This is one of the more interesting questions of our time, especially given current events in the Middle East, where the Iranian theocracy is being methodically demolished by American and Israeli explosives. The rule of the mullahs in Iran has had bad consequences for much of the world, and no one has suffered more from these evil men than the Iranian people themselves, which likely explains the shouts of joy from the streets of Iran and from the Iranian diaspora in places like Los Angeles.
We might note that much of the modern form of Christianity originated with the Protestant Reformation in 16th-century Europe, starting with Martin Luther. Christianity has changed more since then, with new sects springing up and old ones fading away. But Islam remains much as it was from the beginning; if anything, some of the leading clerics and many adherents have grown more and more willing to spread Islamic domination by the sword, just as they attempted in the 8th century in the Iberian Peninsula.
Can this be resolved? There are a few thinkers within Islam who have/are calling for just that.
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd was one such.
In the latest episode of FO° Podcasts, Nadia Oweidat, an intellectual historian, introduces the ideas of a prominent scholar of Islamic thought, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd (1944–2010). Abu Zayd believed that Islam’s trust interpretation must be one that champions universal human rights values as well as liberal democratic political norms.
Oweidat’s book, Reform and Its Perils in Contemporary Islam, focuses on Nasir Hamid Abu Zayd, a well-known Islamic philosopher who pushed for a more liberal and democratic interpretation of Islam. His perspective truly spoke to her.
Oweidat’s work sheds light on the difficulties faced by those who question traditional Islamic views and the challenges of blending faith with modern life in the Muslim world. Focusing on Abu Zayd was a bold move. His work was complex and controversial, and many scholars advised her against it. However, Abu Zayd’s strong belief in an Islam that supports liberal democratic norms, human rights, and personal freedoms resonated deeply with Oweidat. She saw him as a kindred spirit who, like her, wanted to find a way to make faith and modernity work together.
The key phrase here is "universal human rights." We have a pretty good acquaintance with human rights, as they are enshrined in the first ten amendments to our Constitution. And I take a somewhat radical view on those defined (not granted, just acknowledged) rights: They are, by right, the birthright, not just of Americans, but of every living human. Every person on this planet has the right to speak freely, to worship - or not - as they choose, to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, to bear arms in defense of self, family, community, and country. While our Constitution was written for and applies to our country, that doesn't mean that the rights described only apply to us; but most of the governments of the world illegitimately deny their citizenry those rights, and never is that more egregious right now than in the majority-Muslim nations.
And that's the problem with Islam. How do we get there from here? While doing some reading in preparation for this, I stumbled across five essential reforms, put forth by a Muslim writer, Monica Islam, and they're worth a little brain run-time. Those five essentials:
Religious literalism. Monica Islam writes:
What works in one context may not work in another. What worked “1,400 years ago” may not work now. If it did, we would still be clinging to audio cassettes, floppy disks, and mainframe computers. Maajid Nawaz, author of the book Radical, aptly says, “We Muslims must admit there are challenging Koranic passages that require reinterpretation today. Only by rejecting vacuous literalism, are we able to condemn, in principle, ISIS-style slavery, beheading, lashing, amputation, and other medieval practices forever (all of which are in the Quran).” A few Muslim commentators even suggest that we start seeing certain passages of the Quran as fallible, and not divine.
That's a key concept. If this is to happen, Islam, worldwide, must be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
Another aspect of the reformation of Christianity was the translation of the Bible into English (and German, and so on) so that the general run of the population didn't have to rely on a clerical order to read and inform them. That's mentioned here, too:
Over-dependence on scholars. Monica Islam writes:
Whenever I have tried speaking up against extremist websites, such as Islamqa.com, one of the most common responses I have received, sometimes from influential educated youth leaders, is “Scholars have dedicated their lives to studying theology and hence, we ordinary citizens must always remember that we have limited knowledge. Scholars have preserved the religion from impurities.” And yet, many Muslims will brag that there is no “class system” or “hierarchy” in Islam. That might be true theoretically, but not in principle because eventually, scholars set the rules and the masses are expected to be obedient due to their supposed lack of knowledge.
In other words, "we'll tell you what to think, and you'll think it, or else." Again, anathema to the concept of universal human rights.
The remaining three are:
- Distinction between spirituality and governance
- Tolerance for other religious/ideological groups
- Women's sexual and reproductive health
It is belaboring the obvious to note that in the majority-Muslim nations, none of these things exist. There is no distinction between religion and governance; Islam, as it is today, is a system of governance, perhaps even more than it is a religion. There is no tolerance for other religions or the lack thereof, and women are chattels.
These things are all intolerable to civilized people, but this is much of the Muslim world today, and much of the cause of unrest, not just in the Middle East, but everywhere.
Read More: New Yorkers Wake to the Islamic Call to Prayer
Shiite Firebrands Now Predict Iran's Triumph in Prophetic Battle
Can such reform happen? A 2024 piece written by one Richard Ostling sounds a skeptical tone, and I'm inclined to agree. But if it were to happen? Ostling writes of the possibility:
That seems highly unlikely at the moment, but it’s certainly intriguing to suppose that the faith might eventually deal with modern exigencies through dramatic change equivalent to, let’s say, Europe’s 16th Century Protestant Reformation.
The implications would be enormous, considering that this powerful faith has just reached a global total of 2 billion followers, compared with 2.6 billion for Christianity (by latest count from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.)
The implications would be enormous. Perhaps even more earth-shattering than the fall of Iran and its replacement by a civilized nation. That alone will be huge - but it won't be the end.
Here's the thing: At least today, these voices, these calls for the reform of Islam, are voices shouting in the wilderness. It's as I have been saying, and writing, for years: This is the great conflict of our time. Iran is a major battle in that conflict, and it looks like the United States and Israel are winning it - but it's only a battle. One way or another, this conflict with the Islamic world and its denial of fundamental human rights against, well, civilization, will have to be resolved. Islam, one way or another, will have to change - or the world will be plunged into a new Dark Age, and this one may not yield to a civilization-changing Renaissance. If we, the civilized world, lose this conflict, we lose everything.
It's as simple as that.
