To Be Or Not To Be
Br. Jordan and Sr. Salika wrote a very well-written pamphlet entitled “What Does It Mean to be Muslim-American” which discussed several issues pertaining to the Muslim community in America. May Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) reward them for their efforts. Ameen.
While I’m not disagreeing with anything in the article, I am a little critical of the whole discourse on whether Muslims have integrated into mainstream culture. I posted the following comment on her blog.
Conceptually speaking, I don’t know if there should be such a thing as a “Muslim American” or a “Muslim Pakistani” or a “Muslim Arab”, etc. Our primary allegiance should be to Islam and that entails preserving the rights of Allah (subhana wa ta’laa) and the rights of His creation. We should be a people of social justice and I don’t think we can achieve either goal if we act within the nation-state system. I’m not saying we should act outside of it either, but we should recognize that human civilization is moving towards a state of flux as the old system of international order is breaking down with the rise of globalization.
What the international system of nation-states represents is an outdated form of preserving ethnic and racial identities. As Muslims, we are not promoters of such divisions, but the unification of the human race through the recognization of the Oneness of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) and worshipping Him alone.
The nation-state system can offer only confrontation and national identities are a component in that racial conflict. As Muslims, instead of describing ourselves as “American Muslims” we do need to ask how the majority of Americans view themselves. If being “American” is merely being a White Christian or a proponent of liberal democratic capitalism, then I can’t see how an Islamic and an American identity can be reconciled. If America is merely just our geographical homeland, then why would there be a need to emphasize our “dual identity”? Ultimately, the issue of being an “American Muslim” exists because the patriotism of the Muslim community has been called into question by the powers that be. Patriotism, however, is an amorphous concept and is often used to subvert legitimate political issues in favor of the nation-state. As Muslims, we must be wary of the type of nationalism being exhibited in the US and in Europe. Patriotism is normally a healthy manifestation of the political vitality of a country, but when taken to an extreme, becomes a basis for crimes against humanity. Ultra-nationalism is a danger to all of the human race and Muslims as the servants of the creation of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) must be the vanguard in preventing atrocities from being committed. We must never allow ourselves to enter racial politics in America, either directly or indirectly. We must, however, stand for justice and that entails protecting people from discrimination and stereotyping. Unfortunately, such practices have already begun to seep into our communities. While African American Muslims are the largest group within our American Muslim community, they are marginalized in most masajid and Islamic organizations. Instead of focusing on integrating Muslims into mainstream American culture, perhaps we should do a better job of integrating Muslims into our own community first?
In getting involved in discussions pertaining to integration or assimilation in an uncritical manner, we often up confirming the status quo of nationalism and as Muslims, we should be on the foremost of the critique of nationalism if its not based on religion.
Sphere: Related ContentPublished May 24, 2007 . Filed under: American Islam and Muslims
Posts
al-salam `alaykum Jinnzaman et al.
One quick fix is to transform the adjective into the noun and vice versa by reversing the word order:
Muslim American -> American Muslim
I, (IMHO), prefer the second arrangement because it provides a way out for some of the issues raised in your discussion. The term Muslim now has more substance as shared common ground instead of as a modifier for some seemingly more authentic description of identity.
Problem solved. =)
Nice to finaly meet you.
wassalaamualaykum
Justin
May 24, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Hey! My name is Danya :)
But I’ll share my thoughts in a bit.
May 24, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
you would get very similar criticisms of the idea of Christian America from quite a few of the most important Christian theologians of the last 50 years. The attempt to collapse Christianity into a national culture was a major point of critique for dialectical theology (barth, bultmann, bonhoeffer) and positioned them to resist both the nationalism of mainstream xty at the time of ww1 and even more importantly fascism during ww2 [barth was one of the most prominent academics to refuse to sign the statement that all professors were required to sign in order to teach under the nazi party. he also pushed for and then was the principal author for the “barmen declaration” which denounced fascism, nationalism, and the identification of xty with certain state or cultural goals, etc. as unchristian. bonhoeffer is probably most famous for his book _discipleship_ and the part he played in the failed conspiracy to assassinate hitler. he was executed.]
the legacy of dialectical theology continues today in one of the most important theologians in america, stanley hauerwas of duke univ., who is a vicious (and usually entertaining) critique of political liberalism and its attempt to swallow religious identities. his students can be found in ethics departments in both protestant and catholic schools. a position like his echoed by alasdair macintyre, though macintyre’s communitarianism is not as theological as hauerwas’ position.
catholicism for a long time held the cultural position that islam finds itself in now. there is a long history, especially in anglo countries, of calling into question the ability of catholics to be real citizens since it was believed their ultimate political loyalty lay with the pope. most of the 20th c. was spent, by catholics, arguing between conservatives (who quite frankly were fascists — supporters of, e.g., franco’s spain, etc.) who thought liberalism was bad and modernists who wanted the church to accept liberalism (this position more or less wins out in the 60s).
it was only with the appearance of liberation theology, really, that catholic thought began to mount a critique of the liberal ideal from the left. liberation theology really shrank in importance with the fall of the berlin wall. but there is a re-emergent questioning of the compatibility of xty with political liberalism from a broadly catholic stance in a movement known as “radical orthodoxy”, whose leading figures are john milbank and catherine pickstock, etc (both members of the church of england).
now, all that said, and you know i have written several rather lengthy criticisms of political liberalism, one must still recognize that the ideals of the usa or canada (and of course there are deep contradictions between ideals and practice) are those of a pluralist society where ethnicity and religion are not important. this is different than say france or germany where national identity is hard to separate from a cultural history rooted in a particular ethnos and language. france and germany are nations in the strict sense of the term: they share a common birth (natus). canada and the u.s. are not. that being the case, the kind of patriotism you are talking about ought to be antithetical to north american liberalism. it does nonetheless raise its ugly head on a regular basis, and the cultures go through growing pains each time a new group appears in a marked way as part of the cultural fabric. one sees it over and over again: the dutch, scandinavians, irish, italians, poles, etc.
of course when it comes to people who have african ancestry, america especially has a very troubled history with which it has yet to come to terms, and a much different history to wrestle with than the one faced when dealing with voluntary immigrants.
now, back on topic. when the question of muslim americans or american muslims is raised what is truly being asked is, can muslims support the pluralist vision of north american liberalism. because, in principle, there is nothing contradictory, from the side of political liberalism, between liberalism and islam.
LoA.
May 24, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
Allah
says in 49:13: “O mankind! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, [15] and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.”
I don’t see how creating this identity is a violation of our “primary allegiance” to Islam. If anything, it is proving our allegiance because we are trying to still be Muslim in a country that has, for the most part, not acknowledged its presence. The fact that I trump my Arabness for the sake of my religion is a sign of which I love more. The discourse is inevitible, so we might as well acknowledge it and be able to control it and that it has a flow consistent with the shari’a.
You mention the out-dated nation-state system. Can you please tell me exactly how it is outdated? To be honest, I’m not clear on what you mean and if it is really relevant. Even if it is out-dated, how is that relevant? To me, that is just a theoretical musing but in a practical aspect, we need to address the issue whether we are in a nation-state or not. And to be honest, I don’t see how globalization is breaking down the nation-state system. It may be affecting it, but the concept of sovereignty of nations is still very much strong.
“If being “American” is merely being a White Christian or a proponent of liberal democratic capitalism, then I can’t see how an Islamic and an American identity can be reconciled. If America is merely just our geographical homeland, then why would there be a need to emphasize our “dual identity”?”
Those are not our only options. America has a distinct culture and sub-cultures. This move towards “American Islam” is not about politics, but about culture and civic action. Sure, we can move towards unite humanity towards worshiping Allah
(indeed a lofty goal) but how does that contradict what we are going here? C’mon, don’t you know.. “unity does not equal uniformity” :)
“Instead of focusing on integrating Muslims into mainstream American culture, perhaps we should do a better job of integrating Muslims into our own community first?”
I agree that we should integrate Muslims into our community, but that’s an entirely different issue and discussion. I think we can work on both.
Anyways, here’s a quote I picked up from a comparative law book :)
The emigre comparatists denied the denial of difference to be the theoretical underpinning for the societal and legal tolerance of difference. The emigres’ personal experiences led to their faith in the fundamental similarity of all humans, and to their belief in the perniciousness of according legal recognition to differences in religious or ethnic origin. Their commitment to a theory of inclusion did not, however, extend to an inclusion of others’ differentiating attributes, but to a leveling absorption, a homogeneity to be born of the erasure of difference rather than a homogeneity of common genetic back ground […] The paradox of their position, however, lies in that the logical consequence of an a priori denial of difference is not a tolerance of difference, but only tolerance of a sameness attempting to camouflage difference as sameness.
Vivian Curran’s Comparative Law: An Introduction, pg. 11-12
May 25, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
oh ps: thanks for the positive comment at the beginning though. I know you don’t disagree, those were just my thoughts :)
Also, when I type sometimes people think I come off as harsh (I do sometimes) though that is not my intention. I need to adjust my typing style. Sigh.
May 25, 2007 @ 5:34 pm