Sam Harris & Maajid Nawaz on reforming Islam

[mralstoner]

[Mystic]

Why does it have to be this way or that way. Why have to chose between secularism type Islam and ISIS type of Islam. This is a false dichotomy.

[mralstoner]

Why does it have to be this way or that way. Why have to chose between secularism type Islam and ISIS type of Islam. This is a false dichotomy.

Secularism is just a short-hand way of describing the goal of Islamic reform.

But really the goal is much more i.e. to remove: jihadism/terrorism/martydom, sex slaves, misogyny, child brides, death to apostates, dhimmitude, barbaric sharia law punishments, hatred of Jews and non-Muslims, death for insulting the prophet, death to homosexuals, FGM, honour killings, burkas, the house-of-land v. house-of-war mindset, etc.

That's quite a long laundry list, and secularism is just a short-hand way to describe the reforming of Islam towards co-existence, tolerance, and human rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why does it have to be this way or that way. Why have to chose between secularism type Islam and ISIS type of Islam. This is a false dichotomy.

Really?  It has to be that way, because we need to see a decrease in roadside bombs and imperialist insurgencies.....

(the term "false dichotomy" doesn't mean what you, apparently, think it means.)

[Iroscato]

What are people's takes on Maajid Nawaz here? What little I've heard from him makes me think his heart is in the right place, despite still believing in fairy tales.

[WinterHold]

[The Grand Nudger]

Check my head....?  They're the ones who declared it.  They;re the ones pursuing the means required to that end.  I don't have any reason to doubt the things that they declare and then visibly work towards.  

If you think that the opinions and conspiracy theories born out of your compulsion to excuse islam are sufficient reason to doubt their statements and actions....you've greatly overestimated the both the value of your opinions -and- conspiracy theories, to me.

[Mystic]

I think I can believe original Islam doesn't teach killing of apostates or killing of those who insult the Prophet (the Quran is full of reference of people insulting him but telling him to forbear their accusations). I also believe the Quran forbids marriage to children. However I do believe in some laws that are "barbaric" or "harsh" in the western eyes, like lashing those who fornicate or do adultery. However I believe to punish the latter, one must believe in a concept of muta which refers to temporary marriage, in which one agrees on a contract that can be extended with a certain reward at the end of it (in any form, it can be dates, flowers, or money, but must be agreed upon), and that the woman must wait two menstrual cycles so as to make sure if there is a baby, the father is known, or they can agree upon full marriage after that if they want to, but any rate it's to not neglect the right of the child. I believe with muta there is really no excuse for fornication, but without it, it's hard to say people should be punished for following desires that are hard to suppress.

I don't believe in stoning etc and I do think some things were meant in a specific context and period like cutting of two small fingers off the hand if you steal ( I believe we have a reforming system now that is better but could not be implemented during time of Nabi or Ali due to circumstances).

However I think there is a hadith that says never to decapitate a person from the PRophet - so it maybe that this law was abrogated even during the time of the Prophet. God knows best.

At any rate - if I had to chose - I rather have full on secularism Islam, but I think there can be a middle ground.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think you can have an islam in which the authority of the state is greater than the authority of god?  Good, excellent, I don't think that's true - but I don't care if it isn't, I'll take it.  

Now what do we do about all the people who disagree with us, with rpgs, in the meantime? We can't appeal to islam, apparently, their islam is already cool with whatever they're up to.

[Mystic]

You think you can have an islam in which the authority of the state is greater than the authority of god?  Good, excellent, I don't think that's true - but I don't care if it isn't, I'll take it.  

Now what do we do about all the people who disagree with us, with rpgs, in the meantime?  We can't appeal to islam, apparently, their islam is already cool with whatever they're up to.

Actually there needs to be done two systematic approaches:

What is the goal of Prophets? To implement justice. Yet we know there codes of practice always changed and was not the same, different Messengers different codes suited for their society. Is it really possible to implement for example the exact tax of the Prophet to a time when we need health care, to build roads, to fund schools, etc... Or do we say all these things aren't necessary?

It's the same with progress with regards to slavery. The Quran says to free the slave is of the higher road. Then what of freeing all slaves. It seems the world no longer wants slavery and hence it's no longer necessary in the spirit of "respond/attack them in the manner they respond/attack you" to have slaves.

I feel we to call for reflection.  Some laws of course have to believed to never had any place in Islam in the first place like killing apostates, and some laws are obviously to be replaced by something we can better implement during this day and age.

We have to reflect, but I don't think throwing away all laws of the Quran or Sunnah is the way either. Rather somethings still apply to society today and somethings don't.

Also a lot of things were made up in the religion via hadiths, and we need to acknowledge those hadiths contradict both reason and Quran. As for the latter, let's appeal to the fact revelations of the past were distorted. So how do we know hadiths are immune?