Mainstream Muslims Finally Take on Extremists

[°Leprechaun]

Something to be thankful for.
Thanks Frodo.

[°Leprechaun]

It's a good start.  Hopefully, they'll repent and come to know the true God of the Bible.

"Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right - shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret."

Koran 2:62

[°Leprechaun]

1Behold, the LORD'S hand is not so short That it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear. 2But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.… (Isaiah 59)

[°Leprechaun]

I agree, Blue3. The word "finally" is misleading.

[°Leprechaun]

Are any religions truly united? Judaism? Christianity? Buddhism?

Islam is clearly divided by groups that consider the others heretical. That is part of the problem.

In spite of the fact that many religious are in inter-faith dialogue, there remain many problems between different religions.

Stephen Prothero wrote a book about 8 rival religions that rule the world. Of course, there are more than eight. He has chapters one each one. Yoruba religion (odd that he includes that, perhaps), Confucianism, Daoism (aka Taoism), Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He titles the book "God is not One". A good title. Until all theists get together and put aside their differences, how can they believe in One God? That is the condundrum of theistic religion.

edit: ok I know I went of on a tangent which seemingly doesn't relate to this thread, but the point is that ISLAM is not one united religion (and neither are the others).

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.
The question in my mind are countries with minority Muslim populations, where Muslims don't have the same kind of power that they do in majority Muslim countries.
Muslims in a country such as the USA are more likely to be moderate to the degree that they accept the values, culture and ethics of whatever country they are in.
Of course, secular countries with Muslim majorities would be better than non secular ones. This would be true of other religions as well.

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.

There's not some platonic ideal which embody Islam, Islam are what Muslims do today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Muslims in USA are not representive, not even for Muslim minority population around the world, and BTW until they was singled out after 2001, they was happily part of the RR coalition in GOP with all which followed that; hostility to atheism, gay rights etc. It was only the moment they discovered that they was a minority they began to behave like civilised people or at least began to pay lip service to it.

The point is that there are moderate Muslims. I don't know what percent of Muslims are moderate. Although I am not a fan of Islam in any way, I do think that it is important to give credit to any of them who oppose the dogmatic ones.

[°Leprechaun]

I can use the term "liberal" instead of "moderate". I am not defending Islam at all. It is a question of what the facts are. I am not a fan of Western religion, Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
I was merely pointing out that not all Muslims are the same. I never said that we should judge Islam by what a group of Muslims say or do. When I said you shouldn't judge Islam, my point was not that we shouldn't ever criticize Islam, or at least what is wrong with Islam. I'm all for that. The point is that there are some liberal Muslims.
I agree with the "atheist" Sam Harris on some of what he is saying. He is extremely critical of Islam in particular and religion in general. He recognizes that not all Muslims are the same. That was my point. I don't know how any of you got something else out of what I was saying.
Islam needs to evolve. If it were to disappear altogether that would be better than the way it is now. But bigotry against Islam is not the answer. Sikhs are not Muslims, but have been mistaken for them. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Sufis are not accepted by the "other" Muslims. By the way I do find a lot of good ideas in Sufism. Being "for" or "against" Islam is a false dichotomy.

The Koran does speak of hell which I don't support.

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.
The question in my mind are countries with minority Muslim populations, where Muslims don't have the same kind of power that they do in majority Muslim countries.
Muslims in a country such as the USA are more likely to be moderate to the degree that they accept the values, culture and ethics of whatever country they are in.
Of course, secular countries with Muslim majorities would be better than non secular ones. This would be true of other religions as well.

NOT ENTIRELY that was my point. If most of a group is wrong and there is a small number who have evolved a little, shouldn't that small group get some credit?

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.

There's not some platonic ideal which embody Islam, Islam are what Muslims do today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Muslims in USA are not representive, not even for Muslim minority population around the world, and BTW until they was singled out after 2001, they was happily part of the RR coalition in GOP with all which followed that; hostility to atheism, gay rights etc. It was only the moment they discovered that they was a minority they began to behave like civilised people or at least began to pay lip service to it.

The point is that there are moderate Muslims. I don't know what percent of Muslims are moderate. Although I am not a fan of Islam in any way, I do think that it is important to give credit to any of them who oppose the dogmatic ones.

I don't know how people get out of that statement that I am defending Islam. I am don't want to attack ALL Islam either, because that would be unfair.

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.
The question in my mind are countries with minority Muslim populations, where Muslims don't have the same kind of power that they do in majority Muslim countries.
Muslims in a country such as the USA are more likely to be moderate to the degree that they accept the values, culture and ethics of whatever country they are in.
Of course, secular countries with Muslim majorities would be better than non secular ones. This would be true of other religions as well.

Islam shouldn't be judged by what Islamic societies do but by what Muslim minorities in non-Islamic societies do? Why? This seems like a random assertion. The only reason I can think of for making it is that you think Muslim minorities make Muslims look better. The fact is, they don't though. It does not look good when a group only supports freedom of expression when they they themselves are a minority.

Muslim minorities want to help Islam to evolve. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think they make Islam look better; the point is that they aren't the same as other Muslims.

[°Leprechaun]

The question is, why are Muslims in the US in the first place if they don't like the values and culture of the country? A lot of anti-Muslim bigotry is directed at them. Is that a good thing?
Obviously there are some Muslims in the US that hate the US, but is that the majority?

These are the questions. I am not trying to defend Islam, but I am opposed to arbitrary bigotry against an entire group of people even if I am not interested in converting to their religion.

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.
The question in my mind are countries with minority Muslim populations, where Muslims don't have the same kind of power that they do in majority Muslim countries.
Muslims in a country such as the USA are more likely to be moderate to the degree that they accept the values, culture and ethics of whatever country they are in.
Of course, secular countries with Muslim majorities would be better than non secular ones. This would be true of other religions as well.

Islam shouldn't be judged by what Islamic societies do but by what Muslim minorities in non-Islamic societies do? Why? This seems like a random assertion. The only reason I can think of for making it is that you think Muslim minorities make Muslims look better. The fact is, they don't though. It does not look good when a group only supports freedom of expression when they they themselves are a minority.

Muslim minorities want to help Islam to evolve. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think they make Islam look better; the point is that they aren't the same as other Muslims.

You're missing my point. You assume that minority Muslim communities just happen to coincidentally be more liberal. I think that's unlikely. They're probably more liberal because their situation forces them to be. If you took those same communities and plopped them in the middle of an Islamic society, they would mostly likely adopt the norms of that new, more conservative, society even more quickly.

My point was that why do Muslims move to non Muslims countries in the first place?You're right that I shouldn't assume anything and I can't think of any Muslims that I know personally. So I can't say what Muslims are thinking. Obviously Muslims living in countries where dissent is crushed can't very well speak out against the evils of their leaders, without danger.

[°Leprechaun]

I still don't get how anyone is saying that I am defending Islam. I don't defend religion. Islam is a religion. How can you not get that?

[°Leprechaun]

Suppose I said that Kasich is not as bad as Trump. Does that mean I like Kasich? Does that make me a defender of the Republican party?
So if I argue that some Muslims are not as bad as others (and I have no knowledge of why they are the way they are), I am somehow defending all Muslims?

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.
The question in my mind are countries with minority Muslim populations, where Muslims don't have the same kind of power that they do in majority Muslim countries.
Muslims in a country such as the USA are more likely to be moderate to the degree that they accept the values, culture and ethics of whatever country they are in.
Of course, secular countries with Muslim majorities would be better than non secular ones. This would be true of other religions as well.

Islam shouldn't be judged by what Islamic societies do but by what Muslim minorities in non-Islamic societies do? Why? This seems like a random assertion. The only reason I can think of for making it is that you think Muslim minorities make Muslims look better. The fact is, they don't though. It does not look good when a group only supports freedom of expression when they they themselves are a minority.

Right.  It's very interesting how people defend Islam.  There is no much obfuscation in lieu of making actual claims that could be refuted.

An analogy is helpful here.  Let's say we're talking about whether ice cream is a healthy food.  Does the following sentence make sense?  Some people who eat ice cream in moderation are healthy so ice cream is healthy.

Of course not.  It's like people think the argument is, can you be both Muslim and non extreme/moderate?  Sure!  But, speaking up in favor of moderating ice cream, or Islam, or cigarette smoking doesn't necessarily recommend any of those activities.  It recommends not demonizing anyone who is Muslim, smokes one cigarette a year or eats Ice cream, certainly.

I think what everyone wants from Muslims is to very basic.  Accept secularism, secular government and law, accept the basic western liberal conception of civil liberty, and take your religion with an appropriate grain of salt, IE don't be literal or fundamentalist.  That's the same thing we expect from Jews and Christians.

That's basically what I was saying. Oh and by the way I am one of those infidels who eat ice cream and smoke cigarettes. I guess I wouldn't make a good Muslim after all. haha

[°Leprechaun]

Jesus. Settle down.

that would be the logical thing to do

[°Leprechaun]

Conservatism, even if it's not violent, encourages violence. If a society endorses the views that the Koran was literal and Mohammad was a great guy, that's going to encourage some people to act out the Koran literally and act like Mohammad.

True, and I think violence is a great evil, but there are other evils.
(Note: I don't mean to imply anything about what you personally think on any of this because I have no idea, my comments are not directed at anyone in particular)
Can you substitute the word "religion" for conservatism? Liberal religion is much less harmful than conservatism, but it is like the ice cream analogy. Small amounts of religion can be harmless in the same way that small amounts of ice cream are better than binging on ice cream.
Liberalism has it's downside as well, moral relativism, angry emotion, and extreme political correctness where one has to watch every word one says in the fear of possibly offending someone. The belief in god and or an afterlife may be harmless in themselves but when other religious ideas are added to those ideas, they can be harmful. Insofar as liberalism encourages interfaith cooperation and coexisting that is good, but atheists should be included as well, in spite of all the anti-atheist bigotry.

[°Leprechaun]

There are huge problems.
 One is confirmation bias. How does one reason with someone who rejects reason? How do you have constructive dialogue with a literalist of any religion? Are literalist Christians going to have constructive interfaith dialogue with literalist Muslims?
 Another is political correctness. PC can be a road to hell with good intentions.
Another is groupthink. This is similar to sectarianism. Even liberal religions are tainted with sectarianism, confirmation bias, and groupthink.
There so many divisions in any religion.
There is no solution to the problem that everyone can agree on.
Reason is possible, but is it possible to extricate emotion from reason?
What is the solution?
To encourage Radical Muslims to give up most of what they believe in and become as liberal or even radical as possible, and remain Muslims? The more you water down a religion by rejecting it's core teachings the more reason to abandon the religion altogether.
Are you going to solve the problem by trying to convert Muslims to another Abrahamic religion?
Would that solve the problem? Good luck trying.
Or why not convince them to give up on religion altogether?
It seems hopeless, but that doesn't necessarily mean that give up trying, only that you don't have unrealistic expectations or get discouraged when you fail.
One response is to argue for ethics and common sense morality.
But how are you going to do that when a literalistic interpretation of the Koran or Bible is such a big part of so many faiths? Obviously the Bible and Koran are not the same and it is difficult to find common ground between the two religions. I think that you would have better luck looking for ways to have interfaith dialogue between Christians and Buddhists. But that is moot, because the problems between Islam and Christianity are a huge problem with no easy answer.
The point that is lost in all of this is not to oversimplify the problem. Calling terrorists radical Islamists tends to confuse the issue. Yes, of course ISIL/DAESH is Islamic, but to say that radical Islam is the enemy confuses the problem. You are not going to solve the problems of literalism any time soon, but that doesn't mean that there are ways to deal with the violent ones. Those who are responsible for working on the problems, leader of all the countries of the world, are ultimately going to be the ones who have to deal with the issue. The big picture problem, namely, the downside of religion, is going to take a lot longer than dealing with the immediate crisis.

Everything that I have said here is probably moot anyway. I don't know if any of it contributes to the dialogue, but it is difficult to summarize the complexity of religions when they are so many of them and they are not merely equal alternative. All this is complicated by the fact that Republicans and Democrats are just as divided as religions are and they have strangely become so unwilling to co-operate, and of course they blame each other for refusing to co-operate which only compounds the problem. They also get distracted on so many other issues. I haven't even scratched the surface of the problem,  have I? edit: the devil is in the details, focusing on the big picture and saying that all we need is peace and love, which is all well and good, but creates a false dichotomy between getting lost in the details without finding any solutions or simply oversimplify the problem, with Why can't we all just get along? Well maybe we could if we were logical beings, but we're not.