Moderate Islam - does it exist? If yes, how do YOU define it?

Thanks for sharing, the video didn't work for me on the Aljazeera website, so if anyone else interested, here is another link.

http://www.youtube.com/v/29NffzEh2b0

 

Thank you Mathloom I enjoyed that, also, I really really liked the "inappropriate metaphor," i could picture it perfectly.

 

I suspect this is true theologically. However, torture, drones strikes, firing missiles at whole apartment complexes to kill one allegedly guilty Hamas leader etc. does tend to make even these religious folks politically radical.

ATW and the neo-cons are barking up the wrong tree if they want to prevent terrorism.

For instance the brutal reparations against Germany were probably a major contribution toward Hitler's rise.

 

So you reject the notion that, if radicals gained control in the Middle East, that they could use their control over the world's energy supply to exert control and act to the detriment of the West?

Just because you do not believe in danger doesn't make the danger nonexistent.

 

Hell, anything is possible. Maybe there are even secretly buried wmd in Syria or somewhere?

You can't eat oil. We have the $$ to buy the oil. They have to sell it. As that hardly radical Wesley Clark said: " We need their oil. I believe we shoud buy it; not seize it.

 

As the philosopher said: The demos in Egypt show that democracy is universal. All words to the effect that Muslims or Arabs are somehow culturally incapable or don't desire democracy are just empty words.

 

I believe he is referring to the video Mathloom posted.
People do say these things, and our government shows that they believe this when they continuously prop up autocratic regimes just to keep the stability because our government is afraid that Arabs will choose to "abuse" democracy and use it against us to put radicals into power.

I understand the concern on behalf of the US and Western powers, if there is a power vacuum and the Muslim Brotherhood takes power, will it be hijacked by radicals as the Khomeini revolution was. These are legitimate fears, but only time will tell. We have to let them decide their own fate. 30 years they have been oppressed by a ruler whom we supported and helped keep in power, we wouldn't be here if we would have made better long term decisions in our mid east policy after WWII.

 

And your concern shouldn't be concerned with fear or hatred of Islam. I am concerned too, does that mean I hate Muslims? Of course not, in our world international politics can effect the entire planet. The elections in Venezuela are just as important to the US as the Mid East revolutions.

However, it is important for the Media and for those genuinely interested in these events, to show all sides. There are things to gain from Mubarak staying in power, unfortunately I believe most of those things would benefit the US more than Egypt. Security in the region is important to world order, but oppressive regimes and the US support of them, as well as the denial of their right to revolt against them, is not acceptable. It is hypocrisy at its finest, that is what concerns me. The way the US has conducted itself in international affairs over the last 65 years is shocking and we need a change.

Also, I was disgusted at the US Media's inclination that Obama has stepped out and taken hold of this crowd, some were saying it is his crowd, that he is now the voice behind this revolt? WTF who thinks of these things? Better yet, who thinks of these things and puts them on national television and passes them off as intelligent comments. This revolt has everything and nothing to do with the US at the same time, but it CERTAINLY has nothing to do with Obama

 

Sorry, that is a typo. I was saying YOUR concern should not be confused BY OTHERS as showing your hatred for Muslims.

I am agreeing that your concern is warranted. However, I disagree with the general fear of the Muslim Brotherhood, I am not afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood, but I am concerned SOME radicals could take control and spin things just like in Iran.

 

If what I said came out like I was accusing you of this than it was unintentional.

 

I feel like I never really answered ATW's initial question, how do I define moderate Islam. Moderate Islam, like anything moderate, is mainstream. If every muslim wanted to kill Americans or cause terror, than Moderate Islam would actually be what we refer to now as radical Islam.

But most Muslims are peaceful, law abiding, and contributing members of society, what these people believe is moderate Islam. I am not muslim, but I believe moderate Islam preaches peace, and love. I believe it teaches people to live righteously and to turn the other cheek.

I think moderate muslims should really be referred to as the "normal" muslims. Referring to them as moderate appears to put the connotation that they are just one group out of many different muslims, but in fact like 99 percent of the muslims are peaceful and "moderate" or not "radical" muslims. That isn't an official stat, but there are 1.66 billion muslims in the world. I don't think most of them would consider themselves radical. They want what every other man and woman wants in the life. Peace, love, shelter, food, just basic necessities that every human being deserves. The only thing that makes us different is the prophet we have faith in.

Just like with Christianity, radical PEOPLE can take control of a movement and spin it into violence and hatred. There really shouldn't be a radical and a moderate Islam, there is one Islam, and those who are using it as violence are not reading it correctly and are abusing its message.

My main point: people kill people, people hurt people, people oppress people, the religion doesn't, imo.

 

And most Nazis would say they didn't hate Jews. Just as most exterminators would say they didn't hate the insects they killed, it was just doing a service to society.

You have a pathological problem with Muslims and Islam. When you start a thread questioning whether "moderate Islam" exists, you pretty much show your cards as someone with a hatred of Muslims.

 

You aren't capable of winning an argument so you must try to nullify other's arguments by name calling. Even when he tells you he doesn't hate Muslims, you just assume the opposite and call him "racist" (despite providing no evidence). You do this because it's the only way you know how to argue. Screw using thought out points or facts, calling someone "racist" is all that's needed.

 

The problem here is that you hate Islam but not Muslims, which gives the indication that either:

1) You are being insincere and you do actually hate Muslims; or
2) You think that Muslims are just idiots for following something which deserves hatred.

I can't imagine what other possibility there is.

 

I don't hate someone just because I don't agree with something they believe. It is not complicated.

 

You are aware that Egypt has basically no oil, neither does Israel, and that any increase in the price of oil would be damaging to Egypt?

Your scenario would require that the gulf states be complicit in such a plan to twist the arm of the "West", and would simultaneously have to compensate Egypt out of their own pockets?

All the Arab oil countries are allies of the US, with powerful military bases. The scenario you are discussing was mitigated following the last oil crisis, and really would require the region to descend into all-out war to take effect. Not going to happen unless for some reason Egypt attacks Israel, and then Israel attacks one of the oil producers randomly.

I don't know, I think it's extremely far-fetched.