Editorial

In July 2007, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS) launched
its new website: www.amss.net. This event signals a reinvigorated AMSS
that seeks to update itself and enhance its professional image. The launch
comes after several years of hard work, conducted mostly behind the scenes,
on behalf of the AMSS Executive Board. Under the guidance of Dr. Rafik
Beekun (president, AMSS), a recognized expert in strategic planning,
AMSS has undergone a complete overhaul, from a SWOT (strengths, weak-
nesses, opportunities, threats) analysis to revising its by-laws and engaging
in strategic planning, to implementation. 

In order to recognize the separate but related nature of Canada to the
United States (it is not simply the 51st state!), as well as the prominent role
being played by Canadian social scientists in AMSS, the board has sug-
gested a new name: The Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North
America. This is, of course, contingent upon the membership’s pending
approval of the new by-laws. In addition, this name change helps identify
us in relation to our sister organizations: AMSS-UK and AMSS-France.
Each association is an independent entity sharing a common name, vision,
and goals. The first AMSS international conference was held in Istanbul in
2006. 

One theme of AMSS’ new mission statement is that the organization
will serve as an enabling environment for critical dialogue and debate
between Muslim and non-Muslim scholars about issues of importance to
the ummah and global society at large. The ability to dialogue is currently
not one of the Muslim community’s strengths. Dialogue is about talking,
about sitting down with people from different backgrounds in order to
understand their perspective on often controversial issues. The point is not
to convince them that your position is the “truth” or vice versa, but to hear
them as fellow human beings and have them hear you. As the National
Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation points out, “dialogue is not about
winning an argument or coming to an agreement, but about understanding
and learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes, builds trust and enables people
to be open to perspectives that are very different from their own” (http://-
thataway.org/index.php/?page_id=713).



Dialogue does not always come naturally. Such negative and ultimately
futile human emotions as jealousy, revenge, despair, pride, and arrogance
constantly interfere with the ability to talk intelligently and rationally with
others. This is a skill that needs to be fostered. Unfortunately, while dialogue
is a wholly Qur’anic concept, it is not a skill that has been fostered in our
community. There are historical explanations for this shortcoming, most
notably, the catastrophic experience of colonialism that tore Muslims away
from their historical identity and ushered in a post-colonial era of strife, dis-
sension, and identity confusion. 

The secularization of the Muslim world, initiated with the barrel of the
European gun and continued under the barrel of a secularized Muslim elite’s
gun, resulted in an Islamic awakening, a desire and a need to return to the
people’s more authentic Islamic roots. But the counter-responses, born in a
repressive context, emphasized a black-and-white world of good versus evil.
Dialogue, in which the in-between grays and nuances exist, did not appear
as a useful instrument for expelling the colonial powers or revitalizing the
ummah’s Islamic nature. Difference, strength, and inflexibility seemed to be
more important qualities. 

And thus the Islamists’ discourse of “Islam” versus the “West,” in
which it had to be proved that Islam was superior in order to undercut west-
ern civilization’s enticing and very real material power and hegemony over
the Islamic world, was nurtured in this violent and repressive environment.
The Muslim community today, still battered by western imperialist vio-
lence, easily segues into these Islamist discourses of uncompromising
counter-responses. There is also a tendency to blame all of the ummah’s
woes on such outsiders as the Zionist Crusaders. Given the pain inflicted
upon Muslims by western imperialism and Israel, such a tendency is easy to
comprehend.

However, understanding why the Muslim community often reacts as it
does is not the same as accepting that reaction as the most appropriate or
effective, or even the best. Being able to trace the genealogy of a shortcom-
ing in the Muslim community is a very important step to overcoming such
a shortcoming. The second caliph, `Umar ibn al-Khattab, whom the Prophet
(pbuh) entitled “al-Faruq” (the one who distinguishes truth from falsehood),
once advised his community: “Criticize and appraise yourselves before you
are criticized and appraised on the Day of Judgment, and weigh out your
deeds before they are weighed out for you.”

In this era of dialogue, the sad truth is that Muslims deserve at most a
passing grade and, more often than not, a failing grade. This conclusion is

ii The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4



not meant to diminish the excellent leadership and work of the countless
Muslim activists dedicated to interfaith dialogue, to inter-civilizational dia-
logue, and to the promotion of peace. On the contrary, I applaud their work
and wish to bolster them and encourage others to join their path. Clearly,
those who encourage violence rather than dialogue and peace as a solution
are attracting a huge number of Muslims – especially Muslim young people
– to their cause. We must work to stem this tide, both for our own sake and
for the sake of the global community.

Muslims are trading in the currency of “truth” – my truth is true and
yours is false, and therefore I must vanquish you. A very common Muslim
practice here is to compare the best of Islam (in theory) with the worst of
Christianity (in practice) and to deny that Muslims who make mistakes or
commit crimes are “real Muslims.” Such an approach mirrors that of the
Orientalists and Islamophobes, who seek out atrocities committed by Mus-
lims and blame “Islam.” Such a methodology is also damaging, since it cre-
ates resentment on the other side. Resentment undermines good dialogue.

True dialogue, for which all people should strive, is the exact opposite
of this: My truth is true for me, yours is true for you, and what can I learn
from you and you from me? While many people who engage in such an
undertaking come to it from the concept of relativism, dialogue and appre-
ciation of the “other” can also come from a concept of absolute truth, such
as belief in the Qur’an as the word of God. In fact, the Qur’an itself sets out
dialogue as the appropriate way for peoples of different faith traditions and
belief systems to interact with each other:

O humanity, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female,
and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not
that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the
sight of Allah is (the one who is) the most righteous. And Allah has full
knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). (49:13)

If it had been the will of your Lord that all people of the world should be
believers, then all people on Earth would have believed. Would you then
compel humanity, against its will, to believe? (10:99)

The entire Surat al-Kafirun is the most impressive statement of “live
and let live” to be found in any religious scripture: 

Say: “O you who reject faith. I do not worship that which you worship,
nor will you worship that which I worship. I will not worship that which
you have been wont to worship, nor will you worship that which I wor-
ship. To you be your way, and to me mine.” (109:1-6)

Editorial iii



In spite of these Qur’anic injunctions, Muslims today are afraid of this
kind of encounter. Dialogue requires being well-grounded, well-centered,
and self-confident in one’s own perspective. But due to their bitter colonial
heritage and the current Islamamophobic onslaught, Muslims suffer from
low self-esteem and fragile identity. This makes it hard to dialogue, even
when it is a matter of discussing the different orientations inside the Muslim
community, let alone outside. Unity, which is a fard wajib (obligatory duty)
upon Muslims, remains elusive. For example, many leaders and members
of the laity even in North America refuse to work with their Sunni, Sufi,
Shi`ah, Salafi, madhhabi, progressive, and conservative counterparts – and
all of this while promoting the notion of cooperation and integration with
the dominant Christian, secular, atheist, and multi-faith society in which we
live!

And so we have reached this state, this low point in our history, where
a group of Muslim doctors in the United Kingdom is alleged to have plotted
to blow up innumerable innocent civilians. It is unfathomable that any per-
son who is trained to heal and cure would be able to twist their training into
ways to kill and maim innocent civilians. And given the medical legacy
bequeathed to the western world by classical-era Muslim physicians, such
actions are an even greater betrayal of our medical heritage. People should
not read the Qur’an in search of the motivating factors for these horrific
actions, for the answers lie in psychology. Moreover, the Muslim commu-
nity must shoulder the blame for not fostering a culture of dialogue in its
midst, thereby allowing the canker of “violence as a solution” to fester.

Through its conferences, publications (including AJISS), seminars, and
its website, AMSS hopes to redress this unfortunate situation. To develop the
skills related to dialogue will be of great benefit to the ummah and to
global society as a whole. We urge you to continue to support AJISS and
AMSS as institutions and visions. We also look forward to greeting you as
new members, conference attendees, and visitors to our website.

Katherine Bullock
Editor and AMSS Vice President

iv The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4