Reformation in whose sphere?

[SeeKer]

Recently in the media I have noticed this word used in conjunction with Islam a lot. At first I didn’t pay any mind to it till one day, while I was reading a transcript of Khalid Yasin’s interview with John Cleary, I quaked at the word. Reform originally meant ‘restore the original form of something’. An example to illustrate this, as far as I can go back historically, is Protestant Reformation that occurred circa 16th century. Martin Luther at the time was at the head of this reformation. He nailed his 95 theses on the door of a church in Wittenburg, Germany. The movement occurred all over Europe but more particularly in Germany, where the princes were pre-occupied with a threat of invasion from Muslims to notice the unrest in their fiefdoms. The reformation was supposed to restore the church to its purity and from this usage we can clearly see that reformation was used in a sense of decline rather than progress . This view prevailed for most of that century to about the 17th century. From the 18th century onwards reform begun to mean something new. It now meant progress and a change for the better. The users of the word ranged from the moderate leftist and later neoliberalist.

 

To get to why the word was causing me tremors in my chest, you would just have to look at the difference in meaning. The media uses this word when explaining what Khalid Yasin wants; Sharia Law to prevail and Islam to go back to the golden age of Medina.

 

“What we want in a society is where everyone has access to the resources of the society, we want a society where there is a reasonable coexistence, peaceful coexistence. Here in a society we want progress, in a society we don’t want the imposition of a class system; in a society we want to know that the law is equally applied to everyone, and we go on and on and on. And I say that there is a historical paradigm. OK now if the Christians or Western civilisation say that they have a historical paradigm of a nearly ideal state, I mean Socrates, Plato and all of these guys, they kind of articulated things towards it, but they never reached such an ideal republican state. But we have a historical paradigm, not only just in the person of the Prophet peace and blessing upon him, but in that Medina state. Now how long it lasted is not the issue, the fact that it is a paradigm, so an apple is an apple, however long it stays on the tree, it’s still an apple, whether it falls on the ground and rots it’s still an apple. So I say we have a historical paradigm and for all arguments’ sake, we can look at that and then compare it with other examples.â€

 

 

The media also uses the word when speaking of Irshad Manji’s book The trouble with Islam . It is used to explain Indonesia’s political party of Liberal Islam Network, Morocco’s new revision of Islamic family codes and the new group that is cropping up The queer muslims . My question arises as to whose definition should we adhere to and for that matter does Islam even need reformation?

[ATLAS]

My question arises as to whose definition should we adhere to and for that matter does Islam even need reformation?

 

That is rhetorical question, which means you want it to be answered the way you wish.....

[SeeKer]

Dear Mr Galt,

 

Maybe it is rhetoric but I have qualms with the meaning of the word being distorted to the point that it can describe both ends of the spectrum. Sure, potato potatoh ..........except when the potatoh begins to mean tomato and I end up cooking with the wrong ingredients.

[Viking]

SeeKer,

It depends on who is calling for these 'reforms'...

 

1) Irshad Manji/Salman Rush-die et al (former Muslims) - they would want to change Islam to what they deem is 'acceptable' (i.e. acceptance of hosexuality, change of hudood laws etc). They just scoff!

 

2) The western scholars and politicans - these want an Islam that is NOT involved in politics and social law. They would like a passive religion where people go to mosques once a week and drink beer the other days and above all, keep quiet.

 

3) Islamic scholars - They fall into different categories (some like the MCB work for western or their respective governments and their opinions might be biased) but the respected and recognised ones who call for reform are usually seeking re-interpretion of existing laws based on what they have at their disposal (the Qur'an and Sunnah). This group does not call for the 'teeth to be pulled out' but merely seek to re-construe, they are mujtahids.

[SeeKer]

Viks humor me if you may here. There is a commonality between all three divisions i.e. They are correcting/remodeling the religion according to what they see fit. This leads me to the next question...............Does Islam need reform?

 

Islam is the last message that means that it should span all generations,situations and timelines. Interpretations aside and following logic you would then have to accept that its the perfect religion. Why the reform talks and calls? What is it that is lacking?

[Yeniceri]

Originally posted by SeeKer:

Does Islam need reform?

No it doesn't. Islam is a religion for all human beings. Islam can function in harmony with any society and at any point in Time. If that was not the case, how come it wasn't "reformed" earlier?

 

The issue with "reforming" Islam is that the West - in its efforts at total global domination - wants to export its values and culture into other societies, because, as G W Bush said in his State of of the Union address last night, the West has championed over other "evil" ideologies (Nazism, Communism) - and it will champion over "radical" Islam. To him, the "great challenge" of the 21st century is "radical" Islam. HIV/AIDS, poverty, corruption, civil conflict, etc. aren't "great challenges" because the greater challenge is the religion of Islam (the "radical" prefix is diplomatic talk). Bush (and his Western counterparts) honestly believe that they have a DIVINE RIGHT to rule the world - because they've been victorious against "evil" ideologies in the past. Defeating Islam, to them, will be continuing the great "tradition" of ridding the world of "evil" empires.

 

Secondly, the microscope's been on Islam since the 9/11 incident. The West believes that women who wear the hijab in Muslim countries are "forced" to by the men. One of my favorite comments came when an American general in Afghanistan said, in reference to the Taliban, something like: "I'll get a kick out of defeating these guys who're used to slapping their women around." Have the Taliban been defeated yet? How come a so-called superpower can't defeat dudes who live in mountain caves? I wonder...

 

The West believed that if "democratic elections" are held, "free" Muslims would elect "moderates" or "secularists." What has happened in Palestine? What happened in the Iraqi elections? What happened in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? What happened in Algeria during the '91 democratic elections?

 

In all those cases, the Muslim masses recognized and aligned themselves with the political party that holds Islamic values and character close to heart. Why? If Islam needed "reform" then wouldn't those people who voted FREELY elect a leadership that could be classified as "moderate" Muslims or Muslims bent on "reforming" Islam?

 

The truth is in the reality of today and in the hypocrisy and miscalculations of those Pentagon hawks. Everything they said became a lie and blew up in their faces. Nazism, Communism, Fascism - these were all man-made ideologies that could never work. Islam is a religion and Muslims have a proud history. The world, it will be remembered, was much better off when the Muslims ruled it. Who preserved Greek and Roman literature (where Westerners derive some of their ideologies from)? It was the Muslims. And how are we re-paid: by invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, among other injustices. Time will be the ultimate arbitrator, however.

 

I'm done.

[SeeKer]

Yeniceri apart from going on a tangent (GW bush State Union address?? :eek: ) and whatnot. I got the gist you don't think Islam is in need of reform and that its a western concept? (Feel free to correct me)

 

Aljazeera:

So, according to Islam, what is the individual Muslim's duty to combat corruption?

 

Qaradawi:

We Muslims loathe corruption. We are urged to fight vice. This is why we should be the first to embrace reform, starting with ourselves.

 

We cannot possibly envisage a brighter future if we do not shake off the constraints of corruption that are damaging our societies.

 

Aljazeera:

Is there any reform mechanism that you envision?

 

Qaradawi:

We must be clear on this; there is a crippling feeling of disunity and paralysis that overwhelms Muslim nations.

 

However, it should be made equally clear that a nation is responsible for reforming itself rather than having others reform it.

 

If a nation reforms itself, it will do so while keeping its own interests in mind. That is to say, an outsider is only interested in reforms that would further his own agenda.

Source

 

Hope the interview helps clear out some cobwebs.Its actually really simple............either Islam is perfect the way it is or we accept the fact that our interpretations of the religion was tainted and call for reforms.

[xiinfaniin]

^^It is really simple, seeker. Islam is perfect the way it is. It does not need reform. Muslims, however, are in dire need of reform. They need to reflect their values, and practice what they preach. When Qardawi says we should be embracing reform he means not to reform our sacred text and recast its teachings, rather what the good sheikh means is the Ummah to reclaim its (Qur’anic teachings that is) original interpretation and adhere to its directives. And so I think when learned and sincere Muslims say we need reform, it’s the cultures and the behaviors of the Ummah that need be reformed that they mean and not the religion it self.

 

This discussion would be beneficial and constructive if you, or someone else, comes up samples of concepts of the Precious book that need to be reinterpreted.

[SeeKer]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

he means not to reform our sacred text and recast its teachings.....................................you, or someone else, comes up samples of concepts of the Precious book that need to be reinterpreted.

Xiin, I understood what Qaradawi was saying and I don't mean to be obtuse but would it be fair then to deduce (read your quote) that interpretations vary and therein lies the problem?

 

Let me throw a well discussed theory in the ring. Islamic intellectuals reformists call for interpretation of Islamic texts within their historical/social context. Stating this you would conclude that perhaps some things in the text would then not be in sync with the modern world e.g. If mortgages are allowed.

 

Ps:- link the interpretations to the divisions in the Ummah that are now more apparent than before.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SeeKer:

Viks humor me if you may here. There is a commonality between all three divisions i.e. They are correcting/remodeling the religion according to what they see fit...Why the reform talks and calls? What is it that is lacking?

Not at all. The third group I mentionned is not following its whims. I said they are "seeking re-interpretion of existing laws based on what they have at their disposal (the Qur'an and Sunnah)." They are not seeking to change Islam, or 'reform' it in the manner occidentals are calling for.

[xiinfaniin]

Seekerey, you are right interpretations vary but that hardly makes the argument of reform any stronger. All those varying interpretations stem from same primary sources of evidence, namely Qur’an and Sunnah. These interpretations are also derived in conformity with the stringent Islamic jurisprudential rules. As you may already know there are already four prominent jurisprudence schools in the Muslim world. Their opinion may vary, as you’ve indicated, but their rulings follow same methodology when deriving a judgment, and thusly all their verdicts rest on a sound and accepted detailed evidence. Their disagreements are peripheral in nature, and most cases they are in agreement than they are in disagreement, hence the varying interpretations you alluded to have no fundamental difference.

 

But that just begs the question. So let’s address the question of interpreting our sacred text in a way that reflects on the challenges of our age. To deal with this question one must have a general idea of the history of Islamic legislation---tashriic. To summarize its fundamental concepts, prescribing laws, laying down regulations, defining systems is a function that is specific to Allah alone . How these laws are interpreted also is a subject to articulate proofs. The prophet had provided coherent system of interpreting these laws through his deeds and sayings. His companion transmitted a complete legal system with its fundamentals defined. All the Muslim scholars did then, and continue to do now is to interpret Islamic laws. The role of legislating has been conceded to Allah.

 

Understanding Muslim scholars role paves the way for an appreciation of what they can and can’t do as far as meeting the challenges of our age is concern. And that brings us back to today’s hot button issues in the Muslim societies, i.e. mortgages, gender equality, inheritance, polygamy, freedom of speech, armed Jihaad, and other issues. These issues are very much well defined and there is nothing that reformist can do to reform and redefine them. There is no way Muslim scholars can legalize interest-based mortgages, for instance, for the prohibition of usury is a settled law in Islamic fiqh. Allah declared null and void for any transaction that’s based on usury. Islam just does not recognize that type of trade as a valid dealing. Likewise the concept of absolute gender equality and how it’s understood in the west is nonstarter, and flies in the face of established Muslim traditions. There’s a dress code for each gender, for instance, that’s endorsed by the lawgiver. In which case, Muslim scholars see no reason to redefine gender roles and interfere in Allah’s laws. Perhaps one of the most diverging concepts between the two worlds is the concept of personal freedom. You see, my dear sister, Muslims are not really free when it comes to the dictates of the law. We are tought that we are slaves of Allah. We are here to please him. To demonstrate that we truly accept His sovereign, we have to follow certain rules. You can’t utter, write, or do what ever you wish. That’s a world of difference in how personal freedom is perceived in the west.

 

Having said all of that, there are uncompleted reforms that the beloved prophet started which need to be finalized. The concept of slavery, for instance, has been dying some time, and, in my estimation, is breathing its last gasps. Its casket needs to receive its remaining nail. That’s where Muslim scholars have a maneuvering room, and frankly they have been very slow to complete slavery's kill. There is also the concept of monarchy in Islamic world and its shameful political legacy. It is another area that is a prime candidate for the reform we are longing for. Though it's not a unique political system to the Islamic world, it has plagued Muslim societies more so than the rest of the other world. Muslim scholars have been silent about it, and in some regions this menace continued under their blessing. That should end. And so the list goes on.

 

Now, and to regulate my rumble, let me conclude by pointing out that deference of reforming Islam and reclaiming it is significant one. The first implies reforming the text itself to comply with the changes of our age. It implies improvement over the original text and how was interpreted. The latter is the correct term for preserving the originality of both the precious book and its interpretation while suggesting the need to reform the people who believe in it to better them selves by adhering to its correct dictates. It’s my opinion that we can’t bend the rules to make it meet our needs. And it’s quite insulting to curve the concepts we hold dear simply to appease the controversy they cause overseas.

[SeeKer]

Xiin,

 

Thanks for clarifying that reform in the case of Islam does mean decline . Not in the negative connotation but going back to the golden age as Sheikh Khalid Yasin says. Would you call them reforms though or qiyaas ?

 

I am assuming that reforming the people to adhere to the religion would require a plan of attack

 

Interestingly though you mentioned monarch. I am sorry if I get to be bugger I just am interested in the intricacies of interpretations. Is democracy and Islam at pars with each other? Islam is modeled in almost socialism fashion.............what then would be the ideal government?

 

Ps:- SeeKerey just sounds like yareey.........

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by SeeKer:

...I just am interested in the intricacies of interpretations.

 

 

Aha! This is where I come in! A renowned world expert in Islamic exegesis and hermeneutics.

 

Here is my verdict: interpretations are interpretively interpretive.

 

 

That is all I have to say for now.

[Pi]

^^^

 

Hmmm, good topic, will come back later.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SeeKer:

Xiin,

Islam is modeled in almost socialism fashion.............what then would be the ideal government?

Seeker,

Perhaps a council of scholars that are permanent members (just like the Supreme Court of USA and the Iranian Guardian Council) who overlook the application of laws. Underneath them a form of parliament with democratically elected politicans who run the affairs of the nation (like the Majlis or Senate). What ya think?