*** UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Content is incomplete and may be inaccurate. Please revisit in a few months. ***

Table of Contents

ATHEISM VS. AFTERLIFE

XXX

TRADITIONAL ISLAM 101

The claims of Traditional Islam are listed below to serve as a contrasting baseline for the study of BioIslam. Unless otherwise noted, these are the views of Sunni Muslims, typified by highly qualified scholars like Shk. Dr. Yasir Qadhi in the US or Prof. Tariq Ramadan in Europe, or charismatic popular preachers like Shk. Hamza Yusuf or Nauman Ali Khan. For a fuller picture, read xxx books listed at the bottom of the FAQ & Reading List.

The creation — xxx

Prior Prophets — xxx

Our Role in Life — xxx

Guide to Decisions — xxx

Accommodating Modernity —

Escape from Suffering —

Day of Judgement — xxx

The Afterlife — xxx

SEVEN TYPES OF MUSLIMS

Where do BioMuslims and Traditional Muslims fit in the big picture of religiousity?

REWRITE

It is useful to understand what types of Muslims currently exist. Muslims can be categorized into the Seven Types framework based on five key concepts.

1. “Litmus tests” on hot topics

2. The Quran’s evergreen “latent principles”

3. The Quran’s reveal-as-needed piecemeal approach. Call it “bite-sized”

4. How comfortable are you with “religious risk”?

5. The Ultimate Test of Universal Ethics

As summarized in the figure and table that follows, there are three major types of practitioners of Traditional Islam, Literalists, Disciples, and Familials. The polar opposite of the far-right-wing Literalist is the far-left-wing Rationalist who prioritizes reason even at the risk of violating clear Quranic commandments, such as do not eat pork. The terms left and right are used with the same polarity as in the US political arena. “Convenient” or easygoing partially-pious types mix and match all of the above as convenient; some might call them opportunists, but I do not do so given its negative connotation. Culturalists are not pious per se, are possibly secular or agnostic, but actively practice the popular culture of fellow Muslims.

BioMuslims share views with all of the three traditionalist types to some degree, but have their own distinct set of beliefs that are summarized and contrasted in the table at the end of this chapter. Also, many people will not neatly fit into any of these five types but borrow a bit from each, in varying proportion, but this typology aids our comprehension of Muslim society. Similarly, the same person might shift from one box to another, or live between boxes, through the different stages of life. In the thrush of youth they may be more to the left, and shift right with age and circumstance.

Most professional Imam’s are Literalists; they almost have to be, else they get fired. Although BioMuslims often, but not always, disagree with Literalists, they acknowledge the latter might have a well-intentioned view. There is a noble attempt at integrity and consistency in the thought process of Literalists, but ultimately undermined by the complex system problem discussed in the first chapter.

Culturalists are key to Brain Drain, the biggest of the Big Five problems cited earlier. They often grew up in Traditionalist Muslim families but were likely turned off by the complexity, dogma and rigidity of Traditionalism, prompting them to write books like “The Atheist Muslim: A Journey from Religion to Reason” [Rizvi]. The “Memo to Non-Muslims” will help them integrate reason with religion and recognize the appeal of spirituality. Yet, Culturalists continue to label themselves Muslim since they might not want to break with their family or might enjoy some aspects of Muslim culture, such as exchanging greetings of peace, celebrating Eid, eating kabas or biriyani, etc.

Which type of Muslim are you?

That depends on which of the “litmus tests” you pass — on hot topics like evolution, wine, pork, riba, mahram, polygamy, witnessing, Zabeeha etc. If you are somewhere in the middle, i.e. if you are a Literalist on some issues but a Rationalist on others, you are either a Familial or Disciple or a Convenient Muslim. This framework promotes a holistic view of the religion spanning many issues. Contrast this with many practitioners who select a few favorite passages from the Quran or Hadith and orient their lives around it (or simply ignore the inconvenient ones).

My end goal is not to label or judge Muslims but to promote intra-faith dialogue, which is just as necessary as inter-faith dialogue. In an Ummah that has been cursed by sectarianism and centuries-old heated debate, intra-faith dialogue is essential. While we must resist the urge to judge which of the five types makes a better Muslim; only Allah swt knows what is in their hearts (Q XX:XX). However, if compelled to judge, I would rely on the “ultimate test of universal ethics”, described later.

BIOISLAM LEARNS FROM BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT WINGS

xxx ADD DETAILS xxx on views of above types

INTRA-FAITH IMPERATIVE

The pillar of harmony requires we learn to communicate with those who disagree with our interpretation of both Islam and other religions. It is arrogant if not downright dangerous to presume that our particular interpretation of Islam is most merited since all of the three types of Traditionalists, the Literalists, Followers and Disciples, are following a system of thought which has internal integrity and consistency. In the divisive, unproductive, and therefore undesirable, game of judging others, we must not forget that the only real litmus test for being a Muslim is the shahada and the only unforgivable sin in this merciful religion is shirk.

Second, while many Muslims are thankfully engaged in inter-faith dialogue, what we are sorely missing is intra-faith dialogue. We need to replace pushy Tablighi Dawa with inquisitive dialogue. The latter is critical to enhancing communal learning, a pre-requisite for collective progress. Too many Muslims have strong views about their interpretation of Islam and just don’t get the other side’s viewpoint. Knowing and understanding diverse people is explicitly encouraged by the Holy Quran, hence my memos below. As an aside, intra-faith dialogue is a worthwhile solution for Islamic countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan that have become ideologically polarized.

Third, preferably avoid judging the faiths of non-Muslims because you haven’t spent enough time understanding them. And, even if you myopically do, be mindful that they too have similar stratifications. The ritualistic practices of Hindu/Christian/Jewish Literalists or Traditionalists might appear strange to you but their Rationalists might be as sensible as those in our community. For example, many Muslims frequently criticize Catholic Christians for idolating Jesus (pbuh) or celibate priesthood; however, Christian Unitarians and Christodelphians use “open reason” and do not hold these views.

Memo to Literalists

In my experience, most Literalists are prone to myopic judgmentalism. A Literalist is likely to condemn Rationalists and Convenient Muslims as spiritual lightweights or downright debauch. Meanwhile, many wrongly judge the Literalists as following an obsolete, or in the case of gender controversies, perverted version of Islam.

Also literalists who rely on the Hadith must acknowledge that Hadith are spiritually risky since many aHadith may not have been possibly perfectly preserved because the Sunni Sahih Hadith books(which are different from the Shia ones) were cemented two hundred or more years after the Prophet’s death (pbuh) and there is shockingly unacceptable stuff even in the best of Sahih Hadith books, like Imam Bukhari’s.

Also, recognize that Literalists and Traditionalists are typically more ritualistic than the Rationalists. But judging piety based on ritualism is questionable since very few if any rituals are ordained by the Quran and we don’t fully know which of these rituals are purely cultural. In other words, is some of sunnah just cultural? Also, rituals by definition are externally visible. For example, while a ritualistic Literalist might appear more pious than a contemplative Rationalist, both might well be exercising their spirituality equally but very differently. The principle-centered Rationalists, whether or not they are ritualistic, implicitly and importantly comply with the spirit of the law, since Islam cannot be irrational and is meant for all times and all peoples.

Memo to Rationalists

While no one alive knows who will score the better deal in the afterlife, we know who is taking on more religious risk in the venture of life. Is it possible that the only risk-free practitioners are Literalists and Disciples? The Follower does not worry much about these theological issues; he or she just goes with the flow of family and friends. So he/she is looking at religious risk not in absolute but in relative terms. Clearly, there is a certain peace-of-mind value in the spiritual de-risking of the Literalist and the “go with the ancestral flow” ritualistic approach of the Familial Follower or the Disciple?

xxx Role of niyya / beauty of intentions.

Memo to Parents

One phase of life when our religious inclinations are further discerned is parenthood, i.e. we must decide which version of the religion to brainwash (yes, that’s what we really do) the kids with. Regardless of your personal choice, there are two approaches – love or fear. Any of the five types of Muslims could approach their belief out of love or fear of God. A progressive Rationalist Muslim loves or fears God no less than a Literalist who is outwardly pious and adheres to rituals or strong symbols of extreme piety, e.g. untrimmed beards and forehead marking for men or hijab and niqab for women. I think the debate should not be about which of the first four types is more committed to God (with Convenient Muslims less committed by definition), but about whether it is better to approach God through love or fear. For most practitioners it is a combination of the two, but I believe if you had to choose one, strongly choose the positive element of Godly love, especially when it comes to raising kids.

This is best noted by the prayer commonly attributed to Rabia al Basri:

O God! If I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell;

and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise;

but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake,

withhold not Thine Everlasting Beauty!

The Ultimate Test of Universal Ethics

If Islam is a great religion, as I strongly believe it is, should it not have produced a clearly superior society? Sadly, empirical evidence contradicts — I strongly suspect a large sample of present day Muslims will NOT outscore an economically-comparable sample of Christians or Hindus on universal ethics – i.e. the “inside” pillars of ethics such as do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal, help others, etc. Every major religion emphasizes these humanist virtues, so should these not be the primary measure of righteousness in any society?

Drilling down within the Muslims group, which type of Muslim is more likely to pass the universal ethics test, the Literalist or Rationalist? My categorization of Literalist/Rationalist depends on various litmus tests like wine, pork, Riba etc. However, the ultimate litmus test occurs at society’s aggregate level – is a large sample of Literalist Muslims more just, ethical and charitable than a collection of Rationalist Muslims? I doubt it.

While a Muslim rightly affirms the perfection of the Quran, he is wise to question the empirical success or failure of current Muslim society when measured on universal human values. If the conclusion is one of empirical failure, then it is not the theory that is at fault but the inter-generational teaching method.

An analogy: math theory has high integrity. But if a large population of kids taught by various teachers is underperforming at math, one of three questions arise. Are they stupid? Or is the theory wrong? Or is the teaching method flawed? If the sample is large enough, only the last reason is valid. Ditto for today’s Islamic society.

I believe the excessive focus on rituals, traditions and memorization have undermined the critical universal humanistic values introduced by early Islam. While emphasis on rituals and memorization once made much sense given the absence of print media and the lack of a critical mass of followers, they make less sense today. While definitely not calling for eliminating them, I advocate inventing teaching methods that prioritize rational and humanistic aspects without loss of spirituality, since doing so will result in an empirical advantage for Muslims.

The anti-IQ test

If your version of Islam is so sophisticated that only the top 10% of Muslims (ranked by IQ) can comprehend it, then it dosen’t qualify for mainstream adoption. Islam is a universal religion which should be simple and accessible to all. If you have read this far into this doc, you almost certainly are in this elite decile. Why? Due to poverty, I suspect less than 10% of Muslims globally hold a bachelor’s degree of any kind (only 30% of Americans do). Sadly, for today’s average-IQ Muslim, the Rationalist interpretation is difficult to digest. Most strong practitioners of Islam are Traditionalist Followers, either Familials or Disciples. The problem with the Rationalist approach is each of us differs, despite our best intentions, in our capacity for reason – not only do IQ levels differ but also professional training matters; an artist’s intuitive rationale differs from a doctors’ deductive power or an engineer’s structured approach. So while one Rationalist’s non-consensus position on a litmus issue may appear obvious to a few, it is a “stretch” to some and exhausting to others.