An actually progressive Muslim

If you aren’t sure what to think about Syrian refugees, or if you think you are sure, listen to this. Anil Zonneveld is still a very active progressive Muslim. She explains the varieties of Muslim beliefs and cultures and how they mix with politics. We get a very narrow view of this world via our media here in the US.
Ani Zonneveld interview]

The sound went off about halfway thru, but it is worth listening to anyway. Ani is the same person interviewed in the link you gave under the topic “Inspiring Young People”. I think that everyone who wants to discuss the negative aspects of Islam, should listen to the progressive Muslims who wish to counter the horrible impact of Wahhabi type interpretations.
Especially in the interview linked in the other thread, she makes logical points, that seem to me to have internal validity within Islamic theology, about the need to get rid of Sharia Law and the hadith, and to abide by the progressive values espoused in the Quran. I say that this seems to me to have internal validity, because the Quran is supposedly the direct word from Allah, and is supposedly his perfect message. Sharia Law arose, and its myriad of variations down thru the years, only after Muhammad’s death. The Hadith (stories about Muhammad’s actions and words) a significant amount of time after Muhammad, also. In fact some of the Hadith is thought to be fabrications that were/are used to support certain practices of Sharia or to otherwise impose control. Supposedly, Islamic scholars are relied on to ascertain the legitimacy of different ascriptions of the Hadith. But Ani makes the logical, internally valid point that none of this should be held, by Muslims, on par with what is in the Quran.
So Ani pretty much vilifies Wahhabism and its source, Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi sort of interpretation of Islam is embodied in the doctrines of Daesh (in all its permutations). This Arabic Wahhabi influence, according to Ani is gaining some ground in Malaysia, which is typically thought of a model Muslim society that is not, yet, fully corrupted by the worst interpretations and anti-humanistic practices of “Islam”.
So it is imperative that progressive models of Islam gain ground to counter the versions of Islam that are bringing horror to the world. There are other progressive Muslims. I recall seeing a couple of different ones, interviewed by Bill Maher. These folks are literally defying death at the hands of Daesh types. Again, I say that they should be considered heroes.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/video/1.686604
Watch this video of Bill Maher interview of Asra Nomani, a progressive Muslim.

Thanks TimB, I haven’t heard that name. I also had the sound cut out for a couple minutes, so it’s definitely something in the vid.

Thanks TimB, I haven't heard that name. I also had the sound cut out for a couple minutes, so it's definitely something in the vid.
http://www.spreaker.com/user/lifeaftergod/013-interview-with-ani-zonneveld I'd like to keep this thread going until more people actually take the time to listen to this interview.

I heard the L.A.G. podcast first. I’ve been following Ryan Bell since The Friendly Atheist first promoted his “Year Without God” blog. Ryan is one of a handful of atheists who really knows his religion stuff. He is not the best interviewer ever, but maybe that will improve. What he is doing is attracting religious people who are at the very fringes, and not the ones that are about to de-convert, but the ones who are firm in their belief but are calling for reform on a scale I’ve never seen.
The highlight of this interview is when Ani says, “we don’t give a hoot” what your belief is, we are a repressed minority within a repressed minority and we need all the partners we can get. This is very different than a Christian organization that says, we allow for a variety of beliefs and if you want to come help at our soup kitchen or whatever, we’ll let you.

Here is something that most people tend to be ignorant of, but which represents a potentially very powerful, existing alternative and rather progressive version of Islam:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/25/mystical_power/?page=full

Here’s a funny conservative that Sam Harris just introduced me to] via his podcast. That podcast is 2 hours, so I thought I’d find something shorter. I’ve heard this debate before, but I might revisit it now that I know more about this guy, Douglas Murray, and one of the progressive Muslim, Majid Nawaz.
Murray points out here that conservative Muslims do not do these types of public debates with intelligent people. Most likely because they don’t want to look like idiots.

Here's a funny conservative that Sam Harris just introduced me to] via his podcast. That podcast is 2 hours, so I thought I'd find something shorter. I've heard this debate before, but I might revisit it now that I know more about this guy, Douglas Murray, and one of the progressive Muslim, Majid Nawaz. Murray points out here that conservative Muslims do not do these types of public debates with intelligent people. Most likely because they don't want to look like idiots.
I hadn't heard of Douglas Murray before. He seems awfully smart, and accurate in his analyses. I would not want to have to debate him.

Here’s the full debate that the above speech from Douglas Murray came from.]
It is the most informative atheist vs theist debate I’ve ever seen. It really doesn’t matter who wins, it’s more about how it informs. Knowing a little about each of the panelists helps, but try watching it with the thought that each of them has something to offer. Zeba is the youngest and stays kinda quiet, but Maajid Nawaz really lays into some of the BS that comes from the atheists (Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali). I’ve read Ayaan’s book, so I know where she is coming from, but she cherry picks the bad stuff, then says Zeba can’t cherry pick the good stuff. Zeba wasn’t really ready for that and Ayaan shouts her down. There’s a point where Nawaz tries to cover a few decades of history, but it just doesn’t fit in a debate. There’s so much in here that someone could spend hours researching just one or two minutes out of this debate.
The first 45 minutes or so is a little slow and sometimes argumentative, but it really takes off at that point, and a couple of the questions are good too.