Annual Meeting Papers

pdf version

Religious Commitment, Acculturation, and Identify Formation
among Twenty-first Century Muslim-Americans

Anisah Bagasra, Claflin University

Draft only: please do not cite without permission.

Abstract
Muslim Americans are a growing segment of the minority population in the United States who hold dual identities. This dual identity creates both challenges and opportunities, particularly when beliefs and practices come into conflict. Level of religious commitment, and level of acculturation, vary amongst Muslim Americans, and must be considered as significant factors in the shaping of identity. This study examines levels of religious commitment and acculturation in a sample of 255 Muslim Americans who completed a survey of religious commitment s and acculturation through the internet and paper surveys. Religious commitment and level of acculturation were measured and compared to individuals’ self-professed level of practice. Scores on the religious commitment scale suggest moderate to high religious commitment for the majority of individuals, matching self-reports. Responses from the acculturation scale suggest a more complicated picture of Muslim American Identity. Less than half of respondents identified themselves primarily as Americans. Length of time in the United States did not positively correlate with high levels of acculturation. Single item scores suggest Muslim Americans are open to certain aspects of American life, while strongly opposed to others. The role of religious commitment in shaping openness to acculturation and identity formation is discussed.

Introduction
Muslim Americans are a growing segment of the minority population in the United States who hold dual identities. They often identify strongly as Muslims, adhering to many Islamic beliefs and practices, while displaying pride in their identity as Americans and upholding the ideals of the American dream. This dual identity creates both challenges and opportunities, particularly when beliefs and practices come into conflict. Muslim Americans consist of individuals representing a broad demographic spectrum; individuals identifying as Muslim in the United States hail from diverse ethnic backgrounds, speak numerous languages, and consist of individuals of all ages and socioeconomic status. They are influenced by various ethnic and cultural norms, but also share common beliefs, values, and practices outlined in Islamic doctrine and tradition that serve to bind them as a recognizable, though not monolithic, group.

Islam is viewed by followers as not just a religion but a whole way of life and has proven to be an overwhelmingly influential factor in the beliefs and attitudes of Muslim Americans regardless of background. Level of religious commitment, and level of acculturation, however, do vary amongst American adherents of Islam, and must be considered as potentially significant factors in when conducting psychological or sociological research within the Muslim American population.

Current research involving Muslims in America as the primary population under study is scarce and typically centers on specific ethnic segments within the Muslim community. The first large-scale study focusing on Muslim Americans regardless of ethnic background was conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2007 (Pew, 2007). In this study, they found that 47 percent of Muslim Americans identify themselves as Muslim first, then American or as linked with another ethnic or racial identification. The Pew study is the first quantitative analysis of Muslim Americans’ beliefs, attitudes, and experiences on a wide range of issues, and offers the first extensive exploration of Muslim Americans’ religious beliefs and practices. Little is understood regarding the role of conformity to religious versus American social norms in the establishment of a Muslim American identity in the 21st century.

The purpose of this study is to measure religious commitment, adherence to Islamic identity, and conformity to common American social norms in order to explore the way in which Muslims formulate identity. This research is significant, particularly in the wake of September 11th, and a shift in attitudes away from a “multi-cultural salad bowl” towards the need for a “melting pot” society. A rise in xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiment, and Islamophobia have triggered the need to understand how Muslims who are religiously committed can also maintain a strong national identity. This study seeks to identify ways in which 21st century Muslim Americans negotiate issues of identity and conformity, while remaining true to their religious beliefs.

Islam and Muslims
Islam is a monotheistic religion with more than one billion followers throughout the world. The religion originated in the 7th century in Arabia and the majority of modern followers belong to one of two denominations: Sunni and Shia. Islam is viewed as more than just a religion by its followers, but rather as an entire way of life that is guided through the Quran, the revealed scripture, and the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, known as hadith and Sunnah. Islam is considered to be the youngest of the three Abrahamic religions, preceded by Judaism and Christianity, and the Prophet Muhammad is viewed as the final prophet who has spread a message previously received by people through Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. The major components of Islamic doctrine and practice are typically referred to as the five pillars of Islam The first pillar, though often portrayed as consisting only of belief in one God, actually consists of the five pillars of Iman (belief). The pillars of Iman, or articles of faith, include belief in God, belief in the angels, belief in all of God’s messengers, belief in the revealed books, and belief in the Day of Judgment. The remaining four pillars of Islam are ritual prayer (salat), the giving of alms (zakat), fasting during the month of Ramadan (sawm), and completion of the pilgrimage to Makkah (Hajj). These five pillars are generally accepted as the key duties that a Muslim believes in and adheres to, and they serve as the unifying factor for practitioners of Islam throughout the world. Common Islamic rituals that are seen as core aspects of Islamic practice include performance of ablutions (wudu), ritual prayer (salat), fasting, alms giving, and reading the Quran. Islamic values center around strong family relations, modesty in speech and dress, generosity towards guests, spreading the message of Islam through words and deeds, promoting and upholding social justice, and caring for those less fortunate.

The Muslim Population in the United States
Recent research asserts that most likely the first Muslims arrived in the United States via slave ships bringing West Africans to the Carolinas, with the first clear example of practicing Muslims recorded in the early 18th century on Islands off the Coast of South Carolina (Gomez, 1994). The African Muslim experience in America gave rise to the first major movements that incorporated and raised an awareness of aspects of Islam on a greater level than had thus far occurred. These were catalyzed by the founding of the Moorish Science Temple in 1913 by Timothy Drew (Gomez, 2005), who became known as Noble Drew Ali, and the establishment of the Nation of Islam by Elijah Muhammad in 1930. The Moorish Science Temple was first established in New Jersey and spread to numerous cities prior to Ali’s death in 1929. Kepel (1997) and Gomez (2005) assert that at the time of Drew Ali’s death the Moorish Science Temple had 30,000 active members. After his death the group split into many factions, causing membership to dwindle and leaving the Moorish Science Temple and its offshoots with few followers today. The Nation of Islam has, for more than eighty years, been a visible image of Islam in the United States, particularly within the African American community. Like the Moorish Science Temple, the Nation of Islam represents a mixture of beliefs and symbols derived from Islam, Christianity, and the Black Nationalist movements of the early twentieth century (Kepel, 1997; Lincoln, 1983; Gomez, 2005).

Shortly after the introduction of Islam to the United States through African slaves, Muslim immigrants arrived voluntarily from several near-Eastern and Central Asian countries. Nyang (1999) breaks down the introduction of Islam into several phases. He describes the travels of the early Muslim explorers as leading to the first phase of Islam in America, the importation of African slaves as the second phase, and the migration of Muslims from the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century as the third phase. These latter immigrants were mostly identified as Turks, Syrians, and Muslims from Central Asia and Ukraine. Wormser (2002) contends that by 1914 Muslims from at least sixty different countries had arrived in America prior to restrictions being placed on immigration after World War I. By the time of the Cold War, the number of Muslim immigrants to the United States continued to grow as a result of communist takeover of Muslim areas. The perpetuation of conflicts has continued to fuel waves of Muslim immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, from the Iranian revolution, and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to, most recently, the Gulf War (Nyang, 1999). In the 1940’s through the 1960’s more Muslim immigrants arrived from countries such as Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and Egypt. Muhammad (2001) identifies a fourth wave of Muslim immigrants who arrived from all over the world from the 1960’s through the 1980s. In the last several decades Muslim immigrants have mostly been students and professionals from all over the world, most prominently from South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The other large segment of Muslim immigrants consists of those who have been forcibly displaced such as Somali Muslims, Cambodian and Vietnamese Muslims, Iraqis, Bosnian Muslims, and other populations from war-torn nations (Ali, 2010; Couglan, 2009; Ratliff, 1997).

The Muslim population is increasingly diverse and found in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the United States. Mosques, Islamic schools, and other community centers have been formed in nearly every community with a significant Muslim population in order to meet the needs of community members. Attempts have been made to estimate the Muslim population in the United States and to provide accurate demographics that outline the ethnic make-up, socio-economic status, education level, and other pertinent information regarding the Muslim American community. Current estimates of the size of the Muslim population in the United States ranges from two million to eleven million people (Haddad, 2004). This wide range is a result of various sampling methods used by researchers, and the utilization of existing census data to project current population size. The Council on American-Islamic Relations estimates the number of Muslims at approximately 7 million individuals. One of the mostly widely accepted and cited estimates within this wide range today is approximately 3 million (Stone, 1991). According to Haddad (2004), nearly 80% of Muslims in the United States are not involved with a mosque. Lovell (1997) estimates the number of foreign Muslim students in the United States as numbering numbers upwards of 750,000. Few doubt that the population is significant and growing due to immigration, conversion, and births to Muslim families already in the United States.

The Muslim population in the United States is made up of both indigenous Muslims who were born in the United States and immigrant Muslims. Most research that has been conducted focuses on immigrant Muslims, particularly those from South Asia and the Middle East. However, the Muslim American population is extremely diverse in terms of ethnicity. The 2007 Pew study found that, of the American Muslims surveyed, around 65% are foreign-born. Amongst foreign-born Muslims, twenty four percent were from areas identified as Arab regions, eight percent identified themselves as being from Pakistan, and ten percent from other South Asian countries. Of the thirty five percent who are native-born Muslims, twenty percent identified themselves as African-American and fifteen percent as belonging to an ethnicity other than African-American. Twenty one percent of the native-born Muslims identified themselves as converts to Islam and fourteen percent stated that they were born Muslim (Pew Research Center, 2007, p. 7).

The Muslim American Identity
Identity is a social psychological concept that includes in its definition an individual’s sense of self, group affiliation, position within the social structure, reputation, and status. Personal identity results from both internal perception and external labels, and can shift due to self-reflection, experience, and change in social norms. As Peek (2005) noted, “While there has been much social scientific exploration of identity over the past decade, major reviews of identity theory and research have largely over-looked the role of religion in forging identities for individuals and groups” (p. 217). Religion, however, can play a significant role in establishing and maintaining a group or social identity, especially for visible minorities (Haddad & Lummis, 1987; Hermansen, 2003).

Recent research on identity formation of Muslims in America (Schumann, 2007; Haddad & Esposito, 2000; Wolfe, 2002; Young, 2008; Sirin et al., 2008) suggests that Islamic values are emerging as a dominant aspect of group identity and often contribute to the creation of a hyphenated “Muslim-American” or “American-Muslim” label that emphasizes both religious adherence and national pride. This creation of a dual identity (Mazrui, 1996), or at times an emphasis of religion over cultural identity in the Muslim American community is a result of multiple emerging factors that exist for immigrant, and first and second generation Muslims, as well as for indigenous Muslim populations and converts to Islam. In the first fifty years of Muslim populations existing in the American landscape, inter-marriage across ethnicities and cultures was uncommon. Current trends suggest that marriage based not on common culture, language, or ethnicity, but rather on adherence to the values and norms emphasized in Islam are becoming the determining factor in choice of a marriage partner (Al-Johar, 2005; Grewal, 2009). English has also been adopted by Muslims in the United States as a common language for use in communication across ethnic lines and in the promotion of institution building within communities.

The Pew Study (2007) also demonstrated the large number of Muslims self-identifying primarily as Muslim and American rather than as Asian or Arab American (p. 3). Studies of internet usage by Muslims also demonstrate the creation of a distinct Muslim American group identity (Zaman, 2008), as younger Muslims turn to the internet to help them create and maintain an Islamic identity. Reports of mosque attendance in the United States reflect diverse demographics which serve to strengthen the American Muslim identity rather than an ethnic identity. Allegiance to Islam has become the dominant social paradigm that transcends racial and ethnic boundaries. Muslim American identity formation has also been attributed to the experience of Muslims across the United States after 9/11 and the need to strengthen identity in response to labeling from outsiders, such as the categorization of “liberal” or “moderate” Muslims. September 11th, though not the origination of discourse of Muslim American identity, has served as a catalyst for debate and interpretation related to Islamic identity in the American context. As Takim (2004) points out: “Muslims have also realized that because of the activities of terrorists, both their Islamic identity and their American citizenship are at stake” (p. 343). This realization has caused many Muslims in America to revaluate their social identity in ways they had previously not been forced to. For many immigrant Muslims, it has resulted in the strengthening of their American identity through the creation of an “American Islamic civic identity,” a term used by Takim, which involves community activism (Kahera, 2002), interfaith dialogue, and increased involvement in Islamic institution building in the United States. For indigenous Muslims, particularly African American Muslims, identity formation has involved strengthening ties to Islam and the adaptation of Islamic-cultural dress, involvement in an ethnic Islamic community in the United States, and seeking a traditional Islamic education at Islamic institutions abroad. This has been noted by Curtis (2005) when discussing the adoption of “Bilalian” dress by early followers of the Nation of Islam, and the stance of early black Muslims toward personal identity (p. 679).

Abdo (2005) also attributes, in part, this redefinition of the Muslim American identity to the events of September 11th, but also acknowledges the role of global Islamic revivalism:

One is the need to seek refuge from the growing hostility within U.S. society toward Muslims….The second reason for the resurgence in the United States is a desire to be part of the worldwide Islamic revival. For many, to be a Muslim in a visible way is to protest the global movement that has condemned Islam (p. 9).

Though both 9/11 and a growing Islamic revivalism are salient features that serve as possible explanations for the contemporary formation of a Muslim American identity, it is important to acknowledge, regardless of cause, that such a dual identity exists and contributes to the relation of Islam to beliefs, values, and practices of a significant segment of the Muslim population in America. The assertion of a Muslim American identity reflects the desire of many Muslims to represent themselves according to two dominant factors; religion and national allegiance. In response to the cognitive process of categorization, Muslim Americans are choosing to self-label and establish their personal and social identity as Islamic within the American context. This is a shift from earlier trends in the history of Muslims in America, where individuals identified themselves to out-groups based upon ethnic, racial, and cultural factors. The labels of “Arab-American” and “Black Muslim,” amongst others, have started to fade away in favor of the more inclusive “Muslim American” or “American Muslim” It presents a pan-ethnic label that is embraced by both the Muslim and non-Muslim population in the United States.

Acculturation
Culture’s role in human behavior, whether positive or negative, cannot be dismissed as a minor variable in the shaping of human personality. Globalization, migration, and urbanization in the past century have highlighted the role of culture in social transformation (Ryder, Alden & Paulhus, 2000; Sampson, 1995).

Acculturation has been conceptualized in different ways over the past century, as both an individual and group process (Teske & Nelson, 1974) and approached as uni-dimensional or bi-dimensional (Schwartz et al., 2010; Berry, 2003; Ryder, Alden & Paulhus, 2000; Bourhis et al, 1997). The concept has its roots in anthropology and sociological research, and has been revisited and re-formulated at regular intervals (Barnett et al, 1954; Schwartz et al, 2010). The majority of early research focused on immigrants arriving in America, though studies have been conducted on populations in other countries. Early definitions incorporated the ideas of acculturation as a process that involves cultural contact between societies (Gillin & Raimy, 1940). Attempts to develop a clear conceptual framework are ongoing, particularly as a result of shifting means for individuals and groups to come into contact with one another (i.e. globalization, the internet, global media), posing the question of whether direct contact is required for this process to occur.

Individuals who live within more than one cultural context, usually as a result of migration or occupation, are often forced to adapt to the social norms of the dominant culture (Berry, 1974). It is these groups that have typically been the focus of the first fifty years of acculturation research. It is this process of acculturation, enculturation, or cultural adaptation that is of great concern in the American context, as the United States consists of a population of immigrants, the descendents of immigrants and slaves, refugees, international students and migrant workers, all in addition to the indigenous peoples of the land

Acculturation is typically understood as a process in which an individual or group adapt to a different cultural system (Matsumoto & Juang, 2008), or the process in which members of two different cultures come into continuous contact resulting in changes in the cultural patterns of one or both of the groups (Berry, 1997; Berry, 1995). Psychological acculturation is best defined as the psychological and behavioral changes that an individual experiences as a result of contact with members of other cultural groups (Padilla, 2006; Berry, 1997).

In Berry’s conceptualization of the process of acculturation, two major questions are posed, which form the two dimensions of his current model: (1) “Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics? And (2) “Is it considered of value to maintain relationships with other groups?” Berry (2003; 1997) proposes four basic acculturation strategies: integration, assimilation, separation, or marginalization. Assimilation is the concept that individuals should set aside the culture in which they were raised or out of which they have come and should accept and embrace the culture of the majority population in which they live. It is commonly understood that immigrant entry into a host society involves assimilation to a certain degree, and many nations have specific integration policies (Bourhis et al, 1997; Kymlicka, 1995; Kaplan, 1993). The United States is no exception, as was clearly outlined in the melting pot ideology, and manifests itself in English-language only and other assimilationist policies. Moghaddam, Taylor & Wright (1993) note: “Immigrants coming to the United States are expected to abandon their ‘old’ culture and accept the ‘American Way.’ Laws that require immigrants to renounce other citizenships, study American history, and advocate American beliefs in the form of pledges and oaths represent institutionalized efforts to assimilate immigrants” (p. 133). A true assimilationist willingly rejects the values and norms of his or her original culture in order to embrace the values of the host or dominant culture. For many immigrants, assimilation is increasingly difficult as they see value in their own culture as well as the dominant culture, and reject the necessity of assimilation.

Integration, in Berry’s acculturation framework, is distinct from assimilation, in that maintaining one’s original cultural identity and characteristics is as valuable as establishing and maintaining relationships with other groups, most notably that of the dominant host culture in situations that involve immigration. Unlike assimilation, the individual or group incorporates aspects of the new culture into their life while preserving aspects of their original culture. These may be specific rituals, beliefs, or values, such as marriage practices, family values, superstitions, food preparation, and others. The individual or group may choose to preserve these aspects for themselves and emphasize these aspects of their old culture when raising children in the host culture. Berry notes that integration may not be the goal of an individual in all aspects’ of their life (Berry, 1995, p. 472). For example, an individual may choose to assimilate in their work life, and integrate in their home life. Integration is more reflective of the current reality in American life, as many immigrants, and even descendents of immigrants, embrace aspects of their cultural heritage, while participating in American life. This can be seen in many Muslim households in the United States, where Islamic dietary rules are maintained, but this does not prevent a Muslim family from enjoying a restaurant meal or attending parties hosted by their non-Muslim friends. In these cases, individuals may eat fish as a substitute for non-zabiha (Islamically cut and prepared) meat, or partake in vegetarian options. Another example of the phenomenon of integration in Muslim American life is the maintenance of modest dress without sacrificing recreational activities. Many Muslim women who wear the hijab are able to swim and engage in other outdoor activities without compromising their values on modesty. American companies have been established selling Muslim bathing suits that consist of swim pants, a full length, full sleeve swim shirt, and a hijab-style swim cap, all designed for safe swimming. It is not unusual to see Muslim women in these swim suits enjoying a day at the beach with the families, a trip to the water park, or a swim in the local pool, just like any other American. In addition, as many individuals from the dominant or host culture encounter other cultural norms and values aside from the culture in which they were raised, a choice is often made to integrate values and activities into their lives. The adoption of yoga, meditation, and other mystical practices of Eastern cultures by Americans is a contemporary example of this approach. This adoption of other cultural norms and practices is typically not followed by a complete separation from the original cultural in which they were raised. Integration, notes Berry (2003), is the most frequently chosen strategy of acculturation.

Despite laws and the general assumption that immigrants or minorities within a majority culture should assimilate, or integrate, many subcultures exist within the larger American society that represent Berry’s notion of cultural separation. Within the acculturation framework, this form of acculturation involves maintaining the groups’ cultural identity and characteristics, while maintaining relationship with other groups, particularly those of the dominant out-group, are not valued. The Amish, the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints (FDLS), and several other groups are examples of Americans who live in many ways, separate and distinct from mainstream American culture. There have always been individuals and groups who have chosen to live in ways that conflict with or differ from the norms of the cultural majority. These groups and individuals have chosen to arrive at the status of separation, in which they choose to maintain their cultural identity and practices, while maintaining few if any relationships with groups or individuals within the host of dominant culture.

Marginalization, the last variety of acculturation in Berry’s framework, occurs when an individual rejects both their original cultural identity, and chooses not to accept the new culture, or establish relationships with other groups (Berry, 1995). This double rejection often brings them into conflict with the society in which they live, in interpersonal relationships, and is viewed as leading to long-term difficulties for the individual. Gibbs et al. (1998) have noted marginalization and acculturative stress as factors in the mental health issues of ethnic minority youth in the United States.

American society, with an emphasis on assimilation as a key component of the melting pot, recognizes that assimilation often takes many years or might never occur completely for immigrants or their first generation descendents. However, respect by Americans themselves for the United States as a multicultural or culturally plural society is increasingly under strain in the post 9/11 era and as a result of increasing rates of international migration. Europe, Canada, and Australia are experiencing the same challenges of large scale immigration, often resulting in members of traditionally collectivistic cultures with different values settling in these largely individualistic societies. Acknowledgment, and often fear of, a resulting “clash of civilizations” fuels modern acculturation research. In addition, interest in how studies of acculturation with different populations can be applied to contemporary social issues, such as public health (Abraido-Lanza, et al., 2006), mental health (Organista, Organista, & Kuraski, 2005; Trinh et al, 2009), risk-taking behaviors (Gong et al, 2005; Caetano & Clark, 2005), and attitudes toward end of life care (Matsumura et al, 1999), has become a dominant aspect of acculturation research.

The majority of immigrants choose integration in which an individual integrates aspects of both his or her own culture and the host culture, and maintains an active relationship with both cultures. This has been demonstrated in various research studies using Berry’s model (Bourhis et al, 1997). Factors that play a role in whether an individual or cultural group is able to integrate include the nature of the contact (voluntary or involuntary), the existence of national policies that promote integration, the existence of racism or discrimination towards the cultural group, and physical features that are different from the dominant culture. Integration is seen as a healthy model of acculturation that allows for an individual to maintain many of his or her original cultural values while adapting to the host culture. Studies have demonstrated that the integration approach results in the least amount of acculturative stress for immigrants (Berry, 1997; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999).

The most common reaction to the process of being immersed in a new culture is a period involving cultural adjustment, often referred to as acculturative stress (Padilla, Wagatsuma & Lindholm, 1985). Adjustment involves the process of maintaining one’s psychological well-being while accepting and acquiring skills that allow one to function successfully within the new culture. Acculturative stress is the experience of anxiety resulting from the acculturative process or from inability to adapt to the new country or culture (Mio, Barker, & Tumambing, 2009). Most immigrants will experience periods of acculturative stress and cultural adjustment as part of the larger process resulting in integration, assimilation, separation or marginalization. The study of acculturative stress and coping with adaptation to a new culture continues to be a significant focus with acculturative research. It is not yet understood how acculturative stress affects the mental and physical health of immigrants, as studies have yielded various results (Shim & Schwartz, 2008; Knipscheer & Kleber, 2006; Khuwaja et al, 2007).

The development of acculturation measures
Berry’s work argues for two fundamental dimensions that he feels must be present in the measurement of the process of acculturation. These are the maintenance of cultural identity and the maintenance of relations with the other group or groups, sometime referred to as the dominant or host culture. Recent developments of acculturation measures reflect a current understanding of acculturation as a bi-directional, multidimensional process (Schwartz, et al, 2010; Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000; Bourhis et al, 1997; Zea et al, 2003), though many scales maintain a linear, unidimensional form of measuring acculturation. These types of measures have been developed and tested on a few minority populations within the United States, most commonly Hispanic-Americans, Asian Americans, and Arab Americans (Abe-Kim, Okazaki, & Goto, 2001; Kumar & Nevid, 2010; Cabassa, 2003; Zea et al, 2003; Barry, 2005). As the concept of acculturation continues to develop, looking at acculturation as merely a process undergone by immigrants is changing. This has resulted in an increasing number of studies examining acculturation in Native American and African American populations (Settles et al., 2010). Several studies have also tested acculturation measures on populations outside of the United States, particularly those in Canada (Chia & Costigan, 2006; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999). These contemporary acculturation measures usually include several factors such as language, behavior, cultural identity, values, and cultural knowledge. The most common element to ethnic based measures is language use and culture of origin identity. As noted by Zea et al. (2003) the most difficult factor to asses is values, which may be constantly shifting in both the host or dominant cultures, as well as in the culture of origin. The majority of acculturation measures in some way assess the maintenance of cultural identity and identification with the host or other culture. In addition, most measures consist of separate scales to measure these dimension and to place individuals within one of the four acculturation modes of assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization.

Many existing measures include culture specific constructs that correspond to identity, values, or behavior. For example, the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation scale measures loss of face and impression management, two constructs that are culture-specific to East Asian populations (Abe-Kim, Okazaki, & Goto, 2001; Kodama & Cannetto, 1995; Suinn, Khoo, & Ahuna, 1995). These cultural indicators are unique variables in a culture-specific measure. Several measures have also been developed to measure acculturation within the Hispanic populations in the United States (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995; Marin & Gamba, 1996). Cabassa (2003) has noted that these measures have struggled to incorporate value and attitude indicators, necessitating the need for further development and testing of these measures.

Other criticisms of current acculturation measures are their focus on one specific ethnic group, and thus the inability to apply them to other groups, the testing of acculturation measures on college student populations, and their focus on only one or two constructs within the original conceptual framework of acculturation. Researchers also worry that the acculturation process has been emphasized as universal for all immigrant groups (Bhatia & Ram, 2001; Hermen & Kempen, 1998) an assumption that must be re-examined in the face of the last ten years of acculturation research. Bhatia & Ram (2001), for example, argue that immigrant communities cannot be properly examined within taking into account the historical and political narratives of each group that may be an integral part of their migration, and thus acculturation, story. Other research points to the importance of the host culture in shaping the process of acculturation for immigrants or sojourners (Bastian & Haslam, 2007; Bourhis et al, 1997). Conflictual or discriminatory relationships between the host community and the immigrant community have been shown to negatively affect acculturation in the immigrant communities studied.

Additional factors that Cabassa (2003) asserts need to be taken into consideration when exploring the acculturation process of different groups includes prior immigration context, individual factors related to immigration choice, the context of the immigration itself with a focus on the immigration journey, settlement context, and individual factors influencing settlement such as age, status, and time in the culture (p.131). He feels that incorporating these contextual factors will improve knowledge of the acculturation process and the role of these factors in that process.

The multidimensional and multi-directional nature of proposed acculturation models continue to be explored and developed, and continue to have far-reaching applications within the American context. Until researchers can decide on the effectiveness of using a bidimensional model over unidemsional approaches in measures, there will continue to be inconsistency in acculturation research. Criticisms exist of both approaches (Ryder et al, 2000), and tests have been conducted to empirically prove the effectiveness of one approach over the other (Abe-Kim, Okazaki, & Goto, 2001; Cabassa, 2003; Zea et al, 2003).

Acculturation and Muslim Americans.
Since, and perhaps prior to the events of September 11, 2001, there has been an attempt to understand and define what it means to be a Muslim American by not only researchers, but by the Muslim community in America themselves. Religious identification and degree of acculturation have taken center stage in the concern regarding large immigrant Muslim populations in other Western countries, such as Great Britain, Spain, France, and Germany, where they have witnessed a level of marginalization and separation by members of these communities, leading to concerns over terrorism and national loyalties. Haddad (2004) discusses an internal struggle within the Muslim community regarding how to place themselves within the American context. There was no longer an argument by the 1980’s, she contends, regarding whether Muslims could live in the United States and still maintain their faith: “Rather the discussion shifted to the definition of Muslim life in the American context—the institutions necessary for the maintenance of Muslim identity, and the scope of Muslim participation in the American public square” (p. 38). Today, most Muslim leaders and organizations in the United States emphasize engagement and participation in the larger society as a method to avoid isolation, while at the same time becoming educated about Islam not only for these purposes of engagement but also to provide accurate knowledge of and pride in Islamic heritage for the next generation. Many Muslim Americans are aware that assimilation, to some extent, is impossible to avoid, and must determine the aspects of Islamic belief and practice they want to maintain.

However, since the events of September 11, 2001, Muslims in the United States have faced an increasing barrage of prejudice and discrimination from their fellow Americans, resulting in an increase in what Berry referred to as reverse acculturation, especially among first and second generation Muslim American youth. Rumbault (2008) also discussed this phenomenon and referred to it as reactive ethnicity. As noted by Padilla (1987), the greater the level of perceived discrimination, the more likely an individual was to identity with his or her heritage group. Reviewing this earlier research, Padilla and Perez (2003) state:

It is important that the discrimination reported by the informant did not have to be directed at him or her specifically; in fact, it was sufficient for the person to merely believe that discriminatory acts had been directed toward other members of the same group for the person to report greater loyalty towards his or her group (pp.38-39).

Given these reports on the role of discrimination and cultural identification, it is not surprising that we are seeing an increase in identification with Islam among many Muslim Americans, as well as a rise in Muslims who feel themselves increasingly marginalized or dehumanized with the American context (Bagasra, 2008). This rejection by host cultures of Muslim values and social customs, being seen within Europe and now within the United States, violates the requirements for healthy integration and adaptation outlined by Berry and others.

Muslim American youth in particular struggle to establish a “blended” identity (Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005) as both Muslim and very much American, as most are first or second generation and therefore have no “home country” to return to. They are not immigrants, but are often viewed as immigrants by members of the host community, resulting in a reaction of holding on to their parents’ cultural heritage more strongly that their parents or grandparents may have when they immigrated. Many Muslims are making an attempt to strongly assert their Muslim identity, most notably by way of dress and social relationships, while others make an effort to integrate into the mainstream culture of their community. Abdo (2005) echoes this, stating:

Muslims in the United States, particularly the younger generation, feel they must make a choice between becoming integrated into U.S. society, which requires accepting social norms they find anathema to their faith, or joining the global Islamic revival now gaining momentum in the United States. More and more, they are choosing the latter (p. 9).

Those who are unable to reconcile their dual identity as an American and as a Muslim often end up renouncing either Islam or America. Some youth renounce Islam, maintaining none of the practices such as prayer, fasting, and modest dress, and engage in traditionally taboo behaviors such as drinking, dating, and premarital sex. These individuals choose what may be termed an assimilationist model of acculturation. Other Muslim Americans renounce America and migrate to Arab or predominately Muslim nations, or choose to live in America while isolating him or herself from the larger dominant culture. Abdo (2005) and others have analyzed the struggle of separation vs. integration that many Muslims in America seem to face at one point or another (Bennett, 2005). Peek (2005) reports the pressures many young Muslim Americans faced to change their appearance in order to blend more with mainstream society. Fewer individuals express the desire to assimilate the way the first wave of Arab immigrants did upon arriving in America. One factor that may affect this ability is that a majority of contemporary Muslim immigrants are non-White, or cannot pass as White. Color differences make it more difficult for the population to acculturate when labeled as a racial minority within the host culture. In addition, many are coming from nations that spent half a century or more under colonial rule, bringing this history with them into their immigration experience. Muslims also make up the largest refugee population in the United States. Refugees’ ability to acculturate is influenced by their reception into the host community, previous traumas, and the fact that their migration may not be voluntary (Schwartz et al, 2010; Akhtar, 1999).

The trend of separation from the host culture may be more commonplace since September 11, 2001, though no research has been conducted to measure how many Muslim Americans are actually pulling away from the values and norms of their host country. It should be mentioned that many media outlets currently propagate the idea of Muslim Americans as a group that wants to change American laws and impose their own values on Americans, with no evidence presented to back up this claim. The only major study of Muslim Americans has shown that majority, however, self-identify as both Muslim and American, and have adapted aspects of American culture that do not violate Islamic values into their daily lives, demonstrating Berry’s acculturation strategy of integration. The Pew study (2007) found that forty seven percent of Muslims in the United States think of themselves first as Muslim rather than American, which was far lower than Muslim minorities surveyed by Pew in Britain, Germany, and Spain, where more than half of respondents identified themselves first as Muslim and then as citizens of their respective countries (p. 3).

Several studies have recently been conducted examining acculturation issues among Muslim Americans. Many of these have been dissertations and have focused not on Muslim Americans in general but rather on subsets of the population, usually identified by ethnicity and religion (Husain, 2008; Horan, 2008; Britto & Amer, 2007; Ali 2006). Horan (1995) looked at Arab-American communities and acculturation and found that Muslim Arab-Americans are reluctant or unwilling to adapt to American culture, and Christian Arab-Americans were more likely to choose integration. Britto & Amer (2007) also analyzed the intersection of culture and faith on Arab Muslim young adults in the United States and found that most youth fell into one of three categories: High Bicultural, Moderate Bicultural, or High Arab cultural. Acculturation scales were utilized with this study population, and the results showed higher levels of acculturative stress for those who scored as moderate bicultural. This demonstrates the difficulties that individuals face when they are neither strongly integrated into the host culture, nor strongly tied to the culture of their ancestry or origin. Faragallah & Schumm (2003) have also explored the acculturation of Arab-American immigrants using length of residence, age at immigration, and time since last visit to their Arab homeland as a way to measure exposure to U.S. culture. Other measures utilized to assess acculturation include adoption of American cultural practices, identification, American friendships, usage of American media, and use of English at home. They termed these intervening acculturation variables. 12 of the 37 participants in the study were Muslims and most self-identified as moderately religious. They found that Muslims reported less satisfaction with life in the United States and were more traditional than the Arab-Christian counterparts. Amer and Hovey (2005) found similar differences in acculturation between Muslim and Christian Arabs, with Christians reporting greater assimilation. Nardi (2006) used a modified Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale to measure acculturation in a population of Arab-American Muslim women in order to assess how level of acculturation influences the acculturation of their daughters. Olds (2009) and Kulungu (2008) identified religious identity and religious values as important aspects of acculturation within the Muslim American population, demonstrating the need to include these factors in the study of acculturation.

Religious Commitment
For the purpose of this study, religion will encompass both the aspects of tradition and faith. Religion consists of a shared tradition that contains beliefs and practices that are accepted by a group of people and can result in personal or group expressions of these beliefs. Religion is usually viewed, particularly from the standpoint of Western traditions, as an institution with set doctrines and social norms, though this is too narrow to encompass all of the traditions consistently labeled as ‘religions’.
In the face of broad, ephemeral definitions of religion that are often steeped in bias, it is no easier to offer a clear, operational definition of religious commitment for the purpose of psychosocial research. Religious commitment and religiosity have often been used interchangeably to refer to the level of importance religion plays in the life of an individual, or the level to which a person displays their commitment to religious beliefs. Social psychologists have studied religious commitment on many levels, examining types of religious commitment (Davidson, 1975; Allport, 1967), factors affecting religious commitment (Loewenthal, 2001; Stark, 2002), and the forms of religious commitment (Hood, 1973).

Various approaches have been taken in an effort to define religious commitment. Glock (1962) proposed five dimensions of religious commitment: the ideological dimension, the ritualistic dimension, the experiential dimension, the intellectual dimension, and the consequential dimension (Davidson, 1975). A few years later, Gordon Allport developed the idea of intrinsic and extrinsic religious commitment and a Religious Orientation Scale to measure these two different orientations (Allport, 1967). These initial conceptualizations of religious commitment have been criticized, but form the first empirically methodologies to study individual expressions of religiousness. Watson et al. (1998) argue that Allport’s initial definition of intrinsic commitment is not what is actually being measured in his Religious Orientation scale. The results of their study suggest that the intrinsic scale is more likely to measure absolutist thinking than the mature form of internal, flexible religious practices outlined by Allport. These discrepancies lead us to need a clearer definition of religious commitment that defines what commitment itself means, rather than focusing on what type of commitment is viewed as healthy or unhealthy.

Religious Commitment has recently been operationalized by the National Institutes of Health Research panel as one of ten key domains of religion and defined as: “The importance of religion/spirituality relative to other areas of life and the extent to which religious or spiritual beliefs and practices serve to affect personal values and behavior” (George et al., 2000, p.105). Like other definitions of religious commitment, the one proposed by NIHR hovers around four key terms: beliefs and practices, and values and behavior. This harkens back to Glock’s model, in which the ideological dimension of religious commitment focuses on beliefs that individuals adherent to a religion maintain, and the ritualistic dimension focuses on practices that individuals are expected to maintain. Ritual practice can be viewed as derived from knowledge of doctrine and tradition, as well as personal experiences. These beliefs and practices can be seen as the core aspects, therefore, or religious commitment, and are derived from the specific religious tradition to which an individual adheres. This also fits with the body of work suggesting religious commitment as multidimensional (Finney, 1978), in which each dimension can then be studied separately.

The development of religious commitment measures.
A significant portion of the overall American population are considered religious, with more than half in some surveys praying at least once a day (Woodward, 1997). In addition, numerous polls have shown that Americans believe religion or spiritual faith, in addition to prayer, can help in the recovery from disease, and that health professionals should pray with their patients if asked to (Sloan et al, 1990; Idler et al, 2001). Bergin, Payne & Richards (1997) summarize research on the prevalence of religious commitment, stating:

Gallup surveys show that 95% of Americans believe in a universal spirit or God and as many as 87% claim to pray (Religion in America, 1985). One third of the U.S. population endorses religious commitment as the most important dimension of their lives. Religion was considered a very important factor for another one third of the population (pp.304-305).

These and other studies point to the importance of religion and religious commitment in the lives of many Americans, strengthening the argument for more studies that accurately measure religious commitment and its influence on other aspects of life for Americans.

Attempts to develop measures of religiosity or religious commitment have been ongoing. Hundreds of instruments have been designed to measure religious beliefs, practices, religious attitudes, orientation, religious commitment and involvement, as well as religious development, religiousness, religious fundamentalism, spirituality, God concept, and related constructs. The majority of existing scales and measurements were developed in the United States and apply specifically to the Judeo-Christian religious traditions (Allport, 1967). As Hill & Hood (1999) have pointed out, several limitations exist regarding the validity of existing scales. The over usage of American college students as a convenient sample in most scales is problematic when determining if the scale will accurately apply to one’s sample population. Most of the existing scales have also been utilized in a very small and limited number of studies. More relevant when discussing the Muslim population is the fact that most scales apply to American protestant religious orientations. Hill & Hood caution, “This deficiency is obvious and the researcher is cautioned to recognize that scales to measure non-Protestant religion are less common; in terms of non-Western faith traditions, relevant scales are virtually nonexistent” (1999, p. 4). Thus, effort has to be made, when seeking to measure level of religiosity and related constructs within the Muslim population, to modify existing scales or create new scales when possible in order to create a measurement that is applicable to Muslims.

Despite these issues with the measure of religious commitment, research has shown that the measure of religious behavior seems to be more valid than general measures of religiosity (Gartner, 1997). Thus, many newer measures of religious commitment emphasize practice as the key dimension of religious commitment. These measures continue to be tested and refined to establish validity in Christian and non-Christian populations (O’Connor et al, 2003).

Measures of religiosity & religious commitment in the Muslim Population
Over the past ten years there has been an increasing recognition among social scientists working within Muslim societies of the need to define religiosity and religious commitment (Hassan, 2007; Khashan & Kreidie, 2001), and to formulate measures specific to the Muslim population (Abu Raiya, et al., 2008; AlMarri, Oei, & Al-Adawi, 2009; Albelaiki, 1998; Chang-Ho & Ibrahim, 2007; Krauss et al., 2007; Wilde & Joseph, 1997).

The need for the development of a measurement of Muslim religiosity has been noted by social and psychological researchers and religious scholars alike (Ilyas, 1992), but few formal attempts have been made to develop such a scale and test it for reliability and validity. Several studies have been conducted examining religiosity in Muslim populations outside of the United States using researcher-created measurements. Abu Raiya et al. (2008) developed a 60-item psychological measure of Islamic religiousness and tested it initially on a small group of Muslims in the United States and Israel. This multidimensional scale moves in the direction of providing an empirical way of testing the link between Islamic beliefs, practices, and mental health, but remains in the early exploratory stages. Wilde & Joseph (1997) developed a 14-item Muslim Attitudes Toward Religion Scale and tested it initially on a population of 50 British Muslims. The scale consists of three factors: a personal help factor, a Muslim worldview factor, and a Muslim practices factor. The scale was found to be internally reliable and was later tested by Ghorbani et al (2000), to determine the scale’s validity within the Iranian population. Though found to be valid within the Iranian student population and the British Muslim population, it has been acknowledged that the context of belief (within a non-Muslim majority versus a Muslim-majority society, for example) may be a very important factor in how religiosity relates to other aspects of individuals lives, such as mental health. Ji & Ibrahim (2007a, 2007b) measured Islamic religiosity in an attempt to examine whether religiosity shapes authoritarian social conservatism amongst Muslims in Indonesia Subsequent studies conducted by the researchers focus on moral reasoning (Ji, Ibrahim & Kim, 2009). The scale developed and utilized by Ji and Ibrahim has not been tested yet with Muslim populations outside of Indonesia. Their Religious Life Inventory is heavily drawn from Allport’s concept of extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity, while their Islamic Doctrinal Orthodoxy Scale focuses on eight fundamental Islamic doctrines and beliefs. Krauss et al. (2007) developed a Muslim Religiosity Personality Inventory (MRPI) and applied their scale to members of four faith traditions in Malaysia. Their results found the scale reliable to use with not only Muslims but members of other faith groups in Malaysia. Unlike the scales developed by Ji and Ibrahim, Krauss and his team focused entirely on the Islamic perspective during the scale development process. This included in-depth interviews with Islamic scholars and a review of existing literature. Their Islamic religiosity model is divided into two constructs termed the ‘Islamic Worldview’ construct and the ‘Religious Personality’ construct. The Islamic Worldview construct focuses on agreement with Islamic creed, while the Religious Personality construct focuses on practices: “The Religious Personality includes behaviors, motivations, attitudes and emotions that aim to assess personal manifestations of the Islamic teachings and commands” (Krauss et al, 2005, p.177). Within the Religious Personality construct are three dimensions termed Self, Social, and Ritual. The Ritual dimension is designed to directly measure commitment to practices. According to the authors:

Unlike the prior two dimensions, the ritual dimension reflects one’s direct relationship with Allah through his or her ritualistic acts such as prayer, fasting, reading Qur’an, charity and others. The dimension also includes Islamic discipline such as one’s dress and appearance, as well as items specific to the Islamic legal rulings. This dimension thus aims to assess one’s level of commitment (iltizam) toward the ritualistic strivings (p.179).

Such studies, however, have not been conducted with Muslims in the West, where ethnic composition, culture, and background vary in comparison to the Muslim population found in Southeast Asia.

Methodological Approach
The primary method of research utilized for this study is a self-administered attitude, belief, and behavior questionnaire. This type of questionnaire is used frequently in psychological and social-psychological research to elicit responses to specific, carefully-formulated questions designed to correspond directly with the study’s research questions. One of the most common procedures to measure attitudes in a self-report questionnaire is through the use of a Likert-type scale where an individual checks one from a range of possible responses to each statement. The “Acculturation Scale” for Muslim Americans” is designed to measure acceptance of and participation in activities that are viewed as representative of American social norms and adherence to Islamic identity. This measure also utilizes a Likert-type scale and is based upon previous qualitative research examining Muslim and American values and social behaviors. The goal of this scale is to establish a measure of an individual’s level of assimilation within mainstream American society. The second scale is a religious commitment scale designed by the researcher to measure specific behaviors that are indicative of a high level of religious commitment within the Islamic religion. The scale uses frequency of behaviors with the lowest frequency scored as a 1. The religious commitment scale was tested on 70 individuals and feedback from participants on the questions, wording of questions, and frequency of behaviors was incorporated into the present scale.

These two instruments, along with a brief demographic questionnaire, have been designed to be easy to understand and straightforward. All of the instruments have been pre-tested with a population of fifty or more respondents. Participants were encouraged to provide feedback on the measures. The feedback received from participants was incorporated to create refined instruments in order to improve overall survey design, reduce confusion, and avoid ambiguity. This included rephrasing statements and providing other response choices. For example, several respondents commented that there needed to be a category in the religious commitment scale for those who never pray. This was added to the current measure. In addition feedback provided indicated that some questions on the original acculturation scale were viewed as offensive, and were modified or removed.

Procedures
Prior to data collection, approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. IRB approval was obtained in September of 2009. All potential participants were provided a brief description of the study via either a paper or electronic “cover letter” that informed them of the purpose of the study, potential benefits and risks of participation, and the voluntary nature of their participation. The cover letter emphasized the anonymity of participation and provided contact information for the principal researcher. In addition, the cover letter outlined the age and residency criteria for participation. Due to the anonymous nature of the study and the distrust of researchers currently present within the study population, written consent was not received. The researcher relied on implied consent to indicate willingness to participate. The cover letter emphasized that filling out the survey was an indication of willingness for their responses to be included in analysis of the study data.

Survey Distribution
Surveys were distributed to Muslim Americans through both paper distribution and on-line distribution as part of a larger study of beliefs about mental illness. The three methods of physical distribution, mail distribution, and internet distribution were chosen in order to increase response rates and reach a diverse segment of the Muslim American population. A multi-modal sampling method has been determine to be the best method of survey distribution within the Muslim American population, based on previous large-scale studies conducted by the Pew Research Center and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and previous research studies conducted by the researcher.

The main method of paper survey distribution was through specific religious organizations and mosques. Paper surveys were mainly distributed at mosques in the Southeast region during Friday prayer services (Jummah). The community leaders at these mosques were contacted and permission to disseminate packets was acquired. Packets included the cover letter and full survey, and were enclosed in brown envelopes. A designated place for completed surveys to be dropped off on-site was determined by the mosque or Islamic center leader, and announced to the congregation. Three mosques in South Carolina were the site of survey distribution. The Imam or community leader of each mosque announced the survey and asked community members to participate and return completed surveys to a designated table in the men or women’s section of the mosque. The researcher’s spouse assisted in the distribution of surveys to male community members at each site. The assistance of a male family member to distribute surveys was necessary to respect gender role norms and due to the physical segregation of the sexes at these sites. One Islamic school was the site for distribution during the month of Ramadan. The survey was announced during a fast-breaking dinner (iftar), and community members were asked to pick up a packet outside of their respective prayer areas and return completed packets to a box located in the hallway. Packets were collected at the end of the month of fasting from this site. Survey packets were also distributed in Orlando, Florida at a wedding service in the Fall of 2009. These packets included a self-addressed, stamped envelope for return. Some attendees took multiple packets to distribute in their respective communities, resulting in a number of paper responses from California. In addition, one hundred survey packets were sent through the mail to Muslim Americans whose addresses were available through the Atlanta Muslim directory and the South Carolina Muslim directory. Survey packets included the cover letter, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and a small incentive of an Islamic bumper sticker to encourage participation and increase the response rate.

The second method used to disseminate the survey was the internet. The online Survey site SurveyMonkey was utilized to provide the survey anonymously to web users. Online survey providers have been utilized for several years for both large and small research studies. They provide a sense of anonymity to participants, and are viewed as user-friendly by those who are familiar with the Internet. The online survey was distributed by advertising on the social networking site Facebook, sending the cover letter with a link to the survey to the listservs of Muslim organizations, and through individual email to Muslim community leaders who were asked to disseminate the survey to friends, colleagues, and community members. The SurveyMonkey link was available from September 15, 2009 until December 15, 2009. Web distribution of the survey was used to reach individuals who identify as Muslims, but do not frequently engage in Muslim events or attend mosques, as well as younger, technologically savvy Muslims who would be more likely to fill out an online rather than a paper survey. Internet surveys tend to be completed by individuals who are demographically more educated, economically better off, have frequent access to the internet, and are less likely to be recent immigrants.

Measures

Muslim Religious Commitment Scale (MRCS)
Religious commitment or religiosity is defined as the degree to which an individual is committed to the values, beliefs, and practices of a particular religious tradition. It is measured in this instance by degree of ritualized, social, and spiritual practices, encompassing involvement in religious activities, and adherence to key tenets and doctrines. This is in contrast to self-reports of religiosity, level or certainty of religious belief, or religious values (Hill & Hood, 1999). Religion is defined here as a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law, and refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

The Religious Commitment scale was designed by the researcher to measure the level of religious commitment in the Muslim population as existing religious commitment scales tested in the United States apply exclusively to the Judeo-Christian tradition (Hill & Hood, 1999) and scales developed for Muslims have been tested on specific Muslim populations in the East (Krauss et al, 2005; Ji & Ibrahim, 2007a). The goal of the scale is to measure level of religious involvement and commitment using as indicators the most common Islamic religious practices, and religiously influenced behaviors such as dress, eating, and charity.

The original scale consisted of eleven questions. Six of these items measured frequency of specific behaviors and five questions use a Likert scale to measure the influence of Islamic values in decisions and activities. The highest possible score was 63 and the lowest score was 0. Individuals are then categorized as low in religious commitment, moderate in religious commitment, and high religious commitment, based on the mean score for religious commitment. The scale was tested on seventy Muslim participants ages 18 to 72 through SurveyMonkey and distribution at a mosque in South Carolina. The results found the highest score was 59 and the lowest score 8. The mean score was 40.93 and the median 44. The majority of participants scored moderate to high on the scale. The scale has been modified based on feedback from these participants and the results of reliability statistical analysis.

The modified religious commitment scale now consists of ten questions and focuses exclusively on frequency of engaging in Islamic practices and is scored on a six point (1-6) Likert scale. The minimum score is 10 and the maximum score is sixty. Attempts will be made to establish reliability of the scale through informal testing, but based upon the initial testing, it is believed that the modifications to the scale are sufficient and reliability can be established. The present scale is designed to reflect specific Islamic beliefs and practices and is based on previously designed psychosocial instruments such as those developed by Sethi & Seligman (1993), Heist & Yonge (1968), Martin & Nichols (1962), and Allen & Spilka (1967). This scale has questions that reflect the most prominent Islamic practices and is easy for Muslims to understand and complete.

Acculturation of Muslim Americans scale.
The acculturation scale for Muslim Americans is designed to measure the degree to which an individual is integrated into American culture (through conformity to American social norms) and to what degree an individual holds strongly to Islamic values. It is assumed that an individual who has a high score in Islamic identity values will have a lower score on the American norm conformity subscale. The 16 item scale asks participants to indicate how true each statement in terms of their own attitudes and behaviors on a 1 to 5 point scale, with 1 labeled as not true at all and 5 labeled as extremely true of me. There is no middle ground choice in which the respondent can choose “neither true or untrue of me” because the questions are fairly specific and force the respondents to choose what is true for them in most situations. Nine of the fourteen items measure constructs that represent a high level of cultural adjustment and integration, such as the celebration of non-Muslim holidays, voting in elections, demonstrating patriotism, keeping dogs inside the home, shaking hands with members of the opposite sex, and willingness to marry a non-Muslim. Five of the items represent adherence to values of Muslim identity, such as the importance of maintaining Islamic practices, avoidance of situations involving alcohol, and the importance of modest dress. A score of 5 would be a low level of Islamic identity, while a score closer to 25 indicates a high level of Islamic identity. Neither sub -scale is designed to judge what, if any, is a healthy level of cultural conformity or identity, but merely to provide a tool to measure level of acculturation for members of the Muslim population living in the United States.

Participants.
Participants were recruited through the internet and through community contacts in the Muslim community in the Southeastern region of the United States. The number of individuals who completed and returned paper surveys and were included in data analysis numbered 93. 162 surveys were completed on the internet survey site SurveyMonkey. Participants were 255 (118 males and 135 females) individuals throughout the United States who self-identified as Muslim and met the criteria of being 18 years or older and either a United States citizen, permanent resident, or residing in the United States for at least 8 months out of the year. Muslim, for the purpose of the study, was defined as an individual who identifies him or herself as a follower of the religion of Islam. This label does not differentiate between Muslims who are strict practitioners, but rather refers to anyone who views Islam as a core aspect of their identity. The requirements to be considered a ‘Muslim American’ therefore, makes allowances for those who may be illegal or without official status, but cannot separate ‘American’ from their individual identity.

Results

Demographics
Participants (118 males and 136 females) ranged in age from 18 to 98 years (M=36.1, SD=15.6). Reported marital statuses were single (29%), married (62.7%), widowed (.8%), divorced (4.7%), and engaged (2.7%). Participants self-reported race were analyzed and categorized into eight groups: Caucasian/White (13%), Asian, including South, South East and Asian Indian (44.5%), Mixed or Multi-Racial (5.9%), Middle Eastern/Arab (15.5%), African American/Black (11.3%), Native American/American Indian (.8%), Hispanic/Latino (1.3%), and Other (7.5%).

Figure 1: Study Participants Race/Ethnicity

Nine educational levels were represented among the respondents (.8% less than high school, 17.2% High School, 10% Associates Degree, 32.4% Bachelors Degree, 20.8% Masters Degree, 5.6% Doctorate, 1.2% J.D. and M.D. respectively, and .8% Other). 41.8% of participants were born in the United States, with the remaining 58.2% representing 34 different countries of origin ranging from Pakistan (19.1%) to Syria (5.6%) and countries such as Kenya, Canada, Chile, Holland, Burundi, and Guyana. Years in the United States ranged from 1 to 35 years (M=17.2, SD=10.9). 58.5% of participants reported being employed at the time of participation in the study. Type of employment ranged from Customer Service to Sports, with 15.1% of participants identifying their employment as a physician, 7.2% in Higher Education, and 5.9% in Early Childhood to High School Education. 5.3% of participants reported employment in Sales and Related Service. More than twenty other diverse areas of employment were reported.

Participants were asked to report their region of residence in the United States in order to assess distribution of the survey. As a result of paper distribution in the Southeast, 50.8% reported residing in that region. 15.5% of respondents stated their region of residence as the Midwest, 12.3% the Northeast, 1.2% the Rocky Mountain Region, 3.6% the Mid-Atlantic, 8.7% the Southwest, and 7.9% the West Coast.

Figure 2: Distribution of Study Participants by U.S. Region

Figure 3: Immigrants by Country of Origin

Participants represented all types of Muslims. Forty one participants (16.5%) identified as converts/reverts to Islam, while 207 (83.5%) stated that they were born Muslim. Of the 41 who identified as converts, number of years since conversion ranged from 1 to 57 years (M=16.6, SD=13.2). 252 participants answered questions regarding religious orientation. The majority (58.3%) identified as Sunni, 31.3% as ‘Just Muslim”, 2% as Shia, .4% as Bohra, 1.6% as Ismaili, .4% as Salafi, 5.6% as Sufi, and .4% as Wahabi. Participants were also asked to report their level of practice, with 61% identifying their level of practice as ‘moderate”, 18.7% as ‘Orthodox’, 10.8% as Liberal, 8.4% as a ‘Very Strict Practitioner’ (More than Orthodox), .8% as Non-practicing, and .4% as ‘Other’.

Figure 4: Self-reported Level of Islamic Practice

Religious Commitment and Acculturation Scores
The Muslim Religious Commitment Scale (MRCS) was designed to measure level of religious commitment within the Muslim population. Scores ranged from 11 to 57 (M=40). The highest frequency of individuals had scores between 37 and 52, indicating that the majority of participants had a moderate to high religious commitment. 7.6% of respondents had a score between 10 and 26, indicating a low level of religious commitment. 42.4% had a score between 27 and 44 on the scale, indicating moderate religious commitment, and 42.4% had a score between 44 and 60, indicating a high level of religious commitment.

Individual item scores indicated that 6.1% of participants never donate to a mosque or Islamic charitable organization, while 31.6% donate two to three times a year, 21.9% donate more than three times a year, 23.5% donate about once a month, 15.4% donate once a week, and 1.6% donate more than once a week. 3.2% never read the Quran, 15.8% read the Quran about two or three times a year, 17% read about once a month, and 12.1% read about once a week. 20.2% indicated they read more than once a week and 31.6% read every day. 3.6% of participants never eat halal meat, 6.1% eat halal rarely, 20.2% eat halal meat some of the time, 17.8% eat it most of the time, while 12.1% eat it almost always and 40.1% always eat halal meat.

12.6% of participants said they do not pray salat (the proscribed prayers) every day. 3.6% pray 1 time a day, 4.5% pray on average two times a day, 9.3% three times a day, 7.7% pray four times a day, and 62.3% indicate they pray five times a day. In regards to reading about Islam in books, magazines, or on the internet, 2.4% indicated they never read about Islam through these mediums, 14.6% a few times a year, 8.5% less than once a month, 21.1% read more than once a month, 32.8% read more than once a week and 20.2% read every day.

3.6% of participants never go to the mosque, Islamic center, or attend Muslim gatherings. 11.7% do so once or twice a year, while 15.4% do so more than once a month. 30% attend about once a week, 30.4% once a week, and 8.9% every day.

Fasting and free prayer are two other acts of worship that Muslims engage in. 4.1% of participants indicated they never fast, while 8.5% fast during the month of Ramadan, but not the entire month. 43.1% fast only during Ramadan, for the entire month, while 33.7% fast several times a year in addition to Ramadan. 6.5% fast about once a month in addition to Ramadan, and 4.1% fast almost every week, in addition to fasting during the month of Ramadan. 6.1% never engage in a form of free prayer such as dua, 24.3% do, but not frequently, and 6.9% do so on about a monthly basis. 13.8% engage in free prayer at least once a week, 22.3% do so at least once a day, and 26.7% engage in an act of “free” prayer, outside of the five times proscribed prayers, more than once a day.

7.3% of participants say they never refer to their religious beliefs when choosing what to wear, and 9.8% do so only on occasion. 13.8% refer to religious beliefs on some occasions, and 9.8% refer on many occasions when choosing what to wear. 11.8% refer to their religious beliefs frequently, but not every day, while 47.6% refer on a daily basis to their religious beliefs when choosing what to wear. The last worship category refers to frequency of engagement in Dhikr, an individual or group ritual involving chanting or repetition of words or phrases that invoke remembrance of Allah. 7.7% said they never engage in this practice, and 5.7% do so more than once a year. 9.7% engage in dhikr several times a year, 9.3% at least once a month, and 14.2% weekly. 53.4% engage in dhikr almost every day.

There were no significant differences in overall religious commitment scores for immigrant and non-Immigrant Muslim Americans. Immigrant scores ranged from 14 to 54 with a mean score of 39. Non-immigrant scores ranged from 14-57 with a mean score of 41.9. The majority of participants self-identified as moderate in their level of religious practice, with a slightly smaller percentage identifying as orthodox or very strict practitioners. Scores on the religious commitment scale reflect the self-identified level of practice, and provide insight into the religious practices that are most important to Muslims in America.

The acculturation scale consists of two sub scales, measuring Islamic identity on one hand, and Conformity to American social norms on the other. The lowest possible score was 5 and the highest possible score was 25. The scores of participants did range from 5 to 25, with the highest percentage of participants falling in the range of 14-20. The mean score for Islamic identity was 17.25. 5.2% of participants had scores in the low identity range, between 5 and 11. 39.6% had a score in the moderate Islamic Identity range, between 12-18, and 50.2% had a high Islamic identity score, between 19-25. The majority of participants, therefore, demonstrated a high level of identification with Islamic values.

Specific item scores reveal what values and behaviors are most representative of maintenance of an Islamic identity for Muslim Americans. 10% of participants stated that it was not at all true of them that the majority of their friends are Muslim, while 12% said this was slightly true of them, and 31.1% said it was moderately true of them. 31.1% said it was very true that the majority of their friends are Muslim, and 15.8% said this was extremely true of them. 12.5% of participants stated that it was not at all important to them to wear clothes that reflect their Muslim identity, while 14.2% said it was slightly important, and 23.3% stated it was moderately important. For 26.7% of participants it is very true that dressing in a way that is modest and reflects their Muslim identity is important, and it is extremely true for 23.3% of participants.

43.6% of participants stated that it was extremely true that it is important for them to maintain Islam in their daily lives. 29.9% stated that it was very true of them, 20.3% said this was moderately true for them, and only 4.6% said it was slightly true for them. The remaining 1.7% said it was not at all true for of them that maintaining Islam in their everyday lives was important. 25.6% stated that it was not at all true that they avoid parties, events, and dinners where alcohol is being served. 17.8% stated that it was slightly true of them, and 17.4% stated it was moderately true of them. For 16.9% of participants, it was very true of them to avoid events where alcohol was being served, and 22.3% of participants stated this was extremely true of them. The complete avoidance of situations where alcohol is being served appears to be the least important behavior to reflect Islamic values for Muslims in this sample.

On the other hand, 77.3% of participants stated that it was extremely true that raising their children as Muslim is very important. 11.2% said it was very true that raising their children as Muslim is very important to them, while 6.6% said it was moderately true, 2.1% slightly true, and 2.9% stated it was not at all true of them. Overall, Muslims Americans felt it was very important to maintain Islamic practices in their everyday lives and to raise their children as Muslim.

There were little differences in the Islamic identity scores when broken into immigrants and non-immigrants. The mean score was 16.6 for immigrants, with scores ranging from 5 to 25. Their highest scores were also on the items of maintaining Islam in their lives and raising their children as Muslim. Non-immigrant scores also ranged from 5 to 25 with a mean score of 18.2.

Figure 5: Identity Score Full Sample

Figure 6: Islamic Identity Score Immigrants

Figure 7: Islamic Identity Score Non-immigrants

The Conformity to American Norms subscale consists of 8 items, with possible scores ranging from 8 to 40. Actual participant scores ranged from 8 to 38, with a mean score of 18.5. 45.4% had a low conformity score, from 8 to 18, 42.7% of participants had a moderate conformity score, between 19 to 29, and 6.4% had a high conformity score between 30 to 40. Immigrant conformity scores were lower, ranging from 10 to 29 with a mean score of 17.7. Non-immigrant scores ranged from 8 to 38 with a mean score of 18.1.

Figure 8: Conformity Score Full Sample

Figure 9: Conformity Score Immigrants

Figure 10: Conformity Score Non-immigrants

On specific items, overall scores demonstrate a diversity of willingness to engage in behaviors that would be considered “norms” in the dominant culture. Participants were asked to state how true each statement was of them. The first statement, “I would be willing to marry a non-Muslim” was met by more than half of participants (67.9%) stating this was not at all true of them. 13.3% said this was slightly true of them, and 10.4% moderately true of them. 5.8% stated this was very true of them, and only 2.5% said this was extremely true of them. 24.5% said it was not at all true that they were comfortable shaking hands with the opposite sex, 15.4% said it was slightly true, and 20.3% said it was moderately true of them. 19.1% said it was very true that they felt comfortable shaking hands with the opposite sex, and 20.7% said it was extremely true of them.

Only 3.3% of participants stated that it was extremely true or very true that they feel it is okay for Muslims to take jobs that involve handling pork, alcohol, or gambling. 10.3% felt it was moderately or slightly true of them that they felt working on these jobs was okay and an overwhelming 72.7% said it was not at all true that they felt it was okay for Muslims in the U.S. to take these types of jobs. Participants responded to the statement “I always celebrate American holidays like the fourth of July, Halloween, and Valentine’s day” by saying that it was not at all true of 34% of them, slightly true of 32.8%, and moderately true of 16.2%. 7.5% stated that celebrating the holidays was very true of them, and only 9.5% said it was extremely true of them.

11.2% responded that it is not at all true that they eat meals with non-Muslim friends. 20.7% stated this was slightly true and 24.8% said this was moderately true of them. 24.4% said eating meals with non-Muslim friends was very true of them, and 19% said it was extremely true of them. Participants were asked to respond to the statement: “I think it is okay to keep dogs inside the house”. 68.5% said not at all true of them, 14.5% slightly true of them, and 8.3% moderately true of them. 3.7% stated it was very true that they felt it was okay to keep dogs in the house, and 5% said this was extremely true of them.

On questions dealing with American civics, 32.4% said it was not at all true that they felt it was important to display American patriotism. 22.4% said it was slightly true of them, and 20.3% said this was moderately true of them. 12.4% felt that it was very true of them and 12.4% extremely true of them. In contrast, 44% said it was extremely true of them that they felt it was important to vote in federal and local elections, 20.3% stated it was very true of them, and 16.6% moderately true. 11.2% said it was slightly true of them, and 7.9% said it was not at all true that they felt it was important to vote in local and federal elections.

Discussion and Conclusions
The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the religious commitment scales is consistent with previous religiosity scales (Hill & Hood, 1999) that suggest measuring one dimension, such as religious behavior, will provide a consistent unidimensional measure. Unlike previously designed Islamic religiosity scales that focus on multidimensional aspects of religiosity (Abu Raiya et al., 2008; Ji & Ibrahim, 2007; Krauss et al., 2007), this scale was designed to measure religious commitment based upon frequency of worship. In addition, the scale was able to do so in a briefer fashion with only 10 items. The exploratory factor analysis showed that there are minor differences among immigrants and those born in the United States on a few specific behaviors. Immigrants were more likely to eat halal food but less likely to read about Islam, whereas U.S. born Muslims were less likely to demonstrate commitment through the consumption of halal food and more likely to read about Islam in books, magazines or the internet. These results suggest that the time spent in American culture may influence some expressions of religious behavior. Further research is needed to determine if there are any differences in scores of religious commitment due to gender, age, or convert status. Given the fact that in many traditional Muslim countries, mosques have no section for women, and that women are not required to attend the mosque, it is expected that scores on certain items in the scale, such as mosque attendance, may vary by gender. In addition, conducting charitable donations may be influenced by age, gender, and income level, and reading about Islam may be influenced by being a convert, education level, and age. Further research is necessary to develop a clear image of how the construct of religious commitment may shift, if at all, due to demographic factors.

The acculturation scale was designed to measure the strength of adherence to values of Islamic identity and conformity to American social norms. The exploratory factor analysis helped to determine if all items loaded onto the proposed constructs. The results of the factor analysis showed that several items did not load onto the conformity to American social norms. Explanations for these items failing to load include the design of the statement as too direct or too ambiguous. Most importantly, the exploratory factor analysis confirms that the acculturation scale loads onto at least two factors, suggesting that the scale measures two dimensions of acculturation – host culture integration and culture of origin identification. The acculturation scale demonstrates surprising results about Muslim Americans willingness to engage in certain aspects of American culture such as displays of patriotism and typical “American” holidays. The items on these two sub-scales, however, are initial attempts at developing items that reflect the Muslim American experience, as articulated in previous research and accounts (Haddad & Lummis, 1987; Sirin et al., 2008; Pew Research Center, 2007) in a non-standardized format. Further research must be conducted to determine if these questions are representative of the types of behaviors that an individual integrating into American culture would expect to encounter. Previous acculturation scales have focused only in language usage and social relationships (Zea et al, 2003; Abe-Kim, Okazaki, & Goto, 2001, Cabassa, 2003) which are not the most salient features of Muslim American acculturation.

The results of the Islamic identity subscale are profound in re-affirming many assertions made by scholars of American Islam who have discussed the identity struggle of contemporary Muslims (Rumbault, 2008; Abdo, 2005; Peek, 2005); specifically the notion that Muslim Americans are rejecting assimilation and strongly asserting their Islamic identity, perhaps as a result of external pressures. Contrary to the findings of the 2007 Pew study, less than half of respondents stated that it was very true or extremely true that they primarily identified as American. These striking findings have wide implications for those trying to understand the struggle of Muslims in America to find their place within the hostile post-9/11 world. In addition, issues of identity have implications for mental health and acculturative stress issues (Berry, 1988; Padilla et al., 1985; Amer, 1995; Organista et al., 2003), as well as Muslim interaction with out-group members, such a health service providers. Previous research has already noted the potential negative effects of acculturative stress and perceived discrimination on help-seeking behaviors (Ali, 2006; El-Khadiri, 2009; Tirmazi, 2008; Ahmed & Reddy, 2007).

Muslim American responses to Conformity to American social norms also suggests a resistance to assimilation and a preferences to oppose behaviors viewed as a threat to Islamic values (Abdo, 2005; Horan, 2005; Amer & Hovey, 2005). In personal matters, such as marriage and keeping dogs within the home, the study samples were unwilling to sacrifice their values. They were also opposed to Muslims taking jobs that involve handling alcohol, pork, and gambling, three behaviors strictly forbidden in Islam. Typical American holidays were moderately celebrated, and displaying American Patriotism was a moderate behavior. On the other hand, eating with non-Muslim friends shaking hands with the opposite sex, and the importance of voting in local and federal elections were the most approved and conducted behaviors in this sample. Further research, perhaps in the form of focus groups, would assist in illuminating why Muslims choose certain behaviors to adapt which help them to integrate into American society, and not others.

The current findings have a wide range of application within the realm of religious and psychosocial studies. The results of the religious commitment scale paint an image of a moderate to highly religiously committed community, that, in many ways, defies the current image of Muslims as fundamentalists or extreme in their beliefs and practices. This data can be utilized to study the relationship between religious commitment and a wide range of other issues, from political involvement, mental health rates, to use of particular services, and attitudes toward specific behaviors. The results of the acculturation scale, demonstrate a struggle to find a balance between conformity and maintaining an Islamic identity. The scale can serve as a foundation for future qualitative research involving an in-depth analysis of the identity formation process. The current study is limited in sample size, sampling methods, and the ability to reach a broad range of the Muslim population in the United States. Future research should focus on filling in the gaps in representative sampling, and formulate a way to incorporate open-ended or situation-specific questions.

The results of this study demonstrate the complexity of identity formation faced by Muslim Americans, and the unique role of both religious commitment and acculturation considerations when engaging in the identity formation process. In addition, the influence of environmental forces continues to be a mediating factor for 21st century Muslim Americans, who face external threats to both the concept of a national identity and a religious identity. Given the recent rise of intolerance for Muslims in the United States, in the form of opposition to mosque building, religious clothing, and other activities that contribute to the hyphenated “Muslim-American” identity, it will be interesting to see how the anti-Muslim backlash will effect the identity development of young, American born Muslims growing up in this environment.