Talk:Liberalism and progressivism within Islam/Archive 1

There is no Liberal Islam. Some say there isn't, some say there is
Why do you come up with a new term as if it is a new religion? Why don't you say "I am a Muslim but this is the way I want to live my life?" What's wrong with this?

There is one religion and you are trying to fit it into your lives. It is the other way around, guys!! We change ourselves to be a better Muslim.

Whether s/he interprets the religion this or that, a true Muslim would easily see this as a fitnah! You are responsible to use your God-given mind and intelligence responsibly.


 * The above written by 156.56.101.139. (DJ Clayworth 18:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC))


 * Editing to try to fix this wrong impression: this article should probably be merged with Modern Islamic philosophy. Also linked fitnah in the comment above. -- Karada 18:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Liberal movements within Islam may disagree'! =) Please see my comment below. --Zeeshanhasan 20:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not come up with a new term as if it is a new religion. It ISN'T a new religion. I just use it to differentiate it from the mainstream Islam (which I would assume you're a follower of). Did you know that people are supposed to think, the majority of Muslims are prevented from that, because they did not study the religion or the Arabic language. In a sense, they are trying to organize a religion that has inorganization in its source. Abraham left Mesoptamia because he wanted to get away from organized religion. And here we are, trying to organize it into something that is defined by certain and definite boundaries. My notes to you are: A biased muslim would see as a fitnah, but a thinking muslim would find this to be possibly right and a possible way of interpreting Islam. A fundamental verse in the Qur'an itself describes the religion as "simple for the people and not a complication." (Personal interpretation) And here you are trying to complicate it! And yes, I am responsible to use my God-given mind and intelligence responsibly: I am using it to make muslims think for themselves and not go to Mullahs or Imams or Fuqaha's or Ulemas. Yes, I am a strict believer in ijtihad and not taqlid (which is imitation or tradition). Did you know, when one of the prophecies of the day of Judgement, is when you approach old men they say "We say "La Ilaha ila Allah" (There is no deity but God), because we used to hear our fathers say them, but we don't understand what they mean." That's because people imitate blindly, without thinking. Well, here it is, the future is on your hands now. If you want your children to say that statement, then it is you to blame. I have done my work by trying to make people think for themselves. I bid you a happy and potentially intellectual and interesting life. Oh, and Liberal Islam does exist. It's the Islam that doesn't enforce itself on people and tolerates differences and doesn't prevent people from enjoying themselves just because what they are doing is untraditional. You can find it in many places around the world. Although, we, as liberal Muslims or Ijtihadists are a minority. We still exist, and there's no denying that! I don't think it would be a good idea to merge it into Modern Islamic Philosophy, no matter how much this may cause criticism among people. PS I do hope you keep your mind open to people who are different, there is nothing wrong with difference. --Agari 07:48, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there really a liberal islam? maybe there are liberal muslims but there isn't liberal islam as it said to be in the article ... i can consider Abo Hanifa, Malik and Shaf'i to be liberals cause they interpret the qur'an and that what is called ijtehad ... but you cannot come with a fatwa not based on qur'an nor hadeeth and call it ijthad ... even secular muslims would not consider the idea of separating the church of the state to be islamic based ijtihad .... and so consedering tolerating homosexuality .... you can't say that god punished lot's people for being homosexuals and then letting muslims get away with it! it conflicts with the text even if you interpret it ... and if you dropped any verse of the qur'an you'll be as god said: "Do you people credit part of the Book upon the ground of Allah’s Authority and discredit part upon the ground of your authority? Indeed, he who adopts this line of conduct shall suffer for his offence".


 * Conclusion: There is no such thing called LIBERAL ISLAM, maybe LIBERAL MUSLIMS but not ISLAM! Turky


 * I disagree. There is a liberal version of Islam out there, as proven by Amina Wadud and plenty of other people.   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 01:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe fundamentalist Christianity is real christianity but many other people think it is and they helped elect Bush president so in the sense that someone out there believes fundamentalist Christianity is real we have to mention it. In the same way Liberal Islam exists because there are a number of people out there who believe it exists even if others do not believe it is real Islam. --Gbleem 13:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

&#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1580;&#1578;&#1607;&#1575;&#1583;&#1610;&#1577;
Can anyone provide a transliteration and translation of &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1580;&#1578;&#1607;&#1575;&#1583;&#1610;&#1577;, please? -- Karada 16:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just translated this as 'interpretation-based Islam' which conveniently agrees with the ijtihad entry. --Zeeshanhasan 11:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Al-Islam-al-ijtihadiyyah

Adjective agreement
Why do the adjectives in the bolded Arabic phrases at the top show feminine agreement with the word "Islam"? AnonMoos 14:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because "Liberal movements within Islam" exist in the same reality as الإسلام الإجتهادية, both are inexistent, exept on pages like this one! Google finds only two hits for the correct form الإسلام الإجتهادي, both in wikipedia. The form used by wikipedia exists only on mirror-pages of wikipedia.

Should remain separate article.
Modern Islamic Philosophy contains both conservative and liberal POV. However, Muslim liberalism does exist as a fairly coherent set of ideas, just as 'Muslim fundamentalism' etc.; and all such coherent bodies of thought with distinct POVs should have their own articles. Keeping this a separate article also cleans up other articles, including messy ones like Islamism and many others which are written from a particular POV; the easiest way to maintain NPOV is to simply insert a line qualifying each of those articles by saying 'liberal movements within Islam may disagree'. --Zeeshanhasan 11:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Feminism is likewise a major issue. For this reason, non-liberal Muslims are often critical of polygamy." Do liberal Muslims support polygamy or is this an error? I would think very liberal muslims would support polygamy but only if polygyny was also allowed.

You're right, of course, whomever you are. =) Thanks, I've corrected the error. --Zeeshanhasan 06:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Anarchism
I read this section (could have better citations)... and, well, this comment isn't so much about this section. However, if we are going to continue to add sections of the innumerable "liberal" strains of Islam then we are going to have to find better pay layout... meaning. A lot of liberal ideas are just thrown around... there isn't a set school for them so much, so organization is hard, but if we are going to continue to expand this page we must talk about it. gren 19:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does seem to me that this page is becoming very badly organized. The original structure focused on issues, not people, and so was useful in talking about a very broad spectrum of liberal views such as is found in Kurzman's books. However, the newest sections on North America and Anarchism don't fit that structure at all, mainly because they focus exclusively on particular individuals. The easiest way to take care of this would be to move the new material to separate articles on the Progressive Muslim Union of North America and Islamic Anarchism. What do people think of that? --Zeeshanhasan 16:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is an article on Islam and anarchism now, and I've edited it extensively. I do think that it should be mentioned here and link over there for the full, and I agree that discussing anarchism within the article on liberal Islam is unnecessary. There is a short explanation and a link to the main article now, and the expanded article doesn't focus on a single individual anymore. The restructuring of this particular article may be a good idea, though. Funkybeat 00:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq
I saw Jayjg reverted Heraclius' removal of Ibn Warraq and an external link... my question is.... does Ibn Warraq ever claiming to be "within Islam"? not to mention his view is much closer to the historically conservative interpretations... gren グレン 12:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is just part of Jayjg's usual "following me around" and reverting me on pages. Unless, of course, he can provide a reason for why Ibn Warraq should be included in the external links section of this page.Heraclius 14:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I also removed the links to a "no to political Islam" site. Once again, please explain the relevance of these links to a "Liberal movements within Islam" article.Heraclius 15:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

liberal movements' impact
It strikes me, that the article attempts to describe liberal movements within Islam, but there's no mention of it's social and political impact -or lack thereof- on Islamic societies past and present. --tickle me 19:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't ever seen a very good source on something like that... but, if there is a reliable study that'd be great. gren グレン 20:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Basically, I don't think it has resulted in many ascertainable changes to real-world social customs or institutions in any middle-eastern countries -- though an earlier version of Islamic reformism was somewhat influential in British India, and in Malaysia there's a lot of talk about "Civilizational Islam" (Islam Hadari, &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1581;&#1590;&#1575;&#1585;&#1610; ). AnonMoos 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam Hadari
In an earlier version of this article, I inserted a reference to the Malaysian version of progressive Islam, Islam Hadari or Hadhari (Arabic &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1581;&#1590;&#1575;&#1585;&#1610; ), i.e. "civilizational" or "sedentary" Islam (implicitly contrasted with Islam of desert nomads), but it got deleted from the article. I really think there should be some reference to Islam Hadari here, especially since it got a favorable mention at the recent OIC summit. AnonMoos 16:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ack, Malaysia is worth a mention. --tickle me 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Discovered there's an article on it, Islam Hadhari . AnonMoos 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Irreligious "Muslims"
I had originally added a section on atheism and agnosticism to distinguish liberals from cultural Muslims. However, It seems to have caused some disagreeing reverts (not by me) in the past few days. To clarify the issue and stop the reverting, I've added a few lines in the Reform Not Schism section to make this distinction.--Zeeshanhasan 07:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, my edits were just reverted again, and without bothering to discuss anything. User 12.2.239.15, I am not sure why you keep doing this. I would appreciate it if you would use this discussion page to explain this to me. I am trying to prevent people from making the assumption that liberals are irreligious; that was the whole reason for creating a separate category of Cultural Muslim. I certainly have no reason to disturb the POV of the Liberal Islam article, much of which I wrote last year. Thanks.--Zeeshanhasan 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Structure of page
The controversial issues section seemed like it could use some more structure, so I added sub-headings. --Zeeshanhasan 04:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Also tried to bring some uniformity to the links. Either everyone with Ph.D.'s should be called "Dr." and everyone teaching at a university should be "Prof.", or everyone should simply be listed by name. The latter is much simpler and easier to maintain (what if people get Ph.D.s and become professors?) so I chose to go that way. --Zeeshanhasan 09:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliance on secular scholarship
How's this for citations on this section? Firstly, Pervez Hoodbhoy's "Islam and science" book. Then from an essay on Soroush at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beh/islam_soroush_kamaly.html

For Soroush, the conceptual framework provided by modern science (social, physical, and biological) is not an ephemeral conventionalism which can [be] easily dispensed with... The crucial question is to explain how such conceptual changes in the human understanding of man, nature and society may affect our reading of the text of religion. From an epistemological point of view, this is in sharp contradistinction with the view point of some "traditionalists" who would prefer to adopt an instrumentalist view of science in order to circumvent such [a troublesome] enigma.(12)... (from note 12) For him, scientific theories are not seasonally fashionable fictions. Scientific realism implies a consistency and conformity in our use of scientific terms even in non-scientific domains of discourse. It is true that by adopting an instrumentalist view of scientific theories one  may be able to "save" religion as a respectable language game in the Wittgensteinean sense. In this way, religion and science may be kept separate with mutual respect --better to say, with mutual disdain-- with neither one interfering with the business of the other. But if one is not happy with this intellectual schizophrenia, one would have to admit the unicity of language and the objectivity of truth. If science is objectively true, and if religion is objectively true, they ought to be mutually consistent. If the theory of evolution and natural selection is true, the story of genesis has to be reinterpreted. There is but one science. --Zeeshanhasan 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2004&leaf=06&filename=7273&filetype=html

Quran, like all other religious books including the Vedas, is all encompassing in its range and it certainly talks about science (not exactly in a way science is known today). One can find interesting insights in all these sacred books but the engagement should end there and not in making Quran or the Vedas as full time preoccupation to read science in them, making it an end in itself. Such attempts within Islam got a tremendous boost from the well-funded Saudi project called ‘Scientific Miracles in the Quran’. The project got into comparisons of those verses of the Quran that deal with astronomy and embryology with the latest discoveries of modern science. Relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang theory, embryology – practically everything was ‘discovered’ in the Quran….Unfortunately, this variety is now the most popular version of Islamic science. --Zeeshanhasan 12:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Long addition within Ijtihad section
The recently added elaboration on progressives' philosophical approach to ijtihad should be moved to the modern section of the ijtihad article. It is making the ijtihad section much too long and unreadable here. The goal of this article should be to give an overview of all the aspects of liberal thought, not just ijtihad. --Zeeshanhasan 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How common are liberal views within Islam?
How common are liberal or modernist views? Anyone have any numbers, how it differs from country to country? What divisions of Islam are more prone to a modernistic view?

Pokeraddict 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult issue. One might ask how many Christians don't believe in the Resurrection. We're talking about internal beliefs which in many instances fly in the face of acceptable beliefs and in some instances are considered anathema. For example, what are the percentages for Muslims who don't necessarily think that Muhammad was the very last of God's prophets and where do they live? Well, first, this is a private matter and second, would not hinder participation in the community per se. We can look at certain public views which are symptomatic of deeper views at variance with the mainstream, but you are essentially asking for a census titled "Heretics and their Addresses." MerricMaker 02:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

heh well i can see how that could pose a problem. I was thinking more in terms of anonymous polling though but I can see the difficulties in that as well. I think the question i'm really looking for an answer to is how many agnostic moslims there are or rather how serious or important religion is to muslims of varying denomination. I was also thinking in terms of how dogmatic Islam is. Questions like how often do you go to mosque, how often do you pray, what are your views on people of other faiths or divisions of islam, do you abide by Fiqh etc. I would guess many of these questions have answers which are practical in nature and depends on the realities of the situation a person is living in but it seems certain schools take themselves more seriously than others. Pokeraddict 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that most of what you're after is still difficult to nail down. Shi'ite Islam has, for example, had a long tradition of adventurous intellectuals in the realm of theology (like the Niner and Twelver traditions, or Abu al Hallaj) but we would still generally call Shi'ites Orthodox in their views (unless you talk with some particularly inflexible Sunnis). One of my Muslim heroes, Zaiuddin Sardar, is one that I would call a liberal, but he is more often called a moderate and in some measure this may be for the sake of his safety and so as not to bring censure down upon himself and prejudice himself in the eyes of his audience. Also, it just does not do to think in monolithic or scientific terms about a religion. You can't really nail down given positions because there is such a breadth of highly nuanced ideas within a given issue. It might lend this article a bit more specificity in some ways, but most such information would still consist of very broad generalizations. MerricMaker 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked upon reading the content of this article (liberal islam). I was surprised to see the title, but then i thought this was probably a western (as wikipedia is somewhat western) understanding and phrasing of some schools of fiqh. I was surprised to see the other day in pages relating to fiqh some statements labelling some schools as more logical or liberal than others, but i understood how the writers of these pages came to those conclusions, although i somewhat disagree and think that brash labeles such as these should not be placed on such complicated important and fundemental aspects of islam or the understanding of islam. I do not think it is appropriate for a popular "source of information" to be so conclusive in matters that are definetly not conclusive or concluded. Regarding this article i was even more surprised. I get the impression wikipedia and some of its participants approach some matters in a very eurocentric view of islam and "mouvements" within islam. It is a fact, i agree that there are mouvements within islam, everything involving human understanding has some amount of mouvement in it. But I nonetheless think this article DEFINETLY is misleading. I get the impression, as i have studied the west and western history and philosophy, that this article examines islam in the same way people today examine christianity. Islam, can to a certain extent only be studied in the realm of the islamic scholarly circle itself, especially when examined by non-muslims. Not that these people or this "thought" is blasphemous or anything like that... but I myself or anyone else can start a sect or a religion and claim in someway or the other to be linked to islam, but should my views be considered part of islam? That is why we rely on scholars and experts in the formation of our ideas... I have a few main points. Islam is more clearly defined and/or the methods used to understand islamic law are clearer, especially in term of interpretation, then is christianity. Basically its not what you could consider islamic mouvements, popular mouvements yes but claiming it to islam would be a change to islam itself, its a bit like saying Hitler was democratic at the begining of his rule because he was elected democratically or, saying that it is democratic and liberal to prevent free speech if it is the result of the democratic process. It may be but the fact of the matter is that there is consensus on what democratic is, and this consensus disalows Hitler and the restriction of free speech from being democratic. I noticed that most of the people mentionned in the list are not scholars, and are defenetly not famous contributors to islamic science. Someone such as Mohamed Khatami is, not a high ranked scholar nor is he what a "liberal muslim" as you define it is. Despite this, which makes his use as an example irrelevant anyways, i say he should be examined for being a politician and not a scholar capable to forming accurate opinions on these matters. The title is misleading, liberal muslims yes... and that they can be called as long as Clinton and Sarkozi are liberal Christians. Finally there are many points which are supposedly agreed upon by "liberal muslims" which are agreed upon by some of the so-called "conservative muslims". These issues taken individually are only relevant to some westeners, and definetly does not contribute to a thorough and comprehensive understanding of islam. Really except for the method u described... interpretaion instead of litteral meaning, there is little use to this article. It is misleading, the title is misleading and the information worthy of being mentionned, such as the one just mentionned, should be used in other pages. Wikipedia has a responsibility if it trully plans to help change the world and "contribute to human knowledge" as some of ur contributors think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.14.78 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How common are liberal views within Islam?
I'm just another reader, and the lack of any concrete information (statistics) is really an issue here I think. I understand it's hard to get muslims to admit to liberalism, but surely there are polls about specific views that could at least contribute to some vague understanding of the prominence of this movement?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want a broad general perspective, it's that liberal-reformist movements in Islam had a certain impact in India a century ago, and Islam Hadhari is currently endorsed by the Malaysian government, but such trends have had almost no meaningful social impact whatsoever in Arab countries (where the social reformers who got some results were secularist nationalists, not Islamic modernists). In the late 19th-century, Muhammad Abduh was hailed as the great Arab reformer of Islam, but nowadays the Muslim Brotherhood is somehow seen as having the best claim to be the heirs of Abduh... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article would be greatly improved if you would include that, perhaps in a little more detail.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm somewhat baffled as to how such info could be integrated into the current format of the article, and I don't really have the depth of knowledge on this subject that would be necessary to reply in specific detail to someone who criticized what I would write... AnonMoos (talk)


 * Liberal movements in Islam are not as organised as, say, Reform Judaism or the like, but liberal muslims are out there. I am one, and I know quite a community around the world... ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 20:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We generally call them "Modernists"
Before I proceed, I should reveal my bias, as I am an arch-traditionalist.

A Modernist differs from a Traditionalist in that they commonly hold the view that times are different now, and that Islam needs to be rethought. A "modern" Islam will differ greatly from what is traditional, due to changing circumstances.

I won't criticize this movement in this forum, and in fact I have a lot of common ground with them in certain areas, especially aspects of public policy. On the other hand, it should be noted that they are by no means the only liberal Muslims out there.

Traditionalists are further split. I won't belabor you with the nuances, but two important camps that everyone should know about are the Wahabbis and the Sufi movement. In the west you will find many Sufi "modernists" (and many who are not), yet outside of the west the Sufis are almost exclusively Traditionalists. No matter which camp they're in, Sufis are typically "liberal" in their style, augmented by culture and circumstances.

The Wahabbis of course are that bizarre cult that sprang from Saudi Arabia in modern times. Funded by petrodollars, their views are well-known and well-reviled the world over. Whereas a Modernist might allow the Wahabbi to claim the title "Traditionalist", we don't.

The Wahabbi movement paints itself as "Traditionalist", and claims that it is recreating the days of the first three generations of the companions of the prophet Muhammad. In doing so, they have effectively jettisoned about 12 centuries of Islamic thought.

The Wahabbi movement was built from scratch, contrived really, in the late 18th century. At the time they were anti-scholastic Luddites, who, more than anything, were simply a natural reaction to the Turkish (Sufi) occupation of the Arabian peninsula. Later, funded and supported by the British, they successfully overthrew the Turks in the early 20th century. Soon afterward, oil was discovered, and thus the trouble began.

The Wahabbi movement would have been a minor footnote in world history, had it not been for the oil. Now the simplest Bedouin tribes controlled a vast amount of wealth and influence, while traditional sources of Islamic scholarship languished.

Eventually the Wahabbis began taking over publishing, schools, and universities. Traditional seats of Islamic wisdom the world over began taking Saudi money, and with it, Saudi influence. As we speak, the majority of students of Islamic studies the world over have gone to schools funded in some way by the Saudis, and used books and materials produced by or for them.

What should have been a minor, crazy movement, has captured the soul of Islam. It has re-invented Islamic history in it's own image. It has marginalized scholars that have been studied and revered for years, and it has re-interpreted Islam in a spiteful, petty and self-serving way.

They call themselves Traditionalists... we call them Pretenders.

Part of the Sufi Movement seeks a real Islamic Reformation... a Revival really. A return to the day when Muslims exhibited impeccable character, honor, wisdom and generosity. A day when we defined civilization, and were famous for mercy and tolerance. For us though, this isn't something to be invented, as a Modernist would say... no Islam for a modern age.

We say that the tough work has already been done... by scholars like Imam Ghazali and Ibn Arabi and so many others. We just need to return to our roots, and jettison this nonsensical cult that has captured our faith.
 * Don't forget to sign your posts! ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)