TDC06 - Progress with the Progressives - Yasir Qadhi

This lecture and the “Role of reason in revelation” lecture I think were by far the single 2 best talks at the whole conference. I think they hit it on the head in terms of, information, relevance, motivation, and action. They properly addressed something we all face in our communities, educated us about them, and then gave tips on how to fix it.

I hope that insha’Allah you will benefit from these notes, I actually went back and tried to transcribe the lecture from the CD (alhamdulillah I was of the lucky few to get one). With that said, please check out the notes, I know it is long, but I really feel its important to have this available.

The lecture started out with a definition of progressives, and then a fictional story to help explain the rest of the talk.

Progressives: Muslims who feel like Islam has to change from time to time. Progressives take this to an extreme level, for example the Friday prayers led by a woman.

This movement is gaining more force in North America, and they have a bigger presence here than anywhere else in the world.

To better explain this, we will begin with a story:

Imagine a land called the United Lands of Veganopolis, where the people are vegans. They don’t eat any meat or meat derived products because they feel it is cruel, primitive, and uncivilized. They felt above the rest of society since they did not eat meat. They considered themselves so advanced that they divided the entire world based upon the people’s convictions regarding eating meat. The countries who agreed with them were called the ‘Primary World’ those who rejected it were the ‘Tertiary World’, and those in the middle were called the ‘Secondary World’.

Imagine three brothers, Salmaan, Khalid, and Ali. They were raised in Veganopolis, and their parents were Muslim but they did not really fully teach the deen to their kids. So the kids were Muslim but did not really understand the religion. When they grew up, their parents passed away and so for the first time in their lives they began thinking critically about these things. They went through a spiritual awakening. They decided to study the religion and discuss their findings.

They studied Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, and met again after 6 months and discussed what they found. Salmaan was the oldest and said, our parents were great and loved us, but with respect to them and their beliefs, I have concluded Islam is a false religion and I can no longer be a Muslim. He said he knew his parents ate meat sometimes, and they ate it too, thinking it was a custom from their tertiary country homeland. But after reading the Islamic texts, Islam openly allows eating meat, and calls it a blessing in the Quran. In Bukhari, it says one of the Prophet’s (saw) favorite dishes was a juicy sheep’s leg, and that he ate meat whenever it was presented to him. They also slaughtered animals on festivals like Eid and when a baby was born. In the books of Fiqh, some of the madhabs, like the Hanbalis and Shafi’ees, even allowed the eating of foxes and coyotes. Most scholars of hadith even allowed desert lizards. The Maliki madhab even says it’s not sinful to eat cats, dogs, scorpions, and snakes. Some scholars even allowed vermin and other insects. [Sh. Yasir mentioned this is actually true]. Salmaan said he therefore cannot believe in a book that allows such backward and barbaric practices, and therefore is his duty to convince Muslims this religion is not correct, and they need to live up with the times. Eating meat is uncivilized and barbaric.

Then Khalid spoke up. He said he also studied the texts and read the Quran, and that it has led him to reaffirm his commitment to Islam. He is still Muslim and proud of it. He conceded a lot of what Salmaan said may be correct from a historical point of view, but is incorrect and lacking analysis. The Quran is from God, but revealed in a specific time and place. Scholars understanding from before cannot be extrapolated now. The Quran was sent to a backward people immersed in eating meat. Islam could not completely eradicate it, it would be too radical, and so it refined it for the people of those times. Now that we have evolved to a higher level, the verses must be given a fresh look. The hadith were compiled after the Prophet (saw) so we don’t even know if they are authentic, and the Prophet (saw) himself was a human and not divine. Even that same hadith book Bukhari Salmaan quoted says that for 3 months no fire was made in his (saw) house, and he turned down meat. So he was on a vegetarian diet for some time. There is also a hadith that he rebuked a person for mistreating an animal. Is it possible that such a person, the Prophet of Mercy, would then command everyone to go slaughter an animal on Eid? Is he that bloodthirsty? Those scholars had weird opinions but they are just scholars. The Hanafi madhab for example, didn’t allow anything from the sea except certain fish. So we have parallels from scholars in the past. We have to look at the spirit of the law and not the letter. Islam came with the intent of eradicating meat even though it didn’t do so in the beginning, so I am a Muslim and do not think Islam allows eating of meat.

Ali then spoke up. He was the youngest and most contemplative. He said to his older brothers that although the outcome of both of their searches ended up in diametrically opposed opinions, that they are both still operating out of the same paradigm, principles, and usool. This has led both of them to err. Their premise was to take the validity of what their culture gave them, i.e., that eating animals is barbaric. Taking this premise unconditionally caused one to reject his faith, and the other to change it in an unprecedented manner. Neither one asked what if my civilization is incorrect on this issue? Does being vegan make them the pinnacle of society and everyone else is barbaric? The validity of a religion cannot be decided on subsidiary issues like eating meat. A religion’s primary claims of legitimacy stems from its primary dispositions like God and Afterlife. We look at the theology of a faith. Look at the concept of God and worship of God, then decided its validity. Then once it is valid, it is taken as a complete and total package. If we look at each and every ruling in light of our personal views, we are not submitting to the religion, but causing the religion to submit to us. If we apply this criterion to Islam, we see no religion as simple and correct as Islam. No other religion comes close. So after reaching this conclusion, Ali said, he realized he had to submit to the rulings that came with that theology.

Therefore, Ali continued, I agree with Salmaan, eating meat is called for Islam and is a blessing. This realization caused me to challenge the premise on which our society lays its claim to fame. For the first time in my life I had to look at it and question it because of what the Quran and Sunnah say. How do we judge if something is moral and unethical? Some things like taking a life we know from our fitrah. But not everything can be based on that. So I cannot use my opinion to prove eating meat is unethical. It is impossible to uncategorically claim eating meat is unethical, there is no proof. Also, the majority of mankind ate meat, and they were no less happy than us. In fact, our relatives in the Tertiary world are more happy and they eat meat.

We claim to have reached the pinnacle of civilization and look down on others due to this issue, but we ignore a million other things. We ignore that our society is the most violent of other societies, the most promiscuous, the most infested with crime and drugs, and the highest in the world in terms of percentages of its inhabitants in jail. How can we ignore all that and say just because we are a vegan society we are the best of all mankind. How can we claim moral and spiritual superiority when statistically our lives are worse and inferior to those in tertiary world countries? It is not just the quantity, but the heinousness and monstrosity. Last week a woman put a baby in a microwave and cooked it until it died, and some parents killed their kids and vice versa. You do not hear of these crimes in other countries. It is not just the quantity, but the monstrosity, and the way it is blatantly advertised in the news. How can this be ignored and how can we say that by not eating meat we are the pinnacle of civilization?

Ali says that he concluded that he was wrong. The moral and ethical views of the United Lands of Veganopolis are not those that are divine in and of themselves. It was this premise that made his brothers fall into mistakes. They may be on opposite sides of the fence but they are not really that far apart. A strange fact must be pointed out. Salmaan is no longer Muslim, and most would be appalled by this, but logically speaking, his arguments make more sense than Khalid’s. Khalid claims to be a believer but comes forth with opinions that have no precedent whatsoever, how can he be a believer and reject every second statement in the Book and Sunnah. His claims are much more illogical and harder to defend. Ali said, I am a Muslim and I submit to the laws of Islam, and do not make the laws of Islam submit to me.

In our times it is not really the issue of meat, but the issue of freedoms of choice, punishments, the role of women, morality. Salmaan represents those people who say Islam cannot be divine because it asks women to cover up, or to chop off the hand of the thief. They openly say Islam is backward. But they have judged the deen on subsidiary issues.

Khalid represents the progressives. They take the values of their land and say this is the paradigm of Islam – “Islam came with vegan ethics.” Basically they say Allah could only do so much, and now that I, Khalid, have come, I can bring Islam up to par with the United Lands of Veganopolis. For 14 centuries, everyone had it wrong until he came along. And this is really the conclusion progressives are forced to make.

Ali is the rare breed in our times, combining historical reality and ethical dimensions of Veganopolis with a deep and profound understanding of Islam.

Two examples from the time of the Prophet (saw) show this.

First is the issue of women’s inheritance. Ibn Abbass narrates (in Tabari) when the shares were assigned, some of the people disliked this. They said we give women a fourth and an eighth, and the daughter a half, and a baby boy an inheritance, but none of these is amongst those who fight enemies or take war booty. This went against their sensitivities. It is so backward to give inheritance to those who don’t fight in war. In jahiliyyah this is what inheritance was given upon. So the sahabah said they would remain silent, and perhaps the Prophet (saw) would forget about it, or someone can talk to him and maybe change it. Note, this is not an issue of theology. Some went to the Prophet (saw), and said should we give a little girl half of what her father leaves behind when she cannot even ride a horse. And should we give the baby half when it is a burden upon us, and we feed it, and it does not feed us. So many ayaat were revealed, the beginning verses of Surah Nisaa. At the end of it, Allah says, “your fathers and your children, you do not know which of the two will be of more benefit to you.” You do not know. “Verily Allah is al-Hakeem and al-Aleem.” If your father and son were alive, how would you possibly divide the inheritance? Allah says you do not know, He knows.

This was not an issue of theology, but one of morality and ethics. Allah (swt) then convinced them through these verses. He is most Knowledgeable and the One who cares the most for them.

The second issue is of class and nobility. The inheritance issue brought confusion to some of the sahabah, but there was an issue that even the Prophet (saw) was almost swayed by because he thought there would be benefit in agreeing with society. It was the single biggest social change that Islam brought. Everything in jahiliyyah was decided upon lineage and tribe. Class status was based on your father. Islam came and changed all of that.

The Prophet (saw) was once sitting with sahabah like ibn Mas’ood, Bilal, Ammar ibn Yasir, and others. All of these people were low class according to the jahili standards. Some leaders of the Quraysh came and said get rid of these people and perhaps we might be sympathetic to your religion. They basically gave an ultimatum. Many ayaat came down. Among them, “And turn not away those who invoke their Lord, morning and afternoon seeking His Face. You are accountable for them in nothing, and they are accountable for you in nothing, that you may turn them away, and thus become of the Zalimun (unjust)” (6:52). If you dare do this, you will be from the dhalimin. Even to compromise in the social structure was a sin. This had nothing to do with theology and was just a social issue, but Allah is saying you have your religion and they have theirs.

Sensibilities of people will be challenged by these secondary issues, but we must have faith in Allah. It is not our job to defend those issues. We don’t argue our religion based on women’s rights. No one will convert to Islam by proving only men can lead mixed gender congregations.

The progressives of our time claim to be the modern version of the mu’tazilah. They were the first group to really challenge the Quran and Sunnah based on logic. They of course used Aristotelian philosophy. They then viewed the Quran and Sunnah from that perspective. They were basically like Khalid in the story. However, the mu’tazilah were much better than the progressives despite their heresies. They still had some religiosity about themselves. They prayed, fasted, avoided the major sins, yet the modern progressives are not practicing at all. You will never hear one of them stand up and talk about coming closer to Allah, earning jannah, or praying the prayers on time. They do not discuss issues of the heart and soul. There is no inclination to come closer to Allah. The Progressive Muslim Union (PMU) had a major crisis and split up because there was no unified methodology about what progressivism is. One of them criticized the others in a scathing critique and mentioned that he was looked down upon by other progressives because he did not drink alcohol.

The Mu’tazilah also were still at least interested in religious sciences. They still cared about knowledge and studied it. The progressives simply do not care about the Quran or Sunnah. They have not studied the academics of Islam. Those of them who have studied anything of Islam can be counted on one hand.

The issues the Mu’tazilah were concerned with were still serious issues, like qadr, Names and Attributes, of Allah, etc. The progressives are concerned with the size of a woman’s scarf, gender roles, things that are not the primary issues of the religion. So the modern progressives are far worse than the Mu’tazilah.

The psychology of the two groups is still the same. They are united by their disdain for their utter disregard and rejection of the texts, especially the hadith. Their psychology of approaching the texts is the same. For example, Amr ibn Ubayd (a Mu’tazili) said if Surah Lahab is in Lawh al Mahfooz, then Allah has no excuse to punish any of us [this is a rejection of qadr]. In regards to the hadith about the angel writing the qadr while the baby in the womb (a hadith with a great isnaad), he said if I heard if from A’mash I would have accused him of lying, if I heard it from his shaykh Zayd ibn Wahb, I would have said you are mistaken, it is not possible, if I heard it from Abdullah ibn Mas’ood, I would have said the prophet (saw) could not have said it, if I heard it from the Prophet (saw) I would have rejected it, and if I heard it from Allah I would have said You have not created us for this. Look at this arrogance. It is the same with the progressives. They do not care what the Quran says. They have their views and want to read them into Islam.

Progressive Islam is trying to harmonize Islam with modern values of human rights and freedom. They have preconceived notions about this. They are looking at the Quran and Sunnah and trying to read their views into it. So they are forced to reject the texts outright (which they do with hadith) or try to reinterpret them. One example of this is Hur al-‘Ayn. They wrote an article saying that this has been misunderstood for 1400 years and that it really means luscious white grapes and it is really a type of fruit. Shaykh Yasir said, “Keep your grapes, leave me with the Hur al-‘Ayn.”

Phenomenon of progressive Islam is not new. Many groups have come before and said Islam is not compatible with something. It is only that for the first time the issues of women’s rights and things like that are being viewed with Islam.

In the end the problem of believing your opinions are correct over the Quran stays the same. It is pointless to debate the issues like women leading prayer with them; rather, we must go back to the fundamentals. A Muslim is one who submits to the will of Allah, we do not think women can lead juma so let me find a way to justify it. Progressive Islam is not new or progressive, rather it has been around since the beginning of time, the first example being that of Iblees. They have the same methodology, i.e., my opinion is right.

O you who believe! Enter perfectly in Islam (by obeying all the rules and regulations of the Islamic religion) and follow not the footsteps of Shaitan (Satan). Verily! He is to you a plain enemy (2:208).

One of the things mentioned in the Q/A was to work with people as much as possible, especially in regards to masjid issues. Basically i think Shaykh Yasir was saying to pick your battles, and agree with the people as much as you can.

Also just to re-emphasize, dawah should always be focusing on the fundamentals and aqeedah, do not get bogged down in subsidiary issues. I think that helps to fix a lot of conflicts and is much more productive.

Lastly, a link to another review of this lecture, including more explanation on the inheritance issue from Sh. Yasir in the comments section.