I don’t understand much of your response. It is you with the red-herring anecdote, there are no anecdotes in my post.

Believe me, I am aware that such discussions go on. I have been a part of many. But just like discussions on the Black Muslim/Immigrant Muslim divide, discussions on the “conservative”/progressive Muslim divide often consist of the same tired type of anecdotes which are either completely imaginary or not representative of the real issues (as far as I can tell). I have no doubt that these make people feel good when they reinforce their own stereotyped views of the other (and of themselves) but it is my firm belief that they are not helpful to solving real problems. Which is why I encourage people like yourselves who are obviously intelligent and as far as I can tell well meaning to engage in the discussion more seriously, using real non-exaggerated, non imagined stereotype realities and discussing how we should respond to them.

That is why your Eid prayer thing quite problematic and to me, why it was not serious.

Allaah knows best.

And don’t forget about class in Britain either. Muslims have been held down as an underclass in the UK, and hence a keen sense of disimpowerment and alienation undergirds UK extremism. The MI5 report is more relevant to a discussion of class and discrimination in the UK than a vindication of religious conservatism shot through with puritanism in the larger conversation.

El Fadl though does speak to this population too:

Puritanism is not represented by formal institutions; it is a theological orientation, not a structured school of thought. Therefore, one finds a broad range of ideological variations and tendencies within it. But the consistent characteristic of puritanism is a supremacist ideology that compensates for feelings of defeatism, disimpowerment, and alienation with a distinct sense of self-righteous arrogance vis-a-vis the nondescript “other” – whether that “other” is the West, nonbelievers in general, so-called heretical Muslims, or even Muslim women.

Religious conservatives can know a ton about religion…most of them do. Religious zealots often cling to one issue as their reason for even being associated with the religion (eg…abortion..christian conservatives).

There are 44 entries under the ‘Muslim-on-Muslim violence’ tag here at Talk Islam. I estimate just from a quick glance through them that between 30 and 35 arise directly from forms of religious conservatism, albeit mostly puritanical and extreme.

The remaining entries involve crime and social disorder – a serial killer, gang violence, street crime, honor killings, etc.

The MI5 report is irrelevant and it’s unclear to me what you think it says. I gather from the context though that you think it’s provocative and contradictory – and the only way it could be is if you equate conservative with “knows his religion” and moderate with ‘religious illiteracy.’

Is that the point you were trying to make? If so, that’s more an expression of prejudice than a response to El Fadl’s points or my own.

Religious illiterates and religious savants exist on all sides of the spectrum.

The deviance and violence arises entirely from the conservative-puritan orientation, and I lay that at the conservatives’ feet and say ‘clean your own house.’

Some numbers or other evidence?

Here’s a MI5 report:

Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

Here’s El Fadl expanding on the concept of a puritan/moderate schism:

Although the schism between moderate and puritan Muslims has become distinct, pronounced, and real, this division is not explicitly recognized in the Muslim world. The dichotomy between the two groups is a lived and felt reality, but there has been no attempt to recognize the systemic differences between the two contending parties. In fact, many Muslims have been reluctant to speak openly of two primary orientations juxtaposed against each other within modern Islam. The failure to acknowledge the existence of such a division has contributed to the confusion about who in Islam believes in what, and it may also be responsible for the widespread misconceptions about the teachings and doctrines of the religion.

As El Fadl writes, the difference between each other is “lived and felt,” and nowhere near exhaustively understood. It’s an unreasonable expectation that at my level as a blogger I’m going to delineate where conservatism slips into radicalization and becomes extermism/puritanism in some comprehensive and final way (though I’ll keep biting off chunks) – and perhaps that would be the point of such a request, to silence the conversation.

I do know this and therefore I think it is a good place to start: The deviance and violence arises entirely from the conservative-puritan orientation, and I lay that at the conservatives’ feet and say ‘clean your own house.’

In the meantime, for the majority of Muslims who also ‘live and feel’ the wrongness but also lack the precision and scholarship to sort the conservative-puritan’s house for them, the safe-for-your-soul thing to do is to move into the moderate orientation.

What I’m saying is this: What else besides being in a very strange mental state could make someone who hears “all Muslims are required to have weapons training” (or something similarly idiotic) decide that it sounds like a good idea? They decide that just because it has an “Islamic” label on it and that it’s spoken by a person of authority that it’s probably right? Normal people have a BS filter and seem quite capable of utilizing it.

But in any case – continually walking away or ignoring the fact that you do have these (few) bad apples preaching such nonsense is doing us as a community no favors. No, we don’t have to listen to them. But we’d be doing ourselves a huge favor if we, as you seem to be suggesting, take an active role in removing people like this from positions of authority, especially in mosques and Islamic centers in the US. Because then you don’t have to worry as much about the weak-minded, mentally ill, or the maladjusted acting based on some nonsense interpretation of Islam and doing something stupid (like shooting up an army base).

Fostering an environment where orthodoxy is encouraged and fostering an environment conducive to extremist/violent interpretations of Islam are not necessarily the same thing. One can be quite orthodox without harboring hatred and violence. When you say “puritanical”, it’s not clear if you’re referring to only these odd, violent interpretations. And I think this is what Abu Noor is getting at.

You’re self-deluded if you think my friend and I are the only two Muslims who have had or are having some version of that conversation, Abu Noor. You should engage it, rather than dismiss it with red herring anecdotes (well-adjusted conservatives? No kidding…)

And what does such social conservatism or bad manners or whatever it is you are accusing Muslim leadership with have to do with violence.

It smells like you trying to latch onto something horrific about which we know very little as somehow evidence for why you should push your own agenda harder. Again, if you really think there is a serious issue, I would encourage you to address it in a serious manner.

Allah Knows Best.