As Europe tries to assimilate its Muslim populations, many in the United States are taking a different approach—they're trying to marginalize us.
On whole, Muslims living in the United States are assimilated. Many of us were born here and raised non-Muslim. Many were born into indigenous Muslim families. Many are first generation Muslim Americas, born in the United States and just as “American” as their Christian, Jewish, and atheist peers. Many left other countries by choice and are nationalized citizens. We live, work, play, rejoice, and mourn side-by-side with our non-Muslim neighbors. We are Americans.
Are we different? No more than many others in this melting pot we call home.
We don’t drink, but lots of people don’t drink.
We don’t eat pork, but lots of people don’t eat pork.
We dress modestly, but lots of people dress modestly.
We pray, but lots of people pray.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people have told me to “go back to my country” because they see that I wear a hijab from my photograph. What an odd assumption in a country that prides itself on its diversity. Have they ever seen a photograph of a Mennonite or an Orthodox Jew or a lady going to church on Sunday or a skateboarder wearing a beanie? Covering one’s head is not particularly rare here.
Are we the first group with extremists or other woefully misguided individuals? Hmmm—let’s see. That’s easy. No. Do rational people blame all Germans for the Nazis? Or all Russians for the Shining Path? Or Buddhism for Aum Shinrikyo? Or Catholicism for Pope Urban II or the pedophiliac priests? Blame placed on an entire group or people has never passed the test of time.
So why marginalize assimilated Muslim Americans? Doesn’t that seem counterproductive to you? The question to ask is ‘Who wins if Muslim Americans are marginalized’?
Comments
Peace be with you. Sadly, you are right. What is happening is that people are casting collective guilt on Muslims for the heinous acts of the very few, and they do not do this with others. What those who do so fail to realize is that in doing so, they are thinking just as al-Qaeda and its affliates do. The terrorists who wish to attack the United States justify their actions by casting collective guilt on all Americans for such things as the Musaadiq assassination in the 1950s, the support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, and the support of Israel, all of which they see as the cause of Muslim suffering in the world. The real problem is the mindset that oversimplifies the situation to come to a false us/them dichotomy and then cast collective guilt on "them". Sadly, this mindset is found not among anti-American Muslims, but also among anti-Islam Americans. Both are equally dangerous to rest of us.
Thank you for the article, but I have to disagree with holding up Europe as an example for America to follow. Overall, America has done a much better job than Europe in assimilating Muslims. This is due in part to the different paths to citizenship in the U.S. as compared to Europe, as well as the historical patterns and reasons for immigrating differ in the U.S. as compared to several European countries. In many European countries, you will find the Muslim population much more geographically segregated.
Having said all that, it seems to be the sad case that since the election of Pres. Obama, the politics have gotten more divisive and bigots and racists of all sorts seem to have found an opening to express their views more openly and vociferously.
Thank you for the article, but I have to disagree with holding up Europe as an example for America to follow. Overall, America has done a much better job than Europe in assimilating Muslims. This is due in part to the different paths to citizenship in the U.S. as compared to Europe, as well as the historical patterns and reasons for immigrating differ in the U.S. as compared to several European countries. In many European countries, you will find the Muslim population much more geographically segregated.
Having said all that, it seems to be the sad case that since the election of Pres. Obama, the politics have gotten more divisive and bigots and racists of all sorts seem to have found an opening to express their views more openly and vociferously.
There are a few things here which deserve discussion.
1) Assimilation of Moslems is actually going better here in the United States than in Europe, but the reason is that there are far fewer Moslems here. In Europe, there are whole large neighborhoods in many cities where the majority of very large minority of the population is Moslem. That is a barrier to assimilation right there.
2) It is not the job of the host country to assimilate Moslems. France is trying very hard, but not having a lot of success. The pressures NOT to assimilate come from the religious Moslems themselves. Signs of this are dress. The way people dress sends a message to the public, whether this is punk rock or hijabs. Many Moslems deliberately set themselves apart from the majority population by dressing markedly differently. That is a big barrier to assimilation.
3) The third issue is much more serious. Even though there may be superficial assimilation when Moslems go into various professions, and even though there may appear to be assimilation when Moslems dress like the rest of the population, there might not be an assimilation of values. There is no question that Islamic values are NOT Western values. All Islamic religious authorities agree on this. The best proof is that ALL Moslem countries reject our Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favor of the Sharia-based Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The two are mutually exclusive. How many American Moslems are willing to openly reject the Cairo Declaration and accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Therefore, it is not correct to say or imply that Moslems are being "marginalized" by non-Moslems. If there is any "marginalization" or failure to integrate, this is the fault of the religious Moslems, themselves who deliberately segregate and differentiate themselves from the non-Moslem population to the extent possible. This is all in accordance with the dictates of Muhannad and sharia law to avoid being like non-Moslems in any possible way -- food, dress and, especially, values.
Salaams Maggie,
JAK for your comments. I was not suggesting that the Europeans are good model to follow--as they haven't assimilated the Muslims living in their countries and their approach to assimilation is wrong. For example, banning certain religious attire is not the way to assimilate a community. But I find it ironic that while some European countries are trying to assimilate their Muslim populations (albeit in a bad fashion), that many in the US are taking the opposite approach and trying to marginalize us.
Dear Abdulameer,
Clearly I wasn't as clear as I thought I had been. Both you and Maggie read my post to suggest that I think Europe is doing a good job of assimilation. That is not my opinion--see my comment to Maggie below. But at least some of the European countries recognize that the direction is assimilation and not marginalization.
As for your other comments, not surprisingly, I completely disagree. For example, you state "There is no question that Islamic values are NOT Western values. All Islamic religious authorities agree on this." All Islamic religious authorities do not agree with this point. And there are numerous Islamic and Western values that coincide which I have pointed out to you on several prior occasions.
How can you say that Muslims marginalize themselves, when the Muslims, even those whom you likely consider "religious", feel themselves to be assimilated here? I am curious what your definition of a "religious" Muslim is and what you require for assimilat
@J: What is a "religious Muslim"? Well, in my understanding this is a Muslim who goes beyond observance of the rituals and the "five pillars". Many Muslims limit themselves to those rituals, and certain dress items like the hijab; but, I am sure you will agree that there is a whole lot more to Islam than that. In my understanding, a religious Muslim also adheres to the doctrines of Islam and to Sharia law, to the extent possible under any given circumstances. Would you disagree with that? What do you think about Sharia law as expounded by the five major Islamic schools of jurisprudence (four Sunni and one Shiite) and set forth in concise form in "Reliance of the Traveler -- Umdat al Salik"? This manual of Sharia law was approved by the highest Islamic religious authorities of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- plus the president of the American Fiqh Council. That's pretty authoritative. A religious Muslim wants to see Sharia law as the law of the land -- everywhere.
P.S. Even those Moslems who just observe the rituals will lend their financial and political support to those Moslems who propagate the doctrines of Islam -- even if they are not quite certain just what those doctrines are. They will support their imams and their community leaders who know very well what those doctrines are and who use their political influence to promote those doctrines.
As for values, as I pointed out, the best proof of the difference in values between Islam and non-Islam is the fact that the entire Moslem world has rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favor of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Have you ever read the CDHRI? If not, you should. You can Google it and get the text in a second.
continued from above...
I have not read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, although I have always been a fan of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But let’s be forthcoming here and recognize that the United States has not ratified key international treaties and has put reservations on many others, such as the UN Convention Against Torture by redefining the definition of torture. Countries take into consideration when deciding whether to sign and ratify an international agreement much more than the mere wording of the agreement. In any event, since none of these countries implement Islamic law the way it is intended to be implemented, whether they sign or do not sign a particular treaty is not relevant to me.
Continued from above...
I disagree with comments about adhering to the doctrines of Islam or shari’ah law. Wouldn’t you expect a Muslim to adhere to the doctrines of Islam? Isn’t that the idea of being a Muslim? I would expect a Christian to adhere to the doctrines of Christianity. The word shari’ah doesn’t have to have the negative connotation that you and many others put to it. The fact is that no country populated by Muslims is implementing Islamic law the way it is intended to be implemented.
Continued below ...
Dear Abdulameer,
Lots of Muslims go beyond the 5 pillars because the 5 pillars are not considered in Islam the end point. They are the supports of the deen, so I agree there is a lot more to Islam than those. For example, as Ramadan approaches many Muslims do extra Taraweeh prayers. Muslims fast during other times of the year besides the month of Ramadan. In addition to zakat, Muslims give sadaqa (charity). I suspect most practicing Muslims go beyond the 5 pillars and that is a good, not bad, thing. There are many hadith encouraging extra acts of worship, practice, and behavior.
Continued below...
Dear J:
It is true that practically none of the Moslem countries implement Islamic sacred law the way it was intended. And, thank heavens, for that! The countries that come closest are Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Shabab-controlled areas of Somalia. All the other Moslem countries implement Sharia law to one degree or other. Many of them have legal punishments for apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality and proselytizing by non-Moslems. Sharia embodies the doctrines of Islam (as opposed to the rituals). What is wrong with Moslems supporting the doctrines of Islam? If you are a religious Moslem, then nothing is wrong with it because you would support Islamic values based on standard Sharia law. But, if you are a non-Moslem, or a non-religious Moslem, then there is a lot wrong with because you would not share those Islamic-Sharia values. Please take the time to read the Cairo Declaration. Everyone ought to read it.
Samia, what do you mean 'marginalization'? Are there American laws, policies that discriminate against Muslims? I never heard of such. Are you referring to sporadic acts of commenters? Are you referring to businesses that don't allow Muslims in? What is the reality here? As the old lady says in the TV commercial, Where's the beef? My experience is that Muslims in America are respected and well treated, in fact, favored.
Samia, what do you mean 'marginalization'? Are there American laws, policies that discriminate against Muslims? I never heard of such. Are you referring to sporadic acts of commenters? Are you referring to businesses that don't allow Muslims in? What is the reality here? As the old lady says in the TV commercial, Where's the beef? My experience is that Muslims in America are respected and well treated, in fact, favored.
Any group that bases their lifestyle on beliefs that are counter-intuitive to rationale, logic and scientific understanding are a counterweight against human evolution. That said, you cannot blame a "culture" for the acts of a minority...even when the culture in question is one who claims that, through divine revelation they are in posession of the whole and unalterable truth from a divine being. It's unfair. However...there is an undeniable truth to the presupposition that Muslim culture has a violent religious undercurrent...just as any of the Abrahamic religious traditions do...Islam seems to have maintained it's support of the more barbaric practices however...the execution of the Iranian woman for adultery this past weekend as a horrific example of Islamic mercy. There is a cultural divide between the Muslim world and ours. Eventually one would hope mankind would evolve and discard our bronze-age obsession with magical thinking...but that might just be a pipe dream.
Dear Abdulameer,
I disagree with your assessment of who is implementing shari’ah law the most. Implementing the most law incorrectly doesn’t count. Muhammad Asad makes an interesting point in his book “The Principles of State and Government in Islam”. He basically argues that shari’ah law is very limited and over the centuries has expanded beyond what was originally intended. So, for example, what constituted shari’ah law in the 12th Century is actually scholarly interpretation that is not shari’ah law and would likely not apply in the 21st Century. I have never heard a Muslim call for Islamic law in the United States or other non-Muslim populated countries. The rumors that the majority of Muslims want to do so is exactly that--a rumor.
Continued from above
...Many Muslims move to this country because they can practice their religion freely here, so I agree with you that being Muslim in the United States is still a good thing. Favored? I’m not sure what you mean by that. I have never felt favored because I am Muslim. Respected? By whom? Not many non-Muslims congratulated me when I converted. But I don’t need to be either respected or favored; indifference is appealing to me.
The point of my article wasn’t to argue that we are marginalized now. The point is that there appears to be a trend and it is going in the wrong direction. Muslim Americans by and large are assimilated—why try to marginalize us?
Dear Goldie,
What I mean by “marginalization” is to equate Islam and Muslims in this country with terrorism and terrorists; to say that we are somehow less American because we practice our faith; to have laws that forbid women who cover to teach in public schools; to be kicked off of a plane because some other passenger doesn’t like the way we look; to try to stop houses of worship and community centers from being built, etc.
continued below...
Dear Sean,
There is no respected scholar today that would say it is now appropriate to execute someone for adultery. With respect to cultural divide and Islam’s supposed role in that,
I suggest you read Graham Fuller’s book “A World Without Islam”. And I disagree it is an undeniable truth that Abrahamic religious traditions are violent or barbaric. Islam for one encourages peaceful relations and has very strict rules for when defensive fighting is permitted. If humans did not have these constraints, I wonder if we would still exist. The violence and barbarism results when people have strayed from their religious teachings and fed their own desires. Or when there are no religious restraints—Stalin comes to mind.
Dear J:
First of all, thank you for permitting this discussion.
Second, as for Sharia law, you cite Mohammad Asad. However, he is not anywhere near as respected an authority as the muftis of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt who approved the manual of Sharia law "Umdat al Salik". Muhammad Asad is one against many.
Third, you say that no respected Islamic religious authority approves of stoning for adultery. But that is not true. Certainly, the ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs of Iran approve of it because they ordered it. They speak for over a hundred million Muslims. The Sharia manual, Umdat al Salik, is a SUNNI manual of Sharia law. It, too, provides for stoning for adultery. So, I do not know where you get the evidence to say that no respected authority approves of stoning for adultery.
Fourth, PLEASE Google and read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. ALL 57 Muslim countries approve of it! I would like to hear your opinion of it.
Dear Abdulammer,
I did a quick glance of Cairo Declaration and found the phrase "prescribed by Shari'ah" or similar phrases used many times. As a former practicing lawyer, this jumped out at me as useless language because there is no agreed upon Sharia'ah and each country can interpret it as it sees fit. I then did a quick Google search and found some quotes such as "There are so many varying interpretation of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily (Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle East studies). Another quote that talks specifically about this language in the Cairo Declaration states "Such a statement is meaningless, considering the vast corpus of subjectively understood literation that could be identified as informing the Shari'ah.." (Imam Zaid Shakir in Cross Currents). I am going to review some publications more fully but it appears to me that at least some Islamic scholars aren't particularly enamored with the Cairo Declaration. In fact, Imam Zaid states later on in the same paragraph "This provides another incentive to root our discourse in the UDHR."
Fifth, I do not understand how you can say that Islam encourages peaceful relations with non-Moslems. The Koran, the Sunnah, the manual of Sharia law, Umdat al Salik, -- all of them require war against non-Moslems until Islam reigns supreme. The notion that Islam allows fighting only in self-defense is just not true. According to Islamic doctrine, there are four stages of jihad:
1) No fighting at all
2) Fighting in self-defense is permitted but not required;
3) Fighting in self-defense is required.
4) Fighting in order to spread the religion is required and is considered the most noble stage of jihad. See Qutb's "Milestones" for a very clear exposition of these four stages. Qutb had (and has) far more influence in the Muslim world than Mohammad Asad ever had.
continued from above
We have discussed jihad on several previous occasions, and I again refer you and others to the book “The State We Are In: Identity, Terror, and the Law of Jihad”. I posted an article on it in the book review section.
Also, it is easy for me to state that Islam encourages peaceful relations with non-Muslims because that’s what the scholars state. Peace is the ideal and preferred state. Fighting is allowed under very prescribed circumstances, which circles back to the book recommendation above.
I will look at the Cairo Declaration, insha’Allaah. The fact that governments have signed onto it, though, doesn’t necessarily mean that the scholars whom I trust think it is a good thing. :)
Dear Abdulammer,
The Pope (as far as I know) says birth control is a no-no, but that doesn’t mean Catholics believe it or follow it. Most of the Catholics I have met or have known don’t believe or follow many things coming from the Vatican. The mere fact that an official religious figure states something doesn’t mean that, for example, “over a hundred million Muslims” agree with him.
There is no respected authority that says stoning is okay today. Scholars like Muhammad Asad argue that stoning was never allowed and that, to the extent it occurred, it was based on Jewish law. Other scholars who believe that at one point stoning was allowed state that it, like the other hudud punishments, cannot be implemented now because of the state of the Ummah and realities of today. Thus, it would be unjust to cut off a hand for theft, if people are not housed and fed, etc. So, regardless of what scholars one finds most persuasive, stoning today is not considered an option.
continued below
Mashallah everything is so interesting and help to get different concept for what we read
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!