Agenda Barat nak lahirkan Muslim moderate?

GUY: Agenda Barat nak lahirkan Muslim moderate?

EZRA: Kenapa semua mesti ada agenda? Adakah pandang sinis semua benda berkaitan dengan Barat agenda umat Islam? I don't know if you'll agree with me...but there are good and sincere people in this world... I don't know about corporations though. 

Those Western activists who defend the Palestinians' homes in Gaza from being destroyed may just be doing it for publicity...or to deceive the Muslims that the West is actually concerned with their human rights... You know what, the thing is I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

GUY: It's called 'reading between the lines'. 'Agenda Barat' does not mean that whatever the Westerners do is always in favour of conspiring against Islam. 'Agenda Barat' means that the West is one of the major powers of the world we are in currently and part of the power in the West has favours against Islam. Some part of these power works through financing certain NGOs to work their part.  Lots of revealed meetings and conferences held by certain organizations reveal that they believe Muslims need to be weakened not by the sword, but by the mind. Numbing and blunting Muslims mind by pulling them away from Islamic fundamentals and the Qur'an and hadeeth are one of the ways. To get Muslims to be pulled away by these 2 important things, they immobilize us with overwhelming hedonism and introducing us to fun and joy without limits, whereas Islam teaches us otherwise that everything has boundaries. And there's lots more to that.

One of the current ideas of certain NGOs is creating Moderate Muslims. The term itself needs to be translated and be given certain detail and description, or we might end up saying and deciding that it's okay not to wear the hijab because it is out of style, or prayers mean what is at heart, not the action of the body, or even saying that I'm gay and it's OK, because Allah loves me and knows me best.

We need to read within the lies. And the idea (or mostly facts) of the existence of 'Agenda Barat' does not mean for us to be paranoid or whimsical nor even hateful, but to be more aware, cautious, progressive, and dominating. And dominating here means be the best as Muslims as we can be and truly understanding and delivering out the fundamentals of Islam.

Well, everyone has to have their agenda. Whether it is for fun, for money, hatred, power, love, passion, status, everyone wants something. And knowing what a person or group's agenda helps us to engage with them. You can't easily engage with a baby if you don't know what the baby wants, eh?

EZRA: I think it's pessimistic to think that someone is out to get us. It's true that there are groups out there who oppose Islam...just as there are groups who oppose animal killing, human rights abuses, racism and so on...and then there are those groups like Ku Klux Klan who believe in white supremacy or the Taliban and various other terrorist cells who want to subjugate the world...all of them possess something in common: they truly believe in their cause.

The key idea is this: Certain part of our community does not grasp or even consider the idea that some people can oppose Islam with good conscience and based on their own reasons. These reasons constitute their own beliefs. Concurrently, some individuals believe that Islam (as a religion) is pernicious. They may be truly sincere in believing that Islam really is pernicious. However, certain Muslims can't accept the idea that these people have their own reasons and therefore, their own beliefs. They think that these people WILLINGLY oppose Islam. It is as if a large organization is established for the sole purpose of destroying Islam where every non-Muslim participates in (the West and Israel). This of course, promotes racist and narrow insular mentality. 

The thing is, don't think of ourselves as exclusive. The Nazis had already tried that. We should be waking ourselves up and combating the misunderstanding of Islam by the majority of the world's non-Muslims. After all, the root of Islamophobia is misconception. I do believe the reason why we are not so successful in science or human rights record is because of our own attitude. We consider everything that's keeping us backward as others' fault but we spend no thought on developing ourselves. How do we counter the misconception about Islam? Well, some Muslims believe in promoting Islam as a peaceful religion. They believe that the rise of moderate Muslims will help spread the idea that Islam is not represented only by the radicals (or that Islam should be equated with terrorism or fundamentalism), but there also exist other communities within the community of Islam. It's a valid effort by well-meaning Muslims, but apparently some people think they are disrupting the true image of the religion itself. 

By the way, what you call 'reading between the lines' could just be that 'you read too much into it'. I guess what we can all agree on is that, we REALLY don't know.

GUY: We need to remember that according to our noble sirah of prophet Muhammad, the leaders of Quraisy and the munafiqs in Medina clearly knows and acknowledges that Islam is the right religion. Islam is the truth. We need to understand there are circumstances that due to personal gains, people can be very selfish and arrogant. Whether it is money, power or nobility, lust and desires without control can make people go that far.

As you have said, some might truly think Islam is pernicious. But we also need to understand that people like Abu Jahal are present in every course of history. We can understand this without being paranoid or too much drawn and drowned in (sic) the idea.

As I have stated, and you have said, the root of Islamophobia is misconception. And some of these people gain access and advantage through Muslims' own weakness in understanding and applying fundamentals of our deen in daily life. For example, during the era of prophet Muhammad, some sahabah only understood the holiness or nobility of Muhammad. So when the prophet passed away, some of these munafiqs swayed Muslims by implying to everyone that Islam is finished as the prophet had died. But hadrat Umar understood that Islam do not bow to Muhammad, but to Allah, and many more examples of how Muslims' own weakness in understanding and delivering Islamic messages causes our own dismay and downfall.

So the key here is to acknowledge that Islam will always be targeted by our own weaknesses, and by identifying who are the ones targeting and their methods of approach, we can counter by applying education and spreading awareness. That is always the key, and increasing Islamic practices and the roots of faith. Be it Hedonism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Christian Missionaries, Islamophobia; being paranoid to others will never be our key to glory, but building our own.

Our binoculars have to be at the ready. We can be cautious of our neighbour who might go out to his front lawn daily holding a long kitchen knife with a creepy face, without going out to him and going panic and shriek 'murderer!' without any substantial or direct proof.

It's all about being cautious. Being nice does not mean we should be blind and fools. And we can learn a lot from History.

Reading too much only implies when one is being caught up in the idea and become paranoid :). A little caution never hurt, even beneficial.

The Rand Corporation clearly states that they encourage growth of ideas and spread of building Moderate Muslims. Seriously, define moderate. There are no specific or only definition of moderate. It can be defined Islamically, or Liberally, even in a secular way. So who decides what Moderate Muslims are?

We do if we shape our society. But if it were shaped by others? Tadaa.

EZRA: So...you argue that the interpretation of Islam by the moderate Muslims nowadays is wrong, and that the true interpretation of Islam is by 'applying the fundamentals of the religion in our daily life'. Does this mean that we can call a woman who's not wearing a hijab sinful, passing our judgment on others despite it is not our place to do so? Are we really going to enforce our belief on others? That is the core of my argument.

You see, I argue that certain Muslims can't accept that others have their own reasons and justifications for opposing Islam--which constitute their beliefs. These Muslims have already perceived that those people are wrong, and therefore they are convinced that their arguments are invalid and irrelevant. As a Muslim, I'm quite secure in my faith but I don't appreciate this attitude shown by some Muslims who believe that their status as a Muslim makes them superior than non-Muslims. 

Your point about being cautious: this implies that we believe that there are outside forces bent on destroying Islam. I've already stated and I agree that there are such forces...but my main contention with this statement is that I don't blame these people. Sure, you can call them 'the enemy' but I don't view them with hatred or have the utter conviction that I am right--which is quite arrogant when you think about it. Let's talk about Irshad Manji for a bit. While I don't agree with her, I view her books as intellectual attack towards the conservative Muslim ideals. An intellectual attack requires an intellectual response--certainly not by refusing to listen to the arguments she has presented and discrediting her. The problem here is that most Muslims view this as a 'personal attack' which no doubt stems from a deep suspicion towards any attempt to devalue their heritage--a sense of pride, you may say. There's nothing wrong with wanting to defend our ideals (which results in 'being cautious' or whatever) but Muslims need to be open when faced with these intellectual attacks. I'm not saying being open means we need to be 'modern' (read: secular) but you need to listen--so that you can take part in the discussion and engage with others' arguments.

There are non-Muslim bigots and there are also Muslim ones. They are everywhere. The root of bigotry is misconception. If we want to demolish Islamophobia (which is a form of bigotry), we need to start by countering all of the misconceptions about Islam. So that's where we differ: I don't view these people who have misconceptions about Islam as our enemy and we should run away from them (or be cautious no doubt), but I simply accept they have different beliefs from mine. We should respond to their questions with answers, instead of withholding them and be content with ourselves--because we believe ours is the absolute truth, and refuse to acknowledge them...and their questions. Being aware is different from being suspicious. Simply being aware is not enough, we need action. I vote for developing ourselves to become better and show the world Islam is not pernicious, rather than just condemning others that Islam is exclusive (you can't offend us, we're special...where will that lead us?). Yes, we need to stand up for our rights, but don't do it JUST because we are Muslims, and therefore special. We should do it because it's the right thing to do.

GUY: I'm stating that Moderate Islam is defined in many ways, and by many people/idealisms. Some might go along with the fundamentals of Islam, and some might not/are not. These definitions are what we need to be cautious about, as it deviates from Islamic structure. I do not imply that all interpretations are wrong, but there are which is (sic). Lots of scholars argue that there is a term 'wasatiyyah' which part of its meaning includes moderate, but not in which some people might interpret. It's dangerous interpreting religious terms without guidance from scholars who've worked for years in serious researches in understanding the Qur'an and sunnah. The argument here is about the definition of moderate which some have gone completely out of what complies with Islamic jurisprudence.

You're arguing about people who pass judgements and enforcing beliefs, when we are talking about ideas and structure of Islamic thought. That is another discussion.

I have suggested and voiced that the main action here is not blaming or labelling them as the enemy, nor engaging with hatred, but being cautious and engage with truth. If any person or organization comes out spreading ideals about Islam (so-called), which turns out completely deviates from Islamic fundamentals, do we stay quiet, smile, shake hands and do nothing, or we preach to them and others that this ideal is wrong?

We can say or suggest to even our Hindu or Christian neighbour that Islam is the rightful deen and no other is right, without viewing or engaging with them as an enemy, nor by using hateful methods of approach. Same goes with anything larger than that, be it any western NGOs, Christian Missionaries nor atheists.

I'm talking about being cautious in understanding and identifying what goes along with Islam and what is not, and reminding ourselves and friends and community to strengthen our understanding and practice of fundamentals of Islam so we can differentiate what is the true structure of Islam and which is not, so we can help others to understand and choose better. Not about labelling who's the enemy nor labelling people.

How many caliphate and Muslim Empires have fallen down, just because of lack of understanding fundamentals and choosing true structure and Islam and lack of practice. In the end of the day, it all comes to that.

EZRA: Oh come on, you clearly implied that definition of moderate Muslim as propagated by Rand Corporation at least, is not the correct interpretation of Islam. Don't be afraid to say it. (I'm not trying to provoke, I'm just not as apologetic as you are when stating my own beliefs). I thought I've closed my argument by saying that we agree to disagree. But I enjoy this discussion, so I'm gonna give a bit more.

Well, let's see if you really understand my argument. I'm in favour of the 'so-called' moderate Muslims, the reason being that I identify that there are various communities within one community of Islam. My main contention is that the belief that the West is spreading wrong ideals (or 'Agenda Barat' as this discussion is mainly about) is not to be viewed as a 'personal attack' towards Muslims but rather as an 'intellectual attack'. I have stated that there are groups that are dedicated in opposing Islam, but they are not wrong in their own justification of doing what's right. The corollary of that argument is that if we can't accept that others have different beliefs and reasons from ours and we proceed to subjugate their own beliefs to our own, we are essentially enforcing our beliefs on them. I asked you before about whether or not we call a woman who is not wearing a hijab sinful, merely because it reflects her belief--I was trying to bring up the idea that we shouldn't be passing judgment on others because it is not our place to do so. This is just one example of how we are not tolerant of others' beliefs because we are utterly convinced that ours is right.

So, at first you were basically talking about being cautious of the West and their agendas (all that 'reading between the lines', 'kitchen knife', 'Abu Jahal' and whatever else, but understandable), but now you're talking about being cautious in understanding Islam...which is to me, a secondary argument. You have stated that there are anti-Muslim groups out there...which I agree...and to use your own words we need to 'be more aware, cautious, progressive and dominating'. In a sense, you're talking about being cautious of foreign ideas, to which I've responded that we need to be more conscious of different ideas...in other words, different beliefs and reasons held by others.

I've also argued that instead of worrying about the outside forces, we should be changing our own attitude. You answered this by saying that we need to go back to the basics, and practise the 'real' fundamentals of Islam (which I'm curious about, since in Islam we have a lot of different interpretations by a lot of different scholars). Anyway, I've always maintained that the problem is in our approach towards 'the outside attacks' (where the Muslims become 'too righteous' in my opinion and refuse to listen), and you somewhat modified your previous argument about stemming foreign ideas from taking root in our society--again, understandable--to merely saying that we need to increase our understanding of the deen so that we can counter these ideas, in the last comment. As I've stated, this is a secondary argument--a development of which rests on your main argument that we need to regard 'the outside attacks' or 'the foreign ideas which we don't agree with' as dangerous, in the utter conviction that we are right.

Oh by the way, throughout Islamic history, I don't think we were as successful a nation because we were like Saudi Arabia nowadays (the 'real fundamentals' of Islam? All women must wear hijab there). Why, you have thinkers like al-Razi and al-Ghazali, both differ in their interpretation of Islamic thought, and its structure. Oh you might want to read more about al-Razi. Interestingly, his books were never banned from being published in his era despite some people nowadays might consider them 'heretical'. 

I speak for my own beliefs, and I don't apologise for it. But constantly, I'm learning.