Good read indeed, yes, thank you.

Would be best if you state your point more clearly. But I guess you too, like any rational people of the 21st century, disagree with slavery (omg, again, how do we get to this level?), and the verses in the Quran only mention how to treat, doesn't endorse to take slaves. Correct? That's acceptable to me.


From that link you posted, I would like to highlight this.
Rationalist Muslims don't have a problem with the article above. Make perfect sense. Problem is, so many muslims, especailly the Traditionalist Muslims, don't quite use rationale on things. They rely on decree 100%. On the words of the text 100%. They do taqleed 100%.

When I was in primary school, in kelas agama, I remember our ustaz taught us to find Dalil Aqli & Naqli - sacred & intellect. Meaning from the sacred text and our own intellect. I always agree to this.

But today, when people say "dalil", they only see the sacred text. Only the Naqli. The emphasis on Naqli has made them not recognize the Aqli. Must refer to the ayat, but we ourself jangan nak berfikir. Some have the broken record reason as "kau siapa nak berfikir, kita ni siapa? serah saja pada ulama". To me, Allah give us brain to think, not to be wasted. So it's wrong that only the ulama can think while kita tak payah fikir. Ikut saja. Islam encourage us to think, the ayat always say yaa ayuhan naas, or yaa ayu hal muslimun, NOT yaa ayu hal ulama.

If we read the history and evolution of Islam, we can see why and how this happen.

Dumb.

damn, even in Tuesday afternoon you guys post a lot.. haha I can only catch up until this..

Because a large part of the Muslim community are not active rational-thinkers. Because a large part of the Muslim community just want to live a normal life like everyone else.

Because many have the "us vs them" mentality. Because many don't even know the diversity of Muslim community. Because many have a supremacist attitude towards others.

and this too
But I'm guessing you already heard all this answers.

I agree that moderates should speak up againts the fundamentalist.

But I do see a big problem. The bigot non-muslims and the anti-theist, paint Muslims with the same brush and/or they go against the moderate muslim too. Obvious reason is because the moderates are also muslim thus their bigot "us vs them" mentality take place since muslim is the "villain", and also those people keep complaining that the moderates don't speak up much, complaining so much so that it agitates both sides - complainer and complainee - that they fight each other, when they both want the same thing (supposedly)!

I said supposedly because I thought these bigots, these so-called neo-atheist want the problem to end, the violence to end. They think they are solving the problem, but the REALITY is, they are part of the problem, and they are surely making it worse!

I think atheist, or whoever, should make an example of Sam Harris when he sat down and discussed with Maajid Nawaz, a helpful move, unlike his previous moves in Bill Maher show.


On Muslims being protective and not being "honest with their religion", it is because the questions/challenges came from the outside, and clearly in a rhetorical voice. It became more of an attack, rather than a move to open up their mind. I don't know if that was indeed the subconscious intention. So for a fundamentalist, or traditionalist muslims to open their mind (not being narrow-minded), discussion or questions cannot be in an attacking mode or it wont work at all and it'll worsen the situation. The discussion have to come from the inside with a good approach.

I am not denying that problem, I'm merely stating another problem that many do not see.

Regressive liberals is another topic. I am well aware of the people, and what they do. So when I say bigots, I mean bigots. I do not equate critiques as bigots. I equate bigots as bigots. This is not the issue of regressive liberals at all.

Matter of fact (I dont know if you notice), I encourage people to question Islamic teachings. My problem is with "questions" from people who WANT Muslims to be the villain. We can easily sense this.

I'm here, in all this mess because I want the problem to end. To solve the problem. So I categorize two types of critiques, of questions. One is honest and towards solving the problem, another the ugly, worsening it. And that is the reason I mention Sam & Maajid's discussion, because it is the former, as oppose to what we usually see in /k or maybe RWI - the latter.


I believe Reza Aslan is a product of that ugly critiques. He became an apologist, or "extreme leftist", to balance out the scale, opposing the islamophobes. Both Reza Aslan and Sam Harris, has been, at some point, a balance/rational person and otherwise.

No one is saying moderates or liberals should be silence. Where is this coming from?

Really no fatwa on forced conversion? Even if so, it doesn't mean the ulamas unanimously permit it. Surely most muslims, not just ulama, against forced conversion, a basic thing. And before words are put in people's mouth and assumptions made as always; this does not mean we agree 100% with what the ulama is doing or not doing.

Again on this "bigots" thing. I don't think Affleck, Cenk, and Aslan called moderate conservatives and libertarians "bigots". But even if they did, thats them. Is this a reply to my post, or are you lamenting? Because you are repeating matters already replied to.


I wasn't even aware this is a "debate".. Because I think s2peMocls and I have the same idea and agreement, I just don't know why he keep replying to me in an opposing manner.

Do you mean "When unreasonable voices..."? I will assume so.

I dont think reasonable people will also stop, because I dont think reasonable people associate themselves to the unreasonable, to the bigots. But if this net effect is true, there has to be another way. We're (or I am) not gonna respond positively to the "attacking" "questions" from islamophobes.

By appreciating and celebrating progressive dialogue like Harris-Nawaz, it shows to both sides that we can talk, if we talk reasonably. We're not against critique or debate.

=====

seiferalmercy stated rude things being said and insulting. As long as we keep being respectful, especially to the figures respected by us Muslim people, there shouldn't be any problem.

If people don't want to read our post, there is an IGNORE button here in lowyat forum we can use. Please click the username and click IGNORE user. It will save seiferalmercy his time and effort, and at the same time, allowing people who wants to be in on this kind of intellectual conversation continue.

Yes, thats a famous video.

If that's what you mean, then we have no discourse there. Of course reasonable voices should not be stopped.

There is some truth to that. If I sense honesty in their question, like there is little desire for an answer, I would answer it, if I have the time and knowledge. Most I have seen, however, are not. The undecided, of course I'd talk to them. The far-right/left, more difficult for me. I would also appreciate if there is some other rationalist muslim answering them. There is not many of us (compared to the traditionalist), and as mentioned, most of us just want to live our normal live, without the burden of work/responsibility to do all that, also the non-muslim moderates not helping the muslim is, well, not helping (this is my original point from before).

I think there some misunderstanding here is on the grouping of "islamophobes", on "bigots". Can we agree that they dont equate to "just any criticism towards Islam"? When we say bigots, we know what we're saying, we do mean bigots, not just any criticism. Even Harris differentiate this and said the same thing I said. (Although he later on uttered some other words disagreed by many rationalist, even he himself later on).


On Harris-Nawaz, very important to me is to not be defensive (or offensive). They focus on coming up with a solution, rather than ,like many other discussion/debate on this issue, going towards the direction we know we wont achieve.

I don't give bigots much credit. I don't see them as reasonable people.

Denial of facts, probably because they're being defensive, so, back to my previous post.


A way to khusyuk in solah is always to go through the meaning of the arabic words (since we're not arabs, for arab people idk). If finish early, why not repeat it? or keep a blank mind.. that's what I'd do.

for naqli, yeah, maybe seiferalmercy can help.

It's a good read. I'm not surprised with it. If we can find islamic scholars talk about this, it would be good, another angle. Because to rely only on one angle is the root of the problem from the beginning.. And a lot of people, BOTH sides, look only from one angle.

Indonesia plans tougher anti-terrorism laws

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/...ws-in-indonesia

We really need to do this, maybe tougher. Especially stripping their citizenship. What do Malaysia do? Rehab on the militants. Rehab. I really doubt the religious bodies can counter IS ideology with their Malaysian-version of teachings.

It is very common for beginners to think "reformation in Islam" means "changing" Islam. Which is of course not the case.


It is a very good idea if we study the evolution of Islam especially after Muhammad's death (how Islam is practiced, who interpret them, how they interpret the teachings, etc), and also the evolution of the concept of religion in this world.

Too many people being romanticized by the slogans of "Islam is perfect", "paling indah", etc, that they refuse to learn more and think more.


It says, most on this earth. Well, today, the "most" in the Musli community is the traditionalist muslims.

It's good that you are having doubt on this. Because another sad occurence in the Muslim community is that we are taught the "us vs them" mentality. But it is in our modern and civilised nature to be fair and kind to people regardless of their beliefs.

A good muslim, a good person, would always wish for the best for everyone, and for everyone to receive Allah's hidayah and forgiveness.

The issue of kafir harbi and kafir dhimmi relates strongly to the magnitude of their opposition to Allah as God. So on a general level, we should not have this "us vs them" mentality. Let's be a good muslim, a good person, and wish goodness to everyone, not just muslims.

I once pitched a question to a closed-minded traditionalist once, I said "so if you are alone with a Jewish kid, do you think you should kill/hurt the kid?". He wanted to say yes (because that is what Malaysian have been taught, but he know there's something wrong there).

It's amazing how many muslims have no compassion and empathy towards non-muslims, especially Jews, due of the Islamic teachings we received today, but we still insist on saying Islam is fair, Islam is good, Islam is kind, etc. I believe the original Islam is not like this, not hateful, and wishing negative things on others. Original Islam is kind to everyone, and that is the Islam that I believe in. Not this hateful teachings.

That's a common food for thought, isn't it?

So I go back to kafir harbi & dhimmi. It depends on their opportunity to seek the truth.


It's not that Quran have problematic teachings, it is the way we interpret it should fit the era and intellectual advancement we are in.

It's not possible to have a new book in Islam because we're not God. As human, what we can do is reinterpret the word of God.


Fatwa is the word you're looking for.

No muslims, ever, wants to change the content of Quran.

He meant fatwa. Goes back to the interpretation of the quran and hadith.

Yes, thats why we have hadith. We have ulama. We have intellect. We ijtihad.

The Quran is not a clear cut rule book that can be read and understood without thinking and analysis.


Yes, you meant fatwas, not changing Quran.

On Uthman, Uthman is the one who volumed the Quran as a book. Before Uthman, the ayats were all scattered, there is no "book". Some surah were not even on papers. The arrangement of the surah (longest one first), and which one is real/fake was determined by Uthman.

Too many Muslim don't know this, that they see the Quran as a holy physical book. They never really think about it, but they have the image of the book Quran came from the time of Muhammad. This is why I say we should all study the history and evolution of Islam. After we do, we will also understand how it later transition (back) to people glorifying the physical aspect of the kalamullah such as having surah poster or sticker on their wall or door or shirt, have talisman, children "menjunjung"/kiss the Quran, etc. A holy physical object.

This physical book is from Uthman time, Muhammad did not go book the Quran.

Uthman, like many other caliphs, use his power to determine which version of Islam should be followed. The ulama and surah/ayat that he deemed should not be followed were stopped during his time. He burnt surah he deemed should not be followed. This is why some people question the authenticity of the Quran (book).

This is worth to be read. So there is 2 different findings: some say Uthman booked the Quran, some say Abu Bakr did.

I'm not interested to dig deeper on that now. I rather go to the point of the matter. The fact that Muhammad didn't book the Quran, but the caliph did. The fact that which ones goes into the book determined by the caliph. Others burnt.


I agree with you, get varying views from scholars. And to me, its not a simple Yes or No answer, even saying No, but..

Okay, calm down.. There is no argument/question on Quran's form as a book. Of course it should be a book.

I was stating the fact that Muhammad didn't make it a physical book, and the fact that many Muslims see it as a holy physical object/book.


Agree. Too much negativity in Muslims mind. I hope tuday's khutbah not all negativity too, like "musuh Islam", "perangi yahudi nasrani", etc etc. Its should be about love to everyone, respect to everyone, maintaining peace, devotion to God, etc.


+1

This is the fact that jihadist (defined here as people who practice force in Islam) don't get, and later kill people without feeling guilt, like ISIS.

I don't believe Muhammad was illiterate. I think he was smart, smarter than the average people then. Zayd must have been assisting him for different reason.

I think all of this came from the Al-Alaq Revelation story..

It goes to how "perfect" is being defined. Do we define it as cannot and will not do wrong? Programmed to obey, supposedly like the angels (after Iblis/Lucifer)? God gave human freewill, we can choose good or bad. Because of that, the teaching says humans will be rewarded if they pass the test that is the world, unlike the angels.

That's one definition, a different one from the one used in Islamic teachings.

That's the matter of soul before being human. I'm talking human's freewill.