.

(Continued …)

.

And I have just as reasonably explained, Leoj, that, having read the mysterious reviewer’s critical review of Karen Armstrong’s article, I discovered that he is reported to be a co-administrator of and an extensive contributor to a blog called Jihad Watch which, to cite Wikipedia : “has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories”.

I repeat that I place absolutely no confidence in charlatans or propagandists, whether they be political, religious or otherwise.

I do not accord any value whatsoever to anything the mysterious reviewer, “Hugh Fitzgerald”, has to say or write.

As for your statement that Karen Armstrong’s “only claim to expertise seems to be that she is an ex-nun”, I refer you to her brief biography in Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

You add :

« … according to the reviewer, [Karen Armstrong] makes very simple and obvious errors of history and other facts. Factual errors that should leap out at you … »

Do they “leap out at you”, Leoj ? Do you consider that you are competent in such matters ?

If so, why bother posting such an obviously biased and partisan review ? Why did you not, and even now, why do you not post your own thoughts on Karen Armstrong’s article ?

If, however, you prefer to have recourse to a reputable, independent, religious historian, I shall be more than willing to consider his or her comments and opinion on the article.

In response to your remark concerning my “apparent continued refusal to address the forum topic: the treatment of women by Islam”, allow me to suggest that you read my previous posts on this thread. I think I have amply treated this subject in the terms that Graham expressed it.

I also stated clearly what I thought of the courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the rude task she has undertaken in attempting to reform such a highly-decentralised organisation as Islam.

.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I’m sorry not to have replied earlier to your last post “regarding religion, violence, and Islam” and to have shamelessly abandoned you.

I have been fairly busy of late and, in addition, as you may have noticed, I devoted what little time I had available to Leoj whose needs appeared to be causing some concern and required immediate attention.

I read Tanveer Ahmed’s excellent article entitled “Reforming Islam” in “The Spectator” with pleasure. Thank you very much indeed for the link. It is undoubtedly the most articulate and perspicacious analysis I have read on the subject to date.

But while I find Tanveer Ahmed’s analysis absolutely impeccable, I am not sure I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she writes in her book, "Heretic: Why Islam needs a Reformation now", as you indicate :

« Islamic violence is rooted … in the foundational texts of Islam itself. That in order for Islam to reform certain parts need to be changed or rejected »

My personal opinion is that I do not think it is necessary “to change or reject” any of the so-called “sacred texts” such as the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible or the Quran and Sunnah of Islam. I think it is quite unrealistic to expect, not only the fundamentalists and extremists, but also the orthodox and the conservatives, as well as many of the more moderate devotees, to accept such radical measures.

I feel that a softer and more gentle approach might have more chance of succeeding. It seems to me that it is the mentalities of the devotees which have to evolve, not the texts. I think the texts should be preserved in their integrality. They have inestimable value not just to the devotees as sacred documents, but also to the whole of humanity as historical documents.

In my view, it is the way we read the texts that must change, not the way the authors wrote them. It is the way we understand their message that must change.

We must make a historic decision with a historical perspective.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for replying to my earlier post and I am
pleased that you found the link useful. I appreciate
and respect your opinion. A gentler approach of course
would probably be a better tactic in trying to reform
any problem. Although from my understanding what
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is suggesting is not that all of the
foundational texts be reformed, only some of Islam's
core concepts. She feels that unless this is done we
shall not solve the burning and increasingly global
problem that currently exists and is carried out in the
name of religion.

And therein lies the problem. How do we get those with
the most influence - the scholars,
theologians, on board? A gentler approach is probably the
way. Being abrasive will only alienate people - as we can
see from what's happening today in Europe and elsewhere.

Foxy: How do we get those with the most influence - the scholars,

You won't. There is too much hatred between the Sunni & the Shia to let this happen, let alone the multitude of other Islamic Sects. There is no central authority controlling Islamic Dogma. You cannot change 3 thousand years of Middle Eastern thinking & culture over night. Any Change would take another thousand years.

Banjo Paterson,

Facts remain facts regardless of the uses or abuses to which they may be put. There is no throwing it back onto me, you are the one who is putting your impression of the person first and exclusively before any examination of his claims. That is you and allow your world view and values, your prejudice, to rule. That is 'splitting'.

In your response to Foxy you make some explanation of your bias: a softly, softly towards Islam and to other orthodoxy too one might assume - lest the proponents be upset?

Whereas I make no allowances where laws are being broken or there is conspiracy to do so. I would have the full force of the law applied, religion or not.

Regarding your ridiculous assertion/insinuation that the reformers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali want to tear up or physically modify and amend the 'sacred' texts you style yourself as protecting (as a White Knight), that is complete nonsense as you would certainly be aware.

Of course the reformers are aiming at the meaning taken, permitted and excused - the whole bundle of disgusting, obnoxious, Middle Ages culture, traditions and political system and behaviours that are being introduced to host countries.

But you are laboring to somehow make the obvious violence and the dreadful attitudes to and treatment of women, the fault of the usually tolerant (but not to that!) and welcoming French and populations of the other target countries for economic migration.

That IS where you are getting to eventually ins't it? -That the fault for the rapes, assaults, killings , refusal to assimilate and obey the law and so on is actually down to everyone else but the offenders themselves, who choose to break the law and want to introduce their own political corruption and Sharia law instead.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Here is another link that I found of interest on this
complex subject:

http://www.quora.com/How-can-Islam-be-reformed-1

Mike Muluk tells us that -

"The problem of reforming Islam is that almost all Muslims
will agree that the Qur-an is the revealed word of God...
A book of law".

He goes on to argue that "Every reform can only take place
when you know that there's a problem. To this day I've never
heard a single Muslim that I know admitting that the problem
of the whole Islamic world are the Islamic laws themselves.
Most Muslims I know don't/can't admit it, but only stop
following their religious rules. And that person would be,
what in the West is called a "moderate" Muslim."

He goes on to say that - "I hope though, that once Muslims
start seeing the problem and admitting that they need to get rid
of/reform (at least) the part of Islamic law that controls their
earthly lives and interactions with others, then they can
start setting their sights on finding solutions on how to reform
the interpretations of the Qur'an."