Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

altmuslim

Home
Muslim
Can (and Should) Islam be Reformed?

Can (and Should) Islam be Reformed?

Last updated on: August 2, 2017 at 12:45 pm by Guest Contributor

Can (and Should) Islam be Reformed? 2017-08-02T12:45:04-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image source: Pixabay

The phenomenon of global jihad has plagued the world for many decades now and has consequently initiated a discussion about Islam: How Islamic are the Islamists? And more importantly, can there be a “moderate Islam” compatible with modern values? A quick observer might say no, but I would not concur.

The fact is that scriptures do hold value and meaning of their own, but they do not always speak for themselves. There are certain cases where the scripture seems to be very explicit, while on other occasions the text is not very clear in its meaning and relies on our own conscience, intellect and wisdom.

Therefore, the way one may interpret the text depends not only on the text itself but also on the person’s intellect, intentions, motivations, methodology and geopolitics.

Let’s look at the example of Islamism.
What is Islamism?

I regard Islamism to be a specific totalitarian exposition of Islam. Islam is a faith similar to other Abrahamic faiths. It addresses various spheres of life related to our personal and social lives. Politics, too, is an indispensable and inseparable part of our lives. Ineluctably, Islam also focuses on politics. Islamism, however does not simply emphasize the political dynamics of Islam, but it interprets the entirety of Islam through a political prism.

Therefore, what was actually a single component of Islam has become the most dominant aspect in Islamism. To understand Islamism, it is imperative to explore the religious thought of Syed Abul A’la Maududi, the most influential Islamist scholar of the 20th century. Marxism is referred to as the economic interpretation of history because in Karl Marx’s understanding of life, the economic factor dominates everything else.

Similarly, Maududi projected Islam in such a way that every aspect of it acquired a political hue. He was one of the first Islamic thinkers to develop a systematic political reading of Islam. Accordingly, one can term the religious ideology of Maududi as the political interpretation of Islam. Here is one illustration of how Maududi inordinately exaggerated the political aspect of Islam and came up with a new ideology.

He says:

Prayer, fasting, Hajj (pilgrimage) and zakat (charity), which God has made a duty for you and has appointed as pillars of Islam, all these things are not, as in the forms of worship in other religions, mere rituals and offerings and customs that you perform and God is happy with you. Rather, the fact of the matter is that they have been made into a duty to prepare you for a lofty purpose and to train you for an important task. This aim is to wipe out the rule of human beings and to establish the ruler-ship of the one God. To be ready to sacrifice one’s everything and make efforts for this purpose even at the cost of one’s life is called jihad. Prayer and fasting and Haj and zakat are all for preparing for this particular purpose.

Unlike Maududi, who considers political struggle to be the underlying meaning behind the Islamic pillars, most Muslims believe that it is only a way to achieve God’s leniency and salvation.

In this excerpt, one thing is cardinal, i.e. politics. Maududi, unlike the traditionalist scholars, has defined the Islamic pillars politically.

What compelled Maududi to interpret Islam in such a political way? Social and political circumstances: Maududi’s whole discourse was based on castigating Western secular ideologies. As a young Indian, he too was anguished to see his country being run by an external force. He saw the infiltration of Western secular thought in the Islamic world, and that had such a significant impact on him that he went on to propose a new understanding of Islam — an Islam that is political, totalitarian and that could confront and serve as a counter-narrative to Westernization.

In addition to being anti-Western, Maududi’s arguments were also motivated by Muslim and Hindu competition for power in British India. He sought an interpretation of Islam that would preclude the kind of cultural coexistence that Indian National Congress promised.

This is what I referred to earlier in the when I said that interpreting a text also depends on our own intentions, motivations and what we seek to derive from the text. An ordinary Muslim or scholar would not concur with Maududi’s views because at the first glance this is not what the scriptures suggest.

But, according to Maududi, politics is the underlying meaning behind all the fundamentals of Islam. He was not dishonest, but so obsessed by his intentions that he came up with this view.

If Islam could be so badly turned into a political and totalitarian system, why could it not be turned into something more moderate to coincide with democracy and freedom of expression?

Can Islam Be a Religion of Moderation?

I believe it can be done. Just as Maududi due to the socio-political circumstances proposed a new understanding of Islam that rejected westernization, it is also possible for the contemporary scholars to come up with an antipodal understanding of Islam that tends to accept and welcome Western ideas.

To clarify, I would like to emphasize on the issue of apostasy and its punishment in Islam. The view that apostates deserve the death penalty is upheld by a number of clerics. But the modernist Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has proposed a very different understanding of this issue: He believes that Islam does not assign death penalty for apostasy. Ghamidi asserts that when prophets are sent to any nation, they are obligated to deliver the message of God.

A time has come when the people of that nation have been presented the message of God in the most utmost and truest manner. He describes this process as the “fulfillment of truth.” Ghamidi believes that because the people of Arabia were presented with the message of Islam by the prophet himself and there were no doubts about its validity, therefore according to God’s verdict they were punished when they renounced Islam.

Ghamidi argues that since there are no prophets now, the same concept cannot be applied , and thus apostates do not deserve any punishment as per the Islamic law. (He believes the right to punish apostates was given only to the prophets, not to other individuals.)

Ghamidi, while interpreting Islam’s stance on apostasy, has contextualized the whole scenario unlike the traditionalists, who propose a literal understanding.

In the eighth century, a group called the Mutazilites advocated free will over fatalism and cited Quranic verses showing God’s displeasure at an inactive mind. According to one such verse, “The worst of creatures for Allah are the deaf and dumb, those who will not reason.” (8:22) The Arabic word used here for reason is “ يَعْقِلُونَ” which also means “to understand.”

If one opts for the latter translation, then the entire verse gives a different meaning than the Mutazilite understanding of the verse. Depending on what word is picked for the meaning of a translation, the meaning of the verse can be altered. Mutazilites also argued that the Quran was not co-eternal with God, but had been created.

This discussion shows us that scriptures sometimes can be very opaque and can be interpreted in numerous ways. This is precisely why there are so many sects and jurisprudence in Islam, each proposing a slightly different understanding of the doctrine despite the fact Islam is a Unitarian religion: One God, one book and one prophet.

As it was possible for the Islamists, driven by the cause of Islamic Revivalism, to propose a totalitarian understanding of Islam, it is also possible for progressive Muslims today, driven by their admiration for Western values, to propose a relatively liberal understanding of Islam. If our intentions are to reconcile Islam with modern values, then it is possible for us to interpret Islam this.

Ammar Anwer is a columnist who focuses on Islamic History, Islamism and Islamic Reform. He writes for the Huffington Post. His writings have also been published at various Counter-Islamist think tanks.

Previous Post

July 26, 2017

Muslim and Jewish Communities Join to Combat Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism

Next Post

August 3, 2017 How a Trump Presidency Signaled the Death of Pragmatism and the Promise of Islamic Reform

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the giant defeated by David?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Goliath Samson Herod Pharaoh