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.

Dear Ghulam,
You put words into my mouth which I never uttered. That is dishonest. Calling me derogatory names like Sijistani did will not enlighten anyone.

The question was and remains: HOW do Moslems deal with those passages in the Koran and Hadith which call for violence, hatred and imperialism towards non-Moslems? You say that one needs to consider the "whole truth". That answer does not tell me anything. The whole consists of the sum of its parts. It may even be greater than its parts. However, its parts must be considered and somehow integrated into the whole. Please explain the process you have in mind. How, in detail and precisely, do you get from the problematic verses to a "whole truth" that apparently contradicts those verses?

You say that the success of any progressive Moslem movement "depends on a literal understanding of the Quraanic truth." Please explain your use of the word "literal". Is a "literal understanding" different from a literal reading of the Koran? Sijistani seemed to be against a literal reading of the Koran, but he refused to explain any of the problematic verses in a non-literal way.

You might be interested in reading a fascinating article written by a Moslem professor of Islamic law at the University of Michigan. He recognizes the problem with the Koran which you and Sijistani and others deny, and he tries to resolve that contradiction in a logical way. He is an Islamic scholar and a religious Moslem, and so his arguments need to be taken seriously, even if they might not, ultimately, be successful. Here is the info:
Abdul Hakim Sherman Jackson, Jihad in the Modern World, (18 pages) (URL: http://www.zaytuna.org/seasons/seasons1/Jihad%20in%20Modern%20World.pdf
Again, this is a serious article written by serious Moslem. Let me know what you think of it.

>> Ignorant. Pathetic. Dogmatic. Preconceived.

In your own words.

>> HOW do Moslems deal with those passages in the Koran and Hadith which call for violence, hatred and imperialism towards non-Moslems?

I myself have asked similar questions on this very site. But I never assumed that the ayahs are imperialistic or hateful, because the body of the message of the Quraan isn't that to me. I read it as someone who would read a message from an Omnipotent Benevolent and Just Creator. And most muslims on the planet do too. I approached it as an opportunity to heal the vision of muslims caught in the downward spiral and cycle of anger, hatred and abuse.

If you're not aware ... there is a strong internal movement within the body of the global muslim community ranging from the western educated to the eastern educated, from rich to poor, from shaved to bearded .. who despite the large gap between the broader muslim communitys social evolution and the demands of a superpower opportunistic western elite, despite the attacks on Islamic identity which warrant a defensive position, despite the oppression of excessively secularly-oriented anti-egalitarian governments ... ARE and DO define themselves holistically within the vision of Islam .. when we could pull "a time for a crusade" speech and haul out the artillery.

You want a definite answer on these ayahs. How to absorb into the broader meaning. But where do we stand if you consider the state of muslims at the hands of western institutional manipulation? If from Nigeria to Iraq to Indonesia .. muslims are held hostage politically, economically and militarily.. and then questioned on being victimizers .. how would you interpret these verses? How would that influence your understanding of these verses? The verses still seem to speak to true of an enemies intent? If you ran a government and say America invaded you .. would these verses not be justified in those circumstances? You're also ignoring that muslims already do know and understand the circumstances of these verse. Or SalahUlDin Ayoubi would never have acted the way he did.

I myself have asked similar questions on this very site. But I never assumed that the ayahs are imperialistic or hateful, because the body of the message of the Quraan isn't that to me.

Would you be happy if your sons interpreted the ayahs that as "imperialistic or hateful"? The way Islamic education is going, don't you think that that is how an infant born today will interpret them once they grow up?

>> The way Islamic education is going, don't you think that that is how an infant born today will interpret them once they grow up?

What way is Islamic education going? That muslims must live with God in their hearts, respect and honour their parents, take care of the sick, be honest, feed the hungry, respect ALL people, increase in good deeds and acts of piety? Do you know anything about Islamic education? Or do you assume again in media driven frenzy, that ours is your anti-western undercurrent?

Most of our "imperialistic" education are very neatly packaged attacks on Islam by western media. Not Islamic driven ideology, but reactionary driven. We are living with a very real modern day persecution in which the modern media has found an output for liberal criticism that makes for good TV. Zionists exported that problem in a much larger way. Americans decimated Afghanistan and Iraq in reaction. I think we're actually a relatively mellow group of people judging by the level of response.

Ghulam, I can't answer the question about where Islamic education is going; that's why I asked for your evaluation. Throwing the question back or asking questions about me in particular - how does that help either you or any other Muslim?

Selam Aleykum. JZK brother for your essay. However I have to ask, what does it mean that 'Progressive Islam is dead'? Does that mean the political movement is dead? What I see around me every day are many many Muslims who have a 'progressive attitude' to their faith i.e. They question following human-collected and interpreted precepts dating from a thousand years ago (note not the time of the prophet (wsws)) and they try to break clear of the dissonanace and anger that can be found on many Muslim forums around the world and even in mosques where masabs come into conflict. In places like Turkey and Bosnia and all across Europe there are many who share that feeling. Are these examples of Progressive Islam? I don't know because I am a Muslim, not a philosopher or a politician. I am driven by the love of my one god Allah(swt) and advocate love and understanding not the dissonanace of anger and judgementalism....... ahhhhh that maybe where I am going wrong. You describe Islam as a juridicial religion which.. taken to its logical extension I suppose means we have the right to judge others.. Well you see that's where I suppose I become a Progressive Muslim because I don't think I have the right to judge others. I think only Allah (swt) can do that. And, if I am right that this is exactly what the Qu'ran is saying... then I think that maybe the very large but seemingly now silent community who wish for a progresive approach to Islam should be heard. Don't you? You may be right that what was seen on the Progressive Islam websites was an unformed community representing a wide-range fo views but isn't that where all movements begin?

It is a pity that the voice of 'Progressive Islam' may be percieved to be being lost.....at elast on the Net, but I don't think that's any reason for me to stop wittering here in my corner... do you? ;)

Peace be on your brother :)

>If from Nigeria to Iraq to Indonesia .. muslims are held hostage politically, economically and militarily.. and then questioned on being victimizers .. how would you interpret these verses?

How are Nigerian Muslims oppressed? Since this is OT, please feel free to e-mail me.

The blog pmunadebate never called anyone "sexually loose" - as the author of the article implies. Nor did the blog come up with the name "pro-regressive" - although, I do think it is an excellent name for 'em. Nor was any rumor spread anywhere that the proggies were illicit and/or lewd. There were some of the prominent proggies who were discussing their private affairs in public, and insisting that they were OK with alcohol. This was reported on the pmunadebate blog.

***the conservative discourse is sadly receptive to such rhetoric.***

The above suggests that, while Etraz may not be wearing the proggie lable, he is not far from it himself. Stereotyping without defining what he means by "conservative" etc. was and still remains one of the hallmarks of most of those who were affiliated with the PMUNA boards.

Naeem - I dunno what kind of an artist you are that does not keep in touch with the social implications of elitest movements such as the proggies. That kind of an excuse that "i am an artist, therefore i do not know" is absurd. But you did not understand the critique of the proggies - if you think it was all about "power."

A number of those who critiqued the PMUNA were infact invited to serve on the board of directors - their refusal was a matter of prinicpal and recognizing that the route they were taking was downright reactionary. And did not have the larger Muslim community's interest at heart.

>>did not have the larger Muslim community's interest at heart.

...and can you elaborate on what interests are those?

>>> that's why I asked for your evaluation.

Oh no. You would never reach a conclusion without being informed. Would you?

I thought I answered your question in broad terms? Most muslims understand their religion through the teachings of tradition. The central focus point of muslim education is Quraan and the broad rulings of the madhabs (schools of thought). While the Quraan provides some rulings and broader spiritual teachings, the practical daily rites of religion is learnt through traditions. There's also ethical focal points, the responsibility of choice, duty to mankind and other obligations that may or may not be formal codes. After a certain age, most people take personal responsibility for their education. Formal systems of education exist after that, but many people are inclined to learn for themselves. A major obligation of muslims is to understand their Islamic responsibilitys within the confines of their own life. Whether its their profession or social role.

The highlight text of the article "The Death of "Progressive Islam"" reads:
"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." Indeed, this is a cause of concern not only to Moslems, but to us unbelievers, too. The jihadist Moslems find full support for their position in the Koran, the Hadith and all four major schools of Islamic law. For example, here is a statement by "Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, (and) also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that ìin the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.î In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with ìpower politics,î because Islam is ìunder obligation to gain power over other nations.î (From Robert Spencer.)

Sijistani, with all his fancy hermeneutics, could not defang a single one of the jihad verses in the Koran. Ghulam firmly believes that the Koran, as a whole, does not mean what it says in particular, but cannot explain how he arrived at that conclusion. Others on this site don't even want to talk about the subject.

Omar G. writes above: "there is such an extreme lack of humanism among Muslims today, and since Islam exists in our behaviors, actions, words and thoughts, it is therefore lacking in contemporary Islam (although such notions are the basis of textual Islam). " Well, if such notions really are the basis of textual Islam, how about producing those texts to prove it and to disprove the jihadist texts?
Progressive Muslims certainly have their work cut out for them!

Ghulam, substitute "Torah" and "Jew" or "Jewish" for "Quaraan" and "muslim" and you'd almost have a fair description of Jewish religious education. It's too vague. It's the details that matter.

Did you mean to tell me that the direction of Islamic education is "That muslims must live with God in their hearts, respect and honour their parents, take care of the sick, be honest, feed the hungry, respect ALL people, increase in good deeds and acts of piety"? Even that is too vague. The son of Osama bin Laden who plots his next terror attack upon America while caring for injured jihadis - does he not believe that he is doing exactly what you prescribe?

In his article above, "The Death Of "Progressive Islam", Ali Eteraz writes: "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." Well, this lack of juridical foundation for "progressive" Islam is of concern to us unbelievers, too. Apparently, Islamic texts plentifully support jihadi Islam. All four major Islamic legal schools consider violent jihad to be a requirement of the religion. Take, for example, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), "a pioneering historian and philosopher, [who] was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that ìin the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.î In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with ìpower politics,î because Islam is ìunder obligation to gain power over other nations.î' (Robert Spencer). Of course, each of the four major Islamic legal schools base their pronouncements on the Koran.

Omar G., above, writes "there is such an extreme lack of humanism among Muslims today, and since Islam exists in our behaviors, actions, words and thoughts, it is therefore lacking in contemporary Islam (although such notions are the basis of textual Islam)." Well, if such humanist notions really are the basis of textual Islam, how about supplying some evidence of this which will outweigh the jihad texts? With all his fancy hermeneutics, Sijistani (in the posts above) was unable to defang even one of the jihad verses of the Koran. Ghulam says he believe that the Koran, taken as a whole, supports a humanist view in contradiction to the particular jihad parts of the Koran, but he was unable to explain how he reached that conclusion. Others on this website didn't even want to touch this topic.

The ostrich approach, however, will not work because the jihad Islamic texts will not go away. They exist and they are read by all Moslems (and non-Moslems) who are interested in learning more about Islam. Islamic religious authorities know these texts. For 1400 years including today, those texts have supplied the justification for Islamic world jihad whose murderous results we witness nearly every day.

How do "progressive Muslims" propose to deal with this?

CG - The underpinnings of those teachings are the traditional models of a 10th century state and the basis for its allegiance. The present American model is not much different from this at all. Constitutionally, Americans are taught a certain legal model for social co-existence (muslims are taught AND DEVELOP a mix of moral, ethical and social models). When it comes to outsiders, that model disappears completely.

What you're highlighting isn't an Islamic problem, but a human one. I can assert that Islam doesn't espouse those values, and do that more safely than an American who defends democracy. If we had considered the violent nature of the American continents colonisation and the American role in current and past global politics, it would be easy to say that democracy was a failure or in need of "reform", because of the CIA propoganda machine, the WTO, vilations of international law. Just as ordinary Americans cannot "deal" with their INSTITUTIONALised problem ... why expect muslims to "deal" with what is very much a fringe UN-institutionalised problem? I don't see anyone going ape over American nationalists serving in the foreign legion or in Israel.

The Jihadi model you're criticising is as necessary to the Quraans righteous/good message as the ayahs pertaining to forgiveness, kindness, wisdom and peace (I think you call this humanism). Just as there is a difference between a vigilante and civil arrest, you can't suddenly reach the conclusion that extremists are deriving their code from the Quraan. Every muslim would be compelled to die protecting their property and freedom. Every muslim would be compelled to die defending the holy lands of Arabia. That makes us all Jihaadis.

>> Well, if such humanist notions really are the basis of textual Islam, how about supplying some evidence of this which will outweigh the jihad texts?

Your messages indicate your conclusion is reached. Assumption is the mother of all flop ups. It seems you've read alot of books about Islam .. probably thousands of pages worth .. but you've never picked up the Quraan itself. The source is a commentary on itself. Otherwise google positive verbs and nouns with Islam.

What you mistake is that when muslims consider this progressive transformation .. its not away from parts of the Quraan .. but rather right into the whole of its message. There's nothing to change or reform. Only problems we need to face .. Islamically.

GC,

>>how about producing those texts to prove it and to disprove the jihadist texts?

Uhh, dude, what in the world do you think we;ve been doing with all these websites, books, articles and public lectures??! and frankly, most jihadis don't listen to these arguments (Yemeni judges not withstanding!) and the best remedy is my rifle (USMC). As for me, most if not all my efforts at writing and speaking are towards other Muslims...in English, BTW. This may be why you've not seen it before. I do this because it is my fellow Muslims who *need* to hear, read, and understand these things. While I understand the average American's fears about being randomly blown up (I've been far, far more in danger of being randomly blown up on one day than you've been in your entire life, so beleive me, I understand). But, efforts, time and resources are scarce; directing them towards the like of you is like preaching to the choir = magnificent misfocusing of effort which would be wholly irresponsible and even borderline criminal.

Nevetheless, these books like Omid Safi's "Progressive Muslims" and Saleema Abdul Ghaffar's book about American Muslim women are available on Amazon.com and probably in any well-stocked Borders or B&N;. Websites like this are free for the reading...

OmarG:
Uhh, dude, I have no idea what you have been doing because you and your like-minded Moslems have been so quiet about it. During the past week on this website, I have seen exactly zero attempt to deal with the textual problems that enlightened Moslems face. You, Ghulam and Sijistani SAY you are all dealing with these questions, but I haven't actually seen any evidence of it. I understand that you don't have time for me, but, to judge by some of the hyperdefensive, intemperate and evasive comments on this website, I would have expected to see you trying to enlighten THEM. I am just a very interested observer. I know that there is a struggle going on inside the Moslem communities. To the outside observer, it looks like the traditionalists, that is, literalists and Moslem supremacists still completely dominate among the religious authorities even in this country. There is no question at all that they dominate in the Moslem countries. You say that you are devoting nearly all your efforts to enlightening your fellow Moslems. Perhaps you would be so kind and share with the mostly Moslem readers of this website some of your methods of persuasion that the Koranic texts are not to be taken literally. How, exactly, do you do it? How, precisely, do you get from the particular jihad verses of the Koran to a non-jihadi interpretation?
How successful have you been? Which imams support your position?

Lest anyone think, like Ghulam, that the jihadi positions belong only to the 10th century, please keep in mind that these traditional interpretations are accepted today by al-Azhar, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ayatollahs in Iran, the sheik of the Grand Mosque in Mecca ( and nearly all of Saudi Arabia), and so on. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, ratified by all Moslem countries in 1991, enshrines traditional Islamic sharia supremacism. As I understand it, the Shafiíi manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairoís Al-Azhar University. So, your opponents within Islam have some mighty big guns on their side. What credentials and what arguments do you and your well-meaning colleagues bring that can stand up against those of your opponents?

Think about this:
1) "Progressive" is simply a word, not necessarily a "branch of Islam" requiring a new "judicial basis".
2) Death of an organization does not mean death of a direction or idea.
3) The good thing in "progressive" plus Islam is it implies, at least to me, the inclusion of the human mind - one of the #1 directives from Allah (swt) in the Qur'an - "Will you not use your minds?"
4) The bad thing in "conservative" etc., is that it tends to rote, non-thinking behavior - "following one's father's footsteps blindly" - something Allah (swt) warned against in the Qur'an
5) Why not just read and discuss the Qur'an in depth? Could the Qur'an itself have more "progressive" ideas than people dare to realize? I, for one, am ready to prove it. Just give me time...
6) The issue of "progressive Islam" being not based in the "judicial" or having a "text" is, forgive me, absurd. We have one basic text, the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself tells us how to read it. It may contain support for BOTH progressives and conservatives on various issues. The Qur'an does not require that all people be on the exact same page in all matters.
7) Did anyone actually read this?

If I slit my wrists for you, would you then be satisfied?? Seriously, you want alot delivered overnight: works for FEDEX, but not for religion! If you want to confine the discussion to the verses you cite, I can tell you that generalizing them to mean that Muslims have to kill all non-Muslims all the time is an extremely odd position to take. AFAIK, only the jihadists have taken it. Much of the Classical interpretative literature (there have been dozens of encyclopedic works about the Quran) do not support this position at all; they interpret them as having specific, limited historical meanings. Thus, we have to turn to two issues. One is addressed by Dr Charles Kurzman at UNC Chapel Hill (last time I checked). He has posed the question: with 1.5 billion Muslims and such verses, why are there so FEW transnational Islamist terrorists? Zawahiri boasts of being blessed with *hundreds* of volunteers. Hundreds may sound like alot, but it is a mere niussance on the world stage.

I am doing work on countering supremacist attitudes in my own communities. But, it takes time and people demand to see bullet proof arguments and even then it takes years or even generations for cultural shifts to occur, assuming that the communities even see a need for change. That's where you see us now: we are slowing inculcating the idea that change is necessary. If we succeed in doing that within one or two generations, it would be a historically stunning achievement. Look how long it took for slavery to go out of fashion in America: anti-slavery attitudes existed even BEFORE the Revolution, but it took generations for it gain enough steam to change the culture. Culture is a real funny thing that often overrides the texts. We had a Constitution, Bill of Rights and a Dec of Indepencence with notable Enlightment ideas, but it took nearly 80 more years to abolish slavery and another 100 years (4-5 generations) before the descendents of slaves were even legally granted equal civil rights and still to this day racism exists although it is goinf out of fashion and not necessarily accepted within the standards of our national cultural values. See how long it took? Maybe if you fund me a couple hundred thousand, I could even match that timeline with a miracle...

So, while I was off physically fighting these kinds of guys and have now moved on from that profession to the academic and cultural arenas, I think I've done quite alot. WHAT ABOUT YOU?

To: Thinkbridge
Your use of "progressive" to mean open-minded and "conservative" to mean closed-minded is offensive, prejudiced and just plain wrong. It is another form of name-calling. Better to just stick to the issues of what the Koran says or doesn't say.

Your suggestion to read the Koran and discuss it in depth is excellent. I hope that readers on this website will follow your suggestion.

So far, throughout Islamic history and including today, the jihadist interpretation of the Koran has been the dominant one among the ulema who have spent their lives studying the Koran, the Hadith and Sharia. They are the ones who set the tone for the Islamic community and the Moslem states. They are the ones who continue to produce cadres of terrorists and non-terrorist sharia supremacists. That is what worries us unbelievers. From the outside, we see some moderate Moslems, like the ones on this website, but we don't see anything like a moderate Islam. Islam's legitimacy has always come only from the texts, not from the behavior of particular believers.

The article which started this whole discussion bemoaned the death of "progressive Islam" and pointed to the lack of a textual (juridical) foundation without which there can be only a discussion forum but no movement of any weight within the religion of Islam. For religious legitimacy, you will have to have respected religious authorities on your side; but, without a textual foundation, it does not look like you will get them.

TO OMARG:
I have great respect for you for fighting the Islamic extremists physically, and for fighting against them culturally now. You are doing what you can, and you deserve respect for that. I can only wish that you get the miracle you hope for to make you successful. But, the world does not have a 100 years or even two generations or even one generation to turn Islam around. The extremists, who are far, far more numerous than al Qaeda, are armed to the teeth and are acquiring more lethal weapons all the time. They are about to acquire nuclear weapons; and they are not afraid to use them in the name of Islam. Although the violent jihadists like al Qaeda get all the attention, we are also talking about the quiet, long-term supremacists who are slowly taking over Europe demographically and politically, and who are working to do the same here in America, but more slowly because of the situation. Many Moslem leaders in America, both political and religious, look to eventually replacing the American Constitution with Sharia. These quiet, long-term Moslem supremacists may turn out to be even more dangerous than the terrorists.

RE: Charles Kurzman, he is wrong about there being so few Islamist terrorists. According to the Pew Global Survey
the number is enormous. Check it out at http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248 Even if only 10% of Moslems are terrorist inclined, -- and the Pew Survey indicates far more than that --that comes to 150 MILLION terrorists and active supporters. This is "so few"?