Islam: Can It Reform

Islam:а Can It Reform?ааааааааааааааааааааааааа

Muhammad Nuwayhi (1917-1980), professor of Arabic literature at Cairo University, who studied at the school of Oriental and African Studies, London University, asks:а "[How is it] that [the Islamic] movement, which at the beginning was revolutionary, progressive, and modern, could be turned into an agent of intellectual petrifaction and social stagnation?"

He attributes this decadence to "two factors which were not present in Islam originally, but which appeared together during the ages of the decline of Islamic civilization and became so firmly rooted that the people imagined them to be among the fundamental principles of the Islamic religion."

The first factor "was the appearance of a caste (the ulama) which monopolized the explanation of religion, claiming that it alone (the caste) had the right to pass judgment as to which opinions and schools of thought were in agreement with religion and which were in conflict with it."

The second factor was the conviction of this priestly caste that "any laws, decisions, and solutions found in earlier [Islamic] sources were binding doctrines whose observance was obligatory, and which could not be modified or changed in any respect, whether they dealt with matters of doctrine or touched on the affairs of daily life."

Now, it is known among Orientalists, and Muslims themselves often boast, that Islam does not have a priesthood, a special class of men whose function is to preserve, explain, and apply Islamic doctrine.а Yet Nuwayhi complains of the increasing aggressiveness of the ulama, who, more today than earlier in this century, are "crushing and repressing new thought."

He nostalgically recalls that, originally, Islamic jurisprudence varied according to time and place and changing circumstances.а He points out that Islam often adopted the laws and procedures of non-Arab nations which the Caliphate had conquered.а He argues that the Quran set up lofty ethical goals which Muslims must try to realize, but that it allows the faithful, and obliges them, to determine the means for themselves.а In other words, Muslims should feel free to devise the ways and means by which they are to strive for these goals, and they should vary the means according to the varying requirements of different milieux.

To clinch his argument, Nuwayhi notes that the "Orthodox Caliph 'Unmar ibn al'Khatib [second Caliph after the death of Muhammad] ... dared to issue laws which were, beyond all doubt, contrary to the letter of Quranic law."

Citing the famous religious reformer Muhammad 'Abduh (1849-1905), Nuwayhi distinguishes between "the roots of religion and its branches."а The roots consists of the creed and ethics or goals of Islam, which he insists never change.а The branches include matters of procedure as well as social and economic relations which he would change according to changing circumstances.

NuhwayhiТs position is philosophically untentable, for matters of procedure--say modes of governance--and socio-economic relations inevitably determine the meaning or character of the ends they are intended to serve.а The basic problem of Islam is its roots, which involves the Quran itself.

Hardly any Muslim engages in "biblical" criticism of the Quran--not even a cultural relativist like Bassam Tibi (who became a German citizen and German university professor).а And of course Western scholars such as von Grunebaum and Bernard Lewis do not broach this delicate subject.а This is the main reason why Islamic fundamentalism has no real ideological competitors in the Muslim world.

Despite Muslim modernists, Islam, according to Professor Lewis, is so "full or proud of its own perfection," that it is "impervious to external stimuli."а The hermetically sealed character of Islamic life is evident today in France, which has a Muslim community of over three million people.а Of this closed community Dr. Mordechai Nisan writes:а "Oblivious to the cultural environment which is French and Catholic, modern and permissive in value-orientation, the Muslims conduct their life within their own religious and social space.... L'Arabe c'est toujours l'Arabe.'"

No one questions Islam as Abraham Geiger did in the last century:а "At first, simply and solely on account of the Jews, the Qubla, or place towards which prayer was to be made, was changed by Muhammad to Jerusalem from Mecca, the spot which the ancient Arabs had always regarded as holy; and it was only when he recognized the fruitlessness of attempting to conciliate the Israelites [i.e., to win them to Islam] that he changed it back to the former direction ...."

Geiger continues:а "The order in which he [Muhammad] gives the prophets [sic] is interesting, for immediately after the patriarchs he places first Jesus, then Job, Jonah, Aaron, Solomon, and last of all David [Sura 4:161].а In another passage [Sura 6:84-86] the order is more bizarre, for here we have David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Zachariah, John, Jesus, Elijah, Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot!а The incorrect spellings of the names of these prophets [sic], as well as the parts which [Muhammad] assigns to them in history, proves that he had never even looked into the Hebrew Scriptures" (Judaism and Islam).

It is the position of Muslims today, however, that the Jews falsified their Scriptures!а What else can they say to preserve the Arab masses' faith in the Quran?а But if Islam depends, as Harkabi emphasizes, on the "reinterpretation of truth," meaning mendacity, reform of Islam from within is not to be expected.

Contrary to Lewis, therefore, such reform will have to be prompted from without.а This will occur only when the truth comes forth from Jerusalem.