The issue can be settled for once and all, but it is the Muslim community which will have to take an initiative. I don't have any problems with anyone following any religion or cherishing any belief as long as..you know what I mean. How do you think the Muslim world would vote in "vote for sharia" or "Quran is the literal word of Allah, the creator God" referendums? When I look at the Islamic forums on the net, I don't feel much inspired by hope. And mind you, the Muslims participating in those forums are all (well mostly) well educated and have experienced the modern ways of life.
I don't think the majority of Muslims, particularly those in the West, would elect to live under Shariah.
If you are going to a Muslim forum you must expect it not to be representative of all Muslims. If I go to a British-based Christian forum I expect that the majority there would be devout Christians even though the majority of Brits are not devout Christians.
I don't really know how the majority would vote, but as long as I keep hearing from them how Islam is the only true religion based on the direct and literal word of the creator God, I can't help being circumspect about them.
What exactly do you mean by circumspect? if you were in a position of power (PM for example), how would this circumspection translate into your policies?
Is that because they (the hardliners) can't tolerate differing opinions and know terrorism as a sure way to silence dissent?
We see/read numerous threats online from ordinary Muslims against anyone daring to criticize Islam or Muhammad (including Hassan who I consider too soft to be effective, lol) ; how many threats do we see from them against Osama or the likes of Anjem Chodhary?
Have you heard of the
Sunni Awakening Movement in Iraq? an alliance of tribesman from the dominantly Sunni West of Iraq who voluntarily stood up to fight Al-Qaida.
Soon after that throughout the whole country, voluntary youth squads rose up and took arms to defend their neighborhoods from Al-Qaida siding up with the "Kaffir" Coalition Forces. What about those?
I mean when the people of a Muslim country like Iraq side with the Western Forces against Al-Qaida, what does that tell you? Does it mean they want Shariah? or does it mean they hate Al-Qaida and they don't want to live under Shariah?
It is easy to see that these examples were political mainly, and the perpetrators did not claim any divine sanction for their acts. Republicans actually lost the elections on account of the apparent wrong doings including the wars Americans thought were unnecessary.
The presence of a divine sanction doesn't matter. The issue here is electing leaders who go to unjustified wars killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people (you know a hundred times the casualties of 9/11). The difference is that Muslims didn't elect Osama while Americans elected Bush
twice (including once after the war) and the Brits elected Blair thrice (including once after the war).
I am not exactly saying this. I am saying that even the lip service is lending strength to Jihadis and hence is condemnable and blameworthy.
Is your tax contribution to UK military budget condemnable and blameworthy as it's been used to kill innocent people in Iraq?
You see this is why your logic is flawed.
Yes, it is true that those populations can be/ and are blamed for those wars. When a population elects some known hardliner who leads it in some war after getting elected, the masses can't shirk their responsibility. They have their own justifications for doing so, and so has the blameworthy chunk of the ummah. Both the sides in any confrontation think that they are on the right path.
I disagree with you here. IMO, the average Brit or American are not to be blamed for the casualties in Iraq, even most of the soldiers are not blameworthy. Only those who fully support the war knowing all the facts should be blamed.
The question is who do you think was justified.
Great point. This is what I'm trying to tell you. That's why we should only blame those who think these acts are justified. I don't believe for a second the majority of Muslims think terrorism is justified.
Islam puts ummah on a confrontational path by default, and therefore I criticize those who support it. The political systems, except for some like Communism, don't do the same by default. Tomorrow, the largest democracies in the world, USA and India, may get in to a war against each other, but the democracy itself, and those who support democracy, can't be faulted for such a war.
I don't think this is true. But I'll assume it is just to ask this question, do you criticize Jews who support Zionism since Zionism puts all Jews on a confrontational path by default?
I haven't probably ever said that I hate Muslim. But yes, I do remain wary of them. I hope you will see that being wary is not the same as hating someone.
Again I don't know what you mean by "being wary". How do you do that in your daily life?
Topic: Islam and Democracy