From Egypt's leader, an ambitious call for reform in Islam (U-T San Diego)

[pinto]

From Egypt's leader, an ambitious call for reform in Islam
By Sarah El Deeb and Lee Keath, Associated Press, 10 p.m. Jan. 7, 2015

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's president opened the new year with a dramatic call for a "revolution" in Islam to reform interpretations of the faith entrenched for hundreds of years, which he said have made the Muslim world a source of "destruction" and pitted it against the rest of the world.

The speech was Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi's boldest effort yet to position himself as a modernizer of Islam. His professed goal is to purge the religion of extremist ideas of intolerance and violence that fuel groups like al-Qaida and the Islamic State — and that appear to have motivated Wednesday's attack in Paris on a French satirical newspaper that killed 12 people.

But those looking for the "Muslim Martin Luther" bringing a radical Reformation of Islam may be overreaching — and making a false comparison to begin with. El-Sissi is clearly seeking to impose change through the state, using government religious institutions like the 1,000-year-old al-Azhar, one of the most eminent centers of Sunni Muslim thought and teaching.

Al-Azhar's vision for change, however, is piecemeal, and conservative, focusing on messaging and outreach but wary of addressing deeper and more controversial issues.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/07/from-egypts-leader-an-ambitious-call-for-reform/

[cbayer]

1. This was briefly discussed a few days ago, before the Paris incident.

IMO, he is definitely calling for the marginalization of the extremist and not so much for a revolution. It is more about getting back to the basics and elevating that which is good in Islam.

But, as always, he also has his own political agenda and he wants a religious leadership that supports him.

Slippery slope, as always.

[pinto]

3. Yeah, agree on both points. A call for return to main stream Islam and a political dance, of sorts.

Convoluted picture, overall. I always find it hard to get "who's who" in mid-east scenarios, though I'm sure the nuance is clear for many locally.

[cbayer]

5. I also have trouble with the "who's who" in the middle east, but

I am continuing to learn. With a son in law from Pakistan, my interest has become more personal.

[trotsky]

2. As long as a harmful doctrine can be found in a religion's teachings,

that religion has the potential to be dangerous. Thankfully, very few Christians think that homosexuals should be executed. But some do. And they can base that on the bible. Being homosexual WILL get you executed in some Muslim countries, and that is based on teachings found in the Koran.

If we aren't allowed to criticize religion or say that certain religious ideas are wrong, but instead just encourage people to please ignore the bad parts, how do we expect things to really change?

[oneview]

4. Here's a translation of the relevant part of the speech:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.
All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

Pretty hard-hitting. I highlighted a few key words. I think "texts" is particularly key. Sisi here seems to be admitting quite correctly, I think, that if Islam is more violent than many other religions today, it is because those commands for politico-religious military action/violence are found directly in the texts of Islam, both the Koran and the Hadiths.

This IS the reason Islam is more violent -- it's not because Muslims themselves are more violent than non-Muslims, and it's not because Muslims have been somehow uniquely negligent in not pacifying their own religion compared to say Christians or Jews, it's because it's in the foundational texts.

Now WHY is it there? I think it comes down to the accidents of birth: Christianity, rising in a province of a united and powerful Roman Empire, and Islam, rising in the nomadic anarchy of 6th century Arabia, by necessity had to develop differently if they were to survive and prosper.

[cbayer]

6. Thanks for the transcript and your thoughts on this.

I see your point but I'm not sure I read it the same way. I think he is talking about the thinking of some, extremists in particular, that is corrupting the religion. I think he is trying to protect the texts by saying they have been misused by some to justify extremist, violent jihad on the rest of the world.

I think you make the same mistake that he is trying to stop from happening. You are taking the position that Islam is more violent instead of recognizing that the violence comes from a small subset that are interpreting the texts in a way that is not shared by the vast majority of muslims.

[trotsky]

7. But the problem here that you refuse to see...

is that their interpretation of those texts is just as valid as anyone else's. You yourself encourage this difficulty, repeatedly announcing that no one can say someone else's religious beliefs are wrong unless they can PROVE they are wrong.