A few weeks ago I posted Secular fundamentalist, or realist? in response to this post by Thebit of Muslim Under Progress. He responds to a few assertions. I think it should be noted that I perceive a difference between Muslims who reside in the West and those who do not in the context of whether they should be channeled into the same general path as Christianity. For example, I see some signs that here in the United States Islam is already morphing into another Protestant denomination (following the precedent of American Catholicism and Judaism), though this will no doubt elicit some resistance on the part of traditionalists....

Related: Aziz offers his 2 cents:

We need to be able to formulate an independent voice from the Progressive Left and the Secular middle - and recognize that not all amongst the conservative Right are neccessarily opposed to our values. That triangulation is essentialy to preserving our religion's practice and our integrity in the larger Ummah as a whole.

I suspect practice is a big part of the problem. It is in practice that a clash of values manifests itself.

Godless comments:

Aziz says:

I consider Laura of Veiled4Allah to be a role model for the assimilation of muslims into American culture with retention of Islmaic values, but her support for the Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party neccessarily means that her allies become people like the odious Amy Richards.

But given that Aziz is a pretty reasonable guy, I don't think he's seen this essay by Laura Poyneer:

But wait! Isn't voting haram? Doesn't it mean supporting a kufr system? Muslims who seek to become politically active will hear this one a lot. So let's deal with it head on. Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid, a very conservative Saudi scholar, was asked about voting in elections in a non-Muslim country [4]. He replied...

America is a democracy. Bush can be voted out and another president elected in his place. That other president may be someone who will bring benefit to Muslims. Or he may just be somebody who will do less harm to Muslims. In either case, by voting for this other president we will have done something to help the umma, even if it is a small thing. That is exactly what Shakyh Munajjid is talking about. Bringing benefit to the umma and reducing harm...

This is a decision each of us must make for ourselves. What is the harm if we act, and what is the harm if we don't act? What is the course of action that will bring the greatest benefit to Muslims and is it worth the price?

Note: the professed loyalty is to the international ummah and to other Muslims, NOT the USA and Americans. Voting is a kufr thing only to be tolerated insofar as it's good for Muslims - and this is heard a lot . Furthermore, voting is not defended on the grounds of being an American institution and the foundation of our democracy...no, it's defended in cynically tactical terms because it's a way to "prevent harm to Muslims" and "help the ummah".

This can't be the model of assimilation that Aziz is praising...I much prefer Razib, Zack, Aziz, and even Ikram to this sort of anti-democratic, unpatriotic fundamentalism. Only the self-admittedly calculating machinations of a Stephen Steinlight can compare to such blatant, overt, premeditated disloyalty.

PS: I somewhat agree with the rest of Aziz's post, though I'm skeptical that Muslims and the American right can reconcile in the near future. In order for that to happen, Muslims would need to sign up for the Armed Forces in droves and discharge themselves honorably (as did many but not all Japanese during World War 2). The left is considerably more tolerant when it comes to ideology; as long as you have nonwhite skin, you can believe whatever you want and they won't sanction you. (I'm kidding...sort of...)

Comment from Razib on Godless' comment: A few points....

First, I shouldn't be placed in the same category as Zack and especially Aziz. I have never really had strong religious commitments and have been a conscious atheist from the age of 7 (through my own reasoning, not reading books, I didn't know the term "atheist" until several years later). My experience is so atypical and deviant that I doubt it really serves as much of a template. Zack has some attachment to Islam, while Aziz is a sincere believer. I don't know about Ikram.

From a rational egoistic perspective I would do better in a society where people might perceive me as Muslim because of my name and origin, and so suffer some prejudice, than in a Muslim society where my unapologetic atheism might result in ostracism and at the extreme physical harm. So my belligerence to some forms of Islam can be justified purely on self interest, my "Muslim" identity is simply a accident of history that has little relevance in the big picture.

As for Muslims and their devotion to the ummah vs. their nation, what would any religionist chooose, God or country? This is not a choice that most people can really make, so the standard response is to reformulate one of the loyalties so it does not conflict with the other. Catholic Bavarians who fought under the command of Protestant Prussians against Catholic Austrians in the 19th century obviously had reconciled their Catholicism with their German nationalism. Likewise for the fact that the Shia Iraq foot-soldiers remained mostly loyal to the Sunni dominated Iraqi state and fought against Shia Iranians. I doubt that the Bavarians or the Shia Arabs of Iraq thought they were going against their faith in fighting fellow believers, though some might interpret it that way.

American Muslims, who are often first generation immigrants at this point, will either reformulate their religious values so that fighting against other Muslims in the service of the United States (or supporting US action against other Muslims) is not haram, or they will suffer social ostracism and segregate themselves. I suspect they will follow a mixed strategy, with the majority assimilating their religious practice like Reform and Conservative Jews and a minority withdrawing like many Orthodox Jews into their own separate space. Since Muslim immigrants tend to skew toward some level of education this makes sense in a "rational choice" paradigm, Muslims who are professionals or engaged in other ways with the society at large will want to reduce the tension of their faith with their surroundings. The bigger problem might be in Europe, where Muslims tend to be economically and educationally disadvantaged, and so have less impulse to acclimate and accomidate when they are not stake-holders in the general society.

Finally, as for the individual noted above, it should be stated that she is a convert to Islam, so saying she is a good example of "assimilation into American culture" is a bit peculiar, as she is a native born American raised as a Catholic. That is, she started off from a point of assimilation and has had to reach her own equilibrium. White converts to Islam are as atypical of the American Muslim as I am.

Godless briefly comments:

Razib said "I shouldn't be placed in the same category as Zack and especially Aziz.". But I wasn't referring to Razib's religious assimilation, but rather to his assimilation as an American. While I have my differences with Zack and Aziz and Ikram, I consider them squarely within the mainstream of political debate in the US. Notably, all four of them are South Asian Muslims - not Arab Muslims. Poyneer, whether convert or not, is not within the mainstream. If the above piece genuinely represents her views, she is nothing more than an unabashed fifth-columnist.