In 2004, a Progressive Muslim movement swept into mainstream North American press and claimed to stand up for the "moderate majority" of Muslims. Yet, less than three years later the same "moderate majority" has almost completely sidelined the Progressive Muslim community. Even those who previously identified themselves as Progressive Muslims do not now wish to be so affiliated. The flagship organization of the movement Progressive Muslim Union of North America has lost almost 90% of its board members. MuslimWakeUp!, the primary organ of the movement, is neither frequented nor active, often going weeks without publishing new content. It has gotten so bad that Mohja Kahf, one of the initiators of the controversial "Sex and the Ummah" columns on MWU!, will not even allow herself to be known as a Progressive Muslim, and states that she did not advocate in her personal life the activities she described in writing. Among American Muslims, to say that Progressive Islam is dead isn't shocking; it is anachronistic.

The broad outline of what Progressive Islam stood for intellectually was perhaps best stated by Dr. Omid Safi, who likened it to a sort of "Islamic Humanism". The problem that Progressive Muslims were not able to address satisfactorily when questioned by the friendly members of the "moderate majority" was why any Muslim had to redescribe her "Islam" as "Islamic Humanism." Most Muslims believe that Islam, on its own, concerns itself with social justice, equality, rule of law and fairness. To say that this correct version of Islam ought to be termed Islamic Humanism (or at least implicitly acknowledged as such), smacked most Muslims as a lesser form of self-hate. As such, when "Islamic Humanism" came to be recognized as redundant, so did the "Progressive Muslim" agenda.

The Progressive Muslim Movement Lives - The Progressive Muslim Union is on life support, Muslim Wakeup! is taking a bit of a nap, and the so-called "moderate majority" groans whenever the terms "progressive" and "Muslim" are uttered on the same day. It would be hard to deny that the progressive Muslim movement is desperately stalled at the moment, yet Ali Eteraz's gloomy declaration of The Death of "Progressive Islam" still strikes me as recklessly premature. (Read more...)

The more hostile members of the "moderate majority" began to describe Progressive Muslims as "pro-regressves" - accusing them of taking Islamic discourse back to a state of pre-Islamic jahiliyya (ignorance). Such disfavor stemmed from the fact that Progressive Muslims were declared to be sexually loose, excessively critical of Muslim scholars from the past, and unconcerned with Islamic ritual. My personal belief is that there was, in fact, a sustained campaign of demonization by many conservative Muslims to paint Progressive Muslims as illicit, lewd, and insulting of Islam, and that campaign was successful because the conservative discourse is sadly receptive to such rhetoric. In an article written to prevent female Quranic expert Amina Wadud from leading a group in prayer, GF Haddad, a prominent conservative scholar, likened Progressive Muslims to Dajjal, the Muslim anti-Christ. Conservatives could get away with such blatant demonization. Progressives, on the other hand, were accused of being subversive if they tried to mock such rulings.

However, that smear campaign was aided by the fact that Progressive Muslims allowed themselves to be identified with Neo-conservatives in DC, and because they seemed more interested in publicity stunts than hands-on work with communities. The North American "moderate majority" did not take too well to Ahmed Nassef, a board member of PMUNA, going on Fox News, which is considered presumptively anti-Muslim. Nor did it appreciate Irshad Manji attending conferences organized by right-wing think tanks (despite the fact that Irshad Manji never held herself out as a Progressive). Nor did it appreciate Asra Nomani posting her 95 theses at a West Virginia mosque as if she was some kind of Muslim Martin Luther. Finally, there was the issue of Tarek Fatah, one of the prominent organizers of the Progressive movement. He alienated so many Progressive Muslims that some of them turned against the P-word themselves, and then exposed other negative facts.

My own stint as a Progressive Muslim lasted a few short months, and I terminated my relationship on my own initiative due to what I thought was an insurmountable problem with the Progressive Muslim movement. Islam, like Judaism, is a juridical religion. The primary sources of Islam - the Quran and Sunnah - are pulled together to create religious law (Shariah) which provides guidance to Muslims. I was faced with the stark fact that there was no such thing as a "Progressive" Muslim jurisprudence, neither in theory nor practice; nor would there ever be one. There certainly were vaunted scholars whose opinions were consistent with the aims sought by the Progressive Muslims, but those scholars did not want their opinions appropriated by the Progressives, partly because they had bought into the conservative smear, and partly as a matter of pride because they considered their harmony with Progressives a consequence of their affirmation of tradition, not a sign of their break from it. At the end of the day, all practicing Muslims turn to some kind of juridical authority. The fact that the Progressives did not have one to offer was a great cause of concern for me, and I packed my bags.

Today, the "moderate majority" of North American Muslims flows freely through a number of popular channels, such as the website Eteraz.Org: States of Islam, which I launched, Islamica Magazine, and altmuslim.com, as well as the traditional organizations like MPAC and CAIR. Even former progressives have reconstituted themselves so that they no longer claim to speak for a Progressive version of Islam but for that other progressivism - the political one.

The P-word comes up from time to time, but almost no one wears it anymore.

Wow. Eteraz has succinctly summarized my personal feelings about the Progressive Muslim Union in this essay, and given voice to much criticism that has been in the background for a long time.

The truth is that the only unifying force that held a lot of the "Progressive Muslims" (with a capital 'P') together was alienation. This is good to launch criticism, but it is not sufficient to create a true identity and core of beliefs.

Progressive (capital 'P') Islam is dead! Long live progressivism.

PMU as an organization had plenty of problems, not least of which was the big-tent approach which sounded like a really good idea but proved exceedingly difficult in practice. Also, it was, like most muslim orgs, fairly elitist and non-democratic in terms of recieving input from only a select few. This made it quite difficult to stand for anything have Progressive Islam be branded. But, Ali is wrong when he says that its not necessary to call something explicitly "Islamic Humanism" when there is such an extreme lack of humanism among Muslims today, and since Islam exists in our behaviors, actions, words and thoughts, it is therefore lacking in contemporary Islam (although such notions are the basis of textual Islam). Where Progressive Islam foundered was the lack of insisting on a textual basis although some tried here and there, and I agree with Ali on that despite disliking the hair-splitting legalism prevalent in our "judicial religion" these days (anyone see where the spirituality bus went??)

Also, the Progressive experiment (which is exactly what it was) was quite necessary. AltMuslim and the such cannot be considered centrist or the center majority had there not been a counterwieght on the Left and that counterwieght against rigid conservativism was Progressive Islam. By pulling so far to the left, it altered the discourse of Muslims in America and pulled it as a whole closer to the center, and for that, despite all its problems, is how I will fondly remember 2003-2005!

..for example, despite the howls against female led prayer, it was wallahi only after this that the women's voices were taken seriously and even CAIR had to jump on the bandwagon of "women freindly mosques" although the pamphlet they championed at that time had been around for many years. But after Wadud's stunt (and I mean it in the best of ways, because it was a good way to focus attention on women's issues), ISNA, CAIR et al could no longer ignore it. Now, we just have to give the inter-ethnic strife issue some attention like that, but as is often the case, Muslim elites and orgs only pay attention when you embarras them in public. ISNA was embarrased so they got Ingrid Mattson in place, and now women are increasingly speaking out against segregation and sub-standard "seperate but equal" ugliness. Good for them. The "center" could take some lessons in activism from the Progressives, while the Progressives should have taken some lessons about Fiqh, tafsir and so on...

Omar G writes "Where Progressive Islam foundered was the lack of insisting on a textual basis". Perhaps the problem was NOT that they did not insist on a textual basis but the fact that THERE IS NO TEXTUAL BASIS. After all, the text clearly says such things as:

Surely the vilest of animals in Allahís sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)

The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)

Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)

How in the world are moderate, "progressive" Muslims supposed to argue against such holy texts? The imams, mullahs, ayatollahs and the sheiks at al Azhar university will win against the "progressives" all the time. Until the "progressives" successfully deal with those and many other passages from the Koran and the Hadith, "Muslim humanism" will remains a contradiction in terms, at least as understood in the West.

CG

I found the progs appealing at a time when I felt deeply alienated by what I had experienced of Islam, which seemed to have little to do with the social justice and compassion. MWU was a good place to sound off, but in the long run I think I benefited most from reading the collection of essays edited by Omid Safi: "Progressive Muslims". These are written largely by Muslim Islamic Studies academics and touches on a range of issues which are important to me and I would still recommend it, never mind the title. It introduced me to an intelligent, critical Muslim discourse rarely found in traditional Muslim publications. As Amina Wadud pointed out in one interview, progressive Muslims really began with academics. The demise of MWU should not deter people from exploring Islam outside the kutub.

>> progressive Muslims really began with academics.

Do we have to take a movement built on social opportunity and credit it with so much? I know dialogue and intellectual integrity isn't flowering in present day muslim communities, but is it not more the opportunity that is lacking as opposed to spirit? We are very thinly spread as an Ummah. Politically, economically and cross-culturally .. there is so much to build. But in my view ... that doesn't make honest intellectual effort and political activism the exclusive avenue of a small select group of intellectual capable westerners.

'...that doesn't make honest intellectual effort and political activism the exclusive avenue of a small select group of intellectual capable westerners...'

I'm sure it doesn't. But as Khaled Abou El Fadl points out (who grew up in the Middle East and now lives and teaches in the US - does that make him 'Western'?), it is hard for people to publically criticise Wahhabism in many parts of the Middle East, at least if you are a major public figure. And what happens to Muslim liberals in the Middle East? Ask Nasr Abu Zayd!

Of course, there are a few among the prog academics who think Western academics are the only forward thinking Muslims about. The important thing is, whoever is writing or thinking, be they in a madrassa in Pakistan or a University in Toronto, the location of that thinking - in political, social, cultural terms - should be taken into account by the reader. Islam is not simply the preserve of people of 'The East'. No one's voices should be dismissed. Ours is a universal faith.

CG writes: "How in the world are moderate, 'progressive' Muslims supposed to argue against such holy texts?...'Muslim humanism' will remains a contradiction in terms, at least as understood in the West."

The above remark implies such an ignorance of religious hermeneutics in general, and Islamic history in particular, that it is at best amusing, and at worst pathetic. Such ignorance (often deliberate), combined with the dogmatism of preconceived notions, is what really hinders progress in this World.

Islamic Humanism wouldn't need to be portrayed as any kind of contradiction in terms, if we had the least bit of intellectual sincerity/honesty to familiarize ourselves with, for instance, the history of a range of flourishing humanist movements across numerous medieval Muslim societies.

Although as the Qur'an points out, people who know and who don't know are not the same.

Sijistani is typical of Moslem apologists who can only call their critics names instead of dealing with the issues. Ignorant. Pathetic. Dogmatic. Preconceived. How about dealing with those passages from the Koran which all the Moslem terrorists and fire-breathing imams quote? That is the issue which is at the heart of the problem. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with it, at least have the decency to remain silent instead of calling names.

CG

Islam, like Judaism, is a juridical religion...I was faced with the stark fact that there was no such thing as a "Progressive" Muslim jurisprudence, neither in theory nor practice; nor would there ever be one.

Precisely the conclusion a Muslim co-worker and I had during a lunchroom debate several years ago. He then defended himself on the grounds that Jews have had a couple thousand more years to sort things out than Muslims.

Quite true. Jews messed up very badly about two thousand years ago. Just read Josephus The Jewish War for the details - especially the siege of Jerusalem. Read about the leaders of those who defended the city then and consider who they remind you of today.

CG: Please bear with me while I explain precisely the difference between you and me. I am particularly taken aback because I took great care in writing my earlier comment.

I never called you or anyone names. I attacked your opinions, but not you. There is a huge difference, which only humanists can understand. If you pick out words like "ignorant" and "dogmatic", turning my nouns into adjectives, you betray the conscious care I took to avoid such personal attacks. Nevertheless, if you felt my comment came across as a personal attack, I offer sincere apologies.

Let me now respond to your calling me a name, "Moslem apologist". If you knew me in real life, you'd know that I'm the last person on earth to be an apologist. In real life, I'm actively involved in fighting the pervasive influence of terrorist discourse and ideologies of hatred within my own Muslim communities. Yes, we must deal with implications of violence in scripture. But these are discussions I cannot have with you.

Why not? Because of our difference: I try to be intellectually honest, while you don't. You want to believe that the Qur'an is necessarily violent and Muslims cannot escape "such holy texts." You believe that Muslims can never be truly progressive, which is why you use quotations to describe them, "progressive". And that's why I referred to dogmatism of preconceived notions. Is it possible to counteract belief with knowledge/fact? Yes, but history is witness that's a rather difficult job.

There's a reason why I use the notion of "deliberate ignorance" - it's very pertinent. An example: I'm quite certain you know very well that Muslims call themselves Muslims and not Moslems. And yet you are adamant in spelling it "Moslem," you cannot break out of your anglicized perspective. A simple but significant case of deliberate neglect. In other words, you're not so interested in seeing Muslims as they define themselves, but rather how you define them. You want them to conform to what you believe about them, and this manifests literally in language.

Thank you, Sijistani, for taking the time to respond. Unfortunately, you are still avoiding dealing with the issue. Whether you use nouns or adjectives to call me names is irrelevant. The fact is that you label me personally instead of dealing with the fundamental problem of the texts. It is not a coincidence that Moslem terrorists and their supporters always quote those texts in order to justifiy their murderous, supremacist deeds. Doesn't that concern you? Where is the response to THEM from people like you who presumably are not murderous or supremacist? What is your answer, not to me, but to THEM?! I am not talking here only about the 9/11 hijackers. I am talking about the professors at al Azhar; I am talking about Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors; I am talking about Nasrallah; I am talking about the mufti of Jerusalem; I am talking about the head imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca; I am talking about the many fire-breathing imams and sheiks in the mosques of London whom we have been reading so much about lately. Etc. etc. etc. The list can go on and on. All of those folks have spent their lives studying the Koran and the Hadith and the Sira. What is your response to THEM? They are able to recruit new terrorists all the time because they appeal to the Koran and Hadith. So, your argument is not with me. All I do is quote Moslem religious texts and respected authorities. I am not giving my own opinion; I am simply letting people know what Moslem religious authorities say when they are speaking to Moslems, not when they are trying to hoodwink naive unbelievers.

And, yes, "Moslem" is a perfectly good English word. Look it up in any dictionary. It is not derogatory. If you want to call yourself "Muslim" instead of "Moslem", that is your choice, but don't tell me how to speak my language. There is no reason why I should Arabize my pronunciation. I don't call Mexicans "Mejicanos"; I don't call Frenchmen "FranÁais"; I don't call Germans "Deutsche"; and I don't call Russians "Russkis".

P.S. Sijistani writes:
"In real life, I'm actively involved in fighting the pervasive influence of terrorist discourse and ideologies of hatred within my own Muslim communities. Yes, we must deal with implications of violence in scripture. But these are discussions I cannot have with you."
First of all, my compliments to you, if you really are fighing all the terrorist discourse and ideology in your own Moslem communities. I mean that sincerely. It takes a great deal of courage to do that, and I respect you for that. While you say you cannot have those discussions with me, that's O.K. Perhaps you can just describe the details of your interactions with the extremists in your community. That's what I am interested in, because the fate of the world may depend on the success of people like you in marginalizing the propagators hatred and Islamic supremacism in the Moslem communities.

Ali, I am glad that you left the bunch of clowns. But unfortunately, you are really fooling yourself if you think you have left behind their foolish methodology completely either. And your claim that you somehow represent the 'moderate majority', is rather self-appeasing, but objectively untrue.

You only represent a progressive who is less regressive than the pro-regressives that you left behind, nothing less, nothing more. I also find it amusing that when I used this 'pro-regressive' term on your blog, you were quick to scold me for using a term that you considered lamentable. Yet, now you wish to spin it out to another group of people, to protect yourself from its wrath. Rather smart, I must say.

As for your blog, the comments on it are frequented by the same group of people, with the same positions. Whenever someone from the REAL 'moderate majority' tries to point out something that is ALREADY established in the Shariah, to which you only espouse lip-service, your little wacky group teams up to "get 'em". SMALL little examples for anyone who may be fooled by your grand claims here: Example 1: you cannot claim Qadiyanis are non-Muslims on Eteraz's blog, while the Qadiyanis are given full press to express their beliefs. Example 2: Irshad Manji is promoted in a rather nifty, underhand way by comparing her to the more evil Ayaan Hirsi. It's called trivialization by comparison. Example 3: hijab is now 'controversial', your 'latest find' after all of our Imams failed to discover the tafsir that you, Ali, were able to locate (even if I were to ignore the fact that you have no formal knowledge of Islam or Arabic) . Those are just three examples... your website is replete with many more.

Just like Muslimwakeup, Ali's site is spinning in the same little arena. When and as people come through, read through the hype, and figure out what it represents, they just move on. I do admit that it provides interesting political commentary, and that may be its only saving grace.

Perhaps Ali, you should stick to that, and save yourself from the dangerous path you are treading in trying to reinterpret Islam without a third-graders worth of Islamic knowledge (and I don't claim much more, but I don't claim to reinterpret it either).

Musings of a Muslim Mind

CG: Your concerns are understandable. But rest assured, the extremists will be defeated.

In the meantime, I wish you the best in studying further, and I hope you can eventually appreciate the complexities of the problems you are talking about. Muslim (or any) religious authority is not as simple/straightforward as you might think. The militants would like you to believe that, but history in itself proves them wrong.

I said these are discussions I cannot have with you, not because I want to silence dialogue, but because I don't want to keep whining and trying to prove to you or others that I'm a "moderate" Muslim. That's what apologists do.

Re. "Moslem": my point was not whether it's a correct English word or whether it's derogatory (It's not). Nor do I want to tell you how to speak "your" language. I didn't even request you to stop spelling it Moslem (or to Arabize your pronounciation). Rather, my brief exercise above was an analysis of how a relatively minor practice like this can reflect a broader state of mind. "Muslim" is the current standard English spelling of the word: every single major English newspaper has learned to abandon the older spelling, and it's been a while too.

>> Unfortunately, you are still avoiding dealing with the issue.

Typical. People wants us to defend what they or some non-entity muslims elsewhere asserts, when we are certain and have knowledge that Quraan and Islam assert neither his stereotypical and racist assumptions, or that of extreme muslim ideologues. Worst still .. the daily dealings of muslims and non-muslim in non-muslim societies testify differently to the truth some people are so certain we ascribe to. It's literally guaranteed that the same can not be said about them.

>> I am talking about the many fire-breathing imams and sheiks in the mosques of London

What does a person who has faith in God say about the American, British and Israeli international establishments when facts are presented? Oh ... I didn't ask if you had faith in God. Ok. What does an ethically conscious person say about the American, British and Israeli establishments when confronted with the facts and IMPACT OF ACTUAL IDEOLOGY? Certainly muslims and third worlders have a lot to actually testify to as opposed to some subjective and historically inaccurate readings into the Quraan and Islam.

Its too much to ask for even-handedness from some people. Why ask the questions in a post that obviously isn't about Quraanic texts but rather a social movement anyways? Thats opportunistic but probably effective if your intent isn't knowledge but to rather sow discord.

>> you are treading in trying to reinterpret Islam without a third-graders worth of Islamic knowledge

Most third graders I know of are encouraged to think for themselves. i.e. contribute properly to posts or don't contribute at all. Since you're not actually dealing with the ideas, do you have an actual non-insulting contribution to make? The ideas that people who label themselves or are labelled progressive espouse .. The idea is that intellectualism is being stimulated by a fervent understanding of Islam over culturally established prescriptions of what Islam is. Some people would get very reprimanded for daring to criticise an orthodoxy because it means insulting muslims. Others however do seem to be blessed with a that so called shariah established luxury EXCEPTION to the rule.

Laury over at progressiveislam.org has posted a rebuttal of Ali's article above...

Musings of a Muslim Mind...

I have been posting on Eteraz.org for a while and I dont think anyone exhorts anyone else to marginilize certain voices. Everyone is encouraged to express their views, and I dont think its unfair to have one rule, that people dont call other people who consider themselves Muslims to be non-Muslims. We simply dont have the authority to do that. I am not that website's spokesperson, but I think your characterization is unfair.

Nowhere in Ghulam's or Sijistani's posts is there any hint about the problem with certain passages in the Koran and the Hadith. All they can do is attack the person who is asking the questions about how Moslems who consider themselves moderate or progressive deal with those passages. After all, if you believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah, then we all have a problem if Allah tells Moslems that all non-Moslems are their inveterate enemies, just to take one example. Will someone please deal with that particular verse of the Koran instead of diverting attention away from it? Is that verse valid? Does it really mean what it so obviously looks like it means? If not, what is the evidence for it meaning something else? Moderate and/or progressive Moslems cannot avoid the issue of these hateful, violent, supremacist and imperialistic passages in the Koran and the Hadith forever. You can't pretend, except to naive non-Moslems, that they don't exist. More and more non-Moslems are becoming aware that these passages exist and that no one has succeeded in explaining them away.