Everyone - especially politicians - should watch this Lateline interview...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/television/an-atheist-and-muslim-call-on-all-muslims-to-help-reform-islam-so-it-is-more-modern-not-used-for-evil/story-fni0cc2c-1227586147786

This was brilliant. A really smart presentation of this subject.

It's rare, but it is possible.

Without a doubt, IS opposes everything the West has fought for and won. IS actually stones women to death for adultery, and it makes the father throw the first stone. As Harris argues, there is nothing good in a society like this. It doesn't value happiness or human life.

In IS, armed teenagers patrol the streets to ensure women have no visible flesh - even their faces. Saudi Arabia bans women from driving. Theft is punished by amputating hands.

I'm not sure how people who hold such views should be engaged, but it would seem that we now have values to defend.

Perhaps Russia can save us from IS or at least from it spreading.

Suadi Arabia keep their human rights atrocities within their own borders, which is a good thing. Their women will step up one day when they find a way to empower themselves, the same as the Afghani women. The west can't help them, they have to help themselves.

This is what is wrong with religious thinking, it can be used to justify virtually any behaviour

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

Perhaps Russia can save us from IS or at least from it spreading. Suadi Arabia keep their human rights atrocities within their own borders, which is a good thing. Their women will step up one day when they find a way to empower themselves, the same as the Afghani women. The west can't help them, they have to help themselves.

Hard to empower yourself against the secret police and the Taliban, Pansi. The only way women can empower themselves in Saudi Arabia is by doing what they're told.

I wonder what the penalty for female unlicensed driving in Saudi Arabia is. A kid's being beheaded and dismembered for being at a street protest, so I can't imagine you'd get off with a warning. 

Kytro wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

This is what is wrong with religious thinking, it can be used to justify virtually any behaviour

They did make that point. I'd say it's not religious thinking, but dogmatic thinking.

Look at what posters here can justify without much religious belief at all:

Ban them.
Cesterete them.
Burn them.
Kill them.
Carpetbomb them.
Nuke them.

Religious or spiritual thinking teaches the exact opposite - with no qualifications:

Love them.
Help them.
Give to them.
Forgive them.

Indeed a great interview.

A full transcript can be found here ...
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4341076.htm

Karnal wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 3:46pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:37pm: Perhaps Russia can save us from IS or at least from it spreading. Suadi Arabia keep their human rights atrocities within their own borders, which is a good thing. Their women will step up one day when they find a way to empower themselves, the same as the Afghani women. The west can't help them, they have to help themselves. Hard to empower yourself against the secret police and the Taliban, Pansi. The only way women can empower themselves in Saudi Arabia is by doing what they're told. I wonder what the penalty for female unlicensed driving in Saudi Arabia is. A kid's being beheaded and dismembered for being at a street protest, so I can't imagine you'd get off with a warning.

However, outside influence is no help either to majority of the women either as we have learned from the past.  The whole region is just going to plunge into lawlessness and warlord factions.  And unfortunately, at these times, women would have even less rights. 

Read somewhere Saudi will be bankrupt in 5 years. Less money for Islamic extremists if that happens.

Karnal wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm: This is what is wrong with religious thinking, it can be used to justify virtually any behaviour They did make that point. I'd say it's not religious thinking, but dogmatic thinking. Look at what posters here can justify without much religious belief at all: Ban them. Cesterete them. Burn them. Kill them. Carpetbomb them. Nuke them. Religious or spiritual thinking teaches the exact opposite - with no qualifications: Love them. Help them. Give to them. Forgive them.

What religious or spiritual teaching doesn't say is
Let them come in and take over

Soren wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 5:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:53pm: Kytro wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm: This is what is wrong with religious thinking, it can be used to justify virtually any behaviour They did make that point. I'd say it's not religious thinking, but dogmatic thinking. Look at what posters here can justify without much religious belief at all: Ban them. Cesterete them. Burn them. Kill them. Carpetbomb them. Nuke them. Religious or spiritual thinking teaches the exact opposite - with no qualifications: Love them. Help them. Give to them. Forgive them. What religious or spiritual teaching doesn't say is Let them come in and take over

I see. Are you trying to take over, old boy?

If you don’t mind me saying, it might help if science discovers  way to bring you back to life first.

Soren wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 5:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:53pm: Kytro wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm: This is what is wrong with religious thinking, it can be used to justify virtually any behaviour They did make that point. I'd say it's not religious thinking, but dogmatic thinking. Look at what posters here can justify without much religious belief at all: Ban them. Cesterete them. Burn them. Kill them. Carpetbomb them. Nuke them. Religious or spiritual thinking teaches the exact opposite - with no qualifications: Love them. Help them. Give to them. Forgive them. What religious or spiritual teaching doesn't say is Let them come in and take over

Luke 10:25-37

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Karnal wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm: This is what is wrong with religious thinking, it can be used to justify virtually any behaviour They did make that point. I'd say it's not religious thinking, but dogmatic thinking. Look at what posters here can justify without much religious belief at all: Ban them. Cesterete them. Burn them. Kill them. Carpetbomb them. Nuke them. Religious or spiritual thinking teaches the exact opposite - with no qualifications: Love them. Help them. Give to them. Forgive them.

Religious beliefs are an example of that type of thinking. The beliefs may be harmful or not, but they were created via process that isn't rational.

Yes, Tickle, but you’ll find Sore End doesn’t think Jesus really meant all that. It’s just a standard to aspire to, or in this case don’t.

In practice, Sore End wants us to be just like ISIS, but without the beards. Religion needs to be ignored when it comes to all the nice parts (the hard parts). It’s real value is enshrining lots of laws, bans and punishments.

If you don’t obey those laws,, no problem, try harder next time. If someone else doesn’t obey them, they need to be banned, killed, and carpetbombed.

We’ve had this discussion many times. It is a jolly world, no?

Clearly, IS is now an issue that we do need to take heed of and that we most certainly do need to address.

However, the harsher reality is that we are not learning the most important lesson out of this, we need to stop being part of interference in other countries domestics... Whether that be economically, politically or militarily...

It is also laughable to say the least the "refugee crisis" that the world apparently has to address with harsh and extreme measures - that is laughable because we were very much instrumental in helping to create these refugees...

So, when we get the "boots on the ground" for the big fight, we need to accept that some (hopefully not many) of our sons and daughters may well die, dealing with IS... Further, that will create further issues for the citizens living where the "big fight" finally occurs - I already know that the majority of people will not be able to make the link from that to the next wave of refugees... But be prepared, they will come...

"If you build it they will come" might have worked in a movie, but the reality is more like, if you blow it up and destroy it they will come...

The Bible says a man can be punished for working on the Sabbath and that touching pig skin makes one unclean. Numerous references to killing people for various crimes. But the Church has moved on and modernise in keeping with the times. Islam is still stuck in the middle ages.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

The Bible says a man can be punished for working on the Sabbath and that touching pig skin makes one unclean. Numerous references to killing people for various crimes. But the Church has moved on and modernise in keeping with the times. Islam is still stuck in the middle ages.

Islamism is stuck in the middle ages, it’s true. Check out your OP.

I watched the debate overnight.

Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris are working from a false premise, imo.

The false premise,        that an overwhelming majority of moslems in the world can [somehow!!!] be persuaded to abandon the 'essential' and absolutely core doctrines of their faith.         ....I refer specifically to 'essential' and absolutely core doctrines of ISLAM,       .....which are underpinned by the utter respect within every moslem community for the life and person of Mohammed, and underpinned  by the utter respect within every moslem community for, and belief in, the absolute inerrancy of the Koran.

Respect and reverence for Mohammed, within every moslem community, is unassailable!

e.g.
"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [i.e. Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.021

And, we see THE essential and absolutely core doctrine of ISLAM, being wholeheartedly endorsed by Mohammed [abhorrence and death, for apostasy].....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260


And there exists another implied false premise,      that somehow, an overwhelming majority of 'reformed' moslems could somehow be able to reign in, the remaining small minority of 'extremist' moslems and prevent them from undertaking acts of political violence.

They won't.

They would be unable to accomplish or enforce, such a 'prohibition'.




Further;
Maajid Nawaz self-declares as a moslem.

So what part of the Koran can Maajid Nawaz reject, and remain a moslem ?

As a moslem does Maajid Nawaz revere Mohammed [as every moslem must] ?




But coming back to the task of the reform of mainstream ISLAM, worldwide;

QUESTION;
Who has the means and ability, AND THE RESPECT OF THE WHOLE MOSLEM COMMUNITY, to achieve such an undertaking ?

n.b.
What Sam Harris is willing to openly CONCEDE; "..i'm under no illusions that i or anyone else is going to convince 1.6 billion moslems to become atheists."            goto 01 min 08 sec

A War of Ideas: Maajid Nawaz & Sam Harris discuss the future of tolerance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wE2jHf3RKk                              266 mb


Sam Harris actually states and concedes what an unacheivable task his camp wishes to embark upon; "....the challenge really, is to find moderating voices [within the moslem camp].....where we can have, a real spirit of secularism and liberalism within the moslem community."            goto 01 min 21 sec

Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are deluded fantasists, imo.



.



PROPOSITION;
Lets assume that the task [the wholesale reform of mainstream ISLAM] was somehow achieved.

And that there were say, a tiny, tiny minority, say only 1 % of moslems, that remained unconvinced and decided to 'stand apart' from the reformers.         That would mean that would still leave an estimated 16 million 'hard core', 'extremist' moslems worldwide, who would remain committed to murdering infidels - in 'the cause of Allah' and in the cause of his perfect religion.        That is, an estimated 16 million 'hard core', 'extremist' moslems worldwide, would remain 'free' to pursue their political 'ambitions' through 'righteous' political violence !
n.b.      There were only 19 [only    n i n e t e e n  !!!] hard core 'extremist' moslems, who took part, in the attacks on 9/11.

And if the task [a wholesale reform of mainstream ISLAM] was somehow achieved and there remained only 1 % 'extremist' moslems that remained unconvinced and therefore they that remained committed to their 'extremist' modality, how could we identify who they were [seeing as we know, that Jihadists routinely will seek to protect their intent from detection, through the employment of lying and deceit and denial] ?

Think again, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris.



'Innovation',     ...is the English language word which devout moslems today have co-opted, in their narrative to describe and to denounce the idea of the reform of ISLAM.

Google;
innovation is haram



If reform of ISLAM is impossible,       and, reform of mainstream ISLAM is impossible!!

What realistic alternative is there ?

I see only two possible outcomes/options/paths open to mankind today, with regard to its relationship with ISLAM.

SEPARATION of the 'camps' [i.e. absolutely separate development and 'quarantining' of the moslem world, from the non-moslem world].

or,

CONFLICT.       ....and it will be a protracted conflict which will result in the utter destruction of everything which the non-moslem world has come to cherish.




QUESTION;
Which of those two paths will we, mankind, take ?

The second path.

100%

Fascinating interview.

Maajid is right to talk about the 'Voldermort effect' of leftists and muslims not wanting to talk about Islamism. But to be honest I feel uncomfortable with his general narrative - always eager to flog the dangerous Islam/Islamism meme, while seemingly reluctant to bring up the other side of the coin - western aggression and alienation amongst muslims that fuels Islamism. One should never leave out the entire context here.

In all honesty I was moved by Harris's bemouning of nihlist Islamist ideology that concludes that there is literally no slaughter that can ever be bad - if you kill bad people its what Allah wanted, but if you kill good people, they have an express ticket to paradise, so of course you are doing them a favour. It creates a world, in Harris's words, that literally has no other purpose than to be destroyed.

The take-home message, which no doubt the knuckleheads missed, is that we have an ideology that absolutely can and should be countered by muslims, on Islamic theological grounds. Both the muslim and the atheist agreed unambiguously with this. And of course this is the point that will continue to be lost on the knuckleheads, who in reality are only interested in proving how unreformable Islam is. Which is a completely self-defeating position as Harris himself said - you aren't going to convince 1.5 billion people to suddenly become atheist (or adopt another religion). And I wish Maajid especially would talk about this more - he loves to point out how the 'regressive left' enable and legitimise the Islamists, but in fact its very much the case that the right in the west *ALSO* enables and legitimises the Islamists - by constantly insisting they have the correct interpretation of Islam, and constantly mocking and deligitimising the muslims who reject the Islamist ideology.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 30^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Fascinating interview. Maajid is right to talk about the 'Voldermort effect' of leftists and muslims not wanting to talk about Islamism. But to be honest I feel uncomfortable with his general narrative - always eager to flog the dangerous Islam/Islamism meme, while seemingly reluctant to bring up the other side of the coin - western aggression and alienation amongst muslims that fuels Islamism. One should never leave out the entire context here. In all honesty I was moved by Harris's bemouning of nihlist Islamist ideology that concludes that there is literally no slaughter that can ever be bad - if you kill bad people its what Allah wanted, but if you kill good people, they have an express ticket to paradise, so of course you are doing them a favour. It creates a world, in Harris's words, that literally has no other purpose than to be destroyed. The take-home message, which no doubt the knuckleheads missed, is that we have an ideology that absolutely can and should be countered by muslims, on Islamic theological grounds. Both the muslim and the atheist agreed unambiguously with this. And of course this is the point that will continue to be lost on the knuckleheads, who in reality are only interested in proving how unreformable Islam is. Which is a completely self-defeating position as Harris himself said - you aren't going to convince 1.5 billion people to suddenly become atheist (or adopt another religion). And I wish Maajid especially would talk about this more - he loves to point out how the 'regressive left' enable and legitimise the Islamists, but in fact its very much the case that the right in the west *ALSO* enables and legitimises the Islamists - by constantly insisting they have the correct interpretation of Islam, and constantly mocking and deligitimising the muslims who reject the Islamist ideology.

Very true. Yes, the West has some responsibility here, but we're dealing with an ideology that, in practice, stones people to death.

This problem is not just IS, it's Saudi Arabia. Enabling the Saudis has given this ideology huge support. Given the position of Saudi Arabia on top of all that oil, I'm not sure how the US could change tack. At present, however, the State Department, the White House and the entire US empire supports the Saudis 100%. There is no criticism of human rights violations whatsoever. They all get along famously.

Presumably, the Saudis have enough dirt on the US to make such moralizing useless. The Saudi torture cells are most likely to be a popular destination for enemies of the US, as is Pakistan - as was Egypt under Mubarak. We have first hand evidence of these destinations, along with the supervision of the CIA. Hicks and Habib both passed through these places.

The US have no right to preach to the Middle East and Central Asia, and they know it. It does, however, have the ability to influence moderates in these regions and work together.

Karnal wrote on Oct 30^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

....... ....... Presumably, the Saudis have enough dirt on the US to make such moralizing useless. The Saudi torture cells are most likely to be a popular destination for enemies of the US, as is Pakistan - as was Egypt under Mubarak. We have first hand evidence of these destinations, along with the supervision of the CIA. Hicks and Habib both passed through these places. The US have no right to preach to the Middle East and Central Asia, and they know it. It does, however, have the ability to influence moderates in these regions and work together.

moderates, K ?


Moderate ducks ?

Or moderate chickens ?




Google;
Anjem Choudary, no radical, no "moderate muslim"

Google;
Anjem Choudary, no radical ISLAM

Google;
Anjem Choudary, no radical ISLAM, either muslim, or not muslim





Google;
we reject Western notions of "moderate Islam"

Google;
muslims urged to reject Western term, of a "moderate Islam"

Google;
it is time to end to the charade of "moderate Islam"


Yadda comment, on that last Google 'pitch';

ABSOLUTELY!




.





Quote:

"[a respected moslem community spokesman has] called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam... ...[moslems in Australia were told] that democracy is "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law. "We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone," Mr Hanif [said]"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html





.




n.b.
2004 - A UK moslem community leader, speaking 12 months before the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

Attack on London 'inevitable' April 19, 2004 "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082326119414.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true





.




Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Karnal wrote on Oct 30^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

Very true. Yes, the West has some responsibility here, but we're dealing with an ideology that, in practice, stones people to death.

The number of ISIS militants raping and pillaging as FD would put it numbers some 10s of thousands. The actual hardcore 'died in the wool' fair dinkum Islamists would in reality be a fairly small fraction of even this relatively small number. Yet they rule over a population running well into the millions. We are talking about just ordinary people in a crappy place at a crappy time, who want desperately just to lead something resembling a normal life and provide safety and security for their children. This is the context of the spread of ISIS. It is not an ideological issue, it is a safety and security issue. Just like the Afghanis who submitted to taliban rule, these people don't submit to ISIS because they adhere to their ideology - they submit to them because that gives them the best prospect of not getting beheaded or stoned on the one hand, or tortured and killed by ISIS's enemies on the other. In summary, the people that seem to be enabling and supporting ISIS cannot possibly be expected to make any sort of moral or ideological stance against them while ever ISIS exists within such a hopeless security vacuum.


Karnal wrote on Oct 30^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

This problem is not just IS, it's Saudi Arabia. Enabling the Saudis has given this ideology huge support. Given the position of Saudi Arabia on top of all that oil, I'm not sure how the US could change tack. At present, however, the State Department, the White House and the entire US empire supports the Saudis 100%. There is no criticism of human rights violations whatsoever. They all get along famously.

While not defending the American apologetics of Saudi human rights abuses, it would be far easier to undermine the Saudi regime on human rights grounds if there was an alternative that was even slightly better. But there isn't. Literally the only alternative to the current Saudi regime is guys like ISIS - that is what Saudi political opposition looks like - political groups that are even more extreme than the house of Saud. It also goes some way in explaining the abuses of the regime - in truth there are (relative) progressives within the regime, but they have their hands tied, and any progressive reform must be done slowly and with the greatest of tact. That driving ban for women, by the way, has all but been overturned now.

Good. It would seem there is some progress happening in Saudi Arabia. They’ll be tested over the kid they’re trying to "crucify", which everyone around the world (apart from the US) has begged them to spare.

The Saudis are a strangely cosmopolitan bunch. They’re largely educated in the Oxbridge or Ivy League universities. They spend years living and partying in London or New York before they settle down and become Medieval Wahabists.

How the Saudis can sustain such hypocrisy is beyond most Muslims I’ve met. They have p!ss-ups and sex parties on their yachts while they fund expensive charities in Mecca. They bet millions on camel races with indentured child jockeys from Bangladesh while they lecture the rest of the Muslim world on how to be pious and hardline.

Forget the TV evangelists in the Deep South, the Saudis have to be the world’s number one hypocrites.

Oh just more muslim mindless babble ::)

As you all were.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 29^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

Perhaps Russia can save us from IS or at least from it spreading.

Iraq and Syria are just a couple of wars that are meant to be sustained rather than ended.

The US has been doing this since Vietnam.

That's why the Russians have been so effective they want to end it and quickly.


Quote:

Suadi Arabia keep their human rights atrocities within their own borders, which is a good thing. Their women will step up one day when they find a way to empower themselves, the same as the Afghani women. The west can't help them, they have to help themselves.

How do you know they need saving....????

Ajax wrote on Oct 30^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 29th, 2015 at 3:37pm: Perhaps Russia can save us from IS or at least from it spreading. Iraq and Syria are just a couple of wars that are meant to be sustained rather than ended. The US has been doing this since Vietnam. That's why the Russians have been so effective they want to end it and quickly.

Russia is also not without it's own agenda.
So long as Assad remains in power and maintains his stance of blocking proposed alternative gas pipelines through Syria, Turkey and on to Europe. Russia gets to keep it's monopoly on supplying piped gas to Europe via Ukraine.

I'm sure America's Military Industrial Complex benefits from the conflict and there is also the possibility that Zionists in Israel desire destabilization and depopulating of the area to facilitate the implementation of their Greater Israel plan.
Added to this is the old Sunni vs Shia power play between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The ordinary people of Iraq and Syria are being put under the bus because of these power plays and now Europe is facing social turmoil and greater risk from Islamist based terrorism due to the influx of refugees.  

It's a nasty business with many layers of desired outcomes.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815    

Yadda wrote on Oct 30^th, 2015 at 10:51am:

I watched the debate overnight. Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris are working from a false premise, imo. The false premise,        that an overwhelming majority of moslems in the world can [somehow!!!] be persuaded to abandon the 'essential' and absolutely core doctrines of their faith. .... .... Sam Harris actually states and concedes what an unacheivable task his camp wishes to embark upon; "....the challenge really, is to find moderating voices [within the moslem camp].....where we can have, a real spirit of secularism and liberalism within the moslem community."            goto 01 min 21 sec Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are deluded fantasists, imo.

Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir decries ‘forced Muslim assimilation’
    November 01, 2015
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/islamist-group-hizb-ut-tahrir-decries-forced-muslim-assimilation/story-e6frg6n6-1227589920579


Quote:

Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar told the conference the Australian government “claims to afford freedom, but seeks to impose values and beliefs” on Muslims. Muslims were expected to not just be gracious about Australian values, but publicly promote them, Mr Badar said. This imposition of secular western values was reflected in the oath when taking out citizenship, Mr Badar said, with new citizens required to pledge allegiance to Australia “whose democratic beliefs I share”. “It’s not enough that you obey the law, no, you have to adopt our values,” Mr Badar told the conference. ..... ..... “If you don’t share those values, why should they be forced to sing it?” Mr Badar said. ..... ..... Mr Badar said the campaign by government and agencies against radicalisation was actually a smokescreen to “make Muslims less Islamic”. ..... ..... Government efforts to promote what it bills as a moderate form of Islam might on occasion “buy out some Imam”, Mr Badar said, but overall, “the attempt to reform Islam is doomed to failure.” The conference heard a series of members of the Muslim community, some by prerecorded audiovisual clips and some live from the floor — deliver testimonials of what they claimed was oppressive behaviour by officials against them as Muslims, at airports, in police raids, and in high security prisons.

I agree with Mr Badar.

.....the bit about; "doomed to failure".



Q.
Why do i believe that ?

A.
Every moslem, is a moslem.


Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.




.




PROPOSITION;
If a thinking person like OzPol's gandalf, can't 'reason out' [for himself] that ISLAM is evil,     .....and worthy of denouncing and abandoning,      .....what chance is there for moslems [OR ANYONE ELSE], to be able to successfully reform ISLAM in this 21st century age ??????


QUESTION;
Can't you see, can't you 'reason it out',       .....that OzPol's gandalf,       .....and Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar, are of 'the same mind' ?

--------- >


Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1444453452/3#3

Quote:

gandalf, considers it offensive, for me to expect him to acknowledge the inherent failings [of logic] of ISLAM, and the inherent evil of ISLAM,        .....and my expectation, for him [consequently] to choose to abandon ISLAM. But that isn't going to happen. People like gandalf are not going to abandon ISLAM. They have become enthralled, by ISLAM. Dictionary; enthral = = 1  capture the fascinated attention of. 2  enslave. ISLAM is a death trap, for the human psyche, imo. But, the moslem psyche seems enthralled, by what ISLAM is.