How to facilitate reformation in Islam?

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Vladimir]

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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 ).

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.