What Is a Moderate Muslim?

[rlg94086]

Interesting read. I wanted to highlight more, but we do have a limit…

tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011106D

Moderate Muslims, including Shias as well as Sunnis, also do not refer to followers of other religions, especially Jews and Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, as unbelievers. The Koran never refers to Jews and Christians as unbelievers, but as People of the Book, worthy of respect and protection. Moderate Muslims adhere strictly to this outlook.

Moderate Muslims do not employ the rhetoric of jihad, including attempts to split hairs over the meaning of the term. Moderate Muslims seek a place in the contemporary world for Islam to be respected as a faith, not conflicts in which they may gamble on victory with the lives of others. Jihad vocabulary does nothing to advance the cause of Islam; it creates obstacles to it.

This does not mean moderate Muslims do not defend themselves when attacked. They do. But moderate Muslims in Iraq are under attacks from Sunni radicals, just as moderate Muslims were murdered by Serbs in the former Yugoslavia and moderate Muslims in Chechnya are killed by both Russian troops and Wahhabi adventurers. Iraqi Sunni radicals have more in common with Milosevic’s fascist bands than with moderate Muslims. Wahhabis in the Caucasus have interests closer to those of Putin than those of ordinary Chechens, in that both seek a pretext for war. And the Iraqi Sunni radicals and other Wahhabis, Putin the neo-Stalinist, and the Serbs all benefit from the same “antiwar” cheering section in the U.S.

 

[gilliam]

There are good guys in Iraq and bad guys in Iraq. Some are pure evil. IMHO, it really has nothing to do with organized religion and much more to do with sin. People who walk into crowds shopping and blow up little children deliberately are evil, period.

 

[rlg94086]

gilliam:

There are good guys in Iraq and bad guys in Iraq. Some are pure evil. IMHO, it really has nothing to do with organized religion and much more to do with sin. People who walk into crowds shopping and blow up little children deliberately are evil, period.

In the case of extremist, islamist terrorists, I would disagree that it doesn’t have anything to do with religion.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

gilliam:

There are good guys in Iraq and bad guys in Iraq. Some are pure evil. IMHO, it really has nothing to do with organized religion and much more to do with sin. People who walk into crowds shopping and blow up little children deliberately are evil, period.

Gilliam:

Agreed. What we are talking about is simple objective morality where the deed itself is right or wrong, good or evil. This is to be differentiated from the moral thinking that’s taking over most moral and ethical discussions and that allows for viles things the like blowing up of children becuase the children are israelis and those blowingg themn up are Palestinians.

I think people have fallen to easily into the “Our side vs.Their side” and “Weak vs. Strong - Oppressed vs. Oppressor” modes of moral judgment, wherein whatever “Our Side”, “The Weak” or “The Oppessed do” to “Their Side”, “The Strong” or “The Oppressor” is OK, while whatever “Their Side”, “The Strong” or “The Oppressor” does in response is automatically wrong.

People who think this way forget that they may one day be on the wrong side of the equation and beyond the protection of the laws as Israelis find themselves today.

I consider this lady a “Moderate Muslim”

Muslim Refusenik
muslim-refusenik.com/

And this gentleman:

The Koran and the Jews
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13587

And this Sheikh:

Sheikh Imam Abdul Hadi Palazzi of the Italian Muslim Associationj
islam.italy.too.it/

These three, and others like them, are definitely fighting for the soul of Islam. And, all three have Death Fatwas against them.`

Please, pray for their safety - They are “among the decent”.

In Christ, Michael

 

[rlg94086]

Guys,

I agree that the terrorists are just plain evil, but to deny the religious basis for their actions is not logical. The point of the article I posted is that there are moderate muslims. We need to work with them, as we are doing in Iraq, to reject the extremists and work toward peace.

Robert

 

[walstan]

This whole subject for most Brits has a strong feeling of déjà vu, I seem to remember the same questions being raised when the IRA, a nominally Catholic organisation, was carrying out it’s “war” in Ireland. The vast majority of Catholics disassociated themselves from their religious claims. I would suspect that the vast majority of Muslims do the same today. It is that aspect alone that may make those generations from future look back on our actions and question why we didn’t make more of this, rather than issuing blanket condemnations on all Muslims.

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

The vast majority of Catholics disassociated themselves from their religious claims. I would suspect that the vast majority of Muslims do the same today. .

Only when they blow up fellow Muslims. Otherwise the disassociation is not that prevalent and usually from Imams who are associated with governments allied with the United States, and often only in English. Instead we are met with silence.

 

[shockerfan]

After doing some reading about Islam, including some of the debates going on in the “Non Catholic Religions” message board, it seems that a “Moderate Muslim” is one that has a very loose interpretation of the Quran. Those in Islam who take a very strict literal interpretation tend to be the ones who want to kill us.

 

[MikeWM]

shockerfan:

After doing some reading about Islam, including some of the debates going on in the “Non Catholic Religions” message board, it seems that a “Moderate Muslim” is one that has a very loose interpretation of the Quran. Those in Islam who take a very strict literal interpretation tend to be the ones who want to kill us.

I think in part it depends on what you mean by a strict literal interpretation. A strict Protestant would (and probably does) accuse Catholics of having a loose interpretation. After all, we do all manner of things banned in the ritualistic law of the first books of the Old Testament.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

Walstan,

Neither I nor the article I posted makes a blanket condemnation on all Muslims. Rather, the article explains the differences between Moderate Muslims and those who want to kill us.

There is also a major distinction between the IRA and Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists - the IRA didn’t use the Bible or Catholic Tradition to justify their bombings. They were primarily nationalistic in their fervor.

God Bless,

Robert

walstan:

This whole subject for most Brits has a strong feeling of déjà vu, I seem to remember the same questions being raised when the IRA, a nominally Catholic organisation, was carrying out it’s “war” in Ireland. The vast majority of Catholics disassociated themselves from their religious claims. I would suspect that the vast majority of Muslims do the same today. It is that aspect alone that may make those generations from future look back on our actions and question why we didn’t make more of this, rather than issuing blanket condemnations on all Muslims.

 

[shockerfan]

MikeWM:

I think in part it depends on what you mean by a strict literal interpretation. A strict Protestant would (and probably does) accuse Catholics of having a loose interpretation. After all, we do all manner of things banned in the ritualistic law of the first books of the Old Testament.

Mike

You are correct, however, there is a big difference. A literal approach to the bible does not encourage you to give non-believers the following options:

1. Convert
2. Live in subjugation (paying a tax called a “Jizya”
3. Death

Unfortunately, those Muslim who would kill us, and who apparently take a literal approach to the Quran, feel the Quran directs they to do so if we do not agree to options 1 or 2 above.

 

[MikeWM]

shockerfan:

You are correct, however, there is a big difference. A literal approach to the bible does not encourage you to give non-believers the following options:

1. Convert
2. Live in subjugation (paying a tax called a “Jizya”
3. Death

Unfortunately, those Muslim who would kill us, and who apparently take a literal approach to the Quran, feel the Quran directs they to do so if we do not agree to options 1 or 2 above.

Option 2 sounds similar to compulsory tithing.

As for death, if I was for example taking Deuteronomy 13 literally and in a certain way, I’d be stoning to death anyone who wasn’t a Christian.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

Option 2 sounds similar to compulsory tithing.

As for death, if I was for example taking Deuteronomy 13 literally and in a certain way, I’d be stoning to death anyone who wasn’t a Christian.

Mike

I’ll have to look that one up, but I’m 100% sure that there is nothing in Deuteronomy about stoning to death non-Christians.

 

[shockerfan]

MikeWM:

Option 2 sounds similar to compulsory tithing.

As for death, if I was for example taking Deuteronomy 13 literally and in a certain way, I’d be stoning to death anyone who wasn’t a Christian.

Mike

valid point, however, taking entire Bible into context, Jesus kind of changed things with “Let he who is without sin…”. I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is anything similar in the Quran…in fact, stoning still happens in some places in the middle east.

 

[Lurch104]

MikeWM:

Option 2 sounds similar to compulsory tithing.

As for death, if I was for example taking Deuteronomy 13 literally and in a certain way, I’d be stoning to death anyone who wasn’t a Christian.

Mike

Well, I don’t think too many Cristians were around for Deuteronomy to do the stoning.

 

[rlg94086]

Yep…it’s pretty harsh (can’t vouch for the translation or version…copied from some site on the internet):

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” – Dt.13:6-10

Considering, I am the only Catholic and only one of my brothers is even a Christian, I would have some stoning to do…

MikeWM:

Option 2 sounds similar to compulsory tithing.

As for death, if I was for example taking Deuteronomy 13 literally and in a certain way, I’d be stoning to death anyone who wasn’t a Christian.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

shockerfan:

valid point, however, taking entire Bible into context, Jesus kind of changed things with “Let he who is without sin…”.

Of course - but we need to know the theology of our religion to know that. Simply grabbing verses out of the Bible isn’t going to help us.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is anything similar in the Quran…in fact, stoning still happens in some places in the middle east.

I’m not sure either - we need someone with better knowledge of the Koran - and it probably depends on which of the hadith a specific Muslim considers to be most important.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Lurch104:

Well, I don’t think too many Cristians were around for Deuteronomy to do the stoning.

Ah, silly me. I thought the God of the Old Testament was our God, and the Christian religion the natural fulfilment of early Judaism. I guess we don’t have to follow the 10 commandments then either?

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Yep…it’s pretty harsh

Isn’t it just? That is yet another reason why I am wary of quoting the Bible without putting context on it. I suspect the Koran is the same.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

Isn’t it just? That is yet another reason why I am wary of quoting the Bible without putting context on it. I suspect the Koran is the same.

Mike

I completely agree with you. That seems to be the point of the article I posted. The extremists who are using the Koran need to be stopped, both by us and “moderate” Muslims.

It would be the equivalent to having some fundamentalists who took that Deuteronomy verse and used it as reason to strap bombs to themselves and start blowing up Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. We wouldn’t stand for it, would we?