Robert David Coolidge has posted a call for a return to "the core" of Islam to unite American Muslims in their diversity. A pdf of his piece "Reasserting the Core of American Islam" is available through Imam Zaid Shakir's website. I have some concerns with his essay, not least of which is his odd contention that Progressive Islam is dead (someone forgot to send us the memo, I guess). At this time, I will only address his call for a unifying core for American Muslims. I hope that readers will read his piece and add their own insights in the comments or in the reader blogs.
We need to take this essay seriously. If his essay is on Imam Zaid's site, we can assume that Imam Zaid supports his notion of a "core" and his call for unity in diversity. I believe that Imam Zaid and those around him want a unified and diverse community. They seem to be saying that if we can agree on certain core principles, we are free to disagree on pretty much everything else. I believe Imam Zaid and those around him want a community in which we can all stand together. Despite that Coolidge greatly exaggerates the news of Progressive Islam's death, I believe they are willing to work with anyone who loves the din well enough to try thinking it through with them. When you write your responses, realize that your comments are contributing to this conversation about American Muslim Identity. Imam Zaid, Coolidge, and others will be reading them. Let's think this through together.
I would like to start asking a couple of questions. What does Coolidge mean by "core" and how does he imagine diversity? The two matters are utterly intertwined in the Islamic Intellection tradition. So much so, we can say that agreeing to disagree is a core principle of Islam.
As nearly everyone knows, the Islamic intellectual and popular traditions have always been open to sustained and surprisingly disparate differences of agreement. It is no small matter that scholars and regular folk often report that Muhammad said, “Difference of agreement is a mercy for the believers.†The sheer fact of the popularity of the report over time and place proves that the Muslim community has consistently sought to find its unity and strength in its multiplicity. Traditionally, we have core principles we all agree on. Then we have the freedom to disagree on secondary concerns and questions that arise from the core principles. But note that identifying the core principles has also been open to disagreement among scholars. Where does one draw the line? Where does one say, okay no more disagreement beyond this point. We can disagree about this, but that over there, no. There is no clear line of agreement on the core principles. That is as it should be if we are to have a dynamic and unified interpretive community.
If one's concern is unity in diversity--preserving the greatest possible permissible disagreement--then one should choose the most general core principles that allow for the greatest range of disagreement. Coolidge has chosen to use the Hadith of Gabriel as his model, as Muslims have been doing for centuries. It is a good choice. The Hadith of Gabriel can properly be called the “catechism†of Islam. It is a short list of those fundamental matters Muslims have historically agreed on no matter their secondary concerns or affiliations within Islam. The genius of the Hadith lies in its economy of expression. In it, the Angel Gabriel asks Muhammad to define islam, iman, and ihsan. Muhammad answers each of Gabriel’s questions in the simplest form possible and finally tells his companions who have been listening to the exchange that this is their religion.
Umar Ibn Al-Khattab reported: One day when we were with God's Messenger (saw), a man with very white clothing and very black hair came up to us. No mark of travel was visible on him, and none of us recognized him. Sitting down beside the Prophet (saw), leaning his knees against his and placing his hands on his thighs, [the man said: Tell me, Muhammad, about islam.
[Muhammad] replied: "Islam means that you should testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad (saw) is God's Messenger, that you should observe the prayer, pay the Zakat, fast during Ramadan, and make the pilgrimage to the House if you are able to go there."
[The man] said: "You have spoken the truth." We were surprised at his questioning him and then declaring that he spoke the truth.
[The man] said: "Now tell me about iman."
[Muhammad] replied: "It means that you should believe in God, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you should believe in the decreeing both of good and evil."
Remarking that he had spoken the truth, [The man] then said: "Now tell me about ihsan."
[Muhammad] replied: It means that you should worship God as if you see Him, for even if you do not see Him, He sees you."
...He then went away, and after I had waited for a long time, [Muhammad] said to me: "Do you know who the questioner was, Umar?"
I replied: "God and His Messenger know best." He said: "He was Gabriel who came to you to teach you your religion."
(from Bayyinat.Org with my changes and elipeses)
If we follow the Hadith of Gabriel, we would agree that "islam"--the outward practice of submitting to God--includes the shahada, the salat, fasting Ramadan, paying zakat, and going on the Hajj if we have the means to do so.
We would agree that iman--knowledge of God in the heart and mind--includes acknowledging that there is a God, that God has sent books to guide all communities through messengers, that there are such things as angels, that there will be an end to this world at which we will have to confront ourselves and call ourselves to account, and that God’s knowledge, power, and will encompass all of creation not just the parts we’d prefer to ascribe to the divine command.
We agree that ihsan--doing things beautifully--includes the effort to bring our inward lives--our minds and hearts--into conformity with our outward lives and vice versa. The reviled sin of hypocrisy is the lack of harmony between these inward and outward dimensions of the self and between the individual and the community.
Note that the hadith does not give any details of practice or faith thus allowing for diverse interpretations of each point.
First, note that the hadith tells us simply that the salat is an indisputable aspect of our religious practice, it does not specify how we perform it. There are historical disagreements, especially in the details of form, timing, and related issues like woman-led prayer.
Second, note that the hadith tells us we agree that we have faith in God, etc, but it does not tell us what these things mean. I added a level of commonly accepted interpretation to define the terms, but even that is not fixed. The intellectual and popular traditions are rich with different answers to the questions "Who is God," "Who is a Messenger," "What is a Book," "What are Angels and the Last Day, and "What is Free Wiil." We know that this diversity of interpretation has been supported over time and place by the sheer fact of the documentary and historical evidence. It is perfectly good to disagree (and disagree vigorously) over what these fundamentals might mean for us, as long as the fundamentals themselves are agreed on.
Third, please note that the degree to which and how you choose to think through or pursue these fundamental matters is between you and God alone. You will be alone with your soul after death waiting for the Last Day and judgment. No one will be there with you. To state the obvious, the self-righteous snoop or the good-willed brother or sister at the mosque does not get to decide if your practice and faith are harmonious, beautiful, or even sufficient.
Coolidge adds two other fundamentals to the group: prohibition of alcohol and pre-marital sex. Why add these? It would be difficult to find a health professional who would disagree that these two can lead to social ills.
We all know that alcohol has its good side, but that the bad side outweighs the good. Alcohol abuse is without question a social ill leading to domestic violence, child abuse, vehicular manslaughter, and just plain stupid bar fights and beer-goggled casual sex. Even those Muslims who enjoy a beer now and again can surely agree to that, not to mention the Muslim who is a hard drinker and knows its effects.
Similarly casual sex is a social ill. How many of us have risked our emotional health by entering into inappropriate intimacy with a partner? If you haven’t learned this lesson yet, you will. Or maybe you can learn from those of us who have found out the hard way that there is no such thing as free sex. Both men and women should protect themselves emotionally and physically by not engaging in intimate relations outside of a committed relationship. Muslims have the legal option of entering into temporary marriages; hence, pre-marital sex does not necessarily mean no sex before a traditional committed marriage. Temporary marriages are short term marriages that are designed to provide a minimum of legal commitment and responsibility for the partners. They should provide legal legitimacy of any children born from the union, social cover for what would otherwise be illicit sex, and an acknowledgement that sexual intimacy has emotional, social, and physical consequences. Ideally, these marriages should be publicly contracted so that the partners will not be able to default on their obligations to one another with any more ease than they might in a traditionally contracted marriage. As with polygyny, temporary marriage is a practice that can be easily abused if not contracted openly in the community further making the point that inappropriate intimate sexual relations are always fraught with emotional, social, and physical risks.
I hope readers will take in his call with an open mind and heart, think seriously about what differences you would ask for and why. Can you think of a way to word this that would be more inclusive of our whole community? I have some suspicions there are. Some of us may not find ourselves in this description despite its generous breadth. Why do we need a list of core practices and beliefs to call ourselves a community? Maybe we can contribute to this declaration of fundamentals such that it includes every one of us who consider ourselves Muslim in whatever form. The goal here is to build a ground of agreement for our disagreement. Think positively and generously. How can we be a unified umma? All of us.
The "Rise and fall of the Progressive Muslim movement?"
I haven't been following along that long, so the openning paragraph of the Robert David Coolidge document already raised lots of questions.
 PMM Dead?
Sufis keeping salafis in line?
 Distinction between immigrant and American born muslims?
 Someone bring me up to speed. Is this all true?
Buzz Kill
Ah, good point Buzz... I forgot to call him out on the Prog Muslim Union dead thing. I will correct that right now.
Sufi oriented Muslims have played an important role in restraining and correcting the influence of Saudi funded Wahhabi teachings in the American mosques. Zaytuna has been a big player here, as are the Naqshbandis and other Sufi oriented communities and groups. When the first Gulf war broke the Saudi's financial back, the non-Wahhabi oriented groups in the States got a foothold and starting fighting Wahhabi interpretations. My problem in what he said is that he did not make a distinction between Salafis and Wahhabi-oriented Salafis. These terms really are a problem. Egads, what do any of them mean? Salafism historically has had quite a lot to give intellectually. It is a legitimate mode of interpretation of the sources. Khaled Abou El Fadl's essay in Progressive Muslims does a great job of explaining some of the broad differences between Salafis and Wahhabis and where the problems lie. He ends up calling what we would think of as the bad guys "Salafbis."
As for the immigrant/american born issue? What is your question there, do you mean is it resolved? I think he speaks a bit too soon on that one. I don't see it resolved yet, but I do think it is in the process of resolution.
Thanks,
Laury
"As for the immigrant/american born issue? What is your question there, do you mean is it resolved? I think he speaks a bit too soon on that one. I don't see it resolved yet, but I do think it is in the process of resolution."
 What is the issue?
ÂÂ
Is it the Islamochauvinism that if you don't come from the old country, then you are a 2nd rate Muslim? Or if Arabic is not your first language, you will never really be a muslim? Those are my favorite misnomers about being a "Real Muslim"
 But I was not aware this was all old hat and thought I was the only one thinking these things.
;->ÂÂ
Buzz Kill
To which I will add the American Muslim side of the argument to the "Old School" immigrant Muslims:
"Well, you've f-d up Islam about as far as possible. Stand aside and let us clean this mess up for you since you are all so entrenched and incapable of finding your way out of the downward spiral...."
"You can't make peace with Israel, among the "scholars" are many self-serving ignoramuses and munafiqs like OBL run amok with alot of support from your umma, not ours..."
But that is just the voice of frustration observing the herd mentality of any religion.
Buzz Kill
yes, those sorts of things exactly as well as "American Muslim history is not part of Islamic history." My favorite example of this fight is a community in which the Blackamericans and the South Asians sneered at each other over the trays of curry and fried chicken. Which food is really Islamic? Still going on! I think Sherman Jackson's book _The Third Ressurection_ has done quite a lot to resolve these problems for everyone involved.
_____________
Deja Fu is the feeling that you have been kicked in the head this way before. --Terry Pratchett
Salaam 'alaykum Laury!
I really enjoyed both the article and your response. Instead of the knee-jerk reactions that many who term themselves progressives have to traditionalists, I'm glad to see this site is generally pushing for a deeper understanding of different interpretations with an eye to building community based on unity, not uniformity.
 One small note: Where you say, "Coolidge adds two other fundamentals to the group: prohibition of alcohol and pre-marital sex," I believe he is basing that squarely upon the Imam Shafi quote in his article which outlines a number of resposibilities for every "sober and mature" Muslim.
 Thank you. Warmly, Baraka
--
"God is Beautiful, and He loves beauty."
- Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him)
The things I would add are things that I think other people are more qualified than I to talk about, but things I have been thinking about quite a bit over the past few months. It's struck me that one of the reasons the progressive movement has been subject to attack is that it ("it") could never decide whether it was out to heal Islam as a religion or Islam as a civilization. So it's tried to do a little of both. But the goals of the healers of the civilization (I would include figures like Tariq Ali and Mona ElTahawy in this group) are sometimes in conflict with the goals of the healers of the religion (like Amina Wudud and Tariq Ramadan and Zaid Shakir). Some of the basic premises you set out, like the existence of God, are not a commonality if Islam is taken as both a religion (in which being a theist is more central than having an Islamic cultural background) and a civilization (in which having an Islamic cultural background is more central than being a theist).
Since the US is one of the flash-points where these two groups meet, I don't think we can articulate a core set of values until we reconcile the values of the civilization with the values of the religion. I have some scanty ideas as to how we might go about starting that, but nothing terribly concrete.
I personally subscribe 100% to what you've laid out here, and I thought it was really well said, but it leaves no room for people who identify as Muslims but do not believe in God. The theology of American Islam--the evolution of which is a clear and certain inevitability, it gives me pleasure to say--will always be very different from the makeup of the American Muslim community, which includes a sizable body of people who identify with Islamic civilization but not with Islamic faith. Since many of these Muslims have immigrated or even fled to the US to be able to express such a dissenting view, I think any articulation of American Islam ought to at least honor their right to do so.
My mom always says of these kinds of situations, "Like organizing a cat parade." Ever seen a cat follow another cat? Neither have I...
Baraka, thanks. I should clarify that. I was struck by how reasonable C's choice of principles was given the options.
Willow, this is my major reservation as well. How do we include atheist, agnostic, or cultural/civilizational Muslims? I have no intention whatsoever of signing on to something that would tell someone like Ginan she has no right to call herself a Muslim. I am not in any way entering into a discussion of whether or not it is right or wrong to not believe in God. I am saying we need to have a definition of being Muslim that allows for all that. So what if we say that one of the core points is that we acknowledge there is no god but God and do not force people to say what that means? Certainly one could put a Nietzschian spin on that. But would that be enough? I do not think so.
I agree with you 100%, we absolutely have to be able to articulate the right of Muslims to call themselves Muslims and be considered Muslims for the reasons you state above, or any other reason for that matter. So how do we articulate that? How can two Muslims say to each other, "Okay Sister/Brother, not going there with you, but you are always my sister/brother." Uh, I think they can say just that. Now we need to put it in fancy language such that both Ginan and Coolidge would feel comfortable shaking hands over it. Thank you!
Muslim Hedonist
Why do we need a "core" of beliefs or practices that we agree on?
Why isn't it enough if someone wants to identify themselves as Muslim for them to be accepted as such?
Let's be honest. A lot of it is about control, about being able to say who is "in" and who is "out."
The Hadith Jibril is a Sunni text. While Shi'is (Twelvers, at least) will agree on many individual aspects of it, as a whole, it is definitely Sunni, with an Ash'ari take on the question of predeterminism to boot. This is no neutral "middle ground" that all Muslims of good will can agree upon.
I think that a lot of this desire to draw boundaries also comes from identity issues that many converts have. But this whole question needs a post...
Please post!
This is a loaded topic, on which books can be written(and
probably has). I would just like to point out one
particular area.
When Muhammad(SAW) says you should believe in the books
that have been revealed, it is usually assumed that the Quran
is the foremost among the books in which one should believe.
Thus, it follows one should belive as sacrosanct whatever is
revealed in it. Differences of opinons may occur. But
issues which have concrete rulings should not be argued.
In my opinion, pre-marital sex and drinking would be among
those which have concrete rulings against them.
Does not matter what the doctors say. We can use medical
arguments to further validate our positions. But the medical
reasons cannot be our primary mode of arriving at decisions.
DIVERSITY-LITE ANYONE? I can't get into this "core values" idea of Islam in any way shape or form. I really can't. It makes my heart beat fast and my hands shaky. I get it. I can see the impulse, but ugh, it sounds horrible. The first question that comes to mind is "what is the intention." From the article it appears the biggest issue is confusion often convenietly translated as fitna. The little I know of Imam Zaid Shakir's writing ( I keep it in my peripherals) is that fitna is one of his buzz words. So it's no surprise that an article that devotes an entire paragraph to the supposedly unfortunate reality of converts having to choose between all these different mosques, and how "problematizing" so-called fundamentals leaves us with nothing shows up on his site. This process comes from a group that seems to hail clarity and unification above anything else. But I'm really concerned about this intention. What are they trying to save? Really. It seems to me that the "problem" (and I don't really see one actually) is not in confusion, but in the inability of people to embrace confusion and radical difference. People have been so hoodwinked in the tolerance campaign that they have forgotten to take off the band-aid. Tolerance? How about appreciation? Maybe we should spend more time educating each other on how to embrace the truly radical difference among Muslims, as opposed to trying to unify them under some flag of supposed clarity. As if... I'm far more comfortable with the *institution* of Islam crumbling into a sea of problematizing as it slides down the slope of deconstruction than I am sliding down the death trap of "core values." That slide is crazy greased. Has it ever lead to anything other than oppression and eventually murder, by the community, state, or other? Coolidge can take all his "indisputables" and "undoubtedlies" and "without a doubts" and "This is Islams" and have a nice little halal lunch, cause I can't get into this, no way no how. It's just sounds so scared. Scared of real real real diversity. I can't stand this mantra of work within the limits. It's some presumtuous. As if Collidge is exempt from the great interpretation that is life-living and meaning-making.
Bob, I love you dearly, and I know and have felt the impulses you're describing, but the surreal paranoia of the far Left will never cease to amaze me. It's like y'all would rather have 100% of nothing than 51% of something with the potential to change the world for the better. And yet we wonder why the US has failed to produce an electable liberal. How many people are helped by the fact that the brains of the left *refuse* to get together about *anything*? Yes, the Right (religious, political and otherwise) tends to enforce a rather manic standard of conformity, but how does this kind of equally manic non-conformity help *anyone* that the Right has disenfranchised? That is what we're trying to accomplish, isn't it? Or are we just talking to ourselves and feeling pretty good about it?
I'm sorry, but I think knee-jerk responses of this kind are unwarranted. If I had read your comment before Laury's article, I would assume she had suggested handing out arm-bands and performing forced mass-prayer in Central Park. Oppression and murder? Are you really comfortable throwing those kinds of accustaions around?
I don't want 100% of nothing. I'd rather keep my 51% of something and give the other 49 to someone who previously had zilch. I'd consider that capital well spent.
Ginan Rauf
Bob so do I--- your writing is explosively cool - So I will
think think hard before posting a response.
Yes/No to Diversity Lite
I agree with you 100% as long as we are talking religion and as long as
religion means something between an individual and the Divine.
It gets complicated and freaky when one tries to conjoin religion, social affairs and politics into one large messy burrito. Of course this is what the Imam Zaid's of the world have in mind: power, prestige, lots of social and economic capital.
Unfortunately, this kind of scholarly consensus religion is spiritual death. Individual differences cannot find comfortable growing room in such a tightly confined psychic space.
Willow is introducing politics into what I read as a spiritual comment by you Baraka B.ÂÂ
correct me if I'm off. ÂÂ
Buzz Kill
Assalaamu alaykum
I really appreciate the comments that I have received on my article so far. One of the greatest benefits I have received through putting this article out there is the amazing feedback I have gotten from such a diverse audience. May Allah bless us all and lead us to that which leads to His pleasure, ameen.
After reading the posts here, I think it fitting to say the following, and may Allah grant me the tawfeeq to speak in the best way.
I am actually not interested in defining a "core" of Islam. As much as it may appear to be, this wasn't an intellectual exercise. It was put out primarily for a spiritual purpose. Two things break my heart: American Muslims who move away from Islam because of all the proverbial "crap" they have to deal with in the community, and Muslims who move away from Islam because it doesn't make any sense anymore. I have almost gone both of those routes, but was held back by the mercy of Allah, and for that I am grateful. This article was a small attempt to repay Allah the infinite debt I owe to Him, to try to put something out there that if I had read when everything I believed in was crashing in on me, would have been a handhold in the darkness. Allah alone knows if my effort has been accepted by Him, which is the only true criterion of success. I could only do what I felt obligated to do, and do my best. wa ma tawfiqi illa billah.
Please make dua for me that Allah leads me to His pleasure, because that is what I truly want. This article represents what makes sense to me as the basis of the path to Him, and what matters most is that I follow it with sincerity. May Allah bless all of you in your own lives, with your own thoughts and dreams and experiences that I could never begin to understand, and may Allah open for us all the paths that lead to Him. ameen.
Sincerely,
Dave Coolidge
Mr. Coolidge, thank you for this thoughtful and compassionate response. I think we're all struggling with what you describe.
Hi Buzz: "It gets complicated and freaky when one tries to conjoin religion, social affairs and politics into one large messy burrito."
They are conjoined. Whether we like it or not. I would love to separate the politics and the social realities from the pure spiritual relationship between a person and God--just ask Ginan about how I go on about If Only This Were Possible--but I can't do that when a) wars are being fought for the former 2 reasons and b) we're talking about something larger than a spiritual community. 'Muslim' is not simply a spiritual identity anymore; it includes people working very hard to better Muslim societies and fight imperialism and resist war, who do not believe in God. When you talk about religion as simply the relationship between a person and God, you exclude people who have opted out of that relationship, but who are vital members of a real community of real people who have very real--here we go--political and social issues.
This is not always a position I held, by the way. I used to think much the way you do. But I was thoroughly schooled by people who quite frankly have done far more for Muslims than I ever will, and who have a right to be a part of the community into which they were born and which they have served, without God ever coming into the equation.
This is my fear: if we *don't* define a core set of values that specifically states that anyone who calls him/herself a Muslim is a Muslim, the people I've just talked about are going to get left out in the cold. I know this to be true because I used to be one of the ones who wanted to leave them there.
That doesn't touch on spirituality; this codifies the idea that people have the right to identify with a word--Islam--no matter what spirituality or non-spirituality they ascribe to. I think that in order for that right to be protected, it has to be stated as an absolute. Like the First Amendment; a law declaring the absence of law. We would have less free speech, not more, without it; in the absence of any law, the bullies take over. That's my fear.
"When you talk about religion as simply the relationship between a person and God, you exclude people who have opted out of that relationship, but who are vital members of a real community of real people who have very real--here we go--political and social issues."
That is their problem. This is the same kind of issue as those that want to make Sufism a completely non-Islamic practice 'cause being Muslim is not in fasion some places. F'em.
Some people don't like the notion of God because it has been a premise for manipulating politics and causing social strife... WELL!!!!
I know a real simple way to solve that....
Saying that Muslim identity had foresaken the Qur'an is a bit weak and that is sort of what it boils down to.
Doesn't really fit together.
Buzz Kill
"Unfortunately, this kind of scholarly consensus religion is spiritual death. Individual differences cannot find comfortable growing room in such a tightly confined psychic space. Willow is introducing politics into what I read as a spiritual comment by you Baraka B."
Yet:
"That is their problem. This is the same kind of issue as those that want to make Sufism a completely non-Islamic practice 'cause being Muslim is not in fasion some places. F'em."
Not to rag on you, but this just illustrates my point.
SCREW 51% I'M FOR 100%
I want to first thank Coolridge for coming to the site and taking the time to take notice of our discussion. It's not everyday that a writer directly engages his/her readers. I also want to note that particular (and generalized) Muslim humility that gets me every time. The "May Allah guide me's" and so on. Always makes me feel like a rebellious & arrogant pricky and brings a wee little tear to my sensitve boy-eyes.
I also want to point out that Coolidge's post/comment really exists in a non-entity as apparently prog Islam has risen and currently fallen (ie gone away) so it is quite ironic that he should show up on the current manifestation of the prog Islam movement known as ProgIslam.org. Perhaps you may want to reexamine your rise/fall comment? To whichever degree we align ourselves, Prog Islam is alive, well, and kickin and screamin'. We're reading and writing too! And talking. Lot's of talking. And organizing!
Willow: Hello my dearest friend in the ether. :) I think you are misplacing your criticism slightly, though I agree with the sentiment. Coolridge's article in large part talks about what it is to be a Muslim---in effect, what makes a person a Muslim. He proposes somewhat of a core system, which we should all agree on (really that's what's asked) while we leave the rest (minor detail) up for debate. On the surface this sounds fine. A call for difference. Sort of.
As I made clear, I take issue with the entire idea that our identities should be pegged to a few agreements (all of which are actually NOT clear, and history has proven this to us). Never has there been a time when the people, (not the judges/scholars/etc) have totally agreed. While you are coming at me as if I want to derail the movement at the expense of some 51% margin, I am actually saying screw 51%! Let's forget about who's in and who's out on any level (as this will eventually lead to the aformentioned death, murder, marginalization comment I made earlier. Again history) and let's work toward the whole 100%. Defining in any manner another person's identity results in violence. It is a violent act. I believe this. I don't think this is knee-jerk, but a critique that people do not want to encounter head on because it means you are in a serious check. Unnecessarily CODIFIED identity borders (ie Those who agree and are therefor in the club say Aye. Aye!) serve only those troubled by the boarderless. The boarderless make people uneasy, and this uneasiness is where I think the struggle lays.
My suggestion is to rather than agree on any spirtual core (and this is what Coolidge is referring to in large part) we may benefit for the first time in history from teaching one another how to allow people to truly define themselves. Work it out between themselves and who/whatever. Let's teach each other skills that help those overwhelmed by the vast and stupifying enormity of this beautiful tradition---core-less values and all!
Let's not say "There are a lot of differences but every Muslim agrees on XYZ" but rather say "Each person establishes a personal relationship with thier understanding of reality in such a way that yeilds quite a varied array of praxes." AKA move on!
We congratulate everyone on this, at times, difficult path, so let's move on and keep that skyscraper out of our neighborhood, or whatever. Let's not burden people once again with dotted-line-ism. Rather, let's claim 100% inclusivity (to the degree we can) and shelve our egos for the time being, by not caring about (really) the core beliefs of others (this is what it's all about), but caring about establishing a real working dialogue regardless. The very dialogue we are engaged in right now. The ability of which to occur is based on the fact that no one is sure who's practice/beliefs are exactly what, thus we move one. We're not here to put any pressure on anyone to feel excluded.
This Prog Islam site is a perfect example of how this can work. Imagine we all had to agree on some (for some us arbitrary) Islamic clause in order to be considered part of the community. How counter productive.
Pardon the Coolidge (Coolridge) mispelling in there.
Dear Willow
I invite your ragging. Maybe I'll learn something.
However, since all these words are so mutually and divergently loaded down, we can hardly communicate...let me define and extrapolate a bit.
Islam has many faces. Scholarly, consensus religion is the doctrinaire idea that you follow the Imam's literal interpretation of the Good Book and shut up and don't think or try to understand but just believe and you will all go to heaven.
This is crap. Human beings have minds, intellect and that intellect needs to be challenged, strive for understanding and so forth. The Prophet himself said so..."Cradle to grave..." etc.
Some so-called Sufis want to "sterilize" Sufism and make it a evolving, pick and choose, grab bag of religious and mystical practices. Fine.
Then I will call Sufism "Tasawuf."
When they go further to deligitimize the necessity to hold Tasawof together as a integral spiritual discipline, now there is hell to pay.
Does that mean that "Sufism" should revert back to the scribes consensus religion? No. Islam is deeper than head scarfs and beards and halal chicken dinners.
The Islam I am talking about is different from that Islam. Both require pillars. Both mandate behavior but the reading is mystical, not exoteric.
This is pretty clear and you have to TRY to misunderstand it to conjoin the two.
Islam has always had esoteric and exoteric practices. Fine. No wrong - no right. Each to their own.
But to say, "well the exoteric doesn't really require belief in Allah or the Qur'an or the Prophet" is bunk.
I love and accept such people who have trouble with religion. Hell, I married one. But she is Agnostic, not Atheist.
Agnostic admits to limited knowledge. This is acceptable. Atheism espouses absolute belief in no god. This is as presumptuous as making everyone believe in an (unknown) God.
There is no way to satisfy everyone with one religion. That was my original point. There is a place for community that we can all share. But it sure isn't under the flag Islam. Ridiculous!
Buzz Kill
B my likewise dearest friend in the ether: That's all right, I almost spelled it Coleridge. Like the poet.
You're right, I was talking to the little person in my head. The little person in my head was more concerned with the social issues at hand than the spiritual ones; spiritually, I don't think we disagree. I don't see the necessity of the codification of spiritual values. That does seem fairly contradictory to me. But articulated values for real literal worldly intercourse in the very diverse and often contradictory community of American Muslims, to ensure that no one is politically isolated? That I would like to see. I think the more politically unified we are the more good we can do. Seems to work for the Republicans. ;)
Buzz: I really honestly do see the wisdom in what you're saying, but again, I think we're talking about two different things--you're talking about spiritual integrity and I'm talking about social integrity. I've argued your side before, but a few months ago I basically sat up in bed in the middle of the night and said, "The pundits are demonizing Islam and I'm arguing with people who *want* to call themselves Muslims? What am I DOING?" Ever since then I've taken a very different view of the Who is a Muslim argument. Ironically, I feel this has brought me closer to God.
The thing is Willow (and Buzz as well), I am speaking socially as well as spiritually. But very much socially. It seems clear to me that "unifying" does not involve establishing core values (in fact that will cleave the social upon utterance), but engaging immediate concerns. One of which is not whether or not a person sticks to the so-called pillars of faith. Those to me are personal issues and should be dictated by the individual.
So yes, this is a social concern. This is about social integrity. As a person's identity is constructed both socially and personally (public figures, celebrities, etc. are key examples). What benefit is there in establishing who is in the club (read: who is out of the club) anymore than we are already doing?
Willow
If you complete your vision and spell out the particulars, I think it will be clear how problematic a non-religious Islam is.
Baraka
"What benefit is there in establishing who is in the club (read: who is out of the club) anymore than we are already doing?"
There is power in numbers. That has always been the game: group and manipulate the masses. Or divide and manipulate the masses.
Governer Schwartzensteudel has been advised by his handlers to distance his lederhosen from Bush because Bush's numbers are a drag on his votes. Lot's of unhappy republicans who still like the idea of having a movie star with no political experience run the state.
So the idea is to create a massive Muslim voting block that comes under one flag and will affect local and global politics. Certainly, US foreign policy would be more balanced in the middle east if all American Muslims voted as one. And fine. I am all for justice. That is a tenet of the Faith. But I am not going to blindly support Zidane just because he is a (non-practicing) Muslim.
Buzz Kill
Buzz.
"'What benefit is there in establishing who is in the club (read: who is out of the club) anymore than we are already doing?'"
The question was of course rhetorical.
"So the idea is to create a massive Muslim voting block that comes under one flag and will affect local and global politics."
That's great though I think using this as a reason to in/exclude peeps is a bit lame. If swaying the polls is your goal, I think strategically it'd be best to call on all Muslims and not all Muslims who agree on these five points. Cause the second they start rallying around some points of identity I get weary. However, I think the entire idea of anything under one flag is just silly and creepy. I'd rather loose the flag and get pro-active. See where people's interest intersect etc. Pull a Judi Bari on the whole thing. And we see what happened to her. When things actually work, people in power get real nervous. Gov't is a living entity and it gets angry and retaliates when threatened. When it's not threatened it ignores you. I/we are trying to manipulate both. Put pressure AND be ignored. Being ignored by gov't is life!
Oh I'm running off again. Sorry.
In Islam there is the "temporal" and there is the spiritual.
Or to put it in terms of "Islamic Coda", the "duniya" and
the "Aakheera". We can all make a combined effort to fix
The "duniya" in which we live, i.e, the temporal(that which
is temporary)The spiritual is always up to the individual.
To me that is what gives Islam simultaneaously its strength
and it's weakness. You can try centralization as much as you
want. At the end of the day each individual makes his or her
own choice, dependent on the paths through which they have
traveled to the religion, and the roads they continue to
traverse in search of the truth. The temporal is the only
one we can really solve and resolve. And only up to a
certain extent.
Well said Hassan. When human beings try to control the inward aspect of human beings it is totalitarianism. In the end, such an organization will always turn in on itself, become weakened and open to attack from within and without. When human beings try too hard to control the outward aspect of human beings it is authoritarianism. This too will always fail in the end. Human beings are simply too independent minded to suffer that for very long. But human beings want and need some guidelines, some boundaries, something that we all agree on that helps us build relationships with others (other creatures and God). Solid relationships are built through solid boundaries. Wise rules, wise boundaries within which both the temporal and the spiritual may flourish beautifully.
We need a definition.
" Human beings are simply too independent minded to suffer that for very long."
I beg to differ Laury
What you outlined is beautiful but idealistic. Such a positive and humanitarian view ignores much history.
too many times have we turned over our independence to corrupt leaders who misuse their contingent authority for selfish and horrible reasons.
We should encourage the independent spirit in human beings, which as you say is innate, but falls easy prey to authoritarian schema.
Buzz Kill
Buzz, we aren't disagreeing. I mean to say that the independent spirit ultimately rises up and fights totalitarian and authoritarian formations. We simply cannot abide it for too long. But how did we get into the messes in the first place? Through the kinds of processes you mention here. It is a cycle of history. In one formation, we give up our Trust as children of Adam to corrupt leaders who make decisions for us, then generations later wake up and take the Trust back to carry as they should. I took the bad side of equation as a given. Sorry, I should have made that clear.
Laury, its not always so simple as just shaking hands. If cultural Muslims force civilizational politics on people who are looking for spirituality, or spiritual Muslims force theology on cultural Muslims, then there will be a considerable number of unmet needs. Personally, I feel that civilizational Muslims are fish out of water when they immigrate. This is because adherents of one civilization are trying to exist within another, that is Western civilization not to mention the local culture of wherever they settle. Theological Islam, on the other hand, can exist anywhere and meld itself to the local cultural fabric. Sometime that has led to that locality being incorporated into the Civilization of Islam, but I know not how we define when a locality ceases to be its own and then "belongs" to Islam. It would be more proper, in my opinion, for them to identify with Arab Nationalism, Ataturkism, Indian traditional etc more than with Islam.
However, anyone must be allowed to call themselves a Muslim; the problems only come when one side wants to use community resources to liberate Palestine while the others want to know God better and encourage morality and welfare in thier own backyard.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
>>I have almost gone both of those routes, but was held back by the mercy of Allah, and for that I am grateful.
ROGER THAT!
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Not to get off topic, but: "Governer Schwartzensteudel has been advised by his handlers to distance his lederhosen from Bush"
I read it five minutes ago, and I'm still laughing.
Being a native Californian, nothing surprises me.
Northern California is pretty cool. Bay Area especially is a wonderful, diverse, liberal minded town with a minimum number or narrow minded people. I love it.
But Southern California is weird. Unlikely mixtures of superficial and liberal right next to hard core right wingers. Toxic mix.
Then again, John Yoo, the wacko lawyer who advised Bush to ignore the Geneva convention and claim absoulte power through the war powers act is a profesor at UC Berkeley: the same city that also has a ballot to impeach Bush shows how divided even California has become.
Buzz Kill
As far as I know, John Yoo was the Muslim chaplain wrongfully
accused by the administration. Or am I wrong? The attorney
who advised Bush was Alberto Gonzalez? Right?
yo
john yoo is the lawyer
john YEE is the chaplain
the drafter of the torture memo was Judge Bybee (9th Circuit)
Gonzalez was the AG
Post new comment