as both the book and the council of ex-muslims sound somewhat anti islam could you recommend for balance any book written by a believer but which takes a moderate stance?
There aren't any
balanced books written by believers (What you are asking for is like asking a Christian to write a balanced book about This post will be deleted if not edited immediately - a balanced book about This post will be deleted if not edited immediately would find the idea that he was divine to be unlikely at best, which would preclude the possibility that the writer was Christian).
There are
moderate stances though, if that is what you are looking for. The links I gave are the best for balance - cultural Muslims are the only ones who can give you proper balanced perspective. Here is an excellent
blog by a British ex Islamic teacher, if what you are looking for is something highly sympathetic to Muslims yet balanced .
If you do want to read a
moderate reinterpretation, http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216564927&sr=8-6 (Karen Armstrong) is the most commonly used. Warning: Karen Armstrong writes complete nonsense.(
Valid criticism of Karen Armstrong's work in this link )
If you are looking for people attempting to create moderate versions of Islam, there are reformists such as , http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Fundamentalism-Political-Islam-Disorder/dp/0520236904/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216564150&sr=8-1 (Bassam Tibi),
Irshad Manji
Muqtedar Khan is excellent, Irshad Manji is too ridiculously liberal to be respected by Muslims but liked by Westerners for reinforcing their own world view.
The programme was very informative. C4 will probably repeat it on E4/C4 or More 4 over the coming weeks. Lots of info on the website also - [broken link removed]
The program was quite good but did not touch on the the main objections to (mainstream Sunni and Shia) Islam and its effect on society: most importantly, the fact that non-Muslims are not free to practice their religion and that ex-Muslims must be killed.
They were also economical with the truth in many areas:
e.g. Female Genital Mutilation - they had a liberal Egyptian woman say "it is not in the Qur'an", which is true. However FGM is supported by
Sunni Hadith - which help inform Sharia.
The strict interpretation of FGM in the major schools of Sunni Islam is that it is legal and luke-warmly recommended (or even required), and that it is illegal for an Islamic state to ban FGM.
What struck me was the different interpretation of the Qu'ran given by Islamic scholars compared to Imams, especially those in Iran and Saudi. For example, one scholar said suicide is forbidden by the Qu'ran no matter what, but an Imam said its ok if its the only weapon they have left.
Firstly you are comparing Shia (Iran) and Sunni Wahhabi (Saudi) Islam - which is like comparing the Catholic Church to Baptists. Also one of the biggest problems with Islam is its lack of central authority - it resembles Christians in the US more than the Catholic Church in that respect and makes reform difficult.
Suicide is completely forbidden in all sects and schools of Islam. There are some interesting cultural results of this in Islamic countries (e.g. a tendency to "suicide by cop"). Suicide attacks are justified (in Sunni and Shia theology) as being Martyrdom attacks (
Shahid)- which are completely permissible. The only question is whether the given situation constitutes Jihad or not, which is required for someone to become a true Shahid. Martyrdom attacks also must be undertaken for the benefit of Islam not for the individual martyr (as Shahideen are guaranteed access to heaven) - i.e. one must not simply throw down one's weapons and run at the infidels - hence the Imam's pronouncement.