Should Western Governments Empower Reformist Muslims?

My friend Dan Miller has written a thought provoking piece making the case for supporting Reformist Muslims. His argument rests on this main assertion:

I believe that we should help the Muslim reformation to enhance the ability of American Muslims to accept the parts of Islam they want and to reject the parts they don’t want.

This is an issue that I have been grappling with for some time. I have watched many debates and listened to the opinions of ex-Muslims versus Reformist Muslims, most recently in Gaad Saad interviews which I find very informative. I have studied Islamic Doctrine contained in the trilogy as well as the important and influential works by Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, S. K. Malik and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. One of my main areas of focus has been the Muslim Brotherhood and their insidious ciilization jihad.

While I usually limit my comments on this blog, having made the decision early on to maintain a “just the facts, Ma’am” approach to a counter jihad news aggregation site, I feel it is time to lay out my position on reform of Islam and the political considerations in official government support of reformists.

First of all, I think we need to be careful with our terminology. I will refer to Islamic Doctrine instead of “Islam” because when people hear the word Islam they automatically think we are referring to the doctrine as well as all Muslims. Second, I do not believe it is helpful to add qualifiers such as “radical” before the words Islam or jihad. Individual Muslims may be “moderate” but Islamic Doctrine is radical. Qualifiers are used in order to not offend Muslims. The terms Islamism, Islamist and political Islam are okay with me because in my mind they denote orthodox Islamic activism.

We must not conflate what indvidual Muslims believe with what Islamic Doctrine says. Islamic Doctrine is fixed. There are many passages in the Quran that warn Muslims against using critical thought to reinterpret the word of Allah. The Sunnah of  Mohammad (Hadith and Sira) also warns against this and Muslims scholars have declared  the “gates of ijtihad” to be closed. Therefore, I consider reformists to actually be “rejectionists” who will have to somehow abrogate all of the content they deem to be incompatible with modernity. This is probably an impossible undertaking since Al-Azhar, the only central authority on Islam, will never agree to it. And it would take generations to achieve the type of cultural and political changes that would be required to effect a reform that the majority of Muslims could agree on. My personal wish is that more Muslims will leave Islam as they learn more about the misogyny, jihad and bigotry in their doctrine.

Most Muslims are not well versed on Islamic Doctrine and rely on their Imams to inform them. This includes some reformers. Westernized Muslims are loathe to confront the ugly truth inherent in their religion. But a public awareness campaign is absolutely necessary and reformers must be held to account on what Islamic Doctrine actually says. This includes sharia. So far, I have not been convinced that reformers like Zhudi Jasser, Raheel Razza and Majid Nawaz are being totally honest about it. But they are at least trying. And to the extent that their efforts are publicized, the worldwide debate advances. More debate is a good thing!

I agree with Dan that we should not judge who is a real Muslim or not. Muslims themselves do enough of that with violent consequences. Rather, we should recognize that some self-identifying Muslims do not adhere strictly to Islamic Doctrine. With support in the West, their numbers may grow.  There are probably many Muslims who are secret apostates.

This brings me to the central question I am pondering here. Should Western governments empower Reformist Muslims? Would their numbers increase enough to make a difference with government sponsorship? Would this be a waste of taxpayer money? Whether you believe that Islamic Doctrine can be reformed or not, should we at least support those who are  willing to try? Should we try to help create a safe space for Muslims to criticize their religion? Can reformist Muslims help with counterterrrorism efforts? If the Muslim Brotherhood is declared a terrorist organization, could we transfer control of American Mosques to reform minded Muslims? As long as we are strictly honest about what Islamic Doctrine says, I am inclined to say yes.

What do you think?


15 thoughts on “Should Western Governments Empower Reformist Muslims?

  1. No reform of Islam is possible while the Muslim Brotherhood and their multitude of Offshoots is still around. The Muslim Brotherhood has been infiltrating the West including the USA since the 1920s and is well entrenched in all aspects of Society.
    The likelihood that the Muslim Brotherhood would just simply give up their desire to establish an Islamic Caliphate Globally until only Islam remains is as much a Fairy Tale as Islam is a religion of Peace is a Fairy Tale.

    • I hate to be the one to rain on the reformist Muslims’ parade, but there is no case that can be made for supporting reformist Muslims.

      Islam is not a buffet lunch where you can pick and choose what you do or do not like…it is a take it or leave it theocracy. Islam cannot and never will be reformed…this is a pipe dream by those who do not understand Islam.

      Why cannot Islam ever be reformed? Islam is comprised of the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed and is considered to be sacred, perfect, eternal, universal, and final. Anyone attempting to reform Islam will be charged with blasphemy and killed.

      • Jennifer Breedon, Legal Analyst, Clarion Project. Ms. Breedon is coming across as an apologist for Islam and displaying dhimmitude, the mind of the dhimmi. Watch the video and listen to her comments yourself…you be the judge. I expected better from someone representing the Clarion Project.

  2. I am not even going to waste my time reading this article. I realize there are several different branches of muslime/islime theology. This article starts with this comment — “…..accept the parts of Islam they want and to reject the parts they don’t want….” — which is asking muslimes/islimes to give up part of their Quran. Why would they? Are you next going to ask me to give up the parts of the Bible that I don’t want and to keep the parts I want. REALLY!!!! You either believe all of the Bible or you do not believe all of the Bible. There is no in between. You simply cannot be half pregnant!! Yes, Christian’s and our modern day religious leaders have watered down the Bible to such an extent that in a lot of churches you would never know that the Bible is the book they are following. That does not make it right. Look at what has happened to Christianity because far to many Christian’s think they can pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe and adhere to. Not so!!! Besides you will never ever change my belief’s on two issues — Abortion and Sodomy. I will go to my grave believing these two things are so wrong and such an affront to God Almighty that he is punishing this world for allowing these two things to happen.

    • Deciding to accept or reject an article based on reading only the first few sentences is generally a mistake. It is always better to read–or at least scan–an entire article. Then any responses would focus on what actually is in the article, not on what is assumed is in the article.

      I appreciated reading it, as it gave me some information I did not already have, and helped me think a little more in depth about the original question than I have already.


    This is very informative and everyone needs to read it from start to finish and send it on to others.

    Theologically – NO. . . Because Muslims submit only to Allah – originally the supreme god of Pagan Arabia- and hence most definitely not the same as the God of Jesus, Moses or Abraham.

    Religiously – NO. . . Because no other religion is accepted by Allah except Islam (Submission to Allah).

    Al Imran 3: 85 “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost”

    Scripturally – NO. . . Because Muslims’ allegiance is to Sharia based upon Muhammad’s Quran and Sunna.

    Textually – NO … Because Muhammad’s Quran is Hatemongering, Warmongering, Misogynist, Racist, Intolerant, Disloyal, Duplicitous and hence UNGODLY.
    Geographically – NO. . . Because Muslims bow in reverence to Mecca in Arabia, to which they turn in prayer five times a day.

    Socially – NO. . . Because a Muslim’s devotion to Islam forbids him from making friends with Christians and Jews ~

    Al Mai’da 5: 51 “O ye who believe! take not the Jews [Yahood] and the Christians [Nasara] for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them…”

    Al Tauba 9: 29 “Fight [qatiloo] those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth [ISLAM] (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians & Jews] until they pay the Jizya [onerous penalty for not being a Muslim] with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated”

    Loyally – NO … Because a Muslim’s allegiance is primarily to ALL other Muslims all over the globe.
    Ishaq:231 “Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders.”

    Politically – No. . . Because Muslims must submit to the mullahs (spiritual Leaders), who teach equal opportunity HATRED for ALL those who are not followers of Muhammad (currently 80% of humanity called Ummat al Kuffar/ Nation of Infidels) as well as calls for the destruction of Western Civilization (Christianity).

    Al Fath 48: 13 “And if any believe not in Allah and His Apostle We have prepared for those who reject Allah a Blazing Fire!

    Domestically – No. . . Because Muslims are instructed to marry up to four women and to beat and scourge their wives when they disobey them

    Al Nisaa 4:34 “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other and because they support them from their means. … As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct admonish them; refuse to share their beds; beat them …”

    Legally – No. . . Because Muslims cannot accept the American Constitution as binding since it is not from Allah’s Sharia as well as they believe the Bible is corrupted.

    Culturally- NO… Because Muslims belong to a culture that prefers Death more than Life.

    Ibrahim 14: 3 “Those who love the life of this world more than the Hereafter who hinder (men) from the Path of Allah and seek therein something crooked: they are astray by a long distance”

    Constitutionally – No. . . Because Sharia is the nemesis of Democracy; it does not allow for freedoms of religion, expression or belief. Democracy and Islam is an oxymoron; a state of affairs that cannot possibly co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial, autocratic or theocratic.

    Spiritually – No. . . Because the Christians’ God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent attributes.

    This is why Muslims in Europe and the USA are so quiet and not speaking out about all the world wide atrocities allegedly committed by so called ‘radical’ Muslims.

    Not once has there been a major demonstration – whether in Europe or the USA – by the so called ‘silent majority’ Muslims expressing their revulsion at acts of terror committed by these alleged ‘radicals’ shouting out loud “NOT IN OUR NAME!”

    Muhammad said: SILENCE means CONSENT!

    Therefore, after much study and deliberation…. Perhaps Europeans and Americans should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in their country.

    They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Europeans or Americans. Call it what you will, these are the FACTS based entirely in chapter and verse upon their scripture.

    Humanity had better believe it. The more who understand these realities, the better it will be for humanity and their future generations.

    This is NOT a clash of Civilizations but a clash of Beliefs.


    IQ al Rassooli
    Kafir & Proud!

  4. The ideology beneath nationalism is Hegels dialectic philosophy projected on the state. This was the first deviation from Aristoteles dialectics to discover the truth through contradictions. Karl Marx created the second deviation from Aristoteles dialectics in projecting dialectical reasoning on the labor theory of value. Aristoteles (Averroes) dialectics are diametrical opposed to the philosophy of dualism behind islam. Islamic dualism means that both truth and lies (taqiyya) are truth when it promotes the supremacy of islam (sharia). Western philosophy is corrupted after 100 years of socialist dialectics of redistribution and multicultural victimhood which has been spread through the educational system of western countries leaving them inferior to the dualism of islam. Russia’s (Putin) geo-polical doctrine to divide the world between Russia and the US is inferior to the dualism of islam. Russia thinks to command the Shia and offers the US to command the Sunni. But both Sunni and Shia are only waring each other to have the winner destroy the West.

  5. I just updated the article with a quote from an article titled Kurdistan Independence Referendum and Why It Matters so Much in the Fight Against Radical Islam. Here’s the quote:

    Most Kurds are Muslim, but reject religious rule in favor of secular governance so that all religious people and ethnic minorities can have fair and equal representation. The Kurds have adopted secular lifestyles seen just by visiting the capitol city of Erbil where you’ll hear American music, see a booming economy, or have conversations about new business enterprises. If you’re lucky, you may run into the Erbil Men’s Club. Kurds don’t identify as “Sunni” or “Shia” at the outset. While they will openly say what religion they practice, they refuse to allow their identity to be encompassed in the sectarian strife they’ve witnessed throughout the Middle East. They want no form of oppressive sharia law in their governance to promote the rights of women and minorities. In fact, Kurdish government mandates that 30% of Parliament members be women. I witnessed that firsthand and it looks a lot like the United States: churches, mosques, and synagogues side-by-side with equal numbers and mutual respect between all religious leaders.

    • Keeping sharia out of the constitution is key. It seems that their Kurdish identity is more important to them than their Islamic identity.

  6. When the doctrine is removed from the Trilogy the religious component of Islam only comprises about 21% of the total. And, interestingly, should that be done the faith is more akin to Judaism than a separate and distinct belief structure.
    For those reasons I am not convinced reform is even possible.

    • I agree with you Jane. I think it is highly unlikely that attempts to declare only portions of Islamic doctrine valid such as the “Quran only” movement, which denies the authenticity of the Sunnah, will succeed in getting consensus. But the process of reform attempts will be very educational in bringing to light the truth.

Comments are closed.