When it comes to labeling yourself an agnostic Muslim or something along those lines, that's all well and good, but I don't think it will ever become the mainstream "Islam". I think most believers are drawn to religion by the supernatural element of a God who cares, can intervene in the world for them, and can guarantee a good afterlife for them. Religion stripped of its supernatural baggage is not going to be appealing to the majority of believers. It may be a helpful viewpoint for a few who are essentially agnostic/atheists who still feel a strong connection to their religion, but I don't think it will ever supplant mainstream, "the Quran is infallible" Islam.
And that’s exactly where I think people like us come in. We should not be afraid to vocalize concerns or criticize
any interpretation of Islam. It is, in my opinion, patronizing and belittling to suggest that Muslims as a whole have to have some sort of religious safety net to fall back on and therefore we should never criticize more liberal interpretations.
The reform movements I'm talking about are those that would say that they actually have a correct interpretation of this infallible book. Maybe even "the" correct interpretation and their liberal theology is in accordance with what God actually wants. Something that could actually take over as the mainstream beliefs. These can seem kind of dishonest, but perhaps they do more good than harm because they encourage the unscrupulous to have a much more benign, although naive understanding of their faith.
Again, they should certainly be allowed to say that. There should also certainly be the voice out there that cries, “Not so fast! Look at WHAT IT SAYS here!”
At the end of the day, it will be up to each individual to decide what they are going to believe in. We accept this sort of plurality of thought when it comes to westerners, but are often prone to treating Muslims as this monolithic block that needs to be catered to.
I’ve wrestled internally with the idea of Islam for the better part of 10 years now. I’ve taken all sorts of views and opinions into consideration when trying to decide exactly what my stance on the religion will be. I’ve allowed myself to grapple with all sorts of questions with regards to the faith and its relevance to me personally.
Will I view Muhammad as just some sort of opportunistic fraud or as a resourceful, great leader of his time? Will I interpret La ilaha illalah to be a totalitarian phrase of intolerance or as a statement that echoes with agnostic undertones, since whatever God may be would necessarily be greater than anything we could fathom, and whatever we might fathom would simply be on the “la ilaha” side of the equation?
Hell, do I even believe that Muhammad existed? If he did exist, what accounts for the drastic change in the nature and tone of his message from the so-called “Meccan Period” to the “Medinite” one? Maybe he died before the hijra? Maybe he himself immigrated to Abyssinia? Maybe he actually never existed? Or maybe he really did just get drunk with power?
What do others have to say about it? What’s the most compelling narrative?
I’ve been able to grapple with these questions and many more not because someone told me I have to, but because I have the freedom to think, and others have had the freedom to communicate their own ideas and conclusions for my consideration. That is the goal I think we should be pushing towards. That is what will lead to plurality of thought and opinion. And that is where we will ultimately see the worst ideas either dying off or finding themselves constantly challenged and marginalized.
We can’t do that if we just suddenly stop challenging people’s proposals for the sake of harmony.
Topic: Being pragmatic about religion