Civil Religion as defined by Robert Bellah: a set of rituals, symbols and beliefs which were institutionally separate, but partly derived, nevertheless, from organized religion. According to Bellah, American civil religion had two main origins: one religious in nature, the other secular. To be more precise, Bellah based his understanding on the theological leanings of the Puritans as well as the republicanism of America’s Founding Founders. Bellah’s assumption, as late as the 1970’s, was that American civil religion was defunct and run aground.
There are a number of scholars and thinkers who think that civil religion has not gone the way of the Dodo but has in fact, remained alive, if however sickly it may be. For me, the argument of what state it is in is less pertinent to the issue of American Muslims than the fact that it is still there. So what can this mean for American Muslims? If we can take Bellah’s clause of “institutionally separate” in tandem with “from organized religion”, we can see an opportunity or indeed, an opening for American Muslims to participate in civil society. Many of the objections I have heard over the years from my fellow Muslims is that this is a “Christian nation”; I hear their objections but I cannot accept their validity. To get straight to the point, if American civil religion is indeed institutionally separate, then there is no reason why creative and talented Muslims cannot find a way to also lend their voice to the hyphenated-American experience. In other words, if “Judeo-Christian nation” can apply, why not “Judeo-Christian-Muslim nation”?
Continuing in this manner, as Philip Gorski writes, “religious and political communities should be coterminous”. American Muslims should be thinking of ways in which they can share those borders of the religio-public and political spheres of their fellow Americans. Gorksi adds that, “For the civil religionist, finally, America is a moral community that seeks to balance solidarity and pluralism”. The last two items echo harmoniously with much of the quasi-liberal American Muslim community, a rumination that has gained ground even amongst some neo-conservative/neo-traditionalist voices [this author being mildly included amongst them], to see that civic engagement is one of the main life lines through which American Muslims can move from the margins into the mainstream of American cultural thought and life. In fact, I would argue that using the conduit of civic religion to participate in American civic life is akin to how Blackamericans used the Constitution itself as a means of overturning state-legitimized terror, forcing America to allow Blackamericans to be full participants in society. The time for Puritanical disengagement of society has long passed, and now it only remains to be seen if American Muslims will rise to meet this challenge; a challenge that, while fraught with the danger of losing their religion, can no longer be ignored or indeed, tolerated.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I softpedaled my comment a little bit because I am not entirely sure what you are advocating or that I disagree with that, but let me be more clear regarding civil religion: American civil religion is one of the distasteful aspects of American religion and of America generally. Muslims must stand clearly distinct from American civil religion.
I don’t draw the conclusion from this that apparently some people draw that Muslims cannot participate in American civil society however.
America actually has many participants in civil society who reject American civil religion, however the arena in which people find it most difficult to do so is the electoral arena.
I continue to maintain that the electoral arena, especially for a small community with a prophetic mission is the worst place for American Muslims to engage. There are plenty of other aspects of American civil society where engagement is more possible while maintaining authenticity and more potentially beneficial.
January 14th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
If I have more time I may try to respond, but as I feared might happend, we’re just talking past each other. This is why I said originally I wasn’t sure that I disagreed with what you were calling for because I wasn’t sure what that was.
(As I made explicit in my original comment) I am not now nor have I ever advocated seclusion from society so must of your points are not relevant to my position.
I think it was precisely the Prophet (saw)’s refusal to engage in the civil religion equivalency of his time and place with Quraysh that forced him to first make hijra from his birthplace and then to fight militarily against his own people.
Unlike some voices in the Muslim community, it is actually not in my nature to try to emphasize the relatively narrow circumstances in which the Prophet (saw) was forced to use techniques like violent self defense or rejection and resistance to his society. When I feel those aspects of the seerah are being purposely avoided while other aspects are continously emphasized, I do feel the need to bring them to the conversation.
While of course we have to determine exactly which aspects of the universal Prophetic example are relevant to our particular situation, any analysis (by you, me or anyone else) that appears to purposely ignore certain elements while playing up others ultimately (it seems to me) says more about the person doing the analysis than about the Prophetic example and what it teaches. Of course, the academic observer would declare that indeed all of us are choosing to use and interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah in a way that serves our own project. May Allaah (swt) help to purify our hearts and make us sincere.
But you are right that we are definitely using the term civil religion somewhat differently (I guess I am with the critics of Bellah to which he alludes at the beginning of his piece).
But I acknowledge that in order to really engage this discussion at a more meaningful level, I will have to outline with more care exactly what I understand to be the problematic aspects of American “civil religion” as well as exactly what type of participation in civil society I imagine for a “prophetic” Islam.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I don’t think the personally provocative nature of your post is helpful. But I will assume that you are perceiving my own contributions in the same way and that this is the reason you chose to adopt that tone. So I will ask your forgiveness for whatever was inappropriate in my own comments, and again, abandon this particular conversation for now.
To the extent you find Che Guevara relevant to our conversation we are indeed talking past each other.
My sincere advice to you as someone who obviously has many creative and intellectual gifts is not to use your creativity in thinking about the Prophetic Model as a way of justifying the status quo. That is my precise fear of Muslims adopting or participating in civil religion.
May Allaah bless you and your family.
Your brother,
Abu Noor
January 14th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I would also draw your attention to the widespread web discussion about moralistic therapeutic deism (set off in one incarnation by a piece by Damon Linker which I can’t locate — it’s not where it used to be).
Moralistic therapeutic deism is a kind of civil religion which seems appropriate for a public sphere populated by many different religious perspectives. The point I would draw your attention to, however, is that participation in such a public civil religion inevitably influences one’s own theology, fiqh, etc. (Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, but what I think is naive is the notion that one can adopt a “civil religion” that is then held separate from one’s “actual religion” which I guess is practiced in the private sphere and that the two can, or should, be kept hermetically separate.)
January 14th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I think again, you miss the nature of the scope of my argument. Nothing there advocates for “deism”. I would draw your attention back to the original article, keeping in mind the scope of what I am calling for – not adding to it which is not there.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Should be “becomes” somewhat semantic.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I am sorry if you thought my wasting your time comment was harsh, akhee. The implication was not stop writing, but as I stated explicitly use your valuable time and skills solving real problems and debating real issues. Apathy and Ideological opposition to participation are contradictory phenomenon that should not be lumped together, although it is possible they feed off each other in some ways. To the extent there are people who still disagree with you, I would speculate that they’ve heard the message by now and there are reasons they disagree.
If you feel you are engaging those people on this blog, may Allah reward you. What I bristle at is a phenomenon I repeatedly witness where people who all already agree on these points keep repeating the same thing with the same examples to each other. You are right that that is a common human phenomenon and there is nothing with reminders. But I think it is a problem when rhetoric, often directed at a small powerless group or at strawmen seems to be mistaken for action.
Anyways, thanks for the conversation. I think we do better in live conversation then in internet style. I hope we can get together some time soon. As we examine the contours of our engagement, let us be very conscious of the way in which that participation is modifying our own understanding of Islam (as I said it could potentially do so in postive or negative ways but I reject any idea that the participation can be neutral towards or not affect our Islam)
As for myself, I am no kind of conservative, maybe that’s part of our disagreement!