Would you support social engineering aimed at reforming Islam?

I was thinking, would it be OK if Islam underwent a reformation to make it more moderate? What if it was more social engineering and outside forces that did that?

Muslims world wide practice a religion in varying forms that has not underwent a significant reformation before its mass spread like Judaism and Christianity did. There are aspects of the old testament for both faiths that call for similar barbarisms like death for speaking against god, adultery, ect. Whipping, striking, what ever. The thing is modern day Christians and Jews dont practice these tenets of their faith. There are always minorities but a Jewish guy in NYC isnt going to stone his wife and a Christian in Paris isnt going to whip his children over sins.

Western religions underwent several reforms over the centuries. Very important updates that kept things in perspective. There is no such significant reformation for Islam. Moderates are so by their own choice like modern Christians or Jews, but there are underlying grey areas in Islam as far as how things can play out in following the "rules".

A modern Muslim, maybe not in the west, can maybe say that someone who says something negative about Islam or the prophet should not be killed for it. They will also say that a strong detractor of Islam /an enemy of Islam and the prophet should be killed. There can always be an underlying justification for the extremes.

That is why IMO, when non Moderate Muslims are speaking about radicals to westerners or people in media the subject always turns to the narrative not being to the liking of the person being asked to denounce ISIS or radical Islam or simply to speak to it. There is never an outright answer saying that these sort of groups are unjustified in their interpretation of Islam. The repeated theme of saying that they are being demonized by even having that question be made to define them comes up often.

But there isnt a clear cut reformation saying that these barbaric practices of religion are no longer collectively supported and as such an unenforceable ethos. Not in Islam.

So. What if a group got together, much how we speculate happens now anyways, and uses their power to force a reformation onto Islam? What would you think, good or bad?

If instead of ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups forming by the various players making and using pieces on a chess board, if the effort was geared to making Islam a modern religion.....? Would you think thats better?

What if only Muslims entering Europe and the west were made to undergo a reformation into a created moderate Islam modeled after modern moderate Muslims....?

Thought?

a reply to: tadaman

Islam is in the process of reforming itself. No-one but the ummah, the community of Muslims, has any say in how it will turn out. Attempting to guide it from outside has proven to be counter-productive.

a reply to: tadaman

It seems to me that all our attempts to reform countries/cultures in the past have led to the troubles we face today.

They will change over time on their own you can't force it or else it will come back to bite. We have our own issues to deal with. We live in a house of glass it is best not to cast stones.

a reply to: tadaman

The general difference between Islam and other religions is that Islam rejects secular law as irrelevant or even blasphemous compared to the laws of God. The laws of God are subject to interpretation, and are essentially as indistinct as God itself is. The laws of man can be reformed and augmented according the the dictates of men, while the laws of God, cannot.

Islam will not reform until it can allow itself to be superseded by the laws of men.

a reply to: DJW001

Attempting to guide it from outside has proven to be counter-productive.

Holy Wars result. Even within any organized religion, beliefs run deep. Theres no way they are changing, decreased membership and loss of revenue result.

Who can stand their religion dying out?

I think I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the Muslims that are doing things like blowing up markets, attacking Paris and waging their wars are just doing these things without much thought as too religion.

I think the fact that they are Muslim is because that is the main religion of that area. They may be doing these things out of hatred for the west, hatred of our values and way of life, revenge for the US meddling in their affairs, many reasons, but because the Koran tells them too probably isn't the reason.

So I don't see how a reformation would help. Now if in fact those crazy extremists are doing it for religous reasons, I don't see any reformation stopping it.

I do believe many western "moderate" Muslims have an agenda to bring Islam to the whole world using many different means.

a reply to: tinner07

The ones that yell Allahu Akbhar when they kill westerners tend to make westerners think that religion has something to do with it.

Maybe the Imams need to issue a fatwah, directing the terrorists to scream something else, like 'Die, Yankee pig-dogs!' That would help to clear up the confusion.

They are perpetually attempting to reform the world not themselves. All non Muslims are just livestock to them so they don't care that the rest of the world sees them as barbaric.

Religions don't need reforming, they need eradication.

The increase in education, the availability of as much information as possible, and showing young minds how to use critical thinking has shown to be the greatest detriment to Religion, ever.

I say we just focus on Education, Freedom of Information, and showing children not 'what is the correct answer' but rather, how to think for themselves.

a reply to: butcherguy

'Die, Yankee pig-dogs!'

Now that is catchy.

If it can be done, it would take centuries.

a reply to: Ghost147

It doesn't matter, cultures, countries and tribes would clash anyway.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Ghost147

It doesn't matter, cultures, countries and tribes would clash anyway.

Yes, however, I wasn't suggesting that peace would occur if religion is gone.

It's quite evident that religion will never totally disappear, it is within our nature to cling to them and form 'answers' on difficult questions using unfalsifiable claims.

Very unfortunate, if you ask me.

Why start with Islam? All religions are the epitome of human arrogance, fear, power, hypocrisy and vengefulness. Religion is an old tool to contain the masses. The time has come to act in a humane secular way. The world has no borders now. We will never have peace until religion is stamped out. John Lennon was right. Imagine.

a reply to: tadaman

So. What if a group got together, much how we speculate happens now anyways, and uses their power to force a reformation onto Islam?

At this point in time, such an effort would likely lead them to some form of death. Be it beheading, firing squad, burning, tossed from a building, stoning, etc... these are really all just on a steep upswing.

IMESHO, things are due to get much, much worse before we... well, call it, evolve beyond.

But then again, I also hope I am wrong.

What leads to fanaticism?

I thought I would look around a bit and found this, now this is what we are dealing with, all of us.

On the roots of political, religious and other fanaticism

this is good I wish I could post it all

Religious, political and varied other kinds of fanatic are those who defend beliefs as certainties and tend to hold absolutist opinions. In neurological terms they are said to have developed “hard-wiring” whereby certain neuronal pathways in their brains have been so strongly reinforced that they maintain ideas and opinions against otherwise overwhelming contrary evidence. Such mindsets may be unreflected – unquestioned assumptions about many things which have been ingrained in their make-up in early life. So how can one learn about the most likely and most general causes of such fanaticism?

In the relative lack of well-articulated and systematic empirical studies on the circumstances influencing the adoption of one or another kind of extremism or fanatical attitude, we must rely mostly on recorded case histories and insightful literature. The chief source of understanding is probably individual life experience… and the longer and more varied the life, the higher accuracy and value the experience will have.

On such foundations it seems indisputable that, very often, sustained fanaticism occurs in persons who have had a disturbed upbringing causing them to lack what Medard Boss and other existential psychologists have termed ‘basic trust’. Obviously, the specific causes of each kind and degree of disturbance can vary enormously, but a general process definitely seems to pertain in that the need for security or mental-emotional comfort which has lacked is relieved by a pseudo-remedy. Such remedies may include the acceptance of someone as a father- or mother-figure (such as a charismatic preacher or guru, established religious or even political figures as an idol – which ‘transference’ of need is used therapeutically by psycho-analysts). Aids used to relieve emotional suffering also include imagined entities (angels, deities, aliens etc.) to largely mental abstractions, from religious doctrines to conspiracy theories, set philosophies to totalitarianism.

However, on the positive side of things, such strongly held positions, also when long entrenched, can sometimes be overcome. The (undamaged) human brain is reportedly never so “hard-wired” as to be irretrievably fixated into set patterns of responses. New paths can be opened if sufficient stimulus is there, and what was “hard-wired” in the shape of cast iron beliefs or opinions set in stone, and even over a long period of time can – with lack of reinforcement – eventually fade into insignificance.

However, where the person concerned is unable to overcome or neutralise the root cause of unfulfilled needs or a badly disturbed sense of trust, the evidence points to substitution of other cognitive distortion in place of the defeated ones. Thus, a believer who is severely jolted out of belief in a religious sect, cult or guru will very often seek another such in place of the first. The same applies (with due alteration of details) in political extremism and other kind of ‘fanatical fixation’.

the evidence points to substitution of other cognitive distortion in place of the defeated ones.

I did that

I also see it on the forum whether we are talking about religion , UFOs, or politics.

robertcpriddy.wordpress.com...

a reply to: tadaman



No

I personally don't have issues with Islam, I have issues with Religious extremists.

Social Engineering?


Hell== No

Can we define "Moderate" first?

Let's start there.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
Can we define "Moderate" first?

Let's start there.

And how does one stay a moderate, and what causes a nation of fanatics?

Of course the threat of stoning or beheading can make one submissive.

Some Islamic countries haven't always been this way, I mean they were moving forward, then something happened..

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

welp,

Someone who denounces Islamo-Facism.

or

But what do these dual adjectives—“moderate” and “extremist”—ultimately mean in the context of Islam? Are they both equal and viable alternatives insofar as how Islam is understood? Are they both theologically legitimate? This last question is particularly important, since Islam is first and foremost a religious way of life centered around the words of a deity (Allah) and his prophet (Muhammad)—the significance of which is admittedly unappreciated by secular societies.

Both terms—“moderate” and “extremist”—have to do with degree, or less mathematically, zeal: how much, or to what extent, a thing is practiced or implemented. As Webster’s puts it, “moderate” means “observing reasonable limits” “extremist” means “going to great or exaggerated lengths.”

It’s a question, then, of doing either too much or too little.

The problem, however, is that mainstream Islam offers a crystal-clear way of life, based on the teachings of the Koran and Hadith—the former, containing what purport to be the sacred words of Allah, the latter, the example (or sunna, hence “Sunnis”) of his prophet, also known as the most “perfect man” (al-insan al-kamil). Indeed, based on these two primary sources and according to normative Islamic teaching, all human actions fall into five categories: forbidden actions, discouraged actions, neutral actions recommended actions, and obligatory actions.

In this context, how does a believer go about “moderating” what the deity and his spokesman have commanded? One can either try to observe Islam’s commandments or one can ignore them: any more or less is not Islam—a word which means “submit” (to the laws, or sharia, of Allah).

www1.cbn.com...

It may be an Oxymoron.....if they are INCAPABLE of redirecting zeal from violence as a viable solution to transgressions of their religious laws.

Perhaps as Islam stands now, it can not be "moderate".

Hence the curiosity.

First of all this is not about religion, it is about power and control and territories, i think you can look at any culture and find the same thing, where is my border?

Religion just fuels it.