Saturday, November 20, 2004

Neocons and Progressive Muslims : Allies in The War Against Islam

No doubt the title will draw condemnation and revulsion from certain quarters. Aren't neo-cons and proggies polar opposites? Upon closer inspection of their respective ideologies, the answer is a resounding no. Neo-cons and Progressive Muslim share many similarities, not the least of which is to "reform" Islam to their tastes.

Neo-cons are mostly Jewish "former liberals" turned empire-worshipping hawks. They tend to be right wing academics today, openly supporting Israeli terrorism and the use of American power to do Israel's dirty work when possible. Few have any combat experience or any desire to engage in it. They came to prominence post 9-11 calling for a war with the Islamic world under the pretext of fighting their definition of terrorism. Neo-cons have been at the forefront of calling for "reforming" Islam through a campaign of disinformation and destruction. They are very open about their aims and what kind of Muslims is acceptable to them, which brings us to....

Progressive Muslims, not suprisingly have also come to prominence post 9-11 with calls to "take back Islam." Sarah Eltantawy, "communications director" of the PMU and the now defunct MPAC cites 9-11 as a great opportunity for their cause. The favored target is itself Muslims, specifically practising traditional Muslims who believe in the Quran and Sunnah are generally cast as Wahabists, extremists, and "The Astagfirullah Brigade," among other convinient epithets. Scholars, Fiqh, Madrassahs, beards, hijabs, adab, and piety are also the focus and target of ridicule.

Proggies generally tend to be Westernized liberals who rarely practise Islam, and see it as a cultural phenomenon. Few reverts are to be found amongst them. They have no working knowledge of Islamic history and feel that living the good life in the West has given them the right to redefine the deen as a Western friendly set of poorly defined concepts which can be applied at will to include homosexuality, pornography and even such rich fatcats as those of "Muslims For Bush" fame. They define a Muslim as someone who says he/she is a Muslim, not one who declares and accepts the Islamic declaration of faith, the belief in Allah, His Prophets and His books.

Abid Ullah Jan has labelled the proggies as "neo-mods," who share an agenda with the neo-cons. He has written extensively about them, for which he was attacked on MWU. Apparently free speech is applicable to only those who support your agenda, not question it.

It shouldn't come as a shock that Western state media, including neo-con-friendly papers, have embraced and endorsed the PMs. They've clearly spelled out that these are the "sort" of Muslims they can work with in their aims to not only "reform" Islam, but to undermine the vast majority of the Ummah who do not share their twisted values and objectives.


Blogger ابدلرحیم said...

Salaam Aleikum wr wb,
This blog is wonderful and again I agree with what you have said. And i never thought of proggies like that. So mashAllah for bringing it up.

2:10 PM  
Blogger Anna in Portland (was Cairo) said...


I just read through the last several of your posts and I had to comment on this one. Belittling the "proggies" with just one more nasty sounding label is kind of doing what you are upset at them for doing with the "neo-salafi" thing. If you want to denounce specific people at PMU for something specific, you should address them and stop putting all people who identify as "progressive" in a box. Also I think it is troubling how you conflate every poster at MWU! with PMUNA's stance on issues. The guys that post at MWU! are not PMUNA founding members, just guys that post. The guy who runs MWU! who also runs PMUNA makes MWU! an open space for lots of people and the focus is on "open" -- he does not necessarily agree with all his posters who write edgy articles on beer and stuff, and you should not simplify it to insist that he does, because it's unfair to him. I have criticized PMUNA for some issues, and I think you are engaging in the same sort of labeling and jumping to conclusions that they have used against some of us who have criticized them.

2:36 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

I disagree Anna. While not all MWU members agree with the PMUA, there is little difference in ideology. An ideology which is the same as the neocon agenda.
As for Mr.Naseef, he's hardly in favor of the open forum approach, especially when practising Muslims challenge wacky lefty interpretations of Islam based on nothing but self-worship. Yet we find that the MWU topdog has no problems letting anti-Muslim comments go unchallenged. Why is it that people with no knowledge of Islam are being promoted as its representatives ?
This isnt about the MWU or the PMUA, its about an ideology which is against the very grain of Islam and its principles.

9:41 PM  
Blogger Ash said...


The author makes a pretty hefty claim "neocons and progressive muslims..." he declares that whether there aren't polar opposites with a "resounding no" and informs us that they ""reform" Islam to their tastes".

However the author appears to have forgot what it says in the Qur'an regarding making allegations without definitive proof, based on suspicion. And, we haven't even touched the name calling yet. For a "resounding no" being allies of "neo-cons" the evidence is strangely scarce.

Therefore, the credibility of the author is very much into question as his arguments are rhetorical, my evidence is his article, an article with allegations and no proof.

Furthermore, if a person is making allegations without proofs his motives are questionable, he is causing fitnah. Hence, until we see concrete proofs to his claims and we review them, his claims of the abuse he sufferred must be treated with a pinch of salt. If one has a poor judgement in determining the truth, why believe his next claim...


3:44 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

"This isnt about the MWU or the PMUA, its about an ideology which is against the very grain of Islam and its principles."


I would have thought the article would have dealt with the "ideology" instead of engaging in spurious comments about these particular sites and people.

The fact that you said that an "ideology" does not fit or fit with what you believe does not make it a fact, your analysis and reasoning would go towards ascertaining the reality.

Meanwhile, I remain bewildered how can the endevour to follow Qur'an be against the grain of islam ? Perhaps, it is against the grain of what you believe, but you don't hold the monopoly to the truth. Perhaps, it pays to be less conceited and more factual, demonstrative...


4:05 PM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Ash, tell me are you a "progressive" ? I believe you've engaged in your own rhetoric to deny the outright collabartion between the two parties mentioned.
You want evidence ? I suggest you read proggie literature.
As for the "monopoly on truth," sounds like the kind of statement one finds at the MWU justifying wacky lefty interpretations of the deen.

12:41 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:16 AM  
Blogger Ash said...


You've made the allegations of collaboration. The responsibility to prove is yours. If you can't write an article without objective evidence, then don't.

Peace to those who follow guidance

6:05 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

I didnt have a chance to read your deleted comments Ash, you must have been upset. Facts tend to do that to folks who dont appreciate reality. Instead of wasting space carrying on about lack of "evidence," why dont you come up with a coherent counter-argument ? Are you going to label me a "Muslim pat robertson" or "neo-salafi" like your beloved MWU supremo ?
Rest assured, there'll be more analysis on the proggies whether you like the facts or not.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Ash said...


"Ash, you must have been upset"

You did not cover all the "flanks". Couldn't I have decided to boil down my argument for example? This nicely demonstrates the way you think. You're speculating as per your article. You can not know this by citing two deleted posts.

"Facts tend to do that to folks who dont appreciate reality."

Put your logical premise forward. Are you saying that if something is upsetting it must be fact? or with your use of "tend" do you imply there are exclusions?

If there aren't any exclusions to your argument then the debate could end quickly. If you argue there are some exclusions then your first assertion is not sufficient to determine the validity of your second argument. You will not be able to prove its applicable in my case. The debate may end there quickly too.

Also, is this argument refering to me? If it is not, why raise it?

"Instead of wasting space carrying on about lack of "evidence," why dont you come up with a coherent counter-argument ?"

No way , you've made allegations of collaboration. You've slandered people, hence the responsibility is yours. A muslim does not go and accuse people without being 100% sure. Anyone can see that you have an article full of rhetorical arguments but no proofs.

Its like someone accusing you of murder and you protest due to lack of evidence. Then the accuser ask you for a "coherent argument". This is not the first time I have seen this kind of arrogant behaviour.

"Are you going to label me a "Muslim pat robertson" or "neo-salafi" like your beloved MWU supremo ?"

I'll leave the labelling alongside the slandering to you, thank you.

"Rest assured, there'll be more analysis on the proggies whether you like the facts or not."

This is funny to say the least. How conceited one can be as if your "analysis" is a "fact"? You appear to love yourself so much, give it your best shot.

8:20 PM  
Blogger Ash said...


There is a delay in my postings appearing here. Hence, you may get a similar response again.

That basically shows that you came to the wrong conclusion of me being upset. But this tells the readers more, you don't consider sufficient alternatives in forming opinions but the first thing springs out of your mind. Perhaps such an individual is not capable to form balanced views after all and should not write articles.

"why dont you come up with a coherent counter-argument ?"

LoL I did not make an allegation, you did. The burden of proof is with you. Why should I provide a counter argument? answer the question: Do you have any evidence supporting your assertion of collaboration? If you don't, what does that make you?

"Are you going to label me a "Muslim pat robertson" or "neo-salafi" like your beloved MWU supremo ?"

I don't need to name call you in haste, all I need to do is ask questions to expose the truth GOD willing. So far we've established that you either do not want to share your proofs of collaborations or you don't have any.

We also have got a picture how you make decisions. You thought I was "upset" which you can not know, you think if something is upseting it must be a fact?! And you don't know anything about me but you allege "your eloved MWU supremo ?". This is a lie in itself. But for you it does not matter does it?

"Rest assured, there'll be more analysis on the proggies whether you like the facts or not."

Don't make me laugh. You're not capable of "analysis" or "facts". How conceited can one get?

8:07 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Yawn. So Ash, are you going to post a responce 2 weeks after I respond in a vain attempt to get the last word ?
Seriously, you havent made one single point in your tirade against me.
Seems that you can write but not read, so get over yourself my little proggie friend.

4:49 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

1) Neo-conservatives are not Jewish. Look at this administration: Cheaney, Rumsfeld. You can throw only one Jewish name - Wolfowitz, but he is only an underlink of Rumsfeld. Most neo-conservatives are Christian Fundamentalists, specifically born again Christians.
2) Surely, Neo-conservatives are not liberal. They were neo-conservatives since the beggining of their political career. Evidence is Cheaney, Rumsfeld, Buchanon and etc.
3) I cannot believe you need to associate moderate muslims with Jews in order to refute them.
4) Your enemies are not Jews, besides yourself, Christians have historically been and continue to be your enemies. Just wait till you start getting kicked out of Europe. And for what, for supporting worthless bedoins.
5) All you are doing is starting a religious war and you will most definitely loose once Europe and America becomes more extremist too. Do we need any more crusaides to figure out who's God is more powerful? I can't believe you managed to turn Holland, the most open and welcoming country, into a racist nation.
6) Where was a time when Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together for 400 years in Spain. Where was a time when Arabs were the light of civilization and Catholics were the barbarians. Have you ever stopped to consider what happened? Now most Arab countries turned into poverty ridden, ignorant and uneducated piles of rubble, controlled by feuding factors of war lords. Maybe you taken this religion thing too far, to the detriment of your humanity. And now you criticize anybody who does not want islam to be the one and only element of his life. Religious extremism, any religion, is self-destructing. As you type on the computer invented by Westerners and you use the internet invented by Westerns, all you can cling on to is a zero (or discovery of thereof). Aren't there more productive ways to spend your life while still being a good and religious person.

1:20 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

There are several poor ill-informed errors in your post Mike, so I'll address the most serious ones.
Most Evangelical Christians have ALWAYS been right wing conservatives, the "neo" applies to those who those switched sides from liberal to the hawkish right post 911. Many neo-conservatives are socially liberal, and no Pat Buchanon is NOT a neo-conservative, he's spoken out against them, and is seen more as a Paleo-conservative who opposes the neocon agenda. Read
The head honchos of neoconservatism are Jewish, this is an undeniable reality, Kristol, Podhoretz, Ladeen, Kaplan, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Goldberg are a few names you either neglected to mention or are ignorant about.
The rest of your rant is frankly quite lame and laced with insults and half-truths, so my advice to you would be grow up and learn some hard facts about the issues, preferably from a source besides FOX news.

5:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home