Even if there was no ISIS, Al Qaeda and its like, or Taliban or the backward practices of the Pakistan honor killing, child brides and women wearing chador and not seen in public, etc., the question of what Islam should be today or what can it be today is still a topical question.
Ross Duhat in the New York Times yesterday raised some interesting aspects of this question. He says that the West looks as Islam as a religion rooted in conquest and violent jihad (not just a fight for the mind - jihad as a struggle and not as violence; but one where death to apostates, like Dueteronomy is also in the Quran). I ask, can Islam tolerate plurality? Can it embrace other theologies (the Quran in Surah 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion; though don't tell that to the Taliban or ISIS). Can Islam be interpreted to the modern values and mores? Maybe Chief and others can weigh in here.
This is where the question becomes fundamental in my mind. Is religious belief (set in ancient times) unchangable in one interpretation, and whose interpretation? Ross Duhat posits that for Islam to change Muslims must be at home with the liberal democratic west, but it cannot become something else entirely. Being at home in the liberal west means you believe in the immutability of Islam and behave just like conservative Christians. Being something else means Islam's irrelevance.
Ross Duhat opines that both of these play in the hands of ISIS. It's like damned if you do and damned if you don't. Am I a Muslim if I do not pray 5 times a day and attend masjid only at Eid? Am I still a Muslim if I drink socially and attend parties?
There are those who believe that Islam in the modern times can exist somewhere in between these two worlds. Most of GNI folks say the same thing but articulate it in ways that drive Muslims to defend some caricature of Islam. And I speak of the likes of caribny and baseman. Kzaazzz sometimes fall into their trap.
Which space does Islam lie? Please keep this space clean!