Does Islam need a Reformation?

I agree that selectively quoting from a faith can dsitort. However, the battle in Islam is almost as old as the faith. The Islamists have countless theologians in support of their view through all these centuries. They have countless imams this very day in support of their view. Very arguably, their view reflects mohammed's. Most madrassahs in the ME, Iran and pakistan each this view of Islam. Thus, what we're speaking of is a real schism, not the narrow-minded, outside-the-boundaries-of-mainstream-Islam, perspective of a few wayward individuals, or even of a small wayward movement.The Bible does have, in fact, many versions, with degrees of conflict between them. Even now, scholars search for older texts that might illuminate. We know that The Dea Sea Scrolls have been of huge interest to historians and theologians both, in part for this reason. But it goes beyond that. There is nothing in the NT that is akin to the War Verses, adn there is nothing In other Christian texts akin to Sharia Law or the Hadith. In other words, there is no schism in Christianity whereby one side sees peace as defined by non aggression, whereas the other sees that peace is conditional on others converting to and being ruled by Christianity under Christian law and a Christian caliphate.Anti-Semitism is known by hate of Jews. If you read the Arab and most Islamic press - as I do through various transaltion services - the anti-Semitism is bllod curdling. It is beyong shocking. It is nothing but unadulterated holocaust demand. Every day, in the front pages and in every newscast. Mein Kamph is a best seller (many islamic nations allied with Hitler), as is The Protocals of Zion - which was a hugely popular TV mini-series in Egypt a few years ago. At a meeting of all islamic leaders last year, the PM of Indonesia - a somewhat democratic Islamic nation - gave a virulently anti-Semitic speech, and got a standing ovation.The definition of Jihad is varied, and all are in popular use. I am not arguing against your understanding, only against the idea that it is the one and only legitimate and commonly understood meaning. If you read the review of teh book Understanding Jihad that I posted, you might, as did I, find it illuminating on the history of teh concept and its meaning.

I remember seeing that quote of khomeini's too. It is instructive that he was the leader of Shia islamism, and he governed iran accordingly, and funded and created terrorist groups like hezbullah.It is also instructive that the iranian people regret his coming to power, and, apparently, fervently hope to throw the Islamists out and replace them with democracy. It seems that islamism appeals until one lives under it and experiences the reality. I suspect that iraqis have been so supportive of democracy in no small part because they know of the bitter expeirince of their next door Shia cousins.

Jazzns, as you know, I do see that there is a problem with Islam that does not apply to Christianity. However, I do agree with you that Christendon, for much of its history, was barbaric - not the faith, but the civilization. It is also my contention that democracy tamed teh civilization. ironically, though, that it could do because democracy provided for a much more objective reading of the faith. Notions of democracy, like tolerance and fairplay, are in accordance with christ's teachings. In other words, his teachings were misread, often abused, and the geenral tenor of them was altogether missed while Christendom was ruled by authoritarian monarchs. This has implications for islamdom too. It is not coincidental that perhaps the most secualr and tolerant islamic country is the one with several generations of democracy now, turkey (although the Islamists remaina threat to it). Thus, if a democratic revolution comes to the Isalmic world as is probable, then it will, almost unaminously, elect the preferred version of Jihad interpretation. My fear would be that for quite some time the Islamist minority would do everything in hysterical power to undermine democracy. We see something of that in iraq right now - although, admittedly, the islamists there are Sunni foreigners attacking their hated Shai rivals.

According to you and the terrorists, yes. According to mainstream Muslims, this isn't true.Similarly, according to Eric Rudolph, the Bible contains specific written instructions understood to be from God to blow up abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors. According to you, he's wrong. According to him, you are.None of this religious prickwaving means a good-goddamn to me. Re-asserting the same claim you've made before over and over again doesn't impress me. It's not for you or for any one person to assert what is the "legitimate" or "true" way to read the Koran or any other text. The people who support violence in the name of Christ would disagree; they would remind you that Chirst himself performed violence. I don't understand who you think you are that you can tell them they're wrong. Legitimately, how? According to who? What does it mean to "legitimately" inspire murder? Not in the least; you didn't even try to answer them. You simply repeated the assertions that prompted the questions in the first place.

I don't know where you are seeing my hostility. This is a debate forum so of course since I am arguing against you I am going to be 'hostile' to your position. I have a feeling that you are carying over some sense of hostility from out other encounters. From my perspective, I see invalid and biased sources being used to promote the idea that not entirely correct. My issue has been with the method of inquiry about this in order to try to resolve it. The primary reason for wanting a reformation of Islam as a whole is being driven by evidence from critics. Yes there are some Moslems that believe Islam needs some changes and I would be happy to talk about their ideas with regards to the reformation of THEIR OWN religion. The problem is that the facts are not the facts. Some people have an 'expert' opinion on what the war verses mean. They also have an 'expert' opinion on what the word 'jihad' means. These are not facts they are analysis done from various degrees of obviously biased persuasion. I choose to get my definitions from the majority of the practitioners and I have been debating that this is a far superior way to address the issue.You also didn't seem to give the BBC as much merit as you are doing now. Last time sources from there were summarily disregarded without examiniation or comment. What has changed? I feel it because I am using a legitimate form of the argument about source bias in this case. I mean come on. "I neutered my pet and now they are liberal." A site that would purposfully display something like that and you would not have us question motive and bias? I feel the same way. I really can't figure how you don't see the hypocrisy in your position. No there is no quote in the Bible of Jesus saying to torture and kill to bring people to God but people have still managed to twist the religion and the text for their martial goals or otherwise. The case with Islam is a little more obvious because of its encouragement of violence in certain cases but the principle is the exactly the same. You have certain people twisting religion for evil purposes. To say now that the majority of Moslems who do not follow the extremist agenda must now reform their religion is ludicrous. The problem is the extremists, not Islam. Many of the comments made in this thread so far, by their motive and or ignorance, have been a direct or indirect assault on faith of millions of peace loving people IMO. Sometimes it is hard to see the other side. I admit that sometimes I look back at older posts and think about how I could have handled things better. But I feel the same is true for the opposite side. I have seen no regard in either direction for even a minor point on the other side until some of CS's latest replies which have seemed a bit more thought out. Can't you at least see why I might have issue with the two most cited sources on this thread so far?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Hi CS.The main thrust of my argument thus far has been about the validity of sources. Please read my most recent rely to Faith with this regard. I don't feel the argument is properly being pursued at all due to its foundation primarily in external criticism.My frustration with you so far has been that I feel you are ignoring my postion and continuing the discussion without addressing the validity of your sources. It is almost like you are talking to me yet are deaf to my most major points. I hope you can understand why that might frustrate me.Please address the issue of who is better to define both the religion of Islam and the meaning of various components of the religion and culture such as the word 'jihad'. I will patiently wait for you to address this issue and continue to bring it up until it is resolved.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I am glad I am not the only one that sees it although you do have a flair for stating things with a little more abrasion. =)Just because Jesus never said, "Go out and exclude all who don't think like you. Kill, maim, rape, and torture when necessary." does not mean that people have not used the Bible to justify their evil.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

i offer you the various defintions by an Islamic scholar, Cook, in his new book, Understanding Jihad. I offer you definitions from Pipes, Warriq, Farah, Manji, Spencer, Bostom and the global Islamist movement since the inception of the faith.

Of the sources you have listed thus far only Cook and Pipes have not been via the articles from frontpagemag and jihad watch. As I asked Faith, can you not see why I would have a problem with those two sites?I just went to frontpagemag and I see the following:"I just neutered the cat and now he's a liberal"
"Stick it to Hillary: Secrets of Conservative Millionaires Revealed!"Articles titled:
"The Anti-American Counter-Liberty Union"
"The Left's New Conspiracy"Why do you think I would have a problem with sourcing that site? Can you not see the obvious bias of that site?The same goes for jihadwatch. They have titles to articles such as "The myth of moderate Islam" etc.All of your sources so far have been via avenues that are critical of Islam rather than from within Islam. If you have a non-biased source that discussion rationally how to reform Islam from the perspective of real Moslems then I would gladly discuss it with you.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Forget the site, and think about the writers, none of whom is a FPM writer. Rather, their articles are often published there, as are articles of Amir taheri, Stephen Schwartz, irshad Manji, masoor Ijad and other prominent democratic, moderate Muslims. It is of note that moderate, democratically minded Muslims are, generally, aligned with the conservative movement. That is because they see the essence of the modern conservative movement as, first and foremost, a defence and promotion of democracy. These moderates, generally, support the war in iraq, because they see it as a gigantic step at defeating Islamism and providing democracy in place of extant authoritarianism in the Islamic world. Schwartz, in fact, works closely with Pipes. When Pipes wrote an article that became famous on how to discern between a moderate and an Islamist, it turned out that he had consulted with Schwartz - a profound enemy of the wahabbis, whom he has targeted in many articles and books. they often cie one another's work, as do the other moderates i mentioned.Moreover, Jihad Watch references and sources all its articles. Check the content, then decide if they're are flaws in the reasoning or facts. You will be surprised at how difficult it is to refute their reasoning.Moreover, the Islamists are - and this is simply fact - a huge, global movement. They have been at times the dominant group in Islam, at others merely strong. You may disagree with them on their understadning of Jihad, but they are too big and have too much history to be written off as a fringe element not worth considering.It seems clear to me, even irrefutable, that Jihad has had a number of understandings over the centuries, some concurrent with others. Similarly, it seems irrefutable that the concept of Jiahd as a call to war to conquer and subjugate and convert all the non islamic world has been a significant part of islamic history, and is a major force even today in much of the islamic world. Thus, while one may argue that they are theologically wrong, one cannot argue against the fact that their definition and understanding cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to discussion.Which takes me back to my original point: Both understandings are legitimate. Both have long histories within the faith and civilization. And thus, the perennial civil war within Islam, one we are now reluctantly a part of.

In the context of this thread my response is merely academic, but I have to point out that this has been argued here more than once and I disagree that there is anything like a "conflict" between the different "versions" of the Bible, let alone with the Dead Sea Scrolls which are famous for the fact that their Old Testament scrolls are just about identical to those we have, the differences being the most minor typo type and spelling type errors. An English translation of the scrolls is simply the same as the Bible we have, which was reported by a poster here who had bought the translation hoping to find some new nugget of revelation and found only the same Bible he already knew.About "versions," I assume you are talking about different translations -- there are of course differences because of different philosophies of translation, whether for instance it tries to be as close to a literal word-for-word translation as possible, or aims for the best rendering in the target language of the meaning of the original, or even is a loose paraphrase; and then of course there is the fact that different translators select different words and phrases to render particular passages. I think it's a major headache that there are so many translations myself as it wreaks havoc with concordance searches and with memorizing text. Most of them have nothing on the King James anyway. Usually the English is much inferior. Also, all the more recent translations are based on a different set of underlying Greek texts than the King James was, and this is really the main difference, although most of the KJ's have been brought into conformity with the new texts to some extent. I've read the arguments and believe that the texts the King James was based on were in fact superior. There are irritating differences between the texts but it's hard to say there is an actual "conflict."Very interesting what you say about the anti-semitism in the Arab press. We never get to see any of that here. How hard is it to get these translated reports?

yes, i was referring to the various translations.MEMRI, Middle East Media Research Institute, monitors the Islamic media.
MEMRI | Middle East Media Research Institute

Yes, very good that the people don't want that interpretation imposed on them, but still scary that a famous ayatollah understands those texts to be literally true and who can argue with him? It's there in black and white.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-29-2005 05:52 PM

Kind of reminds me of people who understand the Bible to be literally true. You can't argue with them either.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No, according to many Muslim authorities and scholars of Islam, who have been quoted and referenced on this thread. You are simply repeating your misrepresentation of the argument. That mainstream Muslims don't share it is encouraging, and has been acknowledged umpteen times on this thread, but the fact that it is there to be understood literally should not be ignored -- but ignoring it is essentially what arguments like yours do -- just shut the lid on the problem. Eric Rudolph is a party of one, not a scholar and not a leader of the faith, which are the kinds of sources who have been quoted concerning Islam, not lone man-in-the-street Muslims. Your comparison is dishonest, ignorant and absurd. It is you who are reasserting your claim and ignoring the evidence given here. You are misrepresenting the argument very seriously. Nobody is saying there is just one legitimate or true way to read the Koran, and I defy you to show that that has been said anywhere on this thread. The argument is that there are MANY legitimate ways to read it and the literal way is one perfectly legitimate way to read it. Your argument here is dishonest. Where have I given myself any status to judge anything? The task for posters here is to produce the evidence of knowledgeable people, scholars and others qualified to judge. I claim nothing. Your misrepresentation of the topic is really out on a limb. We are not discussing any old kind of violence that somebody may or may not have performed as described in a text, the topic is SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES TO THE READERS OF THE TEXT TO PERFORM VIOLENCE AGAINST CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE. And your reference to Jesus' "violence" is an absolutely ludicrous comparison and dishonest in the extreme. You haven't read the thread at all, have you? According to the knowledgeable people who have been quoted and referenced, many scholars and Muslim leaders and other Muslims and exMuslims, that's who, which you would know if you'd bothered to read the thread."Legitimately" refers to the fact that the passages are in THE holy books of Islam which are considered to be inspired by God. They couldn't be more legitimate from that point of view. Obviously it is you who are repeating yourself and learning nothing.