So, what do you think it would take for Islam to have a Reformation or an Enlightment? Are there any history scholars on board here who can tell us the factors that led to those events?

Instead of a muslim Martin Luther's proclimation being nailed to the mosque door, we are moor likely to see the muslim Martin Luther himself (or herself) decorating the doorframe.

So, what do you think it would take for Islam to have a Reformation or an Enlightment?

They can not.

How can you "reform" the literal word of Allah?

Excellent, courageous post, Amy.

The Islamic Reformation has been under way for some time, and the Muslim Martin Luther is Osama bin Laden.

The original Reformation was a revolt against a Church that had lost its way - popes & bishops rotten with corruption, a bloated hierarchy, the selling of indulgences & clerical offices - and a back-to-basics movement - the Bible, not the babbling of a Pope on his throne in Rome, was the fountain of truth and source of authority, the Gospel should be translated into common language so the common people could read & understand it, etc.

Likewise, Osama's brand of Islam is a revolt against the likes of the Saudi royal family and other Muslim leaders who have lost their way and are no better than infidels, in his view. And it is a call to get back to the basics of Islam as Mohammed intended it, which means jihad - "I will fight all men until they say there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet". And Mo meant what he said - within barely a century, he and his followers murdered & terrorized their way to an empire stretching from Spain to India, and it seemed like Islam would rule the world. That is why Osama & the Taliban want to go back to 732 AD, and take everyone else with them.

So, what do you think it would take for Islam to have a Reformation or an Enlightment?

They can not.

In Islam, Mohammed is the last prophet of God. Hard to change the word of God when you've been told it will never change.

But is the Koran actually the "literal" word of Allah?

Abu Bakr, the first Muslim ruler after the death of Mohammed and the first of the four "rightly guided" caliphs (Rashidun), authorized the creation of a written Koran, collecting the stories, verses, and teachings of Mohammed to be preserved in writing. Prior to that, the Koran was memorized by the companions of Mohammed; sometimes parts of it were written on whatever was handy (leaves, bark, stone, cloth, paper). The collected works were verified against the memories of those companions or Mohammed still alive who had memorized the Koran or verses thereof.

For several years, only one written copy of the Koran existed. Finally, Uthman bin Affan, the third of the four, ordered a creation of an authorized version of the Koran and dissemination of this version throughout the empire.

Scholars differ as to whether Uthman's authorized compilation contained the entire Koran or if verses were missed or forgotten. Some of these verses showed up later in the hadiths.

However, there are scholars who argue that the Koran was compiled well after Uthman (the oldest copy of a complete Koran dates from the 9th century). They argue that the Koran came into being gradually as Muslim conquerors adapted and codified their beliefs in response to Christian and Jewish challenges - and that this accounts for the similarities between the Koran and the Bible.

Any Muslim who looks too closely at the history of the Koran is risking his neck. There was a debate within 8th & 9th century Islam over whether the Koran was the eternal unchanging Word of God or a book written at a certain time in history. By the 10th century, that debate was over, and the doctrine of inimitability was universal for Sunni & Shia alike, which is the case to this day. Excellent discussion here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/koran.htm

This doctrine explains an extraordinary phenomenon. In madrassas throughout the Muslim world, you can see & hear crowds of students chanting & reciting the Koran in classical Arabic. Yet most Muslims are not literate in Arabic, and only a tiny minority are fluent in 7th century Arabic, which is farther from modern colloquial Arabic than Chaucer's English is from today's English. Why do millions of Muslims spend all day reciting from a book written in a language of which they don't understand a single word? Because if it's not in 7th century classical Arabic, then it's not the eternal unchanging Word of God. It doesn't matter if people can't understand it, because an Indonesian or Bengali Koran is an abomination.

And the question of Koranic interpretation ignores the fact that Muslims are supposed to follow Mohammed's actions, not just his words. His actions were quite clear.

Same way people stopped taking the Bible literally... I guess the question is, why did people stop taking the bible literally?

Gutenberg Bible: 1455
Luther Bible, in German: New Testament 1522, entire Bible 1534

The printing press & the Reformation put millions of Bibles written in understandable language into the hands of millions of people, and challenged the authority of the Church that had maintained a monopoly on Biblical interpretation. Once that process started there was no stopping it. A few hundred years of free-thinking archaeological & historical study helped things along. 21st century fundamentalists can insist on the literal truth of the Bible all they want, but they don't have the authority to publicly execute those who disagree. You don't have to take the Bible literally because no one will kill you for not taking the Bible literally.

I forgot to make this point earlier: how can Muslims believe the Koran is eternal, when they know Mohammed was a historical figure (570 - 632 AD)? Mohammed is the Messenger of God. God himself wrote the entire Koran, and then dictated it to Mohammed (who was illiterate) through the Archangel Gabriel, who told him to recite it to everyone he met. This conception helps to explain why Muslims regard the Koran as they do.

Has anyone heard about the Boy Suspended for Bringing Bible To School Files Suit?

What if he had brought the Koran or the Mao's Little red book and proselytized quietly on it?

When the ACLU is agreeing with the Christian Right, the world is definitely coming to an end. ;-)

The ACLU often agrees with the Christian Right. They agree with the Christian Right's right to practice what they believe as individuals. They don't believe in the Christian Right's right to have government institutions speak on their behalf.

Kid brings bible to school = ok.
School brings bibles to kids = not ok.

"Likewise, Osama's brand of Islam is a revolt against the likes of the Saudi royal family and other Muslim leaders who have lost their way and are no better than infidels, in his view."

Interesting theory, Martin. However, after thinking about it, I think bin Laden's motives are probably baser than that. Consider that bin Laden's brand of Islam, Wahhabism, exists largely due to the efforts of that same Saudi royal family. And for most of his life, bin Laden has depended on Saudi money to fund his operations and his very existence.

bin Laden does not aspire to destroy the House of Saud; rather, he aspires to become its master. It's more as if Martin Luther had sought to name himself Pope.

When ecumenically immersed Westerners say that Islam is a religion, they implicitly draw parallels with other religions in terms of how Islam should be treated, and they expect to find parallels in Islam that aren't there. Most naive Westerners believe this about all religions:

* They all posit some kind of common humanity and divinity.
* They are all based on universal kindness and charity.
* They all have their dark sides or dark pasts, but the "true" message is benevolent.
* People should be granted wide leeway in doing things that they justify by appealing to their religion.
* They recognize a distinction between the secular and the sacred, and recognize there are areas of human activity that they shouldn't control.
* They evolve, generally in a better direction, and thus deserve tolerance and patience for the rough edges they still have.

Well, Islam is right now in the middle of its "dark ages" and has been for the last 1000 years. It shows no signs of evolving, but instead is devolving as its inability to adjust to technology and freedom makes it less and less viable.

There isn't time for Islam to evolve on its own into something that can coexist with the West. The West has tried for 200 years now to civilize Islam, and it's been a rank failure. I'll eat my hat if even one of these revolts going on in the middle east results in anything approaching even the civilization level of Turkey.

Now, the West is separating itself from Islam. The Europeans have given up, and the only reason we Americans haven't is we have so few Muslims, and many of them are secular at heart. They will eventually turn on the radicals in their midst and help us expel them from the USA.

Without Western involvement, Muslim societies (I'm not going to say countries--that's a notion we tried to get them to accept, but they don't) will implode and millions will die of violence and starvation.

So be it. I'm done helping any country or society in the world that does not first accept Western civilized norms. And, funny, if they did accept those norms, they wouldn't need our help, would they?

The fact that those religions and totalitarian ideologies that was originated from the east, that is known to have 'dark past' or 'dark side', and that cannot be depended to save us nonbelievers from evil, just proved that any religion and any totalitarian ideology, that seek to control every aspects of our precious life will bound to end in failure sooner or later.

@Martin They believe the Quran is eternal and many of them believe that the prophet is still alive. My neighbors are pretty strict Muslims, one could say extreme. When I first moved in, I went over to their house a few times- I can be pretty friendly and charm my way into most situations with relative ease. I had this overwhelming curiosity about their beliefs, so I started asking questions. They think Mohamed is still alive in a cave somewhere. They argue that back in olden times when the air and water was clean people could live a lot longer. It was pretty hard not to laugh during this discussion, so no, it's not grounded in any kind of logic. It 's super mystical, like Christianity, hello! Rising from the dead! Water into wine! Don't try and make sense of this or you'll go bananas.