In 2004, a Progressive Muslim movement swept into mainstream North American press and claimed to stand up for the "moderate majority" of Muslims. Yet, less than three years later the same "moderate majority" has almost completely sidelined the Progressive Muslim community. Even those who previously identified themselves as Progressive Muslims do not now wish to be so affiliated. The flagship organization of the movement Progressive Muslim Union of North America has lost almost 90% of its board members. MuslimWakeUp!, the primary organ of the movement, is neither frequented nor active, often going weeks without publishing new content. It has gotten so bad that Mohja Kahf, one of the initiators of the controversial "Sex and the Ummah" columns on MWU!, will not even allow herself to be known as a Progressive Muslim, and states that she did not advocate in her personal life the activities she described in writing. Among American Muslims, to say that Progressive Islam is dead isn't shocking; it is anachronistic.

The broad outline of what Progressive Islam stood for intellectually was perhaps best stated by Dr. Omid Safi, who likened it to a sort of "Islamic Humanism". The problem that Progressive Muslims were not able to address satisfactorily when questioned by the friendly members of the "moderate majority" was why any Muslim had to redescribe her "Islam" as "Islamic Humanism." Most Muslims believe that Islam, on its own, concerns itself with social justice, equality, rule of law and fairness. To say that this correct version of Islam ought to be termed Islamic Humanism (or at least implicitly acknowledged as such), smacked most Muslims as a lesser form of self-hate. As such, when "Islamic Humanism" came to be recognized as redundant, so did the "Progressive Muslim" agenda.

The Progressive Muslim Movement Lives - The Progressive Muslim Union is on life support, Muslim Wakeup! is taking a bit of a nap, and the so-called "moderate majority" groans whenever the terms "progressive" and "Muslim" are uttered on the same day. It would be hard to deny that the progressive Muslim movement is desperately stalled at the moment, yet Ali Eteraz's gloomy declaration of The Death of "Progressive Islam" still strikes me as recklessly premature. (Read more...)

The more hostile members of the "moderate majority" began to describe Progressive Muslims as "pro-regressves" - accusing them of taking Islamic discourse back to a state of pre-Islamic jahiliyya (ignorance). Such disfavor stemmed from the fact that Progressive Muslims were declared to be sexually loose, excessively critical of Muslim scholars from the past, and unconcerned with Islamic ritual. My personal belief is that there was, in fact, a sustained campaign of demonization by many conservative Muslims to paint Progressive Muslims as illicit, lewd, and insulting of Islam, and that campaign was successful because the conservative discourse is sadly receptive to such rhetoric. In an article written to prevent female Quranic expert Amina Wadud from leading a group in prayer, GF Haddad, a prominent conservative scholar, likened Progressive Muslims to Dajjal, the Muslim anti-Christ. Conservatives could get away with such blatant demonization. Progressives, on the other hand, were accused of being subversive if they tried to mock such rulings.

However, that smear campaign was aided by the fact that Progressive Muslims allowed themselves to be identified with Neo-conservatives in DC, and because they seemed more interested in publicity stunts than hands-on work with communities. The North American "moderate majority" did not take too well to Ahmed Nassef, a board member of PMUNA, going on Fox News, which is considered presumptively anti-Muslim. Nor did it appreciate Irshad Manji attending conferences organized by right-wing think tanks (despite the fact that Irshad Manji never held herself out as a Progressive). Nor did it appreciate Asra Nomani posting her 95 theses at a West Virginia mosque as if she was some kind of Muslim Martin Luther. Finally, there was the issue of Tarek Fatah, one of the prominent organizers of the Progressive movement. He alienated so many Progressive Muslims that some of them turned against the P-word themselves, and then exposed other negative facts.

My own stint as a Progressive Muslim lasted a few short months, and I terminated my relationship on my own initiative due to what I thought was an insurmountable problem with the Progressive Muslim movement. Islam, like Judaism, is a juridical religion. The primary sources of Islam - the Quran and Sunnah - are pulled together to create religious law (Shariah) which provides guidance to Muslims. I was faced with the stark fact that there was no such thing as a "Progressive" Muslim jurisprudence, neither in theory nor practice; nor would there ever be one. There certainly were vaunted scholars whose opinions were consistent with the aims sought by the Progressive Muslims, but those scholars did not want their opinions appropriated by the Progressives, partly because they had bought into the conservative smear, and partly as a matter of pride because they considered their harmony with Progressives a consequence of their affirmation of tradition, not a sign of their break from it. At the end of the day, all practicing Muslims turn to some kind of juridical authority. The fact that the Progressives did not have one to offer was a great cause of concern for me, and I packed my bags.

Today, the "moderate majority" of North American Muslims flows freely through a number of popular channels, such as the website Eteraz.Org: States of Islam, which I launched, Islamica Magazine, and altmuslim.com, as well as the traditional organizations like MPAC and CAIR. Even former progressives have reconstituted themselves so that they no longer claim to speak for a Progressive version of Islam but for that other progressivism - the political one.

The P-word comes up from time to time, but almost no one wears it anymore.

Ali Eteraz, writes in his article:

"In 2004, a Progressive Muslim movement swept into mainstream North American press ..."
???????????????????????????????????
What is he talking about? The only thing Islamc that "swept into mainstream North American press" are all those supposed Al Queda video and audio tapes. MEMRI TV got more airplay than any progressive Muslim.

CG: Do you realize that you're speaking just like fundamentalist literalists? (Oh God, maybe the terrorists have succeeded, after all!) I've tried hard not to call you names, but you keep coming back to announce your own ignorance on a loudspeaker. It wouldn't be so bad if it were just ignorance of Islam, but it's ignorance of any kind of religious hermeneutics in general.

Muslims deal with interpretations of scripture on a daily basis; they have done so for over fourteen centuries. Now we don't need to suddenly stumble on our paths just to "explain away" things to a stubborn outsider like you. That time is better spent fighting the extremists among us.

Instead of wasting your own time picking up pointless (and off-topic) fights on online forums, I recommend that you use that time to read some books. It'll do you good. And it'll do us some good too, because we don't have the time to listen to you lecturing about what progressive Muslims can or cannot do. Excuse me, did you just say progressive Muslims without the quotations? Congratulations...one step forward.

Anyways, ranting aside: if you're genuinely interested in learning, and if you happen to live in the northeast, I recommend you check out a conference at Yale on April 14th. It's their annual Critical Islamic Reflections conference, and they deal with many of the questions you have.

Sijistani just continues his ranting and name-calling against me instead of dealing with the issue of "religious hermeneutics". In fact, he openly refuses to deal with it. That, of course, is the whole problem with so-called reformers in Islam. The toughest nut to crack is to reinterpret those passages from the Koran and the Hadith in such a way to make them mean something other than what they obviously mean. Instead of pretentiously talking about "religious hermeneutics", how about taking just one of those passages from the Koran and actually applying your religious hermeneutics to deal with it? So far, not a word from you about doing that. You attack me for " speaking just like fundamentalist literalists", but you appear unable to show that those "fundamentalist literalists" are wrong from an Islamic point of view. What alternative do YOU offer the Ummah? You don't have to convince me. You have to convince THEM! How are you going to do it? So far, alternative interpretations of the Koran have had no success against the Moslem religious authorities who have spent their lives studying Islamic texts and history. Why is this the case?
How can you possibly consider the problem created by the passages in the Koran to be off-topic? It is at the very center of every notion of reform in Islam. There is no evidence that any reform movement in Islam can be successful without dealing honestly with the problem of the Koran (and Hadith and Sira). You, Sijistani, certainly have not made any attempt to do so in this discussion.

Concerning "Muslim" versus "Moslem":

Yes, the politically correct media have, under pressure from Moslem organizations such as CAIR, adoped the editorial standard of using only "Muslim" in order, God forbid, not to offend Moslems. However, insistence by Moslems on everybody using the Arabized form of the word is, in the eyes of many people, just another indication of Moslem supremacism: the infidel world must adapt to Islam, even in the infidels' own countries, rather than Moslem immigrants having to adapt to their host countries like other immigrants do. I use "Moslem" instead of "Muslim" deliberately in order to highlight this point. At least you, Sijistani, admit that there is nothing insulting or derogatory about "Moslem". That being the case, what exactly is your problem with the use of "Moslem"?

"You don't have to convince me. You have to convince THEM!"

That right there is your answer to why I can't waste time addressing your questions here. It's pretty ridiculous that you keep insisting on the above point, and yet you keep getting pissed off at us for not answering your questions. Why should we be bothered in the least to answer your questions? We're busy enough answering our own.

My time is better spent engaging with my own Muslim community in efforts of reform and revival. If there's anything that's hindering our progress, it's precisely people like you who keep interrupting with unnecessarily provocative and shallow arguments. Since you seem to agree so much with fundamentalist literalists that they are the true "Moslem religious authority", then pray tell, why isn't every Muslim a terrorist? Mind you, there's over a billion in the world.

And please don't accuse me of pretentious talk. Look who keeps dropping Arabic words...Hadith, Sira, Ummah! Sorry, but that doesn't show anything. It only accentuates your overall ignorance. And I'm not sure what you mean by "your religious hermeneutics", because when I refer to "religious hermeneutics in general," I talk about the practice of scriptural interpretation across religions and throughout history, as in the Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformation, Rabbinic theology, etc. Your oversimplistic comments prove one of two things: 1) either you are unfamiliar with religious people in general, hence have difficulty understanding how Muslims can live (as they always have) without interpreting scripture literally, 2) or, you do know/understand religious practice in general, but hypocritically single out Islam to attack.

Let me say this, with honest sincerity: it is your responsibility to help yourself understand, not mine. My responsibilty is to reform my own community. You don't have to butt in trying to lecture us on what's "possible" and what's not. Islamic reform is the responsibility of Muslims. You are not Muslim, nor is anyone asking you to be one. So please stop worrying so much about what Muslims should or shouldn't do. Your efforts are better spent engaging in constructive politics and trying to improve security against the terrorists.

I may rant (and I'm honest enough to admit that), but trust me, I have nothing personal against you. It's a bit frustrating when you folks butt in trying to dictate us what we can or cannot do.

Sijistani, for someone who considers his time so precious that he cannot use it to deal with the fundamental issue of Koranic interpretation on this Moslem website, you sure have spent a lot of time ranting and attacking me personally. With that same effort, you might have actually contributed something constructive to the discussion. Readers might suspect that you have nothing to contribute. You want to spend your time convincing other Moslems that they should NOT read the Koran literally? Great! Then, do it. I am sure the readers of alt.muslim would be interested in how someone so versed in hermeneutics deals with this core issue.

When you asked "why isn't every Muslim a terrorist? " you raised an important point, even though you did not ask this as a serious question. The answer is that the behavior of individual Moslems does not necessarily follow the prescriptions of the Koran and the Hadith. Most Moslems out of your 1.2 billion have never read the Koran, and so they might not be aware of what the Koran requires them to believe and to do. Others may be aware but silently refuse to follow the Koran in their daily lives. They are afraid to speak up because they fear ostracism or physical danger from other Moslems if they do. The problem in the world today is precisely that the leading exponents of Islam are the ones egging Moslems to follow the Koran and Hadith literally. Unfortunately for the world, there are scores of millions of Moslems who are ready to follow them. You have hinted that you run into these even in the American Moslem community which may be the least radicalized of all Moslem communities. Until Moslems like you can come up with effective alternative interpretations of the Koran, the literalist religious authorities will continue to enlist terrorists in every country where there is a Moslem community. So, instead of spending your time and energy attacking me for calling attention to the problem, why don't you actually deal with possible solutions? Surely, a moderate Moslem website like this one is a good forum for that.

Why in the world is anyone wasting their time debating CG is who is just here to offend and bait anyone who will respond so that he can Muslim bash?
I could cut and paste verses straight from the bible that many would find extremely violent and distasteful, this doesn't prove anything. Just as his claims about Quranic versesdoes not require deep thought to understand that everything has to be taken in context.
The real issue at the heart of Ali's article is a significant one. Where do we drawn the line between "progressive" i.e. non judgemental, thinking, compassionate Islam, and "progressive" i.e. free for all, anything goes, throw out the baby with the bathwater, Islam.
I find myself dangling between traditional, conservative (no one but the Imam/Sheikh/Mullah is allowed to have an opinion) Muslims and the Progressive (anything goes)Muslims.
There has to be a clear space in between for those who want to practice their faith and values without the encumberances of those who wish to force others to practice a rigid, non bending, souless brand of religion which seeks to pass judgement on all who do bow to their ideology.

CG: Perhaps inadvertently (and to my great joy), your comment above re. Moslem/Muslim has exposed all of your inherent biases and hatred of Islam/Muslims. Oh what a surprise! Another immigrant-hating xenophobe! We should've guessed it, when you alluded to English as "your" language. And please stop embarrasing us with your ignorance: FYI, newspapers started abandoning the older spelling much before organizations like CAIR even existed.

You asked: "what exactly is your problem with the use of "Moslem"?" I have no problem, as I've already implied above. My only point was to show how this minor example reflects broadly on your state of mind (Which, to my victory, you just proved by admitting that you do this "deliberately"). My point was that this deliberate choice reflects your stubborn desire to not allow Muslims to define themselves in their own terms and your wish for them to conform to your notions about them.

Sadly, you don't realize the hypocrisy of your position. If you think it's okay for you to call the Other not as they want to be called but as you wish to call them, then it should be okay with you when crazy imams call you apes/pigs? After all, that's how they wish to call you.

Just a brief note here, to say that I agree with CG regarding his comments about "certain passages" in the Qur'an. Running the risk of insulting the Qur'an by calling these passages "problematic," I think it's enough to say that certain passages need to be placed in a context where most of us can understand them as something other than problematic. Of course the Old testament has "problematic" passages as well, which are frequently quoted by Messianic Jews in official posiitons in Israel to justify racist policies. However, not to open a whole other can of worms, but I would say that usage of the "problematic" passages in the respective texts (Old Testament & Qur'an) have a difference. Those in the Old Testament are respected, quoted, and adhered to by a smaller proportion of Jews within the Jewish community (admittedly largely irreligious), than the proportion of Muslims respecting, quoting, and adhering to their problematic passages. I'm sure people will disagree with me, and I look forward to hearing arguments to the contrary.

Jakey, your point is welcome. And I personally don't think you risk "insulting" the Qur'an by referring to certain passages as "problematic". However, I probably disagree with you re. the "proportion of Muslims respecting, quoting, and adhering to their problematic passages." At the risk of sounding apologetic, I think this proportion is far smaller than you suggest.

My basic point is that sincerely religious Muslims can be legitimate (<i>and<i> consistent) practitioners of their faith while being ethical, humanist beings. Islam's complex theological/social history in itself is evidence enough for that. Hence, CG's claim that non-terrorist Muslims are not really Muslim is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. But of course, your comparison of proportions says little about the religion of Islam in itself. With respect to scripture and interpretation, to single out Islam as a special case of religion is historically naive.

I would also advise you in response to your concern that you cannot deal with religious practice with an assumption that it exists in a vacuum. For instance, in your reference to Messianic Jews vis-a-vis the state of Israel, it would be somewhat erroneous and unfair to treat this in isolation from the history of the Holocaust and centuries of European anti-Semitism. Similarly, it would be erroneous of us to examine contemporary Muslim religious practice in isolation from the socio-economic history of the "Third World" and the state of contemporary geo-politics.

So, still more invective and personal attack from Sijistani, and now from "peace4all" too. Still, not an attempt to explicate even one of those "problematic" passages in the Koran. Obviously, it is much easier to curse the person who raises the question than to answer the question. Would someone kindly explain how it is possible for a sincere religious Moslem to ignore those problematic passages in the Koran? Sijistani and peace4all are either unwilling or unable to explain it. Perhaps someone else can do it. The reference to problematic passages in the Torah and the New Testament is not relevant. The vast majority of Christians and Jews have managed to ignore those passages or to place them in the context of the times so that they are considered no longer valid. Can Moslems do that with such passages from the Koran? (Actually, those passages of cruelty from the Bible are not equivalent to those of the Koran, anyway. For example, there is nothing in the Bible which declares non-believers to be the inveterate enemies of believers.) I am surprised that there are Moslems who point to those passages in the Bible because they are implicitly placing the Koran on the level of the Bible and also implying that it is possible to ignore passages of the Koran just like Christians and Jews ignore passages in the Bible. Well, then, maybe that is the answer: ignore those problematic passages in the Koran! The contradiction here is that the fundamental principle of Islam is that the Koran is Allah's literal word, perfect and valid for all of eternity. The vast majority of Christians and Jews do NOT look upon the Bible that way. There is a reason why the Torah is called "The Five Books of Moses", and not the "Five Books of God". There is a reason why the Gospels are called the "Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John", and not the "Gospels of the Lord". Doing this allows Christians much more wiggle room in interpretation and in rejecting certain passages of the Bible than Moslems have in rejecting portions of the Koran. Maybe the Koran should be called the "Book of Mohammed". Then there would be more theological room for interpretation and rejection of certain problematic passages.
The question remains: how can ethical, humanist Moslems convince young Moslems that they can be legimitate practitioners of their faith and yet NOT follow those problematic passages in the Koran -- especially when the literalist religious authorities say otherwise?

Concerning Moslem/Muslim, Sijistani writes: "My point was that this deliberate choice reflects your stubborn desire to not allow Muslims to define themselves in their own terms and your wish for them to conform to your notions about them." This is plainly false. I never said anything about how Moslems choose to define themselves. That is their business, not my business, and I would not for a moment dream of telling them which word to use about themselves. Only when they tell me how I should speak does it become my buisness. It is Sijistani and others who want me to follow their way. I choose to maintain my freedom to use the non-Arabized "Moslem" which is a standard English word and which is not insulting or deragotory in any way. By what moral right do people like Sijistani choose to make a big issue of this, demanding that I follow their lead?

CG: The question remains: how can ethical, humanist Moslems convince young Moslems that they can be legimitate practitioners of their faith and yet NOT follow those problematic passages in the Koran -- especially when the literalist religious authorities say otherwise?

This is happening all around, CG. You just need to open your eyes. You don't see or hear about it coz it's not sexy enough compared to al-Qaeda videos.

CG, I don't regret the time I've spent arguing with you (though it's really a waste), because I consider this a learning experience. While you keep obsessing about your glorious questions (which, surprise surprise, are nothing novel), in your blindness you never realize that I have already responded to the nuances and deeper realities of your questions many times over. That said, I find it extremely frustrating that you keep twisting language to falsely accuse others of what they haven't said/done. You can say that "It is Sijistani and others who want me to follow their way" but I never once asked you to follow my way! In fact, I explicitly said I don't want you to stop saying Moslem. Nor did I ever "make a big issue of this" -- in fact, I explicitly said this is a minor issue. If you're wondering "By what moral right do people like Sijistani choose to make a big issue of this, demanding that I follow their lead?" -- let me ask you this: by what moral right do you think Muslims should think about their scripture what you think about it? What moral right do you as a non-Muslim have to question a non-extremist Muslim's religious authenticity?

Also, re: "it is much easier to curse the person who raises the question than to answer the question." Please go back and read my comments all over again and identify where I've cursed you. I am enough of a humanist to know not to curse another person. While I know well by now that you have trouble understanding this, I will repeat: I have consistently attacked what your opinions reflect about your (lack of) knowledge/understanding of religions, specifically Islam, but I have been very careful not to attack your personality. I'm not that low.

End of discussion. I may write here again, but not to address you. I sincerely wish you all the best, especially in furthering your studies and overcoming your intellectual hypocrisies. And while it may not matter to you, please rest assured that I don't hate you. I'm not a hater.

I was a board member of the Progressive Muslim Union, and for a time wrote for both AltMuslim and MuslimWakeUp (although I have been affiliated w/ AM from the very beginning). At one point, I resigned from PMU but I didn't make a big public announcement about this because there were already too many knives in PMU's back and I did not want to be another stab.

There are a few reasons why PMU collapsed, but this article doesn't really get into the guts of it. In my mind the issues were:
- lack of infrastructure
- thrust in PR floodlights before they were ready
- some early missteps
- some high-profile individuals who carried baggage
- abrasive personalities

The demise or inertia of PMU does NOT say anything really about the meanings, value and future of terms such as "progressive muslim", "reform muslim", "islamic humanism", etc. There are many debates to be had about those terms, but PMU is not the litmus test. The PMU failure is about personalities and infrastructure and media glare, not about politics.

Here are a couple of things that I saw as reasons PMU failed.

1. Pre-existing baggage: On day 1 of PMU's formation, knives were already out for the organization. Within hours of the official press release, there were counter emails, circulars, and in a few days (or weeks?) there was a very popular anti-pmu blog. Some of the people in the anti- faction seemed to know some of the PMU folks quite well-- but I never knew why. Being an artist, I am outside the usual Muslim loops, so the people inside PMU were unknown to me, as were the anti-PMU faction members. Later I was told there was some history between people, but I didn't know what it was. It was clear that there were people who had beef with people in PMU, and made it a personal mission to go after them. Now which side is "in the right" I don't know, because I never understood what the beef was about-- but it was not about ideology, but much more about power and settling scores. Even without knowing the rights and wrongs, I have to say that I have rarely seen anything as vicious as some of the attacks against PMU.

2. Snafu # 1: First snafu of PMU's formation-- in an attempt to have a "big tent", Ahmed invited a member of Muslims4Bush to join the board. This turned out to be a spectacular disaster, because there was immediate strong response from the anti-PMU faction, and also from inside the organization. At that time I had just been invited to join, and I told Ahmed I could not join if the M4B people were on the board. I am sure others said the same. The M4B people had to be asked to not join-- very awkward for PMU, and very damaging for credibility.

3. High-glare event: Although I ideologically and emotionally support the concept of women-led prayers, PMU as an organization DID NOT have the infrastructure to handle and support an event like that. As expected, it became a total media circus, with reporters matching musollis 1:5 at the event. Although the event did open up conversations, it also drew tremendous flak and PMU was incapable of handling that much heat at a time when the org was barely starting.

(cont.)
4. Media floodlight: From day 1, PMU attracted a lot of attention in the press, just as Muslims Against Terrorism had immediately after 9/11. This was something I had warned Ahmed about, that the org was not ready to handle that kind of glare. But the invitations kept coming. I don't think it's an issue that Ahmed went on Fox News-- should we only be speaking to progressive channels then (and in the US you'll fast run out of options). But with such a young organization, the media defined PMU, rather than PMU defining PMU. And no matter what Ahmed's intentions, TV newsbite cycles will render any position -- nuanced or not -- as gibberish. I gave an interview on PBS after the London bombings (nothing to do w/ PMU, they interviewed me about one of my films). Now I cringe at some things I said. It's the nature of the beast.

5. Listserv: This seems trivial, but I dimly recall there being some issue over the mailing list and who should be on it and who should not. At one point it was free-for-all, which also meant the list had people who disliked PMU intensely. When there was a misguided attempt to control this, that became another big issue-- censorship, power trip, etc. I don't recall details, but it was a big, public thing at the time.

6. Attrition: At some point the flak around PMU became too much for most board members. PMU literally had one BIG event (women prayer) under its belt. The only other thing that had happened was an Eid dinner. There may have been others I do not remember. With so few activities, the heat generated around PMU was disproportionate. Some board members possibly got fed up of being defined by controversy. It's one thing to be defined by controversy and stand for something (e.g., "Ok, there is controversy, but I expected this because I took position on X, Y and Z"). But when there is controversy and nothing has been accomplished, you think "Well, why the hell do I need this." People started resigning, and at one point for various reasons, there were 3-5 resignations in 1-2 weeks. All of this was gleefully reported on the anti-PMU website, which even started a "countdown" (5 gone, 5 to go type of thing). When I resigned, I did it quietly because I did not want to be used in that football game.

(cont.)
In sum, I think PMU went too fast and burnt out under the weight of media glare, anti-PMU knives, internal personality clashes, controversies, snafus, and lack of tangible projects.

But in the end, the PMU saga does not say anything definitively either way as to whether "progressive", "humanist", "reform", etc terms are useful. The interpretation and practise of Islam and its impact on the daily lives of Muslims-- especially vis-a-vis class, race, gender, etc, definitely needs analysis, debate, reinterpretation and reform. What terms, organizations, infrastructure, etc you use to accomplish such goals in constructive, incremental steps still elude us.

Salam peace4all,

>>Why in the world is anyone wasting their time debating CG is who is just here to offend and bait anyone

Amin to that!

Sijistani continues his stream of name-calling without once offering any facts or details. He hints that the Koran may be and has been interpreted other than literally, but gives no examples. What a pity, actually, because both he and I agree that the literalist reading of the Koran is causing no end of trouble in the world. Instead of belittling and attacking me, let him, then, contribute to the struggle against the literalists by showing us acceptable non-literalist readings of the Koranic verses in question. I would love to see such a movement flourish and thrive. Surely, an expert in hermeneutics such as Sijistani can show the way.

Sijistani says that it "is happening all around" that ethical, humanist Moslems are convincing young Moslems that they can be pious Moslems and yet NOT follow those problematic passages in the Koran .
I am delighted to hear it. Perhaps Sijistani can set aside for a moment his hostility towards me for asking uncomfortable questions and describe in more detail his successes moving young Moslems away from a literalist reading of the Koran -- with specific examples of which literalist readings he has in mind and which non-literalist readings he offers in their stead.
Ultimately, the success of any progressive Moslem movement depends precisely on finding acceptable non-literal interpretations of those verses from the Koran.

>>> CG

You're asking for answers while only making assertions. So I don't see why you warrant anything better. You're attacking the posts because you assert Islam is violent and backward. We assert differently. What more do you want? A formal apology for your own laziness and uneducated mind? You're saying that majority of the muslims in the world ascribe to the Quraans violent-literal-barbabrism. We assert that majority of the muslims in the world ascribe to the Quraans universal-ethical-humanism (amongst its other even more important aspects).

I think maybe the difference is you taking a few hadeeth and Quraanic ayats which you purposefully misplace compared to us who consider the WHOLE TRUTH. If black men are disproportionately represented in american prisons.. by your own pathetic inferrences implies that black men are evil.

>> Ultimately, the success of any progressive Moslem movement depends precisely on finding acceptable non-literal interpretations of those verses from the Koran.

NO .. It depends on a literal understanding of the Quraanic truth. How can you dispute this? Quraanic ayahs have literal purpose, spiritual purpose and purpose we don't understand.

>> What terms, organizations, infrastructure, etc you use to accomplish such goals in constructive, incremental steps still elude us

I just think think it needs collective action and a commitment. Not to reform Islam .. but rather to reform attitudes.