Islamic Reformation

I had a big elaborate post analyzing the minutia of the Iraqi constitution in the incubator when I read this editorial in the WSJ. They better said in two paragraphs what I was trying to say in thirty.

Here is it:

Iraq's first freely elected government continues to vindicate the belief that the Mideast can be transformed, starting with Saddam Hussein's former tyranny. Its draft constitution, which appears headed for parliamentary approval tonight, reflects a remarkable spirit of compromise--and even enlightenment--among the country's political, ethnic and religious factions.

The word "compromise" is key here. If we were drafting the document, there are many things we might have done differently. But the point of democracy is that countries have to find their own way on difficult issues. Americans also shouldn't be too quick to conclude that anything that sounds odd or unfamiliar to liberal ears is evidence of failure. While this constitution does indeed contain general appeals to religion, it is fundamentally a document that empowers legislators, not clerics.

The Iraqi constitution empowers a parliamentary form of government. When their parliament meets to determine and debate laws, they must operate under the first two constraints dictated by their constituion: (1) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam, and (2) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

Assuming no changes to these principles, I am starting to think that we could actually be seeing the beginnings of an Islamic Reformation, which would be the ultimate vindication of our decision to go to war in Iraq.

In the build-up to the Protestant Reformation, the "clerical class", the Catholic Church, had a monopoly on discussion and debate related to theology in the lands of Christendom. The people were powerless, due to the Church keeping this ironclad lock, with one of the main methods being the prohibition of translating the Bible from Latin into the various vernacular languages. Being that the printing press had yet to be invted, the Catholic church held on to this power for hundreds of years, but as with any major historical shift, many events led the way to revolution (I don't want to get into too much detail, but a short list of these events can be found at wikipedia).

The underlying current with building as people were starting to debate and talk amongst themselves over what was or wasn't Biblical. The Islamic Invasions kept the German princes busy, so religous discussion flowed a little more freely. This popular current rose up and exploded due the invention of the printing press and a meek little monk by the name of Martin Luther. The rest is history that would shape Western Civilization for the next 500 years.

The result of this "Reformation" was an empowerment of the individual. No longer was truth to be found through an elite ruling class, but each man could now access God for himself. Naturally, there were many, many variations of opinion on how each man viewed what God wanted; some resulted in clashes that were bloody, but most were peaceful. Since people were now free to debate the truth about God, it was natural that they then felt compelled to debate anything else. The return of democratic rule to Western Civilization can find its roots in the empowerment of the Individual.

On the other hand, the Islamic world remained sheltered; the power to interpret Islam stayed with the clerics. Granted, there have been many major clashes among groups of Muslims (e.g. Shias and Sunnis), but the individual Muslim has not yet experienced any significant ability to freely debate amongst his bretheren about the Koran and Allah's will.

How can the Iraqis lead the way to an Islamic Reformation? Clearly the new Iraqi constitution empowers the legislature, and the legislature will not be made up of a ruling "cleric" class. It will be representative--made up of some conservative, some moderate, meeting together in a public forum. Laws will be presented in parliament, then there will be open debate about what is Islamic or not. The representatives will not be the only ones debating, as the people of Iraq will start to debate amongst themselves about what is Islamic and what isn't.

The power to drive Muslim culture has been stripped from the clerics and given to the people.

Ultimately, this path is what is going to give moderate, ie non-terrorist supporting, Wahhabist Islam, the best chance to permeate through the Muslim world. We (the West led by the United States) could only provide the push, or the de-stabilization if you will. But Muslims themselves will have to drive the actual permanent change from Islam being driven by nihlistic fascists, to more humanistic moderates.

The ripple effect here could be huge. As Al-Jazeera tapes and broacasts debates within Iraqi parliament, Muslims everywhere will start to debate amongst themselves about what laws are compatible with Islam or not. Imagine the day where Saudi Arabia bans Al-Jazeera. I'm clearly getting ahead of myself.

In reality, I think it is very possible that Muslims will be able to take their religion back, and that is why we went into Iraq.