Posted on 02/15/2010 4:03:01 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On Dec. 1, 2009, Wafa Sultan and Daniel Pipes debated whether and to what extent a "moderate" Islam is possible. Although both are opponents of Islamic radicalism, on this question they did not agree.
Wafa Sultan argued that Islam is Islam, pure and simple, and there can never be such a thing as "moderate Islam." Daniel Pipes argued that the answer to radical Islam must be moderate Islam: Islam can be moderated, and the effort to support Muslim moderates is both necessary and worthwhile.
The ex-Muslim Sultan is undoubtedly a powerful voice in her native Arabic, and even in English she is impassioned and speaks with a memorable turn of phrase. In contrast, Pipes is measured and softly spoken, carefully and persistently making his case. I commend the debate to readers, not because one party won the day, but because the speakers were addressing important questions, which will exercise many minds for years—perhaps generations—to come.
My concern here, however, is to focus on an important comparison between medieval Christianity and present-day Islam, which was raised by someone in the audience who asked: "I will suggest that this [radical Islam] is not that different from Christianity at the time of the Crusades, which was a very belligerent religion compared to what it is today. So look at that in terms of the evolution of a religious doctrine, and how long does that take?"
On countless occasions over the years I have heard this comparison: Christianity has undergone its reformation, so why not Islam? The European Reformation took centuries—why wouldn't an Islamic reformation also take time? Isn't it all a matter of time?
This line of thinking arises from a worldview that looks at ideologies through the lens of "progress" or "evolution," shaped by a kind of Darwinism. The underlying presupposition is that human societies evolve as time passes, progressing and becoming more humane and more advanced.
Time has become a yardstick to measure the ever-improving character of human social order. It is the embedding of the idea of progress into our everyday language which gives credibility to the question. "Can Islam not undergo its own reformation, too?"
There is another problem with comparing today's Islam with pre-Reformation Christianity, and this has to do with the meaning of "reformation" itself. It has become accepted by many thinking people today that "reformation" means some kind of softening, a "moderating" process, a manifestation of "progress." This far from the truth.
Throughout the whole medieval period the idea of reformation (reformatio) was prestigious, and many reform movements chased after this ideal. Reformation meant going back to one's roots. For medieval Christians, a reformed Christianity meant being more Christ-like, more apostolic, and more Pauline. The wealthy St. Francis read Jesus' words about giving away one's possessions to feed the poor, so he followed this teaching, and many flocked to join him. Thus the Franciscans were founded as a reform movement.
St. Francis was a radical reformer. He was not inspired by a vision of making Christianity more moderate and progressive. What moved him was a desire to follow the Jesus of the Gospels.
Likewise, Martin Luther recalled the words of Paul about freedom in the letter to the Galatians—"for freedom Christ has set us free"—to exhort the German nobles to claim their own freedom from ecclesiastical authority.
The European Reformation—so often invoked in comparisons with Islam today—was driven by a desire to reform Christianity a second time, taking it back to its roots. It sought to move ahead by going backwards. The Reformation was not a "progressive" movement in the modern sense, but one which sought to "regress," renewing the example of Christ and His apostles.
This is why Luther and other reformers encouraged believers to read their Bibles for themselves, in their own native tongue. Luther regarded it as the duty of every Christian to be constantly renewing his faith from the original sources. Like St. Francis, Luther was a Christian radical.
It is true that some changes brought in by the European Reformation had a moderating effect on Western intellectual life. There developed a greater emphasis on freedom and individual responsibility, for example. The Protestant work ethic was one byproduct of this emphasis. Yet these developments did not take place out of a desire to develop a more moderate form of Christianity, but because they were regarded as conforming more to the Bible.
Therefore, according to the core meaning of "reformation"—a return to one's roots—reforming Islam would mean making it more Muhammadan. An Islamic reformation would produce a religion which is closer to the Quran, and above all, closer to the example and teaching of its founder.
The hankering of some Westerners after an Islamic reformation begs the question: What would it mean to follow Muhammad's example more closely?
As it happens, such a movement has been underway for more than 100 years and is in full swing today. It is what we know as Islamic radicalism. The ideal of an Islamic reformation has produced, among many other results, the global jihad movement, the push for Shariah revival and reimplementation of the Caliphate. This is what a desire to revive the example and teaching of Muhammad has led to.
There are two main reasons why renewing the example of Muhammad leads to Islamic radicalism.
One is that Muhammad combined within himself the offices of king, judge, general, and religious leader, thus unifying politics, law, the military, and religion. To follow his example means creating a theocratic political order, where the laws of the land are controlled by Islamic theology.
In contrast, Christian tradition has always distinguished the secular from the ecclesiastical, based on the Hebrew distinction between priests and kings. This feature of medieval Christianity—separation between religion and politics—was severely criticized by famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun. Muslim thinkers had always regarded it as one of the key weaknesses of Christianity.
The second reason why renewing Islam leads to radicalism is that many of the harsher elements of Islamic law—such as death for apostates, stoning adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, enslaving one's enemies, and killing nonbelievers—are firmly grounded in Muhammad's example.
Australian Muslim Waleed Aly was entirely correct when he said Islam has already had its reformation, and the outcome has been Islamic radicalism:
"Still, Western calls for an Islamic Reformation grow predictably and irrepressibly stronger, while those familiar with the Islamic tradition easily observe that radical and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, cannot be cured by Reformation for the very simple fact that they are the Reformation." In today's world, if what is needed is a more moderate manifestation of Islam, then the very last thing that could ever accomplish this would be an Islamic reformation.
Well, then, let’s defeat them utterly and permanently.
When people say islam needs a 'Reformation' - they don't know what they are talking about. Isalm needs a Rejection, not a Reformation...
Radical Islam is an insane murder cult.
Moderate Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West.
The strategy needs to be similar with that of the US in the cold war. We fight a battle of ideas trying to prove that their ideology and beliefs are just flat wrong, inhuman, and made up by a madman, in an effort to win the propaganda war and bring about the decline of the religion among its followers. It would take generations, but at some point, there would come a time when only the really really deluded would follow it anymore, and they won't have control of billions of dollars and millions of followers. That's the only long term solution.
The difference is that Protestant Reformation, whatever its merits were, was building on the solid foundation of Catholic Christian religion, whereas Islam is build upon Mohammed’s fables.
A moderate Islamic is one who hasnt blown anyone up———yet.
Good point
This is the most important sentence I have read about Islam in a long, long time.
It is absolutely essential to keep in mind that there have been butchers, lechers, slave-abductors and so forth in Christian history, but they were acting outside-of and against the precepts and example of Christ, acting (at their worst) in disobedience to their own authorities, were seen by their more devout contemporaries as scandalous, and are seen in retrospect as abhorrent.
By contrast, the bsutchers, lechers, and slave-abductors in Islamic history were acting in accordance with the precepts and example of Mohammad, acting in conformity to their authorities, were seen by their contemporaries as devout, and are seen in retrospect (by fellow Muslims) as exemplary.
The more religiously observant a Muslim becomes, the more he or she wishes to conform to the Hadiths, to the Koran, and to Mohammad himself; and the more damnable their behavior becomes.
That's the utter perversion of it all.
My understanding is that some of the most violent aspects of islam come directly from passages in the koran. While some may be uncomfortable with attaching to much importance to some passages in the old testament (often cited for a moral equivalence comparison with islam), how did the reformation of the western church change our interpretation of the bible? I don’t think it did anything of the sort.
For once, I find myself agreeing with an imam. Daniel Pipes used to get it. I think he’s oblivious to the serious intransigence of the death cult.
While many people may see millions of muslims out there who just want to make a living, etc., those same live-and-let-live muslims are forced to take sides and to side with terrorists, ALWAYS, against Israel, ALWAYS, and against the United States, ALWAYS. Or else! Because, in the final analysis, the terrorists are doing precisely what the koran says to do, while the moderates are not, and they know it. So, moderate? I don’t think so.
BINGO!!!!
Talk about ‘that’s it in a nutshell’! You have crystallized the entire muslim ‘problem’ right there! BRAVO Mrs. Don-o!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.