Empty vessels make the loudest noise
October 4, 2008
Muslimah Media Watch recently covered a discussion between Senior analyst with Gallup and Director of Gallup and Muslim studies, Dalia Mogahed; and journalist and author, Irshad Manji. I had heard this discussion before, however, when I read MMW’s piece on it, I decided to share a few thoughts, because Sobia’s take on the discussion differed from my own. I’m a bit disappointed Sobia’s piece remained ‘neutral’ in its coverage of the discussion—opting to point out how nice it is to have diverse opinions in the community. While it’s important to demonstrate a myriad of views within the female Muslim community– we’re indeed in need of them, however, it’s another to legitimise the voices of those like Manji. Sobia from MMW did not seem to understand the fine line between the two. Let me explain.
The debate began with Manji’s atrocious Arabic pronunciation of ‘assalamu’ alaikum’, which sounded more like American slang, than an Islamic greeting. It didn’t do much for Manji’s credibility, I tell you. It was clear from the outset that Manji was out of her league. Mogahed was knowledgeable both in Islam, its politics and the reality of Western Muslims and their experiences. She could draw on all three in order to give credence and illustrate her answers and refutations. Unlike Manji, who solely relied on personal experiences and abstract references to Islamic history. In sum, Mogahed destroyed Manji with her level of knowledge and empirical evidence. Now I’m not saying that those who are less informed should not be discussing Islam, hell, we all do it. However, there are dangers in expressing views in a public setting without actually having the knowledge to support yourself. In the case of Manji, this becomes even more problematic considering the post-911 context.
What do we know about Manji? She’s an author of the book “The trouble with Islam today” (originally titled “The trouble with Islam” which she was wisely told to change). She is also President of “Project ijtihad” which builds closer relations between “reformed-minded Muslims” and non-Muslims. Reading her book, one immediately realises it’s nothing more than a regurgitation of already circulated criticism of Islam, often from the voices of Christians, atheists and politicians. Like in this debate, she uses it to praise herself and how courageous she is being for making such criticisms. I think it’s healthy to question your belief and practices, but there has to be a foundation of understanding where criticism is being made. Also, there’s a difference between slander and criticism, which Manji too often conflates in her book and articles.
Manji’s book, and this debate for that matter, clearly illustrates she has little knowledge of Islam, but chooses to resort to popular arguments (Islam’s oppression of women etc). For instance, her definition of Sharia law was very selective she defines it as nothing more than “legal opinions” of classical jurists that have been repeated since the imperial period. There is no mention of how these opinions were derived, its close association with the Quran and Sunnah. Importantly, there’s no understanding that Sharia is a dynamic tool; used in multiple ways depending on individual cases. Judith Tucker’s book In the House of the Law: Gender and Islamic Law in Ottoman Syria and Palestine’ extensively shows how Sharia was used in 17th and 18th century Palestine and Syria, where she concludes how the law was very fluid and flexible. It’s also quite interesting how there is very little references to Islamic text to support Manji’s accusations against Islam. Page after page lacking footnotes. The little references to history and text she has the courage to use is often distorted to fit her political agenda: To undermine Islam, to reinforce a euro-centric understanding of Islam, to reassert her position of a “reformist thinker”, to legitimise Islamophobia, and so on.
This panel/debate wasn’t the only one I seen Manji on; and it’s interesting that she is always placed against more ‘orthodox’ and scholarly people—whether its history, politics, or Islam that’s the subject. For example, the well-known debate with political scientist Angry Arab cleverly reinforces the dichotomy that Manji and her supporters would prefer: Manji, the informed reformist who is subverting the ‘evils’ in orthodox Islam accentuated by who she speaks against. This could be the Angry Arab character, who it is mistakenly implied, is sympathetic towards the “inherent violence” in Islam and the Muslim world (because he understands the imperial game) or the more traditional speaker who uses Islamic scholarship, the Quran and hadiths to support their claim.
To have someone like Manji on the same panel debating Mogahed, the implication here is Manji’s views have equal weight to Islamic scholarship, or anyone with a good grasp of historical and political realities in the Muslim world.
Which brings me to my next problem with Manji: her politics. Manji has become renown for her criticism of the Muslim world, in particular the Arab Palestinians. She actually reminds me of the hilarious critic of Islam, Wafa Sultan, also known for her polemics– where she too has made a career out of criticising Islam and the Muslim world for its ‘backwardness’, ‘violence’ etc. Apparently psychiatry just wasn’t providing her enough of an income. Both have argued that the problem is not the West, but Muslims and Islam. It is Muslims and Islam that need to change and appreciate the ‘benevolence’ of the West, they argue. Indeed, Muslims should take responsibility for some of the problems in our community. I personally have a habit of pointing this out. However, they both conveniently ignore the role of colonialism and its imperial presence today, where we have been witnessed to an economic, cultural and political domination. This seems to escape Manji especially. In fact, Manji is a huge supporter of Israel, a state which has since its establishment in 1948, has shown complete disregard for human rights, the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements of civilised nations. It has subsequently subjected Palestinians to systematic oppression and continues to do so without a care in the world. Manji has gone as far to say that Israel serves as a “model” for the Arab and Muslim world to emulate.
Therefore, Manji’s political views and her views on Islam cannot simply be treated as mutually exclusive. Sobia states Manji “very often is viewed as speaking for or about Muslims, whether some Muslims like it or not, her inclusion in the debate also seemed appropriate”. Considering Manji’s political views, I must ask, who is it more appropriate for?
Sobia also half-heartedly admits Mogahed did a tad better. Which I thought a bit surprising, because it was obvious to the listener; she refuted everything Manji said (even if Manji’s point was irrelevant) while Manji failed to do the same. Little digs and comic references do not constitute a good answer! Sobia also writes “Manji mainly relied on personal experiences, which are valid and credible in and of themselves”. Whaaaaat? In an attempt to support diverse opinions within the community, Sobia has come too close to legitimise not only the polemics of Manji, but also argue that Manji’s reliance on personal experience (where a lot of her theories are premised on) are just as valid as reliance on Islamic scholarship, general Muslim opinion (via polling etc) and religious text. Sure, personal experience varies and that should be something we consider, however, in a discussion like this, where issues of terrorism, women and Islam, critical thinking in Islamic scholarship, etc are being discussed, Manji’s personal experience cannot be used as explanation, illustrations and refutations. In fact, by acknowledging the validity of personal experiences I am curious what Sobia has to say about renowned critic of Islam Hirsi Ali (whom by the way Manji has closely worked with). Hirsi Ali has taken her personal experience in an abusive marriage to a Muslim man and homogenised it as typical of women’s experience in Islam. Now, as an atheist, she has waged war on Islam.
So Manji can continue throwing in little self-aggrandizing stories of being praised for her views, her mysterious conversations with unknown or unnamed shiekhs and so on; it comes nowhere near to reflecting a more accurate view, which was what Mogahed’s research was based on. I love one particular tactic Manji employs, and that is her insistence she receives emails from young Muslims expressing their support. Now, that may be true, that she probably does receive emails from some young Muslims, but I have my doubts that they’re anything more than a handful. I don’t know of ANY Muslim, from the most ‘traditional’ to the most ‘liberal’ who have taken a liking to Manji. In fact, they despise her. If not for her religious views, than definitely for her political views. It is her attempt to legitimise her voice. In reality, she, like Ali, is the apple of the Western political plutocracy’s eyes. The climate is ripe for Manjis, Alis and Sultans, and it is little wonder their voices are inflated to an importance that is undeserving.
In light of this, it is not surprising, as a Muslim woman who studies, and is passionate about women’s issues in Islam and politics, I can safely say, Manji-the self professed feminist, certainly does not speak for me.
- Sahar
F
Sahar
Farah
October 4, 2008 at 8:12 am
Love it !!!!!
October 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Salam Nuseiba,
I will try to answer very quickly:
I disagree, and think you are not totally fair, because you discuss who’s Irshad Manji rather than what she actually said in the debate. But I confess I did not finish your text yet. It lacks of sources of your grave allegations, statements that prove what you’re arguing.
Thank you very much for the link in Muslimah Watch. With peace, ma’a assalâma.
October 4, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Salam!
I think your analysis of Manji’s inclusion in the debate has a lot of good points, as I wrote over at MMW, after watching the debate again, that Mogahed is undoubtedly qualified to be in this debate, but it seems like Manji is only here so that there IS a debate. Like, they only chose her because she is such a polarizing figure in Muslim communities and they figured she’d put up a good fight.
It’s as if the organizers were attempting a “good Muslim (Mogahed) vs. bad Muslim (Manji)”. Those aren’t my personal constructions, mind you, but what I think many Muslims see when they look at Mogahed and Manji.
Who else could they have gotten? Dr. Amina Wadud, Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Asra Nomani…but it seems like they went for Manji because they didn’t believe Mogahed and any of these other women would have anything to fight about (which I doubt is true).
“Sobia has come too close to legitimise not only the polemics of Manji, but also argue that Manji’s reliance on personal experience (where a lot of her theories are premised on) are just as valid as reliance on Islamic scholarship, general Muslim opinion (via polling etc) and religious text.”
I can’t speak for Sobia, but I think she was coming from an academic place where qualitative data (such as personal experiences and interviews) are deemed just as valid as quantitative data (hard numbers).
I think Sobia did a fair job discussing Manji vs. Mogahed; discussions about Manji always devolve into calling her a bad Muslim for this or that. I was impressed that Sobia maintained objectivity where few can–I don’t even know her true feelings on Manji or her politics.
While I think Manji’s views are legitimate (who can say what is legitimate and what isn’t?) no matter my feelings on them, I think her inclusion in this debate as someone who can speak for Islam isn’t.
October 4, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Abenyusuf, when you do finish my text, perhaps then i’ll take your opinion a little more seriously. If evidence is what you need, I made enough references to the debate to support my claims, as well as her book and political views. It’s there for the public to refer to.
“I can’t speak for Sobia, but I think she was coming from an academic place where qualitative data (such as personal experiences and interviews) are deemed just as valid as quantitative data (hard numbers)”.
Fatemeh, I know the academic take on this, and Sobia’s isn’t really academic, and if she has it in mind,it’s distorted. A single personal experience does not counter hard numbers and general experiences within a community! This is something I encounter in my own thesis. It’s dangerous to put too much importance on personal experience, within this context. Especially in the case of Manji, how does it constitute a concrete informed argument in such a debate? Why aren’t more informed people who actually may disagree with Mogahed not up there challenging her views?
Any debate involving Manji should highlight her political views and understand her within that context. For me, Manji serves the same purpose as those orientalist images of Muslim women– we both wrote about on the covers of books and which dominate the narrative of the Muslim world. They both play a role in demonising Islam and the Muslim world, and therefore legitimise popular Western conceptions of the Muslim world and the wars that rage there. We cannot simply ignore this.
October 4, 2008 at 9:56 pm
It seems Sahar you missed the point of my discussion. If only you had read the disclaimer. I refused to discuss anything to do with Islam in my posts. I am not one to tell people what Islam is or isn’t therefore I CANNOT make judgements about Manji’s interpretations of Islam – Islamic scholarship was completely and purposefully ignored in my writing.
Fatemeh is right in what she has said about my perspective and I will add that it is not only an academic perspective but also an ideological one – a social constructionist perspective where social reality is what we construct it to be. Therefore, the experiences of Manji and those whom she meets cannot and should not be discounted just because the numbers disagree. In feminist and cultural research this has been a major criticism. Admittedly, Mogahed’s study and the numbers she refers to are valid and reveal a great deal about Muslims, but that does not invalidate, thus marginalize, the experiences of again, not only Manji but the people she refers to. It is this precise purposeful neglect and marginalization which creates divisions, disrespect, and ultimate resentment among the people within a community. (This is not as simplistic as quantitative vs qualitative research methods.)
I personally am ambivalent about Manji and feel some of her works are fodder for Islamophobes, but I refuse to intellectually push her out of the Muslim community just because of that. She still identifies as a Muslim and states to have great respect for Islam. If she wants to criticize Muslims then so be it. It is her right and comes from a particular place, a particular experience.
Which brings me to Ayan Hirsi Ali. First, although the two women are friends does not mean they are one and the same person. Hirsi Ali is no longer a Muslim and speaks now from an outsider perspective. However, it is her experiences with Islam and the way in which Islam was presented to her that made her turn against Islam. The Islam that she saw was a vicious and brutal one and to be honest I cannot blame her for questioning it. However, where she crosses a line with me is when she arrogantly and just as viciously criticizes Muslims WITHOUT listening to the diverse stories of Muslims and their experiences with Islam. She refuses to accept that there are many Muslims whose experiences with Islam have been beautiful. Her arrogance is so immense that she patronizes and de-humanizes any who disagrees with her. She IS NOT a feminist in any sense of the word.
Manji, on the other hand, is not that extreme. And although she may seem to be patronizing some, her intentions do not seem to be such. She is opinionated yes, but I cannot imagine her telling me that I am brainwashed and have no clue what Islam is really about. It seems to me her feminist identification would discourage such dismissal of one’s experiences, as many do of hers.
I did give equal respect to both Manji and Mogahed. I will not judge them based on their knowledge of Islam as that is all relative. And additionally, the post was a critique of the actual debate and not their politics. Before I can critique Manji’s politics I need to know Mogahed’s, which I am thus far unaware of. A critique of Manji’s politics would be thus one-sided. Plus, I did not want to jump on the “let’s bash Irshad Manji so we don’t have to actually listen to what she is saying” bandwagon.
October 5, 2008 at 2:29 am
“It seems Sahar you missed the point of my discussion. If only you had read the disclaimer. I refused to discuss anything to do with Islam in my posts. I am not one to tell people what Islam is or isn’t therefore I CANNOT make judgements about Manji’s interpretations of Islam – Islamic scholarship was completely and purposefully ignored in my writing”.
With all due respect Sobia, I don’t really think you had a point to your post. It seems futile to ignore an integral part of what was discussed (Islamic scholarship) when it’s actually being discussed in the debate. However, even ignoring the Islamic scholarship, I also focused on the politics as well. You didn’t really go into that either. How can one avoid both without at least acknowledging one or both while covering the debate?
“It is this precise purposeful neglect and marginalization which creates divisions, disrespect, and ultimate resentment among the people within a community”.
Of course the experiences of the marginalised needs to be acknowledged. Part of feminist methodology is also to ask questions like to what extent should they be considered? What is the purpose of giving it so much focus? Is it right for it to be used to discount the experiences of the majority to the extent it has within this debate? Furthermore, to consider the socio-political context in which the debate is taking place AND acknowledging it by the topics that were raised; Manji’s experience means little within this context. That was my point. It seems ludicrous to me that so much emphasis and importance has been given to her experience and used to counter an argument that is more informed, relies on scholarship/religious text, and the experiences of the large majority. To equate the two would mean to encourage a pointless nihilistic approach.
“If she wants to criticize Muslims then so be it. It is her right and comes from a particular place, a particular experience”.
No one is saying she doesn’t have a right to criticise Muslims, but we should be aware of her attempt to homogenise that experience and voice it as normative. Much like Hirsi Ali.
“However, where she crosses a line with me is when she arrogantly and just as viciously criticizes Muslims WITHOUT listening to the diverse stories of Muslims and their experiences with Islam. “.
Firstly, I didn’t say they were friends, I said they worked together. The reason why I mentioned this was because it tells us there is a common goal the two women have realised and are working together to achieve it. Secondly, Manji’s position also is premised on the arrogant understanding that her personal experience is what matters and where he theories are derived from. Often in debates and her articles, she has proven that the experiences of majority of Muslims with Islam mean little when they are compared to that of her own. Her entire career is premised on this refusal to consider the experiences of others! That, and her political views is why the comparison to Ali was made. The only difference between the two is one identifies as a Muslim, the other no longer does.
“And additionally, the post was a critique of the actual debate and not their politics. Before I can critique Manji’s politics I need to know Mogahed’s, which I am thus far unaware of”
Again, how can you do that without considering their own political positions? Another difference between Mogahed and Manji is the former hasn’t voiced her political views to the extent that Manji has. Part of Manji’s career has been to write about politics as well as Islam and Muslims. That is why what she has to say needs to be contextualised within her politics.
“Plus, I did not want to jump on the “let’s bash Irshad Manji so we don’t have to actually listen to what she is saying” bandwagon”.
To imply I have done that is to simply miss the entire point I’ve been trying to make.
October 5, 2008 at 3:27 am
And you’ve missed mine, so I guess we’re in the same positions as before.
October 5, 2008 at 3:52 am
“Which brings me to Ayan Hirsi Ali. First, although the two women are friends does not mean they are one and the same person.” – Sobia
*****
What a surprising (and yet perfectly sensible) revelation. I did not know this.
Any clear-thinking mind can see that hard data is worth more than anecdotal evidence transmitted by unreliable narrators (to borrow terminology from the hadith scholars).
Sobia states, “It is this precise purposeful neglect and marginalization which creates divisions, disrespect, and ultimate resentment among the people within a community.”
On the contrary, the colonial goal was always to exploit the faintest hints of division in our societies, and to fund and flatter the pretences of the dividers, in order to weaken the whole. Western support of Manji (including her publisher’s ‘generosity’ in allowing her to supply free translations) is a perfect continuation of the old machinations of the Colonial Office.
October 5, 2008 at 4:03 am
Sobia, I don’t understand how you can pretend to have any relevance at all if you choose to ignore the exact aspects of Manji’s work that are most significant and most contentious – her incompetence to discuss any in-depth matters related to Islam, and her Lord Haw Haw-esque politics. You explicitly stated in your comments that you were unwilling to comment on those; in that case, there was nothing left to say.
Neutrality of the sort you displayed in portraying the two debators as roughly on the same level is in fact distortion. I wonder why you did this – was it merely because of Manji’s many conservative detractors, whose voices you didn’t wish to strengthen with your own? What does that say about your own objectivity?
October 5, 2008 at 10:11 am
Sobia, if all you wanted to do was provide a “style” analysis of the debate, then you really didn’t need to write so much in your post. In any case I find that I disagree with you regarding the way Manji presented herself; she didn’t answer questions at times, she was contradictory and she made a distinction between “reform-minded” Muslims and “moderate” Muslims which I find unhelpful.
In addition, while qualitative data is extremely useful, it should be used more effectively than just “My mum and I were on a tour and we were approached by a bunch of young Muslims who ascribe to an early tribal idea of honour” or “my Imam friend wrote an article for me using itjihad to reform our understanding of inter-faith marriages. And don’t worry, he studied in Saudi so he’s qualified.” Now, while I don’t have any problem with the issues up for discussion(namely, ascribing to early tribal ideas of honour or using itjihad to reform our understanding of inter-faith marriages), I don’t see how using anecdotal evidence strengthens her credibility. She could have looked at studies that use both qualitative and quantitative research methods, but no, instead she gives me a story.
Her example of “Operation Badr” also illustrates my point. Instead of discussing a number of other well-known terrorist/extremist groups and looking at the ways in which those groups have appropriated religious symbolism and imagery for their own purposes, she uses a group of Muslims youth in Canada as her example, and considering (from her own admission) that the police didn’t tell anyone about the group’s name, I guess we have to take her word for the fact that the group is what she says it is. Mogahed, on the other hand, effectively linked the discussion to how any social movement takes on the cultural symbolism of the time, and cites the PLO using Arab nationalism to further its aims as a pertinent example of her point (and she didn’t reduce it down to saying “I was a member of the PLO and we did this”)
Sobia, you said that you “refuse[d] to intellectually push [Manji]out of the Muslim community just because of that”
Well, I’ll gladly push her out of the wider intellectual community. Don’t get me wrong, she can criticise as much as she likes, but if you do so with a lack of understanding of the underlying issues at hand then I’ll criticise back. When she mentioned her “Operation Badr” example, she claimed that the root cause of the group’s belief didn’t matter, it was the fact that they had appropriated the symbolism in itself that (apparently) proved her point. The root cause of their belief is the main problem!!!
Granted I haven’t read her book, but I am familiar with her blog and again and again she displays a significant misunderstanding of the nexus between culture, religion and identity. And while I’m not familiar with Mogahed’s work, I am a big fan of John Esposito and he does have a greater understanding of the issues at hand.
October 5, 2008 at 10:20 am
Oh and just to clarify – when I say “Don’t get me wrong, she can criticise as much as she likes, but if you do so with a lack of understanding of the underlying issues at hand then I’ll criticise back.”
the “you” is referring to Manji, not you personally Sobia. Well, actually, not Manji specifically, but her and other people I don’t agree with. Which admittedly might include you Sobia (because it’s obvious I don’t agree with you) but when I say “don’t agree with” I mean on big issues of discussion. Like Ernest Gellner. I don’t agree with his ideas of nationalism so every chance I get I participate in Gellner-bashing. Hey, he was obviously smart, just a little misguided.
Anyway the point of this post was that I re-read what I typed above and it sounded a bit like a personal attack, which I’m not a fan of.
Farah
October 5, 2008 at 12:38 pm
wow this is getting heated fast…
Perhaps this was the reason that the sister on MMW didn’t want the theology to be discussed? Since it leads to polarization where not much is gained.
PS. i can’t stand Manji’s politics and lack of knowledge.
October 5, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Assalaamualaikum-
I would have to agree with the bulk of your post. I was acutely aware of the difference of these two speakers from the first question-
Manji’s response-
Theory vs. practice-then reference to those scary mullahs and imams
Moghahed’s response
explaining the meaning of ijaza and the need for common literacy
At this point-I have so much to say on this subject that I don’t where to begin. As an African-American Muslim woman trained in literary criticism I understand the need to question who defines authenticity and legitimacy. I understand the need to embrace the personal to find the validity in what happens at the level of practice.
Yet I also understand the need to find tools to interpret these practices, to historicize and contextualize them. This is where I feel an “open door” policy that says everything personal is valid is quite dangerous particularly in the post 9-11 world where this means big money, big positions with little credentials and-in its worse moments-a shrugging off of the violence that has taken countless lives.
So returning to Mogahed’s initial point about common literacy-I find this to be quite provocative because this is what is needed-from the top down and vice versa. What disheartens me now is the clamoring of Muslims in the global market to give his/her take on the “whole Islam thing” when previous to 9-11 they were not communally, artistically, individually or academically concerned with anything to do with Islam or Muslims. This is not saying people cannot speak but I find much of it to be boring and stereotypical.
I find an intense anti-intellectualism often coded in the mocking tone of people like Manji. Her reform remains deeply entrenched in a “common sense” that otherizes Muslims and our intellectual traditions.
Personally, I am working on my Islamic literacy. This does not mean that I cannot speak but it does demand that I am honest about what I know and respectful of those who understand what I do not.
October 5, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Salam Sahar,
First, I finished your text. I made the searchs in google for Irshad Manji and her declarations about Israel and it seems true. She actually said what you reported.
So, I beg you to pardon my lack of patience. Thank you one more time, ma’a assalâma.
October 6, 2008 at 8:22 am
I found these very powerful videos for Dalia Mogahed. She’s amazing! It seems that she’s extremely respected in many serious professional circles.
Conference by US Army War College and Women in International Security.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter021207_college2.rm
Mogahed discuss her study on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9275&SectionName=&PlayMedia=Yes
Charlie Rose discussion with John Esposito & Dalia Mogahed
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/09/05/3/a-conversation-with-john-esposito-dalia-mogahed
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-2108738710060181231:2378000:983000&hl=en
October 6, 2008 at 10:51 am
Thank you for all your interesting responses!
Pepe: We shouldn’t hesitate to discuss a contentious issue simply because it may lead to polarisation. I think if there is mutual respect between parties, a healthy discussion can occur, where we may learn something from it.
Samira:
“Yet I also understand the need to find tools to interpret these practices, to historicize and contextualize them. This is where I feel an “open door” policy that says everything personal is valid is quite dangerous particularly in the post 9-11 world where this means big money, big positions with little credentials and-in its worse moments-a shrugging off of the violence that has taken countless lives”.
Exactly!
Thanks for your contribution. You raised some excellent points.
Abenyusuf, glad you took the time to read my post and did your own research on Manji.
Nadia: Thanks for providing the links.
October 6, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Salaam,
Now, I don’t agree with Irshad Manji on a lot of things, especially with her politics, but I really don’t see any problem with her being included in this debate. Before I continue, I know that media & society love to focus on controversial figures. I was upset when one of my professors posted an article of Irshad Manji on a bulletin board on campus. The article glorified Manji as this “rare,” independent, and progressive Muslim woman who is taking a stand against “oppressive Islam.” Many Muslims know that there were plenty of other Muslim feminists to commemorate, but since they’re not “controversial” enough, they get excluded.
But unlike the article posted on my campus, there *is* an alternative presented in this debate to balance things out and that’s Dalia Mogahed. I think you’re being unfair to Sobia’s critique for a number of reasons. For one, Sobia gave Mogahed the upper hand, which you even point out yourself, and second, you seem to be missing her point about including diverse thoughts, opinions, and views about Islam. This is a huge problem with our Muslim Ummah — we don’t know how to accept one another for our differences. There are Sunni scholars who say that you have to repeat your prayer if you pray behind a Shia or Sufi, and there are Shia scholars who say divisive things about Sunnis; there are conservative Muslims who hate liberal Muslims, and there are liberal Muslims who think that conservative Muslims are brainwashed fanatics (and there are plenty of gray areas too!)
You wrote: “While it’s important to demonstrate a myriad of views within the female Muslim community– we’re indeed in need of them, however, it’s another to legitimise the voices of those like Manji.”
This statement seems very contradictory to me. When we elevate one group of Muslims over another, we are not really getting anywhere. There is NO PROGRESS, we are only increasing the divide. From a spiritual perspective, the Qur’an instructs us to hold onto the rope of God and to be united — this is what Islam emphasizes on: UNITY. To say one person is more legitimate or credible than another is not unity, it is SEPARATION. The Shaytaan loves separation. He loves it when humanity fights, he loves it when we pick on each other and make fools out of ourselves. If a Muslim, for example, has views about Islam that are similar to Manji’s, then are they not Muslim? Are they not credible? Should we criticize them, shut them down, make fun of the way they pronounce “asalaam alaykoum,” and subsequently push them out of our community? I’m Pakistani — am I less “credible” because I pronounce “salaam” in a different way? Anyone who knows me knows I can pronounce “salaam” with the Arabic pronunciation, but that doesn’t mean I know everything about Islam. But what I found particularly unsettling about the way you ripped on Manji’s pronunciation is that it’s not only a PERSONAL ATTACK on her, but you also correlate it with her credibility. Is there any real logic in that? Not all Muslims pronounce their salaam with Arabic pronunciation. We have diversity in Islam. So what if Muslims have an American slang, a Pakistani slang, a Nigerian slang, an Indonesian slang, or a Korean slang — what difference does that make? What’s more important, the MEANING, PEACE UPON YOU, or the way I pronounce it? Allah knows what we mean regardless of how we say it because He knows what is in our hearts. That’s what matters the most, right? It’s like how we discuss inter-cultural communication in organizational and business settings; just because someone has an accent doesn’t mean they’re incompetent or less credible. Admit it, Sahar, this was a personal attack you made on Manji. It serves no basis for whether or not she is “legitimate.”
If you’re going to argue about credibility and legitimacy, then we might as well NOT talk about Islam at all because NONE of us are “legitimate” if you really think about it. That’s why Muslims will study the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the Hadith, and other religious texts (including Shia and Sufi texts) for their ENTIRE LIVES. That is one of Life’s Hidden Joys: there’s always more to learn. I suppose we could argue that one person is more credible than another person, but it doesn’t mean that they’re “better” Muslims. Only Allah knows that. While I may agree that I side more with Mogahed, I think it’s unfair to exclude and marginalize the voice of another Muslim.
The other thing that bothered me about your critique is that you made false implications about Sobia. For example, you wrote: “In fact, by acknowledging the validity of personal experiences I am curious what Sobia has to say about renowned critic of Islam Hirsi Ali (whom by the way Manji has closely worked with).”
This seemed to imply that you think Sobia has favorable opinions about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. So, if Sobia is neutral and balanced with Manji, does that mean she will be the same way with Ayaan Hirsi Ali? This reminds me of times when I defend the Palestinian struggle and then get blasted with accusations of supporting “terrorism” and “Osama bin Laden.” I’m sure other Muslims share similar experiences. So, if we’re sick of people associating us with things that are not reflective of us or our views, then why should we project associations upon someone else?
We need to question what makes someone “legitimate” to discuss Islam. If you don’t agree with something, you simply present your own argument, but in a respectful manner. It unsettles me a great deal when I see fellow Muslims saying they would “gladly” push Muslims out of intellectual circles. This is contradictory to the inclusive and embracing teachings of Islam. If I may share something a Sufi scholar wrote:
“Our condition is such that outwardly, we appear to be the epitomes of purity and abstention from sin, we are scholars and men of letters, we are spiritual guides and all else to boot, but our inner state is known to Allah alone.”
I believe this serves as a beautiful reminder that no human being on this Earth can look into another person’s soul and say they are not Muslim, not credible, not important, or not good. I know I disagree with Manji many issues and in other interviews, but for the most part, I didn’t find anything divisive about her participation in this debate. Mogahed could have said “no,” and Manji could have been interviewed alone. At least we saw two different (but certainly not the only) interpretations on Islam and the Muslim community.
Salaam/Peace.
October 6, 2008 at 11:34 pm
“From a spiritual perspective, the Qur’an instructs us to hold onto the rope of God and to be united — this is what Islam emphasizes on: UNITY.”
Yes, but unfortunately the whole problem here is that Manji and her ilk are the ones who are tearing apart this unity. Moreover, unity is not for its own sake, it is for the sake of holding onto truth. If your argument is in favour of acceptance of error, then you are saying something which the Muslims have always considered wrong and dangerous.
Islam is the only religion left where the orthodoxy has not been reduced to a fringe minority. Manji and co are trying to fulfill the historical function of destroying that orthodoxy; worse, they are trying to do it from the inside. You cannot blithely hold hands and sing kumbaya with that going on, I’m sorry.
Now, you choose to focus on Sahar’s comment about Manji’s terrible pronunciation. Fair enough, that doesn’t necessarily point to a lack of competence on Manji’s part (still, her writings and talks do that job very nicely). Perhaps we shouldn’t be extreme in criticising other people’s mistakes. Perhaps I shouldn’t note your own ridiculous statements, for example saying that Muslims study shia’ texts as part of their spiritual growth.
I want to comment on your distorted presentation of the sufis. You have presented them as some kind of third sect – the view that is held only, curiously enough, by puritans and orientalists, but not by the people of the Sunnah. You have presented them as a people occupied with the state of the inward. This is false. There is no separation of inward and outward, of haqiqah and sharia. Ibn Arabi insisted on fulfilling sharia to the letter. He wrote legal commentaries. As did al Ghazali. Rumi famously said “The one who says the halal is not possible is a hypocrite.” You do not find a denial of the outward in the teachings of the sufis. To quote a famous sufi, al Badawi:
“By Allah, we have not seen anyone who truly abides by the rules of the indestructible Shari’a except for the Sufis. Whoever wants to verify and clarify that should read al-Ihya’ by Imam al-Ghazzali, Sunan al-Muhtadin by Imam al-Mawwaq, the Risala of al-Qushayri, the Letters of Sidi Ibn ‘Abbad, the Nusra of Imam as-Sanusi, the works of Imam ash-Shatibi, the Nusra of Imam Ibn Khajju, the Nusra and Mabahith of Imam at-Tujibi, the works of the Fes masters, especially the work of the greatest imam, Sidi Ahmad ibn Yusuf ibn as-Sama’, the works of the Shaykh of Shaykhs, Ahmad Zarruq, the Risala of Imam ash-Shushtari and others who are too many to count, may Allah be pleased with them and help us by them and make us benefit by their remembrance. Amin.”
I say this only by way of clarification, because tasawwuf (sufism) has been the avenue for many of those who wish to attack islam.
In the end, you are saying “I think it’s unfair to exclude and marginalize the voice of another Muslim.” The reality is that standing firm on truth, even against another Muslim who is in error, was the way of our community from the beginning. A passing familiarity with the Sahaba radiallahu anhum, and the scholars, early and late, would demonstrate them well enough. There is a standard. There is furqan. When people make mistakes, they should be corrected. If they are wilfully speaking out of ignorance for the purpose of encouraging others to join in their deviations, and worse, doing it for MONEY, then yes, I’m afraid they deserve all the castigation and ridicule that they receive, and more besides.
The correct approach when Muslims are in dispute is to reconcile. But Manji doesn’t wish for reconciliation; she wishes to continue her circus of fame and fortune. And she seems to be very well-satisfied with her current friends, including even atheists, and lends her praise and political support to the oppressors of the Muslims, whereas in this matter of political friendship Allah ta’ala instructs us:
“Any of you who takes them as friends is one of them.
Allah surely does not guide wrongdoing people.”
October 6, 2008 at 11:41 pm
@brokenmystic
you know what tajweed means right?
Saying Salam properly isn’t that hard. (i am a non arab btw)
October 7, 2008 at 1:03 am
Salaam Maarouf,
What I find frustrating is when Muslims talk about the unity problems within the Islamic community, there is always a scapegoat. You agree that we need to be united, and yet, you point fingers at people like Manji and say that THEY are the problem.
There is already a reformist movement, whether we like it or not. I do not support them, and like I mentioned earlier, I do not share many of their views. Tahir Aslam Gora, who Irshad Manji admires, wrote an outline for the “New Islam Movement” and I wrote a lengthy rebuttal to each and every point he made. If you’re interested in reading that, I will be more than happy to share it with you.
We have the accept the fact that there are Muslims who disagree with us, but we cannot wall them off from our community. I have Muslim friends who have beliefs that are different from mine, but that doesn’t stop me from being their friends. Many young Muslims don’t want to visit the Mosque or attend MSA meetings because they don’t want to be judged by other Muslims. We are supposed to be a community that welcomes people as they are. We are all improving and learning together.
I find your anti-Shia remarks really insulting and prejudice. You misinterpreted what I said too. I simply mentioned Shia and Sufi texts for inclusive purposes; I didn’t say that we all SHOULD read those teachings. I never said that Sufism is a “third sect” either, and I never said that Sufism focuses only on the inward (where did you see that in my comment?) If you want to read my views on Sufism, please visit this page on my blog:
http://brokenmystic.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/sufism-a-journey-into-the-heart-of-islam/
I agree that Muslims must establish a balance between the inner and outer worlds. If we isolate ourselves from the world, then we miss out on our purpose. If we’re too caught up in worldly affairs, we will lose touch with the Divine and with our true selves. Where did you see my “distorted presentation” of Sufis?
Al-Ghazali and Jalaluddin Rumi are two different people. Al-Ghazali was more conservative and orthodox (not to mention, INCREDIBLY SEXIST), while Rumi was more ecstatic and unorthodox. Al-Ghazali lived during the 11th century and Rumi lived during the 13th century where Sufism evolved into a more impassioned form of expressionism. In other words, Rumi is poetry, song, dance, and madness. He is the modest veil, but also the maddening flame since he is often credited for founding the whirling dervishes. There were times when he would rather sit down and read sacred texts, and then there were times when he’d rather take down a musical instrument and dance to celebrate and praise God.
There are more conservative Sufis like Al-Ghazali who call Rumi’s “Sufism” extreme and sacrilegious. A portion of the Salafi go even as far to say that Sufis are “kafir” (along with the Shia). Whoever made these people judges of souls, I have no idea, but this is another example of how making accusations and separating others from our community only leads to hatred and violence. You think people are going to listen to a Sheikh if he keeps calling them “kafir” or condemning them to hell?
You said when people make mistakes, they should be corrected. Ok, so when certain Muslims stone women to death or abuse their wives, would you consider that a mistake that needs to be corrected? These honor killings and acid burnings that happen in Muslim countries are certainly wrongdoings, right? The Prophet, peace be upon him, did not correct things by causing hurt and pain to another Muslim. He encouraged his followers to remove the hatred, bitterness, envy, and jealousy out of our hearts. The Qur’an says that the Muslims must change what is within themselves first.
Our exposure to the world fills us with prejudices, cravings, grudges, and jealousy, and the best way to counter these things (as Muhammad said to Imam ‘Ali) is through Love and Compassion. Transform hate into Love. That is the greatest jihad.
Salaam/Peace
“Come, come again, whoever you are, come! Heathen, fire worshiper or idolatrous, come! Come even if you broke your penitence a hundred times, ours is the portal of hope, come as you are.” — Jalaluddin Rumi, 13th Century.
October 7, 2008 at 1:09 am
Pepe,
Yes, I know what Tajweed means. So, since there’s a “proper” way of saying “salaam,” does that mean every Muslim should pronounce it that way?
And just FYI, I know many non-Arab Muslims who have a tough time pronouncing it with the Arabic pronunciation. Tajweed takes A LOT of practice.
But in any case, what does one’s pronunciation of “salaam” (or any other Arabic word) have to do with being a credible speaker on Islam?
[30:22] Among His proofs are the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the VARIATIONS in your LANGUAGES and your colors. In these, there are signs for the knowledgeable.
October 7, 2008 at 2:28 am
Where did I say that Rumi and al Ghazali were the same person? I think you misread.
Also, I did not say that Manji and co are ‘the’ problem, but it is correct to say they are ‘problems’. It is a serious problem when muslims with serious media access are outspoken advocates of western foreign policy, of Israel, of setting aside the sharia which is from Allah ta’ala. The virulence of their attacks is exacerbated by the major problem which is, as Dalia Mogahed pointed out, the lack of religious literacy. This problem is not fixed by “kumbaya”.
When people asked Said Nursi about ijtihad, he replied that it had never been closed off at all; but now was not the time to do it. He gave the analogy of a house in a storm; opening the doors and windows would only let in rain. The same remains true today in regard to these opportunists.
As for sufism, you presented it in your post as a separate category, alongisde shiism. That is distortion. I don’t see how you can expect that to be interpreted in a way other than it seems. But thank you for your clarification. As for the shiites, you may continue to think that I am being prejudiced, but I don’t see why what is false should be indulged. I notice on your blog that you say you have some shia’ beliefs; I am sorry to hear that. I have no problem getting along with shiite people in person, or shiite relatives, but if we are talking about what is right in the religion and what is not, I have more regard for what is due to Allah ta’ala than to people’s feelings. It would be gross hypocrisy otherwise.
At the end of the day I am sure we agree on many things sidi, more than we disagree. Please don’t take offence at my comments. Like you, I am outraged and upset at reports of honour killings and acid attacks, and I happen to agree that fire-and-brimstone sheikhs are not doing us any favours (I hope you weren’t suggesting that I approve of these things). With deference to their academic learning, our ulema are displaying a certain lack of social intelligence, which in the the last century left a huge void for the salafists to fill. But this has nothing to do with whether we have an inclusive ethos.
We need to be very clear about the approach to take to people who are abusing the Deen and its followers in exchange for fame and fortune – correction and rebuttal of every piece of misguidance they publish. In case you didn’t notice, people are dying by the tens of thousands, and millions of other Muslims are being repressed. This is hardly the time for indulgence and laxity, especially when the ones you wish to indulge are muslim by name (and insha’Allah in faith), but certainly not in allegiance.
October 7, 2008 at 11:32 am
“We need to be very clear about the approach to take to people who are abusing the Deen and its followers.” Why is criticism, and self criticism, not an integral part of a vibrant deen? This is such a defensive posture. It reeks of insecurity.
I find the demand to present a ‘unified front’ for the Muslim community an unwise and dangerous one. Its as if the situation is one of rival tribes, where a show of unity is strength, and any hint of division is death. A rigid determination to appear unified, and thus homogenous, merely serves to associate all Muslims with the conservative Islamic theologins who get their messages broadcast all the time. Internal disagreement signals social health. Unified fronts reek of silencing people.
Internal debate amongst Muslims doesn’t serve to belittle the suffering of people like the Palestinians, it just shows nuance, a recognition of a need for mutual knowledge. “If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that one of them is doing the thinking.” How much truer is that for whole communities?
Its this kind of defensiveness that breeds bigotry, when people think Muslims refuse to acknowledge internally oppressive practices in the Muslim world. What does the perceived strength you aim for even hope to acheive? Its fine to critise Manji’s work, its not to question her being Muslim. Thats between her and Allah
October 7, 2008 at 11:47 am
“We need to be very clear about the approach to take to people who are abusing the Deen and its followers” “muslim by name (and insha’Allah in faith), but certainly not in allegiance”
Its like you think the situation is of two rival tribes, where any show of division is death. I think the emphasis on uniformity is unwise. Showing these debates happen amoungst Muslims is a sign of social health. “If two men agree on everything, you can be sure only one is doing the thinking.” How much truer is that for a whole community? It just reeks of insecurity to try and give an impression of uniformity amongst Muslims on these issues
October 7, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Salaam Maarouf,
There are various interpretations on the Sharia, so that’s another discussion in of itself, but to impose one interpretation of the Sharia upon another group is very problematic and even dangerous. I was not suggesting that you supported honor killings or acid burnings, but do you see how certain interpretations of the Sharia can be dangerous? There are Sheikhs and Mullahs who believe stoning women or killing apostates is the “proper” and “Islamic” thing to do.
And yes, I do share some Shia beliefs and a lot of that is due to my own personal research and questioning, but this doesn’t mean I’m going to impose these beliefs on fellow Muslims. To say that one way is “right” and another way is “wrong” is to behave as if one fully knows God’s plan. Islam teaches us humility — that is why we kneel and pray, so that we strip ourselves of our worldly titles and detach ourselves from the materialistic so that we may acknowledge the Supreme. We do this to rid ourselves of our pride, arrogance, bitterness, anger, hatred, and suffering. The Qur’an even says not to be boastful and pretend like you know Allah’s will — only He knows that. The Sufis say: “Whatever thought you have about God, know that He is different than that!” This is not saying that we cannot interpret or discuss Islam, I am just saying that Life is journey of Learning. We need to be humble because we need to be open. The most unhearing on this Earth are those who think they’ve heard it all.
It’s odd how you say, “I’m sorry to hear that” in regards to my personal beliefs, but it’s more discriminatory when you declare it as “false.” It’s also very judgmental when you say the Shia are “following their personal feelings” rather than Allah. That is an accusation. When the Prophet, peace be upon him, heard another Muslim call someone a “kafir,” the Prophet asked, “how do you know? Did you rip open his heart and see what was in it?”
YOU believe the Shia are false, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but just because it’s “false” to you doesn’t mean it’s “false” to others.
October 7, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Salaam Sonia,
I agree with you. Forcing Muslims to all be the same and share the same beliefs is dangerous and discriminatory. It restricts questioning and prevents one from exploring his/her spirituality.
As history has shown us, when powerful religious authorities behave as if they possess the absolute Truth, they use extreme means to establish and sustain order. Often times when I hear khutbahs about the lack of unity within the Muslim Ummah, the khateeb complains that most Muslims don’t follow his “brand” of Islam.
We need unity in the sense that we need to ACCEPT one another for who they are. After all, that is what Love is, right? You Love people for who they are, not for who you WANT them to be. All of this “my way is right” or “your way is deviant” nonsense needs to stop. Like you said about Manji, we can disagree with other Muslims, but we should NEVER question their Faith.
Salaam/Peace
October 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I quite clearly stated, Sonia, that unity for unity’s own sake was not part of this Deen. You can check my posts above for that. I did state that a unified approach to opportunist trouble makers was necessary. Yes, when there is error, it should be made clear. If that is defensive, so be it; was Ali ra being defensive when he expelled Abdullah ibn Saba? Or should he have patted him on the back and said “keep preaching your heresy, brother”. When the tribes of Ridda confirmed their Islam but refused to pay zakat, should Abu Bakr have said “well fair enough, good on ‘em for still calling themselves Muslim.” No, he went and fought them. Are these defensive actions indicative of insecurity? Hardly, and neither is criticising imbecilic trouble-makers like Manji.
Please do not fall back on the typical argument one hears from american politicians and academics, which basically amounts to “if you uphold your religion properly you are a bigot”. You’re in the company of Muslims here, Sonia! Try to be a bit more creative.
“Internal disagreement signifies social health.” Mashallah! Care to provide some evidence for this, or is that your western Weltanschauung talking? There are certainly international disagreements that one can observe in the First Community, for example the headstrong Ansar women compared to the more docile Meccan women. But do you find tolerance of disagreements on the very nature of the Deen? No, of course not. Authu billah. So where are you taking your fundamental values from, the community of Rasul aleyhi salam, or the modern pharoahs? At some point in your life you are going to have to face this contradiction.
So far, instead of dealing with what I’ve said, you have attacked a series of straw men: that I’m blindly insisting on unity (contradictory since I don’t perceive Manji-scale deceit and misguidance as being part of this unity); that such an attitude is a sign of weakness (strength and weakness here judged by western measures according to what is politically useful for western governments); that i’m questioning Manji’s faith (again, read my posts, you’ll see I left her private faith alone and attacked her public displays), and so on. To cap it off, you throw in an anology of tribal conflict to illustrate my views. Interesting, in posts above I have drawn analogies from people such as Said Nursi, whereas you draw your analogy from a typical orientalist construction. Interesting.
[thanks to the blogger for allowing me to correct a mistake in this post]
October 7, 2008 at 9:43 pm
When I have more time Brokenmystic, I will point out what is wrong with your post. But I don’t at the moment, except I will point out that you have not been honest in saying that I said Shia follow “their personal feelings”. Where did I say that? If you want to disagree then fine, but disagree with what I actually say : ) Until later, salam.
October 8, 2008 at 1:51 am
On second thought; there isn’t much point in further discussion. Brokenmystic, it is not merely ME who thinks shia’ beliefs are wrong. In fact, that is the consensus of the Muslims. Should I feel guilty for following the Sahaba and the Tabiin and the great scholars who followed? Or do you suggest that they were all mistaken in their attitude to Shiism? It is a deviation and distortion within Islam. That’s not a statement of bigotry, that is the consensus of the ulema and people of knowledge from the time of the Sahaba until now.
Clearly, I am someone who operates in the parameters of Islam has it has been understood and practised by the great bulk of the Muslims since “Iqra” – meaning I accept the scholarly schools as defining the valid spectrum of shariah, and the Sunni aqida as the valid aqida, and as the rightful teachers of tasawwuf, the tariqats such as the Darqawi and Naqshbandi which carry ijaza all the way back to the Prophet and stay within the bounds of shariah. Sonia and others may find it a sign of insecurity that I accept these paremetres. On the contrary, I feel it is something beautiful. It is very inspiring to look at something so wondrous as even a tree in a garden and think “Mashallah, the One who created this beautiful thing has sent us something to live by, and I am grateful for that and I will uphold it.” Muslims ought to feel proud of their heritage and their intellectual traditions, not as ends in themselves, but as the means to accessing something sacred. And the Qur’an and Sunnah are quite clear that this is the path we are to follow, to the exclusion of other paths. I don’t need to copy and paste the countless references from the Qur’an and Sunnah to demonstrate this, I hope.
You on the other hand want to operate outside those parametres, drawing from Shia’ sources, drawing from a sufism which again, drawing on modernist critiques such as your opposition to aspects of shariah. On your website, you falsely portray tasawwuf as something somehow different (and superior) to the exoteric reality of Islam. That self-elevation is typical of people who misunderstand tasawwuf. Anyhow, that is your business, and may Allah ta’ala accept what is good from you.
But since this is clear – that I am operating from the parametres of what is commonly called “orthodoxy”, and you are not, a discussion of this kind is not beneficial. It is like I am trying to play tennis and you are trying to play squash – we can’t even agree on the court.
I say what I say not in an attempt to convince you of my beliefs. I only wish it to be very, very clear that I am not giving my own opinions here, I am only transmitting what the Muslims have been agreed on four fourteen centuries – and I cannot remain silent when people like yourself are mouthing off things which have NEVER been accepted, and pretend that they are valid from the Muslim perspective – which (please grasp this) means the perspective that has always been agreed upon, upheld and defended by the people of knowledge and action since the beginning of Islam.
October 8, 2008 at 4:32 am
Tolerating internal disagreement isn’t a Western or non Muslim value. Referring to actions in the time of Ali ra, when Muslims lived in a land plaugued by inter-tribal war, can’t be literally transposed into the present. This kind of literalism can obscure the true meaning of the message. There are conditions and context to the revelation, there is no way the actions of Manji are analagous to the actions of the tribes of Ridda.
Your line for where you tolerate disagreement – Manji has clearly fallen foul of it – is one you have determined for yourself. There is nothing divine in this line, its just where you think criticism should stop. I personally think people like her actually help the devout – having to defend your views makes you learn how to clarify them and express them clearly. Thus Manji I think has helped people reaffirm their faith. She has a place.
Finally to the idea of strength. Fistly, even if this was a definition supported by Western politicians, that alone does not make it wrong. To say this is to turn Islam into a counter-identity, dependant on the West for its character, that opposes all things Western. Tolerating debate is good because it is what is best for Muslims – it leaves us in peace, intellectually challanged, and never complacent. It is an idea that stands no matter what the attitude of Western politicians.
I think there is value in seeing Muslims as part of a larger community though, and this perceived unity on issues just makes us seem monolithic and scary. A lack of complexity isn’t human. It dehumanises Muslims to present them as homogenous
October 8, 2008 at 11:29 am
As salamu alaykum Sonia, the reference to Ali ra is not out of place in this context, I’m afraid; it relates directly to shiism and the attitude that the Muslims should take towards people advocating “heresy” (for lack of a less pejorative-sounding word to sooth sensitive souls). As for the tribes of Ridda, the point I am making is that the features of Muslim societies during their healthy stages were a very serious and determined adhesion to this religion, an intense dynamism, and willingness to endure hardship fisabillillah. Those were not people who were interested in indulging peoples’ fancies. In fact they were hardly interested in discussion at all – they were people who went out and achieved things in the real world. A marked difference from Heroes of the Internet of today.
Just to be clear: No, this line of tolerating disagreement is not of my own making. It is the consensus of the people of the Sunnah, referred to in the above post, and the same one that Dalia Mogahed referred to in the interview! I’m not sure if you realise this, but although we do not have a Pope in Islam we have an accepted, ‘official’ spectrum of validity in the Deen and this spectrum is tied to authentic scholarship which, to repeat myself, is contained in the madhhabs and the turuq. And the point of this emphasis on scholarship is not to have a priesthood, it is not to have a powerful caste, it is to protect the Deen, for the reasons Mogahed stated and more besides. In the last two centuries we have had a trend of people trying to escape this spectrum on the grounds of restoring a more pristine Islam – this ends in two deviations, the modernist line of al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, and the puritan line of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab – opposite sides of the same coin.
When you incorrectly accuse me of devising this line myself, you are again demonstrating that you and I are operating in different dimensions, mine being “orthodox” and yours being what I’m sure is a well-meaning, kind hearted one based on sources that include substantial western contributions. Which may be alright for you, but again, there is a internal contradiction in your logic which you are avoiding. If you doubt that there is enough humanity in the Islam that the Prophet (sallallahu aleyhi wa sallam) brought, I sincerely urge you to embrace a deep study of our intellectual traditions to solve the matter, not rely on the false humanity of people who spent the last five centuries plundering wealth from the ruins of civilisations they destroyed.
Regarding the idea of strength, I find it disheartening that you think debate and tolerance is this magic panacea for the ills of the ummah. On the contrary, I think we can do so much more by education and activism. Your suggested remedy (“talk talk talk” and “hold hands with fifth columns”) is in fact a symptom of the failure of our community to LIVE, to strive in the real world as Muslims. There is a pattern here. It is the same as the oppression of women in some of our communities – in this case a symptom of men’s failure to establish the Deen (based on the dubious logic that if the rest of the religion cannot be activated, then perhaps beating and shrouding women will make up for it).
So you can see the pattern; wherever Muslims fail to live properly as Muslims, we are diverted into some sort of hopeless road to nowhere. Bigotry is to over-indulgence just as wahhabism is to modernism; oppositive deviations coming from the same principle fault. We are supposed to be the community of the middle. Come back to that middle! Stop worrying about what non-muslims think of you! That worry is shining through your post like a light. Whether they conceive of us as monolithic or not, do you think it will stop what they are doing to the muslim world? Have faith in the Decree and be concerned with what matters, which is iman and ‘amal and integrity in your relationship with your Creator. I sincerely wish you peace and I sincerely wish your obvious gifts as a writer and thinker (and this goes for the other posters in the thread) are the means by which we may all come to benefit insha’Allah.
October 8, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I agree with you that there are areas of general consensus amongst Islamic scholars. I also agree people like Manji challange alot of these positions. But while the legal decisions that make up sharia are based on the Koran as absolute truth, they recognise their interpretation of it is not absolute truth. So all decisions finish with the phrase ‘and God knows best.’
Heresy in the time of Ali ra was in a time of war, so it was more analogous to treason. It is not good enough to put a person who cannot cause similar problems to Muslim communities in that position. Heresy was the word used in the Christian tradition, as it was much harder to challange church teachings b/c of the established hierachy. Without a central church of Islam, all issues remain open to question. Heresy isn’t a concept that really was central to the Islamic golden age, the fact it did not feature in common discourse made Islamic society richer and more dynamic than Christian society.
I do still find many of your anti Western stances dogmatic. My thoughts apparently come from ‘Western sources.’ Do Western Muslims count as Western in this paradigm? Non Muslims rarely contribute to debates on Islamic theology. And even if they were Western sources, they can’t be dismissed as wrong on that basis. If an idea was not thought of first by a Muslim, it may still be a good idea. All that does is dodge the real arguement, trying to replicate a set of circumstances from centuries ago which produce different outcomes now.
In terms of ‘Whether they conceive of us as monolithic or not, do you think it will stop what they are doing to the muslim world? ‘ Its hard to know where to start with that. I don’t deny the suffering of many Muslims. Its a situation in which many Western governments are deeply involved. Thats true, and I don’t think debate and talking will solve them all. I don’t know how to do that, noone really does. But my point is we become inhuman by acting as if we have one mind, one opinion on all these things. Your view is much more concerned with the West at the end of the day, you constantly set yourself up in opposition to it.
“not rely on the false humanity of people who spent the last five centuries plundering wealth from the ruins of civilisations they destroyed.”
I really dislike that. Noones denying colonialism here, but seriously ‘false humanity?’ You can’t reject the entire Western tradition as if it has nothing to offer you. Treating millions of diverse people as all ‘inhuman’ is obscene.
October 8, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Maarouf,
Thanks for pushing me out of this conversation. I am really disgusted by your judgmental and discriminatory remarks about a certain group of Muslims. I did not know that you could look within another person’s soul and declare that they are “deviant.”
You brag and boast about your knowledge of Islam, but you’re so absorbed and obsessed with yourself that you subsequently ASSUME that I am “deviant.” You say that you are not stating your opinions. Right, and what do you think I am doing? Why do you automatically assume that I am stating my opinions? You automatically assume that I don’t study Islam or the Qur’an. I guess if my views are different than yours, it must mean that I am not “knowledgeable,” right? It must mean that I am “distorting” Sufism.
I never said Sufism is separate from Islam — that was YOUR interpretation of what I said. I even provided the link where I discussed it, but you seemed to ignore that.
In any case, it’s a waste of time to argue with someone who is not even willing to listen. I hope you feel good about yourself. Oh and please don’t pray for me or say things like “may Allah ta’ala accept what is good for you” because it sounds very superficial coming from someone who thinks he posses the “absolute truth.” I don’t welcome prayers from prejudice individuals who only say things to elevate their own self-esteem.
Salaam
October 9, 2008 at 1:01 am
Brokenmystic: Sorry for upsetting you. As for deviance, I mean it in an objective sense (deviating from the sunna, which, for the last time I hope, I didn’t invent myself), not as a pejorative.
Sonia: I’m not sure if you know what I am referring to with that matter in the time of Ali. It was not really about war, it was about a person who was saying exaggerated things about Ali’s status (ie, prototype shiism). Does that clear that up?
Actually what you say about heresy isn’t really accurate. The early centuries of Islam including the “Golden Age” (we could have a field day discussing the reality of that term and idea but now is not the time!) are filled with heresies and sectarian violence, chief among them being the Mihna in which hundred (or thousands?) of ulema were killed, when the Mu’tazila won the ear of the Caliph. You will find condemnation of shia, khawarij, ibadi, qadariyya, and many other offshoot groups in the works of the early scholars and in the history texts. These disputes often took the form of violent struggle (in fact they usually did). There are so many historical examples I don’t know where to start. So I would suggest that what you’ve said about Islam and heresy is incorrect.
What might be correct is that those heretical sects were always on a smaller scale than their Christian counterparts, and taken on their own, were usually suppressed quite easily. Most of them never really got anywhere. Looking at the Shia’ specifically; they were always a small minority, and when they did achieve significant political power (such as the Fatimids and the Safavids) it was when charismatic shia’ figures persuaded bedouin/mountain tribes to support them in conquering settled areas. It was never a mainstream religion until after the Safavid conquest of Iran, which brought the well-documented massacre of the sufis and sunni ulema and their replacement by shiite functionaries drawn from their scattered locations across the Arab world.
You said, “If an idea was not thought of first by a Muslim, it may still be a good idea.” And that’s very true, and if any Muslims need confirmation of that they will find it in the Sirah literature, where the Prophet sallallahu aleyhi wa sallam mentioned the peace treaty whose signing he was present at before Islam, and said it was such a good thing that he would have signed it even after Islam came. You’re right that we shouldn’t carry round a de-facto rejection of western thought. But by in large I think we ought to be highly sceptical, simple for the reason that I’m sure we both agree on, Western regimes have always found ways to claim the higher moral ground over the “Other” while carrying out their oppression. I suspect that with the hindsight of history, the current summons to democracy and human rights will be seen to have fulfilled the same historical function as colonial Christianity.
I’m not interested in us being reactionary (that’s a skill we need to un-learn!), I’m interested in us having integrity, working things out for ourselves from the framework of our own tradition. So you see… it’s not that I want to oppose the West for their own sake, I just don’t we should be too interested in adopting western thought, especially if we don’t have a firm grasp on our own traditions! Not dogmatically opposed, and why should I be? La hawla wala quwwata illa billah. Their position is proportionate to our failings. I just think this is the last thing on the Ummah’s “to-do” list. If I may repeat Said Nursi’s analogy, one does not open the doors and windows when there is a storm going on.
October 24, 2008 at 8:51 am
“Finally, Irshad, to prove your “level of support” from your own words, you mention how you got 12 emails about Muslims falling in love with non-Muslims… Irshad, do I need to remind you that 12 represents exactly 0.0000008% of Muslims in the world.”
Full review at:
http://muslimmatters.org/2008/10/23/irshad-manjis-shrill-responses-obilerated-by-a-calm-dalia-mogahed/
June 21, 2009 at 10:47 am
[...] scholarship reminds me of another Muslim journalist Irshad Manji who also has a similar position. I wrote about the dangers of such independent thinking divorced from engagement with Islamic scholarship [...]