There is no discussing Islam without discussing the Moderate Muslim. Like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, the Moderate Muslim is often a topic of conversation, but rarely has much to say about himself. And even those who note that the Moderate Muslim is somewhat less in evidence than the Dodo or the Mammoth, turn instead to the project of reforming Islam.
It is of course possible to reform Islam. It is also possible to reform a serial killer. It is however not likely, and certainly not safe to stake your serial-killer prevention strategy on letting the serial killer run free, while you try and talk to him about the virtues of not cutting off people's heads and wearing their skin.
For over a thousand years Islam has been the serial killer of world civilization, decimating entire cultures and religions, practicing ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism and endless war. Islam is currently involved directly or indirectly in conflicts or terrorism on virtually every continent. Modern Islamist movements have fused the modern tools of war from IED's to Lawfare to Social Media, with ancient fanatical beliefs blended with the leavings of National Socialism and Communism to create a global killing machine.
Now how do you go about reforming something like that? A rational proposal for reforming Islam must first begin by asking why proposals to reform Islam have gotten nowhere before.
The simple answer is that it's because the unreformed version of Islam is far too success for there to be much of a market for a reformed version. Al Capone wasn't interested in reform when he was shoveling in money hand over fist. The old blood and guts version of Islam is doing better than ever around the world, more so than any pale reformed versions.
The Wahhabis have shown that it's possible to live in America or the UK, get a degree as a doctor, preach terrorism and still get educated at the infidel's expense. The infidels will then fast during Ramadan to avoid offending you, ignore your incitement to violence and look the other way when you send money to terrorists. They will draw the line when you actually open fire or set off a car bomb-- but not to the extent of looking at your mosque or at Islam itself.
If you can be an Islamic extremist while finding career success in the West. If you can be an Islamic extremist and get an invitation to the White House or 10 Downing Street. If you can be an Islamic extremist and still have liberals compete to defend you and promote your agenda-- what possible reason is there for reform?
Non-Muslims may want Islam to reform, but why would Muslims want Islam to reform? The key to answering that question is also the key to reforming Islam.
Right now Muslims, particularly those in the West, have very little incentive to reform Islam. And you can thank the Cult of Tolerance and its ugly sibling, Political Correctness for that. If anything, violence and extremism has actually made Islam more successful by intimidating and extracting more concessions from the Dar Al Harb.
Religions typically reform due to internal pressure, but where is that pressure supposed to come from in the Muslim world? Yes there is a great deal of oppression within Islam, but that oppression is more than balanced out by the benefit that the oppressors gain within the system. For every 11 year old girl married off to a 40 year old man, there is a 40 year old man who is marrying an 11 year old girl. For every second wife who is beaten and humiliated, there is a first wife who enjoys her status. For every honor killing, there is an Imam. And so on and so forth.
Iran has demonstrated that given time the public would turn on an Islamist regime. But that would require waiting so that the inhabitants of every Muslim country wind up living under an Islamist regime, allowing them all to see what that would be like long enough for them to rise up and overthrow it. The obvious hole in this plan is that until the end game, the result would make the Cold War look like a water polo match with a nuclear armed Caliphate dominating a major portion of the globe. And then there's the question of letting Europe be taken over and turned into Eurabia long enough for the grandchildren of those haunting the Finsbury Park Mosque decide that maybe living under Sharia law isn't the solution to all human ills.
So where does all that leave us? With a partial answer. There is a way to reform Islam, but it requires turning up the temperature high enough to make actual reform seem like a good alternative. France's attempt to ban the Burqa is a partial but rather weak step in that direction, by making life as a full-on Muslim incompatible with enjoying the benefits of life in the West.
But the answer isn't quite that simple. We can narrow down three reasons for the current spread and vigor of Islam.
1. Militancy - Militant belief systems are more likely to pick up followers than dishwater ones. Islamic militancy has helped it crush any attempts at moderation, and seem appealing to Western converts by contrast with their liberalized and reformed religions.
2. Western Appeasement - By accommodating Islamic extremists, our societies have effectively surrendered to them by demonstrating that it is possible to have the best of both worlds. To enjoy the economic fruits of a Western lifestyle without compromising on Islamic beliefs and practices in any way.
3. Saudi Money - The influx of oil money and the challenge of domestic terrorism has caused the Saudi royal family, the Guardians of Mecca to spread Islam through the Wahhabi takeover of mosques, which insures that the more aggressive version of Islam will be well funded and backed by the diplomatic power of the House of Saud.
To neutralize the first two reasons, we have to change ourselves first, rather than changing Islam. Only if we cease to appease and tolerate Islamism, is Islamization likely to falter. By turning up the temperature and making life hard for Islam in the West, we can force some reforms, out of necessity, if not out of moral conviction. The third reason requires us to wean ourselves off oil while confronting and neutralizing Saudi Arabia, the UAE and any Muslim oil nations that export Islam abroad.
What exactly does reforming Islam mean? At her talk Wafa Sultan said that reforming Islam would essentially require creating a new religion and calling it Islam. And that is the problem with any attempt at Islamic reforms, unlike most religions, militancy is the heart of Islam. You cannot remove expansionism and Jihad, without removing the roots of Islam in Mohammed's murderous hordes spreading death and fear around the world. And yet that is exactly what reform requires, to create a version of Islam in which its social and ritualistic aspects are stripped of violence, intolerance and war.
This would require significantly rewriting or abrogating the Koran. Simply deemphasizing sections of it or treating them as metaphors, would open the door for the old blood and guts version of Islam to come roaring back at the first sign of outside weakness. As has already happened in the past. It would require changes to Muslim prayers and the undoing of the Muslim sense of superiority to the "infidels" and "people of the book".
Is it impossible? The Islamization going on around us is part of a well funded effort by Muslim countries that decided that exporting Jihad and Islam was in their interest. Demonstrating to them that not only is it not in their interest, but that it will ultimately destroy them by cutting them off from the tourism and trade that is the only thing keeping them from eating their own camels, is far more likely to make it happen than anything else. Similarly Muslims abroad must be made to realize that they face a choice between embracing a version of Islam that can co-exist with their neighbors, or a boat back to wherever they came from.
While Islamic reform is not the likeliest or best option, the best chance for it to take place is as a byproduct of the rejection of appeasement and the tolerance of Islamism by the First World. If it is made decisively clear that Islam stands in the way of trade, tourism and immigration, reform may happen. If pressure is applied to make sure that this reform is more than a few interfaith lectures and an audience of men and women, typical of the sort of phony show reforms the Saudis put on for American politicians and reporters-- it may even lead to something.
But regardless of whether or not Muslims choose to reform their religion, we must resist Islamization as if there were no reform possible. And as a paradox only by doing so, can Islam ever be reformed.
There is of course a great deal of talk about reforming Islam these days, and just about anyone from Tariq Ramadan to the Saudi King, to people who actually see what is wrong with Islam and want to reform it, can legitimately claim the title of the reformer of Islam. But that is because the question of what exactly "Reforming Islam" means remains open.
To begin with "Reforming Islam" means one thing to Western audiences and another thing entirely to Muslims. To Westerners "Reforming Islam" means bringing it into compliance with civilized norms of conduct. To Muslims it means stripping away the corruption of later eras and returning it to the pure Islam of Mohammed.
The most successful reformers of Islam within the Muslim world are not Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina or Irshad Manji... but Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who created Wahhabism, Hassan al Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama bin Laden. And while that may seem insane or absurd from a Western perspective, after all three men inspired orgies of mass murder and horrifying brutality-- they did indubitably try to bring Islam closer to its roots. The problem is that Islam's roots are more rotten and darker than its branches.
From the Islamic perspective, reforming Islam requires a purer Islam. From the Western perspective, reforming Islam actually requires a less pure Islam that is capable of implementing such foreign to it ideas as tolerance and co-existence. By contrast Muslims believe that whatever problems there are in Islam are the result of human corruption and innovations added to Islam over the centuries. A pure Islam is their final solution for ending the constant corruption in Muslim countries and creating a Caliphate run under Islamic law.
The question then comes down to just what is it about Islam that needs reforming. From the Western point of view, Islam's expansiveness, aggression, violence and intolerance are what need reforming. From the Islamist point of view, they are the hallmarks of what a pure Islam should be, intolerant of any intellectual miscegenation and unwilling to accept anything less than absolute dominance in the name of Allah.
There is talk that Islam needs its own Martin Luther, but that is exactly what Islam does not need. Islam already had its own Martin Luther in the 18th century and the Salafist bloodshed that was unleashed then still echoes in the suicide bombings today. Nor does that kind of religious reform usher in peace, so much as more war. And Islam certainly does not need to move any closer to its roots when Mohammed's bandits pillaged, looted and raped their way across what is modern day Saudi Arabia in pursuit of anyone who did not believe in Islam, or in the exact same form of Islam as they did.
No reform of Islam that leaves in place the absolutism of Islamic law will be at all helpful to the Muslim and non-Muslim world. And it is precisely Islam's claim on temporal power by way of Sharia that is at the root of the Islamic problem. Because there is no such thing as a private Islam, only a collective Islam. The Islam of the Ummah. A Muslim alone either assimilates for a time or goes insane, both of which can be seen from the interrogator's logs of captured Al Queda terrorists. Islam is not a private faith, but a public one. Its piety is in its outward displays of obeisance to Islamic law hide private corruption that is against the law.
Because of its claim to temporal power, Islam is in constant conflict with both the Muslim and the non-Muslim world. Its scholars ever present themselves as candidates for revolution, their fatwas key for legitimizing murder or tyranny. Wars, rebellions and brutal crackdowns are all routinely provided with the imprimatur of Islam, with a Fatwa or two to legitimize the notion that a ruler or a rebel or a terrorist is acting in order to impose Islamic law on whoever he happens to be killing at the moment.
While devout Muslims insist that corruption in the Muslim world is produced by a lack of Islam-- in fact it is produced by a surplus of Islam. Islamic law, reformed or otherwise, is not the solution to their problems, and polishing the codex down to the naked edge of a blade that Mohammed would supposedly approve of, and then slitting the throats of everyone who disagrees will solve nothing. Religious law is not the solution to human corruption, political transparency and democracy will always work much better than a dozen Imams poring over the Hadiths at checking corruption.
More Muslims were murdered in the name of reforming Islam, than were ever killed by American or Israeli warplanes. And each attempt at reforming Islam only perpetuates that mad cycle. As the Saudi promoters of Wahhabism and the Islamist terrorists of Hamas have been declared inadequately pure in turn by Al Queda, so too Al Queda and the Taliban can and will be judged impure by other Muslim reformers still believing that the key to paradise is a bomb belt and a truly pure Islam.
To truly reform Islam... Muslim clerics must do the impossible. They must give up power in the name of true purity. As long as Islam is tied to temporal power, it will remain innately corrupt, as will any institution that attempts to exercise power. When Mosque becomes detached from State, then Islam will cease to become a political tool and can actually be purified.
But it is precisely because Islam is a useful political tool for claiming temporal power, back to its roots in the desert when Mohammed built an empire by claiming to have received prophecies from an angel, that it can never be reformed and remains intermingled with violence. Only if Muslims were forced to choose between participation in the civilized world and Sharia, could Islam ever truly be reformed.
For over a thousand years Islam has been the serial killer of world civilization, decimating entire cultures and religions, practicing ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism and endless war. Islam is currently involved directly or indirectly in conflicts or terrorism on virtually every continent. Modern Islamist movements have fused the modern tools of war from IED's to Lawfare to Social Media, with ancient fanatical beliefs blended with the leavings of National Socialism and Communism to create a global killing machine.
Now how do you go about reforming something like that? A rational proposal for reforming Islam must first begin by asking why proposals to reform Islam have gotten nowhere before.
The simple answer is that it's because the unreformed version of Islam is far too success for there to be much of a market for a reformed version. Al Capone wasn't interested in reform when he was shoveling in money hand over fist. The old blood and guts version of Islam is doing better than ever around the world, more so than any pale reformed versions.
The Wahhabis have shown that it's possible to live in America or the UK, get a degree as a doctor, preach terrorism and still get educated at the infidel's expense. The infidels will then fast during Ramadan to avoid offending you, ignore your incitement to violence and look the other way when you send money to terrorists. They will draw the line when you actually open fire or set off a car bomb-- but not to the extent of looking at your mosque or at Islam itself.
If you can be an Islamic extremist while finding career success in the West. If you can be an Islamic extremist and get an invitation to the White House or 10 Downing Street. If you can be an Islamic extremist and still have liberals compete to defend you and promote your agenda-- what possible reason is there for reform?
Non-Muslims may want Islam to reform, but why would Muslims want Islam to reform? The key to answering that question is also the key to reforming Islam.
Religions typically reform due to internal pressure, but where is that pressure supposed to come from in the Muslim world? Yes there is a great deal of oppression within Islam, but that oppression is more than balanced out by the benefit that the oppressors gain within the system. For every 11 year old girl married off to a 40 year old man, there is a 40 year old man who is marrying an 11 year old girl. For every second wife who is beaten and humiliated, there is a first wife who enjoys her status. For every honor killing, there is an Imam. And so on and so forth.
So where does all that leave us? With a partial answer. There is a way to reform Islam, but it requires turning up the temperature high enough to make actual reform seem like a good alternative. France's attempt to ban the Burqa is a partial but rather weak step in that direction, by making life as a full-on Muslim incompatible with enjoying the benefits of life in the West.
But the answer isn't quite that simple. We can narrow down three reasons for the current spread and vigor of Islam.
1. Militancy - Militant belief systems are more likely to pick up followers than dishwater ones. Islamic militancy has helped it crush any attempts at moderation, and seem appealing to Western converts by contrast with their liberalized and reformed religions.
2. Western Appeasement - By accommodating Islamic extremists, our societies have effectively surrendered to them by demonstrating that it is possible to have the best of both worlds. To enjoy the economic fruits of a Western lifestyle without compromising on Islamic beliefs and practices in any way.
3. Saudi Money - The influx of oil money and the challenge of domestic terrorism has caused the Saudi royal family, the Guardians of Mecca to spread Islam through the Wahhabi takeover of mosques, which insures that the more aggressive version of Islam will be well funded and backed by the diplomatic power of the House of Saud.
What exactly does reforming Islam mean? At her talk Wafa Sultan said that reforming Islam would essentially require creating a new religion and calling it Islam. And that is the problem with any attempt at Islamic reforms, unlike most religions, militancy is the heart of Islam. You cannot remove expansionism and Jihad, without removing the roots of Islam in Mohammed's murderous hordes spreading death and fear around the world. And yet that is exactly what reform requires, to create a version of Islam in which its social and ritualistic aspects are stripped of violence, intolerance and war.
This would require significantly rewriting or abrogating the Koran. Simply deemphasizing sections of it or treating them as metaphors, would open the door for the old blood and guts version of Islam to come roaring back at the first sign of outside weakness. As has already happened in the past. It would require changes to Muslim prayers and the undoing of the Muslim sense of superiority to the "infidels" and "people of the book".
Is it impossible? The Islamization going on around us is part of a well funded effort by Muslim countries that decided that exporting Jihad and Islam was in their interest. Demonstrating to them that not only is it not in their interest, but that it will ultimately destroy them by cutting them off from the tourism and trade that is the only thing keeping them from eating their own camels, is far more likely to make it happen than anything else. Similarly Muslims abroad must be made to realize that they face a choice between embracing a version of Islam that can co-exist with their neighbors, or a boat back to wherever they came from.
But regardless of whether or not Muslims choose to reform their religion, we must resist Islamization as if there were no reform possible. And as a paradox only by doing so, can Islam ever be reformed.
What We Mean When We Talk About Reforming Islam
There is of course a great deal of talk about reforming Islam these days, and just about anyone from Tariq Ramadan to the Saudi King, to people who actually see what is wrong with Islam and want to reform it, can legitimately claim the title of the reformer of Islam. But that is because the question of what exactly "Reforming Islam" means remains open.
The most successful reformers of Islam within the Muslim world are not Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina or Irshad Manji... but Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who created Wahhabism, Hassan al Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama bin Laden. And while that may seem insane or absurd from a Western perspective, after all three men inspired orgies of mass murder and horrifying brutality-- they did indubitably try to bring Islam closer to its roots. The problem is that Islam's roots are more rotten and darker than its branches.
From the Islamic perspective, reforming Islam requires a purer Islam. From the Western perspective, reforming Islam actually requires a less pure Islam that is capable of implementing such foreign to it ideas as tolerance and co-existence. By contrast Muslims believe that whatever problems there are in Islam are the result of human corruption and innovations added to Islam over the centuries. A pure Islam is their final solution for ending the constant corruption in Muslim countries and creating a Caliphate run under Islamic law.
The question then comes down to just what is it about Islam that needs reforming. From the Western point of view, Islam's expansiveness, aggression, violence and intolerance are what need reforming. From the Islamist point of view, they are the hallmarks of what a pure Islam should be, intolerant of any intellectual miscegenation and unwilling to accept anything less than absolute dominance in the name of Allah.
There is talk that Islam needs its own Martin Luther, but that is exactly what Islam does not need. Islam already had its own Martin Luther in the 18th century and the Salafist bloodshed that was unleashed then still echoes in the suicide bombings today. Nor does that kind of religious reform usher in peace, so much as more war. And Islam certainly does not need to move any closer to its roots when Mohammed's bandits pillaged, looted and raped their way across what is modern day Saudi Arabia in pursuit of anyone who did not believe in Islam, or in the exact same form of Islam as they did.
No reform of Islam that leaves in place the absolutism of Islamic law will be at all helpful to the Muslim and non-Muslim world. And it is precisely Islam's claim on temporal power by way of Sharia that is at the root of the Islamic problem. Because there is no such thing as a private Islam, only a collective Islam. The Islam of the Ummah. A Muslim alone either assimilates for a time or goes insane, both of which can be seen from the interrogator's logs of captured Al Queda terrorists. Islam is not a private faith, but a public one. Its piety is in its outward displays of obeisance to Islamic law hide private corruption that is against the law.
Because of its claim to temporal power, Islam is in constant conflict with both the Muslim and the non-Muslim world. Its scholars ever present themselves as candidates for revolution, their fatwas key for legitimizing murder or tyranny. Wars, rebellions and brutal crackdowns are all routinely provided with the imprimatur of Islam, with a Fatwa or two to legitimize the notion that a ruler or a rebel or a terrorist is acting in order to impose Islamic law on whoever he happens to be killing at the moment.
While devout Muslims insist that corruption in the Muslim world is produced by a lack of Islam-- in fact it is produced by a surplus of Islam. Islamic law, reformed or otherwise, is not the solution to their problems, and polishing the codex down to the naked edge of a blade that Mohammed would supposedly approve of, and then slitting the throats of everyone who disagrees will solve nothing. Religious law is not the solution to human corruption, political transparency and democracy will always work much better than a dozen Imams poring over the Hadiths at checking corruption.
To truly reform Islam... Muslim clerics must do the impossible. They must give up power in the name of true purity. As long as Islam is tied to temporal power, it will remain innately corrupt, as will any institution that attempts to exercise power. When Mosque becomes detached from State, then Islam will cease to become a political tool and can actually be purified.
But it is precisely because Islam is a useful political tool for claiming temporal power, back to its roots in the desert when Mohammed built an empire by claiming to have received prophecies from an angel, that it can never be reformed and remains intermingled with violence. Only if Muslims were forced to choose between participation in the civilized world and Sharia, could Islam ever truly be reformed.
No comments:
Post a Comment