Tariq Nelson

The New York Times had an article on popular Egyptian speaker Amr Khaled. 

The author of this article is continuously amazed at certain things because her basic premise for this article is a dichotomy that if you are Muslim, then you must fall into one of the following two groups:

a) A stoic wide-eyed fundamentalist who thinks Islam requires them to withdraw from the modern world, hate everything Western, against a secular education, and (if a woman) wears hijab or

b) A completely secular individual who is highly educated, does not pray, drinks alcohol, and (if a woman) does not wear hijab

Problem is that even many Muslim groups seem to have bought into the above dichotomy to an extent, and most Muslims, especially in the West, don’t want to be in either of those groups. Hence the popularity of Amr Khaled.

Khaled offers them an Islam that doesn’t require a complete withdrawal from the modern world

Is this “Amr Khaled’s Islam” or is this Islam in reality? Why can’t one be an Accountant and be a good Muslim? Why can’t one be an Engineer, a Doctor, or Sales Executive and be a good Muslim?

Seems like a stupid question, but how many religious Muslims think that by sending their children to college, that they will not be good Muslims, so therefore they will not send them? On the other hand, how many others don’t care about religion as long as their kids get that degree?

Muslim scholars and thinkers talk about a dangerous divide within the faith; Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor at the U.C.L.A. School of Law and the author of a new book on Islam, describes a “fundamental schism” in the religion today between “Puritans” and “moderates.”

When things are divided into the above dichotomy, college educated individuals who work in the world every day, especially here in the West, will see the “Puritan” option (option ‘a’ above) as completely unrealistic.

 Let’s say you have brother “Abdullah” who is an Engineer. He wears a shirt and tie to work everyday, prays and fasts and he, like most Muslims, is not anti-Western. In his mind, the “puritan” option is out of the question. He is going to see going to work in a thobe as out of the question. He may not even own a thobe. So becoming a “Puritan” to him means changing who he is completely and probably losing his job.

But on the other hand “Abdullah” does pray and fast Ramadan and attend the masjid from time to time, so he is not completely secular, but also not particularly religious. 

The “Moderate” option (option ‘b’ above) is out of the question as well, because “moderate” often means not practicing Islam at all or being some secular humanist. Many groups to one extent or another call to one side of this Puritan/Moderate dichotomy and this has been the problem. 

So along comes someone like Amr Khaled, who tells him that he can indeed be both. Many people may believe that, but not many are saying that and preaching that.

In Egypt, Khaled has been called, derisively, the Sheik of the Rawshana, a term that roughly translates as “hip” or “misplaced” and refers to that class of Egyptians who feel caught between Western and traditional culture

How much more so do Western Muslims often feel caught between these two? Is Islam not for all people in all times and all places? Instead of deriding these people, why not find out what is on their minds? Find out what their concerns are and speak about them. Reach out to them.

Although Evangelical Christian preachers in the United States have for years blended self-help, management-training jargon and religion into a crowd-pleasing performance, it is a new phenomenon in the Muslim world

Maybe the “management-training jargon” and “crowd pleasing performance” parts are new, but being dynamic and problem solving is not new. Perhaps abandoned to a degree, but not new.

Once, as an Islamic nation, Muslims absorbed people of different cultures, abilities, incomes, and temperaments into communities that worked. The Muslim history is so rich because many different cultures were allowed to thrive under the umbrella of Islam, and the Muslims became the leaders of the world as a result. The Muslims were problem solvers, and not people who were quick to stick their heads in the sand or completely ignore the new challenges they faced.  They did not look at things in this Puritan/Moderate dichotomy.

When you listen to Amr Khaled, it is often hard to tell which side of that split he belongs on

Again, I feel that this is a reason he and others are gaining so much popularity. Most practicing Muslims do not belong solidly to one side of this “split” that they are being called to. They seek the same practical Islam from centuries before.

These devout immigrants “bring up their children apart from this sinful society. They stay apart from society in every possible way.” The second type has assimilated so thoroughly that they have “dissolved” into materialism or sensuality. Both approaches, Khaled said, are mistaken. The correct path is to integrate, and in a positive way: to learn the language of your new home, to interact with your fellow citizens, to volunteer for the fire department, to live such an upstanding life that the common perception most Europeans share about Muslim immigrants — “that we came here to live, enjoy the freedom, enjoy the financial aid and support, have children and in the end insult them” — will be turned on its head, replaced by a new and widespread respect for Islam.

People think that not knowing your neighbors, and just being some stoic strange frowning person is actually from the Sunnah. To the contrary, we get to know our neighbors, and get involved in the wider community.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Puritan/Moderate dichotomy, this goes against the “Puritan” approach, and many see those who call to this as a ”moderate” (and therefore irreligious) so this approach should be automatically rejected considering its source. So they continue to think we should live in an Islamic cocoon.