As a rightist myself, I’ve always found the ‘where are the moderates’ chant distasteful. I dislike multiculturalism because I think a British Muslim is British, not part of the ‘Muslim community’. Rightists who call on the ‘Muslim community’ to take responsibility for its fanatics are therefore displaying logical inconsistency.

Nonetheless, what happened in Luton was brilliant. And just goes to show that in the long run, Muslims will be our friends on the right: patriotic, conservative, religious, community-focused and disciplined.

This is undoubtedly A Good Thing.

as is this:

Wayne King

what an unfortunate name eh… or not, in this case.

As pointed out on Sunny’s site, this was a response to radical Islamists by conservative Muslims rather than moderates, but in a way I think that’s even more encouraging because it shows just how marginalized the radicals are getting: ita a bit like the relatively less nutty UKIP attacking the BNP.

(2): I’m told Wayne King caused the death of David Carradine.

As pointed out on Sunny’s site, this was a response to radical Islamists by conservative Muslims rather than moderates,

Yup, this is true. I think the word ‘moderate’ in this context is a misnomer. Moderates aren’t necessarily liberal. They may be social conservatives, but are not religious fanatics. They are likely to be the types who keep their religion to themselves.

So what do folks make of the Luton Islamic Centre’s views on women: __Putting “Women Are Deficient In Their Intellect” In Context__

http://calltoislam.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=78

“….Abu Usaamah said: ‘women are deficient in their intellect..’
This is in fact a statement of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wa
sallam) which when understood in its proper context, is in no way demeaning to
women.

The following is a collection of statements from leading psychologists and
scientists’ regarding aspects of a woman’s nature which have been decreed by
Allaah the Most High. By understanding the innate differences between men and
women, a husband should be more understanding towards his wife. If we
overlook these differences, it will lead to frustration and conflict between spouses.
…
This does not mean, of course, that women are mentally deficient absolutely. It
just means that their mental faculties can become affected at certain times in
the biological cycle.
…
16 percent of a sample of 263 pregnant women were suffering from clinically significant psychiatric problems.
…
Several of the community surveys indicate a small but significant increase in
psychiatric symptoms in women during the five years prior to the cessation of
menstrual periods.
…
Then there are the psychiatric aspects of infertility and miscarriage.
…
It is in light of the above findings of psychologist, psychiatrists and researchers
that the saying of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa sallam) is understood. He
(salalahu alaihi wa sallam) asked:
“Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women
said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826).
The Dispatches programme tried to show that the “extremist Muslims” (according
to their false definition) had an intolerant world view, unlike their “moderate” sufi
friends. However the statements that these “extremist Muslims” made were
taken directly from the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa sallam) himself. Hence the
statements made regarding women, hijab, prayer of a child, the age of marriage,
jihad, prohibition of homosexuality, etc were from the religion of Islam, and were
not the personal view of these speakers. Hence by attacking these views, the
programme attacked Islam. Secondly, the programme did not provide a full
opportunity for Muslims to explain the reason behind these Islamic injunctions.

Isn’t it rather that this isn’t a matter of the hoary old “moderate/extremist” divide at all. Al-Muhajiroun are an alien thing to the UK’s Muslim communities, being a sect which has almost no following at all. It’s rather as though one were to say that the “Christian community” was “split” between “moderates” and adherents of Fred Phelps. You could actually be a full member of the Turkish Saadet Party and still look “moderate” in that sense.

The whole “moderate/extremist” thing actually credits groups like (continuity) Al-Muj with more influence and kudos than they have in reality.

Alan

You’re not comparing oranges with oranges. Fred Phelps is as you say way out on the whacky end of christianity – off the scale in fact.

But the Luton Islamic centre, who might have opposed the rioting, extremist muslims, would in fact agree with them on issues of women rights (or rather the lack of their equality before the law), death penalty for apostasy and adultery – because those are 100% mainstream Islam views.

The Luton Islamic centre may not be calling for the death penalty for Apostates, and not all muslim countries enshrine it in law – but it is the view of mainstream Islamic scholars worldwide.

Sunny and Shatterface @several:

Okay, I seem to have a misunderstanding about using the word ‘moderate’ in this context. Is there a clear definition for what set of opinions makes a Muslim moderate? I was using the word generally rather than technically, to mean someone who is not an extremist; e.g. someone who opposes the actions of Islamists who shout at our soldiers in the street.

Someone can be social conservative and want to keep their politics to themselves, indeed. At that point, they are unlikely to blow up the Underground and probably won’t give money to organisations that will. Intuitively that makes them a moderate, for me; by comparison with the people who would do those things. Like the political definition ‘centrist’, it feels as though this one depends on where you’re standing when you make the assessment.

Is there a list somewhere of what makes a moderate Muslim? Genuine question, as clearly if there is I need to read it, and if there isn’t you should possibly write one…

Just Visiting @ 6 & 8

The Luton Islamic centre may not be calling for the death penalty for Apostates, and not all muslim countries enshrine it in law – but it is the view of mainstream Islamic scholars worldwide.

Mainstream Islam, numerically, is not even Arabic; it’s Far East Asian. Mainstream Islam, ideologically, is a religion of five pillars, practiced seriously and quietly by millions and millions of hard-working, peaceful, teetotal farmers. Mainstream Islam is not really politicised at all; it’s a private and personal religion. I grew up in a country with more Muslims than Christians, which is not an Arabic state; I saw what ‘mainstream Islam’, (i.e. Islam outside the power-struggle between NATO and OPEC) looks like every day. There were a lot more committed Muslims in my village at Eid than there were at the start of Rammadan. I’ve always seen that as equivalent to Christmas-and-Easter Anglicans.

“Mainstream” Islam is, if nothing else, divided between Sunni and Shi’a. Even “mainstream” Sunni Islam is divided; into Wa’habbists and what I would describe as ‘realist’ Sunnis. Islam is more monolithic than Christianity, which now has over 38,000 denominations, the vast majority of which spawned in the last 150 years. Islam is at least 300 years younger than Christianity and it’s steadily schisming; give ’em time and they’ll be just as diverse. Perceiving the Wa’habbists (who own Mecca and Medina) as being in approximately the position of Catholicism during the Reformation would not be too far out; they’re a backward-looking, lost-empire faction whose fixation on the past is nailed down by their custodianship of the central pilgrimage site for their religion. There is good cause to believe that globalisation will have the same fragmentary effect on Islam that it has had on Christianity.

Yes, “mainstream” Islam is still pretty medieval when it comes to women’s rights. So is China, and they’re not Muslims. Indonesia, Japan and most of South America could take some lessons, too. At least there are internal challenges to the rule of the Arabian medievalists.

John

Thanks for taking the time to post that thoughtful reply.

“I was using the word generally rather than technically, to mean someone who is not an extremist; e.g. someone who opposes the actions of Islamists who shout at our soldiers in the street.”

That sounds plausible at first- but if the ‘moderate’ camp and the ‘shout at soldiers’ camp are united about many core beliefs, then they are not so far apart – just differing on tactics not strategy.

All strands of Islam agree that everything that Mohammed did and said is to be emulated. And his words were ‘dictation directly fom Allah’ – and hence can’t be contradicted.
He is the prime example to be copied. And Mohammed (in comparison to say Jesus), gave loads of clear commandments to be followed – from how to wipe your bottom through to not using interest charges in banking.
Hence you see Muslim countries allow girls as young as 8 to be married – Mohammed married a 6 year old and consumated the marriage when she was 9. So if any scholar today where to say marriage of young girls is wrong – well it’s heresy, its saying Mohammed was wrong. No can do.
Some Muslim countries have on paper laws about such marriage, (which they are quick to point out shows how ‘modern’ they are) but they are typically circumvented by the small print that lets the local judge decide, so in practise the marriages go on.
(wikipedia says: “The widespread prevalence of child marriage in the Islamic monarchy of Saudi Arabia has been documented by human rights groups [1] [2]. Saudi clerics have justified the marriage of girls as young as 9, with sanction from the judiciary [3].There are no laws defining the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia, and girls as young as eight years of age can marry [4].)

It’s hard to imagine how Islam can ever reach a place where central planks of what Mohammed did and said can be ever removed.

“Islam is at least 300 years younger than Christianity and it’s steadily schisming; give ‘em time and they’ll be just as diverse.”

Mohammed lived 600 odd years after Christ, not 300.

Christianity went through a reformation – but that was essentially a trip _back_ to the New Testament – reading the Bible in your own language not the power_priests Latin: and making your own mind up about Jesus: and the throwing out of a lot of unbiblical baggage that the Catholic had added over the years.
But the reformation didn’t throw out any parts of the New Testament – or change the nature or role of Jesus the central figure.

The church today may treat women differently than it did in previous centuries – but the New Testament is explicit in its support that all are equal -male, female, greek,jew, slave, free (all the major categories that divided people back when it was written).
There a two verses from Paul about ‘women keep silent in church’ and nothing else to support a different treatment of women. So the church was able to change, and arguably get back to the same treatment of women that Jesus and the early church modelled (close friends were women – women were the first to see him resurrected – mentions of the big role played by women like Lydia who let the early church in one city and etc).

So in your analysis, you suggest that Islam can change, or at least become more ‘diverse’.

Exploring that – how do we think that Islam is going to change the role and central nature of Mohammed?
And if you don’t do that, there is no theological basis for throwing off he commands he gave and the life-style he role-modeled.

So strong is this straitjacket, that ~50 Muslim countries instead of signing up to the international convention on Human Rights, created instead their own – the Cairo Convention. Read up about it online, and you’ll see that it explicitly removes things like equality before the law for women (vs men): and for people irrespective of their religion (Muslims come first). And that it repeatedly refers to Sharia Law as being the source of the convention and that nothing in it can replace or supercede any part of Sharia.

I would hazard a guess that the country you grew up in is a signatory to the Cairo convention.

Back to your example of the ‘moderates’ – they might not like the _way_ that the ‘extremists’ behave – but they could not disagree with the core Islamic principles that lie behind it.

You said: “Mainstream Islam, numerically, is not even Arabic”

Nobody had brought race into the thread so far. (Mainstream Islam of course does revere the Qur’an in Arabic over language translations.)

“I grew up in a country with more Muslims than Christians, which is not an Arabic state; I saw what ‘mainstream Islam’, looks like every day.”

Interesting, I’d be interested to hear more of your experiences.
But no one here is suggesting that all Muslim nations follow mainstream Islam so closely as others. But even the ones that don’t follow very closely, don’t have their own ‘denominations’ with different theology to core Islam: for the reasons above: mainstream is mainstream and has been so for best part of a 1000 years without any changes.

How were women treated regards the law where you lived? And non-Muslims?

Lastly you wrote: “Yes, “mainstream” Islam is still pretty medieval when it comes to women’s rights. So is China, and they’re not Muslims”

But that’s not a great comparison – apples vs oranges.
China can change and has changed hugely – despite the limits imposed by a single-party communist strait-jacket.

But Islam can’t change. The core theology is not changeable.

Many Muslims will ignore the precepts of their religion (eg UAE folk who drink alcohol when in the UK, Saudis who ‘go west’ during Ramadan).

But if any Muslim were to stand up at ‘Hyde park corner’ in a Muslim country and argue that women should be equal before the law- or that apostasy and adultery do not deserve the death penalty… they’d be lynched!

I remember Tariq Ramadan on Radio 4 when John Humphries did a series of 3 interviews wuth a leading Christian, Jew and Muslim: Tariq Ramadan had earlier said he wanted a moratorium on beheadings/stonings for Adultery and apostatsy etc.
Humphries asked him why just a moratorium and not an end to it – and he was non-plussed and thoroughly put off Islam by Ramadam’s unwillingness to go there.
But in reality the outcome was inevitable – Ramadan comes from a line of ‘extreme’ Islamists, knows his Qur’an etc and knows that these punishments are mainstream and can never be taken out.

Sorry, I’ve waffled on a little here.

To end on a news item – Islamic killing (and not in an Arabic land but Africa)
See the Sunday Times just gone:
“A HARROWING account of the final hours of the kidnapped British tourist Edwin Dyer before he was murdered by Islamic militants in the Sahara desert last week has been given by an Arab intermediary who was negotiating for his release.”
“The kidnappers said”Just western unbelievers. Islam tells us not to have any links with unbelievers. That is why this man will be executed in the name of God.””
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6446276.ece

You’re right saying ‘At least there are internal challenges to the rule of the Arabian medievalists’. Not sure the ‘lipstick revolutionaries’ are the most prominent, but a good find!

There are some very brave people, and groups doing this. ExMuslim Council of Britian, various groups of Muslims arguing for genuine reform.

I salute their bravery (and not a few are under police protection).

The big mountain they have to climb – is that Mohammed explicitly said that a women can’t go before a court and make a claim of rape without 4 (four) male witnesses. So there are no convictions of rape in many Muslim countries – and not because it doesn’t happen…

How to reform Islam without throwing out Mohammed -and if you did manage that, well it’s not Islam anymore, it’s some kind of a sect with Muslim-ish flavours… so will never be exceptable to the mainstream.

Some of the advocates for change are very brave indeed – but they are often undermined by us in the West – eg Obama making moral equivalences between the treatment of women in America and in Muslim nations like Saudi..