320 Years of History
Gold Member
In your opinion:
- What are the primary reasons Muslims have been largely unsuccessful in establishing within the minds of most Americans that diversity of religiosity and practice exists among Muslims just as it does among Christians and Jews? Why has nobody overcome these obstacles?
I found it astounding that the misconceptions have not been displaced because Americans are, in general, receptive to (gullible for) pretty much anything that's marketed to them. I mean really...Americans made millionaires of the folks who "invented"/marketed utter absurdities such as decorated rocks as pets (pet rocks), bug infested seeds as entertainment (jumping beans), DIY communication with supernatural forces/beings (Ouija boards), and weeds as household plants (chia pet).
- Why has there not been a major push to establish a contextually accurate understanding of Islam among Americans that makes clear to them that Islam simply cannot be considered in the same way one examines Christianity and its adherents? For example:
- Conceptualising Muslim faith as an inherent monolithic bloc. To most Americans, Islamic religiosity appears to be a one-dimensional construct in ways similar to how one considers self-identified Christians and how they practice their faith. To that end, many Americans may be inclined/willing to assess a Muslim's devotion (extremism in some cases) based on single aspects of expressed Muslim religiosity, e.g. mere belief in Allah, fasting at Ramadan, or surprisingly and myopically, for some, simply one's self-identification as Muslim.
- Bases for measuring Christian religiosity are often simply translated into Islamic terminology. For instance: “Only those who believe in the Prophet Mohammad can go to heaven”. The original wording of the item developed by Glock to measure Christian religious belief is as follows: “Belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour is absolutely necessary for salvation”. However, unlike Jesus, Mohammad has no divine status. He is seen as a role model for Muslims rather than as somebody to be believed in. In fact, orthodox Muslims are opposed to celebrating Mohammad’s birthday because they perceive such an act as a form of polytheism. In short, a simple translation of indicators from the respective items of other religions can lead to measurement problems and to false interpretations of results.
- Another example is the use of mosque attendance or membership of a mosque as an indicator for piety in the same way that church attendance is used in the case of Christian religiosity. It is typically thought among American Christians that church attendance is a good indicator for Christian religiosity. Here, religiosity coincides with church attendance. However, in Muslim piety, mosque attendance has a genuinely different role.
First, it remains highly linked to gender. It is mostly men who go to a mosque, e.g. for the Friday prayer. Second, mosque attendance is not an inherent part of Muslim piety as such. A pious Muslim is connected with Allah in a direct way and does not need the mosque or the Imam as an agent intermediary. Therefore, the mosque has a genuinely different role from that of the church. Furthermore, membership of a mosque is not compulsory as it is in the case of Christianity. Most Muslims, even very pious Muslims, are not formal members of a mosque. - A further problem that stems from the translation of items from other religious cultures is that results are often interpreted within the framework of Christian or Western concepts of religiosity. One example that illustrates this problem is the common misinterpretation of a central finding that can be found in many studies: Pointing to the strong and stable belief in Allah that is found consistently for the great majority of Muslims Islam is presumed to suffer from religious stagnation which is often interpreted as a lack of social progress and secularization. Moreover, ample Americans are wont to inaccurately interpret agreement on the part of Muslims with central aspects of Islam as an endorsement of orthodoxy.
In Western approaches, orthodoxy is often thought of as the extent to which the traditional supernatural doctrines are acknowledged. However, this is not true in the case of Islamic religiosity. In contrast, being faithful is self-evident and natural within the Muslim population. This can be considered to hold true almost universally and represents an aspect shared by the great majority of Muslims. Secular Muslims as well as very pious Muslims can show the same degree of Islamic belief but may differ concerning other aspects of Muslim religiosity. Therefore, we are unlikely to find much variance when using indicators like the belief in Allah. However, a history of consistently strong belief in Allah does not mean that religious dynamics within Islam are absent. The focus on and expectation of familiar processes well known to exist in Christianity obstruct the view on other dynamics and variation that go beyond a traditional Christian outlook.
- A fourth problem is the use of indicators measuring more than Muslim religiosity. Many items are in fact political in nature and can be traced back to a growing interest in political Islam and Islamism. For instance, the attitude toward the morality of Western societies could be interesting as a possible correlate of Muslim religiosity, but should not form an integral part of measuring religiosity. Such an approach leads to a mix of several aspects somehow associated with Islam that fails to measure Muslim religiosity systematically based on a theoretical framework.
Some might wonder what pragmatic relevance exists for the above question and illustrations. For those folks, I'll offer the most easily grasped correlate: the semantics of "radical Islamic terrorism." If it be that blowing up things and shooting people be considered radical behavior, that the actor be Islamic is not terribly relevant. If instead the behavior be causally attributable to "radical Muslim/Islamist" beliefs, it becomes necessary to understand whether and how the nature and extent of Muslims' devotion varies so that we can implement equitably the proscriptions/protections to counter the "radical Islamists" behavior.
It is thus essential to make it clear, somehow, to Americans in general (a great many of whom have never met a Muslim and fewer still of whom have never ventured outside the U.S., much less to a Muslim country) that a highly religious, greatly orthodox, Muslim need not at all be a "radical Muslim." Muslims must successfully make the case that just as there are Christians who hold the exact same theological beliefs as the Orange Volunteers, Aryan Nation, or the Christian Identity Movement but who would never undertake in the name of God the same deeds as do members of those groups, so too are there Muslims (most of them in fact) who don't cotton to ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda's, etc. practices, even though they share the same theological beliefs and are no less committed to/servants of God.
It is thus essential to make it clear, somehow, to Americans in general (a great many of whom have never met a Muslim and fewer still of whom have never ventured outside the U.S., much less to a Muslim country) that a highly religious, greatly orthodox, Muslim need not at all be a "radical Muslim." Muslims must successfully make the case that just as there are Christians who hold the exact same theological beliefs as the Orange Volunteers, Aryan Nation, or the Christian Identity Movement but who would never undertake in the name of God the same deeds as do members of those groups, so too are there Muslims (most of them in fact) who don't cotton to ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda's, etc. practices, even though they share the same theological beliefs and are no less committed to/servants of God.
