The Daily Telegraph
December 10, 2015
RECENT calls for a reformation of Islam, akin to what happened with Christianity in 16th century Europe, are all very well. But the suggestion has a fundamental flaw which goes to the nature of the Koran.
When Tony Abbott calls for a religious revolution to confront the ‘‘problem within Islam’’, this implies that something may be rotten within the Koran itself. Such an ‘‘honest debate’’ would be fruitless because the sanctity of the verses are non-negotiable.
The Christian Gospels were written up to four decades after the crucifixion of Jesus by his eyewitness disciples, based on their repeated recollections of his words and deeds.
However, the Koran is believed to be the actual words of God as revealed and recited as verses through archangel Gabriel to his messenger Mohammad, in the Arabic language, without translation, without interpretation. Hence, there is no wriggle room to argue that “what God really meant was this”.
Unlike the Gospels which were enriched by parables about the New Testament of love and forgiveness, the Koran is a thorough prescription that governs virtually every aspect of life from birth to death. It leaves little room for modernisation and adaptation.
What can be debated, though, is the man-made implementation of the words, especially regarding the true meaning of jihad, purity and cleansing in the context of ISIS propaganda.
The Christian Reformation was successful in redistribution of power in hierarchical churches and stamping out abuses of power such as “indulgences”.
But it did not seek to flush out any words in the Scriptures. On the contrary, Martin Luther translated the Bible so that it was more accessible to more people. Some speak of reform when what they really seek is an audit of all the verses that ISIS misuse as a pretext to “justify’’ violence. If that is what they want, then they should just say so, but be prepared to at least read the entire Koran first.
Some have even sought to expunge all the verses that promote violence and contradict the premise that Islam is a religion of peace.
Ironically, this is what ISIS purports to be offering — a revolution to the purist version with literalist interpretations.
But this version is fraught with contradictions as bearded old men seduce boys to perform suicidal terrorism, acts that the bearded old men are not prepared to commit, but expect the boys to believe in the hedonistic rewards that await martyrs in paradise.
If what Tony Abbott seeks is an audit of the ideas driving extremism, this requires policing of Imams and cyberspace, and he should know that this is what our intelligence authorities already do.
If the intention is to have an honest debate, he may be wiser to learn from his successor Malcolm Turnbull who recognised that ISIS leaders “defame and blaspheme Islam”.
An honest debate would also open up questions of double standards. For example, as the far right voices such as
Reclaim Australia and Rise Up Australia morph from cyberspace and coalesce as street protests, do we ask white leaders: what causes radicalisation and violent extremism in your culture? With the abuses of power revealed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, do we ask respective religious leaders to confront theological problems within their scriptures?
If anyone seeks to understand the contents and ideas within the Koran, then they should seek an open meeting with the Australian National Imams Council.
If Abbott is seeking to add an intelligent political voice to the anti-Muslim ‘‘crusade’’, then he needs to be offering more than this red herring.