In light of all the strife and tragedy that has emerged from the Middle East, many people look to Islam as the foremost cause of all this. Comedian and late-night talk show host Bill Maher professes quite frequently that Islam’s dogma is uniquely violent and backward. "When there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard," Maher recites on his show.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are voices like Reza Aslan who argue, "Islam doesn’t promote violence or peace," and contend the violence and human-rights violations in the region are solely attributable to political instability and cultural conservatism, as well as the radicalism of individual countries. So, as it stands now, the apparent divide is between those who view Islam as the root cause of the region’s destabilization and those who maintain Islam has nothing to do with all of the apparent violence.
Both perspectives have flaws in their own right, but this piece is about neither of these perspective nor which is more correct. This piece focuses on those who take the "Islam is the ‘root cause’" perspective another step further by asserting, "Islam needs a reformation," and there will only be peace in the Middle East once Islam undergoes such a drastic change. Naturally, one should ask: What do advocates of a "reformation" think that would mean and how would such a reformation apply to modern Islam?
First and foremost, consider that among those who champion a reformation in the Muslim world, there is no consistent definition of what such a reformation entails. Somali-born activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali contends an Islamic reformation entails a reimagining of how to interpret the Quran, a reimaging consistent with 21st-century values. Meanwhile, other "reformation" advocates like Maj. Chad Pillai argue the reformation is already underway, in which he compares the current violence between Islamic powers with the religious wars of Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries.
The call for an Islamic reformation alludes to the reformation of Western Europe, and the transition from religiously claimed lands to politically independent nation states, as provisioned by the milestone 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. Looking back, many associate the Protestant Reformation with the push toward the Enlightenment and modernization of Western values.
Yet, the religious wars in Europe, the Napoleonic Empire, the French and American Revolutions, World War I and World War II stand as clear examples as to how the Peace of Westphalia and Protestant Reformation also led to immense violence. So while the West currently deals with far less internal violence than the Middle East, proposing that solutions for the Middle East model themselves after the complex, violent history of the West is not ideal.
Another inherent danger in advocating an Islamic "reformation" by comparing the path of Islam to the path of Western Europe is it establishes a Christian vs. Islamic — modernity vs. backwardness or good vs. bad — lens through which to analyze the violence in the Middle East. These perspectives, in turn, distract the conversation away from the true victims of Islamic violence: innocent Muslim civilians who have no stake in the fight and simply want to live in peace.
To conflate the idealized notion of a religious reformation with the current Muslim world is, in my view, to misrepresent. The conditions of 16th-century Europe are not the same as those of 21st-century Middle East. Consequently, the solution to addressing radical Islam in the 21st century should be unique rather than a replica of the West’s history of confronting religious strife.
So, the next time you encounter the argument of "Islam needs a reformation," I would encourage you to consider not only what a "reformation" would truly consist of, but also the complex dynamics of the Middle East and radical Islam. Then develop your own opinion as to what the Middle East needs — you will find the answer is not so straightforward.
David Hoffman is a UF history and physics sophomore. His column appears on Tuesdays.
