Redefining Muslim Families in the Modern Times
By Zaid Shakir | 2026-01-16T07:44:03.274841+00:00 | Topic: Time
Redefining Muslim Families in Modern Times
Imam Zaid Shakir
Zaytuna Institute Knowledge Resources
Opening and Introduction
"(بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ - bismillahir-rahmanir-rahim)"
"
"
Alhamdulillah, we thank Allah for the organizers and for all of the brothers and sisters who took the time to come here. May Allah reward you, and we pray that it's a source of mutual benefit for us. The title of this program, and I took my talk from this: Redefining Muslim Families in the Modern Time.
The Traditional View of the Family
So to provide a context to be in talking about this subject, I think it's important for us to realize that there is a traditional view of the family. And without going into definitions, that view revolves around the idea that the family, amongst other things—I'm looking at it from one aspect is a tremendous, and in the view of many sociologists, in terms of this socializing role, traditionally it performed three, many others, but three very important functions, and other functions that are less important.
First Function: Reproducing Cultural Norms
One is reproducing cultural norms. So cultural norms such as language are reproduced in the family. Dress, for example, in traditional societies—why did members of one society all dress the same? Generally, this is our ethnic dress. So all of the Kurds dressed one way, all of the Arabs dressed one, all of the Yemenis, the Hadramis dressed one way, the people of the South Asia dressed a particular way, and there were local and regional variations of those dresses, dress codes if you will.
Norms of cuisine—why do we have Iranian cuisine and Turkish cuisine and Malaysian cuisine? Because we have Iranian, Turkish, and Malaysian families traditionally.
Social space—why do different people have different views of appropriate social spaces? So the Anglo-Saxon, if you're talking, you should be about this far away from here to be viewed as appropriate, whereas the South American, Latin American, from Indian cultures, you might be this close. So there's a cultural conflict. So if you're from Venezuela and Bob is from England or America and you say, "You know, Bob, how you doing today?" Bob might be very repulsed by that. "You know, Julio, you know, please, we just met. I'm not like that."
So these norms are passed on and reproduced in the context of the family. So Julio developed these spatial relationships and appropriateness first and foremost in his family, and these various cuisines, the various dress
traditionally.
Second Function: Reproducing Ethical Norms
The second thing: reproducing ethical norms. A child learns that lying is not appropriate, fornication is not appropriate, cursing and using foul language is not appropriate, or the opposite, because ethics aren't always what we would perceive as being positive. So you can have a bad ethic, you can have corrupt morals. For better or worse, the most important socializing agent is the family. Traditionally, this was the case.
Third Function: Norms of Character
And thirdly, norms of character. What constitutes a positive work ethic? What's the most important factor in determining how? Are his or her parents—do they watch around, lie around all day eating junk food? Well, traditionally, that wouldn't be relevant─junk food—but how do they approach work? Is it always something they expect an immediate return for? Or do they do it happily because they realize that working hard is a means in and of itself towards a greater end, and not always a means to obtain some material compensation?
Courage—how does the, how do the parents, how do we respond to situations that either call for courage or will be defined in terms of how those situations are resolved by manifesting courage or manifesting cowardice? This has a tremendous impact on the child.
Patience—we can read a book about patience, the virtue of patience. We can read the Ihya Ulum al-Din or the Mukashafat al-Qulub or any book on the virtue of patience. But if we're not around people, starting in our family, who are patient, it's going to be a struggle for us. But if our parents, from the time we were, before that time we were even conscious, manifested patience in their dealing with each other, the child will never have to read a book that for marriage to work, the couple have to be very patient in dealing with each other. You wouldn't have to tell a child that he's grown up in a family where the mother and father were very, very patient in dealing with each other. Unless the child is a sociopath, the child will assimilate those, that character in the context of being in that environment.
So traditionally, the family provided, or the family performed those functions, those socializing functions.
The Breakdown of the Traditional Family in Modern Times
Now in the modern situation, that's broken down by and large. The modern family, and the modern family is really more than anything else—so there are a lot of things that go into the modern family, and the danger of being Marxist in my approach—a lot of it is due to the Industrial Revolution. And we'll mention, again, just two things or two aspects of, or two consequences of the Industrial Revolution as it relates to family.
First Consequence: Work Left the Home
One, the Industrial Revolution, and this undermined the socializing role of the traditional family—one, it took work out of the home, or took the woman's work out of the home. And really, the industry that characterizes the Industrial Revolution more than anything else—what industry epitomizes the Industrial Revolution? If we say Industrial Revolution and the rise of modern industry, what's the first industry that comes to mind? Think of Manchester, England. Huh? Textiles. The textile industry. And the textile industry was instrumental in what?
Taking cloth, the making of clothes, the manufacture of clothing, from the home and out of the hands of the woman primarily, and putting it into factories.
So when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, work left the home, it was primarily the woman's work initially. So the woman simply followed her work out of the home. So the Industrial Revolution took the women out of the home. The woman went from the spinning wheel in the house, where she [made] her family's clothing, and from the sewing machine or its early modern predecessors, to the workbench in the factory. So this is the first consequence.
Second Consequence: Specialized Division of Labor
The second consequence is, as industrialization took root in the initially industrializing societies, you had an increasingly specified division of labor. And this is going on and on and continues to our day until the division of labor, in terms of how a modern product, especially one more complex like an automobile, is manufactured.
A horse and buggy, or buggy, a horse cart, could be manufactured by one person in one location, and it didn't require any degree of education to make a horse buggy. One would be an apprentice to a buggy maker and could do it right there. You get the wood, you get the metal bands to make the wheels if you use metal, hammer, nails, and you put the buggy together, and there's your means of transportation.
An automobile, on the other hand, involves—and as society becomes more sophisticated and we put computers into automobiles and anti-lock braking into automobiles—and all of these functions involve, functions—an automobile is made maybe in 100 different countries. One component's made here, another's made there, another's made in a third country, another's made in a fourth, and they're manufactured in a fifth—the car is manufactured in a fifth company. And then the every wherewithal that's involved in shipping it—all of those inputs involve myriad countries or locations.
The Rise of Modern Education
So as society advances and the division of labor becomes more complex, there's a need for specialized education. And the need for specialized education provided the context for the rise of the modern school. And again, the rise of the modern school had a tremendous influence on undermining the traditional role, socializing function of the family.
And the weight of these two factors—work leaving the home and women generally leaving the home to pursue their work initially, and the rise of universal public education, which included the public education of women—and Sister Nabila was looking at some of the consequences or speaking on some of the consequences of that—again had a tremendous impact in terms of redefining the socializing impact of the school.
The School as a Tool to Undermine Family Authority
I'm going to read you a brief quote to just emphasize to you how that new context provided more impetus for people to exploit the situation, which led to even more dire consequences for the traditional family. So this is a quote that's referring back to something Durkheim, the father of sociology—Ibn Khaldun is the grandfather, so don't get upset—something he said.
First Reaction: The Conservative Redefinition
One reaction, one redefinition, is the conservative redefinition. Now this reaction, you can see it most articulately mentioned in the writings of James Dobson. Probably no one of you, not many of you, have heard of James Dobson, because you listen to WBAI. You should be listening to WOR or something like that. This is the conservative, right-wing Christian conservative writer who sold tens of millions of books. His operation is so big it has its own individual zip code. But we've never heard of him because he's not promoted on WBAI. So we're at the other end of the spectrum.
His reaction is that to counter the corrupting and corrosive influence of the contemporary modern family, we have to exert what he defines—he doesn't use these terms—as a strict paternalistic model of family and society, a strict paternalistic authoritarian model of family and society.
So he's a believer in congruence theory, and he sees the family as the most important socializing agency. So if we socialize the child in the family to respecting authority and respecting the centrality of a father figure, then we will socialize that child into being a good citizen, because he sees government embodying a strict paternalistic model.
And don't underestimate the power of these ideas, because this idea informs the language of the Bush administration. It informs their language. In any case, and the most important so the most important function of the family, again, is to socialize that child. And this requires strict discipline that emanates from that powerful authoritarian paternal figure. Strict discipline. And his most—"Dare to Discipline"—that's his best-selling book. I think he sold 16 million copies to date. And counted. Do a Google search, James Dobson, and see what you come up with, how many pages you come up with for a person probably most of you never heard of.
The Unifying Logic of Discipline
In any case, as we said, strict discipline. And there's a unifying logic that defines the agenda of the Republican right. And that logic is: discipline is key to maintaining social order. Discipline is key to maintaining social order.
So the unifying logic, this logic defines domestic family. It defines how the Republicans want to legislate for families. So we want legislation that will not punish parents for disciplining their children. We want a social environment that will encourage beating—not beating-spanking your children. We want to encourage this. We want people to dare to discipline, because only then will you be able to restore order in your family.
It informs domestic policy. So if that's your logic, if your child acts up, what do you have to do? Impose your authority, even if it means through physical force. If members of society act up, what do you have to do? Impose your authority. What sort of policies would that attitude lead to for domestic law and order? More policing and more prisons.
So isn't this what the Republicans advocate? Society is crumbling, and the juvenile delinquents, everything—we need more police. More criminals are everywhere. Crime, crime is proliferating. How do we solve this? More policing and more prisons, to straighten them out by imposing authority on them.
The Problem with the Conservative Model
Here's the big problem with this model. If you're going to fix society starting at the family, domestically, internationally, but our focus is on the family, and your solution lies in the strict paternal authoritarian model, the having the courage to discipline, what's the problem with that in American society specifically?
What's the defining feature of the American family in the year 2005? The fathers aren't in the home. There's a book called "Fatherless America." For a number of reasons-economic, social, psychological—the fathers aren't in the home.
So in reality, this model reinforces one of the greatest dysfunctions of the modern family, and that is a tendency towards the suffocating mother, what's called the suffocating mother. And that, in the absence of the father, the mother will become the authority figure, and her effort to assert her authority will be most strongly manifested in her dealing with the males, with the boys. And so you get the suffocating mother.
And this is caricatured-how many of you saw the movie, Denzel Washington, "Antwone Fisher"? The adopted -his adoptive mother—she was a caricature of the suffocating mother. What did she do? Took him in the basement and tied him up and beat him brutally. So she's going to impose her authority on him. She's going to break his rebellious spirit, even if she kills him. So we get the term "loving your children to death."
So this model only reinforces that particular dysfunction, and that's its big problem.
Second Reaction: The Liberal Redefinition
The second reaction, you have the liberal reaction. So if the conservative reaction can be epitomized by the strict paternalistic authoritarian discipline model, the liberal reaction involves the nurturing family. And that's epitomized by the kibbutz system in Israel in its early days, where, in the pursuit of a perfect democracy, the family becomes the liberal family, becomes the nurturing family, a council of equals, where the child has equal rights.
The Absurdity of Total Equality
And one of the absurdities arising from this is your child's ability to sue you. "And if you discipline me, I'll sue you. I'll call my lawyer, or tell my teacher, and she'll get me a lawyer, and we'll sue you, or we'll have you thrown in jail, because we're all equals here. You don't have a right to put your hands on me if I don't want you to."
So we have the family as a council of equals. Now, one of the most disastrous consequences of this model is that it separates love from discipline. In other words, the only way a parent, as an equal, can manifest his or her love for the child is by doing everything the child wants.
"So I love you, Johnny, so here's more candy, because I know you like candy. I love you, Aisha, so I'm going to buy you another dress, because I know you like a new dress every week."
So saying, "No, you can't have a new dress, because I don't want you to become a brainless consumer"—that's not a manifestation of love. So any aspect in the relationship that involves authority and discipline is seen as a negation of love.
So the extreme version of this model separates love from discipline, and that generates its own dysfunctions.
And I'll try very briefly to identify a few. I'm going to have to skip around in my notes in the interest of time.
The Failure of the Liberal Model
In any case, there's a total failure—this model is a total failure. And what was the rationale? We mentioned the rationale for it was to encourage a democratic personality. If we grew up in a democratic family where everyone's equal and everyone participates in decision-making and there's no final authority, this will encourage a child that can freely and easily assimilate into a democratic society and participate in a democratic society.
But the result was the exact opposite. This situation led to the development of a personality type that was very conducive to totalitarian control, for two reasons.
One, the fear of being alone. So once you tell a child, "We're all equal," basically you're saying, "You don't need me. You're on your own. So you figure it out. So you don't want a mama's boy. I don't want you clinging to me. You know, let me put you in this cage-I mean, this crib—and teach you how to survive on your own and to deal with isolation and not be so clingy."
So the child grows up feeling alone and detached, and there's no firm mechanism in the family to encourage a feeling of attachment. This is one consequence that leads to authoritarianism. Why? Because the child then looks for alternative institutions to provide a sense of belonging.
And in the modern situation, there are two: the gang or the nation. And both the gang and the nation demand, or provide a totalitarian function—do not demand—total commitment, total commitment.
And this manifests itself in the gang, where you can join in, but you have to die out. If you don't do what we say, when we say, how we say, your life is in danger.
And it manifests itself in fascism, where the nation becomes the supra-family that everyone—and fascism is the bundle, right? The fasces, the bundle of twigs tied together. And you're just one twig in the bundle. So the nation becomes an institution that provides a sense of meaning. And again, taken to its logical extreme, demands total commitment.
So the effort at democratization, in reality, led to totalitarianism.
The Islamic Redefinition of the Family
In conclusion, the Islamic redefinition would involve bringing the best aspects of both of these approaches together, very briefly.
Authority Mitigated by Shura
Authority mitigated by shura. So in the model presented by Dobson, there's pure authority and there's no shura. But as Muslims, their affairs are based on mutual consultation.
Allah beautifully illustrates this in the case of Ibrahim. He's in charge, but despite that, he consults his son:
"O my son, I have seen in a dream that I [must] sacrifice you, so see what you think."
"[His son] said, 'O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast."
So there was a process of consultation here.
The Prophetic Example of Authority with Mercy
The Prophet himself: صلى الله عليه وسلم
"So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]."
Now, by Allah's mercy, you were gentle in your dealings with them. So he's in charge, he's the ultimate authority, and this is a lesson for us—there has to be authority in our institutions, starting in the family. And this goes back to what Brother Mu'adh was saying. But there has to be ihsan, there has to be gentleness (لِنتَ لَهُمْ - linta lahum), there has to be mercy, (فَبِمَا رَحْمَةٍ مِّنَ اللَّهِ - fa) bima rahmatin minallah(.
There has to be the opposite of (فَظًا غَلِيظَ الْقَلْبِ - faththan ghaleedha al-qalbi) if you were coarse and crude. So there has to be the opposite of that in the hearts of the members of the family, in the hearts of the members of the society. (غَلِيظَ الْقَلْبِ - ghaleedha al-qalbi)—if there is no compassion, so there has to be compassion to make this system work. (لانفَضُّوا مِن حَوْلِكَ - la-infaddu min hawlik)—they would have fled away from you, they would have scattered.
So we see a scattering in our families in many instances, because there is no compassion, there is no mercy, there is no gentleness in dealing with each other, or there is no authority. So Allah is not saying all of these wonderful, beautiful characteristics in an environment of anarchy.
The Balance of Forgiveness, Seeking Improvement, and Consultation
So (فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ - fa'afu 'anhum)—so there has to be a spirit of pardon and forgiveness, overlook their faults. وَاسْتَغْفِرْ
لَهُمْ )wastaghfir lahum)—and seek their improvement, seek their forgiveness, seek that Allah, when you make istighfar, you're seeking something from Allah. So not only you forgive them (فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ - fa'afu 'anhum), but seek Allah's forgiveness for them (وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ - wastaghfir lahum).
And which indicates something very beautiful and powerful, and that is, at the end of the day, there's only so much you can do. You can pardon them, but at the end of the day (وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ - wastaghfir lahum)—seek Allah's help in your dealings with them.
(وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ - wa shawirhum fil amr)—and consult them in the affair.
Now then, the authority is reaffirmed. (فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ - faidha azamta fa tawakkal 'ala Allah)—then once you've made a decision. So there is an authority in place, and there has to be a final decision and a final decision maker in all of our institutions if they're going to function effectively.
But that authority cannot be divorced from the compassion, the mercy, the gentleness and leniency, the softness of heart, and all of those characteristics. And if those are missing, it won't work. And this is what Brother Mu'adh was saying. We can have all the laws in the world, all of the rulings, the ahkam can be there, we can have all the details of creed—that can be there. But if the culture that provides the glue to hold that all together in a coherent fashion is missing—and that's the ihsan—the bird cannot fly without a tail.
The Bird Cannot Fly Without a Tail
So the bird can have the wing of Shari'ah and the wing of 'aqeedah. It can have law and it can have creed. But if it doesn't have a tail, it won't have any stability. And we see a lot of unstable Muslims that know the rulings—that's haram, that's halal, that's bid'ah, that's shirk. They know the rulings, and they know the creed, the superficial manifestations, but there's no stability because the tail is missing—all of those aspects that provide internal stability.
So that's one aspect: authority mitigated by shura, and a nurturing environment. The liberal solution that's augmented and mitigated by authority. So joining the best of both models. And this is the essence of Islam, which I hopefully hinted at in some of the latter comments.
The Challenge: Attaining Spiritual Depth
Now, the challenge for us—in true conclusion, a couple false alarms there—the challenge for us as we strive to develop an alternative family for ourselves and others is to attain to a degree of spiritual depth. Because we're going against the force of history. We're going against at least 200 years of socialization. We're going against 200 years of very, very powerful institutionalization. And it affects us in very deep ways that most of us don't realize. But we're products of our time.
And without the help from Allah, it's going to be an impossible—it's going to be mission impossible—without the help from Allah, because our resources in and of ourselves, in the face of the forces arranged against us, are scarce and scanty. Our resources are scarce and scanty. But the resources of Allah are unlimited. As we seek strength through Allah, and we seek help from Allah, it's a doable proposition.
So we have to have a deep spiritual strength and a deep relationship with Allah. We have to work to cultivate within ourselves.
We Don't Need a Revolution
And finally, we have to realize that we don't need a revolution, because the defining feature of every revolution in modern times has been what? Huh? Bloodshed, certainly. I'm looking for something else. That's right, though. What else? The defining feature of every revolution has been—all right, Crane Brinton called it the Thermidor reaction—has been what? Counter-revolution. Counter-revolution, in which the institutions, the practices that we were trying to do away with, only reasserted themselves in a more terrible form.
So after almost a century of communism in Russia, what do we get? We get perverted capitalism. We get the mafiaization of the Russian economy, right? So we get a perverted form of hyper-capitalism that is even more unjust than the version the revolution was instituted to do away with in the first place.
Planting Seeds for Future Generations
So we don't need a revolution. And once we get that in our minds, we can realize we're hopefully planting the seeds that will bring forth the fruits that future generations will reap. Now, understanding that, we go about our business in an entirely different way. We realize it's not so important that we put up this huge tree that has no roots—that's the fruit of the revolution. And as soon as a strong wind comes by, over goes the tree.
No, we have to plant this seed, and we have to plant it very deeply, and we have to choose very fertile ground, so that when it does bear fruit, it's going to be firmly rooted, and that fruit will continue to bring benefit generation after generation. That's the point.
So we have to understand what we're up against, understand the nature of society, and understand that very little we do will immediately benefit us, possibly, judging by history and established social laws. Now, that understanding in and of itself takes a lot of sabr—to understand I might not benefit from this, but if I do this effectively, those after me will benefit. So I might have to sacrifice my gratification from the actions I'm undertaking in the interest of benefiting those who will come after me.
And if we can understand that, we'll go about our business in a tremendously different way, and hopefully in a very productive way.
For more information on traditional Islam in America, please contact:
Zaytuna Institute
Phone: 510-582-1979
Website: www.zaytuna.org