I often bash the ideology of Islam and especially orthodox Islam on here and call for Islamic reform. However what would Islamic reform look like?
If Islamic reform went the same way as Christian reform did, with a greater emphasis on what is in Scripture rather than on interpretation by priests, then Islamic philosophers and scholars would have to confront the bits of Islamic scripture that are often incompatible with the modern world. There is the possibility that such a cleaving to the text would make Islam worse not better because the Koran and Hadith contain an awful lot of nastiness. But what if Islamic thinkers approached Islamic scripture with an attitude of positive reform? These scholars and philosophers would then be forced to examine, as many Christians and Jews did in the 19th century, the validity of certain instructions and precepts. Reformist Islamic scholars would have to decide what bits of the Koran and the Hadith to either abandon or to let lay in abeyance or reinterpret in a different way.
For example: The Biblical book of Leviticus contains a commandment that Jews should stone adulterers and adulteresses to death. However, you’d be very hard pressed to find any Jews who believe that this should be done these days. You might find that there are some Jews who believe that these type of rules would only be applied when the Moschiach or Messiah appears, but that argument can be countered by the statement that when the Moschiach comes, the world will be such a different place that maybe such laws would not be needed anyway?
Maybe a future reformist Islam could take a similar view to the horrors that are commanded in Islamic scripture? Maybe some form of theology could be created that said that these commandments of horror are not for all time but only applied to the time of Mohammed and in the context of the Arabian peninsular of the seventh century?
If the Islamic scripture can be positively reformed, that’s one thing, but what about Mohammed? Mohammed’s life was a bad one even in the context of the time. He was a warlord, a slaver, a tyrant and all the other things that sensible people abhor today. Could Mohammed be re-read or reinterpreted? This is in my view a big stumbling block to reform knowing the place of Mohammed in Islamic belief. It’s quite possible that we could look at how some of the characters of the Bible have been reinterpreted over the millennia. Moses is revered both in Christianity and Judaism as a great teacher of the laws that are necessary for a society to function. But he also encouraged violence as can be seen by the incident of the Golden Calf in the book of Exodus. Moses told the Levites to go out and slaughter everyone who ‘was not on the Lords side’ in the camp of the Hebrews. The result of this slaughter was the death of about three thousand people.
However it’s not as a leader of a faction in a civil war that we remember Moses, instead we remember him as a teacher and there is not so much emphasis put on the violence following the Golden Calf incident. Maybe this sort of reinterpretation could also be applied to Mohammed and he be seen less as the ‘perfect man’ and more a product of his time and culture?
It might be possible to make a silk purse from the sows ear of Islam. Across history some groups have tried to do this but have ultimately been destroyed by the extremists. In the modern world both the Ahmediyya and sections of the Ismailis have formulated an Islam that doesn’t bomb, doesn’t engage in mass murder, doesn’t enslave others and treats women as equals. I have no problem with either the forms of Islam or Muslim individuals who have decided that a better way to do Islam is possible and in my view it is a crying shame that such forms of Islam are not in the majority.
Maybe positive reform of Islam might have to wait until secular education has penetrated all corners of the Islamic world? It might be the case that then and only then will there be the critical mass of people necessary to feel confident enough to engage in such positive reform of an ideology that has often been characterised by hostility and conflict both with those outside and from with in Islam.
So what do you think? Is Islam reformable at all or should Muslims just leave it and find another spiritual path? What do you believe would need to be done to bring positive reform to Islam? How would you do it and on what timescale do you believe this could happen.
First I quite agree that a “reformation” of Islam in the mould of the Christian reformation ” would make Islam worse not better because the Koran and Hadith contain an awful lot of nastiness”. Indeed Christian Theologian and Islam expert Mark Durie makes exactly this point (I paraphrase): an Islamic reform on the basis of the Christian reformation gets you Wahhabism or similar.
As I understand it, Judaism has always been subject to Rabbinical interpretation (hence no stoning). This is diametrically opposite to the orthodox Islam position which holds to a literal interpretation of the text and especially so when ol’Mo has endorsed it either by word (Ahadith) or action (Sunnat), so stoning is still practised in Islam because ol’Mo commanded it and practiced it even though “the verse of stoning” is not in the Koran.
In history, from the earliest Tafseer to the most modern the Koran has always been interpreted in light of itself (looking for concordance) and the words and actions of Mohammed, so a re-interpretation on another basis as would be required, has not mandate within mainstream Islam (I am not considering here how other more “fringe” groups from Sufis on do so).
You then write: “Maybe some form of theology could be created that said that these commandments of horror are not for all time but only applied to the time of Mohammed and in the context of the Arabian peninsular of the seventh century.”
I shouldn’t have to say this, but this is exactly what has been done in the past and present by apologists and “rationalist” Muslims and, of course, as I pointed out earlier such attempts have come unstuck because of the attitude “if Allah had meant that he would have said it”; that the Koran is perfect (and derived from an “eternal” version in paradise), that to do so contradicts the words and practice of Mohammed “the man made perfect”.
You then pose the question: “Could Mohammed be re-read or reinterpreted? This is in my view a big stumbling block to reform knowing the place of Mohammed in Islamic belief.”
Again I agree. Mohammed is the last and final prophet according to Islam, the man made perfect and the good example (to all mankind).
Thus in Islamic thinking everything Mohammed did, from raping a child to committing mass murder, is Right and Proper and Perfect and to be EMULATED by good Muslims. Hence many Muslim Countries allow legal child marriage to , yes you’ve guessed it none year olds, the frequent exhortations from the Mimbars to kill Kaffirs etc.
Let me remind you that the Koran actually states that “to obey the prophet is to obey Allah”. Just type that into a web browser and look at the responses from Islamic sites.
You then suggest: “Maybe this sort of reinterpretation [parallel that of Biblical figures] could also be applied to Mohammed and he be seen less as the ‘perfect man’ and more a product of his time and culture?”
Again this has been done by apologists (its sometimes rather amusing to watch how they twist and turn, one moment insisting that ol’Mo is perfect and timeless, the next a man of his time – talk about having your cake and eating it!) but again it falls because the Koran states >50x that Muslims must obey Mohammed who is the seal of the prophets, which implies not just the last but also the best – all the other prophets in the Koran are subordinated to ol’Mo, so how “dare” anyone suggest that “the prophet” is less than the best? Blasphemy of course and a death-warrant.
You write: ” Across history some groups have tried to do this [reform Islam] but have ultimately been destroyed by the extremists.”
I beg to differ. Those that did the destruction were not extremists at all. They are mainstream, orthodox, Muslims. Fundamentalists, certainly, in that they cleave to the heart and core of Islam, the Koran and the example of Mohammed, and thus radicals as well (a radical goes “to the root” of whatever) but extremists they are not.
You then wonder as to “Maybe positive reform of Islam might have to wait until secular education has penetrated all corners of the Islamic world?”
I’m sorry but have you forgotten the recent history of Islam in this Country?
When Muslims first arrived they mostly assimilated, no hijabs, suits etc. (Your comment about the Ashkenazim – I hope I’ve spelt that right – applied to the majority of early Muslim immigrants too.)
It was and is the second and third generation of Muslims who have all had the benefit of a western “secular education” who have become radicalised (or in my words orthodoxised), returning to the roots of Islam. Thus the idea that secular education on its own will “modernise” Islam I find curious to say the least.
To be fair, it must be added that many of these children will also have received an Islamic education at the local mosque / Madrassah. But again, many who became more orthodox did not and it is Muslim parents who insist that their children get this religious education and who don’t take them for an Ahmadiyya or Isama’ili one, thus it seems that an orthodox education is preferred by mainstream muslims and even those considered “mainstream” in the UK.
So, as I am sure will come to no surprise, I do not think that Islam in and of itself is capable of being re-interpreted in such a way or, to be more precise, that such a reinterpretation would be damned by most Muslims, including many who are to a degree heterodox.
1400 years (give or take) of Islamic history has certainly seen cycles of laxity and rigour but no more than that, indeed a period of laxity is often the trigger for a return to the worst that Islam can offer.
I would argue that apostasy is the only real exit (I referred to the adoption of a personal “Islam-lite” etc. a quasi-apostasy in my previous comment / post). Ironically perhaps, Yusuf al-Qaradawi might actually agree with me. He is on record saying that without the command to kill apostates Islam would have died.
Some really really good comments here. As you say there are stumbling blocks in the way of reform in Islam that are not present in other monotheistic religions. My hope is that secular education across the Islamic world will eventually contribute to Islamic reform.
It depends upon who does the reforming and the direction it takes. Looking at other religions as well as Islam, there will be factionalism with on reformer at odds with another. Reform could also make it far worse as Wahhabism and extreme interpretations go. Apart from the Amadiyya, I can’t see it happening, and look how they are treated.
Yes it does depend on who does the reforming. Wahhabism was itself a form of Islamic reform. If every Muslim was an Ahmediyya or a Ismaili follower of the Aga Khan then I think that the vast majority of people wouldn’t have a problem with Islam. The problem is that these are very small and often badly treated groups within Islam.
Every religion has their own understanding of the truth. Whatever one believes or doesn’t believe should never mean one is more powerful. We are a collective whole.
Muslims should be encouraged to view the Islamic religion as a tool to view God and not as a law to govern their interactions with others.
This is what is wrong. Religion is a belief and not a law.
It would need to start by making it a crime for Islamic people to preach power and hatred towards others. Interpretation needs to be delivered factually without twisted truths.
It would be a very courageous person who would be strong enough to deliver reform. There would naturally be a lot of unrest but I suppose it could be done. It would probably take about a decade for the majority to accept it, but a few years longer for the people that go underground.
I like that concept of a tool to relate with and view the deity. If it is illegal for me to credibly encourage the killing or enslavement of others in such a manner that others would be inclined to follow then that should apply to Muslims as well.
I follow a religion with 613 commandments that govern what I do when I wake up and before I sleep,what I can eat and drink and what prayers I need to say before doing so along with what prayers I have to say to thank the Eternal One for the ability to go for a crap. These commandments also tell me what to give to charity and what to say when I do and a whole host of rules and regulations that include how to ask or hint to my non Jewish neighbour that I’d like my fire lit when it’s the Sabbath and I’m not allowed to light it myself. That’s my belief and I can’t impose it anywhere except in my own home with the exception of instructing our child’s school to feed him only vegetarian stuff. We can’t make outrageous demands that they truck kosher meals hundreds of miles from Manchester as that would not only be unreasonable but would put my community in a bad light and make us look like bad neighbours and being the ‘Only Jews in the Village’ we are acutely aware that we are an absolute minority. The problem with some Islamic communities and some Islamic leaders is they dont’ think like that, there is a sense of entitlement a belief that if we demand it then we will get it and it is right to demand. It doesn’t help that Islam is associated, rightly or wrongly with violence and I believe that this assists the state in capitulating to Islamist demands.
I have hopes that when or if the education levels in Islamic lands improve and economic problems become less of an issue then more people will feel confident in asking the awkward questions about Islam and its theology and influence on governance. The situation in Iran is very interesting as there there is an educated population that rejects the rules of the Mullahs but only follow them out of fear. It makes me wonder what Iran would be like if the Mullahs were removed and the Iranians emancipated?
@F:
The problem with regarding Islam “not as a law to govern their interactions with others” is that that is precisely what Islam is. It is (or has become) a set of laws that are intended to govern how Muslims interact with each other and the rest of the world.
Opinion polls repeatedly tell us that substantial minorities in the west (up to 40%) think that Sharia trumps the law of the land and pluralities and majorities in Muslim Countries that Sharia should be the foundation of law.
“Islam” means “submission” and Muslim means “one who has submitted” (not peace as many will tell you).
That begs to question “To what have Muslim submitted”? The short answer is the dictats of Allah and Mohammed. Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and Mohammed. Thus Islam is inherently framed as a legalistic religion, which is why so much talk on Islamic sites is about “what the Sharia says” – I’ve yet to see a single fatwa saying “do as your conscience dictates” or “follow the law of the kaffir land” for example (but plenty that tell Muslims to evade that law).
Thus what you are asking is for mainstream Sunni Muslims (who make up ~90% of all) to completely re-interpret not just how they understand Islam but also how Islam speaks of itself according to their sources (the position with the Shia is a little different as it is with some other minorities). History tells us that attempts to do this do not end well.
@F211
“The problem with some Islamic communities and some Islamic leaders is… that there is a sense of entitlement…” Apart from the fact that I would substitute “most” for “some” when taking a world-wide view I would agree with you; but this should come as no surprise given that the Koran assures Muslims that the goods of the whole world ‘really’ belong to them. Thus Muslims have the ‘right’ to demand what, in their view, is theirs by g*d-given right and the non-Muslim has the ‘honest duty’ to comply.
The problem with the education argument is that even if a secular education is provided by the state, most Muslim parents want little Mohammed to know about Big Mohammed and so ensure that their child has an Islamic education as well which, as the evidence in this Country indicates, will more than nullify any good outcomes in the way of “enlightenment” from the secular education.
When you refer to “…economic problems become less of an issue…” are you referencing the fact that in many Muslim Countries the only ‘education’ available to the poorer members of the society is an Islamic one (this applies even to a relatively wealthy one like Turkey, which in turn perhaps indicates where such governments’ priorities do – or do not – lie, and some such governments support the Islamic schools as well) or are you referencing what might be termed the “economic justification argument” for Islamic terror? (I presume not the latter.)
@Jon MC
You are obviously well versed in what you say.
I have not studied the Quran but I remember an argument from years ago between two people that were talking about it.
One of these people was a Muslim and the other was an R.E. teacher. The Muslim was saying that only Allah exists as a God and it is offensive to say anything against Allah or worship anything else.
The R.E. teacher was saying that the Quran said that Muslims should be tolerant of those who believe in other deities and should not blasphemy about other religions.
I don’t know how true what the R.E teacher said yet it seems to mysteriously not be preached to many Muslims if it’s factual. It seems that many Muslims are brainwashed in the twisted thinking of those that want power.
The only way to change the hardcore followers who seem to choose the more detrimental aspects of the religion is to change the governments that allow extremity.
I am totally against war but I am also against terrorism and cruelty. I am wholeheartedly with peace, equality and freedom. Yes I imagine change will bring unrest and bloodshed but this is already happening to innocent men and women and non believers across the world.
Unless we miraculously are visited by a deity in the flesh I see little option but to ask nicely first and if that gets nowhere, force change. But it does have to be well planned.
@F:
The RE teacher is right … up to a point.
The Koran does contain verses of “peace and tolerance” (to put it simply), but these come from the first Meccan period of ol’Mo’s mission – before he had more than a handful of followers.
After the Hijra (“migration”) to Medina Mohammed had the backing of two of the powerful tribes there and, with that power base, the message changed to “violence and intolerance” (again to put it simply) as ably demonstrated by the fate of the non-Muslims in Medina.
Now that creates a problem: the Koran is contradicting itself. The solution, also in the Koran, is abrogation.
In reality abrogation is applied in two ways (once more I’ll put this simply):
(1) There are those who simply say that the peaceful verses only applied to that first period in Mecca and that the violence and intolerance is eternal (or at least until the whole world is Muslim and the right sort of Muslim at that), not that they would put it in quite that way. This view is backed by a lot of the Sunnat and Ahadith.
(2) You may recall be writing about Taysir “ease” earlier. This allows Muslims to act in a “circumstantial” way. Thus they can use the Meccan verses “when in Mecca” – meaning when Muslims are a small, vulnerable, minority – but can swap to Medinan Islam (violence and intolerance) when they have enough power viz-a-viz another community.
Much of the terrorism/pacifism problem/debate within Islam is due to how different sections of the Muslim communities see themselves. Setting aside those that have opted for a purely peaceful approach, the periodic terror attacks are from Muslims who think Islam has the strength to attack the West (or alternatively that the west will not really defend itself within its own borders) and (some of) the peaceful Muslims are those that think that they are “in Mecca” at present, their populations too small to take control through violence
Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood often publicly deplore such violence (at least to non-Muslim audiences) but are quite comfortable with it privately (the MB is the father and grandfather of – almost – every Sunni terror group) because they know that a certain level of terrorism, but not enough to really provoke the “Islamophobic backlash” we are all warned is the “real threat” after every atrocity, but enough to keep governments and people worried about Islamic violence makes it easier for them to get the next “accommodation” of Islam granted.
I’ve written here on that as well.
There is also a crossover between (1) and (2) above. An orthodox Muslim may well believe that (1) is really the case overall but (2) is his condition now.
A final wrinkle: According to Sharia offensive sword-Jihad can only be (and MUST be) called for by a Caliph (hence “Caliph” al-Baghdadi of ISIL fame). Even then offensive sword-jihad is a communal responsibility (i.e. not everyone has to take part provided some do) to attack non-Muslims around the borders of Islamic lands (note what is happening in Africa at present!).
It is worth noting here that Muslims are expected to pay a 2.5% wealth tax annually. This is the Zakat, or “charity tax” as it is often called. What is less well known is that under most of the Sunni Sharia formulations of this “charity” 12.5% is to go to support sword-jihad against the infidel (and none to infidels in distress). Thus non-violent Muslims may well be supporting Islamic violence/terror through Zakat payments (either wittingly or unwittingly). As to proof of that there have been quite a number Muslim “charities” found to have terror links, including major ones.
Defensive sword-Jihad, which is required when a Muslim land is invaded, is an individual requirement – all must take part.
Again, if you look at (or listen to) the rhetoric of most terror groups you will note that they cast their actions (no matter how ridiculously) as defensive sword-jihad in order to legitimise it.
Now, I would agree that there are “many Muslims [who] are brainwashed in the twisted thinking of those that want power.”
But here is the other side to that: Islam is not just a religion in the sense that Christianity or Judaism (or anything else AFAIK) is; it is also inherently political and power seeking.
There is no such thing as “political Islam” as a separate entity to “religious Islam”. The political aspect of Islam is the weft to the warp of “religious Islam”; thus by definition Islam always wants power, for Muslims to be in power and control is the “natural order” in Islam.
Can this “power hunger” be abused by unscrupulous people for their own ends? Of course it can. But let’s be clear ol’Mo did that himself (eleven wives instead of four for example, child marriage, the assassination of critics, four witnesses to prove rape – I could go on), so even that is mandated by the Koran and Sunnat and hallowed by history.
Let me put it this way: the “power hunger” is inherent to Islam and it has been and is abused by everybody from ol’Mo through the “Mad Mullahs” to Erdogan, but it is Islam that enables such to cloak themselves in pietism and mask their “power grab” in religion in a way that is not possible in any such other.
@Jon MC
A very, very interesting post. I always enjoy reading intellectual posts from well informed people.
There is much to stew over in what you say and obviously someone somewhere needs to come up with a solution.
You have definitely made me think.