Defining a "moderate Muslim,"or refuting it.

a reply to: bastion

I didn't put any words in your mouth, I just asked a question.

a reply to: sHuRuLuNi

Try reading what was written before you reply. I wrote about Sharia. I did not mention the quran or bible which you have tried - as is a usual muslim smoke screen made in order to avoid facing the issues raised.

Perhaps you would like to point out where the bible tells us crucifixion was used to punish adultery? Go on, have a good fish through. You stupidly used the word drivel but that actually applies to yourself. ( I would have used something more erudite.

All three dessert religions were thought up by war lords wanting power over other people and written down by their minions well after these men were dead thereby forging their own powerful positions in their respective societies.
Sadly something you can't deny however you fantasise about belief, which should be sacred but is nothing except divisive ideas meant to keep the top power figures happy and the minions quiet and obedient.

Don't you ever ask yourself if one acknowledges the presence of some fantastically creative supernatural being, then why don't we simple humans see this being. Is this being too busy or hiding? For some its out of fear, others sheer arrogance but people are told to believe their individual lives are being watched and they ail be put in either a good place or a bad one when they die.

The only certainly the religious can claim to know about is death. People know that already without any religion telling them. But religion providers priests etc with high status and power (via a layer of religious hierarchy and your donations) They even wear outrageous clothing so you can easily identify them and have no excuse to ignore their presence.

A moderate is someone who's not too closely tied to their ideology- not a partisan. I'm not too fond of the term in this context, as it implies that one cannot be a good, kind, contributing member of humanity if they're a devout follower of their faith.

Considering that one of the names of Islam is the Middle Path, moderation is already implicit in the belief system.

I prefer the divisions of "extremist terrorists" and "normal everyday people". It works for everyone except the bigots with a vested interest in creating divisions and disharmony. They take advantage of the fact that people find words like "sharia" and "jihad" and "taqiyya" alien and esoteric.

Shariah for muslims, for example, is a concept analogous to "Christian values" for Christians. If you ask a muslim if they follow Shariah, or believe in Shariah, then more likely than not, they will say "Yes", the same as if you ask a Christian the same about Christian values.
If you ask Christians what exactly Christian values are, you'll get answers ranging from "Abortion doctors deserve to die" and "Homosexuality is an abomination" to "Divorce is wrong" and "Charging interest is wrong" to "Love everybody". You get a similar vagueness and spread if you ask a muslim. And yet people for some reason are thinking "Sharia" is this monolithic and extensive list of fixed rules and all muslims must follow and propagate. Total BS.

Similar with Jihad. You ask a muslim if they believe in and support the concept of or would participate in Jihad, they'd likely say yes. But then they're talking about striving and struggling in the path of God, and you're thinking they want to murder all the infidels.

I don't know what official definition will arise. I am sure the internet is swarming with various versions. But I would ask you to consider this:

Extreme is the end of the scale. There is nothing more extreme than extreme. No muslim extremist started off beyond extreme and toned it down to the level of extremist. All extremists pass through moderate on the way to extreme. You are not born extreme. You may be born into an environment that can create extremists, but again, they must pass through moderate to get there.

The extremist muslim of today was the moderate muslim of yesterday.

Being a moderate muslim does not mean you will automatically be an extremist. But there is no other group more likely to produce extremist muslims than moderate muslims. That can not be denied.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
All extremists pass through moderate on the way to extreme. You are not born extreme. You may be born into an environment that can create extremists, but again, they must pass through moderate to get there.

The extremist muslim of today was the moderate muslim of yesterday.

Being a moderate muslim does not mean you will automatically be an extremist. But there is no other group more likely to produce extremist muslims than moderate muslims. That can not be denied.

But is it really a meaningful thing to say? One could very well say:
'Nobody is born evil, Everyone must pass through good on their way to evil. Being good does not mean you will automatically be evil, but there is no group more likely to produce evil people than good people. This cannot be denied.'

And it is very well true, but it doesn't add anything.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
All extremists pass through moderate on the way to extreme. You are not born extreme. You may be born into an environment that can create extremists, but again, they must pass through moderate to get there.

The extremist muslim of today was the moderate muslim of yesterday.

Being a moderate muslim does not mean you will automatically be an extremist. But there is no other group more likely to produce extremist muslims than moderate muslims. That can not be denied.

But is it really a meaningful thing to say? One could very well say:
'Nobody is born evil, Everyone must pass through good on their way to evil. Being good does not mean you will automatically be evil, but there is no group more likely to produce evil people than good people. This cannot be denied.'

And it is very well true, but it doesn't add anything.

I get what you are trying to say, but you missed the mark.

Good and evil are opposites. You can turn to good and never touch evil - so to speak. Moderate and extreme are two points on a scale where everyone starts at the beginning and it is only a question of how far along the scale they progress.

Is it necessary to say? Absolutely! As long as we continue to ignore so-called moderate muslims as potential terrorists they will forever have a foothold on our soil and be ever nearer to our homes and families. That may not bother you, but it bothers me.

There is no group of people more likely to produce extremist muslims than moderate muslims. Extremist muslims kill innocent people in the name of alla. Give me an honest answer, not the politically correct one you want people to see: Would you invite muslims whose position on that scale is unknown into your home with no knowledge of their history or intent? If you would, nice knowing you...What kind of flowers do you want at your funeral? If you would not, then I resent you inviting them into this country. You don't want them in your house, but you don't mind putting them in mine.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
Is a newborn baby "good", or a newborn baby "moderate"? I'd say good. Everyone starts from good. "Good" is the base/null position from which it starts. There is no "neutral", if you ask me. Which is why I made the comparison. But we're getting into weird philosophical intricacies now which I don't think are relevant.

As to your question, being reasonably well-travelled, I've in fact very often invited people from other countries into my house which I didn't know before (aside from anonymous online interactions) and I've stayed in the houses of people in other countries I've not really known before either. I've not murdered or been murdered in my sleep yet, so no need for flowers. I certainly wouldn't put restrictions based on religion.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: Vroomfondel
Is a newborn baby "good", or a newborn baby "moderate"? I'd say good. Everyone starts from good. "Good" is the base/null position from which it starts. There is no "neutral", if you ask me. Which is why I made the comparison. But we're getting into weird philosophical intricacies now which I don't think are relevant.

As to your question, being reasonably well-travelled, I've in fact very often invited people from other countries into my house which I didn't know before (aside from anonymous online interactions) and I've stayed in the houses of people in other countries I've not really known before either. I've not murdered or been murdered in my sleep yet, so no need for flowers. I certainly wouldn't put restrictions based on religion.

Agreed, interpreting the philosophical facets is not necessary or productive. In my view there is a null or neutral between good and evil. A baby is neither. It is our actions and our choices that place us on the scale.

I too have invited people I was not entirely familiar with into my home. I was robbed by two and the others were, to my knowledge, respectful of me and my home. Likewise, I have been to other peoples homes and had no issues I am aware of. That having been said, I would at this time, knowing what I know now, be cautious with some people more than others. Probably to the point of avoiding the situation entirely. That doesn't mean they are bad or evil, it means I wont risk my family to prove to myself or anyone else that I am not biased in my opinion.

I am willing to bet that many of the people who just died in France had favorable or at least neutral opinions of muslim immigrants before those horrific events. I am fairly certain their families and friends have pretty strong opinions about muslims now. Experience is a great teacher. I just read an article about some women who organized a welcoming party for muslim immigrants to their town. At their welcoming party several of the muslim men molested some of the women who organized the event. Think about that. I ask the question again: when is it ok to err on the side of caution?