An excellent commentary on the problems extant in Islam today by Ali Eteraz. Since 9/11, "Islamic reform" has become an all-purpose phrase: equally a western impulse to protect itself from Muslim violence and a humanist notion aimed at assisting voiceless Muslims. Who has the power to define what the Qur'an says, and what sources besides the Qur'an are to be relied upon in interpreting the book? Theologically, this is the most contentious issue in Islam. I call it "The Question". The dominant approach or "Sharia" (Sharia means "way" or "beaten path") to emerge was Sunni. It affirmed one particular legal method called usul. It separated the religious scholars from the political leadership so as not to upset the favorable status quo. It adhered to 'Ashari theology which said that without revelation from God, human reason is incapable of distinguishing good from bad. It approved of Sufism. Finally, it codified Muhammad's practice in books of hadith, stating that other ways of apprehending the practice were illegitimate. Supporters credit the dominance of this "way" to its intellectual flexibility, arguing that it provides a competent way of reconciling Islam with change. Cynics say that it won out due to its historical (and current) willingness to coddle corrupt political leaders. This dominant way is called "traditionalism" and is alive and well today. It is the closest thing Sunni Islam has to an orthodoxy. Islamic reform occurs when a Muslim dissents from this traditional orthodoxy, and provides an alternative which he or she believes more accurately captures the spirit of Islam. Some dissenters argue that their view was part of the orthodoxy all along - just overlooked - while others agitate for the orthodoxy to open up and assimilate views from the outside. ...in terms of history, all critiques against traditionalism stems from Ibn Taymiya, a largely self-taught scholar in the 13th century, who challenged the traditionalists of his time. For starters, Ibn Taymiya rejected the traditionalist view (still extant) on the "triple divorce" - which allowed a Muslim man to divorce a woman in one sitting by thrice-repeating "I divorce you." He further rejected the traditionalist opinion which maintained (and still does) that the testimony of two women was equal to that of one man, instead arguing that the Quran mandated equality in testimony. Finally, really stepping on traditionalist power, he concluded that ignoring the "consensus" of jurists was neither an act of disbelief nor a grave sin, as so many traditionalists insisted. One would imagine that today Ibn Taymiya be lauded for his freethinking and celebrated as a feminist. Instead, he is linked to Osama Bin Laden. This has to do with the fact that his intellectual independence also led him to contradict traditionalists on the issue of rebellion against Muslim leaders, which opened the door to jihadist ideas (when a Muslim believes that he does not need the state to authorize taking life). Fast-forwarding a few hundred years, the modern jihadist movement found that it could rely on Ibn Taymiya's permission to rebel against the hypocrite kings to legitimise its own armed rebellions - and terrorism - against dictators like Mubarak, Musharraf and the Saudi royal family. These attacks soon broadened to include attacks against the dictators' western allies. Traditionalists take the chaos unleashed by jihadists as proof that Ibn Taymiya was misguided. They argue that had the jihadists stuck to the traditional rules on how to deal with an unjust leader - with patient perseverance - jihadism would have never become a problem. It is for this reason that traditionalists argue that jihadism is a hijacking of Islam, while jihadists, linking back to Ibn Taymiya, argue that their actions are islamically justified. Whether you believe the jihadists' claim or not will depend on your willingness to entertain innovation and reform in Islam. More
I think its interesting how all the attempted reforms have led to anarchy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Obviously, we need to put a lot more thought into this. Ali Eteraz is a great writer.
I think the above highlighted text is the heart of the problem. Religion tends of deny that people can tell right from wrong without a holy book. Holy books are open to interpretation, so religion will always be a problem. It denies intuition and common sense.
That can be said for any orthodoxy. e.g. the gun culture in the US, based on an interpretation of the Constitution.
Gun culture in the U.S has more to do with the concept of an empowered individual. Wow Sam, Reading that a thought struck me...Islam is perhaps 300-400 years behind the Catholics and the only reason Catholics are still around, is no one actually practices it anymore but chaste priests. So this guy is like an Islam Martin Luther...sigh...only have to wait through a few 300 more years of religious infighting to be almost rid of another stupid religion.
You need to read the whole series: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/09/the_islamic_reformation.html
Exactly. Except we do recognize that our Constitution is written by men, not the creator of the universe, so it can be changed by common agreement.
All opinions are ultimately colored by base ideology, which is dependent on social security and education e.g. http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20070711.html One very important point that Eteraz makes is this: Extremists, being dissenters to Islamic traditionalism, are not merely a reaction to external pressures like western foreign policy (which they are), but also a reaction to the traditionalist response (or lack of response) to internal problems as well. Ibn Taymiya would not have led attacks against the hypocrite kings had the traditionalists of that time spoken up against them. Bin Laden hates not just the West, but the Saudi royal family and the clerics who prop it up by not criticising it. Sayyid Qutb did not just villify people in the US, he castigated the village of his childhood as well. Extremism is not just an irrational conflagration; it is rational, though misguided, dissent.
From what YOU have seen? It's just the way you are looking at things. I would ask you to explain that, can you? Or flog yourself tonight for one hour. But this is S.A.Ms thread on reformed Muslims.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Constitution is not an "orthodoxy", it can be changed without reinterpreting it, and the gun culture of the US is not based on anything in it - the influence would be the other way around, if any. The confusion of law and creed is one of the disturbing traits visible in many adherents to fundie religions.
Its a little long, I know, but if anyone has time, I recommend reading all 7 parts of the series. Its an excellent commentary which shows how the current tug of war is proceeding between the traditionalists, who resist change and the individualists, who enforce it (like Osama bin Laden) and how the liberal movement in Islam has come about, strange as it seems due to the traditionalists being influenced by the individualists and vice versa. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/10/beyond_islamic_enlightenment.html
What if you have no "base ideology"? Not everyone is brainwashed from birth, you know. That's what I've been saying. Extremism isn't crazy or irrational. It's based on their religous texts and external pressures like corruption and the presence of unbelievers in your country.
