Thanks, also, to Juli B., who provides more about the thinking at the highest levels of Catholicism.

With such decentralization, it appears to me that in order to fight radical Islam you have to target the radical imams and the sources of money, which are at the heart of it all. It wouldn’t be easy. But nothing really worthwhile is ever easy.

The Qu’ran was dictated, not inspired. Mormons had it a little easier in that there was one acknowledged authority. But Islam, while frequently compared to Catholicism, is more like Protestantism with its decentralized approach. Can any one imam start the reform? Doubtful.

Anyway, some links and quotes:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_provides_new_public_grammar_for_reform_of_islam_says_george_weigel/

http://www.wnd.com/2006/01/34456/

Fessio said that at the Castel-gondolfo meeting, Benedict was replying to Fr. Christian Troll, an expert on Islam in Europe, who asserted that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Quran is reinterpreted. This can be done, the priest said, by going back to Islam’s original principles and “then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course.”

Describing Benedict’s response, Fessio said: “And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that, because, he said, in the Islamic tradition God has given his word to Muhammad, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Muhammad’s word.”

Samir said the pope sees a meeting between Islam and democracy as possible, but “on the condition of a radical reinterpretation of the Quran and of the very conception of divine revelation.”

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/02/render-unto-atatuumlrk-48

First, if the Quran is the prefect word of Allah, how come the authentic version can only be published in Arabic?”

No language is perfectly translatable. Thus, translating the Qur’an into say, Farsi would unavoidably introduce differences between Qur’ans written in different languages.

“Islamic scholars are busy interpreting and telling the faithful what various parts of the Quran mean. So, does that not mean that the texts are not as plain and clear as you seem to believe?”

To some extent that’s true. When a Iranian Mullah explains a religious point to another Iranian he will most likely explain in Farsi. Even if in Arabic, unless he’s quoting, an Imam will put the point in his own words, at least to some extent. The basic tenets of Islam however are clear and unequivocal. There is a remarkable degree of unanimity in the Islamic world regarding Islamic tenets.

I’m familiar with Zhudi Jasser and he is most definitely a cafeteria Muslim. The proof of that assertion is NOT that his focus is strictly upon the Mohammad’s early, peaceful Median passages. Rather it is because he never mentions much less rebuts the later, violent Meccan passages.

After Mohammad was rejected in Medina, he had what is commonly called a psychotic break and turned homicidal. Thus there is an inherent contradiction between Mohammad’s early peaceful pronouncements and the bulk of his rabidly violent assertions.

By long established and universally accepted theological jurisprudence, Muslims resolved this conundrum by accepting that whatever Mohammad last said on a subject supersedes anything he said earlier that is contradictory.

In remaining silent on a highly relevant subject, Jasser is engaged in either willful denial or Taquiyya. In either case he is NOT being intellectually honest.

Actually, polls demonstrate that cafeteria Muslims currently make up the majority of American Muslims. It’s not a case of me or you judging them, it’s a case of self definition. In refusing to acknowledge their own religion’s tenets and refusing to follow them they declare their own disconnection from what they purport to believe.

It’s like someone who claims to be a Christian but denies that Jesus ever lived but if he did, then he was just a philosopher. Philosophically, that’s a perfectly valid personal opinion. But by no stretch is it then valid to claim to be a Christian.

“Cannot Muslims also be convinced to reinterpret some of their tenets if it leads to less violence and a more peaceful life for them?”

Certainly some Muslims can but after 1400 years, there must be a concrete reason why reform has never occured and, there is such a reason, Mohammad’s claim makes revision of the Qur’an theologically impossible.

“You may be right that Islam cannot reform. If so, does that not mean that the only way to eliminate the threat from radical Islam is through eradication of all Muslims?”

Reason and logic applied to Islam’s fundamental theological tenets declares that the view I promulgate is logically consistent and valid. I have yet to hear or read of one.

I do wish another alternative explanation existed. IMO, God already tried sending another prophet to Muslims, the Bahai faith’s ‘Baha’ullah’ but he was rejected by Muslims because his message directly contradicts Islam’s tenets.

I do not believe that all Muslims should or could be eradicated. I also do not believe it necessary. The ideology of Islam can be eradicated however, though of course it would take a century or more of consistent actions by the west. Not only unlikely but impossible with the current western left.

The most direct, immediate and effective actions we could take would be to, first establish energy independence so as to stop America’s funding of Islamic terrorism.

WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists

“Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states’ failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba”

And secondly, end all Muslim immigration into the US with strict deportation procedures for any Muslims who commit a felony or are found to be engaged in activities supportive of Islamic terrorism, including cultural and financial support.

Of course, the political will doesn’t exist for effectively responding to the threat. Perhaps after we lose a few cities to nuclear terrorist attacks.

First, if the Quran is the prefect word of Allah, how come the authentic version can only be published in Arabic? Any reasonable person would want to know. One of the things that led to the reform of Christianity was the printing press, which made the Bible available to many, reducing the clergy’s monopoly on the texts. The Bible has been printed in very conceivable language and is available to anyone who can read. Yet Christianity is not a monolithic faith.

No Quranic scholar I, but I do know that Islamic scholars are busy interpreting and telling the faithful what various parts of the Quran mean. So, does that not mean that the texts are not as plain and clear as you seem to believe? The form of Islam that the jihadis follow is Wahhabism as interpreted by Sayyid Qutb. He reinterpreted the Quran and though accepted by many, not all Islamic scholars accept his interpretation. How do we account for those well educated Muslims who reject Qutb’s belief in political Islam? One example of which is Zhudi Jasser. For which see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuhdi_Jasser#Views_on_Islam

You will claim that Jasser is not a real Muslim. But who is qualified to make that interpretation? I have known (Not closely, but more than a passing acquaintance.) two Muslims who were moderate Muslims. Or as you would describe them, Cafeteria Muslims. It is not my place to tell them, they aren’t real Muslims. My guess is that they make a up a minority of Muslims, but, that they exist at all, indicates that Islam is not the implacable monolithic faith that you describe.

Remember the Book of Mormon was dictated by an Archangel as well. Yet, the Mormon Church has reinterpreted some of the tenets of their faith. Admittedly, they did so at the point of a gun. Cannot Muslims also be convinced to reinterpret some of their tenets if it leads to less violence and a more peaceful life for them?

You may be right that Islam cannot reform. If so, does that not mean that the only way to eliminate the threat from radical Islam is through eradication of all Muslims?

The acknowledged interpretive resistance of Christianity’s tenets and the theological immovability of Islam’s tenets are not analogous. There is no agreement among Christians as to the literal truth of the Bible. There is universal agreement among Muslims as to Mohammad’s central claim; that he is not the Qur’an’s author.

Muhammad repeatedly and consistently stated that he merely took dictation. That Allah sent the arch-angel Gabriel to him and Gabriel dictated Allah’s exact words to Mohammad. Making sure that Mohammad got it exactly right and as archangels don’t make mistakes, the Qur’an is a perfect replication of Allah’s words.

Thus mankind cannot change even a comma, for to revise the Qur’an or ‘interpret’ it in anything but a literal manner is to set man’s understanding above Allah’s and that, no mere man may do. It’s the equivalent of suggesting that we could revise the Ten Commandments and then pretend that the new ‘revised’ Ten Commandments were equally as valid.

In making this extraordinary claim, Mohammad demands utter faith in his veracity, for if his most basic claim is rejected, in that we necessarily declare that the Qur’an is NOT Allah’s direct words, absolutely necessary to reform Islam’s violent and misogynistic tenets, then we implicitly declare that Mohammad is either a liar or deluded. In either case Islam’s theological foundations collapse. For if Mohammad got something as basic as the Qur’an’s authorship wrong, what else did he screw up?

One of the contests here previously was over whether to believe Snowden’s background remarks or not concerning US soldier perspectives on Arabs or Iraqis.

That thread should provide some illuminating evidence of current and previous attitudes on the subject.