Moderate Islam

[Nicholas]

There is one Islamic movement that is actually trying to counteract the medieval, totalitarian variety that is so visible now. It is focused in Indonesia where the Buddhadharma & Hinduism dwelled long before Islam. I do not know if that is why Indonesia now contains this progressive effort, begun in 1926. It intends to reform the hostility that conventional Islam has toward non-Islamic peoples.

At any rate here is an interview of a leader, Shaykh Yahya, of the Nahdlatul Ulama.

http://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/2017/ ... -19-17.pdf

[DNS]

That would be good if Islam reformed some of those intolerant elements.

Many Christians forget (or don't know) that in the past history they were very intolerant too. There was not only the Inquisition, but references to some passages in the New Testament which advocate and encourage for example children to give up on their parents if they are not Christian enough (I forget the exact reference). Christians from one church marrying another Christian from another church was frowned upon (and still is in some places) and there was much violence in the past in the name of Christianity; but today not so much and they are mostly peaceful.

[Nicholas]

That would be good if Islam reformed some of those intolerant elements.

Many Christians forget (or don't know) that in the past history they were very intolerant too. There was not only the Inquisition, but references to some passages in the New Testament which advocate and encourage for example children to give up on their parents if they are not Christian enough (I forget the exact reference). Christians from one church marrying another Christian from another church was frowned upon (and still is in some places) and there was much violence in the past in the name of Christianity; but today not so much and they are mostly peaceful.

There is really no comparison David. The Crusades were more a defensive war and the harassing pests of Xtian missionaries were only that, not a convert, surrender or die military army. The Inquisition was only a Roman Catholic horrid project and never had the reach and extent or number of victims that the many jihads had.

Read this title for a survey of the planetary conquest sought by much of Islam. It does not cover what Islamic armies destroyed in Asia.

http://www.meforum.org/1297/jihad-in-the-west

[Lucas Oliveira]

Sri Lanka’s Centre for Islamic Studies Hosts Open Mosque Day

https://www.buddhistdoor.net/news/sri-l ... mosque-day

[Iconodule]

I think the term "moderate" here, as it is in most cases, is rather tricky and misleading. What NU represents is traditional orthodox Sunni Islam, that is, Sunni Islam infused with Sufi piety and an acceptance/tolerance of local traditions within certain parameters. It is comparable to the Barelvi movement in Pakistan. Because these movements organize against the intrusion of the puritanical ideology of Wahhabism, they do seem to embody a more rational and tolerant world vision and are thus labeled "moderate." But this is very much dependent on the particular context. Sometimes in the history of Islam, the fiercest and most violent movements have come out of this "moderate" traditional Sunnism.

[Iconodule]

There is really no comparison David. The Crusades were more a defensive war and the harassing pests of Xtian missionaries were only that, not a convert, surrender or die military army.

That's a rather rosy view of the Crusades. This "defensive war" massacred civilians of all faiths and became little more than a naked power grab by West European kingdoms. Despite their initial success they ultimately left Christians in a weaker position in the Middle East. By gutting the East Roman AKA Byzantine Empire the 4th Crusade ensured that Anatolia was ripe for conquest.

Also, there have been Christian convert-surrender-or-die armies elsewhere (or give-us-your-money-or-die). The Conquistadors raping and massacring their way across the Americas were like that, as were the Northern Crusades of the Teutonic Knights. This is before we get into the horrors of colonialism where millions were tortured, murdered, or starved under the pretense of civilizing/ Christianizing missions.

[Nicholas]

Have you read Jihad in the West that I linked to above?

An almost unbroken pattern of slaughter in the West thru war from Muhammed's own armies circa 640-1840 (a mere 1200 years), speaks for itself. Again, what Muslim thugs did to the Zarthustis in Persia, the Buddhists and Hindus in India etc. are not even covered by Fregosi in that book.

[Iconodule]

If you are trying to convince me that Islam has a bloody history of conquest, there's no need. I'm an Orthodox Christian and know my history. But the whitewashing of the crusades as merely defensive wars is as misleading as those who portray Islam as a beacon of medieval tolerance.

[Nicholas]

But the whitewashing of the crusades as merely defensive wars is as misleading as those who portray Islam as a beacon of medieval tolerance.

No whitewashing; Muslim armies attacked first and again, finally the Pope etc counterattacked.

I did not write 'merely' but "The Crusades were more a defensive war..."

An excerpt from Jihad in the West pp 23-4:

The Jihad has affected and engulfed far more countries than the Palestine-bound Crusades. The Crusades,
eight in number, were concentrated on the Holy Land and all took place between the years 1096 and 1270,
not quite two hundred years in all. The Crusaders wanted to establish themselves in the Holy Land, formerly Christian. Islam's motives, through the Jihad, were far grander. The Muslims wanted to take and occupy Europe and, hopefully, to Islamize it. A large part of Europe was taken, occupied for centuries, sometimes devastated, and some of it was Islamized. Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Sicily, Austria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Rumania, Wallachia, Albania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, Ukraine, and eastern and southern Russia were all Jihad battlefields where Islam conquered or was conquered. Many of those lands were occupied by the Muslims, in some cases by Arabs and Moors, in others by the Ottoman Turks, usually for hundreds of years: Spain 800 years, Portugal 600 years, Greece 500 years, Sicily 300 years, Serbia 400 years, Bulgaria 500 years, Rumania 400 years, and Hungary 150 years. Hungary, particularly, was ruined, plundered and ravaged and took 200 years to recover from Muslim occupation. By comparison, the European occupation of the Muslim countries of the Near and Middle East and of North Africa lasted less than a century and a half. In some countries of Europe, Spain, Sicily, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, the Crimea, and Crete, many, sometimes most of the people gave up Christianity for Islam; but in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, few indeed were the adherents of the
Muslim faith who gave up Islam for Christianity.

[Nicholas]

More history of immoderate Islam:

When accusing the West of imperialism, Muslims are obsessed with the Christian Crusades but have forgotten their own, much grander Jihad.

In fact, they often denounce the Crusades as the cause and starting point of the antagonism between
Christianity and Islam. They are putting the cart before the horse. The Jihad is more than four hundred years
older than the Crusades. Amin Malouf in The Crusades through Arab Eyes sees the sack of Jerusalem by the
Crusaders in 1099 as "the starting point of a millennial hostility between Islam and the West." There is only
passing mention of the Muslim capture of Jerusalem from the Christians in 638, of the invasion of Spain some
seventy years later by the Arabs and Moors, or of their subsequent 800-year occupation in whole or in part of
the Iberian peninsula.

The fault, in Arab eyes, usually starts with the West and the Crusades, continues with the West and
colonialism, and ends with the West and neocolonialism. Forgotten is the fact that it was the success of the
Jihad that caused Pope Urban II in 1095 to call for a Crusade to redeem the Holy Land from Islam.