Are we living in the Islamic Reformation?

[RidonKs]

Muslim men and women, first worlders and third worlders, gay and straight, extremists and moderates, militants and passifists, clerics and laypeople are actively reinterpretinhg Islam according to their own changing needs. By doing so, they are not only redefining Islam by taking its interpretation out of the iron grip of clerical institutions, they are shaping the future of this rapidly expanding and deeply fractured faith.

Jihadists like Osama Bin Laden must be understood as products of, not counters to the Islamic reformation. Indeed Bin Laden joins a long and unsavory list of militant puritans, whrther Muslim Christian Jewish or Hindu, who consider themselves and their individual followers to be the only true believers and all others to be hypocrites, imposters, and apostates who must be convinced of their folly or abandoned to their horrible fates.

It may be too early to know who will write the next chapter of Islam's story, but it is not too early to recognize who will win the war between reform and counter reform. The cleansing is inevitable and the tide of reform cannot be stopped. The Islamic Reformation is already here and we are all living in it.

[RidonKs]

i'd love to be a fly on the ball while osama bin laden and martin luther trade war stories over a drink

[RidonKs]

reform began decades ago and jihadists are a tiny vocal minority flailing their arms in protest

[RidonKs]

their efforts, according to this author, are futile

islam had a tough go of it throughout the 2nd millennium

but it seems fair to say it entered the 3rd millenium right alongside its brothers

the modern muslim is gonna shove it up western ass

student surpassing the teacher

[fiddy]

I like the word eradication more

[RidonKs]

well we're talking about different scales of time then

i don't much doubt the organized abrahamic faiths will devolve into something akin to cults... but that is still hundreds of years away i think. even then the holy scriptures will still be our reference point for explaining the religious experience. those texts have monopolized the language and to be honest quite beautifully so. the meanings they have cultivated generation after generation, society after society, will persist long long long into the future. maybe we'll forget about calvinist-baptists or whatever but christian myths and jewish talmud and islamic are a part of our global culture, like it or not.

i'm talking about a reformation set to last another 25-50 years, climaxing in a bevy of violence within that range... then fatigue will set in and reformists will carry the day.

[fiddy]

well we're talking about different scales of time then

i don't much doubt the organized abrahamic faiths will devolve into something akin to cults... but that is still hundreds of years away i think. even then the holy scriptures will still be our reference point for explaining the religious experience. those texts have monopolized the language and to be honest quite beautifully so. the meanings they have cultivated generation after generation, society after society, will persist long long long into the future. maybe we'll forget about calvinist-baptists or whatever but christian myths and jewish talmud and islamic are a part of our global culture, like it or not.

i'm talking about a reformation set to last another 25-50 years, climaxing in a bevy of violence within that range... then fatigue will set in and reformists will carry the day.

I beg to differ, i believe that those times are just around the corner

[RidonKs]

I beg to differ, i believe that those times are just around the corner
well hey no hard and fast rules when hypopolatin the fates of humanity

[fiddy]

well hey no hard and fast rules when hypopolatin the fates of humanity
Unless its no somebody's agenda

[Derka]

reform began decades ago and jihadists are a tiny vocal minority flailing their arms in protest
A very well-armed, well-financed, thoroughly determined minority.

[BoutPractice]

There never was and never will be an islamic reformation because sunni islam already resembled protestantism in not requiring a complex religious hierarchy or clergy.

Revolutionary islamism as we understand it today is a fairly recent (early 20th century) phenomenon, which has a lot in common with marxism-leninism, fascism and the great mass movements of the 20th century. It is the reinterpretation of a medieval religion by a new generation shaped by colonization as well as their era's worldwide clash of godless, totalitarian ideologies. Osama can be seen as the equivalent of one of those early revolutionary terrorists who assassinated princes and bombed parliaments... Al-Baghdadi meanwhile is trying to be the movement's Lenin.

Which isn't to deny that islamism is one of the principal actors in a major struggle over the Middle East, both geopolitically between great powers (global and regional) and ideologically between the "ancients" and the "moderns" (pro tolerance). So far the "moderns" are losing the ideological battle because of the interventions of the great powers, whether they have an interest in keeping the area as backward as possible (Saudi Arabia) or generally don't have a clue what they're doing and keep acting counter-productively (US).

[LJJ]

A very well-armed, well-financed, thoroughly determined minority.

"Minority".

[Clifton]

What is there to "reform"? What is "Islamic doctrine"? Who is the head of Islam?

In 1517, all those questions could be answered of Christianity. Abuses that go against Christian doctrine are to be reformed. Christian doctrine is the teachings of the Scriptures and the Fathers recognized and codified by the Councils of the Church. The head of Christianity was the Pope.

There have always been factions within Christianity of course, but at the same time you could easily identify one authority that was recognized as such by most, most of the time.

My impression of Islam is this. 1. Their book is more exciting to read than the Bible. 2. Most Muslims I know live in a way that is contrary to what is written in the Quran, and like to pretend that only the part of the Quran that "counts" is the part that is in accord with Judeo-Christian and/or contemporary Western values. 3. There is no central authority structure for sorting out these claims and "representing Islam" for the world on what exactly they are supposed to believe.

[RidonKs]

My impression of Islam is this. 1. Their book is more exciting to read than the Bible. 2. Most Muslims I know live in a way that is contrary to what is written in the Quran, and like to pretend that only the part of the Quran that "counts" is the part that is in accord with Judeo-Christian and/or contemporary Western values. 3. There is no central authority structure for sorting out these claims and "representing Islam" for the world on what exactly they are supposed to believe.
good points

the second can be ubiquitously applied to every incarnation of abrahamic faith going back as far as you want... so its something of a moot point. people pick and choose because scripture is long and living your life by it is an incredible burden that believers naturally moderate and accommodate to their immediate circumstances.

its your third point that needs something of a test i think, though bear in mind the analogy is admittedly weak and i'm only offering it as a suggestion to understand recent events through a different lens

i ponder an analogy between the holy roman empire and the smattering of strict islamic states which have grown into visible international actors, say since the war and decolonization. talking taliban throughout central asia, the despotic stooges in military dress in the middle east, and all the copycats that have come since.

thats a tough analogy to draw for the very reason that those states lack an international command structure. there are enough similarities to look into though.

a command structure is important to note because people tend not to like it... well people outside of the command structure tend not to like it. they feel they can weild zero influence in determining the role of religion in their society. it is literally out of their hands and the reason is overtly political.

the politics of it are crucial. states are by design far more pragmatic, in terms of mitigating risk to expand territory and maintaining sufficient level of popular support and various other power games that leaders must play to keep their title.... by comparison their interests are far more pragmatic than say an ideologically warped jihadist who feels no sacrifice is beneath the light and love of allah or whatever they say

so taking all this into consideration, following my logic and buying into my assumptions which presumably warrant being walked back some.....

it seems to me it is precisely clerical institutions, even if by name only, that continue to wrestle with the public for autonomy on big religious societal decisions. the people are upset.

it seems to me these executive decisions from clerical institutions, such as the state even if in name only, lead to more than just popular resentment against tactics that exclude the majority from having their say. the state's practise of pragmatism is also by definition sacriligious by giving unto caesar what belongs to god.

and in that underbelly of resentment, such as what was seen amongst the dutch and the french and eventually the rest of europe, you had militias and vigilantes and indeed terrorists who sought to replace the imperial system of domination with a fundamentalist system of domination.

the puritans got so much play because they seemed to present a real possibility of political sovereignty. the public is far less supportive of its means than of its ends, to which it gives tacit approval. when osama bin laden lists his demands against saudi crimes and israeli crimes and american crimes and soviet crimes, he is just using different language to express the same outrage as did martin luther... who was more clever by half but nevertheless equally as indignant and dogmatic.

better the devil you know than the devil you don't? well that would depend on who you are asking. the subjects of the devil or its masters?

do note the ahistorical fallacies that might undermine this line of argument, i'd be interested to read them and then try to wrap my head around them so i can incorporate them without having to change my mind

[RidonKs]

Revolutionary islamism as we understand it today is a fairly recent (early 20th century) phenomenon, which has a lot in common with marxism-leninism, fascism and the great mass movements of the 20th century. It is the reinterpretation of a medieval religion by a new generation shaped by colonization as well as their era's worldwide clash of godless, totalitarian ideologies. Osama can be seen as the equivalent of one of those early revolutionary terrorists who assassinated princes and bombed parliaments... Al-Baghdadi meanwhile is trying to be the movement's Lenin.
i can see a comparison between the islamic state and the soviet bolsheviks

both siezed power in a sort of holding action while awaiting the rest of the world to 'catch up'

the popular sentiment to which i referred above is also very analogous

so what happened in the soviet union? a whole lot of ruin for the most part along with the implementation of a few novel but insufficient policies to salvage the poverty of the population. that sort of outreach is necessary but very fair to say that it was not the prerogative of either movement we're discussing.

the soviet example is also demonstrative of how constrained a nation state is to act on its principles, as opposed to a private well funded organization.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Is there a Muslim equivalent to Martin Luther?