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.

Those figures are wildly off-base! Now we have to ask if 150 million Muslims are so-called "terrorist incliined" (I am not denying that there are a good number of Muslims who hold extreme political views), why are not taking action?? Even captured AQ operatives bemoan this fact. If there actually were 150 million WILLING to act on this attitude, I tihnk we would have lost a very long time ago since there is no shortage of opportunities for them to strike us and no shortage of small arms and explosive materials floating around the world on the arms markets. There WOULD be phyisical traces of such activity if these figures were true and there is no such evidence to back that up. As for Europe, a few percentage points of the population does not overrrung make. I mean, have you been to Europe lately? Its more lilly white than most places I know of in the US itself (and I'm neither praising that nor condemning it).

So, all this hype is overblown and overestimating the enemy is almost as bad as underestimating the enemy and here's why. When you overestimate, it leads one to into extreme measures that one feels is necessary when in fact they are overkill. Overkill sounds nice if you're Collin Powell in the Western Iraqi desert in 1991, but does more harm than good in a counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism campaigs. And, do note that they are seperate things.

As for the long-term "leaders", such people will either be marginalized because most of us Muslims do not want what they want and all we have to do is simply stay silent and not support them and they fade back into obscurity or, more often, drop thier utopian plans. Of course, that doesn't stop me from denouncing them as buffoons, and if you have fitful sleep over those bufoons, you areally are missing some good winks...

Dear Omar,
I strongly suggest that you and every American, Moslem and non-Moslem, read the new pamphlet by Robert Spencer, "What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad". You can access it here: [url=http://www.terrorismawareness.org/files/WANTKAJ.pdf]http://www.terrorismawareness.org/files/WANTKAJ.pdf[/url]
Perhaps readers on this site would be willing to give their comments on this article.

How can you say that the figures given by the Pew Global Survey are wildly off base? Do you have better opinion survey methods and data than they do? The scores of millions of jihadis are not only the relatively few who fly the planes into buildings or engage in suicide bombings. They include the entire support apparatus of traning and planning and financing and Moslem education in mosques and madrassas. They include all those who contribute money to the jihadis. They include those who riot in response to the Danish cartoons and the Pope's remarks. They include a huge reserve of people who can be activated at any time.

All the evidence indicates that you are seriously underestimating our common enemy.

To Thinkbridge

JZK for your comments... I am entirely in agreement with you. For far too long the 'conservatives' have tried to ban reason from our faith even though the Quran shouts out for us to use reason. We are given reason by Allah(swt)... it is a no-brainer to think that it is a sin not to use it. And as for followign what our forefathers did blindly... this is exactly why the prophet(wsws) was given his message... to stop precisely that happening..... to add my little clarion call to progressive muslims I say 'Muslim wake up!'

CG,

I have read your comemnts through this whole little debate and generally think that you have something useful to say, though I cannot agree with all. However, to attack the use of the words 'progressive' and 'conservative' by thinkbridge as offensive is just absurd. Thinkbridge stated that 'progressive' is just a word and he is absolutely right. It is humans who put meaning to words. To say words have one meaning is to immediately behave as the same people you criticise, those who try to put one interpretation to a thing and ban all others...... words are slippery things which change meaning.

Please continue debating but also please be aware you are not against enemies here and you do not need to lash out at every comment made here. To do so devalues your own arguments.

Peace on your friend.

Dear AleynasDad,

Thank your for your response, and for your kind words. I am happy that you think that I generally have something useful to say. I try.

I really am aware that I am not against enemies here, although to judge by the intemperate nature of some of the previous responses, there may be some question about that.

In my response to Thinkbridge about the use of "progressive" and "conservative", my point was that he, not I, was giving those words only one meaning; and he was assigning a positive value (open-minded) to "progressive" and a negative value (rote, non-thinking) to "conservative". I consider this to be labeling, stereotyping and a form of name-calling. As such, it tends to limit discussion rather than expand it. The terms "progressive" and "conservative" are not Islamic terms at all, actually, but are taken from the leftist Western lexicon. The fact is that, even though "progressives" may disagree with their arguments, "conservatives" are not, by definition, closed-minded or stupid. To consider them such is to avoid analyzing and disproving their arguments. That is neither intellectually honest nor helpful to the cause of progress. Opposing arguments need to be disproved, not dismissed out of hand. If we do not disprove them, other people may be taken in by them. This is particularly important these days for Islam. If you cannot disprove the arguments of the traditionalists and the literalists, other believers will think that those arguments must be sound.

I have always found that the best approach in argumentation is to deal with the arguments in a factual and businesslike manner, without using derogatory labels and name-calling. After all, we are not engaged in a pep rally but in a mortal ideological struggle for the minds and hearts of millions of people.

CG .... >> you will have to have respected religious authorities on your side

Just indicative of your poor mindset. What deconstruction? What extreme political views. If I had to confront what you coin extreme muslim views, that would represent 1 in 10000 people in my community. And that too would be people who have no inkling to strap a bomb to themselves. Just in case you didn't know. Extremisim, whether in columbia or the middle east has been a direct result of political repression. Political repression that the American government has been very quick to support at the whim of economic advantage, WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE HIGHEST INSTITUTIONS OF YOUR COUNTRY(do you understand twhy I say this?). You're ignoring the full body of the Quraanic text in favour of parts, and all the rules and guides around the madhab interpretations of those ayats .. and not to mention the factual/statistical nature of muslim interaction with the world.

We've got bigger problems than to appease you. CIA agents planting bombs on roadsides in Iraq, the mass of the G8's economic destructiveness, the sickeningly secular nature of our modern day tyrants in their armani suits, the increasing destruction of our dark skinned brothers, the missing link in American international law when it comes to muslims ... and you demand of us, to change the ethical foundations of our religion? Bombs will rain down on starving muslims and you would tell us that the problem is Islamic extremism.

I suppose asking for even handedness or a fair portrayal of the problem is too much? Why can't you handle the fact that terrorism as it has exploded in the middle east post the Iraqi invasion, or extremism post the American support of (for example) the Shah of Iran .. is the justifiable and necessary Jihad. Military struggle against oppression is a present day necessity for many muslims.

If these rules, ethics and guidance on war weren't in place .. and juxtaposed against the entire and complete ethical demands of the Islamic text, Americans would be facing a monster not much different from vietnam or china .. or Americans themselves!! The depth of our social underpinnings are beyond what you assert we should be. You expect us to be grappling with extremist ideology, when you're the one who needs to deal with your conception of it. Try balancing it against the facts, sequences of events, non-muslim influences. Opinions, facts, present day social movements, even handedness .. you'll ignore all because you're too lazy to critically read the Quraan yourself .. and too biased to consider general human condition. So what if those religious texts are endorsed at Al-Azhar? If you're only reading Islamic models that call for allegiance and duty, but ignore social ethics or the dynamic nature of shariah, you'll be waging a 21st century crusade .. oh wait .. too late.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/453/study.htm
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0616/sr.indonesia.html
http://www.themodernreligion.com/ugly/selective-islam.html
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr82.html
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3544
http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2007/02/terror_index2.html
http://www.kuftaro.org/english/WOT/The_Best_Way_Out_of_religious_Extremism_Crisis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marskell/Islamic_extremist_intro (to quote "Islamic extremist terrorism first emerged as a notable phenomenon in the 1970s." ... "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.")

To Ghulam,
Excellent point. Islam itself is being vilified and blamed for what is in many respects a struggle against massive oppression from many sides. The U.S. has consistently sided with oppression in foreign policy, contrary to Constitution-based and traditional American beliefs in the exact opposite. From the Shah in Iran, to Israel's anti-Arab policies, to Hosny Mubarak, to other dictators, the US interests most often rest with the oppressors, and not with the oppressed.

When the US loudly proclaims their love of some oppressed group or other, such as Kurds, for example, or even more so in non-Muslim groups, it seems to be for ulterior motives, such as pressuring some other group out of the picture, and in many respects lacks action-based sincerity.

As to comments regarding "conservative", I agree in general that "labels" are wrong, but you just replaced mine with "traditionalist" and "literalist". I was only using the term in the context of Islam, and not for politics in general. Regarding CG's remark that we are not in a "pep rally", maybe so, but genuinely felt opinions are bound to show some passion, and that's the name of the game.

Thanks for all posts.

Dear Ghulam,
You write: "terrorism as it has exploded in the middle east post the Iraqi invasion, or extremism post the American support of (for example) the Shah of Iran .. is the justifiable and necessary Jihad." Please tell me how this position is different from that of Bin Ladin who said the same thing?
You place all the blame for murderous Moslem behavior on non-Moslems. This is, of course, preposterous. Moslems are murdering non-Moslems in more than a dozen countries including Philippines, Thailand, Sudan and many more -- and you blame American policies! As human beings, don't Moslems have moral responsibility for their own actions? Is it always someone else's fault??

Ghulam,

>>CIA agents planting bombs on roadsides in Iraq,

SAY AGAIN?!

How do readers on this site feel about America bringing our troops home from Iraq immediately? How would you evaluate the consequences? Personally, I am in favor of our getting out of Iraq but keeping a watchful eye from nearby.

Question for Ghulam, Thinkbridge, OmarG and Sijistani:

Would you like to see shari'ah law eventually instituted in America? Yes or no.

No, but also for muslim-majority countries simply because the people are too corrupt to administer it justly and it becomes just another tool to oppress minorities, women and men, too. In america, I like the secular system we have and it works quite well for all of us. However, we must accept that democracies in the Muslim world may choose to base thier legal system on shariah. But, we need not fret: A recent survey that I do trust asked if people wanted Shariah. While large numbers of Jordanians, Egyptians etc said yes, Iranians (who actually live in one) said No 91%! Saudi and Sudanese Yes answers were significantly lower than non-shariah states! What does this tell you?

Nevertheless, using this as a litmus test does what? There are many Muslims, as in the survey above who've never lived under shariah, who sincerely beleive that such a system would usher in perfect justice in thier society, much as Colonial American firmly beleived that an Enlightenment philosophy system would usher in pretty good justice. So, you might assume that such wishers for shariah are evil and corrupt, but I say confine that to a small number of power-hungry people and not to the masses who believe (without basis, IMHO) that it must obviously be a good thing.

Oh, I've read Spencer's books and articles, sometimes wishing I could take a drug which would erase the memory of reading them. You'll get no points from even a liberal, secular yet faithful and praciticing Muslim like me by using him as your inspiration...

Dear Omar,

Thank you for your reassuring answer that you are not for shari'ah. The world would surely be a better place if there were more Moslems who opposed shari'ah.

Yes, the Iranians seem to be opposed to shari'ah, so there may yet be hope for Iran. However, in the Arab/Pakistani/Afghani part of the Moslem world, shari'ah law exists to one degree or other, and the populations seem to support it. The latest example was this Egyptian blogger who was imprisoned for "insulting" Islam. Many Moslems in the immigrant communities in non-Moslem countries also support it. Also, all of the Moslem countries signed on to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which enshrines shari'ah law as the only acceptable framework.

I understand that liberal, secular yet practicing faithful Moslems do not like Robert Spencer's work, but I am not clear how they defeat his arguments. After all, Spencer bases all his arguments on respected, traditional Islamic sources, not on his own emotions. A secular yet faithful Moslem is forced to argue with those Islamic sources, not with Robert Spencer who only calls attention to them. No doubt, that is a highly unpleasant, if not impossible, task. Spencer is only the messenger, so to say, even if the message is an unpleasant one. Be careful not to shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.

On a related subject, what do you -- and other readers -- think of this article by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser? Here is the URL:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=759085# The article is entitled: "Our Government's Dangerous Partnering With the Wrong Muslims".

>>The world would surely be a better place if there were more Moslems who opposed shari'ah.

Not really. The world be better if Muslims inculcated humanistic values into shariah, since the *contemporary* practice and codification of it is not quite beneficial to Muslims. However, it was not always so, and if depictions of legal practices from the 9th through 17th century are correct, it can actually be quite good for a society.

Egyptian law is a mixture of Napoleonic and other Western codes; it is not based on shariah. Such imprisionments are actually based on critique of the governemnt. The lack of a rule of law is a tremendous disservice to people, whatever thier religion is, and Egypt is among the most lacking in a Rule of Law. That right there is the problem, not whether Muslims want to make thier laws to not disagree with the Quran.

CG,
I read your link re "Islam v. Islamism", and also reference your question about Shariah in America.

First, Shariah in America? This is absurd. America has its own constitution, and I hope and pray that it will remain that way. Oh, btw, the US constitution is not all that far off from the REAL Shariah, if you get beyond stoning, dismemberment, etc. - which needs much more study, discussion, etc. You have nothing to fear from the Qur'an, except in regards to the Hereafter, which is not the concern of the DHS. The real Shariah not only allows, but enforces, freedom of religion, speech (but this doesn't include such things as pornography, racism, etc.), and even representative elected government.

So what is this "political Islam" referred to in the article? "Islamism" is an invented thing, a chimera derived from BOTH the extremists (who got that way from severe repression/oppression) and those who fear them (esp. US & Israel).

ISNA was mentioned in the article as "Islamist" which is laughably ridiculous. I went to the headquarters one day, looking for help (non-political), and they were too busy with photo ops. They appear to me to be an organization of people who want to be Somebody Important and got messages crossed with the Homeland Security crowd. I doubt they could get together a serious "threat" to anyone.

It's not "religion vs. politics." Please! What's this country coming to? Why don't we send some DHS guys into those big churches that funnel funds into various PACs, too? I'm sorry, but it looks to me like overkill meets paranoia.

On the other hand, I am sure that many Muslims would LOVE to stop terrorism and even help some of those guys get a life. It's not by Mao-style intrigue and telling-on-your-mom. It's actually effectively handled by spending more time actually READING and THINKING about the Qur'an, instead of going by third-hand hash-outs by a long-forgotten list of interpreters. Then we need to stop bashing one another for differences of opinion, and a climate of mutual respect and tolerance.

And it would be great if non-Muslims would entertain the notion that it's not "where 2 or 3 are gathered in the name of Islam" ... there might be another Islamist cell ... better safe than sorry ...

Sometimes the best DEFENSE is NOT offense, but rather, taking that much-needed Pause to Think, learn & reflect.

The Quran tells us whoever wants to believe can do so, whoever wants not to can do so. The Quran REPEATEDLY tells the prophet your job is to convey the message and not force. The Quran tells us that who wants to be grateful can be so, who wants to be a rejectionist can be so.

All the verses about fighting the unbelievers are about battles which was fought against the prophet to stop him from doing exactly that, conveying the message. Its a silencing tactic to stop the message from getting adherents by the pagans and some of the jews who wanted the status quo to remain.

However hadiths give us a very different understanding. Those who say the terrorist use Quranic verses don't know what they are saying. The terrorist use the concept of "naskh and mansoukh" meaning abrogation. They believe verses were abrogated by other verses and do not take Quran as a whole. Its Sunni Islam concept that is not to be found in the Quran but is rooted in the hadiths. Barely 5% of the hadiths originated from the "muhajiroun" companions, meaning those who migrated with the prophet and were his closest companions. The 4 caliphs represent not even 3% of hadiths.

All the terrorist justify their violence based on abrogation and hadiths. In fact there are hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim collection that says Quran is missing in verses as they have been abrogated or forgotten, apostates should be killed, adulteress stoned and who insults Islam or the prophet is to be killed contradictory not only the Quran but the Divine command given to the prophet and that its not your job to force the people to accept God and the Quran but to be a messenger and convey the message.

>> "Our Government's Dangerous Partnering With the Wrong Muslims".
Will you say this about the american governments partnering with the zionist lobby?

Is the national revolt against the Shah any different than a former American military man (Osama bin Laden) instigating violence against innocent civilians? And the difference between a popular revolt and an act of terror escapes you? The media is too accustomed to painting Muslims and Islam with one ill-informed double standard brush. Do you know the torture methods taught by the CIA to Iraqi and Iranian regime (amongst others)? From McDonalds to sleep deprivation and humiliation, Americans are well known in Muslim countries. If not in physical presence, then at least in spirit.

CG ~ Shariah is law of God. Muslims are obligated to follow these (though compulsion does not necessarily accompany them - namaaz being the prime example). The fiqh that developed out of that as a matter of human legislation, informed by Shariah and as an attempt to minimize injustice and maximize human benefit. Every modern day effort to reinstruct Muslims comes from understanding shariah and reinvesting in fiqh.

You're entrenching a backward and imbalanced dialogue and you're informing it with a prejudice. Worse still is how you can't balance your view. It seems you have chosen a side of the issue and not the facts of it.

http://www.muhajabah.com/quran-jihad.htmPermission (to fight) is given to those who are being attacked, because they have been wronged. And surely God measures out help for them. - Surah al-Hajj verse 39 ~And what is with you that you do not fight in the path of God and (in the path) of the oppressed of men and women and children, those who say "Our Sustainer, take us out from this city, its people are wrongdoers, and decree for us a protector, and decree for us a helper". - Surah an-Nisa verse 75 ~ God does not forbid that you do good and make justice for those who do not fight you in the religion or drive you out from your homes. Indeed, God loves those who do justice. God only forbids your friendship with those who fight you in the religion and drive you out from your homes and back those who drive you out. And who befriends them, such are wrongdoers. - Surah al-Mumtahana verses 8-9

Any comments on the Secular Islam Summit held in Florida this past week? Here is one comment:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015541.php

I take it you're worried about jihadis? Should we start an evangelist watch group? Should we start a CIA watch group? A KKK watch? An NRA watch? A oil-lobbyist watch? A zionist-lobby watch? These people do far more damage to the United States individually than any jihadi.

Secular Islam. DOn't you understand that sunni muslims ascribe to a secular government? Do you read anything or you just looking for the terrorist till you find him?