Discussion - Islamic Conservatives

This thread is designed for a broad discussion of Islamic Conservatives and there ideology.
Before I get started I need to make it clear that the following applies to this thread.

Take heed.
This thread IS NOT for the usual political rhetoric about which political party supports Islamic extremists and other such crap . If you want post those kinds points of view there are plenty of existing threads where you can do so.


Here are a couple of links to act as a starting point. I in no way endorse the opinions that appear in the articles.

Conservatives also may be surprised to learn that, at the United Nations at least, the most reliable soldiers in this culture war, the most steadfast supporters of traditional morality and family values, have names such as Abdullah and Mohammed and Sulaiman. Islamic countries that conservatives rightly criticize for their persecution of Christians -- even some countries considered "rogue states" such as as Libya, Iran and Sudan, the kind of countries the U.S. bombs occasionally -- are American conservatives' best hope of blocking an astoundingly ambitious cultural and legal revolution at the United Nations.

link

Both moderate and traditional Muslims are often critical of liberal Muslims for promoting, in their view, a watered-down, unauthentic form of Islam to assimilate into Western culture. Critics also state that it is possible to accept many fundamental tenets including women's rights and scientific theories such as evolution, while adhering to traditional Islamic views. Furthermore, there is a great divide in certain topics that often polarizes both liberal and traditional muslims. Some liberals may tolerate homosexuality even though conservatives forbid it. However, this topic remains highly controversial even amongst Muslim liberals

Link

Food for thought


Back drop


So in order to kick off the discussion I am going to compare Christian Conservatives with there Islamic counterparts.

Yes, conservative Christians do not support the sexual agenda of the religious left, yet when it comes to private property rights and the growth of the authoritarian central state, it seems as though these two supposedly disparate groups are walking in near lockstep. This ultimately undermines freedom – and especially religious freedom – for everyone in our society.

Link

There is some interesting thoughts on offer in the above article and as before I don't endorse the authors views. We know that Christian Conservatives known as the religious right are fighting against internal changes that have taken place in a democratic society.

Now there Islamic counter parts are trying to prevent this from happening hence we have Islamic extremists who blow themselves up in market places. If it wasn't for the the women's right to vote and the likes of abortion there would extremist Christians blowing themselves up in market places.

So if you remove the religious element Islamic and Christian Conservatives are very much a like the differences are only skin deep. The more important factor is the environment that the two groups of religious Conservatives operate under.

So it is a bit hypercritical for the religious right to criticize Islamic Conservatives when they are in effect trying to do the same thing under differnt circumstances and settings.

Remember that the topic isnt comparing Christian Conservatives to there Islamic counter parts instead such a comparison is just a starting point for the topic. Feel free to post sub topics on other aspects of Islamic Conservatism.





[edit on 22-3-2007 by xpert11]

I think this is a very relevant topic, thanks for posting it!

It's not surprising that more conservative/fundamentalist members of the three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) share much common ground on moral issues. Major portions of the founding religious texts of these religions are very similar.

Still there are sometimes surprising differences as well. Theocratic Iranian law forces women to wear the chador, yet allows them to get sex reassignment operations to become men. I know of no fundamentalist/conservative Christian group that would support such a policy. Although homosexuality are generally frowned upon by all religions, I think only among Muslims do you find a significant amount of people who think it should be punished by death. Most Christians just don't want such gay unions to be recognized by the Church or State.

Some issues seem to divide followers of all the religions, such as cloning.

I would say the major political difference is that mainstream Christians and Jews have pretty much decided that secularism should be the foundation of government, rather than fundamental religious texts. Many even find a religious basis for the view that the majority religion shouldn't dictate everyone's lives. Yes, there are plenty of fringe social issues that blur the line, but I don't think many of even the most hardcore American Christians would want the Bible to replace the Constitution.

The situation in the Islamic world, I think, is quite different. The idea of Koranic Sharia law seems to be very mainstream, if not the majority view. Many secular governments of majority Muslim states are unelected dictatorships that only can allow "unislamic" behavior, for various reasons such as trade and tourism, through brutal oppression.


That's what I have now, hopefully that will help move the discussion forward.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by djohnsto77]

* bump *

Doesn't anyone have anything to add to this?

I am an "Islamic conservative" with dual citizenship in America and Turkey. (just so you know where I'm coming from)

My personal opinion is that the return of the Islamic state in the Muslim world is crucial to stop the slide in culture that America is currently enjoying.

If you got down the line on issues such as abortion, gun control, family values, morals, etc...I am right there with the Christian religious right in America.

In Scotland even, a Muslim is running on the Christian slate, with the Christian People's Alliance. And they are glad to have him. source

It's not far-fetched that the two could actually get together, until...

...until you get to one crucial issue, which stops me dead in my tracks when supporting the "average" Christian conservative.

What is that?

Israel.

Many of the religious right in America support Israel without question, and they do not hide their reasoning. Bringing about the end times and believing that Jews must control Palestine for the return of Jesus, peace be upon him.

Because of that above belief, they have unflinching support of wars against Islamic peoples.

So I cannot support them even though the vast, vast majority of my beliefs are in agreement with the American Christian right.

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
My personal opinion is that the return of the Islamic state in the Muslim world is crucial to stop the slide in culture that America is currently enjoying.

Would that be American culture or the culture of democracy and freedom in general ?
Do you object to Australian or New Zealand culture ?

If you got down the line on issues such as abortion, gun control, family values, morals, etc...I am right there with the Christian religious right in America.

Hmm so if Christian religious right and Islamic Conservatives it would pretty much be the end of the free world.

Many of the religious right in America support Israel without question, and they do not hide their reasoning. Bringing about the end times and believing that Jews must control Palestine for the return of Jesus, peace be upon him.

Israel has been around for sixty odd years and the end times have yet to be upon us. The Islamic Christian conflict goes back to the Crusades so don't you find it kind of strange that the support of Israel is the sticking point .

Without the hatred of Israel and the US what reason do Islamic hard-liners have to suppress peoples freedom ?
Dose the Koran influence your thinking as much as the Christian rights support of Israel ?

I don't want this thread to become solely about Israel but I do understand that Israel will be apart of this discussion.

Because of that above belief, they have unflinching support of wars against Islamic peoples.

You mean the war against people who crash planes into buildings and blow themselves up in market places ?
No society should tolerate such actions.
More accurately Islamic Conservatives like all extremists fear the spread of ideas that might undermine there means of controlling the population.

Sure if democracy and Freedom is such a bad thing people would reject it outright and Islamic leaders would have nothing to fear. Clearly this isnt the case judging by the number of Iraqis who voted despite the insurgency.

Originally posted by xpert11
Would that be American culture or the culture of democracy and freedom in general ?
Do you object to Australian or New Zealand culture ?

I object to any culture which condones immoral behavior. Where do I get my values from? The Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Hmm so if Christian religious right and Islamic Conservatives it would pretty much be the end of the free world.

I didn't understand this.

...Israel...

It's not just about Israel. I don't base my feelings only on that. Islam is not ever going to launch it's own crusade. Not justly, anyway.

What we want is an end to the secular/corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East and a return to Islamic Law. It's that simple. I will be glad to elaborate on the goal of the Caliphate later in this discussion.

You mean the war against people who crash planes into buildings and blow themselves up in market places ?
No society should tolerate such actions.
More accurately Islamic Conservatives like all extremists fear the spread of ideas that might undermine there means of controlling the population.

Sure if democracy and Freedom is such a bad thing people would reject it outright and Islamic leaders would have nothing to fear. Clearly this isnt the case judging by the number of Iraqis who voted despite the insurgency.

The blowing themselves up thing is an adaptation to the imbalance in capability of the warring factions. We do not have airplanes which can drop bombs. And while remote detonation is a option as many roadside bombs will show you, nothing beats the accuracy of seeing the success of your operation to the end.

"Controlling the population?" Is the western population truly not being controlled? Are you really free? Are you not slaves to your own desires? The Iraqi's voting was a great thing. Do you think Islam forbids allowing people to select their leaders? Here's an idea...how about telling the Saudi's to let people run against them for control of the country? And if they lose, the ruling family has to step down. How about that?


P.S. Just as a side note, my political party is Hizb ut-Tahrir. For more info on the establishment of the Islamic state, doing a little google work on the party should reveal some more information.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by AbuMusaab]

“They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology.”

“I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either.”

-President Bush

When I hear this from the President of the United States, it shows me that he has spent 0 hours studying history and is following his own blind ideology, which he probably doesn't even understand either.

The majority of the Christian right feel the same way as the President does on this subject. This is a bigger point of contention than Israel will ever be. Israel is a piece of the puzzle. Even if Israel was removed and destroyed, it would not completely solve the problem.

So you think that our lives should be govorned by what people chose to read into religious texts ?
The next bit is fairly simple if society gives any lee way to the likes religious nut cases who want to impose there morals on society we will end up back in the stone age women's rights would be the first to go and over time the essence of democracy would be undermined.

By Islamic law do you mean a Taliban style state ?
The placing of roadside bombs in order to address the imbalance in capability makes sense but that in no way explains why people take there own life in the process and why people are beheaded for wanting to create a better tomorrow. Islam may not out law electing leaders but the people that the likes of the leaders of Iran aren't to interested in fair elections.

Western democratic society's are a lot more open to ideas. Sure those people who belong to religious organisations are controlled. I'm in now way a slave to my desires I do have something called self control.
How dose a persons desires fit into the topic ?

I would be happy if more pressure was put on the Saudis to move towards a more democratic society.



[edit on 24-4-2007 by xpert11]

Not some "religious texts..." The Shar'iah was in use until early 20th century. It is the perfect system.

Why do you automatically assume it would take us back to stone age? I find that to be the worst argument. Islam brought Europe out of the Dark Ages...there are many British scholars who readily admit and have written many books about it. Even some of Islam's staunchest opponents could not help but admit the goodness of the message. Sir William Muir, for example.

The Prophet Muhammad, may the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, was the first to declare human rights (all races/genders) in his final sermon. Not to mention throughout his entire life.

The Taliban mixed Shar'iah with their own personal culture. It was not exactly how an Islamic state should be run, but it was better than most. I am suggesting a Taliban style authority. The reason they could not be successful was endless warfare, they never had a chance to focus on improvements. It's the result of their circumstances.

Beheading is a form of capital punishment. And while suicide bombing is not my favorite tactic, it has become a necessity in modern asymmetrical warfare. Personally, I would never purposely allow myself to be killed, but if I was killed while fighting, I would welcome it. Allah will determine my demise, not me.

Why did I mention a person's desires? I mean that in western culture, where society changes over time, and things that used to be unacceptable become acceptable over time, and laws are changed to accommodate this change in attitude.

Example: The gradual legalization of homosexual unions/marriage. As time progresses, they are becoming accepted in Western society, even though the rules of Allah have not changed. There are many other issues to go on, but I'm sure you know them.

I wont deny that many technology advances came from an Islamic background. The problem is that society has moved far beyond those technology advances and Islam or Islamic extremists ended up holding society back and still do today.

We would end up in the stone age because once abortion is outlawed the next target would be a women's right to vote and so on.

Are you saying that Muhammad was a supporter of human rights ?
You do realize that under a Taliban style state it is doubtful that you would even have internet access ?
Do you have any idea what it would be like to live in the kind of state that you propose ?

No amount of time would have been enough for the Taliban to rebuild Afghanistan when you suppress people freedom you deny the chance to create prosperity. It is no coincidence that the worlds most richest nation is a democratic state.

It is true that beheading is a form of capital punishment but that still doesn't explain why the likes of contractors in Iraq were executed by Islamic groups in that way nor all the other killings of fellow country men by Islamic extremists.

Society changes over time because peoples values change and in general terms a democratic society the government reflects the values of what the majority of voters want. I have no problem with gay marriage/unions and accepting homosexuals into society but that's just me.

Islam had not held society back. Poor governments and the thieving of resources has held society back. Do not blame the religion. If the western presence in the Islamic world can be removed (even without the removal of Israel), then we can begin the process of overthrowing the secular/corrupt dictatorships and begin implementing some real progress.

Show me one instance of injustice in the Prophet's life. (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)

He stated that no race was better than any other race. That men had rights over women, and in turn, women had rights over men. The Qur'an goes out of it's way to mention that men and women are partners over and over again. The Prophet (saw) was against slavery, freeing slaves whenever he had a chance. Sometimes buying slaves just to free them, and telling others, that while it was ok for them to have slaves, it was better to free them. Slavery was part of the culture at the time, and he knew he had to be gradual. Focusing first on faith, then reforms.

He (saw) had plenty of changes at revenge when he defeated his enemies, yet he never took it. He once caught an assassin, and his companions were all over him ready to kill him. He stopped them, and let him go. He forbade torture, and cruelty. He also was dedicated to animal rights. Are these not perfect examples for humanity?

Contactors in Iraq are part of the occupying force and are therefore legal combatants, just as America considers anyone picked up on the battlefield as a legal combatant. The punishment for treason is capital punishment. We follow through.

You say fellow countrymen... In true Islam, there is no concept of "countrymen." You have your brothers and sisters, no matter what their race is or where they are from. Therefore, if your "countryman" is working with the enemy, where he is from is meaningless.


And now the most important part of this discussion:

Originally posted by xpert11Society changes over time because peoples values change and in general terms a democratic society the government reflects the values of what the majority of voters want. I have no problem with gay marriage/unions and accepting homosexuals into society but that's just me.

Some changes in society are good. Some are not. The culture slide I am talking is something that is not. Just because the majority of people enjoy porn and alcohol, does make it acceptable. But they are both legal.

What if...in the future....the majority of American society found sex within the immediate family to be acceptable. Not everyone did it...the vast majority didn't do it. They just find it acceptable. "Someone else is doing it...not me. I don't like it, but they aren't bothering me." I am not talking about children. Two adults who are blood brother and sister for example. Would you accept legislation to make this union legal?

[edit on 25-4-2007 by AbuMusaab]

[edit on 25-4-2007 by AbuMusaab]

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
If the western presence in the Islamic world can be removed (even without the removal of Israel), then we can begin the process of overthrowing the secular/corrupt dictatorships and begin implementing some real progress.

Your cure is worse then the disease.

Show me one instance of injustice in the Prophet's life. (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)

I don't understand what your getting at.

Contactors in Iraq are part of the occupying force and are therefore legal combatants, just as America considers anyone picked up on the battlefield as a legal combatant. The punishment for treason is capital punishment. We follow through.

Err the Americans don't brutally murder the prisoners they take.
Its more likely that the Islamic extremists are committing treason by
trying to undermine the elected Iraqi government.

Some changes in society are good. Some are not. The culture slide I am talking is something that is not. Just because the majority of people enjoy porn and alcohol, does make it acceptable. But they are both legal.

There is nothing wrong with porn or alcohol no one is forced to drink or watch either of them.

They just find it acceptable. "Someone else is doing it...not me. I don't like it, but they aren't bothering me." I am not talking about children. Two adults who are blood brother and sister for example. Would you accept legislation to make this union legal?

First of all I would be more concerned about what was happening in my own country. My stance would be based upon my own beliefs and not what some other organisation told me what to think. I still reserve the right to disagree with the majority so your point isnt making a whole lot of sense. I'm not denying that society doesn't for the bad its just that I think the acceptance of homosexuals is one of the better changes in society.

If women are equal to men under Islam why were they treated so badly under Taliban rule in Afghanistan ?
If the people who follow Islam are one why is there a civil war (or ethnic violence call it what you will ) in Iraq ?
People wont lose there faith because reforms take place.
[edit on 25-4-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 25-4-2007 by xpert11]

The Taliban are not the ideal. I do not consider them to be the model of an Islamic Government, and the vast majority of Muslims do not either. While they followed some of the general Islamic principles, their society was still heavily tribal, which is not an Islamic ideal. So please don't look to the Taliban for an example of an Islamic state, because while their intentions may have been good, they did not implement it properly. Instead look to the past 1300 years.

The only difference would be the addition of some of the modern technology, but the principles would remain unchanged. Sex is the same now as it was since the beginning. Homosexuality is unnatural, and haram (sin).

As for people not losing their faith because reforms taking place:

If those reforms are against the law of Allah, then they have already lost their faith. Faith is not just an idea, or something you feel. It is meant to be practiced. Islam is not a way of thinking, it's a way of living.

The problem is that you cant create a society that existed 1300 years ago its just not possible.
Are you looking for Islamic governments to rule in places like Spain and other parts of the world that were unknown back then ?
If Islam is a way of life then why cant people adapted there lifestyle around reforms ?

[edit on 25-4-2007 by xpert11]

It did not just exist 1300 years ago...it existed for over 1300 years up until the beginning of the 1900s when Britain and France came to destroy it. When the seeds of corruption weren't being sowed, it was a beacon to the world.

The goal is to establish it a Muslim country, then reform the government in surrounding Muslim countries and allow them to join. Then, the message would be spread by example, not violence. And if any nations wanted to join, they would be welcome. It's get more complex from here, but if you have any specific questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.

You said that Islam isnt tribal but it was only 80 or so years ago that the region was still made up of differnt warring tribes.
What kind of government do you have in mind ?
Do you think that Turkey is a good model for your kind of government ?
Could you provide a few details ?

While the region had many warrings tribes...it actually still does. But that doesn't mean Islam is tribal. Some people are tribal and Muslim, not because they are Muslim.

For what kind of government I have in mind, check out this draft constitution.

Draft Constituion

Turkey is not a good model. After the Turks defeated the invaders, the leader, Mustafa Kemal, turned Turkey towards secularism. And the Turkish military serves to enfore that secularism. If the government sways too much towards Islamic Law, the military stages a coup and hangs the Islamic leaders. So, the answer to question of Turkey being a good model is no. They do not even allow women to wear the hijab (headscarf, not the veil) in certain areas. This is outrageous.

The constitution I linked should provide many of the details, and I will be happy to elaborate on any specifics you may have questions about.

P.S. Thanks for inviting me to this discussion/debate. I am enjoying it.

I think that Turkey is a good model of government for the reasons you outlined even if the military isnt the best organisation to act as a check sum and balance. The Constituion you put forward is inconsistent how can non muslins not be discriminated against if they cant form political parties ?
What role would political parties play in the government ?
What is an Khaleefah ?
What is the aHkaam shar’iyyah ?
What is the maHkaamat ul-maDHalim ?
Is the waali’s like a city mayor ?
What is the bayt ul-maal ?
Do non Muslim women have to keep there bodies covered ?
What would you do if people demanded a more moderate society ?

If your so sure that your values system is correct why not pit it against western values ?
If the people support your will then your values system would win out right.
I had a feeling you might be interested in this thread here's hoping a few more members contribute there opinions.

Turkey right now has the secular army threatening a coup if the an Islamist president is elected....what happened to democracy?

Turkey is an awful model. The secularists have run wild, and they will be stopped, insha'Allah.

There will be no discrimination because they will have all the same rights as a Muslim. But the government will be an Islamic government based on the Law of God.

Political parties can form with different focuses and platforms, but overall, the basic tenets will be the same. Islam will be the foundation.

The Khalifah (Caliph) is the leader. An elected representative, but not a king. Just a representative. He will not be a dictator. The Council will make the rules.

Here's a diagram of the Khilfah (Caliphate) leadership:
Khilafah

"Ahkaam shar’iyyah" is the Law of Allah.

The judge of the "Court for the Unjust Acts" (maHkaamat ul-maDHalim) who settles disputes between people and officials of the State.

Waali is the governor of a provine under the Caliphate.

Bayt ul-maal is the treasury.

The specifics of dress for non-Muslim women has not been completely decided and would probably be a political issue. You can be sure that they would be expected to dress modestly, and not just slut it out. Head-covering for non-Muslim women may or may not be required.

What is your definition of moderate? If "moderate" violates the Law of Allah, then those people will be out of luck.



You say:

If your so sure that your values system is correct why not pit it against western values ?

We don't have a chance to do it in a nice way because of the corrupt governments supported by the US. I believe when America finally leaves Iraq, Iraq may be a place for it to start. It will begin with violence however since they will be in a state of war.

Most Muslims do support the application of Shar'iah. Look at the polling in the Muslim world: Here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor...Polling the Muslim World.

This law is not optional, however. If a person who calls themselves a Muslim and simultaneously rejects Shar'iah, then that person is not a sincere Muslim.

Islam does not have "cafeteria Muslims," like some Catholics in America joke about when referring to themselves. You are, or you aren't. Allah has not changed his requirements of us. We should not change our duty to Him due to our own personal will/desires at any given time.