American Muslim Organizations Research Articles

The Use and Misuse of Zakāh Funds by Religious Institutions in North America

Despite being a foundational practice in Islam, deeply rooted in law and reflected in the theological and spiritual concepts of wealth and sustenance (rizq), discussions of applying obligatory alms (zakāh) rulings to majority non-Muslim countries are limited. The Muslim’s spiritual attitude toward finances is informed by a theological view that all forms of wealth ultimately belong to God. Sunni Muslim theologians define rizq to be what one actually (not potentially) consumes and benefits from (not possesses), which, alongside plentiful verses and Prophetic traditions, continuously motivate philanthropic giving without fearing scarcity. This article aims to investigate some major issues resulting from the unregulated procedures of zakāh collection and disbursement as practiced by North American Muslim organizations and religious leaders. The article (1) doctrinally analyzes how North American practices diverge from the rules of Islamic law (fiqh) regarding zakāh distribution, (2) examines the ramifications of contemporary Eastern–Western legal opinions (fatāwā) expanding the eligibility of charitable institutions to receive zakāh, and (3) investigates the practices of administering zakāh resources.

Responses of US-based Muslim organizations to being stereotyped as ‘terrorists’

ABSTRACT The stereotype literature views responses of a subordinated group to stereotypes as a unified attempt to counter the control and domination of its identity. Complexities that exist within the unified response of the subordinated group have drawn less attention. Using a qualitative content analysis of text-based data (newspapers, legal documents, press releases, scholarly works), the paper examines responses of two American Muslim organizations to the terrorism stereotype. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a representative of the American Muslim mainstream majority and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a representative of ‘moderate’ Muslims have been consistently denouncing terrorism in all its forms. The unified response, voiced in the denouncement of terrorism, is explained through the depersonalization hypothesis of self-categorization theory, suggesting that an increase in saliency of the Muslim identity predicts greater perceived homogeneity of the group. Yet, beyond this unified response, there are profound differences in these organizations’ views, positions, and tactics toward combating the terrorism stereotype. Such variations depend on the perceived legitimacy of the source of negative stereotypes. Future research should study other stereotypical traits associated with Muslims in the US, to identify the existence of complex internal dynamics within various Muslim groups countering negative stereotypes.

Juliane Hammer, Peaceful Families: American Muslim Efforts Against Domestic Violence

American Religion 1, no. 2 (Spring 2020), pp. 145–147 Copyright © 2020, The Trustees of Indiana University • doi: 10.2979/amerreli.1.2.17 Book Review Juliane Hammer, Peaceful Families: American Muslim Efforts Against Domestic Violence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019) Merin Shobhana Xavier Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada Juliane Hammer’s new book, Peaceful Families: American Muslim Efforts Against Domestic Violence, employs various methods of data collection, including ethnography, semi-structured interviews, and media analysis, to discuss domestic violence (DV) in America, while centering the advocacy and policy work of American Muslim organizations against domestic violence. The first chapter situates the central story that catalyzed this project, and that is of Aasiya Zubair, whose brutal death at the hands of her husband received wide media attention in America. Zubair’s narrative is contrasted to Mildred Muhammad, an African-American Muslim woman and the ex-wife of the infamous John Allen Muhammad (the DC sniper) (whose story is unpacked further in chapter two) whose troubled relationship with her ex-husband did not elicit the same media attention as Zubair’s, likely due to her racialized identity. In centering the stories of these varyingly racialized Muslim women, Hammer questions the role that honor, in the context of culture, plays in some Muslim communities, while also critiquing how American media’s anti-Muslim sentiments implicated the ways these women’s stories were consumed by a popular audience. Having raised these central queries, chapter three shifts the analysis to consider the role of domestic violence awareness through education amongst Muslim American Religion 1:2 146 communities, particularly in terms of the resources and services that are made available. Chapter four further develops the need for education around domestic violence, while chapter five examines the work of American Muslim male prayer leaders (imams) and their efforts against domestic violence, especially in the context of mosques. Chapter six surveys some of the services that are available to Muslim victims and the survivors of domestic violence, such as FAITH (Foundation for Appropriate and Immediate Temporary Help) and Peaceful Families. This chapter utilizes the author’s interview material to create vignettes of individual service providers and advocates, be they Muslim woman lawyers or counselors, who have created organizations that support battered women across America. For instance, it provides some field note reflections of Hammer’s visit to a Muslim women’s group home, where she participated in group counseling and took part in a meal and prayers. Here the need for having a specific Muslim women -only group home that addresses the cultural and religious needs of Muslim women is highlighted. DV-support systems that serve Muslim victims are important resources, however their focus on Muslim clientele means that they are not eligible to receive funding from the federal and state level, because the services provided are not publicly available to non-Muslims. As such, many of the noted organizations that serve Muslim women are dependent on funding and patronage from Muslim communities and individual patrons. Yet, such support remains an issue, as some of the same communities have a difficult time acknowledging the existence of domestic violence and abuse as a problem. Further, even in the context of interfaith -based anti-DV organizations, Hammer found instances (i.e., workshops) that maintained racist or bigoted perceptions of Islam. Islam was treated as a unique threat to anti-DV work; much of this is because, as Hammer writes, “Muslims, as advocates, providers, and victims, are never disconnected from negative perceptions of their religion and communities, and are even affected by them if they themselves do not foreground being Muslims as their defining identity” (222). One of the consistent themes that appears throughout the study is the praxis of Qur’anic verse 4:34, and the challenge it poses to the idea of an Islam, at least scripturally, that is against domestic violence and abuse. Here the responses by Muslims, religious leaders, and anti-DV advocates and providers indicate how they navigate the realities of gender justice and equity and/or egalitarianism differently. For instance, Hammer found that many of her interlocutors constructed notions of “protective” or “benevolent patriarchy,” where some believed it is because of the God...

Conflict prevention and peace-building efforts by American Muslim organizations following September 11

With the war against terrorism and increased attention on the Muslim world, this article analyzes ways Muslims in the United States understand their roles as Americans in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and in peacemaking. The assimilation and integration of American Muslims has effectively enabled the flourishing of dozens of national and regional organizations to work in areas of civil rights, human rights, interfaith dialogue, education, charity, public diplomacy, political activism, and other religious and secular activities. Despite the post 9/11 scrutiny of the American Muslim community, American Muslim groups have devised sophisticated grassroots campaigns on counter-terrorism, anti-extremist ideology, and methods in conflict prevention with various law enforcement authorities.

Power or Ideology

Power or Ideology

Power or Ideology

Power or Ideology

Moderate Islam

The Debate
 Question 1: Various commentators have frequently invoked the importance of moderate Muslims and the role that they can play in fighting extremism in the Muslim world. But it is not clear who is a moderate Muslim. The recent cancellation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the United States, the raids on several American Muslim organizations, and the near marginalization of mainstream American Muslims in North America pose the following question: If moderate Muslims are critical to an American victory in the war on terror, then why does the American government frequently take steps that undermine moderate Muslims? Perhaps there is a lack of clarity about who the moderate Muslims are. In your view, who are these moderate Muslims and what are their beliefs and politics?
 AUJ: The promotion of “moderate” Muslims is part of an extremist tendency sweeping the United States, unlike the situation in the Muslim world. It is the result of a war between two Americas: the America of ideals (e.g., of equality and justice) and the America of extremism, which has succumbed to self-interest groups and individuals. For the America of ideals, the Tariq Ramadan episode is a dark spot, one among many such episodes in recent times. Periodic episodes of tragedy are the hallmark of the America that has shifted its priorities under the pressure and manipulation of the extremists. These forces use all expedient means to sacrifice the wellbeing of the United States for self-interest and promotion of the Zionist state. This extremism entails a morbid dread of Islam. It never regards any Muslim as moderate unless one publicly rejects the Qur’an as “the final manifesto of God,”1 considering this belief a “disturbing cornerstone of Islam,”2 and submitting to the rejection of key parts of the Qur’an.3 Unquestioning support for Israel, along with all other American-approved dictatorships, is the minimum criterion.4 All other factors are irrelevant. The fascistic American track record of accepting “moderates” and rejecting “radicals” is clear.5 The final distinction is not defined by their adherence to Islam, but by the assumed threat they pose to the interests of these extremists. For example, a devout man, fervent in all of his personal rituals but not participating in political affairs, would be a “moderate,” whereas a marginally practicing Muslim with the zeal to voice his opposition to the injustice perpetrated by the extremists’America is classified as a “radical.” In the current political context, a moderate is one who is passive like the devout man, or active like the extremist “moderates” – the Muslim neomods – who openly promote the extremist agenda using Islamic interpretations or “Project Ijthihad”6 as a cover. Hence, the distinction is not academic or religious, but political. Two opposing factors prove this point. First, there are clear commands for Muslims to be moderate by default.7 Moderateness is a prerequisite for all Muslims, not a label of identity for some. Accordingly, Muslims cannot be part-time or partial Muslims (Qur’an 2:208) or reject part of the Qur’an (Qur’an 2:85).8 Hence, such religious labelling is irrelevant. Second, the extremists insist that strong belief in the totality of the Qur’an makes Muslims “Islamists.”9 That is why they believe themselves to be “absolutely at war with the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.”10 It means that the standards of “moderateness,” as set by the American extremists, are directed at neutralizing a preconceived threat. Under these circumstances, mere claims of being a “moderate” do not make any difference at all, as long as a Muslim is presented as a threat, however baseless, to the interests of extremist America. Similarly, the so-called extremism in the Muslim world is not the result of Muslims’faith. Rather, it is a function of the perpetually colonized and oppressed people due to the lack of true independence and a central authority to control and productively channel their energies. It is naïve to suggest that a few ill-informed “moderate” individuals or puppet regimes can emulate the abilities of an entire central authority (i.e., the Islamic state) and effect progress and positive meaningful change.

Islamic Democracy and Moderate Muslims

Islamic Democracy and Moderate Muslims

Moderate Muslims

Moderate Muslims

Moderate Islam

The Debate
 Question 1: Various commentators have frequently invoked the importance of moderate Muslims and the role that they can play in fighting extremism in the Muslim world. But it is not clear who is a moderate Muslim. The recent cancellation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the United States, the raids on several American Muslim organizations, and the near marginalization of mainstream American Muslims in North America pose the following question: If moderate Muslims are critical to an American victory in the war on terror, then why does the American government frequently take steps that undermine moderate Muslims? Perhaps there is a lack of clarity about who the moderate Muslims are. In your view, who are these moderate Muslims and what are their beliefs and politics?
 AUJ: The promotion of “moderate” Muslims is part of an extremist tendency sweeping the United States, unlike the situation in the Muslim world. It is the result of a war between two Americas: the America of ideals (e.g., of equality and justice) and the America of extremism, which has succumbed to self-interest groups and individuals. For the America of ideals, the Tariq Ramadan episode is a dark spot, one among many such episodes in recent times. Periodic episodes of tragedy are the hallmark of the America that has shifted its priorities under the pressure and manipulation of the extremists. These forces use all expedient means to sacrifice the wellbeing of the United States for self-interest and promotion of the Zionist state. This extremism entails a morbid dread of Islam. It never regards any Muslim as moderate unless one publicly rejects the Qur’an as “the final manifesto of God,”1 considering this belief a “disturbing cornerstone of Islam,”2 and submitting to the rejection of key parts of the Qur’an.3 Unquestioning support for Israel, along with all other American-approved dictatorships, is the minimum criterion.4 All other factors are irrelevant. The fascistic American track record of accepting “moderates” and rejecting “radicals” is clear.5 The final distinction is not defined by their adherence to Islam, but by the assumed threat they pose to the interests of these extremists. For example, a devout man, fervent in all of his personal rituals but not participating in political affairs, would be a “moderate,” whereas a marginally practicing Muslim with the zeal to voice his opposition to the injustice perpetrated by the extremists’America is classified as a “radical.” In the current political context, a moderate is one who is passive like the devout man, or active like the extremist “moderates” – the Muslim neomods – who openly promote the extremist agenda using Islamic interpretations or “Project Ijthihad”6 as a cover. Hence, the distinction is not academic or religious, but political. Two opposing factors prove this point. First, there are clear commands for Muslims to be moderate by default.7 Moderateness is a prerequisite for all Muslims, not a label of identity for some. Accordingly, Muslims cannot be part-time or partial Muslims (Qur’an 2:208) or reject part of the Qur’an (Qur’an 2:85).8 Hence, such religious labelling is irrelevant. Second, the extremists insist that strong belief in the totality of the Qur’an makes Muslims “Islamists.”9 That is why they believe themselves to be “absolutely at war with the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.”10 It means that the standards of “moderateness,” as set by the American extremists, are directed at neutralizing a preconceived threat. Under these circumstances, mere claims of being a “moderate” do not make any difference at all, as long as a Muslim is presented as a threat, however baseless, to the interests of extremist America. Similarly, the so-called extremism in the Muslim world is not the result of Muslims’faith. Rather, it is a function of the perpetually colonized and oppressed people due to the lack of true independence and a central authority to control and productively channel their energies. It is naïve to suggest that a few ill-informed “moderate” individuals or puppet regimes can emulate the abilities of an entire central authority (i.e., the Islamic state) and effect progress and positive meaningful change.

Moderate Muslims

Moderate Muslims

Islamic Democracy and Moderate Muslims

Islamic Democracy and Moderate Muslims

Freedom and Security

The DebateQuestion 1: Various commentators have frequently invoked the importance of moderate Muslims and the role that they can play in fighting extremism in the Muslim world. But it is not clear who is a moderate Muslim. The recent cancellation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the United States, the raids on several American Muslim organizations, and the near marginalization of mainstream American Muslims in North America pose the following question: If moderate Muslims are critical to an American victory in the war on terror, then why does the American government frequently take steps that undermine moderate Muslims? Perhaps there is a lack of clarity about who the moderate Muslims are. In your view, who are these moderate Muslims and what are their beliefs and politics?
 GEF: Who is a moderate Muslim? That depends on whom you ask and what that person’s (or government’s) agenda is. Moderate is also a quite relative term, understood differently by different people. For our purposes here, let’s examine two basically different approaches to this question: an American view and a Middle Eastern view of what characterizes a moderate Muslim. Most non-Muslims would probably define a moderate Muslim as anyone who believes in democracy, tolerance, a non-violent approach to politics, and equitable treatment of women at the legal and social levels. Today, the American government functionally adds several more criteria: Amoderate Muslim is one who does not oppose the country’s strategic and geopolitical ambitions in the world, who accepts American interests and preferences within the world order, who believes that Islam has no role in politics, and who avoids any confrontation – even political – with Israel. There are deep internal contradictions and warring priorities within the American approach to the Muslim world. While democratization and “freedom” is the Bush administration’s self-proclaimed global ideological goal, the reality is that American demands for security and the war against terror take priority over the democratization agenda every time. Democratization becomes a punishment visited upon American enemies rather than a gift bestowed upon friends. Friendly tyrants take priority over those less cooperative moderate and democratic Muslims who do not acquiesce to the American agenda in the Muslim world. Within the United States itself, the immense domestic power of hardline pro-Likud lobbies and the Israel-firsters set the agenda on virtually all discourse concerning the Muslim world and Israel. This group has generally succeeded in excluding from the public dialogue most Muslim (or even non-Muslim) voices that are at all critical of Israel’s policies. This de facto litmus test raises dramatically the threshold for those who might represent an acceptable moderate Muslim interlocutor. The reality is that there is hardly a single prominent figure in the Muslim world who has not at some point voiced anger at Israeli policies against the Palestinians and who has not expressed ambivalence toward armed resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Thus, few Muslim leaders enjoying public legitimacy in the Muslim world can meet this criterion these days in order to gain entry to the United States to participate in policy discussions. In short, moderate Muslimis subject to an unrealistic litmus test regarding views on Israel that functionally excludes the great majority of serious voices representative of genuine Muslim thinkers in the Middle East who are potential interlocutors. There is no reason to believe that this political framework will change in the United States anytime soon. In my view, a moderate Muslim is one who is open to the idea of evolutionary change through history in the understanding and practice of Islam, one who shuns literalism and selectivism in the understanding of sacred texts. Amoderate would reject the idea that any one group or individual has a monopoly on defining Islam and would seek to emphasize common ground with other faiths, rather than accentuate the differences. Amoderate would try to seek within Islam the roots of those political and social values that are broadly consonant with most of the general values of the rest of the contemporary world. A moderate Muslim would not reject the validity of other faiths. Against the realities of the contemporary Middle East, a moderate Muslim would broadly eschew violence as a means of settling political issues, but still might not condemn all aspects of political violence against state authorities who occupy Muslim lands by force – such as Russia in Chechnya, the Israeli state in the Palestine, or even American occupation forces in Iraq. Yet even here, in principle, a moderate must reject attacks against civilians, women, and children in any struggle for national liberation. Moderates would be open to cooperation with the West and the United States, but not at the expense of their own independence and sovereignty.

Freedom and Security

The DebateQuestion 1: Various commentators have frequently invoked the importance of moderate Muslims and the role that they can play in fighting extremism in the Muslim world. But it is not clear who is a moderate Muslim. The recent cancellation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the United States, the raids on several American Muslim organizations, and the near marginalization of mainstream American Muslims in North America pose the following question: If moderate Muslims are critical to an American victory in the war on terror, then why does the American government frequently take steps that undermine moderate Muslims? Perhaps there is a lack of clarity about who the moderate Muslims are. In your view, who are these moderate Muslims and what are their beliefs and politics?
 GEF: Who is a moderate Muslim? That depends on whom you ask and what that person’s (or government’s) agenda is. Moderate is also a quite relative term, understood differently by different people. For our purposes here, let’s examine two basically different approaches to this question: an American view and a Middle Eastern view of what characterizes a moderate Muslim. Most non-Muslims would probably define a moderate Muslim as anyone who believes in democracy, tolerance, a non-violent approach to politics, and equitable treatment of women at the legal and social levels. Today, the American government functionally adds several more criteria: Amoderate Muslim is one who does not oppose the country’s strategic and geopolitical ambitions in the world, who accepts American interests and preferences within the world order, who believes that Islam has no role in politics, and who avoids any confrontation – even political – with Israel. There are deep internal contradictions and warring priorities within the American approach to the Muslim world. While democratization and “freedom” is the Bush administration’s self-proclaimed global ideological goal, the reality is that American demands for security and the war against terror take priority over the democratization agenda every time. Democratization becomes a punishment visited upon American enemies rather than a gift bestowed upon friends. Friendly tyrants take priority over those less cooperative moderate and democratic Muslims who do not acquiesce to the American agenda in the Muslim world. Within the United States itself, the immense domestic power of hardline pro-Likud lobbies and the Israel-firsters set the agenda on virtually all discourse concerning the Muslim world and Israel. This group has generally succeeded in excluding from the public dialogue most Muslim (or even non-Muslim) voices that are at all critical of Israel’s policies. This de facto litmus test raises dramatically the threshold for those who might represent an acceptable moderate Muslim interlocutor. The reality is that there is hardly a single prominent figure in the Muslim world who has not at some point voiced anger at Israeli policies against the Palestinians and who has not expressed ambivalence toward armed resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Thus, few Muslim leaders enjoying public legitimacy in the Muslim world can meet this criterion these days in order to gain entry to the United States to participate in policy discussions. In short, moderate Muslimis subject to an unrealistic litmus test regarding views on Israel that functionally excludes the great majority of serious voices representative of genuine Muslim thinkers in the Middle East who are potential interlocutors. There is no reason to believe that this political framework will change in the United States anytime soon. In my view, a moderate Muslim is one who is open to the idea of evolutionary change through history in the understanding and practice of Islam, one who shuns literalism and selectivism in the understanding of sacred texts. Amoderate would reject the idea that any one group or individual has a monopoly on defining Islam and would seek to emphasize common ground with other faiths, rather than accentuate the differences. Amoderate would try to seek within Islam the roots of those political and social values that are broadly consonant with most of the general values of the rest of the contemporary world. A moderate Muslim would not reject the validity of other faiths. Against the realities of the contemporary Middle East, a moderate Muslim would broadly eschew violence as a means of settling political issues, but still might not condemn all aspects of political violence against state authorities who occupy Muslim lands by force – such as Russia in Chechnya, the Israeli state in the Palestine, or even American occupation forces in Iraq. Yet even here, in principle, a moderate must reject attacks against civilians, women, and children in any struggle for national liberation. Moderates would be open to cooperation with the West and the United States, but not at the expense of their own independence and sovereignty.

AMSS Third Regional Conference

At its Third Regional Conference, the AMSS broke new ground, dispellingthe popular image that Muslims are extremists and Islam isengaged in holy war against the West. Mayor Robert Cluck welcomed theparticipants, praised American Muslim organizations' condemnation of9/11, and thanked AMSS for informing Americans about Islam and theMuslim contribution to civilization through its publications and annualconventions. MSA president Laith Albataineh welcomed the participantson behalf of the students.In his introduction, Chairman Basheer Ahmed stated that extremismand terrorism were not unique to a single religion. He exhorted all peacelovingpeople to unite to rein in extremism before it gets out of control.Congressman Martin Frost (D-Texas), the guest of honor at the luncheon,referred to his post-9/11 statement encouraging every Texan to join him inresisting intolerance and bigotry. While condemning terrorism in theMiddle East, he expressed his support for the "roadmap to peace" and aPalestinian state. Congressman Frost is known for his support of civilrights, getting more immigrants into the American armed forces, con­stituent service, upholding the Bill of Rights, furthering his district's eco­nomic development, and assisting students' career development.Moazam Syed, American Muslim Alliance president elect (TarrantCounty) thanked the congressman; said that terror, hatred, and prejudice arealien to all religions; and that: "America will remain just and tolerant, evenwhen confronted with terror and adversity." Bob Ray Sanders, Star Telegramstaff writer and columnist, moderated the question and-answer session.Jamal Badawi (Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Canada) dispelled theinaccurate notions that the Arabic words for "holy war'' can be found in theQur' an, that kufr means "infidel," that Allah is the God of Muslims only, thatIslam is exclusivistic, and that an unbeliever (kafir) does not have the sameright to life as a Muslim, and several other often-misunderstood notions. Heaffirmed that practice or juristic opinions could not replace the Qur'an andahadith, advocated an integrative contextual approach toward understandingthese texts, and pointed out common pitfalls in their interpretation. Hisstatements were well-received by both Muslims and non-Muslims.AMSS president Louay Safi analyzed the present extremism found inthe Muslim world as being based on distorted interpretations of scripture ...

Raiding Islam: Searches That Target Religious Institutions

On the morning of March 20, 2002, while television cameras recorded the events for the evening news, dozens of federal agents entered and searched the offices of several Islamic educational and religious organizations in Northern Virginia. The agents were searching, it appears, for evidence that those organizations contributed money to international groups known to have sponsored terrorist acts. By most public accounts, the targeted institutions were regarded as moderate and progressive voices in American Islam. For that reason, the searches sent shock waves through the American Muslim community. Muslims who had supported the Administration’s domestic war on terrorism began to wonder out loud: If religious institutions like these are suspect in the eyes of the government, then what Islamic organization is not? Is this a war on terrorism, or a war on Islam? In response to protests from a variety of American Muslim organizations, the government was quick to point out that the searches were authorized by warrants issued by a federal magistrate. But as months have passed with little indication that the searches produced