By Dr. Tim Orr

The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) has emerged as a premier research institution claiming to advance nuanced understanding of Muslims in the United States. Since its founding in 2002, it has filled a vacuum in American civil society by offering polished, data-driven reports on Islamophobia, Muslim civic participation, media bias, and religious discrimination. It has become a trusted resource for journalists, academics, and policymakers—particularly in a post-9/11 era saturated with fear and misinformation. At first glance, ISPU appears to serve a noble cause: countering prejudice with empiricism and restoring dignity to Muslim communities. But beneath its respectable exterior lies a troubling dynamic. Over time, ISPU has ceased to merely reflect Muslim life and instead begun to curate it—selecting which questions to ask, which voices to amplify, and which ideological critiques to suppress. Its portrayal of Muslims as misunderstood and unjustly maligned is not untrue, but it is selectively assembled to serve a broader ideological goal. That goal is not academic neutrality, but a carefully managed political narrative rooted in grievance, not introspection.

This critique challenges ISPU’s self-presentation as a neutral research body and positions its intellectual posture within the broader ideological infrastructure that Lorenzo G. Vidino—a leading expert on Islamism—has spent decades studying. Vidino, director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, has mapped how Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated actors in the West strategically avoid theological scrutiny while embedding themselves in civil society through “soft” influence (Vidino, 2010; 2020). He identifies a recurring pattern: Islamists frame themselves as victims of misunderstanding, avoid doctrinal transparency, and leverage progressive rhetoric to silence critique. These traits are not incidental—they are essential to their survival in democratic societies. When ISPU’s research consistently avoids examining internal Muslim dysfunction while focusing solely on external injustice, it falls squarely within the ideological architecture Vidino has so thoroughly exposed.

The Allure of Validation—and the Cost of Omission

I vividly remember encountering ISPU’s American Muslim Poll for the first time. It was like stepping into intellectual sanctuary after years of hearing Muslims reduced to headlines or security threats. Here were bar graphs showing civic involvement, percentages revealing voter registration, and comparative statistics demonstrating that Muslims were as—or more—ethically upright than other groups. These metrics offered validation to a community long disfigured by fear, and I, like many others, found great comfort in them. In countless interfaith events and public talks, I cited ISPU data to counter lazy stereotypes and humanize their community in the eyes of others. For a time, the polls felt not only empirical—they felt redemptive.

But as I engaged their materials more deeply, I began to notice what was missing. ISPU surveyed how Muslims were perceived but never asked how Muslims perceive others, especially those outside the faith. It measured the experience of discrimination but ignored the possibility that some Muslim institutions may propagate doctrinal exclusion, antisemitism, or gender inequality. The image was like a beautifully framed family portrait where everyone is smiling, but someone off-camera murmurs, “We’re not always like this.” That voice was systematically excluded from the final frame. Over time, the curated portrait began to feel less like social science and more like image management—an exercise in political branding cloaked in empirical language.

Dalia Mogahed: Intellectual Gatekeeper or Cultural Translator?

Dalia Mogahed, ISPU’s Director of Research, has become one of the most recognizable Muslim intellectuals in the American public square. Her TED Talk “What it’s like to be a Muslim in America,” her co-authored book with John Esposito (Who Speaks for Islam?, 2007), and her appointment to the Obama administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships elevated her to national prominence. Mogahed is undoubtedly skilled, persuasive, and articulate. She embodies the aspirations of a generation seeking to represent Islam without apology while remaining fluent in the moral idioms of Western liberalism. Her personal charisma and scholarly credibility have allowed her to define what “Muslim representation” looks like in mainstream institutions.

Yet, her intellectual framing is consistently one-directional. Mogahed is a master of exposing how Muslims are wounded by Western ignorance, but she shows little interest in how Muslims may wound others through theology, silence, or ideology. In her media appearances and ISPU reports, rarely is there a serious reckoning with Islamic doctrine that justifies harsh penalties for apostasy, or religious movements that advocate for theocratic rule. There is almost never a discussion of how certain Islamic interpretations may directly contribute to exclusionary attitudes or supremacist tendencies. This aligns almost perfectly with Vidino’s findings: Islamist-linked public intellectuals regularly invoke social justice language to deflect attention from the internal dynamics of Islamist ideology (Vidino, 2020). In doing so, they elevate the narrative of Muslim victimhood while rendering Muslim responsibility invisible.

What ISPU Won’t Research: Avoidance as Strategy

ISPU has published extensively on Muslim civic engagement, Islamophobia, and community contributions—but it consistently avoids subjects that interrogate Muslim internal dynamics. There are no surveys on support for hudud punishments, no engagement with debates over apostasy or blasphemy, no exploration of Islamic antisemitism, and no scrutiny of the influence of transnational Islamist groups like Jamaat-e-Islami or the Muslim Brotherhood. These are not niche topics. They are central to understanding both modern Islamic identity and how some elements within the Muslim community resist integration into liberal democratic norms.

This strategic omission is what Vidino has termed “the politics of avoidance.” In The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West and The Closed Circle, he outlines how Brotherhood-affiliated actors intentionally sanitize their public messaging to avoid exposing the illiberal undercurrents in their theology (Vidino, 2010; 2020). They rely on the public’s unfamiliarity with Islamic doctrine to shape a perception of Muslim life that appears moderate on the surface but is doctrinally rigid beneath. ISPU’s silence on these matters is not a methodological oversight—it is a form of ideological hygiene. By selectively framing the research agenda, they shield their audience from the unsettling truths that would challenge their carefully curated narrative. This weakens not only public discourse but also the community’s capacity for self-renewal.

Controlled Access: Who Gets to Speak for Islam?

ISPU frequently collaborates with groups like CAIR and the Muslim American Society, organizations with documented links to Islamist networks (Vidino, 2010). While these partnerships are often presented as inclusive coalitions, they function as mechanisms of ideological gatekeeping. Those who challenge political Islam—secular Muslims, reformist theologians, or feminist critics—are nowhere to be found in ISPU’s programming. The result is a homogenized version of Muslim identity that celebrates diversity in appearance but suppresses diversity in thought. It’s an illusion of pluralism underwritten by the exclusion of dissent.

Vidino argues that this phenomenon is not accidental. It is part of the Brotherhood’s long-term strategy: to control the public image of Islam by dominating its gatekeeping institutions, all while appearing moderate and democratic (Vidino, 2020). ISPU’s partnerships mirror this pattern exactly. By only platforming voices that echo their ideological assumptions, they define the parameters of what “authentic” Muslim representation looks like. The public is presented with a chorus of aligned voices, not a choir of difference. This not only impoverishes public understanding but reinforces internal conformity at the cost of reform and renewal.

Policy Influence and the Rise of Soft Censorship

ISPU’s research is not confined to academic silos—it influences national policy, educational curricula, and law enforcement practices. Their recommendations are often used to promote hate speech legislation that risks conflating ideological critique with ethnic bigotry. They encourage state actors to partner with Muslim organizations that meet their ideological filter, effectively creating a state-sanctioned hierarchy of religious legitimacy. In doing so, they redefine scrutiny of Islamist networks as Islamophobia, and legitimate concerns about doctrine as moral offense. This is what Vidino calls “soft Islamization”—not through laws or violence, but through rhetorical pressure and institutional access.

Such influence has long-term implications. Scholars, journalists, and even Muslim leaders begin to self-censor. They avoid topics like jihad theology, gender hierarchy, or the politics of sharia—not out of ignorance, but out of fear. In this atmosphere, reformers are marginalized, and the public is misled. ISPU’s role in creating this environment must be examined critically. Their research does not merely inform—it reshapes the conditions under which critique can happen. That is not public understanding; it is public manipulation.

Conclusion: Toward Truthful Representation

ISPU began as a corrective—a way to insert dignity into a narrative of distortion. In its early years, it offered a much-needed mirror to a society that rarely saw Muslims at all. But the mirror has since become warped. Instead of reflecting the complexity of Muslim identity, it now filters that identity through an ideological lens that suppresses critique, marginalizes dissent, and insulates Islamism from scrutiny. Dalia Mogahed’s leadership, while articulate and influential, has enabled this shift by promoting a narrative of Muslim innocence without accountability.

Lorenzo Vidino’s scholarship reminds us that what looks like moderation may, in fact, be strategic ambiguity. ISPU has adopted this posture—disarming public scrutiny by cloaking political theology in the language of civil rights and minority empowerment. If ISPU truly seeks to foster understanding, it must expand its intellectual courage. That means asking difficult questions, platforming ideological diversity, and treating Muslims not just as victims—but as moral agents capable of both greatness and error. Anything less is not scholarship. It is a shield.

References

Esposito, J. L., & Mogahed, D. (2007). Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Gallup Press.

Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. (n.d.). About ISPU and American Muslim Poll. https://www.ispu.org

Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. (2020). Equal Treatment? Measuring the Legal and Media Responses to Ideologically Motivated Violence in the United States. https://www.ispu.org/public-policy/equal-treatment/

Vidino, L. (2010). The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West. Columbia University Press.

Vidino, L. (2020). The Closed Circle: Joining and Leaving the Muslim Brotherhood in the West. Program on Extremism, George Washington University.

Who is Dr. Tim Orr?

Tim serves full-time with Crescent Project as the assistant director of the internship program and area coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London.

In addition to his ministry work, Tim is a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, and Islamic feminism. He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. He has published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals. Tim is also the author of five books.

Share this article
The link has been copied!