OUR GOALS
OUR MANIFESTOAcknowledging mistakes The majority of the terrorist acts of the last three decades, including the 9/11 attacks, were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists in the name of Islam. We, as Muslims, find it abhorrent that Islam is used to murder millions of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Inconsistencies in the Koran Unfortunately, Islamic religious texts, including the Koran and the Hadith contain many passages, which call for Islamic domination and incite violence against non-Muslims. It is time to change that. Muslim fundamentalists believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah. But could Allah, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate, command mass slaughter of people whose only fault is being non-Muslim? The Koran & the Bible Many Bible figures from Adam to Jesus (Isa) are considered to be prophets and are respected by Islam. Islamic scholars however believe that both the Old and the New Testament came from God, but that they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians over time. While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does. Could it be possible that the Koran itself was corrupted by Muslims over the last thirteen centuries? The need for reform Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past. We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies. Accepting responsibilities To start the healing process, we must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils. We must remove evil passages from Islamic religious texts, so that future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages. Our religious message should be loud and clear: Islam is peace; Islam is love; Islam is light. War, murder, violence, divisiveness & discrimination are not Islamic values. Religious privacy Religion is the private matter of every individual. Any person should be able to freely practice any religion as long as the practice does not interfere with the local laws, and no person must be forced to practice any religion. Just as people are created equal, there is no one religion that is superior to another. Any set of beliefs that is spread by force is fundamentally immoral; it is no longer a religion, but a political ideology. Equality Islam is one of the many of the world's religions. There will be no Peace and Harmony in the World if Muslims and non-Muslims do not have equal rights. Islamic supremacy doctrine is just as repulsive as Aryan supremacy doctrine. History clearly shows what happens to the society whose members consider themselves above other peoples. All moderate Muslims must repudiate the mere notion of Islamic supremacy. Sharia Sharia Law must be abolished, because it is incompatible with norms of modern society. Outdated practices Any practices that might have been acceptable in the Seventh Century; i.e., stoning, cutting off body parts, marrying and/or having sex with children or animals, must be condemned by every Muslim. Outdated verses The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such. Outdated words & phrases Use of the following words and phrases or their variations must be prohibited during religious services: • Infidel / Unbeliever: these terms have negative connotation and promote divisiveness and animosity; Islam is not the only religion • Jihad: this word is often interpreted as Holy War against non-Muslims • Mujaheed/Holy Warrior: no more wars in the name of Islam • American (Christian / Crusader / Israeli / Zionist) occupation: these terms promote bigotry; at this point in time, Muslims living in non-Muslim lands have more freedoms than Muslims living in Muslim lands Islam vs. violence Islam has no place for violence. Any person calling for an act of violence in the name of Islam must be promptly excommunicated. Any grievances must be addressed by lawful authorities. It is the religious and civic duty of every Muslim to unconditionally condemn any act of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam. Any Muslim group that has ties to terrorism in any way, shape, or form, must be universally condemned by both religious and secular Muslims. Portrayal of Prophets While portrayal of Prophets is not an acceptable practice in Islam could be personally offensive to some Muslims, other religions do not have such restrictions. Therefore, the portrayal of the Prophets must be treated as a manifestation of free expression. The Crusades vs. The Inquisition While the Inquisition was a repulsive practice by Christian Fundamentalists, the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims. Brothers and Sisters! |
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Goals / Manifesto
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Well done, I hope this is a genuine attempt at fruitful discussions leading to good results. But I believe that requires you tone down your attack against Quran and point out the difference between its verbatim teachings and its essence, the message. Shock therapy does not work here if your are dismissed immediately for overboard claims. We really lack the figures who have the courage to offer a bounty for capturing Bin Laden, that is because the US is complacent with the oil producing Saudi Wahabis whose version of Isalam has dominated all countries.
Question for you: I have a Muslim friend, who states, he is not a religious man. Nonetheless, he is Muslim. He claims he is a secularist or "cafeteria" Muslim.
As such, when I came onto your site here, I sent the link, the stated goals, and the manifesto to him. Asked for his comments on them.
He read them, then stated, he had considered going along with you all, but then was very disappointed when you mention altering the Qur'an.
His reasons (and he is as secularist a Muslim as one can find): "God said, He sent Quran [sic] to Mohammed and He is protecting it from any change. "
Thus, this, the summation of my friend, this secular Muslim: "So this [reform in Islam, via, altering the Qur'an] will never happen."
I tend to agree with him.
Given, as is common knowledge for anyone who knows much about Islam: Islam is built on the belief in the veracity of the Qur'an. In other words, that belief is the foundation on which Islam stands. You eliminate that belief and Islam crashes, as any structure would when its foundation is removed.
Because of the above arguments, how can any one who is a Muslim support your goals, when doing overrides the orders of the Prophet of Islam?
1. We have no time for anything other than shock therapy.
2. Bin Laden has a $50,000,000 bounty on his head.
3. If "God said, He sent Quran [sic] to Mohammed and He is protecting it from any change" and the Koran says "slay the idolaters [meaning you] wherever you find them" does this mean that we have to slay you wherever we find you? Is not slaying you is just as blasphemous as altering the Koran?
Muslims are proud of Quran has never changed. Wherever you go, you'll find same copy. Unlike Bible which written by Chirst's followers as they see fit, so they are many copies.
If you alter Quran, it wont be Quran. You may start a new religion based on your thoughts and Quran but it wont be Islam.
Quran written over years. Each page comes as respond to an event. To truly understand Quran one should 1st learn the histroy. Quoting one sentences is a mind-trick.
Fro me that sentences tells "if idolaters declare war upon you, start to destroy you. You are given permission to kill those"
Quran also states "Your religion is yours, my religion mine"
And about "excommunication" Dont you know no man can enter between God and its creation. You cant kick someone out of religion. Unlike Christianty, Islam is not a club, Islam doesnt have a leader. Islam based on person. Its personal.
Özhan,
You seem to be bothered by a notion that Islam may not be perfect and might need a makeover. But the fact that Islam is being used (or misused) to murder millions of people doesn’t seem to be an issue for you. This is precisely why Muslim mindset must be changed.
Fascinating organization. I appreciate your goals. I have a few overlapping questions:
(1) Is there some specific moral source upon which you are relying to reform Islam or is it primarily the general modern (Western?) norms and morality?
(2) Once Sharia, et al., are excised, what distinguishes your version of Islam from other religions? i.e. what are you keeping that you feel is unique or worthwhile?
(3) Why have you chosen to significantly reform Islam rather than abandon it in favor of some other religion?
Thank you.
Kevin,
(1) Humanistic norms of morality, not necessarily Western.
(2) The basis of our religion, Five pillars of Islam, do not require any changes. In fact, we need to change only a small fraction of the vast body of Islam to make it compatible with modern norms of morality. However, removing these small parts will provide significant lift on many levels for the Islamic societies worldwide.
(3) Giving up Islam is the easy way out. We have hundreds of millions of brothers and sisters; we have a moral obligation not to abandon them.
Thanks for your prompt and direct response. It looks like you are doing good work.
Every religion can be used as an excuse for murders. The reason isnt about contents of that religon but people; acting as fanatics of a football team, such as religions are in race.
It's the people acting like childs "mine is betters yours is suck because i said so"
According to Christians, Jesus says "turn your other cheek" but that doesnt stop them doing crusades (ancient & modern)
Özhan,
We agree; every religion could be used as an excuse for murders. However, you don’t see too many non-Muslims running around blowing people up in the name of their religions. The Inquisition is a perfect example of the dark time in Christianity. The era of the Inquisition is gone, because Christianity was reformed. Islamic terrorism is our inquisition. That is why Islam must be reformed.
There were many atrocities committed during the Crusades, but the reasons for the Crusades were justified. This subject is addresses in our manifesto. Please read it.
Bombings of clinics in name of God (terrorist acts against abortion)
Abusing children with the power of religious titles. (Church fathers)
See, reform of Christianity done nothing becasue we ,the people, are flawed thats why God is mercyfull.
May God protect us from zealots of all religions.
Özhan,
We couldn’t disagree more. Bombing of abortion clinics and Catholic Church pedophilia are abominations. Those practices are condemned by vast majority of Christians. Suicide bombings and other terrorist acts are praised by a large segment of the Ummah and pedophilia and female genital mutilation are rampant in the Muslim world. Every group of people has its bad apples. There are Jews spraying worshipers in the Mosque with rifle fire, Christians shooting up Muslim villages, an Hindus bombing Muslim buses, but do not confuse the exception with the norm.
Actually as a historical note, the Quran is not the same version the world over. There are several accepted variations, and also many not accepted versions. This is because the Quran was orally transmitted for over 300 yrs before a written Quran became common so it was subject to memory loss and 'interpretation' by individuals over the years - see (http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm) for further details.
"Reforming" the Quran doesn't have to mean changing the text, maybe interpreting the text differently would be enough?
Surely certain areas about killings could be classed as the 'examples of exception' not the rule?
By that I mean that for example, the Old testament has some sections on mass killing and war, but we don't use them to advocate murder anymore.
We treat them as historical passages about the establishment of the early israel, and surely the 'medina' sections of the Quran, when Islam was at war with non muslims in Arabia, could be treated in the same manner, whilst the earlier 'Mecca' sections when peace and love is promoted, could be the 'message' section?
Just a thought.
I will post a blog with a link to your site in the vague hope that it may bring you more attention (not likely on my site LOL, but better than nothing).
""Reforming" the Quran doesn't have to mean changing the text, maybe interpreting the text differently would be enough?"
Unfortunately, it is not enough. We want a guarantee that future generation of Muslims will not have the room to "misinterpret" the Koran again.
Email from JS:
Dear folks at reformislam.org:
First, let me congratulate you. You folks are addressing the
problems of Islam in the most direct, honest way I'm aware of. You
want to throw out the problem verses, and you object not only to
Jihad but also to Islamic Supremacy. I commend your bravery!
I am a non-Muslim who is very concerned about the dangers of both
of the above Islamic ideologies. Although I do not share your
faith, I believe I do share your values. I also have no problem
with people who believe in different religions, so long as their
religion doesn't command them to kill or oppress unbelievers.
However, in your on-line poll, I had to vote your reform "does not
go far enough". Since you are already doing so much, and I do not
wish to appear unsupportive, I wish to explain my vote.
My concern is that a partially successful reform of Islam could be
worse than no reform at all, if it leaves intact the seeds of its
own undoing. To be fully successful, a reform would need to have a
coherent, believable set of answers for all of the issues arising
from the Koran, Sunnah, and Sira; otherwise it could make Islam
more of a "Trojan Horse", appearing harmless on the outside while
carrying a military machine on the inside.
You say that the Koran could have been corrupted, which is a
rationale for throwing out those verses which are incompatible with
human rights and ethical norms (I'm paraphrasing from memory here).
My question is: When did this corruption occur? Based on the
earliest, most authentic accounts of Mohammed's life, he himself
pushed the ideologies of Islamic Jihad and Supremacy. So if the
Koran was not intended to contain these ideologies, did Mohammed
himself corrupt the Koran? If so, there has never been an Islam
that was free from corruption.
There are people who claim Mohammed was a peaceful, tolerant
person. I'm sure you've read this sort of thing. These people are
simply ignoring a mountain of data from the earliest Muslim sources
which portray Mohammed as a barbarian. But it really does no good
to whitewash the record. And if the most authentic records are
thrown out simply because they are undesirable, this would not lend
credibility to the resulting reform. To be credible, a reform would
need to have some claim to being more authentic than the previous
version of Islam.
You say that Mohammed was "a product of his times". While this is
true, and I do appreciate that at least you are not saying Mohammed
is a good role model (which it says in the Koran, by the way), your
response is not sufficient to address the problem. According to the
ahadith, Mohammed's peers objected to genocide of the Jewish tribes
around Medina, while Mohammed wanted it. Mohammed complained of
"hippocrates", Muslims who did not want to fight his battles. And,
although the early texts complain of "persecution" of Muslims by
the Meccans, after Mohammed obtained power, he went much further in
his intolerance toward non-Muslims than the Meccans did toward him.
Prior to Islam, various religions lived side by side in Arabia, but
not after. This indicates that Mohammed was even violent and
intolerant by 7th century Arabia's standards.
In addition, even if Mohammed were the best moral example available
at the time (which he evidently was not), a benevolent God would
not make someone like that his *final* prophet, especially since
the Abrahamic peoples already had Jesus, who centuries before was a
much better moral example. (I say this as a non-Christian, by the
way.)
Some people who have looked at the evidence regarding the origins
of the Koran say it was written not by Mohammed but by a group of
men in Baghdad over the course of a couple centuries. If this is
the case, virtually all of the relevant biographical data on
Mohammed was also conjured up to support the Koran. If this theory
were accepted, then all of the foundational texts could be declared
"mythical" and revisited with the criterion of selecting only those
parts which are useful. However, although this *may* potentially
address all the problems, it would be such an extremely radical
make-over, I can't imagine this type of reform being embraced by a
large number of Muslims. So again, we would have the Trojan Horse
issue, in which non-Muslims could become complacent and "reformed"
Muslims could, down the road, revert to the version of Islam that
has the most backing from the foundational texts (violent and
supremacist).
So, although the concept of a reformed Islam has its appeal, I
really can't see how a reform would be possible that would
ultimately be effective. To me, it seems dangerous to have a
billion people believing in a religion whose foundational texts are
so extraordinarily problematic. I would prefer an all-out effort to
encourage Muslims to convert--to anything else.
However, my disagreement with you over what it would take to truly
reform Islam (and whether that is even possible) does not in the
slightest detract from my admiration for your courageous stand.
- --JS
“My question is: When did this corruption occur?”
Our best guess is between the time it was written and now.
“Based on the earliest, most authentic accounts”
These “most authentic” accounts could have been corrupted over the last 14 centuries.
“These people are simply ignoring a mountain of data from the earliest Muslim sources which portray Mohammed as a barbarian.”
Again, these “mountain of data” is over millennium old, and, therefore not that reliable.
“According to the ahadith, Mohammed's peers objected to genocide of the Jewish tribes around Medina, while Mohammed wanted it. ... This indicates that Mohammed was even violent and intolerant by 7th century Arabia's standards.”
There is no definite way to know whether or not that version of events is accurate.
“Some people who have looked at the evidence regarding the origins of the Koran”
There is no evidence, there are only theories.
“So, although the concept of a reformed Islam has its appeal, I really can't see how a reform would be possible that would ultimately be effective. To me, it seems dangerous to have a billion people believing in a religion whose foundational texts are so extraordinarily problematic.”
What is the alternative? Muslim genocide?
“However, my disagreement with you over what it would take to truly reform Islam (and whether that is even possible) does not in the slightest detract from my admiration for your courageous stand.”
We appreciate your support and hope that some day we can prove that Islamic reform is possible.
Email from JS:
Muslims Against Sharia:
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
"What is the alternative [to reforming Islam]? Muslim genocide?"
So this, I take it, is your motivation for reforming Islam. If you
can succeed, you can prevent the catastrophic violence that
otherwise seems inevitable. I don't know if there's anything that
can prevent that violence, but I hope there is, and I am also
seeking it. The question is: what is the best way to prevent the
violence? My contention is that your reforms, while laudable, are
such an enormous leap from where Islam is currently, that taking
this leap would not be significantly easier than for Muslims to go
to a new religion. Actually, going to a new religion may be easier,
and it would be safer because it would make it more difficult to
backslide to the old Islam.
"Again, these 'mountain of data' is over millennium old, and,
therefore not that reliable."
It seems that your reform is based on the assumption that *all*
Islamic texts are extraordinarily unreliable, to the point that
numerous lengthy passages in the Koran, authenticated ahadith, and
sira, are illegitimate. Since you would throw out the earliest and
most authenticated sources about Mohammed's life, unless there's
some evidence that later sources somehow knew more about Mohammed
than those who lived the closest to his lifetime, it would
therefore follow that nothing is known about Mohammed's life, and
therefore his biography is irrelevant to Muslims today. In fact, if
all these texts have been corrupted to this degree, it would even
be a mistake to say that Mohammed was the prophet to whom today's
Koran was revealed; it would be more in keeping with your
assumptions to say that modern Islam is a product of centuries of
practice and tradition, which may or may not have anything at all
to do with Mohammed. After all, his entire biography could have
been fabricated over the centuries, so there's no real reason to
take any of it seriously. (I'm extrapolating from your statements,
and recognize you may not agree with my extrapolations.)
So then, why not just take what's useful in Islam and create a new
religion, name it something else, with a clean break from all the
baggage of the Koran, Mohammed, and centuries of Jihad and Sharia?
You could keep at least some of the pillars of Islam (travel to
Saudi Arabia might get a bit awkward at the moment), and some of
what's written in the Koran, but rename the book. It appears your
reforms require a Muslim to accept that today's Koran was not
dictated by God; that we know nothing about Mohammed; that other
religions besides Islam are valid; that it's OK to leave Islam
(since Sharia is gone, I presume this means apostasy is allowed);
that a host of traditional practices and assumptions are invalid;
and more. If a Muslim can get past those hurdles, which are
monstrous, what would be the added difficulty of going to a new
religion that replaces Islam? It seems to me that it would actually
be easier to leave Islam first, since then the person would be free
of the cognitive dissonance between the new Islam and the old Islam
(which seems to instill in Muslims a tremendous fear of even
questioning their faith, much less throwing out major chunks of it).
"We appreciate your support and hope that some day we can prove
that Islamic reform is possible."
I will be happy if you can. I also welcome and appreciate your
perspective on all of this. I don't care if I end up being "right",
my goal is to achieve the most freedom for the most people with the
least violence (and the least chance of backsliding).
- --JS
"I don't know if there's anything that can prevent that violence, but I hope there is, and I am also seeking it. The question is: what is the best way to prevent the violence?"
The answer is pretty simple: Islamic reformation.
"My contention is that your reforms, while laudable, are such an enormous leap from where Islam is currently, that taking this leap would not be significantly easier than for Muslims to go to a new religion."
Forced conversion? Ah, the good old times of the Inquisition. No, thank you.
"authenticated ahadith"
There is no such thing as "authenticated ahadith". You need to understand the difference between evidence and assumption.
"After all, his entire biography could have been fabricated over the centuries, so there's no real reason to take any of it seriously."
Exactly. That's where the difference between FACT and FAITH comes into play.
"So then, why not just take what's useful in Islam and create a new religion, name it something else, with a clean break from all the baggage of the Koran, Mohammed, and centuries of Jihad and Sharia?"
When you have a sick baby, why not kill it and make another one?
"my goal is to achieve the most freedom for the most people with the least violence (and the least chance of backsliding)."
We are on the same page.
"Forced conversion? Ah, the good old times of the Inquisition. No, thank you."
Who said anything about forced conversion? I'm not proposing forced conversion any more than you're proposing forced reform. Or did I misunderstand you--you aren't proposing forced reform, are you?
"When you have a sick baby, why not kill it and make another one?"
A religion is a belief. Beliefs can't get sick and can't be killed. They don't have rights, people do. If someone stops believing one thing and believes something else, no one dies. If a billion people stop believing one thing and believe something else, no one dies (so long as their new belief doesn't cause them to be violent).
I'm not proposing anything different from what you're proposing, except that instead of calling the new belief "reformed Islam", go a little further and call it something else. Past religions have come and gone, there's no reason a present religion can't also.
"Who said anything about forced conversion?"
Then how do you propose to abolish a religion practiced by a billion+ people? We know that there are problems with Islam, but we refuse to abolish our faith.
"instead of calling the new belief "reformed Islam", go a little further and call it something else."
We do not consider it "new belief". We consider it return to the original.
"We know that there are problems with Islam, but we refuse to abolish our faith."
I'm not suggesting Islam be abolished. I'm suggesting people be encouraged to leave it, and that those who wish to leave be protected.
"We do not consider it 'new belief'. We consider it return to the original."
I have not yet seen evidence that the original Islam was peaceful and tolerant. So far, it's the "problem Islam" that appears to have the greatest historical backing, unfortunately for us all. If the original Islam was peaceful and tolerant, why did Mohammed's immediate successors conquer and subjugate from Spain to Asia within the first century of Mohammed's death?
"I'm suggesting people be encouraged to leave it"
Screwing around with people's free will never ends good. People should be free to chose what they want and not persecuted for their choices.
"I have not yet seen evidence"
And unless you get a time machine, you are unlikely to ever see it.
JS: "I'm suggesting people be encouraged to leave it"
MAS: "Screwing around with people's free will never ends good. People should be free to chose what they want and not persecuted for their choices."
I'll make one more effort to explain my position. After that, you get the last word, whether or not you understand what I'm proposing.
I am not proposing "persecution" or taking away people's freedom to make choices. I am proposing "encouraging" people to leave Islam. I do not mean "encouragement" in the sense of Islamic Jihad "encouragement". I mean approaching people with reason and logic, and other verbal means, *not* force.
For example, it is possible to get people to convert *to* Islam using force, and it is also possible to get people to convert to Islam with non-forceful persuasion. The same is true in reverse: it is possible to get people to leave Islam using force, and it is also possible to get people to leave Islam using non-forceful persuasion. It is the latter that I am proposing.
"And unless you get a time machine, you are unlikely to ever see [evidence that Islam started out peaceful and tolerant]."
Here's where you lose me. If you claim that Islam originated as a peaceful, tolerant religion, yet you have no evidence, while at the same time there is a mountain of evidence that Islam was not peaceful and tolerant at its inception (in the Koran, Ahidith, Sira, and non-Muslim historical record), then your position is not especially credible. No matter how much we all wish it were true, the evidence points to the opposite.
This is why I think your reform, however courageous and desirable it would be if it actually worked, is more likely to lead to a Trojan horse Islam. Even if you succeed temporarily, at any moment Muslims could rediscover the religious texts they are currently using to justify Islamic Jihad and Sharia. I nevertheless wish you well, as you may yet find a way to succeed.
"I mean approaching people with reason and logic, and other verbal means, *not* force."
Missionary movement has been going on for centuries and it doesn't seem to be very effective when it comes to Islam.
"there is a mountain of evidence"
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word evidence, so let's drop the subject. Also, we do not claim to know that Islam originated as a peaceful religion, we believe it based on our faith, not evidence.
It's contradict whenever you talked about perfection of peace, love and light whereby the website itself provokes - Muslims AGAINST sharia.
It's like you're asking everyone else to stop attacking for the name of love and peace, but you yourself can attack in the name of 'exception' & ' reform'
Please walk the talk.
MalayMind,
If English is you first language, I have to ask: how recently have you had the lobotomy?
Post a Comment