Comments on: Where are all the moderate Muslims? http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/ In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:58:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Khadija http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-142325 Khadija Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:18:53 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-142325 here is a response http://salika.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/ayan-hirsi-ali-in-the-ny-times-where-are-the-moderate-muslims/ here is a response

http://salika.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/ayan-hirsi-ali-in-the-ny-times-where-are-the-moderate-muslims/

]]> By: Australian Atheist http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-142063 Australian Atheist Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:36:12 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-142063 Eventually got around to writing a post about our discussion here: <a href="http://australianatheist.blogspot.com/2007/12/but-it-requires-four-adult-witnesses.html" rel="nofollow">But it requires four adult witnesses.</a> Eventually got around to writing a post about our discussion here:

But it requires four adult witnesses.

]]> By: Turkish Citizen http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141857 Turkish Citizen Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:03:58 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141857 A secular and laic system to be sure. I would like to write a brief history from the Turkish perspective in the hope that it may help people in the west understand some things better. During the last 400 years Europe fought religious wars: the 30-Year-War, the 100-Year War, many massacres an finally in the 19th century Western and Northern Europe settled with the Christian churches: Both The State and the Church would co-exist in the public domain, but would be separate from each other and would not interfere with each other. In the United States, this was expressed as the separation of Church from State. That means that the Church would not get into politics, and the State would not interfere in religion. This was called “secularism". In France, the Revolution of 1789 broke the backbone of the Catholic Church. There was no settlement with the Church. The Church was simply totally excluded from the public domain. The public domain belonged completely to the State. That was called “Laicism”. In order to understand why Ataturk chose Laicism for Turkey, we need to study a little history. In 1905 -1906 a class of General Staff officers, including Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), were worrying about the future of the Ottoman Empire. They were wondering why European states were flourishing while the Ottoman Empire was crumbling. They knew their own country well. So, they studied the European history of the last 300 years and read the books of the French enlightenment writers. At the end of this study, Mustafa Kemal reached the conclusion that to be fit to survive in the 20th Century, Turkey had to be just like Europe. That meant that Turks had to be educated. They had to learn to make their daily decisions based on science and not on religion, tradition, and superstition. Mustafa Kemal found that the Islamic religion was part of the problem: The Sheria that defined human relations had to be outlawed, women had to be emancipated, religious schools had to be closed and replaced by schools that teach math, science, Turkish, foreign languages, history, geography and philosophy. The Koran could not be discussed, or interpreted, it was considered an absolute truth. It states that all knowledge and science is contained in it, and there is no science outside it. This part of the Koran had obviously to be disregarded in order to do science. To the contrary, in science one had to question everything in order to find the truth and advance. Thus, Turks could not allow any part of the Muslim religion in the Public Domain, because in many cases it contradicted what the State schools were teaching. Secularism which was perfectly feasible with Christianity was impossible with Islam, because, if allowed to be equal with the State, soon Islam would take over the State. Islam just could not be tolerated in the Public Domain and Ataturk had no other choice than to choose Laicism for Turkey. A nation that is over 99 % Moslem could become a modern nation only by curtailing Islam to personal beliefs, by outlawing all Islamic human relations (Sheria, incl. polygamy, etc), and by excluding the religion from the Public Domain. The American press often has articles that Turkey is a proof that Islam and Democracy can coexist. It is simply not true. Democracy can coexist only with an Islam devoid of Sheria, and excluded from the Public Domain. It cannot coexist with the full Islam. President Bush the evangelist has a misguided conception such as "moderate Islam", this makes just as much sense as being "moderately pregnant". Laicism has been put into the Turkish constitution, because it is the guarantee of modernity and survivability in the modern world. That is why the Turkish military wants to preserve it at any cost. A secular and laic system to be sure.
I would like to write a brief history from the Turkish perspective in the hope that it may help people in the west understand some things better.
During the last 400 years Europe fought religious wars: the 30-Year-War, the 100-Year War, many massacres an finally in the 19th century Western and Northern Europe settled with the Christian churches: Both The State and the Church would co-exist in the public domain, but would be separate from each other and would not interfere with each other. In the United States, this was expressed as the separation of Church from State. That means that the Church would not get into politics, and the State would not interfere in religion. This was called “secularism”.
In France, the Revolution of 1789 broke the backbone of the Catholic Church. There was no settlement with the Church. The Church was simply totally excluded from the public domain. The public domain belonged completely to the State. That was called “Laicism”.
In order to understand why Ataturk chose Laicism for Turkey, we need to study a little history. In 1905 -1906 a class of General Staff officers, including Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), were worrying about the future of the Ottoman Empire. They were wondering why European states were flourishing while the Ottoman Empire was crumbling. They knew their own country well. So, they studied the European history of the last 300 years and read the books of the French enlightenment writers. At the end of this study, Mustafa Kemal reached the conclusion that to be fit to survive in the 20th Century, Turkey had to be just like Europe. That meant that Turks had to be educated. They had to learn to make their daily decisions based on science and not on religion, tradition, and superstition. Mustafa Kemal found that the Islamic religion was part of the problem: The Sheria that defined human relations had to be outlawed, women had to be emancipated, religious schools had to be closed and replaced by schools that teach math, science, Turkish, foreign languages, history, geography and philosophy. The Koran could not be discussed, or interpreted, it was considered an absolute truth. It states that all knowledge and science is contained in it, and there is no science outside it. This part of the Koran had obviously to be disregarded in order to do science. To the contrary, in science one had to question everything in order to find the truth and advance. Thus, Turks could not allow any part of the Muslim religion in the Public Domain, because in many cases it contradicted what the State schools were teaching.
Secularism which was perfectly feasible with Christianity was impossible with Islam, because, if allowed to be equal with the State, soon Islam would take over the State. Islam just could not be tolerated in the Public Domain and Ataturk had no other choice than to choose Laicism for Turkey. A nation that is over 99 % Moslem could become a modern nation only by curtailing Islam to personal beliefs, by outlawing all Islamic human relations (Sheria, incl. polygamy, etc), and by excluding the religion from the Public Domain.
The American press often has articles that Turkey is a proof that Islam and Democracy can coexist. It is simply not true. Democracy can coexist only with an Islam devoid of Sheria, and excluded from the Public Domain. It cannot coexist with the full Islam. President Bush the evangelist has a misguided conception such as “moderate Islam”, this makes just as much sense as being “moderately pregnant”.
Laicism has been put into the Turkish constitution, because it is the guarantee of modernity and survivability in the modern world. That is why the Turkish military wants to preserve it at any cost.

]]> By: Nora http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141848 Nora Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:48 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141848 Morningstar - thank you for saying everything I wanted to say. Australian Atheist. I actually want to thank you for pointing out a flaw in my argument. I wasn't trying to say that Paris Hilton etc... should be flogged. I was trying to make the point that the system has attached so many rules to corporal punishment that, in effect, its use beyond a symbolic manifestation of how heinous the sin is has been proven virtually impossible. On another note, and as morningstar pointed out, ANY ruling within the Quran is only supposed to be implented upon people who <strong>identify themselves as practicing Muslims</strong>. But because so many 'leaders' manipulate this to suppress minorities, political dissidents etc..., I would never vote for an Islamist state - I don't trust political leaders to use my religion in its proper form. Morningstar – thank you for saying everything I wanted to say.

Australian Atheist. I actually want to thank you for pointing out a flaw in my argument. I wasn’t trying to say that Paris Hilton etc… should be flogged. I was trying to make the point that the system has attached so many rules to corporal punishment that, in effect, its use beyond a symbolic manifestation of how heinous the sin is has been proven virtually impossible.

On another note, and as morningstar pointed out, ANY ruling within the Quran is only supposed to be implented upon people who identify themselves as practicing Muslims. But because so many ‘leaders’ manipulate this to suppress minorities, political dissidents etc…, I would never vote for an Islamist state – I don’t trust political leaders to use my religion in its proper form.

]]> By: Manas Shaikh http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141834 Manas Shaikh Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:27:36 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141834 Thank you for this post. There has been a lot of responses. You may keep a tab on IJTEMA for such issues. http://mezba.blogspot.com/2007/11/woman-arrested-for-naming-horse-after.html http://www.ijtema.net/2007/11/27/teddy-bear-crisis/ indianmuslims.in also had some pieces on it. They are not the only ones. I have seen tens of responses. And I didn't have to search for them. But I have two issues- why should CAIR or others be <strong>required</strong> to response to every issue around the globe? Second- the woman was not punished for being raped. She was punished for something else- a fact conveniently ignored by media. She was punished for being with her boyfriend and for going to the media. Thank you for this post.

There has been a lot of responses.

You may keep a tab on IJTEMA for such issues.

http://mezba.blogspot.com/2007/11/woman-arrested-for-naming-horse-after.html

http://www.ijtema.net/2007/11/27/teddy-bear-crisis/

indianmuslims.in also had some pieces on it.

They are not the only ones. I have seen tens of responses. And I didn’t have to search for them.

But I have two issues- why should CAIR or others be required to response to every issue around the globe?

Second- the woman was not punished for being raped. She was punished for something else- a fact conveniently ignored by media. She was punished for being with her boyfriend and for going to the media.

]]> By: Morningstar http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141805 Morningstar Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:59:01 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141805 <blockquote>Also, Muslim countries that use Shariah (in my opinion) are very inept at doing so. A good example is the bear named Muhammad.</blockquote> which is why it should never be implemented. the prevailing notion within the koran is "absolute justice". in muhammad's time, the jews of medina did not recognize his religious authority, but they did recognize his political authority. when they brought disputes to him, muhammad enforced judaic laws, not islamic law. but it's absolutely impossible in today's society to have a plethora of courts for hindus, jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever. you just can't do it. a secular system provides absolute justice for all citizens.

Also, Muslim countries that use Shariah (in my opinion) are very inept at doing so. A good example is the bear named Muhammad.

which is why it should never be implemented.

the prevailing notion within the koran is “absolute justice”. in muhammad’s time, the jews of medina did not recognize his religious authority, but they did recognize his political authority. when they brought disputes to him, muhammad enforced judaic laws, not islamic law.

but it’s absolutely impossible in today’s society to have a plethora of courts for hindus, jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever. you just can’t do it.

a secular system provides absolute justice for all citizens.

]]> By: Erika http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141803 Erika Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:52:43 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141803 It's very much like the reasoning in the olden days when the black community was expected to apologize for the bad behavior of any black person anywhere. In fact, when a black person, or a group of black people (the Louisville double murder comes to mind), attacks a white person, the community is still expected to apologize. It's an impossible standard. But, you know what, it's meant to be, because racists never like to cut their targets a break. It’s very much like the reasoning in the olden days when the black community was expected to apologize for the bad behavior of any black person anywhere. In fact, when a black person, or a group of black people (the Louisville double murder comes to mind), attacks a white person, the community is still expected to apologize.

It’s an impossible standard. But, you know what, it’s meant to be, because racists never like to cut their targets a break.

]]> By: Morningstar http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141799 Morningstar Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:42:42 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141799 <blockquote>For people who suggest Islam should do away with Shariah…or not make it a focus in Islam. I completely disagree. Shariah is Islamic law, and ALL actions must be governed by Shariah. If you want a Muslim country, it will be governed by Shariah…</blockquote> what is shariah? and which scholar's version of shariah will a muslim nation be following? which sect's interpretations will supercede? will the scholars be seperate from the rest of the branches of government? sharia cannot be forced upon from above, and in this day in age, with so many different beliefs so many different ways of even following islam, it is absolutely impossible to impose it. today's society is so far removed from the society of the prophet, that it's absurd to think that it would work right now. the prophet's society actually wanted shariah, they were at a level where it worked for them. but it'll never work in today's world. the fact is, muslims are more free in the west to practice their religion than they are even in nations that trie(d) to implement sharia. you don't need sharia law to pray 5 times a day, or to be honest.

For people who suggest Islam should do away with Shariah…or not make it a focus in Islam. I completely disagree. Shariah is Islamic law, and ALL actions must be governed by Shariah. If you want a Muslim country, it will be governed by Shariah…

what is shariah?

and which scholar’s version of shariah will a muslim nation be following? which sect’s interpretations will supercede? will the scholars be seperate from the rest of the branches of government?

sharia cannot be forced upon from above, and in this day in age, with so many different beliefs so many different ways of even following islam, it is absolutely impossible to impose it. today’s society is so far removed from the society of the prophet, that it’s absurd to think that it would work right now. the prophet’s society actually wanted shariah, they were at a level where it worked for them.

but it’ll never work in today’s world.

the fact is, muslims are more free in the west to practice their religion than they are even in nations that trie(d) to implement sharia. you don’t need sharia law to pray 5 times a day, or to be honest.

]]> By: Barbara Simpson-L. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141797 Barbara Simpson-L. Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:39:50 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141797 I think it's very sad to see her HUSBAND stands by her side, so who makes it okay for everybody else to judge if they weren't eye witnesses? Or were one of these judges of others disguised as a pillow to be so sure...consult Allah first before judging another! If you don't consult with Allah, then you have no fear of Him, and if you don't, then you're not praying 5 times a day! How dare anybody be so ignorant and backwards to judge another! Do you think the husband or the lawyer would have come forward to defend this young woman if she were a whore? Don't you have mothers, sisters, or other women in your lives who have been a positive influence you love? Or are all women who surround you so ignorant and deserving to be treated like animals? Wake UP! I think it’s very sad to see her HUSBAND stands by her side, so who makes it okay for everybody else to judge if they weren’t eye witnesses? Or were one of these judges of others disguised as a pillow to be so sure…consult Allah first before judging another! If you don’t consult with Allah, then you have no fear of Him, and if you don’t, then you’re not praying 5 times a day! How dare anybody be so ignorant and backwards to judge another! Do you think the husband or the lawyer would have come forward to defend this young woman if she were a whore? Don’t you have mothers, sisters, or other women in your lives who have been a positive influence you love? Or are all women who surround you so ignorant and deserving to be treated like animals? Wake UP!

]]> By: Umar K. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141732 Umar K. Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:13:50 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/08/where-are-all-the-moderate-muslims/#comment-141732 *Freedom *Freedom

]]>