Why Islam Can't Reform

[Angst]

This OP is just factually wrong. Islam has already reformed plenty of times. Both for good and bad, and never in unison. It's also oversimplifying early and modern Islam in conjunction with each other which should've rung a lot of bells...

 

[Zardnaar]

For half a century we in the west helped autocrats kill everyone in the Middle East to the left of Genghis Khan. That um probably didn't help matters.

Nope it did not. Some of those autocrats did try to reform their societies but got overthrown . The shah in Iran comes to mind.

 

[caketastydelish]

Islam can definitely reform. And for someone to think otherwise from a Civilization forum, no less. They get a Founder belief, a follower belief, and an enhancer belief. They get even more than that with the Byzantines, and with arabia they even get trade route bonuses.

 

[Zardnaar]

Islam can definitely reform. And for someone to think otherwise from a Civilization forum, no less. They get a Founder belief, a follower belief, and an enhancer belief. They get even more than that with the Byzantines, and with arabia they even get trade route bonuses.

No idea what any of that is. Did not play civ V and VI.

Civ I to III was more my thing.

 

[caketastydelish]

In that case you should educate yourself before making ignorant statements and broad-sweeping overgeneralizations.

 

[REDY]

For half a century we in the west helped autocrats kill everyone in the Middle East to the left of Genghis Khan. That um probably didn't help matters.

US fight people who realy tried cut fundamentalists - Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak, Assad and support religious conservatives like Saudi, Khomeini, Arabian microstates kings. I do not think that religion can be reformed...but society can be reformed to be better, with some social justice, carrot and stick.

 

[Zardnaar]

In that case you should educate yourself before making ignorant statements and broad-sweeping overgeneralizations.

I have lol. I have a history degree and have spent a lot of time around Muslims over the years. I have been to the local Islam day they have here at the university and I have also gone to the local Mosque when they have had an open mosque day. One of the university lecturers is an ex Afghan government minister (pre Taliban) and I have talked to him as well. One of the guys I work for has been to Afghanistan, my wife delivered appliances to some Syrian refugees that arrived in my hometown. The government here spends $80 000 here per refugee (they got government assisted housing fully furnished).

The conclusion I have come to after 25 years of reading about Islam, reading about the hadith and the various problems Islamic countries have and talking to Muslims and why they like it here is that Islam is fundamentally at odds with a liberal democracy lifestyle and expectations. Even if you waved a magic wand and all the Islamic nutjobs went away there is still enough left over in regards to segregating women at places of worship that makes Islam incompatible with western mores and ideals.

And this is from dealing with some of the msot liberal Muslims you are likely to find anywhere and hoping to the local Mosque which has open days. Doesn't mean I agree with Trump's idiot ideas and sure you can get liberal Muslims living in "the west" but the reason they are living here is they would be killed back home.

I'll probably be eating halal food tonight served by a Palestinian family (via Jordan) and they are over here because his uncle basically told them to leave before you get killed (just a general warning nothing specific). The ex Afghan minister got asylum here very easily as the Taliban would have out right killed him. The Palestinians I will be seeing tonight attend Mosque etc and I have gifted them non alcoholic red and white grape juice while they have giving me non alcholc fermented yeast based soda from Dubai (doesn't taste to bad not a big soda fan though).

NOne of them are remotely a threat, I would be shocked and appalled if we actually had a terrorist strike here form anyone let alone Muslims. Realistically though you won't be able to reform the Islamic world en masse though.

 

[Zardnaar]

US fight people who realy tried cut fundamentalists - Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak, Assad and support religious conservatives like Saudi, Khomeini, Arabian microstates kings. I do not think that religion can be reformed...but society can be reformed to be better, with some social justice, carrot and stick.

Before that the US did try and work with reasonably progressive (if autocratic) regimes in the ME but then things like the Islamic Revolution happened in Iran and civil war broke out in Lebanon as the west were "corrupting" their ways.

Reform has been tried already and it has mostly failed even when backed with military might (especially when backed by military might).

 

[W|M]

This to me seems to be like an over-extended version of the ''I have a black friend'' excuse

 

[Zardnaar]

This to me seems to be like an over-extended version of the ''I have a black friend'' excuse

Liberal knee jerk reaction. I have no problem with Muslim immigrants coming to my county nor the government spending $80 000 per head to help them out. We have other problems related to immigration and doing something like doubling refugees and cutting legal immigration in half would do more vs those problems than being an idiot like Trump.

Ironically the Muslims I know more or less agree with me. When you have a very rich oil state promoting Wahhabi Islamic values via madrasas combined with very crappy regimes in most of the Islamic world including places like Indonesia reform is going to be functionally impossible.

Most Muslims are not going to try to become ghazi but even some of the more moderate ones have beliefs (especially with women) that are fundamentally incompatible with western values.

They can come here and wear a hijab no problem, my wife can't go there and wear a bikini for example. Well in most of those countries she would be alright in Turkey I suppose at least in the tourist spots.

The only Christians armed en masse for the defence of the faith is a few hundred Swiss guard that act as personal protectors to the pope.

 

[Berzerker]

In that case you should educate yourself before making ignorant statements and broad-sweeping overgeneralizations.

cite?

 

[aelf]

Thanks for proving my point.

As he demonstrates, for SJWs Islam is a "race". Criticism of Islam, or saying that it is more problematic than other major religions, is like blankly stating that a "race" is more problematic than other ones.

Of course, non-idiots know that Islam has nothing to do with a race; it's as multinational and multiracial religion just like Christianity (oddly enough SJWs never treat Christianity as a race). It's not at all an ethno-religious sect, but a huge faith counting millions of white Europeans, black Africans, Indians, Southeast Asians, and etc etc as its adherents. Islam is a doctrine (or several competing doctrines), and thus much closer to an ideology than a "race" (it has nothing to do with a race). So we can perfectly state that it can potentially be more problematic than other religions, and only an illiterate imbecile would link that to racism. Unfortunately, SJWs are neither particularly literate nor particularly bright...

Actually, only idiots (which covers anti-SJW warriors almost entirely) think that race is prima facie a special category and that any thesis about race is wrong simply because it's about race. Their thinking is not sophisticated enough to realise that the fundamental problem is not exclusive to race. They can maybe get as far as the concept of race being a social construct and therefore any attempt at a blanket analysis is going to come up with fiction. But that begs the question: If race is a social construct, religion is not?

But the most salient criticism of a blanket analysis of a major religion is that it's bound to represent the entire religion monolithically from one particular angle. And the result would be as silly as saying things like "Black people are less intelligent." The picture painted would be manifestly inaccurate as it purports to be complete but is actually incomplete. Even if your blanket analysis covers 80℅ of the religion, it's still problematic to attribute your observations to something fundamental to the faith, since obviously that doesn't apply to a significant segment of the faithful. And the evidence seems to bear this out too: The OP's comments on liberal Muslims clearly show that his exposure to more liberal strands of Islam is limited.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, that's just another contentious claim the OP makes. That 'liberal Muslims don't go to mosque'. Islam is not a monolith - anymore than Christianity is -, but it seems to me if you don't go to mosque, you're not a 'liberal Muslim'. You're a non-practizing Muslim. So in fact, not a Muslim.

Throughout the years Islam like most organised religions has done some fairly bad things to people and in this respect it is no different to the Christian faith, Aztec faith, or the old gods of imperial Rome.

Really?

Its literally right there in the Koran in black and white. The Koran for example has guidelines on how to treat slaves which in effect condones slavery from Mohammed himself. The easiest way to kill another Muslim is to declare that they are blasphemers (this is what ISIS is doing), and this means the normal rules in the Koran do not apply. A lot of moderate/liberal Sunni I have met also do not consider the Shia to be Muslims although they may not believe they should be put to death. The main Christian denominations generally acknowledge the others are at least christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) and Jesus did not teach that people should be put to death.

Two things: Christianity didn't reform: it was forced to reform. Secondly, it's kind of ironic to claim that IS is calling 1.5 billion Muslims blasphemers. I think you'll find that most Muslims (those 1.5 billion) agree that IS are the blasphemers who ignore the Qu'ran. (And, by the way, that someone be a blasphemer doesn't preclude the teachings of the Qu'ran: you just made that up.)

Coming back to the OP question: it seems reasonable to assume that Islam will 'reform' the same way Christianity did: by the irresistible force of reality. It's how all religions reform: they adapt. (Since they are doctrinaire, they adapt slowly, but adapt they do.)

 

[Zardnaar]

Actually, that's just another contentious claim the OP makes. That 'liberal Muslims don't go to mosque'. Islam is not a monolith - anymore than Christianity is -, but it seems to me if you don't go to mosque, you're not a 'liberal Muslim'. You're a non-practizing Muslim. So in fact, not a Muslim.



Really?



Two things: Christianity didn't reform: it was forced to reform. Secondly, it's kind of ironic to claim that IS is calling 1.5 billion Muslims blasphemers. I think you'll find that most Muslims (those 1.5 billion) agree that IS are the blasphemers who ignore the Qu'ran. (And, by the way, that someone be a blasphemer doesn't preclude the teachings of the Qu'ran: you just made that up.)

Coming back to the OP question: it seems reasonable to assume that Islam will 'reform' the same way Christianity did: by the irresistible force of reality. It's how all religions reform: they adapt. (Since they are doctrinaire, they adapt slowly, but adapt they do.)

Its not just ISIS though, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Taliban Hamas etc etc etc. Can't really negotiate with them, can't bomb them into oblivion and various groups have been operating for the last 50 odd years.

Of course they vary in their goal but even if they destroyed Israel for example some of them want Al Andalus back or the Balkans etc. Even if one group falls apart there will be a new one to take its place.

 

[Berzerker]

reformed Muslim = apostate

 

[timtofly]

Why Islam can't reform - it is a branch of the Abrahamic faith and for thousands of years, it has been demonstrated that many such followers of Abrahamic faiths are violent and not reformable.

So marching boldly to the gas chambers does not count as Reformation?

For one thing, each rendition seems to go out of it's way to get more militant than the one previous. It is just now we have the alt reformation Christians who think the Muslims have it all wrong.

If posters here think that reformation is putting down weapons and taking up farming, they have not studied the history of reformation very well.

 

[Lynnes]

Islam can definitely reform. And for someone to think otherwise from a Civilization forum, no less. They get a Founder belief, a follower belief, and an enhancer belief. They get even more than that with the Byzantines, and with arabia they even get trade route bonuses.

No idea what any of that is. Did not play civ V and VI.

Civ I to III was more my thing.

In that case you should educate yourself before making ignorant statements and broad-sweeping overgeneralizations.

Do you know this feeling when someone else is doing or saying something so stupid and embarassing that you somehow even feel ashamed yourself?
That just happened to me, and it was a highly unpleasant.

I have lol.

I wish I could lol, but all I was able to do was to look down and facepalm.

 

[Berzerker]

If posters here think that reformation is putting down weapons and taking up farming, they have not studied the history of reformation very well.

like beating swords into plowshares?

 

[luiz]

For half a century we in the west helped autocrats kill everyone in the Middle East to the left of Genghis Khan. That um probably didn't help matters.

Black legend. If anything the West should have supported the Shah of Iran more - look at the alternatives. Free-minded women and religious minorities sure miss the good old days of the Shah.

It always puzzles me that some people in the West continue to think that the alternative to relatively progressive autocrats like the Shah was a nice and fuzzy Scandinavian-style social democracy. No, the alternatives were a psychotic madman like Khomeini or nationalist butchers like Saddam. I say prop up the relatively progressive autocrats.

 

[luiz]

To the contrary, Romans 13 makes clear that earthly princes are the annotated ministers of God, and they must be obey without question. This gave rise to the "divine right 8of kings," which went unchallenged until the English forced King John to sign Magna Carta. Throughout the rest of Christendom, Kings ruled by the will of God until the 18th Century Enlightenment advanced the proposition that power is derived from the governed.

The only reason today that Christianity is not a political religion is that today's Christians ignore many of their founding principles.

Thanks for proving my point. In Christianity the king has a legitimate theological case for temporal power, free from religious authorities. He has a theological case to challenge the pope, and keep him away from temporal matters. And the kings did just that, many centuries ago.

In Islam there is no theological case to keep the religious authorities away from temporal matters, because (repeating for the 100th time) Mohammed was both Prophet and Caesar. It doesn't matter that you SJWs refuse to look at this point because it goes against your childish and dogmatic vision of the world, but it remains clear as day.