The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. While Hirsi Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform—and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures she suggests to do so—many of her critics offer a plethora of opposing claims, including that Islam need not reform at all.
The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below—namely, that Islam has already “reformed.” And violence, intolerance, and extremism—typified by the Islamic State (“ISIS”)—are the net result of this “reformation.”
Such a claim only sounds absurd due to our understanding of the word “reform.” Yet 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 connotations.
Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view.
In short, an Islamic reformation will 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 first premises and reference points. “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word.
Historical Parallels: Islam’s Reformation and the Protestant Reformation
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 current 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—including every atrocity ISIS commits, such as beheading, crucifying, and burning “infidels,” even mocking their corpses—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 teachings 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 exclusively 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” (Bernard Lewis,The Middle East, p. 333).
The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the “reformists,” with ISIS at their head.
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 becoming better acquainted 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.
Christianity and Islam: Antithetical Teachings, Antithetical Results
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 scriptures 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 naturally 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 all 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.
The Islamic Reformation Is Here—and It’s ISIS
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 founders and scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation is producing something markedly different.
Put differently, those in the West 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 is precisely what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing. Some of her reforms as outlined in Heretic call for Muslims to begin doubting Muhammad (whose words and deeds are in the Hadith) and the Koran—the very two foundations of Islam.
That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.
Habitually 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 the example of Muhammad as laid out in the 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 very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting.
The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling 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 and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.
dumbledoresarmy says
Conor Cruise O’Brien argued – back in the 1990s – that there was a Muslim revival going on. A movement back-to-basics. And the key feature of *that* was that, as he put it, “the jihad is back”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html
CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN
Friday 6 January 1995
The lesson of Algeria: Islam is indivisible
Here are the opening salvoes of O’Brien’s article, from 1995:
“Fundamentalist Islam” is a misnomer which dulls our perceptions in a dangerous way.
“It does so by implying that there is some other kind of Islam, which is well disposed to those who reject the Koran. There isn’t.
“Islam is a universalist, triumphalist and political religion. It claims de jure dominion over all humanity; that is God’s will. The actual state of affairs, with unbelievers of various sorts dominating most of the world, is a suspension of God’s will and a scandal to the faithful. The world is divided between the House of Islam and the House of War, meaning the rest of us.
“For more than two centuries now, the House of War has been in the ascendant, and the House of Islam has been abased.
“The remedy for this unnatural and intolerable [to Muslims; nota bene, Conor Cruise O’Brien is most assuredly not pro-Islam, what he’s doing here is trying to get inside the Muslim state of mind – dda] state of affairs is jihad.
“Jihad is defined as “the religious duty imposed on all Muslims to wage war upon those who do not accept the doctrines of Islam”. The Prophet Mohamed himself not merely preached but waged jihad. God’s word, dictated to the Prophet and preached by him, is binding on all Muslims, and his example is their inspiration.
“In the glorious centuries of expansion, the jihad carried Islam from Arabia, to the west as far as the Atlantic; to the north as far as Vienna; to the south as far as the Sahara and down the east coast of Africa to Madagascar; and to the east across Persia and the Indian subcontinent into part of China and Indonesia.
“What is going on today in the Muslim world is not the advent of some aberrant thing called Islamic fundamentalism but a revival of Islam itself – the real thing – which Western ascendancy and Westernised post-Muslim elites no longer have the capacity to muffle and control.
“The jihad is back.”
Beagle says
I think the sahwa Islamia started in 1979: Afghanistan, Iran, mosque seizure in Saudi Arabia.
Islam needs an Enlightenment and Renaissance.
TheBuffster says
Islam needs the dustbin of history. You can’t get rid of Islamic puritanism, because its basis is in the foundational texts of the religion. As long as people can read those texts, they can become fundamentalists.
But Ibrahim makes an important point that as more Muslims read those texts, not only do more become fundamentalists, but so do more become apostates. Direct reading of Islamic texts helps to separate the sheep from the goats, the blindly obedient followers from the decent, thinking people who realize that Islam isn’t what they thought it was, and they have to leave it.
If you read former Muslims’ stories of how they lost their faith, you’ll see that reading the Koran and hadith is a fairly common cause of their apostasy.
TH says
The Protestant Reformation was no walk in the park. They provoked a series of extremely serious civil wars especially in Holland, Germany and France, which brought about the death of about a third of the German population. Besides, it was also deeply political as Luther whilst rebelling against the Pope and calling him the Antichrist, he put himself in the hands of the Princes. As for the interpretation of the Bible, the Bible cannot be separated from Tradition, as it is one of its its expressions. Jesus didn’t bring any book to the world, nor did he dictate or have any angel dictate a book proceeding from heaven. Luther, Calvin and the rest didn’t have any mission or sign from God to demonstrate that they had any authority to perform their “reformation”.
As for the Enlightenment, that was no nice and pleasant trip either. It brought about the French Revolution which ended up in the Reign of Terror, and finally Napoleon, the first great European dictator who opened the way for more like Hitle and Stalin.
Jovial Joe says
‘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.’ – The most accurate and concise diagnosis of the matter I’ve read to date. A masterful piece Raymond.
Theodoric says
“Prophet” Muhammad’s Shariamonster, also known as “Islam,” wants to decapitate our freedom of speech.
Say “NO” To Muhammad’s Shariamonster, and say “NO” to Islam!
https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/say-no-to-muhammad-s-shariamonster/
duh_swami says
Man, reforming perfection is really hard ainit? Even suggesting it implies that Allah and his holy writ are imperfect. How can that be? Is one word from Allah, less worthy than another word from Allah? Who among the assembly of deeeep Islamic thinkers is wise enough to decide? And even more important to the individual, is explaining all their pet theories to Allah, when their time comes.
celtic warriarcanada says
Great Artical And Comparison Raymond Ibraham. My prayers are with you and our brothers and sisters suffering through out the world for their faithful testimony and adherence to THE HOLY TRINITY, AND THE DEITY AND REDEMPTIVE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. For which many of them are FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH AND ARE MODELS AND EXAMPLES FOR CHRISTIANS THROUGH OUT THE WEST.THE lack of concern by WESTERN PROTESTANTS and EVANGELICALS is APPALLING ! SOME HOW we in the WEST IMAGINE we are EXEMPT !THOUGH many ARE CONCERNED ! AND DESIRE TO DO MORE . THANK YOU FOR YOUR WELL RESEARCHED ARTICAL .YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IS GREATLY APPRECIATED AND UESFUL .
mortimer says
Islam is a belief without evidence, even a belief AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE!
There are historical and archeological contradictions that show the official story of Islam’s foundation is FALSE.
Muslims believe in a total FANTASY created by the caliphs to control the masses (Caliph Abd al Malik being the greatest inventor of Islam).
The call for reformation is indeed the call to apply critical thought to something that has no valid basis. Since everything about Islam contradicts modern human rights, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s asking for an Islam without Islam…the abandonment of faith without evidence.
Lesley says
This is a brilliant article! Bravo! This is the other half of what I was just discussing with my best friend (in not nearly as elegant terms as Raymond Ibrahim).
In the West, we want to see secularization of Islam because that benefits us and our goal of maintaining a forward-progressing, functional society. What incentive does the Muslim world have to accept secularization? They don’t have any incentive to create a gentler version of Islam. If anything, Islamist barbarism is being rewarded with trade, foreign aid, welfare benefits in Western countries, positive press in the media for being bullies, and getting what they want for being accomplished liars. Why should they change?
Secularization would require that they adopt tolerance for others, give up their supremacist ideas, tell the truth, be accountable, work hand in hand with non-believers whom they are indoctrinated to believe are beneath them, and fair game for stealing from, deceiving, subjugating, and enslaving. Why would they give up the glee of striking terror in the hearts of non-believers and believing that they are better than kuffar? The good people in the Ummah will leave Islam or only give lip service, but the ideology outlined in the texts of Islam gives rewards for followers to fill their hearts with darkness; it also gives them power. Many humans would continue to hold this illusion of greater personal power and importance over other humans, rather than willingly give it up. There are many people who cling to a narrative of victimhood instead of working hard, even without a theocratic ideology.
In human nature, belief systems or cultural traditions that give people a feeling of power and supremacy are attractive to the weak among the masses. Add the element of divinity to the mix, and this is a growing tsunami attacking the civilized world. In order to incentivize the downfall of this, we have to cut them off entirely. No trade with Muslim nations that follow Sharia, deport all followers (and give shelter to apostates), no madrassas on our soil; nothing. There should be no legal protection for Islam in Western countries. At the same time, we have to secure our Western borders and defend against their attacks.
The Muslim world can either drop its ideology and join the modern world with us in tolerance and honest partnership, or we should shut them out. In time, with the progress that we are making technologically and us focusing on improving our lives and systems, this could incentivize the demographic of humans and governments embracing Islam and Sharia to drop it, and join the modern world.
Either that, or we have the bloodiest war that humanity has ever seen coming. I prefer the former over the latter, but I’m not in charge of these things :0(
jayell says
Surely the answer is simple, it’s already been given thousands of times in this article and elsewhere; Islam’s message, i.e., the literal words of Allah, is set out uneqivocally in the Qu’ran and the template for human perfection (the teachings and example of Mohammed) is set out clearly in the Hadith, and no mere human is allowed to ‘reform’ or modify or re-interpret it in any way. If anyone tries, it’s strictly no longer ‘Islam’, and any ‘islamic’ person can come along later and justifiably overturn all the reformer’s ‘good work’, putting us effectively back to ‘square one’ without futher argument. Either that, or the so-called ‘reformers’ are actually playing a game of taqyia with us gullible kuffars, and they’ll turn the tables at an time appropriate for them to take the whole show over.
Buraq says
Brilliant article, including analysis. More please!
jewdog says
As literacy spreads people will read other things besides the Islamic texts. The Reformation in Europe was followed by the Enlightenment, and that will happen among Muslims too.
c matt says
At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture
At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against authority in the name of individual supremacy (closely akin to “non serviam”). It was never about “scripture” but rather, who had the authority to interpret it. No one disputed that the Church gave us Scripture.
Islam not having a central authority, never really can undergo a “reformation” in the same sense – there is no central authority against whom to revolt – each Imam is an authority unto himself. Thus, Islam, in that sense, was already Protestant before Protestant was “cool” (by about 700 years). And frankly, unless you interpret the Koran out of Islam, ISIS is closer to Koranic Islam than any would be moderates.
Frans Groenendijk says
“Islam not having a central authority, never really can undergo a “reformation” in the same sense – there is no central authority against whom to revolt – each Imam is an authority unto himself.”
Exactly!
The article of RI is great, this is a magnificent supplement.
spot on says
Article title: “Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Is Already Here—and It’s Called ‘ISIS’”
If you reform “good” the expected outcome should be more “good”, wouldn’t you think. It then makes sense that if you reform “evil”, you would a purer form of “evil” (a la ISIS).
BTW, there are so few moderate Muslims that they don’t matter. They seldom say a word. They are Muslims just going along for the ride.
Edward says
ISIS is the Status Quo of the Muslim world…..reformation for peace are not part of their prayers. You won’t find an act of contrition in the Quran. Their primary mindset is to eliminate the unbelievers. That’s what their prophet Mohammed, Allah’s messenger, professed for the Muslim’s final destiny!
Will says
Sharia-is-sharia-is-SHARIA whether it is preached from the mosques of Mogadishu ,Jalalabad, Islamabad , Mecca …..
The Islamic state’s, et al , puritanical sharia will be tolerated , sharia-is-sharia-is-sharia whether it manifests itself in a hijab,niqab or burqa { the whole nine yards of Wahhabi crazy, we have Canadian females fighting for the acceptance of the black-shroud ! } .
Muslims will not criticize sharia that would be tantamount to heresy. The Taliban,Boko Haram, Hamas, al-Qaeda ,Hezbollah, al-Shabaab and the Saudi Salafists {keepers of Islam’s holy sites} ect…. all implement nefarious forms of sharia with impunity.
It wasn’t one giant leap for mankind but one small step for a vicious and vindictive flavour of sharia that transformed a relatively modern Afghani society of the 1960’s into one worshipping a malicious totalitarian ideology . A society that valued its beasts of burden more than they valued their woman, a society frightened to death by educated girls , while main-stream Islam { & IT’S ‘LIBERATED’ muslimahs} conveniently looked the other way ……… ….. ignoring their sisters being brutalized ……… from Afghanistan to Zanzibar, vast swatches of humanity are orcefully submitted ,in varying degrees, by backward , pernicious and vindictive divine laws…… sharia-is-sharia-is-sharia ,
“Islam is a “supremacist socio-political system” that “will not coexist in the same place as democracy.” “Islam is a system that Allah revealed to dominate all other religions,”…….. Western political and judicial structures: they must fall. They must give way to Islam. There will be no governance but Islamic governance. This must be the case, because Allah has decreed it so….. this MSM { Main-stream-Mindset } is why Islam will accept, is accepting ISIS’s pernicious sharia!
Do not expect MSM { Main –Stream-Muslims } to protest and demand a renaissance , or vociferously demand for an ideological reformation that would ultimately DIVESTS itself of SHARIA and the JIHAD to implement it , the pot of fools gold that comes with the implementation of sharia drives the zealotry .
Boston Tea Party says
“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 scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.”
**
“Unintelligible.” That’s the perfect word. I make this argument all the time on political discussion forums—the vast, profound and fundamental difference between the Muhammad that Muslims revere and the Jesus that Christians revere—-and it’s amazing how otherwise reasonable and intelligent people have no means whatsoever of intellectually processing this. Cultural relativism is indeed the religion of much of the modern West, and it’s become so ingrained that often its adherents are completely unable to step out of that worldview for any reason.
Angemon says
Superb article, Mr. Ibrahim. It should be required reading to any inquiring mind looking into islam.
Instead, the MSM is littered with “scholars” spouting PC dreck about, for example, “political islam” and how terrorists are using islam as a mean to an end (even though we’re never told which their end is).
Once again, superb article, Mr. Ibrahim.
Plamen says
Not only brilliant analysis!
But a clear conceptual vision!
Publication’s thesises must enter text-books!
Barguest says
Excellent analysis Mr Ibrahim. I’ll be sharing it with my (many) relativist acquaintances. Doubtless some will call me ‘islamophobe’ or even ‘racist’ but hey ho, one has to try.
Grntonpnt says
All this talking about, reformation, please will someone do somthing about islam,…. these sulfur fumes are starting to get to me……
Byzantine Partisan says
“Islam’s current 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.”
It’s not as if Islamic legal tradition teaches anything different…
“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.”
While this is true, the medieval Latin Church did teach in it’s official encyclicals and in some scholastic texts, notably Thomas Aquinas, that heretics and apostates be burned to death.
“Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).”
Considered polytheism by Salafists.
TH is right about the Protestant Reformation, the Thirty Years War which followed it was what led to the modern European idea of cuius regio, euis religio.
Also as TH has mentioned, Luther’s Reformation was not permitted according to Christian orthodoxy, in which obedience to hierarchy was stressed.
c matt is right regarding Sunni Islam, but Shia Islam does have Maraji’ as their authorities.
Anyway, ISIS is the result of bad policy, terrible living conditions and the undercurrent of Islamic ideology in the Middle East.
Joe Shmo says
I came to realise that Western society or the free world evolved slowly over time, and much of the benefits of freedom that include liberal democracy, reason and science very much came from our Judeo Christian heritage and Raymond puts it very well here. As he says, the big problem is that most people simply aren’t aware of the dichotomy between Christianity and Islam and what Islam really teaches. The theory of democracy is that people are capable of making decisions to govern their lives once they are fully informed of the facts. And that clearly isn’t happening now, just the opposite in fact. This is why learning history is so important, to learn about the context and origin of our values and how they had to be fought for.and won.
Arthur says
Thanks so much for this intelligent and thoughtful article. A very interesting comparison.
If one sees reformation as the focusing of a lens, and the religious texts as the subjects coming into focus, it becomes clear that reformation of a society based on the Koran will result in a very different outcome than reformation based on the Bible.
Kepha says
As a Protestant Christian myself (and one who thinks that the Reformation was necessary, justified, and of continuing validity), I thank Raymond for speaking needed truth. It matters which Scripture your Reformation heeds, and Islam simply has the wrong one–a fact which our liberal punditry obtusely refuses to consider.
None of the suave talking heads who call for “Islamic Reformation” would ever admit to a profound ignorance of Christianity of any kind (we are, after all,educummated Western liberals, therefore, ipso facto, we know the Bible, even if the one in our house hasn’t been cracked open since great-grandma died), but they are appallingly ignorant of what they profess to commend (just listen to how many of them think that the virgin birth of Christ and the immaculate conception of Mary are the same thing; or how a respectable presidential hopeful could once say that Job is in the New Testament). Yet somehow, these clowns who can’t tell Huldrych Zwingli from their postman and who didn’t even know what a Shi’ite was before 1979 are proposing what they think is a reform of an entire civilization!
The fact that such idiots populate academia, media, and government circles is why I introduce myself as a professional swindler of the young rather than as a public high school social studies teacher who wants to keep his job.
As for the word “educummated”, Bill Maher, who calls me “religulous”, is an “educummated” person.
MaryfromMarin says
Excellent article, great analysis. Deserves a wide audience.
Matthieu Baudin says
An excellent article, thank you Mr Ibrahim.