View Full Version : Liberal Muslims
The Reaper
11-22-2006, 13:07
Is there actually hope for a Muslim Reformation, or is this wishful thinking of a very few?
TR
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/what_is_a_truly_liberal_muslim.html
November 22, 2006
What is a Truly Liberal Muslim to Do?
By Carlos Alberto Montaner
Is there a liberal Islam? Liberal International is betting that there is. In mid-November, several hundred representatives from some 90 liberal parties and institutions worldwide met in Marrakesh, Morocco, to talk about democracy and development. However, while not proclaimed out loud, there was another, delicate underlying purpose: to strengthen the weak liberal tendencies that exist in Muslim nations.
Liberal International
Twenty-nine parties from the Islamic world were represented in the event, in addition to the Moroccan hosts. The delegates came from countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Turkey and Indonesia. There was even an invitee from the Palestinian Authority.
It was the 54th Congress of Liberal International, a federation of classic liberal politicians and thinkers from 80 nations created in London in 1947 to defend liberty, individual rights and the market. Their purpose was to prevent a resurgence of fascism and the then-furious imperial spasms of the Soviets.
The current Liberal International president is Lord John Alderdice, a brilliant psychiatrist and politician from Northern Ireland who has worked successfully for peace in that contentious region of Britain.
Alderdice harbors no doubt: Only liberal, tolerant and democratic Muslims can persuade the fanatical masses and stop the fundamentalist Muslims. That is a battle that must be waged inside Islam. The West can do very little from the outside.
Israel's right to exist
Something similar happened to Christianity. Slowly, in the course of almost one thousand years of intellectual confrontation and violent wars fought on battlefields, Christian fundamentalism lost its power and attributes until the notion of the lay state and freedom of conscience broke through. Left along the road were millions of corpses and an awful history of barbarity and injustice that reached the peak of abjection and fury with the Inquisition, the burning of witches and the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.
The intention is very good, and Liberal International's strategy is correct. But the possibilities of success in the short or middle run are very limited.
A truly liberal Muslim would have to:
• Fight for the equality of women and for an end to the use of the Koran as the fountain of the law, especially by eliminating its function as a penal code.
• Face the brutal fatwahs of imams who condemn dissenting writers to death.
• Denounce the warmongering nature of a religious creed that consecrates the virtue of the jihad (at least to the fundamentalists) and separates the world into two halves: the half that already has submitted to Islam and the half that must be conquered.
But not even those heroic battles constitute the hardest part of the immense task facing liberal Muslims. The bitterest swallow, but an inevitable test, is to:
• Lead the defense of Israel's right to exist as an independent and peaceful nation alongside an equally free and peaceful Palestinian state.
That is the Gordian knot. That is the factor that today poisons relations between the West and Islam and feeds the more dangerous and destructive fundamentalists. It is true that some countries -- like Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon -- de facto acknowledge the legitimacy of the Israeli state. But the key to peace lies in persuading the rest of the Arab societies and governments, primarily the Palestinians.
Then there is the serious problem of the pressure of time. There's not much of it left. Iran is ruled by an enlightened despot, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who keeps repeating that Israel must be ''wiped off the map,'' while he frenetically builds a nuclear arsenal. By eliminating Saddam Hussein and turning power over to the Shiites, the United States liquidated Tehran's Iraqi adversaries and installed in Baghdad a government that may potentially be an ally of the Persians.
Say your prayers
The nuclear conflict in the Middle East is not a remote possibility. It is there, in plain sight, and the fuse is in the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Who can wrest it from them and put it out? Maybe the liberal Islamists. If they fail, the holocaust this time will end the lives of tens of millions of people and will destabilize half the planet. May God, Jehovah and Allah have mercy on our souls.
TR:
If past performance is the best indicator of future results then I am afraid it's wishful thinking of a very few. History has shown these people are impossible to negotiate with and will settle for nothing less than global domination.
brownapple
11-22-2006, 18:38
Wonder what the general opinion would have been of the chances of the reformation against the Catholic Church when Martin Luther hammered his letter to the door?
I live in Malaysia which considers itself a moderate muslim country and I do travel to Jakarta once in a blue moon and I have noticed a gradual increase in anti-american sentiments again since the Iraq invasion.
Their main bother is the palestinian issue..if that can be resolved and Iraq can come to some form of stability, things could get better for everyone.
But having said that, as a punjabi sikh myself, we have been fighting the muslims for over 300 years, and we're still fighting them on the borders with Pakistan and the Kashmir.
There are just a large majority in the Islamic faith who believe in war and believe in converting people in as many ways as possible to their religion.
Its a pity the liberals are in the minority and those that are hell bent on fighting everyone and every other religion and ideology are so stubborn.
Its really difficult to change their mindset. It really really is.
Their main bother is the palestinian issue..if that can be resolved and Iraq can come to some form of stability, things could get better for everyone.
Hello
Palestine and Iraq are excuses, not reasons...
If you look at a map and see how much Muslim land is avaialble and the size of i\Israel and Palestine in comparison, you will see that if the Arab world card about a Palestinian State, the would have given them, one years ago.
The areas now known as Paelstine werer captured whilest Israel was defending itself in the 1967 6 Day War. They were captured from Jordan and Egypt who each want very very little to do with the Palestinians.
It's all a farce, and escuse for anti-Jew, anti-Israel, anti-America, anti-Christian and anti-Freedom.
Hoepoe
Hello
Palestine and Iraq are excuses, not reasons...
If you look at a map and see how much Muslim land is avaialble and the size of i\Israel and Palestine in comparison, you will see that if the Arab world card about a Palestinian State, the would have given them, one years ago.
The areas now known as Paelstine werer captured whilest Israel was defending itself in the 1967 6 Day War. They were captured from Jordan and Egypt who each want very very little to do with the Palestinians.
It's all a farce, and escuse for anti-Jew, anti-Israel, anti-America, anti-Christian and anti-Freedom.Hoepoe
Hi
I know what you mean and where you're coming from.
I dont disagree with your point of view BUT I am merely stating what I hear and the reasons I keep hearing for the "muslims world vs America and her allies."
Allies generally points to your country and to a lesser extent the UK.
My point is if we can find a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem, then they cant keep harping on about that. But knowing them, they will just look for a new excuse to start problems with you guys and the americans.
I also know the recent one month war was a result of them kidnapping Isreali troops and they crossed the border on orders by their "high command" to do so. Its obvious there are those in the muslim world who are intent on war and fighting as opposed to a peaceful solution for the people in the middle.
For these leaders, the cause isnt about the Palestinians. Its about a bigger agenda which we both know what it is.
We have the same problem as I said in India at the borders. India is trying to reach some sort of peaceful solution to the border disputes we have with the paks but them asking us to move away from some strategic high mountain positions in the Kashmir disputed areas, but I am praying to god the Indian military and government will see the light and not move out from these areas because they are too valuable strategically.
Knowing them, the minute we move out, they will move in.
I speak using the "we" word in reference to my parental heritage as a Sikh, though I am not an Indian citizen. For me, too much Punjabi Sikh land was stolen from us during the partition between India and Pakistan and 20,000-30,000 sikhs were massacared and chased out by these idiots so, there is no love lost between the traditional punjabi sikh and our neighbours the pakis.
We havent trusted them for over 300 years and I dont see any change in our stance anytime soon. Of course, the younger generation either dont know the history of the sikhs or are not educated in school about the 300 year war with the "barbarians" as we call them or the hundreds of thousands of sikhs who have died protecting greater India from invasion. All this, before, during and after the British colonization of India.
They havent finished with Isreal and they will continue to look for every excuse in the book to start another war with you guys....its inevitable.
......But having said that, as a punjabi sikh myself, we have been fighting the muslims for over 300 years, and we're still fighting them on the borders with Pakistan and the Kashmir......
I hate to appear to stick up for Muslims on any issue but....
Kashmir. Didn't this all start with the division of India into Hindu India and Muslim East and West Pakistan? The people of Kashmir were mostly Muslim and wanted to go with Pakistan but the local ruler went with India and there has been fighting ever since?
As I understand it, both sides want the section with the river and best land?
Don't know, just asking.
I hate to appear to stick up for Muslims on any issue but....
Kashmir. Didn't this all start with the division of India into Hindu India and Muslim East and West Pakistan? The people of Kashmir were mostly Muslim and wanted to go with Pakistan but the local ruler went with India and there has been fighting ever since?
As I understand it, both sides want the section with the river and best land?
Don't know, just asking.
No, you are spot on.
"Some Kashmiri rulers, such as Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin, were tolerant of all religions in a manner comparable to Akbar. However, several Muslim rulers of Kashmir were intolerant to other religions. Sultăn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) is often considered the worst of these. Historians have recorded many of his atrocities. The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sikandar persecuted the Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residence of any other than Muslims in Kashmir. He also ordered the breaking of all "golden and silver images". The Tarikh-i-Firishta further states: "Many of the Brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the Brahmins, Sikandar ordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down......Having broken all the images in Kashmir, (Sikandar) acquired the title of ‘Destroyer
In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Ranjit Singh and his Sikh forces rose to power in the Punjab region. One of his generals, Maharaja Gulab Singh, a member of the Jamwal clan of Rajputs, united the various principalities of Jammu province under the suzerainty of the Lahore court. His subordinate, General Zorawar Singh (of the Kahluria Rajput clan), conquered Ladakh and Baltistan.
After the death of Ranjit Singh, the Kingdom of Lahore suffered from internal conflict and relations with the Raja of Jammu soured to such an extent that the Punjabi army invaded the Dogra country in 1845. Raja Gulab Singh therefore did not aid the corrupt Lahore durbar in its war with the English.
The First Sikh War, which was waged between the HEIC and the successors of Ranjit Singh in 1845-46, resulted in victory for the British. A war indemnity of 1.5 million sterling was demanded by the British as one of the ceasefire conditions. This vast amount of cash was not immediately at the disposal of the Lahore durbar, and they ceded the entire hill country between the Beas and Indus rivers in lieu thereof.
Gulab Singh, as the practically independent ruler of most of these hilly areas was recognized as Maharaja by the British plenipotentiaries in the Treaty of Amritsar (16th March 1846). By this treaty, the British gained several ends: they received cash to the extent of Rs.750,000/-; they created a border buffer state; and were relieved of the expense and responsibility of administering a mountainous frontier.
Jammu and Kashmir, was a principality lying between the two new independent nations: India and Pakistan, independent dominions within the British Commonwealth of Nations which were formed by the partition of the former British India colony in August 1947. (British King George VI was the head of state of both India and Pakistan, but was represented in each of the new dominions by a Governor-General: Lord Mountbatten in India and Muhammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan.) A total of 565 princely states formed 40% of India's land area and held more than 100 million people. Each prince had to decide which of the two new nations to join: Hindu-majority India or Muslim-majority Pakistan (which then also included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh). The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, could not decide which country to join and in addition, he nursed fond hopes of remaining the princely ruler of Kashmir, as an independent nation. He was Hindu, while his subjects were predominantly Muslim. To avoid the decision, he signed a "standstill" agreement with Pakistan, which ensured continuity of trade, travel, communication, and similar services between the two. India did not sign a similar agreement.
Indian postal services began listing Kashmir as Indian territory, causing alarm in Pakistan. In October 1947, Pashtuns from Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province invaded Kashmir in support of a rebellion agaist the Maharaja which had erupted in the restive Poonch district. The invasion caused widespread looting in the state. Troubled by the increasing deterioration in law and order situation, and by earlier raids, culminating in the invasion of the tribesmen, followed later by Pakistani rangers, Maharaja Hari Singh, requested armed assistance and asylum from India. India refused to send its troops unless Kashmir officially joined the Union of India. The incumbent Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten also favoured Kashmir's accession to the Republic of India, to which the Maharaja always agreed. "The Instrument of Accession was signed by the Hari Singh on October 26, 1947 extending India's jurisdiction over external affairs, defence and communications
The next day, Indian troops were airlifted into Srinagar. The Pakistani government immediately contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja acted under duress, and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India when the standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force."
The Maharaja of the Kashmir province was a sikh. There is a thin-line separating Punjab and Kashmir in a 9-12 oclock circle which still exists today and reflects the "border" of sorts over the 300 years or so of conflicts. The same also exists for the pak border with india/kashmir.
Its been a political mess eversince with the muslims wanting atonomy but failing to realize that if they are not happy, they should cross over the border and migrate to pakistan. Afterall, punjabi sikh land was taken/given by the british to the pak's and we got chased across the border and in some cases massacared by the thousands by muslim fundamentalist intent on a jihad of sorts to rid newly formed pakistan of all non-believers. It was a very disappointing part of the history of pakistan though from my research, there were cases of muslims who did try to save sikhs and hindu's from these mobs, and in some cases, were successful as they didnt agree with what was going on...a form of ethnic cleansing.
I am going to sound extremely radical when I say this, and I do apologize if anyone is offended but, I would forcely migrate the muslims across the border or encourage them with financial assistance or pay-off's to move across into pakistan and re-populate Kashmir with india citizen's in the punjab province who wanted land or had claims to land in Kashmir before the 1947 problems.
The chinese, in my opinion are doing it (discreetly) with Tibet and it seems to be working for them.
Text above quoted from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kashmir
incommin
11-23-2006, 08:34
Before you can have peace you have to have trust. And I am not dumb enouth to believe you can change a radical person or movement just by talk. I don't trust Muslims anymore. I don't hear crys of outrage at what is being done in the name of Islam or pity for those who must live under Islamic law!
Jim
My other gripe with Islam is, one preacher says one thing, another says another..there seems to be a million different interpretations of Islam..you have some saying "no, its a peaceful religion" and another half making threats and crying "Jihad" over every little thing.
They cant get past the fact time has moved on, cultures have developed, and the world we live in doesnt allow/agree/accept treating women like slaves or killing or polarizing people of other faith's or races because "they are a threat to Islam."
The Islamic group of nations must address these issues if they want the rest of the world to trust them anymore...because everywhere they go, they cause problems. (i.e France youth riots, UK illegal immigrants/burqua debate).
Wonder what the general opinion would have been of the chances of the reformation against the Catholic Church when Martin Luther hammered his letter to the door?
Good point, Greenhat. The "95 thesis" in contention of the sale of "Indulgences" posted in 1517 on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg had profound ramifications, and the Reformation influenced the course of Western Civilization.
Let's hope "Reformation" in this case doesn't take 100yrs.
I think this is a very difficult issue for non-Muslims to come to terms with. I am similar in thought with Jim, but yet I do know a few individual Muslims also the Druse in Israel are a exception.
I think for many Westerners, or more specifically Americans, that when we group all people in a group as the same we will intrinsically feel that it is wrong. The out spoken voices that we hear in Islam has only seem to reinforce the notion that all Muslims are the same. Then when the silent Muslims do not speak out, it only seems to again support the notion that all Muslims can not be trusted and support terrorism.
The problem is not the West or non-Muslims. I believe the solution is in Islam and Muslims are by the over whelming majority are not doing anything to correct that problem.
I think most Westerners are more than tolerant or even to the point of being co-dependent to this intolerant and hostile religion/culture. It is not originally our problem, it has been made our problem by the inability of Muslims to reform a 7th century culture and move it forward to the 21st century.
As non-Muslims we can only limit, prohibited, legally challenge the "religious status" of Islam, and act has we have been doing or to do more to restrict the violence in Islam. It is only in the hands of Muslims that positive change within Islam can happen.
I think this is a very difficult issue for non-Muslims to come to terms with. I am similar in thought with Jim, but yet I do know a few individual Muslims also the Druse in Israel are a exception.
I think for many Westerners, or more specifically Americans, that when we group all people in a group as the same we will intrinsically feel that it is wrong. The out spoken voices that we hear in Islam has only seem to reinforce the notion that all Muslims are the same. Then when the silent Muslims do not speak out, it only seems to again support the notion that all Muslims can not be trusted and support terrorism.
The problem is not the West or non-Muslims. I believe the solution is in Islam and Muslims are by the over whelming majority are not doing anything to correct that problem.
I think most Westerners are more than tolerant or even to the point of being co-dependent to this intolerant and hostile religion/culture. It is not originally our problem, it has been made our problem by the inability of Muslims to reform a 7th century culture and move it forward to the 21st century.
As non-Muslims we can only limit, prohibited, legally challenge the "religious status" of Islam, and act has we have been doing or to do more to restrict the violence in Islam. It is only in the hands of Muslims that positive change within Islam can happen.
Very well thought out and put...I do agree with your point of view.
incommin
11-23-2006, 18:18
I don't think all Muslims are the same. The problem is being able to separate the non violent from the violent, the supporters of terror from those that don't. It is kinda like being back in Vietnam and not knowing which ten to twelve percent of the Vietnamese around you were NVA infiltrators, VC or VC supporters.
Jim