Well written, Omar. I'm trying to carve out a wee safe spot for progressives in Boston, as it's Islamist territory all round. My question: is it possible to create a vision of progressive Islam that appeals as much as Islamism? I'm afraid that Islamism tends to go for the soft white underbelly of Muslims- "Am I Muslim enough?" "Will my kids be Muslim enough?" "Will I and mine be physically and morally safe?"- which are, of course, universal concerns with a Muslim tint. Progressives, and to a certain extent, moderates tend to not address these issues at the emotional level at which they occur. Islamists tell folks that if they follow the Islamist program, all will be well. How can we address these fears without being dishonest or foolishly optimistic? Dang it, if we were as fond of psychoanalysis as our (stereotypically)Yiddish speaking sistren and brethren, this wouldn't be nearly so much of a problem.

Very good article. Islamism seems to also have much in common with cultish behavior. The lack of critical thinking because that would lead to disbelief. The loser mentality of much of the cult members before joining, and the being part of a greater whole they get upon accepting whatever vision of purity and safety that is being sold.

What I like about the Sufi path, which has often been called a cult by Westerners and worse by Salafis, is that it allows critical thinking and cynicism and accepts all people as part of the path. The infinite variety of life all coming together to face the One.

Ya Haqq!

Today I met a Muslimah in my pre-nursing class, and from her outward appearance, her dating, owning a dog, and playing the piano, you would never assume she was Muslim of Moro Pilipino descent.

And someone who I was “out” to too.

And to think, that I said in my introduction that for Ramadan, I would be fasting, so don’t be bothered if you see me not eat for a month during daylight hours.

It gave her the courage to mention her “creed.”

Excellent piece Omar. I don’t know how well your definition of Islamism works globally, but it certainly describes that mono-discursive element among Muslims here. A perfect compliment to Nakia’s piece. I always feel like such a fool when I say things like this, but why the hell do people want to be so awful? I’d love to read a psych article or something telling me what people get out of it. What is the payoff? I’m naive. It is like I can study a thing all day, have all the data, and I still cannot grasp it in my heart. Allah, Allah, Allah.

OmarG:

islam came to fight the ‘practices’ of jahiliyya. (True?)

these practices were widely accepted, ie, they were accepted by the people of mekka simply because they were normative and ‘legal’.

my question is: do you think that the advent of islam was misguided since practices were legal, ie, normatively sanctioned?

or: do you think islam was nothing but a misnomer for what is currently known as islamism since it had an uppty discourse and a social and political agenda?

(note that i am not discussing your post, only the points above.)

Center, if I understand you correctly, I think you’re making a mistake: equating what the Prophet wanted and accomplished with what political Islamists today try to accomplish. I think the two are different. As for Makka, I have no idea what things were really like then and there and can only know for sure if I was there in real life, which is impossible. I tend to think that I would do whatever the Prophet asked/told/insinuated me to do, however; no one alive is like the Prophet today, so i do not feel bound to listen/obey them. Looking for God is a different endeavor than looking for the perfect society; one is rooted in the hereafter while the other is rooted in the dunya.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

This was really good.

I am always amused by people who think that the minute they come in contact with someone whose worldview might be different, their faith and/or lifestyle will automatically implode.

In practice I have found that this space hasn’t been welcoming of
pluralism and difference, at least not lately.

Let us beware lest the definition of what it means to be American become mono-discursive, less attuned to the migratory experiences that mark us all. I found this so ironic given the general climate of immigrant bashing, xenophobia and hysteria given the cultural climate in which we all live- very
ironic

It is as pluralistic as the blog writers decide it to be. For example, I don’t necessarily recall challenging your posts, just when you commented on mine or on others. If I did, then I apologize; I have a policy of not downing on other people’s posts (of course, just because I don’t comment doesn’t mean I am dissing the writer nor that I disagree). You should post what you want, but you shouldn’t expect me to agree with you or not write my own posts expressing my contrarian points.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

There is no need to apologize. I am not dissing your post. I am sorry if that
is the impression you got. That is not how I intended to come across. I am
merely giving expression to a general sense of discomfort, for whatever it’s
worth. Nowhere do I claim that I have to be entirely comfortable. That is
part of debate. I don’t expect people to agree with me. But the truth of the
matter is that for me some of the blogs have been stifling, not terribly
conducive to pluralism, to a free expression of differing opinions.

I recall a comment you made somewhere as well, perhaps on Eteraz’s
post, that likened immigrants to invaders or something to that effect.
It struck me at the time that this division of the country into citizens/

No need to apologize. I didn’t mean to diss your post. I am sorry if that is
how it came across. But why should any community consider itself above
critical self-reflection? I don’t question your right to differ or to express
your views. By the same token I wanted to give expression to my own
sense of alienation. I recall a comment you wrote somewhere in which you
characterize immigrants as invaders. This struck me. I mean this division of
the world into us and them, as if becoming a citizen weren’t a verb, an
active process of becoming. The characterization of pluralism didn’t do
justice to the subtle ways in which difference can be suppressed in more
democratic societies. As Helene Cixous once put it, we who are free are we
really free. The other is not radically other. Sometimes it dwells within. No
society is immune to the dangers of suppressing dissent or scapegoating
the foreigner who can assume various shapes and guises. Why should we
be complacent? It would seem to me that such discussions help us probe
the subtle and not so subtle ways that difference is silenced, that self-censorship occurs. self-congratulatory characterizations of ourselves are
hardly conducive to growth or safeguarding democracy and civil liberties.

have a good night
Ginan

‘Looking for God is a different endeavor than looking for the perfect society; one is rooted in the hereafter while the other is rooted in the dunya.’ omarg

‘perfect society’ is a true presence of god; separating them is possible only heuristically. god, as a process, is seen in improving human conditions and relationships; a perfect society and god represent ONE coin.

Oh, no! forgot that you tend to compartmentalize your cognition, emotion and behaviors (salafi, sufi and secularist). Would this explain why you give more credence to that which is ‘legal’ over that which is ‘moral’?

as a muslim, aren’t you supposed to opt for the moral to be uber alles! thought you always said: islam is a way of life!

from what i read, mekka during the prophet’s time was a very pluralistic community, relations were governed by legal tradition: there were hanat (bars), house of prostitution, slavery, usury, etc…. . quiet a few of the people who lived there seemed to be happy with their lot until this ‘mohammad’ came to advocate a moral code in lieu of the existing legal code.. Bilal (ra) loved the moral code… ‘what a nut this Bilal guy is!’ shouted the advocates for the legal.(status quo)...

Omarg, if you were living in mekka during mohammad time, what would you do with this guy mohammad?

I have no idea what you mean by dividing the moral from the legal. Traditionalists hold that they are similar; some seem to write as if they are identical. Certainly, the legalistic Islamists act as if morality and legality are equal and I am not one of them. You should put your glasses on, because I said that if I was with Muhammad, I would tend to do whatever he asked/ordered/insinuated me to do. You do not know this about me, but I converted after reading the biography of Muhammad. I was quite happy with my city and way of life, so I was not looking for a perfect society, but for a sense of spirituality. I found it in the character of Muhammad and the Quran.

I wonder, have you found the perfect society? Do you have any absolute examples in history devoid of subjective interpretation? What is the criteria for such a perfect society? Following Shariah? Whose Shariah: Malik’s, Abu Fadl’s…?

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

‘...because I said that if I was with Muhammad, I would tend to do whatever he asked/ordered/insinuated me to do.’ Omarg

Omarg,
mohammad wanted to replace the ‘legal code’ of his community with a ‘moral code’. for instance, fornication was an accepted practice until the quran declared a moral code, namely that a prostitute should be lashed 80 (eighty) lashes.

would you advocate this ‘moral’ code or would you rather be a ‘secularist in government’? (i still remember you saying:...i would do whatever he (mohammad) asked….me to do!

Fornication was frowned upon by the followers of Moses and the followers of Jesus.

Muhammad introduced nothing new or novel, even accoding to Muslim polemics, he simply reinforced what was already previously revealed.

I do not understand your argument. Lashes IS a legal precept, while saying that, “They ask you about gambling and alcohol. Say, there is some good in it but its harm is greater” is a moral precept. As I recall, having a prophet amongst a people is a pretty exceptional circumstance. Without a prophet, I definitely want a secular government because the of our current political, social, and emotional immaturity and our economic and scientific poverty. I also cannot recall how there was an Islamic government during the “Golden Age” such as Haron ar-Rashid etc. Thier regimes were hardly Islamic in terms of morals and in fact the rulers have historically not been mullahs and in fact, the mullahs and rulers have been seperate parties for over a thousand years. It worked pretty well back then, when the Muslim scientists who are famous today were denounced by Ulama. If the Ulama had been running things, Islam would have been swept away centuries ago. It was, in my opinion, the actual secularness of medieval Muslim empires that made them powerful.

Tell, me what was the place of the Ulama in the Ottoman Empire? The Mughal, the Shaybanid, the Tahirids, Anadlusia etc? Was Andalusia the Ornament of the World because the Ulama ruled it or because the rulers enforced a public secularism??

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Be real OmarG, perhaps the great Muslim minds were not “religious at all” and were beyond the fray of tribal superstition masked in “reformed monotheism (Tahwid)” and Arab cultural imperialism.

I’m no longer Muslim, I would be fooling myself to say I believe anymore in antiquated beliefs.

omarg:

2 questions:

1-do you think mohammad came to correct [[legal]] issue or {{moral}} issues? ...first and foremost….i know he addressed both.

2-if you were to run for your city council seat and someone asked you about abotion, what would your stand be on this issue.

Center,

I would allow a woman to have the option to abort a child, ultimately, this is an issue of female autonomy over her body because in some cases it may be necessary to terminate one life to save another or circumstances surrounding the birth of a child as in the case of a rape.

I'm not certain as to the distinction. The Quran makes a lot of "you should do this and that" but it doesn't say what social structures or political structures necessary to enforce the law. Nothing in Islam says anything about having a professional police force, yet in the medieval Islamic we had the muhtasib and in later times a militia called, 'shurta'. Was it because the Quran was silent on how to do it. I mean in Madinah and then Makka, people had a prophet, yet he still kept the tribal leaders in place and did not replace them. But, of course, people came to ask the Prophet things while the tribal and city leaders continued to administer thier areas, coming to the prophet for disputes but otherwise doing things as they were used to do unless the Quran spoke against it. Simple in my eyes.

I'm sorry if you don't like or can't wrap your head around being a salafi, sufi and secularist in different contexts, but if you consider stoning a woman an act of worship (almost always a woman and hardly ever men!), then I think something is amiss.

My position on abortion is my own and should not be used for or against me nor should it be taken as anything close to authoratative, so… And you, since you have so many questions but few answers?

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Omarg: the quaran states a male prostitute and a female prostitute should (must be) lashed eighty lashes. since you are a secularist in government*, this command of god will be put on hold. An alternative way of dealing with fornication should be devised that fits the context…(man, you can’t close Las Vegas!) if one is a muslim, the commands of god supercede any consideration, ie, one can not choose to be a secularist in government, salafi in prayer….one has to be a muslim. faith is not like having an order of french fries; small, medium or even super size depending!.

Omarg: be a secularist; avoid cognitive dissonance, else you may end up to be another home grown zealot.

true, i ask questions. however, don’t you find yourself reexamining your positions? that was the intent.

*government here means any situation where you have power/authority in a given situation. (home, your unit, city council, state, federal )

Center –

I am a secularist to the core, no cognitive dissonance there. One of the
most tragic legacies given us by religion is the criminalization of adultery,
fornication and voluntary extra-marital or pre-marital relations. One can
only guess at the psychic scarring such beliefs have left on humanity. You
don’‘t seriously believe that any government should be poking its nose into
people’s private sexual lives and legislating sexual mores do you? I have
never bought into this oh but it requires four witnesses argument.to prove
adultery.Even if the conditions are hard to satisfy, the psychic damage is unspeakable. So what if someone commits adultery and it is proven?

Besides, if it is really a matter of faith or individual conscience then why haven’t we ever heard of an offender coming forward for his/her just punishment? AS Omar noted it’s always vulnerable women. Feminist
have real cause to be extremely weary of buying into such antiquated and
dare I say barbaric notions or practices.

‘I am a secularist to the core,...’ omarg

Well, thank you!

Dude, that was someone else writing, not me. How do you think I would write this about myself: “AS Omar noted…” Seriously, how do you think that could happen? I think this says more about your line of thinking than it does anything else: you think I am not a Muslim to your expectations and throw around secularist as if its a dirty word. I’ve claimed explicitly that I am a ‘secularist in government’, so why would you be thanking me. I think, and tell me if I am wrong, that you equate secularist with ‘non-Muslim’ and was waiting for me to become cognizantly consonant and make a statement of kufr (which the above is certainly NOT in any case). When you have many religions and ideologies, it is vitally important that Islam be ABOVE ideology and not just another political ideology. Zaid Shakir has a relatively new article on his site laying out why it is a mistake to reduce Islam to an ideology and forget about the spiritual side of things. In fact, I’ll write up on it…unless someone beats me to it, of course.

As for you center, me thinks you should pay more attention to detail and start to consider that there can be, nay, must be multiple legitimate ways to be a bona fide Muslim OTHER than the one you think you know so well. Islamism as an ideology continues to fail in the real world, so you would do well for yourself to jump ship before it takes you down with it.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Omarg

u sure you did not write the post?

by the way, Islamism has never been my ship. secularism is my forte. do not change your mind about being in it to the core. it will not only save your relationships; it will enhance these relationships.

Am I sure? Is the sky blue? (No, you can’t ask the sheikhs) You are one inscrutable person: one time you’re saying “Allah yihdeek”, writing how Islam can’t be divided up and just be Muslim, and another time you are sying that secularism is ‘your forte’. Who is this mysterious man/woman?

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Omarg,

i am secularist simply because islam can not be divided up. ‘you either take it as a whole or leave it….one can not be eclectic in matters of faith.

i often say: allah yaheena wa yehdeek. i need hedayaah as much as you. naturally, you put a spin on the intent thus making it sound as if it were a class issue.

I’m going to take your use of lowercase “islam” as intentional. For me little “i” islam can not be divided up because it’s an indivisible impulse that is shared by all aspects of life (birds, people, rocks, etc) willingly or unwillingly.

As far as brand-Islam, the institution, join-the-club-Islam, I say let it divide itself up as much as it wants. Slice and dice to their hearts content. That’s the only thing join the clubs are good at anyway: divisions and borders. No girls allowed in the boy’s club tree house.

So I say, let ‘em have it. They die off soon enough…

:)

But can someone show me a secular government that does not have as it’s basis some form of religion? And please don’t say America. That platform is bound to the Christian ethos, for better or worse.

But can someone show me a secular government that does not have as it’s basis some form of religion? Baraka B

aren’t you confusing religion for ethics?

No, I don’t think so. Perhaps in college where the division would be made clear by the class one signs up for, but not when it comes to people making decisions based on their beliefs be they religious or otherwise. Those lines are far too blurry to tease out I would guess.

Baraka, I also think that people making decisions according to thier personal beleifs and / or ethics is fine. However, isn’t there a difference between influences on officials’ decisions and the maxim, “All laws must be from the Quran and Hadith”? Or, a difference between an elected legislature which is theoretically representing the will of society and a cabal of theologians (essentially a group of technocrats which specialize in a text and not a technique of so-called sientific governance)?

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Barak B:

I heard it said: al bayyinato ala man idd-daa, ie show the evidence to what you are claiming. or as they say in Missouri: show me a secular government based on what you claim.

you say: “But can someone show me a secular government that does not have as it’s basis some form of religion?”.

Center. That is a judo move and I like it but won’t bite right now. :) Though I could say that tracing the ideas of the “founding fathers” of the US woudl turn up some rather religious leanings. Albeit often radical Christianty as opposed to conservative, however, the themes are all there.

Hey OmarG. I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking me anything? I don’t have a problem with people making decisions based on their belief/ethics etc… And I see a HUGE difference in making a book and hear-say the basis for laws. Simply because I don’t believe in a single interpretation of either and think making laws that punish people based on such a shifty foundation is insane and sadistic.

Me, too Baraka; me, too.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Baraka,

i still think that you continue to confuse the ‘religious’ for the ‘ethical’. religion is often imbued with ethical values. however, ethical concepts are more universal than any given religion.

could this area of commonality between ethics and religion be what is confusing to you?

“For me little “i” islam can not be divided up because it’s an indivisible impulse that is shared by all aspects of life (birds, people, rocks, etc) willingly or unwillingly.” Baraka B

this is neat. i heard it said that when animals migrate, they are led to their destinations across continents by ‘wahy’ or what you call ‘indivisible impulse’. Spiritually, this may explain the agitation of, for instance’ birds and why they flock together before taking off en mass. this awesome sight connects the observer with god by words like: subhan allah or Oh, my god!!

OmarG: All that said, I also believe that there are few cases where we are NOT basing our decisions on shifty foundations. I would just like those foundations to be as universally engaging as they can be. I.E. I’m not going to use a book that requires people to read in a specific language and then interperate the text having first been schooled for 15 years in the various methods of hermeneutics. F- that. I may find that exciting, but I wouldn’t dare want to support a system that has that as it’s basis. It’s inherently exclusionary. This of course is all based on the fact that I believe we are overpopulated to the point of requiring a governance, the comprehension of which, requires specialized degrees to interperet. When access to these degrees is limited, I think the whole ship begins to sink under its uninformed populous’ weight. But that’s just me and yes I digress. :)

Center1: I can see where you’re making the distinction yet I still don’t think I’m confusing the two. I’m basically saying that in the (at least) specific context of American Secularism as it developed and as it is currently maintained, Christianity has plaed and play a very large role, even if it was at once a radical and anti-authoritarian flavor of Christianty.

Center2: That was a nice comment to read. Each bird knows its form of is-ness.

America is a “Judeo-Christian” country, the Founding Fathers never coined the term “separation of church and state” but they merely, literally from reading the Constitution, mentioned that Congress was forbidden from establishing a state church.

A state church means a Christian entity like what we see in the UK with the titular head of state, Queen Elizabeth II being called the “Defender of the Faith (Anglican Communion)” and still in countless other European constitutional monarchies.

The term “separation of church and state” was added later by court interpretations in the 20th century. Thomas Jefferson did mention a “veil between church and state” but this comes from personal correspondence coined in the early 19th century during his presidency.

Go to the Capitol Statutary Hall under the rotunda and count the number of clergymen of various Christian demonimations who founded this country in one way or another, from William Penn (Quaker) and so forth.

Many colonists who came to this country under permission of the Crown were Christian refugees fleeing unfavorable religious persecution in their homelands. Sectarianism in Europe was as bad as what we see right now in the Muslim world. Misogyny and the hysteria against women dubbed “witches” was at an all-time high.

We see Muslims are sort of in a “17th century,” this century would also give rise to modernity in Europe, the emergence of representative governments and capitalist systems. Muslims now are faced with the challenge of modernity and whenever their is social change, there are forces that will resist such change.

Mash’Allah, we have satellite television, this technological innovation is showing Muslims an alternative to their dead-end theocracies which have been robbed of the message and clarity of the Qur’an.

BarakaB’s imam, Imam Faisal from NYC in his book concerning the virtues of Islam and the West, said that the Constitution is a “shariah compliant document that embodies the values of Islam.”

Come to think of it, historian Gibson mentioned that “imperial Islam was the heir of Rome” but maybe Muslims should yearn for that Republic and repudiate Caesar.

Muslims need to realize that they are as much a product of Western civilization as Westerners through contacts like colonialism and the exchange of ideas and information.

Muslim civilization has always been an exercise in hybridity, and a dynamic one at that.

We see that Muslim culture is a layering of cultures and ethnicity, fusions and change.

But now too many Muslim people see their history as static, as having been frozen in time after the first three generations of Muslims.

Islamism will eventually wane when no results are gained.

Thanks for the comments GM. I always cringe at the “Judeo” tag, since I know any number of Jews who feel Jews being accepted as “founders” of the US is beyond questionable.
Also:

“Mash’Allah, we have satellite television, this technological innovation is showing Muslims an alternative to their dead-end theocracies”

Also makes me cringe a little. I highly douby SaTV is having an effect on the powers who are maintaining the “dead-end theocracies” and those who are against it have been against it long before Satelite TV. It reads way too much like without it Muslims woudl be doomed and thankfully this non-Muslim invention will help lead Muslims to the right path.

I think that underestimates the vast majority of Muslims who don’t give a rats ass about dead-end theocracies. What about luddite Islam, back to land Islam, leftist secular Islam, anarchist Islam, Pro-wrestling Islam? Those who supposedly need SaTV probably don’t have it anyway. Subversion comes more from undoing the desire than blasting people with images of “what it could be like.”

Though this:

“Muslim civilization has always been an exercise in hybridity, and a dynamic one at that.”

Is of course spot on in my mind!

:)