What's new

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

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.

What you are outlining can, and has, been done by Muslim and non-Muslim theocracies throughout history. However, the OP is specifically proposing an inclusive and voluntary effort to manage the differences. I believe his idea is unfeasible given the political fragmentation of the Muslim world, but that's the OP as I read it...
 
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.

You have an uncanny ability to prove my point, asked or unasked.
 
You have an uncanny ability to prove my point, asked or unasked.

Stop with the pot shots man. I am too grizzled to have that affect me.

You think you guys are being victimized without a reason?

You think the world is out to get you?

You must be more deluded than I thought.

If you for a moment drop that victim cloak you have on, you would see that it is possible to like people and not their belief system or what it represents.

The issues arising today are from the belief system.

People are people.
 
Stop with the pot shots man.

You give yourself too much importance.

As I mentioned, this is an intellectual discussion and the posts above are evidence enough of who is, and is not, capable of contributing.

Again, I would urge you to read the OP and contribute any original comments towards that -- if you can -- rather than lazily unloading stock rants.
 
OHH GFC I know what it is , Its Good Fan Company, A fan manufacturing company in pakistan, We used to have those fans.
GFC_fans.png
 
You give yourself too much importance.

As I mentioned, this is an intellectual discussion and the posts above are evidence enough of who is, and is not, capable of contributing.

Yup, we all have been witness to your intellectual prowess for many years now.

You have great discomfort in being called out for the closet mulla that you are.

You have been called out by fellow Pakistanis who live in Pakistan and battle your type on a daily basis.

Hum to nacheez hain.

Bro, I know Muslims inside out. Have grown up amongst them in Bihar.

Have eaten in their homes, played with them, fought with them.

I can smell a kattar mulla when I meet one. In real life or on the Internet.

You are one. It just took me some time to smell you out past your genteel Parsi-educated now-Aussie trappings.
 
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.
.
Your suggestions of solutions are based on human reasoning and logic..The problem with islamic extremism is that for these extremists, reason and logic are only second to religious edicts,which can be twisted and turned to justify many things which clearly conflicts with reason and logic.

How can you make an islamic fundamentalist understand that violence is not the way to settle difference when they shows you a dozen hadiths pointing otherwise..?How can you persuade them to stop killing the blasphemer when they show you hadith of prophet doing the same..?How can you explain them the fallacy of unwinnable and severely counterproductive jihad when they show you the religious edicts demanding sacifice of worldly life and waging jihad for god,for eternal benefits..?

My solution:Take the religion to backstage at least as far as politics and social issues are concerned.Make religion a private thing..Europeans didn't care for religious validation when they abolished slavery,established liberty,human rights and for many other things which made their societies better off..
 
Your suggestions of solutions are based on human reasoning and logic..The problem with islamic extremism is that for these extremists, reason and logic are only second to religious edicts,which can be twisted and turned to justify many things which clearly conflicts with reason and logic.

How can you make an islamic fundamentalist understand that violence is not the way to settle difference when they shows you a dozen hadiths pointing otherwise..?How can you persuade them to stop killing the blasphemer when they show you hadith of prophet doing the same..?How can you explain them the fallacy of unwinnable and severely counterproductive jihad when they show you the religious edicts demanding sacifice of worldly life and waging jihad for god,for eternal benefits..?

My solution:Take the religion to backstage at least as far as politics and social issues are concerned.Make religion a private thing..Europeans didn't care for religious validation when they abolished slavery,established liberty,human rights and for many other things which made their societies better off..

The hardcore extremists are incurably beyond reason and the only solution is legal restraint.

As for your other points, once you get them talking instead of fighting, then there are proper answers to all their points explaining the context, or outright falsehood, of their claims. These things have been debated and answered lots of times.

The bottom line is that the State has to exert control over what the religious leaders preach, but only minimally as far as violence and basic human rights are concerned, not regulating the broader precepts of the various sects of Islam.
 
This was posted before in another thread so this is a cross post.

I propose a project:

Global Fiqh Council (GFC)
(Fiqh means Islamic Jurisprudence)
Fiqh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Headquarter must be in a high gdp Muslim country, I recommend either Turkey or Malaysia. It should be a research institution in an Islamic university. Every country and ethnic group of Muslims with at least 5 million population will get to send one Ulama from their community. So there will be approximately 320 Ulama representatives from around the world. Around 280 from Sunni communities and 40 from Shia communities.

The project should be funded by OIC.

It should have living quarters for all Ulama, library, class, conference centers etc. Qualified Ulama's will teach classes at the university, others will do teaching assistant job and research.

Their job will be to come up with a standardized one version of Sunni Islam, one version of Shia Islam and then make sure that these standardized versions do not have any conflict between them. There can be standardized sub-versions for individual Madhabs.

Once these standardized versions are finalized, then all previous versions will be considered null and void and made illegal if possible. New text books (in every language that has significant Muslim population), research books, position papers will be published by GFC.

Then it will become mandatory for all Mosques, Imams, Mullahs, Madrasa, Islamic teaching institutions etc. to follow these teaching materials in every OIC member countries. OIC will also have to make treaties or agreements with countries with significant minority Muslims such as India, Russia, EU, USA etc. to make these materials available to their institutions, which will go a long way towards preventing deviant ideas among their Muslim population.

My motivation for this proposal is the following:

- Islam and Muslims have been a world power since its beginning
- Mongol invasion was a major body blow and many say Islamic civilization never recovered from it
- West which luckily got spared from Mongol invasion due to death of Ogedei Khan right before the invasion, later got more powerful and superseded all civilizations in rest of the world
- decline of Islamic civilization and empires specially became acute in last 3 hundred years, with loss of Mughal Hindustan, which went under British and finally divided in partition, Ottoman fragmented in WW I and Iran also lost land such as Azerbaijan to Russia
- after the fall of Mughal, Deoband started in India, and after fall of Ottoman Salafi became powerful in Arabian peninsula and others started spreading ideas of political Islam such as Hassan Al Banna, Syed Qutb, Jamal Al din Afghani, Taqiuddin Nabhani, Abul Ala Moududi, OBL, Zwahiri, Awlaqi etc. Since 1979 Shia Islam had their own supremacist ideology developed in Qom.
- the thing to note about all of the above ideas/ideology is that these are product of fragmented societies without backing of any state power and hence are fundamentally devoid of legitimacy and are bound to be full of deviations
- Salafi is an exception as it is tied to a state, but its origin is from a rebellious area who never had to administer a large empire with this ideology. Its management of Saudi Arabia and allowing funds to spread to other parts of the world was detrimental to the Muslim world
- the recent Shia ideology developed in Qom since 1979 has so far badly mismanaged Iran and shia affairs by spreading these ideas among other Shia population. One effect of this has been constant conflict with Sunni Muslims in many parts of the world
- so due to lack of interest or understanding of how important it is to manage religious and ideological matters and manage them centrally in one place, amateurs have taken over in this area with their ad hoc efforts in many parts of the world with catastrophic results
- the solution I believe is pulling together a team from all corners of the Muslim world and then properly manage all religious matters centrally in one place and thus take it out from the hands of amateurs

If we can get this project going, I think we will be able to address some critical problems Muslims and Islam are facing, such as Shia-Sunni divide and conflict, terrorism and violence by rogue Islamic groups, groups like Taliban banning education for Girls without any basis in Islam and many others.

The GFC can be a seed for solution to the problem of fragmentation, conflict, chaos and become a vehicle to promote unity, tolerance and peaceful coexistence with people of different faith among 1.6 billion Muslims.

So is this going to work? If not please tell us why not and provide alternative ideas that may work.

I thank you for coming up with ideas instead of posting an article and than take shots at it.

I don't think your calling of any going beliefs null and void will work unless you can sell the idea of your global council to the average folks. This will imo will create more splinter groups within Islam that just may want to protect what they consider traditional beliefs and values in their version of Islam.

The Saudis will be up in arms against thoughts like that.
 
Your suggestions of solutions are based on human reasoning and logic..The problem with islamic extremism is that for these extremists, reason and logic are only second to religious edicts,which can be twisted and turned to justify many things which clearly conflicts with reason and logic.

How can you make an islamic fundamentalist understand that violence is not the way to settle difference when they shows you a dozen hadiths pointing otherwise..?How can you persuade them to stop killing the blasphemer when they show you hadith of prophet doing the same..?How can you explain them the fallacy of unwinnable and severely counterproductive jihad when they show you the religious edicts demanding sacifice of worldly life and waging jihad for god,for eternal benefits..?

My solution:Take the religion to backstage at least as far as politics and social issues are concerned.Make religion a private thing..Europeans didn't care for religious validation when they abolished slavery,established liberty,human rights and for many other things which made their societies better off..

Fully agreed. Make religion a private thing, as long as you play politics and try to model entire societies and economis and extremely personal matters on religion, you are going to bring religion down to these wordly matters and drag it though the mire.

And the same chip on the shoulder will remain and calling other islamophobes is the last escape route.
 
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.

The extremists in other religions actually do not behave. Recently I heard of a story in the US where a pastor advocated that a man "rise up" and beat his wife, if she supported gay rights. Now I dont know how he is any different from a guy in Saudi Arabia talking about wife beating.

But the difference is, that the guy in the US is not taken seriously for the most part (there are of course people like Pat Robertson who will buy into that crap). But if you see Islamic nations, a lot of people do. The reason in my opinion is because religion is so influential in their lives. So on the one hand you have religion playing a huge role in people's perceptions, and on the other you have these mad mullahs going crazy with their ridiculous interpretations. Its very easy to buy into such extremism in that situation.

So giving them education, different perspectives, reducing the importance of religion (not to mean destroy it, but give it the importance it deserves) on personal lives, improving standards of living in a democratic political system with strict laws (laws not based on religion) etc is what will reduce extremism.

Otherwise I dont see how you can get a person to say that violence is futile, because extremism is not just in the violence that they do, its also in their minds. Extremism is cultural brought on my religion. Cultural and political change is what will eradicate it.
 
The extremists in other religions actually do not behave. Recently I heard of a story in the US where a pastor advocated that a man "rise up" and beat his wife, if she supported gay rights. Now I dont know how he is any different from a guy in Saudi Arabia talking about wife beating.

But the difference is, that the guy in the US is not taken seriously for the most part (there are of course people like Pat Robertson who will buy into that crap). But if you see Islamic nations, a lot of people do. The reason in my opinion is because religion is so influential in their lives. So on the one hand you have religion playing a huge role in people's perceptions, and on the other you have these mad mullahs going crazy with their ridiculous interpretations. Its very easy to buy into such extremism in that situation.

So giving them education, different perspectives, reducing the importance of religion (not to mean destroy it, but give it the importance it deserves) on personal lives, improving standards of living in a democratic political system with strict laws (laws not based on religion) etc is what will reduce extremism.

Otherwise I dont see how you can get a person to say that violence is futile, because extremism is not just in the violence that they do, its also in their minds. Extremism is cultural brought on my religion. Cultural and political change is what will eradicate it.

Agreed. Its a dishonest assessment to say extremists in one religion behave while in another they do not behave. And there are fundamental issues that some people would like to slide under the carpet - for example how many % of children undergo childhood indoctrination that limits their tolerance for other ideas and critical thinking? But for most of these people, that indoctrination is important (again, these people have also received the same in childhood). So instead of facing the real issue, weird theories like well behaving extremists come up.

Add to that this latest dummy - more religion, except this time the correct interpretation!!! Wow!
 
This was posted before in another thread so this is a cross post.

I propose a project:

Global Fiqh Council (GFC)
(Fiqh means Islamic Jurisprudence)
Fiqh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Headquarter must be in a high gdp Muslim country, I recommend either Turkey or Malaysia. It should be a research institution in an Islamic university. Every country and ethnic group of Muslims with at least 5 million population will get to send one Ulama from their community. So there will be approximately 320 Ulama representatives from around the world. Around 280 from Sunni communities and 40 from Shia communities.

The project should be funded by OIC.

It should have living quarters for all Ulama, library, class, conference centers etc. Qualified Ulama's will teach classes at the university, others will do teaching assistant job and research.

Their job will be to come up with a standardized one version of Sunni Islam, one version of Shia Islam and then make sure that these standardized versions do not have any conflict between them. There can be standardized sub-versions for individual Madhabs.

Once these standardized versions are finalized, then all previous versions will be considered null and void and made illegal if possible. New text books (in every language that has significant Muslim population), research books, position papers will be published by GFC.

Then it will become mandatory for all Mosques, Imams, Mullahs, Madrasa, Islamic teaching institutions etc. to follow these teaching materials in every OIC member countries. OIC will also have to make treaties or agreements with countries with significant minority Muslims such as India, Russia, EU, USA etc. to make these materials available to their institutions, which will go a long way towards preventing deviant ideas among their Muslim population.

My motivation for this proposal is the following:

- Islam and Muslims have been a world power since its beginning
- Mongol invasion was a major body blow and many say Islamic civilization never recovered from it
- West which luckily got spared from Mongol invasion due to death of Ogedei Khan right before the invasion, later got more powerful and superseded all civilizations in rest of the world
- decline of Islamic civilization and empires specially became acute in last 3 hundred years, with loss of Mughal Hindustan, which went under British and finally divided in partition, Ottoman fragmented in WW I and Iran also lost land such as Azerbaijan to Russia
- after the fall of Mughal, Deoband started in India, and after fall of Ottoman Salafi became powerful in Arabian peninsula and others started spreading ideas of political Islam such as Hassan Al Banna, Syed Qutb, Jamal Al din Afghani, Taqiuddin Nabhani, Abul Ala Moududi, OBL, Zwahiri, Awlaqi etc. Since 1979 Shia Islam had their own supremacist ideology developed in Qom.
- the thing to note about all of the above ideas/ideology is that these are product of fragmented societies without backing of any state power and hence are fundamentally devoid of legitimacy and are bound to be full of deviations
- Salafi is an exception as it is tied to a state, but its origin is from a rebellious area who never had to administer a large empire with this ideology. Its management of Saudi Arabia and allowing funds to spread to other parts of the world was detrimental to the Muslim world
- the recent Shia ideology developed in Qom since 1979 has so far badly mismanaged Iran and shia affairs by spreading these ideas among other Shia population. One effect of this has been constant conflict with Sunni Muslims in many parts of the world
- so due to lack of interest or understanding of how important it is to manage religious and ideological matters and manage them centrally in one place, amateurs have taken over in this area with their ad hoc efforts in many parts of the world with catastrophic results
- the solution I believe is pulling together a team from all corners of the Muslim world and then properly manage all religious matters centrally in one place and thus take it out from the hands of amateurs

If we can get this project going, I think we will be able to address some critical problems Muslims and Islam are facing, such as Shia-Sunni divide and conflict, terrorism and violence by rogue Islamic groups, groups like Taliban banning education for Girls without any basis in Islam and many others.

The GFC can be a seed for solution to the problem of fragmentation, conflict, chaos and become a vehicle to promote unity, tolerance and peaceful coexistence with people of different faith among 1.6 billion Muslims.

So is this going to work? If not please tell us why not and provide alternative ideas that may work.
First who will define what is extremism keeping beard Wearing Hijab even that is considered by many westerners as extremism
 
Back
Top Bottom