An excellent commentary on the problems extant in Islam today by Ali Eteraz.
Since 9/11, "Islamic reform" has become an all-purpose phrase: equally a western impulse to protect itself from Muslim violence and a humanist notion aimed at assisting voiceless Muslims.
Who has the power to define what the Qur'an says, and what sources besides the Qur'an are to be relied upon in interpreting the book? Theologically, this is the most contentious issue in Islam. I call it "The Question".
The dominant approach or "Sharia" (Sharia means "way" or "beaten path") to emerge was Sunni. It affirmed one particular legal method called usul. It separated the religious scholars from the political leadership so as not to upset the favorable status quo. It adhered to 'Ashari theology which said that without revelation from God, human reason is incapable of distinguishing good from bad. It approved of Sufism. Finally, it codified Muhammad's practice in books of hadith, stating that other ways of apprehending the practice were illegitimate.
Supporters credit the dominance of this "way" to its intellectual flexibility, arguing that it provides a competent way of reconciling Islam with change. Cynics say that it won out due to its historical (and current) willingness to coddle corrupt political leaders. This dominant way is called "traditionalism" and is alive and well today. It is the closest thing Sunni Islam has to an orthodoxy.
Islamic reform occurs when a Muslim dissents from this traditional orthodoxy, and provides an alternative which he or she believes more accurately captures the spirit of Islam. Some dissenters argue that their view was part of the orthodoxy all along - just overlooked - while others agitate for the orthodoxy to open up and assimilate views from the outside.
...in terms of history, all critiques against traditionalism stems from Ibn Taymiya, a largely self-taught scholar in the 13th century, who challenged the traditionalists of his time.
For starters, Ibn Taymiya rejected the traditionalist view (still extant) on the "triple divorce" - which allowed a Muslim man to divorce a woman in one sitting by thrice-repeating "I divorce you." He further rejected the traditionalist opinion which maintained (and still does) that the testimony of two women was equal to that of one man, instead arguing that the Quran mandated equality in testimony. Finally, really stepping on traditionalist power, he concluded that ignoring the "consensus" of jurists was neither an act of disbelief nor a grave sin, as so many traditionalists insisted.
One would imagine that today Ibn Taymiya be lauded for his freethinking and celebrated as a feminist. Instead, he is linked to Osama Bin Laden. This has to do with the fact that his intellectual independence also led him to contradict traditionalists on the issue of rebellion against Muslim leaders, which opened the door to jihadist ideas (when a Muslim believes that he does not need the state to authorize taking life).
Fast-forwarding a few hundred years, the modern jihadist movement found that it could rely on Ibn Taymiya's permission to rebel against the hypocrite kings to legitimise its own armed rebellions - and terrorism - against dictators like Mubarak, Musharraf and the Saudi royal family. These attacks soon broadened to include attacks against the dictators' western allies. Traditionalists take the chaos unleashed by jihadists as proof that Ibn Taymiya was misguided. They argue that had the jihadists stuck to the traditional rules on how to deal with an unjust leader - with patient perseverance - jihadism would have never become a problem. It is for this reason that traditionalists argue that jihadism is a hijacking of Islam, while jihadists, linking back to Ibn Taymiya, argue that their actions are islamically justified. Whether you believe the jihadists' claim or not will depend on your willingness to entertain innovation and reform in Islam.
More
Since 9/11, "Islamic reform" has become an all-purpose phrase: equally a western impulse to protect itself from Muslim violence and a humanist notion aimed at assisting voiceless Muslims.
Who has the power to define what the Qur'an says, and what sources besides the Qur'an are to be relied upon in interpreting the book? Theologically, this is the most contentious issue in Islam. I call it "The Question".
The dominant approach or "Sharia" (Sharia means "way" or "beaten path") to emerge was Sunni. It affirmed one particular legal method called usul. It separated the religious scholars from the political leadership so as not to upset the favorable status quo. It adhered to 'Ashari theology which said that without revelation from God, human reason is incapable of distinguishing good from bad. It approved of Sufism. Finally, it codified Muhammad's practice in books of hadith, stating that other ways of apprehending the practice were illegitimate.
Supporters credit the dominance of this "way" to its intellectual flexibility, arguing that it provides a competent way of reconciling Islam with change. Cynics say that it won out due to its historical (and current) willingness to coddle corrupt political leaders. This dominant way is called "traditionalism" and is alive and well today. It is the closest thing Sunni Islam has to an orthodoxy.
Islamic reform occurs when a Muslim dissents from this traditional orthodoxy, and provides an alternative which he or she believes more accurately captures the spirit of Islam. Some dissenters argue that their view was part of the orthodoxy all along - just overlooked - while others agitate for the orthodoxy to open up and assimilate views from the outside.
...in terms of history, all critiques against traditionalism stems from Ibn Taymiya, a largely self-taught scholar in the 13th century, who challenged the traditionalists of his time.
For starters, Ibn Taymiya rejected the traditionalist view (still extant) on the "triple divorce" - which allowed a Muslim man to divorce a woman in one sitting by thrice-repeating "I divorce you." He further rejected the traditionalist opinion which maintained (and still does) that the testimony of two women was equal to that of one man, instead arguing that the Quran mandated equality in testimony. Finally, really stepping on traditionalist power, he concluded that ignoring the "consensus" of jurists was neither an act of disbelief nor a grave sin, as so many traditionalists insisted.
One would imagine that today Ibn Taymiya be lauded for his freethinking and celebrated as a feminist. Instead, he is linked to Osama Bin Laden. This has to do with the fact that his intellectual independence also led him to contradict traditionalists on the issue of rebellion against Muslim leaders, which opened the door to jihadist ideas (when a Muslim believes that he does not need the state to authorize taking life).
Fast-forwarding a few hundred years, the modern jihadist movement found that it could rely on Ibn Taymiya's permission to rebel against the hypocrite kings to legitimise its own armed rebellions - and terrorism - against dictators like Mubarak, Musharraf and the Saudi royal family. These attacks soon broadened to include attacks against the dictators' western allies. Traditionalists take the chaos unleashed by jihadists as proof that Ibn Taymiya was misguided. They argue that had the jihadists stuck to the traditional rules on how to deal with an unjust leader - with patient perseverance - jihadism would have never become a problem. It is for this reason that traditionalists argue that jihadism is a hijacking of Islam, while jihadists, linking back to Ibn Taymiya, argue that their actions are islamically justified. Whether you believe the jihadists' claim or not will depend on your willingness to entertain innovation and reform in Islam.
More
