Federal Asia wrote:Resilient Acceleration wrote:My point is that a society tolerant of each other's religion doesn't necessarily mean toleration for everyone. That is, moderate Islam is not a hippie liberal belief, but it is more desireable–and far more realistic–than the alternative. In an ideal world, everyone would be equally protected, but in terms of nation-building based on existing cultures and belief, having no laws that criminalizes homosexuality is already pushing it. Further liberalization is possible, but it won't be abrupt, definitely not in the next 10 years.
Moderate Islam can still be hostile towards Christianity though, while Sufism, even if it can be considered "extreme" on Western standards, is the most Christian-friendly form of Islam even if it doesn't support secularism as a matter of principle.
Again, we're talking different things here, you are talking about liberalization, I'm talking about improving Christian-Muslim relations.
Improving Christian-Muslim relation inevitably requires liberalization, and that needs an effective and realistic solution that can be accepted on a mass scale, preferrably with examples of succesful widespread implementation. The point of Islamic moderation is to shift the Overton window to a place conducive enough for a multireligious society to function. The more hardline a society is, the more likely they will conduct religious pogroms, sectarian riots, and the harder it is to fix. It is no wonder that the father of modern Indonesian secularism, who pretty much healed the sectarian civil wars on the outer isles, is a highly religious moderate cleric of all people.