Does Islam need a Reformation?

Of course, you're welcome to the opinion that my responses have been silly. i suspect most intelligent people would see it otherwise.As for teh theology we're discussing, not being a christian and not bgeing knowledgeable enough, I have to be careful. However, i have read, many times, the rationale for this. here's one example.Is Jesus the only way to Heaven? | GotQuestions.org

I am a professional counsellor, have similar qualifications, have published professional articles, and have presented at peer-reviewed conferences. i think your response is both silly amd immature.

"Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ”exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ”double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.2. Separation of religion and state.3. Democracy as the best form of government.4. Secularism in all forms of political activity.5. Equality for women.6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone."For the earlier and latter parts of this article:Page Not Found - JIM BALL

Surely you realize that petty and immature comments diminish oneself pesonally and intellectually, and diminish this site. That a few others have posted similarly, without rebuke or comment from administrators is surprising, given my understanding that EvC subscribes to qualitative standards.

"What's wrong with not saying so is this: If we Muslims can't bring
ourselves to question the peaceable perfection of the Koran, then we
can't effectively question the actions that flow from certain readings
of it. All we'll be doing is chanting that the terrorists broke the
rules, without coming to terms with where they got their concept of
"the rules" in the first place. In which case, we'll only be
sanitizing what we don't want to hear.That's no way to address Islam's intellectual lethargy, or the moral
dereliction that goes with it."Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews.

By Patrick Sookhdeo
The Spectator | August 2, 2005"The funeral of British suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer was held in absentia in his family’s ancestral village, near Lahore, Pakistan. Thousands of people attended, as they did again the following day when a qul ceremony was held for Tanweer. During qul, the Koran is recited to speed the deceased’s journey to paradise, though in Tanweer’s case this was hardly necessary. Being a shahid (martyr), he is deemed to have gone straight to paradise. The 22-year-old from Leeds, whose bomb at Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as ”a hero of Islam’."----------------------------------------------------------
This is further evidence of the civil war within Islam. Ultimately, only the majority peaceful Muslims can win it. But we must not be naive, or we will pay more severely before the good guys win.

"The question of how to fight Islamic terrorism preoccupies many Arab reformists who are working to denounce Islamist thought, to encourage independent and critical thinking, and to establish values of democracy and human rights in the Muslim world. For example, in February 2005, a group of reformists submitted to the U.N. a request that it establish an international court to judge Muslim clerics who incite to violence and bloodshed. The request was examined by the U.N. legal counseland distributed to the U.N. Security Council. [1]Following the July 7, 2005 London bombings, Arab reformists further expanded their criticism and honed their arguments, not only regarding Muslim extremists, but also regarding the European countries, particularly Britain, which allows extremist activity within its borders in the name of protecting individual rights. They also increased their criticism of the silent Muslim majority and moderate Muslim intellectuals, who capitulate to Islamist pressure and do not speak out decisively against it.The following are some of the recommendations by reformist Arab writers."-------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the topics covered in the article, to which i'll provide the URL at the end:Europe Must Change its Lenient Treatment of Muslim ExtremistsIncitement on the Internet Must Be StoppedArab Intellectuals Must Stop Speaking in Two VoicesThe Terrorists Must Be Separated from Their SympathizersMuslims Must Denounce the Terrorists; The West Must Stop Being NaiveMuslims Must Ban Suicide Bombings for Moral ReasonsThe Religious Institutions Must Take Practical Measures Against the TerroristsThe Muslims Must Form a New Religious CultureThe Silent Majority Must Speak Out Against the TerroristsThe War on Terrorism Requires Extensive Intellectual, Political and Educational ActivityPage not found | MEMRI

Many Muslim moderates take it as fact that the islamists have nothing to do with honest Islam. Other moderates disagree. either way, both groups are our friends. The following is a succinct analyses of the problem and a to the point strategy on how to defeat the Islamists. The author, a moderate Muslim, says the Islamic world needs the US's help.The following is an excerpt from the article. The URL for all of it I'll post at the end.----------------------------------------------------------------------"It is not hard to have the silent Muslim majority on our side if we can reach them. It is not hard to convince some of the fanatics by using the fanatic tradition against them. Also, it is very easy to recruit open-minded Muslims and organize them in this peaceful war against terrorism. Actually, they are eager to be organized and supported by the U.S so that they can attain freedom and rid themselves and the world of the terrorist danger."Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

A PS. Here's a blurb on the author of the article I cited above:"Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour is a distinguished scholar of Islam with expertise in Islamic history, culture, theology and politics. An Egyptian national now living in the U.S., he was an advocate for democracy and human rights in Egypt for many years, during which time he himself was isolated and persecuted by religious extremists and by the regime."

From yesterday's Washington Post:..."The traditionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance of the concept that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities."http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=...

There ahve been several fatwas signed by hundreds of Muslim clerics against violence committed against "innocents." The problem, as many analysts have noted, is that the war verses side of islam sees no infidels as innocent. Indded, even a few of clerics who signed these fatwas have, in other sources, said as much. Some may ask: But isn't this deception? islamists read the faith as sanctioning deception in the aim of furthering the faith imperialist obligations. They point out to deception practised by and sanctioned by Mohammed himself. Of course, non Islamist Muslims explain those passages and events differently. Nonetheless, this gives more credence to the picture of a civil war within Islam and the need of a reformation.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

I believe there is little comment for two reasons:1) Most EvC posters tend towards the leftist notion that all cultures and faiths are equal. In a sense, then, jesus, moses and mohammed are interchangebale, along with Bhudda and Hindu Gods in a broader sense. Thus, the reflexive response of many posters to the suggestion that Islam might need or consider a reformation was antagonistic. That is, their equivalence vantage point meant that one could only suggest Islam might have reason to consider a reformation out of some kind of prejudice, maybe racism, and certainly superiority. However, a few posters and myself were able to present many very creditable sources, including islamic scholars and thinkers, to validate the discussion, some agreeing a reformation is needed, others not - while not disputing that there is much for muslims to give hard thought to with respect to the practise of the faith, at least. The foregoing largely nullified the initial assumption that prejudice and racism motivated the topic and thus any further interest in posting. I suppose a discussion of equivalence could have ensued, but that was not the real topic at hand.2) Because the issue for most was whether the topic was creditable, and not the substance of the topic, once the former was established there was no further interest. I'd imagine, though, as at most forums, there are many who never post but who find the material interesting. so i continue to post relevant and interesting material I come across.Yes, I know at least one or two will be now be tempted to post that, in fact, the disinterest has nothing to do with my points or others, but, instead, is a consequence of nothing pertinent being said deserving of comment. Whatever.

Faith adn thinking are hardly incompatible. In fact, much of the most brilliant thinking ever done has been with respect to religion.as had been pointed out earlier on this thread, there is simply nothing in Christianity that would justify imperialism, terrorism, killing unbelievers and the like. Islam is different. It is a faith at war with itself. It has a spiritual, peaceful side, and a side that is a call to endless war against all non muslims until they are conquered, subjugated and, ultimately converted. It also calls for the world to be ruled under an islamic caliphate, according to islamic (Sharia) law. this conception of islam marks islamism. And the islamists are a huge, worldwide movement. They rule states (Iran, Sudan, ande formerly Afghanistan), they are powerful 5th columns waiting in the wings of power in others, and they even have strong influence in western islamic societies.There is no equivalent in Christianity - although i surely do not deny the brutality and barbarism of the christian world before democracy (democracy having led to the faith being interpreted much more truly). Thus, the assumption of equivalence does not stand any real test of reason. That is, one faith is strictly peaceful, the other is both peaceful and warlike.

Almost all those article were originally published somewhere other than at Front Page, like the Washington Times and NY Post. It it their reprint of the articles that I link because they are more easily accessed there, and the links don't expire, unlike those at the original sources.Apparently you have not noted that i have referenced articles written by respected Muslim writers and scholars. Are they guilty of an "obsesseion need to rant about Islam?" Are their articles and opinions "trash", "garbage" and pieces of "shit"?Frankly, you need to figure out why this subject - one of raging debate in the islamic world - threatens you as it does, to the point where you refer to the work of writers like Manji, Phares, Rushdie, Taheri, Ijaz, Schwartz, et al, as "trash, garbage and shit."

All those writers have articles regularly published at front page magazine, and you referred, therefore, to them, and to this thread, which provides their articles, in those terms.