Joe, this is only sort of related, but good news. How do you think the US will/should react?

Hmm, classic mixed news.... but off topic re: the reform of Islam.

The Egyptian situation does deserve treatment, and so does your questions - but the best way to do that is in a separate post after I go get some treatment of my own. Food poisoning sucks, and now that my stored posts are exhausted I'm likely to be absent from the blog for a couple days. More when I return.

There will be no reform of Islam until there is extensive political reform in Muslim nations, creating civil societies where reform can be freely and broadly discussed. Otherwise, all the voices crying out in the wilderness will do no good. Hardly anyone in the West listens to them, either, because for every reformer, there's hundreds of Ibrahim Hoopers.

Helping to create such societies, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is our present bold project. Every difficulty we encounter brings another protest from the defeatist left. There is a long road ahead, with a long hard fight before we can hope for a world where our great-grandchildren see this "Islamic Reformation".

It appears to me the line between religion (the one true) and government is so blurred in Arab countries, if not all countries where Islam is dominant, that it is not realistic to expect to achieve political reform with out religious and vice versa. Bottom line is that they have to make the progress Western countries did in 500 years, Japan did in 100 and Korea did in 50 in 25 or less and they aren't even trying.

It appears to me the line between religion (the one true) and government is so blurred in Arab countries, if not all countries where Islam is dominant, that it is not realistic to expect to achieve political reform with out religious and vice versa. Bottom line is that they have to make the progress Western countries did in 500 years, Japan did in 100 and Korea did in 50 in 25 or less and they aren't even trying.

Back on topic, I think the term "reformation" is actually what has been happening to Islam. Remember, the Protestant reformation was a fundamentalist movement -- a return to Biblical literalism in response to the corruption and decadence of the High Church. It was accompanied by an expansion of literacy rates, spurred by the enclosure movement, and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. You can see a lot of similar trends and themes in Islam today.

Well, praktike is right, there is some incremental change. But we really need to stop calling Islam a religion, it is not. They themselves describe it as an addin, a way of life. I prefer to think of Islam as an ESS, an evolutionarily stable strategy. It has fierce organic unity, which makes change difficult.

Praktike has posted the most hopeful stuff I've seen, in his analysis of some of Sistani's judicial rulings.

Back on topic, I think the term "reformation" is actually what has been happening to Islam.

Actually, I don't buy the “reformation” metaphor. If we insist on using Christian parallels, why not Vatican II? That was a great liberalization movement that embraced the vernacular Mass and many other liturgical reforms along with reforms about the position of Catholicism in the world. At least as significant as the Council of Trent.

Much of this discussion is a free flight of fancy. The timeframe for such reforms grows shorter with each passing day. Internal reform of sufficient profundity as to isolate the violent radicals is probably unrealistic.

praktike: Remember, the Protestant reformation was a fundamentalist movement -- a return to Biblical literalism in response to the corruption and decadence of the High Church.

Yes, but recall it was accompanied by savage criticism of the status quo: the sale of indulgences, corrupt clerical practices, the political influence of the church, etc. Who's criticizing the Islamic status quo, which has even worse abuses?

The Reformation created something else: true separation of Church and State. Luther's distinction between Faith and Reason was the basis for this - Luther pointed out, for example, that the most just and enlightened rulers of the time were probably the Turks. Obviously infidels and pagans can understand Justice as well as Christians, so True Faith and good government are two different things.

Islam absolutely lacks any such distinction. It leaves no breathing space for secular life, for pluralism of any kind, or for any culture separate from Islam. Who's going to reform that, and how? (The concept of dhimmitude is not much of a "reform")

Who's criticizing the Islamic status quo, which has even worse abuses?

Bin Laden's stuff is filled to brimming with criticism of the decadence and corruption of the Saudi regime and other Arab rulers, with the subservience of the ulema, with various complaints about how the Muslims have lost their way, how secularism is Satanic, etc. But you're right in that Bin Laden isn't advocating a more personal relationship with God. He's saying: Allah laid it down, and Mohammed spread the word. No thinking necessary.

It leaves no breathing space for secular life, for pluralism of any kind, or for any culture separate from Islam.

Well, here you're making the same mistake that I've seen people make in describing Islam: they're saying that Bin Laden and his ilk are right. And I don't think that's something we want to encourage.

Spencer seems to have the right intentions but not the right understandings. If you go through his writings you'll see he lacks any real understanding of the "Muslim mindset", or "Muslim psyche". He does not understand simple things about how Muslims themselves interpret symbols and actions. I have on a number of occasions tried to ask him if he has ever lived in a Muslim country for a significant amount of time, but he has refused to answer me each time. I believe it is because of this lack of human interaction that he himself has to rely solely on literature for his information, and consequently places an undue emphasis on literalism when trying to interpret what Islam means to Muslims.

I completely agree with him that for the literalist, Islam seems to invoke a lot of violence and wrongdoing. As a Muslim, there are verses in the Quran that I feel very uncomfortable with. But if you know anything about Muslims and their history, you will know that literalism has rarely been a dominant force. It was only when Muslims came in touch with modernity that people began to argue that anyone who understands Arabic can interpret the Quran for themselves. This has just not been the case for most of Muslim history (and still isn't the case for many Muslims).

Let me take just one extreme example, which is that of Sufism. First of all, Western scholars have wrongly termed Sufism as a "sect" within Islam which can easily be distinguished from "orthodox Islam". The reality however is that many of the 'Ulema have been Sufis, and the vast majority of Muslims around the world (save maybe in the Arabian peninsula) have directly or indirectly been significantly influenced by "Sufi ideas" (if such a thing exists). Sufis really don't place much emphasis on literalism, but more on experience with the Universe. At times it seems possible to classify the movement as a "Dharmic" Eastern religion rather than an Abrahamic religion. And Sufis often apply the Zen concept that the Truth can not be found in words... the words can only point in the direction of the Truth (analogous to the way a finger pointing towards the moon is not the moon itself, but it merely shows the direction towards it). In this way it has been claimed that the famous early sufi Rabia al-Adawiya used to cross out verses from her Quran which she didn't agree with because "her God" could not have said those things. Anyways, Sufism is just one of many such movements within Islam which have almost always been far more dominant than literalist movements.

This is just the start of a long study. But my point is that Spencer's reliance on the texts and writings alone means his approach is flawed from the start. It seems that he himself is a literalist, which is why he seems to believe that literalism will be the default paradigm of thinking among most Muslims also.

I could go on forever, but I'll stop now. Very interesting discussion though.

pratike: "Well, here you're making the same mistake that I've seen people make in describing Islam: they're saying that Bin Laden and his ilk are right."

I'm not sure what you mean. I won't claim that OBL represents all of Islam. But the Islam that concerns us most - the rising tide of anti-Western, anti-Israel Jihad - is thoroughly anti-secular as well, and OBL is (or was) only one small part of it. Its stated aim is shariah, which is pure and simple theocracy.

Chan'ad: "... the vast majority of Muslims around the world (save maybe in the Arabian peninsula) have directly or indirectly been significantly influenced by "Sufi ideas" (if such a thing exists)."

Much is said about Sufism, but the Wahhabists virtually annihilated Sufism in Arabia a hundred years ago. They are doing everything they can to stamp it out everywhere, with the help of lots of Saudi money. That Saudi money controls 90% of the Arabic media worldwide, and 4 out of 5 mosques in the US alone.

The great majority of new recruits to Islam are fed with Saudi-funded literature that is purged of any Sufist "heresy".

jinnderella makes a good point about Islam as an ESS. The problem is that the explosive growth of American culture is Islam's equivalent of the K-T Boundary asteroid.

I for one won't miss them.....

Glenn-

Just going by your original comment ("Islam absolutely lacks any such distinction"). Glad to know we're on the same page.

praktike - based on your last comment, I am guessing you do not believe that Islam can be changed. That does reduce the options a bit.

praktike - based on your last comment, I am guessing you do not believe that Islam can be changed. That does reduce the options a bit.

Huh? That's not what I'm trying to say at all.

My point is that to say that "Islam is the problem" is essentially to say that Bin Laden's literalist interpration of Islam is correct. Yet hundreds of millions of Muslims don't agree. We should encourage dialogue and introspection, and not simply throw up our hands like some seem to do.

It would appear that modernism is something that ultimately can't be denied, an obvious reason for those with the more extreme traditional views to oppose it.

Somewhat like a bin Ladin is likely to be found in any area of the world which resents its influence. And in fact that's what's been occuring elsewhere than the U.S. and Western Europe. Islamim literalism appears to be in the lead at present in opposing modernism, but given the potential for wealth in certain areas has already begun to adjust to it, with the inevitable negative reaction.

A reformation may occur in Islamic thought and discipline, but it's going to occur over time as modernism takes hold. If bin Ladin is or others with similar ideas based on more fundamental beliefs, should be successful this will be delayed, but would appear to be inevitable. Much, it seems to me, depends on how those states or other religions themselves behave as modernismm becomes more prevalent in their societies.

The Chinese, for example, appear to be having a positive reaction. But in India the outcome isn't entirely clear. The situation in Pakistan is possibly so volatile that major changes could occur there in opposition to modernism. After all that society has been largely funded by Saudi Arabia and its education and religious institutions funded by Islamic literalism.

Islam has seen dramatic increases throughout Africa. Too often there's focus on Indonesia and other areas in Asia. And the influence of these new areas on Islam is going to clearly have its effect on traditional areas and their beliefs.

I see no imminent reformation or others other than the one which may well already be underway from these new areas as well as the traditional ones.

Much is said about Sufism, but the Wahhabists virtually annihilated Sufism in Arabia a hundred years ago.

Yes, the influence of Sufism has disappeared in the Arabian peninsula, but that represents only a tiny proportion of the world's Muslim population (or even tha Arab Muslim population). West Africa, North Africa, the Levant, Central, South and South-East Asia are all heavily influenced by Sufism.

But you're right that Wahhabi literalists have hugely increased their global influence in this century thanks to Saudi funding (and especially after the CIA's proxy "jihad" against the Sovet Union in Afghanistan). I remember a time not so long ago in Pakistan when the term "Wahhabi" was used almost as an insult because they were so completely distinct from the popular forms of Islam in the country.

Yet even though the Wahhabi/Salafis are the most vocal and worldly active of Muslims today, they certainly do not have widespread support. They are still too far out of touch with the local cultures that Sufism (and other non-literalist Islamic movements) has been able to adapt itself to.

But my point is that literalism has never been the default paradigm of interpretation in the Muslim world, and therefore it should not be seen as impossible to reform Muslim thought away from the current literalist tendencies. If Western psuedo-scholars of Islam are ever able to get over their own literalist ideas, they might be able to see what exists beyond Muslim literalism.

Oscar, Yah, the problem being is we're in a race between K-T impact and the Third Conjecture.

Chan'ad, I agree with your conclusions re literalism, but-- a relatively small number of literalists can control a much larger population.

Oscar, Yah, the problem being is we're in a race between K-T impact and the Third Conjecture.

Chan'ad, I agree with your conclusions re literalism, but-- a relatively small number of literalists can control a much larger population.

Someone sent me Chanad's remarks above:

"Spencer seems to have the right intentions but not the right understandings. If you go through his writings you'll see he lacks any real understanding of the "Muslim mindset", or "Muslim psyche". He does not understand simple things about how Muslims themselves interpret symbols and actions. I have on a number of occasions tried to ask him if he has ever lived in a Muslim country for a significant amount of time, but he has refused to answer me each time. I believe it is because of this lack of human interaction that he himself has to rely solely on literature for his information, and consequently places an undue emphasis on literalism when trying to interpret what Islam means to Muslims."

He has indeed contact me, and I did indeed not answer. I figured he would draw the conclusion he has drawn; indeed, I figured he would make hay with anything I told him, so I told him nothing. He should beware, however, of drawing conclusions when he doesn't know the facts.

He can call me any names he wants, but the fact is that the crisis in Islam today comes from literalism, which is found worldwide, and does not stem simply from Wahhabism. I also expect that he is familiar with the jihads that have been fought throughout history; if the non-literalists were really in the majority, they seldom if ever seem to have exercised much influence.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

And as I have repeatedly argued, moderates like Chanada will never be able to solve the crisis within Islam unless you come up not only with a retreat from literalism, but a refutation of it. If he has one, I hope he will send it to me.