Naeem's Blog

Most Americans are well aware of the recent travails of the US Government in finalizing their federal budget. In making his case for balancing the budget, Obama argued that “every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."

However, Ted Rall makes his counter-argument against this myth that American families are thrifty and keen on balancing their personal budgets. In addition to informing us of the facts (the average family has a debt of nearly $11,000), he posits this interesting scenario:

“If consumer credit vanished, the corporato-capitalist system currently prevailing in the U.S. would deteriorate from its current, merely unsustainable form into total chaos. Without credit cards and other loans citizens would seethe, trapped between the mutually irreconcilable forces of falling wages and the aggressive advertising and marketing of products they would never be able to afford. There would only be two possible long-term outcomes: revolution, or the ruling classes would be forced to pay substantially higher wages to workers. To corporate elites, the latter choice would be too unpalatable to countenance.”

Of the two possible outcomes of a credit-free society that Rall discusses, the latter (paying higher wages to workers) is a very intriguing situation. It would undoubtedly cut into the colossal wealth of the top one percent, but the resulting economic justice would provide for a far more acceptable standard of living for the majority.

Such a course of action, I believe, is promoted by the Islamic economic ethos. This is but one example of what the Shariah would provide to its participants – a more just economic system, where capitalistic greed is not given the absolute free reign it has been afforded by modern-day capitalism.

Too bad such intellectual thought exercises are missing from the discussions on Shariah.

Instead, let us continue the fear-mongering and adventures in disinformation. After all, why bother trying to understand the intricate details of Islamic economic jurisprudence when it’s so much easier to simply pass off scary images of bearded Mullahs, honour killings, and dhimmi taxes as wholly representative of Shariah?

I just finished reading this CNN piece written my Muslim Comedian, Dean Obeidallah. In it, he addresses the recent GOP-concocted ruckus over the role of Sharia in the US. It’s not the least bit surprising that politicians are using islamophobic rhetoric to stoke the flames of fear among the masses. It’s a tactic that has been successfully used since 9/11.

But what is surprising is the troubling attitude that American Muslims have towards the Sharia. Why are so many Muslims so quick to write off the Sharia as an ideal system for all of humanity? Shouldn’t we be confident that the divine precepts set forth within the Shariah provide what is best for all of mankind?

I understand that due to decades of misinformation, the Shariah is equated with oppression, stoning, and forced conversions. But instead of working to clear up these blatant misconceptions and properly present the beautiful, humane aspects of Islamic law, why are so many of us turning our backs on the Shariah and agreeing with the public sentiment that it has no place in America?

Huh?!

Why have we become so ashamed of the Shariah, like that proverbial crazy uncle whose embarrassing antics make everyone uncomfortable, eventually wishing he would just go away?

After all, if the commandments of Allah (swt) had been in place in America, I am convinced that the catastrophically oppressive system of interest-based banking would not have bound countless struggling families by the economic shackles that have enslaved them to their financial masters.

If the Shariah were implemented in America, hundreds of billions would not have been squandered on the military-industry complex at the cost of healthcare programs, educational reforms, and battling poverty.

If the Shariah ever became a legal reality in America, the beautiful Prophetic axiom “Do not harm and do not reciprocate harm” (La Darara wa La Dirar) would become the overarching principle of America’s foreign policy.

If the Shariah ever found its way into the Supreme Court, carbon emissions, climate change, and other environmental concerns would trump every corporation’s right to grotesque profits.

If the Shariah laws were applied in America, human dignity would return to its proper place above the politically manipulated concept of human freedom.

If the Shariah was the law of the land, universally acknowledged vices such as gambling, alcohol, and pornography would not be sanctioned by the state.

If the Shariah came to be at the national level, economic hitmen and corporate jackals, with the support of the American government, would not freely roam the earth looking for lands to rape and populations to fleece.

The Shariah covers all aspects of human life and contrary to the picture some American Muslims are presenting about the Shariah, it is NOT restricted to one’s personal life. It provides guidelines for politics and economics, international relations and domestic policies, scientific research and spiritual purification, social relations from the nuclear family all the way to the global level.

It does away with man’s arrogant proclamation that he knows what is best for him. Verily, his Creator knows better.

So, I would boldly declare that I am a strong proponent of the Shariah becoming established not only in America, but throughout the world. Just allow me the time and respect to explain what that entails.

The New York Times has a very profound piece on Sh. Yasir Qadhi (here is his response to the NYTimes piece). I found the article very telling because of the way the writer is able to communicate the internal struggles of an American Muslim leader in navigating the murky waters of 21st century Islam in a politically charged America.

While there are many points worthy of addressing, I would like to focus on the Jihad issue, not because it is a core Islamic principle or a major concern for Muslims worldwide, but because it was used to demonstrate the difficulties Sh. Yasir is facing. It’s clear from the article that he is struggling to tread a fine line. And sadly, I think his lot will be of someone attempting to simultaneously sit on two stools only to fall flat on the floor.

His sincerity I do not doubt. His rejection of the pseudo-salafi movement is proof enough for me. I am simply weary of any efforts, and this includes the sincere efforts of his contemporaries, such as Imam Zaid Shakir, to appease American sensitivities while remaining faithful to our deen.

In their efforts to find this hallowed middle ground, are they leading American Islam through a ‘maturation’ process that will leave it emaciated, a hollow skeleton of its original teachings? Will we conveniently cast aside the teachings that find little resonance in modern-day Western life? I speak not of polygamy or wearing the niqab or growing a beard, but of the more substantial, macro issues such as Islamic governance or an economic model based on the Quran and Sunnah or the concept of Prophetic Jihad.

I find Western society, with all its declarations of human rights, deviously lulling for the modern-day Muslim. It will definitely award him the freedom to behold to his faith and practice all the personal rituals required of him - admittedly, moreso than most any Muslim nation in the world. But are personal rituals all that the Quran and Sunnah ask of us?

While I realize that Muslims across most of the Muslim world are incapable of voicing their thoughts on how to fully practice their faith, the issue with Islam in America is that too many Muslims have convinced themselves that they are being afforded the freedom to comprehensively practice their deen.

And that simply is not the case, as Sh. Yasir illustrates in quite a convincing fashion.

The fact that he has a legitimate reluctance in discussing the "J-word" demonstrates a lack of freedom of religion and speech. A police state isn’t the only way to quash these freedoms. An ignorant public in combination with pandering politicians and a willing media are equally as effective.

How many generations will it take to so completely water down basic Islamic teachings, such as Jihad, that they will become historical footnotes, kept alive in old dusty books in old dusty libraries?

Indeed, most of the Muslim world lags behind the Western world when it comes to basic rights, but at least there is no pretense of freedom. Muslims realize they are not free to practice their religion in the manner the Prophet (saw) and His companions did. And so, Muslims are biding their time, keeping alive the vision of a holistic implementation of Islam, waiting for the opportune time wherein such steps can be taken in a manner befitting the authentic teachings of the Prophet (saw).

Can the same be said of Muslims living in the West, where the latest manifestation of American Islam is pointing us towards a horizon where certain topics are simply eliminated from religious discourse? Scholars aren’t merely stating that these contentious issues are better left unaddressed – the trend is clearly headed towards a steady state where such issues are simply removed from the American Muslim conscious.

While Sh. Yasir may be struggling to walk this tightrope, I seriously fear that his future progeny may not even be given this opportunity.

Here's an excellent breakdown by Glenn Greenwald on the case against 19-year-old Somali-American, Mohamed Osman Mohamud.

His second and third points are most noteworthy.

Clearly these disillusioned schmucks aren't completely innocent, but the Muslim community in America needs to call out the FBI on their slimy tactics used to entice, entangle, and enable these misguided individuals (they freakin' gave the kid $3000 to pay his rent!!).

I've grown tired of this endless stream of entrapment cases by the US government. Not sure when American Muslims will finally take a stand against these PR stunts which are ruining lives of young Muslims.

Sadly, in the present political climate, American Muslims are in no position to make such demands. But hey, Muslims in America are more free to practice their religion than in the Muslim world.

Yaaayyyy?

I want to thank Salon and Osman Adnan for finally explaining to me how I can become a loyal Muslim American. Never having felt comfortable with being just a Muslim American, I have scoured the planet endlessly searching for the recipe for true loyalty to my birth-nation.

Finally, I have discovered it: Attend a Catholic school, celebrate bar mitzvahs and Christmas parties, have an Irish best friend (preferably born on 4th of July), join the military service, keep public displays of your Muslim faith to a minimum and carry a flag of the USA in your back pocket in case some pathetic Muslim child in some far-off pathetic land needs a reminder of your nation's unending benevolence - 'Hey, please don't mind the drone attack that just wiped out your entire village and uhmm, yeah, ignore our propping up brutal dictators across the Muslim world and go ahead and overlook our occupation of two major Muslim nations because, well, Imma teach you to read English. Oh and here's a flag of the good 'ol Stars and Stripes - just promise me you won't burn it...har-har, just kidding. But seriously, don't burn it.'

Yessiree-bob, a good 'ol Loyal Muslim American.

Where do I sign up?

Dear Imam Johari,

You probably don’t remember me. Actually, I’m certain you don’t. I think I’ve met you only twice; once at an MSA Iftar dinner we shared a table, and the other time I attended a campfire lecture you gave at Dar al-Taqwa, where, I might add, you displayed quite a beautiful voice in singing some nasheeds.

And eventhough we’ve only met twice, I’ve known you for quite some time, as is true for most of the American Muslim community. Your reputation precedes itself and I humbly acknowledge that your years of service at the national level for the cause of Islam dwarf my meager local community efforts of years past.

And that is why it has pained me to read your past few posts.

You started with an open declaration calling for Muslims to adopt the principle of non-violence. Surely, non-violence has its place in a larger movement of resistance, but it cannot be its sole strategy. There must be, as it always has been, space at the table for resistance by force. Surely, you are intimately aware of the American civil rights struggle with the existence of the black power effort in conjunction with the non-violence movement. Also, armed resistance played a significant role in the other example you cited, the South African anti-apartheid struggle.

And the same type of armed resistance has been playing a vital role in defying the authoritarian control of Israel over both the Palestinians as well as Lebanon. It can be argued that if not for the constant thorn-pricking by Hamas (in Gaza) and Hezbollah (in South Lebanon), Israeli forces would still be firmly established in those territories.

Dear Imam Johari, you would be well served to read this excellent piece by Max Ajl on the inability of a purely non-violent movement to affect positive change, especially in the I/P conflict.

“But the sort of non-violence Taylor supports is the sort that castrates resistance, and takes resistance out of the realm of history and into the realm of religion. What would Taylor have recommended to the Vietnamese? There is nothing nefarious about defending oneself from armed attack. Making it nefarious writes the Palestinian right to resist out of history, reserving righteous violence and force for the Western powers that already almost monopolize it.”

As the writer notes, look at the emasculated example of the MV Rachel Corrie, the June 5 ship that attempted to break the Gaza blockade. The IDF swiftly diverted the ship and the activists quietly complied with nary a cry. How effective was that?

In your call for non-violence you have mysteriously conflated the issue of illegitimate violence (e.g. suicide bombings of civilians) with the strategic usage of force employed by resistance groups. While the former is clearly indefensible, the latter is essential in opposing oppression.

It is a bit dispiriting to hear from a prominent American Muslim leader as yourself the unconditional call for non-violence by the Palestinians, as if such tactics have never been employed by the weaker side. For years, non-violence has played a leading role in the resistance against Israeli aggression, especially with the increased participation of foreign peaceful organizations.

So, for you to state your thoughts as you have, you are (unknowingly) bolstering the argument that Israel is justified in its actions to defend itself against this delusional ‘barrage of violence’.

Surely, that is not a sentiment you wish to express.

Ajl sums it up in the end of his article: “Those who resisted violently were brave. Those who resisted non-violently were brave. All were right. All were just. Solidarity organizations can agree in advance to resist or not to resist, as Taylor instructs us. But most oppression in human history has been thrown off by horrible violence. Frankly, if a man has a gun pointed at my head on my own territory and has shot the person standing next to me, and I can disarm that man, I will disarm him. And there is something surreal, if not pitiful, to demand not only that I abjure that basic human response, but furthermore, abjure it when the gun is pointed not at my head but at the person standing next to me. Writing about it admittedly makes for good copy and good employment for those living and writing in Western countries where power is eager to dissolve an internationally-sanctioned right to resist. For those living under the gun, Taylor’s prescriptions may seem a little odder.”

My other grievance is with regards to your blog post on the topic of Imam Anwar Awlaki. You write that Islamic bookstores and other businesses should stop selling his famous lectures, such as Lives of the Prophets, due to his recent calls in support of unIslamic acts of violence. You cite your concern that innocent Muslims who may be positively affected by his lectures, which you acknowledge as being extremely beneficial, could be led down the slippery slope towards his more recent lectures advocating unIslamic acts of violence.

How ironic is it that your warning of a slippery slope is itself leading you down another slippery slope. If we begin to advocate the censoring of Islamically legitimate material due to questionable views held by the author, where will this take us? You are creating a precedent that can be used in future calls to ban such revolutionary authors such Syed Qutb or Maududi.

Surely, that is not a precedent you wish to set.

As intolerable as Imam Anwar’s views on suicide bombing may be, it is equally intolerable to censor his legitimate work in fear of leading astray the ‘naïve’ and ‘ignorant’.

This reeks of paternalistic totalitarianism. Because lay-Muslims are too stupid to tell right from wrong, the Muslim leadership must censor the good stuff from the bad stuff.

Huh?!

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of all the Shia material. And all that goofy Sufi stuff as well. These books could really lead people astray, no?

I’m sure you realize that such an approach is inconsistent with the principles of a free society.

Many know you as a man of serious principle and strong leadership. But I must say that your past few posts have come off as someone trying to appease more than lead. I don’t think even Fox News has made such demands of the Muslim American community. So why would you? Also, what gives with you admitting that you've learned from Steve Emerson? The clown journalist has no interest in creating a working relationship with the Muslim community, as evidenced by his obnoxiously condescending response to you, yet you are touting his approval?

These past few posts seem like some ill-conceived PR campaign attempting to win over the distrusting American public. ‘Hey, look at us American Muslims. We understand you all are afraid of us, so watch us bend over backwards to prove our allegiance by cutting all relations with this new bogeyman, Imam Anwar, no matter how positive his work may have been to thousands and thousands of young Muslims. And we won’t stop there. We’ll throw in a complete rejection of all forms of violence resistance, choosing the more acceptable (to the American Empire) approach of non-violence. Now can someone please call Michelle Malkin so we can schedule a nice photo-op?’

In conclusion, while my letter is addressed to you, my thoughts are not solely restricted to you. They are more intended to address a trend I am fearful may be growing in the American Muslim community in specific, and the international Muslim community at large. That is why I chose to share my thoughts on my humble blog instead of writing to you in private.

Your brother,
Naeem

No, not the freedoms. And, not the democracy either. I can live without all that, thank you very much.

What I miss most about living in the US is the Muslim community. Alot.

The tight-knit community that revolved around the local Masjid is simply not to be seen anywhere in Saudi Arabia. 7 years running and Riyadh has nothing remotely close to the feeling of brotherhood I felt in Baltimore.

The reasons are pretty obvious.

Muslims over here aren’t operating as a minority under attack and thus find no need to go the extra mile to build a community. On the other hand, Muslims in the West naturally gravitate towards the masjid in order to feel more at home with others who share their worldview. This inevitably leads to social activities and the like.

Also, the fact that masajid are located at every corner of Riyadh dilutes the concept of the masjid serving as the social center of the community. Masajid here serve only one purpose – prayer. In America, they fulfill multiple objectives – spiritual, social, political, and educational.

Whereas in Baltimore, I would regularly see my friends at the masjid every other night or so (and at worst, every week at Juma’a), here in Riyadh, months can go by before I see a brother who lives merely a few miles away, simply because he attends a masjid walking distance from his home. There’s no two-birds-with-one-stone approach of going to pray and also seeing the brothers. If I want to see anybody, I have to organize a separate social activity, which is simply too time consuming.

But most of all, I miss the volunteering aspect of the Muslim community in America.

I miss shoveling snow off the Masjid sidewalk.
I miss cleaning the bathrooms.
I miss serving food at community dinners.
I miss teaching at the Sunday School.
I miss cleaning up after Iftar dinners.
I miss working with the youth groups.
I miss rolling out the carpets for Juma’a.
I miss selling tickets for fundraising dinners.
I miss collecting donations.
I miss organizing car parking arrangements for Eid.
I miss the high of carrying out said parking plan to perfection.
I miss the exhaustion felt after executing a successful summer festival.
I miss selling balloons after the Eid prayer.
I miss mowing the lawn of the Masjid.
I miss calling up parents to remind them of the next Muslim Kids Club trip.
I miss all the sweat and blood that went into building a thriving Muslim community.

And I am pained at the thought of not exposing my own children to these most beautiful opportunities to serve their Lord. If ever there were a reason for me to go back to the US, the Muslim community and all that it offers would be it.

I am convinced that too many of us living in industrialized nations have lost sight of what it truly means to have trust in our Sustainer. With our guaranteed salaries and medical insurance and pension plans, our lives are meticulously laid out to safeguard against every possible curve ball thrown our way.

We have assured ourselves that our Rizq (sustenance), present and future, will come primarily from our own efforts. The more we struggle and strive, the more we shall accomplish and achieve. Sure, our belief system dictates that everything comes from Allah (swt), but our attitudes expose our hypocrisy.

Our provisions are not coming from Allah (swt), but from our paychecks.
Our medical services are not provided by Allah (swt), but by our health care provider.
Our homes and automobiles are not protected by Allah (swt), but by our insurance companies.
We feel secure since protection is provided by the police force and fire department.
We needn’t worry about losing our credit cards as the companies have policies protecting against fraud and theft.

And with everything guaranteed, insured, and protected, where has Allah (swt) gone in our daily lives?

Don’t get me wrong. None of what I mentioned is inherently wrong. They are merely ways we implement the Prophetic advice to ‘tie the camel’. But the problem arises when we become so consumed with securing the camel that we build a fence around it, install a camera system, and hire a security force.

Where did the second part of the famous Prophet guidance go (‘and trust in Allah’)?

We are so busy with establishing safety nets and emergency funds that we have forgotten the more essential principle of Trust in Allah. These devices are desperate measures created by a desperate civilization that has lost all ties with its Creator and Sustainer.

Yet, we are falling in full step behind them, mimicking their every act, in creating a lifestyle safe and secure from the randomness of Divine ‘interference’.

So instead of expending our energies towards higher goals and objectives, we have become infatuated with tying down the proverbial camel.

Modern society dictates that not only must we provide for today and tomorrow, but we must engage all our energies into securing next year and the year after. Not only must we strive to provide for our family’s basic necessities, but we must save up for college funds, expensive weddings, and retirement costs.

Allah (swt) will not provide, our actions scream. Our 401(K) will.

And with our trust in our Creator withering away, we feel a greater urgency to incessantly pursue our Rizq - all the while forgetting that our Rizq is actually running after us.

“And how many a living creature is there that takes no thought of its own sustenance; God provides for it as [He provides] for you - since He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing.” (29:60)

“And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God” (11:6)

Let us focus our efforts towards that which matters and leave our sustenance to the One who has sustained everything in this world since its inception.

Allow me to share a tale that nicely captures the essence of our sustenance and how, regardless of what we do, it runs after us:

In a remote village, a young man was asked by his gentle elderly mother to eat his breakfast before leaving home. Bursting with energy and in a rush to begin his day, he declined and scurried off on his way. Being the caring mother she was, she quickly ordered her young daughter to follow after the boy with the plate of food to ensure he ate it. Said the loving mother, ‘Do not let him see you, lest he reject it again. Simply leave the food nearby, so when he becomes hungry, he will eat it at his leisure.’

The sister surreptitiously followed her elder sibling through the forest all the way to the local river, where she watched as her brother jumped in for a morning swim. After he got out, he stretched out under a nearby tree and proceeded to take a nap. Figuring he would be hungry after his nap, she laid the plate of food some distance away from the tree and returned home, certain that her brother would eventually find his breakfast.

Coincidentally, a group of no-good hooligans were convening nearby and discussing plans for their next act of thievery. While arguing back and forth, the gang leader smelled the scent of fresh food and followed it back to the same plate. Desperate for a home-cooked meal , the lot of them eagerly decided to share the food amongst themselves, until the leader paused and reflected. He shared his concern that the plate could potentially be a devious plot concocted by a rival gang.

‘The food may contain poison’, he grumbled. ‘Scout around and see if you find one of them spying on us.’

They ran about looking for anyone hiding away, until they came upon the young man sleeping under the tree.

They immediately pounced upon him and carried him back to their leader, who ferociously demanded the boy confess to setting up the poisonous plate of food. The young man repeatedly denied it until the leader decided it best to ‘test’ the food by force-feeding the hapless lad.

They made him eat every last morsel and eagerly awaited for the poison to kick in. Soon thereafter, they realized that nothing of the sort would occur and so dejectedly beat the boy one last time and went on their way.

The boy limped his way home and upon seeing his bruised face, his mother shrieked, ‘What happened my son?!’

With half a smile, he admitted, ‘Dear mother, my Lord had decreed my sustenance in the form of your hearty breakfast. One way or another I was destined to eat it. I declined the choice to eat it by your blessed hands, so Allah willed for me to eat it by the punches and kicks of those less savory.'

Most of you have heard about the latest audio release by Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki (the audio and a response). In the past few years, many of those in the West who found immense inspiration in his audio series on the Lives of the Prophets, the life of Abu Bakr, and the Hereafter have become disillusioned with his transformation to a revolutionary supporter of Jihad.

One of the common arguments used against Awlaki is that he once espoused universalist messages of Islam (“Islam is peace”, “Muslims are against terrorism”, etc.) and then (after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq), he transformed into the exact opposite. The argument continues that such a revolution of thought is a sign of instability and misguidance.

Regardless of where you may stand on his views, there is one point that we should all agree upon – an evolution of thought does not always indicate a deficient understanding of the truth.

Similar arguments are made against Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who took a somewhat inverted approach to Awlaki’s journey, going from a firebrand speaker, calling on Muslims in the West to disassociate themselves from the wayward mores of Western society, to an assimilationist, preaching a more tolerant message of Islam in the West.

I find many people negatively critical of individuals who go through intellectual renovations. The implication being that those persons who consistently stick to the same worldview have a more solid base and represent a more balanced frame of mind.

Nonsense.

These same people refuse to study and analyze thoughts and teachings espoused by anyone outside their outlook, fearful of diluting their ‘intellectual purity’. They claim that guidance can only come from their ‘authentic’ scholars and unabashedly reject all others as deviant.

The irony is that these folks are actually the ones on weak foundations since they’re too afraid to be intellectually challenged by foreign ideas.

Imam Ghazali is the most famous example of intellectual evolution, going from a more exoteric life as an Islamic judge (Qadi) to a more esoteric life of Ihsan and spiritual excellence. In the process, he embraced the challenges posed by other methodologies, such as contemporary philosophy (Falsafa) and extreme theology (Bataniyya, Mutazila).

Personally, I’ve never shied from reading works by authors outside my personal point of view. And in the process, I’ve come to adjust and reinvent my outlook, while always keeping my foundation fixed firmly on the fundamental principles of Islam.

Sure, some of my colleagues have been critical of my intellectual ebbs and flows but I personally find myself stronger in my convictions after having challenged them against countering ideas.

Not sure why so many people are afraid/critical of the maturation process of one's personal thought. I guess it's easier to stand behind the cover of select scholars, blindly regurgitating their words than to withstand the barrage of intellectual arrows in the battlefield of ideas.

My friend Marc Manley responded to my recent post on the scourge of Secular Capitalist Islam for which I’m greatly honored. Its always nice to get critical feedback, whether in the form of comments on my blog, emails in my Inbox, or dedicated blog posts.

So I will respond to his response in kind – with a post of my own.

I will begin with a clarification, one that I feel is a bit unnecessary. I made overarching generalizations in my original post. I realize that. But it should have been clear that everything I stated is applicable to those cases where the ‘shoe fits’.

I am completely aware of the existence of American Muslims who are NOT giving in to the secular capitalistic way of life and are NOT willing to sacrifice any Islamic principles in the molding of their American Muslim identity. They have not deceived themselves into believing in the validity of the Secular Capitalist Islam that I spoke of so critically. They are not the target of my critique.

Did I really need to explicitly state that? I guess so.

Now, let me address the contentions of the good brother, beginning with his comparison of American Islam in its infancy to the growing pains that Muslims must have gone through in ‘traditional’ Muslim outlets such as Egypt, Morocco, or Pakistan.

“It is very easy and convenient to think of Egypt as a Muslim country now, but what was Egypt’s transition like, from a non-Muslim polity to a Muslim one? What struggles did Egypt have to go through to negotiate this transformation? Even to this day, there are folk holidays still in practice such as Shams an-Nasim.”

In my original post, I alluded to this point when I stated that “[American Islam] is NOT Islamic with simply an American twist, like what may be found in China or Indonesia or Africa – those instances of Islam were never born in such a hostile environment (to Islam in specific and religion in general), necessitating great conciliatory gestures from its followers”.

I am convinced that when Islam was introduced in the cases that I mentioned as well as Marc’s examples it was a completely different experience than what we are witnessing in America. The power politics were simply not the same, which makes the comparison between then and now as day and night.

Historically, Muslims never entered into a land except as victors. They never suffered from inferiority complexes. They rode into those lands with their heads high and their core values even higher. The indigenous non-Muslim masses were scrambling to adopt the ways of the Muslims in order to “jump on the bandwagon” of the winning side.

Need I ask, who is jumping on whose bandwagon nowadays?

And in those rare cases, where they were not the conquering force (e.g. Indonesia), they were not entering a hostile environment, where their beliefs were being demonized and their traditions were being belittled. Theirs was a pre-modern time where principled religious beliefs were celebrated and embraced, in stark contrast to the current-day atmosphere which finds an anti-religion secular worldview proudly boasted in America.

In such challenging circumstances, where not only Islam, but religion in general is under attack, how can American Islam be nurtured and allowed to blossom *on its own terms*? In such a charged environment, where American Muslims are told to choose a side, how can American Islam genuinely develop its own character? It is naïve to remove the political context from the equation when analyzing the introduction of Islam into new lands.

The other point that Marc brought up was the typical counter-argument presented whenever Muslims in America are criticized – “Well, look at the Muslims in [choose any Muslim country]. They’re even worse than us!”

Living here in Riyadh, I’ll be the first to admit that crass consumerism has hit the shores of Saudi Arabia in a disgusting way. And sadly, this is the case all over the Muslim world. Muslims are falling over each other to talk, walk, dress, and act like their Hollywood heroes. The ‘tradition’ of the West, as glorified in the media and the web, is being replicated all over the Muslim world.

But the key difference is that Muslims in these lands are not sacrificing their Islamic identity in pursuit of this hollow lifestyle. As repulsive as it may be to see Muslims opting for gaudy Bentleys and Guccis, jet-setting in Europe, and clubbing in Dubai, no one is attempting to incorporate these social mores into a new flavor of Islam.

And that is my greatest fear – an Islam that has taken such conciliatory steps in order to assimilate with its adopted culture that it has sacrificed core Islamic principles.

Yes, all the illnesses found in American Muslims are becoming apparent in Muslims around the world. But these other Muslims are not in the formative stage of their Islamic identity, this most critical stage in the development of a child, a people, or a civilization. These other Muslims have centuries of Islamic tradition to fall back on, when faced with a philosophical crisis. These other Muslims have Islamic institutions built on principles of truth, not compromise. These other Muslims never had to concern themselves with conflicting loyalties between their adopted nation and their deen.

What of the American Muslims?

As I was coming into my personal Islamic awareness many years ago, I was convinced that the light of Islam would reignite itself from within America, similar to how Prophet Musa (as) was raised and reared in the house of Pharoah. Back then, I viewed the Muslim world as backwards and in need of serious guidance – which American Muslims, stripped of cultural baggage and historical hiccups, would readily provide them.

But recently, I’ve begun to feel serious disillusionment with this entire “American Islam”* project.

Maybe it’s all the desperate talk of Islam being compatible with western democracy, which is in actuality a crooked corporatocracy.

Maybe it’s the post 9-11 lulling that saw so many Muslims tone down their stance against American's secular hedonistic ways and imperialistic aspirations out of fear of sounding unpatriotic.

Maybe it’s the unfounded need by American Muslims (under immense pressure from MSM and the American military industry) to constantly denounce terrorism and the unfortunate extension of this condemnation to now include Islamists, who, although having never partaken in acts of terrorism, have nonetheless incurred their wrath.

Maybe it’s the convenient acceptance by many American Muslims of principles of gender relations as understood by Western society, relegating centuries of Islamic tradition on the role of men and women to history’s dustbin.

Maybe it’s the glaring dilution of the Islamic concept of Jihad, or worse, its deliberate suppression altogether.

Maybe it’s the callous attitude of American Muslims striving for the American dream while participating in a system that is ravaging the entire world, politically, militarily, economically, and environmentally.

Maybe it’s the unquestioning adoption of capitalistic maxims which finds American Muslims enslaved by their struggles for better jobs, bigger homes, and nicer cars – all the while claiming to be adhering to the Sunnah of our Prophet (saw).

Whatever it is that’s causing my unease, my dear brother Yursil captured my feelings quite well with his recent posts on Suburban Capitalist Islam (Part 1 and Part 2). While he didn’t address all my grievances, he did well to introduce a long list of oddities found in American Islam.

I particularly like his characterization of American Muslims as naively accepting of their adopted culture, as long as it doesn’t outwardly contradict any Islamic teaching. This includes the whole McDonalds, blue jeans, and Hollywood outlook of American culture. The widely accepted view is that American Islam can be formulated by simply weeding out the haram components of American culture and freely embracing what remains.

The problem is that the ethos of these remains is not Islamic.

The result is not American Islam, but a twisted version that I prefer to call Secular Capitalist Islam (taken from Yursil's term 'Suburban Capitalist Islam'). This Islam is primarily American, with an Islamic veneer, not the other way around. It is NOT Islamic with simply an American twist, like what may be found in China or Indonesia or Africa – those instances of Islam were never born in such a hostile environment (to Islam in specific and religion in general), necessitating great conciliatory gestures from its followers:

Change can only come about by way of assimilation and integration - otherwise, we will be deemed foreigners, anarchists, or terrorists.
The interest-based banking system is too entrenched to be questioned – the best we can do is minimize our exposure.
The educational system is our fast-track to success, regardless of any negative socio-intellectual repercussions.
Mixing politics with religion is taboo.
Scaling the corporate ladder is the only way to prosperity.
Gluttonously living beyond our means is completely acceptable.
All technological advances must be blindly embraced, regardless of socio-spiritual impact.
All forms of entertainment (adapted to Islamic mores, of course) are a necessary release from the pressures accumulated in daily life - this includes movies, music, sports, vacations, etc.
Environmentalism is about reducing our ecological footprint, not reducing our consumption.

These are the views underlying Secular Capitalist Islam, the core of which is fundamentally at odds with the Quranic worldview. And no amount of window dressing can alter this reality.

Just like most everything else in American culture, we’ve opted for the drive-thru version of actualizing Islam in America. Our instant recipe consists of slapping on a hijab or growing a beard, implementing the personal acts of worship, meekly presenting Islam to our friends and coworkers, and attending feel-good weekend Islamic programs, all the while diving headfirst into the American way of life.

And yes, I am aware of the American Muslim mantra that we have greater religious freedom in the West than our counterparts in the Muslim world. That may be true. And if it is, it makes the sin of Secular Capitalist Islam even more egregious. For instead of using this freedom to become moral leaders in the West and challenge the status quo, American Muslims have chosen passivity and integration, fearful of the repercussions of speaking out.

Where is the sacrifice that is inherent in the declaration of Tauheed and rejection of Taghut?

Where is the sacrifice that is inherent in the proclamation of love for the Prophet (saw)?

Sadly, Secular Capitalist Islam has replaced these sacred endeavors with the very profane struggle for the American dream.

In part 2, I want to discuss the legacy our children will be inheriting from us, the founding fathers of Secular Capitalist Islam.
==================

*I place the term in quotes because I’m not comfortable with creating varying flavors of Islam, but since the term is commonly used by so many American Muslims, I’ve stuck with it.