I kind of agree with having knowledge of seventh century Arabic. Christians rely on scholars with knowledge of ancient Greek and Hebrew for determining the meaning of passages in the old and new testaments. This is not a one time affair but an ongoing effort as most scholarly pursuits are. new documents are found, archaeology sheds light on passages, and interpretations of what the original meant evolve as scholarship progresses.

But here is the kicker: These scholars are not necessarily men (or women) who are believers. And absolutely no one believes they need to be Christians to be qualified to do this work. There are enough scholars around to debate with them endlessly to keep everyone honest.

There are not that many people with that kind of intimate knowledge of seventh century Arabic to do this work. But some of those who are are definitely not Muslim scholars. One is a former professor I had in college. But he is an American of Hungarian origin and not Muslim. There is more likely than not several Jesuits who would also be qualified.

I like the idea of renovation, but if Muslims really want to do this well, they need to include these sorts of people in the linguistic analysis. If the Islamic renovation movement were open to this, I would have much higher hopes for it. All too often I've heard Muslims say only a Muslim can teach Islam--even super basic Islam for kindergartners. This is nonsense. I am a Christian and took a class on Jesus and his times or something like that from a Jewish professor who did a fine scholarly job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

How would accessibility be increased, if consensus forms that only a priestly elite, one that knows 7th century Arabic, can determine the "right" understanding of the Quran?

Because the interpretation of the Quran as a result of this reform is likely to be less strict, more inclusive, less harsh. None of the translation of the Quran do the Quran justice. Even the ones that provide commentary are inadequate. As a result, verses are taken out of context and used as the justification for abuse. We have to assume that not all of the scholars who studied 7th century Arabic have an unbending, strict interpretation of the Quran.

There are scholars who have a more rational interpretation of the Quran. For example, Muhammad Asad. I believe CAIR distributes his Qurans only. I might be mistaken in this, but I'm pretty sure.

Anonymous wrote:If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

How would accessibility be increased, if consensus forms that only a priestly elite, one that knows 7th century Arabic, can determine the "right" understanding of the Quran?

If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

Isn't one of the pros of Sunni Islam is that it really is accessible to the ordinary person? I'd hate to see that disappear, with interpretation given over to some priestly or scholarly class.

Here is a web site I found today explaining Quranic Arabic. It contains tafsir links, original Arab manuscript links, dictionary links, etc…

http://islam.uga.edu/quran.html

..for those interested in trying to doing a bit of their investigative work on understanding the Quran.

TY, PP.

Sorry for the typos. It was late at night, which is often times the only time I have to write longer posts.

I hope other posters don't get the feeling that I am trying to convert them to Islam. I just don't want people to misunderstand Islam.

You are correct and I agree with your concern that those who understand 7th century Arabic are usually Wahabi scholars who have been accused before of interpreting the Quran too literally. There are apparently a few hundred such scholars in the world, however, and SOME of them are not Wahabi. I don't know if Dr. Jamal Badawi has a background in linguistics but I do hope scholars like him will be involved in the reform. His knowledge is extensive but it is not confined by a literal interpretation of the Quran.

In his lecture, I believe Shaykh Yusuf is saying that the interpretation of Quranic Arabic should be in the context of the 7th century Arabic spoken by the Quraish tribe (the tribe of Prophet Muhammad). If it was interpreted in the context of modern Arabic, the Quran might lose it's original meaning because words may have additional meanings today.

As far as the reform itself, I think what is likely to change if, in fact, there is reform, is the interpretation of the rules of war, Jihad, the treatment of apostates, and women's rights. These are the areas that have been the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, and even corrupted.

I don't, however, think that the the religion itself will fundamentally change. Only the interpretation will improve. Homosexuality and lesbianism, premarital sex, alcohol, consumption of pork, associating partners with God, and deifying prophets or religious people are not likely to be permitted in the reform.

OK, I like Yusuf. I'm not converting, but I like him. Thank you for summarizing, it looks like you put a lot of work into this.

I think what you're saying is that any group that gets power (Ottomans, IS) is liable to bend scripture to suit their own purposes, so a renovation is needed.

Is he saying that re-interpretation should be done strictly within what you call "the ambiguous nature of the the language of Arabic" (your 16th hyphen)? Or should reinterpretation be broader than that, going to the applicability of 7th century rules to the 21st century?

I do think he's already started on interpreting the Quran for himself, to the extent he disagrees with others on issues like jihad. Or maybe jihad has always been subject to interpretation.

I also worry about the limitations he puts on re-interpreting the Quran, i.e. that it should be done by scholars who have studied the Quran and who know 7th century Arabic. Given the innate conservatism of scholars in fields like this (any scholarly field, not just Islam! for example, my own completely unrelated school of research!), I wonder how much re-interpretation/reform would actually emerge.

I also wonder about giving this responsibility to sort of elite group that regular people might have trouble holding accountable. As one example, you posted your last para about bin Baya, but I think both you and I are completely unable to evaluate his conclusion.

Rather than write a summary I decided to just provide bullet points of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson's lecture. There's a question and answer session at the end which I have not covered. I have also not covered the other lecturers speech, Tariq Ramadan. Maybe another time.

- Shaykh Yusuf asks "Can we make the Quran a 'living' Quran to reflect today's time?"
- This question is asked in response to the recent events in the news. Islam now inspires the same terror as communism once did to the Capitalist West. When a group of people are up against the wall, they usually respond in one of two ways:
a) The conquered group becomes like the conqueror (this is called Herodism)
b) Or it gives rise to zealotism (full rigidity)
- Both, however, are not successful and are dead ends
- Prophet Muhammad himself spoke of a concept called "Islahq" (spelling?). He said "Blessed are the people who are Islahq." When asked who the Islahq people are, he said, "People who rectify after others have corrupted it.
- So implication here is that the Sharia can be corrupted
and the more important implication is that there is actually a NEED for people to rectify it if it has become corrupted.
- Shaykh Yusuf does not lie the word reform, he prefers "renovation" be used, because it implies the foundation of our religion is intact, it just needs repair.
- He said Muslims of the 19th century would not recognize Muslims of today at all because our Muslim society has changed so much.
- For example, in the past, it was not prohibited for women to lead prayer. Women most definitely can lead prayer so long as it's from the back because in the front it potentially distracts the men who sit there.
- In the past, scholar knew that when they spoke to the Quran or hadith, they were not dictating God's law. They knew all along they were interpreting God's law.
- In the past, there were clear prohibitions of anyone calling a fatwa a rule of God. They were not. They were simply interpreting God's law.
- Muslims always recognized diversity and difference of opinion so there's no reason why reform/renovation should not be welcome or accepted.
- However in considering reform or renovation, there are some things which may never be changed and they are called "thawabbit" in Arabic. These are concepts such as, but not limited to, who God is, basic diet restrictions, prophesy, and afterlife.
- However, we can most certainly change our UNDERSTANDINGS of the Quran.
- There are very strict boundaries to renovate islam! It should not be attempted without respecting these boundaries
a) The Quran can only be interpreted in the language it was revealed, which was 7th century Arabic.
b) The Quran should never be interpreted by anyone else who isn't trained in 7th century Arabic.
- The greatest human achievement has been that the preservation of the Quran. There are people who have studied 7th century Arabic very well and they need to be involved in the reform/renovation.
-Given the ambiguous nature of the the language of Arabic, it should be understood that verses can be reinterpreted in light of new knowledge.
- Many people are scared of reforming the interpretation of the Quran:
q) To them, a reformed islam is not real Islam
b) They worry it is a BI'DAH (innovation)
- Fear holds true for Muslims but not in America and Europe because western Muslims are broad minded and accepting.
- Shaykh Yusuf says that the fundamental thrust of Islam was that it was always a reformist movement to begin with. Prophet Muhammad reformed the Abrahamic movement.
- A question that may arise when reforming the Quran is, should government be involved? No.
a) Muslims and Muslim jurists were libertarians, had a mistrust of government involvement.
b) Associating with government tarnishes reputation because often times governments have different, conflicting motives.
- Prophet Muhammad had a saying: Worst scholars are at the door of the government and the best scholars are the ones who are at the door of scholars.
- Muslims do not have the intellectual tools to navigate religion in unchartered waters and therefore, we have the serious problem of violence in civil society.
- Islam is a peaceful religion. The Prophet disdained war. He said, "Never hope to meet your enemy, but if you have to, then meet them with bravery in the battlefields."
- We also have the new problem of "google shaykhs." People who are unqualified are issuing fatwas from caves. For example, Osama bin Laden issued fatwas. But he is not qualified to do so. He is no more than an accountant.
- He closes his speech with an example of how imperative it is for the right people to be interpreting the Quran and hadith:

A fatwa was issued by the city of Mardeen in Turkey long ago. The ruler of that city was not applying the Shaira because he was too much under the influence of the mongols at the time, who were not Muslim yet. The fatwa stated,"Believers should be treated in accordance as a believer and disbelievers should be fought if they leave the Sharia." Shaykh Abdullah bin Baya felt this fatwa was incorrect and not in accordance with Islam so he returned to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to check the original text of the fatwa. This was a 100 year old fatwa. The city of Mardeen had misread the fatwa. In the original text, the fatwa read as follows: "Believers should be treated in accordance as a believer, and disbelievers should be treated as if they left the Shaira." This makes sense because there are a host of different rules that apply for disbelievers versus believers. Nowhere did it mention the word "fighting." Apparently there was a misprint and ever since then that fatwa has been misread and published everywhere with the misprint. So it is very, very important for the right people, those who are educated in 7th century Arabic to be entrusted with the responsibility of rectifying the corruption in Quranic translation.

Anonymous wrote:This is interesting, the concept of reform in Islam, because in earlier threads I believe it was Muslima that stated that Islam was perfect and timeless the way it is. That it withstands the centuries and doesn't need reform like Christian and Jewish religions.


I'm all for an Islamic Reformation, the world needs it.

Muslima was correct. As Sheik Yusuf explains, some things can be changed, but some things can not. I'll send out a summary soon.

I just tried that link I posted. Doesn't seem to work. I'll try to repost or summarize later!

Anonymous wrote:Thanks! Can you summarize what he says about taking Quranic verses literally?

Would be happy to later tonight or tomorrow. I'm not as eloquent as some on DCUM but I will try.

This is interesting, the concept of reform in Islam, because in earlier threads I believe it was Muslima that stated that Islam was perfect and timeless the way it is. That it withstands the centuries and doesn't need reform like Christian and Jewish religions.


I'm all for an Islamic Reformation, the world needs it.

Thanks! Can you summarize what he says about taking Quranic verses literally?

Yusuf gave a 2 hour lecture at Oxford University on this subject. I watched half of the video last night. If anyone is interested here's the entire transcript. It's lengthy but discusses whether it would be permissible for Muslims to reform (or "renovate" ) the way Islam is interpreted. Short answer is yes.

I hope that what we all took away from the arguing on the Islam threads is that
1) There is no one interpretation of Islam that speaks for all 1.6 billion people
2) Peaceful Muslims can not be held resposible for the atrocities committed by extremists
3) The Sharia, hadith, or even scholarly views are not infallible and some parts may be corrupted
4) However, reform (or "renovation") is indeed possible. It's a long way off but possible.

Transcript for Rethinking Reform


Transcript Details
Event Name: Rethinking Reform
Transcript Author: Organization
Description: The Rethinking Islamic Reform organization transcribed their own event. Better to follow the link above, as their website has everything formatted nicely.
Date Transcribed: 1/1/2010 12:00:00 AM
Original URL: http://www.rethinkingislamicreform.co.uk/transcript


Transcript Text
Rethinking Islamic Reform conference on behalf of Oxford University Islamic society.
SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON KEYNOTE ADDRESS

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF HANSON: Bismillah al-Rahman Al-Rahim. Allahumma salli wa sallim 'alaa Sayyidina Muhammad wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallim tasleeman katheera. Wa la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah al ‘aliy al ‘adheem In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate and peace and prayers be upon the prophets of God and upon our prophet Muhammad. Alhamdulilah. #00:16:25-9#

YUSUF*[1]: I'm going try to address each one of these points that I've been asked to address but before that I would like to preface my remarks by talking about a specific problem that we have when we look at the Islamic tradition, when we look at Islam as a faith and when we are addressing an audience that contains both peoples from the Islamic faith of various obvious types and backgrounds and then of western people. In science, you have what are called 'non-complementary paradigms' and to give an example of that, Newtonian Physics is a certain way of viewing the world and it works at a certain level, but if you attempt to apply Newtonian Physics to Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't work - you have a non-complementary system attempting to address things that are very different and need a different language to describe them and a different theoretical basis to make sense of them. In many ways, the post-industrial, increasingly post-modern Western Liberalism is akin to Quantum Mechanics and the Islamic tradition is more akin to Newtonian Physics; and so when the two of us attempt to talk, we're speaking completely different languages and it really creates a massive barrier.

[ Edited to comply with copyright laws. ]