Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
...yet there ARE traffic laws in SA. Having laws in conformance to Shariah is not the same as claiming all laws can be derrived from it...
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
Incorrect. It is impossible to have a Christian-like reformation because of different socio-economic imperatives, and the lack of an organized church structure to rebel against. It is illogical to say Islam cannot 'reform' because it has already done so a number of times...simply doesn't make sense.
[quote]
and also steadily built up in Islam with the ascendancy of people like Imam Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, and more recently, Hassan Al-Banna, Maulana Maududi, Sayyid Qutb etc. All were "Islamic Martin Luthers", to varying degrees.
[/quote]
Where Ghazali et-al differed were in how they approached Islam...I happen to agree with Ghazali on many theological issues...but then, in the end his opinions are his own. Islam does not depend on their interpretations...although they are rich and well presented. The act of bucking the status quo is what they did, and we can continue to do so.
[quote]
But going back to basics in Islam, as an "Islamic Reformation" would have it, takes you to Muhammad and the first four "rightly guided" Caliphs. Going back to their values would mark, without a shadow of doubt, a present disaster for human rights and enlightenment values.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh...the punch line. No worse than Jefferson’s democracy...in fact, probably much better. How much has America changed since those times...quite a bit...ideologically, however...not much. You get the point?
[quote]
It begins by completely rejecting the example of Muhammad, especially the Medinan Muhammad and the values he advocated.
[/quote]
Given the historical circumstance, I argue Muslims should take serious those very values...genocide is not a light thing, and Muslims should not at all be apologetic for their actions against a savage attack on their existence. Needless to say, the current "values" of lying to wage war, and only objecting on academic (not moral) grounds shows how vapid any of the "modern" value systems are...so on this point, heal thy self... Muslims have changed, and will continue to change...but not to your liking, as it is clear the only position you would like Muslims to be in is under your boot... The BIG question is, when will Muslims learn to be self-interested to the point of demanding the necessary socio-economic changes that will make them stable and secure for the long term? Talk of values aside, ideologically this is really what any so-called "reform" should be about...how to change the structure of the social aspects of how Islam is practiced for the empowerment and mobilization of the Muslim masses for OUR benefit. Any other talk of reform is in fact talk of Muslim pacification. That is NOT an option, given the agression by the very same people who demand our reform.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
Lets break this down, shall we?
Suppose there arose a group of concerned Muslims who took a long, hard look at the Muslim world around them and basically agreed with your point about people not behaving Islamically. Being noble, knowledgable members of the Ummah, they set about changing this sorry situation, inviting ignorant Muslims to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong, all the while drawing upon their considerable understanding of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
ok
Lets further assume that this not not confined to any one point in time and space, but is linked successively thoughout history wherever the clarion call for for wayward Muslims to amend their transgessing ways is made. In each and every case, these people are pushing forth an “Islamic Reformation”.
Okay. Keep in mind this is how you are defining reformation. A call to muslims to go back to Islamic ways and to incorporate Islam into their daily lives. The way “things should be”, so to speak.
Here’s the rub: To simplify to epigrammatic proportions, it is not possible to have a future reformation in Islam as in the case of what happened in Europe with Christianity, because the “Islamic Reformation” was already initiated a long time ago. For any religious “Reformation” to take place, it actually refers to going back to first principles of that ideology, which are assumed to be good. This is what happened in the Protestant Reformation, and also steadily built up in Islam with the ascendancy of people like Imam Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, and more recently, Hassan Al-Banna, Maulana Maududi, Sayyid Qutb etc. All were “Islamic Martin Luthers”, to varying degrees.
Here you just contradicted yourself on the definition of “reformation”. If reformation is convincing people to go back to the old tradition of incorporating Islam into your life and bringing back things to the way they “should be”, then reformation is absolutely and utterly possible. And you don’t need to have another Mohammed and set of 4 caliphs for it, because all you really need is enlightenment and education of the masses. And the best way to do that is how you suggested yourself. Make prayers available in various translations, so that people can UNDERSTAND what they’re saying. When a khutba goes on in the masjid, sure the imam can say it in Arabic - whatever. But there definitely needs to be a translation in everything uttered in Arabic in EVERY masjid, and there needs to be a widespread fluency of Arabic among non-arabic speakers, so that they know they’re not being misled during a translation. Knowledge is power.
But going back to basics in Islam, as an “Islamic Reformation” would have it, takes you to Muhammad and the first four “rightly guided” Caliphs. Going back to their values would mark, without a shadow of doubt, a present disaster for human rights and enlightenment values. In accordance with this “Islamic Reformation”, the areas of Shari’ah that are most likely to be implemented in modern-day Muslim countries are those dealing with family law, women, and the like, which are typically horribly misogynistic. Especially if, of course, the ulama scholars are constantly dispensing fatwas and advice based on all aspects of Shari’ah, as seen on sites like Islam Q&Aand Ask the Imam.
Okay, you yourself are confusing so many concepts. Perhaps you need to consult other sources than websites on the internet.
Reformation, going back on your original definition, is going back to the way things were. If you don’t want to call it reformation, call it whatever you want.
If you are saying that going back to the way the Prophet did things, and the way the Quran describes how we should live would be problematic in our society, then you have essentially rejected Islam. What you are trying to “reform”, is actually you trying to create a new religion. Now you speak of misogyny, and if you go back to the actual Quran there is very little reason to think misogyny is Islamic. You could twist a few verses, but just like there are misognystic interpretation to those verses, there are also non-misogynistic interpretations. That the misognyistic interpretations are more popular in the muslim world does not mean that these interpretations are the correct ones as meant by God and are the ones exemplified by the Prophet. Misogyny ties in with family law, so I’m assuming treatment towards women is the biggest issue you are having with the so-called Sharia you speak of. Here’s what I think. I think you are assuming Sharia to be like one set of written code somewhere that says you do this and that, and if you don’t you go to hell. This is not the case. Sharia IS the Quran and the Hadith put together. However, Islam is not necessarily JUST the sharia. Islam is a whole lot more, because Islam is just not a set of coded family and political laws. And having an Islamic civilization, in turn, is a great deal more than just the Sharia.
You need to go back to the basics. Ask yourself if you really buy into everything the Quran says first. Start from there. Then expand yourself to Hadith. I say this, because the Quran is the actual word of God, and is theoretically, irrefutable to muslims. If you try to change around anything the Quran says, then you will no longer have Islam. You’ll have a lifestyle that is not Islam. For example, if you tried to ban polygamy and just no longer allow it under any circumstances, even under something like Pakistan’s earthquake, you are no longer implementing Islam. If you tried to enforce polygamy and have state programs that support it and encourage it so that the natural frequency of polygamy interactions increases, then again, you are no longer implementing Islam, because the Quran encourages men to keep one wife if they feel they can’t do justice to more than one.
Then you go to the Hadith, and you ask yourself what you think is acceptable to you, and then try to figure out those hadith’s that you can’t understand. Most likely, you might end up at the one oriented around women and ask yourself how valid those hadith are. 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.
The problem is, we have to ask ourselves, what is the sharia? Is it just the Quran? Is it the Quran and every hadith ever written and recorded and gathered? If so, do we follow Al-muslim. Or do we go with Al-bukhari’s collection of hadith’s? Or do we pick and chose what hadith’s we like? Or do we go with the Shia collection of hadith’s? Or do we accept any hadith? Does the sharia enforce each part of the Quran and each part of the hadith with punishments that were never perscribed and we have no record of, but we have to have punishments, because we want everyone to follow each hadith and each Quranic law to the T?
So, you seem to be questioning the basics of Islam. You seem to be questioning the actual Quranic ayahs and the actual hadith’s. I, on the other hand, am questioning how in the world do we determine what goes into Sharia and how to enforce it, and what rights does the Islamic government have over its people.
In contrast, what the misnomer “Reform Islam”, which I described in my first post, represents is a Transformation, not a Reformation. It begins by completely rejecting the example of Muhammad, especially the Medinan Muhammad and the values he advocated.
The example of Muhammed is a central and vital part of Islam. If you take out Muhammed’s life from it, then you’ve essentially rejected Islam. Now, I on the other hand advocate that we go back to the Hadith literature and try to figure out what Muhammed most likely did say, and what most likely he did not say, and try to figure out how dependable these hadith can be. If the hadith are weak reports because they were transmitted by oral tradition, etc, then they shouldn’t be followed.
There is really no way to do this, since we don’t have a good historical record of what Muhammed did anyway. We also don’t have a great historical record of what happened after Muhammed died, in the few decades that followed his death.
So because the history is a bit shaky, its hard to verify which hadith are accurate and which are not. Its also hard to verify which of these hadith reports Muhammed meant to be laws for the rest of mankind’s time on earth and which were just temporary solutions to problems in HIS time. Its also hard to know whether Muhammed wanted us to follow every single action he did and follow it for the rest of eternity, although many muslims assume this must be so.
And its also hard to do what you say. How can you go back and reject the Median Muhammed, when you really don’t know who he exactly was and every single thing that he did? Even in Islamic literature, there is some fuzziness in some historical details as to what actions he did in Medina and what actions he did in Mecca.
The problem is that there were no accurate factual historical records. Even the hadith literature was recorded in pen some centuries later after his death. And even that hadith literature was pruned down by scholars like Al-muslim and al-bukhari and a few others who felt that there was reason to believe that some people at that time period were fabricating hadiths. Its a HUGE number of hadith’s that were thrown out when these scholars were making their collections. And the only way they could do this was actually by 1. judging the validity of the hadith reporter’s honesty and 2. by comparing the hadith contents with the Quran and looking for logical contradictions. Even so, you have hadith’s in the collection that ask for women to not lead when the Quran uses Queen Sheba as a role model as a leader of state.
I don’t believe that anyone knows for a fact how the Median Muhammed really was, so there is not much you can do with going back and rejecting his ways as it is. You will never be perfect in that task, because the history is too fuzzy.
So, yes, I agree with those Muslims who insist there is no need for a future “Islamic Martin Luther”; they already have gotten it. Several of them, in fact. Bin Laden and his fellow Wahhabis are only among the most recent crop of fellow Muslim reformers.
If you think muslims believe these people to be valid “reformers”, then you need to learn more about the muslim world and its peoples. I personally think these guys are insecure and a bit psycho.
It’s true that in “real life” today, I’d say that probably most of the dictates of Shari’ah (however you interpret them) aren’t followed and, in fact, not even known about by the populace at large.
No offence, but I think you should include yourself in that populace.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
I'd like to add, that don't think I'm being a jerk. I include myself in that populace of people that don't know everything about Islam that they should know.
I wish I knew more, but resources are so hard to find. You know muslims haven't done a good job with doing modern research into their own religion. And the internet, I've found, has so much garbage on it, that its so hard to figure out what is valid and what is not.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
Pakistan is not an Islamic government. Islam is the official religion, but Shariah is not the source of the law. Pakistan was never intended to be an Islamic state or with an Islamic government.
A lot of the Shariah has actually been implemented in Pakistan, e.g. the Hudood ordinances and the Zina ordinances. These have resulted in the persecution of Ahmadis and Christians, and have resulted in rape victims being charged with fornication. Why must religion result in pain and death and misery?
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
Hudood Ordinances are not at all in accordance with Sharia, since they view rape as a form of zina, where a female can get punished for her own rape.
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.
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.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
Yet, it is...and it was made one through populist policies no less. If it was not Mr. Jinnah's intent (he was very ambiguous on the matter, constantly invoking reliigon for the cause of Pakistan), then to hell with him I suppose...the people sure as hell content with Pakistan being an Islamic republic.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
Did you ever read the Islamic rulings on this issue? Do you have any consultation with a real Islamic scholars other than the Mullahs and qaris?
Don't write perverted media stories you read in the news papers and websites and what you simply "heard" from others.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
What is the end goal of reform? You really do need to answer that question if you want to honestly partake in this discussion.
[QUOTE]
In other words, when it comes to such basic changes in a tradition, it takes a lot to change the mind of a community.
[/QUOTE]
This is, where I come from at least, what we call stating the obvious. Yet, people like Al-Ghazali did the job once...there have been countless regional influences as well.
[QUOTE]
Traditional Islam is more Islamic.
[/QUOTE]
How so? One would argue that there is no traditional Islam, or liberal Islam...just Islam and a whole boat load of interpretations. You seem to have a touchstone by which to judge the 'autenticity' of Islamic hermeneutics...please share.
[QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
What is it they say about a little knowledge?
[QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Nor are Bush and his neo-con buddies...no thread on that my friend? Talking about Bin Laden without referencing the geopolitical actors that motivated his politics is nothing short of a misleading.
If you wish to discuss Wahabism, it would be wise to separate it from Bin Laden...
[QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
...which is also tied to American Interests...go figure. If you want to talk about the spread of Wahabism without the Afghan war, then again I think you really need to do a bit more background work. There is a reason why it's influence extends beyond Saudi Borders, and it's in no small part because of anti-Soviet policies of the 80's.
Is it a reform movement? No, it's a self-styled puritanical movement based on minimalist theology. It's also the backbone of an ideological movement, one of many.
[QUOTE]
It appeals to Arabs, who though only 20% or so of Muslims still occupy Islam's geographic and cultural 'center.'
[/QUOTE]
Only Gulf Arabs...and even then, Indian exposure to this is mostly through expats in the Gulf region and the cold war policies I mentioned above...
[QUOTE]
Now Wahhabism, the currently dominant "Islamic Reformation", by definition doesn't represent the Muslim "moderates" any more than Rome represented Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians.
[/QUOTE]
It's not a reform movement. It's a theology. Wahabism doesn't have a list of "to-do's" for Muslims...basically, it's one of those "you're wrong on x,y,z" kind of things...
[QUOTE]
But it sees its various rivals – folk Muslims, high Muslims, liberal Muslims, and Muslim mystics,
[/QUOTE]
Come on now...this taxonomy of Muslim schools of thought are amateurish...
[QUOTE]
You see my point? This leads back to the very question I posed at the beginning: What is True Islam?
[/QUOTE]
The question you need to answer is why is this question relevant? You've made it clear you don't care either way...you simply want Islam gone...no? Anyway, this same question could be asked of secularism or democracy…Soviet style secularism? Israeli, Apartheid era South Africa, or Chinese democracy? Come clean…what are you advocating and why…the knee jerk “nothing needs to be changed” reaction mostly comes from a skeptical attitude towards your questioning…as I said, we all want change but only that which will make us better. If you can’t offer anything that will help us along our way without asinine suggestions of leaving the faith (kind of pointless to talk of “Muslim reformation” or even “transformation” or Muslim anything if you want us to eliminate Islam), then go elsewhere.
This is no better than helping the poor by suggesting they earn money by stealing. They know deep down there are other ways, and that the thief urging them on really isn’t looking after their best interest…
[FONT=Times New Roman]
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
I have, and I agree with her. The Pakistani Hudood (not Islamic, Pakistani) ordinances are there to protect feudal lords and corrupt government officials. The only people who defend it are illiterates...typically people acting on behalf of their feudal lords.
What she says is true in Pakistan...Rape is treated like Zina if the women can't produce four eye witnesses to the act. Whereas absence of proof would typically mean a lesser punishment for the men, in Pakistan it's taken as proof of fornication and the woman is punished (and the men are let go). This is not heresy...this is what happens.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
I like dissecting your posts, so I’ll do that with this one.
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.
At least we know now where your bias on the issue comes from. No one is asking you to believe in Islam, and that’s the beauty of Islam. Now if you want to make up your own religion and borrow a few concepts from Islam, I would prefer you did that instead of modifying core Islamic beliefs. If the modifications, again, you wish to make to Islamic canon, is that to fix misogyny, then your wish is basically senseless, since misogyny is not part of real Islam in the first place. And I certainly hope you’re not equating the misogyny that Wahabbis are famous for with what Islam actually dictates us to do.
I’m a woman, and I’m muslim, and I have no problem with Quranic teachings. I do have a problem with some hadith’s, and I don’t see that they comprise the real Islam anyway, since they could be falsified accounts of what really happened.
**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.
No, what you did, was you got confused and then created new terms to say what you mean. First you talk about reformation and then you talk about transformation. I don’t think you should use terminology. Just say what you mean, because it doesn’t help when you keep changing your definitions. Reformation is reformation. Period. Its got 1 definition.
By the way, this is a common tactic I’ve seen in philosophical debates, since that is what my background is partially in. People will twist their words and complicate their meanings to such an extent that it allows the common man no room to really argue since the common man is left → 
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.
Again, please see my discussion on Quran vs. Hadith in my previous replies. It all depends on who thinks what exactly Islam is. Including you.
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.
I don’t see your point at all in this senseless drivel of a paragraph. So you’re a Manji follower. Look, far be it from me to argue against feminists, but I’ve read Manji also and her work is ridiculous and senseless. But there are still people out there who will believe her, and that not because she makes good logical sense. Its because you are annoyed with Islam, and anyone who speaks against it becomes noteworthy. Anyone who engages in homosexuality and then lectures other people about Islam should not even talk. And to add all the politics that is going on with the people who are actually supporting her…Please. Good to know that you’ve left Islam though. I personally applaud it, since the less sheep-like followers there are in our religion, the better.
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.
Your subsequent comments on wahabbism do not show that, as I will go ahead now and blast those comments as well.
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.
Oh no, they are not. They are psycho, because they are of a fascist mentality. They want to take over and control the world, and they do that by feeding on people’s brains and influencing people to dance under their fingers. They want to be placed down in history, because guess what? They have nothing else in the world to claim as their achievement anyway. They would have been better just doing what they were doing, but their silly antics in brainwashing muslims left and right leaves them looking like nut jobs. Now, Irshad Manji and her kind are the same way, except they’re just on the other extreme.
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.
You have devised this conspiracy theory of wahabbis, and then you talk about reforming the actual Islamic beliefs, which you admit that Wahabbis are not anything like moderate muslims. Shouldn’t that tell you they’re not really following Islamic principles? They’ve violated the a core Islamic principle : You can’t force anything on anyone. Wahabbi culture is very force-dominated. Its either their way or the highway. And they’re not peaceful about it. There goes another Islamic principle. So, again, I ask you, is your beef against people who don’t know how to follow their own religion (or who refuse to and then parade around as if they are), or is it against actual Islamic tennents? Wahhabism is NOT Islam. If it were, most muslims in the world, are actually not muslims!
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.
Again, you’re emphasizing on Wahhabism. Look at the topic of your initial post. You pose some good ideas of changes that need to take place. Some. And then you start ranting and raving at Wahhabism. Wahhabism, I’m sorry to say, again, is not Islam. Its a group of people who think that they’re trying to follow Islam, but since the group is so violent and so controlling, and so utterly misogynistic, it doesn’t even resemble peace-loving Muslims. There are loads of muslims out there who are not Wahhabis. Exactly what is wrong with their Islamic beliefs? Because they don’t sit there and have conspiracy plans to take over the planet.
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.
Exactly. You have to look at what is really causing the confusion in interpretation of Islamic values and laws. You can have one Quranic ayah that is crystal clear in its meaning, and then you have 10 hadith’s that will confuse anyone into wondering exactly what does that one verse mean, when the Quran itself says that it is clear to anyone who wishes to understand. Muslims don’t need a pope to understand the Quran, but somehow Hadith literature has become our pope. What people don’t want to admit is there might have been many political pressures that got Al-bukhari, Al-muslim, and others to select the hadith’s they did select. And the lack of female scholars since day one hasn’t helped.
Aside from misogyny, which I personally can explain away as misconduct with hadith literature collections, what exactly do you have a problem with?
In fact, many of the suggestions you originally made would not change any basic belief tenents. They would change the way muslims are practicing Islam, and the way that many so-called maulvis have instructed muslims to practice Islam. Which I believe is the core problem. Not actual Islamic beliefs (which I define as Quranic verses).
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
PCG, your ability to compose posts that seem to stretch down endlessly is truly phenomenal!
you should take up journalism as a profession since you obviously have the tenacity to write, and you do actually write well.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
What are your views on this topic (without playing devil's advocate)? I didnt really read the responses.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
I haven't had the time to go through every single post. I found a few that were off-topic, so I removed those. Feel free to PM me if there are any other posts that need to be looked after and please refrain from bringing in personal vendettas against each other. Use the PM service or other means to get even with each other.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
mr. darwin....selective islam is practiced today and reformed islam is just another braching off of it. core islamic beliefs may say one thing, but it remains a fact that many men/women from saudi arabia to iran to pakistan and indonesia practice islam selectively.....out of convenience or out of ignorance/not able to control desires vutevar u may call it.
as more and more people start to think in a different way and our future leaders/scholars branch out of people of this state of mind, what you call a reformed islam may gradually arise. and even then they will find ways to justify the tenets of this reformed islam.
also christianity/islam/judaism are not single entities/rooms/physical things that we can say things like "look at the state of christianity these days" faith is an individual thing. just like a suicide bomber that kills innocent women and children is deemed not a true muslim, deviant christians must also be looked at the same way.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
The wests dream come true but unfortunalty for them its never gonna be a reality for them islam is here to stay and eventually take them over!
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
that’s more like it. thanks
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
Reformed "Islam" wouldn't be Islam (submission to God) anymore no matter what name you give it.
Our Faith is a perfectly balanced way of life the way it is, I would rather have my throat cut and my guts ripped out than forsake my sweet Deen.
You'll never destroy/reform Islam, go try that on some man made religion.
Re: What Would Reform Islam Look Like?
In my opinion, The Islamic Reformation will be about adding greater weight to Quranic verses about the utility of the Bible. The hadiths are a valuabe tool to understanding the Quran, but the Quran can also be read in light of both the Bible and the hadith. The Bible has become a lot easier to understand with concordances than before. It doesnt contradict the Quran as much as it was earlier believed. Many archaeological and scientific discoveries also help us see what the Quran meant when it suggested that Jews and Christians were told about the coming of Mohammad. I believe as more evidence is generated proving this, more reasonable people will gravitate to such an understanding of Islam. Reading the Quran as continuation of the Bible creates a softer gentler Islam than the one that excludes the Bible and only looks towards the ahadith. There is some justification for this thinking in the hadith text itself and the work of scholars like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan etc. Finally, the Prophet and the four rightly guided caliphs did not compile the current hadith texts. So, the ahadith based understanding of Islam doesnt necessarily, represent all the true values of the Prophet p.
regards,
bob