The Muslim World's Embattled Secularists

Tim,

Thanks for your comments. The references from Jefferson are helpful. I even copied and pasted them for future reference. A professor of mine from Yale, and a former Muslim, used to say that "Islam has yet to come to terms with Jefferson."

It seems that the idea of separation, as Jefferson envisioned it, is essentially a Christian idea. Christianity has always internalized the concept of living "in the world but not of the world," and the Bible describes Christians as "pilgrims and aliens" with our true citizenship beyond any nation-state or empire.

Islam, on the other hand, has always used the state as a tool. There are few examples of a Muslim majority society adopting anything like separation, although my professor often pointed at Senegal as a possible example. Most of Senegal is Muslim, but Christians enjoy freedom from government oppression. Of course, a likely explanation for Senegal's unique situation is that the governmental structure was set up by Western powers and then turned over to Muslims by democratic processes.

It may be cynical, but I'm not very optimistic about the possibility of an Islamic nation adopting an American-style separation that would guarantee the protection of both church and mosque.

Ah ken4

And another look at your post:

“Clearly you have never read al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-falasifa/Confusion of the Philosophers. In it he argues that the philosophers have 17 tenets that constitute "blameworthy innovation" and three that constitute heresy. The three are their claim of the world's eternity, their denial of God's knowledge of particulars, and their denial of bodily resurrection in the afterlife. Do any of these three points sound like the germ of the Enlightenment to you?

Actually they do, as any Westerner would. That was my point and you made it quite well, thank you. By rejecting these three theses as heterodoxy, he rejects out of hand the challenge rationalism brought to bear on western Christian theology and with its intellectual by-product the subsequent Enlightenment in the West.

It’s hard to see that if you have read al-Ghazali’s proclaimed heretical tenets you fail to make the next logical and historically factual step and admit his work was a powerful basis and tool for rejecting nascent rationalism in Islam.

Since you disagree with me that the lack of an appreciation for rationalism in Islamic culture caused its decline from its world-wide predominance share for us your learned opinion on the reason the greatest civilization the world had known to date became a backwater culture where religious dissent is met with mob violence and rationalism treated as heterodoxy?

That was the general topic of the essay; why dissent was stifled in Islam.

Perhaps you can blame it on those nasty Jews or godless Christians as Muslims so often do about their own problems?

Chris Hutchins may write a book that disparages Roman Catholicism but the Pope does not call for Christians world-wide to kill him. You find that only in Islam these days, along with a complete rejection of rational self-analysis that would make even a born-again Baptist blush.

Nevertheless, your nausating ad hominum and strawman arguments shows a fanatical religious streak and attachment to blind devotion, and perhaps where you see it as the source of all your virtue and strength, I see it as dangerous to rational, thinking human beings.

Your passionate attachment is more vital than the quality of the cause to which it is attached.

Btw: I learned about Islam the old fashioned way, through the Koran and an Imam.

Ryan, thanks for the clarification on the situation in Turkey. Everything comes down to freedom of religion. Jefferson thought Freedom of Religion was so important that he authored The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. This he considered one of, if not, his most important contributions. The Virginia Act became the model for our constitution and was adopted by other states. My belief is that Religious Freedom comes before all other rights can be enjoyed. Religious freedom is the dividing line between the West and the Islamic world.

Here are some of Jefferson's thoughts on Religion and government.

The Private Nature of Religion

"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60

"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

Government Intermeddling in Religion
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

"Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New London Methodists, 1809. ME 16:332

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546

"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

Religion Intermeddling in Government
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434

Establishments of Religion Undermine Rights
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1810. ME 12:345

"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801. (*)

"This doctrine ['that the condition of man cannot be ameliorated, that what has been must ever be, and that to secure ourselves where we are we must tread with awful reverence in the footsteps of our fathers'] is the genuine fruit of the alliance between Church and State, the tenants of which finding themselves but too well in their present condition, oppose all advances which might unmask their usurpations and monopolies of honors, wealth and power, and fear every change as endangering the comforts they now hold." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

"I have been just reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its fundamental bases is expressed in these words: 'The Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, and always shall be, that of the Spanish nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever.' Now I wish this presented to those who question what [a bookseller] may sell or we may buy, with a request to strike out the words, 'Roman Catholic,' and to insert the denomination of their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each wishes should domineer over the opinions of all others, and be taken, like the Spanish religion, under the 'protection of wise and just laws.' It would show to what they wish to reduce the liberty for which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness. It would present our boasted freedom of religion as a thing of theory only, and not of practice, as what would be a poor exchange for the theoretic thraldom, but practical freedom of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:128

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545

The Benefits of Religious Freedom
"The law for religious freedom... [has] put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:400

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545

"We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546

"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:546

"A recollection of our former vassalage in religion and civil government will unite the zeal of every heart, and the energy of every hand, to preserve that independence in both which, under the favor of Heaven, a disinterested devotion to the public cause first achieved, and a disinterested sacrifice of private interests will now maintain." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:318

Religious Illegality
"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"If a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play and reasons and laughs it out of doors without suffering the State to be troubled with it." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547

Ryan, the fact that Jefferson was so engaged in this topic during the forming of our nation is evidence of the battle at our birth between the clergy and our way of government. Jefferson was dealing with mostly Christians and states Christianity "is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." When the raw material is Islam, is it possible to do what the USA did?

Kuvasz,
Let's have another look at your post:

"It would seem more reasonable (although he might disagree from the grave) to lay Islam's throttle back from scientific and philosophic innovation at the feet of al-Ghazzali, for his "Destruction of philosophy/philosophers) written in the 12th century [LATE 11TH, BUT WHO'S COUNTING?], rolled back reason and reinforced the mystical aspects of Islam.

What has resulted over the last eight centuries has been in Islam a trend to distrust any tampering with established truths and accepted doctrines. If Ibn Rushd's retort in the "Destruction of the Destruction" a few decades later had carried the day, Islam would be seen as much more akin to the philosophy of Christian and Western thought and society; not surprising due to the influence of the ancient Greek philosophers on ibn Rushd's own views.

Too bad for us all, for from my readings of both, the latter is more, well, reasonable to modern thought.

The evolution of a fierce orthodoxy in Islam after the time of Ibn Rushd throttled the brightest intellectual and scientific culture the world ever saw up to that time. The manner of distrusting human reason and trusting mysticism in al-Ghazzali's "the Destruction of the Philosophy" served as a standard for later Islamic theology and served as a cudgel in the hand of those who swayed the ulema against rationalism."

It doesn't seem to me that I mischaracterized your claim. The main point holds. You were arrogant enough to presume to diagnose the trajectory of an entire civilization over nearly a millennium on the basis of half-digested nonsense you got from an introductory college course.

And what if you also layed the blame at the doorstep of al-Ghazali's later followers? Who might these be? Who do you mean exactly? You have no more knowledge of who they are and what they thought, did, or wrote than you have of the Confusion of the Philosophers.

Sorry young man. Think twice the next time you are tempted to parade your ignorance in response to the author of what you judge to be a "god-awful remark."

I think some clarification about Turkish secularism would be helpful. To begin with, the balance isn't between "Islamic and secular values." Exactly what is a secular value? Where are the sources for them? In Turkey the secularists are, for the most part, "worshipping" Muslims and the secularism in place is of a distinctly Islamic nature.

Unlike the example of the United States, secularism in Turkey doesn't mean the separation of governmental and religious spheres for the protection of each. Rather, secularism in Turkey is about government control of all aspects of religious life. For example, Turkey has a "secular" constitution, but all of the religious functionaries in mosques throughout the country are employees of the state.

In fact, the cost of implementing secularism in Turkey was the abolishing of Christianity. The ideals that brought about the Turkish revolution sought to protect Turkey as a land for Turkish Muslims, removing at all cost many of those who didn't fit this profile. At the same time, the rights of Christians were rolled back. Still today Christians are forbidden to open a seminary and universities aren't allowed to offer degrees in Christian theology. Public high schools are required to offer "religion" lessons, in which only Islam is allowed to be taught.

As it was during the Ottoman Empire, the oppression of Christians in Turkey takes a three-fold approach using: beaucratic inaction and legal inequality, police harassment in direct conflict with guaranteed rights, and distorted media representation fueling public enmity.

Turkey is a wonderful country with an amazing people, but it is naive to hold the current Turkish system up as an example to be reproduced. A curious fact of the Turkish system today has to do with the national identity cards which carry personal information, including religion. It is easier to change one's gender on the national i.d. card than it is to change one's religion.

I think some clarification about Turkish secularism would be helpful. To begin with, the balance isn't between "Islamic and secular values." Exactly what is a secular value? Where are the sources for them? In Turkey the secularists are, for the most part, "worshipping" Muslims and the secularism in place is of a distinctly Islamic nature.

Unlike the example of the United States, secularism in Turkey doesn't mean the separation of governmental and religious spheres for the protection of each. Rather, secularism in Turkey is about government control of all aspects of religious life. For example, Turkey has a "secular" constitution, but all of the religious functionaries in mosques throughout the country are employees of the state.

In fact, the cost of implementing secularism in Turkey was the abolishing of Christianity. The ideals that brought about the Turkish revolution sought to protect Turkey as a land for Turkish Muslims, removing at all cost many of those who didn't fit this profile. At the same time, the rights of Christians were rolled back. Still today Christians are forbidden to open a seminary and universities aren't allowed to offer degrees in Christian theology. Public high schools are required to offer "religion" lessons, in which only Islam is allowed to be taught.

As it was during the Ottoman Empire, the oppression of Christians in Turkey takes a three-fold approach using: beaucratic inaction and legal inequality, police harassment in direct conflict with guaranteed rights, and distorted media representation fueling public enmity.

Turkey is a wonderful country with an amazing people, but it is naive to hold the current Turkish system up as an example to be reproduced. A curious fact of the Turkish system today has to do with the national identity cards which carry personal information, including religion. It is easier to change one's gender on the national i.d. card than it is to change one's religion.

Karim Islam,
How could u be a Muslim and not know the contribution of Islam to World civilzation and especially to European/Western civilization especially thru eight centuries of direct peaceful coexistance in Muslim Spain? Islamic civilization interposed itself between classical antiquity and modern civilization;Without Islamic contribution,Western civilization would not be what it is as we know today-which contribution was the steeping stone,the infastructure on which the European renaissance and the industrial revolution were built.

I suggest you read a newly published book "Lost History" by Michael Hamilton Morgan who made a contribution to On Faith.

"Ken4: said......
Kuvasz,
Clearly you have never read al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-falasifa/Confusion of the Philosophers. In it he argues that the philosophers have 17 tenets that constitute "blameworthy innovation" and three that constitute heresy. The three are their claim of the world's eternity, their denial of God's knowledge of particulars, and their denial of bodily resurrection in the afterlife. Do any of these three points sound like the germ of the Enlightenment to you?

Philosophy of the time--usually referred to as Neoplatonic aristotelianism--had nothing to do with empiricism and rejecting portions of it did nothing to hinder scientific advance. And al-Ghazali did adopt many tenets of philosophy, above all, logic. He insisted in his work of jurisprudence, al-Mustasfa min `ilm al-usul, that noone could properly practice law without understanding the syllogism. Of course, logic isn't empiricism either, but that is another story.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Having so little of it, you should be wary of the danger of making such sweeping generalizations."

Ah, well perhaps my actual knowledge surpasses your understanding of the English language. It appears certainly so by defending al Ghazzali from an alleged attack I did not make upon him.

So if you can, and without moving your lips this time, read again and try not to act like arrogance is a virtue.

“al Ghazzali’s later adherents moved his mysticism well beyond Islam into every day life.”

Since you appear to have a smattering of Aristotle perhaps you are capable of understanding the basic equation of Aristotlian logic, that A is not B and that al Ghazzali was not his latter adherents? and that my issue was with what they did to snuff out any semblence of what the West called rationalism (and not as you again mislabeled for the convenience of your argument, "epiricism").

Or is it a reflection of your lack of confidence in yourself to place words in the mouths of your opponents the best way to defend yourself?

Shame on you.

Hi Jihadist,

Thanks for your post.

When you wrote," Muslims or Islam in Indonesia is different from Muslims ...", I already understood that, as you probably know. In my original post I pointedly spoke of Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia as quite different as that found in Arabia or Central Asia (Persian Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan).

By the way, there is an article in the op-eds for tomorrow by James Castle and Craig Charney about the resurgence of the Indonesian Tiger, which was derailed following the East Asian economic collapse in 1997. They make many of the same points you make in your post. The fundamentalist Islamic party only has ~ 7% support, whereas the centrist Islamic party (Nahdlatul Ulama) has broad support, much like the AKP in Turkey. Here is the web address.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101627_pf.html

As for Hamas, I think the credibility of the west was thrown out the window when Hamas was elected. Hamas was elected, not so much for their ideology, but because Fatah is a bloated, maggot filled corpse of corruption who couldn't deliver anything. The west should have let Hamas survive by moderating their views or die with their own rope.

I don't trust Tarik Ramadan at all. I think he thinks one thing and says another, so as to gain political respectability. He's a smooth-tongued serpent (I actually love snakes and I can't believe I've stooped to using Christianity's evil imagery to disparage some of the most beautiful creatures in the world) who shapes his views for his audiences.

Thanks for the heads up on Farish Noor. He looks interesting.

Maurie

Imran

What you listed sounds more like the Seven Sins of Christianity. Why forget to list slander and being hypocrites that are grave sins in Islam too? What's wrong with fornification with your own wife?

Jihadist

Just when I am starting to enjoy myself here throwing baits for reactions to see whether there can be any worthwhile discussion possible here. Aren't you busy monitoring markets?

Looks like they know about Ibn Rushd too. Not bad and quite promising.

DG

How do you know what God requires?

You been talking to Him lately?

Maybe That's the whole problem right there,
appealing to the invisible man who lives in the sky,
as if he actually existed.Same as the folks who are
dying to blow us all to hell.
Their whacky religion dishes out 92 virgins
to any believer with the balls to blow himself up
for Allah.
Not a bad deal if you really believe.
And you don't have to be crazy to fall for that one.
Just seriously religious.
Religion is dangerous,divisive and totally irrational.
There is no bigger problem.

Maurie Beck

Hello, I'm really busy dealing with market forces or trying to force them. I see you've met a friend of mine who use the handle "Islamist". I thought he never post here, but only to read:).

Let me try to answer some of your questions. We have to recognise reality to deal with it better. Ideologies remain that until implemented and tested in real time and life.

The west do tend to see the Muslim world through the prisms of its own experiences, systems, beliefs and values. Wrong approach. Muslims or Islam in Indonesia is different from Muslims and Islam in Iran due to the countries' different histories, Islamic sect/schools of thoughts and political systems.

Indonesia and Malaysia have powerful and effective Muslim NGOs (from those advocating human rights to charities) and political parties with members that runs to millions. We are scared too if our secular governments fail to deliver and to govern well, and lead Muslims to turn to Muslim political parties en masse as a sign of protest or to get an alternative form of government that may or may not be worse.

However, I do believe in giving the so-called Islamist parties the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to hear of allegations of corruption by these Muslim groups. The experieces with Islam centred political parties in Indonesia and Malaysia shows that they are anxious to prove they are better alternatives and are viable as governments as a competing force for the public minds and hearts.

We recognise the rise of Muslim political parties and organisations are due to the failures of secular goverments to deliver and the realisation that their governments are corrupt and ineffective. No one can deny that fact, no matter how unpalatable to secular or liberal Muslim.

Indonesian and Malaysian governments have so far, been able to deliver economically, practice democracy, have elections (in sometimes bumbling, sometimes fumbling and still learning ways), and to raise living standards. But at the sidelines, waiting in the wings, are Muslim political parties and associated NGOs, waiting to step in when secular governments fail to deliver.

Right now, secularism may seem to be marginalised in some Middle East countries due to due to the loss of credibility of the self-called secular governments and secular Muslims. Temporarily I hope for there is always cycles in history. I'm a fan of Ibn Khaldun among all classical Muslim scholars as you know. And Muslim populations, among the some of the poorest in the world, will support anyone who delivers basic services. They are being pragmatic there.

And so, Hamas comes in as the secular PLO became not only ineffective, but quite corrupt over the years. For many Palestinians, Hamas delivers services better, and from there, build trust and confidence among the Palestinians who are sick and tired of undelivered promises by the PLO for its people and for peace.

As for US policies in the Middle East, it not just Indonesian, Malaysian or any other Muslims in the world who are angered and dissapointed, but many non-Muslims too. No one is saying all Americans are to be held responsible for what President Bush decided.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Tarik Ramadan is seen to be the "now" voice by some, not Sayyid Qutb, who's too dogmatic and, in retrospect, shaped by independence movements and nationalism sweeping the Middle East as well as desire for Arab/Muslim unity to counter western domination in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. However, his books still sells well in Muslim countries that are economically poor, politically unstable with ineffective secular or or repressive governments. He do have appeal among alienated and marginalised Muslim youths in the Muslim world and in the west.

Extremist minorities and those resorting to violence taking over goverments in this day and age of the Internet, satellite TV and cellphones available even in the villages of Central Asia is improbable. Unless they control the military and stage a coup. They are more often hunted down and killed, or brought to court, charged and jailed, as happened in Pakistan, Central Asian states, Indonesia and Malaysia etc.

As for the rise of Nazism in Germany, that is an important lesson of how even one of the most civilised and educated people in the world, pushed into economic desperation and national shame as well as real and perceived unfairness by other nations, will support anyone who promise to bring back prosperity and national/ethnic pride.

But then, the Nazis don't know nor learn that extremism does not pay, but cost. They blindingly pursued their extremism and certainties until it is too late for them and at the cost of the lives of at least 20 million Germans alone. I don't want to get into here how many other lives they cost inclduing the Shoah, or to recall the too many extremist Nazi policies, self-delusions, self-destruction and, finally, destruction by the forces opposed to it. You already know it.

Any political or religious extremists who control countries and armies have much to learn from Nazi Germany. They are destroyed or destroy themselves or both.

Really got to go, or the markets will eat me alive.

Best regards as ever.
J

Kuvasz,
Clearly you have never read al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-falasifa/Confusion of the Philosophers. In it he argues that the philosophers have 17 tenets that constitute "blameworthy innovation" and three that constitute heresy. The three are their claim of the world's eternity, their denial of God's knowledge of particulars, and their denial of bodily resurrection in the afterlife. Do any of these three points sound like the germ of the Enlightenment to you?

Philosophy of the time--usually referred to as Neoplatonic aristotelianism--had nothing to do with empiricism and rejecting portions of it did nothing to hinder scientific advance. And al-Ghazali did adopt many tenets of philosophy, above all, logic. He insisted in his work of jurisprudence, al-Mustasfa min `ilm al-usul, that noone could properly practice law without understanding the syllogism. Of course, logic isn't empiricism either, but that is another story.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Having so little of it, you should be wary of the danger of making such sweeping generalizations.

Mr. Dickey are you trying to say we should simply abandon our faith and behave like Christians do by going to Church on Sunday and then violating GOD'S Commandments at all other times?

You can keep breaking GOD'S Laws by supporting adultery, fornication, spousal abuse, drug abuse, and greed - but leave Islam alone.

You are ill suited to comment on any religion for that matter!

There Anonymous

Do you feel better now having got that off your chest?

If you could,I'm sure you'd say a whole lot more.

But BEHOLD.You wrote a whole sentence all by yourself.

Every poster here is full of crap!

God does not require that we agree with one another. He does not even require that we fully understand one another. He rquires only that we live in peace. It is important for us to know a little bit about each other so that we can grow to respect one another and make dialog easier, but at some point (before too many people die on both sides)we need to begin discussing how we can live together in peace. Now that would be a worthwhile discussion! What we need is a few brilliant people with good ideas, and a lot of people who are willing to make sacrifices for peace so that we don't have to sacrifice young men and women of all faiths to hate and war.

kuvasz - If Ibn Rushd's retort in the "Destruction of the Destruction" a few decades later had carried the day, Islam would be seen as much more akin to the philosophy of Christian and Western thought and society.

Nice post and informative. However, I remember reading an article that actually laid the debacle in the stagnation of Muslim philosophy to Ibn Rushd. If I remember correctly, the writer suggested that it was the conflict between reason and faith in western civilization that resulted in the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, and the emergence of liberal democracies. Ibn Rushd in essence tried to harmonize those (opposing) views between faith in the divine and the philosophical acquisition of knowledge through reason, and the conflict failed to play itself out in the Islamic world as it did in Europe and the West.

If Muslims would only know the fundamental pillar of Islam,"Wahdahoo Lasharika Lahoo".( I am alone and don't associate me with any thing).

This is a reciprocal form of secularism.
In secularism,man says,"leave me alone".
In Islam,God says, "leave me alone".

As a Muslim, belief in one God should be our primary attachment. Such a philosophy in its purest form will dissuade us from the erosion of our faith. Call it human weakness, we managed to seek out so many other attractions in our faith that these attachments have come to occupy a significant part of our belief system.

The creation of sects is substantially assisted by this bank of rituals. Each sect chooses a few tidbits to prioritize in its belief system. The likelihood of combinations and permutations of these mini-attachments opens wide the possible number of sects.

As soon as the creations of these major and minor essentialities take root in a culture, we open ourselves to a plethora of conflicts. These conflicts are then exploited by the vested interests. As this becomes a livelihood of a critical mass of exploiters, it gets rooted in the economy, and perpetuates as an independent system.

Dear Islamist,

Sorry for getting your handle wrong.

As far as the Muslim Brotherhood, they scare the bejeezus out of me. Sayyid Qutb was just such a fanatic that wanted to recreate the Caliphate and would have used any method to justify those ends. To suggest that if the MB had been allowed power through democratic means that they would have moderated their views is an assumption that might not have been supported. They very well might have acted like the Nazis in Germany. Of course, the West cannot promote democracy on the one hand and then deny the legitimacy of a democratically elected government on the other (e.g. Hamas). However, if the people elect a bunch of fanatics to govern them, they get what they deserve and they will suffer the consequences. I think the West should have recognized Hamas and dealt with them straightforwardly. Then, if Hamas doesn't moderate its views, they should be dealt with harshly in terms of international support.

Islamicist

Thanks for your appreciation.

I'm still not sure how tolerant open societies deal with an extremist minority with no boundaries on behavior. In the U.S. during the 1930''s Depression, there were a lot of would be demagogues with energized followers (e.g. Father Coughlin, German American Bund, parts of the American Communist party). The rise of the Nazis in Germany basically destroyed these organizations in the U.S., though the Nazis are a good example of an extremist minority taking over a government.

Maurie Beck

I see now why Jihadist speaks highly of you. She also mentioned someone call Norry Howt and several other names.

Yes, we agree that countering intolerance by intolerance of fundamentalists and extremists is the best. The Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorists of Southeast Asia cannot be reasoned at all. But in open, democratic societies, countering intolerance is easier than in closed ones where governments control the media and rule by the gun. In some Muslim countries, the greatest terrorists and fundamentalists are goverments against their own people. Iraq under Saddam Hussein terrorised his own people in ways that makes terrorism by JI puny. Saudi Arabia has a fundamentalist government that would not even allow its female citizens to drive. Reasoning with or countering fundamentalist groups in open societies is easier than with fundamentalist governments that have an iron grip on its own people and suppress all legitimate oppositions.

The author of the essay asks why?

Three words....Salman Rushdie's fatwa.

That’s why. Okay?

Crimminy, did you forget that?

Frankly, I don’t care if Muslims eat dirt and die. Same goes for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religious sect who believes divine revelation is apriori and must supercede rational thought. They endanger those of us who don’t believe in Bronze Age fairy tales to protect us from the visicitudes of the world and the reality of the Big Sleep.

Btw.. to the author of the god-awful remark...

“Mr. Karim Islam - I must disagree with you. The great debate between Ibn Rush'd and Ghazzali was completely centered on Islam, Ghazzali claiming that actions of Allah (SWT) were a matter of adah, whereas Ibn Rush'd countered that as the ways are Allah are immutable, they cannot be considered adah and that Ghazzali's thesis denied the necessary connection between events and the divine wisdom of Allah.”

But, that is not actually what transpired is it? Nope, al Ghazzali’s later adherents moved his mysticism well beyond Islam into every day life. Since then, the beautiful and magnificant Islamic culture and civilization, one that spanned the Eurasian continent for over a millennium, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, declined intellectually, philosophically, and scientifically because it refused to adapt to change.

It would seem more reasonable (although he might disagree from the grave) to lay Islam's throttle back from scientific and philosophic innovation at the feet of al-Ghazzali, for his "Destruction of philosophy/philosophers) written in the 12th century, rolled back reason and reinforced the mystical aspects of Islam.

What has resulted over the last eight centuries has been in Islam a trend to distrust any tampering with established truths and accepted doctrines. If Ibn Rushd's retort in the "Destruction of the Destruction" a few decades later had carried the day, Islam would be seen as much more akin to the philosophy of Christian and Western thought and society; not surprising due to the influence of the ancient Greek philosophers on ibn Rushd's own views.

Too bad for us all, for from my readings of both, the latter is more, well, reasonable to modern thought.

The evolution of a fierce orthodoxy in Islam after the time of Ibn Rushd throttled the brightest intellectual and scientific culture the world ever saw up to that time. The manner of distrusting human reason and trusting mysticism in al-Ghazzali's "the Destruction of the Philosophy" served as a standard for later Islamic theology and served as a cudgel in the hand of those who swayed the ulema against rationalism.

The stress brought about by this roll back of rationalism in Islam was not overnight, there were still magnificent achievements by Muslims across a wide range of arts, sciences, architecture, and medicine, but the damage was done.

THE STIFLING OF RATIONALISM PLAYED AS MAJOR A PART IN THE DECLINE OF INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD AS DID THE MONGOL INVASIONS IN THE 13TH CENTURY TO THEIR PHYSICAL EMPIRES.

The West has had the dynamic tensions of the Cities of Man and of God in conflict, but Islam snuffed out this conflict long ago.

I am sore put to believe a scientific renaissance from Islam if each new scientific fact discovered is merely defined as mystical revelation of Allah, and any disputes about the features of such discoveries considered within the realm discourse for definitive truth by a council of mullahs.

Any such efforts of theology into a field requiring rationalism like science smacks of Lysenkoism.

or Allah-senkoism.

Hi Jihadist,

I read you post on this thread and I must say I have a very Western-centered worldview. What is going on in the Middle East and central Asia is beyond my understanding. As you point out, secularism is a backwater, so outside the mainstream that it seems to consist of old intellectuals mumbling amongst themselves.

If it was up to me, I'd have nothing to do with those countries. They could rot for all I care, even though there are good people walking among them. However, our modern global economy does not allow us to completely disengage, at least until we find our way out of our reliance on hydrocarbon energy sources.

Malaysia and Indonesia are another matter. Even though some Islamist parties have made inroads, I don't see Sharia becoming the law of the land anytime soon. The people there seem more pragmatic than the ideology that is so rampant in Arabia and central Asia. Those societies may distrust or even hate America because of our fool's errands in the Middle East, but I think that perception can be repaired.

Globo Mojo

All martydom accomplishes is to create cults of personality, which tend to become entrenched in some form of utopian idiological worldview. However, you raise an important point about the relationship between liberal democracies with open societies and those with intolerant worldviews. Open societies are very slow to recognize that reasoned discourse is often an unworkable response to intolerant extremists, whether those extremists are religious (fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) or of some other ideological foundation.

You may ask, what is the proper response? The first thing is to get the open society to appreciate the threat. The Europeans are just now recognizing the threat of intolerant Islam, though they still do not quite know how to deal with it. In the U.S., we recognize the threat of intolerant Islam, yet its kissing cousin, Fundamentlist Christianity has managed to weasel its way into mainstream American politics.

Many political writers remark on the pragmatism of the American polity. That is quite an assumption, especially if it turns out not to be true. Some of those of the Christian right would like nothing better than to turn our democracy into a religious theocracy. How does one deal with such a powerful, vocal intolerant minority? By being intolerant of intolerance. We cannot confront intolerance with moderation and reasoned discourse. It doesn't work.

Anonymous

My friend Jihadist is right. Call oneself Jihadist and all the west shakes. Call oneself an Islamist, and all the west trembled. LOL

Islamic governance means one that is just and corrruption free among other. Mastering the world with Islam means living according to Islamic principles, not to conquer the world.

On Muslim Brotherhood, AK of Turkey was somewhat like that too until they governed Turkey and modified their stance - flexbility.

Islamist groups and political parties in Indonesia and Malaysia also modified their stance once they won elections and governned or become part of government.

So, what you are saying is never give anyone a chance at governance unless it is acceptable to western norms.

Look at Algeria. Islamists won elections, deprived of governance and over 200,000 dead now. It the Islamists were given the opportunity to govern, what would have been?

There are no new ideas coming from the west. Only recycled ones. Let Muslims try out the forms of governance they want without western guidance, prodding and interference.

So many dim lights of Western Enlightenment here. There can only be one way - your way? I can't see Muslim Brotherhood taking over governance of America, ever. Not Muslims or Islam causing America's reduction in political and economic power but China for one.

Mr. Dickey, Very informative!

However, do not include me in the desire of Americans to want to use any Muslim "Magic"!

I can't think of anything that could have been dumber than what Bushie allowed by his idiocy!

I am Dumbstruck at the thought that we have allowed an Enemy-al-Sadr,-to ussurp the leadership of what was a Liberated Country, with the Shia Pulpit!

He should have been killed in the first week!

I want the Shia Government to be withheld any support, so it crumbles!

Replaced by a Secular, and Non-Sectarian Government that is there to insure rights of Iraqi INDIVIDUALS!

Please excuse the FACT we have a simplistic and niaeve Evangelical nut-job for our Commander in Chief! What amazes me, is you would have thought he'd of known better!-He is used to the Oil Industry!

Jililah wrote:

Muslims would have been far better off by following the rationalist Ibn Rush'd over Ghazzali, but as we cannot change history, we can advocate for the need to focus on rationalism and human rights NOW!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Karim Islam: wrote

To Jililah -You bragged that "islam brought science and progress when Europe was in the darkness."

Arab civiliztion (on the shoulder of religion Islam) preserved and developed further already existed science invented by past civilizations (Greek, India, Chines etc) had nothing to do with islam. So what were the contributions of Islam to this? Nothing at all. All those muslim-born scientists were not even good muslims and many of them did not even had faith on islam. You can not cite a single example that they created any trace of science out of islam (Koran and hadiths). So why you are bragging, heh? Islam pulled the muslim world backward to 7th century. Don't you see that? Come to your sense Mr. Jililah.

Karim (born muslim)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Mr. Karim Islam - I must disagree with you. The great debate between Ibn Rush'd and Ghazzali was completely centered on Islam, Ghazzali claiming that actions of Allah (SWT) were a matter of adah, whereas Ibn Rush'd countered that as the ways are Allah are immutable, they cannot be considered adah and that Ghazzali's thesis denied the necessary connection between events and the divine wisdom of Allah.

Although the Muslim philosophers benefited from the ancient Western philosophers, they were not at all copyist, but formed their own unique hypothesis completely within the framework of Islam. Ibn Rush'd inspired, in addition to Maimoinides, Albert the Great, Boethius of Dacia, John of Jandun, Siger of Brabant and Dante Alighieri.

That is only one example of many that can be offered of the great Islam-centered sages of the middle ages.

The Muslim scientist were only considered 'not good Muslims' by the stagnant minds of the fundamentalists threatened by their intellect. If you actually read Tahafut Al-Tahafut or any of the great works, you would see your fallacy of thought.

Here's a little list for your enjoyment:

I cannot figure why you would seek to sell the Muslims short. Not propaganda brother, this is history!

Timeline of Islamic Scientists (700-1400)

This chart depicts the lifes of key Islamic Scientists and related writers, from the 8th to the end of the 13th century. By placing each writer in a historical context, this will help us understand the influences and borrowing of ideas.

701 (died) - Khalid Ibn Yazeed - Alchemy

721 - Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber) - (Great Muslim Alchemist)

740 - Al-Asmai - (Zoology, Botany, Animal Husbandry)

780 - Al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) - (Mathematics, Astronomy)

787 - Al Balkhi, Ja'Far Ibn Muhammas (Albumasar) - Astronomy, Fortune-telling

796 (died) - Al-Fazari,Ibrahim Ibn Habeeb - Astronomy, Translation

800 - Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi - (Alkindus) - (Philosophy, Physics, Optics)

808 - Hunain Ibn Is'haq - Medicine, Translator

815 - Al-Dinawari, Abu-Hanifa Ahmed Ibn Dawood - Mathematics, Linguistics

836 - Thabit Ibn Qurrah (Thebit) - (Astronomy, Mechanics)

838 - Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari - (Medicine, Mathematics)

852 - Al Battani ABU abdillah (Albategni) - Mathematics, Astronomy, Engineering

857 - Ibn MasawaihYou'hanna - Medicine

858 - Al-Battani (Albategnius) - (Astronomy, mathematics)

860 - Al-Farghani (Al-Fraganus) - (Astronomy,Civil Engineering)

884 - Al-Razi (Rhazes) - (Medicine,Ophthalmology, Chemistry)

870 - Al-Farabi (Al-Pharabius) - (Sociology, Logic, Science, Music)

900 - (died) - Abu Hamed Al-ustrulabi - Astronomy

903 - Al-Sufi (Azophi - ( Astronomy)

908 - Thabit Ibn Qurrah - Medicine, Engineering

912 (died) - Al-Tamimi Muhammad Ibn Amyal (Attmimi) - Alchemy

923 (died) - Al-Nirizi, AlFadl Ibn Ahmed (wronge Altibrizi) - Mathematics, Astronomy

930 - Ibn Miskawayh, Ahmed Abuali - Medicine, Alchemy

932 - Ahmed Al-Tabari - Medicine

936 - Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahravi (Albucasis) - (Surgery, Medicine)

940 - Muhammad Al-Buzjani - (Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry)

950 - Al Majrett'ti Abu-alQasim - Astronomy, Alchemy, Mathematics

960 (died) - Ibn Wahshiyh, Abu Baker - Alchemy, Botany

965 - Ibn Al-Haitham (Alhazen) - Physics, Optics, Mathematics)

973 - Abu Raihan Al-Biruni - (Astronomy, Mathematics)

976 - Ibn Abil Ashath - Medicine

980 - Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - (Medicine, Philosophy, Mathematics)

983 - Ikhwan A-Safa (Assafa) - (Group of Muslim Scientists)

1019 - Al-Hasib Alkarji - Mathematics

1029 - Al-Zarqali (Arzachel) - Astronomy (Invented Astrolabe)

1044 - Omar Al-Khayyam - (Mathematics, Poetry)

1060 - (died) Ali Ibn Ridwan Abu'Hassan Ali - Medicine

1077 - Ibn Abi-Sadia Abul Qasim - Medicine

1090 - Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) - Surgery, Medicine

1095 - Ibn Bajah, Mohammed Ibn Yahya

1097 - Ibn Al-Baitar Diauddin (Bitar) - Botany, Medicine, Pharmacology

1099 - Al-Idrisi (Dreses) - Geography, World Map (First Globe)

1091 - Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) - ( Surgery, Medicine)

1095 - Ibn Bajah, Mohammad Ibn Yahya (Avenpace) - Philosophy, Medicine

1099 - Al-Idrisi (Dreses) - (Geography -World Map, First Globe)

1100 - Ibn Tufayl Al-Qaysi - Philosophy, Medicine

1120 - (died) - Al-Tuhra-ee, Al-Husain Ibn Ali - Alchemy, Poem

1128 - Ibn Rushd (Averroe's) - Philosophy, Medicine

1135 - Ibn Maymun, Musa (Maimonides) - Medicine, Philosphy

1140 - Al-Badee Al-Ustralabi - Astronomy, Mathematics

1155 (died) - Abdel-al Rahman AlKhazin - Astronomy

1162 - Al Baghdadi, Abdellateef Muwaffaq - Medicine, Geography

1165 - Ibn A-Rumiyyah Abul'Abbas (Annabati) - Botany

1173 - Rasheed AlDeen Al-Suri - Botany

1184 - Al-Tifashi, Shihabud-Deen (Attifashi) - Metallurgy, Stones

1201 - Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi - (Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry)

1203 - Ibn Abi-Usaibi'ah, Muwaffaq Al-Din - Medicine

1204 (died) - Al-Bitruji (Alpetragius) - (Astronomy)

1213 - Ibn Al-Nafis Damishqui - (Anatomy)

1236 - Kutb Aldeen Al-Shirazi - Astronomy, Geography

1248 (died) - Ibn Al-Baitar - ( Pharmacy, Botany)

1258 - Ibn Al-Banna (Al Murrakishi), Azdi - Medicine, Mathematics

1262 (died) - Al-Hassan Al-Murarakishi - Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography

1273 - Al-Fida (Abdulfeda) - ( Astronomy, Geography)

1306 - Ibn Al-Shater Al Dimashqi - Astronomy, Mathematics

1320 (died) - Al Farisi Kamalud-deen Abul-Hassan - Astronomy, Physics

1341 (died) - Al-Jildaki, Muhammad Ibn Aidamer - Alchemy

1351 - Ibn Al-Majdi, Abu Abbas Ibn Tanbugha - Mathematics, Astronomy

1359 - Ibn Al-Magdi,Shihab-Udden Ibn Tanbugha - Mathematic, Astronomy

Thank Zeus we finally at last have this Allah/God business straightened out.

Murphy is an optimist.

I am not sure who you are addressing the God/Allah question to.

In regard to Alam's article, the excerpt is from a Muslim publication and Muslims kept to the terminology of the Qur'an which is in Arabic, thus amongst themselves prefer Allah. When writing for a varied audience though, Muslims will frequently use God and Allah interchangeably.

For those who think that God and Allah might be different or Allah just a Muslim God, it is good to realize that Arab Christians also pray to Allah which simply means The God in Arabic.

As we obviously have some Brotherhood supporters trying to put themselves forward as honorable advocates of democracy, lets look at some history:

The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun) also known as the Ikhwan is a good example of what we must protect ourselves against.

The Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) organization describes itself as a political and social revolutionary movement; it was founded in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, who objected to Western influence and called for return to an original Islam.

The Brotherhood is an expansive and secretive society with followers in more than 70 countries, dedicated to creating a global Islamic order that would isolate women and punish nonbelievers. Its members and supporters founded al Qaeda, as well as one “of the largest college student groups in the United States.”

The Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism, Juan Zarate, stated recently, “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.” In fact, The MB 1982 secret plan, (the Project) recently exposed, instructs all members locally and globally “To channel thought, education and action in order to establish an Islamic power [government] on the earth.”

The Muslim Brotherhood has historically and continues to actively pursue the establishment of a Muslim regime that will serve as the basis to re-establish the Caliphate, not only by defending violence against civilians, The current leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, “recently issued a new strategy calling on all its member organizations to serve its global agenda of defeating the West. He called on individual members of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide to not only join the “resistance” to the U.S. financially, but also through active participation.” In the MB Project (1982), Point of Departure instructs members,” To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.”

In an interview to the London based Asharq Al-Awsat, an international Arab newspaper on December 11, 2005, Akef stated that “the Muslim Brotherhood is a global movement whose members cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the same religious worldview - the spread of Islam, until it rules the world.”

To that end, Akef said, “the Muslim Brotherhood… are an all-encompassing Islamic organization, calling to the adoption of the great religion that Allah gave in his mercy to humanity.” Meanwhile, according to its leader, the MB is busily cementing its ties: “We are in the global arena, and we preach for Allah according to the guidelines of the Muslim Brotherhood.

All the members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the international arena operate according to the written charter that states that Jihad is the only way to achieve these goals.

“Ours is the largest organization in the world,” he said.

Akef emphasized, “A Muslim in the international arena, who believes in the charter of the Muslim Brotherhood is considered part of us and we are considered part of him.”

In earlier interviews,

‘Akef called the U.S. “a Satan that abuses the religion.”

He said: “I expect America to collapse soon,”

declaring, “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America.”

Although U.S. observers often view the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Hamas as less violent than al-Qaeda, the Brotherhood has long been actively supporting global jihadi efforts.

“Prior to the U.S.-led attack on the Taliban regime, the Muslim Brotherhood actually had training camps in Afghanistan where it worked with Kashmiri militants and sought to expand its influence in Central Asian states, especially Tajikistan.”

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Muslim Brotherhood reacted to Hamas’ January 2006 electoral victory as not merely as a local achievement, but “a victory of the Islamic nation in its entirety,” and as an expression of the concept that “the path of Islam is the true solution.”

As the parent of all Sunni and many other Islamist terrorist groups,

the MB, to deflect attention, uses its long-term strategy, known as “flexibility” (muruna) in Arabic.

This chameleon-like adaptation is tactical moderation with the ultimate objective of complete Islamization of society.

Indeed, the MB’s 1982 project calls on members “To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level.”

Today, when the West focuses on Islamist terrorism, the MB usually refrains from publicly advocating violence. The MB’s 1982 Project, calls on its members:

“To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic [Islamic] principles… we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.”

As stated on its charter and its website:

the MB seeks to install an Islamic totalitarian empire, a worldwide Caliphate, through stages designed to Islamize targeted nations by whatever means available.

A principal danger of MB activities is that they are hidden behind “religious” ideology. Moreover:

this ideology dictates concealment (Kitman).

In fact saying, “we should keep hush-hush on things that are still in preparation.”

This ideology controls every aspect of life and seeks to impose that control on everyone.

In the end, the MB intends to overthrow all secular governments and impose Islamic law (Shari’a) worldwide, and it is diligently pursuing this goal.

In July 2005, former Kuwaiti minister of education Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i, wrote in the Arabic London daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat:

"The beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology."

Thus, on its website, the MB advocates,

“Establishing the Islamic government.”

“Building the Muslim state…Building the Khilafa…Mastering the world with Islam,”;

This would necessarily deprive Americans of their First Amendment, rights.

The first clause in the Amendment states there shall be “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The First Amendment also upholds an individuals’ right to religious freedom.

But as determined by its doctrine, the MB would exploit that right—along with First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly—to actively seek the imposition of laws that would deny religious freedom to everyone else.

Why do you not translate the word "Allah" to "God"?

Allah is God in Arabic - are you just trying to increase a perception that Muslims worship something other than "God"??

Would you in writing a story about the French refer to God as "Dieu" and not translate the word - to enhance a perception that they worship something 'different than we do' ???

Dear AS

Although Dr. Alam may see only one true interpretation, (The Humanitarian Islam), I readily admit that Islam can be interpreted in many many ways and is indeed a mosaic rather than a monolith.

I have pointed out that radicals and traditionalists tend to promote an interpretation focused primarily on the isolationist and militaristic Medinan verses, while moderates tend to promote an interpretation focused primarily on the compassionate and human-rights aspects pointed out by Dr. Alam.

You are right in highlighting that the mosaic of Islam is inclined to remain a mosaic and that is a good point. However this mosaic of many branches can all turn to the focus of a humanitarian model of Islam without sacrificing Sunni, Shia or Sufi identities.

Possibly, I was not clear enough. I am advocating a REFOCUSING on the Humanitarian aspects innate within Islam pointed out in his article.

The sects of Christianity were at one time highly violent, now although many sects remain the orientation is more humanitarian focused.

I am referring to a REFOCUSING. Although Dr. Alam's article points out the human-rights aspects of the Qur'an clearly and I have put his article forward to put these points before the public, as to whether or not Islam could ever be a monolith is something I think is highly unlikely.

Dr. Alam would have to further explain his own position himself. I cannot speak for him. If you wish to write him, I think there is a contact email address at www.alternatevoice.org

All the Best, Jililah

I am in full agreement with Asim and Sammer Muhammad on their posts. I am certain my friend and colleague Jihadist would agree with them too. Her anger is directed against the whiny secular Muslims who blame everyone but themselves in their own countries on Islam and Muslims. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood has done much more for the Arab Muslims than the secular Muslims of their countries, but were not allowed to take part in democratic elections. To argue that Muslims are not democratic nor can practice democracy is a false when they are not given the opportunity by repressive regimes propped up by the west with vested interests, who repressed their own people who opposed their regime under the pretext of them being Islamists or potential terrorists. The term Islamist (Islamiyah) is used by some secular Muslim to denigrate Muslims like members of the Muslim Brotherhood who are more effective than they are and their own governments in reaching out to the Muslims and in meeting their needs. Democracy is also about freely chosing those who can meet your needs. Governance is also about the ability to deliver needs and ensure a just, independent and uncorrupt and effective adminstration. That was why AK won over the Turkish secular parties in its recent elections. And Islam works best in a pluralistic environment, not a "dogmatic" top down approach. The consensus of the community is a primary element of Muslim governance - governance by consent. Governments in Muslim countries that don't practice democracy, hold elections or to accept election results, are going against this Islamic principle of governance by consent of the community.

There is but one God and that God is Murphy. God's will is never done. Only Murphy knows why.

#2. Any accidental interpretation of the Koran will result in the maximum damage possible.

"a democratic context thank god"?

Tim wrote:

You say: "In our Mosques we are called heretics, US government agents and neo-cons for promoting human rights values in Islam." I would think that the values you are promoting are things like tolerance, feminism, freedom, and justice, rule of law, freedom of speech, and maybe even freedom of religion? Are these values opposed based on a charge supported by the true believer that you must take the literal meaning of the Quran, which is intolerant. In other words, do the Muslim Brotherhood types in your Mosque use the actual words of the Quran to put you down? If so, what is the counter argument to this position?

YES TIM - the radicals (Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-i-Islami supporters and those who follow the Saudi Wahhabi/Salafi interpretations promoted by the Chicago based US lobby) use a literalist interpretation which is anti-human-rights, but they are also focused upon the militaristic, isolationist and hostile Medinan verses and falsely claim that the compassionate Meccan verses have been abrogated. This abrogation claim is made only amongst their clerics who do not want to see human-rights advanced even though they are legitimately advocated in the Qur'an as Mansoor Alam's article points out.

You asked what argument the Muslim moderates respond with. Our Qur'anically valid position is focused on the Meccan verses and the first paragraph of Alam's article excerpt (previously posted) highlights our justification for challenging the radical interpretation with a humanitarian interpretation.

At the grassroots level, we are outnumbered by "Muslim Brotherhood" supporters, but the Muslim moderates & progressives persevere by publishing newsletters geared to putting the humanitarian interpretation of Islam before the Muslim populous, we set up websites, speak as loudly as possible and now thanks to Pamela Taylor are finally becoming organized enough to hold annual conventions and other gatherings.

Our resources are highly limited though and we are up against a behemoth of a corrupt organization funded by Saudi petrodollars as you mentioned - thus we do face an uphill battle.

In regard to democracy - we are indeed pro-democracy, pro-human-rights and pro-freedom of speech. Democracy is not anti-Islamic as often thought. Read "The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism" by Professor Sachedina - one of the members of the "On Faith" panel.

The best thing you can do to help us is to encourage Washington leaders to recognize the GENUINE Muslim moderates, like Dr. Mansoor Alam, Akbar S, Ahmed, Dr. TO Shanavas, Reza Aslan, Prof. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Prof. Sachedina, Dr. Aziza Al-Hibri, Asra Nomani, Asra Gull Hasan, Dr. S. Amjad Hussain, and Fethullah Gülen. The US government consistently panders to the huge Chicago-based Wahhabi/Salafi lobby that is a cover for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Also - when Muslim moderates finally do organize peace rallies, please attend and support them.

Encourage shows like 60 Minutes, Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose and the like to invite people like the above to be the voice of the Muslim moderates as these are the genuine moderates not the Wahhabi impostors so frequently seen on TV.

And most of all, stand firm in supporting Freedom of Speech and laws to protect the US Constitution as the goal of the radicals is to establish a pro-Shariah/pro-Caliphate base in the Western world. Stand firm against their malicious political agenda. These people advocate the writings of Sayyid Qutb and Mawdudi which call for aggression against all non-Muslim states and abject oppression of all but their own radical sect.

And when they try to intimidate us all into silence - SPEAK OUT ANYWAY!

Tim - thank you so much for asking what people can do to assist the true Muslim Moderates & progressives.

To Jililah:
The weakness of your argument and that of Dr. Mansoor Alam, which you cite is that both of you advocate the existence of one “true” interpretation of Islam and that by living according to the teaching of this interpretation the Umah will be saved. This argument is historically unsound. The Islamic world thrived not when it adhered to one “true” interpretation of Islam, rather in an era of philosophical and theological controversies; in times when rationalists like Ibin Rushed (Averroes) argued against Sufis (who preached for the love of God) etc. The idea of one true doctrine – which is strange to Islam – got a firm hold when the Islamic world was weak and invaded by the crusaders. If Islam is to be triumphant again, pluralism and openness should be pursued.

If a politician has to be religious to get elected in the US, why on earth would we expect secularists to succeed in the Muslim world? Its the same kind of logic that makes us point fingers at fundamentalist regimes while ignoring that the party in power in the USA is in fact dominated by religious fundamentalists.

If a politician has to be religious to get elected in the US, why on earth would we expect secularists to succeed in the Muslim world? Its the same kind of logic that makes us point fingers at "fundamentalist" regimes while ignoring that the party in power in the USA is in fact dominated by religious "fundamentalists".

If an interpretation of the Koran can be made it will.

THERE ARE INJUNCTIONS IN THE QUR'AN THAT ADVOCATE HUMAN RIGHTS and yes, that can be interpreted HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL.

For those truly interested in this question, I post an excerpt from an article by Dr. Mansoor Alam that highlights where these rights are expounded upon in the Qur'an. This is a valid framework for humanity and peace that Muslims can built upon from their own sacred text.

Please attend carefully to the following paragraph as within it IS the framework for a HUMANITARIAN ISLAM based upon its utmost authority, the Qur'an.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpt from article by Mansoor Alam, Ph.D.

So what should be done now? Should we simply close our eyes to the Qur’an and allow these latter-day rulers and Imams to regurgitate the same old sectarian-based Shariah that was developed under dictatorial rule and which tramples on the most basic values of the Qur’an dealing with universal human rights, that among these are: sacrosanct right of the sanctity of human life (5:32); inalienable right of the freedom of choice (2:256, 18:29); right of tolerance for other faiths (22:40) and absolutely no compulsion in faith (2:256); right to conduct state affairs by mutual consultation (3:159, 42:38); universal right of human dignity (17:70); sacrosanct right of equal justice for all (4:58, 4:135, 5:42, 16:90) including enemies (5:8) and no bending of justice for anyone (if the Prophet was not above the law (6:15) then how can anyone else be?); right to hold positions based solely on merit (46:19); right of personal responsibility and accountability (53:38); right of ownership of the fruits of one’s labor and no free ride for anyone (53:39). Are these Qur’an-guaranteed human rights (to all men and women) to be found in our current practice of Islam anywhere not to say of the holiest place in Islam, the birth place of our Prophet (PBUH)?

Who else could be more responsible then for damaging the sacred heart of Islam in the name of Islam, in the name of the Qur’an, in the name of the Prophet (PBUH) than the twin forces of Muslim dictatorship and Muslim priesthood?

The situation has degenerated to such an extent that if one were to mention that above human rights are some of the most sacred in Islam; that our Prophet (PBUH) lived and implemented these rights in society; that an Islamic society is supposed to be constituted on the basis of these core rights at its heart; then surely it will raise many eyebrows and may even invite sarcasm from certain quarters with comments such as: “Have these human rights anything to do with Muslims and Islam?” These reactions are not out of place considering how Muslim countries have been mistreating and even killing their own people in the name of Islam.

The world is judging Islam by our practice of Islam, by observing the so-called practicing Muslims. No wonder we seem to be fulfilling the prophecy of the Qur’an by showing to the world by our own actions that Islam is a failure, that Islam is false (107:1-7)! Our failure to live up to true Islam is being seen as failure of Islam. We may think we are good practicing Muslims and that we will ultimately have the mercy and the blessings of Allah. All this is fine but what about the Qur’an and its emphasis on universal human rights? Is the Qur’an only for reciting to achieve mercy and forgiveness, mostly for the dead? Or, should its human rights also need to be implemented in human society?

As a matter fact these values are under siege in every Muslim country. Can we expect to get anywhere when Muslim societies trample on these rights while putting extraordinary emphasis on rituals? What would be more important to Islam in the eyes of Allah: performing its rituals or implementing its basic human rights?

The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said that Muslim Ummah is like a body. When any part of the body is in pain the whole body feels it. That body seems to be in critical condition today. The only way to revive it is to go back to the basic Qur’anic values guaranteeing universal human rights and make them the foundation of Muslim society the way our Prophet (PBUH) did more than 1400 years ago when the rest of the world was living in barbarism and chaos as noted by many historians (e.g., J.H. Denison, Emotion as the Basis of Civilization). This is the real miracle of the Qur’an. This is the true Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) to practice (7:157).

( Dr. Mansoor Alan is a professor at the University of Toledo and Editor of The Alternate Voice newsletter advocating a progressive voice within mainstream Islam - see www.alternatevoice.org . Many of his articles can also be found on the website of his Mosque, The Islamic Center of Greater Toledo - www.icgt.org )

To J. Bond:

Come on my friend; be honest! look at what the Western World has been doing since the late 19th Century. Direct intervention, scamming, support for the enemies of the Arab world, above all support for the Israel despite its continual ethnic cleansing of Palestine, daily killing and destruction of houses. At the 60s the West supported the Shah against the LIBERAL DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF MUSADAQ. Instead of Musadaq which the West – The US, UK alliance – overthrew, you got Khomeini! Musadaq was not good enough because you did not want to deal with him on equal footing but to rob Iran’s oil.

The same US, UK alliance invaded Iraq to get-rid of a problematic, yet efficient and secular regime to establish a regime led by Mullahs and to create the conditions for Al-Qaeda.

To J. Bond:

Come on my friend; be honest! look at what the Western World has been doing since the late 19th Century. Direct intervention, scamming, support for the enemies of the Arab world, above all support for the Israel despite its continual ethnic cleansing of Palestine, daily killing and destruction of houses. At the 60s the West supported the Shah against the LIBERAL DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF MUSADAQ. Instead of Musadaq which the West – The US, UK alliance – overthrew, you got Khomeini! Musadaq was not good enough because you did not want to deal with him on equal footing but to rob Iran’s oil.

The same US, UK alliance invaded Iraq to get-rid of a problematic, yet efficient and secular regime to establish a regime led by Mullahs and to create the conditions for Al-Qaeda.

I had posted this previously and I believe should help people understand the context of the hostile Medinan verses from the greater general ideology of Islam established in the early Meccan verses.

The verses from the formative years of Islam are called Meccan verses and collectively exude a unique theme. In this era Islam's general framework was being established - its IDEALS. The word Muslim in parts of the Meccan verses is sometimes used in the context of applying to all those who recognize that there is One God. The message is humanitarian and merciful and delivered as meant for all humanity. Islam as a religion is said to CONFIRM the message of the earlier Prophets and their revelations implying a genuine brotherhood between the Jewish, Christian and Muslim people. Virtues and human rights were emphasized and women were acknowledged and heard and had their concerns taken seriously for the first time. It was all truly forward thinking and progressive for the 7th century. It is this ideal and these verses that moderates promote as the genuine humanitarian model of Islam that we have failed to implement in this age. This is not an unrealistic 'fairy tale' ideal as the human rights mandates are in the Qur'an and were implemented in the early age of Islam. Andalusian Muslim Spain also came close to achieving this ideal. It is not what is predominant today though. Basically only Sufis, and the relatively small Muslim moderate/progressive movement seek to live within the framework of a human rights (for all) oriented model, today. Our challenge is to raise the consciousness of Muslims so the majority of Muslims will reclaim this model that is truly our own and realize that human rights are not an alien concept but part of our Muslim mandate to create societies with a focus on human rights at their very core.

Now, before you call it just useless theory, one must consider that Christianity was oriented to violence before the reformation. Following this REFOCUSING, the violent verses were ignored for those that promoted care for all humanity. The violent verses ARE still in the sacred text but they are no longer the focus.

In stark contrast, the verses revealed after the Prophet's migration to Medina were highly specific, including complicated laws and a stricter adherence to rules and rituals. But what is most significant about the Medinan verses is that during this period, peace treaties failed and some groups came to be perceived as traitors. Battles were common and the jihadi warrior was considered as honorable as the high regard afforded to any Authurian knight. The Qur'anic verses revealed during this era addressed very specifically that historical context of aggression and conflict with specific tribes. One will therefore find highly derogatory verses referring to the traitors, hypocrites and unbelievers referring to very specific betrayals and clashes. That is why, the highly aggressive comments referring to a specific Jewish group perceived as betrayers will contradict the magnanimous Meccan verses referring to the Jewish people as brothers in faith. The Meccan verses refer to the benevolence Muslims should feel for all Jewish and Christian people as fellow believers in one and the same God, while those Medinan verses that reflect hostility to a people refer to a small band of 'traitors' to be aggressively pursued.

Today's radicals look to the Medinan verses primarily as their Islamic model and violence and jihadism in that context is, in their minds, the honorable fight against the transgressor.

Today's moderates look to the Meccan verses and seek to bring this humanitarian model into ascendance. When the moderates quote these 'peaceful' verses, they are sincere. This is the IDEAL that they wish to establish.

Yet, there will be times when the radical will quote the peaceful Meccan verses to you just to pull the wool over your eyes and deceive you as to his real intent. This is propaganda. It is also Taqqiya (a lie that protects one from being persecuted). If you knew what the radical truly believed, you might indeed want to expel that jihadi, quite rightly, from your society. The jihadi though would think this persecution and would thus lie to you in the name of Taqqiya.

When the contradictions are viewed in the light of their Meccan or Medinan context, one then sees that it really isn't as contradictory as it might appear by not differentiating between the two eras. Some verses are the general ideals of Islam , others revealed in response to a specific and isolated context and must be assessed within a specific historial frame.

Dear Tim,

I'm sorry - I did not discover your questions to me until now. Actually I've addressed most of the questions in the comments section already where I first posted on July 26th

Here is the link:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/07/muslims_speak_out/comments.html#comments

It is a lot of reading though - if you prefer, I will cut and paste that info here.

I do appreciate your support.

All the Best ~ Jililah

Christopher Dickey:

What in heavens name was the purpose of writing that generalized condition of islam column?

It wasnt enlightening (Turkey as secular bastion in Islamic world), duh, I think we knew that. It wasnt challenging (would the Islamic masses be satisfied with remaining in submissive positions), no they will not. And soon will reverse their subservience by demanding more education and training to take part in the ever globalizing world of trade and commerce.

It wasnt even up to date (Jordan has been having limited democratic elections for several decades) and Egypt continues its own helter skelter journey towards some vague future of democratic elections controlled by whomever is the ruling elite at the moment.

So what exactly was the core idea you were trying to convey? I am afraid I missed it entirely or you werent sure of what you wanted to say about the current status of Islam.

Tony Gillotte

AS

"Honestly I don’t understand what does the West want?"

I myself want all people in the Arab World to have peace, safety, and prosperity.

This can happen if the people of the Arab world sever all political & military ties with the west and establish economic trade with the entire world. IMO, the troubles in the Arab world stems from political and military intervention. You don't need foreign aid, diplomats and embassies to have trade relations. The Arab people do not need any assistance from any western state in governing their internal affairs. Let's be friendly, let's do business, and let's prosper with one another, This seems reasonable to me.

I find it amusing that you Americans decry the lack of secularism in the Middle East. Perhaps you should be more worried about the lack of secularism in your own country. You are as steeped in primitive superstition as any third world country. No politician could be elected president who openly confessed to being an atheist. Your own article on Mitt Romney quotes the figure of something like 30% of the population saying that the fact of a politician being a Mormon would make them more likely to vote against him, while a whopping 63% said the same thing of an atheist.

Honestly I don’t understand what does the West want? During the Nasser era the Western countries supported the fundamentalist movements and Israel, weakened and then destroyed the Nasserite path. The Western world supported the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan by weapons and training and now you ask: why shouldn’t the Arab people present an alternative – secular way of life – against which they fought through propaganda, money and weapon. You cannot have it both ways. What the Arabs want is simple: a dignified life be it Islamic or secular. Mostly importantly a life free of Western domination.

IMO, liberty advocates in oppressed Arab or Muslim environments want to implement their own version of the American Revolution without sacrifice. I cannot name a revolution or movement for freedom that did not require some sort of sacrifice. The fight for liberty will demand from some, their life or a limb. It would be dandy if it wasn’t so. But this is the historical reality.

Rob, last one. I was giving you your examples that are always used as self sacrificing folk, not denying them. 100% right is probably a pipe dream. 100% wrong is equally impossible to achieve.

I see people working hard to be right only to be slipping further towards wrong. Lies are always in order when one reaches the end of the rope, only moral lies of course.

Peace to you too.

Arab secularists? My friend, they did not work for many simple reasons. They didnt do anything of substance. My parents generations of Nasser, Saddam, Qaddafi and Arafat to name a few, did absolutely nothing. Whereas the Islamists, dont steal government money, actually govern quite well, and have fought for what they believe is true. The secularists fought for a little while, then let America give them money. The majority in the muslem world, wants the true Islam.Not secularism. We dont want Sharia law. We want what moderation. Thats what our religion stands for. Moderation in everything. Secularists? what have they ever done for the muslem world? The Islamists on the other hand, feed the poor people. They open schools and hospitals. A good example is Palestine. Most Palestinians dont like Hamas. They dont like the suicide bombings and find them to be murder. But, Hamas is a great government. They dont steal. They run schools, Get the Picture? Fateh, THE SECULARISTS, that you ask for, are thieves. Con men, jerks, bad government and dumber then Bush. ( hard to be dumber then Bush)
Turkey. The writers example, when the islamist government took power, their economy started improving for the first time in years. The secularist governments before them, economy was crap under them.
Bring back secularism? Heck no. Bring back the moderate Islam before Bin laden and his like radicalized it. Yes!

Oh Bgone…I just don’t know what else to say.

I am not going to debate the ultimate reality of God because that will take us all day and I am pretty sure we are both set in our beliefs right now.

Obviously everyone one has some basic human rights. But when looking at public policy we must also consider that the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few or the one. This is where will agree with you in that we need to be careful not to unilaterally interject religious belief into public policy.

As for Mother Teresa I believe she lied in poverty along with all the people she helped. I am too lazy to confirm this right now but I believe Gandhi died with very little to his name. I am sure someone can help us out with these questions.

Peace

A "to the pointer":

The book of death aka the koran bases its authenicity on Mo's communications with that "pretty wingie flying talking thingie" fictional character called Gabriel who was borrowed from the Christians who borrowed "him" from the Hittite religion and other ancient cults.

Ironic how a peaceful fictional character ended up giving credence to a violent religious movement!!!!!

Time to "pink slip" all the clerics, imams, priests, rabbis, ministers and medicine men for feeding us all this mumbo jumbo about prophets, living gods, flying chariots, myths and embellishments squared!!!!!

Of course we must have humor to go along with all this stuffy religion stuff.

Is http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul funny enough for ya? Imagine Bill Hunt not going to include that jewel because he says it doesn't prove anything.

Rob Adams, anyone else who cares, just a few questions.

Does calling Devil God make Devil God? We know it makes Devil's representatives happy.

Does the big money go to those who lead the most people to the kingdom run by the being that Moses mad his deal with?

Did Jesus really say, "sell all your earthly possessions and give to the poor"? Do you know of or ever heard tell of anyone who actually did that? Mother Teresa, Ghandi, anyone?

Don't you think the law requires people to verify claims before using them to extort money from people? Why is religion the exception to that rule? Maybe if the law required verification of God people would realize it's really Devil they worship.

Doesn't Devil being the real supernatural being explain why God never gets what God wants without help from people? Has Jehovah, Trinity, Allah, any God ever done anything by self? I see, they all created the universes, people, flooded the place out and appointed representatives to spread their holy word.

Tell me again why the big money goes to God's favored representatives. Could that be because Devil rewards those who lead the multitudes to His kingdom, hell? Where is America headed? Heaven?

Rob, the best kept secrets are right out in the open. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship? By decree it was majority rule and by survey too. The vast majority of Germans were in favor of their leader. That fact was used to justify turning the place into a heap of rubble. The same rule will eventually be applied to the kingdom of God, turned into a heap of rubble.

Democracy is minority rights. When minorities have no rights it doesn't matter how the leadership is established. The pope is elected in a free election ya know. Only qualified voters are allowed to vote in Alabama. Must be democracy by your standard. I think W sees it your way.

What hoax buster does is publish a censored bit of research that clearly shows the source of the Bible. Those who favor democracy and are willing to "go in harms way" see it as a weapon against the most dictatorial of dictators, God's representatives. I believe his holiness the pope is world champ at the moment while Muhammad's gang works to take it all over. They, like the pope use the undeniable logic of, "who shall deny the word of God" when it's really the word of God's representatives that must be denied to maintain democracy and in turn freedom?

Those who know the source of God's word will go beyond questioning God's representatives identifying them for what they are, con men. Is there such a thing as a crime that's been done so long and accepted as moral by so many that it's no longer a crime?

All you need do is say being lied to, hoaxed, conned is good for people. That's the argument that if the gun of hell is not held to the head people won't behave themselves. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that certain lies are moral. Are religious people behaving themselves or are they making trouble here and there, you know, round about?

Round and round the vinegar jug the hound dog chased the skunk. Round and round the vinegar jug till squirt went the skunk. That's why they call the seats pews.

That censored web site is http://www.hoax-buster.org Just thinking about it makes God's representative's heads hurt. A little Excedrin? Anyone?

Sorry that last line should have read make waves OR create change

Bgone.

According to the definition of democracy it majority rules is not a dictatorship. I can see how being in the minority may make it feel like dictatorship but it is not so.

As far as Jesus having the authority to condemning people to hell that is merely one of literally hundreds of interpretation of Christianity. What the varying churches teach and what their members actually believe are two different things. There are a myriad of surveys to look at that will confirm this.

As for certain church leaders trying to ‘control’ America by getting laws passed there certainly are some. It is still a mistake then to consider religion a total determent to society. Religion certainly isn’t perfect but I wonder what the world would be like without Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and Gandhi. All were driven by their faith.

As for hoaxbuster I don’t find a lot of it credible but it certainly shouldn’t be censored.

Bgone there are many theists (most?) that believe that God is freedom or that God created freedom. To a theist anyone denying freedom is denying God to some extent or perhaps totally. Religion is simply a tool and like any tool man gets his hands it can be used for good or evil. There certainly are negatives in religion that need to be addressed. I think we as a race would are better served by looking at both the good and the bad. Do more of the good and less of the bad and we make more progress.

Even if religion is a total fable if it is a tool that helps people make the world a better place then it is a good thing.

Outrageous claims aren’t always necessary to make change. I actually believe more reasonable claims have a bigger impact. I guess it depends on if you want to make waves of create change.

Rob, democracy is MINORITY rights not majority rule. Majority rule is what dictatorships are. The great division in America brought about by the religious con men is an overt attempt to establish the dictatorship of God. Who will run the kingdom of God while we wait for God to return and claim His throne? That's what all the fighting is about in Muslimville.

Freedom perishes in the face of good men doing nothing. The best defense so far has been a good offense. When and if enough Americans challenge the religious con men just maybe a majority will wake up.

Admittedly, the con men are way out in front, lapped us a few time. There's a lot of catching up to do. Will it happen? Only time will tell us if too many good men are actually doing nothing or will a few good men willing to take the wrath of God so freedom can live will be successful. Success comes when nothing is done in the name of God. That's how freedom works, no where to send the money.

No one can stop anyone from believing anything. The gun of hell to the head forces belief. Saying all religion operators don't do that is naive. The pope assumes the Jesus via Gospel given authority to condemn anyone to hell for any or no reason at all. Either the Gospels are bogus or the majority are headed for hell. Perplexing, huh?

If you are a good man simply do nothing and watch it all gurgle down the drain. Hell is the abyss at the bottom of everything. That's where the multitudes are headed at light speed. Only the foolish get in their path trying to turn the stampede.

We're talking about information and nothing more. Should hoax buster be censored is the real question that's being asked behind closed doors. What do you think? Censor or publish? It can't be ignored.

Bgone.

Trying to prove scripture inflicts pain and damage to the extent that other ideas, media etc do is extremely difficult for two reasons. As you say action and result must make the legal decision. Again I am not a scripture person and it has its flaws but in my opinion at the very worst scripture provides as many good results as bad. SO we can’t prove action and result to a satisfactory extent.

Secondly there are too many believers and you are in the minority. In a democracy that puts you at a disadvantage. You can’t win this fight at this time.

I think I understand where you are coming from. Let’s not base our laws on ‘assumptions’ in scripture. I think a number of people could agree with that. That is a fight you may win. Pick your battles and start with the ones you have a chance at.

I don’t agree with you but if you think that getting rid of scripture is a good thing then you will need to provide an alternative that you can demonstrate it is better. Circling back to the original topic we need to demonstrate that being a ‘moderate’ Muslim produces better results or that democracy and Islam can work better than fundamentalism.

You can’t force a change like this on people. At best it would provide temporary victory but not true change.

Mr.Dickey,
There is a disconnect in your piece:
1// Essentially all Arab dictators are seculrists,thou they wear the Islamic garb and have Islam as the official state religion;
2// Those dictators-near and far from Mecca and the eaxmple of the Prophet-are in full alliance especially with the US-observe who are the US firends in the Arab World:brutal dictators tremed"moderates" plus the racist,miltaristic,Apartheid jewish theocracy,Israel.
Both the Arab dictators and the jewish theocracy,Israel are equally brutal, the fromer oppress ruthlessely all people of all colors inclding legitimate opposition:nationalist and secularists alike but mostly Isliamists,while the latter brutally oppress millions of occupied Palestinians because they reject Israeli occupation.
3// Turkey pauses an intersting and unique historical and socio-political phenomenon in the reglion:the AK is a true secular democracy to be emmulated in the Arab/Muslim World-and a proof that Islam and Demoocracy are twin bed fellows.

Attaturk's regime was always a secular authritrian dictatorship and anti-religious-unlike a true secular democracy which seperates state and church but yet protects religion and does not suppress it as Trukish Kamalist despots had been doing since 1923.

Japanese politics and markets a mess too Jihadist? No wonder you are a Jihhy in a hurry. Can affect other markets in the region and beyond.

Good luck

Oh my, sorry for that previous post with so many missing words, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and incomplete sentences. Written very hastily. In gist, liberal or reform-minded Muslims are fighting off three dragons simultaneously -

(a) Muslim fundamentalists and extremists;

(b) Christian fundamentalists and chauvinists;

(c) well-meaning western liberals.

Secular, liberal or reform-minded Muslims waste too much time focusing on and debating with (b) and explaining to (c) instead of countering and/or engaging with (a), and reaching out effectively to Muslim masses without talking down to them. We have to take responsibility for and to sort out our own political, economic, social, cultural and religious mess. No one else is to be blamed for them.

Bye.

Jihhy in a hurry.

The western powers and Israel had a choice, to either deal with Nationalism among the countries of the Middle East, or Pan-Arab Religionism.

You can reason & negotiate with a Nationalist, but it has obviously been harder to do the same with people who value belief over rationalism.

Objectively speaking, alot of what the western powers and Israel has done (such as overthrowing Mossadegh and installing the Shah) was against the national interests of the people within the ME, and have involved bringing down pro-nationalist ME governments.

It appears that popular discontent and feelings of unfairness at the hands of western powers has metastatized from Nationalism to a pan-Arab, pan-Islamic radicalism.

Fundmentally, resolution of conflict still comes down to FAIRLY resolving national interests of all parties in the ME.

It is skeptical that Western powers will suddenly repent and changes its ways, especially when one draws a consistent line of behavior from the past to the present (the unapologetic invasion of Iraq & the Israeli attack on Lebanon).

It is also skeptical that Islamic radicalism will diminish either, given the mutual relationship of destructive provocation, despite the fact that Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism aren't constructive towards modernizing & improving the nations of the Middle East as effectively as secularist nationalism has done.

It appears that while Islamic radicalism is a more resilient form of defiance for the people of the ME than nationalism, it is also a less effective and more self-destructive manifestation of resistance, which promotes stagnation of their civillizations, conducts despicable acts of barbaric terrorism, and reduces competitive prospects for their future, which may additionally fuel the cycle of discontent and rage.

Jililah, what a breath of fresh air to have someone on the inside give us a view from within. Petro dollars are funding the expansion worldwide of Islam and unfortunately they are also being used to convert the moderates to fundamentalists. The concept is a to create a state within a state or to colonize. It all works very well because this Islamization of the West takes place because of our freedom of religion. It is perfect strategy because there is no threat of a counter Christian revival in the homeland since freedom of religion is not reciprocated in the Muslim world. So we all face our values being assaulted by money, a coherent strategy, and a huge double standard that leaves that West with one hand tied behind our backs.

However, I also fear that you labor in vain because what is written is written.

You say: "In our Mosques we are called heretics, US government agents and neo-cons for promoting human rights values in Islam." I would think that the values you are promoting are things like tolerance, feminism, freedom, and justice, rule of law, freedom of speech, and maybe even freedom of religion? Are these values opposed based on a charge supported by the true believer that you must take the literal meaning of the Quran, which is intolerant. In other words, do the Muslim Brotherhood types in your Mosque use the actual words of the Quran to put you down? If so, what is the counter argument to this position?

Again, thanks for you explanation as an insider as to what is happening at the grass roots. I am cheering for the moderates. You have a huge uphill battle because of: A. Vast petro dollars funding fundamentalists working against you and B. (my question) the actual word that is unchangeable does not support the progressive democratic values that we share? Finally, what can we do to help you? Sorry, too many questions.

Candide

I totally agree with you.
It aint easy being secular.
Especially if you're Muslim.
That is heroic,and shows that some minds
refuse to be shut down despite the
unending dogma and overpowering groupthink.

Bgone;
You're in fine form today.
I like that too late smart.
Religions,historically,have not encouraged doubters.
The catholic church would torture some sense into
any doubters who were foolish enough to express
that doubt,back in the good old days.
I dont think we appreciate how powerful the
early Catholic church was. The pope ruled.
Death was the penalty for not buying the snake oil,
Kings could be excommunicated,and torture was used
to get at the truth.
Any wonder that everybody in Christendom believed
in God and the pope,and the Holy Catholic church?
They didn't have much choice.
I would have been a very religious man in those days.
You too BGone.

yoyo:

""Oddly enough,Jesus was an early doubter himself.
"Oh my God why have you abandoned me?"
He had great difficulty believing that
there was anybody up there,too.
I believe his doubt was fully justified.""
----
Strange you should mention that. The real Jesus, Amenophis IV had a pole shoved through her gut. Other than it takes 3 hours to die, she did call to her heavenly father, the sun for help. You guessed it, no help came.

That comes under the heading of "too late smart" and tells us to doubt early, before the pole goes through the gut.

One should indeed support and sympathize with secular Muslims. They are like Christians and Jews six hundred years ago. Until religion is shown to be the fraud it is we shall all suffer from its crazy beliefs and intolerant actions.

Rob Adams, No book should be made illegal. Using the dictionary to bump someone on the head and kill them is not making the book illegal but rather the action USING the book is clearly illegal.

Child abuse is illegal but not if a book is used to do it? Extortion is illegal but not if one cannot prove there is no God? Let's notice that government has no hesitation and quickly exercise the law in cases not involving certain books.

I'm not suggesting the Bible, Koran etc be sidled out. That's been done in the opposite direction. If porn books can be declared child abusive then so can sacred scriptures. In the case of porn "it's understood" with no clear evidence it's really child abusive. In the case of HELL the abuse possibilities have yet to be examined for the same reason porn is "assumed" to be abusive. It's assumed that being threatened with hell is good for children.

How do we know porn is bad? The Bible. How do we know threatening children with hell is good? The Bible. Why? We have made assumptions. The law must not make assumptions. The action and it's results must make the legal decision, not assumptions.

Does the Koran cause people to commit suicide? Better not else it's unlawful, laws already on books and covered with dust. Is terrorism illegal? If it is then religions that terrorize dying people with threats of hell are illegal. It's a matter of enforcing the law.

ASSUMPTION that the Bible is God's word is the foundation of a lot of illegal activities, not the first amendment. The courts have ruled that any religious service which endangers life of and/or health of children are not covered by the first amendment, snake dancing for an easy to verify example. The rash of post 9-11 anti terrorist laws probably made religion in general illegal. Terrorism, the greatest terror possible the fires of hell is the heart and soul of religion.

Ask a "saved" person what they're "saved" from? Is that hell? Ask a "faith" person what they faith. They'll say God but it's really a book, one of several used to do illegal activities, hiding behind the first amendment while violating it, "no law shall establish" illegal activities.

Oddly enough,Jesus was an early doubter himself.
"Oh my God why have you abandoned me?"
He had great difficulty believing that
there was anybody up there,too.
I believe his doubt was fully justified.

The Muslim who doubts his faith is a thinking Muslim.
As Augustine puts it,regarding doubters;
"At least,even if he doubts,he lives;if he doubts,
he remembers why he is doubting; if he doubts,
he has a will to be certain;if he doubts,he thinks;
if he doubts,he knows he does not know;if he doubts,
he judges he ought not to give a hasty assent."

Augustine,quoted in "Doubt:a History"
by Jennifer Michael Hecht
page 201.

Personally, I wish everybody would doubt and examine
what it is they believe,or have been taught to believe.What could be healthier?
After all,just because one was raised to believe
in a given religion,is hardly proof of the veracity of that particular religion.

Ja Joz:

"B G O N E: Please Give Jacob Jozevz,the Eclati-On, some Credit for using his Ideas"

I don't know what you mean but that's not unusual. Are you a contributor to hoax buster? I didn't know that. And, I don't see where they used there or I used here, whatever it is you want credit for. Specifically? Frankly, what you write makes very little sense to me. I hope what I write makes a little more sense to those who read me but one never knows.

Bgone.

We can’t make religious books illegal to use, for so many reasons. In America the first amendment has been extremely useful in moving the society forward and I don’t see us throwing that out anytime soon. Making religious scripture illegal is comparable to the Taliban’s enforcement of Islam.

Believers can only hold the GUN of Hell to your head if you let them. I believe in God but I don’t believe in hell as a physical place. While I personally find portions of religious scripture to be questionable it is more about interpretation to me. That is why we keep the separation of church and keep religious freedom or the freedom to not believe. We can’t make it illegal to have a store open on Sunday as it is a day of rest just the same as we can’t force you to open your store.

Since we can not prove or disprove God we will need to coexist in the mean time.

While many, but not all secular humanists are atheist or agnostic I really don’t see why there is such a the big disconnect with believers. While wikipedia is not a definitive source let’s look at the general tenets as describe on wikipedia for secular humanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism ; fulfillment, growth, creativity, search for truth, a better understanding of life, ethics and building a better world. To me faith would support all of these concepts. Obviously there is a difference to some believers that you don’t question or attempt to reason or find evidence. To me I think it is an excellent baseline to draw a companionship between many believers and non believers.

The difference is the believers think there is more, another level beyond this life. So instead of quibbling over what we both can’t prove one way or another let’s enjoy what we can agree on.

The moral pillars should be judged by their actions, not which book they read.

It's my opinion that holding the GUN of HELL to children's heads is child abuse. It gives them nightmares and emotionally disturbs them especially while going through puberty. Puberty is plenty tough enough without preachers waving their fingers in the children's faces and screaming, "you're gonna go to hell" over and over.

People survived on this planet tens of thousands of years without religion. Them old bones tell a tale. They aren't broken or they healed meaning someone tool care of the ones that fell out of trees. They haven't found foreign objects lodged in rib cages or other signs of violence. Conclusion, man has become violent in recent, what we call ancient history that coincides with the very first sacred scriptures.

Think about everyone going on to the next life. What does that mean to religion? Hell was invented to make people violent. Hell is an invention, a hoax used successfully by millions to extort money, wealth from naive people.

Rob Adams:

Seculars disagree with each other, violently even on occasion. Then law and order prevail and it's all over. Islam has been a festering sore on planet earth from it's beginning. There's a big difference in the two, get it over and just keep festering.

For example: I don't know if Jews are entitled to be where they are. What I know is they have been there for nearly 60 years. Either move them or shut up. If it's war then get on with it, make a decision, do something besides fester and when the war is done live with the results.

That's how people get along in the long run. Misunderstandings happen. To my way of thinking Islam is a planned misunderstanding, an issue that will be resolved when the Koran is declared to be a hoax and therefore not legally usable in the USA. Don't forget the Torah and Bible. Book of Mormon? Anyone?

It's fraud to create a hoax and take money based upon it. The fact that a person must die to find out they've been defrauded should not stop law enforcement. Either prove sacred scriptures are as advertised, an impossibility relied upon by the ministry, or they can't legally be used to take people's money.

Holding the GUN of HELL to people's heads and then quoting sacred scriptures, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" or "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven" and many others used to terrorize people are clear cases of "give me your money or I'll pull the trigger." Only China has the nerve to enforce the law it would seem. We're on the far side of that making the holders of the GUN out to be moral pillars of society.

Bgone.

You do make an interesting point. Some people ( how many?) get caught up in the scripture or the tradition. We would be better served to either throw scripture away or use it to gain a personal relationship with God versus as you say faith in scripture.

You can tell the people who have moved past the scripture, practice and tradition. They still use those tools but have gained a better, more realistic understanding of God that is not limited by scripture. These people can co-exist very well with atheists and I would say particularly human secularists, who may or may not be atheists.

As the saying goes a true master is not the one that has the most students but the one who creates the most masters. The idea is not to have people subservient to the master, but to free them and raise them up to become their own masters.

Freedom is a very powerful tool. That also makes the lack of freedom a very powerful tool for maintaining control. This battle will be won by ideas, not force.

As Mr. Dickey points out “The key here, of course, is balance. The essence of enlightened modernity lies in creating societies open enough to embrace both secularism and religion, while shunning fundamentalism of any kind.”

As Susan Jacoby posted, “"By their fruits ye shall know them." This is an equally appropriate credo for any secular humanist.” I would take that a step further and say this applies to everyone. So decry the radical or fundamentalist Muslims, not the moderates who promote peace and tolerance. These are the people that will help us win this battle of theologies.

A permanent change comes from within. No one said this will be easy. And along the way maybe we teach ourselves a thing or two.

The mafia is the oldest continuous government on earth predating the Roman Catholic Church. They were there when sacred scriptures were written. Did they write them? Did Constantine make a deal with them too, the double crosser?

BGone:

"Can't We All Just Get Along?"

Not without ecumenicality. That can't happen until the word of God is decided once and for all time. Now which word of God has the real words of God? (Note: we need to decide this before getting to individual versions of what God's words mean.)

a) Torah
b) Bible
c) Koran
d) Book of Mormon
e) Pagan Scriptures
f) Other

Note: e and f are failing grades while lax Mormons shall be known as d minuses.

Aw shucks. Everyone except atheists get tax free, tax deductible incomes and tax exempt real estate. What's their problem anyhow? There's free money for almost everyone.

The 5 mafia Godfathers, heads of the 5 "faith families" live in mansions, have money to burn and are really smart dressers. Why can't they "just get along"? Could it be there is but one God and many versions of God's words?

The Devil makes them do it!! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Does the mafia have a written sacred scripture? Maybe they should write one and become ecumenical, "Just Get Along." After all, a sacred scripture is a sacred scripture and all sacred scriptures are the words of some supernatural being. Well? Aren't they?

Secular Turks are not silenced. In Turkey, you can see our ideals in every corner. But thanks to the pro-AKP foreign media's selective reporting you might not hear from us. turkish-new . net

I cant help being angry that the 9/11 martyrs are having a swell time in Paradise with all those virgins.Its not fair I tell you.
The 3000 people who they killed,in order to get into Paradise,are no more.And their relatives still suffer their loss.
I don't understand why God rewards martyrs with virgins.It's really quite disgusting.
And where does God get those virgins from?
Are they dead too? Or are they the undead?
Its most confusing.And I'm not sure that God is who everyone says He is. He seems like some kind of old pervert if you ask me.
Its hard to have faith in anyone these days.
Even God.

YouTube - Incredible! George S Patton's New Speech-Iraq & modern world

Jililah writes:
"We [moderates] are speaking loudly, printing newsletters, creating websites and organizing groups to bring about the necessary raising of consciousness to the best of our ability with our extremely limited resources."

That's precisely what I'm talking about!! Cheers to action! It's sounds like you are speaking from the U.S., so you probably won't get tortured and killed for your activity, but that's a moot point. Your post honestly freaks me out regarding the state of moderation amongst american muslims. This sounds cheesey, but maybe we need to start doing a series of public opinion polls regarding muslim beliefs, and see if we can find out where this community really aligns itself. Is America headed for another, islamic version of the "red scare?" I sincerely hope not. Anyone, how close is Great Britain or France to falling in the grip of an "islamic scare?"

Jihadist,
I do not consider a suicide bomber a martyr. A suicide bomber is a one-shot warrior. A martyr, on the other hand, at least in mind, has a disposition of "peaceful repression." He/she is being violently repressed despite his/her own peaceful ways. He is being tortured/killed not because of his acts of violence, but because of speech/ideas/beliefs. When someone strikes him, he turns his other cheek and offers to be struck again. Perhaps there is a distinct difference between Christian and Muslim ideas of martyrdom? I am as much a buddhist as a christian, so i think that violent jihadists (not to be confused with the inwardly struggling jihadists) are in the minority and have perverted the meaning of martyrdom. Passive resistance can be effective. No guarantees, but of course there are no guarantees with violent resistance either, and at least by embracing passivity and hence true martyrdom you have maintained the your integrity of your beliefs.

My main concern is that liberals, progressives, and secularists have grown accustomed to their rights and their comforts and forget that each progressive step in society usually became paved with blood. The coffee shop reformers you speak of clearly have too much to lose personally to wish to wage an effective campaign of passive resistance. They must align themselves with the poor and the outcast who have little to lose and much to gain. They must convince the poor that openness and tolerance will pave the way to peace and prosperity. They must be convinced that ruthless forms of sharia skew its original intent and ultimately serves the will of the oppressors. Democracy is their key to power and reform. Remind them that democracy sprang from greece... on the border of east and west, and so can be shared by all.

Dear GLOBO

What you do not seem to realize is how much of a minority we are and while you can encourage die for this cause, if we are all dead, there will be no voices at all fighting for these changes. Sometimes action is better than bravado. We are speaking loudly, printing newsletters, creating websites and organizing groups to bring about the necessary raising of consciousness to the best of our ability with our extremely limited resources.

To understand what Muslim moderates are facing, you must recognize that the Wahhabi/Salafi lobby in this country is huge. Thousands of pro-Shariah Muslims attend their annual Chicago convention. They lie and pose as moderates when in fact they are a cover for The Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-i-Islami and all that follow Saudi ideology that feeds on the hatred of Americans. Muslim moderates are up against this force of power and money funded by Saudi petro-dollars. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in America who support their radical ideology and help fund The Muslim Brotherhood through the many many branches of the Saudi lobby.
They are taking over our Mosques and if they were the minority you claim we would not be losing our Mosques to these radicals. They recruit elitists like Ph.Ds and MDs to influence and pressure the Muslim populous to join the Wahhabi/Salafi mindset with the goal of replacing the US constitution with Islamic Shariah. Yet, they readily lie and claim to be both pro-democratic and moderate. The only purpose democracy serves for them is as a tool to gain power and institute Islamic Shariah. Their goals are treasonous. Now, this is not the same as terrorism, but you will find by tracing the money trail that these are the people who covertly help fund terrorist activity.

When we challenge them in our Mosques, we are threatened with slander lawsuits for referring to them as the radicals that they are. This threat is quite powerful as they are usually wealthy MDs and Ph.D.s who can afford such a lawsuit and those of us protesting the radicalism they bring into our Mosques are often not wealthy. Some of us have even received threats of physical harm if we don't shut-up and stop challenging The Brotherhood and Wahhabi/Salafi lobby. They operate much as a mafia with threat and intimidation their primary tools.

We Muslim moderates ARE A MINORITY - Don't kid yourself. We would not be losing our Mosques to these vipers were this not true. We are trying to be heard but have VERY LITTLE SUPPORT. Even the US government panders to the radicals rather than recognizing the true Muslim moderates. Yes, members of the Wahhabi/Salafi lie and claim to be moderates but they are not and it is a grave error to believe them.

In our Mosques we are called heretics, US goverment agents and neo-cons for promoting human rights values in Islam. It is truly an uphill battle. Please read my posts in the comments section and the in-depth material I've included there in regard to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Non-Muslims truly have no idea have difficult is our struggle. We are vastly outnumbered and losing our Mosques right and left to organizations like NAIT. The Saudis genuinely control Islam in America and they have pulled the wool over your eyes. Something has to be done to stop those who have come here with the treasonous intent to replace the US Constitution with Islamic Shariah.

Muslim moderates who genuinely believe that democracy and Islam are compatible are speaking as loud as we can, but our voices are drowned out by the deceitful lies of the lobby claiming to be moderate while they promote Islamic Shariah and fund terror organizations underground.

Please read the many comments in regard to these issues:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/07/muslims_speak_out/comments.html#comments

Mr Dickey, I'm having difficulty with my faith. Specifically, I can't seem to find out what I'm supposed to faith to be a good person. Can you help me, give me the official version of what the faith is one must keep as in, "keep the faith" baby.

Let me say that a different way. Does anyone faith God? I see lots of faith sacred scriptures. And, I can understand the immorality of not faith God. But I'm having difficulty finding a body of faithful that don't insist that I faith sacred scriptures.

Of course you know all them sacred scriptures are bogus, the work of con men. So I wonder at yours and others attempts to bring peace in our time among the disputers of sacred scriptures. Good luck reconciling diametrically opposed sacred scriptures. You'd think con men would be more consistent. Maybe if we talked about faith God instead?

We can begin by faithing the particulars. In particular, the demon God put at heaven's gate to keep the bad guys out. Now that leads to a significant problem. Whatever will God do with the bad guys? Hell seems to be a proper solution. The bad guys are all going to hell. So send them to hell now and get it over with?

Nah. Couldn't be. That demon at heavens gate isn't a hoax is it? Sacred scriptures tells us it's so, therefore it must be so. Sacred scriptures are God's words?

Round and round the vinegar jug the hound dog chased the skunk. Round and round the vinegar jug till squirt went the skunk. That's why they call the seats pews.

Mr. Christopher Dickey

This is a very quiet and boring thread!

A Muslim who said he is a Muslim but don't actually fulfil the Five Pillars of Islam is generally reminded by family and friends, but if s/he still don't, is ignored or tolerated and left to God to be the judge of. Or there would be no Muslims left in the world due to beheadings for these lapses.

As for the Middle East, perhaps you have not been reading the Arab blogs to see the extent and depth of how foreign interference in their affairs do imbue thoughts and feelings on temporal issues.

Westernised intellectuals or western educated Muslims in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world do tend to be rather "isolated" or "immune" from their larger society in having a generally better off life and to be concentrated in the urban areas.

You only have to look at their family and educations backgrounds to understand why they can't communicate with their own peoples. This is the same for non-Muslims in Asia and Africa. The liberal forces for democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe failed to make headways with the general population that is largely rural, not so-broadly educated and generally poorer due to the same reasons of lack of intellectual and practical "reach".

The so-called Muslim "secularists" in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world are silenced just not by their own governments, but by the fact that they can't effectively counter those who said the western models are the best judging by the policies of the west in the Middle East.

The Middle East Arab thinkers and writers do flirt with Pan-Arabism, Baathism etc. Muslims take easily to western pop culture, but not western political idelogies as the best solutions in the Middle East.

Middle East thinker-writers are also prime exporters of ideas and thoughts in the wider Muslim world but with no capacity to implement them in their own countries effectively. These "coffeeshop reformists" are akin to the French cafe society and intellectuals. One cannot help but to personally despaired of one's fellow Muslims whining about their "despair". Effete, kevetching Muslim thinkers!:)

I find it more interesting to speak with Muslim ulema from the Middle East than the "secular" or "liberal" thinker writers. They are intellectual bankrupt while new thinking are emanating from the Muslim ulema who generally the most consistent in opposing the oppressive regimes in the Arab world that the secular/liberal thinkers supported before and/or now. Saddam Husssein, the secularist, only look to God when he is about to have war with Iran, to invade and occupy Kuwait. He is seen as a hypocrite in cynically coopting God for his temporal adventurings.

As for the rest of the Muslim world, as for Indonesia and Malaysia, as there has been no direct foreign inteference or interventions for years now, Muslims are generally able to "breathe" a bit better in resolving temporal issues, including considering the various ideas put forth by Muslim thinker writers, as well as Muslim organisations, on ways to move Islam forward.

As a journalist, you would know that in Indonesia and Malaysia, the various strains of thought and shades of Islam are in the public domain as NGOs and political parties. The debate is still ongoing.

Indonesian and Malaysian Muslim writers who are reformists do write scarthingly on US Middle East policies while calling for their peoples to "modernise" in their faith, especially the Shariah.

They are looking at the Turkish experience very closely, but do think some Turks' objection to the head-scarves to be "extreme". That is the paradox. In pursuing secularism in the sense of seperation of church and state and religion as a personal practice or otherwise, some Muslims and Muslim states do go overboard, replacing one set of "repressive" rulings with another.

Ms. Susan Jacoby

I humbly suggest, as a start, you goggle Farish Noor for one. He is a Malaysian who also write in English on Islam. His pieces are found if one goggled and would take the time to look them up.
He is controversial and well respected for his intellectual honesty. Even his conservative Muslim opponents in Malaysia and Indonesia are beginning to respect him.

The Muslim "liberals", or "secularists", (they prefered the term modernisers or updaters or reinterpreters) in Malaysia want to be cowed by death threats and/or personal vilifications. The received quite a few, especially Zainah Anwar of Sisters in Islam in Malaysia.

In fact, they informed the public of threats and personal vilifications they received publicy. This really makes their opponents and their supporters defensive in behaving as such and in not coming up with concrete proposals or counterpoints in the debate on the way forward for Muslims.

Globo Mojo

Risk of torture and imprisonment for peace and enlightenment ? Don't go on that road. Some Muslims do contend that the Muslims in Gitmo are being imprisoned and tortured for fighting off foreign agression and for their own version of "peace" and "enlightement". Encouraging more suicide bombers? You want to see more Muslim martyrs, but the liberal/secular Muslim martyrs eh? :). Let the extremists shed their own blood. Ever saw Monthy Python's "Life of Brian"?

Of course Muslim "moderates" will win if their greatest enemies are not only Muslim extremists and opppresive regimes, but all those pesky and misguided naive western liberals and literalist, fire-breathing Christian inerrantists who believe hastening the Apocalypse now.

Best regards as always

J

S Jacoby writes: "Not only secularists but liberal Muslim believers are terrified to speak out within the Islamic world."

If they're not willing to die for peace and the enlightenment (broadly speaking) of their societies, then they'll achieve neither. They need to be seen and heard. They need to risk torture and death to make the waves that more and more people in their society will notice and respect. Every liberalizing change in society hinges on such willingness to sacrifice. The fundamentalists seem all too eager to shed their own blood. The liberals are silent. Who do you think will win?

As a fellow "On Faith" panelist and as a secularist, I second everything Christopher Dickey has to say. Bravo. Not only secularists but liberal Muslim believers are terrified to speak out within the Islamic world. They threaten no one with violence, but right-wing clerics and apostles of violence threaten them.

Individuals and factions within religions should be judged by behavior, not by arcane interpretations of supposedly sacred books. The behavior of right-wing Islamists shows that they are enemies of freedom of conscience and reason. The behavior of liberal Muslims and secularists shows that they wish only to be free to think and to speak as their conscience dictates.

As the Christian gospel states, "By their fruits ye shall know them." This is an equally appropriate credo for any secular humanist.