What's new

Islam is defined by its followers. We moderate Muslims must act

A Muslim is basically anyone who believes in لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله (There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah), prays in the direction of the Qibla and eats our meat.

“Whoever prays as we pray, faces our qiblah, and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim who is under the protection of Allah and His Messenger” (Reported by Al-Bukhari)

There has been a long standing debate in Islam whether committing a sin makes you a non-Muslim or not. The mainstream viewpoint is as follows: Committing a sin (apart from shirk) does not make you a kafir nor does repeatedly committing those sins (this makes you a fasiq [evildoer]). However to openly and knowingly declare that a certain sin is not a sin...this is considered to make you a kafir.
Sis I agree with you that these non-Muslims and their lackeys are trying to change our deen into some mutated form under the guise of "moderate Islam"...that is why I said that there is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim".

Nothing is black and white as you seem to be finding out. There is such a thing as a 'moderate' Muslim.

You refer to the 'mainstream viewpoint' - acknowledging that there is variance in Muslim outlooks and implying that the minority viewholders are also Muslim. So whats wrong with differentiating between these groups with terms like moderate and extreme? Do we need to start identifying Deobandi, Salafi, Barelvi? or is it better not to malign anyone specifically and refer to them generally as extreme or moderate.


What is "moderate muslim" ? and what is "Extremist muslim" ? Define it by two examples.

Very simple:

1. A moderate Muslim understands that in an age of DNA testing and CCTV, the crime of Zina does not require witnesses. An extremist will want nothing less than 4 witnesses to the actual act.

2. A moderate Muslim does not declare Takfir on others. An extremist does.
 
You refer to the 'mainstream viewpoint' - acknowledging that there is variance in Muslim outlooks and implying that the minority viewholders are also Muslim. So whats wrong with differentiating between these groups with terms like moderate and extreme? Do we need to start identifying Deobandi, Salafi, Barelvi? or is it better not to malign anyone specifically and refer to them generally as extreme or moderate.
read post 60 please sir
Very simple:

1. A moderate Muslim understands that in an age of DNA testing and CCTV, the crime of Zina does not require witnesses. An extremist will want nothing less than 4 witnesses to the actual act.
that would mean one is educated to understand all this and one is not....
there are 1.5 billion muslims... there are violent people to be found in all of them.. one should not blame that on islam... if they were not muslims they would still be violent... look at the number of shootings in schools in america. it is not religion that does that but triggers in the lifestyle.
 
Well said. Just to add when the soul is taken away from the body, the leftover is a big meat loaf which becomes gangrenous overtime. This is what we are suffering from today. We are more focused on finding logical reasons which is only one aspect of religion forgetting the dying part called spiritualism, hence we have lost balance.

The spirit and spiritualism of Islam has been defaced horribly. I find people are more 'religious' than ever but they're more stressed than ever. Religious people seem preoccupied with saving God rather than saving themselves..

read post 60 please sir

that would mean one is educated to understand all this and one is not....
there are 1.5 billion muslims... there are violent people to be found in all of them.. one should not blame that on islam... if they were not muslims they would still be violent... look at the number of shootings in schools in america. it is not religion that does that but triggers in the lifestyle.

I am with you, in that some individuals do not define our billion plus. My point is about the use of the terms 'moderate' and 'extreme', which seems to offend some people. They say 'there is no moderate, we are all just Muslim' but then are the first ones to distance themselves from the extremist.

Of course we are not the same. We are a billion and we have varied points of view. Some of us take a less rigid outlook on certain things and some are ultra-orthodox. So when people say the 'moderates' should take action they are talking about you and me - because we are not advocating any extremism.
 
Last edited:
They say 'there is no moderate, we are all just Muslim' but then are the first ones to distance themselves from the extremist.
use the word conservative instead. In many things i would consider myself conservative but that does not make me an extremist.

we mask proper problems in society by blaming things on religion. how many of these people had violent childhoods what triggered them to violence what are the aggravating factors we avoid or actually the west ignores their own mistakes in shaping these people
that some individuals do not define our billion plus
 
I have no hate against any religion. But again every system has a reason that shaped it's characteristics.

Islam/East : tribalism, traditionalism, us vs rest of the world, shame, no guilt(see there is good lie/bad lie). These characteristics apply in smaller dosage to other eastern societies also.

West/Atheists : Individualism, no shame, but guilt. West got out of it's tribalism centuries ago(remember 30 years war between Protestant<->catholics), but still there is a fight between traditionalists vs progressives in USA. In EU there is no such fight.

The only way traditionalist Islam can live with modernity is "a new reformation". Luckily, Christianity was itself a reformation from ("eye for an eye") Old Testament. The New Testament is progressive, less tribalism, no hate, but lots of fear(hell). There is no such reformation in Islam and those avenues have been closed because Koran is the "literal word of God" and Prophet Mohammed is the last prophet. So no more prophets can be allowed to bring about a "The New Holy Koran"(see Ahmadiyya). Every thing was sealed purposely by the founder of Islam. Sad indeed, really sad that the founder of Islam did not want a religion that can adapt to changing times. Cruel to the followers..

As an outsider, I sincerely feel Islam need a "New Holy Koran" like the "New Holy Testament", which can be re-interpreted with changing times.
 
use the word conservative instead. In many things i would consider myself conservative but that does not make me an extremist.

we mask proper problems in society by blaming things on religion. how many of these people had violent childhoods what triggered them to violence what are the aggravating factors we avoid or actually the west ignores their own mistakes in shaping these people

Oh I am a big believer that most extremism has roots in psychological defects, depression or social problems. No doubt the basic problem is universal among all humans.

Problem for us is that there are people in our religious establishment who will happily exploit and use these people, with Islam as their tool. I have always said Islam does not need change, Islamic teaching needs to change.
 
What is "moderate muslim" ? and what is "Extremist muslim" ? Define it by two examples.

Allow me to give 2 examples, though I am not a Muslim. I am no expert on Islam.

Moderate Muslim :
(1) Blasphemy is not punishable.
(2) Theft is punishable, but no cutting hands
(3) All Non-believers who do good, will go to heaven


Extremist Muslim :
(1) Blasphemy is punishable by death.
(2) Theft is punishable by cutting hands
(3) Even Non-believers who do good, will go to hell.
 
Introspection is done in peace...we have not had widespread peace in Muslim lands since the US went overt with its war on terror. Sure we had our problems, and sure Saddam was a dictator but don't come and pretend the you guys made things better. You pretend as if you guys are some angels but the fact is that you have made the world a worse place. Yes we have a problem where we like to deflect the blame onto the Wests shoulders but much of that blame actually belongs there. One day the dust will settle and this bloodshed will be over...on that day Islam will stand but I am not too sure if the same will be said of the West.

We did not pretend. It is you, as in the excuse makers, who always pretend to be angelic by always laying the blame on the feet of others. Just like you did here.

You take a great article by your fellow Muslim and immediately start off on 'US this and that'. If anyone has a right to accuse us as the main culprits it is not you! Your problems in middle east were created by fellow Muslims not us. You were killing each other, treating your citizens like slaves, disrespecting the rights of women without any U.S help or intervention for decades. Somehow you always seem to say we made it so for you. What kind of a moron would go killing thousands of their own to show the U.S. up?

When Muslims as a group is hated upon by the far right, you see thousands of non Muslims aka kafurs like you describe them, come out in support of Muslims.
 
Paris Charlie Hebdo massacre: We moderate Muslims must act - Telegraph

Islam is defined by its followers. We moderate Muslims must act

Paris Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack: It’s vital should a religion be ‘hijacked’ in any way, that the majority of its followers at least discuss the problem, argues Shaheen Hashmat

“Allah Akbar!” was the cry from two gunmen, armed with Kalashnikovs, who burst into the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo yesterday, opening fire and killing 12 people.

It’s widely suspected that brothers Said (34) and Cherif (32) Kouachi, both French nationals, were acting to ‘avenge the prophet Muhammad’ after his image was depicted in satirical cartoons published in the magazine.

The incident has been described as France’s worst terrorist attack in 50 years.

We are all too familiar with the narrative that follows atrocities of this nature: anger about the damaging effects of poor immigration policy, calls for ‘moderate’ Muslims to condemn the actions, followed by #NotinMyName social media campaigns (‘Je suis Charlie’ in this case), designed to clarify that the perpetrators were not in fact acting in the name of ‘true’ Islam.

If I sound a little weary, it’s because I am.

Like all of us, I’m heartbroken by yesterday’s events. But it was with an even greater sadness that I realised I wasn’t at all surprised to hear of yet another act of Islamist terrorism. I believe it will be some time yet before we hear of the last.

I am not religious myself, but I do come from a Muslim background. I know how widely beliefs and values can differ within the same family. And I have first-hand experience of how difficult it can be to express criticism, or opposing viewpoints, to those who are conservative in their outlook. Especially when they are close relatives.

It’s this feeling that, many agree, has led to the identity crisis currently occurring within Islam. There is much disagreement among Muslims themselves about which is the true interpretation to follow.

Of course the actions of radical sects are unacceptable by any moral code that values basic human rights - and it's important to understand that the majority of Muslims find them as abhorrent as the rest of us. But, despite the rejection of such extremists as ‘true’ Muslims, I believe it’s important to accept that there are some hardcore, right-wing sects of Islam that do adhere to literal interpretations of the Q'uran.


Acts of terrorism, preceded by cries of ‘Allah Akbar' (God is greatest), are now being carried out by a growing body of religious fundamentalists, who are successfully claiming their version of ‘Muslim’ as the only true definition of the term.

Having personally endured, within my own family, the abuse that is so often justified in the name of Islam, I am continually frustrated to see this replicated at an international level and denied as being an issue within moderate religious groups.

By acknowledging this, I am emphatically not dismissing the equally worrying issue of anti-Muslim bigotry. I’m just as committed to fighting that as I am to combating terrorism.

But a religion is defined by its followers. They are the ones who interpret scripture and incorporate it into everyday practice. So it’s vital, should that religion be ‘hijacked’ in any way, that the majority at least discusses the problem.

Shaaz Mahboob, Trustee of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, is calling for reform within Islam.

He told me: "Muslims must start actually thinking about their religion in order to counter the narrative of extremist ideology. As things stand, Muslims are not supposed to even consider the morality of Islamic scripture - it just isn't questioned. How can you begin to change things when you're not even allowed to question them?"

Mahboob goes further and states that Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who know of terrorist activity occurring in their communities and families, have a duty to report to the police. Failure to do so, he adds, is a "betrayal of trust".


Because when it comes to tackling fundamentalism, the personal is political. A 47-year-old Muslim woman, Gina Khan, who works as a researcher and activist, has taken the step of reporting members of her own family suspected of terrorist activity. She told me: “I reported a relative involved in a group who think they are the religious police over Muslims in Birmingham, halting behavior that they think is un-Islamic.

“One group stopped dancing and music. Although there may be a backlash as a result of reporting family who are pro-Taliban or ISIS, we are just guilty if we maintain a silence and allow them to normalize aggressive jihadism.

“I wouldn’t think twice about reporting family again.”

Of course, no individual in a democratic society should be punished for simply practicing their faith. But the gunmen involved in the Paris shooting (or those involved in incidents in Sydney, Boston, Woolwich and so on) are not interested living according to the principles of democracy while doing so.

Their actions threaten the basic freedoms that form the bedrock of our society. Muslims in the West are protected by these principles and would otherwise have been branded as heretics, historically. Yet calls to curb extremist ideology that seeks to impose decidedly non-democratic rule here are met with accusations of racism.


I am, in no way, placing the burden of responsibility for such atrocities as that which occurred in Paris yesterday on the shoulders of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. However, there are issues they must address within their communities.

But the job isn’t theirs alone.

I’m glad to see development of detailed efforts in this country at government and local authority level to address extremism. There are clear procedures in place for reporting terrorist activity and the level of detail outlined in the UK government’s Prevent strategyhighlights the scale of effort required to tackle this growing problem.

I believe that more can be done at an international level in terms of imposing sanctions on countries that do not adhere to basic human rights – those who permit stoning a woman to death if she is found to have had sex outside of marriage, for example, or the cutting of hands in cases of theft. And that’s without even touching on the horror visited upon those in the LGBT community.

But I believe that without the same level of effort from the religious communities directly affected by extremism, we are treating the symptoms and not the cause of an ideology that is permeating our society. Unless meaningful, practical action is taken to wrest control of their faith from murderers, people will likely continue to die.

As arrests are made in the hunt for the gunmen responsible for yesterday’s horrific attack, one thing is very clear: free speech – and the freedom to speak out against extremist, non-democratic behaviour, whether in the press or your community – is our most precious resource and must be protected at all costs.

The Muslim community must step up to the plate, along with everyone else.



The women's an apostate but makes a few sensible points

@TankMan @T-Faz @waz @Jungibaaz
This shows one thing only lady has no idea of issues and Islam both. These moderates stupid moves in which they try to portray moderate as given more power to so called extremists.

Allow me to give 2 examples, though I am not a Muslim. I am no expert on Islam.

Moderate Muslim :
(1) Blasphemy is not punishable.
(2) Theft is punishable, but no cutting hands
(3) All Non-believers who do good, will go to heaven


Extremist Muslim :
(1) Blasphemy is punishable by death.
(2) Theft is punishable by cutting hands
(3) Even Non-believers who do good, will go to hell.
Sorry you just proved you have no idea about Islam.
 
The same also applies for Christians. If a Christian says , " I believe in Jesus Christ and he is my Saviour" , but he does not actively live that faith, does not read into the scriptures --- but merely claims to be Christian and hollow of faith-- then that's a dead claim. Christians , Muslims, Jews -- are called not to just verbally express their faith, but to live actively their Faith.

Peace.

For those of us who do believe in Divine Providence, we know we may escape punishment in this -- life -- this valley of tears. But we know -- we cannot escape the Final Judgment -- of Divine Providence.

Iqbal - the poet-philosopher of Pakistan - said :

Dil paaak nahin tou paaak nahin ho saktaa insaaan

Warnaa tou Iblis ko bhii aateiii theiii wuzu keh usul


Purity (sanctity) of human existence lies in the purity of heart

Otherwise even Satan knew how to perform the wuzu*


*the Islamic ritual to purify one's self before prayer

What he was trying to say was the 'purity' lies in having a good and pure heart not in the performance of rituals even when your heart is dark and cold.
 
Very simple:

1. A moderate Muslim understands that in an age of DNA testing and CCTV, the crime of Zina does not require witnesses. An extremist will want nothing less than 4 witnesses to the actual act.

2. A moderate Muslim does not declare Takfir on others. An extremist does.


Please support your idea with Quran verses. Allah orders Muslims to use their logic and think about the events. So in this case, if someone still wants 4 witnesses for a rape case which is proven by science, he/she is not Muslim, he/she clearly does not follow the orders.
 
They should change the name of PDF to Islamic discussion forum.
 
Nope...a religion is what it teaches...not what it's adherents do. Your argument is like saying that Windows 7 is i3 or i5 or perhaps the mouse.
Buddy, I assembled many IKEA furniture in my life and I still have a few more decades of living. Furniture and scale models have clearer instructions than your religious texts, whatever religion you are.

If the Quran or the Bible or the Torah is that clear, we would not have the Quran or the Bible or the Torah, do we ?

But since we do have the Quran, the Bible, the Torah, and hundreds of apocryphal texts associated with each book, the overall confusion mean each religion is EXACTLY how its believers define it by way of daily living.

You are wrong. Move on.
 
Allow me to give 2 examples, though I am not a Muslim. I am no expert on Islam.

Moderate Muslim :
(1) Blasphemy is not punishable.
(2) Theft is punishable, but no cutting hands
(3) All Non-believers who do good, will go to heaven


Extremist Muslim :
(1) Blasphemy is punishable by death.
(2) Theft is punishable by cutting hands
(3) Even Non-believers who do good, will go to hell.

1) There is no compulsion in religion or deen (system). Therefore there is no penalty for blasphemy. To harm someone because of he/she change his/her belief makes you non-Muslim, not extremist Muslim. Probably someone will say "but some hadiths....", I dont care thieir stories-fairy tales about the prophet, which is fully contradict with Quran.

2) Theft is unaccapteble and the penalty is to cut hands. How ? Cutting hands off ? or to split with a knife ? or a metaphor. Islamic "scholars"(?) cannot decide because their minds are full of hadiths - stories - fairy tales. According to some hadiths Prophet had cut off someone's hand. According to another hadith prophet smiled at the faces of three thieves and forgave them. According to another hadith prophet cries and says forgive each other not to cut each others hands. In the verse, the word which means "cutting" action is also used in another verse to mention about the girls who cuts their hands while cooking after they saw the prophet Joseph. So are they cuttig their hands off ? or just injure their hands.

3) Nowhere in Quran talks directly about non-Muslims, mention kafir, mushrik or munafiq. These dont mean directly non-Muslim but includes some other meanings (please research). So we cant know a non-believer will go to hell or heaven. To claim you know, makes you non-Muslim, not extremist Muslim.
 
They should change the name of PDF to Islamic discussion forum.
Islam Bashing Forum will be more appropriate though.

---

1.
Metallurgy can be used to cast cooking utensils and it can also be used to make weapons, weapons that kill. So the fault is of the knowledge i.e. metallurgy or its product i.e. weapons or of those who wield those weapons and kill people?

2. Chemistry can be used to make life-saving drugs and it can also be used to make Heroin; is Chemistry bad?

3. Printing press/Desktop printing can be used to print knowledge, literature, and poetry, but some use it to print hate material, p0rn? Is this the fault of the printing press/desktop printing or of those who use it for wrong purposes?

4. Scientists and scholars were burnt alive on the alters in the name of blasphemy; was that the fault of the Christianity or of those so-called Christians who used the religion to further their political/social agenda?

Nothing, let alone religion, is defined by those who use it. Religion(s) are nothing more than pieces of knowledge, and how the knowledge will be used depends not on the knowledge but on those who decide how to use it.
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom