Should we side with Moderate Muslims against the Extremists?

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:59 am

Would value your advice on this one: It would also make a good subject for a debate.

Should Atheists side with Moderate Muslims in pretending that the Koran doesn't preach violence?

We have a problem with violent Muslim extremists, they believe in God, that the Koran is the Word of God and that the Koran Justifies violence against non believing civilians (especially in the in light of what we are doing in the Middle East and Israel). We want them to stop doing violent acts, such as terrorist attacks and suicide bombing. Personally, not having a private army, the only way we can do this is by argument and reasoning. Let us look at the positions of the different parties:

1: Extremists: Believe that they should do violence, because God Exists, the Koran is the word of God and the Koran Justifies violence (in the light of what we are doing in the Middle East)

2: Moderate Muslims: Believe God Exists , the Koran is the word of God , but even though we have invaded Iraq the Koran does not Justify Violence against non believing civilians. They attempt to convert Extremists into Moderate Muslims. These people are the most successful because they are more likely to be in contact with Moderate Muslims, and because they are asking less of a change for the Extremists. They therefore engage in long sessions of "twist that text" with the Extremists to make out Islam is a peaceful religion.

3: Neoconservative Christians Believe God exists , the Koran is not the word of God and that the Koran Justifies violence . They aim to emphasise the difference between Christianity and Islam, by emphasising the bad points of Islam. They do a search and destroy job on the Koran, the Haddiths and the life of Mohammed. Not friends with the Moderate Muslims, who believe Mohammed was a wonderful guy.

4: Atheists Believe God does not exist , the Koran is not the word of God but that the Koran justifies violence . They attack the fundamentals of Islam. They agree with Christians on the non-ideal nature of the life of Mohammed. But they are not allies because their attacks tend to cause "collateral damage" to Moderate Muslims and Christians, who want to defend the existence of God. As the Extremists do not often speak to militant Atheists or go on their web sites, Athiests do not often have opportunity to put their arguments to the Extremists.

5: Liberals Have no opinion on the existence of God, the Koran or the justification of violence in the Koran. But they do want the violence to stop. In practice they are aligning themselves with the Moderate Muslims, and parroting what they say.

When Atheists and Christians debate Muslims, they are usually targeting the Moderates, all they may do is drive them into the arms of the Extremists. Should we bother?

There are a very few Muslims in the UK who co-operate readily with the police against the extremists, (at the risk of their reputations), who try to build bridges between the Muslim the community and the locals. However they remain theological fundamentalists, and wear beards and hajibs and distinctive Muslim clothing. These people are being brave in coming out of their shell. But in exchange they are demanding a gradual Islamification of society. Should we attack their belief in God or support them?

***************************************************************

Please try to keep to the subject here. Please go to other threads for the "Was it right to invade Iraq?", and the "would pulling out prevent terrorism?" debate.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 04, 2006 Posts: 843

I think that atheists should only side with the moderates to help stop and slow down the violence. Digging into their lines will not help as we are fundamentally opposite of their position in the universe. So for the sake of humanity we should, so that we may live longer

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Technically there really is no such thing as a moderate theist. They either accept, and act on, all that is part of their religion or they don't. There is no middle ground in regards to religious faith. The least bit of questioning is a sign of doubt. I got that from the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There."

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:12 am

Hugh Fitzgerald: Ten Things to Think When Thinking of Muslim "Moderates"

Maybe first we should define "moderate".
For example:

Quote:

2. The word "moderate" cannot be reasonably applied to any Muslim who continues to deny the contents -- the real contents, not the sanitized or gussied-up contents -- of Qur'an, hadith, and sira. Whether that denial is based on ignorance, or based on embarrassment, or based on filial piety (and an unwillingness to wash dirty ideological laundry before the Infidels) is irrelevant. Any Muslim who, while seeming to deplore every aspect of Muslim aggression, based on clear textual sources in Qur'an and hadith, or on the example of Muhammad as depicted in the accepted sira -- Muhammad that "model" of behavior -- is again, objectively, acting in a way that simply misleads the Infidels. And any Muslim who helps to mislead Infidels about the true nature of Islam cannot be called a "moderate." That epithet is simply handed out a bit too quickly for sensible tastes.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:52 am

pr126 wrote:

Hugh Fitzgerald: Ten Things to Think When Thinking of Muslim "Moderates"

Maybe first we should define "moderate".
For example:

Quote:

2. The word "moderate" cannot be reasonably applied to any Muslim who continues to deny the contents -- the real contents, not the sanitized or gussied-up contents -- of Qur'an, hadith, and sira. Whether that denial is based on ignorance, or based on embarrassment, or based on filial piety (and an unwillingness to wash dirty ideological laundry before the Infidels) is irrelevant. Any Muslim who, while seeming to deplore every aspect of Muslim aggression, based on clear textual sources in Qur'an and hadith, or on the example of Muhammad as depicted in the accepted sira -- Muhammad that "model" of behavior -- is again, objectively, acting in a way that simply misleads the Infidels. And any Muslim who helps to mislead Infidels about the true nature of Islam cannot be called a "moderate." That epithet is simply handed out a bit too quickly for sensible tastes.

If "moderate Muslims" put out propaganda to deceive infidels that the Koran is non-violent they not only deceive us, they also deceive themselves. There are Muslims who genuinely (and wrongly IMOH) think the Koran is non-violent. If they can pretend to themselves that the Koran teaches us about embryology, or that it predicts the speed of light, they can pretend to themselves that it's non-violent.

So should we encourage those who genuinely (and mistakenly IMHO) think it is non-violent? Or should we disabuse them, by telling them that actually the "Extremists" are right?

Remember these "moderate Muslims" are much more likely to have a conversation with an extremist than we are. Is it better to encourage the "moderates" to "convert" Extremists to Muslims who mistakenly believe Islam is non violent, (which may be an easier step for the Extremists)? Or do we go the whole hog and try to make all Muslims into atheists? Remember the arguments needed to convert Extremists to Atheism will never fall on the Extremist's ears.

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 2:14 am

Quote:

Remember these "moderate Muslims" are much more likely to have a conversation with an extremist than we are. Is it better to encourage the "moderates" to "convert" Extremists to Muslims who mistakenly believe Islam is non violent, (which may be an easier step for the Extremists)? Or do we go the whole hog and try to make all Muslims into atheists? Remember the arguments needed to convert Extremists to Atheism will never fall on the Extremist's ears.

What you asking here is impossible.

The "extremists" are fanatics.
You cannot have a dialogue with a fanatic. His mindset is "I am right, you are dead".
A muslim cannot, will not risk his life by "converting" the extremist.
On what ground? The Koran, Sunna, ahadits and the sira will prove the extremist right every time.

The moderate muslim will be regarded as an apostate or a shirk. Both are deadly.

It is a wishful thinking on your part. It cannot be done.

Islam cannot be reformed or made less violent. 1400 years of history proves that.

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 am

Quote:

Should Atheists side with Moderate Muslims in pretending that the Koran doesn't preach violence?

In my opinion, it is our tribalistic nature that is the root cause of most human violence. We divide ourselves into so many disparate groups it’s amazing we accomplish anything socially. While this particularly violent tribe/group is now in the political spotlight, I think we continue to avoid discussions concerning the overall social malady.

IOWs, "taking sides" is the problem.

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:41 am

pr126 wrote:

Quote:

Remember these "moderate Muslims" are much more likely to have a conversation with an extremist than we are. Is it better to encourage the "moderates" to "convert" Extremists to Muslims who mistakenly believe Islam is non violent, (which may be an easier step for the Extremists)? Or do we go the whole hog and try to make all Muslims into atheists? Remember the arguments needed to convert Extremists to Atheism will never fall on the Extremist's ears.

What you asking here is impossible.

The "extremists" are fanatics.
You cannot have a dialogue with a fanatic. His mindset is "I am right, you are dead".
A muslim cannot, will not risk his life by "converting" the extremist.
On what ground? The Koran, Sunna, ahadits and the sira will prove the extremist right every time.

The moderate muslim will be regarded as an apostate or a shirk. Both are deadly.

It is a wishful thinking on your part. It cannot be done.

Islam cannot be reformed or made less violent. 1400 years of history proves that.

I agree with pr126. Just look at the recent outburst of Muslims, regarding the "Knighthood of Salman Rushdie?"... The Muslims are demonstrating against Britain/The Queen...... what always gets me with these demonstrations, "yes bad old Rushdie, writing the Satanic Verses" .... this worries them?

Why don't they look into their own "back yard"... re: Iraq etc.... where they are killing each other? Now that would be something worth while to demonstrate about wouldn't it?
Yet all these past two/three years, how long has it already been now since the mosque was blown up? Where are the Sunni's the Shia's, around the world, demonstrating against this cold blooded murdering of their own people? The children especially??

Their murdering over there is as if the Catholics would be murdering Christians all over again today. All because of some minor disagreement over their religion?

Would the Catholics, or Christians just sit there and watch?? The Pope, if he wasn't behind it all, would have a say about that. Where are the Imam's, helping to stop these murders?

There would be many demonstrations to "stop this cold blooded and stupid murdering on both sides".. I believe. In the end, Catholics and Christians are still more civilized these days, than Muslims who are threatened with death themselves for leaving or going against Islam.

They are such hypocrites.... and it is unrealistic to think that you can convert any Muslim, be they moderate or extremists, to think rationally or like an Atheist.

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:16 am

Hello sunamiren. Long time no see.

About the Rushdie busidess, I am quoting from another site

Quote:

It's not Rushdie they really want to kill

I think it should be realized that this genuine outrage of Muslims to Rushdie’s knighthood is due to their deeply felt but barely subconscious insecurity about the credibility of their “prophet” and their “religion”, which has way too many indications of a 7th century fabrication designed to support conquest and the acquisition of unquestioned power, plunder & sex slaves. Rushdie in his “Satanic Verses” directly wrote of a particularly glaring phoniness on the part of their “prophet” that Muslims cannot bare to think about. Their psyches completely rebel against any sort of genuine reflection on what Rushdie described. It’s not really Rushdie they want to kill (although they would) but their own tendencies to reflect on their faith, the truth about which is too awful to face. Thus the vigor of their outrage.

This phenomenon of a true believer’s automatic mind-shutdown on the contradicting obvious has been well noted about the ideological true believer, esp. of soviet communism. This was frighteningly described, for instance, by ex true believer Arthur Koestler & others in the remarkable book “The God That Failed”). But soviet communism was held together by the murderous secret police. Islam is also held together by fear (apostates are to be killed, rebellious women are to be beaten) but mostly by this peculiar mind shutdown.

the gist of the Satanic verses

Quote:

Yes, they are that insecure. The whole business of islam is a house of cards -- remove one, and the whole works comes down. Rushdie, in the Satanic Verses, suggests that on at least one occasion, the angel speaking to Mo spoke the words of Satan, and not those of God, and that Mo didn't know the difference until the angel alter pointed it out. But since Mo couldn't tell which words were from God, and which not, how did he know that the angel revealing the mistake was not really the angel of Satan? Mo himself couldn't tell the difference, so how can any of his followers? To suggest that any part of the koran was ever not the word of God is to suggest that maybe other parts are not either.

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:58 am

Hello pr126, thanks for that. I haven't looked at that "site" Jihad Watch in some time. It does have good information.

The quote: "It's not Rushdie they want to kill... etc" is very much to the point of what their whole problem is.

I can't see the point in knighting him anyway, or knighting anybody for that matter. I am not a queen fan as it is..

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:58 am

Quote:

I can't see the point in knighting him anyway, or knighting anybody for that matter. I am not a queen fan as it is..

The Queen does not decide on the list. The whole knighting business is just tradition anyway, it has no significant purpose.

However, I cannot help thinking that this particular honor to Rushdie was a subtle message?
A payback for the 15 marines perhaps?

Whatever it was, it did touch a raw nerve. Wink

Like flipping the bird?

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:04 am

Yes, pr126, I realize that it's not the Queen who decides to "knight" people. You make a good point though, whether or not it was a subtle message, at getting back at the 15 Marines....

However, it sure doesn't take much to "touch a nerve" with these Muslims.

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:20 pm

Quote:

However, it sure doesn't take much to "touch a nerve" with these Muslims.

Indeed. Sensitive creatures as they are.

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

Funny, I've all ways figured they where just rampantly delutional!
Can't realy tell all the time with that lot.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:02 am

I haven't been here for a week and see this is still on the front page... I happened to think of this post while reading the BBC news this morning.

Nothing's changed.... just thinking to myself... Pakistan Extremists were overtaken at the Red Mosque incident... now we have Al-Qaeda telling Pakistan extremists to "start a Holy War".... right, so let's continue to kill each other, in the "name of Allah!" (Another Iraq coming up?)

It's never going to end. Pakistan's president, Musharraf.. is caught between licking Bush's backside, as is our PM, and keeping his people happy at the same time.

Religion has been a curse on mankind since someone said the name "God" and then "Allah" or was it the other way round???? ... :prayer: :hang: LOL


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore