On Unenlightened Feminism and Praying for Show
Well Shaykh Gibril Haddad really brings down the house in his latest article...the House of Progressive Islam. Please make haste to read An Innovation of Misguidance: Am?na Wadud’s Unenlightened Feminism [48 KB Acrobat .pdf file], which is certainly the most pointed, devastating and painfully true exposé of the sham of so-called "Progressive Islam" that I'm yet to read.
This article touches upon a myriad of flaws and shortcomings that seem to be inherent in the "Progressive Islam" movement in general, but it also deals with the specific missteps, bloopers and flat-out ignorance surrounding Amina Wadud's now infamous publicity stunt. Probably the most damning aspect of all this, as Shaykh Gibril astutely observes, is that Amina Wadud hijacked Divinely ordained worship — worship that is meant to focus human beings solely on their Lord — in order to put forward her half-baked agenda. Indeed, the article makes it clear that Wadud, by her own admission, used the sanctity of Islamic prayer as "simply a public announcement".
Overall, An Innovation of Misguidance: Am?na Wadud’s Unenlightened Feminism is a much welcomed addition to all of the scholarly rebuttals of the incredibly shallow movement called "Progressive Islam" — a movement which seems to be hobbled by an almost shocking ignorance of the Islam that it's allegedly trying to “fix”. This alone more than accounts for their complete lack of credibility amongst traditional God-fearing Muslims — Muslims who actually know something about their religion and try to practice it — in contrast to the “non-practicing” Muslims and easily bamboozled non-Muslim supporters of Amina Wadud. Actually, I think it's actually somewhat of a shame that scholars like Shaykh Gibril even have to waste their precious time deconstructing antics that are so foolish and refuting arguments that are so specious...but such is the nature of our age.
Deen On...
Labels: Muslim Women, Women's Issues
posted by @ 9:01 AM
Comment Guidelines
9 comments
9 Comments:
Qadeeb, although I disagreed with Amina Wadud's actions and thought that they were foolish and counter-productive, Shaykh Haddad unfortunately uses this to attack all those who think that there is a strong need for deep introspection within the Muslim community.
One can still be a god-fearing Muslim while at the same time acknowledging the faults and problems in Muslim communities and trying to come up with solutions to these.
I've put a piece up on my blog on how i think that average muslims need to be more assertive in defending the way they live their lives from the puritans - your comments would be appreciated.
as-salamu 'alaykum,
Well I think that you've jumped to some hasty and incorrect conclusions here. In essence, Shaykh Gibril criticized Amina Wadud and others of her ilk not for their belief that there's "a strong need for deep introspection within the Muslim community", but rather for their new-fangled fiqh, generally sloppy approach, lack of a detailed knowledge of Islam and — it appears to me — trying to use the "need for deep introspection" as an excuse to play all kinds of devious games with the traditional understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
You said, "One can still be a god-fearing Muslim while at the same time acknowledging the faults and problems in Muslim communities and trying to come up with solutions to these", but fail to explain what makes you think Shaykh Gibril would deny this. Since when does pointing out the flaws in a particular slipshod approach to the Deen equate to not caring about the problems in the community? These are mutually excusive concepts and just because one might not like what Shaykh Gibril said about the former, well that doesn't mean that he's necessarily au contrare on the latter as well.
Anyway, there's no doubt that Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad acknowledges "the faults and problems in Muslim communities". However, he certainly differs with the "Progressives" on what these problems are, which ones should take priority in our approach to addressing them, and how best to go about fixing them. Suffice it to say that organizing media stunts in churches which are attended by luke-warm Muslims is most probably nowhere on his list. Likewise, casting off 1,400 years of qualified traditional scholarship and an intellectual legacy that is second to none is clearly not the way the Shaykh would recommend that this Ummah try to fix things — nor is following the opinions of unqualified Muslims who clearly have ulterior motives.
As far as getting average Muslims to "be more assertive in defending the way they live their lives from the puritans", well this sounds kind of wide open. I would first want to ask, "What are they doing in their lives that they need to defend?" If it's only the fact that they don't wag their finger in tashahud or have a beard down to their navel, I'd concur that the "puritans" might need to take a break. However, if the truth of the matter is that they're out fatwa-shopping for someone to tell them that music, drinking, dancing, not praying and even fornication are okay...well then we've got a problem.
What all Muslims — not just average ones — need to do is bring their lives into conformance with the Divine guidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah. If anyone is encouraging them to do otherwise, then they're encouraging them to misguidance. Your statement about being "assertive" sounds a bit Amina Wadud-ish, since in some of her writings she basically calls on Muslims to be assertive in standing up to Qur'anic verses that they don't like — and may Allah save us all from that.
So indeed recognize that there are "puritans" out there who seem to have their priorities all wrong and are very lacking in wisdom as well. In recent times, the label of "puritan" has usually been reserved for the so-called "Salafis" and Wahhabis, since they place a lot of emphasis to external adherence to the letter of the law but are quite arid when it comes to spirituality. These misguided neo-Pharisees have nothing to do with Shaykh Gibril Haddad, since he is one of their greatest detractors. One might well keep in mind that pointing out the misguided antics of some agenda-driven Muslims doesn't make one a "puritan" — unless of course one's definitioin of a "puritan" is any Muslim who is more conservative than oneself. The bottom line is that Islam ain't broke so it don't need fixin'. It's the Muslims who have become confused and schizophrenic, thus they need to tap into the spritual goldmine that the living legacy of traditional Islam truly is...wa Allahu 'alim.
Qadeeb - Walai kum as-salam and thank you for your lengthy critique of my comments. I do agree with you when you say that pointing out flaws and caring about the community are not mutually conclusive concepts - the problem I found in some of Shaykh Haddad's comments were taking one person's actions and extrapolating broad generalisations about 'progressives'.
For example he sometimes speaks of 'progressives and their friends' and comes up with an absurd scenario of prayer which only a tiny fraction of even progressive muslims would subscribe to. He does answer this by referring to the 'fundamental issue of the lawlessness of innovation'.
My answer to this which I try and point out in my post is to look at the actual practise of how Muslims live around the world and deal with ever changing conditions rather than looking at an idealistic vision of what ought to happen.
Another example would be the attack on Khalid Abul Fadl and Tariq Ramadan. Why is it that people's motives are always 'selling' something to the U.S. Of course the need for acceptance from the U.S could be one of their motives - but it could also be that they are interested in trying to improve the lot of the ordinary muslim.
As for your question about standing up to puritans, of course this does not mean discounting all muslims more conservative than one's self. Rather following on from my earlier point it is to not treat people who claim to be holier than onesself with an unquestioning reverence - and instead to have the sort of debate that we are having here.
To sum up, I'll flip your question on it's head and say that anyone who is more liberal than ones self should not be labelled as a progressive heathen and while Islam may not be broke, many Muslims obviously are (pun unintended) and unless we have an open debate, I'm not confident that leaving people to tap into the spiritual goldmine is enough.
Salaam 'Alaikum
I would look at Sidi Hajj Gibril's criticisms in light of all of his past writings, commentary, letters, etc. This is not the first time he has criticized those who choose the label "progressive" or "liberal," nor will it likely be the last. He has criticized KAEF's assertions in the past and may do so again in the future. His brief comment on Tariq Ramadan reflects a wider view of the man's work within the community of trad'l 'ulema. I would not frame either of those comments in this work as an "attack" on those two men. YMMV, but I do notice that anyone who disagrees with some, or even all, of what these two men say is answered with "Why are you attacking them?" as though they are the only acceptable voices for "moderate" or mainstream Islam. If there is a problem with them, from a fiqh or 'aqida perspective, is it not valid for those who disagree to point that out? Or is disagreement only acceptable when it is leveled at our Salafi / Wahabi brothers and sisters?
And I think it is quite clear, again from this as well as previous material, that Sidi Hajj Gibril would never be one to deny that there are serious problems amongst the Muslims that need to be dealt with by us. I think his view, however, is that it is the Muslims who have to reform themselves, not the diyn that has to be reformed.
Umm Zaid, you are right that there can be disagreements, and to be honest I haven't read enough by Shaikh Haddad to know whether on the whole I agree more with him with than Tariq Ramadan for instance.
What I do object to though is trying to question someone's motives and linking it to America rather than pursuing his argumentation. He may have done this before but I am going by what I read in that particular article.
I hope that we can keep this debate going!
Just about all those who go about with the lable "progressive" or "moderate" muslims have used the American interest in "reforming Islam" to push their own agendas.
The usages of this term is not about addressing issues of concern for Muslims - but about changing the face of Islam. If it was about addressing poverty, classism, racism, notions that degrade Muslim women while recogninzing the context of colonialism and occupation - then i personally would be with these people - and so would many of us who strongly crtiquing the proggies.
People like Asra Nomani, Rifat Hasan have little or no interest in addressing these issues. Instead they want to claim America is wonderful and spreading justice and human rights, Rifat Hasan herself is a M(B)usharrafist.
Amina Wadud is worse in someways 'cause she has a history that should've alerted her to what is being pursued, but thats her choice to be with these people.
Motivations and agendas have to be looked at - because it allows one to see if what is being said with such great fan fare and media publicity - is all this with a genuine interest in the Muslim community. Or, is this about changing the face of Islam. So far the 'progressives' have only suceeded in showing that they have litte or no interst in the state of the umma - only in the state of their own media campaigns.
>>Motivations and agendas have to be looked at
Altaf, what methodology do you use to accurately gauge thier intentions? How rigorous are you in deriving thier agendas: do you consider that agendas may change or that there is no single agenda or that each of the people may have differing agendas?
Asalaamu alaikum.
I don't even want to get into the disagreements, I only want to say thank you for the post and I look forward to reading it in full inshaAllah. Whether one agrees with it or not, or agrees in full with it or not, isn't the point to me. I appreciate the opportunity to read something intelligently written and draw my own conclusions, inshaAllah. Without blogs like Mere Islam and SunniSister, I wouldn't even have access to such work to read, so alhamdulAllah and shukran.
they are out of the fold of islam so it is wajib to make takfir.
Post a Comment
<< Home