Hijab: Personal Choice Not State Law

Hijab, the head cover Muslim women wear in keeping with their religious traditions, has become in modern times a politically charged issue in several Muslim countries, and more recently in Europe. In the early eighties, Iran imposed hijab on its female citizens, while Syria banned it from schools during the same period. Syria gradually came to term with hijab, as the number of Syrian women who chose to wear it increased drastically during the nineties. Hijab is enforced today in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and banned in Tunisia and Turkey. France banned the hijab in 2004, and far right politicians and pundits are calling for similar ban in other European countries, and have already succeeded in doing so in the Belgium city of Antwerp.

The Turkish parliament passed last week a constitutional amendment that practically repealed early constitutional provisions that allowed the Turkish government to ban hijab from government buildings, universities, and schools in the late nineties. Although the lifting of ban is not in force yet, the confrontation over this issue with secularists who control the military and the courts has already started. Secularist Turks are up in arms, protesting the new amendment, and preparing to challenge it in court.

The debate over hijab is emotionally charged, with secular Turks presenting the move as the first step toward ending democracy in Turkey and forcing all Turkish women to wear headscarf. This alarmist language has clouded the debate and created a sense of panic, as the choices presented are based on the logic of either/or, as if the only choices society can make is that between banning or enforcing the hijab. These are of course false choices, as society can choose neither to ban nor enforce. The third choice is the one available to women in most Muslim countries. In most societies, the decision to wear headscarf, or to take it off, is a personal choice.

Yet, the real problem is not in the decision a woman makes, but in the politicization of that decision. The problem lies in the moral inconsistency and the use of double standards in addressing an issue concerning individual choice and freedom of expression. The only morally defendable position is in denying the state the right to either force or prohibit people to follow practices they genuinely believe to be required by their religious traditions, particularly when these practices do not violate the rights of others.

The argument to ban hijab often rests on a paternalistic attitude derived from the dominant position enjoyed by the group to which the person who advocate hijab ban (or enforcement) belongs. For decades now, anti hijab writers refused to consider it as a personal choice and an individual right, protected under international humanitarian law. Reza Afshari, for instance, insists that wearing hijab must not be seen as a self-expression of Muslim women, but rather as a symptom of a male-dominant culture. He, further, argues that Muslim women have internalized the "male-dominated culture." He even claims that, in addition to being sub-consciously misguided, Muslim women have another reason for wearing hijab, namely to avoid "those sanctioned practices that permit harassment of women in public, forcing them to comply with repressive norms and rewarding them by according them a marked difference in the ways men treat women in public."

The argument is both flawed and sexist. It is flawed because it can be equally used to undermine the right of women who chose not to wear hijab by those who could argue that the latter style of dressing is not a personal choice, but is rather influenced by the dominant culture. The argument is, more importantly, sexist as it assumes that women cannot have a mind of their own, and are always vulnerable to manipulation by male members of their society.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the above assertion is correct, then the remedy cannot be a decision to ban hijab and deny women the right to personal choices, in violation of equal protection of the law. The remedy must rely on persuasion, education, and enactment of laws that would empower women to act on their on volition, instead of being forced by the state to wear the headscarf or take it off.

A similar argument was recently made by Cheryl Benard in a report that was published by the RAND Corporation in 2004. Benard refused to see the Muslim headscarf as a religious practice, and chose instead to castigate it as a provocative political statement and a challenge to Western democracy. Benard insisted that hijab is worn by women who belong to one of several problematic categories. "In the United States," she claimed, "hijab is typically worn by the following groups: recent immigrants from rural, traditional parts of the Muslim world; fundamentalists; unassimilated traditionalists belonging to the strongly observant minority; the elderly;" and, the author states that when it is worn by "young women," these women "want to get attention and make a provocative statement in their schools, colleges, or workplaces."

What is provocative is not that Muslim women are choosing to wear hijab, but that there are still individuals that lay claim to intellectualism and liberal tradition who, in keeping with Orientalist strategies, continue to deal with the followers of the Islamic faith as silent objects of research who must always be defined by their detractors, but never allowed to define themselves in their own voices. This sad state of affairs was highlighted in an article by Manal Omar that was published in the Guardian in April 2007 under the title "I felt more welcome in the Bible belt."

Manal narrates in the article her ordeal during a short stay in Oxford, England, when she was challenged by an angry man who did not approve of her wearing a swimsuit that covered her body. Not only did the man speak with her in condescending voice, but the newspaper that reported the event with sensation and negative spin refused to interview her, and relied solely on the account of her accuser.

She ellequontly described her painful experience as she was rendered an object of ridicule, and her story was used as a springboard for attacks on multiculturalism and Muslim immigrants as it was debated on an online discussion forum. "Looking back," she wrote, "what disturbed me the most about the debate was that my very identity was reduced to a cluster of cliches about Muslim women. I was painted in broad strokes as an oppressed, unstable Muslim woman. I was made invisible, an object of ridicule and debate, with no opinion or independent thoughts. The fact that I had dedicated the past 10 years to working on women's issues on a global level, led a delegation of American women into Afghanistan in 2003, and put my life on the line in Iraq struggling for women's constitutional rights were clearly beyond anyone's imagination."

Politicians and pundits who question the right of Muslim women to practice their faith do not only ignore the leadership role they play, but also fail to recognize their capacity to be inspired by their faith. The claim that hijab is worn today by oppressed women is seriously flawed, and is remnant of 19th century Orientalim. Many women who chose hijab today are highly educated and actively involved in public life. They include lawyers, journalists, politicians, directors of non-profit organizations, human rights advocates, professors, and leaders of religious groups and grassroots organizations.

It is about time that Muslim women's personal choices are respected and their voices are heard.

This article appeared in the following publications

Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
Alarab Online
Online Journal
Aljazeera Magazine
Dawn

Read more >>>

Gender Politics - ISNA's First Female President

The recent election of Ingrid Mattson to the presidency of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was received with great enthusiasm by the North American Muslim community and the public at large. Her election was seen as a sign of maturation, and as a vindication of Islam's respect of women's rights and contemporary Muslims' ability to overcome cultural traditions and rise to the level of the high moral demands of Islam.

Yet some Muslims in North America, and many in Muslim societies, raised questions as to the propriety of a female presiding over the largest Muslim organization in North America, and as to the compatibility of female leadership with Islamic principles and precepts. As one of the skeptics about the position taken by the Islamic Society of North America put it: "Why ISNA is violating [the] Sunnah and clear guidelines in Islam? Is that ISNA now being influenced by [a] local version of Islam?"

Those who resist the notion of women leadership in the name of Islam base their position on historical arguments made by early Muslim jurists. Yet a fair examination of early Muslim scholarship and Islamic sources reveals a variety of positions with regards to the public rights and duties of women. While Ibn Jarir al-Tabari places no limitations on women's right to assume the post of judge in all legal matters, al-Mawardi contends that women cannot be allowed to serve as judges under any circumstances. In between stands Abu Hanifa who allows women to serve as judges but only in cases involving commercial deals.

Historical Islamic jurisprudence, while recognizing the capacity of women to enjoy certain civil and political liberties, managed, nonetheless, to curtail these liberties on social and rational grounds. The degree of limitation on the exercise of civil and political rights also varied across historical periods and legal schools.

When approaching Islamic sources to shed light on the issue of women's rights, a clear distinction emerges between the rights of women in the public sphere, and their rights in the area of family law. For while Islamic sources differentiate men's and women's responsibilities within the family, all limitations on women's rights imposed by early jurists in the public sphere were based on either historically-bound interpretations of Islamic texts, or practical limitations associated with the social and political structures of historical society.

The Qur'an is unequivocal in assigning equal responsibilities for men and women for maintaining public order: "The believers, men and women, are protectors one of another; they enjoin the right (ma'ruf) and forbid the intolerable (munkar); they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger." (Qur'an 9:71). Since men and women are entrusted with the same public responsibility to enjoin the right and forbid the intolerable, one should expect that both would enjoy equal political rights. Yet it is obvious that classical jurists deny women political equality with men. The question therefore arises as to what is the basis of the classical position?

Jurists who deny women the right to public office base their arguments on one Qur'anic and one prophetic statement. The Qur'anic statement reads: "Men are the protectors (qawwamun) of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because men support women from their means." (4: 34) The word qawwamun which connotes "support" and "protection" has come to signify authority as well. The fact that qawwamun also signifies authority is not difficult to see as the remainder of the above Qur'anic statement empowers men with the right to discipline women guilty of mischief. But can the above verse be used to deny women access to public office?

The answer is an emphatic no. For the authority implied by qawwamun and the obedience it entails is relevant--even under classical interpretation--within the confines of the family. It is clear that the Qur'an does not intend to give authority to every single man over every single woman. Nor do those who extend the implication of this verse to the public sphere expect that any single woman in society should obey any single man. This being the case, no one can invoke the notion of qawwamun to deny women access to public office.

The other textual evidence used by classical jurists, and continues to be held by contemporary traditionalist jurists, is in the form of a hadith text that states: "They shall never succeed those who entrust their affairs to a woman." Reportedly the statement is a comment made by the Prophet upon hearing the news of the accession of Puran, the daughter of King Anusherawan, to the Persian throne after the passing away of her father. The hadith is authentic, and was reported by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, and Nasa'i. Its narrator, Abu Bakra, stated that the Prophet uttered this statement while commenting on the news of the accession of Puran. As such, the hadith has bearing only on a particular incident, and does not embody a univesal principle. The fact that it contradicts a universal principle establish by the verse (4: 34) of the Qur'an discussed above reafirms its particular nature.

Further, the following issues must be recalled when interpreting the above hadith: (1) The hadith statement is not given in the form of a directive, but an opinion that has to be understood in its historical and cultural context. That is, the hadith has to be interpreted in the context of a historical society where women were not active participants in political life, and in the context of a political culture that places the hereditary rule over the principle of merit in deciding political succession. (2) The hadith is a single statement that has no support in the most authoritative Islamic source--i.e. the Qur'an. Indeed, the narrator of the hadith had no following among the Prophet's companions in his effort to extend the application of the hadith to 'Aishah, the Prophet's wife, as he invoked it to object to her leading the Army. (3) The hadith stands in a direct contradiction with the principle of moral and political equality of the sexes, a principle established by numerous Qur'anic verses. (4) Finally, the hadith, being a singular narration (khabar ahad), is of a lesser degree of certainty than the Qur'anic narration (khabar mutawatar), and hence cannot overrule principles established in the Qur'an.

The issue of women leadership is influenced more by cultural, rather than religious, traditions, and hence boils down to rational arguments on psychological differences between the two genders, as well as the impact of full participation of women in public life on the family. The critics of women's participation in leadership functions are fully entitled to express their misgivings with regard to women leadership, but then they should respect the public choice when it supports female leaders. The critics are not, however, entitled to elevate their misgivings and literalist interpretations to the level of formal requirements.

The objection to the election of the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America is borne out of a serious confusion: the Prophet, God's peace and blessings be with him, questioned the wisdom of appointing an inexperienced woman to a leadership position because she happened to be the king's daughter; the Islamic society of North America elected an experienced Muslim leader, with a long track record in leadership and public service.


The article has appeared in the following publications:

Alt.Muslim
Middle East Online
Naseeb Vibes
Official Wire
The American Muslim
Media Monitors Network

Read more >>>

Towards Women Friendly Mosques

The Islamic Social Services Association and Woman in Islam have released a guide underlining a set of principles rooted in Islamic sources that outlines the rights of Muslim women to have full access to the masjid, and calling on Muslim leaders to privilege Islamic principles and values over cultural habits and traditions. The guide is entitled “Women Friendly Mosques and Community Centers: Working Together to Reclaim Our Heritage.”

The guide presents a serious attempt to deal with an issue that requires an immediate attention by Muslim communities: the place of women in the masjid and the community. I personally faced the issue for the first time two decades ago when a Muslim Student Association board member objected to the inclusion of women in an executive meeting. He based his position in Islamic traditions, but his argument was found lacking by everyone else on the board. The meeting went on without him but with the two sisters.

The point of view that was expressed by the MSA board member alluded to above continued to be well represented over the years within the Muslim community, particularly among immigrants who grew up in societies were women did not take an active role in social life and community development. The point of view that was hostile to the presence of women in the masjid gained more following in many Islamic centers throughout North America, as the community grew more dependent on imams and scholars educated in universities that provide a narrow Islamic education.

Hammered by Islamic opinions apparently rooted in Islamic sources, many masjids started to erect barriers and drop curtains between the men and women areas. Eventually, many masjids designated a separate and secluded area for Muslim women. The strict seclusion often mimicked arrangements adopted by masjids in Muslim countries, and was tolerated by women who grew up in a condition of seclusion.

American-born Muslim women, including women grew up in immigrant families, find it increasingly difficult to accept the regime of seclusion in the masjid that cut them off from education and decision making. Some have chosen to stay away and find alternative ways to acquire Islamic education and engage in social services. Others went back to understand Islamic sources and to find out that there is no ground for the regime of seclusion.

The “Women Friendly Masques” guide is the outcome of a quest by Muslim women who made the journey to examine the Islamic sources and to face head on the arguments employed to perpetuate a regime that cuts Muslim women off from Islamic education and community service. The journey took them into direct contact with the Islamic text and put them in touch with Muslim scholars. The conclusion they came back is both refreshing and relieving for every Muslim women that was troubled with the sense of alienation she develop by visiting the center of Islamic life, whose prophet, peace be with him, came to reaffirm the spiritual and moral equality of both men and women.

The guide demonstrates that the regime of women’s seclusion is rooted more is social rationalization than in Islamic teachings. It demonstrates that the Prophet was concerned about the possible exclusion of women by overzealous men, and unequivocally instructed the community to make sure that women are not prevented from attending the masjid. The guide also shows that the arguments against women’s participation in the masjid boil down to the principle of dar’ al mafasid (prevention of corruption); such a principle cannot be invoked to invalidate an established right sanctioned by Islamic law.

The guide does not stop at articulating a position rooted in the most authentic Islamic sources, but provides practical guidelines to help community leaders ensure that the masjid is a center for spiritual growth and learning for all Muslims. It also shares the perspective of women who experienced seclusion first hand, and documents through statistical data the extent of women’s seclusion and marginalization in North American masjids.

The guide is intended to clarify the Islamic position concerning women’s participation in the masjid by ascertaining Islamic sources. The conclusions will not sit well with Muslims who have already established their positions on the basis of their cultural experiences. The guide is likely to be dismissed by two groups: those who are convinced that women should stay away from the public square, and those who are oblivious to the importance of community support and maturation for realizing moral and spiritual equality.

Regardless of initial reactions, I am sure that most Muslims will view it as an important tool to deal with a complex issue. I do pray that those who agree with the guide’s conclusions will not only node their heads in agreement, but will do their level best to make its guidelines a part and parcel of the daily life of the Islamic center and community. The fact that five of the largest and most influential mainstream Muslim organizations have embraced the guide will go long way towards translating the ideals it articulates to reality.


Link to “Women Friendly Mosques” at: http://www.ildc.net/womens-involvement/

This article appeared in the following publications:

American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences - USA

Read more >>>

Woman and the Masjid between Two Extremes

The masjid, better known in North America as the Islamic center, is the center of spiritual, social, educational, and, most recently, political activities of the American Muslim community. The masjid is also the place where Muslims of diverse cultural and ideological backgrounds meet and interact. The diversity of interpretations of Islamic sources and practices has created tensions, particularly in Islamic centers where the tendency is to impose strict interpretations about the appropriate place and role of Muslim women in the masjid and the community.

An increasing number of young Muslim women complain of restrictive arrangements and practices, impeding their ability to fully participate in educational and social programs. Many masjids today restrict the main prayer hall to men, and assign women to secluded quarters. Women are asking out laud: is this the place Islam assigns for us, or is it the imposition of cultural traditions? Some have even gone to the other extreme of rejecting all traditions and discarding all limits.

For Believing Men and Women

The masjid is a place for spiritual growth and development for all Muslims, and should be equally accessible for both genders. The Qur’an has set the spiritual and moral equality of men and women in explicit and unequivocal terms:

Allah has prepared forgiveness and great rewards for the Muslim men and women; for the believing men and women; for the devout men and women; for the truthful men and women; for the men and women who are patient and constant; the men and women who humble themselves; for the men and women who give charity; for the men and women who fast, for the men and women who guard their chastity; and the men and women who are exceedingly mindful of Allah. (Al-Ahzab 33:35)

Both men and women, the Qur’an stresses, have a moral obligation to develop themselves spiritually and morally, and to fulfill their social responsibilities. The masjid is, and has always been, the center of moral and spiritual learning and growth.

Likewise, the masjid is a public place for discussing issues of public concern and to respond to challenges facing the community. The Qur’an is also clear on the equal responsibility of both men and women for developing the public good:

The believing men and women are protectors and helpers of each other. They (collaborate) to promote all that is good and oppose all that is evil; establish prayers and give charity, and obey Allah and his Messenger. Those are the people whom Allah would grant mercy. Indeed Allah is Exalted and Wise. (Al-Tawbah 9:71)

Promoting public good and opposing evil are public duties equally required from men and women, and the masjid is the place where Muslim men and women can meet to plan community development and devise strategies for promoting public good.

The Prophet Affirms Equal Access

During the formative years of Islam women participated in public services, and shared the Masjid of the Prophet’s main hall. Sharing the main prayer hall allowed women to fully engage in public debate and influence decisions affecting their lives and the life of the community. When the second Caliph Umar bin al-Khatab wanted to put a cap on dowry, he was challenged by a woman, who stood up in the middle of the masjid and pointed out that his proposed policy violated Islamic law. He conceded and the proposed policy was never carried out.

Although the Qur’an is clear on the spiritual and moral equality of men and women, the Prophet, recognizing the tendency of some men to be overprotective of their female relatives, cautioned the Muslim community against preventing women from frequenting the masjid:

Ibn Umar narrated: The Messenger of Allah, peace be with him, said: Do not deprive women of their share of the masjids, when they seek permission from you. Bilal said: By Allah, we would certainly prevent them. 'Abdullah said: I say that the Messenger of Allah, peace be with him, said it and you say: We would certainly prevent them! (Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 891)

Ibn Umar also narrated: The Prophet, peace be with him, said, "Allow women to go to the Mosques at night." (Bukhari Volume 2, Book 13, Number 22)

Sidestepping Established Principles

The argument against women sharing the main prayer hall is based on the principle of “corruption prevention” (dar’ al-mafasid). The principle states that “whatever leads to unlawful practices (haram) is in itself unlawful.” The principle, though not widely accepted by Muslim jurists, has been extensively used to limit actions that are otherwise lawful under Shari’ah. It was invoked by some jurists to reject the use of radio, TV, press, and other inventions because these were used to promote corrupt practices. Indeed, by invoking the principle of “corruption prevention” many good practices and devices could be declared unlawful, including the use of the internet and popular governance, as both are open to abuse.

Employing the “corruption prevention” argument, a number of masjids have decided to assign secluded quarters for women, and have placed many restrictions on women’s use of the masjid's facilities. In recent visits to three Islamic centers, several Muslim women complained bitterly to me about their experiences with community leaders. They complained of their inability to participate in general lectures and discussions, of the quality of the quarters assigned to them, and of their reliance on audio and video systems that frequently cut them off from the ongoing lectures or discussions.

Assigning women to separate quarters during lectures and discussions does not “prevent corruption” but rather “prevent education and spiritual growth.” I have heard many accounts of women completely immersed in conversations about shopping and cooking recipes during public lectures. The seclusion gives some women the feeling of distance and separation, and some women conclude that the events that take place in the main hall do not concern them. In such instances, the women’s quarters become less friendly to women who want to concentrate on learning and community issues.

Not all masjids embrace a mandatory seclusion policy. Many leading masjids, such as Dulles Area Musim Society (ADAMS), ensure that women share the main hall, participate fully in learning and consultation, and take active role in running the masjid. Women serve on the executive board of ADAMS and on its board of trustees. 5 of the 13 Board of Trustees members are women, and ADAMS vice president is a women. While ADAMS gives full access to women to use its main prayer hall, it still permits women who want privacy to stay in a separate quarter, thereby ensuring the Muslim women with different needs and convictions have place in the masjid.

Preventing women from exercising established rights or undertake duties cannot be justified under argument of “corruption prevention.” This argument was used at the formative stage of Islamic society, but was rejected by early Muslims. Abdullah bin Umar rejected this same argument of prevention:

Ibn 'Umar reported: Grant permission to women for going to the mosque in the night. His son who was called Waqid said: Then they would make mischief. He (the narrator) said: He thumped his (son's) chest and said: I am narrating to you the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and you say: No! (Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 890)

Problems with Women’s Seclusion

Assigning women a separate and secluded space does not only go against Qur’anic injunctions and the practices and directives of the Prophet, peace be with him, but is detrimental to the spiritual and moral growth of women and the development of the community.

Preventing women from gaining direct access to the main hall of the masjid, where lectures and study circles take place, deprives them from taking active role in learning. In addition to the psychological and emotional feeling of not taking active part in the meetings, the ability to interact with the speakers, to ask questions and offer comments, is impeded.

Secluding women deprive the emerging Muslim community from a growing number of young Muslim women who do expect, and rightly so, that the masjid does not take away their right to take active part in serving the community. When legitimate expectations are not met, and when the customs and cultural traditions are given priority, they often force women to stay away from the masjid, and hence from Islamic learning and activities.

Elevating the cultural traditions and customs of immigrants works against the very mission of the masjid, as it becomes an impediment for educating people of other faiths about Islam. Historically, Islam found home in different communities throughout the world because of its ability to accommodate local customs and cultures, as long as they are not in conflict with Islamic teachings. Immigrant communities would be betraying their mission and trust if they insist on imposing their customs and cultural traditions.

Women and Masjid’s Governance

Women’s leadership in the community is another contentious issue. Women have assumed, in some Islamic centers, key leadership positions, by serving on the executive boards, and leading key committees, while they are kept at arm’s bay in others. Although Islam recognized the capacity of women to enjoy equal moral responsibility, as we saw earlier, many Muslim community managed, nonetheless, to curtail women’s participation in public duties on social and rational grounds. The degree of limitations placed on women’s ability to serve in public capacity varies across historical periods and fiqh schools.

Early jurists disagreed as to whether women can assume public office; while Ibn Jarir al-Tabari placed no limitations on women’s right to assume the post of judge in all legal matters, al-Mawardi contended that women cannot be allowed to serve as judges under any circumstances. In between stands Abu Hanifa who allowed women to serve as judges except in cases involving commercial deals.

To their credit, early Muslim jurists recognized women’s rights to serve in public capacity at times when many women have limited involvement in public life, and limited exposure to public service. Contemporary Muslim jurists should ensure that the original Qur’anic position of equal spiritual and moral rights and obligations is respected and advanced in today’s society. This is more pressing today as the question of women capacity to exercise leadership and serve the community is put to rest through impressive track record of Muslim women achieving in the academia, professional work, and community service.

Our masjids must reflect the leading role played by American Muslim women by ensuring that they are represented on the masjid board and join the rank of leadership. The importance of women taking active part on the executive board and in executive committees is further underscored by the need to represent concerns that can not be expressed except by women, who feel the impact of decisions made by the masjid on the quality of life and participation of other women.

Swinging to the Other Extreme

Several feminist Muslims, supported by a network of progressive activists, have been pushing the pendulum to the other extreme. Their solution for limiting women to secluded quarters, and their marginalization in ultra conservative masjids, is to open the masjid to a mixed congregation led by women. The Progressive Muslim Union has already announced a mixed congregation to be led by Amina Wadud this month in New York. It is unfortunate that Muslim feminists are following in the footsteps of their secularist precursors, breaking all traditions, and engaging in experimentations that break out with formative principles and values. For individuals and movements interested in reforming attitudes and practices to take the opposite extreme can only hurt the reform agenda already underway throughout North America.

The recent push to break out with community and tradition goes far beyond any reform agenda. Reform requires that one articulates the foundational principles and then engages the larger Muslim community in dialogue to create a new awareness and to translate the articulated principles into a living tradition. Reform aimed at critically engage Muslim traditions must stick closely to the Qur’an and prophetic practices, to clarify Islamic injunctions and established prophetic traditions. The Progressive Muslim Union’s leaders have apparently decided to push the envelop beyond all limits and operate in revolutionary rather than a reformist mode.

It is quite apparent that Muslim reformers, concerned with evolving the practices of the American Muslim community, and ensuring the full and meaningful inclusion of women in community life, must navigate their way by maintaining a middle ground, away from extremist tendencies: away from extreme conservative tendencies obsessed with preserving cultural traditions even at the expense of distorting Islamic teachings, and from extreme liberal outbursts that want to break fully with all traditions and delve into an empty space with no directions and road signs.

Read more >>>