• French

In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must reform. This is the contention of many Western peoples. And, pointing to Christianity’s Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also reform, many are optimistic.

Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming. What is today called “radical Islam” is the reformation of Islam. And it follows the same pattern of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation.

The problem is our understanding of the word “reform.” Despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western references.

Muslim notions of “improving” society may include purging it of “infidels” and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators.

Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society.

In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their reference points and first premises. “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great extent products of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation; and so, a priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word.

—–

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands… [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished. Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

—–

How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scripture together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

Suffice it to note some contradictions (which will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):

• The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
• The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
• The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat women as possessions.
• The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

—–

Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation has naturally produced a civilization markedly different from the West.

Put differently, those in the West uncritically calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society.

That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.

Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.

Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state. Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar (temporal) and unto God the things of God (spiritual)” (Matt. 22:21). For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).

Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and Hadith—in a word, Sharia.

And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).

Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).

Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith.

The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are hoping for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.

Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.

By William Mayer

PipeLineNews

June 30, 2014 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – Make no mistake about it, the escalating jihadist surge in Iraq and Syria is now owned by President Obama.

This is his war.

As a result of more than two years of feckless inattention, including the administration's failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Maliki government, the country teeters on the verge of becoming a de-facto terrorist state.

If the country falls, American interests – secured through the sacrifice of nearly 4,500 American soldiers – won’t be the only casualty.

As reports continue to filter in it’s becoming clear that the Sunni terrorist army, ISIS, is engaging in a savage religious cleansing of Christians in the areas which it now holds.

“And now, with the raging incursion of ISIS – a brutal Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group – the religious cleansing of Iraq’s Christians is nearing completion as well. Iraq’s Christian community is hardly a western innovation or a colonial relic. It dates from the 1st Century, when two of Jesus’ disciples – St. Thomas and St. Thaddeus (also known as St. Jude) – preached the Gospel in what was then Assyria. There has been a Christian presence in Iraq ever since. [source, Lila Gilbert, The religious cleansing of Iraq's Christians, Fox News]

A definitive example of what's happening has occurred in the city of Mosul, where over the last two weeks thousands of Christians have been forced to flee as ISIS took over the city.

"According to CNN, militants believed to be from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took control of the airport, government offices, and TV stations. Iraqi police and soldiers fled from the onslaught. The militants freed around 1,000 militants from the Mosul prison. The Iraqi government has asked the United States for help, under the terms of the Strategic Agreement. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki has asked the parliament to declare a state of emergency and called on all able Iraqi men to come out and help defend the country. While the majority of Mosul’s 1.8 million inhabitants are Sunni Muslim, the city has historic importance for the world’s Christians. Mosul encompasses the ancient city of Nineveh, which is first mentioned in Genesis 10:11: “Ashur left that land, and built Nineveh". It was to the city of Nineveh that God sent Jonas to preach repentance, and in the end the city was saved from destruction." [source, Katie Gorka, Apocalyptic Assault by Islamist Militants Underway in Mosul, Iraq, Breitbart]

Additional resources dealing with this unfolding tragedy:

Emboldened ISIS Threatens Americans GABRIEL: ISIS is a threat beyond Iraq, with Shariah as worldwide aim ISIS ENABLERS: SCORECARD OF THE GUILTY ISIS’s original piggy bank was Saudi Arabia ISIS’ Next Targets: Jordan and Saudi Arabia

Desperate pleas by Iraqi officials for help have been rebuffed by President Obama, who seems inured to the catastrophe which Iraq has become. During this bloodletting in Syria and Iraq, jihadists are resorting to grotesque levels of violence; Christians are being crucified for refusing to renounce their faith or simply because they are non-Muslim. [please refer to, Raymond Ibrahim, Christians Are Being Crucified Again, Front Page Magazine]

The President remains silent.

Though U.S. military advisors have been urging the administration to hit the jihadist army before it becomes too interwoven with Iraq's civilian population, the President remains stubbornly opposed to taking any type of meaningful action, aside from the symbolic sending of 300 advisors whose primary job will be to turn out the lights at the U.S. Embassy should Baghdad burn.

But it's more than poor judgment; Mr. Obama is comfortable with the presence of a reconfigured Iraq. Unbelievably, the administration is stalling the delivery of – already contracted for – fighter jet aircraft to the Maliki government, an act which has forced the Iraqi's into the willing hands of Vlad Putin while strengthening the hand of Iran at a time during which Team Obama is engaged in nuke talks with the mullahs.

In a recent public statement Maliki expressed great frustration in dealing with the American government:

"I'll be frank and say that we were deluded when we signed the contract [with the US]...We should have sought to buy other jet fighters like British, French and Russian to secure the air cover for our forces; if we had air cover we would have averted what had happened," he went on. He said Iraq was acquiring second-hand jet fighters from Russia and Belarus 'that should arrive in Iraq in two or three days.'" [source, Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki: Russian jets will turn tide, BBC]

Unsurprisingly, the State Department is sounding like a broken record, claiming that an unassisted Iraq can defeat ISIS, a fact not in evidence.

"Our view is that Iraq and the successful outcome here is not contingent upon the intervention of any country," she said. "They need to take steps on the political front to be more inclusive, to govern in a non-sectarian manner. But the United States is – and the president is – considering a range of options, looking at factors including the national security interests of the United States." [source, US Official Says Iraq Requests Airstrikes, U.S. Dept. of State]

Throughout all of this, Obama projects a sense of being aloof and very oddly detached.

His focus remains on politics as he continues to make partisan speeches to hand-picked audiences in the face of burgeoning domestic scandals, logging thousands of miles over the last month to fundraise for the Democrat party. The price of admission to these affairs is steep. At a scheduled July 23 DNC fete in Los Angeles tickets start at $1,000. High rollers, in the party decrying the "one percenters," can spend as much as $32,500 [the Fed maximum] if they have the desire to be listed as a co-sponsor of the event.

PR savvy folks have noted the terribly bad "optic" such excess presents while much of the Middle East is in the tightening grip of Islamic fanatics whose unimpeded advance makes their desire to establish a caliphate spanning Syria and Iraq a real possibility.

As we go to press Iraqi forces are engaged in attempt to re-take the city of Tikrit – just North of Baghdad. Located in a predominantly Sunni region, it has historically been at odds with the country's Shia majority.

Regardless, Maliki's forces are meeting with a great deal of resistance from ISIS.

"The insurgents appeared to have repelled the military’s initial push for Tikrit, and remained in control of the city on Sunday, but clashes were taking place in the northern neighbourhood of Qadissiyah, two residents reached by telephone said." [source, Iraq crisis: Iran pledges military help against Isis as battle for Tikrit escalates, UK Telegraph]

Though Iran has more than hinted that it would be providing military assistance there is, so far, not much verification of that on the ground – though the country did warn the U.S. that its assistance is neither wanted nor needed.

From outward appearances at least, the President and Khamenei seem to be on the same page.

©2014 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved

Oleh seorang Pengajar Amerika di Dunia Islam

Beberapa minggu yang lalu, saya menulis sebuah artikel berkenaan dengan pengalaman pribadi yang saya punyai dengan seorang rekan kerja Muslim Sudan yang percaya bahwa istri saya harus dibunuh karena dia seorang yang meninggalkan Islam (murtad). Seorang pembaca, yang telah tinggal di dunia Islam selama 6 tahun terakhir, nampaknya tidak setuju dengan pengeneralisasian saya terhadap kaum Muslim. Menurut pengalamannya, 80% dari mereka hanya "ingin hidup damai, membesarkan anak-anak mereka, dan berbahagia", sementara 20% sisanya adalah kaum radikal dengan para pengikut zombie mereka yang tak akan segan-segan membunuh seseorang karena "kejahatan" murtad.

Jumlah itu akan nampak masuk akal bagi seseorang yang membatasi diri mereka pada jabat tangan dan senyum sehari-hari teman sejawat mereka yang Muslim. Saya bahkan menyatakan sendiri bahwa kesan pertama saya pada teman-teman kerja Muslim dari Sudan benar-benar sangat positif. Namun demikian, ketika seseorang menggores di bawah permukaan dari senyum-senyum dan jabat tangan-jabat tangan yang ramah itu dan menyampaikan topik mengenai kemurtadan, dia segera menyadari bahwa prosentase-prosentase yang disampaikan di atas harusnya dibalik. Dalam pandangan saya, 80% dari populasi Muslim berkehendak untuk membunuh seorang yang murtad (jika mereka dapat lolos begitu saja) sementara 20% sisanya percaya pada ungkapan, "hidup dan biarkan hidup". Untuk membuktikan poin saya, saya akan memerinci pengalaman saya itu dan menambahkan cerita dari seorang teman yang juga sebelumnya teman kerja.

Berkenaan dengan pengalaman pribadi saya, masalahnya tidaklah terletak pada "seorang" Muslim yang mengancam akan membunuh istri saya. Dia hanyalah salah satu di antara banyak. Masalahnya pertama-tama terletak pada reaksi (atau ketiadaan aksi) dari guru-guru lain di universitas tersebut. Contohnya, sehari setelah rekan kerja Sudan saya itu menyatakan bahwa istri saya harus dibunuh karena menjadi seorang yang murtad, dia melibatkan rekan-rekannya sesama orang Sudan dengan meneriakkan bahwa mereka semua setuju dengannya, dengan demikian menyebut mereka berpotensi untuk menjadi para pembunuh. Sedihnya, tak satupun dari mereka yang tidak setuju dengannya (di depan umum maupun secara pribadi). Mereka diam dan nampaknya lebih memperhatikan bahwa dia sedang menampakkan sifat alami Islam yang keras dari pada menyebut mereka calon-calon pembunuh.

Kemudian, ketika berita mengenai kejadian ini menyebar ke seluruh fakultas, tak satu pengajar Muslim pun, apakah dia seorang Saudi, Mesir, Yordania, Amerika Utara, Eropa atau muallaf* membela Islam dengan mengatakan bahwa Muslim tidak membunuh orang-orang yang murtad dan bahwa ancaman pembunuhan terhadap istri saya tidaklah pantas dan tidak mewakili Islam. Menurut pandangan saya, kediaman mereka mengenai masalah ini merupakan bukti bahwa sebagian Muslim menangani persoalan kemurtadan dalam cara yang keras (kematian).

Kediaman total staf pengajar Muslim membangkitkan minat teman saya, John. Dia sekarang ingin mengetahui apa sebenarnya yang ada di balik senyum-senyum dan jabat tangan-jabat tangan para laki-laki pecinta keluarga itu. Jadi, setelah kami masing-masing menjalani kehidupan kami sendiri begitu kontrak selesai, John berpura-pura jadi muallaf dan hidup sebagai seorang Muslim sejak saat itu. Setelah berbulan-bulan indoktrinasi, ia sekarang diundang secara teratur ke rumah-rumah rekan sejawatnya yang Muslim, dimana dia mempelajari apa yang rata-rata Muslim pikir mengenai non-Muslim dan orang yang murtad. Inilah poin-poin utama yang dia tulis dalam emailnya yang terbaru:

– Wajah-wajah bahagia yang dipasang kaum Muslim di depan kaum kafir adalah satu kebohongan, dan Muslim didorong untuk berbohong pada non Muslim.

– Dunia Barat dan Kristen itu sakit. Tak seorang Muslim pun dapat merangkul salah satunya tanpa menjadi kafir sendiri.

– Yesus adalah seorang nabi, tapi umat Kristen berhalusinasi karena percaya bahwa ia adalah Anak Tuhan.

– Para siswa diwajibkan untuk menunjukkan rasa jijik dan kebencian mereka terhadap pengajar-pengajar mereka yang Kristen. Mereka mengatakan hal-hal paling kotor sembari tersenyum (hal itu menjelaskan semua senyum yang saya terima ketik siswa-siswa saya bicara bahasa Arab). Inilah jihad anak-anak melawan orang-orang tak beriman.

– Imigrasi Mulsim adalah satu bentuk penaklukan jalur kelima.

– Dan akhirnya, para laki-laki pecinta keluarga ini percaya bahwa orang-orang yang murtad harus dibunuh setelah diberi sedikit waktu untuk kembali pada Islam.

Poin-poin di atas tidaklah diberitahukan pada John oleh beberapa kaum radikal, melainkan oleh mayoritas pengajar dan orang-orang admin tempat dia bekerja. Jadi, sebagai kata-kata kesimpulan, ide bahwa mayoritas Muslim adalah individu-individu cinta damai yang percaya pada mantra "hidup dan biarkan hidup" adalah keliru. Dua contoh yang disampaikan di atas, begitu juga banyak sekali contoh lain yang diberikan oleh Raymond Ibrahim menunjukkan bahwa rata-rata Muslim tak akan punya masalah membunuh seorang murtad jika mereka tahu bahwa mereka bisa lolos begitu saja.

*Saya sungguh-sungguh bertemu banyak sekali muallaf yang bangga telah bergabung dengan sebuah agama yang akan membunuh mereka jika mereka meninggalkannya.

Catatan pengarang: Nama-nama para individu dalam artikel ini telah diubah untuk melindungi mereka dari kemungkinan hal-hal yang tak diinginkan.