Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LiberaLIslam

Islam and Liberalism. Do they go together?

Recommended Posts

Hello, I am a new poster but I have been writing articles anonymously but only now have I started to write under my real name on my blog. What I want to ask the people of these forum is whether they believe can Liberalism and Islam go together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LiberaLIslam:-- Libertarians, belonging to a branch of Conservatism, are not allowed in the "Liberals Only" Room. In your profile you list yourself as a Libertarian. But your screen name indicates you are Liberal. Which is it?

 

I read your blog which is mostly anti mullah and has a lot of Islamic religious references.... But very little in the way of political discourse.

 

As for your question about the use of foul language:

The rules for No Hold Barred:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=44

 

The rules for "Liberals Only" Room:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LiberaLIslam:-- Libertarians, belonging to a branch of Conservatism, are not allowed in the "Liberals Only" Room. In your profile you list yourself as a Libertarian. But your screen name indicates you are Liberal. Which is it?

 

I read your blog which is mostly anti mullah and has a lot of Islamic religious references.... But very little in the way of political discourse.

 

As for your question about the use of foul language:

The rules for No Hold Barred:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=44

 

The rules for "Liberals Only" Room:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=40

I didn't know that I was listed as a liberaterian but thank you for telling me and as for my political discourse, I am concerned with muslim countries. And a change in the laws of most muslim countries require them to have a islamic basis as that is how Sharia Law works. All great revolutionary like Allama Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz(who was a known liberal and socialist) have all criticised the mullah. The only reason I make islamic references is because as I have written before hand to bring my country into the light that is liberalism and the only way to do that is to change the form that Sharia Laws that is filled with hatred against minorities amongst other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LiberaLIslam:-- Libertarians, belonging to a branch of Conservatism, are not allowed in the "Liberals Only" Room. In your profile you list yourself as a Libertarian. But your screen name indicates you are Liberal. Which is it?

 

I read your blog which is mostly anti mullah and has a lot of Islamic religious references.... But very little in the way of political discourse.

 

As for your question about the use of foul language:

The rules for No Hold Barred:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=44

 

The rules for "Liberals Only" Room:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=40

He doesn't understand American political discourse.

 

Completely different set of perceptions in his world and yours.

 

Anti Mullah, and how a Muslim interprets the Quran, is political discourse in his world.

 

He seems to be having a bit of confusion on what it means to be Liberal, and how he can interpret the Quran as a Muslim to justify his Liberal beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum LiberaLIslam.

 

A few thoughts. Fundamentalist Islam or Christianity for that matter is usually not compatible with Liberalism. And as you said , Sharia law is the opposite of Liberal principles. But surely those practicing non-extreme Islam can be Liberal just as many non-extreme Christians and Jews are Liberal.

 

An example that comes to mind is the Ottoman empire. Whatever it's faults, it was extremely Liberal for it's time being inclusive of minorities including using Christian Janissaries to fight on their side. In the early 1480s, sultan Beyazid II issued a formal invitation to Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal by the inquisition and they started arriving in the empire in great numbers. They integrated well and were widely considered an asset to the empire.

 

Liberalism is anti-authoritarian, preferring majority rule rather than control from the top. And Liberalism respects the rights of workers, women, minorities and the right to believe according to ones principles.... All contrary to Sharia and Fundamentalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't understand American political discourse.

 

Completely different set of perceptions in his world and yours.

 

Anti Mullah, and how a Muslim interprets the Quran, is political discourse in his world..

 

We'll have to work it out. Maybe you could continue chiming in now and then to help clarify things.

 

 

He seems to be having a bit of confusion on what it means to be Liberal, .

 

I understood that immediately. There's a good, short thread in this room.

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/179466-what-makes-a-liberal/&do=findComment&comment=1059221941

 

 

and how he can interpret the Quran as a Muslim to justify his Liberal beliefs.

 

I don't know much about the Quran but It's hard to interpret the first testament and some of the second, to justify Liberal political beliefs. But of course, many Christians and Jews are Liberal, nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam claims that anyone who is a Muslim must STAY a Muslim. They must never change to another religion or stop believing in Allah, or that there is actually an entity that hears their prayers.

As a rule, children are taught religion when they are too young to reason for themselves. Later, they gain the ability to reason

If they should decide to take up Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, the T'ao, or some other religion, Islam labels them as apostates and says they should be killed.

 

This is not a liberal view. The liberal view is that one has the right to be a freethinker and to change his mind as many times as make sense to him.

 

Pretty much a majority of Americans indoctrinated in Catholicism have serious disagreements with Church dogma by age 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Islam is struggling to reach some kind of enlightenment, which is made even harder by dictatorship and absolute monarchies; and the likes of religious extremists in Shia and Sunni Islam.

 

If you are talking about Mosques that are trying to break away from the extremists, then there quite a few.

 

But if you are talking about the real movement to liberalize Islam, and not half-way Mosques that try to keep the traditionalists and some of the extremists.

 

Then there are gay friendly Mosques and Mosques that allow men and women to worship together. They are naturally called heretics by the traditionalists and extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam claims that anyone who is a Muslim must STAY a Muslim. They must never change to another religion or stop believing in Allah, or that there is actually an entity that hears their prayers.

As a rule, children are taught religion when they are too young to reason for themselves. Later, they gain the ability to reason

If they should decide to take up Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, the T'ao, or some other religion, Islam labels them as apostates and says they should be killed.

 

This is not a liberal view. The liberal view is that one has the right to be a freethinker and to change his mind as many times as make sense to him.

 

Pretty much a majority of Americans indoctrinated in Catholicism have serious disagreements with Church dogma by age 25.

Actually I believe the very fact apostates should be killed is appaling. I have always thought that laws like apostasy and blasphemy are a way to attack the minorities. Some verses to support this.

 

“Surely (as for) those WHO BELIEVE THEN DISBELIEVE, AGAIN BELIEVE AND AGAIN DISBELIEVE, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.” 4.137

 

In 3:85-89 apostates are reminded that if they return to the true religion they will be forgiven. If capital punishment were invoked, then how will the apostates be able to return to the true religion and gain forgiveness for their past actions?

 

“Except those WHO REPENT AFTER THAT AND AMEND, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” 3.89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum LiberaLIslam.

 

A few thoughts. Fundamentalist Islam or Christianity for that matter is usually not compatible with Liberalism. And as you said , Sharia law is the opposite of Liberal principles. But surely those practicing non-extreme Islam can be Liberal just as many non-extreme Christians and Jews are Liberal.

 

An example that comes to mind is the Ottoman empire. Whatever it's faults, it was extremely Liberal for it's time being inclusive of minorities including using Christian Janissaries to fight on their side. In the early 1480s, sultan Beyazid II issued a formal invitation to Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal by the inquisition and they started arriving in the empire in great numbers. They integrated well and were widely considered an asset to the empire.

 

Liberalism is anti-authoritarian, preferring majority rule rather than control from the top. And Liberalism respects the rights of workers, women, minorities and the right to believe according to ones principles.... All contrary to Sharia and Fundamentalism.

I think the Sharia law that is enforced in Saudi Arab, Iran etc is opposite of liberal views. But as Mahmoud Mohammad Taha wrote that there are two sharia laws in this world. One which is based on Meccan verses and Madinan verses. The early scholars abrogated the Meccan verses and used the verses revealed in Medina in creating traditional Islamic law that we all know as Sharia Law.

 

But Taha stated that, the message of verses of the Qur'an revealed while The Holy Prophet(pbuh) was living in Mecca ("Mecca Qur'an"), take a different approach to religious freedom and equality between the sexes than do the verses of the Qur'an revealed after Muhammad had left Mecca and was living in Medina (the "Medina Qur'an").

 

Taha considered this "the first message of Islam". He believed that the "Medina Qur'an", and Sharia laws based on them, violated the values of equality, religious freedom and human dignity and were outdated for the 20th century. They were "subsidiary verses" – suitable for backward society of the 7th century, but "irrelevant for the new era, the twentieth century". Meccan verses, making up the "Second Message" of Islam, should form the "basis of the legislation" for modern society.

 

True Shariah law, Taha believed, was not fixed, but had the ability "to evolve, assimilate the capabilities of individual and society, and guide such life up the ladder of continuous development". While the Medina Qur'an was appropriate in its time to form the essence of the Sharia, he believed the "original, uncorrupted form" of Islam was the Mecca Qur'an. It accorded, (among other things), equal status to people – whether women or men, Muslim or non-Muslim. Taha preached that the Sudanese constitution(I believe every muslim country's constitution) should be reformed to reconcile "the individual's need for absolute freedom with the community's need for total social justice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I am a new poster but I have been writing articles anonymously but only now have I started to write under my real name on my blog. What I want to ask the people of these forum is whether they believe can Liberalism and Islam go together?

 

They can only go together, if Liberalism is in control of the political and legal institutions.

 

Just like here in the west, Liberalism is in charge of these institutions that's why we dont have witches being burned at the stakes and all kinds of other religious voodoo bullshit.

 

 

Oh yes, and Allah isn't real either, but that will take more time lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt have any dealings with American Liberalism or American Conservatism. They are a psychological blight. If I could get out of this warped liberal versus conservative American conflict it would be a joy.

 

When I hear Liberal Islam, I usually think of Turkey. I lived in Istanbul for 9 months, and women went freely without a scarf and did what they wanted. I guess follow Ataturk.

 

There is no telling what in the bible or quran is original or put there by priests later for their own purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt have any dealings with American Liberalism or American Conservatism. They are a psychological blight.

 

When I hear Liberal Islam, I usually think of Turkey. I lived in Istanbul for 9 months, and women went freely without a scarf and did what they wanted.

 

Turkey's institutions are all Liberal... that's why it's considered a secular state.... that's why it doesn't resemble saudi arabia.

 

Liberalism doesn't mean American left of the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Turkey's institutions are all Liberal... that's why it's considered a secular state.... that's why it doesn't resemble saudi arabia.

 

Liberalism doesn't mean American left of the spectrum.

 

But he is asking questions on the worst American political forum in existence. This forum has only one benefit, and that's how obnoxious one can be. I had a post moderated on another forum because I saw how someone with a Confederate Flag avatar was supporting Trump. I simply stated that it was strange how the Confederate supports the rich Yankee from New York, who doesnt give a damn about him and is a profiteer. They edited my post saying it was disrespectful!

 

I was just putting him onto this clue that American liberalism is no good, but maybe liberalism in some other land.

 

After all, our liberal democrats bombed civilians in Libya! How can he then deal with American liberalism? I would prefer Turkish liberalism or something like that. You really cant trust ANY Americans. We are ALL scheisters and backstabbers.

 

If I could have one wish, it would be to not be American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he is asking questions on the worst American political forum in existence. This forum has only one benefit, and that's how obnoxious one can be.

 

Correction:-- One of the worst but only if you're talking about the "No Holds Barred" area. The atmosphere in the "Liberals Only" Room is most often, one of mutual respect. In the LO Room, we sometimes have our disagreements but tend to settle them based on fact, references and reasoning.

 

 

I was just putting him onto this clue that American liberalism is no good, but maybe liberalism in some other land.

 

In an accelerating trend since the Reagan administration, US, Liberalism has been financially and politically dominated by Conservative plutocrats. Before that, Liberals were in control and the Nation was a better place for it.

 

 

After all, our liberal democrats bombed civilians in Libya! How can he then deal with American liberalism? I would prefer Turkish liberalism or something like that. You really cant trust ANY Americans. We are ALL scheisters and backstabbers.

 

The bombing of Libya was a UN resolution. It was meant to stop the bombing of civilians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

2011 military intervention in Libya On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations Intent and Voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity...

 

 

I would prefer Turkish liberalism or something like that. You really cant trust ANY Americans. We are ALL scheisters and backstabbers.

 

The Turks have representative government. But they are hardly pristine-pure. They have waged a merciless war against their Kurdish minority for decades.

 

 

If I could have one wish, it would be to not be American.

 

You are free to act on that wish by going to another country and getting citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In and accelerating trend since the Reagan administration, the US, Liberalism has been financially and politically dominated by Conservative plutocrats. Before that, Liberals were in control and the Nation was a better place for it.

 

 

 

They have waged a merciless war against their Kurdish minority for decades.

 

 

 

You are free to act on that wish by going to another country and getting citizenship.

 

The Turks attack Kurds, but the USA wages war on the citizens of multiple nations at once. The Turks and their thing with the Kurds is nothing compared to the endless war of the USA.

 

For Turks the Kurds are treated the way we treat Native American Indians. Imagine if we never made any war and our only crime was supressing Native Americans rather than invading Latin America, supporting dictatorships, and bombing civilians.

 

Turkey is experiencing a kind of Ataturk revisionism lately. When I lived there it was even more liberal than it is now. It grew more conservative there!

 

I'm guessing I will probably leave the USA one day. I have only ties to my parents and siblings here. I dont own any property or have my own family to support. I am merely a single man. It will be easy enough to leave. Its my destiny to immigrate out of here, otherwise I wouldnt be a fully grown adult in my late 30s and still not own anything or be married. Friends I grew up with have families, wives, children, own their own homes. I am easily poised to leave again as I did in my 20s. Ankara!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Turks attack Kurds, but the USA wages war on the citizens of multiple nations at once. The Turks and their thing with the Kurds is nothing compared to the endless war of the USA.

 

Yes. Our endless war since WWII is a disgrace and must stop. It is largely a result of lobbying in Congress and campaign contributions by the Military Industrial Complex. We need to eradicate the toxic control industry and the ultra rich have on our government.

 

 

For Turks the Kurds are treated the way we treat Native American Indians. Imagine if we never made any war and our only crime was supressing Native Americans rather than invading Latin America, supporting dictatorships, and bombing civilians.

 

There is no defending the way we treat American Indians. But there is no comparison to the mass killings and atrocities the Turks are visiting on their Kurdish population.

 

 

Turkey is experiencing a kind of Ataturk revisionism lately. When I lived there it was even more liberal than it is now. It grew more conservative there!

 

When I lived in Bodrum 2001 to 2002, I saw the change myself, closeup and personal. After the US attacked Iraq, Turkish attitudes toward the US took a turn for the worse. And then the election of the Conservative Tayyip Erdogan to prime minister. I no longer felt safe and returned to the USA.

 

 

I'm guessing I will probably leave the USA one day. I have only ties to my parents and siblings here. I dont own any property or have my own family to support. I am merely a single man. It will be easy enough to leave. Its my destiny to immigrate out of here, otherwise I wouldnt be a fully grown adult in my late 30s and still not own anything or be married. Friends I grew up with have families, wives, children, own their own homes. I am easily poised to leave again as I did in my 20s. Ankara!

 

I for one, can't criticize you for that Michijo. Better do it now before age creeps up on you. Good luck on your adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I believe the very fact apostates should be killed is appaling. I have always thought that laws like apostasy and blasphemy are a way to attack the minorities. Some verses to support this.

 

“Surely (as for) those WHO BELIEVE THEN DISBELIEVE, AGAIN BELIEVE AND AGAIN DISBELIEVE, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.” 4.137

 

In 3:85-89 apostates are reminded that if they return to the true religion they will be forgiven. If capital punishment were invoked, then how will the apostates be able to return to the true religion and gain forgiveness for their past actions?

 

“Except those WHO REPENT AFTER THAT AND AMEND, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” 3.89

 

 

I think the Sharia law that is enforced in Saudi Arab, Iran etc is opposite of liberal views. But as Mahmoud Mohammad Taha wrote that there are two sharia laws in this world. One which is based on Meccan verses and Madinan verses. The early scholars abrogated the Meccan verses and used the verses revealed in Medina in creating traditional Islamic law that we all know as Sharia Law.

 

But Taha stated that, the message of verses of the Qur'an revealed while The Holy Prophet(pbuh) was living in Mecca ("Mecca Qur'an"), take a different approach to religious freedom and equality between the sexes than do the verses of the Qur'an revealed after Muhammad had left Mecca and was living in Medina (the "Medina Qur'an").

 

Taha considered this "the first message of Islam". He believed that the "Medina Qur'an", and Sharia laws based on them, violated the values of equality, religious freedom and human dignity and were outdated for the 20th century. They were "subsidiary verses" – suitable for backward society of the 7th century, but "irrelevant for the new era, the twentieth century". Meccan verses, making up the "Second Message" of Islam, should form the "basis of the legislation" for modern society.

 

True Shariah law, Taha believed, was not fixed, but had the ability "to evolve, assimilate the capabilities of individual and society, and guide such life up the ladder of continuous development". While the Medina Qur'an was appropriate in its time to form the essence of the Sharia, he believed the "original, uncorrupted form" of Islam was the Mecca Qur'an. It accorded, (among other things), equal status to people – whether women or men, Muslim or non-Muslim. Taha preached that the Sudanese constitution(I believe every muslim country's constitution) should be reformed to reconcile "the individual's need for absolute freedom with the community's need for total social justice."

 

Obviously, L.I, you are very learned of Islam. It's might be safe to say that not me or anyone on this forum is familiar with the historical names and Koranic verses you cite. But what you are demonstrating is that there is a strong strain of Liberalism in Islamic history and and in the Quran. I, for one think Islam and Liberalism are without question, compatible. There are historical examples, and, as you show, personal examples and writings in the Quran itself that support Liberal ideas..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, L.I, you are very learned of Islam. It's might be safe to say that not me or anyone on this forum is familiar with the historical names and Koranic verses you cite. But what you are demonstrating is that there is a strong strain of Liberalism in Islamic history and and in the Quran. I, for one think Islam and Liberalism are without question, compatible. There are historical examples, and, as you show, personal examples and writings in the Quran itself that support Liberal ideas..

*He claps, as tears fall down his cheek*

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberalism in the 19th century sense meant the following in Latin America: (in no particular order)

(1) Schools should be non sectarian and run by the state, and with no participation or interference by the church.

The Catholic Church was the dominant religion, often the only legal religion, under Spanish & Portuguese colonial rule.

(2) The state should establish and maintain graveyards, from which no one should be excluded, especially based on religion or if they had committed suicide.

(3) Inheritances should be passed on to whomever the deceased person wishes, including illegitimate children by mistresses and so forth.

(4) Divorce should be legal.

(5) Civil marriages should be legal and recognized being as valid as church weddings.

(6) There should be no official religion. All cults and religions should be permitted.

(7) Secret societies, such as the Masons should be legal.

(8) All titles of nobility should be abolished.

(9) Slavery should be abolished.

(10) All races of people should be treated equally before the law.

(11) State supported universities should be established. In many cases this meant that formerly Catholic universities should be taken over and run by the state.

(12) Oaths referring to God shall not be required for any legal function.

 

 

As you can see, liberalism in Latin America was quite anti-clerical. This is because the Spanish and Portuguese government used the Church as a means of control.

The Conservative parties that were in opposition generally had positions that were opposite of the above.

 

Traditionally the Liberals were the Partido Colorado (Red Party) and the Conservatives were the Partido Blanco. In some countries, such as Paraguay, these titles are still used, but the ideology has changed.

 

I suppose Turkey and perhaps Tunisia are the countries in which Liberalism and Islam have the same relation.

I have heard that in Iran, proclaiming oneself to be an atheist or agnostic is grounds for arrest,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberalism in the 19th century sense meant the following in Latin America: (in no particular order)

(7) Secret societies, such as the Masons should be legal.

 

For me the on sticks out about Secret Societies being made legal. That one I could do without. I even had a flash of a glorious nation in which secret societies like Masons were hunted down by the police. It may be that I dont really care for religious or secret society freedom. Whenever I ever read about the British persecuting Scottish Presbyterians in Europe, I feel like its the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, secret societies are certainly legal in every industrialized country. What the Masons are in the US and Latin America nowadays is outdated.

Most US presidents before Truman were masons. These days, they are irrelevant. The British persecuted Masons at one time because they favored Bonnie Prince Charlie over the Dutch royal family.

I fail to see why Charles was better or worse than William & Mary, but this was essentially a power struggle.

 

Secrecy of Masonic Lodges in the US and Latin America provided a place for anti-royalists to plot and scheme. That is why they were banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I do not read Arabic, but I have attempted to read translations of the Koran and find it to be pretty much incomprehensible, even more so than the wackier parts of the Bible, like Revelation, Leviticus and some of the Psalms. The main thing is that the Koran is not just a religious document, it is a political scheme for a country in which to have the most rights as a citizen require the citizen to be a Muslim.

That seems to me to be contrary to Liberalism as I understand it.

 

Liberalism states that Church and State (Mosque and State, Temple and State) should be separate. Islam wants to combine the two, as I understand it.

This separation is essential to Liberalism, as Oxygen is necessary for fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2002 when I lived in Turkey, there was strict separation of Islam and the secular government. In 2003, partly in reaction to the US invasion of Iraq, Tayyip Erdogan was elected prime minister. Erdogan was a departure from the past in his high degree of sympathy toward Islamic tradition. For instance, under Erdogan, women were no longer forbidden from wearing head scarfs in schools and government buildings.

 

But the fears of a merger of mullahs and state proved unfounded. Free elections have been preserved in Turkey and extremists are still strictly forbidden from preaching in mosques. Since Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk"= (father of Turks), the military has been used to keep religion in check by means of coup d'tats, like in 1971 and 1980.

 

The last time the military exerted this power was the "1997 Military Memorandum". "This memorandum initiated the process that precipitated the resignation of Islamist prime minister Necmettin Erbakan of the Welfare Party, and the end of his coalition government.[1] As the government was forced out without dissolving the parliament or suspending the constitution,"

https://en.wikipedia...tary_memorandum

 

So, to preserve elective, representative government in Turkey it is necessary to have the contradiction of the forceful removal of elected Islamists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...