The New York Times of 6 September 2010 carries a report entitled: “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?” “For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11,” it begins, “many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe…. Now, many of those same Muslims say that all of those years of work are being rapidly undone by the fierce opposition to a Muslim cultural centre near ground zero that has unleashed a torrent of anti-Muslim sentiments and a spate of vandalism.” It carries two pictures, one showing a Muslim family in Ohio; the father, Dr. Ferhan Asghar, is an orthopedic surgeon. The other picture shows a Muslim inter-faith activist in Chicago named Eboo Patel, author of a fine autobiography. The report goes on to present to us the views of several other Muslims: Abdullah T. Antepli; Ibrahim Hooper; Ingrid Mattson.
The same newspaper carried another report two weeks earlier, under the heading, “Islamic Center Exposes Mixed Feelings Locally.” It informed us that the outcome of the intense controversy over the proposed centre “could have its most lasting impact on the estimated 600,000 Muslim residents in New York and its suburbs.” It then reported “a welter of mixed feelings” the reporter discovered “on street corners, in stores and in mosques: Some said they felt embittered or hurt by criticism of the project, and of Islam in general, yet understood opponents’ misgivings. Others said Muslim-Americans should continue to push for the centre's construction as a means of asserting their full citizenship rights — but not too hard, lest they draw even more resentment. A few said they wished the project had never been proposed in the first place. While these few dozen conversations do not represent the views of all Muslim New Yorkers, they show that many are grappling deeply, through the current tension, with the lingering ambiguities of their place in American society nine years after 9/11.” The report carried pictures of New York Muslims, with names such as Laique Khan, Pervaz Akhtar, Malik Nadeem Abid, A. Chowdhry, Muntasir Sattar, Majeed Babar, Shamsi Ali, Moinul Haque, and Ahmed Habeeb.
Both reports are well-intentioned, and clearly sympathetic to the plight of Muslims in America at this time. What struck me as curious were the looks and names of their interlocutors. Unless I’m totally mistaken, in other contexts where hyphenated identities reign supreme, the above people would be identified in several different ways except one: African-American. A peculiar “Browning” of Islam seems to have taken place in the minds of well-intentioned people and liberal media, despite the fact that the oldest, and also perhaps the largest, ethnic group practicing Islam in the United States is that of African-Americans. I find it disturbing that the Times made no effort to bring to the issue views of such people as Professors Aminah Mccloud and Amina Wadud, and Congressman Keith Ellison, that it was the New York Daily News that gave space to Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a dissenting Muslim from Cape Verde, and that no reporter from any paper thought it fit to visit the mosques connected to either the late Imam Warithuddeen Mohammed—his group’s the Muslim Journal ignores the issue—or the living and active Minister Louis Farrakhan, whose The Final Call is strongly supportive of the project.
What is happening in the liberal media, some kind of a “Browning” of Islam? And, if that is the case, what could be the reason? 
Is it because “the media is trying to reach the majority of its readers who happen to be of European background, and who are more likely to be sympathetic to a "Lighter-shaded-American" than a "Darker-shaded-American"? That was the response of my nephew, Aziz, who came to this country as a college freshman and is now a successful lawyer in New York. He then added, “This ‘elite’ group interacts with the ‘Immigrant-Muslim-Americans’ group more on a daily basis, than people of the ‘African-American’ background. Additionally, with President Obama sending mixed messages the media might be trying to steer the story away from becoming also an ‘African-American’ story.”
Good points. I should only add that my nephew’s “Immigrant-Muslim-Americans” group had its own elite class that had little or no social interaction with people of African-American ethnicity as the immigrant community began to expand in the Seventies. The two generations of South Asian Muslims, for example, who came with high professional qualifications in the Sixties and Seventies moved into hesitatingly integrating urban centres, and when they prospered they quickly moved to suburbs that were predominantly white. Not that they were readily accepted there or did not face any discrimination. Like all immigrants they went through those experiences, but given their professional qualifications they, as a minority group, soon also began to profit from the country’s ‘affirmative action” laws. The situation on the level of social interaction, however, changed for their children in public schools across the country; it continues to change more meaningfully for their grandchildren who are now in colleges and schools. It is the latter who, for example, are coming up here and there with organizations and projects that serve needy communities and people regardless of ethnic or religious identities. (An excellent example is the organization called the Inner-City Muslim Action Network—IMAN—in south Chicago.) These younger men and women, unlike their grandfathers, are also more likely to have read The Autobiography of Malcolm X for the right reasons, and as likely the writings of people like Professor Amina Wadud, the African-American Muslim woman who led a joint congregation of men and women in the Friday prayers in New York in 2005. She was considered “too radical” by all the Imams in New York, and now it seems that the Times too shares that view. I don’t know her views on the erstwhile “Cordoba Center,” but it would have been useful for the Times to ask her and others like her.
It is important to acknowledge publicly, not just now but always and not just for the media but for American Muslims too, that Islam has been in these United States for a long time, not just among the immigrants from the Middle East and South Asia but among the African-Americans, many of whose ancestors were Muslims sold into slavery by other Muslims and Christians, and in various guises too—Moorish Temple; The Nation of Islam; Ahmadis; and, of course, Sunnis belonging to this school or that. What surprises me less but saddens me most is to see that attacks on Islam and American Muslims are made—and also protested against—as if African-American Muslims have not been a part of the American scene for a long time, or have not shed their blood in every war of the last hundred years to protect the liberties all Americans enjoy. Why is it that African-American Muslims have been ignored or marginalized by those who demonize Islam and also by those who oppose the demonizers? How and why has Islam in America become almost exclusively “Arab” or “Pakistani”?
C.M. Naim is Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago.
1. My acquaintance with the “liberal media” is limited to The New York Times, The Nation, occasional articles sent by friends from other newspapers, reports on the National Public Radio, and such TV shows as the “Countdown with Keith Olberman,” “Rachel Maddow Show,” and “Tavis Smiley Show.” The latter two TV programs and the NPR, I must emphasize, have done exemplary work on behalf of American Muslims.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
CAIR’s annual banquet draws attention to rights & faith
This year’s theme of “Faith in Freedom” resonated well within all age groups and faiths present as the lineup of speakers was impressive and the message conveyed stressed American inclusion while practicing our faith. Although we have to admit that listening to Mark Gonzales, Glenn Greenwald, Wajahat Ali and Mehdi Hasan all in the same evening can be a bit challenging from the idea absorption point of view, one has come to expect such an information overload from the largest annual event of its kind in Sacramento.
>> Pakistani Shyad ,Imam Awalaki and host of others negate the wishes .
There will always be bad apples. Americans are used to that. Italian-Americans had their mafia and Mexican-Americans have their drug war-lords. But your wishful thinking never ends!
The New York Times of 6 September 2010 carries a report entitled: “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?” “For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11,” it begins, “many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam --"
Florida Pakistani Imams who were arrested two days back , Pakistani Shyad ,Imam Awalaki and host of others negate the wishes .
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT