Liberal Muslims

Question:-

Recently a number of new sects have appeared claiming to be Muslim. What are Liberal Muslims?

A Sectarian:-

Liberal Muslim's do not believe that everything in the Quran is true.

Comment:-

Do liberal Muslims not believe that the Quran is the Word of God?

Why do liberal Muslims believe anything in the Quran?

Are they selective?

And what criteria do they use for selection?

Is it their own whims or the opinion of someone they have taken as a leader or authority?

Why then not just follow their own speculation and desires without referring it to the Quran or Islam?

Is it not the case that the description of Liberal Muslim is self-contradictory, seeing that a Muslim by definition is one that surrenders to Allah?

Sectarian:-

Selection will depend on the person. For example, I would expect a person of goodwill to all men to use humanitarian criteria.

Comment:-

Human beings are a mixture of good and evil, and human beings can range from very saintly to very evil. So what good is humanitarianism?

The whole point of Islam - surrender to Allah is to follow objective Truths. We can, therefore, dismiss the claim that those who follow their own whims are Muslim no matter what they claim. It is a form of hypocrisy. This proliferation of sects that increases disunity is a continuation of the degeneration of the Muslim world.

There are some who claim to be "Secular Muslims" which is, of course also a self-contradiction. Some use the name "Progressive Muslim" when, in fact, they merely pretend to be Muslim.

People can, of course, believe and do as they please, but they should not use deceptive names.

Sectarian:-

Rather than saying Human beings are a mixture of good and evil, I think it is truer to say that human beings are social animals and as with other social animals, groups with members that cooperate well together have tended to survive, while those that were deficient have tended to perish.

Comment:-

In what way is it truer? In fact, it is not true at all. You would probably say that the United States is successful because it is rich, but it has many criminals, perverts, sadists, and psychopaths. Many unethical acts, atrocities and injustices are committed.

There are populations much more numerous in various parts of the world that also have their share of evil doers. In fact, all human beings behave with a mixture of various amounts of good and evil.

Sectarian:-

Humanitarianism suggests that we ought to help other people rather than harm them.

Comment:-

Why does it suggest this? And why should human beings help others? Tell it to the criminal. What justification is Humanitarianism based on? Is it someone's opinion, someone regarded as an authority? How is this authority established? What standards can be used if the opinion and desire of every human being is as good as that of another? Why should any person conform to the ideas of another as to what they should do or not?

Apart from this Religion is not merely about doing good to others, but also about personal spiritual development in all its aspect, in knowledge, motives and abilities. And it is also about the care of the environment.

Critic:-

Human beings should help each other because (1) Most human beings instinctively like to help others. This is because in the past, groups with members that cooperated well together have tended to survive and pass on their genes, while groups that were deficient, have tended to perish and not pass on their genes. (2) If we help others, they are more likely to help us in return. So if our instincts don't tell us to help others, our powers of reason may hopefully do so.

Comment:-

Those are not a good reason why people should do things. In the past those who dominated and controlled others were most prosperous. The Roman Empire admired by many was extremely cruel and had military domination over many people. The US prospered because it enslaved Africans and transported them to do the work.

But now you are speaking about instinctive desires - i.e. something built-in. But why not speak about the inherent tendencies for selfishness or the genes that predispose to diseases or the rationalising and fantasy creating mechanisms of the mind? What about sadism and masochism, greed and fear, hatred and aversion, pride and vanity and such like. Do they not exist?

As for "reason", is it not driven by motives and does it not depend on what you perceive and select as premises?

Critic:-

Your statement does not explain how human beings came to be "a mixture of good and evil".

Comment:-

Human beings form addictions, attachments, mental fixations on objects and sense data including their own bodies owing to the pleasure principle and habits of thought, feelings and action that prevent objective perception, thought, motives and action.

Apart from knowing the causes, it is perfectly observable that people do good things as well as evil in different proportions and that we have criminals and tyrants as well as saints. It is also perfectly observable that social, cultural and educational systems do modify people and that educational systems in the restricted sense do exist precisely in order that people should learn and develop in certain directions, generally mainly in intellectual skills.

Critic:-

My statement implied that people have acquired a natural capability to cooperate, because groups that did so in the past tended to survive, while those that did not tended to perish. Cooperation requires that people be able to trust other. This is hardly possible for evil people. So it is almost inevitable that evil groups will be divided among themselves and perish. This is more or less a law of Nature.

Comment:-

Evil has not disappeared. You obviously believe in a naive form of the Evolutional Theory. Though there is an increase in capabilities and self-determination, the same powers that can be used for good can also be used for evil. The same processes of conditioning, training and elaboration of human faculties that can be used to improve people can be used to make them more evil. In order to lead a conscious intelligent life we need the following:-

(1) We must know what the good and evil are and why. i.e. they must be justified adequately on objective grounds.

(2) We must have a value system that focuses on that which is good and beneficial to man and a framework in which we interpret experiences.

(3) There must be adequate techniques to inculcate that value system in human beings. This includes formulating things in a manner that can be understood and incorporated and lead to a transformation of being and behaviour.

That, in short, is the function of religion.

Critic:-

People are not equally good. Some people are more intelligent and humanitarian than others and a group of people may be able to develop better ideas than an individual. Criminals lack humanitarian instincts either because they were born without such instincts or their humanitarian instincts have been damaged by their upbringing or stress or health problem etc.

Comment:-

You are speaking of values that need to be justified. People are also selfish and do harm to others. Do you wish to select who is human to suit your theory? Is intelligence your criterion of humanitarianism? This means that those you consider to be more intelligent should dominate all others. But in fact, of course, it is the ruthless who generally dominate. In my experience the simple people are usually more generous and compassionate.

You would probably say that the United States is successful because it is rich, but it has many criminals, perverts, sadists and psychopaths.

Critic:-

No, I would say the United States is successful because it has developed effective mechanisms for its citizens to cooperate together. This includes mechanisms to allow political power to be peacefully transferred to new leaders when citizens become dissatisfied with current leaders.

Comment:-

No. I would say that the United States is "powerful" because of the resources it had, migration of ambitious people and the brain drain from the rest of the world, the mixing of cultures and genes, the opportunity to implement new ideas that arose from the accidents of history. Success is defined in various ways according to the value system one has. Dinosaurs were powerful and "successful" at one point in history. But that is not how success is conceived in Islam. Success means spiritual development the degree of consciousness, conscience and will (i.e. self-control). From what we see there is increasing criminality, violence, perversion, and mental conditioning in the USA and mounting social, psychological and environmental problems.

Critic:-

People should always have the freedom to argue their case. However, they should not have licence to harm others.

Comment:-

Why should they or should not? Is it because you said so?

Sectarian:-

The Quran claims to be the Word of God, but this claim is not an objective truth, because there is no evidence for it.

Comment:-

You have not comprehended. It is not the claim that is the objective truth. It is the fact to which the claim points that is Objective Truth. Namely, that the Quran points to Creation by the Creator. The Quran is a Reminder (numerous verses in the Quran).

"This (Quran) is naught else than a reminder unto creation, unto whomsoever of you wills to walk straight. And ye will not, unless it be that Allah wills, the Lord of Creation." 81:27-29 and 68:52.

Muslims are those who perceive, understand and believe that the Quran is the Word of God, the Creator of the Universe and all things in it, and therefore, objective Truth and live by that belief.

But if you or anyone else cannot see it, then it is not proof for you or them. Therefore, the proof also lies in your perception.

In persons whose minds have not been distorted by fantasy, prejudices, attachments addictions, conditioning, desires, sins - the mechanisms of the ego tied to the illusory world - pure consciousness should reflect reality.

That is to say, to use your evolutionary arguments, those minds have arisen from the same forces that have created the Universe and from progressive adjustment to that Universe.

From the argument in religious terminology, the Spirit of man (the seat of consciousness) derives from the Spirit of God.

Sectarian:-

So if "surrender to Allah" means to follow objective truths, then a Muslim would be a person who looks for and follows objective truths in the real world.

Comment:-

Yes. But Muslims are people who know, understand and follow Islam to different degrees.

But apart from this, what do you know about the Real World? You cannot know it except for its effects on your mind and your capacity and motives and the efforts to know it that you make.

I suppose you mean by the Real World, the one as seen by Scientists (science is progressive approximation often wrong) or Economists or Politicians or Historians or Philosophers or any set of human beings whom you fancy as laying down the criteria.

Whereas we do not wholly reject these systems of thought, we regard the Word of God as Truth, though our interpretations of this are not. But this interpretation is no worse or better than the interpretations contained in these other systems of thought mentioned above.

Sectarian:-

You say the phrase "Secular Muslims" is a self-contradiction. If a Muslim is a person who follows objective truths, then provided Secular Muslims do this, I do not see why there would be a self-contradiction.

Comment:-

A Muslim is one who by definition surrenders to God, the Creator and therefore, to the Word of God which is defined as Truth. To qualify "Muslim" with "Secular" is to restrict that surrender and add another criterion. It implies that they wish to follow their own or worldly opinions or whims. Though, as indicated above, it is true that we cannot know anything that has not affected our minds, and what we understand depends on the quality of that mind, there is a big difference between those who go by their own un-criticised fantasies and those who actually try to seek Truth i.e. those who attempt to Surrender to Reality, Allah.

Critic:-

I feel that the recommendation to "surrender to God" is dangerous for young people. What if "surrender to God" turns out to mean surrendering to a radical interpretation of Islam?

Comment:-

We define "surrender to God" as surrender to objective Reality and not to human interpretations and prejudices. That is, we are required to seek the truth.

But yes people do follow their own prejudices and not only of Islam but of Christianity, Communism and everything else. That is one of the features of humanity which makes humanitarianism as a value system absurd. There is a big difference between those who go by their own fantasies and those who actually try to seek Truth i.e. those who attempt to Surrender to Reality, Allah.

Critic:-

To seek Truth requires one to actively question, investigate and check claims against evidence. Surrender suggests the opposite. A non-Muslim person who studies Islam, its scriptures and scholars may have good enough information about Islam, even better than a common Muslim.

Comment:-

To seek truth requires:-

(a) Correct receptivity, unprejudiced unobstructed minds,

(b) Correct motives -the love of Truth above all other things

(c) Correct discipline and actions including those that will facilitate the above requirements and expand the faculties for consciousness, conscience and will.

The definition of Knowledge in Islam is different from the way it is generally regarded in the West. In the West it seems to mean "having verbal information or knowing intellectually." The following applies to this:-

"...is as the similitude of the ass bearing books." Quran 62:5

In Islam knowledge means "to be conscious of" or "having an experience of something that modifies one’s being." It affects perception, motives and behaviour.

Critic:-

There are many non-Muslims who read the Quran and understand it differently from Muslims. And they as well as Muslims differ among themselves also. The burden of proof lies on the Muslim to prove that the Quran comes from God instead men.

Comment:-

You keep saying this and it has been answered several times. So here is an answer once more hoping you will comprehend at last:-

Each person reads and understands according to their various abilities, motives and the efforts they make to understand and they can apply the knowledge so gained to various degrees or not.

You can seek knowledge about Islam or anything else or not as you wish and for purposes you wish. You can look at, perceive, understand and accept or not. It is all up to you. It does not matter to Muslims or anyone else whether or not you wish to see or understand or not, or whether you have the capacity to perceive and comprehend or not. It can matter only to you.

Critic:-

If Allah sent many Messengers and the Quran confirms their messages, there is no follow the Quran exclusively or at all. We can follow any messenger.

Comment:-

Firstly, the Liberal Muslims do not want to follow any Messenger or scripture but their own opinions. Secondly, there would have been no need to confirm the past messages if they had not been corrupted or forgotten or misunderstood. What criteria would you have for judging them? Apart from this there is a degree of progression in that the emphasis changes.

Critic:-

The Quranic message is different from that the New Testament which is different from that of the Old Testament. Muhammad simply wanted to replace other religions with his own. Jesus wished to replace Jewish Law with his own teachings. But since Jews regarded the Law as a contract between themselves and God, the only way Jesus could persuade them he had authority to do so, was to claim to be God himself.

Comment:-

Different formulations or ways of presenting something does not constitute a difference in the goal. And Ignorance is not a virtue.

A study of the NT shows that Jesus did not claim to be God but that he had been sent by God to the Jews and that his doctrines were not his:-

"Jesus answered them and said: My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me." John 7:15

Also see John 5:19, 24, 30, 7:18, 8:28, and 12:49

He also said that he had come not to abolish the Hebrew Law but to fulfil it. Matthew 5:17-22. And this fulfilment consisted of the teaching that it was not just obedience to the letter of the law that was required, but that the motives were to be right. This motive was love of God and loving one's neighbour as oneself. Matthew 22:37-41. Jesus said:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 13:34

Note that:-

(1) We can call Hebrewism the Religion of the Law and of Duty and Hope.

(2) Because of the teachings of Jesus as above, we can call the Message he brought the Religion of Love.

(3) But Jesus was looking forward to the Religion of Truth. He also said:-

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." John 16:12-14

Islam is the Religion of Truth. Quran 9:33, 61:9.

Critic:-

That is what the Quran says. It is not necessarily true.

Comment:-

Read the Quran and see that it does, indeed, place emphasis on Truth, though it also teaches compassion and duty.

Critic:-

Muhammad comes to people with a claim, that he is chosen by God to be His messenger. Should people believe him just like that because he is chosen by God? Then the same people should also accept Ibn Sayyad and Musaylima as well. Because they say they are chosen too. And since the only reason we need to accept a person as God's chosen messenger is if the person tells us so, then we should accept anyone who comes to us claiming to God's chosen messenger and prophet. There were many who did so. Should we accept anything as scripture, because it says it is or because the author says it is?

Comment:-

The Messengers come with proof, their teachings and their life. People have to verify things to their own satisfaction. That means, they must study, think, observe, apply an appropriate discipline, meditate, and integrate and assimilate, setting aside if they can their fantasies, prejudices, desires, conditioning habits of thought, attachments, fixations, egotism.

Critic:-

Islam came for Arabs and appears to be Arab culture. Why do other nations have to accept Arab culture. Is Islam really the same as Arab culture? If not then why do we see converts to Islam adopting Arab culture? Is there a way to define Islam in a void, that is independent of any culture, and compatible to fit anyone living anywhere in the world, speaking his ancestors' language, and dressing, greeting others and eating according to his own country's customs?

Comment:-

If you have read the Quran then you should know the answer. You might as well ask: Is Christianity the same as the culture in Palestine as it was in days of Jesus? Or is it now the same as Western culture.

Look at Muslims in the West or even those in the Middle East that appear on television and on films - are they not dressed in Western clothes complete with ties?

However, it could be that those who imitate the Western culture in their behaviour or dress etc. have also inwardly mentally departed from Islam and from the community of Muslims, having been conditioned by Western education both inwardly and outwardly.

It is possible that converts and others would like to behave in the manner of the Prophet hoping that they would acquire similar inspiration by association. Or perhaps they wish to rejoin the community of Muslims.

As for Arabic words in their language, there are some phrases that Muslims use as part of their religion e.g. those containing the name Allah, such as Subhanallah and these have become incorporated into the Arab culture. There are also some forms of manners and etiquette that come from Islam and have entered the culture of the Arabs who are Muslims. Each Religion creates a culture of its own. There are Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Islamic Cultures. It is not a case of the culture having entered Islam but Islam having modified the culture.

It is, therefore, a superficial perception to suppose that it is the Arab culture that is being adopted, though it may be so in some cases.

Critic:-

We see that many Muslims other than some Liberal Muslims are unable to discuss issues logically without ad hominem. They attack the person and the motives of those who criticise Islam. This is irrelevant to the argument.

Comment:-

You need to understand that when it comes to religion that deals in spiritual welfare and development of the person, then the knowledge, thoughts, opinions, capabilities as well as the motives, actions and interactions of a person are relevant.

We do not, therefore, believe that the opinions expressed by a person in this field are independent of his motives and actions. The motives drive the thinking and the conditioned actions lead to rationalisations. The thinking in its turn affects the motives and actions. The behaviour so modified also modifies the state of the person which modifies the behaviour. The truth or falsity of a statement is judged by these real effects. It is not a question of verbal logic but of experience and realities.

When dealing with any other subject that has no relevance to a person's life, then he may hold an opinion that is impersonal (whether right or wrong), but clearly it is then useless to him personally.

Islam sees all things as having existence and value only with respect to God and all inner and outer behaviour as having value only with respect to human development.

----------<O>----------

Contents