{"id":64455,"date":"2026-10-19T18:53:43","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T16:53:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/?p=64455"},"modified":"2026-10-19T18:53:45","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T16:53:45","slug":"the-muslims-fighting-for-the-enlightenment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/the-muslims-fighting-for-the-enlightenment\/","title":{"rendered":"Les musulmans qui luttent pour l\u2019\u00c9veil"},"content":{"rendered":"

Across the Muslim world and the West, writers, theologians, feminists and dissidents are challenging an ancient question with new urgency: can Islam coexist fully with freedom of conscience, equality between the sexes, secular law and the individual’s right to question God? Their answer could shape the future far beyond Islam itself.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a battle taking place within Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not being fought principally with armies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is being fought with books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With reinterpretations of scripture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With women walking through the front doors of mosques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With Muslims defending the right of other Muslims to become Christians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With believers insisting that faith imposed by the state is not faith at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With intellectuals asking whether laws formulated for societies more than a thousand years ago must necessarily govern every aspect of human existence today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And sometimes it is fought by a solitary individual sitting before a computer and typing something that his government, his clerics or even his family believe should never be said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These people do not constitute a single movement. Some are devout Muslims. Some are cultural Muslims. Some describe themselves as reformers. Others reject that description altogether. Some believe Islam already contains the philosophical foundations of liberty. Others believe substantial reinterpretation is necessary. And some began their journey as Muslim reformers only eventually to leave Islam altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They disagree with one another profoundly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But they share an extraordinary proposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No religion should need coercion in order to survive.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That proposition sounds unremarkable in modern London, Paris or New York.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elsewhere, it can be revolutionary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And occasionally dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Reformation That Has Already Begun<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Western observers frequently ask when Islam will experience its Reformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question is understandable but historically imperfect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christianity’s Reformation did not simply produce tolerance and liberalism. It produced religious wars, persecution and competing orthodoxies before the European Enlightenment, constitutional development and centuries of political struggle gradually established modern ideas of freedom of conscience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islam need not reproduce Europe’s history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor is there any single Islamic authority capable of convening a council and announcing that Islam has now been reformed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islam is decentralised. Its intellectual traditions are enormous. Its societies stretch from Senegal to Indonesia, from Bosnia to Bangladesh. The Islam of a Moroccan Sufi, an Iranian Shia scholar, a Saudi Salafist and a British Muslim professional may differ enormously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The interesting question is therefore not whether Islam can have a<\/em> Reformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is whether a new intellectual settlement can emerge in which religion remains sacred to the believer while losing its power to coerce the unbeliever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That argument is already taking place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scholars have been debating the possibilities of \u201cliberal Islam\u201d for decades, including whether its roots should be sought in modern Western liberalism or recovered from neglected currents within Islamic intellectual history itself. The medieval philosopher Ibn Rushd\u2014Averro\u00ebs to Christian Europe\u2014frequently appears in that conversation as evidence that rationalist possibilities have long existed within Islamic civilisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the argument is no longer merely academic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It concerns apostasy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blasphemy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women’s rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Religious minorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Homosexuality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authority of clerics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relationship between mosque and state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And perhaps above all, the ownership of the human conscience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mustafa Akyol and the Muslim Case for Liberty<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the most interesting contemporary voices is the Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Akyol does not argue that Muslims must abandon Islam in order to embrace liberty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He attempts something considerably more challenging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He argues for liberty from within Islam<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His project addresses some of the most difficult questions directly: apostasy, blasphemy, political freedom, women’s rights and religious coercion. In 2026 he edited No Compulsion in Religion\u2014No Exceptions: Islamic Arguments for Religious Freedom<\/em>, explicitly returning to the Qur’anic principle that there should be no compulsion in religion and asking what taking that principle seriously would mean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That word\u2014no exceptions<\/em>\u2014is crucial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Mustafa Akyol<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Religious liberty is comparatively easy to defend when it protects one’s own religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real test arrives when it protects the person who rejects it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a Christian has the right to become Muslim, must a Muslim have the right to become Christian?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If an atheist has the right to embrace Islam, must a Muslim have the right to become an atheist?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Muslims may criticise Christianity, may Christians criticise Islam?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

May Muslims themselves criticise the Qur’an, the hadith or the religious establishment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the answers differ according to the direction in which conversion or criticism travels, then what is being defended is not freedom of religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is religious privilege.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Akyol’s answer is to look for what he calls the \u201cseeds of freedom\u201d within Islamic tradition itself. His latest work remains strikingly current: in July 2026 an Urdu edition of his Why, As a Muslim, I Defend Liberty<\/em> was launched in Pakistan\u2014a country where arguments about blasphemy and religious freedom carry consequences far beyond university seminar rooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is precisely why his project matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He is not asking Westerners to tolerate Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He is asking Muslims to rediscover a theological argument for tolerating freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Woman Who Walked Through the Front Door<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there is Asra Nomani.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her revolution began with something astonishingly simple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A door.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After returning to the United States, Nomani challenged practices at her West Virginia mosque that required women to enter separately and pray away from the principal male congregation. In 2003 she began openly confronting those restrictions; two years later she helped organise a highly controversial woman-led mixed-gender Muslim prayer in New York.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her demands were expressed through an Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in Mosques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women, she argued, should be able to enter through the main door.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women should participate fully in congregational life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Asra Nomani<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Women should be able to address the congregation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women should hold leadership positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And women should receive the same dignity and respect accorded to men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read from twenty-first-century Europe, these demands may sound modest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They were not regarded as modest by everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nomani received threats. One particularly chilling threat described how she would be killed if she did not remain silent and extended the threat to her parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the importance of Nomani’s argument lies not merely in feminism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It lies in authority<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who owns Islam?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cleric?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scholar?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The father?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The state?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The community?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or does the individual Muslim possess the right to read, interpret, question and ultimately decide?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every religious reformation eventually arrives at this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the moment individuals acquire the right to interpret their religion, they also acquire the possibility of disagreeing with those who claim authority over it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And disagreement is the beginning of intellectual liberty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Reading Becomes Dangerous<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Few lives demonstrate the danger of interpretation more dramatically than that of the Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abu Zayd approached the Qur’an through hermeneutics\u2014the philosophy and methodology of interpretation. He argued for historical contextualisation and distinguished between revelation itself and the enormous human enterprise subsequently constructed around interpreting it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That distinction is explosive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If every historical interpretation of scripture is itself treated as sacred, reform becomes almost impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if divine revelation and human interpretation are not identical, then jurisprudence becomes open to reconsideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd (1943-2010)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Abu Zayd’s scholarship challenged established religious assumptions. The consequences moved far beyond academic debate. His work became embroiled in an infamous legal controversy in Egypt; he was declared an apostate by a court and ultimately left the country for Europe. His subsequent scholarship continued to argue for reading the Qur’an within its historical and linguistic contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His story illustrates something essential about enlightenment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It begins with permission to interpret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The moment a society declares certain conclusions untouchable, scholarship becomes obedience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The moment questions themselves become dangerous, theology becomes policing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Blogger and the Lash<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes the struggle is even simpler.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Raif Badawi created an online forum in Saudi Arabia intended to encourage discussion of religious and political questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For that, he paid an extraordinary price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Raif Badawi<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Saudi authorities arrested him in 2012. His case involved accusations connected to insulting Islam and his online activity; apostasy was also raised before being dropped. An appeals court ultimately sentenced him to ten years in prison, a substantial fine and 1,000 lashes. Fifty lashes were publicly administered in 2015 before further flogging was halted amid international condemnation. He completed his prison sentence and was released in March 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider the symbolism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A man writes words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The state answers with a whip.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nothing illustrates the difference between authority and argument more perfectly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If an idea is false, answer it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a theological interpretation is poor, refute it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a writer misunderstands scripture, publish the better interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the lash does not demonstrate theological truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It demonstrates only that the man holding the whip possesses power over the man who does not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why freedom of expression and religious reform are inseparable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islam cannot develop intellectually if Muslims are forbidden to be wrong about Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A veryi ntersting read by Ensaf Haida<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Right to Leave<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is an even more difficult question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about those who no longer wish to reform Islam?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about those who simply wish to leave?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here the Enlightenment principle must become absolute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Muslim must have the right to cease being Muslim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Christian must have the right to cease being Christian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Jew must have the right to abandon Judaism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And an atheist must have the right to discover God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Otherwise conscience does not belong to the individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It belongs to the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where former Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali\u2014who subsequently embraced Christianity\u2014become relevant to the story, even though she obviously cannot be described today as a Muslim reformer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her intellectual journey illustrates precisely why freedom of conscience cannot depend upon the destination of conversion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One need not agree with all of Hirsi Ali’s conclusions about Islam to defend absolutely her right to reach them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That distinction is fundamental.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The liberal society does not promise that your neighbour will respect your religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It promises something more important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He may not persecute you for practising it, and you may not persecute him for rejecting it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women and the Question No Society Can Avoid<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No serious Islamic reform movement can avoid the position of women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question reaches into inheritance, marriage, divorce, guardianship, dress, testimony, education, employment, sexuality and religious leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But behind all of these individual debates lies one principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is a woman an autonomous moral individual?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If she is, the consequences follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She must be educated because her mind belongs to her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She must consent to marriage because her body belongs to her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She must be able to work because her economic existence cannot depend entirely upon male permission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She must be able to participate politically because citizenship cannot be exclusively masculine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And she must be able to question religious authority because conscience cannot have a sex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This does not require Muslim women to become culturally Western.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom includes the freedom to be conservative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Muslim woman who freely chooses to wear the hijab is exercising the same fundamental liberty as the Muslim woman who freely chooses to remove it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The operative word is freely<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A state that forces the veil and a state that indiscriminately prohibits religious dress may justify themselves through opposite ideologies, but both raise the same fundamental question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who decides what a woman wears?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The liberal answer should begin with the woman herself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secularism Does Not Mean Atheism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This brings us to one of the most misunderstood words in the entire debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secularism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In parts of the Muslim world, secularism has sometimes been associated not with liberty but with authoritarian regimes that suppressed religious movements while concentrating political power in the state. That historical experience matters. Liberalism cannot simply pretend it never happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But secular government need not mean an atheist society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Britain itself demonstrates the complexity: it retains an established church while maintaining a broadly liberal political order and extensive religious freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The essential principle is not the eradication of religion from public life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is that no religious authority possesses coercive sovereignty over citizens merely because of its religious status<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Muslim may derive his morality from the Qur’an.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Christian may derive hers from the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An atheist may derive his from philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All three may advocate their convictions democratically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the civil law must ultimately govern all three equally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is the political settlement which permits radically different people to live together without first having to agree about God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islam’s Forgotten Philosophers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reformers also challenge another misconception: that rationalism is necessarily something imported into Islam from Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islamic civilisation once possessed formidable philosophical traditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Al-Kindi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Al-Farabi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ibn Sina\u2014Avicenna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ibn Rushd\u2014Averro\u00ebs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Muslim philosophers translated, preserved, challenged and developed Greek thought. Their works travelled into medieval Christian Europe and became part of Europe’s own intellectual development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relationship between Islam and the Enlightenment is therefore historically more interesting than the simple proposition that one civilisation must imitate another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Europe itself inherited ideas through Islamic civilisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real question is whether contemporary Muslim societies can recover traditions of reasoned disagreement while embracing the political discovery upon which modern pluralism depends:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No institution should possess an unquestionable monopoly upon truth backed by the coercive power of the state.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Islam’s Age of Reason:<\/strong> For centuries, scholars across the Islamic world pursued philosophy, astronomy, mathematics and medicine, preserving ancient knowledge while making discoveries of their own. Intellectual enquiry is not a foreign import into Islamic civilisation; it forms part of its own remarkable inheritance.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Reformers’ Most Dangerous Enemy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The greatest obstacle confronting liberal Muslim thinkers may not ultimately be Western prejudice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It may be the accusation of betrayal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reformer is easily portrayed as insufficiently Muslim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The feminist becomes Westernised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The secularist becomes an atheist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The critic becomes an apostate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dissident becomes an agent of foreign powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an extraordinarily effective mechanism of intellectual control because it moves the argument from:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is what this person says true?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this person still one of us?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once belonging becomes conditional upon intellectual obedience, free thought becomes exile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is why the reformers matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They insist upon the right to remain inside a tradition while arguing with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the former Muslims matter too because they insist upon the right to leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A civilisation confident in itself should be capable of surviving both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The West Must Stop Choosing the Wrong Muslims<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also a lesson here for Europe and America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Western governments, universities, journalists and institutions frequently speak about engaging with \u201cthe Muslim community\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But no single Muslim community exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which Muslims?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The imam or the feminist challenging him?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Islamist organisation or the secular Muslim opposing political Islam?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conservative father or his liberal daughter?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The believer?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The doubter?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The convert?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The apostate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sufi?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Salafist?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Treating religious communities as monolithic blocs can inadvertently strengthen precisely the people claiming authority to speak for everyone within them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The West should not decide Islamic theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That would be both arrogant and absurd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Western institutions can insist upon something much simpler within their own societies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the individual comes before the communal gatekeeper.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Muslim woman does not possess fewer rights because a religious spokesman claims to represent her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A gay Muslim does not cease possessing civil rights because his community disapproves of his life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Muslim who becomes Christian does not surrender the right to personal safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Muslim who remains devout does not surrender his right to practise his faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And an ex-Muslim does not become legitimate prey for intimidation because others regard apostasy as sinful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The state’s responsibility is not to decide which theology is correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is to protect the freedom that allows the argument to occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enlightenment Without Humiliation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is, however, a trap which the West should avoid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reform cannot credibly be built upon contempt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Telling nearly two billion Muslims that their civilisation is backward and that salvation requires becoming culturally European is neither intellectually serious nor likely to produce liberalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Enlightenment itself was not the property of a race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reason has no nationality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom of conscience has no ethnicity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equality before the law does not belong to Europeans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are universal propositions precisely because they can be adopted by anyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And Muslims need not cease being Muslim to embrace them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mustafa Akyol’s work is important precisely because he attempts to make the case for liberty as a Muslim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Asra Nomani’s activism matters because she demanded equality while continuing to claim Islam as her own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abu Zayd’s scholarship mattered because he challenged interpretations through scholarship rather than simply dismissing the entire tradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Raif Badawi’s ordeal matters because it demonstrates what happens when argument is answered by coercion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their approaches are different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their politics are different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their theologies are different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the space they require is the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Mosque, the Cathedral and the Empty Chair<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the future does not require Islam to become Christianity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor Christianity to become secularism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor believers to become atheists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps it requires something simultaneously more modest and more revolutionary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around it sits the Muslim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Christian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Jew.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hindu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The atheist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The apostate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The convert.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The woman who wears the veil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The woman who removed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conservative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reformer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mystic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sceptic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there is one empty chair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It belongs to whoever changes his mind tomorrow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That chair is the Enlightenment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It represents the possibility that none of us should be imprisoned by the convictions we inherited at birth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The Empty Chair:<\/strong> The mosque, the cathedral and the empty chair \u2014 a symbol of a society in which faiths may coexist without surrendering their differences, and where the individual remains free to believe, to question, to change his mind, or to walk away. The Enlightenment is not the absence of faith, but the freedom of conscience that allows faith and doubt to sit at the same table.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It represents the right to ask.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To believe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To disbelieve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To reinterpret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And to change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Muslim reformers fighting for these principles are not asking the West to rescue Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many are asking something considerably more important of Muslims themselves:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can a faith of nearly two billion people become so confident in its truth that it no longer fears the freedom to reject it?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the answer is yes, the consequences would reach far beyond theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They would transform the relationship between Islam and the West.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They would strengthen the position of women and minorities within Muslim societies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They would undermine the intellectual foundations upon which religious coercion depends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And they would answer the extremists with something far more powerful than another extremism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Enlightenment need not defeat Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps its greatest victory would be an Islam that no longer believes it needs defeating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Islam’s Forgotten Philosophers:<\/strong> During the Islamic Golden Age, thinkers such as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd placed reason, philosophy and scientific enquiry at the heart of intellectual life. Their work in medicine, astronomy, mathematics and metaphysics would profoundly influence both Islamic civilisation and, through translation, the intellectual development of medieval Europe.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Dans le monde musulman comme dans le monde occidental, des \u00e9crivains, des th\u00e9ologiens, des f\u00e9ministes et des dissidents s\u2019attellent \u00e0 une question ancienne avec\u2026","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":64456,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[4655,4648,4652,4646,4654,4645,4656],"class_list":{"0":"post-64455","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-society","8":"tag-enlightenedislam","9":"tag-faith-2","10":"tag-fanatiscm","11":"tag-islam-2","12":"tag-moderateislam","13":"tag-religion-2","14":"tag-tolerance"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64455"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64455\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64471,"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64455\/revisions\/64471"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/64456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metaphoremagazine.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}