Where is Islam's Martin Luther? It's a question that many of us who speak or write about Islam in public forums encounter repeatedly. It's also a question that permeates newspaper editorials and the blogosphere. The question occasionally comes from Muslims, but I hear it more frequently from Protestant Christians who have concluded that Islam is a rigid, oppressive religion in desperate need of a Reformation and a Martin Luther if it is going to be "saved."
I hate this question. It's the wrong one for Christians to ask for two reasons. For starters, it reflects a lack of knowledge of Islam. Islam does have the concepts of reform (islah) and revival/renewal (tajdid), and even a cursory study of contemporary Islamic history reveals an array of important reformers, from Muhammad Abduh and Sayyid Ahmad Khan of the nineteenth century to present-day Muslim feminists Fatima Mernissi and Leila Ahmed, not to mention the prominent Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan (ironically considered by some to be a Muslim Martin Luther). To be sure, this is a very diverse group, but what they all share is a commitment to putting Islamic scriptures and traditions into conversation with the West and the modern world.
But the question is deeply troubling on another level. It reflects a Protestantized narrative of a mythical figure, a savior who liberated Christians from the big bad Catholic Church and the heavy burdens it placed on ordinary Christians to achieve salvation through ritualistic obligations and the performance of good works. The huge problem with this narrative lies not simply in its latent anti-Catholicism but in its failure to take into account the entirety of Luther's legacy -- the good, the bad, and the ugly.
As a religious historian at a college named for the sixteenth-century German reformer, I have an obligation to expose my students to the historical Luther, warts and all. What my students learn is that Luther's ideas on justification by faith and the priesthood of all believers changed the course of Christianity and Western history. And they learn that these ideas were met with enthusiasm by plenty of Europeans who found in them a breath of fresh air, a new and inspiring way to practice the faith.
What they also learn is that not everyone in Europe felt liberated by Luther. Jews certainly didn't. Luther labeled them a "miserable and accursed" group, a "whoring people" who are nothing more than "thieves and robbers." His advice for how Christians should deal with them was "to set fire to their synagogues or schools," to have their homes "razed and destroyed," to confiscate their prayer books, and to abolish safe conduct for them on highways, among other things. His views on Jews were not new to European history, but for a man known for reform and change, here is one area where that was sorely missing.
Plenty of women didn't necessarily find liberation in Luther's reforms either. True, some women who had been confined to convents against their will did welcome Luther's decision to close down convents and monasteries. They gladly embraced the vocation of wife and mother that Luther touted so highly over against the life of a nun. But there were plenty of women who still wanted the opportunity to embrace a religious vocation and to live a life for God apart from the direct supervision of men. These women also appreciated the educational opportunities that convents afforded them that did not exist for laywomen. Some of these nuns were among the fiercest opponents of Luther's Reformation, seeing in it not greater but lesser freedom and opportunity.
What's more, while Luther may have elevated a woman's vocation as wife and mother, he certainly didn't elevate women as such. Like almost every medieval theologian before him, Luther viewed women as the weaker, more carnal, and less rational part of human nature. God created women primarily for the purpose of procreation, though after the Fall, they were also useful as "a medicine against the sin of fornication."
Perhaps the most obvious group not to find freedom or liberation in Luther's Reformation was the hosts of Catholic laypersons who were largely content with their religion and who resisted Luther's reform efforts. Historians have done an excellent job in recent decades of uncovering the stories of ordinary women and men throughout sixteenth-century Europe who continued to attend Mass, confess their sins to a priest, perform works of penance, and put their hope in the mediation of the Catholic Church for their salvation and for coping with the challenges of daily living. This is an important point in light of the question we began with. When Protestants ask, "Where is Islam's Martin Luther?", they are often assuming that Luther was the answer to every Christian's "problems" back in the day. He wasn't. The same holds true today.
A closer look at Luther's Reformation reveals that there were plenty of things that he did not change, plenty of views that he held that many modern Christians might not find befitting of the "savior" of Christianity. With the historical Luther, we discover that old prejudices were perpetuated, marginalized groups remained marginalized, and intolerance of religious "others" (Catholics, Jews, and Muslims) was the norm. Certainly this is not what Protestants want for Islam?
My purpose here is not to beat up on Luther but to encourage Christians to move beyond the problematic assumptions about him and their own tradition that undermine the much-needed dialogue between Christians and Muslims today. When Christians call for a Muslim Martin Luther, they are assuming not only that Islam lacks reformers but that Luther's particular version of Christianity is a perfect model that any would-be Muslim reformer should strive to emulate. This is not a recipe for successful interfaith dialogue or relationships - it's a recipe for Protestant triumphalism and self-righteousness. And it's a sign that the time has come for many Christians, Protestant and otherwise, to start doing their homework concerning their own religious traditions so that they can be equipped to ask much better questions of the traditions of others.
Muqtedar Khan: Ramadan: A Month of Longing
They should just say mujeddid. And the guided mujeddid he is the mahdi. He stands upon the huda, the huda that's why he's called mahdi. He's founded upon the huda now. Remember I told you all I was the mujeddid, now I'm messiah/mahdi. But I don't like the word messiah. I like mujeddid/mahdi." IWDM 1995
For those of us in the Muslim African American community Imam W Deen Mohammed was known as a Mujeddid and a Mahdi. In the early years of Imam Mohammed's leadership he introduced us to these terms and gave us practical meanings to them and said that he was a Mujeddid and the Mahdi. Even the top ulema in Saudi Arabia viewed Imam Mohammed as a mujeddid. But later he backed off using those descriptions for himself and encouraged us to see him only as an Imam because it caused too many problems to the immigrant muslim community. They thought we were seeing Imam Mohammed in some kind of supernatural way and the way they understood those terms it came across as spooky. Actually all the term "mujeddid" means is one who comes to restore, revive, reform or bring back the newness of the original and the term "mahdi" means one who is rightly guided.
He certainly presented al-Islam to our community in a way that restored our lives considering where we came from; up from slavery to freedom. And Allah definitely was guiding him.
Now how is the Christ going to be also the mahdi? I mean this madhi is going to be also the messiah. But not messiah in the prophetic line understand that. Now how is he going to be that? Because this mujeddid is going to be educated by G'd and it's in the hadith, says "He is going to teach him". It's in the hadith. I've read the hadith. G'd will teach this mujeddid and when G'd teaches him then he becomes mahdi. He's not only mujeddid he is messiah/mahdi. I don't think they should have used the term messiah. I think they should have used mujeddid and mahdi, but they used messiah and it's confusing. Because the term for messiah is mujeddid after the prophet. Right? So they shouldn't say messiah. By: IWDM
a fantastic article-both enlightening and entertaining :-)
I would say we should support all Muslims who are in harmony with American values. This includes very close to 100% of our millions of fellow Americans who worship as Muslims, as well as the vast majority of Muslims around the world.
Islam has roughly the same percentage of extremist, intolerant, tolerant and accepting people that every religion has.
Extremists and repressive governments are everyone's problem, but they represent a tiny percentage of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims.
We are the only Islamic organization to believe that the long-awaited messiah has come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908). Ahmad claimed to be the metaphorical second coming of Jesus and the divine guide, whose advent was foretold by Muhammad as well as all great religions. We believe that God sent Ahmad, like Jesus, to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and re institute morality, justice and peace.
Through the divine guidance only the true reformation can take place. We are the foremost Islamic organization with a central spiritual leader — a Khalifa. We believe that only spiritual successor ship can uphold the true values of Islam and unite humanity.
www.muslimsforpeace.org
I care about women rights. So does the Ahmadiyya Community allow their women to marry non-muslims? Do they still have the rule about 4 wives? What about age of marriage? Divorce, rape?
Please share with us. Is the Ahmadiyya community more flexible and compatible with the 21st century?
Islam protects womens rights and gave such rights to women 1400 years ago which modern women got recently. eg. right to inherit, right to education (its mandatory for both men and women) Many of such rights were given to women in recent centuries only (outside Islam).
I don’t think the religion should be compatible to our likes or dislikes but I strongly believe that religion should address the requirements of humans and be in accordance with human nature. Therefore I believe, Islam is compatible with needs of all times as its teaching are in line with human psychology.
Taking some of your question, in my understanding:
Multiple marriage is allowed only in very specific conditions. In such situation, the first wife has full choice to end her marriage and is under no compulsion to continue it. So in reality, rather than man ending one marriage to get the second one (only under very specific conditions), Islam allows both marriages to continue at a time, but again the first wife may chose to end her marriage. Muslim woman has right to divorce. We got to compare it with what was the alternative?
contd to 2
So in reality, rather than man ending one marriage to get the second one (only under very specific conditionsÂ), Islam allows both marriages to continue at a time, but again the first wife may chose to end her marriage. Muslim woman has right to divorce. We got to compare it with what was the alternativÂe?Ending the first marriage to marry again? Well that option is still there, but if all parties agree to live together what harm does it cause? How this is incompatible to 21st century needs where now a days marriage is not even required and a person may have as many girl friends as he likes, with no obligation, no protection of rights for these women which marriage provides and they may not know how many are his other girl friends beside her. So, I think Islamic teachings are more real and practical. Just to quote one example, if as a result of some situation, men in a society outnumber women, so to preserve morality in society, such men are allowed to marry more than one, because if they don’t, there is more danger to moral values. In Islam, one of the reason for marriage is preservation of morality in society so this permission should be seen in this context. This permission does not mean that muslim men always marry more than once. Its very rare cause the conditions are mostly non existent.
Suhail Kausar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_imams
Sure, Martin Luther like the rest were fallen and broken men. But, he knew Jesus, and Jesus used him to do something remarkable. Today we see so many positive results from that period, not simply because of Luther, but because each of us can read the bible and come to a saving faith in Jesus on our own....the real reason we can all love our neighbor as ourself.
Neither did "Zwinglin, Tyhndale and Calvin." Their church foundations were laid far back. Their scriptural sources came out of the past, past Catholic Church councils (that put the biblical canon together, the bible together), past Catholic thinkers, past theologians, etc.
Today, people are not as interested in "Sola Scriptura" as they are interested in this past, how the bible came about, the authorship of individual texts, how the Catholic Church's tradition engulfed the growth of 15 centuries of (Western) Christianity before Luther and Calvin. Luther's arguments of "sola Scriptura" were convincing to him but it is very difficult to convince non-Christians by the same arguments (that seemed so satisfactory to him and to Lutherans). There is so much more to it. (All the Christians churches are coming to realize that they have to work together to persuade anyone of the value of Christianity today.)
Today, justifying the Christian faith (both Catholic and Protestant) is like facing the Cross. It is not easy doing this on Catholic tradition alone or on Scripture alone. The easier option is to run away from that Cross altogether.
The Moslems probably could use a "Martin Luther" and goodness knows the Protestants could use one to address these affluent days of corporate churchianity, and global Buddhism could definitely benefit from a return to the heady days of the Meiji Reformation, but all that is symbolic discourse. It signifies one constant that is already widely known in the religious establishment, a return to basic principles will involve sacrifice and integrity.
Good luck with that in any comfortably established form of churchianity.
I simply see that Christianity used to be a barbaric religion - a religion that sanctioned all sorts of murder and mayhem in the name of its God. And I see it doesn't do that anymore, because of the effect of the enlightenment on human civilization in the Christian west.
With the same eyes I see that in many parts of the world (not the US, particularly), Islam still sanctions murder and mayhem in the name of its God. And so I say that it needs the same sort of enlightenment in order to leave the medieval mindset behind.
The litmus test of any religion here is simple: Simply take the UN Charter on human rights, and see how the religion measures up - not in some intellectual, abstract way - but in the day to day lives of the minorities who live in the particular countries.
Right now, in too many Islamic countries, if you're a woman, a Ba'hai, a homosexual - you are definitely not on equal footing, and you are at risk of persecution, or death, just for being who you are.
That has to change.
Have your eyes actually "seen" anything in these other parts of the world?
In Catholicism (before [and after] the Reformation) there were always reform movements (notably initiated by monastic communities -- Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) and church councils and leaders attempting to reform the church. Remember, Luther, an Augustinian monk, initially meant to reform the Catholic Church, not set up a new church or break away. But it didn't turn out that way. The Protestant Reformation churches ("protest"ing the pope's authority) broke with Rome while the Counter-Reformation Churches retained their link and continuity with Rome.
The Wahhabis and Salafis, however, were more like the radical Protestant reformers (who went against both Catholic and Lutheran churches). These reformers were the ones who became iconoclastic and puritanical, destroying sacred images, stained glass windows, altars, etc. throughout northern Europe and UK.
Today it seems like there is a struggle between the radical reformers of Islam (the Puritans) and the more moderate Muslims, the latter having no desire to see Islam fall apart into more camps than there are already (Sunni and Shia). In Christianity, there are something like 2000 different church communities, all separated from each other, the most notable and largest camps being Catholic, Reformation tradition Churches (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc.), and Orthodox.
Simply not true. The modern Salafi movement can be traced either to Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab, or Ibn Tamiyyah. That's the 13th century or the 18th. And they are much more analogous to Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovas Witnesses than Mainline Protestants.