Comments on: A moderate conservative on a moderate Muslim?

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:45:19 +0000

Dear Harmonicminer, yes, that is the problem with trying to post in a hurry to get going! Thanks for the editorial.

By: harmonicminer

harmonicminer — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:13:34 +0000

Bill, I assume you meant “violence tolerance” not “violent tolerance.”

And yes.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:34:17 +0000

I believe there is a difference between religious tolerance and violent tolerance (whether perpetrated by – or for – a religious reason or not).

By: innermore

innermore — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:09:26 +0000

Upon reading, a couple of issues stand out to me. If one of the main tenants of my beliefs is religious tolerance, must this tolerance include religious groups that do not believe in religious tolerance? What type of discipline should therefore be applied to religious tolerance. Perhaps religious groups should be judged by the fruit they bare. Good ol’ James 1:27. But who’s gonna be the judge?

This article also proves to me that defending against militant fundamentalism requires much much more thoughtful effort than just killing them. The line of martyrs is endless, so in the midst of defending ourselves (killing them), we also need to find ways to strengthen the authority of tolerant groups within Islam so that they can begin separating the wheat from the chaff (killing them) on their own. Sell them a few bombs maybe? Something stinks about all of this. I don’t know what it is.

By: harmonicminer

harmonicminer — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:01:54 +0000

Here is an editorial on the attempt of a few Muslims to work against “political Islam”, meaning, of course, traditionally understood Islam.

http://tinyurl.com/y9jefqz

By: harmonicminer

harmonicminer — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:58:47 +0000

Hmmm… or, the question is, do you? Because to agree with Wolfowitz’ position is to agree that there are plenty of Islamic radicals who leave us no choice but to kill them, and attempt to discredit their (relatively convincing) argument that THEY are the true historical Islam, and “moderate Muslims” are mostly apostate.

In any case, what passes for “moderation” among Muslims is often just a temporary agreement not to murder or enslave members of other religions. And all is not well in Indonesia in terms of the rights of Christians. http://tinyurl.com/ylfhwvy

Islam, properly understood in historical context, is not exactly a religion in the common western sense. It is an entire worldview and political program based on Jihad, with religious overtones and language, but with very explicitly worldly outcomes of a political and social nature as the goal.

So, the bitter fact of it: for Islam to become able to coexist with the rest of the world, Islam is going to have to redefine itself, to have a Reformation, to re-interpret what its founding texts mean (essentially to embrace ahistorical interpretations that are more compatible with the modern world), etc.

There are people working at this. Click the link for American Islamic Forum for Democracy on the right edge of this page, for example.

By: Jong Eun Lee

Jong Eun Lee — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:46:52 +0000

An excellant article. Much thanks to Paul Wolfowitz for writing the column, in spite of my disagreement with him on other issues.

I wholeheartedly agree with ex-president Wahid and Wolfotwiz’s analysis of Islam, what it and its adherents need to do to overcome its radical, yet well organzied factions within.
Question is, do you?