The Criminalization of Islam

[wanderer]

https://divergingthoughtsblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/the-criminalization-of-islam/
Enjoy, like, and follow
wanderer

[Amira]

Much of this is pertinent to our lives today, but I don't understand your collective condemnation of Western civilization, which is not a monolith. Though plagued with hypocrisy, Western government systems have often been efficient and are not entirely anti-Islamic. In addition, you seem to be trying to argue that everything wrong with today's Islamic world is the fault of the West. While this may be partially true, it's also impossible to absolve Muslims of blame. And while I agree that Muslim sects need to stop bickering about their differences, there are some theological and practical differences that are too great to ignore. Certain practices that go on under Muslim-run governments have to be abolished and condemned. Both the West and the Muslim world have problems, and neither can be absolved of blame. But shouldn't we fix our own problems first before accusing others?

You stated that the "entire range of acceptable Islamic thought" must be defended. But what is acceptable Islamic thought? Who decides what is acceptable? Are you going to ally yourself with the Muslims who promote the murder of "apostates"? Certain people might consider that to be within the realm of "acceptable" thought. I do not. Instead of a blanket condemnation of the West, why don't we see what can be done to help ourselves?

[wanderer]

Hi Amira. Thank you for your comment.
Much of this is pertinent to our lives today, but I don't understand your collective condemnation of Western civilization, which is not a monolith. Though plagued with hypocrisy, Western government systems have often been efficient and are not entirely anti-Islamic
I believe that Western civilization is ethically corrupt and morally bankrupt to the highest degree. I believe that the philosophy of Secular Liberalism (with a capital L-- not to be confused with the political left) is dangerous to the world at large. This has nothing to do with 'efficiency'.
In addition, you seem to be trying to argue that everything wrong with today's Islamic world is the fault of the West. While this may be partially true, it's also impossible to absolve Muslims of blame
With respect, this is not my position. I hold the Muslim world very much responsible for settling into a state of intellectual and political mediocrity. I do not aim to passively complain, but rather to provoke active change.
But shouldn't we fix our own problems first before accusing others?
They go hand in hand.
You stated that the "entire range of acceptable Islamic thought" must be defended. But what is acceptable Islamic thought? Who decides what is acceptable?
Excellent point. I probably should have elaborated on this more in my article. I believe that us Quran-centric Muslims should make a greater effort to comprehend the views of other, orthodox Muslims. I do actually consider the example you cited an 'acceptable difference', for instance. But yes, this should probably be thought about more by me. God willing, I'll write about it in the future.
Instead of a blanket condemnation of the West, why don't we see what can be done to help ourselves?
This is exactly what I am trying to do.
Regards
wanderer

[Amira]

Salam. There are a few things about your reply that I want to address, but I'm starting with the most concerning part. You say that you consider the idea of apostates being executed an acceptable opinion. You also say that the entire range of acceptable Islamic thought must be defended. So the concept that apostates must be killed should be defended? This, with regards to basic human morality, is barbaric and wholly unIslamic.

Perhaps my understanding of your words is not what you meant to convey. If this is the case, then you should have phrased your words more accurately. I am simply demonstrating something that, with all due respect, I find often in your posts: you phrase things so that it seems like you're broadbrushing followers of certain ideologies, and disregarding the fact that it is not black and white. I believe there are certain aspects of the West that are destructive and some that are beneficial. Complete Secular Liberalism may be destructive, but Western democracy is not an entirely deficient system. As this is not a political forum, I'm not going to elaborate here.

I do like the fact that you point out the inconsistencies in the way the West generally presents itself, and the way it repeatedly violates the principles it allegedly upholds. Institutionalized racism, apparent "freedom of speech", and hazily impractical ideas of "anything goes" have all undermined ideas that the West usually claims to uphold. But then again, Western civilization is not a monolith.

I also agree that Muslims allying themselves with American Liberals are ignoring important aspects of both sides. If they were to examine their religious views, they would find them to be in opposition with Liberalism, but both sides choose to ignore this. It's like LGBT protesters holding rallies against Islamophobia. It's nice that they want to help Muslims, but their ideologies cannot reconcile, and neither of them recognize this. I feel sorry for both groups. (Whether homosexuality is prohibited by the Quran is a different matter, one that I do not plan to get into right now.)

At the same time, (this might be just me, I don't know)--I can't stand the idea of allying myself with followers of certain (mis)interpretations of Islam. Stoning as a punishment for adultery, for instance, is essentially a mainstream view held by most Muslims, but I simply cannot defend it, or ally myself with someone who does. I can't ignore differences like that. Basically, I find Quranic Islam to be largely incompatible with mainstream Islam AND with most of the West. Both mainstream Islam and certain Western systems of governing are fraught with numerous (sometimes horrendous) inconsistencies that render them incapable of laying the groundwork for civil society.

You have said that you want to "establish a caliphate". How would you do that? Implementing Quran-based systems of governing might work, but implementing traditional sharia would be suicide.

[wanderer]

Perhaps 'defend' was a poor choice of words. I simply meany that Quran centric Muslims should try to understand traditional positions, instead of just providing a knee jerk reaction. I don't believe you should support views you find morally reprehensible, and I do not believe in the death penalty for non-treasonous apostasy. You are right, I did a poor job articulating my views on this point.
As to your second paragraph, when I criticize the West, I am not attacking every single Westerner. I am attacking Western philosophy, and the governments who uphold it.
I believe in the establishment of an Islamic polity ruled by the Quran, spanning the entire Muslim world, or 'khilafah'. With respect, I don't understand how you came away with the idea that I support a gulf state interpretation of the Shariah.
Let me know if you need me to clarify
wanderer

[wanderer]

What I'm trying to get at, essentially, is that while I personally do not agree with many aspects of traditional Islam, I don't necessarily share your distaste of it.

[Amira]

Thank you for your reply. I don't think you support a gulf state interpretation of sharia. I simply said that doing so would be suicide.

Perhaps we should try to understand the orthodox positions better. But I find that the more I attempt to understand them, the more I want to throw things at people. There's just so much inconsistency and hypocrisy. I have great difficulty understanding how humans can inflict that kind of punishment on other humans.

Killing someone for apostasy means you're taking their life away and taking away the time they might have had to repent. Disbelievers get to live because they CAN still repent.

Anyway, your articles are thought-provoking, and you're good at writing.

[Amira]

Wait. I don't have some sort of collective distaste for mainstream Muslims/Islam at all. I too should have phrased this better. I agree with much of it, but there are some elements of it which, yes, are absolutely distasteful to me. I don't understand how they can't be distasteful to anyone with morals.

[Hamzeh]

Asalamu Alykum Wanderer and Amira

I would like to just comment that I agree with sister Amira on her emotions as that the west is not a place where people will fight you regarding your religion and evacuate you out of your home.

To that point as believers we must act justly and kindly with them. Even though the laws of the land in the west is not what believers hope to see because of their love to God's religion and their love is to hopefully see one day people living through the guidance of the Quran, we still have an example that even a Prophet of God (Joseph) abid by the laws of the king and did not seem to go against it.

I am not sure exactly what the future holds obviously but God does know who the believers are. When that time comes for God to check some people in exchange for another people you will know that they will have the blessing in judging by the Quranic ways Insha'Allah or at least expected to judge by the Quran.

I think I read once a comment by brother Joseph which I agree with that in my own words that it would be nice to see the day Insha'Allah when muslims in the world will start studying and teaching the Quran in big institutions and universities the way it should then we can also hope that a big change will happen to the people. I also think this is a great start. It may even be adopted by others around the world. This way people can at least recognize the feeling of the truth and the seriousness to reject it.

I also understand brother Wanderers sentiments and I can see where you are going with the "entire range of islamic acceptable thoughts". I do believe that he ment that the Quran will be the platform for any thought to be valid. As this would indeed bridge the differances between muslims in the world together. As I do see that there is not always "one" solution to every concept.

By the way Wanderer the article was enjoyable for sure. The only things is you seem to suggest that the secular liberalism has a "goal" or "agenda" to purposefully destroy the truth of what God has sent. I am not convinced that thats their agenda. It just feels like they just cannot see eye to eye with some of the laws of the traditional beliefs because of the extremities and they are not believers in a way where the Scriptures has touched them that they are interested in studying to figure out the truth. Maybe I'm wrong. But I only come with this idea is because even scholars of Islam and Christianity and Judaism do not seem to understand their religion in truth.

Part of the blame is also that the teachings if the Scriptures have also been lost. That what people seem to understand about the religion of God is by way of the churches and mosques and the scholars that teach their.

The Scriptures are ment to be a burden of proof and clear evidence. It should be spread by way of reason and not only trying to install faith in a person or trying to tell them that this is right and this is wrong. This is what goes on in the mosques that I see. The religion should be introduced by way of reason, logic and acedamics. Maybe its to much to ask for.

Again you may have a point that the secular world may of been part of the People of the Book and also changed their ways and that the Christians and Jews have also sold into it. It definitely needs more thought on my part.

This is by far again one of those topics that is so complex.

Insha'Allah with peace and blessings

Salam