Dharma Flower wrote:What Sam Harris is saying is that the Muslim world needs an enlightenment and a reformation, the same way that the West had an enlightenment and a reformation. Christianity had a very violent, brutal history too, but the West is different today because of the reformation and the enlightenment.
The fundamentalists are those who had a reform. The Salafi movement is all about going back to the sources without the lens of centuries of tradition and taking religious texts at face value. Extremism is a small offshoot from this.
If anything will bring peace it will be a return to traditional Islam which has four established traditions of legal interpretation, none of which are compatible with terror.
[quote=steveb1]Jihad is a toxic, ugly truth at the heart of Islam. Sadly, only Muslims can rid the religion and the world of Islamic terrorism via "reform". The odds are stacked against it, because Jihad is embedded in the Quran and the life of Muhammad. Allah is the first deity to teach the principles of Jihad to a human being - that is a rock-solid, ground truth. It is not an argument to say that most Muslims are not Jihadists or supporters thereof. As everyone can agree: "THEY are not the problem". The terrorists ARE.
The "peaceful Muslims" gambit is being used by the Left and by the cucked Right as a dodge, a red herring, a ploy with the intent to try to distract the public's gaze from the true horrors of Islamic terrorism, a crime that has no foreseeable end. To reform Islam is, according to everything stated and implied in the Quran, to reform Perfection. Can't be done, and all attempts to do so will end in fire and sword.
Harris is a mixed bag. On religion, I think he's mostly misled, but on political Islam he's mostly correct. And it is beneficial to recall that condemnation of Jihad is not condemnation of religious Islam.
Religious Islam began fairly peacefully in Mecca until the Prophet became increasingly megalomaniac and political, and the Meccans kicked him out. He then went to Medina where he became a politician, a judge and a warlord. When he had assembled a strong following there, he returned to Mecca and exacted a frightful vengeance upon those who had so sensibly rejected him as Muhammad the Terrorist. Thus Islam contains both the Meccan/pacifistic religious "Surrender" as well as the Medinan/terrorist "Surrender". Unfortunately, both are woven of the same cloth and cannot be separated and still be called "Islam".
Westerners whose first reaction to a Jihad attack is to rush to protect "innocent Muslims" from Western attack are simply wrong-headed. The first response needs to be quarantining, jailing, and punishing the perpetrators and their networks - plus
strong, legal expressions of outrage and public protest, including demonstrations and marches. The second response needs to be taking care of all the victims, their friends-and-families, as well as any physically uninjured witnesses who are suffering from emotional trauma. The third response is to keep peaceful Muslims on the back burner of "Concern!" - because, after all, that's where they belong, since ...THEY
are not the Problem.[/quote]
I have read the relevant passages of the Qur'an and they don't sound to me like they allow for indiscriminate violence. Also, traditional Islamic law hasn't understood it to indicate indiscriminate violence either.