Well, Schroeder, I hope the conversation provided at least a temporary respite from your "boredom". I'm sure that any acts of violence committed by impressionable minds after reading your words were well worth whatever entertainment value you took away from the discussion. Good day.

I think you misunderstood the irony in my words regarding the boredom but I will leave it at that.

Just one more thing, because I can't let it just stand there like that:
O.K. I already clarified that it was not entertainment for me and that the boredom part was meant ironic. It was a "what do you think made me write all this? Boredom?".

But now will you please point me to just one line that I wrote where I told people to use violence against Muslims? I don't think there is one! I strongly reject violence!
Please don't interpret things into my posts that aren't there. Otherwise you could just as well tell newspapers to stop writing about politicians and their failures. It could inspire people to use violence after all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6938161.ece

An interesting article and probably the first I've read that doesn't dive nose down into islamophobic and xenophobic accusations yet presents what is the real concern of the Swiss and the Europeans about Islam.

Good article Respenus, the Guardian and Jerusalem Post both had similar ones.

Good article.

what a bigot piece of text that is. I know it's not by you, respenus, but I wonder why you fall for it. Despite the reason you seem to see in it, the author claims the main cause for the ban is just obviously irrational "xenophobia" and islamophobia, and he implies the more unpleasant aspects and demands of Muslim ideology are not as bad as they by their nature obviously be. He also implies that people'S crticism to Islam cannot have a valid basis in argument, and necessarily must be irrational - that is the nice overkill effect in the claim a critic of islam is just an islamophobe. I do not think Wahabism is the representative form of Quranic teaching, but the moedest form the author seem to imply also is a deception. And even in mainstream islam, and in all four major legal traditions that dominate the jurisdiction in Islam today, major speakers and representatives until today refuse to separate themselves from the acts of terrorists becasue they explicitly claim and insist that these terrorists are standing reliably and strongly on the fundament of basic islam.

there are many Muslim organisations in the West, and in Germany practically ALL of them represent orthodox rightwing and Turkish ultranationalistic organsiations. just today the bureau of the biggest one in Germany, Mili Görüs, has been raided by police throughout the country. These are the ones who represent the islamic communities in Germany, although jnumberically they don't, by volume of their propaganda they do - and the socalled moderates let them have their go and explicitly reject to stand up against them. By their passivity, the socalled moderates nevertheless are assisting the more radical ones. Thes eorganisations, in Germany as well as Britain, send spokesman into the arena that talk a lot of moderation and tolerance and how multicultural islam is - all the sweet things useful idiots love to hear - and the latter is the reason why they do it.

Let me put it this way, Respenus. If you want an objective , reasomnable assessemnt of the role, the worth, the history of Catholicism - do you think the pope is the right guy to ask about it...? when Benedict beca,me pope, short time later a book by him was published, on Jesus. I have read the first half of it. benedcit is a smart mind and a sharp thinker. Unfoptunately he says on the first pages, that he puts all his thinking under one preamisse, that is that he takes what the bible says on Jesus not metaphorically, but literally, and always. what kind of objectiove assessmeent can I expect from such a man, then, when he already has mutilated the independence of his - otherwise sharp - intellect?

what kind os assessment on islam do you expect from an Imam, when apostacy is under death penalty in Islam and muhammad ordered the assassination of critics that he grew too tired of? do you think Imams became Imams by being independent and critical of islam? If you read the article again, you should note, that the man just makes claism, and tries to raise an image of that minimises Muslim profile and possible surface to attack. Some things he said I thinbk are in direct opposition to rulings of the major schools of legal scholars.

when you want objective assessemnts of things, you do not ask lobbyists about them, and not affected parties having interest in let the thing in question shine bright and friendly. you try to find advise from experts who DO NOT belong to it. Islamic theology has not the tradition of critical self-reflection we have developed in the West, last but not least against the desire of the church in earlier centuries to prevent right that. In Islam it is not asked how things are and whether oit could be like it is claimed, but it is asked: "why is it that the quran is right?". The correctness of the Quran as a revelation of the devine is beyond doubt and beyond the need of being questioned. In prinicple, all maor religions tend the more to this pervertion of thinking the more fundamental they are. but today, this kind of attitude is much, much more dominant in Islam, than in the secularised churchian/Christian socieities of the West.

When the pope defends catholicism beyond it's justified credits, it is no surprise, because it is part of the job description to do so. when you hear creationists defending creationism, that is no surprise, too, is it. Ask a Mormon about the book mormon, and he will tell you that it is right, and good. what a surprise. Ask a Buddhist whetehr he thinks buddha had good things to teach or not, and don't be surprised if he says he thinks buddha indeed taught very good things.

Ask a chairman of a muslim council and an imam on islam, and do not be surprised if he glosses over things a bit. Self-criticial reflection really is no strength in religions in special, and Islam in special. It equals heresy, and bring people into troubles - even today.

On the man:

http://www.ummahpulse.com/index.php?...d=39&Itemid=45

Further research on him shows he won a dispute against a Muslim newspaper accusing him to be a heretic. Maybe his views and opinions are indeed liberal, democraric, humanistic, or whatever.

BUT WHY IS HE THEN DECEIVING PEOPLE OVER THE NATURE OF THE QURAN AND iSLAM THAT IS ANYTHING BUT THAT?

why doesn't he speak out against islam then, instead of trying to give it a nice facade that allows to spread islam- true islam - in the cover of that deceptive facade?

If people want to help muslims arriving in the 21st century, then they must confront islam as what it really is, not offering it loopholes and opportunities to hide it's grim face. To borrow from Kalil Gibhran, if you see an enslaved man saying he feels free, don't leave him to that self-deception, but show him what real freedom is by rejecting his claim and chasing the slave-owner away. If you give the slave holder a good reputation, you help to strengten slavery, and become a complice by making it acceptable.

If you Google his name, you will find many entries that show you that he receives much fire from other muslim groups, and hardly can be seen as speaking for any kind of majority or "true islam". Again, this must not necessarily be criticism of him, I never have heared of him before now. It just means that the meaning of his position and the answer to the question of how representative for "true islam" he is, must be seen with caution. He may have good intentions, but I suspect he tries to solve conflicts not by adressing them, but by trying to gloss over them.

One example:
http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?...&id=665&Itemid=

---


On the minaretts themselves, the important point here is the symbolism of towers representing claims for power, as i already explained earlier in this thread. It is not so much a religious dispute, but a political tool to demand them being build. In history, rulers and empires often built towers in places where they could be seen easily, to remind the people all the time that the owner of them (person or claim for power or ideology) is here and is on ciontrol and claims the power and that people are subjugated to it/him.

my oh my , that water heater on the fire appears rather tarnished with sooty residue.

Skybird - I think you may have missed the point of the article.

While I agree that it did go too far in calling the vote "xenophobic", the point as I read it was not slamming the voters, but extoling European muslims to do the 2 things that they MUST do to be fully accepted.

That is - speak out and reject - not just in words but actions, the "old school" islam, and instead embrace as he called it - a liberal, moderate european version. In essence - calling on them to make their religion evolve so that it can have a place at the table.

The second - is to recognize and make that evolution conform to the societies they are in. Thus rejecting the very parts of the islamic religion that make it viewed as threatening and repressive - aka headgear, sharia law, etc.

Only by doing so will Islam ever find itself not seen as a threat. I don't see how you can say a writer calling on a people of faith to dump what amounts to about half of their religion is "glossing over" the problems.

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.