does the term “muslim american” make a …
does the term “muslim american” make any sense? opinions? i realized today that i usually see references to “american catholics” or “american evangelicals” more than the reverse. it seems that the term “american catholic” is brackets various ethnicities united by faith, and on the same page on that score but not necessarily on others. so in some northeastern cities italians tended to be republican precisely because the democratic machine was controlled by the irish. the ethnicization of islam in some countries makes sense; e.g., the connection between malay identity & islam in malaysia. but it seems more likely to confound and confuse than clarify in the american context.
abunoor, 
razib and 4 others are discussing.
Len 2:59 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
So you mean “Muslim American” as opposed to “American Muslim”?
I think Muslims would prefer to put the former label on themselves because it defines them as Muslim first…something about where their priorities lie. I get the vibe that if one says that he or she is an American Muslim, other Muslims automatically assume that their faith is watered down somehow (“ooooo you want to Americanize Islam, tsk tsk”).
Tariq Nelson 3:08 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
I find that “Muslim-American” is generally used as a euphemism for a Pakistani-American and (sometimes) Muslim Arab-Americans. It is definitely an ethnic term. This ethnicization allows the race card to be played while increasing numbers and influence.
All of this essentially means that a person like me is not a “Muslim-American” but an American Muslim. I personally despise the term
I agree
Tariq Nelson 3:11 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Another reason that “Muslim-American” does not work in my opinion is because there is not one Muslim community. There are many Muslims communities each with a social milieu of its own
razib 3:18 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Pakistani-American and (sometimes) Muslim Arab-Americans.
interesting you say that. in the early 2000s there was an episode of talk of the nation on asian americans, and a pakistani american called in and said “i’m not an asian american, i’m a muslim american.” similarly, i believe our own ali e. has used the term.
i’ve heard the term “jewish american,” but
1) 95% of american jews are from a ashkenazi background. IOW, the same eastern european culture, despite differences between galicians and litvaks.
2) “jewish american” kind of sounds weird too.
but the question isn’t just a semantic one. as len alludes to some people put their “religion first” in a way that de-ethnicizes. but when i went to a nowruz celebration last year the iranians there were obviously united by a shared iranian american culture (e.g., plastic surgery) which transcended religious differences (the people bringing poodles suggested that many of the people there weren’t observant muslims, as well as the fact that only a few women were wearing a hijab). but the majority were surely from a shia background and probably identified as muslims.
razib 3:34 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
here’s a question: is religious identity sufficient for all aspects of communal life? for example, jewish life in the united states is embedded in a historically contingent matrix which can be traced back to the shtetl of eastern europe. jews don’t eat what they eat because of halakah (though they don’t eat something things because of it). this is evident in the variety of food in the diaspora. even hasidic jews dress in a manner that is modeled on 17th century polish nobility (the patrons of jews at the time).
i think this is a problem for some evangelicals who wish to recreate a ‘primitive’ christianity which is totally ahistorical and outside culture. ultimately it is just not possible to tear christianity away from its history if you want a fully fleshed out community. so if a ‘muslim american’ idenity is going to develop, it seems that there will be things which are not in the scriptures and hadiths that are grafted onto it. i.e., cuisine, dress, recreation, etc.
Tariq Nelson 3:44 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Ali wrote an article a week or so ago about how Pakistani-Americans prefer to be called just a “Muslim” (or “Muslim-American”). I rarely see anyone referred to as a Pakistani-American, but see “Muslim-American” all the time.
I think it is (along with being a vehicle to increased numbers and influence) a way to claim pop culture/sports figures. A black Muslim is rarely referred to as a “Muslim-American” and when it is, it is almost certainly someone famous. At that point is becomes useful because using that term allows them to claim figures like Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul Jabbar almost as ethnic brethren.
It would seem odd to randomly mentioning Muhammad Ali in an article otherwise about “Pakistani-Americans”. However it would not seem so odd when one is using the term “Muslim-American” in the exact same article otherwise about a Pakistani-American community.
So the implications change entirely.
There are no Pakistani-Americans in the NBA or NFL but one can find several “Muslim-Americans” in both.
Pakistani-Americans go back to around the early 1900′s while “Muslim-Americans” go back some 300-400 years.
There are a lot of famous “Muslim-American” rappers, but no “Pakistani-American” ones.
The fact is that there is very little social overlap between the two communities is obscured by this term, and using this term as a euphemism for Pakistani-Americans gives a dishonest (albeit unintentional) picture.
Tariq Nelson 4:12 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
And that is why it will not be possible unless said “Muslim-American” identity is synonymous to an ethnicity (in this case Pakistani-Americans)
I also wanted to mention that this is not just about black Muslims. You likewise rarely hear Somalis, Turks, Iranians, Bosnians or West Africans referred to as “Muslim-Americans”
abunoor 4:52 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
It’s certainly possible I’m missing something, but I think this whole discussion is just people repeating again certain views they have about Muslims in America and trying to fit it into the framework of this label issue, but I don’t really see it AT ALL.
First of all, Tariq, Imam WD’s community uses the term Muslim-American ALL THE TIME. Check out any edition of Muslim Journal.
His organization was at one time called the Muslim American Society. He also was involved in other organizations that sometimes put American first like American Muslim Mission, but seriously, if you read The Muslim Journal or just go to the website of something like the Atlanta Masjid you will see that that community likes the term Muslim-American.
I have heard many discussions about this terminology issue, but I can’t even tell what a term is supposed to mean. I mean some may say American Muslim is putting “American” first but someone else could argue that’s putting Muslim as the main identifier and “American” is just an adjective. But someone else could argue, Yeah, it’s saying that there’s an American Muslim or an American Islam which is different from Orthodox Islam or Muslims in other countries.
Tariq, I think your notion that no one uses the term Pakistani-American comes because most Pakistanis you would know would be religious. Plenty of more secular minded Pakistani-American individuals and organizations would prefer the term Pakistani-American over Muslim-American. It is largely, though not exclusively, a measure of putting religion over ethnicity which should be a good thing from a Muslim point of view.
The culture issues are important but I think trying to link them with these terminology issues is not at all helpful.
Tariq, almost all communities are going to have subcultures…do you think there is one unified Jewish-American culture or community or American Catholic community? But there may be a few shared touchstones and some general spaces that would be recognizable to large percentages of Jewish Americans. Similarly with Catholic Americans and Muslim Americans or American Muslims.
I personally am uncomfortable with either term, to be honest, but that’s because I’m confused by what they are supposed to mean in terms of our political relationship with “America” and with the larger “Muslim” ummah. But no doubt there are things which make Muslims in America generally different than Muslims in Europe or Muslims in Africa or Muslims in Asia or Muslims in the Middle East. Of course there are also vast differences among Muslims in Africa, Muslims in Asia, Muslims in the Middle East and yes among Muslims in America.
abunoor 5:03 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Tariq (and others) Do you think Pakistanis who have grown up in the U.S. have the same culture as Pakistanis in Pakistan? It is definitely true among religious and activist Muslims that they would share more culturally with others in that religious-activist milieu (whether Arab, Desi, Blackamerican, or even Irish-American
) than with others who may share their same ethnicity but not the centrality of religious identity in their lives along with the American cultural reality. The intersection of these forces has already, is now, and will continue to create a common cultural space for religious Muslims in America that is outside of any one ethnicity. Now, many people may be outside of this shared space…for these people I don’t have enough experience to speaculate on how these issues affect them, but I will say that those people outside of this shared culture are not interested in calling themselves Muslim American so that they can “claim” Mos Def or Shareef Abdur-Rahim.
razib 5:05 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
do you think there is one unified Jewish-American culture or community or American Catholic community?
there’s a quantitative difference here. american judaism derived specifically from the historical experience and development of east-central european jews. modern american jews are the descendants of these people, by and large. there are small exceptions outside of this, e.g., the syrian jews of brooklyn, who are very different. even though hasidic jews are a different subculture from reform jews, they inhabit the same semantic universe. i.e., they exist in some part as a reaction and opposition to each other.
in contrast, catholics are a very different case. italian, irish, latin america, german and french catholics in the USA come from parallel cultural streams. they bring very different issues to the table, from italian catholicism’s tension with anti-clericalism among its immigrant flock to the irish catholic identity of irishness with roman catholicism against the protestant british.
it seems empirically muslims are more like catholics. but in some of the stuff you see it seems like they’re being treated like jews.
razib 5:16 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
than with others who may share their same ethnicity but not the centrality of religious identity in their lives along with the American cultural reality. The intersection of these forces has already, is now, and will continue to create a common cultural space for religious Muslims in America that is outside of any one ethnicity
this is probably true. the confusion then will be that “muslim american” can be
1) someone who is grounded in islam as their communal hinge, just like someone who has member of church X socializes with others of that church through their life.
2) others who are religiously muslim in identity, but have a plurality of civic social associations. think of iranians who are observant muslims, but still involved in pan-iranian activities and associations which include secular, jewish and bahai iranian americans.
3) then there are ppl like aziz who are part of a religious sect which is operationally also an ethnicity (gujarati).
abunoor 5:25 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
No doubt there are many differences including the one you mentioned Razib. There are also just a lot more Catholics in the US and in the world than there are Jews. It also cannot be denied that immigrating to the US at the time when the vast majority of Catholics and Jews did, was a different experience in some ways than immigrating to the US of today where multiculturalism is much more highly valued.
But I wasn’t really trying to go there with my point, I was making the point that even among a group like Jewish Americans, a relatively small group that has a relatively shared history ethnically, there still are great differences and many subcultures (region of the country, socio-economic level, religious practice/denominations, politics etc.) so I’m just pushing back on what I see as Tariq’s contention that because there are differences between different Muslim groups there’s therefore no such thing as a shared Muslim American culture.
But I should say once again that I’m much more confident pushing back on certain notions I disagree with in these areas than affirmatively stating my own point. I find most discussions of “culture” to be either superficial and relatively unimportant (food, dress, terminology/jargon issues) or when they get more substantive to be elusive and hard to pin down. Maybe it’s because I’ve never studied Sociology or Anthropology seriously. Maybe it’s because I have a deep aversion to the standard discussion of these issues for a variety of complex reasons.
abunoor 5:34 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
I agree with you here Aziz, but won’t this be a relatively short lived phenomenon? By the third generation, won’t attachments to ethnic identity be pretty superficial?
People may still belong to certain cultural or professional associations in the way that Irish or Italians or Polish might be today but to I think by the third generation meaningfully saying they are part of a separate “culture” will be pretty unlikely, in fact I think one of the only ways to possibly avert this in some ways is to maintain a strong religious identity — but one of the things about those who develop a strong religious identity in a multicultural environment like the U.S. is that identity often becomes asserted in opposition to the “cultural” practices of grandparents/parents. I would actually say that I’m more interested in trying to pass along some elements of Pakistani culture to my children than my wife (who was born in Pakistan) is.
abunoor 5:40 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Of course, regardless of which or whether either of us were interested in passing along such traditions, it’s become pretty obvious to me that such a task is basically impossible in a mixed marriage, and I’m not sure how much easier it would be even if my wife had married a Pakistani. Which is why I’m so confident about my assertions that by the third generation the separate ethnic identities will be so watered down as to be not that meaningful.
Of course, I’m sure Tariq’s assertions here would be that the exception to these are the Black/non-Black racial divide and class divides. I think to the extent that those are true, those are issues beyond the Muslim community, not issues created by the Muslim community.
abunoor 5:42 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
I’m sorry, I meant Razib, not Aziz. (All you desis look the same to me) No, really, the comment I was replying to ended by mentioning Aziz, so that’s why I typed that.
razib 5:43 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
By the third generation, won’t attachments to ethnic identity be pretty superficial?
i think this is valid point. by “third generation” is still sometime in the future. transients are not trivial
additionally, there used to be a joke that there is “no such thing as a third generation reform jew.” but they’re still around, in large part because of consistent defection from more “conservative” sects with higher birthrates.
from what i have read there is one way that ethnic catholicism persists: residential segregation or ethnic “neighborhoods.” muslims don’t have the numbers right now for this to be a big issue, so i find the model of
1) post-ethnic religious
2) mostly mainstream with a fleck of flavor
plausible.
I was making the point that even among a group like Jewish Americans, a relatively small group that has a relatively shared history ethnically, there still are great differences and many subcultures
yeah, like galicians vs. litvaks, or german jews vs. those from poland. but these are real differences, but trivial compared to the chasm between italian and irish catholics. therefore an ethnic coherency of muslims seems totally implausible. a religious coherency is a different matter.
abunoor 5:56 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Razib,
Yeah, I was going to mention the idea of the segregated urban environment as a means of slowing the assimilation process, but I would say two things: I think this only slowed the process a little, it by no means ended it, and I think the US in general is a different country now and ethnic segregation, unlike racial segregation simply does not persist at all passed the first immigrant generation.
Another interesting factor to look at is the role discrimination plays in these issues. I would argue that anti-Catholic discrimination (or at least widespread prejudice) in the larger society also helped maintain the ethnic Catholic identities. One of the largest facilitators of this was of course the Catholic school system.
According to Wikipedia, at its height in 1965 nearly half of Catholic children (five million students) attended privately funded Catholic schools outside of the public school system. Even for poor immigrant Catholic communities, maintaining a separate educational system where they could be free from discrimination and instill Catholic identity was a priority for the Catholics of that time. Such schools were often dominated by one ethnic group, as were Catholic parishes. One sees similar ethnic phenomenon in Muslim schools but of course Muslims have not made a separate school system the same priority as Catholics did. Is this because Muslims are more focused on economic success? Is it because there is less perceived discrimination today?
razib 6:52 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Is this because Muslims are more focused on economic success? Is it because there is less perceived discrimination today?
the “public school system” was developed in the united states in large part to assimilate catholic immigrants. the catholic school system arose in part as a reaction to beatings of catholic children who refused to read from the king james version of the bible in the 1840s.
your point about discrimination is important. but, i think it is even more true of jews, whose intermarriage rates from around 10% to 50% in the generation between 1960 and 1990. catholics also had positive pressures, as in priests who refused to marry a catholic to a non-catholic (marriage is a sacrament), or insisted that children by raised catholic as a precondition to marriage. much of this changed after vatican II (church attendance plummeted after skipping out was no longer a moral sin or whatever).
Tariq Nelson 6:57 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
Yes, one of many terms they used – like “Bilalian”. However, they don’t use “Muslim-American” as an ethnicity like I see it being used in the past 4-5 years. Operationally and culturally one can often see very little difference between a Muslim in WD’s community and a non-Muslim black American. And WD’s community is also comprised of individuals who one could describe as black Americans that happen to be Muslim. I don’t mean any of that as an insult as many of them would describe themselves that way. Point is that they did not mean it to separate themselves from black non-Muslims.
In the past few years, when the media and most people use “Muslim-American”, they are usually writing/talking about someone of Pakistani descent. When talking about black American Muslims, they will usually qualify that they are black and not “Muslim-American”.
That could be. I don’t know many Pakistanis that are not religious (in that they at least pray and attend the masjid once a week)
Of course not. Although there are some things in the US that people identify as very “Jewish”. What would a “Muslim-American” version of Seinfeld look like for example? The various Catholic groups often identify with their ethnicity exclusively and happen to be Catholic. They are Irish, Latino/Hispanic, or Italian for example. Their Catholicism comes as part of their culture. I haven’t seen Catholics try to define themselves as an pseudo-ethnicity. I have yet to see the term “Catholic-American” used.
The differences between Muslims in the US is much wider and there is much less overlap between them. (The Gallop report even exposed the gap in SES) Further, you can go into one masjid that only speaks urdu for example and see little to no non-urdu speakers there. They have their own thoughts, concerns, and way of doing things. On the other hand, you can go across town and see an almost totally black masjid. Travel to another area and see one that is almost totally Egyptian. Yes, there is some overlap, but not that much – outside of religion. Yes, you will find “mixed” masjids, but even within such a masjid, usually (as with the ethnic masjids) each group will largely marry and socialize within their group. This is why I see several distinct social milieus forming and don’t see any gelling any time in the near future. Especially since you have a steady supply of immigrants coming in and preventing any such melding.
Of course not. It looks to be a hybrid of the two (Pakistani and American). This is not unlike other groups (regardless of religion).
Yes, but they are the minority. Even in some religious groups it still divides by ethnicity. Black American Salafis are largely with other black American Salafis; Desi Salafis are largely with other Desi Salafis; Arab Salafis are largely with other Arab Salafis and so on. The only truly multi-ethnic group I have seen (I know there are others) is the group that you are associated with (IMAN). I think you will agree that groups like this are the exception. By “truly”, I mean that they intermarry with each other and are genuinely friends and it is not just a random guy hanging around with a bunch of Arabs or Pakistanis or what have you.
Culture differences is one of the main causes of splits in masjids. Taking ALL the groups into consideration, I don’t see any shared “Muslim-American” culture – outside of religion. I have met some very nice Muslims from all cultures, but we just had nothing in common outside of praying next to each other and sharing an occasional meal at iftar at the masjid. It is not necessarily racism or anything like that. It is just that there is nothing else there in many cases. Things just seem to inevitably break down to ethnicity in most cases. And I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that.
Tariq Nelson 7:22 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
But don’t you think that they will continue to marry largely amongst themselves? I would think that they would because their social networks are still formed around their ethnicity that they would still marry amongst themselves. So while their tie to the old country may become severed and they will not speak urdu (or whatever language) but a new identity and culture will likely form. I don’t see how it would lead to gelling with other Muslim cultures
Yes, the Black/non-black divide is something I see happening irrespective of religion. The Muslims would likely just follow the rest of society. IF (and that is a big if in my opinion) there was any gelling of cultures, the blacks would be left out of it – with the exception of those of higher SES
thabet 7:36 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
AE actually lamented the demise of ethnic identities.
razib 7:50 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
But don’t you think that they will continue to marry largely amongst themselves?
but how “largely.”? indian americans born or raised in the USA have outmarriage rates of 45% or so. those who are immigrants have outmarriage rates of 10%. the fertility for this group isn’t high, so iterate 45% outmarriage rates per generation, and poof, pure-bloods disappear!
AE actually lamented the demise of ethnic identities.
yeah. i think he’s said different things at different times. i just recall at one point he said something to the effect that he identified more as a muslim american than a desi/brown american. or mebee it was pakistani? i know that he is hardcore into being punjabi do, so he’s pretty granular.
PI.info 8:02 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
A few comments:
I find that “Muslim-American” is generally used as a euphemism for a Pakistani-American
From memory, Ali Eratez, in the article someone referenced high in this thread, talked about how Pakistan has existed only since 1947, so national identity has a still-weak claim on self-identification.
I have yet to see the term “Catholic-American” used.
Usage now is “US Catholics,” as in this article. Expect to see more references to “US Muslims.”
It’s valuable and important to have a single term with which to refer to the US Muslim communities, because we do have interests in common, such as 1) Battling Islamophobia and enemy formation against Muslims, and 2) Taking ownership of and responsibility for self-policing the entire community to avoid any more outbursts such as that which happened on 9/11. Besides being evil, every part of the US Muslim community suffered blowback from that.
Tariq Nelson 8:17 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
You have any numbers on how many of them are women? It is a pretty good bet that the women out marry at greater rates than the men. However we are talking about Hindus here. Muslim women are under more social pressure to marry a Muslim man – more specifically a man of her own ethnicity as interracial marriage is still pretty much taboo in the Muslim community.
These Indian women are mostly marrying white men. My guess is that if the out marriage rates of Muslim Pakistani-American women reach the rates of Indian-Americans then many of the grooms will similarly not be Muslim (and white)
skevin 9:39 pm on March 3, 2009 Permalink |
First, “American Catholic” is almost a trademark for a publisher of hymnals:
http://www.americancatholicpress.org/
In the late nineteenth century, the Catholic hierarchy regarded “Americanism” as a heresy. Pope Leo XIII promulgated an encyclical about this on January 22, 1899:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
Wiki background here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testem_Benevolentiae_Nostrae
After 1899, American Catholic children were strongly encouraged to attend parochial schools and required to memorize answers from the Baltimore Catechism:
http://www.catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Part1/
However, I went to a Catholic high school in the late sixties and a Catholic college in the seventies. Both were exuberantly liberal. I fear that like Leo, Wojtyla and Ratzinger have done great harm to the American Catholic church.
I pray for the day when “American Muslim” and “American Catholic” both mean “non-literalist”.
razib 12:50 am on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
You have any numbers on how many of them are women?
no sex imbalance
http://www.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml
abunoor 8:41 am on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
Tariq,
I agree with a good amount of what you say…I guess I just don’t see the Muslim-American as an ethnic phenomenon being used by Pakistanis to coopt Blackamerican Muslim athletes or hip hoppers part. Yes, among the religious younger generation there might be this tendency but I think this is something to which they are usually encouraged by well meaning community leaders who want to break down racial barriers…but you’re right sometimes it happens more artificially than really.
And finally, I have to admit that although I try to get around to different venues and keep up with different aspects of the Muslim community my own personal experience with IMAN and with my own wife’s family probably distort my own perceptions. It is definitely true that when I go outside of IMAN to larger groups of immigrant Muslims, although I sense the younger generation is largely influenced by American culture and let’s face it American youth culture is heavily linked with Blackamerican culture, there is still something quite artificial and jarring about the way in which many young Muslims who aren’t Black think and talk about Blackamericans including Blackamerican Muslims.
Wow, you’re really kind of depressing me Tariq…I think you’ve said before that we probably agree more than it might seem from our discussions at times..I think you’re right but I just have real problems with some of the culture talk and other things because I see it as having certain political assumptions and purposes which I don’t share…But Allaah knows best…inshAllaah actually this discussion has caused me to reflect on a lot of things which kind of gnaw at me from time to time but I usually push out of my mind.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:13 am on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
One more point Tariq,
It would be like a sitcom version of Azhar Usman and Preacher Moss’ “Allah Made Me Funny” tour.
They do material that sometimes focuses on the particularities of subgroups of Muslims but almost always they are particularities that anyone who’s been around different Muslims would recognize, even if they are not of that particular group.
But this also reflects precisely my original point — to think that all or most American Jews live pretty much like the secular New York lifestyle of Seinfeld would be pretty off base.
Tariq Nelson 10:19 am on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
Abu Noor,
I certainly don’t mean to depress anyone here. A lot of what I observe are not things I necessarily agree with, but I just call it as I see it. Further, I will only hurt myself and my children if I deal with the world in terms of wishful thinking and/or denial.
Tell me about it. It is similar to how suburban white kids view blacks. But this is part of what I have been alluding to. Some of these young non-black Muslims seem to think that every black American Muslim can either rap, play basketball or is a “super da’ee”. I think that may be because their experiences with black Muslims are limited to a Native Deen concert or listening to Siraj Wahhaj speak. I mean if you go to a fund raising dinner, the only blacks present are usually on the program.
You just don’t meet that many younger generation Muslims who have a nuanced understanding of other ethnicities. Rami Nashashibi is a rare exception.
Tariq Nelson 10:23 am on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
That is true, but my point is that there is not as wide of a cultural gap.
My other point is that it would be more accurate to describe Pakistani-American nuances (and so on) as such and not as archetypal Muslim
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 11:37 am on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
Exactly what I am struck by when I’m around younger Muslim guys. They are so quintessentially suburban in their attitudes…which is part of why I don’t see them as being essentially “Arab” or “Pakistani” or “Indian.”
It’s depressing to me not because I think you’re trying to depress anyone but because it leads to the impression that someone like me who has no ethnic community of Muslims like himself has to either choose to live in a Blackamerican milieu or a Suburban Pakistani or Suburbuan Arab milieu.
The idea that I can’t combine between and move between all of those environments is what is depressing. (But I don’t completely buy this…the choices are not denial or acceptance…we always have the choice as to how to react to situations. Yes, we should do so in the context of reality, but we make our own choices, and we can with the help and permission of Allaah, work to change reality…In fact as the well known hadith indicates it is absolutely our responsibility to do so.
What I don’t accept AT ALL is the implication that if I live in the inner city and pray with predominantly Blackamericans, eating the same food and wearing similar clothing, that I am somehow adopting “Blackamerican” culture. This is silly. Nor do I accept that if I wear Shalwar Kameez or a thobe and eat shawerma and hummos, I am somehow adopting “Arab” culture. This is especially true since I am just as likely to see brothers wearing thobes and keffiyahs at the innercity Blackamerican masjid as I am at the Arab suburban masjid. I am also much more likely to be wearing Shalwar Kameez than are any of my wifes relatives who are from Pakistan. Part of this is in itself the reality of the culture of Muslims in America.
You do see mixing of all these cultural groups among Muslims in America and I think it will definitely continue.
As I’ve mentioned above, I basically agree with this point, and in no way would I deny the uniqueness of Rami. However, I think we should keep front and center the class aspects of this analysis. Although for the most part, these aren’t the kind of people who are going to end up leading Muslim organizations and large percentages of them have their own extreme limitations in their knowledge and practice of Islam, there are populations of “immigrant” Muslims who spend a lot more time around Blackamericans than does your average white American. There are store owners and workers, there are public school teachers, there are doctors and other health professionals who literally spend most of their time in Blackamerican and Latino dominated neighborhoods and environments. In the past especially there were many Muslim kids who grow up in these environments, though that may be lessening now, as the population of Arab immigrants especially suburbanizes.
Tariq Nelson 1:08 pm on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
First, let me say that if a person wants to adopt aspects of another culture then that is their prerogative. My problem in the past with this phenomenon was not that a person ate hummus or wore a thobe. It was that some people imply that this makes one more authentically Muslim in some way.
On the other hand, Shalwar Khameez is a Pakistani/Desi item of clothing and I don’t see how one can argue otherwise – perhaps I am missing something in your argument. Now if the Muslims in America developed some sort of clothing particular to America, then that would be another story.
Most Muslims who wear a thobe, etc (regardless of ethnicity) usually do so with the aim of clearly distinguish themselves as Muslims.
abunoor 1:45 pm on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
On one level, these issues are just silly Tariq. Guess what, I’ve never liked wearing jeans…did that make me someone who wasn’t a real American? Culture is more complex than that and this is something that I don’t understand why people have such a hard time understanding. Depending on the context, what a person does means different things. Also, although this was always the case over the long term, we live in a time and place where culture and cultural symbols are shifting constantly at a high rate of speed.
And most importantly, culture is not something static or something where there are right and wrong answers. There is no high commissioner of culture that can say the authentic Blackamerican style of dress is flashy three piece suits or baggy jeans and sports jerseys, or conservative suits with bow ties. Culture is created by people who start doing something and it starts creating a meaning to others. Wearing a thobe and a keffiyah in the inner city if someone is Black or Irish signals to other people that you are a certain kind of Muslim — it does not signal to others that you are trying to be Arab. I’ve known and been someone who dressed like that for fifteen years and I haven’t been confused for an Arab nor was I ever trying to be an Arab and nor were the Blackamerican Muslims I knew who dressed similarly trying to be Arab or ever confused for Arabs either.
Wearing a suit and bow tie with close cropped hair meant something different in the Blackamerican community before the NOI turned it into a statement that someone about religion, about militancy, and about conservative social values. Some cultural Black nationalist could have spent their time whining that the NOI was “trying to be white” or “trying to be nerdy” by how they dressed but they would have been wasting their breath.
This is exactly what I’m saying, what it means to wear a thobe or to wear shalwar kameez or to wear keffiyeh in our time and place is SOMETHING WE DETERMINE. No one can come from the outside and say, actually you may think you’re communicating to the world that you are Muslim and people in your community may take it that way, but actually I’m hear to tell all you people that you’re just trying to be Arab.
Tracing the history of culture may be interesting, just like tracing the etymology of a word may be interesting but it DOES NOT DETERMINE ITS MEANING. Usage determines meaning.
abunoor 1:57 pm on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
But Tariq, we already are. I wear Shalwar Kameez regularly at work when I am not in court. Obviously some people know that this style of clothes is associated with the subcontinent and some people don’t. Some people know that my wife is Pakistani and some people don’t. But if you ask anyone who’s worked with me for ten years, Why does that Irish guy wear those funny clothes and that thing (kufi or topi) on his head all the time? Nobody would say “because he’s trying to be Desi or he’s trying to Pakistani,” they would say “Because he’s Muslim.” Now, I understand that you and others who get on this issue don’t want people to think that the only authentic way to be Muslim is this or that but similarly I don’t think you can come in between the cultural communication that’s going on between me and the people I work with and say y’know actually those are not Muslim clothes…those are only Pakistani clothes..and he’s actually adopting a Pakistani culture (which would be silly to say)….the meaning that is being communicated is already established and it would be the one coming from the outside who would be misunderstanding.
Perhaps the point that you and others are trying to make is to separate culture from Islamic Law…that’s fine, good and important. I’m with you on that…but the people who think Muslims in America need to create culture should be exactly the ones championing such cross cultural phenomenon not the ones trying to deny or discourage it. Which some Muslims are trying to do because they fear the countercultural understanding many Muslims in the US have of Islam. But that’s a separate issue, although I think it is the more interesting one that usually gets covered up by superficial discussions of dress/culture/etc.
Tariq Nelson 2:57 pm on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
Abu Noor,
Again, I do not care how a person dresses. I am not discouraging anyone from dressing any way they please. I was only pointing out the origin of that particular dress. My only point in the past about this (now, I quite frankly don’t care either way) has been that because a person is or is not wearing a particular clothing does not make him/her more or less Muslim.
As you mentioned, there are Pakistanis that do not wear Shalwar Khameez. I will go a step further. There are some that despise it and refuse to wear it. (Ditto with Arabs with thobes) for the very reason that some may get the impression that you must wear those articles of clothing.
Tariq Nelson 2:59 pm on March 4, 2009 Permalink |
Can you expound on that (perhaps in a new post)? I want to catch what you are getting at