Many don't agree with that though, and this was discussed on other threads. The fact that she doesn't recognize a moderate interpretation of Islam, yet calls for reform, is contradictory. If there's only one interpretation of Islam, then you couldn't reform it. There are already moderate interpretations of Islam, that can be seen in the behavior of peaceful Muslims. This has been explained to her during debates, that the behavior of peaceful Muslims is evidence of moderate Islam.
Whose is the 'many' ? The Pew poll from 2013 shows that most Muslims back Sharia as official law.
If you read the article she is appealing to the moderate Muslims to reform Islam. There is only one Islam, all that changes is how people practice their faith.
Do you think a religion which carries a death for apostasy needs reforms ?
Whose is the 'many' ? The Pew poll from 2013 shows that most Muslims back Sharia as official law.
If you read the article she is appealing to the moderate Muslims to reform Islam. There is only one Islam, all that changes is how people practice their faith.
Do you think a religion which carries a death for apostasy needs reforms ?
Muslims where?
Are you aware that she was referring to all Islam that had to be done away with?
If there is only one Islam, in the sense of only one true interpretation, then you couldn't change, reform, modernize or interpret it, because what you would have then is not Islam. Yet Islam has already been 'reformed' by the manner in which moderate Muslims interpret and practice it. She is speaking out of both sides of her mouth.
She has not been very well liked in a number of places in the US though. Both Muslims, ex Muslims and atheists protested her speaking at Yale. Brandeis retracted an award.
No shame in that, many Americans are a bit strange in my opinion, especially when religion is involved.
Are you aware that she was referring to all Islam that had to be done away with?
If there is only one Islam, in the sense of only one interpretation, then you couldn't change, reform, modernize or interpret it, because what you would have is not Islam. Yet Islam has already been 'reformed' by the manner in which moderate Muslims interpret and practice it. She is speaking out of both sides of her mouth.
There is only one Islam but there is Muslims who practice it differently. The moderate cherry pick from the religion like Christians do.
Islam can be reformed like Judaism and Christianity. She even explains how this can happen in the article.
Everything has to be contextualized, scripture from the 7th century is not applied to modern world etc. That is how you reform a religion.
If Muslims practice differently, then there can't just be one true interpretation of Islam. (when I say 'one Islam' I'm using it in the sense that there is only one word of Allah and only one true interpretation of it)
There can be multiple interpretations.
As I said, reform ( or moderate interpretation) is already occurring or you wouldn't have peaceful Muslims who don't kill people over apostasy.
Yet she had said there is no moderate, and all of Islam must go.
If Muslims practice differently, then there can't just be one true interpretation of Islam.
There can be multiple interpretations.
As I said, reform ( or moderate interpretation) is already occurring or you wouldn't have peaceful Muslims who don't kill people over apostasy.
Yet she had said there is no moderate, and all of Islam must go.
See how she contradicted herself?
There never will be one true interpretation as Islam has no pontiff. That doesn't mean the scholars at Az-Azhar can't bring a reform.
The fact that people are still killed for apostasy shows that Islamic scripture has not been contextualized.
There is moderate Muslims, extremest Muslims, secular Muslims and so on, but there is only religion called Islam. How they choose to practice is up to them.
Just because there is moderate Muslims who don't kill apostates doesn't mean that Islam has been reformed. The law still applies in many countries.
She wants the moderate Muslims to lead the way in how Islam should be practised.
There never will be one true interpretation as Islam has no pontiff. That doesn't mean the scholars at Az-Azhar can't bring a reform.
The fact that people are still killed for apostasy shows that Islamic scripture has not been contextualized.
There is moderate Muslims, extremest Muslims, secular Muslims and so on, but there is only religion called Islam. How they choose to practice is up to them.
Just because there is moderate Muslims who don't kill apostates doesn't mean that Islam has been reformed. The law still applies in many countries.
She wants the moderate Muslims to lead the way in how Islam should be practised.
Of course it has no pontiff and no caliphate. So who is going to "reform" it?
This will only be done mosque by mosque and imam by imam.
I don't think she accepts moderate Muslims because she thinks the whole religion has to go.
Moderates are already leading the way. She didn't invent the idea. People point this out but she never gets it.
Others have said that Islam is no match for technological progress.
Of course it has no pontiff and no caliphate. So who is going to "reform" it?
I don't think she accepts moderate Muslims because she thinks the whole religion has to go.
Moderates are already leading the way. She didn't invent the idea. People point this out but she never gets it.
Others have said that Islam is no match for technological progress.
The Ayatollah is the religious figure of Shia Islam, Al-Azhar is main school of Sunni jurisprudence. It is up the scholars to being to contextualize scripture.
It's not moderates who are leading the way because fundamentalism is increasing on a global scale and even here in the UK the puritanical form of Islam growing.
Religion is never a match of science and the Middle East is the perfect example.
muslims are not going to reform their beleifs just because some ex muslim told them so. believe whatever you want as long as you abide by the law. it even says in the quran abide by the laws of your country but if it stops you from practising you religion, then move to an islamic country. islam is not the problem, people are imo
and to the poster that said most muslims are for shariah law. yes most muslims believe shariah law to be best because it is seen as god's law. but that doesn't mean every muslim wants to enforce it in a non muslim country. enforcing it in a non muslim country is not allowed islamically anyway
I think the Muslims are already trying to change their religion, at the moment by blowing each other up in markets, mosques, on busses etc.
The entire faith is in turmoil. I expect it will take a century or two of terrible bloodshed before they come to some sort of agreement. In the meantime, the rest of the world will just have to try and keep out of their way.
The Ayatollah is the religious figure of Shia Islam, Al-Azhar is main school of Sunni jurisprudence. It is up the scholars to being to contextualize scripture.
It's not moderates who are leading the way because fundamentalism is increasing on a global scale and even here in the UK the puritanical form of Islam growing.
Religion is never a match of science and the Middle East is the perfect example.
A 'figure' is not the same as having a religious hierarchy. Shia (edit) Muslims in the US don't have to follow the Ayatollah.
You may say fundamentalism is 'growing' but there are many more Muslims who aren't radical. You don't hear of the moderates because peaceful acts don't get into the news.
A 'figure' is not the same as having a religious hierarchy. Sunni Muslims in the US don't have to follow the Ayatollah.
You may say fundamentalism is 'growing' but there are many more Muslims who aren't radical. You don't hear of the moderates because peaceful acts don't get into the news.
Fundamentalism is 'growing' because of Saudi Wahhabism. Somalia is fighting civil war, Nigeria is being terrorized by Boko, Syria is in the middle of a Sunni-Shia proxy war, Yemen is heading towards another civil war, AQ in Pakistan, Taliban in Afghanistan.
The peaceful are irrelevant because they are just like the Nazis the ideology will continue to grow.
Fundamentalism is 'growing' because of Saudi Wahhabism. Somalia is fighting civil war, Nigeria is being terrorized by Boko, Syria is in the middle of a Sunni-Shia proxy war, Yemen is heading towards another civil war, AQ in Pakistan, Taliban in Afghanistan.
The peaceful are irrelevant because they are just like the Nazis the ideology will continue to grow.
Shia Muslims don't have to follow the Ayatollah either. The Ayatollah isn't infallible like the Pope.
That's the fascist version of Islam you are promoting. This is one reason Ayaan Hirsi Ali is thought to be extreme even by some atheists.
Moderates aren't "irrelevant." They give birth to and raise, mostly moderate children who integrate, on the whole.
Shia Muslims don't have to follow the Ayatollah either. The Ayatollah isn't infallible like the Pope.
That's the fascist version of Islam you are promoting. This is one reason Ayaan Hirsi Ali is thought to be extreme even by some atheists.
Moderates aren't "irrelevant." They give birth to and raise, mostly moderate children who integrate, on the whole.
Even the Pope make mistakes.
I don't 'promote' any version of Islam. The extremist Muslims do and it's according to the news in rapidly growing. Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't thought be extreme by anyone but you, otherwise they would not invite to televised debates in America.
If Muslims practice differently, then there can't just be one true interpretation of Islam. (when I say 'one Islam' I'm using it in the sense that there is only one word of Allah and only one true interpretation of it)
There can be multiple interpretations.
Why should society tolerate a belief system that is, according to you, so ambiguous that it can be correctly interpreted to kill and murder?
Do you agree that the interpretation of ISIS is as valid, if not more so, then any 'moderate' that you can cite?
As I said, reform ( or moderate interpretation) is already occurring or you wouldn't have peaceful Muslims who don't kill people over apostasy.
Yet she had said there is no moderate, and all of Islam must go.
See how she contradicted herself?
No, a muslim who is peaceful doesn't necessarily practice Islam in its entirety.
Your argument is painting and generalizing Muslims as all fundamentalist whom dictate their entire life around Islam, why are you generalizing muslims?
Islam historically has been significant in influencing and encouraging multiple wars, hundreds of them, and continues to promote conflict today.
Of course it has no pontiff and no caliphate. So who is going to "reform" it?
This will only be done mosque by mosque and imam by imam.
I don't think she accepts moderate Muslims because she thinks the whole religion has to go.
Moderates are already leading the way. She didn't invent the idea. People point this out but she never gets it.
Others have said that Islam is no match for technological progress.
Can you tell us who these moderate Muslims are? Much appreciated.
Comments
Whose is the 'many' ? The Pew poll from 2013 shows that most Muslims back Sharia as official law.
If you read the article she is appealing to the moderate Muslims to reform Islam. There is only one Islam, all that changes is how people practice their faith.
Do you think a religion which carries a death for apostasy needs reforms ?
Muslims where?
Are you aware that she was referring to all Islam that had to be done away with?
If there is only one Islam, in the sense of only one true interpretation, then you couldn't change, reform, modernize or interpret it, because what you would have then is not Islam. Yet Islam has already been 'reformed' by the manner in which moderate Muslims interpret and practice it. She is speaking out of both sides of her mouth.
No shame in that, many Americans are a bit strange in my opinion, especially when religion is involved.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/#womens-rights
There is only one Islam but there is Muslims who practice it differently. The moderate cherry pick from the religion like Christians do.
Islam can be reformed like Judaism and Christianity. She even explains how this can happen in the article.
Everything has to be contextualized, scripture from the 7th century is not applied to modern world etc. That is how you reform a religion.
If Muslims practice differently, then there can't just be one true interpretation of Islam. (when I say 'one Islam' I'm using it in the sense that there is only one word of Allah and only one true interpretation of it)
There can be multiple interpretations.
As I said, reform ( or moderate interpretation) is already occurring or you wouldn't have peaceful Muslims who don't kill people over apostasy.
Yet she had said there is no moderate, and all of Islam must go.
See how she contradicted herself?
There never will be one true interpretation as Islam has no pontiff. That doesn't mean the scholars at Az-Azhar can't bring a reform.
The fact that people are still killed for apostasy shows that Islamic scripture has not been contextualized.
There is moderate Muslims, extremest Muslims, secular Muslims and so on, but there is only religion called Islam. How they choose to practice is up to them.
Just because there is moderate Muslims who don't kill apostates doesn't mean that Islam has been reformed. The law still applies in many countries.
She wants the moderate Muslims to lead the way in how Islam should be practised.
Of course it has no pontiff and no caliphate. So who is going to "reform" it?
This will only be done mosque by mosque and imam by imam.
I don't think she accepts moderate Muslims because she thinks the whole religion has to go.
Moderates are already leading the way. She didn't invent the idea. People point this out but she never gets it.
Others have said that Islam is no match for technological progress.
The Ayatollah is the religious figure of Shia Islam, Al-Azhar is main school of Sunni jurisprudence. It is up the scholars to being to contextualize scripture.
It's not moderates who are leading the way because fundamentalism is increasing on a global scale and even here in the UK the puritanical form of Islam growing.
Religion is never a match of science and the Middle East is the perfect example.
and to the poster that said most muslims are for shariah law. yes most muslims believe shariah law to be best because it is seen as god's law. but that doesn't mean every muslim wants to enforce it in a non muslim country. enforcing it in a non muslim country is not allowed islamically anyway
The entire faith is in turmoil. I expect it will take a century or two of terrible bloodshed before they come to some sort of agreement. In the meantime, the rest of the world will just have to try and keep out of their way.
A 'figure' is not the same as having a religious hierarchy. Shia (edit) Muslims in the US don't have to follow the Ayatollah.
You may say fundamentalism is 'growing' but there are many more Muslims who aren't radical. You don't hear of the moderates because peaceful acts don't get into the news.
Sunni Muslims don't follow Ayatollah anyway, Shia Muslims do.
Fundamentalism is 'growing' because of Saudi Wahhabism. Somalia is fighting civil war, Nigeria is being terrorized by Boko, Syria is in the middle of a Sunni-Shia proxy war, Yemen is heading towards another civil war, AQ in Pakistan, Taliban in Afghanistan.
The peaceful are irrelevant because they are just like the Nazis the ideology will continue to grow.
Shia Muslims don't have to follow the Ayatollah either. The Ayatollah isn't infallible like the Pope.
That's the fascist version of Islam you are promoting. This is one reason Ayaan Hirsi Ali is thought to be extreme even by some atheists.
Moderates aren't "irrelevant." They give birth to and raise, mostly moderate children who integrate, on the whole.
Even the Pope make mistakes.
I don't 'promote' any version of Islam. The extremist Muslims do and it's according to the news in rapidly growing. Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't thought be extreme by anyone but you, otherwise they would not invite to televised debates in America.
The moderate irrelevant because moderate can fly to Syria and become terrorists. https://youtu.be/Ry3NzkAOo3s
Do you agree that the interpretation of ISIS is as valid, if not more so, then any 'moderate' that you can cite?
That is your logic.
No, a muslim who is peaceful doesn't necessarily practice Islam in its entirety.
Your argument is painting and generalizing Muslims as all fundamentalist whom dictate their entire life around Islam, why are you generalizing muslims?
Islam historically has been significant in influencing and encouraging multiple wars, hundreds of them, and continues to promote conflict today.
Why should humanity tolerate its existence?
In this thread you are criticising Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a very brave and intelligent woman.
Yet at the same time in another defending the repulsive little female Jihadists with every fibre of your being.
The double standards are truly astonishing.
Can you tell us who these moderate Muslims are? Much appreciated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIIuR-HjFho
Are you saying there aren't any?
She states so in the article...moderate > extreme > present day peaceful.
No, he asked you who they were.
Interesting question I thought by Richard. Why do you answer a question with a question? do you not know?
He said it as if he doesn't think there are any.
So what's the answer?