How to facilitate reformation in Islam?

I submit this article for consideration.

We need a reformation that saves Islam from foreign-inspired zealots. That reformation is already under way, with Muslims going back to the pristine teaching of the transcendent Koran, not taking on trust the hadith (a compilation of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad recorded some 250 years after his death by non-Arabs) or the corpus of medieval man-made Sharia (religious law). But because this reformation is still in its infancy, the reactionary clergy and its supporters is doing everything to strangle it.

How might secular and/or moderate societies facilitate the reformation of Islam in the manner the author suggests? One might argue it is not our problem (or rather, ought to be left to moderate Muslims) but I think most of us would agree that militant Islamism is a serious problem for us all.

Therefore, do we not have a stake in enabling the reformers and forcibly blocking those that finance and foster militancy? Would we not do well to improve the recognition that there are, in fact, many strains of Islamic thought and stop the ongoing assumptions that all Muslims are somehow in league with the militants?

Might it be possible/desirable to restrict the immigration of the largely illiterate imams, often funded by extreme regimes, from countries that exercise the depraved, politicised and dangerous forms of Islam? Could a state actively fund colleges for home-grown and moderate imams as an investment against imported extremists?

These would be two steps that I would be comfortable with, and I would be interested in constructive rebuttals and/or further suggestions. An interesting tangent would be to discuss how western societies tackle the most malign country currently festering on the face of the globe, Saudi Arabia.

The short answer: Fire, war, and death.

The only way to reform Islam is to rewrite the Koran. Unlike the Bible, the language in the Koran and Hadiths is quite clear and explicit. Any "reform" or revisions of Islam require a reworking of the fundamental texts. Lasting reform also rests on the ability of the Koranbelt states to radically alter a culture which has developed over the last 1,500 years. Good luck with that.

What we should focus on is reforming Muslims. Or, more properly, Muslims should focus on reforming themselves if they so choose. You won't find modern (i.e. liberal democratic) countries that will implement the reforms you suggested. They're far too nice and polite. The most realistic change will come from the individual believer.

more people like this. Moderates who have the balls to stand up and provide a different message.

Killing isn't much of a solution when the whole reason d'etre is western culture and Christianity. Unless you feel like trying to kill over 1 billion people it ain't going to work. And persecution generally makes people more fanatical...

Getting off oil would be a step in the right direction, cutting Saudi Arabia's splurge to every woman-stoner they happen across.

~:smoking:

You're making too many assumptions about my post Rory. How does a major faith reform itself after a millennial or two? In our ideal, western world, moderates with better arguments win the day. In most of the world, however, moderates are marginalized and rarely make a difference. Caught between two extremes in an ancient society is a rough place to be.

There is a reformation of Islam in the Middle East. This is largely a result of the recent death and suffering. Too many people have too a great of interest in maintaining the status quo for reform to take place.

I don't give a damn about the people in Afghanistan. They can continue drubbing in the dirt, marrying each other's cousins and stoning women for ever as far as I am concerned.

I am only concerned that religions are reformed so that society is stable in the Western World.

Whether moderates in the West can try to supplant the barbary in the other areas of the world is not something that I am concerned about - as long as they stay there.

~:smoking:

The people in Afghanistan are remarkably moderate. They had quite a good thing going for them before the Soviet invasion and subsequent civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Might it be possible/desirable to restrict the immigration of the largely illiterate imams, often funded by extreme regimes, from countries that exercise the depraved, politicised and dangerous forms of Islam? Could a state actively fund colleges for home-grown and moderate imams as an investment against imported extremists?

---

That would probably cause a bad reaction with our own christians, as Islamic states are likely to react by banning priests and missionaries(not saying that's a bad thing....).

I think Islam has underwent a form of Reformation, quite similar to that seen in Christianity from the 16th Century. The problem is that a Reformation will not always bring the sort of changes that secular folk in the west look for. Also, I think that Islam will be like Christianity in that it will have 3 stages of the Reformation process, or perhaps you could say 3 seperate Reformations, which can trace their origins to a more gradual process of reform.

Pre-Reformation changes: Anthony of Egypt (late 3rd Century AD) / Sufism (late 7th Century AD)

As soon as Islam and Chrisianity had become state religions, they came to represent organised religion in its vilest form. The spiritual significance was minimal, religion was about state control and an excuse to persecute threats to the established order. While the average person was still too worried about tending to his crops and livestock, both Christian and Muslim theologians became aware that the abuse of religion by temporal rulers was very much against the message of both the Bible/Apocrypha and the Koran/Hadiths. As a result of this, there was a movement led by intellectuals to promote a more peaceful form of faith without trampling on the toes of the Arab/Roman and then Frankish rulers, and so the idea of a priesthood seperated from society came into being. In Christianity, the idea of institutionalised monasticism first appeared in Egypt in the 3rd Century AD, with Anthony of Egypt being the best known example - the practice rapidly spread and was soon seen as far away as Ireland. Some of these priests chose to live in an hermitage, others went to sit on top of a pillar for the rest of their lifes. In Islam, there was a very similar process as theologians became concerned at the usage of Islam to promote purely Arab Imperialism, as the religion was spread by conquest from Andalus to Sindh barely 100 years after it emerged. From this discontent, Sufism was born, with monastic orders emerging in a very similar process to their Christian counterparts. Both Christian monasticism and Sufism showed the peaceful, but isolted, as aspects of their respective faiths, and later both became breeding grounds for mysticism, which Sufism is still recognised as representing today. While monasticism showed a more accurate face of Christianity/Islam, it also limited the proper practising of the faiths to a very select priesthood, and religion was still brutally abused at the state level.

1st Reformation: Martin Luther (1517) / Kharijites (late 7th Century AD), and later Sunni reformist sects

This tends to be a result of the disillusionment with the corruption that organised religion often brings. The clamour for reform still tends to come from factions of religious leaders, as the common people are still largely illeterate and usually lack any acess to their holy books. This process in Islam was hastened to an extent by the civil war that resulted in the Sunni/Shia split, something which never happened in Christianity. Elements of populist thought start to creep in, albeit subtly. For example, the Kharjities were distinct from the Sunni/Shia mainstream, in that they claimed that any pious Muslim could become a religious leader, not just the desendents of Muhammad. Also, they empahsised the 'equality of the faithful', and were opposed to the Umayyad aristocracy. Similarly, while Luther believed in dedicated clearly and theologians, he also helped further the notion of the 'priesthoold of all believers', and rejected the notion of a seperate priesthood. This first reformation also saw a focus on the sole authority of the respective holy books. For Luther, this was the notion of 'Sola Sciptura', that the Bible alone should be the source of Christian doctrine, and not the works of monks and theologians. Similarly, the Kharijities took a borderline legalist approach to the Koran, and were seen as extremists due to their strict adherence to the word of the Koran alone. Perhaps, the significant difference between Christianity/Islam here is that Luther gained more ground than the Kharijites, who were limited to southern Arabia and parts of eastern Africa, while Luther of course split Christian Europe in two. However, the process in Islam was later furthered by reformist sects, notably in the Sahara, where a lack of religious enforcement has allowed pagan practices to be joined with Islamic beliefs, leading to many heretical Berber tribes such as the Berghwata forming. However, under the Almoravid Dynasty from the 1040's, a new form of Sunni Islam began to emerge, which would become dominant in western Islam. These Berbers were quite puritanical, with the belief that all pious Muslims are equal, just like the ideas of Luther and the Kharijites. However, it wasnt' until changes in technology, most notably the invention of the printing press, the populist religous ideas could emerge on a large scale, leading to the second reformation. In effect, Sunni Islam became the "Protestantism" of Islam, with Shia Islam remaining unreformed, and could be said to be the "Catholicism" of Islam. Sunni's now largely reject oppose the veneration of saints, the use of idolatrous images, the notion of a select priesthood etc; all in opposition to their Shia counterparts - the parallels with Christianity are pretty clear.

2nd Reformation: John Calvin (1536) / Salafism or Wahhibism (late 18th Century)

The 2nd Reformation is when religion taken on a truly populist approach, with church hierarchy being flung out the window, replaced with a firm belief in the sole authority of the holy books, and everyone's right to practise their teachings. This second reformation also has one common feature in Christianity and Islam - puritanism. While this reformation is populist in its nature, in both cases it was kick-started by theologians. John Calvin (or arguably Martin Bucer before him) formulted the doctrines of predestination and total depravity - not only placing sole doctrinal authority in the Bible, put even placing the credit for all good upon God, and all evil upon mankind. Such doctrines appeared took on a little regional variation wherever they went, appearing as Puritanism in England and Presbyterianism in Scotland. Interestingly, when defending Cromwell I've been told that he was the head of a "Protestant Taliban", in a way I see where they are coming from. Similarly, such puritanical views appeared in Islam as Salafism as a result of the work Islamic theologians in the 18th century, who felt Islam needed a revival similar to that seen in Europe. Of course, this populist revolution did not happen in Islam until a later date due to technological backwardness - it had been fuelled by the printing press in Europe. This Salafism emerged in Saudi Arabia as the Wahhibism we know of today.

3rd Reformation: been going on since secularism became popular in Christianity / still very early days for Islam

This is the Reformation where integration means people become increasingly tolerant of others beliefs - its hard to believe so many people you know and who appear to be decent folk are going to Hell. So, having gained the ability to read the holy books through the previous reformations, and with the lack of a church hierarchy to enforce doctrine since the second reformation, people start to make unorthodox interpretations of their holy books. The fundamentalism of the previous reformation rapidly dies out, and is replaced with symbolism and the spiritual significance of the stories of the Bible/Koran. Suddenly, people start to get along, and everyone tolerates, and even accepts the validitiy of, other faiths.



Like the reformations seen in Christianity, those in Islam are not global in their effect. Nowadays, soutern Europea remains Catholic, Germany remains Protestant, and some pockets hold onto the Calvinist tradition. Similarly in Islam, Iran remains Shia, most of the Islamic world is Sunni, with areas such as Saudi Arabia following the more puritanical Salafist traditions. People speak of a reformation in Islam as if it will make it more compatible with western secular society, but really it will not, not until the third Reformation. After all, the Protestant Reformation gave you the zealots like myself!

I do believe Islam has a very rich tradition, more than Christianity does. I also believe that it has just as much potential as Christianity to be a peaceful relgion, and one day it will become just that. Muslims aren't all crazed jihadist fundamentalists, they are good faithful people just like Christians. Of course, I also believe their religion to be plain wrong and it is because of this capacity to adapt that it will be a major component of the one world religion of the end times (well you didn't think my englightened tone would last forever did you :wink:).

The ideas of Enlightement were inherent in the Christian thought. So in order to "facilitate reformation" of the Islam, one needs to convert the Muslim population first. Or teach them Western philosophy. Secularization only works if there are other schools of thought than the mainstream Islamic one (although there are various Islamic schools as well), which means they have to accept the plurality of opinions and thoughts first. Not too feasible in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

The ideas of Enlightement were inherent in the Christian thought. So in order to "facilitate reformation" of the Islam, one needs to convert the Muslim population first. Or teach them Western philosophy. Secularization only works if there are other schools of thought than the mainstream Islamic one (although there are various Islamic schools as well), which means they have to accept the plurality of opinions and thoughts first. Not too feasible in the near future.

---

Are you serious? The lengths Christians went to kill those that weren't Christian in the right way has gone on for centuries. Be it the Cathars, Gnostics, Catholics vs. Orthodox vs Protestant there's no inclusion of new information even now, just denial and a wholehearted attempt to stamp out thought.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That would probably cause a bad reaction with our own christians, as Islamic states are likely to react by banning priests and missionaries(not saying that's a bad thing....).

---

They might even start shooting militant atheists that carry our passports (not saying that's a bad thing...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

The ideas of Enlightement were inherent in the Christian thought. So in order to "facilitate reformation" of the Islam, one needs to convert the Muslim population first. Or teach them Western philosophy. Secularization only works if there are other schools of thought than the mainstream Islamic one (although there are various Islamic schools as well), which means they have to accept the plurality of opinions and thoughts first. Not too feasible in the near future.

---

Did you just ignore Rhyfelwyr's excellent post, did you fail to understand it or did you just not bother reading it?

@EMFM: I don't really see why I should care about people who suffer when trying to force their beliefs on others... Regardless of whether that's christianity, atheism or whatever.

Only the Catholic and Orthodox churches have a history long enough to provide comparable examples.

Mother Church has changed only slowly, and often only as a response to schismatic episodes which forced change that later came to be viewed as better than the original positions (one reason The Church generally seeks to return schismatics to the fold). Early attempts to wipe out all heretics have proven to be poor choices both doctrinally and practically.

Islam, however, lacks the centralized structure of both of the above mentioned religious organizations. However slowly change may have occurred in the church, once that change had been embraced by the hierarchy it would slowly become institutionalized as a the new norm. No comparable mechanism exists for much of Islam (though the Ayotollah system favored by Iranian Shiaism might function in such a manner).

Ulitmately, the broad mass of Muslims must themselves be interested in redefining aspects of their faith to further marginalize the hardline wahabists and shiites. Perhaps, rather than having hard-liners sponsored to preach in the moderate West, the Western muslims can sponsor more moderate madrassim? Such schools could not be sponsored by infidels or people of the Book but not of Islam for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@EMFM: I don't really see why I should care about people who suffer when trying to force their beliefs on others... Regardless of whether that's christianity, atheism or whatever.

---

They aren't forcing their faith, whether they are Christians, atheists, or whatever. Wishing death on them is out of line.

Why reform islam? It is a perfect religion that is fair to women, doesn't teach violence and terrorism, doesn't promote racism, and is full of brilliant science. Just ask Tribesman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

They aren't forcing their faith, whether they are Christians, atheists, or whatever. Wishing death on them is out of line.

---

I don't wish it for them, I just don't care when something bad happens to them.

If someone wants to hurt you because you preach religion to others; simply stop doing it, and it'll all be OK ~:)

It's not like anyone's going to hell....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I don't wish it for them, I just don't care when something bad happens to them.

If someone wants to hurt you because you preach religion to others; simply stop doing it, and it'll all be OK ~:)

It's not like anyone's going to hell....

---

:daisy:, that is brilliant Horetore! Someone is doing something completely peaceful, and it is perfectly ok that people will kill them for it, because they should do it! Suppose I say that learning is evil, and I will kill all teachers, is that reasonable? If they want to live, they can just stop teaching after all. Seriously, think about what you are saying there.
I make no pretense about what I think about islam. I think it is a religion that promotes violence, mesogeny, and racism. Still though, if I saw a peaceful imam teaching and a Christian/Jew/Atheist tried to kill him for it, I would do everything I could to save him (even if that meant endangering myself), even though I think his religious is bosh. Human beings are human beings and you cannot kill them because you do not agree with them. I cannot believe that is lost on some...

Well, Christianity has changed a lot over the centuries. As Seamus has noted, the Roman Church tends to change gradually. Except when it has determined and frceful leaders, this was easier in the past when the Pope had less power.

I reject Rhy's three leveled theory however, as it discounts, the 11th, 13th, and 15th Century Reformations. Over the past few hundred years we have seen some Churches continue to evolve and some stagnate, this seems to be a function of size and I think that is for one simple reason.

The bigger your organisation the smaller percentage of sociopaths, stick-in-the-muds, fools, idiots, corrupt administrators etc.

In other words, size is a leveler. Islam's loose structure allows small groups to practice their own form of insanity.

There is another problem though, namely that the West's constant interference has led to Islam as a whole seeing "moderates" as de facto traitors because they advocate a religion closer to a European model.

So I think we should just leave Islam alone.

Make Mohammed a Saint and convert them to Roman Catholicism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

:daisy:, that is brilliant Horetore! Someone is doing something completely peaceful, and it is perfectly ok that people will kill them for it, because they should do it! Suppose I say that learning is evil, and I will kill all teachers, is that reasonable? If they want to live, they can just stop teaching after all. Seriously, think about what you are saying there.
I make no pretense about what I think about islam. I think it is a religion that promotes violence, mesogeny, and racism. Still though, if I saw a peaceful imam teaching and a Christian/Jew/Atheist tried to kill him for it, I would do everything I could to save him (even if that meant endangering myself), even though I think his religious is bosh. Human beings are human beings and you cannot kill them because you do not agree with them. I cannot believe that is lost on some...

---

Who said it's ok? I said I won't care if it happens, I haven't said anything about whether I think it's righ or wrong.

And I'll happily say it again; I really don't care when one nutcase whacks another nutcase. Why should I?

Your learning example won't apply to me, as I think learning is good, and as such anyone trying to stop that is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Who said it's ok? I said I won't care if it happens, I haven't said anything about whether I think it's righ or wrong.

And I'll happily say it again; I really don't care when one nutcase whacks another nutcase. Why should I?

Your learning example won't apply to me, as I think learning is good, and as such anyone trying to stop that is bad.

---

If you do not care about an innoccent human being dying, then you got problems my friend. You say that peaceful missionaries are nutcases and equate them with murders? When someone kills someone because of their religion, that is a nutcase. When someone peacefully goes to a country to help people and offer them what they think is the right path, that is not quite the same thing! How can you put them on the same level? You say they are nutcases because you do not agree with them. Obviously muslims there think the disagreement is worth killing over. Others think that the missionaries are good (as do the missionaries), so my example DOES apply. You think learning is good, but I and my cult think it is bad, so we give you fair warning and you keep teaching. That is nothing to care about, right? Esp if you agree with me that learning is not good. It is the same thing with the missionaries. Both the missionaries and the teachers are peacefully trying to spread a message and offer learning to people they think need it. Some don't agree with them, so they are willing to kill them. Who are the nutcases, the muslims and my cult, or the missionaries and teachers? See what I mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Why reform islam? It is a perfect religion that is fair to women, doesn't teach violence and terrorism, doesn't promote racism, and is full of brilliant science. Just ask Tribesman.

---

If you don't have anything worth contributing, and that are attacks, don't bother?

Commie propoganda perpetuated by gay communazi Muslims.

I think, especially with the introduction of Western ideals and democracy, Muslims will start questioning the conservative, oppresive view of Islam. I believe Islamic "Enlightenment", or however you would refer to it as, was set back by a somewhat impotent Ottoman Empire and Colonial rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

If you don't have anything worth contributing, and that are attacks, don't bother?

Commie propoganda perpetuated by gay communazi Muslims.

I think, especially with the introduction of Western ideals and democracy, Muslims will start questioning the conservative, oppresive view of Islam. I believe Islamic "Enlightenment", or however you would refer to it as, was set back by a somewhat impotent Ottoman Empire and Colonial rule.

---

Attacks? No, I just think it is a fair question. If islam is really such a perfect religion as it has been described by so many members of this board, then why is it in need of reform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Attacks? No, I just think it is a fair question.

---

You just went on your little sarcastic tantrum and attacked a member. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

You just went on your little sarcastic tantrum and attacked a member. Simple as that.

---

Really? I attacked a member? The only member I mentioned was Tribesman, and I said that I do not agree with his opinion that islam is a perfect religion. That is hardly attacking him. It seems to me that you are simply trying to distract from my question.
I pose it once again, many of you (including certian people who have posted on this thread) have said that islam does not teach or promote misogony, violence, terrorism, or racism, and it in fact promotes, love, charity, peace, science, etc. If it is such a perfect religion, then why is it in need of reform?

(interestingly also is the fact that reforming a religion is not the same as reforming a church. Reforming a church changes a human institution, reforming a religion changes the religion. If the religion is changed, that means that what it really says is not true, so unless you are gonna trust someone who came along later decided that things would be different, the religion just cannot exist. I guess islam has overcome that in the past though...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Really? I attacked a member? The only member I mentioned was Tribesman, and I said that I do not agree with his opinion that islam is a perfect religion.

---

Whatever makes you sleep at night :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Whatever makes you sleep at night :juggle2:

---

No Karl, you accused me of attacking a member, now please explain exactly how I did, or else I will have to say that you are liar. Tribes has told me many times that he thinks my opinions are absurd, as have various other members and mods. That is part of discussion. What I did was sarcastically comment that I thought Tribes opinion on islam is absurd. A snide remark toward someone's opinion hardly constitutes an attack on them. So I say again, exactly which member did I "attack"?

Hate to say it, but I'm not sure I notice the same mini-uproar whenever Tribsey attacks another member.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Why reform islam? It is a perfect religion that is fair to women, doesn't teach violence and terrorism, doesn't promote racism, and is full of brilliant science. Just ask Tribesman.

---

Your words, from what I'm getting from this, you're attacking Tribesman for having a different opinion on Islam than you.

As to your question, my opinion on this subject has already been stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Hate to say it, but I'm not sure I notice the same mini-uproar whenever Tribsey attacks another member.

---

Tribesy attacks members all the time, and everyone laughs it off as "oh, that Tribesy is some character..."
What I said was not an attack on anyone. I simply stated that the opinion held by some on this board, most esp by Tribesy, is absurd IMO. Is that an attack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Hate to say it, but I'm not sure I notice the same mini-uproar whenever Tribsey attacks another member.

---

I always thought it was so common for him to do it that everyone just ignored it (Like his simley faces) and tried to find something of a point. But if you want, I'll take the time to go through every one of Tribesy's posts and break it down for you.

Things are getting too heated. Closed pending review.