| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Daniel Pipes has an astonishing list of things that Muslims in the West are demanding, including:
- Setting up a government advisory board uniquely for Muslims in America.
- Permitting Muslim-only living quarters or events in America and Great Britain.
- Setting aside bathing at a municipal swimming pool for women-only , as in France.
- Banning Hindus and Jews from a jury hearing a case about an Islamist in Great Britain.
- Changing noise laws to broadcast the adhan , or call to prayer, in Hamtramck, Mich.
- Allowing a prisoner the unheard-of right to avoid strip-searches in New York State.
- Exploiting taxpayer-funded schools and airwaves to convert non-Muslims in America.
- Allowing students in taxpayer-funded schools to use empty classrooms for prayers in New Jersey.
- Deeming the “religious vilification” of Islam to be illegal in Australia.
- Punishing anti-Islamic views with court-mandated indoctrination by an Islamist in Canada.
- Prohibiting families from sending pork or pork by-products to American soldiers serving in Iraq.
- Requiring that female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear American government-issued abayas , or head-to-foot robes.
- Applying the Rushdie rules—or letting Muslims shut down criticism of Islam and Muslims.
Pipes notes:
Throughout the West, Muslims are making new and assertive demands, and in some cases challenging the very premises of European and North American life. How to respond?
Here is a general rule: Offer full rights—but turn down demands for special privileges.
This is how Jihad works, folks. Many Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate into the broader society, and instead demand that their religion receive special privileges over and above all others.
As Pipes says:
Western governments and other institutions urgently need to signal Muslims that they must accept being just one religious group of many, and that aspirations to dominate will fail. Toward this end, governments need to enact principled and consistent policies indicating precisely which Muslim privileges are acceptable, and why.
All we have to do is be aware of it and talk about it, and we will be able to stop it.
Islam needs to move towards a more moderate interpretation that will be successful for Muslims in today’s world, and which will permit them to assimilate into today’s world.
Hmmm.
Seems to me that if only 2 of the 14 are invalid, that doesn't mean that the rest aren't out of line. And since the subject seems to be that Muslims are requesting special rights - then they're requesting rights out of the norm of the society in which they're living.
And it also seems to me like they're pushing the 1st Amendment envelope pretty hard with this. If it's stretched to give a lot of priveledges and rights to Muslims - then that coverage should also apply to Christians.
Frankly, I prefer a very unambiguious interpretation of the first two sections of the 1st Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - that seems to cover things pretty well.
J.
J.,
In the first instance it was the United States government that made the request, so as to better understand Muslims in America. I do not see it as being anymore a special case than, say, the US government establishing an embassy at the Vatican. Is anyone arguing that Roman Catholics are getting a special privilege Southern Baptists do not receive?
The second instance is of a case in Great Britain. The First Amendment of the US Constitution does not apply to them. Furthermore, the requirement was made by the judge, not the lawyers, because the case involved a Muslim cleric calling for the deaths of Hindus and Jews. He was, I imagine, trying to make sure no one could accuse the jury of bias due to Hindus and Jews being in the jury. (The cleric also called for the deaths of Americans, but since Americans presumably cannot serve on a British jury, there was no need to ban them.)
However, since it doesn't seem to be fair I speak of only two of the links, I shall discuss all fourteen.
The second link discusses Muslims who petitioned a local planning commission if they could design and build a local Islamic community. The commission granted their request. No demands were made. The link also points to a request by Muslims to have a "Muslim Day" at a public theme park. The request was initially granted then, over time, quietly rescinded. Again, no demands were made.
The third link no longer works, but I googled the story and found out that Muslims in France did request a seperate time slot for Muslim women who wanted to swim there. No demands that I can read were made for the arrangement, and the policy later was rescinded.
The fifth link involves a group of five mosques that want the local government to modify noise laws in Hamtramck, Michigan, to allow the adhan, or Muslim call to prayer, to be broadcast publicly. They are asking for no more privileges than area Christians who are allowed to toll bells to bring the faithful to church. No demands are being made, and no special permissions are being requested.
The sixth link points relates the story of a Muslim who asked that he not be strip-searched when travelling between jail and the courthouse because it violates his religious beliefs. The man stands accused of fraud, but has not been convicted (as far as I can google.) He may have demanded this treatment, but I do not know. The article does not say. It does say he refused to go to court, and that the Judge granted his request.
People are using tax-funded outlets to promote Islam in the seventh and eighth links. Neither article states that Muslims have been demanding this, but both go into detail about using public funds to promote religion. The people promoting Islam do not appear to be making more requests of government than, say, groups who promote the idea of faith-based initiatives.
The ninth link deals with a girl in New Jersey who asked for a room to be set aside at a specific time so she may pray. No demands by Muslims were made, and the school granted her request. I imagine if Christians or Buddhists asked the same, they would be allowed, much as religious group functions are allowed on school property after school is let out.
Because of the character limit, I will continue this below.
stephen
Continuing from above...
Links ten and eleven discuss the idea of Islam as an aggressive religion and whether promoting this idea is hate. Both stories occur outside the USA, and while the first is a complaint lodged by Muslims against people they think promote hate, the second is the story of a Canadian convicted of promoting hate speech and sentenced to public service under the direction of a Muslim. They quote a part of the convicted man's pamphlet - "They [Muslims] sound peaceful, but underneath their false sheep's clothing are raging wolves seeking whom they may devour." No demands were made by Muslims, and while the second story is unusual, I cannot say I am surprised this would happen where some forms of speech are not free.
The twelfth link is to a page of the US Postal Service. The page deals with overseas deliveries to specific APO/FPO addresses, and one of the items banned from deliveries is pork. Also banned is all meat, coffee, certain medicines, obscene articles, cordless telephones and tobacco. No mention of Muslim demands are made on this page.
The thirteenth link deals with dress and other matters in Saudi Arabia. According to the web page American women are required to wear "head-to-foot abayas" while in Saudi Arabia. Are Muslims demanding special privileges in Muslim-dominated countries? I see this as no worse or better than the Vatican requiring all visitors to wear pants while there, even on hot days.
The last link dicusses "The Rushdie Rules", the title of an essay which discusses the killing of religious dissidents by Muslims in the name of Islam. No demands are being made. This is not to say Muslims aren't terrorizing other Muslims, or even non-Muslims. I do not think, however, Muslims are asking for a special privilege here.
Of the fourteen links, six directly involve America, two involve America and other nations, and the rest occur outside America. In all but maybe one case were no demands being made, and there were few if any requests for special privileges being asked.
stephen
#5First, Stephen, thanks for this great research and info on the points Pipes mentioned. It adds a great deal of useful information, from any point of view.
The objection to the word "demand" is, I think, unfounded. The word's definition includes: "To claim as just or due" and "To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary."
The fact that a number of these things took place outside America is not an objection to the post, which states nothing to the contrary.
You are apologizing for and excusing the Muslim policy of non-assimilation, which is causing harm in a large number of nations. Check for example this post.
What you are possibly not aware of, is that, according to Islam, Jesus was a Muslim and his teachings were "corrupted" by everybody else, namely by Christians and Jews, and therefore their religion is superior to everybody else's, and everybody else's religion needs to be put down. It's quite serious. Islam has to move out of the dark ages and get reformed so that Muslims can assimilate into other world cultures and become productive, successful members of those cultures.
Vik,
You are apologizing for and excusing the Muslim policy of non-assimilation, which is causing harm in a large number of nations.
If I am guilty of something, it is that I am trying to be unbiased in the affair. Muslims seek rights in certain circumstances that they see their religious brethren having, for example, the right to use the public air to call for worshippers, or public properties to hold religious services. They also seek accomodation for their beliefs, which really is something all religious people try to do, if you think about it. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, believe they should not be made to pledge their allegiance to national flags, and they fought long and hard in America to establish this right. Should they have had to fight so hard?
Muslims may also seek rights or privileges other religions do not have. Then again, when has circumstance or judicial decree ever stopped any religious person (a California atheist, an Alabama judge) from trying, sometimes over and over again, to get their religious beliefs passed into law? The courts have, for example, ruled against the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as science in public high schools. Yet year in and year out creationists and ID theorists attempt to push the subject into the government-funded curriculum. (I can envision the outcry if the American Atheists group tried to have stickers planted inside the front cover of history textbooks which state "This textbook contains material on God. God is a theory, not a fact...".)
I am neither pro-Muslim nor anti-Muslim. I am pro-equal-rights. I agree with what Pipes wrote:
Here is a general rule: Offer full rights—but turn down demands for special privileges.
The question now is, what do those full rights entail?
By the way, perhaps I have been too demanding on the word "demand". I've probably become jaded by the many movies and news stories where the hostage takers and other assorted bad guys always want to air a list of "demands" before surrendering. A vision of "Meet my demands, or else!" pops into my head when I hear someone making demands on others. *sigh* I promise to be less demanding in the future.
stephen
Well, what more could we possibly demand?
Stephen, you bring up good points... however, judging by what's been happening in Europe there seems to be a - - - (I hate to use the term 'universal', because it doesn't seem universal - but I can't think of the appropriate term - maybe 'general') - - - general policy of non-assimilation into the local cultures. France especially is having problems with Muslim enclaves, and there seem to be significant problems in the Scandanavian countries with Muslim immigrants refusing to conform to cultural mores.
Australia also seems to be having problems.
Re the sending of items to Islamic countries via APO not being a demand... back in GW1 it was made clear that if we were let into those countries then we were to conform to ANY request the host countries made. Therefore - no bibles, no 'christian literature', no porn, no unacceptable literature, no pictures that could be considered by the state censors as even SLIGHTLY risque - and as far as personnel went, no visible crosses or stars of david, no Christian or Jewish services in-country at all, and any women who were deployed had to wear robes and were NOT to drive. This came down from the Saudi Imams as non-negotiable - to protect the Faithful.
The Army fought the women in robes and no driving stuff - and won - but in weather conditions where men stripped down to T-shirts or rolled up their sleeves, women had to keep their shirts on and rolled down. After GW1 things changed, women couldn't drive and had to wear robes. Later on, (I believe it was '98 or so) a Captain fought the rule on a 1st Amendment basis, and I think she won. I remember seeing it in the AF Times.
The tacit view was, and still is - it's not worth raising a stink over and we've got a job to do and we have to be sensitive to their feelings about cultural contamination. In retrospect, I wonder if that was a wise way to do things.
J.
J.,
I do not doubt that there are instances where Muslims immigrants are not integrating well into their new countries of residence. I am unsure this is a general policy among Muslims - while there are many who do not to want to take up their new country's cultural norms or want to fit in immediately, I think the vast majority do want a better life and are willing to adapt to local custom. Consider the recent voting in Iraq: there are many who would prefer the old ways (especially among the Sunnis), but there are even more, it seems, who want to give Western-style government a try. And as we look across Islamic nations such as Iran, Turkey and Egypt, we find the youngsters there wanting and willing to adopt Western manners and mores. Am I mistaken in my thinking?
Perhaps I am influenced by the numbers of Muslims who have passed through my life as acquaintances, co-workers and friends. Be they from Afganistan, Lebanon, Iran or Indonesia, the ones I've known all want to have a better life, and want to fit in to this country's society. The people, the Muslims, I've known ranged from women who've dropped the veil because they see it as culturally stigmatizing to a salty Iranian married to a non-Muslim American to a couple of deeply religious Sufi mystics. Perhaps there may have been one or two who gave a darn about CAIR and its desire to establish an Islamic government in the United States, but they certainly fooled me.
What may happen in Europe or Australia I cannot say, but I'm willing to bet if immigrants of any culture try to push too far, the majority will push back. The majority might have to toughen up a bit to do it; if they don't, they and their way of life will be history. Only time will tell.
To be honest I am not so worried about Islam or any other faith. There will be troublemakers, sure, and we would do a disservice to ourselves and our neighbors by not being vigilant. Muslims, especially the young, are coming around to the ideas that a democratic, open society can work for them. There will be growing pains, and more than a few will issue demands before they've been fully integrated. I think over the long term, however, Muslims will come to embrace the spirit of the American Revolution, and will share in our desire to make the world a better place.
stephen
I sincerely and deeply hope you're correct. As you say, time will tell.
J.
Vik,
Please be more careful with your words. Daniel Pipes, whose list you quote above, writes this prior to the list:
You wrote as the lead-in:
The problem is, in at least two of the stories (I haven't the time to read through them all), Muslims haven't demanded a thing. For example, the first story concerns
This board was set up by Department of Public Affairs to understand Islam in America and the world without demands from Muslims such a board be set up. Here a couple relevant quotes:
The fourth story points to a news article that tells about
Muslims themselves didn't ask that such jurors be excluded from the jury; rather, it was the judge in the case who made that call:
What Mr. Pipes wrote and what you wrote are two very different things. How you presented it leads me (and I'm sure others) to think Muslims have gotten all a bit wacky and have begun demanding special privileges for everything. In at least two of the cases you cite, this isn't the case. Please be more careful.
stephen