Understanding Islam Today: Traditionalists, Revivalists, and Reformers

BTW, before I write this post, I want to credit sister Nida from her blog "In the Shade of Islam", and my friends from our OPNO blog for inspipring and letting me re-post all these bits for ILH readers, even though I originally made the post for the OPNO blog.

This post came about from an argument between MOP & his wife, an OPNO author, about women praying in the Mosque with no barrier or wall between the women and the men of the Mosque. As non-muslim, you'd find a men-only Mosque totally sexist. I assure you most adamantly, I do too, and find this story most amusing, and to the point about the state of discussion that intellectually we are in today, regarding the religion of Islam, whether one is Muslim or not.

If you are a Muslimah, you may be on either side of the fence with this one, or trapped, like MOP is, in the middle, behind the barrier, and for knocking it down. So unto the tale:

Being that we were all about on a road trip, we were unable to pray in our individual houses, which is what is BEST/EASIEST/NOT A SIN for women (not men who are not travelling---for men who are not travelling it is a SIN/NO REWARD not to pray in the Mosque). Muslims get this belief that prayer is allowed/better for women in their individual houses, because the Prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings be upon him, told Umm Humayd Al-Sa`idiyyah "A woman's prayer in her house is better than in her courtyard, and her prayer in her own room is better than in the rest of the house." (Chain of narration recorded by Abu Dawud).

MOP's wife reasoned that this is because she can concentrate better on her personal connection with her Creator in her own home and she is physically very safe there. And that women being allowed to pray at home and not having to go to the Mosque as something that is compulsory for them, was a gift from their Creator, making their faith easier to maintain in the days when there was no brith control [for example, women & men were discouraged from bringing children to the Mosques that would interupt or hinder the worship and spiritual/intellectual development of others'] .

MOP's reasoning was that it hard for men to have that same connection to their Creator when a distracting woman is in the Mosque with them, and that if something is not done in the culture, it is merely best to avoid things that are sinful, and that it is not sinful for a woman to offer her prayers in a place that is not a Mosque.You see, dear readers, this whole argument came out from the fact that when we had stopped on our journey, we did indeed find a Mosque, but we could not find one that had an area purposely for women. Mosques in Oman usually have an entirely closed off seperate area for women to pray in. This Mosque it seems, at least in terms of the culture, been built soley for the use of men.

Now had there been such an area for women, I doubt MOP's wife would have argued very much. We are in agreement about the benfits of a woman's only side. There are many advantages to a closed-off women's only area, such as being able to adjust and re-adjust one's clothing, and them not having to worry as much about the Islamic requirements for their clothing, or even breastfeeding babies (not something you do while YOU pray, but something that can be done in an women-only side of a Mosque, and not something SO easily done when prayers are preformed by both the sexes together, and that, when a Mosque is mixed in terms of sexes, the Mosque purely becomes a learning and religious center for women, not a social one, whereas informal socialising may take place easily on a women's only area of a Mosque.

The important factor in the tale I am about to relate, is that in this case, there WAS no seperate women's area, but there was indeed a Mosque.

And, in Omani culture, this Mosque was used only by men.

As MOP's OPNO would argue, a Mosque is built for Islamic culture, not any nationalistic culture, and the rules of the Mosque are the rules of the religion, not those of the place where a Mosque happens to be built. Since there WAS a Mosque, albeit, lacking a seperate woman's prayer area, my dear friend and I had concluded that we would pray in the Mosque, rather than outside the Mosque.

MOP wanted us to pray outside.He was more than willing to pray with us there.

To sway his mind I said the following, quoting a saying of the Prophet Mohamed , peace and blessings be upon him: ""The Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) said, “If people knew the reward in praying Fajr and Isha together in the Mosque, they would go to the mosque even if they had to crawl.” And the chain of narration is recorded by Bukhari & Muslim. And the Prophet didn't just say 'if men knew, he said 'if people knew' meaning women too." So MOP related the hadith/saying about women's prayer being best in their homes. To which is my friend intelligently replied: "Habibi, we are far from our houses. But we do have a Mosque. The hadith does not say, 'it is better for women to pray in the courtyard of the Mosque than in the Mosque'. In fact, Allah [God] made it perfectly clear that women are to attend the Mosques in that the Prophet Mohamed told the men "Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from entering the House of Allah [i.e the Mosque]" and from many sayings of the Prophet and historical records, we KNOW that women among the BEST generation of Muslims prayed in the same room with the men, no barrier between them, albeit, in very modest dress void of perfumes, and in the back rows so that guys couldn't check out their butts." She was smirking.

MOP of course, knew it was perfectly halal for women to pray in the Mosque, and that we were all Muslim women dressed in a manner to attend any public event in the presence of men but he reasoned that since it was something regarded as outside the culture, it was ALSO perfectly acceptable to render prayers OUTSIDE the Mosque, and less trouble to do so.

WHYYYYY were there seperate prayer areas for women in Oman? both my friend AND I enquired of poor MOP. MOP said, because it was hard for men to concentrate on their prayers with women in the room. Why was this, all OPNO girls wanted to know (even the non-Muslim one) when the men among the earliest Muslims managed to, without treating the women like meat?

"Because it is a corrupt time for Muslims" MOP helplessly cited, which brought about the true reason for this post.

"More sin now than before?" my lips curled into a sneer at that line of reasoning.

MOP's wife and I are of western education, and both spent time as Muslims in the West. This line of reasoning annoys the heck out of us, because all [well, in Islamic scholarship anyways] Muslims believe that Islam as evidenced in the Qu'ran and practiced/explained by the Prophet Mohamed was the perfect example for all Muslims, for all times.

My girl, picked up from there, as it WAS HER husband afterall. "So you would reason, that we should leave off what was done by the Prophet, because what he left us with isn't good enough? That Islam should be CHANGED to meet these corrupt times?"

Of course, that is not what any decent Muslim Omani man could mean, but that is where his kind of reasoning leads. It leads to Muslims in the West who openly reject the things in their religion that don't so easily fit into their modern lives, like the jilbab and khimar, which takes the form of the black abaya and headscarf, that few Omani men like MOP would want their sisters and mothers and wives to reject. Yet in the West, my friend and I have seen it. Women say, it may be in the Qu'ran as a command, but it doesn't pertain to today. Well, there was no requirement of men and women praying seperate BEFORE but there is today. Same reasoning, opposite lines of the spectrum.

"What harm can come from you praying outside the Mosque?" MOP asked his wife as she shouldered her way past him up the steps of the Mosque as if she couldn't hear his question.

On our way there, an Omani boy, ten years younger than myself, tried to stop us, saying there was no women's Mosque. He did not know, that is was allowed for Muslim women to pray in a Mosque, so long as they did not wear perfume, and did all their Islamic requirements in way of public dress, and did not use the Mosque for purposes other than prayer and education from Islamic lectures. He did not know, clearly, that it is a SIN for a man to forbid a woman from attending the Mosque.

MOP prayed in front of us, we prayed in the back, and another Muslim man, who knew enough of Islam to calm the Omani boy down about us women being there, prayed on the opposite end of the Mosque from out party respectfully a small ways in front, as men are to do in the religion.

When we left the Mosque, OPNO belonging to MOP and he to her respectively, answered his question.: "The harm does not come from praying in the Mosque or outside it, but it lies in your reasoning, and what that reasoning allows us to forget. That boy no more knew what was allowed, than he knows why it is not allowed. Your reason, that it makes men uncomfortable, is not a reason in Islam, as Islam allows women to go where it is necessary and even pleasing and certainly beneficial for them to go. The women of Sahaba [the first Muslims] interacted with men in Islamic capacities where it was halal [not sinful] and beneficial for society for them to, in education, business, and religion. The danger, and it IS evidenced IN OMAN for our Western/Convert eyes to see--- by the way, is that when you seperate us from the Mosque, men stop seeing us equals in the religion, and more as meat. You see us as mothers maybe, and wives, at best, and at worst... If men cannot behave as the Prophet himself behaved at the Mosque, than they have no business/right of being there either."

MOP regarded her desperate plea, and assured us he was on the same side, and wanted very much for these things to be changed, but didn't want his wife to be the one to do it, in the manner that she did.

But then who is to to do it? We asked? Who is to change it?

We all agreed, seperate areas for women had their benefits, and women enjoyed them, but that some women suffered from their inability to approach Imam's weekly or daily with questions, or to recieve the same education and information Muslim men recieve from attending the Mosque regularily.

MOP even admitted to us, that in his village in Oman, women do not come to the Eid prayers, when praying the Eid prayer in congregation is CUMPULSORY on muslim men AND WOMEN, even women who have their periods, ect...

That is the danger of reforming/pseudo reviving of Islam. You lose the right legality, and the true message of it, whether the reform is in a liberal or a conservative direction.

Which brings me to:Today, there are, intellectually, 3 different ways of studying Islam, no matter the sect or manner of jurisprudence within those sects.Now I am stealing these definitions, credit to sister Nida, from her blog http://theidealmuslimah.blogspot.com/2010/12/revivalists-vs-reformers.html, and she's stealing it from Abdelwahab El-Affendi ;):

TRADITIONALISTS
Definition: Those following traditionally approved approaches and methods of interpretation, and basically handing down what has come from before in the same manner as before. These do not wish to update Islam, and seek to do what has always been done ie come to the same conclusion. *many intellectually documented ways of studying & viewing Islam are reform or revival based Islam passed down in the manner of traditionalists but those same types of intellectual Islam would not necessarily BE traditionalist in nature*

REVIVALISTS
Definition: Revivalists distinguish themselves from traditionalists by redefining the tradition into purist terms, while the former tend to accept the traditionl more or less in the context as it was handed down. The purpose of doing so it to impose an idealizized idea of Islam, with a tendancy to instrumentalize religion and to define their movement sociologically, rather than theologically. This can be done in either a very conservative or very liberal manner.

Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi's conclusion of this movement in terms of discussing Islam, the same as, and so much more eloquently expressed than my own: "Their version of instrumentalized Islam is spiritually, artistically, and humanly impoverished and narrowly partisan.”

REFORMERS
Definition: Reformers differentiate themselves from Revivalists by interrogating the tradition in more radical ways. Seeking to exploit the differences and conflicts within orthodoxy to eliminate or discredit those aspects of the tradition that have become difficult to defend in the modern era, selectively picking and choosing from various accepted authorities to support their modernizing (usually liberal, but not always) agenda.This approach seeks to work within the confines of orthodoxy while working hard to redefine it. It attempts to develop a radical rereading and reinterpretation of traditional Islamic sources by adapting traditionally approved approaches and methods of interpretation.Ultra-radical reformers launch a frontal attack on traditionalism, sometimes advocating treatment of the Qur’an as a “human” text and using the tools of modern literary criticism to decipher it.

Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi observes that "such a deliberate drive for a reformation... is based on copying another (Christian) experience in another religious tradition in another era is condemned from the start to the loss of innocence: it is no longer religious reform but social engineering and intellectual tinkering.” Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi wrote, that while reform of Islam is much applauded from non-muslims in the West, that they should be cautious in this as well: “The efforts of U.S.-based Muslim intellectuals to undermine Islamic authoritarianism could warrant an “even more ambitious agenda following up on changes in Islam’s ideology with changes in leadership and religious practices.” Much justifies these ambitions, but ambition must not be allowed to shift to illusion. To move from a valid appreciation of the increasing importance of the intellectual contributions of Western Muslims to a “wag the dog” theory that ascribes to them a leadership role in religious reform may be as misguided (and as dangerous) an illusion as the idea that creating an American colony in Iraq would be an advertisement of America’s love for democracy and an inspiration for freedom lovers throughout the Muslim world. Both illusions spring from the same quintessentially Western overconfidence, even arrogance, of which Muslim Westerners are not immune.”

I wholly agree, as a Muslim who lived in the west, letting the likes of Tariq Fatah and Irshadd Manji speak for me, and represent Islam, is misguided. Though one MIGHT say, the same reform movements exist in Egypt, ect.... to quote Nida who'd say it like I would but better;): "What defines 'progressive' islam is a distinct Western liberal ideology, so anyone ascribing to this ideology, be they American or Egyptian or whatever, is elevating Western ideology above tradition (a universal set of moral and ethical values). I believe the reason why the progressive ideology is popular in places like Egypt is due to the deep rooted colonial and neo-colonial legacy. It is mostly people who have been 'exiled' from their countries and had a 'Western/European' intellectual upbringing who are the leaders of this particular movement."But that does not mean, living here now in Oman, that I am free from the influence and power of such misguided reform movements. As this entire post has been an example of, the same line of reformist thinking exists heavily in even Arab culture.as Nida pointed out, what some call 'revivalism' is in fact reform: "changing the religious interpretations to an idealized modern vision of what they believe Islam looked like at the time of the prophet (peace be upon him)", regardless of whether or not that vision is based on the classical interpretations of Islam. "As per the mosque example, according to the classical texts women used to pray directly behind men, and now they are being boxed away into small corners of the mosque and encouraged to pray at home. The argument that is being used to justify this practice in some mosques is that "today there is more fitnah/sin"; therefore implying that we have to re-interpret Islam for modern, albeit corrupt, historical time period."

People have to be aware of where their ideologic reasoning leads them, same as when one studies socialism/fascism, two spectrum of the same line of reasoning.

I myself, do not support a reformation of Islam but a reformation of self, and the only revival I engender, is one of knowledge and awareness.

Hijab has been thoroughly documented on I LOVE HISHMA: onto sects in Islam since people made a big fuss about them on this blog:)

It's been a long time now hasn't it. Sorry life has a way of getting crazy.

But I would totally like to do a new section which is the study of Islamic sects (my personal thoughts interjected so please forgive) and after that, Islamic history AFTER the death of the Prophet Mohamed S.A.W.

I will say what I personally find correct, but I am going to try and find some guest writers to write from the perspectives of other sects, like Shia and Ibadhi, (and other, MORE splinter sects of each of us) as well, since I am SOOOOOOOOOOO tired of people on this blog being mean to me for me believing as I do, and feeling compelled to write what I BELIEVE or know to be correct. So if we all say what why we do what we do, call ourselves as we do, then at least, if we agree to disagree, it isn't in ignorance.

I want to do this because there is huge misunderstandings between us all. And I want the ummah united.

"I truly believe that the names Sunni (of the sunnah) Shia (followers of Ali) [Because Sunni, Shia, and Ibadhi all recognized Ali to be a Calipha at one time] and Ibadhi (Obedient to the Will of Allah) should apply aptly to ALL Muslims. . We SHOULD be these things, regardless of what we call ourselves. We should not be nations or titles, but everything that a Muslim is supposed to be." -Pixie

We *SHOULD* only say "I am a Muslim".

At the same time, I *HATE* when people use hadiths that don't go back to the right time period, or the chains of narration that are broken, or misuse term they don't understand, or the narrator was historically known to be a liar, or the historian had a political bias.

SO ACCADEMICALLY TERMS MUST EXIST. But let us explore them and their origins, and impact TOGETHER, as a Muslim ummah that desires knowledge of it beginnings, to determine its course.

So this new section of I LOVE HISHMA will begin (albeit slowly) with me, Pixie, saying, "I am a Muslim". This is what I am saying from a purely Islamic standpoint. I acknowledge that other Muslim bloggers with different historical understandings than me, through THEIR understandings, are also Muslims, though ACCADEMICALLY, on this point I *might* sometimes disagree, and they with me.

Can we do this together, all with the greatest respect to eachother? Do we have the will to see things from a different perspective to perhaps see where maybe we had some bias or misinformation, or misunderstanding as to other's intentions?

I am certainly not asking anyone to be threatened to conform to my way of seeing the world. But I want to know what you see and how you see it, expressing at the same time, what I do, where something makes sense, or where something contradicts what I know.

So if ya'll approve... We can start in the next few days inshaAllah :)

My shia sistas, I'll probably need your help for your perspective, since I am kinda far off from yours on a few basic things, so if ya'll don't mind for the benefit of others, sharing why you believe something and why you do things:) [At the same time not being offended if I don't post a hadith of yours (goes for Sunni and Ibadhi too!) that I believe is not sahih since I have to use what I consider ACCADEMIC historical authentication which I studied in univeristy.] So please, if I ask for help, please do, and without offense. I am actually not hating on anybody, though I have been told my writing tone can be harsh. I am very against discrimination and "ya'll are not Muslims" antics. Wallah, lol.

K, that's all for now. Let me know your thoughts.

Ammendment: I want to stress, after reading Nida's most excellent post that I HIGHLY recommend for my readers if any of you remain after my long absences;) http://theidealmuslimah.blogspot.com/2010/12/progressivism-humanism-and-islam.html, I do believe that there is only ONE Islam. I do not possibly think that all sects can possibly correct. But I personally need knowledge of them, and my own, to determine if I am indeed "Just a Muslim" or if I am following something less than what the Prophet Mohamed Sallahu alahi wa salaam was upon.

To quote Nida in short (and the Qu'ran) :D in case you're to lazy to follow the link:

“Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18)

“And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.” (6:116)

And from these, and many other verses like it, God tells us that most of these interpretations are false. Additionally, He tells us that there is only one siraat al mustaqeem.

“Mankind was [of] one religion [before their deviation]; then Allah sent the prophets as bringers of good tidings and warners and sent down with them the Scripture in truth to judge between the people concerning that in which they differed. And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it - after the clear proofs came to them - out of jealous animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path.” (2:113)

“Progressive Islam” would like to have us believe that we can all live in our own truth – that all those wild interpretations out there are all Islam. But this cannot be. Allah revealed one religion to the prophet(s). Islam is one, while interpretations are many. Let’s be careful not to conflate the two.

-from Nida, author of the blog, "Ideal Muslimah"

491 Unmoderated Comments, OH DEAR!!!!

Asalaam alaykom ramatullahi wa barakto dearest sisters (and extroidinarily LOYAL followers):

I have been AWOL. I have 491 unmoderated comments! I don't know what to start with. I still don't have a computer so please forgive me, I don't like to go to internet cafes.

As for my personal life, I have settled quite nicely in Oman. I have a beautiful villa in a safe neighborhood (as opposed to before) and Y is coming in Ramadaan. Boxie will be back unless we marry her off.

I got offered a job in the abaya industry and in journalism here but for some reason where I am working right now just seemed more right. I am focussing less on dawah and more on educating myself (forgive all LOL, it is one of the blessings of being in the Gulf). But I still get to give dawah, ironically, to born Muslims.

I truly do love Oman. It is peaceful here.

A unique thing I have learnt about the country is the types of Islam practiced here. The main population of Oman practices Ibhadhi Islam, a small small minority are Shia (mainly in Mutrah area), and the Sunnis tend to be from Sur (Sharqiyah region). So I have had the oppurtunity to study Shia sources and Ibhadhi ones. I still hold fast to believing my readings in the Sunnah carry more weight and the basic principles of Shiaism to me are very wrong (also the history of the Saudi Royal Family makes me soooooo mad about what they practice as 'sunnah'). One of my friends who is shia got kicked in the head on hajj for using her clay stone. I of course think the use of the stone a bida but kicking someone ( a little girl of 8!!!!) in the head????? HOW IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE HER MIND? MAKE HER MINDLESS maybe... Grrrr.

Anyways, love Oman, will try to post more regularily. I have just taken a vacation from blogging. Please forgive!

Love always,
-Pixie