William Fisher, who "has managed economic development programs in the Middle East for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development," writes this in "Progressive Islam, or how to accept it's time to start a-changin,'" in Lebanon's Daily Star (thanks to Mackie):
In the United States there is an impression that no internal struggle exists within Islam between reformers and more rigid conservatives. The truth is, however, that such an internal debate, centering on how to interpret the Koran, has been going on for centuries. It is also true that today the debate has risen to a new level, fueled by the emergence of a small but rapidly growing branch of the faith known as Progressive Islam.
Great news, Mr. Fisher! And who is the foremost exponent of this Progressive Islam? Why, none other than my man Omid Safi, the egregiously haughty prof who does his students' thinking for him by smearing whole classes of scholars and researchers as "Islamophobes":
What is Progressive Islam, where is it, what does it believe? Long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many Muslim spokesmen realized there was a growing, worldwide network of Muslim terrorists killing in the name of God. They also knew that the rights of women and non-Muslims were being routinely denied by Islamic regimes, such as the one in Saudi Arabia."We have our fanatics just like everyone else," says Omid Safi, the co-chair of the Study of Islam section at the American Academy of Religion, and a professor of philosophy and religion at Colgate University. Safi was one of the co-founders of the Progressive Muslim Union, which was launched in 2004. "We have to take a stand against Saudi-infected extremism," insists Safi. Many American Muslim communities, he adds, "are far too uncritical of Salafi and Wahhabi tendencies."
Yes, Omid, and why is that? If you aren't still afraid to debate me, I'd be happy to discuss it with you at Colgate.
He and other progressives believe that unless these radical tendencies are defeated, "the humanity of Muslims will be reduced to the caricature of violent zealots painted by fanatics from both inside and outside the Muslim community. It is time to start a-changin'," he says, borrowing from the lyrics of a famous Bob Dylan song.
Bob also said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." It is the jihadists who have the intellectual initiative within Islam at this point, and folks like Safi aren't helping by spending their time smearing people who are resisting them. If Omid Safi is Exhibit A of this marvelous new Progressive Islam, I will remain skeptical, thanks.
The old "we have fanatics just like everybody else..." routine.
Those exploding Christians are everywhere!
And the hijacking Bahais are just over the horizon.
And the murdering Mormons, how will we stop them!
Look out! A maurauding mass of Moonies!
Please do engage this slipped gear in a debate, Mr. Spencer.
He needs to have his clock cleaned.
Dear Big (or do you prefer "Mr. Sleep"?):
I would, but he won't.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Oh yes, those moderates are sure doing a great job of reforming Islam, which means putting a show on in English for western liberals!
"In the United States there is an impression that no internal struggle exists within Islam between reformers and more rigid conservatives. The truth is, however, that such an internal debate, centering on how to interpret the Koran, has been going on for centuries. It is also true that today the debate has risen to a new level, fueled by the emergence of a small but rapidly growing branch of the faith known as Progressive Islam."
The progressives are a "small but rapidly growing" branch of Islam. So, is the Star "Islamaphobic" for claiming that the progressives are a small branch of Islam? Or is it time to admit that the anti-progressive branch, who support violent jihad and sharia law, are actually the mainstream, and it is the progressives who are radical?
A bizarre article about an even more bizarre phenomenon.
This 'movement' is committed to 'gender equality' (and how will they interpret away Sura 4 without hitting the 'delete' button, which, of course, would make them apostates?), and 'activism', as opposed to 'conceptual criticism'. And that is just like liberation theology, you know. Cool, man. Any progressive imams totting guns to do battle with the Wahhabi and Salafi militias on behalf of the oppressed and impoverished masses yet? Does the progressive movement have any plans to put together some armed resistence to Jihadists murdering civilians in Iraq? Pakistan? Bangladesh? Indonesia? Will they bother to lend a hand a few Infidels while they are at it please?
But, alas, no such urgency is apparent. On the contrary, one must consider the complex context, which demands keeping 'neo-colonialism' at a distance. So, "progressives face a delicate balancing act. They need to defend Islam against virulent stereotypes but also to acknowledge oppressive practices and ideas within Islam."
I suppose Spencer is one of those propping up 'virulent stereotypes' for citing the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and Jihadist common arguments, and then he has the gall to call for a forceful, coherent confrontation with Jihadists from so-called 'moderate' Muslims.
You shouldn't do that Spencer. Don't you know that promotes 'virulent stereotypes' ,you Islamophobe, you. That just ain't cool, man. Get with the progressive program. You know, activism that is not so conceptual. Stuff like gender equality, but don't spend so much time talking about rape and murder in Dafur, genitial mutiliation, honor killings, the vicious oppression of women in Islamic history, and texts that support that oppression. Cut that out. That is just rude. And don't talk so much about Mohammad's life, you know, stuff like Aisha, concubines, women as war booty; and you shouldn't talk about the fact that most Muslims believe that Mohammad was the perfect man whose life deserves emulation. Forget that. That just promotes virulent stereotypes. You're the kind of guy these progressives have to combat, along with these rotten Jihadists giving Islam such a bad name. You know, these guys committing mass indiscriminate murder in the name of Allah who don't know what they are talking about. Listen to these moderates Spencer, or, uh, watch them (since they are more about activism than concepts). Oh yeah, uh, they haven't actually done anything yet. Well, then, debate them...oh, yeah, they won't do that, I forgot. Or, uh, just be their dang friend, will you?
Gosh, Spencer, you're just making it so tough for these activist moderates like Omar Safi. No wonder he won't require his students to read your work.
Progessive Islam is like saying Progressive Nazism.Come on people it belongs in the dustbin of history.
"The truth is, however, that such an internal debate, centering on how to interpret the Koran, has been going on for centuries."
--- William Fisher, quoted in the article above
Really? Who took part in that internal debate, and what is the evidence of the quarrel over the "variety" of ways to interpret the Qur'an, that immutable word of God? Did someone argue that the doctrine of naskh, or abrogation, should itself be thrown out, so as to emphasize the "softer" or so-called Meccan suras and de-emphasize the much harsher ones that were revealed while Muhammad was lord of all he surveyed in Medina? How did al-Afghani and Abduh do? Did they transform Islam, or change it in the tiniest possible way?
And what about the Hadith? Has anyone managed to convince anyone else that the Hadith needed to be transformed by declaring that some of those deemed "authentic" by al-Bukhari and Muslim are actually "inauthentic," and vice-versa? And who is goin g to bowdlerize the Sira -- Aisha, the Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, the Khaybar Oasis, and so on?
Fisher is talking through his hat. He has no idea what he is saying, no evidence to back it up.
A better guide would be Mustafa Kemal, or Ataturk. He saw Islam as a menace to Turkey itself, but knew that there was no hope of trying to change or reform it. Islam could only be constrained, as a political and a social force. He created a mythological past for Turks, the "Sun People," and attributed to them the credit for the pre-Islamic civilization in Anatolia that rightly belongs to the Greeks, Armenians and other non-Muslims who lived there long before the Seljukid and then Ottoman Turks arrived.
The Fishers of this world think they can say anything, and there is no need for them to produce evidence.
They are quite wrong. When it comes to Islam, that mortal threat to the wellbeing of Infidels, those days are over.
Omar Safi's schtick is the Nice Guy, the understanding professor, the one who is "genuinely" interested in his students (those innocents can be fooled by so little). But he will not do the one thing students most need: teach them the truth about the subject he purports to be teaching them. This, out of embarrassment, or ignorance, or filial piety, or defensiveness, he cannot do.
"We have to take a stand against Saudi-infected extremism," insists Safi. Many American Muslim communities, he adds, "are far too uncritical of Salafi and Wahhabi tendencies."
--- from the posting above
Yes, it is just those bad old Wahhabis and those Salafists. Where then do all those who conquered Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, Spain, Zoroastrian Persia, Hindu and Buddhist Hindustan come from, many centuries before Abd el-Wahhab first appeared in the early 18th century? Who were all those who long ago, and from every one of the four schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence, insisted on the centrality of Jihad, Jihad not as "internal wrestling with one's conscience" but as qital, or combat, designed to seize Infidel lands, Infidel loot (including the women and children who could be enslaved). Does Omar Safi think that the Ayatollah Khomeini, and his epigones, come out of nothing -- or was Khomeini not a learned Shia theologian, and were his views not entirely in accord with most of Shia Islam, while it was the Shah, with his attempts to treat Infidels almost as equals to Muslims, who was the exception in the long history of Islamic Iran?
How does Safi explain the virtual disappearance of the Zoroastrians? (Hint: read Mary Boyce). How does he explain away the massacres of tens of millions of Hindus by Muslim invaders and conquerors, and the destruction of tens of thousands of Hindu temples (some of those vast temple complexes are listed by Sita Ram Goel), or the Buddhist temples and artifacts of both Hindustan of Afghanistan? How does he explain the series of attacks on Christians in East Timor, in the Moluccas, in Sulawesi, in the southern Philippines, in the southern Sudan, in southern Nigeria, in Pakistan, all by Muslims exhibiting various degrees of that hostility which is naturally inculcated by the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- and it is only the less obvervant, or indifferent or ignorant Muslims, to the degree that they are indifferent or ignorant or unobservant, who are likely to treat Infidels with something other than the cold hatred (sometimes hidden, especially when to reveal it, as in the West, would only cause problems -- for now).
Safi's reading lists are predictably full of the apologetics, from the carefully bowdlerized "Approaching the Qur'an" to John Esposito's coffee-table productions full of bland assertions all of which have already been disproven, the obvious products of a hireling author, doing the bidding of those who are his financial supporters through that transparently-named "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding." (see, for what would once have been called a useful corrective, the articles on Islam by Esposito's more honest and certainly more Christian colleague at Georgetown, the Rev. James V. Schall.
Plumpb, but not stately, that smile affixed to his face like that of a stewardess, the proud papa of an Exonian, who allows himself to believe that he really "fits" into American society (but only those who accept the basic premises of American society, which are flatly contradicted by central tenets of Islam -- including the right to freedom of conscience, which means to leave Islam if one wishes, can possibly really "fit" in -- for others, their citizenship is merely a matter of where they happen to be, not of felt affinity).
Mr. Spencer-
As a guest here, I prefer to be polite and give you the "Mr.", and any form of name in reply is fine. (My nom de guerre is a nod to what Raymond Chandler coined as a sly slang for: Death. Which is where the West is headed if it doesn't get its head screwed on a little tighter.)
I understand that the Muslim fellow is using the Duck, Dodge and Hide Method (as the Three Stooges named it), so, of course I mean whenever he stops the rope-a-dope.
Id you can stage a debate with those from the George Soros camp trying to hijack the 9/11 memorial site at Ground Zero, that would be an opportune and wide-reaching venue for getting the message out about jihad as well. Since these p.c. pantywaists are trying to turn the place of the worse attack by Imperialistic Islam upon America into some kind of international teaching tool for harmony. (Tra-la-la... kuumbayaa...)
Instead of the rallying point for the start of the war to defeat a global theocratic tyranny instead.
Great work, as usual.
Hit 'em with the TRUTH.
It always hurts the 'divinely' duplicitous MOST.
If Omar Safi were to attempt to answer even one of Hugh Fitzgerald's above questions with even the slightest scholarly diligence, I would be astounded. Further sarcasm is difficult. Too much horrible death and suffering exist at the hands of Islam.
The article says again,
"progressives face a delicate balancing act. They need to defend Islam against virulent stereotypes but also to acknowledge oppressive practices and ideas within Islam."
Defend Islam indeed. And what will this 'acknowledgement' do for the thousands of murdered women and children of Dafur, the millions of butchered, the millions of broken families, hearts, minds and bodies, the countless casualties of Islam?
And Safi coyly says, "It is time to start a-changin'", like an alcoholic raising his glass.
Acknowledgement indeed.
Omid Safi complains that "liberal Muslims" (whom he dinstinguishes from his "Progressive Muslims") have an "almost devotional identification with modernity, and often (but do not always) by-pass discussions of colonialism and imperialism."
He must be living in a dreamland. EVERYbody criticizes Western colonialism & imperialism -- even most right-wing politicians and Republicans. That in fact is the problem with the current domination of PC thought. We have to recover our former intelligent, and classically liberal, pride in Western Colonialism. Sure, the West made mistakes during its Colonial era. But: 1) all major cultures have colonized others since the beginning of time; 2) the West's record of colonization is the most humane and beneficent in all history; 3) the West is the only Empire in the history of mankind to not only voluntarily dismantle its Empire but to engage in profound self-critical dialogue about it afterwards.
Omid Safi goes on: "Progressive advocates of Islam, on the other hand, are almost uniformly critical of colonialism, both of its nineteenth century manifestation and its current variety."
Thus they will join the Leftists and reactionary Muslims in blaming the ills of Islam on the West.
"Progressive Muslims espouse a critical and non-apologetic ‘multiple critique’ with respect to both Islam and modernity. They are undoubtedly postmodern in the sense of their critical approach to modernity."
Aha! Omid Safi is saying, in effect, that Progressive Muslims will join post-modern Leftists in criticizing Western modernity -- which is our only vehicle for all Judaeo-Christian & classically liberal values by which we measure and condemn the abysmal failure of Islam.
A real gem from Ali Sina's FFI:
Perhaps this is the 'progressive' Islam that Omid is cookin'?
Author Message
Bolding Hansen
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 370
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: An unwilling jihadi
This is from a question asked here :
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=9524
The iman answering is a moderate and do not condone offensive jihad, only peaceful jihad, and da `W a h. besides in selfdefense or when wrongdoings has been done.
But that is not the point here, the one asking lives in Sweden and can´t understand about why some, even there talk about overthrowing the government by offensive jihad, can´t get over his/her heart to wage jihad against "peaceful people".
Quote:
Why must we, if the caliphate is established one day (and the Muslims are strong), attack the peaceful people of, for example Sweden (where I live), when they allow Muslims to do da`W a h [inviting people to Islam] freely; they even help us here in Sweden. Once again, I know that we cannot force people to become Muslims, but we can force an Islamic system of governing on them, where they pay the jizyah [tribute]. I know that many Muslims say that we will do them a favor if we remove their evil governments, but why must we do that with the sword when they allow us to do da`W a h. Most people want peace in their life and to live in love and harmony with their neighbors, so why can’t we let them live in peace and let Allah judge them on the Last Day?
Maybe you will quote this verse:
*{Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:16)
I do not hate to fight and I am not afraid to lose my life in jihad if Allah says we must do it, but I will never be satisfied in my heart if one day I have to fight a people that are peaceful (like in Sweden where I live) and then the jihad I do will not be voluntary, and that would make me a munafiq [hypocrite] if I don’t fight with my heart. I know and you know that the people will try to stop Muslims by force if they try to bring Islamic rule over them. Can you even imagine how many people will be killed? This is weakening my iman [faith]. Please help me. What should I do? I love Allah and His Prophet(s), but when I think about things like this, my iman is destroyed.
Back to top