What Obligation, if any, does Moderate Islam have?

Question

We are constantly told - it's not ALL Muslims, there are 1.2 Billion muslims so even if 100,000 of them are terrorists, it's still a tiny fraction of them.

I'm not sure it's 1.2 Billion - about 30% live in countries where apostasy is punished by death, so it's a bit like saying there are 1.2 Billion Chinese communists.....

But even so, yes, almost all Muslims are not of this violent strain.

But what obligation do they have to quell that violent strain?

The violent ones aren't just "extreme" - they're taking the Koran and Hadiths and Muhammad's example LITERALLY. Muhammad killed thousands of people and commanded his followers to do the same.

The Bible also has violent and anti-woman passages but Judaism and most branches of Christianity have acknowledged this and stated "the literal version isn't appropriate today."

Moderate Muslim leaders have never done this - occasionally they speak out about the most violent attacks but often they're mum. Should they do more?

Is Islam different from the examples some have given because the texts, translated literally, and the founder's example, are extremely violent?

If the text just said "our God is the best" and Muhammad hadn't raised armies and massacred entire villages to spread the religion, I could see why just being peaceful by example is acceptable but it's kind of speaking out of both sides of one's mouth to say "we're about peace" and then say "Muhammad is our example" - for those who haven't read the Koran and Hadiths, you could replace "Muhammad" with "Genghis Khan..."

I'm not saying it's not possible to reconcile this but if you're going to say "we're the religion of Muhammad and the Koran is our holy scripture and the Hadiths the source of our tradition" don't you then have to put them in a modern, peaceful context? Don't you have to acknowledge the violence in those books and in Muhammad's life and openly reject not just violence in general but that specific violence?

There are moderate Republicans and extreme Republicans and then a few dozen complete whackjobs who want to bomb abortion clinics - the difference is it doesn't say in the Republican platform to bomb abortion clinics, nor has it ever said that. Nor did Lincoln ever do that.

The Koran DOES say to kill people and Muhammad killed thousands of people to spread his religion.

If you're going to pick up that Koran and proclaim it to be your scripture and proclaim Muhammad to be your example, don't you THEN INCUR an obligation to clarify that you mean aside from the violence?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/muhammad_and_massacre_of_the_q.html

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_1000-Year_Crusade.Islam

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

John S., see links above - - yes they ruled India - - by the sword. Yes, there are still areas in the arab world with a non-Muslim population but this is a bit like saying there are still Native American reservations in the US,.

Answer 1

Political realists see that Muslim “moderates” are more patient than Muslim extremists. The “moderates” merely prefer a phased strategy for Israel’s demise. This makes Mahmoud Abbas a “moderate” and Ismail Haniyeh an “extremist.”

The litmus test of a Muslim moderate is this: Does he or she publicly avow the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel? And does he or she publicly reject the Arab “right of return”—which is but a code word for Israel’s destruction? You will not find a politically or strategically significant number of such Muslims.

All the talk about Muslim “moderates” is little more than escapism and obscurantism. Terrorism is coextensive with Islam: in Iraq and Iran, in Syria and Lebanon, in Algeria and the Sudan, in Chechenya and Indonesia.

Meanwhile, in mosques across the United States, imams preach hatred of Christian and Jews; some even call for Jihad.

.
.

Answer 2

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian. 

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

Answer 3

Very occasionally, one will hear a lone voice of reason coming from an exceptionally sane imam, but by and large Muslims accept and tacitly (or overtly) support the voilaence committed in their name.

If a Christian were to fly into a building in the name of Christianity, there would be an instantaneous outcry of dismay and denunciation from Christians everywhere. Why does this not happen among Muslims?

EDIT: Barney, the struggle for Irish freedom has zero to do with religion. Most, though not all, Catholics are Republicans. Most, though again not all, Protestants are Loyalists. It's about nationalism, not religion. Heck, one of the founders of modern Irish nationalism was a Protestant: Theobald Wolfe Tone.

Answer 4

Moderate muslim is just code speak for good nazi. The fact that nothing is done to stop or condemn the killers in the islamic world is all I need to know. The whole hate cult of islam must be dismantled. Ann Coulter was right

Answer 5

I think that if moderate Muslims were more vocal in educating the Western World about the truths of their beliefs, as opposed to radical Islam...they would be doing a service to themselves and the rest of the world. It is not their obligation, of course, to do so. As they are not required to defend their religion...but they would be stepping up and helping the world greatly.

Answer 6

Well, let me put it this way. What obligation do those of us who are moderate in our political leanings have to quiet the extremists among us?

I don't see Republicans making Ann Coulter shut her mouth. Likewise with Democrats and Michael Moore.

And don't kid yourself into thinking that those two people are not dangerous to our country. They are divisive and inflammatory, and they lead others into their beliefs. Hence, the juvenile behavior exhibited on these message boards.

I don't think the moderates of any group are any more obligated than anyone else to quiet the extremists among them. We are simply not responsible for the extremists in any group to which we belong. They are not our children.

Answer 7

Northern Ireland, Kill a Catholic for Christ!
Iraq: Kill a Sunni for Muslim!
Does it make sense to anyone?
Tell me how it does.
Dave