Being not that familiar with most T.V shows , unsure of what is being portrayed on the show ; yet , doubt that same channel would show 'All American Saints '
( today and tomorrow would be esp. good days - Feast of Saint Katherine Drexel , St.Elisabeth Ann Seton )

Or that , for purposes of balance , would show what happens in Islam dominated countries - fflagship country of Saudi Arabia , tha harasses Catholics , who secretly gathered for Christmas celebrations : these are persons who take care of their sick and injured in hospitals, putting up discrimination and their inconveniant laws , in a country, that invites the whole Muslim world, to Mecca , for worship !

Cjristians , while keeping our fudamental teachings - to love and bless those who hate us etc , still need to know who are even potential haters and thus pray for them already , in earnest , not just go for lukewarmness of believing that hearts have all been converted , into embracing the values of The Kingdom !

History, of the origin and originators of these faiths - where their charisms come from , may be the best guide in this regard - to recognise if they are houses bulit on sand ( or even salt ! ) , that would melt away, into chaos from blind hatreds or values , when more worldly power is granted !

Peace !

While it is perhaps true that in some respects many American Muslims have, as the authors note, a "belie(f) ... in the importance of marriage and the family" the integration of Muslims into American society involves the integration of people who may have some very different views about the meaning of "marriage and the family." As in how many wives a man can have and/or the equality of men and women within the marital relationship. The authors gloss over that very real issue, particularly in saying without qualification that "[t]heir moral values are our moral values—and yours."

America does toleration very well and in many respects that is a good thing. So the question arises whether we should tolerate a different form of marital relationship for American Muslims, one that deems polygamy moral? That is not an out-of-left-field question; it will surely be asked more and more loudly along with the question of Mormon Polygamy which is being raised in the "Sister Wives" series and in a new book by the cast of that series. Essentially, the arguments made in favor of "gay marriage" are now being urged in support of different "affectional choices."

Back in the 1870s, the Supreme Court was able to answer the question with a resounding no because, as the Supreme Court then said, the US was a Christian nation. In 2012, the question again arises and America will shortly be forced to ask itself whether it has any core beliefs that should be operative within the borders of the US other than toleration for whatever any of its citizens or immigrants choose to do.

BTW, I should note that I strongly believe that we should insist on monogamy and a restriction of the marriage definition to unions of one man and one woman, but better to ask the question.

This article raises again the question: whether the numerous acts of hatred of non-believers are from a tiny minority of Muslims who have "hijacked" Islam, or whether such acts are well in line with a literal reading of the latter (Medinan) segments of the Qu'ran, as well as the hadiths.

Dear Patrick:

Thank you for your comment. I certainly agree with you about insisting on marriage as the monogamous and exclusive union of husband and wife. And, as you say, given that Islam permits polygamy, it is "better to ask the question." The Muslim scholars with whom I have consulted make the point that Islam does not require its adherents to practice polygamy or (and this is the important point) favor a legal policy of permitting polygamy. They may oppose such a policy if they believe that in practice it would be contrary to justice and the common good, and my strong sense is that most American Muslims (certainly including the vast majority of American Muslim women) do oppose it. (My guess is that if a national referendum on legally permitting polygamy, or recognizing polygamous unions as marriages, were held, the percentage of Muslims voting for it would be lower than the percentage of secular liberals voting for it.) When I raised the issue of polygamy in a public discussion at Princeton with the eminent Muslim thinker and educator Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, he made the point that Muslims are bound by Islamic teaching to respect the laws of the communities in which they dwell, and this includes the laws against polygamy. This, he noted, applies even to those Muslims who personally favor polygamy or wish to practice it. Islam does not teach that legal prohibitions of polygamy, such as those in our country, are intrinsically unjust and should be resisted or changed. Of course, it is abundantly clear that faithful American Muslims believe that marriage is inherently a conjugal (i.e., opposite sex) union, and that efforts to redefine it to accommodate same-sex and polyamorous partnerships must be resolutely opposed. On matters of sexual morality, marriage, and family in Islam, particularly in the American context, I recommend the writings of two exceptionally gifted young Muslim women writers: Suzy Ismail and Asma Uddin. (Suzy Ismail, by the way, gave on of the most profound and moving pro-life speeches I have ever heard. She delivered it last year at our annual Respect Life Sunday interfaith service in the Princeton University chapel. A couple of years before that, Hamza Yusuf gave a magnificent pro-life address at the service. He has also been outspoken in the fight against pornography and other vices that destroy chastity and undermine marriages.)

Robert George

Some years ago I worked at a business made up of a staff of at least 95% Muslim. And every person there fit the description given by Doctors George and Bryson. One person, who worked as a dispatcher, a learned man with an engineering degree, was under threat of a warant issued for his arrest In Iran, his native country, for holding values as a Muslim that fit perfectly well in American culture.

Christians have no choice as Christians not only to love one's enemies, but even those whom we perceive as our enemies who simply desire the same things devout Christians desire: a family, a place to worshsip and the freedom to speak one's faith in public.

Prof. George responded to me by noting that if a national referendum were held on polygamy he believed that most American Muslimss would oppose it. With all due respect: perhaps, or perhaps not; I have not seen any polling on that and, in all events, the US does not have a national referendum mechanism. The fact that an eminent Muslim thinker assures that Muslims are bound to obey the laws of the lands in which they reside does not mean that they cannot vote for Muslim cultural principles when they have the opportunity to do so under those laws.

What is more, we are very early on in the issue of integrating American Muslims into American Society. Although there are some longstanding American Muslim communities in the US (e.g., Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn or neighborhoods in the Detroit area), there has been a substantial increase in the American Muslim population recently.

That increase coincides with the rise of the whole Gay Marriage and now Mormon Polygamy movements. Eighteen years ago, at the time the Democrats put "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in place in the US Armed Services, Gay Marriage was one of those "over-the-horizon" concepts that most Americans were confident would never come to pass. In the 18 year interim, after all, there have been Gay Marriage referenda in state after state and every single referendum has resulted in a defeat of the concept. Yet, Gay Marriage has moved inexorably forward. In California, for example, the people have repeatedly voted against Gay Marriage in state-wide votes (one of which expressly undid a prior court decision allowing gay marriage), yet it is the law of the state.

So, I place little confidence in assurances that the American people (particularly those whose religion permits polygamy) would oppose Polygamy. We Americans need seriously to address the looming question of whether the USA stands for anything other than toleration of differences among the 313 Million people who finds themselves within the borders of the USA under the law. Toleration is very valuable in many respects but the culture we inherited is at least as valuable.

I would wholeheartedly commend Robert George for this open letter to the Florida Family Association if I hadn't just looked at their web site and found several anti-Muslim stories in addition to their campaign against All-American Muslim. I often disagree with Robert George, but I very much approve of the idea behind this letter. I am just wondering, though, if the Florida Family Association isn't already too far beyond the pale to take seriously.

I must disagree. The program began with a forced conversion of a Catholic to Islam in order to marry a Muslim who doesn't even practice anyway. Later she forced him to give up his dog and only relented when the outraged public expressed their anger. They had to edit the next weeks show and bring the dog back. The Muslims demand what they do not give to others. At the high school a student who converted to Christianity was bullied by staff and students. The show downplays the lack of tolerance and respect for America and Christianity. They never mention that Christians in Muslim lands suffer terribly from persecution. It is a propaganda program that white washes the problems in Islam.

Many of us who have lived and worked in Muslim countries and have experienced Islam first hand, find some of the notions of our fellow Americans, even (especially??) those with academic pedigrees, to be incredibly naive. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have been incredibly ignorant. A distinction needs to be made between people as individuals and the culture, agencies or governments of which they are a part. For example, I distinguish between the fact that the Chinese government is an oppressive regime and the experience I have with ordinary Chinese. I am married to one. I know a few nice Marxists too. Just so, we know from personal experience that many individual Muslims are wonderful people. Their hospitality puts that of most Americans to shame and is something professing Christians ought to exeed in emulating. But it is fallacious to thereby conclude that Islam poses no threat to American liberty. As with economics, we ought to learn from Europe in regard to that mistake. That there is so little outcry from Islamic leaders against Islamic terrorism is just the tip of the ice berg.

If what Fr. J says about the show is true (I've no experience of the show), then it supports what I said earlier about the naiveté with which we insist on portraying Islam as a tolerant religion that poses no threat to our liberal democracy and that contributes to our civil life in the same way that Chrisitianity and Judaism do. Let's by all means protect Muslims from persecution and defamation and discrimination as fellow citizens. But let us not be sucked in by baseless propaganda; rather let us lovingly but firmly expose it. If the FFA (with which I am completely unfamiliar) is engaged in hateful and defamatory expressions, then let us by all means exhort them to communicate in a more Christian and civil fashion. But let's not forget that a vile critique may still have validity in major parts. Marx, Freud and Nietzche (as Westphal's "Suspicion and Faith" argues) exposed a lot that was true even if their solutions were horrendous and they themselves vile in many ways.

The Florida Family Association plumbs a "Muslim-Hate" that drives many on the right. Why is there such a solicitous request from Dr. George? The tone of the FFA is hardly the diplomatic tone of Drs. George and Bryson.

As an American Muslim woman, I am sick and tired of non-Muslims opining about our lives as if they have any idea about what we are, what we feel, or what we believe. If Islam was such a terrible religion, .75 billion women would not be following it. If Islam was so anti-female, we would not be teaching it on to our children.
We as Americans should support and tolerate each other, respect one another, and focus our energy to improving our society and our nation. Frankly, when I see/ hear things like the commentators above, I see people who are insecure with themselves and/ or their own belief system(?) that they fixate on other people or anyone who is different in order to feel better about themselves. Learning two words of Arabic does not make you an expert on Islam or Muslims; reading a book on history does not make you a scholar.
It is sad to see Muslims and Christians arguing about religious matters when, in fact, there is NO religion that is closer to the Christian religion than Islam, both in belief and in practice.

I have watched this show a few times. The former Catholic husband of Shadia(name?) has said on the show that he was not forced to convert, and HER family asked him MANY times if he was doing this of his own volition, etc. This is still a free country.
And maybe she had him get rid of the dog because she was afraid of it?? Or had allergies??

@ Howard Kainz & Robert P. George:

In deference to the great learning that both of you university professor's have acquired in your particular areas of expertise (as I even have a few of Dr. George's books on my shelf), I'm still rather curious as to why both of yours et al's. comments seemingly overlook, or simply chose to ignore, perhaps for the purposes of adhering to standard "PC" protocol normally observed throughout American universities?, the irrefutable fact, that though ALL professing Muslim's throughout this globe (perhaps 1.5 billlion, or so?) certainly aren't terrorist's, almost ALL terrorist atrocities that've been clandestinely, or otherwise organized and perpetrated on several continents/countries in the West for a few decades now (international airspace included), have nonetheless been executed by those who've unequivocally distinguished themselves as belonging to "Dar Al-Harb," or "House of War" - a distinctly Islamic doctrinal concept fiercely retained by those finding "their" spiritual guidance, in the very same teaching's of said "normal peace-loving" Islamic adherent's - namely, Muhammad, the Qur'an, associated hadith's etc.

Additionally, in view of the highly contentious official doctrine on Islamic immigration known as "Al-Hijra" underway throughout the West (also overlooked in above scholarly appeal to open dialogue & following comments), not to mention the typical "PC" assurances that "perhaps only 10 percent of Muslims worldwide that've hijacked Islam are radical extremist's" - a conservative estimate far-exceeding 100 million strong - I find it rather alarming that such erudite thinkers as Professor George et al. have unwittingly taken this most recent opportunity as the collective "voice-of-reason," to paint with some sort of an "omniscient" brush, as they reach out in calm-headed confident appeal, as authoritative spokesperson's, who ostensibly know the "thoughts and intents of the heart's" of some 1.5 billion Muslim adherent's moving about this planet, and this country as well; a curious fact of which even this highly UN-illumined individual was able to infer while reading "All-American Muslim: An Open Letter." Hmmm.

Bearing in mind that the following few examples could be multiplied ad nauseam, I'm hoping to buttress my above contention for any of this blog's participants, with some painfully relevant, empirical observations.

Subsequent to the July 7, 2005 terrorist bombings in London, Anjem Choudhury, a spokesman for a prominent jihadist organization in Great Britain declared in an interview, that the victims were not "innocent," simply because the victims weren't Muslims.

"When we say innocent people, we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God...As far as Muslims are concerned, you're innocent if you are a Muslim. Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are non-Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

"The Killings of Non-Muslims is Legitimate," November 24, 2006, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4.)

This is by no means some isolated "ignorant" declaration from an extremist, who's totally unaware of official Islamic doctrine either.

I believe it was only one day after the '05 London bombing's, and according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, that Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i, director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London, made this pertinent observation on Al-Jazeera:

"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law...I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb [House of War] or not."

"There are no 'civilians' in Islamic Law; The Bombing is a Great Victory for Al-Qa'ida, Which 'Rubbed the Noses of the World's 8 Most Powerful Countries in the Mud,'" Middle East Media Research Institute Special Dispatch Series No. 932, July 12, 2005.

Please consider one fina not:

"The internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has won praise from Islamic scholar John Esposito for engaging in a 'reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism, and human right's', addressed the morality of suicide bombings against Israeli women and civilians thus:

'Israeli women are not like women in our society because Israeli women are militarised. Secondly, I considered this type of martyrdom operation as indication of justice of Allah Almighty. Allah is just. Through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess, and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs like the Palestinians do."

"Al-Qaradawi full transcript," BBC News, July 8, 2004, as quoted in Robert Spencer's "Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs," (2008), chapter 5, p. 118-19, note 41.

I also find it difficult to reconcile, particularly from the perspective of the "Law of Noncontradiction" (one of the Four Fundamental Laws of Logic, I believe), when Islamic adherent's are referred to in above article, as the "brother's and sister's" of we "People of the Book" - an historically accurate Quaranic (9:29) designation for those now-apostate Christians and Jews (Catholics included) who don't "...acknowledge the religion of Truth..."

Perhaps Dr. George et al. would help me understand, how "three of the world's great religions" fundamentally adhering to, and thus advancing, diametrically-opposed absolute "truth" claims, could rationally, or logically for that matter, all consider themselves as being "one" in spirit & truth; especially when official Islamic doctrine teaches that it - and it alone, since the days of Muhammad - authoritatively possesses God's "fina revelation" for this planet's human population?

Since we're living in a time when we've seemingly lost the ability to differentiate between the morally incomprehensible acts committed by one carrying-out their religious devotion as a "suicide bomber," as opposed to the more rationally suitable designation "homicide bomber" - after all, when "one" normally commits suicide, how many die? - perhaps the "Florida Family Association" is merely exercising the obvious wisdom found in Jesus' sage counsel to "...be as wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16)

After all, where is it "written," that the ruling "PC" governmental philosophy of morally relativistic philosophical naturalism - the supreme orthodoxy that's rigorously imposed throughout our university academic environments, by the way - has somehow rendered null-and-void, the concept of Divine Truth?

Wasn't it Jesus who also counseled that "true wisdom is vindicated by its consequences," or by what wisdom produces? (Luk 7:35)

David Huston
Tallahassee, FL.

Tehmina, and if he had said no then the marriage would have been off. No compulsion in religion? Then he decided not to fast during Ramadan, until they pressured him into doing so. No compulsion in religion? Then he had to give up his dog. The allergies didn't seem to exist until AFTER the marriage. No compulsion in religion? You speak of tolerance. Where is the tolerance of Copts in Egypt, Christians in Saudi Arabia, or for Muslims who choose to become Christian? I would argue that many Muslims stay in Islam out of fear or family pressure and the lack of knowledge about any alternatives. How is some woman in an Afghan village who is being oppressed going to decide to join another religion? We both know what would happen if she did. Instead of complaining about dirty looks at airports start thinking about how Coptic Christians feel when tanks roll over them.

Tehmina, why can't women drive in Saudi Arabia? Why can't Christians who live in Saudi Arabia build churches? Put up Christmas decorations? Hold Bible studies without fear of arrest? Why is a Saudi subject to the death penalty if he converts from Islam to Christianity? I could mention Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. and their records of intolerance. I agree with you that we Americans ought to be tolerant of each other. There is room for improvement. But we are light years ahead of any Muslim country in the world. Tolerance means I won't kill you for disagreeing with me. It doesn't mean I won't argue for my perspective. Cartoonists and comedians aren't afraid of poking fun at Christianity. But make fun of Islam and a fatwa wil be issued. So much for security in beliefs. Additionally, as for insecurity in beliefs, a Muslim father who kills his daughter for refusing an arranged marriage, or converting to another belief other than Islam etc. is the real example of insecurity,
not people voicing their opinions about Islam based on first hand experience as well as serious study. We know that a Muslim in the U.S. or Europe has far less to fear than a Christian does in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Indonesia, Sudan etc. etc. etc. While Arabic is helpful in interpreting the Koran or to over hear a Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia who has never been to the U.S., tell his listeners that the best place to find sex is in a Christian church in America, it is completely unnecessary for other types of analysis about Islamic society and culture. I don't need to know Arabic to know what beliefs are motivating a suicide bomber any more than a Frenchman needs to know English to know what the KKK believes. I need only read an expert on Islam with expertise on its manifestation in Islamic terrorism. I hope and pray that the freedom you have to worship as your conscience dictates will continue to be protected and that you will extend the same understanding and tolerance to others who do not share your beliefs that you ask of
them toward you. It would be wonderful to have American Muslims denouncing the intolerance of regimes in Saudi Arabia and the like and advocating for the respectful treatment of non-Muslims residing in those countries.

"Reality Television" is anything but real. The participants are coached, the film is edited - in other words, it's staged. Does anyone believe "All-American Muslim" is truly representative of American Muslims? Is "Jersey Shore" truly representative of young Italian-Americans?

I appreciate the authors' wish not to seek fights where, they believe, no need for any fight exists. But their belief, that Islam and Muslims are for the most part seekers after Truth in the same way that Christians are meant to be, is erroneous.

Firstly, Christianity seeks an orthodoxy - an alignment of belief amongst members of the faith.

Islam, instead, focuses much more on orthopraxy - an alignment of behaviour. So, freedom of conscience is not particularly emphasised. And many other consequences follow, as well.

So, together with another correspondent here (GlennB), I am comfortable with accepting individual Muslims as other children of God. Yet I am not at all comfortable with viewsof the authors who see no great reason to recoil from advance of Islam.

Secondly, stating the obvious - that Islam is not as it claims to be, a "progressive revelation" - is not to speak hate, or proclaim an untruth. It is simply a rejection of a claim that does not pass the New Testament test: "by their fruit ... "

And lastly, one of the objectionable things about a show like "All-American Muslim" is the deliberate attempt to mislead and to misrepresent the nature of the faith - "oh, we're fairly much just like you - nothing to see here".

Again, for individual Muslims that will be true much more often than not

But for Islam as a creed?

Not so.

In a time when Christianity is retreating–often literally– under fire when Islam gains sway (Nigeria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Gaza, Egypt this article is surreal, appearing as it does in a Christian oriented publication. (I am not Christian, I am Jewish.)

I would like to commend Bat Ye'or's works, "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," and "The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam" to your attention, and also an article, "What Islam Isn't" by a missionary with long experience directly confronting Muslim dawa in Africa: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675