Here is a WND story about the Secular Islam declaration, including some comments I made about it to Art Moore. "Muslims try to change Islamic killing machine," by Art Moore for WorldNetDaily.com:
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. – A group of reformists from Muslim societies who have become accustomed to death threats upped the ante yesterday with a declaration they hope will spark a popular movement across the Islamic world to "fight back" against fundamentalist interpreters of the faith who support acts of terrorism.Secularists such as Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish and Irshad Manji helped formulate the "St. Petersburg Declaration," which seeks to do no less than eliminate traditional understandings and practices of Islam that conflict with universally accepted human rights.
Darwish, who read the statement in Arabic – others presented it in English, Bengali and Farsi – believes the statement will resonate with untold millions.
"You cannot believe the hunger of Muslims to hear what we're saying right now," said Darwish, a native of Egypt and a founder of ArabsForIsrael.com. "At least 50 percent will tell us, you are right, but don't reveal my name. They are so scared to speak out. To live in the Middle East and say what we're saying is a death sentence."
Darwish was among the speakers at the two-day Secular Islam Summit in St. Petersburg, which culminated with the declaration. Warraq, who uses a pseudonym because of death threats that followed his book "Why I am not a Muslim," abandoned Islam and considers himself an agnostic. Manji, author of the bestseller "The Trouble with Islam," sees herself as both a committed Muslim and a free thinker.
In the statement, the signatories identify as "believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree."
Anticipating their critics, the crafters say, "We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called 'Islamaphobia' in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights."
Already, they have been criticized by the head of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ahmed Bedier, who dismissed the framers of the declaration as atheists and agnostics, not true Muslims.
"They don't speak for us," Darwish said in response during a question and answer session at the conference. "CAIR represents the best interests of radical Islam."
CAIR casts itself as a mainstream defender of the civil rights of Muslims, but critics point out the group was formed as a spinoff of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs as a front for Hamas in the U.S.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Truth About Muhammad," told WND he "wholeheartedly" applauds the declaration and wishes success for it and its sponsors.
"I do believe, unfortunately, that the prospects for its widespread acceptance among Muslims today are dim," he said.
Nevertheless, Spencer said the statement "gives Muslims who reject the ideology of Islamic supremacism something around which they can rally, and that may allow for larger movements for genuine Islamic reform than we have seen up to now."
Darwish believes the declaration will have a long life, growing "like wildfire" as "signature after signature" is added to it, but she acknowledged if there will be any change, it won't come soon.
"This is the infancy stage of a revolution in the Muslim world. To achieve our goal is going to take generations," said Darwish, whose father, the head of Egyptian military intelligence in Gaza, was assassinated in 1956 when she was 8 years old.
WND covereed this, but what about the NYTimes and the rest of the mainstream media? A non-event to them, I'm sure.
It's always nice to see that decency can rise above indecent ideology.
sees herself as both a committed Muslim and a free thinker.
I dont think you can be both from the above statement, as the Koran,hadiths, were created to do the thinking for yourself. as once you start being a free thinker and questions allash's words, aka muhammud, you are an aposate and must be silenced, (killed). good luck to those Muslims who think they can do both.
This is why the rest of the world is speaking out for them, it's been long over-due. For decades, the world has concealed and isolated Islam from the tables of civilization. It's now on the coffee tables of every American home, to bring justice and civilized behavior to all their children.
Why is the St. Petersburg Declaration not the "Dearborn Declaration." I guess it's too cold up there.
I'm too pessimistic to believe that this will "grow like wildfire." The only thing that will grow like wildfire is the response from things like CAIR.
I do wish the reform-minded Muslims who attended the meeting in St. Petersbergs, FL, Godspeed and all the best, plus they better upped their security because they will need it.
The Central Council for Ex-Muslims was set up in Germany recently. Its members are already under police protection.
http://www.ex-muslime.de/
Off-topic, but not completely, from MEMRI, an Iraqi journalist deconstructs the Arab mentality and predicts that, ultimately, the reactionary forces fomenting violence in the name of the faith will go down to defeat:
Special Dispatch Series - No. 1488
March 6, 2007 No.1488
Iraqi Columnist: What Is Happening in Iraq Will End in the Defeat of Terrorism and in the Region's Recovery From Its Ills
An article by Dr. Abd Al-Khaleg Hussein was posted on reformist websites such as www.aafaq.org. In the article, the Iraqi columnist argues that President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq is already showing signs of success and that what is happening in Iraq will necessarily end in the defeat of terrorism and in the recovery of the region from its ills once and for all.
The following are excerpts: [1]
[...]
The Arabs Consider It a Virtue Not to Acknowledge Their Mistakes
"There is nothing that [some] Arabs hate more than the word 'success,' when it appears in connection with the political process in Iraq. To wit: Every article by a reformist who wants the good of Iraq is met with the same unrestrained and pessimistic responses; he is scolded, his opinion is disparaged, he is accused of ignorance, etc. In contrast, anyone who writes an article indicating the failure of U.S. policy in Iraq is praised and glorified, and is characterized as having plenty of objective knowledge on the subject, and acute analytic skills. [These Arabs] want [to see] Iraq turned into piles of rubble in which the owls hoot at night, as their now-buried master, Saddam Hussein, [once] promised. Unfortunately, however, they are fools who know nothing about the logic of history. [They do not realize] that the heavy wheels of history will roll over them mercilessly, and that what is happening in Iraq is destined [not for failure], but for success.
The Arabs Consider It a Virtue Not to Acknowledge Their Mistakes
It is true that the Americans, like all other human beings, make mistakes - but [when they do], they do not give up, and they are not ashamed to sit down and reexamine their strategic plans from time to time in order to determine what went wrong. If they identify the mistake, they acknowledge it and look for an alternative [strategy], until they find the best and [most] efficient option. The Arabs, [on the other hand], consider it a virtue not to acknowledge [their] mistakes...
"When George Bush acknowledges that mistakes were made during the complicated process of liberating Iraq from a dictatorial, despicable, and barbaric regime and establishing a democratic and civilized regime in its place, the Arabs perceive his acknowledgement as evidence of failure and defeat, and [infer] that the Ba'th [party] is undoubtedly 'coming back.'
"The difference between the Arabs and the West is vast. The Arabs think with their [gut] and leave all fateful [decisions] in the hands of a tyrant who drives them like sheep towards the abyss. Their only role is to support the 'unparalleled leader' and to praise him. The [people of the] West, [on the other hand], think with their heads, without ranting. The leader is elected by his people after an intense battle [between candidates], in fair elections. Although he has extensive authority, he does not dare to act before the experts surrounding him - most of whom are academics - conduct intensive and comprehensive research. Plans are implemented only after thorough examination; even after implementation, they are constantly reexamined, critiqued, and amended - a [practice] considered highly shameful by the Arabs (since a [real] man never changes his mind or reneges on his word).
[...]
read it all: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD148807
"Already, they have been criticized by the head of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ahmed Bedier, who dismissed the framers of the declaration as atheists and agnostics, not true Muslims."
Again, proof that CAIR supports the converse of the declaration.....radical Islam.
As I see it, the "reformers" in islam are rather unlike the reformers of Christianity in that they must overlook/ignore their religious texts whereas the Christians involved in reformations and revivals went back to the original texts (the gospels and the epistles) to see what they weren't doing correctly. That being so, it could prove to be problematic telling other moslems to ignore the established texts. That is the reason I believe we hear/see the outcry, when presenting the texts and historicity of jihad, that Robert, et al are "driving moslems to radicalism."
Nonetheless, I wish them good luck as well as the Dr. Hussein noted above by Waterdragon52.
Civil and sectarian wars are needed all across the Middle East to change the Islamic agenda.
Words ain't gonna change Nasrallah and the rest of the mafia.
We needed to see this effort years ago.Even growing at "wildfire" speed, this movement cannot stop the jihad...it's too late.This is WWIII.
I think these are the Muslims who need our support. Glenn Beck did an hour long feature last night on the St. Petersburg's meeting for the advancement of Secular Islam.
Beck also allowed the CAIR person to speak. But the critics of CAIR, in my opinion, presented far more forceful arguments. One critic demanded that the CAIR person recite a single Koranic verse against the beating of women or the killing of apostates. Needless to say, the CAIR person was left speechless. The CAIR person was also repeatedly asked whether or not he supported the stoning to death of women in S. Arabia. (It was amusing to listen to the hopping, skipping, and dancing that ensued from the CAIR person..as he basically refused to answer the question).
Another forceful point was made by one speaker who stated that "the truth should be independent of who says it." I've noticed that with the CAIR-types, they always want to know first if person X is a Muslim or not a Muslim (if the former, then anything spoken is "true", if the latter, then anything spoken is "false" -- this is how "truth" is assessed -- it's contingent on the religious beliefs of the speaker.) Maybe this is yet another reason why the Islamic world is so backwards. (?)
He's 100% correct.
You are a muslim or you are not. Period.
Repeating, You are a muslim or you are not.
Inviolable.
I've written up a note and sent it to everyone on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Some of it is relevant to this St. Petersburg conference/declaration thread and some is on Senate bill S.4, section 1302 thread from yesterday ( Senate findings: we need experts to help formulate a 'lexicon' on terrorism so we don't drive 'moderates' into the arms of militants )
Dear Senator Collins [et al],
I'd like to bring your attention some items in the S.4 Bill, currently on the Senate floor.
Under the “Miscellaneous Provisions”, Section 1302 lists findings which reveal a misunderstanding of the threat we face. Please take the time to read section 1302 and consider removing the following items from bill S.4. I’ve included my reasoning under each.
Item (a)(6). The Alienation of Muslim populations in the Western world has been identified as a factor in the spread of radicalization.
Separation and antagonism between believers and infidels is part of the very ethos of Islam. Muslims are required by the Qur’an and by the Sunnah ( words and deeds of Mohammed) to remain separate from non-Muslims. Islam requires a permanent division between believers and non-believers. The Qur’an, the eternal, unchangeable dictates of Allah himself, warns Muslims ‘not to take non-believers as friends or advisors’ (3.28, 4.144) It is not the United States people or her policies which alienates Muslims, but the obligations of Islam itself. Taking a conciliatory and accommodating tact with Muslim populations won’t lead to a lessening of radicalization among the potential young, male jihadis already within United States’ borders.
Item (b)(2). recruiting employees with diverse worldviews, skills, languages and cultural backgrounds and expertise;
Although this may sound reasonable and will show the world our tolerance and respect for all peoples, unfortunately this may lead to a lessening of security standards in some federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies and this in turn may lead to compromised security in our War against Global Jihad.
Hiring non-citizens, persons with questionable pasts and devout Muslims into sensitive security positions will damage our ability to fight terrorism. Hiring persons of dubious backgrounds or practicing Muslims as translators will expose the intelligence community to potential misinformation or omission of crucial data as persons with ulterior motives or even sympathy for fellow Muslims may mislead, misdirect or mishandle sensitive communications out of an unidentified fealty to Islam or those in the Islamic world.
Item (b)(3). consulting with ‘experts’ to ensure the lexicon used within public statements is precise and appropriate and does not aid extremists by offending the American Muslim community
The unspoken assumption behind item (b)(3) seems to be that ‘great masses of moderate American Muslims will be radicalized by words appearing in public statements or discussions’. This causal link should be vigorously disputed. Victims of domestic violence have analogous approaches when they walk and talk ‘lightly’ around wife-beaters so as not to ‘set them off.’
Item (b)(3) amounts to a self-imposed restriction on free speech, conscience and expression. It’s a corruption of the spirit and letter of our First Amendment. (b)(3) is the reason I’m writing to you today. Please consider striking this from the bill if you decide to do nothing else.
Besides, if ‘experts’ are consulted, they will most likely be selected by groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and similar groups. CAIR has proven ties to Hamas and more than a few leading members of the group have been indicted or convicted of helping to fund terrorist groups overseas. Yet, CAIR is still seen by many in Washington as representative of ‘moderate American Muslims’. The last thing our country needs is to have the rules and terms of our discourse on the matter of global jihadism framed in terms approved by ‘experts’ with ties to the active terrorist groups. Leading secularists from the Middle East, including former Egyptian Nonie Darwish can see the duplicity in these groups. ‘They don't speak for us," Darwish said in response during a question and answer session at a recent Saint Petersburg conference, "CAIR represents the best interests of radical Islam."
Having groups like CAIR frame our lexicon will damage our ability to counter the jihadist challenge as it rises time and time again even in our nation.
Item (b)(6)(A). encourage outreach to the American Muslim community and develop partnerships between all faiths, including Islam
The thinking behind this item would work for most things calling themselves religions. Islam differs from Judaism and Christianity in that it has no Golden Rule. Muslims are required to reciprocate with fellow believers, but are command to be ‘harsh’ and ‘ruthless’ to the rest of us. This ecumenical dream of mutual respect, acknowledgement and toleration will not be extended to unbelievers.
Islam is more than a religion; it’s a complete way of life encompassing all religious, political, legal and social dimensions of a society. Islam cannot permanently co-exist on equal terms with other faiths. It must dominate according to the commands of Allah in the Qur’an and by the example found in the words and deeds of Mohammed, also called the Sunnah. Other beliefs must be destroyed or subjugated to Dhimmi status under shar’ia law. Islam doesn’t recognize any authority other than itself and is a supremacist belief system wherein violence and coercion are accepted means to the end – the end being when ‘all religion is for Allah alone.’
We need to reach out to the former members of the the Islamic community most of all. People such as Warraq, Nonie Darwish and Irshad Manji who have the courage to helped formulate the "St. Petersburg Declaration.”
Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007
http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration
other details can be found at this link: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015523.php
Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on the false assumptions behind section 1302 of Senate bill S.4. Please remove them before approving it.
Sincerely,
My Name
cc: Joe Lieberman ID-CT
Madame Chair Susan Collins R-ME
Carl Levin MI
Ted Stevens AK
Daniel K. Akaka HI
George V. Voinovich OH
Thomas R. Carper DE
Norm Coleman MN
Mark L. Pryor AR
Tom Coburn OK
Mary L. Landrieu LA
Pete V. Domenici NM
Barack Obama IL
John Warner VA
Claire McCaskill MO
John E. Sununu NH
John Tester MT
The framers of the St. Petersburg declaration have already been dismissed as "not true Muslims".
Islam cannot be reformed because the required changes would strip it of its very core. Saying the Koran is immutable because it is direct from Allah boxes even so-called moderate Muslims into a corner.
The Bible was written by men. Even the gospels weren't committed to paper for decades after the crucifixion. It was possible to go back and find mistranslations or misinterpretations by fallible men without casting doubt on the entire faith.
Despite the best intentions of the framers of this declaration, what part of the divine word of Allah can be eliminated or reinterpreted without calling the whole thing into question? It's an all or nothing proposition.
The proponents/declarants of this declaration are very brave.
Does anyone want to make a bet on which one will be killed in the name of islam, the Religion of Peace??
"Does anyone want to make a bet on which one will be killed in the name of islam, the Religion of Peace??"
Texan,
Save your money. They could all be killed and still we'll only hear from CAIR, our president and everyone else that the perpetrator(s) was "deranged" and "doesn't represent TRUE Islam". Better yet, CAIR will say it was done by infidels in order to discredit the religion of peace.
What stands out in this is CAIR actually states it believes in terrorism by denouncing the declaration.
If you have any influence or contact with this group Mr. Spencer, please advocate they put up a website to spread these truths.
I know from reading other Muslim women's writing that they are constantly contacted by reasonable Muslims who agree with the principles of the declaration, but have no voice to express themselves.
It would be a wonderful site for them to start a real dialogue with people from here.
Please look up in this thread at the posting by A_Plague_On_Both_Houses, and use his carefully crafted letter as a model for your own, to the relevant members of the Senate listed in the same posting, about that dangerous Section 1302 of certain legislation that has just been introduced.
"To live in the Middle East and say what we're saying is a death sentence"
And that's not the bad news. The really bad news is that living in the Middle East and not saying anything against terrorism will also be a death sentence. Silent moderate Muslims are the baby that will be tossed out with the malarial jihadist bathwater.
"We needed to see this effort years ago.Even growing at "wildfire" speed, this movement cannot stop the jihad...it's too late.This is WWIII."
However cynical or grim it may seem, I have to concur with you, Hawk Watcher. Islam is essentially immune to reformation. That said, Islam currently has enough momentum, be it financial impetus from petro-dollars or sufficient force in numbers of indoctrinated fanatics, where it is now only a matter of time before jihadis finally unleash a sufficiently horrendous atrocity whereby the only appropriate response will be nuclear Armageddon in the MME (Muslim Middle East).
It would be nice if this could be avoided. Sadly, Islam has no intention of doing anything that could possibly lessen the speed with which jihad progresses against the West. Far too many jihadists would just as soon see the entire earth a radioactively sterilized ball with all Muslims in their paradise and the Kufar dead. This sort of apocalyptic fanaticism is what guarantees an eventual nuclear retaliation against the MME.