Does Islam need a "reformation"?

[Vimalakirti]

There was a link posted by someone earlier today to a PBS documentary on Islam. I’m not sure what happened to the post, but I’ve looked at the documentary and it’s quite moving and well done. It focuses quite narrowly on the life of the prophet (peace be upon him) with a parallel look at representative Muslims now living in the United States, and their reactions to 911.

Now, this kind of documentary might be called propaganda, as it consciously sets out to portray Muslims sympathetically, and to set the original life and doctrines of the prophet (peace be upon him) in the best light. But I think that would be the wrong call, because in fact the documentary, by showing the power and admirable values of the original teachings – especially in the context of those savage times – coupled with profiles of sincere American practitioners, really sets a kind of gold standard for the faith. In the end, it’s a challenge to both sides: for non-Muslims to examine their preconceptions, and for Muslims to live up to the best of their traditions.

For me, when you really get down to it, the greatest enemies of any faith are within rather than outside the tradition. The greatest enemies of Christianity are Christians who do awful things in its name. And the same I think goes for Islam. Certainly, we have the legacy (and lingering reality) of Western Imperialism, which vastly distorts the picture and exacerbates sectarian conflict, and we have prejudices galore on the non-Muslim side. But no single factor in the West has done the kind of self-inflicted damage of factors like fundamentalist Ayatollahs and their death decrees, the rise of the oppressive Taliban, and most of all the Wahhabis, who by all accounts have funded much of the terrorism and certainly have funded what are basically terrorist schools as far away as Pakistan. In fact, there’s a kind tragic irony to the Wahhabis, in that they’re rooted in tribal society and are powerful principally because they’ve made a pact with the Saudi family to support their regime. This is particularly sad and ironic because the great achievement of the prophet (peace be upon him) was precisely to pull the peninsula out of this tribal paradigm into a higher moral order. As far as I can tell, the Wahhabis are less fundamentalist than betrayers of the faith.

All of this has led some Westerners to claim that Islam needs a reformation. I think that’s a Euro-centric way of phrasing things, but the principle seems valid to me. But as a Muslim, what do you think? Does Islam need to be transformed from the inside? Does it need something like a reformation? What are you doing as a Muslim to combat the forces of hatred, terrorism and Wahhabism? What are you doing to save Islam?

I’ve been direct here in my analysis and in my questions, but not with the wish to offend, and with full cognizance of the many admirable aspects of Islam at its base. But people are dying, being blown to pieces on a daily basis. And sure, there are political conditions and some fault and injustices on the side of the West, the U.S., Israel, and so on. But none of that will mean anything so long as Islam suffers from within as it now suffers. So what does Islam do?

 

[nabeelaejaz]

Islam does not need a reformation but Muslims do. That's the most sincere answer you would get in short.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Islam does not need a reformation but Muslims do. That's the most sincere answer you would get in short.

Thank you, Nabeelaejaz, for your very sharp & concise reply. I need to learn some of your concision. Welcome to the forum.

Cheers.

 

[iBrian]

Islam does not need a reformation but Muslims do. That's the most sincere answer you would get in short.

Also a very good answer - welcome to CR, nabeelaejaz.

 

[PluckyAli]

Islam does not need a reformation but Muslims do. That's the most sincere answer you would get in short.

Indeed,A very logical reply that makes sense.

My Logic:
To understand anything we need to understand it's basic.If we don't understand the basics, we would never undestand it's true meanings.

Reformation means revision,Reformation is based on the assumption that your faith is imperfect.If your faith is imperfect,that implies your God is imperfect(assuming,your faith has a God).Your God changes his rules and regulations after a year or your God is naive enough,he does not know Everything is evolving,including human emotions,genes and universe.An imperfect God is not worth of worshipping.Why would you worship a God who is imperfect just like you?.

What i am trying to say is simple.If your going to revise your scripture your screaming in public and accepting the fact that your either don't believe in your God or your God is fake.There is no third possibility.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Reformation means revision,Reformation is based on the assumption that your faith is imperfect.If your faith is imperfect,that implies your God is imperfect(assuming,your faith has a God).Your God changes his rules and regulations after a year or your God is naive enough,he does not know Everything is evolving,including human emotions,genes and universe.An imperfect God is not worth of worshipping.Why would you worship a God who is imperfect just like you?.

What i am trying to say is simple.If your going to revise your scripture your screaming in public and accepting the fact that your either don't believe in your God or your God is fake.There is no third possibility.

Hi Plucky. Thanks for your reply.

I don't know if I'm quite following what you're saying here. But first of all the Reformation didn't involve changing scripture, but changing, supplementing & replacing interpretations of scripture, and the institutions based on those interpretations. Second, the idea of reformation is precisely that the tradition has gone astray from its founding ideals, and so needs reform not to re-invent its God but to find its way back to to its founding idea of God.

To my mind - and maybe other people will have different ideas on this - any process of change that would fundamentally alter founding principles can't be called a reformation, rather it's a new religion. Thus, we have something called Reformed Judaism, which is still Judaism; while Christianity did not turn out to be a reform of Judaism but rather a new religion.

So, again what some are calling for is not for Islam to turn its back on its founding principles but to more fully realize them.


Cheers & Metta

 

[PluckyAli]

Hi Vimalakirti.Thanks for your reply.

But first of all the Reformation didn't involve changing scripture, but changing, supplementing & replacing interpretations of scripture, and the institutions based on those interpretations. Second, the idea of reformation is precisely that the tradition has gone astray from its founding ideals, and so needs reform not to re-invent its God but to find its way back to to its founding idea of God.

Then that can't be called reformation.Changing scripture interpretation in my opinion is not reformation.Translation is different from interpretation.Changing translatlation can be called as reformation.
Reformation means improvement.When we talk about reformation,the christianity and judaism reformation come to our mind.These reformation involve changine their holy scripture by improving,changing,supplmenting,amending and correcting it.If you mean some other reformation then i doubt it can't be called as reformation,and you certainly did not mean any other reformation because you said
"Should islam be reformed?".Islam is in quran and saheeh hadith.Reforming islam means reforming them.I can't be more specific on this topic.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Hi Vimalakirti.Thanks for your reply.

Then that can't be called reformation.Changing scripture interpretation in my opinion is not reformation.Translation is different from interpretation.Changing translatlation can be called as reformation.
Reformation means improvement.When we talk about reformation,the christianity and judaism reformation come to our mind.These reformation involve changine their holy scripture by improving,changing,supplmenting,amending and correcting it.If you mean some other reformation then i doubt it can't be called as reformation,and you certainly did not mean any other reformation because you said
"Should islam be reformed?".Islam is in quran and saheeh hadith.Reforming islam means reforming them.I can't be more specific on this topic.

Hi Plucky. Let's leave the definition of reformation aside for the moment - since we don't seem to making verbal contact on that point!

But you mention the Qu'ran and the Hadith. As I understand, both these sets of documents were set down within roughly 200 years of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) death (the Qu'rand first of course). Now, first of all, there is some controversy on which hadiths are authentic and which were made up, so you might say a reformation at its most radical might reopen those issues, but it would not likely touch the Qu'ran itself, because this is the base from which all else follows.

In addition, an awful lot has happened in Islam over the following roughly 1200 years, various legals schools have grown up, Sharia has undergone various transformations. And then you have the development of radically fundamentalist groups, especially the wahabbis, and fundamentalist governments who take only the strictest interpretations of the law as basis.

It's in all of these areas that one might suggest a reformation, for the simple reason that none of these later developments is strictly necessary in all their details from the point of view of the Qu'ran, but depend on later interpretaions. The idea of reformation is precisely that such interpretations can be subject to human error and other conditions, and as such are open to revision.

But let me ask you a question: what do you think of wahabbism? Is it a good thing? Is it true to the Qu'ran and to the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Cheers & Metta.

 

[PluckyAli]

Hi Vimalakirti,thanks for your reply.

Hi Plucky. Let's leave the definition of reformation aside for the moment - since we don't seem to making verbal contact on that point!

Not a good idea.

But you mention the Qu'ran and the Hadith. As I understand, both these sets of documents were set down within roughly 200 years of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) death (the Qu'rand first of course).

No,it's perilously incorrect.At the time of prophet quran was written in differ forms like on stones,date leaves,pieces of wood etc.However after the death of Prophet in AD 632,holy Quran was written under the supervision of caliph Abu-bakr in AD 632-634.If we assume Quran was written in AD 633,then max error is +-1 year.It's not 200 yerars.
Reference:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html

Now, first of all, there is some controversy on which hadiths are authentic and which were made up, so you might say a reformation at its most radical might reopen those issues, but it would not likely touch the Qu'ran itself, because this is the base from which all else follows.

There is?.Well the authentic hadiths are clearly supposed to be in bukhari and muslim.There is nothing like debate in choosing which is authentic or which not in these books.

In addition, an awful lot has happened in Islam over the following roughly 1200 years,

hmm,I am just 20 i don't know what happend before me.We know about the past from history.i love this quote about history.
"History is a book in which there are few originals,and many copies"

various legals schools have grown up,

is it not a good thing?.

Sharia has undergone various transformations.

Was sharia ever implemented?.Which country are you talking bout?

And then you have the development of radically fundamentalist groups, especially the wahabbis,

Wahabbis?,never heard of them from muslims,never seen them,and never talked to them.

fundamentalist governments who take only the strictest interpretations of the law as basis.

fundamentalist governments?????.Which laws are you talking about?

It's in all of these areas that one might suggest a reformation, for the simple reason that none of these later developments is strictly necessary in all their details from the point of view of the Qu'ran, but depend on later interpretaions.

That one is known as vimalakirti?.As far as i know quran and hadith are written in simple language,you don't need any interpretation's.

The idea of reformation is precisely that such interpretations can be subject to human error and other conditions, and as such are open to revision.

Your idea of reformation?.ah ok.

I think your just mixing terms there.What you want to say is that we should have new interpretaions of Quran and sunnnah.If that is what you mean then that's constantly being done.It's called tafsir in arabic.But no one will ever tell you it's reformation.

But let me ask you a question: what do you think of wahabbism? Is it a good thing? Is it true to the Qu'ran and to the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Anyone who call themselves wahabbis are wrong.What do you mean by good thing?.I have not seen or talked to single wahabi in my life.It's against Quran,Quran says don't get divided nor make sects.

Cheers & Metta

Cheera & what?

 

[thipps]

There is?.Well the authentic hadiths are clearly supposed to be in bukhari and muslim.There is nothing like debate in choosing which is authentic or which not in these books.

Just something to add to what you said. The authentic hadith are in different compilations... the thing about Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim is that these hadith books contain only authentic hadith & are the most known to common people. But hadith literature is by no means restricted to these 2 books... not by a long shot. Other books might contain authentic , weak or fabricated hadith. These have been identified by Masters of Hadith and thus, one can know which is which... so, there is no problem still cause we know which is authentic and which isnt.... hadith literature is vaste and the secondary source of Islamic Law.
---------------
Vimalakirti, u keep using the word 'fundamentalist'. Again, this is a use of a western term which applies to christianity & the media likes to superimpose these terms on Islam. Explain clearly what you mean by the word and i think it migth become possible to understand what you mean by reformation.
Vimalakirti, The thing is you are not aware of Ijtihad. It is this that gives islam its dynamism to deal with new things as they come. See post #43 of:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1835&page=3&pp=15&highlight=ijtihad
Also, to understand how hadith are compiled, read the first two posts of the 'science of hadith' thread. It should be quite helpful (the link is below):
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2021&highlight=science+hadith
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) spoke of the ummah splitting into seventy-three groups, he said that they would all be in Hell apart from one; the one which follows the same path as him and his companions [Sahaabah]. This is the standard, so we have no choice but follow in the footsteps of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). It is not sufficient for a person to quote a hadeeth and say that it is saheeh, then use that as evidence to support his madhhab or his point of view according to his own understanding of that hadeeth; rather what he should do is to research whether the Sahaabah understood this hadeeth in this manner or not.
This is the criterion which divides those who really follow the truth from others. This means referring the interpretation of Islam to our righteous forebears, the Sahaabah and those who followed them in truth, for they are the best and most knowledgeable of this ummah, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said.
Anyone who examines the groups that have deviated from the Straight Path will see that they have confused the people by quoting a verse or a hadeeth out of context, so that people think that they are following the Qur’aan and Sunnah, but they cannot prove that this is the way in which the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) understood these texts.
Those who distort the attributes of Allaah, those who worship graves and circumambulate them, those who dance in dhikr, those who deny the divine will and decree (al-qadar), those who say that the Qur’aan was created, and other deviant beliefs and ways, none of them claim that his belief is the same as the belief of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Even if they claim that they have a verse or hadeeth to support them, they cannot prove that their interpretation is the same as that of those who witnessed the revelations and heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), namely the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them).
This is an important and precise standard by means of which a person can know whether what he hears and reads of beliefs and ways whose proponents say is true guidance, is in fact true or false.

Vimalakirti, one thing i would like to mention.... whatever has been said... it is not the property of any particular country (e.g. saudi arabia)... rather it is anyone who follows the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and understands it correctly in accordance with the understanding of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) and those who follow them in truth.
hope this helped.
And Allaah knows best & with Him lies all guidance.

 

[THUNK]

Please guys, this is not meant to be inflamatory, but an 'outsiders' question to try and find some respect for Islam;

QUESTION: Here in the UK, charity is a fairly significant part of our cultural make - up. Why do I not see Muslims fairly represented at Charity events such as the London Marathon or Red Nose Day?

 

[Vimalakirti]

Vimalakirti, u keep using the word 'fundamentalist'. Again, this is a use of a western term which applies to christianity & the media likes to superimpose these terms on Islam. Explain clearly what you mean by the word and i think it migth become possible to understand what you mean by reformation.

Hi Thipps.

You're right, "fundamentalist", "reformation", "pluralist" are all terms derived from a different historical experience and I recognize that they all need be qualified when applied to a different historical context.

When I say "fundamentalist" regime, I'm characterizing a state which adheres to an excessively strict or elaborate set of interpretations of a given legal tradition, with the aim more of maintaining power than of being of genuine benefit to its people, or carrying forth the core principles of a faith. In other words, I'm talking about privileging the letter over the spirit, mere rules over human happiness and the direct relationship with God.

I guess we could call this "legalist" or "absolutist", or use some other term, but it's the depressingly common phenomenon of the will to power subverting the will of God, who wishes peace & happiness for his people, and genuine faith of heart as opposed to blind adherence to arbitrary rules. Your own country, Saudi Arabia, to me exhibits some of these features, and certainly the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the current regime in Iran.

I appreciate what you mention about the tradition's own internal mechanisms to stay on the straight path. I recognize that these mechanisms have been and will be of use, and that Islam will find its own way on these issues. But you have not addressed the core questions I began with:

Do you believe that the Taliban regime accurately reflected the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Do you believe that the issuance of death sentences by Ayatollahs for the writing of fictional works to be appropriate for Islam?

Do you believe that Wahabbism accurately reflects the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Do you agree with everything that has been taught in the madrassas?

Do you agree in particular with the Saudi funding of madrassa schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, which teach anger more than love (and this is not speculation; it's well-documented)?

Do you believe that the majority of Muslims who follow the straight path of peace have done enough to defend that path from the subversions of the will to power in the guise of self-righteous regimes and the sheer perversions of terrorists and demagogues who use the sincere emotions of believers to evil ends?

Again, I mean all these questions with the greatest respect, and as an honest challenge, with the aim of in some small way helping not hurting the great tradition of Islam.

Peace.

 

[PluckyAli]

I think i am self correcting.here is the right quotation.

[font=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]"History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies." ---Alexis de Tocqeville.[/font]
[font=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/font]Another quote i like about history.
"How many pens are broken, how many ink bottles consumed, to write about things that have never happened".--The Talmud

 

[bananabrain]

thipps,

i thought some people had decided the "gates of ijtihad had closed" - is that right, or is it a minority opinion?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[thipps]

thipps,

i thought some people had decided the "gates of ijtihad had closed" - is that right, or is it a minority opinion?

b'shalom

bananabrain

I know this idea is not correct because it entails blind imitation. Can't stop 'some people' from saying & doing what they say. But the gates of ijtihad have not closed.
The followers of the madhhabs [schools of thought] are not all the same. Some of them are mujtahids [those who do Ijtihad] within their madhhab, and some are followers (muqallids) who do not go against their madhhabs in any regard.
Al-Buwayti, al-Muzani, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr were followers of Imam al-Shaafa’i, but they were also mujtahids in their own right and differed with their imam when they had evidence. Similarly Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr was a Maaliki but he differed with Maalik if the correct view was held by someone else. The same may be said of the Hanafi imams such as Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad al-Shaybaani, and the Hanbali imams such as Ibn Qudaamah, Ibn Muflih and others.
The fact that a student studied with a madhhab does not mean that he cannot go beyond it if he finds sound evidence elsewhere; the only one who stubbornly clings to a particular madhhab (regardless of the evidence) is one who is lacking in religious commitment and intellect, or he is doing that because of partisan attachment to his madhhab.
The advice of the leading imams is that students should acquire knowledge from where they acquired it, and they should ignore the words of their imams if they go against the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Abu Haneefah said: “This is my opinion, but if there comes someone whose opinion is better than mine, then accept that.” Maalik said: “I am only human, I may be right or I may be wrong, so measure my words by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.” Al-Shaafa’i said: “If the hadeeth is saheeh, then ignore my words. If you see well established evidence, then this is my view.” Imam Ahmad said: “Do not follow me blindly, and do not follow Maalik or al-Shaafa’i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn as we have learned.” And he said, “Do not follow men blindly with regard to your religion, for they can never be safe from error.”
No one has the right to follow an imam blindly and never accept anything but his words. Rather, what he must do is accept that which is in accordance with the truth, whether it is from his imam or anyone else.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
No one has to blindly follow any particular man in all that he enjoins or forbids or recommends, apart from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Muslims should always refer their questions to the Muslim scholars, following this one sometimes and that one sometimes. If the follower decides to follow the view of an imam with regard to a particular matter which he thinks is better for his religious commitment or is more correct etc, that is permissible according to the majority of Muslim scholars, and neither Abu Haneefah, Maalik, al-Shaafa’i or Ahmad said that this was forbidden. [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 23/382]
Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Rather what the believer must do, if the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) have reached him and he understands them with regard to any matter, is to act in accordance with them, no matter who he may be disagreeing with. This is what our Lord and our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) have enjoined upon us, and all the scholars are unanimously agreed on that, apart from the ignorant blind followers and the hard-hearted. Such people are not scholars. [Tayseer al-‘Azeez al-Hameed, p. 546]
Based on this, there is nothing wrong with a Muslim being a follower of a certain madhhab, but if it becomes clear to him that the truth (concerning a given matter) is different from the view of his madhhab, then he must follow the truth.
Hope the detail helped somewhat.
And Allaah knows best.

 

[Vimalakirti]

The followers of the madhhabs [schools of thought] are not all the same. Some of them are mujtahids [those who do Ijtihad] within their madhhab, and some are followers (muqallids) who do not go against their madhhabs in any regard.
Al-Buwayti, al-Muzani, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr were followers of Imam al-Shaafa’i, but they were also mujtahids in their own right....etc., etc., etc., etc.,

Hi thipps.

Again, with all respect, instead of even acknowledging the questions in my last post (see above), you've retreated into a legalistic exposition of the current status of ijtihad. It's all very interesting, but do you have any opinions/responses at all to my questions? I mean even if you feel I shouldn't pose such questions, or you feel they're for some reason irrelevant, I would humbly ask you to tell me why.

Peace.

 

[bloodnf]

There is no simple answer to this question. Any answer would have to start with "What is meant by reformation?" And then it would move to "Who would carry out this reformation?".

Islam, specifically the 85% that is Sunni, has no hierachy or unified Church if you will. We have various religous leaders and learned scholars who are followed to various extents by some muslims. But this is not set in stone. So there is no organized church to reform.

 

[Vimalakirti]

There is no simple answer to this question. Any answer would have to start with "What is meant by reformation?" And then it would move to "Who would carry out this reformation?".

Greetings. I agree. There are no simple answers. But of course these aren't the forums for simple answers - or shouldn't be.

But I must admit that my use of the term "reformation" has not proved very useful so far. Let me try to clarify a little.

There are two major senses to the word. One sense refers specifically to historical events in Europe over a period of centuries leading to the so-called modern era. It resulted in the break up of the hegemony of the Catholic Church over Christendom. So no, Islam could not have a reformation in that sense, although it wasn't a matter in the European case either of some authority "to carry out the reformation" as you suggest. That's more the idea of the Counter Reformation, which was an internal reform by the church to keep its adherents in the fold.

The second, more general sense of the word "reformation" is the one I intended. It's the radical (in the sense of "going to the roots") movement to reappraise and reform the ideology of a tradition in terms of its legal and doctrinal structures. In the case of Islam, since we're talking reform and not revolution, it doesn't involve any change to the Quaran itself, but certainly involves revisiting the long and complex history of how this scriptural base has been elaborated upon and employed in the world.

So why have a "reformation" in this sense? A tradition needs reformation when it falls into crisis; for Europe it was the crisis of a developing modernity. The suggestion here - and the reason people like me even use the word reformation - is that Islam appears to be similarly in crisis, and similarly in a crisis of modernity.

So it's not a question of exactly following any prior model, or "who carries it out". That will be up to Muslims, all Muslims to sort out. But the question is do Muslims in general need to mobilize to seriously, radically address the questions I've raised here and the manifest dysfunctions of the tradition.

But again, leaving all quibbles of definition aside, I've yet to hear from anyone that substantially addresses the real issues at hand (see above), the issues that mean life & death on a daily basis.

So once more, let me rephrase the question: do Muslims in general need to consider a radical transformation in the way their faith is interpreted & applied in the world, under its many forms? And, if so, do you as a Muslim have some good ideas along that line, on how that would get done?

I know there is much variety of opinion among Muslims on these issues. I don't purport to be offering solutions from the outside. I'm only eager to hear some good ideas. I'm only pleading for Muslims to bring those good ideas out here, for the benefit of everyone. Such contributions are as important as anyone can make to these forums, and surely repay the efforts of all the fine people who make it happen.

Peace.

 

[iBrian]

Hi thipps.

Again, with all respect, instead of even acknowledging the questions in my last post (see above), you've retreated into a legalistic exposition of the current status of ijtihad. It's all very interesting, but do you have any opinions/responses at all to my questions? I mean even if you feel I shouldn't pose such questions, or you feel they're for some reason irrelevant, I would humbly ask you to tell me why.

Peace.

I think a particular problem may be that you are focussing very much on negative Western perceptions of Islam, and then asking thipps to be a spokesperson on how Islam needs to redefine itself to present a more positive Western perception of Islam.

If so, it's a little unfair to put any Muslim on the spot to answer the perceptions of others - sort of like throwing accusational comments at Anglicans for being Christian and to support their faith against a background of IRA bombings in Ireland, Mafia shootings in Italy, and Army of God kidnappings in Uganda.

Perhaps it may be more pertinent to examine more the role of religion in political movements, the variety of different expressions of belief, and use of media scapegoating in society.

It seems perhaps that the turmoil of lack of understanding is ultimately within yourself, and but rather than looking within for a solution to this turmoil, you are looking for an outside sign to resolve it??

 

[Vimalakirti]

I think a particular problem may be that you are focussing very much on negative Western perceptions of Islam, and then asking thipps to be a spokesperson on how Islam needs to redefine itself to present a more positive Western perception of Islam.

If so, it's a little unfair to put any Muslim on the spot to answer the perceptions of others - sort of like throwing accusational comments at Anglicans for being Christian and to support their faith against a background of IRA bombings in Ireland, Mafia shootings in Italy, and Army of God kidnappings in Uganda.

1. My aim was not to put any particular person on the spot. The thread was not addressed to a particular person. It was put out there as a general call for ideas & responses, with the aim of bringing out the fact that there is much interesting & varied opinion among Muslims on this general problem. (Check the link I posted on the "Pluralism and Islam" thread for illustration.) To bring that out, I thought, would be of service to everyone, including to Islam in general. Thipps freely answered the thread. To restate the question to him was hardly coercive or unfair on my part.

2. “Answering the perceptions of others” was precisely not the point. As I’ve already noted elsewhere, too many of us seemed more concerned with perception than actual facts on the ground. If we’re so afraid of being “negative” that we can’t say anything real, we keep real negativity bottled up, and that’s poison. I was pointing to real situations. In the interests of increasing understanding across sectarian lines, it’s my contention that we have to do more than wring our hands over perceptions. At some point we all need to be more honest and direct.

3. On the question of “accusation”, certainly one needs to be careful. I’m writing from Canada. My wife is nominally Anglican and I have nothing to accuse Anglicans of other than being, well, a little soporific!

But look at an example in North America. We’ve experienced in the past bombings of abortion clinics and shootings of doctors. No, we can’t blame Episcopalians or Baptists, but we can rightfully cite the preachings of some fundamentalist Christians as constituting contributing causal factors to these events. Certainly, the point can be argued, but it can hardly be dismissed out of hand. As well, there’s good reason to believe that the aggressiveness of American foreign policy has been to some degree influenced by the power of the Christian right in the Republican Party. One may think that’s a good thing, that American foreign policy is just fine, but it’s certainly legitimate to argue the point. And there’s a further reason: that is, that this kind of influence impacts on others, not just on the sectarians in question.

In the case of the Islamic world, we have a widespread set of problems that can only be addressed by Muslims as a whole. It’s widely understood, for example, that Al qaeda in part is the result of a kind of civil struggle that’s been going on for decades in Saudi Arabia, but which has now spread far beyond the peninsula to non-Arab as well as Arab Muslim states, and beyond the Islamic world as well. It’s a generalized problem that affects the whole world, not just Muslims, so in my mind it’s perfectly legitimate and morally justified for non-Muslims to raise this issue, and to ask for more information on how Muslims are thinking about and responding to this problem. As people directly impacted, we have a right to our questions, and who is going to give us insight & hope on these problems if not Muslims?

4. To me, there’s a fine line between sensitivity to the perceptions of others and simply patronizing others; so-called respect can be disrespect in disguise. I understand that without a basis of trust, we’re stuck with euphemism and circumlocution, but again at a certain point we need to test the waters of direct speech, at least if we want to make any substantive headway toward authentic communication.

5. But the bottom line is the results. If nothing positive comes of this thread, then it’s an indicator that this line of questioning doesn’t work, at least not at this juncture, and in this forum, i.e., that there simply isn’t the necessary basis of trust. Fair enough, the thread will die a natural death. So far, it obviously hasn’t worked, and I stand convicted of misjudging the culture of these forums and what this culture considers within the pale – but obviously I’m a repeat offender in this regard!

Perhaps it may be more pertinent to examine more the role of religion in political movements, the variety of different expressions of belief, and use of media scapegoating in society.

I agree, Brian. All these things are important, but we also have to guard against using these issues as mere diversion; I mean, particularly “media scapegoating”. My feeling again is that your anxiety not to offend – and perhaps your sense of responsibility to keep the conversational peace – makes you unwilling to look at these things head-on.

It seems perhaps that the turmoil of lack of understanding is ultimately within yourself, and but rather than looking within for a solution to this turmoil, you are looking for an outside sign to resolve it??

I’m sorry, Brian, but this is just beneath you – an ad hominem attack one might hear from a defrocked Jesuit priest into the sauce. And it speaks again to the double standard I’ve detected here. We’re acculturated to accept that one is justified in rising in self-righteous anger if one’s dogmatic beliefs are besmirched, but to show any exasperation, or to speak with any passion, in the face of dogmatic belief and the way it limits discussion, well, that’s another thing. So yes, I’ve expressed some of that exasperation to you in private, and since I would prefer never to say a negative word, sure, I’d take some of it back. But come on, Brian, can’t you see that what you’re saying is just a little hurtful and dismissive? And how does this kind of accusation fit in with your code?


Anyway, no doubt I’ve once again said too much. I concede again that this thread isn’t working. I take responsibility for that, and won’t be prolonging its life from my end, other than to issue a disclaimer to hopefully head off any further misunderstanding.



Please forgive any harshness in my language or thoughts expressed here. No doubt, what I’ve pointed to as your hurtful accusation was partly the result of my manner and some of my intemperate comments. Please understand that I’m sincerely attempting to be of benefit, but that I also need to be honest in my reactions.

Best wishes.