How sifnifigant do you think it is that Islam has never had any period/phase of anything comparable to the Christian or Jewish reformation movements? Is this why it is essentially a dark age religion? Would the situation be different if it went through a humanist/secular transformation or is such an event incompatible with Islam itself?
I don’t know if Islam must necessarily go through a Reformation period or if it is a Dark Ages religion. Islam is overtly dogmatic yes, but there are various sects within it namely Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Sikh etc….Furthermore, Islam is not a monolithic religion, it takes on both secular and messianic properties at the same time. I think what we perceive as “Dark Ages” is the reactionism Islam displays againt Western technology via our industrialized free market capitalist societies. Consumerism is perceived as a hedonistic sin in Islam and this mentality stunts the admission of new technologies and progessive thinking in Islamic nations. However, this is not to say Islam is adverse to science and advancement all together, it’s just that these advancements must not be contradictory to Islamic Law (Sharia). Traditional societies frown upon new things that seem unnatural to their heritage or threatening in some way. Christianity is no different from Islam in this respect, and we have seen Christian nations who rejected Christianity all together for secular humanist philosophies (Revolutionary France and Russia). Similarly, we have seen Islamic nations go secular in Egypt and Jordan but these nations are relatively poor in natural resources and educated civilians which keep them lagging behind in development. As a matter of fact, Islam just happens to be in nations where the natural resources are either short in supply or are the type that leads to over dependence such as oil (very similar to how cotton dominated the South in American history). I could cop out here and say that it was simply the luck of the draw, but I won’t. I mean, Ethiopia was once a Christian empire known as Abyssinia, but it never rose out of what we call the Dark Ages so it remains poor and fractured ethnically to this day. So we see the same things happen to Christian nations as Muslim nations. We have Amish and Mennonite sects who utterly reject modernity so the tradition has a Christian element as well. Fundamentalist Islam jealously guards tradition and heritage. Fundamentalist Christiantity does about the same….with or without a Reformation. I believe most Muslims are aware of Western technology, understand it, see its usefulness, but reject it openly because it promotes materialism, hedonism, declining morals, promiscuity for sensual pleasures, and the devaluation of life. We in the West have failed to export our advanced culture to them because many of our actions have proven their suspicions true….this and the fact that their despotic leaders have over emphasized our failings. It holds true as well that democracy does not have the rich history in the Middle East that it has enjoyed in Europe and America. So this fact heavily contributes to their Dark Ages, but beyond all this, Islam has unified the Arab people and sciences such as Algebra and the abbacus come from them. Avicenna and Averoes, Saladin, Sulyman the Magnificent, the Ottomans, 1001 Arabian Nights, the Quran (as literature) are all great accomplishments not to be belittled by our modern standards. But yet, I will concede that Islam is its own worst enemy…..especially in its modern manifestations.
How sifnifigant do you think it is that Islam has never had any period/phase of anything comparable to the Christian or Jewish reformation movements? Is this why it is essentially a dark age religion? Would the situation be different if it went through a humanist/secular transformation or is such an event incompatible with Islam itself? This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure I completely understand it. What would an Islamic reformation consist of? And how would a humanist/secular transformation bring Islam out of a "dark age" phase?
Donald: Very informative and in depth reply. Thanks. As to your assertions re: secularism, that's not exaclty what I'm talking about. Egypt, Iraq, Syria etc. are all "secular" states in that their leadership isn't a theocracy, but this is not the same thing as Islam as an institutionalized worldview undergoing a Reformation like Christianity did in Europe. I'm no expert in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that Islam, in all of its sects, has never had an internal, inward looking reform movement aimed at reconciling it with changed circumstances, new ideas, different methods of living, etc. All of the things that put an end to religious wars in Europe after the Reformation. I don't pretend to know what an Islamic Reformation would look like and maybe it's impossible precisely because it's not as monolithic as the Catholic church was in Europe, but Islam views itself as a relgion at war with modernity and by and large, it's right on this count. Do you think this is because it's never had a reform movement comparable to Christianity and a lesser extent Judaism and if so, is a Reformation even possible in Islamic/Middle Eastern culture? Could Iraq be the beginings of such a phase? Who knows?
I think that Islam’s hardball control over its believers makes the idea of reform nonexistant in Muslim countries, centuries of programming that their way is right and the rest of the world are pawns of the devil makes for some pretty thorough brainwashing. Muslims here in the US seem to be ‘reformed’ of sorts, with the religion and the gov’t not being one in the same here it puts Islam in its rightful place as being a religion and not a prison. In Muslim countries the gov’t enforces the religion and the religion enforces the gov’t. IMO this is a lot of the reason why the Muslims are fighting against our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, an open democracy breaks the grip that Islam has on the public. When Iraq and the other countries over there get established, expect to see some degree of reform occur in Islam
Nemesis and Joey: Perhaps the idea that Islam's Reformation has to be as violent and extravagant as the Christian Reformation phase leads to a false premise. Reforms can be gradual and phased or they can be spontaneous and overtly inflammatory. Right now, Islam seems to be unified against the West and its corruptive influences. Islam will not make reform a priority until it no longer feels so threatened by the West. So in a way, we decide when Islam will find the time to turn inward and seek reforms. If this happens in Iraq it would be remarkable, but don't hold your breath. Iran may eventually prove the fertile ground for reforms since it has been the the most stringent enforcer of Islamic Sharia. I would put my money on reforms occurring in Tehran first. But so long as the notion that America is the Great Satan flourishes, Islam will remain stagnant in its hatred for the West and the U.S. in particular. The Protestant Reformation occurred after the Muslim threat was turned back from Europe via the Battle of Granada in Spain and by Ivan Dracul in Transylvania in the late 15th century. With no surprise, the focus shifted to heresies and the theologically deviant groups fostering them. So long as there was war with the Saracens, Moors, and Turks, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli et al. would have to wait their turn on stage.
Don: Good thoughts about the lack of conflict fostering a reformation. Good analogy and very thought provoking. My thoughts are this: Islam is not at war with the West, Islam's LEADERS are and simply want all their followers to be, but the overwhelming majority just aren't that interested in turning back their societal clocks any farther than they already are. However, since they have such an iron grip on the throats of the majority of Muslims (especially in Tehran, Riyahd, Cairo, and some other places) the reformers (assuming they exist, but I think they do) aren't given a platform to challenge the dominant paradigms. I think the solution lies precisely in them having serious contact and even conflict with the West. It's no accident or coincidence that Saudi Arabia has started reforming, Egypt is loosening restrictions on dissent, Baby Assad is tottering, Libya gave us its WMD program lock, stock and barrel. These things only happened because of our presence and influence in the region because of the Iraq war. If we waited for Islam to reform itself, we'd be waiting another 1400 years I'm afraid. Christianity reformed itself but it may be the exception. A paradigm usually only breaks or shifts after running headlong into another one, and that's what's happening now. I firmly believe that Iraq is the start of a long, long, process not only of democratization and liberalization in the Arab and Muslim worlds, but of the reforming of Islam itself, and for the better.
Well what you have brought up is a very hot issue in islam some veiw are srong with and some are not but it hard to say 4 me, but we have to look at how the world has changed and whats happened
I don’t know if I am understanding what is asked but can a transformationbe peaceful? If so one could say the transformation is already taking place. Many kid/teenagers/20 somethings Muslim Americans are creating a more “secular” Islam if you will in my opinion.
Iraq and Ping-Pong Diplomacy November 30th, 2005 To get out of Iraq, first we must first know why we are in Iraq. We did not invade Iraq to find Saddam?s Weapons of Mass Destruction. We did not invade Iraq to establish democracy in the Middle East. We invaded Iraq to deter Saudi Arabia and its client, Islamic Fascism, from staging more 9/11 attacks on the United States. Of course, nobody in a position of power will say so, but we invaded Iraq mainly to deter the predominant source of money and manpower used to attack us on 9/11: Saudi Arabia and its client, Islamic Fascism....
I agree with the writer. It seems like one of the long-term reasons why we’re in Iraq is to establish an “island of democracy” in the Islamic world which can hopefully break the grip power in that area that accomodates terrorists and rogue nation idealism. I hope that such stability is sustainable. The biggest problem, in my mind, is that this is a situation that has existed for many hundreds of years. Removing SH might be a temporary fix, but it’s uncertain as to whether American-friendly policies will be adopted in Iraq over the long-term. It’s up to the Iraqi people to do that. That said, I really...hope...we don't get....accused of.....copyright....infringement......for the posting of the entire article here. There's a good guide on copyright and fair use on this website.
I wouldn’t worry about copyright infringement. This is a non-commerical site and full and accurate credit is given including author and original site. Plus, what are the odds anyone associated with either will notice or care? Possible but unlikely to say the least. If push comes to shove, just remove it. That being said, sorry if I stepped on any toes. I think the author hits the nail on the head: Iraq isn't about just Iraq, it's about the entire region and the conditions that breed terrorists. We had to do something about Saudi Arabia, but couldn't very well invade them: no plausible causus belli like we had with Iraq. This is about focusing terror over there as opposed to over here: containing the Soviet Union outside the Western Hemisphere is an apt analogy I think.
How sifnifigant do you think it is that Islam has never had any period/phase of anything comparable to the Christian or Jewish reformation movements?
Islam has been around now for approximately the same amount of time the Church was before its Reformation. Give it some time. IMO, their reformation is occuring now with their desire to not be labelled a terrorist-supporting religion and their desire to get involved in the free markets (which does not go against their religion).I think Islam has already gone through many reformations since it began. It just didn't have the global affect the Christian Reformation did because Muslims, for the most part, have always been concentrated in one area of the world.
Now that you brought this thread back up Ken, I would have to say that if Islam does undergo a “reformation” type event, it will be toward the extremists making Islam even more antagonistic and counter-West/Christian. I don't see Islam moderating anytime soon. In fact, Islam might eventually come to resemble the Inquisition period of the Church…..so darker times are ahead before any kindler and gentler Islam can emerge.
You may or may not be correct, Don. IMO, I think they went through their dark times and have no choice but to emerge in the modern world, and I think they are.My problem with some viewpoints is this (and I feel like I'm talking behind Neme's back, but I'm not. He's just not here)
Islam's LEADERS are and simply want all their followers to be, but the overwhelming majority just aren't that interested in turning back their societal clocks any farther than they already are. However, since they have such an iron grip on the throats of the majority of Muslims (especially in Tehran, Riyahd, Cairo, and some other places) the reformers (assuming they exist, but I think they do) aren't given a platform to challenge the dominant paradigms.
No, Islam's leaders are NOT doing this, only some of them. And I also don't like the societal clock argument. I think the right-wing revisionists nowadays (like those "scholars" at Jihadwatch.org) are unfairly portraying Islam and Muslims as not being compatible with modern society, and that's the part I very much disagree with. They are just different. Look at Iran, Egypt, and the UAE; very modern, predominantly Muslim societies who fit in with society and free markets and capitalism perfectly well.The Islamic reformers are given a platform, it's just that 1) Some are not saying exactly what we want them to...that's not their problem, that's a problem due to our cultural unawareness, ignorance, and toa degree, racsism and 2) The leaders of certain countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia do not have an iron grip over their people. If that was the case, we wouldn't be hearing about student protests in Iran or women's rights protests in other countries. And what about the Sunni/Shia and other sects' splits? They have never agreed what is pure Islam, and probably never will. THAT could be and is to our advantage. Groups like the Taliban or al Qaeda are not driven by the religion of Islam, they are driven by political ideology, and most Muslims know this. If Muslims support them it's most likely because they know no other way. I doubt any of us here know what it's like to be poor and living in Afghanistan. If a group is helping you, it's only common sense that you'd give your support or allegiance to them. The terrorist groups are evil, but does that mean the people who support them are evil too? Here's maybe a loaded question. Is Hezbollah a religious-based terrorist group, or a form of government? Are the Muslims who support them Jew and/or American hating Islamo-fascists, or do they support Hezbollah because Hezbollah has done good things for them, like provide affordable or free health care and housing?