Seeking the religious roots of pluralism in the United States of America: an American Muslim perspective.

Introduction

As we await the closing years of both the century and the millennium, we must begin to say to ourselves that we are, in the language of the Chinese sage, "living in interesting times." Alternatively, we can say with Charles Dickens that "these are the best of times and the worst of times," depending on how one views the world. Regardless of our perspectives on the nature of things in this world, there are three facts that cannot be denied by any human being living in the midst of things on this planet. The first is the phenomenon of globalization, which is tearing down all the walls of separation that have kept humanity apart for centuries.(1) We may disagree as to how we interpret this phenomenon, but the fact that science and technology have now conspired to bring us together physically and electronically is beyond dispute. The second transformation that has taken place in human societies is the growing desire and strong belief among humans that their material well-being could be improved and that they deserve to live better.(2) This View of the Material possibilities in the human condition is made more and more evident by television and other forms of media. The CNN factor is certainly a reality in our times.(3) The third fact to be noted here is the growing realization by all religions, ideologies, and belief-systems that they have to live under one roof and that the days of living in isolation are gone forever. It is becoming categorically clear that secularism and the growing secularization of human life due to advances in science and technology are forcing all human societies to create political systems where the right to think freely and to exercise one's freedom to believe or not to believe in any religious or secular formula for living in this world is respected.(4)

It is against this background that we will consider the issues relating to the subject under discussion. I intend to cover three areas in this essay. The first section provides what I consider the key points to be made in any discussion of Muslim views on religious pluralism in the U.S.A. Here I will identify the Islamic views of these Muslims and give a breakdown of the contending interpretations of Islam and the differential attitudes toward the notion of church-state relations. Attention will be given to the manner in which American Muslims are defining their role and place within the American political system and society's response to them. The second part addresses the question of limits to pluralism in a society that is witnessing the multiplicity of moralities and religious groupings. The third section deals with the relationship between religion and public policy, engaging both the familiar question of the separation of church and state and the issue of state intervention in the amelioration of conditions among the poorer and less fortunate members of society.

I. Islam and the Question of Religious Pluralism

In discussing the pluralistic nature of American society today, one cannot ignore the fact that at least 5,000,000 members of this society are followers of Islam.(5) This fact has been acknowledged in recent years by American presidents and by members of the national leadership and media. Because of this growing realization of the Muslim presence, it would make sense to know how American Muslims view American pluralism and what contributions they can make to the development and strengthening of this political/religious concept that has become the moving spirit of American community-building and self-governance. First of all, I should state that Islam teaches that humanity has the role of khalifah (vicegerency) on this earth, and, because of this acceptance of the Divine Trust (amana) to exercise dominion in this world, Adam and his progeny have the responsibility of creating peace in this world.

The diversity in the world is taken for granted by Muslims because both the Qur'An and the Sunnah (words and life examples of the Prophet Muhammad) teach Muslims to accept the diversity of race, language, culture, and religion among the descendants of Adam and his wife Eve.(6) In fact, the monogenesis of the Qur'an is reinforced by the Sunnah of the Prophet, which says that 124,000 messengers of Allah delivered his message to humanity in their own languages.(7) This is to say that the creation of a biological community through Adam was complemented by the dispatch of messengers to teach the doing of good and the avoidance of evil. Such a system of living can be realized only through the creation of a polity where unity in diversity is respected and maintained. This is perhaps the reason why the Qur'an (49:13) speaks of the racial and ethnic/linguistic diversity of humankind as a sign of Allah, and it should be taken as evidence for mutual recognition of one another in this life.(8)

In addition to this point of view, the Qur'an also identifies two other important principles that have guided Muslim societies in the past, although one should hasten to add that the history of human implementation of these religious principles has been marred by occasional lapses from the ideal. However, in discussing American Muslim views of pluralism, one should say that the principle of co-existing with Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book) is deeply rooted in Islamic thought and that the historical reality of Muslims living in the U.S.A. has given new meaning and understanding of this concept to American Muslims.(9) Although Muslims have lived as religious minorities in some of the medieval states and kingdoms and in colonized regions of the European empires of the last two centuries, the present state of American Muslims (and one may add Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, and European Muslims) is unprecedented in many respects, for, within the American republic, Muslims for the first time in history now find themselves living as a minority but with equal rights with fellow Americans.(10) Although some Muslims may retort that the realities of the day do not always measure up to the ideals, the fact remains that within the American republic the separation of church and state has made it possible for all religious groups, regardless of their majoritarian or minoritarian status, to gain access to and to share with others all the facilities in the public square.

Besides the question of living in peace with the Ahl al-Kitab, there was the principle of religious diversity based on the notion that "there is no compulsion in religion." This is a notion that "triumphant Islam" in the past tended to forget. However, if Muslims, especially American Muslims and others in the West, are to develop new understandings and interpretations of the doctrine of religious pluralism, this earlier teaching, which had significant historical relevance for Muslims living in Mecca during the formative years of Islam, needs to be revisited. Its relevance to modern Muslim thought is made increasingly imperative by the new realities created by advances in science and technology. It is also made necessary by the greater numbers of human beings who are migrating from one country to another and from one region to another.(11)

This growing interdependence among human beings and their societies is yet to be fully acknowledged by all human groups and their leaders. Given these developments in the world, and in light of the social, cultural, and religious transformations in American society, one could argue here that religious pluralism as a foundational principle of the American republic will definitely enjoy the continuing support of the Muslim population.(12) In saying this, I should hasten to add that the Muslim population in the U.S.A. is not a monolithic body of believers. Rather, it is divided into three main groups with different attitudes toward religion. They can be divided into what I describe in zoological metaphors as the grasshopper Muslim, the oyster Muslim, and the owl Muslim.(13)

The grasshopper Muslim is a cultural Muslim who embraces completely -- emotionally and intellectually -- the philosophy of secular humanism and is willing to dissolve into the American ocean of names and faces, into a melting pot defined strictly in nonreligious terms. These cultural Muslims have no qualms about the much-discussed problems of church and state, and they are more afraid of religious authorities than of the politician who imposes taxes on them and passes laws determining how they live their lives.(14)

Opposed to them are the oyster Muslims, who are perturbed by the changes taking place in their social and material world. Buffeted here and there by the forces of social change that could threaten their way of life, while enjoying fully all the creature comforts of American life, these American Muslims feel that the separation of church and state is beginning to pose a problem for their spiritual sense of well-being and that the moral order that is undergirded by religious sensibilities seems to be collapsing all around them Unwilling to go anywhere else in the world, and no longer assured of a location for hijra somewhere in the American West, these Americans see in the life of social isolation the only way out of their religious predicament. To this second type of Muslim, the separation of church and state can be more meaningful if the emerging social and spiritual problems of Americans are dealt with more effectively through public-policy-making processes that are not devoid of religious inspiration. In a way, oyster Muslims share the same philosophical and theological premise with most self-declared religious fundamentalists now living in democratic, pluralistic societies where their religious freedoms are guaranteed but where they have to live with and share public spaces with members of society whose moralities and lifestyles are definitely unacceptable to them. No longer able to count on a mechanical majority based on religious hegemony, because of the internal splits within their own faith communities, these oysters bemoan the state of affairs while pledging their loyalty and fidelity to the political institutions of the Post-Enlightenment Era.(15)

The third group of American Muslims are the owls. Although the sociology of birds in the Muslim world places this creature at the top of any list of the most undesirable feathered pets, this metaphor of the owl is deliberately chosen because this is the bird of wisdom in the Euro-American world. Those Muslims I group under this category are the ones who try to strike a balance between the other two groups identified above. Not willing to dissolve in the ocean of names and faces, and equally determined not to help erect walls of religious apartheid in the name of territorial/religious imperatives, this group of American Muslims supports the existing order for reasons different from those of their co-religionists. Unlike the oysters who wish to maintain their membership in the larger society without having what they perceive and believe to be "perilous encounters" with others too depraved for close encounter or comfort, the owls see themselves as individual believers with the necessary moral compass to interact without being "contaminated" by those who would be avoided desperately by their oyster co-religionists. They do not avoid the company of their cultural Muslim brothers and sisters who are Muslim in name only, nor are they necessarily unsympathetic to the moral and spiritual predicament of their oyster co-religionists. This body of Muslims, in my view, is the most sensitive to the realities of internal pluralism within the Muslim community.

Dialogue between and among faith communities or between racial and ethnic/cultural communities cannot take place without the realization and acknowledgment of others who live within ones social and religious universe. Since no religious, ethnic, or racial group is co-terminus with the entire physical universe, and since no significantly numerous human grouping is without subgroups, it makes good sociological and political sense for promoters of dialogue and the defenders of religious and political pluralism to remind members of their own faith communities that the beginning of dialogue is the recognition and acknowledgment of what I called elsewhere the processes of "islandization" in all human groups. To put it in another way, one should say that the dialogical process could become more enriching if the same degree of tolerance shown to persons with whom one differs fundamentally within one's professed faith community can be stretched a little bit to extend one's spiritual embrace to include other humans. This, in my view, is the challenge of the twenty-first century, and the postmodern and post-Cold-War person must find a way out of our present quandary.(16)

II. American Muslims and the Limits to Religious Pluralism

One cannot complete the picture of the relationship between American Muslims and religious pluralism in American society today unless one examines the factors that constitute limits to pluralism. Five factors can be identified as limits to the Muslim response to religious pluralism: (1) the question of libertarianism, which allows for social and sexual behavior deemed reprehensible by Muslims; (2) that brand of materialism that keeps the fires of human greed at the boiling point in the field of interpersonal relations; (3) the question of education and the contents of the curriculum and the representativeness of school texts dealing with sensitive matters such as the portrayal of minorities and ethnic groups; (4) the question of excessive individualism, which threatens the social solidarity of the family and the Muslim jam`at (meeting place); and (5) the excessive consumerism that has made Americans some of the most gluttonous and most indebted persons in the world. Fearful of these threats to their survival as a community and most seriously concerned about the socialization of their children in the American public schools, American Muslims, as Ali A. Mazrui recently argued, feel "threatened less by American secularism than by American libertarianism."(17)

With respect to the first factor, we can say that the competition between the Religious Right and the secular fundamentalists in American society has made this issue a major battleground. This does not mean to say that all secular fundamentalists are willing to endorse loose morals and pornography in American society. However, because the right of the persons interested in such practices is deemed inviolable even by the majority in the society, according to the thinking of most libertarians, American Muslims overwhelmingly tend to side with the conservative forces on this point -- hence, the constant refrain that the forces of immorality are seizing control of the public square and that something must be done to limit the activities and practices of those whom they believe to be "immoral and depraved." This mantra of spiritual discontent is heard most often when the issues of pornography and homosexuality enter the discourse.(18)

The second factor that occupies the attention of American Muslims is the brand of materialism that they believe encourages excessive acquisitiveness. Although Muslims constantly remind each other about getting their portion of this world -- and they amplify such notions in their daily prayers as suggested in several Hadith sayings of the Prophet Muhammad -- there is universal condemnation of greed. The Qur'an urges Muslims to avoid niggardliness and to give sadaqah (almsgiving). Most importantly, Islam teaches its adherents to pay zakah, an obligatory tax that Muslim jurists (fuqaha) over the years have computed at between two-and-a-half and five percent of one's personal assets. Furthermore, the Islamic tradition of inheritance sternly and systematically discourages accumulation from generation to generation through inheritance. This history of abhorrence of greed in Muslim societies has been brought over by the immigrant Muslims. The same notions have been internalized by native-born Americans, who are now equally offended by signs of excessive greed among their neighbors.(19)

The third factor relates to the issue of educating the young among the Muslim population. Because of the rampant use of drugs in many American schools, Muslim parents are equally worried about the nature and quality of education given to their young ones. Here again, one sees why American Muslims point to the limits of pluralism. Like their Jewish neighbors who strongly resist any imposition of church teachings in the public-school system, American Muslims wish to keep their children from the triple problems of religious indoctrination, drugs, and sexual promiscuity. It is on account of these fears that Muslims have responded favorably in recent years to the clamors of the Religious Right and other conservative forces grouped under the Republican Party. However, this is not the whole story. With respect to school vouchers, Muslims would certainly embrace the Republican call for such measures designed to allow parents choice for their children's education. However, when Governor Pete Wilson and his supporters in California tried to pass what was widely described as the anti-immigrant Proposition 168, American Muslims in California voted overwhelming against it. Again, as we can see, American Muslims are caught in the web of moral dilemmas just as the rest of the politically conscious and morally concerned members of American society are.

The Council on Islamic Education, based in southern California, has singlehandedly championed the efforts to have Muslims favorably portrayed in American textbooks, in an attempt to gain a foothold within American religious pluralism. Over the last five years, this body, which has an impressive Muslim and non-Muslim advisory board, has been able to initiate a dialogue between the Muslim community, particularly those living in California, and textbook publishers. Much has happened since the initial attempt at contact was made, and a review of some of the publications on the market for California schools has registered the concerns of Muslims and other ethnic and religious minorities in that part of the U.S.A. The challenge facing Muslims is whether they will be able to replicate the successes of their Californian co-religionists in this exercise of their rights as citizens within an educational system where books serve as mirrors of local interest.(20)

The fourth factor to be addressed here revolves around the issue of individualism and the balance between it and social community interest. Living in a minority community anywhere has its limitations. Much more serious is that situation where the minority group could at any time become the target of majoritarian harassment and attack. American Muslims have in recent years witnessed many attacks. Mosques and Islamic centers have been violated and at times burned down by hostile forces. Like Jewish synagogues that also face similar hazards, Islamic centers and mosques are the first symbol to be desecrated by anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic forces in the U.S.A. Because of the fear of defection on the part of younger people in their communities, American Muslims have seen the masjid and the Islamic center as a haven for families and the socialization agency for the young. For this and other related reasons, when those who fit the description of grasshoppers assert too much independence and stay away from the masjid, becoming what some scholars have called "Eid Muslims," then the problem of personal versus group interest wells to the surface. Many a Muslim family, especially among immigrants, has been faced with such moral and spiritual dilemmas. Many of these families blame the excessive individualism that libertarianism offers to receptive Muslims. The idea of marrying outside the group has become the major source of family upheaval among many of these immigrants. The young men and women whose parents married each other on the basis of arranged marriages are now reaching puberty and dreaming about romantic love in the manner of their American non-Muslim counterparts. The linkage between romantic love and the exercise of individual freedom in matters of choosing a partner and carving a niche for oneself within the American social system will remain a thorny point on the Muslim body religious.

The last factor to be considered here deals with excessive consumerism in American society. American Muslims remind their neighbors every year that they are fasting for a period of twenty-nine or thirty days, depending on lunar sightings. This annual ritual is a telling point for Muslims concerned about the eating habits of their society and the rigorous demands of Islam. Though there are various Muslim responses to this eating and consuming aspect of American culture, the fact remains that all Muslims, except the grasshoppers, deal with this issue from three important respects. First, there is the tradition of not eating too much to the point of being gluttonous. Here I believe the three Abrahamic faiths converge on the idea of encouraging the faithful not to be overindulgent. Second, the food proscription of Islam limits the consumption pattern of the believer. In the special case of American Muslims, those who adhere faithfully to the halal diet see fewer opportunities in the eateries than their more voracious neighbors, who consume swine as easily as they imbibe alcohol. The oysters have been consistent in keeping themselves away from such temptations by maintaining a direct line between their kitchens and the halal food stores operating in their neighborhoods. The third way in which American Muslims deal with the question of excessive consumerism is to avoid indebtedness. This attitude is most evident among those we call oysters (and some of the owls), who do not allow their propensity to consume to drown them in a sea of indebtedness. The same attitude propels these Muslim to prefer rentals to mortgages. All this is done in the name of avoiding riba (usurious lending and borrowing).(21)

III American Muslim, Religious Pluralism, and State Welfare

In examining Muslim opinions on and attitudes toward religious pluralism on the one hand and the question of state welfare on the other, one needs to pay attention to a number of things. First of all, it should be restated here that, for Muslims, the question of poverty is both an individual and a societal responsibility. It is an individual responsibility in the sense that each person has to take care of oneself and ones family. One is a signatory to the individual and social contract with Allah. This is the covenantal responsibility that all human beings, according to the qur'anic story of creation, assumed by virtue of their biological and existential ties to Adam and Eve. As individual vicegerents of Allah here in the sublunar world, and as the Sole Vicegerent of Allah in the Whole World of Creation because of their Adamite Trusteeship, humanity owes it to itself to help each other in the event of need. The obligation to pay zakah and the moral teaching that one should practice sadaqah to ameliorate the conditions of the poor are designed to create a community of mutual helpers and supporters of one another. This does not mean that the poor should be dependent on others in society and therefore resign their fate to handouts. On the contrary, the poor are strongly urged by the Prophet to go out and earn a living for themselves. The Hadith story about the beggar who was given some money by the Prophet with the advice that he go out into the wild, fell some wood for sale, and start making a living for himself is widely known and quoted often by Muslims around the world.

With this as background, one begins to see how American Muslims would not unreservedly support any platform that gives the impression that state welfare is available to everyone without conditions. The Muslim view would insist on the provision of state and private support to those categories of beneficiaries identified in the Islamic fiqh books. This reliance on the traditional notion of social welfare and the history behind it could create some interesting challenges to Muslims in American society in the coming decades of the twenty-first century. Taking such a view could bring to the surface a number of issues that, in the American context, have never received public attention. Living in a religiously plural society such as that of the U.S.A. and forced to face head-on the crisis of urban poverty, what would American Muslims do to alleviate the terrible conditions of Americans who now identify spiritually with Islam? Are they going to dismiss their poorer co-religionists as loafers and good-for-nothing citizens who must be forced by the state to go out and seek a job by all means? Or, are they going to create structures similar to those of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish organizations so as to compete, as the Qur'an says, in the "doing of good and in the avoiding of evil."

Here, two opposing opinions and attitudes can be identified. The first position calls for a balance between public goods in the form of state assistance to the poor, the weak, and the disabled on the one hand and, on the other, private goods in the form of individual Muslim members of society who enjoy their wealth, wages, and salaries as they choose but, at the same time, give unlimited and unspecified amounts of money, goods, and services to the poor, the needy, and the disadvantaged as sadaqah, after having paid off what is required of them as a zakah. The second position is that of the Islamic socialists who recommend that the state assume all responsibility for the poor and the underclass. Such a public-policy proposal within a religiously plural society can be realized to a greater or lesser degree only when the Muslims advocating it team up with other social and political forces that feel that poverty should not be stigmatized as an awful condition and that those who are caught in this vicious circle temporarily or continuously do not deserve stereotypic treatment from those who are better off.(22) In examining this issue one cannot help raising the class factor in the difference of opinions among Muslims in the U.S.A. As noted by several Muslim observers of the sociopolitical scene, affluent Muslims oppose expansion in welfare expenditure because it will increase their tax burden. Low-income immigrant or African-American Muslims favor welfare expenditure because they are the prospective recipients of the benefits.

American Muslims have to face other moral and political issues already experienced and addressed by the religious communities that have interacted with the American state prior to the Muslim arrival. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the major players -- both in terms of charities given to the poor living within the borders of the U.S.A. and also in terms of serving as a vehicle for the administration of welfare programs created by state and national governments for the specific purpose of helping the poorer members of our society -- gives its moral standing as well as symbolic significance to any other religious group addressing the poverty question. In light of the rich literature and the million person-hours devoted to this venture, it would make good sense for Muslims to examine this historical record while planning their strategy of engagement in interreligious dialogue on social welfare in the U.S.A. This issue appears simple, but it is fraught with grave dangers and consequences, largely because the poor are often treated as a political football by different groups that claim to represent or speak for them in the name of one ideology or another. American Muslims living in pluralistic America must know the limits to the system of bargaining and compromise institutionalized by over 200 years of political give-and-take. The road has not been without bumps and speed traps, and the biggest speed traps (or holes, depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on) is that which theologians, politicians, and social-welfare bureaucrats construct in the name of social peace.

Again, it should be stated here that the three different opinions and attitudes, represented metaphorically by the grasshopper, the oyster, and the owl, would respond differently to the public-policy prescriptions made by the politicians sitting either on Capitol Hill or at the various state capitals around the U.S.A. Those we identify as grasshoppers would generally identify with the liberal view of the welfare state. There may be some of them who would embrace the neo-conservative school of thought because of their emphasis on cultural as opposed to economic factors in the definition and understanding of poverty. Some of these Muslims who are African-Americans would lean more heavily toward Thomas Sowell(23) than toward Cornel West.(24) However, in noting this, one should quickly add that, within the larger American Muslim community, especially among those living and working within the African-American community, West's position is more attractive, largely because grasshoppers are more likely to be imbued with the social/political message of Malcolm X (Elhajj Malik Shabazz) and with radical Third World ideologies such as Fanonism and Neo-Marxism. One must therefore expect this branch of the American Muslim community to fall disproportionately within the camp of the liberal or radical wing of the U.S. Democratic Party when it comes to treating the poor and seeking solutions to their problems through the means of state agencies.

The position of the oysters would be different. Unwilling to be too entangled with the state and secure in their belief that they can take care of their own, with or without the help of the state or nonbelievers, these American Muslims are most likely to join the conservative forces commingling under the "big tent" of the Republican Party. Their opinions on and attitudes toward poverty are slanted on the side of moral rectitude. Poor people deserve help, but those who engage in immoral activities while facing the most depressing forms of human poverty cannot take their assistance for granted. Because their physical isolation and ideological distance naturally separate them from the urban poor, these oysters who are well-to-do are not likely to journey from their suburban homes to fraternize with, or lobby on behalf of, those co-religionists who they feel deserve help by virtue of their impoverished condition but forfeit the support because of their immoral living. This moral dilemma facing the Muslim oysters apparently exists in other faith communities, too. A Catholic leader whose job puts him on the front line of social-welfare and social-justice issues recently told a panel of Jewish and Christian speakers how a highly paid manager of a law firm complained that he (the Catholic speaker) talked so much about the poor. What about him and those of his kind? According to the Catholic speaker, he queried the manager about the wages paid to his office cleaner and whether this person could be a serious worker or not. To all questions put to the complaining, well-to-do lawyer, he gave answers that show that the poor woman cleaning his office is working but not earning enough to keep body and soul together, while entertaining the dream of sending her children to college.(25) Persons like this woman have their counterparts among certain immigrant and native-born American Muslims whose horizons are limited by sheltered lives and who have limited or no contact at all with fellow Muslims living on the opposite side of the track.

The American Muslims I label owls are likely to express dissatisfaction with the public policies that have been developed so far. They would express their appreciation of the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (and those after him) and the effects it had on millions of Americans over the last sixty years. However, they would be critical of the negative consequences that have led to the institutionalization of state welfare as "a way of life for the poor, the weak, the helpless, and the disabled." Their analysis would lead them to the position that the state is too strong to be ignored but too deadly to be embraced completely. They would fault the manner in which issues of poverty and social justice have been dealt with in the past. Their philosophical position would propel them to call for a new deal for the poor. This strategy, which is a balance between public assistance and private initiative, offers the poor a chance to reinvent themselves to start a new life through the use of public funds and private help. Their interpretation of the Islamic teaching on zakah and sadaqah would add to the Muslim contributions to the American discourse on poverty and social justice. Whether they would be able to gain a place on the moral high ground of American society will depend on the building efforts of its advocates within the Muslim community as well as in the larger U.S. society. By succeeding in the construction of a social bridge that links all the islands of opinions within the American Muslim community, by convincing fellow Muslims about the reality and necessity of meaningful dialogue between the participants in their own inner pluralism and those of the outer pluralism, they may be able to create conditions and opportunities for the forging of public policies that are not devoid of moral and spiritual content.

Conclusions

In concluding this discussion on American Muslims and pluralism in the U.S.A., let me identify the main points to remember whenever one analyzes the new reality of the Muslim presence in the American republic and the part this religious minority has played -- and, one hopes, will continue to play -- in the perennial dialogue between church and state in U.S. society.

The first point to remember is that there is an internal pluralism in the American Muslim community. The zoological metaphors of grasshoppers, oysters, and owls have been used to demarcate their social and mental spaces within the American society.

The second point(26) is that American Muslims consist of two branches, the immigrants and the native-born Americans. Within both are subgroups that must be taken into account when talking about Muslims in the U.S.A. Making generalizations that are not scientifically based leads to stereotyping and greater distortion of the realities on the ground. Persons who are seriously interested in dialogue and in the cultivation of the spirit of interreligious tolerance and harmony must accept the fact of internal pluralism in their own faith communities. These sociological and ideological realities of internal pluralism are best exemplified by the racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and class differences that characterize the small but growing Muslim community in the U.S.A. Within the native-born subgroup are many islands of racial, ethnic, cultural, and class identities. White American Muslims usually come from a class and social background different from that of the more visible African-American Muslims. Furthermore, the fascination with, Islam for system-challenging motives and objectives is, in most cases, conspicuously absent in the opinions and attitudes of the white American Muslim. A sizable portion of white Muslims are attracted to Sufi groups that emphasize the mystical dimensions of the Islamic faith; this sense of political quietism tends to make it easy to accept and affirm pluralism.

The third conclusion of this essay is that American Muslims came to the U.S.A. after many social and political changes had taken place. The civil-rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's eliminated overt, institutionally sanctioned racial discrimination against nonwhites in the society. For this and related reasons, American society has become more open and accessible to peoples of Asia who were previously unwelcome in the U.S.A. -- a point that must not be overlooked by recent Muslim immigrants.

The fourth conclusion is that American Muslims cannot have any impact on the life and thought of American culture if there is no serious and concerted effort to present to their fellow Americans their unique perspective on life and their willingness to dialogue with others about what philosophers and theologians have generally identified as the perennial questions of life. It is at the universities and colleges and at community centers and various public fora where the average American meets neighbors and co-workers that such issues receive a hearing. American Muslims are here to stay, and both their leaders and community members are now challenged to acquire the organizing skills and the intellectual and cultural wherewithal to be active players in the serious work of interfaith dialogue in the U.S.A.

The fifth conclusion is that religious pluralism may indeed be the result of greater secularization of human society, but the benefits that accrue from any intense drive to open the gates of dialogue among the religiously minded and spiritually inclined members of American society will be opened to all persons living in the country. Social service to the weak, the disabled, and the poor cannot become a reality known to all and sundry unless American Muslims take their place in the arenas where serious matters involving faith and reason, life-and-death issues, and matters pertaining to the moral, religious, and spiritual values of the society are addressed with a deep sense of appreciation for human beings and their quest for meaning in life.

(1) For discussion of the phenomenon of globalization, see the differing interpretations in the following: Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization (London: Sage Publications, 1994); Wilbert E. Moore, "Global Sociology: The World as a Single System," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 71 (1966), pp. 475-482; J. P. Nettl and Roland Robertson, International Systems and the Modernization of Societies: The Formation of National Goals and Attitudes, (London: Faber & Faber, 1968); Ronald Robertson, "Individualism, Societalism, Worldliness, Universalism: Thematizing Theoretical Sociology of Religion," Sociological Analysis 38 (Winter, 1977): 281-308; Roland Robertson, "Church-State Relations and the World System," in Thomas Robbins and Roland Robertson, eds., Church-State Relations: Tensions and Transitions (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1987), pp. 39-52; Paul Hirst and Graham Hirst, eds., Globalization in Question (Oxford: Polity Press, 1996); and James H. Mittleman, ed., Globalization: Critical Reflections (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996).

(2) The idea of a "revolution of rising expectations was linked to the excitement about self-determination and decolonization in the newly independent areas of Africa and Asia after World War II. For discussion of this matter, see sample opinions from the following works: Rupert Emerson and Martin Kilson, eds., The Political Awakening of Africa (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965); and John R. McLane, ed., The Political Awakening in India (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970).

(3) The revolution ushered by science and technology in our world can be appreciated in the writings of one of many contemporary writers on globalization and business: Kenichi Ohmae, Beyond National Borders (Homewood, IL. Dow Jones Irwin, 1987); and The Borderless World (New York: Harpers Collins, 1990). For some Muslim and non-Muslim views on Islam and globalization, see Akbar S. Ahmed and Hastings Donnan, eds., Islam, Globalization, and Post-Modernity (New York: Routledge, 1994), esp. chap. 1.

(4) For discussion of secularization and its impact on human rights, interfaith dialogue, and the struggle for freedom around the world, see the following texts: Robert L. Phillips and Duane L. Cady, Humanitarian Intervention: Just Wars vs. Pacifism (Lanham MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1996); Terry Nardin, ed., The Ethics of War and Peace Religious and Secular Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); Abdullahi Ahmed an-Naim and Francis Deng, eds., Human Rights in Africa (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990); Heineir Bielefeldt, "Secular Human Rights: Challenge and Opportunity to Christians and Muslims," Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 7 (October, 1996): 311-325; Ken Booth, "Human Wrongs and International Relations," International Affairs (London) 71 (January, 1995): 103-126.

(5) There are no figures from the U.S. Census Bureau on religions and their adherents. Most estimates of Muslims in the U.S.A now claim at least 5,000,000.

(6) This Islamic view of human beings and their role in the universe is based on the creation story in the second chapter of the Qur'an. It is restated in many other sections of the Muslim holy book. For discussion of this view, see Jaafar Sheikh Idries, "Is Man the Vicegerent of God?" Journal of Islamic Studies (Oxford) 1 (January, 1990): 99-110; Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1976); Bilal Phillips, The Purpose of Creation (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: Daral al-Fatah, 1995); and Khurshid Ahmad, "Man and the Future of Civilization: An Islamic Perspective, "Encounters, vol. 1, no. 1 (1995), pp. 39-55.

(7) This hadith is reported in many books of sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad.

(8) For discussion of this qur'anic view on ethnicity and race among human beings, see my "Islam and the Race Question," in Sulayman S. Nyang and Henry Thompson, eds., Islam: Its Relevance Today (Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary, 1991).

(9) On the question of Muslim relations with the Ahl al-Kitab, see the following: Sulayman S. Nyang, "Challenges Facing Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the United States," in Yvonne Y. Haddad and Wadi Haddad, eds., Christian-Muslim Encounters (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1995); Gary M. Bretton-Granatoor and Andrea L. Weiss, Shalom/Salaam: A Resource for Jewish Muslim Dialogue (New York. United American Hebrew Congregations Press 1993); Marilyn Robinson Waldman, ed., Muslim and Christian; Muslim and Jews: a Common Past, A Hopeful Future (Columbus, OH: The Islamic Foundation of Central Ohio, the Catholic Diocese of Columbus, and Congregation Tifereth Israel, 1992); and Byron L. Haines and Frank L. Cooley, eds., Christians and Muslim Together: An Exploration by Presbyterians (Philadelphia: Geneva Press, 1987).

(10) For discussion of the question of Muslims who live as a minority under non-Muslim rule and on many other issues relating to Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations in the contemporary World, see Muzammil H. Siddiqui," Muslims in Non-Muslim Society," Islamic Horizons, May-June, 1986, p. 22; see also George B. Grose and Benjamin J. Hubbard, eds., The Abraham Connection: A Jew, Christian, and Muslim in Dialogue, Academy for Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Studies (Notre Dame, IN: Cross Roads Books, 1994); Tamara Sonn, ed, Islam and the Question Minorities (Atlanta, GA. Scholars Press, 1996); Jorgen Nielsen, Muslim in Western Europe (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (1995); and Gerd Nonneman, Tim Niblock, and Bogdan Szajkowski, eds., Muslim Communities in the New Europe (Reading England: Ithaca Press, 1996).

(11) Now that Muslims are U.S. citizens, whether immigrant or native-born, the question of assimilation and adjustment to American cultural and political life would become the major item of discourse. For Muslim views on this issue, see Ismail al-Faruqi, "Islam and Other Faiths," in Althaf Gauhar, ed., Vie Challenges of Islam (London: The Islamic Council of Europe, 1978); idem, "Islamic Ideals in North America," in Earle Waugh, Baha Abu-Laban, and Regula B. Qureshi eds., Muslim Community in North America (Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press, 1983); Ilyas Ba-Yunus, Muslim in North America: Problems and Prospects (Indianapolis, IN: Muslim Student Association, 1974); and Siddiqui, "Muslims in Non-Muslim Society."

(12) The three zoological-metaphor categories would respond differently to the issue of assimilation in American society. The group called grasshoppers do not even think about this issue of continuity or discontinuity in the history of nonsettlement in areas outside of Darul Islam For this group of Muslims secular considerations are overriding. This is, however, not the case with the group called oysters. Their attitude is that settlement hem is temporary and that the brevity of life makes it imperative for one to seize the time by doing da`wa (missions) among non-Muslims. The myth of return is most widespread among people in this category. The third group, the owls, takes the position that Muslims must assimilate, but they must not be assimilated to the extent of losing their Islamic authenticity. Given this breakdown, one sees parallels in patterns of adjustment to American society between the Muslims and other religious groups in the U.S.A.

(13) These zoological metaphors, together with many others, were developed over the last ten to fifteen years during my cross-country lectures to Muslim community organizations, Muslim Student Association chapters, and local, national, and international interfaith conferences.

(14) These Muslims have been called "Eid Muslims," "Salt-water Muslims," and many other terms specific to local Muslim communities. The zoological metaphor is used to avoid any negative categorization that may suggest some degree of self-righteousness.

(15) For discussion of religious fundamentalism and its various manifestations around the world, see Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, eds, Fundamentalisms Observed (Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1991); idem, Fundamentalisms and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); idem, Fundamentalisms and Society (Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1993). Also, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, ed., "The Islamic Alternative," a special issue of Arab Studies Quarterly, vol. 4, nos. 1 and 2 (Spring, 1982), is devoted to the examination of Islamic revivalism in the world.

(16) This concept can be called "internal pluralism." It complements and reinforces the more widely acknowledged concept of "external pluralism." In the particular case of Islam, the idea of internal pluralism was legitimized in the mutual acceptance that developed among the four madhhabs (legal schools of thought). In the twentieth century, Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut of al-Azhar and Shaykh Hassan al-Banna of the al-Ikhwan A-Muslimoon have been credited with widening the circle of internal pluralism by inviting Sunni Muslims to include the Jafari school as part of the totality of Islamic jurisprudence. See Larry Poston, Islamic Dawah in the West: Muslim Missionary Activity and the Dynamics of Conversion to Islam (New York Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 80; and Kate Zebiri, Mahmud Shaltut and Islamic Modernism (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 24-26.

(17) See Ali A. Mazrui, "Between the Crescent and the Star-Spangled Banner. American Muslims and U.S. Foreign Policy," International Affairs 72 (July, 19%): 493-506.

(18) For discussion of the debate between the Christian Right and the defenders of First Amendment rights, see the following works Clyde Wilcox, God's Warrior: The Christian Right in Twentieth-Century America (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1992); and Michael Cromartie, ed., No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics (Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993).

(19) On the Muslim view on economic issues and consumerism, see Mohsin S. Khan and Abbas Mirakhor, eds., Theoretical Studies in Islamic Banking and Finance (Houston, TX: Institute for Research and Islamic Studies, 1987); M. `Umar Chapra, "The Economic System of Islam: A Discussion of Its Goals and Nature," parts 1-3, Islamic Quarterly 14 (January-March, April-June, July-September, 1970): 3-18,91-96, 143-156; Muhammad Abdul-Rauf, "The Islamic Doctrine of Economics and Contemporary Economic Thought," in Michael Novak, ed., Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1979), pp. 129-149. See also Timur Kuran, "Fundamentalisms and the Economy" and "The Economic Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism," in Marty and Appleby, Fundamentalisms and the State, pp. 289-301 and 302-341, respectively.

(20) The Council on Islamic Education has made some important gains in educating publishers and school officials in California about the need for greater sensitivity to the educational needs of Muslim students in the school system. Its efforts at Muslim representation in the textbook debate have captured the attention of the Wall Street Journal (October 5, 1990; May 1, 1991), San Francisco Examiner (March 31, 1990), Los Angeles Tunes (September 20, 1992; October 3, 1992; February 27, 1997), Los Angeles Times Magazine (September 29, 1991), Washington Post (October 24, 1993), Hartford Courant (October 3, 1993), and other publications. For a sample of Muslim views on textbooks used in American schools, see Susan L. Douglas, Strategies and Structures for Presenting World History with Islam and Muslim History as a Case Study (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994).

(21) For sample opinions on this and related issues, see Islamic Horizon, Message International, The Minaret (Southern California), and several other minor national Muslim publications.

(22) As noted above, American Muslims are split into three main groups: the grasshoppers who have reconciled themselves to the interest-based capitalist system and whose secularism apparently determines their attitudes; the oysters who avoid mortgages and prefer rentals over home ownership based on interest-bearing loans; and the owls who accept recent Muslim reinterpretations of riba (usurious interest) and are attempting to create some form of Islamic banking or financing arrangements to accommodate their needs as well as those of the oysters.

(23) Thomas Sowell, Civil, Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? (New York: W. Morrow, 1984); idem, The Economics and Politics of Race.: An International Perspective (New York: W. Morrow, 1983); idem, A Conflict of Visions (New York: W. Morrow, 1987).

(24) Cornell West, Keeping Faith: Philosophy and Race in America (New York: Routledge, 1993); idem, Race Matters (Boston, MA. Beacon Press, 1993).

(25) This was the statement of a Roman Catholic representative at an interfaith session on social welfare organized at the annual meeting of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, held in Washington, DC, on February 15, 1997.

(26) The second and third points in this section refer to two sections of the original essay that were omitted in this version. Hence, points one, four, and five correspond to the sections I, II, and III of the present essay. For a copy of the full original text, contact the author at 34 Hunters Gate Ct., Silver, MD 20904.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:	Seeking the Religious Roots of Pluralism; Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum Foundation Special Issue
Author:	Nyang, Sulayman S.
Publication:	Journal of Ecumenical Studies
Date:	Jun 22, 1997
Words:	8123
Previous Article:	Seeking the religious roots of pluralism.
Next Article:	Response to "Seeking the Religious Roots of Pluralism." (articles in this issue, pp. 385-417)(Seeking the Religious Roots of Pluralism; Rabbi Marc H....
Topics:	Muslims Social aspects United States Muslims in the United States Social aspects Pluralism Religious aspects