Walid Phares gives us more information about the Secular Islam Summit. From FrontPage:
Where are the Muslim moderates?That is a question that many in the West have been asking in recent years. Now it’s possible to provide an answer: They’re in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Between March 4 and March 7, the city is hosting the first ever Secular Islam Summit. Organized by the Center for Inquiry Transnational, an organization that promotes “science, reason, free inquiry,” as well as countless activists, the conference features more than two dozen speakers and about two hundred participants with varying religious and political backgrounds and nationalities. It is among the first conferences to bring together Muslim intellectuals for the purpose of discussing the threat of Islamic jihadism and finding secular and liberal expressions of Islam.
The opening remarks of the conference were given by two famous Western-based Muslim dissidents. First to speak was Ibn Warraq, the author of several volumes on secular Islam. In his sophisticated introduction to the Islamic “intellectual movement,” he laid out the philosophical basis for a full separation between religion and state in the Muslim world. Advocating universal values and a global reform of education, he also called for regime change in many countries, including in Iran, encouraged the formation of organizations to promote human rights in the Islamic world, and, in an interesting and twist, called on reformists to “take Mullahs to courts for issuing fatwas.”Notably, Ibn Warraq made no attempt to justify or rationalize Islamic extremism. Considering that oft-asked question -- “Why do they hate us?” -- he offered an unambiguous answer: “They hate us because they were taught to do so.” Although Ibn Warraq said that he has already “left” Islam, his call for Muslim societies to undertake religious reform was compelling and urgent.
The second to address the summit was Irshad Manji. Born in Africa and raised in Canada, the best-selling author told the audience that the response to jihad is Ijtihad, an Islamic legal term used to denote an independent interpretation of the legal doctrine. Applying this reinterpretation to Islamic religious texts, including the Koran, would, according to Manji, defy and ultimately curb the influence of Islamic fundamentalists. She argued that there are many verses in the texts that can help a new interpretation defeat the narrow reading preferred by the Islamists.
Unlike Ibn Warraq, Manji revealed that she is still a Muslim and pledged to fight for her “Islam.” In conclusion, Manji invited non-Muslims to take part in the debate alongside reformist Muslims. To Muslim protests that their religion is their own business, Manji countered: “If they tell you have no business in Muslim affairs, tell them they have no business meddling in non-Muslim affairs.”
Following these opening remarks, the conference presented several discussion panels. The first panel, titled “Inside the Jihadi Mind,” included the Egyptian-born writer Tawfiq Hakim, who noted that the roots of Islamic terrorism are to be found in a political ideology that pretends be a religious doctrine. In his turn, Iraqi journalist Nibras Kazimi elaborated on the “mind of the Jihadi generals.” Other Muslim intellectuals, such as Shahriar Kabir from Bangladesh, Dr. Shaker al Nabusli from Jordan and Dr Afshin Ellian, a Dutch-based Iranian, addressed the relationship between traditions and Sharia laws.
Another panel on the separation of Mosque and state in the Islamic world included Jordanian activist Salameh Nematt, Hasan Mahmoud from Bangladesh and this author. During the panel, we discussed international law and politics and the Islamist movement.
In my presentation, I focused on the multiple areas of international relations where jihadi concepts -- such as jihad, infidels, Caliphate and dar el-Harb -- have to be addressed not only by the dissidents but also by Islamic countries. These terms from early Islamic history may have been part of the norms of world politics and religious wars 1,300 years ago, but under the current international system there is no place for jihadism and its derivatives, which have no respect for international law. Reformists may not agree on all aspects of the current crisis within Islam, I argued, but together they nonetheless represent a critical development: a form of Muslim resistance to jihad. Muslims should be able to draw distinctions between religious identity and militant ideology, thereby liberating themselves from jihadism. I also argued that the West has abandoned the anti-jihadist Muslims for decades and deplored the fact that Western governments, not excluding the US, have long been advised by apologists for jihadism instead of liberal Muslims.
There were many other panels scheduled throughout the week. For instance, Nonie Darwish from Palestine, Wafa Sultan from Syria, Zeino Baran a Turkish American scholar, and Iranian native Manda Zand Ervin are slated to address such subjects as secularism, women, terrorism and Islamism. All in all, it is an eclectic mix of topics with none of the speakers fitting into the molds of apologist and extremist that many have come to associate with conferences on Islam.
Te be sure, this is not the first time that Muslim authors and critics of the dominant religious and cultural order within their own community have debated these issues. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the last Caliphate and with the rise of Salafism, joined in the 1970s by Khomeinism, countless intellectuals have experienced harsh conditions and met tragic destinies as they rose to oppose fundamentalism and pressed for reforms. High-profile authors and intellectuals have spoken against authoritarianism and Islamism on the Indian subcontinent and the sub-Saharian desert. Dozens of journalists and academics have called for a global debate on the developments of politics and ideologies within Muslim countries. Back in 1994, for instance, a group called the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights met in New Jersey to address similar concerns. Dissidents have been meeting in many countries and cities in the last decades, an unmistakable if little-noticed theological and literary rebellion that illustrates the larger cultural conflict raging within Islam.
In a cruel irony, attempts by hard-liners to silence these reformers have often received more attention than the reformers themselves. In the 1980s, Salman Rushdie of India was targeted with a fatwa from the Ayatollah Khomeini for the publication of his book Satanic Verses, which Islamists judged heretical. Since then, the dissident author has kept a low profile. Similarly, in the early 1990s, author Mustafa Jeha was assassinated in Beirut for publishing a book titled Crisis of Mind in Islam. In keeping with this history, before the Secular Islam Summit even took place, internet-based attacks were unleashed against the conference and its participants by pro-Wahabi, Salafi and Khomeinist web sites and bloggers. Al-Jazeera sent a crew to interview the participants and also to air “opposing views” from leaders of the local community in the area. In its afternoon shows, the network sought comment from a local representative of the Islamist advocacy group the Council on American Islamic Relations.
In one respect, reformists have also hurt their own cause. Until recently, they have not acted collectively and have seldom met, making their task that much more difficult. This week’s conference is a welcome departure from this tradition. The Secular Islam Summit is an excellent example of what could occur if the United States, Europe and the international community would seriously consider supporting the Muslim intellectuals who seek pluralism, human rights and democracy: They would gain important allies in the war of ideas and the “War on Terror.”
Fine. So a few secular Muslims exist.
And then what? As long as the Qur'an is what it is, there will be more and more Muslims coming to America, each with the same ability to read, learn, comprehend the "words of Allah" and then under the direction of Muhammad, they too will have the ability to decide that non-Muslims are second class citizens, that Islam must reign supreme and that Sharia should be the law of the land.
Yes, secularize Islam in America -- a pipe dream -- but even if it takes hold, the flow of Muslim immigration will just increase and right along with that will the jihad violence, the endangerment of our laws, the escalation of the subversion of our educational systems and the destruction of our cultural heritage as Americans.
We can try to fool ourselves. I did for years, but now I know the ugly truth -- once the Muslims attain 10% or more of the population in the United States, all Hell will break loose, secular reformists be damned.
Oil and water cannot be mixed. Fact.
Phares is vastly more knowledgeable of these matters than I am, but I question this:
"Muslims should be able to draw distinctions between religious identity and militant ideology, thereby liberating themselves from jihadism."
It seems to me that the central problem is that these two, religious identity and militant ideology, are in Islam inseparably intertwined. To surrender the militant ideology is effectively to embrace the proposition that Islam is one religion among many, and not the final, definitive, authoritative revelation that deserves the submission of all of humanity. And that is one of the core self-representations of the Qur'an, isn't it?
I hope that I'm wrong.
whatever happened to mark a. gabriel? i rarely see his name mentioned anymore. surely an ex-imam al-azhar professor would have a lot to add to conferences such as these. was he there? or is the fact that he is now an evangelical christian too much for even some of these reformed muslims to bear? it's one thing to just tear down the kindgom of rome; it's another thing to activily follow the example of jesus and build the kingdom of god.
Bottom Line:
We Infidels should not let up our guard because of reformist Muslim smatterings like this. And "not letting up our guard", to be concretely pragmatic, means we must continue to suspect all Muslims, and that suspicion must include, at the very least, distrust, surveillance and investigation of (to the best of our abilities, given finite resources) any and all Muslims -- including even smiling and polite Muslims, and even the Muslims at conferences like these.
I see the purely Western insane fantasy dupery of "moderate" muslims and "radical" muslims may have to share some space with "secular" muslims now.
A more absurd phrase could not have been coined: "secular muslims."
A muslim is a muslim is a muslim. You ARE or you ARE NOT. It really is that simple.
There are different levels of OBSERVANCE, but they are all muslims.
Trying to change the immutable is folly.
I agree with Foehammer and Remote. First things first - I thought that most of the attendees there are apostates, which is why they might appeal to us in the first place: therefore, describing them as secular Muslims is accurate and inaccurate at the same time.
The only Muslims who are likely to endorse them are those with the courage to bail out of Islam altogether: the ones who remain Muslims aren't going to embrace this just because Tasbih is in the group. (Also, isn't Walid Phares a Lebanese Christian, not a Muslim at all?) Besides, the fact that we Infidels might be enthusiastic about this group will be another reason for 'traditional' Muslims to shun them.
All that said, I wish them success, but in the meantime, as Infidels, our vigilance should remain unaltered.
Atlast a mainline publication has set out what needs be done.
Here are excerpts from the article. Read it all.
The Muslim Problem and What to Do about It
John Stone
#Meanwhile, the Islamic cancer in our body politic not only remains untouched, but continues to grow—stealthily, unobtrusively, even unknown to many Australians busy about their daily lives. One day, however, we shall experience a terrible national pain—awakening, for example, to the equivalent of the London bombings of July last year, or the French riots of last October; and we shall ask ourselves, “How did it come to this?”
#It will come to this because of a failure to focus upon the real problem, as distinct from those serious, but nevertheless superficial manifestations of it of which, a moment ago, I was saying it would be easy to speak. It will come, in other words, from focusing on symptoms, rather than causes.
#Confronted with these and other outrages, some European politicians are belatedly beginning to act. The Dutch now require all aspiring (legal) immigrants to undertake and pass a number of tests, including proficiency in the Dutch language and acceptance of aspects of Dutch society (homosexuality, for example) that are antithetical to Islam. The French are reported to be in the process of instituting new immigration laws. The Austrian Minister for the Interior recently said that 45 per cent of Austria’s Muslim immigrants “cannot be integrated”, and urged them to “choose another country” to reside. The Spanish authorities have made successive attempts to control the flood of illegal African Muslim immigrants—first from Morocco across the Straits of Gibraltar, then from Mauritania and Senegal to Spain’s Canary Islands. The influx continues, nevertheless, to mount: on May 18, some 656 people landed in the Canaries. As one Madrid observer has said, this “mass assault on Spain’s African border may just be a first warning of what to expect of the future”.
#The Blair government in Britain, meanwhile, has effectively lost control not only of its borders, but also of its deportation procedures even when the illegals (not all of them Muslims) are apprehended. And the major parties there wonder why the truly right-wing British National Party is rapidly gaining adherents!
#Even the Eurocrats in Brussels are now belatedly admitting that something has to be done. According to the Australian’s Paul Kelly, recently touring Europe, the European Union’s Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security told him in the course of an interview:
#“Having by and large completed their takeover of the Muslim ghettoes, often by “targeted violence” against non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike, and turned them into “anti-societies”, the Islamist fanatics are making great progress towards achieving control of the educational system as well. As usual, girls are the first victims … The punishment for refusal to conform is often physical violence ...
#“This new generation of Muslim children, born and raised in Europe, is growing up already indoctrinated to consider themselves part of a ‘Muslim nation’ separate and opposed to everything Western civilisation stands for.”
#If we focus on those three objectives, namely setting out to virtually halt legal Muslim immigration, rendering citizenship much tougher to obtain (not only for Muslims) and cracking down even harder on illegal entry of both Muslims and non-Muslims, there are many things we can and should do. Here are a few of them:
#What I do believe is that public anger on these matters is growing. If our existing political parties will not address the concerns responsible for that anger, then a new party will surely arise to fill the vacuum. Call it, notionally, the No More Muslims Party. I don’t look forward to its appearance, but appear it will unless the causes that will otherwise give rise to it are addressed—and quickly. Too much time has been lost already.
"the Muslim intellectuals who seek pluralism, human rights and democracy:"
.....judging by the way Muslims seek pluralism, human rights and democracy around the Muslim world...I am drawing a blank....
One name that I thought conspicuous by its absence was Ali Sina. Any idea what he thinks of all this - I'd have thought that if he endorses that, he'd have been a part of the declaration.
It equates that one must have an intelligent mind to be a non Muslim. That does not bode well in revealing what kind of low self esteem agents are in Islam in being opposite of reasoned thought.
Great news! Secular Muslims don't want to behead us like the extremists do. The moderates outnumber the extremists, so I guess there's nothing to worry about after all. I'll just go back to sleep then. Uhh, wait...
Glenn Beck is sucking up big time to the so-called moderates and I cannot stomach his show any longer. The nightly grovelling at the feet of his hand-picked guests as they all agree that the extremists are bad and everyone else in Islam is good is unwatchable.
Sorry, but the only good muslim is a deported muslim. They cannot and do not belong on this side of the ocean because they have chosen to be incompatible with us. they have made their choice, but we're still waffling with ours.
I personally like Glenn Beck because he seems to be the only mainstream guy out there bringing some kind of awareness to this immense problem.
I, just like most here am totally anti Islam, and as we should remain vigilant, we do need to look at people like these and hope that they can chip away at their people. If we immediately discount these people then the only solution in the long term will be genocide, does that option really sound great to any one?
I am one who believes that we will eventually end up in a war like no other ever, but given the prospects of such a grim outlook, we should do anything in our power to assist these types of people.
For how well-intentioned the St. Petersburg Declaration might be (and I believe it is), it is deeply disappointing that this document contained ZERO language that substantially, explicitly, universally and unequivocally condemns terrorism in all its forms.
Anything less is wholly unacceptable.
OT:
Refuting Islam on YouTube
Yep, I'm stirring the anthill. Finally.
Foehammer, I took a brief look at your link and the you tube production. Good work I like it and I'll pass it on to some people who would care to view it.
@ The fanatic:
Thanks. It's unfortunate that YouTube's compression did so much damage to my video -- the quality I sent them was actually quite good and relatively small to begin with. But now I at least know that I'll be well off incorporating some more suggestions I've just gotten on my site to enhance the viewing and legibility of my videos from this point on.
I'll probably end up doing a further enhanced edit of the initial movie, but I think I deserve a respite for a few days.
Where are the moderate muslims??????
The question now sounds so stupid to me, the more I think of it ,because 6 years after sept 11 and after a number of occasions of no comments or protests from the moderate muslims ,it should be obviously clear where they are.
Their sympathy lies with jihad.
They are the moderate arm of jihad.
Only time they do find guts and the voice to protest is when a cartoon is drawn or when someone is checked at airport for security(called racial profiling by them).
MODERATE = CANT DECIDE = ON THE FENCE
Decision time, moderates, get off of the fence!
As Muslim populations increase, the totalitarian Sharia regimes will be more of a burden then a benefit. A crossover point can be found. Free presses can be established. Social strife can be rectified. The standard of living can be improved. A greater percent of the populations can develop, and in a better way. They can be transformed into secular democracies.
The Islamic banking sector can also be reformed; resources are currently allocated for non-economic reasons. The banks funnel cash to state owned enterprises, and serve as conduits for the planned economies. Widespread corruption is a perpetual drag on the system, and the wrong people get contacts.
A reformed sector will instead allocate resources to economically just projects in competitive markets.
”As Muslim populations increase, the totalitarian Sharia regimes will be more of a burden then a benefit.”
Unless the political and military protection that sharia law preferentially confers upon Muslims proves to be an irresistible advantage. It has in the historic past and there is no indication that it will not do so in the future. Islam's clerical decrees delimit most Muslim life to such a degree that they most definitely DO NOT know what they are missing. Internet connections are one of the few hopes that the West has of changing this, but jihad is bringing violent confrontation to such an immediate head that there may well not be anywhere near enough time for such modification or reform to happen.
”A crossover point can be found. Free presses can be established. Social strife can be rectified. The standard of living can be improved. A greater percent of the populations can develop, and in a better way. They can be transformed into secular democracies.”
As the chap who watched a drinking buddy topple off of his barstool said to the bartender; “I’ll have what he’s having”. Words like “far too optimistic” are far too optimistic to describe what you predict.
”The Islamic banking sector can also be reformed; resources are currently allocated for non-economic reasons. The banks funnel cash to state owned enterprises, and serve as conduits for the planned economies. Widespread corruption is a perpetual drag on the system, and the wrong people get contacts.
A reformed sector will instead allocate resources to economically just projects in competitive markets.”
And exactly how does this have anything to do with overcoming the incredibly poisonous effect of how sharia law bans all forms of interest upon monetary loans? This is what has stifled Islam’s industrial growth throughout history and will continue to do so even today.
I welcome your reply, SFOD.