# Can Islam ever be reformed?



## Johnny Bravo (Jun 14, 2017)

The Islamophile thread was getting off-topic but I wanted to talk about this. There seem to be fundamental differences between Islam and other religions that make a reformation difficult or even impossible, yet many Muslims find a way to reconcile their beliefs with the modern world.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 14, 2017)

I believe it can and will be. 

It won't happen as fast as we would like it to, and more extremist movements, ironically probably including reformist violence, will occur, but modern Islam in its current form only has three options: victory (nigh impossible), destruction, or adaptation. While all faiths, including my own, like to believe that they will keep to their deepest convictions no matter how insane or difficult it might be, the majority will generally reject this and choose adaptation over destruction once victory is ruled out. The fanatics will burn themselves out, the crippling poverty of most Muslim regions will eventually be seen for it what it is: economic poverty and not the oppression of western powers, and so on. That said, this could take literally one hundred years or a thousand for all we know. 

The key elements will be money and education. Always are. People keep arguing "democracy" but that wasn't necessary for the reformation in Europe (which was right about a few things) and it won't be for Islam. Shi'a Islam will change faster because it is hierarchical and able to restructure itself from the top down to survive. Indeed, reformation, heterorthodoxy, mysticism, symbolism, and change favor the minority Shiites. The Nizaris are proof of this.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jun 14, 2017)

Isn't what Wahhabism is?

Salafism/Wahhabism are the pretty much the reformation of Sunni Islam.


----------



## TrannyBO (Jun 14, 2017)

ICametoLurk said:


> Isn't what Wahhabism is?
> 
> Salafism/Wahhabism are the pretty much the reformation of Sunni Islam.


And the Calvinists of 1500/1600 were closer to ISIS than any other Christian.


----------



## nad7155 (Jun 14, 2017)

No.

FIN


----------



## Jan_Hus (Jun 14, 2017)

Do note that I'm looking at this from the historical perspective...

@Ntwadumela could talk about the religious perspective and correct me if I've muddled up my history. Many of the works that talk about this history are translated from Arabic and I don't speak Arabic...

I would argue that the main problem (or benefit, depending on how you look at it) is that Islam is a very decentralized religion, there's no  spiritual governing body. There's no diocese or bishiphoric structure in Islam. Mosques can preach what they want, and there is no formal religious body that makes the rules.  (Historically, it's been the Caliph as the nominal religious head). The split for the Sunni/Shia is over who should have succeeded Mohammad as Caliph, the Sunnis say that Mohammad never named his successor and later, the faithful convened to give the title of Caliph to  the Prophet's father in law, while the Shias say that Mohammad named his successor, his cousin, as the nominal religious head. It started as a political schism and later grew into a religious one.

Historically since the Shia were a religious minority, under a very hostile regime they had to figure out a way to survive. This led to the concept of Taqiya, where a Shi'ite can falsely confess their faith in order to better serve the religious community, sabotage the enemy and to survive.  The Assassins(yes those assassins) were very fond of this tactic and used it to great effect to assassinate Conrad of Monteferat and to  convince Saladin to stop sieging their stronghold 

There is also a sect of Islam called the Ibadis. They're mainly located in Oman. If I'm reading this translated article right, they believe that only God can annoit a Caliph.

Oftentimes, this meant that the direction the religion took was often up to the person or family who held the title of Caliph. The Abbasid Caliphate who took over the nominal title of Caliph after a war with the Umayyad Caliphate, were kind of nuts, and if you have an afternoon, the stories of political intrigue and court politics in the Abbasid empire makes for a fascinating read. I'm talking sons being strangled by the mother of another son. That kind of stuff. The Abbasids later collapsed thanks to this court intrigue and lost large portions of their empire to the Shia Caliph under the Fatamids in Egypt.

The Fatamids were later succeeded by the Mamluks, (now, we are back to Sunni rulers) a term meaning slave soldier, but later grew to designate a social class very similar to the European Knight.


 The Ottomans later overran Mamluk Egypt. After that, came the Ottoman Caliphs as the nominal religious head. They interpreted Sharia law to mean "we can make religious rules in our empire for Muslims, non Muslims will be subject to the religious rules laid out by their own religious heads" This system was called the Millet system, and it was an insanely effective form of early religious pluralism.

Unfortunately, near the end of the empire, they did marginalize their religious minorities, although it isn't known whether this was an expression of religious dominance or Turkish dominance, as religion in the Ottoman Empire was generally seen as a very "personal matter."


Finally, we come to Saudi Arabia. Their interpretation of Islam is called Wahabbi. "Conservative" doesn't do this ideology justice. It's fundamentally reactionary and hostile to not only Shias and non Muslims. It's hostile to more liberal interpretations of the religion as well.

The Saudis under Wahabbism have bulldozed significant places in the Prophet's life, and also have bulldozed Ottoman structures in an effort to change the historical narrative. They invest a staggering amount of cash in funding mosques to replace Sunni Islam with their own harsh interpretation of the religion. This is especially problematic because Saudi Arabia controls both Mecca AND Medina, and as such, they can exert a large amount of indirect pressure on the religion.

Unlike the ways the Ottomans interpreted Sharia, there are no room for the Dhimini(people of the book) in a Wahabbist society. Everybody who is a citizen of Saudi Arabia, MUST be a Muslim.

I wouldn't say that the religion needs a total reform, but we need to find a way to work with and promote "Liberal" clerics within the religion,

Start by not letting Saudi Arabia fund mosques in your country...


----------



## Jaimas (Jun 14, 2017)

It absolutely can happen. It will take time, resources, and a hell of a lot more willing to say it like it is, though.

Based Imam should give _everyone_ some hope.


----------



## Ntwadumela (Jun 15, 2017)

Jan_Hus said:


> Do note that I'm looking at this from the historical perspective...
> 
> @Ntwadumela could talk about the religious perspective and correct me if I've muddled up my history. Many of the works that talk about this history are translated from Arabic and I don't speak Arabic...
> 
> ...


I would like to add in that Wahhabism sprung up as a result of a deal between the Al Saud family and the Ikhwan, former bedouins that became warriors serving the Saudi royal family. The Ikhwan believed in what is now considered Wahhabism and have been given housing in exchange for fighting under Al Saud. They have instigated conflict with neighboring fledgling nations such as Kuwait for example, fighting both the Battles of Hamdh and Jahra during the Kuwait-Nejd war. Though they had excellent manpower and tactics they were ultimately driven away by the British forces stationed there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhwan


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 15, 2017)

Islam is a religion.

Religions inevitably go through these phases.

They inevitably end up more or less okay.

So Islam will eventually reform.  The problem is that might be a couple hundred years out, and the real problem is we don't have that much time to play with in a reality where countries where Islam is in charge have nukes.

So we might have to nuke the entire Islamic world at some point.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Jun 15, 2017)

At times you had Christian fanatics (the Crusades, the Protestants vs. Catholics bullshit, etc) and that eventually settled down.  Part of what happened there is a gradual change to a more secular society.  I mean, that's what happened in Turkey, with Mustafa Kemal.  For all the guy's faults, he knew that a secular government was an important part to ending a lot of violence and conflict. 
I mean, you're still going to have people who think THEIR way is the only true way, but when you give people the right to worship as they please, there's less of a threat.   I have no doubt there are Christians out there who, given the chance, would act like these jagoffs.  But of course, they don't have the means or the support.  So I think that'll eventually be the case with Islam.  (Unfortunately, we keep propping up the Saudis, because, oil)

TL,DR:  theocracies are bad, mmmkay?


----------



## Jan_Hus (Jun 15, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> No. Islam must be destroyed. It is a political agenda that desires unlimited power, money, and perverted sex through global land acquisition and enslavement of all non-muslims. BLU-82 Daisy Cutters must be dropped on Mecca and Medina until they are leveled, all muslims must be deported from Judeo-Christian civilization to their respective countries and banned from travel, Catholic missionaries must be sent to aggressively convert all muslims to Catholicism, and any exiting vehicles from said countries by air, land, or sea must be destroyed—except for returning deportation vehicles.
> 
> Of the countries that are converted to Catholicism, they must be further banned from travel for five generations. Of the countries that aggressively refuse, they must be leveled.
> 
> It must be removed from existence, just as the Nazi Party was. No exceptions.


How would you go about doing this?


----------



## SoberBlitz (Jun 15, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> No. Islam must be destroyed. It is a political agenda that desires unlimited power, money, and perverted sex through global land acquisition and enslavement of all non-muslims. BLU-82 Daisy Cutters must be dropped on Mecca and Medina until they are leveled, all muslims must be deported from Judeo-Christian civilization to their respective countries and banned from travel, Catholic missionaries must be sent to aggressively convert all muslims to Catholicism, and any exiting vehicles from said countries by air, land, or sea must be destroyed—except for returning deportation vehicles.
> 
> Of the countries that are converted to Catholicism, they must be further banned from travel for five generations. Of the countries that aggressively refuse, they must be leveled.
> 
> It must be removed from existence, just as the Nazi Party was. No exceptions.



How do you plan on keeping a multi-generational operation like this operating after a hundred or so years?  Or from creating several generations of religious violence as your plan seems to imply?


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 15, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> Catholic missionaries must be sent to aggressively convert all muslims to Catholicism... Of the countries that aggressively refuse, they must be leveled.


You have a lot in common with violent fundamentalist Islam.


----------



## Jan_Hus (Jun 15, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> It is impossible unless and until Judeo-Christian values are reinstituted into the Former Republic of the United States of America—bar supernatural intervention. If it were in God's Will, I would support a counterrevolutionary measure to overthrow our current kleptocratic oligarchy. There are two non-violent options left to spark this counterrevolution. One is a federal income tax strike. Nobody except myself and a very small minority of other citizens have done this, and nobody will do it. Western civilization is too effete and sterile—too anesthetized to take a monetary loss for the greater Glory of God. The last non-violent option is a presidential election strike. This requires no monetary loss on the part of the counterrevolutionaries, but it requires citizens to stop deceiving themselves. The presidential election is theatre for the masses. It is possible to spark the civil war that is required to repossess our country through a low voter turnout. But understand that a less than 5% turnout would be required to break the delusion, and even then, it is possible that it might not have the efficacy of a federal income tax strike. These measures would require a supernatural miracle of divinity on par with the First Coming of Christ. If they were to occur, our country and civilization would see a seating of Christ as our King once more. It would be glorious beyond measure.
> 
> After the subsequent civil war and repossession of our country, the extermination of islam would not only be wholly possible, but actively worked by all God-fearing citizens. It would be one of the main priorities along with public execution of the former oligarchs for their crimes against humanity and aggressive, hopeful proselytism of all citizens to Catholicism. All of this, of course, presupposes a supernatural miracle of nearly unprecedented magnitude. But the resource are there; the heart is not.
> 
> I could elaborate a bit further, but I do not expect such a miracle to occur. So, my methods would be purely hypothetical.


Lol. Religious pluralism is enshrined here in the USA. It is a good thing. You honestly think places such as the Deep South would support this? Never mind the non-religious such as myself... never mind the non-denominational Christians... never mind the people who don't want to live under Judeo-Christian values...


Funnily enough, there is an Islamic country that does the exact same thing as your hypothetical... it's called Saudi Arabia, only the Christian values are replaced with reactionary Islam...


----------



## Bob's Fries (Jun 15, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> It is impossible unless and until Judeo-Christian values are reinstituted into the Former Republic of the United States of America—bar supernatural intervention. If it were in God's Will, I would support a counterrevolutionary measure to overthrow our current kleptocratic oligarchy. There are two non-violent options left to spark this counterrevolution. One is a federal income tax strike. Nobody except myself and a very small minority of other citizens have done this, and nobody will do it. Western civilization is too effete and sterile—too anesthetized to take a monetary loss for the greater Glory of God. The last non-violent option is a presidential election strike. This requires no monetary loss on the part of the counterrevolutionaries, but it requires citizens to stop deceiving themselves. The presidential election is theatre for the masses. It is possible to spark the civil war that is required to repossess our country through a low voter turnout. But understand that a less than 5% turnout would be required to break the delusion, and even then, it is possible that it might not have the efficacy of a federal income tax strike. These measures would require a supernatural miracle of divinity on par with the First Coming of Christ. If they were to occur, our country and civilization would see a seating of Christ as our King once more. It would be glorious beyond measure.
> 
> After the subsequent civil war and repossession of our country, the extermination of islam would not only be wholly possible, but actively worked by all God-fearing citizens. It would be one of the main priorities along with public execution of the former oligarchs for their crimes against humanity and aggressive, hopeful proselytism of all citizens to Catholicism. All of this, of course, presupposes a supernatural miracle of nearly unprecedented magnitude. But the resources are there; the heart is not.
> 
> I could elaborate a bit further, but I do not expect such a miracle to occur. So, my methods would be purely hypothetical.



Go back to your Supernatural thread. We don't need anymore backwards Alex Jones-tier autism spreading throughout the site. Especially when it's as interesting as watching paint dry.


----------



## The Kebab and Calculator (Jun 15, 2017)

I think it can as most religions do.  

The question we should be asking is whether there is _time_ for Islam to reform given the very fast paced world we now live in.


----------



## DuskEngine (Jun 16, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> desires unlimited power, money, and perverted sex



who doesn't tbh


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jun 16, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> No. Islam must be destroyed. It is a political agenda that desires unlimited power, money, and perverted sex through global land acquisition and enslavement of all non-muslims. BLU-82 Daisy Cutters must be dropped on Mecca and Medina until they are leveled


In other words


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jun 16, 2017)

@1864897514651

Forgive me Father for I have sinned via double-posting, but why do you want a Sedevacantist theocracy ruling over the United States instead of supporting already Sedevacantist political positions such as Legitimism (examples: Jacobitism and Carlism)?

Sedevacantism is built on the firm ground of  legitimacy, overthrowing the government of the United States and installing a theocracy isn't built on legitimacy (the whole reason Sedevacantism exists is because people think the 1958 election had outside influence and Vatican II goes against the traditions of the Church, in other words it's not legitimate).


----------



## Ravenor (Jun 16, 2017)

@1864897514651 has been tjread banned for acting like a buffon. Please carry.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 16, 2017)

I think Islam will reform: history moves in cycles, and as Europe was in the Middle Ages, so the Middle East is now.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't accelerate the cycle, however: I think a combination of education reforms, the firm removal of all terrorist kebabs, and the shattering of the throne of Al Saud would let us skip the Crusades and get to the Muslim Martin Luther more quickly.


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (Jun 17, 2017)

Maybe, but it would be centuries out in a time when we don't really have the luxury of waiting.


----------



## Nacho Man Randy Salsa (Jun 18, 2017)

The Protestant Reformation didn't come on a feather bed, a ton of long bloody wars sprung from it, and with how violent Islam is (LOL RELIGION OF PEACE) there would no doubt be mass killings perhaps bordering on genocide. The question then becomes, would such violence be worth it? Sure they'd just be doing it to each other, but on the other hand, life is life, is it not?


----------



## teh forist speret (Jun 18, 2017)

Islam can only be reformed if Israel stops land grabbing Palestine and bombing the shit out of villages when Palestine even raises a hand against them.


----------



## Jan_Hus (Jun 18, 2017)

teh forist speret said:


> Islam can only be reformed if Israel stops land grabbing Palestine and bombing the shit out of villages when Palestine even raises a hand against them.


lol Palestinians aren't people.


----------



## BT 075 (Jun 19, 2017)

As long as there are extremist Muslims, it doesn't really matter if there are billions of them or if it's a small minority, because those willing to reform and adjust will still be afraid to speak out and do so openly because it might cost them their head. Even if the majority is potentially chill, the number of them willing to martyr themselves for change is very small.

Back in the day when Christianity tried to reform itself, many of those reformers found an early grave or died in horrible ways. They got shunned by society, beheaded, burned to death, tortured... it took a lot of balls, to call for reform and to address issues within the faith. It's not the Middle Ages anymore, not officially anyway but Muslim reformers face the same medieval conditions... even today in the year 1438.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 19, 2017)

Nacho Man Randy Salsa said:


> Sure they'd just be doing it to each other, but on the other hand, life is life, is it not?


It's obviously terrible, but we in the West can't magically fix their way of thinking. I think it's fair to say "sort your shit yourselves" at this point. 



teh forist speret said:


> Islam can only be reformed if Israel stops land grabbing Palestine and bombing the shit out of villages when Palestine even raises a hand against them.


I'm no islamofag but the way Israel was created was kind of horseshit, the allied powers basically drew lines on a map with their crayons and said "lol jews live here now, deal with it non-jews" all because everyone felt bad for the poor little religion that nearly got exterminated. Did they expect the regional people who gave zero fucks about WWII would peacefully uproot themselves? Apparently.

It seems like a good example of what results when you tell yourself you're a hero for standing by the little guy, but really you're just looking for points for helping the popular little guy and steamroll other little guys that won't win you PR. No different from SJWs who defend the middle east but also wear Nike shoes manufactured by child slave labor in Vietnam.

Awaiting a slew of autistic and islamic content ratings for saying I don't 100% love Israel...


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 19, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> Did they expect the regional people who gave zero fucks about WWII would peacefully uproot themselves? Apparently.



A lot of them didn't, though, and still live in Israel.  At least 20% of Israel's population is Arab.

And a lot of so-called "Palestinians" aren't people with any historical connection to the region who have moved there fairly recently.


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (Jun 19, 2017)

Nacho Man Randy Salsa said:


> The Protestant Reformation didn't come on a feather bed, a ton of long bloody wars sprung from it, and with how violent Islam is (LOL RELIGION OF PEACE) there would no doubt be mass killings perhaps bordering on genocide. The question then becomes, would such violence be worth it? Sure they'd just be doing it to each other, but on the other hand, life is life, is it not?


I've seen people argue that ISIS is the Protestant iteration of Islam. Granted, I'm not sure how well that holds up considering:
1. Arabic is some extent already sacred to Islamic thought in a way Spoken Arimaic-to-Written Greek-to-Latin Gospels never were.
2. Sola Scriptura is already baked into it.


----------



## Nacho Man Randy Salsa (Jun 19, 2017)

Corypheus said:


> I've seen people argue that ISIS is the Protestant iteration of Islam. Granted, I'm not sure how well that holds up considering:
> 1. Arabic is some extent already sacred to Islamic thought in a way Spoken Arimaic-to-Written Greek-to-Latin Gospels never were.
> 2. Sola Scriptura is already baked into it.


If that is the case, then frankly we're all screwed.


----------



## Mariposa Electrique (Jun 19, 2017)

Islam: 
No Self Awareness
No real concern about their own people or others dying as long as they can get to another country and screw it up.
Hates Women
Hates Gays
Above normal incidence of inbreeding
Above normal incidence for pedophilia and raping anything with a pulse
I'd say, the West has a better chance at reforming Dylan Roof.


----------



## teh forist speret (Jun 20, 2017)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> Islam:
> No Self Awareness
> No real concern about their own people or others dying as long as they can get to another country and screw it up.
> Hates Women
> ...


People hating gays is totally a top priority, my lord.

lol null deleted those angry faggots with daddy issues


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 21, 2017)

Corypheus said:


> I've seen people argue that ISIS is the Protestant iteration of Islam. Granted, I'm not sure how well that holds up considering:
> 1. Arabic is some extent already sacred to Islamic thought in a way Spoken Arimaic-to-Written Greek-to-Latin Gospels never were.
> 2. Sola Scriptura is already baked into it.



I think what further obfuscates it is that it is not an uncommon position in the Catholic and Orthodox world (the vast majority of Earth's Christians) that the Protestant Reformation was a wholly negative thing, which irreparably damaged the faith. Some would call it the opposite of progress. I would. What good came of it were things the Church would have done internally anyway, if somewhat later. Most of what came of it was violence and ignorance. In that sense it is "ISIS-like."

At the same time, comparing ISIS to the Protestants is a wholly unfair and unfavorable comparison overall. While both were violent and extremist reform movements, Martin Luther had good intentions (if very, very, poor execution.) Jean Calvin and Zwingli...tried their best, at least? I don't know, _they_ may have deserved death. Regardless, ISIS has no such things in mind. No great ideals at the end of its "ends justify the means" scenario. It is not ignorance, it is purely evil.

Another issue is the idea of reform itself. The Christian world, like the Muslim world, doesn't really meet it on those terms. You can't "change" things, you have to prove that whatever you are trying to do was actually what Jesus/Muhammed/etc. wanted all along. Obviously, that can only happen so many times before religious authorities start to shut you out on principle. So whatever Islam is going to do will have to happen hard and fast once it finally comes.

People who aren't religious in the traditional sense have a hard time grasping this. Religion, at least revelatory religions, don't change to meet social needs or expectations if they're healthy. People practice them because they think whatever it teaches are true. Attempting to change it in most cases isn't like tweaking an ideology or changing your mind on media, it's an attack on the truths about the cosmos itself. I've had to patiently explain this over and over again. People go to mass because they _believe _not because it serves some "convenient purpose" in their lives.


----------



## Pikimon (Jun 21, 2017)

This is a much more civilized discussion than I expected.

Let's change that.

@Internet War Criminal


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jun 21, 2017)

Pikimon said:


> This is a much more civilized discussion than I expected.
> 
> Let's change that.
> 
> @Internet War Criminal



You can't reform something when said reform requires you to root out its axioms. Then it becomes something else entirely different.

Islam is founded on Mohammed's teachings, and the idea that he was the most perfect man to emulate. Those who live closest to these ideals and the path Mohammed showed for his followers to emulate are the likes of ISIS, different Wahhabist and Salafist groups and their ilk.

This is not a situation where the church deviated from its own teachings and needs to be refocused on what matters, where the cool laid back Muslims who drink, listen to western music and oppose terrorism and ISIS are the Islamic historical norm. Those people are the deviation from Islam and not the norm.

To reform Islam is to _remake_ Islam into something entirely different, period.


----------



## Scratch This Nut (Jun 21, 2017)

Internet War Criminal said:


> You can't reform something when said reform requires you to root out its axioms. Then it becomes something else entirely different.
> 
> Islam is founded on Mohammed's teachings, and the idea that he was the most perfect man to emulate. Those who live closest to these ideals and the path Mohammed showed for his followers to emulate are the likes of ISIS, different Wahhabist and Salafist groups and their ilk.
> 
> ...



Well damn, son.  

I don't know as much about Islam as a religion as I should but I always thought Mohammed was just a prophet and a man, not their dimestore version of Jesus.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 22, 2017)

Scratch This Nut said:


> I don't know as much about Islam as a religion as I should but I always thought Mohammed was just a prophet and a man, not their dimestore version of Jesus.


I think the difference between respect and worship for these kinds of mythicized figures is academic. When everything you do in your life is based off of your slavish interpretation of what some guy said 1400 years ago, then he is your god in effect, whether you get mad when that's pointed out or not. Hell, I've got a lot of respect for the founding fathers of America and the constitution they wrote but there are people who take it to the point where they seem to think this group of intelligent men were infallible; those types are basically guilty of the same thing.


----------



## guluboy17 (Feb 24, 2018)

In short, from probably the only Muslim on this thread, I will just save you all the suffering and horror from reading All of Islamic Jurisprudence to say that Islam *will *_*not "reform" *_*.  *The closest thing to reformation is called [and yes, it exists] _ijtihad _.
" _*Ijtihad* (Arabic: اجتهاد‎ ijtihād, lit. effort, physical or mental, expended in a particular activity)[1] is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning[2] or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question.[1] It is contrasted with taqlid (imitation, conformity to legal precedent).[2][3] According to classical Sunni theory, ijtihad requires expertise in the Arabic language, theology, revealed texts, and principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh),[2] and is not employed where authentic and authoritative texts (Qur'an and Hadith) are considered unambiguous with regard to the question, or where there is an existing scholarly consensus (ijma).[1] Ijtihad is considered to be a religious duty for those qualified to perform it.[2] An Islamic scholar who is qualified to perform ijtihad is called a mujtahid.[1]_ " ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad
So, in short. There is nothing to "reform" about Islam. The only thing, that I and You will both agree on, is the lack of knowledge on Islamic law and ethics.
Yes, Islam needs a unified _polity _. A '_Caliphal' _government to 'Enjoin Good and Forbid Evil' [ https://islamqa.info/en/11403 ]. Once that is accomplished, wordily affairs will be much more focused on. And by 'Wordily' , I mean Scientific, Cultural and Economical Benefits.
No, Islam will not:
- Change its 'Hudud' laws [ CL: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86 Re: https://abuaminaelias.com/application-of-hudud-punishments-in-sharia-law/ ]
- Change its Sunnah
- Change its Sharia

To top everything off, I give a quote:
"There are people (the Muslims) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state; it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects."
British Prime Minister Henry Bannerman, 1906
2

PS: Here are some great articles to read if interested.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 24, 2018)

guluboy17 said:


> In short, from probably the only Muslim on this thread, I will just save you all the suffering and horror from reading All of Islamic Jurisprudence to say that Islam *will *_*not "reform" *_*.  *The closest thing to reformation is called [and yes, it exists] _ijtihad _.
> " _*Ijtihad* (Arabic: اجتهاد‎ ijtihād, lit. effort, physical or mental, expended in a particular activity)[1] is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning[2] or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question.[1] It is contrasted with taqlid (imitation, conformity to legal precedent).[2][3] According to classical Sunni theory, ijtihad requires expertise in the Arabic language, theology, revealed texts, and principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh),[2] and is not employed where authentic and authoritative texts (Qur'an and Hadith) are considered unambiguous with regard to the question, or where there is an existing scholarly consensus (ijma).[1] Ijtihad is considered to be a religious duty for those qualified to perform it.[2] An Islamic scholar who is qualified to perform ijtihad is called a mujtahid.[1]_ " ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad
> So, in short. There is nothing to "reform" about Islam. The only thing, that I and You will both agree on, is the lack of knowledge on Islamic law and ethics.
> Yes, Islam needs a unified _polity _. A '_Caliphal' _government to 'Enjoin Good and Forbid Evil' [ https://islamqa.info/en/11403 ]. Once that is accomplished, wordily affairs will be much more focused on. And by 'Wordily' , I mean Scientific, Cultural and Economical Benefits.
> ...



Oh boy, we have a live one.
It's late and I'm drunk, so I'm just going to point out that:
1. Every religion throughout history has believed itself to be the perfect one.  Those that refused to change with the times stagnated and died.
2. You lie when you say that _Wahabi_ shall give the world scientific benefits, when over and over again imams and scholars decry all technological or cultural advancement since the time of Muhammad.
3. You lie when you talk of cultural benefits when over and over again all culture is spat upon by your imams; to make music is a sin, to paint is a sin, to sculpt is a sin, to tell a story is a sin.  It seems that having a culture is a sin.
4. The fact that you think Israel exists to stop some grand unification of the Middle East shows you are a fool misled by the lies of a serpent, blind to both past and present.
5. You shall win no converts here.


----------



## AnOminous (Feb 24, 2018)

guluboy17 said:


> In short, from probably the only Muslim on this thread, I will just save you all the suffering and horror from reading All of Islamic Jurisprudence to say that Islam *will *_*not "reform" *_*.  *The closest thing to reformation is called [and yes, it exists] _ijtihad _.



If you actually are right about that, we need to kill you all while we have all the nuclear weapons and you are a bunch of goatfucking savages.

I think you're wrong.  I think in a couple centuries Islam will be as normie as other religions.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Feb 24, 2018)

If the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia gets the international support he needs while ISIS continues to get crushed, Islam will be reformed.

I'd give it a 10% chance of moderate Islam gaining greater influence than fundamentalist Islam within the next decade.


----------



## guluboy17 (Feb 24, 2018)

AnOminous said:


> If you actually are right about that, we need to kill you all while we have all the nuclear weapons and you are a bunch of goatfucking savages.
> 
> I think you're wrong.  I think in a couple centuries Islam will be as normie as other religions.



LOL ok. "We need to kill you all" edgy as hell, but it's ok, as someone as idiot like yourself, I don't even take that as an 'insult'. Western Civilization will kill itself eventually.



Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Oh boy, we have a live one.
> It's late and I'm drunk, so I'm just going to point out that:
> 1. Every religion throughout history has believed itself to be the perfect one.  Those that refused to change with the times stagnated and died.
> 2. You lie when you say that _Wahabi_ shall give the world scientific benefits, when over and over again imams and scholars decry all technological or cultural advancement since the time of Muhammad.
> ...



1: Yes, every religion believed itself so, just like every political, philosophical, and scientific ideologies thought they were the "true" systems. "Those that refused" was it 'those' or the 'society' ?
2: "when over and over again imams and scholars decry all technological or cultural advancement" Wrong. This is not Christian Monasticism, This is basic Islamic Theology. Basic Islamic Assets like Compasses to know where to pray, or Engineers and Architects to build Mosques is enough to prove that Islam is just as much physical as it is spiritual. Scholars will most likely want to prohibit haram technology , "Sexual Desire" mechanics, "sex toys" , "Illegal Adultery" etc.
3: "when over and over again all culture is spat upon by your imams" 
*Definition of culture*
_1a : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time_
As per-definition, Islam Allows All Cultures and Traditions. Even the Prophet (saaws) Wore Traditional Arab Clothes etc. Islam Only forbids Haram things in Culture . 'Painting' is not haram. Drawing Lively things (heads i.e nose, mouth, eyes etc.) is. Drawing Non-living things is not. As Per-Salafi, Sculpting 3-D Statues is Haram. Music Is Haram. Telling Stories is definitely not haram (IDEK from where you got that). Plus, by 'Cultural Benefits', I mean Balancing-out the Haram From the Halal in cultures.
4: I never stated so.
5: 
“Verily, you (O Muhammad) guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He knows best those who are the guided.”
[al-Qasas 28:56]


----------



## AnOminous (Feb 25, 2018)

guluboy17 said:


> LOL ok. "We need to kill you all" edgy as hell, but it's ok, as someone as idiot like yourself, I don't even take that as an 'insult'. Western Civilization will kill itself eventually.



Are you so fucking dumb you missed the preface of that where I said "if you're right?"  Apparently, you are.  

Learn to read, you goatfucking savage.

I said you were wrong and that your dumbass religion actually will reform, much like the other dumbass Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism, have done.  They're now domesticated enough they can be tolerated in civilization.

Your shitty religion will do so too, at least I think so.

Now go fuck a goat.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 25, 2018)

guluboy17 said:


> LOL ok. "We need to kill you all" edgy as hell, but it's ok, as someone as idiot like yourself, I don't even take that as an 'insult'. Western Civilization will kill itself eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. "Scientific ideology": you don't know what you're talking about.  Science has no ideology: it exists to present the facts of the world as they are and create structures that explain it.  Something tells me that you're just angry that biology contradicts a literal Creation.
2. Imams have argued on television that smartphones, fidget spinners, areospace programs, the internet, and automobiles are all haram.  On a related note: do you think it is possible for man to travel to space?
3. Every culture is based on haram practices.  I am Scandinavian; the history of my people for countless thousands of years was transmitted by the Sagas (which are haram, as they were sung) and by the carvings placed upon the menhir (which were also haram, as they almost universally included carvings of living creatures).  The culture of the Arabs was transmitted orally through song as well.  Without the arts of painting living things and crafting sculptures, we would not know about how many people of the past dressed, how they looked, how fashions changed over time, what they valued, and many other things.  If all of these things were destroyed, the thread that connects people to their cultural practices would be severed.  This is what I mean when I say that to have a culture is haram.  I cannot believe the Supreme Being would want people to sacrifice things that are beautiful and elevate the human spirit.  (In reference to story-telling being haram, I have seen imam argue that because lying is haram, telling a story that is not something that happened- that is to say, all of fiction- is haram as well.)
4. You can never say Israel and people can still understand what you mean.  We aren't all stupid.

Other things that you must address: learned men of your faith have said that for a man to feel love for his wife is haram, that muslims must hate all non-muslims, that all atheists should be killed, that all Jews should be killed, that celebrating birthdays is haram, that making a "smiley face" like so  is haram, that spending any time in lesiure is haram, and that countless other things are haram.  This is another way that the form of Islam you say is pure and perfect is an enemy of culture; by these decrees, nine-tenths of all cultural behaviors are haram.  In addition, do not many of these rulings contradict the words of Muhammad?  From what I know, Muhammad said that Christians and Jews deserve respect as other followers of the Book.  Does not a command to hate all non-Muslims and a command to kill all Jews run counter to this?


----------



## yukujiab (Feb 25, 2018)

As an iranian guy who is british born (have a relatively religious family, most of them are relaxed) here is my thoughts on islam as a whole

I think Islam gets a free pass for the most part. Some of the stuff written in the so called holy book is regressive and not compatible with our western culture. And because its this so called "holy book" we are meant to accept it and not question the "word of god" otherwise we are racist.

First of all, islam isnt a race. Secondly, I think there are good parts/ideas in islam too. Praying can be therapeutic. Ramadam sounds good because it puts your life into perspective and makes you realise you dont have it as bad as some people living across the globe. Giving 2.5% of your wealth to the poor/charity is a nice thing to do. But the idea that we have to just sit back and not criticise ANY aspect of the Quran/Islam is bonkers. Im an aethiest and I will treat their book like anything else, no preferential treatment, Ill praise the good parts and criticise the parts where I do not agree with

I seriously hope it can be reformed, but I think many hardcore "The word of god cannot be changed" will unfortunately resist and kind of suggestion/improvements to Islam. Because it NEEDS reformation no question. Some parts in the Quran is vile and disgusting. And not to mention the book contradicts itself as well.


----------



## GethN7 (Feb 25, 2018)

yukujiab said:


> As an iranian guy who is british born (have a relatively religious family, most of them are relaxed) here is my thoughts on islam as a whole
> 
> I think Islam gets a free pass for the most part. Some of the stuff written in the so called holy book is regressive and not compatible with our western culture. And because its this so called "holy book" we are meant to accept it and not question the "word of god" otherwise we are racist.
> 
> ...



Historically, I'm not optimistic it could be past a certain extent.

There are a grand total of two times I can think of historically when Islam was downright pleasant or at least quite tolerable as a powerful majority: During the best parts of the Abbasid caliphate and Mughal empires.

The former was pretty tolerant by the classical age of Islam standards, to the extent they made a point of it, mostly because the preceding Uumyyad caliphate wasn't, but in their defense, they were conquered from without by the Seljuk Turks.

While there were around though, at most, pay a head tax, and you generally could do your thing in most areas.

The only other time I can think of historically is when the Mughal Empire tried to accommodate the reality of having Islam around in an intensely Hinduist polity, they made admirable strides to bridge the gap and be nice.

And then the hardliners whined they were being too nice, some douchebag named Aurangzeb took power, and the Mughal Empire degenerated once they decided to piss off their own polity instead of meeting them halfway.

Essentially, it's possible, but history militates against it most of the time, since it's not very tolerant by default of its own creed leaning against it (I've read the Qu'ran, albeit in translation, and even then it's pretty intolerant in many regards, even Judaism was willing to entertain the idea of monolatry and Christianity has mercy built in as a defining feature), and it's generally been state supported most of it's existence wherever it has been a majority, and while Turkey made admirable strides courtesy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to accommodate the real world as opposed to the wishes of the ulama, even that has limits in modern day.


----------



## AnOminous (Feb 25, 2018)

yukujiab said:


> I think Islam gets a free pass for the most part. Some of the stuff written in the so called holy book is regressive and not compatible with our western culture. And because its this so called "holy book" we are meant to accept it and not question the "word of god" otherwise we are racist.
> 
> First of all, islam isnt a race. Secondly, I think there are good parts/ideas in islam too.



I'm going to disagree on the "free pass" thing.  Nothing gets a free pass.

I'll agree on the Islam has some good ideas in it part, though.  This isn't a high bar to hurdle, though.  Every religion, even really bad ones, have good ideas in them somewhere.

I will agree that it has good ideas comparable to those in Christianity and Judaism, though.  At least on some level, Islam seems to respect the other "People of the Book."  At least in theory.  And at the time it came into existence, it was fairly unique and even catholic (in its dictionary sense) in actually not being racist.

I see no reason it won't eventually grow and mature into something as tolerable as Christianity.


----------



## :thinking: (Feb 25, 2018)

AnOminous said:


> I'm going to disagree on the "free pass" thing.  Nothing gets a free pass.
> 
> I'll agree on the Islam has some good ideas in it part, though.  This isn't a high bar to hurdle, though.  Every religion, even really bad ones, have good ideas in them somewhere.
> 
> ...


Islam is not only a religion, it’s also an ideology with instructions on how to create a society. 
It’s worse than Christianity, since Jesus was OK with rendering things unto Caesar and all that.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Feb 26, 2018)

I don't think that there is even the remotest chance of Islam reforming without a near-extinction level event occuring in the Middle East. When your religion is as fucked up as Islam or Judaism, you tend not to be too concerned about reformation, and more concerned about trying not to speak too loudly lest you get burned alive or disappeared in the night.


----------



## carltondanks (Feb 26, 2018)

guluboy17 said:


> LOL ok. "We need to kill you all" edgy as hell, but it's ok, as someone as idiot like yourself, I don't even take that as an 'insult'. Western Civilization will kill itself eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i can listen to music because it's not illegal in this country or my religion. your arguments are invalid


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 26, 2018)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> or Judaism.


Jews tend to be chill tho.  Like, there isn't even a comparison.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Feb 26, 2018)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Jews tend to be chill tho.  Like, there isn't even a comparison.


Not the ones who actually observe, or the Kabbalists. Go read the Talmud, then the Hadiths, then tell me which one is worse.


----------



## Bassomatic (Feb 26, 2018)

I don't want to get too long into this, but reform was left loose by the OP.

A part of Islam is it's a theocratic system , for sure that could get better and improve.

I personally don't think those systems can be healthy or better for human life. So better, yes, but to it's peak or as good as other groups?  No. This does have a bias towards my own personal feelings of life fwiw.


----------



## AnOminous (Feb 26, 2018)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> I don't think that there is even the remotest chance of Islam reforming without a near-extinction level event occuring in the Middle East. When your religion is as fucked up as Islam or Judaism, you tend not to be too concerned about reformation, and more concerned about trying not to speak too loudly lest you get burned alive or disappeared in the night.



I don't think Islam is going to be reformed from the outside, like by just shooting at them until they suddenly reform, but like any other system of beliefs, it naturally evolves and will do so in order to survive.  Also to @guluboy17 I didn't mean to be as much of a dick as I was, but you were talking shit.  Anyway, no disrespect, or only a slight amount of disrespect, intended.


----------



## Abang (Feb 26, 2018)

I'd be lying if I said I didn't want a positive reformation. Indonesia is a great evidence of how real moral degradation is among Muslims.  I recently read up on an interesting case there, in which the capital's Christian (+ Chinese) governor is thrown to jail for blasphemy against Islam for saying that people shouldn't be fooled by Al-Maidah:52, the one verse that supposedly states whether or not Muslims should elect a non-Muslim to lead their community (he brought up the matter during a election campaign.) The case sparked a lot of debate around both the country's flimsy blasphemy laws and the interpretation of the ayat itself. You can read more about it here.

If only the purists weren't so keen on interpreting the Qur'an literally by discarding all the relevant period-appropriate contexts.

edit: double the's


----------



## Bum Driller (Feb 26, 2018)

Parts of it, maybe, but muslim world is so fractured that there will probably always exist sick fanatics who want to blow themselves up and shit.


----------



## yukujiab (Feb 27, 2018)

AnOminous said:


> I'm going to disagree on the "free pass" thing.  Nothing gets a free pass.
> 
> I'll agree on the Islam has some good ideas in it part, though.  This isn't a high bar to hurdle, though.  Every religion, even really bad ones, have good ideas in them somewhere.
> 
> ...



They do get a free pass ( not on here but with the media and society because people forget that islam is an ideology not race. But if people give islam any sort of criticism (constructive ones not just "deport them all" they get labelled as racists. Therefore, the fear of people/media/authorities speaking out is there.


----------



## Sissy (Feb 27, 2018)

It would require secular Muslims to forge an entire new edition of their holy book, and to effectively wage a crusade against current day fundamentalists. It would effectively have to become a new religion.


----------



## Piss Clam (Feb 27, 2018)

I'm not much of a relgious scholar being agnostic, but the first testement was pretty harsh, while the second seemed to me as a reformation into love they neighbor.

One would hope that there would be a person who could rise up in Islam and seperate the religion from poltics. Political islam is what is really killing the religion today and more muslims die by muslim hands than anyone else.


----------



## Paralethal (Feb 27, 2018)

The good of the wombat is not the good of the parakeet.


----------



## de_DEVIL_tails (Feb 27, 2018)

No


----------



## GethN7 (Feb 27, 2018)

Piss Clam said:


> I'm not much of a relgious scholar being agnostic, but the first testement was pretty harsh, while the second seemed to me as a reformation into love they neighbor.
> 
> One would hope that there would be a person who could rise up in Islam and seperate the religion from poltics. Political islam is what is really killing the religion today and more muslims die by muslim hands than anyone else.



The problem goes back to the founding principle/principal, in both senses of those words.

Judaism was the original covenant between Yahweh and the Jewish people, which already got softened after their return from Babylonian captivity. Still required you observe Jewish religious law, but the entry requirements were reduced from the extreme exclusion imposed by the first version of the covenant.

However, compared to Islam, the bar for entry just means you have to observe Jewish religious if not political customs.

Christianity lowered the bar further, with Jesus outright saying temporal authority and spiritual authority were separate spheres and the bar to entry for Christianity is even lower than Judaism, merely requiring you accept the general gist of it's whole point, with following the customs of the old covenant being optional, but if you would like to, bonus points, but there is no need to adhere to the Jewish specific parts even then.

Islam, however, does not draw a line between Man's Law and God's Law. They go hand in hand like the first version of the Jewish covenant did, and the only way to prevent that from becoming an issue as a devout believer for most is to live where Islam is both temporal and spiritual law in both law and custom.

It's not impossible to be an observant Muslim while not living under an Islamic theocracy, but it's very structure and teaching expect that framework to exist, and most of it's hardliners insist the two should be joined at the hip.

In short, the key issue here is that if Islam is to coexist in the modern world, it has got to do as it's antecedents did and accept you do not need Man to enforce God's law, that's is between God and Man, but try telling most Muslims this where it is both law and custom for the will of Allah to be enforced by government decree and you'll see why this is not an easy thing to ask.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 27, 2018)

Strong Tranni Role Model said:


> It would require secular Muslims to forge an entire new edition of their holy book, and to effectively wage a crusade against current day fundamentalists. It would effectively have to become a new religion.


So a Protestant Reformation for Muslims?


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (Feb 28, 2018)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> So a Protestant Reformation for Muslims?


Only there isn’t anything to protest against. As was said by multiple people earlier, the distinctions that make something like that possible for Christianity are verbotten in Islam. It’s important to note that the major schism for Islam comes from a succession crisis as opposed to Christianity’s doctrinal disputes.


----------



## GethN7 (Feb 28, 2018)

Corypheus said:


> Only there isn’t anything to protest against. As was said by multiple people earlier, the distinctions that make something like that possible for Christianity are verbotten in Islam. It’s important to note that the major schism for Islam comes from a succession crisis as opposed to Christianity’s doctrinal disputes.



Exactly. The dividing line between the Shia and Sunni Muslims is over who was the proper caliph to succeed Muhammed.

Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were the first three caliphs over the Islamic community and the first three successors to Muhammed that both sides will agree were proper successors.

The fault line began with Ali, the fourth caliph, and  Hasan, his successor, after Ali was killed in a civil war, abdicated to Mu'awiyah in an attempt to stop the fight, with one string attached: Mu'awiyah not name his own successor.

Mu'awiyah did just that.

The main dispute's crux is that the Sunni don't care who the first few leaders were so long as they obeyed the will of Allah, while the Shia were fans of Ali and thought he and his successors were the legit successors.

The unfortunate part about this schism is that it's not easily solved, not helped by literal millennia of genealogists on both sides of the debate autistically screeching about who was legit, and many Muslim polities until present day weren't above BSing about family ties to Muhammed to pad out their legitimacy, further muddying the waters.

The doctrinal disputes are likely mostly acclimated to to some degree, but as I do not know the nitty gritty from a Muslim perspective, I cannot speak as to what degree exactly, but the real problem is the key dispute mentioned above has driven a permanent wedge between the two sects.

If this were to somehow be resolved, it might lead to an easing of tensions within the Muslim world that might have a positive effect on the non Muslim world, but it would be doubtful as to whether it would moderate Islam's more odious interactions with the non-Muslim world to any measurable extreme.

There are other differences that set the two further apart, with the Shia being much more down with martyrdom as being an honor (as they considered their chosen leaders being assassinated a rallying cry), not to mention they have some moderate disagreements over doctrines and holy sites, but the linchpin of the matter is that the Shia believed a certain line of succession should have happened, the Sunni care more that their leaders obey Allah's will, regardless whom they might be.


----------



## AnOminous (Feb 28, 2018)

GethN7 said:


> The doctrinal disputes are likely mostly acclimated to to some degree, but as I do not know the nitty gritty from a Muslim perspective, I cannot speak as to what degree exactly, but the real problem is the key dispute mentioned above has driven a permanent wedge between the two sects.



A lot of the things that masquerade as doctrinal quarrels, especially in places like Iraq, are actually tribal conflicts that just happen to share a Sunni/Shia split as well.  Some of these go back before Islam itself.


----------



## guluboy17 (Mar 3, 2018)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. "Scientific ideology": you don't know what you're talking about.  Science has no ideology: it exists to present the facts of the world as they are and create structures that explain it.  Something tells me that you're just angry that biology contradicts a literal Creation.
> 2. Imams have argued on television that smartphones, fidget spinners, areospace programs, the internet, and automobiles are all haram.  On a related note: do you think it is possible for man to travel to space?
> 3. Every culture is based on haram practices.  I am Scandinavian; the history of my people for countless thousands of years was transmitted by the Sagas (which are haram, as they were sung) and by the carvings placed upon the menhir (which were also haram, as they almost universally included carvings of living creatures).  The culture of the Arabs was transmitted orally through song as well.  Without the arts of painting living things and crafting sculptures, we would not know about how many people of the past dressed, how they looked, how fashions changed over time, what they valued, and many other things.  If all of these things were destroyed, the thread that connects people to their cultural practices would be severed.  This is what I mean when I say that to have a culture is haram.  I cannot believe the Supreme Being would want people to sacrifice things that are beautiful and elevate the human spirit.  (In reference to story-telling being haram, I have seen imam argue that because lying is haram, telling a story that is not something that happened- that is to say, all of fiction- is haram as well.)
> 4. You can never say Israel and people can still understand what you mean.  We aren't all stupid.
> ...



1: I probably included that with the other points mentioned such as 'economic' and 'philosophic' creating the claim that there are different sub-categories in all of them, including science. "Something tells me that you're just angry that biology contradicts a literal Creation." Nope. Science is not eternal while 'literal creation' is. In fact, Science exists to explain natural events which compliments my religion.
2: "Imams have.." the beginning of your statement debunks itself automatically. There are Imams that have the opinion to ban Chess, There are Imams who suggest that the Minarets and Domes are innovations, There are Imams that say that the Earth is flat, and there are Imams who say it isn't flat { https://islamqa.info/en/211655 }. Point in being, Different Imams have Different fatwas and opinions on the Islamic religion to balance it out from not leaning towards one set of ideas. ''do you think it is possible for man to travel to space?'' Looking at the Technological advancements we have achieved, yes. 
3: "Every culture is based on haram practices." Wrong. As stated above, and I quote again, 
*Definition of culture*
1a : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time. - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture
An Indian Traditional Dress or a Roman one, or a Persian one etc. are all not considered haram. Similarly, Indian Food, American Food, or whatever national/cultural food there are, are not considered haram. I already stated that Islam differentiates between the culture to remove the bad (Haram) aspects of it. e.g You; 

"the history of my people for countless thousands of years was transmitted by the Sagas (which are haram, as they were sung) and by the carvings placed upon the menhir (which were also haram, as they almost universally included carvings of living creatures).  The culture of the Arabs was transmitted orally through song as well.  Without the arts of painting living things and crafting sculptures, we would not know about how many people of the past dressed, how they looked, how fashions changed over time, what they valued, and many other things.  If all of these things were destroyed, the thread that connects people to their cultural practices would be severed.  This is what I mean when I say that to have a culture is haram.  I cannot believe the Supreme Being would want people to sacrifice things that are beautiful and elevate the human spirit.  (In reference to story-telling being haram, I have seen imam argue that because lying is haram, telling a story that is not something that happened- that is to say, all of fiction- is haram as well.)" You would have understood this if you knew what the Islamic Thinking on this matter was. hint: search up _Jahilliyyah .
_
"I cannot believe the Supreme Being would want people to sacrifice things that are beautiful and elevate the human spirit."  Oh please, enough with that secularization and liberalism of Religious thought. You would rather say "I cannot believe a supreme being will send people to hell" or the like in this case. A father will remove a thing ,that is in essence harmful, from a kid. Even if the kid likes it and "elevates the human spirit".

4: lol but in reality, I never mentioned Israel to begin with. Stop with putting Words in my mouth that I never meant. If you want to talk about Israel, be my guest.

"learned men of your faith have said that for a man to feel love for his wife is haram" > http://darulfiqh.com/the-romantic-prophet-how-to-be-romantic-your-spouse/
spare me your idiocy and learn something for once. You are equating Killing Atheists to Drawing Smiley Faces. If You'd only see your comment at this point. 

"Does not a command to hate all non-Muslims and a command to kill all Jews run counter to this?" At first you state something completely wrong then try to ask for a solution or answer to it. Again, Read some Islamic Texts and Fiqh, before you post uneducated claims.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 3, 2018)

guluboy17 said:


> 1: I probably included that with the other points mentioned such as 'economic' and 'philosophic' creating the claim that there are different sub-categories in all of them, including science. "Something tells me that you're just angry that biology contradicts a literal Creation." Nope. Science is not eternal while 'literal creation' is. In fact, Science exists to explain natural events which compliments my religion.
> 2: "Imams have.." the beginning of your statement debunks itself automatically. There are Imams that have the opinion to ban Chess, There are Imams who suggest that the Minarets and Domes are innovations, There are Imams that say that the Earth is flat, and there are Imams who say it isn't flat { https://islamqa.info/en/211655 }. Point in being, Different Imams have Different fatwas and opinions on the Islamic religion to balance it out from not leaning towards one set of ideas. ''do you think it is possible for man to travel to space?'' Looking at the Technological advancements we have achieved, yes.
> 3: "Every culture is based on haram practices." Wrong. As stated above, and I quote again,
> *Definition of culture*
> ...



1. All scientific evidence points towards the Abrahamic account of the world being created over one week 8,000 years ago being false.  Every new fact uncovered moves this account further away from being likely, not closer towards being likely.  If I wanted to be a good Muslim, must I ignore this evidence and instead believe in the literal creation?  Ibn Sina didn't seem to think so; but then again, Al-Ghazali was seen as victorious in that dispute, even though he refused the belief that an effect was caused by its cause!
2. Imam are meant to be learned men versed in the interpretation of the Koran and the commentaries, correct?  So their words are not merely empty babble, yes?  If the learned men of a faith say a thing, it should have some weight- otherwise, why even have them?  And if these learned men en masse say things like "it is wicked to love another, for to do so risks you putting them before God" or that music and art is evil, and other such things, it has weight, yes?
3. A culture without the "Haram" things in it isn't the same culture anymore.  Without the Louvre, opera, ballet, the philosophers, and so many other "Haram" things, France would not be France.  It saddens my heart that you and your faith would cast such things on a pyre and cry out "We are righteous, we are virtuous!"  As for such "secularization and liberalism", the attitudes I express are older than your entire faith.  They are more conservative and spiritual than your own, but you refuse to recognize that, because to you, your faith is not only the greatest, it is so great that anyone who rejects it is a liar who must be converted at bladepoint.
4. I admit to equating it, because I believe every life has a value beyond as slaves to your god. 
Again I tell you, go away: you will win no converts here.


----------



## guluboy17 (Mar 4, 2018)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. All scientific evidence points towards the Abrahamic account of the world being created over one week 8,000 years ago being false.  Every new fact uncovered moves this account further away from being likely, not closer towards being likely.  If I wanted to be a good Muslim, must I ignore this evidence and instead believe in the literal creation?  Ibn Sina didn't seem to think so; but then again, Al-Ghazali was seen as victorious in that dispute, even though he refused the belief that an effect was caused by its cause!
> 2. Imam are meant to be learned men versed in the interpretation of the Koran and the commentaries, correct?  So their words are not merely empty babble, yes?  If the learned men of a faith say a thing, it should have some weight- otherwise, why even have them?  And if these learned men en masse say things like "it is wicked to love another, for to do so risks you putting them before God" or that music and art is evil, and other such things, it has weight, yes?
> 3. A culture without the "Haram" things in it isn't the same culture anymore.  Without the Louvre, opera, ballet, the philosophers, and so many other "Haram" things, France would not be France.  It saddens my heart that you and your faith would cast such things on a pyre and cry out "We are righteous, we are virtuous!"  As for such "secularization and liberalism", the attitudes I express are older than your entire faith.  They are more conservative and spiritual than your own, but you refuse to recognize that, because to you, your faith is not only the greatest, it is so great that anyone who rejects it is a liar who must be converted at bladepoint.
> 4. I admit to equating it, because I believe every life has a value beyond as slaves to your god.
> Again I tell you, go away: you will win no converts here.



1: "All scientific evidence points towards the Abrahamic account of the world being created over one week 8,000 years ago being false." Thanks for admitting your ignorance. No where in Islamic Texts, if you actually studied it, does it say anything about what the False theological thinking of the Christians proclaim. 
"If I wanted to be a good Muslim, must I ignore this evidence and instead believe in the literal creation?" You are merging two theological thinking together. We Are Not 'Christians', We Believe that Allah created the Universe and everything in it for us to glorify his signs and worship him. Not That he created this earth 8000 years ago etc. I suggest you read this article: https://www.thoughtco.com/creation-of-the-universe-2004201
"Ibn Sina didn't seem to think so; but then again, Al-Ghazali was seen as victorious in that dispute, even though he refused the belief that an effect was caused by its cause!"
What? Can you evaluate your claims here?

2: "Imam are meant to be learned men versed in the interpretation of the Koran and the commentaries, correct?  So their words are not merely empty babble, yes?  If the learned men of a faith say a thing, it should have some weight- otherwise, why even have them?  And if these learned men en masse say things like "it is wicked to love another, for to do so risks you putting them before God" or that music and art is evil, and other such things, it has weight, yes?"
What are you implying? that this 'weight' equates them to the status of infallibility? Imams are as human as me and you. They have different opinions and suggestions concerning the faith. Imams also weigh all their opinions and claims under the Qur'an, Sunnah and Fiqh. So, if their 'weight' is claimed under those categories, it has this 'weight' otherwise, it's useless, empty and complete nothingness.

also: "And if these learned men en masse say things like "it is wicked to love another, for to do so risks you putting them before God"" Any articles or videos concerning this matter? knowing the ethics of Islam, which is loving God before anyone else, even if that is your mother, children or your wife, your statement looks misrepresented.

3:  "A culture without the "Haram" things in it isn't the same culture anymore.  Without the Louvre, opera, ballet, the philosophers, and so many other "Haram" things, France would not be France." That is the wisdom of God and creation. This modern world is, If you searched what I told you to search about, stuck in the _Jahilliyyah _age. The age of ignorance. Remember, This France also Legalizes Porn and other un-ethical characteristics as well. You also equate "Haram" things to all that is "good". Remember, Rape, Adultery, Murder, even Hate Speech is under the "Haram" Category. 

"It saddens my heart that you and your faith would cast such things on a pyre and cry out "We are righteous, we are virtuous!"  As for such "secularization and liberalism", the attitudes I express are older than your entire faith.  They are more conservative and spiritual than your own, but you refuse to recognize that, because to you, your faith is not only the greatest, it is so great that anyone who rejects it is a liar who must be converted at bladepoint."

God has given a system for Mankind to Follow. In That System, Good and Evil has been established. We have been given the will to choose Good or Evil. Good Is All that God has proclaimed so, and Evil is all that God has proclaimed so. So, if destroying Idols, Banning Music, destroying a Culture that allows all these Haram practices is placed on the Good side of God's system, that is what it ultimately is. And I accept that 100% in so to please my Lord. There is no changing that, and there will never be a way to change that. Hope that answers your wary questions.

4: 
>I admit to equating it, because I believe every life has a value beyond as slaves to your god.
>the attitudes I express are older than your entire faith.  They are more conservative and spiritual than your own.
Your opinions and expressions at this point is kind of shaky don't you think?
Not so long ago, Slaves were slaves to humans, and that quote 'every life has a value beyond as slaves' will make you a laughing stock in that society at that time.
Hinduism, Mesopotamian, Zoroastrian and the like were present, you guessed it, in the _Jahilliyyah _Age. Therefore their beliefs, social norms are irrelevant, useless and not worthy t0 be learned.  So saying stuff like how the way you think is older then my faith won't convince me or belittle me. Try educating yourself further, that's all i can say.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 4, 2018)

guluboy17 said:


> 1: "All scientific evidence points towards the Abrahamic account of the world being created over one week 8,000 years ago being false." Thanks for admitting your ignorance. No where in Islamic Texts, if you actually studied it, does it say anything about what the False theological thinking of the Christians proclaim.
> "If I wanted to be a good Muslim, must I ignore this evidence and instead believe in the literal creation?" You are merging two theological thinking together. We Are Not 'Christians', We Believe that Allah created the Universe and everything in it for us to glorify his signs and worship him. Not That he created this earth 8000 years ago etc. I suggest you read this article: https://www.thoughtco.com/creation-of-the-universe-2004201
> "Ibn Sina didn't seem to think so; but then again, Al-Ghazali was seen as victorious in that dispute, even though he refused the belief that an effect was caused by its cause!"
> What? Can you evaluate your claims here?
> ...



1. Now you equate drawing a smiley face to rape and murder!
2. That much is clear.  If you believed that your God would be pleased by the brutal rape and murder of a child, you would do it in a heartbeat.  You are a slave, scared of taking responsibility for yourself.  I can only hope you will find peace in your next life.  
It's clear that you're completely unwilling to have a discussion that isn't about how flawless and perfect your faith is.  Be gone, I will no longer engage you.


----------



## guluboy17 (Mar 4, 2018)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. Now you equate drawing a smiley face to rape and murder!
> 2. That much is clear.  If you believed that your God would be pleased by the brutal rape and murder of a child, you would do it in a heartbeat.  You are a slave, scared of taking responsibility for yourself.  I can only hope you will find peace in your next life.
> It's clear that you're completely unwilling to have a discussion that isn't about how flawless and perfect your faith is.  Be gone, I will no longer engage you.


Lmao,  ok. You are just pulling information out of thin air. Way to go, I suppose? Plus, I never stated so. Because that'll give me the _death sentence _you gullible fool. And fine, I won't discuss with you either, you go from topic to topic and it's my fault that I answer all your topics instead of staying on one.


----------



## ConcernedAnon (Mar 4, 2018)

Boy boys stop fighting! This holy autism crusade has claimed too many lives already! @guluboy17 @Senior Lexmechanic


----------



## Maxliam (Mar 4, 2018)

At its core Islam is founded on one of the worst stories in the Old Testament. God said that Ishmael would be a wild ass of a man who will raise his hand against all his brothers and theirs against him. Since Islam draws from the same source material as the other Abrahamic religions, it must admit that it's flawed from the get go.

Also the whole marrying a child and fucking her a few years later, spreading your religion eagerly by the sword, and forbidding things like lifelike art and claiming your prophet flew up to heaven on a pegasus. It's like making a copy (Islam) of a copy (Christianity) of a copy (Zoroastrianism) of Judaism. After a while you start seeing some serious fragmentation. That and immediately after Muhammed's death you see infighting happen. Whereas in Buddhism there was a much smoother transition after his death (even if sects disagree about his very nature you don't really hear them killing each other), Islam splintered really hard with the Sunni/Shia thing.

Islam isn't capable of reform like Christianity since it's in a different era of its "dark ages" with technology at an almost alien level compared to when Christianity and Judaism were developed or in their dark ages. It enables terrorism and extremism to be much more wide reaching and violent compared t back in the day when violence was limited to sheer numbers of followers.

It's basically at a weird stage of development for humanity. Too late to reform, too early to wipe out completely. Basically the flu of religions.


----------



## yukujiab (Mar 9, 2018)

The interview between Tommy Robinson and the Imam of Peace is a very interesting watch


----------



## mindlessobserver (Mar 9, 2018)

Piss Clam said:


> I'm not much of a relgious scholar being agnostic, but the first testement was pretty harsh, while the second seemed to me as a reformation into love they neighbor.
> 
> One would hope that there would be a person who could rise up in Islam and seperate the religion from poltics. Political islam is what is really killing the religion today and more muslims die by muslim hands than anyone else.



The New Testament is no less harsh then the Old Testament, it just serves a different purpose. The Old Testament is all about God pwning people for not living up to his standards. The New Testament is to show everyone what the standard is. Of course, the standard is so perfect we could never live up to it so we literally kill the perfect man who is also an incarnation of God himself. But this is all part of the plan because the perfect man takes the sins of the world on his back so we don't have to meet that perfect standard and instead just have to emulate to the best of our ability. Those who don't get pwnt old testament style (Revelations). 

This is also what allowed for Christianity to be reformed btw. When you acknowledge man is not perfect, you can extend such ideas to the institutions he builds,  like the church. its a very bottom up sort of philosophy. Islam by contrast is top down. The Koran is perfect, therefore any institutions based upon the Koran's teachings are also perfect. If there is a problem with it, the problem is not the Korans teachings or the institutions around it. The problem is YOU.  At best they can argue that people simply misunderstood the Koran, but even that is a stretch in that unlike Christianity, Islam comes fully packaged with a legal system, civil government, and societal organization.


----------



## Elwood P. Dowd (Mar 9, 2018)

Strong Tranni Role Model said:


> It would require secular Muslims to forge an entire new edition of their holy book,



Not as crazy as you might think. _3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon_

Maybe I'm just being , but if the Holy Underwear brigade can do it, I see no reason the goat diddlers can't.


----------



## Henry Wyatt (Mar 15, 2018)

I believe it can be.

Not all Muslims want to cut our heads off, hell one of my Muslim friends wants to join the army to combat terrorism


----------



## ES 148 (Mar 17, 2018)

I think it's been pointed out enough, but the issue is that actual Islam, as taught in the Quran, can never be 'reformed', just like fundamental Biblical literalists are very unlikely to drop their beliefs. The only form of Islam that can coexist with modern society is a very lax, liberal version that is at odds with its own teachings.


----------

