How Should We, as Arabs and Muslims in the U.S., Respond to the Christian Right’s Concerns About Dearborn

An Essay on Immigrant Culture and Cultural Encounter

Photo from ABCnews, Islamic Mosque in Dearborn

(Note: the article was first written in Arabic and published on this blog; this version is an AI-assisted English translation)

1. Background on the Dearborn Events

Dearborn, a city east of Detroit in Michigan, is the only U.S. city with a majority Arab population, with about 55% of its residents of Middle Eastern origin. That demographic concentration has evolved, within America’s democratic framework, into political and cultural weight. Arab shops, mosques, and other institutions flourish. Arab Americans also command significant political influence in Michigan, especially within the Democratic Party. In 2022, they elected Abdullah Hammoud — born in Dearborn and of Lebanese origin — as the city’s first mayor of Arab descent.

One landmark of institutionalized Arab-American culture in Dearborn is the newspaper Sada al-Watan (also published in English as The Arab American News), founded in 1984. Earlier in 2025, Dearborn honored the paper’s founder and editor, Osama Siblani, by naming a street after him. This is a conventional, democratic American gesture: it lauds his decades of persistent journalism and celebrates immigrant success. One can say: this fits America’s meritocracy and entrepreneurial ethos. But the gesture stirred controversy — for multiple reasons.

1. First, following Israel’s 2024 military attack on Lebanon (which killed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah), protests against the Israeli aggression erupted in Dearborn. During those protests, Mr. Siblani delivered a speech that, according to some accounts, praised or appeared to support Nasrallah. (I found an archived link from Siblani’s own newspaper website detailing his comments and was not able to find a follow-up explanation from him.) This sparked pushback — notably from Pastor Ted Brehm, who objected publicly to naming a street after Siblani.

2. Pastor Brehm and a broader segment of the Christian Right see Dearborn as emblematic of what they fear Muslims might do if they gain demographic dominance on historically Christian land. Their objections are not limited to the street name or to Siblani’s perceived sympathy for Hezbollah; they also object to audible calls to prayer (adhan) in Dearborn or in Muslim-rich areas like parts of Minneapolis. Any visible expression of Islam — the minarets, mosque architecture, the sound of the adhan — becomes a flashpoint, especially among evangelicals and certain Catholics. Watch the famous christian conservative Matt Walch for example:

3. Within Muslim communities in the U.S., there are small but vocal fundamentalist groups whose extreme rhetoric makes it hard to integrate into broader American society (in general, they pose a challenge to any modernist project, even back in our mother countries). Their voices can cast a shadow over all Muslims, giving critics ammunition to rally American opposition. Watch this:

---

2. What Not to Do: Rejecting Wokeness and Shunning Dialogue

Mayor Hammoud’s response to Pastor Brehm (in the video above) offers a lesson in what not to do. He publicly labeled the pastor as a bigot, a racist, and an Islamophobe, etc. Then — as though labeling him thus sufficed as engagement — Hammoud declared Brehm “unwelcome” and even, in a rather childish way, said he would hold a celebration when the pastor left the city.

This approach seems rooted in a liberal strategy in the U.S. that treats opposition from Trump supporters (or broadly from the Christian Right) as inherently deplorable. As Hillary Clinton once dubbed them a “basket of deplorables,” the logic is: call them names, shut them down, exclude them from public discourse. But this tactic — effective in liberal-leaning contexts, and up to 2016 — is deeply flawed and dangerous when used by a minority such as Muslims in America.

Two key points:

1. The liberal rhetorical strategy assumes liberals represent at least half of American society (especially in cities). Muslims, in contrast, are a very small minority. Engaging in name-calling as our primary strategy would be politically disastrous, not just morally suspect.

2. Since 2016, even the staunchest liberals have learned that insults don’t yield lasting social consensus. Calling Republicans racists did not prevent many African-American youth from voting for Trump. Defending gender-related issues through insults hasn’t prevented pushback. Using such strategies belatedly — when we are a minority — is like giving the patient the wrong medicine after they’re already dead.

It’s true that within Democratic coalitions, Muslims are often treated as one of the protected minorities, and many rights have been preserved in places like Minneapolis and Dearborn. Yet we must not adopt the alliance’s flaws as our own. If we allow the situation with the majority of the Christian Right to escalate into a radical contradiction not mediated by dialogue, the liberal establishment will not be adequate (and will not care enough) to deal with the majority’s backlash.

---

3. Accepting the Realities of Immigration — Against the Doctrine of Walaʾ and Barāʾ

Many Muslims in America were born here or have lived here for one or more generations. We must come to terms with two realities of this land and of immigration:

1. This is a democratic country. Philosophically, legally, and historically, belonging here is membership in a pluralistic democracy made up of many peoples, each contributing within its structure. U.S. democracy, with its secularism and citizenship (which does not demand a specific race or religion), gives us as Muslim immigrants the chance to be citizens like any other.

2. Still, this country has older cultures and histories. Those deserve respect, and their legitimate fears require dialogue. Imagine if large numbers of Christian immigrants arrived in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, or Pakistan — there would understandably be anxiety among the earlier majority about cultural space and public life. It is not reasonable for a new minority to quell those fears with insults. Hence, we first should accord historical Americans the right to object, and meet that right with respectful conversation.

3. Of course, a small extremist fringe in the Christian Right may refuse dialogue altogether and might even resort to verbal or physical coercion. In those cases, we must respond with great wisdom, restraint, and prioritize de-escalation. We must also prepare to protect ourselves by organizing, using legal means, and employing civic power through social influence and persuasion of moderates.

Immigration in a secular, legally founded but socially Christian country like the U.S. raises a challenging question: can Muslims belong authentically in a non-Muslim majority society? Some fundamentalists claim no. But now is the time to set aside such doctrines and embrace the simple moral truth: all people are brothers. The solidarity shown by non-Arab, non-Muslim American students in support of Gaza may hint at this universal reality.

Ironically, I feel closer in spirit to those protesting students than to many Arab societies that have long tacitly accommodated Zionism.

---

4. Learning from the American Jewish Experience

Jews first arrived in America in the 17th century, escaping Christian persecution in Europe. They remained a tiny minority through the 18th and 19th centuries. Despite severe antisemitism — including laws barring Jews from public office and limiting their civil rights — Jews gradually rose in social and economic influence.

Two factors helped:

• Moderate, reform-minded Jews argued that integration into American society was possible and that Judaism and “Americanness” need not be in conflict.

• Jewish communities became highly organized in mutual support and advocacy — for example, via organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (founded in 1913) to counter antisemitism and mobilize public pressure.

While critics argue the ADL later aligned with pro-Israel interests, the underlying lesson holds: effective institutional organization and mutual support are essential in protecting minority communities.

---

5. The “Judeo-Christian Civilization”: A Sketch of Religious Rewriting and Right-Wing Ideology

In recent years, conservative commentators have talked about “Judeo-Christian values” or “Judeo-Christian civilization” — terminology used by figures such as Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. This framing fosters political cooperation between the Christian Right and Jewish groups, particularly as neoconservatism’s grip has weakened.

But this “intimacy” in discourse has deeper political roots. After the Holocaust, the Catholic Church reevaluated its stance toward Jews. During the Cold War, Jews and religious Christians found a shared enemy in atheistic communism. As Jewish influence grew in America, invoking “Judeo-Christian values” became politically useful — especially with the rise of Christian Zionism and its alignment with pro-Israel agendas.

Theologically, though, Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally distinct — Christianity cannot subsume Judaism. Ironically, Islam— which positions itself as a continuation and correction of earlier revelations — has more theological proximity to Christianity than Judaism. And indeed, there have long been Christian sects (e.g. Arianism) whose concepts of Christ overlap in unexpected ways with Islamic critique of the Trinity (I am not saying it is identical with Islam, that's a foolish argument).

So, while one might accept a secular reading of “Judeo-Christian civilization” (as a shared cultural legacy), the religious use of the term often serves ideological ends. For many conservatives, it becomes a tool to exclude Islam as inherently incompatible. Meanwhile, Muslim–Christian coexistence has been historically richer in the Middle East than many assume — we should treat that history as a model of neighborliness, cultural exchange, and integration.

---

6. On the Right to Expression — and the Duty of Prudence

We, as Arabs and Muslims, must learn that success in America comes through gentleness, depth of thought, not perpetual confrontation.

Yes, the U.S. legally protects freedom of speech and religious expression (First Amendment). Yes, one can legally express support for Hezbollah or eulogize Hassan Nasrallah (though not materially support them). However, we also have a social responsibility to exercise those rights in ways sensitive to the public sphere’s norms.

Most Americans, living thousands of miles away and not speaking local languages, expectedly, do not know as much as we know about Palestine, Lebanon, or colonial histories. For some, unfortunately, 9/11 was their introduction to our culture. In such an environment, proclaiming, “Hezbollah is a resistance organization” is naïvely provocative. What Hezbollah means to Lebanese southerners who live through the atrocities of the 1982 Lebanon War and occupation is not what many Americans know about Hezbollah; they first knew Hezbollah by hearing about the American Embassy bombings of 1983.

We must anchor our discourse in facts and moral clarity, not polemics. Yes, some tactics in Lebanese and Palestinian struggles have been plainly terrorist (e.g., suicide bombings targeting civilians). Recognizing that is intellectually honest. At the same time, we must acknowledge that Israeli actions — as a state with military, technological might — also perpetrate systematic violence, often worse, including the current genocide they are committing in Gaza.

Embracing truth in this nuanced way is far wiser than dragging the entire Muslim community into an unending defense of any one organization.

---

7. Let’s Make Dearborn a Model of Coexistence and Prosperity, Not Conflict

It troubles me that many Americans know Osama Siblani more for a perhaps impassioned remark on Hezbollah than for his decades of American patriotism and community-building. Listen to him here, for example:

If Arab-Muslim communities can flourish — economically, politically, culturally — inside and through democracy, that achievement would not only shift U.S. policy toward our region. It would also transform the West’s often hostile cultural posture toward our countries. Because immigrants change culture by being present in it, not by rejecting their adopted society or demonizing it.

We come from societies shaped by colonialism, authoritarianism, and weak democratic traditions. In America, we have the opportunity not just to practice democracy (beyond mere elections) — but to shape media, public discourse, institutions, hearts, and minds. And by doing that, perhaps we can contribute back to democratic culture in our home countries, too.

Arab-Americans already amplify voices for Gaza more strongly than many in the Middle East. In this fact, you can see both the true nature of our people when placed in an open society and also the truth of this open society. We should see this not just as an opportunity or a strategy — but as part of our history of struggle for justice, freedom, and peace.