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 and universities closing for the Eid al-Adha holidays.
- Male employees permitted to wear beards in New Jersey.
- The founding of an Islamic cemetery in Tennessee.
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 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.
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.
0 Kommentarer:
Send en kommentar
Tilbage til blog forsiden »