Prominent Islamic scholars distance themselves from 14th century fatwa

[Hax]

The fact that they even feel the need to make such a statement highlights the backwards nature of the Islamic world.

For the love of God, if they hadn't said it, you would be all "Look at those horrible Muslims! They won't even stand up against other Muslims killing people. They are evil barbarians!". I don't think they can ever do anything right, eh?

I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.

Yes, enjoy your talks with Muslims. Wait no, talking is inconvenient, we'd better shoot them all. Y'know, just to be safe.

[PanzerJaeger]

For the love of God, if they hadn't said it, you would be all "Look at those horrible Muslims! They won't even stand up against other Muslims killing people. They are evil barbarians!". I don't think they can ever do anything right, eh?

Calm down. I said that their effort was valiant but ineffectual.

Yes, enjoy your talks with Muslims. Wait no, talking is inconvenient, we'd better shoot them all. Y'know, just to be safe.

I don't quite understand the rush to hyperbole and genocidal imagery in this thread. I simply made the point that, instead of trying to change Islam, it may be beneficial to change people's perceptions about the role Islam should play in their lives. When people stop caring so much, they quickly lose the will to become militant. Secular society has had a moderating effect on Christianity and Islam in the Western World, and the more inroads it makes into the Middle East, the better.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.

I simply made the point that, instead of trying to change Islam, it may be beneficial to change people's perceptions about the role Islam should play in their lives. When people stop caring so much, they quickly lose the will to become militant. Secular society has had a moderating effect on Christianity and Islam in the Western World, and the more inroads it makes into the Middle East, the better.

I entirely agree with PJ's argument here.

It also applies to religions as a whole (the recent trends towards fundamentalist re-Christianisation of the United States are not entirely unconnected with that country's increasing rejection of its commitments to human rights and liberal (in the correct sense) foundations).

It appears to apply particularly to religions with a strong adherence to an after-life, as well as proselytising impulses. This belief system allows people to do remarkably bestial things in the real world because they fancy their reward is to come, rather than having to live only in the cesspool they have created for others. It also promotes the idea of the entitled and the non-entitled (also rapidly characterised as "other" and then "not our kind of human").

A personal faith, lived humbly as an example to others without the demand they take notice, is a noble thing. Religious faith that seeks to influence or convert or marginalise is not conducive to modern societies of pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I entirely agree with PJ's argument here.

It also applies to religions as a whole (the recent trends towards fundamentalist re-Christianisation of the United States are not entirely unconnected with that country's increasing rejection of its commitments to human rights and liberal (in the correct sense) foundations).

It appears to apply particularly to religions with a strong adherence to an after-life, as well as proselytising impulses. This belief system allows people to do remarkably bestial things in the real world because they fancy their reward is to come, rather than having to live only in the cesspool they have created for others. It also promotes the idea of the entitled and the non-entitled (also rapidly characterised as "other" and then "not our kind of human").

A personal faith, lived humbly as an example to others without the demand they take notice, is a noble thing.

Interestingly, up to here, your post is completely in line with educated Christian thought. Until....

Religious faith that seeks to influence or convert or marginalise is not conducive to modern societies of pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought.

Of it's nature a religious Faith should seek to convert, that way it is inclusive. To see what happens in closed religions you need look only at Fundamentalist Judaism, where the "Chosen" aspect of many religions is distilled into a racist, xenophobic, entitlement complex that admits no one outside an historically constructed ethnos.

I maintain that the problem in Islam is not its missionary impluse, but its Scriptual narrative of violent expansion and forced conversion with a sword quite litterally at your throat and fetters on your legs. In this I can see Fragony's point about "liberal" Muslims, they seem to be fighting the latent current of their religion; it's very foundation and its "historical" narrative.

An interesting, and related, point is whether pushing for "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought" merely creates a vacume into which fundamentalism is automatically drawn.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Of it's nature a religious Faith should seek to convert, that way it is inclusive. To see what happens in closed religions you need look only at Fundamentalist Judaism, where the "Chosen" aspect of many religions is distilled into a racist, xenophobic, entitlement complex that admits no one outside an historically constructed ethnos.

By definition, a proselytising religion cannot be inclusive. It starts from the point that I am wrong, and unless I change my thinking, I am excluded. Whether this means they get a little disappointed and sad that I won't be given a place in some Elysium, or that I ought to be barbecued immediately for my own good, is only a matter of degree. You choose a fundamentalist sect as your argument, but I think I'm correct to assert that all Judaism is non-proselytising and since most Jews don't fit your characterisation, it falls.

I maintain that the problem in Islam is not its missionary impluse, but its Scriptual narrative of violent expansion and forced conversion with a sword quite litterally at your throat and fetters on your legs. In this I can see Fragony's point about "liberal" Muslims, they seem to be fighting the latent current of their religion; it's very foundation and its "historical" narrative.

This position often leads to a pointless argument. My understanding is that while fundamentalists in Islam (just as in Christianity) take the harsher parts of their holy book seriously, the vast majority of Muslims take the good and wise advice and interpret the "warrior" part as being an advocation for striving mightily to do good in life. The historical narrative of most of the Bible is also rather red in tooth and claw. The real problem with both religions (and explicit in their Scripture) is that they consider outsiders to be somehow deficient and themselves, "Chosen".

An interesting, and related, point is whether pushing for "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought" merely creates a vacume into which fundamentalism is automatically drawn.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By definition, a proselytising religion cannot be inclusive. It starts from the point that I am wrong, and unless I change my thinking, I am excluded. Whether this means they get a little disappointed and sad that I won't be given a place in some Elysium, or that I ought to be barbecued immediately for my own good, is only a matter of degree.

This is a fair point in some instances, but there are different types of exclusion. You are, for example, excluded from the medical proffession due to a tack of knowledge and training, but you wouldn't complain that such an exclusion was unfair. In "Mystery Cults" such as Christianity exclusion is based on the same lack of knowledge, and refusal to enter into a fellowship with the rest of the group.

So while I accept that all religions have a membership and "exclude" outsiders I don't believe this is merely degree, I think it is also a matter of perspective and that is almost more important.

You choose a fundamentalist sect as your argument, but I think I'm correct to assert that all Judaism is non-proselytising and since most Jews don't fit your characterisation, it falls.

With regard to Judaism, my knowledge not being total, I was referring to the difference between those sects that admit members from outside; and those that don't. The latter construct their religion as a solely ethnic identity.

This position often leads to a pointless argument. My understanding is that while fundamentalists in Islam (just as in Christianity) take the harsher parts of their holy book seriously, the vast majority of Muslims take the good and wise advice and interpret the "warrior" part as being an advocation for striving mightily to do good in life. The historical narrative of most of the Bible is also rather red in tooth and claw. The real problem with both religions (and explicit in their Scripture) is that they consider outsiders to be somehow deficient and themselves, "Chosen".

Regardless, I reamin convinced. The central figure of the Koran is, most generously, a Warrior King. The central figure of the Bible, an iternant preacher and healer. The situation in Judaism is more complex, but there the central "figure" is really a people elect to God, who go through pretty much every hardship and misfortune at His hands. I think Islam has a problem with being in a subserviant cultural position because there is little to nothing about how to live that way in the Koran.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that one.

Well, I can't prove it, but consider this:

An "equality" law is passed which requires every member of Parliament to sign a sworn statement that they will not allow their private religious beliefs to influence the way they vote in the House. That law bans me and anyone else of religious conviction from honestly taking office. My strong sense of morality and my sense of the common good for all humanity are informed by my religion, so unless I lie and compromise my principles, I cannot sit as an MP.

In fact, the only people who can honestly sit are those without any strong "moral" convictions that could be construed as religious, and this might include Humanism. So in passing a secularisation law you exclude from the political process the greatest number of people who are likely to have strong convictions not directly informed by their political affiliation.

Another point; when you force religion under ground, the more relaxed and flexable people are more likely to be persuaded to give it up or confine it to their exclusively private lives. at that point the only people left shouting in the public sphere are the hardliners, and they will begin to attract and radicalise those among the moderates who feel hard done by, as well as those who have not recieved strong guidence from their elders.

We are seeing this in Britain right now, the marginalisation of the traditional Churches has led to a large number of young people flocking to the Evangelical banner.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is a fair point in some instances, but there are different types of exclusion. You are, for example, excluded from the medical proffession due to a tack of knowledge and training, but you wouldn't complain that such an exclusion was unfair. In "Mystery Cults" such as Christianity exclusion is based on the same lack of knowledge, and refusal to enter into a fellowship with the rest of the group.

So while I accept that all religions have a membership and "exclude" outsiders I don't believe this is merely degree, I think it is also a matter of perspective and that is almost more important.

Not being a member of the medical profession does not consign me to an afterlife of suffering. The view of most proselytising religions is that their evangelism is saving people who would otherwise "suffer". A professional qualification is not remotely the same issue.

Regardless, I reamin convinced. The central figure of the Koran is, most generously, a Warrior King. The central figure of the Bible, an iternant preacher and healer. The situation in Judaism is more complex, but there the central "figure" is really a people elect to God, who go through pretty much every hardship and misfortune at His hands. I think Islam has a problem with being in a subserviant cultural position because there is little to nothing about how to live that way in the Koran.

Entirely your perspective. I would argue the central figure of both books is a vicious, vengeful and arbitrary overlord who manipulates his creations to his own whim. Choosing the New Testament to bolster a view that the Bible is not as bloodthirsty a book as the Q'uran is selective reasoning. It doesn't matter - most intelligent Muslims, like most intelligent Christians, accept the nastier bits as historical anecdote or metaphor. This is what happens when religions come into contact with other world views, ie pluralism. Because many Islamic countries are not pluralistic but theocracies, they keep power and control over thought - and thereby stay mediaevalist and fundamentalist.

Well, I can't prove it, but consider this:

An "equality" law is passed which requires every member of Parliament to sign a sworn statement that they will not allow their private religious beliefs to influence the way they vote in the House. That law bans me and anyone else of religious conviction from honestly taking office. My strong sense of morality and my sense of the common good for all humanity are informed by my religion, so unless I lie and compromise my principles, I cannot sit as an MP.

In fact, the only people who can honestly sit are those without any strong "moral" convictions that could be construed as religious, and this might include Humanism. So in passing a secularisation law you exclude from the political process the greatest number of people who are likely to have strong convictions not directly informed by their political affiliation.

Another point; when you force religion under ground, the more relaxed and flexible people are more likely to be persuaded to give it up or confine it to their exclusively private lives. at that point the only people left shouting in the public sphere are the hardliners, and they will begin to attract and radicalise those among the moderates who feel hard done by, as well as those who have not received strong guidance from their elders.

We are seeing this in Britain right now, the marginalisation of the traditional Churches has led to a large number of young people flocking to the Evangelical banner.

I fail to see how your exemplar law shows any commitment to "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought", so the rest of the argument is a bit of a straw man. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that I am arguing for religious thought to be banned - which would hardly be "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought" would it? What I am really arguing is that religious thought is a matter of private principle, and should be accorded no more formal power than any other school of philosophy. It might even be argued that the first order of business for religions might be to get the story straight and agree amongst believers what the heck is going on. If the religious want to convince me that there's a God, which one(s) do they want to convince me of?

[Fragony]

I don't think they can ever do anything right, eh?

Sure they can, and they do. But people are a little bit too happy with it when they do, see? see? Power to the guy, but it doesn't impress me all that much.