Islam and Modern America

on September 18, 2012

The conflict of adhering to and advancing traditional Islam in the highly liberal and modern societies of the West, including modern America, was apparent at the 2012 conference of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which had the theme “One Nation Under God: Striving for the Common Good.” Founded in 1981 by Muslim Brotherhood members, and investigated at times for terrorist connections, it positions itself as a “unifying” Islamic organization for North American Muslims, advancing an orthodox Sunni Islam while deeply engaged in interfaith activities. Its annual conventions are open to all, and endeavor to address issues of living as Muslims in America and presenting a positive image to the wider society.

ISNA’s hosted the August 31-September 3 event in Washington, DC. Prominent non-Muslim speakers included Jim Wallis and the retired Catholic Archbishop of Washington, DC, Theodore McCarrick.

At an early session, there was a surprising claim that changes in marriage laws will not affect Muslims, or require them to violate Muslim standards, which many conservative Christians in America would regard as naïve. At a later session the same evening, Islamic philosopher Seyyed Hossein Nasr spoke of the challenges of living morally in an immoral society, noting that people engaged in immoral behavior in the past, but there was a commonly accepted morality in society, which is no longer the case. He said that the main export of Europe is atheism, and he asserted that Islam has not produced atheist philosophers. In Western schools children are inculcated to deny truth, and this is a major challenge for Muslim parents, along with the multiplicity of religions, and the denial of religion. But while making this claim, he said that God has created many religions for people. Older Muslims today are more likely to regard Islam as one of several acceptable religions, while the young tend to be exclusivist Muslims.

At the same session, Feisel Abdul Rauf, the New York imam associated with the proposal to construct the “Ground Zero Mosque,” then spoke on the “One nation under God” concept as a way Muslims can claim Americanism. God has created mankind for a particular purpose, and this purpose is the “common good” of mankind. He said the Tea Party movement has redefined the center of the Republican Party, and he suggested that moderate Republicans should cooperate with Democrats, presumably to offset this development.

Zaid Shakir of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California then used the term “equalizing” to refer to the error of the modern West. True equality comes from God, because true universals come from God. Shakir offered the Ottoman “millet” system, which recognized Christian and Jewish communities as inferior communities, as a commendable alternative to Western “equalizing.” He said the rejection of the traditional understanding of sharia leads to “equalizing.”

At a later session reviewing recent books about Islam, three authors summarized their books and answered questions. Zia U. Sheikh reviewed his book “Islam: Silencing the Critics,” Manzoor Hussain reviewed his “Islam: An Essential Understanding for Fellow Americans,” and Ejaz Naqvi review his “The Quran With or Against the Bible?”  Sheikh focused on the negativity about Islam since 9/11, and he claimed that much misunderstanding is based on taking Koranic verses out of context. Naqvi said that in his book he tried to highlight similarities between the Bible and the Koran, calling his work is “non-apologetic.”  He claimed that the Koran refers to Christians and Jews as believers in the present tense, and so that this is also the divine view of them, a position he takes in interfaith encounters.

On the other hand, Hussain claimed that Christians and Jews are traditionally only considered true believers if they accept Islam, or were in circumstances where they had not heard and rejected Mohammed’s message. He agreed that the term for God in the Bible and the Koran are the same; the world “Allah” simply means “the deity,” and is used by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews to refer to God.  Evangelical talk radio was discussed, with the Evangelical doctrine of justification by faith criticized.  It was asserted that the Evangelical understanding of receiving Jesus as Savior leaves people free to do whatever they want. Also defended was the controversial Islamic penalty of death for apostasy, with the claim that this penalty arose as a result of the original Islamic state considering apostasy to be a form of treason. Convicted apostates can easily get out from under their sentence by making a verbal confession of Islam, it was asserted; it is not the practice of Muslim authorities to inquire into sincerity. This kind of solution, of course, is not possible for believing Christians who regard Christ as the only way to salvation.

At another session where representatives from the Obama Administration spoke, it was noted that the current Administration has been criticized for partnering with ISNA, but it was claimed that ISNA is one of the Administration’s best partners. Also noted was how different things seem from inside the government rather than in an “anti-government” position, as was the case before. But the face of government is changing, which should be good for the psyche of all of us, it was claimed. President Obama’s “Cairo speech” to the Muslim world is the Administration’s “roadmap” in dealing with the Muslim world. Those parts of the foreign policy apparatus concerned with the Muslim world have been asked to give the President “deliverables” on the topics he touched on in his speech.

Also presenting at the conference were several non-Muslim religious leaders (Rabbi David Saperstein, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, and Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners), along with Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress.  They were generally condemnatory of the suspicion of Islam found among American conservatives, while their comments would imply a challenge to any exclusivist religion. Rabbi Saperstein referred to hate crimes and said there is “no place for hate,” (what this means for exclusivist religions, including Islam, was not addressed; “no place” might literally mean no place in society). Cardinal McCarrick quoted Pope John Paul II as saying that Christians, Jews, and Muslims are “brothers and sisters in faith in one God.” 

Wallis said he was delighted to be with his “brothers” on stage. He said the “nation has lost the common good,” and that many “offensive, dangerous and frightening things” are being said against Muslims, but “we will win this battle for truth and religious freedom.” He compared contemporary anti-Muslim sentiment to past anti-Catholic sentiment and to anti-Semitism. But, “relationships happen,” overcoming hostile attitudes, and “acting together is what is going to bring us together,” Wallis said. He added that the struggle against oppression is a way adherents of different religions can constructively relate to one another, and that his best discussions of theology were with other religious leaders in jail after being arrested. Rabbi Saperstein concurred, saying that the struggle to change the world will change us. Saying “I am an Evangelical,” Wallis condemned the burning of the Koran.

Rep. Ellison referred to the constitution of Mecca that Mohammed promulgated in circa A.D. 630, which recognized the right to group identity, and the need to build community at the local level. He said religious believers “ought to be the first to denounce” extremists in their own faith traditions.

Clearly, a tension between uncompromising orthodox Islam and an American society moving ever further from any traditional way of life and thought will be a continued source of contention among this religious community.

No comments yet

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.