[mkoubaa]

Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and policy coming from it is like gasoline for religious extremism, and the fact that Tajikistan exports extremists should be enough evidence for that

[meowtimemania]

I think by "kept in check" they mean good separation of church and state. Some islamic countries don't have good separation of church and state.

[mda]

The thing described is far from separation of church. It is straight out oppression.

[ffgjgf1]

What other options are there though when the other side has zero interest in secularism and will do whatever they can to institute a theocratic government when given the opportunity?

Some (most?) forms of Islam are just not compatible with western style democracy and secularism. It’s unfortunate but I don’t really see any other realistic options of solving this besides “oppression”.

Some countries like Jordan kind of partially pulled it off but they had very specific conditions which can’t really be replicated elsewhere.

[mkoubaa]

Some Islamic countries are family businesses that have international recognition as states for historical and geopolitical reasons. I don't take the actions of those countries seriously

[aprilthird2021]

How is this (what's described in the article) good in any way?

[inglor_cz]

It is not just a religion, but a legal and societal system. A very medieval one.

Few people care if you believe that Muhammad rode to heaven on a magic horse (Buraq). But quite a lot of people care if you want to introduce hand amputations for theft, as demanded by Sharia Law, or different inheritance rules for sons and daughters where being female = being less valuable.

The medieval-practical parts of Islam must definitely be kept in check, unless the country in question is willing to regress into some very dark ages. That is something that Ataturk understood very well when reforming Turkey.

[pseingatl]

Hand amputations for theft are not automatic, even in Saudi Arabia. Even pickpockets preying on pilgrims in the Prophet's Mosque do not automatically suffer the penalty.

However, many believe that this is the case. The erroneous belief does tend to keep crime down.

[mkoubaa]

Islamic law is understood by Muslims to be applied only in an Islamic state. In a secular state, the consensus understanding by Muslims is that the secular law is to be followed. A secular state need not suppress Islam

[inglor_cz]

"A secular state need not suppress Islam"

What about a secular state that doesn't want to become an Islamic state, but has a significant minority that has the opposite wish?

AFAIK this is the most important common political problem across the Islamic world. Many organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood want to Islamize their respective secular countries, some by peaceful means, others by violence. There has already been at least a dozen civil wars around that issue.

[mkoubaa]

A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is. It must also suppress violent sedition with violence. Expressing that responsibility as suppressing religion per se is counterproductive

[feoren]

> A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is

No. A tolerant, secular, liberal state should not respect the will of its people if the will of (the majority of) its people is to become an intolerant, religious, oppressive state. It is OK -- possibly even necessary -- to have a set of core founding principals which must never be abandoned.

[mkoubaa]

If you're saying that core founding principles were so important then you must feel that slavery shouldn't have been abolished, no?

[ffgjgf1]

So democratically abolishing democracy?

> respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is

How do you define that? Is it always what the majority decides? What if the liberal secular government knows that going along with the will of the people will result in a minority of the population losing most of their rights and potentially suffering extreme oppression?

One could could assume that after learning what happened in Germany in the 30s (and some other comparable situations) most people would agree that even liberal states need to draw a line at some point.

[JumpCrisscross]

> liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is

This is majoritarianism. Not liberalism, and certainly not democracy.

[surfingdino]

Alas, religious people always want an exception to secular rule of law and in some countries in the West managed to carve out exceptions

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-l...

[mkoubaa]

Secular law allows it's citizens discretions for settling family disputes and inheritance. Religious people often use that discretion to use religious rules from their religion. Nonreligious people benefit from the same discretion. This is not an exception from secular law, all secular laws continue to apply.

[surfingdino]

There should be a principle that secular law of the country overrides religious laws if the outcome is less favourable for the affected.

[ffgjgf1]

Not really? Islamists in secular Muslim states are trying to overturn the secular legal all the time (and have succeeded on numerous occasions). Often they end up compromising and end up with a mixed system which is also far from ideal.

[petre]

> But quite a lot of people care if you want to introduce hand amputations for theft, as demanded by Sharia Law

Probably why Salafism is outright banned in Tajikistan.

[aprilthird2021]

So... To keep thieves from having hands cut or people from having sexist inheritance, you need to North Korea the poorest people in the world to keep them poorer?

This is ridiculous, quite frankly. You don't have to approve of every law a foreign people have to not want to basically terrorize them with a despot

[hagbard_c]

Islam does have a specific problem in this regard since its scripture explicitly calls for violent struggle to spread it over the world. Ignoring this fact does not make the problem go away and only serves to undercut those who attempt to start an 'islamic enlightenment'.

[oa335]

> Islam does have a specific problem in this regard since its scripture explicitly calls for violent struggle to spread it over the world.

Which part of the scripture?

Every part of the Quran that involves violence has consistently been understood to apply to a specific context, by almost all classical Islamic theologians and jurists.

That’s why extremist groups rarely cite Quran for justifying perma-war, instead citing opinions of Islamic scholars instead.

[hagbard_c]

> Every part of the Quran that involves violence has consistently been understood to apply to a specific context, by almost all classical Islamic theologians and jurists.

That fully depends on which interpretations you follow. Islam not having a central authority means there is no 'central source' for how to interpret the scripture - Quran but also Hadith and Sunnah - and with that those who are set on taking what is written as the direct and unchanging word from God can claim to have as much justification (or, as they claim, more justification) as those who want to interpret scripture in a more 'modern' fashion.

Here's a sample of Quranic passages which call for muslims to 'fight unbelievers' which are followed to the letter by those who adhere to the literal interpretation of the texts:

https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.

https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=191: Kill them wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.

Those who follow the literal interpretation of the texts see 'those who wage war against you' as all 'unbelievers' - those who live in the 'dar al-harb' (land(s) of strife or war) in contrast to those who live in 'dar al-islam' (land(s) under islamic law), especially those who live in places which have been conquered 'for islam' before but taken back later - e.g. 'Al-Andalus', better known as Spain. The main 'problem' in the interpretation of these lines is what is meant by 'those who wage war against you' as this can be interpreted as 'those who refuse to accept islam' in the context of the texts.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=74: Let those who would sacrifice this life for the Hereafter fight in the cause of Allah. And whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=88: Why are you ˹believers˺ divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites while Allah allowed them to regress ˹to disbelief˺ because of their misdeeds? Do you wish to guide those left by Allah to stray? And whoever Allah leaves to stray, you will never find for them a way.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=89: They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers,

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=90: except those who are allies of a people you are bound with in a treaty or those wholeheartedly opposed to fighting either you or their own people. If Allah had willed, He would have empowered them to fight you. So if they refrain from fighting you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=91: You will find others who wish to be safe from you and their own people. Yet they cannot resist the temptation ˹of disbelief or hostility˺. If they do not keep away, offer you peace, or refrain from attacking you, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. We have given you full permission over such people.

These lines can be interpreted as calling for offensive actions against 'unbelievers' - and here it is important to know what the Quran says about its predecessor religions:

https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=65: O People of the Book! Why do you argue about Abraham, while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until long after him? Do you not understand?

https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=66: Here you are! You disputed about what you have ˹little˺ knowledge of, but why do you now argue about what you have no knowledge of? Allah knows and you do not know.

https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=67: Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he submitted in all uprightness and was not a polytheist.

According to islamic doctrine the 'people of the book' were given the 'true word of God' but strayed from the path. Christians, i.e. those who believe in the 'holy trinity' of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - are 'polytheists' since they worship others besides Allah. Taken together these lines are interpreted as cause to fight 'unbelievers'. This is explained in more detail in chapter 'O' (Justice) of 'The Reliance of the Traveller' [1] in the section on jihad:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada , signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah";

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

There are many more such passages which can be and are interpreted in many ways so as to fit the purposes of those who lead others. It is the absence of a 'true and leading interpretation' which disavows war and conquest in the name of islam which gives rise to islam's specific problems when it comes to violence.

Read the Quran, 'Reliance of the Traveller' (the classical manual on shariah law) and the Sunnah and you'll understand just how open these texts are to interpretation. It is also illustrative to have a look at the history of islam and islamic countries.

[1] https://archive.org/details/relianceofthetravellertheclassic...

[aprilthird2021]

No it doesn't. I'm Muslim. Like most monotheistic religions, it actually says that most people will become irreligious before the end of time

[hagbard_c]

Your school and branch of islam don't, that does not mean all schools and branches don't. Most churches don't claim "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" but the Westboro baptist church does.

[aprilthird2021]

Islam isn't really like that. There are only 4 schools (not 1000 different churches) and they mostly disagree about minor things.

There's pretty broad consensus about the fact that the end times will be preceded by a huge drop in religiosity and rise in sinfulness. Here's just one example: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/78329/signs-of-the-day-of-ju...

And here's the source it's from: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:80

It's pretty cut and dry

Feel free to look up signs of judgment day, it's pretty heavily agreed upon

[hagbard_c]

In what way is this related to the fact that islamic scripture is open to interpretation due to the absence of a 'central authority' or 'leading interpretation' which denounces or abrogates the violent passages in scripture? Islamic eschatology is often used as a source by those who are intent on leading their adherents to violence:

https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1820 : The Messenger of Allah said, "The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,' but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews."

https://sunnah.com/muslim:2922 : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2925 : Allah's Messenger said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews until some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O `Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2926 : Allah's Messenger said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Da'esh used these Hadith (among others) as justification for their actions because they were intent on bringing about the end of history by instigating the final battle at Dabeq (close to Aleppo) where islam will prevail over the unbelievers.

[aprilthird2021]

> islamic scripture is open to interpretation due to the absence of a 'central authority' or 'leading interpretation'

It's not though. There isn't "interpretation" of the hadiths you posted. They are just true. Btw, what's happening in Israel right now can easily be seen as a manifestation of those scriptures. And it didn't start because people wanted to fulfill prophecies. It started because you have a stateless group of 2 million people with no say in the government that controls their every move.

This also has pretty much 0 to do with our original comment thread

[mkoubaa]

Actually it doesn't call for that

[hagbard_c]

What does 'it' refer to here? Which islamic school and what branch of that school? Some do call for violence, others don't.

[g8oz]

You didn't seem to be concerned about school and branches when you made your blanket assertion above.

[mkoubaa]

The scripture, as such, does not. Interpretations of it may.

[hagbard_c]

Is there anything else besides interpretation of scripture? If so, what? I gave a few examples in this thread of passages which can be interpreted - and in some cases are actually hard not to interpret - as calls to violence in the name of islam. What is your basis for claiming these are not actually such?

Again, denying the problem exists does not make it go away and actually makes it harder for those who wish to reform islam.

[ogurechny]

Without doubt, you believe that your interpretation is correct and should be used as a reference, unlike interpretations of all those stupid people.

[mkoubaa]

The point here is that scripture doesn't make claims. People do. Scripture is not a person.

You seem to be arguing that the most correct interpretation of scripture is a literal one that ignores its context. If that's the case, then your hermeneutics has a lot in common with fundamentalist extremists.

Those who wish to reform Islam are not in need patronization by islamophobic memes, I assure you.

[adhamsalama]

What do you mean by Islamic school and branches?

[protomolecule]

You are confusing the cause and the effect.

[mkoubaa]

This is a common take. I respect it but find it entirely unconvincing

[protomolecule]

I find your take extremely naive.

[mkoubaa]

I sometimes even have faith in democracy, believe it or not.

[protomolecule]

Have you heard of Christian extremists in the USSR which is known for suppressing religion? Exactly.

Likewise Islam in Tatarstan is completely benign.

[mkoubaa]

The US cold war strategy of supporting Islamic extremism in the USSR is well documented. I think the reading of history that you are suggesting is naive

[jl6]

“Suppressed” would be more extremism. “Kept in check”? Yeah, that’s probably a good treatment for any religion.

[mkoubaa]

Keeping religions in check as such is incompatible with liberalism. Secular societies need to be maintained, but antagonizing religious people with phrases like that is not how.

[stef25]

Make sure to use right words so they don't have a meltdown, like toddlers.

[mkoubaa]

It is important for government actions to be communicated clearly

[surfingdino]

On the flip side, religions are incompatible with liberalism so there's constant tension.

[mkoubaa]

The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom

[quickthrowman]

Religious freedom is fine.

What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms.

If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that.

For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s their choice.

[mkoubaa]

I couldn't agree more

[lmm]

Which organised Islam is inimical to. E.g. the penalty for apostasy is death.

[feoren]

And the bedrock of religion is forcing your beliefs upon others. Hence the tension. It's like the paradox of tolerance.

[mkoubaa]

And yet religious freedom begat liberalism, not the other way around

[surfingdino]

When a religion/ideology wants to limit personal freedom, it's a hard stop. Otherwise it's the end of liberalism.

[mkoubaa]

Liberalism will end when we choose to end it, in bits in pieces, each brick ironically removed in it's own name.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom

Individualism, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, private property and equality before the law are the bedrocks of liberalism [1]. Religious freedom is closer to a corollary, though hard secular liberal republics (e.g. much of recent French history) have also existed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism