What is it about law and religion that embroils jurists and theologians in deep, sometimes acrimonious discussions that critics say deliver less than was promised? Well, for one, they both make progress without making discoveries. Their aim, in other words, is rarely to unearth the unknown in their particular vocations, but rather, to focus on that which is familiar, and yet escapes notice. And that is not entirely an exercise in futility! To quote Wittgenstein, throwing a different light on the familiar, has epistemic value as well, if only because, “the aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity”. (One is unable to notice something – because it is always before one’s eyes). The other similarity that law and religion share, and upon which I will focus more attention—with particular reference to Islam—is that they are both in their own ways quite traditional.​

​Some have called Cornel West’s scathing critique of Barack Obama petty, while others—including some in the Muslim community—argue that America would be better off without four more years of Barack Obama. Which is not to say that either West or disgruntled pockets within the Muslim community prefer Romney over Obama, but only that his less than progressive politics, they believe, would do little to alter the status quo. So, what changed?

​A most insidious impediment to a dignified existence for Muslims in America is the basic misunderstanding of the truism that Islam and secularism are mutually exclusive.  Inasmuch as America is a “secular democracy,” many non-Muslims insist that no religion that positions itself as the polar opposite of the secular should be allowed to play a meaningful role in determining the country’s direction.  In fact, in their view, allowing Muslims to influence public debate risks undermining the country’s secular order.  Meanwhile, many Muslims quietly share aspects of this perspective, even if for practical reasons they come to a different set of conclusions.  They too see an inherent contradiction between Islam and the secular, as a result of which they view participation in American public life almost as a necessary evil, to be indulged only out of a sense of duress, sort of like eating swine to ward off starvation.

​The phrase “American Muslim Split Personality” concerns a double standard in our behavior. It is not unique to us, the American Muslim, nor is it a new issue.  The wives of prophets Nuh [Noah] and Lut [Lot] lived by double standards; and so did one of the sons of Nuh.

I have named it the “double standard game.” It can be divided into two categories: nifaq al-‘amal, hypocrisy of deed or action and nifaq al-i’tiqad, hypocrisy of belief. We are concerned with the former only. The latter is the hypocrisy that leads to the fire: those who are insincere concerning their belief in the shahadah. Praise be to Allah we are not guilty of this, and I am, categorically, not implying this for us.

In recent years, the idea of Shariah compliance has taken firm root in the business world and been applied in multiple spheres; everything from Shariah-compliant mortgages to Shariah-compliant hedge funds are growing increasingly popular. The Economist dubbed the phenomenon “sharianomics.”

Today, as Islamic financing grows exponentially because many more Muslims are mindful of the Shariah aspects of financial transactions, I would like to remind them that there is an often ignored social justice aspect to such financing as well. As Dr. Kavilash Chawla points out in his article “Islamic Venture Philanthropy” ;Business Islamica, June 20071, as the world tilts away from state power towards corporate power, the ability of public institutions and aid organizations to address poverty across the world grows weaker. Because of this tilt, the private financial sector is being called upon increasingly to do more to alleviate the suffering of the poor: I believe that Islamic financing is uniquely positioned to do just that, but only if it broadens its application of the Shariah.​

By Dr. Sherman Jackson
(Published in  Ascent Magazine Vol 2. Issue 1&2)
​
I. INTRODUCTION
“Islam is a religion of peace.” This is certainly the mantra that has inundated us from almost every quarter since the horrifying events of September 11, 2001. From President George W. Bush to local, national and even international Muslim spokespersons, the peaceful nature of Islam has been reiterated time and again. Of course, this has not gone unchallenged. Skeptics, polemicists, even opportunists of various stripes, have repeatedly warned against accepting too uncritically what they hint at being a “new-found, politically correct” depiction of a religion that includes, inter alia, a scripturally mandated institution of armed violence and a holy book that exhorts its adherents, at least on the face of it, to “slay ‘them’ wherever you find them.”[1] Today, close to a year after the tragedy, emotions and rhetoric on both sides have subsided a bit. But there is still a suspicion among many Americans-including many Muslim Americans-when it comes to the question of Islam, violence, and the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Covering Islam and Muslims in America by Dr. Sherman Jackson

Muslims in America are locked into a hidden battle over who will get to decide what Islam means in the modern world. Keynote speaker Sherman Jackson, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan and a specialist in Islamic law and theology, discussed the history behind this predicament, and what it means for media coverage of Islam in the United States. Jackson began by defining Muslims in America as an amalgamation of ethnicities, races, classes, and histories – all of which are only loosely bound by their common commitment to basic religious and theological postulates. There exists an ongoing exchange about what that means and how that will affect Muslims’ search for a dignified existence in America. Jackson said that Islam’s authority crisis is exacerbated in the United States because groups are competing for the authority to define and speak for Muslims in America.

​That material prosperity and religious belief are intertwined would seem to have been an abiding leitmotif of most major faiths and ideologies. One prophetic tradition, for instance, presents this very idea, thus: “if poverty is left unchecked, then it may well lead to disbelief!” And when Marx calls religion “the sigh of the oppressed, the heart of the heartless, the soul of the soulless, and the opium of the people”, he too makes the link, albeit for altogether different reasons. And then there’ s Weber’s ‘Protestant work ethic” which, according to him, is how Christian Europe turned work into dogma, and how, some say, the West got so far ahead of the rest.

Now comes empirical research to corroborate these views in ways that give religion in general an all new resonance in an otherwise secular world; and perhaps for Islam, in particular, an all new role in the economic lives of its adherents. A recent survey conducted by the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom found that the weaker the economic conditions of a country the more intolerant its religious policies are likely to be—and vice versa. Thus, countries with poor economic records like Burma, Iraq, Bangladesh, Mauritania, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Vietnam, etc., also happen to have equally poor human rights records. Citizens of such countries are denied the right to live out their consciences, believe as they see fit, and practice their faiths in harmony with the national good. Not all countries admittedly fit this profile: some, like Saudi Arabia have relatively sound economies with high levels of religiosity—but with poor human rights records. This, researchers stress, is not proof that such a mix works, but rather, that economic performance in this case is quite unrelated to internal modes of production.

​The passing of Imam W.D. Mohammed, may God have mercy upon him and grant him Paradise, has brought the Blackamerican Muslim community face to face with a reality that it has been more comfortable with ignoring than coming to terms with. Imam Mohammed’s death has signaled the end of the era of charismatic leadership in which the rank and file can look to a single leader to settle all major questions and chart the Community’s course for the future. Rather than being decided by a single voice, that future will have to be negotiated by the collective understandings and perspectives of the Community’s learned. This implies, of course, general agreement on who is learned and what the rules of engagement are. If the criterion is set too high, it will marginalize valuable voices and confirm an already widespread distrust of religious knowledge and those who claim to represent it. If it is set too low, it will open the Community to the ravages and abuses of those who think that the role of religion is to sanction their and or the dominant culture’s every undisciplined whim and passion.

In the years leading up to his death, Imam Mohammed strove mightily and with great farsightedness to empower his Community to carve out a dignified existence for themselves, to transition to what I have referred to as the “Third Resurrection,” whereby, individually and collectively, the Community is able to negotiate American reality in light of the Qur’an and Sunna. For the most part, however, the Imam had to go it alone, with few contributions from Blackamerican Muslim scholars outside his own movement.