Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in
your area.
Islam's
'Protestant Reformation'
by Raymond Ibrahim
PJ Media
June 20 and 27, 2014
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Originally published by PJ Media in two
parts.
In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must
reform. This is the contention of many Western peoples. And, pointing to
Christianity's Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also
reform, many are optimistic.
Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming.
What is today called "radical Islam" is the reformation
of Islam. And it follows the same pattern of Christianity's Protestant
Reformation.
The problem is our understanding of the word "reform."
Despite its positive connotations, "reform" simply means
to "make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or
economic institution or practice) in order to improve it."
Synonyms of "reform" include "make better,"
"ameliorate," and "improve"—splendid words all, yet
words all subjective and loaded with Western references.
Muslim notions of "improving" society may include purging it
of "infidels" and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and
women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or
executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators.
Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from
alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an
"improvement" and a "betterment" of society.
In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as
an "improvement" and "betterment" of society—simply
because "we" are not Muslims and do not share their reference
points and first premises. "Reform" only sounds good to most
Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great
extent products of Christianity's Protestant Reformation; and so, a
priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word.
----
At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition
in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the
printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted
with the Bible's contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the
Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only
Christian authority was "scripture alone," sola scriptura.
Islam's reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant
Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of
tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the
contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.
As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam's scriptures,
specifically its "twin pillars," the Koran (literal words of
Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah's prophet, Muhammad),
were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few
scholars, or ulema—literally, "they who know"—were
literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam's scriptures. The
average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its "Five
Pillars."
In this context, a "medieval synthesis" flourished
throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or
ijma'), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval
historian Daniel Pipes' words,
translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as
stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical
terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia
could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its
more stringent demands… [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked
over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is
not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational,
constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it
always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).
This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more
Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today
compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate
enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval
forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant
teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam's prophet, is now
collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western
scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the Internet—where
all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to
anyone with a laptop or iPhone.
In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and
contexts "Islamic fundamentalism," "radical Islam,"
"Islamism," and "Salafism" flourished. Many of
today's Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors
with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting
against earlier traditions, are protesting against the "medieval
synthesis," in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their
Christian Protestant counterparts once did.
Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural
accretions of the Church and "reformed" Christianity by
aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d.
1787), one of Islam's first modern reformers, "called for a return
to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the
accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it," in the words of
Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).
The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the
reformists.
Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam's scriptures,
other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other
religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion
altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy
penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who
do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the
literal teachings of Islam's scriptures and who instead become more
faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.
-----
How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but
with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are
often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one
admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which
tend to lump all religious scripture together in a melting pot of
relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their
respective words and teachings.
Obviously a point-by-point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and
Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my
"Are
Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam" for a more
comprehensive treatment).
Suffice it to note some contradictions (which will be rejected as a
matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
· The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and
forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of
combatting and converting "infidels," Christians are called to
pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not
the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold
and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and
Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they
either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
· The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from
Christianity. Conversely, Islam's prophet himself decreed
that "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
· The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife,
thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran
allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or
sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat
women as possessions.
· The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits
it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to
one's wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the
"infidel" during war.
It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself
to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western
civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda
campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that
says otherwise.
And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds
with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic
civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign
emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says
otherwise.
----
Those in the West waiting for an Islamic "reformation" along
the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it
will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam's
reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the
Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for
tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural
dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the scriptures
of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam's
reformation has naturally produced a civilization markedly different from
the West.
Put differently, those in the West uncritically calling for an
"Islamic reformation" need to acknowledge what it is they are really
calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the
trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society.
That would not be a "reformation"—certainly nothing
analogous to the Protestant Reformation.
Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only
because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church
and state, the spiritual and the temporal.
Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a
secular—or any—state. Christ called on believers to "render unto
Caesar the things of Caesar (temporal) and unto God the things of God
(spiritual)" (Matt. 22:21). For the "kingdom of God" is
"not of this world" (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the
New Testament deals with how "man is not justified by the works of
the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Gal.
2:16).
On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law;
and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and
the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that "It is not fitting for
true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and
His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His
Messenger strays far indeed!" (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of
Islam, "We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia]
of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who
are ignorant" (45:18).
Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean
that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the
Koran and Hadith—in a word, Sharia.
And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the
everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls
under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the
discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended
(mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).
Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined
Sufism the exception).
Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without
Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam
literally means "submit." Submit to what? Allah's laws as
codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith.
The "Islamic reformation" some in the West are hoping for is
really nothing less than an Islam
without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing
secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah's law; a
"reformation" that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go
into the dustbin of history.
Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam
can be true to its scriptures in any meaningful way and still peacefully
coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment