In January 2003 MWU was launched.  Initially, I was very hopeful as this seemed to be the beginning of an excellent publication that would speak to the younger generation of Muslims in the U.S.

Even before PMU (which grew out of MWU) was officially launched, an article appeared in the Vancouver Sun which noted that there was controversy over the PMU within the Muslim community, and that one of the primary objections was the invitation to join the PMU advisory board of individuals who were staunch supporters of the war in Iraq “ such as Seeme and Malik Hassan, founders of Muslims for Bush, and Farid Zakaria, who wrote in Newsweek that the invasion of Iraq is “the single best path to reform the Arab world.” The article also pointed out that Farid Esack had turned down an invitation to join the board because of this reason.

Another article in Newsday stated:  “With just weeks to go until the launch, Nassef and other organizers are lining up a board that is a global Who’s Who of Muslim leaders, from former Pakistani ambassador to Britain Akbar Ahmed to Muslim Public Affairs Council director Salem Al-Marayati.”

When the final list of the PMU Board of Directors and Board of Advisors was published on the website, many of these individuals were not listed. 

In October of 2004 Daniel Pipes published an article Failing to Find Moderate Musims at the PMU and I thought this looked promising as they were being attacked by both extremes and just might represent a legitimate middle position.

On November 15th, 2004 the Progressive Muslims Union (PMU) was officially launched.  The four original founders were:  Omid Safi, Sarah Eltantawi, Ahmed Nassef, and Hussein Ibish.  The ezine Muslim Wakeup was the primary vehicle for disseminating information about this new movement.  In fact MWU was called the Flagship of the PMU.  The Board of Directors of the PMU was:  Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur (Azizah magazine), Mona Eltahawy (journalist), Tarek Fatah (Muslim Canadian Congress), Aiman Mackie (Middle East Bridges Program), Naeem Mohaiemen (journalist), Ahmed Nassef (MWU Editor), Pamela Taylor (writer), and Zuriani ‘Ani’ Zonneveld (musician).  The Board of Advisors was: Ali Abunimah , Akbar S. Ahmed, Ziad Asali, Muqtedar Khan, Scott Siral al-Haqq Kugle, and Amina Wadud. The PMU grew out of MWU but after some time the websites were separated, and it appears that they are now at least technically two separate organizations, but with MWU still the main vehicle for publication of PMU views.

Again, I was initially very hopeful as I was completely in agreement with the stated goals and purposes and mission statement.  In a very short time, however, this hopefulness began to change to concern.  On the PMU website there is no membership application, no information about how decisions will be made, or whether or not there will be a vote, or who is eligible to vote. 

In an article in April of 2005, Is Muslimwakeup.com Undermining the Progressive Muslim MovementӔ, Muqtedar Khan, a member of PMU’s advisory board states: The conclusion that I can draw from all these debates and discussions is that while majority of Muslims sympathize and may even endorse the agenda of Progressive Muslims (1) seeking gender justice, (2) struggling for social justice, (3) advancing a moral inclusivist theology, and (4) opening the doors of Ijtihad for reinterpretation of Islam in the contemporary context, they strongly oppose the method and style of MWU.  I repeat, most American Muslims seem to sympathize with the causes that underpin the philosophy of Progressive Muslims, but they strongly disapprove of MWUԒs style. This raises the question, will MWU in the long run undermine the very movement, the Progressive Muslim movement that it seeks to promote.

I watched closely over the next few months for a response by MWU to the concerns raised by Muqtedar, but there was deafening silence.

In July of 2005 Muqtedar Khan, resigned.  His letter of resignation stated in part: “But lately the culture of takfir and the absolutely lack of basic adab and simple etiquette that is becoming a defining characteristic of PMU has become suffocating.I have been extremely critical of many Muslim organizations, specially ISNA, AMSS and CAIR organizations that are routinely ridiculed by PMU members who feel that they are morally superior to all Muslims—both in private and in writing but have never, ever been abused by any of them and most importantly never ever been made to feel that I do not belong.”

On August 24, 2005 three of the original four founding members of the Progressive Muslims Union (Omid Safi, Sarah Eltantawi, and Hussein Ibish) resigned.  In their letter of resignation they stated in part: “Unfortunately, PMU has not developed in the direction that we had envisioned and worked to promote. We readily accept our share of the responsibility for this, and do not seek to blame or second-guess any of our former colleagues. They are entitled to develop PMU in any direction that they see fit. However we have become convinced that PMU is not a forum that will allow us to successfully pursue the agenda we envisioned at its founding, and that this is not likely to change. We believe that the vision that we outlined in the PMU mission statement and that informed the founding of PMU remains vital and urgently needed, but has yet to find a vehicle for its effective expression. We remain committed to the values and goals of that mission statement, and we will continue to work to help develop and implement a progressive agenda for American Muslims.  We wish PMU all the best, offer it our support and encouragement, and hope that it will to grow into a vital and important organization that represents a significant constituency among North American Muslims.”

I have received a lot of negative comments and emails because MWU is listed on the main page of the links section of The American Muslim as a Selected Link (These are sites we visit regularly and which share our commitment to professionalism and rational discourse.) I have up to now refused to remove the link.

Over time the articles appearing on MWU have become more and more strident, and the general tone actually malicious and often mean-spirited.  Many articles seem to have no purpose other than to shock.  If the purpose is to influence public opinion within the Mulim community, then the method chosen is not very effective because it can only alienate a majority of Muslims.  Right after the ISNA convention, MWU published an article “ISNA Thugs” and on the front page of MWU there was a “MWU Poll” asking the question: Most Muslim Religious Leaders Are? The response choices given were - corrupt, irresponsible, ignorant, all of the above.  This is not a poll, there are no options for differing opinions - not even “other”.  A poll attempts to discover what public opinion is, not to enforce a pre-existing opinion.

I wrote a response to this article entitled “ISNA? Thugs” and sent off a request to MWU to also publish my response.  I have not heard from them yet.

Then today (9-13) MWU published an article Michael Knight about the ISNA convention.  This article was the final straw for me in attempting to see the positive in what has become a very negative and embarassing voice for Islam in America.  In this article Mr. Knight admits that rather than applying for press credentials, he went through a very dishonest process which resulted in his receiving a press pass that he wasn’t entitled to. 

These sorts of tactics can only hurt the cause of Progressive Muslims and I do not want to be associated with individuals or organizations that show so little professionalism or concern for truth and rational discourse.

Sadly, I am removing the link from The American Muslim website because I believe that the current methods being used by MWU has become so extreme that it will be used as justification to stifle the voice of the Progressive Muslim Movement.