Uncle Toms go around the world?

Karen Hughes: "I've reached out extensively to our Muslim-American community, because I believe they are a very important bridge. We send them around the world, they have a lot more credibility to debate issues of faith than I do as a Christian woman."

Karen Hughes: "The voices of Muslim Americans have more credibility in the Muslim world frankly than my voice as a government official."

So --- looks like we got some American Muslims going around the world --- speaking the gospel of Bush and Co. So, who are these Toms? And what exactly are they bridging?

Come on, lets have some full disclosure. Who exactly are these "bridge builders?" Who is on the pay roll? How much? Which organizations, seminars, conferences are being sponsored?

Maybe they say something like this: "trust Bush - he will bring liberation and democracy" (do they include the fine print? Democarcy = What Bush Wants ... Or Else, you outta luck, Bomb comin' your way!).

And then people wonder why Muslims elsewhere think so low about American Muslims.

With Hughes "American Muslim brigade", bridging the world --- may the Lord help us all!

Uncle Tom's Union

The so-called "Progressive" Moslems Union has invited a so-called "leading" Moslem scholar from France to join a "female led" prayer by none other than the Chair of the Progressive Muslim Union North America: Pamela Taylor !

The "leading Moslem scholar" goes by the name of "Mufti" Soheib Bencheikh. The "Mufti" is going to give a press conference to discuss the cartoon controversy.

So, who is this mufti? Turns out this dude has earned the praise of none other than Mr. Daniel Pipes himself! (Yes, we knew it was only a matter of time... next time they should just invite Pipes himself). Mr. Pipes describes the mufti as "as the epitome of "the liberal intellectual Muslim, pious but not Islamist."

So, what kind of ideology does the mufti represent that earned him such high praise from the great Pipes himself?

Well... here is an excerpt from MWU's comments section:

For examples i'll use one of his interview for the newspaper Le Parisien (one of the french newspaper that have published cartoons of the Prophet) in which: he IS saying that he is FOR the BAN at school (personal note: i'm not a hijab fanatic myself, but i think girls should do whatever they want and that it's ridiculous to ban it at school).


In the same interview he is worried about the fact that there are more muslims going to pray at the masjid than some years ago, and to him that shows how France is fulle of muslims being radicalized. He believes those are waiting to be terrorists...


In general i don't think he defends muslims or progressive ideas that much, to me he is down to go wherever the power that be wants to see muslims go... He's just the muslim credibility to the people paranoid with terrorism, who see terrorism everywhere and who want to control Islam... i'm not saying his intentions are deeply wrongs, but i would say that he sounds to often like an "uncle Tom" to me...


I don't want to be hating on him, i wish him peace, but i just don't see his points, and i think his perception that France is in danger because of evil terrorists taking over the hearts of the believers is VERY dangerous, because it surely is used by the power that be for a dark agenda.


Plus Bencheikh never smiles !! what's wrong wit u dude ? lol


For ya'll french readers out there here is the itw:

http://www.fairelejour.org/article.php3?id_article=491

Well... I think that just says it all... i suppose even Uncle Toms need a union...

Quote of the month

Angry Arab says:

Hostility to Islam by people who pose as "the authentic Muslims/Arabs" is now a cottage industry. (And notice that are always listed as "free-lance writers and speakers"--and it never matters if they have degrees in tomato studies). I mean, look at this one. "I witnessed honour killings of girls, oppression of women, female genital mutilation, polygamy and its devastating effect on family relations. All of this is destroying the Muslim faith from within." I lived for the first 23 years of my life in the Middle East (while Manji attended "madraaasaaah" (as she prounounces it), not in Lahore, but in CANADA), and I never witnessed an honor killig; I never witnessed female genital mutiliation; I saw one polygamous marriage (my aunt) when I was there. But I have witnessed oppression of women in the Middle East....AND in the US, and in Europe.

Angry Arab takes on the strange Manji

The Axes of Moderate Moslems

Article in Haaretz on "A Planetary Intifada"

....triangle of life and reason, which more than ever must unite the United States, Europe and Israel...

...And second, in the same breath, the reaffirmation of our support for those enlightened moderate Muslims...

...Moderate Muslims are alone these days, and in their solitude they more than ever need to be acknowledged and hailed....

Thank you for letting us know who will be doing the hailing, and of-course there won't be any mention of American, European and Israeli slaughter of Muslims. Moderate Moslems, enjoy your time in the limelight, and whatever bribes you get for speaking as instructed by your masters.

Detoxifying Mona Eltahawy

Last i checked, Mona Eltahawy was a board member of the so-called "Progressive" Moslems Union of North America. Eltahawy has been praised by the arch-neo-con Paul Wolfowitz as the voice for "modernity and freedom." Well, of-course, given the kind of "freedom and democracy and modernity" that Wolfowitz and his ilk are interested in bombing the world into -"progressive" Eltahawy would be someone that he would praise.

Eltahawy has written an "article" on the anti-Muslim hate speech Danish "cartoons." Here are two responses to that "article."


Dr. Maxtor does a point by point refutation of the article.

And Svend White discusses some important points related to Eltahawy's article.

The Conceit of Proggies (Farish Noor)

Farish Noor's recent article does a good job of highlighting some of the very problematic attitudes of proggies.

Farish Noor, however, himself is not entirely innocent of these attitudes - during the Amina Wadud media stunt - he basically pronounced a fatwa that any dissenting opinion with regards to the event was a "non-debate." This, even though there were substantial counter arguments that were presented by Islamic scholars regarding the event. The issue here was not whether one agrees or disagrees with the respective positions, but about totally ignoring critiques based on an Islamic framework and methodology.

A blogger noted that:

In Noor and Hamzah's case, the "non-debate" is actually the startling assertion that no debate is possible, on the grounds that almost every Muslim outside the MWU/PMU fold is intellectually incompetent. Thus, in a single sweep, Muslim scholarship around the world is reduced to dunderhead status.

However, it is encouraging to read Farish Noor's recent article where he notes that:

The distinction between ‘progressive’ Muslims and ‘conservative’ Muslims may not have been invented by the Neo-Cons who rule the roost in the White House, or the repressive regimes that blight the landscape of the Muslim world, but it cannot be denied that they have also profited from such distinctions. President Bush Junior’s warm embrace of the concept of ‘progressive Islam,’ and his establishment’s support for ‘progressive Muslim’ issues and personalities comes at the cost of expelling other Muslims from the domain of the civilised, rational, normal and acceptable. Already we have seen many a repressive Muslim government or regime hijacking the terms ‘progressive’ and ‘moderate’ in order to whitewash the authoritarian structures of power they control, and to sell themselves as exemplary models of ‘progressive Islam’ at work.

While he makes an important point above, he then again uses terms such as "Muslim conservatives" and "fundamentalists" in his otherwise very good concluding paragraph:

And let us not forget that those ‘Muslim conservatives’ we are so inclined to banish beyond the pale of civilised community are fellow Muslims who are likewise grappling with the challenges of the globalised age we live in. By engaging with Islamist conservatives and fundamentalists, we ensure that the frontiers of discourse and dialogue remain open, and the possibility of genuine constructive change remain with us. The alternative is the exclusionary politics of expulsion and non-dialogue, a deafening silence that divides the Muslim world and dooms our efforts to uplift humanity as a whole.

If these labels were artificial, and exclusionary before, they are even more irrelevant today. Those who Noor, and others would label "traditional" or "conservative" Muslims are the ones who are doing the very real work of service to the Muslim community in a variety of domains. These areas include gender, racism, environmental concern, domestic violence, consumerism, and not allowing Islam to be "reformed" and divided up by the neo-cons. There are other areas that also need to be addressed, no doubt, and much more needs to be done.

If we are to use the label "progressive Muslim" then that should be used for those who are truly active and connected within Muslim communities - and do the much needed work with a sense of love - no matter how many warts our community might have. And quite frankly most of those who have appropriated this label (especially the PMUNAists) do not fit this description of service.

Living Tradition responds to Muslims For Bush

Naseeb.Com recently ran an article by Muslims For Bush about the Katrina Hurricane, praising Bush and telling the critics to focus on Blair instead (as if there is a big huge difference!).

Muslims For Bush: On behalf of all of our members, we are deeply upset by such comments. We suggest that such British commentators start reverting their criticism towards Prime Minister Tony Blair, who we have never seen make any sorts of outreach to minorities, whether it be visiting British Muslims in a Mosque after a terrorist attack, as President Bush did here, or hugging minorities. This is the kind of stuff that makes us love America!

Living Tradition Blog response:

Oh, dear. Well, you see, Muslims aren't concerned about Bush visiting mosques and holding iftars as much as we are concerned about white phosphoros and shrapnel being used on defenseless Iraqis and Afghanis--not to mention our American fallen soldiers and those who are coming home with some serious injuries. For all the speeches about "Islam is Peace" and "Muslim Americans are patrotic" can't compare to the over 25,000 death count of Iraqi civilians since the March 2003 invasion. So who cares if Tony Blair didn't hug a bunch a Muslims, Bush and Blair share the same policies when it comes down to oppressing poor Muslims in the "third world." He hugging minorities! I is soooo happy (insert me tap dancing)! Maybe he should have thrown some life rafts to all those drowning minorities in New Orleans

Click here to read more!

And of-course, lets not forget that these characters (Muslims For Bush) were originally invited to serve on the advisory board of the Progressive Muslim Union North America.

A larger question that comes up for many Muslims is why is Naseeb.com publishing this kind of trash? Well - as one blogger points out:

... the behaviour of the brain trust behind Naseeb. The forum given to members for artistic expression was handed over to cronies and close friends of the braintrust, in order to spew out rather shoddy propaganda for Progressive causes. One being the infamous Muslims for Bush, and their giddy founder, known to Naseebers as HassanDaddy (really).

(OK, I really don't wanna discuss if Ahmed Nassef is dajjal or not...)

Neo-Orientalists of Rand Corporation

Neo-Orientalists of the Rand Corporation

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

December 13th marks the first anniversary of the Rand Corporation report “The Muslim World After 9/11” that suggests exploitation of Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides to promote the US policy objectives in the Muslim world.

This was the second Rand report about Islam and Muslims in 2004.

The first report was Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies. The Rand reports are the latest in a long series of policy papers dedicated to further the military, economic, and cultural onslaught of the West on the Muslim World. Dig a little into the reports and it won’t take long to find the real objectives.

Writers of these reports are neo-Orientalists with clear intention to belittle Islam and its adherents to achieve ambitions of the empire like the Orientalists of the 19th century who co-operated hand-in-hand with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers.

Read more here

Islamicity interviews M. Shahid Alam

Islamicity has an excellent interview of M. Shahid Alam that readers of this blog should find interesting and relevant to this debate.

A: Western imagination has been fertile at inventing projects for reforming the world, not least the world of Islam. This is their perennial cover for world domination: they are always engaged in civilizing the people they exploit, enslave or exterminate.

The West has accepted market-driven notions of 'rights' as supreme values. Should Muslims willy-nilly follow suit? Or should they seek greater justice in gender-relations within the matrix of their own system of values?

Click here to read entire interview

Israeli Puppets

As was noted earlier on this blog, Mu(Bu)sharraf the "enlightened moderate" heads up a "Progressive Islam Institute" in Pakistan, along with Riffat Hassan. Hassan recently came to the defense of Mu(Bu)sharraf when he was taken to task for his anti-women comments regarding rape.

Mu(Bu)sharraf, along with some of his lackeys, is now at the forefront of a push for building relations with the Zionist state of Israel that will only come at the expense of the Palestinians. But, as we've seen everything and anything is A-OK - so long as you call it "moderate" and/or "progressive."

For more information on this enlightened progressive move, check out the Pakistan-Israel Forum - that lists individuals and their backgrounds who are behind all of this...

Soon we'll see the "feminist/progressive/scholar" Riffat Hassaan talk about how wonderful Mu(Bu)sharraf is for women, while he shakes hands with the butcher of Sabra and Shatila.
(Palestinian women somehow don't count for these types of military government sponsored feminists.)

Riffat Hassan was also one of the conference dignataries at a recent media event put on by the PMUNA in Barcelona, Spain.

And, of-course, we should'nt forget Ahmed Nassef's (the executive director of PMUNA) flirtations.

See also M. Shahid Alam's excellent article on this topic: Who Benefits, Pakistan "recognizes" Israel.

Praying for Show: The Amina Wadud Case

Mere Islam has some comments and link to an article on the Amina Wadud Event

See also comments on the article by Synaptic Cartography

Progressive Wedge Politics

This is to be expected, of-course. The Progressive Muslim (PMUNAist type) Jawad Ali of Muslim Wake Up, decided to indulge in some good 'ol PMUist type name calling (barely a day into the month of Ramadan).

Jawad Ali states:

Sunni path and Aryan pride A prominent Dear-Abby/paint-between-the-lines/Daddy-knows-best fiqh websites in America is called Sunni Path. Does anyone else find this name to be just a little bit creepy? I know that this is a minor offence in the grand scheme of things….

Seeker's Digest responds:

If they’d bothered to ask, we could have explained that the site is called SunniPath because we seek to explain how to live the sunna of the Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in a reliable and relevant manner–in keeping with both the form and spirit of the sunna, without engaging in polemics or negativity.

While affirming our differences with our Shi`a brethren–differences long-established and only facile to deny–we also affirm that Shi`a are Muslims, and we owe them full rights as our fellow Muslims; as People of the Qibla; and as people who believe in Allah and His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace). After that, we agree to disagree. This is the way of tolerance–not the way of pretending to bulldoze away differences, and then creating disputes and fitna without need.

See: Seeker’s Digest - True Moderate Islam - Statement of Islamic Conference Held in Amman - June 2005.

Most readers of this blog are familiar with the Rand Report that divides Muslims up into "moderate" "modernist" "traditional" etc.

But there is a another, lesser known, Rand Report: This second report lays out a strategy of going even deeper into identifying “fault lines” in the Muslim community. And they recommend that the United States exploit these divisions to “promote” its “objectives.”

Abdus Sattar Ghazali wrote in an article:

A new Rand Corporation study suggests that Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides should be exploited to promote the US policy objectives in the Muslim world.

The recently released Rand study - titled “The Muslim World After 9/11” – was conducted on behalf of the US Air Force. One of the primary objective of the study was to “identify the key cleavages and fault lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines and to assess how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United States.”

And in a recent article titled Splitting Islam, James Kurth - a Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore College, further details this strategy.

The United States did not create the Sunni-Shi’ite split in Islamism, just as it did not create the earlier Sino-Soviet split in communism. It can, however, put itself in a position to take advantage of the divide as it very likely will develop, as it did with the analogous split during the Cold War.

This Ramadan, given the above US strategy against Islam and Muslims, we could use some internal dialogue and discussions. BUT we do not need polemics, and useless Progressive (PMUist type) name calling, that only serves to further harden rifts in the Muslim communities.

Progressive Hypocrisy

Musharraf (or, as he is affectionately called, Busharraf) in an recent interview with the Washington Post made this statement about Mukhtar Mai

He said Mai had come under the sway of organizations determined to harm Pakistan’s image and he did not think Pakistan “should be singled out when the curse is everywhere in the world.” He noted he had seen reports or figures about rape in the United States, Canada, France and Britain showing that “it is happening everywhere.”

And then he said this:

"You must understand the environment in Pakistan,” Musharraf added. “This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”

Then, a few days later, at a gathering to promote "moderate enlightenment" he denied ever making the above statement!

‘Let me say with total sincerity that I never said that and it has been misquoted,’’ Musharraf said. ‘‘These are not my words and I would go to the extent of saying I am not so silly and stupid to make comments of this sort.’’

And he has this to say about human rights activists who challenged him regarding the statement:

“You are against me and Pakistan,” said the president when a human rights activist referred to his alleged comments in a Washington Post interview which quoted him (Gen Musharraf) as saying that women exploited rape to get visas.

Well, it turns out that the Washington Post has an audio of the interview - where The General does make the statement, in his own voice, no less! So Mush/Busharraf lied.

OK, so we know politicians, including vicious military dictators posing as "enlightened moderates" lie.

BUT there is an even more interesting Progressive twist to this story - Riffat Hassan, Phd, an academic, and a Progressive Muslimist has founded a "Progressive Islam" institute in Pakistan - that is headed, by guess who? Yup! The Enlightened Moderate himself!

Organised by international scholar, Dr. Riffat Hassan, and featuring the views of one of the most prolific progressive thinkers of our times, Dr Fathi Osman, a project of no less controversy is now in the works. An autonomous, progressive Muslim institute - the antithesis of more orthodox organisations, such as the Islamic University in Islamabad - and headed by the bastion of the "enlightened moderation" movement himself, President Pervez Musharraf. And it will be truly global in its make and manifesto. It is envisioned that the board of directors will comprise the best international progressive scholars, whose works and teachings will be transmitted to Pakistanis around the country through multimedia sources and teachers programmes.

So, what does Busharraf (I mean... Musharraf) get in return for giving his royal military blessing to the Progressivists? He gets Riffat Hassan's loyalty, who is expected to jump whenever the General is criticised, and, if needed, say a lie or two to cultivate his image as a great champion of women.

And, Riffat Hassan has no problem complying with this quid pro quo: in a pathetic letter to the Pakistani newspaper Dawn she defends the military dictator. Here is what she writes about individuals who raised the issue of Busharraf's comments at a meeting with Pakistani women (where Riffat Hassan was the keynote speaker)!

At the end of his presentation, three-fourths of the people in the room stood up and applauded. The remaining one-fourth were persons who were opposed to him for personal or political reasons. Their venom toward the president became manifest in the question and answer part of the meeting.

In a voice filled with anger the questioner told the president that since he had “categorically denied” making the statement attributed to him by The Washington Post, he should make a clarification to the world press. She went on to express her disappointment at the way he was treating human rights activists who were protesting against violence toward women.

The president responded to the deliberately provocative comment by saying that the many journalists who were present had already heard his clarification. He expressed his disappointment at the questioner and others like her who were engaging in what he said was unpatriotic behaviour. He said that he would always support the cause of women but he would oppose those who were using women’s cause to further their own agendas that were harmful to the country.

At the end of the Q & A session, again the vast majority of the people stood up and gave the president a resounding round of applause.

Of-course Riffat Hassan cannot dare to criticise the General, after all her institute depends on his blessings.

This is yet another sordid chapter in the history of the hypocritical Progrssivists. For some reason, this story did not make it to the PMUNAist's media outlets - Naseeb.com and Muslim Wake Up --- wonder why?....

Lessons Learned...

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.

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).

The United States corporate media performs an ideological function, and, in this context, their role was and, is to create and give wide space to the "good Muslims." While there were other organizations that attempted to fill this role, most notably those associated with Daniel Pipes and Stephen Schwartz's Center for Islamic Pluralism. It was PMU that showed the most promise, because of the support given by high profile academics such as Omid Safi (former Chair) and Amina Wadud (former advisory board member). Both these individuals have since resigned from the PMUNA.

During the debate on NPM, the problematic use of media hype was pointed out by one contributor:

If we assume that Ahmed (Nassef) and PMUNA are aware of the problems of media (and its specific position vis-a-vis "bad" and "good" moderate Muslims) in the heart of the empire, then I can't help feeling as if they are engaged in something entirely unethical.

For "progressives," the general aim has been understood to be one that undermines power and authoritarian structures, either at the political, social, or economic level. From this it follows that the reliance on the US media, certainly a core ideological institution of US imperial power, is to effectively depend on one form of power (a very powerful one in fact) to try to confront another form of power ("islamic orthodoxy," a far weaker power).

Whether or not Ahmed (Nassef) or Omid (Safi) have this intention or not is irrelevant.
Right now, in a situation where Muslims in the US do have their backs against the wall and are being told to get their act together or else, showcasing oneself as the "progressive muslims" amongst the herd of reactionaries is to have the practical effect of using the imperial ideological system for one's "progressive" purposes. This might undermine one form of "power" (Muslim institutions such as ISNA, male-female mosque dynamics IN THE US), but strengthens a far more powerful propaganda system that's not shy of using force and violence.

Click to read more

In this day and age, concerned Muslims, especially in the United States, might want to become more aware of how the US media functions - a good starting point is Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's classic book: Manufacturing Consent.

And over on the other side of the pond...

The Blair government, that more than often follows the foot steps of the Bush administration, seems to be busy playing its own version of divide and conquer, and some Muslims are only too happy to comply.

Are we all extremists now?! MPACUK asks the question:

No sooner had the British Government said jump; some Muslims responded by saying in true colonial subject style, “Yes Sir how high would you like us to jump”. To some Muslims, saying No to Government is simply not in their vocabulary. To them, just being in the presence of Government Officials is an awe inspiring experience. Others are involved for the progression of their political party careers and to serve their Leader, Blair. Many others are on board to milk the system for their own pet interests and projects. There is also another group of participants, a new breed of Muslims seeking to become Islamic consultants in the manner of Race consultants (so the recommendations will inevitably involve commissioning out identified areas of work). These Muslims have made, or wish to make a career in an Islamic Relations Industry to rival the race experts. Of course there are also many that are sincere but politically naïve, and then there are also those who genuinely believe that their version of Islam is the true one, and has been hijacked by extremists who need to be countered.

Click here to read more of this interesting article

Progressive Thugs Exposed!

Ahmed Nassef, executive director of Progressive Muslim Union North America, ran an article on his website titled "ISNA thugs" on the ISNA convention this year.

Naseeb.com - picked up this article, and also ran it on their site.

Along with the article, there was this graphic:

Ahmed Nassef apparently changed the graphic showing only a muscular arm - but Naseeb.com has the full graphic.

It is interesting to note the depiction of this Muslim "thug" that feeds on the stereotypes used against Muslims: bearded, angry, and style of the cap worn mostly in the northern areas of Pakistan, and Central Asia (note the anti-immigrant tone of the graphic, and the article).

This graphical depiction might as well be something that would appear on a rabidly anti-Muslim site - but instead it appears on a supposed "liberal" "progressive" site. The right wing news station, FOX would be proud of these "progressives."

However, this is not surprising, since naseeb.com features regular articles by Muslims For Bush (who were also invitees to the Progressive Muslim Union advisory board).

And in an interview with the then chair (now resigned) of PMU, Omid Safi, they failed to ask some very critical questions.

Check out two articles exposing the pro-regressives (both very good articles - read 'em).

A point by point refutation to the Muslim Wake Up/Naseeb.Com article:

Sheila Musaji writes ISNA? Thugs?

and

Dr. Maxtor's blog MWU & Naseeb, irrelevent co-conspirators

Another article by Sheila Musaji - MWU/PMU - Progressive voices?

Musaji concludes with the following:

These sorts of tactics can only hurt the cause of Progressive Muslims and I do not want to be associated with individuals or organizations that show so little professionalism or concern for truth and rational discourse.

By now, North American Muslims (and elsewhere) should be aware that these PMUists types of "Progressive Muslims" do not have a cause!

A brief history of the PMUNA

Early October/ late September of 2004 - Ahmed Nassaf, Omid Safi, Hussen Ibish, and Sara Eltantawi announced themselves as the executive board of a new Muslim organization calling itself "The Progressive Muslims Union, North America."

They sent out a packet of information to a prospective board of advisors. Among the invitees were Seeme and Malik Hassan, founders of Muslims For Bush, Fareed Zakariyya - Nawaal al-Sadawi, Ziyad Asali, and Muqtedar Khan.

The inclusion of these individuals - and others who have publicly stated that they are not Muslim (Tariq Ali) resulted in an impassioned debate/conversation on the direction this new organization was going to take. Much of this debate has taken place on a discussion e-list The Network of Progressive Muslims (NPM members, see archives beginning October 21st, 2004.)

Recently, Omid Safi has stated that they did not invite Fareed Zakariyya. However, during the debate on NPM, the invitation to Zakariyya was one of the main points of contention, and Safi never denied the invitation at the time.

On November 12th a group who were strongly arguing against the PMU direction, issued a public statement outlining their concerns. This blog was founded on the same day, and the debate on NPM was made public. However, because of list/moderator restrictions, most of the discussions were removed. A few sections of that debate is available with permission of the authors of those e-mails.

Another noteworthy blog, critiquing the PMU and “progressive islam” in general, Living Tradition, was founded earlier on October 25th:

In these days, both non-Muslims and Muslims are being presented by the squeaky wheels with two options: reactionism, in the form of Wahabism / Salafism and Islamism, or religious iconoclasm, in the form of "Progressivism." Both sides throw up a smoke screen when it comes to the sources of Shari'ah, the methodolgies of fiqh, the 'aqida of Islam, and more in an attempt to sway their listeners to their particular approach to Islam.

As a reaction to the public statement, Ahmed Nassef, the executive director announced on his web site Muslim Wake Up that the critics of the PMU were “neo-salafis.”

On November 19th, the PMU formally announced their advisory board, leaving out a number of controversial invitees.

Sometime mid to late December, Muslim Wake Up was hacked, and the Executive Director appeared on the right wing FOX network to announce that “not all, but many mosques are run by people who have extremist views on women etc..." (emphasis added).
On December 13th yet another “moderate Muslim” group was founded – with the then advisory board member Muqtedar Khan, and Executive Director Ahmed Nassef playing an active role in the organization.

February 2005, Tarek Fatah, who was, at the time, the moderator of NPM, took the e-mails he had access to (about 200+) and started a new e-list called PMUnet. Fatah was removed as moderator from NPM, and soon he left the NPM list.

Early to mid March, 2005 – the PMUNA created the Amina Wadud media event – subsequently, Wadud resigned from their advisory board. A number of articles appeared on this event and many are linked from this web site.

March 15th dozens of Palestinian groups condemned Ziad Asali who was on the advisory board of the PMUNA. Hussein Ibish, the then vice-chair of PMUNA is a senior fellow at Asali's organization.

"From under the garb of hollow US democratization, Asali has in effect been diligently advancing the neo-conservative plan for the "New Middle East", where nations and people are reconstituted against their will."

On April 20th – US News and World Report came out with an investigative report on the Hearts, Minds, and Dollars In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions...
To Change the Very Face of Islam.

Late June/early July – the PMU shahadah was updated, and this resulted in the first of a number of resignations from the PMU board: Muqtedar Khan.

Mid-August a new website was founded that included a blog by a just resigned from board: Michael Knight – who stated in his first entry:

If the Prophet wouldn’t have liked it, then in 2005 the Prophet is wrong, s*!@ on him.

August 23rd – three of the founding members: Omid Safi, Hussein Ibish, Sarah Eltantawi resigned.

Late August – there were no more advisory boards – and Omid Safi found himself at a crossroads.

Omid Safi's crossroads

In a widely circulated e-letter, Omid Safi, the founder, and former chair of the Progressive Muslim Union has complained that he was placed on "moderated status" on the PMU "discussion" (sic) list.

This, effectively meant that all of Safi's post would have to be first approved by (amongst others) Tarek Fatah, before the list gets to see the contents (aka: censorship).

"Not only had I not been informed about this, the list moderators have explicitly disagreed letting the folks on the PMU list know that they are placing people on censored status.

I have had a lengthy discussion with Pamela (Taylor) about this, and my crime is in fact not in anything that I have said, but in something that I might say. "

So, now there is apparently yet another splintered group of people - this time exclusively selected by Omid Safi to discuss this "moderated status."

Now, the only reason this is worth mentioning is to point out the absurdity of this situation - the notion of "progressive islam/muslim" has fallen to a new low : The founder of the Progressive Muslim Union is left arguing with Tarek Fatah and Pamela Taylor about why he has been placed on a moderated status, with an exclusive group of invitees watching the spectacle and chiming in!

Mufti Omid Safi has also promised a "state of the union/progressive muslim" address in the near future! Do we really need more sanctimonious talks? Have we not had enough of loud empty words and grandiose statements?!

Safi is at a crossroads - and it is time he made some choices - he can carry on lengthy debates, and engage in intrigues, on this and that lists, and go about attempting to save and reform PMUNA, maybe making backroom deals in the process with his choice list of invitees. (So much for transparency.)

OR he can get to the business of social justice in the real world!

If Safi is to seriously live his words (and not just say them) it will mean him leaving his comfort zone, and perhaps, begin working within prisons (plenty of work needed on gender justice over there) with taxi drivers, with homeless people in shelters and those living under bridges.

Safi might begin to take strong stands against those "moderates" and "progressives" Muslims, who are joining the Bush/Blair regimes - and point out that there is nothing "moderate" or "progressive" about becoming advisors to those who are invaders and occupiers.

And he has to stop this nonsense about "athiest" Muslims and what not...such thinking reeks of a tribalist mentality - reducing Islam to a mere "cultural heritage."

If Safi himself cannot leave his own comfortable environment, culturally, socially, and psychologically, then who is he to make such grand calls for "reform Islam" and "progressive Islam" and so on and on... ?!

The choice is for Omid Safi to make - he can continue with these petty intrigues, arguments, and fights with the current PMUNA board members, or he can move towards the real world - where the rest of us are living.

The train is moving, and leaving the station - and, as Howard Zinn, has said, in describing the contemporary US situation: there is no such thing as being neutral on a moving train.

no more advisory boards?

A quick look at the PMU web site shows that they no longer have any advisory boards.

Also, it appears, that Mohja Kahf (the MWU sex and umma fame) resigned from the board a few months back, but quietly, none of the razzle dazzle of the recent resignations.

At its inception, the PMU had invited over two dozen advisory board members, including such luminaries as Muslims For Bush, Fareed Zakariya and Nawaal al-Sadawi who supported the hijaab ban in France.

The current board of directors (assuming no more resignations) according to the PMU web site are:

Tarek Fatah

Zuriani "Ani" Zonneveld

Ahmed Nassef

(more on Ahmed Nassef)

Mona El-Tahawy

(more on Mona Eltahawy)

Pamela Taylor (fomerly co-chair, now the lone chair of PMUNA)

Saleemah Ghaffur

Naeem Mohaiemen


Coming soon: a brief history of the PMU - meanwhile, see the AMP report on the resignations.

The Left Behind

Three of the four original founders of PMUNA have resigned.

According to most recent information, the following individuals are the Left Behind Board of Directors of the PMU.

Let us know in the comments section:

1. Who you would like to see resign next? (and...Why?)

and

2. Who is most likely to resign next? (and...Why?)

(those PMUists - the few that are left -read this blog, maybe they'll listen to you...)

Tarek Fatah

Zuriani "Ani" Zonneveld

Ahmed Naseef

Mona El-Tahawy

(more on Mona Eltahawy)

Pamela Taylor (fomerly co-chair, now the lone chair of PMUNA)

Ginan Rauf ("beer for Ramadan" fame)

Imam Daayiee

Saleemah Ghaffur

Naeem Mohaiemen

Kareem Shora

Omid Safi, Hussein Ibish, Sarah Eltantawi - all gone!

Three of the five member Executive Board of the PMUNA have resigned.

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 policies 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 classical 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 ˆ 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

Mass Resignations from PMUNA

Breaking news: Omid Safi, Sara Eltantawi, and Hussein Ibish resign from PMUNA - more coming soon!

Critique of "Standing Alone"

A well thought out critique of Asra Nomani's book Standing Alone on the Bannos blog.

Readers of this blog will, I'm sure, recognize the statement below as reflective of not only Asra Nomani, but also the "progressive islam" as represented by the PMU/MWU/Progressiveislam.org factions.

I started getting a strange feeling the more I read. This “true faith” seemed to be rather selective and perhaps restricted to what Ms. Nomani believed to be essential or true.

Click here to read more

The Amina Wadud (PMUNA advisory board member) media showcase was organized by Progressive Muslim Union Executive Director Ahmed Nassef, in conjunction with the "Asra Nomani Muslim Women's Freedom Tour."

Nomani's book was publicized right along side the Wadud event on the PMU NA media outlet: "Muslim Wake Up."

Another resignation! + A Question.

(Post updated 8/22/05)

Now confirmed - Laury Silvers has resigned from the board of directors of the Progressive Muslim Union North America. While Silvers was with the PMU, she drafted the expanded version of the PMUNA shahadah to include sex, alcohol, and "no-god." This new shahdah was part of Muqtedar Khan's reasons for resignation from the PMUNA.

Silvers, Ilan Bashir, along with Sabahat Ashraf are the main individuals behind the new web site Progressive Islam.

Sabahat Ashraf, who stated on the Living Tradition blog - that Knight, as a Muslim, is "free" to hold views about throwing s*^%# on the Prophet) , is also on the Technology Team of the Progressive Muslim Union.

Also the record, I find Mr Knight's attitude to The Prophet a rather odd one for a Muslim to hold. But he is free to hold it.

UPDATE: Link to PMUNA/MWU found - buried in the "links section" of the web site. Stay tuned for more information on this "new" "progressive" blog/site.

However, the question still remains: why has Altmuslim.org, that does not advertise itself as a "progressive Muslim" site, been given central space on the front page? While Muslim Wake Up - that is very much a self-identified "progressive Muslim" web site been relegated to somewhere deep in the links section. Hopefully this is just an oversight, and they will be adding Muslim Wake Up to their front page - so that everyone can be clear on the background of these individuals.

Muslim Wake Up, of-course, is the media outlet of Progressive Muslim Union. Executive Director of the PMU - Ahmed Nassef is the Chief Editor and Owner of Muslim Wake Up.

Old Wine New Bottle?!

The board members, and supporters of the Progressive Muslim Union North America have a new web site that they are calling "progressiveislam.org."

But this site has an interesting new twist - it seems that they are looking for a new look and a new package.

Lets look at the Old Wine first:

In typical Omid Safi good cop style, the site states:

Our intent is simply to provide the technical means and a hospitable environment for the expression of ideas in an open and civil manner.

And, then, in typical PMU sensationalist style they proceed to hurl insults:

If the Prophet wouldn’t have liked it, then in 2005 the Prophet is wrong, s*!@ on him.

The site includes familiar faces - the former PMU board member Knight, insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him).

The secular "muslim" Harvardist, Ginan Rauf (board member of PMUNA, and "beer for ramadan" fame - do a google search to learn more...).

Someone calling herself (and thereby insulting) Harriet Tubman - this one is under the delusion that the pro-regressive types like her are some kind of civil rights "leaders."

(Coopting African American struggles for their own ends is a PMU tactic - Asra Nomani likes to fashion herself as some kind of a Rosa Parks, along with casting herself as a latter day Martin Luther).

Here is how she supports Knight (and insult converts).

Sure, Mike’s stuff is often upsetting to many Muslims, not just because of its style and content, but because he refuses the usual role allotted to white male converts: that of (cheer)leader.

Now, lets look at the New Bottle:

The site has no links to the PMU media outlet Muslim Wake Up - instead, they link to Shahed Amanullah's web site, Alt.Muslim. Could be that MWU has become a bit too much of a liablity? So have they found someone new to carry their mission forward? hmmm....

The site also includes a coming soon blog "The Hina Azam Blog" named after Dr. Hina Azam (Amanullah is her husband) who had critiqued the Amina Wadud event.

UPDATE 8/25/05: The "Hina Azam Blog" is gone and so are the front page links to AltMuslim

UPDATE: Following is a comment by Shahed Amanullah

"Hina did agree to have a blog at this site, but she will most likely be repulsed (as am I) by being hosted next to Mr. Knight's infamous blog entry. So I'm not sure it will happen, but I leave that up to her.

And about their links to altmuslim.com - they asked to link to and/or reprint content, I gave permission.

There's no relationship other than that. Judge me by the content of my site (well, except for some of the comments), not by those who link to me."

The site also states:

.. an online space, created for Muslims of all theological orientations to gather and engage in creative, thoughtful and intelligent discussion and debate.

Now, this is an interesting statement - there are PMUists who have no theological orientation at all - they are atheists, or secularists. Is there such a thing as an "atheist theology"?!

Well - in the bizarro world of Progressive Muslim Union - anything is possible! After all, if they can "tolerate" and believe that a Muslim has the "freedom" to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) - then why not have an atheist theology?