Memo to "Ibn Rushd"
I appreciate the comment, but would like to respond here, since I don't like doing so on the publication site. I don't know why, just don't. Here's my response:
This article has two “nut graphs” that deliver two main purposes: First, the analogies are presented because folks in the West do not understand their own traditions in which violence is done or called for. Hence, the fake halos: “I mention this because regrettably analogies of this kind are now a requirement, given the puerile handling of Muslim affairs, the pompous bloviations of media ‘experts,’ and a public seemingly sedated by its own sense of perfection.” It’s an attempt to expand the way people understand new things. It is not a legal argument, although the link between apostasy (ridda) and treason (khiyana) has been made way back in history. Second, this article does not address reform per se, but psychology. When it’s healthy, amazingly difficult things become repairable. Our dilemma is not about sharia (sacred law), but about courage and psychological sovereignty. But that’s impossible when this happens: “There's hardly anything more dangerous than the mixture of religion with simplemindedness, or any people-moving philosophies mixed with the loss of intellectualism and critical thinking. Somehow the spiritual equation has been inversed.”
So reform and the fear of advocating it are irrelevant points to raise with regard to this article.