Berlin May 23, 2006. We entered the mosque through a large iron gate closely watched by a score of Turkish men. Unlike most architecturally interesting buildings in Berlin, which are open and easily accessible, this mosque which is both majestic and grand, is surrounded by a high wall and is accessible only through iron gates. I was in Berlin for a conference organized by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, and one of their scholars and a Berlin Parliamentarian kindly volunteered to show me around Berlin.

As we approached the grand mosque, the Berlin Parliamentarian remarked, "Notice the Turkish flag on the mosque? Do you see a German flag anywhere?"

The daylong conference in Berlin was about comparing the experiences of Germany and the US in integrating their Muslim minorities. Throughout the day, scholars from both sides of the Atlantic struggled with political and philosophical issues involved in the absorption of large number of minorities whose political and cultural values may be at odds with those of the host nations.

While Muslim scholars argued for more openness, more religious and racial tolerance, and equal treatment of all religious communities, others called for more assimilation and insisted that immigrants must make the effort to learn local languages and adapt to the mainstream political and cultural norms.

As I looked at the mosque with its Turkish flag flying proudly, the high walls, the iron gates and the stoic faces, I suddenly realized that this was not a mosque - this was a sort of embassy, a foreign enclave, an extention of Turkish sovereignty in the heart of Germany. In the US, one may occasionally find a US flag in a mosque, but never a flag of a foreign country. The only mosque that has foreign flags is the Islamic Center in Washington DC, which was established by diplomats from Muslim countries.

I sympathized with the Berlin Parliamentarian�obvious displeasure with the Turkish flag. Turkish nationalism is particularly irritating. Several years ago I ran into a large contingent of Turks in the Holiest of Muslim Mosques in Mecca while circumambulating the Kaaba. They were wearing tiny Turkish flags on their shirt collars. I found this display of nationalism even in the House of God deeply offensive. Islam is a strictly monotheistic religion and nationalism in its extreme form begins to subvert the very idea of One God. Perhaps these Turks did not know that God is blind to nationality, ethnicity and race.

With Islamophobia on the rise in most western countries, grand displays of Islamic religiosity ᠴe mosque is indeed fabulous ȱ#mbined with overt, in your face displays of allegiance to foreign nations can only be described as spectacularly stupid.

Both Muslims and non-Muslims are actively demanding the elimination of barriers between western mainstream and Muslim Diasporas. While Muslims are insisting that host societies accommodate, recognize and respect all the differences that they bring, Non-Muslims ϱ5ually the dominant white Judeo-Christians ӱ!e demanding that Muslims moderate these differences. In Germany the focus is on learning the German language and the incorporation of Islam as a German institution. In the U.S. the challenges are more related to real or perceived sympathy of American Muslims for anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

Muslim immigrants bring three significant challenges to Western societies ұ#ltural differences, religious differences and political differences. In the U.S. the first two challenges are easily manageable. Most Americans believe in the United States as a multicultural society and deeply value religious pluralism. Unlike Europe where the elite talk a lot about secularism but the State actually incorporates religion, America does practice separation of church and State.

In the US, the government is neither involved nor interested in how Islam is institutionalized or managed by Muslims, where as in Germany the state not only teaches religion in school but also has religious clergy on government payroll. This becomes particularly problematic, since Germany finances both Christianity and Judaism but does not even recognize Islam.

In the US, most people respect and even value cultural differences, jealously guard religious freedom and consequently practice religious pluralism at all levels of society. Primarily because most AmericanխӠare from somewhere else, the fact that Muslims are also from elsewhere is not a big issue.

American identity is open, flexible and continuously evolving. American citizenship is also easily acquired and hence becoming American in law and spirit faces less cultural and political barriers. Additionally the "American dream" is a powerful positive that all immigrants aspire towards and often achieve. When traveling overseas, I frequently testify that coming to America for me was like joining the Marines ᠩ America one can "be all you can be".

At present the key barrier to the mainstreaming of Islam in America is the relations between the US and the Islamic World.

Germany has a long way to go. Even though it does not have foreign policy problems like the U.S., it has several domestic policy issues. First, Germany must recognize Islam. Germany has been for decades a multi-ethnic society but very few Germans imagine Germany as a multicultural society. German intellectuals brag a lot about being secular, well how about secularizing the German State and dumping Christianity and Judaism from the national budget.

German identity is rooted in the past and is culturally tied to race and ethnicity. Becoming German is very difficult even for those who are born in Germany. They may speak German better than most natives but happen to look like me rather than Boris Becker.

German intellectuals must begin to imagine a Germany as a political community that is a composite of values, rather than a nation-state based on a specific ethnicity. In the age of globalization, narrowly defined identities are untenable. Germany as an integral part of the emerging global society must define itself in terms of global values that are sensitive to cultural, racial and religious differences and become a role model for other European nations like Ireland and Portugal that will soon face similar problems.

Muslims who live as minorities in the west or anywhere else, must understood that their demand for tolerance for religious and cultural differences is a just cause. But they must align their political and economic interests with those of their neighbors (whose acceptance they seek) and not with those who live in foreign lands.

There is room for Islam in America and Germany. We can and we will build bigger and more spectacular mosques in the West, but there is no place for Saudi flags or Turkish or Pakistani flags in Western mosques. They have their embassies and that is enough. They should not be allowed to use our mosques.

I've never liked the idea of any flag at a masjid. I guess having a US flag at a masjid would be ok with you.

>>They were wearing tiny Turkish flags on their shirt collars. I found this display of nationalism even in the House of God deeply offensive.<<

You're FULL of it. Do you know why people do that? Its a common practice for foreign visitors. People often get lost or get broken off from their group and either have flags or wrist bands with their information. This is especially true during the Hajj season. You cant possibly be this stupid, delusional and uninformed.....no wait...you probably are.

>>They should not be allowed to use our mosques.<<

What're you gonna do tubby? Stop people from entering a masjid because of a flag? I'd like to see you try it. I thought you had learnt some reality after leaving the PMNUA but it seems you're as silly and irrelevent as ever. Oh well, I expect nothing less from a drudge who fancies himself a Muslim "kissinger."

generally speaking, this is a well-written article. Yet I will have to disagree on1 major point & ask 4 clarification on another major point. First, the author says:

"Islam is a strictly monotheistic religion and nationalism in its extreme form begins to subvert the very idea of One God."

I am puzzled by how the author dismisses one demonstration of flag-based nationalism, yet doesn't comment on the other.2 be sure,some immigrant Muslims may take their past cultural/national affinity (that they forsook upon ariving here) too far, and this can present problems w/regard to social and political integration & adapatation in the new homeland.But I wonder why Professor Khan doesnt discuss the much less friction 2wards other minority groups on their apparent proclamation of dual natlstic pride among?Also,if the author believes that natlism in use of foreign flags can be expressd outside of the mosque,or that foreign natlsim is not 2 be mixed with the practice of Islam in the new home,then the same logic should apply 2 the use of domestic natl symbols of the new adopted homeland in the very same mosques and 2 the mixg of natlism of the new adopted homes with the practice of Islam there.I do agree that natlsm can present problems if mixd w/Islam,but the apparently expressd discrepancy can also present problems.

the second point, 4 which I am seekg clarification, is on this statmt:

"In the U.S. the challenges [facing Muslim diaspora"] are more related to real or perceived sympathy of American Muslims for anti-Americanism in the Middle East."

"Anti-americanism" has come to mean two distinct, but often mutually-meshed (& confusd), things: 1) opposition to US foreign & domestic policies that affect the people that are lamentg the situation and 2 the excercise of excessive or too blunt hegemony ("flexg muscles" in slang); 2) opposition to culture.

In my opinion,the opposition is more so of the 1st type than of the 2nd.There r points where Muslims (even in the West) and the West don't see culturally eye 2 eye, but i also think that most Muslims & non-Muslims would avoid war or other types of terrible conflict basd on cultural differences.This is b/c those (on both sides) who want 2 argue that "clash of civilizations" often concentrate on cultural tensions/differences, and i dont think that most Muslims or non-Muslims would operate on this kind of mentality.

I am askg what Professor Khan means by "anti-Americanism"?

Dear Dr. M, I am disappointed at your language, it reflects deep animosity. How does a flag on the collar help a grown up who is lost? Who wears collars during Haj? I have never seen Pakistanis, or Indians or Kuwaitis wearing flags on their collars in the Haram.

Also the respected scholar is referring to the national interests of foreign countries, when he writes that they have their embassies and do not need to use our mosques to advance their nationalist agendas here.

If you stop hating and think a little you would have noticed that Dr. Khan was not referring to stoppping people at all.

BTW, Dr. Muqtedar Khan is not irrelevant at all. I listened to him address the national convention of UMA in Bay area last month and the national convention of UMAA last week, he is dynamic and a very profound thinker and he is making an impact on how many American Muslims think about Islam and their life in America.

DianaMW said,

>>How does a flag on the collar help a grown up who is lost? Who wears collars during Haj?<<

Dont mix my words. Many people, especially the elderly and have wrist bands on with their ID information. FYI lives have been saved because of medical information which is readily available. Try navigating around 2.5 million pilgrims and you may understand. You're clueless arent you?

>>I have never seen Pakistanis, or Indians or Kuwaitis wearing flags on their collars in the Haram. <<

Good! So you were busy worshipping instead checking out what others were wearing. Kuwaitis, Pakistanis and Indians arent the only ones who go to the Haram are they?

>>Also the respected scholar is referring to the national interests of foreign countries, when he writes that they have their embassies and do not need to use our mosques to advance their nationalist agendas here.<<

Get over yourself and your obsession with ficticious "nationalist agendas," and put away the Tom Clancy novels. What're you going to do? Bar people from entering the masjid and accuse of them of having a "nationalist agenda" because they wear a thobe or kurta? "Respected scholar" my foot. Many of "your" mosques were built by foreigners and immigrants. You werent complaining when you took their time and money were you?

>>If you stop hating and think a little you would have noticed that Dr. Khan was not referring to stoppping people at all. <<

Its obvious what he is referring to. Spare me the BS spin ok? Stop wasting our time on nonsense.

>>BTW, Dr. Muqtedar Khan is not irrelevant at all. I listened to him address the national convention of UMA in Bay area last month and the national convention of UMAA last week, he is dynamic and a very profound thinker and he is making an impact on how many American Muslims think about Islam and their life in America.<<

I've been reading Khan's articles since the 1990s, and he still for lack of a better word, SUCKS. Heres why, most of his material is poorly written and easily refuted. We're supposed to takes this guy seriously when he writes about wanting to be a "Muslin Kissinger"? Its not everyday you hear someone modelling themself after a war criminal. His election 2004 material was particularly bad("Kerry will make me secretary of state". I've got a name for his next book, its called "Delusions of Grenduer : Pipe dreams and self-promotion." Sorry dear, but the only impact Khan has had is in his own mind and at Sizzlers' during buffet hour.
Pardon me while I get offended at something and write a shoddy article for a third rate "think tank."

>>I am askg what Professor Khan means by "anti-Americanism"?<<

Who knows Montazz? Depends who you ask. Its largely a convinient and increasingly useless buzzword to distract and silence others.

Dr Khan,

I found your op ed most interesting - but I would challenge your assertion that "America does practice separation of church and State." Under the present Administration, that is increasingly problematic. Of the 120m who voted in the last election, 40m were "born again Christians", and 25m of these supported Bush. The Christian Right, as Karl Rove knows well, is a formidable force in a country where voting is not compulsory - especially as it can be (relatively easily) galvanised from the pulpit. That support comes with demands. As an example, amongst many evangelical leaders, there is strong support for the retention of ALL Palesinian occupied territories, as a precursor to the retun of the Messiah. People are, of course, entitled to their faith, but America would be much the better for a separation of Church and State. The Christian Right is having an increasingly dangerous effect on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East, and the lines between Church and State (notwithstanding the intent of the Constitution) are becoming increasingly blurred. A future Presidential candidate will ignore the power of the Christian Right at his or her peril. I am pessimistic the trend can be reversed.

>>In the U.S. the challenges are more related to real or perceived sympathy of American Muslims for anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

YUP! When its even other Muslims who think this, its hard to refute it as islamophobia. Thus, those who sympathize with political Islamism resort to either lableling such Muslims as hypocrytes or trying to intimidate them into silence, especially by insults or threats of violence. Remind you of anyone here?? I think Dr Khan should become an advisor to the next Administration and naturally ignore baseless critiques focused on illogic and incoherence.

>>I frequently testify that coming to America for me was like joining the Marines ñ in America one can "be all you can be".

Cool, but that's actually the Army's motto. But, props for it anyway.

DrM
You will find that you can express yourself without behaving in an insulting manner.

Dr. M, your rancor and bitterness and frustration are indicative of your psychological state. BTW, Dr. Khan is a fellow of the World's most prestigious think tank -- the Brookings Institution -- not a third rate think tank as you suggest.

Aside from that, I had an interesting conversation first with him and then with Fareed Istanzai at the UMA comvention and they talked about ISPU, the only outfit that can claim to be a legitimate Muslim Think Tank in the US. Dr. Muqtedar is also closely involved with them and is a Fellow or scholar with them too.

Dr. M. posts like yours make Muslims look like irrational, angry and even wild people. At least Dr. Muqtedar provides a semblance of dignity and rationality to Muslim discourse.

Brookings a third rate think tank... [lol]..

>>Dr. M, your rancor and bitterness and frustration are indicative of your psychological state.<<

Alright we got Dr.Phil here. Your attempts at whitewash and double speak are amusing. I think you're suffering from delusions of granduer.

>>Dr. Khan is a fellow of the World's most prestigious think tank<<

LOL, now I know you're on crack. "Worlds most prestigious think tank"??? At their core, think tanks are nothing more than lobbies attired in pseudo-academic garbs. The Brookings Institute is not Harvard and the American Enterprise Institute is not Yale. Go do some reading instead of wasting our time.

>>Dr. M. posts like yours make Muslims look like irrational, angry and even wild people.At least Dr. Muqtedar provides a semblance of dignity and rationality to Muslim discourse.
<<

I doubt you've been reading his nonsense for as long as I have, which is why he's earned his reputation as a goofy windbag with pipe dreams of becoming secretary of state. Assuming you're a Muslim, I would have to say people like you and Khan are excellent examples of usefull idiots and sycophantic twits whose views of the world are based on earning political knee pads and setting up strawman acts.
We've got so many real problems going on, and this imbecile complains about being offended at flags. Nothing "rational" or diginified" about foot soldiers of the yellow think tank brigades.

Dr. M., what an example you set. Mashallah.

Dr. M. with Malicious Muslims like you dedicated to spewing hate and venom at other Muslims, who needs Islamophobes.

Aslam a lacum

You have serious issues DrM.

Your behavior besides being rude, is also far from the example of our beloved prophet Muhammad(PBUH).

May Allah guide you and me.

>>Dr. M. with Malicious Muslims like you dedicated to spewing hate and venom at other Muslims, who needs Islamophobes.<<

What hatred? Putting the spotlight on Khan for numerous misleading and bizzare statements is "venom" now is it? Challenging your uninformed opinions and attempts to misinform is "hatred"? The only islamophobes are the criminals Khan works for at Brookings. Why is it idiots like you almost always dont know what you're talking about? You're not going to directly address Khan's numerous mistatements because you cant. Quit embarassing yourself shilling for third rate yellow "think tanks."

>>You have serious issues DrM.<<

Only with those munafiqs who make a living writing garbage and misrepresenting the community like Khan. I think its incredibly petty and rude of him having a hissy fit complaining about a flag on somebodys collar. He ought to get a life and real job.

So that is why you call yourself Dr. M, "I am Dr. M; I cannot wait to call respected Muslim intellectuals and scholars as munafiqs".

Talking about Munafiqs here is a reminder from the traditions of Rasoolallah saw.
Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: "The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.

1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.

2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.

3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.

4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 33)"

No, Khan has a point about the flags. And, no you can't recognize someone in your group by the flag on the collar; those lapel pins are far too small, and this is a mosque in Germany and not the Hajj. The flags are of a *foreign* country, which is his point: If a community shows itself to have foreign allegiences, it will be more difficult for the native population to integrate them and cause ill feelings. For instance, when I travel, it would be poor manners for me to wave an American flag around the streets of Cairo, not to mention dangerous these days. Its just not common sense to sport foreign nationalism into the faces of the population. He's totally on the ball there. The flags on collars may be small in size, but gigantic in meaning!

So DianaMW are you going to directly address Khan writings or not? You obviously suffer from the same intellectual shallowness and dishonesty as he does. Glad you're quoting Sahih Bukhari(in "wahhabi" style might I add), find me Hadith support Khan's premise that a flag makes a masjid an embassy.

>>And, no you can't recognize someone in your group by the flag on the collarthose lapel pins are far too small<<

Oh really? So I guess Muqtedar must have telescopic vision when he recognized those flags during umrah with thousands of other worshippers eh?

>>and this is a mosque in Germany and not the Hajj<<<<

No, he referred to Mecca regarding the Turkish flags.

>>If a community shows itself to have foreign allegiences, it will be more difficult for the native population to integrate them and cause ill feelings.<<

This is a shallow right wing argument which can be applied to virtually any aspect of "foreign" culture.

>>For instance, when I travel, it would be poor manners for me to wave an American flag around the streets of Cairo, not to mention dangerous these days.<<

I wonder why its dangerous.

>>The flags on collars may be small in size, but gigantic in meaning!<<

"The flags are so small nobody can figure out where they're from, but the meaning is Ji-normous!!" No, this is just nonsensical paranoia and sillyness in the extreme. Do you feel the same way about US soldiers in Iraq? Nope, didnt think so.

when you go for hajj or umrah all the groups that come from different countries have their flags either in the form of a banner or theyre sewn to their ihraam or on their collars... some dont even use their countries flag they use symbols or a certain color. only an ignorant fool would think it has any nationalisitic significance...
nice one drM ....

Assalamu Alaykum,

Interesting discussion. I have never seen people wearing flags on their ahrams. I have travelled to the haram, alhamdulillah several times.

I approached the group and asked one of their members why they were wearing Turkish flags on their collars, and also pointed out to them that I had not seen anyone else wearing any flag in the Haram [at that time]. He replied because he was proud to be a Turk and he could not understand why others were not as proud of their nationality. He also said that they wore the flag to let others know that they were from Turkey.

Pride of nationality in the Haram. I asked the gentleman if he had read the Prophet's [pbuh] last Qutbah, he said no.

The article is simply saying that while pluralism and multiculturalism can accomodate Islam and various Muslim cultures in the West, there is no room for allegiance to foreign nations. How can Muslims in Germany expect to be treated as German Muslims if they themselves wish to declare their allegiance to Turkey?

I am happy to see that my work excites passion, debate and discussion, what more can a thinker ask for, but I request you all to conduct yourself with the decorum and dignity that should be a routine characteristic of all Muslims.

How one responds is a measure of one's own character not that of what one is responding to.

Parliamentarians in Thailand once threw punches at each other over some issue, while no one remembers or cares what the issue was, the episode has however become a point of departure for all those who seek to mock democracy in Thailand and in developing nations.

Muqtedar