I agree. The thing is, we can do all that, and *still* persuade people that if they must believe, then more moderate beliefs are best.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
If one has abandoned logic and believes in fairy tales, what logic can we use in favor of more peaceful fairy tales? If they want peaceful myths, they're already peaceful. Why delude people by promoting lies? There's no need for superstition. Let's not take part in spreading it.
4 replies 9 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @ArminNavabi
We don't have to spread superstition. But it's going to take a while to reason people out of religion, and in that time many people will suffer more FGM, child marriage, terrorism. Why not seek to end these practices now by supporting moderates *while* we work on the bigger plan?
2 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
If we promote Islamic reform, we're promoting Islam, we're promoting superstition. We can support Muslims fighting for secularism, gay rights, woman rights & democracy without giving Islam undeserved credit. Give those Muslims the credit. Not everything a Muslim does is Islam.
9 replies 21 retweets 42 likes -
Replying to @ArminNavabi
I'm not suggesting we promote Islam. By supporting Islamic reform, what I mean is that we should initially focus our attacks on the targets of reform, the worst sects like Wahhabism, and the worst aspects like FGM, and as we beat these back, we can move onto more moderate aspects
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Wahhabism is a conclusion based on false premises. Applying logic to faulty premises will get you random & false conclusions. We can't steer people to logical conclusions with baseless premises. We can work with Muslims for our values without giving Islam credit for their work.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @ArminNavabi
We don't have to support any illogical premises. All we have to do is attack the most horrific conclusions first, in order to spare people of the suffering they cause, while we begin the long and arduous process of dismantling the premises.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
The horrific conclusions are logical conclusions based on the premises. If we are to fight those conclusions, we have to either ask them to question the premises or not think logically. But without the use of logic, what are we going to use to convince anyone of our values?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ArminNavabi
We can support rational arguments of reformers, such as the assertion that Muhammad was not infallible, without agreeing with them on anything else. Once a Muslim accepts that Muhammad was not infallible, it's a lot easier to convince him that the Qur'an is a load of shit.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
We can support any rational arguments Muslim reformers or any other Muslims make. What makes it “Islamic” reform is any suggestion that the Quran or Muhammad's life can be viewed as a suitable moral guide. Denying baseless claims does not stop us from acknowledging good ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Exactly. This is all I'm advocating. Not all reform is scriptural. There is reason too (aql, isnad, ijtihad, etc). We don't have to agree with reformers on all, but we have an opportunity to utilize their *rational* arguments to help promote more free-thinking within the Ummah.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I agree. We don’t have to agree on everything to support common goals. We can reject Islamic reform and anything else Islamic yet work with Muslim reformers or any other Muslims. Not all reform is scriptural that’s why I reject the Islamic part of Islamic reform.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.