I think that the choice of the word 'rationalism' in the context of religion is a bad one. We could even say that 'Islamic rationalism' is an oxymoron.

This is because rationalism is a reality based ideology that is founded on naturalism. It is therefore the polar opposite of supernaturalism.

What the Amir is really talking about is not rationalism but the democratization of knowledge within the Islamic community.

However, this won't strengthen Islam as the Amir supposes. Once Muslims are exposed to real infomation and learn to think critically they will find the idea of angels, jinns, pregnant Virgins, and Koranic infallibility untenable.

'Sin(as in accumulation of evil acts) resides in the soul of the person whose seat is in the middle of the head(seems around the pituitary), and the rest of the body is seen as 'pure' ie without sin in gods eyes. So by removing the sin/evil(head) the act is to leave what is then pure(the body)...so its an act for god so that the body may go to god...'

The soul resides somewhere 'around the pituitary'?

Where did you get that idea from Sam? Or more to the point, do you have proper empirical evidence for that?

But let me guess. You don't have any empirical evidence. All you have is the unfounded opinion of a Sheik who's never stepped inside a laboratory or turned on an MRI machine.

Thanks to the author and contributors for the discussion. Interesting.

Cheers
Kay

Great post, Oligarch, thank you.

Remove God, and everything will be okay? If God exists, this would be at odds with a larger-than-average fact and obviously foolish.

If there is no God, then it still won’t make everything okay, because you are still left with human nature, including the corrupting influence of power. Communism demonstrated par excellence what political human power without God can look like. And even without power, we’ll still fight about workers’ rights and soccer, and any other tribal or intensely personal issue that floats across our mind from moment to moment. People have appetites, attitude and they fight: this is news?

The naiveté of believing that ditching God will result in a world filled with well-informed hippies is just astonishing. (Even hippyism was tried, and was something of an anti-climax.) I'm becoming accustomed to the dogmatism and vitriol of modern atheists, but it's their naiveté that really shocks me. My fault for believing them when they tell me how clever they are.

Ameer, I hope you’re right. You had better be, because I expect that even the relatively liberal secular West will only take so much. I hope there are ways in which non-Muslim Australians can assist – at the very least, by making the communal environment hospitable, so Muslims will not retreat into a siege mentality which will be so easily exploited by radicals. God speed: really, hurry up, it's a crisis.

Pax,

This is very well thought out.
I would just like to add one thing however Mr Ali.
Australia needs just one Islamic council.
Australias Accreditations should only go through that one council.
My concern is the Government have over looked this.
If they dont address it we will have the same inta fighting as you see overseas.
Not to mention to different messages being given out.
Look what happend with the AWB who are still operating in live Exports as usual.
Of course we all require to know who we are funding- ie who is behind the electric application to sell halal products and operate import export licences.
We all need protection from that especially the Australian Muslims.
More needs to be done and AQIS should 'only' be dealing with the chosen Muslim reps of Australia.
Thank you for such a informed post.

"Muslim men have to cover there beutiful wives and daughters to stop there own men from raping them."

Unimportant: I have to differ with you here. There's a completely different reason why the Swedes or Czechs don't cover their women but Muslims do, and I'm grateful to both!

Anyhow, on topic...

I'm in no hurry to apply any magic pill or shock treatment to the religiously inclined, but I'd like to think that we had the good sense (and compassion) to at least include religiosity in DSM-IV. If I honestly claimed to believe in (and perhaps talk to) Zeus, people would think I was off my rocker. What's the difference here?

Personally, I couldn't give a rodent's earlobe about Islam. It's a failed ideology. It either has to go through a Reformation to the point where, much like Christianity, it disappears up its own backside, or it will remain the province of the socially and economically backward (both within nations and as nations). Once the oil runs out, the Islamic world is going to be collectively as important in any sense (politically, economically, culturally, scientifically) as Vanuatu or Surinam, ie. not at all. The coming age may or may not be Western, but it sure as hell won't be Islamic. Hell, for all I care, Islam can have Europe -- it's a dead continent anyway (shame about the monuments and museums, although I guess we could transport some of them) -- but its impact anywhere that counts will be less than 3/5 of 5/8 of bugger all. Anywhere that enjoys the fruits of the 21st century, or aspires to such things, realises organised religion (as anything but as carnival side show entertainment), and especially Islam, is completely incompatible with such a project.