I would suggest adding another item to their desideratum:

"We call on all Muslim governments and all Muslim people to positively encourage and do nothing to prohibit the free mockery and derision of Prophet Mohammed, Allah, Islam and Muslims -- just as the West has had in its civilization for the past 100 years (and now more than ever) of free mockery and derision of Jesus Christ, God, Christianity and Christians.

Posted by: remote_control at March 5, 2007 8:34 PM

Five years too late, but much like that proverbial busload of lawyers at the lake's bottom; A good start.

Posted by: Zenster at March 5, 2007 8:35 PM

Bravo!

Posted by: deesine at March 5, 2007 8:37 PM

Here's hoping this sentiment catches on.

One question though: if they truly believe that sharia, forced marriage, blasphemy penalties and all the rest should be opposed, are they still Muslims?

Posted by: PMK at March 5, 2007 8:40 PM

"We are secular Muslims..."

No such thing.

Exactly like there are no secular Jews.

You are Jewish or you are not.

You are a muslim or you are not.

Ask any religious Jew or observant muslim.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at March 5, 2007 8:41 PM

Thank-you for making my night. While this should have come within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, this still is a good start.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 5, 2007 8:44 PM

Is it just me or does this document not have a single scintilla's worth of reference to ending terrorism in all its forms?

Do these people really think they will be taken seriously without making an unequivocal, outright and universal condemnation of terrorism, even in the form of jihad?

Color me skeptical. While this is probably not actual taqiyya, it is insufficient in my eyes. Nothing less than an across-the-board prohibition of violent jihad, and the terrorism it so often manifests as, will satisfy any sane person.

Posted by: Zenster at March 5, 2007 8:44 PM

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;
and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Other than that, this declaration is reasonably good.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 5, 2007 8:46 PM

Robert, what are your thoughts on this?

Posted by: dms at March 5, 2007 8:46 PM

Not since 9/11 has anything I have read ever given me so much hope. Thank you, Nonie, Ibn, Wafa, and Sayyid. I have a very good feeling this night that you will live to see the good you have done with this, and it gives me the greatest joy.

Thank you. For myself, for my son, for my country, for my faith, for all us everywhere. Thank you.

Margot Badran once told me that the internet had free Islamic feminists to talk to each other, a private way of communicating and organizing.

All over the world, Muslims will be able to read what you have said here, and I can only imagine what hope it gives so many of them who are unable to speak. They have watched the American Muslim community sell them out, when it was, in fact, the only hope they ever had. But now there is you. I know the task is daunting, absolutely daunting, but I think it can be done. And even if the odds are against, it is IMPERATIVE that we try to create some place to which Muslim can leap out of this nightmare and rob the Wahhabis by attrition. And I think it must start here in the United States, becuase this is only place that creating such an alternative is even possible.

I have no way to communicate to you how grateful I am for this. Thank you. Saying it a million times can't be enough, but once more anyway: Thank you.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 5, 2007 8:50 PM

OK, now what? This sounds like someone abandoning Islam. What is Islam without killing apostates, with separation of mosque and state, and all of those things rejected by these secular Muslims?

It is a blueprint for the eventual disappearance of Islam or the immediate disappearance of these "Secular Muslims." Islam cannot survive without compulsion and control. Islam cannot survive under the microscope of free inquiry. Christianity survived the Protestant Reformation; I do not think Islam can survive a reformation of this scope. The mullahs, ayatollahs, and imams (Oh,my) will not allow it, and they have all the guns.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 5, 2007 9:00 PM

There is a possibility here, since they are going to start a school, that they are opting for the creation of "Transcendental Islam" which we've discussed a little bit.

It is absolutely possible to take purely spiritual early tenets of spiritual equality. The problem with the religion now, as Robert frequently points out, is that the later, politicized and warlike and violent interpretations, have superseded the purely spiritual ones of the earliest times.

I will wait to see how they decide to do this, but, for absolutely sure, Nonie Darwish and Ibn Warraq and Sayyid Tashby know Islam inside and out, and if they believe say they have a way to do this, they do.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 5, 2007 9:05 PM

Sorry foe the pessmistic tone (hope I am proved wrong) but give it saome time and Jihadis will coerce "secular muslims".

Posted by: Alert at March 5, 2007 9:08 PM

I am utterly surprised (and impressed) to see such an insightful, cogent, philosophically intelligent and integral charter emerge out of the umma. I am not saying this document is perfect (it's not)--but what an extraordinary change from what we usually get from the Islamosphere!

No, I hadn't believed this was possible.

And yes, I have been proven wrong. And I am fine with that, actually. I only wish that this charter had appeared on the world scene at least ten years ago (if not 50).

The fact that this very important document has been drafted (and by Muslims no less) is a miracle.

It may take another miracle for these people to succeed in making this charter a worldwide reality. But, seeing that terrorism has already become a global reality, why can't something as benevolent as the St. Petersburg Document supplant terrorism?

While there is life there is hope.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 5, 2007 9:09 PM

Alert

Good point, but I thought most of the people who made this declaration - Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan - are self-declared apostates. Tasbih Sayyid is the only Muslim in this group.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 5, 2007 9:11 PM

Please forgive my cynicism, but I've found that generally the genuinely good people one finds among the Muslims are drowned out by the shmucks. And that's because Islam is a religion for shmucks founded by a shmuck.
I certainly wish those poor people luck. They'll need it.

Posted by: jewdog at March 5, 2007 9:14 PM

Wonderful statement, but will these 23 Muslim grains of sand compare to the 1,499,999,999 ocean of Muslims cheering murder, mayhem, anarchy and supremacy.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 5, 2007 9:17 PM

A positive development.

Posted by: Arizona at March 5, 2007 9:26 PM

This declaration should be nailed to the door of every mosque, everywhere.

But, of course, it would have to be done at night, when the proponent coulld not be seen. Otherwise, he will be kiled in the name of islam.

What a shame.

Posted by: texan at March 5, 2007 9:32 PM

Tashbih Sayyed is still a Muslim? C'mon, why hasn't he jumped yet and joined Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali, Darwish and others in ditching Islam?

Posted by: wrathofasma at March 5, 2007 9:34 PM

Good point, but I thought most of the people who made this declaration - Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan - are self-declared apostates. Tasbih Sayyid is the only Muslim in this group.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 5, 2007 09:11 PM

So, Tasbih Sayyid thinks he/she can sit on the fence, renounce Muhammad's teachings, hostilities mandated upon a "good muslim" and survive? Me thinks Tasbih Sayyid's best chances are turning into a "bad muslim" or renouncing Islam completely. Then again if Tasbih Sayyid renounces Muhamad's teachings, be a muslim (good/bad) and survive, he/she will be the Gandhi/Rosa Parks of Islam. Besides, by his own admission, Ibn Warraq is not even a muslim. Oh forget it.. Islam confuses me..... but thanks for the clarification, Infidel Pride. I see that on another thread, you are wondering why Bush has invited more Saudi students after 9/11. Ha ha.

Posted by: Alert at March 5, 2007 9:34 PM

Lame Cherry & Jewdog, I feel exactly as you do. This is a tall order, and it will not be heard in Islamland. This declaration must be translated into all native Islamic tongues and somehow dessiminated throughout the ummah.

Lets see, 100x23/1,240,000,000 = 0.00000185%

Posted by: Pelayo at March 5, 2007 9:35 PM

Innovators and apostates!!!!

Somebody get me a fatwa.

And a gun.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at March 5, 2007 9:44 PM

That is absolutely beautiful.

It brought a tear or two to my eye.

Bravissimo!

Posted by: Kay at March 5, 2007 9:44 PM

While I commend this group for their stance what they are doing is a big risk in the eyes of the devout Islamic world. Hope they have a plan of escape into exile somewhere if needed.

Posted by: abad at March 5, 2007 9:50 PM

I, too, await to hear what Robert thinks about this.

Unfortunately, and I do hate to say this, I think this is just a feel-good measure. Although this is a wonderful step to take, in the reality of Islam it means NOTHING -- because, as we all know, Islam is perfect and therefore needs no reform. TRUE and devout Muslims know this, even while they may desire reform in their heart. There can never be a Reformation in Islam.

That said, I heartily applaud all these HEROES who dare to gather together and speak their mind and openly criticize Islam. God bless them and their good intentions.

The more I learn about Islam, the more I believe and recognize that there is an inevitable showdown on the horizon between Islam and The Rest Of The World. Furthermore, I believe it will take at least 2 more horrors on the scale of 9/11 to make The Rest Of The World wake up to this disgusting and vile political ideology that masks itself as a religion.

Did anyone watch Glen Beck tonight ??

Posted by: JenBee at March 5, 2007 9:50 PM

"Lets see, 100x23/1,240,000,000 = 0.00000185% "

As I said in another post, Pelayo (and our numbers match almost perfectly);

"One percent OF one percent OF one percent"

Suffice to say that this does not represent a sea change in Islamic thought.

Morgaan, are you not in the least concerned about this declaration's total lack of any substantive language that unequivocally condemns terrorism in all its forms?

Posted by: Zenster at March 5, 2007 9:53 PM

More posing and posturing by human shields enabling & protecting the real Islam .

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 5, 2007 10:03 PM

I have recorded Glenn Becks coverage of the Secular Islam Summit and will be uploading it to Youtube. I will post the links when I get it uploaded. Also I would be interested in hearing Roberts Opinion on all of this as well. This is the first i have heard him mention this Summit.

I support this group but at the sametime I dont know how much influence they really have. I do not believe the majority of Muslims agree with this group. Every Muslim blog I look at they are knocking this summit and calling it a joke. I would love to report alot of support for this summit in the Muslim community but it just isn't there. Glenn had a member of CAIR on his show tonight as well that was debating with one of the speakers at the Summit. The CAIR spokesman failed to denounce the Saudi government as well a whole host of other things. I believe must Muslims would align themselves with the CAIR official that was on Glenn tonight and once again I find this very troubling but not surprising.

Posted by: markedmanner at March 5, 2007 10:09 PM

This is a beautiful thing. Bravo indeed!

Posted by: kelisw at March 5, 2007 10:18 PM

What decent person wouldn't be happy to see this declaration? But the paramount concern would be that the list of signatories to this declaration, if it remains short, might become a "hit list" of sorts.

Is there anything US authorities can do concretely to prevent such an outcome? We can demand all day long that Muslims step up to the plate. I am wondering what concrete measures we can take to protect those who who do? (How about immediate deportation of anyone who threatens the signatories? How about Fox News coverage of the declaration? [I see before posting in preview mode that Glenn Beck is already covering it. That's a start.])

Certainly one obvious solution that comes to mind is that so many Muslims take this opportunity to sign on to this publicly, that the real enemy simply doesn't know where to start in trying to pick any one of them off. Can Muslims of good will seize this rare opportunity to recognize that there can indeed be strength in numbers and that genuine opportunities to demonstrate that fact don't come along very often? Because it requires that a few persons initially make themselves extraordinarily vulnerable by laying themselves on the line in the face of uncertainty as to how many others will join them. That rare initiative shouldn't be squandered. It requires momentum in order not to be squandered. What did Robin Williams say in that movie?

Oy yes. Carpe Diem!

Posted by: Caroline at March 5, 2007 10:20 PM

markedmanner: "Every Muslim blog I look at they are knocking this summit and calling it a joke."

Well then, that will speak volumes too. If nothing else, this would seem to be an excellent opportunity to lay the cards out on the table and gauge (once again) what we are factually dealing with. I welcome every opportunity to do so.

Posted by: Caroline at March 5, 2007 10:23 PM

Sorry, I still think Islam is a poor excuse for religion. Its ways are oppressive and inflexible. It causes pain, literally, to believers. It’s prophet, a murderer. How do you make that all pretty?

It’s a gold box, well; it looks like a gold box, really its cheap wood with gold leaf.

Posted by: butterfly at March 5, 2007 10:23 PM

Here on the West coast, the Glenn Beck show will be re-airing at 9PM.

It's worth an hour of your time (before markedmanner uploads it to YouTube).

Posted by: PRCS at March 5, 2007 10:30 PM

Here are a few YouTube videos worth a look:

Ibn Warrick reading the St. Petersburg Resolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXGz7QVq4sA

Wafa Sultan receiving an award at the Summit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBrHIa34ydg&mode=related&search=

Dr. Tawfik Hamid speaks at the Summit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0qC0blENr0&mode=related&search=

Summit Panel #1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lTjhxBk_b8&mode=related&search=

Summit Panel #2 Pt1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&mode=related&search=

Summit Panel #2 Pt2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3nNR2tnb9Q&mode=related&search=

Summit Panel #3 Pt3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ho8bSaWL-w&mode=related&search=

Check the other vids to the right of the videos as you view them.

Posted by: PRCS at March 5, 2007 10:39 PM

Here is a story on 60 Minutes about one of my heroes, Aaron Weisburd of Internet Haganah.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24709_Jihad.com&only

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 5, 2007 10:40 PM

"Secular Muslims"---There aint no such thing!!!

Posted by: guide inside at March 5, 2007 10:41 PM

Good start, but dead on arrival.

Interesting that a conference on reforming Islam was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, and not in one of the 52 Islamic countries of the world.

Says something about the level of approval or support this message would receive in a Muslim society.

My complimants and admiration for the courgeous delegates to the convention, but, tragically, their's are a tiny number of voices crying in a vast Islamic wilderness. And no ones listening.

Posted by: rational at March 5, 2007 10:49 PM

This is kind of like seeing an ice cream truck coming down the street, only you've never seen one before in your life. What a great concept! Will it pass by tomorrow? All summer, or even longer? Will the rock-throwing kids chase it off for good?

Regardless of what comes of this, these brave souls should be commended for making what appears to be a unique and earnest start in a broader dialogue that needs to be initiated pronto.

How can anyone say that a major reformation of Islam is impossible? Was the Protestant Reformation foreseen or foretold? True, such a change seems highly unlikely to occur in our lifetimes, or even at all, but these folks know what they are up against better than we do.

A terrible dilemma for Muslims is that they have only the choice of present-day, rancorous and insecure Islam or leaving the religion to... do what? Join another religion? Go atheist? For many that is probably not much of a choice. Even though Islam is diverse, there is no Islamic refuge for those followers who would question its tenets and teachings that so glaringly violate human rights and promote supremacism and oppression. Many aspects of Dar-es-Islam are easy for us to read about but very difficult to conceive as a way of life.

Americans constantly harp on the idea, and rightly so, that our brand of liberty and expressiveness is the highest form of social and political evolution. In that spirit we should be willing to support the efforts of the St Petersburg group- slowly, steadily- and see how it turns out.

Posted by: lycaste at March 5, 2007 10:54 PM

Bravo!

Now, what?

What is the repercussion?

How many people were in this Summit?

Will it make to the media?

Posted by: calatrava at March 5, 2007 11:00 PM

If you want to know if it made it to the media, look at the ticker at the bottom of the page. Yup!

But I know what you mean. The MSM shuts out a lot of this stuff. But I can tell you this: Muzammil Siddiqui is not a happy man tonight.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 5, 2007 11:03 PM

Looking at this declaration carefully, it seems to be furthering the enemy’s agenda of bringing the free world under the enemy’s government. I rather remain a member of the Body of Christ (first and foremost-no, I’m not going to become tyrannical now) and the free world, thanks.

On the other hand, looking at this as solely a NGO type organization to attack the enemy…. First, I like the name. Secondly, this declaration is a significant step. The next step is to implement it with force on the correct target, and get it to produce material changes in the enemy ideology and the parts of the world enslaved by it.

Posted by: ofcourse at March 5, 2007 11:08 PM

butterfly: "It’s a gold box, well; it looks like a gold box, really its cheap wood with gold leaf."

As long as they don't actually imprison anyone in that box, I really don't care if they happen to mistake the cheap exterior for gold.

Posted by: Caroline at March 5, 2007 11:19 PM

Muslims and former muslims will be able to say things about Islam that Robert, Hugh, and others cannot do without being dismissed as Islamophobes. Any event that makes the public more aware of apostates and those Muslims who are critical of Islam is potentially of great value to the West. PC thinking is our key vulnerability, not the Jihadists themselves. To defeat PC thinking, we need Muslims and former Muslims to do the criticizing.

Certain people can criticize Islam publicly with repercussions from the MSM. The more Islam is subject to public criticism, the less our future endeavors will be weakened by PC thinking. Meetings like this need to be periodic events. To the extent possible, references to the conference should be made in public debates, op-eds, etc.

I wish the folks all of the best in achieving their objectives. However, even if they fail (which appears highly probable), they are buying us the awareness we need to ultimately prevail. They are risking their lives to do so, and we are all grateful for their bravery.

Posted by: JSobieski at March 5, 2007 11:27 PM

"Secular Muslims"---There aint no such thing!!!
Posted by: guide inside

Not yet, but the alternative is millons of deaths in the comming clash of civilizations.

Let us ask what we can do to help this fragile flower grow.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 5, 2007 11:30 PM

I couldn't agree more. However, I believe this particular box is empty, as empty as the one who created it. It is not a box worth keeping, as boxes go.

Posted by: butterfly at March 5, 2007 11:32 PM

I am following all the goings on in the blogosphere about this summit here:
http://markedmanner.blogspot.com/2007/03/secular-islam-summit-today.html

Posted by: markedmanner at March 5, 2007 11:33 PM

butterfly: "I couldn't agree more. However, I believe this particular box is empty, as empty as the one who created it. It is not a box worth keeping, as boxes go."

True. But maybe they could could just paint it black and walk around it in circles and worship it anyway.:-) Just so long as it doesn't affect the rest of directly.

Posted by: Caroline at March 5, 2007 11:42 PM

Markedmanner ...

THANK you! A great resource right now. Thank you for posting it.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 5, 2007 11:48 PM

I am following all the goings on in the blogosphere about this summit here:
http://markedmanner.blogspot.com/2007/03/secular-islam-summit-today.html

Posted by: markedmanner at March 5, 2007 11:33 PM

Check out CAIR trying to shut-up sis member!

Posted by: Alert at March 6, 2007 12:06 AM

Davegreybeard: "Not yet, but the alternative is millons of deaths in the comming clash of civilizations.

Let us ask what we can do to help this fragile flower grow."

I agree. We have spent so much time demanding that real "moderate Muslims' step up to the plate, but the question is, have we actually put in place any safeguards for their doing so? And if not, what would that factually look like? For example, I am not personally aware of any actual "under-ground railroad" for Muslim apostates, although there may well be such a thing out there. Apparently there actually is such a thing in place for abused women. (The Jennifer Lopez movie "Enough" was on TV again this weekend and it depicted such a thing although I confess that I personally have no experience with it and so cannot shed much light). If that is a fairly realistic depiction of what exists for women in the US ( pretty much along the lines of a bed for a night or two - even if that means in a barn), certainly such a thing either already exists or could be created for Muslim apostates in the US.

The issue is though, inasmuch as we want to see Muslims stepping up to the plate, if we don't have actual mechanisms in place to help them, then what can be our actual expectation here? Although, frankly, the idea that Muslim apostates should actually have to even worry about such a thing in the US is utterly ludicrous in the first place.

Posted by: Caroline at March 6, 2007 12:16 AM

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/05/gb.01.html

Here's the Glenn beck transcripts for now, note how Ahmed Bebier gets so flustered that he denounces CAIR's own Quran's as invalid because they are in English and not Arabic.
Bedier also has the arrogance to denouce a Canadian Muslims as a apostate and profiteer of Terrorism , CAIR has now drawn a line in the sand and admitted they truely believe they are the authority for who qualifies as a true-Muslim.

Bedier is now a self appointed spokeperson for Allah and he didn't make a definitive denouncing of Sharia law , CAIR-Canada has been a supporter of Maher Arar who denied links to CAIR and Hamas
which CAIR has now admitted to this weekend.
CAIR-Canada and Sheema Khan have crusaded for Shariah Law in Canada and tried to get the Government to accept it by re-naming to a softer word for Shariah law.

The whole bunch are weasels that lie to the MSM and qualify their denouncing of Terrorism with the famous "But" , Bedier will one day realize that his kind will end up sliding all the way down to Hell on their "Buts".

Posted by: ala-sux at March 6, 2007 12:20 AM

Well done. One unintentional (I think) slip, that perhaps should be fixed:

but between the free and the unfree.

Should this not say ... "but between those who cherish freedom and those who would deprive others of their freedoms"?

Not as pithy, to be sure, maybe someone without my verbal diarhea can say it better. But you don't want to say that it is a struggle between the free and the unfree -- which side are you on? If you're "free" are you against all those poor suckers caught with no freedom?

Maybe, if you mean that islamic strictures stifle freedom then you are against those strictures, not those who are stifled by them... or something like that. Let's realise that extremist islam victimizes and traps many people and not formulate a statement that demonizes some of its victims or pitches them as enemies of freedom, simply because they are unfree.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 6, 2007 12:43 AM

"This is kind of like seeing an ice cream truck coming down the street, only you've never seen one before in your life. What a great concept! Will it pass by tomorrow? All summer, or even longer? Will the rock-throwing kids chase it off for good?"

Lycaste, your analogy is truly delicious. Superbly well written.

"Not yet, but the alternative is millons of deaths in the comming clash of civilizations.

Let us ask what we can do to help this fragile flower grow."

Davegreybeard, in light of today's most welcome declaration, your sentiments are right on the mark. The alternative is indeed foreboding. In this respect, it is hard to escape noticing that the heel of Islamofascism's jackboot hovers directly above that oh-so very "fragile flower".

Oddly, the situation is much like how we continue to clear-cut the jungle rainforests that provide such vital and unique bioceutical pharmacology. This selfsame "fragile flower" may easily represent the sole source of a vaccine that could save Islam's very life. As jihadis ravage every preserve where this rare bloom flourishes, they simultaneously endanger their own survival.

I freely admit a more-than-healthy skepticism regarding "moderate" Muslims. Yet, all good people must refuse to dismiss this most welcome alteration to the otherwise bleak prospect presented by Islamic radicalism. Yes, we must most definitely nourish this rare hothouse bloom.

However, in no way are we allowed to cease applying massive doses of those pesticides required to curtail the constant predation of that invasive species known as Islamists.

Posted by: Zenster at March 6, 2007 12:48 AM

Pelayo asked

OK, now what?

Well, now that the gauntlet has been thrown down, all those "vast majority of moderates" will flock to join the Secular Islam Movement in droves. There is nothing to stop them now; the stirring and beautiful words will touch their souls and they will say "Yes, this is the moment I was waiting for! This is exactly how I felt all along! Freedom! Liberty! Brotherhood!". In a month or so, we should see several million members. We should see the streets of Islamic lands all over the world filling up with people marching in support of these universal humanitarian principles. The hatred and violence that the jihadists espouse won't stand a chance against the peace and tolerance contained in this document.

And if anyone believes all that, I've got a bridge, powergrid, and several slightly damaged presidential palaces I'd like to sell you.

Posted by: special_guest at March 6, 2007 12:58 AM

I read this earlier today but did not have time to comment on it then. I also needed the time to digest it some more and think about what it means. Let me say they I commend them for making this statement. It does all that could be asked of them. It does not attempt to hinder the work of infidels to defend themselves. We are fighting this conflict on two fronts. The hope is one front will be successful but if it fails then we always have the second front to fall back on.

The 1st front: To perhaps change Islam using the enlightenment and to modernize Islam and restructure the meaning of a Muslim as a member of a group to an individual. Thus is a conflict between secular Muslims or “Pseudo-Muslims” and Traditional/Radical Muslims. This front is best outlined by this statement issued today.

The 2nd front: To point out why Islam as practiced today and the current structure of the faith are dangerous to our civilization. This is the conflict between non-Muslims and traditional/radical muslims. This is a struggle that this site is in truth all about.

Now does that mean the 1st front will be successful? I don’t know and my opinion is they will not achieve their complete goals but what do I know. Who can predict the future so I will support them. It is independent of the 2nd front when they make the statement:

“We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.”

This is critical because it separates the two fronts from depending on each other. If the 1st front should fail so what it will at least weaken the traditional and radical Muslims and cause some defections and apostates from Islam. Even if that happens we still have the 2nd front and can continue to attack as Non-Muslims to defend ourselves. The best the 1st front can achieve is its goals and thus wins the war. We have nothing to lose by supporting them……successful or not.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 6, 2007 1:23 AM

See personally I view this type of activity as nothing more a "getting a foot in the door" pseudo olive tree branch waving approach. Not that some of these muslims don't have true intentions & would like to see Islam co-exist with western civilization...BUT I'm just focused on what would be coming in behind them and would step on their heads & remove em without a second thought. There is no truly organized effort with any real power to speak of behind these people to oppose the radical clerics, imams & mullahs. The 10% or so fundamental radicals would swoop in on the opportunity when a decent sized Islamic community establishes itself in a nation, and begin the process of embedding itself to the point where removing them is next to impossible, then rather quickly turn it into a recruitment zone for sleeper cells to be unleashed at the moment of their choosing. If the U.S. attacks Iran, I guarantee you will see em come alive in the USA all over from the east to left coast...and in between.

Posted by: SoteriA at March 6, 2007 1:44 AM

Bravo, indeed ... and ... it's a start, indeed.

But keep in mind, there are more sleeper cells in this country than attendees at this conference.

Don't sleep too soundly, just yet.

And recall the Japanese delegation believing their mission was to ensure continued peace with the US ... while their military executed a war plan ... attacking Pearl Harbor.

... just when you least expect it ...

So let's do all we can to help this ember from being quenched ... but let's be prepared if it is.

Posted by: LoneRanger at March 6, 2007 1:50 AM

The Secular Islam Summit would provoke a violent riot if it were held in Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria.

For true reform to occur in Muslim countries, the world community must hold Islamic governments accountable and expect them to completely discard shari'ah by fully implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, developed in 1948.

Read about it here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Islamic governments must reject the principals of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which directly opposes the principals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elevates Islamic shari'ah.

Here are just a few problematic articles of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights that must be totally rejected for true reform in Muslim countries to occur:

- Cairo Declaration of Human Rights-

Article 19
(d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.

Article 22
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.

Article 23
(a) Authority is a trust; and abuse or malicious exploitation thereof is absolutely prohibited, so that fundamental human rights may be guaranteed.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah.

Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

Article 25
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm

Posted by: Johnathan at March 6, 2007 2:11 AM

I think many of the posts above focus exclusively and mistakenly on the prospects for a reformed Islam. I agree the chances for such reform are not high.

However, a substantial benefit of the conference and events like it is to get current and former Muslims who criticize Islam into the public discource. As screwed up as our MSM is, even the MSM is not going to accuse apostates under death threats of being Islamophobes. In other words, these people can get away with challenging Islam publicly in our MSM and not get dismissed as racists/bigots/etc.

They may say the same things that Robert, Hugh, and others say, but they cannot be dismissed by the MSM in the same way because they don't fit the MSM's template for this issue. Thus, people at that conference willing to criticize Islam are the most powerful weapons in the arsenal against PC thinking.

If we can get apostates talking in the MSM about the violent passages in the Koran and the violent life of Muhammed, we can cure ourselves of the PC disease that makes us vulnerable to Jihad.

Without a PC culture, the West could easily wipe the floor with the Jihadists.

Posted by: JSobieski at March 6, 2007 2:20 AM

This is a wonderful, wonderful document. Too bad it had to be written by a group of secular Muslims. By a group who invited speakers such as Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq and Aayan Hirshi Ali. Too bad this document will be ridiculed and/or ignored by the 1.3 billion strong (and growing) Umma.

Posted by: Xero G at March 6, 2007 2:20 AM

I wish this statement came out of Mecca instead of St. Petersburg. Exactly what good is it?

Posted by: Bingo at March 6, 2007 3:15 AM

There are too many absurdities in this "Declaration" to address.

Take just the last sentence:

"Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves."

This appears like it was written by a leftist. It sounds grand and profound, but upon examination, is utterly bereft of any and all meaning.

It says: My connection to G-d is preceded and superceded by a "community of conscience." WTF is that? Answer: psychobabble. "The people who must chose for themselves" Huh? More psychobabble.

Look, Hindus aren't a problem, nor are Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jainists, or Sikhs.

There's only ONE group, the satanic cult of death, islam, that says it is going to covert/kill/subjugate you and they bloody well mean it.

I don't care how many qualifiers you put before "muslim"...Secular, moderate, peaceful, secular persons of, reformed, new, modern, etc.

THEY ARE STILL MUSLIMS.

You had better wake up or you are going to die.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at March 6, 2007 3:48 AM

Secular Muslims = Muslims born into an Islamic environment and thinking for themselves.

Of course this is the definition of Apostates, but I still think it is useful - you can test the Muslims you converse with by confronting them with the statement.

We can use it as a definition of how Islam ought to be today.

Beards and Pijamas won't like it.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at March 6, 2007 4:14 AM

The U.S. and the rest of the West is screwed if things don't change fast...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069&pr=goog-sl

Posted by: savitch at March 6, 2007 4:35 AM

”The 1st front: To perhaps change Islam using the enlightenment and to modernize Islam and restructure the meaning of a Muslim as a member of a group …”

I label that group, “We The Living”. (Hat tip to Ayn Rand)

”The 2nd front: To point out why Islam as practiced today and the current structure of the faith are dangerous to our civilization.”

Here, I am obliged to disagree with you, greatcometof1577. You badly underestimate the will of Western Civilization. The danger to Islam's faith, is to Islam alone. Most dangerous of all is Islam’s persistent, stubborn and steadfast refusal to honestly acknowledge how we Infidels possess sufficient firepower to make Allah’s role on earth a tiny footnote in all future history lessons.

”There is nothing to stop them now; the stirring and beautiful words will touch their souls and they will say "Yes, this is the moment I was waiting for! This is exactly how I felt all along! Freedom! Liberty! Brotherhood!". In a month or so, we should see several million members. We should see the streets of Islamic lands all over the world filling up with people marching in support of these universal humanitarian principles. The hatred and violence that the jihadists espouse won't stand a chance against the peace and tolerance contained in this document.”

special_guest should be more than right. Yet, special_guest is so far from the truth that all of us must necessarily weep for such a disparity between fact and reality. I ask, who shall pay the price for bridging this gaping chasm? The magnanimous West or a routinely xenophobic Islam?

Posted by: Zenster at March 6, 2007 4:35 AM

It's a nice start! But let's be realistic. This group may be little more than a handful of well-assimilated Persians or the offspring of Christian mothers and Muslim fathers. This declaration will not fly ANYWHERE outside the West. It would get you killed in KSA or Gaza and tossed into jail in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and maybe even Egypt now too. I wish them success. I also hope they don't end up malnourished and broken in a squalid prison cell somewhere in the Islamic world.

Posted by: Patrick at March 6, 2007 5:06 AM

I stopped reading after "We are secular Muslims".

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at March 6, 2007 5:22 AM

"Most dangerous of all is Islam’s persistent, stubborn and steadfast refusal to honestly acknowledge how we Infidels possess sufficient firepower to make Allah’s role on earth a tiny footnote in all future history lessons."
Posted by: Zenster

Possess? Maybe. Prepared to use it? That's another question.

As much as I like to hear what has been said by the Declaration, I am afraid that this IS the tiny minority, and not the fanatics.
Well intentioned, and l hope against hope that it will be nurtured and will come to something, if only for the present.

The words "secular Muslim" is a non starter. Islam views them as apostates, not as Muslims with a voice.
I, who think that Islam CANNOT and SHOULD not be reformed, view them as still Muslims, where the virus is dormant for their generation only. Who is to say that in years to come it will not flare up again?
No, Islam is far too virulent to be let live in any shape or form. All we doing is postponing it to future generations to come.
Is 14 centuries track record not enough? There is no time to wait for reform, like the hundreds of years it took for the enlightement.
WMD does not allow time for that.

Having said that, I am curious how the "Ummah" will respond. If at all.

Posted by: pr126 at March 6, 2007 6:46 AM

I am sorry, but I cannot trust these words, however in having said that, IF and only If they took out the hateful, killing, discriminating, intolerant, war, slaugher all unbelievers etc words out of every holy Muslim book, then and only then would I believe that they meant what they say, but of course they cant as it would leave only a few pages of their holy books to read...
I would love to know just how many pages that anything peaceful in their holy books would add up to, I feel not many... or the portion of good verses bad that there is in their holy books...

Posted by: Gaye at March 6, 2007 6:50 AM

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies.

The first part of this statement is literally impossible. Were I to move to Dearborn, the second part would be reality for me, too.

But they're coming, arriving all the time. Moslem societies are becoming all too commonplace, along with the darkness they bring.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 6, 2007 6:53 AM

While I do hope for the best that Islam, like both the Jewish and Christian faiths went through their reformations, for the latter two faiths it was going back to the Bible, for Islam I still remand guarded.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 6, 2007 6:53 AM

We are secular Muslims.

Like a mirror reflecting the white sun into your blinded eyes, Moslems shine Islam's nonsensical status as a legitimate religion squarely at us, easily and routinely foiling our fight to save freedom.

The above quote is not only ridiculous, it's pervasive and it's dangerous.

And I swear, when they do this they seem to be sneering at us with derision, as if they're thinking, "How stupid you Infidels are, Mohammed was right when he set this whole scam up."

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

In war, sometimes you attack the enemy, but often you must attack the enemy's weapons.

Islam is our enemy, and their weapon to date has proved unassailable. I can think of only a very few men of public stature who have crossed the critical line of questioning the essence of Islam, to openly doubt its goodness, its desirability, its value. Two who have actually done this run this website.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 6, 2007 7:21 AM

In regards to Glenn Beck’s interview with Tawfik Hamid,M.D. (former terrorist) and Ahmed Bedier (CAIR)
(From the transcript Posted by: ala-sux)

Bedier:

“CAIR's history and Muslim organizations and clergy in America have denounced any type of killing because somebody leaves a faith. That's very clear…” (‘a faith’ is not the same as saying Islam)

After listening closely to what was being said and watching these two men debate (albeit loosely) I came away with a few thoughts:

1) These (SIS) are a people that desperately want to change Islam from a religion of violence to a peaceful one to either continue practicing what they have known and believed in all their lives or to stop and at least slow down a terrorist hatchery. (ie. Some are Muslim and others are not)

2) As Bedier noted there is only one way the Koran was revealed to Muhammad. Like one poster said above Christianity reformed to get back to the bible (NT) which is good news for non-Christians as well. If Muslims want a true religion of peace they have to reform away from the Koran and its founder. Ultimately, this is a wineskins issue. While the new wine of secular Islam may be refreshingly sweet, there is no room in the wineskin of Islam today for such a concept. (come to think of it, it might be well and good to spoil that wine regardless)

3) Bedier was an archetypal spokesmouth for CAIR as is represented in statements like, “The Koran says, in Chapter 2, Verse 256, there`s no coercion in religion.” and “The Koran is in the same form as it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad. The only version, true nature of the Koran is in the Arabic language.” He even had Glenn agreeing with him. What is amazing is that CAIR doesn’t appear to want anyone but CAIR defining what Islam in America is or should be. One has to wonder how many times Bedier asked Hamid (off camera) where he lived just to keep him on edge.

I applaud the stance S.I.S. members are taking and would feel comfortable in their presence. Obviously something within Islam must change soon because just as Islam may not have room for a secular contingent, the world has no room for a death cult of such magnitude.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 6, 2007 9:00 AM

sorry for the o.t. post

Regarding jihadis and the leftists in Americas/Europe: (murder of kuffars using thier own social systems against them)

CHAPTER 4 — INTRODUCTION TO ANTI-LIFE STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
American Life League

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC004.HTM

Posted by: squire at March 6, 2007 11:12 AM

"More posing and posturing by human shields enabling & protecting the real Islam .Posted by: KAOSKTRL"

if you believe that then you really haven't understood wulfa sultan or ibn warraq.

we will never get anywhere if we immediately condemn every attempt to moderate Islam. 'CANT BE DONE!' you say... I'm sure some catholics said that before the protestant reformation. Martin Luther stood up and changed that. I learned a method of dealing with my soldiers a long time ago. It's called 'Trust... but verify'. We should embrace and encourage language like this and from ali erataz (sp?)... but at the same time check and make sure they are what they say they are.
I think many of you misunderstand Mr. Spencer. He is pointing out things within Islam that need to change. He doesn't blanketly condemn most muslims. A lot of his bad rap comes from commenters on his sites not whe he himself says. Try not to be a bigot. There are some good muslims (kurds for example) that I have served with in Iraq that are both brave and trustworthy. Muslims must clean up their own house. They own Islam. Reform must come from within.

With that being said... we have to take our PC blinders off and define our enemy (Political Islam and Radical Fundamental Muslims). This site goes a long way toward doing that. Many commenters ruin that when you start your 'Ug, Ug, all muslims bad, Ug, Ug...' comments. Our key is to separate 'Johnny Jihad' and the average muslim. I have been to the middle east twice and there is a huge difference between Muslims here and muslims there. Why? Religious indoctrination. We need to stop letting them import their radicalism here. There needs to be a clear message sent. 'If you can accept living with people of other religions as equals then we will embrace you as an equal. If you can't then you are not welcome.' second message needs to be 'If you attack us then we will respond decisively... there will be no mercy or quarter.'

Right now your main message seems to be 'You Suck'. Not going to get very far with that.

Posted by: DocT at March 6, 2007 1:14 PM

These people should be commended for their courage and self determination to come out publicly and say what many are too scared to say.

It doesn't matter if they say this in a Muslim country or not at this point, it just needs to be said.

It would be foolish for anyone to attempt to make change at the get go from within a Muslim country, simply because none of them would have lived long enough to enter the building.

They need to keep this up and attempt to reach out to as many amongst their communities in the western world before attempts to tackle their homelands.

Do I think it is possible, NO! Do I hope I'm proven wrong, YES!

I saw part of the Glenn Beck Show yesterday and he interviewed several participants, including a clown from CAIR. What many of the participants themselves said was that Islam cannot be reformed.
However, knowing this and trying is noble in itself, these people are basically trying to do something non-violently in a time when mass destruction and mass murder looms on the horizon for the world.

I don't know about you, but I at least have a tiny bit of optimism, when before today I had none.

Posted by: The fanatic at March 6, 2007 2:35 PM

DocT,

"We should embrace and encourage language like this and from ali erataz [Eteraz]..."

Spencer already showed that Eteraz supports Islamic analysts who want to wage jihad against Infidels (see the threads below on Eteraz). The only thing that "moderates" Eteraz is that the jihad he supports cannot take place now, but at some point in the future. I.e., he wants to conquer you and/or your children or grandchildren -- and kill you and them if they resist -- later (when the theological time is right), not right now. Eteraz should not be "embraced", except by arresting officers.

Posted by: remote_control at March 6, 2007 7:06 PM

Here's a video from a Canadian TV show where a Imam defends the killing of people under Sharia -law , he is challenged by the host to deny he wants Canada to be an Islamic State with Sharia .

Just listen to the Imam's response and judge Islam for what it is in the West.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OTfacRDBJo

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Coren+hindy&search=Search

Try either link .

Posted by: ala-sux at March 6, 2007 7:33 PM

BTW, Tarek Fatah question was answered with a yes, and then in less then 60 seconds we heard the "BUT" to qualify that they will be censored for any Offending comment towards Islam .

I really thought Fatah would get his way , alas, the Radical Islam previaled .

Posted by: ala-sux at March 6, 2007 7:38 PM

We American are not going to win war against terrorism until we keep supporting Saud family, Mubarak, and Pakistan Army. They are our enemy in muslim world

Posted by: Kinnare at March 6, 2007 8:25 PM

"Possess? Maybe. Prepared to use it? That's another question."

There will come a breaking point, Islam's very doctrine literally guarantees this. Whether it is we in America or Russia, China, India or Israel, someone will finally give up and simply rid this earth of such an intolerant and implaccable enemy.

I recommend a piece by Wretchard of The Belmont Club. This intriguing analysis of a nuclear confrontation with Islam is titled, "The Three Conjectures".

Consider a case where Islamic terrorists obliterate a city, causing five times the deaths at Hiroshima and an American limited response. [causing 10 times the fatalities] ... In a war between nations, the conflict might stop at this point. But since there is no one with whom to negotiate a peace and no inclination to stop anyhow, the Islamic terrorists will continue while they have the capability and the cycle of destruction continues.

At this point, a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination.

The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset.

James Lileks and the Pew respondents would not lose America; but like the boogeyman in Seven, Islam would take it's soul. The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry. Revenge bombings between rival groups and wars between different Islamic factions are the recurring theme of history. Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.

(Link: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html )

Incidentally, no one here has seen fit to respond to my observation that the St. Petersburg Declaration contains zero language that substantially, explicitly, universally and unequivocally condemns terrorism in all its forms. This shortcoming is simply unacceptable, regardless of how well-intentioned this group is.

Posted by: Zenster at March 6, 2007 11:04 PM

Ala-Sux, Thanks for the Canadian talk show link with the nutty imman. I wish he was a rarity.

Posted by: Bingo at March 7, 2007 9:24 AM

There is a loophole that Muslims can use to excise Islam's violent teachings: and that is the fact that they cannot check their sources.

At best Islam's teachings are apocryphal and at the least unprovable. Thus, Muslims cannot really be sure if what they are being taught by the Kuran is factually correct. And this is especially important with regards to jihad. Muslims have no way to know for sure whether the people they are taught to massacre by the Kuran are really "infidels" for the simple reason that they only way they could know that would be to check their source (which is impossible). Thus, without being able to know for a certain fact that there are "infidels" among us, Muslims have a religiously valid basis to reject this teaching. Muslims simply do not KNOW they have been killing "infidels"-- they merely believe they have. (If this Kuranic teaching was wrong, what would happen to their souls for killing these people?). The Kuran could be wrong, and in fact, the Kuran often IS wrong (it even teaches that the earth is flat, and we all know now for a fact that the earth is a sphere, not a disc).

And by taking a critical, analytical view of the Kuran and its doctrines it IS possible to remove Islam's violent teachings. Claims made by the Kuran must be backed with facts, if they can't be there is no basis for enforcing them.

And in such a way, Muslims could find a way out of the mold of violence they have been locked into for the past 13 centuries.

Not all Muslims will agree of course. Many will fight against such a view of Islam. But as more and more Muslims discover a way to remove violence from Islam, the number of Muslims leaving the violent type of Islam is apt to go up. Peace and good living are contagious.

And that is why this time I have stowed my usual cynicism about Islam. I just may not need it this time. The St. Petersurg Declaration may be the start of something viable and beneficial. We'll see.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 7, 2007 3:14 PM