Liberal Islam

[Pascal]

This is something i've been thinking about and interested in for quite some time.

First of all i made a poll, so, you might like to answer (totally anonymous) that if you hold strong views and have a good backing of information already.

If you don't you might like to read some of the things i linked to get a general idea or some of the things that will (hopefully) be posted by other people.

Liberal Islam is really a huge umbrella term though, ranging from those who favour relatively minor, mostly sensible and uncontriversial positions like slavery should not be practiced today, all the way to the quranists and things like that. So, its really hard to generalise things as "Liberal Islam".

One thing i've noticed though is a distinct lack or low number of what you would call alternative interpretations or positions, compared to the diversity within Christianity or Judaism. Christianity has a very rich tradition of splintering into different schools of belief over theological issues (eg the protestant reformation). I've also noticed a strong tendancy towards these movements in Judaism with Progressive , Liberal , Reform and Conservative as some noted examples of varying from the orthodox positions.

The amount of major differing schools of thought in Islam seems to be very small as compared to that of Christianity. Granted Christianity is older but i think there are other reasons (which i will mention below). Within Judaism, i notice a lot of jews follow schools outside the orthodox whereas in comparison, most muslims seem to be within schools that could be classified as tradition or orthodox.

That got me thinking, Why?

One of the reasons, i believe, is of scripture. The Jewish and Christian scriptures are usually claimed to be written by humans inspired by God, recounting stories and events. I think this fact allows for significantly different interpretations because for one, humans do make errors and if you think there is such an error, maybe its the result of a human or the times and you can reform around that. There has also been errors in translation and cultural factors that heavily influence the practice of Christianity throughout time, since christian culture became blended with that of the state. You are not going directly against God in your reform efforts in this way either and there is significantly more leeway for interpretation.

My understanding of the quran is that it is not like the Christian scriptures. It is not mere inspired by God and written by humans. It is the word of God just simply scribed and recorded by humans. The direct word of God handed down. So, you can't really claim theres error and interpret around it. It can't be the error of humans. Either you need to admit there is somehow an error in the quran or the error or wrongness you percieve isn't really there or that it is meant to be and you simply have to accept it, no matter what you feel. I also think that opposed to the blending of Christian and Local culture to a certain extent, Islam became the culture, due to the nature of Islam. So, it would be hard to argue against in that fashion as well. Also, any kind of reform or re-interpretation would seem to some people as almost going against God and the words he handed down and i can understand the considerable difficulties that this would cause.

Another reason i think is the political enviroment surrounding muslim majority countries. Many do not do so well on indicies of freedom or democracy (https://en.wikipedia...x#2010_rankings https://en.wikipedia...ountry_rankings (lower is better) ). In some of these places access to information is severely limited. In other cases a certain version of Islam is preferred by the state and if you don't follow this you could be outcast socially, attacked violently or other things like this (eg saudi arabia, afghanistan under the taliban).

Some muslim countries are less educated or less developed than their counterparts as well and this would also reduce access to information about issues like this. This lack of education and in some countries not yet reached by western ideals of freedom and democracy would also have an impact. It would lead to not fully appreciating the alternatives or your rights. I think in countries like this as well the significant local thoughts would seem to be Islamic or take a certain interpretation (misguided or not) and make everyone follow that. Think along the lines of honour killings or some of the things that went on in afghanistan.

I'd like to see how everone answers the poll and if you have some times, maybe your thoughts on why liberal islam originated, why liberal movements in Islam aren't all that prevalent (or so as far as i can tell), whether you think its good or bad, whether you think the future of Islam will look like that and why some of my reasons may be right or wrong.

Feel free to mention anything regarding the topic in general, i'm very interested in your responses.

I'll link some information about Liberal Islam below:

https://en.wikipedia...i/Liberal_islam

http://studyofislam....iberalIslam.pdf (Good academic paper summarising liberal islam as a whole and the differing variations, origins, and reasons for why it hasn't been more successful or prevalent (eg dictatorships ect) )

http://www.liberalislam.net/ - Some essays by a man who supposedly studied at harvard theological college and holds liberal islam views.

Edited December 17, 2011 by kingpomba

[Guest]

Islam does not have any adjectives. Only definitions.

[Pascal]

On 12/17/2011 at 11:54 AM, :

My problem with some of the analysis is that it is very modern-focused.

I grant you that and i can see how it would be a problem and how it can arise.

I think however, in modern times, "progressive" moveents across all religions have really exploded out more than any other time in history because of a variety of reasons (most of which i don't know).

On 12/17/2011 at 11:54 AM, :

The politics, the education, the "liberal" bias.

I'm not sure if you're American but i read that alot in things that are published from America.

In almost all the rest of the west i never hear this "liberal bias" could you maybe explain what you mean? Politics is different in the rest of the west as compared to America, by a large extent anyway.

I think there's a lot of confusion with that term and it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people in a lot of different places. It's also a fairly loaded word for some as well, carrying pretty heavy connotations. I think in this case you're probably not talking about classical liberalism (small government, lots of freedom is good, minimal government intervention) but probably social liberalism but even social liberalism has been manipulated in a lot of peoples minds by the media when it really has a fairly simple and uncontriversial definition - "The Liberal International is the main international organisation of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity" or "the freedom of the individual to live his life they wish"; something akin to that. Something pretty much everyone would like i think.

For instance where i live there is a political party called "The Liberal Party" which would suggest to one they're on theyre more on the left wing and not socially conservative but actually they're a right wing party and are socially conservative (by the standards of most western countries anyway), mostly for historical reasons. So, i think theres a huge confusion around this term and it's probably worth defining, so much so i'll even put it in bold.

To me, liberal islam implies a progressive look at Islamic theology and whilst i wouldn't say reformulating or actually changing it persay, more just looking at it in light of where you are now and assisting it mould to the current times, sort of like freely flowing water to the changing landscape, the water is the same but it slightly changes with the passage of the ground.

I mean, this is a fairly uncontriversial statement from someone like me, i don't think the quran is absolutely perfect. It didn't outright decry slavery which is obviously a problem considering the world we live in. Another issue as well are things that just aren't at all mentioned, for me as someone who studies the sciences, a lot of bioethical issues like genetic engineering or IVF, things like that. So, it obviously does need to progress along with the times somewhat.

I think those kind of ideas of liberalism are a good thing. Lets not get hugely off topic though.

I was reluctant to mention morals in society and imposing the morals of one system or your belief on everyone else and society as a whole but i guess its rather inseperable from this issue. Especially if you're considering Islam in regards to the state, rather than the individual which is what i was more aiming for in this thread.

On 12/17/2011 at 11:54 AM, :

I also think that "Liberalism" as a sociopolitical phenomenon - until very recently - was a product of European history. It rose from cultural discourse alien to the Islamic world. However, "progressive", "traditional" and "reform" do have similar equivalents in Islamic history and culture.

I think we're all just very confused over terms. Rightly so, a lot of the terms mentioned here share a lot in common when commonly thought about. I wouldn't go as far to say reform, that implies something very strong to me, a really huge overhaul, i would say more progressive.

On 12/17/2011 at 11:54 AM, :

Also, I think Islam has had its fair share of variance.

This is true but what i intended to mention but forgot to do was this - A lot of the variance i've seen in islam is in a lot of cases related to political disputes more than theological issues (just based on the superficial knowledge i have of some of the lesser known sects anyway). This is nothing unusual of course, the East-West Schism in christianity was largely because of political reasons, the romans invaded and pillaged constantinople and obviously they weren't too happy about that, things were already tense, so they split. Compared to Christianity though, it just struck me that most of the disputes i've seen were only partially related to theology and this obviously ties in with all the other ideas i've mentioned above about why people are reluctant to be progressive or change the theology.

Christianity doesn't say much about creating a Christian theocracy (holy roman empire, ect was a misappropriation of the name...at best) in the bible but Islam has a fair share of political tradition associated with it as well, so i think this is another reason.

Being part of the long and various western traditions and then having being educated obviously influences how i think and act and formulate ideas, so it might show through a little here. However, in the (modern) west there's usually a clear distinct boundary between civil society, the religion and the person. In Islam though, as i mentioned above with the supplanting of the previous culture, i think the dynamics change a bit and the boundaries get significantly more blurry. In the west they say dont talk about religion and politics, its really a personal thing and for most people it just entails personal worship and living your life the way you think you should. I've also noticed that civil society has changed and usually sooner or later the religions change along with it (sometimes its in reverse, like slavery in USA, as far as im aware a lot of churches were against it), movements occur, peoples ideas change, generational changes occur and the religions usually flow along a bit.

Like i said, it really is personal. It doesn't affect the public all that much and just putting the whole evangelical christian movement aside (which i think is partially a reactionary response to secularism) people don't usually go around loudly proclaiming their faith and trying to shape society around it. Historically, i think anyway, if you look back you see much the same. Christianity was a part of life, even living in states dominated by the holy roman empire or times where pretty much everyone was a believer but it was just a part of life, not the whole life. They had a distinct and seperate culture, arts, ect.

Where as in Islam, it pretty much *IS* the culture to a certain extent and it is the civil society. So, its not like the religion can play catch up to the civil society like christianity does some of the time. Islam in a lot of countries now, reminds me of how christianity use to be in a lot of places. I think however, we're seeing the emergence of a similar situation for Islam in certain countries that have democratic systems and true freedom of religion, perhaps something like turkey or the more free places in the middle east/north africa. I think it will largely go the way that Christianity has gone in places like this, eventually anyway.

So, to me, making Islam more personal is unstoppable in situations like this.

I think when you unblur the lines between civil society, the state, the person and the religion, it allows for a wider variety of personal interpretations as well. Also, if it isn't the culture or isn't civil society often theres a disparity between the two and people try to reconcile them in different ways.

Again this all comes down to what exactly we mean by "progressive" or "liberal" islam though.

On 12/17/2011 at 11:54 AM, :

Though interesting from an anthropological point of view, I am not too enthusiastic about it. I do not embrace variance of opinion on the Absolute Truth as good.

I can understand how it can be a nice idea and a nice message. I'm not suggesting any kind of variance around the core of Islam like the beliefs around God or muhammed or anything like that. More about the accessory issues that arise out of certain things, like certain issues regarding women, marriage, slavery, ect. Which i all believe have their time and change with the times. Obviously, God or the core tennets of his message aren't going to change much with time and thats not really what i'm going after either.

I'm not looking to debate people here either, more interested in just getting a general vibe of what people think, so thanks for your post and your answers.

[Pascal]

It'd be great if i could get some more viewpoints.

Thanks all.

[Gypsy]

Your poll options are very complicated. The first one is the easiest and they get harder as you keep on reading.

Also, the fact that you can easily select many of the options in a single question makes it even harder. For example, see this question “What are the causes for the continuined and possibly rising trend toward liberal islam? I could easily vote for 6 of the options given.” That is my excuse for not doing this poll.

The second reason and this is pretty much personal to me; I don't really know if I am a liberal Muslim or if I am not a liberal Muslim. I also don't know what do you mean by liberal Christians.

[Pascal]

Well, in all honesty, i don't think they're that complicated.

I'm just asking for opinions and everyones got one so i thought i'd do rather well. There are also options for those who are unsure about anything, i tried to be accomodating.

You're right, its not all that well designed in sections. You *could* vote for 6 but i doubt all six were equally contributory.

If you don't know thats fine as well. Thats why there is an unsure option.

I'm not quite sure why you posted here telling me why you're not going to post though :wacko:

Well, in all honesty, i don't think they're that complicated.

I'm just asking for opinions and everyone’s got one so i thought I’d do rather well. There are also options for those who are unsure about anything, i tried to be accommodating.

You are right, it’s not all that well designed in sections. You *could* vote for 6 but i doubt all six were equally contributory.

If you don't know that’s fine as well. That’s why there is an unsure option.

I'm a little confused why you posted here telling me why you're not going to post though :wacko:

Thank you for contributing though i guess.

(This would be a good place to start - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity for me they don't accept the total literality of the bible for one, for two they think certain things in the bible had a certain place in time, three - in christianity theres a lot of debate over whether things actually happened or they're just parables or stories or designed to illustrate a certain concept - liberals believe some of these events are just parables and are usually liberal on social issues traditionally looked down upon by conservatives, for example, homosexuality, it's condemmed by one or two very vague verses in the old testament, they're usually....i wouldn't say totally open about it but they accept it. Same with birth control for instance, they think its fine. These people are usually protestants of some form or another. Contrast it with the fairly conservative catholic church which is much more steeped in tradition and miracles. They believe a lot of the stuff in the bible actually happened and for instance, during communion the bread and the wine turns into the actual body and actual blood of jesus, compared to other denominations thinking its symbolic. They also say birth control should not be used and don't at all accept homosexuality.)

[S.hassan]

Liberal Islam is a paradox.

[Haydar Husayn]

for me they don't accept the total literality of the bible for one, for two they think certain things in the bible had a certain place in time, three - in christianity theres a lot of debate over whether things actually happened or they're just parables or stories or designed to illustrate a certain concept - liberals believe some of these events are just parables and are usually liberal on social issues traditionally looked down upon by conservatives, for example, homosexuality, it's condemmed by one or two very vague verses in the old testament, they're usually....i wouldn't say totally open about it but they accept it. Same with birth control for instance, they think its fine. These people are usually protestants of some form or another. Contrast it with the fairly conservative catholic church which is much more steeped in tradition and miracles. They believe a lot of the stuff in the bible actually happened and for instance, during communion the bread and the wine turns into the actual body and actual blood of jesus, compared to other denominations thinking its symbolic. They also say birth control should not be used and don't at all accept homosexuality.

kingpomba, I voted in your poll, but to be honest you don't seem to have a very good understanding of these issues when it comes to Christianity, let alone Islam. Conservatism vs Liberalism in Christianity has nothing to do with Catholicism vs Protestantism. There are liberals and conservative in both camps, and probably conservative Protestants beliefs are less 'liberal' than the current teachings of the Catholic Church (for example see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_capr.htm).

Regarding to specific case of homosexuality, it is not just condemned by 'one or two vague verses' in the Old Testament. The condemnation is very explicit in the Old Testament, and also to a lesser degree in the New Testament. Even ignoring the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which seems to preoccupy liberals so much, the Bible has the following to say about homosexual behaviour:

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22, NIV)

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13, NIV)

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27, NIV)

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine [1 Timothy 1:9-10]

As for believing in the inerrency of the Bible, I have a hard time seeing how someone can be a Christian without believing in it. If the Bible is not accurate in some places, then why should it be accurate in any places? Is there a way of knowing which parts are accurate, and which parts aren't? Was Jesus really crucified? Did he really rise from the dead? Did he really appear to Paul in a vision? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then what kind of Christianity do you have left?

I believe people should be honest with themselves. If someone don't like major aspects of your religion, then they shouldd be consistent, and just leave the religion altogether. Otherwise they are just deluding themselves, and want to believe in a religion for no other reason than to fill a 'spiritual gap', and not because they really believe in it.

[iSilurian]

Liberal Islam is a paradox.

This is a funny response.

Islam in time will change and adapt. I believe it is inevitable. But by "change", I dont mean the destruction of Islam, but rather the exposure of it. A flower blossoms, it is change, but the flower is still the flower. After change it is simply the flower in all its beauty and glory, and that is what i believe Islam will become. Its full and true self.

Other than that this post was fine. It is true that the bible and Jesus hold crossed relations in comparison with the Quran and Muhammad. Muhammad is like the bible of christianity whereas Jesus is like the Quran in Islam. The Quran/Jesus being God and the Bible/Muhammad being the messenger. The swap creates a difference in the trust of scripture. Likewise, you mentioned education and Saudi Arabia putting its thumb down on its people and all of those things. Western movements etc.

I gauruntee, with the advancement of natural sciences in the East, which will occur upon prosperity in the east, Islam will become more liberal. One issue i have with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually the fact that these wars are trumping these countries scientific advancements. It is postponing their religious development. In countries not plagued in war like Saudi, you have this dictatorship that will chop off your head if you try to place an idea out there. That leaves Iran and turkey. Turkey is becoming and will in time be more liberal, which it already is more liberal than other eastern countries already. And Iran...well, i think theyre too focused on engineering and war based technological advancements (do to the ever constant threat of the west), as opposed to natural science advancements. That will change as soon as the world stops threatening to blow eachother up.

[iSilurian]

On 12/20/2011 at 7:09 PM, :

(bismillah)

(salam)

Surprisingly not true about the "war" technology, but I can see why you think that. A lot of the science and technology is geared to nanotechnology and cellular biology. There is also the budding Space technology. Of course, a lot of the advances have connections to warfare, but the focus of the research does not suggest war technology to be the desideratum of the activity.

(wasalam)

ah, pardon, maybe not "war based" technologies, but...technologies that promote self defense/independence and security. I have not heard of any particular advancements in cellular biology by Iran. Though i can believe that.

[Guest]

Islam means "submission". The term submission seems pretty absolute to me. I don't know how you can have "conservative" or "liberal" forms of submission. This "gradient" seems a lot more comfortable to say then the more accurate "enough" and "not enough".

Which is why Islam has no adjectives. But I'm usually just ignored. Give way for long essays of meaningless BS instead, conflating Islam with Muslim practices, Eastern culture, and projections of Christian modernity.

[titumir]

I do not see any point in trying to be a "Liberal Muslim", and try to follow the rituals and obeisances of the feminist movement or the gay rights movement, when the standard-bearers of Liberalism attack and invade countries in illegal wars, kill children with white phosphorus, practise genocide, and defy laws of the UN. Liberalism is fake. Just an illusion to chase after.

Oh, and are you aware that Turkey actively harasses women who wear the hijab from working in government, or going to government hospitals, or studying in university? And children from religious families are actively prevented from reaching high ranks of the army. If that's the sort of Liberalism you want to see, then I'm afraid we shall always oppose it. And I haven't seen any so-called Liberal Muslim ever speak out against these oppressions upon practising Muslims in Turkey. They are only active against the Taliban, or Iran, in short, any country the West wants to invade. Their job is to turn public opinion into favoring war. They are all turncoats, hypocrites. May they burn in Hell forever.

[iSilurian]

On 12/20/2011 at 7:44 PM, :

(bismillah)

(salam)

To iSilurian

http://en.wikipedia....Royan_Institute

(wasalam)

Based on the information in that link, it appears that Iran does spend far more time in other fields of science (presumably in their physics department with all of the nuclear speal going on). Though, its nice to see a country actually spend time with natural sciences. Ty for that.

[83838]

It's not all about nuclear or warfare technology, they develop other natural sciences as well

http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Iran

[Zarbolmasal]

If you want to see whether a person has liberal attitude toward Islam you cannot simply ask him if he considers himself liberal or not. You should for example ask "Do you think the stoning punishment is appropriate today?" or "Do you think men and women have equal rights?" or "In the conflict between Islam and human rights, do you believe we should take the side of human rights?" or else. Then by assigning the equal number of choices and computing them you can give each individual a liberty point.

[Guest]

What kinds of loaded questions are those?

LIberty points? Sound more like freedom fries to me....

[Zarbolmasal]

I gauruntee, with the advancement of natural sciences in the East, which will occur upon prosperity in the east, Islam will become more liberal.

I dont see a direct link between natural sciences advancements and changing from conservative to liberal muslim. Liberal movement has been a political movement resulting from the introduction of western human sciences into islamic countries. As long as we have ijtihad (interpretation) in shi'a we can see conservative scholars who have well integrated new natural sciences into their philosophical system, but the difference between liberals and conservatives is the individual use and extent they use ijtihad.

Another point is about the flower allegory. It's beautiful and desirable, but if I change the same allegory this way: Islam is a flower which has reached its most perfect condition in the time of prophet. What we can do is to describe it and if we touch it we will destroy it. Specially when you believe that liberalism is no something "natural".

LIberty points? Sound more like freedom fries to me....

That was a methodological error. When you want to measure a multi-dimensional concept especially when it contains with some psychological factors like liberal or conservative, you should ask each dimension in a single question. Each question has a value for assessing the concept and finally you will receive a point for freedom. It is meaningless for an individual to think himself as liberal or conservative, but answering those questions is the true way of measuring his liberal or conservative attitude.

[iSilurian]

I dont see a direct link between natural sciences advancements and changing from conservative to liberal muslim. Liberal movement has been a political movement resulting from the introduction of western human sciences into islamic countries. As long as we have ijtihad (interpretation) in shi'a we can see conservative scholars who have well integrated new natural sciences into their philosophical system, but the difference between liberals and conservatives is the individual use and extent they use ijtihad.

Another point is about the flower allegory. It's beautiful and desirable, but if I change the same allegory this way: Islam is a flower which has reached its most perfect condition in the time of prophet. What we can do is to describe it and if we touch it we will destroy it. Specially when you believe that liberalism is no something "natural".

All in due time. Our world views are different, so we can agree to disagree.

[Guest]

That was a methodological error. When you want to measure a multi-dimensional concept especially when it contains with some psychological factors like liberal or conservative, you should ask each dimension in a single question. Each question has a value for assessing the concept and finally you will receive a point for freedom. It is meaningless for an individual to think himself as liberal or conservative, but answering those questions is the true way of measuring his liberal or conservative attitude.

Or you can say "liberal" and "conservative" are outdated dinosaur words from European croissant republics with minimal value in our world today, especially by Islam and Muslim societies.

These terms are irrelevant, yet engrained enough to cause division and confusion amongst the people.

Step away from Barnes and Nobel and STOP smelling the coffee.

[Marbles]

Islam means "submission". The term submission seems pretty absolute to me. I don't know how you can have "conservative" or "liberal" forms of submission. This "gradient" seems a lot more comfortable to say then the more accurate "enough" and "not enough".

Which is why Islam has no adjectives. But I'm usually just ignored. Give way for long essays of meaningless BS instead, conflating Islam with Muslim practices, Eastern culture, and projections of Christian modernity.

Yes, the term is absolute but only in the theoretical, technical sense. We are here discussing a far more profound and complex system of beliefs and practices. To begin with, Islam, even if it is theoretically monolith and absolute, isn't so in practice. It has more than one interpretation; it always had more than one interpretation throughout its circa 1400 years of history. This is what that allows for the adjectives, that is, adjectives are there to make sense of Islam-as-practiced through its particular interpretation rather than divining on the truth of one particular interpretation or sect or school of thought. And I am not talking about interpretations and cultural practices divorced from and alien to Islam. This is totally different from conflating Muslim practices with Islam, as I am sure you can see that.

[Guest]

But you see, that was my point.

I said Islam has no adjectives but has definitions. An adjective implies that the term "Islam" in itself is not sufficient or not fully self-containing (ie it needs modifiers to "expand" its meaning).

Definitions on the other hand, say "Yes we all agree on a single theoretical absolute Islam, but I define that submission as such and such in practice and you in a different way."

In other words, not multiple submissions, but different interpretations surrounding a SINGLE theoretical submission.

That is the difference bbetween adjectives and definitions.

Of course, the OP could care less, he's not Muslim, and just wants to write long essays of media permeated Eurocentric drivel. He doesn't have the same stakes as the rest of us.

[Marbles]

But you see, that was my point.

I said Islam has no adjectives but has definitions. An adjective implies that the term "Islam" in itself is not sufficient or not fully self-containing (ie it needs modifiers to "expand" its meaning).

Definitions on the other hand, say "Yes we all agree on a single theoretical absolute Islam, but I define that submission as such and such in practice and you in a different way."

In other words, not multiple submissions, but different interpretations surrounding a SINGLE theoretical submission.

That is the difference bbetween adjectives and definitions.

Of course, the OP could care less, he's not Muslim, and just wants to write long essays of media permeated Eurocentric drivel. He doesn't have the same stakes as the rest of us.

Ok I see your point. And yes, the label of "liberal Islam", to many, is no more than a reference point through which they measure the extent to which contemporary Muslim beliefs and practices are in line with secular, liberal and market-based democratic system. All sort of irreligiosity is perilously bundled under this label, so long as there is someone to pay lip service to Islam. I will, despite this flaw, however, stress the importance, however it is useful in understanding the religion of Islam, of various historical and contemporary adjectives placed on various interpretations which have in one way or the other contributed to the evolution of Muslim thought in some measure. To illustrate my point with an example, the label of "Sufi Islam", despite its sub-interpretations and complex conflicts within, is pretty useful for the academic study of this strand, its popularity among Muslim communities, and the mode of thinking which sustained it throughout history.

[Zarbolmasal]

All in due time. Our world views are different, so we can agree to disagree.

Yes we can, but not exactly on this topic.

It's true that there hasnt been an agreement about the concept; whether it should be liberal islam, progressive or whatever, but I believe we cannot doubt the existence of it, so I think we'd better stop arguing over the names and talk more about the component. The comparison OP made between protestant christians and liberal muslems in that the liberal muslems has never wanted to be out of the tent of islam is so right.

http://en.wikipedia....ts_within_Islam can be helpful.

[Pascal]

kingpomba, I voted in your poll, but to be honest you don't seem to have a very good understanding of these issues when it comes to Christianity, let alone Islam. Conservatism vs Liberalism in Christianity has nothing to do with Catholicism vs Protestantism. There are liberals and conservative in both camps, and probably conservative Protestants beliefs are less 'liberal' than the current teachings of the Catholic Church

Thank you for sharing brother. All part of the learning experience. As far as i knew (and the knowledge i continue to hold) on the christian faiths, i still do believe that on the whole, a lot of protestant traditions, especially mainline churches, such as the church of england especially, tend to be more liberal than roman catholicism.

Regarding to specific case of homosexuality, it is not just condemned by 'one or two vague verses' in the Old Testament. The condemnation is very explicit in the Old Testament, and also to a lesser degree in the New Testament. Even ignoring the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which seems to preoccupy liberals so much, the Bible has the following to say about homosexual behaviour:

As for believing in the inerrency of the Bible, I have a hard time seeing how someone can be a Christian without believing in it. If the Bible is not accurate in some places, then why should it be accurate in any places? Is there a way of knowing which parts are accurate, and which parts aren't? Was Jesus really crucified? Did he really rise from the dead? Did he really appear to Paul in a vision? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then what kind of Christianity do you have left?

I try not to debate in this section and i'm not a muslim so i generally tip toe around or stay out of this section. The philosophy section is where i debate, this thread wasn't really made for debating. I might offer a few things though. Like i said, most believe the bible (unlike the quran) wasn't the direct words of God scribed down but rather written by humans inspired by God, especially in modern times. This is further evidenced by the many books of the bible that "didnt make it into" the bible. A lot of the bible we have today was decided by a comittee based on which verses were commonly read and believed in the ancient chuches.

I do not see any point in trying to be a "Liberal Muslim", and try to follow the rituals and obeisances of the feminist movement or the gay rights movement, when the standard-bearers of Liberalism attack and invade countries in illegal wars, kill children with white phosphorus, practise genocide, and defy laws of the UN. Liberalism is fake. Just an illusion to chase after.

Those invaders and war mongerers, usually tend to be neo-conservatives (bush was one for example, a lot of modern republicans are). So, they're remarkable unliberal, at least by european standards. The right tend to favour a large military and war more than the left in a lot of cases. You'll find a lot of the left wing were protesting agaisnt this and the left wing tend to be the more liberal bunch.

Oh, and are you aware that Turkey actively harasses women who wear the hijab from working in government, or going to government hospitals, or studying in university?

And children from religious families are actively prevented from reaching high ranks of the army.

Would you care to share some news articles or sources so i may read further on these things?

Thats more enforced secularism by the state, sort of like laicite in france. I'm talking more about liberal islam in a theological and personal sense, rather than any connection to the state. For example muslims in the west, you can be conservative or liberal, the state wont do much.

If that's the sort of Liberalism you want to see, then I'm afraid we shall always oppose it. And I haven't seen any so-called Liberal Muslim ever speak out against these oppressions upon practising Muslims in Turkey.

Perhaps, what you consider oppression they consider freedom. For example, below this, you mention the taliban or iran which heavily impose islamic life upon ordinary citizens (iran discriminates agaisnt bahai for instance), more so in the taliban obviously but maybe its a reactionary process to the state forcing islam onto the people to have the state not force islam at all onto the people or the public, so things like this don't happen?

They are only active against the Taliban, or Iran, in short, any country the West wants to invade. Their job is to turn public opinion into favoring war. They are all turncoats, hypocrites. May they burn in Hell forever.

Don't you think this is a little harsh, telling your fellow muslims to burn?

I'm not here to debate, just seek points and ideas and yours were well taken and noted, amongst everyone elses as well. Just providing some talking and thinking points to help clarify, not really attempting to debate.

If you want to see whether a person has liberal attitude toward Islam you cannot simply ask him if he considers himself liberal or not. You should for example ask "Do you think the stoning punishment is appropriate today?" or "Do you think men and women have equal rights?" or "In the conflict between Islam and human rights, do you believe we should take the side of human rights?" or else. Then by assigning the equal number of choices and computing them you can give each individual a liberty point.

Thank you for the suggestion friend, a little too late to unmake this thread (and a little too unfair on people who have posted but i will consider this in the future). The problem with questions like this (and pollsters, the news and PR firms exploit this all the time) you can get a very different answer depending how those issues are worded and how you present them. Almost everyone is in favour of human rights but it might be a bit tough to get them to choose against islam as well.

Such a poll would need considerable consideration, planning and research to make the questions fair and at least reasonably represent things though. I don't know if i can dedicate to it what such a poll would deserve at the present moment.

Of course, the OP could care less, he's not Muslim, and just wants to write long essays of media permeated Eurocentric drivel. He doesn't have the same stakes as the rest of us.

I think your point is interesting and i am reading it and considering it. For one i'm neither in europe nor the united states. I just wanted to get a general pulse on what this board thought about the ideas of liberal islam, something i have been thinking about for quite sometime. As for calling me eurocentric, i won't deny that. I haven't made any false misrepresentations of myself or tried to cover it up... Its out in the open for all to so. I am a member of western society...educated in western traditions (which i feel some pride in as well, the schools of thought that is, not the actual west per se) that strech all the way back to the foundations of the west in ancient greece and rome and belong to academia, as you guessed, in the western tradition. The school of philosophy i subscribe to, as you might of also guessed, is analytical philosophy which is predominant in the west. I don't see how you can put me on trial for this if you will though, what were you really expecting from me exactly? Someone who is obviously living in the west and educated in the western traditions? I think such demands are or statements are a little unfair but none the less may be a legitimate criticism. Not looking to debate here though.

However, i did not decieve anyone and i thought it was already all assumed, anyway I put it all out there.

I'm not sure what you mean by your stakes exactly but if you mean if that it won't personally impact my salvation, that is true. Doesn't mean i can't be interested in finding out peoples opinions about it though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

================================================================

================================================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take a quick look at the poll results as they stand now. I'll just offer it as i interpret it, feel free to call out any horrible interpretations. A lot of issues are near split evenly, this might be because lack of knowledge on the issue or never really thinking of it much before or as some people pointed out, maybe it doesnt exist at all. Also, this forum has a lot of western educated people or people living in the west, so its no surprise certain things are split evenly rather than being dominant. Obviously, with such a small sample size it doesn't represent the muslim community, shia community or even shiachat as a whole. The number is way too low to "smooth out" any problems with the votes.

10 out of 14 voters (as it stands currently) are self identify as moderate or above (moderate(6)->liberal(1)->very liberal(3)). I guess it comes as no surprise in some ways that some people consider themselves around the average or center, this pops up a lot in polls and statistics of this nature. We also can't exclude (due to it being anonymous) non muslims or people who dont hold the particular views voting for it. Obviously, with numbers this small, a couple people shifted around can seem huge.

The differences are what i find most interesting. We also have 3 out of 14 who consider themselves "very conservative". There is no one who voted for "conservative". This could be partially due to the a reaction ellicted by the poll and the views i presented or also a self percieved view of conservativeness. This question could of been defined better. For example a lot of people who hold a lot of theologically opinions about the quran could of voted for this option for a reason like this to be honest. Where as to some others, when you just mention the word "very conservative muslim" it might ellict a totally different view. So, we should be cautious about what exactly very conservative implies here, which is why explanations are also important.

7 people out of 14 (50%) think liberal islam is on the rise. Again, the idea of what rise implies isn't extremely well defined. A rise could either be absolute (just more liberal muslims as a number but there are more muslims of all kind every day as well) or relative ( a larger proportion/ ratio of liberal muslims). Most people would probably understand it to mean the second. Again, this is just a percieved thing. A lot of people who hold negative connotations to liberal islam or see sin or increasing sin or increasing vices (among muslims) where they look might be inclined to choose this option, for after all it would definitely seem on the rise to them. The unsure position is also quite reasonable given the knowledge and this question is more about someones opinion rather than giving a serious assesment of the rise (which i will look for in the journals at some point).

What i find quite more interesting is that 6 people out of 14 think believe that "yes" is the answer to the question "Do you think there are certain aspects of Islam that were meant for a certain time, place and people only and should not be applied to Muslims today?". Obviously, nothing can be taken in isolation, this is based on a whole lot of other theological ideas people hold and is based around several contentious (according to some) issues like slavery, mutah, ect.

Edited December 22, 2011 by kingpomba

[Pascal]

Feel free to share your own interpretations and reasons why you think it has unfolded this way.

I'll also look to see what kind of academic works i can find with some information about liberal islam, in particular numbers and those kind of things but i suspect they're hard to come by.

[titumir]

Well, kingpomba, you said that these war-mongers were neocons, and I obviously I know that, and agree with that truth. But that is EXACTLY what I was saying when I said that Liberalism was fake! What I'm trying to say, is that, Western countries are in reality governed by the neo-cons. They control the banks, the corporations, etc. AND they created this fake ideology called Liberalism, which says a lot of good stuff and sounds very nice, to PACIFY their own non-violent non-neocon population from taking any steps against the neocon ruling class, EXACTLY how the historical kings used religion to keep the masses quiet. And they want to inject the liberal ideology to other countries, so that they do not for example, try to have powerful armies, while the West keep the most powerful armies in the world, and to gradually come to think of the West as some sort of "source for Civilization", so that the other countries largly accept the "West at the top, everyone one step below them", status quo for the world.

So, in the end, all normal people who do not want their children to be killed by white phosphorus one day, should get together, reject liberalism, have a powerful army with lots of nuclear weapons, etc, and recognize the Universal Truth, "Might is Right", and, in short, protect themselves, because history shows that whenever a people become non-violent, like, for example, Africans, Native Amercians, Aborigines in Australia, etc, they get invaded by some more powerful more warlike people.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

What Position Do You Consider Yourself to Hold?

I answered moderate, but the reason I did so was because I object to the label of "conservatism" and "liberalism" equally, because I feel the terms are too subjective for me to consider myself exclusively one or the other. The terms "liberal" and "conservative," only bear meaning by virtue of comparison of one idea with another. For example, I am conservative in the sense that I oppose the legalization of abortion, but am liberal in the sense that I don't believe homosexuality is a capital crime (though I believe it a large sin). I am conservative in the sense that I believe that religious values should play a huge part in a democratic government, especially my religion, but am liberal in that I don't believe apostasy is punishable by death or that I have the right to force my religion on others and make them accept it through intimidation.

For me to use the term "liberal Islam" or "conservative Islam" carries a dubious weight. Because the meaning of the terms conservative and liberal themselves are so relative to the individual's perceptions that it is impossible to create a minimal standard of qualification and a scale of highest to lowest of conservatism and liberalism without being completely biased to your own personal view on what constitutes "liberalism" or "conservatism" and because every group of actually practicing Muslims is liberal on one issue and conservative on another issue compared to another group. I answered that I am moderate. However, when I say "moderate," I do not mean "moderate Muslim" as that implies that being moderate is an addition I have added to an already pre-existing system of religious thought where moderacy was not present and therefore needed to be "injected," so to speak. Rather, when I say "moderate" I mean "moderately progressive" not "moderate-Muslim". I believe that by virtue of being a Muslim that I am moderately progressive as I feel Islam by its nature promotes moderate progression; not no progression or extreme progression but REASONABLE progression.

Do You Think Liberal Positions in Islam Are On The Rise?

I answered that they're on the rise, but I choose this answer NOT with the intention to say that there have never been liberal positions present in various Islamic communities or that there are none that are significantly present currently. Despite the image portrayed by Westerners to their fellow residents, or even by some Muslims, Islam is actually much more diverse than you may give it credit for, kingpomba. I say this as one who has and still does aggressively seek out new knowledge which includes the study of various viewpoints expressed by Muslims and their respective sects. I would say that honestly, your assumption that Christianity has so many more various denominations/sects compared to Islam is not entirely correct. Really, in all honesty, there are countless different sects of Islam that have significant populations of adherents. Though of course you can divide up these groups generally by particular umbrella terms such as Sunni or Shia, but various sects have different interpretations of various aspects of jurisprudence and theology, being significantly different from each other or mildly different from each other. Like how Roman Catholics have more in common with Russian Orthodox than they do Pentecostals. Though there are general principles common to all well established sects of Islam.

As to what "liberal trends" are on the rise, again that's subjective, I only answer that they are on the rise in that now more Muslims than usual, due to greater interaction and education on not only other religions, but also other sects of Islam who may hold a different interpretation of traditions they've been taught or even completely different collections of hadith literature and other companion scripture to the Quran. And also I personally some liberal trends are on the rise that I myself adhere to. Again, I use the term "liberal" in the literal sense of "leniency" not necessarily in the absolute sense that you might understand the term to mean by your schooling. Now, Muslims are becoming more liberal in regards to particular issues that others are more conservative toward, not to say they are shedding away all their conservatism (nor SHOULD they) only now they're discovering that there are issues where it's wiser to be more liberal in addition to issues to remain conservative and unrelenting through use of their own God-given reasoning power to determine for themselves what they feel the objective truth is. Some Muslims, even here on the forums, have this attitude that there is no other interpretation than their own on certain issues when there is and many who hold these interpretations, whether one feels they are right or wrong in their opinion, have viable reasons to think the way they do and aren't just trying to cause schism for fun. Also, it's not that liberal trends weren't already there before, it was just many Muslims have been more or less isolated from certain people and places they were previously unaware of. So now they're coming into contact with those who are more liberal on this or that particular issue than they are where they didn't think you could such a liberal position, they are learning why these people think this way, some of these people being different sects of Islam who have actually held this interpretation or tradition for a very long time, and converting to their viewpoint or finding a middle ground between one view and another after seeing something pointed out to them they had never noticed or seen before. I touch up on this below after the next paragraph.

Do You Think There Are Certain Aspects of Islam That Were Meant For a Certain Time, Place and People Only?

Yes. Some aspects were meant for a certain time, however, I think it is important to tread carefully here because you can't just have people casting aside anything they don't personally want out of their own ego and blaming its presence in the Quran or hadith on "the times." But I feel upon using actual reasoning power as well as exploring other people's opinions with a sincere interest in understanding why they think the way they do to see if there's anything you missed in your religious books or if there is a book out there you haven't read on the subject, you can see which aspects of Islam were more conditional and which were meant to be more absolute and constant. I prefer the term "conditional" than I do "temporary" though conditions may be determined by the present time. Again, with reasoning I feel that what laws were more relative than others than certain others and what the conditions are can become clear. For example, the slavery issue. Islam has a lot of commandments concerning the treatment of slaves as the Quran and the hadith of Ahlul Bayt come from a time period in which slavery was still a reality of everyday life so naturally it addresses slavery. Though I will say that Islam DOESN'T forbid there being a slave class in a society, it does not say it is necessary nor does it encourage it based on the virtue of the institution. Rather it is treated as a utilitarian option, particularly in the event of conquest in which it was customary, much safer, and smarter to enslave your enemies and put them to work repairing the damage dealt by the war without more expenditure of your reserves. There are clear hadith in both Sunni and Shia sources where it was seen as very honorable, however, to free a slave who had proven him/herself to be loyal, righteous, and behaved, to the point where reward is given in the next life for freeing them. So I see the slavery institution as being one that should only be established out of necessity and is meant to be handled more as a kind of rehabilitation program and payment of debt to society and to a lesser extent, individuals (in the case that someone chooses to sell him/herself into slavery). So I feel that though there are guidelines for certain aspects of an Islamic society, some aspects of Islamic society are only to be implemented at necessary times for utilitarian purposes and one should strive to avoid having to implement these things until there are no longer any options left due to either the harshness or the unpredictability of them. I feel that this strongly includes many of the various, yet reasonable and understandable, capital punishments and the slavery institution. As Muslims, as per the advice and commandments of our Quran and our Imams, may they be eternally blessed, we are commanded to strive to forgive and forget, have restraint, and wish for others what we want for ourselves wherever and whenever possible which means we must consider very hard, whether this action, though permissible under certain strict conditions, is the only option we have. But we must be willing to accept that an option may be harsh and painful both for us and for others, we must do it to preserve order and stability.

What Are the Causes?

Three Causes:

1.) Increased International Communication- I think this has contributed greatly because as I said stated before, Islamic people are beginning to more and more associate with different kinds of people and learn from them. I think however, it is narrow minded to say that these "different kinds of people" are specifically Western as I feel that gives Westerners too much credit as many of the so called Western ideas, sciences, and philosophies were adopted from the Islamic world because while Western Europe was going through it's Dark Ages where people were killing each other and burning almost anything (and anyone) that wasn't explicitly "Christian" to them, barely learning to read, or were pillaging each other's villages just to survive and isolating themselves from the Eastern Christian world, which was far more educated, the Islamic countries, along with the Byzantine Christian territories, during the Dark Ages became the centers of philosophy, literacy, mathematics, and physical sciences, particularly due in part to being the main retainers and preservers of Greek philosophy and knowledge, from which the Western Europeans would later derive the necessary learning from so they might get out of the Dark Ages, especially during the Arabic-Latin translation boom

In the same manner that the Western Christian world was suffering from isolation from the greater civilization of its Eastern counterparts and the Islamic world, likewise, the people of the Islamic world in my opinion have suffered their own small "Dark Age" of isolation. Particularly around the turn of the 20th century and after the first World War up until now, we see a rising trend of Islamic countries once part of greater Islamic and Western empires splitting into their own sovereign nations. However, due to tensions with the West over the slap in the face to their independence in addition to tensions between ethnic or tribal groups that were once kept in check by the sultans and kings of the previous empires, upon the creation of their independent national identities, many of these countries had sought to isolate themselves out of fear or resentment. Though I would not say these civilizations did not or do not have advanced education nor would I say they wholly lacked interaction with the world outside of their country. After all many people in the USA were surprised that Iran not only brought down a US drone recently, but did so by hacking into it and landing it manually. But as iSilurian said, much of this advanced education is applied more to the area of national security, not to the area of philosophical studies or to the study of other world religions than whatever branch and/or sect of Islam is most promoted by the state. A social isolation if you will.

Monks in the Western European territories during the Dark Ages could be criticized or potentially condemned for having too many books preserved in their libraries other than Scripture, to somewhat of the same extent, people who study too much outside the circle of the predominant socially accepted Islamic doctrine and traditions of their country are eyeballed with suspicion in their countries.The social isolation of countries from their Muslim neighbors or from Western nations, the social taboo of reading too much outside the traditional circle of the country, and the lack of means for many of the poorer citizens to be able to communicate with the outside world anyway contributed to Islamic communities who remained somewhat stagnant in their personal development. These countries have still had plenty of progression in education and technology to survive and its not like everybody is living in the desert riding camels and herding sheep, like some Westerners may think, but the long established CULTURAL isolation created a condition in which the populations were more or less raised to be scared of adopting any new interpretation of religious law or spirituality, not necessarily in the sense for their life, though in Saudi Arabia that may be the case, but in the sense they had grown accustomed to this specific interpretation or religious outlook that the concept of there being anything different than that just doesn't make any sense and is downright intimidating. Also for many years, certain religious outlooks they already knew of were shrugged off as being the way of other ethnic groups, therefore there was no need to study or learn it, let alone adopt it, because "eh, that's a Pakistani thing. I'm an Iranian." So even for those who now have the means to communicate with the outside world and have had them for awhile, don't make a solid effort to learn the ways of other religions, other cultures, let alone other sects of Islam than their own more thoroughly simply because they still have a isolationist mentality. Likewise, Westerners have exhibited the same cultural trait, especially the citizens of the United States whom, even though their means of obtaining new information have improved, purposely shut themselves off to new ideas they find intimidating for more superficial reasons.

2.) Much Easier Access to Information- However, though there still remain a number of Middle-Eastern Muslims who still isolate themselves culturally and religiously despite the advancements in the exchange of information, also has arisen a movement of individuals who have used these new means and conditions to simply search out for more knowledge for knowledge's sake. This includes those who harbored the desire but had not nor knew the means and merely had to make due with what knowledge they had, those who were already searching by use of the previous means or by the current means when they were only capable of being granted to a select few, and those who seek to share their knowledge they have kept for years who also share the desire for knowledge for knowledge's sake that others now have. Basically, more Muslims are now seeking out new knowledge for the pure sake of the virtue of "just learning." This has exposed them to walks of life and thinking that they were previously unaware of or knew about but were not well educated on due to being dependent on what you might call the "nobility" for information on the outside world beyond their nation, which more and more became intertwined with the world of outside of their religion since the last two or three generations of Middle Eastern Muslims have been brought up in an environment in which the religion of Islam, in the manner they understand or follow it, has become synonymous with their ethnic and national cultural identity. The ruling of apostasy being punishable by death also contributed to this by creating a generation or more of Muslims for whom the particular understanding of Islam they were raised with became so synonymous with their ethnic and/or national identification that one couldn't abandon one or the other, at least not so very easily.

When you couple this with the migration of poorer Middle Easterns to Western countries for the sake of labor opportunities either for personal reasons or to send money back home, the establishment of various Islamic orders or communions from different countries from Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the same countries, the tensions and discrimination felt by Muslims (of all kinds) in these Western countries they've moved into, the increasing development of internet communication and global connectivity all over the world, we now see not necessarily a Islamic cultural revolution but an Islamic cultural EVOLUTION, which include particular Islamic revolutions both political and social. Islamic sects and denominations previously separated by region and the national tensions between their homelands now are living next door to one another, Muslims whose respective sects have historically had political and cultural disputes are now forced to work together for the sake of religious survival and common political goals in a society that still has trouble understanding them and whose populations' opinion of them is still influenced by the exaggerations and misunderstandings of centuries old Orientialism. Now that communications technology previously non-existent or only available to the upper class of Middle Eastern countries has now trickled down to the lower classes and is now more common for all citizens of foreign lands, the previously isolated communities of lower class or lower middle class Indian Muslims can now communicate, either for the first time or just more than before, with the Muslims of Indonesia or Pakistan. Muslims for whom the United States and Great Britain was simply an unseen specter far off are now living and working within that very specter or speaking directly with people who do, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, through new technology. Muslims now are communicating more with religious communities, either Islamic or non-Islamic, that were previously unknown to them or were simply part of the folktales, legends, and rumors of other far away nations they would never see. Converts obtained in these foreign lands, the reverts, also bring in cultural customs and religious ideas from their upbringings too. All in all, increased methods of global communication, the relaxation of borders, the steady decline of the cultural isolation, both physical and mental, of many Muslim and increased migration of Muslims back and forth from various countries has allowed once isolated religious communities to now be able to exchange religious and other cultural ideas and traits while also, due to the political climate, forcing a significant number of them to cooperate which in turn has contributed to the greater cultural exchange.

3.) Recent Movements- I would say that this is a cause, but it is also more so a result. Due to the cultural exchange I mentioned, two distinct groups have emerged: those who encourage an exchange and those who discourage an exchange. What the Islamic world is struggling with in this new surge of cultural exchange is trying to find out what is okay to keep and what is okay to take out so I think the rise in terrorism,violence, or just plain arguing we see at various times is the result of either a cultural exchange not being taken kindly to by one respective individual or party or it is the result of a cultural exchange being taken too well. Not only that, in this ever changing and evolving world, it is those who are the fittest to survive who do survive, whether one means "fittest" in reference to a relative condition that may not be the same now as was during this time in the past or will be at this time in the future, or whether one is speaking of indefinite absolute conditions of "fitness" that are eternal and absolute. So I think recent social and political movements either against or for a particular part of the cultural exchange, as the greater cultural exchange is just made up multiple other different cultural exchanges, can be looked at, from an anthropological standpoint, as a defense mechanism that originally arose as a response to and of the cultural exchange but now are also means by which the proponents of a particular cultural exchange or the defenders of a cultural trait obtained in a new exchange or a previous exchange of a different era may advance their prospective goals. Movements like the Islamic feminist movement, the moderate and extremist Islamist parties, the Anti Arab-Defamation League, etc. are all results of, as well as causes of, a new era of cultural exchange.

Likewise, we can see an example in the Christian communities of similar anthropological phenomenon that can be described in biological terms. Many years ago, the Earth being only 6,000 or so years old was not a perposterous theory and was treated as an actual possibility with its own share of viable reasons and evidence for its proponents to feel comfortable with their conclusion. But as studies continued and time went by, archaeology and paleontology unveiled new evidence against the theory to the point where, honestly, the belief the Earth being 6,000 years old, even for many Christians today in this day and age, is not exactly a credible theory anymore. However, the "Evangelical Christian Movement" aggressively promote this older theory and religious interpretation, despite the fact that many other Christians have adopted new interpretations and theories, some of which already present in other long established religious communities, and the Evangelical Christian Movement is known for promoting its canon, not only on the 6,000 year theory but other religious ideas, for various reasons that many other religious people even among the Christians can't quite understand the reasoning of, and they are known for doing so through rather nefarious or nonsensical means. The Evangelical Christian Movement could be seen as the result of a previous cultural exchange that opposes a new cultural exchange. However, I also think the Evangelical Christian movement is more comparable to the final convulsions of a dying animal as opposed to just simply a body's immunity system fighting a germ as the movement sees itself, and I think this same situation is happening for many previous ideas among Christians. Also, opposition within the Muslim community against certain other movements and religious viewpoints can also be understood by the same metaphor.

What Do You Think This Will Mean For Muslims?

I answered unsure because in the end, you can hypothesize all you want about what might happen by all of this, but it all comes down to personal choice. Sure we can accurately predict some of the outcomes of this, but we can't predict all of them because it's up to the individual decisions of each Muslim. Will this rising cultural exchange bring about a more lenient and progressive renaissance era of art, philosophy, and spiritual romanticism within the worldwide Muslim community? Will it bring about the Islamization of Western Europe and North America? Will it bring about more totalitarian Islamic societies or will it bring about fair Islamic regimes built on democracy and peaceful coexistence with other nations and faiths? Will it result in Muslims becoming passive or repressed in their religious devotion to principles that they feel are perfectly sensible, logical, and reasonable just to satisfy the demands of Western society? Or will they become stronger in their resistance and devotion a while still obtaining useful cultural traits and knowledge from their interactions with other nations, including obtaining of more "liberal trends" than they may have had before? Only time will tell.

[Pascal]

I answered moderate, but the reason I did so was because I object to the label of "conservatism" and "liberalism" equally, because I feel the terms are too subjective for me to consider myself exclusively one or the other.

Yes and this is a fair enough and legitimate criticism as i have pointed out but it makes it more convenient to sum up views. I think other ways would be quite hard or even more confusing.

For example, I am conservative in the sense that I oppose the legalization of abortion, but am liberal in the sense that I don't believe homosexuality is a capital crime (though I believe it a large sin). I am conservative in the sense that I believe that religious values should play a huge part in a democratic government, especially my religion, but am liberal in that I don't believe apostasy is punishable by death or that I have the right to force my religion on others and make them accept it through intimidation.

I think you're thinking more of political conservative and liberalism. Things that are imposed onto people by the state. I was talking more theological conservatism and interpretations of islam. I however, do appreciate, that i have said a couple times in here, civil society and religion run a lot closer in an Islamic environment as compared to others. I gave this a decent treatment a little further up.

For me to use the term "liberal Islam" or "conservative Islam" carries a dubious weight. Because the meaning of the terms conservative and liberal themselves are so relative to the individual's perceptions that it is impossible to create a minimal standard of qualification and a scale of highest to lowest of conservatism and liberalism without being completely biased to your own personal view on what constitutes "liberalism" or "conservatism" and because every group of actually practicing Muslims is liberal on one issue and conservative on another issue compared to another group.

Again, another legitimate criticism. I think however, many people on this board, by the nature of this board, would view many things that might be considered liberal elsewhere where islam is practiced as quite normal. For example, as you mentioned, that the government should not enforce religion onto the people.

I believe that by virtue of being a Muslim that I am moderately progressive as I feel Islam by its nature promotes moderate progression; not no progression or extreme progression but REASONABLE progression.

Now this i find very interesting. The general vibe i've gotten is that its not meant to be a progressive thing at all really. One religion. one book, one infallible and perfect message for all people and all times. As i mentioned above as well, the fact this is the direct word of god (as compared to the other holy books of Christianity and Judaism being inspired by God), would also make it very hard.

I'm fairly interested in this point, care to elaborate further?

As to what "liberal trends" are on the rise, again that's subjective, I only answer that they are on the rise in that now more Muslims than usual, due to greater interaction and education on not only other religions, but also other sects of Islam who may hold a different interpretation of traditions they've been taught or even completely different collections of hadith literature and other companion scripture to the Quran.

Yeah, definitely. The internet brings a lot of access to things that would of been previously hard to find. You would either just buy into the dominant version of islam in your community or you'd really have to go and seek out alternative interpretations. The internet and even things like widespread literacy and lots of public libraries (which are relatively modern by historical standards) really help aid that.

Yes. Some aspects were meant for a certain time, however, I think it is important to tread carefully here because you can't just have people casting aside anything they don't personally want out of their own ego and blaming its presence in the Quran or hadith on "the times."

Fair enough and this has sort of happened in some areas of christianity (https://en.wikipedia...ia_Christianity), they become fairly liberal to the point they cast aside a lot of things, same with the more liberal Judaism. A lot of the Christian doctrine has been muddied by politics and the heavy influence of states though. I think only recently people are once again seeing the true lights, so to speak.

For example, in catholic mass, up until very recently(https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Vatican_II), the priest use to have his back to the congregation for most of the mass and speak in latin, which of course being a dead language, almost no one in the congregation would speak. I don’t know many people which would urge the conservation of that, it obviously doesn’t gel with modern times.

Though I will say that Islam DOESN'T forbid there being a slave class in a society, it does not say it is necessary nor does it encourage it based on the virtue of the institution.

I think the criticism is more on the fact that God is meant to be the ultimate morality, ultimate pureness and goodness. Even though, according to what you say, it was not expressively forbidden or encouraged, it was still allowed, which is probably close enough to encouraging it. I think people argue that God should take the moral "high horse" here and make a clear statement outlawing it.

Rather it is treated as a utilitarian option, particularly in the event of conquest in which it was customary, much safer, and smarter to enslave your enemies and put them to work repairing the damage dealt by the war without more expenditure of your reserves.

Well maybe before modern ideas, conventions, and things like the Geneva Convention but we've obviously moved past enslaving prisoners of war, potentially for life. We have procedures to deal with such things. POW camps and things like that. Prisoners of war are generally returned once the war is over (as far as im aware), which is much better than slavery. It'd just be like running a regular prison, obviously you'd disarm them first and everything. I think there wouldn't be constant mass escapes and things like that.

So I feel that though there are guidelines for certain aspects of an Islamic society, some aspects of Islamic society are only to be implemented at necessary times for utilitarian purposes and one should strive to avoid having to implement these things until there are no longer any options left due to either the harshness or the unpredictability of them.

Depends what exactly you mean by utilitarianism. For example, if you look at peter singers idea of preference utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia..._utilitarianism) slavery would not clearly work under these conditions. Even under regular utilitarianism, its a little dubious. I do see your point though.

In the same manner that the Western Christian world was suffering from isolation from the greater civilization of its Eastern counterparts and the Islamic world, likewise, the people of the Islamic world in my opinion have suffered their own small "Dark Age" of isolation. Particularly around the turn of the 20th century and after the first World War up until now, we see a rising trend of Islamic countries once part of greater Islamic and Western empires splitting into their own sovereign nations.

This could be true i guess. For example (and i didnt know it untill recently) muslims were in spain for a long period of time. I saw it in a documentary titled "cities of light" i believe it was. This was during their golden age, they produced a lot of good philosophy and architecture and allowed people like Maimonides to speak their mind. It went on to say the golden age was possible because they were fairly accepting and ecumenical. They weren't close minded or repressing things and this is what lead to their golden age.

This also brings an interesting thought to mind. I can see some signs of a certain dichotomy emerging. There are lots of muslims who are just realising there are alternate ideas and interpretations and becoming more "progressive". However, there are others who are becoming strictly conservative (eg follows of qutub like al qeda, saudi arabia, ect). Some of the islamic world is moving in one direction and the rest in another. A modern example of this - http://www.telegraph...eanse-them.html which i think was way way out of line but it probably made sense to them in their quest to be conservative. Even in places like iran which discriminate against bahai or pakistan with its blasphemy laws. I know this may or may not be Islam though and i discuss this below.

I mentioned the recent emergence of christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism. I think its partially reactionary to the changing society, society valuing religion less and their religious brothers becoming more liberal. This could be one of the reasons for some of the islamic world being more conservative i think. Indeed for society in general. Im sure a lot of the people who thought when the west started to drop religious morality or compulsion to a degree in civil society that society would just fall apart and would be totally and utterly awash with sin. Obviously, we moved past that and it wasn't a total doomsday scenario and i think we are better off for it.

Often though, these things are generational. Old views die hard and usually die with the person that holds them. Support for slavery didn’t really disappear in America until all the former slave owners and even sometimes their children died off. Same with a lot of other movements today, its a generational thing. I just worried about the generations that are currently having an ultra-conservative view preached to them.

But as iSilurian said, much of this advanced education is applied more to the area of national security, not to the area of philosophical studies or to the study of other world religions than whatever branch and/or sect of Islam is most promoted by the state. A social isolation if you will.

This actually reminds me of a quote by John Adams :

“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.”

I think it has a correlation with how advanced and how well of a society is. For example, in a tribal society, pretty much everyone needs to hunt and gather so no one starves. Once agriculture emerged, people could be designated farmers and this freed up other people to perform other jobs like "doctor" "blacksmith" ect.

So, if people have the luxuries to study such things it obviously reflects in a favourable light.

Even without philosophical studies or a tertiary education, you could probably do very well with just a keen interest and decent literacy.

Monks in the Western European territories during the Dark Ages could be criticized or potentially condemned for having too many books preserved in their libraries other than Scripture, to somewhat of the same extent, people who study too much outside the circle of the predominant socially accepted Islamic doctrine and traditions of their country are eyeballed with suspicion in their countries.

Hmm, yes, i know the church had a lot of things like this happen as well. The main point for me is the church has made enormous progress and change since then and that view of too many scriptures wasn’t really rooted in the religion. I think its really hard to separate out the theory and ideal of a religion, from the practice and from whatever else creeps in. People say of al queda "they're not muslims" however some very conservative people think a lot of other Muslims are apparently not muslims either. So, its really hard to exactly divine what is what, if you understand what im getting on about.

The ruling of apostasy being punishable by death also contributed to this by creating a generation or more of Muslims for whom the particular understanding of Islam they were raised with became so synonymous with their ethnic and/or national identification that one couldn't abandon one or the other, at least not so very easily.

Yeah, this is exactly what i was talking about in earlier posts about the intertwining of civil society, religion and culture. I also think a lot of the higher up people, clerics especially, worry that if they're exposed to these things they might abandon islam all together. You don't become a cleric if you barely care about your religion, you become a cleric if you're very very passionate about it. I guess sometimes (with good intentions a lot of the time) this passion can become seriously misguided.

3.) Recent Movements- I would say that this is a cause, but it is also more so a result. Due to the cultural exchange I mentioned, two distinct groups have emerged: those who encourage an exchange and those who discourage an exchange. What the Islamic world is struggling with in this new surge of cultural exchange is trying to find out what is okay to keep and what is okay to take out so I think the rise in terrorism,violence, or just plain arguing we see at various times is the result of either a cultural exchange not being taken kindly to by one respective individual or party or it is the result of a cultural exchange being taken too well.

I only saw this after i wrote all of the above but yes, this is one of the points i was trying to get onto. These changes can sometimes bring reactionary movements with them.

Not only that, in this ever changing and evolving world, it is those who are the fittest to survive who do survive, whether one means "fittest" in reference to a relative condition that may not be the same now as was during this time in the past or will be at this time in the future, or whether one is speaking of indefinite absolute conditions of "fitness" that are eternal and absolute.

You can change the world though. You could isolate yourself from certain elements and what fitness would mean in one context would be different in another. I'm sure the variety of islam that has the most fitness to western society, probably isnt the most fit in countries with conservative interpretations. Same for very conservative islam in the west. I think this is further influenced by the fact islam can be a political system as well (eg iran) and that would change the fitness of various ideas.

Likewise, we can see an example in the Christian communities of similar anthropological phenomenon that can be described in biological terms. Many years ago, the Earth being only 6,000 or so years old was not a perposterous theory and was treated as an actual possibility with its own share of viable reasons and evidence for its proponents to feel comfortable with their conclusion. But as studies continued and time went by, archaeology and paleontology unveiled new evidence against the theory to the point where, honestly, the belief the Earth being 6,000 years old, even for many Christians today in this day and age, is not exactly a credible theory anymore. However, the "Evangelical Christian Movement" aggressively promote this older theory and religious interpretation, despite the fact that many other Christians have adopted new interpretations and theories, some of which already present in other long established religious communities, and the Evangelical Christian Movement is known for promoting its canon, not only on the 6,000 year theory but other religious ideas, for various reasons that many other religious people even among the Christians can't quite understand the reasoning of, and they are known for doing so through rather nefarious or nonsensical means.

This is one of the reactionary events i'm talking about. I don't think they exactly hang onto the 6000 year old idea because they find heaps of evidence first then form this idea, i think its the other way around. They form this idea then try find evidence for it. I see it as partially a reaction to the changes they see. Society has progressed and according to them decayed. These people probably aren't fans of science either. It brought a lot of enlightenment. Before a certain time it would of been silly to not believe in some kind of divine force, if i lived in these times i probably would of as well. There was no good scientific theories for the origin of the universe or humanity, so of course God was the answer. Just as God used to be why the sun rose for the ancient Egyptians but society moved on. I think these christians see science as promoting atheism in a way and one of the lead proponents of the young earth theory said this blankly. He thinks science has lead to lack of belief and decay. He pretty much made out the fact he has an interest in suppressing alternate ideas because he doesn’t want people to lose faith and more decay to occur.

Things like evolution and cosmology provide reasonable alternatives to God and i think they're threatened by that. Especially if you read the bible extremely literally. It may also be due to the fact, that for these people, that if there is an apparent contradiction, God must always win. I don't think science and religion need not be contradictory though, with some decent logic and thinking you can reconcile the two. God could of caused the big bang or kicked off or guided evolution perhaps. Things like that.

The Evangelical Christian Movement could be seen as the result of a previous cultural exchange that opposes a new cultural exchange. However, I also think the Evangelical Christian movement is more comparable to the final convulsions of a dying animal as opposed to just simply a body's immunity system fighting a germ as the movement sees itself, and I think this same situation is happening for many previous ideas among Christians. Also, opposition within the Muslim community against certain other movements and religious viewpoints can also be understood by the same metaphor.

Christianity in terms of adherents, is falling in a lot of the west. Especially western europe. However, America still retain a lot of christian spirit in a lot of places and i think in some terms its actually growing or at least maintaining numbers.

I think another proportion of this is charismatic preachers and lack of understanding and group think. If everyone else like me thinks this, then i should probably think it too. For example, i have a religious friend who i asked about evolution. They said they don't believe in evolution (i dont know if you can really believe or not believe in an scientific idea..its more its false or true but moving along), which i've come to accept happens in the world. As someone who has studied these things (and i'm taking even more evolutionary biology as time goes on) i was just interested in their reasons or what flaws they found. So, i said whats wrong with the theory, they just said they don't buy it or believe it. They told me they could never believe it. It later emerged they didn't know all that much about it, so i challenged, how can you decided to never believe it, if you haven't even understood the theory or got the whole picture?

This really stuck with me. It seemed rather silly at the time i guess but now i understand some reasons why they might of thought like that at the time.

They were a dear friend of mine though and i didn't really want to argue with them that much so i just let it lie. I was considering offering to explain it, in detail, but it seems like no matter what i say and how beautiful i think the theory is, nothing would change their mind in that state. Like i said though, i'm sure they've softened their view since and we all make mistakes of our psychology, so i'm not at all really blaming them.

I'm sure they've moved on since. Its partially a reactionary thing and partially a thing that involves movements of whole communities. I mean if your entire congregation doesn't believe in evolution, if you stick around, you probably don't either. If you notice a lot of fellow muslims don't or think it’s bad, some might be inclined to do similar things. Which is a normal function of human psychology, not knocking them for that. Just pointing out how these things can sometimes move.

Thanks for the long and detailed responses though. It's good to hear why people made the choices they did and explain their views a little.

[iSilurian]

I actually took a moment to read some of these comments. An impressive exchange, if i must say so myself. And thanks for the shoutout Jinn. And nice response pomba.

[Pascal]

There are significantly more votes as compared to before.

What i now find interesting is 50% of people who voted (9/19) think certain aspects of Islam were only meant for a certain time, while another 50% (9/19) think all of the things contained within islam are for all times. 1 person voted unsure but that vote can be scratched or technically added to both sides.

This interests me because from even the first time i encountered something about Islam seriously, it was drilled into me that it was meant for all people, all times and it was unchanging.

What i also find interesting is the fact that (i assume) the quran/hadith asserts somewhere it is meant for all time and shouldn't be changed. Obviously, how far one differs to this depends on what you think was actually meant for a certain time. So, i mean, if it asserts it's perfect and theres no error (this in itself implies its meant for all times i think) and that it's meant for all times, must create quiet a predicament for someone who thinks these things.

Since its anonymous i can't know who voted for what and why, unless they want to say, if not that is fine but none the less i find it interesting. Like i said, it's kept popping up for me personally every time i look at Islam.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

This interests me because from even the first time i encountered something about Islam seriously, it was drilled into me that it was meant for all people, all times and it was unchanging.

What i also find interesting is the fact that (i assume) the quran/hadith asserts somewhere it is meant for all time and shouldn't be changed. Obviously, how far one differs to this depends on what you think was actually meant for a certain time. So, i mean, if it asserts it's perfect and theres no error (this in itself implies its meant for all times i think) and that it's meant for all times, must create quiet a predicament for someone who thinks these things.

Well, as I said, many of Islam's rulings are more absolute for all times and others have conditions for which these such and such actions are the practical decision and if these conditions are not present, this ruling cannot apply. Like I pointed out with slavery, slavery was carried out more for the sake of practicality due to the time period in which Muhammad (as) and his community lived. Now that the need for slavery as a practical decision has diminished considerably, the rules on the care and political status of the slave class are no longer an immediate concern of ours. We don't discard these rulings as immoral, rather we feel they are perfectly moral and preserve them in the off chance that conditions arise in society where the establishment of a slave class is necessary. However, because we don't see the practicality of having a slave class anymore, there's no reason, let alone a population, for which to implement these rulings. What? Are we supposed to be like "Man, we need to re-establish a slave class to implement these rulings so people can see with their own eyes they make sense?" Where does the Quran and hadith say to do that? I haven't seen such a thing. The reasoning should be enough on its own, and our religion doesn't even say we need to have slaves for that matter, it just gives us the proper guidelines in case we do have them.

it's not that I believe these rulings are not moral, just that, for some things (certainly not all), there is no situation we are currently in analogous enough to the conditions those rulings require so as to be implemented. But I don't say that they couldn't ever have to be used again.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Saintly_Jinn23