Becoming American?: The Forging of Arab and Muslim Identity in Pluralist America

2. Muslims and American Religious Pluralism

37 Muslims and American Religious Pluralism < 2 The September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have fostered new reflections on Islamic theological discourse throughout the Muslim world on issues of violence, tolerance, diversity, and pluralism. Some of the discourse was initiated as a response to the universal condemnation of the ideology the terrorists claimed as inspired by the teachings of Islam. The new discourse was initiated both overseas and in diaspora by Muslims disturbed by the yoking of Islam with militancy and terror. While Muslims overseas have generally continued to contextualize the violence as a reaction to American neocolonial policies in the Muslim world, for diaspora Muslims, given the current prevailing Islamophobia, the intricacies of the “why” of the violence have been sidelined in the effort to dissociate and distance themselves from the perpetrators. They have sought to repossess a role in defining their own faith and take it back from the extremists as well as those who thrive on demonizing Islam. In response to a variety of events overseas that have tarred Muslims by association, a reexamination of the ideological constructs of diaspora Islam that have been in process since the beginning of Muslim emigration to the United States became urgent. 38 Becoming American? In the post-9/11 atmosphere, Muslims were confronted by rising xenophobia and Islamophobia, in part as a consequence of the propaganda for war. At the same time, such reflections became a necessity as government security measures targeted Arabs and Muslims through profiling, censoring of Islamic texts, monitoring of mosques, freezing of assets of Muslim NGOs, search and seizure, arrest, deportation, and rendition of suspects. Anxiety and marginalization engendered by these policies were also augmented by the demands of certain sectors of American society in the United States that the government has to get into religion building, to help reformulate the religion and promote a “moderate Islam,” one that can fit the description of “the religion of peace.”1 Such measures left Muslims isolated, marginalized, and placed in what one Muslim called a “virtual internment camp.” Previous generations of immigrants, in contexts such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Salman Rushdie affair, and the Iranian Revolution, had to address similar charges against Islam and Muslims. The attacks of 9/11 have dealt a great setback to Muslim efforts to engage with American society by participating in the public square. The goal of these reflections is not only to prove that Muslims living in the West are loyal citizens, but more importantly that they share American values and are not associated with the teachings of those targeted in America’s declared global war on terrorism, who have been variously labeled as extremist, fundamentalist, jihadist, terrorist, and proponents of an Islamo-fascist Islam. The new diaspora discourse on pluralism displays a strong awareness of the need for a pluralistic interpretation of Qur’anic verses that have been utilized by extremists to justify their terrorist actions. This is crucial not only to assuage the doubts and apprehensions of the general public, but, more importantly, to address the reality of the diversity within the North American Muslim community itself and the challenge of forging a united front. Islam is projected by the community as a way of life, a culture, which as such provides guidance on issues of “diversity, unity, harmony, tolerance and peace.”2 Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 39 The response to the accusation that Islam is a violent religion has been addressed since the nineteenth century in various venues and in different languages throughout the Muslim world as Muslims have attempted to respond to the challenges of Western encroachment on their lands as well as their civilization and culture. The eagerness to showcase moderation, tolerance, and pluralism in Islam was not invented in the heat of the moment as a response to the intense scrutiny Islam and Muslims undergo during periods of crisis. Rather, it has a venerable place in the heritage of Islam. This literature asserts unequivocally that if some Muslims promote ideas of vengeance and hate in the name of Islam, it is due to their misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Islamic sources, the teaching of the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad, as well as the historical record of Islamic civilization. In the 1980s, the term al-ta‘addudiyya was coined by Arab intellectuals to parallel the Western concept of pluralism. It was cast into the Arab market of ideas as a challenge to the growing Islamization of society and the demand for establishing an Islamic state and the adoption of the Shari’ah as the law of the state. Several conferences and symposia to consider the role of pluralism in Islamic thought, funded by European governments and civic organizations, were held in various Arab countries. As a consequence , al-ta‘addudiyya became the buzzword of the nineties.3 It joined a venerable list of concepts conceived and popularized in the West and idealized and exported for foreign consumption, such as modernity, democracy, nationalism, normalization, secularism, human rights, women’s rights, minority rights, and privatization. These concepts are generally seen as challenges to developing countries, and their adoption a sign of having successfully joined the ranks of civilized nations.4 Muslim intellectuals have been addressing these challenges as soon as they are posited, perceiving them as new hurdles to be cleared in an effort to prove that Islam not only measures up to Western norms, but is the pioneer in setting these norms. Authors generally rummage through Islamic history and texts searching for parallels they can recommend or sanctions that can be invoked to support their arguments. Their 40 Becoming American? own differing ideological perspectives determine whether they see Western values as antithetical to, compatible with, or in fact the very essence of Islam. This chapter will provide an overview of the wider context in which the discourse on pluralism in Islam concretized and the modern historical milieu that fostered reflections on the topic. It will provide a brief discussion of the Qur’anic verses used to buttress arguments to undergird the claims for Islamic pluralism. Contemporary Islamic interpretations that were incubated and nurtured overseas have been transplanted by Muslims living in diaspora. Whether consciously or unconsciously, these theological constructs of the meaning of certain Qur’anic verses and cultural norms formulated in particular contexts and responding to direct and indirect challenges are the intellectual sources and in some cases precedents of the discourse produced by writers in diaspora, especially by bicultural Muslim intellectuals, both immigrants and émigrés. The last section of the chapter will focus on the material generated in diaspora among immigrant and convert Muslims who are responding to the impugning by the Western public of Islam and its teachings post-9/11. The need to focus on and emphasize the diversity of Muslims becomes an imperative as Western governments appear to hold their Muslim citizens potentially guilty by association with a faith that has been deemed by some as beyond the pale. There appears to be an incipient hope, if not expectation, that once Western societies are enlightened about the true nature of Islamic pluralism, they will incorporate Islam and Muslim culture, not as a novelty consigned to ghettoes of difference , but as an integral part of Western society. Pluralism and the Muslim Encounter with Colonialism The Muslim encounter with colonialism is part of the identity formation of most Muslims in today’s world. It is an essential part of the modern efforts at nation building in Muslim countries, having a prominent place in history and civics textbooks. The encounter is portrayed as violent in nature, with powerful Western armies Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 41 encroaching on and subduing peaceful Muslims in an effort to monopolize their natural resources, restructure their economies, and gain strategic advantage over other competing European nations. The colonial venture and Muslim resistance to subjugation have given rise to a literature that analyzes the motives of European colonialism as masked under the guise of the benevolent project of bringing democracy to people living under autocratic rule, liberating the women of Islam from bondage to men, providing modern education, and fostering civic organizations in order to uplift Muslim societies. Whether operating under the banner of the French “civilizing mission” or the British “white man’s burden,” Western expansion into Muslim territories is at times depicted as having a religious agenda carried out by colonial bureaucrats and Christian missionaries, considered the two “archenemies of Islam” who sought to liberate Muslims from Islam.5 Thus, colonialism is held culpable for defaming Islam and projecting its own aggression onto Muslims, promoting ethnic and sectarian divisions as part of the policy of divide and rule. The colonial venture is seen as anything but pluralistic. It promoted division and sectarianism while insisting that the Western worldview was superior and must supersede all others. Colonial bureaucrats aimed at restructuring Islamic societies and casting them in their own image. The authors insist that the pluralism Western nations do not practice what they preach. A current manifestation is the mistreatment of Islam and Muslims who live in the West, who continue to be held responsible for the acts of extremists overseas. Just as nationalism was invented by the West to divide the Muslim world into discreet entities, pluralism is seen as a recasting of the perennial efforts by the West to undermine Islam. A significant amount of Islamic literature produced throughout the twentieth century is defensive and polemic in tone. It addresses the issues raised about the adequacy, efficacy, and validity of Islam as a religion for the modern world, one that can generate a renaissance to confront the new challenges facing Islamic societies and bring them to parity with the West. It responds to Western charges that Islam advocates holy war, 42 Becoming American? jihad, against non-Muslims and has legislated subjugation of women and minorities. As a response, the modernist reformer Muhammad ‘Abduh insisted that Islam favors forgiveness and that fighting is sanctioned only for putting an end to aggression against Islam and Muslims, as well as to maintain peace. Jihad, he argued, is not aimed at forcing people to convert to Islam, or to punish those who disagree with Muslims. He distinguished between the Christian and the Muslim history of conquest. Christian history, he wrote, is noted for its massacres, the killing of old men, women, and children. Muslims, however, can boast that there has not been a single Islamic war that sought the annihilation of others. When Muslims conquered a territory, they practiced Islamic tolerance and allowed its people to worship and practice their faith and maintain their customs. While it is true that non-Muslims were required to pay the jizya, or poll tax, they were guaranteed security and protection in return.6 Muslim rulers instructed Muslim armies to respect those who were in convents and monasteries, and proclaimed the sanctity of the blood of women, children, and noncombatants. The teaching of the Prophet forbids hurting non-Muslims, dhimmis; the Prophet Muhammad said that “he who harms a dhimmi is not one of us.”7 Pluralism and the Encounter with the Cold War By the middle of the twentieth century, the colonial and the missionary presence in Muslim nations came to an end. Islamic literature increasingly referred to the colonial incursion as part of the “intellectual or cultural invasion,” al-ghazu al-thaqafi.8 It portrayed Western educational, cultural, and social institutions introduced in Muslim nations as part of a sustained campaign to root out religion. Western leaders were accused of not being satisfied with military and political domination, but aiming at the eradication of Islam—its culture, civilization, and intellectual expression. Thus, Westerners did not practice pluralism or promote equality between Western and Islamic cultures. Rather, they assumed the roles of teachers, reformers, and enforcers of their own ideas and Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 43 beliefs, and claimed that Western values are universal and all alternative values must aspire to match their level. The Marxist challenge of the middle of the twentieth century was seen by the Islamists as promoting radical secularization and the eradication of any vestiges of religion. Those promoting Westernization and advocates of nationalism and socialism were accused of having bought into this kind of antireligious ideology and thereby been duped by outside forces bent on destroying Islam.9 The most important advocate of Islamic supersession, whose works have been translated and disseminated throughout the world, was Sayyid Qutb. He originally advocated Islam as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, but later revised his ideology and decreed an Islamic imperative, a comprehensive, holistic vision that offered Islamic answers to social, economic, political, and cultural problems. He promoted the idea of an Islamic imperative, one that supersedes both materialistic systems, capitalism and Marxism. Islamism asserts a parallel claim of a promise of a better future, one promised by God to the believers, a promise that has been vindicated in history, as demonstrated by the greatness of the Islamic empires. Qutb attacked what he saw as the perversion of Christianity. In Fi Zilal al-Qur’an he depicted Christians as extremists because of their claim that God has a son.10 He accused them of being duplicitous for their refusal to govern by the laws and dictates that God has revealed, preferring to follow their own whims. For Qutb, governing by any law other than the Shari’ah amounts to disobedience and apostasy.11 As the final revelation from God, the Qur’an abrogates and supersedes all other revelations.12 Thus, he viewed the world from a bipolar perspective: the abode of Islam, dar al-Islam, where Islamic law is implemented regardless of the religious affiliation of the citizens, and the abode of war, dar al-harb, where Islamic law is not implemented .13 This sets up the justification of using violence against those who do not govern by what God has revealed. Thus, while Abduh had defended Islam against the accusations of intolerance and aggression and promoted the idea of 44 Becoming American? Islam as peace, Qutb, writing in the context of torture in Nasser’s prisons in the 1960s, justified jihad as armed resistance. For decreeing laws based on socialist ideology, Nasser was deemed an apostate, and thus it was just to struggle against his system, which violated God’s dictates. Qutb argued that the sword verses (S. 9:5, 29, 36) constituted the final revelation dealing with the relation of Muslims to non-Muslims. People of the Book (Jews and Christians), having sanctioned what has been forbidden by God, are called unbelievers, kuffar. They have forfeited their right to protection; they must either convert to Islam or pay the jizya. Those who refuse can be killed, and Muslims who emulate the deviant ways of the People of the Book can expect the same fate.14 Qutb wrote that the Qur’an warns Muslims about the reality of their enemies and of the war they wage against Muslims because of their doctrine.15 While Muslims are asked to be tolerant of the People of the Book, they are not to take them as friends.16 Qutb was dubious about efforts at dialogue and compromise. Those who seek to bring about good relations among religious people misunderstand the meaning of religion. Islam alone is acceptable, and no other religion can be recognized.17 Therefore, no covenant with people of other faiths can be accepted unless it has this condition .18 Furthermore, the Islamic imperative does not tolerate coexistence with falsehood. It must obliterate all impediments while providing freedom of choice. True liberation comes when people choose Islam out of conviction.19 The 1967 Arab defeat in the Six-Day War brought about a major reassessment and self-critical literature in the Arab world that blamed Arab failure on the premise that the nation-states had put their faith in nationalism and socialism and abandoned Islam. Some authors wrote that the Israelis were victorious because of their devotion to their religion and their insistence on fashioning a Jewish state, while Muslims had abandoned the idea of a Muslim state. This soon gave way to anticolonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-Zionist themes centering on mobilization of the masses who were disenchanted with the new international order with the United Nations as an arbiter of justice, since it allowed Israel to Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 45 hold on to lands conquered through a “pre-emptive strike.” This was perceived as a conspiracy against Muslim rights and a violation of United Nations universal proclamations. It was time to reassess, to grieve over a loss of innocence, to mourn fresh victims and the death of hope. The international order does not treat Muslims and non-Muslims equally.20 With the death of Nasser, Sadat became president. He removed the socialists from positions of power, brought the Islamists out of prison, and gave them a prominent role in society. For him, Islamism was the firewall necessary to hold socialism at bay. Once set free, Islamists demanded the establishment of an Islamic state in Egypt and the implementation of the Shari’ah as the law of the land. The Shari’ah, they believed, would place restrictions on the legislative authority of the ruler. It was seen as the only way to curb the excesses of Nasser, Sadat, and later Mubarak. For them, the Qur’anic verse “This day, I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favor upon you and chosen Islam as your religion” (S. 5:3) provided a divine sanction for the primacy and supersession of Islam over all other religions, ideologies, and systems. Even the venerable al-Azhar, the intellectual center of Sunni Islam, generally accountable to the authorities in power, issued a statement on the subject: “Not to implement the revelation in God’s Book and judge by His decrees is kufr (unbelief). If a person refuses to believe in it, doubts its divine origin, professes that it is not valid for judgment, ridicules it, says that it is inappropriate except for the society or the age in which it was revealed, or [is guilty of] other similar statements or actions, he transgresses the ordinances of God.”21 This interpretation persists in the ideologies of Islamic revolutionary groups such al-Takfir wa al-Hijra, al-Jihad Islami, alQaeda , and the Taliban. These groups continue to condemn those who do not subscribe to their interpretation of Islam as kuffar, persons who willfully and intentionally conceal the truth of Islam. The militancy and violence of these groups evoked a response within Islamist circles.22 A new vision began to be formulated, one that attempted not necessarily to replicate what obtained 46 Becoming American? in medieval Islamic states, but to create a modern ideological state that could resist the encroachment of Marxism, one that would not tolerate alternative ideologies. From this perspective Islam was posited as an ideological system, not a set of doctrines, beliefs, and practices. Muslims were subject to a divine mandate to implement this system in the world and to eradicate all other systems, which by definition must be considered ungodly. These ideas cohered during the Cold War as Marxism and capitalism squared off, each claiming exclusive possession of universal truth, each declaring eternal enmity to the other while striving to impose its vision on the rest of the world. The emphasis shifted from Islam as the middle religion, a formulation promoted by the reformers of the early twentieth century, to Islam as divinely chartered and sanctioned to resist the onslaught of both systems that claimed sole possession of the truth in an attempt to impose their values and their norms on other nations. Each demanded total adherence to its vision, each was unrelenting in its claim to monopoly on the truth, each rejected pluralism as an option. Pluralism Debates in the Aftermath of the Iranian Revolution The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran jolted Western nations as they began to reassess the reality of Islamic militancy and the power of Islamic ideology to garner the devotion of the masses and undermine puppet regimes. The success of the revolution fueled Islamist groups throughout the Muslim world who preached that God will give the victory to those who believe, if they but believe. The ability of the Iranian Revolution to get rid of the shah, depicted as the mightiest of tyrants, protected by the United States, the most powerful nation, could be replicated if Muslims focused on being better Muslims and resisted efforts to impose foreign values. The success of the revolution provided a formula for victory, a prototype that could be replicated in other places under puppets accountable to American interests. Islamic groups began to demand the institution of an Islamic state, and concomitant hostility was generated toward Christians, who were not happy with such developments. Books were published Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 47 critiquing Christian doctrine, and Christian properties came under attack. One of the most influential of the contemporary Islamists is Muslim Brotherhood activist Yusuf al-Qaradawi. His 1983 Ghayr al-Muslimin fi al-Mujtama‘ al-Islami was published during a tense period in Egypt when Islamic groups were harassing the minority Coptic Christian community.23 Al-Qaradawi based his analysis on the historical precedent of the covenant, ‘ahd, through which People of the Book are guaranteed security by the Muslim state even though they are not forced to convert. Thus, Copts can still enjoy Islamic citizenship and the freedom to practice their own faith at the same time that they are subject to Islamic law. They are guaranteed personal and communal security, and their property rights must be respected. He based this on S. 60:8-9, which affirms the essential Islamic principles of toleration, justice, and mercy.24 Muslims therefore do not have the right to punish those who hold to differing doctrines.25 People of the Book, while enjoying these rights in an Islamic state, have specific duties under the Shari’ah. Among them is the paying of the poll tax, jizya. Some had argued that this tax was imposed by God because of the basic inferiority of the People of the Book due to their refusal to accept the religion of Islam, but al-Qaradawi interprets it rather as a way in which Christians can contribute to the welfare of the state, since they are not drafted into the army and are not subject to the obligations of zakat and jihad. Furthermore, non-Muslims must be subject to the regulations of the Shari’ah; specifically they cannot collect interest on their investments; cannot be involved in any occupations that involve the selling or importing of forbidden substances, such as alcohol or pork; and cannot hold official positions of a religious nature, such as head of state, or judge among Muslims. Also, Christians must not offend the religious sensibilities of Muslims by wearing or showing their religious symbols in obvious or inappropriate ways. This includes the proscription on displaying crosses or other Christian paraphernalia in public places, or demonstrating their religion too overtly. Christians must not consume wine or pork publicly or sell such commodities to Muslims, and they must 48 Becoming American? not speak negatively about Islam.26 This principle of not offending religious sensibilities, however, is not reciprocal. Muslims do not have to be sensitive to Christians if this requires ignoring the commandments of God in the effort not to offend the People of the Book. Tolerance does not mean that the essential differences between religions should be ignored. The essential oneness of God must be affirmed at all times, the Christian notion of the Trinity notwithstanding. Stressing of commonalities can lead to contradiction , separation, and even destruction.27 Such reflections became necessary in opposition to Islamist rhetoric used by thinkers such as Egyptian Sayyid Qutb,28 ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s, and Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi,29 founder of the Jama‘ati Islami Movement in Pakistan, and Islamist groups such as Jihad Islami, Takfir wa Hijra, and Qutbiyyun, which had set the tone for an Islamist ideological discourse that continues to be advocated by Islamic revolutionary groups.30 By the middle of the 1980s, Western funding became available for conferences and symposia addressing the topic of pluralism in the Arab world. The term ta‘addud was first used by secular Arab nationalists. (Earlier usage was mainly in reference to multiple wives, ta‘addud al-zawjat.) Ta‘addud was first used as part of the title of a symposium convened by the Jordanian Center for Research and Information in 1986.31 Several other symposia followed in Jordan and Egypt.32 By the 1990s, discourse on pluralism had become indigenized. Islamists were using the term to explore issues of conflict and difference in Islamic society as well as the legitimacy of a multiparty system in an Islamic state.33 In 1992, the Labor Party in Egypt held a symposium on Islam and Pluralism.34 By 1993, Dr. Muhyi al-Din ‘Atiyyah, editor of al-Muslim al-Mu‘asir magazine, compiled a bibliography of 122 titles related to pluralism.35 In their debates, Islamists have addressed such matters as universal pluralism, whether the Islamic state can maintain normal relations with governments who promote non-Islamic or un-Islamic ideas and practices; political pluralism, whether the Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 49 Islamic polity can tolerate political differences within its ranks without disobeying the commandments of God; sectarian pluralism , whether the Islamic majority, the Sunnis, can tolerate the differences in religious interpretation represented by Islamic sectarian groups; gender pluralism, whether women have a public role in an Islamic state and when they can be allocated equal rights to those of men; and religious pluralism, whether the Muslim nation can afford equal status and opportunities for religious minorities (Christians) in a reconstituted Islamic state, allowing them the role they acquired under nationalist governments.36 The pluralism discourse also addressed such issues as peaceful rotation of authority, public approval through elections and nominations, separation among the several branches of government, peaceful coexistence among various groups, and respect for human rights.37 Islamists have also developed new and moderate positions, such as a pluralistic vision that allows for the rotation of leadership among different parties and a call for new jurisprudence that incorporates the People of the Book as full citizens in a Muslim state. In Egypt, the discourse focused on the role of minorities in a Muslim majority state. Muhammad al-‘Awwa rejected the depiction of Egypt as having two peoples, Muslims and Copts, as untrue and fraught with the danger of stoking the fires of division. He quoted a legal scholar of the early twentieth century who wrote, “When we speak of the Islamic ummah, I do not mean to refer exclusively to the society of Muslims only, rather, I refer to a distinctive society which is a historical product of the cooperative efforts of all the religious sects which have lived and worked together under the banner of Islam and which has presented us with a corporate heritage for all the inhabitants of the Islamic East.”38 Joining the debate, the journalist Fahmi Huwaydi noted that the Qur’anic text is very clear about human relations and must be distinguished from the accretion of interpretations. The Qur’an unequivocally states that God created Adam and hence humans to be his vicegerents on earth. It does not specify that this is a role for Muslims alone. Vicegerency on earth is assigned to all human 50 Becoming American? beings, as all are creatures of God. This guarantees that minorities have full rights in a truly Islamic state.39 He strongly disagreed with those who said that respecting the legitimacy or the rights of others means that one has to give credence to their beliefs. He cited a number of Qur’an verses to prove the mandate to recognize the existence of other persons and communities,40 and on the basis of those verses he worked out an Islamic definition of brotherhood. All men are creatures and vicegerents of God, as the Qur’an affirms, and thus minorities should be accorded full rights in an Islamic state.41 While God could have created one uniform universal system, he decreed a perpetual pluralism in civilizations, systems, and laws (S. 5:48, 69). It is his divine will that different cultures compete in striving to bring about a virtuous society. From this perspective, Islam does not seek the negation or the eradication of “the other,” since God created difference as a means of fostering competition in virtue among the nations, a fact that guarantees progress (S. 2:251).42 Furthermore, God favors moderation, as is demonstrated in the fact that he made the Muslim community (ummatan wasat) a middle community, one that avoids extremes. And, unlike Christianity, Islam provides for freedom of religious thought. Even though a statement by a Muslim appears in a hundred ways to make him a kafir, or unbeliever, if there is even one way that can be accepted as belief, then he cannot be called an unbeliever.43 The discourse defined pluralism as the affirmation of difference , of freedom, and of peaceful coexistence. “Pluralism in its general philosophy is a natural truth, a universal law, a legal way of life and a divine mercy.”44 It was promoted as a foundational principle of nature, as evident in the revelation of the Qur’an, which affirmed the equality of all humanity, regardless of color, language, rights, or lineage; all are equal before the law. Thus, the advocacy of pluralism became the essence of the divine plan for humanity as revealed in the Qur’an. The Qur’an revealed that one of God’s signs is his creation of the world as composed of different nations, ethnicities, tribes, and languages (S. 30:22; 48:13). Difference in the divine plan is not for discord or war, but a sign Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 51 of God’s mercy that humans may have a better understanding of one another; or, as Fahmi Huwaydi puts it, Islam is pluralistic “because he [God] willed us to be different.”45 Muslim Diaspora Discourse on Pluralism The Muslim authors who have addressed issues of pluralism in the United States have done so mostly in the confines of academia . The majority are immigrants or émigrés from all over the Muslim world who have found a home in the United States and a conducive environment to research, reflect, and publish without the constraints of government censorship. The earliest to address the issue of pluralism in Islam were Fazlur Rahman and Isma‘il al-Faruqi, both émigrés who were unable to return to their home countries due to political exigencies: Rahman because he was deemed too liberal by a Pakistani government bent on cobbling together an Islamic state after the war of independence, and al-Faruqi, because he had been a governor of Galilee, which was seized by the Israelis. Both had an international reputation and became very influential as Muslim students from all over the Muslim world flocked to study under their guidance on American campuses. To varying degrees, they participated in interfaith dialogue and, at times, trialogue, where they became engaged in defending the faith against its American detractors and responding to their colleagues’ challenges. Al-Faruqi was initially an advocate of Arab nationalism, but, disappointed by America’s response to the 1967 Israeli pre-emptive attack on three Arab states, which he saw as aggression against the rights of the Palestinian people, he lost hope that Palestinian rights would be redressed through U.N. and U.S. mediation. He came to embrace an Islamist ideology in the early 1970s. For al-Faruqi, Islamic civilization is a witness to Muslim tolerance and provides an actual model of a culture where other religions have thrived. “The modus vivendi which Islam provided for the world religions in Madinah, Damascus, Cordoba, Cairo, Delhi and Istanbul is certainly worthy of emulation by the whole world.”46 Islam respects Judaism and Christianity, their founders 52 Becoming American? and scriptures, not out of courtesy or the necessity of social, political, cultural or civilizational concerns, but as a foundational acknowledgment of religious truth. They are not “other views” that need to be tolerated, but de jure, “truly revealed religions from God. . . . In this Islam is unique. For no religion in the world has yet made belief in the truth of other religions a necessary condition of its own faith and witness.”47 Al-Faruqi asserted that Islam’s contribution to interreligious dialogue in the world is “very, very significant.” Islam has experience in the field with the widest variety of religions and ethnicities . Starting with its relationship with Judaism and Christianity, as prescribed in the Qur’an, it extended its engagement and tolerance to other religions based on the shared beliefs in God and the Qur’anic affirmation that all human beings are religious by nature.48 This he based on the idea of Islam as din al-fitra, that religion is innate to human nature. “For the first time it has become possible for the adherent of one religion to tell an adherent of another religion: ‘We are both equal members of a universal religious brotherhood. Both of our traditional religions are de jure, for they are both issued from and are based upon a common source, the religion of God which He has implanted equally in both of us, upon din al-fitrah.’”49 From this perspective, the Muslim does not look at the non-Muslim as “a fallen, hopeless creature, but a perfect man capable by himself of achieving the highest righteousness.”50 Al-Faruqi did not think that Christians reciprocated these sentiments. He dismissed Vatican II as “too modest a contribution ,” as it did not engage seriously in dialogue. While it may have stopped calling non-Christians by bad names, this was not necessarily a great achievement, since politeness in modern society is a prerequisite, as are courtesy and mutual respect. The assertion of deference for Islam is not sufficient to produce an “admiring trance”; it still places the Muslims with the archaic religions.51 After fourteen centuries, Vatican II in a “condescending and paternalizing manner” decreed “that Islam is a tolerable approximation of Christianity” while asserting that salvation can be found Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 53 only within the church.52 While al-Faruqi promoted ideas of tolerance and a pluralistic interpretation of the Qur’anic verses, he felt that it was the duty of Muslims in the United States to propagate the faith and share their beliefs with Americans because they had a message that could elevate American society. “For the Muslim, the relation of Islam to the other religions has been established by God in his revelation, the Qur’an. No Muslim therefore may deny it; since for him the Qur’an is the ultimate authority.”53 As Muslims were once again called upon to address issues of pluralism, diversity, and tolerance in the 1980s and were pressured about the treatment of religious minorities in Iran’s Islamic Republic, al-Faruqi cautioned that religion and politics should be separate. “Do not mix up Islam with Iran. Do not say in one breath Islam and events in Saudi Arabia.” He gave the example of the internment of the Japanese during World War II as a political expedient similar to the treatment of minorities in Iran and Saudi Arabia.54 Fazlur Rahman of the University of Chicago based his responses on a reinterpretation of the Qur’anic verses that advocated supersession. He noted that the Qur’an deplores the fact that religions are divided within themselves, as well as from each other. Humankind was one, but the split came with the advent of prophets with their messages. While these messages became the divisive force, the difference was part of the divine mystery (S. 2:213). The Qur’an leaves no room for exclusivist claims by various faith communities (S. 2:211, 113, 120). “The Qur’an’s reply to those exclusivist claims of proprietorship over God’s guidance, then, is absolutely unequivocal: Guidance is not the function of communities but of God and good people, and no community may lay claims to be uniquely guided and elected” (S. 2:124).55 The central verse that advocates pluralism is S. 5:48, which demonstrates universal goodness with the belief in one God and the day of judgment, and mandates that “the Muslim community be recognized as a community among communities.”56 Although the Qur’an states that the Muslim community is “the best community produced for mankind” (S. 3:110), this status does not 54 Becoming American? guarantee that Muslims “will be automatically God’s darling,” for unless they maintain welfare for the poor and work for righteousness , God will substitute a different people in their place.57 Pluralism Discourse in the 1990s The fall of the Soviet Union and the Rushdie affair in 1989 brought about dramatic changes in the comfort zone of Muslims, who began to feel targeted by the Western media as intolerant and unfit for citizenship in the United States. The splintering of the Soviet Empire propelled the United States into the role of the only superpower in the world, leaving Muslim nations who had mastered the game of survival by playing the United States against the Soviet Union wondering about their future. It also fostered speculation about the identity of the next enemy that would need to be vanquished by the United States. The publication of Samuel P. Huntington’s article “The Clash of Civilizations?,”58 which proposed that the West would be confronted by Islamic civilization, raised Muslims’ level of concern throughout the world. This was exacerbated by the publication of The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, in which Muslims perceived him to be defaming the Prophet Muhammad. This elicited a fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini, who declared Rushdie an apostate whose killing would be sanctioned by Islamic law. The Western reaction to the fatwa was swift and unequivocal. Many Muslims in diaspora felt targeted by the press, their religion deemed deficient and archaic since it prescribed death to those who deviated from the accepted orthodoxy. This propelled more Muslim authors to become engaged in writing about pluralism, including such authors as Fathi Osman and Abdulaziz Sachedina, who advocated a pluralistic Islam, grounded not in fear or isolation but in engagement with American society and exploration of new ways of leadership and participation in it. For Osman, the theology of pluralism begins with the affirmation that all humans are descended from the same pair. The Qur’an talks about the dignity of all humans as “children of Adam,” even Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 55 though they may not believe in God. He concedes that consensus on all matters is impossible and that different views will continue to prevail because God willed it that way. Meanwhile, he holds that “God’s grace lies not in the abolition of difference in beliefs and views, nor in changing human nature which He himself has created, but in showing human beings how to handle their differences intellectually and morally and behaviorally.”59 In defending Islam against its detractors as well as the extremists, Osman reinforced his theology of pluralism and the freedom of difference by pointing out that there is no reference in the Qur’an to meting out death for apostasy; rather, death is imposed for crimes against the state. “Freedom of belief cannot be genuinely secured,” he says, “unless abandoning the faith is unrestricted, the same as embracing it is not imposed.”60 Abdulaziz Sachedina of the University of Virginia published his seminal work The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism prior to the attacks of 9/11. He noted that the Qur’an provides a basis for a democratic pluralistic global community. The universal Islamic model demands coexistence among people of different religions as part of the divine plan for humanity.61 He noted that Islam has a unique characteristic that proceeds from the unity of God, a fact that unites the Muslim community with all humanity .62 Pluralism is thus part of the divine mystery, and as such it means not merely tolerating difference, but accepting others “in fellowship towards the divine.”63 He, too, saw this foundational principle of the Qur’an as having been obscured by the doctrine of supersession devised by the traditional exegetes. They claimed that the verses of the Qur’an that promote pluralism were abrogated by others revealed at a later date. However, “of the 137 listed verses that are claimed to have been abrogated, in reality not even one of them has been abrogated.”64 Furthermore, he noted that the Qur’an assures Christians and Jews who believe in God and the Last Day that they will be saved (S. 2:62); there is nothing in the Qur’an that suggests that it abrogated the previous scriptures of the Jews and the Christians.65 56 Becoming American? Building on the same Qur’anic reference used by al-Faruqi of the Islamic concept of din al-fitra, Sachedina argued that the fact that fitra affirms that each human being is endowed with a sense of knowledge and discernment of good and evil, as well the relationship of humans to the divine, suggest that all humanity has a bond in being predisposed toward monotheism. He faulted the two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shi‘a, for impeding human progress, the Sunnis by affirming and practicing exclusivism and the Shi‘a by insisting on certain prerequisites and qualifications for the interpreters of the Qur’an. Their exclusive claims to truth have impeded human recognition of the divine mandate for pluralism, which can promote peace in a violent world.66 Writing prior to 9/11, Abou El Fadl, in The Authoritative and the Authoritarian, also addressed the issue of tolerance within the Muslim community in the United States. He wrote that the Qur’an makes it quite clear that the truth is accessible to all people regardless of gender, class, or race. He was criticized not only for airing dirty laundry in public, but for being critical of certain Islamic interpretations at a time when Muslims were under undue pressure from Western writers such as Huntington and Islamophobes such as Daniel Pipes, as well as from those who adhered to an exclusivist Wahhabi Islam.67 Beginning in the 1990s, a new crop of university professors became employed at American universities. Three that have written on pluralism come from Africa—from Gambia, the Sudan, and South Africa. Each has made a distinctive contribution to the debates that bears the imprint of their African experience. Surveying the writings of public intellectuals of the last decade of the twentieth century, Sulayman S. Nyang of Howard University sees an accelerated interest in pluralism as a consequence of changes taking place in the world. He identifies three converging realities that push toward pluralism: globalization, which has brought humanity closer together by tearing down the walls of separation, a phenomenon caused by the communication revolution; growing awareness by the poor of the world of the material possibilities that they then began to seek; dissatisfaction Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 57 with secularism and a growing quest for spiritual meaning; and an increased awareness of other religions now gathered under the same roof as a consequence of international migration. At the same time, he identifies five factors that have limited the Muslim response to pluralism and impeded their relishing of American values. In the first place, Muslims, like American conservatives , are repulsed by American popular culture, which they see as a “libertinism” that allows sexual promiscuity. They are also turned off by American materialism, which places a premium on “excessive acquisitiveness.” Furthermore, they find American textbooks problematic; they “wish to keep their children from the triple problems of religious indoctrination, drugs, and sexual promiscuity” and seek to remove anti-Muslim materials from the textbooks. They are also reluctant to embrace “excessive individualism ,” which they perceive as undermining the importance of the family and the maintenance of a cohesive society. They seek to maintain dietary restrictions, in part as a protection against gluttony . “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.”68 Despite such impediments to enthusiastic engagement in American pluralism, Nyang enjoins Muslim leaders to participate in dialogue over issues of common concern with the larger population . He especially puts the onus on them to share their particular perspective on life and urges them to participate in forums on American campuses and reach out to their neighbors and coworkers .69 Nyang notes that “triumphant Islam” has tended to forget that Islam at its core, in its Meccan formative period, was pluralistic, and a true return to the teachings of the Qur’an and the practice of the prophet Muhammad would not lead to compelling others to follow one doctrine; rather, it would promote freedom of religion as proclaimed in the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in religion.”70 Another African intellectual who has found a home in the American academy is Farid Esack. While seeking inclusion of 58 Becoming American? race in a pluralistic definition of Islam, Farid Esack writes out of the context of the struggle for liberation in South Africa. For him, pluralism includes an economic ingredient, the liberation from economic exploitation of people “who eke out an existence on the margins of society.”71 He prescribes pluralism as action to liberate people, not mere “joyous intellectual neutrality,” but an endeavor to liberate and work toward healing societies that are racially divided, patriarchal, and economically exploitative. Esack faults traditional exegesis for promoting the doctrine of supersession , which has circumvented the Qur’anic verses that promote the recognition of other religions. Pluralism for Esack does not mean the liberal embrace of all “others” as equal. “The struggle in South Africa has demonstrated that some interpretations must be opposed because they suppress people.”72 Another Muslim author from Africa is Abdullahi An-Na‘im, professor of Islamic Studies at Emory University and a disciple of Mahmoud Taha, founder of the Republican Brothers, who was executed by the Sudanese government because his liberal ideas were deemed heretical.73 In the United States, An-Na‘im has insisted that Muslims need to generate new ideas in order to mainstream Islam and make it consistent with currently accepted universal norms. Rather than insisting that the world should adjust to their norms, which were formulated in a different context centuries ago, or reformulating and enwrapping them with modern discourse that maintains their superiority, Muslims need to align Islamic values with universal norms. He insists that the status of non-Muslim religious minorities under the Shari’ah is not congruent with current universal standards of human rights and cannot be justified by claims of Islamic cultural relativism. Religious minorities should not be subject to Muslim cultural norms that are not consistent with the relevant universal standards, and it is not only possible, but also imperative, that the status of non-Muslims under the Shari’ah be reformed from within the fundamental sources of Islam, namely the Qur’an and Sunnah. Such reform would at once be both Islamic and fully consistent with universal human rights standards.74 He is therefore critical Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 59 of Muslim insistence on implementing the Shari’ah, which he finds as discriminatory against non-Muslims since it renders them inferior and teaches that their lesser status is divinely mandated. “It would be heretical,” he writes, “for a Muslim who believes the shari’ah is the final and ultimate formulation of the law of God to maintain that any aspect of that law is open to revision and reformulation by mere mortal and fallible human beings. To do so is to allow human beings to correct what God has decreed.”75 At issue for An-Na’im are several laws and practices that the Shari’ah uses to restrict religious minorities. He notes that religious minorities “are not allowed to participate in the public affairs of an Islamic state. They are not allowed to hold any position of authority over Muslims, although Muslims may, and do, hold such positions over dhimmis. Dhimmis may practice their religion in private, but they are not allowed to proselytize or preach their faith in public. A dhimmi is allowed and even encouraged to embrace Islam while a Muslim may never abandon Islam.”76 The modern world has necessitated a revision of the Shari’ah, since the problems have changed and the traditional answers are no longer valid.77 The Pluralism Discourse after 2001 In the post-9/11 world, many Muslims increasingly see Western governments as hypocritical in their promotion of pluralism. They perceive governments as positing universal values and advocating adherence to them, while at the same time undermining them if they conflict with their national interest. Muqtedar Khan of the University of Delaware, for example, has noted that the United States uses pluralism as an ideology that it seeks to impose on less powerful nations as part of its global reach. In a sense, it is a tool of propaganda that supersedes truth and belies its power relationship with the Muslim world. The United States does not seek real international pluralism; it does not tolerate other views.78 Muslim reflections on American hypocrisy centrally take into consideration the so-called universal values (pluralism, democracy, human rights, the rights of minorities and women) advocated by 60 Becoming American? the U.S. State Department as the foundation for relations with peoples of the Middle East.79 An interested observer does not have to look far to find egregious violations of these stated values. America’s promotion of democracy was undermined, for instance, by its rejection of the will of the Algerian and Palestinian people when they voted for Islamist representatives. Muslims also wonder why the Western governments are silent when the demonization of Islam is given sensational play in the Western press. Post-9/11, the media played an important role in shaping negative American perceptions of Islam by featuring a slew of Muslims who were disenchanted with their religious tradition and were willing to voice the criticisms that the Islamophobes had been spreading about the evil intents of Islam and Muslims living in the West. They were championed as “native informers” who validated all the fears and stereotypes perpetrated about the faith. Writing from the U.K., Mona Siddiqui has also reflected on this topic. She notes that 9/11 managed to convince onlookers that religious expression can be associated with religious fanaticism and that Muslim fanaticism is anti-American and therefore a global threat.80 In effect, Siddiqui says, Western discussions on pluralism are the product of Western developments after the Enlightenment. She explains, “If religious pluralism is promoted here, it is promoted as a social and ethical virtue, the evolutionary product of good democracies, not fundamentally as a theological imperative. This could be perceived as a good thing if the explanation was that the western world accepted Islam on its soil but in fact the western world at least at a popular level was largely indifferent to the Muslims living on its soil.”81 In response to post-9/11 developments, many writers have sought to foster interaction and open communication between Muslims and non-Muslims to encourage pluralistic attitudes on both sides. In 2005, Husain Kassim of the University of Central Florida called for dialogue between Muslims and other Americans that could lead to the “universalization of norms,” based on shared ethical values and not on political expediency, with Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 61 Muslims being taken seriously in forging a consensus on common grounds on how to live together.82 Aware that he is departing from the exegesis of others, he insists that the Qur’an promotes the idea of pluralism in Islam, in the face of the dominant teachings of the Mosque movement, which advocate supersession. He affirms that salvation is available to believers among the People of the Book.83 In his first post-9/11 book, The Place of Tolerance in Islam, Abou El Fadl shifts his emphasis to the relation of Muslims to non-Muslims. He seeks to dissociate Islam from the Saudi, Wahhabi interpretation promoted by the perpetrators of 9/11. Wahhabi-inspired material was available for American Muslim consumption in books, pamphlets, and magazines. Admitting that there are verses in the Qur’an that are exclusionary, he attempts to put them in context, and as al-Faruqi and Rahman had done, he reaffirms that diversity and difference are the essential teachings of the Qur’an. He notes that while the Qur’an posits claims of absolute truth of the revelation, it does not deny that there might be “other paths to salvation.” And since the Qur’an states that there is no compulsion in religion, it is the duty of every Muslim to emphasize the tolerance of Islam, that nonbelievers should not be subjugated.84 In 2003 a small number of Muslim scholars, mainly young, gained some prominence for their advocacy of what they called “Progressive Islam.”85 They published a book and set up websites devoted to discussions of an Islam based on concepts of justice, gender equality, and pluralism. They were catapulted into prominence by the media, and for a few months there was an expectation that the proponents of Progressive Islam might become prominent since the government had undermined the established leadership of the Muslim community by raiding their American homes and offices. A book edited by Omid Safi garnered some attention as the authors sought to dissociate Islam from Wahhabi interpretation and rejected any interpretations of Islam that cast it as violent, misogynist, or exclusivist. The book attempted to redefine Islam as governed by justice, including gender and racial justice. While at first it was welcomed as a refreshing 62 Becoming American? new interpretation, it soon receded in popularity among young Muslims as its authors went beyond what is acceptable as Islamic morality, particularly concerning openness to a gay lifestyle. Several American-born converts to Islam, both AfricanAmerican (Zaid Shakir, Sherman Jackson, Siraj Wahhaj) and white (Umar Abd-Allah and Hamza Yusuf), have become popular among American Muslim youth. All are bicultural and call on Muslim youth who are alienated from their parents’ imported, rigid culture to engage in dialogue with the West while maintaining their commitment to the traditional teachings of Islam. All are engaged in providing instruction in the faith. Hamza Yusuf, who was born as Mark Hanson in Washington State and converted to Islam in the late 1970s, originally became popular because of his sharp criticism of the United States, declaiming against its decadence, lack of spirituality, and injustice in its foreign policy. After 9/11, he was invited to the White House, where he seems to have undergone a conversion. Rather than focusing on what makes Muslims angry about American policy, he began to focus on the relation between Islam and the West and urged his Muslim listeners to look at the good things in Western society. This transformation in his message has earned him the criticism of the Muslim community, some of whom consider him a collaborator, or even a “pet Muslim.”86 He now regrets his outspoken criticism of American foreign policy in the Middle East as inappropriate and criticized political Islam. “September 11 was a wake-up call for me. I don’t want to contribute to the hate in any shape or form. I now regret in the past being silent about what I have heard in the Islamic discourse and being part of that with my own anger.”87 With Sherman Jackson and Tariq Ramadan,88 Hamza Yusuf sees a role for American Muslims in fashioning a new interpretation of Islam based on the classical foundation of the faith. He presents Islam as part of the Abrahamic tradition, sharing its values with Christianity and Judaism and not necessarily opposing freedom and democracy. He notes that “it is Islam that has prevented the Islamic world from blowing up in rage—not the opposite.”89 Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 63 He is seen as an important link between American culture and Muslim youth who face the travails of integration and assimilation as he attempts to build a bridge between the two. With the other convert rock stars, he embodies the struggle in the search for the meaning of being an American Muslim. He is a white convert who is idealized by nonwhites, for he has rejected the allures of American culture and found fulfillment and meaning in Islam. He now criticizes “Muslim fascists” who peddle a theology of hate. As for Muslims who are critical of the West, he is quoted as saying, “if they are going to rant and rave about the West, they should emigrate to a Muslim country.”90 In the post-9/11 world, pluralism continues to be a hotly debated and at times divisive topic within the Islamic community. The empowerment of voices that have traditionally been excluded from exerting force in Muslim society, most notably those of racial minorities and women, has become a cause that many emerging Muslim intellectuals have championed. Issues of gender and race have naturally melded with arguments for both inter- and intrareligious pluralism as Muslim thinkers have attempted to guide their listeners toward openness to different religions and to alternative interpretations within Islam. The promotion of gender pluralism is an emerging cause among many Islamist scholars. In promoting the social and religious voices of Muslim women, Amina Wadud has advocated women’s engagement with exegesis of the Qur’an. She notes that there is an absence of women’s voices in interpreting the text of the Qur’an and has pointed to the effort to silence women’s voices by traditional society. She has called for an alternative exegesis that takes into consideration women’s insights in order to foster a holistic Islamic message.91 Her ideas about “gender jihad” have resonated among Muslim feminists, several of whom began to vocally echo her demand for a women’s interpretation of the Qur’an. Another voice calling for gender pluralism is Gwendolyn Zoharah Simmons, who writes, “Frankly, I am tired of the contortions , the bending over backwards, and the justifications for the oppressive, repressive, and exclusionary treatment of women 64 Becoming American? in majority Islamic societies as well as in minority Muslim communities in the U.S.A.”92 Similarly, many Muslim thinkers are championing racial and cultural equality within Islam. Sherman Jackson calls attention to the fact that immigrant Muslims exclude African-Americans from their deliberations of what Islam is. He warns against commitment to ideologies imported from the Middle East that are exclusionary and do not make room for alternative interpretations . Jackson sees these ideologies as contrary to Islamic tradition , which historically has allowed for competing interpretations that at times are even contradictory. For him, the future of Islam in the United States, particularly after 9/11, is contingent on a pluralistic, nonviolent, tolerant, and egalitarian interpretation of Islam that is inclusive of America and makes room for differences in interpretation. A true pluralistic Islam will have to promote the “collective enterprises of good.”93 Many thinkers agree that a unified but pluralistic Islam is essential to the prospering of both Muslim and American culture and that differing Islamic ideologies must be allowed for. Mona Siddiqui, for instance, reinforces and elaborates on Jackson’s stance, tackling the question of pluralism in the post-9/11 world on a global level: The fundamental obligation on us all, then, is to ensure that our societies accept all the challenges of pluralism, religious and secular. For Muslims and Islamic states, this is about remembering that the pluralism on which Islam flourished as a civilization is no longer sufficient for the multiple religious and secular discourses of our contemporary world. The Qur’anic verse, “Had God willed he would have made you all one,” must translate into a revisioning of society where Muslim communities can truly accept that religious diversity may possibly be God’s will, challenge and blessing on earth. The imperative on us is how we free ourselves from dogmatism and prejudice and be allowed to interpret the Qur’an in such a way that translates meaningfully with human diversity at a local, national and global level.94 Muslims and American Religious Pluralism 65 Umar Faruq Abd-Allah further clarifies the need for a plural Islamic stance in noting that the Prophet and the companions were not at war with the cultures of the world, nor did they try to eradicate ethnicities and fit everyone into a preconceived mold. Furthermore, they did not have a bipolar view of cultures that divided them into good and evil.95 Building on the growing realization that there are several Islamic cultural zones—as is very apparent in the context of ethnically integrated mosques in the United States that demonstrate that Arab Islamic culture is different from that of Africa, Turkey, Iran, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, and that Chinese Islam is different from all of them—he saw no harm in working to create an American Islam. For Muzammil Siddiqui, respect for diversity requires recognition of “four important principles: the dignity of the human being, the basic equality of all human beings, universal human rights and fundamental freedom of thought, conscience and belief.”96 He faults the governments of the United States, Canada, and the European Union for not supporting the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which expresses deep concern about the prevalent stereotyping of religion, particularly Islam, which has been “strongly associated with human-rights violations and with terrorism .” He has also expressed concern over the appointment of Bishop J. Delano Ellis as advisor to a congressional panel on faithbased issues. Ellis is noted for his remark about Islam as being “at best false” and at worst “bloody and dangerous.”97 Conclusion Most of the writing of Muslim authors on issues of pluralism has focused on the need not only for a modus vivendi with American society, but also of developing pluralism in the Muslim community itself. It has emphasized awareness of the great diversity among Muslims, not only in the nationalities they come from but also on issues of race, color, language, and theological and ideological commitments. It calls for tolerance of differences in practice and beliefs among Muslims who adhere to different schools of law, as well as a moratorium on efforts to force people to conform 66 Becoming American? to one school. It looks forward to a future when Muslims will learn to celebrate their internal differences. Today’s Muslims living in the West are in an unprecedented milieu, in that they are living as a religious minority with equal rights granted to the citizens of the state. While some Muslims continue to focus obsessively on the current prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiments and Islamophobia, others have chosen to call attention to the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, which give Muslims the potential to have input into all aspects of the public square, just as other reviled religious minorities of the past, such as Catholics and Jews, have become full constituents of American society.98 They hold on to the promise of America as a pluralistic society and hope that the day when America will make room for them as Muslims is not far off. ...