Yeah, it could be that I am missing the point. It could be that I see it too simply, that I take the points given previously on this thread and strip them a bit too thin. But I see the vast teeming masses of the simple good people in Islam and I am outraged that this Quran, these hadith, would declare them outside the faith.
I am too, but the fact is the actual definition of what it means to be a Muslim or within the fold of Islam exists and though they have evolved amongst certain communities doesn't mean just accept these often contradictory variations. Doing the research allows you to pinpoint a time or event and say 'ok, this is what it means to be Muslim according to x or y' despite the fact that there is a 'core' requirement at the heart of what it means to be Muslim or with any other word. To decipher meanings one cannot just say 'well I think this' or 'from what I know of a community this' - you must invest time in shifting through the increasing academic literature and base your judgement on the evidence and not desire. There are membership conditions and just because some people bend them or twist them so that they can remain a member doesn't mean that the original meaning of hat it is to be a 'member' has changed.
I think that we have to accept that Islam is a juggernaut, that conquered half the world, and spawned cults and deviations in the thousands. This is due to the various influences of the Ummah- in the billions. If Shia and Sunni cannot resolve their differences, surely we cannot point out what is and is not Islam, either.
Yes we can, because even amongst sunnis there are people that deviate from actual Islam. There are sunnis that listen to devotional Qawwali music, yet music is haram irrespective of how devotional you may think it is. There may be some shias who think that Ali had divine or mystical powers - no he didn't as there's no evidence of that in the Quranic or the totality of Hadith literature. There are clear distinctions we can draw from looking at the text and practices and saying that ORIGINALLY this is most likely what was intended and we steer towards that which is best supported by the evidence at the time. There's no need to do back flips to accommodate competing views. Acknowledge them and respect them, but respect is no substitute for truth.
If we point at so and so and declare them outside of Islam because they do not follow canon or pick and choose or have split off from the main and found a new prophet- then we succeed only in splintering further what we wish to reform. We isolate groups who share our root, and we achieve nothing. If we point at works that fly in the face of this verse or that, we silence the progression and we lose a voice.
I'm not working towards an ideology. This is the problem that I perceive. In an attempt to reform or appear liberal we are at the risk of accepting views and ideals that are so alien to the Islamic scriptures because e have de-contextualsied them and elasticated their meanings that they become irretrievably meaningless. 'Found a new prophet' that is so incontrovertibly haram you can not spin it any other way. This si n't about winning an election but about having an honest discussion about what 'is' and 'isn't' Islam. I know that we can never have the absolute truth but we can get as sloe to the actual meaning, intentions and authentic interpretation of the Quran without humouring the multitude of voices that wish to be heard for ideological purposes.
So we cannot. We cannot define Islam by canon. We instead claim Islam. We claim autonomy. We claim that no one defines Islam but Muslims. We can all agree on the roots, on the canon, but we can forge the religion´s future, as it´s followers. We can embrace and highlight it´s varied history, the contradiction in verses, the previous interpretations that butt up against each other- ready as any to fight it out, as proof that anything goes.
Now I get you. I accept this wholeheartedly that Islam has evolved. But Islam cannot be left to be defined by Muslims. Again, whose voice do you give value to? What is the purpose of this? Are you going to favour the barelvi over the shia or the ahl-e-hadith over the Quran-onlyists or the Salafists over the gay and Muslim crowd?? Can you not see the flaw in this thinking and if it's simply to instigate a Muslim civil war and see the various branches fight and explode then isn't this somewhat disingenuous.
I know you feel strongly that this belittles the suffering of those who have been abused in the name of Islam. But even those of us who have been abused in ways forbidden by Islam have been told ¨this is Islam¨ and can still claim their experience as religious. Because it is not a book abusing us. It is the people who believe, all too readily, whatever they want in order to justify their base desires who are abusing us. Islam has justified much, and will continue to be used in such a way until we strip it of it´s power. That is what abuse is, you know, no matter whether it lies within codified Shariah or not. The key is to call it out wherever it is found. That is how we honor the victims, in my opinion.
Yes it is a book abusing us. There is systemic and structural violence that justifies and sanctifies the agents of said violence. Not to mention some of the racist, sexist and despicable ways in which the Quran refers to people. The word kafir and its application is a form of abuse within the Quran. How many people have had a psychological trauma because of the fear and guilt that this one book induces? You call out the ISLAM for what it is and not sugarcoat like most people have done by saying 'there is no beating of the wife' or 'kafir simply means this ir that' or 'Hell is just an idea'.
I think we should do what Hassan is doing. We kick the bucket out from under them (the canon) and let centuries of fiqh strangle itself. There is no leg to stand on without Divinity. We take a page from Christianity, the most malleable of the three, and claim Inspiration. We use the new information age to show the fallibility in every verse and collected work. We use it to showcase the history and the variance and let those two speak for themselves. This what we do. No other reform will strike at the root.
I can not reform something that isn't mine because I don't belong to it. I don't seek to reform an ideology that I'm not a part of and to pretend to do it simply because I want to incite a crisis of conscious is not my aim. I'd rather have an honest debate and face the facts. I don't see how what I've stated is anything different to the above in fact. By exploring the actual history without sugar coating it and by saying see what you claim to be 'Islam' isn't really Islam at all is the way to go. To mock, ridicule and deride the IDEAS. that's what's important. Ideas are fair game here. But to use people, lure them using a taqiyah technique is not my cup of tea. You can not manipulate people into reform. State your interests honestly - I don't believe in god - and do it that way because the alternative is not only dishonest but the people you are speaking to will find out and this will further entrench the divisions.
Oh, and we have been 'kicking the bucket from under them' for a long time. Academics have, laypeople have. Question Islam, Question the Quran, Question Allah. Question Muhammad. There is no need to reform Islam nor Muslims.
Topic: Why must Maryam Namazie take on the left in her critiques of Islamic extremism?