This deserves a little more rebuttal. Wagdy Ghoneim shared a clip of anti-Islam bigot, Bill Warner stating that it is impossible for there to be an Islamic Reformation akin to the Protestant Reformation started by Martin Luther in 1517. He says that such a reformation is something naively wished for by Muslim apologists in order to make Islam “nicer”. It is impossible however, he says, because in Islam we believe that the Qur’an is perfect, the Sunnah is perfect, and the Seerah is perfect. It is impossible because there is no central authority in Islam, like the Pope, and it is impossible because Islam is successful as it is, therefore there is no will to reform it.
First of all, the Protestant Reformation did not propose that the Christian Bible was imperfect, nor that the life and teachings of Jesus were imperfect; the Protestant Reformation was a rejection of the arbitrary rules and structure of the Catholic church, which had no sound basis in the religious text. Martin Luther did not suggest “keeping the good stuff in the Bible, and leaving the bad stuff”, as Warner proposes it is necessary for Muslims to do with the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Seerah. The Protestant Reformation was a rejection of Papal authority, not the authority of the Christian scripture. So immediately, Warner makes a false argument. I doubt you could find a Protestant today who would declare the Bible to be other than perfect, they would affirm only that the Pope is imperfect. So claiming that Muslim belief in the perfection of the Qur’an and Sunnah is an impediment to reform ignores the fact that belief in the perfection of their scriptures did not impede the Protestant Reformation.
And then, curiously, he essentially says that Islam cannot be reformed because we have no equivalent to the Pope. That is, Islam is already free from an arbitrary central authority imposing non-scriptural rules on the Believers; we do not have a false structure to rebel against, and thus, cannot mimic Martin Luther’s rebellion against the Catholic Church. This is a bit like saying you cannot carry out a daring escape from prison when you do not have the privilege of suffering imprisonment. Yes Bill, we are not faced with what Martin Luther was faced with; we have always had a diverse spectrum of interpretations; it is not something we have to fight for. Reform of the type Bill envisions then is not so much impossible as it is unnecessary.
He then says that Islam isn’t broken, so there is no desire to fix it. I am not sure what he means by this, except to assume he is talking about the ever increasing numbers of Muslim converts in the West, and what he no doubt perceives as the growing influence of Muslim minorities in Europe and the US. Put another way, Bill sees that it is impossible to get more people to agree with him about how bad Islam is. But the only thing we can reasonably conclude from that is that it is Bill and not Islam that needs updating.
The really important point here is that Bill is profoundly confused. And frankly, so is Wajdy Ghoneim, because Ghoneim apparently agrees with Bill’s basic precept – that Islam cannot be reformed because Muslims believe it is perfect; but the Islam that both of them are referring to is a particular interpretation, which both believe is the one and only interpretation. Basically, a hardline, literalist interpretation. But as Bill points out (without comprehending its ramifications), there is no central authority capable of imposing this singular interpretation upon the entirety of the Muslim world. Neither what Bill nor Wajdy claim Islam to be is what it is. We all believe that the Qur’an and Sunnah are perfect (just as Christians – Catholics and Protestants – believe their scriptures are perfect), but we understand that part of that perfection is the presence of nuance, flexibility, adaptability, and the allowance of differences of opinion in matters not explicitly defined. In other words, reform is actually perpetual in Islam and always has been.
Now, a few words have to be said regarding what Bill would actually like to see removed from Islam. It appears that his major complaint is the existence of the concept of Jihad in our religion. The Islamic Reformation he thinks is both necessary and impossible is the removal of Jihad from Islam. Now, again, the Protestant Reformation did not remove any of the core principles and concepts in Christianity, so here we see Bill’s confusion once again. But what he means, of course, is not Jihad, but terrorism. What he does not understand (because why would he?) is that because we have Jihad in Islam, in the Shari’ah, we are empowered with a legal framework that enables us to religiously delegitimize terrorism. If we had no legislation, we could not offer condemnations of terrorism with religious authority. Without laws that govern warfare, we would be at a loss when trying to explain why certain actions are invalid in warfare. The strongest arguments against Muslim terrorism are Shari’ah-based arguments, and the most convincing voices against terrorism for Muslims are the scholars.
Finally, I have to address a fallacy I have heard bill Warner spout on many occasions. He claims that the Prophet was a failure for 13 years in Makkah until the concept of Jihad was introduced. His point is that Muslims will never eschew Jihad because it has always historically been the key to our success and prosperity. Of course, he is again equating Jihad with terrorism; but this is obviously problematic. First of all, he is projecting upon us a view that no Muslim holds, i.e., that the Prophet’s mission in Makkah was a failure. Bill thinks this is the case, and thinks that we must also think so; but this is because Bill understands nothing whatsoever. Even if he wants to define success in terms of political power, he is plainly wrong. Rasulullah was offered the position of unparalleled total authority in Makkah; the Quraysh proposed to make him King of the Arabs (a position it was well within their power to grant), in exchange for allowing them to continue worshipping idols. Had he been interested in power, the Prophet could have had it absolutely without ever drawing the sword. But Bill is ignorant of the story of Islam. He does not understand the reformation of society, the rehabilitation of the spiritual and moral values of the population achieved during his years in Makkah; and he doesn’t care.
Now, Wajdy Ghoneim shared this clip with the comment that non-Muslims like Bill Warner understand more about Islam than many of us do; and this exposes Ghoneim’s own ignorance, in my opinion; because there is absolutely nothing Warner says in this clip that indicates he possesses the slightest understanding of Islam (nor of the Protestant Reformation, for that matter). It reveals that extremists’ views mirror the views of those who despise Islam, and we need to take note of that. They hold a view of the religion almost identical to the slanderous and shallow misrepresentation of Islam propagated by people who hate it. I cannot think of anything that could better discredit them than this.