ROBES OR REEBOKS?

by Prof. Jamal J. Elias

(Originally published in The American Muslim, Spring 1992 issue)

Since my arrival in this country in 1979 (1399AH), I have been some what disturbed by a phenomenon prevalent among American Muslims. At first I thought I was just being peevish, but recent articles published in THE AMERICAN MUSLIM and elsewhere lead me to believe that this is a commonly perceived problem. I am referring to what – for lack of a better term -might be called the Arabo-Pakistanization of Islam.

In my many encounters with Muslims in North America I have been struck by two aspects of this issue: that immigrant Muslims carefully guard their ethnic practices and rituals under the canonized guise of sacred Islamic belief and ritual, and that “native- born” Muslims often try to outdo each other in copying these immigrants. Both activities are understandable, but strike me as problematic and potentially harmful to the community.

Pride in and attachment to the culture of one’s ancestors is nothing to be ashamed of. However, when one starts to believe that one’s own dress, food, speaking habits, language, script, skin color, etc. are the “correct” Islamic ones to the exclusion of others, then one is engaging in a degree of intolerance which can only serve to split the community. Cultural differences should be celebrated as evidence of the fact that Islam allows us to transcend conventional communal boundaries.

The second (and primary) concern I wish to address is the native-born Muslin1 practice of slavishly copying certain cultural characteristics of immigrant groups. I understand the need of converts to adopt certain practices to differentiate themselves from the dominant community in this country or the one in their immediate surroundings. Wouldn’t it be better if they chose the practice of virtue as enjoined by the Qur’an to do this, rather than to adopt peculiar patterns of food, dress and speech? To quote Imam Alauddin Shabazz (TAM, Nov/Dec 1991) “Al-Islam does not mean that one has to grow a beard and wear a long maxi-kurta!”

Similarly, it does not mean that one has to trade in one’s sneakers for sandals, or stop eating (veggie) pizza in favor of pita bread! I can’t recall the number of times I have been served hummus at Islamic community functions. A stranger would think that hummus and samosas were the official foods of the Islamic community. I recognize that hummus is both cheap and healthful, but so is tuna salad, yet I have never been served tuna at an ‘official’ Islamic function.

The adoption of so-called “Islamic” speech patterns is somewhat more controversial. Many American Muslims seem to go too far in using Arabic words and phrases that they deem Islamic. They are very often misused or mispronounced and sound silly and awkward to someone who has grown up using them.

The use of Arabic terminology is often unnecessary and should be avoided. When non-Arabic speakers use these terms (often incorrectly) they only perpetuate a vicious cycle in which they are kept as second-class Muslims. I would argue, in fact, that the use of Arabic in English speech should be actively avoided because it keeps Is Jam suspiciously foreign to this country. To quote Prof. T.B. Irving from his interview (TAM Jan/Mar 1992): “The urgent need of the Islamic world is to present the Islamic message to North America in its own language, not the Neanderthal jargon that we sometimes see and hear.”

There are functional English language substitutes for phrases like “Inshallah,” “Alhumdulillah,” etc. It does not matter that much what we use within the community (as long as everyone is clear on what is being said), but these foreign formulas should be avoided when talking to non-Muslims who are unfamiliar with them. They only serve to perpetuate a cultic image of Islam.

In the final analysis, the use of these terms is a matter of personal choice, just so long as the user has thought through what s/he is doing. Two examples:

Many Muslims insist on using the word, Allah’ to the exclusion of God.’ They do this to emphasize their belief in the Islamic understanding of a deity as succinctly defined in Sura 112 However their insistence on the word’ Allah’ can also imply that – at some level – they acknowledge the existence of more than one deity, and they are referring to the deity named ” Allah” rather than another. This is quite un-Islamic! ‘Allah’ is simply a word and ‘God’ is a very serviceable translation of it. Similarly, the term “Lord” is also quite acceptable, since this is a literal translation of “Rabb” which appears frequently in the Qur’an.

The second example is the use of honorifics, frequently abbreviated as “swt” (subhanahu wa ta’ala), “saw” and “pbuh” (peace be upon him). Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Urdu, etc. are languages which make extremely flowery use of titles and formulas to a degree that would be laughable in English. In polite, formal Arabic speech it is almost impossible to address someone without using several honorific titles. The formulas following the name of God or His Prophet owe their origin to this fact. English, on the other hand, makes very limited use of honorifics. They are alien to the English language and should be left out. Their absence no more implies disrespect that their persistent use does respect. If we start adopting Arabic speech patterns in English, where are we going to stop? “I humbly beseech you to illuminate the poor-house of this wretch with your esteemed presence” instead of “Please come to my house”?

Native born Muslims do not need to model themselves on immigrants to feel like legitimate Muslims, nor should immigrants continually tout their knowledge of Arabic to secure status in the community. Knowledge of Arabic does not make one a Muslim. If that were the case, oppressors and tormentors of the Prophet like Abu Lahab, Hind, and the poets of Mecca would have been the best Muslims of all. If Islam is to succeed in America it must be expressed in harmony with its environment. The leaders in this evolution will be the English and Spanish speaking native-born, not immigrants who jealously guard their foreign identity.