Here is the example of a beautiful Sufi poetry combined with music - so much more powerful than a thousand turbans. Lyrics: Baba Bulleh Shah. Music: Rabbi Shergill

Embed not working so here's a link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibrZn34gsTQ. Headphones on.

Same thought has occurred to me as I have read posts from Muslims on these many threads. Pure Islam is the cure to all our ills, it's just never been tried. Same as what defenders of communism say.

But Islam was at its pinnacle and most powerful when it was vibrant, liberal and open--from roughly the 9th to 12th centuries. Scholars of all kinds were welcome--Christians translated the Greek philosophers and Islamic philosophers integrated them into their understanding of Islam. Imagine any one of the Muslim posters we've heard from here acknowledging there is anything to be learned from jahaliyya-ists like Plato and Aristotle.

The encouragement of learning and inquiry gave rise to huge advances in science, physics and mathematics and more practical areas like navigation and architecture, as well as to the beginning of disciplines like geography and sociology.

Islam was at its best when it was most multi-cultural, most tolerant of other faiths, and most encouraging of intellectual inquiry. Most of the Muslim posters we've heard from here completely betray this legacy, as do all of the extreme Islamic groups agitating in the Middle East today. Imagine if they viewed true Islam as primarily an imperative for ntellectual inquiry rather than as a requirement for women to be bundled up and married at menarche.

Anonymous wrote:


He is a Sufi, so its wise not to take knowledge from them, may Allah rectify our deeds, Ameen

When are one of you going to comment on this? We're sick of you dredging up old battles with other posters. This is new.

Anonymous wrote:
You need to separate Islam the religion from Islam as it is practiced today.

Kind of like communism, no? Beautiful idea, implementation sucks? That sort of thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yusuf gave a 2 hour lecture at Oxford University on this subject. I watched half of the video last night. If anyone is interested here's the entire transcript. It's lengthy but discusses whether it would be permissible for Muslims to reform (or "renovate" ) the way Islam is interpreted. Short answer is yes.

I hope that what we all took away from the arguing on the Islam threads is that
1) There is no one interpretation of Islam that speaks for all 1.6 billion people
2) Peaceful Muslims can not be held resposible for the atrocities committed by extremists
3) The Sharia, hadith, or even scholarly views are not infallible and some parts may be corrupted
4) However, reform (or "renovation") is indeed possible. It's a long way off but possible.

Transcript for Rethinking Reform


Transcript Details
Event Name: Rethinking Reform
Transcript Author: Organization
Description: The Rethinking Islamic Reform organization transcribed their own event. Better to follow the link above, as their website has everything formatted nicely.
Date Transcribed: 1/1/2010 12:00:00 AM
Original URL: http://www.rethinkingislamicreform.co.uk/transcript


Transcript Text
Rethinking Islamic Reform conference on behalf of Oxford University Islamic society.
SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON KEYNOTE ADDRESS

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON: Bismillah al-Rahman Al-Rahim. Allahumma salli wa sallim 'alaa Sayyidina Muhammad wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallim tasleeman katheera. Wa la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah al ‘aliy al ‘adheem In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate and peace and prayers be upon the prophets of God and upon our prophet Muhammad. Alhamdulilah. #00:16:25-9#

YUSUF*[1]: I'm going try to address each one of these points that I've been asked to address but before that I would like to preface my remarks by talking about a specific problem that we have when we look at the Islamic tradition, when we look at Islam as a faith and when we are addressing an audience that contains both peoples from the Islamic faith of various obvious types and backgrounds and then of western people. In science, you have what are called 'non-complementary paradigms' and to give an example of that, Newtonian Physics is a certain way of viewing the world and it works at a certain level, but if you attempt to apply Newtonian Physics to Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't work - you have a non-complementary system attempting to address things that are very different and need a different language to describe them and a different theoretical basis to make sense of them. In many ways, the post-industrial, increasingly post-modern Western Liberalism is akin to Quantum Mechanics and the Islamic tradition is more akin to Newtonian Physics; and so when the two of us attempt to talk, we're speaking completely different languages and it really creates a massive barrier.

[ Edited to comply with copyright laws. ]

He is a Sufi, so its wise not to take knowledge from them, may Allah rectify our deeds, Ameen

A recent Pew poll showed that 75 percent of Pakistanis believe: “Blasphemy laws are necessary to protect Islam in our country.” Pakistan’s blasphemy laws entail that insulting the prophet is punishable by death.

There are about 186M people in Pakistan. So about 140 million people in one country believe it is appropriate to murder innocent people that insult the prophet.

There will be no reform for this cult.

You need to separate Islam the religion from Islam as it is practiced today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yusuf gave a 2 hour lecture at Oxford University on this subject. I watched half of the video last night. If anyone is interested here's the entire transcript. It's lengthy but discusses whether it would be permissible for Muslims to reform (or "renovate" ) the way Islam is interpreted. Short answer is yes.

I hope that what we all took away from the arguing on the Islam threads is that
1) There is no one interpretation of Islam that speaks for all 1.6 billion people
2) Peaceful Muslims can not be held resposible for the atrocities committed by extremists
3) The Sharia, hadith, or even scholarly views are not infallible and some parts may be corrupted
4) However, reform (or "renovation") is indeed possible. It's a long way off but possible.

Transcript for Rethinking Reform


Transcript Details
Event Name: Rethinking Reform
Transcript Author: Organization
Description: The Rethinking Islamic Reform organization transcribed their own event. Better to follow the link above, as their website has everything formatted nicely.
Date Transcribed: 1/1/2010 12:00:00 AM
Original URL: http://www.rethinkingislamicreform.co.uk/transcript


Transcript Text
Rethinking Islamic Reform conference on behalf of Oxford University Islamic society.
SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON KEYNOTE ADDRESS

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON: Bismillah al-Rahman Al-Rahim. Allahumma salli wa sallim 'alaa Sayyidina Muhammad wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallim tasleeman katheera. Wa la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah al ‘aliy al ‘adheem In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate and peace and prayers be upon the prophets of God and upon our prophet Muhammad. Alhamdulilah. #00:16:25-9#

YUSUF*[1]: I'm going try to address each one of these points that I've been asked to address but before that I would like to preface my remarks by talking about a specific problem that we have when we look at the Islamic tradition, when we look at Islam as a faith and when we are addressing an audience that contains both peoples from the Islamic faith of various obvious types and backgrounds and then of western people. In science, you have what are called 'non-complementary paradigms' and to give an example of that, Newtonian Physics is a certain way of viewing the world and it works at a certain level, but if you attempt to apply Newtonian Physics to Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't work - you have a non-complementary system attempting to address things that are very different and need a different language to describe them and a different theoretical basis to make sense of them. In many ways, the post-industrial, increasingly post-modern Western Liberalism is akin to Quantum Mechanics and the Islamic tradition is more akin to Newtonian Physics; and so when the two of us attempt to talk, we're speaking completely different languages and it really creates a massive barrier.

[ Edited to comply with copyright laws. ]

He is a Sufi, so its wise not to take knowledge from them, may Allah rectify our deeds, Ameen

A recent Pew poll showed that 75 percent of Pakistanis believe: “Blasphemy laws are necessary to protect Islam in our country.” Pakistan’s blasphemy laws entail that insulting the prophet is punishable by death.

There are about 186M people in Pakistan. So about 140 million people in one country believe it is appropriate to murder innocent people that insult the prophet.

There will be no reform for this cult.

PublicMind last year had some 29% Americans saying that they advocate for an armed rebellion against the US government, that's about 92MM of people and 1/5th of Americans believe Obama is Muslim, that's like 79.MM. What's your point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yusuf gave a 2 hour lecture at Oxford University on this subject. I watched half of the video last night. If anyone is interested here's the entire transcript. It's lengthy but discusses whether it would be permissible for Muslims to reform (or "renovate" ) the way Islam is interpreted. Short answer is yes.

I hope that what we all took away from the arguing on the Islam threads is that
1) There is no one interpretation of Islam that speaks for all 1.6 billion people
2) Peaceful Muslims can not be held resposible for the atrocities committed by extremists
3) The Sharia, hadith, or even scholarly views are not infallible and some parts may be corrupted
4) However, reform (or "renovation") is indeed possible. It's a long way off but possible.

Transcript for Rethinking Reform


Transcript Details
Event Name: Rethinking Reform
Transcript Author: Organization
Description: The Rethinking Islamic Reform organization transcribed their own event. Better to follow the link above, as their website has everything formatted nicely.
Date Transcribed: 1/1/2010 12:00:00 AM
Original URL: http://www.rethinkingislamicreform.co.uk/transcript


Transcript Text
Rethinking Islamic Reform conference on behalf of Oxford University Islamic society.
SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON KEYNOTE ADDRESS

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON: Bismillah al-Rahman Al-Rahim. Allahumma salli wa sallim 'alaa Sayyidina Muhammad wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallim tasleeman katheera. Wa la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah al ‘aliy al ‘adheem In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate and peace and prayers be upon the prophets of God and upon our prophet Muhammad. Alhamdulilah. #00:16:25-9#

YUSUF*[1]: I'm going try to address each one of these points that I've been asked to address but before that I would like to preface my remarks by talking about a specific problem that we have when we look at the Islamic tradition, when we look at Islam as a faith and when we are addressing an audience that contains both peoples from the Islamic faith of various obvious types and backgrounds and then of western people. In science, you have what are called 'non-complementary paradigms' and to give an example of that, Newtonian Physics is a certain way of viewing the world and it works at a certain level, but if you attempt to apply Newtonian Physics to Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't work - you have a non-complementary system attempting to address things that are very different and need a different language to describe them and a different theoretical basis to make sense of them. In many ways, the post-industrial, increasingly post-modern Western Liberalism is akin to Quantum Mechanics and the Islamic tradition is more akin to Newtonian Physics; and so when the two of us attempt to talk, we're speaking completely different languages and it really creates a massive barrier.

[ Edited to comply with copyright laws. ]

He is a Sufi, so its wise not to take knowledge from them, may Allah rectify our deeds, Ameen

A recent Pew poll showed that 75 percent of Pakistanis believe: “Blasphemy laws are necessary to protect Islam in our country.” Pakistan’s blasphemy laws entail that insulting the prophet is punishable by death.

There are about 186M people in Pakistan. So about 140 million people in one country believe it is appropriate to murder innocent people that insult the prophet.

There will be no reform for this cult.

Anonymous wrote:Yusuf gave a 2 hour lecture at Oxford University on this subject. I watched half of the video last night. If anyone is interested here's the entire transcript. It's lengthy but discusses whether it would be permissible for Muslims to reform (or "renovate" ) the way Islam is interpreted. Short answer is yes.

I hope that what we all took away from the arguing on the Islam threads is that
1) There is no one interpretation of Islam that speaks for all 1.6 billion people
2) Peaceful Muslims can not be held resposible for the atrocities committed by extremists
3) The Sharia, hadith, or even scholarly views are not infallible and some parts may be corrupted
4) However, reform (or "renovation") is indeed possible. It's a long way off but possible.

Transcript for Rethinking Reform


Transcript Details
Event Name: Rethinking Reform
Transcript Author: Organization
Description: The Rethinking Islamic Reform organization transcribed their own event. Better to follow the link above, as their website has everything formatted nicely.
Date Transcribed: 1/1/2010 12:00:00 AM
Original URL: http://www.rethinkingislamicreform.co.uk/transcript


Transcript Text
Rethinking Islamic Reform conference on behalf of Oxford University Islamic society.
SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON KEYNOTE ADDRESS

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON: Bismillah al-Rahman Al-Rahim. Allahumma salli wa sallim 'alaa Sayyidina Muhammad wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallim tasleeman katheera. Wa la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah al ‘aliy al ‘adheem In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate and peace and prayers be upon the prophets of God and upon our prophet Muhammad. Alhamdulilah. #00:16:25-9#

YUSUF*[1]: I'm going try to address each one of these points that I've been asked to address but before that I would like to preface my remarks by talking about a specific problem that we have when we look at the Islamic tradition, when we look at Islam as a faith and when we are addressing an audience that contains both peoples from the Islamic faith of various obvious types and backgrounds and then of western people. In science, you have what are called 'non-complementary paradigms' and to give an example of that, Newtonian Physics is a certain way of viewing the world and it works at a certain level, but if you attempt to apply Newtonian Physics to Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't work - you have a non-complementary system attempting to address things that are very different and need a different language to describe them and a different theoretical basis to make sense of them. In many ways, the post-industrial, increasingly post-modern Western Liberalism is akin to Quantum Mechanics and the Islamic tradition is more akin to Newtonian Physics; and so when the two of us attempt to talk, we're speaking completely different languages and it really creates a massive barrier.

[ Edited to comply with copyright laws. ]

He is a Sufi, so its wise not to take knowledge from them, may Allah rectify our deeds, Ameen

OP here. I just want to publish a section from Hamza Yusuf Hanson's lecture here because it's the most fascinating part. Yusuf speaks of Arnold Toynbee, who he said predicted the problem with zealots in Islam back in 1947!! Toynbee explained in 1947 why the world has zealots today. Yusuf uses this to lay the groundwork for WHY we must have Islamic reform!
-------
Yusuf: "I would like to honour a graduate of Oxford and an Oxford don who I really like, and that is the great Arnold Toynbee. Arnold Toynbee studied at Balliol College (and I'm speaking about Arnold J. Toynbee, not the great economist of the 19th century who also has that same name). Arnold Toynbee wrote an essay in 1947 called - he wrote a series of essays in a book called Civilisation On Trial'.

One of the things that he said in th at book*[4] is that when civilisations are confronted with challenges, they tend to respond in different ways and their responses will determine their success or their failures; but he said one of the common characteristics of a civilisation when they're under great stress is to find what he called 'bug-bears' - people to blame for their problems - and he mentions now the capitalist west, it uses communism: he said "in the divided world of 1947, communism and capitalism are each performing this insidious office for one another. Whenever things go awry in circumstances that seem ever more intractable, we tend to accuse the enemy of having sewn tears in our field and thereby implicitly excuse ourselves for the faults of our own husbandry. This is of course an old story; centuries before communism was heard of, our ancestors found their bug-bear in Islam. As lately as the 16th century, Islam inspired the same hysteria in western hearts as communism in the 20th century.''

It's very interesting in this same essay he actually argues that Islam is also going to become a problem again and he address what is very fascinating to me; the fact that Islam *[5] is 'up against the wall' these of the western civilisation, and because it's up against the wall it responds in one of two ways. He calls one of the responses 'herodianism' and the other 'zealotism.' Herodianism, he said is mimicry; it's attempting to find the secret of the people that have conquered you and to become like them: this is the Japanese response to the post-world war situation, where the Japanese now have better Rock and Roll than the Americans! They can imitate Elvis Presley - even their Prime Minister when he came to America, he wanted to go to Graceland! That was the first place that he asked George Bush to go to and he actually did go and visit because apparently he is a great fan of Elvis. They have some of the finest classical musicians... This is very common for conquered peoples to imitate those who have conquered them. This is why Native Americans are often the last people to wear cowboy clothes; literally wearing the Levis and the cow - they will embellish it with traditional beads and things but this is something that happens.

But he says that the other response is 'zealotism', which is an attempt to fall back on the past in this rigid nostalgic structure and he identifies three places*[6] where he feels that this will be the biggest problem for the west in dealing with the Muslims: Saudi-Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen; and it's quite stunning that he did this in 1947, and I would attribute that to the Oxford education! (laughing)"
- See more at: http://sheikhhamza.com/transcript/Rethinking-Reform#sthash.eNnYi1WD.dpuf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to engage anyone, just not islamophobes. And whether you can identify me is irrelevant, isn't it, since I (and many) do not wish to engage with you. The minute we see posters who recycle old arguments, who are combative, blame all of Islam on the actions or belief of extremists, we all know its you or your few friends.

I have never posted threads about islam before your islamophobic rants, and I have been on DCUM a long time. Suffices to say your agenda inspired me to start threads to give people a chance to ask questions so that I can negate the misleading info you continually publish about Islam.

So I guess I should thank you.

There is no "we". You think there is, but there isn't. You are positioning yourself as someone who isn't able to stand up to challenges, and it doesn't do any good to your cause.

Here is part of the "we":

Anonymous
"These threads have descended to petty backbiting and circular arguments. Time for them to end."

Did you read this? There are others who are asking you guys to just stop. JUST. STOP. This thread was informative for me, that is, until you started with your combative posts in an attempt to save face because you got called out for having an agenda. Again. Please take Jeff's advice and stop being so combative. This is the last post you will receive from me and I hope no one else will engage you ( except of course your two friends).

And for the last time, no one is trying to convert anyone. No one has ulterior motives. We use discussion to understand, to clarify, to find common ground eventually. Paranoid much?

Done.

Oh my. That was my post you just quoted, and I'm also 12:06--a post that criticizes your behavior here. I'm not 12:57, though, who is a different poster who thinks you often behave badly. A few days ago I did suggest the moderator lock these threads, because of the aforementioned circular arguments and insults.

IMO you need to take a big share of the responsibility for many of the circular arguments, every time you start another new thread on an issue you lost (read, you started calling other posters names) on an older thread. Every time you slam someone for quoting shariah and then you yourself quite sharia on another subject. Every time you slip something into a new thread about "equal rights for women" and then we all have to rehash earlier arguments until you say that you meant "equal justice" all along. And so on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to engage anyone, just not islamophobes. And whether you can identify me is irrelevant, isn't it, since I (and many) do not wish to engage with you. The minute we see posters who recycle old arguments, who are combative, blame all of Islam on the actions or belief of extremists, we all know its you or your few friends.

I have never posted threads about islam before your islamophobic rants, and I have been on DCUM a long time. Suffices to say your agenda inspired me to start threads to give people a chance to ask questions so that I can negate the misleading info you continually publish about Islam.

So I guess I should thank you.

There is no "we". You think there is, but there isn't. You are positioning yourself as someone who isn't able to stand up to challenges, and it doesn't do any good to your cause.

Here is part of the "we":

Anonymous
"These threads have descended to petty backbiting and circular arguments. Time for them to end."

Did you read this? There are others who are asking you guys to just stop. JUST. STOP. This thread was informative for me, that is, until you started with your combative posts in an attempt to save face because you got called out for having an agenda. Again. Please take Jeff's advice and stop being so combative. This is the last post you will receive from me and I hope no one else will engage you ( except of course your two friends).

And for the last time, no one is trying to convert anyone. No one has ulterior motives. We use discussion to understand, to clarify, to find common ground eventually. Paranoid much?

Done.

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to engage anyone, just not islamophobes. And whether you can identify me is irrelevant, isn't it, since I (and many) do not wish to engage with you. The minute we see posters who recycle old arguments, who are combative, blame all of Islam on the actions or belief of extremists, we all know its you or your few friends.

I have never posted threads about islam before your islamophobic rants, and I have been on DCUM a long time. Suffices to say your agenda inspired me to start threads to give people a chance to ask questions so that I can negate the misleading info you continually publish about Islam.

So I guess I should thank you.

There is no "we". You think there is, but there isn't. You are positioning yourself as someone who isn't able to stand up to challenges, and it doesn't do any good to your cause.

These threads have descended to petty backbiting and circular arguments. Time for them to end.

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to engage anyone, just not islamophobes. And whether you can identify me is irrelevant, isn't it, since I (and many) do not wish to engage with you. The minute we see posters who recycle old arguments, who are combative, blame all of Islam on the actions or belief of extremists, we all know its you or your few friends.

I have never posted threads about islam before your islamophobic rants, and I have been on DCUM a long time. Suffices to say your agenda inspired me to start threads to give people a chance to ask questions so that I can negate the misleading info you continually publish about Islam.

So I guess I should thank you.

Thank me if you want, although I'm not sure you win any converts when you call anybody with questions or opposing views an "Islamophobe." I'm not 21:29, nor did I start the thread about the fanatical imam. You are talking to multiple people here.

I am happy to engage anyone, just not islamophobes. And whether you can identify me is irrelevant, isn't it, since I (and many) do not wish to engage with you. The minute we see posters who recycle old arguments, who are combative, blame all of Islam on the actions or belief of extremists, we all know its you or your few friends.

I have never posted threads about islam before your islamophobic rants, and I have been on DCUM a long time. Suffices to say your agenda inspired me to start threads to give people a chance to ask questions so that I can negate the misleading info you continually publish about Islam.

So I guess I should thank you.