What Would Reform Islam Look Like?

[Mr_Darwin]

Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?

Just to be clear on this point: I rejected Islam a long time ago. I’m an atheist. You’re most welcome to read into that whatever you wish.

Most quibbles about what I’ve said are rooted in misunderstanding the distinctions I presented. I think I made it quite clear that there is a world of difference between “Islamic Reformation”, which I described in my second post, and “Reform Islam”, which I described in my first. The former involves the removal of bad non-Islamic beliefs and practices, by focusing on changing people, whereas the latter involves the removal of bad *Islamic *beliefs and practices, by focusing on changing/rejecting canonical texts. People here have generally suggested that “Reform Islam”, here used in the sense of being analagous to “Reform Judaism”, makes no sense, since by definition there is nothing in the canon of Islam that is bad and thus needs reforming. That’s one thing I was curious to confirm, and people here have been very forthcoming with this answer. In other words, when it comes to such basic changes in a tradition, it takes a lot to change the mind of a community. I’m not denying either the existence of “Reform Islam”. I’ve a couple of friends who subscribe to something like it, and I’ve seen it in print in the work of Mohammed Arkoun, Irshad Manji etc. I just don’t yet see the necessary conditions for it really to establish itself as more than a fringe position. After all, why should people find any kind of liberal Islam more attractive than traditional Islam? Traditional Islam is more Islamic.

Now, those who want to turn this discussion into one about my own personal knowledge of Islam can have a look at this (very) lengthy, dry post in my blog entitled “Fun With Islamic Law”](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/journal.php?do=showentry&e=11355&enum=7), which focuses on only one aspect of fiqh, namely relations with non-Muslims. Believe it or not, I do have a little knowledge of the teachings of Islam, concerning both Al-Hikmah and Al-Kitaab, and the numerous subdisciplines within. But my knowledge of Islam is a seperate issue altogether, one which should not really be mixed up into this thread. Moving on, those who claim my comments about bin Laden and his fellow Wahabbis are a bit stretched, well, they’re wrong by all accounts. Bin Laden and his fellow Wahhabis aren’t insecure. And they’re not psycho. If only. Which leads back of main subject of this thread.

Yes, Muslims don’t even have bishops, let alone a Pope. Leadership doesn’t work the same way. This only reinforces my point. Which is that there is one Muslim reform movement well connected to the power centers of the Muslim world: Wahhabism. It controls the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. It’s got access to tons of money. Just as Martin Luther did, it knows full well how to use mass media. It appeals to Arabs, who though only 20% or so of Muslims still occupy Islam’s geographic and cultural ‘center.’ Just as Catholic reform at the center came to eventually characterise Catholic life worldwide, so from these centers Wahhabism is expanding its reach to Islam’s borders: southeast Asia, sub-saharan Africa, Europe, and North America. In this sense, Wahhabis are more Jesuit than Lutheran.

Now Wahhabism, the currently dominant “Islamic Reformation”, by definition doesn’t represent the Muslim “moderates” any more than Rome represented Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians. But it sees its various rivals – folk Muslims, high Muslims, liberal Muslims, and Muslim mystics, whatever – as either completely outdated or ignorant of their present situation, and seeks flat-out to defeat them. And as long as it occupies the center, it’s in a good position to outmaneouver its divided opponents with ease. In other words, it’ll occupy it for a very long time to come. It’s not about to cut back on some areas of stridency just because it’s asked to. And that’s basically what I think.

@PyariCgudia

If you are questioning the validity of Hadith, you are not questioning the validity of Islam, since Hadith were a written record by man. You are not questioning whether what the Rasul said was correct, but rather you are questioning whether someone accurately reported what the Rasul said. Most muslims end up in problems right here and this point, and I personally believe that Muslims cannot set up any kind of empire or khalifa or even live in domestic peace in this world until they question these hadith’s. But that’s my personal opinion, and most muslims would probably throw me in a prison if I were to openly say this in a country like Saudi or even Pakistan. They would consider it blasphemy.

You see my point? This leads back to the very question I posed at the beginning: What is True Islam? More to the point, who is more likely to control its definition and interpretation in the forseeable future? My strong feeling is that the blasphemy squad, who would be after you, will not let up for a very, very long time to come. Certainly not in your lifetime.