Islam is Ashamed to Reform

As I have said repeatedly before, if one does not interpret the Bible literally, then it becomes clear that by following the example of Christ one is saved, not that Christ died on the cross and excused you from being like Him. This article also says that these scholars are trying to "challenge what had been taken as literal truths and to open wide the doors of interpretation (ijtihad) that some schools of Islam tried to close centuries ago." Literalist dogma is challenged in both cases.

You make the same mistake that Newsweek points out that many Western writers on Islam make:
"The apocalyptic notion of holy war he promoted—and the reality of it that he demonstrated on 9/11—became the dominant vision of Islam for those with little understanding of the faith, whether in the West or, indeed, the Muslim world. Even many religious scholars were intimidated."
You know absolutely nothing about the faith except what you dig up in your efforts to prove that it is inherently evil. Or, to be less inflammatory and more academic: Your only exposure to the faith comes after 9/11, when the media exposure on Osama bin Laden and his fellow radicals made it seem like it was Islam that was evil and crazy. All your efforts to understand it afterwards come from that perspective. I also surmise that you break the scientific method by seeking evidence for your theories and beliefs, rather than letting the evidence inform your beliefs.

A small group of theologians in Germany sure changed Christianity in the 16th Century. The reason they could affect so much change was because many people were dissatisfied with the popular stream of Christianity but didn't have an alternative until Martin Luther and Palz formulated one.

Judaism wasn't spread to the four corners of the earth, but the new formulation taught by a few scholars [Jesus and the disciples] did. Of course, it was only really spread by Constantine, forceful conversion in the Dark Ages, and European imperialism. Likewise, Protestantism spread because of the people holding power, the kings who converted their entire kingdom or principality to Lutheranism or Calvinism or Anglicanism. Christianity didn't spread by populism, although that IS why it has been embraced by many people, no doubt.

There are still militant branches of Christianity as well, that have the same tenets as the Muslim militants. Of course the Westboro Baptists are not as influential in the Christian world as Hezbollah in the Muslim, but these similarities show that there is much that liberal Muslims can learn from Christian civilization's history.

Playing semantics about what is or is not a reformation will keep conservatives in the faith happy - they can reform the faith without angering the public.

Those scholars may well have a huge impact, we won't know until it happens. They have a very good idea, that will appeal to many Muslims without doubt, especially in the West or those aspiring to good relations with the West. With parts of the Muslim world rising out of their dark ages, these good relations can only become more valuable. Not only is it a good idea, it is in a good place to try such a thing. Turkey, of all Muslim nations, is most likely to encourage this work ["The Turkish project, on the other hand, has the quiet backing of the ruling AK Party, the world's most successful, democratically elected party with Islamist roots."] and has the wealth and resources to publish vast quantities for distribution to poorer countries. These countries are also showing signs of interest:

"Many states, even those like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia that have tolerated radicalism in the past, have come to see that their own stability depends on encouraging greater moderation. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has moved to curb the zealous excesses of some 10,000 imams on the government payroll. The government isn't rethinking basic doctrines, one of the king's advisers, who wasn't authorized to speak on the record, told NEWSWEEK: "Let's say there is a theological debate about how to present their ideas and advice to the public." If a woman dresses a little immodestly by Saudi religious standards, it should be enough simply to say that without calling her a harlot, threatening her with punishment or worse. The idea is to tone down the fire and brimstone, which has inspired young Saudis to sign up for jihad in Iraq and elsewhere."

I was not aware that this was happening, judge Bob, but I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for this post.

And yet, everything this article says contradicts that. How peculiar!

You are a Westerner, at least these Westerners spent some time researching Islam [these articles they write probably require them to visit foreign countries too].

It doesn't matter whether or not everyone agrees all at once or not. Opinion can change over time.

"Moe cursed anyone who would change Islam!!! Allah cursed anyone who would change his words!!!"

This is overcome exactly how I said it is overcome, exactly how the scholars themselves said it is overcome:

"The professors involved are quick to deny that their work represents some sort of Islamic Reformation—there is no Martin Luther among them, no theses are being nailed to a door. They call what they're doing a "rethinking" or a "re-understanding" of the sacred texts "according to modern concepts like democracy, human rights, women's rights and universal values," says Gormez. Yet their work has far-reaching potential, given the credibility of the source."

There's no fundamental upheaval or rewriting of texts, there's just a new understanding of the same words.

I never said anything about the 95 Theses or the protest against corrupt authority. I said that "The reason they could affect so much change was because many people were dissatisfied with the popular stream of Christianity but didn't have an alternative until Martin Luther and Palz formulated one." And as this article points out, there is a large popular movement away from radicalism, and this new understanding, this reformulated interpretation of Muslim texts can give the public something to rally around.

This. This is their incentive.

"Across the Muslim world, people appear ready for this new message. Growing middle classes are no longer willing to accept the pieties of peasant life as guides for public and private conduct. "The rules of religion stay the same, but people's attitudes toward religion have changed," says Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose government is working to bring Turkey into the European Union. "The urbanization of the country has brought increased wealth and a different understanding of life.""

"Growing middle classes are no longer willing to accept the pieties of peasant life as guides for public and private conduct ... The urbanization of the country has brought increased wealth and a different understanding of life"

Oh, and Turkey wants in the EU.

Turkey is America's ally, as are Arabia and Pakistan [the other two countries mentioned in this article as open to de-radicalization]. US influence is their friend. US anti-Muslim pressure isn't an incentive to change, as you so deftly noted in the case of Arabia, because US pressure isn't aimed at its three Muslim allies. The pressures come from within; to modernize to urban life, and to meet EU entry criteria.

Well maybe the religion SHOULD lose authority. I doubt the Turks would mind, what with their old struggle for a secular state of Muslims.