Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changing Islam From Within

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Changing Islam From Within

    By Ayaan Hirsi Ali March 27

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fellow of the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, a visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and founder of the AHA Foundation. She is the author of the newly published book “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.”

    The ferment we see in the Muslim world today is not solely due to despotic political systems, and it is not solely due to failing economies and the poverty they breed. Rather, it is also due largely to Islam itself and the incompatibility of certain of that faith’s key tenets with modernity. That is why the most important conflict in the world today is between those who are hell-bent on preserving, and even increasing, these incompatibilities, and those who are bravely prepared to challenge them — not to overthrow Islam but to reform it.

    Forget the crude distinction between “extreme” and “moderate” Muslims. Rather, we should distinguish among three groups of Muslims.

    The first group is the most problematic. Those in this category envision a regime based on sharia, or Islamic religious law. They aim not just to obey the prophet Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, the people in this group do not hesitate to condone it.

    The second group — which composes the clear majority throughout the Muslim world — is loyal to the core creed of Islam and worship devoutly but is not inclined to practice or preach violence. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every week and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, these “Mecca Muslims” focus on religious observance. Sometimes some members of this group are mistakenly termed “moderate.”

    In the third group is the growing number of people who were born into Islam but who have sought to think critically about the faith in which we were raised. These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue as believers yet remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. But the majority of dissidents are reformist believers who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of violence.

    The first group — the Islamist zealots — poses a threat to everyone. In the West, the existence of this group promises not only an increasing risk of terrorism but also a subtle erosion of the hard-won achievements of feminists and campaigners for minority rights: gender equality, religious tolerance and gay rights. And anyone who denies that this threat is growing — not only in Europe but in North America, too — just hasn’t looked at the data on immigration and on Muslim immigrants’ attitudes.


    But the zealots’ vision of a violent return to the days of the prophet poses an even bigger threat to their fellow Muslims. They are undermining the position of the majority who simply want to lead a quiet life. Worse, they pose a constant lethal threat to the dissidents and reformers. We are the ones who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats — or face death itself.

    Western policymakers today are so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia that they generally won’t touch Muslim reformers with a 10-foot pole. They would much rather make nice with the self-proclaimed representatives of “moderate Islam,” who on close inspection often turn out but to be anything but moderate. For this reason, our leaders are missing the boat on the Muslim Reformation.

    “It is not your job,” Western governments are told, “to help bring about religious change.” So Western leaders stick to their decade-old script: “Islam is a religion of peace.”

    But during the Cold War, no American president said: “Communism is an ideology of peace.” None said: “The Soviet Union is not truly communist.” Rather, the West celebrated and supported dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov and Václav Havel, who had the courage to challenge the Soviet system from within.

    Today, there are many dissidents who challenge Islam. Yet the West either ignores them or dismisses them as “not representative.” This is a grave mistake. Reformers such as Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji, Tawfiq Hamid,Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, Saleem Ahmed, Yunis Qandil, Seyran Ates,Bassam Tibi and Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari must be supported and protected. These reformers should be as well known in the West as Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and Havel were generations earlier.

    The reformers’ task will not be easy. Nor was that of the Soviet dissidents. Nor, for that matter, was that of the Protestant reformers. But the Muslim Reformation is the world’s best shot at a solution to the problem President Obama calls “violent extremism.” The time for euphemism is over. The time for reform of Islam is, at long last, now.

  • #2
    What Isis wants

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    By Ayaan Hirsi Ali March 27

    . . .
    The ferment we see in the Muslim world today . .., is also due largely to Islam itself and the incompatibility of certain of that faith’s key tenets with modernity. . . ,
    This article in he Atlantic has similar reasoning.


    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-wants/384980/


    I think a real problem here is that the "extremists" are the ones taking the Koran seriously. The "moderates" are ignoring what is in the Koran.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Changing Islam From Within

      I would agree.

      Islam requires reformation as it's current state is incompatible with the rest of the non-muslim world.

      I would agree it will help in the "fight for the muslim middle".

      But will reformation alone do anything of substance to change the problem with rigid literal adherents?

      I see that answer as a clear no, leaving many millions of rigid literal adherents with increasing asymmetric/unconventional capabilities.

      Over 50-100 years I think an islamic reformation would potentially have great value.

      Over 10-20 years I don't see a great benefit, and most folks(in the west) don't see past the next 2-4 year election cycle.

      I'm aware of one major lost opportunity in Afghanistan to reinstitute a well respected and recognized islamic thought leadership centre. It didn't fit into the short term plan, but could/would have fit into increased chance of long-term cultural collaboration/compatability.

      Without it we are looking at perpetual warfare and a genuine risk of losing the "muslim middle" in some times/places.

      I don't understand why it's so difficult for politicians to call it like it is:

      Rigid literalist interpretation of islam/koran represents a threat to all those who don't adhere/submit.

      Politicians get it right. They are extremists. Extremist, rigid, literal adherents to islam.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What Isis wants

        Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
        This article in he Atlantic has similar reasoning.


        http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-wants/384980/


        I think a real problem here is that the "extremists" are the ones taking the Koran seriously. The "moderates" are ignoring what is in the Koran.
        Yep, that is the issue. And you have big oil money backing the extremists.
        Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Changing Islam From Within

          Arabs were getting very “modern” back in the early 1960s. And you know why they stopped getting modern and started getting interested in extremist, rigid, literal Islam? Because the modernizing Arabs were all murdered or otherwise neutralized by the US, Britain, Israel, and Saudis.

          To the Americans of that time, “secular” was a synonym for "commie." To the British, it sounded anti-colonial and unprofitable. To the Israelis, it raised the horrible specter of an Arab world ruled by effective 20th-century modernists and states like that might become dangerous enemies. In contrast, an Arab world stuck in religious wars, dynastic feuds, and poverty sounded wonderful.

          The West put its weapons and its money in on the side of extremist, rigid, literal adherents over and over again. For decades it backed every retrograde extremist literalists it could find and set them against every single faction trying to make a modern, secular Arab world, whether on the Nasserite, Ba’athist, Socialist, Communist, or other any other model disapproved by Washington and London. A half-century alliance between the worst oligarchies in the West and the most reactionary elements in their countries wiped out the alternative.



          That’s why it’s so grotesque to listen to a bunch of right-wingers blame Arabs for the lack of commitment to democracy and reform; why it's so maddening to read posts lamenting immoderate and retrograde Arabs. When you’ve killed everybody else who was attempting to provide Arabs with an effective, secular, modern existence, whom do we expect would be left?

          Like all of the hare-brained schemes of our cloak and dagger boys, it all worked very well . . . or very badly, depending on your perspective.
          Last edited by Woodsman; March 30, 2015, 01:05 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            sort of agree

            Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
            Arabs were getting very “modern” back in the early 1960s. And you know why they stopped getting modern and started getting interested in extremist, rigid, literal Islam? Because the modernizing Arabs were all murdered or otherwise neutralized by the US, Britain, Israel, and Saudis.
            I think Iran is important. The US backed the Shah over Mossaddegh. Neither one was Islamic fundamentalist. Both were pro-modernization. But one was an incompetent tyrant, the other a transformative leader. The US backed an un-democratic leader, not a fundamentalist one.

            If you consider the Suez Crisis, Eisenhower clamped down on France and Britain, indirectly supporting Nasser. Nasser was not "extremest fundamentalist", and in fact, had those types imprisoned.

            The US supported Sadam Hussein for years, partly because he opposed the highly religious regime in Iran.

            Hussein was a nationalist, secularizing leader, but very undemocratic. So the US again backed a religiously moderate, but undemocratic, leader.

            I think Islam has a fundamental problem, in that the Koran itself promotes an exclusive and violent approach to religious allegiance.

            Comment

            Working...
            X