The reformation of Islam, part two: Political evolution

I offer this intriguing and well-argued article for consideration in the debate about how we in the West might faciliate a reformation of Islam that marginalises and removes the dangerous Islamicist movement.

It offers one of the best rationales I have seen for the appropriate adoption of the term "Islamo-fascist" and looks at the development of political Islam and thought behind that evolution.

I will be interested in any thoughts provoked, preferably constructive. (The article is long, but well worth persisting with).

While both the clerical establishment and al-Qaeda revile such “whisky liberals”, they see as their real adversary the Islamist reformers who advocate far-reaching change, many of whom have rediscovered the thinking of Islamic revivalists of a century ago. The ideas of, for example, Mohammed Abduh on maslaha (public interest), shura (consultation) and above all of ijtihad, or independent reasoning to marry Islamic belief with modern challenges, have resurfaced almost as a newly minted currency. The idea of civil society was reborn, with Muslim credentials the Wahhabi establishment justly fears. The turning point was the 2003 petition, called “A vision for the present and future of the homeland”, signed by leading Islamist reformers and liberals – although the former were and are the real force. As this pluralism implies, the document is founded on the principles of confessional and political diversity in Saudi Arabia. But for the first time, reformers both liberal and Islamist broke the taboo about speaking out against Wahhabism, implying that its totalitarian ideology was the deathly hand holding back the emergence of Saudi Arabia as a successful modern state its citizens would easily support.

There is a very big error in that article.

"Yet the west should be able to see the similarities between Islamism (or Islamic revivalism) and 19th-century nationalism in Europe. Both started as a sort of forced march into the future and then they detoured in sinister and destructive ways: fascism then and the jihadi cult of death now."

It really goes from here, 19th century nationalism was a throwback on the tie that binds, the shared past with which people could legitimize a nation, it was inward in nature, nobody wanted the return of Rome or the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. For islamism that shared past would be the caliphate; outward.

i don't know how they are going to do it, but it needs to be done in the next 25 years before the oil disappears otherwise there won't be a useful arab/muslim society for the next hundred years.

Quote:

---

nobody wanted the return of Rome or the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne.

---

Actually they did , the good old teutons and the germanic empire that was split with the reformation and the seperation of the Austrians shall be reunited by the good volk .
The third reich was the succesor to the first reich of Charlemagne according to those crazy german nationalists .

I haven't read the article, but it has been said that it took how long for Christian nations to sort out the whole church/state thing? Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, so they have had 600 less years to sort things out. What was the relationship between religion and politics in Europe in 1400? A bit of a mess, as any M2TW player will attest!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, so they have had 600 less years to sort things out.

---

If they can wear a tie on tv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It really goes from here, 19th century nationalism was a throwback on the tie that binds, the shared past with which people could legitimize a nation, it was inward in nature, nobody wanted the return of Rome or the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. For islamism that shared past would be the caliphate; outward.

---

It was pretty outward a lot of the time. Colonies were seen as vital to the prestige of any nation, look at how Mussolini wanted to rebuild a Roman Empire by looking for colonies in eastern Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, so they have had 600 less years to sort things out.

---

essentially my belief too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually they did , the good old teutons and the germanic empire that was split with the reformation and the seperation of the Austrians shall be reunited by the good volk .
The third reich was the succesor to the first reich of Charlemagne according to those crazy german nationalists .

---

Well yes, if you ask me we should clone Charlemagne ASAP and make him Kaiser of the EU.

On topic, I do think that Islam will loosen up, but it takes time, every generation loosens up a bit and even in Christianity some hardliners remained who never loosened up much, but on a whole they will most likely change, influenced by capitalist luxury etc. the devil's ways are just too tempting for most. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

On topic, I do think that Islam will loosen up, but it takes time, every generation loosens up a bit and even in Christianity some hardliners remained who never loosened up much, but on a whole they will most likely change, influenced by capitalist luxury etc. the devil's ways are just too tempting for most. :sweatdrop:

---

Using Husar's post as an anchor, but I think many of you are missing the point. Islam is not a monolithic structure and Islamofascism is not the only option.

There are substantial and ideologically sound alternatives that have been developed in recent history. Because of the West's predilection for "safe" strongmen, those alternatives have been sidelined by the fanatics as somehow "less pure" and the more we characterise political Islam as only fanaticism, the stronger we make our enemies. The example of Clinton's fatheaded treatment of Khatami in Iran is apposite, getting us only the more dangerous Ahmadinejad.

We are terrified of advocating more democracy (or greater freedoms) in Islamic states because of the Hamas factor - maybe all we'll get is elected fanatics. But maybe advocating and supporting more moves like King Hussein's (Syria now being a good example) would make greater gains for marginalising Islamicism.

Simply characterising all Islam as mediaeval is a cop out and simply gives the dangerous men even more fertile ground to threaten our interests - because they do the same thing in characterising the west as an imperial hegemony.

Islam had a Golden Age of tolerance and scientific progress that Europe only dreamt of for five hundred years. Surely we can think constructively about what events impacted that culture so badly that Islamofascism has the currency it currently does?

I don't buy into this "Islam just needs time to grow up" mentality, not least because it belittles Islam as a system of thought. When we were grubbing around in the dirt and divided into petty post-Roman kingdoms, with mass illiteracy, and military and organisational collapse perpetually immenant the Caliphate was building schools, hospitals, universities, translating Aristotle and Palto.

Were it not for Islam we would not have access to many ancient philosophical works, histories etc. 1000 years ago Islam was 500 years ahead of us, now they are 500 years behind. We need to recognise this and understand how it happened. The Muslim world has in many ways remained static, or regressed. In few has it progressed.

I also think we need to stop comparing Islam to Christianity, the two have less in common than they do different. For one thing the Christian story is bottom-up, Islam top-down. That means that Christianity can survive political marginalisation much better, while Islam flourishes when it is the religion of the elite.

I believe that the best we can do now is leave the Arab world alone, without Western support despots will either have to loosen their grip on power, or be ousted. If the region decends into bloody carnage we send in medical supplies and food directly to the people. We support the people not the regimes.

So I suppose I agree with Banquo in part, but at this point I would advocate extreme non-involement at the governmental level.

We make the Arabs like the West by being nice to them.

I think there needs to be a distinct social culture. Islam can not dominate both public and private life. The muslim nations with the most "liberal" governments all have distinct culture (Turkey, Indonesia, Iran)

I have to state a partial agreement with Calicula. Essentially my view would be that the best option is non-involvement. Allow the Islamic states to operate as they will, providing the human rights of the populace are not infringed. Islam is a major component in all aspects of life in the region whether western governments can understand this or not. The problem that many people have when looking at a region like the Middle East is that we view it through the lens of our own influences and culture. Just because we expect and want secular government doesn't mean that the peoples of the Middle East do. Indeed, as the article states, many people in these countries view the West with cynicism and mistrust, as they uphold and support despotism for their own needs, while conversely claiming to be exponents of democracy and freedom.

Non-intervention by western nations is an important step on the road to allowing Islamic states to find their own ideal methods of governance.

The challenge for non-intervention (normally my default position) is two-fold:

a) Many Islamic states also sit atop our energy sources. The West cannot allow the oil to stop flowing.

b) The damage has, in large part, already been done by intervention and Islamofascism has, and will, reach out to affect us on our own shores.

Like it or not, we're involved.

Don't need to be, the whole of europe needs a full stop of immigration from islamic country's, as long as we allow mass immigration we are importing the problem. Not worried about terrorism personally I am worried of a demographic timebomb. Maybe the change in the islamic world can come from people who have lived in the west, make it atractive to go back, a 20.000 or 30.000 reward or so, can't cost us more money then it does now

So , banning the movement of people on the grounds of their religion and having "resettlement" programs .
That sorta has a familiar ring to it:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The challenge for non-intervention (normally my default position) is two-fold:

a) Many Islamic states also sit atop our energy sources. The West cannot allow the oil to stop flowing.

b) The damage has, in large part, already been done by intervention and Islamofascism has, and will, reach out to affect us on our own shores.

Like it or not, we're involved.

---

partly the reason why i said what i said above.

the west only needs the middle-east for the next generation, when the oil runs out and the ME is left with a bunch of non-consuming, zero middle-class, illerate peasants we simply won't care.

so the ME has to persuade us that its in our interest to support democratic reform versus supporting autocrats.

democratic reform will have a cost (i.e. potentially installing islamist gov'ts), what we need to know is that benefits outweigh the costs of continueing to sit on the pressure cooker until we cease to depend on the ME's oil and gas.

the benefits alluded to above might include the transformation of the ME into an advanced trading region within a generation, so we have some reason to look beyond the oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So , banning the movement of people on the grounds of their religion and having "resettlement" programs .
That sorta has a familiar ring to it:yes:

---

Well yes, so shoot me. We can't go on like this, don't care what it looks like. There is quite a lot that has a familiar ring to it.

Quote:

---

Well yes, so shoot me.

---

Why would I need to shoot you ?
As it is you manage to shoot yourself in the foot frequently whenever it comes to any subject concerning a certain religion .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Why would I need to shoot you ?
As it is you manage to shoot yourself in the foot frequently whenever it comes to any subject concerning a certain religion .

---

I do? I don't think so. Visit any big european town, same crap everywhere. Just because you don't like hearing it doesn't mean it isn't true. Islam in it's current state and the west aren't compatible, and we owe them nothing, we don't have any obligation towards them. Get with the program or get lost, simple no, that is how it works in Dubai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I do? I don't think so. Visit any big european town, same crap everywhere. Just because you don't like hearing it doesn't mean it isn't true. Islam in it's current state and the west aren't compatible, and we owe them nothing, we don't have any obligation towards them. Get with the program or get lost, simple no, that is how it works in Dubai.

---

I live in a relatively big european town and I have no idea what "crap" you are talking about? The drunkards* who drink and pee at the bottom of "my" house so I smell it in my bathroom through this channel that's supposed to keep the air fresh?


*hint: muslims don't drink

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I live in a relatively big european town and I have no idea what "crap" you are talking about? The drunkards* who drink and pee at the bottom of "my" house so I smell it in my bathroom through this channel that's supposed to keep the air fresh?


*hint: muslims don't drink

---

Harrasing of the police, ambulances, fireworkers, women, robberies, basicly no-go area's. Riots in Denmark, riots in France, riots in Sweden, riots in the Netherlands, riots in England, and let's not forget riots in Germany. That same crap.

Quote:

---

Visit any big european town, same crap everywhere.

---

Errrrr....I live in a big european town (well its small really and some people even call town a city:laugh4:), as it happens I have lived in lots and lots of big european towns in lots of different european countries .

Quote:

---

Harrasing of the police, ambulances, fireworkers, women, robberies, basicly no-go area's. Riots in Denmark, riots in France, riots in Sweden, riots in the Netherlands, riots in England, and let's not forget riots in Germany. That same crap.

---

Yeah same crap everywhere , something really must be done about the locals .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yeah same crap everywhere , something really must be done about the locals .

---

Well you are in luck then since something is being done about the locals. Let's do a fun experiment, why don't you dress up like an orthodox jew and take a stroll in an enriched area, I give you 5 minutes max before you wake up in the hospital. Or take the wive for a stroll wearing a dress, and see what mutual respect is all about, I would bring tissues you are going to need them.

but enough derailing, this is an interesting thread.

Quote:

---

Let's do a fun experiment

---

Yeah them locals eh
http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=1895
oh look it ain't just a european thing
http://ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=1867
And from across the water
http://wcbstv.com/local/orthodox.jew....2.571538.html
Are you out for an epic fail again Frag ? or for good measure would you like some stories of orthodox jews attacking people to really sink your arguement?

Antisemitism in Poland who would have thought. Poland ain't no immigration country. I am talking about area's like Molenbeek in Brussels for example. Now would you take on the challenge? Good luck, be safe.

edit, if you want to do a link battle, you are going to lose.

Quote:

---

I am talking about area's like Molenbeek in Brussels for example.

---

So you are talking about walking round a run down :daisy: with exceptionaly high crime and massive unemployment as an experiment to see if an assault happens , well I hate to shatter your illusions frag but the likelyhood of an attack in a bad area is high anywhere in the world no matter what you are dressed as .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you are talking about walking round a run down :daisy: with exceptionaly high crime and massive unemployment as an experiment to see if an assault happens , well I hate to shatter your illusions frag but the likelyhood of an attack in a bad area is high anywhere in the world no matter what you are dressed as .

---

Don't worry, it's perfectly safe, just makes sure the wive covers her ankles and wears a scarve and nobody will bother you :yes:

Quote:

---

Don't worry, it's perfectly safe, just makes sure the wive covers her ankles and wears a scarve and nobody will bother you

---

I thought that was only neccesary if you went on a bus in Israel and didn't want the orthodox nuts attacking you.:2thumbsup:
Frag goes for the epic fail again .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You really make it too easy , have you ever considered actually thinking things through before you post ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I thought that was only neccesary if you went on a bus in Israel and didn't want the orthodox nuts attacking you.:2thumbsup:
Frag goes for the epic fail again .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You really make it too easy , have you ever considered actually thinking things through before you post ?

---

More like flawless victory. You know I am right about these area's and I know you know that I am right, you read newspapers you know what's going on there in these neighbourhoods. Everybody knows what I am talking about and if they don't they will.

Molenbeek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inob20I_Y0
Malmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnP-XzB_U0
London https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqxP2bpF7I

Just 3 examples, out of many.

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the nostalgic re-runs of the Frag and Tribesy show, but those of us not requiring a cure for insomnia would really rather you got back to topic.

Thank you kindly

:bow:

Quote:

---

Just 3 examples, out of many.

---

And for each example there are a dozen examples of non muslims doing the same so your "its the muslims" thing doesn't work .
BTW it would help your arguement if your links didn't contain lots of examples on the same page that prove my point

Quote:

---

Thank you for the nostalgic re-runs of the Frag and Tribesy show, but those of us not requiring a cure for insomnia would really rather you got back to topic.

---

Well for the topic , since the fundamentalist interpretations are in history terms a fairly modern happening how about exploring how they came about , what gave rise to them ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well for the topic , since the fundamentalist interpretations are in history terms a fairly modern happening how about exploring how they came about , what gave rise to them ?

---

They came about because of a reformation just like in Christianity. I can't believe I did that big write up in the other thread only for it to get locked. :furious3:

Would it be relevant to repost it here for this discussion, since it seems to be related to Tribesman's point?

BTW it would help your arguement if your links didn't contain lots of examples on the same page that prove my point

Point being?

The perception of Islam as a monolith was favoured by the so-called clash of civilisations.
Islam never was one and never be except in the dreamed Uma, the Community of the Believers.
By structure, Islam is poly, is multiple.
There is one God but no Pope.
If you have studied the Koran, had developed a doctrine which is followed by a lot a people then you are a Doctor, an Imam.

Of course, you have the immediate distinction between Sunnites and Shiites.
Each streams being divided in few branches.

The Islamist faith goes from Sufism (humanism and spirituality) to the Political Islamism (or Islamofacism) which referred to Jihad and martyrdom.
Al Qaeda belongs to the last one but is not the owner of the brand.

The Saudi branch is a legalist branch of the Political Islamism thanks to the Wahhabism, union of the sword and the book wanted by 2 men in 1774, Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Mohammed ibn Sa'ud.
It is important to know that this branch took the Holly Place of Islam by force (1924, Abd el-Aziz conquered the Mecca, in 1932, he took Medina).
The original guardians of the Faith were the Hashemite…
You have as well more “western” approach of religion, where the Doctor of the Faith have historical approach to the faith and have a more intellectual analyse of the texts (Hijtihab).

Now, the problem is the Reformation of the Muslim religion is in the fact most of the Muslim considered the words of the books as the words of Good, given to Mohamed by Gabriel so it can't be changed.
If you compare with the New Testament, all Christians know it was written by Paul, John or others. In fact, none of the texts was written by Jesus himself. That gave to the Christian place for adaptation, especially when the knowledge, the Revelations are in fact translation of translation of text written at least 30 years after the events…

The infallibility of Koran supposed “words of God” poses the crucial problem of the absolute authority of the holly text, so what about of the totalitarian aspects when certain verses of the Koran are in total contradiction with the Human rights?
To succeed in adapting the Muslim Faith, a reformation, you have to convince illiterate Mullah who barely knows 5 lines of the text that they have to stop to think the Koran but to study it.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Point being?

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The point being if you want to go "its the muslims" and someone comes back with "no its just people all sorts of idiots do the same thing all over the world" don't post links as examples to make your case which contain other footage of all sorts of people all over the world doing what you claim is a "muslim thing" as that is a real case of shooting yourself in the foot.
I did like the West Ham one , thats funny , so is the Belgium nationalist one and the anarcho leftist hippy atheist muslims one :2thumbsup:

One Linky

ditching the hadith may be a good start, there was an article i read to that effect recently, may have been the other thread.

Quote:

---

One Linky

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
one PCSO
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
wow after he screwed up the police have said they are going to train him :dizzy2:
Get rid of them PCSO muppets .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
one PCSO
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
wow after he screwed up the police have said they are going to train him :dizzy2:
Get rid of them PCSO muppets .

---

That is entirely not the point and you know that very well. I hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The point being if you want to go "its the muslims" and someone comes back with "no its just people all sorts of idiots do the same thing all over the world" don't post links as examples to make your case which contain other footage of all sorts of people all over the world doing what you claim is a "muslim thing" as that is a real case of shooting yourself in the foot.
I did like the West Ham one , thats funny , so is the Belgium nationalist one and the anarcho leftist hippy atheist muslims one :2thumbsup:

---

And incident is an incident, a series of incidents is something structural. You had to go for links from the USA Poland to Israel, all I need is a single neighbourhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

They came about because of a reformation just like in Christianity. I can't believe I did that big write up in the other thread only for it to get locked. :furious3:

Would it be relevant to repost it here for this discussion, since it seems to be related to Tribesman's point?

---

Yes, it was an excellent contribution and would sit well in this discussion too.

:bow:

Quote:

---

And incident is an incident, a series of incidents is something structural. You had to go for links from the USA Poland to Israel, all I need is a single neighbourhood.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes thats because you have his thing about Islam , but your structural thing is a house of cards that falls down very easily .
Anti-semitism is a global thing , so is violence in crappy urban areas , as is local problems with immigrant communities ...which makes your structure of "its a muslim" thing come tumbling down .
For your structural thing to stand you have to show that the issue you have is just something Muslims do and not something that is commonplace through varied communities worldwide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes thats because you have his thing about Islam , but your structural thing is a house of cards that falls down very easily .

---

So you say, yet you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ditching the hadith may be a good start, there was an article i read to that effect recently, may have been the other thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The perception of Islam as a monolith was favoured by the so-called clash of civilisations.
Islam never was one and never be except in the dreamed Uma, the Community of the Believers.
By structure, Islam is poly, is multiple.
There is one God but no Pope.
If you have studied the Koran, had developed a doctrine which is followed by a lot a people then you are a Doctor, an Imam.

---

As far as I know, the Hadith, while an important text is not supposed to be infallible. The Qu'ran is supposed to be infallible as it is God's revelation to Muhammad, whereas the Hadith a traditional version of his life and acts.

Huntingdon's view of the clash of civilisations is fundamentally flawed. What is civilisation? How do we classify it? Surely this means viewing certain peoples as barbarians, or at the very least uncivilised...

In essence the classification Islam as a monolithic threat to Western culture is unfair. Muslims, like Christians, secularists and other religions, indeed any gathering of more than one person , will have their differences. Indeed there are many undesirable parts of 'western culture' that are much more threatening to most people's view of civilised behaviour.

Uncontrolled immigration, or heavily restricted immigration is not the answer. A balance must be struck between the two. Similarly the idea that any 'different' immigrants to a country must adapt or leave is backward and oppressive. Tolerance and plurality must be exercised within Europe and the other 'western nations' in order to allow Islam, and other cultures to work within a non-despotic model.

I'd write more but I'm a little rushed for time... I'll try and dig up the essay I wrote on Islam in Europe last semester, I'm going off the top of my head atm...

Do not suppose the statements of the prophets to be true! They are all fabrications. Men lived comfortably till they came and spoiled life. The sacred books are only such a set of idle tales as any age could have and indeed did actually produce.
The Hajj is nothing but a heathen’s journey. The ritualistic kissing of the black stone at Mecca the superstitious nonsense of a religion that has only resulted in fanatical and sectarian bigotry and bloodshed.


Evil atheist Louis speaking? No. The above are but a few of the thoughts of Al-Ma‘arri, 973-1057. The Arab and the Islamic world are full of reason, of enlightenment. Have been for a thousand years. They are my allies, and their voices are mine.

For Islam, either reformed or unreformed, I do not care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Evil atheist Louis speaking? No. The above are but a few of the thoughts of Al-Ma‘arri, 973-1057. The Arab and the Islamic world are full of reason, of enlightenment. Have been for a thousand years. They are my allies, and their voices are mine.

---

As he appears in effect to be an atheist, is it not correct to say that he is Arab but incorrect to say that he is part of the Islam just as it is incorrect to say that Hitchens is a Christian?