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]

...the remarks of the Muslim scholars and thinkers that I have posted here...

The difficulty that I have found with many Muslims is that they tend to follow the example and teaching of Mohammad. Islamic records do show that Mohammad practiced deceit against non-Muslims, and therefore many Muslims today practice deceit (the Islamic term is taqiyya) in their dealings with non-Muslims. Given this practice, how can you tell when a Muslim is being sincere? Woland has already pointed out the inconsistencies with Murad, and Murad is quite typical of the sort of Islamic apologists that are routinely encountered on Internet forums.

The bottom line is, it would be nice to find honest, sincere, knowledgable Muslims with whom to interact and learn--but it does seem that the more knowledgable the Muslim is, the more prone he is to follow the example and teaching of Mohammad. And that is where the problems start.

I disagree. I think the problems start with the a priori assumption that any and all Muslims are likely to be lying hypocrites.

When you see inconsistencies or other problems with an individual debater, by all means challenge them. But I have debated people, and often, who begin with the assumption that "All Jews lie and think it's just fine," and post quotes from the Talmud and from present-day extremists, which are easy to find on hate sites, that "prove" it.

I call that blatant antisemitism and contemptible bigotry. I see no reason to apply a different standard to those who would approach Muslims in the same way that Jew-haters approach Jews. The parallel here is precise and accurate.

ETA: Note my signature. This is an application of the one principle of my religion which I find most compelling and most essential: I shall not treat another in a way that I would not be treated myself.

[Board]

(my first post... be kind)

The quotes provided by cnorman18 shed an interesting light on the perception people have of Islam vs. the reality that is Islam. All religions have matured over the years. Radicals however will continue to cling to the extremes. In my opinion it is the responsibility of the members of a religion to speak out against their own radicalism and defeat it.

Christianity has been battling with this since the beginning as well. There are very few Christian groups that agree with Westboro or other radical sects. But Christianity works to denounce these extremists and be bold in their claims of moderation and reform from the extremes of the past. As a former Christian I spent a great deal of my time studying what are considered cults of Christianity and how to refute them far more than I spent studying how to discuss my faith with other religions. May have just been my experience...

This is what I feel is not being seen by followers of Islam. As a US citizen who grew up in a rural Bible believing community I have had very little exposure to the Muslim community outside of the media so I am sure I am ignorant of a great many things. My perception of the Islam however is the initial question of this thread so this what I am expressing.

What we do not need is more continued aggression between the major religions of the world. I say this due to my perception of the worlds response to incidents like the "burn a Quran guy". Islamic extremists were burning the American flag in protest of something a group of Christian extremists were threatening to do. The US is not a Christian nation but there are enough supporters of this belief that the world seems to believe them. Much like my perception of Islam is built on my limited vision so to I expect is the average views a rural Muslim holds toward the US. The perception that the US is fighting Islamic Extremism is much more dangerous than if Muslim nations were battling their own extremism.

I am more a believer in "police your own". But I get a sense from the Islamic community that the extremists are not being dealt with and I do not understand why? Maybe I am just not seeing it as my perception is limited to the media? Everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but to not publicly refute the extremist position does a disservice to the moderate position. I do not see this disagreement between the radicals/moderates/liberal Muslims as taking front and center stage. What people perceive as "True Islam" needs to change in order for peace to become a reality. It is something of a challenge to members of all religions that claim they want peace between all faiths.

This perception can only come if Muslims actively work to make it happen. Like cnorman18 stated, the only people who can define Muslims are Muslims. I am in need of someone to provide me with a better definition than what is being portrayed in the media. It is a disservice to the religion to allow radicalism to continue to create that definition for the world.


Cliff Notes: I wish more moderate views like those quoted by cnorman18 were more prevalent in society so that my perception can change.

[Woland]

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.

Unsubstantiated opinions =! evidence.

The religious texts of Islam openly call for bigotry, hatred and intolerance, but most importantly, untold numbers of Muslims and their scholars from mainstream denominations agree that, as written in the Quran, the Quran is the literal word of God, dictated by Allah "as is", and justify (and have always justified) all sorts of atrocities and iniquities on this basis.

Please explain to me how it would be possible for Muslims to reform Islam without blatantly contradicting basic principles of the Islamic faith, and substantiate your claim that the majority of Muslims value tolerance and respect and that these have anything to do with Islam.

Cherrypicking isn't as easy in Islam as it is in Christianity.

Just for starters, I would venture to state my opinion that it is likely that the immense majority of self-proclaimed Muslims believe in an eternal Hell of divinely sanctioned torment (what with the endless threats of eternal torture in the Quran). That's already extreme enough for me, but we needn't stop there.

There is dialogue and discussion and respect, and there is obdurate and obstinate rejection of the same; and the latter is not worth my time to oppose.

Then I ask you to substantiate your claims or retract them.

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? Are you the only non-Muslim who has a right to define Islam? Or do you think that cherrypicking a few moderate Muslims and posting their unsubstantiated opinions counts as defining Islam, as long as their opinions are in line with yours?

Let's look at what mainstream schools of Islamic thought recommend today for apostates, homosexuals, "adulterers", "fornicators", thieves and blasphemers, won't we? What, do you mean to tell me that only you and the well-meaning "moderate Muslims" are correct about the Islamic faith?

What about the endless hordes of Muslims who define their faith as an intolerant, cruel, violent supremacist ideology?

I have every right to comment on Islam as it is practiced and preached worldwide (and indeed, defined by Muslims themselves), and I absolutely reject your notion that only Muslims have the right or are qualified to define their faith. The reality of their faith defines it, not individual "moderates".

-Woland

[EduChris]

...the problems start with the a priori assumption that any and all Muslims are likely to be lying hypocrites...

For me, a Muslim is likely to be a lying hypocrite to the extent that he (or she) understands and accepts the example and teaching of Mohammad.

Many many Muslims are unaware of the Islamic historical records, and simply ascribe some ideal status to Mohammad. In these cases, there is no need to presume apriori deceit or hypocrisy (but the presumption of ignorance would still be valid).

The only honest and (highly) educated Muslim I've encountered was willing to admit that Mohammad was an extraordinary case who lived in extraordinary circumstances and therefore he engaged in practices and behaviors that are unacceptable today under any circumstances. She also acknowledged that Mohammad "wrote better than he knew" and "better than he was able to put into practice." In short, she acknowledged Mohammad's personal shortcomings and strove to reach for the best ideals expressed in the Qur'an, while allowing the worst ideals therein to serve as a constant warning against the presumption that any of us can ever be completely free from a mixture of error, self-deception, and hypocrisy.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

In the interests of accuracy I’d like to point out Bernard Lewis is not a muslim.

[cnorman18]

(my first post... be kind)

Welcome to the forum. We can get feisty here, but overall it's a pretty welcoming bunch.

I appreciate your remarks; let me highlight just a few...

The quotes provided by cnorman18 shed an interesting light on the perception people have of Islam vs. the reality that is Islam. All religions have matured over the years. Radicals however will continue to cling to the extremes. In my opinion it is the responsibility of the members of a religion to speak out against their own radicalism and defeat it....

...I am more a believer in "police your own". But I get a sense from the Islamic community that the extremists are not being dealt with and I do not understand why? Maybe I am just not seeing it as my perception is limited to the media? Everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but to not publicly refute the extremist position does a disservice to the moderate position. I do not see this disagreement between the radicals/moderates/liberal Muslims as taking front and center stage.

This perception can only come if Muslims actively work to make it happen. Like cnorman18 stated, the only people who can define Muslims are Muslims. I am in need of someone to provide me with a better definition than what is being portrayed in the media. It is a disservice to the religion to allow radicalism to continue to create that definition for the world.

I would point out that I have posted precisely the kind of thing you are talking about, a couple of posts back.

There is plenty of this sort of self-criticism out there, but just as the media in Islamic nations highlight anti-Muslim extremism in the West - Terry Jones with his mass following of fifty (50) congregants will do as an example - so does the Western media highlight Muslim extremism. It's not hard to figure out why; conflict and outrage sell papers. Peacemaking, dialogue and moderation are boring. Easier to confirm and support bigotry and tell people what they want to hear -- and make some money.

Cliff Notes: I wish more moderate views like those quoted by cnorman18 were more prevalent in society so that my perception can change.

False modesty aside -- so do I.

[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.

Unsubstantiated opinions =! evidence.

Fine. Substantiate yours.

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

So do those of Christianity and Judaism.

... but most importantly, untold numbers of Muslims and their scholars from mainstream denominations agree that, as written in the Quran, the Quran is the literal word of God, dictated by Allah "as is", and justify (and have always justified) all sorts of atrocities and iniquities on this basis.

So do untold numbers of Christians and Jews when speaking of the Bible.

Please explain to me how it would be possible for Muslims to reform Islam without blatantly contradicting basic principles of the Islamic faith, and substantiate your claim that the majority of Muslims value tolerance and respect and that these have anything to do with Islam.

Substantiate your claim that the majority do not.

Cherrypicking isn't as easy in Islam as it is in Christianity.

LOL! You must be used to posting on a different forum.

Just for starters, I would venture to state my opinion that it is likely that the immense majority of self-proclaimed Muslims believe in an eternal Hell of divinely sanctioned torment (what with the endless threats of eternal torture in the Quran). That's already extreme enough for me, but we needn't stop there.

Fundamentalist Christianity does precisely the same.

There is dialogue and discussion and respect, and there is obdurate and obstinate rejection of the same; and the latter is not worth my time to oppose.

Then I ask you to substantiate your claims or retract them.

Back atcha, dude. Let's see your proof that the MAJORITY of Muslims worldwide are the kind of extremists you claim. I've posted extensive quotes from moderate Muslims on this very thread, and I could post a couple of hundred more links if you want to see them -- and you know that that is absolutely true. NO ONE is more concerned about the influx of extremism in Islam in recent decades than Muslims themselves, and there are few, if any, more widely debated topics in the Muslim community -- except perhaps the influx of anti-Muslim bigotry in the West, with obvious examples ready at hand.

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. My position is that assuming that all (or most) Muslims are conscious deceivers and hypocrites, intent on dominating the world and imposing Sharia law on everyone, is a matter of prejudice rather than evidence, and that there are many, probably most, Muslims who approach their faith in an entirely different manner, as the writers whose words I have posted are saying. Feel free to prove otherwise. That may be true of Wahhabi Islam and other fundamentalist varieties, but if someone wants to tell me that Terry Jones represents all Christians, I'd like to see proof of that.

Where's yours?

And for the record: Material from anti-Islamic websites like religionofpeace.org and the like don't impress me much. They remind me of JewWatch.com, and their credibility is zero.

Are you the only non-Muslim who has a right to define Islam? Or do you think that cherrypicking a few moderate Muslims and posting their unsubstantiated opinions counts as defining Islam, as long as their opinions are in line with yours?

Prove that there are so few moderate Muslims that posting their remarks constitutes "cherrypicking." All I did was Google "moderate Islam." Discounting the dozens of sites that say that there is no such thing, there are a few hundred thousand hits there. That there IS such a thing seems inarguable.

And then show me how a Muslim's opinion on the nature of his own faith can be "unsubstantiated." 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?

Let's look at what mainstream schools of Islamic thought recommend today for apostates, homosexuals, "adulterers", "fornicators", thieves and blasphemers, won't we?

Prove that those schools of thought are universally regarded as "mainstream" by all Muslims.

What, do you mean to tell me that only you and the well-meaning "moderate Muslims" are correct about the Islamic faith?

And you mean to tell me that only the fundamentalists are?

What about the endless hordes of Muslims who define their faith as an intolerant, cruel, violent supremacist ideology?

Document "endless hordes," please. Prove that they outnumber the millions of ordinary, inoffensive Muslims worldwide who don't so define it. Can't wait to see your statistics from unbiased and unimpeachable sources.

I have every right to comment on Islam as it is practiced and preached worldwide (and indeed, defined by Muslims themselves), and I absolutely reject your notion that only Muslims have the right or are qualified to define their faith. The reality of their faith defines it, not individual "moderates".

-Woland

And YOU get to define "the reality of their faith"?

Sorry, I'm not at all impressed. I've seen PRECISELY this kind of invective directed at Jews, and it wasn't any more documented, evidenced, or proven than yours.

So tell us: Do you deny the existence of moderate Muslims, or do you just declare that they have no right to hold the beliefs that they do and still consider themselves Muslims?

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?

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

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?

[cnorman18]

In the interests of accuracy I’d like to point out Bernard Lewis is not a muslim.

Fair enough; there were other non-Muslims on that symposium as well, but the others whose remarks I posted were indeed followers of Islam.

I think, considering what Lewis said, that his remarks might be even more worth considering; they certainly can't be dismissed as those of a lying Muslim, or as self-serving.

[cnorman18]

...the problems start with the a priori assumption that any and all Muslims are likely to be lying hypocrites...

For me, a Muslim is likely to be a lying hypocrite to the extent that he (or she) understands and accepts the example and teaching of Mohammad.

Many many Muslims are unaware of the Islamic historical records, and simply ascribe some ideal status to Mohammad. In these cases, there is no need to presume apriori deceit or hypocrisy (but the presumption of ignorance would still be valid).

The only honest and (highly) educated Muslim I've encountered was willing to admit that Mohammad was an extraordinary case who lived in extraordinary circumstances and therefore he engaged in practices and behaviors that are unacceptable today under any circumstances. She also acknowledged that Mohammad "wrote better than he knew" and "better than he was able to put into practice." In short, she acknowledged Mohammad's personal shortcomings and strove to reach for the best ideals expressed in the Qur'an, while allowing the worst ideals therein to serve as a constant warning against the presumption that any of us can ever be completely free from a mixture of error, self-deception, and hypocrisy.

Sorry. I think saying that "Most Muslims lie" or even "Many Muslims lie" is less offensive than just "Muslims lie" only by an insignificant degree.

Do you think the Muslims whose words I posted above are lying?

If not -- what, if any, response do you have to what they have to say?

"More Muslims should speak out."

What do you think they're DOING?

Some of the members here seem to be comfortable with just condemning and writing off Islam in its entirety as wholly evil. That, of course, is precisely what Muslim extremists are telling their own people that we in the West are doing, in order to gain followers for the kind of Islam that IS worthy of condemnation.

If those apparently bigoted members were secretly Wahhabi provocateurs intent on boosting membership in Al Qaeda and destroying any goodwill that any Muslim might have for Western culture, they would not be posting anything different. Food for thought, in my opinion. Not that they might actually BE such -- but that they might examine the consequences of their outspoken opinions.

I wouldn't deny that Islam is undoubtedly the religion which is most prone to violence, repression, injustice, etc., etc., in the present day; but the idea that there is simply no significant opposition to that trend in the Islamic community, or that that opposition can be dismissed as insignificant or unworthy of notice, is the very definition of "counterproductive and self-defeating."

If talking with one's opponents isn't an option -- what's left?

Bombs and guns come to mind. Does anyone here advocate open war with Islam? That's what the Muslim extremists are claiming is going on NOW. Why would anyone want to VALIDATE that claim?

[EduChris]

...If talking with one's opponents isn't an option -- what's left?...

I do want to dialog with Muslims. But at the same time, one should go into the discussion with some awareness.

And I'd like true dialog--not just boorish and repetitious Islamic propaganda. So far the only time this has been possible for me is with the Muslim woman who was willing to admit that the Qur'an has its own set of problems and that Mohammad does not represent an ideal standard of behavior for people today.