Maybe I misunderstood it. This is what Mathloom wrote in his opening remarks: [rquoter] Outter Jihad, which is the popular Jihad these days, is self-defense against persecution based on religion. The right to practice religion is a common staple of a strong democracy. It is meant to be balanced (Quraanic order) - if you are religiously discriminated against financially, you retaliate in the exact same amount. If it is through media, you retaliate the same through media. For example, if Muhammad PBUH is depicted in a cartoon, you CAN NOT depict the head of comedy central takin it up the pooper, much less try to kill him. Reasons being - it does not stop you from practicing your religion AND it is not a balanced retaliation. So, to revise, for outter Jihad, the action has to stop allowing you to practice you religion and the retaliation must be just... and rationally speaking, since we can't discuss with God, an independent party has to decide if the retaliation is balanced based on Quraanic principles (this would be a judge, not necessarily Muslim, who can make the judgment). Any act of being the first aggressor can not, by definition, be Jihad.[/rquoter] What is meant by "just retaliation" based on Quraanic principles? Perhaps I'm mistaking this notion of retaliation for revenge. Suppose someone comes to my house and kills my son. I want to retaliate. If some independent judge says "You may go to this murderer's house and kill his son in retaliation," is that all the justification I need to do so according to Islam? Does that make it moral?
Why would he waste his time trying to write something intellectually when we all know it's going into one ear and out the other? That's why I don't even bother with these debates against a deeply root religious people and their belief. I've done this with some friends and they will defend it to the end even if they're wrong.
I agree with your general sentiment regarding discussants involved in religious debates, but I doubt that is the case with durvasa in particular, since he seems quite civil and interested in the topic, even if he does hold a strong opinion. If this was another poster (Dadakota or AroundtheWorld) I would not bother with an input. It is a shame really, because if I had to make an educated guess I would wager my world views and core values are far closer to DD or ATW than Mathloom or other religious posters. The difference is I dont relish the opportunity to provoke and belittle those holding different views by starting or posting in threads seeking to inflame rather than inform. Being a secular asshat is no better than being a religious asshat, ask any Russian and he will tell you, we have had experience dealing with both.
This is the D&D. If all you care about is information, go read some news source. I have no problem admitting that some of my posts are provocative and inflammatory, but it is interesting what kind of reactions come out of that. If you can't stand the heat...
The people who claim to be devoted to it are told that they are much more likely to go to heaven if they blindly listen to scholars. That's where the problem lies. It is perfectly understandable - the only problem is that it is viewed through "hate-goggles" if you will. If someone plants "infidel = jews and america" in someone's head at a young age, then the text changes radically in their eyes. Second, then retaliation is a poor word. Also, "retaliation" for "retaliation" is not allowed. In the example where you stole my book and I took my book back, what would you call that? The word retaliation I'm using is to refer to taking back your rights, tangible or intangible, at the lowest cost possible and no greater than the cost placed on you (again, tangible and intangible cost).
In this case, taking another child's life would not give you your child back. Also, why would an independent sane judge rule such a thing? Think of it this way. If you steal money from me in the amount X... I go to court demanding my money back, have the proof, and so am entitled to at least what you took from me and at most what you took from me + interest I could've made over that period + damages for any hardship I may have suffered as a result of the ordeal (let's call this amount Y). The thief ends up with less than he had before robbing me, and the difference of Y - X = what I'm talking about as retaliation.
That's the biggest problem with Islam, it's inability to adapt to modern times. And the repression and frustrated outcries that result from trying to keep it's followers in the stone ages. Of course Mathloom can patiently sit here and justify the way Islams view the world, but it doesn't stop the fact that large amounts of people are manipulated to operate with a negative, aggressive ideology with Islam as the base root. Shouldn't a religion encourage education on the practical aspects of life (succeeding and acclimating yourself to the CURRENT world), self improvement via introspection (which is completely non-existent due to the overly defensive nature of religious zealots), and finding harmony in the way things are? Instead people that gravitate towards religion of any kind do it for the purpose of confining themselves into a small bubble to ensure self preservation... and the ignorance only increases exponentially as a result.
There are ways to do this. I can tell you this because many people are and are becoming engaged in doing this. Surely, Islam won't conform to modern times. That would be stupid. That's the quality of a very human text, and I think MAYBE your subconscious assumption that it is man-made allows you to think that Islam is bendable. It is not. A fundamental quality is that it is shaped, structured and worded to be in line with all times, all places, etc. I do agree with you that Hadith needs to do all the things you're saying and Muslims need to do all the things you're saying. Large amounts of people danced in the street after 9/11. Large amounts of people celebrate innocent blood being spilled. Have we started judging people on what the majority say, or are we judging through merit? Wouldn't the world still be flat if we followed your line of thinking? The root cause is Islamic scholars. I encourage you to engage in debate with them and the people who listen to them every chance you get. It's surprisingly easy to show them their bigotry. Also, if you have no interest in what I'm saying here, and feel it's useless, I'm sorry you feel that way.
I never said your words were useless, in fact I praised your patience. I make judgments based on empirical evidence and the course/trend of actions that take place. Islamic scholars are crazy, just like fundamentalist Christian preachers are crazy. I get that. They promote blindly following their teachings in the name of "religion" over thinking for yourself, and fearing the unknown instead of attempting to understand it. I get that. But the difference is that the powerful and rich in America don't buy into it, they prefer logic instead. And in a free market society, which is what today's world is, that's what gets you ahead. Not blind faith. There are too many stupid people in positions of power in Islamic nations and that's why they don't speak up against these practices... they use religion as a marketing tool to justify income disparities to the small man. Plain and simple question - What steps can Islamic nations take to take power out of the hands of Islamic scholars, and into the hands of those like yourself who think for themselves, are educated in a worldly manner, and still manage to follow Islam?
They need to take over the role of Islamic orgs that provide social welfare to their people. I can't speak for all Islamic nations but I'll choose Palestine as an example. From Wikipedia, "Hamas devotes up to 90% of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, health care clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. Such services aren't provided by The Palestinian Authority." If you study the history of modern Egypt and the similarities between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, you'll notice a lot of these extremist groups provide real-world social services to people who are mainly poor and uneducated. There are intellectuals and well-off people who form the upper management with their own agendas but they are considerably smaller in numbers than the overall makeup of the group. If national governments like Pakistan fix corruption and improve the economy so actual jobs are created, you will see improvement. Same goes for providing social welfare for its people. In Pakistan, thousands upon thousands are graduating from universities with worthless degrees since they can't get any work. No work means a low self-esteem and a willingness to listen to the guy preaching that this life is meaningless and that the root cause of all the problems like no electricity and collateral damage from drones is the West.
I appreciate your position. Thanks, I think I misunderstood you from your first post. I'll tell you what I think WOULD work: - Slowly and logically eradicating the credibility of the Islamic jurisprudence structure. Removing the Hadith from Sharia. The Quran is completely compatible with any present-day form of government. The problem is the conflict of interest in which the Islamic scholars lie. That is their job, their life - they will fight you like crazy and use terrorism to do so. If you start telling them "actually, what you're doing is wrong and the job should be eliminated" they will start feeding hate-speech to their followers. The best way to do it IMO is media (i.e. information) to the followers and/or setting up Islamic schools that provide an understanding of how Islamic scholars corrupt the process. It is not a difficult thing to do - the Quran supports it. The scholars of the Prophet's time had other jobs for a reason - they were warned against relying on Islamic scholarship for money, it is a horrible situation. Here's what won't work: - Telling someone that the person they follow is a quack. This polarizes them. You have to reach these people through their own mediums. You provide a Quranic basis for your argument. You show real-life statistics of the level of injustice/violence in the extremist world. You show who funds the printing of extremist Islamic materials all over the world. You show how the person who funds these things has an agenda and in fact was never known to be a hardcore Muslim. You show how this person got tangled up with the wrong people. Things that they can understand. When I talk to friends of mine who are Salafi (a branch of Sunni Islam which agrees with Wahhabbiism), I don't start out by saying everyone is corrupt. I start out quoting verses. I quote the Quran saying that the people who follow Islam are a minority of people who call themselves Muslims. Then I ask them how it's possible that the group which follows Hadith so strictly and blindly can be that group, since statistically, they are the majority? I ask them why the Prophet PBUH had a governance structure and constitution broadly equivalent to a democratic structure protecting the rights of minorities (non-Muslims)? Why the Prophet was not in charge of handling treasury? Why the Prophet PBUH's structure is oddly similar to modern-day democracies and the polar opposite of the countries which consider themselves Muslim nowadays? You engage them. You engage them with what they trust and believe. It's very easy to do. I'm proud that I've been able to seperate many people with extremist views from their beliefs and turned their focus to core values of Islam. I find it surprisingly easy and logical. This leads me to believe we CAN do it, but there is some kind of force that is actively preventing doing it. I do not know know what those forces are, but I have a general understanding of them. The main thing being that true Islam preaches freedom from dictatorships. It preaches that the ruler does not own the land. It preaches that the ruler does not own the resources. It preaches that the people govern themselves. But these things are buried in favor of "how long is your beard?" and "how loose is your shirt?" and "did you do the bonus prayer at 2:48pm today?". The media exacerbates this by portraying images of maniacal Muslims. Which leads the average Muslim to believe "that's not MY scholar, that's just a psycho". Then it is fed into the brains of people who don't understand Islam. Immediately you've destroyed the human connection and polarized the two groups from each other. You want to take practical steps to fix this stuff? Rationally and logically go about picking apart the current Islamic jurisprudence structure. Know what you're talking abotu too - if you come in and it is apparent that you don't know the texts and the history, you have no credibility. If you can't do this, then stay out of it rather than create more and more and more isolation and polarization. It just makes the problem worse.
Mathloom, this was the most interesting post from you I have read to date as it presents thoughts on how Islam could reform itself from within. Thanks for this. Some questions: - Given the decentralized Islamic jurisprudence structure, how do you want to spread your message? Through media? - How do you control the message? - What exactly is the message? Non-violence mainly, or what else? - The method you propose would require that those who want to spread it would have the funds to spread the message and one way or another, the moral authority to do this. Where would both come from? - How would you prevent the more extremist scholars from accusing you (and finding followers for this opinion) of just being a puppet of the Western world (specifically the USA) in promoting non-violence? - If I understood you correctly, the method you propose for promoting non-violence would be a method from within Islam. Now there could be the same message addressed to Muslims from outside Islam - promoting non-violence, but not believing in the prophet. I understand that you are saying this would be less promising in reaching the goal of non-violence as it would automatically be less credible, but does this mean that you are saying that the only way to even reach these people is to believe in the same religion yourself? They will not even listen to any rational argument of why non-violence is preferable regardless of what religion you follow? Again, thanks, I think your last post was really interesting.
Thank you. 1) The structure is far more centralized than it appears. Essentially it is Al Azhar University and Saudi Arabia. Through granting the appropriate freedoms, which consequently leads to the freedom of the media to say what it pleases responsibly, I think it can be achieved. I have some strategies in mind for doing so: - Show the difference between Islamic value and Arab values. The confusion must be eliminated. - Start gathering statistics relating to the topic. - Start using alternate forms of media to get the message across. Blogs, youtube, facebook, etc. - Start challenging Islamic scholars and their blind followers. Like everyone else, they must defend and justify their position. - Islamic scholars are not infallible and do not, anymore, possess a set of books which we can't understand or don't have access to. We can do what they do - imprint the "do it yourself" attitude. Teach people what scholars do so they can see for themselves the twists and turns. - Popularize scholars who preach the same message covertly - there are many of these hiding in the woods. Among others. 2) You don't IMO. The message will come out, it is just strapped down, tied up and controlled. 3) The message is that everyone is equally accountable under the law. The way Allah deals with people is between them and Allah. The Quran supports a man-made law which at least meets the standards of the Quran. The key message to do this is that the Hadith could have been corrupted, is far from perfect (by definition), and needs to be revised to have the proper output - lessons learned by example, rather than imitation. These things are being done and things like youtube are helping to get the message out without the need for receiving scholar or government approval. 4) Unfortunately, I don't know where the funding would come from. Literally all the money in Muslim countries is firmly in the hands of those who don't want to fund such a thing - in true totalitatian fashion. The authority to do this would, again, come from a democratic structure. 5) I wouldn't prevent them from saying so because I can't control them doing so. I would simply show adherence to Quran and, hopefully, the positive results of doing so. Merit-based. Much like I try to ensure that jabs at the credibility of Islamic scholars is merit-based. 6) Not only do I find the method you propose less promising, I find it almost impossible and harmful in consequences at the same time. Without the necessary structures in place, many would be considered "apostates" and discriminated against, made to look like an evil bunch. This creates a third group of polarized people. The disbelief in the Prophet PBUH part, if possible, is so so so so so so so so far that putting it into the process now would be like setting off a bomb. Baby steps first. Put the structures in place, get the socio-economic factors up to par, diminish the credibility of the scholars and people will find truth. Ultimately, I assume you don't care if they are religious or not, rather you care that we all come closer to agreeing on human rights issues. At the moment, trying to establish credibility through atheism is as impossible as impossible can be. Which is logical honestly. No one is saying you have to believe what they believe. You just have to understand what they believe. I understand a lot of Christianity, but don't share the beliefs. I understand Pelligrini's tactics for Real Madrid, but don't agree or believe in them. But what would my words be worth to a Real Madrid fan if it became apparent that I didn't understand that it is a 4-5-1 formation? I hope that was clear, let me know if it wasn't.. Thanks
I understand what you are saying. The only thing I don't understand is how you can make so much sense at one moment and at the same time want that cartoonist to live in fear until the rest of his life over a cartoon and tell me I have all the same characteristics as an Islamic terrorist the next moment. One additional question, though: It seems like we can agree on the concept of non-violence to be worthy of being promoted. I would like to see it promoted from a more secular angle, at least from a non-muslim angle. You would like to see it promoted from within the Islamic community. How do you think both efforts would interact with each other. If I understand you correctly, it would be best to keep them separate and not have any public solidarisation between both efforts, as this would only undermine the effort from within Islam?
Without question, I think the cartoonist's actions, words and intentions are despicable. I would not feel any sense of pity for him if he lived in fear the rest of his life - not should he, having known that exercising irresponsible freedom of speech would certainly incite the outrage of the irrational extremist community. I would never threaten his life or do anything to put him in fear. However, if I did see him, I would make it a point to tell him what a disgusting and selfish human being he is to abuse the beautiful right of free speech to make a quick buck and with total disregard for its consequences on the already tense relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in that region. We have enough trouble reigning those extremists into rationality without him pulling stupid stunts like that for his own amusement. Childish behavior. Like a child waving his hands in front of your face singing "I'm not touching you." In retrospect, maybe I overreacted to the cartoonist at first, I haven't gone back to read my comments. I am changing all the time. My position right now is that, if he is living in fear, he chose it and I have no pity for it. In my eyes, he made the concept of free speech less marketable for those who need it most, and for selfish reasons. On our second question. Imagine a person who is willing to break every human law for what he/she perceives to be God's law (suicide bombings for example). Also, if the moral law you preach has significant variances from the moral law which they currently follow, it will not have credibility because the one they follow is made by a far more intelligent entity than the one you are offering. How do you approach this person from a moral/secular angle? Maybe due to my bias, I can't see the value. (If you don't mind me asking) what would such a moral/secular angle feature that the Quran doesn't? I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just saying, the way I see things, it is not a priority and would work to create yet another competing group of people which pushes people to more corners of extremism.
I'll ignore your repetition of the drivel against the Danish cartoonist for now and will focus on your answer to this question. So you are basically saying that other Muslims have the monopoly on reigning in the extremist Muslims because, to quote you, any non-Muslim will "will not have credibility because the one they [the extremist Muslims] follow is made by a far more intelligent entity than the one you [=non-Muslims] are offering"? Just trying to understand what you are saying here.
You have no problem with him living in fear, even though you don't think his life should be threatened? Isn't that contradictory? His life should not be threatened, and he shouldn't have to live in fear. And furthermore, I see nothing at all wrong with the cartoons. It is an expression of what the various artists think about Muhammed/Islam. If I'm a journalist and I want to publish an article on the public's thoughts on Islam, should I censor any quotes that might be offensive to Muslims? That goes directly against the principle of free speech, so no I shouldn't censor such quotes. This is the exact same thing, except its with pictures instead of written words.
It's hilarious and sad at the same time - I am arguing against stuff like what you quoted, yet I am the bigot (and terrorist!). Seems like Refman, Major, Batman Jones, B-Bob et al. have no problem with this stuff from Mathloom? Very interesting.
Mmm, not quite. Think of it through the eyes of the guy you are trying to convince. He is weighing two options: "Ok, either I go with the guy who has some nice pie charts and a well-presented speech or the supernatural creator of everything in the universe." So again, if there is a variance in approach, the guy will take the side of the supernatural. If there is no variance in approach, then he will wonder why you are repeating what he already knows. I'm not sure if that gives you an idea of how unlikely it is that a moral/secular approach would make sense, especially with a person who has absolutely no faith or experience in secularism.
