I have absolutely understand that, Haplo, but the point is that if this should be done, the result would not be islam anymore.

Would you think that if you substract basics like the ten commandements, or the sermon on the mountain, and all passages carrying comparing content in the Bible, maybe even deleting all passages claiming the exitence of a god and a difference between right and wrong, from "Chrstianity", what is left would be the Christian message then anymore? Hardly.

for Islam, the importance of Shariah is even more basic and substantial. I have read people writing in books that in a way, Islam IS Shariah.

People time and again underestimate the paramount importance of Shariah law in Islam. You just cannot reject parts of it or Shariah completely, or poiuck a bit of it,l chnage some others, and skip the rest. Shariah belongs to Islam as does the Quran or muhammad.

Shariah is a divine code of rules that controls man life both individually and collectively. In that, it is a complete model explaining life and all the world of appearances, and by that explain how to solve any problems, challenges, future problems that are, or might be, or even could be imagined for the future. The Shariah is the evidence for the unerring wisdom and truthfulness of Allah and the correctness of the Quran. It covers all and every aspect and detail of human life that a man can ever meet in his life (at least that is the claim). This divine law is absolute, and total, it is a fulfillment in itself, it is the Alpha and the Omega, the evident manifestation and proff for the existence of Allah and Allah being beyond question.

Shariah IS, and that it is in absolute, total, full completeness.

Every aspect of human thinking and action is subordinate to Shariah. Wanting to alter shariah, or negotiating it, means to put man'S will over Allah's infinite wisdom and insight, and minimising allah that way, compared to erring, mortal man.

I am not the only one seeing shariah as one of the most obvious, imo even as the most dominant argument why Islam is a totalitarian ideology. shariah'S claim for control of deed, thiought, feeling, of past and future appearance, of everything that could be imagined, is nothing else but this: total, an absolute in itself. Since shariah is understood to be that omnipresent, so unescapable, here you have anothe reason why if taking therse claims as truth it is easy to say that there shall not be any comoulsion ihn belief. you cannot escape thzat belief anyway, and are subject of it, no matter what - so being forced to believe would be like being forced to breath or being forced to live. It makes no sense.

You can easily imagine that Islam's intolerance for other faiths and cultures also is anchored in this utmost important, ultimate understanding of shariah.

YOU CANNOT CHNAGE IT OR ALTER IT OR TAKE IT AWAY, HAPLO. A form of Islam where the term should have any meaning left, but without shariah, cannot be imagined. An Islam without Shariah makes no sense. you have something then: but with Islam it has nothing to do, then. You cannot have a theistic relgion and then delete the evidence for the deity and think the relgion still represents the basic principle of its content: theism.

Well Skybird, I do understand you point. However, I feel fairly confident that this has been a topic of discussion for scholars of history as well as today. After all - what your talking about is a total transformation from what Islam IS today (and make no mistake, I recognize it for all its totalitarianism) vs what it could "evolve" into. You asked about what would happen if portions of Xtianity were "taken out" or deleted wholesale.

Yet historically speaking, this HAS occurred to Xtianity. Over thirty books that were at one time considered part of "Holy Scripture" have been removed from the foundational text that is known today. While there is great arguement over the validity of specific texts, the reality is that many true biblical scholars cannot even agree who wrote what. Many scholar debate whether or not the "Romans road" texts were even authored by the same person. The same holds true for Old Testament texts.

Yet the religion itself continues to exist, and overall has done pretty well. Could Islam not do the same is the question. I look back at the history of the decisions to cull various texts out, or as I am often pointing out - the "reinterpretation" of the texts to fit the need of the person. For an example - just look at the King James version of the Bible. While many fundamental Baptists of the South see that as "THE" Bible, the reality is that the King James version is exactly that.... .King James' VERSION! He was its patron because he needed the changes to be able to claim a religious authorization or right to a divorce!

At one time, the religion now known as "Christianity" was very singular in its theology. Look at what it was 500 years ago. Then compare that to 250 years ago, and then again to what it is in today's world. Even 500 years ago, there was no Reformation. In fact, "Christian" meant what is known today as a form of Catholicism, because the Protestant movement really didn't begin until Ninety Five Thesis was first nailed on the door, in 1517. Catholicism has split into a few flavors, and Protestant theology has split into almost innumerable permutations. Some even seperate themselves over details as petty as whether your dunked or sprinkled during a Baptism.

Reform in religion only occurs when someone points out what doesn't work, what is wrong with the theology, and challenges followers of that religion to cast aside what should be left behind. Martin Luther did it by inspiring people to challenge the religious heirarchy of the day, with a learned and scholarly arguement. While this article is no modern day Ninety Five Thesis' - the fact is its a first step toward a direction when a comparable writing may happen. For that, its good to see.

The real problem doesn't come from the writer. The problem comes from those of the islamic faith that will refuse the challenge, and instead hold fast to tradition, archaic "law" and be pawns to evil out of sheer blindness.

Does the writer have any real hope of success? No. But sympathetic scholars of Martin Luther's day told him the same. They surely told reformists that to change the religion was to transform it into something "not Christian". Yet some people did change it. Historically, the New Testament and its mere existence could be considered another such time in the growth of the Xtian faith. How many followers of the Law do you think struggled with the idea that they could take on the Gift of Grace as offered in the NT?

Change isn't easy, and is also in this case highly unlikely. But one must start the conversation that may make it happen, else it assuredly never will. For that, I applaud the writer.

Trust me Skybird, I was in no way fooled by the "sweet" words used by the author and the accusation of islamophobia irked me as well as it did you. Yet the fact of the matter is, this guy was the first to actually publicly write and claim that Islam must change and adapt to the environment it is in.

As the same time, I agree with you that Islam as such cannot change. Roman catholic church was a power organisation, for me, one of the most brilliant ones in existence, considering how long it has stood to the test of time and what control it has over the minds of man, the influence that we have to fight in any circumstance. Protestantism wanted in some way or another to liberate man from the Papal interpretation of the Bible and almost destroyed itself with its many factions in the process. It was also against the organisation and what it represented and took for itself (its amazing riches). Islam on the other hand cannot do that. Haplo, as Skybird has previously mentioned, there is no variation of Islam and there is no denouncing your religion. Once you are Muslim, you die one, or you are killed if you stop being one. Skybird is right in saying that it would no longer be Islam, yet something completely different. While my knowledge of religions is limited at best, that little I have heard and read about people who asked Muslims about their religions that it would be difficult to expect any change to occur on the same level as Protestantism was to the Roman catholic church.

One slight problem with part of your post there Respenus.
If Islam cannot change then how are there so many different flavours of it?
Since the major problem is the wahhibi flavour with its interpretations and that is a fairly recent development it illustrates the point well , you write of the schisms within christianity, is not this islamic fundamentalism somewhat akin to some flavours of fundamentalist calvinism?

Haplo makes some very good points also, though the "old school" fundamentalism is a fairly modern thing that is less than 200 years old and is a devolution rather than an evolution, much in the same way as "old school" fundamentalist movement in christianity and the biblical literalism is a relatively new thing and a step backwards.

Haplo,

there are several major lineages of tradition of islamic law, several schools of juristic interpretation. There are four major ones, and a handful of much less influential ones. Historically, none of them ever was capable to really "modify" or "reform" Islam the way Luther did that with regard to the Catholic church, or Jesus did that with regard to the old testament. Islam is per se an othodoxy by essence, and this orthodoxy not only is as efficient (and if needed: unscrupellous), if not more, than the Catholic church at the times of lets say the inquisition in preventing too far-reaching change - Islam also still is that powerful until today, whereas the era of total, undisputed power of the church in the christian countries has thankfully come to an end, and longer time ago so. This influence on theologic discussion and jurisdiction, always has been and still is tremendous, and many scholars at Islam'S most influential schools and universities still teach dogmas that fit the curriculum they had a thousand years ago. This type of education is EXTREMELY influential. Europeans do not want to hear that, but many of those socalled radicals or islamists and whatever creative word-inventions there are in use, are much more in conformity with true Islamic teachings, than the socalled moderates living by western standards that the West wants to assume on the other side - else he would have no negotiation partner that is available to him! This makes this assumption of this partner existing very much wishful thinking, you see. Some poeple remind me that not all muslims are muslims like not all christians are christians, well, not only is the consequence of not being chroistian and not being Muslim totally reversed in moraloutcome, but that is the exact argument for the socalled radicals why they even kill "Muslims" - untrue muslims whose killing already has been demanded by muhammad himself, because they are no Muslims. some people seem to think being mulsim could be compromised, and some muslim identity could be traded for something else. that is nonsense. You often will read in the academic literature and expert's books that they refer to Islam as a "monolithic" religion or idea. that is ver much true. It is the first true monocockpit of ideology racing. :)
Never underestimate the totalitarianism and the totality of Islam's claim to be the standard of order, everwhere, anytime, for everything and every man! There are not different kinds of Islam like there are several christian churches. There is only one true Islam, and the rest is fake and part of the house of war.

Four traditions of jurisdiction. On some issues, all these schools agree. what I tried to express about the importance and meaning of Shariah (which DOES NOT COMPARE TO JUST A SET OF RULES like Western lawcodes are!) is such a thing. You will sometimes see dispute over how this or that specialised detail should be interpreted in its relevance for this or that spect of real olife, or a given situation, but the general status of shariah as I tried to outline it, is beyond negotiatiopn and beyond dispute. From a "truly islamic" (means: in conformity with Quran and Shariah) standpoint, every muslim arguing that the shariah should be abandoned or changed or only taken in parts, is already an apostate, and if he cannot be convnced to fully submit to islamic faith again, he has to be killed. I know that reasonable moderates and idealists are trying to question this totality, and claim that that is just extremism that has nothing to do with Islam, but it simply is not true. You cannot take everything you do not like in islam and chnage it and afterwards say: this jnow still is islam. The term is a name, and a name is attributed to a specified content, meaning, quantity and quality of something. If you change the content beyond certain limits, what you then have is nothing that deserves the original name anymore.

that'S why in all muslim nations, Muslims of true faith demand the Shariah to be the highest legal authority and the basis of the nation'S constitution, or better: that the Shariah should be the legal code and should be the constitution. It is the manifestation of unerring Allah.

who are you, Haplo, that you think you must take it upon you to change Allah - are you a god yourself...? ;)

Don't compare this to goings - goor or bad - in the Christian tradition. People often try these comparisons. They never work. The structure of the Muslim universe, and the basis of the Ummah, is completely different.

P.S. On a personal note, I am not so surprised that you think islam could be changed, when I think about you. In that thread of yours you indicate that you also think science and creationsim could be brought together, or reason and religion. You indicte that you think total opposites could be compormised and meet somewhere in the middle. Honstely said, to me that show sonly that you are in some kind of conflict, you want to stick to some thigns while if not knowing than at least feeling that there is something in them that leaves to be desired, and you want to adress that dissonance by bringing what is contradicting your former conviction, intom line with it. But that does not work. Not with creationsim and science, not with rationality and relgion - and not with Islam and "modernising" it with western values. - no offence meant, Haplo, just a thought of mine on you personally, and how I perceive you. If there is some truth in what I say, than the existence of this conflict in you absolutely speaks in your favour - dogma has not been strong enough to blind and silence you once and forever, and you are still alive enough to feel the pain when something hurts you. It's like this with many muslims as well who claim they want to be seen as muslims but indeed live in full conformity with western laws and values and appreciate the freedoms of ours and want to defend them against those assumed "radicals".

"Keep diggin'!" :D

P.P.S. If, against all odds, there will be reformation in islam, than it has to be done from within Islamic socieities, not being exported by us to them. Our interference will always cause more friction and conflict than any good, becasue that acting of ours will always work as an argument for the "radicals"/true Muslims to defend their cauase and demonise liberty - because it comes from us. The "dialogue with Islam" has not brought any fruits although it runs since over 40 years and effectively is a monologe of the West with himself. It has not helped integration, nor balancing the freedoms of Islam in the West with the lack of freedoms of other cultures in Islamic countries. It hs not imporved the role of women in the muslim world, nor has it freed people from dogmatic tyranny and suffering. Islam has only taken in these fourty years, but not given anything. Islam let's the West run it's monologue since it keeps the West busy and destracted, leaving windows of opportunity wide open for Islam to advance into the West. Like - I think - Rommel said: if you see your enemy making mistakes, don't disturb him. You said at the end we "must start that conversation." must we? We are not them, and it is beyond our reach and interest (regardingthat we should not deliver the ammunition to opposition of reform), to get them started. they must do it themselves. In the end, overcoming islam means a mental and intellectual evolution - and there are no shortcuts to it. they will need to go through the same conflicts and sufferings and contradictions and will end in the same new cultural situation like we did in the West: having had long times of religious controversy, dictatorship and war, and now having a freedom that is so huge that it threatens to pervert into its opposite again and leaves many people freed from the relgious dogma, but still not having figured out hoo to use the freedom also in the meaning of not only being free from something, but also being free for something. the excessive materialism of hours last but not least is an indication that the overcoming of the religousn dogmas has left a void in our minds that we still have not filled otherwise, and the lack of orientation makes us turning towards materialism, seeing for the easy and cheep care top our inner conflict. That does not mean we are worse off when having relativised the power of religion. But it means that our quest for happiness is not over.

Well, this PPS only as a reply to the hypothetical scenario of islam getting reformed. this scenario to me is not more than just a thought experiment. I do not expect we will see it happening soon.

More rubbish from Skybird.
Simple question, how many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of different versions of sharia are there?
As you outline it you are talking complete bollox again.

Crikey!!....is this debate still going on? :o

Religion aside, it's time to return Europe to europeans.

People don't surrender their pride in who, and what, they are just because they move to another land. This can hold true even after many generations. And even after the original language is lost.

:haha::har:

Yep :yawn:
And it will go on until we have all been consumed by the spread of Islam, then there will no infidels left to argue against...... oh by the powers of Allah!,
Looks like they already got to me. (damn my Liberal ways - i didnt even notice!)
Now if you'll excuse me I have six wives to buy hibjabs for and a mosque to construct on a front lawn near you....

Salaam suckers!

JU_Abdul_Bilal_Khaseeb_88

Whether one considers their religion, or not,:

Get them TF out . . .yesterday!

"Time to return yurop to europeans" who's to decide on that then? those who agree with you perhaps ? Finns consider themselves as europeans. finns consider themselves as nordic, but if you say finns are scandinavian there are swedes to tell you otherwise..

"Who's to decide on that then?"
The people who still hold a majority in their own lands.
Having ones country taken away is bad enough, giving it away is unthinkable.

Finns are european.
Finns are nordic.
Finns are NOT scandinavian.
For once this dane agrees with the swedes. That in itself is amazing.

Skandinavien = Danmark, Norge, Sverige.

Snestorm, your rhetoric borders on extreme nationalism, something that we Europeans have decided to put away in cold storage for as long as humanly possible. Let them come, I have no problems with immigrants, as if we look far enough into the past, we are all immigrants of sorts which changed the culture in the areas we inhabited. Yet those were different times, now we know how we can live together. The main point of this debate was the difference of values and how Muslim communities, at least a part of them, actively support the idea of turning Europe into a Shari'ah governed zone and how Islam is far from being a tolerant religion.

For all the stary-eyed individuals as Skybird calls them, go look at the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. That should give you a pretty good indication of how different we are and why we dislike the idea of our values being turned into (radical) islamic ones.

http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/do...rislam1990.htm

the critical passages:

I think this just confirms what I said about the total claim of shariah that I described in postings above, yes?!

There are a lot of positive things said in that declaration also, but you have to balance them against the comntext of the shariah (see the red-printed articles 24 and 25), and you have to realise that many of those signing this declaration at the time when signing it, and before, and afterwards, acted against the principles they so heroically voiced, and that many declarations of liberties and good things are in total oppositon to demands by Shariah and the Quran if you read the articles isolated and out of conetxt of the shariah, or they get limited in their scope and put into relation by the Quran, without the declaration explicitly mentioning that.

In principle you can delete that misleading declaration of Human Rights in Islam, and set up the Quran in it's place. the whole thing is just this - a deception to please the western useful idiots and lure them a bit more.

Skybird,

I agree with you on many points. I simply think that you slamming the auther and calling the article "biggotted" was where you went wrong.

Your right in that Islam cannot be changed by those of us outside. If we could, we obviously would have by now. It is true that only those INSIDE the faith must question it and move it forward. But for a european writer to have the testicular fortitude to say "screw political correctness" and lay out WHY Muslims are not being accepted - because of the obvious problems in their religion, is one heck of a good thing.

We agree it won't do any good in the theology. But to even say it in the PC euro world as it exists, publicly and in writing - shows two important things. The stranglehold of political correctness toward Islam is weakening, as well as that the dissatisfaction and education about what islam truly espouses is growing in Europe. These two things are what will ultimately lead to an awakened public willing to refuse to allow such teachings that violate its standarnds of decency.

As for conflict - I know what I know. But I question things, so that I know more. Its simply the easiest way to learn. I thank you because its VERY rare that I get called someone who seeks common ground, as I am known to just "plow ahead" way too often. But then again, discussion is one thing, decision making another, and to lead in any capacity we have to be able to put away discussion and act. But thats neither here nor there.

And what are the chances of our values being turned into even mild islamic ones let alone radical ones?
Is it none, none, none or errrr.....none?

Where is this stranglehold ?
The only real issue which muddies the debate on Islam is about the hate filled bigots who as skybird says flood every group that criticises the religion, and of course people like Skybird himself who ruins his points by contradicting himself and making crazy leaps of connection that cannot be connected...... and of course simply making things up which don't stand even a cursory examination.

I think I'll hang on to my nationalism.
"The Global Village" doesn't look very appealing.

Just for the record.
I'm not an EU supporter, and I'm opposed to adopting the euro.

We agree on many things, and disagree on others, also, on some things we necessarily must and will fight against the other's team. But as long as you understand that I do not wish to personally attack you, this strong disagreement must not make us personal enemies. I indeed think you are an intelligent person, because you show quite some creativity in your efforts of trying to bring together things that are opposites and - as I see it - cannot be brought together, since they are mutually exclusive. I of course do not agree with the claimed outcome of your thought experiment, obviously, but think that somewhere inside of you, you are aware, in some way, of the contradictions in religion's/creationism's position, and thus you try to bring reason into it by trying to merge it with science. A dumb religious nuthead would not do that, but would be satisfied with just deafening his ears, stopping to think, and be happy to just blindly believe and preach his dogma. Like that - you are not, it seems to me. that's why we can come along together, even when totally disagreeing on some things.

When calling that auhtor bigott, maybe that was a bit too personally aimed and aggressive indeed,, and I should leave it to saying that I see him as naive, and in cionflict with some basic ideas of the ideology that he, as it seems to me, just glosses over, comfortably ignoring aspects of it that nevertheless as integral parts of it. Anyhow, if taking both postings I had about that, it should become clearer what I mean. I refuse to form a final opinion on him, becasue I simply do not know enough of him, his usual work, and his record. I am just very aware that there are so many spokesmen that are presented and accepted as "moderates" and "liberals" and ´"well integrated in our societies' structures", but are indeed representing extrmist groups. Practically all spokesman of Muslim organisations we have in Germany, are like that, and they get accepted by politicians as "ndialogue" partners, thus they are accepted top represent the so-called moderate and integrated muslims as well - becasue they do in no way object to these radical sspeaking in the name of "all muslims" in Germany.

and that passiveness and phlegma makes "moderates" as guilty as the "radicals", and makes them directly suporting "radical" Islam by not hindering it.

In Austria and then Germany, it initially was only a small handful of thugs that took over the country in the thirties. but theyx acted with that intimidating behavior that most people did not dare to stand up against them, and later, many chose to simply let things run. They were no Nazis by cinviction, but thex also did not nothing to stop them while there still was time. These "Mitläufer" imo are as guilty as those beign active Nazi members. It compares to failure to give assistance, which now is a punishable offence in Germany.

:DL

See my sig... :yeah: