the extremists (I won't call them Jihadis) have their own set of doctrinal justifications for the killing of innocents. You may say they are wrong, or not Islamic. Personally, I would like you to be right. But the extremists do not accept you as an authority. They have their own Imams whom they agree with, who will interpret the Q'uran the way they want. The Q'uran teaches self-defense, at the very least. They believe that suicide attacks on crowded markets are, in some way, self defense. Innocent bystanders killed by their bombs and hijackings will be granted entrance to Paradise, just like martyrs, and what could possibly be wrong with that?

In this way do they settle the matter amongst themselves. I'm oversimplifying, of course. But there is a whole extremist slew of theological excuses for suicide attacks and attacks on civilians.

So are you right, or are they right? What is "more Islamic"?

I'm afraid this question can't be answered religiously, that any attempt to do so will be futile, and it will be settled the way all things are settled in this (let's face it) godless world--with guns, political manuevering, and money. That said I don't think it should be Western guns, political interference, or money, although my wishes won't make it so.

So, Lexsali, what are you doing to make sure your "truly Islamic" point of view prevails, not among us--we don't matter--but among your hardcore brethern? Have you given them this little speech? Have you stood up and given it in your local masajid.....that is, if women are allowed in the same room as the men?

When you give money to a Muslim charity, do you vett its philosophy to make sure your money is not going to an "Islamic charity" that is preaching fundamentalism in the daycare? When your masajid collects money for charitable purposes, do they do this?

The fundamentalists are doing a lot of Da'wa work--what are you doing?

You're preaching to atheist Westerners on an internet forum. How useful.

Do you go on Muslim blogs and post these viewpoints? Or are you a little too aware of the reaction you'd get?

Or is it enough to live in your bubble in the U.S. and pretend to non-Muslims that you represent the real face of Islam?

While hiding this face the minute you encounter other Muslims....

Many questions, Lexsali, many questions. I knew many insistent "progressive", "secular", Muslims but very few were consistent and honest enough to actually confront the fundamentalists in their communities. Mostly they deferred to them publicly.

Of course I know you are not like that. You are the voice of the real Islam; I am sure you are challenging your local masajid, standing up for the abused wives in your community, objecting when the Imam leads the prayers and prays for Kashmiri and Chechen terrorists and asks Allah's blessing on them and at the same time calls for the destruction of Israel; why I'm sure you jump right up and shout "That's not right!"

Don't you?

Once again comes to the defence of the status quo.

What a surprise.

But yeah, it's real "science".

Do you perhaps read Rebecca Mead?

She writes basically from this same standpoint. Love her work.

you are correct and like you say you have an uphill battle in your communities because of political repression if nothing else.

However, in my critique to Lexsali I presented a concern that some Muslims were presenting one face to angry Westereners, but another in their community which was not nearly so critical.

Do you think anti-Muslim bigotry from outsiders plays some role in ensuring that Muslims in the U.S. bury their differences for the sake of self-preservation? Or is this an inevitable manifestation of the concept of Ummah? Do you think this is a good thing?

If either is the case how do moderates or reformers make their case without seeming like traitors?

These are good faith questions, really. Americans of course are never going to be attacked and overcome by Islamic fundies, so that shouldn't be a fear. But we can see already the implications within the Muslim community; Sufi beliefs and traditions getting trampled by Wahabis or Deobandis being but one famous example.

Just wondering how moderates envision reform taking place--if they are really envisioning it how do they bring it about?

Because right now, really, I almost feel like it's a publicity or talking point, for all the reform you see in the masajids. Most moderates seem to express their moderation by simply staying away (you don't; is this common where you live?).

I think that's leaving the field open to the fundies, but that's just my opinion.

Really these are good faith questions

Good to see you again...where's Golden Boy? Ah for the good old days when you guys would wrestle it to the mat for 400 posts....

anyway, 30% of Palestinians are Christians, so I am baffled by how you say they have no interest in what Israel is doing. Holy cow.

Iraq used to have a sizable minority of Christians too (now almost gone) and they didn't become suicide bombers either.

And no, there is no vitriolic anti Western rhetoric coming from the Hindu priesthood, there just isn't.

And you know very well I am not arguing that one religion is better than another, so please retire that one trick pony of just saying they are all bad. We know that.

If there's any justice, he'll get one.

Thanks for your answer :)

your idea isn't really borne out by the historical reality, when the Arab peninsula (Saudi today) was not so important and the rest of the mideast had a great deal of variety (Christians, Jews, Orthodox, Druze, Parsees, etc.) in religious and ethnic terms.

I mean, look at Iraq, presently being torn apart along ethnic lines. Those feuding factions were people who were living there in some semblance of peace before. For centuries.