Appadurai and Halliday

In this post I will be writing about Fred Halliday's chapter West encountering Islam: Islamophobia reconsidered in light of chapter 3 of Arjun Appadurai's Modernity at Large.

In my previous post (entitled "Qutb and Appadurai"), I talked about how Seyyid Qutb's Milestones seems to focus mostly on ideoscapes. Halliday's, on the other hand, talks more holistically about various other kinds of scapes, in addition to ideoscapes. One of the things he discusses is the international dimension of the Islam/West divide. He writes that the divide is "fuelled by the misuse of history and culture on both sides" (p. 20). History and culture fall within the arena of ethnoscape. Halliday also says that the international dimension involves wealth (p. 20), which is parallel to Appadurai's finanscape.

In more explicit contrast with Qutb, Halliday actually elevates the importance of ethnoscapes over the importance of ideoscapes. He argues that a faith-based "Muslim" identity is not sufficient to understand the Muslim world; divergent ethnic identity is often more significant than having a shared Muslim faith (p. 21). So while Qutb emphasizes ideoscapes, Halliday emphasizes ethnoscapes, as well acknowledging the importance of all of the other scapes.

When I read Halliday's discussion about the international dimensions of the Islam/West divide, I couldn't help but think of the current Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Halliday brought up the issue about the Palestine/Afghanistan conflict. He writes that Palestine's hostility toward Muslims stemmed from a "one-sided sympathy" for Israel, and that the reverse was true for Afghanistan (p. 19). I wonder if this is true for the U.S. as well. Obviously, Islamophobia in the U.S. is largely connected to the events of 9/11 and the ensuing "war on terror." However, is it possible that some of the Islamophobia also stems from the U.S.'s support of and alliance with Israel?

-GGM

Qutb and Appadurai

In this post I will be writing about Seyyid Qutb's Milestones and chapter 3 of Modernity at Large by Arjuan Appadurai.

Viewing Milestones in light of Appadurai's conceptualization of globalization, it seems that Qutb focuses mainly on ideoscapes (as opposed to any of the other scapes outlined by Appadurai). Qutb's ideal society is based in Muslim ideology. He focuses more on Islam than on anything else as a foundation for society. He argues that Islam is "the only system" that can provide humanity with the values necessary for life and with a lifestyle that is "harmonious with human nature" (p. 8).

Of course, Qutb's writing also addresses other scapes, including finanscapes. Qutb argues that both communism and capitalism are inadequate: he writes about "the humiliation of the common man under the communist systems" and "the exploitation of individuals…under the capitalist systems" (p. 11). According to Qutb, communism is dehumanizing, while capitalism produces greed, materialism, and imperialism. Here we see something interesting. Qutb believes that Islam offers the only economic solution. But Islam is an ideology, not an economic system. Thus we see one intersection between finanscapes and ideoscapes.

I am surprised that Appadurai's conceptualization of globalization doesn't include "politicoscapes," or something similar. A relevant example of the spread of global flow within the political arena is the spread of democracy (or at least the desire to spread democracy). Isn't this a part of globalization? When the U.S. hunted Saddam Hussein "in the name of democracy," isn't that a product of political globalization? It is therefore surprising to me that Appadurai did not include such an important aspect in his theory of globalization. Perhaps he meant for the political arena to be subsumed under ethnoscape.

-GGM

Sayyid Qutb: Removing the Jahilliyah influence on Islamic traditions in the modern world

In the book Milestones, Sayyid Qutb discusses a lot about the Jahiliyyah period, the time of ignorance. For Qutb, the Jahili traditions or concepts are a danger for the true Muslim community. He mentioned how “we must free ourselves from the clutches of jahili society, jahili concepts, jahili traditions and jahili leadership” (p.21). This essay questions the meaning of the Jahili concept, and what it means to free ourselves from ‘jahili’. Does it mean we have to change our life style in a certain way, or does it mean we have to get rid of some of the principles and values that we are taught in order to avoid being a Jahili society.

Qutb analyzed Jahiliyah and explained in depth what it means. In page 37, he told that the Qur’an encourages the Muslim followers to struggle for the removal of all Jahili influences which are found in the ideas, practices and morals of the Muslim community. The fact that the Muslim community is growing, makes it more likely that the principles and values of Islam develop towards gaining western ad modern influences. Interpretations of broad quotes from the Qur’an or hadiths are the first steps Muslims can take in influencing the real meaning of the Islamic values. Social activities are also another trigger of these Jahili influences and will develop or become stronger as the world becomes older. The influences of modernity, is slowly but constantly influencing the Islamic traditions, and Qutb is claiming that these influences are Jahili and should be removed from the Islamic culture.

Qutb mentions that “we are also surrounded by Jahilliyah today, which is of the same nature as it was during the first period of Islam” (p.20). He argues that our whole environment, people’s beliefs and ideas, habits and art, rules and laws is Jahiliyah. He also mentions that this is the reason why the true Islamic values never enter our hearts. One of the habits of human beings’ are coping with others in order to avoid feeling left behind. Qutb is suggesting that the only way we can avoid following the Jahili concepts is by not “bargaining” with the Jahili society. The Jahili society, which he mentions surrounds us, are the impure society. Those who do not submit to god, and do not do exactly as ordered by god, but in fact, shaping the orders, making them more related to the Jahili traditions.

An example of this is the modern jahili societies, who stretched the meaning of morality making more things that are immoral in the religion become moral. They consider acts such as homosexuality as moral, and expect all societies in their area to accept that. I would argue that this is one of the way how the Muslim societies’ perception and values can be influenced. The fact that Muslim societies exist in almost all parts of the world, and they are listening to these social expectations, made them think and perceive differently than what religion have taught them. This is why Qutb is arguing that to remove Jahili values from the Muslim traditions; we have to avoid bargaining the concept of morality, and avoid making interpretations far from the real meaning.

Rossa D.

On Qutb

With the month of March coming to a close, as a class we are both closer yet at the same time further from answering the overarching question of whether Islam and modernity are compatible.  This past week was dedicated to looking at the response of conservative Islamic scholar Seyyid Qutb to modernity.  A mid 20^th century Egyptian scholar and leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutb was/is one of the foremost critiques of modernity within the framework of Islam and a key supporter and proponent of Islamism.  His most famous work Milestones is controversial for its interpretations of Jihad and its strict interpretation of the Qur’an.  While the discussion of Jihad is dominates the discussion of Qutb’s work, it is also important to reinforce the fact that it was originally written as a response to modernity. 

            An interesting thing about Milestones is one can imagine it being written throughout history.  A common response by reformers is to speak of an idyllic time period or setting.  A desire to bring the faith back to its origins is advocated by Qutb.  While it may seem counter-intuitive to discuss Qutb’s work as a common response by religious reformers, it also brings up the important point that Qutb is writing a book of resistance brought upon by a certain climate.  Qutb is a reformer working to change an aspect of society that he finds troubling.  Yet, he does praise some of the achievements of modernity and would find room in his idealized civilization for such things as technology.  Progress is not necessarily the enemy.  Instead, Qutb is reacting to what he sees as Jahiliyyah (defined in English as ignorance of divine guidance) throughout the world including not only the West but also large segments of Muslim societies. The Jahiliyyah of Qutb is extremely offensive to the point that he feels it should be attacked if necessary.  By proclaiming Jahiliyyah as existing during times other then the modern era (i.e. the vast majority of the existence of Islam), Qutb shows that while many of his ideas are actually common throughout history, he is in fact reacting to a certain time.

            So in conclusion, does Qutb believe that Islam and modernity are compatible? The answer is that a true Islamic society in the sense that Qutb interprets it as not fully compatible.  Certain aspects such as technology is allowed and even encouraged, but that is only a small segment of modernity.  However, the Jahiliyyah which Qutb is quick to criticize is also a type of Islam and modernity.  Yes, Qutb does not believe it as representing true Islam.  Ignoring complex interpretations on this statement, Qutb implicitly acknowledges a type of Islam (which he disagrees with) that is compatible with modernity.  Furthermore, even Qutb is willing to acknowledge some benefits of modernity including the technological and scientific progress that is a result.  As we have defined in class, are these not aspects that many consider modern?  While not fully modern, Qutb’s Islam would still be open to certain aspects of it.  

BDF

Islam and Modernity: To be or not to be?

The book, On Being a Muslim by Farid Esack, was useful in terms of giving me an overall understanding of what it means to be a Muslim in a modern world. His viewpoint, which derived from his experiences, conveyed the means of identity in Islam. Some of the questions that were raised while reading this book was the question of whether Islam promotes the idea of modernity or whether modernity promotes some ideas from Islam.

In the chapter on being with Allah, one quote that really interested me was when Esack said, “Prayer does not only influence our lives, it is also influenced by it” (p.31). The reason for this is because, this quote seem to acknowledge that the Islamic culture sometimes need to accustom with the changing world. However, this would raise the problem or the question of to what extent. Is there a limit to how religion should accustom to modernity.

Esack talked a lot about this in his book using many examples and bringing western ideologies and explaining it in an Islamic content. For example, he used the wheel of growth, reproduced from the Life Line Trainees’ Manual, that reflects some of the stages in our encounters with ourselves and the potential which they have for growth. Esack connected what’s conveyed in this wheel to the sayings of the prophet. In page 48, he wrote about how the prophet mentions that those whose two days are equal is a loser. In other words, those who do not grow is a loser.

In page 44, Esack talked about the struggle of being a Muslim but coping with the changing world. He said, “ The challenge to me a s a Muslim is thus to avoid living a life of perpetual war with all that’s around me but to live contemporaneously, fully alive to and responsive to all the impulses of modernity, even as I struggle to reach to Allah”. Although in books or papers people can argue that Islam is against modernity, and that true Muslims should not develop in that way, sometimes it is impossible to completely ignore the changing world. In the real world, we are all exposed to the media, we all consume fast food, we all respect growth. This means that, no matter how hard a true Muslim tries to avoid being involved in modernity, they will eventually enjoy some aspects of it. Prophet Muhammad himself is a supporter of growth. Doesn’t that mean to be a Muslim we should respect the changing world?

To some up I would like to talk about how this is all related to Shakespeare’s famous quote of “to be or not to be”.  The reason why modernity occurs is because of human demands. We demand better quality of life, and technology, entertainment, and all that fulfills it. So should a Muslim respect that? But if they do respect that can they still identify themselves as a good Muslim follower? This is why the question to be or not to be, really refers to “to be or not to be a good Muslim when following modernity”.

Rossa D.   

Muslim “Progressives”: Attackers of the very foundations of Islam from within

In December 6, 1960, Meryam Jameelah, wrote a letter to Maulana Maudoodi, a very known Muslim Theologian, revivalist, and a journalist. In the letter, Jameelah talked about how she wanted to devote her life “to the struggle against materialistic philosophic-secularism and nationalism” which was threatening the survival of Islam and the whole human race. She explained how she has read a few articles about westernization and secularism, which some addressed the compatibility of Islam and modernization. Maudoodi, replied by expressing how happy he was with Jameelah’s intentions and ideas, and already regarded her as a muslim-sister.

Jameelah and Maudoodi discussed the many issues of the influence of modernization to the traditional Muslim culture and how there are many Muslim “progressives” who are changing the values of fundamental Islam. Jameelah’s main concern in her first letter sent to Maudoodi was about the Muslim “progressives”. She challenged the idea of how westernized thinking is praised as liberal, forward looking, and progressive, while those who think as how they do (traditional) are branded as reactionaries and fanatics who refuse to face the realities of the day. Maudoodi mentioned, that “these westernized Muslims over whose lack of Islamic spirit you are lamenting, are the worst products of western colonialism in Muslim countries”(2^nd Letter). He evaluated that it was imperialism that produced many mental slaves, who are now faithfully following the steps of their former masters.

Among the many issues that they discussed, I will list some of the critiques that both Jameelah and Maudoodi agreed to be problematic. The first reality that caught my attention was society’s perception towards smoking cigarettes and drinking. As a college student, I understand what Jameelah means when she disagreed with the many people that cannot live without cigarettes or cannot go to parties without drinking. These modern people are depending on object to enjoy their lives and ven to continue their lives without depending on their faiths and believe. The modern people rely on objects that can definitely hurt them in the future. Smokers know that smoking can cause cancer, but they keep doing it and praising it. Alcoholics know that ‘over-drinking’ can ruin their lives and other’s lives, but they keep drinking and getting drunk.  Another issue that Jameelah argued and Maudoodi agreed about is fashion, Jameelah mentioned how she thinks that the western fashion designers are just creating fashion that makes western women look more and more like a “street-walker”. She talked about the meaning of clothes which is created for modesty.

Going back to Jameelah and Maudoodi’s explanation about progressive Muslims, I feel that their critiques really address these issues. Progressive Muslims are changing the basic or fundamental ideals about Islam. We can see or find many Muslims nowadays that claim to be Muslims, but drink Alcohol, and dress minimally. While it is obvious that Islam prohibits Alcohol as it is “haram” (prohibited) and enforces Muslims to dress modestly.  When questioned, these progressive Muslims spread their ideas about how drinking is not prohibited if you drink just a little, and it is okay for muslim women to wear miniskirts or minim dressing as long as they  don’t seduce the men. When they answer these question based on their wrong understandings, other Muslims think about their ideals and adapt them. They too, become progressive Muslims that later forget the real rule as how it is mentioned by the Prophet or written in the Quran. This is why Muslim Progressives can attack the very foundations of Islam.

Rossa D.

Conservative Islam and Modernity

Abdul Al-Maudoodi often criticized modernity as illustrated throughout his correspondence with Maryam Jameelah. Maudoodi critiques modernity through the framework of of fashion, women’s roles in society, and economic development.  Additional targets of Maudoodi include the concept of nationalism and attempts to incorporate “western” ideas into Islam.  If we define all of the above statements as aspects of modernism (or at least heavily influenced by them), the logical conclusion is that Maudoodi (as well as Jameelah) is anti-modern.  At the very least, many would argue that he is a fundamentalist.  Yet, for all his criticisms on the modern world, Maudoodi is a modernist.  How is such a paradox possible? After all, this is a man who espouses an adherence to a literal interpretation of Islam. 

            If Al-Maudoodi has a problem with many modern concepts, he certainly does not have a problem with its outshoots out of intellectual, philosophical, and theological components.  For instance when he informs Maryam about his various health issues, he subtly illustrates the fact that he is taking full advantage of modern medicine and medical technologies.  He certainly does not object to modern means of communication as evidenced by his correspondence with Maryam. Transportation is not a problem for him either as he perfectly willing to travel to Africa (only his health and some political reasons hold him back).  Within his personal life, Maudoodi’s daughters are studying economics and English literature, and Maudoodi is developing a curriculum with modern components at a university in Saudi Arabia.  One may argue that this is relatively hypocritical of a man who is at heart a fundamentalist.  This misses the point.  Maudoodi is a fundamentalist and a modernist.  In fact, he represents a way for a conservative Islam and modernity to co-exist. 

            There are have been three kinds of Islam and modernity illustrated in class so far.  First, there is the complete break method, articulated by leaders and thinkers such as Ataturk ,which seeks to borrow heavily or adapt to the West.  Next there is that advocated by Farid Esack and others attempting to steer a middle road between retaining Islamic faith and radically changing it.  Finally there is the seeking of a return to the fundamentals of Islam.  Although a critic of modernity, Maudoodi certainly is not advocating its destruction.  What he criticizes is more about specific practices that he does not believe fit within an Islamic framework such as nationalism or Westernization. 

            In some way, it is impossible to find a man who is not modern.  Cultural pressures are too hard to withstand unless one completely isolates the self from society.  Even those seeking a break from modernity (think Al-Qaeda) reflect their modernity simply by responding to it.  Critics may complain about aspects of modernity but the question that needs to be asked is if anybody is truly happy with modernity.  Nothing in the world is perfect and it would be impossible to engineer a truly utopian society.  Even on the far-right of Islamic thought, organizations such as Al-Qaeda utilize modern developments such as the internet as a way of passing on information.  Modernity influences the every move of all peoples (with a few small exceptions of uncontacted peoples).  To put this into context, compare Maudoodi’s viewpoints with that of many fundamentalist American Evangelicals. Many of the arguments have a similar ring.  Few would argue that the Christian fundamentalist is modern nor that his conservative beliefs are incompatible with modern society. While Maudoodi may not necessarily think himself a modernist, he (and virtually the entire world) is one.

BDF

Islam, Spirituality and Modernity

Farid Esack you breath new life into faith and what it means to be faithful; you paint a fresh and alive picture of Islam and what it means to be spiritual. I may not practice Islam, but to watch Esack work through his spirituality within Islam helps guide even me through my spiritual path and well-being.  He writes with the right amount of wit, wry humor or comments that he makes as he traces the legal steps of the religion.

As he expands in “More to the Rituals than Motions?” the questions he raises speak beyond Islam. “Where do the formal prayers for into the Islamic scheme of things that they should be seen as synonymous with the trust assumed by humankind? Prayers,, being the second of the five pillars of Islam, can not be viewed apart from the rest of the structure for they do not have an intrinsic value apart from the rest of the structure for they do not have an intrinsic value of their own.” Taking the risk to look at the previously unquestioned aspects of religion/faith, Esack makes all practicers of religion look at themselves, what we each do for our religion/faith and question it. Esack pushes us to question what we have been told for so long to never question. When I pray, am I being sincere in my words, my actions or am I thinking about other things? Am I only kneeling because this is what I am supposed to do? What would hold more value to Allah: performing each prayer perfect and on time each day or working to spend my days in connection with Allah so my prayers may be a little ‘off’ but are in the most sincere form of connection with Allah. Esack, while not discounting the importance of these strict rituals, also puts forth the idea that these rituals are not what actually connect us to Allah. He has some weight saying this, as he was an incredibly devout and legalistic practice of Islam for most of his early life. He realized during these years that he was not achieving the close connection that he wanted to have with Allah. He was legalistic in his prayers and rituals, but that was not what creates that spiritual connection, inherently that is.

            I think Esack is onto something with this realization of his: rituals and legalistic following does not inherently equal a deep meaningful spiritual connection with Allah, or any god. It reminds me of my own spiritual and religious path. For me, I actually began going to church on Tuesdays and praying. I began being purposeful in how I interacted with the world and its people. The difference in connection, I can attest, is profound.

            Now, I thoroughly enjoyed, on a intellectual and exasperated level, Esack’s story of “Pepsi Shows the Way”. It just figures that globalization would have a direct and obvious effect upon religions despite their old age. Nothing is left unaffected by globalization, not even the most sacred of places.

            I also, thoroughly enjoyed how multiple lines of Esack’s book could be read to support homosexuals. For example, under the section of “Between Allah and a Neurotic Self” he writes “”an authentic relationship with one’s self will lead to one to an authentic relationship with Allah.” One could read this to say that for individuals finding themselves attracted sexually to those of the same sex, that they should not try to ignore or stuff down those feelings, because that would mean that you are being inauthentic to yourself and inauthenticity with yourself leads to an inauthentic relationship with Allah. I find this powerful because it encourages people to be who they are and not allow any one else to dictate one’s own identity.

            After all of our discussions about modernity and Islam and if these two can work together, I feel like Esack would claim that Islam and modernity could work together. Esack proposes and very modern version of Islam, one made for the world coming towards us.

W.H.B.

Once Again: Questioning Islam and Modernity in The Correspondence Between Jameelah and Mawdudi

Correspondence between Maryam Jameelah and al-Mawdudi exposed the class to ideas that dramatically oppose those we previously learned about in thought in the Liberal age and Alvec. In the previous reading we acquainted ourselves to the idea that Islam can indeed be compatible with modernity as different thoughts such as Al-Afghani and Alvec. Jameelah and Mawdudi had a complete different perception on the relationship between the religion and modernity. Jameelah the new convert was really attached to the principles of Islam and her notion of the religion was so static, traditional and opposite to any change. Being a convert in a different socio-religious environment, Jameelah came to have a better realization of how modernity is incompatible with Islam; she was in a whole different environment and that is why the differences were so obvious. Jameelah struggled a lot both mentally and physically as a new convert and experienced hard time in America as a convert and that is why the reader felt such a passion and enthusiasm in exchanging letters with Mawdudi, because he seemed to be the one who understood what she perceived. Both correspondents shared so many similar thoughts and ideas and saw modernity weakening the Islamic principles. While Al-Afghani argued that Islam is equal to reason and subject to reinterpretation, these two criticizes this approach and these modern Muslim.  Along their correspondence they discussed many aspect in which modernity undermined the principle of Islam. Woman for example in this era is enslaved through emancipation. Women’s liberation in the modern era lost her status in which she acquired respect and therefore becomes a toy enjoyed by men eyes. Originally, each woman in Islam has her man, she is created for one man and that is who she is respected because her single belonging gives her value and thus a respectful place in society. With woman’s liberalism on the other hand woman lost this respect as she now belongs to everyone and can be accessed to by everyone. Jameelah and Mawdudi also criticized education and saw it as a European propaganda that help spread the European ideas and values. Similarily, they opposed economic growth because it undermined the indegunous people.

These are some of the many examples that Jameelah amd Mawdudi discussed. They also critiqued many Muslim scholards who held liberal views on Islam such as Abduh that we encountered in our previous reading.

Overall Jameelah and Mawdudi hold conservative minds and were very critical which actually made them seem judjemental. Jameelah was seeking a new identity as she converted to Islam and that is why, I think, she sought to live by the Holy book.

As we have discussed in class, Mawdudi was inconstant as he illustrated the use of some modern means such as medical treatment. However, I do not find the use of modern thechnologies as opposite to Islam. Thus, here comes again the puzzle of defining Islam as a religion or a dictation of a life style. It is impossible for Jameelah and Mawdudi to live exactly like the prophet lived because the human mind has evolved and all means of living have progressed and improved.  This therefore does not imply that adopting the new technologies and the evolved mind creations is inconsistent with Islam as a way of living.

S.A.A

Two-week readings: Fitting Islam into Modernity, Insiders' Perspectives

The Turkey Case: 

Modernity, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey:  Bodies, Places, and Time by Alev was a wonderful piece of writing from an insider that taught us so many new things about modernity and Islam. Turkey illustrates an example where modernity from one part was seen compatible with the religion of Islam. What I enjoyed the most about this book is the Islamist and secularists perception of Islam and modernity. The book illustrates two sides that perceived the same thing such as the woman body in different ways. However it is worth to mention that modernity for Turks meant constructing a better ‘tomorrow’ it meant working towards a better future.  

For the secularists in Turkey, modernity was represented trough woman’s body. Since woman’s body represents traditionalism and conservatism, liberating the body was a sign of secularism and showing the public a new concept of liberalism. Hence, woman’s body was put under the public gaze and control to advocate for a certain ideology; the secularism ideology.

The Islamists, the counterpart of secularists still use woman’s body to show their Islamic ideology. The woman’s veiling was a method adopted by the Islamists to enforce the existence of Islam in the public sphere. While the secularists wanted religion to be a private matter to individuals; something that they practise inside their homes, the Islamist wanted the religion to be mix between the public and the private. While woman’s veiling always portray the idea of oppression and backwardness, the woman’s veiling represented the idea of resistance for existence. Women who were not allowed to wear veil resisted the law and kept fighting for it. Hence, unlike the generic thinking, the woman’s veiling or body in general in Turkey became an ideology to distinguish another idea of modernity , an idea perceived by the Islamists.

This reading shed light on something I have never thought of which is how one chooses religion to be part of his life; private or public.  As a Muslim, my perception of Islam is the relationship between Allah and yourself and how you maintain this relation through worshiping and fulfilling the religious duties. Yet, in the Turkey case, the Islamists aimed to introduce religion in the public sphere yet still make it in accordance with modernity. So here again; I find myself baffled with the definition of modernity and Islam.

Does modernity undermine the real principle of the religion?Al-Afghani thought in the Liberal Age

The bibliography of Jamal Al Afghani and was to read because they gave an exposure to insider’s perspective about Islam and modernity. Al-Afghani noticed decay in the Muslim civilization in the political and technological aspects. He also noticed a lack of unity between the Muslims. He claims that Muslim civilizations can be as modern as the western one. He interestingly sees Islam as a religion of reason and rationality which can be re-interpreted and renewed with the modern world and that is what he calls the real meaning of Al-Jihad. I enjoyed getting to know that Al-Afghani defends Islam and pave a way for illustrating that Qu’ran can be interpreted to be compatible with the now and hence modernity.  Yet this modern thought on Islam can undermine certain principles of Islam and question what is more important in the religion since renewal and the reinterpretation can similarly undermine the context in which rules principles emerged.

S.A.A

Jameelah and Esack

The correspondence of Maryam Jameelah and On Being a Muslim by Farid Esack both talk about the struggles of being Muslim in a liberal, diverse world. Esack writes primarily from a social justice standpoint, and also to some extent a theological standpoint. Jameelah writes more personally: she herself is young New Yorker, newly converted to Islam, and she encounters many apparent conflicts between her faith and the surrounding lifestyle. I found one particular difference between the two writings to be very interesting.

First, the authors obviously arrive at very different conclusions. Jameelah strongly feels that Westernization/progressivism and Islam are incompatible. I'm not sure if Esack ever says this in quite so many words, but he seems to believe that that's not true, that Westernization and Islam are not incompatible. I feel this way because he has a progressive worldview overall, and also because in various anecdotes that seem to imply his belief that culture can be separated from ideology.

So these authors arrive at these different conclusions, and I think part of the reason is that they have different definitions of "context." For Jameelah, context means the history of Western colonization. Maulana Maudoodi writes that westernized Muslims are "mental slaves" to the West and are actually emulating their former oppressors (second letter) (presumably Jameelah shares this same view with Maudoodi). But for Esack, context means the socio-cultural-historical Arab surroundings into which the Prophet Muhammad walked (ch. 5). He writes that the severe patriarchy of the time and place rendered the Prophet's teachings about women actually revolutionary. But to read them today, with the backdrop of feminist history, the teachings seem oppressive. Therefore, Esack argues, it's important to retain the original spirit of movement that is visible when looking at the original cultural context. So for Jameelah, context renders Islam and progressivism incompatible. But for Esack, context renders Islam necessarily progressive.

(Also, I kind of chuckled to myself when I read On Being a Muslim because it is so strongly in opposition to Jameelah's perspective. Esack would be one of those progressives about whom Jameelah writes, "All these so-called Muslim 'Progressives' are far more dangerous than any external enemies for they are attacking the very foundations of Islam from within" (first letter).)

When reading these two writings, I kept thinking about the parallel situations within contemporary Christianity. There has never much question about Christianity vs. Westernization, but there is a lot of discussion about the intersections of Christianity and progressivism. A lot of the issue comes down to Biblical interpretation, just as how in Islam a lot of the issue comes down to interpretation of the Quran (Esack talks about this a bit in ch. 5). Like Esack, progressive Christians tend to take into account the socio-cultural-historical contexts in which the books of the Bible were written, and they look at how the Biblical text would have been interpreted by the audience within that context.

-GGM