Is "mainstream"/"moderate" Islam a problem?

[FeatherFall]

Should we call them peaceful Muslims? Muslim Reformists? I'd say Muslims Against Sharia, but that name is already taken. I suppose "moderates" will work, but I'll still have to go through the definition process every time I speak with someone new. Boo!

[volco]

There was a time when religion was almost wiped out in the West during The Enlightenment, but along came Kant and violated that standard of reason.

WHAT? When was religion wiped out - before - Kant? No. Religion prospered, specially with their mass proselytizing activities, during those centuries. Yes, rational thinking was revived and thrived, but it so continued thriving. The point is when how and where do you think religion was wiped out in a greater extent that it was during the XXc?

anyway...

If I had to answer bluntly, then YES moderate islam is indeed the greatest problem of Islam. Fundies are just the spearhead, but the real power consists of their sheer demographics and "common conscience", or Umah.

Some people even reject the notion of a moderate Islam mainly because this is not just a religion, it's a social system. A very advanced one I might add, since it benefits a lot from spontaneous organization. They are being able to act in an apparently disorganized manner but relentlessley advancing their cause, with their snatch holy book as a common point.

When some talk about the muslim neighbors LIVING IN AMERICA, that's a radically different form of "muslims". They live and work and lead honest lives within the Great Satan, thus sanctioning it. Unlike their Old World brothers, the only risk they represent is their charities which quiet literally fuel the rockets that are now exploding in Ashqelon.

But the millions of muslims in Europe, as moderate as they may define themselves, are the greatest risk. Evil can gain everything from the good, and needs to in order to prosper. Let's remember 9 11 was partiayl planned in Germany. But that's not the point, which is: Democracy, and moderate muslims reproducing like rabbits, are a literal time bomb.

u

Enoch Powell was not wrong when he, like the Roman, saw the river Tiber foaming with much blood. He was wrong indeed in puting all inmigrants in the same bag. It is not race, but religion the danger.

How to deal with it? The only answer is the celebration of apostasy. The practical way to do it is as a muslim women and children liberation movement. But if we as as the Western Civilization condone the ongoing abuse of its citizens under the religious freedom umbrella we are making a mockery of our most valued asset: our rule of law - the explicit form of a nation's moral code.

Sharia Courts in Britain for example, are the sad example. Could anyone think that those could have been established solely by fundamentalists, without the tacit and active support of -moderate- muslim majority districts?

If America continues its policy of zero tolerance towards intolerance, it wont be long before it'd be a heressy if not a taboo to speak against the implementing of those courts in the states.

But my view is not that grim. We are living now a generatithon of muslim youth in great numbers. These are the reformers. First they take the form of radicalism, then they will -allah willing- move towards apostasy, or towards a bastardized pragmatic, moderate form of islam. I don't know if that reformed islam will come, but certainly it does not exist today.

"Moderate" muslims are just muslims who compromise more than others. Like a functional alcoholic.

[Mammon]

Here's some food for thought.

Do you know which country in the world has the most Muslim inhabitants? Answer: India! Yet, with the exception of the recent attacks in Mumbai, there aren't suicide bombers, beheadings and the assassinations like in the Middle East. Why is that? Well, I'd say it was because of the culture of India, which is more tolerant, homogeneous and focused on mutual corroboration then the culture of the Middle East, which in more rural primitive areas is focused on pitting yourself against others who aren't like you and being totally inclusive.

In short, culture matters. Some cultures produce more scum then others.

[volco]

I think the country with most muslims is Indonesia, or the majority one, anyway those are "relaxed" versions of Islam - but of course the (many) bombay bombings, Bali bombings and Indonesian mass muslim rallies null this point.

What's true is that Islam hides Arab nationalism. Mohamed was an arab, the holy place where all able muslims must peregrinate is in the Arab heartland.

But in any case it's not that easy either.

My previous post's point was that moderate islam is specially dangerous in Europe, for a combination of factors we all know too well: EU policies, inmigrant's disenchantment, a welfare state to suckle, and civic codes that represent guilt and fear of nazism and racism more than the rights of man.

Let's get this very clear. Since many, perhaps I don't know, most muslims of a given region are living their lives peacefully and completely disregarding their duty of jihad, then I can't condemn all muslims. The individual has primacy.

But we must discriminate the ideological issue of "moderate" islam, which we should condemn, from the actual individuals defining themselves as moderate, or just non-jihadist. In the latter case the only thing we should do is discourage their charities by showing a little truth about where that money goes.

[volco]

On the whole phenomenon of Islam and Anti-Americanism, I'd like to add the footnote I always add:

The last hundreads of years have been quiet singular with one civilization expanding itself throughout the whole world. The last decolonization, Africa and Asia is pretty recent. They have not had time to regroup. It was/is time for revenge against European Imperialism (which was a good thing) and its most succesful case: the United States. Initially they took on the ideological war and sided with the Soviet Union. This made a lot more sense since in effect the most divise barrier between the decolonized countries and Europe was indeed CLASS, and stages of industrial development. Socialism failed. Now they would need a really powerful and arbitrary ideology to still claim moral superiority. Ideology wouldn't cut it, they needed divine intervention - and since Arab imperialism and oppresion had been long forgotten and dwarfed by European might, they thought Islam was their indigenous soul and essence.

What I'm saying is that it is not Islam the basis of the problem but The Third World seeking revenge or payment, which in turns uses Islam for that unspokeny but blatantly obvious cause. If we see the connection of non-muslim Chavez with Iran, and Hezbollah we can understand this phenomenon as a Third World Rising - by force and fraud.

Countries like India, Brazil, or even Malaysia are the other, more positive face of the decolonized countries.

[AndrewRyan]

To be honest, all religions and cults are my enemy, and should be the enemy of every objectivist on this forum. Do I believe they are evil? Yes I do. Do I think all religious people should be wiped out? No I don't. As evil as any religion may be, their followers do not deserve to be wiped out, short of a retaliation against the individuals commiting crimes.

tl;dr version: Religion is evil but only the extremists commiting the crimes should be punished.

[The Wrath]

I think the country with most muslims is Indonesia, or the majority one, anyway those are "relaxed" versions of Islam - but of course the (many) bombay bombings, Bali bombings and Indonesian mass muslim rallies null this point.

Indonesia is the world's largest country with a Muslim majority. I didn't know that India had the highest population of Muslims, but it wouldn't surprise me, since India has over a billion people.

What's true is that Islam hides Arab nationalism. Mohamed was an arab, the holy place where all able muslims must peregrinate is in the Arab heartland.

This is a point I had made in the other thread. Arab nationalists like to use Islamic fundamentalism towards their own ends.

To be honest, all religions and cults are my enemy, and should be the enemy of every objectivist on this forum. Do I believe they are evil? Yes I do. Do I think all religious people should be wiped out? No I don't. As evil as any religion may be, their followers do not deserve to be wiped out, short of a retaliation against the individuals commiting crimes.

tl;dr version: Religion is evil but only the extremists commiting the crimes should be punished.

If you're saying (and I think you are) that religion is evil, then I agree. If you're saying (and I don't think you are) that all religious people are evil, then I strongly disagree.

[volco]

Well of course religious people, nor nazi party members carpenters were, pressumably, no better or worse than the regular secular joe next door, it's up to each individual. That which is outside choice can't be deemed neither moral nor inmoral. The millions of muslims who never commited a crime on their own, don't deserve to be "wiped out" -for the love of life!- just as many families in Nagasaki didn't deserve to be incinerated.

The problem of Islam, of which moderate Islam is at its base, is twofold: it represents a proven risk for us dhimis, and a greater one for their followers.

To what degree the muslims would adopt the sin and crime of apostasy is uncertain, but for those who remain muslims, as moderate as they even wish to be, one of the holy tenants is to give charity to other muslims, therefore inflicting damage.

Even so, they don't deserve to be destroyed, in the same manner that American taxpayers shouldn't be punished for giving ammunition money to African "Presidents".

Then how is the murdering of innocents justified, like it certainly was in Nagasaki, and I contend today in Gaza?

When the other option is much worse.

At this point I shrug and will look at the "How to determine the truth without being an expert" - a military intelligence expert I should add.

What I do have somewhat clear is that this is not war that can be "won". It's the new state of affairs. Whewn islam is passé it will be another things, or more likely, multiple things. Terrorism is here to stay, unless we want a Big Brother World Gov.

I think the solution lies in the right and exercise of privacy for security measures - a contractual society with more individual responsability. It is obvious Representation doesn't work.

[AndrewRyan]

If you're saying (and I think you are) that religion is evil, then I agree. If you're saying (and I don't think you are) that all religious people are evil, then I strongly disagree.

correct

[FeatherFall]

correct

This answer confused me. It's kind of like answering "yes" to "are you staying or leaving?"

Then how is the murdering of innocents justified, like it certainly was in Nagasaki, and I contend today in Gaza?

When the other option is much worse.

Murder is never justified.

[AndrewRyan]

This answer confused me. It's kind of like answering "yes" to "are you staying or leaving?"

Murder is never justified.

I meant correct on the first assumption, that I believe religion to be evil. As for murder it depends on what you mean. Premeditated murder or murder in passion is never correct. However murder used as self-defense is just. Retaliatory murder (capital punishment) would be just IF we lived under objective law and IF the jury could know 100% as to a persons guilt.

[The Wrath]

I think most people would debate whether or not "murder" is an appropriate word for self-defense.

[AndrewRyan]

I think most people would debate whether or not "murder" is an appropriate word for self-defense.

Which is why I said "it depends." I do not believe murder and self defense are the same thing. I do know however, several people that believe killing is murder regardless of the circumstance.

[Maximus]

Then how is the murdering of innocents justified, like it certainly was in Nagasaki, and I contend today in Gaza?

They are not "innocents." They are enabalers, allowing the radicals to dwell among them, sheltering them, and, by that complicancy, have enabled acts of terror to be carried out in thier name. That makes them just as guilty as the terrorist who fires rockets at children.

What I do have somewhat clear is that this is not war that can be "won". It's the new state of affairs. Whewn islam is passé it will be another things, or more likely, multiple things. Terrorism is here to stay, unless we want a Big Brother World Gov.

I think the solution lies in the right and exercise of privacy for security measures - a contractual society with more individual responsability. It is obvious Representation doesn't work.

The solution is that the enabalers must be made to suffer to the point that they decide to stop supporting the radicals. When thier own turn against them, they will have no where to turn.

As to the second point above that will only work with an educated populace, rather than an indoctronated one. Unfortunatly, we are not at that point yet.

[The Wrath]

They are not "innocents." They are enabalers, allowing the radicals to dwell among them, sheltering them, and, by that complicancy, have enabled acts of terror to be carried out in thier name. That makes them just as guilty as the terrorist who fires rockets at children.

The number of people on this board who make this argument is shocking. You are seriously arguing that there are no innocents in evil countries? You say this as though every single person in Gaza makes a conscious decision to support Hamas. And, with respect to "allowing the radicals to dwell among them"...would you have them sacrifice their own lives by fighting back? Some people might choose to do so, but that's not a choice that you can make for someone else. No one has the responsibility to fight against people who will probably wind up killing him.

[Jake_Ellison]

The number of people on this board who make this argument is shocking.

You are implying that these people are somehow flawed. Why else would you describe becoming aware of them shocking? That sounds to me like ad hominem again.

No one has the responsibility to fight against people who will probably wind up killing him.

We Objectivists believe that everyone has the responsibility to fight for his own freedom, even if that might kill him.

[AndrewRyan]

The number of people on this board who make this argument is shocking. You are seriously arguing that there are no innocents in evil countries? You say this as though every single person in Gaza makes a conscious decision to support Hamas. And, with respect to "allowing the radicals to dwell among them"...would you have them sacrifice their own lives by fighting back? Some people might choose to do so, but that's not a choice that you can make for someone else. No one has the responsibility to fight against people who will probably wind up killing him.

We could say since these people do not respect their right to life, or other's right to life they themselves have no right to live. A defense of your rights is never a "sacrifice." Arguing that a person doesn't have a responsibility to defend their life is making the argument that people are not responsible for the their rights or the choices they make.

Edited January 4, 2009 by AndrewRyan

[Maximus]

The number of people on this board who make this argument is shocking. You are seriously arguing that there are no innocents in evil countries? You say this as though every single person in Gaza makes a conscious decision to support Hamas. And, with respect to "allowing the radicals to dwell among them"...would you have them sacrifice their own lives by fighting back? Some people might choose to do so, but that's not a choice that you can make for someone else. No one has the responsibility to fight against people who will probably wind up killing him.

The only innocents may be children who are not of the age of majority. Otherwise, the civilian population is part and parcel of the problem. And, yes, it is thier responsibility to fight back, even if they may lose thier lives, against tyranny. De Opresso Liber.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Maximus

[Speedy]

The only innocents may be children who are not of the age of majority. Otherwise, the civilian population is part and parcel of the problem. And, yes, it is thier responsibility to fight back, even if they may lose thier lives, against tyranny. De Opresso Liber.

So would you be part and parcel of any problem caused by the US government? Whilst I'll accept the "average" citizen is often to blame, there may be a large minority who are not, and who should certainly not be killed for the misfortune of living next to some monsters. Yes they may end up killed as collateral damage and the blame will be with whoever the war was actauly against, but they do not deserve to be killed

[The Wrath]

We could say since these people do not respect their right to life, or other's right to life they themselves have no right to live. A defense of your rights is never a "sacrifice." Arguing that a person doesn't have a responsibility to defend their life is making the argument that people are not responsible for the their rights or the choices they make.

The only way you are qualified to make this argument is if you are willing to rebel against your own government. Your government (whatever country you happen to live in) violates your rights, in some way or another. The reason you don't try to overthrow your government, I suspect, is that you know that you have virtually no chance of success and will either die trying or wind up in prison for a very long time. You make the choice that you would rather continue living than to die in what is probably a futile attempt at overthrowing a government that violates your rights. The only difference between your situation and the situation of someone in Gaza is one of scale. Hamas is obviously far more repressive than our own government, but that doesn't mean the people can't be faced with a similar choice.

Now, this says nothing about the rights of Israel to defend itself. If innocents die in the course of Israel defending itself then, well, that sucks. I think the innocents should be willing to accept that risk. But it's their choice.

The only innocents may be children who are not of the age of majority. Otherwise, the civilian population is part and parcel of the problem. And, yes, it is thier responsibility to fight back, even if they may lose thier lives, against tyranny. De Opresso Liber.

And why is it their responsibility? Under what moral system is it someone's responsibility to give up his own life and whatever happiness he has (which may be very little, but a little happiness is still better than death), in service of a cause? Certainly not Objectivism.

[Maximus]

So would you be part and parcel of any problem caused by the US government? Whilst I'll accept the "average" citizen is often to blame, there may be a large minority who are not, and who should certainly not be killed for the misfortune of living next to some monsters. Yes they may end up killed as collateral damage and the blame will be with whoever the war was actauly against, but they do not deserve to be killed

They have the option to get out of the way. And I do not see where the US is sponsoring terrorism. There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage caused by proximity to a military target. An army can not be held in check for fear of causing civilian deaths if the enemy is using the civilian population as shields. This is a tactic they are counting on to ensure thier safety because they think that Western nations will not attack a target for fear of hitting civilians, hence, the use of Mosques, hospitals, and schools as ammo dumps and weapons depots.

[The Wrath]

By the way, the topic of innocents in war has been thoroughly discussed in the "why we should nuke Tehran thread."

[The Wrath]

They have the option to get out of the way. And I do not see where the US is sponsoring terrorism. There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage caused by proximity to a military target. An army can not be held in check for fear of causing civilian deaths if the enemy is using the civilian population as shields. This is a tactic they are counting on to ensure thier safety because they think that Western nations will not attack a target for fear of hitting civilians, hence, the use of Mosques, hospitals, and schools as ammo dumps and weapons depots.

Um...I actually agree with everything that you said here. What I'm saying is that there are actually innocents. Whether or not it is moral to kill them as collateral damage is another question, and I completely agree with your take on it.

What I'm saying is that if there's some convenience store owner in Gaza who does not support Hamas--but who also doesn't want to die fighting them--then that person is innocent.

[KurtColville]

Um...I actually agree with everything that you said here. What I'm saying is that there are actually innocents. Whether or not it is moral to kill them as collateral damage is another question, and I completely agree with your take on it.

What I'm saying is that if there's some convenience store owner in Gaza who does not support Hamas--but who also doesn't want to die fighting them--then that person is innocent.

You keep arguing this point over and over again. It's true -- there are innocent Gazans. Ditto Iranians. So what? Why is this fact relevant to the discussion of Israel's defense against Hamas or our defense against Iran?

[Mammon]

You keep arguing this point over and over again. It's true -- there are innocent Gazans. Ditto Iranians. So what? Why is this fact relevant to the discussion of Israel's defense against Hamas or our defense against Iran?

If they treat innocents the same, wherever their borders fell, does it make them any different?

We Objectivists believe that everyone has the responsibility to fight for his own freedom, even if that might kill him.

What have you done to fight for your freedom today?