Muslim A: The Umma of Muhammed (saw) is a noble Umma and she rejects Secular leadership because it is the root of her misery.
Muslim B: This Umma lacks "basic decency" and is full of corruption. She can't even unite in a parking lot, let alone on moon sighting! She is to blame for everything, including the Secular rule imposed over her through decades and she has NO right to react, to be angry and frustrated as a result of it. We need to return to Islam otherwise stop blaming others.
Muslim A: The Umma reacts BECAUSE of the oppressive Secular rule "IMPOSED" on her. She NEVER chose it except for the corrupt elite amongst her who were loyal to their Western Lords from the beginning. How can you possibly blame the Umma for a few bad apples in the political and military leadership when she NEVER consented to their authority?
Muslim B: A, you are full of emotional diatribe and your arguments are fallacious because it lacks reflection on our shortcomings and thus it is Muslims like you who are the Cancers in the Umma.
Muslim A: B, I have admitted to our shortcomings by highlighting that the corrupt elite are the root of our problems and that it is THEM that need to be replaced with a genuine Islamic polity that will then rectify the affairs of the Umma'so that she returns to her noble status. Why are you so insistent on self-blame when you are a VICTIM and NEVER gave consent to the authority of these illegitimate rulers?
I am saying that we need to proactively engage in the struggle to re-establish khilafah on Prophetic method so that we can end our misery and return to Islamic way of life but you persist in calling me as the Cancer of the Umma? Subhan Allah!
Muslim B: ........
Dr Shadee al-Masry observes:
"I'm suspicious about co-opting or entering into the secular activist frameworks of justice because while they may be correct at the micro level, they don't properly link back to the macro-narrative (that there is a God, Heaven and Hell). And any micro-action must properly be in tune with the macro-narrative. So for example, the fight against racism, I'm very comfortable with the Qur'anic paradigm because it is in line with the macro-narrative of Allah and Afterlife.
Further, American activism in general is a liberal paradigm and culture. You can't fight Islamophobia without fighting every other phobia, some of which we won't get involved in. Can you imagine a shaykh? at an LGBT march? You can't pick and choose. 'Liberal values' is a package. So we have to become the definers of our own activism through a Qur'anic, Prophetic paradigm.
Let's take Islamophobia. Now these activists are doing good work in shaping public opinion. But we still need to zoom out and analyze it. All these phobias from Islamophobia to homophobia etc are all secondary values that rest upon the primary liberal principle that truth is relative and therefore you shouldn't hate anything; believe what you believe but don't offend anyone; do what you want in your private life, but the social square has to be for everyone, etc. That's the macro-narrative and it's one that clearly we can't accept if we admit to the absolute truth of the Qur'an and sound hadith, one of which states "Love and hate for Allah's sake," i.e. the things Allah hates you should hate and you should be open about it.
Fighting Islamophobia is a politically convenient expression of activism that rests upon a macro-narrative we don't buy into. Do you see how there's a problem with this? Frankly, it's a bit shallow and slightly hypocritical too. 'I want you to accept and tolerate my Islam, but I don't accept and tolerate your transgender surgery or your gay marriage.'
If we are to be true to our Prophet and to Allah, we have to only operate from the framework He has set. We define everything as Allah has defined it not as we define it or how others define it. In light of this, I would never accuse or attack someone for being Islamophobic. I would fight for my rights, but I wouldn't use that phobia language. Because if I do, I expose myself to being judged by that same standard. And we don't accept alot of things personally or socially. The phobia standard is one that is meaningless to me. We do have a problem with the increasingly long menu of sexual preferences out there. I can't say I'm all for people doing what they want and society accepting it. If I say so, I'll be turning my back on my Lord who is the only one that really matters when you're on your deathbed.
It sounds crazy, but in the long run, it is less harmful to deal with a Baptist that openly says 'you're going to hell and you're the reason this country is being ruined and I'm out to stop you,' than with a liberal who says 'I accept you for who you are,' but implicit you have just accepted his standard and his package in which you have to accept everyone else for who they are, "accept" here meaning sanction, validate and fight for their rights to do their thing openly.
It's like taking money from someone. As soon as you accept their cash, you owe them.
In sum, we can't just jump on a politically/socially expedient language of activism because it benefits us in the short run. Every move we make, big or small has to be in line with our Prophetic macro-narrative."
Great answers start with great insights. Content becomes intriguing when it is voted up or down - ensuring the best answers are always at the top.
Questions are answered by people with a deep interest in the subject. People from around the world review questions, post answers and add comments.
Be part of and influence the most important global discussion that is defining our generation and generations to come