The United States of America was founded by immigrants. The founders viewed
the country as a safe haven for those fleeing Western European religious and
political oppression. Over time it became viewed as a land where all peoples
could come in order to become something else, something ?better?, i.e.,
Americans. Due to this view, the American system was established and designed
to integrate and assimilate every group that was to have under it. Even terms
like ?melting pot? became synonymous to it. One can now find many groups
integrated into the American way of life. These ethnic groups have melted away
their beliefs and customs and way of thinking that were determined as un-
American. They became Irish-American, Jewish-American, and even Polish-
American, and Chinese-American.
The first Muslims to come to the republic did so as slaves, and were
ruthlessly made to discard their identity. Since then, each succeeding wave of
Muslim immigrants has been, by and large, integrated into the society.
However, since the 1960's, with the increased momentum in the Muslim World
toward the resumption of Islam, and toward the political unity of Muslims, the
waves of Muslim immigrants to America became affected by this momentum. This
momentum for the resumption of Islam in turn affected Muslims born in America,
and now presents itself as a barrier and an obstacle toward the integration of
Muslims into the American way of life. The barrier lies in Islam itself, as a
dynamic ideology, with its own unique system and method of change. When
carried as an deology, Islam's dynamism pushes the Muslim to implement and
operate its method of change, targeted at each and every idea and system that
runs contrary and opposed to it. This means that the ideas upon which the
American republic was built is also targeted by Islam for structural change.
Herein lies the obstacles toward integration.
The American society is based on the notion that religion must be separated
from state and politics. Religion is something personal and individualistic,
and not collective or societal. Consequently, it is not the Creator who makes
the laws, it is the ?people? via the ?democratic .Way.? Therefore, for the
process of assimilation to be able to take place, Muslims would have to adopt
a belief that is not comprehensive or be willing to give up part or all of
their beliefs and laws. They must also view themselves as part of the American
society, thereby intellectually detaching themselves from the Ummah,
maintaining only a sentimental attachment.
The obstacle that Islam erects in the face of assimilation stems from a
variety of factors, two of which will be presented. The first is that the
Islamic Aqeedah is a political-spiritual one. In other words, it is Aqeedah
Siyasiyah Ruhiyah. A Ruhiyah Aqeedah (spiritual) focuses solely on the
hereafter, i.e., it addresses the belief in the unseen, heaven and hell, the
Day of Reckoning, etc. An example is the Christian belief where it addresses
the belief in Jesus as a saviour, heaven, and hell.
The actions that are given priority only revolve around achieving ?spiritual?
benefits. On the other extreme lies the 'Aqeedah Siyasiyah (Political). This
type of belief abandoned the issue of the after life and placed it in the hand
of the individual, and focused exclusively on this material, temporal life,
i.e., how to buy and sell, how to rule and govern, what relationship to have
with foreign lands, etc. An example is Capitalism, and the actions that are
given priority revolve only around achieving material benefits. Islam is
neither the former nor the latter. In the Islamic Aqeedah, the ?spiritual?
belief is embodied in the set up of the ?temporal? life system.
Therefore, it is unique in that it tolerates no separation or split between a
spiritual and temporal life. Meaning, it's Aqeedah addresses the unsensed,
i.e., Allah and his attributes, the Day of Judgement, Heaven and Hell, which
serves as the basis upon which the affairs of this world are built, be they
related to the individual, the society, or the world at large. Islam has
provided rules to govern the relationship of the individual with his Creator:
it commanded the Muslim to maintain certain beliefs, such as believing in
Allah
(SWT), Muhammad being the last Messenger, the angels, the Day of judgement,
the validity of Islam for all times and places, etc.
It also obligated the Muslim to pray, fast, give Zakah, etc. Islam also
organised the relationship with one's self via rules that pertain to ethics,
food stuffs, and clothing. Thus, we find rules that command the Muslim to tell
the truth, be honest, humble, etc. And rules that tell the Muslim that he is
not to eat pork, or carrion meat or to drink blood, that the meat must be
slaughtered properly etc.
Other rules tell him that he is to cover his private parts (awrah), not to
wear clothes that symbolise the belief and creed of the Kuffar. Also, there
are an enormous number of rules that organise the relationships among people:
Islam specifies the type of contracts to exist in the society, the ruling
system that Muslims are to erect, the educational system and it's foundation,
the judiciary system and the type of evidences admissible in court, penal
codes etc. In addition, Islam has detailed laws pertaining the relationship
with the other nations. So it details the types of treaties that are allowed
to be signed with other people, be they emergency treaties, commercial, or
cultural. It further specifies the rules of military engagement, when to
initiate it, the allowable types of military assets, the extent and types of
deterrence and collateral damage, the laws pertaining POW?s, etc.
With such a comprehensive belief system and life system organisation, it is
impossible that Muslims with this understanding can live in a secular society
and feel content with its chaotic, man-made system. They realise that the
permission to live under such a system includes the rejection of its ideas,
culture, and way of thinking, since it is Taghoot, and they can never ?fit
in.? They are either searching for, or vigorously working to implant Islam
amongst Muslims, and to carry it to non-Muslims.
The second reason that makes the assimilation of Muslims impossible is the
Islamic bond that Muslims share with the Muslims throughout the world. The
Islamic belief mandates that all Muslims are brothers. Allah says, ?Surely
only the believers are brothers.? (TMQ 49.. 10). Also Islam mandates that
Muslims must view themselves as one Ummah. Allah says, ?You are indeed the
best Nation ever raised up from mankind.? (TMQ 3. 1 10). Moreover, Allah
commanded them not to divide. He (SWT), says, ?And hold fast
to the rope of Allah and divide not.? (TMQ 3..103)
So the Muslim views himself as part of an Ummah that must not be or remain
divided on any bases, be they ethnic, geographic or political. This erects an
obstacle in the way of assimilation of the Muslims, because the first step to
assimilating any group is to have them think as a minority. Meaning, for
Muslims to be integrated into the American. society, they will have to view
themselves as eight million American-Muslims who together make up one patch on
the American mosaic of 255 million, rather than viewing themselves an integral
part of the more than 1.3 billion Muslim Ummah in the world. Only then can
they be assimilated. But how could Muslims view themselves as such with the
presence of all the Islamic texts that order them to be part of the Ummah and
not to separate themselves from the body of Muslims?
And how can they be made to leave a Divine, dynamic, and comprehensive
ideology for one that is chaotic and man-made? There are two ways to deal with
Muslims. The first is a path of confrontation with Muslims, to forcefully
remove any trace of Islam, as done with the first Muslims to arrive here. The
second is to introduce a reshaped and remodelled Western/American Islam. The
first option is not suitable since America brags about its pluralistic
society, democratic values and tolerance. For them, the second is cleaner,
softer, and more effective. Islam is now being reinterpreted, reshaped and
remodelled in such a way that is compatible with the western thought and the
Western way of thinking. The most apparent cases can be seen through many
organisations and institutions. On the Board of Directors of the IIIT
(International Institutefor Islamic Thought), are the Christian, Yvonne
Haddad, and the Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest, John Esposito. Esposito also
serves as director of the Centre for Christian-Muslim Understanding, a
Georgetown University think tank.
In a lecture given by Haddad, and moderated by Esposito, she explained the
nature of their work and, consequently the nature of the institutes upon whose
board they sit. She states ?...There are several ways of looking at what the
agenda of 'pushing the boundaries' is... We have not had a new Qur?anic
exegesis for a long time ... New ideas seem to come up when people look back.
For example, I just did a paper on pluralism in Islam, and I was amazed at how
the same verses that meant something totally different in the last century,
have [sic] been utilised in order to defend the idea of pluralism for the
present and the future. I think what we also need is an objective and
comprehensive look at the sharia ... We need a more comprehensive and
objective look at the Sunna ... And these are areas that the American
government have put in declaration of what its foreign policy is about ... And
one of the things that I have noticed recently that there is an effort to
start a seminary here in the United States, right across the river [meaning
the Potomac River in Virginia]. In where people can be trained in both the
sciences of Islam, the historical traditional sciences of the past but also be
trained in the new efforts of Islamising knowledge and therefore dealing with
the future.
Esposito echoed Haddad's statements in a conference held last year by his
Centre. In a session entitled 'Pushing the Boundaries: Reforming Islam for the
21st Century,' he resulted with: ?the need to revise the Sharee'ah, devising a
comprehensive revision' of Tafseer. ?In a paper titled ?Democratisation and
Islam,? by John Esposito and James P. Piscatori, which appeared in The Middle
East journal, Vol. 45, 1991, pp. 47-440, it is evident that Esposito and his
partner are advising U.S. officials on how to better use and manipulate Muslim
activists and Islamic movements to further the goals of U.S. foreign policy.
If we carefully study the meanings behind Haddad's and Esposito's statements,
a few points are perfectly clear. First all the ideas of ?pushing the
boundaries,? ?comprehensive revision of Tafseer,? or ?objective and
comprehensive look at Sharee'ah? are user friendly code words that share one
central aim. That aim is to make the concept of destroying Islam appear to the
Muslims as mere innocent and objective attempts at Ijtihad. It is now common
to hear Muslim Imams and scholars referring to and quoting from these two non-
Muslim ?Islamic? thinkers. All this while
their aim is to destroy Islam.
Secondly, the first point cannot be disconnected from the American policy for
Muslims in America. As a point of fact Haddad and Esposito do not attempt to
hide or conceal their connection to American policy makers. Additionally, even
the Muslims from among their circles brag about consulting with the U.S.
Congress or the White House regarding the setting of policy for Muslims in
America.
Regarding the attempts at destroying the Islamic bond, the previously cited
organisations, institutes and personalities also play instrumental role. They
call to focus on ?ourselves here? and to leave Kashmir for the Kashmiris,
Palestine for the Palestinians, and Bosnia for the Bosnians, and to only give
some spare change to send them food out of mere sentimental attachments.
Warith D Mohammed?s call for a new American, Islamic mathhab; The National
Fiqhi Council's promotion of a ?national-local? moon sighting for Ramadhan and
Al-Eid; as well as the call by many to vote registration and political
participation are other examples.
Adding to this is the media's terrorism frenzy, such as Steve Emerson's Jihad
in America, which seeks to b blame Muslims for everything under the sun, even
while there are clear cut proofs and evidences showing otherwise. The Anti-
Terrorism bill, which was initiated after the Oklahoma bombing by White
American separatists, also includes Muslims and Muslim organisations. The
impact of all of this is that Muslims become reactionary, isolated, abrogated
and removed from much of Islam, as well as reoriented in their allegiance away
from ?fundamentalist? Muslims. The
aim behind all of this is to keep Muslims identified by the American borders
and not by the ideology that they believe in.
In light of all of this, Muslims are today at the cross-roads. They can choose
the road of Haddad, Esposito, the AMC, and American integrationism -a road
leading to humiliation and destruction in this life, and Allah's wrath in the
next. Or they can erect a barrier in front of this integrationism, choosing
the road of Islam, its belief system, its life system organisation, and the
work to implant this Islam in the American/Western societies. It is only this
uphill road that will lead to dignity and
honour in this life and Allah's pleasure in the next. Which road will you
choose?
___________________________
QUTUS@aol.com