Akram's Razor - Reflections on Islam, Muslims & America

Yoginder Sikand: ‘Progressive Islam’ in Pakistan

Some interesting observations about the tragic irrelevance of secularized Pakistani intellectuals and the tools available for socially progressive activism within Pakistan's indigenous Sufi tradition.

I've always been frustrated by how prominent Pakistani intellectuals always seem to resort to imported Western discourse when advocating justice or reform, even when directly applicable Islamic concepts and terminology are readily available.  Instead of using arguments that could resonate with their Muslim countrymen, far too often they cut and paste from Amnesty International or the like, in the process ceding the public square entirely to their opponents on the far right.

Yoginder Sikand: "‘Progressive Islam’ in Pakistan (HIMAL SOUTHASIAN)  | May - June 2006

Numerous such examples exist of Sufis who continue to be held in great reverence by millions of ordinary Pakistanis. Their teachings provide a rich resource for developing indigenously rooted Islamic theologies of liberation and inter-community dialogue. At the same time, such a movement could effectively challenge the shrill rhetoric of radical Islamist groups, who bandy about empty slogans calling for the ‘Islamic revolution’, but whose actual agenda, many Pakistanis insist, is to perpetuate the stranglehold of the military, the mullahs, and the feudal lords and their American patrons.

“One of the greatest errors of the Left in Pakistan,” says friend Hasan, a Lahore-based activist who describes himself as a ‘leftist Muslim’, “is that we blindly followed Western Marxism. Many of us openly condemned religion, and this earned us widespread public disapproval. The Saudis, egged on by the Americans, pumped vast sums of money into Pakistan to publish literature and patronise the madrasas and mullahs, who branded all Leftists as atheists and anti-Islam.”

By blindly imitating the West, Hasan feels that modern Pakistanis have failed to explore its own traditions for possible counters to the country’s entrenched social problems. “Our own popular Sufi traditions contain enough such resources,” he suggests. “Had we used them in our campaigns, we would not have given our opponents an excuse to brand us as anti-religion. Progressive politics in Pakistan would have had more popular appeal, rather than being seen as a Western import, had we developed an appropriate contextual Islamic theology based on local Sufi vocabulary and idioms.” Hasan blames what he calls the cognitive elitism of the Pakistani Left for ignoring the revolutionary potential of popular Sufi discourses: “They have no real contact with the masses and so can’t speak in their language.”

Despite their powerful history of social critique, however, Hasan does not place much hope in the current custodians of the Sufi shrines either, noting that such shrines have been reduced to centres of pilgrimage and personal mediation rather than centres of instruction. “Popular Sufism has been thoroughly ritualised, shorn of its progressive potential,” he says. “In fact, many shrine custodians have become powerful landlords and maintain strong political connections, and so have developed a vested interest in preserving the system as it is.”

Feedback on PMU & Islamic democracy

The folks over at the  Progressive Muslims Union Debate blog have commented on my article on the PMU.

I disagree with surprisingly little of what they said. 

The posting starts out as follows:

Svend White, former Secretary of The Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy ( CSID ) - a United States Government's State Department funded organization (according to sources) has written an article on the PMUNA that is worth a read.

This is factually correct, though I think the insinuations that seem to be intended are a bit misleading.

First, I should note that I haven't been involved with CSID since my term on its board of directors ended almost a year ago.  I am not terribly enthusiastic about its work these days--or most of what passes for democracy promotion in Washington, for that matter--as I think that in the post-9/11 climate there's a real risk of all this complacent talk about democratic theory distracting the public from the root causes of the world's political problems.  One of them is undoubtedly America's often criminally myopic foreign policy, rampant militarism and opposition to international law.  To the extent that this kind of apolitical democracy promotion allows us to ignore  this fundamental fact, I think it can be profoundly harmful to the cause of democratic reform.

Second, I'm ultimately far less interested in democracy promotion than in serious research and scholarship into democracy within Islamic tradition, as the latter is far more likely to result in long-lasting change by discrediting authoritarian biases that are often passed off as religious tradition.   I think the best possible "advocacy" is ultimately rigorous scholarship and therefore always tried to promote that within CSID over simple advocacy, albeit with varying degrees of success.

Third, I must confess that I'm not sure Muslims need to be sold democracy anymore.  It is not popular hostility to democracy that holds back political reform in the Muslim world today--to the contrary, survey after survey reveal that the Muslim masses yearn for democratic reform--but rather authoritarian governments (often actively supported by the US), destabilizing conflicts, and poverty.  Those factors are infinitely more important in the long run than whether Muslims are familiar with The Federalist Papers.

There is a very insightful and stimulating article by Vali Nasr called "The Rise of 'Muslim Democracy'" that is loosely related to this topic.

The seeming implication that I am supporter of the status quo in Washington is utterly incorrect.  To the contrary, during my involvement with the organization in question I consistently argued for not only independence from but also open criticism of the Beltway consensus.  I have never hidden my disdain for the myopic doublestandards, intellectually bankrupt paradigms, and apologia for militarism that infect so much of Beltway debate and policymaking.  I suspect that the news that I'm a lackey of the Man would come as a big surprise to him.

Still, I think we need to fair to CSID.  While it is true that CSID has accepted State Department funding for specific projects (e.g., a conference on shariah here, a some workshops there), to call it a "State Department-funded organization" is quite melodramatic and unfair. 

That slogan overlooks some important considerations:

1. Project-specific funding must be evaluated on the basis of the specific projects and their outcomes.
2. The State Department sometimes represents a rival faction and alternative viewpoint within the government (remember the power struggles between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld).  I have no illusions about State, especially under Condi, but important differences remain. There's a good reason why necons are so hostile to State and want to transfer as much of its responsibilities as possible to the Pentagon.  They know that State represents a more moderate, evenhanded segment of the government.  It's not quite so encumbered with hardline hawks and ideologues as the Pentagon.
3. Not everything the State Department or US Government funds is objectionable. That's a reality that black & white rhetoric like this fails to acknowledge.
4. These are our tax dollars.  American Muslims have every right to avail themselves of their government's resources in halal endeavors. Why should all the money go to non-Muslim NGOs?
5. It isn't easy to find funding for what CSID does.  Most Muslim donors aren't very interested in this kind of work.  Should they not to their work?
   
6. Finally, while all non-profits would prefer to avoid accepting any government money whatsoever, the reality is that most do not have a George Soros to give them complete independence and must strategically fall back on public funding at times.  Expecting NGOs working in this arena to completely forgo government funds is naive and counterproductive.  It simply doesn't happen in the real world, and nor should it have to.

I'm not denying that there are things one could criticize about CSID's work.  I am also very conscious of the possibility of an organization of like this being coopted.  Still, innuendo and simplistic assumptions like this aren't fair.  Like any organization, CSID should ultimately be judged by its work.

White makes some good points in his article, however - there are some important aspects of the PMUNA that he leaves out.

A critical piece he does not address is how the PMUNA fit in perfectly with the Rand Report and the US agenda to "change the face of Islam." These reports reveal a strategy to manipulate and divide Muslims, and to use certain "good Muslims" to promote United States policies in the "mid-east". This, in some quarters, has been dismissed as "conspiracy theory." However, the kind of attention that the PMUNA got from the mainstream corporate media cannot just be explained by "screaming headlines sell" (as White suggests in his article).

I don't disagree that PMUNA's seemingly secular worldview fits snugly into some of the problematic agendas out there, but I think you need to acknowledge that this isn't necessarily PMUNA's fault.  Is it PMUNADebate's fault that in some respects its worldview fits into the agenda of Osama Bin Laden?  I use that silly example intentionally to highlight how when the sides are painted in such broad strokes everyone can be accused of fitting one sinister agenda or another.  You need to do a more nuanced analysis than just figuring out which side of a debate somebody's arguments happen to fall.  That sort of an analysis can be highly deceptive.

Also,  as much as disagree with PMU, I think critics need to acknowledge the possibility that its platform (however nebulous) respresents a significant number of people  In other words, I think it's highly facile to declare that PMU exists simply because their worldview coincides in some respects with non-Muslim agendas.  Perhaps they exist because a significant number of people share their secular outlook.  In that case, we can still critique them, but we should be honest about the possibility that they represent a consituency in the community.

Then there's the fact that PMU tends to be highly critical of US government policy (e.g., Hussein Ibish and Tarek Fatah can't by any stretch of the imagination be considered supporters of the Washington consensus, whatever other issues one may disagree with them on).  To treat PMU as simply an extention of US government policy is just plain silly.

The bottom line for me is that I don't think you can effectively critique the PMU's mistakes unless 1) you discuss it in a reasonably nuanced manner that gives it its due and 2) admit that PMU does represent some people.  Perhaps you believe that that group is fairly marginal to the broader Muslim community, but it clearly exists.

I agree with the rest of the article, which cites an incisive posting to their forum on the perils of  using power of the mainstream  media and political establishment to force change in the community.  (In fact, my alt.muslim article happened to make some of the same points.)

The only other thing I'd add is that if they're going to quote Noam Chomsky, I think they need to be a little more careful in how they analyze intentions.  One of Chomsky's greatest strengths as a political theorist and critic is his ability to explore how discursive systems  support particular political agendas regardless of the participants 'conscious intentions or beliefs.  He understands that the greatest support for oppression and mistaken policies is often unconscious or based on misunderstandings.  He doesn't make unwarranted assumptions about his political opponents, sticking to undisputable facts .  It makes his critiques all the more cogent (and illustrative of why it's ridiculous that he's often labeled a "conspiracy theorist" in the mainstream media).   Simply put, he skewers people while still giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Lessons learned from the PMU Experiment

Below is an article by me on the PMU that ran today in alt.muslim.com.

In it, I try to lay out my longstanding concerns about PMU in a balanced manner.

----------------------------------

Lessons Learned From The PMU Experiment
By Svend White,  September 26, 2005

http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1555_0_25_0_C

The Progressive Muslim Union is going through a rough patch.  A series of defections of prominent supporters that started in July (Muqtedar Khan, Michael Knight, Laury Silvers, and others) culminated in August with the collective resignation - accompanied by some acrimonious public exchanges within PMU's board - of Omid Safi, Hussein Ibish, and Sara Eltantawi, three of the PMU's four founders (only MuslimWakeUp! editor Ahmed Nassef remains).  And a new (rival?) website, ProgressiveIslam.org, featuring former PMU stalwarts has been launched.  The Progressive Muslim movement seems to be splintering, if not crumbling before our eyes.

As someone who sympathizes with many of the organization's stated goals and as someone who's sometimes has occasionally found himself defending the work of Progressive Muslims - not every charge lobbed at them is fair and there are some very good, sincere Muslims involved - I've observed PMU's recent travails with great sadness.  I have to admit, though, that this sadness isn't really for PMU per se, but rather for the activists and causes that will have to deal with the fallout from the latest twist in the increasingly unseemly saga of Progressive Islam in North America (which Sheila Musaji has summarized admirably in her hard-hitting recent article "MWU and PMU: Progressive Voices?" in The American Muslim). 

PMU's protean and seemingly relativistic approach towards Islam and its unwillingness to unambiguously affirm transcendent values in Islam and the normative authority of Quran and Sunnah have always distressed me as a Muslim and prevented me from identifying with the organization, even when it was alone in tackling problems and issues that I felt strongly about. 

I've never believed in "Progressive Islam", either.  Not because "progressive" is a dirty word, but because its principles are already at the core of Islam.  Contrary to all the historically and philosophically illiterate rubbish one hears about the sinister implications of the term, there is nothing inherently secular or anti-Islamic about progressivism.  To the contrary, many of the most laudable advances in American politics and society that Muslims view as in keeping with Islamic values (e.g., civil rights, economic justice, the welfare safety net, child labor laws, women's rights, environmentalism) are the result of the dreaded Progressive political tradition.  While it's true that this tradition is not consciously grounded in religious faith, its objectives of alleviating suffering and bringing about equality are ones that any Muslim should applaud.  (Besides, who doesn't believe in some kind of "progress", and why is it so hard for some people to consider the possibility that a Muslim "progressive" might consider the pinnacle of progress to be nothing more than living up to Allah's message and doing good?)

My biggest frustration is how PMU's monopolization of the discussion of Islamic reform and its horrendous PR missteps have not only made the word "progressive" radioactive in the Muslim community, but have put activists and reformers on the defensive.  I mourn the fact that activists now have to devote so much energy to explaining what they're not rather than making a cause for much needed reform.

The activists I know would sooner admit to being ax murderers than "Progressive Muslims".  How did this happen?  How did the Progressive Muslim movement lose credibility with so many Muslims who would've normally been predisposed to enthusiastically support them?

There was a time where I certainly had high hopes for this nascent movement.  In the beginning, MuslimWakeUp.com was an innovative and promising venture, a truly exciting voice for reform and Muslim debate that was leveraging technology to create a virtual community and communication channel for liberals and reformers around the globe.  By the time I got the chance to contribute an article to MWU in August 2004, I had already begun to feel grave misgivings about MWU's direction due to the advent of the "Sex and the Umma" column, but I hoped this was an aberration.  Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case, and PMU/MWU became increasingly fringe, confrontational and seemingly out of touch with its community, reveling in vulgarity and puerility, passing off lazy secularist slogans as Islamic reform, and gratuitously offending normal Muslim sensibilities.  Soon thereafter in 2004, I gave up on PMU as a credible voice for Islamic reform, even if I sympathized with some its efforts. 

I don't think it was PMU's string of PR missteps or the influence of any one individual - considerable criticism has been leveled many of those resigning at the outspoken leftist activist Tarek Fatah - that did it in, but something far more fundamental, its trying to be, if you'll forgive the expression, "all things to all men".  In its effort to forge a grand uber-coalition of leftists and activists, PMU refused to apply even the most minimal doctrinal litmus tests to its leaders and representatives.   As a result, PMU (here I use the term loosely to refer to more than its board of directors) runs the gamut from hard-line secularists to fuzzy New Agers to normal Muslims who just want reform in the community.  To some, this diversity is undoubtedly PMU's crowning glory, but to me it a sign of an organization lacking substance or vision. 

On the one hand, I want to make some allowances for PMU in this regard, as I realize that they are trying to do something extraordinarily difficult, namely updating the Muslim community's norms of tolerance to address thorny contemporary realities.  For example, in our era of fragmented globalized identities, postmodernism, and widespread secularism, the idealistic assumptions about a Muslim's identity and practice found in Islamic tradition do not always correspond to the reality of contemporary Muslims.  Historians might debate whether the Ummah is more doctrinally diverse or less practicing today than in the past, but it's safe to say that modern Muslims must face unheard of pluralism when dealing with their fellow Muslims.  The days when most Muslims lived in a community in which a single madhab, culture, language, race, or even denomination predominate and block out other competing Islamic paradigms are long gone.  Also, however one views or explains this phenomenon (i.e., secularization, decadence, modernism, materialism, etc.), it is a sociological fact that a significant segment of contemporary Muslim populations is made up of "cultural Muslims".  There are, unfortunately, large numbers of Muslims today who do not accept the need to practice Islam as laid out in Islamic tradition and fiqh. From a traditional perspective, they are not normal Muslims, but it is no less problematic to categorize them as non-Muslims, as they have not renounced Islam and they clearly are part of modern Islamic civilization in some meaningful sense.

To PMU's credit - and unlike many mainstream Muslim organizations - it has tried to grapple with this conundrum and create a space where Muslims who do not conform to mainstream expectations (however legitimate most such expectations may be) or who are struggling with their faith can participate without fear of knee-jerk takfir or harassment by self-righteous vigilantes. 

Nonetheless, I think that PMU has allowed the pendulum of tolerance to swing to far in the opposite direction, to the point where it's not always clear what makes the organization "Muslim".  It is certainly laudable to ensure that Muslims are allowed to make their own moral choices without fear of reprisals from the community - that's a considerably less often noted consequence of the Quranic dictum, "There is no compulsion of religion." Religious freedom should apply no less to Muslims than non-Muslims! - but this can't come at the expense of devaluing fundamental values and norms about which there is no debate within Islam or at the expense of promoting radical Antinomianism that makes all religious practices and prohibitions seem superfluous.  All organizations must define not only what they believe in, but what they do not believe in.   A "Muslim" organization cannot formulate a coherent message, much less promote any mission for reform, if it is stretched to accommodate the whims and sensitivities of every dissident, radical and New Age dabbler.

I also fear that PMU has done some real damage to the causes it aspires to promote.  I mourn the newfound ability of reactionaries to tar any person who tries to talk about, say, the need for women khateebs - an infinitely more important objective than the PMU crowd's almost bourgeois obsession with women imams - as secularized elites who are aren't serious about Islam.  Sure, this reflex to dismiss all reform has always been present-tradition, like patriotism, is the first refuge of the scoundrel-but now that PMU has made the whole Muslim Left look libertine and trite, I believe that the old slur carries a new sting.

Activists in the trenches in their communities working to get something positive done not because it's "progressive" but because that's what they believe Allah (swt) requires of them are the ones who will have to clean up the mess left behind by PMU.  The sad thing is that they will probably have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, distancing themselves entirely from all things "progressive" rather than just the Progressive Muslim Union.  Which is unfortunate, given the numerous worthy causes that Progressive Muslims have embraced and associated themselves with.

Still, my hope is that lefty Muslim activists and reformers will learn some lessons from the PMU saga:

Tie your camel.  Activism requires concrete plans and specific objectives.  That requires establishing shared goals, objectives and commitments.  Assuming "likeminded" people will all naturally work together and ultimately agree on long-term policy is naÔve and utopian, and the Muslim community sure doesn't need any more utopians.

Think small.  Activists should focus on ad hoc coalitions and campaigns that get things done on the local level as opposed to more overarching organizations.  It's the work that counts. Grand initiatives tend to be heavy on ideology and media buzz, but light on substance.

Avoid high-profile media campaigns against the Muslim community.  True reform results from dialogue, not high profile media campaigns, which I think do more harm than good. Given the way the modern American media work, major media campaigns on sensitive topics affecting besieged, misunderstood minorities reinforce stereotypes, alarmism, and exaggerations rather than promote communication or serious debate. Nuance, balance, and constructive criticism don't sell newspapers-screaming headlines do.  That is the tragedy of the modern media.

Thus, the most lasting legacy of Asra Nomani's mosque ambush campaign - which made mosques the targets of "direct action", which is usually reserved for military bases, polluting factories, and sinister embassies as opposed to houses of worship - in the final analysis might well be reinforcing sensationalistic popular images of mosques as dens of extremism and oppression rather than opening up mosques to women. In a post-9/11 world, showing up with a camera crew at a mosque you've never set foot in before and bullying your way in to stage triumphant photo-ops seems unlikely to do much for interfaith relations or consciousness-raising. 

Embrace uniformity.  Again, "big tent" organizations sound great in theory, but in practice they're paralyzed by philosophical differences and contradictory objectives.  Small, goal-oriented groups of like-minded people are far more likely to get things done and evolve in a healthy direction. 

Unto you, your religion; unto me, mine.  Finally and most importantly, religious people and secular people can and should collaborate on many things, but religious reform is certainly not one of them.  Muslims of all shapes and sizes - practicing and non-practicing, religious and secular, orthodox and radical - can collaborate fruitfully on an infinite variety of worthy initiatives, from social justice to the environment, but a coherent spiritual vision cannot be formulated by a group that lacks common underlying assumptions about the ultimate purpose to life and the place of religion in society.  In these domains, secularist and religionists do not, and cannot, speak the same language - their worldviews are ultimately incommensurable.  People of conscience from both camps must agree to disagree on matters of faith, refrain from demonizing one another for these inevitable and natural differences, and remember the many more areas that unites them.

Looking on the bright side, many of the worthy causes for which MWU and PMU were once lonely voices crying in the wilderness have now gone mainstream.  Today, concerns about discrimination against women, closed-mindedness and obscurantism, prejudices against non-Muslims, takfir and sectarianism towards other Muslims, and racial prejudices are no longer the domain of leftist Muslims, as they have been adopted to a significant extent by mainstream Muslim organizations.  (I think the jury's still out on whether PMU has ultimately contributed positively towards these developments, as the ambiguous legacy of Nomani's campaign illustrates, but that is a whole other discussion.)

There are many lessons to be learned from the development of the Progressive Muslim Union.  Supporters and detractors alike would do well to ponder both its successes and failures in order to steer future endeavors down a more balanced path.

Does PMU's collapse vindicate Muqtedar Khan?

It's been a while since I checked my blog, so I didn't realize that someone had posted a comment concerning the Muqtedar Khan/PMU imbroglio (last posting:  "Why Tom Tancredo can stand by bombing Mecca"; see the "Progressive Muslims"  index page for all postings on this topic) that deserves a response. 

First, any assumption that I'm just trying avoid talking about PMU's breakup is mistaken.  I just haven't gotten around to blogging about it (or anything else for that matter).

I'm pretty tired of discussing the MK/PMU controversy--partly because I don't think it's of very much importance in the long run--but I will try to address these points in the hopes of getting some closure on this strange saga. 

MMandani argues that PMU's recent crack-up vindicates Muqtedar Khan of my charges.  It's a fair question that I want to try to address before moving on from this tired debate.

Sorry for posting this comment here, but it needed to be said.       

Feel free to comment.  Criticism and public commentary should be a two-way street.

In recent weeks Svend made a big deal of attacking Dr. Muqtedar Khan for resigning from PMU as a publicity stunt. He tried to deny Dr. Khan his integrity and defended PMU as a normal organizations.

My intention was not to defend PMU--an organization that I have never been comfortable with (contrary to some people's assumptions, though I guess I can't blame them entirely given the circumstances)--but rather to criticize what I considered irresponsible behavior.  If I'm defending anything, it's the causes PMU has associated itself with (many of which are legitimate by any sensible standard).   

There is a big difference between criticizing PMU for not fulfilling its mission and bashing in a way that discredits its mission. I have had very serious concerns about PMU from the very beginning and think PMU deserves very serious criticism--I think PMU has done *A LOT* of harm to the cause of real reform in the community, especially by the way it's ignomiously imploding--but I'm not interested in just being part of the same old backlash you see against all attempts at reform.

Perhaps I'm partly responsible for some this confusion by being unclear, but I criticized HOW he resigned (e.g., parts of his letter read some mullah diatribe rather than the cogent, fair criticisms one would expect from a scholar and fellow reformer), not the fact that he resigned or that he criticized PMU. 

I have no doubt that he resigned for legitimate reasons--shoot, I would never have joined PMU in the first place--but it's hard not to suspect some PR motives in the way this was done.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but there are a lot of ways he could've resigned, and he chose a way guaranteed to make waves and score points with hardliners (including people who normally criticize him sharply).

But since then, several board members, such as L. Silvers, M Knight and now 3/4 founders have resigned from PMU's board and thier resignation letter is also "public", let us see how Svend atatcks/rationalizes them.

Yes, PMU has collapsed before our eyes.  It's been quite pathetic to watch, but not terribly surprising.  I've always thought PMU was built on sand (maybe I'll write something about this soon).

Dr. Khan, I maintain has as usual shown a farsight that far exceeds others. He led and now others follow.

This is happening pretty late in the game to be talking about foresight!   He's stuck with PMU for a quite a while, practically to the bitter end.

I don't have delusions of grandeur, but I've had  opportunities to get involved with PMU and, unlike him, I've kept my distance.  For example, I  publicly criticized MWU's pornographic  "Sex and the Ummah" columns two years ago (but the difference is that I made contribution to an internal discussion).

At the same time, I've also spoken out against those who wish to demonize PMUers as a way to avoid debating the issues PMU has raised (however imperfectly).

Let's be honest: He resigned at a point when being associated with PMU was no longer politically useful (even Michael Knight recently bailed out).  That doesn't mean the decision wasn't made for the right reasons, but you can't say that this move is particularly unexpected or innovative at this point.  If anything, it's a predicable  move.

As for "leadership", he's shown it in the past but I don't see much of it in that letter. 

Ironically, the letter by Safi, Hussein & El-Tantawi  being  adduced bears little ressemblance to his shrill diatribe in terms of style or content.  If anything, its signatories ignored his example by separating themselves from PMU in a way that did not seem to reject everything it stood for (not all of which is bad).  They did not smear all their former comrades with offensive  rhetoric that could've been written by a mullah.

For what it's worth, Muqtedar and I have clashed before when I felt he slurred mainstream Muslim orgs like CAIR and ISNA on mailing lists.   I've also criticized him for making what I considered problematic generalizations statements about Salafi Muslims, who are about as un-progressive as you can get.   I have often found his political rhetoric problematic.  But that's just me.  Obviously, many people would disagree.

Anyone who thinks I'm just trying to defend PMU doesn't know much about me,  my politics, or the things I've said about PMU.

At the heart of this problem, in my view is, is the culture of takfir, the willingness of so many Muslims to demonize and misrepresent their opponents rather than acknowledge that they have legitimate differences of opinion.  That's as wrong when it's done to liberals, as to Islamists (e.g., one of the things I've criticized on the PMU mailing list is the demonization of CAIR).

Finally, this isn't a personal attack.  I'm critiquing controversial public statements by a prominent leader, and a leader who happens to be known for strongly criticizing other Muslims and Muslim organizations.  Criticism comes with the territory when you're a critic.

That's it.  I have nothing further to say on Muqtedar's resignation.  The only reason I'm talking about it one last time is that PMU's sudden collapse necessitates some additional comments.

BTW, I am not Prof. Mamdani, I am a cardiologist from New Mexico.    

Thank you for identifying yourself.  That takes integrity. Many Muslim bloggers (including some of PMU's critics) who could learn from your example.       

Bism Allah al-Rahman al-Rahim

August 24, 2005         

To Whom It May Concern:         

It is with heavy hearts, but out of a deep conviction that there is no other choice at this stage, that we -- Omid Safi, Hussein Ibish and Sarah Eltantawi, three of the four founding members (along with Ahmed Nassef) of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMU) --  hereby tender our resignations from the Board of Directors of PMU.         

We helped to form PMU in the hopes that it would develop into an umbrella organization representing a “big tent” for Muslims with a very wide variety of religious, political and social attitudes who are drawn together by a spirit of pluralism and compassion to develop and contribute a new voice to the conversation about Islam and Muslims in North America.  Our intention was to create a space in which Muslims could pursue a multivalent critique of power, standing against injustice within Muslim societies, among Muslims in North America, and with regard to the foreign and domestic polici es of the governments and societies in which we live.  We wanted to be as vigorous in challenging injustices in the Islamic world, and the deeply-rooted racism and sexism that lurk within our own community, as we rightly are in condemning the abuses of U.S. foreign policy and the assault on civil liberties in the United States. We also wanted to create a forum for a respectful but critical engagement with Islamic practices and clas sical and modern interpretations of Islamic doctrine, as well as how Islam has functions as a social text, especially in our own societies at the present time.  We intended PMU to help to develop an independent, and spiritually and intellectually sophisticated, Islamic discourse that is distinctly North American, while remaining true to the essential teachings and values of Islam; one that responds to the challenges and context in which North American Muslims live, as opposed to discourses that are mainly derivative of ideas and agendas formed long ago and/or far away.         

The hope was that these two missions would compliment each other, and serve to give a voice to a large section of the community hitherto underrepresented.  In both cases, our intention was to help to enrich, broaden and deepen the conversation in the North American Muslim community, and to unleash the power of a set of ideas that have been largely dormant among us in recent years: the Islamic values of tolerance, compassion and equity – that is to say, the spirit of justice that lies at the heart of Islam.         

Unfortunately, PMU has not developed in the direction that we had envisioned and worked to promote.  We readily accept our share of the responsibility for this, and do not seek to blame or second-guess any of our former colleagues.  They are entitled to develop PMU in any direction that they see fit.  However we have become convinced that PMU is not a forum that will allow us to successfully pursue the agenda we envisioned at its founding, and that this is not likely to change.  We believe that the vision that we outlined in the PMU mission statement and that informed the founding of PMU remains vital and urgently needed, but has yet to find a vehicle for its effective _expression.  We remain committed to the values and goals of that mission statement, and we will continue to work to help develop and implement a progressive agenda for American Muslims.         

We wish PMU all the best, offer it our support and encouragement, and hope that it will to grow into a vital and important organization that represents a significant constituency among North American Muslims.         

Signed:    

Omid Safi    
Hussein Ibish              
Sarah Eltantawi

 

Why Tom Tancredo can stand by bombing Mecca

Rep. Tom Tancredo has not only refused to retract his "bomb Mecca" comments, but has upped the ante, declaring that his shrill, prejudiced anti-Muslim rhetoric is justified by the supposedly widespread extremism of "moderate Muslims".

While part of his chutzpah can no doubt be ascribed to his own churlishness and to the extreme political climate prevailing within the GOP, to write this off as simply the result of his prejudice is naive.  It would be political suicide for any politician to utter such an offensive declaration if it did not appear to be based on "the facts" in most observers' eyes.  He feels able to stick to his guns (unlike Trent Lott did when he, also quite in keeping with the racebaiting ideology of the Far Right, praised Strom Thurmond's opposition to civil rights; he caved there quickly because popular consensus did not support his reading of American history) because he knows that his assumptions about Muslims as the root of all evil are widely shared.

I understand that many people disagree with my take on Muqtedar Khan's politics and I respect their views, but I hope those are so outraged by my criticisms of his politics will pause to ponder how his  (and some other Muslim pundits--this isn't unique to him) analysis of the Muslim community  might reinforce the underlying attitudes that make Tancredo's outburst seem "pragmatic" rather than bigoted and paranoid (e.g., the myth that Muslims have been supporting terrorism, that mainstream Muslim organizations have been havens for political extremism) .  Those  assumptions have a far more decisive impact on the Muslim community in the greater scheme of things than upbeat soundbytes, however good they may make us feel.  Every time a Muslim commentator validates all this "Green Menace" hysteria, it becomes a little bit easier for bigots to rationalize their hate and political agendas against Muslims.

You don't fight demonizing rhetoric by taking the path of least resistance and using John Kerry-style "dissent" (e.g., publicly accepting W's philosophy and then criticizing trivial details of that philsophy).  You fight it by challenging all its problematic and incorrect assumptions.  For example, you don't hear responsible African-American leaders accepting claims that all sorts of unqualified minorities are taking away all the jobs from qualified white people, the kind of rhetoric that one hears on the Far Right concerning Affirmative Action (and, in more a subtle form, in mainstream Republican  circles).

When  Hussein Ibish, whom some Muslims might find an unlikely defender of Islam and  Muslims because of his secular leanings, debates a Muslim-bashing pundit, he takes apart all his opponent's arguments.  He doesn't say, "Well, you've got a point about the Muslim community being overflowing with extremists." or "Yeah, Muslims need to stop whining about how Israel treats the Palestinians."  Similiarly, when Farid Esack debates with Muslim-bashing hawks, he goes for the jugular and dismantles the underlying justifications for war and empire.  The late and great Edward Said, who could've been forgiven for sharing some of these stereotypical views of Islam since he was a Christian, wrote Covering Islam,  and powerfully challenged *all* the myths, doublestandards, and steotypes about Islam and Muslims, not just the ones that were politically safe to question.  He realized that the way Muslims and Islam are subliminally otherized and systematically misrepresented in the mainstream media was at the heart of the political problems of his day.  Said challenged the unspoken assumptions of his opponents' arguments rather than quibbling about secondary issues or limiting himself to the headlines of the day.  And similiar things can be said about Noam Chomsky.   And the list of (mostly non-Muslim) critics who understand what's really at stake in these debates goes on.  Unfortunately, I don't think the same can always be said for Khan's contribution to the debate, which tends to pass over in silence many of anti-Muslim assumptions that people like Ibish, Esack, Said and Chomsky would openly refute, and sometimes even  reinforces them.

I choose those as examples quite aware of their irony in some respects--especially given all the hoopla about PMU--and because I want to highlight how this isn't simply a question of whether or not people are "good Muslims", or even Muslims at all.  Speaking truth to power is as rare a trait among Muslims as everybody else.

Good luck fighting for Muslim civil rights while  we quietly accept Muslim-bashers' talking points as we "defend" Islam.  If that's going to be our approach, we should get used to this kind of abuse, because it's only going to become increasingly mainstream as this worldview filters down, unchallenged, to the masses.

The backlash continues

The saga continues, alas.

Apparently, total agreement with (or silence concerning) Muqtedar Khan's inconsistent politics is now part of the Shahadah, and some people appear committed to browbeating me into recanting my heresy (last posting: "The Last Word on Muqtedar Khan and PMU").

Someone who signed on at July 26, 2005 12:13 AM as MMamdani wrote a nasty comment (read it in its entirety here) that, as eager as I am to move on, requires a response :

Akram, you now officially qualify as a stalker, a cheap, in ethical and devious, small minded individual, determined to malign one of the most important American Muslims voices in this country, and also one of the rising stars on the Islamic intellectual horizon.

I am a "stalker" now, for writing about a prominent (and very outspoken) media personality's politics in my own blog.   

Like many bloggers, I believe in something called free speech and holding public figures accountable for their actions that affect the public.  If that seems like reprehensible bid'a to some, that's simply not my problem.

This is the third or fourth time you have attacked Dr. Muqtedar Khan, and what is more indicative of your cheap character, you repeatedly delete all the responses that your readers make. Do you do this to all your posts or you have just deleted the defense of Dr. Khan by Muslims, some of whom were known scholars in the discipline of Islamic studies.

I deleted those postings because I decided that some of my language was overly harsh (hardly a rare occurrence on the Internet, as one hurriedly types message on the fly) and I needed to partly reword it to be more fair.  Typepad (the blogging service I use) doesn't allow you to delete a message without deleting its comments, so they are gone, as well..

In the spirit of open debate, though, I will see if I can't repost all the comments. 

If you had left them they would have belied your false claims.

I didn't find them particularly convincing as a rebuttal to my points, but you're entitled to your opinion.  Several were were non-sequiteurs ("He's a great scholar of fiqh--How dare you criticize his politics??"), ad hominem attacks on me (I'm a "nobody', a "hack", a "nurse" second-guessing a great surgeon, ...),  or vague appeals to emotion. 

You constantly accuse him of blamign it all on isam and Muslims, well you are wrong and a liar!

Actually, I accuse him of inconsistency, of periodically writing things which make it easy for others to blame Islam and Muslims.  He  doesn't do it himself (though his "Memo to American Muslims" came pretty close).  So I accuse him of reinforcing many of the pernicious myths and doublestandards that permeate mainstream media coverage of Islam and Muslims.  There's a big difference. 

Here are some examples which ptove you entirely wrong, and yes they are not academic writings, they are op-eds written at the height of 9/11 fever in prominent media:

See for yourself [Akram will soon delete this posting to, the shameless hack!].

Fear of attack on Muslim civil Rights -- fist by any Muslims as early as sept 17, 2001 in Detroint Free Press and Baltimore Sun:http://www.glocaleye.org/threatfreedom.htm

Attack on Bush again in Sept. 2001: http://www.glocaleye.org/crusade.htm

Explaining the root causes of Muslim anger again in early 9/11 days, completely contrary to your claim that he blames it all on Muslims. I read this in Salon.com and have been a fan of his courage since then:

http://www.ijtihad.org/memoa.htm

I could go on and on: But these few examples should be sufficient.

Well, we obviously disagree. 

I think his analysis tends to basicly serve established interests and crowd out sharper, more independent analysis.  Imagine the good that would be done if the New York Times ran  SoundVision's Abdul Malik Mujahid's painstakingly researched and eye-opening commentary on post-9/11 Muslim civil rights instead of Khan's eloquent but ultimately toothless discussion in "putting the American in 'American Muslim'".    

[In a way, that NYT piece encapsulates this whole debate, as it is not without its insights and eloquence.  It is the lack of additional perspectives in the mainstream media that makes it problematic.  If it appeared in a media context where more critical voices like Mujahid's were heard with some regularity, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  I wouldn't feel like an opportunity had been lost for real dialogue, real debate about our problems.  ]

First of all, there is the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" routine I mentioned before, which if one accepts as a premise would explain much of this.  Second, I think a closer reading of his writings reveals their dissent to be very safe and carefully limited in scope vis-a-vis the Beltway consensus.  This is actually rather tame stuff when you consider the gravity of the problems, misconceptions and doublestandards that are at work.   

Unless someone wants to commission me to write an in-depth study, that'll have to suffice.  I have other things to do with my time than parse these essays line-by-line to satisfy critics.

Readers who wish to understood the extent of Akram's perfidy and meanness can read Dr. Khan's columns at www.ijtihad.org and www.glocaleye.org.

"Perfidy"!  I think you're getting a little carried away.  Questioning MK's politics is treasonous??

I also know that he regularly speaks at the annual conventiosn all the main American Muslim organizations, CAIR, MPAC, ISNA and works with them. It is indicative of the acceptance of his ideas by the community. People Like Svend are nursing personal grudges,

Well, politics makes for strange bedfellows sometimes. 

No, this isn't personal.  I find him quite likable and believe his intentions to be good, but that doesn't change how problematic some of his politics are or how they need to be openly debated. 

Also, if I was simply out to get him, I wouldn't be writing this in my blog, which is read by a handful of people.  I'd be writing a systematic expose for a publication (a la the Z Magazine piece). 

perhaps they even maintain sectarian hatred since Akram is an Ahmadi Muslim and Khan a Sunni Muslim.  

Aha, the plot thickens!  Yeah, that's a big problem.  Something needs to be done about all these Ahmadis running around persecuting Sunnis. 

But, seriously, it's interesting to see how the sectarian club is being broken out here, even though this question has no bearing whatsoever on what I've written about Khan, or the views and causes I've advocated elsewhere.

Talk about a cheap, ad hominem attack.  I guess you can be a liberal reformer and still play the same old takfir game.

Perhaps it's a compliment.  Resorting to this kind of below-the-belt punch is generally a sign of being unable to respond to your opponent's arguments.

I'm not going to dignify this by getting into personal beliefs about secondary matters that are open to interpretation and which are nobody's business but my own, but I will note for the record that I no Qadiani. 

In fact, I am no less a Sunni Muslim than Khan or anybody else is, as I believe in the Sunni Aqeedah, including the Khatm an-Nabiyin (the Finality of Prophethood). And I accept Hazrat Abu Bakr as-Saddiq (ra), Hazrat Umar Farooq (ra), Hazrat Uthman Ghani (ra), and Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (ra). 

Ergo, I am a Sunni Muslim.

Let us see if he deltes this post and writes another last word on Khan.

You'll notice that I haven't at any point chosen to disable comments--which can easily be done in Typepad merely by clicking a checkbox--even though I expected to receive abusive responses.  Unlike some people, I believe in and am comfortable with public debate.

I suggest that we just agree to disagree.  I'm sure we both have better things to do.

P.S.  I have not yet succeeded in finding a copy of the previous comments, as they were deleted along with my postings.  I checked Google for a cached version and also tried WayBackMachine.org, but to no avail. 

Here's my recollection of some of the most salient comments that were lost:

• "This Svend guy is an idiot who's jealous of Muqtedar and just trying to promote himself."
• "Diana Eck of the Pluralism Project gave a talk at my school.  She was asked what she thought of Muqtedar and she called him a 'national treasure'."
• "Svend, I have read and enjoyed your blog up to now, but your nasty comments on Muqtedar have just ruined it for me."
• "Normally, I don't comment on such things but this link was forwarded to me by a student.  I am appalled by your atttacks on an up and coming scholar.  I have reviewed a chapter by him on Imam Shafi' for an upcoming work and I must say that I think it was b brilliant.  You are like a nurse questioning the work of a successful surgeon who has performed many successful surgeries." [Pastes in his long cv.]
  
• "This guy is a nobody who's trying to make a name for himself by attacking one of our scholars."
  

This is the best I can do.  The point is that a number of readers vehemently protested my comments.

BTW, if anyone can think of another place online where I could find a cached copy of those pages, please let me know and I'll repost them.

The last word on Muqtedar Khan & PMU

A few weeks ago, I posted some comments  concerning Muqtedar Khan's resignation from the Progressive Muslim Union that sparked a rather lively exchange between myself and some of his defenders in the blogosphere. 

I ended up removing the original entries from the blog after a few days.  I did so out of my own ambivalence about PMU/MWU and because I realized that some my off-the-cuff remarks could have been phrased more judiciously (not to mention weren't intended as my definitive statement on the matter) .  However, I remain convinced that the broader concerns I raised were and remain legitimate and important enough to warrant a more considered and consolidated treatment. 

First off, I should note that this isn't personal, contrary to the assumptions of some of my respondents.  Were I to discuss the politics of, say, Paul Krugman or William Safire with the same candor, no one would accuse me of violating the rules of Islamic adab, as they are public figures by virtue of their prominence in the media.   I see no reason for it to be otherwise here.  The fact that Muqtedar Khan is a fellow Muslim and member of a small community shouldn't make him exempt from constructive criticism. Public feedback comes with the territory when you're a pundit, especially one with a taste for controversy.  Also, providing that feedback to society's leaders--whether in government or in the media--is also a critical part of being a citizen in any democracy worth the name, being second in importance only to voting among civic duties.

Secondly, my comments concern the political consequences of his writings and statements in the mainstream media.  I make no attempt to assess his scholarly output. In other words, I'm talking about his work as a pundit, not as an academic.

Thirdly, I find this discussion quite distasteful--I'd love to focus on cheerier topics--but the stakes involved here and the fact that these issues aren't being openly discussed in the media make me feel obligated to openly express my concerns.

Muslims are on the front line of another, far less discussed "struggle", the struggle for America's soul, especially its civil rights legacy and its tradition of a dynamic, balanced media. And Muslims are taking heavy casualties these days.  Though they would seem by virtue of their dual heritage as both Muslims and Americans to be the West's most valuable and obvious asset in the War on Terror, the American political establishment has yet to treat them that way and, consequently, few American Muslims feel secure enough today to contribute their opinions freely to the debate.  Facing a mainstream media with little interest in understanding Muslim concerns and vicious vilification campaigns by pseudo-patriots bent on demonizing all Americans (especially Muslims) who do not toe this administration's line, many Muslims have chosen to remain silent in debates in which they have every right to participate freely and in which their voices are desperately needed.  This is as tragic for America as it is for Muslims, as the War on Terror will never be won so long as Muslim Americans are prevented from participating freely in the debates of their great nation.

In light of how problematic a number of Khan's political views  would seem to most people in the American Muslim community, I find the almost complete absence of public criticism of his politics by Muslims to be highly conspicuous, and seemingly symptomatic of the problem discussed above.  It seems to me that many Muslims, even prominent leaders, are so afraid of losing their credentials as "moderate Muslims"--which in this time of overzealous and sometimes woefully ignorant security officials could be the only thing between your average Muslim and an extended stay in Hotel Guantanamo or some other abomination against the Constitution--that they remain silent even when Khan makes distrubing public statements that seem designed to provide political support to the Bush administration's wrongheaded and disastrous policies.

So, I see this as being about more than Muqtedar Khan or about me.  At the risk of sounding melodramatic, this is about the health of our democracy and the right of Muslims to contribute to their nation's debate freely and without fear of being labeled extremists for merely exercising their constitutional right to dissent with some of their government's policies.  This includes challenging pundits, journalists, and leaders in the public square when we think they get things wrong.

There's no denying that Khan makes positive contributions to the debate.  His writings often contain declarations and arguments that are clearly sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim views, and he periodically fires off loud broadsides at Sharon, Bush, or some other eminently deserving target.  However, assessing a public figure's impact on the debate is more than just tallying the  number of complimentary things he's said or written.  It is ultimately about assessing their net impact on the debate, which I see as the extent to which they have contributed to an improved understanding of  the most pressing and/or misunderstood issues confronting the public and policymakers  On that score, I think Khan record is a bit mixed, however good his intentions may be.

To me, he seems to play a maddening game of political 'Good Cop/Bad Cop' (compare his infamous "Memo to American Muslims" to his excellent "Domestic Dimension of the Arab-Israeli Conflict"; it's hard to see how the same person could've written these articles, as the latter could be read as a critique of the former).  One minute, he invokes the slogans of the Left and presents himself as the progressive activist and champion of the Muslim community.  The next, he is subtly endorsing many of the neocon claims, prejudices and double-standards that are strangling the American body politic.

I'm hardly alone in these concerns (as the protest by Muslim activists against his inclusion on the PMU board and the attack on his  post-9/11 politics in Z Magazine in January 2005 show) and I doubt many informed observers will  be all that surprised by them.  While he protests loudly that he is on the 'left', many fellow leftists would question that characterization. I think that only in a neocon-dominated Washington could Muqtedar Khan be passed off as a liberal.

I also have to note how Khan's disturbing letter of resignation from the PMU (which can be read in its entirety at LivingTradition and has been eagerly promoted elsewhere online) seems to fit into the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine I'm talking about.   While I personally do not find him a credible spokesman for progressive Muslims given his neocon-light politics, he has presented himself as a champion of the cause of progressive reform and has at times written insightfully on the topic (e.g., his "Is MuslimWakeUp.com Undermining the Progressive Muslim Movement"  makes some valid points), so I find it hard to understand how he could resort to such reactionary rhetoric, the kind of propaganda that is used by extremists use to demonize all liberal Muslims and reformers.  He writes:

My close interaction with PMU has taught me three things, (1) that clearly I am not sufficiently indifferent to the teachings of Quran and the traditions of the Islamic heritage to be a "good Progressive Muslim";
[emphasis added]

Such charges do not have the ring of constructive criticism from a kindred spirit or even a former ally, but rather the shrill tenor of fighting words from a sworn enemy who is out to discredit hated opponents and paint them as the enemies of God.   Such a declaration is doubly immoderate and inflammatory when coming from  a Muslim leader who presents himself as the champion of reform, progress and tolerance.   

Another problem with this polemical letter is that though it come from a pundit known for holding forth at length on the "progressive Muslim agenda" it makes absolutely no attempt to grapple with the difficult  issues that PMU, for all its problems and obvious misteps, and indeed all progressives are trying to address.  Khan makes it sound like PMU issued a fatwah that alcohol was no longer haram:

But not to observe Islamic values after recognizing them as such to me is a sin. I cannot for example in good conscience approve of alcohol consumption by those who acknowledge it as forbidden. To demand that I do so in order to remain a member of the community is exactly the kind of oppression that I though we had come together to fight.
[emphasis added]

The reality is far more complex, as what really happened is that PMU leaders defended a person's right to choose to drink alcohol in the privacy of their homes free of harassment by other Muslims.  In essence, they said that it's nobody's business but Allah's. 

Yet Khan portrays this as a simple case of secularists bent on undermining Islamic values.  That's one possible reading, I suppose, but it's hardly one I'd expect from a self-described progressive leader who tries to lecture  reformers like Khaled Abou El Fadl on the need for jurists to allow the "democratization of interpretation".  Quite to the contrary, it's the kind of paranoid, kneejerk reaction one would expect from the extremists that he  criticizes so loudly in the major media.

Any reasonably constructive and fair critique of PMU's admittedly amibigious policy on alcohol (something which I have also expressed grave concerns), especially by an ally, would concede that there is a possibility that this is an honest attempt by PMU--which is made up a lot of different kind people with different ideas and beliefs- to live up to the Quranic dictum, "There is no compulsion of religion" and refrain from imposing beliefs on others.  A fair critique would acknowledge the fundamental difference between advocating something and defending the right of others to make their own moral choices.  In short, a fair critique would concede that one can be against the kind of religious vigillanteism one encounters among some Muslims without condoning sin.  Khan seems oblivious to these possiblities as he attacks PMU with everything he's got. 

To those who find this assessment overly critical, I can only suggest that they take another look at  his political writings and consider how these--despite the regular stream of feel-good pronouncements about Islam and the Muslim community--frame key issues (e.g., the War on Terror, Islamic fundamentalism, Muslim anti-Semitism, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, extremism within the American Muslim community, ...) in ways not unlike that of Muslim-bashers.  For all his good intentions, his writings on current affairs have a distressing tendency to dovetail surprisingly well with the Islamophobe narrative of Muslims being the root of all contemporary evil--always victimizers and never victims--and the corollary that non-Muslims who oppress Muslims are ultimately justified in various ways by "the facts" of history (in other words, anti-Muslim violence is always an understandable reaction to Muslim misdeeds).

The article in Z Magazine mentioned earlier lays out some eye-opening examples of cases of where Khan's commentary seems to provide diplomatic cover for the neocon agenda that he claims to vehemently oppose, and there are analogous examples from the domestic American arena of his analysis playing into the hands of the Muslim community's worst critics. 

From my perspective as an American Muslim, though, the most disturbing example is how Khan regularly validates the canard that CAIR and other Muslim organizations have a history of being soft on terrorism (which in this political climate translates into them supporting terrorism).  This demonstrably false and repeatedly disproven "fact" is one of the most potent weapons in the necons' rhetorical arsenal and is ceaselessly exploited  to fan  prejudices against Islam and deny Muslims a  voice in the American politics (after all, civilized people don't dialogue with people who "support terrorism").    Unfortunately, whenever the media needs a seemingly moderate Muslim to give this politically motivated slur against the whole Muslim community a patina of objectivity, he the guy they generally turn to.  The bottom line is that every time he re-affirms that odious, dangerous misconception, however innocently, he undoes much of the good he's done in other arenas.

In my previous postings, I also expressed dissatisfaction with his factual analysis (as opposed to his politics) on the Muslim community.  I compared him to my favorite media whipping boy, Thomas Friedman.  In my opinion, Khan is occasionally prone to generalizations and oversimplifications of vital issues that demand careful analysis.   Like Friedman, he is intelligent, playful and thought-provoking.  The problem is that the thoughts he elicits on some of the most important topics far too often end up being predictable ones that reinforce widespread misunderstandings and oversimplifications (e.g., the tired old charge that Muslims have been supporting terrorism).  These simple, politically safe formulas play well among non-Muslim observers, but that doesn't make them any less counterproductive in the final analysis.   (Until very recently most of even the most superficially informed American observers were absolutely, unwaveringly, convinced they knew all about Iraq's vast hoard of WMDs, and probably saw endorsements by Muslims of Bush's rhetoric on WMDs as signs of singular courage and insight rather than the misinformed speculation and/or political posturing that they were.)   Like Friedman, his witty and memorable quips sometimes dumb down the debate and obscure key  facts  rather than provide new insights or much needed context.  In other words, his analysis reinforces rather than challenges the reigning orthodoxy that has gotten us into this mess.

For a concrete example of this, we can take a quick look at his article in The Detroit News discussing a study on the political views of Muslims in Detroit.  The premise of this piece is a laudable one--it heralds the "remarkable moderation" of this Muslim community--but we soon see how good intentions can be undermined by breezy soundbytes that complacently rely on the conventional wisdom and ultimately make it impossible for outsiders to understand the real distinctions that exist within the Muslim community. 

I'll focus just on two of doctrinal categories of Muslims employed in the article.   First, traditionalists, we are told, simply "adhere to a fossilized interpretation of Islamic laws", hardly an objective, doctrinally astute, or even very clear characterization.  Good luck identifying those Muslims objectively.  It gets worse with Salafis, who are defined as Muslims who "practice gender discrimination and segregation as divine law and believe all non-Muslims including Jews and Christians will go to hell unless they embrace Islam".  Here things get really messy, as Salafism has been so defined so broadly that it quite literally becomes useless as a way of distinguishing between Muslim groups.  Like many Christians, most Muslims believe in eternal damnation for those rejecting the God's Truth as they understand it.  Like many Christians, they believe you just gotta convert.  Such beliefs may not be politically correct or make for very pleasant dinner conversation, but they are hardly a sign of political or even ideological extremism.  Similarly, if religiously sanctioned gender discrimination was limited to Salafi Muslims (who, by all accounts are a small minority worldwide), the Muslim world would be a veritable Garden of Eden of gender equality!  And there are more examples of basic terms of the debate being defined in a vague, ideosyncratic manner.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees how potentially misleading this analysis is.  Imagine how many innocent people would be victimized if a DHS counterterrorism official were to read an article like this and base his anti-terror profiles on such vague definitions.  Who wouldn't be a "Salafi" by this standard?

Now, one thing I should have noted before is that another reason I compare Khan to Friedman is that, like Friedman, I know that Khan is capable of great things.  Friedman, after all, is the author of From Beirut to Jerusalem, an engrossing and fairly balanced account of the civil war in Lebanon that quite rightly earned him a Pullitzer.  For his part, Khan has repeatedly proven himself capable of producing truly profound, balanced and hard-hitting analysis of Muslims and international affairs. 

However, like Friedman, he regularly allows his fondness for memorable quips and generalizations to get the better of him and muddy the waters of very important discussions affecting the Muslim community.

To those who'd argue that this is unnecessary in-fighting in a time when Muslims and the good name of Islam are already under attack, I'd respectfully argue that this is about  issues that are at the heart of those problems.  It is also an attempt to establish space for real dissent, as opposed to the tepid, toothless, and carefully circumscribed critiques that are often passed off as dissent in the mainstream media today.

Muqtedar Khan's role in America's post-9/11 political landscape is a complex one that I think warrants critical examination, as it raises serious concerns and highlights problems in the media. Also, like any other leader, he should be not be above constructive criticism.

Allahu `alim.

Postscript to Muqtedar Khan's resignation from PMU

Due to my own increasing ambivalence about PMU/MWU in recent times and my conclusion that this exchange is ultimately unconstructive, I have decided to remove my previous postings on the topic. 

I continue to feel that the wording and tenor of Muqtedar Khan's resignation letter"--his scathing statement is already being disseminated on the Internet (e.g., LivingTradition, American Muslim Perspective)--were inappropriate and problematic coming from a scholar dedicated to reform and what he calls the "progressive agenda  and I remain concerned about what I consider to be his at times inconsistent politics.  Also, while I think the issues I raised about his role as a pundit and tendency to oversimplify important issues  were legitimate concerns, I do not wish personalize things (even if I'm not sure how that can be avoided).  So I've removed those postings, as well.  Perhaps I'll revisit the topic later, when I have the time to explore the issue in more depth.

The exchange with various parties over PMU and the resignation has also gotten me thinking about whether I really want to be defending PMU, even from criticisms that are not entirely fair.  I reacted strongly to Muqtedar's  attack partly out of a sense of fairness but primarily out of concern that its wide-brushed rhetoric helps reactionaries undermine reform and marginalize minorities within the community, but I also can't help but wonder whether the PMU and MWU are not having the same effect at times. 

On a tangent, this unfortunate episode also illustrates for me how much tension there is between some of the promising ideals that the Progressive Muslim Union aspires to (e.g., as found in Progressive Muslims) and the PMUs ambiguous profile.  PMU is clearly a very "big tent", and I wonder sometimes whether that tent is spread so wide that a coherent platform and worldview is impossible.  Only time will tell.