From www.danielpipes.org Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/2468
Which Privileges for Islam?
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
March 15, 2005
Throughout the West, Muslims are making new and assertive demands, and in some cases challenging the very premises of European and North American life
Here is a general rule: Offer full rights - but turn down demands for special privileges.
By way of example, note two current Canadian controversies. The first concerns the establishment of voluntary Shariah (Islamic law) courts
I oppose any role for Shariah, a medieval body of law, in public life today, but as long as women are truly not coerced (create an ombudsman to ensure this?) and Islamic rulings remain subordinate to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms,, I see no grounds on which to deny Muslims the right, like other Canadians, to revert to private arbitration.
On the other hand, Muslim demands for an exclusive prayer room at McGill University
The key distinction is whether Muslim aspirations fit into an existing framework or not. Where they do, they can be accommodated, such as in the case of:
·Schools
· Male employees permitted to wear beards in New Jersey.
· The founding of an Islamic cemetery
Adherents of other minority religions may get a holiday off, wear beards, or dispose of their dead in private burial grounds - so why not Muslims?
In contrast, special privileges for Islam and Muslims are unacceptable, such as:
· Setting up a government advisory board
· Permitting Muslim-only living quarters or events
· Setting aside bathing at a municipal swimming pool for women-only
· Banning Hindus and Jews
· Changing noise laws to broadcast the adhan
· Allowing a prisoner the unheard-of right to avoid strip-searches
· Exploiting taxpayer-funded schools
· Allowing students in taxpayer-funded schools to use empty classrooms for prayers in New Jersey.
· Deeming the "religious vilification" of Islam
· Punishing anti-Islamic views with court-mandated indoctrination by an Islamist in Canada.
· Prohibiting families from sending pork or pork by-products
· Requiring that female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia wearwear American government-issued abayas, or head-to-foot robes.
· Applying the "Rushdie rules" - or letting Muslims shut down criticism of Islam and Muslims.
The dividing line in each instance is whether Muslims accept to fit the existing order or aspire to remake it. Working within the system is fine, taking it over is not. In American terms, Muslims must accept the framework of the Constitution, not overturn it.
This approach implies that Muslim demands must be judged against prior actions and current practice, and not in the abstract. Context is all-important.
It is thus fine for the Alsace regional council in France to help fund
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
From www.danielpipes.org Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/2468
No comments:
Post a Comment