Two years ago, I wrote in my essay “Green vs. Rainbow: an Online Struggle” of Sulayman X’s jihad to reconcile Islam and homosexuality. He has subsequently written that for him, the two are ultimately irreconcilable: "…I can no longer consider myself a Muslim. Despite years of effort, I can find no way to reconcile Islamic teaching on homosexuality…. In fact, I cannot, in conscience, accept Islamic teachings on sex: I do not believe in polygamy; I do not believe it is moral to force one's female slaves into accepting your sexual advances (among more intelligent people, this is known as rape); I do not believe each person must be straight and married and make babies; I do not believe Paradise will be filled with beautiful babes ready to service you for eternity; I do not believe a Muslim husband has the right to 'lightly beat' his wife; I do not believe anyone should be stoned to death for adultery, much less that homosexuals should be killed 'wherever you find them'. All of this is repulsive to me, and sticks in my throat like broken glass."¹ Though Sulayman X no longer bears the standard, a small movement called the Al-Fatiha Foundation continues the charge, its mission by necessity antithetical to belief in the essential fixity of Islam. "Although mainstream Islam officially condemns homosexuality there is a growing movement of progressive-minded Muslims, especially in the Western world, who see Islam as an evolving religion that must adapt to modern-day society. It is within the movement that Al-Fatiha Foundation hopes to work in order to enlighten the world that Islam is a religion of tolerance and not hate, and that Allah (God) loves His creation, no matter what their sexual orientation might be." ² Replace "homosexuality" and "sexual orientation" with fighting words from other causes' lexicons, and these sentences hold a mighty question for the many Muslims who wish to reconcile Islam with what their particular progressivism bids them.³ Do they justify reforming the status quo by a call to evolution or by a call to return to the perfumed days of the Prophet?

This is not meant to be a bifurcated, either-or question, but rather a question of how ethical positions often considered extrinsic in origin or hostile to Islam, are argued as being consistent with, or intrinsic to Islam (or an Islam redefined). Surely there are other methods for justifying progressive reform, but the bedrock premise of the infallibility of the Qur'an eliminates, or makes internally inconsistent with that very same premise, many of the interpretational possibilities that have allowed many non-Orthodox Jews and Christians to make more humane and selective interpretations of scripture. With the Bible as an inspired text written by men, the Christian can cast aside the question of the genocide of the Amalek by attributing it to tribal legend and the universal harshness of the times, skipping ahead to the lovey-dub-dub verses to be distilled from his holy text. Though some progressive, modernizing Muslims do nearly the same by trying to limit the applicability of the less amiable Qur'anic verses by attributing to those verses a historical statue of limitations, this lessening of the scope of revelation conflicts with the putative timelessness attributed to Qur'anic revelation. Another related methodology applied for this purpose is to make allegorical exegesis stretch to its limit, in an effort to distill "Chicken Shurabah for the Soul" from a scientifically- and intellectually-limited worldview.⁴ While logical consistency and the plausibility of an exegesis may not be the greatest determinant of the success of the progressive reinterpreters, it may prove to be a liability if in fact traditionalist 'ulema or Islamists have a more internally consistent interpretation of Islam.

In the case of homosexual acceptance, the primary texts of the Qur'an and ahadith admit of no self-evident, positive evidence for the idea. To claim such acceptance as intrinsic to Islamic source texts would take either a masterful degree of exegetical contortion or selective nescience. Al-Fatiha Foundation's reference to "evolving religion" indicates a break from the past, not a rediscovery of a scriptural-based modern conception of tolerance papered over by Muslim scholars in the centuries since the Prophet.⁵ The best support for its cause would be for portions of the sanctified texts to vanish, which may no doubt explain the correlation between progressivism and rejection of portions or the whole of the ahadith, which have always been on shakier ground with their multivalent truth classification.⁶

This is not to say that the Muslim scholars' salvation history is unquestionable and identical with "what really happened" or "what Muhammad really taught." From the perspective of a skeptic, it's almost certainly not; with the likelihood that it may be impossible to completely reconstruct what happened unless Allat herself gives us the means. This is to say that barring a few astounding archaeological breakthroughs, it's difficult to see how the progressives would be able to provide unequivocal, positive evidence for Muhammad having in all respects the socio-econo-political outlook they variously attribute to him. To take one example, there's a general consensus that the Qur'an calls for the total prohibition of alcohol among Muslims. Some progressives have said that the intention of the verses regulating slavery in the Qur'an and ahadith was for the eventual, total emancipation of all slaves (as they also say of polygamy).⁷ The question is, if these same progressives think that slavery can be a far greater evil than imbibing liquor, why was the lesser evil totally prohibited and the greater evil accepted with conditions? Could part of the persistence of slavery in Mauritania and the Sudan have anything to do with the facility of pointing out the acceptance of slavery in the source texts of Islam and the explicit rejection of alternate sources of moral judgment in the Qur'an?⁸ Why would Allah not be more explicit about his prohibition on slavery, making manumission an obligation not just an indulgence, if it meant that faithful Muslims might mistakenly countenance such a custom?

Although a reform might be attributed to Allah's all-knowing wisdom through some hitherto unknown scriptural time-delay dispersal mechanism, there's a greater chance that it's due to other sources of authority vying for Allah's heavenly comfy-chair. Aside from ritual, the most liberal of Muslims could hold many of their views having never heard of Islam; perhaps statistics might show someone would be more likely to hold those views if they never had.  

 

It’s always the critics!

A few weeks ago, I came across a formulaic feature in a newspaper about first-generation Muslim-American women and their "struggle" to be both American and Muslim. Among those interviewed were one or two young women who less charitable Wahhabi types might want to take by the scruff of the abaya and shake around a bit for their liberal interpretations and practice of Islam. I had nearly forgotten about the article until I came across an editorial of the "misunderstood Islam" genre in the San Francisco Chronicle written by one of them, author Asma Gull Hasan.

In her March editorial, entitled "Wanna be a star? Hate Islam," Hasan bemoans the existence of critics of Islam and claims they are only doing so "to gain a national reputation or sell…[their] latest book." She names a motley assortment of critics to whom she imputes avarice and "intellectual dishonesty"⁹: Franklin Graham, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Sullivan, and most gallingly, Salman Rushdie. Granted, it's not beyond all possibility that the four critics of Islam that she pulls out of a kafiyeh have only formed their opinions in a quest to become superstars, but that's irrelevant to the value or the lack thereof to their criticisms. Just the same, someone could accuse her of profiting off of 911: "Since the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, sales of Hasan's book have soared. 'The book is basically sold out,' Hasan notes. 'My publisher is doing a fourth reprint.'"¹⁰ More likely, such disparate characters as Franklin Graham and Salman Rushdie do have "intellectual reasons" for their positions¹¹ in spite of Hasan's claim that "Hating and demonizing Islam has become intellectualized, not for any truly intellectual reasons, but for the simple reason that the best way to gain publicity… is by hating Islam." My kaafir intuition¹² tells me that Rushdie disputes the proposition that "any publicity is good publicity." But here, Hasan remains conspicuously silent about the obvious reason why Rushdie doesn't intone the praises of peaceful Islam. Perhaps she can redress his misunderstanding, and take an Islamic world tour with Rushdie, so he can see he was mistaken, as surely her brother and sister Muslims will remember that "the Koran… exhorts Muslims to forgive those who wrong them." Or maybe she could explain to Rushdie, that with reform Islam, the punishment isn't death, but something more humane: a swift kick to the 'nads.

Moving down the list of libelous kuffar, we come to the preacher's son: Franklin Graham, who after 911 provided a ready-made sound bite for insta-pointless-controversy. In an editorial on the PakistanLink website, Hasan quotes Graham as saying: "The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It’s a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."¹³ Hasan accuses Franklin of intolerance, and extrapolates that Franklin is calling all Muslims wicked. Granted, I do think there is an inherent intolerance in the belief that those who don't get Jesus, get hellfire in the end, but how is that any different than mainstream Muslim belief, mutatis mutandis?¹⁴ In "My View of Islam," Franklin Graham does raise substantive issues relating directly to Islamic law and the state of the world, in such places as the Sudan and Afghanistan. He expressly takes issue with the persecution of non-Muslims in the world, and expresses the wish for freedom of religion. "In this nation we are grateful for the ability to worship God and to practice the religions of our choice without interference from our government. I pray that it might be so throughout the world." His beef is not without justification, as a study of historical and modern dhimmitude would show.

More important than establishing the line of reasoning behind every critic or perceived critic of Islam¹⁵, is to understand what Hasan defines Islam as, and why her San Francisco Chronicle editorial seems to drone on about the hateful words of the critics while neglecting to confront the hateful deeds and rationale of some of her co-religionists.¹⁶ Her definition seems to be largely via negativa. "Blaming Islam is simple and easy. But Islam is not the explanation for terrorism. Using Islam as an explanation is tempting – the scapegoating prevents us from facing the hard questions…. Blaming Islam as a blanket, catch-all for all that is wrong in the world is certainly easier than dealing with the complex issues of local, native, and usually un-Islamic culture practiced by many Muslims in the world, the effects of globalization, and the leftovers of a very Cold War."¹⁷ There are very few serious critics of Islam who would say that Islam is the only thing wrong with the world. There are very few serious critics who would say that all culturally rooted problems in Muslim societies can be traced to Islam, or that all versions of Islam are equally culpable. But at the same time, it is pretty transparent that whatever Islam is, according to Hasan it is immaculate, beyond any blame. "Anti-globalization" protestors like the nineteen hijack-asses, influenced by the totally un-Islamic Islamic world, just happened to have "complex issues" needing a fiery resolution. Sometimes, when you've burnt the seventieth Riyadh Starbucks to the ground to put the finger to the WTO, you just run out of alternatives.

To ignore that al-Qa'eda and friends think they are fighting in the path of Allah, is to willfully obscure a good part of their motivation and belief system. That the word "kamikaze" was a part of our vocabulary before the events of 911 underscores that the "true believer syndrome" is not the sole domain of one religion or ideology. But this recognition should not mask the divergent consequences of accepting one belief system over another, under the delusion that every ideology will doll out an equal amount of candy with its unintended poison. If we could blindfold ourselves from history, and be given a random assortment of texts laying claim to ultimate truths (i.e. books taken way too seriously), it would not be unforeseen that by surveying some of these texts we could detect that some of them hold greater potential for human ill than others. The Tao Te Ching simply does not hold the peril of al-Qur'an al-Kareem, and it is laughable to pretend otherwise.

If al-Qa'eda did not exist, the apologist Hasan would still have innumerable verses of the Qur'an to contend with. It is my contention that "the bloody borders of Islam" are no accident.¹⁸ It is in part the result of codified inequities in the treatment of non-Muslims and the sanctification of testosterone-soaked values. One of the modern developments in ethics has been an expanding circle of concern, to use the term of the ethicist Peter Singer. It is indefensible to restrict human rights to a select subset of humans, while relegating anyone outside that circle of concern to slavery or degradation. While the real world practice of this ethic may leave much to be desired, and leave plenty for Muslim supremacists to gloat over while dreaming of a superior caliphate, progress is discernable, if historically slow-going. In the United States, the Union expunged the codified inequality of the 3/5^ths rule from the constitution. Although it was a revered document by some, it was not beyond revision, albeit at a high price. The circle could expand.

When the circle of concern expands in Muslim societies, it is often in spite of the heavenly-tablet engraved codifications of the Qur'an. The Qur'an promotes the dehumanization and degradation of any who do not accept it in its totality. Ironically, in a sura called the Forgiver, Allah proclaims his policy of eternal torture for dissidents: "Seest thou not those that dispute concerning the Sings of Allah. How are they turned away (from Reality)? Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our apostles: but soon shall they know, When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along- In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned." (40:69-72) Why would a true believer hold the human rights of dissenters in any esteem, if the Grand Sky Inquisitor plans to immolate anyone who disagrees with how wonderful he is?

The intellectual hollowness of Hasan's vision of Islam is apparent in the rehashed rationalizations she shares with more orthodox Muslims, in her attempt to put Islam beyond the pale of criticism. The profiteering critics keep running into problems because they don't have a magic translation device to clear up the difficulties of the ever-untranslatable Arabic ("translation conflicts" sayeth the apologist). Now, certainly, it is not beyond possibility that a person misinterprets portions of a book because they are reading it in translation, but this is weak as a catch all explanation. It's disconcerting that for so important a text as the Qur'an she can't point us all in the proper direction to a translation relatively free of such pitfalls, so that no more non-Muslims are so ensnared. She is also fond of pleading "out-of-context", without addressing the uncomfortable questions her own musings could generate in many. "But it's obvious to me that many have just picked up a copy of the Koran at their local bookstore and anointed themselves experts after scanning the index for the word [sic] 'kill' and 'infidel.'" Did the critics of Islam misread? Can Hasan help to use the index properly so we can find where it says in the Qur'an: "Oh you who believe, love the polytheist, thought-criminal, lowest of the low, evil-doing, music-listening, lying sons of pigs and monkeys, and give them a big smootchie on the lips. Most certainly do not besmirch the teaching of these pages by killing any of them, even when they don't pay the Jizyah or say blasphemous things about my pal Muhammad." It is troubling that there is a litany of terms of abuse for those who do not accept Islam's teachings in the Qur'an, with little distinction in severity between ethical breeches that harm people such as stealing (except when it's called spoils of war) and those that offend Allah's self-esteem. The ninety-nine names of Allah stand in contrast with the "ninety-nine" names for infidel. 

 

Sedulously Ignoring the Toughies 

If Islam was about freedom in the libertarian usage, we may all wonder why the religion was called "submission" rather than al-Hurriya "freedom." Because Islam has the same trilateral root¹⁹ as the word for "peace," it's interesting to note when some Muslims²⁰ mistranslate Islam as peace²¹, or if they give the proper grammatical linkage, gloss over the servile dimension of Islam's denotation.

In her book American Muslims Hasan claims that Muslims ought to follow their own interpretation of the source texts of Islam. While this is not without parallels in past movements and thinkers of Islam, this conflicts with the Islam of the 'ulema, and leaves the definition of Islam an open question. If I form a Muslim movement tomorrow called the Mushmisiyya, Sunny-ism, and our interpretation of the Qur'an hinges on believing that Allah has ordained nudism upon the entire "ummah," I imagine that Hasan, the "Muslim feminist cowgirl," will say, "Hold on there Pardners, get on some britches for the Prophet's sake." But then I argue right back, "On the day of judgment everybody's going to be nekkid, if you understand the BaaTin esoteric content of the Qur'an you would know that Muslims are to remind everyone of that day. Where it says to be modest, you have to take the inner meaning and have a modest heart, by averting your gaze. So in our commune we all go around gazing towards Allah's blue heaven, keeping our hearts chaste, and gaining more frequent thawaber points for the onerous trial of averting our gazes from Nur's hell-aciously-hot hooters."

I can imagine any number of sects claiming to be the correct version of Islam. And, indeed, there are a number of sects claiming to be the correct version, some as weird or weirder than the Mushmisiyya sect I just thought up. If a sect of Islam is going to legitimate itself and its interpretations, however, I do imagine that it might be a good idea in winning adherents to try to base that interpretation on the ideas of the founder of the religion, or construct some rationalization for why that founder would actually want to follow the course suggested by that sect. In her writings, Hasan’s interpretation of Islam parts course from Sunni Islam in its neglect of ahadith and shari’ah, but to date she has not given Muslims or non-Muslims any reason to think she is anything more than what she decries – an ‘Eidi Muslim, picking and choosing what suits her sensibilities. If she had to more directly justify her beliefs from the Qur’an (from which I imagine she may have read a few surahs once or twice), her interpretation would probably be based completely on one or two banal ayat with themes like “Allah will reward you if you help old grannies across the donkey path” or “Allah is super-wonderful and loves the believers.”

Asma Hasan’s oeuvre to date is an incoherent attempt at harmonization of Islam and democracy, Islam and feminism, Islam and you-name-it. Her writing is indicative of some individual attempts to imagine “ideal Islam” if Oprah Winfrey founded the religion. Combine that with a less endearing habit of conflating criticism of Islam with personal criticism of herself and all Muslims, and Hasan is not the long-prophesied savior who will lead the Muslims into the “Reformation” that so many non-Muslims anticipate and hope for. But then again, maybe there will be no savior, but those Muslims who for whatever reason or lack thereof save themselves from the all-encompassing implications of their deen. In this sense, the Reformation has long begun.

¹http://web.archive.org/web/20020204000402/http://www.stormpages.com/newreligion/sxnonviolentlyhappy.htm (link-rotted)

The site has since migrated to http://www.queerjihad.org from its former Geocities’ location.

(Found through http://www.galha.org/glh/212/webwatch.html.)

² http://www.al-fatiha.net/pamphlet.html

³ The further away from mainstream Islam the inspiration for the progressivism, the more likely the progressive reinterpreter is to explicitly call for reconciliation, as in the case of the out on the limb, “queer mujahedeen.” When the source texts are ambiguous or discordant, or the reinterpreter rejects part of the accepted corpus, primarily ahadeeth, then it’s more likely phrased as reclamation of Islam from the Muslims (and non-Muslims) who have distorted aspects of true Islam.

⁴ For an example of implicit allegorization (managing not to bring up Prophet Adam, 9DJG 'D3D'E), take the attempt by a few Muslims (in this case an Ahmadi) to make the Koran support evolution http://www.ldolphin.org/islamcreat.html . Most Muslim sites on the net discussing the matter deny human evolution.

⁵ That’s not to say that gender segregation hasn’t ever elicited a “prison-bi-hatch effect,” quite humorously contributing to dissonance between the commandments of the Koran and the sexual behavior of Muslim societies. Just as some Muslims through the ages have skirted the prohibition of alcohol, the presence of homoeroticism in couplets such as those composed about the “special friendship” between the famous conqueror Mahmud of Ghazna and Ayaz, his servant, leave little doubt that the “rumors” about sex-segregated societies like Afghanistan have historical antecedents.  

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-040302halekon.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes

⁶ For which, they can summon the support of the academic tradition of Goldziher and the mostly extinct sects and movements in early Islam for whom the ahadith didn’t hold as influential a position in jurisprudence and theology. For a quick introduction to hadeeth: http://atheism.about.com/library/islam/blfaq_islam_hadith.htm.

To make your head spin around until you spit pea soup, the multivalent probabilistic logic of the Sunni Hadith-sters: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/asa2.html

A little different than the truth table for the Koran: true (or as the Koran raises the trifling possibility before a haughty dismissal, false). For an example of hadith rejection correlating with a more progressive prospective on Islam, just spend some time reading the homepage of a Muslim sect that completely rejects ahadith, the Submitters: http://www.submission.org.

⁷ “Those of us who believe in the progressiveness of Islam can call Muhammad an emancipator and the Qur’an an emancipation proclaimation. At the very least, Islam espoused a progressiveness on slavery that was rare at that time.” Page 19. Hasan, Asma. American Muslims: The New Generation. 2000.

⁸ 5:48. “And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee.”

⁹ Interestingly, Hasan never gives an example of intellectual dishonesty to be examined. So I guess we can only take her word that they are big doo-doo head meanies.

¹⁰ http://www.nylawyer.com/extra/01/120401.html – most authors earn jack shat, so we can discount that Hasan wrote for the pretty pennies. And if she did, isolating her intentions would not be the same as responding to her declamations.

¹¹ Not to say that I agree with all four of the critics she mentions in toto. I most certainly do not. But just because I disagree with someone isn’t the determinant that they aren’t a serious thinker, with reasoning behind what they believe.

¹² I know, it’s a sixth sense, provided courtesy of the jinn. It helps connect the dots where others follow the path of denial.

¹³ http://www.pakistanlink.com/Asma/12072001.html – “Graham Blames Islam but Ignores American Muslims.”

¹⁴ “But we love our prophets ‘Isa (Jesus) and Musa (Moses)!” In an attempt to proselytize among Ahl-ul-Kitaab, Muslims are found of referring to Islam as the proper continuation of the Judeo-Christian prophetic chain. Nevertheless, in no uncertain terms shirk, or associating a mortal object or person with the immortal Allah is seen as the highest sin, worthy of eternal hellfire. Sorry Jesus freaks. And Allah appears to think that the Jews have done much the same with ‘Ezra…notwithstanding such claim is utter caca de vaca.

¹⁵ For some critics Hasan may be closer to the mark, given any large population p.

¹⁶ Greater in the sense that none of the “haters” that Hasan cites has matched their rhetoric with murder or incited others to violence.

¹⁷ See xii.

¹⁸ Violence is a human universal, but it is my contention that Islam is an obstacle to lessening conflict in the world.

¹⁹ Triliteral roots are a notable characteristic of the Semitic languages. Called shoreshim in Hebrew, and judhur in Arabic, most native nouns and verbs are formed from three root letters, with changes in the vowels, suffixes, and prefixes. For instance, K T B, a root common to both Arabic and Hebrew, is found in numerous words relating to writing (not that all the derivatives of a root are necessarily that close in meaning). E.g. in Arabic, Kataba – He wrote. Kitaab – Book. Maktaba – Library. Kaatib – Writer.

²⁰ Mandatory qualifiers – check. Ideological critique, fully aware of the existence of nominal Muslims and liberal Muslims, and the goodness of many conservative Muslims whatever the ideology’s implications – check. All systems go for getting the ad hominems anyways.

²¹ E.g. http://www.icna.org/sisterswing/mcna/page2.html – “Islam means ‘Peace’.”

E.g. http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/IslamAndViolence.htm – “To understand the nature of Islam and the truth about the assertion often made of Islam's espousal of violence. it is important to analyze this question clearly remembering that the word islam itself means peace and that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West.”

²² http://speed.city-net.com/%7Ealimhaq/tenyears/tenyears6.htm Jeremiah McAuliffe’s excellent essay on the state of American Islam