Brooklyn, New York

  For better or worse, Islam has been at the forefront of domestic and international affairs for at least the past decade. It’s truly a wonder, then, that according to a recent Gallup poll a majority of Americans still have little to no knowledge of the religion’s basic tenets. More disheartening, if not outright frightening, is that even given this avowed lack of knowledge, a sizeable percentage of US citizens nonetheless maintain a negative perception of Muslims. So, either an informed, nuanced understanding of Islam is being obscured by the voluminous – and venomous – misinformation that clutters the media, or an accessible and authoritative account of what Muslims truly believe and how they interact with the world around them simply hasn’t been produced.

John Esposito, given his celebrity and scholarship, is among perhaps only a handful of individuals who have met both these prospective challenges head-on with some success. His latest offering in a line of timely scholarly works, The Future of Islam, provides a refreshingly holistic assessment of the challenges Muslims face from increased pluralism on the one hand, and heightened hostility on the other. The book is, however, not without its biases and consequent missed opportunities. Overall though, the far more genuine appraisal of Muslims in The Future of Islam is a powerful counterweight to the sensational depictions found in (sadly, more in demand) Islamophobic publications.

Deconstructing a monolith

Both novice and more advanced readers on the subject will find much of Esposito’s narrative as insightful as it is comprehensive. The first chapter of the book includes a standard primer on the five pillars, the divisions between Sunni and Shia, and some brief remarks on the more “controversial” subjects of shariah and jihad. This introductory information is supplemented, however, with a less common examination of the racial and intellectual diversity of Muslims in the West, and an even rarer assessment of the legitimate grievances Muslims around the world have with America and its allies. Through this balanced breakdown, Esposito not only debunks the perceived uniformity of Muslims and exposes the fiction of the neo-con anchor, “They hate us for our freedoms,” but manages to humanize his subject at a time when most depictions of Muslims border on caricature.

For those possessing a firmer grasp of Islamic attitudes and beliefs, this book doubles as a clear and concise distillation of the Western Muslim experience. From the factors that distinguish American Muslims from their European counterparts, to the distinction between integration and assimilation, to the misapplication of terms such as “moderate” and “fundamentalist”, Esposito’s fluid analysis on these topics, often backed by empirical data, makes even the most complex phenomena easily digestible. This lucidity and equity suffers a bit, however, when Esposito moves to a discussion of his central thesis.

An Islamic reformation?

At its core, this book is an examination of the current prospects for Muslim reformers around the globe. By reform, Esposito ostensibly is referring to the reinterpretation of Quran and hadith to produce new legal and social models that better meet the challenges of an ever more globalized world. While acknowledging the breadth of Islamic jurisprudence and of debates over theological matters, Esposito nonetheless promotes certain positions, both implicitly and explicitly, throughout his narrative. More specifically, a liberal interpretation of women’s rights, as exhibited through the likes of Amina Wadud; a more pluralistic approach to salvation, in contrast to the belief in salvific exclusivity; and the legitimacy and expansion of lay ijtihad, which undercuts the traditional role of ulema, are all featured prominently in Esposito’s discussion of reform and “a new way forward” (a phrase he borrows from President Obama’s inauguration speech).

To be fair, Esposito is careful not to dismiss more traditional or conservative positions in Islam. He clearly cautions against facile labeling of a person or group as “extreme” simply because their understanding of a particular issue doesn’t mesh with a Western, supposedly enlightened perspective. Moreover, Esposito sincerely highlights the work of more mainstream Islamic jurists and activists such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Amr Khalid, and Farhat Hashmi. Where Esposito is not so balanced, however, is in his handling of “Salafism”, or its more ominous pseudo-synonym, “Wahabism.”

Salafi skepticism

It’s not uncommon, I’ve found, to come across the works of otherwise insightful and compelling writers who trip over themselves when talking about Islam. Similarly, it seems that Islamicists adept at deconstructing the generally monolithic perception of Muslims curb their sense of nuance and complexity when describing Salafism or Salafis. Esposito, whose projects are ironically quite often funded by Saudi princes, seems content with, and indeed promotes, an overly simplistic portrait of “Saudi Islam” and the sentiments it produces. An uninitiated reader could easily, upon finishing this book, be convinced of the evils of “Saudi influence” in the abstract.

Where, then, does that leave the masjids, Islamic centers, and educational institutions in America and Europe that employ Saudi-trained scholars yet are an invaluable resource in combating extremism, and advancing integration? Esposito could have easily highlighted the laudable efforts of many “Salafis” in the West who are not only educating a new generation on what it means to be Muslim, but are consciously placing this identity within a more inclusive societal framework. This small gesture could have gone a long way towards dispelling some of the lingering myths about this misunderstood segment of the Muslim community.

A pluralistic prescription

Esposito’s keen socio-political acumen and sense of historical perspective return with his concluding remarks on the future of Muslim-West relations. He once again underscores that majorities of Muslims globally don’t conflict with the West on religious or civilizational grounds, but distinguish between various nation-states based upon their policies. Esposito goes on to encourage Western powers to curtail and ultimately eliminate their support for authoritarian regimes across the Muslim World, and to reconcile with the fact that clear majorities in these countries wish to see Islam play a greater role in government.

Finally, to counteract the viral spread of Islamophobia, Esposito emphasizes that Americans and Europeans must acknowledge a missing link in what Jews and Christians have come to regard as a shared heritage. Only when Muslims are no longer viewed as the “other,” but as integral elements of a rich Judeo-Christian-Islamic history, can serious headway be made against the forces of extremism. A nice thought – but with the status quo always being the easier and more marketable route, it’s hard to see this notion transitioning into reality.

Not to sound too crass or flippant, but I would like to ask what will be the state of kissing be in "The Future of Islam? The reason I ask is because two Britons (a couple) have been sentenced to a month in prison for kissing "passionately" in a Dubai restaurant. Some are calling the sentence an injustice, others may call it an unexpected extended vacation... my point is that this incident may relate to current practices in Islam (or at least how Shari'a law is being applied).

article can be found here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/7443079/Britons-sentenced-to-a-month-in-prison-for-kissing-in-Dubai-restaurant.html

Perhaps in the future public displays of affection like french kissing will become more acceptable in traditionalist Islamic societies. Or if some people have their way, passionless pecks on the forehead will become all the rage among couples.

>>> reform, Esposito ostensibly is referring to the reinterpretation of Quran and hadith

Just this very statement evokes very difficult concepts of philosophy and theology. What makes its all the more harder to do, is the prominence of aqeedah dialectic under the modern salafist influence. The exercise has come under such heavy influence from salafist sources, western antagonists and social engineers that its become a political tool.

We are not tryint to re-interpret the Quraan and Hadeeth, but to better understand it in the light of new knowledge and under new circumstances. The message is the same, the interpretations are either stronger or weaker. We don't seek to add anything to the deen, just serve it (ourselves) more effectively.

Crow >>> The reason I ask is because two Britons (a couple) have been sentenced to a month in prison for kissing "passionately" in a Dubai restaurant. Some are calling the sentence an injustice, others may call it an unexpected extended vacation

Every society has different standards of the separation of public and private. Whether it relates to the extent people clothe themselves or publicly display affection. Ours is high. Maybe too high for you. But should be respected none the less.

P.S. Dubai is NOT the Muslim world. Dubai is part of the Muslim world. The same way that Las Vegas and the Vatican are part of the western world. And both have

... very unusual approaches sexual norms.

>> lingering myths about this misunderstood segment of the Muslim community.

What's so misunderstood about Salafis?? They come, they homogenize, they bully and trample on our Islamic rights, then they bail out when the community implodes upon itself because of their "purification" and over-simplifications. One Yasir Qadhi does not a rehabilitation make...

To OmarG:

Speaking of Salafis... you probably have already got wind of the tumult at IslamOnline as a result of new "aggressive" management. As a relative of someone who was once in journalism I found the story particularly sad and disturbing.

related stories:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/16/islamonline-egypt-qatar

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/03/islam-online-goes-offline.html

To Ghulam:

Interesting points you have on the sexual norms of Las Vegas and the Vatican (esp. in light of recent abuses cases coming out of Germany). By the way... doesn't South Africa have some of the worst rates of rape in the world?

Not to get too off topic but there is a new message from a man who is arguably trying to shape the "Future of Islam" in America. He's name... Anwar Al-Awlaki. The growing list of his followers/groupies includes Nidal Hasan Akbar, Duane Reasoner Jr., Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Moazzam Begg and Sharif Mobley. Apparently he is a very popular tutor of "Islam" and the "Arabic language" in Yemen.

I get the feeling he won't be hitting the American lecture circuit anytime soon, so below is a video link that features excerpts from his latest audio message, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8TUEfNrBk

Bonus: Here is an old page on the muslimmatters.org website that features an interview with Awlaki that was conducted by CagedPrisoners.com head honcho Moazzam Begg. Please note the good sized cheerleader squad of supporters in the comment section.

I wonder what those people are up to these days...

http://muslimmatters.org/2007/12/31/new-moazzam-begg-interview-with-anwar-al-awlaki/

Crow >>> Interesting points you have on the sexual norms of Las Vegas and the Vatican (esp. in light of recent abuses cases coming out of Germany). By the way... doesn't South Africa have some of the worst rates of rape in the world?

Yes, and a constitutions that's more liberal than the American one. Still doesn't inflate your flat and unrelated opinion about social norms in Dubai and the Muslim world. And to further prove my point, doesn't reflect on the nations or African values either.

I can also randomly google links unrelated to the topic and pretend to make a point. I repeat for your benefit and till you understand the weakness of your argument: the social norms of a small nation should be respected regardless of your personal cultural norms. There are different norms in other parts of the world that don't infringe on personal liberal rights. To project that social norm as reflection on many nations and cultures is itself racist (I don't care how brown you are).

Its the same as pointing out gang warfare of African Americans and point out that Blacks are gang-bangers. You can point out the nation of Islam (a small iconic black resistance group) and make equally weak generalisations. I think you just get off on attacking and undermining Muslims. You would have loved being a president of an Apartheid bantustan.

Crow >>> The growing list of his followers/groupies includes Nidal Hasan Akbar, Duane Reasoner Jr., Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Moazzam Begg and Sharif Mobley.

Typical, you've quoted five people who are followers, have not dealt with the core pluralism of the community or any of the assertions of the article. The church of crow is open for business 24/7.

You're about as good at analysis as a conspiracy theorist. By the way, are you Muslim? I'd just like to get at if you're trying to deal with your own communities flaws, or being a like typical awlaki follower and projecting the problem of your own flawed ideas onto other communities?

OmarG >>> What's so misunderstood about Salafis?? They come, they homogenize, they bully and trample on our Islamic rights, then they bail out when the community implodes upon itself because of their "purification" and over-simplifications.

Because there are diverse groups of Salafis with diverse opinions. And I agree with the article to one extent. Anyone who engages them openly, will probably cause an alteration in their approach. Most have a methodolgy of moderation. If you're ethical, self critical and balanced in your judegement, you probably will find them open to different methodologies. I could say the same about American patriots.

I understand your criticisms, but Muslims have a different burden of engagement. Esposito is soft on the values discussion, because of the the close US ties to the Saudi salafi regime. There's a political burden on his analysis.

Why are you, like Crow, focussing exclusively on small pockets of individuals. When the articles clearly deal with the whole group? AND why are you and Crow less inclined to show similar prejudice when it comes to secularists or pro-American crowds? I think your notion of individual liberty has warped your analysis of the community, because you believe the individual to be as important/influential as the group.

Either of you help clamp down on Blackwater yet or bring the murderers up on charges? You guys Haunt those pro-Zionist websites and charismatic christian war-mongerers with your deft critique? Either of you helping bring an end to the remote drone bombings? Or bringing down the gates at AIPAC and the Israeli embassies while Zionist provocations for bloodhsed and tension still fresh?

When an article brings up pluralism and the direction of the community, its clearly not related to the Awlakis of the world. Clearly! The Awlakis are more tied to their resentment of US foreign policy then they are of the progress of the community. And they have that in common with billions of people, who sympathise with the millions who die, BECAUSE of American foreign policy. And you guys probably still believe that global warming is not related to burning of fossil fuels. Logical, scientific, rational and balanced discussion are out the window.