Islam's 'Reformation' Is Already Here - and It's Called 'ISIS'

The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. While Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform – and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures to do so – many of her critics contend that Islam is not in need of reform.

The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below – namely, that Islam has already “reformed.” And violence, intolerance, and extremism – typified by the Islamic State (ISIS) – are the net result of this “reformation.”

Such a claim sounds absurd due only to our understanding of the word “reform.” Yet despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve” – splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western connotations.

Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West – from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality – is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view.

In short, an Islamic reformation will not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society – simply because we are not Muslims and do not share their first premises and reference points. “Reform” sounds good to most Western peoples only because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word.

PING.

The meat of the argument is beyond the excerpt. American Thinker only allows excerpts. The author explains:

How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

Obviously a point-by-point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment). Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):

•The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness – for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.

•The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “[w]hoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

•The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy – up to four wives – and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.

•The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

This author argues well against the usual specious arguments of secular liberals trying to attribute Christians preaching the Gospel and morality as "Christian Taliban."

I tried to make the same argument, at least twice, by posting articles that explained that the radical jihadists "are" the Islamic Reformation -- and I got well and truly cooked for it. People accused me for taking a "cheap shoot" and saying that "Protestantism and Radical Islamism are the same."

Of course I wasn't saying that at all. But bringing up any parallel was considered --- by some -- to be a crazed attempt at an anti-Protestant polemic.

The bottom line is that, hisorically, any religious Reformation is a movement centering on "back to the Founder, back to the Sources, back to the Texts, back to the original Practices." ISIS is already there: except their Founder, Sources, Texts and Practices are diametrically different from those of any brand of Christianity.

I pray for conversion. Mine. Ours. And for about a billion Muslims.

"Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and kindle in them the fire of Thy love."

‘Bout time they figured this out.
Just about any one with a brain should have been able to compare the Christian Reformation, where some Christians abandoned a corrupted Roman Catholic Church, to follow a Bible-centric Christianity.

ISIS is practicing what the Koran preaches.

The next step will be the Islamic “Counter-Reformation” where “moderate” Islam becomes vastly more dangerous, as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.