Pipes praises Islamic reform effort, then pops the balloon

Daniel Pipes is writing about—guess what?—a new effort to reform Islam! Yes! This one is taking place in Turkey, it’s called the Hadith Project, and it’s aimed at getting rid of many of the hadiths, or traditional sayings of Muhammad, that are considered less reliable or less suited for modern life. He makes the project sound promising, and he quotes various participants who enthusiastically speak of it as the equivalent of the Protestant Reformation and such like. (Among the enthusiasts is Mustafa Aykol, whose attempt to relativize the Ottoman regime’s treatment of non-Muslims was dismantled by Robert Spencer at a FrontPage Magazine symposium). But then Pipes quotes another Turkish source, Hashim Hashimi, a former member of the Turkish parliament, who says:

“There are established views on Islam and how it should be practiced that have been in place for 1400 years. And they aren’t going to change any time soon.”

Oh.

How surprising!

In the end Pipes concludes:

[T]he Hadith Project will limit itself to the relatively easy social issues and avoid the tougher political ones in order to fashion an ideologically more defensible Islam even while maintaining some of its more problematic aspects….

[T]he project might forward Islamism more than modernize Islam. [Italics added.] True reform awaits true reformers—not Islamist functionaries but independent, modern individuals intent on aligning Islam with the best of modern mores.

So Daniel still pipes the same old tune. To each new Islamic “reformer” and “reform” effort that pops into view, he gives initial credence, but each time in the end he turns around, snaps his fingers disconsolately, and says, “Darn, this isn’t it, either. But I’m not giving up, I’m still on the lookout for a real Islamic reform effort! And I’ll keep letting you know about each new candidate as soon as it appears on the scene.”

But why keep leading us up the garden path, only to tell us, nope, this isn’t the garden path? Why keep repeating the same thing, the next same utopian hope that must end in disappointment, over and over? Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Excuse me, the definition of liberalism? Why won’t Pipes just admit, once and for all, that Islam cannot be reformed, and then start helping the West set about the real business of defending itself from Islam?

But I just answered my own question, didn’t I? As long as one is committed to the liberal dream of a single world in which differences of culture, religion, nation, and civilization melt away and all people everywhere become members of the same cosmopolis, one cannot give up the hope of a reformed Islam.

- end of initial entry -

Mark K. writes:

“As long as one is committed to the liberal dream of a single world in which differences of culture, religion, nation, and civilization melt away and all people everywhere become members of the same cosmopolis, one cannot give up the hope of a reformed Islam.”

Perhaps we could call these people as Kumbayistas (as in the universal hymn—“Kumbaya My Lord”—sung around campfires by idealistic children as they hold hands together and sway). We have fashionistas, why not Kumbayistas?

Ken Hechtman writes:

I also am not optimistic about this effort’s chances of success. Muslim reformers have previously avoided making new claims of unreliability as a way of challenging hadiths, not because they didn’t have the education or the resources to do it but because, given the existing consensus on the hadiths in Islam, it’s a loser argument.

As the Pipes article says, some hadiths are considered “strong,” some “weak” and others “fabricated.” But which are which has long been a settled question in all the schools of Islam. Reliability arguments were based on the chain of oral transmission from Mohammed. At some point in the very distant past there stopped being any new reliability evidence to bring forward, and debate on the subject was closed. It would take the equivalent of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls to open it up again.

In any case, “weak” hadiths leave Muslims a whole lot of room to rationalize doing whatever they want. You know the famous “Greater Jihad/Lesser Jihad” hadith? Al Qaeda supporters and opponents can go ‘round and ‘round in circles forever on that one.

“It says so in The Hadith.”

“Yes, but it’s a weak hadith.”

“Weak doesn’t mean fabricated. It’s still in the book.”

“Weak hadiths only need to be followed under certain conditions.”

“And those conditions apply now.”

“No they don’t.”

“Yes they do.”

“Do not!”

“Do too!”

And on and on and on.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 22, 2008 04:10 PM | Send