I love you, Hassan, and I love this idea and want to see it gain momentum. The more I think about this, the more I realize that there is not going to be One Response that will have to take root in order to challenge literal interpretations. Instead, it will require multiple ones.
For those drawn to Islamism as a political ideology, I think the work of Maajid Nawaz, Qulliam, and the like will be key in having those ideas challenged and refuted.
For those drawn to Islam’s theological truth claims, which then become a gateway into literalism and (in some case) violent interpretations, the work of Ex-Muslims and the sorts of videos and articles you were instrumental in creating will continue to prove essential.
For those interested in Islam from the standpoint of a spiritual or social identity, an identity often preyed upon by extremists, I think the Agnostic Muslim movement provides some really great insight and incentive and offers a needed alternative.
And of course, there’s no need to draw clear lines of distinction between these efforts, either. That would be a mistake. Plurality of opinion and thought is what is needed, as diverse sets of individuals will find what works best for them in different ways.
These are just my random thoughts as I think through my own relationship with Islam.
I’d noticed several weeks ago a post by Maajid Nawaz addressed to his “anti-theist” friends in which he questioned in what alternate reality Muslims would end up apostatizing en masse. The quote rubbed me the wrong way for a moment, because I thought of how equally unlikely it would be for Muslims to suddenly reinterpret Islam en masse because someone else told them to do so.
But then I realized, getting “Muslims” to do anything, especially en masse, should never be the goal. Instead, we should all be honest and open about what works for us, and why. As more people share those ideas and experiences, the worst ideas will find themselves challenged and endangered. That’s a huge part of the reason I’m excited to see the reception you’ve been getting.
And, one more random thought on this quote:
“The Qur’an is not the speech of God, just as the loaf of bread is not the work of the farmer. God produced the raw material, which was inspiration, just as the farmer produces the raw material, which is wheat. But it is the baker who turns the wheat or flour into bread according to his own unique way, artistic expertise and creative ability. Thus it is the Prophet who was responsible for interpreting the inspiration and turning it into actual phrases and words according to his own unique view.”The only problem that I see with this analogy is that in it the baker never emphatically claims – with the threat of eternal torture and damnation for his doubters – that he was
actually the one who also grew and produced the wheat. If he did, we’d have to spend a great deal of time at least calling the baker’s integrity (or sanity) into question. Then we could say, “yeah, he was either crazy or lying some of the time, but he sure made some pretty damn good bread when he put his mind to it.”
Topic: My Article in the Guardian