Muslim Heretics Conference - Reviews

Reviews

Anthropology professor Daniel Martin Varisco of Hofstra university was present at the conference and has written a review of the conference.

In it he also discusses the title:

"Certainly every single sect calling itself Muslim has been attacked by some other sect. It is not just the majority Sunni vs. the marginalized Shi’a, nor the rational Mutazilites vs. the hardline literalists, nor the Arabs vs. the non-Arab converts, nor the trained clerics vs. the itinerant dervishes, nor simply the women-can’t drive Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, the Buddha-bashing Taliban or those brave souls who pursue Queer Jihad. Simply put, the heretic is the person who does not take your truth as his or her own. When Islam first appeared, Christians had good reason to brand it a heresy, just as devout Jews before the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem saw Christ as another false messiah. The Quran, after all, did not say Christians and Jews were infidels; these People of the Book worshipped the same one true God, but had been led astray. The prophets in the earlier sacred writings were not the heretics. Abraham and Jesus were good Muslims, as Muhammad saw for himself in his Night Journey to the heavens; it was precisely because the Islamic dimension of sacred history had become “heretical” that God sent a final revelation and last prophet. Muhammad’s triumph signaled an end to heresy, a doctrine that all Muslims would no doubt agree upon, but the minute Muhammad died, heresy was born again."

Then he describes the conference:

"Over the past two days I heard a number of different voices, male and female, Egyptian, Iranian, Pakistani, Sudanese, Turkish, Dutch, American, shaykh and shabab. Some of what they were saying would indeed be considered heretical in some mosques or even at a distinguished center of learning like al-Azhar? There was debate and there was disagreement. Quranic verses were quoted from memory, history was spun, passionate concerns about problems facing Muslims today were raised. Yet there were no fist fights, no hurling of hate speech, no outbursts of intolerant rants, and no restrictions placed on free speech. If this kind of forum is a nest of heresy, let God be the judge. So what did the heretics say? The Quran-only enthusiasts, suspicious of the self-serving duplicity of those who cite hadiths to haram and halal virtually every imaginable act a Muslim could do, would sound heretical to most Muslims I know. One of the speakers spent time in an Egyptian prison for daring to think outside the approved clerical box, even though he had a shaykhly diploma from al-Azhar. As several speakers noted, the thoughts expressed in this forum could not be made openly in virtually any Muslim majority country in the world (certainly with a few exceptions). Other issues would not shock reform-minded Muslims, such as the call for equality of Muslim women and men; not forcing Muslim women and men into a single mode, but allowing each to be independent agents of worshipping Allah without imposed cultural constraints. As one sister eloquently phrased it, why should women be forced to pray behind the men and look at their bottoms?

There were no real heretics at the conference. I doubt there have ever been any heretics willing to accept the brand of heretic as a sign of not knowing the truth. Yes, there was thinking, and much of it was critical. But thinking is like opening a door. Whether or not there is really something on the other side of that door is the critical question. I suspect that everyone present already had an idea of what they would see by opening the door. That is very much the stuff truth is made out of, at least the kind of truth individuals can grasp. What if there is nothing to see, once the door is opened? Closing it would be closing your mind. Staring into the unknown may just be the most blinding light of all. Now isn’t that a heretical thought?"

Errin Haines of AOL news writes:

"During the three-day Celebration of Heresy Conference, panelists debated such issues as sharia, critical thinking and democracy and Islam - issues organizers of the conference say are central to Islamic reform, but which Muslims are not free to discuss within many contemporary Islamic societies. The topic of democracy and Islam was debated for more than an hour on Saturday. An-Na'im pointed to factors like poverty, a lack of education and underdevelopment as reasons why democracy has not taken root in more Muslim-based societies around the world. "Islam is not the problem," he said. "If Islam is consistent with Democracy, why are most Muslim societies not Democratic? The religion is not opposed to it." Fereydoun Taslimi, a Muslim activist in Atlanta, said that not many Middle Eastern countries can claim that they are operating under a representative form of government, with theocracy or less inclusive elections being the order of the day. Ensuring certain rights - like equality between the sexes and freedom of speech - can be attained through democracy. An-Na'im said that Muslims must figure out how to legitimize and reinforce Democratic values from an Islamic perspective."