Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”

[jab]

Any changes within Islam will come from the inside out. History has demonstrated that persecutions and oppression do not produce positive changes. They worsen and aggravate radicalism.

I work with Muslims, went to school with Muslims, share streets, housing and shops with Muslims. I eat with them, share social engagements with them, go the weddings, and so on. They're just people. Some of them are religious extremists, but then some of the Christians are religious extremists, and some of the atheists are religious extremists.

What's the problem?

1. atheists by definition cannot be religious extremists
2. within my living memory, Christian extremists and Sihk extremists have been engaged in terrorist activities, but at present the most frequent and widespread acts of terror around the world are coming from Islamic extremists. That's a problem.

 

[jab]

Wow, a clip from FOX News showing a handful of people yelling and clapping with zero context provided. That sure looks like the "thousands of celebrating Palestinians" you talked about.

And of course, it's not as if the U.S. pursues any policies that might explain why some Palestinians view it as their enemy, or that there is any other group of people who might celebrate attacks on a perceived enemy.

Nope, it's just because they are Mooslims and Mooslims are violent.

Palestinians view the US as the enemy simply because it backs the only democracy anywhere in the Middle east...........Israel!

fallacious phrasing: their opposition is not fundamentally related to Israel being a "demoncracy"

 

[jab]

Okay points taken on the subject of schooling, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about Hirsi Ali and her criticism of islam.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raKPJ3-ypwo[/YOUTUBE]

Actually the discussion about schooling was DIRECTLY related to her quoted claim of Muslim schools in Europe teaching children to hate Jews and calling Jews "pigs and monkeys" That was part of her rationalization to justify her wanting to shut down Muslim schools. Her claim was disputed by several of us. You produced claims that we will not find Muslim children attending public schools. Several of us have attested and from our experiences and observations in our respective countries that your claim is incorrect.
As well off as the families of the Muslim students who attended my private school were in France, they still opted for a non religious private school.

And by the way...objections to Ali's "criticisms" are not about a critique of the religion, it is about her targeting ALL Muslims without making any distinctions whatsoever. To include supporting measures implying declaring all Muslims personae non gratae. Meaning stripping them off their Constitutional Identity and the Rights and Privileges such Identity confers.

It has been demonstrated in the history of mankind that such measures have resulted in the oppression and persecution of several groups. Void of such Identity they are left without any protection.

I find it extremely contradictory that anyone who pauses as a defender and protector of Western values would suggest that any group whether based on their ethnicity, beliefs or lack of, gender, origin, etc...be subjected to measures resulting in their loss of Rights and Privileges conferred by their Constitutional Identity. Authentic protectors of such values would be consistent enough to uphold those Rights and Privileges benefiting all those groups as they would for themselves.

I think all religious schools should be 1. taxed instead of receiving taxpayers' money, and 2. forced to follow externally set standards, including no teaching of bigotry, if they want accredtiation for their students in the wider society.

 

[jab]

So Ali Hirsi is making it all up. She and those who criticise islam are wrong to criticise the religion of peace. We should just shut the fark up and stop criticising them when they mutilate a baby girl, marry off a 9 year old to a 50 year old uncle.
Shut up when a rape victim is then charged with adultery and given 50 lashes and perhaps stoned to death as well. Let the so called moderates have their sharia laws superimpose western laws in Western countries. Turn a blind eye to their treatment of women in general and just let them be.

Can you try and reply to my post rather than to something that exists only in your head? Thank you!

evading the issue--you're making up slurs about angelo's post.

 

[jab]

There's certainly no shortage of takers for terrorists causes. They are finding these volunteers from within islam not from without. The often repeated : "not all muslims are terrorist, but most terrorist are muslim " is fact whether you agree or not.

The core of the problem comes from the basics of islam itself, especially due to the fact that there is very little internal logic in the basic tenets of this religion leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts, limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts and admitting openly that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' (definitely much less than in Christianity or Judaism;

Which part of the internal logic of Christianity or Judaism suggests that the book is less than perfect?

where unaided Human Reason has also a much more important status

I guess that's why most churches and few sects of Islam have a rigid clerical hierarchy.

If those are the premises you start with, I don't even have to read the rest to know it's mostly bullshit. Unfortunately, I did nonetheless, and was not surprised.

Um, lots of Chrisitians claim that the Bible is not inerrant and perfect, and are not cast out and persecuted by the establishment in all or almost all Chrisitan majority countries.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't surprise him.

 

[jab]

Depends on where one lives. Muslim fundamentalist can be a threat if one is surrounded by them. The same as catholic fundies are a threat if surrounded by them. Certainly they are causing untold misery to millions of people in South America, Philippines, Sub Sahara Africa where xtianity is well entrenched and sometimes in government. In the latter case been anti birth control while sexual transmitted diseases and over population is rampant.
The same can be said about countries under the islam yoke such as in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.

And how is any of that an argument for siding with Christian fundamentalists when in a Christian-majority country?

Who said anything about siding with xtian or any other fundies?

Warpoet, I think, and perhaps others on this thread, have said that Hirsi Ali is doing so. Perhaps they are confusing making allies with unsavory people for one's own cause with siding with unsavory people to support their cause. The first alternative is dangerous, because one can get co-opted.

 

[Jokodo]

So Ali Hirsi is making it all up. She and those who criticise islam are wrong to criticise the religion of peace. We should just shut the fark up and stop criticising them when they mutilate a baby girl, marry off a 9 year old to a 50 year old uncle.
Shut up when a rape victim is then charged with adultery and given 50 lashes and perhaps stoned to death as well. Let the so called moderates have their sharia laws superimpose western laws in Western countries. Turn a blind eye to their treatment of women in general and just let them be.

Can you try and reply to my post rather than to something that exists only in your head? Thank you!

evading the issue--you're making up slurs about angelo's post.

How can it be making up slurs to say that angelo's post does not engage any of the points in my previous post when ... angelo's post does not engage any of the points in my previous post?

My previous post which 1) did not say that Ali Hirsi is "making it all up"; did not say that it is wrong to criticise any religion; C) did not call for Sharia laws or any of the other positions he is attributing to me. If anybody was slurring anybody else in that part of the dialogue, it isn't me.

Here's my preceding post for context. He still hasn't, best as I can tell, explicated how he would like to go about denying rights "to a religion" that doesn't curtail people's religious freedoms, nor provided evidence that "muslims in general" accept the shit extremists tell them.

Religions don't have rights. People have rights, among them the right to practice their religion in any way they see fit as long as it doesn't contradict the law of the land. It's therefore logically impossible to "deny rights to a religion" without denying rights to people.

Ali Hirsi is correct in branding muslims in general as sheeple for accepting what their sheiks and imam extremists teach them.

For that statement to be able to be correct, it would have to be true that "muslims in general accept what extremists teach them. It isn't.

To hate the Jew and infidel. They do so without a word of protest.

Why should anyone believe that you have any insight whatsoever into the political and theological debates among Muslims? It's not like your track record in this thread suggests that the quality of information you're building upon goes much beyond making up stuff that fits your narrative.

 

[Jokodo]

There's certainly no shortage of takers for terrorists causes. They are finding these volunteers from within islam not from without. The often repeated : "not all muslims are terrorist, but most terrorist are muslim " is fact whether you agree or not.

The core of the problem comes from the basics of islam itself, especially due to the fact that there is very little internal logic in the basic tenets of this religion leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts, limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts and admitting openly that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' (definitely much less than in Christianity or Judaism;

Which part of the internal logic of Christianity or Judaism suggests that the book is less than perfect?

where unaided Human Reason has also a much more important status

I guess that's why most churches and few sects of Islam have a rigid clerical hierarchy.

If those are the premises you start with, I don't even have to read the rest to know it's mostly bullshit. Unfortunately, I did nonetheless, and was not surprised.

Um, lots of Chrisitians claim that the Bible is not inerrant and perfect <snip>

metacristi's claim was specifically that Islam is in principle and unlike Christianity incompatible with a non-fundamentalist interpretation due to its "internal logic". That's a very different claim than saying that at this point in history Christians tend to be less fanatic. Trying to use one as evidence for the other is futile.

 

[angelo]

By Angelo : Don't hold your breath while waiting for rational reform of islam.

Since 2004, the Moroccan Mudawana has undergone important reforms demonstrating the clear intent to distance Moroccans from a traditional Islam while enhancing principles (now reflected in the modifications of the Moroccan Constitution) which could not be without undertaking a rational reform of Islam. But of course folks who claim that there is only "very few liberal Muslims" and dump all Muslims in the same bag are not going to do their home work. Their drive being to perpetuate anti Muslim fear/hate mongering propaganda. Thus sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalala" every time their claims are being refuted. Such as your above quoted claim duly refuted by the ongoing social and judiciary reforms in Morocco which specifically target the traditional Muslim Mudawana.

You keep harping on about Morocco. What about the other 95% of muslim countries? I'll give an example. Turkey, A once secular muslim nation who elected a hard line muslim PM and since then is slipping more and more under the islamic yoke. This pm's last attempt was to curb social media, or place it under scrutiny. Turkey, a once Israeli ally is now another of it's enemies. And the worrying thing is this country is a member of Nato, who wants to join the EU with just Germany standing in it's way of becoming a fully fledged member nation.

 

[dx713]

(...) Turkey, A once secular muslim nation who elected a hard line muslim PM and since then is slipping more and more under the islamic yoke. This pm's last attempt was to curb social media, or place it under scrutiny. Turkey, a once Israeli ally is now another of it's enemies. And the worrying thing is this country is a member of Nato, who wants to join the EU with just Germany standing in it's way of becoming a fully fledged member nation.

Just Germany? Fully fledged member?
What about France (at least, plus those I don't know about)?
What about all that negotiation phase that would start under control of the parliament, with serious democracy and human rights improvements to be reached before membership can be discussed?

 

[angelo]

(...) Turkey, A once secular muslim nation who elected a hard line muslim PM and since then is slipping more and more under the islamic yoke. This pm's last attempt was to curb social media, or place it under scrutiny. Turkey, a once Israeli ally is now another of it's enemies. And the worrying thing is this country is a member of Nato, who wants to join the EU with just Germany standing in it's way of becoming a fully fledged member nation.

Just Germany? Fully fledged member?
What about France (at least, plus those I don't know about)?
What about all that negotiation phase that would start under control of the parliament, with serious democracy and human rights improvements to be reached before membership can be discussed?

For those and other reasons I doubt Turkey will ever be admitted to the EU. Actually, it's scary having Turkey as a member of Nato.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Angelo : Don't hold your breath while waiting for rational reform of islam.

Since 2004, the Moroccan Mudawana has undergone important reforms demonstrating the clear intent to distance Moroccans from a traditional Islam while enhancing principles (now reflected in the modifications of the Moroccan Constitution) which could not be without undertaking a rational reform of Islam. But of course folks who claim that there is only "very few liberal Muslims" and dump all Muslims in the same bag are not going to do their home work. Their drive being to perpetuate anti Muslim fear/hate mongering propaganda. Thus sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalala" every time their claims are being refuted. Such as your above quoted claim duly refuted by the ongoing social and judiciary reforms in Morocco which specifically target the traditional Muslim Mudawana.

You keep harping on about Morocco. What about the other 95% of muslim countries? I'll give an example. Turkey, A once secular muslim nation who elected a hard line muslim PM and since then is slipping more and more under the islamic yoke. This pm's last attempt was to curb social media, or place it under scrutiny. Turkey, a once Israeli ally is now another of it's enemies. And the worrying thing is this country is a member of Nato, who wants to join the EU with just Germany standing in it's way of becoming a fully fledged member nation.

I brought up the Mudawana reforms Morocco because of your quoted claim. As if a rational reform of Islam is impossible. Which is obviously not true. It is a lengthy process but it can happen. And once more prompted from the inside out, by Muslims of a liberal and moderate profile. According to you and metachristi, such Muslims are only "very few". Yet the very leadership in Morocco has been leading the nation towards distancing itself from a traditional and conservative Islam.

As to the portraying of all Muslims hating Jews, already during WW2, Sultan Mohammed Vth had refused to surrender Moroccan Jews to the Nazis. Morocco remains a strong ally to Israel.

Further and dispersed in 8 Muslim nations, Muslims supporters of the existence of the State of Israel :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel

If you will actually read this article, you will notice that some are Muslim scholars who even support Zionism.

 

[Sabine Grant]

(...) Turkey, A once secular muslim nation who elected a hard line muslim PM and since then is slipping more and more under the islamic yoke. This pm's last attempt was to curb social media, or place it under scrutiny. Turkey, a once Israeli ally is now another of it's enemies. And the worrying thing is this country is a member of Nato, who wants to join the EU with just Germany standing in it's way of becoming a fully fledged member nation.

Just Germany? Fully fledged member?
What about France (at least, plus those I don't know about)?
What about all that negotiation phase that would start under control of the parliament, with serious democracy and human rights improvements to be reached before membership can be discussed?

For those and other reasons I doubt Turkey will ever be admitted to the EU. Actually, it's scary having Turkey as a member of Nato.

To rewind a bit here and in view of your misinformed claim that "only Germany", under the Chirac administration (of course, France) it was the onset for France to refuse the entry of Turkey into the EC. France demanding that Turkey recognizes its genocide of Armenians. Further conditions have been set since then which some of them Dx mentioned.

Here is an opportunity for you to inform yourself as to SEVERAL members of the EC opposing the entry of Turkey into the EC and the reasons/motivations behind their opposition, which are multiple ones :

http://europe.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Brief4-0803-turkeys-quest.pdf


As to this :

Actually, it's scary having Turkey as a member of Nato

Let me guide you (again) to a thorough analysis of the presence of Turkey as an active NATO member as it certainly covers the entire history of Turkey with NATO up to now. Which apprehensions might affect other NATO members and which incentives might motivate Turkey to consolidate its allegiance to an organization dominated by Western democratic systems.

http://www.academia.edu/1472745/Turkey_-_NATO_Relations_Past_Present_and_Future

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Christianity has a history of violence against others in the name of religion, including the violent overthrow of governments, torture of individuals over religious beliefs, and the provision of blanket religious sanction for violent acts. So where's the case for picking on Islam over any other ideology?

Jesus was a hippy linked to an older book of violence and hatred and followed by some more of the same. Muhammed was a warlord who himself did some horrific things and killed many. Although Christianity has done some horrible things in Jesus' name, Jesus himself seems like a pretty decent guy; a bit of a narcicist, but a decent guy overall. Muhammed not so much. Not hard to see why one ideology would be more dangerous than the other.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>Actually, it's scary having Turkey as a member of Nato.

Turkey is moving in the wrong direction in many way (but also in the right direction in some other ways, ironically, given the Islamist rhetorics of the current government, including when it comes to the recognition of religious minority). But implying that that should make it incompatible with NATO shows an ignorance of the scope and purpose of NATO. NATO never was an alliance of free countries. Remember Greece, Spain and Portugal during the 60s and 70s? They were members when they were run by military juntas - and Portugal almost got kicked out for becoming a democracy (given that the revolution that ousted the generals was explicitly leftwing, the other members feared that they might gravitate towards the USSR).

Whatever Turkey under Erdogan is (and I agree it's far from a shining beacon of democracy), it still is much freer than the Portuguese "Estado Novo", Spanish "Franquismo", or the Greek regime of the colonels were.

 

[Warpoet]

YOUR FIRST POINT: Bad analogy--use your brain cells: "A Palestinian" is not to Jews as Hirsi Ali is to Islam.

Really? Says who? You? Want to go to talk to some Palestinians in the West Bank who have been terrorized by right-wing Jewish settlers, or had their land stolen and houses bulldozed and tell them they don't have a case for blaming religion, but Hirsi Ali does?

Yeah, didn't think so.

"Islam" did not do anything to Hirsi Ali. Muslims may have done things -- although her own personal narrative is highly questionable, as I've outlined in the past -- but regardless, whatever those Muslims did can in no way, shape or form justify her vilification and calls for the wholesale discrimination of all Muslims, everywhere. Whether or not you and the rest of her apologists can get that through your skulls is another matter entirely.

YOUR SECOND POINT: luckily I have more than a few brain cells functions and can see and smell just fine.
Why is it not misogynist for a man to induge himself in pesornal attacks on a woman because she is talking about her thoughts deriviing from her misogynist treatment?

Because that's fucking asinine reasoning that does not even merit a response. I'm not attacking AHA because she "shares her thoughts" about her supposed "misogynist treatment." I'm attacking her because she's a bigoted ideologue who advocates treating an entire subset of the population like second-class citizens simply because of the religion they identify with. And neither you nor anyone else would say a fucking word if I did that to someone other than Ali speaking about any group other than Muslims. That you think this in any way makes me a misogynist just suggests that the italicized quote above is false.

 

[Warpoet]

Warpoet, I think, and perhaps others on this thread, have said that Hirsi Ali is doing so. Perhaps they are confusing making allies with unsavory people for one's own cause with siding with unsavory people to support their cause. The first alternative is dangerous, because one can get co-opted.

Her own words, the rhetoric she engages in and the policies she advocates are more than reason enough for any rational person to completely disregard her. That she cozies up with right-wing Christian nutters merely is a secondary reason. She has just as much as credibility as they do (zero).

And neither you, nor any of the other apologists who have come rushing to her defense, have made any sound arguments to the contrary. Not one.

 

[metacristi]

I brought up the Mudawana reforms Morocco because of your quoted claim. As if a rational reform of Islam is impossible. Which is obviously not true. It is a lengthy process but it can happen. And once more prompted from the inside out, by Muslims of a liberal and moderate profile. According to you and metachristi, such Muslims are only "very few". Yet the very leadership in Morocco has been leading the nation towards distancing itself from a traditional and conservative Islam.

As to the portraying of all Muslims hating Jews, already during WW2, Sultan Mohammed Vth had refused to surrender Moroccan Jews to the Nazis. Morocco remains a strong ally to Israel.

Further and dispersed in 8 Muslim nations, Muslims supporters of the existence of the State of Israel :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_...ters_of_Israel

If you will actually read this article, you will notice that some are Muslim scholars who even support Zionism.

You definitely overestimate the nature of the reforms in Morocco, ultimately whatever the 'leadership' wants (assume that they are truly liberal) they cannot cross a certain line imposed by the conservative forces which alas are still at the 'helm' of the future of islam. If moderate muslims were so many, in the western acceptation of the word, then this kind of things would just not be possible at this time (rationally criticizing Muhammad is a crime in Morocco). I do not want to underestimate the good intentions of the leadership in Morocco (or other parts of the muslim world for that matter) but what we have at the moment is not a liberal islam on a par with moderate Christianity or Judaism (one of the doctrines should be that even the quran is not infallible, rational criticism of islam should not be a crime, in 'line' with secularism) .

The conclusion that there is still no moderate islam in the western acceptation of the word (no Islamic counterpart of moderate Christianity and Reform Judaism) stands firm and one can make the even stronger point that islam cannot actually be reformed along these lines.

Personally I agree partially with Daniel Pipes' view in the sense that I think islam can indeed be reformed-transformed, at the limit, in such non trivial ways but at the same time there is little doubt that a moderate islam will be quite distant from the mainstream islam of today (contra Pipes I don't think there is an obvious internal logic in the basics tenets of islam, unlike Christianity and even Judaism, which to lead to symbolic interpretation or historical contextualization of the problematic parts of islam which are clear in meaning; muslims modernize islam along these lines because this is what Rationality indicates but ultimately this is because they want so for the quran teaches directly that human reason means almost zero in religious matters, only the holy book and tradition really count*).

Some liberal muslims (in the western acceptation of the word, accepting that even the quran is fallible, supporting secularism and so on) do exist no doubt but they are far from the 'critical mass' needed to force a healthy transformation, unfortunately at the moment they are far from being in command of the future of islam (conservative forces are at the 'helm' now, they can rely also on great support among the masses all over the muslim world; I include here many of so called 'progressives' of islam, considered 'moderate' in the West, who only 'scratch the surface', in reality much deeper reforms are needed than what they advocate; the first step is of course a world conference where the Islamic ulama to abrogate all medieval Islamic jurisprudence, followed by other steps which to clean the 'defective' Islamic theology, education and institutions).


*

"It's not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and his messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and his messenger, he is indeed strayed into a plain error." (33-36) (Quran, Hilali-Khan's translation)

"But no, by your lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission." (4-65) (Muhammad is the eternal example for all muslims, the perfect being whose deeds deserve emulation at all times)

"Then do you believe in a part of the scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of his

 

[Sabine Grant]

You definitely overestimate the nature of the reforms in Morocco,

I suspect you have no idea which reforms have specifically transformed the Family Law known as Mudawana. Since I specifically (again) mentioned the Moroccan Mudawana reforms as an example of a rational reformation of Islam. You may *think* I overestimate the nature of the Mudawana reforms but that is certainly NOT what Moroccan women would *think*. And since Moroccan women are the parties who benefit the most of those reforms addressing the old Family Law Code, I will entrust their evaluation of the value of such reforms over your Internet musing which did not even pay attention to the specific I addressed : The Mudawana.

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/africadissent/moha.pdf

I recommend the read above since you deviated from the specific I brought up and subsequent reforms addressing the Family Law. I will ask you to discuss those reforms (since the submitted essay covers various reactions to those reforms). You are being challenged to demonstrate that the nature of those reforms was being "overestimated" by me when I stated :

I brought up the Mudawana reforms in Morocco because of your quoted claim. As if a rational reform of Islam is impossible. Which is obviously not true. It is a lengthy process but it can happen. And once more prompted from the inside out, by Muslims of a liberal and moderate profile. According to you and metachristi, such Muslims are only "very few". Yet the very leadership in Morocco has been leading the nation towards distancing itself from a traditional and conservative Islam.

ultimately whatever the 'leadership' wants (assume that they are truly liberal) they cannot cross a certain line imposed by the conservative forces which alas are still at the 'helm' of the future of islam. If moderate muslims were so many, in the western acceptation of the word, then this kind of things would just not be possible at this time (rationally criticizing Muhammad is a crime in Morocco).

Is that supposed to invalidate the reforms of the Moroccan Mudawana? Which "conservative forces are at the helm" of Morocco I must ask. Considering that the Leader of the Faithful is Mohammed VI and the author and promoter of the Mudawana reforms which were passed by the Moroccan Parliament in 2004. No matter which pressure and outcries from Islamists, he remained at "the helm". Surely, you are not going to venture in arguing that Mohammed VI is part of the "conservative force" or are you?

I do not want to underestimate the good intentions of the leadership in Morocco (or other parts of the muslim world for that matter) but what we have at the moment is not a liberal islam on a par with moderate Christianity or Judaism (one of the doctrines should be that even the quran is not infallible, rational criticism of islam should not be a crime, in 'line' with secularism) .

Did I claim that we have at the moment "a liberal islam on a par with moderate Christianity or Judaism"? I clearly stated and again in response to Angelo's one liner that "it is a lengthy process but it can happen.And once more prompted from the inside out, by Muslims of a liberal and moderate profile.". What are you actually responding to? So far, certainly not to my comments specifically addressing the Mudawana reforms.

The conclusion that there is still no moderate islam in the western acceptation of the word (no Islamic counterpart of moderate Christianity and Reform Judaism) stands firm and one can make the even stronger point that islam cannot actually be reformed along these lines.

And now you are parading Ali Sina, board member of SION...are you not aware that SION was founded by Spencer, Gravers and Geller? Spencer and Geller being at the "helm" of a group identified as a hate group? Do you actually believe I would give any credibility to your source in his close association to SION? Just so you know, some of us did not just get off the boat. We do keep ourselves informed via the Anti Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Personally I agree partially with Daniel Pipes' view in the sense that I think islam can indeed be reformed-transformed, at the limit, in such non trivial ways but at the same time there is little doubt that a moderate islam will be quite distant from the mainstream islam of today (contra Pipes I don't think there is an obvious internal logic in the basics tenets of islam, unlike Christianity and even Judaism, which to lead to symbolic interpretation or historical contextualization of the problematic parts of islam which are clear in meaning; muslims modernize islam along these lines because this is what Rationality indicates but ultimately this is because they want so for the quran teaches directly that human reason means almost zero in religious matters, only the holy book and tradition really count*).

And the Bible teaches " do not rely on your own understanding" while directly from Genesis, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is forbidden. While conservative fundamentalist Christians are Bible literalists for whom only their "holy book and tradition really count". Such traditional and conservative views as well as what the Bible teaches certainly did not stop the evolution of Christianity towards a rational reformation of itself. How do you think Bishop Spong as a prominent liberal reformist of Christianity got to the point of writing " Why Christianity must change or die"? And if the argumentation here is Ali Sini's statement that " what Jesus preached was good", let me break the news to you that we have formidable Skeptics on this board who would easily debunk the belief that what Jesus preached was "good".And that would happen in the TFT General Religion Discussion Forum.

Some liberal muslims (in the western acceptation of the word, accepting that even the quran is fallible, supporting secularism and so on) do exist no doubt but they are far from the 'critical mass' needed to force a healthy transformation, unfortunately at the moment they are far from being in command of the future of islam (conservative forces are at the 'helm' now, they can rely also on great support among the masses all over the muslim world; I include here many of so called 'progressives' of islam, considered 'moderate' in the West, who only 'scratch the surface', in reality much deeper reforms are needed than what they advocate; the first step is of course a world conference where the Islamic ulama to abrogate all medieval Islamic jurisprudence, followed by other steps which to clean the 'defective' Islamic theology, education and institutions).

An interesting proposal...however, considering the great diversity of schools of thoughts within the different branches of Islam to include jurisprudence, how do you propose that all those dissenting parties agree on which Islamic theology is "defective", and which education and institutions are to be "cleaned"? Are you envisioning Salafi settling for Sufi defining which Islamic theology is defective?

*

"It's not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and his messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and his messenger, he is indeed strayed into a plain error." (33-36) (Quran, Hilali-Khan's translation)

"But no, by your lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission." (4-65) (Muhammad is the eternal example for all muslims, the perfect being whose deeds deserve emulation at all times)

"Then do you believe in a part of the scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of his

Do you realize that several scriptures quoted from the Bible reflect a similar semantic meaning? Did that prevent a progression within Christianity towards a rational reformation of itself?

 

[angelo]

By Angelo : Don't hold your breath while waiting for rational reform of islam.

Since 2004, the Moroccan Mudawana has undergone important reforms demonstrating the clear intent to distance Moroccans from a traditional Islam while enhancing principles (now reflected in the modifications of the Moroccan Constitution) which could not be without undertaking a rational reform of Islam. But of course folks who claim that there is only "very few liberal Muslims" and dump all Muslims in the same bag are not going to do their home work. Their drive being to perpetuate anti Muslim fear/hate mongering propaganda. Thus sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalala" every time their claims are being refuted. Such as your above quoted claim duly refuted by the ongoing social and judiciary reforms in Morocco which specifically target the traditional Muslim Mudawana.

You keep harping on about Morocco. What about the other 95% of muslim countries? I'll give an example. Turkey, A once secular muslim nation who elected a hard line muslim PM and since then is slipping more and more under the islamic yoke. This pm's last attempt was to curb social media, or place it under scrutiny. Turkey, a once Israeli ally is now another of it's enemies. And the worrying thing is this country is a member of Nato, who wants to join the EU with just Germany standing in it's way of becoming a fully fledged member nation.

I brought up the Mudawana reforms Morocco because of your quoted claim. As if a rational reform of Islam is impossible. Which is obviously not true. It is a lengthy process but it can happen. And once more prompted from the inside out, by Muslims of a liberal and moderate profile. According to you and metachristi, such Muslims are only "very few". Yet the very leadership in Morocco has been leading the nation towards distancing itself from a traditional and conservative Islam.

As to the portraying of all Muslims hating Jews, already during WW2, Sultan Mohammed Vth had refused to surrender Moroccan Jews to the Nazis. Morocco remains a strong ally to Israel.

Further and dispersed in 8 Muslim nations, Muslims supporters of the existence of the State of Israel :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel

If you will actually read this article, you will notice that some are Muslim scholars who even support Zionism.

From your wiki link................Modern times

A number of Muslim groups that have histories of conflict with Arabs, including Kurds and Berbers, have also voiced support for Israel and Zionism.[28] Ramin H. Artin, of the Kurdish-American Education Society, argues that the creation of Israel has been "a thorn in the eye of fascists who would rather eliminate the Jewish state". He concluded that an Israeli-Kurdish alliance is "natural", and that sincere mutual respect and recognition of each other's rights can lead to peace and prosperity.[29]

Palazzi noted that although in present days support for Israel among Muslims is a minority orientation, there are some exceptions, such as former President of Indonesia and leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, Shaykh Abdurrahman Wahid, and the Grand Mufti of the Russian Federation, Shaykh Talgat Tajuddin, the Mufti of European Russia, Shaykh Salman Farid, who wrote a fatwa against the intifadah. According to Palazzi, more examples for Pro-Israeli Muslim clerics are the Muftis of Chechnya, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.[17][s And further................
Intolerance towards Muslim supporters of Israel

In the Muslim world, support of Israel is mostly met with opposition. In 2004, Sarah Nasser, a Muslim college student in Canada known for her pro-Israel views, received death threats after expressing support for the Jewish state's right to exist. "Being a supporter of the existence of Israel does not conflict with Islam, it complements Islam," she said. "The Koran does not have any verses that do not allow for the Jews to return to the Land of Israel (...) "I love Jews as I love true Muslims," she said. "Therefore, I believe Jews should have a right to live legitimately in their homeland."[11][106] In Bangladesh, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the Weekly Blitz newspaper and self described "Muslim Zionist", was attacked and beaten in 2006 by a mob of nearly 40 people, leaving him with a fractured ankle. During the assault, the attackers shouted at Choudhury, labeling him an "agent of the Jews."[12]

In 2011, Alaa Alsaegh, a Muslim from Iraq who posted online a poem expressing support for Jewish people in Israel, was reportedly attacked in St. Louis, with a Star of David being carved into his back.[107]