Why Islam Cannot be Reformed
by Junaid A. Malik
Being a student of Islamic theology for last two decades, I can categorically tell you that ideology (Islam) cannot be amended or reformed. The only way of securing the world and our societies from radical or extremist version of Islam is to dis-empower the clergy, promote and strengthen secular values.
I have heard several statements from Majid Nawaz and after evaluating those statements on the basis of my personal research, I consider him nothing but an apologist. His stance is quite apparent when he says; criticism on Islam (being violent and discriminatory) is half truth. Isn’t this what apologists usually say?
I can conveniently reject this argument that criticism on Islam being violent is half truth.
No sir it is not.
As a matter of fact, I have discussed it with several students, intellectuals and scholars of Islam and most of them clearly admit that whatever has been recorded in books of Hadith and Seerah is true. They defend those acts through various absurd justifications, but they never deny it.
I am ready to discuss this directly on any forum anywhere in the world with anyone who claims that violence and jihad is half truth. Whether it’s Majid Nawaz or anyone else.
I will use Quran, Hadith and Seerah (Life of Prophet) to prove that this is not half truth rather a harsh reality from the past, defining the roots of Islam, which some of these apologists find hard to swallow.
This is not reformation, rather this is denial.
The truth is, that Islam in it’s true spirit has no room for any reformation. In retrospect, Muslims have always responded negatively to core changes. They adjusted to the political re-structuring during Umayyad era, then Abbasid era, followed by a renaissance age which transformed the secondary values to a greater extent (albeit the transformation defined the clear boundaries and distinctions regarding the possibility and extent of the change).
Muslims adapted to the new laws and ideas during the same Abbasid era, yet they showed staunch resistance when core values were touched. For example the incident of “Mutazillah” where masses reacted strongly on the issue of Quran being infallible. Please note; that Ijtehad is limited to adjustment with the new development, without touching the core values, and this door was closed after the Mutazillah incident.
When we talk about reformation, we are talking about the same issue i.e. reinterpretation of Quran, asking Muslims to discard what they believed for the last 1400 years, as well as to change the basic ideology of struggle to impose supremacy of Divine Laws through Jihad and tableegh. In short, to give up the idea of monotheism and submit to a man-made ideology, for example secularism. Logically speaking, such reformation is primarily linked with the idea of discarding History and Hadith, which has been a part of Islam, since last 1200 years. This, according to my meager understanding, is not possible and will unleash a new monster of resistance, probably even more dangerous than militancy.
People can think of reformation though re-interpretation while sitting in the West but when it comes to Islamic countries, such ideas would cause a huge resistance from masses, eventually creating further rift between Western and Eastern civilization. No one can dare to stand up and deliver a speech, telling Muslims that their core values are flawed or obsolete and requires an overall transformation.
This reality has already been explained by Ibn e Khaldun (a famous amazigh historiographer and historian) in his book “Muqaddimah”. He said;
(Unlike Muslims), the other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defence… They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. This is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority for about four hundred years. Their only concern was to establish their religion…
I think people should stop following these apologists and try to understand the difference between Islam and other religions.
As far as ISIS is concerned, Abu Bakr Baghdadi, the caliph of IS holds doctorate in Islamic studies from Baghdad University. His understanding of true Islam is far more better than that of Majid Nawaz or any other apologist. He and his people are doing everything which has been recorded in books of seerah and hadith. They are following Islam in it’s true spirit.
@Ron.
“Muslims are genuine seekers after God…” This is a part truth. Some Muslims are and some worship the same God as Jews and Xtians (even if this is not the god that Islam actually teaches), but not I suggest those pious Muslims who follow IS, Boko Haraam etc.
“When you just compare the earthly life of Jesus and Mohamed it is obvious they do not advocate the same God. But this reality is difficult for Muslims to see.”
The reason for that is that there is a false version of Jesus in the Koran. In the Koran he is called “Issa”. Thus Muslims when they are asked about Jesus actually think of Issa. The Koranic Issa stands in relationship to Mohammed much as John the Baptist does to Jesus in the Bible.
A curious but important point is that the Arabised version of “Jesus” (which is the Greek of Hebrew “Yehoshua”) is actually “Yeshu” – the name Arab Xtians had been using for centuries prior to Mohammed, so how come almighty Allah couldn’t even get the name of Mohammed’s immediate precursor right?
Therefore, the first part of the job is to get Muslims to understand the Biblical Jesus instead of the Koranic Issa.
Jesus had mentioned in the Bible that after he goes many false prophets will come and these false prophets will deceive many. Many will do evil thinking that they are doing good.
Muslims are genuine seekers of God Almighty but don’t question and have been led to believe that this God Almighty is Allah of the Quran whose prophet is Mohamed. So they are led astray.
Most false prophets will always have a mixture of good and bad teaching because if it is only bad teaching then many people will not follow. So once these Muslims are indoctrinated right from birth and not allowed to question their faith and their prophet and imams, they then can’t see the bad verses, evil deeds and justify them.
When you just compare the earthly life of Jesus and Mohamed it is obvious they do not advocate the same God. But this reality is difficult for Muslims to see.
Atheist or Secular forces/ideology, pagan forces/ideology of Hinduism and Buddhism, communism, may contain it but cannot defeat it. Several centuries back Historically Islam defeated pagan forces (Indian Subcontinent and north Africa) and stood up to secular forces (Soviet Union and NATO) lately.
But Islam was stopped and defeated by Judeo-Christian forces in Europe several centuries back but is now winning against a Secular Europe and other secular countries.
Islam cannot be reformed and you can only win Muslims with the love of Christ.
Of the items the Sufi scholar gives:
#1. This is possible – in fact many Muslims today claim the right anyway. The “gates of ijtihad” were closed in response to the Mutazillite heresy which put rational thought above the Koran text (to simplify). Thus scholars would have the right to re-open those “gates”.
#2. Given that Muslims themselves argue continually about which Koran verse are “Mukham” (clear) and which “Mutashabih” (contextual and allegorical), this one whilst not impossible in theory is impossible in practice – at least in terms of any consensus.
#3. If the Koran is written down chronologically -the translation of Rodwell does this btw! – then this makes it clearer that the Medinan verses were the last recited. Given the doctrine of abrogation, this would have the opposite effect and reinforce the primacy of the violent Medinan message. To restore primacy to Meccan verses then, one would have to abrogate abrogation or invert it to say that the earlier revelation supercedes the later which is irrational (but we are talking about Islam, so irrationality is no bar I suppose).
#4. Possible, but this also collapses sharia anyway. Again this would go against ~1200 years of tradition. It also means the Muslims no longer know how to perform their religious rituals (washing, prayer et al) since the Koran contains no details on such.
#5.This relegates Sharia to the same status as man-made laws.
Without knowing how to perform ritual and without the buttress of “divine law” #4-5 make it nearly impossible for Muslims to maintain their supremacist positions because there is now nothing “special” about Islam at all. All of this would be good of course, but utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of Muslims.
#6. Another inversion of of Islamic teaching. You may “declare” whatever you wish, but that does not make it so. This undermines many verses of the Koran itself and so many Muslims would call the author either a hypocrite or an apostate for saying it.
#7. redefine those words to mean what, if anything. Again it’s hard to see that 1.6 billion Muslims would readily accept that Kafirs aren’t Kafirs or that jihad means the offer of a cup of tea and a slice of cake.
In summary then: these are “nice” ideas but utterly impractical. Where they done then Islam would cease to exist as Islam – a good and worthy goal, but they neglect the inertia of 1.6 billion people brought up to with a given set of beliefs being asked to change what they believe.
Thus they are a non-starter for the the majority of Muslims who hold orthodox beliefs – even if without practicing the violent aspects.
The very ideal of “reforming Islam” is a daydream. If it really can be done then good go for it. Nevertheless, such an ideal of “reforming” this religion is not in accord with reality. For the reality is that ,in essence, when it actually come down to it there is nothing that is good about Islam which may act and a foundation on which to base real reform on. As the Bible teaches “That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.” Ecclesiastes 1:15. [K.J.V.]
One Sufi scholar Sultan Shahin gives the following suggestions:-
1) open the gates of ijtihad, rethinking all tenets of Islam in the light of the situation prevailing today. As we have not done our homework for over a millennium, this will have to be pretty revolutionary.
2) declare that only constitutive and essential, not the contextual and allegorical verses of Quran, are meant to guide us today.
3) compile Qur’anic verses in the order in which they were revealed, thus restoring primacy to Meccan verses that mostly constitute the essential and universal teachings of Quran, as they can be understood without any need for knowing the context in which they were revealed.
4) declare that Ahadees cannot be considered any form of revelation from God. Islamic State’s millenarian thesis is almost entirely based on ahadees, though they use some allegorical verses of Quran as well. The claim of al-Baghdadi leading an end-time war, al-Malhama, just before the final Armageddon, has been a big draw. Some Muslims have come to think life on earth has no meaning left in the times of al-Malhama and so are rushing to join the war.
5) declare that Sharia (fiqh) is not divine. It was created over a century after the demise of the Prophet by ulema who tried to codify laws on the basis of Qur’anic postulates and Arab cultural practices.
6) declare clearly that Islam believes in co-existence with other religions, not dominion over the world.
7) re-define commonly used Islamic terms like Muslim, kafir, mushrik, ahl-e-kitab, jihad, qital, farz, sunnat, etc.
You are willing to debate anyone about Islam and prove that it is not a religion of peace. That is why you will be villified, condemned and verbally, possibly physically if they get the chance, because they are unable to listen to and understand the truth about their religion. I wish you all the best and hope you can change some minds.
I do think though that before we can change the minds of the muslims we have to change the minds of the Islamic apologist progressives all over the free nations. These are the people who are empowering Islam in the west and undermining any attempts to get, at least, western muslims to admit the truth.