Islam and Early American Liberalism
The portrayal of Islam and Muslims in early American literature is not as bad as you’d think. There are, of course, studies and doctoral dissertations on the topic, and they essentially usher in some unfavorable news. But that apparently is not the whole story. A credible and well documented book (almost 30 years old) suggests — actually insists — that Islam and its themes and heroes were instrumental in inserting “liberal” ideas in the political and religious thought life of early America which, at the time, was viewed as hopelessly fatalistic and closed.
The book is Faith in Fiction: The Emergence of Religious Literature in America, by David S. Reynolds (Harvard University Press, 1981). Reynolds posits: “[S]ome American authors between 1785 and 1820 found in Oriental religions, particularly Islam, a safe perspective from which to comment on American religion in a way that was often liberal and sometimes freethinking.” The narratives linked “Oriental doctrine and progressive American ideas.”
He also proffers that the doctrines of Islam were found “to be analogous to certain tenets of American liberalism.” Because of this, several writers wrote “Oriental” tales to promote toleration in America in the face of clenched “orthodoxy," especially Calvinistic.
Reynolds offers many examples. For one, he cites a “sympathetic use of Islam” in a tale originally published in New York Magazine (1791) called “Mahomet: A Dream.” The protagonist of the story is somehow given the ability to call up from the dead anyone of his choosing. And behold, he chooses Prophet Muhammad, whose “spirit rises majestically before him. The Prophet holds a copy of the Koran that emits ‘a luminous ray, which convinced [the protagonist] that it was full of the Deity whose power and glory it so awfully announced.’” A Christian character reflexively calls the Prophet an imposter, “but a heavenly voice defends the prophet.” The voice says that the Prophet taught “the idea of the Divinity who observes all of our actions” and brings people to justice. Reynolds goes on to say, “The tale makes daring use of Islam to endorse divine benevolence, human morality, and religious fiction. The statement that Muslims initiated the idea of a God who dispenses just retribution on the basis of man’s works implies a rejection of the doctrines of divine wrath and human depravity.” (Humanity condemned to depravity undermines the sheer possibility of human progress, which is the foundation of original liberal thought.)
Reynolds mentions several other narratives, like “The Meditation of Cassim the Son of Ahmed,” “The Arabian Tale” (by good ole Ben Franklin), “The Algerian Captive,” “Humanity in Algiers,” and others that found in Islam and its ideals a portal through which to comment (often acerbically) on an unrelenting religious view that damned humanity and disconnected the possibility of "works" as a means to higher development. As long as the doctrine of essential depravity held ground, progressive and liberal ideals were doomed. In Islam’s emphasis of faith coupled with deeds, and that deeds can be favorably viewed by God Himself, then human beings and their societies are indeed capable of progress.
Reynolds also mentions some unflattering responses to the tales and their Islamic content, as well as some of the authors who themselves had to make mandatory inclusions of statements that affirm the superiority of Christianity, lest the authors be accused of apostasy or called infidels.
Some of the narratives are surprisingly bold, especially when considering the tenor of contemporary public discourse about Islam, even by those who seek high office. Reversed tides and other metaphors clearly apply: today Islam and its figures are often portrayed to instill clenched religious and political grips on the minds of many. If you have a pulse, you know this already.
In its treatment of Islam, the weight-bearing parts of Reynolds’ book are the first two chapters. The book is likely out of print. So look for it used, if you're interested. I found it years ago at a library book sale, where you buy a box for five dollars, and whatever you can place in the box is yours. The photocopier wouldn't fit.
The book is Faith in Fiction: The Emergence of Religious Literature in America, by David S. Reynolds (Harvard University Press, 1981). Reynolds posits: “[S]ome American authors between 1785 and 1820 found in Oriental religions, particularly Islam, a safe perspective from which to comment on American religion in a way that was often liberal and sometimes freethinking.” The narratives linked “Oriental doctrine and progressive American ideas.”
He also proffers that the doctrines of Islam were found “to be analogous to certain tenets of American liberalism.” Because of this, several writers wrote “Oriental” tales to promote toleration in America in the face of clenched “orthodoxy," especially Calvinistic.
Reynolds offers many examples. For one, he cites a “sympathetic use of Islam” in a tale originally published in New York Magazine (1791) called “Mahomet: A Dream.” The protagonist of the story is somehow given the ability to call up from the dead anyone of his choosing. And behold, he chooses Prophet Muhammad, whose “spirit rises majestically before him. The Prophet holds a copy of the Koran that emits ‘a luminous ray, which convinced [the protagonist] that it was full of the Deity whose power and glory it so awfully announced.’” A Christian character reflexively calls the Prophet an imposter, “but a heavenly voice defends the prophet.” The voice says that the Prophet taught “the idea of the Divinity who observes all of our actions” and brings people to justice. Reynolds goes on to say, “The tale makes daring use of Islam to endorse divine benevolence, human morality, and religious fiction. The statement that Muslims initiated the idea of a God who dispenses just retribution on the basis of man’s works implies a rejection of the doctrines of divine wrath and human depravity.” (Humanity condemned to depravity undermines the sheer possibility of human progress, which is the foundation of original liberal thought.)
Reynolds mentions several other narratives, like “The Meditation of Cassim the Son of Ahmed,” “The Arabian Tale” (by good ole Ben Franklin), “The Algerian Captive,” “Humanity in Algiers,” and others that found in Islam and its ideals a portal through which to comment (often acerbically) on an unrelenting religious view that damned humanity and disconnected the possibility of "works" as a means to higher development. As long as the doctrine of essential depravity held ground, progressive and liberal ideals were doomed. In Islam’s emphasis of faith coupled with deeds, and that deeds can be favorably viewed by God Himself, then human beings and their societies are indeed capable of progress.
Reynolds also mentions some unflattering responses to the tales and their Islamic content, as well as some of the authors who themselves had to make mandatory inclusions of statements that affirm the superiority of Christianity, lest the authors be accused of apostasy or called infidels.
Some of the narratives are surprisingly bold, especially when considering the tenor of contemporary public discourse about Islam, even by those who seek high office. Reversed tides and other metaphors clearly apply: today Islam and its figures are often portrayed to instill clenched religious and political grips on the minds of many. If you have a pulse, you know this already.
In its treatment of Islam, the weight-bearing parts of Reynolds’ book are the first two chapters. The book is likely out of print. So look for it used, if you're interested. I found it years ago at a library book sale, where you buy a box for five dollars, and whatever you can place in the box is yours. The photocopier wouldn't fit.
posted by fromclay at 12/07/2007 08:03:00 AM
8 Comments:
Thank you for the interesting post. It would be interesting to compare the twentieth-century appreciation of Islam in America and Europe to see if there is really any substantial difference. A Turkish scholar, Ibrahim Kalin, has an excellent article that deals with the roots of the West’s complex psychological interaction with Islam called “Roots of Misconception: Euro-American Perceptions of Islam Before and After September 11th” (published in Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition ed. by Joseph Lumbard; it can be read online at http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/kalin/Roots%20of%20Misconception-FINAL.doc) in which he echoes Reynolds’ observations:
"While the Quran and, by derivation, the religious foundations of Islam were invariably denied, the human qualities of the Prophet of Islam were invoked by the humanist intellectuals of the 18th and 19th centuries either to level subtle criticisms against Christianity or simply to cherish their humanist-secular philosophy of history. The depiction of the Prophet as a genius and hero with a piercing mind and perspicacity, remarkable power of persuasion, sincerity, and dedication reached a climax with Carlyle and his heroic philosophy of history. In Carlyles work, the Prophet is presented as a remarkable man of the world: a hero, a genius, a charismatic figure, a personality that the Christian spirit of the Middle Ages was incapable of seeing and appreciating. Although Carlyle had placed his analysis of the Prophet within a clearly secular framework and thus preempted any charges of heresy, he still felt obligated to apologize for his positive estimation of the Prophet: as there is no danger of our becoming, any of us, Mahometans, I mean to say all the good of him I justly can. It is the way to get at his secret: let us try to understand what he meant with the world; what the world meant and means with him, will then be a more answerable question. A much more asserting voice of the time was that of Goethe (1749-1832), who was neither secretive nor apologetic about his admiration of things Islamic. His West-oestlicher Diwan was a loud celebration of Persian-Islamic culture and his interest in the Islamic world went certainly beyond the mere curiosity of a German poet when he said, as quoted by Carlyle, that if this be Islam, do we not all live in Islam? In the 19th century, Goethe’s call was taken up by a whole generation of European and American poets and men of literature, which included such celebrities as Emerson and Thoreau." [end quote]
It seems that 19th century humanist intellectuals (which does not include people like Emerson and Thoreau of course), far from agreeing with Islam or Islamic values in principle, rather re-envisioned Islamic “culture” as essentially humanistic much in the same way that Renaissance thinkers re-envisioned Greek thought in order to find in it a basis for their ideas. It is the legacy of this idea which conveniently dominates today amongst Muslims, where one often hears the refrain that Islam was the source of everything from the Renaissance to modern science.
On a lighter note, I was recently perusing a book published in 1949 called “American Ballads and Folksongs” by John and Alan Lomax in which there is a song about the legendary rivalry between an Abdullah Boul Boul Ameer and an Ivan Petrovsky Skevar. The two battle it out and eventually kill one another. In this poem the emir is portrayed as a noble but fierce warrior which was at one point a common image of Muslims in the West. It begins:
The sons of the Prophet are valiant and bold/
and are wholly impervious to fear/
But the bravest of all was a man by the name/
of Abdullah Boul Boul Ameer.
Incidentally, the author collected these ballads from listening to railroad workers, cowboys, “negro bad men”, creoles, “white desperados” and others while working, partying, or drinking at the local watering hole. I fancy the image of a some raucous cowboys drinking and singing about the valiant Abdullah Boul Boul Ameer.
Wassalam,
Kareem
Interesting post! JAK.
PS: i didn't know we had that book ;)
Nadia
The Sweet Life
Kareem, thanks for that quote and link. Goethe's appreciation of Islam could stand to use some broadcasting.
This is fascinating. It's a shame the book is out of print; I'd like to read it.
I should have done this with the original post. If anyone is interested in finding the book, you may want to go here:
http://www.antiqbook.de/boox/ham/204946.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0674291727/ref=dp_olp_2/103-5610946-3972657
Thanks.
Wow that author was really stretching it. I don't think Islam preaches humanity as inherently good, which is the liberal credo, although in contrast to christianity (what with the original sin and all that) Islam proves to be slightly closer to liberalism, albeit lightyears distant.
I don't think Reynolds stretched anything. He has no horse in this race. He reported with steady prose what had happened in early America. As for Islam's view of "essential" humanity, that's not a note in a blog, but it may surprise many, given the lucrative Islam-media industrial complex. Thanks.
Yo, Salahudin al-Rawandi, what's with the lily-livered, hit and run potshot against Islam and the veiled attempt to Christianize its philosophy by implying that we too believe in the fall man--or as you might say, the inherent bad of man?
For the record, Islam does not preach the inherent evil of man, but, i can see how you (a person who resorts to broadsweeping attacks in a footnote to an unrelated topic) may believe that.
And yet, i still believe in your inherent goodness or inherent ability to incline that way should you choose.
Post a Comment
<< Home