I found few signs of London-style radicalism among Muslims in the United States. At the same time, the real story of American Muslims is one of accelerating alienation from the mainstream of U.S. life, with Muslims in this country choosing their Islamic identity over their American one.
Emphasis mine, which I think rather undercuts the headline. We ARE as assimilated as you might think; we are not a radical community. The real complaint here seems to be the issue of Islamic "identity". I see no evidence in the article that muslim americans are "choosing" their Islamic identity "over" the American one; in fact if anything there is an ongoing synthesis of the two, which is really the entire point of America. The truth is that yes American muslims are religious, but so are Christians here by and large, more so than in Europe. Few would argue that Christian Americans are choosing Christian identity over their American identity, after all. Muslims in America do not have to be Irshad Manji-style "refuseniks" to be moderate; if anything the history of America teaches us that here (and almost exclusively here!) can the persecuted peoples of the world find sanctuary to practice their faith as they see fit. American muslims do not and should not have to be secular in order to be moderate.
The truth is that muslim americans are a different demographic and have a different history than their European counterparts. I discussed this issue at length in an earlier post titled "muslim citizens, not citizen muslims" and provided quite a few links therein that address this point. Also see publius' comments on the WaPo article above, in which he makes much of the same economic and class-based arguments.
However, the sense of alienation that Muslims feel is a very real thing. What do you expect when we have talk of muslim-only airport lines? For the most part American muslims have borne the increased scrutiny without complaint. We do as a community understand why we are being singled out - but that doesn't take the sting out of "flying while muslim" in any way. But is alienation and resentment equivalent to anti-assimilation? No, though they certainly could be the seeds for it in the long run. However I have great faith in America and I do not think this will come to pass.
The whole issue of identity is really not as critical as that of modernity. Its reconciling tradition with modernity that is tricky. We all have multiple identities and we rarely "choose" one over another, but the conflict between modernity and tradition is sometimes trickier to navigate. The way in which my own community (the Dawoodi Bohras) achieves this feat was nicely described by Jonah Blank in his book, Mullahs on the Mainframe, of which you can read an excerpt here and which I myself reviewed here.
23 comments:
So, I'd like to think that's the direction we're headed. Here's my sheep/goat separating question, though:
Are American Muslims (or any Muslims) ready to renounce the apostasy doctrine they've embraced all this time?
I don't see how any acceptable form of assimilation can occur without that.
For the record, to this point, I've never found any clear statement from any Muslim about this.
(Sorry Aziz, this will be a little off topic)
Harry,
I have to say that I agree with you that this is amajor problem. How integrated can a population within the US be if they believe that freedom of religion is only a one way street? Do we want folks like that to be, for instance, elected to public office where they will be empowered to write laws?
Not one, not one, famous or prominent American muslim or muslim organization said a thing about Abdul Rahman. Where were the famous western converts like Ali? Where was CAIR? Did any of them defend the right of Rahman to be a Christian in his own country? Did any of them cite chapter and verse disproving the sentence of death for apostasy?
The silence was deafening and until I see prominent, activist, muslim public figures denouncing the practice which is absolutely contrary and incompatible with the deepest beliefs of our nation, I will remain unconvinced as to their integration here.
I welcome new readers but really I am not inclined to rehash things I've said numerous times. I've heard it all before. muslims do not condemn terror. (they do). The Qur'an calls jews apes and pigs. (it doesn't). Islam is anti-free will. (it's not). Islam was forced upon people at the point of a sword. (it wasn't - context). The Qur'an calls for violent jihad against unbelievers. (it doesn't - quite the opposite). Jews suffered immensely under muslim rule. (they didn't - as related by jewish sources). Islam needs a Reformation. (it already has one).
thats just a sampler. I really hope that new readers will give me some benefit of the doubt here - and also pay me some basic courtesy here in my bloghome - by taking the time to read the links I've compiled for you above, so that we can move the discussion forward rather than get bogged down on (truth be told) very old talking points.
I felt the same way you did, Aziz, when I read the article. For the most part, what I read was an accurate representation of most of the Muslims I met when I was still in college. They did not wish to be seperate from other Americans, just have an additional identity within the American identity (as many Christian groups have).
The danger is not when Muslim youth decide to say their prayers and wear a head covering (which, the article says, is becoming more common in the US). The danger is when they decide to blow up buildings (which the article admitted is not at all common in the US). I think it was interesting that the article noted that Muslim economic activity in the US is well integrated, with a higher average income than the US average. This is in direct contradiction with the condition of Muslims in other countries and seems to indicate that Muslims are more integrated into one of the most important aspects of American society.
I thought the same thing when I saw the article about British Muslims "choosing" their Muslim identity over their "British identity. As an American and a Christian, if I were asked which came first, I'd say "Christian." The only people that might surprise are those who have no religious identity to choose from. Which, unfortunately, is pretty much true of a lot of non-Muslim western Europeans.
I took your advice and read your review of Jonah Blank's book, Mullahs on the Mainframe.
I suppose I should be comforted to learn that Islam has it's own branch of liberal presbyterian-types, such as yourself. But I'm not convinced that your version of the religion is ascendent, or is ever likely to be.
My advice is that you accommodate "The West" by giving up on a sinking-ship of a religion that will drag your obviously enlightened heart down with it as it descends to the darkness of its core doctrines. You remind me of the Marxist apologists of the last generation that persisted in claiming that communism was a great and noble ideology, that had been unfortunately perverted by the backward Russians.
You still need to answer Harry Eager's question and not patronise your readers by suggesting that they read more of your stuff. What is a non-Muslim to make of the constant reiteration by Muslim clerics that it is not possible to leave the faith? "This is not man's will, but Allah's," we are told. This is not compatable with a marketplace approach to human ideas and culture. You can't proclaim Islam is a liberal religion when in the background a murderous ideology relies on coercion to maintain the faith.
Having said that, I still wish you well in trying to pacify your co-religionists. A bit less on convincing non-Muslims how nice Islam is, and a bit more on what is specifically problematic with aspects of Islamic thought and democratic culture - that would be refreshing, and brave, for a Muslim to write about.
On the one hand, I've met enough muslims to agree with you.
On the other, two years ago, literally soaked to the skin in the freezing winter rain, I could literally not get a muslim woman to acknowledge me long enough to tell me if she knew where an ATM was so I could buy a train ticket and maybe not freeze to death. And although this sounds odd when I type it myself now, the context was perfectly clear at the time.
Other times I have had perfectly normal interactions with both men and women.
I'm not talking about some random mufsidun in one of the world's dark kingdoms, but everyday life. It is part of my culture to offer courtesies to women. Do I hold back and not open a door for a woman because she is a muslim and (as I have experienced) likely to be offended at the attention? How am I supposed to regard Muslims as integrated, if I must always be on eggshells not to cause meaningless offense?
Personally I think Christians can learn from the Muslims who take a critical stance toward assimilation with American culture. After all, if American Christians are going to critique our country (which we have been doing for a long time, from various points of view), we ought not at the same time consider unquestioned acceptance of all its ways a virtue. My comments on Abdo's piece are at http://sequimur.com/banditsnomore/?p=487
I find the concept that it's frightening to choose religion over country kind of bizarre, given that the United States was founded by those who left their home countries because those countries wouldn't let them worship as they chose. If that's not choosing religion over country, I'm not quite sure what would be.
It appears to me that we shouldn't set up the issue as "country" vs "religion", but rather "killing to meet a goal is okay" vs "killing to meet a goal is not okay" - regardless of whether religion is in the mix. Some non-religious types are very sanguine about hurting people in the process of meeting their goals - radical environmentalists for one. And you have the problem of failing to denounce such behavior in secular contexts too - some environmentalists, to continue that analogy, hesitate to decry the more violent arms of their movement. You have the whole gamut of behavior and acceptance in both religious and non-religious contexts, cutting across race, country and culture. Religion as a whole only frightens those who don't understand it.
As a Christian, I can say unequivocally that I choose God and my service to Him over my country. It's not even a contest. BUT! The Bible teaches me to respect the leaders of my country, to pay my taxes, to obey the laws as long as they don't contradict His laws, etc. My Christianity is a blueprint for good citizenship. And the more devoted I am to God, the more likely I am going to be careful about being a good citizen. While I (obviously) have major theological differences with Muslims, I'm not at all distressed or frightened to learn that many Muslims are becoming more devoted or that they would choose Islam over America. The problem isn't level of devotion. The problem is the teaching of hate and the tolerance for violent behavior, which is not exclusive to radicalized segments of Islam.
We as a country should make it clear that violence toward our citizens will absolutely not be tolerated from any person, group or country, regardless of their reason, and no one can hide behind theology, belief systems or rhetoric that to their mind makes it okay. But we shouldn't put devotion to country in opposition to devotion to God.
Poll: Americans Back Profiling
It’s taken five years, but the US public is beginning to rebel against the pointless random security measures forced down its throat by special interest groups: Americans back anti-terrorism racial profiling: poll.
BOSTON (Reuters) - Most Americans expect a terrorist attack on the United States in the next few months and support the screening of people who look “Middle Eastern” at airports and train stations, a poll showed on Tuesday.
The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute said 62 percent of Americans were “very worried” or “somewhat worried” that terrorists would strike the nation in the next few months while 37 percent were “not too worried” or “not worried at all.”
The poll of 1,080 voters, conducted August 17-23, comes as many Americans are jittery after British authorities foiled a plot to blow up planes but is broadly in line with other surveys on expectations for another attack since September 11.
By a 60 percent to 37 percent margin, respondents said authorities should single out people who look “Middle Eastern” for security screening at locations such as airports and train stations — a finding that drew sharp criticism by civil liberties groups.
As with any story even remotely related to profiling, Reuters makes sure to call the PR flack for CAIR to get the Islamist point of view.
“It’s an unfortunate by-product to the fear and hysteria we’re hearing in many quarters,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights and advocacy organization.
“It’s one of those things that makes people think they are doing something to protect themselves when they’re not. They’re in fact producing more insecurity by alienating the very people whose help is necessary in the war on terrorism,” he said.
Belittle the threat from terrorism: check.
Issue veiled threat: check.
It's my understanding that because Sharia conflicts with the American law of separation of Church and State that Muslims must choose one identity over another.
Either you are for Sharia, which makes you against democracy, freedom of religion, and secular government, or you are for the First Amendment, which forbids anything like Sharia.
Am I missing something?
Aziz, I hope your thesis is correct.
Otherwise, the Western world is s-c-r-e-w-e-d.
In the excerpt you linked to, the author was commenting on what perceptions Fay Weldon would have likely come away with had she actually read the Qu'ran. (sic) Which version are we to read exactly? Are there not many that have entirely different translations than what is available in English?
OK. This is interesting. Say more.
I am no more disturbed by Muslim fanaticism than I am by Christian (Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu) fanaticm. It's all of a piece, racist and intolerent. I don't like fanaticism of any type. People get killed. Kids get killed. If you kill my kids you won't like what happens after that.
America is not about racism or intolerence. Like the sign says, "Love It Or Leave It".
Charlie
Aziz,
Your links did not address the apostacy issue or the common punishments for the "crime" Banishment, loss of income, loss of family are all just as bad for the normal person and just as much against free choice (not free will) and the free exercise of conscience for muslims wishing to change their religion.
The very existence of any punishment or any pressure applied to the apostate to recant their conversion to another faith completely contradicts the no compulsion verse and this contradictory compulsion comes from the teachings of islams holiest sources.
Yes, i am a new reader but i am by no means a stranger to the arguments of liberal and progressive muslims. I am as unconvinced by the arguments of moderate muslims as I am of extremist ones. Islam is in many ways fundamentally flawed and inimical to true freedom and liberty and morality. That is not to say that it is wholly wrong. Are you picking up on that? I am saying that it has fatal flaws which attest to ita lack of divinity.
Dean,
If you had also read my comments carefully you would have seen that I made specific reference to famous, prominent, public figures and national groups. Please note that I did not include ordinary individuals.
The silience I speak of was the absence of the use of moral authority and global celebrity among muslims by famous muslims. There were no muslims flying to Rahman's side, spending their celebrity capital in a very visibly way to save the man's life and to declare that it is/was wrong to require the man to flee his own country.
There were no famous muslim mugs standing by the man. That to me is a very telling thing.
PS
BTW, since I may come here now and then, just know that I first learned about islam from muslims themselves. Most of my education in islam was from muslims prior to 9/11. I dont get all my info from places like jihad watch.
Dean, you could possibly avoid the over generalizations regarding someone like myself if you want to start preaching.
It's awful hard to cut through the grievance narrative in the WaPo piece to find out what's really going on.
Take the language selected by the writer:
"But the Sept. 11 attacks also had the (dual) effect of making American Muslims feel isolated in their adopted country . . ."
"American Muslims are becoming a people apart."
"Almost without exception, they recall feeling under siege after Sept. 11, with FBI agents raiding their mosques and homes, neighbors eyeing them suspiciously and television programs portraying Muslims as the new enemies of the West."
Really? This 'recollection' (read: rewritten history) doesn't seem to square with the fact that the 'anti-Muslim backlash' was, like the 'brutal Afghan winter,' a media-constructed bogeyman.
On the contrary, any attempt to talk frankly about the source of terrorism led quickly to charges that an entire religion was being tarred.
"But not everyone understood . . ."
Go talk to evangelical or fundamentalist Christians about the way they are "understood" by popular culture and the media.
". . . described the challenges many Muslims face as they carve out their identity in the United States . . ."
As if this were a completely new phenomenon, never faced by other Americans.
". . . Muslims who dared to show pride in their religion in a non-Muslim setting."
No specifics about when or where this was ever discouraged. Again, talk to those offended by the forced removal of their religious identity from public life.
"I don't think Muslims have to assimilate. We are not treated like Americans."
As pure a distillation of the effect of the grievance culture as you're likely to find. No thanks to the media's parroting of CAIR's victimology.
And how, specifically, is this woman not treated like an American? No proof beyond her sense of alienation is offered.
"At work, I get up from my desk and go to pray. I thought I would face opposition from my boss. Even before I realized he didn't mind, I thought, 'I have a right to be a Muslim, and I don't have to assimilate.' "
This is a metaphor for the entire article, in that the presumed grievance was nothing of the kind.
Peggy,
Within the Islamic world, and in MENA primarily, apostasy could have severe consequences and regularly does, however outside of MENA, in the West, South Asia, and even the Islamic island nations in southeast Asia, apostasy does not carry the same weight as it does in MENA. That's not to say that horrible things don't happen and that death threats aren't issued, it's just not nearly as common, even in countries with large Islamic minority populations. The reasons for this could be legal (ie, worried about the consequences that may happen if an apostate is attacked) or environmental (increased levels of religious tolerance / lack of massive peer pressure in an ultra-Islamic area) in nature. I'm not sure which of the two that is.
Whether Islam was forced at the point of the sword is a matter of geography... in some areas, it was, especially in MENA during the great Islamic military expansion after the death of Muhammed; in other areas it was spread primarily via Islamic traders evangelizing. I would say the majority of Muslims today, if their religious family histories were traced back far enough, would far under the latter (most Muslims are located not in MENA, but in South and Southeast Asia).
But then, I'm not a Muslim, so apparently, according to Aziz, I am not allowed to comment on Islamic matters... only Muslims know the truth and unless I convert I know nothing and am irrelevant.
Jez,
I guess you have never read the Old Testament? Pretty brutal stuff in there, too, just nobody follows it anymore, except for a stray Kahanist here and there.
Heck, just look at what happened to the Amalekites. Not that they didn't deserve it, but still, you're being a bit ignorant here...
As far as the treatment of Jews under Islam is concerned, Aziz is EXTREMELY selective in his choice of links, since that link uses only ONE source for all of their statements. Of course, he tries to justify it because the authors are Jewish, but that's akin to saying that Susan Sontag is right about white people being "the cancer of human history" because she, as a white person, said it. It's totally bogus. There are books out there, I kid you not, that claim that Jews were not mistreated by Hitler. It's bogus, of course; you can't go around selectively quoting just the stuff you want to hear.
I think, in general, treatment of the Jews in Islamic countries was no worse than the treatment of Jews in Christian Europe at the time... sometimes they had it pretty good, other times they were getting expelled and brutalized in pogroms. In medieval Europe, I don't think there was ever a kingdom or state of some sort that didn't expel the Jews or mistreat them at least once. Jews only became protected by the states once they discovered their usefulness, ie, as traders, scholars, and bankers. Christians were not allowed to practice usury back then... Jews were, which gave them vast assets from which to give Christian rulers loans to extend their power. Even once the usefulness of Jews to these states was discovered, it still didn't end anti-Semitism and the pogroms (especially in East Europe and Russia).
I HATE to say this, but I think the hardcore anti-Semitism that we see in the Middle East today can be partly traced back to the founding of Israel; this DOES NOT justify it, but it does give context.
So, I somewhat reject claims that Jews were treated any better or worse in Islamic countries back in the day than in Christian countries... I think, generally, that Jews were not liked at all for almost all of their existence. Unfortunate, yes... although I will say that TODAY, Jews are much better off and safer in Western countries than in Islamic ones. No question about that fact.
Well, we'll see now whether the very tolerant A.P. will delete this post like my last one.
Dean, thank you for my laugh of the week. I followed your link which was going to show that killing apostates is not Islamic practice, and what it said was that the apostate survived BECAUSE HE LIVED IN INDIA.
Had he lived in any country where Islam controls the civil power, he would have been murdered.
Keep trying, guys. I'd LIKE to find a Muslim who frankly condemns murder for apostasy.
Salaam,
You summed up my sentiments after reading the article very neatly.
I wrote to the WaPo article author referring her to your entry & she replied:
"Thank you for writing. This is the subject for a long conversation. But I will say briefly that I was very disappointed with the headline and the Post did simplify my article. My book takes a different approach and the argument presented there is one I think you would agree with. I urge you to read it.
Peace,
Geneive Abdo"
Her book is Mecca & Main street
It troubles me that journalists may be selectively hearing what Muslim communities have to say and that that is further filtered to fit into what the majority of Americans believe by the editorial process.
I hope you sent your entry in to WaPo as a letter to the editor?
Warmly,
Baraka
Post a Comment