Could an Islamic "reformation" on the same scale of the Protestan Reformation occur without a widely accepted Caliphate?

Acctually muslims don't consider wahabism and other clans or directions islamique and they hate them because they are influenced by the human mind the only thing they believe in is the book of god el quran

Here's the thing......

Protestants and Catholics are still a part of the same religion. It's called the Reformation because it reformed the rules, not the religion itself.

"Can Islam have a Reformation?"

The answer is no. One of the main reasons the Protestant Reformation was a thing, was because the New Testament was written by men. Christians were able to argue what certain passages meant, and it was okay, because it was the word's of normal men. Protestant Christians felt comfortable in their believes, because they interpreted the Bible their way, and that's what they thought was right.

Islam doesn't have that privilege. The words are Allah's spoken through his prophet Muhammad.

What? That's not what the Protestant Reformation was about at all. Hell, both Protestants and Catholics believe the Bible to be the word of God, but disagree on how it should be interpreted (and by whom).

Islam has the same exact privilege here, and they even had a very early movement that believed the Quran was created with limited temporal scope.

The only reformation needed is that they need to remove Sharia altogether. Sharia is the reason why Islam is not only a religion, but a political system. A political system not suited for our modern, complicated world

If Islam can separate from Sharia or abandon it for the sake of modernization, it could work. But truth is they can't. Muslims need to stand up for their own shit. But they can't cause the ones who opposed that is a bunch of cucks who would rather see their own bunch burn the world and take the blame while being in denial.

>both Protestants and Catholics believe the Bible to be the word of God, but disagree on how it should be interpreted (and by whom).

That's what I said. The parts disagreed on our parts that are not the words of God, but of men like Paul.

Paul supposed got his wisdom from the holy spirit or his meeting from Jesus both of which Christians see as God.

How is this any different than the Koran?

>The parts disagreed on our parts that are not the words of God, but of men like Paul.

No, that doesn't sound like most Protestant sects, especially not Lutheran or Calvinism at least that started the whole thing. There were no parts of the Bible in disagreement for them, the Protestant Reformists took every word more seriously than the Catholic Church did believing they had obfuscated the true, literal meaning to justify their church hierarchy and rituals.

Paul never met Jesus. Paul was an early teacher of Christians.

Nope. In Christianity, if it's not the direct words of Jesus, it can be argued against. The Bible makes sure to reinforce the idea that men are fallible.

Depends on which century we are talking about

>Islam doesn't have that privilege. The words are Allah's spoken through his prophet Muhammad.

And still interpreted by Sunnis and Shia (and others) to mean different things. One uses a verse to justify the Caliph, another the Imamate, and so on. There's no difference in gravity given to either the Bible or the Quran in either religion as the word of God, and this just sounds like one of those Islamist memes turned on its head.

>Depends on which century we are talking about
What kind of wacky Prottie sect is this that doesn't consider parts of the Bible Divinely Inspired?

>Paul never met Jesus. Paul was an early teacher of Christians.

In the spiritual experience of Saul of Tarsus, he very much contends he met Jesus, who appeared to him. This is a part of the foundation upon which, once he changed his name, Paul is considered to be "inspired".

So, while Paul did not "meet Jesus" in the period of the Gospels, we're to very much understand that "Paul met Jesus".