The Future of Islam in North AmericaThe Central Importance of Education
By Mohamed Ansary
Contemporary Issues Editor — IslamOnline.net
Impact of US Policies
Muslim Organizations and Education
Muslim Media Channel
Prospects for the Future
Conclusion
This essay was inspired by a Live Dialogue held by IslamOnline.net's English Shari`ah Department, on April 18, 2007, with Sheikh Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti, a prominent Muslim scholar and director of the Islamic Center of South Plains, Lubbock, Texas, USA. The dialogue was particularly successful as the varied participants, specially users from North America, asked focused questions.
They touched on a number of quintessential issues such as the impact of US policies toward the Muslim world on Muslim minorities in United States and Canada; the activities and performances of Muslim organizations in the USA in the post-9/11 era; the small number of well-qualified Muslim scholars and motivational community leaders in the USA; the need for more Muslim media specialists and social scientists in America; and finally, the challenges and opportunities that face Islam and Muslims in North America.
Impact of US Policies
Many Muslim scholars and intellectuals see the RAND Report as a transgression of the rights of Muslims to decide on their own independent criteria for "moderation" that stems from Shari`ah.
In March 2007, the RAND Corporation, an American NGO specialized in policy studies and measuring public opinion, issued a 217-page report titled Building Moderate Muslim Networks. In this report RAND, which is closely tied to the US Air Force, set up four criteria that would be used by the US administration and other parties to assess Muslim partners and to build networks of pressure on Middle Eastern dictatorships. The criteria allegedly define "moderate" Muslim individuals and organizations in the eyes of the authors of the report. The report also devised 11 questions that could be used to measure the level of the subject's conformity to the criteria.
This was the latest attempt — to the date of the Live Dialogue — by US institutions to interfere in the affairs of the Muslim world. Since former US secretary of state Colin Powell's Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) was launched in 2002, several documents and conferences have been conducted under the title of "reform" in the Middle East. Many Muslim scholars and intellectuals see this particular attempt as a transgression of the rights of Muslims to decide on their own independent criteria for "moderation" that stems from Shari`ah (Islamic Law) guidelines.
One of the questions directed to Al-Shinqiti in the Live Dialogue went as follows: "In view of the recent RAND recipe to handle the Muslim world, do you think this will have a negative impact on Muslim minorities especially in North America? What possible changes could happen to US policy in dealing with Muslims?" Al-Shinqiti's answer ruled out any impact of that particular report on Muslim minorities in North America, although he did note that one part of the report spoke about Muslim minorities in the West as one of many tools to implement the report's strategy in building moderate networks. However, he expressed his reservations about this role as outlined in the RAND report: "I think that Muslims living in North America could play a significant role in bridging the gap between the West and the Muslim world, in a way that is more constructive than the role assigned to them in the report."
The impact of US foreign and domestic policies on the lives of Muslim minorities inside the United States continues to be a subject of lengthy discussions, debates, and writings. In 1996, long before the world awoke to the horrors of 9/11, the Clinton administration sanctioned the Secret Evidence procedure through what was called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (American Muslim Voice).
It was more publicly known as the Secret Evidence Act. During the 2000 elections, George W. Bush said that Arab and Muslim Americans were being subjected to unfair and discriminatory practices in immigration hearings where secret evidence was used against them (Islamic Institute). How ironic! Those who establish exclusive associative ties between 9/11 and policies that may irritate the presence of Muslims in America may not have the full picture.
After all, according to Richard A. Clarke, the former head of the antiterrorism unit in the US State Department, it was President Clinton who first described terrorism as the most dangerous threat to America after the end of the Cold War (Clarke). It is well known that in American discourse back then — notwithstanding Clinton's — "terrorism" was already used almost exclusively to describe some Middle Easterners and Muslims. "Terrorism" is also always confounding by being extended to mean certain forms of resistance that are legitimate.
However, the Muslims of the United States — and to a much lesser degree, Canada — were mostly hurt by the Bush policies in the post-9/11 era. Even though many sources spoke rightly of many governmental efforts to contain the public rage against American Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration introduced — when things were about to cool down — a series of laws that are considered of discriminatory nature by most Muslim organizations in the United States and Canada.
The first of these laws was the notorious US Patriot Act, which was signed into law by Bush on October 26, 2001, after passing with minimal debate in the House and Senate. The act contained several sections that would clearly be used to persecute members of the Muslim minority. Even though there were a few sections meant to restrict this act from being discriminatory against Muslims, such as Section 102 which provided for Congress's condemnation of hate crimes against Muslim and Arab Americans, many of the act's provisions breached a number of civil liberties. Section 201, for example, authorized American law enforcers to "intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses." Chip Pitts wrote in The Nation:
The Patriot Act has been and will continue to be used mainly against ordinary Americans accused of crimes unrelated to terrorism, or those who disagree with government policies or happen to be immigrants or of the Muslim faith. The result is likely to be an enduring shift of power from the legislative and judicial branches to the executive branch and less privacy and liberty for all.
On March 9, 2006, Bush signed the Patriot Improvement And Reauthorization Act Of 2005, which in effect is a renewal and extension of the 2001 measure. Even though the American president had promised several times that the original act would probably be contingent and temporary, by renewal it is no longer an emergency law but a permanent act.
The reports on Islam and Muslims produced by governmental and nongovernmental think tanks inside and outside the US and Canada, serve as tools of justification for the authorities to adapt measures that harm the civil liberties in their nations. The aforementioned RAND report, for example, adapts criteria that have barely anything to do with the religion, to assess moderation among Muslim individuals and organizations. Among RAND's criteria for a "moderate" Muslim is rejecting the concept of a Muslim state, not striving for the application of a sectarian source of law (a masked phrase to avoid bluntly saying Shari`ah), and to reject hudud (Islamic criminal penalties) (RAND 66–69).
Other reports and studies by American think tanks do not bother to hide their biases against Islam and Muslims.
With regard to building moderate Muslim networks among Muslims of the diaspora and Muslims in the Islamic world, the report mentioned a number of those who fit its criteria as a base for such networks. The report picked people who resolutely denounced religion altogether in their works. Among them is Shaker Al Nabulsi, who in his Manifesto of New Arab Liberals clearly calls for subjecting "the prevailing sacred values, traditions, legislations and moral values to in-depth scrutiny" (133).
The report also mentions Kuwaiti Professor Ahmad Al Baghdadi, who says outright that he would prefer his son to study music rather than the Qur'an (134). And Irshad Manji is included as one of a list of intellectuals who "appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries" (165). Manji is the author of The Trouble With Islam Today. A second-generation Muslim immigrant to Canada, she rejects Islam altogether in favor of secular values. She openly approves of homosexuality in her book and scorns the Qur'an for giving men twice as much as women in inheritance (Manji).
If the RAND study suggests such people as models for moderate Muslims, then most Muslims living in the world, including those who differ with Manji but, like her, reside in the West, are by the same standard extremists and terrorists just because they believe that homosexuality should be prohibited and that men and women are equal in value but different in nature and roles. Thus such reports could easily harm the image of Western Muslims by presenting a distorted belief in a way that qualifies them all as potential terrorists.
The list includes a number of Muslim-born writers who are no less controversial than Manji, including Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, and Ayyan Hirsi Ali. The authors of the report seem to be unaware that you cannot label a group of intellectuals as "moderate Muslims" when all of them clearly deny that they respect Islam as a source of morals and a frame of reference in values and legislation .
This kind of fallacious analysis is also manifest in reports by a number of other American think tanks that serve as an advisory board to American policymakers. In addition to the latest RAND initiative, a number of other reports and studies were published by American think tanks that did not bother to hide their bias against Islam and Muslims: The Muslim World After 9/11 (RAND), Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq (American Enterprise Institute), and ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse (Cst News), among others.
Muslim Organizations and Education
Cultural and social reception serve as a foundation for future political activism
Another visitor to the Live Dialogue asked Al-Shinqiti about the evaluation of the performance of Muslim organizations in North America after 9/11. He inquired as to what these organizations could offer other than political activism and empowerment for North American Muslims. The second part of the question was quite interesting and opened a wider window. At the same time it touched on an issue that has long been left without serious deliberation: the role of Muslim media and social scientists in North America.
The sheikh answered the first part of the question by asserting that "Muslim organizations are much more active today than before September 11. They have become more aware of the cultural prejudices and negative perceptions that the media is producing every day to demonize them."
The sheikh went on to clarify that it was time political activism stepped down from the top of the lists of Muslim communities in America and Canada. He then advocated more attention and energy to pour into "academic institutions, media, and interfaith dialogue."
Politics implies some level of confrontation. But before becoming involved in such confrontation, efforts must be exhausted in building the power of conviction
Al-Shinqiti's view is very progressive. The obsession of Islamic movements both inside and outside the Muslim world with state and political activities has overshadowed many of the issues that were more original on their intellectual platform such as education, spiritual development, charity, empowerment, entrenchment of intellectual and cultural foundations.
Al-Shinqiti then brilliantly justified his position against too much politics by citing the life of Prophet Muhammad, who first established firm cultural and social foundations for 13 years in Makkah before he finally established a state. Al-Shinqiti asserted, "Cultural and social reception serve as a foundation for future political activism."
The reasoning is that politics implies some level of confrontation, but "before becoming involved in such confrontation, efforts must be exhausted in building the power of conviction." If Muslim NGOs in North America thought deeply along these lines and tried to focus on implementing cultural and education foundations, they would be much more successful in reaching out to their compatriots in North America, both non-Muslims and emerging third-generation Muslims.
.
The next question touched to some degree on the same issue. A user complained that Muslims in the United States have built many organizations, schools, and institutions but nevertheless failed to have enough people qualified to carry through the message of Islam in a North American environment and engender change in an intelligent and capable manner. They have also spent huge sums on their grand occasions and annual conferences, yet the dearth in young qualified promoters of Islamic values persists. Al-Shinqiti initially agreed with the viewer's pessimistic remark. He said, "I attended a number of conferences, and comparing the cost incurred in holding these conferences to the results accrued from them, I felt that the results were below my expectations."
However, he suggested a clear vision to break out of this deadlock. Al-Shinqiti, who holds strong convictions about the indispensable pivotal role of academic institutions in causing the progress and success of Muslims in the West and the Muslim world, explained that the problem is Muslim organizations in North America do not invest enough in education or what he called "training and empowering talented people especially in the area of humanities."
As practical advice, he suggested that both Muslim organizations and Muslim countries help establish Islamic studies chairs in universities. They should also help to establish Muslim think tanks, English-language media, and so on. The idea is simple: In the words of Al-Shinqiti, this is better than "always complaining about the negative portrayal and stereotypes of Muslims by the American media and academicians."
The next user asked Al-Shinqiti what he should study: medicine, economics, or journalism. Al-Shinqiti's answer was decisive and revealing: "We are, al-hamdu lillah, blessed with many Muslim physicians and economists, but we are in a desperate need for Muslim journalists and political scientists."
If Campus Watch has its way, then the limits placed on academic speech by political interests in parts of the Arab world, Latin America, and Africa will have pervaded the American academy.
The issue of education that was stressed in Al-Shinqiti's answer ties into the previous point: the policies affecting the Muslim presence in North America. First of all a rise in educational levels will raise the awareness of Muslim Americans and Canadians, which will make them vigilant against all formal and informal attempts that may compromise their civil rights.
Second, the Muslim minority will be able to enter the debate and lobbying process with a much higher intellectual preparation to deconstruct the legal and cultural mechanisms that limit their contribution to the North American cultural and political scene. In fact it is quite farsighted of Al-Shinqiti to stress this issue.
Several enlightened Muslim and non-Muslim writers have lately pointed to this important issue, which has been largely neglected so far. In his latest book, Anti-Arab Racism in the USA: Where It Comes From and What It Means for Politics Today, Steven Salaita, assistant professor of English literature at the University of Wisconsin, devoted an entire chapter to the issue of the assault by neoconservative scholars on universities with strong, viable departments of Middle East studies and Islamic studies.
The assault is very fierce. Daniel Pipes, a scholar of Islamic history and a former US government appointee to the US Institute for Peace (a governmental think tank), established the Campus Watch project in 2002 to monitor anti-Israeli activity and opinions on American university campuses.
Pipes is not the only example; there is a long list of scholars and columnists in the USA and Canada today who thrive on providing academic justification for the neoconservative policies toward the Middle East, which include a wide range of sub-policies that target Muslim Westerners as well. Such scholars include prominent names such as Bernard Lewis, the colossal figure in Islamic studies and one of the oldest living classical orientalists today, as well as Martin Kramer, Professor of Near East Studies at Harvard University.
In his book, Steven Salaita examines Pipes and his anti-Arab racism:
Let us look at Pipes for a moment to see how anti-Arab racism functions. Although corporate media usually conceptualize Pipes as an important and responsible intellectual, he has sustained his career by creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. In 2002, Pipes launched Campus Watch, a group that monitors so called anti-Israeli activity on college campuses.
Campus Watch tracks and critiques the speech and classroom pedagogy of academics through profiles of the offending professors. Scholars on the right, center and left have criticized the enterprise, judging it a serious threat not only to free speech and civil liberties, but also to classroom conduct and the ability of students to learn in an environment free of political tension. If Campus Watch has its way, then the limits placed on academic speech by political interests in parts of the Arab world, Latin America, and Africa will have pervaded the American academy, something inimical to the stated mission of American education. (102)
As shown above, Al-Shinqiti urged the establishment of Islamic studies chairs in universities as well as launching of Muslim think tanks. Perhaps the distinguished scholar had in mind the increasing efforts by neoconservative figures to defund Middle East studies. Again, one of the main areas of struggle by Daniel Pipes is to influence American congressmen to eliminate the Title VI[1] funding of Middle East studies academic programs (Salaita, 103).
Muslim Media Channel
In Great Britain and the United States, Muslims are only 3 percent and 2.7 percent of the population, respectively. Yet British Muslims have successfully launched their own TV channel, called Islam Channel, which unites all — or most — British Muslims under one representative media body. In the USA such a step is yet to come.
There are several media outlets, including bought air time on non-Muslim TV and Bridges TV. Yet US Muslim media outlets reflect division rather than cohesion. Al-Shinqiti was asked whether the eight million Muslims in America will at any time in the near future be able to set up their own media channel, where they can speak freely and explain to their fellow citizens who they are and what they stand for.
.
In his answer, Al-Shinqiti did not give a time frame but rather emphasized the need for such a channel. Pointing to the two types of power, the soft and the hard, he noted that the soft power of persuasion has been neglected for too long by contemporary Muslims. The sheikh noted that this condition caused Muslims to be exploited by others without being able to answer back.
He also stressed that the only solution to this problem is through "a powerful, credible media funded by Muslims." Moreover, he said that "Western Muslims are the most qualified for running this endeavor because of their familiarity with Western societies and languages and their high level of education."
Prospects for the Future
The last question that will be dealt with here is related to the future. A user asked the sheikh to offer an honest analysis of the challenges and opportunities facing Islam in North America, a peek into the future and what it carries for Muslims in that region, which has high potential for both many advances and many restrictions in light of the tragic events of 9/11.
In response, Al-Shinqiti spoke briefly on the history of the Islamic presence in North America as he noted that the permanent presence of Muslims in the West is still a new phenomenon. History tells us that "with long presence and positive interaction, people start to willingly accept Islam. This was the case with many countries in Africa and Asia, when Muslims migrated and settled there."
Al-Shinqiti then moved to answer the main concern of the questioner: prospects and challenges. He started discussing the challenges by highlighting a crucial psychological rift between Muslims and non-Muslims: the old legacy of enmity.
He probably meant by that the legacy of the Crusades between 1099 and 1291. Even though this was a confrontation between Europe and Islam with nothing to do with North America, which was then inhabited by Native American tribes, North America is akin to Europe culturally and religiously. It thus inevitably shares some of this vile legacy albeit in an indirect manner.
If the medieval times did not embroil the Muslim world and North America in conflict, the present definitely does. In modern times, the world witnessed economic and political expansion by the USA, especially after World War II. Many pundits believe that since the end of the Cold War in 1989, expansion quickly moved to hegemony of the global scene under the cloak of globalization.
As far as Muslims and Arabs are concerned, the image of the United States is tarnished for two main reasons:
(1) the US support of some dictatorships in the Islamic region, and
(2) its unconditional, relentless support of Israel. Both reasons have nothing to do with old history but are rather related to the recent past and contemporary politics. The sheikh explained that this state of affairs creates a conflict of perceptions regardless of the changing realities.
The future of Islam in America undoubtedly has a great impact on the future of Islam in the entire West.
The second challenge Al-Shinqiti discussed was that of Muslims' lack of familiarity with the West (especially the culture and way of thinking). This factor is highly crucial because Muslims have to decode the Western worldview to avoid confrontation with it and at the same time to defend against possible assaults from some elements that belong to it. He referred to some trends among Muslim intellectuals that encourage studying the West as an object of careful analysis in order to understand it very well and turn the tide of Orientalism. The leader of this intellectual trend is Professor Hassan Hanafi, author of An Introduction to Occidentalism.
Al-Shinqiti also spoke about what he called the "open space" in Western societies as an opportunity because, under this system, citizenship is based on geography rather than faith. Here he meant the legal principle of equality in Western societies, which grants Muslim Westerners exactly the same rights as the rest of the citizens.
However, this statement ignores that this equality was strongly undermined by the 9/11 incidents and their aftermath, more so in the USA than in Canada. It also ignores that while it is true that Western Muslims remained equal citizens in the West until 9/11, this equality was in most cases only de jure and was violated de facto. However, it is only fair to say that this would be the case with regard to minorities in any contemporary society, whether Eastern or Western. He also pointed to the already vibrant network of "convenient mass communications" that enables Muslims to convey their opinions.
Conclusion
- Overall, the Live Dialogue was truly stimulating. The topic under discussion was very timely and relevant, and so were the side issues accompanying it. The future of Islam and Muslims in North America has been at the front of political discussion for a while. The issue actually dates back to the end of the Cold War when the secretary general of NATO, among several Western statesmen, said that Islam was the "new threat." This was long before the 9/11 tragedy.
The future of Islam in America undoubtedly has a great impact on the future of Islam in the entire West. The United States has the largest Muslim population in a single Western country; in addition, it is where the attacks of 9/11 and their aftermath took place. Several side issues were also raised, such as the role of reports by think tanks (especially neoconservative ones) in exacerbating conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the need for a Muslim media channel.Al-Shinqiti was very attentive and analytical in his answers within the space and time limits of the Live Dialogue.
However, he could have touched on more challenges and opportunities while giving an analytical peek at the future. He overlooked the battle on the legal front as a challenge (see the field reports by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim NGOs in North America). Muslims fought and continue fighting against many unfair acts, such as the Patriot act, on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Also not discussed were the challenge of racism and anti-Muslim media propaganda, among others. Perhaps Al-Shinqiti was trying to remain focused on the bright side.
One theme of his is very valuable and worth stressing over and over until Muslims inside and outside the Muslim world realize its value: Education. This particular theme is where opportunity and challenge meet. Can Muslims of North America live up to both?
Sources:
Clarke, Richard. Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. New York: Free Press, 2004.
Hanafi, Hassan. Muqadimah Fi 'ilm Al Istighrab (An Introduction to Occidentalism). 2nd ed. Beirut: Al-Mu'assassah Al-Gami'yyah, 2000.
Islamic Institute. "Ashcroft Supported Bush Position Against Secret Evidence Act." 12 Jan. 2001. American Muslim Voice. Accessed 26 Apr. 2007.
Manji, Irshad. The Trouble With Islam Today. London: Mainstream Publishing, 2005.
Pitts, Chip. "A Constitutional Disaster." The Nation 21 Oct. 2005, online ed. Accessed 2 May 2007.
Rabasa, Angel et al. The Rand Report on Building Moderate Muslim Networks. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Center for Middle East Public Policy, 2007.
Salaita, Steven. Anti-Arab Racism in the USA : Where It Comes from and What It Means for Politics Today. London : Pluto Press, 2006.
Al-Shinqiti, Muhammad Al-Mukhtar. Live Dialogue. IslamOnline. 18 Apr. 2007.
"What is Secret Evidence." American Muslim Voice. Accessed 26 Apr. 2007.
[1]Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the Federal law that protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or national origin in all programs that receive Federal Financial Assistance.
Islamic Institute. "Ashcroft Supported Bush Position Against Secret Evidence Act." 12 Jan. 2001. American Muslim Voice. Accessed 26 Apr. 2007.
Manji, Irshad. The Trouble With Islam Today. London: Mainstream Publishing, 2005.
Pitts, Chip. "A Constitutional Disaster." The Nation 21 Oct. 2005, online ed. Accessed 2 May 2007.
Rabasa, Angel et al. The Rand Report on Building Moderate Muslim Networks. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Center for Middle East Public Policy, 2007.
Salaita, Steven. Anti-Arab Racism in the USA : Where It Comes from and What It Means for Politics Today. London : Pluto Press, 2006.
Al-Shinqiti, Muhammad Al-Mukhtar. Live Dialogue. IslamOnline. 18 Apr. 2007.
"What is Secret Evidence." American Muslim Voice. Accessed 26 Apr. 2007.
[1]Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the Federal law that protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or national origin in all programs that receive Federal Financial Assistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment