An Open Letter to Moderate Muslims

[VCheng]

He's right to worry and he raised some excellent points. But there's a lot that he said that I don't agree with and many KEY issues he has simply left out, not just of the article but also left out of his thinking, and I can tell so by reading through it.

What did the author say that you do not agree with, Sir? What did he leave out in your view?

 

[Luffy 500]

Btw why are anti-islamic threads allowed. I thought religious discussions are banned on PDF?
@Horus @Chak Bamu @Jungibaazhttps://defence.pk/members/chak-bamu.144288/

 

[TankMan]

The author gives some good points but he just screws it up by saying "we need to 'reform' the Quran". I disagree completely. If you read the Quran, it is very modern and liberal enough. Let me prove my point by summarising some of the main points used against Islam (or in this case, the Quran) and debunking them.

-Beheadings are encouraged in Islam.
No, they aren't. The verse that this article quoted and linked to was about a freaking WAR. The verse basically says "when you're fighting a war, try to kill your enemies(by striking their head/neck)". It doesn't say "cut the heads off innocents". If you don't believe me,click the link from the article (to quran.com) and click on the little "more context". You will clearly see that it is about war.The chapter is even titled "The Spoils of War"

The Quran doesn't prescribe anything of the sorts. Cutting off hands for major theft is there, however. The Islamic state under Muhammad (and the following caliphs) was a welfare state. Therefore, any thief was a greedy criminal who can't justify his crime with "desperation". Cutting off the hand might be a too harsh punishment in the eyes of some, not in the others. It is worth noting that the form of language used in this indicates a possibility of it being metaphorical (as in: restraining or preventing one from theft, similar to jail). Whatever interpretation you chose, the Quran also has a proper ruling of proportionate punishment. So you can't just go around cutting someone's hands if he steals an apple from a fruit stall.
This gives a pretty good explanation of the point I am trying to make: Misconception: Islam and The Quran orders hands to be cut offfor theft
Common Misconceptions About Islam, Muslims and The Quran
This website in general is very good.

I admit that there are problems with Muslims and Islam. The thing is that some people are too close minded to consider the fact that Islam is flexible enough to allow the world to advance. In fact, some mullahs and maulvis (and their followers) say that because something is not in the Quran or Islam, it is illegal. Their stupidity is what made the Muslims lag behind in technology, for example the printing press was opposed by some idiotic "scholars". That stupidity needs to change, not the Quran.

 

[Luffy 500]

Well, as much as the Pope opposes birth control, abortion and premarital sex, most Catholics today are openly pro-choice, practice birth control, and fornicate to their hearts' content.

That's the crux of it all for these anti-islam bigots. They want to screw the whole society just because they have a crooked up filthy mentality . We r seeing what this pro-choice has done to Europe. Soon incest may very well be legalized in Germany. I guess these bigots become frustrated every time they see muslims not following these satanic pro-choice practices in the name of "freedom".

And it must start by dissociating Islamic identity from Muslim identity -- by coming together on a sense of community, not ideology.

This is another gem . Its like saying dissociating engineering from an engineer.

 

[livingdead]

The author gives some good points but he just screws it up by saying "we need to 'reform' the Quran". I disagree completely. If you read the Quran, it is very modern and liberal enough. Let me prove my point by summarising some of the main points used against Islam (or in this case, the Quran) and debunking them.

-Beheadings are encouraged in Islam.
No, they aren't. The verse that this article quoted and linked to was about a freaking WAR. The verse basically says "when you're fighting a war, try to kill your enemies(by striking their head/neck)". It doesn't say "cut the heads off innocents". If you don't believe me,click the link from the article (to quran.com) and click on the little "more context". You will clearly see that it is about war.The chapter is even titled "The Spoils of War"

The Quran doesn't prescribe anything of the sorts. Cutting off hands for major theft is there, however. The Islamic state under Muhammad (and the following caliphs) was a welfare state. Therefore, any thief was a greedy criminal who can't justify his crime with "desperation". Cutting off the hand might be a too harsh punishment in the eyes of some, not in the others. It is worth noting that the form of language used in this indicates a possibility of it being metaphorical (as in: restraining or preventing one from theft, similar to jail). Whatever interpretation you chose, the Quran also has a proper ruling of proportionate punishment. So you can't just go around cutting someone's hands if he steals an apple from a fruit stall.
This gives a pretty good explanation of the point I am trying to make: Misconception: Islam and The Quran orders hands to be cut offfor theft
Common Misconceptions About Islam, Muslims and The Quran
This website in general is very good.

I admit that there are problems with Muslims and Islam. The thing is that some people are too close minded to consider the fact that Islam is flexible enough to allow the world to advance. In fact, some mullahs and maulvis (and their followers) say that because something is not in the Quran or Islam, it is illegal. Their stupidity is what made the Muslims lag behind in technology, for example the printing press was opposed by some idiotic "scholars". That stupidity needs to change, not the Quran.

what you are suggesting is, contexualizing and reinterpreting quran and hadith and not change it. I understand why you would say that, because its god's word, and you cant improve upon god's words.
I agree, it is possible to do, majority of muslims already do it at personal level. Majority of muslims reconcile their inherently peaceful nature and the local laws/cultural practice by reinterpreting the verses.

However how do you counter the narrative of literalists who want to say.. 'this is what was written and this is what is right. Dont use your brain and reinterpret because if god wanted to use your own intelligence, he would not give a book with such clear dos and donts.'
If there is no one right islam, and its all open to interpretation, how would you know whether ISIS version is right or yours...
Also are you saying islamic scholars who have consensus on many verses, are potentially wrong?

 

[A.Rafay]

To the point article. There are no moderate Muslims, there are just Radicals who do exactly what Quran says, kill infidels wherever you see them. Then there are those semi-Radicals who just call themselves "moderates" by condemning such actions and saying Quran is being misinterpreted and quoted out of context when actually thats not the case and are quick to label anyone "Islamophobe" who questions them.

 

[DesiGuy]

To the point article. There are no moderate Muslims, there are just Radicals who do exactly what Quran says, kill infidels wherever you see them. Then there are those semi-Radicals who just call themselves "moderates" by condemning such actions and saying Quran is being misinterpreted and quoted out of context when actually thats not the case and are quick to label anyone "Islamophobe" who questions them.

did you account got hacked or something?

 

[TankMan]

what you are suggesting is, contexualizing and reinterpreting quran and hadith and not change it. I understand why you would say that, because its god's word, and you cant improve upon god's words.
I agree, it is possible to do, majority of muslims already do it at personal level. Majority of muslims reconcile their inherently peaceful nature and the local laws/cultural practice by reinterpreting the verses.

However how do you counter the narrative of literalists who want to say.. 'this is what was written and this is what is right. Dont use your brain and reinterpret because if god wanted to use your own intelligence, he would not give a book with such clear dos and donts.'
If there is no one right islam, and its all open to interpretation, how would you know whether ISIS version is right or yours...
Also are you saying islamic scholars who have consensus on many verses, are potentially wrong?

This is a good post, , well said. I will try to answer you, please forgive my long posts but this is a long and complex issue.

what you are suggesting is, contexualizing and reinterpreting quran and hadith and not change it.

Yes, to some extent I am. There are some verses of the Quran in which certain important points can be "lost in translation". For example, there are many figures of speech in English that would mean something else entirely if translated in another language. That's why humans need to use their brains a little and not blindly follow mullahs.

However how do you counter the narrative of literalists who want to say.. 'this is what was written and this is what is right. Dont use your brain and reinterpret because if god wanted to use your own intelligence, he would not give a book with such clear dos and donts.'

Islam doesn't tell humans to turn of their brain. God gave us a brain to use it to understand his instructions, improve ourselves and improve society. The way I would counter them is by telling them to read the Quran and tell me which parts of it are as specific and strict as they say they are. I doubt they would be able to do so on most of the social issues that are a problem nowadays.
What the "scholars" like to do is not care about the fact that the Quran can have so many personal interpretations. The Quran was meant to be interpreted on a personal level, based on one's capabilities and condition.

For example, the Quran has made it clear that modesty and decency is required for Muslim women. However, it gives a lot of flexibility(in the sense that it doesn't specifically prescribe the type of modesty required). A women working as a nurse, for example, can be modest and decent without wearing a long burka and covering her face, as it would be impractical to do so. She would prefer to wear a small cap or scarf to cover her hair. On the other hand, a housewife may prefer to wear a full niqab. Both of these are acceptable in Islam.

Another example can be that of Jihad, it is required but there are many forms of Jihad. Some people may join rescue efforts or aid organizations or their country's Army for the purpose of Jihad while others would prefer giving donations or lectures and talks. Both are acceptable and both are Jihad.

The problem arises when one sect or group start saying: "what we're doing is right, what you are doing is wrong". The thing is, as long as something is not forbidden in authentic texts of Islam (Quran and Sahih hadith - note that hadith can not contradict the Quran), you can't say it's "UnIslamic" (Like some idiots insist on calling stuff like TV or the internet or printing presses)

If there is no one right islam, and its all open to interpretation, how would you know whether ISIS version is right or yours...

The answer to this is that some things in Islam are perfectly straightforward. For example, do not kill an innocent. That is there and that is straightforward. You can not physically harm someone who has not physically harmed you.

Why are Muslims still divided on that? Why do we still have people like ISIS? The only logical reason is misinformation and manipulation to achieve political goals (or out of sheer stupidity and close-mindedness). That is what I am completely and strictly against. That, along with the maulvis and sects that say they are right and everyone else is wrong(in matters where Islam has not dictated or prescribed specific instructions), are what have made the Islamic world what it is today.

 

[the just]

What I don't understand is, as a Muslim why do I/anyone have to/should give any kind of explanation about Islam or our faith? Do we go around asking Christian, Hindu,Buddhist, Jews why they believe in their own religion? Do we question about their faith?do we ask them,how do they know that their faith is true to its form?
Then why all these people are curious about Islam.No, why all these people are curious about finding fault in Islam as a religion? Are we asking them to revert enmass ?or are they scared shit because, despite anti Islamic propaganda, lies,false myths.people all over the world still reverting to Islam on free will.

 

[MilSpec]

Useless article. Disappointment in my opinion.

This article had a great opportunity and topic to say something meaningful. Instead we got this. Some good points here and there, but apart form that, the only thing it contributes is the debate we members are about to have below.

Hi Jungi,

Although I am quoting you but my query is not specifically pointed at you....
All moderate muslims vehemently denounce terrorists and militants with a blanket statement.

But when it comes to the organisations and specifics, each geographical region has their good and bad terrorrists... ISIS is bad but no moderate muslim will on record denounce Hamas or hezbollah...

Same goes for pakistanis and bangladeshis.... Everyone will denounce 26/11 but will not utter a single word against LeT or JeM...

A progressive muslim state like pakistan will denounce terror and at the same time stood mute when bamiyaan buddhas were demolished.... Pakistan made a hue and cry during riots in India, but did not utter a single word against it's ow allies blowing up statues that stood for millenniums, museums ransacked and women treated worse that animals right in it's own backyard.

Even the other day on some thread @Developereo who is a senior member denounced all kind of terror, but when asked specifics started teaching me english instead of saying a word against hamas or hezbollah ....

 

[A.Rafay]

did you account got hacked or something?

Nope. Why do you ask?

 

[TankMan]

Hi Jungi,

Although I am quoting you but my query is not specifically pointed at you....
All moderate muslims vehemently denounce terrorists and militants with a blanket statement.

But when it comes to the organisations and specifics, each geographical region has their good and bad terrorrists... ISIS is bad but no moderate muslim will on record denounce Hamas or hezbollah...

Same goes for pakistanis and bangladeshis.... Everyone will denounce 26/11 but will not utter a single word against LeT or JeM...

A progressive muslim state like pakistan will denounce terror and at the same time stood mute when bamiyaan buddhas were demolished.... Pakistan made a hue and cry during riots in India, but did not utter a single word against it's ow allies blowing up statues that stood for millenniums, museums ransacked and women treated worse that animals right in it's own backyard.

Even the other day on some thread @Developereo who is a senior member denounced all kind of terror, but when asked specifics started teaching me english instead of saying a word against hamas or hezbollah ....

But when it comes to the organisations and specifics, each geographical region has their good and bad terrorrists... ISIS is bad but no moderate muslim will on record denounce Hamas or hezbollah...

I denounce Hezbollah. However, I don't denounce Hamas because Hamas is not a terrorist organization. It is the closest thing the Palestinians have to an Army. The situation in Palestine is not something to be denounced by a blanket statement, it is very complex.

Everyone will denounce 26/11 but will not utter a single word against LeT or JeM...

By denouncing 26/11 we are denouncing those who did it, which means LeT or whoever did it.

A progressive muslim state like pakistan will denounce terror and at the same time stood mute when bamiyaan buddhas were demolished

The Bamiyaan Buddhas were demolished by the Taliban, who we denounce and are currently at war with. I fail to see how that is "stood mute". In my opinion, the statues should have been preserved as historical monuments or covered or something if they didn't want anyone to see them. Accroding to Islam, it would have been perfectly fine to let the statues be since their location was not sacred to Muslims and no one was worshipping them (atleast not when the taliban were in power).

but did not utter a single word against it's ow allies blowing up statues that stood for millenniums, museums ransacked and women treated worse that animals right in it's own backyard.

I condemn museums being ransacked. Most people weren't even aware of the incidents, so I blame the media for not reporting this properly. By the way,the looting of museums and riots which killed people isn't a good comparison. I'm sure Moderate Muslims would condemn riots which kill people.

women treated worse that animals right in it's own backyard.

Firstly, this kind of stuff is usually sensationalist crap. Secondly, I condemn any mistreatment of women since it is in direct violation of Islam's rules and teachings (not to mention common sense and morality) and I'm sure majority of Muslims do too.

 

[KingMamba]

"...about acknowledging problems in the Quran."

There are no problems in Quran, problems are in those who are are not willing to understand what is in Quran. What a ridiculous article; pure bullshit for non-Muslims consumption.

The author is not even a Muslim so his belief that the Quran should not be taken as infallible is basically his way of trying to tell Muslims to become atheist.

 

[Jungibaaz]

What did the author say that you do not agree with, Sir? What did he leave out in your view?

Okay, just to state one little thing before I begin rambling. I think any talk regarding Islamic extremism is incomplete without the politics of it taken into account. But because just thinking about politics gives me a raging headache, no exaggeration there, I get headaches thinking about it.

I don't have time at the moment to give a lengthy reply, but I'll give you some quick, relatively simplistic points, which we could only properly discuss if I clarify further my own point of view.

So I said that this article fails to mention the politics, the origins of Islamic extremism can be traced back to anti-colonialist elements in the Middle East sometime before WWII. These elements dissolved into other Arab nationalist movements in various countries, you have your Saddam types, Gaddafi, your PLO etc etc. Each form had it's own theatre of conflict and region of influence, but these were only the roots of what we see today. What we see today began back in the 80's. All one has to do is look up work, or read work from people such as Robert Frisk, and other intellectuals, people who knew the region to see that they saw it coming. Robert Frisk in particular, a rather chilling few sentences near the end of a documentary he made sometime in the 90's, he warned the West and Muslim countries not to ignore or underestimate the growing anger of some elements in the Middle East and and how resistance across the Muslim world was taking an ugly turn.

What I do agree with is that depoliticizing Islam is a dire need, and we as individuals need to make changes, but the way the author presented it, first he goes way off with his commentary on the recent Reza Aslan vs Bill Maher thing, I suppose it was what inspired him to make this article, but he set the tone with this for the rest of the article.

He has started drawing conclusions from what he knows without fully considering the reasons why extremism exists as it does. Muslims need to change their ways, I've ranted about this in the forum a lot. But taking pot shots at the Qur'an, using as he admitted himself nothing more than the internet and then criticising Muslims who defend the Qur'an using nothing but the internet, I think he doesn't know what he's doing here. I trust Reza Aslan's scholarly work, in fact, I just ordered a book of his on Amazon the other day. He very wrongly took a few pot shots at him.

He starts the article with a little something, a few wrong turns and this article goes from addressing the response of Muslims to taking shots at Islam and the Qur'an, he quotes Maajid Nawaz one place and forgets what the man himself has said in other places.

If the article was rewritten addressing the same points, using the same subtopics, coming from someone who shares similar if not the same views as the author, it could have been handled much better.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well , I think Muslim world needs a centralized government and voice for International Matters

100% of Muslims I know have never even laid a hand on any one in their own community nor other community , and we do not need to hear that we need to adjust our selves and put labels
on what we are to others... (Moderate, Semi Moderate , 40% radicle, 10% religious so on)
Muslims are part of successful stories happening all across globe in companies and communities and these need to be highlighted to shut the bigots up

There are Muslims happily having BBQ and enjoying public gathering with Christians and other communities world wide

If there is civil war in some part of world does not mean rest of world is part of it

And this is why we need a STRONG centralized government for Muslim world

Otherwise , these stories of random groups poping up will continue for next 500-600 years

• Doubting anything in Quran is "Shirk" , one cannot deny the word of Allah

• Its stated very clearly in Islamic scriptures killing is not allowed unless its in act of war to protect Muslims
• Secondly no where does it states killing women children or elderly is allowed
• Self defense is allowed in Islam
• Minorities and Non believers are to be offered protection provided they accept your government and pay taxes (as done in most countries now)

So sorry I don't understand the point of Article 99.9% Muslims are all living happy lives in world
0.01 is engaged in war (civil war) and that was was not started by them its been going on for 35 years
Is the point of the article is SORRY 99.9% Muslims you are living peaceful lives but I will label you Terrorist or Islamist because I helped create the 0.01 % mess that is in state of civil war and you better accept this outcome ? And now you should change your believes

OR accept the label put on you in media ? Media has every right to be sued for branding Islam as the problem.

........

MUSLIM POPULATION OF WORLD

1.6 billion or about 23.4%
(Working , paying taxes, raising families , going school , watching movies, listening music etc)


How many people in ISIS ??? 20,000 Warriors


Population % 0.00000125 Engaged in Civil War in Iraq/Syrian borders


Just stating the facts so becasue of % 0.00000125, whole 1.6 Billion people need to be branded in media continuously sorry but that is alot of bull's fresh manure


Also the Author of the Article does not clearly states:

What are the Moderates or reformers in Muslim world suppose to do , when a group shows up at door armed with RPG provided by International Donators who take out the whole house

Also the author does not clearly state , where do these group get these advance weaponry from I mean , clearly these do not grow on any tree , as prescribed in Quran or any religious text

No they get weaponry from Political Affiliation and people who have stake in region
Who helped decentralize Iraq, Afghanistan , Libya ? Where did the weapons came from the stinger missiles the anti aircraft guns and AK-47 etc, there was some what stable governments in regions ..before ....sure military force but still region was stable

Thank you no it did not came from Ahmed's weapon shop, it came from connection with International partners who wanted a stake in the region politics and wanted to gain from the regional war