How to stop Islamic extremism: Global Fiqh Council (GFC)

[illusion8]

Islamic militancy and terrorism was not only created for religion, the Taliban or mujahideens, or other extremist groups were created for other political, territorial reasons rather than religion. Religion is being used as a cement or justification. You are partly right one can dissociate religion from extremism, but for it to end one needs end the actual reasons for terrorism.

 

[Srinivas]

Religion is open to interpretation. Even if you standardize religious teachings, how are you gonna reach 2 billion muslims? Especially the ones that are poor, uneducated etc? These are the people that mostly fall victim to extremism and get involved with the radicals.

You cannot stop religious extremism this way. Religious extremism can only be stopped when religion is given much less importance in people's lives than it is today. And for that, you need to improve literacy, improve living standards, inculcate liberal thought, REINTERPRET Islam as a more liberal religion AND PROMOTE it as such. But how many Muslims today will acknowledge such reinterpretations? For some of them their very moralities might be tied to conservative radical Islam. You cant change such people.

So the only way is for countries to improve living standards for their population to such an extent, that there would be too much to lose if people turn to religious extremism.

Good post mate

 

[Developereo]

Once these standardized versions are finalized, then all previous versions will be considered null and void and made illegal if possible.

While I appreciate your motivation, I do not agree with your solution. You are advocating forcing someone's standardized version of Islam onto everybody, albeit tailored to subgroups (larger than 5 million). Groups with fewer than 5 million adherents will simply be ... what? ignored? forced? excommunicated?

The only solution is to make people understand that violence is not the way to settle differences; better still to accept those differences and just live and let live, as long as basic human rights are respected. Even if someone believes that girls' education is wrong or burqas are compulsory, they are welcome to make their case and we can debate them with facts and logic. However, since many Muslim governments are themselves abusing differences within Islam to serve their political agendas, it's hard to see how the above idea can be implemented.

As for terrorism and pan-Islamism, those are much more complicated topics which can be debated on their own. For the record, I don't buy the accusation that Muslims suffer excessively from pan-Islamism. There is pan-Judaism, pan-Christianity and pan-Hinduism, and their adherents are just as passionate and active as any Muslims.

 

[vsdoc]

While I appreciate your motivation, I do not agree with your solution. You are advocating forcing someone's standardized version of Islam onto everybody, albeit tailored to subgroups (larger than 5 million). Groups with fewer than 5 million adherents will simply be ... what? ignored? forced? excommunicated?

The only solution is to make people understand that violence is not the way to settle differences; better still to accept those differences and just live and let live, as long as basic human rights are respected. Even if someone believes that girls' education is wrong or burqas are compulsory, they are welcome to make their case and we can debate them with facts and logic. However, since many Muslim governments are themselves abusing differences within Islam to serve their political agendas, it's hard to see how the above idea can be implemented.

And once Muslims have gotten around to ensuring all of the above amongst themselves, maybe some of this new found tolerance could be shared outwards as well.

That would truly be the cherry on the cake as far as I am concerned.

Right now the Muslims have turned on themselves because the rest of the world is squeezing them.

Release that pressure and the consequences will be fallout and backlash.

That is the conundrum today.

 

[Developereo]

And once Muslims have gotten around to ensuring all of the above amongst themselves, maybe some of this new found tolerance could be shared outwards as well.

That would truly be the cherry on the cake as far as I am concerned.

Right now the Muslims have turned on themselves because the rest of the world is squeezing them.

Release that pressure and the consequences will be fallout and backlash.

That is the conundrum today.

This discussion is for people with the knowledge and desire to conduct a serious discussion, so your predictable rants are out of place here.

 

[vsdoc]

This discussion is for people with the knowledge and desire to conduct a serious discussion, so you are out of your depth here.

I am quoting you.

That should show you the depth I am at.

 

[vsdoc]

As usual, you have nothing constructive to contribute other than your prepackaged, standard soliloquies. Try coming up with new material for a change.

Tamme gujrati ccho?

Khoja ccho, ke bohra?

Sahebji.

 

[gambit]

While I appreciate your motivation, I do not agree with your solution. You are advocating forcing someone's standardized version of Islam onto everybody, albeit tailored to subgroups (larger than 5 million). Groups with fewer than 5 million adherents will simply be ... what? ignored? forced? excommunicated?

The only solution is to make people understand that violence is not the way to settle differences; better still to accept those differences and just live and let live, as long as basic human rights are respected. Even if someone believes that girls' education is wrong or burqas are compulsory, they are welcome to make their case and we can debate them with facts and logic. However, since many Muslim governments are themselves abusing differences within Islam to serve their political agendas, it's hard to see how the above idea can be implemented.

As for terrorism and pan-Islamism, those are much more complicated topics which can be debated on their own. For the record, I don't buy the accusation that Muslims suffer excessively from pan-Islamism. There is pan-Judaism, pan-Christianity and pan-Hinduism, and their adherents are just as passionate and active as any Muslims.

In a theocracy, religions other than what is approved can be made illegal, in other words, the state is deemed/blessed to be the agent of God, therefore defying the state is equivalent to defying God. The state can be generous and instead of making other religions illegal, it can make practicing them difficult. It is only the generosity of this agent of Allah that infidels are allowed to live and/or live reasonably freely. So if we can make a religion illegal, there are no barriers to making any version of Islam illegal.

 

[notsuperstitious]

This is like saying all the problems in the world will be over once we form a World Ethics Council

Such immature dummy selling only works towards confusing people and diverting attention from the nuts and bolts. And such ideas usually come from people who are not confortable with the nuts and bolts being examined.

This definition from Einstein is apt -

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

 

[Developereo]

Tamme gujrati ccho?

Khoja ccho, ke bohra?

Sahebji.

Gujarati speaking. Let's leave it at that...

In a theocracy, religions other than what is approved can be made illegal, in other words, the state is deemed/blessed to be the agent of God, therefore defying the state is equivalent to defying God. The state can be generous and instead of making other religions illegal, it can make practicing them difficult. It is only the generosity of this agent of Allah that infidels are allowed to live and/or live reasonably freely. So if we can make a religion illegal, there are no barriers to making any version of Islam illegal.

A theocracy can be like a monarchy, in the sense that the ruling elite can be mostly ceremonial and individual rights are respected. I am not sure if the Queen is the head of the Church of England, but it doesn't have any real significance. In any case, there are extreme situations which are beyond the purview of the OP. I think the OP is talking more about Muslim countries which are, or striving towards being, democratic.

 

[vsdoc]

Gujarati speaking. Let's leave it at that...

Tamme ekla tight *** kain ccho?

 

[Wickerman]

The only solution is to make people understand that violence is not the way to settle differences; better still to accept those differences and just live and let live, as long as basic human rights are respected

The fact that they dont is the problem. That is what extremism is. But HOW would one do it? Your post doesnt address that. I think they need a more liberal outlook on life, culture, religion and their general world view. For this I believe the only way is to educate them and improve their living standards, bringing not only increased income but also more exposure to various other cultures. Make them depend less on religion by not giving it more importance than is necessary. Its this excessive influence of religion and its bizarre interpretations by weird people who call themselves "scholars", on people's daily lives that causes the trouble. The only way to get out of this tangle, is to bring in some form of cultural, ideological and economic revisionism.

 

[gambit]

A theocracy can be like a monarchy, in the sense that the ruling elite can be mostly ceremonial and individual rights are respected. I am not sure if the Queen is the head of the Church of England, but it doesn't have any real significance. In any case, there are extreme situations which are beyond the purview of the OP. I think the OP is talking more about Muslim countries which are, or striving towards being, democratic.

But it does not have to be. The issue here is whether or not a religious sect can legally impose its theocratic opinion upon another sect regarding a supposedly shared religion. The answer is yes.

God is not here to say 'Yea' or 'Nay' on any issue. It is up to religions' leaderships to interpret what they believe to be God's will. That will cannot be imposed via non-legal methods and tactics. Because if it can be, it is not an imposition but from persuasion. And we know by now that muslims have a difficult time using persuasive methods but prefers violence. Anyway, legal methods can only be enforced by a government and if there is a theocracy, there are legal methods to impose one sect's interpretation of a religion upon everyone within its jurisdiction.

 

[Developereo]

The fact that they dont is the problem. That is what extremism is. But HOW would one do it? Your post doesnt address that. I think they need a more liberal outlook on life, culture, religion and their general world view. For this I believe the only way is to educate them and improve their living standards, bringing not only increased income but also more exposure to various other cultures. Make them depend less on religion by not giving it more importance than is necessary. Its this excessive influence of religion and its bizarre interpretations by weird people who call themselves "scholars", on people's daily lives that causes the trouble. The only way to get out of this tangle, is to bring in some form of cultural, ideological and economic revisionism.

It's a carrot and stick approach.

Extremists in other religions, and regions, also exist but they behave themselves for the most part because law enforcement is strong enough to deter misadventures. We see extremist violence in non-Muslim parts of the world where law enforcement is lax.

The second issue, as you and the OP pointed out, is that many Islamic religious scholars are lazy (the ones who are not downright malicious) due to the dogmatic nature of religious thought in general. There is global injustice against Muslims, and to deny that would be wrong and futile. However, the scholars need to educate the youth that the proper remedy is not to resort to violence, but to acquire strength and influence (political, economic, media, technological, etc.) in order to present the Muslim point of view to the world. There are pathological Islamophobes who are beyond reason, but the vast majority of the world consists of reasonable people who will listen to both sides of the story.

 

[vsdoc]

There is nothing like a "pathological Islamophobe."

There is always cause and effect in this world and in human interactions and in society in general.

If anything, the term "Islamophobe" is a go-to refuge for a people who know where the problem actually lies but are incapable, unable, or unwilling to do anything about it.