Why can’t Islam apologize? (Role of reason in Islam is...)

....By going to the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute, anyone can peruse the almost daily splenetic vituperations against Jews and Christians that appear in the Muslim media.

Does anyone anywhere in the Muslim world ever apologize for any of these statements? If not, why not? [snip]

The lop-sidedness is the result of several things. First of all, Islam is a faith of supersession, which considers all prior revelations inferior and faulty. In the Qur’an, Jews are cursed forever. In Muslim eschatology, Christ returns at the end of time to break the cross. Second of all, and most importantly, Islam does not recognize freedom of conscience, which is why it does not acknowledge freedom of religion. As the pioneering scholar of Islam, Ignaz Goldziher, pointed out many years ago, there was not even a word for conscience in Arabic. (The word damir is used for this purpose today, though it does not literally mean conscience.)

If one does not have a conception of freedom of conscience, which is entirely absent from mainstream Sunni Islam, one cannot very well hold in high regard the choices others have made for other religions – much less allow one of your own to convert. This is not to suggest that Islam is without a moral sense, but merely to say that its moral sense is derived solely from its own revelation, and not at all from reason. The principle of Islamic jurisprudence is: “reason is not a legislator.”

In other words, mainstream Sunni Islam does not regard reason as a legitimate basis upon which to discern morality or to choose religion. Mohammed al-Ghazali (1058-1111 AD), considered by many Muslims to be next only to Mohammed in importance, said that reason can only know self-interest. He also advised that "the mind, which, once it testifies to the truthfulness of the prophet, must cease to act." If reason cannot independently know right from wrong, how could it be trusted to know true religion from false? Integrity of reason is essential to freedom of conscience. Without it, conscience means nothing – which is why so many Muslims view conversion from Islam as, necessarily, an act of perversion which should be punished.

The inviolability of conscience has as its ultimate source the idea of man as created in the image and likeness of God. That image includes reason's ability to come to know the truth and of the will’s capacity to choose it freely. In Islam, it is blasphemous to say that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, the notion of inalienable rights is alien to it.

Ultimately, respect for other religions is not based on the content of those religions, as those who hold one religion must of necessity consider the others false or wanting in some way. It is based upon respect for human beings in so far as they possess inalienable rights, especially freedom of conscience. This understanding helps us to appreciate why, within Islam, the denigration of other religions is standard fare, and why it would not naturally occur to many Muslims that this would be a problem. And that, in itself, is a problem with which we must come to grips by something other than our own apologies.

Robert R. Reilly is a member of the board of the Middle East Media Research Institute and the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind.

This is the same question Pope Benedict XVI addressed in his famous Regensburg Lecture in 2006: is there an element of "reason" within Islam, which would serve as a basis for mutual respect (not universal acceptance of others' beliefs, but respect for others as persons)?

Is there any faction within Islam --- any school of thought, any historic or present spokesman, any saint, maverick or sect --- who would endorse reason as a fundamental value?

“....Islam and why it cannot co-exist with other religions.”

.
Most common folks seem to start understanding this except for our congresscritters.

The question of islam should become part of every politician’s platform when running for office.

You cannot expect every politician to love his country, but they should at least think of the welfare of their children. Or is even that too much to ask of them?

I emphasize that personally I see a difference between Muslim and Islamist.

The principle of Islamic jurisprudence is: “reason is not a legislator.” . . . mainstream Sunni Islam does not regard reason as a legitimate basis upon which to discern morality. . . reason can only know self-interest . . . "the mind, which, once it testifies to the truthfulness of the prophet, must cease to act."

Islamists have used a centuries-old practice to accomplihs this; to wit,

Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels studies the effects of Islamist inbreeding:

"If there are two things that characterize Islamic culture, they are terrorism and inbreeding. The latest research shows that these two things might be closely connected . . . First cousin marriages have been the tradition in many Muslim families for innumerable generations. Such marriages increase the risk of negative mental and physical consequences . . . Risk of mental retardation increases with 400 percent (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 “Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation”). Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from blood related parents and that abilities related to social behavior and empathy develops slower in inbred babies (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 “Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children” [pdf]). Such facts might make several pieces fall into place for many people . . . People with low intelligence (because of inbreeding) might also be easier to brainwash with fundamentalist Islam. "

My emphasis.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.