With the Protestant Reformation in mind, many Western thinkers continue to insist that Islam is in need of a similar “reformation.”
Comparing apples and oranges, they overlook reality: In many respects, what is today called “radical Islam” is representative of 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,” according to the Oxford Dictionary, 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 only when infused with Western connotations, which are not always applicable.
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 and blasphemers.
Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—including religious freedom 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 attribute Western ideas 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—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the antithetical teachings 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—the ulema, literally, “they who know”—were literate and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”
Times have radically changed: 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 of these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or smartphone.
As a result, many of today’s Muslims, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.
Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected what he characterized as 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—and a “radical” in Western parlance—“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,” to quote Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).
The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.
How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scripture together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words.
A point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is beyond the purview of this article (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).
Suffice it to note a few contradictions:
- The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die (e.g., Koran 9:5, 9;29, etc.).
- The New Testament prescribes no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
- The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat women as possessions.
- The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it. The prophet himself often deceived others, and allowed his followers to lie, including to their wives.
It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did.
And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization developed the way it did.
Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts:
- Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.);
- But because the core teachings of the scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation has naturally produced a civilization markedly different from the West.
The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are hoping for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation”—or rather enlightenment—that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.
Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, the modern world the way Christianity does.
Mr Ibrahim, As I write, there have been no comments to your piece. In my experience this lack of response falls into two categories. First, the detractor will not read the piece, or cannot logically refute it. Second, those in agreement cannot much the brilliant, simple, and logical argument you have made, therefore they do not comment. Bravo to you, Sir.
Thanks, Chuck
I agree with you about Raymond’s unmatched expertise in his subject, but I personally think the rest of your comment is presumptuous nonsense.
+1
Keeping things clean there Ms T. It’s appreciated.
Since the whole premise of Islam is that is “the one true faith”, and that Quran is “perfect”, the idea of “reforming” it is both nonsensical and dishonest, and could even be considered “dangerous”, since the “real” Islam could be revived at some future point. What most commentators fail to recognize is that is “extremism” that is destroying (the “tolerant veneer” of)Islam. In the space of one generation since the Internet began, Iran has gone from being 95% muslim to a “muslim-minority” country. Shortly we will be hearing about the next country to fllow suit. In the USA, Islam is only surviving through mass immigration from South Asian countries. African American mosques have started to close down as immigration from those countries has declined:
https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/11/07/daniel-haqiqatjou-authentic-islam-is-facing-extinction-in-the-united-states/
https://religionnews.com/2021/06/02/report-number-of-mosques-in-us-grows-overall-but-african-american-mosques-on-decline/
So hang on to your hats, ride out the storm that will continue for one more generation. Islam has no answer to the the world’s largest growth industry: apostasy from Islam. Despite everything, Islam is making no political progress in the West. A lot of the ongoing jihad is down to the fact that Islamists know they are losing, and violence is all they have. Most of the jihad will be directed at their fellow muslims whom they view as “hypocrites”.
Great article Raymond as usual but the last paragraph was not clear to me. The preceeding paragraph mentioning Islam without Islam is a perfect description of what the Western reform advocates are hoping for, which I consider impossible.
So I imagine your using the term plausible in the last paragraph means ‘plausible means to those who think the refomation might be possible?’
Correct me if you have the time. Not urgent
Mohammed and
Islam
by Saint Thomas Aquinas
“Mohammed seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure
to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained
precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to
carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal
men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such
as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom.
Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with
doctrines of the greatest falsity.
“He did not bring forth any
signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to
divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an
invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was
sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and
tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human,
believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men
and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose
numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his
arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him
any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old
and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be
seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on
his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these
books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in
his words believe foolishly.” Summa
Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4, Footnote 1
Nowhere does the New Testament itself put the criterion “sola scriptura”. It is Luther’s invention.
Those who fight against Muslims are Catholics, not Protestants. Protestants weakened Christianity and allowed the Turks to advance. Moreover, they believed that the Turks are God’s punishment for the infidelity of the Catholics.
Protestantism introduced relativism in the interpretation of the Bible. There are thousands of different sects and interpretations. Every pastor has his school. That is why Freemasonry developed in Protestant geographical areas.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church, until the Second Vatican Council, had only one voice.
The early Church lived without Scripture for 30 years or so. Because Tradition takes the first place. Scripture is the written word of faith that was already taught.
Can’t agree with all Spiro but agree that a radical pacifism among the reformed leaders rendered them useless in the Crusades.
I’ll choose not to debate you on Catholicism vs Protestantism, but comment if you like, I’ll see it.
To defend oneself is natural law, the Church can never forbid this. Even more so in the case of nations, when the common good is at stake.
During the whole of the 16th century, for example, when Catholics were defending Europe against the Turks (Islam), Protestants were waging war against Catholics. Especially in Germany, Switzerland and England.
I will not hijack Raymond’s blog on the history of Islam and the crusades, the reason for this readership.
However, I would like to remind you of the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions that killed thousands of Christians who were labelled as heretics , starting in the 11th century, for breaking away from the Catholic Church.
That brutality was most likely what caused the anti-Catholic sentiment in the countries you mention, especially as England’s Catholic ‘Bloody Mary’ continued the killing spree.
Thanks Tershia, I wasn’t ging to go there but you did in brief.
Take care in Trudeau’s totalitarian kingdom.
Thanks Don – it is a nightmare. Some parents are arrested and/or charged for protesting all the woke evils being taught their children.
Sorry you’re having to live with that. Whwn is next election? Any chance of forcing him to resign?
The inquisition did not begin in the 11th century, but rather in the 15th and 16th centuries, because many Muslims and Jews presented themselves as false converts.
However, the inquisition did not kill as many people as is claimed, in fact, they killed far fewer than Calvin in Switzerland.
Henry VIII cut off the heads of many Catholics at the same time because they did not want to leave their faith.
You have to understand the context. Society then was governed by the rights of God, which the Church defended. This can be only one, and not forty. If you lose your faith, you lose society.
Today it is “human rights” that prevail, but the courts of the powerful will say what those rights are. Today they are already saying that belief in God is against human rights.
Understand the flaws in both the Protestant and Roman traditions historically and currently.
As I mentioned before won’t debate here. We have genuine enemies looking to destroy, exterminate us in the present … both religious and secular.
A more important issue than our theological differences.
My opinion.
Stay well DSS
How right you are! Forget past grievances and unit
Thx Mary