Bismimg2

Eteraz launched another one of his grand tradition-destroying missiles.  Alhamdulillah.

The confusion present in his post is hard to capture, it could be a result of oversight, but given Eteraz’s usual thoroughness I find it hard to reconcile.

Eteraz chooses Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad’s article “Tradition or Extradition?” to attack, after few opening paragraphs he gets right into it with this comment:

(Quoting the Shaikh) The anti-Dreyfusard charge against the Muslim presence, however, goes further than this. It is not enough to behave; you must show that your religion teaches you to behave. And where a hundred years ago the cultivated Western public problematized Jews, it is now Muslims who are feeling the pressure. Anti-semites once baited the Jews as an alien, Oriental intrusion into white, Christian Europe, a Semitic people whose loyalty to its own Law would always render its loyalty to King and Country dubious. Christianity, on this Victorian view, recognised a due division between religion and state; while the Semitic Other could not. There was little wonder in this. The Christian, as heir to the Hellenic vision of St Paul , was free in the spirit. The Semitic Jew was bound to the Law. He could hence never progress or become reconciled to the value of Gentile compatriots. Ultimately, his aim was to subvert, dominate, and possess.

(Eteraz Notes:)
Immediately we see the tactic of the traditionalism. His picture of the West is not the same one that is painted by Bin Laden. al-Qaeda calls the West the Satan, the murderer, the imperialist, the exploiter. Traditionalism, and let’s be very strict about the fact that we are talking about Western Islamic Traditionalism (and not Sudan or Egypt or Pakistan), makes the West (in which we live), to be beyond us, Big Brother, ineffable. It acts and we are left out of it. In short, it immediately sets up in the heart of the young acolyte a feeling that while we are not killed, and while we should not kill, we are never going to be a part of the West.

What?

What is discussed in the above para from the article is a real parallel to our situation and one of the Jews.  The point, which is lost on Eteraz, is that Christian Europe held a distinct suspicion to those who had a loyalty to a law other than that of the their locality.  This is a legitimate concern, and unlike progressives, who decide to abandon that Law altogether in order to -become the West-, Traditionalists desire to maintain their reverence for it while understanding the sublteties of the duality that exists when living with the Sacred Law and the law of the land.

The idea that the West has been setup to be a “Big Brother” which we will never be part of is completely absent from the quote.  Dishonest.

So desperate is Winter to paint Muslims in the West as hapless cogs in the machine of an all-pervasive Western firestorm that he feels no compunction when stating:

We are, in a sense, the New Jews. An odd transposition has taken place, with one religious community ducking from beneath a Christian yoke, which then found Muslim shoulders to rest on. We have little time or inclination to contemplate the irony of this strange alteration, however; since we cannot forget the fate of the prejudice’s earlier victims, and its current prospects. The road from Auschwitz to Srebrenica was not such a crooked one; and the new rightist politicians in the West are surely positioned somewhere along that road.

Such fear-mongering is startling, to say the least. First, because the history of Western Muslim distrust (I hesitate to call it persecution since so many Western Muslims are refugees and asylees and came here to escape persecution), is fairly new. It is not two thousand years old. It has not led to pogroms. It has not led to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I wonder what Eteraz see’s when considering the popularity of right-wing Islam-hating writers such as the ones he himself abandoned at http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/05/08/no-more-an-infidel/ ? The truth is whether it is Swank or Kaufman claiming us regular-old-traditional Muslims are ‘extremists’, we have to understand that this is how such violent nativist movements began.  Irrational Hate.

The comments from Eteraz’s peers at ‘IBA’ exposed how close a Muslim can get to those who hate their religion, from the core, without even realizing it.  Is it fear-mongering to realize that there are movements within the West which support censorship of Muslims or of extradition of Muslims?

Winter’s comments do are idiocies two fold: 1) as noted, they create in the heart of the average Western believer the fear of the unknown imminent, and 2) they create in the heart of the average Westerner the sense that we think of him as presumptively malicious. This point is a devious result of the traditionalism indoctrination: it starts from the assumption that the Western guy is bad, and either you must stay lurking in the dark to avoid his wrath, or you must do your best to circumvent him. In neither case must you affiliate or congregate or associate with him. The traditionalists make all Western individuals the representatives of the Western violence of yesterday and then inculculate such ideas into the hearts of their followers.

I have never discounted the Western violence, but I have also been rational enough to recognize that today’s West boats an inordinate number of people who decry the history of Western violence, and have no intention of re-effectuating it. In fact, the most hypocritical thing is that I know that Muslim traditioinalists know these people. These are the people who help them with jobs, with legal problems, with other bureacratic and social odds and ends.

The ‘inordinate number of people who decry the history of Western violence’ have no problem electing leaders who continue to propagate that history of violence.  Guantanamo, Carpet-bombing Iraq,  Abu Ghraib, the history-writing continues on. 

There is no doubt that the West holds people of a good nature, but that is not Shaikh Abdul Hakim’s point here.

This is about understanding that we cannot be happy-go-lucky Muslims who write along with people at IBA.  We have to be aware that there are paths, even in the West, that lead away from economic opportunity and freedom of expression, into a road of hate, censorship, and violence.   This is not fear-mongering, this is a reality check.  One that Eteraz, with his recent experiences, should more readily understand.

As Eteraz notes, most Western Tradtional Muslims live with Westerners, in general peace and freedom from violence.  The Shaykh’s message, which Eteraz twists into an ‘Anti-Western’ one, is one of unity with those who accept us for what we are.  In fact the entire point of this article from Shaikh Abdul Hakim Murad is one that Eteraz should echo, if he chose to spend more than a minute to understand it.

But he is hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

The Shaykh says in the same article:

“Unless American Muslims can locate for themselves, and populate, a spiritual and cultural space which can recognisably be called American, and develop theological and social tools for identifying and thwarting local extremism, they will increasingly be the target of nativist and implicitly antisemitic discourses, with incalculable consequences.”

How does this paragraph setup the West as “presumptively malicious”?  Rather, it is a sign of acknowledging that Muslims will have to remain truly AMERICAN while dealing with extremist, nativist, ultra-conservatives such as Pipes, Swank, Kaufman and those at IBA.

Closing our ears, while singing “La, la, la, la” will not make them, nor their message, go away.  Irrational attacks on Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad will not make them go away either.

A cursory glance at Winter’s solution reveals that it is hardly that. He has began with the notion that I need to assume that I am automatically inferior, and he has concluded with the position that in the West, I am a guest. Pardon? I’m not a guest to the West. I am the West. I am as much as the West as any other man who comes here and as much the West as man who is Westerner because his grandfather came here. In other words: how can Winter actually posit that we need to treat the West as our new home if he is telling us to think of ourselves as the guest?

Eteraz is no guest to the West, because he has simply abandoned any of the vestiges of his Muslim public personae, so indeed, he is invited to write books and articles essentially against Islam.  The ‘enemy’ has adopted him in more way than one, and he still struggles trying to find his place in the big picture of American-Muslim discourse. 

Eteraz harps on the use of ‘guest’ while completely missing the message.

Imam Ghazali’s (R) comments regarding the guest are doubly important because we cannot assume the West will let us usurp their name while not asking us to lose our own identity.  Western Muslims must recognize that this is a rare time in the history of mankind.  Representatives of a religious culture historically foreign to the West are now living, eating, having families here.   We cannot make the childish assumption that we are immigrants as in the English, Irish, German or Eastern European variety who came from a secular background, and that our assimilation will occur in the exact same manner.

If we remain aware of the significance of this time period, one of true globalization, we may come to realize that Islam is still a guest, in terms of the larger picture of ideologies and theology.

Let us especially consider Shaikh’s main point with the example from Imam Ghazali, that we cannot eat from the bounty of the West as a form of charity, we need to earn our way here, make ourselves valuable.  The recent debate over immigration policies should be a sign that the nativist strain within America still runs strong.

It makes no sense, and that is what happens with you rely on Islamic Traditionalism. It has no means of addressing the concerns of human society today, so it harkens back to anachronistic relics that lead to absurd conclusions like, make the West your home but be sure to conduct yourself as a guest. Not to mention the fact that if you tell the West that you are here temporarily, he will, in times of trouble, ask you to leave. This is not what we want. Winter is wrong. If we want leaders in the West (who also happen to be Muslim) we have to ask them to say to themselves: I am the West and I am tied to the future of the West, not, as Winter wants: I am in the West and I am uncomfortable here.

Eteraz continues to accuse the Shaikh of schizophrenia, when in reality, it is his lack of reading comprehension (or his desire for a strawman), that creates this illogic in his mind.  Then, realizing the article itself is disproving him, he begins to pick and choose at SunniPath Answers.

In other words, the average Ahmed shouldn’t read Nietzsche or Dostoevski or Kierkegaard. If he wants to, he first needs to ask the traditionalist scholars what to believe. And, as a result of such warnings, that is in fact what happens. Muslims don’t read these authors, and they become computer scientists and engineers without any appreciation for Rilke or Frost or Emerson, thereby unable to recognize the immense beauty that the Western world has created.

Neither the quoted answer nor Shaikh’s article indicate anything of the like.  Rather the answer is suggesting that one should not begin learning Islamic theology and history from hostile sources.  Only after a fundamental understanding of the Islamic viewpoint on such matters is it helpful to look towards such works.

Shaikh’s article actually echoes Eteraz in regards to learning of the West’s best thinkers, the Shaykh says:

Regrettably - and this is one of its most telling failures - our community leadership has invested much energy in Islamic education, but has spent little time studying American culture to locate the multiple elements within it which are worthy of Muslim respect.

Further reading into Shaikh’s article gives us a true picture of his message.   I encourage you to read it.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/TradorExtrad.htm

Bismimg2

Just to achieve some additional clarity on the subject, I wanted to respond to Eteraz’s latest post. 

The analogy of Islamic law to American law, with regards to say, Dred Scott or other cases, is fatally flawed as you note.  But not for the reason you discuss.   American law is, in the end, inspired by man’s reason, which brings a whole suite of unique characteristics along with it.  The major characteristic of such law is that, in the end, an individual can be blamed for laying the foundation of immoral decisions or legal precedents.

On the other hand Islamic Law is Divine in origin, and therefore criticism of it is quite like walking on eggshells. 

When do we say the Divine ends and the Man enters into Islamic Law?  For you, Ali Eteraz, this line is apparently much different than mine.  I certainly acknowledge that slavery, polygamy, and maybe some other unpopular issues (today) are addressed directly in the Quran.  This should present a direct conflict for someone who seeks to criticise the Law, since at least a major portion of the Law comes directly from God’s Word and not inference, analogy, or reason.

For traditional Muslims, blaming the Divine is inconceivable.  For non-traditional Muslims, it is hypocritical.  Then again, if you don’t believe the Quran is God’s Word, then you have other problems.  Finding your positions on these issues is somewhat like trying to catch Jello (halaal of course).

While I recognize that certain aspects of the Law, such as slavery, are not in practice today, I don’t revel in that fact.  I simply pointed it out in terms of finding out what exactly it is you are criticising.  Traditionalists don’t practice slavery in secret, they don’t promote it, they talk about how Islam discourages it, and how the Law provides a means out of it.  So when you criticise us on slavery, what are you criticising? 

So I, unlike you, do not lay blame in the Law.  In fact, I commend it.  Since, outside of those who simply transitioned into debt-slaves to the West, it was the application of that Law that brought us to a point where it is not needed to be applied. 

 I am surprised you consider yourself once an admirer of traditionalism,  especially considering that you cannot remember what a traditionalists response would be to hearing “Pakistani Shariah laws”. Muslims cannot treat the Shariat like some poisonous contaminant, that even an ounce of it affects entire cities, suddenly rendering them ‘traditional’.

 No, the Shariat is a pill, and you better take the whole pill. Because it is one of those split color ones, and who knows what you will do to yourself with only the red half. 

 Muslims have left the Shariat for some time, all of us recognize that the Shariat ‘inspired’ systems across this globe are woefully inadequate.  Are the examples of ‘law’ in Pakistan, Iran, and Egypt you provide reflected by the majority of the traditional ulema?  Is that what is promoted by the scholars of the Islamic legal and spiritual tradition today?  Is this false attempt by so-called ‘traditional ulema’ in Pakistan to afford some form of religious legitimacy to the state lauded by us or laughed at by us? 

Either you create a straw-man argument or you associate those to traditional Islam that don’t belong there. 

Traditional Islamic Law is inherently anti-nationalistic, towards a creating a complete brotherhood.  When we need stamped passports to enter Muslim land, we have a problem at a very fundamental level.  When we don’t stop the oil-pumping when our Brothers are being attacked from all directions, we have a problem at a fundamental level.  With such fundamental problems why are we discussing laws built off of this feeble faux-Islamic legal system? Such systems, like their adjudicators are corrupt to their core, and if this is your example of ‘traditionalism’ then I simply laugh.  Andalus would be better.

Let’s take some questions:

 Do you guys believe that there should be such a thing as apostasy?

What does this mean? Apostasy exists.. should people become apostates? I’d rather hope not. 

As far as apostasy laws, like most other issues you remain woefully ignorant of the traditional viewpoint in the first place.  Muslims lived with apostates, even during the time of the Prophet (S).  We called them Munafiq’s, you should read about them in the Quran.  The traditional laws of apostasy have a single minded goal of emphasizing apostates out of the polity and this is plain and clear, not to create martyrs out of them.

Do you guys believe that polygamy should be permitted, despite the fact that the entire rationale for a man supporting more than one woman is gone in the context of the modern nation-state?

Tell that to the Mormon’s.. I hear they are even getting a TV show about their polygamy in this modern nation-state.  I also don’t believe the nation-state could ever offer what polygamy has the capability of offering.  A family. 

Do you believe that Shias are Muslims?

Shia’s are absolutely Muslim.  Doesn’t SunniPath even say so here and here?

Or is it that they are Muslim, but just heretics?

They have some strange, deviant beliefs, no doubt.  Apply what label you wish, but it is interesting to note the phrase Shaykh Faraz Rabbani applies… “people of heaven”.

 Isn’t it kind of prejudicial that your premier website is called: Sunnipath?

Why is that?  It is honest about what it professes, much to the chagrin of those who like to keep their beliefs hidden.

Do you guys permit any non-Ashari/Maturidi non-four-schools-of-law way of doing jurisprudence?

It’s not taught at SunniPath if that is what you are asking.  Will I accept a Christian telling me Islamic law is such and such? No. If a unqualified Muslims tells me the same, the answer would be the same.  And the manner of qualification is through a traditional methodology.

Do you guys believe that artists can engage the Quran?

Sure I enjoy the art of Izzy Mo and others such as this site.

Can they take Quranic metaphors and write stories about them?

Are the Houris’ metaphors?  Does it say so somewhere?  Can I say God is a metaphor?  Is that blasphemy?  To me it is.  To you?  Blasphemy can’t exist when you don’t hold anything sacred.

Or are all deviations from established exegetical texts form of apostasy and blasphemy?

The use of the word deviations is interesting.. It is just that. Deviations.   Apostacy is declaring you leave Islam.  Different and distinct.

I hope you see what I’m getting at.

I see where you are going, but as you can see from my responses I don’t agree with your presupposed conclusions about my answers.  So I wonder if you see where I am going?

As far as these comments:

I mean, really, you’ve already conceded 1) that traditionalism adapts and changes and 2) that Western traditionalist scholars act no differently than most Westerners.

I didn’t make your #2 assertion above.  I simply pointed out that the few points you decide to criticize us on are not even espoused by traditionalists.  I don’t think any traditional scholar ‘blends in’ in Western society, in appearance, in manners, or in the raw nuur on their faces.

Furthermore there are plenty of foreign born, non-English speaking sunni/sufi/traditionalist’s who don’t ‘act like most Westerners”.   http://www.guidancemedia.com/ is hosting a few right now, and last time I checked Shaykh Nuh resides in Jordan, and my Shaykh was born and raised in Cyprus.  Islam, is quite alive in the hearts and minds of scholars all around the world.  They may not be popular with governments looking for religious legitimacy, and they may not be well funded by Saudi dollars, but they exist.

(Side note..If I ‘conceded’ something how does that jive with your point of view of “though getting beyond that is difficult since they cannot change their mind unless their ‘ulama change”?)

As you continue in your journey of criticism of traditional thought, I would recommend you consider that, from one “traditionalist’s” opinion,  that you have a fundamentally confused idea of what traditionalism is.

As far as your help against being hanged by deviants for ‘apostasy’, I humbly decline. I have another Protector, and I do not fear death, inshaAllah.

Finally, I found this interesting on your interview (which honestly deserves a complete critique of its own)

“There are times when I don’t believe in God (it’s an organic relationship). In those times I pray to the ghost of Nietzsche. “

Why again, when condemning Muslim activitists, do you don the “God Belief” hat enough to sign yourself “fellow Muslim”?  Proof, I say, that progressivism is simply atheism in disguise.  The new Munafiqism. The Islamic Zionism.  Leftover emotional guilt-baggage of immigrants or their brown skinned sons and daughters,  who cannot seem to leave their Eastern brethern bereft of their Western “enlightenment”, and come under the guise of their own.

I say, quit your struggle in attempting to connect back with them by mere hollow use of the word “Muslim” (which your interview declares is simply a title applied to any Christian, Jew, Hindu or Atheist who decides to use the sounds “Mus”-”lim” to describe themselves).

Instead start trying to connect spiritually in the beliefs and ideals we hold sacred (at least don’t mock them). 

A good start would be taking down that Houris post, at least it may close the door slightly to whatever Whispering it is that inspires you..

Or… move on.

Bismimg2

Those who follow Islam as it has been understood for centuries have to deal with attacks on multiple fronts, there is certainly no respite in being known as a ‘traditionalist’.

The first is the West, which is constantly confusing what is traditional with what is barbaric and backwards. This is a common theme amongst the critics of traditionalism, but certainly one that the Western media continues to adore. This is a flaw not limited to non-Muslims, but a fatal virus that has infected all other critics of traditional Islam.

The second are the literalists, who continue to spend their hours looking to find another way to declare the majority of the ummah as apostates. They spend their time furthering their selective reading of source texts, or at least, the one’s searchable and indexed by USC. They too enjoy pointing at the Milad’s, the Mazar’s, and the Misbahah’s with their Bidaa’t death-ray-beam, that is… if they have time between strapping themselves with bombs.

The third are the progressive/reformists/modernists whose theology is so plainly confused that they don’t even think it is worth discussing. It is difficult to believe they revere anything, either that, or they view expressive reverence as a form of weakness. A comment in an earlier post prompted me to discuss this third group, once again.

To speak of them, first we must identify them. This is difficult to do as they plainly avoid discussion of their own religious beliefs and their ideological heroes are often non-Muslim.

Their pluralism has been taken to the extreme which leads to a confused, out of tune chorus of voices. Fortunately, they do agree on one thing, and that is plainly evident at the virtual high-five’s given on each other’s blogs while discussing various criticisms of traditional scholars. This pluralism is enough to deflect most rebuttals since, there will always be another alternative opinion available which they can slide into.

One of their defining characteristics is their enjoyment to dip into taboo’s. In fact the more taboo the subject, the better it is for them to discuss (better search-engine keywords). The most interesting aspect of their reactionary approach is that, like most short lived movements, they rely intimately on criticisms of the other to define themselves.

What is quite curious is that there is not one among them that has actually come from a background of traditional learning.

Lacking a fundamental understanding of what they spend their hours criticising, their mistakes in their understanding of tradition are visible from afar. This latest post from Ali Eteraz, lists a number of things he applies to the traditional understanding of Islam. His immediate mistake of making the lead financing state of the Wahabi philosophy, Saudi Arabia, into following the “Hanbali legal code”. As if Shaykh Abd al Qadir Jilani (rad) would have approved of this mockery of a legal code in Wahabistan.

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani writes,

“If someone wants to know the position in the Hanbali madhhab used for fatawa they go to: Kashshaf Al-Qina`, Al-Raud Al-Murbi`, Sharh Al-Muntaha (all by Al-Buhuti), Dalil Al-Talib (Mar`i bin Yusuf), or Nail Al-Ma’arib (Al-Taghlabi). If they want to list opinions in the madhhab then they go to: Al-Mughni (Ibn Qudamah), Al-Furu` (Ibn Muflih), or Al-Insaf (Al-Mardawi). Otherwise they must remain silent, regardless of how famous and knowledgeable they may be in a different madhhab.”

I wonder if Ali Eteraz consulted these works on such topics, much less learned them from an authorized teacher?

His lists of grievances begins with opinions and ends with opinions. Totally swallowed in the “consensus reality” of the West, his comparisons are outright rants instead of deliberate criticisms.

Points one, two, three list “norms” that he feels men do not ‘have to observe’. On top of being a bit repetitive, the points are completely based on his view of what “norms” are.

I wonder is it a “norm” for a woman to work in their yard bare-chested? Is it a “norm” for a man? Is it a “norm” for women in Western society to starve themselves as they struggle to fit within their confined ‘idealized’ woman-image cauterized into their brains by relentless images of the mass media? What percentage of child custody cases end with primary custody in favor of the mother? Of the father (hint: 10%)?

It seems that Western society certainly puts such different “norms” on women as well.

It is not a matter of behavior, clothing or appearance. It is a matter of acknowledging that the sexes are different at a some level. Outside of some tiny lesbian subculture, reflections of those differences exist within all societies.

Eteraz’s accusation of FGM being sanctioned in traditionalist books of fiqh is left uncited, and another example of his bias. Is FGM being endorsed by those we consider traditionalist scholars, who are transmitting the very tradition he criticises? If not, then what is the point of this strawman argument? And, more for Ali Eteraz himself, what is the motivation?

Point four, polygamy, simply replaces the word “help” with “prey upon”. What is the ideal scenario for Ali Eteraz’s modern society? Is there an alternative he applies for the weak he lists, or is subsidized welfare the modernist solution? Again, the point arises whether traditionalist scholars endorse polygamy or do they permit it, with a number of caveats?

There certainly is a difference.

On and on the list goes, blaming an unknown tradition for a variety of things, most of which is grounded in a strawman argument, as demonstrated in the closing sentence, with a defining comment:

“Those traditionalists who say that traditional Islamic law does not allow any of these things are not traditionalists.”

Does he seriously believe this is the tradition represented by the masters of Islam of our age and the age gone past? Does traditionalism translate to literalism, if so, when did that occur? Even if one manages to find some reference… Can traditionalism be represented by books alone or, again, has tradition been misinterpreted to lose its ‘living’ nature of being alive in the hearts and minds of our scholars?

My question to Ali Eteraz and those like him is, what do YOU believe in? Why continue this charade of calling oneself Muslim without abiding to any of our fundamental beliefs? If you are capable of floating in and out of atheism, do you find it appropriate to sign letters as your “fellow Muslim”? Does it sell more books when you call yourself the M word?

Or is it simply useful when ‘calling out’ Muslims, as is regular practice, to be able to put down ‘as an American-Muslim’?

Do you believe in Miracles? Do you believe in La’illaha’illAllah MuhummadurRasullullah?

What does that mean to you, intimately?

Is anything sacred?

Has everything in the Quran become allegory and symbolism? When we open for criticism the very words of the Quran, for example, the description of the Houris’, what have you accomplished?

Probably the answers to most of these would lead us to realize, such people are not our ‘fellow’ anything.

For some cosmic reason, I have encountered over ten references to the word ‘progressive’ in relationship to Islam and Muslims in a period of just 24 hours.

I will summarize all these references to one simple line: “Muslims need to change Islam.”

Muslims have realized for a long time that something is wrong and things need to change, but what is it, and how to resolve the problem?

It seems that every one of us has pointed our finger to a problem, and now even the Western media is joining in on the finger pointing. Everyone is out to find the enemy.

One thing is clear, the enemy of the West is not the Islam of the majority of Muslims today. The West would be in a great deal of trouble if it had to deal with one billion people bent on it’s destruction.
Read the rest of this entry »

Izzy Mo had an entry about Muhummad Ali and one of his works on hadith.

I just want to share these thoughts of mine on the subject.

Muhummad Ali completed what is known as one of the best translations of the Quran (recognized and praised by both Yusuf Ali, and Marmaduke Pickthall).

Yusuf Ali said:
“It’s a scholarly work, and is equipped with adequate explanatory
matter in the notes and the Preface, and a fairly full index. But the
English of the Text is decidedly weak, and is not likely to appeal to
those who know no Arabic.” (ref: http://members.tripod.com/iaislam/Quran/translations.htm)

Obviously, Yusuf Ali also had to build a case for his own translation which was completed a decade or more after Muhummad Ali’s. Others have held that it is not the English that is weak, but the fact that the English is accurate to the Arabic.
Read the rest of this entry »

Umm Zaid has a great entry on Progressive Islam.

Since I was contemplating what reformist movements mean to traditional Islam, I was fascinated by this movement early on. This group has had their fair share of attention on NPR.

Omid Safi, author of “Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism“, is one of the proponents of this new philosophy.

After hearing him, I realize why this movement has not been as successful as they desire. I really don’t think ‘Progressive Muslims’ know who they are.
Read the rest of this entry »