We hear that moderate Muslims are the solution to radical Islam. But when we examine this idea a step at a time, it will not work.
Radical Muslims want Sharia, moderate Muslims reject Sharia
Radical Muslims want jihad, moderate Muslims reject jihad
And so on…
But the problem is that all of the things that radicals want are pure Islam. And every radical idea that moderate Muslims reject is pure Islam. Moderation simply means rejecting the doctrine. Moderation is a form of apostasy. How can moderates reform what they reject? Moderate Muslims are not Islamic and are not capable of reforming Islam.
There is no moderate Islam; there is no radical Islam. There is only Islam.
=============
Умеренные мусульмане не представляют собой решения для радикального Ислама.
Мы слышим, что умеренные мусульмане являются решением радикального ислама. Однако, когда мы скрупулезно исследуем эту идею, то обнаруживаем, что она не работает. Радикальные мусульмане хотят шариата, умеренные мусульмане отвергают шариат. Радикальные мусульмане хотят джихад, умеренные мусульмане отвергают джихад, и так далее … Но проблема в том, что все то, чего хотят радикалы — это чистый Ислам. И каждая радикальная идея, которую отвергают умеренные мусульмане — это чистый Ислам. Умеренность означает просто отказ от доктрины. Умеренность является формой отступничества. Как умеренные могут реформировать то, что они отвергают? Умеренные мусульмане — это не Ислам, и они не способны его реформировать. Нет никакого умеренного Ислама, нет никакого радикального Ислама. Есть просто Ислам.
6 Responses
Vivian Vennicia
There are a great many social issues that force moderate Muslims into ignorance about their religion. It isn’t all based in rejecting Quran and Hadith. In fact, many of them are totally confused, don’t know what to do or what to think because they are discouraged within the Muslim community from voicing dissenting opinions, or talking about pressing social issues that fuel radical interpretations of the scripture and supporting texts. Within the Muslim community, we have a mysterious sheikh. His name is Sheikh Google. He is a nefarious character who is purported to lead one astray from the true path of Islam. There is also the myth that only scholars can speak about Islam and their deductions are to be taken very seriously. Never mind the fact that the majority of people claiming to be scholars are in fact NOT. They are not true scholars of Islam by the Islamic standard, but earn titles of success in western-modeled universities funded by Saudi Arabia who’s main business in spreading Islam is that of disseminating the Wahabbi ideology. I know the good Dr. has tried to refute the existence of Wahabism altogether, however that would require a negation of a huge portion of Islamic history. The same sort of negation the moderate camp employ to deny specific incidents between Islam and the West, like the battle of Tripoli or Hitler’s relationship with the Saudis.
The denial on both sides is fueled by an egoistic need to negate the truth. Moderates tend to idealize the warm fuzzy aspects of Islam like marriage, and paradise. Non-Muslims tend to ideate the warmongering and violence they hold so dear and project it outward onto many groups not just Muslims. The Radicals tend to idealize death and interpret scripture based on their desire for righteous glorious endings that equal spiritual superiority in the form of martyrdom. This is all ego.
The middle way is the true Islam. Finding the middle way requires an acknowledgment of the real and tangible as well as the esoteric. It required inner reflection, deep study of specific subjects in the correct order, and an acceptance of the real problems surrounding the perverted interpretations of the texts. Moderates, Secularists, Extremists, and Non-Muslims are all making egregious mistakes in their interpretations. The root of the issue lies in the lack of literacy. A moderate is no more literate in Quranic Arabic than a Non-Muslim. If one doesn’t delve into simultaneous spiritual education in conjunction with the scholarly study of linguistics and morphology then one cannot understand Islam in the way that I am speaking of.
I don’t know all the answers. But I know enough to know what I don’t know. And that little piece of knowledge is the key to cracking the code of Islam.
The basic rule for the traditional Islamic scholarship is to have a sheikh, be part of an order of spirituality (Sufism), have a madhab, and study above all things the Classical Arabic language and learn Quran. Alongside other basic prerequisites are the study of Logic and Rhetoric. These topics are sneered at by ALL who study Islam. The moderates, the radicals, and the nonmuslims.
lifestyletree
Hi All
Thanks for all you do Dr. Warner.
I’ve been on my ISLAM learning curve for the last few weeks. I would like to pass a scenario by everyone if I could.
Let’s say you have a country called Utopia. Utopia is a democratic civilization with similar laws of today. If the country migrated 2% moderate Muslim and 2 % radical Muslims how would this play out? Would the radicals try to radicalize the moderates? Would the moderates alert the authorities of radical Muslims? Would the moderates just stay in the background? Do the radicals consider Moderates Kafirs? Anyway I hope you get my point.
Thanks for your help?
Peter Clemerson
I agree that ‘moderate’ muslims, defined as you have just stated, are not the key to reforming Islam as technically, in my opinion and that of ‘radical/literalist’ muslims also, they are apostates because they have rejected many of the tenets of Islam as defined in the Q, ahadith, sira, etc. Given that Islam has a written definition, supposedly partly dictated by an all powerful divine entity, I agree with others who claim that it can not be reformed. However, it can be partially abandoned and is being by ‘moderate’ muslims, who find various reasons for this partial abandonment. These people should probably be regarded as allies rather than subjected to our rejection. The larger the proportion of all muslims who are moderates as previously defined, the less the western values that we hold dear will be challenged, threatened and potentially replaced with sharia based law and culture.
One thing appears to be indisputable; the proportion of muslims in western societies, of one stripe or another, is rising and will continue to rise for the next several decades for a well-known set of reasons; immigration, family sizes, conversions, and perhaps others. This rise is unwelcome, but such a prediction, having almost the same credibility as a historical or physical fact, has to be accepted for the same reason as facts do; it can not be realistically denied. The issue therefore facing those of us who deny Islam any credibility or reverence, is how to react to this reality.
There are a few answers:
1. promote the findings of the physical sciences in schools, universities, the media and the entertainment industry which reveal that the foundations of all religions consist of myths and legends that were generated thousands of years ago by men who were understandably searching for answers to fundamental questions that the evidence based sciences are answering today. Promotion of this new knowledge will undermine the literalism of the literalists and encourage at least some acculturated muslims either to reject Islam altogether, becoming ex-muslims, or join the ranks of the moderates.
2. accept the ‘moderates’ as fellow citizens, avoid hostility and thereby encourage them to proselytize within their own communities so that they increase as a proportion of all muslims.
3. put pressure on politicians and media personnel to denounce the Islamic texts and sharia as conflicting with western democratic pluralism, which they, more than anyone else, should be advocating. For reasons I do not understand, promoters of the contradictions between Islam, as defined by its texts and jurisprudence, and western pluralism are denied public platforms. The political class and media personnel who implement this ‘no-platform’ policy must be challenged and the policy overturned wherever possible.
If there are other avenues for resisting the threats to the western freedoms that have been acquired so expensively over many centuries in the currencies of human suffering and lives, perhaps other people who support Bill Warner’s campaign will suggest them in response to this post.
Peter Clemerson
cboonghee
Thank you , Dr Bill Warner . Your hard work and dedication to seek the truth about Islam and then to educate and let the masses know is so much appreciated . Thanks , God bless you and your loved ones .
temorford
The only true solution to Islam will not come through human effort.
Though we must stand firm against the evil, and not be persuaded.
“Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith Yahweh.”
“Amen. Even so, come, Master Yahshua.”
Peter Clemerson
I agree that ‘moderate’ muslims, defined as you have just stated, are not the key to reforming Islam as technically, in my opinion and that of ‘radical/literalist’ muslims also, they are apostates because they have rejected many of the tenets of Islam as defined in the Q, ahadith, sira, etc. Given that Islam has a written definition, supposedly partly dictated by an all powerful divine entity, I agree with others who claim that it can not be reformed. However, it can be partially abandoned and is being by ‘moderate’ muslims, who find various reasons for this partial abandonment. These people should probably be regarded as allies rather than subjected to our rejection. The larger the proportion of all muslims who are moderates as previously defined, the less the western values that we hold dear will be challenged, threatened and potentially replaced with sharia based law and culture.
One thing appears to be indisputable; the proportion of muslims in western societies, of one stripe or another, is rising and will continue to rise for the next several decades for a well-known set of reasons; immigration, family sizes, conversions, and perhaps others. This rise is unwelcome, but such a prediction, having almost the same credibility as a historical or physical fact, has to be accepted for the same reason as facts do; it can not be realistically denied. The issue therefore facing those of us who deny Islam any credibility or reverence, is how to react to this reality.
There are a few answers:
1. promote the findings of the physical sciences in schools, universities, the media and the entertainment industry which reveal that the foundations of all religions consist of myths and legends that were generated thousands of years ago by men who were understandably searching for answers to fundamental questions that the evidence based sciences are answering today. Promotion of this new knowledge will undermine the literalism of the literalists and encourage at least some acculturated muslims either to reject Islam altogether, becoming ex-muslims, or join the ranks of the moderates.
2. accept the ‘moderates’ as fellow citizens, avoid hostility and thereby encourage them to proselytize within their own communities so that they increase as a proportion of all muslims.
3. put pressure on politicians and media personnel to denounce the Islamic texts and sharia as conflicting with western democratic pluralism, which they, more than anyone else, should be advocating. For reasons I do not understand, promoters of the contradictions between Islam, as defined by its texts and jurisprudence, and western pluralism are denied public platforms. The political class and media personnel who implement this ‘no-platform’ policy must be challenged and the policy overturned wherever possible.
If there are other avenues for resisting the threats to the western freedoms that have been acquired so expensively over many centuries in the currencies of human suffering and lives, perhaps other people who support Bill Warner’s campaign will suggest them in response to this post.
Peter Clemerson