"Reformation of Islam" aberrant?

Someone (based on the context, a Muslim) calling himself (or herself) "God's Servant" left a comment yesterday on this post from October:

There is no reformation of Islam, it's impossible. Actually Islam is declining, modern time of Islam existed 14 centuries ago while other civilizations and religions were in darkness, that's why the expression "reformation of Islam" is aberrant.

Nowadays, even muslims don't know nothing about their religion and they are the first victims of fanatism and terrorism existed in muslim countried before existing in the west.

Islam is like money, you got to work hard to find the truth.

I didn't want to reply just in that post, since it's over a month old, so I'll reply here in this new post. I specifically want to address this claim:

modern time of Islam existed 14 centuries ago while other civilizations and religions were in darkness

This is a myth perpetuated by apologists for Islam, and it is simply not true. Persia (Iran), India, and China were all enjoying relatively high degrees of civilization at the time of the advent of Islam. Buddhism had been transmitted from India to China over the previous several centuries and was fomenting an intellectual revolution along its routes of transmission. The disintegration of many of these highly developed societies was in fact caused by the relentless waves of Muslim invasions.

One of the major reasons for the initial successes of Islam was that the early Muslim conquerors assimilated the civilizations of the peoples it conquered. The first Arab-Islamic conquests were facilitated by the fact that the Byzantines and the Sassanians had exhausted themselves fighting against each other. When the Muslims conquered Persia, they essentially adapted the pre-existing structures of governance and methods of statecraft of the Persians. They recruited Persian scholars to their cause and employed many Persian administrators to run the Islamic empire. They similarly assimilated the knowledge of various smaller communities living under Islamic rule by the appointment of their scholars to court and through the conversion of their members to Islam. (Try looking into the ethnic backgrounds of the most influential philosophers, scientists, and other scholars in the Islamic world at this time.)

If it had not been for Persian administrative practices and experience, Greek medicine and philosophy, Indian mathematics and metallurgy, Chinese papermaking technology, and a host of other sciences and technologies captured or learned from others — not to mention Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian religious beliefs and practices — there would have been no Islamic civilization. The Islamic empires were built upon ideas copied from neighbouring civilizations and with the wealth obtained through their conquest and plunder.

Yes, the Muslims were at one time leaders in civilization, but it wasn't quite 14 centuries ago. It was several centuries afterward, after Islam had established itself more or less securely in Persia and Central Asia and was making its way across India. But as the Islamic empires expanded and dhimmi populations were converted to Islam, the policy of continual military expansion pursued by Islamic rulers started to become uneconomical. At the same time, influential Muslim theologians popularized the idea that Islam represented the height of civilization and that other societies were in darkness, and Muslims began to cease learning from other cultures. These internal developments, coupled with external events such as the irruption of the Mongol hordes, marked the beginning of the decline of Islamic power.

The myth that the first generation of Muslims had attained the pinnacle of civilization seems to explain the success of the Islamic empires relative to their competitors at this time, as well as their subsequent decline. I suppose that's why it's popular among Muslims. But an examination of the historical evidence shows that this myth is false. Belief in this myth – which can only be described as hubris – is precisely what led to the downfall of Islamic societies to begin with, and is one of the major factors preventing Islamic societies from adapting or developing modern concepts of individual rights.

Islam is indeed in decline, and has been for centuries. Most of the Islamic countries in the world cannot support themselves and would collapse if not for oil (Saudi Arabia, Iran), massive amounts of foreign aid (Egypt, Pakistan), or a sizeable non-Muslim population that is wealthy and industrious (Indonesia, Malaysia). This state of affairs will not be sustainable for very much longer. You wrote that 'the expression "reformation of Islam" is aberrant', but the way things are going, the alternative to reformation is destruction.

You seem to be suggesting that the only real Islam was practised 14 centuries ago and that what is needed is not a reformation but a return to some pristine ideal. The problem is that this ideal exists only as a myth, invented centuries after the fact. To base one's actions on such a false view of the world is to act under the influence of ignorance (or delusion), one of the "three poisons" in Buddhist philosophy. What is needed among Muslims is not more blind adherence to religious dogma and mythology, but a genuine understanding of real history.

(By the way, I skimmed through your blog. It seems to consist of nothing more than parroting other people's poorly reasoned Islamic apologetics. For a critic's view of these arguments for Islam, I recommend a visit to Freethought Mecca.)

南無阿彌陀佛