, why do we ignore this again? It's dictated by Allah and it's well-substantiated in the Quran and Hadith. Do you deny that Allah knows best?" and we will start all over again.

Hello, Westboro Baptists. We similarly start over again with Christianity in every generation. So what? When -- and I HOPE that one day we can say “when� -- MODERATION becomes the norm, efforts to return Islam to the Dark Ages will be as futile as such efforts are in Christianity today.

Seems to me moderate Muslims ought to have the right to define the nature of the things they believe themselves. Are only extremist, fundamentalist Christians allowed to talk about the nature of Christianity?

Of course not - but don't expect me to take cafeteria Christians seriously when they claim to "know" all about Christianity.

But is it not from “cafeteria Christians� that the Reformation arose?

I’ve always found it strange that (some) atheists rail against extreme Christianity, and simultaneously rail against those who would oppose it as “not real Christians.� That approach betrays a conviction that the problem is not this or that particular faith, but religion as a whole; and, too bad, but that total rejection of religion just isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes or those of our great-great-grandchildren, if history is any indication.

You want “futile�? THAT is “futile.�

I know much more about Christianity than most self-described Christians ever will, in all likelihood.

About the negatives and horrors and atrocities and extremisms? I don’t doubt that at all, nor do I doubt the accuracy of what you know. My argument with you is that you appear to think that’s all there is to know, or all that’s worth knowing, about it. Similarly with Islam.

However, it is my contention that "fundamentalists" aka widely accepted, mainstream Sunni and Shia scholars have much more of a leg to stand on when they say "murder apostates" than the ones who say "oh just disregard those many authentic Hadith".

Same goes for stoning and other forms of torture.

I repeat: it will always be incredibly easy to radicalize Muslims because there is much evidence that the faith, as it was designed by its greedy and lecherous warlord founder, is fundamentally cruel, intolerant, and violent.

I ask again; what’s wrong with Muslims opposing that kind of radicalization?

Why are YOU arguing for Islamic doctrinal purity when that “purity� is precisely what leads to the violence and repression you claim to hate?

If moderate Islam be heresy, I say SUPPORT THE HERETICS! It made sense in medieval Europe, and it makes sense in the Islamic world today. The Keys of the Kingdom were given to Peter, but the Protestant churches still somehow manage to exist without giving allegiance to the Pope.

What is YOUR solution to the terrible problem of this absolutely worthless, brutal and repressive religion, if no other form of it exists? How do you intend to stamp it out? What is your plan of action?

My solution is information, not whitewashing the demented cult of Islam. Calling it a peaceful or honourable religion is infinitely more damageable in the long term, in my opinion, than calling a spade a spade.

The religion is rotten at its core. I am impressed and appreciate that self-described moderate Muslims would like to ignore, and may even succeed in ignoring, a lot of unsavoury facts about their religion and its warlord founder, but their efforts seem less than futile to me.

Well, then there we disagree. If your approach had prevailed in the 15th century, there would still be an active and malignant Inquisition.

Or is flat-out condemnation all you have to offer?

It's a large part of what I have to offer, as I no longer believe that there is hope for most of the religionists of the current generation, and I no longer believe that humans, on a wide scale, can be made to see how harmful religions like Islam fundamentally are to the general well-being of humanity since they've been taught, among other nonsensical idiocies, to "respect all religions and cultures" as if all of them were worthy of respect. The special status people give to religious ideologies is truly unwarranted to say the least.

I also no longer believe that humans who already hold that "Islam is a religion of peace distorted by extremists" can be made to see the opposite fast enough and on a large enough scale to prevent a massive war in the relatively near future.

This saddens me more than I can say.

It would sadden me too. Perhaps I AM wrong; but I refuse to give up to despair and, in effect, embrace and cheer on the war that may very well come. I prefer effort that is hopeful and positive and PERHAPS futile to efforts that are 100% guaranteed to lead to increased hatred, conflict and violence.

These days, even the actions of an isolated nutcase can almost start WW3 as uncounted millions of Muslims await any opportunity to unleash the hatred induced in them by frenetic Mullahs reading from the Quran and Hadith and chant for the death of absolutely innocent people who have nothing to do with the aforementioned nutcase.

?

Then what kind of sense does it make to promote and proclaim the messages you do about the nature of Islam and thereby condemn and spit on the millions of “absolutely innocent people who have nothing to do with� the practices and attitudes you denounce?

There are quite literally millions of Muslims that live, apparently peacefully, in the US. Maybe peaceful Muslims who aren’t out to either murder their neighbors and/or force them to convert DO constitute a minority of Muslims worldwide; maybe they don’t. My question is -- do we, in effect, throw them away with the rest?

If you wanted to convince Muslims that the West is, indeed, filled with hatred and contempt for their religion and collectively wanted to stamp it out, what, exactly, would you be arguing differently?

I think I'll stand by my remarks. In my experience, "they're all alike" and "they're all bad" are infallible marks of outright bigotry. Go ahead, tell us that there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, and/or that they aren't really Muslims. The next dictum is usually along the lines of "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim."

Where does your attitude lead? To peace and reconciliation and understanding -- or to more and more hatred and rancor and death?

You seem to incessantly negatively speculate about my beliefs, and needlessly as well as baselessly project quite a lot of things onto me - a habit which I find to be quite distasteful.

“Speculate“?

Haven’t you said, in effect, either that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, or that their existence does not matter? What’s the difference?

Where does "my attitude" lead?

It leads to admitting the problem as it is, undeniable magnitude and all, and finding a solution which involves an honest examination of the issues at hand and not endless negative stereotyping of well-substantiated criticism of the very rotten core of the Islamic faith - which is what you are doing, with your countless attempts at projecting your own stereotypes about people who bash on the religion of hatred and ignorance, that is to say Islam, onto me.

You’re not answering the question.

Suppose you are successful at convincing all the non-Muslims in the world that Islam is nothing more than “the religion of hatred and ignorance.� Fine, well done, we all understand now, this religion is totally evil and without hope of redemption.

What then? What is your SOLUTION to the existence of such a religion?

If reform is impossible, as you seem to be saying, what is left?

If you aren’t saying “STAMP OUT ISLAM,� what ARE you saying? And how is that a “solution� in any meaningful sense of the word?

Like I said; I’d rather work for hope and fail, than work for despair and succeed. Maybe I’m wrong; I’d rather be me, and wrong, than be you and be right.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

I’d rather work for hope and fail, than work for despair and succeed.

[EduChris]

...I’d rather work for hope and fail, than work for despair and succeed...

I agree that "working for hope" is the better option, but I also see Woland's point. In order to work for hope, we first have to find Muslims who don't resort to the level of argument where, because sex with lobsters isn't criminalized, therefore you can take a lobster as your legal spouse; or where pigs excreted from an elephant are claimed to have eaten up all the poop from the animals on Noah's ark (Prophets in the Qur'an, p. 55 [Ibn Abbas]).

Such Muslims are exeedingly rare, though I did encounter one many years ago, and cnorman says he also met one on this forum a few years ago.

[cnorman18]

...I’d rather work for hope and fail, than work for despair and succeed...

I agree that "working for hope" is the better option, but I also see Woland's point. In order to work for hope, we first have to find Muslims who don't resort to the level of argument where, because sex with lobsters isn't criminalized, therefore you can take a lobster as your legal spouse; or where pigs excreted from an elephant are claimed to have eaten up all the poop from the animals on Noah's ark (Prophets in the Qur'an, p. 55 [Ibn Abbas]).

Such Muslims are exeedingly rare, though I did encounter one many years ago, and cnorman says he also met one on this forum a few years ago.

Oh, please. Are you comfortable with the common Muslim canard that Terry Jones represents the majority of Christians? How about Fred Phelps, Jim Bakker, and Pope Innocent III? The Crusaders and the Inquisition? What you are doing here is PRECISELY analogous.

Moderate Muslims aren't "exeedingly [sic] rare" nor hard to find. I have posted remarks from several on this very thread, and there are millions more worldwide; further, I have had conversations with many more than "one," on this forum and elsewhere, including speakers at synagogues here in Dallas, Texas, whose presentations I have personally attended.

Claiming that this dialogue is difficult or impossible because there's no one on the other side is simply, and egregiously, false. If you're having a hard time finding Muslims to talk to, the reason is simple enough, and proven by your own remarks right here; you don't think there are any, and therefore you're not looking.

[EduChris]

...Are you comfortable with the common Muslim canard that Terry Jones represents the majority of Christians?...What you are doing here is PRECISELY analogous...

My main point (perhaps not expressed clearly enough) was that if Muslims want to make these sorts of absurd arguments (as Murad has done right here on this thread) then the possibility for open, sincere, productive dialog is lost.

[cnorman18]

...Are you comfortable with the common Muslim canard that Terry Jones represents the majority of Christians?...What you are doing here is PRECISELY analogous...

My main point (perhaps not expressed clearly enough) was that if Muslims want to make these sorts of absurd arguments (as Murad has done right here on this thread) then the possibility for open, sincere, productive dialog is lost.

I would agree that the possibility of open, sincere, productive dialogue with those Muslims is lost; but certainly not with ALL Muslims, as you are apparently saying. I don't hold out a lot of hope for moderate Muslims, or anybody for that matter, having an open, sincere and productive dialogue with Fred Phelps, either; and of course it's a bit silly to protest the difficulty of "dialogue" with either Christians or Muslims who have been dead for centuries.

It's hard to believe that anyone who continually brings up nothing other than the extremism, violence and ludicrous doctrines advocated by SOME on the other side, and who consistently ignores and discounts the many moderate, sane, reasonable, and peaceful people among them, is really, sincerely, interested in open and productive dialogue at all.

[EduChris]

...It's hard to believe that anyone who continually brings up nothing other than the extremism, violence and ludicrous doctrines advocated by SOME on the other side, and who consistently ignores and discounts the many moderate, sane, reasonable, and peaceful people among them, is really, sincerely, interested in open and productive dialogue at all.

I agree that holding out hope is the best option. Tell you what: let's agree to give each other a "heads-up" whenever either of us finds a Muslim here on this forum who is willing and capable of sincere, open, and productive dialog. If and when that happens, let's see where such dialog can take us.

[cnorman18]

...It's hard to believe that anyone who continually brings up nothing other than the extremism, violence and ludicrous doctrines advocated by SOME on the other side, and who consistently ignores and discounts the many moderate, sane, reasonable, and peaceful people among them, is really, sincerely, interested in open and productive dialogue at all.

I agree that holding out hope is the best option. Tell you what: let's agree to give each other a "heads-up" whenever either of us finds a Muslim here on this forum who is willing and capable of sincere, open, and productive dialog. If and when that happens, let's see where such dialog can take us.

I've been doing that for three years; I don't need your help, thanks. See if you can manage to do it on your own, too -- and look other places besides this forum.

I wouldn't dispute that there aren't a lot of moderate Muslims on this particular forum; Internet forums attract those who are interested in preaching and proselytization, extremists, and those who come here to denigrate and despise. It's been observed in the past that there have been a LOT more judgmental, hostile, and arrogant fundamentalist/literalist Christians here than the other kind, too. Most of them have either left or been banned, which is OK with me. The same goes for judgmental and arrogant atheists, for the matter of that. The extremist Muslims who spam the forum and preach seventh-century nonsense don't last long here either, as you may have observed.

If you want the forum to attract moderate Muslims ready to dialogue, it might be advisable to show that YOU are willing to dialogue, as opposed to continually complaining about how hard it is. If I were a Muslim, I don't know that I'd want to step into this snakepit either.

[EduChris]

...If you want the forum to attract moderate Muslims ready to dialogue, it might be advisable to show that YOU are willing to dialogue...

Which is exactly what I have tried to do (see my thread, Toward a Better Christian-Muslim Understanding).

It would be interesting for me to know what a sincere, open, and productive dialog with a Muslim would look like. For me, at least initially, it seems that one should try to get a handle on the actual teachings and principles of the respective faiths, while avoiding arguments about whose sacred text is more "authentic" or "pristine" (since no agreement is likely to be possible on these matters) while similarly avoiding derogatory comments about Paul and Mohammad.

What other suggestions might you have in this regard?

[cnorman18]

...If you want the forum to attract moderate Muslims ready to dialogue, it might be advisable to show that YOU are willing to dialogue...

Which is exactly what I have tried to do (see my thread, Toward a Better Christian-Muslim Understanding).

It would be interesting for me to know what a sincere, open, and productive dialog with a Muslim would look like. For me, at least initially, it seems that one should try to get a handle on the actual teachings and principles of the respective faiths, while avoiding arguments about whose sacred text is more "authentic" or "pristine" (since no agreement is likely to be possible on these matters) while similarly avoiding derogatory comments about Paul and Mohammad.

What other suggestions might you have in this regard?

It's not hard. Take a look at the "Religion" section of your local paper, commonly published on Saturday. If you live in or near a town of any size, there's probably a mosque or Islamic study center around; they often hold "open houses" or similar events, and though they are rightly concerned with security these days, they are generally open and welcoming to those who wish to learn more about their religion, even those with no intention of converting. There are also, and frequently, interfaith conferences or discussions open to the public, where clergy and laypeople of various faiths can interact and have dialogue. Those can take place anywhere - churches, synagogues (mine sponsors such events frequently), even schools.