Does Islam need a Reformation?

As per the advice of an adminsitrator, this topic is suggested for Comparative Religions.Many Muslims and non Muslims see that the Islamic world has been at theological war with itself almost since the faith's advent, one that carries over to this very day. It explains the global battle between Islamists and non Islamists, a battle which has spilled over to our part of the world both because of our involvement in the Islamic world, and because of Islamic immigration to the West.Prominent Muslim writers Stephen Schwartz and Irshad Manji have both wavered on the question of a Reformation. Schwartz initally argued that a Renaissance is what is needed, saying that Wahabbism represneted a prior reformation gone very, very bad. But not too long ago he revisited the quesion. In a rceent article, Manji (and Masoor Ijad) wondered if there osn't something intrinsic to the faith that gives rise to Islamism and its violence. If so, then that is an argument for a reformation, such that the peaceful, spiritual side to the faith is its only side.I realize that some will consider the proposal for this topic to be, in and itself, more than contentious, and even, in some manner or another, racist and bigotted. Yet, there are enough entirely peaceful, democratically minded Muslims wondering exactly this. Surely they are neither racist nor bigotted against their faith. This is, perhaps, the hidden, but essential, question, the answer to which may be the solution to Islamism's - not Islam's - war on Islamic and Western democracy.

Andya, I thonk you'd have a hard time pointing to anything i've said that reflected an irrational or angry or hostile tone. It appears that simply by suggesting that there may be an issue, that constitutes untoward behaviour.Moreover, the arguments I offer are not mine alone by any means, nor even exclusively those of non muslims. They are, rather, those of respected, moderate, demcoratically-minded Muslims as well.You wrote: "The Islamist ideology itself emerged from a set of factors: post-colonialism, a general dislike of Western domination, and ideas from early 20th century revivalist thinkers like Jamaluddin al-Afghani, Abul A'la Maududi, and Sayyid Quthb."I would argue that islamism is only the name of the latest itineration of the movement. There is a reason why Mohammed conquered huge swaths of land, most of it to that point Christian, and some of it Jewish. There is a reason why Islam eventually conquered Spain, and made it to the gates of Vienna in the 1600's. In our present time, Islamists are warring against Hindus in India, against Bhuddists in Thailand and Cambodia, against Christians and Animists in Africa and the Phillipines, and against Muslims in iraq and elsewhere too. This is not about a response to the west.You wrote: "The establishment of Israel is also a major factor, given the violent ways used to displace the native Palestinians [Jews could've bought their lands and move in peacefully, but the violence's already done]."In fact, the Jews did buy their land from the Ottomans, who treated the region as the largely desolate, far-flung rump of their empire that it was. Moreover, Israel was established by the UN, perhaps the only nation to have been established with such legitimacy, rather than through war. (And don't overlook that the Jews had had a 2,000 year continuous presence in Israel until muslims invaded the land in the 7th centruy and pushed almost all the Jews out.) Earlier, the League of Nations has voted to establish a tiny Jewish state, alongside the newly established 20 or so Arab Muslim states. But the british and Arabs reneged.You wrote: "And most importantly, for today's Islamist terrorists, they're a direct product of the US, who trained them, have them radicalized, and used them against the Soviets during the cold war."It is true that the US financed them to help defeat the Soviets, but the US did not create them. Consider this: The first major islamist movement in recent history were the Wahabbis in the 18th (19th?) century. The first in the 20th century was the Islamic Brotherhood, based in Egypt, and which arose 50 years or so before Afghanistan. The next major Islamist movement was the Shia response to the Sunni Wahabbis and Brotherhood, Khameini's Islamist revolution in iran. That, too was before Afghanistan, as was the US embassy hostage crisis.With respect to this comment of yours:"the Qur'an did have some rules of warfare, and it does give Muslims licence for retaliatory violence. [But also note that it does not condone aggression--Muslims should only fight if attacked first]. However the Qur'an also taught that violence should be stopped if aggression and oppression has ceased."I have heard that said, and hope it to be true. But millions upon millions of Muslims disagree with that interpretaion. Indeed, the global islamist movement completely disagrees. They argue that the House of Islam / House of War notion means that any who do not accept Islam have declared war upon it. Therefore, it is defensive for Muslims to attack non Muslims who refuse to accept the faith. Moreover, most the Sword Verses makes no reference to the argument, drowned out by all the other passages that state otherwise.My view is this: Islam has much that is wonderful, peaceful, spiritual. But the Sword Verses, much of Sharia Law, and much of the Hadith, are calls to war and oppression of Muslims and non Muslims both. And thus, for most of its history, right up to and including today, the faith has been at war with itself. There are those like you, good people, peaceful people, who see it one way. And then there are the Islamists who see it, with solid theological reasoning and historical reference, otherwise. How do we empower those like you, and not only weaken the Islamists now, but into the future? Bear in mind that many good Muslims raise children who are drawn to Islamism. Indeed, the british born London bombers apparently came from good homes. One, at least, was a truly good person, well-liked, great with kids, generous, and, seemingly, totally assimilated in liberal demcoracy. How could such a person have gone so wrong? How scary that such a person could have gone so wrong. How do we prevent that from happening?I know that the faith says that the Koran is inerrant and perfect, and cannot be altered at all. My suggestion is for there to be a koranic edit. That is much less intrusive than a reformation, which will by definitoon be an impossibility to many, if not most, Muslims. The edit would assume that the Arabic language of Mohammed's time is different than today, and thus easily misunderstood. To ensure that there is no way, absolutely no way, for the Koran to be read as anything but peaceful, for Jihad to mean nothing but spiritual improvement, it would be argued that the koran needs to be updated to today's vernacular, and then so edited. this would meet one prominent Muslim's call for not a reformation, but "Islamic Renaissance."

Israel was created by UN Resolution 181. As for the war Verses, I can present a great many of them, and will later if that is demanded, but have to run for now.Here, quickly, are some references to the theological battle as to the meaning of those verses:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access DeniedAnd one site amongst dozens where the verses are found:
"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan

UN Resolution 181"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below."Page Not Found | Yale University

The UN resolution declared Israel a state. Immediately afterwards, Israel was attacked by 5 Arab armies. After that war, Arab states maintained a state of war with terrorist attacks on israel and other intimidation and hostility. In 1967 they closed shoipping to israel in defiance of international law, ordered the UN peacekeeping troops to leave, and amassed troops and combat equipment alongside all borders of Israel. The first attacks came from Jordanian controlled West Bank. Being small and vulnerable, and not being able to keep virutally the whole nation on combat alert - because almost evrryone is in the reserves given the small population - Israel led the first major attack in destroying the Egyptian airfoce. After the war, Israel immediately offered to return it all in exchange for peace. The answer from the Arab conference was the infamous three no's: No to negotiation, no recognition of Israel, no to peace. But Israel never gave up hope, and so returned a huge chunk of what it won when Egypy eventually agreed to the offer of land for peace. That offer exists for all other parties, should they, too, agree to negotiate towards peace.

There are many scholars who see it that way. here is an article where the writer, pipes, disagrees with the non martial interpretation. But bear in mind that Pipes believes "Islam will be whatever Muslims make of it," and that "moderate Islam is the answer."
What is Jihad? :: Daniel PipesWith respect to India
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David HorowitzA Pipes article on a new and very scholarly book on "The History of Jiahd."
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
"Muhammad’s conquests: During his years in power, the prophet engaged in an average of nine military campaigns a year, or one every 5-6 weeks; thus did jihad help define Islam from its very dawn. Conquering and humiliating non-Muslims was a main feature of the prophet’s jihad.The Arab conquests and after: During the first several centuries of Islam, “the interpretation of jihad was unabashedly aggressive and expansive.” After the conquests subsided, non-Muslims hardly threatened and Sufi notions of jihad as self-improvement developed in complement to the martial meaning."Another source, Bat Y'eor
Author describes history of jihad :: Campus WatchA book review of irsha maji's book: The Trouble With Islam
Atheism and AgnosticismThere are other sources as well.But, please understand my view: Islam has a wonderful side, and the Sufis haev an especially spiritual interpretation (although they have been influenced by Hinduism). And Jiahd has a good side to it as well. The porblem is the flip side to each. And hence why I - as do many Muslims for that matter, see a need for something to be done. I suggest a koranic edit. Others a Renaissance. Others a reformation.

I disagree with your interpretation of the texts. For while it is fuzzy with respect to demands to convert jews and Christians - depends on what passages - there are parts clearly derogatory towards both, there are parts clearly demanding that they get peace only when they are subjugated (pay the poll tax), and there are passages calling for infidels (non Jews and Christians if you will, who are not "believers") to be killed. Rememeber, this isn't just about Islam and Jews and Christians, but others too. That Mohammed led many, many battles, and won a large empire in the process, speaks volumes for his understanding of Jihad.Here's an article on islam and "The People Of The Book."
Page not found | National ReviewAbd bear this in mind: I am not calling for an islamic reformation. I am calling for a Koranic and Hadith edit such that the passages of which we speak, and others like them, cannot possibly be seen as other than as you believe them to mean. Here's why. Let's say you're right in your interpretation. The problem remains that millions upon millions of Muslims disgaree with you - even if they;re in the minority. Of course, I'm referring to the global Islamist movement. So, how do we deal with the fact that so many comprising a vast movement disgree with you, and believe in imperialist, martial Jihad? You're sure as heck are not going to convince them that you are right, and neither will many wonderful, peaceful, democratically-minded Muslims. And that they cannot be convinced says that the Koran is suffuciently fuzzy on this such that either meaning can be drawn. Hence, why i suggest an edit making only your take on it possible. Hopefully, then, over a generation or two, this version will come to so predominate, that the islamist view if diminshed forever.

Here's an article that deals with some of your points.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David HorowitzAgain, I am not actually taking sides in this debate. I am saying, though, that it appears that either interpretation is valid or, at least, is amenable to belief and persuasion. And thus, both sides will have legions of followers unless something is done. several suggestions have been made:Pipes says moderate Muslims must become entirely ascendant and ensure the faith will be as they see it and make of it.Manji suggests that, maybe, a reformation is needed.Schwartz, a Muslim himself and respected author, suggests a Renaissance, arguing that Wahabbism was the most unfortunate reformation. Later, though, Schwartz did write that, maybe, a new reformation isn't a bad idea.

I appreciate your hnest effort at a fair-minded dialogue.Although it's certainly true that Mohammed only got so far, for his time that "so far" was a fairly significant amount of empire building. Bear in mind too, that he didn't really get going on that until mid life (about 40?), when he had built armies. At that point, he went from being a lone voice to a virtual imperialist king, acquiring land through relentless war. That, BTW, expalins why the later verses of the Koran are so different than the earlier ones. That explains the War Verses (although the verses are not presented in chronological order).Assuredly, the "lust for conquest" is not exclusively Arab. Most peoples have conquered. But I disagree about the source. Few, if any other, faiths call for imperialism. Islam, very arguably does.al Qaeda's principle sponsors are the wahabbis. It is a Wahabbi organization, as is the Egyptian Brotherhood. Not only is it global, but the iranian Islamists also sponsor terrorist organizations, like, and maybe principly, Hezbullah.Islam is a faith of over one billion. Even though it is true, as I have also said, that a minority of Muslims are Islamists (although a larger minority of Arab Muslims), that minority is still in the many millions. That is how the Islamist movement is global, to the point where even British born and raised Muslims, some from moderate families, are exposed to Islamist teachings in local mosques - the results of which we've seen in recent weeks.I read Jazzn's reply. His argument is the one side of the theological civil war in Islam, and one I've read many times. The other side is the Islamists' take on the War Verses - one that says there is a killing rule. While jazzn's comments may or may not offer evidence against killing the "other peoples of the book," (i.e., Jews and Christians, and that is contentious if they reject Islam, and at a minimum they're still expected to live in subjugated status), it does not deny the duty to "kill the unbeliebers wherever you find them," (i.e., non Jews and Christians) if they reject Islam. I posted some links to Islamist thinking. (the Islamists also rule out democracy as an evil.)The Islamists are angry that the US stands between them and their march to takeover the Islamic world - with the intent of then going after the rest of the world. Bear in mind that they kill far, far more Muslims, for now, (aside from in Sudan) than non Muslims. They had taken over Afghanistan and ran it precisely according to sharia law (as they interpret it). Women were made virtual slaves. Music was not allowed. There and in Iraq the majority of insurgents are foreigners. They are killing Iraqis in a wave of suicide bombings in the hope of derailing democracy. Meanwhile, the majority of Iraqis (and Afghanis) want the Americans to stay until they are strong enough themselves to defeat the Islamists (and in Iraq, Hussein loyalists who are, for now, working together). The people support America, whom they see is on their side. That is the often not understood dynamic. Moreover, the US was very careful to limit casualties. The number is in the thousands, of whom a great many were Islamists or Saddamites.Because Islamism is a global movement, there is no simple solution, such as catching a nominal number of them. As pointed out, they're even in the west. The Wahabbis have even taken control of the vast majority of western mosques and islamic organizations. They have cells in many places. There is good reason to believe that even CAIR is an Islamist front group. It's founder, and several other key people, have been sent to jail for terrorist related activities.Many will agree with you that the Koran cannot be changed, not one word. My hope - and maybe it is unrealistic - is that it could be edited unde the guise of being updated to modern vernacular. In other words, it would not be said to be altered, merely put in modern language to be more mroer easily understood.I think if you go back and re-read any of my past posts, you will see that they are nothing other than dispassionate efforts at reason. I was in no way hostile, or even impolite. the real issue is the assumption in this moral realtivist and moral equivalence age that to even suggest that there is a flaw in the faith of another civilization is defacto bigotry. That many Muslims themselves, being victims of the Islamists more than ourselves for now, are wondering the same is not understood.

did you not read my various links? They offer the other side that you wish to see.Did you know that the origins of Jews wearing a yellow star were not Nazi, but Islamic? That is part of the subjugated status Jews and Christians are meant to live under until they convert.Of course, through various times Islamic societies did not impose subjugation of Jews adn Christians or others. It simply depended on whether Islamists (of whatever itineration) were in charge. As I say, there has been a civil war within Islam, whether theological or also martial) through most of its history. On the other hand, Islam did spread by teh sword, meaning that Islamism has been powerful, as it is now.

I cited a new, very scholarly book, "The history of Islam." It has the definitions you seek.

Also, i've cited in past various Islamist understanding of jihad as martial.Again, while i tend to see that that is the truth, I nonetheless fully appreciate that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Nonetheless, the faith is now and always has been, amenable to either interpretation. And that is the problem.

For sure there has been and continues to be significant differences between various branches of Christianity. But there is nothing in the NT that could be objectively read as equivalent to the War Verses.As I've pointed out too, if Jesus, like mohammed, has led countless battles, had many wives, married a child with whom he had a baby when she was 9 years old, and owned slaves (some made into concubines), then Christianity would be a very different faith and theological differneces would be moe pronounced and have greater implications.,.

Yes. And, as you know, the problem is more than the Koran. it is also the hadith, such as this passage:"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!"

With respect to CAIR being an Islamist front:Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz