17 thoughts on “Reformation of Islam: Is it a Possibility?”

1. The problem is: In Christianity, reformations are all about “getting back to the book.” Reformers say, “We’ve been clouded by worldly ways and we need to rewind: learn to walk in a Christ-like way; be like the apostles; learn how to go by Scripture alone.”

   In Islam, if you try to get back to the beginning, you’ll find a religion that conquered, slaughtered and raped. Any decent reformation of Islam has to be from a different angle: a modernization; an admission that it was originally a brutal concept.

   That ain’t gonna happen.

   • The view that muslims have of islam, is that islam is a counter-reformation. It opposes the reforms of “the one Abrahamic faith” wrought by jewish rabbis and by christianity.

     They tell the story of how Mohammed exposed a (modernising) rabbi, holding his hand over the part of the Torah that demands stoning for adultery. Muslims believe that Mohammed was in direct communication with the original, unadulterated Abrahamic religion (unadulterated by rabbis and christians).

     As an atheist, obviously I think this is nonsense. But it doesn’t seem to trouble muslims that they have to reject much of what christianity and judaism classify as core texts.

     There is no reforming islam. Islam began as the principle of rejecting reformation introduced by judaism and christianity.

   • RKae, if there was a “like” button I would hit it a 100 times for your comment.

     I just can’t understand why, after all of the years of debate that has gone on surrounding this topic, there are still people that think they can exhume this dead horse’s carcass and beat it back to life.

   • Exactly. islam has anyway been recently reformed since they kept losing to Israel, they decided they must be offending Allah and needed to get back to pure Islam, back to the scriptures , as indeed Christian reformers did, back to the basics ,then Allah might bless them and give them victory.Khomeini began this “new trend ” of going backwards to the 7th century, burkha’s , Sharia and all !
     The left wing Iranians instrumental in the fall of the Shah were shocked. As this was not what they had in mind!

     Most being middle-class ( what else changes ?) had the means to leave then or send their children to Europe and USA .

     Why the horror ? Why do so many modern Muslims not realise ISLAM is the only problem. Any kind of Islam, is still Islam. Get rid of Islam, and get a life, the only way.

2. Islam is a fraud.

   A parodisic pastiche of poorly-grasped Judeo-Christian-Gnostic texts and concepts -distorted and reforged- to empower Mohammad’s personal vendettas and sanctify his human-all-too-human revenge fantasies.

   Why even try to “reform” it?

   Just dump it.

   It is beyond repair since its heart is poisonous, and without that, Islam has no driving force.

   You might as well try to “reform” the bubonic plague.

   Islam has nothing to add to the wisdom and poetry and philosophy of the Torah or Bible (or human thought in general) but merely perverts those works to make the plagiarist seem like a “prophet” when he was truly a loss.

   For humanity, and sanity.

3. I would like to modify the previous statement about “getting back to the book”. In Christianity, you have these books that have very good historical evidence showing that they were authored within a century of Christ’s ministry, and (this is the important bit) fixed in their essentially final form when Christianity was still an oppressed religion. This speaks much to the reliability as well as character of what was accepted as the Bible. A substantial portion of the Christian scriptures originated as epistles, written communications sent to the various geographically separate Christian communities, though these do not have the same status as the Gospels themselves they are innately well-documented sources of the teaching of the first generation of Christians.

   In Islam, “getting back to the book” means returning to the Koran and associated materials. But we know quite well that the Koran doesn’t have the same historical credentials as the Christian Bible. It was written down after at least a full generation of purely oral transmission (because it was originally forbidden to write the revelations of Mohammed down, the Koran takes its name from being the collected “recitations”). And what is more significant is that the Koran was put into its final form by a triumphant, militarily dominant Islamic regional power. Also, the ostensible motivation to “do a thing WHICH THE PROPHET HAS NOT DONE” (a phrase indicating the radical departure from Islam which writing down the Koran represented) was precisely because a great number of Qurra’ (those who had been recognized as having memorized the revelations of Mohammed) had been killed in battle, with the attendant permanent loss of any revelations which were not memorized by the survivors. There were already some unauthorized codices extant, due to literate Muslims privately ‘supplementing’ their memories, but the Koran was compiled mainly from the oral recitations of the surviving Qurra’ for doctrinal reasons, and then all outstanding codices were supposed to be collected and destroyed, though there are recent discoveries of some which were merely buried or sealed under foundations. These fragmentary early versions which date back to this period show that there was substantial variety and deviation from the text that has been accepted and promulgated as the Koran. Some of these preservation efforts were obviously deliberate, and appear to have been a reaction by those who actually knew Mohammed and the revelations to what they regarded as an effort to rewrite Islam. These first generation Muslims recorded definite statements disparaging the accuracy and honesty of the compilation which would become the primary basis for the Koran. But because a currently dominant military leadership was promulgating the Koran, the objections of the direct associates of Mohammed were suppressed.

   So when we talk of real reform of Islam, getting back to the original teaching, there is a small but religiously devout group of scholars and philosophers who are trying to go back to before the Koran, because they recognize that the Koran is a perversion of Islam (those who regard Mohammed as a true prophet may even regard the eventual Koran as being the reason that he evidently refused to allow the revelations to be made into a scripture, insisting that it be passed along by recitation, but such an opinion is by no means universal).

   I do not believe that it is probable that Albleahi is an atheist or a disbeliever in Islam as such. But if he is a reformist Muslim, then he has good reason for not discussing this publicly, because to challenge the veracity of the Koran is indistinguishable from denouncing Islam in the view of the mainstream. Consider what he says about “The science of the unknown”.

   “The science of the unknown relates to the fact that when we read the sciences now, we find that there is an attempt to add information, but there is disregard of what comes to prior to information. There is a huge hindrance…it is the superstitious thinking.”

   Here he directs this at science and technology, how people essentially treat it as if it were magic, because they don’t appreciate the underlying theory and experimentation. Even new scientists are often more concerned with extending the details of existing theories rather than re-examining those theories to see if they really match up with what has been observed since the theory was adopted (this is of course perfectly understandable, it is also a how scientists get their PhD, through extension of existing theory rather than challenges to it). But does Albleahi only apply this framework to science, something that is chiefly characteristic of Western society? Or is this also how he views Islam?

   I would submit that Albleahi regards questioning the sources of accepted knowledge about Islam, namely the Koran and hadiths, as an indispensable prerequisite to the revitalization of Islam. That he cannot publicly admit this directly is perfectly obvious, because while it would in no way be actually equivalent to an admission of atheism or denunciation of Islam it would be treated as such by mainstream Islamic society, and the sentence for such a transgression would be death.

   Now…how much practical difference does it make whether Albleahi is secretly an atheist or secretly a reformist? I believe that it makes all the difference because if he were secretly an atheist he would have no rational motive not to pay lip-service to the Koran as a means of hiding his lack of belief. This is in fact what most Muslims do, they do not believe a tenth so fervently as they find it prudent to profess. But if he is a reformist who believes that Islam may make progress in questioning the Koran in his lifetime, he has a great deal to lose if that progress begins to occur and he has cast himself as being unwaveringly committed to the Koran. He becomes an outcast or at least marginalized from the community to which he feels the most connection.

   That is the difference for him, what is the difference for us? I believe that when the people of Europe rise up to defend themselves against Jihad, the distinction between reformist Islam which questions the veracity of the Koran and Koranic Islam which brutally suppresses all such inquiries will become an essential element in allowing Europeans to retain a measure of allegiance to the value of freedom of religion. Call that a fig leaf if you will, but I think that it will prove more than that. A credible challenge to the authority of the Koran which originates from within the devout Islamic community will not only allow Europe to reject absolutely Koranic Islam without ceding the idea of freedom of religion, it will create an attractive “third option” for many Muslims who do not like Koranic Islam but are afraid to be declared apostate for denigrating the Koran.

   Islamic society is currently too far gone in thrall to the Koran and the violence it espouses towards “infidels” for it to be likely that reform Islam can ever successfully challenge the veracity of the Koran. But in the context of an existential crisis, where Koranic Islam is reaping the harvest of violence it has sown and the militant Jihadists are being slaughtered and driven back, there is a real chance of reform Islam gaining predominance, if those fighting against the Jihad are willing to differentiate between reformist and Koranic Islam.

   The advantages for Muslims of adopting a religion that does not absolutely require ceding the faculty for rational inquiry should be manifest. For the CounterJihad, there would seem to be two significant advantages. One, the fewer Muslims you are trying to exterminate, the less fighting you’ll have. Two, the more choice you give Muslims about whether they need to be exterminated, the less innocent blood will end up on your hands. I’m not suggesting that any war can be fought without the shedding of innocent blood, and I’m certainly not suggesting that resistance to Jihad doesn’t have to come to war. But the heritage of Europe is ill-served if no attempt is made to at least mitigate the genocidal character of the war that cannot be avoided.

4. What this Saudi says is interesting, but it still remains that the West experienced the Reformation and the Enlightenment, which the Arabs did not. For there to be a true reformation in Islam, much of the Koran and the life and sayings of Mohammed would have to be rejected. That will not happen. Luther never rejected Christ nor the Bible-only the corruption of the Vatican.

   For years, I have been interacting with Saudis in the US. They are nice enough, but they are literal prisoners of their religion. They have been brought up this way. There is no deviation whatsoever. Islam is the very essence of their being.

   There is no answer I fear.

5. Quote:
   It’s only through the likes of Ibn Rushd,
   12:50 whom we reject. How do we lay claim to achievements of those whom we reject?
   12:55 Those individuals were outside of our cultural paradigm. They managed to break this cultural inertia.
   13:00 They managed to grasp ideas from outside of our cultural paradigm.
   13:05 But we rejected them, and still reject them,
   13:10 and are still writing books against them.
   end

   A society of propaganda and irrational orthodoxy imposed and enforced by the shedding of blood, a society that refuses to look at itself, will never be reformed.
   This scholar, like Ibn Rushd, will be rejected.
   The Ummah’s leaders will be writing against him too.

6. “I just can’t understand why, after all of the years of debate that has gone on surrounding this topic, there are still people that think they can exhume this dead horse’s carcass and beat it back to life.”

   The point of this post and the ones to follow is not to say that Islam can actually be reformed but rather to show the internal struggle of the Islamic world with itself. Personally I don’t believe that there is anything salvagable in Islam but don’t you find interesting to know how Muslims themselves see this issue?

   As far as I am concerned, the most important principle in a war is know your enemy. Thats why I spent many years learning Arabic. To be able to understand what’s going on the opposite side.

   • To say that I’m puzzled by this interview of Ibrahim Albleahi would be an understatement.

     You’ll have to help me here a bit. Was this interview broadcast to the general public, or was it on some specialty channel that would most likely be viewed only by westernized Arabs? Is his thinking representative of a broader movement in the Arabic world, or are his opinions, his alone?

     In the communities of Berkeley or San Francisco one can find militant, antiwar, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, Jewish lesbian activists with advanced college degrees and above average IQ’s. But just because someone has the proper academic credentials, it doesn’t mean they’re grounded in reality and should be taken seriously. So is Ibrahim Albleahi an intelligent man that should be taken seriously, or is he viewed in the Arab world, more like a harmless crazy uncle type?

     • He often gives lectures of similar content to very religious looking and sounding saudi audience. As long as he doesnt mention Islam as the problem he is safe to be fairly outspoken about the flaws of Arab and Islamic culture.

       The thing is that you have to be blind not to see the obvious fact that the whole of Muslim world is unique in its backwardness. Many in the Arab world recognise that there is a problem. Some listen to Salafis who preach return to the origins while others like Albleahy, they are the minority group, are calling for the opposite.

       In my next post I will talk in detail about Ahmad al Gubanchi. He is the most outspoken critic in that he actually attacks Islam and calling to open the gates of Ijtihad. He wants to abandon Koran as the main source of Islam and adopt common scence instead. He has some good arguments based on Islamic sources for that proposal.

       Ahmad al Gubanchi while in Iran was arrested and accused of Kufr. They would have executed him if not large scale protests in Iraq demanding his release. What this is telling is that there is support for liberal vision amongst large populations. Especially in Iraq where religiousity is now associated with terorism.

     • Even if the Ummah called him another prophet, his message would still be corrupted.
       They crystallize the meaning of texts instead of understanding the need for variation in understanding and application.

   • The reformers are not seen as harmless in Islam. Not at all. This is why Albleahi is careful not to present himself as a reformer of Islam itself, only an advocate of the creation of a secular sphere in which technological advancement can occur for the betterment of the Arabic world. This is already going against the wishes of those who advocate Shariah law and the totalitarian cultural edifice of Koranic Islam, but it is too clearly sensible and matches the felt impulse of most Muslims.

     Like I say, the reformers of Islam can never get out on top, it is like Catholicism during the period when their reach allowed full scale military campaigns against “heretics”, even wiping out cities. The Reformation could only happen when there were independent nations willing to stand up against that. And the Koran is much more corrupted than the Christian scriptures ever were, and I suspect that the most powerful moral ideals of Christianity are simply not ever going to be part of Islam, I certainly don’t believe that Mohammed, whatever the degree of distortion of the Koran and hadiths, could really have been morally comparable to Jesus.

     The reformists who challenge the authority of the Koran will never prevail without an outside force that makes brings the violence of Koranic Islam back down on the heads of those who practice it. But if that situation comes about, the reformers provide the out for those who do not like the implications of Koranic Islam to say, “we are more faithful to Islam than those who follow the Koran, because they follow a perversion against what the prophet taught.” I don’t think it is possible for anyone who isn’t a Koranic Muslim to understand how much that idea terrifies them. I certainly can’t. But it is clear that they do fear it greatly.

     Even if your enemy is irrational to fear something, it can still be used as a weapon as long as the fear itself is real. And I do not believe that Koranic Islam is entirely wrong to fear having the authority of the Koran itself challenged. Because, by ordinary standards of historical evidence, it is clear that the Koran is certainly a fraud. And that destroys all of the claims of Koranic Islam.

   • And that is a very good thing: LEARNING ARABIC!!!
     More people should do it.

7. Ataturk tried with some success, but ultimately failed.

   There is absolutely no reason to import tens of millions of Muslims into European Christian lands so that we can fight the Islamic Reformation in our towns, communities, neighborhoods, schools, governments an institutions. That is insanity. Keep that upheaval where Muslims have already stunk up the place for 1000s of years.

8. I don’t see much of a problem in reforming Islam – in fact, many will take it as good news that there is already an international movement to reform Islam, and that this movement is hugely influential, including in international bodies and the US government. It most certainly seeks to bring Islam back to its scriptural roots and original intentions.

   The bad news, though, is the name and nature of that movement: Ikwan.

9. The problem with Islam is basically it’s inability to tolerate criticism. To them the Koran is the be all and end all. How a book written 1,400 years ago by Mohammad’s followers and from memory can hold in its stone – age grip , on a people of the 21st century is simply not understandable. Even Christianity was able to take a look at itself and make reforms. Nobody killed Martin Luther or called him an infidel or pronounced a fatwa on him. Vatican 1 & 11 were conscious efforts made by the Catholic Church to reform. Even when time proves their earlier beliefs wrong, they have accepted their error, hence Pope John Paul 11 apology over Galileo’s excommunication over the Sun being centre of the solar system.

Comments are closed.