In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must reform. This is the contention of many Western peoples. And, pointing to Christianity’s Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also reform, many are optimistic.
Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming. What is today called “radical Islam” is the reformation of Islam. And it follows the same pattern of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation.
The problem is our understanding of the word “reform.” Despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”
Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western references.
Muslim notions of “improving” society may include purging it of “infidels” and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators.
Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society.
In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their reference points and first premises. “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great extent products of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation; and so, a priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word.
—-
At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.
Islam’s reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.
As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”
In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,
translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands… [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).
This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.
In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished. Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted with the often black and white words of their scriptures than their ancestors, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.
Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).
The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.
Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.
Part 2 will appear later this week
I don’t believe it is possible for Islam to reform in a manner like the Protestant reformation. To begin with Islam is a false religion and the true God has no part in it. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life – no man (person) comes to the Father except by me (Jesus). Muslims reject both Jesus as the Christ, the crucifixion (death of Christ), the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus exclusivity as being the only way to eternal Life is also rejected. God’s can save Muslims, but not reform their Satanic works based religion that hates Christ. Sorry but no cigar.
There is NO a way that anyone can reform this lunatic religion of radical Islamist, Hadith is insanity and that is the way those animals will not accept democracy, if those savages want to live and want to be governed under the so called Hadith, then they should take their followers and find themselves a cave in the desert wilderness and leave the the rest of the people alone. The peaceful side of Islam have been highjacked by these radical Islamist savages!
Peaceful side = nominal Muslims. They aren’t true believers of the Koran nonsense. Mohammed was an apostate, a homicidal pedophile and false prophet. Allah = Satan.
Islam can be dealt with very easily. The Qur’an states in absolute terms that Allah (The God) is Merciful and Compassionate. Either this is absolutely true (1) or all of Islam is a lie (2). Anything against mercy and compassion is against God (1), or it isn’t because Islam is a lie and God is a filthy piece of shit, a source of nothing but black evil, in fact “God” is far worse than Satan or Iblis or Hitler or Stalin, etc (2). So much for Islam-fixing. The liberal Left is a different matter. If Islamism is like a mad dog, liberal Leftism is like cancer. If you refuse to act to destroy and to kill the cancer, because it has “good intentions”, which it does not and never did, then you are fools and you and your civilization and your mothers deserve to die. Your danger is not from mad dogs with lttle science, little brains, and little power. Your danger is from the filth of the Left. Either you kill them – all of them – or you and your civilization and your mothers will all be killed by them. Just like the fool who can’t bring himself to act against those “nice little cancer cells” and their “good intentions”.
The only reformation in Islam is MORE JIHAD. More hate. More killing. The differences between Islam and Christianity is simple. Islam preaches OBEY or else (Else means we will kill you.) Christianity preaches LOVE unconditionally . (love your family, neighbors and even your enemy). Islam has no humanity. It feeds on its hate, first for other Muslims, then for all Kafirs. The promotion of Islam as the “religion of peace” is a lie. Islam is a “RELIGION OF HATE” and should be introduced to all Kafirs this way. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim because deep inside of their emotional thinking lies the bases of islam. Hate all those who are not Muslims.
Historic Christianity does not recognize any other world religions as being acceptable in society, or on par with it, including Islam. What is practiced in America is a perversion of Christianity – liberalism. Raymond documents in his book “Crucified Again” that Islam has a new boldness because of the weakness of the West. That weakness is the foundation of western society that has gone mushy – Christianity. The Moral Law practiced by the individual and reflected in the rule of law has been purged by Liberalism. The Moral Law is the basis of Christianity. Sharia is coming to America unless there is the old authoritative Christianity to take its place. The real Christianity is bashed every Sunday in your local church and has been long gone for 100 plus years. The good news is the Tea Party is standing up for political moral reform outside the churches. The question is: Is there a Christian Tea Party ready to fight the “love and compassion, non-judgmental” crowd and reform the churches to make disciples that will reform society. These people that control the churches can be as mean and nasty as the D.C. Republican establishment.
One of the aims of Communism in America was to infiltrate the churches. There are good grounds to believe that the Catholic Church has been so infiltrated. Bella Dodd on You Tube tells how she recruited over one thousand men to become priests for the Communist cause. Steve Coughlin on an ABN program with Robert Spencer tells how the Seminary in Chicago in the 1970’s was influenced by communism. From that Seminary came at least 2 Cardinals. (The ABN program, available on You Tube, is ‘Jihad Watch’ I do believe.)
Read General Pacepa’s “Disinformation”.
(Wish you had a link to those references.)
THIS is a very important article;IT’S I.S.I.S…..THEY ARE THE “REFORMERS”THE MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD IS BEHIND IT.VERY OMINOUS.THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT IGNORANT;THEY ARE VERY CLEVER AND MANY ARE EDUCATED IN BLUE AND WHITE COLLAR WORK.BEWARE
Very interesting. I look forward to part 2. You explain things well. Thank you.
Raymond Ibrahim seems to miss the larger picture: the fact that the whole of Humanity now goes through an identity crisis, and seeks to ‘reform’ itself in accordance with its own inherent truth…
If islam wants to reform let them keep their reforms to Islamic countries, we in the west don’t want it and any muslims in the west who don’t like the western system and culture are free to go to a muslim country but not to try and force their beliefs on others.