Dear Dr Ng,

I have a few comments.

1. I think we should not try to show which religion is more superior or who is right. To dialog is to form mutual understanding. Find common grounds, so that we can work towards some common goods.

2. In order for Christian to engage in public debate effective, we must be well equiped with both theological knowledge and knowledge of the issue concerned. The complexity of public issues such as education policies, economic policies and cultural policies often require specialise training just to understand them. Take for example the Muslim’s attitude that you write about above. Your atticle is already very comprehensive, yet I think the issue is much more complex than what you have explained. Issues about convertion out of Islam for example involve issues such as Malay identity, Ploitical and economic dominance and power, and not just a theological issue. What is absence among churches today is a awareness of a system to train chrian leaders of such quality. This leads to my next point.

3. Christians trained at the higher level in social sciencesare are much needed. However, job opportunities and scholarships are very few in this areas. Should the Church do something about it? I thnik the church can at least set up a foundation to offer promising young christian leaders scholarship to support their study at post-grad level.

4. Christian-Muslim coorperation is possible. The relationship between Christians and the Cape Muslims is South Afrrica is a good example.

Above are my hamble comments.

From a young Christian who have struggled for many year to engage in society.

However, I have also come across statements he made elsewhere which clearly sounded rather hard-line and radical. Much like the one above about ‘going to Palestine to sacrifice himself..”.

Such statements clearly seem to contradict the sentiments behind his statements on ‘letting Muslims leave Islam freely.”

Your five-point Questions are precisely what Muslims ought to be asking themselves and thinking seriously about, at ALL LEVELS.

Only then, can they be able and prepared to engage in a meaningful and productive dialogue (and I mean productive for BOTH SIDES), with the Christians and other non-Muslims with relevance in this day and age!

Thanks for spelling out the criteria for BOTH the Christians’ side and now, the Muslims’ side, clearly and practically for us. So that we truly can pursue an intelligent dialogue amongst ourselves with empathy and socio – economic relevance. And which is not merely window-dressing.

Keep those insights coming!

Blessings in Christ, Ibn Khaldun.

While welcoming Tamimi’s voice of moderation reported in the Sun, I also want to take note of what he says elsewhere. In his interview with Tim Sebastian (BBC HARDTalk Nov 2, 2004) he says, “For us Moslems martyrdom is not the end of things but the beginning of the most wonderful of things.” Tamimi added, “If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?â€?

I think the context of Tamimi’s interview relates to his support for suicide bombers from Hamas targeting Israeli civilians. Tamimi’s statement doesn’t seem right since he fails to make a distinction between suicide bombers who destroy military targets and suicide bombers who indiscriminately kill innocent civilians (often-times women and children) in trains and marketplaces. The former group may be granted medals for their heroism and sacrifice. But surely, the latter group only deserves moral condemnation.

Taking into account Tamimi’s speeches elsewhere, I am sad to say that he does not belong to the group of moderate Muslim scholars I have in mind

Nevertheless, it would be simplistic to judge any Muslim scholar based merely on his stand towards indiscriminate suicide bombing. I think we should rely on the fundamental criterion regarding the scholar’s willingness to come to terms with the modern project of pluralist democracy. The following questions may be useful in evaluating potential dialog partners.

1) Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of any religion including Islam?
2) Do Muslims have anything to learn from other religions?
3) Do you accept pluralist democracy where non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?
4) Should Muslims accept civil laws (meaning laws that are not partisan towards any particular religion like Shariah?) as the means to adjudicate conflicts that involve both Muslims and non-Muslims?
5) Is violent jihad towards non-Muslims living in Darul Harb (House of War) in contrast to Darul Islam a form of warfare acceptable in today’s world?

Many thanks for your courageous and very pertinent and relevant elucidations above!

Yes, it is time for the whole world to hear what the ‘other’ ulamas have to say – those uncontrolled by the traditionalists who are forced to unwaveringly follow ‘taqlid’ in opposition to what is typically and routinely accused as ‘ijtihad’.

I, too feel that the only way forward for success and progress in Islam is to try applying the earlier Meccan surahs – as opposed to the later Madinan ones which supposedly have ‘abrogated them’.

What do you think of this report in the open press about Dr.Azzam Tamimi :

http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=16178

Is this considered ‘innovation’ by the traditionalists, or can it become a true sliver of hope for those who want to ‘exit the faith’? Is it similar to applying the earlier surahs in a changed situation?

Thank you and His blessings be with you! Ibn Khaldun.